Anselm and Abelard - Grade: 85 PDF

Preview

Summary

Compare and critically evaluate the accounts of the atonement offered by Anselm and Abelard. Is it possible to reconcile them?...

Description

Compare and critically evaluate the accounts of the atonement offered by Anselm and Abelard. Is it possible to reconcile them? Both Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) and Peter Abelard’s (1079-1142) works concerning atonement present distinctive variations in their ways of thinking. Anselm, through his work in ‘Cur Deus Homo?’ outlines the necessity of the ‘God-Man’ in order to bring about the salvation of humanity. For him, Jesus’ death provides satisfaction for the rectifying of God’s dishonour. In contrast, Abelard outlines an ‘’idealist’’ view of the atonement in which he views the death of Jesus as a demonstration of God’s love which moves sinners to repent and live righteously. In the following essay I will outline both Anselm’s and Abelard’s arguments of the atonement and I will then discuss whether a possible reconciliation between the two differing theories is achievable with references to modern day scholars. To start off, Anselm outlines a view which concerns the topic of atonement, that is both compelling and enlightening, during a period where questions regarding Christ and His purpose appeared to dominate the debates and thinking of the time. Anselm presents a ‘’scholastic’’ outlook of atonement which attempts to depict the logical necessity of Christ’s incarnation by which God was able to bring about the salvation of humankind. Anselm’s theory of atonement is also satisfactory in the sense that he Anselm was determined to answer the question of why someone, that was both fully human and fully divine, had to die for our sins. He argues that the primary reason for the death of Christ was because it was necessary in order to offer satisfaction to God for the debt owed to Him. Christ’s death is outlined as a logical necessity in order to correct the imbalance created by a sinful humanity. Our sins have created this imbalance between God and humanity and 3 ‘disturbs the order and beauty of the universe,’1 as the immense sins in the world ‘dishonors God’ 2 . Anselm outlined that when humans sin, we are spitting in the face of God and whenever we sin, we have an infinite debt to pay as we must offer compensation for the insult to God’s honour. ‘So, then, everyone who sins must repay to God the honour that he has taken away, and this is the satisfaction every sinner ought to make to God.’3 It is pertinent to note that, the debt created by humans is infinite because of the immense degree of the sins and the high status of God. The extensiveness of this debt is outlined by Anselm who states, ‘it is not enough merely to return what was taken away; in view of the insult committed, he must give back more than he took away.’4 As there is an infinite debt to be paid, Anselm notes that the debt can only be reimbursed by spending an eternity in Hell. Anselm further explains that, in the same way for example, where someone injures another’s health, it is not enough to merely help them back to good health without reimbursing the pain and suffering caused too. Similarly, it is not enough for the sinners to restore the initial justice owed, but to also rectify the insult to God’s honour. Anselm puts emphasis on the ‘heavy weight’5 of the sin committed, and states that, ‘you do not make satisfaction unless you repay something greater than that for the sake of which you were obliged to make the sin.’6 In order to rectify this imbalance within the universe, God is aware that there is a necessity for there to be another way for this debt to be paid as God understands that there needs to be another way for this to occur without having His children pay for this debt for eternity. 1 Anselm, ‘Cur Deus homo?’ Book I, (Edinburgh: John Grant, 1909) p.124. 2 Ibid., p.124 3 Ibid., p.119 4 Ibid., p.119 5 Ibid., p.138 6 Ibid., p.139 4 This is a debt that can only be paid by humanity, ‘no one ought to make it except man; otherwise man does not make satisfaction,’ 7 as we are the ones who owe this debt of honour to God. However, Anselm outlines that ‘this cannot be done unless there is someone to pay to God for human sin something greater than everything that exists, except God’8 because humans are incapable of rectifying the dishonour to God because the extent of the dishonour is something humans are incapable to reach anything as high as God’s status. Thus,

‘only a God-Man can make the satisfaction by which man is saved,’9 and Jesus, being both fully human and fully divine, must rectify this dishonour as the debt payer has to be human (because it is a human debt) but would also have to be greater than a human in order to pay the debt on behalf of all humanity. Anselm further highlights that, ‘no one but God can make this satisfaction.’10 Jesus is the face of the atonement as the only one that can pay this debt is God and therefore, Anselm notes that this is the reason as to why Jesus died for our sins. Thus, ‘the heroism of Christ’s self-sacrifice makes satisfaction for the infinite offense of sin, and thus accomplishes the redemption of humanity.’ 11 With all factors of his argument considered, Anselm creates a logical account for the reasoning behind the atonement. The aspect of repayment to God within Anselm’s account of the atonement is criticized heavily. Since this idea was developed from Anselm’s own life in which there was a feudal system, Anselm is limited by his own world view. During the period of Anselm’s life, according to the social norms, it was unbefitting for feudal Lord’s to simply ignore or forgive a debt owed to him by a vassal. This system is what inspired Anselm and is translated within his work on the atonement, we owe debt to our King – God. The problem with this is that the 7 Ibid., p.151 8 Ibid., p.150 9 Ibid., p.150 10 Ibid., p.151 11 Nicholas E. Lombardo, ‘The Father's Will: Christ's Crucifixion and the Goodness of God,’ (OUP Oxford 2013) Chapter 8 5 ideas presented rely upon this backward system of medieval sense of honour and repayment. Some may criticize this on the basis that Anselm allowed medieval concepts of honor to define how God should act. However, I must argue that despite Anselm being limited to his own world view, the account presented does make a lot of sense. Furthermore, Anselm’s account may reduce the influence of God’s love as His account downgrades humans to pawns in a conflict of the ages. God is seen as an unbending ruler who must be satisfied through repayment of some kind. In doing so, the image of God portrayed in Anselm’s argument is one that is concerned only with His honour and justice rather than humanity, this is an aspect that is noted by Abelard which I will discuss further in my essay. The God outlined lacking any emotions or love and this reduces God to being too legalistic and emotionless with the danger of being viewed as being placed on the same level as the devil. Furthermore, the fact that God wills the crucifixion of His Son illustrates an unjust and cruel leader, which is another criticism of Anselm’s argument. In his account, God is portrayed as evil as He may be viewed as feeling delight over Jesus’ death. However, Lombardo rejects this claim and states that Anselm’s reasoning behind God’s actions of crucifying Jesus is because ‘God wills the heroism of Christ’s self-sacrifice, but not his actual suffering and death.’12 Therefore, God is not cruel, and His actions are justified. He further highlights that, ‘Christ’s actual suffering is distasteful and displeasing to God the Father,’13 which counters the theory that Anselm’s account favours the concept of Jesus’ suffering creates delight for God. However, Lombardo counters this by stating that despite Anselm’s attempts to rectify 12 Ibid., chapter 8 13 Ibid., chapter 8 6 this problem, his redemption theory ‘implies that God wills the actual crucifying of Christ,’14 and so, it cannot be countered that God wills moral evil and that God wants Jesus to be crucified. Abelard rejected the account presented by Anselm and his argument of the atonement is ‘in direct response to Anselm’ where he countered the financial aspects of Anselm’s position. He outlined that the idea that sin created a debt to God was simply repugnant and highlighted the key aspect of love within his account of the atonement. God does not need compensation for the sin of humanity. For him, the salvation through the death of Christ was an act of sincere love by God in order to unite God and humanity. In his work titled, ‘Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans,’ Abelard highlights the fact that the cross was not a demonstration of removing a barrier between humanity and God, rather demonstrates God’s immense and incomparable love. For Abelard, ‘the problem of atonement was not how to change an offended God’s mind towards the sinner, but how to bring sinful humankind to see that the God they perceived as harsh and judgemental was actually loving.’ 15 The

purpose of the atonement was for Jesus to bring about moral change and guidance through the love of God, ‘for all have sinned and do need the grace of God.’16 In doing so, Abelard presents us with an idealist account of the atonement by emphasising the idea that Jesus died for us in order for us to be motivated by His death and increase the love within us. Abelard’s account of the atonement focuses on the love and the moral influence Jesus’ death provides humans with. Abelard outlines that, ‘Christ’s love is increased in us by virtue of the conviction that God in Christ has united our human nature to himself, and by suffering in that 14 Ibid., chapter 8 15 J. Denny Weaver, ‘The Nonviolent Atonement,’ Second Ed., (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2011) p.19. 16 Peter Abelard, ‘Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (An Excerpt from the Second Book)’, in E.R. Fairweather (ed.), p.278. 7 same nature, has demonstrated to us that perfection of love.’17 For Abelard, the atonement is an example of the lengths God will go to in order to demonstrate His love for humanity. Abelard outlines that the redemption is achieved ‘in his blood,’18 which is through the death of Christ, humans reach salvation. It is achieved ‘through our redemption accomplished by Christ whom God the Father set forth to be our propitiator,’19 the act of the atonement is a great example for humans to follow and use as a guideline for life, as in becoming Christ incarnate, our love for God increases. We are moved by His gesture for humanity. For Abelard, through God’s actions of giving up his only Son for humanity, the example of God’s love is evident, and we should acknowledge God’s infinite love as well as our love for Him. His account is in line with the verses of the Bible for example: ‘For Christ died for sins once and for all, a good man on behalf of sinners, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death physically but made alive spiritually’ (1 Peter 3:18). Abelard’s account manages to connect the atonement to humanity without there being aspects of debt or ransom in the equation. The work of Abelard’s is criticised on the basis that he was unwilling to view the reality of the atonement. The underlying idea of sin within the atonement is an aspect that Abelard did not comment on or explain which is in direct contrast to Anselm’s account of the atonement where he understood that sin was the reason for the suffering of Christ. Abelard did reject this idea of Original Sin, focussing more on the love God expresses to humanity. He believed the idea of humanity being responsible for the sin of others was absurd and senseless. Furthermore, Abelard failed to present a clear idea of sin and the place it has within the atonement theory thus making his account impossible to understand as while God is loving He is also righteous. 17 Ibid., 18 Ibid., p.279 19 Ibid., 8 Another critique of Abelard’s is that that he did not complete his project. Within his work, there were numerous places where Abelard left blank or there were numerous editions of his works as his ideas continued to change. His work contained ‘numerous addenda, minor deletions, improvements in definition, illogical and ungrammatical insertions, and strident phrasing.’20 The incompleteness of his account meant that there were many questions open for discussion. This means that, in some places, his work is merely open for interpretation or discussion since we cannot know what Abelard meant to say. Despite the fact that Anselm and Abelard present us with ‘two diametrically opposed interpretations of the crucifixion,’21 there are structural similarities in their works. The reconciliation between the two accounts of the atonement lie within their attempts to reject the devil’s ransom theory and rather, put forward their own theories whilst arguing why that theory does not succeed. In the beginning of both their arguments, both Anselm and Abelard reject the notion of the atonement being necessary because God is not obligated to Satan in any way and is powerful enough to rescue humans from the devil. With all factors considered, both theories of the atonement presented by Anselm and Abelard appear to be complementary. I think that a possible reconciliation of their ideas is possible since they both seem to miss what the other needs. Since both challenge Christians to reexamine their view and understanding of God, a merging between both ideas may result in some sort of reconciliation. Both Anselm and Abelard are similar in their accounts in the way they accept

that Jesus’ death saves but differ significantly in their purposes of the atonement. While Anselm’s argument is aimed at rectifying the imbalance between the sinners and God, 20 Daniel F. Blackwell, Non-Ontological Constructs the Effects of Abaelard's Logical and Ethical Theories on His Theology : A Study in Meaning and Verification, (Bern: Peter Lang, 1988), 56:1 21 Lombardo, chapter 9. 9 Abelard’s account is concerned more with the purpose of the suffering Christ has in portraying the love for humans. 10 Bibliography 1. Anselm, ‘Cur Deus homo?’ (Edinburgh: John Grant, 1909), Book I 2. Peter Abelard, ‘Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (An Excerpt from the Second Book)’, in E.R. Fairweather (ed.) 3. Nicholas E. Lombardo, ‘The Father's Will: Christ's Crucifixion and the Goodness of God,’ 2013 4. Larry Siekawitch, ‘THE EVOLUTION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT IN THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH: ANSELM, ABELARD AND AQUINAS,’ 2007-2008 5. Walter A. Elwell, ‘Evangelical Dictionary of Theology,’ (Baker Reference Library, Baker Academic, Div of Baker Publishing Group; 2nd edition edition) 2001. 6. Denis Kaiser, ‘Peter Abelard’s Theology of Atonement: A Multifaceted Approach and Reevaluation,’ (Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 26/1) 2015. 7. Daniel F. Blackwell, ‘Non-Ontological Constructs the Effects of Abaelard's Logical and Ethical Theories on His Theology: A Study in Meaning and Verification,’ 1988...