There’s no evidence that Luther read Aquinas or had solid knowledge of Thomism, indeed. John Farthing wrote a book asking how much Luther would have known of Aquinas if he only had Gabriel Biel (the systematic theologian whose work Luther studied most intensively) to go on. Farthing concluded that Luther would have had a quite distorted view of Aquinas from that source.
On the other hand, other Protestant Reformers such as Carlstadt, Bucer, Vermigli, and Zanchi did study Aquinas, so one can’t (as some Catholics have tried to do) simply “blame” the Reformation on ignorance of Aquinas!
- I object to the idea that Christ is revealed solely through the cross. Is that really Luther? I think we have 33 years of Christ on earth revealing God to man, plus the OT.
I think the way I’d put it is that the Cross is the key that unlocks everything else. But yes, there is a real difference here from the Reformed position. In my opinion, the Reformed “flatten” Scripture and play down or abandon traditional Christocentric principles of interpretation, and this has led to some devastatingly bad effects.
I have some additional things but I won’t waste typing if no one has read the thing.
I’m not sure I’ve read every word of it. I’ve certainly skimmed/partially read it.