An Analysis of Anselm’s Philosophical Theology and the Problem of Man’s Freedom in His De Concordia

Abstract

IntroductionThe purpose of this study is to discover, understand, present and analyze the key ideas of St. Anselm concerning the notions of (God's) knowledge, (divine and human) will and the mode of divine-human relations in the context of this «knowledge-will» framework. It is going to be done on the basis of a specific book written by Anselm of Canterbury and dedicated to the just-announced philosophical and theological problem. This issue -that of the relations between different subjects' «knowledges» and wills -has been regarded as both interesting and even compelling for centuries, and its various nuances have been studied by many thinkers (Augustine, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Henry of Ghent, William Ockham and others in the Middle Ages; Calvin, Arminius, Voetius, Descartes, Molina, Suarez, Spinoza and many others in the modern times). This is why its perennial philosophical significance goes without saying.However, the potential of medieval discussions on the discussed subject has not been fully uncovered and brought to the fore. Specifically, Anselm's work entitled «On the harmony (or agreement) of the foreknowledge, and predestination, and grace of God with the free choice» and frequently abbreviated De Concordia did not receive sufficient attention and analytical consideration. Some classical introductions to the history ofmedieval or generally western -philosophy (e.g. by Gilson, Kenny, Copleston and some others) give only fragmentary and partial information about the whole issue, sometimes omitting or underemphasizing the Anselmian contribution. Some scholars conducting a more detailed research on the topic (e.g. Craig [Craig, 1988], Hopkins 1 and Visser and Williams 2 ) do more justice to both the topic and its treatment by St. Anselm. Nevertheless, Craig due to some reasons omits Anselm in his exposition of medieval theories of the divine foreknowledge and its relation to the theoretically contingent future of creatures, Hopkins concentrates on other treatises by Anselm and at one point even mistranslates him (I will show and discuss it later), and Visser and Williams present a good exposition of © R.