Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-29T20:56:01.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is the God of Anselm unloving? A response to Eleonore Stump

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2019

HAYDEN C. STEPHAN Open the ORCID record for HAYDEN C. STEPHAN [Opens in a new window]
HAYDEN C. STEPHAN*
Affiliation:
Saint Louis University, 3800 Lindell Blvd, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA
*
e-mail: hayden.stephan@slu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In her recent book Atonement, Eleonore Stump objects to the Anselmian theory of atonement, claiming it is not consistent with God's love. I argue that her objection mischaracterizes Anselmian theories. First, Stump equivocates on the concept of forgiveness, conflating personal forgiveness with divine pardon, and second, Stump misrepresents the God of Anselm as unwilling to reconcile with sinners prior to receiving satisfaction. I suggest that Stump's real objection should be to the Anselmian view of divine justice as retributive, not to his conception of divine love. I suggest a model of an all-loving God acting as a retributive judge.

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 418 - 433
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Calvin, J. (1957) Institutes of the Christian Religion, Beveridge, Henry (trans.) (London: James Clarke).Google Scholar
Calvin, J. (1960) Institutes of the Christian Religion, McNeill, John T. (ed.), Battles, Ford Lewis (tr.) (Philadelphia: Westminster).Google Scholar
Craig, W. L. (forthcoming) ‘Eleonore Stump's neo-Socinian critique of penal substitution atonement theories’.Google Scholar
Crisp, O. D. (2016) The Word Enfleshed: Exploring the Person and the Work of Christ (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books).Google Scholar
Davies, B. & Evans, G. R. (eds) (1998) Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Moore, K. D. (1989) Pardons: Justice, Mercy, and the Public Interest (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Moore, M. S. (1987) ‘The moral worth of retribution’, in Schoeman, F. (ed.) Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions: New Essays in Moral Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 179–219.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. (2003) Getting Even: Forgiveness and its Limits (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Stump, E. (2010) Wandering In Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, E. (2018) Atonement (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. (1988) ‘The Christian scheme of salvation’, in Morris, T. (ed.) Philosophy and the Christian Faith (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press), 15–30.Google Scholar
Turretin, F. (1994) Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I, Dennison, James T. Jr. (ed.), George Musgrave Giger (tr.) (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Co.).Google Scholar
Warmke, B. (2011) ‘Is forgiveness the deliberate refusal to punish?’, Journal of Moral Philosophy, 8, 613–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warmke, B. (2013) ‘Two arguments against the punishment-forbearance account of forgiveness’, Philosophical Studies, 165, 915–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warmke, B. (2017) ‘Punishment and forgiveness’ (with Tosi, Justin, invited), in Jacobs, J. & Jackson, J. (eds) Routledge Handbook of Criminal Justice Ethics (New York: Routledge), 203–216.Google Scholar
Warmke, B. (2019) ‘Stump's forgiveness’, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 11, 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar