Aquinas on the Atonement and Ecclesiological Applications

AQUINAS ON THE ATONEMENT AND ECCLESIOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR TIM FOX

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE COURSE ST602

KNOX THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

BY

ANTHONY DELGADO

3-7-2014

In the Summa Theologica, chapters 48-50, Thomas Aquinas reviews a number of issues regarding the efficiency of Christ’s Passion, the effects of Christ’s Passion, and Christ’s death. Writing in the 13th century, he deals with many issues which are still discussed in orthodox circles today. A theme of the work is the extent of Christ’s passion, whether it was particular or otherwise. This topic will be reviewed in the latter section of the paper.

THE EFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S PASSION

Aquinas deals with the manner in which the Passion was brought about. He argues that Christ’s passion merited salvation for the church because of the supreme humility of the act. The sufficiency of the merit was such that the entire body of believers would be atoned for, including the atonement of Christ himself, who was not in need of atonement except that he took upon himself the sin of all the saints.[1] Note that Aquinas includes the saints of the Old Covenant in the body as the sacrifices of Israel’s priesthood were merely similitudes, a prefigurement of the sacrifice offered in Christ.[2] Allen presents this as a court case, where penal substitution is necessary. If Christ’s death is going to be sufficient for atonement, he must be able to take on the wrath of God for the sins of all the saints (at the very least), making him the ‘greatest adulterer, blasphemer and murderer.’[3] But, reading Aquinas, his sacrifice must be able to atone infinitely more in order also to merit his own rescue from hell.

Aquinas says “it is the free man’s condition to apply himself to what he wills;” his willful disobedience to God perpetuates his bondage to sin. There is a “debt of punishment,” according to God’s justice; therefore, redemption must also be by way of penal substitution, occurring in “the blood of Christ.”[4]

Atonement is an equal-to or greater-than issue. The offended party is due something, which he loves equally to or more than what he lost. Christ gave more to God than what would be required to atone for the whole human race across all time.[5] On the sufficiency of the atonement, Aquinas says that the Passion was a “superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race.”[6] Allen notes that the ancient world often required far more than what was taken in order for atonement to be made, yet God only requires equivalence.[7] Still in Aquinas’ view, the provision in Christ’s blood is more abundant than what God requires.

The question of ‘who atones’ is a Trinitarian issue. David says YHWH atones,[8] yet Paul teaches that “Christ redeemed”[9] by paying the price that is required in blood.[10] Rowe and Allen agree that Jesus is YHWH, although not exclusively, in that YHWH is the name of the Godhead.[11] So, “redemption belongs immediately to the Man-Christ, but principally to God…as the original author.”[12]

Aquinas references the healing of the leper, who upon being touched, was healed by divine power.[13] The question, then, is whether mankind is atoned for through the propitiatory nature of atonement as it was carried out in the Passion or if there was a more efficient means. Aquinas concludes that “Christ’s Passion…secures its efficacy by spiritual contact—namely, by faith;” therefore, the Passion is efficient in bringing salvation through faith in Christ according to the Godhead.[14] “For the word of the cross…is the power of God…to those who are being saved.”[15]

THE EFFECTS OF CHRIST’S PASSION

Aquinas provides six results of Christ’s Passion. The first is forgiveness of sin because (1) man receives a pardon because of God’s charity,[16] (2) “Christ’s mystic body [the saints] is reckoned as one person with…Christ” and is therefore redeemed with Christ through the price paid in blood, and (3) Christ’s endurance of the Passion “operate[s] with Divine power for expelling sin,” for those who have faith in Christ; they are thereby renewed in mind and in heart.[17]

The second result is deliverance from the devil’s power. In sinning, man offended God. Therefore, God left man under the devil’s limited power to effect men by temptation to sin, binding man to the devil through God’s coming wrath. Through faith in Christ’s Passion, God frees men from the devil’s power according to the ‘Divine power for expelling sin,’ previously mentioned.[18]

The third result is glorification of the body. The debt required for sin has been paid by Christ. In order to be atoned for one must be “united to Christ in an aforesaid manner.” Man must be likened to Christ in life, not in death. Aquinas previously addressed the Saints of times past, that they prefigured Christ, although preceding him.[19] But the saints are not freed from physical death; they have an “inheritance of immortal glory, while we yet have a passable and mortal body.” [20] As Christ suffered death as the head, so the body must also die physically in order to be glorified with Christ.[21] This follows the pattern Allen presents, whereby Jesus goes before man, being perfectly faithful to the Father, according to the Spirit, so that man too may be faithful to God according to the Spirit.[22]

The fourth result is that God is reconciled to the human race. Aquinas believes that God loves all and hates none.[23] But God loves all things for their natural goodness, yet hates them for their crimes against Him. In appeasing God’s wrath, then, “Christ’s Passion prevailed more in reconciling God to the whole human race than in provoking Him to wrath.”[24] It is about reinstating men as children of the Father.[25]

The fifth result is the reopening of the gate of heaven. The gate was closed first because of Adam’s sin and second because of man’s sin. It is on account of sin that men are prohibited from entering into the Holy of Holies. Yet there is confidence to enter into the Holy of Holies by the blood of Christ.[26] Those who are baptized into Christ, then, have access to God because of the efficacy of the Passion.[27]

The sixth result of the Passion is the exaltation of Christ and the body. Just as a man who steals a sheep is required to pay back four,[28] so in justification, man “deserves that something further be granted to him as the reward of his just will.” Since Christ humbled himself[29] warranting his exaltation[30] and is the head of the body, it is “only just that the body…receive recompense in glory.” [31]

THE DEATH OF CHRIST

Aquinas goes on to present the effects of Christ’s Passion, presenting five reasons for the appropriateness of Christ’s death: (1) that men could be atoned for, (2) in order to evidence his humanity,[32] (3) to bring deliverance from fear of death, (4) to set an example of dying to sin, and (5) that he could be resurrected, giving men hope in resurrection.[33]

According to Aquinas, the Godhead was not separated from the flesh when Jesus died. Because Christ had no sin, there was no dissolving of the communion between the flesh and the Godhead as there is with men who die apart from faith in Christ. He says, “There remains in the dead flesh a certain relation to the resurrection.” So the persistence of communion between God and flesh necessitates, even predicates, the forthcoming resurrection.[34]

Although the Godhead was not separated from flesh, it neither was separated from soul even though soul was separated from flesh. Christ ‘was buried,’ yet ‘descended into hell’ and in no sense was he separated from the Godhead. In other words, Christ should not be seen as a man containing the nature of the Godhead, rather the Godhead possessed a body and a soul (elements of man). It just so happens that in death, the Godhead’s body and soul were separated for a time.[35]

Aquinas argues that since the body and soul were separated that Christ was no longer a man, but at best could be considered a ‘dead man.’ That a man could be said to descend into hell, for instance, without his body need only mean that his consciousness did so as part of the soul, not that the full man descended.[36]

In another view, there is no real separation. Because of God’s atemporality, all men arrive at judgment immediately upon death. Judgment itself, it is believed, is momentary and occurs in time with both death and the resurrection of the dead as well as Christ’s ascension. Immediately following is the ‘changing’ of the raptured saints, which occurs momentarily with the glorification of the saints and the condemnation of the lost. So there is a sense in which, temporally, the body can be apart from the soul, but atemporally, the soul and body are never apart, even in death. This is consistent with Aquinas’ view (except that he did not interact with God’s atemporality) that Christ’ body was both the same body, yet different because it died and was resurrected. [37] This is true of all, whether they are the dead, who are resurrected with an impenetrable body, or the raptured saints who are simply changed to be so.[38]

Finally, Aquinas shows that Christ’s death saves man both from the body’s death—not because it won’t happen, but because it is followed by resurrection—and from the soul’s death, which “is swallowed up in victory.”[39] This ‘victory’ is victory over hell. Allen says of Aquinas that Christ must taste hell, enduring a broken relationship with God, in order to substitute for man’s sin.[40] Christ’s visit to hell releases the soul of the saint from being condemned to hell.

CONCLUSION AND REFLECTION

Allen demonstrates that the Great Commission is to be carried out according to the authority of Christ and that “The church’s life and existence…is a part of the Gospel.”[41] The ecclesiological significance of atonement, then, is tied up in the mission of the church, to make disciples of all nations. There is a division in evangelical theology regarding the extent of Christ’s atonement and it seems that Aquinas takes a particular view based on this sample of reading.[42] The question is regarding Christ’s dying for ‘all’ or just ‘some.’ Olsen describes the idea of limited atonement or particular redemption as the ‘Achilles heel’ of Calvinism,[43] a soteriological perspective which informs the churches mission, both ideologically and pragmatically.

Aquinas seems to believe that there is no limit to the reach of Christ’s atonement. The life of Christ was of “infinite worth”[44] He sees atonement as a corporate work, covering both the head (Christ) and ‘Christ’s mystic body’ (the corporate elect who have faith in Christ).[45] Atonement is not possible for one who does not become part of the body, for Aquinas says, “if any man neglect to make use of this remedy it detracts nothing from the efficacy of Christ’s Passion.”[46] Aquinas seems to say that the Passion atones for the corporate body of Christ, regardless of whether man individually accepts or neglects the remedy offered through faith in Christ. He says that “we first receive in our souls ‘the spirit of adoption of sons,’ whereby our names are written down for the inheritance.”[47] And finally, “Christ’s Passion prevailed more in reconciling God to the whole human race,”[48] by which Aquinas does not permit us to suggest universalism; for “Christ’s satisfaction works its effect in us inasmuch as we are incorporated with Him.”[49]

On this subject, Horton notes that “Arminians believe that [atonement] is unlimited in its extent, but limited in its nature,”[50] which seems to be exactly what Aquinas says. Horton highlights penal substitution suggesting that Christ’s sacrifice ought to equal the debt due.[51] As already discussed, Aquinas agrees, but sees no need for it to be equal. Instead, Aquinas believes that Christ paid an infinitely greater debt than was actually due. Horton notes however, that many Calvinists, in fact, believe “Christ’s death is ‘of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world,’ although Christ objectively and effectively bore the sins of the elect alone.”[52] This is in fact what Arminianism teaches as well as what Aquinas suggests. The issue then, regards ‘election.’ Aquinas’ view of election seems to be that Christ’s mystic body is elected, whereas the individual must by faith be baptized into Christ, incorporated with Him, that atonement might work its effect. Man must receive the Spirit and must not neglect to make use of the remedy for sin offered in Christ’s blood. For the Calvinist, election is unconditional, based solely on the sovereignty of God to elect according to his mysterious ways.[53]

The practical issue is how to preach the Gospel in order to carry out the mission of the church. MacArthur, a known Calvinist, says, “…you sow the gospel, you go to sleep, and it grows. The only human act is to sow and go to sleep, while the crop mysteriously grows.”[54] Olsen would agree with this as the logical evangelistic effort for a Calvinist, arguing that the Calvinist view of limited atonement “makes it impossible reasonably to make a well-meant offer of the gospel of salvation to everyone indiscriminately.”[55] The logical application of Calvinism does not require the evangelist to be concerned with the effectiveness of the Gospel proclamation as grace must be irresistible if it is to be God’s sovereign work in the individual.

Pragmatically, if one is to agree with Aquinas, the proclamation of the Gospel must be contextually proclaimed to all if it is to be effective. It seems inconsistent, as Olson points out, for the Calvinist to present the Gospel in such a way as only those who God mysteriously chose to elect are able to receive it and are apparently unable to deny it. If becoming part of the body of Christ requires the individual to consciously receive the remedy offered in Christ’s blood, then there is great concern for the evangelist as to the clarity and appropriateness of the Gospel proclamation. This is not a thorough analysis of the issues surrounding Calvinism and Arminianism, neither does it perfectly represent the philosophies of people who follow these schools of thought. Rather, it should be seen as a primitive introduction to the issues of consistency between soteriological perspective and gospel presentation.