Abstract
The story of the devil’s fall poses at least three separate philosophical puzzles, only two of which
Anselm addressed. The first (Puzzle A) wonders how this angel could have committed a sin in the
first place since he was created with a good will and good desires. A second puzzle (Puzzle B)
consists of trying to explain why the devil cannot ever be forgiven for that first sin. According to
Christian teaching, the devil is unable to “repent” (i.e., express sorrow for) that first sin and
thereby acquire forgiveness for it. Humans, by contrast, are portrayed as repeatedly sinning,
repenting, and being forgiven. It is a mystery why no mechanism similar to that humans use for
forgiveness is available to the devil. The final puzzle (Puzzle C) is slightly different. It wonders
why the devil was never given a second chance. In daily life, most of us are given (and grant to
others) second chances all the time. Given that the consequences of choosing incorrectly were in
this case so disastrous and permanent, it seems inconceivable that a good God would permit one
of His angels merely one chance to choose and thereby determine his eternal fate. And yet, despite
this inconceivability, this is precisely the way the story is presented. Anselm addressed Puzzles A
and B but never explicitly raised Puzzle C. I propose he failed to raise it because he conflated it
with Puzzle B. In this paper, I first explain how he solved Puzzles A and B. I then go on to argue
that Puzzle C does indeed constitute a separate puzzle that should not be conflated with Puzzle B.
I then argue that the best (and perhaps only) way in which Anselm could solve Puzzle C is to
appeal to a type of free will that conflicts with his solution to Puzzle A. As a result, I argue that
there may be a latent contradiction in Anselm’s treatment of the devil’s sin unless an alternate
solution to Puzzle C can be found.