아벨라르의 속죄론: 도덕감화설에 대한 비판

이성림 ( Lee Sung Lim ) 아세아연합신학대학교 신학연구소 2021 ACTS 신학저널 Vol.48 No.-

아울렌은 1930년 속죄론에 대한 기념비적 연구를 발표하였다. 이 연구에서 그는 기독교 속죄론을 크게 세 유형으로 분류하였다. 첫 번째는 대속설이며, 두 번째는 보상설이며. 그리고 세 번째는 도덕감화설이다. 그러나 기념비적인 아울렌의 속죄론 연구에는 결점이 있는데 그것은 아벨라르의 속죄론을 주관주의적 모범주의로 축소하고 제한한 것이다. 이러한 왜곡은 아벨라르가 그리스도를 “위대한 스승과 모범”으로만 봤다는 아울렌의 잘못된 전제에서 기인한다. 그러나 아울렌의 주장과 달리 아벨라르는 “스승이며 모범”이신 그리스도를 본받아서 살아간다면 속죄가 이루어진다고 주장하지 않았다. 아벨라르의 속죄론에서는 칭의와 성화가 따로 떨어져 있지 않고 서로 연결 되어져 있다. 그에게 있어서 칭의 없는 성화는 눈먼 성화고 성화 없는 칭의는 허무한 칭의다. 아벨라르는 그리스도의 대속적 희생을 통해서 인간이 하나님과 화해할 수 있게 되었으며, 그렇게 하나님과 화해한 인간이 그리스도의 사랑의 삶을 살아갈 때 비로소 진정한 화해를 완성할 수 있다고 주장하였다. 아벨라르는 객관적 속죄이론이 중심이었던 이전 속죄론에 주관적 속죄이론을 더함으로써 속죄론을 좀 더 통전적으로 이해하고자 노력하였다. 주관적 요소의 결여된 속죄이해는 결국 성화의 결여로까지 이어질 수 있기 때문에, 아벨라르는 주관적 요소를 포함한 통전적 속죄론을 통해서 신자들의 신앙생활에 실제적으로 도움을 주고자 하였다. 그러나 안타깝게도 아울렌의 속죄론 연구에서는 아벨라르의 주관적 속죄론만 강조되었고, 이렇게 성립된 아울렌의 속죄론 연구를 토대로 한국 신학자들은 자신들의 속죄이론을 발전시키게 된다. 그리고 아직까지 아벨라르의 속죄론에 대한 비판적 재고가 이루어지지 않았다. 이렇게 아벨라르의 속죄론이 도덕적 모범주의설로 오해하게 된 것은 자유주의 신학자 라쉬달의 잘못된 해석에 기인한다. 그는 아벨라르의 속죄론을 도덕감화설로 소개하면서, 아벨라르의 속죄론이야말로 가장 설득력 있는 기독교 속죄론이라고 극찬을 하였다. 이와 같은 찬사에도 불구하고 아벨라르는 도덕감화설을 주장한 적이 없기 때문에 아벨라르 신학에 대한 찬사는 잘못된 것이다. 이 논문에서는 비평적 방법으로 아벨라르의 속죄론에 대한 잘못된 오해와 편견을 바로잡고, 아벨라르의 속죄론을 아벨라르의 신학에 근거하여 재구성하려한다. 그리고 이러한 연구를 통해서 한국 교회와 신학계에 신앙에 도움을 줄 수 있는 아벨라르의 사랑의 속죄론을 제공하려고 한다. Gustaf Aulen published a monumental study of the idea of the Atonement in 1930. He classified the Christian idea of the Atonement into three main types: the first was the ransom theory, the second the satisfaction theory, and the last the moral influence. However, there is a flaw in his study, which reduces and limits Peter Abelard’s idea of the Atonement to subjective exemplarism. This distortion originated from Aulen’s false premise that Abelard understood Christ only as “the great teacher and example.”However, contrary to Aulen’s assertion, Abelard did not claim that we are atoned by imitating Christ. In Abelard’s theory of the Atonement, justification and sanctification are not separate but interconnected. For him sanctification without justification is blind just as justification without sanctification is empty. Abelard argues that humans are reconciled with God through Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and that authentic reconciliation means that humans who have been reconciled with God should live the life of Christ’s love. Abelard articulates the holistic idea of the Atonement. Unfortunately, Aulen only singles out the subjectivity emphasized by Abelard, and most of theologians developed their theories of the idea of the Atonement without the critique of Aulen’s typology. Until now, there has been no critical reappraisal of Abelard’s idea of the Atonement. The liberal theologian Hastings Rashdall contributes to this misunderstanding of Abelard’s theory as moral exemplarism. He introduces Abelard’s theory of the Atonement as a subjective moral-influence theory while praising Abelard’s idea of the Atonement as the most persuasive one in the history of Christianity. In this paper, I plan to correct, in a critical way, the misunderstanding and prejudice of Abelard’s idea of the Atonement and reconstruct his theory holistically based on his whole theology. With this study, I believe that Abelard’s emphasis on love in the Atonement might help uplift authentic faith in Korean Christianity.

수치심의 목회신학적 이해

김병오 ( Byoung Oh Kim ) 한국목회상담학회 2010 목회와 상담 Vol.15 No.-

Genesis is about ``shame genesis``. According to the chapter 3 in Genesis, when man violated God`s Word, shame set in motion the subjective experiences in Adam and Eve of their exposure before God. Shame is man`s recollection of his/her estrangement from the Creator; it is grief for this estrangement. It could be called as the ontological shame. It contained painful self-consciousness and a sense of alienation. The essential aspects of shame are the experience of unexpected exposure, the experience of powerlessness and inappropriateness, the experience which affects the whole self. From the psychoanalytic perspective, guilt is the internal tension generated when the Ego transgresses the Superego, whereas shame is response to the shortcomings of the self in relation to the Ego-Ideal. In the Christian faith, three theories of atonement are parallels to major three types of intra-psychic conflict situations characteristic of human life. The ransom theory of atonement shows us the anxiety produced by Ego-Id conflicts, and the satisfaction theory reveals to us the guilt feeling generated by a strict Superego. At the same time, shame plays a crucial role in the moral influence theory when the Ego cannot come up with the Ego-Ideal. The emphasis of this theory is on the sanctification of behavior. The model of Ego-Ideal is Jesus Christ. To fall short of one`s ideal henceforth produces shame. Church community is the arena of shame. Teachings and disciplines being done in the Church can motivate people to feel the chronic shame. Pastoral counselors must recognize the asymmetric structure of counseling, pay attention to the bodily, affective, cognitive signs of clients covering shame, and encourage them to explore the origin of their shame and disclose it. Also counselors should be sensitive to their countertransference showing shame, establish the safe therapeutic alliance with clients and lessen the resistance of clients through their self-disclosure. Healing shame is the psycho-spiritual task. Therefore pastoral counselors can accomplish it only when they rely on the One who was being ashamed for us. The feeling of shame has negative aspects as well as positive aspects. According to Karl Barth, human beings have been exposed in front of Jesus, with the result that they turn into the shameful beings. However, the joy in which they can boast in relation to Him is absolutely bound up with the humility in which they are necessarily ashamed in relation to Him. Here is the paradoxical power of shame. Also shame plays a central role in the strength of conscience. When pastoral counselors have the discretion-shame, or the moral shame shaped by conscience, they could be more mature pastoral counselors who can perform well the ministry of the care and nurture of the soul.

정통신앙의 기준으로 부활한 니케아 신앙고백에 관한 일고 : 362년 Tomus ad Antiochenos를 중심으로

공성철 연세대학교 신과대학 2006 신학논단 Vol.43 No.-

In this study the Tomus, the official letter of the council alexandria (362) to the committee of bishops in Antioch, was interpreted to see, if it gives us as well known the possibility to explain the begin of the neo-nicene theology in the end of 350s: the cause of the courage of Athanasius to confess the Nicaenum, that is Homousios, the movement to accept the Nicaenum among the anti-nicene fathers, namely so called Homoiusians and Homoians, the incorporating of the confess of the Holy Spirit in the conflict about the relation of God Father and the Son, and the differentiating the problematic two words, Hypostasis and Usia. For it has been accepted by the historians of Church and dogmas, that the so-called Tomus is the most important document being able to give the key to explain the uncleared scene relating to the rise of the neo-nicene theology. In the Tomus we can really find the new movement to accept Nicaenum as the orthodoxy creed by the former anti-nicene theologians. But it says the movement as not just beginning at that time 362, but as already begun in the past. It means, that the council does not make the neo-nicene theology arise, but shows its movement arisen. Based on the two termini differentiated, the council tried to harmonize two parties, Meletians for the three Hypostasis and Paulinians for the one Hypostasis, expecially very peacefully, as the council has been called the peaceful. To accept Nicaenum is, Tomus says, enough to be orthodox, but it defines its proof is to refuse the arianism. In the council they are synonymous, that is, to accept Nicaenum and to accuse the arianism. What does the document define the arianism is? Not to call the Holy Spirit a creature and separated from the Usia of the Son! Not only to this fact Tomus let us give our attention, but also, how the incorporation of the discuss on the Holy Spirit into the controversy about Father and Son. The confess about the Holy Spirit depends on it about the two Hypostsis. Every partaker in the trinitarian conflict must confess on the Holy Spirit due to the confession on the two Hypostasis or vice versa. If one admits the essential difference between Father and Son, he has to accept the creatureship of the Holy Spirit. Or he is unable to define the Three Homousia. In any case Tomus tells us, that the theologians ought to have been compelled to reconsider their theological positionamong until then. It could explain the action arisen among the Homoiusians and the Homoians, namely the begin of the neo-nicene theology. Tomus tells us, that the new movement arisen in the past is a reaction against the arianism, which seems to accept the Nicaenum but calls the Holy Spirit as a creature. In other words, the relating the Holy Spirit with the discuss on the relation of God the Father and the Son was activated by the Arians, not the nicene Fathers. It is undoubtful, that the Arians, who under Constantius Ⅱ. (351/3-361) were powerfully teaching the creatureship of the Holy Spirit are no other than the so-called neo-arians, especially Eunomius, the bishop of Cyzicus. As H. Ch. Brennecke(1989) insisted, this study let us know, that the cause of the neo-nicene theology could be the theology of Eunomius, especially his theory of the Holy Spirit. Tomus does not says. that the council is the first step of the new theology, but the way, where the cause for the new movement in the end of 350s is. Based on the result of this study, we can say, that it could be very worth studying on the theology of Eunomius for the understand of the birth and rebirth of the creed of Trinity.

아우구스티누스의 그리스도론

이양호 연세대학교 신과대학 2006 신학논단 Vol.43 No.-

Augustine did not write a great work on Christology. He, however, discussed on Christ in many places of his works. Augustine's Christology has been a matter of wide, continuing conversation since Adolf von Harnack interpreted it in a new perspective. Those who followed Harnack's interpretation came to be called "revisionists"; those who defended the traditional interpretation, "traditionalists." The early influential proponent of the "traditionalist" view was Euge'ne Portalie′. Harnack favored those passages that emphasized the HUMAN-God rather than GOD-human, keeping Jesus' subjective human person central to the union, rather than the divine person of the Word. On the contrary, Portalie′ gave priority to the person of the eternal Word. In fact, Augustine emphasized not only the divine nature of Christ but also the human nature. However, according to Augustine, the divine person of Christ took the human nature, not a human person. If Christ had taken a human person, then he would have taken two persons, the divine person and the human person, and then there had been two Christs. In accordance with Augustine, in Christ the divine person has both the divine nature and the human nature. The "traditionalists" argued that Augustine emphasized the substitutionary and propitiatory character of the death of Christ. On the other hand, the "revisionists" insisted that Augustine put emphasis on the moral influence of the life and death of Christ. Indeed, Augustine had the concept of satisfaction; "by His death the one and most real sacrifice was offered up for us." He also taught penal theory; "Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment." He had ransom theory; "In this redemption, the blood of Christ was given, as it were, as a price for us. Augustine also had the concept of "Christus Victor"; "the devil was conquered when he thought himself to have conquered, that is, when Christ was slain." In addition he taught the examplarism; "We cannot return except through humility. Now our restorer deigned to show in his own person an example of this humility." In short, Augustine was a great synthetic thinker.