What do you think?
Rate this book
The Major Works
Although utterly convinced of the truth of Christianity, Anselm of Canterbury struggled to make sense of his religion. He considered the doctrines of faith an invitation to question, to think, and to learn; and he devoted his life to confronting and understanding the most elusive aspects of
Christianity. His writings on matters such as free will, the nature of truth, and the existence of God make Anselm one of the greatest theologians and philosophers in history, and this translation provides readers with their first opportunity to read his most important works within a single
volume.
Christianity. His writings on matters such as free will, the nature of truth, and the existence of God make Anselm one of the greatest theologians and philosophers in history, and this translation provides readers with their first opportunity to read his most important works within a single
volume.
544 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1100
208 people are currently reading
2534 people want to read
About the author
Anselm of Canterbury
230 books119 followersborn 1033
People best know Italian-born English theological philosopher and prelate Saint Anselm for his ontological argument for the existence of God.
He entered the Benedictine order at the abbey of Bec at the age of 27 years in 1060 and served as abbot in 1079.
Anselm, a Benedictine monk of monastery at Bec, from 1093 held the office of the Church of archbishop of Canterbury. Called the founder of scholasticism, this major famous originator of the satisfaction theory of atonement influenced the west. He served as archbishop of Canterbury under William II. From 1097, people exiled him to 1100.
As a result of the investiture controversy, the most significant conflict between Church and state in Medieval Europe, Henry I again from 1105 exiled him to 1107.
A bull of Clement XI, pope, proclaimed Anselm a doctor of the Church in 1720 . We celebrate his feast day annually on 21 April.
People best know Italian-born English theological philosopher and prelate Saint Anselm for his ontological argument for the existence of God.
He entered the Benedictine order at the abbey of Bec at the age of 27 years in 1060 and served as abbot in 1079.
Anselm, a Benedictine monk of monastery at Bec, from 1093 held the office of the Church of archbishop of Canterbury. Called the founder of scholasticism, this major famous originator of the satisfaction theory of atonement influenced the west. He served as archbishop of Canterbury under William II. From 1097, people exiled him to 1100.
As a result of the investiture controversy, the most significant conflict between Church and state in Medieval Europe, Henry I again from 1105 exiled him to 1107.
A bull of Clement XI, pope, proclaimed Anselm a doctor of the Church in 1720 . We celebrate his feast day annually on 21 April.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
August 8, 2021
This is not my first time attempting to get through this book. I had started it a while ago and put it back down and didn’t pick it up again until I decided I wanted to study the Scholastics in-depth. A fair amount of Anselm was included in the Scholastic Miscellany collection I just read. I skipped what I had already just read in there. I didn’t really comment on Anselm in that review because I was already planning on reading this.
Like a lot of the Scholastics, I wouldn’t say that Anselm is an exactly enthralling read, although I did find it interesting. It was actually his investigation of freewill that I found the most engaging. Anselm is famous for his ontological argument that God is that which a greater cannot be thought. Of course, the criticism was at the time, and still can be, that thought doesn’t have to reflect reality. Anselm does try to address this in a kind of crafty conflation of reality and thought where if one denies that this being exists in reality, then what is being denied is not that which a greater cannot be thought because reality must be greater than the thought and this being must have existence as an attribute and then must necessarily exist. I am paraphrasing here, but it is obvious that this argument wouldn’t necessarily convince anyone when it could be attributed to playing with assumptions and words. Anselm also likes to delve into lines of thinking that involve double negatives such as “to not not do something” and the like. Double negatives really only exist in discourse. However, his arguments regarding freewill on how actions can be carried out mediately and not always immediately are more fruitful and thought provoking. Here such nuance regarding actions seems to be warranted. On the surface at least, much of Anselm’s thought does come across as sophistical.
I am actually in agreement with Anselm on the whole, I just know that his ontological arguments wouldn’t be convincing to an atheist. Proofs for the existence of God always have seemed like a waste of time to me. I’ve always held that God’s existence is self-evident. I wouldn’t bother with trying to convince atheists of God’s existence. Atheism is an affliction of the will, not the reason. There is where the problem lies and there is where the solution must be sought. I think if one approaches Anselm with the ancient Greek mindset that mind is to be equated with God, then one can actually perceive the philosophical perspective of Anselm. Also, different aspects of the human mind are poorly related in language. One can say that my perception of my immediate environment is a thought, but it is certainly different than an environment I may see in a dream. How our mind can tell the difference between imagination and reality is hard to express in words. Simply using “thought” to express all aspects of mind seems to poorly convey such nuance. Of course, I think most Christians would say that God isn’t simply a thought. Indeed, every Christian that has had some experience of the Divine would have to agree that it isn’t a product of subjective thought. God must ultimately transcend our thoughts and perceptions, so even to a Christian Anselm's ontological argument has problems.
This is certainly an interesting collection of Anselm’s writings. If one is going to study the Scholastics, then Anselm is essential reading. It’s also hard to deny his influence. Like most works of the period, here you have a combination of theology and philosophy. While I am well aware that most atheists would not accept Anselm’s arguments, I also know that the average new atheist doesn’t do much more than read the CliffsNotes of anything they reject. A thorough understanding of perspective and nuance is going to be lost on these people, but, again, atheism is an affliction of the will.
Like a lot of the Scholastics, I wouldn’t say that Anselm is an exactly enthralling read, although I did find it interesting. It was actually his investigation of freewill that I found the most engaging. Anselm is famous for his ontological argument that God is that which a greater cannot be thought. Of course, the criticism was at the time, and still can be, that thought doesn’t have to reflect reality. Anselm does try to address this in a kind of crafty conflation of reality and thought where if one denies that this being exists in reality, then what is being denied is not that which a greater cannot be thought because reality must be greater than the thought and this being must have existence as an attribute and then must necessarily exist. I am paraphrasing here, but it is obvious that this argument wouldn’t necessarily convince anyone when it could be attributed to playing with assumptions and words. Anselm also likes to delve into lines of thinking that involve double negatives such as “to not not do something” and the like. Double negatives really only exist in discourse. However, his arguments regarding freewill on how actions can be carried out mediately and not always immediately are more fruitful and thought provoking. Here such nuance regarding actions seems to be warranted. On the surface at least, much of Anselm’s thought does come across as sophistical.
I am actually in agreement with Anselm on the whole, I just know that his ontological arguments wouldn’t be convincing to an atheist. Proofs for the existence of God always have seemed like a waste of time to me. I’ve always held that God’s existence is self-evident. I wouldn’t bother with trying to convince atheists of God’s existence. Atheism is an affliction of the will, not the reason. There is where the problem lies and there is where the solution must be sought. I think if one approaches Anselm with the ancient Greek mindset that mind is to be equated with God, then one can actually perceive the philosophical perspective of Anselm. Also, different aspects of the human mind are poorly related in language. One can say that my perception of my immediate environment is a thought, but it is certainly different than an environment I may see in a dream. How our mind can tell the difference between imagination and reality is hard to express in words. Simply using “thought” to express all aspects of mind seems to poorly convey such nuance. Of course, I think most Christians would say that God isn’t simply a thought. Indeed, every Christian that has had some experience of the Divine would have to agree that it isn’t a product of subjective thought. God must ultimately transcend our thoughts and perceptions, so even to a Christian Anselm's ontological argument has problems.
This is certainly an interesting collection of Anselm’s writings. If one is going to study the Scholastics, then Anselm is essential reading. It’s also hard to deny his influence. Like most works of the period, here you have a combination of theology and philosophy. While I am well aware that most atheists would not accept Anselm’s arguments, I also know that the average new atheist doesn’t do much more than read the CliffsNotes of anything they reject. A thorough understanding of perspective and nuance is going to be lost on these people, but, again, atheism is an affliction of the will.
Read
December 16, 2018This is the first book in a very, very long time that I haven't finished. I was mostly interested in reading Proslogion because Plantinga thought highly of Anselm's version of the ontological argument. It just didn't make sense to me. I think I'm better off going back and rereading Plantinga's comments on it. I was also interested in reading Why God Became Man because of his soteriology. However, he goes on for pages saying that God created the human race in order to replace the angels that defected. He also says that when we sin we "take honor from God". I frankly don't see how we can "take" anything from Him. I could be misreading a lot of this, but at this point, I have no more interest in fleshing out his thoughts. :-(
April 3, 2023
“Perhaps no other theologian was so honored in his day and rebuked in ours as St. Anselm of Canterbury." - Katherine Sonderegger
March 1, 2025
Received this one as a gift as Anselm is one of my favorite theologians. Most people simply know him as the “ontological argument guy,” but his full collection has great books such as Why God Became Man (one of my favorite books ever) as well as smaller books on reconciling free will with providence (De Concordia), a compelling defense of the Filioque, original sin and the Immaculate Conception, etc.
People often debate how convincing or how “logically airtight” the ontological argument is, but I prefer to see it as Anselm’s genuine discovery of God through prayer, as the entire book is a prayerful meditation on God:
“No one, indeed, understanding what God is can think that God does not exist…For God is that which nothing greater can be thought…I give thanks to you, good Lord, I give thanks to you, since what I believed before through your free gift I now understand through your illumination.”
People often debate how convincing or how “logically airtight” the ontological argument is, but I prefer to see it as Anselm’s genuine discovery of God through prayer, as the entire book is a prayerful meditation on God:
“No one, indeed, understanding what God is can think that God does not exist…For God is that which nothing greater can be thought…I give thanks to you, good Lord, I give thanks to you, since what I believed before through your free gift I now understand through your illumination.”
October 11, 2022
The 11th century witnessed a dramatic change in European history, the impact of which has been compared to that of the Protestant Reformation or the industrial revolution. Extraordinary economic expansion was accompanied by growth in political institutions and cultural life, especially in Italy and northern France. Anselm spent most of his life in these two countries, and he was involved in many of the cultural changes that took place.
Anselm was born at Aosta in the Italian Alps. His family was noble and seems to have been related to the house of Savoy, the leading territorial magnates of the region. But Anselm's parents no longer possessed political or social prominence, and the family's economic resources were declining.
After the death of his mother about 1056, Anselm argued with his father and left Aosta forever. He traveled across the Alps and contacted his mother's relatives in the kingdom of Burgundy. After a period of study in Burgundy and northern France, he went to the monastery of Bec in Normandy to study under its prior, Lanfranc, a leading teacher in northern Europe.
In 1060 Anselm entered the monastic life at Bec. His proficiency in learning was such that 3 years later, on the occasion of Lanfranc's departure from Bec in order to become abbot of St. Stephen's in Caen, Anselm was appointed prior of Bec and head of the monastic school.
The office of prior did not initially alter Anselm's love for solitude and meditation. In spite of his teaching activity, little is known of Anselm during his first 10 years at Bec. After 1070, however, he became more active, and the demand from his students to write down some of his teachings resulted in the writing of several works of major import.
The first of these works was the Monologion (ca. 1077), a treatise which examines the existence and nature of God. In particular, two arguments are used. In order to make a comparative judgment (that one thing is better than another), it is necessary to have a superlative (the best against which everything else can be judged). For Anselm, God is that highest good. Anselm also used the argument of contingency—that is, everything must come into existence through the agency of something prior. It is thus necessary to posit a first cause or being on which everything else depends, for if there were nothing on which it depended, it could not exist. That first cause, for Anselm, is God.
The arguments used in the Monologion can be found in previous writers, especially in St. Augustine, on whose work Anselm based most of his thought. The structure and method, however, are new, and Anselm seemed motivated to construct an argument that was rational and could convince the non-Christian.
More revolutionary in nature was the work which Anselm entitled Proslogion (ca. 1078). It was the result of a "discovery" of a definition of God, and the ontological argument based upon the definition seemed to Anselm (and to many later philosophers) to be convincing by its very logical simplicity. Anselm's biographer, Eadmer, later described the discovery: "Behold, one night during Matins, the grace of God shone in his heart and the matter became clear to his understanding, filling his whole being with immense joy and jubilation."
The discovery of Anselm was a definition of God that was anticipated in part by Augustine and Seneca; namely, God was that being a greater than which could not be conceived. Using that definition as the basic content of anyone's idea of God, Anselm went on to argue that such a being necessarily existed not only as an idea in the mind but also in external reality. The Proslogion was widely circulated and brought Anselm immediate fame among his contemporaries and succeeding generations. Although attacked in his own time and in later centuries, Anselm's ontological argument greatly influenced the course of philosophical and theological thought.
In 1078 Anselm was elected abbot of Bec, a position he held until 1093. In spite of the demands of the office, Anselm found time to complete several works on philosophy and theology. Among them were his philosophical works on grammar and truth and his theological treatises on free will and the devil. While these works are significant in the thought and development of Anselm, they did not make as great an impression on his contemporaries or later generations as did his earlier works.
From 1090 to 1093 Anselm was drawn into two controversies that changed his career. One was over the understanding of the Incarnation of Christ and the doctrine of the Atonement. Beginning in 1092, Anselm wrote two letters on this subject, and the ideas contained therein eventually bore fruit in a lengthy study entitled Cur Deus Homo. Although anticipated in part by earlier theologians, such as Tertullian, Anselm wrote the first work to deal so extensively with the Incarnation, and his method of presentation, as well as the precision of his ideas, makes this work one of the most influential in the history of theology.
The other conflict that influenced Anselm in this period was the political and ecclesiastical situation in England. Lanfranc had become archbishop of Canterbury in 1070. After his death in 1089, King William Rufus allowed the position to remain vacant to avoid creating a strong ecclesiastical opponent and to appropriate Church revenues. The King wished to avoid accepting an archbishop who would oppose royal control of the English Church. Illness and fear of eternal retribution, however, finally caused him to appoint a successor to Lanfranc, and to that post he called Anselm. In spite of Anselm's initial reluctance, he was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury on Dec. 4, 1093.
Anselm was born at Aosta in the Italian Alps. His family was noble and seems to have been related to the house of Savoy, the leading territorial magnates of the region. But Anselm's parents no longer possessed political or social prominence, and the family's economic resources were declining.
After the death of his mother about 1056, Anselm argued with his father and left Aosta forever. He traveled across the Alps and contacted his mother's relatives in the kingdom of Burgundy. After a period of study in Burgundy and northern France, he went to the monastery of Bec in Normandy to study under its prior, Lanfranc, a leading teacher in northern Europe.
In 1060 Anselm entered the monastic life at Bec. His proficiency in learning was such that 3 years later, on the occasion of Lanfranc's departure from Bec in order to become abbot of St. Stephen's in Caen, Anselm was appointed prior of Bec and head of the monastic school.
The office of prior did not initially alter Anselm's love for solitude and meditation. In spite of his teaching activity, little is known of Anselm during his first 10 years at Bec. After 1070, however, he became more active, and the demand from his students to write down some of his teachings resulted in the writing of several works of major import.
The first of these works was the Monologion (ca. 1077), a treatise which examines the existence and nature of God. In particular, two arguments are used. In order to make a comparative judgment (that one thing is better than another), it is necessary to have a superlative (the best against which everything else can be judged). For Anselm, God is that highest good. Anselm also used the argument of contingency—that is, everything must come into existence through the agency of something prior. It is thus necessary to posit a first cause or being on which everything else depends, for if there were nothing on which it depended, it could not exist. That first cause, for Anselm, is God.
The arguments used in the Monologion can be found in previous writers, especially in St. Augustine, on whose work Anselm based most of his thought. The structure and method, however, are new, and Anselm seemed motivated to construct an argument that was rational and could convince the non-Christian.
More revolutionary in nature was the work which Anselm entitled Proslogion (ca. 1078). It was the result of a "discovery" of a definition of God, and the ontological argument based upon the definition seemed to Anselm (and to many later philosophers) to be convincing by its very logical simplicity. Anselm's biographer, Eadmer, later described the discovery: "Behold, one night during Matins, the grace of God shone in his heart and the matter became clear to his understanding, filling his whole being with immense joy and jubilation."
The discovery of Anselm was a definition of God that was anticipated in part by Augustine and Seneca; namely, God was that being a greater than which could not be conceived. Using that definition as the basic content of anyone's idea of God, Anselm went on to argue that such a being necessarily existed not only as an idea in the mind but also in external reality. The Proslogion was widely circulated and brought Anselm immediate fame among his contemporaries and succeeding generations. Although attacked in his own time and in later centuries, Anselm's ontological argument greatly influenced the course of philosophical and theological thought.
In 1078 Anselm was elected abbot of Bec, a position he held until 1093. In spite of the demands of the office, Anselm found time to complete several works on philosophy and theology. Among them were his philosophical works on grammar and truth and his theological treatises on free will and the devil. While these works are significant in the thought and development of Anselm, they did not make as great an impression on his contemporaries or later generations as did his earlier works.
From 1090 to 1093 Anselm was drawn into two controversies that changed his career. One was over the understanding of the Incarnation of Christ and the doctrine of the Atonement. Beginning in 1092, Anselm wrote two letters on this subject, and the ideas contained therein eventually bore fruit in a lengthy study entitled Cur Deus Homo. Although anticipated in part by earlier theologians, such as Tertullian, Anselm wrote the first work to deal so extensively with the Incarnation, and his method of presentation, as well as the precision of his ideas, makes this work one of the most influential in the history of theology.
The other conflict that influenced Anselm in this period was the political and ecclesiastical situation in England. Lanfranc had become archbishop of Canterbury in 1070. After his death in 1089, King William Rufus allowed the position to remain vacant to avoid creating a strong ecclesiastical opponent and to appropriate Church revenues. The King wished to avoid accepting an archbishop who would oppose royal control of the English Church. Illness and fear of eternal retribution, however, finally caused him to appoint a successor to Lanfranc, and to that post he called Anselm. In spite of Anselm's initial reluctance, he was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury on Dec. 4, 1093.
April 22, 2021
Classic.
December 19, 2021
I only read On the Incarnation but I promised myself I'd count it as a whole book for Goodreads purposes
August 29, 2018
Throughout the Middle Ages priests and theologians pondered the great questions about the Christian faith and this is a compilation one of the major thinkers of the time. The Major Works of Anselm of Canterbury brings together all of the important works—and some fragments of miscellaneous writing—of this Doctor of the Church on numerous issues to make sense of his faith.
Containing 11 works, this volume explores such questions as relating to the Christian faith. However except for Anselm’s first major work, “Monologian” in which he sets out to prove God exists through reason than faith, almost everything in this book is either bordering on heretical or barely comprehensible at best. Such works as “De Grammatico”, “The Truth, and “Free Will” quickly make no sense in their dialogue form while “On the Fall of the Devil” appears to indicate that God created evil which is frankly should have resulted in a one-way ticket bonfire for Anselm. Anselm’s attempt to better articulate his thoughts of the “Monologian” in the “Proslogion” were a disaster of incomprehensibility. The three works “On the Incarnation of the Word”, “Why God Became Man”, and “On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin” were insightful in a few spots though exposed the fallacy of original sin even though Anselm might have thought he had validate it. The two other major pieces were so disappointing that it is best not to mention them by name.
After reading St. Augustine’s City of God, I hoped for a clear understanding of medieval theological thought in this book as well. To say I was disappointed would be an understatement, in fact even though “Monologian” was tougher than I expected I wasn’t discouraged but as I continued reading it became harder to read. On top of that, the rise of so many unbiblical theological statements that Anselm “proves” through reason then “backs up” through scripture was getting hard to take. In fact, the worst part of “Monologian” was Anselm attempting to prove the immortality of the soul and failing completely. The only other positive thing I can say, except for my general liking of “Monologian”, is that any notes of the text were put in the footers and not in the back of the book like other Oxford World’s Classics editions I read have done.
The Major Works contains serious theological and philosophical works by Anselm of Canterbury that the honest reader will find barely comprehensible and at times almost heretical. Do not waste your time with this book unless you are a very serious scholar.
Containing 11 works, this volume explores such questions as relating to the Christian faith. However except for Anselm’s first major work, “Monologian” in which he sets out to prove God exists through reason than faith, almost everything in this book is either bordering on heretical or barely comprehensible at best. Such works as “De Grammatico”, “The Truth, and “Free Will” quickly make no sense in their dialogue form while “On the Fall of the Devil” appears to indicate that God created evil which is frankly should have resulted in a one-way ticket bonfire for Anselm. Anselm’s attempt to better articulate his thoughts of the “Monologian” in the “Proslogion” were a disaster of incomprehensibility. The three works “On the Incarnation of the Word”, “Why God Became Man”, and “On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin” were insightful in a few spots though exposed the fallacy of original sin even though Anselm might have thought he had validate it. The two other major pieces were so disappointing that it is best not to mention them by name.
After reading St. Augustine’s City of God, I hoped for a clear understanding of medieval theological thought in this book as well. To say I was disappointed would be an understatement, in fact even though “Monologian” was tougher than I expected I wasn’t discouraged but as I continued reading it became harder to read. On top of that, the rise of so many unbiblical theological statements that Anselm “proves” through reason then “backs up” through scripture was getting hard to take. In fact, the worst part of “Monologian” was Anselm attempting to prove the immortality of the soul and failing completely. The only other positive thing I can say, except for my general liking of “Monologian”, is that any notes of the text were put in the footers and not in the back of the book like other Oxford World’s Classics editions I read have done.
The Major Works contains serious theological and philosophical works by Anselm of Canterbury that the honest reader will find barely comprehensible and at times almost heretical. Do not waste your time with this book unless you are a very serious scholar.
Currently reading
December 15, 2016I'm in the middle of this one. I bought it for the Proslogion, of course, but have found De Grammatico perhaps, in some ways, the most limpid work so far. The works within are translated by different authors. Sometimes the text is impenetrable, and I know enough about translation to have an idea that this is often the translator's fault. Grrrr. I am fairly sure that the translation got worse when I started on the pieces translated by Ralph McInerny. I very rarely write in books, but was so annoyed by obvious mistakes in the translation that I made a correction with a blue pen earlier.
Page 176:
S. I think there is no doubt that this is so.
T. And would you not say that it is no less doubtful that to sin is always indecent and harmful.
It obviously should be "no more doubtful". Details like this make a big difference in a text woven so densely of philosophical propositions. In some of the translations it's not clear half the time what an "it" or a "this" refers to - again, I would hazard a guess that this is the fault of the translator.
I am finding the book rewarding - I just wish the translators would be a bit more careful about what they're doing.
I'll just have to learn Latin and read the originals...
Page 176:
S. I think there is no doubt that this is so.
T. And would you not say that it is no less doubtful that to sin is always indecent and harmful.
It obviously should be "no more doubtful". Details like this make a big difference in a text woven so densely of philosophical propositions. In some of the translations it's not clear half the time what an "it" or a "this" refers to - again, I would hazard a guess that this is the fault of the translator.
I am finding the book rewarding - I just wish the translators would be a bit more careful about what they're doing.
I'll just have to learn Latin and read the originals...
June 24, 2013
The rating and review concern the edition rather than the work. Oxford has done a service by assembling all these texts in one volume. There is a catch. The translations were done by different translators, making for some stylistic unevenness. Also, the introduction is fairly cursory, and the texts themselves could use a few more explanatory notes.
March 4, 2023
On Free Will
On the Incarnation of the Word
Why God Became Man
On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin
On the Procession of the Holy Spirit
De Concordia (The Compatibility of God’s Foreknowledge, Predestination, and Grace with Human Freedom)
Certainly I did not agree with everything presented but it was a fantastic read. Really helpful insight into what promogulated Medieval Catholic thought, helps fill out my internal sketch of why we believe the things we do about the Christian Faith. I need to come back to it and read Monologion and Proslogion
On the Incarnation of the Word
Why God Became Man
On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin
On the Procession of the Holy Spirit
De Concordia (The Compatibility of God’s Foreknowledge, Predestination, and Grace with Human Freedom)
Certainly I did not agree with everything presented but it was a fantastic read. Really helpful insight into what promogulated Medieval Catholic thought, helps fill out my internal sketch of why we believe the things we do about the Christian Faith. I need to come back to it and read Monologion and Proslogion
June 29, 2025
“Come then, Lord my God, teach my heart where and how to seek You, where and how to find You.”
I think I’m going to look to make it a goal to read through Anselm’s “Proslogion” every year.
I think I’m going to look to make it a goal to read through Anselm’s “Proslogion” every year.
Want to read
June 3, 2008I am reading only one book out of this collection of Anselm's works, Cur Deus Homo, Why God Became Man. This book tackles why God and God alone had "pitch his tent among us" to save us. I have heard Sproul mention it before as great reading and was reminded of it thinking about Charles Finney and his views on the atonement (moral government theory) and some of the the other theories on the atonement.
November 26, 2013
Indispensable reading. His discussions of the ontological argument, free will, and satisfaction have developed our psyche in ways we probably aren't aware of.
While we may reject his ontological argument, given the Platonic parameters of the day, it was fairly unremarkable. The Pros- and Monologion make for good devotional reading.
Some may balk at his feudal presuppositions regarding substitution, but it's hard to ignore the larger point.
While we may reject his ontological argument, given the Platonic parameters of the day, it was fairly unremarkable. The Pros- and Monologion make for good devotional reading.
Some may balk at his feudal presuppositions regarding substitution, but it's hard to ignore the larger point.
November 1, 2018
Excellent; was so great to go through this collection of Anselm's major works and supplement my theological knowledge of of the medieval era and grasp trends of medieval theological thought. Some were just fantastic to finally read first hand like "Cur Deus Homo," the Monologian and Proslogian. Most of the translations are readable and accessible. This will remain on my shelf as a constant reference book in my theological library. Highly recommended.
March 17, 2013
Anselm is not as well known as he should be. Try this: Do things exist (in any sense) before God makes them (or intends to make them)? Are there things which God does not make? Not easy questions, and Anselm is great on them.
November 7, 2015
Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God is one of the most interesting and discussed arguments in theology. Every Christian should at least read this in order to understand what many people are talking about.
September 27, 2007
Mindblowing! The way to understand Christ, God and the World.
April 2, 2009
I read part of this, I probably won't pick it back up for a very very long time.
January 2, 2010
Whatever your final assessment of them, Anselm's Cur Deus Homo and Proslogion are classics for a reason.
May 12, 2011
YES on the Incarnation, but not so much on the atonement theory...substitution is not my thing. Either way, though, it's a clear translation.
March 19, 2016
Anselm beautifully models how philosophical theology should be done: longing to think God’s thoughts after Him as an act of worship.
May 3, 2025
I read pages 260 - 356, which takes the form of a type of socratic dialogue between Anselm and a fictional interlocutor by the name of 'Boso.'
As I understand it, St. Anselm’s ‘Cur Deus Homo,’ or ‘Why God Became Man’ laid the foundation for what would later be developed more fully as what we now refer to as Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Anselm’s argument runs as follows:
1. Man was in a state of ruin.
2. A sinless non-divine man could not atone for Man
3. God cannot remit sin unpunished without recompense, i.e., the voluntary paying of a debt
4. A sinner cannot enter a state of blessedness without recompense for what he has taken from God (Man had taken from God his blessed plan for mankind in the Garden and dishonored Him by allowing himself to be conquered by the devil)
5. God cannot raise man to a state of blessedness who has any indebtedness owed Him by not doing as he ought to have done
6. A person cannot give back to God what He is owed
7. The debt is so large that only someone who is both God and Man and from the progeny of Adam can pay recompense for sin (if Man is to be restored)
8. The life of Christ is “so sublime and precious that it can suffice to repay the debt owed for the sins of the whole world, and infinitely more besides,” and his life is recompense paid to God for the sins of mankind (pg. 348)
Conclusion: Christ freely offered himself to the Father, a sacrifice of immeasurable value, thereby paying recompense for all sin of those past, present, and future, satisfying God’s justice and securing salvation for Man
Some additional thoughts:
Anselm’s theory is known as ‘Satisfaction Theory’ and is not identical to Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Anselm is frequently criticized on a few counts: 1) That he introduces necessity into God, 2) that he denied penal substitution.
1. For one thing, the type of necessity that Anselm speaks to is not a necessity external to God. Multiple times throughout, Anselm makes clear that any necessity that the atonement carried with it was intrinsic to God’s nature.
Proof text: “For all necessity, and impossibility, is subject to his will. Moreover his will is not subject to any necessity or impossibility. For nothing is necessary or impossible for any reason other than that he himself so wills it” (343). Book II, Section 17 deals specifically with the question of necessity in relation to God.
2. That Anselm denied penal substitution—for one thing, penal substitution proper did not exist at Anselm’s time, although I will grant that it existed in concept. Clearly, Anselm does not deny substitution. This leaves us with punishment. Does Anselm deny that Christ was punished on our behalf? Answer: It depends how to read him.
Anselm states “God the Father did not treat that man as you apparently understand him to have done; nor did he hand over an innocent man to be killed in place of the guilty party. For the Father did not coerce Christ to face death against his will, or give permission for him to be killed, but Christ himself of his own volition underwent death in order to save mankind” (pg. 275). For context, the previous paragraph Boso questions how God can be just in condemning an innocent man and releasing a guilty party.
Following the passage I just quoted from, Boso immediately states, “Even if it was not against the will of Christ, since he consented to the will of the Father, it nevertheless seems that the Father did coerce him, through the instructions he gave him” (pg. 275).
On my reading, Anselm denies coercion on the part of the Father forcing Christ to undergo condemnation. So, this is not a denial of punishment proper because the chief component of Anselm’s thought pertains to Christ undergoing his suffering voluntarily, not of coercion on the part of the Father.
If you read Book I, Sections 8-10 in context, this seems to be what Anselm is aimed at.
Some more additional thoughts:
Since I subscribe to Penal Substitution, I think that Anselm’s theory is not a sufficient theory in itself, but that it contains many important theological motifs that carried over to the Reformed orthodox view.
Unfortunately, Anselm does not cite from Scripture as much as I would have liked him to have done, but at the same time this is not unsurprising given Anselm’s paradigm of ‘fides quaerens intellectum’ (faith seeking understanding).
As I understand it, St. Anselm’s ‘Cur Deus Homo,’ or ‘Why God Became Man’ laid the foundation for what would later be developed more fully as what we now refer to as Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Anselm’s argument runs as follows:
1. Man was in a state of ruin.
2. A sinless non-divine man could not atone for Man
3. God cannot remit sin unpunished without recompense, i.e., the voluntary paying of a debt
4. A sinner cannot enter a state of blessedness without recompense for what he has taken from God (Man had taken from God his blessed plan for mankind in the Garden and dishonored Him by allowing himself to be conquered by the devil)
5. God cannot raise man to a state of blessedness who has any indebtedness owed Him by not doing as he ought to have done
6. A person cannot give back to God what He is owed
7. The debt is so large that only someone who is both God and Man and from the progeny of Adam can pay recompense for sin (if Man is to be restored)
8. The life of Christ is “so sublime and precious that it can suffice to repay the debt owed for the sins of the whole world, and infinitely more besides,” and his life is recompense paid to God for the sins of mankind (pg. 348)
Conclusion: Christ freely offered himself to the Father, a sacrifice of immeasurable value, thereby paying recompense for all sin of those past, present, and future, satisfying God’s justice and securing salvation for Man
Some additional thoughts:
Anselm’s theory is known as ‘Satisfaction Theory’ and is not identical to Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Anselm is frequently criticized on a few counts: 1) That he introduces necessity into God, 2) that he denied penal substitution.
1. For one thing, the type of necessity that Anselm speaks to is not a necessity external to God. Multiple times throughout, Anselm makes clear that any necessity that the atonement carried with it was intrinsic to God’s nature.
Proof text: “For all necessity, and impossibility, is subject to his will. Moreover his will is not subject to any necessity or impossibility. For nothing is necessary or impossible for any reason other than that he himself so wills it” (343). Book II, Section 17 deals specifically with the question of necessity in relation to God.
2. That Anselm denied penal substitution—for one thing, penal substitution proper did not exist at Anselm’s time, although I will grant that it existed in concept. Clearly, Anselm does not deny substitution. This leaves us with punishment. Does Anselm deny that Christ was punished on our behalf? Answer: It depends how to read him.
Anselm states “God the Father did not treat that man as you apparently understand him to have done; nor did he hand over an innocent man to be killed in place of the guilty party. For the Father did not coerce Christ to face death against his will, or give permission for him to be killed, but Christ himself of his own volition underwent death in order to save mankind” (pg. 275). For context, the previous paragraph Boso questions how God can be just in condemning an innocent man and releasing a guilty party.
Following the passage I just quoted from, Boso immediately states, “Even if it was not against the will of Christ, since he consented to the will of the Father, it nevertheless seems that the Father did coerce him, through the instructions he gave him” (pg. 275).
On my reading, Anselm denies coercion on the part of the Father forcing Christ to undergo condemnation. So, this is not a denial of punishment proper because the chief component of Anselm’s thought pertains to Christ undergoing his suffering voluntarily, not of coercion on the part of the Father.
If you read Book I, Sections 8-10 in context, this seems to be what Anselm is aimed at.
Some more additional thoughts:
Since I subscribe to Penal Substitution, I think that Anselm’s theory is not a sufficient theory in itself, but that it contains many important theological motifs that carried over to the Reformed orthodox view.
Unfortunately, Anselm does not cite from Scripture as much as I would have liked him to have done, but at the same time this is not unsurprising given Anselm’s paradigm of ‘fides quaerens intellectum’ (faith seeking understanding).
July 15, 2024
While not as famous as other, later scholastics like Aquinas and Scotus, Anselm is the forefather of their schools. His approach and conclusions are in lockstep with classical theism even if he will have minor disagreements with thinkers. The texts in this collection range from a purely rational proof for God, to the famed ontological argument, to a discourse on truth, to questions about freedom and the will, and why God became man. As an introduction to classical theism, I would say there are few better. On it's own, however, many of the texts are less then compelling.
Every major text in this collection is going to articulate the major doctrine of classical theism: God (not in the sense of Christianity) is Being who is the source of other beings. Part of this is divine simplicity. Anselm never articulates divine simplicity (God has no parts and simply is) in the way others will but the basic idea is here. The first text, the Monologion is essentially nothing other than an introduction into classical theism as it only concerns itself with this supreme Being. Using lots of terms from Aristotle, Anselm articulates complex ideas quite well even if there is a lack of flourish and polish other authors have. Many of these texts relate to one another (Anselm references them quite often) which gives the collection a much more coherent and connected feel then other collections.
Unfortunately, Anselm (in my opinion) fails to convince in his texts. First, his aren't as compelling as he presents. It'd be too exhausting to demonstrate this in every case but in the Monologion, he starts out by saying he will only operate from reason and not from revelation. All well and good but there are multiple times where he disregards where reason, so called, leads him because it would be absurd (i.e. goes against Christian doctrine.) This is most evident when discussing why the Word (interesting choice) has to exist. Section #64 is the reverse, something is explicable but somehow has to be - curious how that "has" fits perfectly into revelation. Sadly, Anselm can often present his Christian faith as Aristotelian thought with a gloss of Christian revelation. His work on Why God Became Man, while generally strong, fails at times as well; particularly in that I don't think many classical theist thinkers actually wrestle with the implications of sin and original sin and justification all that well.
Not always in dialogue form, Anselm has a few of those that fall well short of classics in the genre. The weakness in the genre is that it presents a Steelman for cases but often doesn't or just misses other positions not addressed. In short, the unalterable logic Anselm offers isn't all that unalterable as the main point at issue isn't addressed. Lacking the sophistication of other scholastics, Anselm is trapped in his Aristotelian view and struggles to move past. One funny part of this text is that 'On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin', Anselm says that a fetus having a soul is absurd because if the fetus dies in the womb it will go hell. Catholicism in 2024 accepts that all fetus' have souls but struggles to address how it is that a miscarriage, for example, is "just" or "fair" for the child - the absurdity has never been addressed.
So while I might not have found it as compelling or enlightening as I hoped, Anselm is still a thinker worth wrestling with. His thought is more or less the first mature expression of a school that would dominate the western world until the enlightenment and in Catholicism until the 1800's.
Every major text in this collection is going to articulate the major doctrine of classical theism: God (not in the sense of Christianity) is Being who is the source of other beings. Part of this is divine simplicity. Anselm never articulates divine simplicity (God has no parts and simply is) in the way others will but the basic idea is here. The first text, the Monologion is essentially nothing other than an introduction into classical theism as it only concerns itself with this supreme Being. Using lots of terms from Aristotle, Anselm articulates complex ideas quite well even if there is a lack of flourish and polish other authors have. Many of these texts relate to one another (Anselm references them quite often) which gives the collection a much more coherent and connected feel then other collections.
Unfortunately, Anselm (in my opinion) fails to convince in his texts. First, his aren't as compelling as he presents. It'd be too exhausting to demonstrate this in every case but in the Monologion, he starts out by saying he will only operate from reason and not from revelation. All well and good but there are multiple times where he disregards where reason, so called, leads him because it would be absurd (i.e. goes against Christian doctrine.) This is most evident when discussing why the Word (interesting choice) has to exist. Section #64 is the reverse, something is explicable but somehow has to be - curious how that "has" fits perfectly into revelation. Sadly, Anselm can often present his Christian faith as Aristotelian thought with a gloss of Christian revelation. His work on Why God Became Man, while generally strong, fails at times as well; particularly in that I don't think many classical theist thinkers actually wrestle with the implications of sin and original sin and justification all that well.
Not always in dialogue form, Anselm has a few of those that fall well short of classics in the genre. The weakness in the genre is that it presents a Steelman for cases but often doesn't or just misses other positions not addressed. In short, the unalterable logic Anselm offers isn't all that unalterable as the main point at issue isn't addressed. Lacking the sophistication of other scholastics, Anselm is trapped in his Aristotelian view and struggles to move past. One funny part of this text is that 'On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin', Anselm says that a fetus having a soul is absurd because if the fetus dies in the womb it will go hell. Catholicism in 2024 accepts that all fetus' have souls but struggles to address how it is that a miscarriage, for example, is "just" or "fair" for the child - the absurdity has never been addressed.
So while I might not have found it as compelling or enlightening as I hoped, Anselm is still a thinker worth wrestling with. His thought is more or less the first mature expression of a school that would dominate the western world until the enlightenment and in Catholicism until the 1800's.
October 15, 2021
Monologion: 4 stars. In a powerful work of natural theology and meditation on the divine essence and trinity, Anselm proffers a (somewhat ad hoc) reasoning to a Supreme Being and the Trinity with a brief section on the proper human response to such a being. While I do not accept Anselm’s Classical Theism (especially divine simplicity), I quite enjoyed his reasoning toward the Trinity, with a very relational, Augustine-inspired Latin flavor and found it very enriching, though it is still difficult to understand how the Father, Son, and Spirit are different persons on this model. (Anselm himself reluctantly accepts the term person as a “linguistic necessity” but does not think it rightly describes the Father, Son, and Spirit.)
Proslogion + Reply to Guanilo: 4 stars. Anselm’s text in which we find the famed Ontological Argument is much more worshipful than I expected: “For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand” (87), and I thoroughly enjoyed this short work (though it suffered in the same way as the Monologion from divine simplicity and impassibility).
Anselm’s argument basically goes as follows:
1. God is that than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. Existence is greater than non-existence.
Therefore,
3. God exists.
While I do think Anselm’s argument begs the question in the first premise, I am unendingly thankful to Anselm for birthing the class of ontological arguments for the existence of God, and I think the argument can be fixed by simply adding “If it is possible for God to exist, then...” to the first premise, which changes the conclusion to “If it is possible for God to exist, then He exists.” This form is similar to Alvin Plantinga’s Ontological argument which proves the same conclusion.
Edit (10/14/21): 5 stars. Coming back and rereading the Proslogion about a year later after fully embracing Classical Theism was a wonderful experience. Now, I no longer think Anselm’s argument fails for the same reason and am not so sure of the modal ontological argument. However, I do wonder if Anselm treats existence like a property instead of an act and if this is problematic for the argument. Yet, I think he’s right; if you truly understand God, you must know that He exists.
De Grammatico: 2 stars. An obscure and uninteresting exercise in identifying equivocation in Latin grammar.
On Truth: 3 stars. Anselm’s concept of truth is broader than what we normally think of as truth: Truth is rectitude perceived by the mind, things being as they ought to be. Correspondence theory of truth is Anselm’s truth of signification. Justice is a type of truth, rectitude done willingly for its own sake; it must have a moral component. God is the highest truth and the highest justice.
On Free Will: 3 stars. Anselm builds off “On Truth” and defines free will as the ability to be just and concludes “The rational nature always has free will because it always has the power of preserving rectitude of will for the sake of rectitude itself, although sometimes with difficulty” (188). Although Anselm makes some interesting points, for example free will cannot include the ability to sin because that would be saying God does not possess free will, overall, I think he complicates the issues rather than clarifies it.
On the Fall of the Devil: 4 stars. Anselm finishes off his trilogy by building off his ideas of justice and free will. All things are from God and are created good, but then how did the devil fall? The devil was given a will for justice, which was a good thing. However, through the use of this will which was good he desired something, namely to be like God, which he ought not to will. He did this using only good things God gave him, but by desiring a good thing in a way he ought not to, he, of himself, abandoned justice (which is willing what one ought for its own sake) and sinned. Then, the devil was the source of his own evil, which is not actually anything but the absence of justice and good, and God did not give the devil perseverance because he did not accept this gift though he was granted the capacity and the will to accept it.
On the Incarnation of the Word: 4 stars. Anselm points strongly to orthodoxy in the trinity and the hypostatic union, and I was edified greatly by his Nile analogy (255-257). However, early in the work, his reasoning leans heavily on divine simplicity (which I reject) and Latin trinitarianism (which I am undecided on against social trinitarianism).
Why God Became Man: 5 stars. Anselm seeks to answer the question of why God became man to save man instead of just forgiving him, and he does so through the use of reasoning alone. In taking on this challenge, Anselm fleshes out the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement which the Western Church is so indebted to. Anselm suggests that since man owes all honor to God and owes a complete subjection of his will to God, by sinning and taking his will out of subjection to God, man has stolen honor from God and incurred an infinite debt. Man cannot repay this debt by any good work because all of his good works are already owed to God anyway, and even if they were not, only God could have something to give that was of infinite worth. Therefore, only God can save. However, God cannot allow this debt to go unpaid as this would be unjust; someone must pay this debt, and for the payment to be given on behalf of man, the giver must be man. Thus, the God-Man is the only one who could save humanity by being sinless and giving His own life to God, which He did not owe to God since He did not sin and which is of infinite worth. Because of this supremely great act, the God-Man merits some reward from God, but due to His divinity, there is nothing that can be given Him which is not already His. Therefore, this gift is given to someone else, namely the forgiveness of sins given to mankind, which was proper for the God-Man to give in view of His own manhood and which He merited through His offering of infinite worth.
On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin: 3 stars. While this treatise was interesting, Anselm’s logic seems extremely wanting, and he affirms some untenable doctrines, including the idea that fetuses do not have souls upon conception, unbaptized babies are all damned to hell, and Mary was immaculately conceived.
On the Procession of the Holy Spirit: 4 stars. Anselm tries to persuade the Greeks in accepting the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. While I agree with Anselm’s doctrine, I did not find all of his arguments very persuasive. However, I think the best one is where he argues that since we call the Spirit the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ, and this does not refer to belonging, the Spirit must be of the Father in the same way He is of Christ, namely from procession.
De Concordia: 5 stars. Although slightly marred by some Roman thinking of merit, this work builds off of Anselm’s other works and masterfully reconciles grace and free choice in a way that feeds my soul. All things are from grace, but this does not negate human freedom.
Update (12/11/2020): Looking back at this review, I realize I am now much closer to accepting Classical Theism after reading Irenaeus’ Against Heresies and realizing how widely accepted divine simplicity and impassibility were throughout church history. Also, I now recognize Anselm actually did not affirm the immaculate conception of Mary but thought she was purified from sin in the womb but after conception.
Proslogion + Reply to Guanilo: 4 stars. Anselm’s text in which we find the famed Ontological Argument is much more worshipful than I expected: “For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand” (87), and I thoroughly enjoyed this short work (though it suffered in the same way as the Monologion from divine simplicity and impassibility).
Anselm’s argument basically goes as follows:
1. God is that than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. Existence is greater than non-existence.
Therefore,
3. God exists.
While I do think Anselm’s argument begs the question in the first premise, I am unendingly thankful to Anselm for birthing the class of ontological arguments for the existence of God, and I think the argument can be fixed by simply adding “If it is possible for God to exist, then...” to the first premise, which changes the conclusion to “If it is possible for God to exist, then He exists.” This form is similar to Alvin Plantinga’s Ontological argument which proves the same conclusion.
Edit (10/14/21): 5 stars. Coming back and rereading the Proslogion about a year later after fully embracing Classical Theism was a wonderful experience. Now, I no longer think Anselm’s argument fails for the same reason and am not so sure of the modal ontological argument. However, I do wonder if Anselm treats existence like a property instead of an act and if this is problematic for the argument. Yet, I think he’s right; if you truly understand God, you must know that He exists.
De Grammatico: 2 stars. An obscure and uninteresting exercise in identifying equivocation in Latin grammar.
On Truth: 3 stars. Anselm’s concept of truth is broader than what we normally think of as truth: Truth is rectitude perceived by the mind, things being as they ought to be. Correspondence theory of truth is Anselm’s truth of signification. Justice is a type of truth, rectitude done willingly for its own sake; it must have a moral component. God is the highest truth and the highest justice.
On Free Will: 3 stars. Anselm builds off “On Truth” and defines free will as the ability to be just and concludes “The rational nature always has free will because it always has the power of preserving rectitude of will for the sake of rectitude itself, although sometimes with difficulty” (188). Although Anselm makes some interesting points, for example free will cannot include the ability to sin because that would be saying God does not possess free will, overall, I think he complicates the issues rather than clarifies it.
On the Fall of the Devil: 4 stars. Anselm finishes off his trilogy by building off his ideas of justice and free will. All things are from God and are created good, but then how did the devil fall? The devil was given a will for justice, which was a good thing. However, through the use of this will which was good he desired something, namely to be like God, which he ought not to will. He did this using only good things God gave him, but by desiring a good thing in a way he ought not to, he, of himself, abandoned justice (which is willing what one ought for its own sake) and sinned. Then, the devil was the source of his own evil, which is not actually anything but the absence of justice and good, and God did not give the devil perseverance because he did not accept this gift though he was granted the capacity and the will to accept it.
On the Incarnation of the Word: 4 stars. Anselm points strongly to orthodoxy in the trinity and the hypostatic union, and I was edified greatly by his Nile analogy (255-257). However, early in the work, his reasoning leans heavily on divine simplicity (which I reject) and Latin trinitarianism (which I am undecided on against social trinitarianism).
Why God Became Man: 5 stars. Anselm seeks to answer the question of why God became man to save man instead of just forgiving him, and he does so through the use of reasoning alone. In taking on this challenge, Anselm fleshes out the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement which the Western Church is so indebted to. Anselm suggests that since man owes all honor to God and owes a complete subjection of his will to God, by sinning and taking his will out of subjection to God, man has stolen honor from God and incurred an infinite debt. Man cannot repay this debt by any good work because all of his good works are already owed to God anyway, and even if they were not, only God could have something to give that was of infinite worth. Therefore, only God can save. However, God cannot allow this debt to go unpaid as this would be unjust; someone must pay this debt, and for the payment to be given on behalf of man, the giver must be man. Thus, the God-Man is the only one who could save humanity by being sinless and giving His own life to God, which He did not owe to God since He did not sin and which is of infinite worth. Because of this supremely great act, the God-Man merits some reward from God, but due to His divinity, there is nothing that can be given Him which is not already His. Therefore, this gift is given to someone else, namely the forgiveness of sins given to mankind, which was proper for the God-Man to give in view of His own manhood and which He merited through His offering of infinite worth.
On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin: 3 stars. While this treatise was interesting, Anselm’s logic seems extremely wanting, and he affirms some untenable doctrines, including the idea that fetuses do not have souls upon conception, unbaptized babies are all damned to hell, and Mary was immaculately conceived.
On the Procession of the Holy Spirit: 4 stars. Anselm tries to persuade the Greeks in accepting the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. While I agree with Anselm’s doctrine, I did not find all of his arguments very persuasive. However, I think the best one is where he argues that since we call the Spirit the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ, and this does not refer to belonging, the Spirit must be of the Father in the same way He is of Christ, namely from procession.
De Concordia: 5 stars. Although slightly marred by some Roman thinking of merit, this work builds off of Anselm’s other works and masterfully reconciles grace and free choice in a way that feeds my soul. All things are from grace, but this does not negate human freedom.
Update (12/11/2020): Looking back at this review, I realize I am now much closer to accepting Classical Theism after reading Irenaeus’ Against Heresies and realizing how widely accepted divine simplicity and impassibility were throughout church history. Also, I now recognize Anselm actually did not affirm the immaculate conception of Mary but thought she was purified from sin in the womb but after conception.
June 14, 2023
Prior to this, my only exposure to Anslem was in my Seminary degree where he was generally derided as someone who thinks God is very angry, and in general, has few useful things to say. I found this not to be the case at all. I found nothing that could be described as "divine child abuse" or anything that smacked of an angry God. What I did find was a very intelligent person who tried to understand God as well as he could. His treatment of difficult theological and philosophical questions was very interesting and very helpful to read. I don't agree with everything he wrote, and it was sometimes a slog to get through, but all in all it was a very good read. Though written in the 11th century, it is still perfectly relevant. I would highly recommend it for anyone wanting an intellectual treatment of Christian theology and philosophy.
December 16, 2023
Anselm has had a lasting impact on Christian thought, and there is significant merit. Although he got weird in his thinking and writing at times (like his “proof” that the elect men replace the exact number of fallen angels), his thoughts and conclusions were often profound and profound. He certainly helped progress theology and philosophy, and we are indebted to his great mind. It was fun to contemplate language and reason and God and salvation with him. Be warned, however, that he can be speculative, circular in his reasoning, or simply unconvincing to a modern audience.
March 18, 2025
“For I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe-that unless I believe I shall not understand.”
― St. Anselm
St. Anslem beautifully argues for the existence of God and like a learned men simply explains such mysteries of the faith as why did God have to become man. The greatness of this work is beyond my words I simply cannot do it justice. I would highly recommend before one reads Anselm one get acquainted with the works of Plato as a lot of his works requires an understanding of Platonic Forms.
― St. Anselm
St. Anslem beautifully argues for the existence of God and like a learned men simply explains such mysteries of the faith as why did God have to become man. The greatness of this work is beyond my words I simply cannot do it justice. I would highly recommend before one reads Anselm one get acquainted with the works of Plato as a lot of his works requires an understanding of Platonic Forms.
December 3, 2019
A necessary read for understanding medieval theology at its finest. Anselm’s adaption of Augustinian thought and probing of the deepest philosophical and religious questions of his day make his works most intriguing, and the applicability of his insights is certainly not without in 21st century theological disputes either.
August 15, 2021
I read Monologion, Proslogion (including the dialogue with Gaunilo), and Why God Became Man. They took a while simply because the argument requires so much thought. Anselm writes in a very logical and thorough style, and one has to be careful to follow his line of thinking. When one invests the effort, it’s rather rewarding.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews