正文与评注

A. Lane
{"title":"正文与评注","authors":"A. Lane","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190069421.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter contains the Latin text of Article 5, together with a sentence by sentence commentary. This commentary draws upon the six debaters (Bucer, Melanchthon, Pistorius, Gropper, Eck, Pflug), together with Contarini, Calvin, Luther and Pighius. The chapter also compares Article 5 with the Tridentine Decree on Justification. The conclusion asks to what extent Article 5 can be said to retain “the substance of the true doctrine,” from the perspective of either the Protestant or the Catholic party. This flags a number of issues which need to be resolved in the concluding chapter.","PeriodicalId":412701,"journal":{"name":"The Regensburg Article 5 on Justification","volume":"46 76","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Text and Commentary\",\"authors\":\"A. Lane\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780190069421.003.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter contains the Latin text of Article 5, together with a sentence by sentence commentary. This commentary draws upon the six debaters (Bucer, Melanchthon, Pistorius, Gropper, Eck, Pflug), together with Contarini, Calvin, Luther and Pighius. The chapter also compares Article 5 with the Tridentine Decree on Justification. The conclusion asks to what extent Article 5 can be said to retain “the substance of the true doctrine,” from the perspective of either the Protestant or the Catholic party. This flags a number of issues which need to be resolved in the concluding chapter.\",\"PeriodicalId\":412701,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Regensburg Article 5 on Justification\",\"volume\":\"46 76\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Regensburg Article 5 on Justification\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190069421.003.0006\",\"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 Regensburg Article 5 on Justification","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190069421.003.0006","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

本章载有第5条的拉丁文文本,并附有逐句的评注。这篇评论引用了六名辩手(布塞、梅兰希顿、皮斯托瑞斯、格罗帕、埃克、普flug),以及康塔里尼、加尔文、路德和皮格修斯。本章还比较了第5条与《特伦丁称义法令》。结论提出,无论从新教还是天主教的角度来看,第5条在多大程度上可以说保留了“真正教义的实质”。这标志着需要在结束语中解决的一些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Text and Commentary
This chapter contains the Latin text of Article 5, together with a sentence by sentence commentary. This commentary draws upon the six debaters (Bucer, Melanchthon, Pistorius, Gropper, Eck, Pflug), together with Contarini, Calvin, Luther and Pighius. The chapter also compares Article 5 with the Tridentine Decree on Justification. The conclusion asks to what extent Article 5 can be said to retain “the substance of the true doctrine,” from the perspective of either the Protestant or the Catholic party. This flags a number of issues which need to be resolved in the concluding chapter.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信