I responded………
This
guy........
is
their answer to people like Armstrong. It's a big debate and most people think
Muller shows that Armstrong and others are wrong. In all honesty I have not
read Muller's books. I just haven't had the time. But I've read articles by him
and others defending his ideas and I've listened to him interviewed etc... I'm
not convinced he's correct. It's funny I was just listening to him being
interviewed a couple of days ago.
Calvin's
Institutes has gone through a few translations into English. The Beveridge translation
is that big kind of cheaply bound paperback you'll see floating around....but
most people use the Battles translation. There are others as well, but less
commonly found. I have the Beveridge, Battles, and Allen translations. Anyway,
Muller seems to really take issue with the Battles translation (the most
common) and says that he wasn't translating a lot of the precise theological
terms like 'loci' correctly....that would show Calvin's 'Scholastic' bent.
What
I have found listening to Muller and others is that when they're discussing
"Scholasticism" they're using the term in a broad sweeping
sense....and seem to suggest that if you're not scholastic then you're
anti-theology or something. Scholastic is just the 'school' method etc... But that's
not what Armstrong and others are arguing against. They're arguing against the
Scholastic use of logic and systematics when it comes to dealing with the text.
The big point Armstrong and others make is that with the Scholastics you see
them shifting (for example) the doctrine of predestination, taking it from the
realm of salvation and 'logically' placing it within the realm of the doctrine
of God, taking it away from the discussion of assurance and the covenant and
giving rise to the whole question of decrees (leading to the infra- and
supra-lapsarian questions) and setting it up as a Central Dogma that dominates
all of Scripture. In other words Amyraut and Armstrong would say....using it in
a way the Bible doesn't.
And
then Muller and those in agreement with him (most Reformed people) then launch
into the scholastic use of Aristotelian syllogisms etc. and kind of mock the
notion that such a method would not be correct....and basically just dismiss as
absurd the idea that there's a rationalistic tendency in Scholastic thought. I
think they're either just missing the point or just really and truly believe
their method is right and that's the end of it. And to them to suggest Calvin
and some of the other 1st and 2nd generation Reformed had more of an 'ad
fontes' Humanistic type understanding of the text is just unacceptable to them.
What
I mean by that is.....the Renaissance is usually looked down as the beginnings
of the West's rejection of Christianity. It was a rejection of Medievalism, the
whole mindset of Christendom which had dominated Europe for almost a thousand
years. The Renaissance in part rejected how the Middle Ages looked at things
like art, science, philosophy etc... The Renaissance battle cry was 'ad
fontes'...to the sources. They wanted to de-clutter ideas, remove all the
Aristotle and Roman theology (I'm generalizing here).....and get back to older
notions about everything from art to ideas about beauty etc... Frankly a lot of
it meant going back to Greco-Roman paganism.
But
it also generated the study of texts and ideas and though many don't want to
admit it, with all its bad influence, it also led to some good things...and
certainly provided a fertile field for something like the Reformation to
happen. It was that mindset that people like Erasmus and Luther to go back to
the Biblical Texts....not the Vulgate (the Latin translation used by the Roman
Catholic Church during the Middle Ages).........Luther re-discovered
Paul....Paul minus Aristotle and this led to the Reformation. To me the
Renaissance and Reformation are inseparable.
We
think of Humanism today in terms of secular Humanism (man being the measure of
all things) but Renaissance Humanism wasn't quite the same thing. It did seek
to shift the cultural bent away from the Scholastic/Professional/Elitist
dominated realm of professional theologians, lawyers etc and revitalize the
common man. It placed a greater emphasis on things like history, morality and
how these things would influence ideas like poetry, art, and rhetoric. They
wanted the common man to participate in culture and not leave it to the elites.
There's much more to it, but that's a broad-brush sweeping explanation. This
Renaissance Humanism wanted go back 'to the sources' which meant back
Greco-Roman art and poetry but it also meant (for some) a return to the Bible.
The argument of Armstrong and those like him is that Calvin and others were
reading the Bible with something of a Renaissance mindset. Not entirely, but
they certainly weren't sitting down like Thomas Aquinas and reading the Bible
through a logic-system-philosophical grid. The later 'Calvinists' consciously
re-adapted the Scholastic method. It had started before Calvin's successor
Theodore Beza but he and people like Francis Turretin are usually pegged as the
initiators (or perhaps re-initiators) of Reformed Scholasticism.
Definitely
by the time you reach some like Charles Hodge in the 19th century, you find a
different 'method' of theology, a different way of approaching the Bible. Hodge
believed theology is just like any of the other sciences. Instead of studying
nature like a Biologist or Geologist, the Theologian is essentially a scientist
studying the materiel of Scripture. The other day I listened to Muller and
Scott Clark mock the idea that Reformed Scholasticism was Rationalist....but
that's exactly what it is. I have a quote posted down at the bottom of my
website:
"In the theology of Zanchi, at the very point of transition
from Reformation to Orthodoxy, the spirit of medieval Scholasticism has thus
begun to replace that of the Reformers at a point where it counted most. To the
extent to which—under the influence of Thomistic-Aristotelian tradition—the
christocentric orientation of Calvin's thinking shifted toward a metaphysics of
causality in the thought of his successors, Reformed theology ceased to be a
theology of revelation."
Otto Grundler in 'Thomism and Calvinism'
Otto Grundler in 'Thomism and Calvinism'
The
term Reformed Orthodoxy when used historically, is synonymous with Reformed
Scholasticism. If you get what Grundler is saying...it's pretty stunning.
I
(and I'm in the minority to be sure!) think this reaches its zenith with
Charles Hodge and in different areas of theology and application with the ideas
of Abraham Kuyper and Cornelius Van Til. They believe that speculative theology
can develop (with breathtaking presumptive confidence!) systems of theology
that range far beyond the text....and yet because the method is right they can
call these systems they build....Biblical. To me they're building paper castles
built on sand, but the issue is method. I think they've imbibed philosophical
ideas which drive their theological method and how they interact with the text
and this leads to their 'expansionism' in dealing with all their modern
'worldview' topics that I don't think are Biblical in the least.
They
would say I've imbibed philosophical ideas and become something of a mystic who
embraces irrationality and contradiction....to which I would counter I am
simply desiring to 'submit' to the Biblical text and form my ideas of logic and
system around a Christocentric reading of the text rather than bring
pre-conceived notions of logic and system with me when I read the text.
R
Scott Clark was talking about syllogisms and logic and mocking the idea that we
wouldn't use these in theology. Of course we want syllogisms and logic to be used
when someone is building an airplane of whatever (I can't remember his specific
example)........and he's right about the airplane or something like that. We
use that type of reason to determine of things work and work in a safe
consistent manner.
But
to apply this type of thinking to theology, to metaphysics, to
revelation....wow, you're saying that these things have to 'make sense to me'
in order for them to be true. I just don't think the Bible approaches theology
or the doctrine of God in this way...at all.
Cornelius
Van Til and Gordon Clark were embroiled in a controversy in the 1940's and
after over the Incomprehensibility of God. Gordon Clark was to me a
hyper-rationalist and many Van Tillians would agree. I guess I just go further
and look at it as a matter of degrees. Van Til was a rationalist in many areas
of his thought while Clark was a full blown Rationalist that had a startlingly
reductionist formulaic view of God and theology....really pushing the edge of
blasphemy. It's no accident most modern hyper-Calvinists love Gordon Clark and
resonate with his view of God. Hyper-Calvinists believe they're elevating God
above all other Christian claimants. Actually they're trashing God and reducing
Him to mathematical formulas. They think they can pick him apart and break down
in pretty simple terms all of his works and theological revelation. It often
makes me ill.
The
Reformed Scholasticism of today is not quite that bad....but it gives birth to
Hyper-Calvinism....it's not much of a leap to jump from where most people are
at to a position like Clark. Many are closer than they realize when it comes to
a host of theological issues.
It's
disappointing to me because in the end I find that with most Reformed people
it's not really about what's right, but about who gets to claim Calvin and who
gets to claim that they're the 'real' Reformed or the 'authentic' descendants
of Calvin etc...
It's
not about what theological method is correct, but it's an argument of tradition
and the agenda of the modern denominations.
From
my standpoint, I'm not interested in claiming anyone nor am I interested in
their denominational traditions. I don't care about being
'Reformed'....whatever that means. I say that because the term means many
different things to different people. I've known many Reformed that espouse
Anglican or Lutheran theology in certain areas and yet they're convinced 'that'
IS Reformed. Many Reformed today think the term means....5 point Calvinist.
Predestination
was not what differentiated the Reformed from the Lutherans. Luther believed in
predestination, reprobation...all of it. That wasn't the issue. The issue
regarded the extent of Sola Scriptura as the sole authority....especially in
the realm of Ecclesiology. Ironically I would say about 95% of 'Reformed'
people today aren't Reformed at all when it comes to this matter.
To
some Reformed means 'Covenant Theology' and therefore they don't want to call
Baptists 'Reformed' because they don't properly embrace it.
In
some ways I'm very Reformed.......in the original sense meaning Sola Scriptura
applied to Ecclesiology. I believe in Reforming the Church 'all the way back'
to the Bible, in terms of worship and practice....every aspect of the Christian
and the Church's life. That's why I reject Presbyterianism with all my heart
and soul. It's an extra-biblical rejection of this principle.
But
for most 'Reformed' today, it's about denominational affiliation and
Confessionalism.
They
can have it.
The
proto-protestant position I've embraced is Biblicist. In some ways I'm similar
to the Reformed. In other ways I'm much closer to say, Mennonites. And like the
Waldensians and Mennonites, in some ways I'm closer to Catholicism than I am to
Luther or Calvin. When I say that, I'm pointing to aspects of Popular Medieval
Catholicism...not the Papacy or anything that goes with it. In some ways I'm
closer to Eastern Orthodoxy.
I
just find it all interesting in seeing where they're at today and the issues
that have arisen in the past. They're instructive both in terms of the modern
Reformed mindset regarding theology but also on the whole question of theology
in general. I remember I was wrestling with all this stuff about 13-14 years
ago and coming to conclusions similar to Armstrong....not only with regard to
Calvin and modern Reformed theology but also with regard to theological method
in general. And then that book (Armstrong's) fell into my hands....and blew me
away. Up until that point, Amyraut was just that 'inconsistent' 4 point
Calvinist. The issue of course has nothing to do with 4 vs. 5 points of
Calvinism. The issue is the theology that leads to formulating something like
the '5 points' in the first place.
Around
the same time I ran into whole Norman Shepherd debate over Justification
etc...... This was while I was at Greenville Seminary. And the issues regarding
how you 'do' theology were related. All these things starting coming together
and I realized I had no future or interest in Presbyterianism (which I already
loathed) nor 'Reformed' circles in general. So I left Greenville and started
down my lonely road in history. It has been lonely, but really rewarding and
exciting. It's opened up whole worlds to me.
And
then in 2007 I picked up Verduin and that was just sort of icing on the cake.
It was refreshing (almost to the point of tears) to find someone else
expressing so many of the same ideas and not afraid to say it. I knew that book
was excoriated in Reformed circles. I wish I had picked it up back in about
1996, but I might not have been ready. At that point I probably would have
tossed it aside as well.
I
look forward to conversations with X-, Y- and you regarding these matters.