Bibliographic record
Abstract
>3tudy of reformation theology has drawn increased attention to the contexts of writers on difficult issues such as free will and predestination.In isolated passages, substantive differences between writers on such issues may seem elusive; often, similar interpretations of key scriptural texts obscure import- ant shifts in focus and emphasis.^Onecrucial context is the writer's concep- tion of law in its civil, Hebraic, Mosaic, and Christian forms; discussions of law, especially important in Western Christianity, focus attention on the possibility and limit of liberty and therefore on the question of voluntary action.John Colet, who died just two years after Luther posted the ninety-five theses, addresses issues concerning human and divine law in commentaries on Paul's epistles and treatises on the mystical body, the sacraments, and Dionysian ontology and ecclesiology.In part Colet' s concept of law reflects interests associated with the via moderna and the influence of Augustine's anti-Pelagian tracts.It adumbrates issues central to the reformation, including the terms of God's covenant or pactum^the power of the instrumental grace, and the priority of God's external judgment in justification; and it reflects nominalist interests in the historical continuity of fiducial justification from Abraham to Christ and a view of moral strife that culminates in spiritual perfection.^Colet'sviews combine the via moderna's emphasis on the interiority of justification with Neoplatonic views of actio drawn from fif- teenth-century Italians.These in turn draw on a second, idealistic form of Augustinianism rooted in De civitate dei and De Trinitate and confirmed in the Eastern tradition.This strain particularly values the Neoplatonic principle of unity expressed in figures such as the heavenly city and the corpus of the church, and it provides a rationale for the contingency of multiple and varied beings.^Pragmatically,Colet's theory of law, unlike Luther's, strongly supports the value of canonic law at the expense of its civil counterparts; unlike Thomas More, however, Colet undercuts the value of all law by Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme, XXVIII, 1 (1992) 57
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".