Recent decades have seen evangelical theology express a renewed interest in the thought of Thomas Aquinas. This is all well and good. Rooted in the Bible, evangelicalism at its best has always thought of itself in continuity with the apostolic gospel as it was proclaimed and taught in the early church, the medieval period, the Protestant Reformation, and evangelical revivals up to the present day. In this positive retrieval, there is also the danger of an idealisation of Thomas (as if he was always right and always working with purely evangelical motives) and a wholesale and unwarranted appreciation of ‘tradition’ (as if it was a monolithic body that is organically related to Scripture). To both affirm the evangelical interest in Thomas and suggest some caveats in practising it, here are five principles that can be useful to bear in mind. They surely call for further study and improvement.
1. Scripture alone is ultimate and tradition (Thomas included) is always second
In reading Thomas, evangelical theology must always practise the sola Scriptura principle (the Bible alone is the inspired written Word of God and the ultimate authority in all matters of life), the tota Scriptura principle (the whole Bible is inspired by God and needs to be received as a whole), and the Scriptura sui ipsius interpres principle (the Bible is its own interpreter). As Protestant theologians, always remember that Scripture is the norma normans non normata (i.e. the norm of norms which cannot be normed, the standard according to which all other standards are measured). Thomas is important, but not decisive; Thomas can be useful (although often distorting and deviant), but never definitive; Thomas can be enriching, but only to the extent that he is faithful to Scripture. At the end of his letter to Sadoleto, John Calvin wrote, ‘We hold that the Word of God alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgment and that Fathers and Councils are of authority only in so far as they accord with the rule of the Word, [but] we still give to Councils and Fathers such rank and honour as it is meet for them to hold, under Christ.’[1]
1. John Calvin’s Letter to Sadoleto (1539): https://www.monergism.com/john-calvins-letter-cardinal-sadoleto-1539 (accessed 31 August 2023). Notice the reversed Roman Catholic argument presented by John H. Newman (1801–90): talking about the Fathers (but the reference could be applied to Thomas too) he argues that ‘They do not say, “This is true, because we see it in Scripture” – about which there might be differences of judgment – but, “this is true, because in matter of fact it is held, and has ever been held, by all the Churches, down to our times, without interruption, ever since the Apostles”’: Discussions and Arguments, II.1 (London: Longmans, 1891), p. 46.
This leads to a theologically sober and realistic view of tradition, of which Thomas is a cornerstone. As the Protestant Reformation taught us, one can and must hold the Word of God over every theological and spiritual achievement of the past while, at the same time, treasuring the inheritance that generations of believers have consigned to subsequent ones. In J. I. Packer’s words, which can be applied to Thomas’s legacy, ‘Tradition, after all, is the fruit of the Spirit’s teaching activity from the ages as God’s people have sought understanding of Scripture. It is not infallible, but neither is it negligible, and we impoverish ourselves if we disregard it.’[2]
2. Thomas is a giant of Church history who needs to be appropriated eclectically
The best Protestant theologians have read and studied Thomas, since he was the main exponent of medieval theology, having neither reverential fears nor inferiority complexes, but facing him head-on, with an attitude inspired by evangelical boldness and the biblical principle omnia probate, quod bonum est tenete, ‘Prove all things; hold fast that which is good’ (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Protestant theologians at their best (from Peter Martyr Vermigli to Herman Bavinck, through Francis Turretin) have generally exercised theological discernment, which has allowed them to appreciate aspects of Thomas’s theology that were in line with biblical faith and to reject his teaching where it conflicted with Scripture. In other words, they did not embrace the Thomist system as such – even his metaphysics and epistemology as integrated components of it – but broke it down into its parts as far as possible with integrity and used it eclectically. This is true even as far as issues like his ‘natural theology’ which, despite the resemblances with Protestant accounts, departs from them on key points because of the structures of Thomas’s thought that are embedded in the nature–grace interdependence.[3] Eclecticism has its own risks if it loses sight of the fact that Thomas is a ‘world view’ thinker rather than only a brilliant medieval expert on some topics. His system is a whole and needs to be approached as such. There is room for eclectic appropriations if they show awareness of the deeper structures of the architecture of his thought. Ideas have consequences, and Thomas’s have ripple-effects in all directions.
2. J. I. Packer, ‘Upholding the Unity of Scripture Today’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25:4 (1992), p. 414
3. See D. McIlroy, ‘A Trinitarian Reading of Aquinas’s Treatise on Law’, Angelicum 84 (2007), pp. 277–92. Apart from the examples already given in chapter 4, another instance of eclecticism can be seen in G. Vos, Natural Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2022). Vos’s lectures date back to 1888–93 and have been seen as proof of his ‘Thomism’ by J. V. Fesko in the Introduction. On closer examination, Vos departs from Thomas on some crucial points and cannot be listed as a Thomist theologian without unduly forcing his thought. See J. Baird, ‘What Indeed Hath Thomas to Do with Vos? A Review Article’, Westminster Theological Journal 84 (2022), pp. 149–60.
Evangelical scholarship can neither reject him as a hopelessly compromised theologian (the anti-Thomas temptation), nor elevate him as the chief parameter of Christian orthodoxy (the Roman Catholic temptation). Rather, it should treat Thomas as an unavoidable conversation partner in the history of Christian thought, to be read critically and generously in the light of the ‘Scripture alone’ principle that the Protestant Reformation recovered for the whole church. This approach is not original but seems to be the historic and best evangelical approach to Thomas Aquinas.
3. Thomas has many ambivalences and serious problems in his system
Whatever the multiple brilliant insights in his thought, Thomas’s system, including his metaphysics and epistemology, contains tendencies and trajectories that lead to structural flaws. Chapters 2 and 5 have already suggested that Thomas’s world view does present several critical issues for evangelicals. Only a few hints can be suggested here.
As argued by Schwöbel, ‘Thomas’s account of grace remains constantly ambivalent. On the one hand it looks back to Augustine, on the other hand, it points forward to the dissolution which Augustinianism would undergo in the fourteenth century . . . Thomas intends to insist on the sole efficacy of divine grace; but the way in which he develops this theme already points in the opposite direction.’[4] In his doctrine of grace, despite its Augustinian superficial outlook, significant elements make it significantly milder if not different: ‘Man’s free will cooperates as it is moved by God – a theme in Augustine – but Aquinas’s stress is not on God working but on the infused grace. In this, Aquinas gives greater scope for human freedom and shows a subtle shift towards semi- Pelagianism.’[5] According to Thomas humanity had not completely lost its capacitas (capacity) for grace as if sin had not produced the breaking of the covenant with God, consequently leading to total corruption. Thomas’s thought is pervaded with ontological optimism that translates into epistemological optimism (stressing the positive role of reason), moral optimism (underlining the role of virtues as human habits), and, in the post-Vatican II interpretation, soteriological optimism (all humanity participates in one way or another in the mystery of salvation).
4. Schwöbel, ‘Reformed Traditions’, p. 333.
5. Letham, Gamechangers, pp. 93–94.
Thomas’s ambivalence lies at the core of his thought, and, because of its central place, erupts everywhere in his theology, though in different ways and levels of intensity. Unlike Augustine whose thought was an unfinished work-in-progress, Thomas’s is characterised by a high degree of internal coherence and consist- ency. Apart from the metaphor of the cathedral, Spezzano likens it to a brain, ‘a myriad of interrelated networks connecting each point to many others’.[6] From his point of view, it is not easy to separate Thomas’s classical theism (Trinity, Christology), and consider it sound, from his soteriology, ecclesiology, sacramentology, Mariology and devotional life, and consider them flawed. The latter part of his thought is argued in terms of the former. They are not detachable modules, nor disconnected atoms. All his theology is formed and shaped around the same parameters that include Scripture but are not ultimately submitted to it.[7] Likewise, it is not easy to distinguish his metaphysics and epistemology, and consider them entirely acceptable, from his Roman Catholic theology which is so different from the evangelical account of the gospel,[8] and consider it awkward. Thomas’s thought is an integrated system that needs to be appreciated as such and appropriated eclectically, but not gullibly.
6. D. Spezzano, ‘Aquinas on Nature, Grace, and the Moral Life’ in Levering and Plested (eds), The Oxford Handbook on the Reception of Aquinas, p. 658.
7. Referring to scholasticism Bavinck argues that ‘[w]hile in theory Scholasticism included Scripture among the sources of theology, calling it the supreme source, in fact it did not draw its material from Scripture but from the councils (and Aristotle?) and the church fathers . . . Scripture was no more than a point of departure’: Bavinck, Reformed Ethics, vol. 1, p. 425. Mutatis mutandis, the same remarks could be made regarding Thomas’s theological method.
8. E.g. see the chart ‘Twenty Watershed Doctrines on Which Evangelicals Do Not Agree with Thomas Aquinas’, Pro Pastor 1:1 (2022), pp. 41–47.
4. Roman Catholicism is the full outcome of Thomas’s theology and legacy
Thomas laid the foundations for the theological framework typical of Roman Catholicism as a system, i.e. the nature–grace interdependence,[9] which is highly problematic from the biblical point of view. Evangelical theology must be aware (and biblically proud) of operating, not with a purely ontological scheme mainly deduced from philosophical categories and leading to ontological optimism as Thomas does, but with the historical-redemptive motif of the Bible: Creation–Sin–Redemption, however formulated. Here again, the difference is critical.
9. Apart from ch. 5, for a brief presentation and pointed critique, see G. R. Allison, Roman Catholic Theology and Practice (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), pp. 46–55.
Thomas is the acknowledged authority behind many non-biblical developments in medieval and modern Roman Catholicism, from Trent to Vatican I and II. One cannot fail to see the distorting elements present at the heart of his system, which has generated several departures from the biblical faith, e.g. in the areas of Catholic soteriology, ecclesiology, sacramentology, and devotions. While he has a high view of Scripture, it resembles more that of the Council of Trent than the Reformation. In his Bible exegesis and interpretation, among brilliant insights, there are flaws and problematic applications. Moreover, he has a view of justification that somewhat overlaps with a forensic understanding of justification, yet significantly departs from it at crucial points. In both the formal and the material principles of the Reformation, Thomas is much closer to Roman Catholicism than mainstream Protestantism.
Thomas has been fully and convincingly appropriated by Roman Catholic theology for centuries, especially in its anti-Protestant polemical stance. One cannot naively assume that he is a proto- Protestant unless one acknowledges the persistent unfoundedness of all Roman Catholic interpretations of Thomas, with all their variations, over the last 750 years and the many magisterial affirmations of Aquinas. While Thomas is a ‘sure guide’ for Roman Catholics, the same does not apply to the heirs of the Reformation.
5. Neither infatuation nor disparagement: a call for evangelical maturity
In our current cultural climate, the reference to the metaphysics of Thomas, capable of keeping Plato, Aristotle and the Bible together – in short, the entire pre-modern Western tradition – produces an anxiety-relieving effect in some sectors of evangelical theology. Thomas primarily symbolises the ‘great tradition’ that unites Christian antiquity and modernity.[10] In a world sceptical and suspicious of any meta-narrative, Thomas’s metaphysics and epistemology exert some apologetic appeal in claiming to harmoniously combine faith and reason and to challenge scepticism in the name of the reasonableness of faith.[11] In the ruined landscape of present-day culture, Thomas Aquinas looks like an impressive cathedral that reassures, comforts and inspires. However, the remedy may be worse than the problem, especially if it leads to an infatuation with Thomas and the idealisation of his thought.
10. See C. Carter, Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Classical Trinitarian Theism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2021).
11. As is the case with the ‘classical’ approach to apologetics championed by R. C. Sproul, J. Gerstner and A. Lindsey, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositionalist Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984).
There is a recent phenomenon of former evangelicals converting to Roman Catholicism because of the attraction exerted by the intellectual density and spiritual depth of Thomas. It generally began with people thinking they could affirm his metaphysics and ethics without embracing his theology. Upon further study, they became convinced that Thomas’s thought could not be split into disconnected pieces, and conversions to Roman Catholicism followed.[12] Maybe, as Barrett points out, it is untrue to say that ‘Thomas is the gateway to Roman Catholicism’,[13] but, at the same time, one does not need to be naive about the attraction of the Roman Catholic ‘full package’ that many find in Thomas when they begin to be absorbed into his theological vision.[14]
12. D. M. Beaumont (ed.), Evangelical Exodus: Evangelical Seminarians and Their Paths to Rome (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2016) and R. J. Snell and R. P. George (eds), Mind, Heart and Soul: Intellectuals and the Path to Rome (Charlotte, SC: TAN Books, 2018).
13. M. Barrett, ‘25 Myths about Thomas Aquinas’, Credo Magazine (23 June 2022): https://credomag.com/article/25-myths-about-thomas-aquinas (accessed 28 August 2023).
14. K. J. Stewart, ‘Why Are Younger Evangelicals Turning to Catholicism and Orthodoxy?’ in In Search of Ancient Roots: The Christian Past and the Evangelical Identity Crisis (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2017), pp. 253–73.
A disparaging attitude towards Thomas is equally problematic. Thomas belongs to a pre-Reformation age when the Western Church had not yet committed itself to what Rome would officially endorse at the Council of Trent. Although he is behind much of what Roman Catholicism would transform into an anti-Protestant stance, he is still part of a ‘fluid’ time in Church history. This is to say that Thomas needs to be read with spiritual empathy and critical discernment like Peter Lombard, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus and other medieval theologians: benefiting from their insights and lessons, raising issues when they depart from Scripture in their systems.
Finally, we must be neither ‘Thoma-phobic’ (i.e. fearing the study of Thomas) nor ‘Thoma-laters’ (i.e. elevating him as an absolute standard for Christian orthodoxy). Evangelical theology needs to pursue a realistic reading of Thomas under the supreme authority of Scripture and in the service of the cause of the gospel. More than naively embracing Thomas or dismissingly rejecting him, let evangelical eclecticism be retrieved under the authority of Scripture. There is no better way than this to come to terms with Thomas Aquinas.
