생명과말씀 5 (2012): 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? Was Calvin a Calvinist? 리처드 A. 멀러 (Richard A. Muller) 캘빈신학대학원, 역사신학 I. 질문규정하기 : 칼빈주의 에대한다양한이해들 유명한 튤립 (TULIP) 문제는잠시

Transcription

1 생명과말씀 5 (2012): 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? Was Calvin a Calvinist? 리처드 A. 멀러 (Richard A. Muller) 캘빈신학대학원, 역사신학 I. 질문규정하기 : 칼빈주의 에대한다양한이해들 유명한 튤립 (TULIP) 문제는잠시접어두고, 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 라는근본적물음에어떤단서도달지말고그냥있는대로의물음에답하라고하면, 사람들은질문에대한저마다의이해를따라 그렇다, 아니다, 아마도 식으로매우간단히답할것이다. 사실질문자체가심각한문제들을내포하고있기때문에답변은혼잡하거나애매할수밖에없다. 실제로 칼빈주의자 (Calvinist) 나 칼빈주의 (Calvinism) 라는용어들은다양하게이해되고있는데, 그이해에따라어떻게답할것인지는물론이고질문자의의도까지결정된다. 칼빈주의자 라는용어는어떤특정한주제에대해칼빈고유의입장을기술하는사람, 아마도가장대표적으로는칼빈의예정교리를기술하는사람이라는의미로사용되어왔다. 또한칼빈의추종자를가리키는용어로도쓰였고, 개혁주의전통일반을가리키는용어로도사용되어왔다. 이와마찬가지로 칼빈주의 도다양한의미로사용되

2 12 생명과말씀 어왔다. 첫째, 칼빈자신의독특한신학적입장을가리키거나, 때로는 기독교강요 에나타난칼빈의신학을가리키는말로사용되어왔다. 둘째, 칼빈의추종자들의신학을가리키는말로사용되기도했다. 셋째, 개혁주의 (Reformed) 혹은 개혁주의전통 (Reformed tradition) 과동의어로더욱빈번하게사용되어왔다. A. 칼빈의고유한신학적입장으로서의 칼빈주의 칼빈주의 를칼빈의고유한신학적입장을뜻하는말로받아들인다면, 주어진질문에대한대답은간단하다. 즉, 그렇다, 당연히칼빈은칼빈주의자였다. 왜냐하면 칼빈주의자 나 칼빈주의 는다양한사안들, 즉신학적, 교회적, 정치적, 그리고심지어는철학적사안들에대한칼빈의독특한입장을가리키기때문이다. 아마도이런입장에서헨리콜 (Henry Cole) 은예정에대한칼빈의여러논문들을모아번역한책제목을 칼빈의칼빈주의 (Calvin s Calvinism) 라고붙였을것이다. 이런용법은피터툰 (Peter Toon) 과배즐홀 (Basil Hall) 같은학자들의글에서도발견된다. 그러나홀은 칼빈주의 라는용어를칼빈의 1559년판 기독교강요 의이른바완벽하게 균형잡힌 신학에만한정적으로적용하는과도함을드러냈다. 1 그러나이런접근법은다양한문제들을수반하게되는데, 그중에하나는 ( 명백히의도적으로 ) 칼빈을유일한칼빈주의자로만든다는것이다. 더나아가이런접근법은일반적으로칼빈과함께개혁주의전통에속하는이들로간주되는츠빙글리 (Huldrych Zwingli), 외콜람파디 1) Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, (London: The Olive Tree, 1967), 143; 그리고 Basil Hall, Calvin Against the Calvinists, in John Calvin: A Collection of Distinguished Essays, ed. Gervase Duffield (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 19,

3 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 13 우스 (Johannes Oecolampadius), 부쳐 (Martin Bucer), 불링거 (Heinrich Bullinger), 베르미글리 (Peter Martyr Vermigli), 무스쿨루스 (Wolfgang Musculus), 우르시누스 (Zacharias Ursinus) 등많은이들의 다소균형이떨어지는 신학들과달리 1559년판 기독교강요 가 완벽하게균형잡힌 신학을반영한다는결론을내릴때어떤기준으로그런판단을하게되었는지의문을자아낸다. 그러나아쉽게도그기준이란앞에서언급한첫번째접근법의여러요소들에대한개개인의신학적기호일뿐이며이는마치칼빈의 기독교강요 가슐라이어마허 (Friedrich Schleiermacher), 바르트 (Karl Barth), 벌카우어 (G. C. Berkouwer) 혹은근래의어떤신학자의현대적신학체계의원형인것처럼역사적문맥을이탈한현대적 기독교강요 이해로이어지고있다. 칼빈의예정이해, 그리스도중심사상, 혹은신비적연합 (unio mystica) 개념에서발견된다고주장되는그균형은칼빈의사상에통일성있는교의학적중심이되는반면, 칼빈의동시대인물들의사상속에서는그런통일성있는중심이발견되지않는다고주장된다. 그러나이런접근법을옹호하는이들에게는유감스럽게도그런중심은실제로칼빈의사상안에서도발견되지않는다. 이런통일성을추구하는접근법은칼빈을유일한칼빈주의자로만들뿐만아니라칼빈의칼빈주의를다소어색한표현을빌어말하자면슐라이어마허주의의원형, 바르트주의의원형, 또는벌카우어주의의원형으로묘사하고있다. 만약신정통주의혹은다른주제들을둘러싼통일성에대한현대적신화들이제거되었다하더라도좀더심화된문제가등장한다. 즉칼빈주의를칼빈자신의고유한교리들로규정할경우실제로칼빈안에서그만의고유한교리들을찾아내는일이극도로어려움을알게된다. 이문제는, 마치칼빈이실제로전혀새로운교리라도제안한듯이, 칼빈의예정론, 칼빈의기독론, 또는 칼빈의성찬론 같은내용들에대한탈문맥적해석을

4 14 생명과말씀 제시하는수많은책들에의해더욱불거졌다. 우리는 16세기제네바에입성한유일하게고유한신학자미카엘세르베투스 (Michael Servetus) 가제네바를살아서떠나지못했다는사실을상기할필요가있다. 고유하거나개성있는교리체계형성이칼빈의목표가아니었다. 예를들어, 칼빈의예정론에어떤고유한요소가있다면그것은전통을이어온과거신학자들로부터끌어모은요소들을자기의고유한체계에섞어넣은것이다. 그렇다할지라도실제로칼빈의체계는부쳐, 비레 (Pierre Viret), 무스쿨루스, 베르미글리등의체계와놀랍도록유사하다. 아담과신의 ( 神意, decree) 의관계와같은주제처럼여러부분에서상이성을보이는불링거의신학적체계조차도칼빈의가르침과확연한밀착성을보여준다. 2 이와유사하게칼빈의성찬론에독특한요소들이있기는하지만부쳐와멜란히톤의입장에서도입한내용들도대단히많다. 만약우리가이런공통적인요소들을제거하고단지말그대로의고유한부분에만초점을맞춘다면어떠한신학도남아나지못할것이며, 신학을구축하고싶은정도로충분한관련동기들도가지지못하게될것이다. 비록그렇게한다할지라도우리가얻게될신학은칼빈의신학이아니라잘게다져진재료들을가지고뒤섞어서만들때마다맛이달라지는일종의줄리아차일드 (Julia Child) 식교의학적혼합물정도일것이다. 간단히말하자면, 칼빈주의를칼빈의고유한신학으로규정하는것은궤변일뿐이라는것이다. 이런접근법이가진좀더심각한마지막문제는이것이다. 즉우리의물음이칼빈과칼빈주의자로불리는이후의모든인물들이속한신학적전통이칼빈자신만의신학을토대로세워졌다는것과, 칼빈의신학, 특별히 기독교강요 1559년최종판과동일시되는신학이그전통의회원가입여 2) Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of the Other Reformed Tradition? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002) 의결론에주목하라.

5 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 15 부를좌우하는근본적인표준을제공하고있다는것을전제하고있다는점이다. 나아가이런물음의유형은이후의개혁주의인물들이츠빙글리, 부쳐, 외콜람파디우스, 불링거등을추종하지않고오직칼빈의추종자가되기를원했거나되어야만했다는것과, 칼빈을추종함에있어서도칼빈의여러소책자, 논문, 주석, 설교및 1539 년, 1543 년, 1550년판 기독교강요 전반에나타난신학이아니라오직 기독교강요 1559년최종판만따른다는것을가정한다. 3 이런유형의이해는 기독교강요 에만오로지또는주로기초하고칼빈의선행자들및동시대인물들의사상에대해서는무관심한여러칼빈신학관련문헌들에의해지원되고충동되고있다. 4 이로써칼빈의사상은자신의사상을평가하는그자체의기준이되고말았으며, 넓게는칼빈주의적인모든것들의유일한안내자가된셈이다. 이런관점은너무도잘못되어세세한반박의가치를느끼지못한다. 이관점은칼빈의광범위한저술들의신학적중요성을부정하고칼빈을그의역사적문맥과그가속한전통에서분리하여결국칼빈을칼빈자신과도분리하고있다. B. 칼빈 추종자들 의신학적접근법으로서의 칼빈주의 칼빈주의자 가칼빈의추종자를의미하고 칼빈주의 가칼빈추종자의신학을의미하는것이라면, 칼빈은칼빈주의자일수없다. 왜냐하면어떤사람도자기자신의추종자가될수는없기때문이다. 앞서언급했던첫번째경우는칼빈을유일한칼빈주의자로만드는반면, 이두번째경우는칼빈을칼빈주의자로규정함을막거나, 아니면첫경우를부추기는감정에의 3) Hall, Calvin Against the Calvinists, 19. 4) 예를들어, T. H. L. Parker, Calvin: an Introduction to His Thought (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1995); Charles Partee, The Theology of John Calvin (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2008).

6 16 생명과말씀 존해서칼빈의신학에서만들어낸협의의규범에기초해서추종자들을결정하는입장이다. 칼빈주의자로불리는이들이칼빈의정확한모방자인경우가거의희박하고아마도전혀없을것이라는사실에근거해서볼때 칼빈이칼빈주의자였는가? 라는물음에대한답은부정적일수밖에없다. 이는이른바칼빈주의자로불리는자들이칼빈의지적복사판이아니기때문에칼빈은그들과동일시될수없으며, 칼빈의사상이이후의모든개혁주의신학의규범을제공하고있다는견지에서본다면대개칼빈주의자로불리는자들은칼빈을따르지않기때문에신학적문제아로간주될수밖에없기때문이다. 이런관점에서이해된우리의질문은꾸며낸질문임에분명하다. 이것은칼빈과이후의개혁주의저자들을모두그들의문맥에서분리하며, 역사적분석을교의학적일반화로대체하는오류를범한다. 이것은우리가예정그리고그리스도의대속과같은교리들이형성되는궤적을추적할때에발견되는몇가지특수한부분들을탐구할때다룰것이다. 좀더복잡한국면으로들어가자. 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 라는질문은 칼빈주의자 라는용어가칼빈자신은물론칼빈이후로백여년동안칼빈과동일한신학적궤적혹은전통을고수해온목회자들, 신학자들, 주석가들모두에의해서적극환영을받은호칭일것이라고간주한다. 그러나이런가정은그릇된것이다. 칼빈자신은 칼빈주의자 라는용어를모욕적인언사로여겼으며자기자신의신학을범교회적 (catholic) 진리의표현으로간주했다. 자료에따르면, 칼빈주의 및 칼빈주의자 는칼빈의대적자들, 특별히성찬론에대한칼빈의문헌들을비판했던루터파학자들사이에서생성된용어다. 따라서그런용어의사용은칼빈에게서비롯된독특한전통이있음을드러내는것이아니라, 처음에스스로를 복음적 (evangelical) 이라여겼던개혁자들가운데갈라짐이있었으며 16세기중엽이후에는의식적으로고백적그룹으로, 즉루터파와개혁파로분리되기시작했음

7 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 17 을나타낸다. 5 윌리엄배럿 (William Barrett) 은자신이칼빈, 베르미글리, 베자 (Theodore Beza), 잔키 (Jerome Zanchi) 및유니우스 (Franciscus Junius) 의가르침을공격했던 1595 년에비난을받았는데그이유는다른이유들중에서특별히여기에열거된영웅적인믿음의사람들을 칼빈주의자들 (Calvinists) 이라는 불쾌한이름 (odious name) 으로불렀기때문이다. 개혁신학자들가운데서 칼빈주의자 와 칼빈주의 라는용어들의상대적인수락은개혁파정통주의의발생이나영국청교도주의의발생의특징이아니다. 오히려그것은 17세기후기에시작되어대략 18세기에정통주의의쇠퇴때특징이된것이라보이는데, 그때는개혁파전통이매우많이발전해서그것을 칼빈주의자 와동일시함이그것의좀더광범위한교리체계보다는, 유명한 튤립, 즉유래가의심스러운두자어 ( 頭字語 ) 에자리잡고앉은, 몇몇특징적인요점들의지지에의거하고있을때였다. 요컨대, 사실상, 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 라는질문에서고려되는인물들중에어떠한신학자도자신을그런방식으로규정하지않았다는것이다. 논의를확대하면, 이물음은추종자를어떻게규정할것이냐에대한문제를제기한다. 이것은우리의탐구를좀더명확하게하는것으로서동시에역사적인문맥설정을요구하는어려운주제이다. 추종자를명명하는근거는무엇인가? 자기스스로를추종자라고규정한사람을추종자라고부른다면, 칼빈사후 1세기동안유일한칼빈주의자는모이즈아미로 (Moïse Amyraut) 일것이다. 하지만아미로의이른바가정적보편주의입장을반박한여러학자들은아미로의 칼빈주의적인 사상이, 특히칼빈을인용한부분에서, 칼빈신학의정신을심각하게이탈하고있다고여겼다. 6 물론개혁 5) Brian Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 27-48의견해참조. 6) Pierre Du Moulin, Esclaircissement des controverses Salmuriennes, IX.i (232) 참조.

8 18 생명과말씀 파정통주의시대이후로 18세기와 19세기에는스스로를 칼빈주의자 로규정하는이들이많았다. 그이유는그들이칼빈의신학적핵심에분명한뿌리를내리고있느냐와무관했으며단지예정론의이런저런형태를옹호했기때문이었다. 또한이른바 아르미니우스주의자들 을반대한것도그들이실제로아르미니우스의가르침을추종한것의여부와는무관했고, 단지그들의구원론적협력설을반대했기때문이었다. 실제로우리가칼빈의추종자로규정하는 16세기와 17 세기의상당히많은신학자들은스스로를칼빈의추종자라고생각하지않았다. 칼빈보다앞세대에속하는츠빙글리, 부쳐, 외콜람파디우스, 파렐과같은개혁주의전통의창시자들이자기들이보호해야하는어린인물들중한사람이매우탁월한재능을가졌다고해서스스로를그의추종자들로규정했을리는만무하다. 칼빈과비슷한시기에살았던무스쿨루스, 베르미글리, 불링거, 아라스코 (Johannes à Lasco) 와같은개혁주의신학자들도스스로를칼빈의추종자라고혹은어떤대가의들러리라고생각하지는않았다. 또한우리는우르시누스, 올레비아누스 (Caspar Olevianus), 잔키, 폴라누스 (Amandus Polanus), 심지어칼빈의후계자인베자와같이칼빈이후의세대에속한개혁주의신학자들중에서도자신을칼빈의추종자혹은 칼빈주의자 라주장했던사람을찾아볼수없다. 추종자의자기규정문제를무시한다하더라도, 좀더광범위한전통의문맥에서추종자를규정하는문제가여전히남아있다. 그전통은어떤단일한인물의발자취를따르려는의도와는무관하게형성된내용과성격을가졌으며, 한세기반이지나도록 칼빈주의자 라는이름을유용한호칭으로수용하지않았던전통이다. 칼빈보다 12살이나많았고, 파두아와볼로냐대학에서공부했고, 스트라스부르와옥스퍼드그리고취리히에서가르쳤고, 칼빈과대체로동의하긴했으나이중예정론을말하지않고예정론

9 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 19 을선택으로규정했고, 특별히토마스아퀴나스 (Thomas Aquinas) 및리미니의그레고리우스 (Gregory of Rimini) 같은중세스콜라학자들을칼빈보다더적극적으로활용했고, 자신을칼빈의추종자로이해하지않았으며히브리어실력에있어서는칼빈보다월등했던신학자를어떻게칼빈주의자라부를수있겠는가? 그신학자는바로베르미글리인데그의글은종교개혁이후의개혁주의신학발전에큰영향을끼쳤으며자신은스스로를그렇게규정하지않았어도때때로칼빈주의자로불리는인물이다. 7 그리고특별히스스로를 ( 칼빈주의자가아닌 ) 개혁주의자 로규정했고, 감독제를옹호했고, 그의가르침은칼빈의교리적체계와상당부분공통된토대를가졌으나베르미글리, 잔키, 베자, 우르시누스및올레비아누스사상과의근접성을보이며, 행위언약- 은혜언약구분과같이앞선인물들의문헌에서발견되지않는후기개혁주의사상의특징들을보여주는신학자를어떻게칼빈주의자라부를수있겠는가? 그신학자는바로윌리엄퍼킨스 (William Perkins) 다. 그러나그는여러문헌에서칼빈주의자로불리고있으며그러면서도그와칼빈의사상적차이때문에 칼빈주의자들과대립되는칼빈 주장을펼치려는시도의대표적인사례로거명되는인물이다. [ 이처럼칼빈주의자로규정될수없는인물들의 ] 목록은폭넓게확대될수있다. 어떤사람들은약간바꾸어서이렇게질문할수도있다. 칼빈주의자들은정말칼빈주의자들이었는가? 혹은좀더정교하게 칼빈주의자들은칼빈주의자들이되고자하였는가? 칼빈주의자 가의도적인칼빈추종자혹은칼빈사상의모방자혹은복사판을의미하는것이라면대답은간단하다. 아니다. 즉우리가첫번째유형에대해언급하며칼빈을유일한칼빈주의자라고규정한것을논외로한다면칼빈주의자는없다고할수있다. 7) 베르미글리에관해서는 Frank A. James III, Peter Martyr Vermigli and Predestination: the Augustinian Inheritance of an Italian Reformer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) 를보라.

10 20 생명과말씀 C. 개혁주의전통을가리키는이름으로서의 칼빈주의 칼빈주의자 및 칼빈주의 라는용어들의세번째용법은그것들이개혁주의전통과관계된신학자들과가르침을가리키고있다는것이다. 이런이해는페리밀러 (Perry Miller), 존맥닐 (John T. McNeill), 그리고필립베네딕트 (Philip Benedict) 같은역사학자들의문헌에서발견되는것으로좀더보편적인경우다. 8 이런관점에서본다면, 우리의물음은다음과같이될것이다. 칼빈은개혁주의자였는가? 그리고 칼빈과동일한고백적범주에속하는다른신학자들도스스로를칼빈의추종자라고여기는것과무관하게개혁주의자였는가? 어떤사람은이런질문들에대한답이단순하게 그렇다 일것이라고생각할지모른다. 그러나올바른의미에서개혁주의적인것이무엇인지그리고 칼빈주의자 의동의어로사용되는 개혁주의적 이라는말이칼빈의신학과 ( 그것이온전한규모와다양성속에서이해되든 1559년판 기독교강요 안에서만이해되든 ) 어떻게다소일치하는것으로규정될수있는지를생각할때위의변형된질문들도단순한것은아님을확인한다. 질문을역사적문맥과문헌에좀더적극적인관심을가지고수정하면이렇게될것이다. 칼빈의사상과개혁주의신앙고백테두리안에있는후기신학자들사이에서발견되는연속성과불연속성및유사성과차이점의본질과근원은무엇인가? 이질문은우리에게몇가지신학적고찰을요청한다. 8) Perry Miller, The New England Mind: the Seventeenth Century (New York: Macmillan, 1939; repr., Boston: Beacon Press, 1961), 93-97; John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), vii-viii, et passim; Philip Benedict, Christ s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), xxii-xxiii.

11 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 21 II. 신학적고찰 : 후기개혁주의인물들과칼빈의관계 물론 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 라는물음은일련의신학적사안들과관련해서, 특히유명한 튤립 과연계된 5대교리들중예정과 제한속죄, 거기에다언약의문제를더해서, 광범위한논의가있었다. 이런형태로제기될때그물음은대체로부정적으로답해졌는데, 그이유는매우의심스러운것들이었다. 예를들어, 예정에관한칼빈의견해는다양한이유에서후기개혁주의의예정교리이해와대립된것으로이해해왔다. 즉칼빈은 기독교강요 에서신론과의밀착성을탈피하여예정교리를좀더부드럽고온후한위치로 옮겼으나 칼빈주의자들은예정교리를신론과가까운위치로옮겼으며결국예정교리와형이상학에근거한신학체계를세웠다고주장되었다. 9 게다가칼빈의신학은예정론중심적인체계가아니라기독론중심적인체계였는데, 후대의칼빈주의자들은이런그리스도중심성을잃었다고한다. 10 혹은방법론과내용을혼동해서, 칼빈은신학에대한언약적접근법을취한인문주의학자였지만, 후대의칼빈주의자들은이운동의선구자가가졌던인문주의성향을상실한예정론적및스콜라적학자라고한다. 11 끝으로어떤경우에는칼빈신학의기독론중심적인성향의근거와관련하여그리스도의사역에대한칼빈의입장은후대의예정론중심적인칼빈주의신학에서형성된 제한적속죄 의 엄격한 관점과는반대로 무제한적속죄 를지향하는경향을보인다고말한다. 12 요약하면, 칼빈은정교하 9) Hall, Calvin Against the Calvinists, ) 예를들어, Walter Kickel, Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Theodor Beza (Neukirchen: Neukirchner Verlag, 1967). 11) 예를들어, Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth Century France (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969). 12) 예를들어, M. Charles Bell, Was Calvin a Calvinist, Scottish Journal of Theology 36/4 (1983):

12 22 생명과말씀 게조화를이룬기독론중심적인신학을가르친반면, 칼빈주의자들의신학은하나님의신의에강조점을두었으며결국첫글자로만들어진 튤립 즉 5 대교리 로요약되는엄격한스콜라적신학체계를산출하게되었다는것이다. A. 튤립 의문제 이상의사안들을논하기위해우리는무엇보다먼저 튤립 자체의문제를언급해야한다. 튤립 은단어들의첫글자로이루어진두자어로개혁주의전통에대해많은문제를일으킨주범이며지금도칼빈과칼빈주의의관계성에대한혼돈의큰원인이되고있다. 칼빈주의전체를 년네덜란드에서작성된특별한문헌과연결하고그전체의의미를 튤립 으로축소하는것은참으로해괴한비역사적태도이다. 튤립의화란어단어는 튤립 (tulip) 이아니라 툴프 (tulp) 라는사실에주목할필요가있다. Tulip 은화란어가아니다. 아르미니우스가 저항할수없는은혜 를의미하는 I 를생략해서고소를당했을때단지그가어떤사람의철자법을교정하려한것은아닌지때때로궁금해진다. 좀더중요한것은두자어 튤립 과도르트신조사이에는어떠한역사적연관성도없다는점이다. 우리가다알듯이두자어 튤립 의형성과 칼빈주의 5대교리 와관련된활용은모두영미권에그기원을두고있으며 19세기이전으로소급될수없는신조어다 ; M. Charles Bell, Calvin and the Extent of Atonement, Evangelical Quarterly 55 (April 1983): ; James B. Torrance, The Incarnation and Limited Atonement, Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 2 (1984): 32-40; Kevin Dixon Kennedy, Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement (New York: Peter Lang, 2002). 13) Ken Stewart, The Points of Calvinism: Retrospect and Prospect, Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 26/2 (2008): 을보라. 물론, 개혁주의자들과아르미니우스주의자들사이에서행해진논쟁중에는 5대교리 (five points) 또는 5대신조 (five articles) 에관한이른시기

13 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 23 이렇게이상한개념들이어떻게그렇게급속하게번졌는지참으로놀라운일이다. 결국칼빈과칼빈주의의연관성문제가이렇게유명한 꽃에대한고찰 ( 칼빈이 튤립 을가르쳤는가 ) 로축소되면, 어떠한답변도그릇된토대에서자유롭지못하게될것이다. 실제로칼빈자신은물론이고칼빈주의자로불리는이후의인물들도이런 튤립 형태의가르침을생각하지않았다. 달리말하면, 칼빈과그의동시대인물들이도르트신조로이어지는교리들을주장하기는했지만, 칼빈이나그의동료개혁자들은말할것도없고도르트신조의작성자들중에서도자신들의고백적입장을 튤립 으로축소시킬의향을가졌던사람은아무도없었다. T 와 L 의경우에분명하게드러난것처럼그두자어 튤립 이칼빈이나칼빈주의사상과얼마나무관한것인지에주목할필요가있다. 인간적인의지와인간적인능력들의전적인결함혹은부패에대한칼빈의진술들은신인협력설혹은반펠라기우스주의를반박하기위한것이며죄의파 의언급들이많이있다. 예를들어, Peter Heylyn, Historia quinqu-articularis: or, A declaration of the judgement of the Western Churches, and more particularly of the Church of England, in the five controverted points, reproched in these last times by the name of Arminianism (London: E. C. for Thomas Johnson, 1660); 그리고 Daniel Whitby, A Discourse concerning, I. The true Import of the Words Election and Reprobation. II. The Extent of Christ s Redemption. III. The Grace of God. IV. The Liberty of the Will. V. The Perseverance or Defectibility of the Saints (London, 1710; 2 nd ed., corrected, London: Aaron Ward, 1735). 후자는종종 Whitby on the Five Points 또는 Five Arminian Points 로인용된다 : 또한 George Hill, Heads of Lectures in Divinity (St. Andrews: at the University Press, 1796), 78에주목하라. 칼빈주의의 5대특징적교리 (five distinguishing points of Calvinism) 와같은문구또한이른시기에나타나는데, 도르트신조는언급하지않고교리들자체만열거하고있다 : 예를들어, Daniel Neal, The History of the Puritans and Non-conformists with an account of their principles (London: for J. Buckland, et al., 1754), I, 502; Ferdinando Warner, The Ecclesiastical History of England, to the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols. (London: s.n., ), II, 509를보라 ; 또한 Daniel Waterland의설교집의편집자가이신칭의를 칼빈주의 5대교리 의하나로동일시하는점에주목하라 : Waterland, Sermons on Several Important Subjects of Religion and Morality, preface by Joseph Clarke, 2 vols. (London: for W. Innys, 1742), I, xviii을보라.

14 24 생명과말씀 급력 (pervasiveness of sin) 을가리키는것으로서이런개념을 전적부패 라는구호와동일시할경우에는문제가발생한다. 14 칼빈은 제한속죄 라는말도언급하지않았다. 이런용어들은실제로도르트신조에나타나지않으며, 이용어들중어떠한것도 17세기의개혁파혹은칼빈파정통주의언어의대표성을지니지않았다. 튤립 과같은용어들은시대에뒤떨어진영미권의창작물일뿐이다. 물론칼빈자신은 전적으로부패했다 혹은 전적으로타락했다 같은구절들을사용하고있지만 모든사람이아담안에서죄를지었으며 저주아래거하게되었고영원히죽을운명에처하게되었다고선언하는도르트신조에는그런표현들이등장하지않는다. 15 달리말한다면, 튤립의 T 문제에있어서는도르트신조의용어가칼빈의용어보다더잘어울린다. 최소한영어구어체로이해된 전적인부패 는너무도어두운색조를지녔기때문에그것은루터파신학자마티우스플라키우스일리리쿠스 (Matthias Flacius Illyricus) 의신학에나적용될수있는개념이다. 그는인간의본성에대해타락이전과이후라는이원론적이해를가지고하나님의형상 (imago Dei) 이사탄의형상 (imago Satanae) 에의해전적으로교체가되었으며그타락한인간성의실체는죄라고주장했던인물이다. 하지만칼빈이나이후의개혁주의자들은그런방향으로가지않았으며그방향을고집한루터파학자들의일치신조안에등장하는이런종류의언사들을단호히거부했다. 초기근대자료들에 전적부패 라는용어를부과함으로모호하게된실제논쟁점은우리에게는어떤종류의선도존재하지않는다는부정이아니라 14) John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, ed. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, 7 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), I, ; 그리고 ibid., III, 의용어에주목하라. 15) Canons of Dort, i.1, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes, 6th ed., 3 vols. (New York: Harper and Row, 1931), III, 551.

15 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 25 죄에서스스로를구원할수없다는우리의무능력이다. 칼빈이불법, 사악, 부정직, 성품의부패등을가리키는결함 (pravitas) 및이와유사한용어들을사용한것은하나님의법에외적으로순종하는인간의능력을부정하기위함이아니라인간의모든행위를더럽히고인간을하나님앞에서전적으로무가치한존재로만든성품의광범위한내적뒤틀림을가리키기위한것이었다. 이런신학적견지에서볼때, 칼빈의신학과이후의개혁주의사상사이에는분명한연속성이발견된다. 튤립 에서 L 의문제즉 제한속죄 대 보편속죄 문제도칼빈이칼빈주의자인지아닌지에대한논쟁의중요한부분이다. 이문제도일련의현대적혼돈에서비롯된것으로서내가보기에는지극히애매하고시대착오적인언어를 16세기와 17세기사안에적용했기때문에발생한것이다. 간단히말한다면, 칼빈, 베자, 도르트신조및 16세기와 17세기개혁파정통주의학자들중어떠한사람도제한속죄를언급하지않았다. 언급하지않았기에그들이그교리를가르쳤을리는만무하다. ( 속죄 [atonement] 라는말도영어인데, 그시대의신학문헌들은거의전부라틴어로쓰였다.) 요점을좀더분명하게하고역사적문헌에충실을기하면서말한다면, 16세기와 17세기에논의된이문제는구원이어떤자들에게특히택자혹은신자에게제한된것임을가리키는많은성경구절들을고려할때그리스도예수께서모든사람들을위해속죄물이되셨다는것과하나님이모든자들혹은온세상의구원을의지하신것이라는성경구절들을어떻게해석해야하는지와관계된문제였다. 이것은개혁파정통주의시대뿐만아니라교부들과중세교회들도논의했던문제이며페트루스롬바르두스 (Peter Lombard) 시대이후로는구속선포의보편성과관련된그리스도의속상의충분성및유효성관점에서논의되어온오래된주제다. 칼빈과이후의개혁주의신학자들사이에논의되고있는이문제는그

16 26 생명과말씀 리스도죽음의가치혹은공로에대한논의가아니었다. 왜냐하면그리스도의죽음이온세상의죄를위해충분한값을지불했다는사실은실제로그들모두가동의한것이었기때문이다. 또한그문제는모든사람들이실제로구원받을것이냐에대한것도아니었다. 아르미니우스를포함한그들모두는모든사람들이구원받는것은아니라는것에동의하고있었기때문이다. 논점을바꾸어서말한다면, 만약 속죄 가그리스도죽음의가치혹은충분성을뜻하는말이라면어떤사람도제한속죄를가르치지않았으며, 만약속죄가특별한사람에게성취된실질적인구원을뜻하는말이라면어떠한사람도무제한속죄를가르치지않았다고볼수있다. ( 물론많은비난을받고있는사무엘후버 [Samuel Huber] 는예외라고할수있다.) 역사적인관점에서 16세기와 17세기에이해된용어를따라생각해본다면, 풀어야할문제는두가지다. 첫째, 아르미니우스가제기하고도르트에서답변된물음으로, 모든죄에대한값으로서그리스도죽음의충분성을고려할때그리스도죽음의효력이어떤사람에게제한되는것을어떻게이해해야하는가? 아르미니우스관점에서본다면, 그효력이어떤사람들은믿으려하고다른사람들은믿지않으려하는선택에의해서결정되는것이며예정은이런인간적인선택의신적인예지에기초한것이라고한다. 그러나도르트회의의입장에서본다면, 효력은오직은혜로말미암아구원을얻는방식을따라오직하나님의택자에게제한되는것이다. 칼빈의입장은분명하다. 즉그리스도죽음의적용혹은효력은택자에게제한된다. 이후의개혁주의신학자들은이런결론에모두동의하고있다. 둘째, 16세기개혁주의신학자들의신학적체계의다양성속에함축되어있었고도르트회의를따르는일련의 17세기논쟁들안에서분명히논의된문제로서그리스도죽음의가치가효력에있어서가정적인보편성을가지고있느냐는것이다. 간단하게말하자면, 그리스도죽음의가치는하나

17 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 27 님이원하기만하였다면모든죄에대하여충분하게될그런가치를말하는가아니면그리스도죽음의가치가모든사람이믿으면모두가구원받을것이라는그런가치를뜻하는가? 이런문제에대해칼빈은침묵하고있다. 그는전통적인충분성 -유효성도식을자주언급하지않았다. 아미로에의해서제기된택자를구원하는절대적작정이전에믿는모든자들이모두구원받을것이라는구원의가정적혹은조건적작정에대해서도칼빈은거론하지않았다. 그는어떤추가적인설명없이그리스도가세상의죄를사했으며이 은택 은 모든자들에게차별없이 적용되는것이라고때때로말했다. 이후의개혁주의신학자들은각자서로다른입장을논증하기위해모두칼빈의도움을구했다. (17세기및 18세기저자들중극소수만이그리스도의죽음은오직택자들의죄를위해서만충분한값이라고주장했다.) 이후의개혁주의신학은이부분에있어서칼빈보다뚜렷한입장을취하였고, 칼빈의다소애매한입장은도르트회의에서채택된입장도그러하듯다양한입장으로해석될여지가있었다. B. 예정, 기독론중심주의및중심교리문제 예정에관한논쟁점은다소다양하다. 비록일부학자들은기독론중심적인칼빈이 1559년최종판 기독교강요 에서예정론을좀더부드러운자리로옮겼으나그를계승한자들은예정론을다시신론과연관시켜그교리에대한좀더 엄격한 해석으로돌아가고말았다는주장을펼치지만어느누구도칼빈이그교리를가르친사실은부인하지않았다. 사실칼빈은예정론을여기저기이동하지않았다. 그는교리교육목적에적합한바울서신의순서를따라예정론을처음에위치시킨그자리에서한번도움직이

18 28 생명과말씀 지않았다. 16 이자리가예정론의좀더부드럽고고상한자리라고생각하는것은예정과선택과유기에대한칼빈의정의가예정론의위력을무디게만드는것과는거의혹은전혀상관이없으며신학적체계속에서의예정론위치와는무관하게칼빈의정의가이후개혁주의저자들의정의와정확하게일치하고있다는사실을무시하는것이다. 또한칼빈이후의개혁주의저자들은예정론의위치와신학저술들의문헌학적장르사이의관계성에무지하지않았으며예정론의위치를설정하되어떤이들은칼빈의교회론적위치를그대로따랐고다른이들은전통적인입장을따라신론과밀착된위치를지정하게되었던것이다. 이는교리문답및신조형식에부합한위치와좀더정밀하게발전된신학의대학교육상황에부합할수있도록좀더학문적인혹은교의학적논의에적합한위치사이의구분에기초한것일뿐이다. 17 여기서해결해야할또하나의문제는이른바중심교리문제다. 칼빈과칼빈주의의관계성문제가대두되는많은이유들은 19세기와 20세기에나타난전형적인현상으로칼빈의신학이예정론에초점이맞추어져있다는일관된주장과관계되어있다. 이런가정은칼빈이후의모든개혁주의전통이예정론에집중적인초점을두고그것을중심으로구성되어왔다고보는경향과더불어칼빈과칼빈주의사이의연속성개념을산출하게되었다. 그러나칼빈의사상연구의추세는변했다. 이미언급한것처럼대부분의 20세기신학은칼빈을 기독론중심적인 인물로규정하는경향이있었다. 이런경향이칼빈이후의개혁주의사상을이해하는수정된견해가됨에따라, 칼빈과칼빈주의자들사이의대립성을주장하는것과기독론중심적 16) Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Formation of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), ) Richard A. Muller, The Placement of Predestination in Reformed Theology: Issue or Non- Issue, Calvin Theological Journal 40/2 (2005): 을보라.

19 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 29 신학에서예정론중심적신학으로바뀐것에대해베자에게책임을묻는것이유행처럼번지게되었다. 18 그러나이것은개혁주의전통의광맥혹은칼빈이후의개혁주의신학의발전으로인해변화된역사적문맥을고려하지않은고도의교의학적접근법일뿐만아니라, 그것은마치칼빈의사상이신정통주의식의그리스도중심성의예표로환원될수있고이후의개혁주의저자들은단지예정론중심적인학자들일뿐인것처럼교의학적해학을꾸미고서로대립되는구도를설정하는결함도가진경향이다. 불행히도우리는이런오류투성이의논증을극복하고있으나동일한문제에대해새로운국면으로접어들정도의극복에이르지는못했다. 사실 그리스도중심성 용어는옛것이되었으며, 이제는칼빈의신학에 그리스도와의연합 (union with Christ) 모델을부과하여결국이후의 칼빈주의자들 에게동일한종류의부정적비판을가하려는새로운중심주의현상이시도되고있다. 즉칼빈은그리스도연합을강조한인물로묘사하고이후의칼빈주의자들은그런개념을생각조차하지않은인물들로묘사한후그들이칼빈사상과의극단적인단절을보여주고있다고비판한다. 19 우리는그리스도와의연합문제가수습되면칼빈이후의개혁주의신학이중심으로여기는것들혹은생략한것들과짝을이룰수있는칼빈사상의또다른그릇된중심성개념이등장할것이라는사실을쉽게짐작할수있다. 신의에대한강조와병행하는그리스도중심성혹은기독론적강조점문제는역사적관점에서볼때 16세기혹은 17세기적관심사에기초한것이아니라 20세기의독특한신학적패턴에기초하여가공된이슈다. 만약 18) 예를들어, Hall, Calvin Against the Calvinists, 25-28; Johannes Dantine, Les Tabelles sur la doctrine de la prédestination par Théodore de Bèze, Revue de théologie et de philosophie XVI (1966): ; Kickel, Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Theodor Beza, 을보라. 19) Partee, Theology of John Calvin, 3, 4, 25, 27, 40-41; 그리고 Julie Canlis, Calvin, Osiander, and Participation in God, International Journal of Systematic Theology 6/2 (2004): 참조.

20 30 생명과말씀 그리스도중심성 이그리스도중심적인구원론을의미하는것이라면, 개혁파정통주의저자들은그리스도중심성에있어서결코칼빈보다못하거나과하지않았다. 그들모두는그리스도의희생을구원의유일한기초로여겼으며또한예정을 그리스도안에서 의작정으로규정했다. 그리고만약 그리스도중심성 이다른어떤것, 즉 그리스도사건 (Christ-event) 을하나님의고유한계시로간주하고신학의중심으로삼았다는의미를가졌다면, 그용어는칼빈과이후의개혁주의신학자들모두에게적용되지않는말이될것이다. 나아가 2세기에서 19세기까지어떠한신학자및신학에도적용되지않는용어가된다는말이다. 어떠한경우에도, 그리스도중심성 은칼빈과정통주의시대의개혁주의신학자들사이의관계성을평가하는유용한범주가되지못한다. 20 개혁파정통주의저자들이칼빈의사상과는이질적인결정론혹은 예정론적형이상학 형태를취한 신의적신학 형성의주범이란비판문제와관련하여, 튤립 처럼 제한적속죄 와 그리스도중심성 같은용어들은모두 16세기와 17세기에그뿌리를두지않았으며, 하나의고안된문제에대한 20세기적서술어일뿐이라는사실을기억해야한다. 실제로이전의기독교전통에등장한신학자들모두가공유했던명목상형이상학적전제로서하나님을절대적혹은필연적존재로규정하는것과창조된질서를상대적인혹은우연적인것으로규정하는일은분명히있었지만, 그렇다고개혁파정통주의신학이형이상학위에세워진것은아니며결정론의한형태로분류되는것은더더욱불가하다. 물론개혁파정통주의신학자들은칼빈보다더명확하게하나님을전적으로자유롭고정반대를의지하실수있는분으로묘사했고, 세상을우연적인것으로규정했고, 이성적인피조물 20) Richard A. Muller, A Note on Christocentrism and the Imprudent Use of Such Terminology, Westminster Theological Journal 68 (2006): 참조.

21 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 31 을 행위의자유 (freedom of contradiction, 행하거나행하지않을자유 ) 와 선택의자유 (freedom of contrariety, 어떤것을행하거나다른것을행하는자유 ) 를가지고각자의본성을따라자유롭게행하는존재로이해했다. 21 이런점에서칼빈과이후의개혁주의저자들사이에일말의불연속이있다는주장을펼칠수있을것이다. 그러나칼빈과이후개혁주의저자들의문헌들을면밀히읽어보면전자는결정론적관점으로읽혀질가능성이농후하나후자는조금희박하다는정도의불연속일뿐임을확인하게될것이다. 예정론에있어서칼빈과이후의개혁주의신학사이의관계성에대한기본적인논점은간단하다. 칼빈이전과동시대와이후의개혁주의학자들과칼빈자신은모두로마서 9장과다른성경본문에서가르치는예정론의아우구스티누스적인입장, 즉구원은영원하신하나님의은혜로운뜻에의존하고있으며어떤사람들이구원으로선택되고다른사람들은선택되지않는것은하나님에의해영원전부터의도된것이라는입장의범주안에서어떤형태를저마다고수하고있다는것이다. 이런입장은역사적관점에서볼때, 오래동안폭넓게수용되어온신학적유형이기때문에칼빈혹은다른사람들을 칼빈주의자 로규정하는기준이될수없다. C. 인문주의 - 스콜라주의이분법들 인문주의 - 스콜라주의이분법은칼빈과칼빈주의사이의관계성에있어 서다양한형태로등장한다. 아주단순한하나의형태는칼빈의인문주의 와이후개혁주의신학자들의스콜라주의를대립시키는것이다. 간단히말 21) 근거로는 Willem J. van Asselt, J. Martin Bac, and Roelf T. te Velde, trans., ed., and commentary, Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in the History of Early-Modern Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010) 를보라.

22 32 생명과말씀 하면칼빈은인문주의학자인데, 이후의칼빈주의자들은스콜라주의적학자라는것이다. 당연히칼빈은칼빈주의자일수없다. 이런접근법은인문주의방법론과스콜라주의방법론에속한요소들을모두포함한문헌의저자들을논하되 ( 그들개개인안에서 ) 인문주의와스콜라주의가서로대립하고있는것처럼묘사하고있기때문에문제가심각한방법이라하겠다. 최근의연구에서잘지적된것처럼, 칼빈은비록인문주의자로서문헌학과수사학훈련을받은자이지만주제별및논박적인모델들혹은다양한구분들과같은스콜라주의적방법의여러요소들을자신의사상에주입했고, 22 이후의개혁주의자들즉 미개하게보이는칼빈주의자들 은좀더정교한겹으로이루어진학문적및논박적활동에서스콜라주의적방법론을따를뿐만아니라문헌학과수사학과같은인문주의학문들의유용한도구들도활용했다. 사실문헌학적인문주의훈련을받는것은스콜라주의적정통주의시대의보편적인현상이다. 23 게다가개념설정및표준논제들의조직화혹은보편논제 (loci communes) 같은이른바스콜라주의적방법론의여러요소들은사실인문주의적근원을가지고있다. 인문주의 -스콜라주의이분법의또다른형태는칼빈은전적인인문주의학자이며이후의개혁주의사상가들은전적인스콜라주의학자라는주장의명백한문제점을극복하기위해칼빈의심리를둘로분할하고칼빈의인격이편에는자애롭고언약적인인문주의성향이있고저편에는어두 22) David C. Steinmetz, The Scholastic Calvin, in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. Carl R. Trueman and R. S. Clark (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999), 16-30; cf. Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin, ) Peter T. van Rooden, Theology, Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century: Constantijn L Empereur ( ), Professor of Hebrew and Theology at Leiden, trans. J. C. Grayson (Leiden: Brill, 1989); 그리고 Stephen G. Burnett, From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies: Johannes Buxtorf ( ) and Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996) 를보라.

23 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 33 운예정론적스콜라주의성향이있다는것이다. 24 자세히살펴보면, 이접근법은불행히도칼빈의인문주의성향을간과하고칼빈의유산에서스콜라주의적예정론측면만을지지했던칼빈주의자들과인문주의적칼빈사이의대립을조장한다. 이것은여러측면에서독특한문제점을지닌접근이다. 첫째, 부스마의연구가입증해주었듯이이접근법은칼빈안에이분화된심리가있다는실증되지않는심리학적주장에기초한것이며, 그렇게이분화된심리의한쪽을인문주의와연결하고다른한쪽을스콜라주의와연결하는것은독단일뿐이다. 25 현대의한두신학자들의기호에기초하여이런결론을이끌어낸이접근법은마치어떤신학자가인문주의예정론자 (humanistic predestinarian) 혹은스콜라주의언약론자 (scholastic federalist) 일수없다는듯인문주의및스콜라주의방법론을특별한내용과결부시켜논점을헛갈리게만들고있다. 종교개혁자들의사상안에인문주의및스콜라주의적요소들이결부되어있다는것은그시대의전형적현상이었다. 26 인문주의와언약적사유를묶고예정론혹은결정론을스콜라주의적사유와결부시킬어떠한근거도없다. 우리는결정론적철학을옹호했던피에트로폼포나찌 (Pietro Pomponazzi) 및로렌조발라 (Lorenzo Valla) 같은인문주의학자들을지적할수있다. 또한언약신학자들이쓴스콜라주의적저작들을지적할수있는데, 특히언약신학자의원조격인요 24) William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); 그리고 Philip C. Holtrop, The Bolsec Controversy on Predestination, From 1551 to 1555, 2 parts (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1993). 25) 칼빈에관한부스마의견해에대한논자의비판은 The Unaccommodated Calvin, 79-98을보라. 26) 예를들어, Frank A. James III, Peter Martyr Vermigli: At the Crossroads of Late Medeieval Scholasticism, Christian Humanism and Resurgent Augustinianism, in Protestant Scholasticism, ed. Trueman and Clark, 62-78; 그리고 Scott Manetsch, Psalms before Sonnets: Theodore Beza and the Studia humanitatis, in Continuity and Change: The Harvest of Late Medieval and Reformation History. Essays Presented to Heiko A. Oberman on his 70 th Birthday, ed. Andrew C. Gow and Robert J. Bast (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000), 을보라.

24 34 생명과말씀 하네스코케이우스 (Johannes Cocceius) 와그의제자프란츠부어만 (Franz Burman) 은전형적인개혁주의예정론을주장하면서스콜라주의적방법론을취했다. 27 프랑수아투레틴 (Francis Turretin) 같은개혁주의신학자들도지적할수있는데그들은비록스콜라주의적방법론과예정론때문에 ( 아마도부당하게 ) 거명되고있지만그들은또한정통적인개혁주의언약론을가르쳤다. 28 D. 칼빈, 칼빈주의그리고언약신학 칼빈의사상과개혁파정통주의언약신학사이의관계도많은논쟁을일으켰던주제다. 어떤사람들은 기독교강요 에서칼빈이겉으로보기에일방적언약을간략하게진술한것에근거해그를언약사상가가아니라고한반면이후의개혁주의저자들은언약적사유에심취해있었으며언약의쌍방적성격을일관되게강조해왔다고주장한다. 29 또다른사람들은칼빈이은혜를강조하는열렬한언약사상가이며이후의칼빈주의자들은그런은혜에대한강조점을상실하여율법주의및예정론중심적인사상에함몰되고말았다고주장한다. 30 사실이런견해들이보여주는것보다역사적실 27) Willem J. van Asselt, Johannes Cocceius Anti-Scholasticus? in Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 을보라. 28) James Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin s Federal Theology as a Defense of Divine Grace (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007) 을보라. 29) J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980); 그리고 J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect, Sixteenth Century Journal 29/2 (1998): ) 예를들어, James B. Torrance, The Concept of Federal Theology -- Was Calvin a Federal Theologian? in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 15-40; James B. Torrance, Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological

25 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 35 재는훨씬더복잡하다. 그러나역사적실재는우리로하여금그런복잡성속에서도칼빈과이른바칼빈주의사이의관계성문제를명료하게풀어줄것이다. 첫째, 언약에대한칼빈의사상을확고한일방적언약으로이해하는학파는칼빈이언약의일방적측면과쌍방적측면을신중하게구분하고있다고주장하는학자들의연구를일관되게무시하며그런구분이발견되는칼빈의주석들도탐구하길거절한다. 언약의이런구분이 16세기와 17세기개혁주의사상에서보편적인것이라는사실은쉽게논증될수있으며, 이는칼빈의글에서만발견되는것이아니라개혁파정통주의저자들의글에서도발견된다. 칼빈의신학적작업과개혁주의언약신학사이에는또다른중요한관계성이있다. 무엇보다칼빈은은혜언약이본질에있어서는하나인데시행또는시여 ( 施與 ) 방식에서구약과신약에서다르게나타난다고정의했다. 31 칼빈의이정의는 17세기언약신학속으로옮겨졌다. 당연히이런은혜언약정의에있어서칼빈은유일한옹호자도아니며최초의주창자도아니었다. 이는츠빙글리및불링거의초기문헌에도동일하게등장하기때문이다. 불링거를칼빈의예정론중심주의와구별되는언약신학출범의근원으로보는학자들은이런은혜언약정의가그들안에서동일하게발견되고있다는사실의중요성을무시할뿐만아니라, 실제로칼빈이 기독교강요 중신구약의관계를다루고있는초두에서이런정의와관련해서자신의언약사상을발전시키지않았다는점에주목하지않았다. 즉그의은혜언약정의와는별도로, 기독교강요 에서건져낼수있는언약신학내용은많지않기때 Background or Worship in Seventeenth-Century Scotland, Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1970): 51-76; 그리고 James B. Torrance, The Incarnation and Limited Atonement, The Evangelical Quarterly 55 (April 1983): ) John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. John Allen, 2 vols., 7th ed. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1936), II.x.2.

26 36 생명과말씀 문에당연히 기독교강요 는이후의개혁주의언약신학자들에의해왕성하게인용되지않았다. 그들이빈번하게인용했던것은언약에대한칼빈의사상이활발하게개진된그의주석이며이는헤르만위치우스 (Herman Witsius) 같은학자들의문헌을통해쉽게입증될수있다. 32 III. 결론 개혁주의전통의실체그리고그전통과칼빈의관계를규정함에있어서 칼빈주의 라는용어도두자어 튤립 처럼다양한문제들을초래한원인이었다. 이두가지용어들은시대착오적인것이며이는과도한단순화를추구한결과다. 칼빈주의 의여러의미들은제각각칼빈의사상및그것과 16세기와 17세기개혁주의전통사이의관계에대한그릇된견해들을양산했다. 두자어 튤립 의사용이틀린것이아니라면적어도그것은도르트신조를편협한관점으로이해하게만들었고이는개혁주의전통과칼빈의신학에대한헷갈리는이해로이어졌다. 칼빈의신학과이후개혁주의전통간의신학적, 지성사적관계성에관해위에서언급했던사례들과 칼빈주의 및 튤립 같은용어들에의해제기된문제의핵심은어떤전통내에서의연속성및발전의특성과다양성에관계된것일뿐만아니라그전통의본질과도관계된것이다. 칼트루만 (Carl Trueman) 이최근에지적한것처럼, 연속성과불연속성문제는미묘한 32) 이인용들에대한논의는 Richard A. Muller, Reception and Response: Referencing and Understanding Calvin in Post-Reformation Calvinism, in Calvin and His Influence, , Proceedings of the Calvin Congress, Geneva, May, 2009 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011) 를보라.

27 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 37 구분을요구한다. 33 첫째, 로마교회뿐만아니라종교개혁운동의분파로서개혁파및루터파신학모두에서발견되는범교회적, 신조적보편성의기초적전통이라는근본적인연속성이있다. 둘째, 종교개혁및종교개혁이후시대에만들어진특정한신앙고백적전통에속한광범위한연속성문제가있다. 특별히개혁주의신앙고백전통의경우에는프랑스신앙고백서, 벨기에신앙고백서, 스코틀랜드신앙고백서와하이델베르크교리문답및영국교회의 39개신조등과같은 16세기중반에작성된주요신앙고백문서들속에나타나는공통된신학적토대라는연속성이있다. 이모든신앙고백서들은칼빈과의대화속에서혹은칼빈에게도움을받은개신교진영안에서작성된것이며좀더중요한것은그것들이칼빈도포함하는개혁주의신앙의국제적공동체를대표하고있다는점이다. 이상의두가지사례들은칼빈과그의동시대인들사이뿐만아니라칼빈과이후의개혁주의전통사이에분명한연속성이있는데이는칼빈사상의개별성때문이아니라오히려보편성때문임을보여주고있다. 칼빈이한부분으로참여하고있으며시간이흐르면서역사적문맥이달라지는복잡성을따라발전하고변천해온전통과칼빈의사상간의관계성문제도중요하다. 자주언급된것처럼, 칼빈은비록개혁주의전통에서항상사상의현저한발전혹은체계화를산출한주도적인목소리를내지는않았다할지라도이전통에속한신학자들중에가장탁월한인물로서종교개혁신학의제2세대편찬자들중하나다. 윌리스턴워커 (Williston Walker) 의평가에따르면, 칼빈은창조적인지성보다오히려체계형성적인성향을가졌다. 34 칼빈의신학은츠빙글리, 부쳐, 멜란히톤, 파렐, 외콜람 33) Carl Trueman, The Reception of Calvin: Historical Considerations, Church History and Religious Culture 91/1 (2011): 을보라. 34) Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Scribner, 1918), 392.

28 38 생명과말씀 파디우스같은선행자들의신학을반영하고있으며, 칼빈은불링거, 베르미글리, 무스쿨루스, 비레, 아라스코같은동시대인물들과소통하고논쟁을벌였던인물이며, 그의글은환영을받았고정교하게변증되어왔으며, 그의신학적작업들 ( 무엇보다그의주석적작업들 ) 은참조되고수정되어발전하고변화하고다양화된신학적전통속으로통합되어갔다. 칼빈은이전통을창시하지않았으며, 이전통의초기집대성에있어서유일한대변자도아니며, 이전통의발전에규범적인역할을한것도아니다. 35 본논문의첫부분에서이미지적한것처럼, 칼빈과칼빈주의사이의관계성문제는특별히 칼빈주의 가대개개혁주의전통을의미하고있다는바른해석에근거해서본다면그리간단하지않다. 게다가개혁파정통주의시대가마감된이후몇세기동안스스로를 칼빈주의자 혹은 칼빈주의적 이라고규정해온여러인물들과그룹들때문에여전히복잡한문제로남아있다. 이런그룹들중에는침례교신학자들도있는데그들은유아세례거부때문에칼빈의제네바나정통주의시대의고백적개혁주의상황에서환영받지못했다. 16세기와 17세기의개혁주의진영에서별로환영받지못했을엄격한형이상학적결정론혹은양립론 (compatibilism) 에근거해스스로를칼빈주의라고부르는현대의여러신학자들및철학자들또한여기에언급될수있겠다. 칼빈과이른바 엄격한 정통주의사이의대립을설정하는시도들속에는고도의시대착오및빈정거림이발견되는데이는정통주의시대의실패 35) Williston Walker, John Calvin: The Organizer of Reformed Protestantism, , with a bibliographical introduction by John T. McNeill (1906; repr., New York: Schocken, 1969), 1; Reinhold Seeberg, Text-book of the History of Doctrines, trans. Charles E. Hay, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), II, 394; George Park Fisher, History of the Christian Church (New York: C. Scribner s Sons, 1890), 318; McNeill, History and Character of Calvinism, 3-4; 그리고 Miller, New England Mind, 93 참조.

29 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 39 로인해단절된칼빈신학의확고한재생산의지와 19세기및 20세기에고안된교리적표준들및교리적선동에의해조장된것이다. 우리가살펴본것처럼 16세기후반과 17세기의문헌들에대한좀더정밀한탐구에서확인된개혁파정통주의사상의실상은그것이교회의좀더앞선전통들과수다한종교개혁자들그룹, 즉칼빈의선행자들및동시대인물들의문헌에서발견되는것처럼많은선행적인신학적움직임과더불어다양한운동으로전개된것임을보여준다. 이런개혁파정통주의사상의다양성은그사상을엄격한것으로규정할수없도록만든다. 나아가만약개혁파정통주의신학이 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 라는의문을제기한자들이이상적인것이라고공포한그런방식, 즉칼빈의사상을계속해서복사하는방식으로형성된것이라면, 그것은결코고백적운동으로존속하지못하고극도의엄격성에빠지고말았을것이다. 그러나이와반대로개혁주의전통은칼빈을그전통의기초를놓은여러사람들중한사람으로여겨그에게의존했고도움받았다. 또한개혁파정통주의자들은개혁주의신앙의제2세대적체계화작업에서칼빈이발휘한능력과더불어, 정밀한기술적소양을발휘함에있어서의그의한계를알았고, 변화된상황과시대적변천속에서자신들이당면한과제들을칼빈이다다룰수는없었음을인지하고있었다. 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 라는우리의초기물음으로돌아가매듭을짓고자한다. 답은당연히부정적이다. 칼빈은 칼빈주의자 가아니었다. 그러나 칼빈주의자들 도칼빈주의자가아니었다. 그들은모두개혁주의전통에기여한이들이었다. 본논문이다룬주제의교훈은칼빈과다양한개혁주의신앙고백들그리고이른바 16세기후반과 17세기의 칼빈주의자들 모두가함께서있었던공통의입장을인정하는것과, 개혁주의전통은처음부터 ( 물론신앙고백적테두리안에서의 ) 다양성이있었다는사실을인정

30 40 생명과말씀 하는것이며, 만약그리해야한다면, 할수있을때장미꽃봉오리를따서 모으되, 당신의개혁주의정원에 튤립 은아예심지도말라는것이다.

31 Was Calvin a Calvinist? Richard A. Muller Calvin Theological Seminary, Historical Theology I. Defining the Question: Varied Understandings of Calvinism Leaving aside for a moment the issue of the famous TULIP, the basic question, Was Calvin a Calvinist?, taken as it stands, without further qualification, can be answered quite simply: Yes No Maybe all depending on how one interprets the question. The answer must be mixed or indefinite because question itself poses a significant series of problems. There are in fact several different understandings of the terms Calvinist and Calvinism that determine in part how one answers the question or, indeed, what one intends by asking the question in the first place. Calvinist has been used as a descriptor of Calvin s own position on a particular point, perhaps most typically of Calvin s doctrine of predestination. It has been used as a term for followers of Calvin and it has been used as a term for the theology of the Reformed tradition in general. Calvinism, similarly, has been used to indicate Calvin s own distinctive theological positions, sometimes the theology of Calvin s Institutes. It also is used to indicate the

32 42 생명과말씀 theology of Calvin s followers. More frequently, it has been used as a synonym for Reformed or for the Reformed tradition. A. Calvinism as Calvin s Own Position If the first option is taken as the basis for the question, the answer is simply, Yes, of course Calvin was a Calvinist Calvinist and Calvinism indicating the specific position of Calvin on various theological, ecclesial, political, and even philosophical issues. This is perhaps the intention of the title of a work such as Henry Cole s translation of Calvin s various treatises on predestination, namely, Calvin s Calvinism. It is also the usage of writers like Peter Toon and Basil Hall, the latter going so far as to apply the term Calvinism restrictively to the purportedly perfectly balanced theology of Calvin s 1559 Institutes. 1 There are, however, a host of problems posed by this approach not the least of which is that it (apparently intentionally) leaves Calvin as the only Calvinist. Beyond that, this approach begs the question of what criterion has been applied to the Institutes of 1559 to arrive at the conclusion that it represents a perfectly balanced theology in contrast to the presumably less well-balanced theologies of Huldrych Zwingli, Johannes Oecolampadius, Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Wolfgang Musculus, Zacharias Ursinus, and a host of others usually identified, together with Calvin, as 1) Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, (London: The Olive Tree, 1967), 143; and Basil Hall, Calvin Against the Calvinists, in John Calvin: A Collection of Distinguished Essays, ed. Gervase Duffield (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 19,

33 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 43 belonging to the Reformed tradition. Arguably, that criterion has been the personal theological preference of various proponents of the approach and it has consisted in modern readings of the Institutes, out of its historical context, as if it were a prototype for some modern theological system whether Friedrich Schleiermacher s, Karl Barth s, G. C. Berkouwer s, or some other recent theologian s. The purported balance, whether found in Calvin s understanding of predestination, or his so-called christocentrism, or his advocacy of the unio mystica, claims a coherent dogmatic center to Calvin s thought that cannot be found in the thought of his contemporaries but which also (unfortunately for the proponents of this approach) is not actually found in Calvin s thought. The coherentist approach not only leaves Calvin the only Calvinist, it also portrays Calvin s Calvinism as proto-schleiermacherianism, proto-barthianism, or proto- Berkouwerianism (to coin a somewhat less than euphonic term). Once the modern mythologies of coherence around neo-orthodox or other themes have been dissipated, a further problem emerges. The identification of Calvinism with Calvin s own distinctive doctrines, encounters the extreme difficulty of actually finding distinctive doctrines in Calvin. This problem has been enhanced by the numerous books that present interpretations of such decontextualized constructs as Calvin s doctrine of predestination, Calvin s Christology, or Calvin s doctrine of the Lord s Supper, as if Calvin actually proposed a highly unique doctrine. We need to remind ourselves that the one truly unique theologian who entered Geneva in the sixteenth century, Michael Servetus, did not exit Geneva alive. Unique or individualized doctrinal formulation was not

34 44 생명과말씀 Calvin s goal. If, for example, there is anything unique in his doctrine of predestination, it arose from the way in which he gathered elements from past thinkers in the tradition and blended them into his own formulation. But the fact is that his formulation is strikingly similar to those of Bucer, Viret, Musculus, and Vermigli. Even Bullinger s formulation, which differed on several distinct points, like the relation of Adam to the decree, has clear affinities with Calvin s teaching. 2 Likewise, there are some distinctive elements in Calvin s doctrine of the Lord s supper but there is so much that was drawn from Bucer and Melanchthon. If one were to strip out these commonalities and focus only on the truly distinctive elements one would not have a theology remaining nor would one have a series of related motifs sufficient to the construction of a theology and even if one attempted to do this, one would not have a theology of Calvin, but rather a kind of dogmatic Julia Child s concoction made up out of a pile of chopped-up ingredients, varying in taste from cook to cook. In other words, the identification of Calvinism with the unique theology of Calvin represents a fallacy. There is a final, deeper problem with this approach as well. The question also assumes that the theological tradition in which both Calvin and the later thinkers who have been identified as Calvinists reside was rather exclusivistically founded on the theology of Calvin himself and that Calvin s theology typically identified with Calvin s Institutes in the final edition of 1559 supplies the foundational index by which membership in that tradition ought to be assessed. This form of the question assumes that later 2) Note the conclusions in Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of the Other Reformed Tradition? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002).

35 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 45 Reformed theologians either intended to be or should have been precise followers of Calvin rather than also followers of Zwingli, Bucer, Oecolampadius, Bullinger, and others, and not merely followers of Calvin in general or Calvin of the tracts, treatises, commentaries, and sermons, nor the Calvin of the 1539, 1543, or 1550 Institutes, but the Calvin of the 1559 Institutes. 3 This form of the question is aided and abetted by the numerous books on Calvin s theology that are based solely or almost solely on the Institutes and that do not examine the thought of any of Calvin s predecessors or contemporaries: 4 his thought becomes its own criterion for its assessment and, by extension, the sole guide to all that is Calvinistic. This view is so misguided that it needs no extended rebuttal: it abstracts Calvin from himself by denying the importance of the larger portion of his work even as it abstracts him from his historical context and from the tradition in which he was a participant. B. Calvinism as the Approach of Calvin s Followers If, however, by Calvinist one means a follower of Calvin and by Calvinism, the theology of his followers, it should be clear that no one can be his own follower. Whereas the first option leaves Calvin as the only Calvinist, this option either prevents the identification of Calvin as a Calvinist or, falling back on the kind of sentiments fueling the first option, 3) Hall, Calvin Against the Calvinists, 19. 4) E.g., T. H. L. Parker, Calvin: an Introduction to His Thought (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1995); Charles Partee, The Theology of John Calvin (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2008).

36 46 생명과말씀 judges the followers on the basis of a rather narrow norm constructed out of Calvin s theology. It should also be clear, inasmuch as those identified as followers were seldom, perhaps never, precise imitators, that by the very way in which the question has been posed, it is usually looking for a negative answer. To the extent that later so-called Calvinists were not intellectual clones, Calvin ought not to be identified with them and to the extent that Calvin s thought ought to supply the norm for all later Reformed theology, those usually called Calvinists can be viewed as theologically problematic for not following him. Framed in this way, he question is, quite frankly, bogus. It decontextualizes both Calvin and the later Reformed writers and it replaces historical analysis with dogmatic generalization, as will be seen when we examine a few specifics concerning trajectories of formulation of doctrines such as predestination and the satisfaction of Christ. At a somewhat more complex level, the question assumes that Calvinist is an appellation that might have been happily accepted by Calvin himself and by pastors, theologians, and exegetes who belonged to the same theological trajectory or tradition as Calvin within, let us say, a hundred years after his death. That assumption is false on both counts. Calvin himself viewed the term Calvinist as an insult and thought of his own theology as an expression of catholic truth. It has been quite well documented that the terms Calvinism and Calvinist arose among the opponents of Calvin, notably among Lutheran critics of Calvin s work on the doctrine of the Lord s supper, and the beginning of the usage marks not a distinct tradition flowing from Calvin but the identification of a rift among the reformers who had initially understood themselves as evangelical and

37 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 47 only after the middle of the sixteenth century began consciously to separate themselves into distinct confessional groups, namely Lutheran and Reformed. 5 In 1595, when William Barrett attacked the teachings of Calvin, Vermigli, Beza, Zanchi, and Junius, he was rebuked, among other things, for calling these stalwarts of the faith by the odious name of Calvinists. Relative acceptance of the terms Calvinist and Calvinism among Reformed theologians is characteristic not of the rise of Reformed orthodoxy or of English Puritanism rather it can be seen beginning in the later seventeenth century and becoming more or less characteristic in the decline of orthodoxy in eighteenth century, at a time when the Reformed tradition had undergone so many developments that identifying it as Calvinist rested less on its larger body of doctrine than on the affirmation of a few distinctive points, such as those ensconced in the famous TULIP, an acronym of questionable pedigree. In short, virtually none of the theologians whose thought is at issue in the question, Was Calvin a Calvinist, identified themselves in this way. By extension, then, the question raises the issue of the identification of followers and this, albeit perhaps a somewhat clearer way of posing the query, is a rather difficult issue to settle historically. Precisely what constitutes a follower? If to be a follower one must identify one s self as a follower, then there was probably only a single Calvinist in the century following Calvin s death, namely Moïse Amyraut. In the debate over Amyraut s so-called hypothetical universalism, moreover, various of the 5) Cf. the comments in Brian Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982),

38 48 생명과말씀 theologians usually identified as Calvinist thought of Amyraut as departing significantly from the spirit of Calvin s theology, particularly at the point of his citing Calvin. 6 Of course, after the era of Reformed orthodoxy, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, self-proclaimed Calvinists abound, typically so called because of their advocacy of one or another form of the doctrine of predestination, whether or not clearly rooted in Calvin s own formulations, and because of their opposition to so-called Arminians, so called because of their soteriological synergism, whether or not (usually not!) they actually followed Arminius teachings. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury thinkers we identify as Calvinists did not identify themselves as followers of Calvin. Of course, founders of the Reformed tradition like Zwingli, Bucer, Oecolampadius, and Farel, all of whom belonged to a generation prior to Calvin s would hardly have thought of themselves as followers of one of their younger protegés, no matter how talented. Neither did other Reformed writers closer in age to Calvin among them Wolfgang Musculus, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Heinrich Bullinger, and Johannes á Lasco view themselves as his followers or, indeed, as playing second fiddle to the virtuoso. Nor can we find Reformed writers of the next several generations Zacharias Ursinus, Caspar Olevianus, Jerome Zanchi, Amandus Polanus, or even Calvin s own successor, Theodore Beza claiming to be followers of Calvin or, indeed, Calvinists. If the issue of self-identification is set aside, there remains the problem of identifying followers in the context of a fairly broad tradition the content 6) Cf. Pierre Du Moulin, Esclaircissement des controverses Salmuriennes, IX.i (232).

39 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 49 and character of which was not founded on an intention to follow in the footsteps of a single person and that did not, until more than a century and a half had passed, accept the name Calvinist as a useful designation. Should a theologian almost a decade older than Calvin, trained in the Universities of Padua and Bologna, who subsequently taught in Strasbourg, Oxford, and Zürich, and who, for all his general agreement with Calvin did not speak of a double decree of predestination but rather identified predestination with election, who drew more positively on medieval scholastics (notably Thomas Aquinas and Gregory of Rimini) than Calvin, who did not view himself as a follower of Calvin, and whose abilities in Hebrew extended far beyond Calvin s be called a Calvinist? The theologian in question is Peter Martyr Vermigli, whose work was quite influential in the development of post-reformation Reformed theology and who, despite his own identity, has often been called a Calvinist. 7 Or, further, should a theologian at Cambridge University in the 1590s, who specifically identified himself as Reformed (not as Calvinist), who upheld episcopacy, whose teaching occupies a good deal of common ground with Calvin s doctrinal formulations but which also has affinities for the thought of Vermigli, Zanchi, Beza, Ursinus, and Olevianus, and also evidences some characteristics of later Reformed thought not found in the work of these predecessors, like a distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace should he be called a Calvinist? The theologian is William Perkins, often identified in the literature as a Calvinist and then, 7) On Vermigli, see Frank A. James III, Peter Martyr Vermigli and Predestination: the Augustinian Inheritance of an Italian Reformer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).

40 50 생명과말씀 given the differences between his thought and Calvin s, used as a prime example in the attempt to pit Calvin against the Calvinists. The list could be extended indefinitely. One might, then, rephrase the question a bit and ask Were the Calvinists really Calvinists? or, more pointedly, Did the Calvinists ever intend to be Calvinists? If a Calvinist is taken to mean an intentional follower of Calvin or, indeed, an imitator or duplicator of Calvin s thought, the answer is simple. No, there were no Calvinists unless, of course, we fall back into the first-noted pattern of definition and make Calvin the only one. C. Calvinism as a Name for the Reformed Tradition There is, of course, third, another usage of the terms Calvinist and Calvinism namely, as references to thinkers and teachings associated with the Reformed tradition. This is the more common usage, as evidenced in the works of historians like Perry Miller, John T. McNeill, and more recently Philip Benedict. 8 Framed in this way, the questions become Was Calvin Reformed? and Were other writers who belonged to the same confessional trajectory as Calvin, whether or not they count as his followers, also Reformed? On might think that the answers to these alternative questions are quite simple: namely, Yes. But these questions too are 8) Perry Miller, The New England Mind: the Seventeenth Century (New York: Macmillan, 1939; repr., Boston: Beacon Press, 1961), 93-97; John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), vii-viii, et passim; Philip Benedict, Christ s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), xxii-xxiii.

41 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 51 complicated by the way in which one identifies what is properly Reformed specifically by the way in which Reformed, used as a synonym of Calvinist, is defined as more or less in agreement with Calvin s theology, whether as understood in its full extent and diversity or as resident in the 1559 Institutes. If the question is now re-phrased with better attention to historical contexts and documents it might read, What is the nature and, potentially the source, of the continuities and discontinuities, similarities and differences that exist between the thought of John Calvin and later thinkers who stand within the boundaries of Reformed confessionality? which brings us to a series of theological considerations. II. Theological Considerations: Calvin in Relation to the Later Reformed The question Was Calvin a Calvinist? has, of course, been debated largely in terms of a series of theological issues, perhaps most notably predestination and socalled limited atonement, two of the points associated with the famous TULIP, plus the issue of covenant. When posed in these forms, the question is typically answered in the negative and usually on highly questionable grounds. For example, Calvin s views on predestination have been contrasted with later Reformed understandings of the doctrine on several grounds: Calvin purportedly moved predestination out of relation to the doctrine of God to a kinder, gentler place in the Institutes the Calvinists reverted to the practice of placing the doctrine in

42 52 생명과말씀 proximity to the doctrine of God and created thereby a system of theology resting on predestination and metaphysics. 9 Further, Calvin s theology was not so much predestinarian as christocentric and the later Calvinists lost this christocentricity. 10 Or, by way of confusing issues of method and content, Calvin was a humanist, indeed, a humanist imbued with a covenantal approach to theology the later Calvinists were predestinarian and scholastic, having lost the humanistic inclinations of the founder of the movement. 11 Or, finally, given the christocentric orientation of Calvin s theology, his views on the work of Christ tended toward unlimited atonement in contrast to the rigid view of limited atonement that resulted from later Calvinist predestinarianism. 12 In sum, Calvin taught a finely balanced, christocentric theology whereas the Calvinists focused their theology on the divine decrees and produced the rigid, scholastic system of five points summarized by the acrostic TULIP. A. The Problem of TULIP By way of addressing these issues, we should note first and foremost the 9) Hall, Calvin Against the Calvinists, ) E.g., Walter Kickel, Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Theodor Beza (Neukirchen: Neukirchner Verlag, 1967). 11) Thus, Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth Century France (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969). 12) As, e.g., in M. Charles Bell, Was Calvin a Calvinist, Scottish Journal of Theology 36/4 (1983): ; M. Charles Bell, Calvin and the Extent of Atonement, Evangelical Quarterly 55 (April 1983): ; James B. Torrance, The Incarnation and Limited Atonement, Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 2 (1984): 32-40; Kevin Dixon Kennedy, Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement (New York: Peter Lang, 2002).

43 칼빈은칼빈주의자였는가? 53 problem of TULIP itself an acrostic that has caused much trouble for the Reformed tradition and has contributed greatly to the confusion about Calvin and Calvinism. It is really quite odd and a-historical to associate a particular document written in the Netherlands in with the whole of Calvinism and then to reduce its meaning to TULIP. It is perhaps worth noting that the Dutch word is not tulip but tulp. Tulip isn t Dutch sometimes I wonder whether Arminius was just trying to correct someone s spelling when he was accused of omitting that i for irresistible grace. More seriously, there is no historical association between the acrostic TULIP and the Canons of Dort. As far as we know, both the acrostic and the associated usage of five points of Calvinism are of Anglo-American origin and do not date back before the nineteenth century. 13 It is remarkable how quickly 13) See Ken Stewart, The Points of Calvinism: Retrospect and Prospect, Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 26/2 (2008): There are, of course, many early references to the five points or five articles in controversy between Reformed and Arminian: e.g., Peter Heylyn, Historia quinqu-articularis: or, A declaration of the judgement of the Western Churches, and more particularly of the Church of England, in the five controverted points, reproched in these last times by the name of Arminianism (London: E.C. for Thomas Johnson, 1660); and Daniel Whitby, A Discourse concerning, I. The true Import of the Words Election and Reprobation. II. The Extent of Christ s Redemption. III. The Grace of God. IV. The Liberty of the Will. V. The Perseverance or Defectibility of the Saints (London, 1710; 2 nd ed., corrected, London: Aaron Ward, 1735), often referenced as Whitby on the Five Points or Five Arminian Points : note George Hill, Heads of Lectures in Divinity (St. Andrews: at the University Press, 1796), 78. Occurrences of phrases like five distinguishing points of Calvinism also occur earlier, referencing the Canons of Dort without, however, specification of the points themselves: see, e.g. Daniel Neal, The History of the Puritans and Non-conformists with an account of their principles (London: for J. Buckland, et al., 1754), I, 502; Ferdinando Warner, The Ecclesiastical History of England, to the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols. (London: s.n., ), II, 509; note also that the editor of Daniel Waterland s sermons identified justification by faith alone as one of the five points of Calvinism : see Waterland, Sermons on Several Important Subjects of Religion and Morality, preface by Joseph Clarke, 2 vols. (London: for W. Innys, 1742), I, xviii.