Thomas Aquinas and Aristotelian Philosophy in Scholasticism
Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274) significantly integrated Aristotelian philosophy into Christian theology, a development that profoundly shaped Scholasticism and Catholic thought. This integration was not without precedent, as earlier Christian thinkers, such as Origen and Athanasius, had engaged with prevailing philosophies of their times, like Platonism, to articulate Christian doctrines [3, 6, 10]. However, Aquinas's systematic synthesis of Aristotle marked a distinct turn in Western theology.
Aquinas's work, particularly his Summa Theologica, frequently references "the Philosopher," a title he reserved for Aristotle [2]. This indicates the profound respect and reliance Aquinas placed on Aristotelian thought. For instance, in discussing the nature of sin, Aquinas draws parallels between intemperance and childishness, noting that "the Philosopher" (Aristotle) does not mean intemperance is childish in the sense of being appropriate for children, but rather by way of likeness, as unchecked concupiscence resembles a child [2]. Similarly, when defining free will, Aquinas, as noted by John Calvin, considered it an "elective power, combining intelligence and appetite, but inclining more to appetite," a definition rooted in philosophical analysis of human faculties [1].
The adoption of Aristotelian categories allowed Aquinas to construct a comprehensive theological system that addressed a wide range of philosophical and theological questions. This approach contrasted with earlier patristic methods, which often engaged with philosophy more apologetically or to demonstrate Christianity's own philosophical depth [10]. Aquinas, however, used Aristotle's logic, metaphysics, and ethics as foundational tools for understanding Christian revelation.
This integration led to the rise of Thomism, a school of thought that became highly influential within the Roman Catholic Church. The Dominicans, for example, were followers of Thomas Aquinas, often in theological debate with the Franciscans, who followed Duns Scotus [5]. These debates, which occurred for centuries before the Council of Trent, explored various doctrines concerning sin and grace, demonstrating the intellectual ferment spurred by Scholasticism [5].
However, the extensive use of Aristotelian philosophy by Aquinas also drew criticism from other theological traditions. Reformed theologians, such as John Calvin, while acknowledging Aquinas's definition of free will, often critiqued the extent to which Scholasticism, including Thomism, relied on philosophical reasoning rather than solely on Scripture [1]. Charles Hodge, a prominent Old Princeton theologian, observed that during the Scholastic period, some theologians were "pantheistic in their philosophy," while others, though recognizing a personal God, merged "all the efficiency of second causes in his omnipresent agency" [9]. Hodge also noted a broader historical tendency to make "the doctrines of Scripture conform to" whatever philosophy was assumed to be true, citing Origen's use of Platonism as an example [10]. This suggests a concern among some Reformed thinkers that philosophical frameworks could potentially distort biblical truth.
Eastern Orthodox thought, while also engaging with philosophy, generally maintained a different relationship with it. Figures like John Chrysostom, for instance, focused on rhetoric and moral character in their homilies, often critiquing pagan philosophy for its moral failings rather than integrating its systematic categories into theology [4, 7, 8]. The Alexandrian tradition, represented by Athanasius, did engage with philosophical concepts, but primarily to construct a "scientific system of the Christian religion upon certain fundamental ideas of God and world, sin and redemption," rather than adopting a comprehensive philosophical system like Aristotle's [6].
In essence, Aquinas's integration of Aristotelian philosophy provided a robust intellectual framework for Christian theology, allowing for detailed systematic articulation of doctrine. This approach became a hallmark of Scholasticism and remains central to Catholic theology. Yet, it also highlighted a persistent tension within Christian thought regarding the proper relationship between divine revelation and human reason, a tension that continues to be explored and debated across different Christian traditions.
Sources
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 38: properly belongs to the will, which may incline either way. Wherefore, since liberty properly belongs to the will, Thomas Aquinas says (Part 1 Quast. 83, Art. 3), that the most congruous definition is to call free will an elective power, combining intelligence and appetite, but inclining more to appetite. We now perceive in what it is they suppose the faculty of free will to consist—viz. in reason and will. It remains to see how much they attribute to each. 5. In general, they are wont to place under the free will of man only inter”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part (Secunda Secundae), Of the Vices Opposed to Temperance, Art. 2: Article: Whether intemperance is a childish sin? I answer that, A thing is said to be childish for two reasons. First, because it is becoming to children, and the Philosopher does not mean that the sin of intemperance is childish in this sense. Secondly. by way of likeness, and it is in this sense that sins of intemperance are said to be childish. For the sin of intemperance is one of unchecked concupiscence, which is likened to a child in three ways. First, as rewards that”
- CCEL (Patristic) “Athanasius of Alexandria, Select Works and Letters, section 13: Alexander early singled out the promise of ability and devotion which marked Athanasius for his right-hand man long before the crisis which first proved his unique value. His years of study and work in the bishop’s household bore rich fruit in the two youthful works already alluded to. These works more than any later writings of Athanasius bear traces of the Alexandrian theology and of the influence of Origenism: but in them already we trace the independent grasp of Christian principles which mark Athanasius as the representative ”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians–Colossians–Thessalonians: moral character of heathenism.”—Meyer.—G.A.] 309 [Compare 1 Kings xviii. 27 , the locus classicus where Elijah uses his scathing irony against the priests of Baal.—G.A.] 310 [See Schaff’s History of the Christian Church , Vol. I., pp. 72–74, with Literature there noted.—G.A.] 311 [On Democritus and Leucippus, founders of the Atomistic philosophy, see Ueberweg’s Hist. of Philosophy (Amer. ed.), Vol. I., pp. 67–71; on Epicurus, Vol. I., pp. 205–207.—G.A.] 312 This was the instance in the Schools. Vid. Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. Hypot”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 142: by the grace of the Holy Spirit, not by his own power, and not by an influence which owes its success to the coöperation of an enslaved will. 537 537 See J. A. Hasse’s Anselm von Canterbury; Parts I. and II., the second part containing en exposition of his doctrines. See also Dr. Shedd’s History of Christian Doctrine, vol. ii. ch. 5. The two great contending powers in the Latin Church for two centuries before the Council of Trent, were the Dominicans and Franciscans, the Thomists and Scotists, the former the followers of Thomas Aquinas, ”
- CCEL (Patristic) “Athanasius of Alexandria, Select Works and Letters, section 43: of mind and simple unostentatious fervour of conviction, stamp the book as a great one, and as the worthy complement of its more renowned companion. The two together ‘are, next to Origen’s de Principiis, the first attempt to construct a scientific system of the Christian religion upon certain fundamental ideas of God and world, sin and redemption; and they form the ripe fruit of the positive apology in the Greek Church.’ (Schaff, Nicene Christianity, p. 82.) The polemic against idolatry and heathen mythology is common to the gener”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 & 2 Corinthians: rare felicity, on passing into a modern language. His dramatic manner indeed, which was one of the great charms of his oratory among the Greeks, and his rapid and ingenious selection and variation of topics, these may in some measure be retained, and may serve to give even English readers some faint notion of the eloquence which produced so powerful effects on the susceptible people of the East. “However, it is not of course as composition that we desire to call attention to these or any other of the remains of the Fathers. Nor would this topic h”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians–Colossians–Thessalonians: little nor in great things shall be led captive by it. But if in little things we do not despise it, we shall easily be overcome by it in the most important. Let us therefore remove far from us the sources of it, and these are, folly, and meanness of mind, so that, if we assume a lofty spirit, we shall be able to look beyond honor from the multitude, and to extend our views to heaven, and obtain the good things there. Of which God grant that we may all be partakers, by the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with w”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 142: A.D. 529. The decrees of those Councils being ratified by the Bishop of Rome, Augustinianism was reestablished as the authoritative form of doctrine for the Latin Church. Scholastic Period. All conceivable forms of doctrine concerning sin and grace were ventilated successively by the subtle intellects of the schoolmen of the Middle Ages. Some of the theologians of that period were really pantheistic in their philosophy; others, while recognizing a personal God, merge all the efficiency of second causes in his omnipresent 715 agency; othe”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 114: the Scriptures; of which truths the Scriptural doctrines are only the temporary forms. Thus Origen made the Bible teach Platonism. The object of most of the early apologists, was to show that Christianity had a philosophy as well as heathenism; and that the philosophy of the former is identical with the philosophy of the latter so far as that of the latter can prove itself to be true. The trouble was, and always has been, that whatever philosophy was assumed to be true, the doctrines of Scripture were made to conform to it or were sublim”