Title of the Assignment

An interaction with a philosophical document from the ancient/medieval periods with significance for the relationship between Christianity and a major philosophical issue. Summarise the key ideas of one of the documents below, and outline what contribution (or questions) it makes/raises for the relationship between Christianity and the philosophical perspective or issue represented in the document. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the document from the standpoint of alternative philosophical perspectives and Christian theology. Anselm, Why God Became Man

Commentary

So this one was a bit of a shock to the system. I was struggling to identify an available subject to do part time for first semester 2025 and after a bit of review, I decided to do an intensive instead at a different campus (QTC). The subject of the intensive was “Philosophy and Christian Thought” and I thought it would be interesting and a little challenging. To be honest, the opening assignment near broke my brain! The reading across the course is almost mind numbing. Then I got into the course and felt very inadequate – I mean these guys are big brains! Then I found out that most of these guys are at the end of their studies and many of them are studying at level 9 (MThe), where I am studying at level 8 (MDiv). The course is designed for advanced study…

So I submitted this assignment prior to all of this – giving it my best shot – but once I got into class, I resigned myself to a pass mark and didn’t expect better. The lecturer’s comments were quite a surprise therefore… “Excellent treatment of the task…” and I scored a High Distinction 85% mark. I’ve been on a high for a few days – heady stuff! So for your delectation, this is an assignment that I just didn’t expect to rate anything!

Abstract

Anselm was clearly influenced by his social context.  He developed a framework for understanding the atonement by elucidating a concept of feudal obligation and satisfaction.  This text, designed as an apologetic, spoke to his audience in ways that they would understand including the concept of God’s honour and how sin impugns it.  It identified our incapacity to expiate this fault and the role of Christ in satisfying our debt by averting the punishment for sin.  Later Christian thought has developed Anselm’s framework, refining the concept of satisfaction into a framework of penal substitution which aligns more with the Bible.  Anselm’s strengths around the grave impact of sin, the unchanging holiness of God and the perfection of Christ are retained along with his simple message detailing the importance of the incarnation and sacrifice.  His more speculative forays are now refined or discarded.  The further development of his framework does not diminish the fact that the treatise was a major milestone in Christian understanding of the atonement.

Cur Deus Homo

Composed in exile in Capua far from the turmoil of England where the work was first conceived[1] this treatise has triggered some turmoil of its own in Christian circles over the nearly one thousand years of its existence.[2]  Principally dealing with the Atonement, Anselm articulates a framework in the form of a dialogue that has engaged Christian Scholars to the present time.  This doctrinal and philosophical treatise has formed a basis of later reasoning on the redemptive work of Jesus Christ whilst at the same time being subject to “savage criticism”.[3]

Cur Deus Homo, Anselm of Canterbury’s short treatise on the atonement, was written predominantly as an apologetic text in response to the “derision of the unbeliever” towards the concept of God becoming man.[4]  The treatise takes the form of a dialogue regarding the atonement, between Anselm and his interlocutor, Boso.  Scholars appear divided on whether the treatise is more Christological or more Soteriological given that the subject deals with both the nature of Jesus as “God-Man” and the purpose of this nature to achieve redemption.[5]  The impact of the treatise was very significant as the first truly new thinking on atonement for at least five centuries.[6]  Prior to Anselm, Christus Victor, developed by Origen (185-254AD) was extant.[7]  This theory promoted the idea that the debt of sin-bondage was owed to Satan and that Christ was the ransom paid to Satan.[8]  Anselm provided an alternative theory that has become the root of all Christian thought on this subject since, either in agreement, synthesised and developed, or opposing.[9] 

Anselm’s enquiry goes to the nature of the incarnation.  What was it all about, why was it necessary and was it possible, and foundationally, why Jesus had to die?[10]  In summary, Anselm’s soteriology runs thus: we were made for communion with God, but sin and guilt have destroyed this; God’s honour has been impugned by sin, which he cannot, in justice, ignore; humanity can’t reconcile itself to God; God’s will in creating us cannot be frustrated; therefore God chooses to find a method by which we can be reconciled to him; incarnation and atonement is the only possible means to attaining satisfaction for sin.[11]  

The underlying concept of at least the first part of Anselm’s framework is the concept of and interplay between power, necessity and freewill (1.1-10).[12]  David Brown makes the case that Anselm, by offering necessary reasons, does not imply constraint on God, but that God is self-consistent.[13]  This is important because Anselm’s key argument is that God exercised the right and necessary choice both in the incarnation of the Lord and in his choice to die although innocent (Luke 22:42[14]; Rom 8:32; Heb 5:7-10).[15]  In this he rejects the argument that God could simply forgive sin without Christ’s sacrifice, but rather that Christ freely offered without compulsion, his life under the necessity of God’s own love.[16]  These concepts also play into Anselm’s theory relating to the “order and beauty of the universe” (or fittingness) and the way that sin disrupts it.[17]  Anselm argues that there is a fitness to the accomplishing of redemption in one man, just as the fall was in one man (Rom 5:12-21), and in the counterbalance of Eve (Gen 3:6) and Mary (Luke 1:27-28) as well as the tree of knowledge (Gen 3:1-6)  and the tree of the crucifixion (Gal 3:13).[18]

The foundation principles of the doctrine of Atonement as currently understood, are that we deserve to die as the penalty of sin (Rom 6:23), we deserve to bear God’s wrath (Rom 1:18), our sins separate us from God[19] (Gal 5:19-21) and we are in bondage to sin and Satan’s kingdom (Gal 4:1-7),  Christ responds to these principles by his death as a sacrifice for us (1 Thess 1:10), as a propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2), to reconcile us in fellowship with God and to redeem us from our bondage (Rom 5:9).[20]  Clearly, the modern theory of atonement emphasises penal substitution in line with 1 Thess 1:10.

The concepts of satisfaction and sin-as-debt were well established by the 11^th Century.[21]  Anselm’s framework may have arisen from his background in a feudal society and against the backdrop of penance.[22]  Even perhaps influenced by the concepts of obligation and honour owed to a feudal lord, Anselm clearly saw sin as a breach of God’s honour that far outstripped the feudalist concept of breached honour, noting that God was no “petty man” incensed by injury.[23]  Sin, to Anselm was a failure to render to God his due.[24]  A failure to surrender the will of a human to God’s will is to take from God what is rightfully his and in failing to repay this and more (due satisfaction), the human is at fault.[25]  Anselm asserts “everyone who sins must pay to God the honour he has taken away and this is satisfaction, which every sinner must make to God”.[26]   Anselm asserts that a mere human is incapable of offering complete satisfaction because an offering of all that a human has and is, is merely God’s due – therefore satisfaction required more than a human, hence the God-Man, Jesus (1.5).[27]

It is important to note a key distinction between this “satisfaction” theory and its later development “penal substitution”.  In “satisfaction”, the punishment for sin is averted by Christ’s sacrifice, where in the theory of penal substitution, the punishment is absorbed by Christ’s sacrifice.[28]  Central to Anselm’s argument is the concept of “satisfaction” and its related terms “debt” or “honour”.[29] It could be argued that rather than opposing Anselm, Aquinas (writing over 150 years later) developed and synthesised his ideas as a foundation of the modern doctrine of Atonement.[30]  The foundational argument of the atonement agreed by Anselm and Aquinas is that God cannot wink at sin and that the Saviour freely paid the debt owed.[31]  Their difference is in whether the atoning sacrifice of Jesus is satisfaction of a debt (Eph 5:1-2; Heb 9:14), as Anselm asserts, or satisfactory (to God) punishment for sin (2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 3:18), as Aquinas argues.[32]  

Arthur Pollard notes that it has been argued that Anselm pays insufficient attention to the unity of the Trinity with the First and Second Persons of the Godhead almost appearing opposed, however Anselm does “belatedly” accept the Atonement as “the act of God in Trinity”.[33]  This dichotomy between God’s mercy and his justice, or his power and his love has been misinterpreted as an internal dichotomy of the role of the different aspects of the Trinity and in some respects is supported by Anselm asserting “The Son, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, had determined to show the loftiness of his omnipotence by no other means than death.” (1.9)[34]  Pollard argues that this could be seen as an exercise of power rather than the warm involvement of Holy Trinity in the redemptive work.[35]  This is a significant flaw given God’s clear involvement and joy in all aspects of redemption (Ps 111:9; 130:7; Isa 44:22; John 3:16; Acts 3:19; Eph 1:7; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 2 Pet 3:9).

Anselm’s theory has been the subject of debate for centuries.  Ben Pugh references the debate over the validity of Cur Deus Homo but notes that “love him or hate him, Anslem is a contributor to atonement theory who is impossible to ignore.”[36]  Anselm’s treatise has particular value in articulating why it was important for the atonement to be accomplished by a “God-Man”.  Christ is not compensating for our misconduct by his perfect life though in a sense he provides an example for us to seek to emulate, he is merely fulfilling the destiny of human nature to live with wills that align with the will of God (John 6:35-40).  Christ’s sacrifice is not related to human teleology, it is something returned to God that is not owed and being an offering of a human being who is also God, it is an offering of infinite worth.[37]  As a contribution to the theology of atonement or even secular understanding of the Christian understanding of incarnation and redemption, this is significant.

Fundamentally, Anselm’s strengths are in the gravity with which he treats sin, in his understanding of God’s unchanging holiness and the perfection of Christ.[38]  He offers a reasonable and logical explanation for how the sacrifice of Jesus satisfies the demands of God’s honour.[39]  Anselm strayed from biblical reasoning in speculating about the transactional nature of Christ’s sacrifice in whether it was worth more or was precisely equal to the debt owned by sinners[40] and whether the number of redeemed sinners would exceed the number of fallen angels.[41]  Anselm’s feudal context leads some to suggest that his equating of God with a feudal overlord is questionable.[42]  The transactional nature of Anselm’s use of the term debitum seems unnecessarily and inappropriately commercial.[43]  Anselm’s arguments provided a basis for both Aquinas’ and later the Scotus’ views where both taught that the demands of God’s justice were satisfied in the Cross of Christ.[44]

It is important to read Anselm carefully and with consideration to the nuance in his thought.  The idea of satisfaction, for example, can give rise to a theory of transaction in the atonement – the idea that humans can give satisfaction for our debt to God despite Anselm’s careful assertion that satisfaction requires more than what an ordinary human can give.[45]  The concept itself is of course contained within the Lord’s prayer, “and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt 6:12).  To see this as an equal transaction is to miss the point of the significance of our debt as opposed to the insignificance of what others might owe us.

Anselm wrote in a specific cultural context, and it is not unexpected that the socio-political context of his day (particularly feudalism) might impact his treatise.  There is clearly a sense in which the rigid hierarchies of the 11^th Century are emblematic of the relationship of God and his creation.  God is our sovereign Lord to whom we owe fealty (recognised as obedience and honour) and given the offence both in the sense of Adam’s sin inherited by us and in the sense of our own sins, we do owe a debt we cannot, of ourselves repay.  The framework advanced by Anselm of satisfaction, is therefore not incorrect.  It does, however, need development to fully enunciate the fact that Christ substituted for us in our penal obligation and bore our sins in his body.  Satisfaction does not articulate the full implications and if inadequately considered, can lead us to a commercial, transactional model that is unbiblical.

---

[1] Anselm of Canterbury, Why God Became Man and The Virgin Conception and Original Sin, trans. Joseph M. Colleran (Albany NY: Magi Books Inc, 1969), 21–22.

[2] Ben Pugh, Atonement Theories, 1st ed. (The Lutterworth Press, 2014), 45, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1cgf45k, http://www.jstor.org.theoref.idm.oclc.org/stable/j.ctt1cgf45k.

[3] B Davies and B Leftow, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Anselm (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 279.

[4] Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 64; Davies and Leftow, Cambridge, 283.

[5] Pugh, Theories, 163; Arthur Pollard, “Anselm’s Doctrine of the Atonement: An Exegesis and Critique of Cur Deus Homo,” Churchman 109.4 (1995): 304, http://churchsociety.org/churchman/archive/.

[6] Pollard, “Critique,” 305; Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 39; Davies and Leftow, Cambridge, 252 (note 6); Pugh, Theories, 45.

[7] Wayne Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith (England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1999), 256; Pugh, Theories, 45.

[8] Grudem, Doctrine, 256.

[9] Pugh, Theories, 45–46.

[10] Pollard, “Critique,” 305; Davies and Leftow, Cambridge, 283.

[11] Pollard, “Critique,” 307; Pugh, Theories, 55–56.

[12] Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 65; Davies and Leftow, Cambridge, 284; Pollard, “Critique,” 306; James K. Beilby et al., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Westmont, United States: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 12, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=2036510.

[13] Davies and Leftow, Cambridge, 284.

[14] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version) copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.  Used by permission.  All rights reserved

[15] Pollard, “Critique,” 306; Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 81.

[16] Pollard, “Critique,” 307.

[17] Pugh, Theories, 48; Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 68.

[18] Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 68.

[19] John Stott, The Cross of Christ, 3rd Ed. (London, England: InterVarsity Press, 2021), 121.

[20] Grudem, Doctrine, 255.

[21] Beilby et al., Nature, 12; Pugh, Theories, 51.

[22] Beilby et al., Nature, 13; Pugh, Theories, 46.

[23] Davies and Leftow, Cambridge, 290–91.

[24] Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 84.

[25] Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 84.

[26] Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 85.

[27] Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 69–70.

[28] Pugh, Theories, 56; Pollard, “Critique,” 307–8.

[29] Davies and Leftow, Cambridge, 290.

[30] Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 47.

[31] Ross Hastings, “Substitution or Satisfaction?: Commentary by Douglas Farrow on the Atonement Theology of Aquinas and Anselm in Theological Negotiations,” Crux: A Quarterly Journal of Christian Thought and Opinion 55.2 (Summer) (2019): 15, 17.

[32] Hastings, “Substitution,” 17.

[33] Pollard, “Critique,” 314; Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 158, 161.

[34] Anselm of Canterbury, CDH, 78; Pollard, “Critique,” 315.

[35] Pollard, “Critique,” 315.

[36] Pugh, Theories, 45.

[37] Davies and Leftow, Cambridge, 293.

[38] Stott, The Cross of Christ, 141.

[39] Beilby et al., Nature, 13.

[40] Pollard, “Critique,” 313.

[41] Stott, The Cross of Christ, 141.

[42] Stott, The Cross of Christ, 141; Davies and Leftow, Cambridge, 286; Beilby et al., Nature, 13.

[43] Pollard, “Critique,” 313.

[44] Stott, The Cross of Christ, 142.

[45] Davies and Leftow, Cambridge, 281,292.

Bibliography

Anselm of Canterbury. Why God Became Man and The Virgin Conception and Original Sin. Translated by Joseph M. Colleran. Albany NY: Magi Books Inc, 1969.

Beilby, James K., Paul R. Eddy, Gregory A. Boyd, Joel B. Green, Bruce Reichenbach, and Thomas R. Schreiner. The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Westmont, United States: InterVarsity Press, 2006. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=2036510.

Davies, B, and B Leftow, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Anselm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Grudem, Wayne. Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith. England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1999.

Hastings, Ross. “Substitution or Satisfaction?: Commentary by Douglas Farrow on the Atonement Theology of Aquinas and Anselm in Theological Negotiations.” Crux: A Quarterly Journal of Christian Thought and Opinion 55.2 (Summer) (2019): 15–23.

Pollard, Arthur. “Anselm’s Doctrine of the Atonement: An Exegesis and Critique of Cur Deus Homo.” Churchman 109.4 (1995): 304–16. http://churchsociety.org/churchman/archive/.

Pugh, Ben. Atonement Theories. 1st ed. The Lutterworth Press, 2014. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1cgf45k, http://www.jstor.org.theoref.idm.oclc.org/stable/j.ctt1cgf45k.

Stott, John. The Cross of Christ. 3rd Ed. London, England: InterVarsity Press, 2021.

Works Consulted

Milne, Bruce. Know the Truth: A handbook of Christian belief. Leicester, Great Britain: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998

Tarnas, Richard. The passion of the Western mind: understanding the ideas that have shaped our world view. New York, USA: Ballantine Books, 2011

Treier, Daniel J. Introducing Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids, United States: Baker Academic, 2019. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=5789627.

Weant, Jonathan. “What is Anselm singing?: a critique of Anselm’s theory of Atonement”. Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa 29.2 (Fall) (2005): 25-39.