Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-11 of 11 documents


articles

1. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 30 > Issue: 3
Katherin A. Rogers

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The Council of Chalcedon insisted that God Incarnate is one person with two natures, one divine and one human. Recently critics have rightly argued that God Incarnate cannot be a composite person. In the present paper I defend a new composite theory using the analogy of a boy playing a video game. The analogy suggests that the Incarnation is God doing something. The Incarnation is what I label an “action composite” and is a state of affairs, constituted by one divine person assuming human nature. This solves a number of puzzles, conforms to Chalcedon, and is logically and metaphysically consistent.
2. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 30 > Issue: 3
Vincent Wargo

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this article, we utilize Merleau-Ponty’s notions of gesture, flesh and reversibility as philosophical tools to explicate the corporal reality of ritual, incarnation, sacramental presence and the church as the mystical body of Christ. The phenomenological investigation of bodily gesture provides a foundation to elucidate the meaning of symbolic presence from which we compare Merleau-Ponty’s notion of the flesh with that of the patristic fathers, leading finally to its ecclesiological interpretation.
3. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 30 > Issue: 3
Patrick Todd, John Martin Fischer

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this paper we critically evaluate Trenton Merricks’s recent attempt to provide a “new” way of defending compatibilism about divine foreknowledge and human freedom. We take issue with Merricks’s claim that his approach is fundamentally different from Ockhamism. We also seek to highlight the implausibility of Merricks’s rejection of the assumption of the fixity of the past, and we also develop a critique of the Merricks’s crucial notion of “dependence.”
4. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 30 > Issue: 3
Thomas Talbott

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Jeff Jordan has recently challenged the idea, widely accepted among theistic philosophers, that “God’s love must be maximally extended and equally intense.” By way of a response, I suggest a way to sidestep Jordan’s argument entirely and then try to show that his own argument is multiply flawed. I thus conclude that his challenge is unsuccessful.
5. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 30 > Issue: 3
Timothy Pawl

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In a pair of recent articles, Jim Stone presents a new version of the Evidential Argument from Evil. I provide two arguments against Stone’s Evidential Problem of Evil, one from the dialectical standpoint of a theist, the second from a dialectical standpoint that is neutral between theism and atheism. In neither case, I argue, should an interlocutor accept all the premises of the argument.
6. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 30 > Issue: 3
Shawn Bawulski

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In a recent work, Kenneth Himma argues that the doctrines of exclusivism and hell in Christian theology lead to a reductio when combined with certain ethical principles about reproduction; he concludes that if both doctrines are true, then it is morally impermissible to procreate. Since the Christian tradition holds that procreation is at least morally permissible, if the argument is valid, then one or more of its premises should be abandoned. In response to this argument, I will present several theological and philosophical objections, showing that no inconsistency has been demonstrated in holding Christian exclusivism, a traditional doctrine of hell, and the moral permissibility of procreation.

book reviews

7. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 30 > Issue: 3
Robert Koons

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
8. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 30 > Issue: 3
William Hasker Orcid-ID

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
9. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 30 > Issue: 3
Terence Cuneo

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
10. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 30 > Issue: 3
Paul Gould

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
11. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 30 > Issue: 3
Jeff Jordan

view |  rights & permissions | cited by