Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) Free

FREE CUR DEUS HOMO (WHY GOD BECAME MAN) PDF

Anselm of Canterbury was a native of Aosta and the son of the Lombard landowner. He left home for France in and entered the monastic school at Bec in Normany inwhich was directed by the famous teacher Lanfranc of Pavia. He Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) monastic vows insucceeded Lanfranc as prior inand became abbot in He would go on to follow Lanfranc as the Archbishop of Canterbury inand publish a number of important theological and philosophical works over the course of his career, including Monologion, Proslogion, and De Processione Sancti Spiritusas well as his theological masterpiece Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) the atonement, Cur Deus Homo. Cur Deus Homo was written between and in response to two different challenges to the Christian faith: the Jewish criticisms of Christian doctrine and the theological debates of the secular schools. Jewish opponents questioned the necessity, possibility, and dignity of the incarnation and atonement. The schoolmen argued that God became man simply to deliver man from the dominion of the Devil. Against the latter he argues that God became man not to merely trick Satan into overstepping his authority but to make satisfaction for sin. The work takes the form of a discussion between Anselm and his favorite pupil, Boso, who gives voice to the questions of unbelievers and believers. Their conversations are divided into two books and each book is subdivided into multiple chapters. In Book I Anselm answers the objections of unbelievers who reject the Christian faith because it appears to be contrary to reason chs. Anselm opens by explaining the purpose, central question, and methodology of the work. Cur Deus Homo was occasioned by repeated requests for proof about the incarnation and atonement. Unbelievers reject them as unreasonable and unfitting for God, and the faithful desire to more fully understand the things they already believe. The question that both want answered is this: why did God Almighty become man and die to redeem humanity from sin, when he could have Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) this in another way or through another person? In other words, what reason Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) necessity lay behind the incarnation and atonement? After stating the question in chapter 1, Anselm makes a proviso. If, in answering a question, he proves something by reason that is not supported by a greater authority, his answer should not be treated as more certain than is warranted. The first, and perhaps, chief objection to the incarnation and atonement is that it is unfitting for God to endure such extreme humiliation — i. On the contrary, it exalts his ineffable love and mercy. Moreover, it is eminently fitting as well. Since death entered the human race through the disobedience of man, it is fitting that life should be restored through the obedience of man. Since sin and condemnation had their beginning with a woman, it is fitting that the author of righteousness and salvation be born of a woman. Boso admits that these things are, in fact, beautiful, but are they rationally sound? Unless it can be proven that the incarnation and atonement were necessary, fitting, and possible, then unbelievers will never believe the truth of them. Boso questions the third of the previous assertions. This, according to Anselm, is impossible. If man was rescued from judgment by another man or angelhe would be a servant or debtor to that man or angel and not God alone, which would be idolatry. Moreover, such a deliverance would not restore man to his original pre-fall dignity. Man, as created, was a servant of God alone and an equal to holy angels. What is the bondage or captivity that only the death of God can deliver man from? And if he is, how can it be proven that he is all-wise for choosing such a humiliating means of redemption? Furthermore, could God not have demonstrated his love for man in some other way? And finally, why did God have to become a man to defeat the Devil? Why was God bound to strive with the Devil by justice, rather than by force? Moreover, though the Devil justly torments man for his sin, he does so unjustly — i. Therefore, there is no reason, as far as the Devil is concerned, why God should not use his power against him to deliver man from his torment. Boso sums up the previous arguments chs. The Father did not condemn the Son against his will, but he willingly and readily endured death to save men. Boso counters by pointing to a number of Biblical texts Phil. And since no one else could achieve this, for the Son, who willed the salvation of men, this amounted to the same thing as if the Father had commanded him to die. Anselm offers more interpretations of the previous texts. He argues that since the Father willed the salvation of men, and since the death of his Son was the only way to save the them, therefore the Father willed the death of his Son rather than leaving the world unsaved. Even so, Boso argues, it is unfitting for such a Father to allow such a Son to endure such treatment even though he did so willingly. Anselm replies that it is supremely fitting for such Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) Father to permit such a Son to do what he will for the glory of God and the salvation of men, when no other way was possible. Boso remains unconvinced. Though Anselm has answered his questions, he still has not shown why the Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) and atonement are both necessary and reasonable. Nothing is to be believed unless it is first proved by reason. Nothing unfitting shall be attributed to God. No reason shall be rejected unless a weightier one is opposed to it. It will be supposed, for the sake of argument, that the incarnation never happened. And it is agreed that: 1 man was made for eternal blessedness, which cannot be attained in this life; 2 while no man can reach it unless his sins are forgiven, no man passes through this life without sin; 3 therefore, the remission of sins is necessary for a man to arrive at eternal blessedness. Anselm and Boso begin their new discussion by defining two critical terms: sin and satisfaction. Sin is defined as not rendering God his due or violating his will in any way. This, according to Anselm, is the satisfaction every sinner ought to make to God. Anselm asks whether it would be fitting for God to simply forgive sin by mercy alone without requiring satisfaction for sin. Boso affirms that it would be fitting, but Anselm disagrees. To do so would be both unfitting and unjust. It would place the righteous and the unrighteous in the same position, and it would make the kingdom of Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) less just than the kingdom of men. It is inconsistent for God to command us to do something that is improper for him to do himself. There is no inconsistency, according to Anselm, because God is forbidding us from exercising a prerogative — taking vengeance — that belongs to him alone. The remainder of this article is premium content. Become a member to continue reading. Already have an account? Sign In. Amazon Kindle. Overview Cur Deus Homo was written between and in response to two different challenges to the Christian faith: the Jewish criticisms of Christian doctrine and the theological debates of the secular schools. Outline of the Argument God made man for eternal blessedness. Man fell from his original state, forfeited eternal blessedness, and ruined the entire race through sin. The remission of sins in necessary for fallen man to arrive at eternal blessedness. In order for sins to be remitted, satisfaction must be Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). Only man ought to make satisfaction for his sin, but he cannot. Only God can make this satisfaction, but he ought not. Since only man ought to make satisfaction, and only God can, it must be made by a God- man. Therefore, a God-man is necessary for the redemption of humanity. Buy the books. Connect with us Fill out this Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) to sign up and get Christian book summaries! Share This Share this with your friends! Cur Deus Homo by R.C. Sproul

Cur Deus Homo? Latin for "Why a God Man? In this work he proposes the satisfaction view of Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) atonement. 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 Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) 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. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Scholastic schools. Thomism Scotism Occamism. Major scholastic works. Cur Deus Homo at Wikipedia's sister projects. Categories : Scholasticism Christian theology books 11th-century Latin books Catholic Church stubs Christian studies book stubs. Hidden categories: Articles with Latin-language sources la All stub articles. Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history. Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file. Download as PDF Printable version. Wikimedia Commons. Part of a series on. Scholastic schools Thomism Scotism Occamism. This article about a book on the Catholic Church is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Books At a Glance : CUR DEUS HOMO? by Anselm of Canterbury - Books At a Glance

The church in Europe spent the first half of the Middle Ages besieged on all sides by pagan tribes and the might of Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man), and it is a miracle that it survived. But from the start of the second millennium, Christian Europe experienced a huge recovery, converting the last of the tribes, and gaining ground on the Muslims. This made room for a cultural recovery too, a rebirth of learning. New religious movements started, and, for the first time in centuries, major philosophical controversies over religious ideas broke out. The premier theologian in the new invasion—free Europe was Anselm of Canterbury, the head of the English church, originally a Benedictine monk from north Italy. His most radical, and perhaps most influential, contribution to Christian thought is Cur Deus Homo? Why did God become a human being, and die on the cross? To save us from sin and death. But how did it achieve that? Before Anselm came along the generally accepted explanation was this: the human race, because of its sin, belonged to Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) Devil, and Jesus died to pay him the ransom. Anselm argued that neither we nor God owed anything to the Devil — our only debt was to God. Christ died in our place because there was no way we could pay the debt ourselves. Anselm was equally radical in his emphasis on human reason. You will notice that this writing is unusual in not containing a single Scripture reference. This is not because Anselm looked down on the Bible or mistrusted it; by no means. But he believed that we can discover for ourselves the Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) revealed in the Bible although his whole argument is based on facts revealed in Scripture if we just think through the issues carefully enough. This way revelation and reason give us a double proof that it was right and necessary for God to become man and to die. In taking this approach, Anselm changed the world. He is one of those credited with starting Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man), a movement which ruled western thought for years. Scholasticism accepts all biblical teaching, but attempts to work out philosophical problems through reason alone. To this viewpoint, some would argue, we can trace the origins of modern thought which accepts only reason and not revelation. If a man or angel always gave to God what is due to him, he would never sin. No one who pays this debt commits sin. Everyone who does not pay it does sin. This is the righteousness of the heart, of the will, and it is the sole and complete debt which we owe to God, and which God requires of us. If someone sins, he has to restore what he has taken away, before he can be clear of fault. So then, every one who sins ought to pay back the honor of which he has robbed God. This is the satisfaction which every sinner owes to God. This is somewhat alarming, but I cannot make any rational objection to it. Would it be proper for God to cancel sins by compassion alone, Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) any payment of the honor taken from him? How would one go about putting away sins in this way? Simply by not punishing? But it is not right to cancel sin without compensation or punishment — if it is not punished, then is it passed by and not dealt with. But it is not fitting for God to pass over anything in his kingdom without dealing with it. There is also another thing which follows if sin is passed by unpunished, — that with God there will be no difference between the guilty and the not guilty. That would be inappropriate for God. I cannot deny it. But God commands us always to forgive those who sin against us. It is not inconsistent for God to forbid us to do what only he should do. To take revenge belongs to none but the Lord of all God is so free that he comes under no law or judgment. He is more merciful than anything else the mind can imagine. And nothing is right unless it happens according to his will. This being the case, it seems strange to say that he is totally unwilling or unable to cancel any injury done to him — especially when we are always asking him to forgive the offences we commit against others. Moreover, when we say that whatever God wishes is just, that does not mean that if God wished anything improper it would be just, simply because he wished it. If God wishes to lie, that does not mean that it is right to lie, it means rather that he is not God. So, if it is not fitting for God to do anything unjustly, it does not belong to his liberty or compassion or will to let the sinner go unpunished if he does not return to God what he has stolen form him. You remove from me every possible objection Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) I had thought of bringing against you. You will not, I think, doubt that the satisfaction we owe God must be proportionate to our guilt. Repentance, a broken and contrite heart, self—denial, various bodily sufferings, charity and forgiveness to others, and obedience. But you are giving God what you Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) owe him anyway, whether you had ever sinned or not, so this does not pay the debt of sin. If I already owed God myself and all my powers, even before I sinned, I have nothing left to give to him for my sin. Imagine you did not already owe any of those things which you have brought up as possible payment for your sin. When I think of the action itself, it seems very slight; but when I view it as contrary to the will of God, I realize there Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) nothing so grievous, and no loss that would compare with it. I must confess that I ought not to oppose the will of God even to preserve the whole of creation. You could not be more right. That is how terrible our sin Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) whenever we knowingly oppose the will of God, even in the slightest thing. Therefore, you can make no satisfaction for your sin, unless you restore something greater than the whole amount of that obligation which should have restrained you from Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) the sin. Anyone who could give God something of his own that was more valuable than the whole universe would have to be greater than anyone or anything but God. But no one other than man ought to do it, otherwise man does not make satisfaction. So, if, as I showed earlier, the heavenly kingdom must be filled with men, and if this cannot happen unless the satisfaction is made for sin — satisfaction which no one can make but God, and no one ought to make but man — then it is necessary for the God—man to make it. Blessed be God! What a great discovery. Go on as you have begun, for I hope that God will assist you. I think I understand you, but I want to follow each link of your argument. Well, there is no need to explain how precious the gift was that the Son freely gave. And you will not say that he does not deserve any reward for freely giving such a great gift to God. I see that it is necessary for the Father to reward the Son. Otherwise he is either unjust in not wishing to do it, or weak in not being able to do it; but neither of these things can be attributed to God. To reward someone you must either give him something he does not have, or else overlook some claim you have upon him. How do you reward the one who has everything? But if no reward is given to anyone, then it would be almost as if the Son had done his great work in vain. It cannot be given to the Son, so it must be given to someone else. What is sin, according to Anselm? Is this a helpful way of looking at it? Is this the only definition? Paul defines sin as whatever is not of faith. Do the two definitions agree? Do they overlap? Is one included as part of the other? Is his answer satisfactory? Why can God not forgive sin by simply overlooking it? Do you think Anselm has this right? Anselm says that no one can put right what has gone wrong unless that person is both divine and human. Why not? Does this argument work? Is this a fair point? Do you think this is fair? Is it possible to put it another way that makes more sense to people in a modern democratic society? Look closely at the last three paragraphs. Did the Son owe the father obedience? Why Did God Become Man? Translated by Sidney Norton Deane. Introduced by Stephen Tomkins. Edited and prepared for the web by Dan Graves.