The Proslogion

[WillT]

I just covered the ontological argument in a philosophy class in which we read selections from the Proslogion. By complete accident I came accross a copy of "Anselm's Major Works" in a bookstore and bought it because I liked the selections from class so much. So my question would be: are there more arguments etc. in the Proslogion, or should I just start on some of the others? Also, is anyone here familiar enough with St. Anselm's philosophy that I could bounce some ideas around with them while I'm reading?

[rkwright]

Jeff has helped me a great deal in my understanding of St. Anselm, if I were you I'd just post questions as the come up. If you search some of my older topics we discussed things like Anselm's response to the problem of evil, free will, and sin.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Wait until Jeff sniffs out this thread!

[N/A Gone]

hehe...

Jeff?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Mwahahaha...er *cough cough* I'd be happy to help you study Anselm....

But seriously, to help answer your question it is important to understand the [i]Prosologion[/i] in relation to Anselm's other works, primarily the [i]Monologion[/i]. As Anselm himself explains, in the [i]Monologio[/i]n he set about to show that God is as we Christians truly claim Him to be. He uses a number of different arguments there in order to show not only that God exists, but also that God is everywhere and nowhere, always and never, etc etc. In the [i]Prosologion[/i] Anselm does substantially the same thing that he did in the [i]Monologion[/i], but this time, he proves all of these things from one single argument, rather than from a number of arguments linked together in a chain, as it were. This single argument is often considered to be the "ontological argument" however properly understood it is much, much more than that. The ontological argument is only the first phase of a single insight that unfolds itself throughout the entirety of the [i]Prosologion[/i].

One of the fantastic things about reading Anselm is that, unlike Augustine and many other Christian thinkers, his entire body of thought forms a coherent and self-consistent whole. He never had to issue any "Retractions" on his earlier thought, and the ideas developed in one work are seen to be powerfully and meaningfully present in his other works as well. The idea of "truth" that he develops in [i]De Veritate[/i] is integral to the subsequent [i]De Libertate Arbitri[/i] and [i]De Casu Diaboli[/i].

Anyways, yes, I would be absolutely willing to help you work through different questions as they come up in your reading. Feel free to post them on this thread if you like and I will try to respond in a timely and thorough manner.

Your Brother in Christ,

Jeff

[Paddington]

Jeff,

I've got a question bouncing around in my head.

WELL, did he or didn't he believe in substitutionary penal atonement?

And, if you could, what are Catholics supposed to believe about it?

Paddington

[WillT]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1193921' date='Feb 13 2007, 05:01 PM']
Mwahahaha...er *cough cough* I'd be happy to help you study Anselm....

But seriously, to help answer your question it is important to understand the [i]Prosologion[/i] in relation to Anselm's other works, primarily the [i]Monologion[/i]. As Anselm himself explains, in the [i]Monologio[/i]n he set about to show that God is as we Christians truly claim Him to be. He uses a number of different arguments there in order to show not only that God exists, but also that God is everywhere and nowhere, always and never, etc etc. In the [i]Prosologion[/i] Anselm does substantially the same thing that he did in the [i]Monologion[/i], but this time, he proves all of these things from one single argument, rather than from a number of arguments linked together in a chain, as it were. This single argument is often considered to be the "ontological argument" however properly understood it is much, much more than that. The ontological argument is only the first phase of a single insight that unfolds itself throughout the entirety of the [i]Prosologion[/i].

One of the fantastic things about reading Anselm is that, unlike Augustine and many other Christian thinkers, his entire body of thought forms a coherent and self-consistent whole. He never had to issue any "Retractions" on his earlier thought, and the ideas developed in one work are seen to be powerfully and meaningfully present in his other works as well. The idea of "truth" that he develops in [i]De Veritate[/i] is integral to the subsequent [i]De Libertate Arbitri[/i] and [i]De Casu Diaboli[/i].

Anyways, yes, I would be absolutely willing to help you work through different questions as they come up in your reading. Feel free to post them on this thread if you like and I will try to respond in a timely and thorough manner.

Your Brother in Christ,

Jeff
[/quote]

Sounds great! I appreciate your willingness to help out! I hope to start reading on it over the weekend when I have a little more free time.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1194413' date='Feb 14 2007, 12:15 AM']
Jeff,

I've got a question bouncing around in my head.

WELL, did he or didn't he believe in substitutionary penal atonement?

And, if you could, what are Catholics supposed to believe about it?

Paddington
[/quote]

Anselm's theory of satisfaction is often misrepresented and misunderstood. His major soteriological work, and one of the most important soteriological texts in the Christian tradition, is his [i]Cur Deus Homo[/i] or [i]Why God Became Man[/i].

Let me start off by saying what Anselm's soteriology is not. It is not a satisfaction theory that makes the Father extract a blood-debt from mankind. It is not a satisfaction theory that locates the merit of Christ exlusively in his suffering. It is not a satisfaction theory in the sense that [i]someone[/i] must be punished, and it ends up being Christ instead of us.

Rather, Anselm phrases the problem in different terms. First, he recognizes that God created man in a state of original justice, that this state consisted in our uprightness before God, and that in the Fall man lost that uprightness. He then recognizes that because God is our Creator and our Happiness we owed it to God to keep that uprightness, and in failing to keep it we did not give to God what we owed to Him. From here, Anselm argues that whenever something that is owed is not given, there are two options. The one who owes either returns what he owes, or he is punished in proporition to what was owed. Now because man's sin was against the Infinite God, his punishment must also be infinite. Moreover, because man no longer possesses the uprightness that he owed to God, he cannot return to God what he owed.

Now, from this catch 22 Anselm moves to an analysis of God's Divine Nature. He is both Perfect Justice and Perfect Mercy. These are not contrary, and their coexistence is such that, whenever possible, God will refrain from punishing. Now in this situation, the only way for God [i]not[/i] to punish man while simultaneously retaining Perfect Justice would be for man to give to God what was owed. On his own, man cannot do this. But God cannot simply forgive the debt, because what is owed is [i]man[/i] keeping uprightness with God. The only answer is for God Himself to become man. As the God-Man, Christ is entirely upright because he is God and entirely man as well. Thus, it is Christ's entire life that is salvific, not merely his Passion and Death. Every moment of Christ's life is a moment in the entire life of a man who gave to God what was owed him: a life filled with uprightness and goodness and communion with God.

Christ's passion and death are important because they mark the final crowning of a perfect life, and they show the absolutely limitless depth of God's love for us. If Christ had denied that he was God, he could have saved himself, but in order to be "obedient to death, even death on a cross" he did not deny his divinity. Not even death could cause Christ to let go of his uprightness before the Father.

Thus, by binding ourselves to Christ, by letting Christ live in us and our living in Him, we are also able to render to God what we owe him, namely, a life full of uprightness. This is the miracle of salvation in Anselm's eyes.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Paddington]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1195025' date='Feb 14 2007, 05:51 PM']
But God cannot simply forgive the debt, [/quote]

Thanks Jeff.

In the quoted part, is that for sure the Catholic view?
I understand that you want to get across that Christ's whole life and resurrection are also part of the atonement. I know that is very important.
I quoted that one sentence, because I think that is perhaps people's problem with Anselm. Is my guess correct? Is it justified to disagree on 'can not' ? Or to think that it is important?

Peace,
Paddington

[Guest JeffCR07]

well I think the first thing to point out is that you might be hunting the snark here. There's no such thing as a "for sure Catholic view." There are orthodox views and heterodox views, but there is no one single Catholic soteriology. This having been pointed out, there are many orthodox Catholic theologians, including Aquinas, who think that God could have effected our salvation in other ways, but I am personally inclined to disagree.

The reason that Anselm argues that God [i]cannot[/i] forgive the debt that we owe is because of the principle that he established beforehand. When a debt is owed, there are only two ways to satisfy Perfect Justice: what is owed can be returned to the own to whom it is owed, or the one who does not return what is owed can be punished. Hell is the second option in our case, while man giving to God the uprightness that he owes Him is the first. If God were to simply forgive the debt, this would be mercy without justice.

Because God is both Perfect Mercy and Perfect Justice, Anselm maintains (as would I) that any attempt to conceive of God enacting our salvation in another manner is an attempt to conceive of God as being less than perfect.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[WillT]

Just trying not to lose track of the thread.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1194413' date='Feb 13 2007, 11:15 PM']Jeff,

I've got a question bouncing around in my head.

WELL, did he or didn't he believe in substitutionary penal atonement?

And, if you could, what are Catholics supposed to believe about it?

Paddington[/quote]


Jeff, great job answering that. I had issues of this in my christology class where people were confused on it.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1205620' date='Feb 27 2007, 10:59 PM']Jeff, great job answering that. I had issues of this in my christology class where people were confused on it.[/quote]

Thanks a lot, rev. Its really easy for people to get mixed up on that one, so don't be too hard on your classmates The problem is that there have been so many people who came after Anselm and used similar lines of argument to push a really brutal, seemingly even vengeful soteriology that those have been styled "anselmian" and his soteriology starts getting read in the light of that later stuff. Also, he does use a lot of feudal imagery that may sound harsh or rigid to a modern reader and so the jump might seem more reasonable.

But that's why I'm here, to set the record straight!