Johannes Polyander and the inefficacious internal call: An Arminian compromise?
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...
| Главный автор: | |
|---|---|
| Формат: | Электронный ресурс Статья |
| Язык: | Английский |
| Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Загрузка...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Опубликовано: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2023
|
| В: |
Scottish journal of theology
Год: 2023, Том: 76, Выпуск: 2, Страницы: 112-125 |
| Нормированные ключевые слова (последовательности): | B
Polyander a Kerckhoven, Johannes 1568-1646
/ Призвание (мотив)
/ Эффективность
/ Реформированная церковь
/ Арминианцы
|
| Индексация IxTheo: | KAG Реформация KBD Страны Бенилюкса KDD Евангелическая церковь NBL Предопределение |
| Другие ключевые слова: | B
internal call
B Reprobation B Leiden Synopsis B Dordt B Arminius B Calling |
| Online-ссылка: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Итог: | 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1475-3065 |
| Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: Scottish journal of theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0036930622000953 |