니케아신조의 소위 첨가문 '아버지의 본질로부터'가 니케아 콘스탄티노플신조에서 삭제된 사실 해석 : 정신사적 배경에서

공성철 대전신학대학교 2008 신학과 문화 = THEOLOGY AND CULTURE Vol.17 No.-

안티오케이아의 감독 이그나티우스(?)의 로마 교회에 보낸 편지 연구

공성철 한국교회사학회 2011 韓國敎會史學會誌 Vol.28 No.-

This article is composed to give some clues for researching Corpus Ignatianum continuing since 1960s through interpreting the letter to Romans. It contains some unique and special points, namely martyrdom as the main theme, not monepiscopacy. About the martyrdom of Ignatius only one letter says, that is Polycarp’s letter to Philippians. But in this letter Ignatius appears not only as dead(9, 1) but as living.(13, 1) It could make so interpret, that the unknown person Ignatius has somehow found the Polycarp’s letter and disguised himself as Ignatius. That means the Corpus Ignatianum. is pseudonymous. It’s terminus post quem must lie later than Polycarp’ letter. And seeing the praising Polycarp so many times in almost every letter we could believe, that the Corpus Ignatianum had to be composed after the dead of Polycarp as martyr, namely A.D. 165. Then the insist of some experts ‘the Corpus Ignatianum appears during the reign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius’ could be acceptable. So, the end of the letter to Romans, in which the pseudo-Ignatius who might have not died did hope so eagerly to die for God as demanding the Romans not to prevent his martyrdom, is not to hope a martyrdom, but to confirm the authority of the author of the Corpus Ignatianum. Ignatius wrote the letter to Romans in order to realize the idea of the Corpus Ignatianum, that is, monepiscopacy. Then man must accept the idea the seven letters couldn’t be sent to the addressees in every letter, but to one. For example in the letter to Polycarp he talks in the beginning to Polycarp, but from chapter 6 to the Church Smyrna. More than this, in the letter to Smyrna the name of the renowned bishop Polycarp is astonishingly not mentioned. In this researching situation the church in Rome has been called the addressee(Schmithals), because of no mentioning the names of bishop and the members. But this fact couldn’t be the master key into the solving the problem, because it is of nature, that the person coming to Rome for the first time does not know their names. On the contrary, the letter to Smyrna deliver in the thank and farewell address several names clearly, but first in a name of some Philon of Cilicia and then in his own name. It says, that Ignatius knows the milieu and persons in the church Smyrna very well. Every letter has some relation with the name Smyrna. Moreover regarding no mentioning Polycarp in the letter man could so speculate, that the Corpus Ignatianum is composed to subside the accurately unknown problems in the Smyrna after the martyrdom of Polycarp. Though the monepiscopacy against some heresies, especially the docetism of gnosticism, is persuaded unanimously in every letter, the chief concern of the Corpus Ignatianum is to earn the stability of the church Smyrna.

하나님의 의로움 아니면 하나님의 전능 : 오리게네스의 '원리론' 해석

공성철 대전신학대학교 2010 신학과 문화 = THEOLOGY AND CULTURE Vol.19 No.-

락탄티우스의 교회사 박해자들의 죽음들 : 그리스도인 락탄티우스의 신관이 만든 사상과 그 배경 연구

공성철 장로회신학대학교 기독교사상과 문화연구원 2013 장신논단 Vol.45 No.1

어거스틴의 은총론과 예정론 관계 연구

공성철 한국조직신학회 1998 한국조직신학논총 Vol.3 No.-

프로슬로기온(Proslogion)에 나타난 안셀름(Anselm)의 신학적 노력 이해

공성철 대전신학대학교 2004 신학과 문화 = THEOLOGY AND CULTURE Vol.13 No.-

정통신앙의 기준으로 부활한 니케아 신앙고백에 관한 일고 : 362년 Tomus ad Antiochenos를 중심으로

공성철 연세대학교 신과대학 2006 신학논단 Vol.43 No.-

In this study the Tomus, the official letter of the council alexandria (362) to the committee of bishops in Antioch, was interpreted to see, if it gives us as well known the possibility to explain the begin of the neo-nicene theology in the end of 350s: the cause of the courage of Athanasius to confess the Nicaenum, that is Homousios, the movement to accept the Nicaenum among the anti-nicene fathers, namely so called Homoiusians and Homoians, the incorporating of the confess of the Holy Spirit in the conflict about the relation of God Father and the Son, and the differentiating the problematic two words, Hypostasis and Usia. For it has been accepted by the historians of Church and dogmas, that the so-called Tomus is the most important document being able to give the key to explain the uncleared scene relating to the rise of the neo-nicene theology. In the Tomus we can really find the new movement to accept Nicaenum as the orthodoxy creed by the former anti-nicene theologians. But it says the movement as not just beginning at that time 362, but as already begun in the past. It means, that the council does not make the neo-nicene theology arise, but shows its movement arisen. Based on the two termini differentiated, the council tried to harmonize two parties, Meletians for the three Hypostasis and Paulinians for the one Hypostasis, expecially very peacefully, as the council has been called the peaceful. To accept Nicaenum is, Tomus says, enough to be orthodox, but it defines its proof is to refuse the arianism. In the council they are synonymous, that is, to accept Nicaenum and to accuse the arianism. What does the document define the arianism is? Not to call the Holy Spirit a creature and separated from the Usia of the Son! Not only to this fact Tomus let us give our attention, but also, how the incorporation of the discuss on the Holy Spirit into the controversy about Father and Son. The confess about the Holy Spirit depends on it about the two Hypostsis. Every partaker in the trinitarian conflict must confess on the Holy Spirit due to the confession on the two Hypostasis or vice versa. If one admits the essential difference between Father and Son, he has to accept the creatureship of the Holy Spirit. Or he is unable to define the Three Homousia. In any case Tomus tells us, that the theologians ought to have been compelled to reconsider their theological positionamong until then. It could explain the action arisen among the Homoiusians and the Homoians, namely the begin of the neo-nicene theology. Tomus tells us, that the new movement arisen in the past is a reaction against the arianism, which seems to accept the Nicaenum but calls the Holy Spirit as a creature. In other words, the relating the Holy Spirit with the discuss on the relation of God the Father and the Son was activated by the Arians, not the nicene Fathers. It is undoubtful, that the Arians, who under Constantius Ⅱ. (351/3-361) were powerfully teaching the creatureship of the Holy Spirit are no other than the so-called neo-arians, especially Eunomius, the bishop of Cyzicus. As H. Ch. Brennecke(1989) insisted, this study let us know, that the cause of the neo-nicene theology could be the theology of Eunomius, especially his theory of the Holy Spirit. Tomus does not says. that the council is the first step of the new theology, but the way, where the cause for the new movement in the end of 350s is. Based on the result of this study, we can say, that it could be very worth studying on the theology of Eunomius for the understand of the birth and rebirth of the creed of Trinity.

마르키온(Marcion), 사상적 배경에서 본 새로운 해석

공성철 대전신학대학교 2003 신학과 문화 = THEOLOGY AND CULTURE Vol.12 No.-

락탄티우스(Lactantius)의 교회사 『박해자들의 죽음들』 –그리스도인 락탄티우스의 신관이 만든 사상과 그 배경 연구

공성철 장로회신학대학교 기독교사상과문화연구원 2013 장신논단 Vol.45 No.1

Through a candidly titled book “Deaths of Persecutors”, Lactantius vividly reports the historical events of Diocletian’s persecution, expounds the final days of main culprits of persecution,and apologetically attempts to “reveal historical case” of God’s victory. He does not see the source and purpose of persecution as religious issue, a conflict between Rome and Church. He expresses that persecution is a manifestation of ‘inhumane brutality’. Believing ‘God as one’ and arguing that ‘Deaths of Persecutors’ is the revealed historical case, Lactantius ultimately in his book expounds the theodicy that “God exists, and he establishes justice”. This book expressing that persecution is a manifestation of ‘inhumane brutality’ shows that ‘he has human centered theology’ according to established research and his interpretation of other documents were not incorrect. Differently from his other works, this book does not show theoretical background at all but enumerates ‘historical events’. That means it is a simple ‘Church history’. Lactantius’document should be considered as Church history, because of his adaptation of book recorded by Eusebius who wrote the first Church historical document, his style, and based on details. As a faithful believer of God, he expresses that “history” is an “example” of God’s existence and providence, thus clarifying that Church history does not reveal people. In order to express the triumph of God he presents the “defeated people”, not “praiseworthy people”. Therefore, Eusebios writes ‘vita Constantini’ and ‘laus of him’, but Lactantius doesn't praise anyone. Revealing his faith and theology, “Death of Persecutors” shows God in history. It is the first document to demonstrate a descriptive example of Church history. 『박해자들의 죽음들』이라는 적나라한 제목의 책으로 디오클레티아누스의박해라는 역사적 사건을 생생하게 보도한 락탄티우스는, 박해의 원흉들의 말로를 보여주면서 ‘하나님의 승리가 역사적으로 나타난 사례’를 변증하고 있다. 그는 박해의 원인과 박해의 의미를 종교적인 문제, 곧 로마와 교회의 대립으로 보는 것이 아니라 인류전체를 대적하는 ‘비인간적인 야만성’에서 발로되었다고 보고 있다. ‘하나님의 유일성’이 드러난 역사적 사례가 ‘박해자들의 죽음’이라고 주장하는 락탄티우스는, 결국 이 책으로 ‘유일한 하나님은 계시고, 정의를 세우시는 분’이라는 신정론을 펼치고 있다. 또한 박해는 로마제국이나 이교도의 공격이 아니라, ‘비인간적인 야만성’의 발로라고 말하고 있는 이 저서는, ‘그가 인간중심적 신학을 가지고 있다’고 하는 기존 연구와 그의 다른 문서들에 대한 해석이 틀리지 않음을 보여주고 있다. 그가 집필한 다른 문서들과 달리, 이 책은 이론적인 배경을 전혀 드러내지않고 ‘역사적 사건들’만 나열하고 있다. 이런 의미에서 이 책은 곧 ‘교회사’인 것이다. 최초로 교회사를 집필하였다는 에우세비오스의 책과 형식에서 뿐만 아니라 내용에 근거해서도, 락탄티우스의 문서는 참으로 교회사라고 해야 할 것이다. 유일한 하나님을 믿었던 그는 “역사”란 하나님의 존재와 역사하심의 ‘사례’라고 강조하면서, 교회사라는 것은 인간을 드러내는 것이 아님을 명료하게 밝히고 있다. 그는 하나님의 승리를 강조하려고 하였기에 인간은 ‘칭찬 받을 인간이아니라 패하는 인간들’임을 제시하고 있다. 그래서 유세비오스는 ‘콘스탄티누스의 생애’와 그의 ‘찬가’를 집필하였지만, 락탄티우스는 그렇게 하지 않았던 것이다. 락탄티우스의 이러한 신앙과 신학이 드러내는 『박해자들의 죽음들』은 역사에서의 하나님을 드러내고 있다. 이런 의미에서 이것은 교회사의 서술 본보기를최초로 보여준 문서인 것이다.

교회사에 나타난 천년왕국사상 연구

공성철 대전신학대학교 2001 신학과 문화 = THEOLOGY AND CULTURE Vol.10 No.-