Cur Deus Homo VI-VIII: Is God Omnipotent and Wise? (Cath-Orth caucus)

Internet Medieval Source Book ^ | A.D. 1097-1100 | Saint Anselm of Canterbury

[annalex]

Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) is the first major theological work in the West that followed the Great Schism of 1054. This book is a major contribution to the theology of Atonement.

I plan to publish it for discussion in short installments as Catholic-Orthodox caucus threads. All Christians as well as non-Christians are very welcome, but I ask all to maintain the caucus discipline: no interconfessional attacks, no personal attacks, and no off-topic posts. Avoid mentioning confessions outside of the caucus for any reason.

Previous: Cur Deus Homo III-V

[annalex]

Write to me if you want in or out on this St. Anselm ping list.

The summary:

***

A skeptical mind finds Christianity illogical. If God is omnipotent, he could release man from the bondage of sin by his Divine will. If, despite that, God chose to send His Son to suffer and die in order to release man, then God did not choose the easiest way to do it and is not wise.

Possibly, God wanted to convict the devil of an injustice before conquering him by Divine power. But both the devil and man in justice should serve God. As the devil and man conspired against God, no further fault needs to be found in the devil than his role in the Fall. They are two disobedient servants.

Possibly, God wanted the devil to torment man as punishment. But that task would not exhonerate the devil, because the devil does not torment man out of obedience to God, but rather the torment is a natural consequence of his disobedience.

Further, there is no contract that God had to honor with respect to the devil, because the torment for sin is something man owes not the devil but God Himself.

The answer to the skeptic is rooted in the dual nature of Christ. The suffering of Christ was fully the will of Jesus the Man; God did not will it:

the Father did not compel him to suffer death, or even allow him to be slain, against his will, but of his own accord he endured death for the salvation of men.

-- How so? -- the skeptic retorts. Wasn't Jesus obedient to the Father?

The answer, only sketched today, will be elaborated upon in the next installment.

[annalex]

Pharmamom, welcome to the ping list.

[Tax-chick]

This is SO over my head, but it looks like y’all are having a good time. Cheers!

[annalex]

With a crew called Anselm and Boso, was there any doubt?

[annalex]

Kosta and all, please avoid references to non-caucus denominations and refer to the doctrines without reference to which confessions actually hold these views. This is a technical Caucus requirement, and I prefer the caucus designation to be maintained if at all possible.

To the substance of your post, I agree that there are several scripturally possible views. I am surprised you do not mention the clean Unlimited Atonement, which says that Christ died for all without exception, but the salvation he offers is efficacious to certain people, and not those who reject His grace.

However, I do not see any basis for advancing any particular theory based on the discourse presented in this installment. Specifically, I do not see why God owes anything to the devil, and you do not clarify what exactly is your disagreement with my summary or, more importantly, with St. Anselm himself.

It is always my fear that I will summarize incorrectly, and I invite comments on that. At the same time, this is a large book by FR thread measure, and perhaps it would we wiser if we limited our comments to what is actually said in the chapters here presented. For an overview of the theories of atonement a good source is Doctrine of the Atonement. Now, if you disagree with the statement you outlined, what are the contractual rights of the devil?

[kosta50]

Thank you, Alex. You are absolutely righth about the caucus-related technicalities. Please accept my apologies. I withdraw any refrences to other confessions.

RM, if you feel that my post #6 is a detriment to this limited caucus thread, please remove it. My mention of other confessions in it was comparative and not meant to invite their input. Thank you.

I am surprised you do not mention the clean Unlimited Atonement, which says that Christ died for all without exception, but the salvation he offers is efficacious to certain people, and not those who reject His grace

Alex, the term "efficacy" is not used by the Orthodox. We always have a choice between God and no-God, so the possibility of our rejection of His grace is always there.

The ransom doctrine only specifies how Christ atoned for our sins and not whether we are under any obligation or guarantee to be saved. Our cooperation with God's grace is always a requirement for "efficacy."

If you don't mind, provide NT references for easier comparison.

Specifically, I do not see why God owes anything to the devil, and you do not clarify what exactly is your disagreement with my summary or, more importantly, with St. Anselm himself

God doesn't owe devil anything. The NT (Mat, Mar, John, 1 John, 2 Tim, Heb) tells us, among other things, that God used this approach (offering Himself as ransom for us), not that He was obliged to do so. St. Anselm's objection to this doctrine suggests that God was somehow obligated to the devil. Rather, it seems God used this approach to trick the devil and destroy his hold on us. Everything is on God's terms and His choosing.

The "efficacy" of God's method is deemed unlimited, i.e. "for all," in some of these NT books (John, 1 John, 2 Tim) and in others as pro multis, "for many" (Mat, Mar, Heb), the former reflecting God's desire, and the latter the reality of our freedom which many use to reject His grace.

Speaking of obligations, with regard to St. Anslem's comment that "there is no contract that God had to honor with respect to the devil" (probably because it "weaknes" God in St. Anslem's eyes), I ask what should we conclude about the idea that He died as "propitiation" (appeasement), which, by the way, is suggested only outside the Gospels? (Rom 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 4:10, NAB)

I agree that no one should conclude that God was under any obligation. Rather God, chose the "sting" ransom approach, saying to the devil "Take Me and let My people go," and the devil fell for it and was rendered powerless because now He had God, over Whom he has no power, instead of men.

I see nothing in that doctrine that would oblige God "legalistically" or otherwise, as some suggest.

[pharmamom]

Could God have just given us a presidential pardon, with no atonement? I was thinking that the Incarnation and crucifixion were necessary in order for our human nature to be healed and in order for death to be conquered. If God just flat out forgave us and made us perfect, then we would no longer be humans with free will, but robots. But in taking on our human nature, Christ healed everything in us, including our will. By choosing death, he won our victory over death, which is the consequence of our sin. This leaves out the idea of a ransom, but does bring in the idea of reconciling our human nature with the divine. It is more an idea of healing, including healing from death, than of paying for sin.

[Kolokotronis]

“I agree that no one should conclude that God was under any obligation. Rather God, chose the “sting” ransom approach, saying to the devil “Take Me and let My people go,” and the devil fell for it and was rendered powerless because now He had God, over Whom he has no power, instead of men.”

I just can’t resist this:

“Let no one grieve at his poverty,
for the universal kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again;
for forgiveness has risen from the grave.
Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.
He has destroyed it by enduring it.

He destroyed Hades when He descended into it.
He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he said,
“You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below.”

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.
O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?”

[pharmamom]

Thanks. That gave me the shivers.

[kosta50]

This leaves out the idea of a ransom, but does bring in the idea of reconciling our human nature with the divine

Ransom is explicitly the most often used doctrinal position in the NT. (Mat, Mar, Heb, 2 Tim, John, 1 John).

[kosta50]

You forgot to identiy the piece as St. John Chrysostom’s Paschal Homily.

[annalex]

Let me clarify that "Further, there is no contract that God had to honor with respect to the devil, because the torment for sin is something man owes not the devil but God Himself" is my summation of what Boso, the "skeptic", says. This is the relevant passage from the book:

So also the devil is said to torment men justly, because God in justice permits this, and man in justice suffers it. But when man is said to suffer justly, it is not meant that his just suffering is inflicted by the hand of justice itself, but that he is punished by the just judgment of God. But if that written decree is brought up, which the Apostle says was made against us, and cancelled by the death of Christ; and if any one thinks that it was intended by this decree that the devil, as if under the writing of a sort of compact, should justly demand sin and the punishment of sin, of man, before Christ suffered, as a debt for the first sin to which he tempted man, so that in this way he seems to prove his right over man, I do not by any means think that it is to be so understood. For that writing is not of the devil, because it is called the writing of a decree of the devil, but of God. For by the just judgment of God it was decreed, and, as it were, confirmed by writing, that, since man had sinned, he should not henceforth of himself have the power to avoid sin or the punishment of sin; for the spirit is out-going and not returning (est enim spiritus vadens et non rediens); and he who sins ought not to escape with impunity, unless pity spare the sinner, and deliver and restore him. Wherefore we ought not to believe that, on account of this writing, there can be found any justice on the part of the devil in his tormenting man. In fine, as there is never any injustice in a good angel, so in an evil angel there can be no justice at all. There was no reason, therefore, as respects the devil, why God should not make use of as own power against him for the liberation of man.

When Boso speaks were are not to presume that this is the doctrine advanced by St. Anselm. This installments generally, is a large array of objections, to which St. Anselm only begins to answer in the end. All that has been said so far is that the dual nature of Christ makes it possible for God to not command His Passion. I suggest we wait till St. Anselm actually addresses the putative contract with the devil issue. We know that he offers a doctrine different from the ransom doctrine, but so far it has not been addressed.

I am not sure if Catholics use the term "efficacy" either. I was merely struggling to define Unlimited Atonement, which we teach and I know the Orthodox Church teaches. Further, the Catholic Church does not reject the Ransom doctrine, even if it also teaches the atonement by satisfaction. We consider all patristic atonement theories, up to and including Anselm's, theological speculation, as far as I know.

I don't think anything in the text suggests an opposition to the Ransom doctrine, except the remark by Boso that surely God did not owe anything to the devil, and you agreed with that.

[annalex]

The Resurrection

Note the devil in chains. Incidentally, what Christ is standing on is the "gates of hell" from Matthew 16.

Icon of the Resurrection

[jo kus]

I am not sure if Catholics use the term "efficacy" either.

We do. God provides salvation, but it is not "efficient" if it is thrown away by the individual. We, Orthodox and Catholic, believe that we have some say on whether we will accept God's offer or not.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

“Note the devil in chains. Incidentally, what Christ is standing on is the “gates of hell” from Matthew 16.”

Really????????????? I didn’t know that! /s

[Kolokotronis]

“You forgot to identiy the piece as St. John Chrysostom’s Paschal Homily.”

Given the number of times I have posted that sermon here on FR, I assumed readers of this thread in particular would recognize it. In other words, “He needs no introduction”! :)

[kosta50]

Given the number of times I have posted that sermon here on FR, I assumed readers of this thread in particular would recognize it. In other words, “He needs no introduction”!

[kosta50]

Correction: But, of course....