개혁주의 관점에 입각한 폴 틸리히의 신학방법 비판 = (A) Critique on Theological Methods of Paul Tillich from the Viewpoint of Reformed Theology

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The intellectual sources of Paul Tillich's rich and monumental theological system are many. They include Platonism, the medieval Christian mysticism, the German Idealism, such as Schelling, the existentialism from Kierkegaard to Heidegger as well as Martin Khler's Theology of meditation. His diverse thoughts are closely connected with his life's surroundings. As he was to cross so many borders and oceans during his life, so Tillich adopted "the boundary line" as an image which depicted and defined his stance in the world of thought. Throughout his career, he found himself walking the narrow line between the temperament of his mother and his father, between the beauty of the countryside and the fascination of the city, between the church and secular culture, between politics and philosophy, between science and theology. Because he stood on the boundary line between two contrast world, he adopted a peculiar theological method after his own style for a synthesis of the two. His theological methods automatically flowed out from his diverse thoughts.
In his □□Systematic Theology□□ Tillich says that method and system determine each other. This implies that his theological methods had an decisive influence on systems of his theology. The theological methods which he have used in his theology are "the method of correlation" and "the method of (religious) symbol". In Tillich, Systematic Theology uses the method of correlation. And it makes an analysis of the human situation out of which the existential questions arise, and it demonstrates that the symbols used in the Christian message are the answers to these question. That is, he finds questions in human situation and obtains answers in Christian message or Bible. Therefore the method of correlation make much of a mutual relation between human situation and Christian message, philosophy and theology, context and text. It looks to be a rational and an intellectual method seemingly. But it made God a kind of stopgap to explain those infrequent limit-situations of life or some of our metaphysical puzzles. This is to appeal to God only in our human weakness and bewilderment. After all, it distorts the truth with a logic that can not be acceptable.
In addition, for the same reason he don't interprets the passages in Bible literally but symbolically. He says that in the true symbol, reality is apprehend. He looks on symbol as the highest form of religious speech. He intended to made many Christian teachings newly acceptable to modern men. In so doing he seeks to de-literize(not de-mythologize) biblical symbols(Christian messages). But this attempt produced an improper interpretation of Christian messages by contraries and thereby put God into a category of ambiguity.
The starting point of his theology is not God's word, but human situation. As a result of that, his theology is called Cultural Theology, Philosophical Theology or Apologetical Theology. He intended to define the way in which Christianity is related to secular culture, from which the church had been isolated. But his aim ended in failure. Of course his analysis of men's spiritual condition and his apologetic for Christianity were not only intellectually impressive but have achieved a wide response and influence. He has influenced many men in the field of philosophy and theology and mainly through such men made an impact on contemporary thought. However his hard work caused widespread damage in modern theological circles and God's church. This damage is the result that was caused by his theological methods.
A fatal defect of Tillich's theology is putting aside a dimension of spiritual(or invisible) realities that Bible apparently states. In his theology there is the common faults which modern western theologians have made because of their interpreting the objects and contents of theology by reason. They are fond of establishing their own philosophical systems by the method of reductionism. So they ignores a supernatural world and change the world of realities into the world of epistemology. We find such tendencies and traits in Paul Tillich's Theology.
For such reasons as above mentioned, we conclude his theology as "theology from below" which we reject. Therefore we cannot help criticizing his theological methods and the contents of his theology that were systemized by them. The purpose of this paper is to criticize Paul Tillich's theological methods from the standpoint of Reformed Theology. And the final result of that critique is that his theological methods oppose or distort the fundamental truths that orthodox theology have kept up to the present. According to Tillich's theological methods, there are not an idea of God as the Creator and Personal Being in his theology.
And there are not also thoughts of Redemption through Christ's Cross(man's salvation from sin and death that issued from His death on the cross), His Resurrection, His two natures(the personal unity of a divine and a human nature), and His Incarnation in his Christology. After all Tillich's theological methods led him to commit the critical errors that modern liberal theology have showed until now. They are Pantheism, Situational theology(or Situational Ethics) and Philosophical theology(Theology that is under the rule of Philosophy) etc.
Above all, Christianity is the religion of a salvation. The central truth of the Reformed Theology is "salvation by the gospel faith." But There is not the way of such salvation in Tillich's theology. In conclusion, Paul Tillich became the most dangerous and apprehensive theologian in Christian Faith.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• - 목차 - = i
• Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
• A. 문제제기와 연구목적 = 1
• B. 연구방향과 연구방법 = 6
• Ⅱ. 틸리히 신학사상의 배경 = 8
• A. 역사적 배경 = 10
• B. 사상적 배경 = 13
• Ⅲ. 틸리히의 신학방법 = 18
• A. 철학적 전제 = 18
• 1. 변증법 = 20
• 2. 존재론 = 22
• 3. 실존주의 = 25
• B. 틸리히 신학방법의 내용 = 28
• 1. 상관의 방법 = 32
• a. 상관의 방법의 개념 = 33
• b. 상관의 방법과 조직신학 = 36
• c. 상관의 방법과 상징 = 38
• d. 상관의 방법과 프로테스탄트윤리 = 41
• 2. 상징의 방법 = 45
• a. 상징(종교적 상징)의 개념 = 47
• b. 상징과 기호 = 56
• c. 상징과 신화 = 62
• Ⅳ. 틸리히 신학방법의 결과와 비판 = 68
• A. 신론에 미친 결과 = 71
• 1. 존재하며 말씀하시는 신의 부재 = 74
• 2. 창조주로서의 신의 부재 = 82
• 3. 인격적 존재로서의 신의 부재 = 85
• B. 기독론에 미친 결과 = 88
• 1. 그리스도의 성육신 부정 = 90
• 2. 그리스도의 양성론 부정 = 94
• 3. 그리스도의 십자가 구속 부정 = 97
• 4. 그리스도의 부활 부정 = 99
• C. 결론적 비판 = 103
• 1. 범신론 = 106
• 2. 철학적 신학 = 111
• 3. 상황신학 = 117
• Ⅴ. 결론 = 125
• 참고문헌 = 131
• ABSTRACT = 135