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.”
The Possibility of Possibility
"Might could” is a Southern expression meaning “maybe I could” or “I might be able to,” conveying…
The False Promise of No Contact
Around the time nineteen-year-old Alice began cutting ties with her family, she announced on social media that…
Moral Certitude and the Iran War
The current military engagement with Iran calls renewed attention to just war theory in the Catholic tradition.…