Pages

Monday, November 13, 2023

Thematic Continuity

 

A more topical or thematic approach also unveils varying degrees of continuity between the sixteenth century and Scholasticism.

The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, by Matthew Barrett

Barrett will examine this continuity through two case studies: first, natural theology, and second, the fourfold meaning of Scripture.

Natural Theology

From John Calvin’s Institutes:

“Again, you cannot behold him clearly unless you acknowledge him to be the fountainhead and source of every good.”

Natural theology enjoyed a continual presence from the church fathers to the Scholastics, at least through the earlier Scholastics to include Thomas.  There has been thought in some Reformed circles in the twentieth century that the early Reformers also abandoned this notion.  In fact, it is often Calvin that is used to make this argument, even by luminaries such as Karl Barth and Cornelius Van Til.  Barrett will present an alternative case.

He starts with a bang, referring to the contemporary translation of Calvin’s Institutes:

Calvin kept at bay Scripture citations in his opening chapters so that he could give proof of God’s existence, but McNeill and Battles have written into the text over forty biblical passages, which only serve to mask Calvin’s argument from natural theology.

Calvin would reference the apostle Paul in Romans 1: God has shown Himself to even the pagans.  Further, man prefers to worship even wood and stone, as opposed to not acknowledging that there is a god.  Calvin would note that Plato would teach that the highest good of the soul is likeness to God.

Calvin recognized that natural theology couldn’t get him all the way – for example, not to the Trinity.  He would write of the need for spectacles of faith.  But by this, he did not deny a place for natural theology; he only would keep it within its proper limits.

God is the author of two books – yes, the Scripture, but also nature; Calvin would appeal to the latter to develop a natural theology, even though he did not use the language.  If Calvin differed in some way from other key Reformers (from Luther and Melanchthon and Zwingli, even extending into the eighteenth century), it was not on the matter of natural theology: instead, where many other Reformers would see that natural knowledge could aid in knowing who God is, Calvin believed that it could only lead to understanding that God is.

Barrett notes that many key documents of the Reformation point to this embrace of natural theology, from The Belgic Confession to The Westminster Confession.

In summary, the Reformation and its heirs did practice natural theology and in a way that put them, by their own admission, in “broad continuity” with the church catholic.

The Fourfold Meaning of Scripture

As the Quadriga demonstrates, the literal sense was considered indispensable.  Allegory teaches “what you should believe, morality teaches what you should do, anagogy what mark you should be aiming for” but the “letter teaches events.”

As early as the sixth century, Gregory the Great would note that the literal is the foundation on which the other meanings were built.  Yes, the Reformers criticized allegory, but only where they felt this method was abused.  They could condemn it on the one hand, and use it to understand and interpret the Old Testament on the other.  For example, Luther and Calvin would interpret the entire canon through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

How would Luther come to condemn heretical uses of allegory?  His appeal was always to the Creed when interpreting the text.  He did believe that the fourfold method needed to be complimented by the distinction of law and gospel. 

Luther would write:

“When we condemn allegories we are speaking of those that are fabricated by one’s own intellect and ingenuity without the authority of Scripture.  Other [allegories] which are made to agree with the analogy of faith not only enrich doctrine but also console consciences.”

Luther would apply a lens that incorporated the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Sacraments. 

Current Protestant misconceptions are prejudiced by modernity and the Enlightenment.  Richard Muller would warn other historians to not consider that the exegetical methods have more in common with the twentieth century than the medieval period.  The Reformers were late medieval men, having far more in common with medieval interpretation than any modern approach.

When moderns witness a Reformer emphasizing the literal sense, they must be careful that do not project the restrictions of a strict historical-grammatical mindset that came much later back into Reformation hermeneutics.

Nothing Barrett writes should be taken to mean that the Reformers did not have concerns.  However, what we see in today in their writings when looking back at the history might be greatly influenced by looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Conclusion

Using these two case studies, Barrett offers that the soil for the Reformers was Scholasticism, but it was a soil in which weeds sprouted.  Protestant Scholasticism would blossom from the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries.

So, what then provoked the Reformation?  Some answers are clear – there were, after all, weeds in the soil.  There were two broad loci of disagreement: soteriology and ecclesiology.  Yet, the Reformers embraced a majority of the doctrines from the Catholic Church, ranging from the Trinity to Christology to eschatology. 

It wasn’t Scholasticism in total that was rejected.  It was the development of the via moderna of the late Middle Ages, as exemplified by William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel.

Whether Luther always knew it or not, the source of his soteriological crisis was not so much the pure Scholasticism of the High Middle Ages but the decadent Scholasticism of the late Middle Ages.

The soteriology of the late Middle Ages was a conscious rejection of earlier Scholastics like Thomas.  And it is on this point where Barrett considers that the entire story turns.

But this comes next.

9 comments:

  1. That is a strange quote by Luther about allegory. How can you distinguish between a fabricated allegory and one that is in line with the authority of Scripture? Everyone will claim that theirs is from Scripture. But there is no objective standard to use to determine that because allegories by their nature are open to wide ranges of interpretation unless the allegory is defined and explained in the original text. Otherwise the interpretation of who ever has the most popularity or power will be adopted. That is not a way to arrive at truth.

    Also we find the allegorical method brought into Christianity by Origen in the 3rd Century. It wasn't the original
    interpretation method.

    https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My take is that he accepts allegories that pass the four filters noted immediately after the quote.

      Delete
    2. Any allegory will pass all 4 as long as it doesn't contradict other Scripture. But it is still subjective.

      Delete
    3. This is a good argument why you need a sacred tradition, stretching back to the Apostles to develop and shepherd the correct allegories.

      Delete
    4. What makes the tradition sacred? That is the whole problem with allegories. You are dealing with saying the Bible says something that it doesn't obviously say. People are infallible, even Popes. I think the best that can be done is the creeds, councils, and the overall historical witness. But that doesn't mean none of these can't be challenged with Scripture. New interpretations shouldn't be rejected out of hand but they should be put under heavy scrutiny. Jesus can all give us grades for how correct we were when we get to heaven.

      https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    5. RMB, your point isn't clear to me. If you are arguing that the only way to read and understand the Bible is a literal-historic - scientific way, this is a relatively new phenomena in the Church. It also doesn't conform with how many who claim to read it only this way actually do read it:

      And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

      Further, even if the event is historical-literal, it doesn't mean that we take from it only history. Why can it not be allegory as well?

      I do take Scripture as the only infallible authority. This says nothing about how I am to understand the meaning or what the author intends me to truly take away from the work. For this, I use my sense but also what I have been taught by those who have come before me.

      Delete
    6. "Jesus can all give us grades for how correct we were when we get to heaven."

      I sincerely hope and pray that this is how it works, and that it won't be Jesus saying "I did not know you" to people outside the Roman Catholic Church when they die. I have a lot of family members who are not Catholic.

      The stakes seem very high in the Bible, and I don't know how God can expect us all to get it exactly right, especially in this world of 1000s of Christian denominations. I certainly have my doubts about the Catholic Church, especially considering the state of the hierarchy, but I converted knowing full well it was going to be a culture war in the pews. I like to think that as long as we are genuinely searching for Christ in our hearts and actions, God will not deny us on some theological or historical sticking point.

      "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God..."

      Delete
    7. ATL: "I sincerely hope and pray that this is how it works, and that it won't be Jesus saying "I did not know you" to people outside the Roman Catholic Church when they die."

      ATL, you know where my head is on this.

      I read the apostle Peter's sermon in Acts 2 and ask myself: where in this sermon can I find a division into different denominations or traditions in the Church? And I find none. Yet 3,000 were added to their number.

      (NB: That Catholics believe Peter equals pope doesn't answer my question.)

      Delete
  2. Bionic,
    "RMB, your point isn't clear to me. If you are arguing that the only way to read and understand the Bible is a literal-historic - scientific way, this is a relatively new phenomena in the Church. It also doesn't conform with how many who claim to read it only this way actually do read it:"

    I would say a literal historical-grammatical approach. I wouldn't add science in their. This is how humans read all literature, within the syntax and grammar an author uses and the historical/cultural context of the author. I would argue this is the most universally human and ancient way to understand another human being. Yes certain hermeneutical approaches were developed and formalized after the Medieval Period, but they were building on something much more ancient.

    Even if you look at Church History you don't see allegory used as an interpretational technique until the 3rd Century with the influence of Origen. He became very popular and his approach influence Augustine and down the line. But it wasn't the original method of interpretation in the Church.

    "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

    Further, even if the event is historical-literal, it doesn't mean that we take from it only history. Why can it not be allegory as well?"

    According to the historical-grammatical hermeneutic the passage you quote about the bread and body is a metaphor that does convey the spiritual truth that Jesus' body would be broken just like that bread to bring about our salvation.

    I don't consider that last bit allegorical though. Allegory is something very specific. Even if some want to call it allegory that is okay in that the symbols have been defined by Jesus. He clearly states that the bread = His body and the wine = His blood. As long as the person doesn't try to assign different meanings to the bread and the wine or the body and the blood. I would say the literal interpretation of that passage has a spiritual & devotional character. Then I apply what I learn spiritually & devotionally. It isn't just a statement that happened in history long ago, or simply a fact that I memorize.

    "I do take Scripture as the only infallible authority. This says nothing about how I am to understand the meaning or what the author intends me to truly take away from the work. For this, I use my sense but also what I have been taught by those who have come before me."

    Me too.

    ReplyDelete