Calvin의 신앙론

장헌민 장로회신학대학 1990 국내석사

깔뱅의 2중 예정론에서의 예수 그리스도의 역할에 관한 연구 : 예정론의 구원론적 관심을 중심으로

장헌민 장로회신학대학 1992 국내석사

깔뱅의 二重 豫예正論에서의 예수 그리스도의 역할에 관한 硏究 : 예정론의 구원론적 관심을 중심으로

장헌민 장로회신학대학교 1991 국내석사

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

공유자전거와 소유자전거 이용행동에 관한 연구 : 확장된 계획행동이론을 바탕으로

장헌민 서울대학교 대학원 2021 국내석사

최근 전 세계적으로 공유경제의 열풍이 불고 있다. 우리나라에서도 공유경제 활동이 급속도로 확산되는 추세에 있는데, 특히 공유경제의 한 영역을 구성하는 공유자전거 활성화를 위해 정부나 각 지자체에서 각고의 노력을 하고 있다. 본 연구는 공유자전거 이용행동과 소유자전거 이용행동 양상을 분석하였다. 공유자전거 이용에 어떠한 요인들이 유의미한 영향을 미치는지 파악하여 궁극적으로 공유자전거 활성화 대책 마련을 위한 정책적 함의 제공에 목적을 두고 본 연구를 시행하였다. 연구 방법은 서울시 송파구내 공유자전거 이용자와 소유자전거 이용자를 대상으로 계획행동이론에 의한 변수인 태도, 주관적 규범, 지각된 행동통제 외 이용목적과 물리적 환경 변수를 추가하여 이들이 공유자전거 이용행동과 소유자전거 이용행동에 미치는 영향을 구조방정식 모형을 이용하여 비교․분석하였다. 연구 결과, 공유자전거의 경우 이용목적 중 업무목적이 태도에 정(+)의 영향을 미쳤고, 태도는 이용의도에 정(+)의 영향을 미쳤으며, 지각된 행동통제는 이용행동에 정(+)의 영향을 주었고, 이용의도는 이용행동에 정(+)의 영향을 미쳤다. 이러한 결과는 출퇴근, 통학, 업무, 쇼핑 등 단시간ㆍ단거리의 특징을 지닌 업무목적으로의 이용이 공유자전거 이용에 영향을 미치며, 공유자전거를 이용하는 데 손쉬운 환경이 조성되어 있다는 것도 공유자전거 이용에 영향을 미치고 있다고 할 수 있다. 소유자전거의 경우는 이용목적 중 업무목적과 레저목적이 태도에 정(+)의 영향을 미쳤고, 태도, 지각된 행동통제, 주관적 규범이 이용의도에 정(+)의 영향을 주었다. 또 편리ㆍ쾌적성이 이용의도에 정(+)의 영향을 미쳤고, 이용의도가 이용행동에 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 분석되었다. 이는 우리나라에서는 사회 전반적으로 자전거를 이용하는 것이 교통이나 환경, 통행, 레저, 건강 등 다양한 영역에서 긍정적 기대치가 상당히 높기 때문에 소유자전거를 이용하는 것이 개인적, 사회적으로 바람직하게 여겨지고 있는 것으로 해석할 수 있다. 또한 자전거를 이용하는 환경도 잘 조성되어 있어 소유자전거 이용에 긍정적인 영향을 미치고 있다고 할 수 있다. 그리고 소유자전거의 경우 개인의 취향이 자전거에 반영될 수 있기 때문에 자전거의 물리적환경이 이용에 영향을 미친다고 할 수 있다. 공유자전거와 소유자전거 이용에 대하여 비교해보면 업무목적과 같은 단시간‧단거리 목적의 사용에는 공유자전거 이용이, 운동이나 레저와 같은 장시간, 장거리 목적의 사용에는 소유자전거 이용이 효율적인 것으로 판단된다. 또한 공유자전거가 기능의 개선이나 개인의 취향 반영이 어려운데 반해 소유자전거는 이러한 것들이 가능하기 때문에 자전거이용에 물리적환경의 영향을 더 받는다고 할 수 있다. 그리고, 아직 공유자전거가 소유자전거보다 사회적으로 덜 활성화 되어있기 때문에 사회적 기대치는 소유자전거가 더 크다고 할 수 있다. 마지막으로 본 연구 결과를 바탕으로 공유자전거 활성화 방안을 위해 제안할 수 있는 정부 정책 대안은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 출퇴근이나 통학과 같은 단시간, 단거리 목적에 적합한 공유자전거의 기능적 개선이 필요하다. 둘째, 각종 언론매체나 SNS 등을 통해 공유자전거의 장점을 널리 홍보하여 공유자전거 이용을 증진시킬 수 있다. 셋째, 공유자전거의 물리적 환경 개선을 위해 정부 차원에서 노력해야 할 것이다. There is a craze for the sharing economy around the world, government-level and local governments are making every effort to revitalize shared bicycles in Korea. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide policy implications for the activation of shared bicycles by understanding what factors significantly affect the use of shared bicycles and the use of owner bicycles. The outline of the study compared and analyzed the effects of shared bicycle behavior and owner bicycle behavior using structural equation models by adding variables such as attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, purpose of use and physical environmental variables. As a result of the study, in the case of shared bicycles, the purpose of use affected the attitude (+), attitude affected the intention (+), perceived behavior control influenced the behavior (+), and the intention affected the behavior (+). This can be considered appropriate for work purposes with short-term and short-distance characteristics such as commuting and shopping. In addition, the fact that an easy environment is created to use shared bicycles is also affecting the use of shared bicycles. In the case of owner's bicycle, the purpose of work and leisure during the purpose of use affected the attitude (+), and attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms affected the intention (+). In addition, convenience and comfort affected the intention (+), and it was analyzed that the intention affected the behavior (+). In Korea, using bicycles is considered to be desirable personally and socially because of the high positive expectations in various areas such as transportation, environment, traffic, leisure, and health, and the environment for using bicycles is well established, which is a good influence on the use of bicycles. And in the case of owner bicycles, the physical environment of bicycles can affect their use because individual tastes can be reflected in bicycles. Comparing the use of shared bicycles and owner bicycles, it is judged that the use of shared bicycles is efficient for short-term and short-distance use such as work purposes, and the use of owner bicycles for long-term and long-distance use such as exercise and leisure. In addition, while shared bicycles are difficult to improve their functions or reflect personal tastes, owner bicycles are more affected by the physical environment because they are possible, and social expectations are greater. Based on the results of this study, the following policy alternatives can be considered for the promotion of shared bicycles: First, it is necessary to improve the functionality of shared bicycles suitable for short-term and short-distance purposes such as commuting. Second, the use of bicycles may be promoted by appealing the advantages of shared bicycles through various media, social media, etc. Third, we should make efforts to improve the physical environment of shared bicycles.