也许奇怪的是,加尔文在寻求神圣真理时对哲学的从属地位的遗产既不明确也不持久。在他自己的一生中,像西奥多·贝扎这样的日内瓦神学家对于掌握学术神学和哲学的工具更为乐观,似乎已经远离了加尔文所坚持的等级制度。在下个世纪,一些最重要的新教学者神学家会在日内瓦学院任教,或至少在那里教他们的想法。现代神学和史学斗争存在于这种变化所带来的,以及它的重要意义。像布莱恩·阿姆斯特朗(Brian G. Armstrong)这样的一些人认为,这种向学术思想模式的转变代表了改革宗神学内容的不可避免的转变,从而脱离了加尔文的神学项目。其他人,特别是理查德·穆勒(Richard Muller),认为没有学术神学的原始时间,而且学术方法是内容中立的。无论如何,显而易见的是,到了17世纪中期,加尔文经常对使用哲学表达的谨慎态度已经失传。由于失败,失去了加尔文独特的哲学挪用。

美国埃默里大学Essay代写:哲学的从属地位

Perhaps strangely, Calvin’s legacy on the subordinate position of philosophy in the search for divine truth is neither clear, nor lasting. During his own lifetime, Genevan theologians such as Theodore Beza were far more sanguine about grasping the tools of scholastic theology and philosophy, and seem to have been moving away from that hierarchy upon which Calvin insisted. Within the next century, some of the foremost Protestant scholastic theologians would teach at the Genevan Academy, or at least have their ideas taught there. A modern theological and historiographical struggle exists over what that change entails, and what its significance must be. Some, like Brian G. Armstrong, have argued that this shift towards scholastic models of thought represent an inevitable shift in the content of Reformed theology, and thus a falling away from Calvin’s theological project. Others, notably Richard Muller, have contended that there was not an original time without scholastic theology, and that scholastic method is content neutral. In any case, what is clear is that by the mid-17th century, the caution which Calvin so frequently expressed about the use of philosophy, had been lost. With its loss came the loss of Calvin’s distinctive appropriation of philosophy.

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注