Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article joins a growing body of scholarship by exploring largely forgotten Reformation figures, such as Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562), and examining how Vermigli made use of the church fathers – Augustine, in our case – in his own context. It argues that Vermigli fundamentally affirms Augustine’s understanding of concupiscence by viewing the primal sin that caused concupiscence as implying the loss of original righteousness, which in turn gave rise to inherited guilt. Vermigli, following Augustine, views the condition of concupiscence as a manifestation of original sin, which results in the total depravity of humanity. However, God’s redemptive work does not end with depravity – concupiscence also calls for the justification of believers by the grace of Jesus Christ. The constitution of Vermigli’s understanding of concupiscence demonstrates that he essentially affirms Augustine’s position, even though there are places where he does not slavishly follow Augustine and instead develops a distinctive Reformed understanding of the subject. Contribution: This article fills a void in Vermigli studies by analysing how he utilises Augustine to substantiate a Reformed position on concupiscence in contrast to Pighius’ view. The analysis reveals the structure of Vermigli’s hamartiology and illuminates the places where it is in continuity with or deviates from Augustine’s perspective.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".