Middle Ages
Italy / Paris
Scholasticism (Thomism)
Also: Thomas Aquinas
⭐ Of everyone on this thread, he is the one our readers are most likely to misread. He is the representative of Catholic theology, yet on this thread of grace he stands with Augustine and is a monergist — which shows that the sides in this part of the story are not drawn along denominational lines.
Below: first his own position, then the church’s verdict — kept separate. A rejected opinion keeps equal weight here.
His own position
Salvation is utterly impossible without God's supernatural grace. Grace, as Olson puts it, is a work of God within human beings that lifts them beyond human nature, to the point where they become sharers in the divine nature. ⚠ His basic scheme, in Olson's summary, is that grace does not destroy nature but lifts it up and fulfills it: what the fall destroyed was original righteousness, not the image of God (reason), so the image of God remains intact. On grace he has two sayings that matter most. First, grace, Olson notes, can in no way be compelled: salvation is a pure gift that cannot be earned, and God never becomes humanity's debtor. Second, ⭐ even faith is a gift of God's grace — here he says exactly what Augustine says. For him justification and sanctification cannot be separated: as Olson puts it, they are simply two ways of describing one and the same process of grace. On predestination he follows Augustine closely. Olson sums up his view: God in eternity, by his supreme authority, chose some people for salvation and gives them the grace they need to be renewed and changed. And his definition of free will — doing what one wants and decides to do, in Olson's wording — is word for word the same as Augustine's, so that for him predestination and free will are compatible.
The church’s verdict
The model of Catholic theology, later named a Doctor of the Church. ⚠ But two things must be recorded with this. First, Olson records that not all Roman Catholic theologians have kept to this doctrine of predestination of Aquinas. After him, disputes over it broke out inside the Catholic Church, and the Jesuits, Olson notes, usually rejected monergism and favored synergism — that is, even within his own church his view is not the settled one. Second, ⭐ Protestants have long misjudged him, and Olson puts it bluntly: with this background in mind, he says, it seems rather laughable that some Protestant Christians have accused Aquinas of being a Semi-Pelagian! He adds that the Protestant charge against Aquinas's doctrine of salvation does not center on the distinction between justification and sanctification — and that Aquinas, as Olson puts it, refused to split them in two; it was not that he never thought of it.
What was at stake for salvation
⭐ His concern comes from the same source as Augustine's: if salvation could be earned, God would become a human being's debtor, and grace would no longer be grace. But where he parts from Luther's side is in how salvation works. He held that grace is infused and truly changes a person (justification is sanctification), rather than being declared over a person from outside. Four hundred years later this difference became the very line along which Trent and the Protestants broke apart.
Principal works
-
Summa Theologiae
Summa Theologiae; his teaching on salvation and predestination is found here
Threads he belongs to
Grace and Free Will
Round 2 · The Reformation Claim ⭐ The model of Catholic theology, yet on this thread a monergist — Olson says it is rather laughable that Protestants have accused him of being a Semi-Pelagian.
Justification
The question arises Carries on ⭐ Justification and sanctification: as Olson puts it, he refused to split them in two — they are simply two ways of describing one and the same process of grace.