Celebrating Cur Deus Homo – Part III: Anselm’s Trinitarian foundation

   As well aic-sd275-icon-holy-trinity-holy-alexander-svirsks Chalcedonion Christology (cf. Part II), the Trinity plays a central role in Anselm’s exposition of the Atonement. In fact without the Trinity Anselm’s understanding of the Atonement will be rendered invalid. Anselm is a passionate advocated of the Triune God, be it his understanding of soteriology, creation or anthropology, they are all governed by his appreciation of the Trinity.

   In Cur Deus Homo, Anselm reiterates the classic view that the work of one of the divine  persons belongs to the three Trinitarian persons.[1] Due to the Turin nature of God, through the Incarnation, the divine Son, being different from the Father, offers himself to the self-same divinity of the Father and the Holy Spirit, hence the offering he makes is an offering made to his own honour – the three persons.[2] In fact, with out plurality in oneness Anselm’s soteriology will simply collapse. A singular monad, precisely because it/he is singular, cannot offer to it/himself the necessary offering discussed in Part I. However, since God is Trinity, plurality of persons in unity and oneness of nature, the Son can make an offering to the Father. The one divine nature that the Son shares with the Father and the Spirit is the factor value of the ransom required by God; hence the divinity of the Son is the perfect match for the magnitude of the recompose required by God of humankind. [3]

     To Anselm the particularity of the Son determines the unique nature and character of   the content of salvation. Anselm pays a particular attention to the particularity of the Son as the fitting person who should assume human nature; the Incarnation was uniquely suited to be the mission of the Son, rather than the Father or the Spirit. For if the Spirit was to be incarnate, Anselm argues, then there were going to be two sons, one human the other divine. Likewise, if the Father was to be incarnate, as well as two sons, there were going to be two grandsons. I.e. the Father would have been the grandson of the parents of Mary, and the Word would become the grandson of Mary, for he will be the son of here son.[4]This argument may seem strange to 21st century ears, but as bizarre as it is, it does reveals two important features of the importance of the Trinity in Anselm’s soteriological thought:

   Firstly, it emphasises the importance of the concept of union. I.e. in salvation, through Christ, humanity is brought into union with God, to share in the divine life, which consequently re-establishes human life. At times, Anselm is criticised for not taking into account the key patristic notion of theosis. [5] The criticism to a certain extent is justified, for Anselm is very much at home with the Augustinian concept of Original Sin resulting from the Fall, hence his soteriology is more of a looking back with a focus on reparation of the human condition and restoration to per-fall condition. However, because of the Incarnation, as well as mainly looking back, Anselm is also looking forward. For, due to the Son’s assumption of human nature, the man Jesus has a permanent place in the life of the Trinity. The existence of the new man on the heavenly throne secures a future for humanity, as Deme argues, for Anselm, ‘The incarnation is the proof of the existence of redeemed humanity, and therefore the proof of man’s existence’.[6]As Anselm, when considering the Cross, puts it ‘in the Incarnation of God…no humiliation of God came about: rather…the human nature was exulted.’[7] Here, though resurrection and theosis is not explicitly mentioned, nevertheless, implicitly, Anselm’s belief amounts to similar outcome.

   Secondly, and this is important for modern Trinitarian discussions, Anselm takes the Trinitarian titles, Father, Son and Spirit, with utmost seriousness. The names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not mere empty symbolic titles, a simple means of communication  with no real substance to them. To Anselm, the names are what they suggest, the persons are  truly and eternally Father, Son and Spirit. Anselm is not threaten by a God who is Father, Son and Spirit; the concrete identity of the Turin persons does not pose andy threat to the value and identity of human beings. As we saw above, when thinking of the Incarnation, it is precisely the Son’s Son-ness that renders him suitable to assume human nature. It is because he is the Son of God by nature he can give us to be sons/children by adoption. this means that the content of salvation entails more than forgiveness, to include the gift of being indwelled by the Son’s Spirit and to be given the privilege of calling his Abba our Abba. This being the case, we can conclude that without God’s Truin identity Anselm’s soteriology falls apart. To be continued…

[1] As early as second century it was understood that the Father works through the Son by the Spirit, cf. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, On Apostolic Preaching, I. 5, the same is argues by Augustine in fifth century cf. Augustine, On the Trinity, XIII 4.

[2] Cf. CDH. II. 18.

[3] Cf. Deme Daniel, The Christology of Anselm of Canterbury, pp.104-105.

[4] Cf. CDH. II. 9.

[5] Cf. O’Collins, SJ Gerald, Jesus our Redeemer: A Christian approach to Salvation, p.134-140.

[6] Cf. Deme, ibid, p.182.

[7] CDH. II. 7.


Celebrating Cur Deus Homo – Part II: Anselm’s use of Chalcedonian Christology

    Jesus Christ is the God-Man who is fit to be humanity’s saviour. He is able to pay the debt, to make the satisfactory recompose required by God on behalf of humanity. For he alone inhabits all the criteria discussed in Part I.

  Chalcedon’s ‘two natures – one person’, offers Anselm the perfect ingredients to explain Christ as the God-Man who can atone for humanity’s sin. Anselm writes, ‘The Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, one person in two natures and two natures in one person.’[1] Anselm is careful to argue that this does not amount to mixture of the two natures, for that will produce a third being, which would be unfit for purpose. In the Incarnation both natures were fully present, neither the human nature was swallowed by the divine nor the divine by the human. There is a complete and harmonious unity between the two natures;[2] both natures were properly intact, fit for purpose.[3] Likewise, Anselm carefully steers away from the language of conjoined, i.e. man and God  co-existing side by side in the Nestorian sense.[4] Rather, they are combined, in the Cyrillian sense,[5] as a whole, ‘in the same way as the body and soul cleave coalesce into one human being’.[6]

   Christ’s connection to Adam is established through the Virgin Mary.[7] Though of the race of Adam, Jesus did not share Adam’s sin. Rather, being divine, the Son possesses independent righteousness – righteousness per excellence. Consequently by virtue of the union, the human nature possesses the same righteousness as that of the divine.[8]  It is clear that, for Anselm the divine Son is the centre of gravity of Jesus Christ.[9] The Son’s assumption of human flesh did no limit the Son, rather his assumed flesh was freed to perform what fallen human cannot naturally perform. Looking to attributes Anselm argues, though assuming human nature, the Son was not caged by human attributes which are not compatible with divine attributes. For example, the incarnate Son unlike other human beings is not ignorant, for ignorance is incompatible with the one who possesses immeasurable wisdom. His wisdom, all knowingness, was essential to the purpose of his incarnation. Without wisdom it is not possible to tell good from evil, hence while Jesus may have appeared ignorant, he possessed all wisdom.[10]

   The perfect union of the two natures and the uprightness of Christ, made Jesus the first man who succeeded in offering voluntary obedience to God.[11] In Jesus’ submission to God, Anselm sees Christ’s two wills in communication. As a ‘particular man Christ owed his obedience to God his Father, and his humanity owed it to his divinity.’[12] In other words, just as God the Son, willingly and freely, renders obedience to his Father, so does the human nature to the divine.[13] However, despite his succession in living in total obedience, what saved humanity was not his submission to God but his death on the Cross. For since obedience is something God requires of all human beings, Christ was not able to offer his obedience and righteousness as a ransom to the Father. This is not to say, obedience did not play part in redemption. For obedience, Anselm argues, consolidated Jesus immortality, making Christ the first man who did not have to taste death; the first man who placed himself beyond death reach. This means Christ was not obliged to die, nor was the Father going to make such demand of him.

  The Cross was a free choice. As the divine Son Jesus is omnipotent, hence it was within his capacity to freely choose to undergo death.[14] This being the case, Christ, both as a human and divine freely offers his life to God. As the representative of humanity, Christ  offers his life to God on humanity’s behalf. As God the Son, his magnitude matches the value of the ransom required by God. Hence Christ, the God-Man offers the perfect satisfactory ransom on humanities behalf.[15] This offering results in liberating humanity from sin, making eternal life in the presence of God a sure destiny of the redeemed. For, what is true of the Incarnate Son of God, is now also true of us. As the divine nature liberated the human nature in the the person of Christ, in the same way the Incarnate and Crucified Chris liberates humanity from death and decay, investing mankind with immortality. As Anselm puts it, by assuming flesh and suffering ‘no humiliation of God came about: rather it is believed that human nature was exalted’.[16] Click here for Part III

[1] CDH. I. 8.

[2] As Letham  puts it, ‘In Christ…the same being who is human is also divine. The Word assumed a human nature not a human person’. Letham Robert, The Holy Trinity, in Scripture, history, theology, and worship, p. 223.

[3] CDH. II. 7.

[4] For an example of Nestorius’ conjoined language, cf. Nestorius’s first sermon against the Theotokos, in, Norris, Jr. Richard, The Christological Controversy, p.125

[5] Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, Second letter to Nestorius. 3, and, Third letter to Nestorius. 4.  

[6] CDH. II.7.

[7] As far as Anselm is concerned, there is no rational explanation for Chris’s unique situation, who while of the race of Adam, yet he does not inherit Adam’s sin, he simply calls it a miracle. cf. CDH. II. 16.

[8] Cf. CDH. II. 10.

[9] As Letham puts it, for Anselm, ‘In Christ, the divine being is not one individual and the human being another, for the same being who is human is also divine. The Word assumed a human nature, not a human person.’ Letham Robert, The Holy Trinity, In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship, p. 223.

[10] Cf. CDH. II. 11 – 13.

[11] Cf. CDH I. 9; II. 11.

[12] ibid.

[13] ibid.

[14] cf. CDH. II. 11.

[15] Cf. CDH. II. 11, 13.

[16] Cf. CDH. I. 8.

Celebrating St. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo – Part I

hp_st_anselm_4_21_10    ‘Teach me to seek You, and reveal yourself to me as I seek, because I can neither seek You if You do not teach me how, nor find You unless You reveal Yourself. Let me seek You in desiring You; let me desire You in seeking You; let me find You in loving You; let me love You in finding You.’[1]

   St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109), whose feast day the Church celebrates on April 21st, is arguably one of the greatest theologians of medieval Christianity. While at times criticised for favouring philosophical speculation over Scripture and theology, his writings contradicts such criticisms.[2] As the above quotation shows, Anselm had a deep thirst for God; his prayers indicate a convection
that humanity’s fulfilment lies in the knowledge and participation of the divine. To Anselm theological inquiry went beyond the limits of mere rationality to involve the whole of the human person. God, who lives in unapproachable light, is not an object awaiting human inquiry, rather He is found when, and where he chooses to reveal himself. And of course, the when and where of divine revelation is actualised in God’s Son – Jesus Christ – Incarnate and Crucified.
In a series of four posts I seek to explore Anselm’s most influential work Cur Deus Homo (Why God-Man?).[3] As well as giving a brief account of Cur Deus Homo, I seek to explore the character of Anselm’s Christology, his Trinitarian theology and its relevant for us today, and end with an evaluation of his Soteriology.

Cur Deus Homo

    In many ways the Cur Deus Homo can be compared to St. Athanasius’ De Incarnatione, both works aim to write an apologetic for the necessity of the Incarnation and Crucifixion for Salvation of humanity. Anselm hopes to make the case for the logical necessity of the Incarnation – that, even without the Gospel narrative, logic itself persuades us of the need for a God-Man to save humanity from sin and death. The book is framed as a dialogue between Anselm, and Boso, who though a Christian, asks questions on behalf of non-Christians.
Starting with humanity, Anselm arguers, humankind is God’s ‘most precious piece of workmanship’[4], created as innocent righteous beings. As God’s creatures Adam and Eve were required to maintain their righteousness and ‘absolute obedience to God’.[5] Their willing obedience to God would have served a twofold purpose: first, obedience was a mark of acknowledgement of their indebtedness to God, rendering the honour due to him as their creator.[6] Second, obedience was the means by which humanity could have preserved their happiness in the presence of God, and consolidate their lodging in immortality; placing mankind beyond the grasp of corruption and death.[7]
However, because of sin humanity lost their immortal place, making death a deserved divine punishment. Furthermore, sin: means taking what belongs to God and rendering it to the Devil.[8] Humanity has committed a theft and the result is the loss of their original state, hence they will not be re-incorporated into their original state till they pay back -in full- the debt[9] owed to God.[10]
The Fall, places humanity in an impossible situation, for humans are not able to pay what they owe God. Boso sums humanity’s post-Fall situation as follows: ‘man owes to God for his sin something which he is incapable of paying back, and cannot be saved unless he pays it.’[11] The person humans have wronged measures the debt – in this case God.[12] Hence the payment needs to measure up to God’s magnitude, in other words as finite creatures, humanity is required to provide a satisfactory payment, with infinite value;[13] the worth of the payment needs to be ‘greater than everything that exists apart from God.’[14] Given the inability of humanity to make recompense, God will punish humanity, subjecting them to submit their will through torment.[15] For as Deme puts it,  man’s ‘Sin is not just an active opposing of God’s will, but also a self-inflicting impossibility’,[16] one they cannot break free from.

The need for God-Man     

   The scale of the debt due to God, and humanity’s barrenness in meeting the demand, prepares the ground for the Incarnation and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Anselm draws a list of criterion, which needs to be present in the person who can qualify to meet the divine satisfaction. Firstly, he needs to be fully human. Only a human can represent humanity, since the fall came through Adam, the solution also needs to come from the race of Adam.[17] Secondly, the person must be God. For humanity will be forever indebted, owing their future standing to the person who comes to their rescue.[18] This is not just a standing in gratitude, but an acceptance of lordship. For since man cannot be his/her own lord, man needs to have either God or the Devil for their Lord. Hence, whoever saves humanity will become their ruler. This being the case, neither a mere man nor an angel can become humankind’s saviour.[19] Thirdly, the representative’s value of the recompense needs to be a match to the divine value; ‘someone who can give to God from his own property something which exceeds everything which is inferior to God, must himself be superior to everything that exists apart from God.’[20] Taking these three criterions into account, logically, Anselm concludes, since there is no one greater than God, the saviour of mankind must be God himself.[21] In other words, the person who will come to humankind’s rescue needs to be God-Man. In short, if humans are to be saved then the debt must be 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.’[22] Click here for Part II

[1]Proslogion 1.

[2] For exampleCur Deus Homo, Anselm wrestles with a number of Scriptural texts and works within a Chalcedonian framework. Of course, one can critic his scriptural and theological conclusion (as we shall do), but one should restrain from calling him unscriptural simply on the grounds of difference of interpretation.

[3] Usually translated as Why God became Man?

[4] CDH. I.4.

[5] Cf. CDH. I.10, 24; II.11.

[6] Cf.CDH. II 11.

[7] Cf. CDH. I.24; II.2.

[8] Cf. CDH. I.22-23; II.11.

[9] Cf. CDH I. 10, 23.

[10] By and large Anselm works within an Augustinian framework, however, at this point he diverges from Augustin. For in Augustine the ransom needs to be paid to the Devil who enslaves humanity (cf. De Trinitate, XIII 4-5), Anselm argues that the ransom needs to be paid to God.

[11] CDH I.25.

[12] cf. CDH. I. 21.

[13] cf. CDH. II. 11, 14.

[14] CDH. II. 6.

[15] Cf. CDH I. 12.

[16] Deme Daniel, The Christology of Anselm of Canterbury, p.100.

[17] CDH. II. 8.

[18] CDH. II. 8.

[19] CHD I.5.

[20] CDH. II. 6.

[21] Ibid.

[22] ibid.