改革宗神学与政治

Bram van de Beek
{"title":"改革宗神学与政治","authors":"Bram van de Beek","doi":"10.5952/54-0-363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Reformed tradition has always been involved in political issues. In terms of this perspective the views of two major Reformed theologians, John Calvin and Karl Barth, are compared with opinions in early Christianity regarding the relation between Christians and politics. Theologians in the early patristic period kept their distance from politics. Calvin pleaded for sober involvement, while Barth eagerly calls for a prophetic participation in the public sphere. These differences may be interpreted as a natural development related to historical changes: from a persecuted community to the corpus christianum, and subsequently to the challenge of a perverse political ideology, and the call for a response in a new situation its defeat. From this perspective all three positions are understandable. However, being true to the Reformed call ad fontes one must conclude that Barth’s theology is totally different from both that of early Christianity and the New Testament. This calls for a reconsideration of positions regarding the relation of church and politics.","PeriodicalId":18902,"journal":{"name":"Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reformed theology and politics\",\"authors\":\"Bram van de Beek\",\"doi\":\"10.5952/54-0-363\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Reformed tradition has always been involved in political issues. In terms of this perspective the views of two major Reformed theologians, John Calvin and Karl Barth, are compared with opinions in early Christianity regarding the relation between Christians and politics. Theologians in the early patristic period kept their distance from politics. Calvin pleaded for sober involvement, while Barth eagerly calls for a prophetic participation in the public sphere. These differences may be interpreted as a natural development related to historical changes: from a persecuted community to the corpus christianum, and subsequently to the challenge of a perverse political ideology, and the call for a response in a new situation its defeat. From this perspective all three positions are understandable. However, being true to the Reformed call ad fontes one must conclude that Barth’s theology is totally different from both that of early Christianity and the New Testament. This calls for a reconsideration of positions regarding the relation of church and politics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5952/54-0-363\",\"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/10.5952/54-0-363","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

改革宗传统总是涉及政治问题。在这一视角下,两位主要改革宗神学家约翰·加尔文和卡尔·巴特的观点与早期基督教关于基督徒与政治关系的观点进行了比较。早期教父时期的神学家与政治保持距离。加尔文恳求清醒的参与,而巴特热切地呼吁在公共领域的先知参与。这些差异可以被解释为与历史变化有关的自然发展:从一个受迫害的社区到基督教主体,随后到一种反常的政治意识形态的挑战,以及在新形势下对其失败的回应的呼吁。从这个角度来看,这三种立场都是可以理解的。然而,要忠于改革宗的呼召和爱好,我们必须得出这样的结论:巴特的神学与早期基督教和新约的神学完全不同。这就要求我们重新考虑关于教会和政治关系的立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reformed theology and politics
The Reformed tradition has always been involved in political issues. In terms of this perspective the views of two major Reformed theologians, John Calvin and Karl Barth, are compared with opinions in early Christianity regarding the relation between Christians and politics. Theologians in the early patristic period kept their distance from politics. Calvin pleaded for sober involvement, while Barth eagerly calls for a prophetic participation in the public sphere. These differences may be interpreted as a natural development related to historical changes: from a persecuted community to the corpus christianum, and subsequently to the challenge of a perverse political ideology, and the call for a response in a new situation its defeat. From this perspective all three positions are understandable. However, being true to the Reformed call ad fontes one must conclude that Barth’s theology is totally different from both that of early Christianity and the New Testament. This calls for a reconsideration of positions regarding the relation of church and politics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Power games: Using Foucault to shed light on the inherent power dynamics of intercultural Bible study groups. Discussion of a qualitative research project The rising prominence of John Owen: A research article of “The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology” Alle kaarte op die preek “Rise up and walk” : tracing the trajectory of the Carnegie discourse and plotting a way forward The relevance of Galatians 5:16-26 in the modern "spiritual intelligence" debate
×
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