Property and Restitution in the Lutheran Tradition: Selected Cases of Interaction with the Scholastic Theologians

IF 0.1 0 MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES
P. Astorri
{"title":"Property and Restitution in the Lutheran Tradition: Selected Cases of Interaction with the Scholastic Theologians","authors":"P. Astorri","doi":"10.1080/14622459.2019.1661663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article investigates the interaction between Lutheran and scholastic theologians with regard to property and restitution. It explores the use of scholastic sources by a number of Lutheran theologians on selected cases. Philip Melanchthon and Martin Chemnitz defended the idea that private property is a divine institution founded on the seventh commandment of the Decalogue and refuted the monastic ideal of voluntary poverty. In the seventeenth century, theologians like Friedrich Balduin, Balthasar Meisner, Conrad Horneius, and Johann Adam Osiander started to cite scholastic and early-modern scholastic theologians. They sometimes borrowed concepts and solutions to cases of conscience, but that did not prevent them from also criticizing the scholastics on other occasions. The Lutheran attitude toward the scholastics was therefore not uniform. The Lutheran theologians accepted or refused the scholastic opinions depending on the particularities of the questions treated.","PeriodicalId":41309,"journal":{"name":"REFORMATION & RENAISSANCE REVIEW","volume":"40 1","pages":"172 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REFORMATION & RENAISSANCE REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14622459.2019.1661663","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article investigates the interaction between Lutheran and scholastic theologians with regard to property and restitution. It explores the use of scholastic sources by a number of Lutheran theologians on selected cases. Philip Melanchthon and Martin Chemnitz defended the idea that private property is a divine institution founded on the seventh commandment of the Decalogue and refuted the monastic ideal of voluntary poverty. In the seventeenth century, theologians like Friedrich Balduin, Balthasar Meisner, Conrad Horneius, and Johann Adam Osiander started to cite scholastic and early-modern scholastic theologians. They sometimes borrowed concepts and solutions to cases of conscience, but that did not prevent them from also criticizing the scholastics on other occasions. The Lutheran attitude toward the scholastics was therefore not uniform. The Lutheran theologians accepted or refused the scholastic opinions depending on the particularities of the questions treated.
路德宗传统中的财产与赔偿:与经院神学家互动的个案选择
摘要本文探讨路德宗与经院神学家在财产与赔偿问题上的互动。它探讨了一些路德神学家对选定案例的学术来源的使用。菲利普·梅兰希顿(Philip Melanchthon)和马丁·开姆尼茨(Martin Chemnitz)为私有财产是建立在十诫第七诫之上的神圣制度的观点进行了辩护,并驳斥了自愿贫穷的修道理想。在17世纪,像Friedrich Balduin, Balthasar Meisner, Conrad Horneius和Johann Adam Osiander这样的神学家,开始引用经院和早期现代经院神学家的话。他们有时借用概念和解决方法来解决良心问题,但这并不妨碍他们在其他场合批评经院哲学家。因此,路德教会对经院学者的态度并不统一。路德神学家接受或拒绝经院的观点取决于所处理问题的特殊性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
REFORMATION & RENAISSANCE REVIEW
REFORMATION & RENAISSANCE REVIEW MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信