4 Reformed Orthodoxy

Autopistia : the self-convincing authority of scripture in reformed theology Belt, H. van der Citation Belt, H. van der. (2006, October 4). Autopistia : the self-convincing authority of scripture in reformed theology. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/4582 Version: Corrected Publisher’s Version Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the License: Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/4582 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). id7775687 pdfMachine by Broadgun Software - a great PDF writer! - a great PDF creator! - http://www.pdfmachine.com http://www.broadgun.com 4 Reformed Orthodoxy The period of Reformed orthodoxy extends from the Reformation to the time that liberal theology became predominant in the European churches and universities. During the period the Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican churches were the official churches in Protestant countries and religious polemics between Catholicism and Protestantism formed an integral part of the intense political strife that gave birth to modern Europe. Reformed orthodoxy is usually divided into three periods that represent three different stages; there is no watershed between these periods and it is difficult to “ ” determine exact dates. During the period of early orthodoxy the confessional and doctrinal codifications of Reformed theology took place. This period is characterized by polemics against the Counter-Reformation; it starts with the death of the second- generation Reformers (around 1565) and ends in the first decades of the seventeenth century.1 The international Reformed Synod of Dort (1618-1619) is a useful milestone, 2 “ because this synod codified Reformed soteriology. The second period, called high ” orthodoxy, is the time in which the all-embracing Reformed theological systems were developed; scholasticism became the dominant scholarly method at the Protestant theological faculties in Europe. It is difficult to give an exact date for the end of the second period, but mostly the change of the centuries is taken as the landmark. In the “ ” eighteenth century, the period of late orthodoxy, the character of orthodoxy changed due to confrontation with the intellectual climate of the early Enlightenment. In this chapter we will focus on the first two periods because they turned out to be the most autopistia 3 interesting for the development of the of Scripture. In the period of late orthodoxy the theological system was mostly reproduced in the hope of maintaining the correct statements of earlier generations.4 Moreover, it was hard to find examples of the use of term auvto,pistoj in the representative theological works of this period.5 1 PRRD 2 Muller, 1 , 30-32. For the division of early, high, and late orthodoxy, Muller refers to Grundlagen der Dogmatik Weber, 1, 140-148. 2 The termination of the three periods is from W.J. Van Asselt. W.J. Van Asselt and P.L. Inleiding in de gereformeerde scholastiek Rouwendal, eds., , Zoetermeer 1998, 114. At this point Van Asselt does not follow Muller who distinguishes two phases of early orthodoxy (ca. PRRD 2 PRRD 2 1565-1618 and 1618-1640). Muller, 2 , 94. Cf. Muller, 1 , 31. 94. 3 “Reformed orthodoxy” rather than “Reformed scholasticism” We use the term because “scholasticism” stands for a method. “Orthodoxy” in this chapter has a historical and not a ‘The Problem of Protestant Scholasticism: A Review and normative meaning. Cf. R.A. Muller, ’ Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise Definition, in , ed. W.J. Van Asselt and E. Dekker, Grand Rapids 2001, 45-64, 50-53. 4 PRRD 2 Muller, 1 , 84. 5 The term auvto,pistoj is not used by Bernard De Moor (1709-1780) in his doctrine of Scripture À in his extensive commentary on the theological compendium of his teacher John Marck Commentarius perpetuus in Johannis Marckii Compendium (1656-1731). B. De Moor, theologiæ Christianæ didactico-elencticum , Leiden 1761-1778, 7 vol. He brought nearly all the substantial material together from the major dogmatic works of his predecessors in Utrecht and “tomb monument” of Reformed orthodoxy. Leiden. It is called the Van Asselt and Rouwendal, Inleiding À Marck either. À Marck, Compendium , 150. Auvto,pistoj is not used by John J. theologiae Christianae didactico elenchticum , 2nd ed., Groningen 1690. 124 The aim of this study is not to give a complete survey of the use of the term, but to trace its use in the history of Reformed theology and to draw some theological conclusions from the use and meaning of auvto,pistoj. This cross-section is important, autopistia because the of Scripture is essential for the ongoing quest for certainty in Protestant theology.6 We have chosen to analyze the use and meaning of the term auvto,pistoj and its derivatives in the context of four aspects in the theological development: 1. The Reformed concept of the self-convincing character of Scripture was influenced by the developing debate between early Reformed orthodoxy and the Catholicism of the Counter-Reformation. We will look at the use of auvto,pistoj in this polemical context and especially at the theology of William Whitaker (4.2). 2. During the period of early orthodoxy Reformed theology was institutionalized at autopistia the universities; therefore we will study the of Scripture in the context of this academic education. We will study this aspect from the theology of the Leiden professor externum internum Franciscus Junius (4.3). As we will see the terms and become more autopistia and more important in the development of the relationship between and testimonium ; therefore we will discuss the word-pair in a separate paragraph (4.4). 3. The period of high orthodoxy was characterized by increasing internal Protestant polemics. We will trace how auvto,pistoj was used in the Arminian Controversy (4.5). Another conflict regarded textual criticism and we will study the position of Francis Turretin in this debate (4.6). 4. A change took place in the intellectual sphere; the Enlightenment followed the Renaissance. Reformed orthodoxy was confronted with the rationalism of the early é Descartes (1596 modern philosophers like Ren -1650) who took the self-evident ego cogito ergo sum proposition as his methodological starting point. It is not our intention to analyze the tensions between orthodoxy and modernism, but we are curious autopistia if the debate with early modernism influenced the Reformed concept of the of Scripture. For this aspect we will analyze the use of auvto,pistoj by Gisbert Voetius (4.7). Before turning to the four above-mentioned aspects, the relationship between Reformation and Reformed orthodoxy will first be discussed (4.1). 4.1 Reformation and Reformed Orthodoxy The comparison of Reformed orthodoxy with the Reformation often evokes feelings of sympathy for the Reformers and antipathy for their heirs, because their theology is interpreted as a deviation from the Reformation and a return to medieval scholasticism. In recent research the continuity between Reformation and Reformed orthodoxy is more “ strongly emphasized and Reformed orthodoxy is rehabilitated. The theory of decline ” “ ” and discontinuity and the theory of negative continuity are rejected by the adherents “ ” of the theory of positive continuity. In this theory the theology of the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the Post-Reformation orthodoxy develops progressively and this 6 Heim concludes that the historical development of the problem of certainty in Protestant autopistia Das Gewißheitsproblem orthodoxy hinges on the of Scripture. Heim, , 282. 125 development is interpreted positively.7 The Protestant Reformers were influenced by the medieval method of scholasticism from the very beginning, notwithstanding the new theological discoveries; there was a theological and methodological continuity from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century. The advocates of this third theory take the differences between the rhetoric and dialectic style of the Reformation and the static and academic style of orthodoxy and the differences in theological context and literary genre into account. This is a correction of the simplification that presupposed and thus found an antithesis between Calvin and the Calvinists.8 The scheme of the three different theories for the relation between Reformation and Reformed orthodoxy is a simplification, for the question whether continuity or discontinuity is valued as negative or positive is due to the chosen approach to Reformed “ ” orthodoxy. For instance the Dutch Further Reformation to which many of the Dutch praxis Reformed orthodox theologians belonged, emphasized the practice of piety ( pietatis 9 ) more strongly than the Reformation. This discontinuity must be interpreted in the light of the emerging international and interconfessional movement of Pietism. If the rise of Pietism is valued positively, this discontinuity with the Reformation can also be valued 10 “ positively. In the field of spirituality some scholars advocate a theory of positive ” discontinuity. The newer approach comes forth from a desire to separate the historical and the theological tasks.11 This is understandable as a reaction to the theological bias in the historical research of dialectical theology, but the distinction of the historical and the theological tasks should not become a separation. This is neither possible nor desirable. In dialectical theology it was clear through which colored glasses Reformed orthodoxy was approached.

Load more