Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought

My summer reading to this point has been incredibly rich, and it has only been made more so by Arvin Vos' Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought. Vos is a Reformed Christian who teaches philosophy at Western Kentucky University. In his book, Vos contends that the traditional Protestant rejection of the thought of Thomas Aquinas is unwarranted, and that it is based not on serious scholarship, but rather on common mistaken suppositions about Aquinas' thought. Vos undertakes the task of showing that Aquinas and Calvin are actually in agreement over the way in which they understand the nature of faith and the distinction between nature and grace.

Among other things, Vos attempts to show 1) that Aquinas is not an evidentialist, claiming that the assent of faith should only be given if sufficient evidence can be presented for the belief, but rather, he holds to a fideistic view of faith that is akin to Calvin 2) that Aquinas' "preambles to faith" including his proofs for God are not propositions which must be fully comprehended to reach faith, as some have claimed, but rather they are a body of truths which can be laid hold of by faith 3) that the Protestant rejection of Aquinas' natural theology, based on the objection that he uses reason as a foundation upon which to build a superstructure of faith, is unfounded, instead showing that he clearly considered the knowledge imparted by faith to the most certain with reason serving as a handmaiden, and 4) that Aquinas' distinction between nature and grace does not lead to a dualism with nature emerging as an independent, self-sufficient order, but rather he clearly shows grace to be preeminent over nature.

Not only does Vos lay out clear and compelling arguments to show that the standard Protestant rejection of Aquinas is unwarranted, but I was particularly compelled by the way in which he approached the comparison between the two great theologians. He notes the radically different approaches by the two men, pointing out that Aquinas, as a product of the medieval schools, was educated in logic, metaphysics, and natural philosophy, while Calvin, receiving a humanist education which excluded all such subjects, would have studied literature. This accounts for the rigorous logic displayed in the Summa Theologiae compared to the literary insight of Calvin's biblical commentaries. These styles of learning were very much influenced by the differing times and cultures in which the two lived. Vos warns the reader to be careful in making the distinction between style and substance:

To sum up, there was more involved in the sixteenth century Reformation than just a powerful religious renewal of a corrupt church. Calvin and others were also reacting against the Medievals' approach to the ancients, their curriculum, and their use of philosophy. We will do well to distinguish these cultural differences from religious differences and divest ourselves of the naive assumption that a true Christian faith can be found only in the tradition with which we are familiar. We can only benefit by becoming more open to learning from both.