Five problems for the moral consensus about sins

A number of Christian theologians and philosophers have been critical of overly moralizing approaches to the doctrine of sin, but nearly all Christian thinkers maintain that moral fault is necessary or sufficient for sin to obtain. Call this the “Moral Consensus.” I begin by clarifying the relevance...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Ashfield, Mike (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Nature B. V 2021
In: International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2021, Volume: 90, Issue: 3, Pages: 157-189
Further subjects:B Defeasibility
B Moral faults
B Pedagogical evil
B Dilemmas
B Sins
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1775525473
003 DE-627
005 20211027042635.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 211027s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1007/s11153-021-09795-x  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1775525473 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1775525473 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 0  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Ashfield, Mike  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Five problems for the moral consensus about sins 
264 1 |c 2021 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a A number of Christian theologians and philosophers have been critical of overly moralizing approaches to the doctrine of sin, but nearly all Christian thinkers maintain that moral fault is necessary or sufficient for sin to obtain. Call this the “Moral Consensus.” I begin by clarifying the relevance of impurities to the biblical cataloguing of sins. I then present four extensional problems for the Moral Consensus on sin, based on the biblical catalogue of sins: (1) moral over-demandingness, (2) agential unfairness, (3) moral repugnance, and (4) moral atrocity. Next, I survey several partial solutions to these problems, suggested by the recent philosophical literature. Then I evaluate two largely unexplored solutions: (a) genuine sin dilemmas and (b) defeasible sinfulness. I argue that (a) creates more problems than it solves and that, while (b) is well-motivated and solves or eases each of the above problems, (b) leaves many biblical ordinances about sin morally misleading, creating (5) a pedagogical problem of evil. I conclude by arguing that (5) places hefty explanatory burdens on those who would appeal to (b) to resolve the four extensional problems discussed in this paper. So Christian thinkers may need to consider a more radical separation of sin and moral fault. 
601 |a Problem 
650 4 |a Pedagogical evil 
650 4 |a Defeasibility 
650 4 |a Dilemmas 
650 4 |a Moral faults 
650 4 |a Sins 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t International journal for philosophy of religion  |d Dordrecht : Springer Nature B.V, 1970  |g 90(2021), 3, Seite 157-189  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320442098  |w (DE-600)2005049-5  |w (DE-576)103746927  |x 1572-8684  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:90  |g year:2021  |g number:3  |g pages:157-189 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-021-09795-x  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3996673256 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1775525473 
LOK |0 005 20211027042635 
LOK |0 008 211027||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2021-10-26#08B5E76DC1A0FF02EFDE5095601C223CCEAA264C 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL