Penal Substitution and St. Thomas Aquinas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ana_v
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ana_v

Guest
I read through St. Thomas Aquinas’ On the Reasons of the Faith against the Saracens, Greeks and Armenians, to the Cantor of Antioch

Under Chapter 7 (paragraphs 12 & 13), he writes the following:
The whole human race was subject to sin. To be restored to the state of justice, there would have to be a penalty which man would take upon himself in order to fulfil the order of divine justice. **But no mere man could satisfy God sufficiently **by accepting some voluntary punishment, even for his own sin, to say nothing of the sin of the whole human race. For when man sins he transgresses the law of God and tries, were he able, to do injury to the God of infinite majesty. The greater the person offended, the greater the crime; we see, for instance, that someone who strikes a soldier is punished more than someone who strikes a farmer, and much more if he strikes a king or prince. Therefore a sin committed against the law of God is somehow an infinite offence.
Again we must observe that the dignity of the person making reparation is also to be considered. For example, one word of a king asking for pardon of an offence is considered greater than if someone lower went on his knees and showed any other sign of humiliation to beg pardon from the one who suffered the injury. But no mere man has the infinite dignity required to satisfy justly an offence against God. Therefore there had to be a man of infinite dignity who would undergo the penalty for all so as to satisfy fully for the sins of the whole world. Therefore the only-begotten Word of God, true God and Son of God, assumed a human nature and willed to suffer death in it so as to purify the whole human race indebted by sin. Thus Peter says (1 Pet 3:18): “Christ himself died once and for all for sins, the upright for the sake of the guilty.”
(emphasis mine)

It’s my understanding that penal substitution was born out of the Reformation, and that the Church regards it as heretical.

Yet, the words of St. Thomas Aquinas sound awfully similar to what Protestants describe as the purpose behind Christ’s death on the Cross – a legalistic, payment-of-a-debt-owed- to-God theory of atonement.
 
That’s understandable but wrong. Similar terminology might be employed, but very different things are meant. In fact, the Pretend Reformers and their followers were good at taking Catholic terminology and re-defining it (intentionally and unintentionally). After you read the following quotes from St Thomas, you can re-read what you quoted and see how it makes sense and is not what the Pretend Reformers taught (here).

Here is what St Thomas Aquinas teaches: Among means to an end that one is the more suitable whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful to such end. But in this that man was delivered by Christ’s Passion, many other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man’s salvation. In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says (Romans 5:8): “God commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us.” Secondly, because thereby He set us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are requisite for man’s salvation. Hence it is written (1 Peter 2:21): “Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps.” Thirdly, because Christ by His Passion not only delivered man from sin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss, as shall be shown later (48, 1; 49, 1, 5). Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to 1 Corinthians 6:20: “You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body.” Fifthly, because it redounded to man’s greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 15:57): “Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” It was accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ’s Passion than simply by God’s good-will.
(ST 3:46:3)
The Passion was not strictly necessary nor the only option, but it was in fact the best plan God chose to reconcile the world. The plan for the Passion was driven by love and forgiveness, not revenge, not to transfer guilt, and not to punish Jesus. St Thomas says: He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (46, 6). And therefore Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”
(ST 3:48:2)

Now it is the proper effect of sacrifice to appease God: just as man likewise overlooks an offense committed against him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him. Hence it is written (1 Samuel 26:19): “If the Lord stir thee up against me, let Him accept of sacrifice.” And in like fashion Christ’s voluntary suffering was such a good act that, because of its being found in human nature, God was appeased for every offense of the human race with regard to those who are made one with the crucified Christ in the aforesaid manner
(ST 3:49:4)
Christ is not punished in this case, but rather offers something up that is pleasing to God. He lived a life of perfect love and obedience and this appeased God’s wrath against sin by pleasing God with what He likes to see in all men: Love and Obedience. Rather than someone being punished, whomever unites themselves to Christ has the charges against them dropped and the channel for grace to flow into their souls was restored to them. Because Christ is the “Head” of His Body, the Church, all those united to Christ reap the benefits of the graces Christ merited.

And here are some excellent and short posts by a Catholic guy who finished his Master’s Thesis precisely on how St Thomas didn’t teach PSub:
docs.google.com/Doc?id=dzr9svp_25fv7f93g3
docs.google.com/View?docid=dzr9svp_72c43cn9qz
docs.google.com/View?docid=dzr9svp_73f3kb4khj

You might also like: Atonement According To Scripture
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top