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.”
Moral Certitude and the Iran War
The current military engagement with Iran calls renewed attention to just war theory in the Catholic tradition.…
The Slow Death of England: New and Notable Books
The fate of England is much in the news as popular resistance to mass immigration grows, limits…
Ethics of Rhetoric in Times of War
What we say matters. And the way we say it matters. This is especially true in times…