Archive for the ‘Easter’ Category

Anselm on Reconciliation and the Atonement

April 2, 2021

ANSELM

Last Week we looked at Irenaeus and how his method was more Biblical and historical withing the framework of the rule. Anselm is not like that. He is more philosophical and he grinds things down to basic premises. Without atonement and reconciliation there would be no relationship with God. Anselm is another way of looking at these great themes of our salvation especially now at this Easter Weekend.

Anselm 1033-1166 was archbishop of Canterbury, thus he always had responsibilities on the political scene. Anselm’s life thus revolved around the monastery and one of the functions of any monk was to pray. Southern says that from the time that Anselm arrived in Bec (in 1059), one can see ‘three threads running through the whole development’ of Anselm’s life and thought; 1) Anselm received his intellectual tools from Lanfranc in who’s footsteps he followed. 2) Anselm immersed himself totally in St Augustine’s thought and language. These two points in some way influenced the writings of ‘Prayers and Letters’ and the ‘Proslogion’. 3) From 1078 new influences in the world took Anselm outside of the Monastery. His theological questioning was also growing due to contact with Roscelin. Jewish arguments were brought to the attention of Anselm via Gilbert Crispin. There were also the teachings from the Laon school which was brought to the attention of Anselm via Boso. These were contributary factors for the culminating works of the Proslogion of 1078 and his more mature work of the Cur Deus Homo in 1098 (15/437). In our search for Anselm’s understanding of reconciliation and atonement we shall concern ourselves mainly with the Cur Deus Homo? (why did God become man?).

Anselm is one of the first theologians to have written a systematic theology on the atonement (1/87). Anselm rejected the view that, ” The Devil, it was held, had obtained, as a result of the Fall certain rights over humankind, either on his own account or by divine permission. Freedom from this bondage was won by means of the payment represented by the blood of Christ” (1/87). (It would be unfair to say that Irenaeus held this view completely as there is also atonement language in his writings). Anselm rejected this view. He wanted to give an account that was rational in relation to the Atonement. Gunton says that at places Anselm is being too systematic with his approach to the atonement and the incarnation (1/88). This does seem to be the case, as in the CDH Anselm does put a great deal of emphasis upon the death of Christ and not enough emphasis on other historical questions in the second part of the CDH.

Anselm viewed the Fall,”…as sin, which was the cause of our condemnation, had its beginning from a woman, so should the author of our righteousness and salvation be born of a woman. And as the Devil had conquered man by the tasting of a tree, to which he persuaded him, so by the suffering endured on a tree, which he inflicted, should he, by a man, be conquered” (2/38). It is interesting to see in this quotation that Anselm does give the Incarnation a high priority, as does Irenaeus. But it must be said that in between the Incarnation and the Passion, the historical works of Christ (for example the miracles etc) are omitted.

Whatever the case maybe concerning the ballance of atonement ~n the CDH there are important points to consider for the rejection of the ransom language which was mentioned before. If one for example holds to the ransom language it does have too much of a dualism in ~t. In Mark 10/45 for example where it says, ” to give his life a ransom for many” (1/88). If the blood of Jesus is treated as a literal price which was for payment to the Devil, then this is going beyond what the NT actual ly al lows in its language (1 /88). The next point to realize

is that ransom language gives too much autonomy and too much authority to the Devil. Gunton quotes CDH1/7,” the Devil and man belong to God alone, and neither one stands outside God’s power; what case, then, did God have to plead with his own creature, in his own affair…?” (1/88 and CDH 1/7).

Satan can only give out punishment according to what God allows. Ransom language does not give an account that is reasonable enough to explain the atonement. Satan is only a creature like all of the other creatures and if he should be given a priority of place as is implied in the ransom language, then the authority of God is undermined. With the rejection of ransom language Anselm turns to a new metaphor which is language of ‘satisfaction’. ‘Satisfaction’ was taken from the legal establishment (1/89). The starting point for Anselm is,” The entire will of a rational creature ought to be subject to the will of God” (2/63). If this formula is broken by sin, then the one that has committed the sin is ‘owing to God’.

Anselm has a particular concept of Justice. God will not allow injustice to have its own way in the universe, otherwise the universe would be seen as irrational (1/89-90). If the universe is seen as irrational, then God does not deserve the name ‘God’. Sin must be punished, ” And since it is not possible to bring sin into accordance with right order without satisfaction being made, except by punishing it, if it is not punished, it is let go without being brought into due order” (2/65).

The important words in the above quotation are ‘right order’. If we also look at CDH I/15 (pages7l-72) where it has the expression ‘order and the beauty of the universe’, we start to see that Anselm sees satisfaction in terms of the welfare of God’s creation. Satisfaction initially is not in terms of the honour of God. Anselm writes that nothing can harm ‘the power and dignity of God’ (2/15/pages7l-72). It is with this in mind that Gunton writes, ” The point is that God does not demand satisfaction for sin because he is in some way personally affronted or offended by transgression” (1/90).

As well as God who is seen as the guardian of universal justice we must also take into account ‘the seriousness of sin’ (1/90). To do something that goes against God’s will is a very serious thing. In the dialogue between Anselm and Boso, Anselm writes,” You do not, therefore, make satisfaction unless you return something greater than that for the sake of which you were under obligation not to have committed the sin”. Then Boso replies,” I see that reason requires it, and yet, that it is altogether impossible” (2/pages 100-101//CDH/I/21). Anselm goes on to say that if it wasn’t for faith, he would despair of there being any possibility of reconciliation to God (2/100).

It is within the framework of justice that mercy must be understood. Man is in a state by which he is incapable of paying God back for his sins. At the same time God cannot forgive man without there being a payment for the debt of sin. God’s Mercy has to be understood within the framework of justice. After what has been said, it must also be noted that ‘satisfaction’ must not be understood in terms of the primary emphasis being on penal substitution.

When Anselm uses the word satisfaction we must also take into account the word ‘poena’ . Satisfactio and poena must be seen as alternatives. Gunton writes,” Satisfaction is therefore according to Anselm the way by which God is enabled not to exact a tribute of compensating penalty from the sinner” (1/90). Then Gunton writes, ” He (Anselm) is therefore not propounding a version of what came to be called penal substitution, in which Jesus is conceived to be punished by God in place of the sinner. There is a substitution, an exchange, but it is not penal in character” (1/90-91).

The framework for the theology of satisfaction in terms of ‘human fallenness’ is only a secondary consideration. The main “focus is on the goodness of God and the excellence of creation’s crown” (1/91). Satisfaction was made because of a gracious act of God. God was not willing to see his creatures annihilated. This act of God is to be understood in terms of a Trinitarian framework. Anselm writes,” Hut this Man (Jesus) freely offered to the Father what it would never have been necessary for Him to lose and paid for sinners what He did not owe for Himself” (2/166 book i I/8). Anselm in the same chapter goes on to say,”…He offered himself for his own honour, to Himself, as he did to the Father and the Holy Spirit i.e., His human nature to his divine nature, which is also one of the Three Persons” (2/170). Barth makes use of this motif and he makes this abstract motif relational, ” … the only One who is judged… He is the only who has come and acts among us as the Judge” (16/237-238). In the same context Barth is also fond of the language of Jesus Christ being ‘ for us’ (16/235). The point is that Anselm did extremely well to think up this motif, yet he misses to bring it into the context of ‘our time’ as opposed to God’s eternity.

CONCLUSON

To begin with both Irenaeus’ and Anselm’s historical settings and hence world views were different. At the same time however they wanted to make a defence of the Christian faith. In the AH, Irenaeus begins by outlining the heresies and showing what is ‘apparent’. After this groundwork has been covered, only then does he begin ~n a rational way to demolish the heretical positions. Contrasting to this method, Anselm has inherited certain philosophical tools for use on behalf of the Christian faith against other religious or atheistic systems. He begins by trying to whittle down ‘ as he sees it’ to the common denominators of the Christian faith, particularly such things as, Fall, Incarnation, Passion etc. Both theologians took the Fall seriously and though their methods differed a great deal, it is interesting that some of the motifs later to be mentioned (in our conclusion) have remarkable similarities. The point is that Anselm looked at reconciliation and atonement from a rational perspective. It has to be noted though that it is ‘faith seeking understanding’ (not natural theology) which is one of his presuppositions. Irenaeus doesn’t spell out a concept of faith seeking understanding, but maybe his ‘rule of faith can in some way be seen a loose equivalent (both presuppose the existence of God). In their search for explaining how God reconciles man to Himself, maybe a way to explain their contrasting methods, one can use the analogy of the Mathematician and the historian. The mathematician uses abstract concepts to gain insight into universal truths, Anselm tends to use this method. Irenaeus on the other hand sees the historical data and sets out to explain and evaluate the data in the best way he knows how. This is a crude analogy, but it does show that both methods are valuable in

explaining reconciliation and atonement.

Concerning the Fall, for both of them Mary plays an important part for its reversal . For Irenaeus Mary corresponded to Eve (in the reversal procedure), for Anselm Seeing that a woman was responsible at the Fall it was only fitting that a woman should be present at the incarnation. Obedience is also an important concept for the two of them. In Irenaeus, Christ obeyed the Father at every point of the natural sequence of human development and thus reversing the Fall at each of those particular points. For Anselm aswell the obedience of Christ was also important. Christ offered himself to his own honour. There is a contrast though, for Anselm propitiation seemed more of an abstract mathematical sum in putting the universe in harmony in relation to its Creator. For Irenaeus on the other hand, the obedience of Christ came out of love and there is more of a personal element of fellowship. With the previous statement it must also be stressed that mercy (as an abstract concept) seemed to replace the love motif as found in the Hible. This contrast must take into consideration their historical contexts. Concerning Satan, it may be true to say that he is given a more elevated role in Irenaeus due to the ‘ransom’ concept, it has to be stressed though, that even in Irenaeus Satan is still only a creature like all other creatures. In the plan of the historico-salvation, ‘the obedience of Christ’ is more important. Irenaeus and Anselm agree on the obedience of Christ but the history-salvation motif is unique to the second century theologian. Irenaeus and Anselm also contrast on the concept of sin and evil. For Irenaeus evil ~s held relative to free will thus sin is not treated as seriously as maybe it should be. Sin for Anselm is a very serious concept because it is this particular evil that knocked the universe out of right order. (presumably Anselm inherited this concept of evil from Augustine, then later after Anselm, Calvin) . So then at certain points anselm and Irenaeus do contrast but ‘at crucial points they agree’. Without the perfect obedience of Christ it would be impossible for salvation to be effected. The other point that I want to make is that, one could probably say and should say up to a point that both theologians seem to be ‘both sides of the same coin’ (colloquialism intended). The reason why I say this is that a great deal of the motifs used by Irenaeus and Anselm is found in the theological grammar of Karl Barth but that is another question.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) THE ACTUALITY OF THE ATONEMENT/ BY COLIN GUNTON. 2) CUR DEUS HOMO?/ ANSELM.

3) EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES/ JND KELLY/ 5TH EDITION. 4) MAN AND THE INCARNATION/VINGREN

5) AGAINST HERESIES VOLUME 1/ANCIENT CHRISTIAN WRITERS/TRANSLATED HY DOMINIC J UNGER.

6) THE WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS HOOKS 1-4/ T AND T CLARK 1867. 7) IRENAEUS 2 HOOKS 4-5/ T AND T CLARK 1869.

8) IRENAEUS/ DENIS MINNS OP/OUTSTANDING CHRISTIAN THINKERS SERIES.

9) THE EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS/ TRANSLATED BY HENRY HETTENSON. 10) NEW DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY/ IVP.

11) VISIBILE PATRIS FILIUS/JUAN OCHAGAVIA/ ORIENTALIA CHRISTIANA ANLECTA/171/1964.

12) THE GLORY OF THE LORD/ VOLUME II/HANS URS VON BALTHASAAR. 13) ANSELM AND A NEW GENERARION/ EVANS/ OXFORD PRESS. 14) NEW AMERICAN STANDARD HIHLE.

15) SAINT ANSELM/ SOUTHERN.

16) CHURCH DOGMATICS VOL IV,I BY KARL BARTH (THE DOCTRINE OF RECONCILIATION).

Part 1 Irenaeus’ interpretation of reconciliation and the atonement

March 27, 2021

I have completed the book of Ruth, so I wanted to do an ‘Easter Special’ 

This is half of an essay I wrote on the Incarnations for the points of view of Irenaeus and Anselm. Irenaeus was a very important voice in the early Church.  He personally knew St Polycarp from Izmir in Turkey.  He was also a Bishop of Lyon (France).  The next quote is from Wikipedia

“Irenaeus (/ɪrɪˈneɪəs/;[1] Greek: Εἰρηναῖος Eirēnaios; c. 130 – c. 202 AD)[2] was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in what is now the south of France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heresy and defining orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp,[3] the last known living connection with the Apostles, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist.[4] ” from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus

Compare and contrast Irenaeus and Anselm’s interpretations of reconciliation and atonement.

To begin with we shall look at Irenaeus and Anselm separately, we want to do justice to what they actually said within their historical contexts. Only then shall we give a brief discussion, in order to illuminate both comparisons and contrasts relating to our question. If we were to talk of the rules that governed their respective theologies, then the syntax they both employs are different to each other. Von Balthasaar says there are three collecting points for the theology of Irenaeus; 1) One point is that we need to think in terms of God hidden and revealed, in terms of unity and Trinity. 2) The relation of being and becoming, especially in particular God and man. 3) In the ordering of salvation, the relationship of time and eternity in terms of old covenant, gospel and church etc (12/58). Anselm on the hand is more philosophical in that he identifies three ‘ forces of change’ in the Cur Deus Homo; that of 1) will, 2) power, 3) and necessity (13/187). As can be seen there is no similarity of approach to how God reconciles and makes atonement for mankind. If anything, their particular approaches and hence their methods tend to be poles apart. For example, Irenaeus is not afraid of using the Bible to the fullest extent in his scheme of salvation. On the other hand, for Anselm, he uses as little Biblical information as possible to allow him to give a convincing argument for the need of the Incarnation and passion. Anselm then is more concerned with philosophical criterion which is a part of his training. (In this essay the Cur Deus Homo will be abbreviated to CDH and Against Heresies will be abbreviated to AH).

IRENAEUS

Irenaeus was concerned about the gnostic heresies due to certain apparent reasons, especially because it tended to use a Catholic language but with a different meaning for the initiates of Gnosticism ( 12/41 ) . In summary the Valentinian system began from Buthos and from him emanations’ went out from him until matter was created (it has to be stressed that Buthos always remains untouched by evil 1 matter). So according to the Valentinians, matter was made out of ‘ignorance, grief, fear and bewilderment’ (5/26. This is contrary to the Genesis account where the phrase ‘and God saw that it was good’ is repeated (Gen,chapter 1 verses 10,12,18 etc.). The distinction between God and creation becomes blurred (12/380). The concepts of person and idea also become blurred etc. Balthasaar writes,” Every concept becomes an aeon, every conceptual tension becomes a male-female relationship” etc (12/39). A great deal more could be said (but cannot be said due to length of essay) but one can see that this outline shows a new (false) foundation for the Christian faith.

Irenaeus believed that- mankind fell in solidarity due to the sin of Adam, this process through the work of Christ can be reversed. His main concept is ‘recapitulation’. He borrows Paul’s idea from Ephesians 1/10 ‘to sum up all things in Christ’. He sees this text in terms of as Kelly puts it,” He understands the Pauline text as implying that the Redeemer gathers together, includes or comprises the whole of reality in himself, (Christ) the human race being included”(3/172). Kelly goes on to say that Irenaeus takes advantage of Paul’s use of first and second Adam language. Christ being understood as the ‘second Adam’. Christ then as the second Adam recapitulated or reproduced the first Adam in the same way, in terms of birth from the virgin earth horn from the virgin Mary.

We also need to compare what Unger has to say, “It (recapitulation) must convey the idea of being brought to ahead as a unifying principle and of somehow resuming all things. This process of recapitulation of all things begins with the Incarnation and will be completed with the glorification of the body, yet because the Word pre-existed creation and was in the planning, and was operative from creation on, the Incarnate Word recapitulates all things. He summarizes in Himself all creation and unites all people and angels too to Himself as under one head, and in so doing He duplicates, or resumes, the acts of Adam either by similarity or by opposition” (7/185-186). As can be seen God’s plan of reconciliation precedes creation and works its way through to the end times. Through this term then, Man is not seen as an afterthought, but he is at the heart of what God will for his

creation.

Irenaeus’ important point is that Christ as the second Adam went through all the same sequences of human life such as birth, even including death. Each stage of human life then was being made holy. In doing this Christ reversed Adam’s sin at each stage of human development and thus brought about a new redeemed humanity. An important point to remember is that when Adam sinned so did the whole of the human race. The whole of the human race that was yet to be born was, as it were, locked up in Adam. Christ as the second Adam, in his ‘mystical body’ again brought about deathlessness and undid what the first Adam had done. For example, as the first Adam was disobedient the second Adam was obedient and so on (3/173).

The question that we have to ask ourselves at this juncture is,” If the Christian God is such a good God, why did he allow evil to exist in it? Concerning this major question, it has to be linked to the understanding of free will (8/66-76). Whatever the case, Minns makes his argument around AH 4/37-38. In AH 4/37.6 Irenaeus implies that if God should have created his creatures only for the good then freedom would in some way be hindered. Though Irenaeus’ argument is not full proof, it is a groundwork for an optimistic view of the Fall. Whatever the case may be, Irenaeus does have a concept of being and becoming. That is to say that God ‘is’ and that his creation is constantly growing and increasing (8/70). For Augustine and Athanasius however the free will of Adam and Eve was central for the outcome of the whole of creation. This situation could only be reversed, if God himself became incarnate (8/69).

In opposition to the Valentinian system, God was directly responsible for the creation of this world. Irenaeus directly contributed in the explanation of the Trinity through the notion of the ‘two hands of God’. The two hands were Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they were co-working with the Father in creation (Word and Wisdom 10/345). This allows Irenaeus to say that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. The point is that creation is to be seen as the product of love. This also takes away any platonic philosophical basis that creation is evil. There are some writers that try to intimate implicitly that the Son before creation had a creature 1 likeness about him. Ochagavia writes, ” Since the Son was not created out of nothing, as creatures were, we can infer that, before he was established, He existed in God in an unstable state, namely, without a determinate form and circumscription” (11/110). This mind is reading too far into the writings of Irenaeus. There is language in Irenaeus that explicitly rejects such a notion; ” For the Creator of the world is truly the Word of God” (6/105).

Concerning the doctrine of Man, he was created as a child with the view to grow into the image and likeness of God. Instead he did the opposite by disobeying God. If the Fall had not happened man would still have grown into communion with God and would have reached the status of manhood. Wingren goes on to say that it is this very communion that man had with God that has been broken due to disobedience (4/51-52 ) . Though man disobeyed God all in the end would work out for the good of man, ” …The Lord restored us to friendship through his incarnation, becoming the ‘mediator between God and man’. He propitiated on our behalf the Father, against whom we had sinned and cancelled our disobedience by his obedience, restoring us to fellowship with our Maker and submission to him (9/80//AH5/17/1). Man was made in the image (tselem) and likeness (demot) of God (Genesis 1/26). Irenaeus sometimes when he uses the term ‘image’, he sometimes refers to the creation of man and at other times he refers to Christ, depending on context. The original image of God is the Son and it is in his image that man was created. Man is different to the rest of creation because of this. It must be noted however that man has not yet reached his destiny, because he needs to grow up from childhood to adult hood, and this is what he is predestined for. Though man has been created in the image of God he still remains a created creature while the Son still remains the Creator. Man though, he was created with the view to reach maturity, but he yielded and was taken captive by the Devil (4/21).

Because Christ was a real man, he was able to defeat the Devil who had gained power over mankind due to the Fall. The previous sentence implies that the Incarnation itself effected the redemption; this is not entirely correct. This is the line that a commentator in the CDH takes concerning Irenaeus. Irenaeus when talking in terms of redemption is explicit that it is affected through or by the blood of Christ. The concept of the Devil owning the rights of humanity is present in the thoughts of Irenaeus. This thought though is not exhaustive to the theology of Irenaeus. Kelly writes,”…the essence of Adam’s sin was disobedience, the obedience of Christ was indispensable; it is obedience that God requires, and in which man’ s glory consists” (3/174). Concerning reconciliation Wingren summarising says that we need to recognize that there is a general move in the NT of God’s 1 love (because God is love) towards man. Thus, Irenaeus strives to bring this out in his writings.

The burning question then because of this is,” How shall anyone be able to overcome this adversary of mankind unless he is different from the man who has suffered defeat”? (4/21). The answer to this question is that only the Son is stronger than the Devil. The Incarnation then becomes central for Irenaeus due to saving man from this bondage. A proviso needs to be mentioned at this juncture due to ‘bondage language’. It is true that Irenaeus writes in terms of a ‘rational transaction’, at the same time though he uses propitiation language. We cite for example AH5/1/1-2, ” The lord redeemed us by his blood and gave his life for our life, his flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man, bringing God down to man through the Spirit, and raising man to God through his Incarnation, and by his coming truly and surely conferring on us immortality by means of our fellowship with God” (9/80).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) THE ACTUALITY OF THE ATONEMENT/ BY COLIN GUNTON. 2) CUR DEUS HOMO?/ ANSELM.

3) EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES/ JND KELLY/ 5TH EDITION. 4) MAN AND THE INCARNATION/VINGREN

5) AGAINST HERESIES VOLUME 1/ANCIENT CHRISTIAN WRITERS/TRANSLATED HY DOMINIC J UNGER.

6) THE WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS HOOKS 1-4/ T AND T CLARK 1867. 7) IRENAEUS 2 HOOKS 4-5/ T AND T CLARK 1869.

8) IRENAEUS/ DENIS MINNS OP/OUTSTANDING CHRISTIAN THINKERS SERIES.

9) THE EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS/ TRANSLATED BY HENRY HETTENSON. 10) NEW DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY/ IVP.

11) VISIBILE PATRIS FILIUS/JUAN OCHAGAVIA/ ORIENTALIA CHRISTIANA ANLECTA/171/1964.

12) THE GLORY OF THE LORD/ VOLUME II/HANS URS VON BALTHASAAR. 13) ANSELM AND A NEW GENERARION/ EVANS/ OXFORD PRESS. 14) NEW AMERICAN STANDARD HIHLE.

15) SAINT ANSELM/ SOUTHERN.

16) CHURCH DOGMATICS VOL IV,I BY KARL BARTH (THE DOCTRINE OF RECONCILIATION).