Posted on 05/14/2007 3:42:01 PM PDT by annalex
I plan to publish it for discussion in short installments as Catholic-Orthodox caucus threads. All Christians as well as non-Christians are very welcome, but I ask all to maintain the caucus discipline: no interconfessional attacks, no personal attacks, and no off-topic posts. Avoid mentioning confessions outside of the caucus for any reason.
Previous: Cur Deus Homo VI-VIII: Is God Omnipotent and Wise? (Cath-Orth caucus)
The summary:
As Christ is sinless, the Father did not compel Him to die but rather, Christ wished to die on His own free will.
God did not, therefore, compel Christ to die; but he suffered death of his own will, not yielding up his life as an act of obedience, but on account of his obedience in maintaining holiness
As a figure of speech, it can be said that the Father moved Christ to His death, as the Father gave the Son the gift of obedience to the Father's will. However, the way in which the Father moved Christ did not overcome Christ's free will.
... in this drawing or impelling it is not to be understood that there is any constraint, but a free and grateful clinging to the holy will which has been given. If then it cannot be denied that the Father drew or moved the Son to death by giving him that will; who does not see that, in the same manner, he gave him commandment to endure death of his own accord and to take the cup, which he freely drank. And if it is right to say that the Son spared not himself, but gave himself for us of his own will, who will deny that it is right to say that the Father, of whom he had this will, did not spare him but gave him up for us, and desired his death? In this way, also, by following the will received from the Father invariably, and of his own accord, the Son became obedient to Him, even unto death; and learned obedience from the things which he suffered; that is, be learned how great was the work to be accomplished by obedience.
Now we understand how the will of the Father and of the Son interacted in the Incarnation and the Passion. In the next installment we will inquire into their necessity: The question which still troubles us is, how the death of the Son can be proved reasonable and necessary.
Hmmm...it sounds as if what is being said here is that God the Father plan was based upon what the Son was willing to do of His own will. Is this correct?
What does Anselm mean by "obedience in maintaining holiness"?
Yes, this is my understanding of what St. Anselm is saying here. However, consider:
he had agreed with the Father and the Holy Spirit, that there was no other way to reveal to the world the height of his omnipotence, than by his death.
and also he speaks of the will of the Father, not because the Father preferred the death of the Son to his life; but because the Father was not willing to rescue the human race, unless man were to do even as great a thing as was signified in the death of Christ.
The conclusion seems to be that the necessity of the Incarnation and Passion was understood by both, just like you and I might independently understand an engineering dilemma in the same way, because of our exalted knowledge of the problem. If then I act on the problem on my own will in accordance with your understanding, then it cannot be said that you compelled me to do it.
This gets into the thinking and workings of the Trinity, which in itself is difficult to comprehend. However, it would seem to me there is a greater argument that the Son understood what the Father wished for Him to do and was submissive in carrying out the Father's will. I would go back to the Nicene Creed which states the Son proceeded from the Father. This, to me would indicate that all things, including God's will, generates from the Father down. I would also point to Isaiah 53:10 that it "pleased the LORD to bruise him" which seems to be at odds with Anselm's conclusion that this idea was generated from the Son.
I question whether the Son (and the Holy Spirit) would have to "agree" with the Father which sounds like some sort of council. I would say they are always in agreement which is the will of the Father. Their very nature, that of being God, understands the will of God the Father. Therefore, the will of God the Father was always to have His Son die, and the Son, understanding this will, was submissive unto death.
One way I try to work through the Trinity is to examine the complementary statements. And here HarleyD is clearly on the money. It's inconceivable tht the Son would disagree with the Father.
On the flipahdeedoodah side, trying to draw and work with the distinction between agreeing "just because" that's what the Father wants as opposed to agreeing "on the merits" is also hard for me. In the first way, can we usefully conjecture about the Father willing something that wasn't good "on the merits"? In the second way, does the Son do anything whatsoever "on His own"? Or does even the Son's perception and assessment of the goodness of anything come in loving assent to the Father?
Then again, I'm not sure that I understand correctly the problem that Anselm is trying to resolve. I always get dizzy when we start looking at the Trinity.
Pinging Kolo for some Oriental wisdom.
"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God." +Gregory the Theologian
Best I can do on short notice. I'd suggest that this is good advice, however. Beware! :)
Well, I balk at the idea of the Son being willing to do something "of His own will."A lot depends on whether we're speaking of Christ's divine or human will.
Hmmm...it sounds as if what is being said here is that God the Father plan was based upon what the Son was willing to do of His own will. Is this correct?
That would be in agreement with Jesus oft repeated statement that He came to do the Will of the Father.
John 5:30
30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.
I would suggest that the Father’s will was the death of the Son and the Son knew that was what God's (Father) will was and it was His (Son) will. There is no discussion. The will of the Father and the Son was one of the same. Your verse points that out.
I was just reading about + Elizabeth Seton and one of her big concerns was, "First: we should do what God wants, second: we should do it in that manner in which He wants it done and third (here's the kicker) We should do it because it is His will."
Here her standard is obedience, not because it's good for you to exercise and eat well (though it is) but because God wills it. Our obedience comes from our Love (which comes from grace and all that, but that's another part of the discussion.)
Anselm is saying that God the Father’s plan was essentially to acquiesce to the will of the Son, who agreed to do the Father’s will.
Okay, treat me like the idiot I am, please. Is it as though there were this conversation:
Father: I want to save the WORLD.or is it, more like:
Son: Well, I want what you want, whatever it is.
Father: Well I think the way we do it is You die for their sins.
Son: Okay.
Father: I want to save the WORLD.Or is this just so off base that I should go out and jump off a cliff?
Son: Well, I want what you want, whatever it is, and if you wanted me to die for their sins, I'd even do that.
Father: Well then, I think that's the way we're going to do it. We'll do it that way.
I can understand Anselm’s viewing Christ’s sacrifice as an act of obedience. I think this is correct from Christ’s humanity side. However, Christ’s divinity side was the will of the Father, both who felt the Son must be sacrificed. I believe Anselm may have been looking at the humanity of Christ while not giving due consideration to His deity. Anselm’s statement that God the Father didn’t “compel” the Son to die raises the question of whether God the Father needs to compel anyone to do His will.
This is a very fine point but Anselm’s argument seems to hinge on this concept.
I would say that Christ not only knew the Father’s will but it was His will as well. The wills are the same. This is what makes God ONE, while being three. God loves the Son because they are the same holiness, same thought, same will. Just don't ask me much more about the Trinity or I will go crazy.
I would suggest that the Father’s will was the death of the Son and the Son knew that was what God's (Father) will was and it was His (Son) will. There is no discussion. The will of the Father and the Son was one of the same. Your verse points that out.
I think your post was clear enough, and I agree.
I would say that Christ not only knew the Father’s will but it was His will as well. The wills are the same.According to the one divine will, only the Son became man, so only the Son has a human will. Anselm seems to be exploring Christ's obedient submission of his human will to the one divine will.
I thought about that and I think you have a point in some of the writings above. Anselm states the following:
In this way, also, by following the will received from the Father invariably, and of his own accord, the Son became obedient to Him, even unto death; and learned obedience from the things which he suffered; that is, be learned how great was the work to be accomplished by obedience.
Since, therefore, the will of the Son pleased the Father, and be did not prevent him from choosing, or from fulfilling his choice, it is proper to say that he wished the Son to endure death so piously and for so great an object, though he was not pleased with his suffering. Moreover, he said that the cup must not pass from him, except he drank it, not because he could not have escaped death had he chosen to; but because, as has been said, the world could not otherwise be saved; and it was his fixed choice to stiffer death, rather than that the world should not be saved. It was for this reason, also, that he used those words, viz., to teach the human race that there was no other salvation for them but by his death; and not to show that he had no power at all to avoid death. For whatsoever things are said of him, similar to these which have been mentioned, they are all to be explained in accordance with the belief that he died, not by compulsion, but of free choice.
Consequently, although the Son had a free choice in the matter of His death, it was a “fixed” choice.... Thus, Christ freely chose what was fixed from God.I regret that I cannot find the Latin original so I could see what word is translated as "fixed." My educated guess is that Anselm used the past participle of the verb figere (to fasten). (Cf. the past passive participle of the compound verb crucifixus, meaning to be fastened on a cross.)
Latin participles are non-finite (i.e. they are not inflected as to subject) verbal adjectives; consequently, assuming the past participle of figere, there is no subject to whom we can attribute Christ's "fixed choice." So, as I understand Anselm, Christ's "fixed choice" was a resolute human choice (or if you prefer, a decision) to suffer death, as opposed to a predetermined divine choice.
Anselm clearly states that God drew and move Christ's human will since God the Father gave Christ that will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.