This passage tells you why almost everyone is wrong about Anselm's Cur Deus Homo:
'You are not drawing a proper distinction, it seems to me, between, on the one hand, what Christ did because of the demands of his obedience, and, on the other, the suffering, inflicted upon him because he maintained his obedience, which he underwent even though his obedience did not demand it' [emphasis added for emphasis].
Anselm goes to great lengths to unwind this, and his unwinding is not without fault, but really now, I don't see any kind of theory of atonement in the work, let alone one where the Father intentionally inflicts pain and suffering on the Son (pain and suffering being distinct).
Then again, I'm not looking for one.
No comments:
Post a Comment