Introduction
Human thought is inherently dynamic. People need a narrative and a reason to believe something. Eventually, people need to think, investigate, and find roots in the beliefs and thoughts passed down from their ancestors, tell this story, and share their interpretation and narrative. Therefore, one of humanity’s major beliefs, faith in God, is a subject of constant scrutiny and re-interpretation of its religious texts. One of such famous interpretations was made by Robin Ryan Anselm on the death of Christ and its meaning. Living in the age of emerging academia and reappearing of Aristotle’s thought, Anselm was influenced by the Greek foundational rules of argumentation. Thus, his work reflects that impact, telling the story of the life and death of Christ and establishing its connection to the original sin of humanity. Even though Anselm’s work provides the basics of the Bible’s modern-day interpretation, the logic and details behind the argument are still not impervious to the critique.
Anselm’s Disagreement with the Earlier Interpretations
Anselm disagrees with the details of the earlier interpretations of the crucifixion, providing his outlook on the idea. In the earlier views, according to Crisp, God is merciful; thus, he wishes to free the people and offer their souls immortality by striking a deal with Satan. The life of Christ is a ransom in this view. According to Mills, before Anselm, the beneficiary of this ransom was Satan, who represents not only the idea of sin but death and human mortality. Anselm’s first and main objection is that this interpretation makes God less powerful, perfect, and omnipotent. At the core of his disagreement, it is unclear to Anselm why God needs to bargain with Satan in the first place. The simple fact that Satan has control over humanity that God cannot overrule goes against the idea of God’s omnipotence.
Furthermore, if God can take control over humans from Satan and actively wishes to do that, why he chooses to bargain instead and sacrifice Jesus is unclear to Anselm. God is all-knowing and all-powerful. In other words, Anselm questions whether Satan’s claim over people, both of whom God punished, should be respected by God or if it exists in the first place.
Moreover, by sacrificing Jesus, according to these interpretations, God tricks Satan. This behavior is unlike God, who does not need trickery to achieve something and cannot even consider it, as he is omnipotent and perfect. On the other hand, this trickery is more of a characteristic associated with Satan and his seduction of humans into sin. God cannot possess the behavioral patterns of Satan, as the latter was banished from heaven by God for them. It again could show God’s imperfect nature, which is impossible due to the core idea of God as a perfect creator.
Anselm’s Arguments for Atonement and Salvation
As he disagrees with the previous efforts to interpret the life and death of Christ, Anslem proposes his version. In his view, humanity’s greatest sin is taking away honor from God, and people cannot compensate God for this sin,
No member of the human race except Christ ever gave to God, by dying, anything which that person was not at some time going to lose as a matter of necessity. Nor did anyone ever pay a debt to God that he did not owe. But Christ of his own accord gave to his Father what he would never lose as a matter of necessity, and he paid, on behalf of sinners, a debt which he did not owe… He was in no way needy on his own account, or subject to compulsion from others, to whom he owed nothing, unless it was punishment that he owed them. Nevertheless, he gave his life… (Seals and Bush 58).
According to Anselm, only Jesus can repent humanity’s sins through living and dying. Any other person except Jesus is destined to die due to their sinful nature. On the other hand, Jesus is the one who Satan cannot seduce and, thus, can protect the immortality of his soul. Jesus, unlike humans, is not bound by the original sin and does not have human imperfection. Thus, his death brings more than any human’s, and there appears to be room for bargaining for humanity. As a result of his sacrifice, humans can now have immortal souls if they live morally and do good deeds.
Critique of Anselm’s View on Incarnation, Original Sin, and Cruxifucation
The main critique of Anslem’s conclusion is that he presents God as a tyrant. In the most religious interpretations, God is benevolent and merciful. Anselm also claims God’s eventual goodwill towards humans. However, the notion of atonement and repayment for the sins can be viewed in the light of tyranny. Anselm talks about humans taking away the honor from God, but the question remains how mere humans can do that to an all-powerful and all-knowing God. If humans can accomplish that, God must not be omnipotent and perfect. This conclusion can further imply that God can have emotions, which is impossible if God is perfect. Emotions are purely human and born from the human condition of suffering. In this case, humans can experience anger, surprise, and sadness from lost honor. On the other hand, God cannot feel these emotions because he could have predicted that and have power beyond human imagination to prevent dishonor attempts. Thus, people cannot dishonor God because of the idea of God as an all-powerful creature.
If humans cannot dishonor God, the source of the sin remains unknown. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and a perfect being, the question arises of why humans are imperfect, can sin, and are destined to suffer. Moreover, for what sin should Jesus sacrifice himself? If God is extremely different from humans, he actively needed to invent the flawed creatures and sufferings for their flaws. This conclusion would imply that God is an evil tyrant who created humans for his sick pleasure. Jesus’s sacrifice would also become fuel for this pleasure. However, this idea clashes with the core foundation of God’s perfection. Perfection cannot be evil or good as it stems from its notion. This statement would mean that God is imperfect like humans, undermining the whole interpretation.
According to Koryakin, it is important to remember that society’s feudal and patriarchal order influenced Anslem at that time. Thus, it is possible that he emulated the feudal lords in his view of God. The punishment for the subjects was seen as normal and encouraged, which further establishes the connection with the idea of atonement and salvation. Another interpretation of this idea might be more fool-proof. According to Meyer, it is the idea of God being a loving parent instead. This view also contains patriarchal motives, but God’s motivation is argued to be benevolent rather than tyrannical. God placed humans on earth for them to experience emotions and suffering to become better and closer to him in perfection.
However, this argument has one flaw. It is the idea of God creating perfect creatures like himself. If God did that, then there would be no need for suffering. One possibility would be that he is unable to do that or is afraid. However, the existence of such perfect creatures like Jesus dismisses such theories. Moreover, as mentioned before, God’s emotions disprove the idea of God. Similarly, his inability to create anything undermines his omnipotence as his primary characteristic.
Moreover, according to this view, the basic idea of incarnation as God or a perfect being like Jesus taking on the human form is under question. How does an omnipotent and ideal being like God or Jesus even take the form of such an imperfect human creature? The human condition implies being flawed, not perfect, and, thus, the suffering of such beings is justified and happens in the real world. This reasoning would mean that Jesus is not excellent because he takes on human form. However, Bible shows Jesus being flawless, which could mean that humans can be created perfect, but God decided not to for some reason. This trail could lead back to the dilemma of the tyrant or loving parent mentioned above. However, Jesus is the incarnation of God, which supports the idea of a loving parent more than a tyrant, as the tyrant could not sacrifice himself. This trail could suggest that God is not capable of creating the separate perfect being and only incarnations of himself, implying the lack of his main characteristic omnipotence. These statements are examples of how the idea of atonement and salvation can be criticized.
Consequences of Incarnation, Atonement, and Salvation’ View
In the aftermath of Jesus’s sacrifice, people need to lead a good moral life to preserve their souls and honor the painful life and death of Jesus. Thus, the idea of faith and morality was always interconnected. However, this relation does not mean its dependency on each other. Philosophers prove that humans behave morally because of other incentives than faith, including the inherent human willingness to be a good person, fit into society, and other reasons. However, according to Ahn, the connection of morality to faith was used to establish a sense of shame in people and control them in the past on the examples of dangerous cults. The idea of the people’s inherent sinfulness helps perpetrators further achieve this goal.
On the other hand, the concept of salvation gives people hope for a better outcome and motivates them to be and do better. Hope is a powerful tool. In opposition to shame, it has the potential to change society for the better, protecting it from destructive nihilism, according to Sutherland. Thus, there are possibilities for positive and negative impacts on society.
Humans Cannot Judge Higher Beings
After examining the ideas of incarnation, atonement, and salvation, there seem to be some degrees of logical fallacies or possibilities for critique. Every argument refers to the impossibility of God being imperfect and not powerful. This pattern shows the inherently flawed human nature. If God is perfect and humans, as a fact, are inadequate, these humans cannot comprehend the inner motivation and realities of such a creator. This conclusion can also imply the impossibility of finding the correct religious interpretation for the necessity of incarnation, atonement, and salvation. However, this view is not enough to disprove the existence of God.
Works Cited
Ahn, Hojin. A Constructively Critical Conversation between Nonviolent and Substitutionary Perspectives on Atonement: Theological Motifs and Christological Implications. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2021.
Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Saint Mary’s Press, 2009.
Crisp, Oliver D. Approaching the atonement: The reconciling work of Christ. InterVarsity Press, 2020.
Haratine, T. Parker. “Approaching Participation in the Divine Gift: Anselm of Canterbury’s Theology of the Holy Spirit.”The Heythrop Journal 62.4 (2021): 729-742. Web.
Koryakin, Sergey. “Abandoning Penal Substitution: A Patristic Inspiration for Contemporary Protestant Understanding of the Atonement.”Religions 12.9 (2021): 785. Web.
Meyer, James David. “The Patristic Roots Of Satisfaction Atonement Theories Did The Church Fathers Affirm Only Christus Victor?”Tyndale Bulletin 71 (2020): 293-319. Web.
Mills, Matthew J. “Just Enough to Be Satisfied.”Forgiveness and Restorative Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2021. 57-74. Web.
Seals, Zachary, and John Bush. “Redeemed From Death: Atonement, Incarnation.” McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry: Volume 20, 2018-2019 20 (2020): 147.
Sutherland, Andrew W. “Debt Resistance and Satisfaction? Notes from Catherine of Siena toward a Theology of Redemption against Neoliberal Capitalism.”Modern Theology 38.1 (2022): 3-18. Web.