T(r)oy's Marbles

The situation as described by Anselm
First, you inquire as to how sin can be infinite in nature. Because this comment arose in the context of a presentation of Anselm’s thought, I feel a need to represent him more fully (and perhaps more accurately). In clarifying the issue, however, I need to “set aside” the immediate question at hand (that of the “infinite” nature of sin) to explore other currents within Anselm that are equally dominant and can help explain the situation more.

Specifically, it’s important to keep in mind Anselm’s intended larger point, which is this: humanity’s condition is so bleak that it is impossible for humanity to work itself out of the hole it is in. This is the bigger idea that Anselm is trying to get across (and the “infinite” nature of sin, fits within this larger category). So, let’s talk about the “bigger” point, to understand this more.

Anselm describes this predicament in a few key respects.

First of all, you need to keep in mind that the cornerstone of Anselm’s theology is a sense of justice, rightness, fairness. To give God his due is to do right. There’s a sense of “giving” and “taking” and “refusing” and “offering” here. Unpacking this more, there are certain questions that dominate Anselm’s thinking, and they follow a certain kind of progression. They include (paraphrasing now):

“What is owed to God?”
“Who owes it to Him?”
“What happens when that which is owed to God is not given to Him?”
“What is required to make restitution?”

Anselm answers the first and second questions by stating that humans owe God the honor due His name. Sin is therefore defined in terms of “not giving to God what is owed Him.” See the following as an example of this (citing from chapter XI of Book One of Cur Deus Homo?):

“Anselm. We must needs inquire, therefore, in what manner God puts away men's sins; and, in order to do this more plainly, let us first consider what it is to sin, and what it is to make satisfaction for sin.

"Boso. It is yours to explain and mine to listen.

"Anselm. If man or angel always rendered to God his due, he would never sin.

"Boso. I cannot deny that.

"Anselm. Therefore to sin is nothing else than not to render to God his due.

"Boso. What is the debt which we owe to God?

"Anselm. Every wish of a rational creature should be subject to the will of God...This is the debt which man and angel owe to God, and no one who pays this debt commits sin; but every one who does not pay it sins. This is justice…and this is the sole and complete debt of honor which we owe to God, and which God requires of us…He who does not render this honor which is due to God, robs God of his own and dishonors him; and this is sin.” (emphasis added)

Having defined sin, Anselm goes on to explain what must therefore be done to make restitution for sin. This is the key to understanding our hopeless predicament. Pay close attention now to what Anselm does next in his reasoning, for in it lies the basis upon which Anselm rests his assertion that humans are unable to repay the debt incurred. He says (quoting now):

“…it will not suffice merely to restore what has been taken away, but, considering the contempt offered, he ought to restore more than he took away.” (emphasis added)

Since this seems non sequitor, it may be helpful to think of Anselm’s deduction in terms of an equation:

X + 1 = what humans owe God
X + 0 = the human condition before giving God his due
X – 1 = where humans end up when they refuse to give God his due.

Notice that, in the thinking of Anselm, humans take away something from God that is His due. Thus, in order to end up in the place that God originally intended for us, it is necessary to “restore more than we took away.” In this instance, standing at “0”, we took away “1”; so, to end up where God wants, we need to restore “2” (that is, we need to replace what was taken away and then add to it what was due originally).

Anselm uses this analogy to describe how we work ourselves into a hole (quoting from chapter XXIV):

“Suppose one should assign his slave a certain piece of work, and should command him not to throw himself into a ditch, which he points out to him and from which he could not extricate himself; and suppose that the slave, despising his master's command and warning, throws himself into the ditch…, so as to be utterly unable to accomplish the work assigned; think you that his inability will at all excuse him for not doing his appointed work?”

Notice here that Anselm paints a picture like that described in the equation above:

X + 1 = the work assigned to the slave
X + 0 = the slave before completing the work
X – 1 = the slave in the ditch

Upon being asked by Anselm the question as to whether the slave’s inability will “excuse him for not doing his work”, Anselm’s pupil goes on to answer with these words:

“Boso. By no means, but will rather increase his crime, since he brought his inability upon himself. For doubly has he sinned, in not doing what he was commanded to do and in doing what he was forewarned not to do.” (emphasis added)

Anselm says that we are like the slave in the analogy. And he goes on to suggest that it was in jumping into the ditch that we got ourselves into an inescapable situation. We are responsible for our own prison.

“Anselm. Just so inexcusable is man, who has voluntarily brought upon himself a debt which he cannot pay, and by his own fault disabled himself, so that he can neither escape his previous obligation not to sin, nor pay the debt which he has incurred by sin….Man, then, is unjust in not paying what he owes to God.

"Boso. This is very true; for he is unjust, both in not paying, and in not being able to pay.”

In light of all that, I’d like to offer some of my own thoughts on this.

Comparing and contrasting the Latin theory with the classic idea
Notice that both the “classic” idea and the “Latin” theory paint a picture of helplessness, a picture where someone from the outside needs to come to our rescue. Before moving on, let it be noted that, in this respect, both are perfectly accurate. We are helpless. We do need to be saved.

The difference, though, is this: in the “classic” idea, Jesus rescues us from the devil; in the Latin theory Jesus rescues us from God’s wrath and from ourselves.

Next, notice that in the Latin theory, Jesus lifts us out of the ditch, but then it is still up to mankind to “give God His due”. Using the “equation”, then, Jesus lifts us up to “X + 0” again, but it is now the duty and responsibility of mankind to accomplish “X + 1”.

This brings up the very thing with which the Reformers took issue: “sola gratia” (or “salvation by grace alone”). So, to that we now turn by way of assessing the merits of Anselm’s thought.

We'll look at that tomorrow, though, since this gives enough to chew on for now, I think.

Until then,
Troy