Perichoresis最新文献_第8页

‘According to Right Law’: John Jewel’s Use of the Ius Antiqua in His Defense of the Elizabethan Church “根据正确的法律”:约翰·朱厄尔在为伊丽莎白时代的教会辩护时使用古物

IF 0.1

Perichoresis Pub Date : 2022-05-09 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2022-0012

André A. Gazal

{"title":"‘According to Right Law’: John Jewel’s Use of the Ius Antiqua in His Defense of the Elizabethan Church","authors":"André A. Gazal","doi":"10.2478/perc-2022-0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2022-0012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In his Apology of the Church of England as well as many of his other works, John Jewel defended the orthodoxy of the Elizabethan Church on the basis of the following criteria: Scripture, the first four general councils, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the example of the primitive church.1 By emphasizing these authorities, the bishop of Salisbury also sought to impeach the Roman Church’s claim to orthodoxy by arguing that doctrines and practices which developed subsequently to the early church as defined by these criteria contradict them, thereby nullifying its charge of heresy against Protestants while simultaneously indicting the papacy itself as heretical. A question that emerges from studying Jewel’s prodigious polemical works concerns the source of this means of determining orthodoxy. Answering this question requires a close analysis of the apologist’s use of sources. This article will attempt to answer this question by arguing that this criteria for defining orthodoxy derived mainly from canon law tradition that is confirmed specifically by Gratian’s Decretum. This thesis maintains that Jewel’s criteria constituted a form of the ius antiqua with which he attacked the ius novum that provided the authoritative basis for papal supremacy, and in so doing, sought to vindicate the Elizabethan Church’s place in ancient catholic tradition.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89310137","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}

引用次数: 0

‘Not the Same God’: Alexander Carson (1776-1844) and the Ulster Trinitarian Controversy “不是同一个上帝”:亚历山大·卡森(1776-1844)和阿尔斯特三位一体论之争

IF 0.1

Perichoresis Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2022-0006

I. H. Clary

引用次数: 0

The Salters’ Hall Controversy: Heresy, Subscription, or Both? 索尔特大厅之争:异端邪说，顺从，还是两者兼而有之?

IF 0.1

Perichoresis Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2022-0004

Jesse F. Owens

{"title":"The Salters’ Hall Controversy: Heresy, Subscription, or Both?","authors":"Jesse F. Owens","doi":"10.2478/perc-2022-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2022-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Salters’ Hall controversy (1719) was a watershed event in the history of English Dissent. Some historians have interpreted the controversy as an early sign of the theological demise of the English General Baptists and the English Presbyterians. Conversely, the controversy has also been used to demonstrate the theological steadfastness of the English Particular Baptists and Congregationalist in the eighteenth century. Yet some of the earliest accounts of the Salters’ Hall controversy maintain that the controversy was not about the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather the requirement of subscription to extrabiblical words and phrases. This was the view of the revered divine Edmund Calamy, who refused to be involved in the controversy, even at the potential expense of his reputation. Edward Wallin, a Particular Baptist subscriber at Salters’ Hall, held a similar view of the controversy. While some historians acknowledge these accounts, they seem to ultimately doubt their truthfulness. This hesitancy is likely due, in part, to the fact that there were a few anti-Trinitarians among the nonsubscribers at Salters’ Hall. Furthermore, the English General Baptists and the English Presbyterians did deviate from theological orthodoxy later in the century. However, those who question the motives of the Non-subscribers at Salters’ Hall fail to take into account a theologically orthodox, nonsubscribing tradition among the English General Baptists and the English Presbyterians found in the writings of Thomas Grantham and Richard Baxter. In sum, one’s orthodoxy at Salters’ Hall cannot be determined solely on the basis of one’s view of subscription.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76773784","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}

引用次数: 0

A Forgotten Debate? Trinitarianism & the Particular Baptists 一场被遗忘的辩论?三位一体论&特殊浸信会

IF 0.1

Perichoresis Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2022-0001

M. Haykin

引用次数: 0

‘Three Subsistences … One Substance’: the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Second London Confession “三种存在…一种实质”:伦敦第二信条中的三位一体教义

IF 0.1

Perichoresis Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2022-0002

Steve Weaver

引用次数: 0

The Universal Tradition and the Clear Meaning of Scripture: Benjamin Keach’s Understanding of the Trinity 普遍传统与圣经的明确意义:本杰明·基奇对三位一体的理解

IF 0.1

Perichoresis Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2022-0003

Jonathan W. Arnold

{"title":"The Universal Tradition and the Clear Meaning of Scripture: Benjamin Keach’s Understanding of the Trinity","authors":"Jonathan W. Arnold","doi":"10.2478/perc-2022-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2022-0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Leading Particular Baptist theologian Benjamin Keach (1640-1704) came to prominence just as an antitrinitarian theology native to England gained a stronghold. What had previously been deemed off-limits by the Establishment became a commonplace by the end of the seventeenth century based on a strict biblicism that eschewed the extra-biblical language of trinitarian orthodoxy. As one who considered himself a strong biblicist, Keach deftly maneuvered his theological writings between what he saw as two extremes: the one that refused to consider any language that moved beyond the mere words of scripture, represented by many of his General Baptist contemporaries and the other that over-emphasized the role of tradition with no eye toward biblical truth, represented by the Roman Catholics. Keach’s explication of trinitarianism demonstrated that these two extremes did not have to be seen as competing with each other. Instead, the correct understanding of the Bible included ‘the just and necessary consequences’ that could be deduced from Scripture, and the ‘universal tradition’ aided the pastor theologian in ascertaining the truth. The result, for Keach and his audience, was an ancient view of trinitarianism that offered a way of peace between the the two extremes vying for the public ear in the late seventeenth century.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82434999","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}

引用次数: 0

John Gill (1697-1771) and the Eternally Begotten Word of God 约翰·吉尔(1697-1771)与上帝永恒的话语

IF 0.1

Perichoresis Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2022-0005

Jon Swan

{"title":"John Gill (1697-1771) and the Eternally Begotten Word of God","authors":"Jon Swan","doi":"10.2478/perc-2022-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2022-0005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Baptist pastor John Gill (1697-1771) believed the doctrine of eternal generation was vital to the Christian faith. While he firmly held to the doctrine of eternal generation, counting it as indispensable for grounding distinctions between the persons within the Godhead, he denied that the divine essence is communicated in generation. Generation, for Gill, entailed only the begetting of persons, and spoke to the ordering and personal relations between the Trinitarian Persons. As the second Person, the Son is from the Father, but as God, he is of himself. This understanding of eternal generation flowed from Gill’s commitment to the aseity of all the divine Persons. According to Gill, each of the divine Persons fully possesses the essence without any communication of essence and without respect to their ordered subsistence. Each person equally, fully, and eternally partakes of the divine essence of himself. Gill’s affirmation of eternal generation was strengthened and elaborated by his understanding of the Son as the divine Word. Gill’s understanding of the Son as the divine Word incorporated the analogy of the mind, which was further understood by other Scriptural images and was further apprehended by the Son’s identification as Wisdom. Gill understood these analogies and names as mutually defining for understanding the nature of the Son of God. The central theological implications of this divine name, namely, the Son’s deity, eternality, and distinct personality, were all based on Gill’s reading of Scripture, most notably in the Gospel of John.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87733991","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}

引用次数: 0

Nourishment in Paradise and After Resurrection: Double Creation According to Gregory of Nyssa 天堂和复活后的营养:尼萨的格列高利的双重创造

IF 0.1

Perichoresis Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2021-0024

Magdalena Marunová

引用次数: 0

The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11): Jesus’ Answer, an Offer of Life to Suffering Women 淫妇救主(约翰福音7:53-8:11):耶稣的回答，是给受苦妇女生命的礼物

IF 0.1

Perichoresis Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2021-0021

Annelien C. Rabie-Boshoff

引用次数: 0

A Critical Examination of the Church’s Reception of Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan of AD 313 对教会接受公元313年君士坦丁皇帝米兰敕令的批判性考察

IF 0.1

Perichoresis Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.2478/perc-2021-0023

Jeremiah Mutie

{"title":"A Critical Examination of the Church’s Reception of Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan of AD 313","authors":"Jeremiah Mutie","doi":"10.2478/perc-2021-0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2021-0023","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since its enactment in AD 313, the Edict of Milan (sometimes referred to as ‘the Edict of Toleration’), an edict that freed Christianity from empire-wide persecution, Constantine’s declaration has received a significant amount of attention within Christendom. Most of the discussion has centered on Constantine’s conversion, the precursor to the actual edict (whether the conversion was real or insincere, as some have suggested), with many suggesting that Constantine was acting more as a politician than a Christian. While this line of inquiry is legitimate, perhaps a better approach to the question may be more helpful to present-day Christians. That is, while it is logical to deduce that every prudent politician will ignore the largest religious movement in his/her time at his/her own peril, Christians of every age will be better served if they critically evaluate their reception of each and every major policy that is clearly aimed at their benefit. With this background, this paper will attempt to critically examine the reception of Constantine’s edict by the Church in the years immediately following its enactment. Two early exhibits will be brought to bear here: the Donatist controversy and the Arian controversy. In so doing, the thesis that while Christians had every reason to celebrate the enactment of the edict, down the road, an uncritical adoption of the emperor’s policies and favors towards the church opened a door for an unhealthy marriage between earthly powers and the church that proved detrimental in the ensuing years, will be defended. As such, the Church’s reception of the Edict of Milan continues to be a lesson to Christians of every age in their relationship with the political leadership of their time.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88428126","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}

引用次数: 0