The Medieval Style of Disputation (The Scholastic Method)

It’s place and use in classical classrooms

Thesis: The project of scholasticism should be revived and continued within the classical Christian education movement.

What is the Scholastic Project?

The project of scholasticism is, to say the least, ambitious. It has as its goal nothing less than the complete systematization and harmonization of all human knowledge and understanding. More specifically, the scholastics of old sought to place into harmony that which could be known by means of human reason and that which could be known by means of divine revelation. No area of human learning is outside of the bounds or scope of scholasticism. Scholasticism is an inherently Christian approach to inquiry and education because it begins with the affirmation that all truth belongs to God, that truth is from him and points us back to him, and that human reason is God’s gift to man, as image bearers, to aid us in the discovery of truth. Truth, understood Christianly, is always a conduit of worship and praise to the source of all truth. In this light, when we align our understanding with the truth, whether it is a historical truth, a logical or mathematical truth, a literary truth, a linguistic truth, or a truth about the natural world, etc., we align ourselves more closely with the perfect knowledge of God. Learning what is true helps us to think as God knows. The pursuit of truth is a Christian discipline and the attainment of truth is an aid to our worship of, to borrow a line from Francis Schaeffer, “the God who is there.”

Who were the Scholastics?

Scholasticism, fully realized, belongs to the later Medieval period, hitting its peak performance in the 12th and 13th centuries. We might think of a number of figures from earlier in history who were important in making progress towards scholasticism such as Augustine (354-430 A.D.) and Boethius (c. 480-524 A.D.). These two are great examples of pre-scholastics who embodied the spirit of scholasticism in that they showed a wide and open interest in inquiry into all matters of human understanding. They wrote widely over a large range of topics and, in all things, they sought to harmonize the truths discoverable by reason with the truth revealed in Scripture and through Christ himself. 

Augustine, in his book On Christian Doctrine, expressed himself on this topic by stating,

Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it. For, as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver, and garments, which the same people when going out of Egypt appropriated to themselves, designing them for a better use, not doing this on their own authority, but by the command of God, the Egyptians themselves, in their ignorance, providing them with things which they themselves were not making a good use of; [Ex. 3. 21, 22; 12. 35, 26.] in the same way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God's providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also,—that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life,—we must take and turn to a Christian use.

An important point which should be seen in what Augustine says here is that the goal is not the mere harmonization of faith and reason. In other words, Christians are not interested in a kind of syncretism with the world in which we adjust some worldly things to fit within the faith and some things of faith to fit the world. May it never be! Rather, Christians set free the truths which human reason has discovered as a result of God’s common grace to all mankind and the light of nature which has been shed equally upon all. These truths have been trapped amid the rocks of paganism and unbelief, but they are to be mined out, polished, and fitted into crowns of righteousness. Let me speak even more plainly, lest anyone not understand me. The Scriptures and Christ himself are preeminent and we as Christians are to redeem the truths that have been discovered by human reason and to demonstrate that all truth is already in harmony with what God has revealed in his word and in his Son. If an article of faith must be altered to admit some secular truth into our understanding, the secular truth was never truth at all. If a secular truth can be shown to be in harmony with the articles of faith contained in holy Scripture, then that truth was never secular.

Augustine wrote on matters not only theological and philosophical but he addressed issues concerning history, literature, composition and rhetoric, politics of the state and local criminal justice, etc. He showed an open interest in all things that touched humanity and he sought to understand them like a Christian. Boethius is another pre-scholastic who embodied the spirit of scholasticism. Boethius once wrote, “Fidem, si poteris, rationemque conjunge” or “So far as it is possible, let faith be joined with reason.” Boethius, like Augustine, saw the jewels of truth among the pagans of old and sought to mine them out and make them useful in God’s service.

Boethius translated many of Aristotle’s works, including his whole Organon (his books on logic) and wrote commentaries on these as well. How did he put them into service? Among other things, Boethius used the powers of Aristotelian logic and the precision it brings to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. He did so in a day when the Ostrogoth emperor Theodoric “the Great” was ruling over the fallen Western empire of Rome. Theodoric was an Arian, he embraced the heresy of Arius which was rejected by the council of Nicaea, and he denied that the God of the Bible is a Trinity. Boethius was eventually falsely accused of some political intrigue as an excuse for his enemies to rid themselves of this defender of orthodoxy. He was arrested and eventually brutally executed. It was in his prison while awaiting death that Boethius wrote his famous work, The Consolation of Philosophy, which is a perfect example of the godly use of human reason.

The best of the scholastics were essentially men like Augustine and Aquinas with a great love for God and for truth wherever it may be found, but who had a thoroughly developed system of inquiry and a set goal of actively trying to master all that was available to human understanding by reason or revelation. Some important scholastic thinkers include Anselm of Canterbury, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and Thomas Aquinas. Anselm is sometimes called the “father of scholasticism,” but if he is the father Aquinas is the king.

Some of the scholastics, in a self conscious attempt to master human understanding, created what are known as Summas. Summas are tomes that attempt to comprehensively order human knowledge concerning a particular subject. Anselm’s Proslogion is an example of a Summa, William of Ockham wrote Summas on logic, but the prime examples of Summas are found in the works of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and his Summa Contra Gentiles. These may be called prime examples because they are obviously among the most thorough attempts of their kind. In Aquinas’ Summa Theologica there are 631 questions posed for inquiry into the realm of Christian theology and each of these questions is further subdivided into articles for closer examination. By the time Aquinas had enumerated all the different aspects of Christian theology in his work there were more than 3,000 different points of inquiry into Christian theology which he examined.

The Process of Scholastic Disputation

So how does the scholastic method work? To begin with, the scholastic method seeks a general topic to examine. That topic could be anything, really. One could attempt a Summa on Theology (as did Aquinas), on Logic (as did William of Ockham), or on anything one desires be it Literature, Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, Theater, Fine Arts, Practical Arts, Sports, whatever. Naming your topic of general inquiry is the first step.

The second step is to attempt to determine what is the primary question (or sub-topic) to be inquired into as it relates to the general topic? What logically should one try to address first when wanting to examine a general topic to its fullest extent? One must keep in mind that every subsequent question/topic which comes after this initial question (along with their answers) will have to be in harmony with each other. One cannot ask and answer a matter in a Summa and then proceed to the next question without any further reference to prior questions and answers. Consistency and agreement are a must in a Summa. So choose well what is primary and then hold yourself to consistency. If you cannot be consistent then you have misstepped somewhere.

The third step, once you have a general topic and have decided on the primary question, is to enumerate articles for your primary question. By articles we mean different angles from which the question may be considered. What are the various aspects which must be considered about a given question/topic in order to fully understand the matter? The goal is to be exhaustive and comprehensive.

The fourth step, after enumeration articles, is to take a position on the first article enumerated and then state the best objections possible to your own position. One should state as many objections as one could imagine a reasonable person might give. No punches should be pulled, no making of straw men should be done. It is to the advantage of the person writing their Summa that he or she challenges themselves with the best possible objections to their position. 

The fifth step, after stating all the objections, is to offer a “sed contra” or an “on the other hand” in which the writer of the Summa cites an authoritative source which affirms his or her own position being taken. This is meant to establish that there is precedence for the position one is taking on the matter and that one does not stand alone in history or in reason when taking the position he does. Authorities can be holy Scripture, earlier philosophers, theologians, or specialists in the area of study you are inquiring into.

The sixth step, after giving the sed contra, is to write an original argument in favor of one’s position on the article under consideration. This is not a place to directly answer the objections raised, rather, one should simply put all the force of reason, evidence, and revelation behind one’s argument in favor of their position without reference or concern to objections which have been raised.

The seventh and final step, after having written your own answer to the matter, is to dismantle the objections which have been raised against your position. Possibly the weight of your own argument has implicitly overcome the objections, but this is the time to make clear why the objections fail, or misunderstand, or lack nuance, etc., and are insufficient to overcome your position on the matter.

After this there is only left to repeat the process for all articles enumerated for your first questions and then carry on to the second question of your general topic.

Summa Outline: Schema

1. General Topic

   1. Questions related to the topic

      1. Articles: Angles form which to consider a given question

         1. Objections: State as many objections of good quality against your own position on the Question as may be given by reasonable opponents.

            1. Sed Contra: Quote an author/thinker of note that addresses the subject matter being discussed. The quote should appear to be in support of your position on the question. This quote should be “contra” or against the above stated objections.

               1. “I answer that”: This is where you write your own original argument in defense of your position on the question. 

                  1. Reply to Objections: Dismantle the stated objection with the use of good reasoning and evidence.

Summa Outline: Particular Case

1. General Topic: Theology

   1. Primary Question: God

      1. Articles: 1. Whether God exists? 2. Whether God exists necessarily or contingently? 3. Whether or not God is omnipotent? 4. Whether or not God is omniscient? 5. Whether or not God’s is omnipresent? 6. Whether or not God has all perfections? 7. Whether or not God’s perfections and omnipotence are the same attribute? 8. Whether or not God suffers any change? 9. Etc…

         1. Affirm article one: “God exists” 

         2. Objection 1: “God’s existence and the existence of gratuitous suffering are incompatible, gratuitous suffering exists, therefore God cannot not exist.”

         3. Other objections…

            1. Sed Contra: “It is clear then from what has been said that there is a substance which is eternal and unmovable and separate from sensible things.” -Aristotle

               1. I answer that: The existence of God is certain and demonstrable in numerous ways and is nowise diminished by the arguments against it. First, God’s existence may be demonstrated by the finitude of the time, space, and matter. Second, the existence of God may be demonstrated by the existence objective moral values. Third, the existence of God may be demonstrated by the resurrection of Jesus. Fourth, God’s existence may be demonstrated by coming to understand the impossibility of his non existence once it is understood what is meant by “God.” Fifth, God’s existence may be immediately confirmed by coming to know him personally through the work of the Holy Spirit.

               2. Concerning the first demonstration….

               3. Concerning the second….

               4. Etc…

                  1. Reply to Objection 1: It is impossible to prove that any suffering in the world is actually gratuitous. For as mortals we are necessarily limited in our knowledge and understanding. Often times what is a complete mystery to us, or even that which might seem like an injustice to us, is completely changed by the revelation of a little bit more information. It may be that suffering in the world, both of humans and animals, may be towards some greater end even when that end is hidden from us. 

                     Further, the notion that gratuitous suffering is a strike against the existence of god seems to entail a value judgment of the sort, “Gratuitous suffering is bad and ought not to be allowed.” Such value judgments are impossible in a world without God because they lack sufficient grounding to make statements like these objectively true. Thus this objection is ultimately self defeating because if it is true then it is also false and if false then false. Therefore this objection ends up being another demonstration of God’s existence.

                  2. Reply to other objections…

Application and Value in the Classical Classroom

Let’s take some time to consider the use and value of all of this in the classical classroom (or homeschool). First of all it should be apparent that the whole range of the liberal arts is open to inquiry in this way. In fact, every topic is open to this kind of inquiry as long as it can be divided into intelligible questions and articles which are stated in the form of propositions to be affirmed or denied. This means every class, every discipline that we teach or learn, can use this method to inquire further. The scholastic method involves the whole trivium in the process of inquiry and it welcomes the quadrivium’s input wherever applicable. Each of the liberal arts, as well as all of the humanities, can themselves be proper subjects of scholastic disputation and the fruits of each of these disciplines are constantly called upon while writing disputations.

The skills of grammar are everywhere to be seen as one seeks to express themselves with clarity and precision. The skills of logic are used throughout when learning to separate a topic into its mutually exclusive parts and then in building a positive case for one’s position and dismantling objections. The skills of rhetoric are likewise employed constantly. Disputations are a gold mine for the canon of Invention, helping students to think through what all a person can speak about on any given topic while learning to order issues in relation to their importance, and how to narrow down a thesis to a mutually exclusive topic and avoid rabbit trails. Further, the “I answer that” section welcomes the use of all the modes of persuasion, logos, pathos, and ethos.

Further, one can employ many of the skills of the classical composition exercises known as the Progymnasmata in writing disputations. The “sed contra” lends itself well to the exercise known as Chreia in which a wise quote is upheld and praised and its use is acknowledged for a particular subject. Confirmation and Refutation find an obvious home here in the Scholastic disputation. It is not hard to see how the exercise of Comparison can come in handy in disputations, helping students to see in what ways the topic at hand is like and unlike other matters. As far as Impersonation and Characterization is concerned one could have a blast writing the same disputation over and over again but from the approach of different thinkers. How would C. S. Lewis have written this disputation? How would Jane Austen have written it? How would Socrates have approached it?

When one considers the extent of Aquinas’ Summas it may raise reasonable doubt about asking seventh graders to do the same. Nevertheless, one does not have to write a complete Summa in order to write a disputation. The obvious place to start with our students is in handing them a narrowed down topic related to something they have been reading or doing in your classroom. Rather than asking a student to write a Summa on Politics, hand them a single article for disputation like, “Is there such a thing as unalienable rights?” or “Is history something that can be really known?” or “Should every person be made to learn geometry?” or “Are human sense perceptions reliable?” Etc., etc. I once wrote a disputation on the question of whether the council of Elrond chose rightly in making Frodo the ring bearer. You can have a lot of fun with disputations while still getting all of the grammatical, logical, and rhetorical benefits of the exercise.

Finally, I would propose that writing a complete Summa, even if not to the extent of one of Aquinas’, would be a very suitable capstone project for seniors to do instead of the more typical senior thesis. Nothing at all against senior theses, but what if there could be more than one good way to exercise the whole of one’s classical education besides just this one approach? Writing a senior year Summa would surely be another valid option and would be open to all the same disciplines, and  all the subsequent scrutinies and evaluations before a panel, while allowing a student to explore a broader topic and properly dividing it into its mutually exclusive parts.