Thomas Aquinas on Christ assuming a human soul

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
There were others who, although they believed that the Word was not changed into flesh but assumed it, nevertheless said that he assumed flesh without a soul; for if he had assumed flesh with a soul, the Evangelist would have said, the Word was made flesh with a soul. This was the error of Arius, who said that there was no soul in Christ, but that the Word of God was there in place of a soul.

The falsity of this opinion is obvious, both because it is in conflict with Sacred Scripture, which often mentions the soul of Christ, as: my soul is sad, even to the point of death (Matt 26:38), and because certain affections of the soul are observed in Christ which can not possibly exist in the Word of God or in flesh alone: he began to be sorrowful and troubled (Matt 26:37). Also, God cannot be the form of a body. Nor can an angel be united to a body as its form, since an angel, according to its very nature, is separated from body, whereas a soul is united to a body as its form. Consequently, the Word of God cannot be the form of a body. ...

For more, see Thomas Aquinas on Christ assuming a human soul.
 

Irenaeus

Puritan Board Freshman
Interesting that he says Arius instead of Apollinarius. Maybe his allergies were acting up because of a high pollin count.
 

Regi Addictissimus

Completely sold out to the King
Thomas's complete commentary on John is currently on sale for $13 on Logos. It's normally $60. I've had this commentary in my sights for some time.

I will begin his Ephesians commentary soon as part of a study on that epistle.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
@OZR I am unable to comment in the thread you asked about the Confession and "rational soul," but the topic of this thread is close enough. Soul is divided into three levels: vegetative, animal, and rational. Think of passive aspect, natural function aspect, and rationality. By saying the Son took on a rational soul, the divines were saying that Christ took upon himself all of human nature. It is designed to cut off Apollinarianism.

It's odd that Thomas said Arius instead of Apollinaris. Apollinaris agreed with Athanasius 100% on the deity of Christ.
 

OZR

Puritan Board Freshman
@OZR I am unable to comment in the thread you asked about the Confession and "rational soul," but the topic of this thread is close enough. Soul is divided into three levels: vegetative, animal, and rational. Think of passive aspect, natural function aspect, and rationality. By saying the Son took on a rational soul, the divines were saying that Christ took upon himself all of human nature. It is designed to cut off Apollinarianism.

It's odd that Thomas said Arius instead of Apollinaris. Apollinaris agreed with Athanasius 100% on the deity of Christ.
Thank you very much, your clarification helps me a lot. Regarding the classification that I mention regarding the soul, is there an article or book that you could please mention to me to go deeper and even to have it as a bibliographic reference?
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Thank you very much, your clarification helps me a lot. Regarding the classification that I mention regarding the soul, is there an article or book that you could please mention to me to go deeper and even to have it as a bibliographic reference?

The simplest standard take on the soul is J.P. Moreland's The Soul. I think I have a bibliography somewhere.
 

OZR

Puritan Board Freshman
@OZR I am unable to comment in the thread you asked about the Confession and "rational soul," but the topic of this thread is close enough. Soul is divided into three levels: vegetative, animal, and rational. Think of passive aspect, natural function aspect, and rationality. By saying the Son took on a rational soul, the divines were saying that Christ took upon himself all of human nature. It is designed to cut off Apollinarianism.

It's odd that Thomas said Arius instead of Apollinaris. Apollinaris agreed with Athanasius 100% on the deity of Christ.
Thank you again for your reply. I found a quote that supports your comment. I found it in The Christians Reasonable Service by Wilhemus A Brakel vol 1. which says: ¨Each human being has but one soul. There are three types of souls. There is anima vegetativa, which we wish to refer to as the soul of growth, whereby trees and herbs are said to exist. There is anima sensitiva, or the soul of sensitivity, whereby animals exist and are sensitive to their environment. This, according to Scripture, is to be found in the blood of animals. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev 17:11); "For the blood is the life" (Deut 12:23). There is anima rationalis, or the rational soul, which we have just described and referred to as rational since by its agency man reasons and makes decisions¨ (1999, pp. 310-311)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top