Reformed Orthodox Prolegomena: PRRD I.108-122
2.4 Theological Prolegomena in Reformed Orthodoxy (108-122)
A. The Transition to Early Orthodoxy and the First Reformed Prolegomena (108-117)
1. The nature of the transition (108-110)
While the basic elements of theological method were present in the Reformers, they did not produce a fully developed prolegomena. That task fell upon Protestants in the late sixteenth and seventeenth century with the movement towards institutionalization. The construction of a prolegomena had at least three components: 1) stating the views of the theological task as expressed by previous Reformers, 2) the ‘appropriation and modification of the earlier tradition of prolegomena’, and 3) the polemical defense of Protestant principles and presuppositions against Roman Catholic criticism.
Muller contends, “The theological prolegomena of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are, arguably, the most exhaustive and most finely tooled prolegomena in this history of theology…Without exaggeration, the theological prolegomena of the seventeenth-century Protestant scholastics provide a model for the development of a distinctively Protestant but nonetheless universally Christian or catholic theology – a model that Protestant theology today can ignore only at great risk” (109).
2. Elements of prolegomena: from Ursinus to Perkins and Lubbertus (ca. 1563 to 1591) (110-113)
Ursinus – in his posthumous work Doctrinae christianae compendium he briefly notes three aspects of the study of theology: 1) catechetical instruction, 2) development of commonplaces (loci communes), and 3) meditation on Scripture.
NB: During the early orthodox period, the locus method developed by Melanchthon and modified by Musculus, Calvin, and Vermigli was the predominate model for theological discourse.
Zanchi – in his Praefatiuncula in locos communos was one of the first to attempt a prolegomena. Following Zabarella, there are two principal methods of teaching theology: 1) “the synthetic or ‘compositive’ method is properly employed in the binding together and teaching of theological loci"; and 2) “the analytic or ‘resolutive’ method is properly applied to the explication of Scripture.” (111).
Benedict Aretius (successor to Musculus in Bern) – his work Theologia problemata (1573) has an extended discussion on the difference between natural theology as the ‘fruit of gentle philosophy’ and theology which is based on revelation. See also his brief Examen theologicum (1557).
Lambert Daneau (Genevan trained and contemporary of Aretius) – his work Christianae isagoges (1583) begins uncharacteristically with the doctrine of God (as opposed to the doctrine of Scripture) and his shorter Compendium (1595) begins with a brief ‘prolegomenon.’
Stephanus Szegedinus – his Theologiae sincerae loci communes de Deo et Homine (1585) is “perhaps the first major thoroughly Ramist model found in a Reformed dogmatics of the era” (112).
Antoine Chandieu – in De verbo Dei scripto (1580) he “proposed explicitly a program for Protestant Scholasticism” due to the need to engage Roman Catholics in scholastic debate (112).
Petrus Ramus – De religione christiana (1576) is remembered for setting forth the memorable definition of theology as the ‘doctrine of living well’ before God.
Dudley Fenner – Sacra theologia (1585) offers discussion on covenant theology and a brief chapter on De theologia.
William Perkins – Armilla aurea (1591 – A Golden Chain) while focusing on the order of salvation states that theology is ‘the science of living blessedly for ever’ (notice the echo of Ramus), emphasizing the practical side of theology.
Sibrandus Lubbertus – with his De principiis (1591), “Lubbertus provided Reformed theology, at the beginning of the formulation of its prolegomena, with the identification of Scripture as the principium in the dogmatic sense of the term” (113).
3. Junius, Polanus, and the development of early orthodox prolegomena (113-117)
Franciscus Junius – De vera thelogia (1594) is the most important work of theological prolegomena in the early orthodox period. He introduced a definition of theology as discipline, the ectypal/archetypal distinction, and manifests the Protestant move away from viewing theology as scientia towards theology as sapientia.
Amandu Polanus – Partitiones theologiae and Syntagma theologiaw christianae (1609) are dependent on Junius. The Syntagma is “surely the most elaborate dogmatic system produced by a Reformed theologian up to that point” (115).
Other works: Gerhard’s Loci theologici (1610) was the standard Lutheran work, Alsted’s Methodus sacrocanctae theologiae (1614) shows reliance upon Junius and Polanus. In the works of Perkins, Ames, Stoughton and Trelcatius, Wollebius, and Waleaus, we see a focus upon theology as theologia nostra (our theology).
B. Developments in High and Late Orthodoxy (117-122)
1. High orthodoxy writers and issues (117-121)
“Whereas it is characteristic of the early orthodox prolegomena to reflect intellectual ties to thinkers like Calvin, Musculus, and Vermigli through extended discussion of the problem of natural theology, the high orthodox prolegomena tend to accept the results of earlier discussion and to treat the issue in brief definitions. By way of further contrast, the high orthodox shift focus of the discussion of the natural powers of mind to the extended treatment of the relation of philosophy to theology and the function of reason in theology. This latter change can be accounted for in no small measure by the successful institutionalization of Protestantism and the identification of theology as an academic discipline in dialogue with philosophy” (118-119).
2. From Reformation to orthodoxy: continuity and development through the high orthodox era (121-122)
“The Protestant scholastic prolegomena look back to medieval models – in the absence of clear statements of presuppositions and definitions by the Reformers – but do so in the context of an already established Protestant theological tradition as embodied in confessional norms” (121).
3. Alterations in the prolegomena of the late orthodox era (122) – the rise of rationalism.
A. The Transition to Early Orthodoxy and the First Reformed Prolegomena (108-117)
1. The nature of the transition (108-110)
While the basic elements of theological method were present in the Reformers, they did not produce a fully developed prolegomena. That task fell upon Protestants in the late sixteenth and seventeenth century with the movement towards institutionalization. The construction of a prolegomena had at least three components: 1) stating the views of the theological task as expressed by previous Reformers, 2) the ‘appropriation and modification of the earlier tradition of prolegomena’, and 3) the polemical defense of Protestant principles and presuppositions against Roman Catholic criticism.
Muller contends, “The theological prolegomena of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are, arguably, the most exhaustive and most finely tooled prolegomena in this history of theology…Without exaggeration, the theological prolegomena of the seventeenth-century Protestant scholastics provide a model for the development of a distinctively Protestant but nonetheless universally Christian or catholic theology – a model that Protestant theology today can ignore only at great risk” (109).
2. Elements of prolegomena: from Ursinus to Perkins and Lubbertus (ca. 1563 to 1591) (110-113)
Ursinus – in his posthumous work Doctrinae christianae compendium he briefly notes three aspects of the study of theology: 1) catechetical instruction, 2) development of commonplaces (loci communes), and 3) meditation on Scripture.
NB: During the early orthodox period, the locus method developed by Melanchthon and modified by Musculus, Calvin, and Vermigli was the predominate model for theological discourse.
Zanchi – in his Praefatiuncula in locos communos was one of the first to attempt a prolegomena. Following Zabarella, there are two principal methods of teaching theology: 1) “the synthetic or ‘compositive’ method is properly employed in the binding together and teaching of theological loci"; and 2) “the analytic or ‘resolutive’ method is properly applied to the explication of Scripture.” (111).
Benedict Aretius (successor to Musculus in Bern) – his work Theologia problemata (1573) has an extended discussion on the difference between natural theology as the ‘fruit of gentle philosophy’ and theology which is based on revelation. See also his brief Examen theologicum (1557).
Lambert Daneau (Genevan trained and contemporary of Aretius) – his work Christianae isagoges (1583) begins uncharacteristically with the doctrine of God (as opposed to the doctrine of Scripture) and his shorter Compendium (1595) begins with a brief ‘prolegomenon.’
Stephanus Szegedinus – his Theologiae sincerae loci communes de Deo et Homine (1585) is “perhaps the first major thoroughly Ramist model found in a Reformed dogmatics of the era” (112).
Antoine Chandieu – in De verbo Dei scripto (1580) he “proposed explicitly a program for Protestant Scholasticism” due to the need to engage Roman Catholics in scholastic debate (112).
Petrus Ramus – De religione christiana (1576) is remembered for setting forth the memorable definition of theology as the ‘doctrine of living well’ before God.
Dudley Fenner – Sacra theologia (1585) offers discussion on covenant theology and a brief chapter on De theologia.
William Perkins – Armilla aurea (1591 – A Golden Chain) while focusing on the order of salvation states that theology is ‘the science of living blessedly for ever’ (notice the echo of Ramus), emphasizing the practical side of theology.
Sibrandus Lubbertus – with his De principiis (1591), “Lubbertus provided Reformed theology, at the beginning of the formulation of its prolegomena, with the identification of Scripture as the principium in the dogmatic sense of the term” (113).
3. Junius, Polanus, and the development of early orthodox prolegomena (113-117)
Franciscus Junius – De vera thelogia (1594) is the most important work of theological prolegomena in the early orthodox period. He introduced a definition of theology as discipline, the ectypal/archetypal distinction, and manifests the Protestant move away from viewing theology as scientia towards theology as sapientia.
Amandu Polanus – Partitiones theologiae and Syntagma theologiaw christianae (1609) are dependent on Junius. The Syntagma is “surely the most elaborate dogmatic system produced by a Reformed theologian up to that point” (115).
Other works: Gerhard’s Loci theologici (1610) was the standard Lutheran work, Alsted’s Methodus sacrocanctae theologiae (1614) shows reliance upon Junius and Polanus. In the works of Perkins, Ames, Stoughton and Trelcatius, Wollebius, and Waleaus, we see a focus upon theology as theologia nostra (our theology).
B. Developments in High and Late Orthodoxy (117-122)
1. High orthodoxy writers and issues (117-121)
“Whereas it is characteristic of the early orthodox prolegomena to reflect intellectual ties to thinkers like Calvin, Musculus, and Vermigli through extended discussion of the problem of natural theology, the high orthodox prolegomena tend to accept the results of earlier discussion and to treat the issue in brief definitions. By way of further contrast, the high orthodox shift focus of the discussion of the natural powers of mind to the extended treatment of the relation of philosophy to theology and the function of reason in theology. This latter change can be accounted for in no small measure by the successful institutionalization of Protestantism and the identification of theology as an academic discipline in dialogue with philosophy” (118-119).
2. From Reformation to orthodoxy: continuity and development through the high orthodox era (121-122)
“The Protestant scholastic prolegomena look back to medieval models – in the absence of clear statements of presuppositions and definitions by the Reformers – but do so in the context of an already established Protestant theological tradition as embodied in confessional norms” (121).
3. Alterations in the prolegomena of the late orthodox era (122) – the rise of rationalism.
posted by John W. Tweeddale | 9:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home