Not according to Barth ( CD 1.2) Anselm does not move from the possibility of incarnation to its reality, but instead throughout his argument assumes the reality he’s attempting to understand: “his method cannot be called rationalistic, because of all the decisive elements by which he proves that the incarnation is possible (i.e. necessary) and so intelligible and true - his conceptions of God’s purpose with humanity, of man’s duty of obedience to God, of sin as an infinite guilt, of the necessary wrath of God, of man’s incapacity to redeem himself, of God’s glory as the Creator - not one is a general truth. They are all derived from revelation, which for merely incidental reasons arising from the special purpose of this work is not regarded as authority.”