A Theological Significance of "death and resurrection of Christ" in the Reformed Teachings on Sanctification : in search of a Foundation for Holistic Sanctification

Kim kwang-yul 한국개혁신학회 2008 개혁논총 Vol.9 No.-

The problem of "dead orthodoxy" needs to be tackled in the life and theology of orthodoxy believer. Since the doctrine most related to this issue is the doctrine of sanctification, the author tried to formulate the concept of holistic sanctification in order to solve the dead orthodoxy problem. The concept of "holistic sanctification" can be understood from the idea of "holistic gospel." Since the effects of sin from the fall of Adam are "holistic", which means the effect is an extensive one that covers material realm, physical, and socio-economic levels of believers' lives as well as an individual, spiritual level, the recovering redemptive work of our Lord Jesus must be also "holistic." In that sense, we are able to call the gospel of Jesus as "holistic gospel." If we follow the Reformed emphasis on "union with Christ" in the discussions of sanctification, then we are able to acknowledge the theological significance of "death and resurrection of Christ." The concept of believer's "being died to sin" which is a central idea in the Reformed discussions on the "death and resurrection of Christ" also provides the foundation for the concept of "holistic sanctification."

존 오웬(John Owen)의 중생의 경험에 근거한 성화

김윤희(Yun-Hee Kim) 영남신학대학교 2019 신학과 목회 Vol.52 No.-

The purpose of this study is to examine the sanctification based on the experience of rebirth by comparing the views of Calvin and other scholars through John Owen’s Two Short Catechisms. John Owen saw regeneration as God trying to sanctify people through the process of a newly transplanted life called “spirit.” John Owen considered rebirth purely the work of the Holy Spirit with no human will involved at all, everything being a very unique and special ministry of the Holy Spirit. This view unequivocally is contrary to the claims of Alminianists and Socinianists who believed the Holy Spirit is within the believers. And afterwards the Holy Spirit regenerates the believers. Thus, John Owen understood the Holy Spirit as being within the believers for salvation and as the final stage of sanctification in this world. John Owen also saw regeneration as immediate and final. Simultaneously, John Owen emphasizes that the obligation of a justified believer is to “slaughter” sin, in the battle against sin, in order for the rebirth to be fully realized. This theology is unique to John Owen. By comparison most reformed theologians, including Calvin, emphasized a rebirth through faith, while John Owen emphasized it was the duty of believers to put sin to death. Additionally, John Owen saw regeneration as a spiritual ministry resulting in sanctification. John Owen stated that a regenerated person would be obligated to practice good deeds for the glory of God by the absolute grace of God, and with a mind purified by faith according to Christ’s command. Sanctification is generally divided into progressive sanctification and immediate sanctification. John Owen accepted Calvin’s argument of gradual sanctification. John Owen embraced the aspects of immediate and gradual sanctification simultaneously. Since he saw sanctification as a joint work between God and the believer, he understood the immediate aspect as the work of God, and the gradual aspect as the joint work of God and man. Thus sanctification, as proposed by John Owen, is experienced at rebirth, is obligatory for the believer and is given by the grace of God. Therefore, Christians should have a balance of faith and life, and their aim should be in Christian sanctification. To this end, John Owen’s catechism can be a meaningful teaching for the Saints in balancing sanctification with those who have experienced regeneration.

마틴 루터와 존 칼빈의 렌즈로 본 존 머레이의 ‘결정적 성화’ 개념에 대한 비평적 이해: 온고지신을 통한 ‘신분적 성화’ 로의 수정을 위하여

전대경 한세대학교 영산신학연구소 2018 영산신학저널 Vol.0 No.43

This article deals with an attempt to “definitive sanctification,” a doctrine inherited from John Murray, in the perspective of Reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin. Luther and Calvin would not disagree with a definitive aspect in sanctification. Definitive sanctification is not, however, understood as different concept with judicial justification likewise critics argue. Moreover, if the concept of definitive sanctification either be added to or be considered as the other aspect in sanctification, there occurs more significant problem of consistency of the concept of holiness in sanctification. Thus, it is contradictory while the former to be understood as nominal scale of dual concepts as holy or corrupted, the latter to be considered as ordinal scale of procedure to be gradually holy more and more. In addition to that, definitive sanctification can not explain that it is different with the concept in Wesleyan or Pentecostal Spirit Baptism. The sanctification that Luther and Calvin understand also include the aspect of Spirit Baptism. Those three problems could be minimized if definitive A sanctification is understood as positional transition under the concept of justification as Luther, Calvin and many other later scholars suggest. As Luther and Calvin emphasize, holiness of Christians is to be for the Church. However, since the concept of definitive sanctification explains that Christians are once-for-all holy, it would give negative effect on Christians so that they would ignore the significance of progressiveness of sanctification. This would not be helpful for Churches in Korea to be renewed and sanctified. Rather than that, while embracing the definitive aspect in sanctification, calling it positional sanctification under justification, criticism on Socio-linguistic synonym and inconsistency of holiness can be waived or minimized. Moreover, love for the grace from above by faith alone can be even nourished among Christians. Therefore, in both theoretical and practical dimensions, ‘definitive sanctification’ would rather be called ‘positional sanctification.’ 본 논문은 존 머레이에 의해서 제기된 “결정적 성화” 개념을 종교개혁자 마틴 루 터와 존 칼빈의 입장에서 비평적인 이해를 시도한다. 루터와 칼빈은 성화의 결정적 측면을 부정하지는 않는다. 하지만, 비판론자들이 제기하는 것과 마찬가지로, 성화 의 결정적인 측면, 즉 결정적 성화를 법정적 칭의와 전혀 다른 개념으로 이해하지 도 않는다. 기존의 성화 개념에 추가적으로 ‘결정적 성화’ 개념을 삽입하고, 그것이 점진적 성화의 또 다른 국면이라고 할 경우 거룩함 개념의 일관성에 문제가 생긴다. 즉, 전자는 거룩함과 타락함의 이원론적 ‘명목 척도’ 개념인 데에 반하여 후자는 점 차적으로 거룩해지는 ‘과정’으로서의 ‘순서 척도’이기 때문에 거룩함 개념 자체에 모순이 생긴다. 결정적 성화는 웨슬리안이나 오순절에서 말하는 성령충만의 개념 과도 겹친다. 루터와 칼빈이 이해한 성화도 성령세례의 측면을 분명히 포함하고 있 다. 루터와 칼빈 그리고 후대의 많은 학자들이 제기하는 것처럼 결정적 성화를 신 분적 성화로 보고 성화 아래에 있는 개념이 아닌 칭의 아래에 있는 개념으로 본다 면, 앞에서 제기된 세 가지 문제점을 모두 보완할 수 있다. 그리고 루터와 칼빈이 강 조하는 것처럼 신자의 거룩함은 교회를 위함이어야 한다. 하지만 결정적 성화 개념은 이미 온전히 거룩하다 일컬음을 받은 것이기 때문에 점진적 성화의 측면을 신 자들이 간과하게 할 원인을 제공하게 될 수도 있다. 이는 종교개혁 500주년을 넘어 서는 한국교회의 거룩함 회복에 큰 도움이 되기 어려울 것이다. 오히려, 결정적 성 화를 신분적 성화라고 함으로써, 성화의 결정적 측면은 받아들이면서, 칭의 아래 에 둠으로써, ‘법정적 칭의’나 ‘성령세례’와의 위상적 유의어 관계라는 비판이나 거 룩함 개념의 비일관성에 대한 비판을 보완할 수도 있으며, 더 나아가 성화의 점진적 인 측면을 위해서는 결정적인 측면 즉 위로부터의 성령의 강력한 도움을 통해서만 신자가 거룩한 삶을 살게 될 수 있다는 삼위일체 하나님에 대한 믿음과 은혜를 사 모하게 할 수 있을 것이다. 즉, 신학적 측면과 실천적 측면 모두에서 ‘결정적 성화’는 칭의 아래에 있는 ‘신분적 성화’로 부르는 것이 좋다.

The Characteristics of Sanctification Theory Appeared in John Wesley's Sermon on the Beatitudes

Bae, Myung-Ji 한국실천신학회 2023 신학과 실천 Vol.- No.85

The purpose of this paper began with my motivation to correct the modern misunderstanding of sanctification. For this study, I reviewed Wesley's emphasis on the content of sanctification through the Beatitudes sermon. In the Beatitudes sermon, Wesley stressed three aspects of sanctification theory. To this end, I first outlined the characteristics of Wesley's theory of sanctification, the contents of which are as follows; Wesley viewed the state of sanctification as a 'relationship' with God or 'motivation' or 'intention' within humans, and an important characteristic of the experience of instantaneousness of sanctification is that it is made possible by faith. And Wesley saw that this sanctification goes beyond the individual level and spreads to the whole society. The main contents and structure of Wesley's Sermon on the Mount are as follows; Part 1 dealt with the sermon on the Beatitudes, Chapter 5 of Matthew, and Part 2 is based on Chapter 6 of Matthew, and in the previous chapter, I emphasized inner purity in doing righteousness, same as inner holiness. Part 3 is Chapter 7 of the Gospel of Matthew, which specifically presented the factors that interfered with maintaining this sanctification. In particular, I dealt with Wesley's sermons 1-3, which correspond to the Beatitudes, which can be said to be a summary of the Sermon on the Mount, from the point of view of sanctification. In the next chapter of this paper, the writer suggested the following three characteristics in Wesley's Beatitudes sermon as a solution to today's various distorted beliefs about holiness; 1) The sanctification that the Bible says is not a sanctification of outward but of inward, which is a thorough circumcision of one's inner self before God. 2) The power of true sanctification is not a hermitic piety, but a social sanctification that always bears fruit not a sanctification of seclusive but of social in the neighborhood and society. 3) This sanctification is awakened not through the subjectivity of man himself, but in the encounter with the infinite God and the neighbor as the other. The three characteristics of sanctification mentioned above in Wesley's Beatitudes sermon are the core of the theory of sanctification that penetrates the entire Old and New Testaments, not just the Beatitudes or the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, all Christian leaders and believers are required to have a correct understanding of the three characteristics of the sanctification theory in Wesley's Beatitudes sermon for the church and society that are confused and wandering today without finding the true value of holiness.

칼빈과 한국장로교회의 학파별 구원론 비교연구 -칭의와 성화를 중심으로-

조봉근 ( Bong Geun Cho ) 광신대학교 출판부 2012 光神論壇 Vol.21 No.-

The Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology) is very important doctrine amongst all doctrines in Christian Theology. The doctrine of salvation of the Presbyterian Church which come from John Calvin’s thought system is a model doctrine of salvation. This article will analyze and appraise Soteriologies of every sect in the Korean Presbyterian Church by comparing with the standard Calvin’s Soteriology. In particular, logics of justification & sanctification of each School through comparing their books and articles will be considered. Finally, this article will evaluate views on the doctrine of Justification & Sanctification of School of Hyung-Nong Park, School of Yune Sun Park, School of Jong- Sung Rhee, and School of Chai-Choon Kim. In John Calvin s view on 'the relationship between Justification and Regeneration’, John Calvin talks of the relationship between Justification and Regeneration (Sanctification) in Book III of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Though he does not claim that the two are the same, but also claims that they cannot be separated. Thus, since Calvin saw Justification and Regeneration to be the same but inseparable, we must criticize Osiander who saw Justification and Regeneration as identical. At the time, Osiander said “they that use together the gift of Regeneration and the free forgiveness are one and the same”. Yet, Calvin tells us that Justification and Regeneration cannot be separated but must be distinguished. Calvin telle us ''though the favor or Justification is inseparable with Regeneration but they can be distinguished. Since the fact of the traces of sin within the Righteous are well known through experience, the Justification of the Righteous must be completely distinguished from a reformation into a new life (Romans 6:4). God starts from within his elect this latter point and within them progresses gradually or slowly through a whole lifetime which leaves them in a position to be condemned in trial.” Calvin claimed that Justification was not the ‘Gift of Righteousness' but an ‘Imputation of Righteousness’,and that we only receive the priceless righteousness only through faith(grace) by God’s mercy’,and also that Justification is “God’s proclaiming us as righteous in his grace”. In other words, Calvin tells us that “the actual holiness of life is not to be separated from priceless imputation of righteousness” and that “Christ became for us righteousness, wisdom, holiness and redemption (1Cor 1:30),and at the same time does not sanctify(regenerate) ex calls anyone righteous. These privileges are eternal and are bound by an inseparable band. So he saves those that are enlightened by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, and those he makes righteous, and also sanctifies.” He also says, “just as Christ cannot be divided into parts, the two things which we experience in him, that is righteousness and sanctification(regeneration) are bound and cannot be separated.” Calvin calls 'the relationship between Justification and Regeneration in one words “we cannot be called righteous without our deeds, but also cannot be called righteous by them. This is bemuse in our participation of Christ which makes us righteous, sanctification is inclusive just as righteousness is.” Furthermore,Galvin in his claim of the union of the Saints to Christ, “therefore the union of the head to the parts of the body, ‘Christ’s living within us has the most important meaning to us. Thus Christ becomes our Lord, He makes us participants of Him within the gifts which he bestows on us. We are not contemplating Him far outside of us so as to allow for the imputation of his righteousness. It is because we are clothed with him and are attached to him. On Soteriology of John Calvin’s Institutes : Sanctification is the Will and Work of God the Holy Spirit. Calvin s Doctrine of Sanctification is centered upon sovereignty of God the Holy Spirit and man cannot pursue virtue without control of God the Holy Spirit and His guidance. The people of God is transfigured by God the Holy Spirit and they have to devote themselves entirely to God in order to be sanctified. Calvinistic thought is that sanctification requires a continual reliance on God to purge man’s depraved heart from sin. Sanctification may be achieved by following the Word and Work of God the Holy Spirit. It is very imp extant for Christians to understand how we be sanctified through God the Holy Spirit. The method used to be include worship and praise, studying the Holy Scripture and the practice of love. It is God's will that any person may pursue sanctification via the church since through worship and praise Christians are cleansed of sins. The man of God is influenced by the Holy Spirit through studying the Holy Scripture. Because the Holy Scriptures are able to make man wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. The practice of love through our sincere prayer is also very important to rid ourselves of unholy desires. Through sincere prayer, Christians are able to preserve their chastity and overcome the dirty desires in order to devote themselves completely to God. The man who has consistently received the control & guidance of the Holy Spirit in Christ, climax of sanctification can finally be reached. There are many controversial points concerning stagnancy of growth of the church which are affected by external and internal influences. External factor of decreasing population is a rapid growth of mundane culture and prosperous economy, but internal factor is the depredation on Christian quality of faith. God permits many different methods to expand the Kingdom of God on earth, however He would like to sanctify them rather than a quantity of His people. Korean Christian has to do the best to realize the life of Gospel in order to reform the depressed Korean Church. It should be also essential to guide the man correctly. If we all the time submit ourselves in accordance with the volition of the Holy Spirit, spiritual change of us will be ultimately realized Sanctification as well as Justification. Anthony A. Hoekema is an American Reformed theologian from Dutch who would not tolerate the easy way to explain Justification & Sanctification and keeps to what is God-centered. In explaining soteriology, Anthony Hoekema is a better theologian than other theologians. According to him, Justification and Sanctification are both in Mystical union with Christ. So, What is meaning Union with Christ of Anthony Hoekema? Interesting, firstly Anthony Hoekema starts the Order of Salvation from Union with Christ in Christ. he defines Union with Christ has its basis in Christ’s redemptive Work.¹²⁵ On Soteriology of Hyung Nong Park’s School : In Dr Hyung Nong Park’s Dogmatic Theology Volume V (Soteriology),he describes the order of Salvation in following terms; “Calling, Regeneration, Conversion, Faith, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Perseverance of Saints, Glorification”. In comparison his former student Dr. Chul Won Suh urged the Work of the Holy Spirit as the dimension of redemption only in the historical sense. However, Dr. Bong Geun Cho accepted not only Dr. Ghul Won Suh’s theory, but also agreed with Dr. Hyung Nong Park’s explanations. Dr. Bong Geun Cho does not think it is a matter associated to the order of time, but as the order of Logic. Dr. Cho argues it is not an absolute order(a sequence) but a comparative order for the explanation. He thinks it is quite possible for every reformed scholar to have different logic or different explanations to one another. In his own work, Order of Salvation, it includes the followings, “Union With Christ →"Calling has two things as Internal Calling and External Calling ― then Internal Galling(Effectual Galling) which is similar with Regeneration→and Regeneration is unconscious work of the Holy Spirit in human being, Conversion is conscious work of the Holy Spirit in human being. Conversion has two sides, Faith and repentance. And Justification by faith. What then is faith? Calvin defined it as “a firm and certain knowledge of God's benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy spirit”¹²⁶. Indeed, faith is “the principal work of the Holy Spirit,' a supernatural gift that those who would otherwise remain in unbelief receive by grace¹²⁷. Again and again, Calvin reiterated that faith is the unique gift of the Holy Spirit. Relationship with Regeneration and Conversion, both is the same work of the Holy Spirit, Regeneration is unconscious work of the Holy spirit in human being, but Conversion is conscious work of the Holy Spirit in human being. However, within conversion there are two sides; positive side being faith and negative side being repentance. Also “just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith.” : Justification will soon take place by faith. The operation of the Holy Spirit in faith that follows has ‘Justification’ as the first step and adoption as the second step and their relationship is again same as the two side of Coin. If that is the case, we need the following question. How can we explain the developing 'Sanctification, Perseverance, Glorification’ next? Sanctification is specifically the work of this indwelling and directing Holy Spirit. Those three things are the supernatural gifts and steps by the Holy Spirit. They grows up consistently more and more in the ‘baptism with the Holy Spirit’. However Sanctification starts from Regeneration. After Regeneration, Sanctification is gradually going on step by step. And Climax of Sanctification finishes in physical death of Christian who born again. And Sanctification does not only stop, but also does not drop from salvation, this is Perseverance of Saints. Perseverance means the engagement of our persons in the most intense and concentrated devotion to those means which God has ordained for the achievement of his saving purpose. And Physical Resurrection of the Saints is Glorification. Body of Christians is Gbrified in the second coming of Jesus Christ. Glorification is associated and bound up with the coming of Christ in glory. On Soteriology of Jong Sung Rhee’s School: The first ever scholar of Jong Sung Rhee s School was Dr. Jong Sung Rhee him self. Unfortunately, although he wrote a book on Pneumatology, he did not write any books about Soteriology. The reason for this is because he holds two theological positions. He accepted not only the Barthian position but also the Calvinistic position. Even though he stands on both positions he has tendencies to lean towards the Barthian side. This was the cause that prevented him from writing a sound doctrine on Soteriology. However, his former student Dr Seung Yong Hwang of Honam Theological University overcame this problem and wrote about Soteriology in his Systematic Theology (Soteriology) Volume Two. He quoted theological logic from Saved by Grace, a book on by Anthony A. Hoekema as well as Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof. Professor Hwang described his Soteriological Logic as follows; Order of Salvation (Union with Christ, Calling, Regeneration and Effectual Calling, Conversion, Faith, Justification, Sanctification, Perseverance of the Saints) by Louis Berkhof. Order of Salvation by Dr. Seung Young Hwang s were as follows; ‘Union with Christ, Calling, Regeneration, Repentance, Faith, Justification, Sanctification, Perseverance of the Saints' In Soteriology, faculties of Systematic Theology in fact held different views of theological positions from each other,but incredibly they were able to graciously accept their different views in order to bring their work together. For example, Myung Yong Kim, Chul Ho Youn, and Johan Hyun including Yoon Bae Choi, who are professors of Systematic Theology in Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary, permitted and a lowed other faculties' with different views as well as had understanding for colleagues with different thoughts. However,only Professor. Yoon Bae Choi who had studied Systematic Theology at tradition of Reformed Church in Netherland, wrote an article on Calvinistic Soteriology. He described in detail his Order of Salvation as follows; “Faith,Justification, Sanctification(Repentance, regeneration),Election or Calling, Resurrection and Glorification”. Professor. Choi defined faith as the supernatural grace given to us by the Holy Spirit and it is very important operation by the Holy Spirit. And he also defined Justification as the gracious forgiveness by God to sinners and forgiveness of sin. He said ‘Sanctification is to repent throughout one’s entire life and a Christian must live a holy(sanctified) life in Christ’ . Unfortunately, Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary does not have a necessary (compulsory) subject on Soteriology in Master Divinity Course. Faculty Group of Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary, which belongs to Tong-hap Denomination, supports World Council of Churches. On Soteriology of Yune Sun Park’ School: Among theologians of the Park Yune Sun’s School¹²⁹, a theologian to have excelled in dealing with the doctrines of Justification and Sanctification is Dr Park Young-Don of Korea Theological Seminary, Cheonan. Park Young-Don says, “occasionally it has been said that the Reformation having attached too much weight on Justification has in comparison overlooked Sanctification. Andrew Murray said that the Reformation rediscovered the doctrine of Justification but sincs it did not develop upon Sanctification it was a half a Reformation. However, such criticism comes from a lack of understanding of Calvinistic theology. Calvin had great interest in Sanctification and has dealt with in depth about the topic, enough to be called “theologian of sanctification”. For Calvin, though the Reformation has Justification as its principle and core doctrine, Justification is not the goal of a Christian Me but is the ground and starting point. Calvin s realistic interest was a godly life towards God. A constant striving for godliness penetrates through his teaching and his life. The main character of Calvin s doctrine of Sanctification was formed in situations of debate with the Roman Cathdic Church. Calvin strictly differentiates Justification and Sanctification and allows for the unstable doctrine of Justification to depend on Sanctification. This was appropriate answer to the error done by the Roman Catholic Church which seriously damaged the conviction of salvation. At the same time he emphasized that these two doctrines were very closely united, which effectively swept off the criticism of the Roman Catholics, that the Reformed Church’s doctrine of Justification weakened the importance of Sanctification and in turn promoted ethical dissoluteness and incidence. Together with this, Calvin blocked at the source the dangers of the doctrine of Justification being abused as a doctrine that incurs non-legalistic confusion. In this way, Calvin differentiated Justification and Sanctification against legalism, and against non-legalism he emphasized their connection, and as a result effectively overcame both extremes, and such strategic arguments farm the recent works an Calvin s Soteriology. Galvin starts his study of Sanctification from a strict Christological viewpoint. According to Galvin, the whole process of Sanctification has its roots in unity with Christ. The pattern of Sanctification is in the imitation of Christ’s death and resurrection by dying to sin and resurrection by righteousness. The driving force of the Sanctification flows from Christ5 s death and resurrection. The ultimate goal of Sanctification is also to have the likeness of Christ's image. Ultimately, Jesus Christ who died and resurrected for us is the origin and the pattern of Sanctification, the Christ who lives in us is the driving force of our Sanctification, and the Christ who is in glory is the goal of our sanctification. That is to say that the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega of sanctification is Jesus Christ. According to Calvin, Sanctification is made up of two sides. That is, Sanctification is gradually proceeded by the daily process of the death of the old-self (mortificatio) and revival into the new- person. The two sides of Sanctification is less in stages but occurs simultaneously, and is intimately connected like the two sides of a coin. ‘Self denial and ‘Taking up ones cross’ is the two sides of death (mortificatio). Calvin emphasized self denial as the core of a Christian life. Without self-denial, we cannot expect revival into a new person, viz. progress in Sanctification. God only rules where there is self-denial, but where there is no self-denial all kinds of sin rule. Self-denial is in gear with the great thesis of Calvinistic theology, ‘Soli Deo Gloria’ . Without the death of the self which is thirsty on vain glory, shouting the slogan ‘Soli Deo Gloria is just empty words. Without self-denial, even the holy slogan 'Soli Deo Gloria can only be misused to skilfully disguise the corrupt desires of the self. Therefore, complete death of the self, it’s destruction is the only solution. The life of the believer in this world is closer to participation of Christ's passion than the participation of his glory. The whole process of sanctification can be seen as a kind of path of endless death wherein we follow the same path of the way of the Cross which our Lord walked. All the life of this world is a continuous battle against death where there are trials and tribulations, it is a life of the Gross. Even if we proceed in our sanctification, we cannot mature above the cross. When we forget this fact we fall into all kinds of pride and fancies of perfectionism. Therefore, there is in the life of a believer moans and groans and cries that come from not being completely free still from the tribulations of sin. Such cries deepens our longing and hope for a eschatological salvation from within a believer. Calvin s doctrine of sanctification which has highlighted the still in sanctification works for an appropriate restraint and correction to the modern church which has inclined towards excessive triumphalism in attaching too much weight to the 'already' element. This is a time, more than ever, for us to listen mere carefully to Calvin's voice that emphasizes the point that we should be denying ourselves and take up our cross to follow our Lord. It is a teaching that is most abhorred and unpopular to this age of self-love in which we live. In our Reformed Church, the thing that is missing the most is denying oneself and following the Lord in taking up one’s Cross. No matter how well we follow Calvin s theology theoretically, if we have no self- denial we cannot be said to truly follow Calvin. When there is no self-denial, even Calvin’ s theology can only be used as a tool to secretly further one’s own glory. Where there is no self-denial, a terrible idolistic sin called self-worship can rampage. Without the death of the self which is thirsty for if s own honor and glory, even the godly slogan 'Soli Deo Gloria is used for the corrupt desires of the self. Therefore, the only way of sanctification is death. Calvin s doctrine of sanctification does not make any compromises in emphasizing this fact. Only the dead can live. Only he who has completely emptied himself can be full of the Holy Spirit. Only such people can save the Church and give to God all the glory.” Furthermore, Dr. ‘Upright Rock’ Park Yane-Sun’s Soteriology (Justification and Sanctification) is summarized in 『Refotmed Dogmatics』 which is a book that has condensed his bible commentaries. According to Dr Park “Justification is a legal term where a criminal is called innocent through a legal proclamation by a court”, and in such a case “the criminal called innocent does not have to have any righteousness for the claim to be valid, and when one believes Jesus Christ, God legally proclaims him one who participates in Christ’s righteousness’ Park also explains that “Since Christ’s righteousness is the fruit born from Christ’s death and resurrection, therefore it is the righteousness of God.” Park also writes in his commentary that true statement “the proclamation of Justification which is bestowed upon believers is given only through faith, and is irrelevant to the persons moral qualifications” is clearly seen in the words of Romans 4:4 “New when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.” Park continues to say “God does not do this to the believer because he foresees righteous deeds he will do by his own efforts. It is done by God's sovereignty, God does it because he has decided that he will personally make the believer righteous in Christ.” On Soteriology of Chai Choon Kim’s School : The Soteriological viewpoint of Chai-Choon Kim’s School differs basically from that of the Hyung Nong Park’s School. The School of Chai-Choon Kim neither claims Salvation as being exclusively by Jesus Christ nor the inerrancy of the Holy Scripture, because they do not believe that the Holy Scripture is the Word of God. Originally, The School of Chai Choon Kim did neither accept Soteriology of John Galvin nor the inerrancy of the Holy Scripture, because they started from methodology of Karl Barth's theology. Therefore, they have enjoyed hermeneutic methodology of Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich, Jurgen Moltmann, and such theologians. Theologies of Modern Liberal Theologians are very broad. Most Faculty Members of Hanshin University have not only think of the Holy Scripture as a book of religious experience, but they also believe that higher criticism on the Holy Scripture to be right. Dr Bong Rang Park, Chang Shik Lee, and Jae Yong Joo tends to Pluralism of religion and postmodernism. It follows that their Soteriology differs from their Biblical Soteriology. They had already given up Christian Soteriology since 1948. Consequently, they all came to accept salvational doctrines of the World religions. Their doctrines are not original Christian doctrines but are Synthetic doctrines. These doctrines sympathizes with and leads Christianity to World Religions, which will eventually mean no more need for Salvation by Jesus Christ. Actually, Chai-Choon Kim’s view on Doctrine of Justification and Sanctification can be said to be near non-existent. Dr. Chai-Choon Kim was the first to take on Barth’s theology in the history of Korean Presbyterian Church and in his study of the bible, he established Barth's outlook on revelation and effective criticizing method among his students. This led to his students taking on the position of secular level of studying which unfortunately meant they turned their back on the pure gospel of Christianity to take on the side of polytheisme instead. Therefore, not only the importance of Soteriology but also the doctrine of sanctification research declined to be the most weakest religious body. Thus/so-called systematic theology Dr. Bong-Rang Park, non-religious scholar Dr. Kyung-Jae Kim and systematic theology Dr. Young―Suk Oh do not insist on the faith of only Jesus where “Only through believing in Jesus Christ one can be saved”. Therefore, pure Gospel of Christianity can rarely be found from Dr. Ghai-Choon Kim and associates from his school. The originator of his founding school, Dr. Ghai-Choon Kim, did not leave any thesis or written works of any kind relating to soteriology, nor did his students. For example, Dr. Bong-Rang Park, who graduated and taught systematic theology at Han-Shin University for many years, did not leave any clear and distinctive work on Soteriology. Also, Han-Shin University s Korean Theology Research Center lead by Dr. Byung-Moo Ahn was only too busy striving to embrace and translate the following (Karl Barth, J rgen Moltmann, Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich Modern Radical Theologians and higher criticism of the Holy Scripture of Religions- geschichtliche Schule or universalism), but they did not learn Soteriology properly. Even today, most theologians of Ghai-Choon Kim's School and his associates stand on the relativistic side of non-religious scholars. Especially, not only Dr. Kyung-Jae Kim who is developing the theory of Religious Universalism, but also Dr. Young-Suk Oh and Dr. Kyuun-Jin Kim are in the case of those who are enjoying the comfort of the Minjung Theology Category. However, peculiarly Dr. Kyuun-Jin Kim, who has taught systematic theology at Theological College of Yonsei University far a long time, has written in chapter 9 of his book ‘Christian Systematic Theology’ in relative detail of “Faith, Justification, Sanctification and the Grace of God” over a surprising 230 pages. Also, there is an epoch making fact in that Dr. Kyuun-Jin Kim deals with “the relationship between Justification and Sanctification” just like traditional Reformed Theologians, Nevertheless, Dr, Kyuun Jin Kim is approaching the thoughts of Barth than Calvin. On the other hand, Kyuun Jin Kim’s soteriological understanding is almost identical to Dr. Ho―ik Hur’s “Holistic Understanding of Soteriology”.

존 칼빈과 존 웨슬리의 성화론 비교 연구

조권수 ( Cho Kwon Soo ) 아세아연합신학대학교 신학연구소 2017 ACTS 신학저널 Vol.34 No.-

필자는 본 논문을 통하여 16세기의 대표적인 종교개혁자 존 칼빈과 18세기의 대표적인 복음주의 부흥운동가 존 웨슬리의 성화론을 비교하여 연구하였다. 신학적인 경향성이 뚜렷한 두 사람의 성화론은 연속성과 비연속성의 분명한 교리적인 구별이 있었다. 그러나 두 사람 모두 성화에 대한 열정적인 추구와 그 실천을 매우 강조하였다. 그들이 성화에 대한 각별한 관심을 가지고 강조했던 이유는 그들이 경험했던 시대적인 암울한 정황이 매우 유사했기 때문이었다. 그리고 그들이 주목했던 이신칭의 복음의 현실적인 적용이 뜻밖의 부작용을 교회 안에 가져왔던 것도 그 이유가 된다. 많은 경우에 도덕폐기론으로 기울어지는 이신칭의 교리의 오해는 성경이 가르치는 성화의 교리로 바로잡아야만 하는 절박한 필요성이 제기되었던 것이다. 그러나 두 사람의 성화론은 분명한 차이가 있었다. 칼빈의 성화론은 칭의 교리의 완전함을 인정하는 부차적인 또 하나의 강조인 반면에, 웨슬리의 성화론은 칭의 교리와 양립하는 절대적인 또 하나의 강조였다. 칼빈의 성화론은 성화의 가치를 절대적으로 인정하지만, 또 하나의 칭의가 될 수는 없다. 그러나 웨슬리의 성화론은 그 자체로 칭의 교리의 연장선에서 또 하나의 칭의가 될 수도 있다. 칼빈의 성화론은 칭의와 관계되지만, 칭의와 구별되는 교리이다. 웨슬리의 성화론은 칭의와 관계되면서, 칭의를 보완하는 교리가 된다. 지금 한국 교회는 칭의 교리의 오해와 잘못된 적용으로 교회의 비도덕적인 현실에 대한 비판이 날로 고조되고 있다. 우리 모두 올바른 성화론의 가르침과 강조를 통하여 교회가 성경적인 성화를 추구할 수 있도록 최선을 다 해야 할 것이다. I studied sanctification comparatively between John Calvin a great Reformer in 16th century and John Wesley a great evangelist in 18th century through this thesis. There were distinct doctrinal differences of continuity and discontinuity of the two figures’ sanctification. Both of them, however, strongly emphasized the passionate pursuit of sanctification and its practice. The reason why they highlighted the special interest of sanctification was because the period gloomy situation they experienced was very similar. And it was also because the practical application of the justification that they noticed has brought the unexpected side effects to the church. In many cases, the misunderstanding of justification which leans toward Antinomianism raised a urgent necessity of correcting by the biblical sanctification. However, there were distinct differences between the two figures. While Calvin’s sanctification is a secondary emphasis receiving the perfection of justification, Wesley’s sanctification is an absolute emphasis receiving it as the compatible with the doctrine of justification. Calvin’s sanctification implicitly admits its value, but it can’t be another justification. However, Wesley’s sanctification might be another final justification. Calvin’s sanctification relates to justification but distinguishes itself from justification. Wesley’s sanctification relates to justification and becomes a complement to it. Korean church is now escalating into criticism of the church’s immoral reality due to the misunderstanding and wrong application of justification. Through the teachings and emphasis of the sound sanctification, we must do our best to encourage the church to pursue a biblical sanctification.

디트리히 본회퍼의 교회론과 사중복음의 대화 —중생과 성결을 중심으로

김성호 서울신학대학교 기독교신학연구소 2019 神學과 宣敎 Vol.57 No.-

This paper presents the understanding of the church by Dietrich Bonhoeffer(1906‐1945) and his conversation with the discourse of “regeneration” and “sanctification.” For this, the study sorted out the fundamental understanding of regeneration and sanctification according to the understanding of dogmatics in the Wesleyan Fourfold Gospel, proposed an ecclesiological viewpoint to understand regeneration around Bonhoeffer's Sanctorum Communio, developed a new doctrine of sanctification by building some grounds to understand sanctification spread around The Cost of Discipleship, and presented it as a timely doctrine of sanctification. At the current point of the 21st century, the Korea Evangelical Holiness Church should develop its discourse of sanctification into an ecclesiological doctrine of sanctification. The doctrine of sanctification with too much emphasis only on the Baptism of the Spirit(2:1‐4) tends to characterize a sanctification discourse only based on whether there is a baptism of the spirit or not. It has thus restricted the doctrine of sanctification in the form displayed by the church in the Acts of Apostles(2:43‐47). The Church and the Korean Church should discuss the responsibility as an answer to life in relations with others granted to the disciples living with “Christ existing as Church‐community” re‐established through the regenerated disciples or Bonhoeffer’s understanding of church, as well as the sanctification of extraordinariness, hidden character, and simplicity. They also need to build practical discourses of “costly Holiness” against the backdrop of “ecclesiological doctrine of sanctification” discussed in the viewpoint of “poverty” and “renunciation.” 본 논문은 디트리히 본회퍼(Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1906‐1945)의 교회 이해와 ‘중생’과 ‘성결’에 관한 담론과의 대화이다. 이를 위해 웨슬리안 사중복음 교의학의 이해에 따른 중생과 성결에 대한 근본적인 이해를 정리하고, 본회퍼의 성도에 교제 의 내용을 중심으로 중생을 이해하는 교회론적 시각을 제시한 후, 나를 따르라 의 내용을 중심으로 확장된 성결 이해를 위한 근거 마련을 통한 새로운 성결론을 전개하고, 이를 하나의 시의적절한 성결론으로 제안했다. 21세기 현 시점에서 기독교대한성결교회의 성결담론은, 교회론적 성결론으로 발전되어야 한다. 성령세례(행 2:1‐4)만 지나치게 강조하는 성결론은 성령세례의 유무로 성결 담론을 특징지어버려 더 이상의 사도행전(행 2:43‐47) 교회가 보여주었던 형태의 성결담론을 제한시켜 왔다고 여겨진다. 교회와 한국교회는 중생된 제자들, 즉 본회퍼의 교회이해를 통해 재정립된 ‘공동체로 탈존하는 그리스도’(Christ existing as Church‐community)와 함께 살아가는 교회된 제자들에게 부여되는 타자와의 관계 속에서 발생하는 삶의 응답으로서의 책임, 그리고 비범성, 은밀성, 단순함의 성결을 논의하고, ‘가난’과 ‘포기’의 관점에서 논의되는 ‘교회론적 성결론’을 배경으로 하는 ‘값비싼 성결’의 실천적 담론들을 마련해 나가야 할 것이다.

R. L. 스테이플스의 웨슬리 성화론 재해석에 대한 비판

배명지 한국복음주의조직신학회 2023 조직신학연구 Vol.44 No.-

John Wesley developed his theology through many articles, discussions, and sermons on the Sanctification theory. However, although it is this sanctification theory that is representative of Wesleyan Theology, it is the discussion of the instantaneousness and gradualness of this sanctification that has been prone to misunderstanding and confusion in the study of Wesleyan Theology until recently. The researcher believes that a correct establishment of this topic is essential above all for the powerful dissemination of the correct Wesley Sanctification theory. In this respect, the researcher analyzed and criticized Rob Lyndal Staples' doctoral dissertation, “John Wesley's Doctrine of Christian Perfection, a Reinterpretation”. Because the thesis he focused on was also about the instantaneousness and gradualness of Wesley's Sanctification theory, but his discussion of whether the nature of instantaneousness was possessive or relational was a big misunderstanding of Wesley's own point of view. In this thesis, the researcher first examined the representative controversies from Wesley's time to the 20th century in order to examine the discussion on instantaneousness and gradualness in sanctification. And the researcher also dealt with scholars who approach these debates from a different level, but they focused on relationships rather than the existential approach of sinfulness regarding sanctification. Staples also paid attention to the relationship of Sanctification theory, and in this respect, he reinterpreted Martin Buber's philosophical concept in particular. Some of the important issues that researchers criticized Staples for are: Can Staples' instantaneous sanctification be regarded as Wesley's 'decisive' instantaneous sanctification? And is Staples' assessment that Wesley believed that instantaneousness of sanctification is achieved through faith, but that gradualness is achieved through works correct? Moreover, is it a correct interpretation that Staples characterizes the instantaneousness and gradualness of Wesley's Sanctification theory in terms of 'I-Thou' and 'I-It' by citing Buber?The researcher especially pointed out the injustice of Staples' criticism that Wesley himself contradicted the instantaneousness and gradualness of the Sanctification theory. Staples emphasized that the way to solve the contradiction he pointed out was to reinterpret the momentary as a dimension of repeatable experience like Buber. However, this is a major misunderstanding of Wesley, the researchers noted. This is because, in the first place, the entire sanctification that Wesley spoke of was about the relational belief that one could be newly sanctified into Christ, not legally flawless perfection. The instantaneous experience of the entire sanctification experienced by faith that Wesley spoke of is what energized this love, and while going through the process of gradual sanctification in faith, sanctification as the completion of the law and righteousness in Christ grows in perfect love for God and neighbors. Therefore, the researcher believes that, as suggested by Theodore H. Runyun and Henry H. Knight III, appropriately interpreting the dimension of instantaneousness and gradualness of Wesley Sanctification theory from a relational perspective can contribute to ending the ongoing debate on Sanctification theory. 존 웨슬리(John Wesley)는 성화론에 대한 많은 글과 논의 그리고 설교 등을 통해서 자신의 신학을 발전시켜 나갔다. 그러나 비록 웨슬리 신학의 대표성을 지닌 것이 이 성화론이긴 하지만, 최근까지도 웨슬리 신학 연구에 있어서 오해와 혼선을 빚기 쉬운 주제가 바로 이 성화의 순간성과 점진성에 대한 논의이다. 연구자는 올바른 웨슬리 성화론의 힘 있는 전파를 위해서는 바로 이 주제에 대한 바른 정립이 무엇보다도 필수적이라고 본다. 이런 점에서 연구자는 스테이플스(Rob Lyndal Staples, 1925-2015)의 박사학위 논문인 “John Wesley's Doctrine of Christian Perfection, a Reinterpretation”를 분석하여 비평하였다. 왜냐하면 그가 주목한 논제도 웨슬리 성화론의 순간성과 점진성에 관한 것이었는데, 그러나 그 순간성의 성격이 소유적인 것이냐 아니면 관계적인 것이냐에 대한 그의 논의가 웨슬리 자신의 관점을 오해한 점이 크다고 보기 때문이다. 연구자는 이 논문에서 먼저 성화에 있어서 순간성 혹은 점진성에 대한 논의를 살피기 위해 웨슬리 당시부터 20세기까지의 대표되는 논쟁들을 살펴보았다. 그리고 연구자는 이 논쟁들을 좀 더 다른 차원에서 접근하는 학자들도 다루는데, 그들은 성화에 관한 죄성의 실체론적 접근이 아닌 관계성에 집중한 시각이었다. 스테이플스도 성화론의 관계성에 주목하였고, 이 점에 있어서 특히 마르틴 부버(Martin Buber)의 철학적 개념을 수용하여 재해석하였다. 연구자가 스테이플스에 대해 비판하는 몇 가지 중요한 문제 제기는 다음과 같다; 스테이플스가 말하는 순간적 성화라는 것이 과연 웨슬리가 말하는 ‘결정적인’ 순간적 성화라고 볼 수 있는가? 그리고 웨슬리는 성화의 순간성은 믿음으로 얻지만 그 점진성은 행위로 이루어간다고 보았다는 스테이플스의 평가는 올바른 시각인가? 더욱이 스테이플스가 부버를 인용함으로 ‘나와 너’ 그리고 ‘나와 그것’의 관점에서 웨슬리 성화론의 순간성과 점진성을 특징적으로 규정한 것은 올바른 해석인가?연구자는 특히 스테이플스가 성화론의 순간성과 점진성에 대해 웨슬리가 스스로 모순을 일으켰다고 비판한 점의 부당성을 지적하였다. 스테이플스는 자신이 지적한 그 모순을 해결하는 법이 부버적으로 그 순간성을 반복 가능한 경험의 차원으로 재해석하는 길이라고 강조한 것이다. 그러나 이것은 웨슬리에 대한 큰 오해임을 연구자는 지적했다. 애당초 웨슬리가 말한 온전한 성화란, 율법적으로 흠이 없는 완전이 아니라, 그리스도로 새롭게 성화될 수 있다는 관계적 믿음에 대한 것이었기 때문이다. 웨슬리가 말한 믿음으로 경험한 성화의 순간적 체험은 이 사랑에 동력을 불어넣은 것이고, 믿음 안에서 점진적 성화의 과정을 거쳐가면서 그리스도 안에서 율법과 의의 완성으로서의 성화가 하나님과 이웃을 향한 온전한 사랑 안에서 성장해 가게 되는 것이기 때문이다. 그러므로 연구자는 런연(Theodore. Runyon)과 나이트(Henry H. Knight III)가 제시한 것처럼, 웨슬리의 성화론의 순간성과 점진성의 차원을 관계론적으로 적절히 해석하게 되면 그동안 지속되던 성화론 논쟁을 일단락하는 데 기여할 수 있을 것으로 본다.

마르틴 루터와 존 웨슬리의 신학적 접점 연구 - 칭의와 성화를 중심으로 -

정병식 한국교회사학회 2018 韓國敎會史學會誌 Vol.49 No.-

이 글은 웨슬리에게서 나타나는 루터 신학의 흔적을 원자료를 중심으로 추적한 연구이다. 그동안 루터와 웨슬리는 칭의와 성화에 상반된 강조를 했다고 서술해왔다. 그 결과 루터를 칭의의 신학자요, 웨슬리를 성화의 신학자라고 칭하고, 이 둘 사이에 커다란 신학적 괴리를 만들었다. 심지어 루터는 이신칭의를 발견한 공은 있으나, 성화에 대한 강조가 없다고 평가절 하하는 반면, 성화를 강조한 웨슬리를 종교개혁의 완성자로 과대평가하는 경향도 없지 않았다. 그러나 루터와 웨슬리는 다름이 아니라 같음의 카테 고리에서 연구되어야 한다. 웨슬리가 말하는 사회적 성화에 대한 단초는 루터의 『선행에 관하여』(1520), 『그리스도인의 자유』(1520) 등 여러 글에서 충분히 발견된다. 성화에 대한 루터의 언급도 『교리문답서』(1529)에 충분히 개진되어 있다. 웨슬리에게서 발견되는 칭의와 성화에 관한 신학적 출처는 그 단초가 종교개혁, 특히 마르틴 루터의 신학에 있다. 따라서 이 논문의 목적은 루터와 웨슬리 사이에 매개물을 찾고, 웨슬리 신학에 등장하는 루터신학적 접점을 찾는데 있다. 접점이란 만나면서 살짝 스치고 다시 돌아가는 것을 의미한다. 하지만 루터와 웨슬리의 신학적 스펙트럼이 넓고, 제한된 지면은 모든 것을 다루기에는 한계를 가지고 있다. 따라서 칭의와 성화라는 주제로 제한했다. 사실 루터의 칭의론은, 웨슬리 도 이점에서는 마찬가지이지만, 독립된 영역이 아니다. 그것은 죄, 인간, 은총 등 기독교 신학의 핵심 영역과 긴밀하게 연관되어 있다. 이 소논문에서는 또 다른 신학적 영역으로의 확장을 자제하고 칭의와 성화의 이해만을 다루었다. 루터와 웨슬리는 칭의와 성화에 대해 같은 틀을 기반으로 하면서도 서로 다른 결과에 이르렀다. 루터는 칭의와 성화를 서로 다른 개념으로 이해하지 않는다. 반면 웨슬리에게는 순간적 요소와 과정적 요소의 특징이 나타나 있다. 그렇지만 칭의와 성화를 하나님의 행위로 이해하고 있다는 점에서는 둘 모두에게 공통된 사항이다. 논문의 의의는 칭의와 성화에 대한 루터와 웨슬리 신학을 이해하는데 루터와 연관된 통전적인 시각을 제공하는 점에 있다. This study is based on the research of original writings appearing in Wesley concerning the remains of Luther's theology. Up to now the writings have pointed to the different emphasis of justification and sanctification in Luther and Wesley. As a result, a theological gap was created by labeling Luther as a theologian of justification and Wesley as a theologian of sanctification. Even to the point of saying that although Luther contributed in discovering justification but due to his lack of emphasis on sanctification he is given lesser credit; on the other hand Wesley, the one who emphasized sanctification is over-credited and seen as the one who perfected the Protestant Reformation. However, Luther and Wesley need to be studied in a similar and not in a different context and category. The basis for Wesley's social sanctification is abundantly found in Luther's Concerning Good Works(1520) and The Freedom of the Christian(1520). Concerning Luther's reference to sanctification is abundantly seen throughout his Catechism(1529). Wesley's theological references to justification and sanctification are drawn from the Protestant Reformation, particularly in Luther's theology. As follows, the purpose of this thesis is to discover the connection between Luther and Wesley, and also to find the encroaching point in Wesley's theology based on Luther's theology. The encroaching point denotes a slight meeting and then returning to its point of origin. However, both Luther and Wesley's theological spectrums are wide and there is a limit in trying to deal with all the aspects. As a result, the theme has been limited to justification and sanctification. In fact in Luther's justification, as in Wesley's, it is not an independent domain. It is closely related with sin, man, grace and the focal areas of Christian theology. In this short thesis it refrains from expanding to another theological domain and deals with the understanding of justification and sanctification. Although Luther and Wesley have similar frameworks concerning justification and sanctification, they drew different results. Luther does not understand justification and sanctification as being different concepts. On the other hand, for Wesley there are differences between instant and gradual elements. However the common ground is found in the fact that both understand justification and sanctification as works of God. The point of this thesis is found in understanding of Luther and Wesley's theology concerning justification and sanctification, and putting forth a comprehensive outlook.

복음의 증인됨으로서의 성화

문시영(Si-Young Moon) 한국기독교학회 2016 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.102 No.-

이 글은 성화에 대한 덕 윤리적 모색을 통하여 성화에 대한 관심을 촉구하고 그리스도인다운 그리스도인됨의 중요성을 강조하는 데 목적이 있다. 성화에 대한 논의가 한국적 맥락에서 전개되는 맥락 및 종교개혁 500주년을 앞두고 있는 정황에서, 성화를 ‘복음의 증인됨’의 관점에서 해석할 수 있음을 보여주는 제언이기도 하다. 이를 위해 스탠리 하우어워스의 덕윤리와 성품의 개념에 초점을 맞추었다. 하우어워스는 성화에 대한 기존의 인식이 성화를 의무론적 프로젝트로 간주하는 경향이 있다는 점에 우려를 표하면서, 성품의 변화를 강조하는 덕 윤리적 해석 가능성에 주목하였다. 특히 하우어워스의 관점을 수용하여 칭의와 성화의 관계 및 은혜에 의한 성화의 인식 및 성화에 대한 덕 윤리적 실천의 길을 모색하였다. 덕 윤리와 성화의 친화성에 관심하면서 성품 개념을 중심으로 성화를 재해석하려는 것이 핵심 요소라 하겠다. 하우어워스를 중심으로 하는 덕 윤리적 모색에 따르면, 성화란 도덕적 모범을 구현하는 단계를 넘어 예수 내러티브에 충실한 ‘복음의 증인됨’으로 재해석되어야 한다. ‘그리스도인다운 성품함양’이야말로 성화의 본질에 대한 덕 윤리의 재발견이자 기여라 할 수 있겠다. 나아가, 교회가 그리스도인다운 성품 함양의 공동체가 되어야 하며, 설교와 예전을 통해 성품의 성화를 위한 공동체적 실천에 힘써야 한다는 주장은 오늘의 교회가 귀담아 들어야 할 부분이다. 물론 성품에 대한 관심을 통한 성화의 재해석에는 한계가 있다. 성화에 대한 기존의 관점들을 의무론적이라고 몰아세우는 것은 성급한 판단일 수 있다는 점, 덕 윤리만으로는 성화를 충분히 설명할 수 없다는 점 등을 한계로 지적할 수 있겠다. 그럼에도 불구하고 성품의 성화에 대한 관심이 그리스도인이 추구해야 할 변화란 도덕적 모범의 구현을 넘어 복음의 증인됨이어야 함을 각성시켜 줄 수 있다는 점은 의의가 크다. 이러한 관심을 토대로, 이 글은 성품의 성화에 대한 관심이 사회적 양극화 문제의 극복 및 사회정의를 실현하기 위한 관심으로 확장되어야 하며, 복음의 사회적 증인됨을 위한 실천으로 이어져야 한다는 점을 남은 과제로 제안하였다. The purpose of this article is to reinterpret on the doctrine of sanctification from the perspective of virtue ethics based on the concept of moral character. This research is, also, a suggestion that the doctrine of sanctification can be interpreted as a way to become a Christian, as christianlike as possible, for Korean context as remembering 500th year of Reformation. For this purpose, this paper proposes that sanctification can be categorized in an areteology(ethics of virtue) rather than a deontology(ethics of duty) in that it is actualized on the idea of ‘character’ instead of the deontological project, as concentrating on Stanley Hauerwas’s understanding of sanctification. This paper delves into the meaning of sanctification in terms of virtue ethics as it pays attention to the relations of justification, sanctification, and the acknowledgement of sanctification by grace. According to Hauerwas, sanctification has to be reinterpreted as ‘being witness’ as following Jesus’ narrative rather than trying to be a moral example. In addition, Hauerawas emphasizes the concerns of ‘having Christian character’ and ecclesial approaches for Christian virtue ethics, that is, ‘church as a community of character.’ Of course, there are several limitations with this reinterpretation of sanctification. For example, Hauerwas’ interpretation on sanctification and moral duty can be a biased opinion, and virtue ethics does not fully grasp the meaning of sanctification. Nevertheless, the idea ‘having Christian character’ is helpful to understand the doctrine of sanctification in that the moral change is not simply followed by being a moral example, but by being witness of gospel. Furthermore, the remnant tasks for this study is to find a way to the witness for social issues such as social justice and social polarization, that is, social sanctification.