{"title":"对赎罪感到紧张","authors":"Andrew Hollingsworth, R. T. Mullins","doi":"10.1007/s11153-023-09899-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper argues for the coherence of penal substitutionary theories of atonement (PSA) with presentism. After summarizing both the PSA and presentism, we address two major objections to the coherence of these two doctrines working together, namely that (1) there is no reality of the future sins that are atoned for, and (2) that since the past no longer exists, there no longer exists anything for which atonement is needed. We demonstrate that these objections are easily overcome by the PSA-affirming presentist. Lastly, we further argue that PSA seems to require presentism in order for such an atonement to obtain.</p>","PeriodicalId":45180,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Getting tense about the atonement\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Hollingsworth, R. T. Mullins\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11153-023-09899-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper argues for the coherence of penal substitutionary theories of atonement (PSA) with presentism. After summarizing both the PSA and presentism, we address two major objections to the coherence of these two doctrines working together, namely that (1) there is no reality of the future sins that are atoned for, and (2) that since the past no longer exists, there no longer exists anything for which atonement is needed. We demonstrate that these objections are easily overcome by the PSA-affirming presentist. Lastly, we further argue that PSA seems to require presentism in order for such an atonement to obtain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-023-09899-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-023-09899-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper argues for the coherence of penal substitutionary theories of atonement (PSA) with presentism. After summarizing both the PSA and presentism, we address two major objections to the coherence of these two doctrines working together, namely that (1) there is no reality of the future sins that are atoned for, and (2) that since the past no longer exists, there no longer exists anything for which atonement is needed. We demonstrate that these objections are easily overcome by the PSA-affirming presentist. Lastly, we further argue that PSA seems to require presentism in order for such an atonement to obtain.
期刊介绍:
The organ of no single institution or sectarian school, philosophical or religious, the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion provides a medium for the exposition, development, and criticism of important philosophical insights and theories relevant to religion in any of its varied forms. It also provides a forum for critical, constructive, and interpretative consideration of religion from an objective philosophical point of view.
Articles, symposia, discussions, reviews, notes, and news in this journal are intended to serve the interests of a wide range of thoughtful readers, especially teachers and students of philosophy, philosophical theology and religious thought.
Unsolicited book reviews are not accepted for publication in the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. If you would like to review a book for the journal, please contact the Book Review Editor: Scott A. Davison, Morehead State University s.davison@morehead-st.edu