Charles Partee in his book Calvin and Classical Philosophy, by way of introduction, offers a nice treatment on the entailments of a mediaeval Christian Humanism versus a theological Scholasticism, as both of those were present in the early formation of the Protestant Reformation; with, of course, particular reference to John Calvin. I am going to share a long passage from Partee because it is rather pertinent to the way I see myself operating; as far as both mood and method goes. I will provide the passage, and then offer up some closing thoughts (the usual).
In the sixteenth century, however, the term “Christian philosophy” is used in a different and important sense by some of the Christian humanists in referring to their program of reforming Christian thought by returning the correct understanding of Holy Scripture and purer Christianity in opposition to what they consider to be fruitless speculations and philosophical accretions of scholastic theology. These reformers seek not only a proper and faithful understanding of the Scriptures and patristic theology, but also a better and freer use of the wisdom of classical thought which does not jeopardize the revealed truth of God. For them revelation is not auxiliary to reason, rather reason is auxiliary to faith. That is to say, they object to the speculative use of reason to seek out hidden things, but not to its humble application to the understanding of God’s word. Christian philosophy in the sixteenth century does not attempt a synthesis of revealed and reasoned theology in the Thomistic manner, but is willing, and even eager, to use the insights of classical philosophy as an aid to the exposition of Christian theology and as an admirable example of the fact that God has not left himself entirely without witness even among the pagans. Thus the Christian humanists study the philosophers not in order to achieve a balance between the unaided and the enlightened mind, but to point out the approximations of Christian truth which may be seen by the light of nature and also the darkness into which the errors of the philosophers lead.
Of course, the entire Renaissance recovery of the enthusiasm for classical learning involved in the knowledge and appreciation of classical thought and culture on the part of the humanists. Moreover, since many; if not most, of the humanists are Christians in some sense, it is difficult to distinguish the Christian humanists from other humanists with precision. Paul Kristeller suggests that the Christian humanists “are those scholars with a humanist classical and rhetorical training who explicitly discussed religious or theological problems in all or some of their writings.”
It is true that the rhetorical tradition is an important identifying mark. As the Christian humanists use rhetoric, its relation to dialectics is a matter of emphasis. That is to say, they do not deny the value of dialectic, but they are more interested in the persuasive clarity of the truth than the irrefragability of logic. In Plato and Isocrates one sees a conflict between rhetoric and philosophy. Plato opposes rhetoric, the art of persuasion, to dialectic, the art of correct division and generalization. Plato thinks of persuasion as a matter of opinion based on probability; dialectic he regards as a matter of knowledge based on truth. The discussion develops in Aristotle’s seeking to rescue rhetoric from the obloquy of Sophistic flattery, by teaching that rhetoric is the counterpart of dialectic. In Cicero, whose ideal is the combination of rhetoric and philosophy which he sees exemplified in both Plato and Aristotle, wisdom is to be combined with rhetoric.
The same emphasis on the combination of rhetoric and dialectic is seen in Augustine. Augustine, who was trained as a rhetorician, insists that dialectics is of great service in understanding the Scripture. In Book Four of his Christian Doctrine he makes the point that rhetoric is necessary for the Christian orator, but truth is more important than the style of expression. The youthful study of the rules of oratory is not to be despised, but the study of the sacred writers who combine eloquence and wisdom, is sufficient to teach the wise man both what and how to communicate.
Likewise the Christian humanists are concerned with clarity in the service of truth rather than with syllogisms in the service of logic or embellishment in the service of persuasion. Since Melanchthon thinks that truth and clarity go together, he defends the clarity of rhetoric in opposition to the obscurity of some philosophy, but insists that dialectic and rhetoric are joined by nature. The Christian humanists associate scholasticism with sophistry and dialectical pride which seeks to find God at the end of a series of logical distinctions rather than with the attempt to make the truth evident and therefore persuasive. Moreover, as Rice observes [sic],
The Scholastics answered the question “Is theology a science?” in the affirmative; the fathers answered it negatively. Theology is not a scientia, but a sapiential, not a systematically ordered body of true certain but undemonstrable principles of revelation, but a doctrina sacra of Scripture, a holy rhetoric in the humble service of the text, unprofaned by the syllogism of the Posterior Analytics.[1]
As Partee makes clear, in general, the Christian humanists, along with the church fathers, were interested in following the contours of Holy Scripture, rather than the speculative and discursive reasonings of the profane philosophers (which the scholastics were generally attuned to). These distinctions, as in any human endeavor, are not always nice and neat in the history; so the goal, of this development, is simply to provide demarcations available between two distinct approaches and methodologies that were profoundly informative, for our purposes, with reference to the Protestant Reformation. Partee argues that Calvin’s orientation was along the lines provided for by the Christian humanist rather than the scholastic tradition; so, Calvin’s form and style found within his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Even so, Calvin still operates with certain scholastic categories of his day, and yet he reifies them under a Christ conditioned, and thus Scriptural way, that fits well with the Christian humanist mood; indeed, as we have been considering that, with Partee’s help, in this post.
In regard to modern theologians, I consider both Karl Barth and Thomas F. Torrance, respectively, as the clearest examaples of those following in the steps of the Christian humanist mood; and so in step even with Calvin and Luther in that way. There is a commitment to Holy Scripture and its reality in Jesus Christ, and the categories that come directly from this revelation that they attempt to pay attention to in theological ways. This cuts across the scholastic way, which involves the dialectics of thesis, antithesis, synthesis, so on and so forth. The scholastic way, as Partee helps us understand, involves a series of logico-deductive decisions, based primarily, not on a direct engagement with the text and reality of Scripture, but with an engagement with the commentary tradition the schoolmen prior to them offers up. This presents scholastic theologians with the problem of engaging, not with Scriptural categories, per se, but instead with the accretions of the sectarian theologians that had been developing in the mediaeval church for centuries upon centuries. This of course is a problem because as Christian theologians we are concerned not with the speculations of others, in regard to God and His ways, but, in principle, are concerned with the Word of God as He confronts afresh anew through the relational and organic sitz im leben of His life as He encounters us, as He is for us, in Jesus Christ.
People are still failing to recognize these really basic things as they have developed in the theological history of the church. Modern Christians, whether professional or lay, are too often uncritically controlled by the accretions and speculations of the schoolmen, rather than being contradicted and formed by fresh encounters with the Logos of God. This situation needs to be remedied. Of course, this takes thoughtfulness and work among the church’s membership; and I have grown weary of holding out hope that people are actually willing to put in the work to come to see how all of these things matter and impinge upon their daily Christian existences. X/Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc. are not sufficient in coming into the light of these greater realities.
[1] Charles Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy (Netherlands: E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1977), 8–11 kindle.