Between orthodoxy and heresy

In the first draft of his Philosophy of Revelation, Schelling makes consistent use of scholastic terminology, e.g., by characterising God as an actus purissimus, as the purest actuality to. This move is in stark contrast to his previous dismissive attitude towards scholastic theology. He now seems to hold that at least some things indeed can be achieved with such notions. In this paper, I will trace this change and explore some of the potential reasons why Schelling might have switched from a purely dismissive attitude towards scholastic philosophy and theology to a more nuanced and constructive dialogue. The hypothesis that I will follow is that Schelling seeks to solve problems that have remained largely unsolved in his previous theological thoughts and that integrating scholastic theorems into his own thinking helps him to do so. At the same time, however, Schelling does not thereby become a neo-scholastic thinker since his interest in Christian heresies and their (partial) justification is equally powerful as his interest in Christian orthodoxy. In the end, Schelling’s mindset becomes increasingly ecumenical, guided by an increasing awareness of the importance of charitable readings of traditional texts.