Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
There cannot be many philosophical theologians whose work has been interpreted in such radically contrary ways as has Anselm's. He is seen as an arch-rationalist who did not baulk at trying to prove the necessity of the Incarnation and the Trinity (which is Gilson's basic interpretation); and he is seen as a certain kind of fideist for whom reason always moves within the circle of faith, a proof of faith by faith (which is how Barth's interpretation is commonly understood, or misunderstood).
page 542 note 1 Mclntyre, J., St. Anselm and his Critics (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1954), p. 42.Google Scholar
page 542 note 2 ibid., pp. 53–4.
page 542 note 3 Charlesworth, M., St. Anselm's Proslogion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), p. 34.Google Scholar
page 543 note 1 cf. my From Belief to Understanding (Canberra: The Australian National University, 1976).Google Scholar
page 547 note 1 ‘Anselm's Theology in the Proslogion’, trans, by McGill, A. C. in The Many-Faced Argument, ed. by Hick, J. and himself (London: Macmillan, 1968).Google Scholar
page 551 note 1 This existence of God accepted in faith is now to be recognized and proved on the assumption (Voraussetzung) of the name of God likewise accepted in faith and is to be understood as necessary for thought.' Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum (Evangelischer Verlag AG. Zollikon, 1958), p. 73.Google Scholar
page 554 note 1 St. Anselm and his Critics, p. 59.
page 557 note 1 ‘Anselm's Background Metaphysics’, forthcoming in this Journal.
page 560 note 1 Kerygma and Myth, ed. Bartsch, H.-W., trans. Fuller, R. H. (London: S.P.C.K., 1960), pp. 210–211.Google Scholar
page 562 note 1 cf. his The Justification of Belief (London: Macmillan, 1973).Google Scholar