Thomas Aquinas, one of the most influential theologians of his time, addresses many highly controversial topics regarding the nature of God and God's relationships with humanity in the Summa Theologica. In the fifth question of Part IIIa, Aquinas discusses Christ's assumption of human nature. Although most Christians believe that Jesus became a man in a general sense, the concepts of assumption and human nature are often poorly understood. The simple phrase "Christ's assumption of human nature", therefore, deserves a thorough explanation. For this reason, Thomas systematically responds to and rejects many of his contemporaries' objections. Through his adherence to logical thought and precision of language, Aquinas disproves the claim that Christ did not assume a human mind, instead asserting that the assumption of a human mind was necessary for salvation to occur. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Thomas Aquinas believes that definitions are integral to understanding theological principles, and the structure of his arguments reflects this belief. He devotes much of his writing to defining terms so that his audience has an accurate understanding of important concepts. The assumption of Christ is no exception. In the course of his discussion, Aquinas reveals the definition of presupposition. He says that it is impossible to "assume a body in the unity of nature" and cites Augustine's statement that in the assumption Christ maintained the fullness of his divinity (ST 3a, q. 5, a. 1, ad. 2). . Aquinas believes that the assumption is not a mixture of two natures; rather, the natures of Christ and man remain distinct. For Thomas, assumption is the act of assuming another nature which is maintained in its entirety but still remains secondary to the original nature of the Person. Regarding the human nature of Christ, Aquinas comes to the conclusion that human nature is made up of two aspects: the body and the soul (3a, q. 5, a. 3, co. 1). One aspect of the soul is the mind, which allows man to reason and make decisions (3a, q. 5, a. 4, ad. 3). Using these definitions, Aquinas responds to the claim that Christ did not assume a human mind, and subsequently did not fully assume human nature. In the discussion preceding the current topic, Aquinas comes to three main conclusions: that Jesus assumed a real body, that Christ's human body was physical, and that Christ also assumed a human soul (3a, q. 5, a. 1-3). This section focuses on the soul and considers whether Christ assumed a complete human soul or omitted the human intellect. The main opposition to the idea of ​​Jesus taking on a human mind is that Christ, with the wisdom of God, did not need a human mind (3a, q. 5, a. 4, arg. 1). God is omniscient and, consequently, so is Jesus. For Aquinas' opponents it is logical that Christ took on a human body, because God does not have a physical form. To them, however, it makes no sense for Christ to assume a finite mind with limited capabilities when he already knows everything. In his response to this argument, Thomas Aquinas gives three reasons why it is not only logical but imperative that Christ assumed a human mind. The simplest reason why Thomas believes that Christ took on a human soul in its entirety is because the Bible implies it. Throughout the Gospels, many of Jesus' actions are indicative of a human intellect. Luke states that “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature,” but an omniscient God cannot grow wiser (Holy Bible, Luke 2:52). Thomas Aquinas cites a similar example as evidence that Christ must havea human intellect. Matthew states that Christ marveled at the Roman officer's faith (Matthew 8:10). Christ, in this encounter, "sees an effect and ignores its cause", and this leads him to wonder (ST 3a, q. 5, a. 4, arg. 1). The divine nature of Christ cannot explain this response: Christ, in his divinity, would have known why the Roman officer had so much faith and what drove him to express it at that moment. The only way Christ would have the capacity for wonder is if he had a finite mind, which suggests that he assumed one when he came to earth. Thomas Aquinas also rejects the idea of ​​a Christ without human intellect because it is contrary to the truth of the Incarnation (3a, q. 5, a. 4, arg. 1). The word “incarnation” describes the process of entering into the flesh. The flesh does not refer only to the body, but "flesh means the whole man" (3a, q. 5, a. 3, ad. 1). In this synecdoche, flesh is used to refer to all of human nature, both the soul and the body. Based on this understanding, one cannot not have true flesh unless one has both a body and a soul. As stated in the Gospel of John, Christ became human flesh, so by definition He took on a human body and a human soul (John 1:14). Aquinas argues that the aspect of man's soul that makes it distinctly human is its rationality, "for our soul differs from an animal soul only in mind" (3a, q. 5, a. 4 , arg. 1). Since mind is the distinguishing factor of the human soul, it was necessary for Christ to assume a mind in his assumption of human nature. Without it, Jesus would not be “in the flesh” of a human being and the Incarnation would cease to be true. The claim that Christ took on a human mind is not only highlighted in the Bible in reference to the Incarnation, but is one of the reasons why the Incarnation occurred. For Thomas Aquinas, the purpose of the Incarnation was the “justification of man from sin” (3a, q. 5, a. 4, arg. 1). Thomas Aquinas also quotes Damascene, stating that "what has not been assumed is not curable" (3a, q. 5, a. 4, arg. 1). Jesus took on a human nature so that he could live a sinless life and die for the sins committed by humanity while in the flesh. The righteousness of Christ in the different aspects of human nature, therefore, covers the sins committed with those faculties. Aquinas says that “the human soul is not capable of sinning… except through the mind” (3a, q. 5, a. 4, arg. 1). From this statement, it is evident that Aquinas believes that the human soul is not intrinsically sinful; the human soul sins because the mind allows it to sin. The mind houses man's ability to reason and exercise free will, and through this free will, one can choose to sin. Those who argue that Jesus did not presuppose a human mind are suggesting that the human mind was not justified in Christ's death. If this were true, then it would mean that the aspect of the soul that provides free will to sin has not been made right through Christ. The mind would not be covered by God's grace and would be judged according to the standards of holiness established by God. Since man's mind is imperfect, he would be condemned. Therefore, humanity would still be separated from God due to sin and the purpose of the Incarnation would not be achieved. Aquinas, however, rejects this claim because it is inconsistent with his understanding of the Incarnation. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay This discussion of whether Jesus assumed a human mind is a part of the larger discussion about human nature, the Incarnation, and the act of salvation. Thomas Aquinas thinks of the Bible not as the only one.