 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Book 1, Chapters 5 to 8
Chapter Theme Boso – If it was possible for this deliverance to be achieved through a being other than God (whether that be an angelic or human being), the human mind would receive it far more readily, for God (as an act of sovereignty) could have made a man without sin, that is, without any sinful substance, and not descended from anyone just as he made Adam, and he could have used this man to achieve the work of deliverance we speak of. Anselm – You need to understand that, if any other being were able to rescue mankind from eternal death, then we would have to consider ourselves as the servants of that being. Now if this were true, there would be no way to restore the sinless dignity of mankind's former state. For though we were destined to be the servants of God throughout eternity, and equal with the holy angels, we would end up as the servant of a being who was not God, and whom the angels did not serve.
Book 1, Chapter 6
Chapter Theme Boso – We call redemption a release, but unbelievers find this very surprising. For they ask; in what custody or imprisonment, or under whose power were you held that God could not free you from it, without purchasing your redemption by these extreme sufferings, and finally by his own blood? We tell them that Christ has freed us from our sins and from the wrath of God, and from hell, and from the power of the devil, that he came to defeat for us, because we were unable to do it. By doing all these things he purchased for us the kingdom of heaven, and manifested the greatness of his love towards us. After this statement of faith they answer saying, "You contradict yourselves. You say that this God who you believe in, created the universe by a word, so could why not do all these things by a simple command? You make your God out to be powerless." On the other hand, if you agree with them that he could have done these things in some other way, but did not wish to, how can you vindicate God's wisdom? You have just allowed room for the possibility that he desired to suffer all these unbecoming things, for no reason at all. For all these things that you mention are regulated by the will of God, and the wrath of God is the out working of Divine punishment. If then, God does not desire to punish us for our sins, we are free from our sins, and from the wrath of God, and from hell, and from the power of the devil, [in fact we are free from] all suffering that is the result of sin. What we had lost as a consequence of these sins, we now regain. For who has the ultimate power over hell, or the devil? Or, who does the kingdom of heaven belong to? Is it not the one who created all things? Whatever things, therefore, you dread or hope for, all of these are subject to Divine will, and nothing can oppose it. Just think, what a low opinion you would have of the wisdom of God and the power of a God that was unwilling to save the human race in any other way than that you mention, when it could have done it by a simple act of Divine will. For, if anyone for no reason at all should deliberately choose the hardest and most painful way to achieve what could be done in some easy way, then no one would consider that person wise. You made a statement that God has shown by his act of condescension how much he loved you. There is no argument to support this; unless it is proved that there was no other way to have saved you. For, if there was another way for God to have done it, therefore it was indeed necessary for God to manifest love in this way. Let us consider then why this method of displaying his love, and suffering the things you have listed was chosen, when there were other possibilities for saving mankind. For God shows good angels how much he loves them, yet these sufferings were not provided for their benefit. Then there is the question of his coming to defeat the devil for you, how would you then dare to interpret that? Is not the omnipotence of God enthroned everywhere? Tell me, why does God need to come down from heaven to defeat the devil? These are the objections that unbelievers think are sufficient to stop us in our tracks.
Book 1, Chapter 7
Chapter Theme Anselm – I do not see the force of reasoning behind the often used argument, that God, in order to save mankind, was bound, as it were, to have a contest of justice with the devil, before he had a contest of strength, so that, when the devil should put to death the one being in whom there was nothing worthy of death, and who was God, he should justly lose his power over sinners. The argument follows that, if it were not so, God would have had to use undue force against the devil, because the devil had the rightful ownership of man. This is reasoned, because the devil had not seized us with violence, rather we had freely surrendered to the devil. I might agree with this, if the devil or mankind had belonged to any other being than God, or were in the power of any other than God. But since neither the devil or man belong to anyone but God, and neither can exist without the exertion of Divine power, there is no need for God to contest with his own creature (de suo, in suo). What should God do but punish the servant, who had seduced a fellow servant to desert their common Lord and come over to himself. A traitor (the devil), had taken on a fellow fugitive (mankind). A thief had taken on a fellow thief, with what was stolen from his Lord. For when mankind was stolen from the Lord by the persuasions of the devil, both became thieves. For what could be more just, than for God to punish the devil for seducing mankind? For would there be any injustice in God who is the judge of all snatching us out of the power of the devil when we held so unrighteous. Whether it for the purpose of punishing us in some other way (other than by means of the devil) or for the purpose of sparing us, surely God alone has the right. For there is no doubt we deserved to be punished, and there was no more suitable way than to be punished by the devil to whom we gave our agreement to sin. However there was nothing deserving in the devil that gave that being the right to inflict punishment. In fact the devil was even more evil in this, because the motivation arose from a malicious impulse and not a love of justice. For the deception of mankind was not done at the command of God, but was permitted by God's inconceivable wisdom, which happily even controls wickedness. In my opinion, those who think that the devil has any right in holding us, come to this belief by thinking that we are justly exposed to the tormenting of the devil, and that God in justice permits it. Therefore they suppose that the devil has a right to inflict it. However, [as we consider justice, we see that] the very same thing from opposite points of view, can sometimes be both just and unjust, therefore if the matter is not carefully inspected it may wrongly be judged as wholly just or wholly unjust. Suppose, for example, that you strike an innocent person unjustly, would not justice demand that you deserve to be beaten yourself? However if the one who was beaten, though he should not avenge himself, strikes the person who assaulted him, then he does it unjustly. Therefore the violence on the part of the one who gives the pay back blow is unjust, because he should not avenge himself. As far as the person who receives the pay back blow is concerned, it is just, because a blow was given unjustly, so justice demands that one be given in return. You can see then, that from different points of view, the same action can be both just and unjust, and it may be that one person will consider it only just, and another only unjust. The devil is said to torment us justly, because God in justice permits it, and we in justice suffer it. But when we are said to suffer justly, it is not meant that this just suffering is inflicted by a just hand [for the devil does not have a just hand]. What is meant is that we receive this punishment because this judgment of God is justly deserved. The Apostle cites a written decree that was made against us, and cancelled by the death of Christ. Some think that this decree was written as some sort of compact or agreement. This compact allowed the devil to justly demand sin, and the punishment of sin, from mankind, before Christ suffered as a debt for the first sin to which the devil tempted man. In this way he seems to prove his right over mankind. However I do not understand it to mean that at all! For that decree is not written for the devil to use, this decree is written by God, for God; not by the devil, or for the devil. (Rom 1:32-2:2) Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth (NIV). For by the just judgment of God it was decreed, and, as it were, confirmed by writing, that since mankind had sinned, the power to avoid sin or avoid the punishment for that sin should no longer be available. For the spirit is outgoing and not returning (est enim spiritus vadens et non rediens), and whoever sins should not escape without punishment, unless the sinner is spared through God's mercy, and is allowed to be restored. We can see then that according to this Scripture (Rom 1:32) there is no basis for believing that the devil can torment mankind justly in any way. The fact is that justice is only to be found in a good angel, so in an evil angel (like the devil) there is no justice at all. There was therefore no reason why God could not use his own power to overcome the devil and liberate humanity.
Book 1, Chapter 8
Chapter Theme Anselm – Even though we cannot see the purpose of whatever God does the will of God (on its own) ought to be a sufficient reason for us (to accept it); for the will of God is never irrational. Boso – That is very true, if God truly does desire the thing in question; but many people believe that God only desires what is consistent with reason. Anselm – What do you find inconsistent with reason in regard to Christ's incarnation and our belief that it was God's desire to accomplish all those things that make up our faith? Boso – To put it briefly, the issue is that the Most High should stoop to things so lowly, that the Almighty [would get dirt on his hands and] do something that involves so much human toil. Anselm – Those that speak like this do not understand what we believe. We declare without any doubt that the Divine nature is beyond suffering the weaknesses and sin of a fallen human being. We declare that God cannot at all be brought down from his exaltation, and can not by nature toil in anything which he wishes to effect. But we say that the Lord Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, one person with two natures, and two natures in one person. Therefore, when we speak of God as enduring any humiliation or sickness, we are not referring to the majesty of Divine nature, which cannot suffer; but to the weakness of the human body that he assumed. So there remains no ground of objection against our faith, for we do not intend to devalue the Divine nature in any way. Instead we teach that the person of Christ is both Divine and human. In the incarnation of God there is no lowering of the Deity, we believe the intention was to raise the human nature. Boso – I agree, we should not let any type of human weakness spoken of in relation to Christ be considered as referring to his Divine nature. But tell me, how will it ever be proven that it is a just and reasonable thing for God the Father to treat or allow the beloved Son, in whom God was well pleased to be treated in such a manner. For this is the dwelling place [that is, the human body] the Son made for himself. What justice is there in the most just man of all suffering death for a sinner? If we were to condemn the innocent to free the guilty, would we not be judged worthy of condemnation? So as you can see the matter seems to return to the same incongruity that was mentioned above. For if God could not save sinners in any other way than by condemning the just, where is Divine omnipotence? If, however, God could, but did not wish to, how can we uphold the wisdom and justice of it? Anselm – God the Father did not treat Christ as you seem to suppose, and did not put to death the innocent for the guilty. In order to save humanity Christ endured death of his own free will. It can not be said that the Father compelled him to suffer death, or even allowed him to be slain, against his will. Boso – Even though it was not against his will, since he had agreed to the Father's will, he still seems to have been bound by the Father's command. For the Bible says that Christ: '... humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him ...' (Phil 2:8-9). It says that 'although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered' (Heb 5:8), and that God '... did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all ...' (Rom 8:32). It also says, 'I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me' (Jn 6:38), and when he was about to suffer he said, '... that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me' (Jn 14:31, also see Jn 12:49). Again in John he said, 'Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?' (Jn 18:11). On another occasion, 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done' (Luke 22:42). In another Gospel it says, 'My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done' (Mat 26:42) (see also Mat 26:39, Mk 14:36). In all these passages it would appear that Christ endured death because of obedience, more than the outworking of his own free will.
Paraphrased by -
P. I. Editor |
|
|
