칼 바르트의 敎會를 위한 하나님의 말씀으로서의 聖書 : 敎會 敎義學 (I/2, 3장) '聖書' 를 中心으로

정도열 啓明大學校 大學院 1997 국내석사

The purpose of this study is to grasp the construction and the characters of his doctrine of the Holy Scripture. Many people have criticized Karl Barth's doctrine of the Bible, yet there are few who proves what is the core of his doctrine of the Bible. Therefore I have researched the core structure of his doctrine of the Bible in Church Dogmatics 1/2, Chapter 3, the Holy Scripture which is systematized by Barth himself. This study is composed of 5 chapters, In chapter I, Barth criticized that the early Church's doctrine of inspiration would be slipped into docetism and secularization, and the Catholic Church's doctrine of the Holy Scripture which is equal to tradition. He accepts the Reformers' doctrine. Especially he accepts that Luther's doctrine that the subject matter of the Bible is the Christ and Calvin's doctrine of inspiration of the Holy Scripture. In the early works of Barth, he approves that the content of the Holy Scripture is the revelation of the Triune God and the subject matter is Jesus Christ who was crucified and resurrected. Barth sees that the Holy Scripture is one form of-1he Word of God, and that the Word of God is not the object truth or spiritual principle but the living God's speaking, the acts of God and the mystery of God. In chapter Ⅱ, Barth asserts that the Holy Scripture is not God's revelation itself but the witness of God's revelation. Then, this witness has form of the pure human word, and the object of the witness is God's revelation. Therefore the Holy Scripture is the Word of God. The proposition that the Bible is the witness of God's revelation, is the foundation of Barth's doctrine of the Holy Scripture. Barth says that the condition that the Holy Scripture becomes the Word of God, and points out that the Canon is unity in Jesus Christ. As the Holy Scripture is revealed to us here and now in form of reflection and expectation, this is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is not because the Bible is infallible but because God formulates the miracle with grace. Especially, Barth accepts that Reformers' doctrine of verbal inspiration. He agrees with them in the fact that the origin of the Bible is God and Holy Spirit and its content is the witness about Christ. But he does not stress on the inspired Scripture but on the works of Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit raises, only in the text inspired, the miracle that the Bible would become the Word of God to those who read and hear the Bible. In this meaning, he accepts the verbal inspiration. In Chapter Ⅲ, for Barth, the Bible has divine authority not because Bible is infallible but because of Jesus' having the direct, absolute authority. The Bible is the foundation, origin and the oldest record in the Church. Through this Bible, the Church has unity over the time and space and in the proclamation of the Church. Also the Bible has the authority as a mediator, raising the revelation of God to us repeatedly. Many people try to find the authority of the Bible in the doctrine of inspiradon. But for Barth, the authority of the Bible does not come from the authority of the Bible itself but the authority is from Jesus Christ himself, who is the revelation of God, from the authority of Holy Spirit who testifies Jesus Christ to us presently and from the authority of Triune God enables us to receive the Bible as Word of God. Therefore, the authority of the Church is under the authority of the Bible. In chapter Ⅳ, for Barth, the Word of God gives true freedom compelling God's people to obey spontaneously, when they hear the Bible. This freedom makes us born again, preserves our new life and helps us to serve God. This freedom comes from the power of Jesus Christ who was crucified and resurrected. This freedom keeps the word of God from the world, separates itself from the world and conquers the power of darkness uniquely against it. Especially the Bible has the freedom that unites all kinds of people anytime and anyplace, creating, Preserving and ruling the Church in spite of man's sinful nature and mortality. This freedom of the Bible is divine freedom. Therefore, the freedom of the Church, the human freedom in the Church, is under the Word of God, the Bible. This freedom claims the responsibility the interpretation and application of the Bible. For Barth, the first step is historical critical study. The second step is the act of Christological text consideration: human philosophy must be decided and controled by the Biblical text and by Jesus Christ. The third step is application; we are assimilated with the object testified by the Bible through observation and consideration. In chapter V, based on the study, I have demonstrated that Barth's doctrine of the Holy Scripture has four characteristics. First, the nature of the Bible is God's mystery with it's humanity and divinity. The Bible is not only the divine and human thing, but it is not mixed or compounded to each other. Therefore, the Bible is a mystery in itself. As God and the human meet each other in Christ, who is the perfect God and also the perfect man, so does the Word of God and the word of human meet in the Bible. As God and the human exist together and have fellowship with him or her in Jesus Christ, God speaks to man through the Bible, and he or she replies and testifies after hearing the Word of God through it. Second, the subject matter of the Bible is the Christ. For Barth, the Bible is written in human language, but it is the Word of God, because it testifies God's revelation in Jesus Christ, the object of witness, who has become a human being. The foundation of that Canon is approved officially by the Church and is recognized as the Word of God, is because it testifies Jesus Christ. According to Barth, it is possible that the mystery of the Bible has the human and the divine Word, because the Bible testifies the incarnated Christ. Third, the purpose of the Bible is for the Church. The Bible is the Word of God which was given to the Church, the body of Christ. The Bible is the foundation and origin of the Church. The Bible has the divine power and liberty to establish the Church and to preserve it. The Bible, the Word of God, continues to maintain and rule over the Church, and the liberty of the Bible is divine and it is the sovereignty of the Creator. For this reason, the authority and the liberty of the Church is "under the Word of God". Fourth, The function of the Bible is in the works of the Triune God. Barth's doctrine of the Holy Scripture puts the weight on the Triune God, who lives and makes miracles through the Bible here and now. Barth asserts that the Bible is the foundation upon which God works, and it is the material that he uses. So it is not important whether the Bible is fallible or infallible. For Barth, the real important matter in the understanding of the Bible is whether the Triune God makes miracles of grace through the Scripture. As a result of this research, I have argued that Barth's doctrine of Holy Scripture has the following problematic areas. The first problem can be said that due to his emphasis upon God's gracious act and human obedience, he underevaluates the importance of the Bible itself. This forces him to push the Scripture into the passive position. The second problem is that since he denies the objective truth of the Bible, his doctrine has a danger of losing the confidence in the Scripture. The last problem may be explained that since he defines that the Bible is the Word of God for the Church, his doctrine can be utilized only within the Church, disregarding people who are living outside the Church. Eventually this kind of doctrine opens some negligence of the function of the Bible for its intended purpose which is to witness jesus to nonbelievers.

언약의 통일성과 다양성 : 개혁주의 언약신학과 웨스트민스터 신앙고백서 언약사상 연구

정도열 국제신학대학원대학교 2014 국내박사

The Covenant Theology rediscovered by the Reformers was compiled in chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Covenant Theology was not devised by an individual. It was already revealed by Irenaeus and Augustine in during the second and fourth centuries. However, Covenant Theology had been buried by Catholic ritualism and nominalism during the Middle Ages. It was only used to elevate the authority of the Holy Sacrament in the Catholic Church. Covenant Theology was rediscovered by the Reformer Zwingli through a dispute over Anabaptists' denying the infant baptism. However Zwingli already had the idea of Covenant Theology. It was systemized by his disciple Blinger. After that, Oecolampadius and Ursinus laid the foundation of covenant theology. Ursinus divided the covenant of God into the Covenant of Nature and the Covenant of Grace in the Heidelberg Catechism. He applied Covenant Theology even to the time of creation. Through his work it was confirmed that all the covenants pointed to Jesus, the Old and New Testaments having unity and continuity as one covenant. The faith of the covenant was spread among the persecuted Puritans and it was established as the Covenant of Work and the Covenant of Grace by them. They put Covenant Theology into practice in their daily lives and their society. They could deeply understand the Gospel of Jesus' death on the cross and His resurrection based on the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of grace. In this way, the Covenant Theology of the Reformers was compiled in the Westminster Confession of Faith systematically. Therefore, Reformed Covenant Theology could protect Christianity from Arminians who weakened the sovereignty of God, and emphasized human works. Also, Antinomianism ignored human responsibility. Moreover, Covenant Theology could protect Christianity from the Catholicism, keep Reformed thought from the heresy dof the anabaptists. Through this, the Reformers established the identity of Reformed Theology. However, the Covenant Theology in the Westminster Confession of Faith implied understanding of the Covenant of Redemption. It defined the Covenant of Grace as the Covenant God made with Jesus, the representative of the human beings God gave to Him before eternity. But Witsius established the Covenant of Redemption made before eternity, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace made in history. The covenant God made with Jesus Christ was the covenant made with God in the Trinity. The first covenant made with Adam in Eden was the Covenant of Creation(Natural covenant or Legal Covenant or the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Life). The covenant made with the elected people after Adam's fall was the Covenant of Grace. Witsius combined the reformed Covenant Theology in the unity and variety of the covenants. After that, the Covenant Theology in the Westminster Confession of Faith was placed as one of the important foundations of Reformed Theology. However, in the 20th Century, the Covenant of Works was negated by Karl Bart and Reformed Covenant Theology was greatly challenged. Because Karl Barth and existential theologians didn't think of the creation account as real history, but as the Saga(Geschichte), the Covenant of Works was ignored. They didn't consider the sin of Adam as the severe sin of disobeying God's will. They just regarded the sin as an accidental incident that just happened, like a child stumbling by mistake. So they did not acknowledge the relationship with God as the covenant relationship, in which humans should give perfect and eternal obedience to God. They claim that the Covenant of Grace God made with Christ, is the only covenant. They only acknowledge this covenant, excluding others. Torrance and Rolston criticized that the Covenant Theology in the Westminster Confession of Faith was different from Calvin's theology. It changed the sovereignty and grace of God into human works and law. They separated Calvinists from Calvin and insisted that Covenant Theology in the Westminster Confession of Faith had left the covenant thought of Calvin. But C. Hodge, A. Hodge, L. Berkhof, Geerhardus Vos, J. Murry, M. Cline, P. Robertson, W. VanGemeren, M. Horton, and such Reformed theologians, basically accepted the Covenant Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith and followed it, even though they had some specifically different viewpoints. Horton took the advantages of the Reformed theologians and established the framework of the Reformed Covenant Theology firmly. But Covenant Theology was greatly challenged because of the new perspectives of Paul and Federal Vision in the Reformed Theology. It started from human pride, which restricted the God of justice and love to only the God of Grace. The Covenant Theology of Reformed Theology and the Westminster Confession of Faith is the spiritual legacy that Paul and the Reformers handed down to us. Covenant Theology is a vessel holding th Gospel of Cross and resurrection that Paul preached. It is one of the important bases of Reformed Theology. Christians should find a way to apply Covenant Theology to their daily pious lives, and develop it without only displaying it on the showcase, like an antique. Covenant Theology will play the role of a cornerstone, protecting the Reformed Theology from charismatics and mysticism, such in Pentecostalism and the New Apostolic movement. But today, Reformed Covenant Theology has been confronted with a serious crises. It is worried that Reformed Covenant Theology will be transformed and distorted into various aspects. The covenant of works is like a bank of a dam which fills with water. The Covenant of Grace is based on the Covenant of Works. If the Covenant of Work disappears, the Covenant of Grace will be gone. 종교개혁자들에 의해서 재발견된 언약 사상은 웨스트민스터 신앙고백서 제7장에서 집대성되었다. 따라서 웨스트민스터 신앙고백서의 언약사상은 종교개혁자들의 언약 사상의 결정체라고 할 수 있다. 언약사상은 어느 누가 개인적으로 창안해낸 사상이 아니다. 언약사상은 이미 2-4세기에 이레니우스와 어거스틴에 의해 부분적으로 드러났다. 그러나 그 언약사상이 중세를 지내오면서 가톨릭의 의식주의와 유명론자들에 의해 묻혀 있었다. 중세에는 언약사상이 성례의식의 권위를 세우는 목적으로만 사용이 되었다. 그러나 종교개혁자 츠빙글리에 의해서 재발견되었다. 그의 개혁사상에 언약 신학이 이미 있었지만 재세례파와 유아세례에 대한 논쟁을 통해서 언약신학이 그 모습을 드러내었다. 언약사상은 그의 제자 블링거에 의해 체계화되었다. 그 후 외콜람파디우스와 우르시누스에 의해 개혁주의 언약 신학의 기초를 놓게 되었다. 특히 우르시누스가 하이델베르크 요리문답에서 하나님의 언약을 자연언약과 은혜언약으로 구분함으로서 언약사상을 창조사건에까지 거슬러 적용하게 되었다. 모든 언약들이 예수 그리스도를 가리키고 있으며, 신구약이 하나의 언약으로 통일을 이루고 연속성을 가지고 있음을 확인하게 되었다. 박해받는 청교도들에게 언약신앙이 전파되어 행위언약과 은혜언약으로 정립하과 언약사상을 실제 삶 속에서 적용하게 되었다. 행위언약과 은혜언약 사상에 근거하여 예수 그리스도의 십자가와 부활의 복음을 더욱 깊이 이해하게 되었다. 이처럼 종교개혁자들의 언약사상이 웨스트민스터 신앙고백서에 체계적으로 잘 집대성되었다. 웨스트민스터 신앙고백서에 개혁주의 언약사상이 정립됨으로서 하나님의 주권을 약화시키고 인간의 행위를 강조하던 아리우스주의자들과 도덕폐기론자들로부터 기독교를 지킬 수 있었다. 뿐만 아니라 언약사상이 가톨릭으로부터 기독교를 지켜내었고, 재세례파나 알미니안주의 등 교묘한 이단들로부터 개혁주의를 지켜내는 역할을 했다. 이를 통해서 개혁주의 신학의 정체성을 이루게 되었다. 그렇지만 웨스트민스터 신앙고백서의 언약사상에는 구속언약에 대한 이해가 부족하였다. 은혜언약을 하나님께서 인류의 대표로 세우신 예수 그리스도와 그에게 주신 자들과 영원 전에 맺으신 언약으로 규정하였다. 그러나 윗시우스에 의하여 영원 전에 맺으신 구속언약과 역사 속에서 맺으신 행위언약과 은혜언약으로 정리되었다. 하나님께서 그리스도와 맺으신 언약은 창세전에 삼위 하나님 안에서 맺으신 언약이며, 역사 속에서 에덴에서 아담과 맺으신 첫 언약이 창조언약(자연언약, 법률언약, 행위언약, 생명언약)이며, 아담이 타락한 이후에 하나님께서 택하신 사람들과 맺으신 언약이 은혜언약이다. 윗시우스는 언약의 통일성과 다양성 속에서 개혁주의 언약사상을 통합하였다. 그 이후에 18,19세기에는 웨스트민스터 신앙고백서의 언약사상이 개혁주의 신학의 중요한 근거로 자리를 잡았다. 그러나 20세기에 들어와서 칼 바르트에 의해서 행위언약이 부정되었고, 개혁주의 언약신학이 큰 도전을 받게 되었다. 바르트와 실존주의 신학자들은 창조 자체를 역사(history)로 보지 않고 사가(Geschichte)로 보기 때문에 창조언약이나 행위언약이 무시된다. 아담의 범죄를 하나님께 불순종하고 하나니의 주권에 도전한 심각한 죄로 여기지 않는다. 어린 아이가 돌부리에 걸려 넘어진 것처럼 돌발적으로 일어난 사건으로 본다. 그래서 하나님과 인간의 관계를 완전하고 영원한 순종을 전제로 한 언약관계로 인정하지 않는다. 창세전에 그리스도와 맺으신 은혜언약이 유일한 언약이다. 은혜언약의 유일성만 주장한다. 특히 토렌스와 롤스톤는 웨스트민스터 신앙고백서의 언약사상이 칼빈 신학과 다르며 하나님의 주권과 은혜를 인간의 행위와 율법으로 바꾸었다고 비난하였다. 그들은 칼빈과 칼빈주의자들을 분리하고, 그들이 칼빈의 언약사상을 떠났다고 주장한다. 그러나 찰스 핫지나 A. 핫지, 벌코프, 게할더스 보스를 위시한 머레이, 클라인, 로벗슨, 밴게메렌, 호튼 등과 같은 개혁주의 신학자들은 웨스트민스터 신앙고백서의 언약사상을 세밀한 부분은 조금씩 다르지만 근본적으로 수용하고 따르고 있다. 호튼은 개혁주의 신학자들의 장점들을 수용하여 구속언약과 창조언약, 은혜언약이라는 확고한 개혁주의 언약사상의 틀을 세운 것으로 생각된다. 그러나 개혁주의 안에서 일어나는 바울의 새 관점이나 페더럴 비전으로 인해 개혁주의 언약사상은 크게 위협을 받고 있다. 공의와 사랑의 하나님을 은혜의 하나님으로 가두러 두려고 하는 인간의 교만에서 비롯된 것이다. 개혁주의 언약신학과 웨스트민스터 신앙고백서의 언약사상은 바울과 종교개혁자들이 우리에게 물려준 영적 유산이다. 언약신학은 바울이 전한 십자가와 부활의 복음을 담을 수 있는 그릇이다. 개혁주의 신학의 중요한 기초 중의 하나이다. 개혁주의 언약신학이 진열장에 갇혀있는 골동품이 되지 않고 실제적인 그리스도인의 삶 속에 적용하며 발전시켜 나아가는 길을 모색해야 한다. 언약신학은 오순절 운동이나 신사도 운동과 같은 은사주의와 신비주의로부터 개혁주의 신앙을 지켜낼 수 있는 모퉁이돌과 같은 역할을 할 것이다. 그러나 개혁교회 안에서 일어나는 새 신학운동이나 페더럴 비전, 바울의 새 관점주의자들에 의해 개혁주의 언약사상은 심각한 위기에 직면해 있다. 다양한 모습으로 변형되고 왜곡되는 것이 심히 우려스럽다. 행위언약은 은혜의 댐에 물을 가두는 둑과 같다. 이 둑을 무너뜨리면 은혜도 함께 사라져 버리게 될 것이다.

鞍馬運動에 있어서의 兩脚旋回의 硏究

정도열 慶熙大學校 大學院 1982 국내석사