현대 기독교철학의 제문제 한글제목

송동민 ( Dong Min Song ) 한국기독교철학회 2012 기독교철학 Vol.14 No.-

In the early 20th century, Benjamin Warfield criticized Abraham Kuyper`s theology as being irrational. He thought that Kuyper ignored the role of apologetics which is to defend Christianity by rational proofs. In a similar context, Fuller and Gardiner also argued that Kuyper`s thought does not make a clear knowldge of God possible, and that what can we gain from his thought is mere blind faith, However, this article argues that Kuyper`s theological epistemology has a clear rationality, and that a sure knowledge of God can be established in his theology, According to Kuyper, to have knowledge of something is to perceive it clearly. The subject of knowledge is human beings, and its object is the entire universe. In order to gain knowledge of universe, we depend on perception and reasoning. The starting point of knowledge is our self-consciousness, and the consciousness is connected to the outer world by the function of faith. According to him, our scientific activity is the process of finding out God`s thought embodied in this universe. Since God created this universe as an organic whole, we should investigate the universe with our organic thoughts. As there is a fundamental difference between the consciousnesses of the people who were regenerated by the work of Holy Spirit and the people who were not, Kuyper insists that there are two kinds of sciences. Kuyper also defines theology as the revealed knowledge of the mystery of the Threefold Being of God. He divides theology into two kinds: the knowledge of God itself and the scientific activity to obtain that knowledge. Since we cannot comprehend God by our own capacity, the knowledge of God should be given to us by his revelation. As a scientific activity, theology has a logical character as other disciplines do. However, while other disciplines depend on human observations and reasonings, theology essentially relies on God`s revelation. Theological investigations can be rightly pursued only by the people who were regenerated by the Holy Spirit. As the result of the regeneration, human beings become able to do true theology using the reason rightly. Since the knowledge of God depends on his revelation, Kuyper does not regards the apologetic efforts to establish truthfulness of Christianity on the basis of reason as praiseworthy, He believes that if we do not presuppose the revealed truth, we cannot attain the truth by human reason alone. However, he recognizes the fact that theology as a science should be pursued by logical thinking and reasonings. He insists that Christian scholars should richly demonstrate the truths of Christianity by using the gifts of reasoning given to them. In this way, Kuyper maintains a well-balanced perspective on the matter of faith and reason, and his theology exhibits a sound rationality.

아브라함 카이퍼와 프란츠 폰 바더 - 바더의 계시철학이 카이퍼의 기독교세계관에 준 영향

최태연 한국기독교철학회 2022 기독교철학 Vol.34 No.-

The purpose of this paper is to compare the philosophy of Abraham Kuyper (1837–2020) and the German Catholic philosopher Franz von Baader (1765–1841), who provided the basis for Kuyper’s theory of Christian worldview. A recent study by J. Glenn Friesen highlighted von Baarder's philosophy in the study of Kuyper as one of his philosophical sources. First, in this paper, I summarize the characteristics of von Baarder's philosophy and then examine how Baarder's philosophy influenced Kuyper's ideas. Here, I pay attention to the 19th century Dutch Mediation theology to explain the relationship between von Baarder and Kuyper. Mediation theology, influenced by Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard, emphasized the inner dimension of faith rather than doctrine and church system, and argued that the Bible became the living word of God by reaching the inner side of the believer. Just as the Neoplatonism that led Augustine to Christianity, there was Mediation theology that led Kuyper to Calvinism. It was von Baarder who provided the philosophical foundation for this Mediation theology. In this respect, von Baader can be said to have provided an important source for the formation of Kuyper's unique Neo-Calvinist theology and Christian worldview. The conclusion of this paper comparing the ideas of von Baarder and Kuyper shows that Baarder's influence appears to Kuyper on three subjects. The themes are: first, Sphere sovereignty and an organic view of society, second, criticism of the autonomy of reason and the need for dualistic confrontation(Antithesis), and third, the need for Christian studies/university. 이 논문은 기독교세계관 이론에 토대를 제공한 아브라함 카이퍼(Abraham Kuyper, 1837~ 1920)와 독일의 가톨릭 철학자 프란츠 폰 바더(Franz von Baader, 1765~1841)의 철학을 비교하는데 목적이 있다. 최근의 글렌 프리즌(J. Glenn Friesen)의 연구를 통해 카이퍼 연구에서 폰 바더의 철학이 카이퍼의 철학적 원천 중 하나로서 조명을 받게 되었다. 먼저 이 논문에서 필자는 폰 바더의 철학의 특징을 요약적으로 서술하고 나서 어떻게 바더의 철학이 카이퍼의 사상에 영향을 주었는지를 검토한다. 여기서 필자는 폰 바더와 카이퍼의 관게를 해명하는데 19세기 네덜란드의 중재신학(mediation theology)에 주목한다. 중재신학은 슐라이허마허나 키에르케고어의 영향을 받아서 교리와 교회 제도보다는 신앙의 내면적인 차원을 중시했고 성경이 신자의 내면에 도달함으로써 하나님의 살아있는 말씀이 된다고 주장했다. 아우구스티누스를 기독교로 인도한 신플라톤주의가 있듯이 카이퍼를 칼빈주의로 인도한 중재신학이 있었다. 이 중재신학에 철학적 토대를 제공한 사람이 폰 바더다. 이 점에서 바더는 카이퍼의 독특한 신칼빈주의 신학과 기독교세계관의 형성에 하나의 중요한 원천을 제공했다고 할 수 있다. 폰 바더와 카이퍼의 사상을 비교하는 이 논문의 귀결은 바더의 영향이 세가지 주제에서 카이퍼에게 나타남을 보여 준다. 그 주제들은 첫째, 영역주권과 유기체적 사회관, 둘째, 이성의 자율성(Autonomy) 비판과 이원론적 대립(Antithesis), 셋째, 기독교 학문/대학의 필요성이다.

아브라함 카이퍼와 영원으로부터의 칭의

박재은(Jae Eun Park) 고신대학교 개혁주의학술원 2021 갱신과 부흥 Vol.27 No.-

아브라함 카이퍼(Abraham Kuyper, 1837-1920)는 신학적 논적이 많기로 유명한 네덜란드 개혁파 신학자이다. 카이퍼가 신학적 논적이 많았던 이유는 그의 사상이 그 당시 19-20세기의 인본주의 사상과 날카로운 대립각을 세웠기 때문이며, 그 과정 가운데 전통적인 신학 관점과는 다소 결이 다른 관점들을 취했기 때문이다. 결이 다른 관점들 속에서도 칭의를 영원으로부터 보는 관점은 많은 사람들의 우려를 낳았던 관점이다. 본 연구는 그간 해왔던 바대로 카이퍼를 소위 ‘영원 칭의론자’로 단순히 규정할 수 있는지에 대해 탐구한다. 이 질문에 답하기 위해서는 여러 가지 사안들을 다각도로 고찰할 필요가 있다. 첫째, 영원으로부터 칭의(혹은 영원 칭의) 개념을 정확히 파악해야 한다. 둘째, 카이퍼 당시의 신학적 맥락을 살펴야 한다. 그 이유는 시대적 맥락과 동떨어진 신학 사상은 없기 때문이다. 셋째, 카이퍼가 전개했던 칭의론의 다양한 국면들에 대해 살필 필요가 있다. 카이퍼는 칭의를 단순하게 보지 않았고 오히려 다양한 신학 사상들이 얽히고설켜 있는 다층국면적 사건으로 이해했다. 넷째, 카이퍼의 칭의론에서 믿음의 본질과 역할이 정확히 무엇인지에 대해 살펴야 한다. 만약 영원으로부터의 칭의 개념이 시간과 상관없이 영원에서 칭의가 완료되는 개념이라면 이런 배타적인 영원 칭의론에서는 믿음의 역할이 전무 할 것이기 때문이다. 다섯째, 카이퍼의 칭의론에 나타난 실천적 장단점을 고찰해야 한다. 신학은 건조하게 머리 속에서만 사변적으로 남아서는 안 되며 오히려 삶의 구석구석에서 삶의 구체적인 행동을 이끌어야 하기 때문이다. 이런 일련의 작업을 통해 카이퍼의 칭의론이 ‘배타적인’ 영원 칭의론이 아니라는 사실이 규명될 것이며, 그럼에도 카이퍼의 칭의론 내부적으로 다양한 신학적 긴장들이 존재한다는 사실도 드러나게 될 것이다. 아브라함 카이퍼와 그의 영원으로부터의 칭의론을 보다 더 객관적으로 분석·평가·적용함을 통해 카이퍼의 칭의론에 대한 정확한 이해를 추구하는 것이 본 연구의 최종 목표이다. Abraham Kuyper(1837-1920) is Reformed Dutch theologian who has been famed for having a lot of theological opponents. The reason why Kuyper had many enemies is because his theological standpoints and the human-centered standpoints in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were sharply opposed each other, and in this conflict course, he took theological viewpoints that are somewhat different from the traditional perspectives. Among his different viewpoints, the perspective on ‘justification from the eternity’ has caused many theological worries so far. This study is to investigate whether or not Kuyper is a so-called defender for justification from the eternity. To answer this, several dimensions need to be scrutinized. First, the concept of justification from the eternity(or eternal justification) needs to be accurately identified. Second, it is necessary to inspect the theological context of Kuyper’s time, since there is no theological viewpoint totally apart from the contemporary context. Third, a multilayer dimension of Kuyper’s doctrine of justification needs to be meticulously considered. Kuyper did not look at justification in a single dimension, but rather see it in complex and multilayer dimensions which are closely interwined with diverse related theological subjects. Forth, it is necessary to grasp Kuper’s understanding on the nature and role of faith. Fifth, practical strengths and weaknesses in Kuyper’s thought need to be carefully contemplated, inasmuch as theology should not remain its tenets speculatively in a human head, but rather should lead them to do something concretely in one’s whole life. Through this study, both of that Kuyper did not hold an ‘exclusive’ doctrine of eternal justification and that there were several theological tensions in Kuyper’s thought will be established. The ultimate purpose of this study, therefore, is to seek a right and sound understanding on Kuper’s theology through objectively analyzing, evaluating, and applying Kuyper’s perspectives on justification.

다시 읽는 아브라함 카이퍼(Abraham Kuyper) 연구(2010-2020) 및 그 비판적 성찰

고훈 ( Ko¸ Hoon ) 한세대학교 영산신학연구소 2021 영산신학저널 Vol.- No.58

본 논문은 2010년부터 2020년 사이에 한국에서 이뤄진 카이퍼 연구를 그 연구가 생산된 상황적 맥락에서 다시 읽고, 그러한 다시 읽기를 통해 얻어진 연구결과를 한국교회의 대내외적인 상황을 고려하여 비판적으로 성찰하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 본 논문은 다음의 연구 절차를 따르고자 한다. 첫째, 2장은 그러한 기간을 세 시기(2010, 2010-2019, 2020)로 나눈다. 그리고 각 시기마다 카이퍼에 대하여 연구한 사람들은 누구였는지 그에 대한 학문적, 공동체적 배경을 간단히 소개하고, 그러한 카이퍼 연구가 어떠한 상황적 맥락에 위치하는지 조사하여, 그 연구의 내재적 의미가 무엇이었는지 추론해 보고자 한다. 둘째, 앞서 2장에서 도출된 연구 결과를 토대로 그동안 카이퍼 연구에 대한 비판적 성찰을 시도하고자 한다. 셋째, 지금까지의 논의를 간략히 정리하고, 본 논문의 의의와 한계를 제시한다. The paper aims to study on Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) by reading and critically think about the findings, considering the internal and external context of the Korean Church. Section 1 examines selected individuals’ and groups’ hidden intention by describing their academic and community background and the context in which they have involved. Moreover, I also focus on the period from 2010, the date of the publication of Sung Koo Chung’s book Abraham Kuyper’s Thought and Life to 2020, the 100th Anniversary of Abraham Kuyper’s death. Section 2 critically contemplates the results from the previous section of Kuyper’s study in Korea. Section 3 summarizes my research, sets forth my view on Abraham Kuyper, and deals with the significance and limits of the paper.

Abraham Kuyper in the Past, the Present, and the Future of the Korean Church: A Focus on the Presbyterian Church

박철동 아신대학교 ACTS 신학연구소 2022 ACTS 신학저널 Vol.53 No.-

In recent decades, as interest in Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) has grown worldwide, the Korean church has gradually increased its attention to Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinism, as well as his Reformed theology. In previous studies on the relationship between Kuyper and the Korean church, a brief overview of the Korean church and its problems was presented, concluding that Kuyper’s specific theme might contribute to resolving those issues. In this paper, I examine the acceptance trends of Kuyper in the Korean church throughout Korean Protestant history as a whole in order to suggest a proper direction for future acceptance, particularly in regard to his Neo-Calvinism. Firstly, I outline the historical background to introducing and establishing of Dutch theology within the history of Korean Protestantism. Secondly, through analyzing most academic papers and translations on Kuyper since the first academic work in the 1960s, I present the characteristics of the trend of Kuyper’s acceptance in the Korean church. By this analysis, I argue that when applying Kuyper’s specific themes to the Korean church or academic disciplines, we should consider his broader and more organically related themes together. In future acceptance of Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinism, the shared content found in both the Dutch Neo-Calvinism revival and the Korean church revival should serve as an evangelical foundation that should be maintained and enhanced. In addition, the future acceptance of Neo-Calvinism needs to refer more to Herman Bavinck in terms of principle, and Kuyper in terms of content, rather than following the incomplete traces of Neo-Calvinism.

기독교인의 정치 참여에 대한 연구 -존 칼빈(John Calvin: 1509-1564)과 아브라함 카위퍼(Abraham Kuyper: 1837-1920)의 비교 연구를 중심으로

안인섭 한국교회사학회 2011 韓國敎會史學會誌 Vol.30 No.-

Considering the growing importance of the issue of the Christians’ participation into the Politics, this study aims to compare John Calvin(1509-1564)’s political thoughts and his works in Geneva and the political ideas and activities of Abraham Kuyper(1837-1920). According to this research, Abraham Kuyper had re-found Calvin’s political thoughts, and tried to apply these ideas to the modern secularized European society. While Kuyper was struggling against the spirit of the French Revolution after the Napoleon’s regime, the Dutch society was experiencing the radical social segmentation. Under these social circumstances Kuyper was able to succeed in the formation of the Christian “Public Face,” respecting the tolerance and democratic way of thinking. In the sixteenth century Calvin’s political thoughts showed “via media,” walking in the middle way between the conservative Roman Catholics and the radical Anabaptists. Just as Calvin did, Kuyper also followed the “via media” between the conservative wings, following Metternich’s line and the radical socialists. Both Calvin and Kuyper recognized the state as established by God in order to keep the human dignity and peace in the society. Calvin’s political thought was based on the “regnum Dei(the rule of God)” over the Church and the State. In Kuyper’s case, he put his political idea on the “Pro Rege (For the King)” and “Souvereintiteit in Eigen Kring (Sphere Sovereignty)” and the “Common Grace.” Calvin believed that the state and the church must co-work for the human life and the poor in the society, while he struggled the independence of the church from the state. However, in the pillared society of the 19th` century of the Netherlands, Kuyper could make the political thoughts of Calvin in practice through the foundation of the Christian political party based on the Democracy. Thus the Dutch Calvinists and especially Kuyper could bring the Christian value and norm in the secular society.

아브라함 카이퍼의 칼빈주의 세계관 : 유기적 관점에서 본 은혜-자연-회복의 관계

류길선(Ryu, Gil Sun) 개혁신학회 2020 개혁논총 Vol.54 No.-

지금까지 아브라함 카이퍼의 관한 연구들은 주로 개별적인 주제들에 관해 다루어져 왔다. 예컨대, 정치, 예술, 윤리, 일반은혜, 현대주의, 다윈주의, 신칼빈주의 등이 있다. 하지만 카이퍼의 기독교 세계관 논의에 있어서 카이퍼의 유기적 관점을집중적으로 다룬 논문은 거의 없었다. 학자들은 헤르만 바빙크의 유기적 관점을 강조하며, 카이퍼와 헤르만 바빙크를 비교하면서 카이퍼에겐 ‘대립’이라는 주제가, 바빙크에겐 은혜-자연-회복의 원리가 전면에 등장하는 개념이라고 주장해왔다. 본고는 이러한 비록 은혜와 자연의 관계에 대한 논의가 바빙크의 전 작품에 포괄적인주제이긴 하나 카이퍼의 글에도 스며들어 있음을 논증한다. 특별히 카이퍼의 유기적 세계관을 포괄적으로 제시하고 있는 그의 작품『칼빈주의 강연』을 분석함으로써 카이퍼에게 칼빈주의라는 유기적 관점은 은혜-자연-회복의 원리를 드러냄을 증명한다. When one considers the wide trends of scholars who have studied Abraham Kuyper(1837-1920), it is not difficult to find that while they focused on specific topics on Kuyper’s thoughts such as politics, art, ethics, common grace, modernism, pluralism, and neo-Calvinism, they have missed to see the broad lens of his theology, that is organic worldview. A common critique of Kuyper is that while he emphasized ‘antithesis’ (an tension between Christian and non-Christian worldviews), Bavinck sought and developed the grace-restoration-nature synthesis. Although it is true that there is a difference between Bavinck and Kuyper, it should be noted that Kuyper shared the same core of the grace-restoration-nature synthesis. This article examines the relationship between grace and nature through organic motif in Kuyper’s calvinistic worldview, and demonstrates that the grace-nature synthesis is permeated through Kuyper’s thought.

Church’s Public Engagement from Abraham Kuyper’s Ecclesiological Perspective and Its Implication in Korean Context

정훈 아신대학교 ACTS 신학연구소 2022 ACTS 신학저널 Vol.53 No.-

In the past decades, the interest in the role of church in public areas is increasing exponentially. However, the research so far has been focused mainly on publicness of church itself from a theoretical and philosophical perspective. This study examines how the church needs to be involved in the public realm from a more practical perspective. As a Dutch Neo-Calvinist pastor, theologian, and politician in the nineteenth century, Abraham Kuyper wrestled with the church’s public engagement. More specifically, his ecclesiology is the basis of his idea regarding this topic. In unpacking his ecclesiology, Kuyper divides the nature of church into the two: church as institution and church as organism. Also, sphere sovereignty is a pivotal concept for grasping his view regarding this topic in that sphere sovereignty deals with the pluralistic structure of society. On the basis of these concepts concerning church and society, Kuyper suggests how Christianity can be engaged in public squares from a practical perspective: indirectly as church as institution and directly as church as organism. In the first step, this article analyzes what the church’s public engagement looks like on Kuyper’s ecclesiology and investigates how it can be practiced in the real life. Then, this article turns to Korean context. Kuyper’s idea regarding church’s public engagement has an implication in the contemporary Korean context. Because Korean church has been strongly entrenched in the privatization of Christian faith, practicing the faith in the public realms is difficult challenge. In this sense, Kuyper’s idea is useful in finding the way the Korean church engages in the public areas. Specifically, Kuyper’s concepts of ecclesiology and sphere sovereignty help Korean church, which tends to go toward Christendom, evade the problem of Christendom.

아브라함 카이퍼의 반혁명적, 칼빈주의 기독론

김재윤(Kim, Jae Youn) 개혁신학회 2020 개혁논총 Vol.54 No.-

카이퍼의 공적 활동뿐만 아니라 기독론도 다음 두 중심을 통해서 규정될 수 있다; 반혁명과 칼빈주의. 기독론에서 카이퍼는 우선적으로 자유주의와 중재신학, 윤리학파들과 논쟁한다. 카이퍼는 “만약 아담이 범죄 하지 않았더라도 성육신이 있었을 것인가?”하는 질문을 중심으로 이를 다룬다. 당시 중재신학과 윤리학파는 이를 긍정하는데 이유는 성육신의 목적은 인간성이 최상의 완성에 이르는 데 있다고보았기 때문이다. 이는 아담의 타락과는 무관하게 그리스도를 통해서 실현된 인간화된 신적본성을 혹은 신격화된 인성만으로 보기 때문이다. 카이퍼의 기독론은 이를 반박하면서 성자가 육신을 취하셨다는 것을 강조하게 된다. 카이퍼는 당시 계몽주의 신학과는 대척점에 서 있던 것으로 알려진 신콜부르게주의도 비판한다. 이들은 그리스도와 우리의 연합을 지나치게 강조해서 예수님이취하신 인성이 우리와 완전 동일하며 심지어 죄를 가진 인성이라고 주장했다. 카이퍼는 우리와 같은 인성을 성자가 취하였지만 그 인성은 죄가 없다는 것을 성령론적기독론을 통해서 설명하였다. 성령론적 기독론은 카이퍼 기독론의 독창적인 부분이 되었다. 그뿐만 아니라 그는 그리스도가 육신을 취하신 것을 그 분의 지위로서설명하였다. 본성적인 인성이 아니라 낮아지심이라는 지위를 가지신 것으로 보았다. 낮아지심을 육신을 취하신 것에서 또한 그 분이 어떤 지위를 가진 것으로 설명한 것은 낮아지심-높아지심에 대한 새로운 설명방식이 되었다. 그러나 이런 카이퍼의 두 지위 기독론은 성자가 부활승천의 상태에서도 여전히 육신을 취하고 계시며 이를 높아지심으로 설명한 전통적인 신학에서 벗어나 있다는 비판에 직면한다. 공적인 영역에서의 활동은 신학적으로는 그의 일반은혜론에 의존한다. 카이퍼는 일반은혜론을 작정까지 확대해서 설명한다. 아담이 모든 인류와 유기체적으로연결되어 있듯이 그리스도는 모든 인류를 향한 일반은혜와 그를 통해서 얻게 될 모든 유익까지 그 인격 안에 씨로서 가진다. 일반은혜를 작정에서 설명하는 카이퍼는결국 아담의 범죄 없이는 성육신이 없었을 것이라는 구원론적 기독론의 전통적인설명을 약화시킬 수 있는 여지를 남긴다. This thesis seeks to explore Abraham Kuyper as a dogmaticus, not a public theologian. Christology as well as Kuyper s public activities can be defined through the following two centers; Anti-revolution and Calvinism. In christology, Kuyper firstly argues with Liberalism, Mediation theology, and Ethics schools. Kuyper deals with this by focusing on the question, “If Adam did not sin, would there have been incarnation?” At the time, Mediation theology and Ethics schools affirmed this because they believed that the purpose of incarnation was to reach the perfection of humanity. This is because, regardless of Adam’s fall, the humanized divinity or the deified humanity realized through Christ. Kuyper’s christology refutes this, emphasizing that the Son of God took on the flesh. Kuyper also criticizes the neo-Kohlburggeism, which were known to stand at the fore of the theology of Enlightenment. They overemphasized our unity with Christ, arguing that the human nature that Jesus took was the same as ours, even sinful nature. Kuyper explained through the pneumatological christology that the Son of God took the same humanity as ours, but that humanity was sinless. Pneumatological Christology became an original part of Kuyper’s christology. In addition, he explained Christ s taking on the flesh as His state. It was viewed as having the state of being humbled, not of human nature. The description of humbleness in taking the flesh and as having a state of Him became a new way of explaining humility-exaltation. However, Kuyper’s two-states christology faces criticism that the Son of God is still taking the flesh even in the state of exaltation, and that it deviates from the traditional theology.

아브라함 카이퍼와 자유대학교

박태현(Tae Hyeun Park) 신학지남사 2015 신학지남 Vol.82 No.2

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate Abraham Kuyper"s ‘Sphere Sovereignty’ in his establishment of the Free University at Amsterdam. Kuyper"s Calvinism is well summarized as the glory of God and His sovereignty. The single enthusiasm for Kuyper"s Calvinism is successfully realized by the establishment of the Free University. That is to say, the establishment of the Free University is a visible evidence for God"s glory and sovereignty. Under the title of ‘Abraham Kuyper and the Free University’ three things are dealt with: (1) the ideal and purpose of establishing the Free University, (2) the process of the establishing the Free University, and (3) the lessons that Kuyper and the Free University give for us today. Kuyper wanted to have a ‘free’ university based on the reformed principles for the reformation of the churches and the state. Although he had many difficulties both within and without in the process of founding the Free University, he was successful through his strategic political power and excellent journalistic talents. Under the grace of God he had a peculiar energy for working out his plans. The lessons that Kuyper"s ‘Sphere Sovereignty’ teaches for us is this: we work in the spirit of ‘pietas et scientia’ and ‘ora et labora’ wherever we are called.