인간학적 종교(기독교) 비판에 대한 칼 바르트의 계시론적‘종교 비판’ (K. Barth’s revalational Critic on the Anthropological Critic of the Chrisitanity)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국조직신학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국조직신학논총 / 28호 / 245 ~ 279페이지
· 저자명 : 김재진

초록

이 연구를 통하여 우리는 예수 그리스도를 통하여 자기 자신을 계시하신 여호와 하나님의 기독교와 인간의 사유에서 출발한 종교나 종교철학 사이에 존재하는 경계선이 무엇인지를 명백히 인식하게 될 것이다. 즉 아무리 기독교를‘종교화’하더라도 역으로 아무리 기독교를‘인간학’으로 전락시키더라도, 영원히 남아 있는 기독교의 핵심이 무엇인지를 간접적으로 이해하게 될 것이다.

영어초록

19-20th century ‘religious criticism’, there are two directions or two starting points. One of them was the ‘religious criticism’, or ‘atheistic Christian criticism’ attempted by L. Feuerbach (1804-1872), Karl Marx (1818-?) and Sigmund Freud (1856-1 9 3 9 ) .
Another direction of ‘Religious criticism’ is ‘theistic Christian criticism’ attempted by Rudolf Bultmann (1850-1976), Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945). The attributes of this presentation is to understand two directions of ‘religious criticism’mentioned above. Saying profoundly, in the following research,characteristics of ‘religious criticism’ criticizing the Christian Gospel on the ‘philosophical or psychological’ perspective and of the claiming of the ‘Entmythologisierung’ and ‘Non-Religionisierung’ of the Christianity on the theistic perspective are to be interpreted analystically.
According to the research results, the ‘religious criticism’attempted by Feuerbach, and Karl Marx and Freud Freud in the 19th century is ‘the critic of Christianity’ as the products by the human mind. The starting point of these ‘religious criticism’, needless to say, is just ‘atheistic’. According to the anthropological religious criticism by atheists, the Christianity is considered as the production of human ideals. So atheists have understood the Christianity under the ‘ideological Idol’ of the human being. Bultmann as a theistic critic of religion insists on the non-mystical interpretation of the holistic ‘massage (kerygma)’ of the Testament. According to him,because the Christian Gospel is written mythically in the semantic.
‘Entmythologisierung of the Christian Gospel’, namely of ‘Kerygma’, for him, however, made the Christianity corrupted into the religious ethics. In other words, Making a history of the God’s transcendental work, Bultmann has identified the self revelation of God revealed in the history and in Jesus Christ within lessons for human life. As a result, his ‘Entmythologisierung’ of the Christianity made it a religion as human ethics without God.
Against to Bultmann’s ‘Entmythologisierung’, however, K. Barth has taken God’s self revelation taken place in Christ to starting point of the Christian understanding. Emphasizing the transcendental work of God in the history, Barth has criticized ‘religious criticism’ which is worked to that time antithetically and restored the theology of revelation. So he took God’s self revelation in Jesus Christ, the starting point of interpretation of the Bible as well as all the doctrine.
He confirmed that the Christianity is not the projects of human about God, the absolute, but the testimony for God’s self revelation in Jesus Christi. In the discussion with Karl Barth, Bonhoeffer criticizes him as the idealistic positivist of the revelation of God and has refreshed the Martin Luther’s theology of the cross in the prospect ecclesiology.
He claims, transcendental revealed theology always stays in the theological tendency that God is called as only the ‘mechanical Deus ex machina’. Therefore he interpreted ‘self revelation of God’as Jesus Christ existing as the Church on the ground. In other words,the church on the ground for Bonhoeffer is the existential form of Jesus Christ.

참고자료

· 없음