칼 바르트의 하나님論 II : 하나님의 存在 = A Study on Karl Barths Doctrine of God II: The Being of God (an Outline)

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This article is an outline of the second part of my former writing an Karl Barth's Doctrine of GodI: The knowledge of God, which was published by J.K.C.R.I., Vo1. 21, 1973, Ewha Womans University. The knowledge of God is treated in Barth's Kirchliche Dogmatik II/1, chapter 5, §25~27 and being of God in chapter 6, §28~31. The main title of the sixth chapter is "the Reality of God" (die wirklichkeit Gottes) Instead of this title, however, the phrase, "Being of God" is used in this article as its main title, since it appears more frequently in Krichliche Dogmatik II/1. The sixth chapter of Kirchliche Dogmatik deals with four major subjects: The being of God as the One who loves in Freedom, the problems involved in the history of the doctrine of divine attributes, the attributes or perfections of God's love, and the attributes of perfections of God's love, and the perfections of God's freedom. This article has treated mainly the first two parts and, as for the last two, only basic structures are treated.

1. The being of God as the One who lives in freedom includes three subthemes: the being of God in His act, the being of God as the one who loves, and the being of God in His freedom. The two concepts of God's love and freedom or God's act and being constitute the whole structure of Barth's doctrine of God. Freedom means the dimension of God's being and love is His act that creates a fellowship or coexistence with us. This relationship makes it possible and necessary for us to speak about God in Himself as the acting subject of it. Barth's doctrine of God has these two basic aspects: God as the One who is present for us or exists with us in Jesus Christ, and God in Himself of aseitas: that is, God for us or God in act for us in history and God in himself or in His own freedom. These two aspects are included in the concept of divine being.
19th century liberal theology, especially Ritschlian historicism, dropped concerns about the being of God and, instead, concentrated itself on the historical existence and faith of man in relation to God, that is, god for us. The notion of God in Himself was thought of as a metaphysical speculation. The notion "God for us" without Presupposing " God in Himself, however, can be reduced to human existence or human nature itself, as L. Feuerbach did so. The notion can, indeed, have some symbolic function for us to realize our own being, ethical or religious. That is, however, not God at all, who is the Lord, Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer of men and world. If we let God be God, we must refer to His own being as the subject of His act to be for us in history. For this reason Barth has introduced the notion of devine aseitas (God in Himself), the notion which was formulated by Anselm of Canterbury.
Barth, however, rejects any metaphysical speculation about God's being or essence. He can be known only through Himself, only through His Self-Revelation. His act in Jesus Christ as the eschatological event of His Self-revelation. That is, His act in history is the point of departure for us to speak of His being in Himself. This historical point of departure in the doctrine of God was not made clear by protestant Orthodoxy. The being of God in the Orthodox theology, as in the Roman Catholic theology of the medieval period, was conceived of by the way of our concept of being in general in the world; and, therefore, the notion of the being of God took a metaphysical outlook. Nineteenth century historicism made all efforts to remove such a metaphysical speculation and to retain the notion of "God for us" in history. Now Barth has reinterpreted the concept of God's being on the basis of an historical event, the event of His revelation. In this way Barth has accounted for the truth of historical concern in liberal theology, to be sure, in his own unique way.

2. Before expositing on divine perfections or attributes, Barth tackles two major problems involved in the history of the doctrine: the problem of nominalism on older theology and in liberalism as well, and the problem of deducing divine attributes. In connection with the latter problem Barth deals especially with modern liberalism. Nominalism thought of the plural, individual and different attributes of God as not being proper to the unity or simplicity of His being itself. Different attributes are only modes of His world economy (Weltokonomie Gottes) and only the names or expressions of our finite and plural world. This kind of nominalism, according to Barth, dichotomizes God and His attributes of names. He asserts that the plural, different attributes of God, is not contradictory to the unity of His being, but, on the contrary, the richness of God himself. The main task of the doctrine of divine attributes is, therefore, to explicate the oneness of God's being and His attributes.
As for the problem of deducing the number and kinds of divine attributes, Barth classifies three types in modern theology and criticizes them. Hegelians, Schleiermacher -Alex. Schwerizer, and Ritschlians attempted to deduce attributes from human consciousness, Psychological, religious and historical. Over against these efforts, Barth maintains that God Himself determines His own modes of being in relation to us, that he Himself names Himself in His revelation and that we have to follow His way as witnessed in the Scriptures.

3. Barth distinguishes between the perfections of God as the One who loves, and those of God in His freedom. Older theology made, in varying terms, such a distinction. As for relating the two aspects, however, Barth differs from older theology. He begins with the perfections of God's love and then proceeds to those of His freedom. This order corresponds to Barth's understanding of the mode God's revelation. He reveals himself as the One who is hidden from us. His revealedness means His being for us and His hiddenness means his being in Himself. Older theology posited His hiddenness and his revealedness and spoke about the former apart from the latter. Consequently the concept of divine hiddenness became speculative. Over against this, Barch maintains that we must acknowledge God's hidden being in Himself, on the basis of His revealedness. For this reason, he starts with the attributes of God's love for us and proceeds to those of His freedom in Himself.

4. The perfections of God's love are as follows: grace and holiness, mercy and righteousness, and patience and wisdom. These pair concepts correspond to God's love and freedom. The concepts of grace, holiness and patience are meant to express his love more directly: and those of holiness, righteousness and wisdom refer to His freedom the simultaneous treatment of these pair attributes is meant to express the unity of God's being for us and being in Himself.

5. The perfections of God's freedom are as follows; unity and omnipresence, constancy and omnipotence, and eternity and glory. The concepts of unity, constancy and eternity express more directly God's freedom and those of omnipresence, omnipotence and glory are related more to His love. Both lines express, in unity, His freedom in Himself, rather than His love for us.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 머리말
• Ⅰ. 자유에 있어서 사랑하는 자로서의 하나님의 존재
• 1. 행위에 있어서의 하나님의 존재
• 2. 사랑하는 자로서의 하나님의 존재
• 3. 자유에 있어서의 하나님의 존재
• Ⅱ. 하나님의 완전성들
• Ⅲ. 하나님의 사랑의 완전성들
• Ⅳ. 하나님의 자유의 완전정들
• 맺는말
• 영문요약
• 참고문헌