Tuesday, April 21

Forefathers: Anselm

Today, 900 years ago exactly, Anselm of Canterbury died in 1109. He is ranked as one of the greatest theological minds in church history along with giants like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Here is a link to the Wikipedia article:

Anselm of Canterbury

He was a fascinating man. I am going to highlight just a few of his contributions to the Christian faith.

His first work of note was a work of philosophy and apologetics, not theology proper. Proslogion is the name it usually goes by but an English translation of the title is Discourse on the Existence of God. In this work Anselm developments his famous (or infamous, depending on one's worldview) ontological argument which, in a much simplified form, states that a being (i.e. God) other than which nothing greater can be conceived must necessarily exist; and since the Christian God is the greatest being possible, He must necessarily exist.

Theologians and philosophers still debate about the merits or dis-merits of the ontological argument for the existence of God. Even after 900 years Anselm's ideas are still alive and kicking.

His major theological work, and arguably his most important, especially from a theological perspective, is Cur Deus Homo. In English this can be variously translated as Why the God-man? or Why Did God Become Man? In it Anselm argues that the main reason why God the Son became man was to pay a debt, not to Satan as many early proponents of the "ransom theory" thought, but to God himself. He argued that in sinning against God humanity was morally required to make satisfaction to God's honor and holiness, and this satisfaction is exactly why hell is necessary. But Jesus provides salvation because he is the God-man; fully human because the satisfaction required is due from humanity, and fully God because the debt against an infinitely holy God is infinite and is therefore only something God can possibly pay in full.

The reason I have started this series on Christians who have gone before us is because I believe that history is an important part of knowing who we are and who God is. The Gospel is historical because it is about God's acts in history; specifically the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Church is also historical, and ignorance of it's history is ignorance of where we came from and ultimately where we are going. I hope reading about Anselm of Canterbury is proof of that.

4 comments:

  1. Great Matt!! I like this keep it up. I wish everyone had an appreciation for the early Church Fathers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anselm is hardly an early Church Father, and his theology isn't representative of the patristic tradition. Just compare Cur Deus Homo with Athanasius' On the Incarnation; the two theologians present antithetical positions as to the logic behind the necessity of the Incarnation.

    It is problematic when Christians who are seeking to be historically minded limit their pre-Reformational reading to the 'three As' -- Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm. Doing so does not give an accurate portrayal of the Church's tradition. If one is going to read Augustine, one should also read the Cappadocians: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzus. If one is going to read Aquinas and Anselm, one should also read John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor, and Gregory Palamas,

    ReplyDelete
  3. True, Anselm is not an early church father, so I apologize if my post implied that in any way.

    I haven't read "De Incarnatione Verbi Dei" in its entirety, so I am unable to comment on whether Athanasius and Anselm would get along with each other. But doesn't "antithetical" imply a complete lack of common ground? And certainly you would admit there are points where our two theologians would agree with each other? They both would say that the Incarnation was for the purpose of salvation I assume.

    This brings up an interesting issue: If two theologians diasgree with each other over fundamental theology, then to what do we appeal to discern who is right and who is wrong? We have to have an objective standard outside of the two men.

    Several times I have heard Eastern Christians use the argument that the theology of the church fathers is proved true by their holy lives. Are they insinuating that Anselm, Aquinas, Bernard of Clairvaux, and John Calvin were not holy? Jerome and even Basil praised Apollinarius for his piety, and yet he was a heretic.

    Just wanted to throw out some good ol' debating points.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Matt,

    But doesn't "antithetical" imply a complete lack of common ground? And certainly you would admit there are points where our two theologians would agree with each other? They both would say that the Incarnation was for the purpose of salvation I assume.

    There is very little common ground between Anselm and Athanasius. Perhaps I was being hasty in calling their views antithetical to each other, but reading through Anselm and Athanasius reveals two wildly divergent theological worldviews. Of course both would agree that the Incarnation was for the salvation of man; but beyond that, there isn't much common ground. First, their theological starting points are opposed: Anselm's purpose behind writing his Cur Deus Homo is to prove from reason alone -- apart from revelation -- the necessity of the Incarnation. Such a notion would be absurd for Athanasius. Second, they have divergent doctrines of God, which obviously affects their doctrine of the Incarnation. In Anselm's Monologion, he confuses the categories of operations, person, and nature and ends up blundering the doctrine of the Trinity. Third, their views for the necessity of the Incarnation don't have much in common either. You stated Anselm's view, I'll provide Athanasius' view.

    The Athanasian understanding of salvation is ultimately a salvation from non-being, from annihilation. Athanasius believed that man, prior to the incarnation, was inevitably degenerating toward total annihilation.

    Athanasius:

    Because death and corruption were gaining ever firmer hold on them, the human race was in process of destruction. Man, who was created in God’s image and in his possession of reason reflected the very Word Himself, was disappearing… The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape… it was [monstrous] that beings which once shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption.

    Why couldn't God just will that man remain in everlasting existence? Athanasius has an answer to this question:

    The corruption which had set in was not external to the body but established within it. The need, therefore, was that life should cleave to it in corruption’s place, so that, just as death was brought into being in the body, life also might be engendered in it… if death was within the body, woven into its very substance and dominating it as though completely one with it, the need was for Life to be woven into it instead, so that the body by thus enduing itself with life might cast corruption off… the Savior assumed a body for Himself, in order that the body, being interwoven as it were with life, should no longer remain a mortal thing, in thrall to death, but as endued with immortality and risen from death, should thenceforth remain immortal.

    To be saved from annihilation meant that God's activity, God's energy of immortality needed to be permanently established intrinsically to human nature. Hence the Incarnation of the Word.

    Matt:

    This brings up an interesting issue: If two theologians diasgree with each other over fundamental theology, then to what do we appeal to discern who is right and who is wrong? We have to have an objective standard outside of the two men.

    The objective standard is the tradition, a la the Vincentian Canon of Vincent of Lerins. Who is faithful to the tradition that has been handed down from the apostles: Anselm or Athanasius? That is meant to be a rhetorical question. I don't expect you to answer it here. But it's something to think about.

    Matt:

    Several times I have heard Eastern Christians use the argument that the theology of the church fathers is proved true by their holy lives.

    That's a bad argument. I certainly would never use it.

    ReplyDelete