Are we at debt with a supreme Being? What is the nature of man’s guilt, given the rupture caused to an original divine order? Can a just God lend forgiveness and thus offer reconciliation to his fallen creation? All these fundamental questions and more have been thoroughly explored by philosophers of all ages. Two thinkers in particular who have sought to provide answers to these inquiries are Friedrich Nietzsche and Saint Anselm. In their respective works, On the Genealogy of Morals and Cur Deus Homo, both authors demonstrate vastly different perspectives on the consequential topics of debt and forgiveness, yet similar themes are interwoven throughout their writings. On Nietzsche’s account, debt plays an instrumental role in the genealogy
…show more content…
Anselm depicts a clearly contrasting perspective to the one provided by Nietzsche. From Anselm’s standpoint, the debt owed to God is based on the Biblical premise of transgression, not one steeped in power or fear. In the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve commit the original sin of disobeying their Creator, causing a rupture in God’s plan to make human nature just. Stemming his argument from this Biblical account, Anselm claims man’s recognition of debt began from the Garden of Eden. All along, God had intended for humanity to happily enjoy a mutual relationship between Creator and creation. But since an affront had been made on divine honor, God must naturally preserve his inherent justice: “It is not fitting for God to leave anything unordered in his kingdom.” At the same time, Anselm contends God immensely loves his created beings and will therefore seek to restore the primitive goodness he created out of love. As Anselm points out, it is antithetical to God’s nature for humans to be severed from love, even comparing creation to a pearl whose innocent beauty must be restored. More specifically, Anselm declares, “the restoration of human nature ought not to have been left undone.” For there to be any forgiveness or mercy on God’s behalf, though, a punishment proportional to the grave sin must be administered. Therefore, the perfect plan is devised in the form of God’s Son Jesus Christ, whose obedience to God will heal creation from …show more content…
Anselm address similar theological questions while answering them in drastically differing manners. On Nietzsche’s part, the concept of guilt is intrinsically tied to debt and superstitious fear; and forgiveness is considered a privileged tool wielded by the powerful over the impotent. Acknowledging those same topics from a divergent angle, Anselm articulates a rational Christian response to Nietzsche’s viewpoints. He defends the relation between love and debt; and forgiveness is offered through the sacrifice of Jesus, the ideal God-man who sacrificed his life of his own accord to amend the breach caused to God’s gift. Altogether, the insights and implications springing from these two philosophers make for a highly intriguing consideration of fundamental moral
Anselm depicts a clearly contrasting perspective to the one provided by Nietzsche. From Anselm’s standpoint, the debt owed to God is based on the Biblical premise of transgression, not one steeped in power or fear. In the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve commit the original sin of disobeying their Creator, causing a rupture in God’s plan to make human nature just. Stemming his argument from this Biblical account, Anselm claims man’s recognition of debt began from the Garden of Eden. All along, God had intended for humanity to happily enjoy a mutual relationship between Creator and creation. But since an affront had been made on divine honor, God must naturally preserve his inherent justice: “It is not fitting for God to leave anything unordered in his kingdom.” At the same time, Anselm contends God immensely loves his created beings and will therefore seek to restore the primitive goodness he created out of love. As Anselm points out, it is antithetical to God’s nature for humans to be severed from love, even comparing creation to a pearl whose innocent beauty must be restored. More specifically, Anselm declares, “the restoration of human nature ought not to have been left undone.” For there to be any forgiveness or mercy on God’s behalf, though, a punishment proportional to the grave sin must be administered. Therefore, the perfect plan is devised in the form of God’s Son Jesus Christ, whose obedience to God will heal creation from …show more content…
Anselm address similar theological questions while answering them in drastically differing manners. On Nietzsche’s part, the concept of guilt is intrinsically tied to debt and superstitious fear; and forgiveness is considered a privileged tool wielded by the powerful over the impotent. Acknowledging those same topics from a divergent angle, Anselm articulates a rational Christian response to Nietzsche’s viewpoints. He defends the relation between love and debt; and forgiveness is offered through the sacrifice of Jesus, the ideal God-man who sacrificed his life of his own accord to amend the breach caused to God’s gift. Altogether, the insights and implications springing from these two philosophers make for a highly intriguing consideration of fundamental moral