Alright, well good morning and we'll go ahead and pray and start. Dear Lord, thank you so much for this semester and what we've learned from your providential hands throughout history, Lord, the pages of what you're doing in the world. We pray that as we just close in these last two weeks that you would continue to give us grace and to enlighten our minds as to what the truth of the matter is. Lord, help us to continue to be obsessed with tracing ideas and that we would be edified and you would be glorified in the process, Lord. We ask these things in your precious name. Amen. Alright. Here's what one leading Catholic website says. There is no better overview of Catholic theology than the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. He alone enlightened the Church more than all other doctors. A man can derive more profit in a year from his books than from pondering all his life the teaching of others. Pope John XXII. From the same website, quote, we so heartily approve the magnificent tribute of praise bestowed upon this most divine genius that we consider that Thomas should be called not only most, not only the angelic, but also the common or universal doctor of the church. For the church has adopted his philosophy for her own as numerable documents of every kind attest, unquote. So that's what we're studying today. We're studying Thomas Aquinas' theology, specifically in regards to soteriology, or his doctrine of salvation. His dates were 1225-1274 AD. So basically, we are just going to see if he lines up, or if he's worthy of all these praises that are being lavished upon him. So his book Summa Theologica was his great masterpiece, and although I do have criticism regarding his soteriology, his natural theology is actually really very good, as we've seen in previous semesters. So, regarding this criticism specifically, here's the big idea. And I would use different words, but I think this is the most descriptive. So, the big idea was that Aquinas was more Calvinistic on the front end of his soteriology and more Arminian on the back end. I'm using those words more because he's not absolute in either case. So Aquinas was more Calvinistic on the front end of his soteriology and more Arminian on the back. So what I don't mean by that is I don't mean that the Arminian system is identical to the Catholic system. All I mean is that the maintenance of one's salvation rests squarely on the shoulders of the sinner in both the Arminian camp and the Catholic camp. However, there's a different formula, per se, of working those things out between the two. So, all I'm talking about is just that maintenance that they share in common. So, we're going to see five things regarding Aquinas' view on soteriology. First, we're going to look at providence and predestination. Then we're going to look at faith and free will. We're going to look at his view on the passion of Christ. We're going to look at his view on grace, and then lastly we're going to examine his view on sin and the sacraments. And as we go along, we're going to keep a running tab on these two charts over here. It's fitting that we pull out Aristotle's causes this morning regarding how Aquinas viewed salvation, because Aquinas used Aristotle all throughout the Summa. In fact, all he called him was the philosopher, because he was the ground which Aquinas used to do all of his philosophy basically. So keep those in mind and we'll be filling that chart out as we go. So first of all, Aquinas on providence and predestination. In regards to providence, he asks three questions in regards to God's sovereignty. These are the questions. Number one, whether providence is suitable, assigned to God, suitably assigned to God. Number two, whether everything comes under divine providence. And then number three, whether divine providence is immediately concerned with all things. That's in book one, question 22. Articles 1 through 3. So in all three of those questions, he answers in the affirmative. Yes, providence belongs to God. Yes, everything falls under providence. And number three, this providence concerns all things. So God is 100% sovereign in Aquinas' theology. So he has a very reformed understanding on providence. Next, on predestination, closely related to, I mean, it's in the circle of providence, just in regards to man specifically, he says this in Book 1, Question 23, Article 5, quote, God wills to manifest his goodness in men, in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them, and respect of others whom he reprobates. by means of his justice in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. Yet while he chooses some for glory and reprobates others, has no reason except the divine will. Hence, Augustine says, while he draws one and another he draws not, seek not to judge if thou dost not wish to err." So that statement itself is completely in line with the biblical doctrine of election and justification as we understand it. Thoroughly Calvinistic. However, what we're going to see is that there's a trapdoor for those who are predestined, because according to Catholic doctrine, there's two types of predestination. So I got this quote from, you guys are probably familiar with a ministry called Catholic Answers, a guy named James Aiken. He says this, If one is predestined to be saved, does it not follow he must persevere to the end? This involves a confusion about what people are predestined to. Is it predestination to initial salvation or final salvation? The two are not the same. A person might be predestined to one, but this does not mean he is predestined necessarily to the other. One must define which kind of a predestination is being discussed. If one is talking about predestination to initial salvation, then the fact that a person will come to God does not itself mean he will stay with God. If one is talking about predestination to final salvation, then a predestined person will stay with God, but this does not mean the predestined are the only ones who experience initial salvation. Some might genuinely come to God because they were predestined to initial salvation, and then genuinely leave because they were not predestined to final salvation. Either way, predestination... to initial salvation does not entail predestination to final salvation. There is no reason why a person cannot be predestined to believe for a while, but in time of temptation fall away." Luke 8, 13. So, on the footnote in that essay, he uses an example. He goes, for instance, somebody might be predestined to come into my living room, but they might not be predestined to stay there for all eternity. Kind of a bad analogy. So right off the bat, we already see... I'm not going to have a list of causes over here. We're going to call this shipwreck faith. But what I want you guys to see is that there's this third category of people he's creating, namely those who have been predestined to initial salvation. Only. Only. So, I probably didn't explain these charts up here. We are going to see how Aquinas had his theology of getting in, I'm putting those in quotes, don't know how to use a better term for that, so getting into the Kingdom of God, being saved, and then the causes for staying in the Kingdom of God. So, already off the bat, I think it's fair to say, since he's talking about predestination, he does say it in a very biblical way, it's totally by God's grace. So, as far as getting in is concerned, we can affirm that Aquinas believed that it was grace where a person got into the Kingdom of God, and this was in the form of election and predestination. So, no doubt this is what he held to. As far as staying in, we will fill that in more as we go. Alright, Aquinas on faith and free will. He asked this question, in Book 2-2, Question 2, Article 7. Whether it is necessary for salvation of all that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ. One more time. Whether it is necessary for salvation of all that they should explicitly believe in the mystery of Christ. He says this, quote, There is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved. He obviously picks it up from Acts 2, I believe. Therefore, belief of some kind in the mystery of Christ's incarnation was necessary at all times for all persons, but this belief differed according to the differences of times and persons." Now, I'm aware that there's much controversy in modern Catholicism as to whether or not explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. I don't think Aquinas held to this, even in that last statement where he says belief differing according to the different times and persons, in the context of that section he seems to be speaking about Old Testament versus New Testament and the progressive revelation that was available to individuals everywhere, but he still affirmed that it was explicit faith in the Messiah, in that seed of the woman that was necessary for salvation. In regards to free will, Aquinas asks the question whether man has free will. This is Book 1, Question 83, Article 1. Now, because of the magnitude of the Summa, I don't think I can pin down precisely what Aquinas believed in regards to free will, so I think there's a few possibilities regarding his view. Number one, his view... he might be employing an equivocation between the term free will and the way that we use it. Number two, He might be employing the term purely in the use of natural things and natural choices as opposed to spiritual choices. Or number three, he might just be inconsistent in his uses between one part of the Summa and the other. I think it's number two. I think when he's talking about free will in the first part of the book, he's employing it purely to natural choices because it seems that when he gets to spiritual things, he's pretty consistently Calvinistic. So, in answering the question whether man has free will, he says this. So I think if you hear this in a natural sense, I think that's how you should hear it. Man has free will, he says. Otherwise, counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment. As a stone moves downwards, and in like manner all things which lack knowledge." So I'm going to go ahead and make a chart up here on the board and we're going to call this, um, Acting Things. Because this is how he is describing three different categories of things that act. So this first category of acting things is things without judgment. And the first thing that he puts in that category is stones, because stones act, they move, but of course it's somebody else imposing their will upon the stone in order for that thing to move, so it's a thing that's acting without judgment. So he goes on, and some things act from judgment, but not from a free judgment as brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgment, because it judges not from reason, but from natural instincts. So then there's the second category of acting things, things which act with natural judgment, he's calling it. And that natural judgment is not a rational judgment per se, but it is a judgment based purely on instinct. So this belongs to all brute animals everywhere, probably insects as well. These things act from the judgment, but it's purely instinct. And then lastly he says, but man acts from judgment. Because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or should be sought. So the last category of acting things is things with rational judgment. And that is rational beings. That is us, humans. So he says, therefore man must have free will because this is the category of things that we belong to. Whereas in these other things, these things are not free. These things are being acted upon here, naturally speaking, and these things are being compelled by their instinct. Now, of course, we're not answering the question, what does this rational judgment rest upon here? But he actually does answer that in the next section. So here he speaks of a man's ability in seemingly different terms. In Book 1-2, Question 109, Article 7, he asks the question, whether man can rise from sin without the help of grace. Whether man can rise from sin without the help of grace. He answers this way. Man by himself can know-wise rise from sin without the help of grace. Man incurs a triple loss. So now he's speaking about the effects of the Fall. Man incurs from sin a triple loss vis-a-vis stain, a corruption of the natural good, and debt of punishment. So, the triple loss from the Fall that man incurs Number one is he incurs a stain. Number two, he incurs a loss of, or natural good is corrupted. So he loses natural good, and we'll explain what these things are. And then number three, he incurs a debt of punishment. So here's what Quinas means by those things. He incurs a stain, first of all, inasmuch as he forfeits the luster of grace through the deformity of sin. So this is a forfeit of grace. That's what stain is, according to Quinas. Secondly, natural good is corrupted inasmuch as man's nature is disordered by man's will not being subject to God. So now we're getting to the bottom of what... Aquinas' view on free will was, so-called free will, and I think this is why he's fairly consistent in the end. So the question we should ask is, if man's will, through this loss of natural good, is no longer subject to God's will, what is it subject to? Well, he answers in another section, it's subject to concupiscence. The last time we used this word, I think, was in the Calvin class. And concupiscence is a unlawful or irregular desire. In a more general sense, it's the coveting of carnal things or of an irregular appetite for worldly good, an inclination for unlawful enjoyment. Now, I think there's two ways to look at concupiscence. I've talked to some Catholic teachers who knew church history very well, was familiar with the classical languages, And their view on concupiscence was it's more of a proclivity towards, but not a kind of a certain bent that will always drag you in that direction. And I think Aquinas held the latter view. I believe he thought that concupiscence was that thing which always drove you in that direction of sin, which is why you can say that man lost his natural good. He was no longer subject to God's will. So I think we need to even be careful using that word, depending on who's using it. So then lastly, under this debt of punishment that was incurred through the fall, Aquinas said, inasmuch as by sinning man deserves everlasting punishment. So through the fall, of course, man has deserved everlasting punishment. He goes on. Now it is manifest that none of these three things can be restored except through God or by God. For since the luster of grace springs from the shedding of divine light, this luster cannot be brought back except God sheds his light anew. Hence, a habitual gift is necessary, and this is the light of grace. Likewise, the order of nature can be restored when God draws man's will to himself. So this will that Aquinas said was lost in the fall and is only bent towards concupiscence, Aquinas admits that can only be brought back through God's grace. So also, the guilt of eternal punishment can be remitted by God alone, against whom the offense was committed and who is man's judge. And thus, in order that man can rise from sin, there is required the help of grace, both as regards the habitual gift and as regards the internal motion of God. So clearly, Aquinas at this point completely separates himself from both Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and most of modern Evangelicalism, at least on this point. Grace is the chief mover, the action that causes all other things to move. Now, that being said, we'll see on the back end of this how even that language is somewhat equivocated on. So, the instrumental cause here for getting in is I didn't mention up here, for staying in, we've already seen that this is also grace because there is a predestination to final salvation, just so we keep this chart current. Alright. So next, Aquinas on the Passion of Christ. He asks this question in Book 3, Question 49, Article 3. Whether men were freed from the punishment of sin through Christ's Passion. He answers this way. It is written, Isaiah 53, 4, Surely he has borne our iniquities and carried our sorrows. 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. Now, Aquinas' view in this place, as well as in Book 3, Question 48, Article 2, was that of an unlimited atonement, and this is consistent with the whole Catholic view that Jesus' passion was sufficient for all of mankind, but only efficient for those that were actually being saved. And I think this is where dealing with John Owens' argument from the death of death and the death of Christ would prove fatal to this position. And also we see here the first glimpses of his views on the sacraments, because Aquinas goes on to talk about the passion in relationship to baptism and penance and such. So he says this, Christ's passion works its effect in them to whom it is applied through faith and charity and the sacraments of faith." So that language of through, instrumental, right? So the Passion can only be accessed through faith, which we already have up here, getting in, through charity or love, and then through the sacrament. So I'm going to go ahead and add up here, and specifically it's the sacrament of baptism, as far as getting in, The sacrament of baptism is required to get in. We're going to see that more closely at the end, but we might as well go ahead and add it here. And then he quotes Romans 6, 4. 4. 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 is written, notice the card trick, 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's suffering by some form of punishment or suffering which they endure in their own person. Yet by the cooperation of Christ's satisfaction, much lighter penalty suffices than one that is proportionate to the sin." So you guys catch that? According to Aquinas, those who have been brought to Christ, who are already in, can still be punished. Those are his words. in order to satisfy for their sins because Christ died only once for sins. You can only have the sacrament of baptism once to be likened unto his death, 1 Peter 3.18. So this satisfaction can only be accessed by one time through the sacrament of baptism, not twice. So punishment will still be waiting for the believer. So, we'll see more on that later, but in this section we can see that the material cause for getting in is the Passion of Christ, or we'll call it the Satisfaction of Christ. of Christ, and by that I just mean the substitutionary atonement, specifically the death. Unfortunately, Coquinas does not have a doctrine of alien or imputed righteousness, so it is not relevant here. This is only the death of Christ. And then as well, As far as staying in, we've already seen him talk about how the sacraments would be necessary for one who sins after the sacrament of baptism, so at least instrumentally, we're going to go ahead and bring in this other category of staying in here. We're going to call it the Coefficient Cause, which really makes no sense, but that's my point. I'm not trying to make perfect sense of this. These are two causes that work together. Because in order for it to really be a coefficient cause, it's kind of a contradiction. This means that this is efficient to run the whole gamut, right? But if you have a coefficient cause, well then the first one wasn't totally efficient to begin with, was it? So we're going to see that this coefficient cause for staying in was in fact sacraments, specifically penance. Alright. Quinas on grace. So here we are, moving down to this fourth category here. Quinas on grace. First of all, what is grace necessary for? What is grace necessary for? Well, it's necessary for doing good. Quinas asks the question in Book 1-2, Question 109, Article 2, whether man can wish or do any good without grace. And he answers thus, in the state of corrupt nature, man falls short of what he could do by his nature so that he is unable to fulfill it by his own natural powers. Yet because human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, listen carefully, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like. Beyond this, man needs the divine help that he may be moved to act well." So here's why I can commend Aquinas, because He's saying in order to do any good at all, we must need grace. Although our natural abilities of building and stuff like that is not necessarily taken away from the fall. But I would say that this is... This is more radical than a lot of people that I've talked to in evangelicalism, because a lot of times when you're talking to people about their ability to do good or not, they often say, echoing those statements by Pelagius, if I ought to do something, then I can do it. Well, that is unbiblical, and even Aquinas recognized that. Man cannot do any good towards God without grace. Secondly, grace is necessary for fulfilling the law. He asks this question, Book 1-2, Question 109, Article 4. Whether man, without grace, and by his own natural powers, can fulfill the commandments of the law. So, similar to the last one, but specifically now this deals with the law. And he quotes Augustine here. That is part of the Pelagian heresy, that they believe that without grace man can fulfill all the divine commandments. In the state of corrupted nature, man cannot fulfill all the divine commandments without helping grace. When this happens, the commandments of Allah can be fulfilled, not merely as regarding the substance of the act, but also as regarding the mode of acting, i.e., their being done out of love. In essence, he's saying that man in his depravity cannot fulfill one commandment without divine grace, because, as we all know, when we're commanded to do something, it's not just the acting of the thing, it's the motive that's behind the thing. This is why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13, if I have all faith, it can move mountains, and all wisdom, it can understand everything, and if I have all love, where I can sacrifice my body to the flames and give all that I have to the poor... I'm sorry, I messed that up. I said, if I had all faith. I said, if I had all love, didn't I? I meant all, um... What did he say? Did he say love? When he's saying specifically about sacrifice, oh, if I sacrifice my body to the flames and give all that I have to the poor, sorry. If I have not love, I'm nothing. So the motive is what makes an act good. It's not just the act itself. And Aquinas here says that without grace, you cannot either do the act properly, because you cannot have the motive that's proper. So, Aquinas is good there. Thirdly, grace is necessary for everlasting life. He asks the question, whether man can merit everlasting life without grace. So we're still kind of working on this chart here, getting in, so we're not being confused. Whether man can merit everlasting life without grace. This is book one and two, question 108, article five. I answer that. Acts, so he's gonna answer philosophically here. conducing to an end must be proportioned to the end. So I'm going to just write that phrase on the board. I'll just say, acts conducing to an end must be proportionate to the end. We'll get into what he's proportionate to the end. So we'll get into what he's saying here as we read the rest of the quote. Acts conducing to the end must be proportionate to the end, but no acts exceeds the proportion of its active principle, and hence we see in natural things that nothing can by its operation bring about an effect which exceeds its active force. but only such as it is proportionate to its power." So all he's saying is he's just talking about the law of cause and effect. Cause brings about an effect. And the power that this effect has here cannot exceed the power that was inherent to the cause. So that's all he's saying. Pretty simple. Now, everlasting life is an end or is an effect that is exceeding the proportion of human nature, as is clear from what we've seen above. Hence, man by his natural endowments cannot produce meritorious works proportionate to everlasting life, and for this a higher force is needed vis-a-vis the force of grace. So, in his view, on getting in, he's totally right. Man in no way ever can prepare himself for grace, which is what we're going to see here in this next question that he asks. Can a man prepare himself for grace? This is book 1 and 2, question 109, article 6. It is written, this is him, John 6, 44, No man can come to me except by the Father who has sent me draw him. If a man could prepare himself, he would not need to be drawn by another. Hence it is clear that man cannot prepare himself to receive the light of grace except by the gratuitous help of God moving him inwardly." And now here's where we see a black eye on Catholic dogma, not on Aquinas, I don't think. But here you have Aquinas. who was writing in the 13th century, his masterpiece, the Summa Theologica. And on one side of him, you have the Council of Orange, which was completed in 529. This is 13th century. And then on the other side of Aquinas, you had the, fill in the blank, Council of Trent in 1563. So, why do I say he's caught in the middle? Because of what he just said. He said that no man can prepare himself to receive the grace, and then he quotes John 6, right? So, what does the Council of Trent say? We'll start with the Council of Trent first. Well, the Council of Trent, in Canon 4, says this, if anyone shall affirm that man's free will, moved and excited by God, does not by consenting cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, kind of okay so far, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification, let such one be accursed. So the Council of Trent here is saying that if a person can prepare himself for grace, that equals being accursed. But, the Council of Orange, a thousand years earlier, said this in Canon 5, If anyone says that not only the increase of faith, but also its beginning, and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly, belongs to us by nature, and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith, and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the apostles. For blessed, Paul said, and I am sure that he who began the good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ, Philippians 1.6. And again, for by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, Ephesians 2.8. So, if you say that you can, so, you can't prepare yourself for grace, but over here, if you can prepare yourself for grace, then what Canon 5 is saying is that you are opposed to the apostles. So here, Aquinas is caught smack dab in the middle of these two canons. Opposed to apostles. So depending on what century you are a Catholic, you could either be opposed to the teaching of the apostles if you believe you can prepare yourself for grace, or you could be anathematized if you believe you can't prepare yourself for grace, depending on when in history you live. Does that make sense? Yeah, but at the time he was alive, all he had to go on was a council of warrants. Right. Right, right. Yeah, and well, that's what he says. He says, no man can prepare himself for grace, and he quotes John 6. He says this one more time. It is clear that man cannot prepare himself to receive the light of grace except by the gratuitous help of God. moving him inwardly. So I'm still sticking to what I said. I still think, according to Aquinas, about getting in, the causes of getting in, grace is efficient. And I think, depending on... Look, in Catholicism, there's two different camps. Just like in Protestantism. There's a camp called Thomists, and then there's a camp called Molinists. Am I saying that word right? Molinist, thank you, sorry, not Molinist. Molinist. Which is similar to Calvinism and Arminianism, although not totally. It's kind of brushing in broad strokes. But the Molinist, specifically when it comes, we're going to see this specifically when it comes to the gift of perseverance, well God gives the gift of perseverance to who? He gives the gift of perseverance to those he sees who are responding to it. as opposed to the Thomists who just say, no, God gives the gift of perseverance to those He will, and it's always effective every time. All right. Well, that's... I'm stealing my thunder. That's the next section. What of persevering grace? Aquinas asks this question, whether man, possessed of grace, needs the help of grace in order to persevere. So once again, I'm going to quote James Aiken here from Catholic Answers, and he gives Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's official position regarding this idea of persevering grace. The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of perseverance. Aquinas said that this grace always ensures that a person will persevere. So here's bringing back these two levels of predestination again. Predestination to final salvation most certainly and infallibly takes effect, but not all who come to God receive this grace. Aquinas said that the gift of final perseverance is, quote, the abiding in good to the end of life. In order to have this perseverance, man needs the divine assistance guiding and guarding him against the attacks of the passion. After anyone has been justified by grace, he still needs to beseech God for the aforesaid gift of perseverance, that he may be kept from evil till the end of life. For, to many, grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is not given." I'm going to say that last sentence one more time. For, to many, there's a category of people who were given grace to be predestined to initial salvation, but they were not given grace to perseverance in that salvation. Yeah, I think I said that fairly clear, which is kind of ironic, I could say it a different way. Those who have been predestined to, because remember when we talked about election and reprobation, in Aquinas' chapter he's clear. about reprobation, that God, in His will, because He quotes Augustine, God passes over. And it's by His own mere good pleasure that some people are saved and other people are reprobate. So, you have this category of people that were predestined to initial salvation, at the same time were predestined to what? Reprobation. What do they do at Romans 8, 29 and 30? The golden chain there that says, if you're one, you're all. If you are predestined, you will be glorified. If you're predestined to final salvation. Well, I don't see that distinction anywhere. You're not thinking hard enough. Okay. All right. Okay, so in regards to... Okay, so there's a million dollar question though, isn't there? Why do some people persevere and others do not? Why are some people not in that category of shipwrecked faith and why are people in the category of staying in? So here's why I talked about the Thomists and the Molinists here. Once again, here's Akin. Aquinas said, it, being the gift of perseverance, always saves a person because of the kind of grace it is. Molina, the Catholic version of Arminius, said it always saves a person because God only gives it to those whom he knows will respond to it. But the effect is the same. The gift of final perseverance always works. I don't think don't think that's totally accurate on the Thomas view because we're going to see how he talked about the sacraments and specifically purgatory in a very strong way, but we'll let it rest for now. So the efficient cause for getting in is grace, as we've already seen, as we've already written, and one of the co-efficient causes of staying in is grace and predestination of final salvation or that gift of perseverance. Alright, so last section, Aquinas on sin and the sacraments. So, not just subject to Catholic doctrine only, but also a category of Aquinas that thought he had a division of sins within his theology. That of venial sins and that of mortal sins. So a venial sin is something that's pardonable. It's something that is not heinous. It's allowable. It's excusable. It's not a big deal. And I wouldn't characterize it like that, and I'm not trying to strawman the Catholic view, but it's not one of those things that will make shipwreck of your faith. That's what a venial sin is. A mortal sin is the opposite. It is in that category of sin that makes shipwrecked of one's justification. So justification, the grace of justification is destroyed when a mortal sin is committed. So here's Aquinas. He says this, when the soul is so disordered by sin as to turn away from its last end, vis-à-vis God, to whom it is united by charity, there is mortal sin. But when it is disordered without turning away from God, there is venial sin. For even as in the body the disorder of death which results from the destruction of the principle of life is irreparable according to nature, while the disorder of sickness can be repaired by reason of the vital principle being preserved, so it is in matters concerning the soul." He's using the word mortal here in regards to sin. Same thing with life, he's saying. In our life, when we die, that's an irreparable condition. When we get sick, that's repairable. And that's how he's using the distinction between venial and mortal sins. He who, by sinning, turns away from his last end, which is God, falls irreparably and therefore is said to sin mortally and to deserve eternal punishment. Whereas, when a man sins without turning away from God, his disorder can be repaired, because the principle of the order is not destroyed. Wherefore, he is said to sin venially, because, to wit, he does not sin so as to deserve to be punished eternally." So, in short, a mortal sin is just that. It kills the grace of justification that you receive through faith and baptism. And this comes, so now, because of that, because of this thing called mortal sin, now comes the doctrine of the sacraments. So, what is a sacrament? And Aquinas quotes Augustine here in answering the question. He says, the visible sacrifice is the sacrament. i.e., the sacred sign of the invisible sacrifice. So, a sacrament is a visible sign of the invisible sacrifice. So, he goes on later to say it actually is a material, a corporeal thing. It's a real tangible thing. He goes on further to say this. A sacrament, properly speaking, is that which is ordained to signify our sanctification, in which three things may be considered, vis-à-vis. First of all, the very cause of our sanctification, which is Christ's passion, his sacrifice, his satisfaction. the very form of our sanctification, which is grace and the virtues, and the ultimate end of our sanctification, which is eternal life. And all of these are signified through the sacraments, or by the sacraments. Consequently, a sacrament is a sign that is both a reminder of the past, i.e. the Passion of Christ, and an indication of that which is affected in us by Christ's passion, i.e. grace, or our sanctification, and a prognostic, that is, a foretelling of future glory. So when you're looking at the sacrament, you're looking at the past, the present, and the future. So, he asks the question, in Book 3, Question 62, Article 2, are sacraments necessary for salvation? Aquinas answers in the positive, and he gives three reasons why. First, the first is taken, the first reason, is because the condition of human nature is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. So in other words, because our human nature is wired as it is, we have to have physical, material, corporeal things in order to even access the spiritual. So that's why it's, first of all, it's necessary. The second reason why it's necessary is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. So, in other words, because we, by the fall, that corruption of the natural good, which Aquinas said earlier, we subjected our things to concupiscence and to corporeal material things, therefore God must use those things in order to bring us into the reality of spiritual things. And then third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. So because we are active primarily and our inclination is towards material things, God therefore must use those material things to get us to the spiritual. So, he next asks the question whether all sacraments are necessary for salvation. So, just a quick rundown, the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church are these. First of all, baptism, which we've already seen is necessary instrumentally to get in. The Eucharist or Mass. Penance, which we're going to define here in a second. Confirmation. Marriage. Holy Orders or the Ordination. And then last rites, kind of your deathbed confession stuff. So, in answering the question as to whether or not sacraments are necessary for salvation, this is what Aquinas says. Children are saved by baptism alone without the other sacraments. So children need the sacrament of baptism in order to be saved. According to Aquinas. Beyond that, in adults, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual. Baptism, simply and absolutely. Penance, in the case of mortal sins committed after baptism. And then while the sacrament of order is also necessary to the church, since where there is no governor, the people shall fall." Proverbs 11, 14. So here's the thing, though. He already said in a previous book, Book 1 and 2, Question 109, Article 8, that mortal sin is unavoidable. in some senses. He says, because of our restored reason and the spirit living within us, we can live for a long time without committing mortal sins. But then he quotes Gregory the Great, where he says, when you hold down one sin, other sins pop up. So, he says that mortal sin is unavoidable on one level. So, what that means is, therefore, the sacrament of penance is necessary for all to be saved in Aquinas' theology. The sacrament of penance is necessary for all, and that's why I'm calling it a coefficient cause, specifically penance here. By the way, I didn't fill this out, but these are basically the same. When you say all, do you mean all excluding children in his... Yeah, yeah, I would say all excluding children, yeah, because they... or infants, or... yeah. Which is interesting, I had some notes here earlier about, okay, I'm interested to see what sins are mortal and what sins are venial, because, I mean, remember what Jesus said in Matthew 11, when he's saying, Woe unto you, Bethsaida! Woe unto you, Chorazin! For if the works that were done in Sodom and Gomorrah were done in you, they would have repented long ago. Well, what was Sodom and Gomorrah guilty of? They were guilty of sexual immorality, sodomy and the like. Corazin and Bethsaida guilty of those things? No. They were guilty of invisible things, of rejecting the Messiah. So, but Jesus had this category of saying, Hell is going to be hotter for you, although you did not commit those sins. And so I'm curious how those things break down. I don't want to strawman Aquinas or the Catholic view, but I'm sure they have a robust view concerning those things, but it is interesting. Alright, so what is penance? Penance is this, a means of repairing a sin committed and obtaining pardon for it. Consisting partly in the performance... Okay, you guys gotta help me with this word because I cannot say it. I will try. Expiatory. Okay, so I'll try it again. I'll point to you and you can say it when it comes up. A means of repairing a sin committed and obtaining pardon for, consisting partly in the performance of... expiatorial rights, partly involuntary submission to a punishment corresponding to the transgression. So, in short, penance is a sacrament that gives you back the grace of justification that you lost due to a mortal sin. Aquinas says this, quote, it is necessary for the sinner's salvation It is necessary for the sinner's salvation that sin be taken away from him, which cannot be done without the sacrament of penance. When the power of Christ's passion operates through the priest's absolution and the acts of the penitent, who cooperates with grace unto the destruction of his sin." That's his words. Cooperate. Co-operate. Co-efficient. In other words, works of satisfaction or merit are required in order to get the merit back. But, even if you satisfy all your mortal sins, which are required in order to avoid eternal damnation, you still have venial sins, which wins you a trip straight to... purgatory! So, this is not one of the sacraments of the Catholic Church, but it makes up for the missed ones. Aquinas uses 2 Maccabees 12.46 as an authority for the fact that purgatory exists, and then he says this, quote, It is sufficiently clear that there is purgatory after this life. For if the debt of punishment is not paid in full after the sin of sin has been washed away by contrition, nor again are vinyo sins always removed when moral sins are remitted. So, he's basically saying, when you have a mortal sin, if you get that satisfied, there's still this icky residue of venial on you. And if justice demands that sin be set in order by due punishment, it follows that one who, after confession for his faults, and after being absolved, dies before making due satisfaction, is punished after this life. Here's a strong statement by Aquinas. Wherefore, those who deny purgatory speak against the justice of God. for which reason such a statement is erroneous and contrary to faith. Hence, Gregory of Nyssa, after the words quoted above, adds, Thus we preach, holding to the teaching of truth, and this is our belief, that this the universal Church holds, by praying for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins. This cannot be understood except as referring to purgatory, and whoever resists the authority of the Church incurs the note of which I'm not sure if that's a venial or mortal sin. Probably mortal. Now, it's strange to me that Aquinas said this, that those who deny purgatory speak against the justice of God, if you just think about it logically for a second. Now, he says that, So, basically, it's a true crime against God's justice if you say that purgatory doesn't exist. But the shoe is on the other foot. So, think about this. A place, purgatory is a place where an infinite crime, because God doesn't have these categories of venial and mortal sins, all sins separate you from God infinitely. James says that if you're guilty of one law, you're guilty of the whole law of God. So, purgatory is a place where an infinite crime can be washed away by a finite punishment, and an infinite righteousness can be given by a finite cleansing. That is a crime against God's justice, because it says God can be satisfied with finite things. So, um... the sacraments, it's an instrumental cause of getting in, but in fact it turns to be a coefficient cause of staying in. So in closing, notice that we did not mention imputed righteousness in Aquinas' Soteriology, and it's because it doesn't exist. Catholics believe that you do need Christ in order to be made just, but it's Christ's grace that infuses righteousness in you, and that is the ground of your justification. Inherent righteousness is the ground of you being righteous before God, not imputed alien righteousness. So justification changes from a one-time act secured by faith alone into a lifetime process of faith plus all the sacraments. And this is to turn grace on its head. Romans 11, 5-6, So too at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace, but if it is by grace it is no longer a basis of works. Otherwise grace would no longer be grace. So what is the scripture teaching us here? Grace means something, and it doesn't mean something else. If works are added to grace in order to secure it, then it ceases to be grace. It becomes something else altogether. This is why the Reformation happened and why the Reformation is still happening today. So as brilliant as Aquinas was on his natural theology, in regards to his soteriology, it's kind of a bankrupt system. So one more time, the big idea is that on the front end, Aquinas was more Calvinistic as far as regards to getting in. But in the end, he proved to be more Arminian as far as staying in. So we will end there and open.