Again, in the second book, likewise, as if nothing were known of Christ, it is moreover shown by plain reasoning and fact that human nature was ordained for this purpose, viz., that every man should enjoy a happy immortality, both in body and in soul; and that it was necessary that this design for which man was made should be fulfilled; but that it could not be fulfilled unless God became man, and unless all things were to take place which we hold with regard to Christ.
"Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas and all their pupils ... consider God as being chained by a superior force, by a gloomy and implacable Necessity like the one which governed the pagan gods. This Necessity obliges Him to return evil for evil and does not permit Him to pardon and to forget the evil done against His will, unless an infinite satisfaction is offered to Him.
"It is in this context of Necessity, which even gods obey, that we must understand the Western juridical conception of God’s justice. It was necessary for God to punish man’s disobedience. It was impossible for Him to pardon; a superior Necessity demanded vengeance. Even if God was in reality good and loving, He was not able to act lovingly. He was obliged to act contrary to His love; the only thing He could do, in order to save humanity, was to punish His Son in the place of men, and by this means was Necessity satisfied. This is the triumph of Hellenistic thought in Christianity."
Michael, I appreciate the spirit with which you presented this comment, not to debate but to share and enlighten. I hope my thoughts come across in a similar way.
My primary purpose of presenting Anselm’s work was in order to offer an argument for why Jesus was not only man and not only God, but God and man. Yes, this inherently meant, through Anselm, a view of the work on the cross; but this was not my primary purpose. With that said, I did open the door…
I appreciate the condemnation of Anselm’s view, but I found no positive alternative interpretation of why God died on the cross in this link. I am certain there are other interpretations, I also have no problem believing more than one can be valid. But nothing here.
To paraphrase CS Lewis: somehow, Christ’s death makes us right with God. This is sufficient for me, because I know that “somehow” it did. I don’t anticipate being tested on this topic as a condition of entering Paradise.
As to God acting from necessity, the language I use is God acting according to the nature of His being and according to the order of His creation. He acts this way necessarily, not because He is subordinate to another, but He acts according to His perfect will in creation. I don’t see how He could act otherwise else He would be arbitrary and changing (He is not, of course).
The end result or conclusion of these two wordings is the same, but my wording, I believe, recognizes the consistency of God and the perfection of the order He created.
I have other thoughts on the attached piece, but these are outside of the subject of your comments.
I am glad you understood the spirit in which the comment was intended! I am not qualified to debate finer points of theology, and I also don't think our Lord will test us on them when we appear before Him. But I found the Kalomiros piece valuable as the first explanation that ever made any sense to me of how there can be hell if God is love, that as Fr. Stephen Freeman writes at https://glory2godforallthings.com/2009/01/15/gods-wrath/, "We may place ourselves in such a position that even the love of God seems to us as fire or wrath." So I wanted to draw your attention to it for whatever value you might find in it.
Thank you for your blogs, I always find them worthwhile reading.
Thank you, Michael. I find so much value in all Christian traditions; it surprises me how often we see adherents of one tradition or denomination dump on another instead of finding gems that can enhance understanding. So I do appreciate the link and your feedback.
I will offer two other reasons why Jesus had to be born of a woman. First, he had to be born in the lineage of David according to a promise given in 2 Samuel 7. Second, sin is inherited from Adam not Eve according to Romans 5. So Jesus could be born within a human family while not inheriting sin from Adam by being conceived by the Holy Spirit in a human woman.
I really like how Anselm uses the idea of honor being owed to God to explain what kind of sacrifice was needed to pay for the sins of the world. RMB
I also appreciated Anselm's idea. It need not exhaust all possibilities, but it is a strong argument - and in my limited understanding I find no reason to disapprove of it theologically.
For a point of contrast, in his "The River of Fire" (https://glory2godforallthings.com/the-river-of-fire-kalomiros/ ) the late Eastern Orthodox theologian Alexandre Kalomiros was unsympathetic (to put it mildly) to Anselm's viewpoint:
"Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas and all their pupils ... consider God as being chained by a superior force, by a gloomy and implacable Necessity like the one which governed the pagan gods. This Necessity obliges Him to return evil for evil and does not permit Him to pardon and to forget the evil done against His will, unless an infinite satisfaction is offered to Him.
"It is in this context of Necessity, which even gods obey, that we must understand the Western juridical conception of God’s justice. It was necessary for God to punish man’s disobedience. It was impossible for Him to pardon; a superior Necessity demanded vengeance. Even if God was in reality good and loving, He was not able to act lovingly. He was obliged to act contrary to His love; the only thing He could do, in order to save humanity, was to punish His Son in the place of men, and by this means was Necessity satisfied. This is the triumph of Hellenistic thought in Christianity."
Michael, I appreciate the spirit with which you presented this comment, not to debate but to share and enlighten. I hope my thoughts come across in a similar way.
My primary purpose of presenting Anselm’s work was in order to offer an argument for why Jesus was not only man and not only God, but God and man. Yes, this inherently meant, through Anselm, a view of the work on the cross; but this was not my primary purpose. With that said, I did open the door…
I appreciate the condemnation of Anselm’s view, but I found no positive alternative interpretation of why God died on the cross in this link. I am certain there are other interpretations, I also have no problem believing more than one can be valid. But nothing here.
To paraphrase CS Lewis: somehow, Christ’s death makes us right with God. This is sufficient for me, because I know that “somehow” it did. I don’t anticipate being tested on this topic as a condition of entering Paradise.
As to God acting from necessity, the language I use is God acting according to the nature of His being and according to the order of His creation. He acts this way necessarily, not because He is subordinate to another, but He acts according to His perfect will in creation. I don’t see how He could act otherwise else He would be arbitrary and changing (He is not, of course).
The end result or conclusion of these two wordings is the same, but my wording, I believe, recognizes the consistency of God and the perfection of the order He created.
I have other thoughts on the attached piece, but these are outside of the subject of your comments.
I am glad you understood the spirit in which the comment was intended! I am not qualified to debate finer points of theology, and I also don't think our Lord will test us on them when we appear before Him. But I found the Kalomiros piece valuable as the first explanation that ever made any sense to me of how there can be hell if God is love, that as Fr. Stephen Freeman writes at https://glory2godforallthings.com/2009/01/15/gods-wrath/, "We may place ourselves in such a position that even the love of God seems to us as fire or wrath." So I wanted to draw your attention to it for whatever value you might find in it.
Thank you for your blogs, I always find them worthwhile reading.
Thank you, Michael. I find so much value in all Christian traditions; it surprises me how often we see adherents of one tradition or denomination dump on another instead of finding gems that can enhance understanding. So I do appreciate the link and your feedback.
I will offer two other reasons why Jesus had to be born of a woman. First, he had to be born in the lineage of David according to a promise given in 2 Samuel 7. Second, sin is inherited from Adam not Eve according to Romans 5. So Jesus could be born within a human family while not inheriting sin from Adam by being conceived by the Holy Spirit in a human woman.
I really like how Anselm uses the idea of honor being owed to God to explain what kind of sacrifice was needed to pay for the sins of the world. RMB
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/
I also appreciated Anselm's idea. It need not exhaust all possibilities, but it is a strong argument - and in my limited understanding I find no reason to disapprove of it theologically.