托马斯主义和安塞尔主义对赎罪的交织解释

IF 0.4 0 PHILOSOPHY Faith and Philosophy Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.37977/FAITHPHIL.2020.37.4.8
Joshua C. Thurow, Jada Twedt Strabbing
{"title":"托马斯主义和安塞尔主义对赎罪的交织解释","authors":"Joshua C. Thurow, Jada Twedt Strabbing","doi":"10.37977/FAITHPHIL.2020.37.4.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Atonement, Eleonore Stump develops a novel and compelling Thomistic account of the atonement and argues that Anselmian interpretations must be rejected. In this review essay, after summarizing her account, we raise worries about some aspects of it. First, we respond to her primary objection to Anselmian interpretations by arguing that, contrary to Stump, love does not require unilateral and unconditional forgiveness. Second, we suggest that the heart of Anselmian interpretations—that reconciliation with God requires reparation/restitution/satisfaction—is plausible and well-supported by some of her own arguments. Third, we raise doubts about her views of the role of surrender in justification and the nature of justification itself. Finally, we question whether Stump’s account can successfully explain how the atonement deals with pre-justification sin. A central theme of our comments is that Stump’s Thomistic interpretation can be entwined with Anselmian interpretations to make a stronger account of the atonement.","PeriodicalId":45294,"journal":{"name":"Faith and Philosophy","volume":"37 1","pages":"516-535"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Entwining Thomistic and Anselmian Interpretations of the Atonement\",\"authors\":\"Joshua C. Thurow, Jada Twedt Strabbing\",\"doi\":\"10.37977/FAITHPHIL.2020.37.4.8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Atonement, Eleonore Stump develops a novel and compelling Thomistic account of the atonement and argues that Anselmian interpretations must be rejected. In this review essay, after summarizing her account, we raise worries about some aspects of it. First, we respond to her primary objection to Anselmian interpretations by arguing that, contrary to Stump, love does not require unilateral and unconditional forgiveness. Second, we suggest that the heart of Anselmian interpretations—that reconciliation with God requires reparation/restitution/satisfaction—is plausible and well-supported by some of her own arguments. Third, we raise doubts about her views of the role of surrender in justification and the nature of justification itself. Finally, we question whether Stump’s account can successfully explain how the atonement deals with pre-justification sin. A central theme of our comments is that Stump’s Thomistic interpretation can be entwined with Anselmian interpretations to make a stronger account of the atonement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Faith and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"516-535\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Faith and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37977/FAITHPHIL.2020.37.4.8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Faith and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37977/FAITHPHIL.2020.37.4.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在《赎罪》一书中,Eleonore Stump提出了一个新颖而令人信服的托米斯主义赎罪描述,并认为必须拒绝安塞尔的解释。在这篇综述文章中,在总结了她的叙述后,我们对其中的某些方面提出了担忧。首先,我们回应了她对安塞尔曼解释的主要反对意见,认为与Stump相反,爱不需要单方面和无条件的原谅。其次,我们认为,安塞尔曼解释的核心——与上帝和解需要赔偿/归还/满足——是合理的,并得到了她自己一些论点的有力支持。第三,我们对她关于投降在辩护中的作用以及辩护本身的性质的观点表示怀疑。最后,我们质疑Stump的叙述是否能够成功地解释赎罪是如何处理正当理由前的罪的。我们评论的一个中心主题是,Stump的Thomistic解释可以与Anselmian解释交织在一起,以更有力地描述赎罪。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Entwining Thomistic and Anselmian Interpretations of the Atonement
In Atonement, Eleonore Stump develops a novel and compelling Thomistic account of the atonement and argues that Anselmian interpretations must be rejected. In this review essay, after summarizing her account, we raise worries about some aspects of it. First, we respond to her primary objection to Anselmian interpretations by arguing that, contrary to Stump, love does not require unilateral and unconditional forgiveness. Second, we suggest that the heart of Anselmian interpretations—that reconciliation with God requires reparation/restitution/satisfaction—is plausible and well-supported by some of her own arguments. Third, we raise doubts about her views of the role of surrender in justification and the nature of justification itself. Finally, we question whether Stump’s account can successfully explain how the atonement deals with pre-justification sin. A central theme of our comments is that Stump’s Thomistic interpretation can be entwined with Anselmian interpretations to make a stronger account of the atonement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Heavenly Procreation The Value of a Meaningful Life as a Response to the Problem of Evil Luis R.G. Oliveira and Kevin J. Corcoran, eds., Common Sense Metaphysics: Essays in Honor of Lynne Rudder Baker Tobias Hoffmann, Free Will and the Rebel Angels in Medieval Philosophy Reading Anselm's Natural Theology Through a Palamite Lens
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1