The Preaching of Paul at Ephesus
Eustache Le Sueur (1649)

Lecture: God’s Universal Salvific Will (November 9, 2011)

Lawrence Feingold

God’s universal salvific will, and predestination, must always be considered together. (1′)
“God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4)
God desires all to be saved, because He loves all men, and wants us all to enter into His own life.¹ (1′)

God truly wills the salvation of all men: Scripture

1 Tim 2:1-4 (2′)
Christ gave Himself “as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6) (3′)
John 3:16 (5′)
How do we reconcile the universal salvific will of God with the fact that some are lost? (6′)
2 Peter 3:9 “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (7′)
1 John 2:2 “expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (8′)
Sermon on the Mount (8′)
Parable of the Sower (9′)
Parable of the Wedding Feast (Mt. 22:1-14) (11′)
Parable of the Sheep: “So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” (Mt. 18:14) (15′)

Universal Means of Salvation

To say that God wills all men to be saved would be empty if it did not include some kind of universal means so that all can be saved. (16′)

Christ through His Church and sacraments is the universal means (17′)

Four steps (18′)
(1) Christ’s incarnation and passion for all men²
(2) Grace merited by Christ
(3) Universal Church
(4) Sacraments in His Church, by which men can receive His grace.

All men who attain the age of reason are given operative grace, sufficient for salvation if men cooperate (20′)
Cooperative grace is given only to those who cooperate with operative grace. (21′)

The Old Covenant not yet Catholic, and not yet a universal means of salvation, but hints at it (23′)

The Book of Jonah (25′)

The Fathers and Doctors on the Universal Salvific Will³ (26′)
All are agreed that God wills all men to be saved in a manner fitting for free creatures.

St. John Chrysostom (28′)
St. Ambrose (28′)
St. Augustine (29′)
St. John Damascene (31′)

Two senses of God’s salvific will: antecedent and consequent

Also one must bear in mind that God antecedently wishes all to be saved and come to His Kingdom. (1 Timothy 2:4) For it was not for punishment that He formed us but to share in His goodness, inasmuch as He is a good God. But inasmuch as He is a just God, His will is that sinners should suffer punishment. The first then is called God’s antecedent will and pleasure, and springs from Himself, while the second is called God’s consequent will and permission, and has its origin in us. (De Fide Orth 2.29) (34′)

St. Thomas Aquinas (36′)

Objection: It seems that the will of God is not always fulfilled. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 2:4): “God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” But this does not happen. Therefore the will of God is not always fulfilled.

Response: According to Damascene (De Fide Orth. 2.29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed. To understand this we must consider that everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. A thing taken in its primary sense, and absolutely considered, may be good or evil, and yet when some additional circumstances are taken into account, by a consequent consideration may be changed into the contrary. Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts. Nor do we will simply, what we will antecedently, but rather we will it in a qualified manner; for the will is directed to things as they are in themselves, and in themselves they exist under particular qualifications. Hence we will a thing simply inasmuch as we will it when all particular circumstances are considered; and this is what is meant by willing consequently. Thus it may be said that a just judge wills simply the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute will. Thus it is clear that whatever God simply wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place. (Summa Theologica I Q.19, a.6.)

God wills all men to be saved, and prepares for them a series of graces sufficient (and in fact, superabundant) to bring them to salvation. But we have to correspond to them. God leaves us free will, by which we either cooperate with His grace, or freely impede it, and His consequent will takes into account our cooperation and resistance. (37′)

Denial of the Universal Salvific Will at the Reformation (38′)

Luther and Calvin denied our ability to cooperate with grace.⁴ (39′)
That denial eliminates the distinction between antecedent and consequent will (40′)⁵
This entails that God’s salvific will is not universal (41′)

Luther’s On the Bondage of the Will: (41′)

In a word: if we are under the god of this world, strangers to the work of God’s Spirit, we are led captive by him at his will, as Paul said to Timothy (2 Tim. 2.26), so that we cannot will anything but what he wills. For he is a ‘strong man armed,’ who keeps his palace to such good effect that those he holds are at peace, and raise no stir or feeling against him — otherwise, Satan’s kingdom would be divided against itself, and could not stand; but Christ says it does stand. And we acquiesce in his rule willingly and readily, according to the nature of willingness, which, if constrained, is not ‘willingness’; for constraint means rather, as one would say, ‘unwillingness’. But if a stronger appears, and overcomes Satan, we are once more servants and captives, but now desiring and willingly doing what He wills — which is royal freedom (cf. Luke 11.18-22). So man’s will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills: as the Psalm says, ‘I am become as a beast before thee, and I am ever with thee’ (Ps. 73.22-3). If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it.’ (On the Bondage of the Will, 103-104)

Luther applies this to Cain (43′)

This leads to the notion of double-predestination (45′)

John Calvin (46′)

Claimed that Christ did not die for all, but only for the elect. “Limited atonement”
Leads to the notion that some are predesined by God to hell.

Denial of the Universal Salvific Will by Jansenism (47′)

The following five Jansenist positions were infallibly condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653: (48′)

1. Some of God’s precepts are impossible to the just, who wish and strive to keep them, according to the present powers which they have; the grace, by which they are made possible, is also wanting.

2. In the state of fallen nature one never resists interior grace.

3. In order to merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature, freedom from necessity is not required in man, but freedom from external compulsion is sufficient.

4. The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of a prevenient interior grace for each act, even for the beginning of faith; and in this they were heretics, because they wished this grace to be such that the human will could either resist or obey.

5. It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception. (Denzinger 1092-1096)

Real Possibility of Salvation for All (53′)
Sufficient grace to be saved is given to everyone who reaches the age of reason. Christ died for all men. God wills all men to cooperate with that grace, and thus God predestines no one to hell.

What about those who never hear the gospel? (53′)
What about “outside the Church there is no salvation”?

Lumen Gentium: (55′)

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. (Lumen Gentium, 14)

Vincible ignorance and invincible ignorance (57′)
Bl. Pope Pius IX on invincible ignorance (59′)

Lumen Gentium: (60′)

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. (Lumen Gentium, 16)

Creed of the People of God (Pope Paul VI) (61′)

We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church. But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ, but seek sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation. (Creed of the People of God)

Catechism of the Catholic Church (62′)

“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. (CCC 1260)

Explicit desire and implicit desire (65′)

Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8th, 1949 regarding Feeneyism. (67′)

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. (Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston)

Salvation outside the visible Church requires perfect contrition (69′)
God gives the grace to everyone to make an act of perfect contrition (69′)

Some faith is necessary for salvation (70′)
Hence missionary activity of the Church is not rendered useless by the fact that it is possible for those to be saved who have never heard the gospel.

It is much more difficult to be saved when not in full communion with the Catholic Church, and therefore without the fullness of the truth and the means of grace Christ has established in His Church.

Mystici Corporis Christi (71′)

They who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, … We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. (Mystici Corporis Christi, 103)

Questions and Answers

1. How does the Catholic understanding of the universal salvific will compare to that of the Orthodox Jewish or Islamic view? (1′)

2. Is inculpable ignorance holding views contrary to the Church because you run out of time before you can investigate the reasons for the truth on all the issues, or is it necessary to hold the principles of the Church by faith before you dismiss them by investigation that confirms your conscience? (3′ 19″)

3. Luther said that in Genesis God was simply telling Cain what he ought to do. But if as Luther believed, Cain had no choice in the matter, why would God bother telling him at all? (4’42″)

4. In many places in Scripture we see God hardening people’s hearts. In Deuteronomy 2:30 He hardens the heart of Sihon King of Heshbon. In Joshua 11:20 He hardens the hearts of the Canaanites. In 1 Sam. 2:25 He hardens the hearts of Hophni and Phineas, so that they would not listen to Eli. Jesus thanks the Father for hiding things from the wise and prudent (Matt. 11:25,26), and quotes Isaiah saying that God has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted. (John 12:37-40) St. Paul says the same in Romans 11:8, and in 2 Thess 2:11 he says that God sends them a strong delusion to make them believe what is false. How is all this compatible with a universal salvific will? (6’30″)

5. In John 10:26 Jesus says, “but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep.” If God wants all men to be saved, why doesn’t Jesus say, “you are not of my sheep because you do not believe”? (17′)

6. If God wants all men to be saved, then why does St. Paul say (Rom. 9:22) that there are “vessels of wrath made for destruction” and why does St. Peter say “for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do”? (1 Pet. 2:8) (19′)

7. If our being saved or being lost depends fundamentally on whether we cooperate or do not cooperate with grace, then why does St. Paul say that “it is not of him that wills or runs, but of God that shows mercy” (Rom 9:16) Why does St. Paul in Romans 9 seem to make election depend not on human choice but on God’s sovereign and inscrutable will? (24′)

8. Does the possession of sanctifying grace require conscious explicit faith in Jesus as the Son of God? If not, how is the Council’s teaching different from Rahner’s “anonymous Christian”? If it requires faith, then how can the Catechism speak of atheists possibly attaining salvation? [Note: the Catechism does not speak of atheists as such possibly attaining salvation. The questioner was referring to Lumen Gentium 16] (26′)

1. The doctrine of God’s universal salvific will is not to be confused with universalism, the claim that all men are saved, or with what is called ‘hopeful universalism,’ which I have addressed here.
2. The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.” [Council of Quiercy (853)]. (CCC 605)
3. For more excerpts from the Church Fathers on this subject see section 54 of Fr. Mosts’s book Grace, Predestination, and the Universal Salvific Will of God.
4. This denial was in turn based on their notion of original sin, explained here, and their not distinguishing between actual grace and sanctifying grace, explained here.
5. The distinction between antecedent and consequent will should not be confused with the Reformed distinction between preceptive will and decretive will. The former distinction allows for it to be true without contradiction that God desires all men to be saved and yet not all men are saved; but without the former distinction the latter distinction undermines the possibility of an authentic universal salvific will in God. If God commands that a person repent, but then, not on the basis of foreseen rejection of grace by that person, refuses to give sufficient grace for that person to repent, not only does God not truly desire that person’s salvation, but God has fallen into a performative contradiction, saying one thing, but doing something contrary to what He says. Either He does not mean what He says, in which case He is not the Truth, or He rebels against Himself, in which case He is in need of salvation. The notion that there are two actual contrary wills in God (in which neither will involves an abstraction from what God knows about human choices) is not only a theological schizophrenia, it is also a form of Manichean dualism. Calvinists use Scriptural examples of the difference between what is in fact divine antecedent will and divine consequent will, as though this supports a decretive-preceptive distinction not based on an antecedent-consequent distinction. John Piper does that, for example, in his “Are There Two Wills in God?,” and so do Luther, Calvin, Turretin, etc. — see here. But while an antecedent-consequent distinction avoids theological schizophrenia, because the former is an abstraction, the decretive-preceptive distinction without the antecedent-consequent distinction does not avoid theological schizophrenia, because neither the decretive nor preceptive will is an abstraction.

Westminster Assembly Portrait

According to Reformed theology, on the cross Christ paid the penalty for all the sins of all and only the elect. The Westminster Confession of Faith states, “Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf.”¹ Those sins are all already punished, and they cannot be re-punished. According to the Reformed position, at the moment the sinner believes the gospel, Christ’s redemptive work is applied to him. “They are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.”² At the moment the sinner believers, Christ’s righteousness is permanently and irrevocably imputed to him. All his past, present and future sins have all already been ‘laid on’ Christ on the cross two thousand years ago. Therefore at the moment he believes the gospel, all his past, present and future sins have not only already been paid for; they are all forgiven.

It is not as though at the moment he believes the gospel, God says to him,

All your sins have already been paid for, but I’ve only forgiven your past and present sins; I have not yet forgiven your future sins, even though my Son has already paid for them all. When in the future you commit sins (that my Son has already paid for), you’re going to need to confess and repent of them if you want to be forgiven for them. But, even if you don’t confess them and repent of them, I can’t punish you for them, because I already punished my Son for them. Therefore you can’t go to hell. And there’s no limbo, so the only place you can go is heaven. Thus even if you don’t confess these post-justification sins, you’ll enter heaven just the same, after the instant sanctification that takes place at your death. So, it really doesn’t matter for you whether I forgive those future sins of yours or not, because you go to heaven anyway. And therefore, it really doesn’t matter whether you confess and repent of your future sins. The thing you need to keep in mind, however, is that if in the future you find yourself not confessing and repenting of your future sins, that’s a possible indicator that you were never justified in the first place, and you might have been created to show forth my wrath.

That’s not the Reformed doctrine of forgiveness. In Reformed theology, all past, present and future sins are forgiven at the moment we believe. Nor, according to Reformed theology does God impute to Christ only those sins that the sinner has already committed, and then, when the believer later confesses subsequent sins, impute those subsequent sins to Christ. No. In Reformed theology the imputation is not piece-meal or successive. It takes place once and entirely, at the moment the sinner first believes. Once the double-imputation has occurred (i.e. all his past, present and future sins are imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to him) at the moment he believes, then he is permanently and irrevocably pardoned and forgiven for all his past, present and future sins.

One problem with this doctrine is that Christ enjoins us in the Lord’s Prayer to pray daily for the forgiveness of our sins. If all our sins are paid for and forgiven, then it makes no sense to ask daily for the forgiveness for our sins. If we are supposed to believe that all our past, present and future sins were already paid for on the cross and forgiven at the moment we first believed, then to ask daily for the forgiveness of our sins is to contradict the doctrine that at the moment we first believed all these sins were already forgiven. Believing that all our sins are already forgiven is incompatible with asking daily for the forgiveness of our sins.

Referring to the Lord’s Prayer, the Westminster Confession of Faith says

God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God’s Fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.³

So, on the one hand, in the Reformed view our past, present and future sins are all already forgiven at the moment we first believe. But on the other hand, in the Reformed view God continues to forgive our sins. The problem is that if our sins are all already forgiven, then there is no reason for God to keep forgiving them. If God is still forgiving them, this implies that they are not all already forgiven. So there is a contradiction here. The doctrine teaches that the sins are all already forgiven. The prayer teaches that the sins are not all already forgiven.

One way of attempting to resolve the contradiction is to make a distinction between God forgiving our sins, and restoring us to fellowship. According to this view, all our past, present and future sins are entirely forgiven at the moment we believe, and at that moment we are brought into fellowship with God. But, if we sin at any subsequent moment, then even though those sins are already forgiven, we lose fellowship with God, until we confess our sins and “beg pardon.” The idea is not that some sins are more severe than others, causing only loss of fellowship, but not causing loss of forgiveness. The WCF itself says “there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation.” (WCF XV.4) The idea, rather, is that after justification, no sin causes loss of forgiveness, but sin can cause loss of fellowship.

The problem with this position is that given the completed nature of the double imputation at our justification, there is no basis for God’s subsequent “Fatherly displeasure” and our loss of fellowship (i.e. losing the “light of His countenance”)  with Him on account of our post-justification sins. If all our sins are already paid for, and when He sees us He sees the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us, then there is no reason for Him to be displeased with us, unless He is peeking behind the imputed righteousness. But if He is peeking, then we’re not really covered. And if we are not really covered, then since “there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation,” and because we sin every day in thought, word, and deed, then God is severely displeased with us every day. If, however, God is ever pleased with us when peeking behind the imputed righteousness of Christ, then simul iustus et peccator is false. But if after justification simul iustus et peccator is always true in this life, then if God peeks, we are always under His Fatherly displeasure until we are entirely sanctified in heaven. Given the truth of simul iustus et peccator, the Reformed position viz-a-viz justification entails that after justification either God is always entirely pleased with us on account of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us, or God is always entirely displeased with us if He is peeking behind the imputed righteousness of Christ.

There is a third logical possibility, namely, that there are two qualitatively different levels of righteousness by which God is pleased. The first level is the forgiveness of sins and imputation of Christ’s righteousness; attaining this pleases God in a sufficient but still incomplete way. The second level of righteousness presupposes having already attained the first level; this second level is the level of pleasing or displeasing God above and beyond the perfect righteousness of Christ, by our repentance, confession of sins, and good works. One problem with this dualistic conception of righteousness is that given the truth of simul iustus et peccator, and given that “there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation,” imputation makes God pleased with the believer only if God doesn’t peek behind the imputed righteousness. But if God is peeking behind the imputed righteousness, then given the truth of simul iustus et peccator, and given that “there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation,” it follows by necessity that the believer is doomed.

A second problem with this dualistic conception of righteousness is that it makes Christ’s work insufficient to please God completely. According to this position, God is only partially pleased with us by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. He is at least pleased enough to let us into heaven, but He is not perfectly pleased with us. We have to work to merit the additional Fatherly pleasure that was not provided by the imputation of Christ’s perfect sacrifice. This situation is a bit like paying the penalty for sins in purgatory. Reformed theology doesn’t accept the notion of purgatory in large part because if we have to suffer in some way for our sins, it implies that Christ’s work was not sufficient to make us pleasing to God. So likewise, if we have to work, and confess, and repent, and do good works (and even suffer) in order to gain this additional Fatherly pleasure that didn’t come with justification, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, this implies that Christ’s work was incomplete.

In the section titled “Of Repentance unto Life,” the Westminster Confession of Faith reads:

III. Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.

IV. As there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; so there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.

V. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly.

VI. As every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof, upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy …⁴

Logically, either these statements are limited to the time of justification, or they also refer to the post-justification period. If they are referring to a time prior to justification, then it raises the difficulty of explaining how there can be repentance by those who are still “dead in their sins.” Since Reformed theology does not distinguish between actual grace and sanctifying grace,⁵ for Reformed theology there is no possibility of repentance prior to justification. But, if these statements from WCF XV are about the time after justification, then since the believer already knows that all of his past, present and future sins have already been forgiven at justification, it makes no sense to say that he should not expect pardon for his post-justification sins, without repentance. It makes no sense to state that he should be “praying for the pardon thereof” or that upon forsaking these post-justification sins he will “find mercy.” According to Reformed theology all these sins were already pardoned at the moment he first believed, and thus he already found mercy for all these sins at that moment. The Reformed teaching that all his past, present and future sins were already paid for on the cross, and that Christ’s perfect righteousness was already imputed to him at the moment he first believed, does not fit with the notion that he needs to pray for the pardon of his post-justification sins, and that if he forsakes them he will find mercy. Either his post-justification sins are all already pardoned, in which case he doesn’t need to ask pardon (because that would be an act of unbelief), or they are not all already pardoned, in which case justification isn’t what Reformed theology teaches it to be.

Regarding this problem Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof writes:

“The usual position of Reformed theology, however, is that in justification God indeed removes the guilt, but not the culpability of sin, that is, He removes the sinner’s just amenability to punishment, but not the inherent guiltiness of whatever sins he may continue to perform. The latter remains and therefore always produces in believers a feeling of guilt, of separation from God, of sorrow, of repentance, and so on. Hence they feel the need of confessing their sins, even the sins of their youth, Ps. 25:7; 51:5-9. The believer who is really conscious of his sin feels within him an urge to confess it and to seek the comforting assurance of forgiveness. Moreover, such confession and prayer is not only a subjectively felt need, but also an objective necessity. Justification is essentially an objective declaration respecting the sinner in the tribunal of God, but it is not merely that; it is also an actus transiens, passing into the consciousness of the believer. The divine sentence of acquittal is brought home to the sinner and awakens the joyous consciousness of the forgiveness of sins and of favor with God. Now this consciousness of pardon and of a renewed filial relationship is often disturbed and obscured by sin, and is again quickened and strengthened by confession and prayer, and by a renewed exercise of faith.”⁶

Berkhof is claiming that at the moment of justification, God removes the penalty for all past, present and future sin, but not necessarily the subjective feeling of guilt for whatever sins we continue to commit after we come to faith. Because we feel these guilty feelings, even though after our justification we are no longer subject to punishment for any sins we commit, but perpetually stand entirely cleared by God’s declaration, we still feel the need (“urge”) to confess our sins and gain assurance of forgiveness. According to Berkhof, this urge we feel indicates that it is an “objective necessity” for us to continue to confess and pray for forgiveness, so that as we do so, the fact of our having been already forgiven for all our past, present and future sins will sink more deeply into our consciousness.

According to Berkhof’s position, after our justification, feelings of guilt are untrue; they have not yet caught up to what one knows by faith to be true about one’s standing before God. Therefore, it would follow that we should welcome the overcoming or cessation of such feelings. We should outgrow them as our feelings conform to the truth. At least, if we can outgrow such feelings we should. Berkhof claims that the standard Reformed position on the purpose of confessing our sins and asking God for forgiveness after our justification is not to gain forgiveness of sins, but to relieve the subjective urge we feel to confess, and to acquire the comforting feelings of assurance that our sins are forgiven.

This seems to me to be a rather Freudian/Jungian psychologizing of the purpose of “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us” which we pray in the Lord’s Prayer, and of the Apostle John’s statement, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9) Instead of allowing these passages to revise the Reformed conception of justification, the Reformed believer uses the Reformed conception of justification to construe these passages as teaching not that we daily need our sins forgiven, but that we daily need to feel that our sins are forgiven. It sentimentalizes these passages in order to preserve its doctrine of justification. According to Berkhof, even though before God we do not need to ask forgiveness, and we know that we do not need to ask for forgiveness, nevertheless the human psyche has a primitive urge to continue to ask for forgiveness for continued sins. And this is why Jesus included this line in the Lord’s Prayer, because He knew that even though we would know that all our sins were already forgiven, we would still need to live and pray as though our sins were not all forgiven. In other words, it was on account of human weakness that Christ included this line in the Lord’s Prayer, much as it was on account of human weakness that Moses included the permission for divorce. (Matthew 19:8)

What I find most strange about this notion is that in order to convince ourselves in our feelings that all our past, present and future sins were forgiven at the moment of our justification, Berkhof encourages us to do certain acts that imply that our sins still need to be forgiven. So according to Berkhof it is good that we daily confess and ask forgiveness, and in doing so, comfort ourselves by making ourselves think that in confessing our sins daily and in asking God daily to forgive them, somehow that activity ensures that God has forgiven us, even though in actuality our past, present and future sins were all already forgiven at the moment of our justification. The problem here is that asking daily for forgiveness teaches the exact opposite; it teaches that our sins are not yet all forgiven. If we were composing a prayer that teaches that our sins still need to be forgiven, something like the line in the Lord’s Prayer is precisely what we would write. But if were composing a prayer for teaching Berkhof’s theology of justification, it would replace that line in the Lord’s Prayer with this one: “I thank you Lord that all my sins, past, present, and future were already forgiven when I first believed.” For this reason, the psychology explanation does not work; it reduces us to beasts governed by urges and instincts. If we are governed by reason, then we should speak and live according to the truth. And if the truth is that all our past, present and future sins were already forgiven when we first believed, then we should speak and live according to that truth. But if we should speak and live as though our sins daily need to be forgiven, and we should speak and live according to the truth, then it follows that at least our future sins were not forgiven when we first believed.

If Berkhof is correct that the standard Reformed position is this psychologized notion of the purpose of continued confession and asking for forgiveness, then Reformed teachers and pastors should be urging all believers to try to get over this urge to confess and ask for forgiveness. The goal should be to get over the felt-need to say that line in the Lord’s Prayer, or anything like it. True integration of mind, heart and feelings, that is, true spiritual maturity would be to get to the point where one would simply leave out that line when praying the Lord’s Prayer, and feel no guilt or compunction in doing so. Pastors, being mature, would tell their congregations that they [the pastors] no longer confess their sins or ask God for forgiveness, because they do not feel those inaccurate feelings of guiltiness any more; they are fully convinced, in mind and feelings, that all their past, present, and future sins were forgiven at the moment of their justification, and their sheep should all seek to reach that same mature state. But if that is not their belief, their practice or their goal, then they need to believe that sins are forgiven progressively, over the course of a believer’s life. But if our sins are forgiven progressively, then either our sins are progressively imputed to Christ on the cross, or the satisfaction doctrine of the Atonement is correct.

Our Father, who art in Heaven
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done
On earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

1. WCF XI.3.
2. WCF XI.4
3. WCF XI.5
4. WCF XV.3-6.
5. See “A Reply from a Romery Person.”
6. Systematic Theology, p. 515.

Crucifixion
Duccio di Buoninsegna (1308-11)
Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Siena

The Reformed conception of the Atonement is that in Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father poured out all of His wrath for the sins of the elect, on Christ the Son. In Christ’s Passion and death, Christ bore the punishment of the Father’s wrath that the elect deserved for their sins. In the Reformed conception, this is what it means to bear the curse, to bear the Father’s wrath for sin. In Reformed thought, at Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father transferred all the sins (past, present, and future) of all the elect onto His Son. Then God the Father hated, cursed and damned His Son, who was evil in the Father’s sight on account of all the sins of the elect being concentrated in the Son. (R.C. Sproul says that here.) In doing so, God the Father punished Christ for all the sins of the elect of all time. Because the sins of the elect are now paid for, through Christ’s having already been punished for them, the elect can never be punished for any sin they might ever commit, because every sin they might ever commit has already been punished. For that reason Reformed theology is required to maintain that Christ died only for the elect. Otherwise, if Christ died for everyone, this would entail universal salvation, since it would entail that all the sins of all people, have already been punished, and therefore cannot be punished again.

The Catholic conception of Christ’s Passion and Atonement is that Christ offered Himself up in self-sacrificial love to the Father, obedient even unto death, for the sins of all men. The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son. The Passion is Christ’s greatest act of love, the greatest revelation of the heart of God, and the glory of Christ.¹ So when Christ was on the cross, God the Father was not pouring out His wrath on His Son; in Christ’s act of self-sacrifice in loving obedience to the Father, Christ was most lovable in the eyes of the Father. Rather, in Christ’s Passion we humans poured out our enmity with God on Christ, by what we did to Him in His body and soul. And He freely chose to let us do all this to Him. Deeper still, even our present sins contributed to His suffering, because He, in solidarity with us, grieved over all the sins of the world, not just the sins of the elect. Hence, St. Francis of Assisi said, “Nor did demons crucify Him; it is you who have crucified Him and crucify Him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.”² The Passion is a revelation of the love of God, not the wrath of God. The fundamental difference can be depicted simply in the following drawing:

One problem with the Reformed conception is that it would either make the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent), or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment, then His suffering would be of no benefit to us.

A second problem with the Reformed conception is the following dilemma. If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity, then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word. God could hate the Son only if the Son were another being, that is, if polytheism or Arianism were true. But if God loved the Son, then it must be another person (besides the Son) whom God was hating during Christ’s Passion. And hence that entails Nestorianism, i.e. that Christ was two persons, one divine and the other human. He loved the divine Son but hated the human Jesus. Hence the Reformed conception conflicts with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son cannot be at odds. If Christ loves men, then so does the Father. Or, if the Father has wrath for men, then so does Christ. And, if the Father has wrath for the Son, then the Son must have no less wrath for Himself.

St. Thomas Aquinas says:

Christ as God delivered Himself up to death by the same will and action as that by which the Father delivered Him up; but as man He gave Himself up by a will inspired of the Father. Consequently there is no contrariety in the Father delivering Him up and in Christ delivering Himself up. ³

There St. Thomas explains that there is no contrariety between the Father and the Son during Christ’s Passion, no loss of love from the Father to the Son or the Son to the Father. The Father wholly and entirely loved His Son during the entire Passion. By one and the same divine will and action, the Father allowed the Son to be crucified and the Son allowed Himself to be crucified.⁴

One question, from the Reformed point of view, is: How then were our sins paid for, if Christ was not punished by the Father? Christ made atonement for the sins of all men by offering to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him. Hence through the cross Christ merited grace for the salvation of all men. Those who refuse His grace do not do so because Christ did not die for them or did not win sufficient grace for them on the cross, but because of their own free choice.

A second question, from the Reformed point of view, is this: St. Paul tells us, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a true.”⁵ How should we understand the curse, if God the Father is not pouring out His wrath on His Son? St. Augustine explains clearly in his reply to Faustus, that what it means that Christ was cursed is that Christ suffered death.⁶ Christ took our sin in the sense that He willing bore its consequence, namely, death, because death is the consequence of sin and its curse. Death is not natural. But Christ took the likeness of sinful man in that He subjected Himself to death, even death on a cross for our sake.

A third question, from the Reformed point of view, is this: How then should we understand Isaiah 53? What does it mean that:

Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. .. And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand. Because his soul hath laboured, he shall see and be filled: by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53;4-6, 10-11)

This means that Christ carried in His body the sufferings that sin has brought into the world, and that Christ suffered in His soul over all the sins of the world, and their offense against God. He bore our iniquities not in the sense that God punished Him for what we did, but in the sense that He grieved over them all, in solidarity with us.  That is what it means that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He suffered the consequences of sin (i.e. suffering, grief, death), by entering into solidarity with us, entering into our fallen world, and allowing Himself to suffer in it with us, for us, even by our hands.

If one watches the film The Passion of the Christ from the point of view of the Catholic conception of the atonement, the experience is very different from watching it from the point of view of the Reformed conception of the atonement. The film is available online, in 12 parts of ten minutes each; below is the first part. Try watching it from the Catholic point of view of the atonement.

1. This is why Christ retained His five wounds in His resurrected body. And this is why Catholics show Christ on the cross, in the crucifex, because this is Christ’s glory. We, with St. Paul, glory in Christ crucified. (1 Cor 1:23-24)
2. CCC 598
3. See ST III Q.47 a.3 ad 2
4. For a fuller explanation of what Christ did for us through His Passion, according to St Thomas Aquinas, see “Aquinas and Trent 6.”
5. Gal 3:13
6. Contra Faustus, XIV.

We can argue back and forth over Calvin’s doctrine of baptism or predestination, but Calvin is a manifest heretic regarding  Christ’s descent into hell. He breaks with Scripture and all the Fathers in this regard, and his error deserves more attention, because it shows the cracks in his systematic theology. During my three years at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, nobody wanted to touch this with a ten-foot pole.

So that you can get Calvin in context, I’ve provided the full section from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion Book II, Chapter 16, 10 in full. The red inserts are mine.

But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ’s descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgement, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death [What!!! Christ suffered eternal death and the pains the hell!].

We lately quoted from the Prophet, that the “chastisement of our peace was laid upon him” that he “was bruised for our iniquities” that he “bore our infirmities;” [the authors of Scripture and the Fathers apply these prophecies to the crucifixion--not to any penal condemnation in hell] expressions which intimate, that, like a sponsor and surety for the guilty, and, as it were, subjected to condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgement [so the cross as visible judgment was not enough. Christ suffered in hell...] which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price – that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man. [So after suffering in the body on the cross, Christ's soul suffered tortures of the condemned in hell.]

What do we make of this? Essentially, Calvin’s doctrine of penal substitution is the problem (something Catholicism rejects, by the way). If we understand atonement as simply “substitution,” we run into the error that Calvin has committed. Since sinners deserve both physical death and spiritual torment in hell we should also expect that Christ as our redeemer must also experience both physical death and hell. This logic only makes sense–except that it contradicts everything said in the New Testament about Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. The descent into hell was not punitive in anyway, but rather triumphant as described by the Apostles and illustrated in thousands of churches, both East and West (see picture below).

This descent into Hell as Christ’s victory corresponds to the teaching of our first Pope Saint Peter: Christ “proclaimed the Gospel even to the dead” (εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη, 1 Pet 4:6). Jesus wasn’t burning in the flames! He was dashing the gates of Hell, proclaiming His victory, and delivering the righteous of the Old Testament! That’s the holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith in all its beauty.

This “penal substitution” theory of the atonement is patently false. Christ died for us, but it wasn’t a simple swap. Christ uses the language of participation. We are to be “in Him” and we are to also carry the cross. Christ doesn’t take up the cross so that we don’t have to take up the cross. He repeatedly calls us to carry the cross. Our lives are to become “cruciform.” The New Testament constantly calls us to suffer in the likeness of Christ. Again, it’s not a clean exchange. It’s not: “Jesus suffers so that we don’t have to.” Rather we participate in His redemption. This is also the language of Saint Paul:

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake (Phil 1:29).

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church (Col 1:24).

I would challenge all Reformed readers to slowly flip through the epistles of Paul and note the occurance of “in Him” and “in Christ”. Better yet, use BibleWorks or another Bible program and run a search. You will quickly see that “in Him” and “in Christ” is the universal soteriological category for Saint Paul–not justification or regeneration.

According to Catholic Christianity, Christian salvation involves the vindication of Christ’s unjust death on the cross. God does not “hate” His Son. This is impossible. God does not “turn away” from His Son. Luther introduced this false tension and it has led to Calvin’s grievous heresy. Saint Paul speaks of “overcoming death” as the true victory of Christ – not His being the whipping boy of the Father.

I should stop there and open up the comments:

• Have I depicted Calvin rightly?
• If you’re Reformed, do you agree with Calvin? If so, how does his view not denigrate the cross?
• If you’re Catholic, how has the redemptive model of participation enabled you better understand your own salvation?

If you want to learn more about how Catholic theology stresses the Pauline doctrine of “participation,” please visit The Catholic Perspective on Paul and consider listening to some of the Catholic Paul Podcasts: click here.

God is Simple
The more we learn of the universe, the more we appreciate its complexity. But this itself is, in some way, counter-intuitive because we observe that in the natural world, whatever is complex must have a creator which is more complex. A house is complex, but more so an architect. It would seem to follow that since the universe is so complex, God must be even more complex. But complexity entails a composition of various parts and God is not composite. An individual man includes things, like his particular attributes, which are not included in ‘humanity’, but God, who is not composed of “matter and form”, does not include anything which does not belong to ‘divinity’. Humanity is the form of a man; his particular physical components are his matter. Together, this form and matter compose a man. But God is not composed; He is pure form and is not a body. God is altogether simple. Therefore, it is wrong to say that lesser complexity necessarily comes from greater complexity as is shown by God’s simplicity.¹ It is however, true that lesser unity necessarily comes from greater unity although it is beyond the scope of this paper to demonstrate. It is important to understand God this way because it informs how we interpret Divine revelation.

Now this may sound too philosophical for some appetites or maybe superfluous. Why do we need philosophy if we have the Scriptures? The problem with this attitude is that it is impossible to start with the Scriptures as our absolute basis for theology. When we approach the Scriptures, we already have some beliefs which are formed by reason and these beliefs are presuppositions through which we will read every verse. This is why it is important to have a theological starting point which is based on sound reason and is then informed by the divine Scriptures.

Creation Reveals the Truth of God
Now God is simple, but our means of knowledge are all complex. That is, we derive knowledge of God, who is simple, through His complex creation. Aquinas says: “We can speak of simple things only as though they were like the composite things from which we derive our knowledge.”² This does not mean that we cannot arrive at reliable knowledge of God because this is precisely how God chose to reveal Himself to us. When I speak of “the divine metaphor”, I do not mean that our means of knowledge are not real, but that they are divinely established metaphors, teachings from the mouth of God, as it were, about Himself. The universe teaches us of the truth; that is, God.³

Big things in nature have important things to teach us of God and His nature. Though He is not male or female, our sex tells us something about God. But this is not to say that God’s masculinity, as divinely revealed, is merely metaphoric (as if it weren’t true). On the contrary, it is true and it tells us something important about Him. Masculinity is not our metaphoric projection onto God’s identity; it is exactly the other way around. Masculinity is a divinely established reality intended by God to teach us something about who He is. In the same way, fatherhood is not our metaphoric projection onto God’s person, man’s fatherhood was established by God to show us who He is. To be clear, God is properly called Father.⁴

This is why we must handle with care the way the Scriptures speak of God. We have a tendency to project ourselves onto God as if He were only an all powerful and sinless version of ourselves in the sky. On the contrary, we were made in His image and not the other way around!⁵ A potent example of this important point is passion as applied to God. God is immutable and therefore is free of passions.⁶ That is, a passion is never properly applied to God, only analogically⁷ The Scriptures, however, often speak of God’s “anger” (e.g. Exodus 4:14, Leviticus 26:28). Thus, it must be understood that the Scriptures speak analogically of God’s anger.

When we hear the word “metaphor”, it has the connotation of something being false. For example, if I tell you something and then later I say, “I was only speaking metaphorically”, you get the impression that I haven’t told you the whole truth or that I haven’t been straight forward. But this is not the case with the divine metaphor(s) precisely because they are divine. God has established these efficacious ways for us to understand Him, and these are the best means available to us to know Him although the Truth exceeds what can be expressed to those of us with limited capacity.

Implications
Nature itself is divinely established to lead us to Truth. That is why errors cannot be illustrated by nature except with great difficulty. St. Paul compares the Church to a human body⁸ and the fullness of this metaphor is only found in the Catholic Church as shown in Called to Communion’s recent paper on the Visible Church. It is important to mention that the Catholic Church is a body, but it is only analogically compared to a human body. The model of an essentially invisible Church does not fit this metaphor nor any metaphor which can be found in nature and this is part of the reason why we know it to be false. True things are easily illustrated by natural phenomena but nature must be falsely interpreted to be used as a supporting metaphor of a false proposition. Recalling that man’s fatherhood is divinely established to teach us about God’s Fatherhood, we can see how the human body is created, in part, to teach us the nature of the Church and her unity. This is why Paul’s analogy of the Church to a human body is not merely a helpful illustration; it is a “divine metaphor.”

Seeing that nature itself, revealed by God, is so inclined to teach us truth by metaphor, it comes as no surprise that the divinely revealed Scriptures make frequent use of allegory and symbolism. When the modern skeptic reads that John the Baptist wore camel’s hair and a leather belt⁹ , he thinks that the author is trying to conjure up a connection between St. John and Elijah¹⁰ . It has never occurred to the skeptic that what is said of John may actually be true. But on the other hand, when the Scriptures speak of the sun standing still¹¹ , it has never occurred to the skeptic that the Scriptures might be speaking metaphorically. It’s obvious in the latter case, but in the former as well, a metaphor is at play. The divine metaphor opposes both fundamentalism and skepticism. The gospels record that Jesus rose on the third day, and the skeptic wants to insist that the gospel authors are inserting their own symbolic theology. This assumes the very antithesis of my argument: that God is not capable of enacting anything with meaning!

On the contrary, the Scriptures are the God-breathed account of the created universe and the salvation story. It is not surprising that this account is full of symbolism and metaphoric language. This is not to say that the accounts must only be taken metaphorically. In fact, those who appreciate the “divine metaphor” prefer a literal reading in some cases (like the three days in the tomb). On the other hand, it informs and validates the allegoric method of Old Testament exegesis that the Catholic Church has long employed. Now, as Origen showed, an allegoric method of interpretation does not indicate that a thing cannot be literally true. ¹² This is because God uses real things in nature to teach Truth by allegory. We call this, again, the “divine metaphor.”

The consequences of misunderstanding God’s simplicity may seem subtle but they can have far reaching effects. Fundamentalism, for example, is replete with errors caused by an oversimplication of Biblical language concerning God and His actions. This is why it is important to have, among other things, a solid understanding of God’s simplicity and immutability. It will demonstrate that some things said of God must be analogical and thus help us avoid certain theological errors.

So this brings us back to where the discussion began: the atonement. In recent times, the concept of Christ suffering vicariously for our sins has surfaced under the Protestant atonement theory known as Penal Substitution. This is caused by a misreading of key texts especially regarding God’s wrath. I do not intend to fully engage the theory, which is still popular among Protestants, but a couple points would be worth mentioning. First, wrath belongs to the passions and as mentioned above, it is not properly attributed to God, as if He were subject to it, but only analogically. Secondly, the theory falsely teaches that God is moved from wrath to forgiveness by the act of the vicarious sacrifice of Calvary. If God could be moved from a state of love, to a state of wrath, and then back to a state of love, then the Penal Substitution theory of the atonement, in which God the Father pours out His wrath on His Son until His anger is spent, would be a possibility. But if God cannot be moved at all, as the doctrine of immutability insists, then a conception of the atonement in which the Father pours out His anger on Christ until His wrath is spent is not possible.

Further, if we understand God’s simplicity and immutability in this way, it has implications regarding justification. It follows from God’s immutability that justification must entail a change in man not a change in God. Christian theology has no room for a change in God nor a change in how God sees His people. Penal Substitution, as described above, and the concept of imputed righteousness, which teaches that we are moved from enmity to friendship with God without actual change in ourselves, both seem to contradict God’s immutability because they entail changes in God rather than changes in the created order.

The Reformed would argue for a third option since they too affirm God’s immutability. They would say that the change, at initial justification, is not a change in God or a change in man but a change in the relationship between the two. Now there are two types of relationships: intrinsic, such as familial, and extrinsic, such as geographical. In the case of the latter, a change in the relationship may take place without any inherent change in the involved parties. That is, the change in relationship may be effected by extrinsic change. If one party moves, the geographical relationship is altered, but neither party has been inherently changed. On the other hand, in the case of an intrinsic relationship, a real intrinsic change must occur in one or more of the involved parties in order for the relationship to change. For the relationship of two men to go from friendship to enmity, something must happen in one or more of the friends. They must undergo a change in disposition toward the other.

Now it is clear that God did not change when man first sinned. It should also be clear from the above that God does not change during the process of justification. So if it is true that in order for an intrinsic relationship to change, a real change must occur in one of the involved parties, then the doctrine of imputed righteousness must be false. But it is conceivable, at this point, that it is not universally true that in order for an intrinsic relationship to change, a real change must occur in one of the involved parties. Ordinarily it certainly is true, but suppose that God, from eternity, decreed that the righteousness of His Son would effect the necessary change in the relationship between man and Himself such that a real change was not necessary in either party. This is impossible because it is like saying that God could make a square circle. God can’t do something that is not capable of being done by its own terms. God cannot cause an intrinsic change by non-intrinsic means because then it would not be an intrinsic change. Further, the model of imputed righteousness has no precedent in nature, i.e. it is not supported by the divine metaphor.

Now I would not pretend to have sufficiently dealt with the nuances and arguments that the Reformed would readily employ in defense of this pivotal Evangelical “dogma”, but I hope I have at least given the reader something to consider.

Conclusion
The Divine Metaphor is one primary way that we begin to know God. It is the pedagogy of nature itself. It informs our understanding of God and is confirmed by the Scriptures. It may not be apparent to some why it is so important to understand God rightly from the start. But if we start with a proper understanding of who God is, informed by divine revelation, then it will help us avoid errors like fundamentalism, penal substitution, imputed righteousness, and many others. I should make it clear that I have not intended, in this post, to advance a particular theory of hermeneutical method, the atonement, or justification. I brought these up as brief examples of errors caused by a misapprehension of the divine metaphor and consequently God’s nature. Whatever is left wanting in the discussion of these points will be handled at a later date with more thorough treatments.

Going forward let me encourage you to look closely at nature expecting the Divine Metaphor.

1. Summa Theologica I Q.3 a.1-8
2. Summa Theologica I Q.3 a.3
3. John 14:6
4. Summa Theologica I Q.33 a.2
5. CCC 370; Gen 1:27
6. Summa Theologica I Q.9 a.1-2
7. Summa Theologica I Q.20 a.1 r.1 – Aquinas says, “Therefore acts of the sensitive appetite, inasmuch as they have annexed to them some bodily change, are called passions; whereas acts of the will are not so called. Love, therefore, and joy and delight are passions; in so far as they denote acts of the intellective appetite, they are not passions.”
8. 1 Cor 12:12-31
9. Matt 3:4, Mark 1:6
10. 2 Kings 1:8
11. Josh 10:13
12. See, for example, McCartney, Dan “Literal and Allegorical Interpretation in Origen” Westminster Theological Journal 1986. Online text. Origen said, “The incidents which are historically true [in the OT] are much more numerous than the spiritual interpretations which have been woven in by the Holy Ghost for pedagogical reasons.” – De principiis (4.3.4)

Crucifixion with the Virgin and St John the Evangelist
Ugolino di Nerio (1280 – 1349)

In the last three posts in this series we have considered the three effects of sin, according to Aquinas: corruption of man’s nature, stain in his soul, and the debt of eternal punishment. By these three effects man was cut off from his supernatural end, i.e. being united to God eternally in perfect happiness and love, in what is called the Beatific Vision. Here we turn to Aquinas’ understanding of Christ’s Passion, in redeeming us from sin and its effects, and opening for us the way to the Beatific Vision. In order to understand what Aquinas says about Christ’s Passion, we must first briefly consider what Aquinas says about man’s supernatural end and why grace is needed to attain that end.

Grace and The Beatific Vision

According to Aquinas, God made man with the ultimate purpose of giving to man what the tradition calls the “Beatific Vision,” that is, seeing the Divine Essence.¹ Jesus told His disciples, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”² The Beatific Vision is something the blessed in heaven now enjoy. Concerning the Beatific Vision, Aquinas writes, “The vision of the Divine Essence is granted to all the blessed by a partaking of the Divine light which is shed upon them from the fountain of the Word of God ….”³

According to Aquinas, the human intellect, apart from grace, cannot attain the Beatific Vision. The human intellect can of its own power attain an indirect knowledge of God, as knowledge of a cause can be determined from its effects. In this way we can, by the natural power of human reason, come to know that God exists, and that God is good, just, perfect, etc. But for Aquinas, the vision of the Divine Essence is natural only to God Himself. Attaining to the vision of the Divine Essence exceeds our natural capacities; no created nature is in itself proportional to the vision of the Divine Essence. This is why the vision of the Divine Essence is man’s supernatural end (finis supaturalis). We need a divine gift by which we may participate in the divine nature, and so enjoy the vision of the Divine Essence. This divine gift, by which our nature is elevated and made proportionate to the divine nature, so that we can have the vision of the Divine Essence, is sanctifying grace.⁴ If grace were merely “divine favor” in the sense of God looking upon us in a favorable manner, we could never enter heaven, because we could never see the Divine Essence.⁵ Since grace is necessary for man to enjoy the vision of God’s essence, we may now consider how, for Aquinas, the grace of salvation comes to man through Christ’s Passion and Death.

Was the Passion Necessary?

According to Aquinas, because God is omnipotent, He could have saved man without sending Christ to die for us. Aquinas writes, “God of His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways.”⁶ This would not have been contrary to justice, as Aquinas explains:

But if He had willed to free man from sin without any satisfaction, He would not have acted against justice. For a judge, while preserving justice, cannot pardon fault without penalty, if he must visit fault committed against another–for instance, against another man, or against the State, or any Prince in higher authority. But God has no one higher than Himself, for He is the sovereign and common good of the whole universe. Consequently, if He forgive sin, which has the formality of fault in that it is committed against Himself, He wrongs no one: just as anyone else, overlooking a personal trespass, without satisfaction, acts mercifully and not unjustly. And so David exclaimed when he sought mercy: “To Thee only have I sinned” (Psalm 50:6), as if to say: “Thou canst pardon me without injustice.”⁷

By satisfaction [satisfactione] Aquinas is referring to a voluntary reparation for an offense. Even if Christ had not come, God could have forgiven our debt of punishment, and this would not have been a violation of justice because our debt is precisely to God. A human judge, by contrast, cannot simply forgive the injustice of a criminal without violating justice. That is because the crime committed by the criminal was not against the judge, but against someone or something else. But if a debt is owed only to one man, then this man can freely discharge the debt, without any violation of justice. Man’s debt of [eternal] punishment was owed to God alone, and therefore without any injustice God can forgive this sin even without satisfaction.

Yet there was no more fitting way to save us than through Christ’s Passion, because Christ’s Passion most perfectly demonstrates to us God’s glory, His love, the evil of sin, human dignity, and the perfect example of loving obedience to the Father. Not only that, it also delivers us from sin and merits for us justifying grace and the glory of bliss.⁸ It was more fitting for Christ to suffer, because Christ’s Passion demonstrates God’s mercy and justice:

That man should be delivered by Christ’s Passion was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man was set free by Christ’s justice: and with His mercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature ….⁹

Through Christ’s Passion, He made satisfaction for the sin of the whole human race. Christ freely suffered humiliation, pain, injustice and even death, out of loving obedience to the Father. This sacrifice of Himself out of love for His Father made reparation for all the sin of the human race, and thereby was in keeping with the order of justice. Likewise, by sending His Son to make such satisfaction for our sins, the Father showed His mercy, because we could not make satisfaction for our sins. So although strictly speaking it was not necessary for Christ to suffer in order to save mankind, yet in another sense it was necessary for Christ to suffer, in order most perfectly to demonstrate to mankind God’s mercy and justice.

Four Ways in Which Christ’s Passion Brought About Our Salvation

According to Aquinas, Christ, from the first instant of His conception, had the fullness of sanctifying grace.¹⁰ Not only that, but from the first moment of His conception was the Head of the Church.¹¹ All the graces that come into the Church come from Christ the Head of the Body.¹² Aquinas presents four ways in which Christ’s Passion brought about our salvation.

First, Aquinas says that Christ’s Passion brought about our salvation by way of merit.

As stated above (7, 1,9; 8, 1,5), grace was bestowed upon Christ, not only as an individual, but inasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, so that it might overflow into His members; and therefore Christ’s works are referred to Himself and to His members in the same way as the works of any other man in a state of grace are referred to himself. But it is evident that whosoever suffers for justice’s sake, provided that he be in a state of grace, merits his salvation thereby, according to Matthew 5:10: “Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’s sake.” Consequently Christ by His Passion merited salvation, not only for Himself, but likewise for all His members.¹³

Christ had grace in His soul from the first instant of His conception. Otherwise, Christ would have been in a state of original sin.¹⁴ But in that first instant of His conception Christ received grace not only as an individual man, but also as the Head of the Church, so that this grace might overflow into His members, i.e. all those who are joined to His Body, the Church. Insofar as we are joined to Christ as members of His Body, the works of Christ the Head of the Body are referred not only to the Head but to all the members of His Body, because this Body is one Body. Furthermore, if anyone in a state of grace suffers for justice’s sake, that person merits blessedness (i.e. the vision of God). Therefore, since Christ was in a state of grace, and Christ suffered for justice’s sake, it follows that Christ merited the Beatific Vision, even though He already had it.¹⁵ Hence, since Christ merited the Beatific Vision, and since those who are joined to Him as members of His Body share in His merits, it follows that Christ merited the Beatific Vision for us, and thus that He merited salvation for us.

Aquinas explains the notion of merit elsewhere, writing:

Merit implies a certain equality of justice: hence the Apostle says (Romans 4:4): “Now to him that worketh, the reward is reckoned according to debt.” But when anyone by reason of his unjust will ascribes to himself something beyond his due, it is only just that he be deprived of something else which is his due; thus, “when a man steals a sheep he shall pay back four” (Exodus 22:1). And he is said to deserve it, inasmuch as his unjust will is chastised thereby. So likewise when any man through his just will has stripped himself of what he ought to have, he deserves that something further be granted to him as the reward of his just will. And hence it is written (Luke 14:11): “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”¹⁶

Merit is based on justice, according to which reward is due for every obedient act, and punishment is due for every disobedient act, to chastise the unjust will. Aquinas notes that the precept of the Old Law required that the theft be paid back fourfold.¹⁷ Aquinas then proceeds to show the four respects in which Christ humbled Himself, thereby paying fourfold for the [extrinsic] glory man had stolen from God through disobedience.¹⁸

Second, according to Aquinas, Christ’s Passion brought about our salvation by way of satisfaction.

He properly atones for [satisfacit] an offense who offers something which the offended 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 (Question 46, Article 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.”¹⁹

Aquinas begins here by explaining the meaning of satisfaction. A person makes proper satisfaction for an offense by offering to the offended something that the offended person loves equally or even more than he detested the offense. By giving Himself over to suffering, in love and obedience for the Father, Christ offered to the Father something that the Father loves far more than He detests all the sins of the human race. Why was Christ’s gift so greatly loved by the Father? Because of the greatness of the charity out of which Christ suffered, the great dignity of what He laid down in love for the Father, and the immensity of the grief He endured, which was far greater interiorly than all His bodily suffering.²⁰ How do we benefit from Christ’s satisfaction? Aquinas writes:

The head and members are as one mystic person; and therefore Christ’s satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being His members.²¹

Here again, Aquinas explains that we benefit from Christ’s satisfaction by being joined to Him as members of His Body, the Church, of which He is the Head. Through being joined to Him, we become, as it were, one mystic person [quasi una persona mystica]. Just as what belongs to the hand also belongs to the foot or the ear, so what belongs to Christ the Head belongs also to the rest of His Body. And therefore the satisfaction that He offered to the Father belongs also to all the faithful, because we are members of His Body.

Third, according to Aquinas, Christ’s Passion brought about our salvation by way of sacrifice.

The Apostle says (Ephesians 5:2): “He delivered Himself up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness.” A sacrifice properly so called is something done for that honor which is properly due to God, in order to appease Him: and hence it is that Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): “A true sacrifice is every good work done in order that we may cling to God in holy fellowship, yet referred to that consummation of happiness wherein we can be truly blessed.” But, as is added in the same place, “Christ offered Himself up for us in the Passion”: and this voluntary enduring of the Passion was most acceptable to God, as coming from charity. Therefore it is manifest that Christ’s Passion was a true sacrifice.²²

A sacrifice [sacrificium], says Aquinas, is something done for the honor that is properly due to God, in order to appease Him. This falls under the virtue of religion, which itself falls under the virtue of justice, i.e. giving to each its due.²³ But not only does sacrifice fall under the precepts of the natural law, various kinds of sacrifice were also required by the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law.²⁴ These sacrifices, according to Aquinas, directed the minds of the worshipers to God as the source and end of all things. But they also foreshadowed Christ, the chief and perfect sacrifice.²⁵ How does sacrifice differ from satisfaction? Satisfaction can be made by sacrifice, but satisfaction presupposes an offense, whereas sacrifice does not. Sacrifice is what is due to God as God, and only to God. Satisfaction, on the other hand, can be made to any offended party, not only to God.²⁶

Fourth, according to Aquinas, Christ’s Passion brought about our salvation by way of redemption.

Man was held captive on account of sin in two ways: first of all, by the bondage of sin, because (John 8:34): “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin”; and (2 Peter 2:19): “By whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave.” Since, then, the devil had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was subject to the devil’s bondage. Secondly, as to the debt of punishment, to the payment of which man was held fast by God’s justice: and this, too, is a kind of bondage, since it savors of bondage for a man to suffer what he does not wish, just as it is the free man’s condition to apply himself to what he wills.

Since, then, Christ’s Passion was a sufficient and a superabundant atonement [satisfactio] for the sin and the debt of the human race, it was as a price at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations. For the atonement [satisfactio] by which one satisfies for self or another is called the price, by which he ransoms himself or someone else from sin and its penalty, according to Daniel 4:24: “Redeem thou thy sins with alms.” Now Christ made satisfaction, not by giving money or anything of the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest price–Himself–for us. And therefore Christ’s Passion is called our redemption.²⁷

Aquinas explains the two ways in which man was held captive on account of sin. In the first way, man was held captive by sin and Satan. By sinning, we make ourselves prone to sin, susceptible to its temptation, less willing to resist it firmly and consistently. Through mortal sin we make ourselves incapable of repenting, unless God provides grace. In this way, by submitting ourselves to sin we make ourselves slaves to it. Furthermore, says Aquinas, in succumbing to Satan’s temptation, we likewise subject ourselves to Satan’s bondage. We put ourselves under the devil by consenting to him.²⁸ The second way that man was held captive on account of sin was by the debt of punishment, which he could not pay.

According to Aquinas, Christ by His Passion redeemed us from both obligations. That is because the satisfaction by which one satisfies is the price by which one one ransoms from sin and its penalty. Since Christ made satisfaction by giving to God what was of maximum worth, namely, Himself, for us, therefore in doing so Christ paid a price that ransomed us both from our bondage to sin and our debt of punishment.

Aquinas sums up the four ways in which Christ’s Passion brought salvation to us, writing:

Christ’s Passion, according as it is compared with His Godhead, operates in an efficient manner: but in so far as it is compared with the will of Christ’s soul it acts in a meritorious manner: considered as being within Christ’s very flesh, it acts by way of satisfaction, inasmuch as we are liberated by it from the debt of punishment; while inasmuch as we are freed from the servitude of guilt, it acts by way of redemption: but in so far as we are reconciled with God it acts by way of sacrifice ….”²⁹

On account of the will of Christ’s soul, His Passion acts by way of merit. On account of the flesh of Christ’s body, His Passion acts by way of satisfaction (inasmuch as by it we are liberated from the debt of punishment), by way of redemption (inasmuch as it frees us from the servitude of guilt [servitute culpae]), and by way of sacrifice inasmuch as by it we are reconciled to God).

Four Effects of Christ’s Passion

One effect of Christ’s Passion is the forgiveness of our sins. Aquinas writes:

Christ’s Passion is the proper cause of the forgiveness of sins [remissionis peccatorum] in three ways. First of all, by way of exciting our charity [provocantis ad caritatem], because, as the Apostle says (Romans 5:8): “God commendeth His charity towards us: because when as yet we were sinners, according to the time, Christ died for us.” But it is by charity that we procure pardon of our sins, according to Luke 7:47: “Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much.” Secondly, Christ’s Passion causes forgiveness of sins by way of redemption [redemptionis]. For since He is our head, then, by the Passion which He endured from love and obedience, He delivered us as His members from our sins, as by the price of His Passion: in the same way as if a man by the good industry of his hands were to redeem himself from a sin committed with his feet. For, just as the natural body is one though made up of diverse members, so the whole Church, Christ’s mystic body, is reckoned as one person with its head, which is Christ. Thirdly, by way of efficiency [efficientiae], inasmuch as Christ’s flesh, wherein He endured the Passion, is the instrument of the Godhead, so that His sufferings and actions operate with Divine power for expelling sin.³⁰

Christ’s Passion causes the forgiveness of our sins in three ways or modes. First, by provoking us to charity. Through His divine demonstration of charity in the Passion, charity is communicated to us and provoked within us. And our sins are forgiven when we love God, because our will is turned back to God in friendship, away from that which we had wrongly loved more than we loved God. Second, as explained above, Christ’s Passion causes the forgiveness of our sins by way of redemption. Since Christ by His Passion offered to His Father such a great gift, therefore since He is the Head and we are the members of His Body, therefore by incorporation into His Body (and only by incorporation into His Body) we participate in what He obtained. Aquinas uses the example of a man who by the good work of his hands was able to redeem himself from a sin committed with his feet. Thirdly, Christ’s Passion causes the forgiveness of our sins in the mode of efficient cause. By this he means that Christ’s flesh, as the instrument of the Godhead, has within it the divine virtue (power) to drive out all evils through His actions and sufferings in His Passion.

Another effect of Christ’s Passion is deliverance from the debt of punishment. Aquinas writes:

Through Christ’s Passion we have been delivered from the debt of punishment in two ways. First of all, directly–namely, inasmuch as Christ’s Passion was sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sins of the whole human race: but when sufficient satisfaction has been paid, then the debt of punishment is abolished. In another way–indirectly, that is to say–in so far as Christ’s Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sin, upon which the debt of punishment rests.³¹

This short paragraph provides a helpful distinction between the debt of punishment [reatus poenae] and the forgiveness of sins [remissionis peccati]. Christ’s Passion delivers us from the debt of punishment both directly and indirectly. It directly delivers us from the debt of punishment in that through His Passion Christ made superabundant satisfaction [superabundans satisfactio] for the sins of the whole human race, and thereby paid our debt, inasmuch as we are joined to Him as members of His Mystical Body. Christ’s Passion indirectly delivers us from the debt of punishment insofar as it is the cause of the forgiveness of sin [remissionis peccati], on which the debt of punishment is founded. The forgiveness of sin is not merely the payment of our debt of punishment. The debt of eternal punishment is continually caused by the privation of original justice in the will, by which the will is made subject to God. Therefore, in order to remove the debt of punishment, not only must the debt be paid, but the continuing cause of the debt must be remedied. So Christ’s Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sins, by the gift of grace, whereby our will is again made subject to God in love. We receive this gift of grace by being united to Him as our Head, from whom flow all graces to us as members of His Body.

Another effect of Christ’s Passion is that we are reconciled to God. Aquinas writes:

Christ’s Passion is in two ways the cause of our reconciliation to God. In the first way, inasmuch as it takes away sin by which men became God’s enemies, according to Wisdom 14:9: “To God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike”; and Psalm 5:7: “Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity.” In another way, inasmuch as it is a most acceptable sacrifice to God. 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 (1, ad 4).³²

Here Aquinas explains that Christ’s Passion is the cause of our reconciliation to God in two ways. First, Christ’s Passion takes away sin [removet peccatum] by which men are put at enmity with God. Sin is not a stuff or substance. Sin is a privation of the due order in acts, or in the disposition of the will, such that we are turned against God and against the order of Divine justice. One way that Christ removes sin is by turning our heart (i.e. our will) back to the Father in love, such that we are no longer enemies of God, but are reconciled to Him as friends, even sons. The second way in which Christ reconciles us to God is by making perfect satisfaction, in His human nature, to the Father. The debt of punishment that was due to the human race for every offense is thereby canceled, insofar as we are “made one with the crucified Christ”. I will discuss below the way in which we are made one with Christ.

Another effect of Christ’s Passion is that the gate of heaven is opened to us. Aquinas writes:

The shutting of the gate is the obstacle which hinders men from entering in. But it is on account of sin that men were prevented from entering into the heavenly kingdom, since, according to Isaiah 35:8: “It shall be called the holy way, and the unclean shall not pass over it.” Now there is a twofold sin which prevents men from entering into the kingdom of heaven. The first is common to the whole race, for it is our first parents’ sin, and by that sin heaven’s entrance is closed to man. Hence we read in Genesis 3:24 that after our first parents’ sin God “placed . . . cherubim and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” The other is the personal sin of each one of us, committed by our personal act.

Now by Christ’s Passion we have been delivered not only from the common sin of the whole human race, both as to its guilt and as to the debt of punishment, for which He paid the penalty on our behalf; but, furthermore, from the personal sins of individuals, who share in His Passion by faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. Consequently, then the gate of heaven’s kingdom is thrown open to us through Christ’s Passion. This is precisely what the Apostle says (Hebrews 9:11-12): “Christ being come a high-priest of the good things to come . . . by His own blood entered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption.”³³

When God sent man out of Eden, He placed a cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life [ligni vitae]. According to Aquinas, on account of man’s sin, the gate to heaven was thereby closed. This gate being closed to us was due not only to original sin, common to all mankind descended from Adam, but also to all actual sins committed by each person. By Christ’s Passion we have been delivered from original sin both as to its guilt [culpam] and as to its debt of punishment [reatum poenae]. Here again by the guilt [culpam] of original sin, Aquinas is referring to the privation of original justice in the will, whereby the will was made subject to God. When man receives grace, through union with the crucified Christ, this privation in the will is removed. And likewise by union with Christ the debt of punishment for original sin is canceled. Furthermore, by Christ’s Passion, we have been delivered from the guilt and debt of punishment for our personal sins. Therefore, through Christ’s Passion the gate of heaven has been thrown open to us.

Did God Hate Sinners?

Some people claim that God the Father hated sinners, on account of their sin, and therefore that God the Father unleashed this stored-up wrath upon Christ, temporarily damning Christ on our behalf. But that is not how Aquinas understands Christ’s salvific work. God the Father and Christ the Son are one in their Divine nature, and therefore one in their single Divine will. It is not as though the Father hated us while Christ the Son loved us. Aquinas says, “Christ as God delivered Himself up to death by the same will and action as that by which the Father delivered Him up….”³⁴ Nor is it that the Son in His Divine nature hated us, but that the Son in His human nature loved us. The distinction, for Aquinas, is at a different level. He writes:

God loves all men as to their nature, which He Himself made; yet He hates them with respect to the crimes [culpam] they commit against Him, according to Sirach 12:3: “The Highest hateth sinners.”³⁵

The three Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity eternally love all men in regard to man’s primary human nature [quantum ad naturam]. In other words, the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity eternally love each and every human being on account of our human nature, which God Himself made in His own image. But the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity hate [odit] sin, and therefore in regard to human opposition to God [quantum ad culpam], the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity hate sinful man (i.e. man devoid of sanctifying grace and charity). So the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity both love and hate sinful man, but in different respects. Yet their love for man is more fundamental than is their hate, because the nature of man is fundamental to man’s wickedness. Sinful man’s opposition to God is made possible by man’s rational nature. But this raises a question. If God has always loved man, even when man was turned against God, how then can Christ’s Passion be rightly said to reconcile man to God? Aquinas answers:

Christ is not said to have reconciled us with God, as if God had begun anew to love us, since it is written (Jeremiah 31:3): “I have loved thee with an everlasting love”; but because the source of hatred was taken away by Christ’s Passion, both through sin being washed away and through compensation being made in the shape of a more pleasing offering.³⁶

The reconciliation of sinners with God through Christ’s Passion was not effected by a change in God, but by a change in man. His Passion removed the cause of hatred [odii causa] in two ways. Our sin was washed away [ablutionem peccati] by His blood; this washing we receive by being joined to Him in His Mystical Body. Furthermore, Christ completely and lovingly offered Himself in His human nature as a sacrifice to God the Father. By such a sacrifice, Christ in His human nature, stands in a highly favored and exalted position before the Father.³⁷ Therefore, by being united with Christ as members of His Mystical Body, we are reconciled to God not because of a change in God, but because we are truly made one with Christ, with whom God is well-pleased.

Sufficiency and Union with Christ

If Christ through His Passion made satisfaction sufficient for the sins of every human being who has ever lived and will live, why then is not every human person saved? Aquinas writes:

It is certain that Christ came into this world not only to take away that sin which is handed on originally to posterity, but also in order to take away all sins subsequently added to it; not that all are taken away (and this is from men’s fault, inasmuch as they do not adhere to Christ, according to John 3:19: “The light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light”), but because He offered what was sufficient for blotting out all sins. Hence it is written (Romans 5:15-16): “But not as the offense, so also the gift . . . For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation, but grace is of many offenses unto justification.”³⁸

Here Aquinas explains that Christ came into this world to remove both original sin and all actual sins. Not all sins are removed, he says, because men do not adhere [non inhaerent] to Christ. They choose darkness rather than Christ the light who has come into the world. Christ offered Himself up to the Father on behalf of all men, but if men reject Christ, then they are not united to Christ, and so do not partake of the salvific benefits procured by Christ’s Passion. Only by union with Christ do we participate in the salvific benefits of His Passion. Aquinas writes:

Christ by His Passion delivered us from our sins causally–that is, by setting up the cause of our deliverance, from which cause all sins whatsoever, past, present, or to come, could be forgiven: just as if a doctor were to prepare a medicine by which all sicknesses can be cured even in future.

As stated above, since Christ’s Passion preceded, as a kind of universal cause of the forgiveness of sins [remissionis peccatorum], it needs to be applied to each individual for the cleansing [deletionem] of personal sins. Now this is done by baptism and penance and the other sacraments, which derive their power from Christ’s Passion, as shall be shown later (62, 5).³⁹

Aquinas uses the example of a doctor who prepares a medicine by which all sicknesses, even future sicknesses, can be cured. Likewise, through Christ’s Passion, the remedy for all sin (past, present, and future) is provided. But this medicine needs to be applied to each sick person, in order to benefit the sick person. How is this medicine applied? By the sacraments of baptism and penance and the other sacraments, which have their power from Christ’s Passion [habent virtutem ex passione Christi].

When Aquinas is faced with the objection that if all men were freed from the punishment of sin by Christ’s Passion, no one would suffer eternal damnation in hell, he replies:

Christ’s Passion works its effect in them to whom it is applied, through faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. And, consequently, the lost in hell cannot avail themselves of its effects, since they are not united to Christ in the aforesaid manner.⁴⁰

Here again he shows that Christ’s Passion works its effect in those to whom it is applied, by faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. But the lost in hell cannot be united to Christ by faith and the sacraments, and that is why Christ’s Passion does not free them from eternal punishment.

Aquinas then raises a similar objection. He observes that baptized persons who fall into mortal sin and then receive the sacrament of penance, are given some penance to do. According to the objection, this implies that Christ’s work was not sufficient to pay their debt of punishment, because no one whose debt is already paid should be made to pay anything additional. Aquinas then replies:

As stated above (1, ad 4,5), in order to secure the effects of Christ’s Passion, we must be likened unto Him. Now we are likened unto Him sacramentally in Baptism, according to Romans 6:4: “For we are buried together with Him by baptism into death.” Hence no punishment of satisfaction is imposed upon men at their baptism, since they are fully delivered by Christ’s satisfaction. But because, as it is written (1 Peter 3:18), “Christ died” but “once for our sins,” therefore a man cannot a second time be likened unto Christ’s death by the sacrament of Baptism. Hence it is necessary that those who sin after Baptism be likened unto Christ suffering by some form of punishment or suffering which they endure in their own person; yet, by the co-operation of Christ’s satisfaction, much lighter penalty suffices than one that is proportionate to the sin.⁴¹

Here Aquinas explains that in order to secure [consequamur] the effects of Christ’s Passion, it is necessary that we be configured [configurari] to Him. And we are configured to Him sacramentally in Baptism, because in Baptism we are buried together with Him into His death, as the Apostle Paul teaches. Therefore there is no punishment of satisfaction imposed on men at their baptism, because through Christ’s satisfaction, all the punishment for their sin until that time, is canceled by their union with Christ in baptism. But since Christ died but once for sins, therefore we cannot be configured to Him by being baptized again. So those who sin after baptism must be configured to Christ suffering, by some form of temporal punishment [poenalitatis] or suffering [passionis] which they themselves endure. Yet, explains Aquinas, by the cooperation of Christ’s satisfaction [cooperante satisfactione Christi], this penance that penitents must do is much lighter than is deserved for their [post-baptismal] sins. So for Aquinas the requirement of doing penance for post-baptismal sin is not due to Christ’s satisfaction being insufficient, but rather because since Christ died only once, we cannot be baptized again as a remedy for post-baptismal sins, and so must be configured to Him by sharing in His suffering.

Christ, by His Passion has supplied the remedy for all three of the effects of sin. He has paid the debt of punishment. He has procured for us the grace by which our will is made subject to God in charity, and in this way He has removed the corruption of our will, forgiven our sins, and washed away the stain of sin from our souls. We receive this remedy in the sacraments, and especially baptism as the gateway to the other sacraments. In baptism we are joined to Christ as members of His Body of which He is the Head and from whom all graces flow. Concerning Christ’s baptism by John, Aquinas writes:

[T]he entrance to the heavenly kingdom was opened to us by the baptism of Christ in a special manner, which entrance had been closed to the first man through sin. Hence, when Christ was baptized, the heavens were opened, to show that the way to heaven is open to the baptized.⁴²

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.

1. This should not be construed as implying that any creature can comprehend (i.e. fully or exhaustively understand) the Divine Essence. According to Aquinas, not even the soul of Christ comprehends the Divine Essence. See Summa Theologica III Q.10 a.1
2. St. Matthew 5:8
3. Summa Theologica III Q.10 a.4 co.
4. This is why for Aquinas the Beatific Vision is man’s supernatural end. In saying that the Beatific Vision is man’s supernatural end, Aquinas is not simply saying that God is supernatural. He is saying that this end (i.e. the Beatific Vision) exceeds our natural capacities. It is beyond our nature, and in that sense it is supernatural. The Beatific Vision is also beyond the natural capacity of each angel. This is also why, for Aquinas, even the angels needed grace in order to enjoy the Beautific Vision, as I discussed here.
5. See Summa Theologica I-II Q.110 a.1 in which Aquinas discusses the three senses of the term ‘grace’.
6. Summa Theologica III Q.1 a.2 co.
7. Summa Theologica III Q.46 a.2 ad 3
8. Summa Theologica III Q.46 a.3 co.
9. Summa Theologica III Q.46 a.1 ad 3
10. Summa Theologica III Q.7 aa. 7, 9
11. Summa Theologica III Q.8 a.1
12. In fact, according to Aquinas, from the first moment of Christ’s conception He was the Head of all men, but not all in the same way.

    Hence we must say that if we take the whole time of the world in general, Christ is the Head of all men, but diversely. For, first and principally, He is the Head of such as are united to Him by glory; secondly, of those who are actually united to Him by charity; thirdly, of those who are actually united to Him by faith; fourthly, of those who are united to Him merely in potentiality, which is not yet reduced to act, yet will be reduced to act according to Divine predestination; fifthly, of those who are united to Him in potentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men existing in the world, who are not predestined, who, however, on their departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ, as being no longer in potentiality to be united to Christ. Summa Theologica III Q.8 a.3

13. ST III Q.48 a.1 co.
14. See my discussion on original sin in Part 2 of this series.
15. Aquinas writes:

    Now the soul of Christ, since it is united to the Word in person, is more closely joined to the Word of God than any other creature. Hence it more fully receives the light in which God is seen by the Word Himself than any other creature. And therefore more perfectly than the rest of creatures it sees the First Truth itself, which is the Essence of God….  Summa Theologica III Q.10 a.4 co.

16. Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.6 co.
17. This is why Zaccheus told Jesus that he would pay back four times as much as he had defrauded. cf. St. Luke 19:8
18. cf. Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.6
19. Summa Theologica III Q.48 a.2 co.
20. Aquinas writes:

    Christ grieved not only over the loss of His own bodily life, but also over the sins of all others. And this grief in Christ surpassed all grief of every contrite heart, both because it flowed from a greater wisdom and charity, by which the pang of contrition is intensified, and because He grieved at the one time for all sins, according to Isaiah 53:4: “Surely He hath carried our sorrows.” Summa Theologica III Q.46 a.6 ad 4

21. Summa Theologica III Q.48 a.2 ad 1
22. Summa Theologica III Q.48 a.3 co.
23. See Summa Theologica II-II Q.85 a.1 co.
24. Besides the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, there were also the moral precepts and the judicial precepts. See Summa Theologica I-II Q.99

25. Consequently the chief sacrifice is that whereby Christ Himself “delivered Himself . . . to God for an odor of sweetness” (Ephesians 5:2). And for this reason all the other sacrifices of the Old Law were offered up in order to foreshadow this one individual and paramount sacrifice–the imperfect forecasting the perfect. Hence the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:11) that the priest of the Old Law “often” offered “the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but” Christ offered “one sacrifice for sins, for ever.” And since the reason of the figure is taken from that which the figure represents, therefore the reasons of the figurative sacrifices of the Old Law should be taken from the true sacrifice of Christ.  Summa Theologica I-II Q.102 a.3 co.

26. For an excellent treatment of this subject see Matthew Levering’s Christ’s Fulfillment of Torah and Temple: Salvation According to Thomas Aquinas (University of Notre Dame Press, 2002).
27. Summa Theologica III Q.48 a.4
28. Summa Theologica III Q.48 a.4 ad 2. Aquinas explains elsewhere [Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.2] that because man had sinned against God, God with justice left man under the devil’s power.
29. Summa Theologica III Q.48 a.6 ad 3
30. Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.1 co.
31. Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.3 co.
32. Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.4
33. Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.5 co.
34. Summa Theologica III Q.47 a.3 ad 2
35. Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.4 ad 1
36. Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.4 ad 2
37. Indeed, Christ in His human nature is seated at the right hand of the Father.
38. Summa Theologica III Q.1 a.4 co.
39. Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.1 ad 3,4
40. Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.3 ad 1. Two paragraphs later he writes, “Christ’s satisfaction works its effect in us inasmuch as we are incorporated with Him, as the members with their head….” Summa Theologica Q.49 a.3 ad 3
41. Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.3 ad 2
42. Summa Theologica III Q.39 a.5 co.