路德vs路德派(和天主教徒)

Nicholas A. Cumming
{"title":"路德vs路德派(和天主教徒)","authors":"Nicholas A. Cumming","doi":"10.1163/18712428-bja10056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article examines the reception and authority of Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon in Francis Turretin’s (1623–1687) Institutio Theologiae Elencticae (1679–1685). Scholarship on the reception of the Reformers in seventeenth-century Calvinism has continued to grow and I argue that Turretin utilized both Luther and Melanchthon in fluid and diverse ways. In particular, Luther and Melanchthon, alongside being authorities against Roman Catholicism, were also used as evidence against the “innovations” of seventeenth-century Lutherans. For Turretin, Luther and Melanchthon were two of God’s prophets sent at the Reformation and Catholics and Lutherans needed to return to “pure” Reformed doctrine as illustrated by Luther and Melanchthon. Though these two were not the only sources of authority for Turretin, they were substantial witnesses against Lutheran and Catholic innovations in the post-Reformation period. Ultimately for Turretin, Luther and Melanchthon were more Reformed than they were Lutheran.","PeriodicalId":41958,"journal":{"name":"Church History and Religious Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Luther vs. the Lutherans (and Catholics)\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas A. Cumming\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18712428-bja10056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article examines the reception and authority of Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon in Francis Turretin’s (1623–1687) Institutio Theologiae Elencticae (1679–1685). Scholarship on the reception of the Reformers in seventeenth-century Calvinism has continued to grow and I argue that Turretin utilized both Luther and Melanchthon in fluid and diverse ways. In particular, Luther and Melanchthon, alongside being authorities against Roman Catholicism, were also used as evidence against the “innovations” of seventeenth-century Lutherans. For Turretin, Luther and Melanchthon were two of God’s prophets sent at the Reformation and Catholics and Lutherans needed to return to “pure” Reformed doctrine as illustrated by Luther and Melanchthon. Though these two were not the only sources of authority for Turretin, they were substantial witnesses against Lutheran and Catholic innovations in the post-Reformation period. Ultimately for Turretin, Luther and Melanchthon were more Reformed than they were Lutheran.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41958,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Church History and Religious Culture\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Church History and Religious Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18712428-bja10056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Church History and Religious Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18712428-bja10056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了马丁·路德和菲利普·梅兰希顿在弗朗西斯·杜伦(1623-1687)的《神学学院》(1679-1685)中的接受和权威。关于接受十七世纪加尔文主义改革家的学术研究一直在增长,我认为特雷廷以不同的方式利用了路德和梅兰希顿。特别是,路德和梅兰希顿,除了作为反对罗马天主教的权威之外,也被用来作为反对十七世纪路德会“创新”的证据。在特雷廷看来,路德和梅兰希顿是上帝派来进行宗教改革的两位先知,天主教徒和路德教徒需要回归路德和梅兰希顿所阐释的“纯粹的”改革宗教义。虽然这两个人并不是特雷廷唯一的权威来源,但他们是反对路德教会和天主教改革后时期创新的重要证人。最终,对杜仁廷来说,路德和梅兰希顿更倾向于改革宗,而不是路德宗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Luther vs. the Lutherans (and Catholics)
This article examines the reception and authority of Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon in Francis Turretin’s (1623–1687) Institutio Theologiae Elencticae (1679–1685). Scholarship on the reception of the Reformers in seventeenth-century Calvinism has continued to grow and I argue that Turretin utilized both Luther and Melanchthon in fluid and diverse ways. In particular, Luther and Melanchthon, alongside being authorities against Roman Catholicism, were also used as evidence against the “innovations” of seventeenth-century Lutherans. For Turretin, Luther and Melanchthon were two of God’s prophets sent at the Reformation and Catholics and Lutherans needed to return to “pure” Reformed doctrine as illustrated by Luther and Melanchthon. Though these two were not the only sources of authority for Turretin, they were substantial witnesses against Lutheran and Catholic innovations in the post-Reformation period. Ultimately for Turretin, Luther and Melanchthon were more Reformed than they were Lutheran.
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊最新文献
An Analysis of Guy de Brès’ Le baston (1559–1565), Chapter 10: Baptism Connected by Books A Comparison of Guy de Brès’ Le baston de la foy chrestienne and the Belgic Confession on Church and State The Preface and Catalogue des Docteurs et Conciles in Guy de Brès’ Le baston de la foy chrestienne Confession to God and Reconciliation with Neighbours
×
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