{"title":"论耶稣基督是创造的中保","authors":"E. Conradie","doi":"10.5952/54-0-347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This contribution offers reflection on two of Dirkie Smit’s\n conversation partners, namely Herman Bavinck and Karl Barth. It notes that both are\n deeply Trinitarian theologians, but also that such a Trinitarian approach has to\n address a number of underlying difficulties with respect to the work of the Father,\n Son and Holy Spirit. On this basis the distinct positions of Bavinck and Barth on\n the relationship between Christ and creation is explored. Both would confirm that\n Jesus Christ is the “Mediator of creation” but adopt different approaches in this\n regard. Such underlying differences are explored and highlighted with the help of GC\n Berkouwer’s attempt to mediate between these approaches. The essay concludes with\n the observation that Smit’s emphasis on the centrality of the resurrection may\n suggest a critical correction to discourse on “Christ and creation”.","PeriodicalId":18902,"journal":{"name":"Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Jesus Christ as Mediator of creation\",\"authors\":\"E. Conradie\",\"doi\":\"10.5952/54-0-347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This contribution offers reflection on two of Dirkie Smit’s\\n conversation partners, namely Herman Bavinck and Karl Barth. It notes that both are\\n deeply Trinitarian theologians, but also that such a Trinitarian approach has to\\n address a number of underlying difficulties with respect to the work of the Father,\\n Son and Holy Spirit. On this basis the distinct positions of Bavinck and Barth on\\n the relationship between Christ and creation is explored. Both would confirm that\\n Jesus Christ is the “Mediator of creation” but adopt different approaches in this\\n regard. Such underlying differences are explored and highlighted with the help of GC\\n Berkouwer’s attempt to mediate between these approaches. The essay concludes with\\n the observation that Smit’s emphasis on the centrality of the resurrection may\\n suggest a critical correction to discourse on “Christ and creation”.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5952/54-0-347\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5952/54-0-347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This contribution offers reflection on two of Dirkie Smit’s
conversation partners, namely Herman Bavinck and Karl Barth. It notes that both are
deeply Trinitarian theologians, but also that such a Trinitarian approach has to
address a number of underlying difficulties with respect to the work of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. On this basis the distinct positions of Bavinck and Barth on
the relationship between Christ and creation is explored. Both would confirm that
Jesus Christ is the “Mediator of creation” but adopt different approaches in this
regard. Such underlying differences are explored and highlighted with the help of GC
Berkouwer’s attempt to mediate between these approaches. The essay concludes with
the observation that Smit’s emphasis on the centrality of the resurrection may
suggest a critical correction to discourse on “Christ and creation”.