Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:43:20.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hiddenness, holiness, and impurity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

BRENT G. KYLE
BRENT G. KYLE*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, United States Air Force Academy, CO, 80840, USA
*
e-mail: brent.kyle@usafa.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

John Schellenberg has advanced the hiddenness argument against God's existence, based on the idea that an all-loving God would seek personal relationships. This article develops a reply to Schellenberg's argument by examining the notion of moral impurity, as understood by Paul the Apostle. Paul conceptualized moral impurity as a causal state that transfers from person to person, like a contagious disease. He also believed that moral impurity precludes divine–human relationship. The goal of this article is to develop these ideas into a problem for one of Schellenberg's key premises.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 239 - 259
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

References

Allen, D. (2010) Theology for a Troubled Believer: An Introduction to the Christian Faith (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press).Google Scholar
Bible, The (1993) The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version (London: HarperCollins Publishers).Google Scholar
Flint, T. & Freddoso, A. (1983) ‘Maximal power’, in Freddoso, A. (ed.) The Existence and Nature of God (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press), 81–113.Google Scholar
Ginet, C. (2000) ‘The epistemic requirements for moral responsibility’, Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 267–277.Google Scholar
Hayes, C. (1999) ‘Intermarriage and impurity in ancient Jewish sources’, The Harvard Theological Review, 92, 3–36.Google Scholar
Hayes, C. (2002) Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F. & Pettit, P. (1990) ‘Program explanation: a general perspective’, Analysis, 50, 107–117.Google Scholar
Klawans, J. (2000) Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y. (2013) Temple Purity in 1–2 Corinthians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).Google Scholar
Newton, M. (1985) The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Priest, G. (1997) ‘Sexual perversion’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 75, 360–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (1993) Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2005) ‘The hiddenness argument revisited (I)’, Religious Studies, 41, 201–215.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2007) The Wisdom to Doubt: A Justification of Religious Skepticism (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Tozer, A. W. (1961/1992) The Knowledge of the Holy (New York: HarperCollins Publishers).Google Scholar
Wells, D. (1994) God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans).Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2000) Knowledge and Its Limits (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Zimmerman, M. (1997) ‘A plea for accuses’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 34, 229–243.Google Scholar