Anselm

Why did ‘Something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought’ Become Man?

            In the history of theology, there have been people who have changed the nature of the discussion about theology very few times.  Anselm is one such theologian.  The search for a proof for the existence of God that comes outside the realm of religion and faith is one that continues to occupy the minds and writings of theologians and philosophers to this day.  The reason, if God can be proved “beyond doubt,” belief in Him, His Word and His Works will also be necessary, or at least will have to be denied for non-intellectual reasons.  Anselm explored the relationship between this God who can’t be denied and His greatest work, the work of redemption in the God who became man.  The goal of this essay is to explore this relationship and see how Anselm discusses these two issues and bring the two concepts together at the end.  We will see that for Anselm, God is not only there, but he is active in his world and his work of redemption - to piggy-back off from a title from book published 1000 years later.  The God who is and cannot-not-be, has rescued his people in the only way that it could be done – by the Son becoming man.  

            In his Proslogion, Anselm set forward his argument for God’s existence which is still being discussed and modified by theologians and philosophers today.  It has come to be known as the Ontological argument.  The essence of Anselm’s argument is in the very naming of God, His existence is not only implied, but demanded. 

            Anselm begins his journey, not as someone who is coming to the issue of God’s existence with impartiality, but as a believer who is seeking to give ground to his faith.  He echoes Augustine with his famous phrase, “I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but I believe so that I may understand” (Pros, p. 87).  For Anselm, faith in God is not in question, even though there may be some that do have questions about the existence of God.  But the proper place to begin is with the assumption that God is, for even the fool acknowledges that existence in his denial.  The God who is “something-than-which-nothing-greater-than-can-be-thought” exists as we believe him to exist and his nature is what we believe it to be (p. 87).

            Anselm begins his argument with the fool, quoting Psalm 14:1, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”  The fool therefore has some idea in his mind of God, even if he doesn’t fully grasp that concept.  “But surely, when this same Fool hears what I am speaking about, namely, ‘something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought’, he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists” (p. 87).  Anselm acknowledges that there is a difference between conceptually understanding the name of this God and that this God really exists, in the same way that a painter has the object of his painting in his mind before he actually puts brush to canvas. 

            This becomes the crux of Anselm’s argument; that the Fool – the non-believer – can not deny the existence of a God that is ‘something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought,’ because existence in reality is always greater than existence in the mind alone (p. 87).   To say that this God does not exist in reality means that there is something greater than this God which you say nothing greater can be conceived of that you have in your mind only.  Since you can conceive of a God who does exist, this God must be greater than your in-mind conceived only God because existence is always greater than non-existence.  His conclusion, “Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and reality” (p. 88). 

Since you can hold both of these concepts in the mind and can evaluate that the being that can be conceived of as existing is not the same as the being that can be conceived of as not existing and that existence is greater, therefore you must admit that this being does in fact exist, and that this being is God.  We can conceive of nothing greater than God, because that would mean that the creature is above the Creator, “and that is completely absurd” (p. 88).  “In fact, everything else there is, except You alone, can be thought of as not existing.  You alone, then, of all things most truly exist…” (p.88). 

Anselm ends his famous argument with a discussion of how to deal with the fool that has said in his heart, “there is no God.”  For Anselm, the discussion really seems to be one of words that the fools says in his heart, but really knows that they do not in fact mean what he wants them to mean.  Just because the fool says the words, “there is not God” in his heart, does not mean that the fool actually believes them to be true.  “No one, indeed, understanding what God is can think that God does not exist, even though he may say these word in his heart either without any [objective] signification or with some peculiar signification” (p.89).  The idea is almost like the 3 year old who stands behind a current and believes that not only is she hidden so that the world cannot see her (even though her feet are visible) but that the world is in fact no longer there.  The fool, knowing that God is “that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought” still utters the words in his heart, knowing they do not signify reality.  “Whoever really understands this understands clearly that this same being so exists that not even in thought can it not exist” (p. 89).

For Anselm, as for all apologists, it isn’t just about the existence of God as a stand alone argument.  When the existence of God is proved (or at least the argument is deemed to be cogent) what else in the Christian religion do you have to deal with?  Anselm deals with many of these other issues in the rest of the Proslogion, including the issues of God’s justice and His mercy.  There is no question in Anselm’s mind that God forgives and that his mercy and justice are both in play in this act of redemption.  But for Anselm, if God does exist and he is who the Bible says that he is, what does he want us to do with this information?  It is never enough to simply leave the discussion at the point of God’s existence.  We must move to the rest of the implications of that truth.  If God is real, there are certain implications of that fact.

 Leaving aside for the sake of this essay whether Anselm has in fact been successful in proving the existence of God (an important consideration, but one beyond our current scope), we turn now to the answer to the question of how God’s justice and mercy work together in the redemption of man in Anselm’s essay entitled “Why God Become Man.”  For Anselm, and for everyone who struggles with the existence of God, recognizes that there is more at stake than God’s existence; everyone must also deal with the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  It’s not just about God, it’s also about the God-Man. 

The issue of God becoming man for the purpose of providing a means of salvation is one that continues today to cause controversy.  Many today echo the same sentiments of Boso, Anselm’s quester in the work: either God is not much of a God that he can’t think of another solution, or else he is a tyrant because he demands so much that we cannot ever achieve what he asks.  His difficulty in understanding is echoed by many, “For it is a surprising supposition that God takes delight in, or is in need of, the blood of an innocent man, so as to be unwilling or unable to spare the guilty except in the event that the innocent has been killed” (p. 282). 

For Anselm, the key to understanding the coming of God in the man Jesus is related to the problem that man has – sin.  If man was created for a “state of blessedness” (p. 282) which can never be attained in this life because of the sin in his life, how does man solve this problem?  “The remission of sins, therefore, is something absolutely necessary for man, so that he may arrive at blessed happiness.” (p. 282).  The only solution is for God to forgive sins.  But to completely understand how God can do that, Anselm must define sin.  To properly understand the solution, one must understand the problem. 

For Anselm, the problem is a bigger problem than most people appreciate.  Many times we want to think of ourselves as not that bad, just a little bit of a polish and clean-up and we will be fine.  Anselm defines, “to sin is nothing other than not to give God what is owed to him” (p. 283).  He further explains, “Someone who does not render to God this honour due to him is taking away from God what is his, and dishonouring God, and this is what it is to sin” (p. 283).  This dishonor must be paid back by the sinner and not just forgotten without punishment because that would mean, “the position of the sinner and non-sinner before God will be similar – and this does not befit God” (p.284).  This would mean there is essentially no law for man and which would put man and God in the same position, not being subject to any external law.

This violation of God’s honor must be dealt with, because will not allow his honor to be violated, “it is a necessary consequence, therefore, that either the honour which has been taken away should be repaid, or punishment should follow” (p. 287).  Because God’s honor has been violated, “God cannot remit a sin unpunished, without recompense, that is, without the voluntary paying off of a debt, and that a sinner cannot, without this, attain to a state of blessedness, not even the state which was his before he sinned” (p. 302). 

While this might seem unfair to us or that God is stacking the deck against us, that is because we do not understand the nature of the problem of sin.  This conception of sin and it’s consequences on man’s nature and destiny is a very large part of the problem for Anselm and is major reason for the “drastic” nature of the solution, God coming in flesh as a man.  Anselm illustrates the seriousness of the problem of sin with what appears to a simple example, looking in a place that God says “it is totally against my will to look” (p. 305).  While we might be tempted to say that is an inane rule, the key point for Anselm is the will of God.  When God has established the rule, even something so simple as don’t look over there because the totality of my will is that you don’t look, to thrust our will over God’s is the very essence of the problem.  “This is how seriously we sin, whenever we knowingly do anything, however small, contrary to the will of God” (p. 306).  Carry that over to the number of times that we break the actual, revealed will of God, and we begin to understand the problem for Anselm (and for us).  Something must be done to “give recompense” for the wrongs that we done against God’s honor, because, “God cannot raise up to a state of blessedness anyone who is to any extent bound by indebtedness arising from sin” (p. 306,307). 

The solution is “utter forgiveness” which must come through “repayment of the debt which is owed because of his sin and which is proportional to the magnitude of his sin…” (p.312).  But how can man do this?  The answer for Anselm is that he cannot.  The “whole of humanity is rotten and, as it were, in a ferment with sin…” (p. 309).  No one can save themselves, and certainly no one can save another man, let alone everybody.  The word that Anselm uses to describe this reality in man is “incapacity” (pp. 309-311).  It seems there is no solution, at least not one that we can create or carry out.  But where we find it impossible, God creates a way, the God-man.

We come to the crux of the why God had to become man, because salvation “cannot come about unless there should be someone who would make a payment to God greater than everything that exists apart from God” (p. 319).  God’s honor demands this payment be made, and without it, salvation cannot be made.  But God is going to bring to completion his intent in creating man, so a solution must be made available.  As we say with the quote above, the solution must come from outside of the normal situation – remember we do not have the capacity.  But the debt is owed by man, so the “obligation rests with man” (p. 320).  So if the only one who can pay the debt is God himself but the obligation belongs to man, these two must be brought together.  Anselm says, “no one can pay except God, and no one ought to pay except man: it is necessary that a God-man should pay it” (p. 320). 

Anselm explores what this God-man would have to be like in the succeeding chapters.  He develops why this God-man must be exactly what orthodox theology teaches – the God-man must be both completely God and completely man, “otherwise it cannot come about that one and the same person may be perfect God and perfect man” (p. 321). 

Finally, for this God-man to bring about this redemption, he must willingly lay down his life.  If death is the result of our willful rebellion against the will of God, then this perfect God-man who does no sin will not die as a consequence of rebellion.  But in place of another, he willingly lays down his life, “voluntarily and not in repayment of a debt.” (p. 329).  “Christ of his own accord gave to his Father what he was never going to lose as a matter of necessity, and he paid, on behalf of sinners, a debt which he did not owe” (p. 349). 

‘Something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought’ came as a man, fully and completely to pay our debt; a debt we could not pay, to secure a future blessed hope.  Anselm set out in his Proslogion to prove the existence of God through the mental process of conception of the greatest conceivable being.  He comes to the person of the God-man, and says, “a juster mercy cannot be imagined” (p. 354).  Perhaps, Anselm wants to remind us that our conceptions do not mean that we have God figured out.  This work of redemption is also ‘that-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought,’ brought about by the God who is ‘something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought.’ 

Bibliography

Anselm of Canterbury.  The Major Works.   Ed. Brian Davies and G.R. Evans.  Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1998.