Faith and Philosophy 24 (3):300-310 (2007)
|Abstract||Following Anselm of Canterbury I argue against Hugh McCann’s claim that a traditional, classical theist understanding of God’s relationship to creation entails that God is the cause of our choices, including our choice to sin. I explain Anselm’s thesis that God causes all that has ontological status, yet does not cause sin. Then I show that McCann’s God, if not a sinner, must nonetheless be an unloving deceiver, McCann’s theodicy fails on its own terms, his proposed requirements for moral authenticity are insufficient, and his suggestion that his universe is “safer” than Anselm’s is misguided|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brian Leftow (1995). Anselm on the Necessity of the Incarnation. Religious Studies 31 (2):167 - 185.
Katherin A. Rogers (2008). Anselm on Freedom. Oxford University Press.
Katherin A. Rogers (2007). The Necessity of the Present and Anselm's Eternalist Response to the Problem of Theological Fatalism. Religious Studies 43 (1):25-47.
Wes Morriston (2001). Omnipotence and the Anselmian God. Philo 4 (1):7-20.
Hugh J. McCann (2005). The Author of Sin? Faith and Philosophy 22 (2):144-159.
Yujin Nagasawa (2008). A New Defence of Anselmian Theism. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (233):577-596.
Rik Peels (2011). Sin and Human Cognition of God. Scottish Journal of Theology 64 (4):390-409.
William L. Rowe (1999). Problem of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom. Faith and Philosophy 16 (1):98-101.
Hugh J. McCann (2009). God, Sin, and Rogers on Anselm. Faith and Philosophy 26 (4):420-431.
Katherin A. Rogers (2007). God is Not the Author of Sin. Faith and Philosophy 24 (3):300-310.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #178,434 of 548,972 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,972 )
How can I increase my downloads?