Medieval Prolegomena: PRRD I.88-96

2.2 Medieval Prolegomena (88-96)

A. The Beginnings of Prolegomena: Early Scholastic Developments (88-90)

The development of Protestant theological system did not occur in a vacuum. The process was complex. Instead of creating an entire new system and language to articulate their insights, the Reformers utilized and modified elements of extant theological systems available to them – particularly from the middle to late Middle Ages.

The development of a formal theological methodology can be traced to mid-twelfth century theologians such as Hugh of St Victor (d. 1141), Gilbert de la Porrée (d. 1154), Peter Lombard (d. 1160), and Alain of Lille (d. 1202) who saw the need to organise a consist approach to the theological task if it was to be effectively taught in the schools.

In his work De sacramentis christianae fidei, Hugh affirms that Scripture (and the correct interpretation of it) is the foundation of theology. More specifically, he locates the task of theology within the realms of creation (opus conditionis) and redemption (opus restaurationis). What is significant about this point is that “it defines the object of the discipline as practical and redemptive rather than speculative and metaphysical” (89).

Gilbert and Alain play important parts in the formation of theological prolegomena – perhaps more than Hugh and Lombard – as they were among the first in history to outline rules for theological method. Additionally, both were keen to establish the rules of argument, place theology within the category of academic disciplines, and identify theology as a scientia.

Lombard is significant in that his Sententiae became the standard medieval theological textbook. His method of presenting an issue or question, providing relevant biblical and patristic sources, and stating a response became the model of scholastic argumentation. Subsequently, this work was gathered (perhaps by Alexander of Hales at the University of Paris) into four basic books: 1) God; 2) creation, sin, and free will; 3) incarnation, Christ’s person and work, Christian graces and virtues; and 4) sacraments and last things. These categories formulated the pattern for theological system.

B. The High Scholastic Development: The Thirteenth-Century Flowering of Method (90-94)

1. Issues faced the thirteenth-century theologians (90-91)

With the interest of Aristotelian metaphysics and ethics (and not just his logic) in the thirteenth century, the employment of the term scientia with reference to theology took on new meaning. Like all sciences, theology was in need of its own self-evident, first principles (principia per se nota) to provide the necessary foundation for argumentation, classification, clarification, and instruction. Discussions relating to the difference between scientia (knowledge) and sapientia (wisdom) also developed during this period.

2. Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas (91-93)

Franciscans such as Alexander of Hales (d. 1245) and Bonaventure (d. 1274) insisted that theology was not chiefly speculative but affective, experiential, and moral in character. Whereas, the “step of defining the character of theological scientia among other sciences was taken by Thomas Aquinas, who joined the concept of theology as a ratiocinative discipline characterized by definition and division of the subject for purposes of debate to the Aristotelian concepts of scientia and scientia subalterna” (92).

3. Henry of Ghent (93-94)

“The great codifier of thirteenth-century theorization on the presuppositions of theological system just prior to the intense critique launched by Scotus and the nominalists was Henry of Ghent (d. 1293)” (93).

C. Late Medieval Developments and Critique (94-96)

1. Duns Scotus and the problem of theological scientia (94-95)

Scotus’s radical dichotomization of faith and reason represents a major departure from the work of Alexander and Bonaventure on the one hand and Aquinas on the other. Theology, for Scotus, was principally a practical discipline (i.e. praxis) and operated upon the presupposition of the “incapacity of the finite for the infinite” (94). Therefore, the theological task is concerned more with our limited knowledge of our (theologia nostra) instead of divine self-knowledge (theologia in se).

2. Ockam and further alterations of the discipline of theology (95-96)

Regarding the nature of scientia, Ockam distinguished between a broad and narrow definition. Broadly speaking, science is “the certain knowledge of any truth” and narrowly considered it is an “evident knowledge of necessary truths” (e.g. knowledge by syllogistic demonstration). Since theology by definition rests of faith, the term science can only be applied in the broader sense.

These shifting patterns in theological prolegomena paved the way for use of scholastic methods in the Reformation. Muller concludes, “we need to recognize that many of the pressures toward change leading to the development of new patterns of argument and presentation – such as the organization of dogmatics by locus – in Protestant theological system were pressures universally felt and also of importance to the development of Roman Catholic theology in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries…The new methodology, with its concentration of loci in Scripture and tradition as material sources of theology, had significant impact on the later Middle Ages and Renaissance and, in the hands of early Reformers like Melanchthon, would transform the method of classroom and, therefore, the scholastic exercise” (96).