That’s actually a very common theory, ever since the work of Joseph Lortz in the 1930s. One of Steinmetz’ first students, John Farthing, wrote a book based on his dissertation) examining one very specific test case: how much would Luther have known of Aquinas from only Biel? What he found was that Biel’s citations of Aquinas would not have given Luther a good understanding of the more Augustinian aspects of Aquinas’ theology.
Steinmetz (my doctoral advisor, as it happens) talked about Lortz a lot but always seemed rather skeptical of his theory that if Luther had known Aquinas’ work the Reformation as we know it wouldn’t have happened. For one thing, Steinmetz pointed out, there were other Reformers (Carlstadt, Vermigli, Zanchi, Bucer) who did study Aquinas. The via moderna wasn’t the only theology out there. The further wrinkle is that the leading Thomist of the era was Cajetan, who has been accused, again, of playing down the more Augustinian aspects of Aquinas and misinterpreting Aquinas on analogy, etc.
So what I got from Steinmetz was: yes Luther was reacting to a theology that wasn’t necessarily typical of medieval Catholicism as a whole, but on the other hand this was a very common theology in the later Middle Ages and even people who weren’t Occamists tended toward a “semi-Pelagian” understanding of human capabilities. On the other hand, there were also theologians like Bradwardine or Luther’s own mentor Staupitz who went in the other direction and favored a rather extreme version of Augustinian theology. But I think it is fair to say that Luther would have experienced the theological scene of his day as a battlefield between a majority position he found semi-Pelagian and a minority position that insisted on human depravity and the sovereignty of grace. He championed this minority position and put a much more radical twist on it.
Heiko Oberman, Steinmetz’ doctoral advisor, wrote a very influential book called
The Harvest of Medieval Theology on the theology of Gabriel Biel. If you are seriously interested in the subject, you should read this book (if you haven’t already). In another essay, Oberman suggested that there was (in contrast to Biel’s kind of theology) an “Augustinian school” of theology in the later Middle Ages, of which Luther was the heir. Steinmetz criticized this view, saying that essentially Oberman was constructing a “school” out of a few unrelated theologians. Steinmetz tended, in reaction to Oberman, to be very suspicious of any Big Theory. He preferred to write tightly focused essays on specific issues of Biblical interpretation and let people draw their own conclusions. One problem with this, in my opinion, is that Steinmetz’ name has been used as a result to support a theory of the basic conservatism of the Reformation with which I know Steinmetz actually disagrees. . . . . Personally, I found Steinmetz’ approach difficult because my own instincts are very much for the construction of Big Theories. Steinmetz’ careful training was very good for me, but now I find it hard to figure out how to publish the things I want to say because I know Steinmetz would think I was being too brash and not careful enough. That’s one reason why I hang out so much on this forum
.
In short, yes Luther was definitely reacting to the Occamists, but how far we should draw the implications of this is a matter of debate.
I should also mention that Otto Herman Pesch wrote a book comparing Luther’s doctrine of justification with that of Aquinas and concluded that they differed in methodology rather than in substance. Steinmetz referred to Pesch’s work with respect, as I recall.
Edwin
