The Theology of John Calvin in the Perspective of Pentecostal Theology

( Moon Myung Sun ) 한세대학교 영산신학연구소 2010 영산신학저널 Vol.19 No.-

This thesis is a dialogue between the theology of John Calvin and the Pentecostal’s theology. Although there are some difficulties in this theological research, this research is necessary for the dialogue between two theological traditions of church history. For the discussion with the Pentecostal theology the last edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion was used. And for the comparison with the theology of John Calvin, the theology of Frank D. Macchia was examined, which was revealed through his book, Baptized in the Spirit. In addition to the theology of Frank D. Macchia the theology of David Yonggi Cho was referenced if there were any insufficiency for the comparison in the theology of Frank D. Macchia in the comparison with the theology of John Calvin. In this article the theology of John Calvin and the Pentecostal theology was compared in the focus of five themes: ‘the union with Jesus Christ’, ‘the sacrament’, ‘the love’, ‘the kingdom of God’ and ‘the prayer’. 1) Concerning the union with Jesus Christ: John Calvin and Frank D. Macchia insist that the source of the holiness of the church is Jesus Christ himself. However, the difference between the theology of John Calvin and the Pentecostal theology is shown in the theological expression about the work of the Holy Spirit. Macchia expressed this phenomena using the typical Pentecostal theological term, ‘the baptism in the Holy Spirit’, but John Calvin did not use the term, ‘the baptism in the Holy Spirit’. This is the typical theological difference between the theology of John Calvin and the Pentecostal theology 2) Concerning the Sacraments: As John Calvin emphasized the word of God in the sacraments, Frank D. Macchia also emphasized the word of God in his sacramental theology. The differences of their positions is that Calvin stressed the direct work of the Holy Spirit, as Macchia stressed the divine power in the sacraments, which comes from the Holy Spirit. 3) Concerning love: The main difference between the theology of John Calvin and the Pentecostal theology is the difference of the theological term to the works of the Holy Spirit. Namely, Macchia used the baptism of the Holy Spirit in order to express the phenomena that the law was engraved upon the heart of the Christian, whereas Calvin did not use the typical Pentecostal term, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 4) Concerning the kingdom of God: John Calvin stated that the power of the Holy Spirit or the gift of the Holy Spirit is the power of God, with which the church can defeat Satan in spiritual welfare. However, it seems that Macchia emphasized the baptism of the Holy Spirit more than the power or the gift of the Holy Spirit. And the fight against the Satan in the theology of John Calvin can be compared the fight against the spiritual darkness in the theology of Macchia. Once again, the three main differences between Calvin and Macchia is the difference of the opinion on the term, ‘the baptism in the Holy Spirit. 5) Concerning prayer: Both, John Calvin and the Pentecostal theologian, agree that the fellowship with God is the core of the prayer life. The difference between John Calvin and Macchia will be shown on that point, if the personal fellowship with the Holy Spirit is stressed or not. Namely, in the comparison with the fellowship with Jesus Christ or with God the fellowship with the Holy Spirit itself - the Holy Spirit is only a helper for the fellowship with Jesus Christ - is not important in the theology of John Calvin. On the contrary to this, Macchia also stresses the fellowship with the Holy Spirit like the fellowship with Jesus Christ or with God. The crucial difference between the theology of John Calvin and the Pentecostal theology is the difference of theological expression of term. Above all, the deepest fellowship with Jesus Christ is expressed as ‘the perfect oneness with Jesus Christ’ in the theology of John Calvin. But it is expressed as ‘the fullness with the Holy Spirit’ in the Pentecostal theology. And there is no expression about the baptism with the Holy Spirit in the theology of John Calvin.

A Comparative study of the Christologies of John Calvin(1509-1564) and the Korean Presbyterian denominations

( Bong Geun Cho ) 한국복음주의조직신학회 2011 조직신학연구 Vol.15 No.-

Celebrating a quincentenary of Calvin`s birth, the question we want to consider is how does Protestantism(in particular The Presbyterian Church) fundamentally different from Roman Catholic Church and Judaism? The difference between Orthodox Christian Church and other religious sects lie here in the answer to the question above. So, until now, what has been the Christology of the Korean Church? I would like to concentrate particularly on the individual sect`s own Christology of The Korean Presbyterian Church which divided from 1951. In a comparative study on the Christology, viewed by professors of different theological seminary, I would like to compare views from selected scholars of Hapdong, Tonghap, Kichang. Kosin, ACTS and Theological Department College of Yonsei University. Former President Dr. Hyung-Nong Park came back to Korea after graduating from Princeton Theological Seminary, U.S.A. He taught his students the Christology of John Calvin. Consequently, his students went on to teach the members of their Churches. For example, two of his students were Chul-Won Suh of Chongshin University and Bong-Geun Cho of Kwang Shin University, who accepted Christology of John Calvin which was taught by him. Firstly, Dr. Chul-Won Suh dealt The Creation-Media torship of Jesus Christ in his dissertation, 1982. This actually concerned A Study in the Relation of the Incarnation and the Creation and also A Christology(2000) which was written by him urges Christology from above Abstiegschristologie von oben nach unten. Professor Byung-Ho Moon deals with wide variety of topics within Calvin`s Christology, which includes Christ as mediator of angels and the Church. He says "Calvin`s Christological understanding of the law features both Christ in the law and the law in Christ. The law represents Christ as its truth and substance and reveals his eternal presence as the Mediator at the same time." On the other hand, Professor Bong-Geun Cho of Kwangshin Universty deals with the atonement, resurrection, eternal life in his book, the core of essential theology. Secondly, he deals mainly with the theology of atonement, intercession. Thirdly, in his book, Calvin`s Dogmatics, John Calvin described The Person and The Work of Christ. In respect to another viewpoint, Professor Hae-Kyung Park of ACTS considered "the significance and benefits of the doctrine of the Ascension of Christ in Calvin`s Christology." 189) Professor Hae-Moo Yoo of Korea theological seminary was enjoying a picnic on a liberal hill over the reformed theological line. In 1954, an article, ``The Christology of Calvin`` was presented by Dr. Sang-Hee Moon of Yonsei University. In 1984, Dr. Jong-Sung Rhee of Chang Shin University wrote a big Christology(515P.), however, his writing became weak when he wrote a section concerning The Christology of John Calvin. He did also deal with A Christology of Emil Brunner and Karl Barth rather than John Calvin. Professor Chul-Ho Youn of Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary concentrates not only on the research concerning Theology of Barth`90, but he also solemnly criticizes on the Theology of Karl Barth, In the same school, Professor Myung-Yong Kim supports theory of Reconciliation of Karl Barth, while also enjoying the Barth`s Logic. Professor Kyuun-Jin Kim of Yonsei University deals widely with the Christologies of modern theologians as well as Karl Barth, but sadly, he failed to be concerned with The Christology of John Calvin. Finally, I want to remember Two books of Christology of Professor Moon-Ho Ha of Calvin University, Seoul and Dr. Seung-Yong Hwang of Honam Theological University and Seminary, Gwangju.

존 웨슬리가 본 칼빈주의

김홍만 한국개혁신학회 2011 한국개혁신학 Vol.32 No.-

John Wesley acknowledged ‘sober Calvinism’ which could be compatible with Arminianism. Wesley definitely admitted doctrine of original sin, and positively regard God’s providence. Even Wesley thought there was no difference between himself and Calvin in the doctrine of justification. However, Wesley said there are differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. Moreover, Wesley criticized Calvinism, especially doctrines of predestination, election and reprobation, irresistible grace, and final perseverance. Wesley thought that these doctrines caused believers to ignore their sanctification. Wesley debated with John Gill in regarding to predestination, election, perseverance. In this point, Wesley equated Calvinism with Antinomianism. However, John Gill was not a Calvinist, but a hyper-Calvinist. Hyper Calvinism was a sort of Antinomianism. In another word, Wesley confused Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism. Calvinism is totally different from hyper-Calvinism. Calvin asserted the importance of the doctrine of predestination which he believed as its goal the sanctification of believers. Moreover, Calvin never said predestination as determinative doctrine. Calvin taught the relation of justification and sanctification. Calvinism is not Antinomianism. Even today, in churches, confusions between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism still exist like Wesley’s. On the other hand, hyper-Calvinism in Korean churches has brought to ignore sanctification in the believers. Therefore, firstly, there should be clear distinction between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism, secondly, there should be taught that hyper-Calvinism is error. 웨슬리는 온건한 칼빈주의를 인정하였으며, 알미니안주의와 함께 공존할 수 있다고 하였다. 분명히 웨슬리는 원죄를 인정하였으며, 하나님의 섭리에 대해서 긍정적으로 생각하였다. 웨슬리는 칭의 교리에 있어서 자신과 칼빈주의와 차이가 없다고 하였다. 그러나 한편으로 칼빈주의와 알미니안주의와의 분명한 차이가 있음을 말하였고, 더 나아가서 칼빈주의에 대해서 비판을 하였다. 웨슬리는 그 시대의 칼빈주의자들의 예정, 선택과 유기, 저항할 수 없는 은혜, 성도의 최종적 견인 교리에 대해서 비판하였다. 이러한 칼빈주의자들의 가르침은 도덕률폐기론 성향을 가지고 있어서 결국 성화를 무시하게 된다고 하였다. 웨슬리는 그 당시 칼빈주의 신학자인 존 길과의 논쟁에서 더욱 이러한 신학적 성향에 대해서 비판하였다. 그러나 웨슬리가 그 당시 이해하였던 칼빈주의는 하이퍼 칼빈주의이었다. 하이퍼 칼빈주의자들은 예정, 선택과 유기, 저항 할 수 없는 은혜, 성도의 최종적 견인 교리를 통하여 인간의 책임 부분을 완전히 제거 해버렸다. 그러나 웨슬리는 이러한 하이퍼 칼빈주의를 칼빈주의로 오해하였던 것이다. 실제로 칼빈은 예정을 가르치면서 성화를 강조하였으며, 칭의와 성화가 불가분의 관계인 것과 성도의 견인에서 인간의 책임 부분이 있음을 말하였다. 따라서 웨슬리는 하이퍼 칼빈주의에 대한 비판을 한 것이다. 물론 하이퍼 칼빈주의는 잘못된 신학이며, 반드시 개혁되어야 하는 것이다. 그러나 문제는 오늘날에도 웨슬리처럼 하이퍼 칼빈주의를 칼빈주의로 오해하고 성화를 무시하는 성향이 한국교회에 있다. 따라서 칼빈주의와 하이퍼 칼빈주의를 분명하게 구별하여 잘못된 가르침을 개혁해야 할 것이다.

칼빈과 한국장로교회의 학파별 구원론 비교연구 -칭의와 성화를 중심으로-

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

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

존 웨슬리가 본 칼빈주의

김홍만 ( Hong Man Kim ) 한국개혁신학회 2011 한국개혁신학 Vol.32 No.-

웨슬리는 온건한 칼빈주의를 인정하였으며, 알미니안주의와 함께 공존 할 수 있다고 하였다. 분명히 웨슬리는 원죄를 인정하였으며, 하나님의 섭리에 대해서 긍정적으로 생각하였다. 웨슬리는 칭의 교리에 있어서 자신과 칼빈주의와 차이가 없다고 하였다. 그러나 한편으로 칼빈주의와 알미니안주의와의 분명한 차이가 있음을 말하였고, 더 나아가서 칼빈주의에 대해서 비판을 하였다. 웨슬리는 그 시대의 칼빈주의자들의 예정, 선택과 유기, 저항할 수 없는 은혜, 성도의 최종적 견인 교리에 대해서 비판하였다. 이러한 칼빈주의자들의 가르침은 도덕률폐기론 성향을 가지고 있어서 결국 성화를 무시하게 된다고 하였다. 웨슬리는 그 당시 칼빈주의 신학자인 존 길과의 논쟁에서 더욱 이러한 신학적 성향에 대해서 비판하였다. 그러나 웨슬리가 그 당시 이해하였던 칼빈주의는 하이퍼 칼빈주의이었다. 하이퍼 칼빈주의자들은 예정, 선택과 유기, 저항 할 수 없는 은혜, 성도의 최종적 견인 교리를 통하여 인간의 책임 부분을 완전히 제거해버렸다. 그러나 웨슬리는 이러한 하이퍼 칼빈주의를 칼빈주의로 오해하였던 것이다. 실제로 칼빈은 예정을 가르치면서 성화를 강조하였으며, 칭의와 성화가 불가분의 관계인 것과 성도의 견인에서 인간의 책임 부분이 있음을 말하였다. 따라서 웨슬리는 하이퍼 칼빈주의에 대한 비판을 한 것이다. 물론 하이퍼 칼빈주의는 잘못된 신학이며, 반드시 개혁되어야 하는 것이다. 그러나 문제는 오늘날에도 웨슬리처럼 하이퍼 칼빈주의를 칼빈주의로 오해하고 성화를 무시하는 성향이 한국교회에 있다. 따라서 칼빈주의와 하이퍼 칼빈주의를 분명하게 구별하여 잘못된 가르침을 개혁해야 할 것이다. John Wesley acknowledged ``sober Calvinism`` which could be compatible with Arminianism. Wesley definitely admitted doctrine of original sin, and positively regard God`s providence. Even Wesley thought there was no difference between himself and Calvin in the doctrine of justification. However, Wesley said there are differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. Moreover, Wesley criticized Calvinism, especially doctrines of predestination, election and reprobation, irresistible grace, and final perseverance. Wesley thought that these doctrines caused believers to ignore their sanctification. Wesley debated with John Gill in regarding to predestination, election, perseverance. In this point, Wesley equated Calvinism with Antinomianism. However, John Gill was not a Calvinist, but a hyper-Calvinist. Hyper Calvinism was a sort of Antinomianism. In another word, Wesley confused Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism. Calvinism is totally different from hyper-Calvinism. Calvin asserted the importance of the doctrine of predestination which he believed as its goal the sanctification of believers. Moreover, Calvin never said predestination as determinative doctrine. Calvin taught the relation of justification and sanctification. Calvinism is not Antinomianism. Even today, in churches, confusions between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism still exist like Wesley`s. On the other hand, hyper-Calvinism in Korean churches has brought to ignore sanctification in the believers. Therefore, firstly, there should be clear distinction between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism, secondly, there should be taught that hyper-Calvinism is error.

John Calvin의 시편 설교 연구 : 장르적 특성을 반영한 시편 설교

김대혁 한국복음주의실천신학회 2018 복음과 실천신학 Vol.47 No.-

이 논문의 주요 목적은 John Calvin의 시편 설교에 대한 실제적 분석과 평가이다. 구체적으로 이 논문은 시편 성경에 관해 Calvin이 지녔던 해석학적 독특성이 실제 그의 설교화 과정(the homiletical Process)에서 어떻게 설교적 특징으로 반영되었는지를 분석한 논문이다. 특별히 이 논문은 시편 본문이 지닌 성경 장르 혹은 성경 커뮤니케이션(communication)의 특성들이 실제 그의 설교에서 어떤 설교적 장치들로 구현되고 있는지를 중점을 두고 다루고 있다. 이런 측면에서 이 논문은 설교 단위의 설정, 수사적/설교적 방법의 특징, 언어 사용의 측면에서 Calvin이 시편 본문의 특징을 반영하고 있다. 더불어 성경의 명료성과 설교의 효과성 사이에 있어서 성령의 역할과 관련하여 그의 시편 이해와 설교의 특징을 재조명한다. 이러한 분석과 평가를 통하여 이 논문은 Calvin의 시편 설교가 한국교회 설교 강단에서 시편 설교의 회복을 위한 함의와 교훈을 제시한다. The primary goal of this article is to analyze and evaluate John Calvin's actual sermons on the Psalms. Specifically, this paper is to study as to how John Calvin transposed his hermeneutical understanding of the book of Psalms into his sermons throughout the homiletical process. In other words, this paper focuses on the communicational characteristics or textuality of the psalms and how John Calvin reflected them into this sermons. In this respect, this paper examines Calvin's selection of a preaching unit in the Psalm, his rhetorical or homiletical characteristics, his use of languages, and his understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit regarding the relation between the perspicuity of the bible and the effectiveness of preaching. Finally, this paper provides the homiletical implications for the recovery of Psalm preaching in Korean churches.

칼빈의 창세기 설교

유응열 개혁신학회 2009 개혁논총 Vol.12 No.-

This essay describes John Calvin’s life as a preacher and the characteristics of his sermons on Genesis. John Calvin’s sermons on Genesis share various common traits with his other sermons which can be categorized into five main features. First, Calvin considered the mission of the preacher to be the exposition of the Word of God due to his firm belief that the unfolding of the literal meaning of the text was the most appropriate way to communicate the Biblical substance. Second, Calvin believed choosing the text of the Bible to meet the needs of the preacher’s message was an unwarranted exercise of discretion. Therefore, Calvin exposited the text of the Bible in the order in which it appeared. Third, Calvin believed that the author’s intent reflected the inspired will of God, and thus that purpose of Scriptural interpretation was to discover the intent of the author and explain it as accurately as possible. Specifically, Calvin held the thought and intent of Moses revealed in Genesis as the thought and intent of God. Naturally, Calvin’s sermons on Genesis reveal a strong will to submit subjective thought to its author’s intent. Fourth, Calvin always complemented his exposition of the Bible with practical, living application to the believer’s walk. Finally, through the many references of Jesus Christ in his sermons, Calvin points out that Jesus Christ is the fulfiller of the text of Genesis. While Calvin does not relate all books of the Old Testament with Jesus Christ, we can see that his sermons on Genesis were always interpreted in light of the light of Christ and the New Testament. Calvin’s sermons serve as an unwavering guide to the pulpit of the Korean Church, which is preoccupied with ideas of Reformed theology. The audience’s conformity to holiness based upon a correct understanding of the absolute truth of the Word was the ultimate vision of Calvin’s ministry. And that vision opened the floodgates to unparalleled revival. The revival of the Korean Church will only be possible when it recovers such intense and holy passion towards the Word of God.

칼빈의 창세기 설교

류응렬(Ryoo, Eung-Yul) 개혁신학회 2009 개혁논총 Vol.12 No.-

This essay describes John Calvin's life as a preacher and the characteristics of his sermons on Genesis. John Calvin's sermons on Genesis share various common traits with his other sermons which can be categorized into five main features. First, Calvin considered the mission of the preacher to be the exposition of the Word of God due to his firm belief that the unfolding of the literal meaning of the text was the most appropriate way to communicate the Biblical substance. Second, Calvin believed choosing the text of the Bible to meet the needs of the preacher's message was an unwarranted exercise of discretion. Therefore, Calvin exposited the text of the Bible in the order in which it appeared. Third, Calvin believed that the author's intent reflected the inspired will of God, and thus that purpose of Scriptural interpretation was to discover the intent of the author and explain it as accurately as possible. Specifically, Calvin held the thought and intent of Moses revealed in Genesis as the thought and intent of God. Naturally, Calvin's sermons on Genesis reveal a strong will to submit subjective thought to its author's intent. Fourth, Calvin always complemented his exposition of the Bible with practical, living application to the believer's walk. Finally, through the many references of Jesus Christ in his sermons, Calvin points out that Jesus Christ is the fulfiller of the text of Genesis. While Calvin does not relate all books of the Old Testament with Jesus Christ, we can see that his sermons on Genesis were always interpreted in light of the light of Christ and the New Testament. Calvin's sermons serve as an unwavering guide to the pulpit of the Korean Church, which is preoccupied with ideas of Reformed theology. The audience's conformity to holiness based upon a correct understanding of the absolute truth of the Word was the ultimate vision of Calvin's ministry. And that vision opened the floodgates to unparalleled revival. The revival of the Korean Church will only be possible when it recovers such intense and holy passion towards the Word of God.

칼빈의 교회론과 한국교회

이정석 한국개혁신학회 2010 한국개혁신학 Vol.27 No.-

In the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth, it is meaningful to review how the Korean Presbyterian churches have used Calvin's Doctrine of the Church when they have faced to the critical crises or important issues. Through the analysis of those articles and the examination of their conclusions from Calvin's perspective, I made the following conclusions. First, since the Korean Presbyterian churches have regarded John Calvin as their theological father and bestowed the highest authority, they have attempted to justify their position by claiming John Calvin in the important disputes or issues. It refnt ds the traditionalist tendency of the Korean Church to solve probntms by the use of authority rather than objective theological discussion or biblical studyortacond, the issue of the most discussion was church schism, and Calvin has been quoted to justify their own separation. It is noteworthy that the conslaiative sides who have initiated separation actively have depended on Calvin while the other sides have not done the same to condtmn their separations. However, no discussed schism was justifiable from Calvin's point of view. Third, it is not agin able justCalvin to condtmn WCC as a false church or union of false churches. It is so reginttable even from Calvin's view to see the rise of separatism in the joint occasion of the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth and WCC's dacision to hetheids next g toral assembly in Korea that the theological review of WCC is umeently dtmanded. Foumth, it is agin able justCalvin to daclare the religious plumalism and ids followers who deny the uniquene tor isesuseen quo as false church. Accordingly, it is recommended for the Korean Presbyterian church to declare those theologians and their followers who deny the essential doctrines such as the Trinity, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, or the historical Jesus as described in the Scripture as heresy rather than to limit their identification of heresy to new sectarian groups. Fifth, it is crucially important for the reform and recovery of the Korean Church to learn the example of Calvin who had emphasized the material communion of saints as well as the biblical distribution of church's income in this critical situation of polarizing division between the rich and the poor in the capitalistic society of the contemporary Korea. Especially, we have to listen to Calvin who advocated the recovery of the biblical diaconate system to overcome Korean Church's over-appointment of deacons and Roman Catholic-style misuse of diaconate. Sixth, it is objective and proper to point out the pastor-centeredness of Calvin's doctrine of church offices and its complementation by introducing Luther's doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Though Calvin emphasized the organic nature of the church that church is the Body of Christ, his view was too traditional in the doctrine of church offices that it was one-sided and regarded lay people purely as the object of passive obedience. As the result, he failed to develop the full feature of organic ecclesiology. Therefore, the Korean Presbyterian churches are advised to stop honoring Calvin as inerrant and objectively recognize his errors or shortness. It will be the desirable way to develop the Korean Presbyterian churches to learn from Calvin as well as to complement his shortness by introducing other theologies. 칼빈 출생 500주년을 맞아 한국 장로교회가 중대한 위기나 중요한 이슈에 직면하였을 때 칼빈의 교회론을 어떻게 사용하였는지를 살펴보는 것은 의미있는 일이다. 14편의 관련 논문을 분석한 결과, 다음과 같은 결론을 도출하였다. 첫째로, 한국 장로교회는 존 칼빈을 그 신학적 창시자로 생각하고 최고의 권위를 부여하기 때문에 중요한 이슈나 논쟁에서 칼빈에게 호소하여 자기의 입장을 정당화하려고 시도하였다. 이는 객관적인 신학적 논의나 성경적 해결책보다 권위에 의존하는 한국교회의 전통주의적 입장을 반영한다고 볼 수 있다. 둘째로, 칼빈의 교회론을 가장 많이 거론한 주제는 교회 분열로서, 자파의 분리를 정당화하는데 이용하였다. 그러나 모든 분리는 칼빈의 교회관에서 볼 때 정당화될 수 없는 것이었다. 셋째로, WCC를 거짓교회 혹은 거짓교회들의 연합체로 규정한 것은 칼빈의 입장에 부합하지 않는다. 칼빈 출생 500주년과 한국의 WCC 세계대회 유치가 겹친 상황에서 다시 한국 장로교회가 분열조짐을 보이고 있는 것은 칼빈의 관점에서도 안타까운 일이어서, WCC 문제에 대한 신학적 재검토가 필요하다. 넷째로, 그리스도의 유일성을 부인하는 종교다원주의와 추종교회들을 거짓교회로 규정한 것은 칼빈의 입장과도 일치한다. 다섯째로, 빈부양극화가 심화되는 현대 한국사회에서 성도의 물질적 교제와 교회재정의 올바른 분배를 주장한 칼빈의 모범을 배우는 것은 한국교회의 개혁과 회복을 위해서 절실히 요청된다. 여섯째로, 칼빈의 직제론이 너무 목사 중심적이기 때문에 루터의 만인제사장설을 도입하여 보완하자는 주장은 객관적이고 적절하다고 할 수 있다. 이런 점에서 칼빈을 절대시할 것이 아니라 그의 오류나 부족한 점을 솔직히 지적하고 다른 신학의 보완을 통하여 한국 장로교회를 발전시키는 바람직한 신학적 노력이 요청된다.

칼뱅 신학에 나타난 신학의 사회포용에 관한 연구

손수호 한국세계문화사학회 2022 세계 역사와 문화 연구 Vol.- No.63

This present study explores theology of John Calvin’s social engagement in terms of its social inclusivism. Historically, Calvinism has been known as developed strict reformed tradition which led its relation to the society in dualistic conflict. However, John Calvin’s Geneva Reform clearly showed that his reformation has developed in the idea of mutual relation between the Church and the Society. Calvin underscored the Christian consecration of the Church, and socially practiced the embrace of gospel in order to prevent any form of discrimination and prejudice. Calvin’s inclusive dualism served as an outstanding theological reflection that shows what kind of attitude Calvinism should take toward society. The distinctive of Calvin’s theology has been developed as more contemporary Reformed theology through the works of Abraham Kuyper. In his book “Lectures on Calvinism”(1898), he provided the new value of Calvinism which can be identified as a system of holistic human life. It offered the social inclusion of theology that helps to reorganize historical Calvinism in order to meet the demands of the future era. 본 논문은 사회포용 관점에서 칼뱅 신학이 본래 함의하고 있는 사회참여에 대한 신학의 원리와 실천성에 대하여 조명하였다. 칼뱅주의는 교리주의 원칙으로 교회와 사회에 대립을 초래하였으나, 제네바 개혁 정신은 교회에 대하여 ‘성결’을 강조하여 하나님 순수 신앙을 견고히 하였고, 사회적으로는 복음의 포용성을 발휘하여 개혁의 차별과 편견을 극복하였다. ‘포용적 이원론’은 앞으로의 칼뱅주의가 사회를 대하는 태도에 있어 신학의 지표가 된다. 칼뱅의 개혁원리는 에이브러햄 카이퍼(Abraham Kuyper)에게서 현대적 개혁주의 신학으로 발전하였다. 그는 칼빈주의 강연 (Lectures on Calvinism,, 1898)에서 ‘포괄적 삶의 체계’를 제시하였다. 그리스도의 통치영역이자 인간사회의 모든 분야를 총괄하는 ‘포괄적 삶의 체계’는 역사적 칼뱅주의를 재정비하고 다가올 미래 시대의 요구에 대한 사회포용의 신학적 · 신앙적 대안이라는 것에 있다.