Well, Barth at least agrees that there is a nature/grace dualism implicit in the infralapsarian position. Strikingly, he points to the danger of anthropocentrism in supralapsarianism, arguing that by making the salvation of individual x and the damnation of individual y the primary purpose of the whole show, supras encouraged thoughts of God to immediately collapse into thoughts of man, and of self-interest. Infras avoided this by saying that there is a realm of creation and providence “supposedly independent” from the realm of redemption. And this promoted anthropocentrism even more than supra: “the more strongly the autonomy of that realm [of creation] was emphasised, the more surely was the foundation laid for a later proclamation of the self-glorification of the individual with divine help.”
Notes on Anosmia
One morning several years ago, as my wife, Wendy, and I were having breakfast together, I had…
Empire of Unreality
Shiva Naipaul (1945–1985) was the author of three novels and two books of mordant dispatches from places…
The Dreadful Christ of Pär Lagerkvist
It’s dangerous to meet a god,” says the disgraced Pythia in Pär Lagerkvist’s The Sibyl. Her observation…