¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
À̸§°Ë»ö
À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
¸ÞÀϺ¸³»±â

ȨÆäÀÌÁö


À̸§°Ë»ö
<!--TITLE_DATA-->
 
::: ÇÐȸ°øÁö»çÇ× :::


526 2327 Åë°èÄ«¿îÅÍ º¸±â   °ü¸®ÀÚ Á¢¼Ó --+
Name   ¾È¸íÁØ (http://members.tripod.co.kr/amj5http://members.tripod.co.kr/amj5)
Subject   ÇÑ»óÈ­±³¼öÃÊ·Ï Á¦¸ñ À̸§ ¿µ¹®
Çб³´Â ACTS
ÇÐÀ§´Â Ph.D. Sang Hwa Han,

A Critical Study on the Postliberal Theology and the Postconservative Theology

-With Special Reference to George Lindbeck and Stanley Grenz-

 

À̸§:

 

Çб³À̸§: Asia United Theological University



±è´ë¼·¼±»ý´Ô±ÍÇÏ

ÇÑ»óÈ­±³¼ö´ÔÀÇ ÃÊ·ÏÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

´Ê¾î¼­ Á˼ÛÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

ÁÁÀº Ã¥ÀÌ ÆíÁýµÇ±â¸¦ ±âµµÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

¾È¸íÁص帲




¿µ¹® ÃÊ·Ï

    This articles is designed to critically evaluate the postliberal theology and
the postconservative theology for the purpose of seeking the directions of the
evangelical theology. It maintains that the postliberal theology cannot
overcome its own epistemological relativism and the postconservative theology
which follows its footsteps, cannot provide the proper directions of the
evangelical theology. Although I welcome their effort to go beyond the present
division between liberals and conservatives in the theological scene, I suspect
their contention that the division comes from the foundationalist thought.
Rather, I maintain that the real factor of the division comes from the faith
stance. This article concludes that the evangelical theology should fall
neither into the modern objectivism nor the posmodern relativism and be
faithful to the Christian theistic worldview.
    In order to show the above thesis, this article deals with the survey of the
postliberal theology. Then I select George Lindbeck as  its representative and
present his thought. Especially, I focus on his theological method, namely the
cultural-linguistic approach to religion. This approach stresses the
particularity of the religious experience and that religion is like language
which constitutes reality. With this cultural-linguistic approach Lindbeck
provides the rule theory on doctrines. According to him, doctrines are like
rules for a religious community and theology is second-order reflections on the
first-order religious experiences. This paper criticially evaluates Lindbeck's
methods to be relativisitic.
    Second part, this articles deals with the postconservative theology and
Stanley Grenz as its representatives. This paper tries to show that Grenz
shares some relativistic presuppositions with Lindbeck. I deal with Grenz's
suggestions for revision of evangelicalism and also with his recent
suggestsions for the postfoundationalist evangelical theology. But I conclude
that Grenz betrays some postmodern relativisitic tendency and cannot properly
show the directions of evangelical theology.
    Finally, I note that Millard Erickson's contention that the postmodern
emphasis on the historical conditionality does not necessarily lead to
relativism, rather it can be used to reduce one's own subjectivity. I find this
is a very good insight that evangelical theology must heed. Again I contend
that evangelical theology should skillfully steer between modernism and
postmodernism.
Keyword:

Modernism, Postmodernism, Theological Method, Postliberal theology,
Postconservatism theology, Evangelical theology

Çö´ëÁÖÀÇ, Å»Çö´ëÁÖÀÇ, ½ÅÇйæ¹ý·Ð, Å»ÀÚÀ¯ÁÖÀÇ ½ÅÇÐ, Å»º¸¼öÁÖÀÇ ½ÅÇÐ, º¹À½ÁÖÀÇ ½Å
ÇÐ

°Ô½Ã¹°À» À̸ÞÀÏ·Î º¸³»±â ÇÁ¸°Æ®Ãâ·ÂÀ» À§ÇÑ È­¸éº¸±â
DATE: 2003.09.04 - 09:58
LAST UPDATE: 2003.09.04 - 11:03

210.121.229.196 - Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; MSIE5.5/BRT)


 ÀÌÀü±Û º¹À½ÁÖÀÇ Á¶Á÷½ÅÇÐȸ/Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´ø
 ´ÙÀ½±Û WEA ½ÅÇÐÀ§ ¿¬Â÷´ëȸ 2005³â Çѱ¹¼­ ¿­¸°´Ù  
±Û³²±â±â»èÁ¦Çϱâ¼öÁ¤Çϱâ´äº¯´Þ±âÀüü ¸ñ·Ï º¸±â

üũµÈ Ç׸ñ ÇѲ¨¹ø¿¡ º¸±â
86Simple view½Å¾à¿¡ ³ªÅ¸³­ ¼º·É´Ô¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­ /º¯Á¾±æ±³¼ö ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.09.27 14470
85Simple viewÁ¸ Ä®ºóÀÇ ½ÅÇÐÀû Çؼ®ÇÐ ¹ßÇ¥/¾È¸íÁر³¼ö ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.09.23 14421
84Simple view±¹Á¦ °³Çõ ½ÅÇÐ Æ÷·³¿¡·ÎÀÇ ÃÊ´ë/¼ÕºÀÈ£¹Ú»ç ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.09.06 14325
83Simple viewÄ®ºóÁÖÀÇ ¿¬±¸¿ø ¼¼¹Ì³ª ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.09.05 15844
82Simple viewº¹À½ÁÖÀÇ Á¶Á÷½ÅÇÐȸ/Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´ø ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.09.05 16381
81ÇöÀç Àаí ÀÖ´Â ±ÛÀÔ´Ï´Ù.ÇÑ»óÈ­±³¼öÃÊ·Ï Á¦¸ñ À̸§ ¿µ¹® ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.09.04 16264
80Simple viewWEA ½ÅÇÐÀ§ ¿¬Â÷´ëȸ 2005³â Çѱ¹¼­ ¿­¸°´Ù   ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.08.28 16015
79Simple viewº¹À½¿ª»ç½ÅÇÐȸ¹ßÇ¥ ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.08.22 18061
78Simple view¸ôÆ®¸¸ »ïÀ§ÀÏü/±èº´Èƹڻç/ÇѺ¹½Å ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.08.16 16473
77Simple viewÇѱ¹Ã¶ÇÐÀÚ´ëȸ ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.07.27 17192
76Simple view°³ÇõÁÖÀÇ ¼º°æ¿¬±¸¼Ò ¼¼¹Ì³ª/¹°ÁúÀÔÀÚµé°úÁ¤º¸¿Í ... ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.07.25 16446
75Simple viewÇÐȸÁö ¡ºÇѱ¹°³Çõ½ÅÇС» Á¦14±Ç  ÆíÁýÀÇ ÀÏ ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.07.25 16435
74Simple view "¸¶Åº¹À½ÀÇ ½ÅÇаú ¼³±³" Çѱ¹¼º°æ½ÅÇÐȸ 8¿ù 23... ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.07.23 16780
73Simple view¼¼°è°³Çõ½ÅÇÐȸ ÄÁÆÛ·±½º 2005³â Çѱ¹¿¡¼­ ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.07.15 16569
72Simple viewIRTI Âü¼® 7¿ù 7-14 ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.07.07 16388
71Simple view½É»çÀ§¿øµé/¼º°æ°ú½ÅÇÐ/º¹À½ÁÖÀǽÅÇÐȸ ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.06.24 16131
70Simple viewÇѱ¹°³Çõ½ÅÇÐȸ ³í¹®½Åû ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.06.22 16569
69Simple viewÇö´ë½ÅÇÐÃѼ­/»ì¸²/ ÇÊÁø ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.06.20 16266
68Simple view½ÅÇÐÀÔ¹® 1 ÃÑÁ¡¼ö/ ±âµ¶±³À±¸® ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.06.19 16445
67Simple view¼º°æ½ÅÇÐȸ/õÁÖ±³È¸ÀÇ ±³È¸°ü ºñÆÇ/¶óÀº¼º±³¼ö ¾È¸íÁØ 2003.06.10 16686
üũµÈ Ç׸ñ ÇѲ¨¹ø¿¡ »èÁ¦/º¹»ç/À̵¿ Çϱâ
üũµÈ Ç׸ñ »èÁ¦ üũµÈ Ç׸ñ »èÁ¦
üũµÈ Ç׸ñ À̵¿ üũµÈ Ç׸ñ À̵¿
üũµÈ Ç׸ñ º¹»ç üũµÈ Ç׸ñ º¹»ç
ÀÌÀüÆäÀÌÁö ´ÙÀ½ÆäÀÌÁö
ùÆäÀÌÁöÀÌÀü 21  22  23  24  25  26  27 ´ÙÀ½
±Û³²±â±â »õ·Î°íħ
À̸§À» °Ë»öÇ׸ñ¿¡ Ãß°¡/Á¦°ÅÁ¦¸ñÀ» °Ë»öÇ׸ñ¿¡ Ãß°¡/Á¦°Å³»¿ëÀ» °Ë»öÇ׸ñ¿¡ Ãß°¡/Á¦°Å ¸ÞÀÎÈ­¸éÀ¸·Î µ¹¾Æ°¡±â