The Relationship between Protestantism and Scholasticism
Scholasticism is often met with shudders and signs of disapproval among modern Protestants, but are those responses warranted?
What’s Scholasticism?
According to dictionary.com, Scholasticism is “the system of theological and philosophical teaching predominant in the Middle Ages, based chiefly upon the authority of the church fathers and of Aristotle and his commentators.” We must note here that while there are certain doctrines associated with Scholasticism like divine simplicity and hylemorphism, it’s better to describe Scholasticism as a method that emphasizes the capability of human reason to describe the natural world. Scholastics believed that man was made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26) in regard to the intellect, so humanity is uniquely intellectual compared to the rest of the natural world. This is largely confirmed in earlier Church documents like the Athanasian Creed, which gives humanity a “rational soul” (or “reasonable soul” in some translations), and in Aristotle when he considered man to be a “rational animal,” where rationality is man’s specific difference.
As mentioned earlier, Scholastics were heavily influenced by earlier figures in the Church like St. Augustine, but some of the major influences were actually pagans or other monotheists, including but not limited to the following:
- Plato
- Aristotle
- Plotinus
- Avicenna
- Averroes
- Maimonides
So while Scholastics were largely Christian theologians and philosophers, they often borrowed from — or were influenced by — thinkers of other faiths, particularly in cosmology, ontology, and epistemology.
Protestant Criticisms
Martin Luther famously criticized the Scholastics for their adoption of Aristotelian ethical theory, suggesting that man couldn’t make choices towards God. Luther particularly stated that man cannot naturally will towards the good without God’s grace, charging the Scholastics with semi-Pelagianism. Man on his own desires to be God, not to be with God. As Luther states, “In brief, man by nature has neither correct precept nor good will,” indicating that he believes that the Scholastic emphasis on man’s reason and goodwill has been overemphasized. Luther continues, stating that one cannot be a theologian and follow Aristotle. Some reformed thinkers like Karl Barth and Cornelius Van Til go beyond Luther and believe that we cannot engage in natural theology, suggesting that man’s fallen nature prohibits that capability. However, some Reformed theologians today believe that we can engage in natural theology and even find Aquinas’s metaphysics appealing.
On a broader scale, many Protestants today fear the Scholastic method because it often becomes highly speculative and often drifts away from the Scriptures. Protestants often have a Solo Scriptura (not Sola!) mentality where the only valuable information we can glean about God is found in the Scriptures. Within this framework, if Scripture doesn’t say anything about a certain topic, we might as well ignore it and ask God when we meet Him.
Admittedly, Aquinas’ idea that every angel is its own species may seem pretty wild and highly speculative, and that’s somewhat justified, though I agree with Aquinas there.
Protestant Scholastics
Despite Luther and Calvin’s reservations, some important Protestants engaged in the Scholastic method. Protestant Scholastics — largely in the Lutheran and Reformed tradition — include the following:
- Martin Chemnitz
- Johann Gerhard
- Theodore Beza
- Francis Turretin
- Hieronymus Zanchius
Of course, there were some significant differences in the use of Scholasticism in the Protestant movements compared that of the Catholic tradition. Protestant Scholastics often appreciated Aristotle, but they weren’t always on board with Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. Rather, Protestant Scholastics used the Scholastic method to discuss the interpretation of Scripture rather than create vast metaphysical systems.
Today, Protestants are mixed on Scholasticism and the ideas it produced. Modern Protestants are often more willing to engage in philosophical discussions of Christianity and tend to give a greater role to human reason than some of the initial reformers did, but they often work differently. From my personal experience, I usually see Protestants cite the ontology and cosmology of thinkers like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Richard Swineburg rather than Scholastic and Neo-Scholastic philosophers. Evangelical groups today tend to use arguments for the existence of God based on theistic personalist concepts like the Kalam Cosmological Argument rather than classical theist arguments. Of course, the Kalam Cosmological Argument can be used by classical theists, but it doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion of Actus Purus that many of the classical arguments would.
Many Protestants are somewhat afraid of the Scholastic method and its doctrines. I spoke with a friend of mine who’s a pastor and he’s afraid that the God of classical theism is a very distant God. While I disagree, I understand his sentiment, since Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” and Plotinus’s “The One” are somewhat deistic. However, Aquinas and other Scholastics developed the Divine Attributes quite well.
Other Protestants are simply unaware of Scholastic ideas. In the low Church, very few Christians are aware of Christian philosophy and Church history at large. I’ve met several pastors — especially in Baptist, Pentecostal, and non-denominational Churches — who hadn’t even heard of concepts like divine simplicity and take the concept of natural theology for granted. I don’t hold it against them by any means, but it leads me to believe that they were simply never taught those ideas in seminary or didn’t retain that knowledge. Among the laymen, Scholasticism is practically non-existent, arguably due to a lack of interest or no preaching on the subject. Of course, preaching on Scholasticism would be odd in Church, but it’s still an important topic to discuss at some point within congregations.
With all that in mind, Scholasticism is often forgotten among Protestants because it has significant baggage and it’s kind of an obscure topic, especially for the laymen.
However, there are a few modern Scholastic protestants. Most notably, the late Norman Geisler (1932–2019) was a prominent Thomist who fiercely defended classical theism and other ideas derived from the Scholastic method. Interestingly, however, Geisler wasn’t a member of a high Church organization, but rather, a non-denominational Christian. In fact, he was actually a premillenial dispensationalist, which is typically associated with more fundamentalist groups.
Conclusion
Protestantism and Scholasticism aren’t mutually exclusive by any means. Oftentimes, the ill will towards Scholasticism is caused by ignorance of the actual discussions, but it is occasionally caused by valid criticisms of the method itself. As a Lutheran Scholastic, I concur with Luther regarding Scotus’s overemphasis on the human will, but the Scholastic method itself is quite strong. Man is incapable of choosing God on his own, the Scholastic method can prepare a sinner to receive the Gospel, which then leads to salvation. Therefore, as Protestants, we should embrace the tradition of rigorous intellectual study in the philosophical realm without sacrificing our core theology. Luckily, that goal shouldn’t be too hard to reach.
