THE USE OF THOMAS AQUINAS AND ARISTOTLE IN REFORMED THEOLOGY

Introduction

One occasionally observes the tendency, in contemporary evangelical Protestant theology, to

shy away from the writings and teachings of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. One even finds,
among some evangelical Protestant theologians, an untethered hostility towards the use of
Aquinas and Aristotle in evangelical theology. Some even condemn those (precious few) who
would willingly teach and rely upon the works of Aristotle and Aquinas. In this short blogpost
we would like to take a preliminary step towards a more balanced evangelical approach to the
works of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. We will do this by showing that far from being contrary
to the spirit of the Protestant Reformation, the use of the writings and teachings of Aristotle and
Thomas Aquinas, and, indeed, dependence upon these two great thinkers, can be both beneficial
and useful for the development and defense of evangelical Protestant theology. How would we
go about demonstrating such a hypothesis?

The first step, which we propose to take in this blog post, is to show that the very theologians
who began the Protestant Reformation, and who provided it with its enduring form, not only
used Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, but, in fact, that their theology was, on many points,
dependent on Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. To do this we will begin by articulating the main
premises that an argument of this nature requires. We will then consider, briefly, those facts of
history which may support the premises of such an argument. This will be done by pointing out
some of the most recent research concerning the relationship between Aquinas, Aristotle, and the
early reformers. We will also note the continued Reformed dependency upon Aquinas and
Aristotle.

Our Proposition

Consider the following claims. There are, first of all, some truths of Christianity that the
reformers saw as necessary to orthodoxy. That is, in order to be truly Christian you must accept,
and affirm, a certain number of doctrines. These doctrines are frequently explained and defended
in the writings of the early Reformers. In order to be truly orthodox, as a contemporary reformed
thinker, theologian, or philosopher, one must affirm these doctrines. We might propose,
secondly, that the early reformers used and even depended upon the writings and ideas of
Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, in order to properly explain and defend those very doctrines
which they considered necessary for orthodoxy.

If these first two claims are true, then, so we propose, in order to maintain Orthodoxy, we
can (that is, we are more than within our rights to use those same writings and ideas), and,
perhaps we must, use and even depend upon, the writings and teachings of Aristotle and Thomas
Aquinas in order to defend and articulate those same doctrines.1 We will attempt, in what
follows, to demonstrate that the early Reformers, in their writings, used and depended upon the
writings and ideas of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in order to articulate and defend doctrines
that they held to be absolutely necessary for Orthodox Christian belief. If we succeed, then it
seems to follow, that if we wish to remain faithful to the spirit of the Reformation—if we wish to
remain within orthodoxy—then we can (indeed must) also use and depend upon the writings and
ideas of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Here is our essential argument:

1. There are some truths of Christianity that the early reformers saw as necessary to
orthodoxy.
2. The early reformers used and even depended upon the writings and ideas of Aristotle and
Thomas Aquinas, in order to properly explain and defend those very doctrines which they
considered necessary for orthodoxy.
3. If these first two claims are true, then, so we propose, in order to maintain Orthodoxy, we
can (that is, we are more than within our rights to use those same writings and ideas),
and, perhaps we must use, and even depend upon, the writings and teachings of Aristotle
and Thomas Aquinas in order to defend and articulate those same doctrines.
4. But, the first two claims are true.
5. Therefore, in order to maintain Orthodoxy, we can (that is, we are more than within our
rights to use those same writings and ideas), and, perhaps we must, use and even depend
upon, the writings and teachings of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in order to defend and
articulate those same doctrines.

The First Premise

The first premise would seem to be fairly obvious, and, as such, needs no defense. It
might be worthwhile, however, before moving on to a consideration of the second premise, to
note some of those claims that must be affirmed in order to be considered orthodox. A brief
consideration of the Westminster Confession provides us, among other things, with a number of
important claims about God, the divine nature, Divine Sovereignty and causality, the Trinity,
how man knows God, Sin, and Salvation. These claims are taken to be necessary for Orthodoxy,
their denial forcing one into heterodoxy.

A short list of doctrines, which are especially relevant for the discussion in this blog,
include, but is certainly not limited to: (1) God is (based upon the second and third sections of
the second chapter of the confession) infinite in being and perfection, the purest spirit, invisible,
incorporeal, absolutely simple, absolutely impassible, absolutely immutable, immense, eternal

1
I would propose, indeed, that it is by rejecting this thomistic-aristotelian foundation that reformed
theology, in recent years, has begun struggling with unorthodoxy. Some so-called reformed theologians going so far
as to explicitly reject doctrines that the early reformers took as necessary for orthodoxy (such as a strong view of
immutability and impassibility, natural theology, etc.).
(or a-temporal, non-temporal), incomprehensible, omnipotent, omniscient, absolutely free,
absolutely all-sufficient, the only foundation of all being, infallible, etc. (2) Fallen human beings
can (based upon the first section of the first chapter) know something, through their God-given
faculty of reason and their observations of divine creation, providence, and the human
conscience, come to know something of, at very least, the goodness, wisdom and power of
God2—this is what Calvin, in the Institutes, calls the knowledge of God as Creator,3 and is the
knowledge gained through Theologia Naturalis.4 Such knowledge is not sufficient for salvation,
yet it is knowledge of the one true God. We could add more doctrines, but these will suffice for
the time being.

The Second Premise

The second premise expresses the following point: the reformers realized that there were
certain doctrines, as explained by Aquinas and Aristotle, which were necessary for orthodox
Christian belief. Another way of expressing this point is to say that the original Reformers
realized that there was no point in throwing the baby out with the bath water. As such, in their
defense of the Reform, they used and depended upon those truths that had been discovered by

2
We hold this doctrine not only because it is explicitly taught in scripture, when it is properly interpreted
without the imposition of any false philosophical presuppositions; but also because it is a truth that has been held by
all orthodox theologians of the Christian church, and denied by the Socinian heretics. As such, we align ourselves
with the teachings of the Reformed and historically true Christian church, as Turretin says, against the Socinian
heresies. Cf. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elentic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T Dennison,
Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing: 1992-97), 1:6. Turretin states that, understood as such, and in opposition to
the heresies of the Socinians (“who deny the existence of any such natural theology or knowledge of God (Ibid.,
6.)”), “The orthodox, on the contrary, uniformly teach that there is a natural theology, partly innate (derived from the
book of conscience by means of common notions [koinas ennoias]) and partly acquired (drawn from the book of
creatures discursively). (Ibid.)” Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (1940; repr., Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2003), 1:19-25. A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 3 vols in 1 (1907; repr., Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H.
Revell Company, 1979), 25-29. B. B. Warfield. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Idea of Systematic
Theology,” in Studies in Theology, vol. 9 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 49-87 (1932; repr., Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 2000). Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Task and Method of Systematic Theology,”
in Studies in Theology, vol. 9 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 91-114 (1932; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 2000). John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (2007; repr., Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2012), 4-29. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Abridged in one volume, ed.
John Bolt (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 19-20, 67-73, 159-162. Many more could be cited, however,
the point is sufficiently made.
3
For John Calvin, as evidenced by his Institutes, the fact that we can know God through his creation is just
is common ground between the regenerate and the non-regenerate. In fact, Calvin explicitly states, “I just wanted to
note here that there is a way to seek God that is common to pagans and to believers of the church, by following in
his footsteps, as they are outlined in the heavens and on earth, as paintings of his image. (Calvin, IRC, t.1, c.5, s. 6.
My translation. In French we read, « Je voulais seulement observer ici qu’il y a une voie commune aux païens et aux
croyants de l’église de rechercher Dieu, en suivant ses traces, comme ils sont esquissés dans le firmament et sur la
terre, comme les peintures de son image. »)”

4
Cf. Turretin, IET, 1:5-6. Petri Martyris Vermilii, Loci Communes (Heidelberg : Iohannem Lancellottum,
MDCIII), 2. Vermilii states that the existence, power, providence, and wisdom of God are all manifestly evident to
man when he considers creation (Ibid.).
theologians and philosophers prior to the Reform. Indeed, one might even propose that it is
because of their understanding of Christianity and of Reality, obtained through their reading and
study of, for example, Aquinas and Aristotle, that they became “Reformed” in the first place.

Now, we might propose that, if there are some truths about Reality and God which are
necessary for Orthodoxy, and if those truths were discovered, and best explained and defended
by Aristotle and Aquinas, then we should not be shocked to discover that the fathers of the
Reform, recognizing those truths, used (and, indeed, depended upon) Aquinas and Aristotle in
their articulation and defense of these very same doctrines. If they did, then, we propose, if we
wish to maintain Orthodoxy, then we can use (that is, we are more than within our rights to use
those same writings and ideas), and perhaps, should, use and even depend upon, the writings and
teaching of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in order to defend and articulate those very same
doctrines. Furthermore, we might add that, if the fathers of the Reform thought that a particular
writer was a good reference for their own articulations and defenses of the theology of the
Reform, and if we are trying to emulate the fathers of the Reform, then, so it seems, it is only
natural to accept the same author as a good reference for our own theology.

The Third Premise

To prove the third premise may seem like an enormous task. Indeed, it is. This is why we
says that this blogpost is being proposed as a first step in the attempt to demonstrate that
contemporary protestants must use and depend upon Aristotle and Aquinas. This section will
necessarily only provide a summary of recent research in some areas, assuming that the reader
will be able to pursue, for themselves, the lines of thought presented here. By way of a first
venture into the defense of this third premise we will point, first, to the fact that the early
reformers used the Triplex Via (that method which was articulated and used by Thomas Aquinas,
and other church fathers throughout history, in order to discover and defend the attributes of God
which we mentioned above). We will then present some recent research which seems to show
that Jean Calvin and, even Martin Luther, used (and depended upon) some of Aristotle's and
Thomas Aquinas’s ideas. Finally, we will present some recent research that shows that many
influential theologians of the Reformation (from the time of Calvin and Luther, such as Peter
Martyr Vermigli and Jerome Zanchi, to now) used, and were dependent upon, the writings and
thoughts of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. It is to be noted that the third premise is a purely
historical claim, and, indeed, that what we are proposing in this blogpost is an argument based
upon history. Let us begin with the Triplex Via.
 The Triplex Via

First, concerning the use of the Triplex Via in Reformed theology at the time of Calvin,
we should consider what John Patrick Donnelly says in his article, “Calvinist Thomism”.5
Donnelly here notes that Jerome Zanchi6 “accepts and follows the scholastic doctrine of the
triplex via and analogical predication when speaking about God.”7 What about other Reformed
theologians throughout the centuries? The renowned theologian Herman Bavinck notes,
concerning the Triplex Via, that “Scholasticism formally adopted the threefold distinction, and
Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed theologians alike continued to make it.”8 Charles
Hodge also explains and defends the importance and usefulness of the Triplex Via.9 We could
also mention that the Reformed Baptist theologian, formerly of Baptist Bible College &
Seminary (in Pennsylvania), Emery H. Bancroft, recognizes the usefulness of the Triplex
Via, and explains it in his book Christian Theology.10 Bancroft is simply following the example
of the more well-known Reformed Baptist theologian, Augustus H. Strong, who provides the
same explanation and defense, in almost the same words. Strong says, of the Triplex Via, in
his Systematic Theology, that this method is limited, but that it is not without value, and that “we
use it continually to confirm and supplement results otherwise obtained.”11 We could add many
other “testimonies” to this section, but we will move on to the next point.

5
John Patrick Donnelly, “Calvinist Thomism,” Viator, 7 (Jan.1, 1976), 446.
6
Zanchi, prior to becoming a Reformed Protestant, received a training in thomistic thought (Donnelly,
Calvinist Thomism, 444.), and studied for a year under John Calvin himself (Ibid.). He wrote a work of theology
which, when compared with the other writings of 16th century Calvinism, is unrivaled (Ibid.). His work on
predestination was used by British and American Calvinists until the beginning of the 19th century (Ibid., 446-448.),
and it is his approach to the doctrine of predestination that prevailed at the Synod of Dort (Ibid., 448.).
7
Ibid., 446.
8
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, abridged in one volume, ed John Bold (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker
Academic, 2011), 178.
9
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (1940; repr, Peabody, Minn: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 1: 339-
341.
10
Emery H. Bancroft, Christian Theology: Systematic and Biblical, 2nd ed., ed. Ronald B. Mayers (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961), 68-69.
11
Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology: A compendium, 3 flights in 1 (. 1907; repr, Old Tappan, NJ:
Fleming H. Revell Co., 1979), 247.
 The Reformed use of Aristotle and Aquinas

The Use of Aristotle

We will now note how the theologians of the Reformation, such as Martin Luther and
John Calvin, used the writings and ideas of Aristotle (and, Thomas Aquinas). We will then show
that other theologians of the Reform continued, both contemporaneously with Calvin and Luther
as well as in the years following the Reform, to use Aristotle and Aquinas. It is important to note,
first of all, with Richard A. Muller (Professor of Historical Theology at Calvin Theological
Seminary), that Martin Luther and John Calvin both used (and depended on), the works and
teachings of Aristotle (those who have studied the works of Thomas Aquinas will also recognize
that these same points were also affirmed by Thomas Aquinas). Concerning Luther, who is
known for his frequent recommendations to get rid of the writings of Aristotle,12 Muller
demonstrates that Luther frequently used and referred to, the four causes of Aristotle,13 the moral
theories of Aristotle as found in the Nicomachean ethics,14 as well as the writings of the organon
(including the Analytics, the Rhetoric, etc.).15

Concerning Calvin, Muller shows that this great reformer often called upon Aristotelian
theories and concepts (in his writing on the freedom of the will, for example), “to indicate the
opposition between necessity and ‘the existence of alternative possibilities’.”16 Calvin “cites the
Nichomachean Ethics in order to argue that inability does not remove responsibility.”17 Calvin
also uses, “the Aristotelian distinction between matter and form,”18 the Aristotelian approach to
causality by way of the four causes,19 the arguments of Aristotle concerning the first motor,20 as
well as the psychology of Aristotle.21 Donnelly explains that the scholastic reformed theologians
(from the time of Calvin and Luther until now) have built their theology on the ideas that are

12
Cf. Theodore Kisiel, The Genesis of Heidegger’s Being and Time (Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 1995), 227-228.
13
Richard Muller, "Scholasticism, Reformation, Orthodoxy, and the Persistence of Christian
Aristotelianism," Trinity Journal, 19NS (1998), 90.
14
Ibid., 90-91.
15
Ibid., 91.
16
Ibid., 92.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid., 92-93.
20
Ibid., 93.
21
Ibid.
“Largely borrowed from Aristotle.”22 We note, in the Institutes, for example, that Calvin uses
concepts from Aristotle to show that the very existence of humankind is evidence of God’s
creative wisdom.23 As is well-known, Calvin applauds the great literary works of the past (such
as Plato and Aristotle), noting that they have the power to move the soul, but, that Holy
Scriptures are in an entirely different league.24 Now, many take this as a sign that Calvin thought
the others were not worth reading, but, this is to misunderstand this statement. Saying that X is
infinitely greater than Y, is not the same as saying that Y is worth nothing. Rather, to say that Y
is of great worth, but that X is infinitely greater than Y, is not to diminish Y, but to glorify X. It
should be obvious, then, that Calvin had a great appreciation for the works of Plato and Aristotle.
Finally, in Calvin’s discussion of the body and soul (and the immortality of the soul), he points
the reader towards the works of Aristotle and Cicero, and other authors of antiquity, for a more
elaborate and in-depth approach to the subject of sleep and dreams.25 We could go on, but there
is no need.

Concerning other Reformed theologians, Richard A. Muller, in a different article, shows

that Francis Turretin in his construction of a coherent Reformed theology, was often led “first to
Aristotle and classical philosophy and second to medieval scholastics.”26 His exposition of the
theology of Turretin shows that Turretin built his theology in constant interaction (sometimes
positive, sometimes negative) with the writings of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. On that note,
let us turn to the Reformed use of Thomas Aquinas.

The Use of Aquinas

It is a historical fact, therefore, that the theologians of the Reform used Aristotle, but
what about Thomas Aquinas? We are told, often enough, that the Reform was a reaction against
that theology which was developed by Thomas Aquinas. The reality is that such a description of
the Reform is false because imprecise; and, in order to accept such a description of the Reform,
one must be blinded to the reality of the historical Reform. Muller shows that “On the negative
side, it is surely inaccurate to claim that the Reformation, whether in the form given it by Luther
or by Zwingli or by any other of the early Reformers, was a reaction against Thomism…it was
not Thomism that produced either the excessive speculation or the semi-Pelagianism that the

22
Donnelly, CT, 441.
23
Calvin, IRC, t. 1, ch. 5, 3.
24
Calvin, IRC, t. 1, ch. 8, 1.
25
Calvin, IRC, t. 1, ch. 15, 2. Calvin interacts (with positive and negative comments) with Aristotle
throughout his entire discussion of the mind-body relationship.

Richard A. Muller, “Scholasticism Protestant and Catholic: Francis Turretin on the Object and Principles
26

of Theology,” Church History, vol. 55, no.2 (Jun, 1986), 196.

early Reformers targeted in their polemics. What is more, there are significant Thomistic
overtones in the exegesis of Martin Bucer (who was, after all, trained as a Dominican), and there
are sufficient Thomistic echoes in the thought of Vermigli for it to be characterized as ‘Calvinist
Thomism’.”27 In fact, Arvin Vos, in his book Aquinas, Calvin, Protestant & Contemporary
Thought,28 not only demonstrates that there is, in general, agreement between the theological
teachings of Calvin and Aquinas, but that those Calvinist theologians who attacked the teachings
of Thomas Aquinas were generally blissfully unaware of what Thomas Aquinas had actually
said. Vos notes that, “The Protestant authors that I have cited and others like them constitute a
tradition. By and large, later authors have simply relied on earlier writers for their views, and few
of them have really studied Aquinas’s works.”29 In his article “Calvinist Thomism”, Donnelly
demonstrates that it is a historical fact that several of those Reformed theologians who were most
important for the formation, articulation, and defense, of the theology of the Reformation (he
mentions Theodore Beza, Pierre martyr Vermigli and Jerome Zanchi)30 used and depended upon
the writings and thoughts of Thomas Aquinas. Donnelly reminds us, in fact, that it is not only the
Calvinists who used Thomas Aquinas, but, also, the Lutheran theologians such as John Dorsch,
who wrote a tome of some “eight hundred pages to show that Aquinas was a good Lutheran.”31

Does Calvin interact with Aquinas? The answer, of course, is affirmative. In the very first
book of the Institutes Calvin makes a statement, that is influenced by Aquinas, concerning the
knowledge of God as the ultimate end of the blessed life.32 He also approves of Aquinas’s
distinctions between relative and absolute necessity, and of consequent and consequence.33 Aside
from these, and many other doctrines, we note, in Calvin’s affirmation of divine simplicity,34
divine immutability,35 and divine impassibility (that there are no emotions in God),36 the

27
Muller, SROPCA, 86-87.
28
Arvin Vos, Aquinas, Calvin, Protestant & Contemporary Thought: A Critique of Prostestant Views on the
Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Washington, DC: Christian College Consortium 1985).
29
Ibid., 152.
30
Donnelly, CT, 442.
31
Ibid.
32
Calvin, IRC, t. 1, ch. 5, 1.
33
Calvin, IRC, t. 1, ch. 16, 9.
34
Calvin, IRC, t. 1, ch. 13, 2.
35
Calvin, IRC, t. 1, ch. 17, 12.
36
Calvin, IRC, t. 1, ch. 17, 13.
influence of the great church fathers, and, especially, Aquinas (who was probably the greatest
defender of these divine attributes).

Regarding Peter Martyr Vermigli (trained in thomistic-aristotelian thought,37 Vermigli

was a highly respected Reformed theologian from his conversion to Protestantism in 1540 until
his death in 1562, and was admired in the reformed circles “for holiness, prudence, and
scholarship”38), Donnelly explains that (1) “his favorite authors were Aristotle and Aquinas”,39
(2) that, “Like Aquinas, Martyr tries to incorporate as much from Aristotle into his system as is
consistent with Scripture”,40 and (3) that “Vermigli agrees with Aquinas far more often than he
acknowledges.”41 It is a well-known fact that Vermigli wrote a commentary on Aristotle’s
Nichomachean Ethics,42 and taught daily on texts from Aristotle’s works.43 McLelland, in his
introduction to Vermigli’s commentary on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, notes that “Such
moral realism suits Vermigli well, since he accepts the essential psychology and metaethics of
both Aristotle and Aquinas.”44 To note Vermigli’s reliance on Aquinas in his commentary on
Aristotle would be too great of a task for our purposes.

Concerning Jerome Zanchi, Donnelly says he is the best example of a Calvinist

Thomist.45 Donnelly explains that although Calvin never wrote a treatise on the divine attributes,
Zanchi followed in Aquinas’s footsteps by writing an enormous treaty on the divine
attributes.46 Indeed, “In those areas where there was no quarrel between Catholics and Calvinists
[such as in the doctrine of God, the Trinity, the doctrine of predestination, the virtues, etc.],

37
Joseph McLelland, “Italy: Religious and Intellectual Ferment”, in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli,
ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi and Frank A. James III (Boston: Brill, 2009), 26. Joseph C. McLelland,
“Introduction”, in Peter Martyr Vermigli, Commentary on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, trans. Kenneth Austin,
Stephen Beall, and Leszek Wysocki, ed. Emidio Campi and Joseph C. McLelland (Kirksville, MO: Trueman State
University Press, 2006), ix.
38
Donnelly, CT, 442.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid., 443.
41
Ibid.
42
Vermigli, Commentary on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.
43
John Patrick Donnelly, « Italian Influences on the development of Calvinist Scholasticism », Sixteenth
Century Journal, VII, 1 (April 1976), 83-84.
44
McLelland, Introduction, xxv.
45
Donnelly, CT, 444.
46
Ibid., 445.
Zanchi follows Aquinas closely.”47 Donnelly speaks, finally, of those writings in which Zanchi
even uses Thomas Aquinas to refute the errors of the Catholic Church.48

Did the Reformed use of Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle stop with John Calvin, Theodore
Beza, Peter Martyr Vermigli and Jerome Zanchi? Donnelly notes that even theologians such as
Francis Turretin,49 and the Puritans of Harvard,50 were also influenced by the Thomism of
Calvinists such as Vermigli and Zanchi. Indeed, Donnelly notes, “Vermigli and Zanchi were read
at Puritan Harvard where divines were as apt to cite Aquinas as Calvin.”51 Muller, in an article
cited above, notes that Turretin used Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scots, and other great
medieval scholastic theologians, and that the power normativity of the great theological work of
Turretin, “attains its breadth and comprehensive character by a consistent recourse not merely to
the thought of the great Reformers but to the whole of the Christian tradition—and specifically to
the definitions and paradigms of the medieval doctors.”52 Even Stephen Charnock, whose work
on the doctrine of God is renowned in all Protestant circles, called upon Thomas Aquinas, and
the writings of Thomistic theologians.53

We could also mention the writings of Herman Bavinck in which Thomas Aquinas is
quoted or alluded to almost as much as the Bible, C. S. Lewis (who, though not in any way
Reformed, was certainly a great Protestant Apologist), or such contemporary Protestant
theologians as R. C. Sproul and Norman Geisler, who call themselves Thomistic evangelical
theologians. Henry Thiessen, an Arminian theologian, also appealed, favorably, to Thomas
Aquinas.54 Thomas C. Oden, Wesleyan and Arminian theologian, in at least the first volume of
his three volume work on theology, refers more often to Thomas Aquinas than to John Wesley
and Arminius together.55 In fact, Oden goes so far as to say that “Healthy theism, as argued by
Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas, takes a median view between these two extremes

47
Ibid., 448.
48
Ibid., 451.
49
Ibid., 452-453.
50
Ibid., 453.
51
Ibid.
52
Muller, SPC, 204-205.
53
Cf. Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God (1853; repr, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books., 2005), 27, 42 (Banes on Aquinas), 189 (Zanchi), 284 (Gamacheus on Aquinas), 317, etc.
54
Henry Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, ed Vernon D. Doerksen (1979; repr, Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1981), 78.
55
Thomas C. Oden, the Living God, vol 1 of Systematic Theology (1987; repr, Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2008).
(that reason can know nothing or that faith can thoughtlessly know everything without reason) by
arguing that we can use some modest and self-constricting modes of inference to speak of God’s
existence.”56 Perhaps it would also be acceptable to quote the renowned reformed philosopher
Paul Helm, who said of the writings of Thomas Aquinas, particularly in relation to the doctrine
of God, “I reckon that there is no such thing as the ‘Classical Calvinist Doctrine of God.’ This
‘doctrine’ is none other than the mainstream Christian doctrine of God. It is the same, give or
take some details, as that set forth by Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas—the A team—three of
the formative Christian theologians in the period before the Reformation.”57 Later, Helm says
that “even the doctrine for which Calvin is best known and often reviled, predestination, he took
from the A team because he held that what they believed was apostolic and dominical.”58

Why use Aquinas and Aristotle?

Before reaching our conclusion, one might wonder why the theologians of the Reform
have turned, so often, to the medieval scholastic theologians for their definitions, terminologies,
arguments, and even answers. Some might want to say that it was due to the influence of
Cartesian rationalism, which had begun wreaking havoc in Christian theology. Muller, however,
shows that this is not the case. Turretin’s theology, for example, was written, in part, to respond
to the heresies which were being propagated by the Rationalists.59 Why, then, did the theologians
of Reform turn, for support on major doctrinal issues, to the medieval scholastic theologians?

Muller suggests that there may be two reasons: (1) “in part for the sake of debating
Roman Catholic polemicists like the great Cardinal Bellarmine on the sophisticated level of his
own scholasticism.”;60 (2) and, more importantly for our purposes, for the development of a
theology of the Reform that was both complete and coherent: “This topic [prolegomena and
fundamental theology] was not treated by Luther, Calvin, or their contemporaries [with a couple
exceptions]. When the later generations of Protestant theologians approached the issue of
theology as a discipline, they very naturally fell back upon the theological prolegomena written
by the great scholastics—Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Durandus, Thomas of Strasburg.”61

56
Ibid., 141-142.

Paul Helm, “Classical Calvinist Doctrine of God,” in Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 views, ed.
57

Bruce A. Ware (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2008), 5.

58
Ibid., 6.
59
Cf. Muller, SPC, 201, 203, 205.
60
Ibid, 194.
61
Ibid.
 Donnelly, provides three reasons for this phenomenon, agreeing with both reasons
suggested by Muller. They are: (1) university education, in the first centuries of the reform, was
still based upon Aristotelian philosophy;62 (2) religious controversy between Catholic
theologians and Reformed theologians forced the Reformed theologians to return “to scholastic
thought categories for more ammunition after they had shot off their store of scriptural proof
texts.”;63 and (3) the more that the Reformed theologians sought to develop a systematic
theology, the more they were forced to use the “scholastic attitudes, categories, and doctrines.”64

We could summarize these points with a single notion, expressed by the phrase, “if it
ain’t broke, don’ fix it.” Or, perhaps, “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” Theology is
not like a bank check. A cashier's check that is not good is trash. Theology, however, is a set of
doctrines. One might, therefore, compare it to a basket of apples. If we find some bad apples, we
remove them, but keep the rest for our own use and nourishment. The fact that a theologian is not
right in his explanation of one or two doctrines is not a sign that the rest of his theology is
bad. One can disagree with 20% of the theology of a theologian, but use the other 80% that is
good (or vice versa), and this is basically what that the original theologians of the Reform did
with the writings of medieval scholastic theologians, specifically Thomas Aquinas.

Conclusion

If we have succeeded in showing that the reformers, in seeking to provide the best
explanation and defense of those very doctrines which they considered necessary for orthodoxy,
used and depended upon the writings and ideas of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, then, it seems,
we have shown that in order to maintain Orthodoxy, we can (that is, we are more than within our
rights to use those same writings and ideas), and, indeed, we must, use and even depend upon the
writings and teaching of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in order to defend and articulate those
same doctrines. It seems, then, that those contemporary Reformed theologians who seem to
despise and criticize the evangelical use and dependence upon the thoughts of Aquinas and
Aristotle, should repent and return to the roots of the Reform. They have forgotten that the
greatest theologians of the Reform thought that it was necessary, for the coherence defense and
articulation of the theology of the Reform, to use, teach, and depend upon, thomistic-aristotelian
principles and doctrines.

Reformed Thomism is, without a doubt, the most coherent form of Reformed theology,
and it is that form of Reformed theology which is most faithful to the spirit of the Reform. The
influence of Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle can be seen in the works of some of the most

62
Donnelly, CT, 442.
63
Ibid.
64
Ibid.
important Reformed theologians, including, but not limited to, John Calvin himself, Vermigli,
Beza, Zanchi, Turretin, Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Herman Bavinck, R. C. Sproul, Norman
Geisler, etc. If we look at the education of the early reformed Pastors, we realize that they were
taught (by Reformed theologians) Aristotelian and thomistic philosophy and theology. Indeed,
the education that they received looks a lot more like that which one will receive at Southern
Evangelical Seminary than that which is given at any other contemporary Evangelical School.
Thomism does not require one to become Catholic. Rather, the main metaphysical and
epistemological tenets of Thomism are, quite simply, foundational truths about Reality, the
denial of which (as the history of Christian philosophy, theology and apologetics shows) pushes
us towards Relativism and the eventual denial of almost every important Christian Doctrine.