| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA990005932880403321 |
|
|
Autore |
Berezowski, M. Conrad |
|
|
Titolo |
Code penal Polonais du 11 Juillet 1932 et loi sur les contraventions / Traduit sous la direction de Stanislas Rappaport, M.Emile. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Locazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collocazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA990009192950403321 |
|
|
Autore |
Istituto geografico militare |
|
|
Titolo |
Plataci [Documento cartografico] / IGM |
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 carta : color. ; 58 x 47 cm su foglio 87 x 60 cm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Carta topografica d'Italia , Serie 25 ; 535, 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Locazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collocazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale cartografico a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Fonti di compilazione: ripresa aerofotogrammetrica 1984, ricognizione 1987 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910961450403321 |
|
|
Autore |
Witte Pieter de |
|
|
Titolo |
Doctrine, dynamic and difference / Pieter de Witte |
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
London ; New York, : T&T Clark, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
9786613609182 |
9780567660732 |
0567660737 |
9781280579417 |
1280579412 |
9780567484970 |
0567484971 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (273 pages) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Ecclesiological investigations ; v. 15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Justification (Christian theology) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references (pages 241-250) and index |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
1. Introduction -- 2. The Joint Declaration on Justification: Basis Issues -- 3. Reception of Theological Advances -- 4. The Reception of Previous Dialogue Results -- 5. The Joint Declaration: A Textual Analysis -- 6. Conclusion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
"One of the most divisive issues in Western Christianity since the Reformation is the question of how humans are justified by God. In 1999, after many decades of ecumenical dialogue, Lutherans and Roman Catholics have declared that this issue of 'justification by faith' is no longer a cause of division between them. One of the fascinating features of this Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) is that it expresses a 'differentiated consensus' on justification. The method of differentiated consensus is generally regarded as an important methodological step forward in the ecumenical dialogue. It has been used and referred to in ecumenical documents published after 1999. But what are its meaning and implications? This study attempts to clarify the method of differentiated consensus by (1) investigating the process of doctrinal rapprochement which led up to the JDDJ, (2) examining the way the consensus takes shape in the document itself, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) analyzing arguments offered by critics and advocates of the official dialogue and (4) reflecting on the concept of doctrinal difference."--Bloomsbury Publishing |
One of the most divisive issues in Western Christianity since the Reformation is the question of how humans are justified by God. In 1999, after many decades of ecumenical dialogue, Lutherans and Roman Catholics have declared that this issue of 'justification by faith' is no longer a cause of division between them. One of the fascinating features of this Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) is that it expresses a 'differentiated consensus' on justification. The method of differentiated consensus is generally regarded as an important methodological step forward in the ecumenical dialogue. It has been used and referred to in ecumenical documents published after 1999. But what are its meaning and implications? This study attempts to clarify the method of differentiated consensus by (1) investigating the process of doctrinal rapprochement which led up to the JDDJ, (2) examining the way the consensus takes shape in the document itself, (3) analyzing arguments offered by critics and advocates of the official dialogue and (4) reflecting on the concept of doctrinal difference |
|
|
|
|
|
| |