On the Reformation Debate between Jacopo Sadoleto and John Calvin

In 1539, Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto, bishop of Carpentras and a Jesuit priest, wrote a letter to the Genevese to urge them to return to the Catholic faith. At that time, John Calvin had been exiled from Geneva, and was then a minister at Strasbourg. The city council of Geneva consulted Calvin regarding Sadoleto’s letter, and Calvin agreed to give a reply. Calvin’s reply strongly defended the viewpoint of the Reformed movement. Both Sadoleto and Calvin were highly educated, and their letters are very valuable for understanding the theological debate at the times of Reformation. This debate was very academic, and apparently did not arouse a public discussion. However, it is undoubtedly an invaluable one because the discussion touched the very essence of the Reformation movement. It touched on various doctrines, but ultimately, the key difference is about the ultimate authority, whether it is the Word of God, or the rich ecclesiastical tradition of the Church.

Sadoleto was a very learned man. In his letter, he first pointed out the doctrines that both the Catholics and the Protestants agreed before discussing the differences. Examples including truth shining in darkness, its perspicuity both to the learned and the unlearned, doctrines’ foundation on humility and obedience towards God,[1] Christ’s work on Earth and His example being our role model,[2] His resurrection, His divine nature, His great work of redemption, salvation through Christ,[3] the significance of piety toward God, and the work of the Holy Spirit.[4] Sadoleto said he also agreed on “justification through faith alone,”[5] but it is definitely one of the biggest discrepancies between Catholic and Reformed teachings. Reformers did not initially sought for schism from the Church but to purify the Church in terms of doctrines, spiritual atmosphere, sacraments, and church polity. However, the differences between the Catholics and the Protestants were, and are, so big that the “unity” which Sadoleto begged for was not a true unity. As Calvin stated in his reply, true unity is not the tranquility inside the church without resolving great disputes and controversies.[6] Sadoleto did not use strong words in his letter. However, Calvin accused Sadoleto in his reply Sadoleto’s craft,[7] twisting of words, defaming the Reformers,[8] maintaining the wrong doctrines while knowing they were wrong,[9] and many other faults. Calvin pointed out the essential differences, and defended the Reformed teachings.

Sadoleto first accused the Protestants of “boasting” of some “hidden interpretation of the Scriptures,”[10] and indulging in certain “dialectics and vain philosophies.”[11] Although he rightly pointed out that it was imperative to approach the Scriptures with humility,[12] he later stressed on the role of Church in instructing the Christians “what to think, what to believe, wherein to place our hope,” and how to live a pious life that leads them to heaven.[13] The Church was also guided by the Spirit of Christ,[14] and hence all Christians should maintain her laws and precepts.[15] This is basically affirming the authority of the Catholic Church to interpret the Scriptures, the Word of God. Not surprisingly, Calvin strongly opposed to this teaching. He inveighed against the corruption of the Church, and the greed and avarice of the ecclesiastical staff.[16] He pointed out other problems of the Church, which I will list later. On the other hand, he asserted the ultimate authority of the Word in various places. While it was important that the Church should have been guided by the Holy Spirit, but the Word should be used to examine the guidance.[17] The Church should have built her foundations on the prophets and the apostles,[18] (Eph. 2:20) not on Peter,[19] who also taught that “people are regenerated by that incorruptible seed,”[20] (1 Pet. 1:23) which is clearly the Word of God according to the context in the quoted verses. He also quoted Apostle Paul that the only sword he possessed was the Word of the Lord.[21] (Eph. 6:17) He asserted that whenever the prophets foretold the renewal of the church, they referred to the Word of God, by citing Isa. 2:3.[22] He pointed out the danger of extravagantly boasting the work of the Holy Spirit by “burying” the Word of God, as it made room for the falsehood of the Church.[23] Calvin also asserted through the person in front of the Eternal Judge that “all controversies should be decided by Thy Word.”[24] In various places, Calvin hailed the ultimate authority of the Word of God, rebuking Sadoleto’s attempt to resort the controversies to the laws and precepts of the Church. He even teased Sadoleto that it was the Catholic Church who preyed upon the pious souls with “vain philosophies,” (Col. 2:8) not the Reformers, when discussing about the preaching sermons.[25]

Sadoleto accused the Reformers of their “pride”,[26] of teaching the “heretical doctrines” out of evil intention that they did it for wealth and ambition,[27] and of justifying themselves the liberty from ecclesiastical laws and their own lusts.[28] However, Calvin defended the Reformers strongly. He used himself as an example: “had I wished to consult my own interest, I would never have left your party.”[29] He said, if the Reformers did it for their own ambition, they would stay in the Catholic Church to rise to a prominent position.[30] As a matter of fact, the Reformers maintained that the pastors should keep the wealth that suffice their own need, and the rest should be dispensed, according to the practice of the early churches. If the Reformers did it for making money, as Calvin pointed out, it would be inexpedient for them to teach this.[31] Instead, Calvin also pointed out that many Reformers were in danger because they did not align themselves with the Catholic Church.[32] He wrote that the pastors were restricted to their own duty, not to govern the Church “with a licentious and lawless authority.”[33]

Sadoleto maintained that in order to “find a place with mercy and pardon with God,” Christians should not go beyond the “opinion and authority of the Church,” set by our ancestors, and guided by the Holy Spirit.[34] In other words, in Sadoleto’s viewpoint, the Church enjoyed the ultimate authority regarding the teachings of the Word and everyone’s salvation because of the Holy Spirit in work. The tradition of the Church was so important that it was where people found salvation. However, by upholding the Word of God, Calvin rejected the ultimate authority of the Church, even though Sadoleto claimed his teachings had been approved for 1,500 years or more.[35] Calvin asserted what he said was in more agreement with ancient church than Sadoleto.[36] Calvin affirmed the honor and rank of ancient Fathers and Councils, given the Word of God was their tool of judgement.[37]

Upholding the ultimate authority of the Word of God and playing down the authority of the church, Calvin attacked a number of Catholic practices and doctrines, and stated the corresponding Protestant positions. There are three things that the safety of the Church is founded, namely, doctrine, discipline, and the sacraments. And the Catholic Church added “ceremonies” to the list.[38] Ceremonies were used to exercise the people to piety, but Calvin complained the Catholic Church used it for her glory, and the ceremonies were vitiated by many forms of superstition,[39] defeating the purpose of piety, like Judaism.[40] What the Reformers tried to do with the sacraments was to restore their native purity, which had been abolished by the ceremonies which were superstitious in nature.[41] Catholic doctrines, as Calvin said, were so “twisted, involved, tortuous, and puzzling” that the scholastic theology itself is a “secret magic” as well.[42] He attacked the emptiness of the sermons preached all around the Western Europe that the first half was usually about the “misty questions” of the schools that scared away the rude populace, and the second half contained some “sweet stories” to keep the hearers alert.[43] He pointed out the Catholic preachers hurt the pious believers with “vain philosophies.” (Col. 2:8)

Calvin defended the Protestant position of “justification by faith alone.” Sadoleto maintained that “justification by faith,” which was “the common faith of the Church.” Sins were washed away by “expiations, penances, and satisfaction.”[44] To him, faith did “not only [include] … credulity and confidence.”[45] Calvin’s and the Reformers’ position is radically different: justification was not through works or merits, but through faith in Christ alone. If a man is convinced about his iniquities, he will humble before God and “[cast] away his self-confidence”[46] He pointed out succinctly that “the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete.”[47] He summarized the hopelessness of all humankind as lost sinners and Christ being their only righteousness: “by His obedience, He has wiped off our transgressions; by His sacrifice, appeased the divine anger; by His blood, washed away our sins; by His cross, borne our curse; and by His death, made satisfaction for us.”[48] Men are reconciled with God not by merits or works, but by “gratuitous mercy.”[49] Calvin quoted Rom. 4:7 and 2 Cor. 5:19 to further defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

In response to the Protestants’ doctrine of justification by faith alone, Catholic theologians accused the Protestants of “[taking] away the desire of well-doing from the Christian life by recommending gratuitous righteousness.”[50] Facing this, Calvin further argued for the doctrine by stating the inseparability of faith and work. Quoting 1 Cor. 1:30, he argued that Christ has been given to us for justification and for sanctification, and wherever there is Christ, there is the Holy Spirit, who regenerates the soul to newness of life.[51] In other words, “Christ regenerates to a blessed life those whom He justifies, and after rescuing them from the dominion of sin, hands them over to the dominion of righteousness, transforms them into the image of God, and so trains them by His Spirit into obedience to His will.”[52] Therefore, responding to Catholics and Sadoleto’s complaints, by this doctrine of justification, “lust is left with loosened reins.”[53] He cited Eph. 1:4 that Christians are elected in Christ before the creation to be holy. In 1 Thess. 4:7, Christians have not been called to impurity but to holiness.[54] These verses are more enough to prove the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which involves regeneration, sanctification, and adoption. The ignorance of this doctrine would lead to the washings of sins by penances and satisfactions, nullifying the utility of the blood of Christ regarding the redemption of man’s sins.[55] Nevertheless, Calvin agreed with Sadoleto that “love is the first and chief cause of our salvation.”[56]

Calvin also defended Reformers’ position of the Eucharist. The Catholics attacked the Protestants for “attempting to confine the Lord of the universe… within the corners of a corporeal nature with its circumscribed boundaries.”[57] Calvin pointed out that Reformers’ position was that the divine power of Christ and His essence is “diffused over all, and defined by no limits.”[58] He insightfully responded that there is a great difference between removing local presence of Christ’s body and restricting His spiritual power within bodily limits. Calvin taught that in the Lord’s Supper, flesh is truly meat and blood is truly drink, but the presence of Christ are not excluded from the Supper. He asserted that there is no transubstantiation, and the bread is not to be worshipped as Christ.[59] He condemned Catholic transubstantiation position of the Eucharist that led to superstition. He referred Sadoleto to Augustine’s Epistle to Dardanus for further elaboration.

Calvin also condemned the Catholic teaching about auricular confession: the law of Innocent, which enjoins every man to pass all his sins in review before his priest annually.[60] He argued that such law has no scriptural proof. While there is an apparent humility, he cited the Apostle Paul’s teaching that “humility only is genuine which is framed in conformity to the Word of God.”[61] (Col. 2:18)

Regarding the intercession of the saints, Calvin urged Sadoleto and other Catholics to neglect this teaching, because superstition had risen from this doctrine that “the intercession of Christ was utterly erased from men’s thoughts, saints were invoked as gods…”[62] leading to the sins of idolatry.[63]

Regarding the teaching of purgatory, Calvin pointed out although ancient churches did mention the dead in their prayers, it was obvious that nothing more is about the passion of the living people felt towards the dead. It is the problem of the Catholic Church that enlarged this to a money-making business that wealth was accumulated by church’s prayer for the dead people.[64]

After disputing all Sadoleto’s accusation and defending the Reformers’ position, Calvin developed his Reformed position to the next step by further denying the ultimate authority of the Church. He accused Sadoleto and the Catholic Church of “overthrowing the ministry.”[65] The Catholic Church was well known to be corrupted in the way that the ecclesiastical staff were “active only in robbing and devouring.”[66] The Lord’s Supper lost its meaning in the mass; the worship of images as a sin of idolatry was prevalent; the sacraments were ruined by weird notions and doctrines; the abusive use of indulgences dishonored the cross of Christ; Christian liberty was crushed by man-made ecclesiastical traditions. With all these listed transgressions, Calvin asserted that the ancient Church was clearly on the Reformers’ side.[67] The Reformers did not initially sought for a revolution, but a reform within the Church. However, the adverse situation within the Catholic Church made them believe that a schism was indeed a necessity. He called the Roman Pontiff “ravening wolves.”[68] Even worse, he semi-directly called the pope the Antichrist, by citing 2 Thess. 2:4 that “the Antichrist would have his seat in no other place than in the midst of God’s sanctuary.”[69] Speaking of the pride and sins of the Catholic Church, he quoted Matt. 14:6: “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.”

According to the Reformers, Calvin yielded respect and honor to the Church, in subordination to Christ the Church’s head, not the pope in Rome.[70] He proclaimed that the Reformed Christians submit to the authority of the Word of God, not the traditions of the Catholic Church.[71] The Church served at the pleasure of the establishment, but a good Christian should “deliver the oracles which they have received at the mouth of the Lord.”[72] In his reply to Sadoleto’s letter to the Genevans, Calvin tore down and condemned the ultimate authority of the Church.

Finally, Calvin discussed about the pastoral office. He agreed with Sadoleto that the pastors should be heard like Christ himself,[73] but he had to perform his own duties as instructed by the Scriptures, according to 1 Thess. 5:21 and 1 John 4:1.[74] They were not to abusively execute their power to govern for their own pleasures.[75] And the pastor holding the office of the teacher should be judged by the congregation, (1 Cor. 14:29) not to let the congregations blindly submit to them.[76] Ultimately, it is not the Church to instruct the believers, but “God alone who enlighten our minds to perceive His truth, who by His Spirit seals it on our hearts, and by His sure attestation to it confirms our conscience.”[77]

At the end of Sadoleto’s letter, he hypothesized two men in front of the dread tribunal of the sovereign Judge, stating whether they believed in Christ (which both would say yes), and what they believed.[78] The man in the Catholic faith said he obeyed the laws and precepts taught by his ancestors.[79] On the other hand, the man in the Protestant faith asserted the Church is “everywhere corrupt,” and he believed he was justified by faith alone, contrary to what the Church proclaimed, because he understood the Scriptures more than the ancient people did.[80] In Calvin’s reply, he “rewrote” the words said by the Protestant man, defending himself against the charges of the Catholics, and upholding the authority of the Word alone, echoing the slogan sola scriptura.[81]

The two letters of Sadoleto and Calvin highlighted the main controversies regarding the doctrines of the Reformation debate. Conclusively speaking, the Catholics maintained the ultimate authority of ecclesiastical tradition that stemmed from antiquity, and the unity of the Church was of utmost importance; the Reformers upheld the ultimate authority of the Word of God, i.e., the Scriptures, and denied the ultimate authority of the ecclesiastical tradition, even though they maintained that the pastors should still be heard like Christ himself, but they were judged by the congregations, with the Word of God as the golden rule. Although the Reformers did not initially intend for the division of the Church, but the corruption of the Church was so severe that they thought a schism was a necessity. Indeed, as they saw it, it was the only way to restore the native purity of the Early Churches.

[1] John C. Olin ed., A Reformation Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1966), 32.

[2] Ibid., 33.

[3] Ibid., 34.

[4] Ibid., 35.

[5] Ibid., 36.

[6] Ibid., 93.

[7] Ibid., 50.

[8] Ibid., 51.

[9] Ibid., 64.

[10] Ibid., 31.

[11] Ibid., 41.

[12] Ibid., 32.

[13] Ibid., 37.

[14] Ibid., 37, 41.

[15] Ibid., 37.

[16] Ibid., 56.

[17] Ibid., 60.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid., 77.

[20] Ibid., 60.

[21] Ibid., 78.

[22] Ibid., 60-61.

[23] Ibid., 61.

[24] Ibid., 86.

[25] Ibid., 65.

[26] Ibid., 38.

[27] Ibid., 54.

[28] Ibid., 41-42.

[29] Ibid., 54.

[30] Ibid., 56.

[31] Ibid., 56.

[32] Ibid., 80.

[33] Ibid., 76.

[34] Ibid., 37.

[35] Ibid., 62.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 92.

[38] Ibid., 63.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid., 64.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid., 64-65.

[43] Ibid., 65.

[44] Ibid., 37.

[45] Ibid., 36.

[46] Ibid., 66.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid., 66-67.

[49] Ibid., 67.

[50] Ibid., 68.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Ibid., 68-69.

[54] Ibid., 69.

[55] Ibid., 69-70.

[56] Ibid., 69.

[57] Ibid., 70.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid., 71.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid., 72.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Ibid., 73.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid., 74.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid., 75.

[69] Ibid., 76.

[70] Ibid., 75.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Ibid., 77.

[73] Ibid., 77.

[74] Ibid., 76.

[75] Ibid., 77.

[76] Ibid.

[77] Ibid., 79.

[78] Ibid., 42.

[79] Ibid., 43.

[80] Ibid., 44-45.

[81] Ibid., 82-90.

Continue reading “On the Reformation Debate between Jacopo Sadoleto and John Calvin”

Reviewing “Why God Became Man” by Anselm of Canterbury

Anselm was a Benedictine monk, a philosopher, and a theologian. He served as the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109 AD. His work Cur Deus Homo, or Why God Became Man, covered Christian teachings of central importance: the incarnation, the sin of men, Christology, redemption by Christ, the doctrine of election etc. It answered the question why God had to become man for the salvation of the elects. The teaching was discussed through the dialogues between Anselm and Boso (one of Anselm’s students). There are two books for this work. While the first answered, with clear logic, how men sin, and why men’s sins are so great that they need Christ’s salvation, the second answered why it is Christ, with a perfect divine nature and a perfect human nature, who carried out the act of redemption of the human race.

In Book 1, Anselm and Boso started their conversations by defining which questions unbelievers have in general, including the irrationality of God descending into a woman’s womb, bearing the life of a man who suffered on earth, and being crucified on the cross. Then Anselm started explaining the necessity of all these for the redemption of the human race by a divine person. He first argued that it is the will of God that the death of a just man, Christ, happened. It is not that God is not omnipotent, as if Christ had to die out of obligation. He died voluntarily although His obedience did not demand it. A few verses were cited. (Phil. 2:8, Phil. 2:9, John 6:38, Rom. 8:32, and Matt. 26:39) Anselm wrote this in response to the Muslims (who believe God can forgive as He wishes), and the Jews (why the incarnation). This work is also believed to be a projection of hierarchical submission in the feudal society in the Middle Ages onto theology.

Then they spent an extended discussion regarding man’s sins and the recompense for them. Anselm defined that “to sin is nothing other than not to give God what is owed to him.” (page 283) And the debt which the human race ought to pay back to God is “all the will of a rational creature ought to be subject to the will of God.” (page 283) Just as men who sinned took away what God deserves, they are “under an obligation to repay to God an honor which he has violently taken from him,” (page 283) which is satisfactory to God. Then can God simply cancel the debt, or forgive the sins, out of mercy alone? Anselm explained that it does not fit God to do that. Canceling sins without any punishments would make sinners and non-sinners before God. This would make sinfulness in a position of greater freedom than righteousness. However, it does not fit God who is righteous and just. (pages 284-285) Hence, there ought to be a punishment for sinners, even though God is willing to forgive the sinners.

Anselm and Boso then turned their discussion about the fallen angels. Some angels fell because of their sins. Fallen angels were unable to reconcile with God because God did not give them perseverance. They came to the conclusions that the places of these bad angels have to be filled up from the human race. They even concluded that the human elect will not be less than the number of fallen angels. Although it is not clear these teachings about angels have scriptural basis, Anselm spent a considerable amount of effort to explain the necessity of electing human elects into the places of bad angels, thus requiring redeeming some people. And as good angels do not sin, the elects who replace the bad angels should be sinless as well. Therefore, the elected men have to be saved for the recompense for sin. (pages 289-301) However, in my opinion, without the angelology, the whole framework of Anselm’s teaching does not fall apart because God is willing to save men to restore the original purpose of creation, which will be covered in Book 2.

To fill the places of fallen angels, or to simply put humans back to the original places, Anselm argued that they have to be sinless. Anselm told an analogy that a rich man holds a precious pearl, which is knocked out of his hand into the mud by some others. Although the man can pick it up, he wants the pearl to be perfectly clean, without dirts. (page 301) It is the case that men needs to be saved before God can restore them into the place. This is another explanation why God cannot simply forgive men out of mercy alone, because it does not fit His characters.

Knowing that the recompense is necessary, it is logical to figure out how much it takes for men to repay God for what they have owed. It is agreed that “the recompense should be proportional to the size of the sin.” (page 303) Moreover, unfortunately, in addition to our own being and all that we are capable of, there are things needed to recompense that we could not pay for because our sins are heavy: we sin as our actions contradict the will of God so seriously that the whole universe needs to perish. The sin started in the Garden, when man was created without sins. He was placed there as God’s deputy (Gen. 1:28-30) and was able to overcome the devil. However, he chose to commit sin, despite his greater strength and his immortality. As a result, he is weak and mortal. He is responsible for the sin committed, and “needs to conquer the devil through the difficulty of sin.” (page 308) From many perspectives, it is concluded that the human race is unable to restore to the state of pure righteousness.

Then, it is tempting to say, “a merciful God remits the debt of anyone who begs forgiveness on the ground that he is incapable of making repayment,” (page 311) but this kind of mercy contradicts God’s justice, as Anselm argued. However, given that God is willing to forgive men, it follows as a necessary consequence that mankind is saved by Christ, which is the main theme of Book 2.

In Book 2, Anselm and Boso continued the conversation, but turned their focus on biblical theology. Anselm recalled the creation of man at the beginning that “the nature of rational beings was created by God righteous in order that, through rejoicing in him, it might be blessedly happy… It is rational… in order that it may distinguish between right and wrong, and between the greater good and the lesser good.” (page 315) And man was so perfect that “if he had not sinned, he would never die… If man is to be restored in perfection, he ought to be reconstituted as the sort of being he would have been if he had not sinned.” (page 316) For this, God has two options: completing what God has begun, and destroying the current sinful human race to raise a new one. However, it has to be the former because among His creation, there is nothing more precious than man. Therefore, a redemption of the human race is needed.

The next question becomes how this redemption is brought about, and why it has to be acted by someone who is God and man. Anselm argued that it has to be God because to pay back the property of God, it has to be God himself; and it has to be man, because it is man who ought to repay the debt that he owed. (page 320) This person has to be perfect God and perfect Man, with two distinct natures in one Person, unlike what the Nestorians or the Monophysites claimed. This God-man came from God who assumed a human nature from the race of Adam and from a virgin woman. This man belongs to the race of Adam, instead of a newly created sinless man, so that it is appropriate for this man to pay recompense for the race of Adam. And why it is from a virgin woman? Anselm raised two points: first, to show God’s competence, as He had not made a man from a woman without a man (but He did from a man and a woman together as in usual practice, from neither a man nor a woman as in Adam’s creation, and from a man without a woman as in Eve’s creation); and second, the cause of human’s first sin originated from a woman, so that it is appropriate that “the medicine of sin and the cause of salvation should be born of a woman.” (page 323)

Another question is why it has to be the Second Person of the Trinity to incarnate. Anselm pointed out that it is more appropriate for the Son to make supplication to the Father than other Persons. And the Son, as the Person of the Word, is the Person that the men had sinned most specifically against.

Then Anselm and Boso returned back to the question whether Christ died voluntarily. The discussion brought about the important idea that Christ, as a perfect man, is immortal, but capable of committing sin just like Adam. However, He maintained righteousness while “being capable of abandoning it.” (page 327) Anselm eloquently stated “all capability is consequent upon will.” (page 326) Christ was capable of not dying (because of His righteousness), but He chose to die. His volunteer to do this is undoubtable. He died out of His own free will. And it is of His own power that He died, and rose again, as he is omnipotent, an attribute of His divine nature.

Christ assumed a human nature from the race of Adam and a virgin, He shared our discomforts and other weaknesses. However, out of the weaknesses we have, He did not take ignorance because ignorance is “never useful, always detrimental.” (page 333) Being the God-man, even though He took up the human nature, He is still fully divine: He still possesses the identity of God.

The human race had to die because of our sins, as Anselm and Boso had already argued earlier. And now they argued how Christ’s death is sufficient to outweigh the magnitude of all sins of the human race, committed both in the past and the future. As the sins of the human race have been directed against the Son, it is the Son, who need to be paid in order to pay for the debt due to our sins. It is the death of the Word through whom the Universe was created that the created Universe can be restored. If it were not this man dying, the whole Universe would be cursed to perish. And it is worth noting that this same death destroyed the sins of those who put Christ to death, because, as Apostle Paul wrote, that if they knew it, they would not crucify their God. (1 Cor. 2:8) Their sins were committed out of ignorance.

It is worth noting that the God-man was produced sinless out of the sinful human race in order to restore the creation. This restoration of creation is more miraculous than the creation itself. (page 337) Boso mentioned that it is undoubtable that Adam and Eve had a connection with the act of redemption although the Bible is not clear about it, (page 340) but this statement cannot be easily discerned.

At this point, it has been proved that man’s sins are so great that man cannot repay it themselves, and God cannot forgive man without recompense due to its righteousness, but God is willing to restore the human race back to the originally perfect human nature by redemption, by becoming man, assuming human nature in the same race of Adam, and giving himself to God to pay recompense to God Himself for the sin of the human race. While it does not fit God to simply cancel our debts without any punishment, God shows His mercy by becoming man to save us. This way of redemption does not make mercy and just mutually exclusive, but come together as God’s attributes in harmony.

As God adopt the human nature of Adam to carry out the redemption, devil, the fallen angel, cannot be saved through this way because there is no angel-God that is like man-God to perform this. (page 354-355) Anselm concluded by saying that all these are scriptural based.

Continue reading “Reviewing “Why God Became Man” by Anselm of Canterbury”