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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".