폴 틸리히의 존재론적 상징주의에 나타난 삼위일체론 가능성

임형모 ( Hyung Mo Yim ) 한국조직신학회 2010 組織神學論叢 Vol.28 No.-

The purpose of this treatise is to develop a possibility of the Trinity in a ontological symbolism of Paul Tillich. In developing this study, the inescapable inner tension between concreteness and ultimacy of the religious concern is a central issue in the idea of God. Tillich insists that this tension is the key to understanding the dynamics of the history religion, and it is also the basic problem the most refined discussions of the trinitarian dogma. In the view of this basic point, the theory of symbol and the ontology are correlated to each other. Tillich looks at the notion of a symbolism as an interpretation of the religious language. As Tillich says, religious symbols should be also used between concreteness and absoluteness in the idea of his ``Ultimate Concern`` or ``Being-Itself`` which indicates God. Therefore, though in a living and dynamic way the trinity is built up in historical manifestations, in this trinity there is but one divine essence. If we can translate essence by power of being, we know that there is one divine power of being, and each of the three economic manifestations of the power of being participates in the full power of being. In reality, the trinitarian problem has nothing to do with the trick question how one can be three and three be one. The answer to this question is given in every life process. Tillich`s trinity is near to trinitarian monotheism. It is not a matter of the number three but it is a qualitative matter. It is an attempt to speak of the living God, the God in whom the ultimate and the concrete are united. So, the trinitarian problem is the problem of the unity between ultimacy and concreteness in the living God. In Tillich`s theology the trinitarian problem is derived from the statement that God is Spirit means that life as spirit is the inclusive symbol for the divine life. And the moments within the process of the divine life are the trinitarian principles such as Godhead that means power which makes God God, logos that means meaning and structure, and the Spirit that means the actualization of both power and meaning. Then, it is the Spirit who works such as the experience of the creative ground of being in every being, the experience of Jesus as the Christ, and the ecstatic elevation of the human spirit toward the union of unambiguous life. All these cases could be said to the experience of God as a living God. As a result, we can distinguish at least three factors which have led to trinitarian thinking in the history of religious experience, that is, first, the tension between the absolute and the concrete element in our concern, second, the symbolic application of the concept of life to the ground of being, third, the threefold manifestation of God as creative power, as saving love, and as ecstatic transformation.

폴 틸리히의 존재론적 관점에서 본 "새로운 존재"의 진리가능성

임형모 ( Hyung Mo Yim ) 한국조직신학회 2012 組織神學論叢 Vol.34 No.-

The purpose of this study is to develop the problem of the human estrangement and salvation by ontological theology of Paul Tillich. It would be reconsider the meaning of the New Being and the power of salvation by understanding on correlation of existence and Christ. Existentialism is an analysis of the human predicament. And the answer to the questions implied in man`s predicament are religious, whether open or hidden. Tillich says, “in systematic theology we must show the character of the existentialist revolt and confront the meaning of the existence which has developed in it with the religious symbols pointing to the human predicament.” In one word, existence is estrangement. It is not reconciliation. It is dehumanization and not the expression of essential humanity. It is the process in which man becomes a thing and ceases to be a person. Therefore, the state of existence is the state of estrangement. Man is estranged from the ground of his being, from other beings, and from himself. The transition from essence to existence results in personal guilt and universal tragedy. Man`s predicament is estrangement, but his estrangement is sin. It is not a state of things, like the laws of nature, but a matter of both personal freedom and universal destiny. Therefore we can call everything sin which does not result from faith, from the unity with God. Estrangement is separation; it is sin. Sin is conquered because estrangement is overcome by reunion in faith and love. The quest for the New Being is universal because the human predicament and its ambiguous conquest are universal. It appears in all religions. So, the New Being can be sought above history, and it can be understood as the aim of history. Tillich forms a clear definition of the New Being. “The New Being is essential being under the conditions of existence, conquering the gap between essence and existence.” The New Being is new in so far as it is the undistorted manifestation of essential being within and under the conditions of existence. It is new in two respects: it is new in contrast to the merely potential character of essential being; and it is new over against the estranged character of existential being. It is actual, conquering the estrangement of actual existence. To sum up, the New Being points to the power in Jesus as the Christ which conquers existential estrangement. That is to say, the New Being in Jesus as the Christ as the conquest of estrangement is the power in the picture of Jesus as the Christ. Therefore, if we can call Jesus as the Christ the New Being, we can say with Paul Tillich that the Christ is the power of salvation.

폴 틸리히의 "새로운 존재"에 대한 종교신학적 의의

임형모(Hyung Mo Yim) 한국기독교학회 2014 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.91 No.-

The purpose of this study is to find the significance of the theology of religions in ‘the New Being’ of Paul Tillich. Theology of religions refers to the branch of Christian theology that attempts to theologically and biblically evaluate the phenomena of religions. It describes the relation of other religious traditions to Christianity and attempt to answer questions about the nature of God and salvation. In this paper the New Being in Paul Tillich`s theology of religions is regarded as the uniqueness of the ultimate revelation of Jesus as the Christ. The situation of religious pluralism constitutes the agenda for christians trying to understanding themselves and their faith in relation to their religious neighbors and their faiths. Many christians are troubled by the fact that religious plurality seems to be destined to end. Because it is their traditional teaching that Christianity is the only true religion. The clue of Paul Tillich`s theology of religions is the New Being in Jesus as the Christ as the power of salvation. The concept of the New Being has grown out of interpretation of salvation. By method of correlation salvation as healing corresponds to the state of estrangement as the main characteristic of existence. Salvation is reclaiming from the old and transferring into the New Being. In some degree all religions participate in the healing power of the New Being. What, then, is the peculiar character of the healing through the New Being in Jesus as the Christ? Finally, the concept of the New Being of Paul Tillich`s theology of religions will be contributed not only to a conquest of religion, but also to a christian missionary principle.

종교적 상징과 해석의 문제 연구: 폴 틸리히와 폴 리쾨르를 중심으로

임형모 ( Hyung Mo Yim ) 한국조직신학회 2011 한국조직신학논총 Vol.30 No.-

The purpose of this study is to develop a possibility of the religious symbol and interpretation with Paul Tillich and Paul Ricoeur as the central figure. Tillich and Ricoeur insist that this meaning of symbol is the key to understanding the dynamics of the history religion, and it is also the basic problem in the most refined discussions of faith. Man`s ultimate concern must be expressed symbolically, because symbolic language alone is able to express the ultimate. This statement about symbolic language demands explanation in several respects. First, the symbol has one characteristic in common with sign and it points beyond itself to something else. Second, it participates in the reality of that for which it stands. Third, it opens up levels of reality which otherwise are closed for us. Fourth, it has a sociality that the symbol cannot be produced intentionally. Fifth, it has a creativity that a symbol grows and dies like living beings. Tillich regards a myth as a species of a symbol, as a symbol developed in the form of narrations. It needs, as one says today, "demythologization" which is a recharging of thought with the aid of symbol. A myth which is understood as a myth, but not removed or replaced, can be called a "broken myth." The resistance against demythologization express itself in "literalism." The symbols and myths are understood in their immediate meaning. Literalism deprives God of his ultimacy and, religiously speaking, of his majesty. But Christianity speaks the mythological language like every other religion. It is a broken myth, but it is a myth; otherwise Christianity would not be an expression of ultimate concern. Ricoeur insists that symbols are more radical than myths. The motto of his symbolic hermeneutics is that "the symbol gives rise to thought." In other words, what the symbol gives rise to thinking. The aphorism suggests that everything has already been said enigmatically and yet that it is always necessary to begin everything and to begin it again in the dimension of thinking. What we need is an interpretation that respects the original enigma of the symbols, that lets itself be taught by them, but that, beginning from there, promotes the meaning, forms the meaning in the full responsibility of autonomous thought. Finally, the theory of symbol and interpretation theory are circled to each other. We should be likely to say that a creative interpretation endeavors to promote the meaning, to form it from the symbols.

폴 틸리히의 존재신학에서 유한성과 용기의 문제

임형모(Hyung Mo Yim) 한국기독교학회 2012 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.80 No.-

The purpose of this essay is to study the problem of the human finitude and courage by ontological theology of Paul Tillich. It would be reconsidered the meaning of courage and the dynamic faith by understanding on correlation of being and God. Ontology is bone of the whole body theological thought of Tillich. It is the key to an understanding of the dynamics of the faith, and it is also connected to the courage. It can be said that the ontological element in the dynamics of the faith is the finitude. Finitude in awareness is anxiety. As finitude, anxiety is an ontological quality because it expresses finitude from inside. Anxiety is independent only on the threat of nonbeing. Since it is the purpose of this paper to develop the question of finitude and the solution of God implied in being, the ontological elements and categories are the center of the anxiety and courage. In other words, they are the finitude of being which drives us to the tension of faith, such as individualization and participation, form and dynamics, and freedom and destiny. The categories which is time, space, causality, and substance reveal their ontological character through their double relation to being and to nonbeing. Each category expresses not only a union of being and nonbeing but also a union of anxiety and courage. Tillich`s ontological analysis answers the question as to how courage is possible in the face of ineradicable anxiety. The answer to this question is furnished by revelation and by the existential decision which enters into faith in God. After all, the question of God is the question of the possibility of this courage. Tillich insists that many confusions in the doctrine of God and many apologetic weaknesses could be avoided if God were understood first of all as Being-itself or as the ground of being. Since God is the ground of being, he is the ground of the structure of being. The power of being is another way of expressing the same thing in a circumscribing phrase. Therefore, instead of saying that God is in the first place Being-itself, it is possible to say that he is the power of being in everything and above everything, the infinite power of being. Finally, the faith is a self-transcendent participation. We can say that the dynamics of the faith are elevated, when we could be enable to use symbols which point to the ground of reality.

그리스도교 종교신학의 가능성 재고: 폴 틸리히와 조지 린드벡을 중심으로

임형모 ( Hyung Mo Yim ) 한국조직신학회 2013 한국조직신학논총 Vol.37 No.-

본 논문은 그리스도교 종교신학의 가능성을 폴 틸리히의 종교신학과 조지 린드벡의 후기자유주의 신학을 고찰함에 의해서 타진코자 한다. 필자는 다원주의 사회 속에서 교회는 종교다원주의 상황을 더 이상도외시할 수 없다는 위기의식이 팽배해 있다고 보았다. 오늘날 그리스도교의 종교신학은 포스트모던 문화를 기반으로 하는 구체적 보편성을 표방하는 신학적 논쟁으로 혼란스러운 것이 사실이다. 알란 레이스가 적절히 분류한 것처럼, 종교다원주의는 크게 배타주의와 포괄주의와 다원주의 형태로 나눠 볼 수 있다. 문제는 다원주의인 것이다. 배타주의와 종교다원주의 사이의 논쟁은 피할 수 없는 것이라고 해도 존 힉의 코페르니쿠스적 전회 이후 불거진 다양한 종교신학에 대한 주장들은 히브리서 6장 1-2절에서 말씀하듯이, 그리스도의 도의 초보를 버리지 못하고 죽은 행실을 회개함과 하나님께 대한 신앙과 침례들과 안수와 죽은 자의 부활과 영원한 심판에 관한 교훈의 터를 다시 닦아야 하는 신세로 전락하게 한 것처럼 보인다. 필자는 서로 상반된 종교신학의 방법론을 가지고 그리스도교의 정체성을 확보하고 대화와 협력을 모색하되 종교 내 대화를 지향하는 후기자유주의 신학의 조지 린드벡과 종교간 대화를 지향하는 변증신학의 폴 틸리히를 비교분석하였다. 그리스도교의 종교신학은 상황과 메시지또는 경험과 교리의 관계에 대해서 가지는 관점에 따라 두 가지 상반된 신학방법론으로 전개된다. 하나의 방식은 후기자유주의의 성격을 잘나타내는 방식으로서 본문내재적방법이다. 그것은 교리가 인간의 경험을 해석할 수 있는 해석적 틀을 제공한다고 주장한다. 다른 방식은 틸리히의 종교신학에 나타난 본문상관적방법이다. 이것은 반대로 경험이 교리를 위한 근원적인 기반을 제공한다고 이해된다. 린드벡의 종교신학은 문화- 언어적 종교론이다. 문화나 언어처럼, 종교 또한 원래 개인의 주관성에 대한 표명이라기보다는 그러한 주관성을 형성해 주는 공동체적 현상으로 본다. 린드벡은 그의 종교론을 교리의 척도가 되고 교리를 규정하는 이론으로 연결시켰다. 왜냐하면 교리가 종교를 규정한다고 보기 때문이다. 그의 종교론은 체계내적 진리이면서 변명이 필요 없는 종교신학이다. 진리는 외부에 있다기보다는 본문 안에 있는 것이다. 그의 종교신학은 공통성보다는 차이성에 관여하기 때문에 타종교의 진리의 존재여부에 관심이 없다. 어찌 보면 급진적종교신학으로, 다른 편에서는 극단적 배타주의로 비춰질 수 있다. 반면에 틸리히의 종교신학은 역동-유형론적 종교론이다. 역동적 유형론이란구체적인 종교의 결정적인 요인이 되고 있는 유형적 요소가 무엇인지를 밝히고 그 종교를 지배하는 유형적인 특정요소가 존재 구조 속에서 어떤 기능을 감당하는가를 살피는 것이다. 틸리히가 주장하는 종교신학은 그리스도교가 갖춘 특유한 유형적 특성과 상보적 관계에서 혹은 상호 의존적 관계에서 타종교를 이해하고 대화하려는 입장이다. 필자는 종교간 대화에 접근하는 태도로서 틸리히의 역동적 유형론이 역사상의 고등종교들이 한데 어울려 공존하고 있는 한국과 같은 문화 종교적 상황에서 취할 수 있는 종교신학의 한 유형이 아닐까 싶어그 가능성을 타진해 보았다. The purpose of this study is to trace a probability of Paul Tillich`s theology of religions, depending upon George Lindbeck`s postliberal theology. I tried to seek the way of the theology of religion by briefly outlining both Tillich`s dynamic typological approach and Lindbeck` s cultural-linguistic approach to religion. The two way of theology of religions will contribute not only to a new creative relationship between the religions but also to a new understanding of the christian faith. To say shortly, it will be considered as finally turing into the intrareligious dialogue from the interreligious dialogue. In the theology of religions in the postmodern times, most christian theologians have adopted what they call the method of correlation of Paul Tillich`s apologetic theology. They think it particularly important to correlate christian beliefs with concerns and experiences that all people share and to stand ready to defend christian convictions according to publicly acceptable criteria of truth. But postliberals have insisted that christian theology should focus primarily on describing the internal logic of christian faith, namely how christian beliefs relate to each other and function within the life of a christian community. On this approach they do not assume that theology needs to defend its case according to criteria acceptable to all rational persons. Cultural linguistic approach of religion by George Lindbeck, on the one hand, proposes that a religion can be viewed as a kind of cultural linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought. The religion is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments. It comprises a vocabulary of symbols together with a distinctive logic and grammar in terms of which this vocabulary can be meaningfully deployed. Therefore we can say that the primary task of Lindbeck`s theology of religion is “christian self-description,” not correlation with universal human, cultural quests for ultimate meaning. On the other hand, Paul Tillich`s approach to the theology of religions is dynamic typological. The dynamic typology of the religions points to the typical elements which, in many variations, are the determining factors in every concrete religion. Therefore the decisive point in a dialogue between two religions is not the historically determined, contingent embodiment of the typological elements such as the kingdom of God, nirvana, incarnation, the others, but these elements themselves. Finally under the method of dynamic typology the christian theology of religions should be advanced toward a intrareligious dialogue for the religion of the Concrete Spirit. Thus now as christians we see in the appearance of Jesus as the Christ the decisive victory in the history of world religions.

화이트헤드와 폴 틸리히의 신이해

임형모 ( Hyung Mo Yim ) 한국화이트헤드학회 2016 화이트헤드 연구 Vol.32 No.-

본 논문의 목적은 전통적인 신개념의 한계를 극복하고 새로운 패러다임의 신론 가능성을 타진하는데 있다. 화이트헤드(A. N. Whitehead, 1861-1947)와 폴 틸리히(Paul Tillich, 1886-1966)의 신이해를 고찰함은 이들이 공히 전통적인 신개념의 한계를 극복하고 있다는 점이다. 화이트헤드와 틸리히의 신학적사유는 서구 기독교 유신론적 초월신론을 극복하려 한다. 유신론적 초월신은 성서가 말하는 ‘살아계신 하나님’과는 다른 신관이라고 보는 것이다. 유신론적 초월신은 세계를 초월하여 있는 ‘하나의 최고 존재자’로서 간주된다. 그러나 화이트헤드에게서 철학적 하나님은 모든 존재론적 원리들의 예외자로서 취급되어서는 안 되고 그 최선의 범례이어야 한다. 틸리히 생각 또한 하나님의 존재는 다른 신들과 나란히 있거나 다른 것들 위에 있는 존재로 이해될수 없다는 것이다. 화이트헤드는 유기체철학을 하였고 틸리히는 존재신학을 하였다. 신학적으로 말하면 화이트헤드의 유기체철학은 ‘신학적 철학’으로 이해되며 틸리히의 존재신학은 ‘철학적 신학’으로 간주된다. 화이트헤드는 ‘합생과정방법’으로 신이해에 접근하였다. 신과 세계는 과정 합생으로 설명된다. 폴 틸리히의 신학 방법론은 ‘상관관계방법’이다. 신과 세계는 실존의 문제와 계시의 답변으로 상호 관계한다. 화이트헤드의 궁극적 실재 중의 하나인 신은 현실적 존재로 일컬어진다. 현실적 존재로서의 신은 다른 궁극적 실재인 창조성에 의존하여 있다. 반면에 틸리히의 신은 우리의 전 존재를 사로잡는 궁극적 관심이외에 다른 것이 아니다. 그의 신은 존재자체라고 일컬어진다. 틸리히의 “존재자체”와 대비되는 화이트헤드의 궁극적 실재는 “창조성”이다. 틸리히는 존재자체를 모든 존재자에 참여하는 존재의 근거이며 모든 존재를 있게 하는 존재의 힘으로 보았다. 한편 화이트헤드는 창조성을 신을 가능하게 하는 궁극적인 실재로 이해한다. 창조성이 현실적 사건을 일으키는 궁극자라면 신은 형성적인 요소인 창조성과 영원한 대상을 결합시켜 현실적존재를 탄생시킨다. 그러나 화이트헤드의 창조성은 틸리히의 신과 동일하지 않다. 존재자체가 창조성을 포괄한다고 보는 틸리히의 신관이 일원론적이라면 신과 창조성을 구별하는 화이트헤드는 다원론적 입장에 있다. 틸리히는 기독교 신학자이기 때문에 모든 궁극적 원리나 가능성들을 모두신의 속성의 한 모습들로 설명한다. 화이트헤드의 궁극적 실재들을 틸리히는신의 창조성으로 담아내고 있다. 신을 현실적 존재로 보는 화이트헤드의 신관은 일종의 범재신론이다. 화이트헤드에게서 신과 세계는 동반자이며 공동창조자이다. 반면에 틸리히는 신을 세계의 근거와 힘으로 설명하였다. 존재자체와 존재 일반 사이의 절대적 단절과 무한한 비약을 전제하고 있는 틸리히의 신관은 자기초월적 범재신론이다. 결론적으로 전통 신론을 넘어서는 두철학자의 신과 세계에 대한 이해는 오늘날 다종교 다문화시대에 새로운 종교신학의 패러다임을 가능하게 할 것으로 기대한다. The purpose of this study is to trace a probability of the theology of religion through understanding on God of Whitehead and Paul Tillich. I tried to seek the approach way of God understanding by briefly outlining both Tillich``s method of correlation and Whitehead``s method of concrescence. The former is a way of uniting message and situations. It tries to correlate the questions implied in the situation with the answers implied in the message. The latter is a process of constituting any one actual entity. In other words, it is a fluency inherent in the constitution of the particular existent. An instance of concrescence is termed an actual entity or actual occasion. What is an actual entity? It is the primary notions which constitute the philosophy of organism. Actual entities are the final real things of which the world is made up. The actual world is a process, and the process is the becoming of actual entities. Thus these are considered as drops of experience, complex and interdependent. God also is termed an actual entity. On the one hand, Whitehead’s God is not to be treated as an exception to all metaphysical principles, invoked to save their collapse. He is their chief exemplification. And the nature of God is dipolar as all actual entities, which have a primordial nature and a consequent nature. But God depends on ‘creativity’ which is an ultimate which is actual in virtue of its accidents. Thus God is primordial, non-temporal accident of creativity. On the other hand, Paul Tillich``s God is the answer to the question implied in man’s finitude, namely he is the name for that which concerns man ultimately. Shortly, God is named man’s ultimate concern. It means that God cannot be understood as the existence of a being alongside others or above others. God is not a being but being-itself. We also should say that God is the power of being in everything and above everything, the infinite power of being as well as the ground of being. As the power of being, God transcends the world. And since God is the ground of being, he is the ground of the structure of being. Finally, understanding on God of Whitehead and Paul Tillich is beyond the notions of the traditional God. These approach ways of God will contribute not only to a new creative conversation between the religions but also to a new understanding of the theory of christian God.