PRRD I.60-84
[This section is rather long and technical. So I’ve tried to simplify Muller’s argument; however, this means I’ve flattened the nuance of many of his points and omitted several references to key works and thinkers. Even when trying to hit the highlights, I found my summaries to be somewhat involved and complicated. Hopefully, things will start to pick up. The goal is still all 4 volumes! Am I being too optimistic?]
1.3 The Rise of Orthodoxy and the Structures of Protestant Scholastic Theology (60-84)
A. Doctrine and Method in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (ca. 1565-1618) (60-73)
1. Continuity, discontinuity, and the alteration of theological style (60-61)
The early orthodox period runs approximately from the Heidelberg Catechism (1565) to when the theologians who sat at the Synod of Dort (1618/19) passed from the seen (ca. 1640). A discernable change of style is evident in this initial period after the Reformation. These theologians are not so much seeking to reform the church but establish and protect it. “The passage of Reformed theology into the era of early orthodoxy can be charted in terms of a movement from basic, discursive instruction to a more sophisticated, dialectical model” (61).
2. Ground or causes of the rise of scholastic orthodoxy (61-66)
Muller identifies at least four reasons for the rise and development and rules.
1) Polemical – the development of a more technical, scholastic style of theological enunciation must be viewed as an accommodation to the needs of debate.
2) Pedagogical needs (i.e. the concern for method) – the early orthodoxy were concerned with how best to present and articulate (e.g. the emergence of Ramist logic) the theology of the Reformation to their present circumstances in a wide variety of contexts. Note this important sentence: “The early orthodox, whether Ramist or anti-Ramist, share the desire to create a theological system suited to the successful establishment of Protestantism as a church in its own right, catholic in its teaching, capable of being sustained intellectually against its adversaries, and sufficiently technical and methodologically consistent to stand among the other disciplines in the university” (62). This emphasis on method can be illustrated by the distinction between “synthetic” (a deductive approach moving from prolegomena, doctrine of Scripture, doctrine of God, etc) and “analytic” (an inductive approach which may begin with sin and move to redemption and faith, etc) approach to system.
3) Systematic issues – contra the central dogma folks who argue that P-o was the result of the development of the inner-logic of Protestant doctrine (e.g. predestinarian systematization), Muller sees this period as a process of “self-definition and institutionalization” (i.e. confessionalization).
4) Philosophical breadth and coherence –in seeking a synthesis between theology and philosophy, P-o looked both to early scholastics (b/t 13th-15th centuries) and to the revived Aristotelianism of Zabarella, Suárez, Keckermann, Alsted, etc. This was done in order to adequately express the Protestant metaphysic in the academy. In other words, P-o adopted scholastic terminology to express their theology.
3. International dimensions and interrelationships in the rise of Reformed orthodoxy (66-67)
A keen grasp of the interrelationship and interplay of English and continental theologies is indispensable to an understanding of the post-Reformation period. “A full picture of Reformed orthodoxy cannot afford to omit the English contribution to Protestant scholasticism – nor is it acceptable to attempt to interpret British theology in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries without reference to continental developments” (67).
4. Philosophical issues and developments (67-71)
Technically, the Ref and p-Ref periods were not philosophical movements; rather, both periods were eclectic in their philosophical perspectives. But we should not equate eclecticism with incoherence. Muller argues that the Reformers and their successors drew from various classical, medieval, and Renaissance ideas and works in order to develop rational arguments that would serve an ancillary (ancilla) position to theology.
5. Trajectories in Aristotelianism and Rationalism (71-73)
Although early orthodoxy developed during the emerging ages of science (Kepler, Galileo, Bacon) and rationalism (Descartes, Lord Herbet of Cherbury), these movements did not directly impact P-o until the last half of the 17th century. The development of Christian Aristotelianism in the Protestant universities parallels the development of Protestant scholasticism. Therefore, while Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed theologians may have shared a common foundation (i.e. various forms of Christian Aristotelianism such as Thomism, Scotism, nominalism, etc), they differed over how these medieval schools of thought should be mediated to express their theological formulation.
What is important to draw from this is to realize the broader intellectual context of the Ref and p-Ref. “Whereas the Reformation is surely the formative even for Protestantism, it is also true that the Reformation, which took place during the first half of the sixteenth century, is the briefer phenomenon, enclosed, as it were by the five-hundred-year history of scholasticism and Christian Aristotelianism.” (73).
B. Doctrine and Method in the Era of High Orthodoxy (ca. 1640-1685-1725) (73-81)
1. General Characteristics (73-74)
Muller divides this period into two halves, as we previously noted (cf. PRRD I.31-32). This period, like early orthodoxy, did not create Reformational doctrine, rather, it developed, elaborated, and clarified the teachings of the Ref (e.g. federal theology, elaboration of exant loci).
2. Debate and polemic, ad extra and ad intra (74-78)
By the time of HO, polemics were no longer directed simply against Rome and aspects of Lutheranism. The debates were more complicated in this period.
1) ad extra debates – largest portion of R-o polemics as these debates posed major threats to the reformed (Catholic, Lutheran, Arminian, Socinian).
2) ad intra debates – these were discussions and debates within the Reformed (e.g. Cocceian theology, Amyraldianism, soteriology of Baxter, etc).
3. The breadth of the Reformed orthodox phenomenon (78-81)
R-o cannot simply be defined in relationship to the Genevan line from Calvin to Turretin; it’s much broader. There is an amazing confessional breadth to R-o (e.g. Swiss orthodox, Academy of Saumer, Cocceian and Voetian federal theology, difference between Owen and Baxter, etc).
“High orthodoxy, then, is the era of the full and final development of Protestant system prior to the great changes in philosophical and scientific perspective that would, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, utterly recast theological system into new forms” (80).
C. The Problem of Deconfessionalization, “Transitional” Theologies, and the Beginnings of Late Orthodoxy (81-84)
1. Latitudinarianism and deconfessionalization at the beginnings of late orthodoxy (81-82)
As the new science and new rationalism begin to hold more sway, from 1685-1725 folks start to get a little leery of traditional dogmatic theology and philosophical assumptions. Some were more enthusiastic about these trends (e.g. J. A. Turretin) than others (e.g. Nadere Reformatie). Muller calls this the “pietistic-eclectic phase” of orthodoxy (i.e. era of latitudinarianism).
2. Late orthodoxy, Wolffian dogmatics, and the remnants of confessionalism (82-84)
With the rise of rationalist philosophy and historical-critical exegesis, those who held to the traditional formulations of P-o were few and far between (e.g. Nicholas Gürtler, Bernhardus de Moor, Herman Venema, John Gill, John Brown of Haddington, etc). In Christian Wolff (chair of philosophy in Halle) we find a synthesis of theology to rationalist philosophy. But as Muller notes, “Rationalist philosophy was ultimately incapable of becoming a suitable ancilla and, instead, demanded that it and not theology be considered queen of the sciences. Without a philosophical structure to complement its doctrine and to cohere with its scholastic method, Protestant orthodoxy came to an end” (84).
1.3 The Rise of Orthodoxy and the Structures of Protestant Scholastic Theology (60-84)
A. Doctrine and Method in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (ca. 1565-1618) (60-73)
1. Continuity, discontinuity, and the alteration of theological style (60-61)
The early orthodox period runs approximately from the Heidelberg Catechism (1565) to when the theologians who sat at the Synod of Dort (1618/19) passed from the seen (ca. 1640). A discernable change of style is evident in this initial period after the Reformation. These theologians are not so much seeking to reform the church but establish and protect it. “The passage of Reformed theology into the era of early orthodoxy can be charted in terms of a movement from basic, discursive instruction to a more sophisticated, dialectical model” (61).
2. Ground or causes of the rise of scholastic orthodoxy (61-66)
Muller identifies at least four reasons for the rise and development and rules.
1) Polemical – the development of a more technical, scholastic style of theological enunciation must be viewed as an accommodation to the needs of debate.
2) Pedagogical needs (i.e. the concern for method) – the early orthodoxy were concerned with how best to present and articulate (e.g. the emergence of Ramist logic) the theology of the Reformation to their present circumstances in a wide variety of contexts. Note this important sentence: “The early orthodox, whether Ramist or anti-Ramist, share the desire to create a theological system suited to the successful establishment of Protestantism as a church in its own right, catholic in its teaching, capable of being sustained intellectually against its adversaries, and sufficiently technical and methodologically consistent to stand among the other disciplines in the university” (62). This emphasis on method can be illustrated by the distinction between “synthetic” (a deductive approach moving from prolegomena, doctrine of Scripture, doctrine of God, etc) and “analytic” (an inductive approach which may begin with sin and move to redemption and faith, etc) approach to system.
3) Systematic issues – contra the central dogma folks who argue that P-o was the result of the development of the inner-logic of Protestant doctrine (e.g. predestinarian systematization), Muller sees this period as a process of “self-definition and institutionalization” (i.e. confessionalization).
4) Philosophical breadth and coherence –in seeking a synthesis between theology and philosophy, P-o looked both to early scholastics (b/t 13th-15th centuries) and to the revived Aristotelianism of Zabarella, Suárez, Keckermann, Alsted, etc. This was done in order to adequately express the Protestant metaphysic in the academy. In other words, P-o adopted scholastic terminology to express their theology.
3. International dimensions and interrelationships in the rise of Reformed orthodoxy (66-67)
A keen grasp of the interrelationship and interplay of English and continental theologies is indispensable to an understanding of the post-Reformation period. “A full picture of Reformed orthodoxy cannot afford to omit the English contribution to Protestant scholasticism – nor is it acceptable to attempt to interpret British theology in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries without reference to continental developments” (67).
4. Philosophical issues and developments (67-71)
Technically, the Ref and p-Ref periods were not philosophical movements; rather, both periods were eclectic in their philosophical perspectives. But we should not equate eclecticism with incoherence. Muller argues that the Reformers and their successors drew from various classical, medieval, and Renaissance ideas and works in order to develop rational arguments that would serve an ancillary (ancilla) position to theology.
5. Trajectories in Aristotelianism and Rationalism (71-73)
Although early orthodoxy developed during the emerging ages of science (Kepler, Galileo, Bacon) and rationalism (Descartes, Lord Herbet of Cherbury), these movements did not directly impact P-o until the last half of the 17th century. The development of Christian Aristotelianism in the Protestant universities parallels the development of Protestant scholasticism. Therefore, while Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed theologians may have shared a common foundation (i.e. various forms of Christian Aristotelianism such as Thomism, Scotism, nominalism, etc), they differed over how these medieval schools of thought should be mediated to express their theological formulation.
What is important to draw from this is to realize the broader intellectual context of the Ref and p-Ref. “Whereas the Reformation is surely the formative even for Protestantism, it is also true that the Reformation, which took place during the first half of the sixteenth century, is the briefer phenomenon, enclosed, as it were by the five-hundred-year history of scholasticism and Christian Aristotelianism.” (73).
B. Doctrine and Method in the Era of High Orthodoxy (ca. 1640-1685-1725) (73-81)
1. General Characteristics (73-74)
Muller divides this period into two halves, as we previously noted (cf. PRRD I.31-32). This period, like early orthodoxy, did not create Reformational doctrine, rather, it developed, elaborated, and clarified the teachings of the Ref (e.g. federal theology, elaboration of exant loci).
2. Debate and polemic, ad extra and ad intra (74-78)
By the time of HO, polemics were no longer directed simply against Rome and aspects of Lutheranism. The debates were more complicated in this period.
1) ad extra debates – largest portion of R-o polemics as these debates posed major threats to the reformed (Catholic, Lutheran, Arminian, Socinian).
2) ad intra debates – these were discussions and debates within the Reformed (e.g. Cocceian theology, Amyraldianism, soteriology of Baxter, etc).
3. The breadth of the Reformed orthodox phenomenon (78-81)
R-o cannot simply be defined in relationship to the Genevan line from Calvin to Turretin; it’s much broader. There is an amazing confessional breadth to R-o (e.g. Swiss orthodox, Academy of Saumer, Cocceian and Voetian federal theology, difference between Owen and Baxter, etc).
“High orthodoxy, then, is the era of the full and final development of Protestant system prior to the great changes in philosophical and scientific perspective that would, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, utterly recast theological system into new forms” (80).
C. The Problem of Deconfessionalization, “Transitional” Theologies, and the Beginnings of Late Orthodoxy (81-84)
1. Latitudinarianism and deconfessionalization at the beginnings of late orthodoxy (81-82)
As the new science and new rationalism begin to hold more sway, from 1685-1725 folks start to get a little leery of traditional dogmatic theology and philosophical assumptions. Some were more enthusiastic about these trends (e.g. J. A. Turretin) than others (e.g. Nadere Reformatie). Muller calls this the “pietistic-eclectic phase” of orthodoxy (i.e. era of latitudinarianism).
2. Late orthodoxy, Wolffian dogmatics, and the remnants of confessionalism (82-84)
With the rise of rationalist philosophy and historical-critical exegesis, those who held to the traditional formulations of P-o were few and far between (e.g. Nicholas Gürtler, Bernhardus de Moor, Herman Venema, John Gill, John Brown of Haddington, etc). In Christian Wolff (chair of philosophy in Halle) we find a synthesis of theology to rationalist philosophy. But as Muller notes, “Rationalist philosophy was ultimately incapable of becoming a suitable ancilla and, instead, demanded that it and not theology be considered queen of the sciences. Without a philosophical structure to complement its doctrine and to cohere with its scholastic method, Protestant orthodoxy came to an end” (84).
posted by John W. Tweeddale | 8:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home