| Subject: Re: Thank you |
Author:
Clement LO
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:29:10 12/10/04 Fri
In reply to:
Liberal
's message, "Thank you" on 11:24:23 12/10/04 Fri
The best heterologists are always from the conservative camp. So, only the conservative side will favour a kind of distilled and detailed summary and critique. [And usually this kind of article is easier to obtain a free copyright...]
On my part, I am also interested, despite ignorant, of the history of liberalism. I am aware of the influence of Kant, but can't really draw up a sketch of how the influences really were.
Usually the "liberalists" would only produce big books. Schleiermacher has written a book "The Christian Belief" (Der Christliche Glaube, 2 vol.). Bultmann has 4 books on "Faith and Understanding" (Glaube und Verstehen). Adolf von Harnack has 7 books on "The History of Dogma", yet he has a short lecture on the essence of Christianity".
>Thank you Clement and XOX.
>
>It was me who posted a link to Sawyer's article
>because the major part of it serves as a detailed
>introduction to the history of Liberalism. The
>relatively short "critique" and "conclusion" sections
>are written from an unmistakably conservative
>perspective. This outline-and-critique formula is all
>too typical for matertials from conservative sources.
>I am confident that the discerned reader will be able
>to read beyond that formula.
>
>Thanks to Clement for his painstaking translation of
>part of the article. It was an outstanding
>translation indeed. The section "The Roots of
>Liberalism" ("自由主義的基源"), however, has not been
>traslated. That section might be of highest interest
>for those who asked about the history of Liberalism.
>That said, I must make clear that I do not mean to
>criticize (translation of that long section would be
>too demanding). Instead, I must express again my
>gratitude and appreciation to Clement here.
>
>Thanks XOX for your sensitivity and prompt defence of
>Liberalism. While Machen remarked that
>"Liberalism...was...opposed to historic Christianity",
>I would say, yes, the historic Christianity is
>appropriate for the historic world because people of
>the historic world held a historic worldview. The
>historic Christianity, however, is inappropriate for
>today's world because today's people is holding a
>worldview which is different from the historic
>worldview. Today's world requires a renewed
>Christianity to speak to today's people.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 