John Colquhoun

J. Fesko
{"title":"John Colquhoun","authors":"J. Fesko","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190071363.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the nineteenth century indifference toward the doctrine of works grew to outright rejection and hostility because of the influence of higher criticism and negative opinions of Reformed scholasticism. Critics of the doctrine argued that in order for the doctrine to be legitimate, there had to be an explicit biblical statement attesting to its existence. This was a change from earlier exegetical patterns of argumentation. Critics also characterized the covenant of works as an agreement between equals, which was an erroneous understanding of God’s dealings with Adam. Proponents of the doctrine, however, maintained earlier methodologies and commitments, saw Reformed scholastic theology as a good resource, and were careful to qualify their definitions of covenant to ensure that it was not construed as an agreement between equals. Theologians such as John Colquhoun promoted the doctrine.","PeriodicalId":399283,"journal":{"name":"The Covenant of Works","volume":"1 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/9780190071363.003.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the nineteenth century indifference toward the doctrine of works grew to outright rejection and hostility because of the influence of higher criticism and negative opinions of Reformed scholasticism. Critics of the doctrine argued that in order for the doctrine to be legitimate, there had to be an explicit biblical statement attesting to its existence. This was a change from earlier exegetical patterns of argumentation. Critics also characterized the covenant of works as an agreement between equals, which was an erroneous understanding of God’s dealings with Adam. Proponents of the doctrine, however, maintained earlier methodologies and commitments, saw Reformed scholastic theology as a good resource, and were careful to qualify their definitions of covenant to ensure that it was not construed as an agreement between equals. Theologians such as John Colquhoun promoted the doctrine.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
约翰Colquhoun
在19世纪,由于受到更高层次的批评和对改革宗经院哲学的负面看法的影响,对作品学说的冷漠逐渐发展为彻底的拒绝和敌意。该教义的批评者认为,为了使该教义合法,必须有一个明确的圣经声明来证明其存在。这是对早期训诂论证模式的一种改变。批评者还把行为之约描述为平等之间的协议,这是对上帝与亚当交往的错误理解。然而,该教义的支持者坚持早期的方法和承诺,认为改革宗经院神学是一种很好的资源,并且小心翼翼地限定了他们对契约的定义,以确保它不会被解释为平等之间的协议。像John Colquhoun这样的神学家推广了这一教义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Reformation Conclusion The Westminster Standards Thomas Boston Jacob Arminius
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1