A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Aquinas - 1

Theological Comparisons

Aquinas

     So much could be said of the good Doctor Angelicus, Saint Thomas Aquinas; short life though he lived, his copious collection of theological musings warranted a more Methuselan period of time. On the particular doctrine of the atonement, Thomas has been quoted by Roman Catholic and protestant scholars both, as having held to their position. One such extreme instance of this is an article in Table Talk magazine where Dr. John Gerstner claimed that Saint Thomas held to justification by grace, through faith alone; while others remain more cautious because of the dichotomy he made between congruent and condign merit: congruent being that merit that one has outside of the gracious work of Christ and condign being that merit graciously provided by God, yet still a merit that Thomas finds in the act of the justification of a sinner. Make no mistake, Thomas firmly believed that God’s grace was absolutely necessary and any good deed would ultimately be attributed to its infusion. Thomas proved this in his own words,

Now everlasting life is a good exceeding the proportion of created nature; since it exceeds its knowledge and desire, according to 1 Cor. 2:9: ‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man.’ And hence it is that no created nature is a sufficient principle of an act meritorious of eternal life, unless there is added a supernatural gift, which we call grace.[i]

But therein lays the true issue. Thomas proved this in his own words as he attempted to answer this question, May a man, by God’s grace, condignly merit eternal life? To that effect, “If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting, it is meritorious of life everlasting condignly. For thus the value of its merit depends upon the power of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting according to John 4:14.”[ii]

The major difference in Thomas’ theory of atonement and that of Anselm’s is this idea of righteousness infused. To import our own categories into the discussion, the Reformers were careful to say that we are not made righteous at all (especially by the infusion of meritorious acts such as belief), but that we are instead declared righteous on account of Christ’s merit for us. This was in fact Anselm’s position; he claimed that Christ’s death—which was an act over and above what God demands of all His creatures, a life of perfect obedience—merited infinite righteousness which would be imparted, as an alien source, to the sinner God chose to benefit. Thomas’s opinion of the sinner made righteous before God, graciously being given the capacity to do that which God commanded, was what he referred to as the transmutation of the human soul. By virtue of the soul being caused to obey, the person becomes righteous before God, therefore God can (and is in fact obliged—insinuated by Thomas) really and actually call the person righteous because they indeed are righteous.

---

[i] Thomas Aquinas, “Suma Theologica,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library ST Ia.114.2. Cited 17 March 2010. Online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FS_Q114_A2.html

[ii] Thomas Aquinas, “Suma Theologica,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library ST Ia.114.3. Cited 17 March 2010. Online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FS_Q114_A3.html.