Muller PRRD I.37-46
Alas! After a short hiatus, here is the next installment in our (rather slow!) study of Muller's PRRD. In this section, Muller identifies several presuppositions of his work. His painstaking attention to methodology and definition is a humble reminder that our research should be more than descriptive but contextual, critical, and constructive. Here we go!
C. The Design and Scope of the Present Study (37-46)
1. From reformation to orthodoxy: assessing continuities and discontinuities(37-40)
Muller simply states his purpose of PRRD, “the underlying theses of the present study concern the continuities and discontinuities in Reformed theology during the eras of the Reformation and Orthodoxy, running chronologically from approximately 1520 to approximately 1725” (37).
He gives five key ingredients to his argument.
1) The reformation and post-reformation periods should not be reduced to two monolithic movements. Continuity and discontinuities must be assessed on the basis of an examination of a broad spectrum of individuals and sources (not just Calvin, Beza, Perkins, etc). Additionally, care must be given to the historical context and the genre of any writing from these periods.
2) Methodologically, the close relationship between exegesis and theological formation exhibited in the Ref and p-R periods prevented the development of rationalism and the “central dogma” theory. “The central dogma model is not only anachronistic…it is also simplistic” (39).
3) Modern discussion of various theological “centrisms” must be put aside (e.g. “chistocentrism” of the Ref – vs – “theocentrism” of the p-R). Muller contends, “The very method of their theology [in the Ref and p-R], the gathering of topics or loci drawn out of their exegetical work, stands in the way of such models for theological system” (39).
4) Attention must be paid to the various “trajectories” of intellectual history which extended through and developed within the Ref and p-R (i.e. scholasticism and humanism).
5) Two specific trajectories important for the relationship of the Ref and p-R are the history of exegesis (e.g. development of precritical exegesis) and the history of philosophy (e.g. rise of Christian Aristolelianism).
2. Reformation and the formation of an orthodoxy (40-42)
The development from the Ref to the p-R is “not from kerygma to dogma but from reform to confessional codification” (40). Muller gives three propositions any claim of discontinuity must consider.
1) An assumption of Ref included the reestablishment of catholic orthodoxy.
2) The theological and confessional diversity within the Ref continued into the p-R.
3) Confessional codification in the p-R neither prevented doctrinal development (e.g. federal theology) nor produced a monolithic theology (e.g. Bezan, Aristotelian). Muller contends for a variegated movement (ecclesiastical, confessional, educational, polemical, cultural, etc.).
3. Historiographical premises in relation to the prolegomena and principia (42-44)
Muller makes no claim to provide a full history of Protestant orthodoxy. Rather, his focus is limited to prolegomena and principia. He gives two explanations:
1) The topics of theology, Scripture, and God provide the starting point for most of the theological systems in the p-R.
2) There is a need to re-examine and re-evaluate protestant scholasticism on its own terms.
4. A methodology for dealing with development and continuity (44-46)
Several issues are to be considered when evaluating continuity/discontinuity.
1) Traditionally, this discussion as taken one of two angles:
A. In terms of tracing the development of a particular doctrine (e.g. predestination, Scripture).
B. In tracing the relationship of the rise of orthodoxy in the p-R to the theology of the Ref by evaluating individual writers.
2) Theologically and methodologically, developments within the broader scope of Western Christianity need to be taken into consideration (e.g. the patristic and medieval eras).
3) Simplistic conclusions are to be avoided. Continuity does not mean reproduction and discontinuity does not simply mean change. Diversity is not equivalent to discontinuity. Muller makes this important observation, “The changes and developments that took place within Protestantism in the two centuries after the Reformation need to be viewed as belonging to a living tradition which needed to adapt and reformulate its teachings as the historical context demanded…The issue is to examine the course of development, to study the reasons for change, asses the context of each document, and then make judgments concerning continuity and discontinuity in the light of something more than a facile juxtaposition” (44-45). Amen!
C. The Design and Scope of the Present Study (37-46)
1. From reformation to orthodoxy: assessing continuities and discontinuities(37-40)
Muller simply states his purpose of PRRD, “the underlying theses of the present study concern the continuities and discontinuities in Reformed theology during the eras of the Reformation and Orthodoxy, running chronologically from approximately 1520 to approximately 1725” (37).
He gives five key ingredients to his argument.
1) The reformation and post-reformation periods should not be reduced to two monolithic movements. Continuity and discontinuities must be assessed on the basis of an examination of a broad spectrum of individuals and sources (not just Calvin, Beza, Perkins, etc). Additionally, care must be given to the historical context and the genre of any writing from these periods.
2) Methodologically, the close relationship between exegesis and theological formation exhibited in the Ref and p-R periods prevented the development of rationalism and the “central dogma” theory. “The central dogma model is not only anachronistic…it is also simplistic” (39).
3) Modern discussion of various theological “centrisms” must be put aside (e.g. “chistocentrism” of the Ref – vs – “theocentrism” of the p-R). Muller contends, “The very method of their theology [in the Ref and p-R], the gathering of topics or loci drawn out of their exegetical work, stands in the way of such models for theological system” (39).
4) Attention must be paid to the various “trajectories” of intellectual history which extended through and developed within the Ref and p-R (i.e. scholasticism and humanism).
5) Two specific trajectories important for the relationship of the Ref and p-R are the history of exegesis (e.g. development of precritical exegesis) and the history of philosophy (e.g. rise of Christian Aristolelianism).
2. Reformation and the formation of an orthodoxy (40-42)
The development from the Ref to the p-R is “not from kerygma to dogma but from reform to confessional codification” (40). Muller gives three propositions any claim of discontinuity must consider.
1) An assumption of Ref included the reestablishment of catholic orthodoxy.
2) The theological and confessional diversity within the Ref continued into the p-R.
3) Confessional codification in the p-R neither prevented doctrinal development (e.g. federal theology) nor produced a monolithic theology (e.g. Bezan, Aristotelian). Muller contends for a variegated movement (ecclesiastical, confessional, educational, polemical, cultural, etc.).
3. Historiographical premises in relation to the prolegomena and principia (42-44)
Muller makes no claim to provide a full history of Protestant orthodoxy. Rather, his focus is limited to prolegomena and principia. He gives two explanations:
1) The topics of theology, Scripture, and God provide the starting point for most of the theological systems in the p-R.
2) There is a need to re-examine and re-evaluate protestant scholasticism on its own terms.
4. A methodology for dealing with development and continuity (44-46)
Several issues are to be considered when evaluating continuity/discontinuity.
1) Traditionally, this discussion as taken one of two angles:
A. In terms of tracing the development of a particular doctrine (e.g. predestination, Scripture).
B. In tracing the relationship of the rise of orthodoxy in the p-R to the theology of the Ref by evaluating individual writers.
2) Theologically and methodologically, developments within the broader scope of Western Christianity need to be taken into consideration (e.g. the patristic and medieval eras).
3) Simplistic conclusions are to be avoided. Continuity does not mean reproduction and discontinuity does not simply mean change. Diversity is not equivalent to discontinuity. Muller makes this important observation, “The changes and developments that took place within Protestantism in the two centuries after the Reformation need to be viewed as belonging to a living tradition which needed to adapt and reformulate its teachings as the historical context demanded…The issue is to examine the course of development, to study the reasons for change, asses the context of each document, and then make judgments concerning continuity and discontinuity in the light of something more than a facile juxtaposition” (44-45). Amen!
posted by Chris Ross | 2:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home