Faith and Philosophy 24 (3):300-310 (2007)
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||Contemporary Philosophy Philosophy and Religion|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anselm on the Necessity of the Incarnation.Brian Leftow - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (2):167 - 185.
The Necessity of the Present and Anselm's Eternalist Response to the Problem of Theological Fatalism.Katherin A. Rogers - 2007 - Religious Studies 43 (1):25-47.
Problem of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom.William L. Rowe - 1999 - Faith and Philosophy 16 (1):98-101.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads23 ( #221,205 of 2,178,112 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #166,129 of 2,178,112 )
How can I increase my downloads?