Faith and Philosophy 12 (3):393-408 (1995)

Abstract
I defend in this essay the seemingly uncontroversial thesis that God is just. By highlighting the kenotic nature of God’s essential goodness, I rebut arguments by Marilyn Adams, Thomas Morris, and William Alston to the effect that God is too sublime to be bound by obligations to creatures. A straightforward acknowledgement that the God who is Love has freely chosen to be (not merely seem) just, is required by fidelity to Scripture as well as by religious experience. Thus is Christianity’s incarnational faith unHellenized ... again
Keywords Contemporary Philosophy  Philosophy and Religion
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0739-7046
DOI 10.5840/faithphil199512337
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,577
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Some Suggestions for Divine Command Theorists.William Alston - 1990 - In M. Beaty (ed.), Christian Theism and the Problems of Philosophy. University of Notre Dame Press. pp. 303--326.
Duty and Divine Goodness.Thomas V. Morris - 1984 - American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (3):261 - 268.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-12-01

Total views
30 ( #385,496 of 2,533,586 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #390,861 of 2,533,586 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes