Necessary Joy: The Relationship between Anselm’s Ontological Argument and “Fullness of Joy” (Part 1)
/
Part One: What is Anselm’s Ontological Argument?
Introduction
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was a Benedictine monastic and the Archbishop of Canterbury.[1] A prolific writer, Anselm’s works include theological treatises, prayers, meditations, and numerous letters; all written, as Van Engen explains, so “that learning should serve the ends of the religious life.”[2] Anselm’s approach to learning and writing may be summarized in the following statement from the first chapter of the Proslogion, “For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand. For I believe this also, that ‘unless I believe, I shall not understand’ (Isa 7:9).”[3] In light of this commitment to the priority of faith in learning, Anselm presents his confession-like argument for the existence of God in a form discussed below that has come to be known as the ontological argument, providing thereby the starting point of his broader thought in the Proslogion, which moves from his consideration of God’s existence to his concluding thoughts on the “fullness of joy,” all presented in a manner that is “at once speculative and prayerful.”[4]
Our purpose in this three-part discussion will be to consider: 1) Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence; 2) Anselm’s discussion of the “fullness of joy;” and 3) the relationship between Anselm’s ontological argument and his discussion of the “fullness of joy.” I will argue that Anselm’s ontological argument provides the foundation for his discussion of the “fullness of joy,” and that the ontological argument and the discussion of the “fullness of joy” are two interrelated parts in forming the whole of an effective argument for God’s existence.
What is Anselm’s Ontological Argument?
Two questions are helpful in considering Anselm’s ontological argument. 1) What is the context in which Anselm presents his discussion of God’s existence? 2) What is the basic argument Anselm presents for God’s existence?
Regarding the context of Anselm’s discussion of God’s existence, consider two things. First, the broader concern of the Proslogion is, as Finley explains, “‘pumping up’ the spiritedness of the believer to work his understanding so as to see . . . what he already sees through the eyes of belief.”[5] This is clear from the trajectory of the Proslogion, a movement across twenty-six chapters beginning with an attempt at “rousing of the mind to the contemplation of God” in chapter one, and concluding in chapter twenty-six with a consideration of how such contemplation is related to “the ‘fullness of joy’ which the Lord promises.”[6] This movement is intentionally directed toward helping believers grow in their devotion to God; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that whatever argumentation Anselm presents in the Proslogion assumes, rather than seeks to prove, the existence and knowledge of God. Anselm’s Proslogion is primarily an intrafamilial discussion among believers.
Second, Anselm’s basic approach in the Proslogion is to argue without the direct aid of special revelation. He is not opposed to the use of Scripture and sacred tradition, but Anselm’s fundamental presupposition is that the believer must cultivate the ability to discern and articulate matters of divine truth through the rational use of an intellect made in the image of God; in this sense Anselm may be considered (to use a descriptor anachronistically) a philosophical theologian.[7] Sweeney aptly portrays Anselm’s philosophical theological bent, describing Anselm’s goal for faith as “that which proposes the problems for reason to solve.”[8] Thus, in the Proslogion in general and the ontological argument particularly, Anselm appears to be about the task of exercising Christian reason in the cause of faith.
Moving from the context of Anselm’s work, what is his basic argument for God’s existence? In what Matthews and Baker describe as an argument of “elegant simplicity,” Anselm presents his argument in the form of a prayer that is both doxological and apologetic.[9] Early in his prayer, Anselm confesses, “Now we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be thought.”[10] This description of God as “something than which nothing greater can be thought” (hereafter S-t-w-n-g-c-b-t) in then explained by Anselm with the following line of argumentation, as summarized by Finley.
(1) [A]nyone can understand in his mind S-t-w-n-g-c-b-t; that is, such a thing can exist in anyone’s mind. (2) But for this thing to really be S-t-w-n-g-c-b-t, it must exist in reality, for what has real existence is greater than what has merely mental existence. (3) Thus, since we do know that [S-t-w-n-g-c-b-t] exists in our minds, and that to be itself it must exist in reality, we conclude that in reality, [S-t-w-n-g-c-b-t] exists.[11]
Two conclusions may be drawn from this argument. First, as Anselm explains, even the fool who wants to deny the existence of God in his heart (cf. Ps 14:1) cannot really do so, since to conceive of God in one’s heart for the sake of denying Him is still to conceive of Him, and if God (i.e., S-t-w-n-g-c-b-t) can be conceived of He must exist, since “existence . . . is simply part of [God’s] greatness.”[12] Second, the argument Anselm presents for God as S-t-w-n-g-c-b-t is logically valid and, as Groothuis argues, even the “most common objections to Anselm’s . . . argument run aground because the following three propositions are sound: (1) The idea of a Perfect Being is conceivable. (2) Existence can function as a predicate for God. (3) It is better for a Perfect Being to exist than not to exist.”[13]
In summary, in the early chapters of the Proslogion Anselm provides a prayer/discussion that engages faith and reason in the pursuit of knowing God as “something than which nothing greater can be thought.”[14] In part two of our discussion we will focus on Anselm’s concluding chapter in the Proslogion, regarding the “fullness of joy.”
[1] J. Van Engen, “Anselm of Canterbury,” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Walter A. Elwell, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 66-67.
[2] Van Engen, “Anselm of Canterbury,” 66.
[3] Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, in The Major Works, ed. by Brian Davies and G. R. Evans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 87.
[4] Van Engen, “Anselm of Canterbury,” 67.
[5] John Finley, “PHH 605 Lecture Notes for Week 11: Anselm on God’s Existence and Attributes.”
[6] Anselm, Proslogion, 83-84,
[7] Van Engen, “Anselm of Canterbury,” 66.
[8] Eileen C. Sweeney, “Anselm's Proslogion: The Desire for the Word.” For a discussion of how a modified version of Anselm’s argument is helpful in arguing for God’s existence, see Gareth B. Matthews, and Lynne Rudder Baker, "The Ontological Argument Simplified," Analysis 70, no. 2 (April 2010): 210-212.
[9] Matthews and Baker, "The Ontological Argument Simplified," 210.
[10] Anselm, Proslogion, 87. Malcolm and Hartshorne both argue that Anselm gave two versions of the ontological argument; the first in chapter two of the Proslogion, and the second in chapter three. See Norman Malcolm, Knowledge of Certainty: Essay and Lectures (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963), 149-150; and Charles Hartshorne, Anselm’s Discovery: A Re-examination of the Ontological Argument for God’s Existence (Chicago: Open Court, 1965). However, as Groothuis discusses, it is reasonable to conclude that Anselm’s discussion in chapter two focuses on God’s greatness and in chapter three focuses on God’s necessity (a corollary of greatness); thus, the second argument in chapter three amplifies the first argument in chapter two without presenting a new/different argument. See Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2011), 194-195.
[11] Finley, “PHH 605 Lecture Notes for Week 11.”
[12] Anselm, Proslogion, 87, and Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 193.
[13] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 194.
[14] Anselm, Proslogion, 87.
T. J. Gentry is the Executive Editor of MoralApologetics.com, the Senior Minister at First Christian Church of West Frankfort, IL, and the Co-founder of Good Reasons Apologetics. T. J. has been in Christian ministry since 1984, having served as an itinerant evangelist, youth minister, church planter, pastoral counselor, and Army chaplain. He is the author of numerous books and peer-reviewed articles, including Pulpit Apologist: The Vital Link between Preaching and Apologetics (Wipf and Stock, 2020), You Shall Be My Witnesses: Reflections on Sharing the Gospel (Illative House, 2018), and two forthcoming works published by Moral Apologetics Press: Leaving Calvinism, Finding Grace, and A Moral Way: Aquinas and the Good God. T. J. is a Clinical Pastoral Education Supervisor, holding board-certification as a Pastoral Counselor and a Chaplain. He is a graduate of Southern Illinois University (BA in Political Science), Luther Rice College and Seminary (MA in Apologetics), Holy Apostles College and Seminary (MA in Philosophy), Liberty University (MAR in Church Ministries, MDiv in Chaplaincy, ThM in Theology), Carolina University (DMin in Pastoral Counseling, PhD in Leadership, PhD in Biblical Studies), and the United States Army Chaplain School (Basic and Advanced Courses). He is currently completing his PhD in Theology at North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa (2021), his PhD in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (2022), and his PhD in Philosophy of Religion at Southern Evangelical Seminary (2024). T. J. married Amy in 1995, and they are blessed with three daughters and two sons. T. J.’s writing and other projects may be viewed at TJGentry.com.
