The roots of Protestantism in pre-Reformation Christianity was the topic of the fourth Prince Georges Conference on Reformed Theology, held at Greenbelt Baptist Church in Greenbelt, Maryland on September 26-27. Michael Allen, Professor of Systematic Theology and Academic Dean at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, Samuel Renihan, Pastor of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in La Mirada, California, and Chris Spano, Senior Pastor of Trinity Community Church in Bowie, Maryland each spoke in separate sessions on different aspects of the general topic.
Protestantism and Its Attitude to the Past
Spano asked whether Protestants should be concerned about the Christian past. One point of view is that they should not. He referred to the sixteenth century radical reformer Sebastian Franck, who maintained that there had been no true church or true Christianity since the time of the apostles. On the other hand, John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century maintained that “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” Both agree that Protestant Christianity must be discontinuous with the past. But the motivation of the Reformation was to recover the past, and Protestantism indeed has pre-Reformation roots, Spano said. While Protestants acknowledge only Scripture as a final authority, they maintain that doctrine and practice should be “resourced by the Great Tradition.”
The Reformers thus did not seek to replace traditional Christianity, but to reform it in line with Scripture. Elements of patristic and medieval Christianity were retained, but other elements thought to be unbiblical and abusive were dispensed with. “Faith alone” was the doctrinal center for the Reformation, the way in which sinners are made right with God. To establish this, the Reformers insisted on the Bible as the ultimate, but not sole authority (“Sola Scriptura,” not “Solo Scriptura.”) This means that the Bible is the ultimate authority, and tradition stands under it. The Reformers maintained that medieval theologians, notably scholastics like Peter Lombard, effectively put tradition before Scripture.
In support of Sola Scriptura Spano quoted Augustine: “but who can fail to be aware, that Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, is confined within its own limits, and then stands in so absolutely a superior position that all later writings are subsidiary, and without it, there can be no disputation, or any disputation whether it is right and true.” Spano summarized this as saying “Scripture comes on top, everything else is under that.” Scripture stands in a “unique” position, because, unlike developed theology or scholastic speculation it is ”the very Word of God.”
Spano conceded that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, based on Rom. 1:16-17, was indeed an innovation in Christian theology. Luther credited Augustine “with providing the doctrinal resources to make this spiritual breakthrough.” Like the doctrine of the Trinity, solifidianism and Sola Scriptura are not explicitly stated in the Bible, but can reasonably be inferred from what the Bible does explicitly say. Whenever a dispute arose in the Bible, or a need for reformation after a period of decadence, people in Biblical times settled the dispute by submitting it “to the scrutiny of Scripture.” Spano reviewed King Josiah’s reformation in II Kings 22 and Jesus’ rebuke of the tradition of the elders in Mark 7 to show examples of reformation according to Scripture in the Bible.
The Challenge of Retrieving Correct Doctrine
Renihan then discussed how, in light of these basic Protestant doctrines, it is possible to do “theological retrieval” from the past. All believers know God. “You have been anointed by the Holy One and you all have knowledge.” (I Jn 2:20). “The New Testament blesses God’s people with the knowledge that they need to know the Lord savingly.” There is no secret knowledge, but the truth revealed in Scripture is open to all who believe. Theological retrieval involves “studying the Scriptures, with the wisdom of the church helping you. It’s also studying the wisdom of the church in order to understand the Scriptures.” This goes beyond historical theology, which attempts to understand the theology of a particular era, to asking how far the theology of that day was Biblical, and thus true.
Allen observed that Protestants have been accused of lacking historical perspective in the development of theology, of introducing novel ideas into the received faith. But he noted that the first followers of Jesus, known originally as “The Way,” were accused of “novelty and innovation.” The Epistle to the Hebrews likewise speaks of the new situation of the people of God in the new covenant.
He also pointed out in discussing the heritage of the patristic era that change seems nearly perennial in religious tradition. There is usually some degree of change. The Nicene Creed, promulgated in A.D. 325, had to be further supplemented at the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. In the decades following, Augustine found that it needed further clarification. The orthodox understanding of the dual divine and human nature of Jesus was arrived at even later at the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451). These patristic doctrines were deemed ito express what Scripture teaches, and carried over into Protestant Christianity.
There are no Golden Ages that may be taken as pure instantiations of Christian faith. Rather, following Scripture, we “glean from the saints,” and “walk the path” before us. As an example of how Protestants appropriated pre-Reformation wisdom, Allen referred to John Calvin’s discussion of self-denial. It is through self-denial, Calvin maintained, that we have a framework in which the virtues so well discussed by the church fathers can be realized, and the vices they warned against can be avoided. It is not a set of performances that help us gain salvation, but it is self-denial that gives guidance for Christians who desire complete conformity to God’s will.
The Protestant Use of Medieval Scholasticism
Renihan then provided an extensive discussion of the Protestant appropriation from the Middle Ages, the era of pre-Reformation history with which Protestants have most sharply disagreed. He said that many people have the tendency to say when they have grown up “I’ll never be like my parents.” This was the attitude of the Protestant Reformers, especially Martin Luther. But in the end, it often happens that people become very much like their parents. This is something of the relation of Protestant Christianity to medieval Christianity, Renihan said.
A point of “complicated continuity” is medieval scholasticism. Alternately, the scholastics are called “the Schoolmen.” In the patristic period, Renihan said, the bishops were teachers, and published theological works. But from the seventh century on, bishops became more administrators of the church, and theology was developed and taught by monks and priests. These were called “school doctors.” Peter Lombard was one of the first scholastics. He wrote a book called “The Sentences,” which gave judgment about theological matters. A “sentence” was passed on particular theological problems based on Biblical or patristic authority. Subsequent scholars elaborated on his work, making theological questions “more and more complicated.” Other important scholastics were St. Bonaventure, St. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, William of Ockham, and other figures.
Early Protestants had several reactions to the scholastics. The first was that much scholastic work was useless. Renihan referred to a metaphor that was used: “needless needles.” In this vein, a common reaction to scholasticism was “that we’ll never go back.” Luther said that “it is impossible to reform the church unless the canon, the credals, scholastic theology, philosophy, logic as we now have them, be eradicated completely and other studies substituted.” Renihan said this was a clear case of “I’ll never be like my dad.” He said that “from the earliest days, it’s not difficult to find dismissive, and disparaging comments about scholastic theology.” It was claimed that scholasticism had “no real profit for the soul.” Further, scholasticism was “a major cause of losing the Scriptures in both study and in preaching.” It was observed that scholastic theology “was full of sharp and subtle questions, inventions, and contradictions.”
The scholastics “forced the Holy Bible out of men’s hearts and hands, and just, endless, endless, self-perpetuating debates that do no good for the people of God or the soul.” Preaching had little directly to do with the Bible. One Protestant critic, William Chillingworth, made the famous observation that medieval theologians debated about “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” (Actually a caricature to make a point). Yet it was a matter of “needless needles.” Medieval theology was held to “go nowhere, do nothing, help no one, and push the Scriptures out of theology, and push the Scriptures out of preaching.” Scholasticism involved “endlessly speculative questions that spawned other questions.”
But it turned out that with Protestant theology “the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree.” Scholastic argument turned out to be “unavoidable, in certain ways.” Protestants had to use the form scholastic argument simply to develop Protestant theology, and “they ended up using it quite a lot.”
He pointed to a theological encounter between Catholic scholars and Protestant ministers in July and August of 1556 in Paris. The question was whether the Protestants affirmed the Apostles’ Creed. The Protestants affirmed that they did. To confirm this, the Catholics attempted to go over the creed phrase by phrase, but never got beyond the first phrase. They specifically asked whether the word “almighty” meant that God could cause a body to be in two places, or two bodies in one place, or whether God could cause a body to be invisible. Renihan said that the Reformers responded that the questions the Catholics asked were “impertinent and estranged, they’re disconnected … what do these questions have to do with our confession of faith?” But the Catholics insisted that the meaning of “almighty” was important. The point of the creed is not simply the words it uses, but their meaning. And to get at the meaning, the Catholics maintained, it is necessary to use logic and philosophy.
What was behind these questions, Rehnihan said, was the position the Reformed would take against transubstantiation. If it were conceded that a single object could be in two places at one time, then the Reformed “would have no real reason to oppose transubstantiation.” The Reformed refusal to answer meant that the conference never got past the first article. The Reformed insisted that useless questions were being asked, and Catholics responded that logic was necessary in advancing any arguments.
It is also noteworthy, Renihan said, that while Luther utterly rejected scholasticism, in his later years, he “frequently returned to scholastic ways of arguing.” Other Reformers as well found it necessary to use scholastic logic, terminology, and rhetoric in developing Protestant theology. As historian of theology Richard Moller has maintained, the Reformation was both “a rejection of the late medieval theological world, and … a direct outgrowth of that world.” Scholasticism was first rejected, and then used by Protestant theologians. Such scholastic questions as angels dancing on the head of a pin are actually relevant. Can an immaterial object, such as a human soul, or even God’s spirit, be in the same place as a human body? These questions are unavoidable.
“The Method without the Madness”
Renihan asked how exactly Protestant theologians received scholasticism. He said that they attempted to appropriate “the method, without the madness.” Protestants “read, and freely used the schoolmen of the Middle Ages.”
Everything they took they endeavored to compare to Scripture. Scholasticism is not “a particular set of views or beliefs.” It is instead “a method of teaching.” This “method of theology” was “very positively received” by Protestants. But they rejected anything that had “no grounding in Scripture.” Thus, one may talk about a “Protestant scholasticism” that arose after the Reformation. “Not all needles are needless.” Theology needs catechesis and the precision with which the scholastics excelled. Renihan believes that the medieval method of catechesis is the greatest contribution of medieval scholasticism to Reformed Christianity. Protestants were “extremely eclectic” regarding medieval Christianity. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, was held by a Westminster divine as having written in his Summa “that absolute body of divinity,” yet regarding idolatry, he was “the most shameful writer that ever was.” In general, the “medieval method, and a good portion of the content” of medieval scholasticism Protestants appropriated and transmitted to future generations.
Renihan said that speaking as a Protestant, “the medieval church is my church.” Church history involves “not just a huge blank space” from the apostolic (or patristic) era to the Reformation. He pointed to three guidelines for Protestants in appropriating the work of the Middle Ages. First, it should be engaged as the Protestant forefathers did, retrieving what is valuable, but testing everything by Scripture. “Secondly, he teaches well who distinguishes well.” He said that “theology needs fine distinction and precise clarification.” This, scholasticism provided. Thirdly, scholasticism “triumphs” especially in its impact on catechesis. Children are asked: “who made you.” The answer is “God made me.” “What else did God make?” Answer: “all things.” “Why did God make me?” Answer: “for his own glory.” While catechesis strictly predates scholasticism, much of the scholastic method is used in contemporary catechesis. This, Renihan believes, “is the real triumph of scholasticism in the Protestant tradition.”
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on October 21, 2025 at 2:04 pm
Thank you for this article. More Christians ought to know that the magisterial Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, cared deeply about Christian tradition, wanted to retain all that was good in it, and wanted to avoid developing, believing, and promoting unwarranted innovations in doctrine. In their writings they cited forebears of the faith to demonstrate that their allegedly new and unorthodox doctrines were in fact old and orthodox.
My understanding is that the criticism of and rejection of Scholasticism began well before the Reformation with the Humanists, and that the magisterial Reformers were either Humanists or at considered themselves to be more like them than like the Scholastics.
Luther himself identified as an Ockhamist–although I’ve heard from a theologically-conservative Lutheran scholar that Luther’s understanding of an Ockhamist is not the same as what is commonly understood of that term today.
Luther is said to have spoken of Peter Lombard and other Scholastics in part DXLI of *The Table Talk or Familiar Discourse of Martin Luther.”, translated by William Hazlitt, Esq.. Following is a typed copy of it. (One can access a reproduction of the entire book for free at Google Books.)
The master of sentences, Peter Lombard, was a very diligent man, and of a high understanding; he wrote many excellent things. If he had wholly given himself to the Holy Scriptures, he had been indeed a great and a leading doctor of the church: but he introduced into his books unprofitable questions, sophisticating and mingling all together. The school divines [Scholastics] were fine and delicate wits, but they lived not in such times as we. They got so far that they taught mankind were not complete, pure, or sound, but wounded in part, yet they said people by their own power, without grace, could fulfil [*sic*] the law; though when they had obtained grace, they were able more easily to accomplish the law, of their own proper power.
Such and the like horrible things they taught; but they neither saw nor felt Adam’s fall, nor that the law of God is a spiritual law, requiring a complete and full obedience inwardly and outwardly, both in body and soul.
Comment by Brian Dau on October 22, 2025 at 12:54 pm
As a Catholic high school religion teacher, I appreciated this article, which touches on an important practical consideration of evangelization and teaching our faith. Literacy isn’t a matter of only being able to sound out letters to know what words mean. To understand a text, readers need to also study about the text’s historical context, and this information by its very nature cannot be entirely contained within a text itself.
For example, when I teach the parable of the Good Samaritan or Jesus’ conversation with the woman at the well, students don’t automatically know who the Samaritans were or why the Judeans viewed them with suspicion and hostility. There isn’t a Bible verse or passage that clearly explains this context, which the original audience understood but which young readers may not be aware of. Similarly, different books in the Bible often assume familiarity with Jewish religious practices, but modern readers lack this context and background knowledge. There are more examples of this than I can list in a brief response to an article.
Moreover, sincere readers can legitimately disagree with the interpretation of specific passages of the Bible, as happens for example with Calvinist and Arminian interpretations of human free will and God’s sovereignty. As much as we might like the Bible to provide clear answers to clear questions, it doesn’t do so.
Nor does the Bible answer questions that are new or haven’t been asked yet. Should human beings use technology like CRISPR-Cas9 to treat genetic disorders or modify our food, or does this tread into the domain of God’s creation in a way contrary to His will? To what extent and how should we ethically develop artificial intelligence? Again, the authors of Scripture did not consider these questions that hadn’t presented themselves to the original audience.
While some Bible teachers deny teaching tradition, it is very hard to see how somebody functionally could teach just the Bible alone, because everyone has their own interpretive tradition. If somebody is teaching about the Trinity, they’re teaching concepts arguably found in the Bible, but not everyone agrees. Similarly, many Bible teachers teach about the rapture and have a specific interpretation of how the end times will play out, but many of these traditions involve just as if not more much hair-splitting and speculation as the most extreme examples of scholasticism and hunting for unnecessary needles in theological haystacks.
While the reformers may have considered much of the work of the scholastics to be useless, often in life it’s necessary to take the wheat and let the chaff be still.
Kurt Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem (1931) states that in any sufficiently powerful formal system (like arithmetic), there exist true propositions that cannot be proven within that system. The Second Theorem goes further: such a system cannot prove its own consistency.
This is often interpreted more broadly to show we have creaturely limits to our human knowledge and need epistemological humility. Protestant use of the Christian past demonstrates that the act of Biblical interpretation depends on hermeneutical principles not expressly taught by the Biblical text itself, and which have themselves developed over time. Sola Scriptura, in practice, is never sola, but always accompanied and shaped by external factors outside of the Scriptural text.