相互误解:赫尔曼-巴文克与杜米特鲁-斯塔尼洛埃的对话

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION
Robert Simpson
{"title":"相互误解:赫尔曼-巴文克与杜米特鲁-斯塔尼洛埃的对话","authors":"Robert Simpson","doi":"10.2478/perc-2024-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper examines the criticisms of Protestantism articulated by Romanian Eastern Orthodox theologian Dumitru Staniloae, highlighting over-generalizations in his assessments. Staniloae contends that Protestantism embodies dualism, anthropological pessimism, denigration of the sacraments, and indifference to sin, among other issues. This paper argues that some of these assertions reveal a lack of serious engagement and perhaps comprehension of the diverse range of the Protestant tradition. By scrutinizing Staniloae’s contentions through conversing with neo-Calvinist theologian Herman Bavinck, this paper attempts to demonstrate possible misinterpretations in Staniloae’s evaluations related to Protestant soteriology. In the reverse, the paper also evaluates some of Bavinck’s claims related to Palamist thought. Ultimately, this examination confirms that many of Staniloae’s criticisms of Protestantism are misinformed, just as Bavinck’s criticisms of Palamist thought lack both nuance and depth. By engaging in theological dialogue between these two theologians, this paper hopes to promote a greater appreciation for both traditions and the potential for further dialogue.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mutual Misunderstandings: Herman Bavinck and Dumitru Staniloae in Dialogue\",\"authors\":\"Robert Simpson\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/perc-2024-0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper examines the criticisms of Protestantism articulated by Romanian Eastern Orthodox theologian Dumitru Staniloae, highlighting over-generalizations in his assessments. Staniloae contends that Protestantism embodies dualism, anthropological pessimism, denigration of the sacraments, and indifference to sin, among other issues. This paper argues that some of these assertions reveal a lack of serious engagement and perhaps comprehension of the diverse range of the Protestant tradition. By scrutinizing Staniloae’s contentions through conversing with neo-Calvinist theologian Herman Bavinck, this paper attempts to demonstrate possible misinterpretations in Staniloae’s evaluations related to Protestant soteriology. In the reverse, the paper also evaluates some of Bavinck’s claims related to Palamist thought. Ultimately, this examination confirms that many of Staniloae’s criticisms of Protestantism are misinformed, just as Bavinck’s criticisms of Palamist thought lack both nuance and depth. By engaging in theological dialogue between these two theologians, this paper hopes to promote a greater appreciation for both traditions and the potential for further dialogue.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perichoresis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perichoresis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perichoresis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文研究了罗马尼亚东正教神学家杜米特鲁-斯塔尼洛埃(Dumitru Staniloae)对新教的批评,强调他的评价过于笼统。斯塔尼洛埃认为,新教体现了二元论、人类学悲观主义、诋毁圣礼、对罪漠不关心等问题。本文认为,其中一些论断显示出对新教传统的多样性缺乏认真的接触和理解。通过与新加尔文主义神学家赫尔曼-巴文克(Herman Bavinck)的对话,本文对斯坦尼洛艾的论点进行了仔细研究,试图证明斯坦尼洛艾对新教神学的评价可能存在误读。反过来,本文也对巴文克有关帕拉米主义思想的一些主张进行了评估。最终,这一研究证实了斯坦尼洛艾对新教的许多批评是错误的,正如巴文克对帕拉米主义思想的批评缺乏细微差别和深度一样。本文希望通过这两位神学家之间的神学对话,促进对这两种传统的进一步了解,并挖掘进一步对话的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mutual Misunderstandings: Herman Bavinck and Dumitru Staniloae in Dialogue
This paper examines the criticisms of Protestantism articulated by Romanian Eastern Orthodox theologian Dumitru Staniloae, highlighting over-generalizations in his assessments. Staniloae contends that Protestantism embodies dualism, anthropological pessimism, denigration of the sacraments, and indifference to sin, among other issues. This paper argues that some of these assertions reveal a lack of serious engagement and perhaps comprehension of the diverse range of the Protestant tradition. By scrutinizing Staniloae’s contentions through conversing with neo-Calvinist theologian Herman Bavinck, this paper attempts to demonstrate possible misinterpretations in Staniloae’s evaluations related to Protestant soteriology. In the reverse, the paper also evaluates some of Bavinck’s claims related to Palamist thought. Ultimately, this examination confirms that many of Staniloae’s criticisms of Protestantism are misinformed, just as Bavinck’s criticisms of Palamist thought lack both nuance and depth. By engaging in theological dialogue between these two theologians, this paper hopes to promote a greater appreciation for both traditions and the potential for further dialogue.
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
Perichoresis
Perichoresis RELIGION-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信