Thomas Aquinas—“. . . the source and foundation of all heresy, error, and obliteration of the Gospel” (1): this was the earliest “Protestant” assessment of the Angelic Doctor, the one Martin Luther himself offered in 1524, and the one which more or less dominated Protestant thinking until the mid-twentieth century. Since then, two developments have decisively altered this conventional wisdom.
First, already prior to the Second Vatican Council of the 1960's, experts in Thomas Aquinas studies took up the task of what some called “freeing Thomas from Thomist custody.” This has meant the abandonment of time-worn clichés, a renewed search for the historical Thomas, the recognition of Thomas as a profoundly Augustinian theologian immersed in the heated controversies of his thirteenth-century context, as a professor of Biblical studies bearing the academic title magister in sacra pagina, and one who took this title with utmost seriousness. This ongoing reorientation is incomplete, but it has already left many traditional Thomists behind.
The second development has involved a new look at Luther, his knowledge of Thomas Aquinas, his situation within the context of the late medieval struggle between the various contending theological schools such as Occamism, Scotism, Augustinianism, Thomism, Albertism, mysticism, and so forth, his antipathy to scholasticism in general, his anti-Aristotelianism, and his bitter encounter with the late medieval Thomist school. While a few Luther specialists continue to ignore this newer picture of Luther, most today have accepted the results of this scholarship.
The book under review here takes these two developments for granted and couples them with a new reading of the “Protestant scholastics.” This label represents a largely ignored chapter in this history of Protestant theology. It is comprised of theologians following the first generation of “magisterial” reformers, thinkers who imposed a scholastic structure on these reformers’ thought and further systematized it. The movement had two branches: the first is often referred to as “Lutheran Orthodoxy” and the second is called “Reformed [read Calvinist] Orthodoxy.” By the onset of the Enlightenment, the heyday of Protestant Scholasticism was over. Most of the contributors to this book are experts on Reformed Orthodoxy. And most agree: “. . . serious and accurate wrestling with the texts and legacy of Thomas Aquinas can only benefit Protestant [read Reformed] intellectual life” (17).
The book's first seven essays are concerned with “The Protestant Reception of Aquinas,” that is, setting the historical record straight. Six of these deal with Protestant Scholasticism. David Sytsma, for example, contributes a fascinating study of William Whitaker, a late sixteenth century Puritan (English Calvinist), who was deeply influenced by Thomas Aquinas's biblical commentaries and by Thomas's views on the authority of Scripture. Stefan Lindholm studies Jerome Zanchi (1560–90), one of the better known of the “Reformed Thomists;” he shows convincingly how Thomas influenced Zanchi's doctrine of God, his theological method, and his natural theology. Jack Kilcrease gives us a lucid account of the Lutheran Johann Gerhard's embrace and critique of Aquinas's analogia entis. And a final example from this section: Sven Grosse takes us outside the period of Protestant Scholasticism with his interesting discussion of Thomas's influence on the twentieth and twenty-first century Protestant theologians, Jörg Baur, Ulrich Kühn, Wolfhard Pannenberg, and Eberhard Jüngel. All of this together is ample illustration of how, by today, Thomas has broken out of “Thomist custody.”
The second part of the book is titled “Constructive Engagement.” The focus shifts dramatically in these seven essays: it is no longer historical. Rather, the goal here is to retrieve insights from Thomas to further the development of theology today, specifically a kind of theology called “Reformed dogmatics.” And again, the contributors are almost all themselves from a Reformed background.
A few examples will illustrate. Sebastian Rehnman argues that Calvinist/Reformed Christianity needs a natural theology, most urgently a persuasive argument for the existence of God and a rational foundation for ethics. For this, he suggests, help is ready at hand, in the “philosophy” of Thomas Aquinas! Michael Allen argues for a Reformed Thomism, which appropriates insights from Thomas on theological method and eschatology. And J. V. Fesko recommends that Reformed dogmatics retrieve Thomas's teaching on infused habits. There's much more than this, but readers will already get the idea. Twenty-first century Calvinist theologians, most of whom know something about Reformed Orthodoxy, may well appreciate these essays. Reformation historians may not share their enthusiasm.
A few final observations: First, this book's title is problematic. A more accurate one might be something like Aquinas Among the Reformed Orthodox, and in the Service of Reformed Dogmatics. Second, it is a strange irony that just when Roman Catholic theologians stop turning to Aquinas for help with the modern and post-modern crisis of belief, these Calvinist theologians began doing precisely the opposite. And third, one senses in these essays a rather deep and ongoing Calvinist antipathy to Luther.
