Post by falklands on Jan 24, 2006 18:57:09 GMT -5
Examining Anselm’s Proof of the Incarnation
St. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, written at the end of the 11th century, attempts to explain why Christ came down to earth in the form of a man, denoted by it’s title – “Why God-Man?” Unbelievers in Anselm’s time had been raising objections to the central principles of the Christian faith, and were seeking to prove that Christianity was ridiculous by showing that Christ endured many things that seemingly belittled Deity. For example, he was raised by lowly humans and was subjected to bodily injury. They said, “If you say that God, who, as you believe, created the universe by a word, could not do all these things, you contradict yourselves, for you make Him powerless”(Cur Deus Homo, 1.1).1 Anselm seeks to dispel these arguments, in a dialogue with him and his student Boso, while reassuring the Christian body of the soundness of their faith. He tries to prove all this by reason alone, as stated in his introduction, “not for the sake of attaining to faith by means of reason, but that they [Christians] may be gladdened by understanding”(CDH, 1.6). In contrast to many theologians, he deliberately avoids using Scriptural proofs. This could lead to dangerous conclusions if the foundations of his reasoning are not entirely accurate. This paper will examine all the different facets of his proofs to find out if they adequately explain the incarnation, and will discover if his use of reason alone in opposition to a Biblical approach really does bolster his argument.
To begin with, his basic premise is this: Man has been “made holy by God, in order to be happy in enjoying Him” (CDH, 2.1). Man owes God everything that he has and everything that he is, even without the burden of sin. However, man has sinned, violating God’s honour. God could not suffer this to continue, and so a price has to be paid by man for sin. Yet the penalty for even the smallest sin against God could not be paid even with an offering of the entire universe. So the only way of restoring God’s honour as it relates to the world is death for all mankind. Yet it is not fitting for God’s original plan for mankind – being happy in enjoying Him – to utterly fail. Therefore the debt must be paid. Only God can pay the price, and only man ought to pay the price, since it was man that committed the sin. The only solution is for the Father’s own son, the Word, to become a man – a “God-man”. This He does freely, without compulsion. By taking upon himself the undeserved penalty of death, he deserves a reward from his Father. But since the Son needs nothing, God bestows the reward of salvation upon whomever Christ chooses – and that is mankind.
This seems like a complete explanation of the incarnation until one thinks of the other grounds the Bible gives. Scripture tells us that Christ’s death was an offering like the lambs in the Old Testament whose sacrifice purged people of impurity. “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”(Heb. 10:10). Jesus’ taking upon Himself the sins of the world was a direct means to salvation, not so much a circuitous means to the gift of life, which is what Anselm says. Another aspect of the incarnation that Anselm fails to mention is that Christ’s sacrifice was a victory in the war between Him and Satan. By being resurrected from the dead, Jesus triumphed over death, which had previously held the world in subjection. “…Through death he [Jesus] might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14). So one of the reasons Christ came down was so that He might defeat death, in order to restore God’s purpose for mankind.
Yet exactly what proofs does Anselm use? Many times, he says that it would not be fitting for God to do such a thing. This is shaky ground to base proofs upon, because it can be considered a moot point as to what is actually fitting for God. He says, “…If God desires a thing, it is right that He should desire that which involves no unfitness” (CDH, 1.12). An example of this is when Anselm explains the human origins of Christ. “If it was a virgin who brought all evil upon the human race, it is much more appropriate that a virgin should be the occasion of all good”(CDH, 2.8). He holds that there should be no “unfitness” in God’s realm. But why should unfitness be the ruling factor in his arguments? And even if one agrees with this principle, are his assumptions about what is and is not unfitting the right ones? There are many tacit presuppositions made like this that he expects the reader to agree with, like his gullible student Boso. However, he does not discuss or prove these assumptions. Therein lies a weakness of his book.
To fully understand Cur Deus Homo, we must be aware of the factors behind his proofs. Anselm’s book is filled with assumptions reflecting his time and his own predetermined beliefs about the world. He lived in a feudal world where the lord of an estate had absolute authority over his subordinates. The serfs tilled the land for the lord and owed him their submission since they were born. According to Anselm, we owe God his due, which is our all. Anselm asks, “what payment do we make to God for our sin?” Boso says, “repentance, a broken and contrite heart, self-denial, various bodily sufferings, pity in giving and forgiving, and obedience”(CDH, 1.20). But Anselm replies that we owe those things irrespective of sin. Something greater is needed to pay for sin, and that is death. Likewise in the feudal estate the station of the one offended determined the penalty of the crime, the penalty of offence against the master being exceedingly great. Stealing apples from the farmer’s house would give a young rascal a good box around the ears, but pillaging the master’s pantry would put him in the pillory. Likewise, Anselm holds that even the slightest look against the will of God is worse than anything else in the world, because of who it is committed against (CDH, 1.21). While this holds true for offences against God, the principle is problematic because it measures the offence according to the rank of the person offended rather than the intention of the offender.
Another assumption that Anselm has is the view that the universe is ordered in symmetry, and that no inconsistencies can appear, lest God seem to be changeable. All throughout Cur Deus Homo we see this assumption. In a large digression possibly inspired by some of Augustine’s writings, Anselm tries to show that there can only be a limited number of elect in the universe, making up a “perfect number” with the angels. The number of the elect would restore that number taken away by the fallen angels. God wills that this would be so; it would be “unseemly” for Him to allow it otherwise. But Anselm, in this passage, does not follow up with its implications. If God wills that only some would go to Heaven, it would follow that God would will others not to go to Heaven. In that conclusion Anselm clashes with Scripture, for “God our Saviour…wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth”(1 Timothy 2:3-4). It is like an unintended reductio ad absurdum, having the first assumption proved erroneous by the inevitable conclusion that contradicts Scripture, that first assumption being that the universe is perfect in its symmetry. It makes the basis of election the need for mathematical perfection in the universe. Oswald Chambers once said: “The basis of things is not rational, it is tragic; there is something wrong at the heart of life that reason cannot account for”.2 From Satan’s deception of mankind that tragedy was spawned, and sin in the heart of life is that which reason cannot explain.
However, if reason is in the beginning based on the inerrant Word, it cannot fail to speak truth. One of the reasons Anselm avoids scripture is so that “nothing in Scripture might be urged on the authority of Scripture itself”.3 This may be a valid point, seeing as those unbelievers who had been attacking the Faith would in no wise accept an argument based solely on Scripture. By simple reasoning Anselm could form a convincing argument on the unbelievers’ own terms. But what is our faith for but to exercise it in everything we do? If those sceptics were so adamant against the Faith, they would not have accepted it regardless of what Anselm would say. As for Anselm’s objective of giving his fellow believers understanding in the faith, his achieving it by means of Reason alone seems to be contrary to the purpose of educating people in the faith. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) The Bible contains all that we need to know about God and what He has done. There is precious little reason why it should be avoided so.
In the end, Anselm provides reasons enough for the Atonement to assure the believer, but does not give a complete explanation. Salvation is not simply a process of payment and repayment, but a shining example of God’s grace. Anselm does acknowledge God’s mercy and compassion, but his main foundation for the incarnation and atonement is that a debt of honour is owed by mankind. He avoids describing Christ’s life, and that tells us that he is not so concerned with God’s humble nature as with his sovereignty. What does the Bible say about the Incarnation? John 3:16, a central verse in our faith, tells us: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
1 All subsequent references to Cur Deus Homo will be abbreviated CDH.
2 Oswald Chambers, Biblical Ethics, p. 53
3 Anselm, Monologium, Preface
St. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, written at the end of the 11th century, attempts to explain why Christ came down to earth in the form of a man, denoted by it’s title – “Why God-Man?” Unbelievers in Anselm’s time had been raising objections to the central principles of the Christian faith, and were seeking to prove that Christianity was ridiculous by showing that Christ endured many things that seemingly belittled Deity. For example, he was raised by lowly humans and was subjected to bodily injury. They said, “If you say that God, who, as you believe, created the universe by a word, could not do all these things, you contradict yourselves, for you make Him powerless”(Cur Deus Homo, 1.1).1 Anselm seeks to dispel these arguments, in a dialogue with him and his student Boso, while reassuring the Christian body of the soundness of their faith. He tries to prove all this by reason alone, as stated in his introduction, “not for the sake of attaining to faith by means of reason, but that they [Christians] may be gladdened by understanding”(CDH, 1.6). In contrast to many theologians, he deliberately avoids using Scriptural proofs. This could lead to dangerous conclusions if the foundations of his reasoning are not entirely accurate. This paper will examine all the different facets of his proofs to find out if they adequately explain the incarnation, and will discover if his use of reason alone in opposition to a Biblical approach really does bolster his argument.
To begin with, his basic premise is this: Man has been “made holy by God, in order to be happy in enjoying Him” (CDH, 2.1). Man owes God everything that he has and everything that he is, even without the burden of sin. However, man has sinned, violating God’s honour. God could not suffer this to continue, and so a price has to be paid by man for sin. Yet the penalty for even the smallest sin against God could not be paid even with an offering of the entire universe. So the only way of restoring God’s honour as it relates to the world is death for all mankind. Yet it is not fitting for God’s original plan for mankind – being happy in enjoying Him – to utterly fail. Therefore the debt must be paid. Only God can pay the price, and only man ought to pay the price, since it was man that committed the sin. The only solution is for the Father’s own son, the Word, to become a man – a “God-man”. This He does freely, without compulsion. By taking upon himself the undeserved penalty of death, he deserves a reward from his Father. But since the Son needs nothing, God bestows the reward of salvation upon whomever Christ chooses – and that is mankind.
This seems like a complete explanation of the incarnation until one thinks of the other grounds the Bible gives. Scripture tells us that Christ’s death was an offering like the lambs in the Old Testament whose sacrifice purged people of impurity. “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”(Heb. 10:10). Jesus’ taking upon Himself the sins of the world was a direct means to salvation, not so much a circuitous means to the gift of life, which is what Anselm says. Another aspect of the incarnation that Anselm fails to mention is that Christ’s sacrifice was a victory in the war between Him and Satan. By being resurrected from the dead, Jesus triumphed over death, which had previously held the world in subjection. “…Through death he [Jesus] might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14). So one of the reasons Christ came down was so that He might defeat death, in order to restore God’s purpose for mankind.
Yet exactly what proofs does Anselm use? Many times, he says that it would not be fitting for God to do such a thing. This is shaky ground to base proofs upon, because it can be considered a moot point as to what is actually fitting for God. He says, “…If God desires a thing, it is right that He should desire that which involves no unfitness” (CDH, 1.12). An example of this is when Anselm explains the human origins of Christ. “If it was a virgin who brought all evil upon the human race, it is much more appropriate that a virgin should be the occasion of all good”(CDH, 2.8). He holds that there should be no “unfitness” in God’s realm. But why should unfitness be the ruling factor in his arguments? And even if one agrees with this principle, are his assumptions about what is and is not unfitting the right ones? There are many tacit presuppositions made like this that he expects the reader to agree with, like his gullible student Boso. However, he does not discuss or prove these assumptions. Therein lies a weakness of his book.
To fully understand Cur Deus Homo, we must be aware of the factors behind his proofs. Anselm’s book is filled with assumptions reflecting his time and his own predetermined beliefs about the world. He lived in a feudal world where the lord of an estate had absolute authority over his subordinates. The serfs tilled the land for the lord and owed him their submission since they were born. According to Anselm, we owe God his due, which is our all. Anselm asks, “what payment do we make to God for our sin?” Boso says, “repentance, a broken and contrite heart, self-denial, various bodily sufferings, pity in giving and forgiving, and obedience”(CDH, 1.20). But Anselm replies that we owe those things irrespective of sin. Something greater is needed to pay for sin, and that is death. Likewise in the feudal estate the station of the one offended determined the penalty of the crime, the penalty of offence against the master being exceedingly great. Stealing apples from the farmer’s house would give a young rascal a good box around the ears, but pillaging the master’s pantry would put him in the pillory. Likewise, Anselm holds that even the slightest look against the will of God is worse than anything else in the world, because of who it is committed against (CDH, 1.21). While this holds true for offences against God, the principle is problematic because it measures the offence according to the rank of the person offended rather than the intention of the offender.
Another assumption that Anselm has is the view that the universe is ordered in symmetry, and that no inconsistencies can appear, lest God seem to be changeable. All throughout Cur Deus Homo we see this assumption. In a large digression possibly inspired by some of Augustine’s writings, Anselm tries to show that there can only be a limited number of elect in the universe, making up a “perfect number” with the angels. The number of the elect would restore that number taken away by the fallen angels. God wills that this would be so; it would be “unseemly” for Him to allow it otherwise. But Anselm, in this passage, does not follow up with its implications. If God wills that only some would go to Heaven, it would follow that God would will others not to go to Heaven. In that conclusion Anselm clashes with Scripture, for “God our Saviour…wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth”(1 Timothy 2:3-4). It is like an unintended reductio ad absurdum, having the first assumption proved erroneous by the inevitable conclusion that contradicts Scripture, that first assumption being that the universe is perfect in its symmetry. It makes the basis of election the need for mathematical perfection in the universe. Oswald Chambers once said: “The basis of things is not rational, it is tragic; there is something wrong at the heart of life that reason cannot account for”.2 From Satan’s deception of mankind that tragedy was spawned, and sin in the heart of life is that which reason cannot explain.
However, if reason is in the beginning based on the inerrant Word, it cannot fail to speak truth. One of the reasons Anselm avoids scripture is so that “nothing in Scripture might be urged on the authority of Scripture itself”.3 This may be a valid point, seeing as those unbelievers who had been attacking the Faith would in no wise accept an argument based solely on Scripture. By simple reasoning Anselm could form a convincing argument on the unbelievers’ own terms. But what is our faith for but to exercise it in everything we do? If those sceptics were so adamant against the Faith, they would not have accepted it regardless of what Anselm would say. As for Anselm’s objective of giving his fellow believers understanding in the faith, his achieving it by means of Reason alone seems to be contrary to the purpose of educating people in the faith. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) The Bible contains all that we need to know about God and what He has done. There is precious little reason why it should be avoided so.
In the end, Anselm provides reasons enough for the Atonement to assure the believer, but does not give a complete explanation. Salvation is not simply a process of payment and repayment, but a shining example of God’s grace. Anselm does acknowledge God’s mercy and compassion, but his main foundation for the incarnation and atonement is that a debt of honour is owed by mankind. He avoids describing Christ’s life, and that tells us that he is not so concerned with God’s humble nature as with his sovereignty. What does the Bible say about the Incarnation? John 3:16, a central verse in our faith, tells us: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
1 All subsequent references to Cur Deus Homo will be abbreviated CDH.
2 Oswald Chambers, Biblical Ethics, p. 53
3 Anselm, Monologium, Preface
