Hi, Truthstalker. This one is the only one I feel I can jump into at this point: I’d say no. Calvin (and especially Luther, and the Reformers in general) seemed to know scholastic philosophy through the Catholic writers AFTER Aquinas, when scholasticism began to go a little wonky.
Actually, in the case of Calvin it may be the other way round. The Catholic scholar Alexandre Ganoczy concluded that prior to 1536 (when Calvin’s serious career as a theologian began with his publication of the first edition of the Institutes–he was 27!) Calvin shows no sign of knowing any of the scholastics after the 12th century–his account of the “Sophists” seems to be taken only from Peter Lombard and Gratian (i.e., from commonly used compendia of theology and canon law on which later scholasticism built). Of course, Calvin may have read Aquinas or Scotus or any number of other writers in the remaining 28 years of his life. He was very busy, but it’s amazing how much reading busy people get done! (Sometimes a lot more than us lazy folk
) Or Ganoczy could be wrong. But as far as I know Ganoczy’s work has remained the most thorough and reliable study of the subject.
Many scholars have claimed that Calvin studied Duns Scotus, because he attended a college of the University of Paris that was dominated by Scotism. However, Ganoczy pointed out that these scholars have overlooked the huge difference between the arts and theology faculties. Calvin was in the arts faculty, and there’s no evidence that he took classes in the theology faculty. There was no reason for a young arts student (an undergard, essentially) to read Scotus just because the folks in the theology faculty were into Scotus.
Either way, you’re right that there’s no evidence Calvin (or Luther, for that matter) read Aquinas. Other Reformers–Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt, Jerome Zanchi–definitely did.
As for the OP’s question: I think Calvin’s criticism of scholastic “faith” for referring to God rather than to Christ is unfair, since the scholastics (certainly Aquinas) thought that faith pertained to those things known through revelation, and this came only in Christ. But the Protestant view (particularly Luther’s) of faith was more explicitly and resolutely Christocentric, I think. Similarly, his criticism of implicit faith certainly doesn’t apply to Aquinas, since Aquinas thinks that some things have to be believed with explicit faith. However, the basic criticism of unformed faith (whether theologically correct or not) does seem to be directed against the position actually taught by the scholastics. Calvin is still a bit unfair (again, I have Aquinas in mind here, though he’s probably not the best comparison) in saying that unformed faith doesn’t include the “fear of God” or any kind of piety. Aquinas taught that the jump from opinion to the certainty of faith (besides being a gift of God, of course) was made by the will, and this involved a love for the thing believed (although not necessarily supernatural charity). A person who felt no glimmerings of piety would not have unformed faith, I think. That is why Aquinas (and I believe Catholic theology generally), unlike Protestantism, does not equate loveless, non-salvific human faith with the faith of demons (a fact that I believe blunts the common Catholic argument from James, since we all agree that the “faith” demons have is very different from the faith that is a gift of God).
It’s been a while since I have read Scotus, and I don’t think I’ve ever read him on this subject. Probably the best comparison would be to look at Peter Lombard, who seems to have given Calvin many of his ideas about what the “schoolmen” taught (though he recognized that Lombard was closer to what Calvin considered the orthodox view than some of the later scholastics).
Edwin
