Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Aufsatz (13)
- Buch (Monographie) (1)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (14)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (14)
Schlagworte
- Anselm (4)
- Battle, Ralph (4)
- Anselm von Canterbury (3)
- Anthropologie (3)
- Soteriologie (3)
- Anselm of Canterbury (2)
- Anthropology (2)
- Engel (2)
- Gottesbeweis (2)
- Ontological Argument (2)
Christian theology, with very few exceptions, has recently been rather dismissive of the ontological proof, or has suggested that it should not be regarded as a proof of the existence of God at all. Yet the argument has been held in high esteem during Western intellectual history; philosophers have for the most part treated it with respect since its revival in the second half of the twentieth century. This essay takes a fresh look at four prominent versions of the ontological proof: Anselm’s Proslogion arguments, the argument put forward by Descartes, and the modal argument of Leibniz defended by Hartshorne and, with reservations, by Plantinga. Did Anselm intend to prove the existence of God, and how do his arguments relate to their modern counterparts? The core of this essay is an examination, with an eye on contemporary theology, of the most frequently raised objections against non-modal and modal ontological arguments. While none of these objections appears to be successful, the most promising one, perhaps, is to deny the logical possibility of a most perfect being altogether. The upshot, however, is that the prospects for a refutation of either the non-modal or the modal ontological argument are much less bright than prevailing sentiment in theology has it.
Among the Latin Church Fathers, there was a widespread understanding of divine eternity as timelessness, while time as we know it was regarded to be relative to the existence of material or at any rate mutable entities, to, that is, the existence of creatures. Now if we suppose that God has also created (or might have created) purely spiritual beings or an initially unformed matter, one may wonder how these relate to time – to our time – as well as to the timeless eternity of their creator. This is an edition, translation and extended commentary of two short texts by Ralph of Battle, an intimate of Saint Anselm, concerning this very problem: a “sentence” from Jerome, and a treatise setting out a theological position which according to Ralph some have taken in the wake of Jerome’s testimony. Ralph’s rendering of the position in question is contextualized by looking at his other works and comparing Ralph’s and Jerome’s lines of reasoning to that of Augustine, who considers the issue in various works without, however, feeling able to settle the matter conclusively.
Although preceding the great poverty movements which were to challenge the Western Church in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the relinquishment of private property and the care of the poor are notable themes in Anselm of Canterbury’s monastic thought, apart from being a major preoccupation of his life. This paper intends to provide an overview and analysis of Anselm’s views on private property and the religious life, on wealth, poverty and the care of the poor. The texts considered include his letters, prayers and theoretical works, the Benedictine Rule, Lanfranc’s Decreta and the Consuetudines Beccenses, as well as the writings of Eadmer and Alexander recording Anselm’s deeds and words
An edition, translation and analysis of three short texts by Lanfranc’s
student Ralph of Battle (1040-1124), an intimate of Saint Anselm, dedicated to
theological problems concerning human free will: Quare deus hominem fecit, De
paradiso et inferno, and Sententia beati Ieronimi de libero arbitrio. In them,
Ralph – probably following Saint Augustin – raises three main questions: Why
did God create human beings knowing that they would sin? Why did he not
create human beings without the ability to sin? And, given divine foreknowledge
and predestination, can human beings really be held responsible for their sins?
His answers to these queries are compared to those put forward by Saint Anselm,
Gilbert Crispin and authors associated with the school of Laon. Interestingly, one
of the two passages attributed to Jerome which Ralph uses to spell out the value
of our ability to sin is actually from Pelagius (Pseudo-Jerome). This, however, is
not to say that Ralph is a Pelagian.
An edition, translation and analysis of Ralph of Battle’s theological treatise De creatore et creatura et quid inter se differunt creaturae. Ralph (1040–1124) was a student of Lanfranc at Le Bec and subsequently at Caen. An intimate of Saint Anselm and a prolific writer himself, he served as chaplain to Lanfranc, prior of Caen and Rochester, and abbot of Battle. In this text, Ralph develops a theology of creation and a theological anthropology, discussing topics such as the ontological difference between creator and creature; the hierarchy of creatures; the human creature as a composite of body and soul; our relationship to non-rational creatures, to the angels and to the creator; our knowledge of God and the incomprehensibility of the divine nature.
An edition, translation and analysis of three short texts by Lanfranc’s student Ralph of Battle (1040-1124), an intimate of Saint Anselm, dedicated to theological problems concerning human free will: Quare deus hominem fecit, De paradiso et inferno, and Sententia beati Ieronimi de libero arbitrio. In them, Ralph – probably following Saint Augustin – raises three main questions: Why did God create human beings knowing that they would sin? Why did he not create human beings without the ability to sin? And, given divine foreknowledge and predestination, can human beings really be held responsible for their sins? His answers to these queries are compared to those put forward by Saint Anselm, Gilbert Crispin and authors associated with the school of Laon. Interestingly, one of the two passages attributed to Jerome which Ralph uses to spell out the value of our ability to sin is actually from Pelagius (Pseudo-Jerome). This, however, is not to say that Ralph is a Pelagian.
Introduction
1. Blumenberg's Critique of Anselm's Ontological Argument
1.1 The Ontological Argument as a Proof of the Existence of God
1.2 Two Incompatible "Definitions" of God
1.3 Other Objections Against Anselm's Ontological Argument
2. Blumenberg's Critique of Anselm's Theological Anthropology
2.1 Hans Blumenberg's Anselm: Humanity as Ersatz
2.2 The Historical Anselm: Humanity as an End in Itself
2.3 Rational Theology