Monday, December 10, 2018

Anselm of Canterbury and an Examination of Cur Deus Homo

Image result for Anselm
Saint Anselm from History Today

Anselm was a Benedictine monk, who rose to become the influential Archbishop of Canterbury. His ontological proof for the existence of God is still studied by philosophers and Christian apologists. He stands as one of the most important thinkers of the medieval period and his theological work Cur Deus Homo or Why God Became Man still impacts both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology.

Image result for major works of anselm oxford
Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works Oxford University Press


At the center of Christian theology lies the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ death and suffering upon the cross remain the act which most Christians look upon as central to their salvation. From the beginning of the Christian Church, theologians debated the meaning of the death of Jesus upon the cross. Today, most Catholics and Protestants hold to some form of vicarious atonement, teaching that the death and suffering of Jesus upon the cross satisfied the Holiness and Justice of God. The growth and widespread acceptance of plenary atonement largely rest on the teaching of Anselm of Canterbury in his work, Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). The influence of Anselm in framing this central doctrine of faith and his work merits an investigation into the formulation what Christians believe about the Cross of Christ. This paper will explore Anselm and his ideas of atonement through Cur Deus Homo and the impact upon the Church.
Anselm was born in 1033 in the town of Aosta within the Piedmont region of Italy. Knowledge regarding the life of Anselm comes from a variety of sources including his works and that of his close associate Eadmer. Eadmer first met Anselm briefly about 1079, and then thirteen years later he became the constant companion and biographer of Anselm.[1] Eadmer possessed great skill as a biographer and his intimate relationship, and careful listening allows the reader to grasp an understanding of the concerns and personality of Anselm.[2] Eadmer’s account of Anselm’s final years remains absent since Anslem ordered Eadmer to destroy the writings. Eadmer obeyed but not before making a copy of his work.[3] Much of the knowledge regarding Anselm’s later life comes from his sermons and letters.
Eadmer from Wikipedia
Anselm left his Italian home in 1056 from what appears to be a contentious relationship with his father. As a child, Anselm had a devoted relationship with his mother, but her early death left him with a father with whom he had little in common.[4] He crossed the Alps and at the age of twenty-six became a Benedictine monk at the abbey of Bec in Normandy. Anselm found himself drawn to Bec largely because of the reputation of one of the priors of Bec, Lafranc.[5] He became Lafranc’s pupil and eventually succeeded his master in the office of prior and then abbot. In 1093, Anselm followed Lafranc as the Archbishop of Canterbury, an office he held until his death in 1109. Anselm was a reluctant archbishop since his first love was study and reflection and he feared that the duties of office meant time away from his study. He often found his administrative duties onerous and longed for a solitary life of research and reflection, but his superiors ignored his pleas and continued to place him in pastoral and supervisory roles.[6]  Eadmer summarizes Anselm’s devotion to study,
For he had so much faith in the Holy Scriptures, that he firmly and inviolably believed that there was nothing in them which deviated in any way from the path of solid truth. Hence he applied his whole mid to that end, that according to his faith he might be found worthy to see with the eye of reason these things in the Holy Scriptures which, as he felt, lay hidden in a deep obscurity.[7]

Upon accession as the archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm found himself in conflict with the monarchs of England. First with William Rufus and then with Henry I over the question of investiture and the relationship of the church and state in England.[8] Conflict with the monarchy sent Anselm into two exiles but reconciliation brought him back to Canterbury, and he remained in office until his death in 1109. Anselm was an active writer and wrote Cur Deus Homo while archbishop. Through his writings, Anselm became one of the most important intellectuals of medieval Europe and still impacts both contemporary Catholic and Protestant theology.
Anselm is considered by many as the Father of scholasticism. Like the majority of medieval theologians, Anselm fell under the influence of Augustine. The extent of Augustine’s influence is difficult to determine but Anselm was never content with a repetition of the Augustine. Anselm’s language rose from the theology of Augustine, but his ideas and direction are his own.[9] Anselm saw no separation between faith and reason, but believed that there was an indispensable unity between both. He held that this gave the theologian the freedom to explore dogma using the “instruments of grammar and logic.[10] Anselm believed that reason aided the Christian in a fuller understanding of the faith and theology and revealed the inner consistency and rationality of Christian faith.[11] The use of reason alone verifies the logic of faith and Scripture, therefore the theologian can deliberate on the nature of God without Scripture. Most of Anselm’s writings contain little exegesis since he believed that he could reach truth through the use of reason and logic.
Certain brethren have often and earnestly entreated me to put in writing some thoughts that I had offered them in familiar conversation, regarding meditation on the Being of God, and on some other topics connected with this subject, under the form of a meditation on these themes. It is in accordance with their wish, rather than with my ability, that they have prescribed such a form for the writing of this meditation; in order that nothing in Scripture should be urged on the authority of Scripture itself, but that whatever the conclusion of independent investigation should declare to be true, should, in an unadorned style, with common proofs and with a simple argument, be briefly enforced by the cogency of reason, and plainly expounded in the light of truth. It was their wish also, that I should not disdain to meet such simple and almost foolish objections as occur to me.[12]

The importance of reason for Anselm cannot be understated and places him first among a long list of medieval scholastics. He believed that logic was an essential tool for the theologian but he did not drive a wedge between logic and faith. Reason does not supplant faith but reason places one on the path towards true faith. A conclusion might appear sound but if it contradicts the teaching of Scripture then this is a sign that one needs to rethink the soundness of the argument. Humanity cannot comprehend the full mystery of the Godhead but God is rational and any communication from God is coherent and without contradiction. Since Scripture is the primary source of revelation then it contains no contradiction with reason.[13] Reason is at the forefront of Anselm’s classic works the Monologion and the Proslogion. Within the Monologion Anselm sought to explore the divine attributes of God and his existence through the use of reason. Anselm claims that since there are many signs and kinds of good then there must be a supreme good through which all unite. Because one can discern different levels of goodness leads to the conclusion that there exists absolute goodness. Therefore, Anselm reasons that there is one “being greater and higher than all others through whom they all exist.[14]” In the Proslogion, Anselm argues for his ontological proof for God’s existence in which he claims that God is that, “whom nothing greater can be thought.[15] Because God is a being which nothing greater can be thought then he must exist not only in one’s mind but also in reality.[16] The ontological argument of Anselm remains a key argument within apologetic debates regarding proofs of the existence for God. The original title of the Proslogion, Fides quaerens intellectum or Faith seeking understanding point to the importance of reason for Anselm. The correct use of reason points to God, therefore Anselm attempts to understand a faith he already believes.
Anselm’s theological masterpiece remains Cur Deus Homo. and like the theologians of the ancient church. Anslem strives to understand why God lowered himself by becoming a man and subjecting himself to the humiliating death upon the cross. Most theologians of the early church debated the nature of God and the humanity and divinity of Christ. The work of the atonement and soteriology was not a debate during this period. The idea of atonement is central to understanding Anselm and other theologians who grapple with the meaning of the cross of Christ. Atonement entails the proposition that sinful humanity needs redemption from sin and that the cross is a means of salvation. When exploring the question of the atonement one must ask how Christ through the cross brings reconciliation between God and humanity. The meaning and work of Christ upon the cross continues to stem debate and theological discussion among the Christian world.  Ancient theologians proposed a number of theories many often appearing contradictory with some ideas being held by the same theologian.[17] Early Christians understood that Christ brought salvation but few asked the question how Christ saved. Theologians who allowed no compromise regarding ”trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy were quite willing to manipulate soteriological theories and images without similar compunction.[18]
Irenaeus connected the incarnation to salvation by proclaiming that Jesus’s incarnation provided redemption. He believed that “human nature was sanctified, transformed, and elevated by the very act of Christ’s becoming a man.”[19] Jesus’ very appearance as a man demonstrated Christ’s ability to save fallen humanity. Irenaeus’ emphasis on the Incarnation was a response to what he viewed as Gnostic heresy which deemphasized the importance of the Incarnation. The divine Son of God became the Son of Man to accomplish redemption.
But God the Father was very merciful: He sent His creative Word, who in coming to deliver us came to the very place and spot in which we had lost life, and brake the bonds of our fetters. And His light appeared and made the darkness of the prison disappear, and hallowed our birth and destroyed death, loosing those same fetters in which we were enchained. And He manifested |the resurrection, Himself becoming the first-begotten of the dead, and in Himself raising up man that was fallen, lifting him up far above the heaven to the right hand of the glory of the Father.[20]

Irenaeus’ viewed that the relationship lost through the first man became renewable through Christ. Irenaeus used the term recapitulation to describe that humanity “fell in our solidarity with the first man, we can be restored through our solidarity with Christ.”[21]
Image result for irenaeus
Irenaeus from Wikipedia
Many ancient theologians held to a theory often called the Ransom Theory. They maintained that humanity belonged to Satan and that God offered Jesus as a ransom or sacrifice for sinners. The devil looking at the agreement as a bargain because he viewed Christ as a far greater prize. But once Christ arrived in hell, Satan lacked the power to hold him, and Christ entered into mortal combat for the salvation of humanity. While the crucifixion appeared as a defeat, Christ resurrected in triumph and broke the power of the enemy and his victory made immortality possible for believers.[22] They believed that in the ransom, Christ defeated the forces of evil. Irenaeus, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa taught versions of this theory. Origen is very explicit in his use of the word ransom and insists that the ransom which Christ paid was meant not for God but for the Devil.[23] Gregory of Nyssa expounds on the ransom in Chapter 23 of the Catechetical Oration,
The Enemy, therefore, beholding in Him such power, saw also in Him an opportunity for an advance, in the exchange, upon the value of what he held. For this reason he chooses Him as a ransom for those who were shut up in the prison of death. But it was out of his power to look on the unclouded aspect of God; he must see in Him some portion of that fleshly nature which through sin he had so long held in bondage…His choosing to save man is a testimony of his goodness; His making the redemption of the captive a matter of exchange exhibits His justice, while the invention whereby He enabled the Enemy to apprehend that of which he was before incapable, is a manifestation of supreme wisdom.[24]

            Athanasius holds to a doctrine of atonement similar to other ancient fathers with some distinctions. He held that by physically becoming a man, Christ repaired the image of God humanity lost due to the corruption of sin.  
We have seen that to change the corruptible to incorruption was proper to none other than the Savior Himself, Who in the beginning made all things out of nothing; that only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men, that none save our Lord Jesus Christ could give to mortals immortality, and that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Father's true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worship of idols.[25]
The restoration of the image of God within man allows all men to recover the true knowledge of God and then enjoy full fellowship with God.[26] Athanasius’ major concern was the battle against Arian heresy, the nature of the atonement and redemption was not his primary concern. Like other ancient theologians, he felt the urgency to defend Nicean Christianity against Arianism which limited the full divinity of Christ.
Image result for Athanasius
Athanasius from Wikipedia
            Augustine also stresses the Incarnation of Christ as the instrument of man’s salvation and stresses Christ’s role as mediator between God and humanity. The image of God in man remains but it has been greatly damaged. Augustine pictures Christ as the physician who brings healing through the love and grace of God.[27] Augustine also makes reference to mankind trapped in the bondage of Satan and the need of the redemption of Christ to release sinners. Augustine recognizes no proprietary rights of the devil over humanity, but he still describes humanity “delivered into the power of the devil.”[28]. He sees the passion and the Resurrection as Christ’s victory over Satan and through the mediation of Jesus, the Devil lays defeated by the righteousness of Christ.[29] Augustine emphasizes the righteousness of Christ saying,  
But the devil was to be overcome, not by the power of God, but by His righteousness. For what is more powerful than the Omnipotent? Or what creature is there of which the power can be compared to the power of the Creator?[30]
           
While different than earlier Church Fathers, Augustine still bears similarity to the Ransom Theory held by Origen and Gregory of Nyssa nonetheless Augustine emphasizes how sin allows Satan a hold on the life of the believer but that hold loses power through the sacrifice offered by Christ in His passion.[31]
            While Anselm’s apologetic works appear primarily as works of philosophy, Cur Deus Homo is chiefly a work of theology. Nevertheless, Anselm utilizes the same philosophical method of reason in his examination of the Atonement. Anselm explains in his preface that his goal is to explain with reason the skeptic’s objections to the Christians faith and by “equally clear reasoning and truth that God created humanity to enjoy eternal life.[32] But to demonstrate this to the unbeliever, Anselm recognizes the need to show that mankind needed the intervention of a “Man-God” to deliver salvation.[33]
            Anselm began the writing of  Cur Deus Homo between 1095 and 1098 and completed it during his exile in Capua. Eadmer describes Anselm’s period in Capua as a period of study and reflection similar to his early life before he became an abbot. Eadmer credit’s prayerful reflection and love of God as giving Anselm the motivation for writing the book.[34] Most of Cur Deus Homo takes the form of a dialogue between Anselm and Boso, one of his monks from Bec. Boso serves the function of a advocatus diaboli or devil’s advocate and brings challenges to Christian doctrine which Anselm seeks to respond.[35] It’s possible that much of his motivation for writing  rose from concerns over the questions posed by Jews and Muslims. During 1092, questions arose regarding the incarnation from questions raised by some learned Jews in London[36] and during his exile in Capua, Anselm had some positive encounters with Arabs during the siege of Capua.[37] His apologetic concerns perhaps lay behind his motive for writing Cur Deus Homo.
            The first question Anselm answers is the necessity of the Incarnation. Because God is omnipotent then one might conclude that He could redeem man through an angel or another person or just through his command. According to Anselm, God’s actions are not due to any external compulsion or inability. The Incarnation of Christ is not a decision God makes because of any outside force but is a result of God’s nature and completely free choice.[38] Anslem wishes to answer the objection that the Incarnation demeans God by lowering Him as a suffering human. Anselm argues that the incarnation is vital for the redemption of mankind.[39] Because Adam fell into sin, Anselm explains that only a sinless God-man could bring the necessary satisfaction for the sin of humanity.
For it was appropriate that, just as death entered the human race through a man’s disobedience, so life should be restored through a man’s obedience; and that, just as the sin which was the cause of our damnation originated from a woman, similarly the originator of our justification and salvation should be born of woman.[40]
           
Anselm deals with the confusion that many unbelievers have about the Incarnation declaring that they lack an understanding of Christianity.
People who say this do not understand what we believe. For we affirm that the divine nature is undoubtedly incapable of suffering, and cannot in any sense be brought low from its exalted standing, and cannot labour with difficulty over what it wishes to do. But we say that the Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, one person in two natures in one person. In view of this, when we say that God is suffering some humiliation or weakness, we do not understand this in terms of the weakness of the human substance which he was taking upon himself… For we are not, in this way, implying lowliness on the part on the part of the divine substance, but are making plain the existence of a single person comprising God and man.[41]

            Anselm regards the dilemma of humanity to be a problem of a broken relationship. He regards sin as a debt owed to God whose nature demands satisfaction from a holy and righteous God. In Adam, all humanity fell into a sinful condition. Sin placed mankind into a predicament that they could not solve for themselves. Anselm contended that humanity owed a debt to God not to Satan because God’s honor and righteousness remain dishonored. Sin is to take from God the worship and adoration due to him alone. Anselm describes the debt,
This is the debt which an angel, and likewise a man, owes to God. No one sins through paying it, and everyone who does not pay it, sins. This is righteousness or uprightness of the will. It makes individuals righteous or upright in their heart, that is, their will. This is the sole honour, the complete honour, which we owe to God and which God demands from us… Therefore, everyone who sins is under an obligation to repay to God the honour which he has violently taken from him, and this is the satisfaction which every sinner is obliged to give to God.[42]

Anselm believes that forgiveness without atonement and satisfaction is impossible because forgiveness without satisfaction offends the nature of God. Sin must receive punishment as the holiness of God demands justice for the debt of sin. Anselm insists that,
it is not fitting for God to forgive a sin without punishment…. If a sin is forgiven without punishment: that the position of sinner and non-sinner before God will be similar-and this does not befit God.[43]

Anselm stresses the justice of God, which demands satisfaction and cannot forgive by mere fiat since forgiveness without the payment of debt is a violation of the “order in the universe that God had to uphold to be consistent with himself and with his justice.”[44]
            Anselm refutes the ransom theory, held by so many theologians of the ancient church. He states that God cannot simply “raise anyone who is to any extent bound by indebtedness arising from sin.” [45] The one who claims that God can simply overlook or proclaim sin forgiven without satisfaction underestimate the great burden of sin. Anselm admits that Satan possesses power over sinful humanity but the debt of man remains a debt owed to God not Satan. Sinners who allow themselves captivated by Satan offend God. If the payment of sin belonged to Satan, then Anselm maintains that the need of the Incarnation was unnecessary. The problem with the ransom theory is that it fails to account for the necessity of the Incarnation and the need for the sacrifice of Christ to obtain forgiveness.
            The ransom theory also fails the test of justice. The ransom theory claims that Satan possessed rights over sinful humanity and God must respect those rights. The life and death of Christ was an opportunity for God to play on the devil’s greed by giving him a deal he could neither reject or win because of the power of Christ. Losing the bet caused Satan to lose his sovereignty over mankind. Anselm rejects this picture of justice.
For, supposing that the devil, or man, were his own master, or belonged to someone other than God, then perhaps one could justly speak in those terms. However, given that neither the devil nor man belongs to anyone but God, and that neither stands outside God’s power.[46]

The ransom theory fails the test of justice because the devil has no dominion over humanity, for he is subject to the judgment and sovereignty of God. Satan, like humanity, is a creature subject to the God’s sovereign rule. And redemption is solely under God’s providential will. If Satan has any involvement on the suffering of humanity then it is not a decision of the devil but the judgment of God who uses even evil things to accomplish his purposes.[47]
Once establishing the impasse which sin causes for humanity, Anselm turns to the solution offered by Christ in Book II. Anselm asserts that salvation depends upon payment for the debt of sin,
[48]If, therefore, as is agreed, it is necessary that the heavenly city should have its full complement made up of members of the human race, and this cannot be the case if the recompense of which we have spoken is not paid, which no one can pay except God, and no one ought to pay except man; it is necessary that a God-Man should pay it.[49]

God remains determined to redeem the human race from the consequences of their sin. Humanity remains the pinnacle of His creation and His intervention is vital to the preservation of the human race. God’s purpose is the completion and perfection of His creation.[50] Because sin came into the world through the first human then justice required recompense from a human. But no one has the ability to stand guiltless before the justice of God because all remain tainted by sin. Only Jesus fit the needed requirements of justice since Jesus Christ is fully man and God. Anselm affirms the creed laid out by the Council of Chalcedon by affirming that Christ is one person with both human and divine natures. Anselm concludes that salvation is “necessary for divine and human nature to combine in one person.”[51]
            The justice of God receives satisfaction from the death of Christ which “outweighs the number and magnitude of all sins.” [52] Even small sins are of “such infinite magnitude” that they offend the holiness and justice of God. Christ’s atonement is so potent that His death redeems the sins of those who put him to death.[53]  According to Anselm, logic dictates that the Heavenly city have citizens from the human race which is impossible unless sinners receive forgiveness and remission of sins. Remission of sins only comes,

through a man who is identical with God and who by his death reconciles sinners to God. We have already found Christ, whom we acknowledge to be God and man and to have died for our sakes.[54]

            Boso admits that Christ freely gave his life as a gift to pay recompense for the sins of man but asks how his death pays for sin and the difference between the death of Christ and those of John the Baptist and other martyrs. Anselm explains the uniqueness of Christ’s death because Christ alone paid a “debt which he did not owe.”[55] Christ paid a debt which sinners were unable to pay and his willingness to lay his life revealed an act of undeserving grace. Christ was under no obligation to save humanity, it was his “prerogative to suffer or not to suffer.” Jesus’ death was not the result of a debt to the Father or humanity rather he died because of a free desire to save mankind. Christ was free not to die but his willingness to die renders his sacrifice all the more magnificent.[56]
Because Christ freely and willingly gave his life then Anselm reasons that the Son deserves recompense for his sacrifice. The reward owed to Jesus is a gift the Son gives to those lack any ability to pay their debt. The salvation of the human race is the first fruits and reward for those He died upon the cross. On whom id it more appropriate for him to bestow the reward and recompense for his death than on those whose salvation, as the logic of truth teaches us, he made himself a man, and for whom, as we have said, he set an example, by his death, of dying for the sake of righteousness? For they will be imitators of him in vain, if they are not sharers in his reward.[57]

Anselm makes it clear that the debt of sin was owed to God. There was no need inherent within God that required the death of Christ rather it was a sacrifice freely given. Anselm clearly refutes the ransom theology held by the early church. Mankind did not owe the devil a debt for humanity’s sin offended God.
Certainly God did not owe the devil anything but punishment, nor did man owe him anything but retribution-to defeat in return him by whom he had been defeated. But, whatever was demanded from man, his debt was to God, not to the devil.[58]

            The atonement of Christ reveals both the mercy and justice of God. The great sin of humanity and the demands of God’s justice appear insurmountable when first observed but God’s mercy appears through the self-sacrifice of the Son of God who freely offered himself up for the sinful debt humanity accumulated. Redemption occurs because the atonement of Christ offers sufficient satisfaction for the debt of sin owed by the human race.
            If sin is forgiven without punishment or satisfaction then the forgiveness is cheap and without meaning. This places sinful humanity and sinless humanity in the same standing. The holiness and justice of God demands punishment and the state of sin remains. Injustice stands above the law and holiness with unpunished sin.[59] Justice demands punishment but Anselm recognizes that the intervention of God through the passion of Christ demonstrates the mercy of God. The death of Christ is sufficient for any sin and nothing could be more merciful than the sacrifice of the Son upon the cross.[60]
            Some scholars maintain that the roots of Anselm’s atonement  theology lay in the practice of German law and that the idea that sin must receive either punishment or satisfaction was a new idea imported from feudal law practices.[61] But earlier Latin theologians discussed satisfaction in the context of penance as a way satisfying the Lord. Penance appeared to overlap but failed because, “
even in rendering such satisfaction, man was giving God only what he owed him. But the satisfaction offered by the death of Christ possessed infinite worth, and this the redemption on the cross could be seen as the one supreme act of penitential satisfaction.[62]

            One of the earliest critics of Anselm’s doctrines was the theologian Peter Abelard, whose most active years as a theologian and philosopher followed the death of Anselm. Abelard appears as the foremost opponent Anselm’s doctrine of the atonement and the principal proponent of the exemplarist or moral example theory.[63] Abelard’s moral influence theory is a subjective theory of the atonement because it emphasizes how the moral example of the cross brings change in people.[64] Abelard also rejected the ransom theory of the atonement and asserted that the devil had no rights over humanity but he also rejected the proposal that the death of Christ brought satisfaction for sin.
How very cruel and unjust it seems that someone should require the blood of an innocent person as a ransom, or that in any way it might please him that an innocent person be slain, still less that God should have so accepted the death of his Son that through it he was reconciled to the whole world. These and similar things seem to us to inspire a not insignificant question, namely, concerning our redemption and justification through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.[65]

Abelard rejected the idea that the death of Christ satisfied the honor and justice of God rather the cross was the ultimate display of God’s love. The importance of the atonement was the
impact  the love of God had upon the hearts of humanity.
Nevertheless it seems to us that in this we are justified in the blood of Christ and reconciled to God, that it was through this matchless grace shown to us that his Son received our nature, and in that nature, teaching us both by word and by example, persevered to the death and bound us to himself even more through love, so that when we have been kindled by so great a benefit of divine grace, true charity might fear to endure nothing for his sake…Therefore, our redemption is that supreme love in us through the Passion of Christ, which not only frees us from slavery to sin, but gains for us the true liberty of the sons of God.[66]

Abelard asserts that salvation is the declaration of God’s love demonstrated in the life and death of Jesus. The purpose of the atonement was to restore the love of God into the hearts of humanity through the self-sacrificial example of Christ. The was no need of reconciliation from God since he offered forgiveness but man needs to turn his heart toward the forgiveness offered by God. The purpose of the life and death of Jesus was to demonstrate the love of God to a distant humanity.[67] By faith, the Christian ascesses the transforming power of God exhibited by the example of Jesus.[68] Abelard presented his views in a short passage in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and was not a full account of his beliefs on the atonement.[69]
            Abelard’s brief explanation of the moral influence theory of the atonement finds renewed interest in contemporary theology which decry the picture of an angry and wrathful God, who demands justice. The moral example of Jesus and his sacrificial forgiveness demonstrated in his passion serves as a moral exemplar and incentive for a changed life. Anselm anticipates this criticism when Boso questions Anselm regarding the mercy of God. Anselm exhibits that God’s mercy cannot conflict with His law or the moral ordering of the universe.[70] Any consideration of God’s mercy and kindness must account also for God’s judgment. While Boso maintains that complete forgiveness appears consistent with a God of mercy, Anselm counters that forgiveness is not just, if justice remains forgotten.[71] God himself is both mercy and justice and any doctrine which neglects both falls short according to the logic presented by Anselm. God can neither abandon his creation nor can he leave the debt of sin unpunished.
            The debate between Anselm and Abelard continues to frame the debate over the nature of the Atonement in Christian theology. Anselm’s argument that the death of Christ satisfies the justice of God remains the primary orthodox position within the Roman Catholic Church[72] and most Protestant Churches. The doctrine of the plenary substitutionary atonement held by many Protestants bears great similarity and dependency upon Anselm’s explanation of the death of Christ. Christ’s death is penal because he paid the judicial and legal price for sin and it is substitutionary because Christ was the substitute for sinners who deserved punishment. While Anselm never spoke of a substitution the concept is similar to Christ satisfying the justice of God. The influential Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes the principle of substitution held by most Protestants,
Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them,  and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both, freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.[73]

The language of debt and justice is very similar to the words used by Anselm and while the Westminster divines sought to justify their doctrine with Scripture the progression of their doctrine of atonement clearly derives from the doctrines first presented by Anselm.
            Recent years interest in the ransom theory has grown since the publication of ChristusVictor by Gustaf Aulen. While Aulen rejects the idea of a ransom paid to Satan he proposes that the central purpose of the atonement is the defeat of sin and the forces of evil to free humanity from their captivity and oppression. Aulen criticizes Anselm for holding to a view of that world which is at its heart legal.
 In this scheme Law is represented as the granite foundation of the spiritual world. To the classic idea, on the other hand, it is essential that the work of atonement which God accomplishes in Christ reflects a Divine order which is wholly different from a legal order; the Atonement is not accomplished by strict fulfillment the demands of justice, but in spite of them. God is not, indeed, unrighteous, but He transcends the order of justice.[74]
Aulen maintains that the Latin viewpoint of Anselm derives from the legalistic character of the medieval worldview. He maintains that theologians of the Reformation then accepted Anselm without questioning the legalism which lay beneath the doctrine.[75] Aulen further rejects the subjective view of Abelard and many contemporary theologians as still captive to individualism and rationalism. While liberal Protestantism opposes the Scholasticism, Aulen claims that the moral influence view of the atonement remains, “penetrated from end to end by an idealistic philosophy, and seeks to interpret the Christian faith in the light of a monistic and evolutionary worldview.”[76]
            According to Aulen, the Christus Victor is the classical view of the atonement since variations of the view dominated Christian doctrine for most of church history. The atonement is a victory over sin death, and the devil. Sin is an objective power holding power over humanity which the death and resurrection of Christ defeats. Salvation is the fruit of the triumph of Jesus over evil.   
The victory of Christ over the powers of evil is an eternal victory, therefore present as well as past. Therefore Justification and Atonement are really one and the same thing; Justification is simply the Atonement brought into the present, so that here and now the Blessing of God prevails over the Curse.[77]

Aulen’s ideas continue to cause ripples within theological circles and his points have reframed the deliberations over atonement from a two-sided dispute into a three-sided debate. Opponents of Aulen point to the fact that “Anselm views Christ’s satisfying death within a larger framework of Christ’s entire saving work as restoring human nature.”[78] Under Anselm human nature receives exaltation and glory as the special creation of God. Christ exalts human nature through the Incarnation and restores the relationship between God and man through the work on the cross repairing and bring humanity into an exalted position. Aulen accuses Anselm of divorcing Incarnation and Atonement but as seen earlier Anselm roots his doctrine of Atonement in Chalcedonian doctrine and views the Incarnation and Atonement as an organic whole.[79]
The cross remains at the of Christianity and the debates over the purpose and meaning behind the death of Christ continue to rage within Christian circles since the beginnings of the early church. The cross occupies both theological and artistic disputes within the Christian and Western world. Anselm still looms large in any examination of the atonement. While Scripture remains the tool used by most theologians, Anselm's use of reason and logic sets an apologetic example of early Scholasticism. No theological or historical examination of the impact of atonement is complete without a consideration of Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo.

Bibliography
Abelard, Peter. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Steven R. Cartwright. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011.

Anselm. Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Anselm, Monologium, On the Being of God, Translated by Sidney Norton Deane, 1903, from http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ans/ans033.htm

Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.v.html 

Augustine. On the Holy Trinity. New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130113.htm

Aulen, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, translated by A.G. Hebert, Austin: Wise Path Books, 2003.

Baldwin, Joseph W. The Scholastic Culture of the Middle Ages, 1000-1300. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1971.

Bysted, Ane L. The Crusade Indulgences: Spiritual Rewards and the Theology of the Crusades, c. 1095-1216. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Davies, Brian and Brian Leftow, editors. The Cambridge Companion to Anselm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Eadmer, The Life of St. Anselm: Archbishop of Canterbury, Translated by R.W. Southern. , edited by R.W. Southern, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1962.

Fairweather, Eugene R, A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970.

Grane, Leif. , Peter Abelard, Translated by Frederick and Christine Crowley.New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.1964.

Gregory of Nyssa. Catechetical Oration, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.xi.ii.xxv.html

Hauser, Alan J. and Duane F. Watson, editors. A History of Biblical Interpretation, Vol. 2: The Medieval through the Reformation Periods. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009.

Hopkins, Jasper. A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972

Irenaeus. The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, The Tertullian Project, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines, New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1960.

Komonchak, Joseph A. “Redemptive Justice: An Interpretation of the Cur Deus Homo,” The Dunwoodie Review, 12(1972) 33-55.

Lane, Tony. A Concise History of Christian Thought. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006.
Leftow, Brian. "Anselm on the Necessity of the Incarnation." Religious Studies 31, no. 2 (June 1995): 167-85.
McBrian, Richard P. Catholicism. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980.

McGiffert, Arthur Cushman. A History of Christian Thought, Volume II: The West From Tertullian to Erasmus, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1933.

McIntyre, John. St. Anselm and His Critics: A Re-Interpretation of the Cur Deus Homo, Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1954.

Ortland, Gavin. “On the Throwing of Rocks: An Objection to Hasty and Un-careful Criticisms of Anselm’s Doctrine of the Atonement,” The Saint Anselm Journal, 8 no.2 (Spring 2013), 1-17.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Melody of Theology: A Philosophical Dictionary. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Radford, Rosemary, Carter Heyward, and Mark L. Taylor. Contemporary Christologies: A Fortress Introduction, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2010.

Southern, R.W. Saint Anselm A Portrait in a Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Southern, R.W. Saint Anselm and His Biographer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Welch, A.C. Anselm and His Work. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1901.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Presbyterian Church in America, http://www.pcaac.org/resources/wcf/





EndNotes

[1] Eadmer, The Life of Anselm. Ed. R.W. Southern (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), ix.
[3] Eadmer, The Life of Anselm, 150-151.
[4] Southern, Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape, 11.
[5] R.W. Southern, Saint Anselm and His Biographer. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 12.
[7] Eadmer, The Life of Anselm, 12.
[8] Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, Volume II: The West From Tertullian to Erasmus, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1933), 185.
[9] Southern, Saint Anselm and His Biographer, 32.
[12] Anselm, Monologium, On the Being of God, tr. Sidney Norton Deane, 1903, from http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ans/ans033.htm
[13] Jasper Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972), 44-45.
[14] McGiffert, 185.
[15] Anselm, Proslogion in  A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, ed Eugene R. Fairweather, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), 75.
[17] J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1960), 375.
[18] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 205.
[19] Ibid., 375.
[20] Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, The Tertullian Project, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm
[21] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 172.
[22] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Melody of Theology: A Philosophical Dictionary, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 12.
[23] Kelly, 185.
[24] Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.xi.ii.xxv.html
[25] Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.v.html
[26] Kelly, 378.
[27] Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), 301-302.
[28] Augustine, On The Holy Trinity, 12.16, New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130113.htm
[29] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 391-392.
[30] Augustine, On The Holy Trinity, 13. 17, New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130113.htm.
[31] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 392.
[32] Anselm, Why God Became Man in  A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, ed Eugene R. Fairweather, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), 100.
[33] Ibid., 100.
[34] Eadmer, The Life of St. Anselm, 107.
[35] A.C. Welch, Anselm and His Work, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1901), 172.
[36] Southern, Saint Anselm: A Porrait in a Landscape, 198.
[37] Eadmer, The Life of St. Anselm, 111.
[38] Brian Leftow, “Anselm on the Necessity of the Incarnation,” Religious Studies 31, no. 2 (June 1995), 168.
[39]  Jasper Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972), 187.
[40] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man I.3, ed. Brian Davies and G.R. Evans, trans. Janet Fairweather (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 268-269.
[43] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man I.12, 284.
[44] Jarolslav Pelikan, The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300), (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 141.
[46] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, I.7, 272.

[49] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, II.6, 320.
[50] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, II.4, 317.
[51] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, II.9. 325.
[52] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, II.14, 333.
[53] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, II.15, 335.
[54] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, II.15, 336.
[55] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, II. 18, 349.
[56] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, II.18, 351.
[57] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, II.19, 353.
[58] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, II.19, 354.
[59] . Komonchak, “Redemptive Justice: An Interpretation of the Cur Deus Homo,” The Dunwoodie Review,52.
[60] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, II.20, 354.
[61] McGifferet, A History of Christian Thought: Volume II: The West, From Tertullian to Erasmus, 199.
[62] Pelikan, The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300), 143.
[63] David Brown, Anselm on Atonement ” In The Cambridge Companion to Anselm. Eds. Brian Davies and Brian Leftow (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 289.
[64] Rosemary Radford, Carter Heyward, and Mark Lewis Taylor, Contemporary Christologies: A Fortress Introduction, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2010), 34.
[65] Peter Abelard, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Tran. Steven R. Cartwright,( Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 167.
[66] Abelard, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,167-168.
[69] Pelikan, The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300), 107.
[71] Anselm, The Major Works, Why God Became Man, I.12, 284-285.
[74] Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, tran. A.G. Hebert, (Austin: Wise Path Books, 2003), 97.
[75] Aulen, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, 99.
[76] Aulen, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, 168.
[77] Aulen, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, 160-161.
of Anselm’s Doctrine of the Atonement,” The Saint Anselm Journal, 8 no.2 (Spring 2013), 4.
[79] Gavin Ortlund, “On the Throwing of Rocks: An Objection to Hasty and Un-careful Criticisms of Anselm’s Doctrine of the Atonement,” The Saint Anselm Journal, 6.

1 comment: