Presenting first historical studies then philosophical and theological studies, they consider such topics as the response of the Spanish kingdoms to the reform efforts of the Council of Constance (1414-18), reading Cusanus' Cribratio Alkorani (1461) in the light of antiquarianism at the Papal Court in the 1450s, sharing friends and foes: on the relation between Nicholas Cusanus and Martin Luther, between time and eternity: Neoplatonic precursors to Cusanus' conception of "non-temporal time" in De aequalitate, and the Conjecture on the Last Days (Coniectura de ultimis diebus): Cusanus and concordist
About one-quarter of Theistic Evolution is a strident defense of a concordist
hermeneutic, which ultimately undergirds this antievolutionary God-of-the-gaps view of origins.
One wonders whether the latter expression would also apply to Renaissance philosophers who exhibited concordist
tendencies, such as Ficino and Giovanni Pico, among others.
To win the allegiance of the common people to the settlement, a deacon in Dresden, Caspar Fuger, published a simple explanation and defense of the Concordist
effort intended to convince the common people of the legitimacy of the Book of Concord.
There are those who may wish to push further toward a more concordist
In his criticism of theistic evolution, Rossiter attempts to gather scientific arguments against biological evolution, but it is quite obvious that the foundation of his God-of-the-gaps thesis rests firmly on a concordist
hermeneutic, not science.
The canonical view I will defend here disagrees with both the fundamentalist and concordist
views, but in what follows, it is the fundamentalist position that I will focus on for two reasons: first, because it does the most mischief, and second, because if my case against fundamentalism succeeds, the concordist
position goes away along with it.
Rooted deeply in a concordist
hermeneutic of Genesis 1-3, this doctrine claims that the Creator originally made a "very good" world (Gen.
However, a concordist
hermeneutic ultimately directs his interpretation of the scientific evidence.
The frank truth is that I cannot recommend this book to anybody, except as a case study in concordist
I rejected the historicity of Genesis 1-11 and concordist
interpretations of these chapters in seminary when I was still a thoroughly committed anti-evolutionist.
Yet it is worth noting that Paul's views are based on a concordist
reading of Genesis 3.