{"title":"1560年代早期路德宗和改革宗的辩论","authors":"R. Cross","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0004","DOIUrl":null,"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":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lutheran and Reformed Debates in the Early 1560s\",\"authors\":\"R. Cross\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communicatio Idiomatum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communicatio Idiomatum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846970.003.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
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.