복음의 종말론적 토착화의 가능성에 대한 소고 -한국의 역사적 과제의 전재과정을 중심으로

황돈형 ( Don Hyung Hwang ) 韓國組織神學會 2009 組織神學論叢 Vol.24 No.-

삼위일체의 계시적 진리를 위한 필리오케(filioque)의 해석학적 의미: 한국적 신학의 가능성을 위해

황돈형 ( Don Hyung Hwang ) 韓國組織神學會 2009 한국조직신학논총 Vol.25 No.-

It is important for the christianity to have the same confession about the trinitarian God. By confessing the same trinitarian creed, the identity of the christianity can be insisted among the religious mixture phenomena through contact with various cultures and religions. But unfortunately, the different perspective of the procession of the Holy Spirit with the relation of God the Father caused to split Christianity into two parts, namely Roman-Catholic and Orthodoxy that have characterized two different spiritualities from one another. In this situation, first, it is the purpose of this thesis to recognize the hermeneutical meaning of the "filioque" interpolated in the Constantinople Creed in the context of the establishing the Trinitarian Creed. And secondly, through this consideration, it is the aim to disclose a hermeneutical possibility of the `filioque` for the Korean Theology. Already it is known that the filioque is through the On the one hand, it is certain that the theological understanding of the Trinitarian God can be fully recognized by the expression of the ομοουσιοσ of the Nicea Creed. On the another hand, the Constantinople Creed is to be understood as the creed that is constituted in the continuity of the Nicean understanding of the trinitarian God. Therefore, in spite of the difference of the paradigm of the describing the relationship of the essence of God with the three persons of God, it is quite necessary to see the divinity of the Holy Spirit in the connection with the Son of God who is revealed through the historical person, Jesus of Nazareth. This confirms the soteriological work of the trinitarian God in the church and, moreover, the eschatological perspective of the saving reality of the trinitarian God. The continuity of the Necea Creed and Constantinople Creed affords us a possibility that we can interpret the filioque interpolation of the west church into the Constantinople Creed as the complete interpretation of Constantinople Creed. In the sight of the historical development after the admit of the Constantinople Creed as the ecumenical Creed it is noticed that the east and west church try to reach to the agreement about the meaning of trinitarian personality of God. It means that the deity of the Holy Spirit can be understood basically in the reciprocal relationship with the Son of God in western Situation. And this did not contradict the eastern viewpoint of the relations between the tree persons of God which designate God the Father as the ultimate ground of the deity. With the conflict case of Photius, the understanding of the divinity of the Holy Spirit is basically divided. From that moment, filioque has been no longer acceptable for the eastern church. In recent time, the contemporary theologians, for the unity of the church, propose that the περιχυ understanding of the divine Life can include the different assertions about the procession of the Holy Spirit by east and west churches. But the περιχωρησισ life of trinitarian God must be organized through the event of Jesus Christ, if it is not fallen out of the soteriological standpoint. It means that the filioque understanding as the expression of the correspondence between the immanent trinity and economic trinity is also important to constitute the ordering of divine life in itself. The possibility of korean theology, on the one hand, to be a particular theology and, on the other hand, to be a universal theology, must be disputed on this result that the filioque is not to be ignored for the confession of the trinitarian God and can support the concrete theological work in a certain context. With a word, it is within the meaning of filioque that korean theology can find its soteriological ground and also its own particular form for the korean situation.

바르트 삼위일체론의 현대적 의미 -하나님 존재 이해의 현대적 과제를 위하여

황돈형 ( Don Hyung Hwang ) 한국조직신학회 2014 한국조직신학논총 Vol.40 No.-

본 논고는 바르트의 삼위일체론적 사고의 특징을 파악함으로써 새롭게 다가오는 현대 신론의 과제에 대한 적응성을 살펴보고자 한다. 특히 바르트의 삼위일체론이 계시 신학적 차원에서 하나님의 존재론적 차원과 인간의 역사적 차원을 총괄하는 새로운 실재론을 제시하였다고 보는 것이 이 논문의 주된 목적이다. 다시 말해서 바르트가 삼위일체론을 새롭게 해석하고자 할 때 그의 사고의 핵심적 논의를 분명하게 드러내고자 하는 것이다. 이런 관점에서 볼 때 바르트는 하나님의 역사적 행위의 진리를 하나님의 존재의 진리로서 나타내고자 하는 것이며 이를 하나님의 행위가 하나님의 존재와 일치되면서도 하나님의 행위를 중심적으로 그의 존재에 대하여 말하고자 하는 방식을 시도하고 있음을 나타내는 것이다. 그리하여 계시적 사건으로부터 드러나는 존재방식으로서 알려지는 세 분의 인격적 실재들로부터 하나님의 동일성이 제시되고 이는 내재적 삼위일체로서의 하나님이 예수 그리스도의 역사적인 존재로부터 파악되는 것이다. 이것은 내재적 삼위일체와 경륜적 삼위일체 사이의 관계를 이제까지 신학적 전통에 따라서 생각해왔던 방식을 뒤집은 것으로서 경륜적 삼위일체를 통해서 내재적삼위일체의존재론이 확실하게 알려지는 것을 의미한다. 한마디로 바르트의 사고는 계시 신학적 차원에서 예수 그리스도의 계시를 통해서 하나님의 존재를 말하고자 하는 신학적 의도를 철저하게 관철하고 있는 것이다. 그리고 이러한 결과는 일차적으로 하나님이 단지 인간의 이해의 대상이 아니고 무엇보다도 먼저 인간에게 다가오셔서 말씀하시는 하나님이시며 살아계셔서 지금도 우리에게 구원의 은혜를 베푸시는 하나님이라는 것을 밝히고 있다. 이러한 바르트의 삼위일체론적 시도에 대하여 현대는 새로운 인식의 과제를 가지고 있다. 계시의 미래적 성격에 대한 강조와 종교적 언어의 상징성에 대한 새로운 관점, 그리고 삼위일체론적 신관의 현대물리학적 실재관과의 상응성 여부 등을 통해서 삼위일체론의 새로운 해석을 추구하고 있는 것이다. 이러한 시도들에 대하여 우선 바르트의 삼위일체론이 중요한 까닭은 삼위일체론에 대한 형이상학적 이해 가능성을 계시적 언어로서 제한하고, 삼위일체의 미래성을 하나님의 계시적 시간성을 따라서 설명하며, 삼위일체의 역사적 성격을 주목함으로써 현대 물리적 실재관을 포함하는 삼위일체 하나님의 존재 방식에 확고한 기반을 제공하는 것이다. 이로써 바르트의 삼위일체론은 현대의 다양한 과제에도 복음을 통해서 드러난 하나님의 실재를 밝히는 데 여전히 중요한 방향을 알려주고 있다고 평가할 수 있다. It is the purpose of this treatise to characterize Barth’s trini- tarian understanding of God of as a revelational realism which emphasizes the historical presence of immanent trinity of God in the humanity of Jesus Christ. According to Karl Barth, the reality of Jesus Christ as the word of God is the only one special reality that God and Man together become one true reality for its own and also for the other. The special understanding of Barth that the inner-being of God is revealed at the moment of God’s act to the world in the reality of Jesus Christ, makes it possible to acknowledge the real presence of God in the historical dimension. Barth interprets the doctrine of Trinity according to his own understanding of revelation in Jesus Christ. Consequently, the unity of trinitarian God is nothing but the self-Identity of God that three beings of God (Seinsweise) are defined totally as the same God itself, in so far as that God’s beings are distinctively identified with the three doings of God. The Diversity of trinitarian God is defined as the three distinct realities of God’s doing presence in himself and at the same time toward the world, in so far as the God’s doings are identified with the God’s three beings. And the unity and diversity of trinitarian God designates that God’s being as the historical actual being is the living God who loves the world in his freedom and so speaks to the world and give us the grace of redemption. The Barth’s understanding of trinitarian God affirms the pos- sibility of trinitarian understanding of God among the new kinds of tasks, namely first of all, the emphasis of future by the interpre- tation of revelation, secondly, the symbolic understanding of trini- tarian God, and lastly, the possibility of correspondence with the modern physical viewpoint of reality. Barth’s doctrine of Trinity opens us a new theological horizon to respond to these new tasks according to the biblical understanding of God. Barth’s trinitarian understanding involves the God’s work from the creation to the eschatological achievement of the redemption always at his pre- sent doing. This means that God’s trinitarian work implies three time dimensions(past-present-future) at the every single event of the historical procedure. And, according to Barth, it is also impor- tant to see that the trinitarian understanding of God is meaningful only through the exegetic understanding of the revelatory event of Jesus Christ. Lastly, when we develop the meaning of the histo- rical characterization of the revelation itself in Jesus Christ, it is also possible to suggest the revelational realism of trinitarian God as a alternative for the new kind of reality understanding in a scientific age.

현대과학에서의 자아문제와 삼위일체적 자아 이해 -현대 뇌 과학을 중심으로

황돈형 ( Don Hyung Hwang ) 한국조직신학회 2010 한국조직신학논총 Vol.28 No.-

It is a task of this thesis to show the importance of theological understanding of the human being as a multilevel psychosomatic unity in connection with the neuroscience. Especially, it`s purpose indicates a possibility that the biblical understanding of image of God supports the holistic understanding of human as a "I" centered responsible historical person from the eschatological point of view. First of all, it is not easy to find a appropriate relationship between theology and science in recent times. It is due to the theory of evolution of Charles Darwin. After his theory, science and theology are conflicting with each other for the explanation of origin of human being. In these conflicts, It must be also noticed that Thomas Huxley and Herbert Spencer intensified and modified evolution theory as a world viewpoint that insists the godless-process of life of the world. In the present situation, as we know, it is popular to accept evolution as the starting point for account of human nature. As a consequence, it becomes very difficult to justify the personal "I" as the psychic reality of human being. Scientific reductionism replaces the personal identity with the genetic causes or socio-political matters. It brings the problem of human identity against traditional understanding of human being. But it can be asserted that results of neuroscience studies suggest that the personal "I" simply can not be reduced to the physical causes. Each human being, as a psychosomatic reality, is a "I" centered subject that can achieve what is regard as the responsible act for social life and then it is not to be governed by the neurobiological law only. On the contrary, the "I" centered subject as a psychosomatic reality is emergent from the cognitive and active response of brain to the circumstance. In brain, the personal identity is produced in every moment from the recognition of responsible act in according to the social cultural system. But, in this recognition of responsibility, the personal identity chooses a appropriate action in a certain situation according to the various personal viewpoints. In this way it is certainly true that the personal identity can be actualized as a phenomenon of mind, and the personal identity is not be explained only within the physical laws. On the contrary, the psychic reality of mind play a very important role to construct the personal identity. At this point, theologically speaking, the base of personal identity can be called as soul. The meaning of soul is characterized as image of God. And the meaning of image of God in the bible is not described as the separated certain part of human being. It is connected with the God`s will for the completion of the world. According to the New Testament, the image of God is decisively identified with Jesus Christ. The image of God that is appeared in the person of Jesus Christ represent not only the personal being in correspondence with the God`s being, but also the personal identity in the historical life in correspondence with the eschatological salvation. Jesus Christ as the image of God is the promise for human personal identity. Every human being is regarded as the image of God in Jesus Christ and is opened toward the God`s eschatological salvation. In a word, the image of God as the reality of soul discloses the human life in the trinitarian God`s love that creates the world and saves the world and redeems the world. And it makes possible that every human being takes the trinitarian God`s personal identity in this world with the eschatological hope. In this viewpoint, it is a very important to see that the personal identity which is based on the image of God can achieve one`s own life according to the eschatological reality.

대중문화와 복음의 연관성에 대한 신학적 이해 인간성의 실현을 위하여

황돈형 ( Don Hyung Hwang ) 한국조직신학회 2012 組織神學論叢 Vol.32 No.-

It is very significant to understand the relationship between the Gospel and Popular Culture in a (post)modern situation. It is due to the fact that we as christians take enormous influence of Popular Culture to our every day life. The importance of Popular Culture is founded in the many kinds of it`s possibility, which is given by the modern scientific development, to express the human self- image as his(her) wishes. And now as it`s consequences, it is explaind how the human self understanding can be appeared through the way of the articulation of the Popular Culture. I tried to indicate the general relationship between the Gospel and Culture in the actual situation. Then I found that the Gospel and Culture take simultaneously its each way of appearances with each other`s influences in a certain situation. It should not be accepted that the Gospel and the Culture can be investigated separately. On the contrary, it is quite certain that the Culture and the Gospel work together in a same process for the achieving the humanity. In this point of view, it is also very important to see how the Gospel and the Culture work together. Now this process can be explained in three spheres. First, the three limitations of the Popular Culture that are in the historical procedure appeared, are brought out as un-historization, a/meaning process, a/body(a/virtualization of the time). Second, the way of articulation of humanity of the Gospel in the cultural background are characterized correspondently with the limitation of the Popular Culture, as the appearance of historical reality, a meaningful procedure of human behaviour, a eschatological assurance of the history. And lastly, it is suggested that a new cultural behavior to achieve the humanity can be founded in the historical horizon of the Gospel. As a conclusion, it is maintained that the Gospel in a close relation with the Popular Culture as its critical partner cooperates for a realization of the humanity.

언어와 계시 -현실적 언어와 종말론적 언어-

황돈형 ( Don Hyung Hwang ) 한국조직신학회 2008 組織神學論叢 Vol.20 No.-

Barth 신학과 현대과학의 관계성에 대하여 -신학적 인간론을 중심으로

황돈형 ( Don Hyung Hwang ) 한국조직신학회 2011 組織神學論叢 Vol.30 No.-

In recent theological discussion, there has been a somewhat critical realization of the need to connect with the scientific truth. The connection between the theological understanding of the Gospel and the scientific understanding of world is of particular concern to a modern theology, and is developed more substantially. Here, I attempt to show the possibility of the relationship between Barth`s theological method and the scientific method, concentered on the thema of anthropological views. First of all, it is to be mentioned that Barth asserts that the importance of the theological understanding of human being comes from the historical fact, that Jesus Christ has existed as a actual human being in the history and showed the actual reality that man does not exist alone, but in connection with God. In contrast to this distinct understanding of human being, the modern human scientific methodological ambivalence, which defines the actual human reality, requires also the comprehensive understanding of human being. At this point it seems natural that Barth sees the possibility of the relationship between the theological understanding of human being with the another anthropological sciences as a answer for the need of the most realistic understanding of human being. Barth has tried to grasp the meaning of the divers researches of human being; scientific researches and philosophical understanding and lastly the existential meaning of human being. In this context Barth does not reject aexact-scientific method. On the contrary, he makes it clear that the exact scientific method could be coincided with the theological method. Barth insists that science should not be abused by religious or philosophical concerns. Barth speaks for the exact scientific procedure for science itself. Under this condition Barth insists that the scientific knowledge can be used for the theological understanding of human being. The attitude of Barth toward the science is summarized as such as that he accepts the scientific knowledge, meanwhile rejecting the scientific world view which is departed from the exact scientific procedure. And it is also important to see that the new development of the scientific knowledge supports the Barth`s interpretation of the human reality. Recently many kinds of anthropological sciences and the psychological understanding of human person represent the more abundant possibility of the connection with Barth`s theological perspective of human being. Even though it needs a more scrutinizing study for building this connection, a new kind of scientific frame and philosophical approaches to reality affirm the positive relationship between the Barth`s theological understanding of human being and actual human being. Moreover, according to Barth`s perspective of relationship between God and the world, theology does not find any disturbance to the unified understanding of the world with the development of the science. He will may argue for a new possibility of connection between theology and science. According to his view, it is sure that theology supports the scientific truth as a truth of the world. Barth`s idea of Light theory which is developed in his church dogmatics IV/3, grounds and characterizes the basic relationship between theology and science. Theology as a explanation of gospel makes disclose the reciprocal relation between God and the world. In light of the reconciliation of God with the world, it must be emphasized that the world is nothing but the creative work of God. In so far as the science is the intellectual discipline which attempt to understand this world, it`s intellectual aim corresponds to the recognition of the creative work of God in the nature, which is open to the future of God`s redemptive acts. Barth points out the problems and failures which plagued the relationship between theology and science and attempt to reestablish the basic relation which is based on the gospel.

일반논문 : 가상현실과 복음의 토착화

황돈형 ( Don Hyung Hwang ) 한국조직신학회 2007 組織神學論叢 Vol.18 No.-

신학의 실천적 진리개념의 가능성을 위한 바르트 계시이해 -계시의 “현실성과 가능성” 개념을 중심으로

황돈형 ( Don Hyung Hwang ) 한국조직신학회 2013 한국조직신학논총 Vol.36 No.-

오늘날 진리를 말하는 방식은 단지 형이상학적 실체나 원리를 제시함으로써 가능하지 않다. 오히려 모든 진리에 대한 서술은 탈형이상학적 관점으로부터 사회적 과정을 통해 이루어지고 있는 것이다. 그리하여 진리를 말하는 언어의 특성은 진리를 말하는 화자의 애매성과 대상적 진리의 상대성 그리고 진리 인식의 실천적 다양성을 통해서 새로운 도전을 받고 있으며 새로운 언어 방식을 추구하고 있음을 알게 된다. 이러한 상황에서 신학적 언어의 가능성을 바르트 신학에서 추구한다는 것은 무슨 의미가 있는가? 그것은 무엇보다도 하나님에 대한 말의 가능성은 역사를 초월한 형이상학적 실재나 혹은 인간의 내면적 가능성으로서만 밝혀질 수 없기 때문인 것이다. 하나님에 대한 말의 가능성이 진실로 하나님에 대한 말로서 진리의 언어가 되기 위해서는 무엇보다도 먼저 하나님과 관련된 사태를 통해서만 하나님에 대하여 정당하게 말할 수 있게 되기 때문이다. 여기서 시대적 흐름을 벗어난 바르트 신학의 중요성이 있다고 여겨지게 된다. 그리고 이런 차원에서 바르트가 하나님에 대하여 어떻게 말하여 왔는가를 살펴보는 것은 오늘날의 신학적 언어의 가능성을 이해함에 있어서도 매우 중요하다고 볼 수 있는 것이다. 바르트의 가장 중요한 신학적 관심은 인간의 현실 가운데 어떻게 하나님의 현실에 대하여 말할 수 있는가 하는 것이었다. 우리는 먼저 이러한 바르트의 관심을 교회교의학이 저술되는 시기 이전과 이후로 나누어서 살펴보고자 하였다. 교회교의학이 저술되기 전 시기는 변증법적 특성을 나타내는 가운데 주로 인간의 현실에 맞서는 하나님의 현실을 부정적 진술로 말할 수 있다고 보았다. 즉 인간의 현실과 존재론적 연관성 가운데 유비적 특성을 찾을 수 없으며 점점 더 분명하게 이 세상의 모든 현실과 구분되고 차이가 발생되는 하나님의 현실로서 예수 그리스도의 현실에 대하여 말하게 된 것이다. 그러나 교회교의학 이래로 하나님의 말씀을 통해서 예수 그리스도 안에서의 전적으로 새로운 하나님의 자기계시라는 긍정적 동기를 강조하게 되어진다. 여기서 중요한 것은 하나님이 예수 그리스도 안에서 자기를 계시하면서 자기를 인간의 형식과 언어 가운데 동일시 하셨으며 동시에 인간성의 존재 가운데 자기를 인식할 수 있는 가능성을 가져다 주셨다는 하나님의 삼위일체적 계시 이해였다. 다시 말해서 계시의 주체와 대상 그리고 대상의 인식이 하나의 계시의 사건을 이루고 있으며 이는 서로 분리되어진 세 부분의 단순한 결합이 아니라 바로 삼위일체적 한 분 하나님의 존재라는 인식이 중요한 것이었다. 이러한 계시를 이루는 특성은 이제 계시의 객관적 현실성과 가능성 그리고 계시의 주관적 현실성과 가능성으로 예수 그리스도의 계시를 분석적으로 해석하게 되어진다. 이것은 삼위일체적 계시가 하나님의 행위에 대하여 역사적 차원에서 분리되지 않는 현재성을 제시하고 있는 것으로서 계시적 진리 인식의 주체성과 대상성 그리고 실천적 특성을 분명하게 나타내는 것이다. 이러한 바르트의 신학적 언어의 특성은 놀랍게도 오늘날의 진리를 말하는 언어적 과제에 상응하게 많은 대안점을 제시하며 공헌하고 있음이 알려진다. In contemporary philosophy it is not certainly available any more to speak about truth as designating at the metaphysical reality or principle. On the contrary it becomes important to take a non metaphysical and historical way to describe the truth, pursuing sociopolitical processes of realization of it. We face here a new task of forming of a language to be able to affirm the speaker of language and the objective reality of language and the realization of understanding by the way of speaking truth. In this situation what does it means by that we try to find the possibility of theological language in the Barth`s understanding of language? This depends on the theological point of view that makes a meaningful statement about God. As we admit that the language of God is not simply based on the transcendental idea of God or the historical experience of human mind, it is important to see that Barth makes the language of God meaningful through God`s language itself. In this perspective it is also helpful to reconstruct the possi- bility of theological language by trying to understand the Barth` way of speaking of God. The most important theological concern of Barth is to speak of God in the human reality. Before and After the church dogmatics it is distinguished to use different way of speaking of God. Before the church dogmatic appeared, Barth, using the dialectical method, talked about God negatively who is found against the world. God`s reality is characterized by having no ontological continuity with the world and critical difference between them. But starting with church dogmatic period, Barth concentrates on the reality of Word of God events. Especially he, identifying the Word of God with the historical person, Jesus Christ, try to understand the Word of God event not only as the objective reality and possibility of revelation but also as the subjective reality and possibility of revelation. This is concluded as the trinitarian God`s self revelatory act. This kind of understanding of revelation of God attributes to that speaks of God in a non-metaphysical way. It is also certainly approved that language of God achieved its aim through the historical procedure with practical results. And the trinitarian language of God`s revelation reconstructs the subjectivity of recognition of revelatory truth and the objectivity of revelatory event and practical consequences of revelation recognition itself. In a word, with admitting the certain epochal limitations of Barth theology, it is meaningful to follow the Barth`s understanding of revelatory language of God, that in many respects corresponds with the contemporary understanding of language and moreover suggests a new way of resolving the modern problems.