헤르만 바빙크와 칼 바르트의 계시와 문화관과의 관계에 대한 비교연구

박철동 아세아연합신학대학교 2017 국내박사

ABSTRACT A Comparative Study on the Relationship between Revelation and the View of Culture of Herman Bavinck and Karl Barth Park, Cheol-Dong Ph. D. in Systematic Theology The Graduate School, Asia United Theological University While it is expanded for general culture and society to arrive at indifference and unbelief on the Christianity including Religion, the Church has given a poor account of herself in this situation at the present day. More troubling is the fact that the Church become more complacent in herself, being satisfying in her belief, by which as a result the Church are more alienated from general societies in which she lives, remaining a special religious community. In this situation, it is arisen for a question what Christian view of culture is needed? It is a purpose of this dissertation to provide a principle and direction of Christian view of culture based revelation as a essence of Christianity: The following contents are detail arguments for demonstrating of this dissertation. First I argue Christian view of culture should be rooted in revelation, because revelation decides world-views and the character of all kinds of theology. Second the dynamics of revelation should be a presupposed Christian view of culture as a ability to fulfill the responsibility of Christian view of culture. Third it is a core theme what is a view of the character of organic relation between special revelation and general revelation, by which it is depended on the character of Christian view of culture and argue that there are three presuppositions of a view of the character of organic relation between special revelation and general revelation: (1) all revelation are supernatural and natural theology cannot be established, (2) the abuse of general revelation separated from special revelation results in invasion or subversion against special revelation, this purpose, (3) general revelation is a common basis on between Church and general culture. Forth what is the basic principles on Christian view of culture and when appling the character of this organic relation what is basic principles of Christian view of culture. Firth it is precisely needed and should be theologically inquired to the universal government of Jesus Christ as the Lord, the Mediator, the King both over all Churches and all the universe as the firmly common foundation between Church and common culture. For this study, first, in Bavinck it is catholicity to main theme between revelation and culture, while in Barth the Word of God, on which these are a background of revelation of each of them. I investigated the character these themes thoroughly, which are also a controlling variable for restricting related themes in my study, and it is explored to inquire the world-views of Bavnick’s age and the Word of God of liberal theologies of Barth’ age for comparative analysing the contemporary doctrines of revelation. Through this process, I proved that revelation is essential absolutely to Christian view of culture, because revelation decides world-views and the character of theology. Through this process the following results run thus: Prop #1. The universal supernatural world-view of the human race related culture is that it must be govern materials by spirit, development by ethic. Prop #2. The Christian view of culture must be rooted in revelation. By inquiring a comparative study on the relationship between the doctrine of revelation and the view of culture of Bavinck and Barth, I gained the following results. First, the character of general revelation in the related special revelation, its abuses and importance run thus: Prop #3. There are true lights of the world under the faithfulness of the Creator and the government of Christ. These lights are not inherent lights but the reflection on the lights from the Father of lights(Jms 1:17) and Christ(Jn 1:9). Prop #4. If general revelation as being based on natural law or the Law is independent from special revelation, it will be happened for general revelation to invade or overturn special revelation. Prop #5. General revelation as being based on natural law or the Law does not become natural theology because all of the revelation are supernatural including general revelation. Prop #6. General revelation(in Barth the lights in the world) is a common ground both Christianity and culture. The character of the organic relation between special revelation and general revelation runs thus: Prop #7. Special revelation certainly is set antithetically over against all the corruption which gradually entered into the life of the peoples, but it takes up, confirms, and completes all that had been from the beginning put into human nature by general revelation and had been preserved and increased subsequently in human race. Prop #8. Christians can encounter easefully with pagans in general revelation as common ground, and can see pagans through Scripture. The factors which seem to salvation by its own effects are distorted forms of the covenant of work, and the factors which seem to true are a dim traces of original Gospel(Gen. 3:15), on which also are the results of continuing illumination of the Logos. And the basic principles of Christian view of culture applied by above factors runs thus: Prop #9. Culture derives from religion and revelation as the general revelation of God, at the same time has its life and its laws. Christianity do not extinguish them but respects. Specially, it is suggested for Bavinck to apply a Christianizing on the cultures when cultures are grounded by a influence of Christianity, but when it is time when civilization is more developed and begun to become more suffered deprivation on the Christian ground, it is suggested to ethical occupation on culture through the fruits of the Holy Spirit like ancient Churches, Prop #10. The development and evolution pursued by general culture are not the same goodness which Christianity pursues. Christianity does not set its position as utilitarianism or pragmatism but culture is evaluated by the Gospel. Prop #11. Christianity is always bound on theonomy according to the Word of God not but autonomy of general culture. Prop #12. First and the foremost it is necessary to become the son of God again, and this is the Gospel as both pears and yeast of Heaven Kingdom that renews and corrects culture. Second, it is a core to the catholicity of Bavinck to grace recovers nature, and Gospel-yeast, while it is the Word of God of Barth. From this comparative study, the following results run thus: Prop #13. It is a light of reconciliation of Christ to shine to all the world, and there is nothing areas of life to be excluded as the objective of re-creation. Prop #14. Sins does not exist in substance of the created, therefore Christianity does not be hostile any the created and any man. Prop #15. Grace is not against nature itself but sins, and do not destroy but recover. Prop #16. It is Jesus Christ as grace itself to reform and correct fundamentally the world history distorted and confused. Prop #17. It should be the Church that is the core of the relation between Christianity and culture and the Church take part in re-creation by reflecting the light of the glory of God on all of the life's areas as both peal and yeast. Third, Jesus Christ is the eternal Mediator both the Mediator of creation and redemption which have the significance both soteriologcal and universal, being both the Mediator of union and redemption, has twofold Kingship, which govern all the Churches but also all the culture. The Church reflects a radiation from Christ's threefold offices(Bavinck) or Jesus Christ as grace itself(Barth) to all areas of life, so that it reforms and renews human, family and society and all the created. The final conclusion of this dissertation runs thus: First and the foremost it is necessary to become the son of God again, and it is presupposed to the dynamics of revelation as the Word of God by which the Church is led in various situation. Second the subject of the relation between Christianity and culture is the Church. Third this is the Christological unity and integrity that maintain the organic relation between special revelation and general revelation not segregated each other and these are a ground by the Gospel, all of the life's areas are renewed and reformed culture. This dissertation deals with mainly theologically and generally on Christian view of culture. I hope that it is succeeding researches to be more practical, more detailed themes on Christian view of culture.

예방의학에 대한 영성 신학적 접근

이종웅 아세아연합신학대학교 대학원 2009 국내박사

This study aims at presenting Christian spirituality as a way of living a healthy life, taking it for granted that there is a high correlation between Christian spirituality and physical health, because a human being is not only a physical and psychological being, but also a spiritual being. This research is, therefore, composed of two variables, one being the preventive medicine and the other being the theology of spirituality. Chapter two dealt with the theological discussions of Christian spirituality, presenting its Biblical foundations in the Old Testament and the New Testament. The history of catechism and the inseparable relationship between Christian spirituality and life were also discussed. Chapter three presented the Biblical foundations of the preventive medicine, integrating theology and medical science in the Biblical view on health. This chapter discussed the concept of the preventive medicine, conducting its historical research from the ancient times to the modern age. Chapter four attempted to do a theological approach to psychological principles on health, integrating psychology and theology. The fact that a human being is a spiritual being as well as a psychological being brings about the necessity of this integration. Chapter five was dealing with the "spiricho-somatic" principle that is a new term coined by Tack Joe Kwon. The term "spiricho" is composed of spirit and psyche(mind), and "spiricho-somatic" means that spirit, mind, and body are inseparable in its nature. As a belief that a human being is not only a physical being, but also a psychological being, is reasonable, so a belief that a human being is not only a physical and psychological being, but also a spiritual being is reasonable as well. This chapter also dealt with immunology, presenting the fact that spirituality promotes health by strengthening the immune system which is very crucial for preventing diseases. Chapter five discussed the preventive medicine and the theology of Christian spirituality, applying brain science to theology, using new terminologies such as "God Spot", "brain triad", and "brain triad-neuroimmunology." The integration of theology into brain science is reasonable and necessary, because spirituality is not isolated or separated from human brain. Chapter six was presenting the practical issues on the preventive medicine in view of the theology of spiritualty, employing such theories as "learning therapy" and "forgiveness therapy." These theories formulated by integrating educational psychology, brain science, and theology enabled this study to be practical as well as theoretical. This study concludes that there is a high correlation between spirituality and health in the Biblical and medical perspectives, suggesting us to develop spirituality for preventing illnesses and diseases. The fact that God the Creator who created a human being as a whole being composed of spirit, mind, and body and God the Sustainer who wants us to be healthy is a strong foundation of making the conclusion of this research. 흔히들 현대 의학은 건강을 증진하고 생명을 연장한다고 주장하는데, 의사 프랭클린은 현대 의학을 “죽음의 체계”라고 했다. 그는 ‘부담스러운 임신’에 대한 현대 의학의 해결책이 무엇인가? 라고 묻는다. 현대 통계학이 인간의 평균 수명이 길어진다고 보고하는데, 의사들을 비롯한 많은 사람들은 그것을 현대 의학의 공로라고 생각한다. 그럼에도 현대 의학이 죽음의 체계인 이유를 프랭클린은 왜곡된 통계학 때문이라고 했다. 만약 낙태된 아이들이 예상 수명 계산에 포함된다면 즉 수태된 때로부터 예상 수명을 계산해 볼 때, 예상 수명은 43년으로 줄어들 것이라고 했다. 그런 의미에서 현대 의학을 죽음의 체계라고 했다. 우리 기독교인들은 죽음의 체계인, 현대 의학에게만 인간의 치유를 맡길 수는 없다. 인간의 전인건강을 영, 육, 혼의 건강으로 볼 때, 현대 의학은 죽음의 체계인 것을 배제하고, 온전한 치유가 일어난다 할지라도 1/3의 치유를 담당하는 것이다. 그러므로 본 논문은 현대의학이 감당치 못하는 2/3 부분인 영과 혼의 치유와 현대 의학으로서 해결할 수 없는 부분까지 모두 포함한 전인치유를 위하여 “예방의학에 대한 영성 신학적 접근”을 고찰해 보고자 하였다. 사도 바울은 고린도전서 6장19-20절에서 “너희 몸은 너희가 하나님께로부터 받은바 너희 가운데 계신 성령의 전인 줄을 알지 못하느냐 너희는 너희의 것이 아니라 값으로 산 것이 되었으니 그런즉 너희 몸으로 하나님께 영광을 돌리라”고 했다. 몸은 가장 성스러운 곳이며, 신자들 안에 성령이 거하시는 가장 거룩한 성전이다. 따라서 몸은 단순히 죽어서 사멸되는 육체적 실재만은 아니다. 그러므로 인간은 몸의 건강과 함께 전인적으로 하나님께 영광을 돌려야 한다. 1장에서 세계보건기구를 비롯한 현대의학은 영성의 요소가 반드시 필요함을 강조하고 있음을 논하면서, 그렇다면 기독교 영성과 건강은 어떤 관계가 있는가를 물었다. 이 물음에 권택조의 영성, 지성, 감성의 삼성일체교육으로 인한 영성발달은 건강과 밀접한 관계가 있다는 논지로 삼성일체신경면역학(BNI)을 제안했다. 이를 증명하기 위하여 첫째, 영성은 심리학과 깊은 관계가 있다. 둘째, 심리학과 의학을 통합한 심신의학과 영성은 관계가 있다. 셋째, 면역학과 영성을 접목하여 영성이 심신에 영향을 주어 신경계와 면역계를 활성화 하여 인간을 전인적으로 건강하게 할 것이라는 논지를 본 연구는 증명할 것이라고 했다. 2장에서는 영성과 건강한 삶을 논하기 위하여 성서에 나타나 있는 영성의 개념이 영혼과 육체가 분리된 이원적 개념이 아니라 전인적인 개념임을 살피고, 역사적으로 사용된 영성의 개념이 상황적으로 때로는 지성적인 측면이, 때로는 감성적인 측면이, 때로는 하나님과의 관계적인 측면만 강조되어 적용되었음을 지적했다. 이는 본 연구가 영성에 대하여 삼성일체 중심으로 접근한 것이 올바른 방향이었음을 입증하는 것이었다. 따라서 과거의 이원적 영성의 일상 삶과의 분리는 현대에 와서 이원적 구조를 극복하고 전인적 영성의 삶에 대한 관심이 증가하고 있음을 논했다. 현대의 영성에 대하여, 루터의 영성을 본받아 하나님의 은혜 아래서는 수동적이고 이웃사랑 안에서는 적극적인 형태를 취하는 건강한 삶을 사는 일상적이며 전인적인 타자중심적인 삶을 제안했다. 3장에서 예방의학을 논하면서 예방의학은 역사적으로 볼 때 영적인 면을 항상 요구하고 있으며, 성서적 관점으로 볼 때에도 영적인 삶이 정신적으로나 육체적으로 건강에 도움이 된다는 결론을 얻었다. 그러한 결론은 영적인 삶인 예배, 기도, 성경공부, 찬양 등이 신자로서 하나님과의 관계를 유지하는 가장 직접적인 수단이기 때문에 건강에 필수적인 구성요소가 됨을 논하였다. 성서에서는 육체를 튼튼하게 하는 훈련 보다는 영적 훈련이 더 건강에 중요하다고 말씀 하신다. 특히 구약성서의 예방의학적 측면을 연구하면서 일상생활의 영적인 삶이 질병을 예방하는데 절대적임을 논했다. 4장 전반에서 영성신학과 심리학의 접목을 논한 것은 다음에서 논할 심신상관학과 영성신학의 관계를 정립하는데 영성심리학이 필요했기 때문이다. 그동안 심리학은 프로이드의 영향으로 정신분석을 중심으로 하였다. 그러나 현대 심리학에서 심리학의 제4물결이라고 부르는 정신종합을 주장하게 되었다. 그 이유는 정신을 분석하지만 말고 종합하여 심리적 상처의 치유뿐만 아니라 영적인 절정경험, 창조성, 하나님과의 관계 등의 영적인 문제를 다루어 정신분석학의 한계를 넘어야 하기 때문이었다. 이를 학자들은 영성심리학이라고 부른다. 영성과 심리학의 접목에서 얻을 수 있었던 것은 지금까지 심리라고 부르던 지성과 감성은 영성이 결여된 것이라는 결론이다. 그러므로 건강에 영향을 주는 심리학이란 영성심리학이어야 하며, 심신상관학은 영성이 포함된 영적-심신상관의학(Spirit-Mind-Body Medicine)이어야 한다. 4장 후반에서 영성과 심리학의 접목에서 얻은 영적-심신상관의학에 대한 이론적 체계를 세우기 위하여 몸과 마음의 관계를 연구하면서 의학 분야에

스탠리 하우어워스의 공동체 윤리에 대한 복음주의 신학적 고찰 : 죄와 심판과 은혜의 관점에서 평가

김경천 아세아연합신학대학교 2016 국내박사

At the present day, it seems to be losing that the proper mission of Church is to teach to the saints the better biblical perspective for the ethics and blessing of the Christians. As a result, most of the Christians become to regard the practice of worldly ethics as the marks which are assured the sanctification of regenerated men, and a large part of the main inclination of blessing as worldly worth of which it is merely to live well in this world. According to this tendency, the number of the Christians who pursuit worldly blessing like mammonism are increasing rapidly even in the Churches. But it is not clearly for the Bible to says what blessing is. This is Stanley Hauerwas who is relatively well aware of this crisis of the Church among the theologies. In due his this standpoint, he as a ethics theology falls into the way warning to the Church that on which the Church must be a right Church itself, which is the prime duty of the Church. He demonstrates that the Church must be a community of character, paying attention to the narrative belong to the Church. In this fullness, according to him, it is very the time that the ethics of the Church may become the proper ethics of social. In view on the eyes of his perspective, he has made remarkable achievements to being characterized the importance of the establishment of evangelical character and the ethics of the Church Community. Even though his achievements, there are several serious problems on the theology of Stanley Hauerwas. First of all, it is wrong start point to ignore the concepts of sins, judgement and grace which belong to the very most important elements on soteriology. It is a result of forcing ethic elements and although his agrements would larger hold water it will become no more, no less than a part of secular religion, being aside the truth of ethic of the Bible. This purpose of dissertation, therefore, is to establish a proper ethics of Christian which must be preveniently established the need of grace to overcome sins, before emerging a responsible ethics on which the community ethic of Stanley Hauerwas has been weaken or overlooked, by criticizing the community ethic of him on view of evangelical theology.

약속과 보존 : 존 오웬의 모세 언약론 연구

장헌민 亞細亞聯合神學大學校 2014 국내박사

For this dissertation I have studied John Owen’s doctrine of the Mosaic Covenant, specifically in relation with the New Covenant. The contemporary church has been plagued with a "cheap grace" syndrome, meaning Grace without the condemnation of the Law. The reason is due to the collapse of the mechanism device for the relevant balance between law and gospel, in contrast to the soteriology of the Reformation in the 16th century. Because of this many theological groups identify law with gospel or mix both ideas in various ways, the tendency is to be biased towards neonomism and antinomianism. Specifically, the view of Dispensationalism, Theonomy, NPP, NCT, FV, Mono-Covenantalism, Karl Barth etc. are it's tendencies. Evangelism also tends to put excessive emphasis on the Covenant of Grace to guard against Dispensationalism. Therefore, the 16th century’s Reformation soteriology outlined by Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus etc. is on a shaking foundation. One reason for these confusions seems to be in Westminster Confession of Faith(WCF). According to the WCF, since the corruption of the first Adam, all the covenants are the Covenant of Grace. Therefore the Mosaic Covenant also belongs to the Covenant of Grace. However such perspective to view both gospel and law as the administration of the Covenant of Grace, depending on where the emphasis is laid, could unintentionally allow to conceive either nomism or antinomianism. This view also has probability to be inclined to mono-covenantalism, such regards the Covenant of Grace as the only unique covenant of all the redemptive history indirectly. Although John Owen(1616-1683) is referred to as the prince of the puritans during the 17th century, believed the WCF to weaken the principles of protestant Reformation soteriology. He understood the Mosaic Covenant from a different perspective. Owen borrowed from Luther's distinction between 'the Law and the Gospel' to show the contrast between the old and new covenant in soteriology. According to Owen, the Mosaic Covenant is completely another different covenant with the Covenant of Grace. The Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant have completely different characters and functions each other in the soteriological dimension. Unlike the WCF, Owen could not find any soteriological similarities between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant at all. While the Covenant of grace is unconditional, the Mosaic Covenant is a conditional one. If this distinguishing distinction fails, many problems are revealed to the surface. At the same time the Mosaic Covenant is not the Covenant of Works, because all salvation after the Fall is 'only' made through the Covenant of Grace(Sola Gratia). God's redemptive history after the proto evangelium in Genesis 3:15 says that God only presented one way of salvation, not two. Therefore, the Mosaic Covenant is not also the covenant of works. If so, how does Owen understand the Mosaic Covenant? According to Owen, the Mosaic Covenant is the only 'particular' third covenant that God has ordained solely for the nation of Israel. The Mosaic Covenant consists of the Covenant of Works(the Ten Commandments) republished and represented. The promises and warnings of temporal blessings are deeply related to the preservation of the Israelites' covenantal / national identity in Canaan. When God entered into a covenant with Abraham, He promised the birth of the Seed. That is to say Christ, the future descendant of the seed of Abraham. For this providential purpose, God entered into a temporary Mosaic Covenant with Israelites. Until the New Covenant is fulfilled, He controls and preserves Israelites with the law. Thus the birth of Christ according to God’s promise to Abraham had to be protected until the accomplishment. In that sense, the Mosaic Covenant is a kind of realistic national temporal covenant excluded from soteriological function. Therefore, according to Owen, the Mosaic Covenant or the Mount Sinai Covenant is neither the Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace. It is a kind of National Covenant contracted with Israel. It is a temporary covenant given to a particular definite region and people at one point of time in the redemptive history(Heilsgeschichte). This covenant is essentially irrelevant to eternal salvation and doom of humankind. However, the moral laws (the Ten Commandments) republished in Mosaic Covenant is connected to the New Covenant. The moral laws are actually engraved in the spirit of covenant contractor with the New Covenant. Although the Mosaic covenant is a temporary passing covenant for the nation of Israel, Owen understands the moral law of the Covenant of Moses is still binding on to the Christians of the New Covenant. God's law of creation is eternal law. Owen accepts the third use of the Law according to the tradition of the Reformation. In this dimension, the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant are in a consecutive and continuous relationship. Therefore, the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments exist together. If we regard the Mosaic covenant as the National Covenant, it is abrogated and discontinuous. However, from the standpoint of renewal of moral law, it is still effective and continuous. Thus, Owen disconnects and connects effectively the Law and the Gospel, or the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. Through this he effectively criticizes the confusion about modern semi-Pelagianism, mono-covenantalism, and antinomianism. In conclusion, Owen believes the Mosaic Covenant to be a republication of the covenant of works. He believes that the Mosaic covenant is superimposed upon, and organically independent from the covenant of grace. For Owen, this made the Mosaic covenant distinct from the new covenant in substance and essence; and not a mere administration of the covenant of grace. Moreover, Owen’ fundamental distinctio

印度 狀況 神學의 批判的 硏究 : 救援論 中心으로

조범연 亞細亞聯合神學大學校 大學院 2005 국내박사

This Thesis is written as an effort to criticize the Indian Contextual Theology and develop effective methods to evangelize the Hindus in Indian area according to evangelical central truth. For this purpose I first studied the evangelical theology in ACTS Theological Synopsis as criterion of truth. In this investigation, we can infer the main concepts just like "reality of sin and universality of perdition", "seriousness of salvation", recovering of "justification by faith alone", "justification by faith as the basis of works righteousness", "a living faith" as central truth through the research of Calvin's and Wesleyan theology. Secondly, I researched the theory of Hinduism focused on soteriology(ways of salvation) and evaluated and criticized the reincarnation, yoga, caste system and pantheistic and syncretic salvation as preunderstanding of Indian Contextual Theology. Thirdly, I investigated the historical background and formation of Indian Christian Contextual Theology. I proposed the basis, meaning, direction, logics and trait of Indian Theology. In this chapter I proved that Indian Theology has been interwinded with Hinduism. Fourthly, I studied soteriology of Indian Contextual Theology based on four main theologians that are Brahmabandhab Upadhyaya - "jnana marga", A. J. Appasamy - "bhakti marga", P. Chenchia - "Theology of New Creation", M. M. Thomas - "karma marga" and classified their theologies into 8 subjects as soteriological subjects(authorities, man and sin, God, Christology, pneumatology, grace and sacrament, eternal life and conversion) and criticized their theology according to evangelical central truth. Fifthly, I evaluated their syncretic disposition and divided their syncretism into four parts just as inclusivism centered cosmic Christ, fulfillment, plural parallelism and hinduistic syncretism. Lastly, I proposed missiological points of contacts for the Indian Mission through comparative study of Bible and Sanskritan Books(Vedas and Upanishads). For this Study I researched comparing the theories in the 7 parts which are God, World, Human, Sin, Sanctification, Savior, Power Encounter. One fact has emerged from the survey of Indian Theology that is the existence of two main 'strands' of thought, the advaita strand represented especially by Upadhyaya, and the personalist or theistic strand seen Appasamy, with the two strands tending to have mutually exclusive 'clusters' of ideas. Thus Upadhyaya's outlook inclines toward monism in which the transcendent unity of God is not impaired. He rejects the idea of avatara, which comes from the theistic strand, favours mysticism of the 'monistic Trinitarian' pattern rather than simple bhakti, and finds the distinction between God and the world in a version of maya rather than in a firm doctrine of creation. Appasamy on the other hand thinks of God primarily in personal terms, encourages Christian bhakti, welcomes the avatara idea as applied to Christ, and see the world as real. Indian Theology is being driven to an interwinding of two strands, a synthesis of jnana marga and bhakti marga, and indeed in their different ways Upadhyaya and Appasamy both seem to admit this possibility. Signs of this mingling can be seen in the interpretation of Saccidananda-Brahman as Trinity, leading to a development of the Logos-Cit idea; in the dialectical treatment of the nirguna-saguna polarity; in maintaining the equality of Brahman and Isvara while at the same time identifying Isvara with Christ. I proposed the Indian Christian Theology has to need two chief concerns. The first is to remain faithful to his experience and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Secondly, we must be concerned to interpret and proclaim our understanding and experience in such a way that other men may come to the same knowledge. In order to do this we must proclaim Christ and the significance of Christ in such a way that our contemporaries and compatriots may fully understand the message, and this involves us in the problems of effective communication and persuasive proclamation. I propose we need to make the biblical message so relevant to the Hindu's preunderstanding that he hears what the God has to say to him through the word. The some of the special emphases needed in India are Religious Authority(sruti, yukti, anubhava), Hindu-Advaita system(monistic), World and Reality(stemming from maya), Community Consciousness(stemming from Caste), Power Evangelism. I, however, assert that there are three aspects involved in any valid contextual theology. (1) Contextual Theology is the Contextualization of the biblical revelation - human fallenness and God as trustworthy. (2) Contextual Theology Depends on the Power and Presence of the Holy Spirit. (3) The Ultimate Goal of Evangelical Theology is Worship and the Glorification of God. Lastly, in the context of the Hindu notion kharma and the total lack of assurance of salvation, I believe the recovery of "justification by faith" and "central truth" is one of the greatest needs in the formulation of an Indian Christian Theology.

“과학적” 신학 방법론을 위한 칼빈 신학의 과학성 연구

박욱주 아세아연합신학대학교 대학원 2012 국내박사

Scientific theological methodology embraces fundamental principles and criteria of scientific theological methods. These theological methods are engaged with continuing attempts to guarantee internal coherence of system of theology and to enable the cognition and verification of transcendent reality written in the Scripture. In the light of these aspects of scientific theological methodology, it is incontrovertible that Calvin's theological methodology is of voluminous significance in arguments concerning the definition, legitimacy, and intellectual coherence of scientific theology; his theological methodology, not only satiates criteria for scientificity of theology, but also explicitly allows insights into legitimate future prospect for scientific theology. Calvin's theology, properly responding to the demands for internal coherence of system and cognition of transcendent reality, determinately engages the scientific nature of Christian theology with the central purpose(scopus) of Christianity, the salvation of human soul. But, it is apparent that an exact articulation of Calvin's insights into the scientificity of Christian theology requires deliberate definition of 'science' and 'scientificity'. 'Science'(scientia; Wissenschaft) originally was a term which meant an entity of coherent system of knowledge; scientificity(Wissenschaftlichkeit) was consequently defined as the nature of a scientia-an academic discipline-which principally hinged on coherent methods and system in a scientia itself. But in the modern ages, such traditional definition of scientia was substituted for the definition of scientia as 'φύσις', a term which had signified natural philosophy. This transition was induced by an impetuous emergence of Enlightened scientific view, which grounded its ultimate foundation in mathematical and geometric reasoning and empirical positivism. These methods were successfully enunciated by Descartes, Newton, and Comte. The Enlightened scientific view presently evolved into materialism and developed into logical positivism which renounced to acknowledge the intellectual legitimacy of reflections on metaphysical and transcendent reality; the Enlightened scientific view unfolded its scientistic nature, induced the emergence of dogmatic scientism, and overpowered the minds of people. Eventually and broadly, all sorts of knowledge, except for that of natural science, were envisaged to be meaningless. However, it was gradually ascertained that this scientism will frustrate the creative prospects of all academic disciplines, including natural sciences; scientism itself was also an ideology and all human academic endeavors have no choice but to hinge on some ground motives or foundational beliefs. On account of its obvious and critical limitation, scientistic view has been the subject of continual intense discussion; on the parts of thinking people, the arbitrary definition of science and scientificity on the basis of methods of natural science is increasingly being adjudicated to be a false reduction of meaning. Therefore, for an objective investigation on the meaning and legitimacy of scientific theology, it must be favorably assented that 'science' signify scientia, a coherent entity of knowledge which comprehends not only natural but also transcendent cognition, and that scientificity be approved by the presence of coherent method appropriate for the object of cognition. Yet in the 18th and 19th century, Enlightened scientific view prevailed in the Western world. Kant's moral theology and Schleiermacher's anthropologized and positive theological method signaled the deep impact of the notion of intellectual legitimacy and coherence constructed by Enlightened view of natural science on theological methodology. Both Kant and Schleiermacher were committed to theological studies 'from below' and from human perspective; both the philosopher and the theologian deemed their main object of cognition to be the humane, and not as "the Divine". But Barth, through the celebrated debate against Scholz, initiated an attempt of apology for the 'specific' scientificity of theology; he insisted that "the Divine" be the specific object of theological studies, and that Christian theology can be a scientific discipline merely by following its particular method of cognition. Since Barth, due to his exemplary way of apology for scientific theology, theologians who devoted themselves to the justification of scientific theology have shared the consensus that "the Divine" is the ultimate and the essential object of cognition in theological studies. They attempted to investigate and verify the statements on transcendent reality written in the Scripture with methodological premises somewhat universal and somewhat particular simultaneously. Among them, Dr. Chul-ha Han indicates that a significant number of theologians who have advocated the legitimacy of scientific theology have had a markedly ambivalent attitude towards central truth-the salvation of human soul through gospel faith-of the Scripture. He claims that three decisive fallacies-fallacies of conceptual approach, rationalistic criticism of the Scripture, and scholastization-underlie the methods of modern Western rationalistic theology, and that those fallacies influenced scientific theological methodology to pretermit the soteriocentricity of itself in its recent history. Concerned about this problem, Dr. Han, analyzing the scientificity in the soteriocentric theology of Calvin, sets three methodological criteria of theological scientificity. Dr. Han asserts that a scientific theology should, firstly, summarize(summa) all parts(pars) of the Scripture soteriocentrically. As the central truth-salvation of human soul through gospel faith-comprehends the existential and transcendent reality of salvation, summa of the Scripture will hinder the microscopization of biblical and theological pars. Secondly, a scientific theology should completely and genu

케빈 밴후저의 복음주의 문화신학 연구 -한국 웰빙문화 트렌드에 대한 적용 사례-

신성욱 아세아연합신학대학교 대학원 2014 국내석사

The purpose of the evangelical theology of culture is to help the church become Christian cultural agents performing the gospel by interpreting culture theologically. That is to say, the theology of culture serves the church by offering a lifestyle of gospel that integrates cultural mandate and great commission. In my thesis, I argue that Kevin Vanhoozer's theology of culture can help the Korean church understand the present cultural situation by offering practical methodology of interpreting culture from the evangelical perspective. My thesis consists in two parts: firstly I introduce Vanhoozer's theology of culture and then, based on his methodology, I interpret the well-being trend as the cultural trend in Korea. In the first part(II), I introduce Vanhoozer's theology of culture. First, I look into his theological methodology underlying his theology of culture. Vanhoozer's theology so called "theological hermeneutics" is composed of the three kinds of concepts such as divine communitive action, trinitarian theology and theodrama. Secondly, I look into his understanding of the culture. He considers the culture as "a discourse" displaying the world and argues that the mission of the church is to interpret the culture. Thirdly, I explain what Vanhoozer's theology of culture is. His theology of culture consists in three phrases: understanding culture, interpreting culture theologically, and church's response to it. His theology of culture is evangelical because it takes gospel performance seriously. It is practical because it enables us to interpret real culture. It is comprehensive because it can interpret various cultural phenomenons. It is pastoral because it emphasizes the role of the church. In the second part(III), by applying Vanhoozer's methodology of theology of culture, I interpret the well-being trend that is influencing Koreans. First, in order to understand the well-being trend, I look into the world of, behind, and in front of the well-being trend according to the "thick description" Vanhoozer suggests. Second, I search the concept of well-being in the Scripture and interpret the well-being trend in the biblical framework of creation-fall-redemption. Third, I suggest how the Korean church should respond to the well-being trend through an ecclesial excorporation. Theological interpretation of well-being trend concludes as following : the well-being trend is a cultural trend reflecting people's desire to live a happy life through mental and physical health. The discourse of well-being trend promises people a happy life through the harmony of mind, body and environment. It persuades people into entering the world of the well-being by consuming goods for their health, which means, it invites the people of this age to the world of well-being. But the world of well-being is simply an utopia which we can not build without God's grace. Therefore, the church must speak that we can not put the vision of well being into action in the way of the well-being trend's suggestions and it should practice so-called the ecclessial excorporation. From the speech-act theoretical point of view, the church must use the locutions of secular culture to perform new illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. This is the gospel performance that the church must have as the cultural agent. As the influence of culture has increased, the church must practice gospel performance by interpreting culture theologically. At this time of culture, the theology of culture which Vanhoozer suggests would be a good gift for helping the church understand the culture justly, interpret it theologically, and respond to it evangelically.

린드벡의 후기자유주의 신학비판

이윤희 아세아연합신학대학교 대학원 2009 국내석사

지금까지 1980년대 이후 모더니즘적인 자유주의 세계관에 대한 회의론의 확산과 함께 등장한 포스트모니즘 사상의 신학적 표현 중 하나인 린드벡의 후기 자유주의 신학(Postliberal theology)에 대해 살펴보았다. 지난 10여 년간 미국 신학계에서 활발하게 논의되고 있는 린드벡의 후기 자유주의신학은 ‘현재 상황’과 ‘성경’ 즉 다른 말로 하자면 ‘자유’ 혹은 ‘보수’라는 양단논법에 의해 ‘복음’의 순수한 의미가 상실되어 있는 상황 속에서 ‘새 시대를 위한 복음’이라는 딜레마에 대한 흥미로운 해답을 시도하고 있는 신학이다. 후기 자유주의 신학은 특별히 예일 대학교 신학부와 관련이 있는데, 그 대표적인 공로자가 바로 역사 신학교 교수인 조지 린드벡이다. 그는 그의 책 “교리의 본질”에서 자신의 접근 방식을 기술하는데, 이제까지의 잘못된 종교 이론 즉, 종교에 대한 인지적 접근과 경험-표현적 접근을 비판하면서 현대철학, 사회학, 심리학, 종교학 등의 이론적 지평 아래 문화-언어적 적 접근(culture-language approach)이라는 새로운 종교이론과 이를 기초한 새로운 교리 이론 곧 규칙이론(rule theory of the doctrine)을 제시했다. 사실 린드벡은 “교리의 본질”에서 자신이 조심스럽게 밝히듯이 후기 자유주의 신학 자체를 정립하여 펼쳐 보이는 대신 그것을 “향한”(toward a postliberal theology) 가능성을 타진하려는 목적을 지니고 있다. 린드벡이 이 책을 통해 의도한 것은 루터교 역사신학자로서 린드벡은 교회사에 나타난 여러 다양한 교리들을 연구해왔고, 또 카톨릭과의 대화에 앞서 왔었다. 이러한 경험의 배역에서 과연 기독교 안의 여러 상이한 “교리”들을 어떻게 이해해야지만 그들간의 “대화”를 가능케 할 수 있을까 하는 문제를 고심하게 된 것이다. 먼저 린드벡의 후기 자유주의의 사상적 배경을 다시 재고해보면, 먼저 그 명칭 자체가 포함하고 있는 것처럼, 린드벡의 후기 자유주의 신학은 포스트모더니즘의 사상적 영향을 받았다. 특별히 포스트모더니즘의 대표적 특징인 근대성의 통합성과 토대주의를 거부하고 상대적, 파편적 특징을 가진다. 이러한 영향으로 린드벡의 후기 자유주의 신학은 기독교 신앙의 특수성을 강조하고 있다. 포스트모더니즘 사상의 또 하나의 영향은 누구나 동의하는 보편타당한 지식 체계나 진리의 틀을 거부한다는 것이다. 린드벡의 신학방법론에는 포스트모더니즘 뿐 아니라 예일대학의 여러 교수들의 신학 방법론을 받아들이고 있는데, 특별히 동료인 한스 프라이의 이야기 신학에서 더 많은 영향을 받았다. 즉 린드벡은 한스 프라이의 성경 이야기에 대한 접근 방식을 조직신학적 관점에서 채용한다. 그리고 린드벡의 후기 자유주의 신학의 대표적 신학방법론인 문화-언어적 접근에서의 언어 문제는 비트겐슈타인의 언어게임에 이해의 근간을 두고 있다. 기어츠의 문화 인류학에 대한 견해 조차 린드벡은 자신의 교리 연구에 적용함으로 프라이의 본문 내적 접근 방식을 확장시켰다. 린드벡의 후기 자유주의 신학의 문화-언어적 종교론과 규칙 이론적 교리관은 진리에 관한 전통적 견해들과 완전히 다른 새로운 진리관, 즉 ‘체재 내적 진리관’을 지시한다. 그에게 있어서 진리는 어떤 공동체의 체재 내에서만 참일 수 있다. 즉 어디서나 통용될 수 있는 객관적인 진리는 없고 내부적인 나름대로의 한계를 지닌 진리가 있을 뿐이라는 것이다. 그것은 언어와 문화도 마찬가지이다. 린드벡에게 있어 존재론적 진리(the ontological truth)는 더 이상 존재하지 않는다. 따라서 체재내의 진리인 행위적진리(perfor- matory truth)가 의미를 가질 뿐이다. 이런 점에서 복음주의자인 맥그래스는 린드벡이 어떤 객관적인 실재를 다루는 체계 외적인 측면은 간과했다고 비판한다. 예를 들어 성부와 성자의 동일본질 교리는 단순히 기독교 공동체의 언어 규칙을 제공하는 2차적 진술일 뿐 아니라 실재를 지칭하는 1차적 언어이기도 하다는 것이다. 그는 실제로 기독교 교리들은 신앙의 내용을 지적으로 표현해 놓은 진리주장들로서 그것의 실재적 진위가 가장 중요한 출발점이라고 보아야 한다고 주장한다. 체재내적 진리관을 신학에 적용할 때 등장하는 개념이 “본문내재성” (intratextuality)이다. 여기서의 ‘본문’(text)는 경전을 뜻하는데, 종교들 나름대로 자신들의 경전을 가지고 있으며, 신자들은 그 안에서 그들의 삶을 살고 실재를 이해하기 위해 추구하는 해석적 기틀을 마련해 주고자 했다. 그러나 이러한 그의 주장은 철저하게 거대담론을 거부하고 파편화된 이야기 거리를 찾아다니는 포스트모더니즘의 논리에서 나오는 영속적인 진리와는 상관없이 표현적 이야기에 불과하다. 이 점에서도 맥그래스는 린드벡의 잘못을 지적하는데, 린드벡의 체계 속에서는 왜 성경에서 출발해야 하는지에 대한 설명을 주지 않고 있다고 문제를 제기한다. 즉 린드벡은 종교적인 공동체의 중심에는 항상 정경이 존재하고 이러한 정경이 공동체의 세계관을 형성하는 권위를 가지고 있다는 형상학적인 분석에서 출발하여, 기독교 공동체의 경우에는 성경이 그러한 정경의 권위를 가지고 있 The purpose of this thesis is to criticize George A. Lindbeck's postliberal theology, an important postmodernism theology that appeared with commenting both traditional evangelism and liberalism. His theology try to provide a theological possibility in order to explain some important issues in dispute between liberal theology and evangelical theology. This thesis deals with a intimate understanding of Lindbeck's postliberal theology, influence of his theological thought, his theological methodology, the important theological issues of his postliberal theology, the theological criticism for his ideological background and presuppositions by the Evangelism. First of all, to accomplish the purpose of this thesis, I investigated the essences, characteristics, and theological perspectives on Lindbeck's postliberal theology through the documents written by Lindbeck. Specifically, it discussed both Problems of postliberal theology and a counterproposal to them by using method that examined Lindbeck's documents that criticized postliberal theology. Also, it inspected cultural-linguistic model of both religion and doctrine through methological access of postliberal theology in order to study postliberal theology thoughts of Lindbeck. Lindbeck is a postmodern theologian who received what postmodernists insisted. He understands religion as a cultural-linguistic model that influenced by Wittgenstein and some Hns Frei. For his theology, Human is existence that express and understands oneself by language. In addition, his language forms his society. In this sense, Lindbeck claims that human religious experience is possible because of language. And thus Lindbeck emphasizes that Christians must not start from human experience and interpret the bible though it. It is to exchange Bible language for human language, and as a result, the Bible becomes not God's Word but human word. Lindbeck claims to let the Bible speak to human with own language. this is according to Barth's teaching. It means that the Christianity should not be judged by the viewpoint of modernism and rather that modern society be defined by biblical language and the meaning of human lives be found in it. Lindbeck's postliberal theology emphasizes on the distinctiveness of christianity and as a principle refuses to follow the liberalism that rushes headlong into danger of the identification of the truth of the Gospel with the cultural norms of American liberal late in the 19th century. In addition, postliberal theology insists that the Scripture is the supreme sourse of Christian thoughts and values, and that recommends the bible language for the purpose of preventing the Christianity from becoming post-Christianity in these days, and that has strong points to make confirmation of Jesus Christ as a central figure in thoughts and lives of Christian church.

개혁주의 신학에서의 칭의 교리 연구 : 마르틴 부처와 조나단 에드워즈를 중심으로

박균상 아세아연합신학대학교 2017 국내박사

ABSTRACT This thesis is aimed at studying on the doctrine of justification in the light of Reformed theology. Unbiblical life of believers who are assured of their justification lead us to take re-consideration of whether the traditional doctrine of justification is authentic. Furthermore, the lack of Christ-like life style in believers and the modern churches including Korean churches lead several theologians to argue whether the traditional doctrine of justification has any theological defective. In response to this kind of significant theological issue, this thesis has purposely and comparatively selected two Reformed theologians - Martin Bucer and Jonathan Edwards. Martin Bucer contributed to the original conceptualization of justification in the light of the Calvinistic Reformed theology (instead of the Lutheran theology) in the beginning of the Reformation in sixteenth century, and Jonathan Edwards had remarkably elaborated the concept of justification in the eighteenth-century. The centrality of thesis is on this comparative studies, because it leads us to see how the profile of the doctrine of justification of the Reformed theology has changed from the sixteenth-century Reformation to the eighteenth-century in America. Firstly, I studied on how the doctrine of justification of Martin Bucer has been directly influenced by the legal justification of Martin Luther and indirectly by Thomas Aquinas and Erasmus. In this respect, I also dealt with Martin Bucer’commentary of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans in a sense that it is significant in understanding his doctrine of justification. This studies has then showed us that he did not differentiate the doctrine of justification from the doctrine of sanctification. Instead, his doctrine is characterized double justification which combined with sanctification, on which it contains good deeds and stresses itself. In particular, his double justification harmonized both Pauline justification and Jamesic justification on which both are seen distinguished, and well applied pneumatologically. Futhermore, the good deed and righteousness of God are well harmonized in a spectrum as justification and Bucer interpreted dynamically the righteousness of God to link the Law not like other Reformed theologies. Secondly, I studied on the doctrine of justification of Jonathan Edwards. The fact that I underscore is that Edwards clearly distinguished justification and sanctification, whereas Martin Bucer combined them as we have seen. However, Edwards closely followed in the footsteps of John Calvin who distinguishes justification and sanctification but not separates. I also dealt with the background of the doctrine of justification of Jonathan Edwards as anti-theses against to the Enlightenment of John Loch, antinomianism and Arminianism. I more specifically studied on how Edwards related justification to sanctification; he argued that the faith of justification of believers must bring them to the dynamic and actual process of sanctification with the result of the manifestation of the Christ-centered life style in their real and daily life. Therefore this studied has convincingly showed us that the lack of Christ-like life style in believers and modern churches including Korean churches does not attribute to any defects of the original and traditional doctrine of justification of the Reformed theologians in the sixteenth century. On the contrary, this studies cleary argues that the proper understanding and acceptance of the sixteenth-century Reformed doctrine of justification would bring us to the transformational sanctification with the result of Christ-likeness life style, as salt and light to the world, of believers and modern churches including Korean churches.

존 칼빈과 찰스 하지의 신학방법론과 인식론에 관한 비교 연구

조권수 亞細亞聯合神學大學校 2017 국내박사

Abstract Comparative study on the theological methodology and epistemology between John Calvin and Charles Hodge Cho, Kwon Soo Ph. D. in Historical Theology The Graduate School. Asia United Theological University This dissertation is the study on the discontinuity of theological methodology and epistemology between John Calvin and Charles Hodge. The point I am going to focus on is discontinuity between the Reformation Theology of John Calvin in the 16th century and the Reformed Orthodoxy Theology of Charles Hodge in the 19th century in regards to theological methodology and epistemology. Generally, many people misunderstand that the Reformation Theology of John Calvin and the Reformed Orthodoxy Theology of Charles Hodge is almost the same. We can say that the opinion has validity to a degree. However, in the viewpoint of theological methodology and epistemology, their teachings show unexpected decisive discontinuity. Calvin’s theology has a close continuity with St. Augustine, St. Bernard of the medieval, and the Reformer Martin Luther in Germany on the matter of epistemology and theological methodology. Calvin’s theological methodology for true biblical spiritual understanding is not a mere rational pursuit of understanding. On the contrary, it is a spiritual experience and inner conviction which are far more than human reason. Also it brings the Bible, experience, tradition, and reason together in the Holy Spirit. Calvin acknowledged human reason as a gift of God, but he had better control of it under the authority of the Bible. In Adam, the first man, all mankind has guilt and total corruption together. Because of this practical original sin, all mankind runs into the limits getting the full knowledge of God from not only the general revelation but also the special revelation. Therefore, Calvin emphasizes divine assistance through the Holy Spirit from above and by far beyond human reason on the sound understanding of Creation, Fall of Adam, and Redemption of Christ. It is a historical truth that the Bible which is God’s revelation for salvation was given to all mankind. But nobody can reach efficacious spiritual knowledge on the Bible only through human reason without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Calvin made a conclusion that sound Reformation doctrine’s understanding was acquired only by the illumination and indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Saints. Charles Hodge had confidence like John Calvin in regards to Original sin and especially guilt that was taught in the Bible. Although his emphasis on practical corruption of original sin by nature was much poorer than Calvin, he maintained his opinion that human beings had a heavy guilt which gave them eternal death under Adam’s sin. That guilt is resulted in the burden of eternal death, which humans cannot resolve the problem for themselves. Now, God has promised Jesus Christ as a ransom for the guilt of man in the Bible, so all mankind has a duty to learn and understand the word of God and the gospel even through human reason. Hodge was certain that the understanding like the above can be efficacious understanding of God. He believed that there is no contradiction between the Bible and human reason and even scientific knowledge. Charles Hodge had confidence that the Bible and its gospel became efficacious when even human reason believed the authority of the Bible and received its doctrines as it is. But his logic and conviction were on the lines of the Arminian theological methodology type which acknowledged not only Adam’s fall but also human reason and power. Charles Hodge accepted completely Reformed scholastic theology of Francis Turretin in the 17th century. He did not accept Calvin’s Reformation theology in the 16th century on the whole like Jonathan Edwards who was his spiritual ancestor in the 18th century and accepted Calvin’s theological methodology. The main point is, as Scotland Common Sense Philosophy taught, Hodge had over-confidence on human reason and he believed that human reason can be an another instrument for true spiritual understanding along with the Holy Spirit. Above all things, the discontinuities between Calvin in the 16th century and Charles Hodge in the 19th century is manifested, first of all, on the matter of understanding total corruption and the value of human reason, and secondly, of the transcendent epistemology and theological methodology. Since Calvin believed that the change of theological methodology could change the contents and effect of biblical gospel as a result, he could not disregard not only the contents of gospel but also the theological methodology which made it possible to understand the Bible and the gospel aright. Hodge accepted most parts of Calvin’s theology including the possibility of rationalistic methodology which was demanded in his era. And he even accepted willingly a modified theological methodology for his epistemological choice. That means the Reformed Orthodoxy doctrine of theological methodology does not assert an independent work of the Holy Spirit for true biblical spiritual understanding. It accepts another methodology for truth along with human reasoning together that was taught by the Scotland Common Sense Philosophy. The one important assertion in this thesis is the Semi-Arminian type’s Orthodoxy theological methodology. It accepts Calvin’s Reformation theology contents within the framework of the Arminian methodological type. Its doctrine is manifested as the Reformed theology externally, but the type of its theological methodology is a Arminian color plainly. And the other is a natural conclusion from that methodology, humanistic evangelism which asserts that the knowledge acquired from the Bible and doctrine through human reason, assent to that knowledge, and human intelligent decisions can be acknowledged as a regenerated saving faith taught by the Bible. Calvin emphasized on and on that biblical epistemological contents and theological methodology for it are efficacious when we pursue the harmony of the Word and Spirit well. But Hodge pursued modified theological methodology which allowed human reasoning too much more than Calvin. So, the assertion that Hodge’s epistemology undermined Calvin’s essential contents has enough validity. Calvin’s Reformation doctrines and biblical gospel, which were derived from the Bible, are well understood spiritually by using his theological methodology aright focused on the work of the Holy Spirit. It is because of the practical limit on Adam’s fall and human’s total corruption that all of the teachings in the Bible itself alone are not efficacious to all mankind. I believe that it is so urgent to recover the conviction of Reformation epistemology and theological methodology in the 16th century. It means that God’s efficacious calling to acquire the spiritual knowledge of God in Christ as a saving faith through the Bible and the gospel of Christ is always using the type of biblical theological methodology concentrated on the Holy Spirit taught by Reformers like John Calvin in the 16th century invariably-even now.