BOOK REVIEW:
Reformed Thought and Scholasticism: The Arguments for the Existence of God in Dutch Theology 1575-16. By John Platt. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1982, 1997. 249 pp. ISBN: 9004065938. 

In Reformed Thought and Scholasticism, John Platt traces the transition from “reformation” to “orthodoxy” with regard to the way theologians in the Dutch Reformed tradition used and developed arguments for the existence of God. Platt assumes there is a “Reformation tradition” concerning the knowledge of God from nature, one that is distinct from the “medieval scholastic tradition” preceding the Reformation, and the “neo-scholastic tradition” following the Reformation. Hence he is ultimately interested in revealing the ways Reformed theologians after Calvin moved away from the Reformation tradition and towards the medieval scholastic theology of Thomas Aquinas and the neo-scholastic theology of Franciscus Suarez. 

According to Platt, the Reformation tradition appeals to “proofs” for the existence of God with the sole objective of rendering sinful humanity without excuse before God, and not for the purpose of establishing the prolegomena to the self-revelation of God in Scripture. Such proofs are established inwardly by the innate sense or idea of God in all humanity, and outwardly by the self-manifestation of God in the world, and are thus intimately related to the providence of God. These proofs are deployed with a highly developed sense of the fallenness of humanity, and are thus presented within the dialectical opposition between reason and revelation, philosophy and theology. Platt contrasts this Reformation position to the medieval scholastic position which uses rational proofs for the existence of God as the prolegomena to divine self-revelation, under the conviction that grace does not destroy but fulfills nature. Unlike the Reformation tradition, the scholastic tradition sees a positive and harmonious relationship between philosophy and theology, and will use philosophical proofs for the existence and nature of God in theology, since the same truths are known both by reason and by faith. Platt will use this understanding of the medieval scholastic tradition as his criterion for detecting the emergence of scholastic forms of thought in the Dutch Reformed tradition. 

Platt begins his examination of this development with the theology of Philip Melanchthon. He claims that Melanchthon adheres to the Reformation understanding of the proofs for the existence of God while pushing that understanding strongly in the direction of scholasticism and rationalism. Melanchthon stays within the boundaries of Reformation thought by his constant use of the Law/Gospel dialectic, placing all natural knowledge of God under the rubric of the Law. However, Platt sees his increasingly positive use of philosophy and reason as providing the impetus for subsequent Reformed theologians to go further in the direction of scholasticism. “If Melanchthon thus escapes the charge of rationalism he can hardly fail but be seen as one of the sources from which this soon emerged” (p. 32). Melanchthon avoids falling into rationalism and scholasticism by refusing to use such proofs in an apologetic way, in order to make the self-disclosure of God in Scripture more compelling and attractive to the unbeliever. 

The same cannot be said for Melanchthon’s student Ursinus. Platt notes the irony that the same person who brings Melanchthon most clearly into the Reformed tradition by means of the Heidelberg Catechism also presses well beyond Melanchthon and “the Reformation tradition” by his apologetic use of proofs for the existence of God. According to Ursinus, the natural testimonies of God in the natural world should lead unbelievers to be “stirred up to seek the true God in the Church” (p. 56). Ursinus also makes much more positive use of rational proofs for the existence of God than did Melanchthon. The subsequent tradition of commentaries on the Heidelberg Catechism is a combination of the use of Ursinus’s proofs with an element of correction of the use to which they are put, coming mostly from Calvin. However, in spite of these corrections, the influence of Ursinus was to open the door to the apologetic use of the proofs for the existence of God in Reformed theology. 

According to Platt, the door that Ursinus opened was entered by Lambert Daneau, who turned explicitly to Thomas Aquinas to develop the apologetic use of the proofs for the existence of God avoided by Calvin and Melanchthon. Aquinas was also used in various ways by other Leiden theologians such as Junius and Vorstius, often in combination with Ursinus on the one hand and Suarez on the other. Even though there were some like Coccejus who resisted the emergence of scholastic themes in Dutch Reformed theology, Platt claims nonetheless that the seventeenth century saw “the establishment at the heart of Dutch theology not merely of the sorts of proofs favoured by Melanchthon and Ursinus . . . but of an out and out scholastic kind, stemming first from the medieval schoolmen and later from the neo-Thomism of Suarez” (pp. 175-6). The emergence of full-blown scholasticism is due in large part to De Courcelles and especially Episcopius, who, according to Platt, turns his back on the whole Reformed tradition by his stress on the role of right reason and free will in coming to the knowledge of God from the natural world. “This is a view which is not only totally at odds with that of Calvin but also goes far beyond that of Arminius in its assertion of human freedom” (p. 226). 

Platt is very careful to eliminate possible sources of scholastic rationalism in the Reformed tradition. He rejects the thesis advanced by Barth and Cochrane that the Gallican and Belgic Confessions inject the “virus” of “natural theology” into the Reformed tradition. He also eliminates Socinus as a source of scholastic rationalism, and seriously qualifies the role of Arminius. He makes a very compelling case that the most important influence in this direction came from Ursinus and his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, and the subsequent influence of Thomas Aquinas and Suarez. 

Platt could have made his presentation even more convincing had he delved more deeply into Calvin’s understanding of the “proofs” for the existence of God, for he clearly shows that Calvin, Melanchthon, and Ursinus had the greatest impact on the tradition of commentaries on the Catechism. It is hard to say that there is a “Reformation position” on proofs for the existence of God, as each theologian has their own perspective on this issue, and it was not an area of controversy either with Rome or with the Radical Reformers. Platt could also have made his presentation more compelling if he had developed the reasons why Dutch Reformed theologians turned away from Calvin and Melanchthon and towards Aquinas and Suarez. What was it about the context in which they worked that made the scholastics more useful than the Reformers? These questions aside, Platt has written a very clear and convincing description of the development of Reformed scholasticism, one impressively rooted in the primary texts, making it a study of note almost twenty years after its initial release. 

Randall C. Zachman
Associate Professor of Theology
University of Notre Dame 

PUBLISHED IN THE BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE FOR REFORMED THEOLOGY, SUMMER 2002, VOL. 2, #4.