판넨베르그와 헤프너의 신학에서 바라본 신학적 인간학의 역할 (The Role of the Theological Anthropology Viewed from the Theologies of Pannenberg and Hefner)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 장로회신학대학교 세계선교연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 선교와신학 / 26호 / 249 ~ 277페이지
· 저자명 : 이신형

초록

본 논문이 논의하는 것은 신학적 인간론의 신학에서의 위치와 역할에 대한 것이다. 신학적 인간론이 신학의 주제인 신에 대한 진술에서 전제로 작용할 것인가 아니면 구성 원리가 되어야 하는가에 대한 가치 판단적인 논의를 하는 것이 논문의 주요한 내용이다. 논의를 끌어가기 위해서 신학적 인간론에 대한 두 가지 입장이 선택된다. 판넨베르그의 신학적 인간론과 헤프너의 신학적 인간론이다. 그러나 이 논문은 판넨베르그와 헤프너의 신학적 인간론에 대한 깊은 논의를 제공하지 않는다. 그것보다 이 논문이 관심하는 것은 그들의 신학적 인간론이 어떤 입장을 갖고 있는가를 탐구하는 것이다. 탐구하는 과정에서 신학적 인간론에 대해서 설명할 수밖에 없으나 설명 자체는 일차적인 관심에서 제외된다. 본 논문은 신학적 인간론의 신학의 위치와 역할에 대한 물음에 집중한다. 그리고 가치 판단을 한다. 그것은 보다 더 바람직한 것을 제시하기 위해서이다. 신학의 주제인 신에 대한 해명과 설명에 대한 전제로서 신학적 인간론이 바람직한 것인지 아니면 신에 대한 진술을 새롭게 구성하는 원리가 보다 더 바람직한 것인지를 제시한다. 필자는 신학적 인간론이 보다 더 바람직한 것이 되려면 구성 원리가 되어야 한다고 판단한다. 그것이 필자가 제시하는 것이다.

영어초록

This article deals with the fundamental question of the proper way of relating the scientific human understanding to theological articulation. What I mean by it is that if we embrace the scientific knowledge of the way really things are into the theological circle of the thought, we have to decide whether the scientific knowledge of the way really things are is the basis of what the discourse of God is about. In other words, when theology is getting into the scientific world view, theology comes to know that time has reached to the crucial moment of reformulating the christian faith in terms of its relationship to God. Therefore the dialogue between theology and science is not only the one of the theological subjects, but also the most important subject per se. In fact, getting into the scientific knowledge and embracing it into theological circle of thought is the most challenging and dangerous attempt to build theological system. It is challenging because it gives an opportunity for theology to reenter the intellectual world of science. It is also dangerous because it might lose the distinguished character of theology in terms of the science of faith.
There are two ways of reformulating the concept of God based upon the theological anthropology in terms of accumulations of the scientific knowledge, if theology seriously take the dialogue with science. One way of doing it is to take the scientific understanding of human nature as the basis upon the theological articulation of the subject. In that case, the theological anthropology becomes the presupposition for the theology. The other way of doing it is to take the scientific knowing of human nature as the material for the theological enterprise. In that case, the theological anthropology becomes the fundamental principle for articulating the doctrine of God. In this article, the reader will see the former case in the chapter II and the later case in the chapter III.
However, It is not my intention to simply present their treatments of the theological anthropology. When I present their views of it, I intend to make a value judgement for their views in order to make a room for the future of theology in terms of the science. What I mean by it, I incline to the Hefner's treatment of the theological anthropology as for the fundamental principle of the articulation for the subject matter. However, it does not mean that I rule out Pannenberg's treatment of subject matter, especially his contribution to probe into the human problem in terms of the dialectical human nature. In fact, I am thankful to his massive knowledge and endeavor to persuade that God is the only way to get the human being destined.
Nevertheless, the reader will notice that I follow Hefner's circle of thought for articulating the theological anthropology as the principle of theology. In fact, the purpose of this article is to persuade that if we take the theological anthropology as the fundamental principle of theology, the result will be innovating and fruitful for the future of theology. So, I am not integrating their treatments of it into the comprehensive whole. Simply, I do not have a capacity to do that. And I believe that no one is able to do that. As far as concerns, the best I can do is to present which model is more fruitful for the future of theology in the realm of the world of science. It entails to make a value judgement. And I did it.

참고자료

· 없음