幸福的愿景和天上的调解基督

Q2 Arts and Humanities TheoLogica Pub Date : 2018-09-22 DOI:10.14428/THL.V2I2.7623
S. Gaine
{"title":"幸福的愿景和天上的调解基督","authors":"S. Gaine","doi":"10.14428/THL.V2I2.7623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that Thomas Aquinas is to be interpreted as holding that the beatific vision of the saints is causally dependent on the glorified humanity of Christ. It opposes the view that, for Aquinas, Christ’s humanity has causal significance only for those who are being brought to the beatific vision by grace, and not for those who have attained this vision, such that there is a Christological deficit in Aquinas’s eschatology. The argument proceeds somewhat in the manner of an article of Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae. Having briefly outlined the recent debate, especially the contribution of Hans Boersma, two objections are put against my position. A sed contra is formulated on the basis of quotations from the Summa. The responsio is based on Aquinas’s extensive use of a philosophical ‘principle of the maximum’ and its particular application by Aquinas to grace. After replies to the objections, based on the method and structure of the Summa, I locate Aquinas’s position in the debate on Christ’s heavenly mediation between that of John Calvin and that of John Owen and Jonathan Edwards.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":"129 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Beatific Vision and the Heavenly Mediation of Christ\",\"authors\":\"S. Gaine\",\"doi\":\"10.14428/THL.V2I2.7623\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article argues that Thomas Aquinas is to be interpreted as holding that the beatific vision of the saints is causally dependent on the glorified humanity of Christ. It opposes the view that, for Aquinas, Christ’s humanity has causal significance only for those who are being brought to the beatific vision by grace, and not for those who have attained this vision, such that there is a Christological deficit in Aquinas’s eschatology. The argument proceeds somewhat in the manner of an article of Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae. Having briefly outlined the recent debate, especially the contribution of Hans Boersma, two objections are put against my position. A sed contra is formulated on the basis of quotations from the Summa. The responsio is based on Aquinas’s extensive use of a philosophical ‘principle of the maximum’ and its particular application by Aquinas to grace. After replies to the objections, based on the method and structure of the Summa, I locate Aquinas’s position in the debate on Christ’s heavenly mediation between that of John Calvin and that of John Owen and Jonathan Edwards.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TheoLogica\",\"volume\":\"129 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TheoLogica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14428/THL.V2I2.7623\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TheoLogica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14428/THL.V2I2.7623","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文认为,托马斯·阿奎那应该被解释为认为圣徒的幸福愿景是因果地依赖于基督的荣耀人性。它反对阿奎那的观点,即基督的人性只对那些被恩典带向幸福愿景的人有因果意义,而对那些已经获得这种愿景的人没有因果意义,因此阿奎那的末世论中存在基督论的缺陷。争论的进行多少有点像阿奎那的《神学总论》的一篇文章。在简要概述了最近的辩论,特别是汉斯·布尔斯马的贡献之后,有人对我的立场提出了两个反对意见。根据《总论》中的引文,形成了一个对比。这种回应是基于阿奎那对哲学“最大值原则”的广泛使用,以及阿奎那对恩典的特殊应用。在回答了反对意见之后,基于《总论》的方法和结构,我将阿奎那的立场定位在约翰·加尔文、约翰·欧文和乔纳森·爱德华兹之间关于基督在天上的调解的辩论中。
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
The Beatific Vision and the Heavenly Mediation of Christ
This article argues that Thomas Aquinas is to be interpreted as holding that the beatific vision of the saints is causally dependent on the glorified humanity of Christ. It opposes the view that, for Aquinas, Christ’s humanity has causal significance only for those who are being brought to the beatific vision by grace, and not for those who have attained this vision, such that there is a Christological deficit in Aquinas’s eschatology. The argument proceeds somewhat in the manner of an article of Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae. Having briefly outlined the recent debate, especially the contribution of Hans Boersma, two objections are put against my position. A sed contra is formulated on the basis of quotations from the Summa. The responsio is based on Aquinas’s extensive use of a philosophical ‘principle of the maximum’ and its particular application by Aquinas to grace. After replies to the objections, based on the method and structure of the Summa, I locate Aquinas’s position in the debate on Christ’s heavenly mediation between that of John Calvin and that of John Owen and Jonathan Edwards.
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
TheoLogica
TheoLogica Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Scholastic Hylomorphism and Dean Zimmerman O felix culpa! Presentism, Timelessness, and Evil A Divine Alternative to Zimmerman’s Emergent Dualism What the Experience of Transience Tells Us About the Afterlife
×
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