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...
| Published in: | Scottish journal of theology |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2023
|
| In: |
Scottish journal of theology
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Polyander a Kerckhoven, Johannes 1568-1646
/ Vocation
/ Effectiveness
/ Reformed Church
/ Arminians
|
| IxTheo Classification: | KAG Church history 1500-1648; Reformation; humanism; Renaissance KBD Benelux countries KDD Protestant Church NBL Doctrine of Predestination |
| Further subjects: | B
internal call
B Reprobation B Leiden Synopsis B Dordt B Arminius B Calling |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | 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 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Scottish journal of theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0036930622000953 |