ETERNITY IS A PRESENT,TIME IS ITS UNWRAPPING

There is debate in the philosophy of religion about whether the being of God is timelessly eternal or is instead temporal but unbounded. In this paper, I seek to defend the first view by motivating and deriving it from the Christian doctrines of the trinity and salvation. My goal is to present the notion of eternity in a way that makes clear that it belongs to God by nature and to man by grace, with the condition of time being part of the medium of grace. To this end, I also employ the doctrine of theosis, as found in Maximus the Confessor and Dumitru Staniloae, and the Augustinean theory of time.     

Counseling centers and the issue of accountability

The authors discuss responses that college and university counseling centers have made to the budgetary attacks now occurring. They stress the importance of accountability and suggest types of data that counseling center personnel might use in developing effective justifications for the expenditure of funds on the services that they provide.     

Human Relations Skills Training in Teacher Education: The Link to Effective Practice

Brandt, R. (1985). On teaching and supervising: A conversation with Madeline Hunter. Educational Leadership, 42, 61–66. Hunter, M. (1985). What's wrong with Madeline Hunter? Educational Teacher Leadership, 42, 57–60. Ligon, S.A. (1984). A strategy for helping students with their problems. Teacher Educator, 19, 28–32. Manning, B.H., & Payne, B.D. (1984). Student teacher personality as a variable in teacher education. Teacher Educator, 20, 2–12. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1985). Is the O.K. classroom O.K.? Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 358–361. Smith, B.O. (1985). Research bases for teacher education. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 685–690.     

ON THE NONCOMPARABILITY OF JUDGMENTS MADE BY DIFFERENT ETHICAL THEORIES

A major focus of ethical argumentation is (and should be) determining the relative merits of proposed ethical systems. Nevertheless, even the demonstration that a given ethical system was the one most likely to be correct would not establish that an agent should act in accord with that system. Consider, for example, a situation in which the ethical system most likely to be valid is modestly supportive of a certain action, whereas a less plausible system strongly condemns the same action. Should the agent perform the action, arguing that the most plausible system supports doing so, or avoid the action, being conservative about the strong condemnation of it from a less plausible system? I argue that, in general, different ethical frameworks see the ethical world in fundamentally different ways, rendering the comparison of degrees of support and opposition of actions between systems intrinsically invalid. One should indeed choose to act in accord with the most defensible system. I believe that this important topic needs more attention than it has gotten to date.