Moonchul Shin

DOI: Vol.19(No.0) 1-3, 2010

Abstract

Key Words

Moon Myung Sun

DOI: Vol.19(No.0) 7-39, 2010

Abstract

This thesis is a dialogue between the theology of John Calvin and the Pentecostal’s theology. Although there are some difficulties in this theological research, this research is necessary for the dialogue between two theological traditions of church history. For the discussion with the Pentecostal theology the last edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion was used. And for the comparison with the theology of John Calvin, the theology of Frank D. Macchia was examined, which was revealed through his book, Baptized in the Spirit. In addition to the theology of Frank D. Macchia the theology of David Yonggi Cho was referenced if there were any insufficiency for the comparison in the theology of Frank D. Macchia in the comparison with the theology of John Calvin. In this article the theology of John Calvin and the Pentecostal theology was compared in the focus of five themes: ‘the union with Jesus Christ’, ‘the sacrament’, ‘the love’, ‘the kingdom of God’ and ‘the prayer’. 1) Concerning the union with Jesus Christ: John Calvin and Frank D. Macchia insist that the source of the holiness of the church is Jesus Christ himself. However, the difference between the theology of John Calvin and the Pentecostal theology is shown in the theological expression about the work of the Holy Spirit. Macchia expressed this phenomena using the typical Pentecostal theological term, ‘the baptism in the Holy Spirit’, but John Calvin did not use the term, ‘the baptism in the Holy Spirit’. This is the typical theological difference between the theology of John Calvin and the Pentecostal theology 2) Concerning the Sacraments: As John Calvin emphasized the word of God in the sacraments, Frank D. Macchia also emphasized the word of God in his sacramental theology. The differences of their positions is that Calvin stressed the direct work of the Holy Spirit, as Macchia stressed the divine power in the sacraments, which comes from the Holy Spirit. 3) Concerning love: The main difference between the theology of John Calvin and the Pentecostal theology is the difference of the theological term to the works of the Holy Spirit. Namely, Macchia used the baptism of the Holy Spirit in order to express the phenomena that the law was engraved upon the heart of the Christian, whereas Calvin did not use the typical Pentecostal term, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 4) Concerning the kingdom of God: John Calvin stated that the power of the Holy Spirit or the gift of the Holy Spirit is the power of God, with which the church can defeat Satan in spiritual welfare. However, it seems that Macchia emphasized the baptism of the Holy Spirit more than the power or the gift of the Holy Spirit. And the fight against the Satan in the theology of John Calvin can be compared the fight against the spiritual darkness in the theology of Macchia. Once again, the three main differences between Calvin and Macchia is the difference of the opinion on the term, ‘the baptism in the Holy Spirit. 5) Concerning prayer: Both, John Calvin and the Pentecostal theologian, agree that the fellowship with God is the core of the prayer life. The difference between John Calvin and Macchia will be shown on that point, if the personal fellowship with the Holy Spirit is stressed or not. Namely, in the comparison with the fellowship with Jesus Christ or with God the fellowship with the Holy Spirit itself - the Holy Spirit is only a helper for the fellowship with Jesus Christ - is not important in the theology of John Calvin. On the contrary to this, Macchia also stresses the fellowship with the Holy Spirit like the fellowship with Jesus Christ or with God. The crucial difference between the theology of John Calvin and the Pentecostal theology is the difference of theological expression of term. Above all, the deepest fellowship with Jesus Christ is expressed as ‘the perfect oneness with Jesus Christ’ in the theology of John Calvin. But it is expressed as ‘the fullness with the Holy Spirit’ in the Pentecostal theology. And there is no expression about the baptism with the Holy Spirit in the theology of John Calvin.

Key Words

The Pentaecostal’s Theology, John Calvin, Frank D. Macchia, Union with Jesus Christ, Sacrament, Love, Kingdom of God, Prayer

So Tae Young

DOI: Vol.19(No.0) 41-73, 2010

Abstract

Today’s Korean adolescents tend to give up vision or hope when they face hopeless contexts. Therefore, it is necessary for Christian educators to develop educational programs that nurture hope for hopeless youths. This article maintains that hope is the power to form and transform the identity of Christians. Therefore, the loss of hope of Christian youths means the loss of Christian identity and sense of community in the Church. Hope is the power to heal hopeless youths and to recover their identity as Christians. In other words, hope empowers youths to participate in God’s vision. Youngsan understands hope in the relationship with God. He argues that hope should be in only God because hope in God enable people to transform this world in light of God’s vision. Youngsan’s theology of hope indicates how important hope is in Christianity and suggests how to recover hope of today’s youths. Based on Youngsan’s theology of hope, this article develops a hope-centered curriculum resource that connects church stories with youths’ stories and recovers adolescents’ identity in hope of God.

Key Words

Education, Korean Adolescents, Hope, God’s Vison

Oh Soon Seok

DOI: Vol.19(No.0) 75-91, 2010

Abstract

One of the most distinctive teachings and doctrines of Dr. Yonggi Cho is discussed in The Fourth Dimension in regard to defining God’s presence and His existential communion with human beings. He gives a lucid epistemological and ontological insight into meaning and use of “dimension” in dealing with Christian faith and Christian way of being. For Dr. Cho, in explaining the presence of God and His kingdom was very important issues to the people who suffered and underwent daily predicaments. It is not an easy task to convince God’s existence and His coming Kingdom in a distant future to the non-believers who were struggling with daily matters. People who are living in this world placing their feet on the ground demand concrete and tangible evidence in believing. Their epistemological framework is quite materialistic and phenomenological. Dr. Cho’s immediate task in preaching the gospel and the coming kingdom of God was to explain God and His kingdom in an existentially convincing manner. He had to explain God here and now, not yesterday or tomorrow somewhere over the rainbow. Dr. Cho realized that the Word of God is the Point of Contact in the midst of the wholly otherness between respective dimensions. It is the communal nexus between the visible three dimensional realm and the invisible four dimensional realm. As the Bible testifies, to be (to exist) is to know (to hear) the Word that is of God in us. As Jesus says, eternal life is to know God and His Son who is the way and the truth and the life. Believing in the Word of God is a living in a higher dimensional world. Faith in God’s will in this sense is a higher form of real and eternal existence.

Key Words

Dimension, Word, Spirit, Will, Ontology, Epistemology

Yoon Young Joon

DOI: Vol.19(No.0) 93-128, 2010

Abstract

This article is intended to examine the issue of sharing love and happiness as a part of social salvation. This subject has been expressed in Deut. 15:1-11 and in Youngsan’s sermons and writings. This paper purports to search the grounds of sharing love and happiness in the above biblical text through exegetical study, to examine the relationship between the text and Youngsan’s thought and to confirm the merits of his idea. After studying Deut. 15:1-11 through exegetical method, we can find God is good and He doesn’t want there are the poor in His people. God himself orders the relatively rich to care and support the poor with financial release and loaning. God wants the rich to react against the problem of ‘poverty’ in a faith community with spontaneous acts. God promises many abundant blessings to the obedient of His order. But Deut. 15:1- 11 considers those who not follow His direction as sinners to be cursed. In sum, this text proclaims the rich has the responsibility to give some financial supports to the poor namely to share love and happiness with the poor so that they bring God’s blessing to their community. Proclaiming the ‘Holistic Salvation’ through the ‘Threefold Blessing’, Rev Yonggi Cho’s theology has been done distinguished services to show the multi-dimensioned aspects of salvation. He insists that God is the savior of not only human soul, but also human body and environment. Especially because he found “poverty” doesn’t appear as blessing, he has endeavored to improve the lives of believers. Furthermore, in elucidating the salvation of the environment through Jesus’ redemption, Youngsan didn’t limit his thought to believer’s individual salvation, but has presented sharing love and happiness movement as a solution to many social problems like poverty, homelessness, unemployment etc. Youngsan’s blessing pursues not egoistic, individual and shamanic blessing, but the blessing related to sharing love and happiness which has its root in the Bible. His blessing theory depends upon God’s goodness who gave His only son, Jesus Christ to give love and blessing to believers. For example recently Youngsan founded “The Sharing Love and Happiness Foundation” and has given many supports to the old, the weak, the crippled through that foundation. He has proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus that saves all humankind from sin, poverty, disease, frustration, and has always interested in social problems. Nowadays he does his best to make his opinion be a practical gopsel to the poor and the weak. This is the way Deut. 15:1-11 shows and Youngsan goes.

Key Words

Social Salvation, Love, Poverty, Threefold Blessing, Salvation of Spirit

Jang Kwang Jin

DOI: Vol.19(No.0) 129-163, 2010

Abstract

This article has attempted to suggest a methodology for the studies on pneumatology in the area of systematic theology from the Pentecostal perspective. This writer has felt strongly the needs for an appropriate methodology in the process of seeking for concrete answers to spiritual experiences of millions of Christian believers throughout the world who are experiencing the ministry of the Holy Spirit. In chapter 2, the writer has presented his motivation for the studies on pneumatology from Pentecostal perspective. First, an intensive interest from various Christian groups in the work of the Holy Spirit throughout the 20th century has stimulated him into deeper thought on the role of the Spirit in the life of the church and Christian believers. Secondly, the writer’s own experience of the reality of the Holy Spirit during the time of his experience of Christian suffering from persecution and opposition for the sake of Jesus Christ is another significant factor that has led him to spend a considerable amount of time investigating biblical basis for concrete work of the Holy Spirit for God’s children. Thirdly, the aspect of spiritual experience which is indispensable to the understanding of the person and the work of the Holy Spirit has led the writer to have deep interest in methodology for the studies on pneumatology from the Pentecostal perspective. In chapter 3, the writer has outlined some representative contemporary theologians’ understanding of pneumatology. Here, a short overview of some of the leading systematic theologians of the 20th century has been presented. The theologians discussed here have been chosen because they are recognised as probably the most influential scholars in this field. The understanding of pneumatology of Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jurgen Moltmann, and Pentecostalism has been discussed. In chapter 4, the writer has suggested a methodology for the studies on pneumatology from the Pentecostal perspective. A methodology suggested here has been based on the comparative investigation of biblical text and the context of life and theological works. The first methodology is to achieve an analytical synthesis of biblical data on the role of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life, as attempting to draw coherent statements in doctrinal dimension. The second method of approach to pneumatology from Pentecostal perspective is a narrative approach to the subject of the role of the Holy Spirit working in the context of certain Christian life. By narrative approach is intended the approach that allows the narratives to tell their story for the benefit of the Christian community and the Christian believers. The third method adopted in the study is a dialogical approach. By dialogical approach, is meant the approach in which biblical text, contemporary context and contemporary theologian’s reflections are employed in dialogue to bring about a theological understanding for the benefit of the Christian community and Christian believers. Lastly, since the direction of the methodology suggested here for the studies on pneumatology from Pentecostal perspective is in line with the pursuit of the dynamic role of the Holy Spirit in terms of the experience of Christians and Christian communities, such studies are in need of descriptive approach. Descriptive approach refers to the method that the record itself speaks about the selected theme as it records historical facts as it was.

Key Words

Methodology, Pneumatology, Pentacostalism, Role of the Holy Spirit, Christian life, Believers, Community

Cho Young Mo

DOI: Vol.19(No.0) 165-191, 2010

Abstract

Acts 19:1-7 is one of the most controversial texts in the book of Acts. Being controversial implies that it is difficult to interpret the contents of the text. For example, were the ‘certain disciples’ presented in the passage believers or unbelievers· Also, whose disciples were they· In verse 2, what is the meaning of the saying that they did not even hear that the Spirit existed· Did they really not know the Spirit· Also if they were ones who sincerely believed, why did they get another baptism· What is the meaning of the phenomena that occurred when they received the Spirit· At first sight, it may seem hard to give answers to these questions. This is merely because Acts 19:1-7 does not provide any adequate information to provide sufficient answers. Nevertheless, the questions indicated above have been continuously debated among scholars and commentators with no agreements. In this situation, it is meaningful for us to pay attention to the opinions of one of the greatest pastors in this century concerning this text. In comparison with other scholars, what would be the point of studying how Yonggi Cho(Youngsan), the one who is contributing to worldwide evangelization, understands this text· The writer intended to add some points to this. Foremost, Youngsan, an evangelist and preacher, is one who shall leave his name in Christian history and so studying his opinion about a controversial passage would be meaningful. In addition, comparing the opinion of a great preacher to that of professional scholars about a biblical passage would be obviously fruitful. Lastly, there is a textual analysis regarding the Pentecostal interpretation of Acts 19:1-7. The word “Pentecostal” may have the danger of a premised doctrine preceding. However, we need to put the premise in the back and focus on what the passage itself is telling us. This provides theological and exegetical evidence regarding Youngsan’s(and Pentecostal) interpretation of the passage. The purpose of this article was thus to compare Youngsan’s understanding on Acts 19:1-7 with other notable NT scholars. For this, the writer considered the following main three closely related questions: 1) Were the certain disciples in verse 1 believers or unbelievers·; 2) What does the saying, “We have not heard the gift of the Spirit” in verse 2 mean·; 3) If they were believers, why did they take the second baptism· First, Youngsan asserts that the Ephesian disciples were believers and this conclusion is highly plausible when observing Luke’s expression of them as “those who believed” and “disciples”. Also, regarding the ignorance of the Spirit, Youngsan asserts that when they said that they did not know it, it meant that they did not know Spirit baptism which will be bestowed by the Messiah, not baptism to become believers. This argument may challenge against some scholars(for example, Dunn) who understand that the presence of the Spirit determines whether or not one can be a believer. However, if the reference to the Spirit here in this text is an eschatological sense rather than an ontological sense which will be bestowed by the Messiah who will come after John, Youngsan’s assertion is highly acceptable. Also, the description of the Ephesians as ones who have not received the Spirit despite they were believers is an example of Luke’s pneumalogical perspective. This idea is elucidated in the narrative of Acts 8:14-17. Therefore, Youngsan’s conclusion that there can be a believer without Spirit baptism is possible in a Lukan perspective. In relation to this, Youngsan points out that the reason why the Ephesian disciples took the second baptism was to receive Spirit baptism and this conclusion is right if one looks at the outcomes thereafter. The motivation of the second baptism of the Ephesians is stimulated by Paul’s teaching that the Messiah will eschatologically pour out the Spirit. Instead of a simple motivation of believing in the Messiah, faith about the Messiah who will give the Spirit becomes the direct motivation to take the baptism twice. If this is true, the conclusion Youngsan has given is persuasive. Therefore, Youngsan’s conclusions about important issues that have been brought up from Acts 19:1-7 are, in a theological and exegetical sense, valid.

Key Words

Disciple, Believers, Unbelievers, Evangelization, Pentecostal, Gift of the Spirit, Luke’s Pneumalogical Perspective, Messiah