Here is what Brian Armstrong believes constitutes a Protestant Scholastic:
. . . (1) Primarily it will have reference to that theological approach which asserts religious truth on the basis of deductive ratiocination from given assumptions or principles, thus producing a logically coherent and defensible system of belief. Generally this takes the form of syllogistic reasoning. It is an orientation, it seems, invariably based upon an Aristotelian philosophical commitment and so relates to medieval scholasticism. (2) The term will refer to the employment of reason in religious matters, so that reason assumes at least equal standing with faith in theology, thus jettisoning some of the authority of revelation. (3) It will comprehend the sentiment that the scriptural record contains a unfied, rationally comprehensible account and thus may be formed into a definitive statement which may be used as a measuring stick to determine one’s orthodoxy. (4) It will comprehend a pronounced interest in metaphysical matters, in abstract, speculative thought, particularly with reference to the doctrine of God. The distinctive scholastic Protestant position is made to rest on a speculative formulation of the will of God. (Brian G. Armstrong, “Calvinism And The Amyraut Heresy,” 32)
Does your style of Christianity fit this definition, or description provided by Armstrong?
It should be noted that it is this very definition of ‘Protestant Scholasticism’ that Richard A. Muller in his book “After Calvin” and editors Carl Trueman and R. Scott Clark in their book “Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment” seek to correct, mitigate, and basically destroy. I have read both accounts, and, really, I think their pronouncements end up being triumphalistic and over-wrought. If you read both Muller and Trueman/Clark closely — in all of the essays they provide on this — what they describe (which supposedly defeats Armstrong’s characterization) fits quite closely with what Armstrong presents. In fact, besides the language of ‘speculative’ — which Muller & co. despise — it really seems that Muller & co. actually affirm Armstrong’s definition here; they take it as their own.
I find all of this strange. Muller & co. want to demonize Armstrong, in some ways, but in the end — from my reading — they actually just modify Armstrong a bit; and then argue as if they have presented a whole new way to think about what Armstrong pretty accurately has already described. You’ll have to read them to find out what I’m talking about.
Anyway, does the definition thatΒ Armstrong provides sound like the kind of Christianity you would like to be involved with, have been involved with, or are considering becoming involved with?
Oy Vey Bobby! You’re up early! (or late)
Interesting you should ask. I tend to think, if I read scripture coldly, that I would end up thinking that God is very Levitical, very severe. I might would get to Psalms, and get some relief. Then the Gospels would reveal Jesus, and the Epistles…. But by and large, it is not read coldly. Even in a vacuum, (say, a Bible is smuggled into a Gulag solitary confinement) the Holy Spirit helps to interpret. Otherwise, there is always someone to help interpret: Phillip and the Ethiopian. Every church has a, or more than one tradition. Now, I find myself trying to interpret my reading (in Leviticus now) through the lens of the Trinity, especially the revelation of Jesus, and Gods love.
So, I’m interested to get more of your take, and that of others.
*sigh* Another book to add to the wish list.
Too right about the comment though. Been there, done it, bought the Body of Divinity.
Hi Bobby,
It has been a while since I commented here but I do have a question for you. You have brought this up before and I don’t think I am understanding your precise point. You have written before that you believe that using Aristotelian logic in a theological context is a mistake. However you don’t seem to believe that using our minds to comprehend what scripture tells us is a mistake (this requires using some form of logic). Where is the dividing line between the two?
As a concrete example many churches adhere to the ecumenical creeds . As you know the filioque in the Nicene Creed caused a split in the church. Would this be an example of where reason took equal standing with faith? Where do we draw the line?
Glenn
Is this an example of Aristotelian logic?
Hey Bobby
I surely cannot keep up with you. I have never tried. But it is fun to look out over the horizon.
(2) The term will refer to the employment of reason in religious matters, so that reason assumes at least equal standing with faith in theology, thus jettisoning some of the authority of revelation.
This might be #2 but it sounds like the crux to me :- ]
Also, read a review of Armstrong’s book and it sound like a great read and a great addition to my wish list as well!
Peace
Will
@Duane,
That sounds good! I think we should read all of Scripture through Jesus, as if it points to him. I think to try to unpack that, in suggestive ways, requires a post. In fact an EC approach to hermeneutics sounds like a great topic for a post; be on the look-out.
@SG,
π
@Will,
His book really is very good. Of course, for the classic Calvinist or orthodox Reformed, this book represents a watershed and one that caricatures their position and what scholasticism represents. Armstrong may over-state a bit, but as I said in the post; as you read Muller and the others and how they try to reposition the real story and history and definitions (contra Armstrong); they don’t really sound much different than Armstrong except in the way that they frame it and emphasize it.
Beyond that, you will get a really really good look at what Amyraldianism looks like. I would recommend Armstrong’s book!
Hope all is well, Pastor π .
Hi Glenn,
Great to hear from you!
My point isn’t that being ‘rational’ or ‘logical’ is wrong; its that being “rationalist” or “logicalist” in a metaphysical and also methodological sense is wrong.
Clearly, I’m not advocating that using the “mind” is wrong; but that an theological anthropology that might elevate the “mind” as its defining feature (like certain Thomist/Aristotelian intellectualist anthroplogies do).
On your example. No, I think that that was just an issue of theological difference relative to perceived threats in re. to a Doctrine of God (btw, Torrance offers a Doctrine of God that could’ve routed this whole schism [his thinking on onto-relations etc] — fodder for another time).
What this quote is trying to identify is in fact a latent “rationalism” that took hold, purportedly (by Armstrong and others), upon the post-Reformation theologians (like William Perkins, Ames, Turretin, Beza, et al). Wherein, the human mind becomes the source of all decision; vs. a faith commitment to the authority of Scripture. People like Armstrong would say that someone like Theodore Beza came in after John Calvin, and perverted Calvin’s christocentrism and confessional like theologizing with “rationalist” and ratiocentric methods and methods that end up distorting the pristine and devotional nature of Calvin’s and eve Luther’s theological trajectory. So for example, Beza (in the Bolsec controversy) argues against a kind of Pelagianism in re. to election predestination etc. Beza offers a hard-core or logically-causally (decree-execution) shaped double-predestination which emphasizes a God of the decrees; Armstrong would say that Calvin did not do this, but that he was much more of a Christian humanist concerned with presenting a God of love in Christ wherein union-with-Christ by the Holy Spirit is emphasized.
Does that help?
Hi Bobby,
Yes that helps. Thank you.
Glenn
Glenn,
Good. Really good to hear from you, hope all is well with you! Comment anytime π .