The Atonement of Christ

[mardukm]

1. So, where do ECs fall on original sin? How does it differ from full-out Orthodoxy? I only yesterday learned how very different the Orthodox understanding of the Fall and its results, and the importance of Baptism, and all of that is, as original sin is absent. It endears me (in part because I just had a miscarriage and it pushed me to really examine how much or little sense I see in the RC position).

The Eastern Tradition on Original Sin is not opposed to the Latin Tradition on Original Sin. Many misunderstand what the Latin Church teaches on Original Sin regarding guilt. Like so many things, the source of the misunderstanding is language. When the Latins say that we inherit guilt from Adam, most people think it means that the Latin Church is teaching that we inherit the BLAME for Adam’s sin. But that is completely false. There are two Latins words that are commonly translated as “guilt” in Latin theological language - culpa and reatus. Culpa (aside from its normal translation of “guilt”) means “blame” while “reatus” refers to a certain state. To explain, imagine that a man damages someone else’s property. That man acquires both culpa (personal blame for the action of which he is guilty) and reatus (a state of indebtedness to repay the damage) for that action. Suppose the man dies, yet he has not yet paid off the damage. Imagine that this man has a son who inherits his estate. The son will naturally inherit the reatus (the state of indebtedness to pay off the damage), but the son has certainly not inherited the culpa (the personal blame) for the man’s action.

Most people think that the Catholic Church’s dogmatic documents on Original Sin use the term culpa when speaking of “guilt.” Thus, there is a misconception that when these documents speak of inheriting the guilt of Adam, they are teaching that that we are inheriting the BLAME for his personal sin. Wrong. The term used by the dogmatic documents is actually reatus. Adam’s sin resulted in a certain state of being for himself and his descendants - i.e., we are born lacking the state of holiness in which Adam and Eve were created, and this state of being in a lack of holiness needs to be satisfied according to the Justice of God. Through the blood of Jesus Christ applied to us at Baptism, we acquire this state of Original Holiness.

Having discussed what “the guilt of Adam” is NOT according to the Latin Catholic teaching, the distinction between the Eastern Tradition on Original Sin (on the one hand), and the Western/Oriental Traditions on Original Sin (on the other) must be admitted. The idea that the Justice of God must be satisfied because of the state of sinfulness (i.e., lack of Original holiness) into which each of us is born is an idea which seems to be missing from the modern Eastern Tradition. It is present in the Eastern Tradition as late as St. Gregory Palamas, but somewhere along the way, it seems to have disappeared or at least diminished to a point that you will find Eastern Orthodox controversialists disparage the Western Tradition on the Justice of God (you’ll hardly find EO talk against the Oriental Orthodox Tradition on the Justice of God, but I think that is because many EO don’t even know that such a teaching is found in the Oriental Orthodox Tradition - many EO think the only difference between EO and OO is Chalcedon). It would be interesting to trace this development of doctrine within Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Having discussed what “the guilt of Adam” is NOT according to the Latin Catholic teaching, the distinction between the Eastern Tradition on Original Sin (on the one hand), and the Western/Oriental Traditions on Original Sin (on the other) must be admitted. The idea that the Justice of God must be satisfied because of the state of sinfulness (i.e., lack of Original holiness) into which each of us is born is an idea which seems to be missing from the modern Eastern Tradition. It is present in the Eastern Tradition as late as St. Gregory Palamas, but somewhere along the way, it seems to have disappeared or at least diminished to a point that you will find Eastern Orthodox controversialists disparage the Western Tradition on the Justice of God (you’ll hardly find EO talk against the Oriental Orthodox Tradition on the Justice of God, but I think that is because many EO don’t even know that such a teaching is found in the Oriental Orthodox Tradition - many EO think the only difference between EO and OO is Chalcedon). It would be interesting to trace this development of doctrine within Eastern Orthodoxy.

When you write polemics like this, you do a disservice to saints like Saint Athanasius, by misrepresenting their teachings. It should be apparent to anybody who reads book two of On the Incarnation that when Athanasius talks about the law of death which Christ conquered, he is presenting it as a sort of soteriological dilemma in order to highlight the divinity of Christ. God, having promised Adam that he would die, could not go back on his own word, lest he should prove to be a lying God. How then could the Father have rescued man? If he allowed man to repent, then man still could not be immortal, lest God should make himself a liar, that is to say, no human repentance could ever undo the cosmic effects of Adam’s transgression. It was only by having the Word, the very fashioner of the world and the possessor of the power of life, go into the world in the form of a servant that He could restore man without breaking His promise, so by dying under the law as the perfect sacrifice to God the Father, The Son could exhaust its power.

This teaching of the atonement and sacrifice of Christ is of course nothing more than an Orthodox restatement of the doctrine of atonement as taught in the New Testament, geared towards proving the divinity of Christ. What the Orthodox object to and what Athanasius does not teach, is that Christ had to die to satisfy the Father’s lost honor. The atonement for Athanasius is accomplished because he unites life to our nature, restoring our corrupted nature. The atonement in some unacceptable theories involve restoring the honor of God, as if the impassible God’s honor could ever be insulted or lessened by our rebellion.

 

[mardukm]

When you write polemics like this, you do a disservice to saints like Saint Athanasius, by misrepresenting their teachings. It should be apparent to anybody who reads book two of On the Incarnation that when Athanasius talks about the law of death which Christ conquered, he is presenting it as a sort of soteriological dilemma in order to highlight the divinity of Christ. God, having promised Adam that he would die, could not go back on his own word, lest he should prove to be a lying God. How then could the Father have rescued man? If he allowed man to repent, then man still could not be immortal, lest God should make himself a liar, that is to say, no human repentance could ever undo the cosmic effects of Adam’s transgression. It was only by having the Word, the very fashioner of the world and the possessor of the power of life, go into the world in the form of a servant that He could restore man without breaking His promise, so by dying under the law as the perfect sacrifice to God the Father, The Son could exhaust its power.

This teaching of the atonement and sacrifice of Christ is of course nothing more than an Orthodox restatement of the doctrine of atonement as taught in the New Testament, geared towards proving the divinity of Christ. What the Orthodox object to and what Athanasius does not teach, is that Christ had to die to satisfy the Father’s lost honor. The atonement for Athanasius is accomplished because he unites life to our nature, restoring our corrupted nature. The atonement in some unacceptable theories involve restoring the honor of God, as if the impassible God’s honor could ever be insulted or lessened by our rebellion.

I think you are the one engaging in senseless polemics here.

The doctrine of the Justice of God in the Latin or Oriental Traditions cannot be pidgeonholed into the caricature that you have (mis)presented. Your presentation is a popular opinion but is not dogmatized in the Latin Tradition (much less the Oriental Tradition). Yet you Easterns go on and on and on and on about this particular opinion as if it was dogma.

Who said anything about restoring the honor of God? Only you. Take the polemic blinders off your eyes. The biblical and patristic teaching on satisfying the Justice of God cannot be written off by your misrepresentation of it.

The satisfaction that needs to be met (contrary to your misrepresentation) according to the Latin and Oriental doctrine is the holiness that God demands of US. It is for OUR benefit, not for His. Get that straight.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think you are the one engaging in senseless polemics here.

The doctrine of the Justice of God in the Latin or Oriental Traditions cannot be pidgeonholed into the caricature that you have (mis)presented. Your presentation is a popular opinion but is not dogmatized in the Latin Tradition (much less the Oriental Tradition). Yet you Easterns go on and on and on and on about this particular opinion as if it was dogma.

Who said anything about restoring the honor of God? Only you. Take the polemic blinders off your eyes. The biblical and patristic teaching on satisfying the Justice of God cannot be written off by your misrepresentation of it.

The satisfaction that needs to be met (contrary to your misrepresentation) according to the Latin and Oriental doctrine is the holiness that God demands of US. It is for OUR benefit, not for His. Get that straight.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, you are the one with his polemical blinders glued on. Read my post again, because you clearly are not understanding it. Certain distortions of the biblical and patristic teachings on the atoning sacrifice of Christ are unacceptable, and that is what the Orthodox are reacting against. The idea that God’s justice led to the punishment for Adam’s transgression is not what is being protested (nor that Christ had to suffer under this punishment in order to overcome it), and had you read my post, you would have seen that. What is rejected is that God’s justice involves becoming offended over man insulting His honor, like some pagan sky goblin, and then demanding that the perfect sacrifice die in order to satisfy his “justice”. I can see how you might confuse the two, since they involve the same language on the surface, only diverging upon closer inspection, but you might be well served to try and learn the difference between Orthodox substitution theories (Christ died to exhaust the power of God’s sentence against mankind with His life, bringing life to mankind without making God a liar), like what Athanasius taught, and satisfaction theories (Christ died to satisfy God’s demand that sinners be punished, enabling God to forgive sins), like what John Calvin taught.

 

[twf]

Marduk, you are the one with his polemical blinders glued on. Read my post again, because you clearly are not understanding it. Certain distortions of the biblical and patristic teachings on the atoning sacrifice of Christ are unacceptable, and that is what the Orthodox are reacting against. The idea that God’s justice led to the punishment for Adam’s transgression is not what is being protested (nor that Christ had to suffer under this punishment in order to overcome it), and had you read my post, you would have seen that. What is rejected is that God’s justice involves becoming offended over man insulting His honor, like some pagan sky goblin, and then demanding that the perfect sacrifice die in order to satisfy his “justice”. I can see how you might confuse the two, since they involve the same language on the surface, only diverging upon closer inspection, but you might be well served to try and learn the difference between Orthodox substitution theories (Christ died to exhaust the power of God’s sentence against mankind with His life, bringing life to mankind without making God a liar), like what Athanasius taught, and satisfaction theories (Christ died to satisfy God’s demand that sinners be punished, enabling God to forgive sins), like what John Calvin taught.

Where does the Latin Church teach this “sky goblin” theory? I’ve never come across it… and if it isn’t a teaching of the Latin Church, why does it come up so often in Orthodox polemics against Catholicism?
In some Protestant circles, on the other hand…

Ultimately, deification is the central theme of salvation in both the West and East…as Latin priests say at every OF mass:
*By the mystery of this water and wine
may we come to share in the divinity of Christ
who humbled himself to share in our humanity. *

God, out of His infinite love for mankind, assumed our human nature in order to restore it to its original state of justice.

 

[mardukm]

Where does the Latin Church teach this “sky goblin” theory? I’ve never come across it… and if it isn’t a teaching of the Latin Church, why does it come up so often in Orthodox polemics against Catholicism?
In some Protestant circles, on the other hand…

Ultimately, deification is the central theme of salvation in both the West and East…as Latin priests say at every OF mass:
*By the mystery of this water and wine
may we come to share in the divinity of Christ
who humbled himself to share in our humanity. *

God, out of His infinite love for mankind, assumed our human nature in order to restore it to its original state of justice.

Well put, brother Tyler. I’m glad a Latin Catholic has come on here to challenge Cavaradossi’s statements. I don’t know where Cavaradossi gets his theories on what the Latin Catholic Church teaches - certainly not from the dogmatic documents of the Catholic Church.

Cavaradossi, perhaps you have read Protestant theories on Atonement (such as Calvin) or some singular Latin Catholic theologieans and simply generalized it to (mis)represent the entire Western Tradition, including the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Where does the Latin Church teach this “sky goblin” theory? I’ve never come across it… and if it isn’t a teaching of the Latin Church, why does it come up so often in Orthodox polemics against Catholicism?
In some Protestant circles, on the other hand…

Ultimately, deification is the central theme of salvation in both the West and East…as Latin priests say at every OF mass:
*By the mystery of this water and wine
may we come to share in the divinity of Christ
who humbled himself to share in our humanity. *

God, out of His infinite love for mankind, assumed our human nature in order to restore it to its original state of justice.

Did I claim that the Latin Church teaches the satisfaction theory officially? Some Catholic theologians have promoted it in the past, but really, it’s more the way that the atonement winds up getting twisted around by the Reformed that is most unsettling.

 

[twf]

Did I claim that the Latin Church teaches the satisfaction theory officially? Some Catholic theologians have promoted it in the past, but really, it’s more the way that the atonement winds up getting twisted around by the Reformed that is most unsettling.

I apologize. So really, there’s no substantial issue? It just seems to me that it comes up a lot as a “sticking point” in East - West discussions…and even if you don’t, many Orthodox Christians seem to suppose that the Latin Church teaches satisfaction theory.

 

[mardukm]

Marduk, you are the one with his polemical blinders glued on. Read my post again, because you clearly are not understanding it. Certain distortions of the biblical and patristic teachings on the atoning sacrifice of Christ are unacceptable, and that is what the Orthodox are reacting against. The idea that God’s justice led to the punishment for Adam’s transgression is not what is being protested (nor that Christ had to suffer under this punishment in order to overcome it), and had you read my post, you would have seen that. What is rejected is that God’s justice involves becoming offended over man insulting His honor, like some pagan sky goblin, and then demanding that the perfect sacrifice die in order to satisfy his “justice”. I can see how you might confuse the two, since they involve the same language on the surface, only diverging upon closer inspection, but you might be well served to try and learn the difference between Orthodox substitution theories (Christ died to exhaust the power of God’s sentence against mankind with His life, bringing life to mankind without making God a liar), like what Athanasius taught, and satisfaction theories (Christ died to satisfy God’s demand that sinners be punished, enabling God to forgive sins), like what John Calvin taught.

What is being confused here is your “version” of what the Catholic Western and Oriental Traditions teach on the Justice of God, and what those Traditions ACTUALLY teach. Because you have a misinformed understanding of what the Western/Oriental Traditions teach, you immediately presume I am being polemic (you have not even given any reason for your accusation). It is your presumption that is polemical, and it is that presumption that I have found from many EO sources (imposing a meaning on what Westerns/Orientals teach on the Justice of God that is not there). How you have extrapolated all those strange ideas (that God’s honor was lost, that his honor has been insulted, etc.) from my mere mention of “satisfying the Justice of God,” I do not know. Not even the Anselmian theory makes those claims (Anselmian theory does NOT claim God’s honor is lost, nor that His honor has been insulted - that is only your own polemical version of the theory). I hope we can get past this.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

What is being confused here is your “version” of what the Catholic Western and Oriental Traditions teach on the Justice of God, and what those Traditions ACTUALLY teach. Because you have a misinformed understanding of what the Western/Oriental Traditions teach, you immediately presume I am being polemic (you have not even given any reason for your accusation). It is your presumption that is polemical, and it is that presumption that I have found from many EO sources (imposing a meaning on what Westerns/Orientals teach on the Justice of God that is not there). How you have extrapolated all those strange ideas (that God’s honor was lost, that his honor has been insulted, etc.) from my mere mention of “satisfying the Justice of God,” I do not know. Not even the Anselmian theory makes those claims (Anselmian theory does NOT claim God’s honor is lost, nor that His honor has been insulted - that is only your own polemical version of the theory). I hope we can get past this.

Blessings,
Marduk

Have you read Cur Deus Homo?

 

[mardukm]

Have you read Cur Deus Homo?

I have read it cursorily. Why do you ask?

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I must be off for a few hours. Thanks for your patience.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I have read it cursorily. Why do you ask?

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I must be off for a few hours. Thanks for your patience.

Is it not a fair assessment to say that according to Anselm in chapters 11-15 of the first book of Cur Deus Homo, creatures owe a debt of honor to the Creator, and they pay it to him through their obedience to his will, such that by disobeying His will, disobedient creatures dishonor God by not paying this debt (chapter 11); God cannot forgive sins by compassion alone without first taking back the honor which is due to Him (chapter 12); the creature is incapable of truly robbing God of the honor due to him, for God is just and will not suffer such an injustice against Himself (chapter 13); God gains the honor due to Himself by punishing wicked and disobedient creatures and by subjecting them to His power against their will (chapter 14); God therefore never truly loses honor because He either receives the honor due through the obedience of the creature or through punishing the disobedient creature (chapters 14-15)? If this is a fair assessment, can you find for me any passage from the writings of either Saint Athanasius or St Cyril of Alexandria (the two fathers who I think we can all agree epitomize the Alexandrian school of thought) where they promote the idea that God cannot forgive sins by His mercy alone but necessarily must punish something (be that either Christ or disobedient creatures) in order to receive just payment of the honor which is properly due to Him from His creation?

Here is a link to the work Cur Deus Homo for your convenience: fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.asp

God bless.

 

[twf]

Is it not a fair assessment to say that according to Anselm in chapters 11-15 of the first book of Cur Deus Homo, creatures owe a debt of honor to the Creator, and they pay it to him through their obedience to his will, such that by disobeying His will, disobedient creatures dishonor God by not paying this debt (chapter 11); God cannot forgive sins by compassion alone without first taking back the honor which is due to Him (chapter 12); the creature is incapable of truly robbing God of the honor due to him, for God is just and will not suffer such an injustice against Himself (chapter 13); God gains the honor due to Himself by punishing wicked and disobedient creatures and by subjecting them to His power against their will (chapter 14); God therefore never truly loses honor because He either receives the honor due through the obedience of the creature or through punishing the disobedient creature (chapters 14-15)? If this is a fair assessment, can you find for me any passage from the writings of either Saint Athanasius or St Cyril of Alexandria (the two fathers who I think we can all agree epitomize the Alexandrian school of thought) where they promote the idea that God cannot forgive sins by His mercy alone but necessarily must punish something (be that either Christ or disobedient creatures) in order to receive just payment of the honor which is properly due to Him from His creation?

Here is a link to the work Cur Deus Homo for your convenience: fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.asp

God bless.

I have not read Cur Deus Homo, so until I get a chance to do so, I do not feel confident addressing your assessment, but I would like to point out that there has always been a great deal of theological diversity within the Latin Tradition. Painting the Latin Tradition with one brush is very dangerous - and I feel that many, but not all, Orthodox Christians do just this when explaining why the Catholic Church has departed from orthodoxy. I certainly have no heard this understanding of the atonement preached from any Latin pulpit today. Dominican theology the son of God became the son of Man so that the sons of men might become gods has been central to most Latin understandings of the atonement that I’ve heard articulated in homilies. O happy fault, O blessed sin of Adam that won for us so great a redeemer…in the liturgy there is no hint that Jesus was punished by the Father - He is the perfect representative of Man, who in His Divinity and humanity, conquered death and restored His adopted race to justice.

 

[mardukm]

Is it not a fair assessment to say that according to Anselm in chapters 11-15 of the first book of Cur Deus Homo, creatures owe a debt of honor to the Creator, and they pay it to him through their obedience to his will, such that by disobeying His will, disobedient creatures dishonor God by not paying this debt (chapter 11); God cannot forgive sins by compassion alone without first taking back the honor which is due to Him (chapter 12); the creature is incapable of truly robbing God of the honor due to him, for God is just and will not suffer such an injustice against Himself (chapter 13); God gains the honor due to Himself by punishing wicked and disobedient creatures and by subjecting them to His power against their will (chapter 14); God therefore never truly loses honor because He either receives the honor due through the obedience of the creature or through punishing the disobedient creature (chapters 14-15)? If this is a fair assessment,

I think this is incorrect. According to Anselm, “Nothing can be added to or taken from the honor of God. For this honor which belongs to him is in no way subject to injury or change…And [the sinner] disturbs the order and beauty of the universe, as relates to himself, although he cannot injure nor tarnish the power and majesty of God…It is then plain that no one can honor or dishonor God, as he is in himself; but the creature, as far as he is concerned, appears to do this when he submits or opposes his will to the will of God.” This is an objective fact. The idea that God can be dishonored is an obvious anthropomorphism – the Bible does that a lot, in trying to present God in a way we can understand Him according to our limited capacity as creatures. Anselm does not actually teach that God Himself somehow loses honor or has honor robbed from Him in any way. But I think this is what you think that Anselm is teaching. These particular passages have stuck in my mind since I first read them several years ago because I was wondering if this popular theory in Catholicism was amenable to my Faith as a Coptic Orthodox. I had the same misgivings as you, but the classic Anselmian theory does not actually propose what you presently believe, or what I used to believe, about it.

can you find for me any passage from the writings of either Saint Athanasius or St Cyril of Alexandria (the two fathers who I think we can all agree epitomize the Alexandrian school of thought) where they promote the idea that God cannot forgive sins by His mercy alone but necessarily must punish something (be that either Christ or disobedient creatures) in order to receive just payment of the honor which is properly due to Him from His creation?

I am not aware of such from Popes St. Athanasius and St. Cyril. Then again, from Latin Catholic teaching, I know that forgiveness for sins is not obtained because of the satisfaction one performs, but because of God’s mercy. Ask any Catholic priest if absolution is obtained before or after penance is done, and you might see that you have misjudged the Catholic teaching on the matter. There’s no need for me to defend a position that I have never proposed:shrug: This highlights what I said in an earlier post - the idea of “restoring honor” is not for God, but FOR US. It is for OUR benefit. It has to do with the sanctification and divinization of the repentant sinner. It does not actually touch upon the actual honor of God.

I hope that helps.

Here is a link to the work Cur Deus Homo for your convenience: fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.asp

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I’m no theologian nor have read much books. But if I’m not mistaken, wasn’t Christ called “Lamb of God” in the Holy Scripture? So the idea is that in the Old Testament for forgiveness each man has to sacrifice a lamb. But no lamb is perfect enough and man forever separated from God (and go to Sheol). However there is a lamb perfect enough to reconcile man to God, to become the way to God, to become the final sacrifice that will spring forgiveness on those who believe, and that is Jesus. He died not because God has an insatiable thirst to punish men, nor because God needs to regain His honor (a concept that is unfound in Scriptures). Christ died as a perfect sacrifice so that man will be reconciled to God, so that mankind who puts faith in HIm and lives His teachings can finally call God His Father, for at last His sins now can be absolved by the most pure lamb

 

[twf]

I think this is incorrect. According to Anselm, “Nothing can be added to or taken from the honor of God. For this honor which belongs to him is in no way subject to injury or change…And [the sinner] disturbs the order and beauty of the universe, as relates to himself, although he cannot injure nor tarnish the power and majesty of God…It is then plain that no one can honor or dishonor God, as he is in himself; but the creature, as far as he is concerned, appears to do this when he submits or opposes his will to the will of God.” This is an objective fact. The idea that God can be dishonored is an obvious anthropomorphism – the Bible does that a lot, in trying to present God in a way we can understand Him according to our limited capacity as creatures. Anselm does not actually teach that God Himself somehow loses honor or has honor robbed from Him in any way. But I think this is what you think that Anselm is teaching. These particular passages have stuck in my mind since I first read them several years ago because I was wondering if this popular theory in Catholicism was amenable to my Faith as a Coptic Orthodox. I had the same misgivings as you, but the classic Anselmian theory does not actually propose what you presently believe, or what I used to believe, about it.

I am not aware of such from Popes St. Athanasius and St. Cyril. Then again, from Latin Catholic teaching, I know that forgiveness for sins is not obtained because of the satisfaction one performs, but because of God’s mercy. Ask any Catholic priest if absolution is obtained before or after penance is done, and you might see that you have misjudged the Catholic teaching on the matter. There’s no need for me to defend a position that I have never proposed:shrug: This highlights what I said in an earlier post - the idea of “restoring honor” is not for God, but FOR US. It is for OUR benefit. It has to do with the sanctification and divinization of the repentant sinner. It does not actually touch upon the actual honor of God.

I hope that helps.

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

In regards to forgiveness/absolution, you make a very good point, brother. The Latin Church definitively teaches that God’s forgiveness is strictly an act of mercy. We cannot merit His forgiveness (nor the absolution Christ grants us through His priest)…it is a free gift of God’s love. Absolution is always given before the penance is performed…in fact, the penance has no value if we have not already been restored to God’s friendship…it is only when Christ acts through and with us, giving us a share of His own divine life (what Latins call sanctifying grace) are we able to please the Father through our good works (eg. penance) and bear fruit for eternity. Absolution is never dependent upon the penance that the priest assigns - we are forgiven the moment he pronounces the prayer of absolution…not performing the penance thereafter would be a new sin of disobedience - the previous confessed sins would still remain absolved.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think this is incorrect. According to Anselm, “Nothing can be added to or taken from the honor of God. For this honor which belongs to him is in no way subject to injury or change…And [the sinner] disturbs the order and beauty of the universe, as relates to himself, although he cannot injure nor tarnish the power and majesty of God…It is then plain that no one can honor or dishonor God, as he is in himself; but the creature, as far as he is concerned, appears to do this when he submits or opposes his will to the will of God.” This is an objective fact. The idea that God can be dishonored is an obvious anthropomorphism – the Bible does that a lot, in trying to present God in a way we can understand Him according to our limited capacity as creatures. Anselm does not actually teach that God Himself somehow loses honor or has honor robbed from Him in any way. But I think this is what you think that Anselm is teaching. These particular passages have stuck in my mind since I first read them several years ago because I was wondering if this popular theory in Catholicism was amenable to my Faith as a Coptic Orthodox. I had the same misgivings as you, but the classic Anselmian theory does not actually propose what you presently believe, or what I used to believe, about it.

Marduk, I do not think you are being fair here. If you will notice, that quote from Anselm is completely consonant with how I summed up chapter 15: according to Anselm God cannot truly lose honor nor have his honor taken away by the creature because one way or another, He is shown by His creation to have honor, either by (1) punishing those that disobey or (2) through the obedience of those that obey.

Anselm demonstrates (2) in the beginning of that same paragraph from chapter 15 when he writes:*But as the individual creature preserves, naturally or by reason, the condition belonging, and, as it were, allotted to him, he is said to obey and honor God; and to this, rational nature, which possesses intelligence, is especially bound. And when the being chooses what he ought, he honors God; not by bestowing anything upon him, but because he brings himself freely under God’s will and disposal, and maintains his own condition in the universe, and the beauty of the universe itself, as far as in him lies.*That is to say that God’s natural honor is shown when the creature according to its purpose and nature obeys God.

Anselm demonstrates (1) when he writes:*And so, though man or evil angel refuse to submit to the Divine will and appointment, yet he cannot escape it; for if he wishes to fly from a will that commands, he falls into the power of a will that punishes. And if you ask whither he goes, it is only under the permission of that will; and even this wayward choice or action of his becomes subservient, under infinite wisdom, to the order and beauty of the universe before spoken of. For when it is understood that God brings good out of many forms of evil, then the satisfaction for sin freely given, or if this be not given, the exaction of punishment, hold their own place and orderly beauty in the same universe. For if Divine wisdom were not to insist upon things, when wickedness tries to disturb the right appointment, there would be, in the very universe which God ought to control, an unseemliness springing from the violation of the beauty of arrangement, and God would appear to be deficient in his management. And these two things are not only unfitting, but consequently impossible; so that satisfaction or punishment must needs follow every sin.*That is to say that the creature only appears to dishonor God by causing disorder in His creation, because even if the creature wishes to rebel, God through punishment will show the creature to be subservient and preserve his own honor, power, and majesty untouched. This is also what Anselm means when he writes:But when he [the creature] does not choose what he ought, he dishonors God, as far as the being himself is concerned, because he does not submit himself freely to God’s disposal. And he disturbs the order and beauty of the universe, as relates to himself, although he cannot injure nor tarnish the power and majesty of God. That is to say that God’s power and majesty are not tarnished by the creature’s rebellion, because God shows his power and majesty in the punishment of the creature.

Now then, I do not think that the anthropomorphisms are a significant problem in my summary. If you will notice Anselm himself uses these anthropomorphisms in his own arguments. Naturally, it should follow that my summaries should have the same anthropomorphisms that Anselm himself uses. But it is not the anthropomorphisms with which we should be concerned, because I did not assert that the anthropomorphisms used by Anselm should be taken literally. With this above-detailed rejoinder in mind, that the anthropomorphisms are not meant to be taken literally, is my chapter by chapter summation an accurate portrayal of Anselm’s logic? If not, then please either provide your own chapter by chapter interpretation of Anselm’s logic or provide reasoned arguments from the text to show which summaries of mine (I gave five, one for each chapter 11-15) you think are not faithful to Anselm’s arguments, so that I can see where your understanding of Anselm differs from mine.