人間의 實存 (Ⅰ) : 罪된 人間 = Existence of man[1]-Man as sinner-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Man is a being who is related with God. Humanity, the image of God in man is not a substance but a relation to God. Man is a theological being. This fact is recognized by Augustine, Brunner, Niebuhr and Tillich.
In his existence as in his essence, man also should be seen in his relation to God. Sin as existential estrangement is thought to be the distortion of the relation with God. Sin cannot be thought of without the idea of God. Sin is a rebellion against God (Brunner), a violence of God (Luther)and an enmity against God(Calvin). Sin is not an ethical concept but a religious one.
Next I will describe the beginning of sin, the fall, and introduce the theories of some scholars.
N.P. Williams stated that in the pre-existent world, before mankind appeared on earth, the world soul fell. Human soul transgressed by being united with this world soul.
Julius Muller said that pure spirits in the trans-temporal world rebelled against God by becoming egocentric. This was the fall of pure will.
According to F.R. Tennant, man was able to develop in the direction of both good and evil in the beginning, but for some unknown reason he has become what he is. Instincts, impulses, and passions are not sins in themselves, but they become sinful when, they are misused. Tennant states that repeated egoistic acts become sins.
According to Paul Tillich, man in his primitive state was in the state of "dreaming innocence". However by his finite freedom man has become existential. But behind mans existence there is a fatal cosmic existence, and human existence has participated in this cosmic existence.
Now we will investigate the essential nature of sin. Traditional theology has distinguished between plural sins and singular sin. We will deal with only singular sin. Thillich expresses the singular sin as an estrangement. Estrangement is sin.
(1) Sin or estrangement as pride (Hubris).
Many theologians designate pride or Hubris as the first and highest sin. They find its biblical basis in the words of Stan written in the paradise story in Gin. 3: namely " You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Pride is the desire to be like God. Reinhold Niebuhr classified the pride in three: 1) pride of power, 2) pride of knowledge, 3) pride of morality and religion which are explained summarily in this paper.
P. Tillich prefers to use the Greek word Hubris (self-elevation) rather than pride. According to his, Hubris is not one of many sins but the sin of sins. Man is great and dignified because of his self-consciousness and the image of God and also self-transcendence. However he forgets his own finitude and elevated himself to God's infinity. This is Hubris.
Emil Brunner describes pride as mans independence from God. Pride arises from the fact that he forgets his creatureliness and dependence and becomes intoxicated by his superiority and greatness.
(2) Estrangement or sin as concupiscence
Classical Christian theologists saw sin in concupiscence. However their great mistake was in identifying the natural instincts or impulses themselves with concupiscence. In our thinking natural sensuality itself is not sin. Rather concupiscence is corrupted human nature. Concupiscence is not the natural impulse itself, but is the indulgence of it: namely to pursue inordinately the sensual. Harnack was mistaken when he identified concupiscence with sex impulse in his interpretation of St. Augustine. Seeberg sees concupiscence as the lust of the soul in Augustine.
P. Thillich explained concupiscence as empty desire. It is an infinite desire to absorb the whole reality into oneself. The self is the center of the universe. This fact can be applied to every kind of desire, including sexual desire for power, desire for wealth, desire for knowledge, and even the longing for spiritual values. Typical examples are Nero's limitless de monic desire for power, Don Juan's sexual desire in Mozart, and the desire for knowledge of Goethe's Faust.
(3) Sin or estrangement as self-love
Self-love is the true root of sin. Pride and concupiscence are its fruits. The subject of pride is the self of man. That which changes the power of self-transcendence into pride is self-love.
The same thing can be said about the relation of self-love to concupiscence. That which changes the natural impulses into concupiscence is self-love. In his interpretation of Augustine, Seeberg says that self-love is the true essence of concupiscence. Luther defined concupiscence as self-seeking. According to him man appropriates even the grace of God and utilizes God for his own purpose. Man seeks everything for himself.
Reinhold Niebuhr also said that concupiscence is an inordinate identification of oneself with ones particular impulses or desires. There is self-love between natural impulses or desires. There is self-love between natural impulses and concupiscence. This means that self-love changes the impulse into concupiscence. Therefore it is right to say that the essence or the root of sin is self-love and concupiscence is its fruit. Every kind of self-interest and self-seeking is radical evil. We find the sin of self-love even in mans culture building. Culture must be a medium of the transcendent Being, but man appropriates it and makes it a glorification of himself.
(4) Rebellion also a glorification of himself.
In the prophetic religion of the Old Testament, sin was a rebellion against God (Is.1:2). It is seen in John's Gospel (Jn. 5:40) and in Pauls epistles (Rom. 8:7) of the New Testament. We can see the same notion in the parable of : the owner of a vine yard and the evil farmers" of the Gospel of Mathew (21:33-41). Dante, Calvin, and Brunner express the same notion.
(5) Unbelief
P. Thillch thinks this sin of unbelief is the most fundamental sin of all. According to him, the unbelief is a totally personal at, and an act of departure from God with one's total being.
Finally we will touch on the doctrine of original sin. As I understand it, original sin is not a special kind of sin except the sin which we have discussed in the above. It signifys the fundamental nature of sin. We can explain it in two parts: namely the totality of sin and the universality of sin. In the first place, when speaking of the totality of sin we mean that sin is not concerned with and particular part of man but with the total man. Classical theology explained this as the depravity of human nature, and some other theologian explained it as the bondage of the will. Emil Brunner used the words "total act" which signifys the act of total estrangement from God. As each of our sins is an expression of total estrangement from God, they are inevitable. When we speak of the universality of Sin, we mean that all men are sinners on the biblical basis of Romans 3:23, 5:12-21.
Classical theology explained this with the traditional theory : Adam propagated his corrupted human nature to posterity through procreation. But modern theologians would not accept this theory. Arbrecht Ritshl proposed the contagion theory as its substitution. This also is not satisfactory. In my opinion, E. Brunner's theory of solidarity seems to be the best and most persuasive one.
In conclusion, if Sin is inevitable or necessary, then what about the mans moral responsibility? If the human will is enslaved by sin and it is impossible for man not to sin, it may not be concerned with our responsibility.
Niebuhr solves this problem by saying that "since it is the will in which the defect is found and this presupposes freedom, the defect cannot be attributed to a taint in mans nature." Sin is necessary because of the defect and is also responsible because of free will.
Brunner uses the analogy of freedom. Once freedom is given up, man cannot restore it by himself. Necessity is in the fact that freedom can never be restored by man and the responsibility lies in the fact that man has thrown away his own freedom.
According to Galvin, man is not coerced to do evil but because of the inevitable result from the evil state, ma does evil voluntarily. Thillich sees the necessity or destiny in estrangement, and the responsibility in the individual acts which actualized the universal fact of estrangement.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 罪의 개념
• Ⅱ. 本質로부터 實存에로의 移行 - 타락
• Ⅲ. 疎外로서의 罪
• A. 소외의 뜻
• B. 교만
• C. 內慾
• D. 自愛
• E. 叛逆
• F. 不信仰
• Ⅳ. 原罪
• A. 全體性
• B. 普遍性
• C. 必然性과 責任性의 문제
• 참고문헌
• 영문요약