约翰内斯·波利安德和无效的内部呼吁:阿米尼式的妥协?

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION
Cory Griess
{"title":"约翰内斯·波利安德和无效的内部呼吁:阿米尼式的妥协?","authors":"Cory Griess","doi":"10.1017/S0036930622000953","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the thirtieth disputation of the Leiden Synopsis (1622), Johannes Polyander elucidates what he considers to be the Reformed doctrine of vocatio. In his explanation of this doctrine, Polyander makes surprising statements concerning the internal call. He teaches that not only the external call, but also the internal call can come to the reprobate. It does not do so all the time, but it does so sometimes, especially in the sphere of the covenant. Yet, when it does, that internal call is ineffectual. This doctrine of an ineffectual internal call is not found in the Canons of Dordt (1618–19), nor in disputations held before the cycle of disputations that became the Leiden Synopsis. Was Polyander's view a compromise with Arminianism? Or was Polyander actually defending Dordt's doctrine? This article builds on Henk van Den Belt's cursory conclusion to this question by providing proof that Polyander was in fact defending Dordt.","PeriodicalId":44026,"journal":{"name":"SCOTTISH JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY","volume":"76 1","pages":"112 - 125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Johannes Polyander and the inefficacious internal call: An Arminian compromise?\",\"authors\":\"Cory Griess\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0036930622000953\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In the thirtieth disputation of the Leiden Synopsis (1622), Johannes Polyander elucidates what he considers to be the Reformed doctrine of vocatio. In his explanation of this doctrine, Polyander makes surprising statements concerning the internal call. He teaches that not only the external call, but also the internal call can come to the reprobate. It does not do so all the time, but it does so sometimes, especially in the sphere of the covenant. Yet, when it does, that internal call is ineffectual. This doctrine of an ineffectual internal call is not found in the Canons of Dordt (1618–19), nor in disputations held before the cycle of disputations that became the Leiden Synopsis. Was Polyander's view a compromise with Arminianism? Or was Polyander actually defending Dordt's doctrine? This article builds on Henk van Den Belt's cursory conclusion to this question by providing proof that Polyander was in fact defending Dordt.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SCOTTISH JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY\",\"volume\":\"76 1\",\"pages\":\"112 - 125\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SCOTTISH JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930622000953\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SCOTTISH JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930622000953","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在《莱顿概要》(1622)的第三十篇论辩中,约翰内斯·波利安德阐明了他认为是改革宗的圣召教义。在他对这一学说的解释中,波利安德对内在召唤做出了令人惊讶的陈述。他教导说,不仅是外在的召唤,内在的召唤也可以召唤恶人。它并不是一直如此,但有时确实如此,尤其是在契约的领域。然而,当它这样做时,内部调用是无效的。这种无效的内部召唤的学说在《多特信条》(1618-19)中找不到,也没有在成为《莱顿概要》的争论周期之前举行的争论中找到。波利安德的观点是对阿米念主义的妥协吗?或者波利安德实际上是在捍卫多特的学说?本文以Henk van Den Belt对这个问题的粗略结论为基础,提供证据证明Polyander实际上是在为Dordt辩护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Johannes Polyander and the inefficacious internal call: An Arminian compromise?
Abstract In the thirtieth disputation of the Leiden Synopsis (1622), Johannes Polyander elucidates what he considers to be the Reformed doctrine of vocatio. In his explanation of this doctrine, Polyander makes surprising statements concerning the internal call. He teaches that not only the external call, but also the internal call can come to the reprobate. It does not do so all the time, but it does so sometimes, especially in the sphere of the covenant. Yet, when it does, that internal call is ineffectual. This doctrine of an ineffectual internal call is not found in the Canons of Dordt (1618–19), nor in disputations held before the cycle of disputations that became the Leiden Synopsis. Was Polyander's view a compromise with Arminianism? Or was Polyander actually defending Dordt's doctrine? This article builds on Henk van Den Belt's cursory conclusion to this question by providing proof that Polyander was in fact defending Dordt.
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
79
×
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