Some further reflections regarding the Talbott–Crisp debate on the Augustinian concept of everlasting punishment
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20312802 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Dror Ehrlich (Bar-Ilan University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2011 |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 23-40 |
| Publication date | 2011-03-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Religious Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0034-4125 • E-ISSN: 1469-901X |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0034412510000089 |
| OpenAlex | W1989847215 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 16 |
This article consists of a critical discussion of the debate between Thomas Talbott and Oliver Crisp on the philosophical justification for the traditional Augustinian concept of everlasting punishment in hell. First, I outline the debate, describing Talbott's challenges to the Augustinian retributivist understanding of everlasting punishment and Crisp's responses to them. Next, I analyse their main points of disagreement, indicating the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments. Finally, I present conclusions arising from analysis of the debate in the framework of Christian theology, and I discuss possible implications for the thesis of everlasting punishment in monotheistic religious thought in general
Epistemology · Political science · Punishment (psychology) · Strengths and weaknesses · Augustinian Studies and Theology · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology · Theology and Philosophy of Evil · War, Ethics, and Justification
| Citations per year | 0.07 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2012 - 2012 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |