Preaching Justification As Preaching Christ

김지혁 한국실천신학회 2017 신학과 실천 Vol.0 No.55

The goal of this paper is to explicate how the understanding of the doctrine of justification can affect the preaching of justification. In justification Paul greatly emphasizes the individual's lack of worthiness and need of grace before God. Since the rise of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), the traditional interpretation of the doctrine of justification has changed in many ways. The NPP unanimously rejects the Protestant grace/work antithesis as the key to the doctrine. This paper attempts to re-emphasizes the place of the individual in justification based on textual considerations, while not neglecting important corporate elements highlighted by the NPP. Salvation for Paul was not merely about the individual, but was part of a much larger scheme where God reconciles all humankind to himself. With respect to the term of imputation, Paul never expressly states that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers. The NPP made it fashionable to regard imputed righteousness as legal fiction. However this paper proposes that the notion of imputation is entirely legitimate as a way of restating the forensic nature of justification against an infused righteousness. Besides it suggests the use of language that more readily comports with Paul's concept of justification, that is, union with Christ. Since salvation and eschatology are integrally and organically connected, the focus in our preaching should be both on the salvation which is already experienced as a present reality and on the eschatological fullness of salvation which still remains a future hope. This paper argues that the doctrine of justification is an utterly Christocentric doctrine in that the justification of sinner takes place only in and through the justification of God in the event of the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The only righteousness of Christian that will avail before the judgment of God is the righteousness of Christ. Therefore preaching justification should be preaching Christ. Preachers must set forth Christ in their preaching of justification, as Christ is the center of the whole Bible.

바울의 법정적인 칭의개념 - 종교개혁적 관점과 ‘바울에 대한 새 관점’의 비교를 중심으로 -

이충원 한국개혁신학회 2010 한국개혁신학 Vol.27 No.-

This essay is to clarify the juridical meaning of the concept of justification in the doctrine of 'justification by faith,' which has been regarded as the fundamental truth of Christian faith by the theologians of Reformation tradition. Reformation theologians, whose representatives can be considered Luther and Calvin, understood justification in terms of the juristic category. According to their interpretation about Paul’s phrase “being justified”, the sinners were being declared righteous by God's grace before the tribunal of God even though they were still as sinners. For them, justification is not the real transformation of sinners which medieval theologians considered as the meaning of the justification, but 'the imputation of righteousness'(Rom. 4:5), namely regarding the sinners as the righteous on the ground of the substitutionary death of Christ. Also they were assured that the sinners declared to be righteous by faith could enter the eternal life at the final judgement only by the faith in Jesus Christ. For them, the issue of the doctrine of justification is not only the present redemption but also the future one. However, Sanders, who has begun 'the new perspective on Paul', insisted against Reformation theologians that Paul's concept of justification should not be understood in terms of the juristic category, but rather in terms of participatory category in which the unity of the believers with Christ is regarded as the key of divine salvation. Sanders suggested that justification should not be understood in terms of juristic terms by appealing to the fact that ‘repentance’ and ‘forgiveness,’ the two key terms for juristic soteriology in Judaism do not appear in Paul’s doctrine of justification. Also he claimed that the issue of 'justification by faith' could not be on the salvation at the last judgement in the future, but on the entrance into the people of God at present. My thesis is that Paul's texts on the justification support the Reformational perspective which understood the justification in terms of juristic category. It is assured that 'to be justified(dikaiwqh/nai)' was used in juridical context in Rom. 1:18-5:21. Futhermore, it is evident in Rom. 5:9 that justification by faith at present was meant not only entrance into the immediate redemption and the guarantee of the salvation in the future as well, as Reformation theologians had understood it. So Sanders' thesis that justification is related only to present entrance into the people of God but not to last judgement appears to be unavailable. And it is obvious that when Paul said of the cross of Christ as the ground of justification, he thought it in juristic terms, for the term, 'to give up(paradoqh/nai)' which was used to refer to Christ's death should be understood as juristic concept. The fact that Paul thought of the cross in terms of juristic category invalidates Sanders' argument that Paul was supposed not to think justification in juristic terms, since Paul's doctrine of justification lacks a discussion of repentance and forgiveness. We can conclude that Reformational perspective which thought Paul's justification in juristic terms can reveal the real meaning of justification more appropriately than the new perspective which tried to remove the juristic meaning in Paul's soteriology. 본고의 의도는 종교개혁자들에 의해서 기독교 신앙의 기본진리로 이해되어 온 ‘믿음에 의한 칭의’교리 중 칭의개념의 법정적 의미를 밝히는 것이다. 루터와 칼빈으로 대표되는 종교개혁자들은 칭의를 법정적인 범주로 이해했다. 그들은 바울의 “믿음에 의한 칭의”를 죄인들이, 비록 여전히 죄인일지라도 하나님의 법정 앞에서 하나님의 은혜로 의롭다고 선언됨이라고 이해했다. 그들에게 칭의는 중세신학자들이 이해한 것처럼 죄인의 실제적인 변화가 아니라, ‘의의 전가’(롬 4:5), 즉 하나님이 죄인들을 그리스도의 대속적인 죽음에 근거하여 의인으로 간주하심이다. 또한 그들은 믿음으로 의롭다 함을 얻은 죄인들이 마지막 심판에 오직 그리스도를 믿음만으로 영원한 생명에 들어갈 수 있다고 믿었다. 그들에게 칭의교리의 이슈는 단지 현재의 구속만이 아니라 미래적인 구속에 관한 것이기도 하다. 그러나 ‘바울에 대한 새 관점’을 시작한 샌더스는 종교개혁자들에 대항하여, 바울의 칭의개념은 법정적인 범주로 이해되어서는 안 되고 신자들의 그리스도와의 연합을 하나님의 구원의 핵심이라고 간주하는 참여적인 범주로 이해되어야 한다고 주장했다. 칭의가 법정적인 범주로 이해되어서는 안 된다는 자신의 주장에 대한 결정적인 논거로 샌더스는 유대교의 법정적인 구원론에서 핵심적인 ‘회개’와 ‘용서’라는 용어가 바울의 칭의론에서 거의 나타나지 않는다는 사실을 들었다. 또한 그는 ‘믿음에 의한 칭의’는 미래의 마지막 심판에 있어서의 구원에 관한 것이 아니라 현재 하나님의 백성 안으로 들어감에 관한 것이라고 주장했다. 필자의 논지는 바울의 칭의에 관한 본문들이 칭의를 법정적인 범주에서 이해한 종교개혁적인 입장을 지지한다는 것이다. ‘의롭다 함을 얻음(dikaiwqh/nai)’은 롬 1:18-5:21에서 법정적인 맥락에서 사용되었다. 그리고 롬 5:9에서 현재적인 칭의는 단지 즉각적인 구원에로의 들어감만이 아니라 종교개혁자들이 주장한 대로 미래에 있어서의 구원의 보장도 의미했다는 것은 분명하다. 그래서 칭의가 현재의 하나님의 백성 안으로 들어감과만 관련된다는 샌더스의 논제는 성립하기 어렵다. 그리고 바울이 그리스도의 십자가를 칭의의 근거로 말할 때 그는 법정적인 견지에서 생각했음이 분명하다. 왜냐하면 칭의의 근거로서 그리스도의 죽음을 말하기 위해서 사용된 ‘내어줌(paradoqh/nai)’이란 용어(갈 2:20-21)는 법정적인 개념으로 이해되어야 하기 때문이다. 바울이 법정적인 범주로 십자가를 이해했다는 사실은 바울의 칭의교리가 회개나 용서라는 단어를 거의 사용하지 않았기 때문에 바울은 칭의를 법정적인 범주로 생각했을 리가 없다는 샌더스의 주장을 결정적으로 무력화시킨다. 필자의 결론은 바울의 칭의교리를 법정적인 범주에서 생각한 종교개혁적인 관점이 바울의 구원론에서 법정적인 의미를 제거하려 한 새 관점보다 더 적절하게 칭의의 실제적인 의미를 드러낼 수 있다는 것이다.

성화와의 관계성 측면에서 바라본 토마스 굳윈(1600-1680)의 칭의론

김효남 ( Hyonam Kim ) 한국개혁신학회 2018 한국개혁신학 Vol.58 No.-

본 연구의 목적은 현재 제기되고 있는 전통적인 칭의 개념, 특히 전통적인 개혁파 칭의 개념에 대한 비판 중에서 개혁파 칭의론이 전통적으로 칭의와 성화를 분리시켰으며, 칭의의 법정적 측면만 언급하지 관계적 측면에는 침묵한다는 비판에 대하여 17세기 잉글랜드의 대표적인 개혁파 청교도인 토마스 굳윈의 칭의론을 통하여 논박하는 것이다. 굳윈은 칼빈을 비롯한 개혁주의 진영의 종교개혁자들이 가졌던 칭의의 개념을 충실히 계승하면서 동시에 시대적 상황과 요청에 따라 그들에게 씨앗의 형태로 남아있던 개념을 더욱 날카롭고 정교하게 만들었다. 칭의와 성화는 은혜언약의 축복으로 주어지는 것인데, 칼빈과 마찬가지로 굳윈도 이 두 축복의 기초는 그리스도와의 연합임을 분명히 한다. 그리고 그는 연합개념과 믿음 교리를 통해서 칭의와 성화가 결코 분리되지 않으며, 서로 불가분의 관계를 맺고 있다는 사실을 설명하였다. 그리스도께서 “우리 밖에서” 이루신 의는 믿음으로 말미암는 그리스도와의 연합을 통해서 신자에게 적용된다. 특별히 완전히 거룩하신 그리스도와의 연합을 통해서 칭의가 완성되면서, 동시에 이를 통해 얻게 되는 그리스도의 완전한 거룩은 법정적인 의미가 포함되어 있어서 칭의와 성화의 연결고리를 제공한다. 뿐만 아니라 굳윈은 칭의를 단회적이면서도 지속적으로 갱신되는 것이라고 하는데, 이는 믿음으로 말미암아 가능한 것으로서 믿음이 신자의 삶 전체에 역사하며, 그 믿음에는 성화를 일으키는 능력이 있음을 밝힘으로 이 믿음으로 말미암아 칭의와 성화가 서로 연결될 수 밖에 없음을 증명한다. 더 나아가 그는 칭의가 본질적으로 법정적인 사건이지만, 화해와 양자와 같은 관계적 축복이 칭의에서 나오는 열매임을 보여준다. The goal of this study is to refute some modern arguments that the traditional Reformed doctrine of justification have sharply separated justification and sanctification by adopting the concept of the ordo salutis instead of focusing on the doctrine of the union with Christ and that the traditional Reformed concept of judicial justification excluded from justification its relational aspect. For this purpose, as a case study, the theology of Thomas Goodwin, a representative Reformed Puritan in the seventeenth-century England, will be examined with a special attention to the inseparable relationship between justification and sanctification. On the one hand Goodwin succeeded to the Reformers' essential concepts included in their doctrine of justification; on the other hand, he developed the doctrine according to the various demands of his time by elaborating on some seminal concepts embedded in their doctrine of justification. As did Calvin, so Goodwin also teaches that the foundation of these two blessings is our mystical union with Christ and affirms that this union can only be made possible by faith alone though its origin is in eternity. With the concepts of the union with Christ and of faith, he shows that justification and sanctification are inseparable. The righteousness Christ made extra nos will be able to be applied to individual believers by their union with Christ through faith. The union with Christ's perfectly holy human nature is the last element that completes justification and at the same time His perfect holiness shared with the believer includes judicial meaning and plays the role of a connecting link between justification and sanctification. Moreover, Goodwin does not hesitate to say that justification is a once-for-all event, but he ironically sees justification as continuing by being renewed every moment. This renewal of justification may be valid on the presupposition of the continual existence of faith in the believer. Thus, given that faith works throughout the whole life of the believer since justification and that this faith has an inherent power to bring about sanctification, Goodwin proves that justification and sanctification is inseparably connected with each other. Finally, he makes it clear that justification is primarily a judicial event, but from which flow such relational fruits as reconciliation and adoption.

Preaching Justification As Preaching Christ

Kim, Ji-Hyuk 한국실천신학회 2017 신학과 실천 Vol.0 No.55

The goal of this paper is to explicate how the understanding of the doctrine of justification can affect the preaching of justification. In justification Paul greatly emphasizes the individual's lack of worthiness and need of grace before God. Since the rise of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), the traditional interpretation of the doctrine of justification has changed in many ways. The NPP unanimously rejects the Protestant grace/work antithesis as the key to the doctrine. This paper attempts to re-emphasizes the place of the individual in justification based on textual considerations, while not neglecting important corporate elements highlighted by the NPP. Salvation for Paul was not merely about the individual, but was part of a much larger scheme where God reconciles all humankind to himself. With respect to the term of imputation, Paul never expressly states that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers. The NPP made it fashionable to regard imputed righteousness as legal fiction. However this paper proposes that the notion of imputation is entirely legitimate as a way of restating the forensic nature of justification against an infused righteousness. Besides it suggests the use of language that more readily comports with Paul's concept of justification, that is, union with Christ. Since salvation and eschatology are integrally and organically connected, the focus in our preaching should be both on the salvation which is already experienced as a present reality and on the eschatological fullness of salvation which still remains a future hope. This paper argues that the doctrine of justification is an utterly Christocentric doctrine in that the justification of sinner takes place only in and through the justification of God in the event of the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The only righteousness of Christian that will avail before the judgment of God is the righteousness of Christ. Therefore preaching justification should be preaching Christ. Preachers must set forth Christ in their preaching of justification, as Christ is the center of the whole Bible.

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”.

초등학교 교사들의 수학적 정당화에 대한 연구

김정하,강문봉 대한수학교육학회 2009 수학교육학연구 Vol.19 No.3

본 연구는 초등학교 교사들의 수학적 정당화에 관한 인식을 설문 조사와 면담을 통하여 연구한 것이다. 초등학교 교사를 수학 관련 교과를 전공한 교사(수학 관련 교사)와 그 밖의 교과를 전공한 교사(비관련 교사)로 구분하여 두 집단 간의 수학적 정당화의 인식과 정당화의 선호도를 조사 연구하였다. 조사 결과, 다음과 같은 결론을 내릴 수 있다. 첫째, 우리나라 초등학교 교사들은 비교적 수학적 정당화에 대해 대체로 잘 이해하고 있다. 수학적 정당화는 필요하며 이는 논리적 사고를 기르거나 수학적 지식을 이해시키는 데에 좋은 방법이라는 것에 대해 잘 인식하고 있으며, 권위적 정당화를 선호하지 않고, 형식적 정당화나 귀납적 정당화를 더 가치 있게 여기고 있다. 둘째, 우리나라 초등학교 교사들은 자기 자신이 증명을 할 경우에는 형식적인 수학적 정당화를 선호하나, 학생들을 가르칠 경우 학생들의 이해를 위해 형식적 증명보다는 귀납적 정당화나 그림과 같은 단서를 이용하는 것이 더 효과적이라고 생각하고 있었다. A lot of researches state mathematical justification is important. Specially, NCTM (2000) mentions that mathematical reasoning and proof should be taught every student from pre-primary school to 12 grades. Some of researches say elementary school students are also able to prove and justify their own solution(Lester, 1975; King, 1970, 1973; Reid, 2002). Balacheff(1987), Tall(1995), Harel & Sowder(1998, 2007), Simon & Blume(1996) categorize the level or the types of mathematical justification. We re-categorize the 4 types of mathematical justification basis on their studies; external conviction justification, empirical-inductive justification, generic justification, deductive justification. External conviction justification consists of authoritarian justification, ritual justification, non-referential symbolic justifi- cation. empirical-inductive justification consists of naive examples justification and crucial example justification. Generic justification consists of generic example and visual example. The results of this research are following. First, elementary school teachers in Korea respectively understand mathematical justifi- cation well. Second, elementary school teachers in Korea prefer deductive justifi- cation when they justify by themselves, while they prefer empirical-inductive justification when they teach students.

능동적 칭의(Active Justification) 개념의 신학적 중요성과 필요성 고찰

박재은 고신대학교 개혁주의학술원 2018 갱신과 부흥 Vol.22 No.-

Louis Berkhof uses the distinction between active justification and passive justification to further elucidate the sphere of justification as a whole. Similarly, Abraham Kuyper also uses the distinction between objective justification and subjective justification. While the term active justification(or objective justification) describes the sinner’s righteousness proclaimed by divine decree in the court of God, passive justification(or subjective justification) describes the sinner’s appropriation by faith of that righteousness in the court of the human. Even though the concept of active justification is theologically valid and practically useful, the idea has been criticized by Lane Tipton. This study argues that Tipton’s criticism is untenable as it is based on a misconception of active justification per se. The study shows that active justification is a valid theological term that effectively describes God’s sovereignty in perfect balance with human responsibility in the sphere of justification. In addition, the idea of active justification provides a practical tool to aid true believers in overcoming spiritual defeatism. 루이스 벌코프는 칭의를 능동적 칭의와 수동적 칭의로 그 영역을 구분하여 설명한다. 이러한 구분법은 일찍이 아브라함 카이퍼의 글 속에서도 찾을 수 있는데 카이퍼 역시 칭의를 객관적 칭의(능동적 칭의)와 주관적 칭의(수동적 칭의)로 구분해 설명하기 때문이다. 능동적 칭의 개념은 하나님의 법정에서 행해지는 죄인에 대한 하나님의 능동적 선언이며, 수동적 칭의 개념은 하나님의 능동적 칭의 선언이 믿음을 통해 죄인의 양심과 의식의 법정에서 이루어지는 개념이다. 능동적 칭의 개념은 신학적‧실천적으로 매우 중요한 개념임에도 불구하고 레인 팁턴에 의해 그 개념이 비판 받고 있다. 본고는 팁턴의 비판을 향한 신학적 반응으로 팁턴이 능동적 칭의 개념을 오해하고 있다는 사실에 주목할 것이다. 능동적 칭의 개념은 신학적‧실천적으로 중요하고 필요한 개념이다. 신학적으로는 칭의의 영역에서 하나님의 주권과 인간의 책임‧역할 사이에서 균형을 이루게 만드는 훌륭한 신학적 장치로 사용될 수 있으며, 실천적으로는 성도의 구원의 확신을 굳건케 만들뿐 아니라 영적인 패배주의를 극복할 수 있는 원동력을 제공해 줄 수 있기 때문이다.

트렌트공의회 칭의론과 칼빈의 해독문(解毒文) : 김세윤의 `유보적 칭의론`과 관련하여

최덕성 ( Choi Doug-sung ) 한국복음주의역사신학회 2017 역사신학 논총 Vol.30 No.-

존 칼빈은 “트렌트공의회 칭의교령에 대한 해독문”(antidotum, 1547)으로 프로테스탄트들이 고백하는 이신칭의가 성경적이고 합리적임을 설파했다. 풀러신학교의 신학자 김세윤 박사와 새 관점학파의 칭의론 요점들은 반(反)종교개혁 사상을 담은 트렌트공의회의 칭의교령(Decretum de justificatione, 1547)의 칭의론 내용과 거의 동일하다. ① 칭의와 구원의 탈락 가능성, ② 칭의의 종말론적 유보, ③ 행함 있는 믿음으로의 구원, ④ 칭의와 성화의 동일시, ⑤ 계명준수 또는 윤리적 실천을 통한 칭의의 완성 등에서 일치한다. 김세윤과 새관점학파에 따르면 칭의의 원인은 오로지 하나님의 자비와 거저주시는(gratuitam) 사랑이 아니다. 인간의 선행이 칭의의 원인이다. 칭의는 하나님과 인간의 협력 결과이다. `세례성사`는 칭의의 수단이다. 세례 때 주입된 칭의는 칭의의 완성을 위한 출발이다. 구원의 확신을 가지는 것은 불가능하다. In against of the `doctrine of justification of Council of Trend`(1547), John Calvin argued that the protestants confession of justification by faith is biblical and rational. The main concepts of Dr. Se-Yoon Kim, New Testament scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary and new perspective school on the doctrine of justification are the same to the doctrine of justification of Council of Trent. The similarity is found in the issue of ① the possibility of the loss of justification and salvation, ② reservational-eschatological theory of justification, ③ salvation by faith of action and work, ④ identification of justification and sanctification, ⑤ accomplishment of justification by consummation of the commandments and ethical practice. According to Se-Yoon Kim and the new perspective school, justification is not result of `gratuitam` or the grace of God alone, but haman`s charitable work. The cooperation of God and humanity results the justification. The sacrament of Baptism is instrument of justification. Baptism is the starting point of consummation or accomplishment of justification. Assurance of salvation is impossible. In 1547, John Calvin critically responded to the concept of justification of the Council of Trent. Calvin clearly elucidated that Protestants` confession of the doctrine of justification by faith only is biblically and rationally acceptable.

현대 칭의론 논쟁에 대한 오순절주의 제언

신문철 한세대학교 영산신학연구소 2018 영산신학저널 Vol.0 No.43

This paper was written to examine the issue of justification and sanctification actively discussed as “hot potatoes” in contemporary theological discussion. And it was written to refute the unwarranted allegations about Justification and defend the core principles of Reformation. The Korean Church celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation is redefining the core idea of the Reformers (sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia). The most controversial argument is the “justification” argument. The proponents of Paul’s New Perspective assert that Luther misinterpreted Paul’s justification and law, claiming “covenant lawfulness” based on the acts of the saints and the law. The essence of the controversial claims of contemporary anti-justificationists such as Professor Kim Se-yoon comes from the degeneration of the low level of sanctification of modern Christians. The Pentecostal position of contemporary Christians with low levels of sanctification is to approach the real problem of low sanctification as a way of strengthening justification rather than attempting to solve it by modifying the justification (anti-justification). If it is possible to achieve sanctification by further strengthening the virtue of action, the meaning of the cross will be greatly damaged. Thus, to know Christ more accurately and to appreciate His grace is a key condition of salvation, the low level of modern sanctification is a problem arising from believers living in ignorance of Christ. This paper advocates the justification of the Reformation on the basis of Pentecostal theology and criticizes the false ideas of the proponents of Paul’s New Perspective who criticizes the traditional theory of justification. Pentecostal can comfortably overcome the difference between the two concepts of justification and holiness through Christ’s complete atonement work and Christ’s “completed Calvary ministry.” In addition, the insight into the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, has a deep, experiential, theological basis that surpasses any denomination or theologian. This essay emphasizes the importance of Christ’s crucifixion and filling of the Holy Spirit thoroughly by suggesting Pentecostal theology. Justification can only be obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, and the holy life that begins in justification is the sovereign ministry of the Spirit of Christ, which manifests itself in the church, the body of Christ. 본 논고는 현대 신학적 논의의 “뜨거운 감자”로서 활발히 논의되고 있는 칭의와 성화의 문제를 전반적으로 검토하고, 이 주제에 대한 오순절주의적 제언을 통하여 칭의에 대한 부당한 주장을 반박하고 종교개혁의 핵심 원리를 변호하고자 집필되 었다. 종교개혁 500주년을 맞이한 한국교회는 종교개혁가들의 핵심 사상, 곧 오직 성경, 오직 믿음, 오직 은혜를 재정립하고 있다. 그중에 가장 두르러진 논의가 “칭의 론” 논쟁이다. 바울의 새관점주의자들은 루터가 바울의 칭의와 율법을 잘못 해석 하였다고 주장하면서, 성도의 행위와 율법에 근거한 “언약적 율법주의”를 주장하 고 있다. 김세윤 교수와 같은 현대의 반-칭의론자들이 내놓는 주장의 핵심은 현대 기독교인들의 성화의 낮은 수준에 대한 개탄에서 비롯되었다. 성화의 수준이 낮은 현대 기독교인에 대하여 오순절주의 입장은, 성화의 수준이 낮다는 현실적 문제를 칭의론을 수정하는 방법으로 해결하려는 시도(반-칭의론)보다, 오히려 칭의론을 강 화하는 방법으로 접근해야 한다는 것이다. 만약 행위 공덕을 더 강화하여 성화를 이루는 것이 가능하다면 십자가의 의미는 크게 손상되고 말 것이다. 따라서 그리 스도를 더 정확히 알고 그분의 은혜를 감사하는 일이 구원의 핵심적 조건이라면 현 대 성화의 낮은 수준은 신자들이 그리스도에 대해 무지한 채로 살아가는 데서 발생하는 문제인 것이다. 본 논고는 오순절주의 신학에 근거하여 종교개혁의 칭의론을 옹호하며, 전통적 칭의론을 비판하는 현대 바울의 새관점주의자들의 잘못된 사상을 비판할 것이다. 오순절주의는 그리스도의 완전한 대속 사역과 그리스도의 “완성된 갈보리 사역”을 통해 칭의와 거룩이라는 두 개념의 차이를 무난하게 극복할 수 있다. 또한, 예수 그 리스도의 영이신 성령에 대한 통찰력은 그 어떤 교단이나 신학자들을 능가하는 깊 고 체험적이며 신학적인 근거를 가지고 있다. 칭의는 오직 예수 그리스도를 믿음으 로 얻을 수 있으며, 칭의에서 시작되는 거룩한 삶은 그리스도의 영이신 성령의 주권 적인 사역으로 그리스도의 몸이신 교회 가운데 나타나는 것이다.

의화론 관련 루터교, 천주교, 감리교의 합의에 대한 신학적 사색

송성진(Sung Jin Song) 감리교신학대학교 2017 신학과세계 Vol.- No.91

루터교 세계연맹과 천주교회는 오랜 신학적 대화 끝에 1999년에 “의화론에 대한 공동선언(Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification”을 발표한 바 있다. 세계감리교회의는 2006년 “The World Methodist Council Statement of Association with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification”를 통해서 루터교와 천주교의 위 공동선언에 대한 기본적인 동의를 표명하였다. 1999년 공동선언문은 “justification”을 “칭의”와 “성화” 둘 다를 내포하는 개념으로 사용하고 있다. 흔히 개신교 신학이 “justification”은 “칭의”를 가리키는 말로, “sanctification”은 “성화”를 가리키는 말로 나누어서 쓰는 용법과는 다르다. “칭의”와 “성화” 둘 다를 내포하는 개념으로서의 “justification”에 대한 적절한 번역어를 찾는 것은 쉽지 않지만, 필자는 “의화(義化)”를 제안한다. 천주교는 공동선언에서 의화가, 즉 칭의와 성화가, 오직 은혜에 의해서 그리고 오직 믿음을 통해서 이루어진다고 보는 루터교, 감리교 등 개신교의 공통된 신학적 입장에 대하여 전적인 동의를 표명하고 있는 바, 이는 매우 환영할 만한 일이다. 상기한 세 교단은 또한 “선행(善行)”에 대해서도 공통된 이해에 도달했다. 인생은 선행의 공로에 의해서 의화되는 것이 아니라 오직 은혜에 의해서 믿음을 통해서 의화 되지만, 그러나 일단 그렇게 의화된 존재는 선행이 없는 존재가 아니라 선행을 할 수 있고 또 해야하는 존재라는 것이다. 천주교, 루터교, 감리교가 은혜에 의해서 그리고 믿음을 통해서, 의화된다는 공통의 이해에 도달한 것은 매우 다행스러운 일로서 이를 환영하거니와, 우리는 거기에 머물지 말고 앞으로 더 나가야 한다. 세계감리교회는 “기독자의 완전” 내지 “전적인 성화” 사상을 강조함으로써 세계 교회가 앞으로 나아가야 할 방향을 암시하고 있다.1) 필자는 구원론 관련 에큐메니칼 대화가 앞으로 나아가야 할 방향은 “전적인 성화” 주제에 대한 보다 철저한 탐구라고 본다. 감리교회는 “전적인 성화”라는 주제에 대하여 특별한 관심을 가지고 있지만, 감리교의 성화 신학도 여전히 미진하고 부족하다. 성화 신학 관련 천주교, 루터교, 감리교 등 서방 교회가 주목할 만한 사상은 동방교회의 “신화(神化, theosis)” 사상이다. 동방 교회의 “신화” 사상은 “신적 본질”과 “창조되지 않은 에너지”의 구별 그리고 “신적인 빛”에 체험 등을 중심으로 전개되고 있다. 이 시대 세계 교회는 동방 교회의 “신화” 사상을 배움으로써 보다 충만한 구원에 대한 적절한 이해 및 그 실존적 실현의 시도에서 큰 도움을 얻을 수 있을 것이다. Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church published “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” in 1999. The World Methodist Council expressed its basic agreement with the “Joint Declaration” through “The World Methodist Council Statement of Association with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” in 2006. The “Joint Declaration” employs the term “justification” as encompassing both “justification” and “sanctification” as these terms are used in the Protestant Churches. The three Churches have come to share “a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ” (“Joint Declaration,” art. 5; The World Methodist Council Statement, art. 4.3). They also agree that the justified is not without “good works” or “works of love” although one is not justified by the merit of “good works” but only by “justifying faith” in Christ (“Joint Declaration,” art. 25-26, 37; The World Methodist Council Statement, art. 4.3). I heartily welcome the theological consensus concerning the doctrine of justification among the three Churches. However we cannot stay here. We should go further from here toward a fuller understanding and an existential realization of a more abundant salvation. The Methodist emphasis on “Christian perfection” or “entire sanctification” seems to indicate the right direction toward which the future ecumenical dialogue concerning soteriology must go. In this connection, let me suggest that the Churches in the Western tradition can enrich their soteriological thought through learning from the Eastern tradition, especially its theology of “theosis,” “the essence” and “the energies” of God, and “the divine light.”