JT points to Thomas Spence of Spence Publishing who argues that if boys don’t read well, it is because they don’t read enough. He contrasts the traditional ideals of education as being training for freedom with the trend now occurring where many chalk it up to literature being to boring, and so they give boys ‘gross-out homour’ in books, etc., while saying, ‘worry about what they’re reading later’. But education was not merely transmission of information but entailed the formation of manners and taste. “One obvious problem with the SweetFarts philosophy of education is that it is more suited to producing a generation of barbarians and morons than to raising the sort of men who make good husbands, fathers and professionals. If you keep meeting a boy where he is, he doesn’t go very far.” The key to raising boys who read is simple – keep entertaining electronic media to the barest minimum, and fill your shelves with good books. Want to Raise a Boy Who Reads-
DeYoung cites John Woodbridge, who notes that Christians in the 17th century weren’t torn between a belief in a completely infallible Bible and a Bible whose infallibility was limited to faith and practice, but rather they faced the interpretive challenge of how much interpretive allowance should be made for phenomenological language. He concludes that “Christians will sometimes disagree on how to interpret biblical passages that touch on history and science.” But those who “skip the interpretative work altogether because the Bible supposedly makes mistakes or only speaks on “theological” topics” build their “houses far outside the suburbs of historic orthodoxy.” Does the Bible Teach Science-
DeYoung anecdotally illustrates the fact that most people in the pew assume that when we say the Bible is trustworthy we say it doesn’t make mistakes. “If we try to parse some fine distinction between infallibility and inerrancy or between reliability and inerrancy, the average churchgoer will think we’re just trying to avoid a label for some reason or just trying to hide something. And very often they’ll be right on both accounts” Who’s Afraid of Inerrancy-
“The once (and briefly) credible idea that Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield invented inerrancy has been shown to be resoundingly false. Scholars like John Woodbridge and Richard Muller have demonstrated convincingly that the doctrine of complete biblical truthfulness is not a Princetonian invention. Clement of Rome (30-100) described “the Sacred Scriptures” as “the true utterance of the Holy Spirit.” Polycarp (65-155) called them “the oracles of the Lord.” Irenaeus (120-202) claimed that the biblical writers “were incapable of a false statement.” Origen (185-254) stated, “The sacred volumes are fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, and there is no passage either in the Law or the Gospel, or the writings of an Apostle, which does not proceed from the inspired source of Divine Truth.” Augustine (354-430) explained in a letter to Jerome, “I have learnt to ascribe to those Books which are of the Canonical rank, and only to them, such reverence and honour, that I firmly believe that no single error due to the author is found in any of them.” It was not modernism that invented inerrancy. It was modernism that undermined inerrancy. (Why We’re Not Emergent, 76-77)” An Argument Discredited
DG has a plea for support in mission efforts to the Shan (Buddhists/animists). A Month of Prayer for the Shan-Tai
Aomin responds to the 8 commandments of atheistic ethics: “The Christian believes that morality is objectively given by God, and that ethical norms reflect His holiness. There is a great diversity of opinion and human experience in life. But the interaction of "multiple psychological building blocks" in no way diminishes the firm and revealed moral law of God.” Also, “, the neurotheology of Scripture consistently makes a contrast between human beings and "unreasoning animals" who operate "instinctively." It also asserts how people can be so depraved that they're cognitive faculties actually operate like animals.” A Christian Response to the 2010 “Consensus Statement” on Morality – Part II
Creationsafaris has some comments on embryonic stem cell research. “With non-controversial adult stem cell research zooming along, like finding ways to prevent adult stem cells (ASC) from aging (PhysOrg), providing hope for leukemia patients (Science Daily) and giving mastectomy patients a chance for beauty once again (Science Daily), why are so many scientists adamant about keeping embryonic stem cell research on the public dole? … scientists are urging Congress to make a law protecting embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. They have allies on Capitol Hill.” Indeed, secular scientists think an ‘ethics council’ will sort out the issues. “… PhysOrg reported that the first human clinical trial of a spinal cord treatment with embryonic stem cells is open for enrollment. The public will soon see if the hope of ES cures lives up to the hype. But even if it succeeds, the controversy over the ethics of destroying human embryos will not go away.” Ethics Shmethics- Scientists Obsessed with Embryonic Stem Cells
Mohler comments on Newsweek redefining masculinity. “In 1945, the male share of the labor force was 70 percent. Now it is less than 50 percent. In the nation’s largest cities, women often make more than men on average do. Women now outnumber men at virtually every level of higher education, starting with a six to four advantage in undergraduate registrations.” Newsweek says that traditional masculinity is endangered, but their solution isn’t to reassert it. They claim that men will have to redefine masculinity as they take on “girly” jobs, transform themselves into nurturers, and celebrate a fully egalitarian society in terms of gender. Moher says that “ men will certainly not recover a healthy manhood by aping crude stereotypes or cultural constructions of “Marlboro Manliness.” At the same time, the path to recovery doesn’t lie in denying the truth about gender differences or roles… Today’s men are likely to be more nurturing, but they are also statistically less faithful… A healthy masculinity should motivate men to find their way in this new world of changed economic realities and work opportunities, and to do this while remaining men. The unanswered question from Newsweek’s analysis is this: Will men change the new work of work, or will the new social realities change men?” Man Up or Man Down- Newsweek Redefines Masculinity
T-fan notes the Romanist error that councils basically decide what orthodoxy is, and at that point its heresy to think otherwise. “The church does not make up orthodoxy. When the church does its job correctly, it merely recognizes the truth that was already once delivered to the saints. There was no new delivery in the fourth century or any of the succeeding centuries.” Romanists have to put the cart before the horse, because they've added to the gospel. Bryan Cross places the Cart before the Horse, Theologically Speaking (With Additional Commentary
Hays writes that annihilationism typically concentrates on the fate of the damned. But objections to hell also include the fate of the survivors – how they rejoice in heaven knowing all the while that some of their loved ones are missing out on heaven? Annihilation does nothing to address this issue. Thus on its own terms it only does half the job! Does annihilationism even succeed on its own terms-
Mohler: “One of the illusions of modernist thinking is that religious beliefs can be sanitized and separated from public life.” Damon Linker Offers a Religious Test — From the Left
Dan Wallace argues here that ‘inviting Jesus into your heart’ isn’t the meaning of Revelation 3:20, and it isn’t the Gospel. He notes two assumptions made: (1) that the Laodiceans, or at least some of them, were indeed lost, and (2) that the Greek εισελεύσομαι πρό means “come into.” The first isn’t sustainable from the text (those whom I love, I reprove). The second is based on a less than careful reading of the English text. The ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, for example, all correctly render it ‘come in to’. Notice the SPACE between ‘in’ and ‘to’ – it isn’t ‘into’. Spatially the term used means ‘toward’, not into: The text means, ‘come in toward/before a person’. The verse isn’t an offer of salvation. To use it as such is a perversion of the simplicity of the Gospel; people ‘accept Jesus into their hearts’ without knowing what they even mean. Reception of Christ is a consequence, not a condition, of salvation. Now if they have truly put their faith in Christ, and they understand that he alone can save them from their sins, then of course they are saved. The problem is that many people cling to the symbol but never understand the reality it is intended to represent. He concludes, “If it causes us some measure of panic to have to use other than Revelation 3:20 when we share the gospel, keep in mind that the earliest Christians did not have this verse. Revelation is the last book of the Bible to be written. How was it possible for Peter and Paul and James to ever see anyone get saved without this verse? They never had it!” Inviting Jesus into your Heart (Dan Wallace)
Pike critiques a definition of omniscience here, showing its inability to account for statements of variable truth value. Uncertain Omniscience
Phil Johnson responds to a critic who thinks that his statement that less time should be spent on being hip/trendy and more effort should be spent on defending and proclaiming the Gospel means that he is opposed to engaging the culture. He notes that everyone has a different understanding of engaging the culture. Johnson points to Scripture’s teaching instead: “Sometimes we need to engage the world's culture by foregoing our own freedom and becoming servants who observe whatever cultural taboos are deemed sacrosanct (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Sometimes we need to engage the world's culture by refusing its tastes and values, as Daniel did in Daniel 1:8-21. Sometimes we need to engage the world's culture by mocking it, as Elijah did in 1 Kings 18:27. Sometimes we need to engage the world's culture by attacking it, in a manner analogous to the zeal with which David attacked Goliath and the Philistines in 1 Kings 17:26-54.” [I’ll add that I don’t see anyone buying minivans to meet suburban soccermoms with 4 kids where they are at – and that’s because minivans don’t make them feel independent, expressive, and cool, and soccermoms aren’t the kind of people they want to have think much of them. Contextualizing is all-important – unless of course its actually humbling]. Engaging the Culture
Turk has a letter here to the SBC. Weekend Extra- Something Else
McKinley posts a quote from Baxter: “Throughout the whole course of our ministry, we must insist chiefly upon the greatest, most certain, and most necessary truths, and be more seldom and sparing upon the rest. If we can but teach Christ to our people, we shall teach them all. Get them well to heaven, and they will have knowledge enough. The great and commonly acknowledged truths of religion are those that men must live upon, and which are the great instruments of destroying men’s sins, and raising the heart to God. ” Four Great Things
Phillips comments on Matthew 16, where after Peter’s wonderful confession, he rebukes Jesus for saying that He will die. Peter rebukes Jesus with these words: “The Greek hileos soi, kurie is hard to capture. Probably the best way to render it is to paraphrase along the lines of the ESV's footnote: "May God be merciful to you, Lord!"” Peter is horrified with what Jesus is saying; it does not seem to be base self-interest. Peter clearly loved Jesus, by his best lights, and the idea of Him being treated in this way simply sickens Peter to his very soul. But Jesus scorchingly blames him. "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man". Why does Jesus call Peter "Satan"? Wasn't Peter motivated by tender, compassionate concern for Jesus? He faults Peter’s thoughts. Peter wasn’t thinking about God’s concern. He was like Satan was with Eve: “She should not deny herself such a boon! The fruit she wants is the fruit she needs, and God has no good reason for keeping it from her! God have mercy on you Eve, take the fruit and realize your full selfhood, your full potential!” Peter’s compassion was Satanic. Compassion is a wonderful godly human emotion, when information and directed by Scripture. Modern examples abound of Satanic compassion: Pro-aborts present their position as a compassionate position, in fact as the compassionate position. “Homosexuality leaps to mind. It sounds like the very distillation of compassion to tell such tortured souls that they should give up the struggle, accept their passions, and embrace them, assured of God's approval. But this is the compassion of Hell. This is the compassion that ignores the Cross, with its equally vast threats of judgment, and promises of redemption, deliverance, and freedom. To tell souls struggling with any vile passions, whether they draw one towards homosexuality, adultery, theft, or murder, that they have no hope for deliverance, that their only hope is to redefine and then embrace sin, is no compassion at all.” And we all have compassion on ourselves, protecting our darling sins. From 2006- When compassion is Satanic
Good quote cited at Reformation21: “'We live in a culture where everyone has their say, where I can press the interactive buttons and register my view on television, where I can set up a blog and proclaim my views on anything and everything to the world, where the most friendly thing we can say in welcoming newcomers is 'We want to know what you think', but dare I say it - God does not want to know what we think. He wants us to know what he thinks.' ” Best of the British! #1 (Paul Levy)
CMI: News reports of a recent partial fossil skeleton find from Ethiopia’s Afar region, allegedly 3.6 million years old, and dubbed Big Man, is said to represent Australopithecus afarensis, the same species as the famous ‘Lucy’. It’s unclear, though, if this classification has more to do with the alleged geological age than its form: if evolutionary assumptions are put aside, one can be left with the impression after reading these news reports that what has actually been found may be an ancient human skeleton instead, and not one representing Australopithecus afarensis. One if evolutionary assumptions are put aside, one can be left with the impression after reading these news reports that what has actually been found may be an ancient human skeleton instead, and not one representing Australopithecus afarensis. But evolutionists can’t consider this possibility because that would bring their whole edifice toppling down. It just does not seem feasible that Lucy and Big Man are of the same species, Australopithecus afarensis. Whilst the former can be classified as such, the latter (Big Man) seems to better fit the description of Homo erectus. Many creationists believe that fossils labeled as Homo erectus are in fact ancient humans, descendants of Adam and Eve, and so actually belong to the species Homo sapiens. Whether some of these ancient humans were actually buried during the flood, or subsequently after the post-Babel dispersion, is an important issue that needs addressing further. He ain't my brother- no apparent family ties between Big Man and Lucy
Calvary Grace continues with the next chapter of Thabiti’s What is a Healthy Church Member? This week, we look at expositional listening. Isaiah 6 has a chilling example of judgment, in that the people of Israel are given God’s words, but are denied the heart necessary to hear them. But to hear the words, to be ‘good soil’ (useful to the Master), is to be greatly blessed (Matt. 13:23). One key benefit of expositional listening is church unity. Consider the other fruit of those who listen in this manner. What Is A Healthy Church Member- Part 2
WSJ has a story on evangelicals and adoption featuring Russ Moore. WSJ on Adoption
Trueman: “So Bono's campaign for the poor is all about `raising awareness,' not actually helping people?” He compares it to being a level beyond those charities which only send 15% of their money to the actual cause - those giving money can be assured that it all goes to help `raise awareness,' presumably so that people will -- ahem -- then give money to charities that actually do use the money to help the poor. Trueman just wants to raise awareness: “This confirms my deepest, darkest fears about leather-trousered, superannuated, multi-millionaire `authenticity' mongers.” U2, Brutus my son (Carl Trueman)
SolaPanel from Synod: “1. there are between 80,000 - 160,000 problem gamblers in Australia, along with another 230,000 - 350,000 vulnerable to problem gambling; 2. poker machine users are disproportionately represented among the ranks of Australia's problem gamblers; 3. 41% of the $11.9 billion that Australians lose on poker machines comes from problem gamblers; and 4. the public benefits and jobs creation, which the registered clubs claim to offer through their gambling profits, are highly debatable.” General Synod 6—Gambling at Synod
Dever says that while there are secular, Marxist and Muslim utopian visions for our world, none of these sufficiently take into account the things the Bible teaches about the sinfulness of humans, about our being made in God's image, about God's goodness, his love, his holiness. Utopian visions of politics or nations or the state always lead to tragedy. They always lead to tyranny and despotism and terrible distortions of God's will. Visions for the state like this are way too shallow. They're about swords and external conformity to laws. The Bible shows us that God has a wonderful vision for his world. We’ve all rejected that vision. But God in His mercy and love pursues us. Does Christianity Have A Vision for Society-
Phillips notes an article highlighting Obama’s distaste at the words ‘by their creator’ – and how he skipped them: “Oopsie: speaking to another racist group, the president indicates... well, several things. One is that he's delusional about history in general, and about Nancy Pelosi in particular. But my focus is that President Obama evidently feels that the Preamble to the Declaration is too long... by three words. Guess which three?” Hither and thither 9/24/10
White cites an update on the Dearborn missionaries incident: “A jury Friday acquitted four Christian missionaries who were accused of inciting a crowd while videotaping themselves proselytizing to Muslims at the Dearborn Arab International Festival in June.” Still, “Dearborn Mayor Jack O’Reilly Jr. said Friday night that he respects the decision but that the missionaries were anti-Muslim bigots pulling a publicity stunt to gain attention on YouTube in order to raise money. ” White comments, “Do you think O'Reilly is trying to keep his job in sharia-laden Dearborn or what? Amazing, absolutely amazing.” Partial Justice...It Isn't Over
Manata interacts with a learned atheist who takes the route of attacking Christianity over the inquisitions: “Leaving aside the issue of how you ground the moral judgments by which you indict Christianity (because you are a constructivist there too, but we’ll get to this topic in your later emails), surely you note the distinction between the propositions of Christianity and those who believe those propositions. For example, if thousands of mathematicians perpetrated an inquisition against, say, english professors, that would not invalidate math. One and one would still equal two. Secondly, Christianity makes claims about Christians in particular and men in general. One such claim is that the members of those sets are sinners. So, it would be an odd argument indeed which concluded that Christianity was falsified because of the empirical verification of one of its claims. Put differently, pointing out that people sin (or act immorally, or however you want to phrase it) seems to be a strange way of falsifying a religion that predicts people will sin! … if the goal is to somehow undermine the truth of Christianity, I’m afraid that conclusion won’t work; not the least of which is because you can’t refute a position by pointing out that an instance of something the position predicts will happen (e.g., men will act sinfully) has happened (e.g., the inquisitions).” Is Belief in God Good, Bad (Religion), or Irrelevant – 2
Scientists seek to emulate creation, but they attribute, apart from any evidence for their assertions, the amazing wonders in other organisms to evolution. Scientists Pursue Natural Champions
We are continually learning more about how complex the cells and cell division really is. “Most of the articles either never mentioned evolution, or only asserted merely that such-and-such a complex system had evolved – without saying how. No wonder; an article on PhysOrg reported that scientists at the University of Edinburgh “were able to define some 4,000 proteins involved in the division of cells.” These proteins “protect the fragile genetic material and help it fold into the correct shape before it splits into two new cells.” They were astonished at “the intricacies of this process” but had nothing to say about evolution.” Mere Biochemistry- Cell Division Involves Thousands of Complex, Interacting Parts
From DG: “We know that Jesus commands us to go and make disciples of all nations, yet many Christians are afraid to go to Muslims. We know that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe, and yet many Christians don’t think Muslims could ever be saved… As a former Muslim, Thabiti completely dispels the notion that Muslims can’t come to Jesus Christ for salvation. Both Thabiti and J. D. have had great experience in communicating the gospel to Muslims in the US and around the world.” Loving Our Muslim Neighbors
Piper writes that one of the main reasons so many of God’s children don’t have a significant life of prayer is not so much that we don’t want to, but that we don’t plan to. We even plan vacations, but not prayer. From Desiring God: “Let us take time this very day to rethink our priorities and how prayer fits in. Make some new resolve. Try some new venture with God. Set a time. Set a place. Choose a portion of Scripture to guide you. Don’t be tyrannized by the press of busy days. We all need midcourse corrections. Make this a day of turning to prayer—for the glory of God and for the fullness of your joy.” Make This a Day of Turning
“Todd Friel’s new documentary, What Hath Darwin Wrought (see trailer at WhatHathDarwinWrought.com), harps on the proverb, “Ideas have consequences.” The twentieth century, “Darwin’s century,” saw some of the most horrendous ethical abuses the world has ever seen. The documentary includes lengthy interviews with David Berlinski (mathematician, author), John West (ethicist and legal analyst) and Richard Weikart (historian, author, and professor at UC Stanislaus), who connect the dots from Darwin to eugenics, Hitler, communism, abortion and the modern resurgence of eugenics (now couched within population control and genetic engineering). Each scholar was careful not to draw simplistic connections. The quotes from prominent evolutionists and perpetrators of atrocities, and from Darwin himself, using primary sources, should suffice to silence critics who discount the connections.” Documentary Ties Darwin to Disastrous Social Consequences
Here’s an interesting post from Bring the Books which looks at Edwards seemingly ‘unreformed’ view of union with Christ, which is actually not a novelty with him. Indeed, Calvin seems to think along those lines. Edwards wrote, “what is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the foundation of what is legal; that is, it is something really in them, and between them, uniting them, that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the Judge.” [i.e. Edwards grounds justification in union, apparently]. Consider Calvin: “as long as Christ remains outside us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value to us. (Calvin, Institutes 3.1.1)” [i.e. the benefit of Christ’s death for us is based on union] Jonathan Edwards un(-)-Reformed Doctrine of Union With Christ
CMI comments on the inability of climate models to produce the warm climates of the past. But “The Flood transported vegetation-mat model can solve most, if not all, the problems with the observations of warm climate fossils at high latitudes and within continental interiors of mid latitudes. It also accounts for the observed mixing of vegetation from widely divergent climates, as reported from some paleoflora sites. The model also explains the relatively common occurrence of fossil trees oriented in a vertical position” http://creation.com/climate-models-fail
Mohler writes that “the great moral revolution on the issue of homosexuality collides with the total surrender of a liberal denomination and the result is the church’s apology.” This is “the picture just a few days ago when the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America welcomed three lesbian ministers into the clergy roster through a “Rite of Reception” ceremony.” The church actually confessed the “sin” of having once stood on biblical ground, and the “sin” of exercising church discipline. He quotes Luther: “You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the word which the Lord who receives sinners preaches to you.” What Would Luther Say- — A Church Apologizes for Church Discipline
Mohler: “There is ample documentation to prove that boys are falling behind in reading skills at virtually every age level. In many cases, boys are semi-literate at best, and many never develop adequate reading skills. They never know the pleasures of a book.” “The most direct enemies of reading in the lives of today’s boys are video games and digital media. These devices crowd out time and attention at the expense of reading. Spence cites one set of parents who tried to bribe their 13-year-old son to read by offering video games as a reward. Spence is exactly right — don’t reward with video games. Instead, take the games away. If parents do not restrict time spent with digital devices, boys will never learn to read and to love reading.” http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/24/on-getting-boys-to-read/
Burk writes that it is striking how far evangelicals have fallen from first principles. The authority of the Bible in all its parts used to be a defining evangelical belief. But now it is considered within the evangelical pale to deny that truth. That Brian McLaren’s hackneyed objections are considered serious evangelical fare these days is a most unhappy and unwelcome declension. He also writes that as a practical matter, the British parochializing of the question of inerrancy as a North American peculiarity will not work. Either the Bible is authoritative and true in all that it teaches, or it is not. If it is not, then who gets to decide how we distinguish which parts are reliable and which parts aren’t? Furthermore, what does this say about the character of God who then would be responsible for inspiring error? That’s no small issue. The British evangelicals can’t just avoid it. Keller and McLaren on Inerrancy
Solapanel: Christians ought not be comfortable with euthanasia, and the biblical and ethical arguments haven't changed much in fifteen years. The more basic issue in the euthanasia debate is that of who rules: God or man. Who has the right to determine who lives and who dies? Who has the right to determine under what conditions human life may be taken? The euthanasia proposals being discussed in Australia and other parts of the world today seek to give to one group of humans—doctors—the right to end human life. They do this without reference to God, or to the circumstances under which God has said human life may be taken. The Image Disaster- Euthanasia and God’s view of human life
Hays writes that while annihilationism raises an emotional objection to the traditional doctrine of hell. Yet annihilationism is subject to emotional objections no less weighty. The annihilationist might say that there will be compensations in heaven. God will work it out somehow. Yet that appeal is equally available to orthodox Christians who uphold the traditional doctrine of hell. The metrics of hell
Hays continues to respond to an annihilationist. “The damned aren’t damned for disbelieving the gospel. Many of the damned never hear the gospel. They are damned as sinners whose sins go unatoned.” Rejecting the gospel is an aggravated sin. In that respect, the Jews who reject the mission of Jesus are guilty of a graver sin. Both the saints and the damned share immortality-–but the damned are cursed with immortality, whereas the saints are blessed with immortality. Reparations for the damned
Pike responds to some comments on omniscience from non-Calvinists. In classical Christian philosophy, God is eternal and omniscient, which means He never learns anything at all. “If God knows that I will eat chocolate chip cookies tomorrow (and, if that is a true statement, then God’s omniscience requires that He does know this), then the truth-maker for that statement must be eternal. Why? Because God doesn’t learn. And therefore, the truth-maker for this knowledge must be eternal like God is eternal.” This immediately rules out any created thing or action as being a truth-maker for God’s knowledge. The only option that remains is that God Himself is the truth-maker. Which ultimately is saying, “God knows that X will occur because God is the truth-maker for X occur.” Biblically we know that God decrees what will happen. He foreordains whatsoever comes to pass. He has declared what will happen, and then He does it. In other words, it seems that Calvinism is the inevitable result of a belief in the eternal omniscience of God. The only way to avoid determinism or compatibilism is to assert that God is capable of learning—a denial of omniscience. But I Want To Know How
Engwer cites Origen on Peter, who says that believers who make the confession of Peter become a Peter: “For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.” He says all Christians are what Peter was in a particular context. A person can succeed to Peter, or be what Peter was, in one sense, but not another. Such distinctions ought to be remembered when we see Romanists citing patristic passages. What Kind Of Successor Of Peter-
Hays argues with an opponent of retributive justice, and says that he commits a “fundamental asymmetry between merit and demerit. Sinners can’t merit salvation. But sinners can merit damnation. By definition, sinners are already in a demeritorious condition. Saving grace is not merely unmerited favor, but demerited favor. But by the same token, sinners richly deserve retributive punishment.” As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs. Also here: The wages of sin
No comments:
Post a Comment