The General Assembly of Korean-American Presbyterian Church 미주한인예수교장로회 목사학력및자격고시예상문제집 Qualification Test for Pastoral Candidates (Sample Questions) 2008 년 11 월 1 일 미주한인예수교장로회총회상임교육연구위원회 The Standing Committee on Christian Education The Korean rean-american Presbyterian Church ** 본책자를복사하는것은불법행위일뿐만아니라총회발전을저해하는비윤리적행위입니다.
목사학력자격고시예상문제집을펴내면서 본목사학력자격고시예상문제집은지난 1995년 9월1일에발행된초판과 2000년 11월1일에발행된 2판을기초로하여수정, 증보한것입니다. 우리총회가 30회기를지나온날을돌이켜볼때하나님께서베풀어주신은혜는말로다할수없습니다. 1978년 2월 8일에는필라델피아소재웨스트민스터신학교밴틸관에서 32명의총대가모여창립총회의개회예배를드렸습니다. 그러나이제 24개노회와 550여교회, 1,100여명의목사, 5만5천여세례교인을모신대교단으로성장하였습니다. 또한해를거듭할수록본교단에서목사임직을받기를희망하는하나님의일꾼들이증가하고있습니다. 지난수년동안은평균 50여명의수험생이목사학력및자격고시에응시하고있습니다. 교회지도자의자질향상을위해각신학교에서성실하게교육하는것에맞추어총회고시부는엄격하고공정하게고시를치르고있음을감사드립니다. 우리총회는수험생의편의를도모하고보다깊이있는준비를하도록하기위하여필답고시전과목에걸친예상문제집을집필출간하도록결의하여이일을상임교육연구위원회에맡겼습니다. 총회의명을받들어상임교육연구위원회가그동안목사학력자격고시예상문제집을작성하고완벽하게영어로번역하여지난 1995년 9월1일에초판, 그리고 2000년 11월1일에는 2판을그리고이번에 3판을한, 영으로출판하게됨을진심으로감사드립니다. 이고시예상문제집이목사학력자격고시를준비하는모든수험생들이깊이있게연구하고, 성실하게준비하는데안내자역할을하여수험생마다좋은성적을얻는기쁨이있기를바랍니다. 이번고시예상문제집 3판이나오기까지수고해주신여러분들, 특별히총회장전덕영목사님과상임교육연구위원인김선중목사님, 송성섭목사님께다시한번깊은감사를드립니다. 여러분들의수고는하나님께서갚아주시기를바라며, 모든영광은하나님께돌립니다. 주후 2008 년 11 월 1 일 미주한인예수교장로회총회상임교육연구위원회위원장윤종호목사드림 총회상임교육연구위원회 (Standing Committee on Christian Education) 위원장윤종호목사 First Church Village #2, 117 Wells Rd. Wethersfield, CT 06109 860-989-8009, E-mail: john.yoon0691@gmail.com 총무김선중목사 10 Chalamont Ct, Little Rock, AR 72223. 501-554-1479 FAX 501-868-9896, E-mail: hikapc@gmail.com
조직신학 Systematic Theology 참고서적 (TEXT): 벌코프, 루이스, 조직신학 ( 서울, 크리스찬다이제스트, 1991) 권수경, 이상원역 Berkhof, L., Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1941) Berkhof, L., Introduction to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988) 영, 에드워드, 주의말씀은진리니이다.( 서울 : 샘염의말씀사, 1991) 김수민역 Young, Edward, J., Thy Word is Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957) 다음의각항목에대하여정의, 역사적배경, 논쟁점, 성격, 성경적근거, 신앙생활과교회사역에대한실제적적용등을포함하여논술하라. ( 중요한성경본문과인물을언급할것.) (Discuss following subjects including the definition, historical background, issues involved, characteristics, biblical evidences, and practical implications on Christian life and church ministry, etc..) (Do mention significant passages in the Scriptures and person's name.) 서론 서론 (Introduction to Theology) 1. 성경의본질과관련하여현대교회가직면한문제는무엇인가? (13-39) What is the issue before the contemporary church in relation to the very nature of the Bible? (13-36) 2. 성경의본질을딤후 3:16 과벧후 1:21 을들어설명하라. (19-26) Explain the nature of the Bible in reference to 2 Tim.3:16 and 2 Peter1:21. (18-26) 3. 성경의권위에대하여바울과베드로와예수님은무엇이라고언급하였는가? (19-32) What did Paul, Peter and Jesus say regarding the authority of the Scriptures? (18-28) 4. 영감의범위를약술하라. (43-68) Explain the extent of inspiration. (39-61) 5. 위기신학에있어서의계시개념을논박하라. (132-135) (Refute the conception of revelation in the Theology of Crisis.) (122-124)
6. 올바른계시개념을찾기위해추구해야할방법을논술하라. (135-136) (Explain the method which should be pursued to arrive at a proper conception of revelation.) (124-126) 7. 특별계시의두가지목적을논술하라. (148-150) (Discuss the two purposes of special revelation.) (137-139) 8. 특별계시와성경사이의관계에대한근대신학과개혁주의의견해를비교논술하라. (152-154) (Compare and discuss the view of modern theology and the reformed conception of the relation between special revelation and Scripture.) (140-143) 9. 기계적영감과동력적영감을논박한후, 유기적영감을논술하라. (162-165) (Refute mechenical inspiration and dynamical inspiration, and then discuss organic inspiration.) (151-153) ( 예답 ) 성경적영감의성격에있어서기계적영감은제 2차적저자인인간이하나님께서구술하신것을받아서기록한서기일뿐이며, 그래서저자는성령의말씀이흘러간통로에지나지않는다는것이다. 다시말하면, 저자의정신상태가정지되어있어서저자가기록의내용이나형식에아무것도기여하지못했다는의미이다. 따라서성경의제 2차적인저자들은하나님의손에있는수동적인도구에불과했다. 그리고동력적영감이란, 슐라이에르마허의영감론을말하는것인데, 이것은성령의직접적인활동을부인해버리고, 그리고는그개념을저자들의일반적인영감으로대치시켜버렸다. 그일반적영감은그리스도인의일반적인영적조명과별차이가없는영적조명에불과하다. 그리고그영감은저자들의기록에영향을미쳤으나, 기록자들에게신적계시의기록을맡기는특수한사명에맞는자격을부여하는성령의초자연적활동이아니다. 그러므로전적으로주관적인그관점은성경을인간적인산물로만들어버렸다. 따라서이이론은결국성경의초자연적인성격을빼앗아버리고또한성경의무오성을파괴시켜버린다. 그런데유기적영감이란하나님께서저자들의내적존재법칙에조화가되도록유기적인방법으로그들에게작용하셨다는것이다. 다시말하면하나님께서그들을있는그대로사용하시되, 그들의성격, 기질, 은사와재능, 그들의교육과문화, 어휘, 문체, 그리고스타일등을성경을기록하는일에함께사용하셨다. 하나님께서는그들의글쓰는일에죄의영향을억제하시면서, 그들을 조명하시고격려하시어언어를선택하고생각을표현하는일을유기적인방법으로 인도하셨다. 하나님께서저자들에게자격을주시고그들을인도하셔서, 성경의책들을유기적으로영감시키셨다. 이관점은성경의설명과잘조화가된다. In dealing with the nature of inspiration, mechanical inspiration means that the auctores secundarii were mere amanuenses who wrote what God dictated and mere channels through which the words of the Holy Spirit flowed. In other word, their own mental life was in a state of
repose, and did not in any way contribute to the contents or form of their writings. Therefore, the writers of the Bible were mere passive instruments. And the term "dynamic inspiration" is employed here to designate the theory of inspiration that owes its inception to the teachings of Schleiermacher. The theory renounces the idea of a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the production of the books of the Bible, and substitutes for it a general inspiration of the writers. And the general inspiration of the writers really amounts to nothing more than a spiritual illumination, differing only in degree from the spiritual illumination of Christians in general. Inspiration so conceived influenced their writings, but was by no means a supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit, which served to qualify the writers for the specific task of committing the divine revelation to writing. So this view which is entirely subjective made the Bible a purely human product. Therefore, the view robs the Bible of its supernatural character and destroys its infallibility. But the term "organic" serves to stress the fact that God acted upon them in an organic way, in harmony with the laws of their own inner being. In other word, God used them just as they were, with their character and temperament, their gifts and talents, their education and culture, their vocabulary, diction, and style. He repressed the influence of sin on their literary activity, and then illumined their minds, prompted them to write, and guided them in an organic way in the choice of their words and in the expression of their thoughts. He qualified them and guided them, and thus inspired the books of Scripture organically. This view is clearly most in harmony with the representations of Scripture. 10. 역사비평의영향을받아성경의현상들이영감교리와모순된다는주장을논박하라. (168-170) (Refute the claim that the phenomena of Scripture contradict the doctrine of inspiration under the influence of historical criticism.) (156-158) 11. 원전이없는영감교리는실제적가치가없다는견해를논박하라. (170-171) (Refute the view that the doctrine of inspiration without the Autograph has no real practical value.) (158-159) 12. 성경이가진신앙과행동의규칙으로서의규범적인권위를상술하라. (174-177) (Elaborate the normative significance, as a rule of life and conduct which Scripture has.) (162-165) 13. 인간이하나님의특별계시를판단하고소유하기에합당한내적원리를논술하라. (193-195) (Explain the proper principium internum by which man judges and apropriates the special revelation of God.) (181-182) 14. 하나님의특별계시의진리성에대한우리의확신의기초에대하여개혁주의자들의입장에서논하라. (195-196)
(In the view of the Reformers, discuss the ground of the conviction respecting the truth of the spcial revelation of God.) (182-183) 15. 성령의증거에대한잘못된견해와올바른관점을비교논술하라. (196-198) (Compare and discuss the mistaken notions and the correct view of the testimony of the Holy Spirit) (184-185) 16. 신정통주의성경관을논박하라.( 영,E.J, 주의말씀은진리니이다.253-289) (Refute the neo-orthodox view of the Bible.) (E.J.Young, Thy Word is Truth, 231-263) ( 예답 ) 특히바르트는전통적인기독교적의미에서성경과하나님의말씀을동일시하는것을극력반대하였다. 그에게있어서성경은하나님의말씀이아니다. 또한신자에게하나님의말씀으로받아들여지기전에는성경이하나님의말씀이되지않는다. 하나님이성경을통해서말씀하시는것만이하나님의말씀이다. 이것은성경과하나님의말씀을비성경적으로분리하는것이다. 하나님의말씀이성경말씀과동일시되어서는안된다면누가하나님의말씀을분별해야하며우리가성경을읽을때어떻게그말씀을알게되는가? 하는질문이제기된다. 이러한질문들에대해서하나님의진리인하나님의말씀이그를발견한다는대답을듣는다. 그러나이것은주관주의이다. 결국인간자신이어느것이하나님의말씀이고어느것이하나님의말씀이아닌지를판단하는심판자가된다. 그렇다면하나님의말씀은특정한경우에우연히어떤사람에게영감을주는것이라는결론에이르게된다. 확실히이것은뻔뻔스러운주관주의이다. 이와같이하나님의말씀과성경말씀을구분하는신정통주의성경관은불가능하다. 이것이불가능한구분이라는것은열정적인주창자들이마치이러한구분이존재하지않는것처럼계속해서행동하고있다는사실에의해서잘보여진다. 하나님의말씀과성경말씀이동일시되어서는안된다고열렬하게주장하는사람들이실제적으로는그러한구별을거부한다. 그들은계속해서성경말씀이권위있는것처럼간주하여이에호소한다. 실로그들이주장하는구별은불가능한것이기때문에어쩔수가없는것이다. 만일그러한구별이유효하다면그들은성경말씀과는전혀관계를가지지않아야할것이다. 문자적영감을단호하게거부하는바르트의색인만보아도그는실제적으로는완전영감을철저하게옹호하는자들처럼행동한다는것을알수있다. 하나님의말씀과성경말씀을구별하는것은불가능하다. 하여간이러한구별은개혁자들에의해서만들어진것이아니다. 그들에게있어서성경말씀은곧하나님의말씀이었다. 인간영혼의깊은욕구를충족시켜줄수있는것은한가지오직한가지뿐이다. 그것은인간의말이아니라진리자체이신하나님의말씀이다. 현대인들이성경을읽고살아계신하나님의음성을듣기를원하기만한다면복이임할것이다. 이시대의가장커다란요구는성경으로돌아가는것이다. Karl Barth has been most outspoken in his refusal to identify in the traditional Christian sense
the Bible with the actual word of God. For him the Bible is not the Word of God, nor does it become such until it is accepted by the believer. It is the Word of God only in so far as God speaks through it. This is unbiblical separation between the Bible and the Word of God. If the Word of God is not to be identified with the words of the Bible, we may well ask, Who is to identify this Word of God? How are we to know this Word when we meet it? In answer to these questions we are told that the truth of God, the Word of God has found him. However this is subjectivism. In the last analysis, man himself is the judge of that which is and that which is not the Word of God. It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that after all the Word of God amounts to nothing more than that which happens to inspire one upon a particular occasion. Surely this is subjectivism of a blatant kind. This distinction which neo-orthodox view of the Bible are making between the Word of God and the words of the Bible is an impossible one. That it is an impossible distinction is shown by the fact that its most ardent protagonists themselves constantly act as though the distinction did not exist. Those who are most vociferous in defense of the position that the Word of God and the words of the Bible are not to be equated, themselves in actual practice refuse to make the distinction. They constantly appeal to the word of the Bible as though those words were authoritative. Indeed, since the distinction which they profess is an impossible one, they cannot do otherwise. If it were a valid distinction, they should have nothing to do with the words of the Bible. One need not examine the large indices to the writings of Karl Barth who vigorously disclaims any belief in verbal inspiration, to make the discovery that in his actual procedure he acts as do the staunchest advocates of verbal inspiration. The disjunction between the Word of God and the words of the Bible is one that is impossible to make. Whatever else may be said about it, this disjunction is not one which the Reformers made. To them the very words of the Bible were the words of God. There is one thing, and only one thing, that will meet the deep need of men's souls. It is not the word of man, but the Word of Him who is Truth itself. When the men of our day are willing to open the pages of the Bible and to listen to the voice of the living God, then blessing will come. The greatest need of the day is for a return to the Bible. 17. 성경의무오성을파수해야할이유를논증하라. (293-301) (Explain the reasons to defend the inerrancy of the Scriptures.) (267-273)
신론 (Doctrine of God) 1. 교의학에있어서신론의위치와하나님의존재를부인하는다양한이론들을약술하라. (205-213) (Discuss the place of the doctrine of God in dogmatics and various forms of denial of the existence of God.) (19-26) 2. 신의존재에관한이성적논증들을약술하라. (213-216) (Discuss the rational proofs for the existence of God.) (26-28) 3. 하나님에관한인식의가능성에대하여논하라. (217-230) (Discuss the knowability of God.) (29-40) 4. 하나님의존재에대한인식가능성에대하여논하라. (231-237) (Discuss the possibility of knowing the Being of God.) (41-46) 5. 하나님의이름들을논하라. (238-243) (Discuss the names of God.) (47-51) 6. 하나님의비공유적속성에대하여논하라. (250-257) (Discuss the incommunicable attributes of God.) (57-63) 6. 하나님의공유적속성에대하여논하라. (258-278) (Discuss the communicable attributes of God.) (64-81) 7. 삼위일체교리의역사, 성경적증거, 내용을약술하라. (279-288) (Discuss the doctrine of the Trinity including history, scriptural proof, and content.) (82-90) 8. 삼위일체교리의각위에대하여논술하라. (288-297) (Discuss the three persons in Trinity separately.) (90-99) 9. 하나님의작정의성질, 특징, 반론을논술하라. (301-310) (Discuss the nature and the characteristics of divine decrees and objections to it.) (100-108)
10. 예정론의역사, 예정의대상과부분을논술하라. (311-320) (Discuss the doctrine of predestination including its history, the objects, and parts.) (109-118) ( 예답 ) 예정은모든도덕적피조물에대한하나님의목적을표시하지만대개는하나님의주권적선택과의로운유기로서타락한인간에대한하나님의경륜을나타낸다. 1) 예정론의역사예정론은어거스틴의시대에와서야역사에서중요한논의의주제가되었다. 펠라기우스는구원이나저주로의예정은예지에기초하고있다는조건예정을가르쳤으나어거스틴은예정이예지의기초라는절대예정을가르쳤다. 그는또한이중예정을가르쳤다. 종교개혁자들은엄격한예정론을주장하였는데루터는절대예정론을받아들였지만생애말년에가서는어조를누그러뜨렸으며루터교신학은조건예정을지지한다. 칼빈은이중예정론을확고하게주장하였지만알미니안들은조건예정론을주장한다. 2) 예정의창시자와대상들 1. 창시자 : 예정은삼위일체의협력적행동이지만특별히성부께돌려진다. 2. 예정의대상들 : 예정은하나님의이성적피조물에만관계된다. 특히타락한인간과관계된다. 광의로는모든선하고악한인간들, 모든선하고악한천사들, 그리고중보자이신그리스도를포함한다. 3) 예정의부분들 : 선택과유기 (1) 선택. 가. 선택의성경적인개념 - 선택은하나님이그의주권적인선하신기뻐하심속에서도한인간들속에아무런예견된공로가없어도일정수가인간들을영원한구원과특별은혜의수령자들이되도록선택하시는하나님의영원한행동이다. 나. 선택의특징들가 ) 선택의작정은하나님의주권적인의지즉그의신적인선하신기뻐하심의표현이다. 나 ) 선택의작정은불변적이며, 따라서선택자의구원을확실하게한다. 다 ) 선택의작정은영원하다. 라 ) 선택의작정은무조건적이다. 마 ) 선택의작정은불가항력적이다. 바 ) 선택의작정은불의한것으로비난될수없다. 다. 선택의목적가 ) 가장가까운목적은선택자의구원이다. 나 ) 궁극적인목적은하나님의영광이다.
(2) 유기가. 유기론의진술유기는하나님이그의특별한은혜의작용으로어떤사람들을지나가시고그들을자기들의죄에대하여벌하심으로그이공의를드러내시기로작정하시는하나님의영원한작정이다. 유기의두요소는간과 (preterition) 와정죄 (condemnation) 이다. 그러나하나님의책임은없다. 나. 유기론의증거유기는상황의논리로부터자연스럽게추론될수있는데브룬너는이것을경고하였지만성경은이를증거한다. 롬9:13,17 5) 타락전선택설과타락후선택설양자의차이점은예정의범위와작정의논리적순서에관한것이다. 그러나양견해는상반된다기보다한견해는관념론적혹은목적론적순서에주목하고있고다른견해는역사적인작정들의순서에주목하고있다. 전자는하나님의작정이통일적이고하나의최종적인목적을강조하나후자는하나님의작정들에어떤다양성이존재한다는점을강조한다. 대부분의신앙고백서들은타락후선택설의입장을취하고있이만타락전선택설을정죄하지않는다. Predestination is the counsel of God concerning fallen men, including the sovereign election of some and the righteous reprobation of the rest. 1) The Doctrine of Predestination in History Predestination does not form an important subject of discussion in history until the time of Augustine. Pelagius taught a conditional predestination which is foreordination to salvation or to damnation founded on prescience. However Augustine taught an absolute predestination and a double predestination. The Reformers advocated the strictest doctrine of predestination. Luther accepted the doctrine of absolute predestination, though the conviction that God willed that all men should be saved caused him to soft-pedal the doctrine of predestination somewhat later in life. It gradually disappeared from Lutheran theology, which now regards it either wholly or in part as conditional. Calvin firmly maintained the Augustinian doctrine of an absolute double predestination. In churches of the Arminian type the doctrine of absolute predestination has been supplanted by the doctrine of conditional predestination. 2) The Author and Objects of Predestination (1) The Author - The decree of predestination is in all its parts the concurrent act of the three persons in the Trinity. But in the economy of salvation the sovereign act of predestination is more particularly attributed to the Father. (2) The Objects of Predestination - Predestination has reference to God's rational creatures
only. Most frequently it refers to fallen men. Yet in a wider sense, it includes all God's rational creatures, that is, all men both good and evil, the angels both good and evil, and Christ as Mediator. 3) The Parts of Predestination (1) Election A. The Biblical idea of election: Election is an eternal act of God whereby He, in His sovereign good pleasure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, chooses a certain number of men to be the recipients of special grace and of eternal salvation. B. The characteristics of election. The decree of election: a. is an expression of the sovereign will of God b. is immutable, and therefore renders the salvation of the elect certain. c. is eternal, that is, from eternity. d. is unconditional. e. is irresistible. f. is not chargeable with injustice. C. The purpose of election a. The proximate purpose is the salvation of the elect. b. The final aim is the glory of God. (2) Reprobation A. Statement of the doctrine. Reprobation is an eternal decree of God whereby He has determined to pass some men by with the operations of His special grace, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice. It contains two elements, namely, preterition and condemnation. B. Proof for the doctrine of reprobation The doctrine of reprobation naturally follows from the logic of the situation. 4) Supra- and Infralapsarianism It is quite essential to have a correct view of the exact points at issue between the two. The difference does concern: (1) The extent of predestination. (2) The logical order of the decrees. We cannot regard Supra- and Infralapsarianism as absolutely antithetical. They consider the same mystery from different points of view, the one fixing its attention in the ideal or teleological; the other, on the historical order of the decrees. To a certain extent they can and must go hand in hand. Both find support in Scripture. Supralapsarianism in those passages which stress the sovereignty of god, and Infralapsarianism in those which emphasize the mercy and justice of God, in connection with election and reprobation. Most confessional standards
embody the infralapsarian position, but do not condemn Supralapsarianism. 11. 세계의기원에관한다양한이론들과창조의개념을약술하라.(332-345) (Discuss divergent theories respecting the origin of the world and the idea of creation.) (128-140) 12. 영적인세계의창조에대하여논하라. (346-355) (Discuss the creation of the spiritual world.) (141-149) 13. 물질적인세계의창조에대하여논하라. (356-371) (Discuss the creation of the material world.) (150-164) 14. 섭리에대하여논하라. (372-384) (Discuss the doctrine of providence.) (165-176) 15. 기적에대하여논하라. (384-386) (Discuss the miracles.) (176-178) 인죄론 (Doctrine of Man) 1. 인간의기원에대하여논하라. (391-400) (Discuss the origin of man.) (181-190) 2. 인간의구성적본질에대하여논하라. (401-411) (Discuss the constitutional nature of man.) (191-201) 3. 하나님의형상으로서의인간에대하여논하라. (412-421) (Discuss man as the image of God.) (202-210) 4. 행위언약에대하여논하라. (422-430) (Discuss the covenant of works.) (211-218) 5. 원죄의대하여논하라. (433-442)
(Discuss the original sin.) (219-226) 6. 죄의본질적특성에대하여논하라. (443-453) (Discuss the essential character of sin.) (227-236) ( 예답 ) 죄는가장슬프고도보편적인삶의현실이다. 1) 악의본질에관한철학적인이론들철학적인이론들은 (1) 희랍철학의이원론 (2) 라이프니찌의죄는단순히결여의문제라는이론 (3) 스피노자의죄는하나의환상에지나지않는다는이론 (4) 슐라이어마허의죄는인간의감각적본성으로인한신의식의결여라는이론 (5) 리츨의죄란무지로인한하나님에대한신뢰의결여또는하나님나라에대한반역이라는이론 (6) 스트롱의죄는이기심이라는이론 (7) 테넨트의죄는인간본성의하등한성향이점진적으로발전하는도덕의식과대립하는것을의미한다는이론등이있다. 이모든죄관이안고있는근본적인결점은죄를순전히물리적인것또는인간의의지와독립된것으로간주함으로써죄에대한정당한견해를파괴시키고있다는점이다. 이것들은인간의책임을말살한다. 이것들은악또는죄의오염에대한인간의감각을무디게만듦으로서인간의도덕적책임을말살시키는경향을가지고있다. 철학적이론들은치명적인결점은죄가본질적으로하나님으로부터분리되는것이요하나님께반대하는것이며하나님의법을어기는것이라는점을고려하지않고죄를정의하려고했다는점이다. 2) 성경적죄개념 (1) 죄는악의구체적인형식이다. 모든악이죄는아니다. 죄는도덕적악이다. 죄는인간의자유로운그러나악한선택이다. 근본적으로죄는우리가책임을질수없는연약성, 실수, 불완전성과같은수동적인어떤것이아니라, 하나님을적극적으로반대하는것이요, 그의율법을적극적으로범하는것이다. (2) 죄는절대성을갖는다. 선과악에정도의차이는있으나그사이에중립지대는없다. (3) 죄는언제나하나님과하나님의뜻과관련되어있다. 죄는생각과말과행동을통해하나님으로부터분리되는것이요, 하나님에반대되는것이며하나님을미워하는것이다. (4) 죄는죄책과부패를포함한다. 죄책은율법또는도덕적요구를어긴행위에대하여처벌또는정죄를받게되는상태를말한다. 부패는모든죄인에게생득적으로임하는것이다. (5) 죄는마음속에거한다. 죄는혼의어는한기관에거하는것이아니라마음에거한다. 성경심리학은마음이영혼의중심적기관으로서, 여기서인간의삶이시작된다고말한다. (6) 죄는단순히외적인행위만을가리키지않는다. 죄는겉으로나타나는행위만을가리키는것이아니라죄악된습관과영혼의죄악된상태까지도가리킨다. 결론적으로말해서죄는행위와성벽과상태에있어서하나님의도덕법에순응하지못한것이다.
3) 펠라기우스의죄관 (1) 펠라기우스죄관의서술펠라기우스는인간의자연적능력에서자신의이론의출발점을찾는다. 그의근본적전제는하나님이인간에게선을명령하셨다는말은인간에게선을행할수있는능력이있음을의미한다는것이다. 이말은인간에게절대적인자유가있음을의미한다. 따라서죄는개별적인의지의행위만을의미한다. 죄악된본성이라든지죄악된성품따위는존재하지않는다. 원죄라는것은없다. (2) 펠라기우스죄관에대한반론가. 인간은오직자신이할수있는일에대해서만책임을진다는기본적인전제는양심과하나님의말씀의증거에완전히모순된다. 나. 인간이본성적으로도덕적존재로창조되었다는사실을부인하게되면인간은동물의수준으로떨어진다. 다. 인간의성품에의해서결정되지않는의지의선택은심리학적으로불가능할뿐만아니라윤리적으로도무가치하다. 라. 펠라기우스의죄관은죄의보편성을만족스럽게설명하지못한다. 4) 로마카톨릭의죄관로마카톨릭의죄관은실제적인죄는의식적인의지의행위에있다. 그러나이것은펠라기우스에대한반론으로공박될수있다. Sin is one of the saddest but also one of the most common phenomena of human life. 1) Philosophic Theories Respecting the Nature of Evil Philosophic theories are: (1) The dualistic theory-greek philosophy. (2) The theory that sin is merely privation-leibnitz. (3) The theory that sin is an illusion-spinoza. (4) The theory that sin is a want of God-consciousness, due to man's sensuous nature-schleiermacher. (5) The theory of sin as want of trust in God and opposition to His Kingdom, due to ignorance-ritschl. (6) The theory that sin is selfishness-a. H. Strong. (7) The theory that sin consists in the opposition of the lower propensities of human nature to a gradually developing moral consciousness-tennant. Most of these theories rob sin of its ethical character by making it something purely physical and independent of the human will, and thereby really destroys the idea of sin. These also do away with the responsibility of man. These have a tendency to blunt man's sense of the evil or pollution of sin, to destroy the sense of guilt, and to abrogate man's moral responsibility. The radical defect in all these theories is that they seek to define sin without taking into consideration that sin is essentially a breaking away from God, opposition to God, and transgression of the law of God.
2) The Scriptural Idea of Sin (1) Sin is a specific kind of evil. Not all evil is sin. Sin is a moral evil. Sin is the result of a free but evil choice of man. Fundamentally, sin is not something passive, such as a weakness, a fault, or an imperfection, for which we cannot be held responsible, but an active opposition to God, and a positive transgression of His Law. (2) Sin has an absolute character. While there are degrees in good and evil, there is no neutral condition between the two. (3) Sin always has relation to God and His will. It is separation from God, opposition to God, hatred of God in thought, word, and deed. (4) Sin includes both guilt and pollution. Guilt is the state of deserving condemnation or of being liable to punishment for the violation of a law or a moral requirement. Pollution is the inherent corruption to which every sinner is subject. (5) Sin has its seat in the heart. Sin does not reside in any one faculty of the soul, but in the heart, which in Scriptural psychology is the central organ of the soul, out of which are the issues of life. (6) Sin does not consist exclusively in overt acts. Sin does not consist only in overt acts, but also in sinful habits and in a sinful condition of the soul. In conclusion sin is a lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition, or state. 3) The Palagian view of sin (1) Statement of the Pelagian view Pelagius takes his startingpoint in the natural ability of man. His fundamental proposition is: God has commanded man to do that which is good; hence the latter must have the ability to do it. This means that man has a free will in the absolute sense of the world. Therefore sin consists only in the separate acts of the will. There is no such thing as a sinful nature. There is no such thing as original sin. Children are born in a state of neutrality. (2) Objections to the Pelagian view A. the fundamental position that man is held responsible by God only for what he is able to do, is absolutely contrary to the testimony of conscience and the Word of God. B. To deny that man has by nature a moral character, is simply bringing him down to the level of the animal. C. A choice of the will that is in no way determined by man's character, is not only
psychologically unthinkable, but also ethically worthless. D. The Pelagian theory can give no satisfactory account of the universality of sin. 4) The Roman Catholic View of Sin The prevailing Roman Catholic view of sin may be expressed as follows: Real sin always consists in a conscious act of the will. The objections to this view are perfectly evident from what was said in connection with the Pelagian theory. 7. 죄의전이에대하여논하라. (454-461) (Discuss the transmission of sin.) (237-243) 8. 인류의삶에나타난죄에대하여논하라. (462-474) (Discuss sin in the life of the human race.) (244-254) 9. 죄의형벌에대하여논하라. (475-482) (Discuss the punishment of sin.) (255-261) 10. 언약의성경적명칭과개념을설명하라. (485-488) (Discuss the name and concept of the covenant.) (262-264) 11. 구속언약에대하여논하라. (489-495) (Discuss the covenant of redemption.) (265-271) 12. 은혜언약에대하여논하라. (496-507) (Discuss the covenant of grace) (272-283) 13. 법적관계로서의언약의회원이되는자격을논하라.(511-514) (Discuss the membership in the covenant as a legal relationship.) (287-289) 14. 언약의여러세대에대하여논하라.(515-527) (Discuss the different dispensations of the covenant.) (290-301)
기독론 (Doctrine of Christ) 1. 그리스도의명칭을논하라. (541-544) (Discuss the names of Christ.) (312-315) 2. 그리스도의성질을논하라. (544-549) (Discuss the nature of Christ.) (315-320) 3. 그리스도의일위성을논하라. (550-561) (Discuss the unipersonality of Christ.) (321-330) 4. 그리스도의비하의신분을논하라. (565-577) (Discuss the state of Christ: Humiliation.(331-343) 5. 그리스도의승귀의신분을논하라. (578-589) (Discuss the state of Christ: Exaltation) (344-355) 6. 그리스도의세직분을논하라. (593-605, 650-656) (Discuss three offices of Christ.) (356-366,406-412) 7. 속죄의원인과필요성을논하라. (606-612) (Discuss the cause and necessity of the atonement.) (367-372) 8. 속죄의성질을논하라. (613-633) (Discuss the nature of the atonement.) (373-391) 9. 속죄의목적과범위를논하라.(634-642) (Discuss the purpose and extent of the atonement.) (392-399) ( 예답 ) 1) 속죄의목적속죄는하나님과죄인과의관계, 구원의중보적창시자인그리스도의신분과상태, 그리고죄인의신분과상태에섭리적으로영향력을행사했다.
(1) 하나님과관련된속죄의효과속죄는불변적인하나님의내적존재성에는아무런변화도초래하지않았다. 유일한변화는인간과의관계의변화이다. 즉사법적진노의대상이었던자들과화해하신것이다. 즉그들의죄를희생제사로덮어서그이진노가비켜지나갔다.. (2) 그리스도와관련된속죄의효과속죄는중보자인그리스도께다양한상급을확보해주었다. 가. 현재의메시야적영광을포함해서그의영광에속하는모든것. 나. 그가자기백성에게나누어주신충만한은사와은혜. 다. 그의신비적몸을이루고속죄사역의성과의주관적적용을위한성령의은사. 라. 그이소유와통치아래놓여지게된땅과세계. (3) 죄인에대한속죄의효과가. 속죄는죄인의구원을가능하게하였을뿐만아니라이를실제로성취하였다. 나. 속죄는속죄받은자들을위해다음과같은유익을확보하였다. 가 ) 칭의를통한정당한사법적지위나 ) 중생과성화를통한신자들과그리스도의신비적연합 다 ) 예수그리스도를통한하나님과의친교, 개인적영화, 그리고새롭고 완전한세계에서 영생을향유하는그들의최종적복락 2) 속죄의범위 (1) 정확한논쟁점문제점은속죄의의도이다. 성부께서죄의대속을위하여그리스도를파송하신것과그리스도가이세상에오신것은오직택함받은자들만을구원할의도에서였는가? 아니면모든사람을구원할의도에서였는가? 이다. (2) 개혁파신학의입장개혁파의입장은그리스도께서실제로그리고확실히선택받은사람들만을구원하기위하여죽으셨다는것이다. (3) 제한속죄론의증명가. 하나님의계획은언제나확실히유효하며인간의행위로인해좌절될수없다. 이것은우리주예수그리스도의죽음으로써인간을구원하려는계획에도적용된다. 만일모든사람들을구원하는것이하나님의의도였다면, 이목적은인간의불신앙에의해좌절될수없었을것이다. 나. 성경은반복해서그리스도께서그목숨까지버리신사람들을 그의양, 그의교회, 그의백성, 택하신자 등으로묘사함으로로서매우명확하게제한하고있다. 다. 그리스도의희생사역과중보사역은단지그이속죄사역의다른두측면이어서어느한쪽의범위가다른쪽보다더넓을수없다. 라. 그리스도께서만민을구원하기위해죽으셨다는교리는논리적으로절대적만인구원론으로연결된다.
마. 성경은명료하게그리스도의속죄사역의목적과효과는단지구원을가능케할뿐아니라신인간에화해시키며인간으로영원한구원을실제로소유하게하려는데있다고가르친다. 바. 그리스도께서죽음으로써신앙, 회개및성령역사의다른열매를그이백성을위하여획득하셨다. (4) 제한속죄론에대한반론가. 그리스도께서세상을위해죽으셨다는성구들이있다. 본구절들에근거한반론은여기서사용된 세상 이라는단어의의미를 인류를구성하는모든개인들 로보는부당한가정에서부터출발한다. 이러한구절에서 세상 이라는용어는구약성경의자국주의는지나간일이고신약성경의세계주의에게길을내주었음을명시한다. 복음의복이열방에게로확산되었다. 나. 그리스도는모든사람들을위해죽으셨다는구절을근거로한반론도있다. 이구절들에서 모든 이나 모든사람들 은오직그리스도안에있는사람들만을가리킨다. 다. 어떤구절들은그리스도께서위하여죽으신자들이구원얻는데실패할가능성을함축하고있다고한다. 이러한구절들은 일어나지않고일어날수도없는어떤일을논리전개를위해가정 하고있다. 라. 끝으로구원의신실한제공에서유래된반론이있다. 그러나믿음과회개를통한구원의제공은단지믿음으로그리스도를영접하는모든사람들에대한구원의약속이다. 1) The Purpose of the Atonement The atonement was destined to affect the relation of God to the sinner, the state and condition of Chris as the Mediatorial author of salvation, and the state and condition of the sinner. (1) Its effect with reference to God It should be emphasized first of all that the atonement effected no change in the inner being of God, which is unchangeable. The only change that was brought about was a change in the relation of God to the objects of His atoning love. He was reconciled to those who were the objects of His judicial wrath. This means that His wrath was warded off by the sacrificial covering of their sin. (2) Its effect with respect to Christ The atonement secured a manifold reward for Christ as Mediator. He received: A. All that belonged to His glorification, including His present Messianic glory. B. The fullness of those gifts and graces which He imparts to His people. C. The gift of the Holy Spirit for the formation of His mystical body and the subjective application of the fruits of His atoning work. D. The ends of the earth for His possession and the world for His dominion.
(3) Its effect as far as the sinner is concerned. A. The atonement not only made salvation possible for the sinner, but actually secured it. B. It secured for those for whom it was made: a. A proper judicial standing through justification. This includes the forgiveness of sin, the adoption of children, and the right to an eternal inheritance. b. The mystical union of believers with Christ through regeneration and sanctification. c. Their final bliss in communion with God through Jesus Christ, in subjective glorification, and in the enjoyment of eternal life in a new and perfect creation. 2) The Extent of the Atonement (1) The exact point at issue - The question does relate to the design of the atonement. Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men? (2) Statement of the Reformed Position The Reformed position is that Christ died for the purpose of actually and certainly saving the elect, the elect only. (3) Proof for the doctrine of a limited atonement A. The designs of God are always surely efficacious and cannot be frustrated by the actions of man. This applied also to the purpose of saving men through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. If it had been His intention to save all men, this purpose could not have been frustrated by the unbelief of man. B. Scripture repeatedly qualified those for whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation, such as "His sheep," "His church," "His people," and "the elect." C. The sacrificial work of Christ and His intercessory work are simply two different aspects of His atoning work, and therefore the scope of the on can be no wider than that of the other. D. It should also be noted that the doctrine that Christ died for the purpose of saving all men, logically leads to absolute universalism. E. The Bible clearly teaches that the design and effect of th atoning work of Christ is not merely to make salvation possible, but to reconcile God and man, and to put men in actual possession of eternal salvation. F. The atonement also secures the fulfillment of the conditions that must be met in order to obtain salvation, such as faith and repentance. (4) Objections to the doctrine of a limited atonement A. There are passages which teach that Christ died for the world. The objection based on these passages proceeds on the unwarranted assumption that the word "world" means "all the
individuals that constitute the human race." However the word "world" is used sometimes used to indicate that the Old Testament particularism belongs to the past, and made way for New Testament universalism. The blessings of the gospel were extended to "all nations". B. It is said that Christ died for all men in certain passages. However the "all" or "all men" in various passages includes only those who are in Christ. C. Certain passages are said to imply the possibility that those for whom Christ died fail to obtain salvation. In those passages we have "a supposition, for the sake of argument, of something that does not and cannot happen." D. There is an objection derived from the bona fide offer of salvation. However the offer of salvation in the way of faith and repentance is simply the promise of salvation to all those who accept Christ by faith. 10. 그리스도의중보사역을논하라. (643-649) (Discuss the intercessory work of Christ.) (400-405) 11. 그리스도의왕직에대하여논하라. (650-656) (Discuss the Kingly Office of Christ) (406-412) 구원론 (Doctrine of the Application of the Work of Redemption) 1. 구원의순서 (Ordo Salutis) 를논하라. (659-667) (Discuss the order of salvation. The Ordo Salutis.) (415-422) 2. 성령의사역을논하라. (668-677) (Discuss the operations of the Holy Spirit in general.) (423-431) 3. 보통은혜를논하라. (678-693) (Discuss Common Grace.) (432-446)
4. 보통은혜와특별은혜의차이점들을설명하라. (682-683) (Explain the points of distinction between special and common grace.) (436-437) 5. 보통은혜의열매를논하라. (688-690) (Explain the Fruits of Common Grace) (441-444) 6. 개혁파신학의보통은혜론에대한각종반론들을설명하라. (690-693) (Discuss various objections to the Reformed Doctrine of Common Grace.) (444-446) 7. 신비적연합을논하라. (694-701) (Discuss the mystical union.) (447-453) 8. 부르심일반과외적부르심을논하라. (702-713) (Discuss calling in general and external calling.) (454-464) 9. 중생과효과적부르심을논하라. (714-728) (Discuss regeneration and effectual calling.) (465-478) 10. 회심을논하라. (729-742) (Discuss conversion.) (430-492) 11. 신앙을논하라. (743-761) (Discuss faith.) (483-509) 12. 신앙과확신에대하여논하라. (758-761) (Discuss the relationship between faith and assurance.) (507-509) 13. 칭의를논하라. (762-778) (Discuss justification.) (510-526) 14. 성화를논하라. (779-797) (Discuss sanctification.) (527-544) 15. 성도의견인을논하라. (798-803)
(Discuss perseverance of the saints.) (545-549) ( 예답 ) 1) 성도의견인론의역사이교리는어거스틴에의해최초로설파되었다. 그는선택된자가궁극적으로타락하지는않을것이라고주장하지만동시에새생명과진정한신앙을부여받은자들중일부가은혜로부터완전히타락하여궁극적으로영원한저주를받는것을가능한일이라고보았다. 로마교회는성도의견인론을부인하며자신의견인을인간의불확실한순종에의존하게했다. 루터교회는성도의견인을인간의신앙의지속적활동에의존하게하고진정한신자들도완전히은혜로부터타락할수있다고주장함으로써이를불확실하게만들었다. 칼빈주의적교회만이이교리를절대적인확신을부여할수있는형태로주장한다. 그러나알미니안주의자들은신자의견인을신앙하고자하는의지와선행에의존하게했다. 2) 견인교리의진술성도의견인교리는하나님께서중생시키며은혜의신분으로효과적으로부름받은사람들이그신분에서완전히혹은궁극적으로타락하지않고은혜의신분에서끝까지견디어내어영원히구원받게될것이라는교리이다. 개혁파는성화에서와같이성도의견인에있어서도인간이협력한다고믿고있지만, 성도의견인을우선적으로신자의활동이나성향이라고규정하지는않는다. 그들은신자가홀로남아있으면타락해버릴것이라는사실을강조한다. 엄격히말해견인하는분은인간이아니라하나님이시다. 견인은심령안에시작된신적은혜의사역이지속되고완성에이르게하는신자안에서의성령의지속적사역이다. 3) 견인의교리에대한증명 (1) 성경의직접적진술 : 요10:27-29, 롬11:29, 빌1:6등은직접적으로견인의교리를가르친다. (2) 추론적증명성도의견인은가. 선택의교리로부터, 나. 구속언약의교리로부터, 다. 그리스도의공로와중보기도의효력으로부터, 라. 그리스도와의신비적연합으로부터, 마. 마음안에서의성령의사역으로부터, 바. 구원의확신으로부터증명될수있다. 4) 견인에대한반론들 (1) 인간의자유와모순된다. 견인의교리가인간의자유와모순된다는주장이있다. 그러나이러한반론은진정한자유는무관심의자유나혹은도덕적이며영적인일들에서잘못된선택을할수있는능력으로구성된다는잘못된가정에서출발한다. 하지만이는오류이다. 진정한자유는거룩함의방향으로의자기결정이다. (2) 태만과부도덕으로인도한다.
견인의교리가태만, 방종, 심지어부도덕까지도초래할것이라고강하게주장되고있다. 그릇된안정감이이견인의교리로부터유래될수있다. 그러나이는그릇된주장이다. 왜냐하면성경은비록우리가하나님의은혜에의해보호받는다고말하지만, 이교리는우리가윌편에서의지속적인경계와열심, 기도없이지내도록방임한다는사상을전개하지는않기때문이다. 성화를위한능동적인노력이성공하리라는확신은, 성화를위한노력을경주하는데있어서최선의자극이될것이다. (3) 성경에위배된다. 가. 배교에대한경고들이있는데이는신자가타락하지않는다면전혀불필요했을것이다. 그러나이러한경고들은인간적인측면에서모든문제를고려한것이요, 진지한의도로진술된것이다. 이들은자기점검을촉진시키며신자들이견인의길을유지하는도구가된다. 이구절들은말한대상중어느누가배교할것이라는것을증명하는것이아니라이들이이러한죄를범하지않도록수단이강구되어야한다고진술한다. 나. 성경에는신자들이성화의길에서지속적으로정진할것을권면하는구절들이있는데, 이는신자들이끝까지이를수행한다는것이확실하다면불필요할것이다. 이들은견인하지못하는신자가있다는사실을입증하기보다는하나님께서도덕적목적을성취하기위해도덕적수단을사용하신다는것을입증하고있다. 다. 어떤사람들은성경이실제적인배교의사례들을기록하고있다고말한다. 그러나이러한사례들은진정한구원적신앙을소유하고있는진정한신자들이은혜로부터타락할수있다는것을증명하는것이아니다. 이를위해서는이구절들에서언급된사람들이중생에근거하지않은일시적신앙이아니라그리스도안에서진정한신앙을소유했다는것을먼저증명해야할것이다. 성경은진정한신앙을고백하지만이신앙을지니지못한사람들이존재한다고가르쳐준다. 5) 이교리를부정한다면구원은인간의지에의존하게된다. 견인의교리를부정한다면실제로인간의구원은전적으로하나님의은혜보다는인간의의지에의존하게된다. 그러므로견인의교리를고수하는것은절대적으로중요하다. 견인의교리는큰위로와능력의근원, 즉감사에대한자극, 자기헌신의동기, 위험시에는불기둥이될수있다. 1) Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints in History The doctrine was first explicitly taught by Augustine. However, he held that the elect could not so fall away as to be finally lost, but at the same time considered it possible that some who were endowed with new life and true faith could fall from grace completely and at last suffer eternal damnation. The Church of Rome with its Semi-Pelagianism, including the doctrine of free will, denied the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and made their perseverance dependent on the uncertain obedience of man. The Lutheran Church makes it uncertain by making it contingent on man's continued activity of faith, and by assuming that true believers can fall completely from grace. It is only in the Calvinistic Churches that the doctrine is maintained in a
form in which it affords absolute assurance. The Arminians rejected this view and made the perseverance of believers dependent on their will to believe and on their good works. 2) Statement of the Doctrine of Perseverance The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is that they who have been regenerated and effectually called by God to a state of grace can neither totally nor finally fall away from that state, but shall certainly persevere therin to the end and be eternally saved, though they may sometimes be overcome by evil and fall in sin. The Reformed do not consider the perseverance of the saints as being a disposition or activity of the believer, though they certainly believe that man co-operates in it just as he does in sanctification. They even stress the fact the believer would fall away, if he were left to himself. It is, strictly speaking, not man but God who perseveres. Perseverance may by defined as that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer, by which the work of divine grace that is begun in the heart, is continued and brought to completion. It is because God never forsakes His work that believers continue to stand to the very end. 3) Proof for the Doctrine of Perseverance (1) Direct statement of Scripture There are some important passages of Scripture that directly states the doctrine of perseverance such as John 10:27-29, Rom. 11:29, Phil. 1:6 (2) Inferential Proofs The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints can be proved: (A) From the doctrine of election. (B) From the doctrine of the covenant of redemption. (C) From the efficacy of the merits and intercession of Christ. (D) From the mystical union with Christ. (E) From the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart. (F) From the assurance of salvation. 4) Objections to the Doctrine of Perseverance (1) It is said that the doctrine of perseverance is inconsistent with human freedom. However, this objection proceeds on the false assumption that real freedom consists in the liberty of indifference, or the power of contrary choice in moral and spiritual matters. This is erroneous. True liberty consists exactly in self-determination in the direction of holiness. (2) It is asserted that it leads to indolence, license, and even immorality. However, although the Bible tells us that we are kept by the grace of God, it does not encourage the idea that God keeps us without constant watchfulness, diligence, and prayer on our part. The certainty of success in the active striving for sanctification is the best possible stimulus to ever greater
exertion. (3) It is contrary to Scripture a. There are warnings against apostasy which would seem to be quite uncalled for, if the believer could not fall away. But these warnings regard the whole matter from the side of man. They prompt self-examination, and are instrumental in keeping believers in the way of perseverance. They prove that the use of means is necessary to prevent them from committing sin. b. There are also exhortations, urging believers to continue in the way of sanctification, which would appear to be unnecessary. However, they do not prove that any of the believers exhorted will not persevere, but only that God uses moral means for the accomplishment of moral ends. c. It is said that Scripture records several cases of actual apostasy. However it must be shown first that the persons indicated in these passages had true faith in Christ, and not a mere temporal faith. The Bible teaches us that there are persons who profess the true faith, and yet are not of the faith. 5) The denial of this doctrine makes salvation dependent on man's will. The denial of the doctrine of perseverance virtually makes the salvation of man dependent on the human will rather than on the grace of God. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to maintain the doctrine of perseverance. It may be a source of great comfort and power, - an incentive to gratitude, a motive to self-sacrifice, and a pillar of fire in the hour of danger. 교회론 (Doctrine of the Church) 1. 성경에나타난교회의명칭과교회론의역사를논하라. (809-818) (Discuss scriptural names of the Church and the doctrine of the Church in history.) (553-561) 2. 교회의성질을논하라. (819-836) (Discuss the nature of the Church.) (562-578) 3. 교회의본질에대한다양한견해를논하라. (819-822) (Explain various views on the essence of the church) (562-565) 4. 교회의속성을설명하라. (829-833) (Explain the Attributes of the Church) (572-576)
5. 교회의표지를설명하라. (834-836) (Explain the Marks of the Church) (576-578) 6. 교회의정치에대한다양한이론들을설명하라. (835-839) (Explain the different theories respecting the government of the church) (579-581) 7. 개혁파혹은장로교제도의근본원리를논하라. (837-843) (Discuss the fundamental principles of the Reformed or Presbyterian System.) (579-584) ( 예답 ) 개혁파는그들의교회정치제도가세칙까지하나님의말씀에의하여결정되었다고주장하는것이아니라그교회의근본원리들이직접성경에서인출된것이라고주장한다. 개혁교회는모든세칙들을하나님의법규라고주장하는것이아니고다만이제도의일반적인근본원리를그렇게주장하는것뿐이다. 개혁교회는많은세부적인항목들이편의와인간의지혜에의하여결정되었다는 사실을기꺼이인정한다. 그러므로일반적인구조가엄격하게유지되어야하지만세부항목들은 신중한배려와적절한교회의관습에따라변화될수있다. 1) 그리스도는교회의머리이며모든교회의권위의원천이다. 로마교회는교회에대한교황의수위권을주장하는데가장큰역점을둔다. 개혁파는그리스도가교회특히유형교회의유일한머리라는사실을강조한다. 그리스도는교회와살아있는관계를맺으실뿐만아니라교회법의제정자요교회의왕이시다. 유기적이고생명적인의미에서그리스도는교회의머리이다. 또한교회에대해권위를가지고다스린다는의미에서도유형교회의머리가되신다. 그리스도는교회를제정하셨다. ( 마16:18) 은혜의방편곧말씀과성례를제정하셨다. ( 마28:19등 ) 그리스도는교회에헌법과직원들을주시고그들을신적인권위로옷입히신다. 2) 그리스도는말씀이라는방편을통하여권위를행사하신다. 그리스도는세상왕처럼힘으로다스리는것이아니라주관적으로는교회안에서역사하는성령을통하여객관적으로는권위의표준인말씀을통하여다스리신다. 교회의직원들에게는절대적이고독립적인권세가없고다만파생적이고봉사적인권세만있다. 3) 왕인그리스도께서교회에권세를주셨다. 교회권세의일차적이고적법한주체는누구인가? 로마카톨릭교회는성직자에게주었다고말한다. 독립파들은교회에주어졌고교회직원은단지몸의일부기관에지나지않는다고말한다. 옳은입장은
교회권세가평신도와직원에게동등하게부여되었으나, 직원들은자신의임무를수행하는데필요한권세를추가로부여받았다는견해이다. 4) 그리스도는대표적기관들에의해이권세가특별히행사되도록정하셨다. 그리스도는전체로서의교회에권세를위임하셨지만이권세가교리예배권징의유지를위하여틀별히세우신대표적인기관들을통해행사되게하셨다. 5) 교회의권세는근본적으로지교회의당회에있다. 교회의권위또는권세가일차적으로교회의총회에있는것이아니고지교회의당회에있다는것이다. 그자치권을존중한다. 그러나교리적법적행정적목적을위하여상호의무와권리를적절하게규정한보다더튼조직체를형성할권리와의무가있음을강조한다. Reformed Churches do not claim that their system of Church government is determined in every detail by the Word of God, but do assert that its fundamental principles are directly derived from Scripture. They do not claim a jus divinum for the details, but only for the general fundamental principles of the system, and are quite ready to admit that many of its particulars are determined by expediency and human wisdom. Therefore, while the general structure must be rigidly maintained, some of the details may be changed in the proper ecclesiastical manner for prudential reasons, such as the general profit of the churches. 1) Christ is the Head of the Church and the source of all its authority. The Church of Rome considers it of the greatest importance to maintain the headship of the Pope over the Church. The Reformers maintained and defended the position that Christ is the only Head of the Church. Christ is the only lawful Head of the visible Church, and is therefore the only supreme Lawgiver and King of the Church. Christ is the organic Head of the invisible Church. Christ is the Head of the Church, not only in the organic sense, but also in the sense that He has authority and rule over it. He instituted the Church. He instituted the means of grace, namely the Word and the sacraments. He gave to the Church its constition and officers, and clothed them with divine authority. 2) Christ exercises His authority by means of His royal Word. Christ rules the Church not by force as the earthly kings do, but subjectively by His Spirit, which is operative in the Church, and objectively by the Word of God as the standard of authority. The officers of the Church have no absolute or independent, but only a derived and ministerial power.
3) Christ as King has endowed the Church with power. Who are the first and proper subjects of Church power? To whom has Christ committed this power? Roman Catholics answer: to the officers. The independents answer: to the Church at large. Therefore the officers are merely the organs of the body as a whole. According to another view, representing a mean between these two extremes, ecclesiastical power is committed by Christ to the Church as a whole, that is to the ordinary members and the officers alike; but in addition to that the officers receive such an additional measure of power as is required for the performance of their respective duties in the Church of Christ. 4) Christ provided for the specific exercise of this power by representative organs. While Christ committed power to the Church as a whole, He also provided for it that this power should be exercised ordinarily and specifically by representative organs, set aside for the maintenance of doctrine, worship, and discipline. 5) The power of the Church resides primarily in the governing body of the local Church. The power or authority of Church does not reside first of all in the most general assembly of any Church, but it has its original seat in the consistory or session of the local Church. Thus the Reformed system honors the autonomy of the local church. At the same time it also maintains the right and duty of the local church to unite with other similar churches on a common confessional basis, and form a wider organization for doctrinal, judicial, and administrative purposes, with proper stipulations of mutual obligations and rights. 8. 교회의직원들을논하라. (843-847) (Discuss the officers of the Church.) (584-588) 9. 교회의회의를논하라. (847-851) (Discuss the ecclesiastical assemblies.) (588-592) 10. 교회의권세를논하라. (852-862) (Discuss the power of the Church.) (593-603) 11. 은혜의방편에대하여논하라. (865-870) (Discuss the means of grace in general.) (604-609) 12. 은혜의방편으로서의말씀을논하라. (871-876)
(Discuss the Word as a means of grace.) (610-615) 13. 성례일반에대하여논하라. (877-883) (Discuss the sacraments in general.) (616-621) 14. 세례에대하여논하라. (884-906) (Discuss baptism.) (622-643) 15. 유아세례에대하여논하라. (895-906) (Discuss infant baptism.) (632-643) 16. 성찬에대하여논하라. (907-922) (Discuss the Lord's Supper.) (644-658) 17. 성찬이의미하고인치는것들과효력을논하라. (914-915, 918-920) (Discuss the things signified and sealed in the Lord's Supper, and its efficacy.) (650-651, 654-656) 종말론 (Doctrine of the Last Things) 1. 종말론을철학과종교, 교회사, 교의학의다른영역과관련하여논하되종말론의내용을설명하라. (926-932) (Discuss eschatology in relation to philosophy, religion, Church history, rest of dogmatics, and its contents.) (661-667) 2. 육체적죽음을논하라. (935-939) (Discuss physical death.) (668-671) 3. 영혼의불멸성에대하여논하라. (940-947) (Discuss the immortality of the soul.) (672-678) 4. 중간상태에대하여논하라. (948-964) (Discuss the intermediate state.) (679-694)
5. 그리스도의재림에대하여논하라. (967-981) (Discuss the second coming of Christ.) (695-707) 6. 재림의시간, 방식, 목적을논하라. (977-981) (Discuss the time, manner, and the purpose of the second coming of Christ.) (703-707) 7. 천년왕국에관한제견해들을평가하라. (982-994) (Evaluate major millennial views.)(708-719) 8. 죽은자의부활에대하여논하라. (995-1003) (Discuss the resurrection of the dead.) (720-727) 9. 최후심판의성격과표준을논하라. (1004-1011) (Discuss the nature and standard of the Final Judgement.) (728-734) ( 예답 ) 1) 심판의본질그것은역사속에서의하나님의섭리와동일한영적이고비가시적이며무한한과정이아니다. 그러나이것은반드시인식되는것은아니지만섭리적심판을부인하는것은아니다. 하나님은현세에서도악을처벌하시고선을보상하시지만그것은적극적이거나자연적결과로주어진다. 그러나현세에서는종종악이처벌되지않고지속되며선또한약속된상급을받지못한다. 성경은현재의명백한모순들을제거하는수단으로서최후심판을바라보라고가르친다. 2) 심판의표준성도와죄인의심판의표준은하나님의계시된뜻이다. 즉이방인들은그들의마음에새겨진자연의법에따라, 구약의이스라엘백성들은구약계시에의해서, 복음을받은자들은복음의빛에의해심판받는다. 그러나이것이상이한사람들에게상이한구원의조건이있다는말은아니다. 구원은오직예수그리스도의의로옷입었느냐의여부로결정된다. 천국의복락과지옥의형벌은차이가있는데이것은육체로있을때행한일에따라결정된다. ( 마11:22,24, 눅12:47,48;20:47, 단12:3, 고후9:6) 1) The Nature of the Final Judgement The final judgement is not a spiritual, invisible, and endless process, which is identified with God's providence in history. This is not equivalent to a denial of the fact that there is a
providential judgement of God in the vicissitudes of individuals and nations, though it may not always be recognized as such. God even in the present life visits evil with punishment and rewards the good with blessings, and these punishments and rewards are in some cases positive, but in other instances appear as the natural providential results of the evil committed or of the good done. However the evil sometimes continues without due punishment, and the good is not always rewarded with the promised blessings in life. The Bible teaches us to look forward to a final judgement as the removal of all the apparent discrepancies of the present. 2) The Standard of Judgement The standard by which saints and sinners are judged will evidently be the revealed will of God. The Gentiles will be judged by the law of nature, inscribed in their hearts, the Israelites of the old dispensation by the Old Testament revelation and by that only, and those who have enjoyed, besides the light of nature ad the revelation of the Old Testament, the light of the gospel, will be judged according to the greater light which they have received. This does not mean that there will be different conditions of salvation for different classes of people. For all those who appear in judgment entrance into, or exclusion from, heaven will depend on the question, whether they are clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. But there will be different degrees, both of the bliss of heaven and of the punishment of hell. And these degrees will be determined by what is done in the flesh. (Mt 11:22,24; Lk 12:47,48; 20:47; Dan 12:3; II Cor 9:6) 10. 최후심판에대하여잘못된견해들을논박하라. (1004-1008) (Refute erroneous views respecting the Final Judgement.) (728-731) 11. 최후의상태에대하여논하라. (1012-1015) (Discuss the Final State.) (735-738)
교회헌법 ( 정치및헌법적규칙 ) Constitution of the Church (Form of Government and Constitutional Rules) 미주한인예수교장로회헌법 ( 발행처 : 미주한인예수교장로회, 2008.8.15) Book of Church Order, KAPC, August 15, 2008 Q 01 장로회정치를설명하시오 (p.49) A. 지교회교인들이장로를선택하여당회를조직하고, 그당회로하여금치리권을행사하게하는, 주권이교인에게있는민주적정치이다. ( 답안견본 ) Q 01 Explain the Presbyterian Government. (p.48) A. Each E local congregation elect elders to form the session having the authority to rule over the congregation. The most democratic form of the government where the members of local church have the hegemony. (Sample) Q 02 교회의자유를설명하시오 (p.51) ( 장로회정치 8 개원리중 ) Q 02 Explain the Liberty of the Church. (p.50) Q 03 교회의직원선거권을설명하시오 (p.53) Q 03 Explain the right to elect officers of the local church.(p.52) Q 04 하나님이세우신교회 ( 교회설립 ) 에대하여설명하시오 (p.55) Q 04 Explain the organization of a church. (p.54) Q 05 유형교회와무형교회를구별하시오 (p.55) Q 05 Explain the difference between the Church Visible and the Church Invisible.(p.54) Q 06 교회의항존직에대하여설명하시오 (p.57). Q 06 Explain the perpetual officers of the church (p.56) Q 07 다음중교회의임시직원이아닌것에 x 표를하시오. (p.57) 목사 ( ) 장로 ( ) 집사 ( ) 전도사 ( ) 권사 ( ) 서리집사 ( ) Q 07 Which of the following is not Temporary Officers of the Church? (p.56) Pastor( ) Elder( ) Deacon( ) Evangelist( ) Kwonsa( ) Acting deacon( ) Q 08 교회의준직원에대하여설명하시오.(p.59) Q 08 Explain the extraordinary officers of the church (p.58) Q 09 본교단이정하는목사의자격을쓰시오 (p.61) Q 09 Explain the qualifications of a pastor of the KAPC. (p.60) Q 10 목사의의의를설명하시오 (p.61) Q 10 Explain the definitions of a pastor. (p.60) Q 11 지교회를관리하는목사의직무를설명하시오 (p.63) Q 11 Explain the duties of the pastor of the local church. (p.62)
Q 12 목사의칭호를그담임한시무에따라서설명하시오 (p. 63) Q 12 Explain how the pastor may be termed differently according to his type of work. (p.62) Q 13 장로의자격을설명하시오 (p. 67) Q 13 Explain the qualifications of Ruling Elders. (p.66) Q 14 장로의직무를설명하시오 (p. 67) Q 14 Explain the duty of Ruling Elders. (p.66) Q 15 집사의직무를설명하시오 (p. 69). Q 15 Explain the duty of Deacons. (p.68) Q 16 당회, 노회, 총회의회집에대하여설명하시오 (p. 71). Q 16 Explain the Meetings of Session, Presbytery and the General Assembly. (p.70) Q 17, 치리회의권한을설명하시오 (p. 73) Q 17 Explain the power of Church Courts. (p.72) Q 18, 당회의성수는어떻게이루어지는지설명하시오 (p. 73) Q 18 Explain the quorum of the Church Session. (p.72) Q 19 당회의직무를설명하시오 (p. 75) Q 19 Explain the duty of the Church Session. (p.74) Q 20 당회는어떤경우에누가소집할수있는지설명하시오 (p. 77) Q 20 Explain when the Meeting of Session can convene. (p.76) Q 21 당회가구비할각종명부록은어떤것이있습니까? (p. 79) Q 21 What kind of rosters must the Session have? (p.78) Q 22 노회의조직에필요한요건은무엇입니까? (p. 81). Q 22 What are the requirements for forming a Presbytery? (p.80) Q 23 노회회원의자격을설명하시오 (p. 81). Q 23 Explain the qualifications of the Members of a Presbytery. (p.80) Q 24 노회의직무를설명하시오 (p. 81) Q 24 Explain the duty of Presbytery. (p.80) Q 25 노회회집에대하여설명하시오 (p. 87) Q 25 Explain the meetings of the Presbytery. (p.86) Q 26 총회의성수에대하여설명하시오. (p. 81) Q 26 Explain the quorum of General Assembly. (p.80) Q 27 총회의권한 5 가지를설명하시오 (p. 89) Q 27 Explain the five Powers of General Assembly. (p.87) Q 28 치리장로와집사 ( 안수집사 ) 의임기에대하여설명하시오 (p. 95) Q 28 Explain the Term of offices of ruling Elders and Deacons. (p.94)