By the time Anselm wrote his Monologium and Proslogium, the "Great Conversation" had taken a very different turn. What new topics does Anselm address? Do you find yourself more interested in Anselm's ideas than in the ideas of earlier apologists, or do you find the material not as interesting? Why?
Anselm takes a different approach in the fact he doesn't address the proof of Christianity from the standpoint of man, that is, what to believe in, but the nature of God Himself. Anselm takes time and describes the attributes of God (Ch. 18-28), how love from the Trinity proceeds from what the Son did, and the relationship of the three persons in the Trinity. Since this cannot be explained, it is a truth that must be believed.
ReplyDeleteKent Johnsen
Anselm used an exercise to describe the attributes of God. There was also an exercise used in the class to describe the attributes of God. Unfortunately we are only able to describe attributes that we are familiar with and really picked ones that would apply to a human ruler. I have felt that God is farther beyond our understanding of God than the ants’ understanding of us. We suffer the same failing of the Greeks, the anthropomorphism of God – the old man sitting on his throne in clouds or reaching from the cloud to touch Adam. I believe there is a single God, creator of everything that is good and everything that is bad.
ReplyDeleteJerry Taylor
Anselm does a spinoff of what Christianity is interesting. He not only talks about God but as a being. Anselm talks about how great God is "There is a being which is best, and greatest, and highest of all existing beings". In this whole Chapter Anselm gives us a good definition on who God is and where he comes from. I think this book as a whole puts a new perspective on who God was. Anselm gives us lots of characteristics of God however lots of attributes can be compared with Emperors. I think God being God and knowing all things should be put on a bigger platform as well as pedestal.
ReplyDeleteThe way Anselm talks about God is very interesting to me. He compares God to emperors which is wrong since emperors have only mortal bodies and don't have the knowledge of everything happening. This is a trait only God has since he is God and is all knowing.
ReplyDeleteIn my own time, I have been working on a rather large work called "Our Watchword and Song," a book that depicts the origins of the Nazarene denomination. After reading Anselm and some of his works, I wonder if beliefs down the way the Nazarene denomination started here in Anselm's works. I reason with Anselm's theory that the love of God flowing from the Trinity through the person of Jesus Christ relates well to the Wesleyan tradition that Nazarenes break off of. Where especially the fruits of the spirit are highlighted in the Nazarene faith. The belief, though, is those gifts flow from the spirit within that Christ died for in his love for us to give us as humans. This causes us to gain the truest sense of love and gifts of the spirit as we can manage as mortal humans. In allowing the spirit to flow, we most closely allow God to have the guiding hand in our lives.
ReplyDeleteThere are still some significant differences between what Anselm believed and what the Nazarene denomination would do today. However, I wonder if that is the case, as the church was still relatively unified. Anselm and Abelard seem to bring a new spirit of conflict that questions the church's authority. Even Aquinas, for that matter, seems to reject the church's power and goes against the status quo; scripture says to whom much is given, much is expected. I do not have certainty of evidence in this claim, but these three men from this unit understand that they have many new perspectives. They do not care what has been established; instead, they want to search for a more profound truth, one it seems others dare not venture to.
This is where I say Anselm comes in as he seems to think of the relationship of the Trinity and man in a new way. He brings much more love in through the son of the Trinity. Many Protestant Christain denominations rely heavily upon their church doctrines to this day. While Luther is still a ways away, I wonder if here is where the differences between church theologies start to arise.
Tanner Simon
I'm going to be completely honest here - I found Anselm's way of writing to be very confusing and very circular in nature, if that makes sense. The constant use of 'conceive' and the ever-expanding 'understanding of understanding of something that was understood or could be understood' made the writing more of a chore and all the more difficult for someone like myself to understand.
ReplyDeleteI also attempted to look up a summary of what he meant, and even the summary was a bit confusing. However, what I gathered is that if one can conceive of God, then he must exist. In not existing, he therefore has an imperfection, and is not the most perfect being one can imagine.
Before, Christianity was running on the idea that God was many amazing, impressive things (all knowing, all powerful, etc), and that he existed despite whether we saw him or not. Yet this view that Anselm introduced challenged the existence of God overall.
Regardless of how devout one can be, if there is an imperfection (ex if one believes God to be too angry or if he was unaware of something that went on), then that individual is not God.
Questioning God overall is not something that typically occurred - it was usually the means in which people prayed that was questioned and fought over.
Again, I really did struggle to understand this section, so my arguments are not the best.
When rightly understood Anselm is a very convincing apologist. For example, the ontological argument is almost always explained poorly. However, when it's broken down and someone realizes that the greatest conceivable being in mind has to exist in reality, this is absolutely mind blowing. Obviously you have to have some presuppositions, but that's almost any argument (atheist or christian). I love philosophy so when one explains the existence of God without relying Scripture, even though Scripture backs it up, that's super neat and relies on natural law as Aquinas further talks about.
ReplyDeleteChapter II.
ReplyDeleteTruly there is a God, although the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Understanding and grasping the theological and philosophical methods Anselm uses throughout the 'Monologium' and 'Proslogium' are in no doubt completely inconceivable, as he famously writes, "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." I find that Anselm's use of reasoning skills draws both a Christian and pagan audience because his approach to answering the questions is philosophically sound. His questions evoke the seeking of a deeper understanding of who God truly is.
Luke Reierson
By the time Anselm wrote his Monologium and Proslogium, Christian thought had moved away from outward defense toward inward reflection. Unlike earlier apologists like Justin Martyr and Origen who defended Christianity against persecution Anselm was writing in a Christianized world. His focus was on using reason to explore and deepen faith.
ReplyDeleteOne of Anselm’s most famous contributions is the ontological argument: the idea that God, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” must exist not only in the mind but he also emphasized “faith seeking understanding,” suggesting that belief comes first, but reason helps us grasp its depth.
Personally, I find Anselm’s ideas intriguing. His logical approach challenges me to think about faith in a new way. Still, I appreciate the passion and urgency of earlier writers, whose work was rooted in real-life persecution. Both approaches have value, but Anselm’s shift marks a fascinating turn in the "Great Conversation."
Jacob Geppert