威斯敏斯特标准

J. Fesko
{"title":"威斯敏斯特标准","authors":"J. Fesko","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190071363.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many contemporary critics of the Westminster Standards believe that it is a doctrinal straightjacket that narrows the bounds of permissible beliefs within the church. The confession does define the boundaries of orthodoxy but it was written in such a manner as to accommodate several different versions of the covenant of works. The Westminster divines did not agree on whether Adam’s reward was temporal or eternal life. They also disagreed on the proper exegetical foundation for the doctrine. There was also disagreement on the precise way to relate the Adamic and Mosaic covenants. The confession thus codifies the broad parameters of the doctrine to allow for a diversified orthodoxy.","PeriodicalId":399283,"journal":{"name":"The Covenant of Works","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Westminster Standards\",\"authors\":\"J. Fesko\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780190071363.003.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many contemporary critics of the Westminster Standards believe that it is a doctrinal straightjacket that narrows the bounds of permissible beliefs within the church. The confession does define the boundaries of orthodoxy but it was written in such a manner as to accommodate several different versions of the covenant of works. The Westminster divines did not agree on whether Adam’s reward was temporal or eternal life. They also disagreed on the proper exegetical foundation for the doctrine. There was also disagreement on the precise way to relate the Adamic and Mosaic covenants. The confession thus codifies the broad parameters of the doctrine to allow for a diversified orthodoxy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":399283,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Covenant of Works\",\"volume\":\"4 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/9780190071363.003.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Covenant of Works","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190071363.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多对威斯敏斯特标准的当代批评者认为,这是一种教义上的束缚,缩小了教会内部允许信仰的范围。忏悔确实定义了正统的界限,但它的写作方式是为了适应不同版本的工作之约。威斯敏斯特的神学家们对亚当的奖赏是暂时的还是永恒的生命意见不一。他们也不同意正确的训诂基础的教义。在如何准确地把亚当之约和摩西之约联系起来的问题上也存在分歧。因此,信条编纂了教义的广泛参数,以允许多样化的正统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Westminster Standards
Many contemporary critics of the Westminster Standards believe that it is a doctrinal straightjacket that narrows the bounds of permissible beliefs within the church. The confession does define the boundaries of orthodoxy but it was written in such a manner as to accommodate several different versions of the covenant of works. The Westminster divines did not agree on whether Adam’s reward was temporal or eternal life. They also disagreed on the proper exegetical foundation for the doctrine. There was also disagreement on the precise way to relate the Adamic and Mosaic covenants. The confession thus codifies the broad parameters of the doctrine to allow for a diversified orthodoxy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信