Anselms Theory of Atonement - Report Example

Anselm’s Theory of Atonement The question of atonement has been of particular interest to the medieval scholastics1. It determined the emergence of various points of view on the mystery of atonement and the reasons for its implementation in the form of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It is of great interest to consider the legal theory of atonement provided by Anselm of Canterbury. He offered a rationalistic concept of atonement by connecting atonement with incarnation and using such concepts as justice and satisfaction. In turn, justice and satisfaction are the main elements explaining the specifics of the proposed theory. In fact, Anselm of Canterbury made the first serious attempt of a consistent and harmonious presentation of the doctrine of redemption. His work, Cur Deus Homo (Why God became Man) is a masterpiece of theological knowledge, in which the author combines clarity of presentation with metaphysical depth. The beginning of the book demonstrates the fact that at the time of its writing, many minds were occupied by the question of the nature and the need for atonement. It also indicates that the problem of atonement was seen mainly from the Christological point of view, namely in the form of the question of the necessity of the Incarnation. At the time, the following religious questions had special significance for Christian theology: Could not God save the people simply by the action of His Omnipotence as easily as He created the world? Could not he, merciful God, simply forgive the sins of people, without the need for satisfaction? If a mediator was needed, why did God choose His only begotten Son to do this work, and not any other sentient being? When theologians recognized the incarnation of Christ, they felt that such an event could find its explanation only in a huge necessity. The question regarding the implementation, explains the title of Anselm’s book. Anselm’s main positions are presented by an idea of an absolute necessity of atonement for mans salvation. Anselm consistently rejects the theory of recapitulation, the ransom theory (Jesus death paid a ransom to the devil), and the idea that Christs death was simply a manifestation of Gods love for man, since they do not explain the need for redemption adequately.2 In his opinion, the absolute necessity for the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ must be rooted in a constant and necessary character of the divine nature. Anselm finds the final (last) basis for this in God’s honor. The exact position of Anselm can only be understood in the light of his concept of sin and satisfaction. As a creation of God, a man should have submitted to God’s divine will, and when he refused to do it as a revolutionary act, he has dishonored God, and thus found himself in debt. “According to Anselm, our sin puts us in a kind of debt toward God”3 God was burglarized in his honor, and it had to be somehow restored. As Anselm writes, “… every one who sins ought to pay back the honor of which he has robbed God; and this is the satisfaction which every sinner owes to God.”4 God’s grace could not simply ignore the sin because it would be wrong and unfair. There were only two ways that could help the divine honor rehabilitate itself, namely punishment or satisfaction. God did not go the way of punishment, since He thought that it would be devastating for humanity itself and its purpose would be defeated. He chose the way of satisfaction, which would include the two things: a) That the man had to show his willing submission to God, and b) That he should to repair the “damage” from the offense caused by him to God5. It could be done by paying something more beyond the actual debt. However, since even the slightest sin committed against an infinite God outweighs the whole world and everything that is not God, and the compensation should be proportionate, then it follows that it is beyond the power of man. Since Anselm seems to consider satisfaction as a gift rather that punishment and believes that it surpasses everything that is not God, than only God can be the source of satisfaction. Only God could make a real reparation (compensation), and His Grace led him to make it through the gift of His Son. It is insufficient that the source of redemption had only the divine nature. The source of redemption should also be presented by a human nature, a representative of the human race. Despite the fact that the human race was tainted by sinfulness, the redeemer of human sins should have been sinless and therefore not burdened with debt to God. Only the God-Man could satisfy these requirements and thus provide the redemption of human sin. It was necessary for the God-man to show obedience towards Cod since people could not do it. However, it was not enough to uphold the honor of God, because by doing this, Jesus Christ did nothing more than his duty and it could not be seen by God as his merit. Therefore, as a sinless being, Jesus Christ had to suffer and die6. At the same time such a fate was viewed by Christ not as a burden or a punishment but as an opportunity to save humanity. For this reason, He voluntarily followed his destiny as the savior of mankind. The analysis of Anselm’s theory of atonement allows one to see its significant features. Firstly, the theory clearly states the impossibility for man to be saved by his own efforts. Secondly, the theory points to the idea that the salvation of man from sin and death requires for a radical change in the relationship between God and man. The relationships that have been formed after the Fall should be corrected, and the change in these relations should have an objective character that is to depend not only on the desires of the individual. In addition, the theory is characterized by simplicity, directness, precision and clarity of language and therefore appealing to rational people. However, despite the obvious advantages, the theory has its drawbacks. First of all, attention is drawn to the fact that the fundamental concepts of the theory - "insult", "satisfaction", "merit" and so forth. – are not presented in the Scriptures and are extremely rare in the Fathers of the Church. Moreover, the theory suggests a rather strange for the Eastern theological thought an idea of the relationship between God and the properties of the divine nature. The theory is based on the concept of God and His qualities in which the properties of goodness and love and truth and justice in God differ greatly and even contrast as well as the actions of these properties, since every God’s property has its action. Mans sin offends God, exciting the action of His justice or "anger", which is expressed in God’s feud and curse towards man, and their consequences - punishment of the sinner. Such a relationship between God and the properties of His of nature make God the "hostage" of His own properties, thus causing a certain need, depriving God of liberty. To sum up, the legal concept of atonement presented by Anselm is rather different from those developed by other scholastics. Its essence is as follows. The original sin is a misdeed against the just order established by God, and therefore it constitutes an affront to Gods greatness. The scale of the guilt are determined in accordance with the rank of the offended party, that is, God. The infinite greatness and the justice of God require infinite atonement of the offense against Him. However, the finiteness of human beings does not allow man to fulfill the terms of an infinite atonement, even if the whole of humanity will be sacrificed in order to satisfy Gods justice. Therefore, God Himself in the Person of His Son is obliged to bring the immense ransom, that justice has been satisfied. Christ was sentenced to death on the cross instead of sinful humanity in order to open an access to grace to humanity. In Anselm’s theory, the incarnation of Christ is inseparably connected with the idea of atonement. Christ was born in human form, but at the same time, he was endowed with divine power. This enabled him to fulfill the main task that is to ensure satisfaction and duty to God which was caused by the fall of man. Thus, Anselm gave a logical explanation for such phenomena as the incarnation of Christ and the atonement for human sin. Works Cited Anselm. Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). Fordham University. n.d. Web. 17 Aug. 2014. ‹http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.asp›. Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1983. Print. Culver, Robert D. “The Doctrine of Atonement before Anselm.” Patrick Henry College. n.d. Web. 17 Aug. 2014. ‹http://www.phc.edu/gj_4_culver_final.php›. Murray, Michael, and Michael Rea. "Philosophy and Christian Theology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Web. 17 Aug. 2014. ‹http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/›. Read More