Cur Deus Homo I-III

THE first part of this book was copied without my knowledge, before the work had been completed and revised. I have therefore been obliged to finish it as best I could, more hurriedly, and so more briefly, than I wished. For had an undisturbed and adequate period been allowed me for publishing it, I should have introduced and subjoined many things about which I have been silent. For it was while suffering under great anguish of heart, the origin and reason of which are known to God, that, at the entreaty of others, I began the book in England, and finished it when an exile in Capra. From the theme on which it was published I have called it Cur Deus Homo, and have divided it into two short books. The first contains the objections of infidels, who despise the Christian faith because they deem it contrary to reason; and also the reply of believers; and, in fine, leaving Christ out of view (as if nothing had ever been known of him), it proves, by absolute reasons, the impossibility that any man should be saved without him. Again, in the second book, likewise, as if nothing were known of Christ, it is moreover shown by plain reasoning and fact that human nature was ordained for this purpose, viz., that every man should enjoy a happy immortality, both in body and in soul; and that it was necessary that this design for which man was made should be fulfilled; but that it could not be fulfilled unless God became man, and unless all things were to take place which we hold with regard to Christ. I request all who may wish to copy this book to prefix this brief preface, with the heads of the whole work, at its commencement; so that, into whosesoever hands it may fall, as he looks on the face of it, there may be nothing in the whole body of the work which shall escape his notice.

I HAVE been often and most earnestly requested by many, both personally and by letter, that I would hand down in writing the proofs of a certain doctrine of our faith, which I am accustomed to give to inquirers; for they say that these proofs gratify them, and are considered sufficient. This they ask, not for the sake of attaining to faith by means of reason, but that they may be gladdened by understanding and meditating on those things which they believe; and that, as far as possible, they may be always ready to convince any one who demands of them a reason of that hope which is in us. And this question, both infidels are accustomed to bring up against us, ridiculing Christian simplicity as absurd; and many believers ponder it in their hearts; for what cause or necessity, in sooth, God became man, and by his own death, as we believe and affirm, restored life to the world; when he might have done this, by means of some other being, angelic or human, or merely by his will. Not only the learned, but also many unlearned persons interest themselves in this inquiry and seek for its solution. Therefore, since many desire to consider this subject, and, though it seem very difficult in the investigation, it is yet plain to all in the solution, and attractive for the value and beauty of the reasoning; although what ought to be sufficient has been said by the holy fathers and their successors, yet I will take pains to disclose to inquirers what God has seen fit to lay open to me. And since investigations, which are carried on by question and answer, are thus made more plain to many, and especially to less quick minds, and on that account are more gratifying, I will take to argue with me one of those persons who agitate this subject; one, who among the rest impels me more earnestly to it, so that in this way Boso may question and Anselm reply.

Boso. As the right order requires us to believe the deep things of Christian faith before we undertake to discuss them by reason; so to my mind it appears a neglect if, after we are established in the faith, we do not seek to understand what we believe. Therefore, since I thus consider myself to hold the faith of our redemption, by the prevenient grace of God, so that, even were I unable in any way to understand what I believe, still nothing could shake my constancy; I desire that you I should discover to me, what, as you know, many besides myself ask, for what necessity and cause God, who is omnipotent, should have assumed the littleness and weakness of human nature for the sake of its renewal?

Anselm.. You ask of me a thing which is above me, and therefore I tremble to take in hand subjects too lofty for me, lest, when some one may have thought or even seen that I do not satisfy him, he will rather believe that I am in error with regard to the substance of the truth, than that my intellect is not able to grasp it.

Boso. You ought not so much to fear this, because you should call to mind, on the other hand, that it often happens in the discussion of some question that God opens what before lay concealed; and that you should hope for the grace of God, because if you liberally impart those things which you have freely received, you will be worthy to receive higher things to which you have not yet attained.

Anselm.. There is also another thing on account of which I think this subject can hardly, or not at all, be discussed between us comprehensively; since, for this purpose, there is required a knowledge of Power and Necessity and Will and certain other subjects which are so related to one another that none of them can be fully examined without the rest; and so the discussion of these topics requires a separate labor, which, though not very easy, in my opinion, is by no means useless; for ignorance of these subjects makes certain things difficult, which by acquaintance with them become easy.

Boso. You can speak so briefly with regard to these things, each in its place, that we may both have all that is requisite for the present object, and what remains to be said we can put off to another time.

Anselm.. This also much disinclines me from your request, not only that the subject is important, but as it is of a form fair above the sons of men, so is it of a wisdom fair above the intellect of men. On this account, I fear, lest, as I am wont to be incensed against sorry artists, when I see our Lord himself painted in an unseemly figure; so also it may fall out with me if I should undertake to exhibit so rich a theme in rough and vulgar diction.

Boso. Even this ought not to deter you, because, as you allow any one to talk better if he can, so you preclude none from writing more elegantly if your language does not please him. But, to cut you off from all excuses, you are not to fulfil this request of mine for the learned but for me, and those asking the same thing with me.

Anselm.. Since I observe your earnestness and that of those who desire this thing with you, out of love and pious zeal, I will try to the best of my ability with the assistance of God and your prayers, which, when making this request, you have often promised me, not so much to make plain what you inquire about, as to inquire with you. But I wish all that I say to be received with this understanding, that, if I shall have said anything which higher authority does not corroborate, though I appear to demonstrate it by argument, yet it is not to be received with any further confidence, than as so appearing to me for the time, until God in some way make a clearer revelation to me. But if I am in any measure able to set your inquiry at rest, it should be concluded that a wiser than I will be able to do this more fully; nay, we must understand that for all that a man can say or know still deeper grounds of so great a truth lie concealed.

Boso. Suffer me, therefore, to make use of the words of infidels; for it is proper for us when we seek to investigate the reasonableness of our faith to propose the objections of those who are wholly unwilling to submit to the same faith, without the support of reason. For although they appeal to reason because they do not believe, but we, on the other hand, because we do believe; nevertheless, the thing sought is one and the same. And if you bring up anything in reply which sacred authority seems to oppose, let it be mine to urge this inconsistency until you disprove it.

Actually, I'd like to question this, please:

Is there a religion or a denomination called "Calvinism" or "Calvinist". Is somebody a member of the "Calvinist Church"? If not, is it really true that another "confession" was mentioned?

Yes, I quite understand that "Catholic-Orthodox" appears vague, but we all know that it would include Roman Catholics and those in communion with Constantinople and other noble and ancient sees.

But -- and I am not being indirect, I really do not know nor mean to claim or to imply knowledge -- is there a denomination which is explicitly "Calvinist"? Is such a Church explicitly in support of the "5 Solas"?

In other words once a comment is made to distinguish limited atonement from general atonement in a discussion distantly related to the principle topic, the thread immediately is thrown open to people who want to cheer lead for their denomination and slander other denominations? Is that really how it should work?

As an alternative could annalex be given the chance to retract the remark or could there be some other remedy so that we don't have to descend into denominational combat?

I fear that unless some fine-tuning of the policy is possible no real discussion can take place. There is a difference in theological systems endorses or adhered to by (A) those who think that God wants all to be saved and permits some to refuse salvation and (B) those who think that God's grace is irresistible and applied irresistibly. Once someone mentions that there are those who think column (B) is correct must the thread be thrown open to everyone?

I think there HAS to be some other way, but maybe there can't be. I dunno.

The thread wasn't opened because the phrase "limited atonement" was used. It was opened because the word "Calvinist" was used by the poster of the article.

If anyone else had used the term, I would have given the poster of the article the option of removing the reply post containing the term or opening the thread.

Calvinism is a "confession" under the guidelines because it is a belief. Protestantism is also a confession as is Reformed as is Christianity. Calvinists might appear in any of those caucuses.

As an alternative could annalex be given the chance to retract the remark or could there be some other remedy so that we don't have to descend into denominational combat?

annalex certainly could have offered to withdraw the comment - and as long as the post(s) got pulled, I would have honored it and withdrawn myself from the discussion, leaving the "caucus" designation intact. FWIW, had annalex said in post #29 that Calvinism was "included" and not "excluded", I would have equally withdrawn, because no contention would have raised against Calvinism by the use of the name.

That wasn't the comment that did it, MD. "Limited atonement" didn't do it - "Calvinists believe so-and-so, and so-and-so confession excludes them because of it" was the comment. Note that I'm not saying that annalex was "picking a fight" by bringing Calvinism up - I don't believe he was doing so, and I appreciated the tenor of his posts wherein he did. But if you're going to discuss the other guy's group, you either modify the designation to include them in your caucus (i.e. Catholic/Orthodox/Calvinist Caucus), or you drop the designation entirely. Either way, you must give them the opportunity to respond. I don't see a third option here, unless you think talking about a group behind their backs is a legitimate choice.

“While we often discuss differences between these two churches (church authority, the filoque, etc), the atonement doesn’t seem to be one of them. Is there a difference in views?”

Indeed there is. Orthodoxy does not teach, nor has it ever really taught (though a Father here and there has) the “atonement” theory. Orthodoxy looks to the Incarnation, Death and resurrection of Christ as a ransom of mankind from imprisonment by death and the Evil One. These are very different ways of looking at the etiology of our theosis/salvation. As I said earlier, the atonement theory as taught by the Latin Church is not heresy and never was. The idea though that the “Sacrifice on the Cross” was to satisfy some blood lust of God the Father, a belief that is current among some Latin circles now and indeed has been for centuries (I was taught something like that by the nuns as a kid) and even more prevalent among some Western Christian-non-Latins, is perilously close to heresy if not actual heresy.

Thank you for entertaining my questions. I'm really NOT trying to be tendentious here.

What if I said,"Calvin teaches [such and such]." Whom (if anyone) would I have to admit then? When somebody, a Catholic, who might not have thought about it before comes to the thread and asks about "pro multis", if an answer is given that discusses the various POVs about the question, does that mean the thread has to forfeit caucus status?

I don't think that saying Calvinism was excluded or included was meant as a put-down (if that's relevant). At the worst it would have been a report of a put down. I mean it's like "When those guys decided to put 'for all' as a paraphrase of 'pro multis', they -- those guys, not me, annalex -- were saying,'We don't think what Calvinists think.'" I'm serious, that I did not see the issue as a put-down but as a distinction in two differing theological POVs

To me "limited atonement" is a logical necessity once you have irresistible grace. The whole package fits together very well and persuasively in my mind, even though I am no longer persuaded. I can certainly see how devout and reasonable people of good will could reach that conclusion.

But it's not irrelevant that the cpnversatin seemed to be going away from approving "for all" and wishing they'd stuck with "for many". (Once when I was celebrating I got acute fumble-mouth and said "for you and not for many," and must have turned several new and interesting shades of scarlet.)

And my other question still goes, I think: What group is "the Calvinists"? If somebody put up a thread entitled "Thomist" I don't know if I'd include myself or not. If they put up a thread dissing or just discussing (or cussing? heh heh heh) John of Damascus, I wouldn't think they were talking about me. Is there a TULIP denomination?

Now I have to go worry if discussing is half way between dissing and cussing.

I am surprised by this decision: I made a comment on the wording of a prayer during Catholic Mass and did not characterized Calvinism in any negative way. Where did I attack the Calvinist confession in my remarks? I clarified that the English translation of the prayer was, in my opinion, made to draw a brighter distinction with Calvinism, and I explained the Catholic doctrine of unlimited atonement as I understand it. That is all.

Are we allowed to mention another confession by name in caucus threads? Please clarify.

I will continue treating this thread as a caucus thread and will not participate in the off-topic discussions about Limited Atonement. Anyone wishing to make that a topic can easily start a thread for it. I would like to discuss the first two chapters of Cur Deus Homo in peace. Thank you.

Here's a related question. St. Justin Martyr wrote dialogue with Trypho, where the same methodological device is used: an opponent is presenting an unbeliever's view and St. Justin responds with the orthodox view.

Now, one may point out that Boso is completely fictional and Trypho could have been an actual opponent. But it does not seem to be a distinction strong enough to condemn the dialog method as "foreign". If you are with me so far, we are left with

As the right order requires us to believe the deep things of Christian faith before we undertake to discuss them by reason; so to my mind it appears a neglect if, after we are established in the faith, we do not seek to understand what we believe. Therefore, since I thus consider myself to hold the faith of our redemption, by the prevenient grace of God, so that, even were I unable in any way to understand what I believe, still nothing could shake my constancy; I desire that you I should discover to me, what, as you know, many besides myself ask

Is this breaking up the faith stage and the reason stage "foreign"?

I mean Alex Murphy.

I think annalex was hornswoggled, perhaps inadvertently.

The first mention of Calvinism is make as part of a negative criticism of a liturgical text. It is neither discussing nor condemning Calvinism, it's discussing a piece of liturgical text and its possible motivation.

Then Alex Murphy asks for clarification. Up to that point while Calvinism had been mentioned, it had not been discussed, I think. So Alex {whose tag line -"(FR Member Alex Murphy: Declared Anathema By The Council Of Trent)" - does not suggest the most irenic of intentions} started the discussion of Calvinism and then said that since Calvinism was being discussed the Caucus status should be forfeited.

He even says that had another answer been given to his question, he wouldn't have asked for the forfeiture.

I think it's an interesting problem.

Annalex (#23): MAYBE those guys over there who wrote that text were trying to make a distinction pertaining to Calvinism.
(silence, the conversation goes elsewhere.)
Alex Murphy (#28): Was this distinction you mention one of approval or one of disapproval?
annalex:Since you ask, we have a disgreeement with Calvinism.
Alex Murphy: See there? They're discussing us behind our backs! They should forfeit caucus status.

I just did a lightning tour of the Catechism and found sacrifice and reparation as big words. But then in the section on "descended into Hell" we get "destroying him who had the power of death, that is, the devil."

In my so-called education (and this was reiterated in the recent RCIA for which I was a sponsor) it was said more than one that there is not ONE doctrine of the Atonement. My gloss on that is that it is an especially big problem, and that many ways, each one individually inadequate, to look at it are required to begin to get a grasp of it.

“In 7 I asked “the separation of faith and reason, to the point of taking the point of view of the infidels [— is] this in itself already foreign to the Orthodox?”

You responded “Yes” in 8. I am trying to understand what exactly is foreign since the dialog method evidently is not.”

OK. What is foreign is that we are the “rational flock”. Reason, as perhaps opposed to logic, is inseparable from Faith. As for dealing with infidels by taking their pov, well that we simply wouldn’t do. In a modern context, we can see this in Orthodoxy’s participation in the WCC. We don’t accept the points of view of the heterodox and do not use their methods to advance Orthodoxy. We simply state our faith as the Church believes it to be.

But reason is still something other than faith. Boso does not say, “I abandon the faith and take up the reasoning of the infidels”, he says, “Given that I already have faith, what would the reason say?”

For example, I had a discussion with an atheist, who did not believe in the Resurrection. I could have told him “and I do — buzz off”, or I could do what I did: point out that the witness evidence for the resurrection should be acceptable as historical evidence in absence of faith. Justin likewise does not advance his position to Trypho by postulating faith but rather reasons on the level Trypho could reason back. I understand the danger of syncretism, but I fail to see it in the methodology of St. Anselm, at least this far. Maybe in the sequel we’ll see something that would smack of false ecumenism, — please point it out.

Orthodoxy does not teach, nor has it ever really taught (though a Father here and there has) the “atonement” theory. Orthodoxy looks to the Incarnation, Death and resurrection of Christ as a ransom of mankind from imprisonment by death and the Evil One.

This is rather interesting Kolo. The early western church fathers taught a blood atonement in their writings so I wonder how the western and eastern churches reconciled this until the great split in 1000AD? Here are a very few excerpts from a very few of some great Church fathers who taught a blood atonement:

St. Clements (150AD)

1 Clem. 7:4 Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation it won for the whole world the grace of repentance.

1 Clem. 12:7 And moreover they gave her a sign, that she should hang out from her house a scarlet thread, thereby showing beforehand that through the blood of the Lord there shall be redemption unto all them that believe and hope on God.

1 Clem. 49:6 in love the Master took us unto Himself; for the love which He had toward us, Jesus Christ our Lord hath given His blood for us by the will of God, and His flesh for our flesh and His life for our lives.

St. Mathetes

He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal.

St. Iraenus

As far as concerned the apostasy, indeed, He redeems us righteously from it by His own blood; but as regards us who have been redeemed, [He does this] graciously. For He fought and conquered; for He was man contending for the fathers, and set free the weak, and endowed His own handiwork with salvation, by destroying sin.

Justin Martyr

And as the blood of the passover saved those who were in Egypt, so also the blood of Christ will deliver from death those who have believed.

My understanding is the Catholic thinking on the atonement NOW is very similar to Eastern thought. I'd be interested in the names of some eastern authors around the 1st-3rd century (perferably NOT in Greek). :O)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.