Reformed orthodoxy

Reformed scholasticism was academic theology practiced by Reformed theologians using the scholastic method during the period of Protestant orthodoxy (16th to 18th centuries). While the Reformed often used "scholastic" as a term of derision for their Roman Catholic opponents and the content of their theology, most Reformed theologians during this period can properly be called scholastics with respect to the method of theology, though they also used other methods.^[1] J.V. Fesko describes scholasticism in this sense as "a method of doing theology that sets out to achieve theological precision through the exegesis of Scripture, an examination of how doctrine has been historically defined throughout church history, and how doctrine is expounded in contemporary debate."^[2]

Continuity in Reformed theology

In the past, scholars described the theology of Protestant scholastics following John Calvin as more rationalistic and philosophical than the more exegetical biblical theology of John Calvin and other early Reformers. This is commonly described as the "Calvin against the Calvinists" paradigm. Beginning in the 1980s, Richard Muller and other scholars in the field provided extensive evidence showing both that the early Reformers were deeply influenced by scholasticism and that later Reformed scholasticism was deeply exegetical, using the scholastic method to organize and explicate exegetical theology.^[3]

History

Scholasticism was used by Protestant theologians primarily from 1560 to 1790, which is known as the period of orthodoxy because of the importance of adherence to and defense of the newly written Reformed confessions of faith for these theologians.^[4]

John Calvin (1509–1564)

John Calvin, unlike other early reformers such as Martin Luther, was not formally trained in theology but in law. Like many early reformers, however, he was influenced by Renaissance humanism, which led to an interest in the original meaning of biblical and patristic texts and criticism of medieval scholastics for straying from this meaning in favor of philosophical distinctions. Analysis of his work, however, shows that he found himself using some of the same distinctions employed by the scholastics, and some of the criticisms he made of scholastic theology may have actually been based on his own misunderstanding. It is clear, however, that Calvin's use of scholastic theology is different in that while medieval scholastic theology was solely employed by professional theologians in the schools, rather than by ordinary clergy in preaching, Calvin saw theological teaching as one of the primary objectives of the church and intended his theological works to be used by preachers and common people. Many of his criticisms of purely speculative scholastic theology may be seen as a consequence of his desire to make theology accessible and useful for the church rather than solely for professional theologians in the schools.^[5]

Early orthodoxy (1560–1620)

Though scholasticism can already be seen in early Reformed theologians, especially Vermigli and to some degree Calvin, it became much more prevalent during the third and fourth generations of Reformed theologians as a tool to institutionalize the faith by codifying it in confessions and works of systematic theology, as well as to combat the growing sophistication of counter-Reformation polemicists.^[6] Reformed confessions of faith such as the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 served as boundary markers for the new faith and as starting places for theological development.^[7] The formation of the Genevan Academy in 1559 also enabled Reformed theologians to receive extensive academic training and participate in the wider academic theological discourse, and served as a model for other Reformed institutions of higher learning throughout Europe.^[8] The Arminian controversy, in which the Remonstrants argued that predestination to salvation is based on God foreseeing man's faith, brought about the Synod of Dort which defined the Reformed doctrine on this matter in greater detail.^[9]The 1594 treatise by Huguenot theologian Franciscus Junius On True Theology was the first Protestant work to distinguish archetypal theology (God's knowledge of himself) and ectypal theology (our knowledge of God based on his condescending revelation to us).^[10] This distinction, which has its roots in the medieval Scotist distinction between theology in itself (theologia in se) and our theology (theologia nostra), limits the degree to which God can be known by sinful man and would be very important in later Reformed and Lutheran theology.^[11]

High orthodoxy (1620–1700)

Following the Synod of Dort, which ended in 1619, the Reformed began to give greater definition and detail to the theological system which had been codified in confessions in the period of early orthodoxy by writing comprehensive systematic theologies.^[12] The Remonstrants, having been repudiated in the synod of Dort, became an independent movement with their own seminary and dogmatic textbooks, and leading the Reformed to write against them with even greater intensity.^[13] Socinianism, a group with roots in Anabaptism which denied the trinity and other orthodox doctrines, became more influential and the Reformed continued to write against them,^[14] Early Socinians had already had some influence on the development of Remonstrantism during the early orthodox period.^[15] In addition, the rise of Cartesianism provided another target for Reformed scholastics such as Dutch theologian Gisbertus Voetius, who argued that Descartes's philosophical skepticism placed reason above revelation instead of subjecting reason to biblical revelation.^[16]

In the Netherlands, three strands within Reformed orthodoxy may be distinguished, though all of these stayed within the boundaries provided by the Canons of Dort.^[17] The theologia traditiva, most notably represented by Samuel Maresius and Friedrich Spanheim the Elder and Younger, were in many ways aligned with a second strain, the school of Voetius, but were infralapsarian, arguing that God's decree to create men and allow the Fall logically precedes the decree to elect some men to salvation. They also to some degree approved of governmental involvement in church affairs, were more lax with respect to Sabbath observnce, and were in general more moderate polemicists. Differences between these groups decreased throughout the 17th century, as they positioned themselves against the Cocceians.^[18] The school of Johannes Cocceius (known as the Cocceians) differed from the Voetians and the rest of Reformed scholastic theology in teaching on the relationship of the Old and New Testament. The Cocceians taught that the Sabbath commandment (to rest one day in seven) was abrogated in the New Covenant, and had other disagreements regarding the relationship of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. While Cocceius rejected Cartesianism, some of his followers were influenced by it and this lead to even more suspicion on behalf of the rest of the Reformed.^[19]

In France, Moses Amyraut at the Academy of Saumur taught a doctrine known as Amyraldism which is considered a compromise between the doctrine of Predestination presented at the Synod of Dort and Arminianism. Amyraut taught that God elects to salvation in two ways. First, the entire human race is elected to salvation on condition of their faith in him. Then, based on his foreknowledge that no one would have faith, God elects some to salvation in a second, particular election.^[20] Most Reformed scholastics rejected Amyraut's views.^[21]

Important figures

Notes

^ van Asselt et al. 2011, p. 9
^ Fesko 2000.
^ Wenger 2007.
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, pp. 5–6
^ Steinmetz 2006, pp. 16–30.
^ Benedict 2002, pp. 298–299.
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, p. 108
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, p. 109
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, p. 121
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, p. 123
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, pp. 124–125
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, pp. 132–133
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, pp. 137
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, p. 135
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, p. 121
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, p. 139
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, pp. 141–142
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, pp. 142–144
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, pp. 148=149
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, p. 151
^ van Asselt et al. 2011, p. 152

References

van Asselt, Willem J.; Pleizier, T. Theo J.; Rouwendal, Pieter L.; Wisse, Maarten (2011). Inleiding in de Gereformeerde Scholastiek (in Dutch). Translated by Albert Gootjes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books. ISBN 978-1-60178-121-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
Benedict, Philip (2002). Christ's Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300105070. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Fesko, J.V. (2000). "An Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism" (PDF). The Counsel of Chalcedon. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Steinmetz, David C. (2006). "The Scholastic Calvin". In Trueman, Carl R.; Clark, R. Scott (eds.). Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. ISBN 978-0853648536. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Wenger, Thomas L. (2007). "The New Perspective on Calvin: Responding to Recent Calvin Interpretations". Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 50 (2): 311–328. ISSN 0360-8808. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)