Theological Comparisons
Aquinas
It must first be pointed out that Thomas
saw the need to conciliate God’s justice, which was quite different than the terms
Anselm employed in his theory. “This is Aquinas' major difference with Anselm.
Rather than seeing the debt as one of honor, he sees the debt as a moral
injustice to be righted.”
[i] Now
regarding Thomas on the act of atonement itself, he first, with Anslem saw the
necessity of Christ’s incarnation. “Now a mere man could not have satisfied for
the whole human race, and God was not bound to satisfy; hence it was needful
for Jesus Christ to be both God and man.”
[ii] Secondly,
that the death of Christ was perfectly satisfactory because of His infinite
deity and was necessary due to the highly offensive nature of our sin. “…a sin
committed against God has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the Divine
majesty, because the greater the person we offend, the more grievous the
offence. Hence for adequate satisfaction it was necessary that the act of the
one satisfying should have an infinite efficacy, as being of God and man.”
[iii]
Thirdly, that Christ came into the world to blot out both original and actual
sin. “It is certain that Christ came into this world not only to take away the
sin which is handed on originally to posterity, but also in order to take away
all sins subsequently added to it…”
[iv]Fourth
that in some way in Thomas’ mind, Christ’s merit is extended to the whole
church. Thomas pointed out the objections to the merit of Christ extending to
others by asserting that, just as Adam’s demerit is extended to the whole race
physically, Christ’s merit is extended to the members of His body, the church,
because He is its head. Thomas responded to those objections in these varied
ways. “But Adam’s demerits reached to the condemnation of others. Much more,
therefore does the merit of Christ reach others.”
[v] And here
is his logical progress from the representation of Adam to the representation
of Christ, “As the sin of Adam reaches others only by carnal generation, so,
too, the merit of Christ reaches others only by spiritual regeneration, which
takes place in baptism; wherein we are incorporated with Christ…and it is by
grace that it is granted to man to be regenerated in Christ. And thus man’s
salvation is from grace.”
[vi] Now it
is clear from this last statement that Thomas’ understanding of the sacraments
is in contrast to the Reformers, and that the division of the Calvinistic
categories of the church into “visible” and invisible” are likewise not yet
present. Even further, it is clear that Thomas differed from Anselm in yet
another way.
Aquinas
articulated the formal beginning of the idea of a superabundance of merit,
which became the basis for the Catholic concept of the Treasury of Merit…Aquinas
also articulated the ideas of salvation that are now standard within the
Catholic church: that justifying grace is provided through the sacraments; that
the condign merit of our actions is matched by Christ's merit from the Treasury
of Merit; and that sins can be classified as mortal and venial. For Aquinas,
one is saved by drawing on Christ's merit, which is provided through the sacraments
of the church. Aquinas' view may sound like penal substitution, but he is
careful to say that he does not intend substitution to be taken in legal terms
[vii]
Thus Thomas—I believe contrary to Gesner’s
assertion, alluded to earlier—is now aligned with the current Roman Catholic
understanding of the atonement, in all its parts and implications.
[ii]
Thomas Aquinas,
The Suma Theologica of
Saint Thomas Aquinas:
vol. II
Daniel J. Sullivan, ed., (
Chicago,
London,
Toronto:
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), 702.
