DCD Anselm Analysis
In Anselm’s theology the Devil, who was the first creature (angel) to fall, did not persevere in his original justice and freedom. He did not have this perseverance not because God would not give it to him, but God did not give it to him simply because the Devil did not accept what has been offered to him.18 God is seen as in a sense unable to deliver the gift of perseverance to the Devil, because, even if this angel had pre- viously accepted the will and capacity for the reception of perseverance, then from his own will he deliberately and voluntarily rejects its con- tinuous confirmation. In the third chapter of the DCD Anselm presup- poses the existence of a good and a bad will, and says that transgression happens when the good will remains passive (while it does have the capacity to resist actively) when the bad one interferes.19 The angel did not will something that he already possessed, and because all he had was given from God, he did not will something that was given by God himself. By this he abandoned justice and
…show more content…
committed sin. According to Anselm, when the Devil willed something that he did not already possess he willed something that he ought not to have willed. This should not be interpreted as an absolute proposition: the Devil may have wished a further perfection, which he did not yet possess, for example to have those things to which man and angel were destined in
the future state of blessedness.
What Anselm means is that: first, the Devil willed something that was not granted to him by God; second, that he performed an autonomous-independent act of volition, as if his will was subject to no one (nulli subdita fuit). By this he acted inordinately, because the right to will with absolute independence, not being subject to any external power, pertains exclusively to the will of God. This is Anselm’s interpretation of the biblical description of sin as the desire to ‘be like God’ (Gen 3:5). However, later in ch. 6 we learn that this desire to be like God is not exactly the efficient cause of the angel’s fall. Anselm leaves this question partially unanswered. We do not know what exactly the angels willed instead of willing what they were supposed to. Yet the cause of the Fall is definitely not the very will to ‘be like God’, otherwise the Son, who wills to be like the Father, would have to be unjust
too
committed sin. According to Anselm, when the Devil willed something that he did not already possess he willed something that he ought not to have willed. This should not be interpreted as an absolute proposition: the Devil may have wished a further perfection, which he did not yet possess, for example to have those things to which man and angel were destined in
the future state of blessedness.
What Anselm means is that: first, the Devil willed something that was not granted to him by God; second, that he performed an autonomous-independent act of volition, as if his will was subject to no one (nulli subdita fuit). By this he acted inordinately, because the right to will with absolute independence, not being subject to any external power, pertains exclusively to the will of God. This is Anselm’s interpretation of the biblical description of sin as the desire to ‘be like God’ (Gen 3:5). However, later in ch. 6 we learn that this desire to be like God is not exactly the efficient cause of the angel’s fall. Anselm leaves this question partially unanswered. We do not know what exactly the angels willed instead of willing what they were supposed to. Yet the cause of the Fall is definitely not the very will to ‘be like God’, otherwise the Son, who wills to be like the Father, would have to be unjust
too