A profound split is evident during the period 1670-1730 in the way European scholars and commentators attempted to understand and describe classical Chinese thought. For some, Confucianism acknowledged divine creation...A profound split is evident during the period 1670-1730 in the way European scholars and commentators attempted to understand and describe classical Chinese thought. For some, Confucianism acknowledged divine creation and divine governance of the world, immortality of the soul and other elements of Natural Theology. The Radical Enlightenment thinkers, however, and also some Christian scholars denied that Confucianism was based on Natural Theology or pervaded by belief in divine providence, characterizing it rather as monist, naturalist and Spinozist. The disagreement proved fundamental in several respects and proved divisive for the Church, as well as European thought more generally, producing a series of lively disputes that continued over several decades.展开更多
1934年5月,瑞士神学家埃米尔·布鲁纳(EmilBrunner)发表《自然与恩典——与卡尔·巴特商榷》(Natur und Gnade:zum Gespr?ch mit K a r lBa r t h)一文,公开指出巴特神学单方面强调上帝启示的片面性(Einseitigkeit),谴责巴特违...1934年5月,瑞士神学家埃米尔·布鲁纳(EmilBrunner)发表《自然与恩典——与卡尔·巴特商榷》(Natur und Gnade:zum Gespr?ch mit K a r lBa r t h)一文,公开指出巴特神学单方面强调上帝启示的片面性(Einseitigkeit),谴责巴特违背加尔文的教导。展开更多
文摘A profound split is evident during the period 1670-1730 in the way European scholars and commentators attempted to understand and describe classical Chinese thought. For some, Confucianism acknowledged divine creation and divine governance of the world, immortality of the soul and other elements of Natural Theology. The Radical Enlightenment thinkers, however, and also some Christian scholars denied that Confucianism was based on Natural Theology or pervaded by belief in divine providence, characterizing it rather as monist, naturalist and Spinozist. The disagreement proved fundamental in several respects and proved divisive for the Church, as well as European thought more generally, producing a series of lively disputes that continued over several decades.
文摘1934年5月,瑞士神学家埃米尔·布鲁纳(EmilBrunner)发表《自然与恩典——与卡尔·巴特商榷》(Natur und Gnade:zum Gespr?ch mit K a r lBa r t h)一文,公开指出巴特神学单方面强调上帝启示的片面性(Einseitigkeit),谴责巴特违背加尔文的教导。
