Sin: A History – By Gary A. Anderson

Abstract

capture, the idea of God; "positive philosophy" emerges out of the historical and existential protocol of the revelation of the un-prethinkable God of Exodus 3.14, Lord of Being or "Herr des Seins". What is distinctive here is his use of the Trinitarian theology. Krueger develops an extremely useful comparison of Schelling with the Orthodox tradition, especially the pre-Nicaean tradition of thought. Schelling can thus be seen as a thinker who is both emerging out of very modern concerns, problems associated with Spinoza and Kant, but also as a thinker who draws upon classical patristic sources. This helps illuminate Schelling's enormously important role in Russian nineteenth-century thought, e.g. Soloviev.I have two reservations concerning this excellent book. Firstly, the lucid and helpful review of literature sometimes leads to a sense of repetition. Secondly, I am not sure how helpful it is to present Schelling's philosophy as "internal realism", i.e. the view that the world is causally independent of the mind but dependent upon the mind for its structure. Of course, Schelling's emphasis upon the pre-conceptual or the "un-prethinkable" has parallels with Empiricist critiques of "internal relations" in the early twentieth century. But Schelling's thought emerges not merely out of Kantian questions about mind and world but much more ancient dilemmas about the "One and the Many" and "Being and Thought", problems that can be traced back to Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle. Schelling's particular fusion of theology and philosophy can be most helpful seen in relation to this more ancient strand of thought than in terms of his struggles with the Kantian legacy. Krueger is to be applauded for attempting to display the relevance of Schelling for the contemporary philosophical discussion. Yet the positions and debates associated with Putnam and Davidson in the 1980s are so far removed from Schelling's own milieu, and so remote from the theology that animates both Schelling and Kruger, that the analogies seem rather forced. One might add, by way of parenthesis, that the observations upon Schelling's use of Aristotle's Metaphysics (pp. 176ff) are highly illuminating.These, however, are minor criticisms. The achievement of this learned and precise document is the superb presentation of Schelling's speculative doctrine of the Trinity as the explication of Divine freedom. In particular, Krueger is the first to deal with Schelling's doctrine of the Trinity as the systematic core of Schelling's later philosophy. This places Schelling at odds with Schleiermacher, who was notoriously coy in his doctrinal commitments. While sharing his strong interest in Trinity and Christology with Hegel, Schelling is concerned to develop this Trinitarian theology in a manner that emphasises the radical freedom and personal nature of God. Krueger shows how Schelling avoids the unhelpful alternative of either a rationalism of the Spinozistic-Hegelian stamp or a theological positivism that retreats into authority or irrational obscurity. The full i...

Risking forgiveness after Charleston

“…Psychological theories emphasize the act of 'letting go of retributive emotions' through forgiveness, which is done not primarily for interpersonal or ethical reasons but rather to maintain one's mental health. 9 Legal theories of forgiveness describe it as the act of forgoing justifiable retribution for culpable wrongdoing. 10 Couenhoven identifies this view especially with Desmond Tutu and the social/political paradigm of restorative justice.…”

“…9 Legal theories of forgiveness describe it as the act of forgoing justifiable retribution for culpable wrongdoing. 10 Couenhoven identifies this view especially with Desmond Tutu and the social/political paradigm of restorative justice. While legal theories of forgiveness have the benefit of acknowledging and emphasizing the interpersonal nature of acts of forgiveness, they tend to overlook or at least diminish the reality of wrongdoing, for the sake of the wider social order.…”

“…Hybrid psychological-legal theories, such as those of Robert Enright and Jeffrie Murphy, describe forgiveness as 'overcoming the vindictive passions on moral grounds', but Couenhoven points out that even these theories '[require] the forgiver to eventually overlook the wrong; that is part of what is required in order to overcome resentment'. 11 Metaphysical theories of forgiveness attempt to push past psychological or interpersonal restoration, and instead to 'the bestowal of a new identity, a gift provided at some cost'. Couenhoven outlines the traditional theistic version of such a theory: 'Forgiveness addresses the culpable evil called sin; forgiveness somehow overcomes sin by healing sinners and restoring them to the good'.…”

The conceptualisation of sin in the Gospel of Matthew

“…While Roitto is correct in claiming that both the debt and the burden metaphors for sin were in use in Early Christianity, and therefore need to be taken into consideration in describing Matthew's conceptualisation of sin, it is also important to note the criticism of Couenhoven (2011:194) 19.In connection with sins, the use of σῴζω rather than ἀφίημι could be due to a wordplay on the name of Jesus (Repschinski 2006:255). This wordplay results in every mention of the name of Jesus in Matthew serving as a reminder to the reader of his role with regard to sin.…”