{"title":"Lutheran and Reformed Debates in the Early 1560s","authors":"R. Cross","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter describes the changes Brenz made to his Christology in 1562 and 1564 in response to Peter Martyr Vermigli’s defence of the supposital union. It shows how Jakob Andreae, Brenz’s follower, further adapted Brenz’s views and attempted to defend them against a variety of Reformed responses, found in Theodore Beza and Heinrich Bullinger, and in the discussions at the Colloquy of Maulbronn (1564). In distinction from Brenz, Andreae reduces the human nature’s possession of divine powers merely to the activity of the relevant powers in the human nature, construed as an instrument of the divine person.","PeriodicalId":360748,"journal":{"name":"Communicatio Idiomatum","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117122362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Early Lutheran Christologies","authors":"R. Cross","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter outlines the views of Melanchthon and the early Brenz, showing how Lutheran Christology bifurcated into two basic traditions—those accepting bodily omnipresence and those denying it. It demonstrates that Melanchthon quickly abandoned early claims affirming both the omnipresence of Christ’s human nature and its life-giving power, and ended up adopting a view very similar to Zwingli’s. The chapter outlines the first stages in the development of Brenz’s Christology, showing how Brenz, from 1528 or 1529 onwards, came to adopt a view of the hypostatic union according to which the divine person and human nature are the same person but different natures, and according to which human properties are borne by the divine person, and divine properties by the human nature (the so-called genus maiestaticum). By 1561 Brenz has begun to restrict the set of divine attributes that can be borne by the human nature, presumably in response to the Christology of Caspar Schwenckfeld, and the chapter ends with a brief summary of Schwenckfeld’s view.","PeriodicalId":360748,"journal":{"name":"Communicatio Idiomatum","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117207145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Genus Maiestaticum in Non-Brenzian Christologies","authors":"R. Cross","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter describes the views of three Lutheran theologians, writing in the late 1560s, who accept the genus maiestaticum without any of Brenz’s distinctive Christological metaphysics: namely, Jacob Schegk, Joachim Wigand, and Martin Chemnitz in the first edition of his De duabus naturis in Christo. The difference between these thinkers is described, as is the complex influence of Melanchthon, Brenz, and Andreae on their various Christological positions. The chapter shows how the theologians reacted to the divergence between Brenz and Andreae on the character of the human nature’s possession of divine attributes","PeriodicalId":360748,"journal":{"name":"Communicatio Idiomatum","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121969861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Luther and Zwingli","authors":"R. Cross","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter shows that Luther’s Christology follows the basic structure of Ockham’s, both in terms of the metaphysics and the semantics. It demonstrates that Luther accepts the supposital-union theory, and shows how to read complex texts that have sometimes been taken to show the opposite. It is shown that Luther’s most distinctive and original claim is that the divine person is the bearer of his human accidents. The chapter contextualizes Luther’s claims about Christ’s bodily omnipresence in Medieval debates, and shows that Luther did not hold bodily omnipresence to amount to the possession of a divine attribute. It also provides a detailed account of Zwingli’s Christological semantics. It shows how Luther misunderstood Zwingli’s claims about the communicatio, and concludes that Zwingli’s Christology, contrary to Luther’s appraisal, is in no sense Nestorian.","PeriodicalId":360748,"journal":{"name":"Communicatio Idiomatum","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125281600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Concluding Remarks","authors":"R. Cross","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter suggests that part of the early seventeenth-century debate between the theologians of Tübingen and the theologians of Giessen on the question of the communicatio idiomatum represents the conflicting structures of Brenzian and Chemnitzian accounts of the hypostatic union. At issue was the human nature’s possession of divine attributes during Christ’s earthly life, affirmed by the Tübingen theologians and denied by the Giessen ones. The 1624 Decisio saxonica ruled in favour of Giessen, and thus in effect against Brenzian understandings of Christ’s kenosis. Lutheran orthodoxy requires that some (and not all) divine attributes are communicated to the human nature. It concludes with puzzles about the way in which the genus maiestaticum might be possible at all, given the denial of any distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies.","PeriodicalId":360748,"journal":{"name":"Communicatio Idiomatum","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128174315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Formula of Concord and Lutheran Christology in the 1570s","authors":"R. Cross","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter gives an account of the debates between the followers of Melachthon and the followers of Brenz in the years immediately prior to the Formula of Concord (1577). It then describes the formula itself, and finally the later Christology of Martin Chemnitz, which differs sharply from his earlier views in a number of key respects. It shows that the two parts of the formula, composed respectively by Andreae and Chemnitz, while agreeing that Christ’s human nature possesses divine attributes, diverge in numerous ways on questions of both Christological metaphysics and Christological semantics, and that these divergences render the two parts prima facie incompatible.","PeriodicalId":360748,"journal":{"name":"Communicatio Idiomatum","volume":"33 17","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120996056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Andreae and Beza at the Colloquy of Montbéliard","authors":"R. Cross","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter describes the debate between Jakob Andreae and Theodore Beza at the Colloquy of Montbéliard (1586). Andreae defends a Brenzian account of the hypostatic union, and modifies his view so that it conforms more closely to Brenz’s own view that the divine powers themselves are in some sense possessed by the human nature. Beza accepts the supposital union. He outlines the ways in which Andreae’s account of the distinction between concrete and abstract nouns might lead to theological difficulties, and shows that a Brenzian view of the communicatio, coupled with a restriction on the set of divine attributes that can be communicated to the Son of Man, results in a Christology that is inconsistent with Chalcedon.","PeriodicalId":360748,"journal":{"name":"Communicatio Idiomatum","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134504257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Calvin and his Lutheran Opponents","authors":"R. Cross","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter traces the debates between Calvin and two of his Lutheran opponents, Joachim Westphal and Tilman Hesshus, on the question of the omnipresence and life-giving character of Christ’s body. All sides in the dispute agree that that Christ’s body is life-giving, and thus that Christ’s human nature is the subject of distinctively non-natural properties. They disagree with each other on the way in which this life-giving power is exercised: either by co-location with the effect (the Lutherans), or by immediate action at a distance (Calvin). But while Westphal affirms bodily omnipresence, Hesshus denies it. Neither Westphal nor Hesshus accept the reason offered by Brenz for accepting the genus maiestaticum (namely, that it is necessary for the hypostatic union). They accept the genus maiestaticum simply on the basis of Scriptural interpretation.","PeriodicalId":360748,"journal":{"name":"Communicatio Idiomatum","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129379452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：