{"title":"John Colquhoun","authors":"J. Fesko","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190071363.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the nineteenth century indifference toward the doctrine of works grew to outright rejection and hostility because of the influence of higher criticism and negative opinions of Reformed scholasticism. Critics of the doctrine argued that in order for the doctrine to be legitimate, there had to be an explicit biblical statement attesting to its existence. This was a change from earlier exegetical patterns of argumentation. Critics also characterized the covenant of works as an agreement between equals, which was an erroneous understanding of God’s dealings with Adam. Proponents of the doctrine, however, maintained earlier methodologies and commitments, saw Reformed scholastic theology as a good resource, and were careful to qualify their definitions of covenant to ensure that it was not construed as an agreement between equals. Theologians such as John Colquhoun promoted the doctrine.","PeriodicalId":399283,"journal":{"name":"The Covenant of Works","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Covenant of Works","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190071363.003.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the nineteenth century indifference toward the doctrine of works grew to outright rejection and hostility because of the influence of higher criticism and negative opinions of Reformed scholasticism. Critics of the doctrine argued that in order for the doctrine to be legitimate, there had to be an explicit biblical statement attesting to its existence. This was a change from earlier exegetical patterns of argumentation. Critics also characterized the covenant of works as an agreement between equals, which was an erroneous understanding of God’s dealings with Adam. Proponents of the doctrine, however, maintained earlier methodologies and commitments, saw Reformed scholastic theology as a good resource, and were careful to qualify their definitions of covenant to ensure that it was not construed as an agreement between equals. Theologians such as John Colquhoun promoted the doctrine.