The Limitations of Aristotelian Philosophy and the Usefulness of the Scholastic Method
NOTE: This post may appear truncated or abruptly discontinued in your email inbox, as this post may exceed the conventional word count limit set by certain email providers (i.e. Gmail). This may be due either to a copious amount of citations, half of which may be overbearing, or my inability to write concisely, ironically demonstrated in this protracted “forward.” Whatever the case may be, you may have to open this post in the Substack app or in your preferred internet browser in order to read it in its entirety. Blessings, my friends!
“Grant me, O Lord my God, a mind to know you, a heart to seek you, wisdom to find you, conduct pleasing to you, faithful perseverance in waiting for you, and a hope of finally embracing you. Amen.”
This prayer was written by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in De modo studendi (“On the Method of Study”). Aquinas, a Dominican friar, theologian, and philosopher, wrote several dogmatic treatises throughout the 13th century. These treatises have been revered within Western Christendom. Aquinas had a remarkable mind and an extraordinary understanding of philosophical and theological concepts. As a prominent scholastic theologian, he is credited with cementing Aristotelian thought in Christian theology.
While his theological contributions have garnered well-deserved approbation, it must be noted that Aquinas inadvertently invited a philosophical captivity of Christian theology that seduced theological study in the Middle Ages. Several dogmatic errors entered into the Western Church once Aristotelian philosophy dominated theological thought. These issues challenged the accepted extent to which Aristotelianism ought to influence Christian theology—a central debate during the Reformation.
This unfortunate philosophical captivity, which emerged during the scholastic movement, clarifies two things for the Church today: 1) that Aristotelian philosophy—and philosophy more generally—is useful insofar as it is subjected to the revelation of sacred Scripture, and 2) that the scholastic method can be an advantageous theological system, insofar as Scripture and its teachings remain prominent in theological study.
The reader will find that, though this article is introduced by a prolegomenon on Aquinas, the bulk of this article is concerned with Aristotelian philosophy and the scholastic method. This article will begin by summarizing Aristotelian philosophy, after which the limitations of Aristotelian philosophy in Christian theology will be analyzed. Finally, the usefulness of the scholastic method in theology will be evaluated.
I. Introduction to Aristotelian Philosophy
Aristotelian philosophy is a comprehensive, empirical1, and teleological2 system developed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BC). It emphasizes sensory observation, logic, and the inherent purpose of being. It rejects Plato’s abstract idealism, instead analyzing material substances and their place within reality.
Aristotle was concerned especially with virtue ethics, politics, physics, and metaphysics. The various applications of Aristotelianism in reality are almost innumerable, though commonality exists in logical structure, rigor, and comprehensiveness. It serves as the basis for Western thought.
Aristotelianism is a form of deductive or analytical inductive logic that answers questions by a four-cause (formal, material, efficient, and final) schema.3 A twofold division between theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy exists in Aristotelianism:
Aristotle’s classification of the sciences makes a distinction between theoretical philosophy, which aims at contemplation, and practical philosophy, which aims at action or production. Within theoretical philosophy, first philosophy studies objects that are motionless and separate from material things, mathematics studies objects that are motionless but not separate, and natural philosophy studies objects that are in motion and not separate.
[…]
Practical philosophy is distinguished from theoretical philosophy both in its goals and in its methods. While the aim of theoretical philosophy is contemplation and the understanding of the highest things, the aim of practical philosophy is good action, that is, acting in a way that constitutes or contributes to the good life. But human beings can only thrive in a political community: the human is a “political animal” and thus the political community exists by nature. Thus, ethical inquiry is part of political inquiry into what makes the best life for a human being.4
Additionally, Aristotle is often credited with the establishment of Western logic:
[Aristotle’s] On Interpretation begins with a discussion of meaning, according to which written words are symbols of spoken words, while spoken words are symbols of thoughts. This theory of signification can be understood as a semantics that explains how different alphabets can signify the same spoken language, while different languages can signify the same thoughts. Moreover, this theory connects the meaning of symbols to logical consequence, since commitment to some set of utterances rationally requires commitment to the thoughts signified by those utterances and to what is entailed by them […] Though the elements of Aristotelian logic are implicit in our conscious reasoning, Aristotelian “analysis” makes explicit what was formerly implicit.5
In summary, Aristotle devised a comprehensive, empirical, and teleological system focusing on substance, virtue, and purpose. It argues that every thing has a natural function or purpose. Human life is intended to culminate in an ultimate happiness (eudaemonia) through rational, virtuous action. Aristotelianism is the basis for medieval scholasticism and immeasurably influences Western logic, science, and ethics.
II. The Limitations of Aristotelian Philosophy in Theology
Apart from its logical structure, Aristotelian philosophy is predicated on various presuppositions that are discordant with Christian theology. A few examples are especially noteworthy:
Aristotelian philosophy contends that matter is uncreated and eternal.
Aristotle implied that the soul is destroyed after bodily death, because he viewed the soul as the “form” of the body, or that which principally organizes the physical body.6
Aristotle argued that God is an “Unmoved Mover,”7 an impersonal, intellectual being that does not interfere in the material world.
Against these propositions, Scripture clearly teaches that:
God created all things, both visible and invisible (Gen. 1-2).
The soul does not die (Ecc. 12:7; Matt. 10:28), and that all beings will face judgment on the Last Day (Ecc. 12:14; John 8:15-16; 2 Cor. 5:10).
God providentially cares for and intervenes in His creation (Matt. 10:29-30; Prov. 16:33; Neh. 9:6).
These are only a few ways in which Aristotelian philosophy clashes with Christian theology. Lest it be presumed that Aristotelian philosophy is entirely irreconcilable with Christian theology, it ought to be recognized that aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy—including his metaphysics, logic, and virtue ethical systems—may be understood and utilized properly within a theological context.
Hence, one might wonder how Aquinas inadvertently engendered a philosophical captivity that threatened Christian theology. While reconciliation between Aristotelian philosophy, on which Aquinas’s thought was predicated, and Christian theology is possible to an extent, Aquinas attempted to reconcile them in such a way that marred the incongruous differences between them. In other words, they were no longer understood within their proper contexts. They became problematically homogenized.
Aquinas hoped to prove by this agglomeration that reason and theology are compatible. Certainly, God created man to be an ordered, logical, and reasonable creature. For Aquinas, if this is to be accepted, then reason and theology must not only be coexistent but also cooperative. Therefore, Aquinas used Aristotle’s rational framework and philosophical presuppositions to harmonize reason and theology. He introduced philosophical premises on which theology definitionally cannot be based.
Aquinas congruently hoped to protect and strengthen Christian theology against intellectual attacks. Aquinas expostulated against philosophical arguments opposed to theology with philosophical arguments in favor of theology. He presumed that his intellectualized and philosophized method of theology could defend the faith from doctrinal errors and intellectual challenges.
Granted, it is true that God created man to be a logical, rational creature. Adam and Eve were given dominion over creation (Gen. 1:26-28). Scripture exhorts Christians to be rational (Rom. 12:1), defend the faith (1 Peter 3:15), and trust in God’s wisdom (1 Cor. 1:21). Philosophy cannot be equated to divine wisdom (Col 2:8), which comes only from God (Prov. 2:6; 3:13). Nevertheless, Paul would sometimes utilize Greek philosophical concepts in preaching to Greeks (cf. Acts 17:27-28), so long as it did not interfere with the substance of the Gospel.
Therefore, philosophy is necessary for theological study in two ways: 1) that we might consider and explain exegetical, theological, and doctrinal topics in an orderly, logical manner, according to our rational nature, and 2) that the premises under which certain theologians argue might be rightly perceived and considered.
Johann Gerhard (1582–1637), Archtheologian of Lutheran Orthodoxy, took a reasoned approach to philosophical study. He warned against philosophical systems that are opposed to Scripture, but commended to Christian usage those systems that align with God’s wisdom. Specifically, Gerhard outlined three uses of philosophy in theology: instrumental, constructive, and destructive.8 In short, he contended that philosophy serves to “explain certain terms” and “teach theological things distinctly and in an orderly manner” by “rules of definitions, divisions, method, and proofs.”9 Philosophy is always subjected to theology, but applied properly, it can be an invaluable tool in the promulgation, inculcation, and preservation of doctrine.
Gerhard also outlined the misuse of philosophy in theology, especially when “preparatory cultivation of the mind through philosophical study is made to be the principle of saving faith and is thought to be the efficient cause for the inner illumination of the Holy Spirit.”10 Philosophy becomes problematic when logic lords itself over theology, or when reason is said to be the means by which faith is apprehended. Paul strictly forbids this in Colossians 2:8.
Concerning Aristotelian philosophy specifically, Gerhard took a nuanced approach. He adopted an Aristotelian framework for academic structure that was subordinated to Scripture and theology.11 This structure allowed Gerhard to synthesize and explain theological concepts without endorsing the erroneous substantive presuppositions of Aristotelianism. Thus, Gerhard could be thoroughly detailed and logically rigorous in his theological treatments, even utilizing Aristotelian categories that faithfully convey theological truths.
It is imperative, then, that a theologian possesses a working knowledge of philosophical concepts for two reasons: 1) for the discernment of the theological positions of others, and 2) for the elaboration of one’s own theological positions.
In so doing, one may discern whether philosophical concepts are being used appropriately in any given theological treatment. Conversely, one may be able to correct errors in cases in which philosophy is too closely mingled with theology. A proper understanding of the relationship between philosophy and theology always results in the subjugation of reason to theology.12
Therefore, a theologian cannot be ignorant of other philosophical systems, but must carefully distinguish when and how philosophical systems can and should be used to convey theological truths. It is useful that a theologian is aware of the premises and presuppositions under which other theologians are operating, lest he cannot properly engage the claims and propositions of others.
A theologian must also not assume that erroneous philosophical systems, such as Aristotle’s, are entirely useless. The rigor by which such systems are characterized is useful in explaining and defending theological concepts, as stated above.13 Such an understanding becomes inappropriate, however, when these systems are used to promulgate false doctrine or become lords over theology. Such was Aquinas’s impropriety in promulgating doctrines such as transubstantiation, which lord reason over theology and ascribe to Scripture that which it does not teach.
III. The Utility of the Scholastic Method
Aristotelian philosophy slowly emerged as an important framework in theology. It became the foundation for the scholastic method, a pedagogical approach to philosophy and theology that involves rigorous dialectical reasoning, reconciliation between faith and logic, and critical questioning.
Scholasticism did not begin with Aquinas, though he is among the most prominent scholastic theologians. The broader scholastic movement emerged around the time of St. Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033-1109), who is generally considered the first scholastic theologian. Others, like Peter Abelard, quickly implemented the scholastic method.14 By Aquinas’s time, the scholastic method became standardized in academic and theological study. It remained so for nearly 400 years.
The scholastic method was disfavored among early Lutherans during the Reformation. Luther correctly recognized that reason had become a lord over theology. Scripture had become a secondary tool that served human intellect.15 As a result, Luther largely abandoned the scholastic method, though he did not forsake the systematic tradition entirely. His firm insistence on exegesis shaped the theological character of the Reformation.
After Luther, Lutheran theologians sought a revival of the scholastic method. Even Philipp Melanchthon, who worked alongside Luther throughout the Reformation, ordered his doctrinal writings in such a way that mirrored the scholastic method, though Melanchthon provides a renewed emphasis on exegesis. Melanchthon’s treatment of doctrine were known as commonplaces.
Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) built upon Melanchthon’s theological commonplaces, and reinitiated a scholastic approach to theology in his Loci Theologici. Johann Gerhard later solidified and mastered the scholastic method in Lutheranism.16 Among other prominent theologians in the era of Lutheran Orthodoxy, these men built their theological approach on 1) a proper exegesis of Scripture, 2) a faithful presentation of doctrine that flows from Scripture, and 3) a thorough, rigorous defense of this doctrine in the form of dogmatic treatises.
Dr. Jordan Cooper, Chair of Lutheran Dogmatics at the American Lutheran Theological Seminary, offers a remarkable defense of the scholastic method. He contends that the scholastic method may safeguard against doctrinal errors and serve as an apologetic tool.17 The scholastic method does not necessarily rely on Aristotelian presuppositions, but instead relies on rigorous logic, masterful rhetoric, and substantive thoroughness. It ensures that potential objections to any given proposition are identified, acknowledged, and answered. Scripture stands at the heart of the Lutheran scholastic approach, as demonstrated by the great Lutheran scholastic theologians like Chemnitz and Gerhard.
The scholastic method is concerned with theological clarity through precise definitions and indissoluble logic.18 Theological disagreements are better resolved through this process. The precision with which theological topics are discerned aligns with the principles of the Reformation, which emphasized the authority of Scripture over reason. If Scripture is to be the sole authority, then insofar as it is apprehensible to human reason, it must be explained and defended logically.
Lutheran scholasticism prioritizes method, which includes logic, definitions, and structure, against content, which includes specific erroneous medieval theological conclusions. Because Scripture deals with complex systematic questions, theologians must synthesize the content of Scripture with an appropriate approach to explaining it.19 This is especially the case in areas like Christology, in which intricately complicated theological contentions must be resolved.
In the era of Lutheran Orthodoxy, Lutheran theologians established several appropriations of the scholastic method. The loci theologici method is an approach that summarizes, synthesizes, and organizes various doctrinal topics. The analytical and synthetic methods, by comparison, approach the validity of a given proposition based on its inherent meaning (analytical) or its application to the real world (synthetic). The use of these methods varied among 17th-century Lutheran dogmaticians, though fidelity to Scripture always remained central.20 Regardless of the method used, it must always convey the perspicuity of Scripture and demonstrate adherent fidelity to Scripture.
IV. Concluding Thoughts
The serviceability of Aristotelian philosophy in Christian theology is a complicated subject, though its attestation throughout Christian history has made it more approachable. Aristotle devised a remarkable system of philosophical thought. It has been recognized throughout the ages as an extraordinary system by which theological truths may be conveyed.
Its limitations, however, have also become manifest in various dogmatic errors that have plagued the Western Church. Aquinas, who initially had hoped to demonstrate the link between reason and faith, inadvertently solicited a hostile philosophical rebellion against theology. Thus, Christendom was forced to reckon with the inevitable limitations of philosophy in theological study.
The Lutheran Orthodox theologians proposed an exceptional scholastic method by which theological truths are conveyed logically, structurally, and comprehensively. This system may lend itself well to ecumenical conversation and greater theological clarity in matters of doctrinal disputes. Concern for structure and method trumps Aristotelian substance, though Aristotelian philosophy is not devoid of helpful insight by which we might understand and discern theological truths.
Johann Gerhard masterfully writes of our ultimate subjugation to sacred Scripture, to which we adhere in all theological and doctrinal matters, and to which philosophy must never become an equal, no less a lord:
“The obscurity of certain passages of Scripture drives us to pray more fervently, increases our eagerness for study, removes our aversion, commends the truth all the more, represses our arrogance, keeps its knowledge away from the wicked, and increases our reverence for the divinely instituted ministry.”
—St. Johann Gerhard, “On Interpreting Sacred Scripture and Method of Theological Study.”
That is, that which is concerned with verification by means of observation or experience, rather than mere theory or logical speculation.
That is, the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve, rather than the cause by which they are created.
Schema, literally “form” or “shape.” It denotes a structured framework that organized categories of information.
In Physics II.3, I.7-9 and Metaphysics V.2, Aristotle holds that there are four kinds of answers to “why” questions:
Matter (material): Aristotle defines matter as,“the primary substratum of each thing, from which it comes to be per se, [substantially], and that persists in the result.” (Physics I.9.) Matter allows a thing to change either accidentally (the “outwardness” of a thing) or substantially (that actual “whatness” of a thing).
Form (formal): Aristotle defines form as “the terminus of the process of [change].” - Metaphysics V.4. Essentially, form is what makes a thing what it is. Aristotle uses the example of man as a rational animal. What makes a man a man is his rationality, which distinguishes him from other animals.
Efficient, or Agent: The efficient change consists of things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement. In other words, the efficient cause is the mode of agency by which a thing is transformed. For example, Aristotle says that the efficient cause of a child is a parent.
Final Cause, or End: The final cause is a change or movement for the sake of a thing to be what it is. Often the final cause is confused with a purpose, or intention. This, however, is not the case, since a purpose is the effect wanted for a thing by a person, whereas Aristotle thought of ends as always present, ungiven, and always good.
“Aristotle,” by Justin Humphreys, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, https://iep.utm.edu/, 28 January 2026.
Justin Humphreys, “Aristotle,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Aristotle, On the Soul (De Anima), trans. Joe Sachs (Santa Fe: Green Lion Press, 2004), 412a–413a.
Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W. D. Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), 1072a.
Note that Aristotle died about 300 years before the Incarnation. It is unlikely that Aristotle had any familiarity with Judaism, since it was relatively confined to the Persian Empire. Some Jewish legends contend that Aristotle encountered a Jewish scholar, though historical evidence does not support this claim.
Johann Gerhard, On Interpreting Sacred Scripture and Method of Theological Study, trans. Richard J. Dinda, ed. Benjamin T. G.Mayes, Theological Commonplaces: Volumes I-II (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2017), 164.
Gerhard distinguishes between instrumental and real parts of philosophy. Instrumental parts of philosophy include logic and rhetoric, whereas real parts of philosophy include either theoretical or practical things. Theoretical things include metaphysics, physics, and mathematics, while practical things include ethics, politics, and family life.
Furthermore, the constructive use of philosophy serves to confirm questions, while the destructive use serves to attack or refute questions. The uses are patterned similarly to Aquinas’ use of philosophy, though Gerhard falls well short of supplanting theology altogether. Whereas Aquinas recharacterized theological study by these philosophical frameworks, Gerhard uses them supplementarily to theological frameworks set forth in Scripture.
Gerhard, Method of Theological Study, 164-166.
Gerhard, Method of Theological Study, 169.
Mark Mattes, “Review of ‘Johann Gerhard (1582–1637) and the Conceptualization of Theologia at the Threshold of the “Age of Orthodoxy”: The Making of a Theologian,’” by Glenn K. Fluegge, in Lutheran Quarterly 33, no. 4 (2019): 478-480. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lut.2019.0103.
Siegbert Becker, “Reason as Instrument (The Role of Reason in Theology),” in Our Great Heritage, vol. I, ed. Lyle W. Lange (Northwestern Publishing House, 1991), 62.
Though it is explained in greater detail in Section II, it is useful to note here that rigor and precision in theology, such as if found in Aquinas’ Summa, serves a valuable intellectual purpose. Since man is a rational, intellectual creature, it is fitting that, insofar as Scripture allows, this reason is utilized in defense of Scripture’s teachings. Such is an inherent strength of the scholastic method, particularly when used appropriately.
Peter Abelard wrote a compendium of theological propositions, for each of which he offered affirmative and negative (objecting) statements. This work, known as Sic et Non, can be likened to Peter Lombard’s Sentences, and acted as a precursor to Aquinas’s Summa.
Theodor Dieter, “Scholasticisms in Martin Luther’s Thought,” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion, 29 Mar. 2017. Accessed 28 Jan. 2026. https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-265.
Henry Eyster Jacobs, “Scholasticism in the Luth. Church,” in Lutheran Cyclopedia (New York: Scribner, 1899), 434–435.
Jordan Cooper, Prolegomena: A Defense of the Scholastic Method (Weidner Institute, 2020).
Cooper, Prolegomena.
This is not to suggest that merely reading Scripture is not sufficient. On the contrary, the scholastic approach requires a thorough reading of Scripture, as a result of which the content of Scripture is placed into systematic categories, by which complex theological questions may be answered by the whole of Scripture.
Robert D. Preus, The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the 17th-Century Lutheran Dogmaticians (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957).