Thomas Anslem Essay
CHAPTER I
THE NATURE OF THIS ESSAY
B. How is your essay on Anselm progressing?
R. Rather slowly, I must admit. Anselm is a man of great insight. As I read his work, I want to comment on his work itself, say, his ontological proof.
B. And your professor denied you the chance to attack and defend one of the great thoughts of Western Philosophical History? Scholastism’s equivalent of Zeno’s paradox?
R. Alas he did. Instead we have to address the “relationship of faith to theology according to Anselm.”
CHAPTER II
HOW ANSLEM RELATES TO HIS BROADER CONTEXT
B. I thought for survey History courses you had to place authors within their context.
R. In some ways, I do have to understand Anslem’s historical context. As a Scholastic theologian, he looks to scripture, tradition and fathers as authorities. His reverence for tradition is evident when he prefaces his essay with, “although the holy fathers have really said enough on the subject (101).”
B. I recall that Aquinas wrestled with the tension between the various voices in the tradition and scripture. Does Anselm also do this?
R. Both Aquinas and Anslem see contradictions as problematic, but not ultimate. For example, in the Proslogion, Anslem quotes Psalm 13, “The fool hath said in his heart ‘There is No God’ (73)” and then later comments that this same fool can be convinced of the self-evidence of God existence. In Why God Became Man, Anslem’s debating partner, Boso cites numerous scripture verses and then asserts, “Christ seems to have endured death more by force of obedience than by the free decision of his own will (111).” Anslem will then argue the contrary, namely, that Christ endured death voluntarily. In both cases, Anslem will offer another interpretation rather than refutation. Aquinas, it contrast, will more directly admit and address the contradictions in scripture. B. That is a pretty strong generalization for someone who has read as little as you.
R. Yeah, I would agree, especially to a professor who has studied in depth both authors.
B. That point notwithstanding, did not Aquinas appeal to the same Psalm 13 quote as a basis for why the existence of God is not self-evident?
R. Indeed. Both actually also cite Ecclesiasticus 3:22 as a warning against doing theology, but continue anyway, with joy in fact!
CHAPTER III
HOW FAITH PROCEEDS UNDERSTANDING AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
B. So, the question you were asked it about the relationship of theology to faith.
R. You have changed the question. The wording here, I believe is important.
B. How so?
R. The relationship is “faith to theology.” In Anselm’s mind, faith comes first.
B. I thought that theology thought us what to believe and that the very reasonableness of our theology would inspire in us faith.
R. Anselm actually asserts in regards to his proofs that those who ask for his proofs “do not expect to come to faith through reason (101).”
B. He could have written that because the people he wrote for already had faith.
R. Consider though how he begins his preface to his ontological proof, “Make a little time for God, and rest for a while in him…speak now, O my whole heart, speak now to God: ‘ I seek thy face; thy face, Lord, do I desire (70).”
B. That sounds more like a prayer than an intro to a theological argument.
R. Exactly. While St. Francis found God in the birds, Anselm found God in doing theological reflection. Theological reflection began with awakening the heart of faith. Consider his declaration, “I desire in some measure to understand thy truth which my heart believes and loves (73).”
B. Clearly Anslem had a faith seeking understanding.
CHAPTER IV
WHETHER FAITH IS NECESSARY FOR THEOLOGY
B. That makes me wonder. Does Anslem believe that faith is necessary for theology?
R. Anselm says both, “unless I believe, I shall not understand” and later makes the claim that God “givest understanding to faith (73).”
B. That is fine, but understanding is something entirely different theology. Plenty of people who haven’t the least bit of faith can construct a thought about God, such as “God is omnipotent” and construct an argument, even quoting scripture.
R. Anselm does not aim to describe God for the sake of description or argument, rather he seeks understanding. As Boso says, “you should remember what happens when we talk over some question. You know how God often makes clear what was concealed before (102).” Theology does not come to God, but God comes to us through theology.
B. Fair enough. So Anselm maintains that if a person does not believe, even if he articulates theological statements, he does not understand them?
R. I would lean towards yes. As Anselm posits, “For no one who understands what God is can think that God does not exist, even though he says these words in his heart – perhaps without any meaning, perhaps with some quite extraneous meaning (75).” Therefore, if you really understood, you would believe. So if you are not believing, you must not be understanding. A theology that truly understands God requires faith.
B. So, in order to understand, one must first believe.
CHAPTER V
THE USEFULNESS OF THEOLOGY TO UNBELIEVERS
B. However, could understanding serve as a means to faith, as I suggested earlier?
R. Anselm was aware of academic disdain toward Christianity, even in his time. He writes, “the question at issue is habitually presented as an objection by unbelievers, who scoff at Christian simplicity as absurd (101).”
B. Wow. Christians encountered unbelievers then?
R. Yes, indeed. Anselm even quotes 1 Peter, that Christians should be “ready always to satisfy every one that asketh” them “a reason of that hope which is in them (101).”
B. Did Anslem think theology could address their concerns?
R. Definitely. He criticizes poor theology writing, “When we present unbelievers with these harmonies you speak of…they think that this belief of ours is a fiction.” He concludes that “the rational soundness of the truth – that is, the necessity which proves that it was fitting and possible for God to condescend to the things which we proclaim – must first be shown (105).”
B. So then, Anslem saw that even though good theology would not inspire faith, bad theology could prevent faith.
THE NATURE OF THIS ESSAY
B. How is your essay on Anselm progressing?
R. Rather slowly, I must admit. Anselm is a man of great insight. As I read his work, I want to comment on his work itself, say, his ontological proof.
B. And your professor denied you the chance to attack and defend one of the great thoughts of Western Philosophical History? Scholastism’s equivalent of Zeno’s paradox?
R. Alas he did. Instead we have to address the “relationship of faith to theology according to Anselm.”
CHAPTER II
HOW ANSLEM RELATES TO HIS BROADER CONTEXT
B. I thought for survey History courses you had to place authors within their context.
R. In some ways, I do have to understand Anslem’s historical context. As a Scholastic theologian, he looks to scripture, tradition and fathers as authorities. His reverence for tradition is evident when he prefaces his essay with, “although the holy fathers have really said enough on the subject (101).”
B. I recall that Aquinas wrestled with the tension between the various voices in the tradition and scripture. Does Anselm also do this?
R. Both Aquinas and Anslem see contradictions as problematic, but not ultimate. For example, in the Proslogion, Anslem quotes Psalm 13, “The fool hath said in his heart ‘There is No God’ (73)” and then later comments that this same fool can be convinced of the self-evidence of God existence. In Why God Became Man, Anslem’s debating partner, Boso cites numerous scripture verses and then asserts, “Christ seems to have endured death more by force of obedience than by the free decision of his own will (111).” Anslem will then argue the contrary, namely, that Christ endured death voluntarily. In both cases, Anslem will offer another interpretation rather than refutation. Aquinas, it contrast, will more directly admit and address the contradictions in scripture. B. That is a pretty strong generalization for someone who has read as little as you.
R. Yeah, I would agree, especially to a professor who has studied in depth both authors.
B. That point notwithstanding, did not Aquinas appeal to the same Psalm 13 quote as a basis for why the existence of God is not self-evident?
R. Indeed. Both actually also cite Ecclesiasticus 3:22 as a warning against doing theology, but continue anyway, with joy in fact!
CHAPTER III
HOW FAITH PROCEEDS UNDERSTANDING AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
B. So, the question you were asked it about the relationship of theology to faith.
R. You have changed the question. The wording here, I believe is important.
B. How so?
R. The relationship is “faith to theology.” In Anselm’s mind, faith comes first.
B. I thought that theology thought us what to believe and that the very reasonableness of our theology would inspire in us faith.
R. Anselm actually asserts in regards to his proofs that those who ask for his proofs “do not expect to come to faith through reason (101).”
B. He could have written that because the people he wrote for already had faith.
R. Consider though how he begins his preface to his ontological proof, “Make a little time for God, and rest for a while in him…speak now, O my whole heart, speak now to God: ‘ I seek thy face; thy face, Lord, do I desire (70).”
B. That sounds more like a prayer than an intro to a theological argument.
R. Exactly. While St. Francis found God in the birds, Anselm found God in doing theological reflection. Theological reflection began with awakening the heart of faith. Consider his declaration, “I desire in some measure to understand thy truth which my heart believes and loves (73).”
B. Clearly Anslem had a faith seeking understanding.
CHAPTER IV
WHETHER FAITH IS NECESSARY FOR THEOLOGY
B. That makes me wonder. Does Anslem believe that faith is necessary for theology?
R. Anselm says both, “unless I believe, I shall not understand” and later makes the claim that God “givest understanding to faith (73).”
B. That is fine, but understanding is something entirely different theology. Plenty of people who haven’t the least bit of faith can construct a thought about God, such as “God is omnipotent” and construct an argument, even quoting scripture.
R. Anselm does not aim to describe God for the sake of description or argument, rather he seeks understanding. As Boso says, “you should remember what happens when we talk over some question. You know how God often makes clear what was concealed before (102).” Theology does not come to God, but God comes to us through theology.
B. Fair enough. So Anselm maintains that if a person does not believe, even if he articulates theological statements, he does not understand them?
R. I would lean towards yes. As Anselm posits, “For no one who understands what God is can think that God does not exist, even though he says these words in his heart – perhaps without any meaning, perhaps with some quite extraneous meaning (75).” Therefore, if you really understood, you would believe. So if you are not believing, you must not be understanding. A theology that truly understands God requires faith.
B. So, in order to understand, one must first believe.
CHAPTER V
THE USEFULNESS OF THEOLOGY TO UNBELIEVERS
B. However, could understanding serve as a means to faith, as I suggested earlier?
R. Anselm was aware of academic disdain toward Christianity, even in his time. He writes, “the question at issue is habitually presented as an objection by unbelievers, who scoff at Christian simplicity as absurd (101).”
B. Wow. Christians encountered unbelievers then?
R. Yes, indeed. Anselm even quotes 1 Peter, that Christians should be “ready always to satisfy every one that asketh” them “a reason of that hope which is in them (101).”
B. Did Anslem think theology could address their concerns?
R. Definitely. He criticizes poor theology writing, “When we present unbelievers with these harmonies you speak of…they think that this belief of ours is a fiction.” He concludes that “the rational soundness of the truth – that is, the necessity which proves that it was fitting and possible for God to condescend to the things which we proclaim – must first be shown (105).”
B. So then, Anslem saw that even though good theology would not inspire faith, bad theology could prevent faith.
posted by RJM at 1:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home