Emerging Neo-Calvinistic Barth Interpretation in Sinophone Scholarship: Its Significance for Sino-Christian Theology

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION Logos & Pneuma-Chinese Journal of Theology Pub Date : 2022-11-28 DOI:10.1163/27726606-20220009
S. Tseng
{"title":"Emerging Neo-Calvinistic Barth Interpretation in Sinophone Scholarship: Its Significance for Sino-Christian Theology","authors":"S. Tseng","doi":"10.1163/27726606-20220009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Theology and philosophy are strange bedfellows: although they share many similar interests and constantly influence each other, their relationship is fraught with suspicion or even enmity. This problem is especially acute for those who want to harmonize their commitment to sola Scriptura with the use of philosophy in their theology. Drawing insights from Herman Bavinck’s Neo-Calvinist worldview, I argue that this apparent competition is mainly caused by the failure to recognize the organic unity between both disciplines. Without theology, all disciplines would be meaningless, but without philosophy, all disciplines would be unintelligible. Portraying the harmony between theology and philosophy depends on the success of locating the difference and relationship between the universality of theology and that of philosophy. Further, the organicity that suffuses all things and affirms the primacy of special revelation reflects the Neo-Calvinist belief in both sola scriptura and the sacredness of all vocations.","PeriodicalId":41940,"journal":{"name":"Logos & Pneuma-Chinese Journal of Theology","volume":"72 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logos & Pneuma-Chinese Journal of Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27726606-20220009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Theology and philosophy are strange bedfellows: although they share many similar interests and constantly influence each other, their relationship is fraught with suspicion or even enmity. This problem is especially acute for those who want to harmonize their commitment to sola Scriptura with the use of philosophy in their theology. Drawing insights from Herman Bavinck’s Neo-Calvinist worldview, I argue that this apparent competition is mainly caused by the failure to recognize the organic unity between both disciplines. Without theology, all disciplines would be meaningless, but without philosophy, all disciplines would be unintelligible. Portraying the harmony between theology and philosophy depends on the success of locating the difference and relationship between the universality of theology and that of philosophy. Further, the organicity that suffuses all things and affirms the primacy of special revelation reflects the Neo-Calvinist belief in both sola scriptura and the sacredness of all vocations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新加尔文主义在华语学术中的巴斯特诠释:对中国基督教神学的意义
神学和哲学是奇怪的同床共枕:尽管他们有许多相似的兴趣,并不断相互影响,但他们的关系充满了怀疑,甚至是敌意。对于那些想要在神学中运用哲学来协调他们对唯独圣经的承诺的人来说,这个问题尤其尖锐。从Herman Bavinck的新加尔文主义世界观中,我认为这种明显的竞争主要是由于未能认识到这两个学科之间的有机统一。没有神学,所有的学科都将毫无意义,但没有哲学,所有的学科都将是不可理解的。描绘神学与哲学的和谐关系,取决于能否正确定位神学普遍性与哲学普遍性的区别与关系。此外,充满万物的有机性,肯定了特殊启示的首要地位,反映了新加尔文主义者对唯独圣经和所有职业神圣性的信仰。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Theological Method of Chinese Theology in the Republican Era (1911–1949) “Merciful Substitution”: A Comparative-Theological Appraisal of George Hunsinger’s Philippians from an Evangelical Reformed Perspective The Influence of Renaissance Thought on Martin Luther’s View of Liberty Reconstruction of Humanist Criticism Based on the Revealed Theology of Relation Experiment of the World-Picture Logic Philosophy: Towards a Relational Theology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1