Scholarly Reflections
Cooper, Jordan, and Lioy, Dan. "The Use of Classical Greek Philosophy in Early Lutheranism." Conspectus 26, September 2018, 1-27.
Lutheran thought has typically been understood as opposed to Greek philosophical thought. Cooper and Lioy find that the earliest Lutherans, while critical of the overall system, used its categories in their writing (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 2).
In Luther's writing, philosophical categories are explicitly used only rarely, "as he generally sought to utilise biblical and theological" categories (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 2). he does, however, seem to understand the philosophical topics of his time. Cooper and Lioy therefore attempt to identify the philosophical categories through a survey of Luther's writing. While Luther had early training in nominalist philosophy, particularly that of Ockham, his writings gradually show an increasing distance from these thought patterns (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 3). When Luther mentions the philosophers or their categories, it is generally in a critical way.
To analyze this practice, Cooper and Lioy examine Luther's negative comments about Aristotle and his "view of the relationship between faith and reason" (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 4). They find a concentration of these statements in 1517=1522, and a continuation of the ideas afterward.
Luther's objection to Aristotle may be based on the way he was called to Pelagius' defense in the time of Augustine (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 4). He further objects, not to Aristotle's ethical teachings, but to the idea that an ethical life results in virtue before God (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 5). However, the very categories of faith and reason are consonant with classical philosophy. Luther is not that far from Aquinas and others philosophically as he might seem at first glance. His theology of the two realms further exemplifies an application of classical categories (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 6). Jordan and Lioy provide several additional examples of bifurcations which depend on philosophical categories. In sum, Luther admits that Aristotle evaluated natural revelation well, but rejects building any philosophy of salvation on such ethical thought (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 7). human reason doesn't understand a biblical view of justification. It always leads to a Pelagian moralism.
Cooper and Lioy next ask "whether there is any inherent connection . . . between the civil and heavenly kingdoms (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 7). Luther does accept paradox, but he will not say that heavenly realities contradict each other or that they contradict civil reality. It is through fair application of philosophical categories that the distinctions can be perceived (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 8).
Cooper and Lioy consider the relationship between Luther and Aquinas. Based on the recent scholarship of Denis Janz, they note that there is substantial agreement between Luther and Aquinas (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 9). Janz concludes that much of Luther's knowledge of Aquinas' anthropology is mediated through Cajetan, who misunderstood Aquinas. When Cajetan is removed from the equation Luther and Aquinas are in broad agreement (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 10).
Melanchthon is frequently considered to have imported rationalist philosophy into Lutheran theology. This thesis first became prominent in the work of Albrecht Ritschl and Adolf von Harnack (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 11). Counter to many theologians of his time, Melanchthon, in his Loci Communies, treats individual theological topics in a systematic and expository manner. This moves from the classical rhetorical method of proposition, refutatin, and response into a more systematic method of drawing logical conclusions (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 12). The tools of classical dialectic are present in Melanchthon, though the medieval adoption of Aristotle's Ethics and Metaphysics is not (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 13). Philosophy, in Melanchton, is always subject to theology. However, Melanchthon regularly used philosophical cateogies to describe concepts (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 14).
Cooper and Lioy next review the concept of essentialism in Luther, then in Lutheran scholasticism up to the 20th century (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 15ff). They observe that the Heidelberg Disputations, where Luther interacts with many metaphysical ideas, have not historically been studied in much detail, largely because a critical edition including Luther's defense was only published in 1979 (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 16). Any scholarshiop pertaining to this, then, has been relatively recent. Luther in fact speaks with knowledge of and sometimes praise of Aristotle and some of his specific arguments in Metaphysics.
In comparison to Luther, Cooper and Lioy find Chemnitz to be "a more philosophical thinker" (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 17), following classical categories. His thinking shows not only in his own writing but also in the Formula of Concord, particularly Article 1. The difference between "essential" and "accidental" traits depends on Aristotelian categories, as does the distinction between original and actual sin (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 18-19). The philosophical cateogires are necessary for adequate analysis and discussion of Lutheran theology.
Cooper and Lioy move on in their analysis from Chemnitz to Johann Gerhard, who "devotes an entire volume [of Theological Commonplaces] to an exposition of God's essence and attributes, in which a Thomistic conception of deity is affirmed and defended" (Cooper & Lioy 2018, 21). Analysis of his arguments for God's existence and his view of divine simplicity follow, Gerhard's proofs make extensive use of Aristotle's categories.