“과학적” 신학 방법론을 위한 칼빈 신학의 과학성 연구 = A Study on the Scientificity of Calvin's Theology for “Scientific” Theological Methodology

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제 1 장 서론 ······························································1
• 1.1 연구의 필요성과 목적 ····················································1
• 1.2 연구의 방법 및 범위 ····················································43
• 제 2 장 과학(Wissenschaft)의 정의와 신학 방법론의 변천 ··········51
• 2.1 과학(Wissenschaft)과 과학성(Wissenschaftlichkeit) 정의의 변천 ··51
• 2.1.1 학문(scientia)으로서 과학과 과학성의 정의 ······················52
• 2.1.2 자연 과학(Naturwissenschaft)으로서 과학의 정의 변천 ·······59
• 2.2 칸트(Kant) 인식론과 이성주의(Rationalismus) 신학 방법론 ········80
• 2.2.1 전통적 유신론에 대한 비판적 회의 ································84
• 2.2.2 실천이성(praktische Vernunft)과 도덕적 유신논증(moralischer Gottesbeweis) ·····················92
• 2.2.3 존재론적(ontologisch) 접근에서 인식론적(erkenntnistheoretisch) 접근으로 선회 ················102
• 2.3 슐라이에르마허(Schleiermacher)의 종교학(Religionswissenschaft)으로서의 신학 ·························110
• 2.3.1 종교 경험(religiöse Erfahrung)으로부터 출발하는 신학 ······110
• 2.3.2 절대의존감정(das Gefühl der schlechthinnigen Abhängigkeit)의 기원으로서 하나님 ·················································117
• 2.3.3 교회지도(Kirchenregiment)를 목적으로 하는 실천적 학문 ···126
• 2.3.4 신학의 과학성을 위한 실질적 무신론 ··························131
• 2.4 바르트(Karl Barth)의 과학적 신학(wissenschaftliche Theologie) 방법론 ··················142
• 2.4.1 과학적 학문(Wissenschaft)으로서 신학의 정의 ···············145
• 2.4.2 자연 신학(Natürliche Theologie)과 존재의 유비(analogia entis) 부정(Negation) ···················153
• 2.4.3 하나님의 자기계시(Selbstoffenbarung Gottes)로서 그리스도와 하나님의 말씀 사건(Ereignis des Wortes Gottes) ············160
• 2.4.4 그리스도 일원론(christliche Monismus)과 계시 실증주의(Offenbarungspositivismus) ·····················170
• 제 3 장 이성주의(Rationalismus) 신학 방법론 비판과 신학의 과학성의 기준 ········································181
• 3.1 이성주의 신학 방법론의 오류들 ·······································181
• 3.1.1 신앙진리(veritas fidei)에 대한 개념적 접근방법 ··············185
• 3.1.2 성경에 대한 이성적 비판의 방법론 ······························193
• 3.1.3 스콜라주의(scholarism)화(化) ·····································200
• 3.2 구원 중심적(soteriozentrisch) 체계로서 신학의 과학성의 기준 ···205
• 3.2.1 부분들(pars)의 체계적 총괄(summa) ····························205
• 3.2.1.1 이신득의(iustificatione fidei) 신앙에 근거한 총괄 ········205
• 3.2.1.2 신학의 부분들(pars)의 미시화(microscopization) 지양 ··210
• 3.2.2 구원의 실재성(realitas)을 인정하는 신앙 ·······················217
• 3.2.2.1 구원 사건(Ereignis der Erlösung)의 실재적(realisticus) 인식 ······································217
• 3.2.2.2 구원 사건의 실제적(actualis) 발생 ·························224
• 3.2.3 구원 사역을 위한 실천성 ·········································235
• 3.2.3.1 구원 사건 발생을 위한 말씀 사역(ministerium divini verbi) ··································235
• 3.2.3.2 경건(pietas)의 증진과 구원의 유익들(fructus)의 향유 ···246
• 제 4 장 칼빈(Calvin)의 신학 방법론의 과학성(Wissenschaftlichkeit) ·······························256
• 4.1 칼빈의 신학 방법론 ·····················································256
• 4.1.1 구원의 진리체계와 유익(fructus)을 위한 신학의 원리(principia theologiae) ································258
• 4.1.1.1 구원의 신앙(fides salvifica)을 위한 신학 ··················258
• 4.1.1.2 오직 성경(Sola Scriptura)에 근거한 신학 ·················269
• 4.1.1.3 교회 공동의 유익(publicam Ecclesiae bonum)을 위한 신학 ························································277
• 4.1.2 하나님의 말씀을 읽는(ad divini verbi lectionem) 원리 ·······286
• 4.1.2.1 사실 자체(res ipsa)인 성경 ···································286
• 4.1.2.2 성경의 유추(analogia Scriptura)와 성령의 내적 증거(testimonium Spiritus sancti internum) ··298
• 4.1.2.3 간결성과 용이성(brevitas et facilitas) ·······················307
• 4.2 칼빈 신학의 과학성(Wissenschaftlichkeit)과 ‘과학적’ 신학(‘wissenschaftliche’ Theologie) ···························314
• 4.2.1 과학적 신학의 통일된 체계(Wissenschaftssystem) ·············316
• 4.2.1.1 이성주의 신학 체계의 미시화(microsc