평신도 제자 훈련에 대한 고찰과 방안 : 요한 서울 교회 중심으로

류화종 합동신학대학원대학교 2005 국내석사

角形鋼菅을 使用한 鐵骨造學校의 構造的 特徵

류화종 고려대학교 2001 국내석사

아르미니우스주의의 신론에 대한 사무엘 루더포드의 견해 : 『아르미니우스주의자에 대한 규명』을 중심으로

류화종 합동신학대학원대학교 2023 국내박사

I studied Arminianism's doctrine of God from the perspective of Samuel Rutherford, a reformed orthodoxy theologian in the 17th century, to clarify the theological differences between the doctrines of God in reformed orthodoxy and the Arminianism. Arguing with Arminianism, Rutherford left theological issues concerned the Arminians as argumental opponent in the writings such as Exercitationes Apologeticae pro Divina Gratia, Disputatio Scholastica de Divina Providentia, Examen Arminianismi. Specifically, in the second chapter of this dissertation is confirmed the dispute with the Arminians, focusing on the above three writings. In his work Examen Arminianismi, Rutherford demonstrated the differences between the theology of Arminianism and the Reformed theology, starting from the doctrine of Holy Scripture to the doctrines of God, man, Christ, salvation, church and apocalypse. In the doctrine of Holy Scripture was confirmed the Remonstrants’ argument that the meaning of the Bible can be known through human reason without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and also was confirmed that human rational choice stands at the center of their theology rather than God's sovereignty even in the doctrine of Holy Scripture. The theological difference in the doctrine of man was confirmed by Rutherford with the argument that the Remonstrants is denying the original sin and insisting that corrupted men can resist God’s grace. In the doctrine of Christ was confirmed the Remonstrants’ claim that Christ’s death is for everyone, and was confirmed the theological difference by Rutherford’s responding that everyone is by nature the children of wrath, and that the forgiving grace of Christ was given only to God’s chosen one. In the doctrine of salvation, Rutherford confirmed the Remonstrants’ claim that the covenant of grace was made to everyone and was intended to make them free, and he responded that the reformed covenant of grace is based on God’s good-pleasure. In the doctrine of church, Rutherford refuted the Remonstrants’ insisting “the uselessness of the marks of the church” by presenting “the need for doctrine on the marks of the church.” In the doctrine of apocalypse was confirmed the Remonstrants’ insisting of differing the judgment authority of the Son and the Father, which is an extension of the denial of ‘homoousios’ of the Son and the characteristics of the ontological subordinacy of the Son. In the third chapter I dealt with the argument between Rutherford and Arminianism about Cognitio Dei and Essentia Dei. According to the Remonstrants, Cognitio Dei is a speculative and passive acceptance, and does not belong to orders, and is not due to itself. The implication of this argument is to emphasize human own choices and free will regardless of the knowledge of God. On the other hand, Rutherford, based on the Bible, refuted that Cognitio Dei is ordered because of itself and is renewed in the image of God," arguing Cognitio Dei on the base of God's revelation. The argument about Essentia Dei deals with simplicity and ubiquity. According to the Remonstrants, the doctrine of simplicity is indistinguishable among the essence, the will, and the action of God, and God is actually distinguished as different beings in three distinct persons. On the other hand, Rutherford emphasized the simplicity of Essentia Dei by saying, “God is absolutely perfect and immutable, so there are no components in him, not mixed, and not compounded.” In particular, Rutherford, based on the Bible, refutes Episcopius and Borstius’ denying ubiquity of God, arguing that Essentia Dei exists everywhere, and that denying ubiquity of God is the excluding Essentia Dei. In the fourth chapter, dealing with the issue of Trinitas, I confirmed that the Arminians denied ‘autotheos’(αὐτόθεος), self-existent God of the Son and rejected the universal distinction about the birth of the Son, and they had characteristics of the ontological subordination of the Son. In addition, the denial of homoousios of the Son was confirmed in Bostius’ argument, but the denial of homoousios could not be confirmed in other Rutherford’s writings. In addition, Arminians argue that the Son becomes the object to worship, regardless of the Son’s divinity, by the human nature and mediatorship of the Son, because the merital cause of choice is placed on the aspect of the Son’s human nature. But Rutherford argued about the human nature and mediatorship of Christ, insisting that his becoming the object to worship presupposes personal God’s hypostatic union. In the fifth chapter, concerning the issue of Scientia Dei, I confirmed that God's knowledge of Arminius is different from God's knowledge in reformed orthodoxy because it includes middle knowledge. Above all, Arminius follows Thomas Aquinas’ intellectualism in terms of emphasizing God's knowledge, but in terms of the content of God's knowledge, he follows middle knowledge of Molina, a Jesuit theologian. Therefore, Arminius’ claim to Scientia Dei is evaluated as a different theology that mixed Scholasticism in various ways. In the sixth chapter, concerning the argument about Voluntas Dei I demonstrated that Rutherford emphasized the unity of will in terms of God's essence before distinguishing God's will and he distinguished the will of good-pleasure as the decree of God and the revealed will as God's revelation according to the reformed orthodoxy general theology. On the other hand, Arminius stated a prior will, a subsequent will, an effective will, and an ineffective will is different from that of the reformist orthodox theology. Arminius divided the object of the decision into the intention of saving for everyone and the intention of saving and cursing certain special people, and he argued that there was a prior will and a subsequent will for each decision. In response Rutherford countered that it variably changes the invariance of God's will. Arminius also describes it as God's good will to joy and will to prevent, but Rutherford distinguishes it as the will to do and to prevent it, pointing out that the core of the distinction lies in the resistance of the creature. In the seventh chapter concerning issue of predestination, Rutherford refutes the Remonstrants’ claim that Christ is the meritorious cause of choice, and that God's choice is due to God's good joy. In addition, the opposition argues for the duality of the choice of redemption, which is divided into "unlimited, universal choice" and "limited, special choice," but in the end was confirmed that it was a theory based on the belief of a person's faith. The eighth chapter summarizes the contents discussed in this paper and suggests the limitations of the research and the further research directions. This study was limited to studying the theology of Arminianism from the perspective of Rutherford, a reformed orthodoxy theologian in the 17th century. Therefore, since it does not confirm the 'justification of Rutherford's view of Arminianism', a separate follow-up study is needed for the regulation of the every theology of Arminianism. In addition, it is suggested that follow-up studies are also necessary regarding the understanding of the reformist camp and the evaluation of the legitimacy of judgment.

부흥에 관한 조나단 에드워즈와 찰스 피니의 신학적 이해

류화종 합동신학대학원대학교 2008 국내석사