Atonement - in the Views of Anselm and Abelard - Admission/Application Essay Example

Atonement: In the views of Anselm and Abelard Introduction Theology is an intellectual discipline that aims at setting forth in an orderly manner the content of a religious faith. This definition already indicates some of the peculiarities of the subject. Calling theology an intellectual discipline involves the claim that theology has its legitimate place in the spectrum of human knowledge and the claim that it can make true statements. Therefore, it can also point to defensible intellectual procedures in support of these claims. Theology has, in fact, often been called a science. The very formation of the word suggests a kinship with a whole range of varied scientific enterprises designated by similarly formed words—geology, psychology, topology, and the like. Nevertheless, the fact that there are also pseudosciences such as astrology with similarly formed names may give us pause. Indeed, when the definition of theology goes on to say that the subject deals with the content of a religious faith; a sharp distinction seems to be made between theology and the recognized secular sciences. (Atonement 1) Atonement is the act of effecting reconciliation with another person or persons who have been alienated by offense or injury. It also signifies the means used to effect such reconciliation. Atonement has traditionally been one of the central themes of the Christian doctrine and proclamation. The idea of atonement has played an important role in the Christian spirituality as well. However, there is no binding old-church decision on the doctrine of atonement. In this regard it differs, for example, from the doctrine of Trinity and the doctrine of Christ’s dual nature. (Atonement 1) Classical Doctrine In classical Christian theology, the discourse of atonement has been related to the idea that the natural state of human beings is unsatisfactory when compared with the divine aim for them. This state is associated with various ills in this life and hereafter. In the present life, they are above all sin, death and suffering. The ultimate ills hereafter are eternal punishment in hell and proceed towards eternal separation from God. Christian theologians have regarded atonement as the divine means of improving the state of human beings and especially in saving them from eternal damnation. Although theological traditions agree that the natural state of human beings after the Fall is unsatisfactory, they disagree with respect to its detailed interpretation. Despite the differences, there are certain terms that are much applied in this context such as sin, evil, passion, punishment, satisfaction, salvation, redemption, reconciliation, and atonement. As stated by Lehtonen (118-128) in his famous book Den kristna foÈ rsoningstanken (1930), Gustaf Aulen (1879- 1977) distinguished between three main types of the Christian doctrine of atonement: the classic doctrine, the Latin doctrine, and the subjective doctrine. In the classic doctrine sin and evil are associated with the degeneration of the human race in the power of demonic forces; in the Latin doctrine with the debt of sin for which human race should make moral-juridical satisfaction; and in the subjective doctrine with the state of human beings in which they need the moral and spiritual improvement that the contemplation of Christ’s passion and the imitation of his example can bring about. (Lehtonen 118-128) Modern Discussion Several philosophers of religion have recently written on the Christian doctrine of atonement and related moral and juridical notions. Of the various historical versions of the doctrine of atonement, it is particularly the theory of Anselm of Canterbury which has been the centre of attention. His theory has been, rightly or wrongly, associated with the idea of vicarious atonement. In so far as vicarious atonement involves vicarious punishment, it has been seen to contradict the legal principle of nulla poena sine crimen (“no punishment without crime”). (Holopanien 29) Anselm would have nothing to do with the theory of a ransom to Satan (which Augustine still retained); instead, thinking in terms of contemporary feudalism, he believed that the death of Christ was the necessary reparation or "satisfaction" to Gods offended (or injured) "honor"—a reparation that only God (that is, God-in-Man, Christ) could offer in the name of helpless humanity. By dying, Christ (the God-Man) earned infinite merit, which was far in excess of the injury done by humanitys sin and therefore effective in removing it. But the theory is a lawyers parable, designed to illustrate and describe (not explain) the blessed results of Christs self-sacrifice. It presupposes ideas of God and of the transferability of guilt from one person to another that are incompatible with the highest religion and ethics. (Daniel 170-185) Abelard, Peter (1079–1142), a French philosopher and theologian, who was a brilliant teacher and dialectician and has been a leading figure in medieval Scholasticism. The French form of his name is Pierre Abélard or Abailard; the Latin form, Petrus Abaelardus. Abelard was a leading figure in early Scholasticism, known principally for his part in the controversy on universals. In this dispute he took a position between Roscellinus nominalism and William of Champeauxs realism. Accepting Aristotles definition of a universal as something that can be predicated of many things–"man" is predicated of all human beings–Abelard asked himself whether universals exist in reality or only in thought. His answer was that universals are not real things, since each real thing is individual. On the other hand, universals are not mere words since they express a common reality that exists in things and serves as a basis for logical predication. Universals are concepts formed by abstraction in such a way that the nature of a thing is freed, as it were, from all individuality, with no special relation to any particular individual of the species. Thus Abelard avoided attributing to a universal a reality of its own or downgrading it to a verbal entity with no conceptual import. His position was close to the later concept of moderate realism. (Perkams 99-116) Abelard also applied his dialectic to theology. He argued that faith and reason are as distinct and different as the theology and philosophy on which they rest, respectively. Yet theology needs philosophy, and especially dialectic, to establish its status as a science. As proof he tried to show in his Sic et non that the proper solution of a theological issue can be obtained only by an objective study of all divergent texts on the subject. In his Introductio ad theologiam he also made the attempt—first of its kind in the history of Scholasticism—to coordinate and treat systematically all current theological issues. He seems, however, to have carried his dialectic too far by exaggerating the power of human reason in matters of faith and rationalizing even the mysteries of Christian doctrine. Abelard’s moral example theory of the atonement made him earn a position in Christian theology. (Marx 20-21) Common Vision in Both Theologies           Though having different arguments and explanations both Anselm and Abelard had a common view regarding no legal rule of Satan over human beings. Anselm formulates his disagreement by assessing the formation and sustaining of the world by the virtue of God, who owns everything whether believe in Him or not. Both of them argue that if Satan had a supremacy over mankind why was he bound to take God’s permission to misguide people? From this point of consensus both of them seem to move in different directions. Dissimilarities in both Theologies The basis of Anselm’s viewpoint is a legal perception. He does argue from a judicial perspective that salvation is not paid to the Satan but it is owned by God and is paid to Him. The reason of Jesus demise on the cross was reconciliation against dishonor to God. Human beings are required to pay for their sins to pacify God’s anger and as He is never-ending so is His wrath. Human beings being finite are never in a position to pay back such a price and need an alternate infinite penalty in their reach.      Abelard taught a much simpler doctrine: the voluntary death of the innocent Son of God moves the sinner to penitence, faith, love, and gratitude; that is, to reconciliation with God. "I think," said Abelard, "the purpose and cause of the Incarnation was the He [God] might thus enlighten the world with His wisdom and enkindle it with love for Himself."     Conclusion I believe Abelard’s perspective, that is, to give good reason for and to validate love being enthused among the human beings, is not supported by the scripture. This perspective opposes Jesus as a rescuer as such reconciliations can be made through the deep emotions of love by any common person and he can save himself. As far as Anselm’s concept is concerned, I believe that he was somehow misguided by the stress of culture on sentimentality. The reality, if perpetually applicable, then it is very much out of pace to interrogate about contemporary relevance as, even if it is in verdict, there exists an impartial significance for all generations. The reconciliation of the guilt of mankind is required by atonement. Works Cited “Atonement”, Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition (2009): 1 Daniel, Deme. “The ‘Origin’ of Evil according to Anselm of Canterbury”, Heythrop Journal 43.2 (2002):170-185 Holopanien, Toivo J. “Anselms Argumentum and the Early Medieval Theory of Argument.” Vivarium 45.1 (2007): 29 Lehtonen, Tommi. “Christus Victor: The Meaning of Atonement”, Studia Theologica 55 (2001):118-128 Marx, William C. The Devils Rights and the Redemption in the Literature of Medieval England, Boydell & Brewer, 1995, p. 20-21 Perkams, Matthias. “Divine Omnipotence and Moral Theory in Abelards Theology”, Mediaeval Studies 65.1 (20030: 99-116 Read More