스위스일치신조와 그 신학사상 및 배경

#15항과16항을주의해서볼것

#15항은그리스도가전생애동안율법에순종하신것이의가됨을설명함

#16항은그리스도의능동적순종을부정하는아미로의보편주의를지적함

#아미로주의에서능동적순종의전가가부정되는이유는이것을말할경우가설적보편주의를말할수없어지기때문이다

#그래서능동적순종과수동적순종을엄격히구분하고능동적순종은그리스도가지닌고유한것으로설명한다

#그리스도수동적순종만이구속의유일한요소로설명한다

#왜냐하면그리스도의능동적순종의전가는이미로서구원의완결을의미하기때문이다.

#WA총회의문서들은제한속죄를고수하면서도모두에게복음이들려져야함을설명한다

#WA총회의결정적영향을준문서가매로우논쟁의현대신학의정수기때문이다.

#WA총회신학을제대로이해하려면퍼거슨의온전한그리스도와보스턴목사의신학이담긴워드피셔의현대신학의정수를필독할것

#이두책은모두번역되어있다

#그리스도의능동적순종의전가는개혁파정통교리다.

#율법의2용도만인정하는것은아미로주의에도미치지못하는이단사상이다

 

Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675)의 배경과 신학사상 그리고 그 영문 번역(Translated by Martin I. Klauber in Trinity Journal 11 (1990): 103-23. Used by permission of the translator.) #feat_이은선

 

스위스 일치신조는 소뮈르 학파의 견해만을 반대하는 신조를 작성하기로 결정되었다. 그리하여 스위스 복음주의 의회는 1674년 6월에 이르러 신조작성을 명령하였고, 스위스 일치신조는 취리히의 하이데거를 중심으로 작성되었다. 이 신조는 1675년에 작성되어 취리히에서 제일 먼저 채택되었고, 제네바에서는 소뮈르 학파의 신학사상을 지지하는 사람들의 반대로 제일 늦게 1679년에야 채택되었다(Martin I. Klauber, Between Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-Protestantism: Jean-Alphonse Turretin(1671-1737) and Enlightened Orthodoxy at the Academy of Geneva, 33).

 

스위스 일치 신조는 26개 항목으로 되어 있다. 이 항목들은 바로 소뮈르 학파의 대표적인 학자들인 카펠, 플레이스, 그리고 아미로의 신학사상들의 오류를 구체적으로 지적하고 개혁파 정통주의의 신학사상을 제시하였다. 전체적으로 볼 때 26개 항목 가운데 처음의 세 항목은 카펠의 맛소라 사본 비평을 비판하였고, 다음으로 4-9항목과 13-25항목까지는 아미로의 교리들의 오류를 지적하였으며, 10-12항목은 플레이스의 교리의 잘못된 것을 분석하고 정통주의 교리를 밝혔다.

 

1-3항에 걸쳐 카펠의 주장을 비판하고 성경영감설을 제시한다. 당시 개혁교회가 로마 가톨릭과 신학에서 최고의 권위가 성경인가 아니면 교회인가를 둘러싸고 치열하게 논쟁하고 있는 가운데 카펠이 히브리 성경의 모음의 영감을 부정하게 전승과정에서 성경 사본의 부패를 주장하였던 것이다. 이에 대해 신조의 1항은 하나님은 모세, 예언자 그리고 사도들에게 말씀을 기록하는 사명을 위탁하셨을 뿐만 아니라, 기록된 말씀이 부패하지 않도록 오늘날까지 보존해 주셨으므로 천지는 없어져도 하나님의 말씀은 일점일획도 없어지지 않을 것이라고 하여 성경의 기록과 보존에서 하나님의 섭리를 설명하여 전승과정에서의 부패를 부정하고 있다. 다음으로 2항에서 히브리어 원문(Original)은 “자음뿐만 아니라 모음 - 그 모음 부호들 자체나 혹은 적어도 그 부호들의 힘 이러한 표현은 모음 부호를 첨가하여 본문의 의미가 분명해지는 것과 모음 부호 자체를 구별하는 것이다.-까지도, 그 성서의 내용뿐만 아니라 말들에 있어서도 다 하나님의 영감으로 된 것”이라고 주장하며, 신약의 원본과 함께 신앙과 생활의 유일하고 완전한 규범을 이룬다고 하였다. 이와 같이 일치신조는 카펠의 주장에 반박하고 하나님의 말씀인 성경의 권위를 유지하기 위해 히브리 성경 원문의 모음 부호의 영감까지 주장하고, 성경의 재료 즉, 내용뿐만 아니라 언어까지 영감 되었다는 축자영감을 주장한다. 이러한 모음 부호 영감 문제에 대해 이것이 당시의 여러 맛소라 사본의 불일치에서 야기되는 문제였으므로, 교의학자들은 카펠의 해석학의 문제가 되는 요소들의 문제를 피하고 성경의 권위와 해석의 문제를 적절하게 취급하는 교리적 문제에 도달하려는 방안을 모색하게 되었다. 그러한 교의적 해결책은 튜레틴과 하이데거와 일치신조에서 발견되는데, 다음의 세 가지를 구별하였다. 1) 성령이 저자들에게 구술하여 기록된 성경의 원문과 후기의 복사본이 구별되어야만 한다. 2) 본문의 내용 혹은 의미의 견지에서 고려되는 성경의 권위는 본문의 단어들의 권위로부터 구별되어야만 한다. 3) 소리에 따라 고려된 모음 부호 혹은 모음 부호의 힘은 모음 부호 자체로부터 구별되어야만 한다.(Richard Muller, “The debate over vowel points and the crisis in orthodox hermeneutics.” The Journal of Medieval! and Renaissance Studies, 10 (1980). 53-72. 66에서)

 

Canon 1: God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have his word, which is the “power of God unto salvation to every one that believes” (Rom 1:16), committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets and the Apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternal care from the time it was written up to the present, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man. Therefore the Church justly ascribes to it his singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world (2 Pet 1:19), a “sure word of prophecy” and “Holy Scriptures” (2 Tim 3:15), from which though heaven and earth pass away, “the smallest letter or the least stroke of a pen will not disappear by any means” (Matt 5:18).

Canon II: But, in particular, The Hebrew original of the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Hebrew Church, “who had been given the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired by God. It thus forms, together with the Original of the NT the sole and complete rule of our faith and practice; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.

Canon III: Therefore, we are not able to approve of the opinion of those who believe that the text which the Hebrew Original exhibits was determined by man’s will alone, and do not hesitate at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider unsuitable, and amend it from the versions of the LXX and other Greek versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch, by the Chaldaic Targums, or even from other sources. They go even to the point of following the corrections that their own rational powers dictate from the various readings of the Hebrew Original itself which, they maintain, has been corrupted in various ways; and finally, they affirm that besides the Hebrew edition of the present time, there are in the versions of the ancient interpreters which differ from our Hebrew text, other Hebrew Originals. Since these versions are also indicative of ancient Hebrew Originals differing from each other, they thus bring the foundation of our faith and its sacred authority into perilous danger.

 

4-6항에서 타락후 선택설을 제시하며 아미로의 가정적 보편주의를 부정한다. 4항에서는 예지예정을 부인한 후에 타락후 선택설을 분명하게 제시한다. 창세전에 하나님은 우리 주 예수 그리스도 안에서 자신의 뜻의 순수하고 선하신 뜻에 따라, 행위에 대한 예지 없이 주권적으로 선택하셨다는 것을 강조하여 예지예정을 부정한다. 그러므로 하나님의 선택은 하나님의 주권적인 행위를 통한 모든 무리가 아니라 일정한 무리에 대한 하나님의 구원 행위이다. 이러한 예정은 하나님의 영광을 나타내시려는 목적을 가지고 있는데 작정의 순서는, “맨 먼저 사람을 완전하게 창조하시고, 그 다음에 그들이 타락하는 것을 허용하시고, 마침내 타락한 사람의 일부를 긍휼히 여기시어, 그러므로 일부를 선택하시나, 나머지는 부패한 무리 속에 남겨 두어, 마침내 그들을 영원한 멸망에 넘겨주시기로 작정하셨다”라고 하여 타락후 선택설을 주장한다. 스위스 일치 신조가 분명하게 타락후 선택설을 주장하는 것은 도르트 신조가 타락후 선택설을 채택한 이후에 제네바 아카데미의 학자들이 그러한 영향으로 그러한 견해를 채택한 영향으로 보인다.

5항은 하나님의 작정에서 그리스도 자신의 위치에 대하여 설명한다. 그리스도는 하나님의 선택의 은혜로운 작정에 포함되는데 선택 자체에 선행하는 공적 있는 원인 혹은 토대로서가 아니라 자신이 또한 선택된 자로 포함된다.(벧전2:4,6) 그리스도는 자신이 선택되고, 예지된 분으로 선택의 작정의 시행에 첫 번째 필수적 요소인 선택된 중보자로서 참여한다. 이러한 주장은 그리스도가 선택의 토대가 되어 모든 사람들을 선택한다는 보편선택설을 부정하는 것이다.

그러므로 일치신조 6항은 1) 하나님이 박애심 혹은 타락한 인류에 대한 일종의 특별한 사랑에 의해, 그들이 믿고자 한다면 모두와 각각의 구원을 목적하였다. 2) 하나님께서 그리스도를 모든 사람과 타락한 사람 각자를 위한 중보자로 임명하셨다. 3) 그리고 시간 안에서 일부 사람들만을 구원한다는 아미로의 가정적 보편주의를 거부한다. 일치신조는 확고한 이중예정의 입장을 취하여 에서의 경우같이 유기자는 이름으로까지 분명하게 배제하고 선택한 자에게만 자비를 보이신다고 주장한다. 그리고 그리스도의 중보자로서의 지명도 선택자들을 위한 것이지, 모든 사람들을 구원하는 선택의 토대가 아니라는 것을 강조하여 보편적 구원론을 부정한다.

 

Canon IV: Before the creation of the world, God decreed in Christ Jesus our Lord according to his eternal purpose (Eph 3:11), in which, from the mere good pleasure of his own will, without any prevision of the merit of works or of faith, to the praise of his glorious grace, to elect some out of the human race lying in the same mass of corruption and of common blood, and, therefore, corrupted by sin. He elected a certain and definite number to be led, in time, unto salvation in Christ, their Guarantor and sole Mediator. And on account of his merit, by the mighty power of the regenerating Holy Spirit, he decreed these elect to be effectually called, regenerated and gifted with faith and repentance. So, indeed, God, determining to illustrate his glory, decreed to create man perfect, in the first place, then permit him to fall, and finally pity some of the fallen, and therefore elect those, but leave the rest in the corrupt mass, and finally give them over to eternal destruction.

Canon V: Christ himself is also included in the gracious decree of divine election, not as the meritorious cause, or foundation prior to election itself, but as being himself also elect (I Pet 2:4, 6). Indeed, he was foreknown before the foundation of the world, and accordingly, as the first requisite of the execution of the decree of election, chosen Mediator, and our first born Brother, whose precious merit God determined to use for the purpose of conferring, without detriment to his own justice, salvation upon us. For the Holy Scriptures not only declare that election was made according to the mere good pleasure of the divine counsel and will (Eph 1:5, 9; Matt 11:26), but was also made that the appointment and giving of Christ, our Mediator, was to proceed from the zealous love of God the Father toward the world of the elect.

Canon VI: Wherefore, we can not agree with the opinion of those who teach: l) that God, moved by philanthropy, or a kind of special love for the fallen of the human race, did, in a kind of conditioned willing, first moving of pity, as they call it, or inefficacious desire, determine the salvation of all, conditionally, i.e., if they would believe, 2) that he appointed Christ Mediator for all and each of the fallen; and 3) that, at length, certain ones whom he regarded, not simply as sinners in the first Adam, but as redeemed in the second Adam, he elected, that is, he determined graciously to bestow on these, in time, the saving gift of faith; and in this sole act election properly so called is complete. For these and all other similar teachings are in no way insignificant deviations from the proper teaching concerning divine election; because the Scriptures do not extend unto all and each God’s purpose of showing mercy to man, but restrict it to the elect alone, the reprobate being excluded even by name, as Esau, whom God hated with an eternal hatred(Rom 9:11). The same Holy Scriptures testify that the counsel and will of God do not change, but stand immovable, and God in the, heavens does whatsoever he will (Ps 115:3; Isa 47:10); for God is in finitely removed from all that human imperfection which characterizes inefficacious affections and desires, rashness repentance and change of purpose. The appointment, also, of Christ, as Mediator, equally with the salvation of those who were given to him for a possession and an inheritance that can not be taken away, proceeds from one and the same election, and does not form the basis of election.

 

7-9항목에 걸쳐서는 아미로의 행위언약의 개념을 부정하고 있다. 아미로는 하나님과 아담의 언약을 자연언약(natural covenant)라고 부르는데, 이 언약의 축복을 에덴에서의 축복되고 지속적인 삶이라고 하였으며, 이 언약에서 하나님의 자비는 충분하게 계시되지 않았다고 하였다. Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and The Amyraut Heresy. (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969.) 146, 151.

그러므로 일치신조는 7-9항목에서 하나님께서 그의 형상으로 우리들을 창조하사 행위언약 하에 두면서 약속을 덧붙였는데, 이 약속은 생명나무에 의해 상징되어 단지 지상적인 생명과 행복의 연속이 아니라, 하나님의 뜻에 순종하였다면 영원한 생명을 약속하셨다고 언급한다. 그리하여 행위언약이 하나님에 대한 순종을 조건으로 천국에서의 영원한 삶이라는 것을 부정하는 아미로의 견해를 부정한다.

 

Canon VII: As all his works were known unto God from eternity, (Acts 15:18), so in time, according to his infinitepower, wisdom, and goodness, he made man, the glory and end of his works, in his own image, and, therefore, upright, wise, and just. Having created man in this manner, he put him under the Covenant of Works, and in this Covenant freely promised him communion with God, favor and life, if indeed he acted in obedience to his will. Canon VIII: Moreover that promise connected to the Covenant of Works was not a continuation only of earthly life and happiness but the possession especially of eternal and celestial life, a life namely, of both body and soul in heaven, if indeed man ran the’ course of perfect obedience, with unspeakable joy in communion with God. For not only did the Tree of Life prefigure this very thing unto Adam, but the power of the law, which, being fulfilled by Christ, who went under it in our place, awards to us nothing other than celestial life in Christ who kept the same righteousness of the law. The power of the law also threatens man with both temporal and eternal death.

Canon IX: Wherefore we can not agree with the opinion of those who deny that a reward of heavenly bliss was offered to Adam on condition of obedience to God. We also do not admit that the promise of the Covenant of Works was any thing more than a promise of perpetual life abounding in every kind of good that can be suited to the body and soul of man in a state of perfect nature, and the enjoyment thereof in an earthly Paradise. For this also is contrary to the sound sense of the Divine Word, and weakens the power of the law considered in itself.

 

10-12항에 걸쳐 플레이스의 아담의 죄의 간접 전가설을 비판하면서 직접 전가설을 주장한다. 10항은 아담의 죄의 전가를 언약의 대표 원리에 의해 설명한다. 아담은 축복의 언약에서 하나님과 자신뿐만 아니라 전체 인류의 머리와 뿌리로서 언약을 맺은 바와 같이, 범죄도 대표 원리에 의해 후손에게 전가된다(롬5:12,19; 고전15:21-22) 아담의 죄는 그의 모든 후손에게 하나님의 신비롭고 정당한 심판에 의해 전가된다. 그러나 죽음의 형벌을 초래하는 인류의 어떤 죄가 선행해야만, 하나님의 정당한 심판에 의해 영적인 죽음으로서 유전적 부패가 전체적인 인류에게 발생하게 된다.

그러므로 인간은 원죄 때문에 본성적으로, 어떤 자범죄를 범하기 전에 출생에서부터 하나님의 진노와 저주에 노출되어 있다. 원죄는 첫째로 아담의 허리에서 범한 범죄와 불순종이고, 둘째는 부모로부터 전달되는 유전적인 부패라는 이중적인 내용으로 구성되어 있다. 인간은 대표의 원리에 의해 전가된 죄와 타고난 유전적 죄로 전체적인 본성이 부패하고 영적으로 죽어 있다.(11항) 그러므로 인간의 원죄는 전가된 죄와 내재적인 유전적 죄로 구성되어 있다.

이러한 원죄관을 가지고 일치신조는 간접적이고 결과적인 전가의 주장은 원죄의 전가의 파괴일 뿐만 아니라 유전적 부패 교리도 위태롭게 하기 때문에 인정할 수 없다고 하였다. 그러므로 일치신조는 아담이 하나님의 지명에 의해 그 후손을 대표하여, 그의 죄가 직접적으로 후손들에게 전가되는 직접적인 전가를 주장하였다.(12항) 그러므로 일치신조는 플레이스가 주장한 원죄의 간접적 전가설은 행위언약에 입각한 아담의 인류의 대표로서의 원죄의 직접적 전가를 부정하는 것이고, 그러한 결과는 부패한 본성의 전가마저 위태롭게 할 것이라고 하여 분명하게 거부하였다. 플레이스는 아담의 범죄의 전가에서 원죄의 직접적인 전가는 부정하고 부패한 본성의 유전만을 주장하였으나, 일치신조는 양자를 동시에 주장하였다.

 

Canon X: God entered into the Covenant of Works not only with Adam for himself, but also, in him as the head and root with thc whole human race. Man would, by virtue of the blessing of the nature derived from Adam, inherit also the same perfection, provided he continued in it. So Adam by his sorrowful fall sinned and lost the benefits promised in the Covenant not only for himself, but also for the whole human race that would be born by the flesh. We hold, therefore, that the sin of Adam is imputed by the mysterious and just judgment of God to all his posterity. For the Apostle testifies that “in Adam all sinned, by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom 5:12,19) and “in Adam all die” (I Cor 15:21Ä22). But there appears no way in which hereditary corruption could fall, as a spiritual death, upon the whole human race by the just judgment of God, unless some sin of that race preceded, incurring the penalty of that death. For God, the most supreme Judge of all the earth, punishes none but the guilty.

Canon XI: For a double reason, therefore, man, because of sin, is by nature, and hence from his birth, before committing any actual sin, exposed to God’s wrath and curse; first, on account of the transgression and disobedience which he committed in the loins of Adam; and, secondly, on account of the consequent hereditary corruption implanted to his very conception, whereby his whole nature is depraved and spiritually dead; so that original sin may rightly be regarded as twofold, imputed sin and inherent hereditary sin.

Canon XII: Accordingly we can not, without harm to the Divine truth, agree with those who deny that Adam represented his posterity by God’s intention, and that his sin is imputed, therefore, immediately to his posterity; and under this mediate and consequent imputation not only destroy the imputation of the first sin, but also expose the doctrine of hereditary corruption to grave danger.

 

13-16항에서 걸쳐서는 선택의 시행에서 삼위일체의 사역을 제한속죄의 관점에서 설명한다. 13항에서는 영원전의 선택의 시행을 아버지의 선택과 아들의 구속 그리고 성령의 성화시키는 사역으로 설명하면서 삼위일체의 일치된 제한속죄론을 주장한다. 그리스도의 시간 안에서의 속죄사역은 새언약의 중보자로서 선택된 자들만을 대신하여 무서운 죽음을 당하셨고, 오직 그들만을 아버지의 은혜의 품으로 회복시켰으며, 분노한 하나님 아버지에게 화해시켰고, 율법의 저주로부터 구출하였다. 그러므로 이러한 그리스도의 속죄사역의 뜻은 구원할 선민들에게만 그리스도를 주신 아버지의 경륜과 함께, 그리고 또한 선민들에게만 영생의 살아있는 소망으로 거룩하게 하시고 인 치시는 성령의 사역과 함께 아버지의 선택, 아들의 구속, 그리고 성령의 성화는 하나이고 동일한 것이라는 완전한 조화 속에서 일치하고 다정하게 협력하신다.

그리스도가 선택된 자들만을 위해서 죽으셨다는 것은 그리스도가 대신하여 죽은 사람들을 위한 구원 자체일 뿐만 아니라 구원의 방편, 특별히 중생시키는 성령과 신앙의 하늘의 선물을 제공하고, 실질적으로 그들에게 수여하시는 데서 분명하게 드러난다.(14항) 그리고 그리스도의 구속의 공로는 십자가의 죽음으로 한정되지 않고 그의 일생동안 율법에 대한 순종도 포함한다는 것을 언급한다. 그러므로 그리스도의 행동이나 고난 모두를 순종이라고 할 수 있다. 그러므로 구속이 고난에 의해서만 성취되었다는 아미로의 견해를 거부한다.(15항)

그러므로 일치신조는 16항에서 다시 한 번 그리스도께서 그들이 믿는다는 불가능한 조건 위에서 모든 사람과 각자를 위해 죽으셨다는 주장, 그리스도는 모두를 위하여 구원을 획득하였는데, 이 구원이 단지 하나님의 정의의 장애물을 제거하였으며, 아버지를 위하여 모든 사람들과 은혜의 새로운 언약에 들어가는 자유를 획득하였다고 주장하는 아미로의 보편적 구원론을 완전히 부정한다. 그리고 #그리스도는_그의_능동적_의를_그_자신의_것으로_주장하고_그의_수동적인_의를_선민들에게_주고_분배한다고_주장할_정도로_그리스도의_능동적이고_수동적인_의를_구분하는_것도_부정한다. 아미로와 함께 소뮈르 학파의 교수였던 #Piscator도_그리스도의_의를_수동적인_의와_능동적_의로_나누고_수동적인_의만을_구원에_적용시켰다.

 

Canon XIII: As Christ was elected from eternity the Head, the Leader and Lord of all who, in time, are saved by his grace, so also, in time, he was made Guarantor of the New Covenant only for those who, by the eternal election, were given to him as his own people, his seed and inheritance. For according to the determinate counsel of the Father and his own intention, he encountered dreadful death instead of the elect alone, and restored only these into the bosom of the Father’s grace, and these only he reconciled to God, the offended Father, and delivered from the curse of the law. For our Jesus saves his people from their sins (Matt 1:21), who gave his life a ransom for many sheep (Matt 20:24, 28; John 10:15), his own, who hear his voice (John 10:27-28), and he intercedes for these only, as a divinely appointed Priest, arid not for the world (John 17:9). Accordingly in expiatory sacrifice, they are regarded as having died with him and as being justified from sin (2 Cor 5:12): and thus, with the counsel of the Father who gave to Christ none but the elect to be redeemed, and also with the working of the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies and seals unto a living hope of eternal life none but the elect. The will of Christ who died so agrees and amicably conspires in perfect harmony, that the sphere of the Father’s election, the Son’s redemption. And the Spirit’s sanctification are one and the same.

Canon XIV: This very thing further appears in this also, that Christ provided the means of salvation for those in whose place he died, especially the regenerating Spirit and the heavenly gift o faith, as well as salvation itself, and actually confers these upon, them. For the Scriptures testify that Christ, the Lord, came to say, the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 15:24), and sends the, same Holy Spirit, the source of regeneration, as his own (John 16:7 8): that among the better promises of the New Covenant of which he was made Mediator and Guarantor this one is pre-eminent, the he will inscribe his law, the law of faith, in the hearts of his people (Heb 8:10); that whatsoever the Father has given to Chris will come to him, by faith, surely; and finally, that we are chose’ in Christ to be his children, holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4-5); but our being God’s holy children proceeds only from faith and the Spirit of regeneration.

Canon XV: But by the obedience of his death Christ, in place o the elect, so satisfied God the Father, that in the estimate of his vicarious righteousness and of that obedience, all of that which he rendered to the law, as its just servant, during his entire life whether by doing or by suffering, ought to be called obedience. For Christ’s life, according to the Apostle’s testimony (Phil 1:8), was nothing but submission, humiliation and a continuous emptying of self, descending step by step to the lowest extreme even to the point of death on the Cross; and the Spirit of God plainly declares that Christ in our stead satisfied the law and divine justice by His most, holy life, and makes that ransom with which God has redeemed us to consist not in His sufferings only, but in his whole life conformed to the law. The Spirit, however, ascribes our redemption to the death, or the blood, of Christ, in no other sense than that it was consummated by sufferings; and from that last definitive and no blest act derives a name indeed, but not in such a way as to separate the life preceding from his death.

Canon XVI: Since all these things are entirely so, we can hardly approve the opposite doctrine of those who affirm that of his own intention and counsel and that of the Father who sent him, Christ died for each and every one upon the condition, that they believe. [We also cannot affirm the teaching! that he obtained for all a salvation, which, nevertheless, is not applied to all, and by his death merited a salvation and faith for no one individually but only removed the obstacle of divine justice, and acquired for the Father the liberty of entering into a new covenant of grace with all men. Finally, they so separate the active and passive righteousness of Christ, as to assert that he claims his active righteousness as his own, but gives and imputes only his passive righteousness to the elect. All these opinions, and all that are like these, are contrary to the plain Scriptures and the glory of Christ, who is Author and Finisher of our faith and salvation; they make his cross of none effect, and under the appearance of exalting his merit, they, in reality diminish it.

 

17-20항은 소명이 보편적이라는 것을 부정한다. 이러한 항목들은 가시적 교회의 한계와 정상적인 은혜의 수단을 넘어 소명을 확대하는 아미로에 반대하여 소명이 제한적이라는 것을 주장한다. 17항은 하나님의 부르심이 구약뿐만 아니라 유대인과 헬라인 사이에 차이가 없어진 신약시대에도 보편적인 것이 아니라는 것을 지적한다. 모두가 아니라 많은 사람이 부름 받았다는 그리스도의 증언(마20:16), 비두니아로 복음 전하러 가는 바울과 디모데의 길을 허락지 않으시는 성령의 사역(행16:7), 과거뿐만 아니라 현재도 소문으로도 그리스도를 듣지 못한 수많은 사람이 있다는 경험의 증거는 신약시대에도 소명이 보편적이 아니라는 것을 증거 한다. 18항은 일반은총의 역할이 외적 소명의 기능이 아니라 변명하지 못하게 하려는 기능을 가지고 있다는 것을 설명하여 하나님의 부르심이 보편적이라는 것을 부인한다.

복음의 설교를 통한 외적 소명이 모든 사람들을 향한 보편적인 것이지만, 이것이 보편적 구원을 위한 것은 아니다. 아들을 알고 그를 믿는 모든 사람이 영생을 가질 것이라는(요6:40) 것이 하나님의 의지이나, 이러한 “모든”은 오직 선민을 의미할 뿐 보편적 구원의 계획을 만든 것이 아니다. 그리스도의 구속사역이 제한된 것이지만 하나님은 복음 선포가 보편적으로 이루어지게 하시나, 하나님의 뜻에 의해, 하나님의 은혜로부터 유기자들은 강퍅해지는 반면에, 선민만이 보편적으로 제공되는 외적인 소명을 통해 믿게 된다. 그러므로 보편적 복음 선포가 보편적 구원을 위한 것이 아니다.(19항)

일치신조 20항은 구원에 대한 부름이 유일하게 복음의 설교만이 아니라 자연과 섭리의 사역에 의해 드러난다고 하는 주장이 잘못되었다고 지적한다. 이들은 구원에 대한 부름이 아주 무한하고 보편적이어서, 하나님이 자연의 빛을 올바르게 사용하는 사람들에게 은혜의 빛을 더 많이 부어주실 것이라는 점에서 직·간접적으로 그리스도와 구원으로 충분하게 부름 받지 않고 죽을 인생은 없다고 한다. 이러한 교리들은 성경과 모든 시대의 경험에 반대되고 명백하게 자연과 은혜를 혼합하며, 하나님의 알려진 것과 그의 숨겨진 지혜, 마지막으로 이성의 빛과 하나님의 계시의 빛을 혼합하기 때문이다.

 

Canon XVII: The call to salvation was suited to its due time (l Tim 2:6). Since by God’s will it was at one time more restricted, at another, more widespread and general, but never completely universal. For, indeed, in the OT God announced his word to Jacob, his statutes and his judgments to Israel he did not do so with any other nation (Ps 147:19-20). In the NT, peace being made in the blood of Christ and the inner walls of partition broken down, God so extended the limits of the preaching of the Gospel and the external call, that there is no longer any difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord is over all and is gracious to every one who calls upon him (Rom 10:12). But not even thus is the call universal. For Christ testifies that many are called (Matt 20:14), but not all; and when Paul and Timothy tried to go into Bithynia to preach the Gospel, the Spirit prevented them (Acts 16:7). And there have been and there are today, as experience testifies, innumerable myriads of men to whom Christ is not known even by rumor.

Canon XVIII: Meanwhile God has not left himself without witness (Acts 14:7) to those whom he refused to call by his Word unto salvation. For he provided to them the witness of the heavens and the stars (Deut 4:19), and that which may be known of God, even from the works of nature and Providence, he has shown to them (Rom 1:19), for the purpose of showing his long suffering. Yet it is not true that the works of nature and divine Providence are self-sufficient means which fulfilled the function of the external call, whereby he would reveal unto them the mystery of the good pleasure or the mercy of God in Christ. For the Apostle immediately adds: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen” (Rom 1:20). So they might learn the mystery of salvation through Christ and be without excuse, because they did not correctly use the knowledge that was left to them, but when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, neither were they thankful. Wherefore also Christ glorifies God, his Father, because he had hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and revealed them unto babes (Matt 1:25). And as the Apostle teaches: “God has made known unto us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure which He has purposed in Christ” (Eph 1:9).

Canon XIX: Likewise the external call itself, which is made by the preaching of the Gospel, is on the part of God also, who earnestly and sincerely calls. For in his Word he most earnestly and truly reveals, not, indeed, his secret will respecting the salvation or destruction of each individual, but our responsibility, and what will happen to us if we do or neglect this duty. Clearly it is the will of God who calls, that they who are called come to him and not neglect so great a salvation, and so he earnestly promises eternal life to those who come to him by faith; for, as the Apostle declares, “It is a trustworthy saying: For if we have died with Him, we shall also live with Him; if we disown Him, He will also disown us; if we are faithless, He will remain faithful, for He cannot disown Himself (2 Tim 2:12Ä13). Neither is this call without result for those who disobey; for God always accomplishes his will, even the demonstration of duty, and following this, either the salvation of the elect who fulfill their responsibility, or the inexcusableness of the rest who neglect the duty set before them. Certainly the spiritual man in no way determined the eternal purpose of God to produce faith along with the externally offered, or written Word of God. Moreover, because God approved every truth which flows from his counsel, it is correctly said to be his will, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have everlasting life (John 6:40). Although these “all” are the elect alone, and God formed no plan of universal salvation without any selection of persons, and Christ therefore died not for everyone but only for the elect who were given to him; yet he intends this in any case to be universally true, which follows from his special and definite purpose. But that, by God’s will, the elect alone believe in the external call which is universally offered, while the reprobate are hardened. This proceeds solely from the discriminating grace of God; election by the same grace to those who believe, but their own native wickedness to the reprobate who remain in sin, who after their hardened and impenitent heart build up for themselves wrath for the Day of Judgment, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God

Canon XX: Accordingly we have no doubt that they are wrong who hold that the call to salvation is disclosed not by the preaching of the Gospel solely, but even by the works of nature and Providence without any further proclamation. They add that the call to salvation is so indefinite and universal that there is no mortal who is not, at least objectively, as they say, sufficiently called either mediately, meaning that God will provide the light of grace to those who use the light of nature correctly, or immediately, to Christ and salvation. They finally deny that the external call can be said to be serious and true, or the candor and sincerity of God bc defended, without asserting the absolute universality of grace. For such doctrines are contrary to the Holy Scriptures and the experience of all ages, and manifestly confuse nature with grace and confuse the things which we can know about God with his hidden wisdom. They further confuse the light of reason with the light of divine Revelation.

 

21-22항은 인간의 복음을 행할 수 없는 도덕적 무능력뿐만 아니라 본성적인 무능력이 우리 본성의 타락에 토대를 가지고 있으므로, 오직 성령만이 그것에서부터 우리를 구원할 수 있다고 주장한다. 자연인은 성령을 받지 않고, 신령한 일들은 어리석은 것으로 여기며 영적으로 분별되기 때문에 알지도 못하여 성령의 역사가 아니면 중생할 수 없을 정도로(고전2:14) 완전히 무능력한데, 이 무능력은 도덕적 주체에 속하는 한에서 도덕적이라고 부를 수 있으나, 사람이 본성적으로, 출생으로부터 불순종의 자녀(엡2:2)라 부를 정도로 타고난 것인 한에서 또한 본성적이라고 불려야만 한다.(21항) 인간의 타락의 결과인 인간의 무능력은 단지 도덕적 능력에만 관련된 것이 아니라, 인간의 지정의의 전인격과 관련되어 있을 뿐만 아니라 도덕적 회심을 통하여 치유될 수 있는 것이 아니라, 성령의 인간의 본성을 변화시키는 능력을 통해서만 변화될 수 있는 것이므로 본성적인 것이라고 말해야 한다. 인간의 도덕적 무능력을 강조하고, 인간의 회심에서 도덕적 변화를 강조하는 아미로의 견해는 인간의 타락을 도덕적인 측면에서만 볼 뿐이고, 본성적인 타락인 것을 인식하지 못한 결과이다. 그러므로 이러한 무능력을 도덕적 무능력이라 부르고 신앙이 사람이 믿고자 하는데서 자체적으로 발생된다고 보는 것은 아주 부정하고 위험한 견해이다.(22항)

 

Canon XXI: Those who are called to salvation through the preaching of the Gospel are not able to believe or obey the call, unless they are raised up out of spiritual death by that very power that God used to command the light to shine out of darkness, and God shines into their hearts with the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6). For the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they spiritually discerned (Cor 2:14). And Scripture demonstrates this utter inability by so many direct testimonies and under so many mosaics that scarcely in any other point is it surer. This inability may, indeed, be called moral even in so far as it pertains to a moral subject or object: but it ought to be at the same time called natural because man by nature, and so by the law of his formation in the womb, and hence from his birth, is the child of disobedience (Eph 2:2); and has that inability that is so innate that it cannot be shaken off except by the omnipotent heart-turning grace of the Holy Spirit.

Canon XXII: We hold therefore that they speak inaccurately and dangerously, who call this inability to believe moral inability, and do not say that it is natural, adding that man in whatever condition he may be placed is able to believe if he desires, and that faith in some way or other, indeed, is self-originated. The Apostle, however, clearly calls [salvation] the gift of God (Eph 2:8).

 

23-25항은 행위언약과 은혜언약의 이중적인 언약을 취급하고 있다. 칭의의 방법이 행위에 의한 것과 은혜에 의한 전가의 두 가지 방법이 있는 것과 같이, 아담과 그 안에 있는 그의 후손들의 각자와 맺은 행위 언약과 그리스도 안에서 맺은 은혜언약이 있다. 행위언약은 죄에 의해 무효가 되었고, 은혜언약은 영원하고 전자와 달리 폐기될 수 없는 것이다.(23항) 은혜언약은 시대에 따른 경륜의 차이가 있으나, 그리스도는 언제나 동일하시기 때문에(히13:8) 믿음을 통한 구원방법에서는 동일하다. 물론 구약시대에는 그리스도와 거룩한 삼위일체의 이러한 구원경륜에 대한 지식이 신약 시대보다 약속과 그림자와 비유와 은유로부터 필연적으로 불완전하게 파생되지만, 그럼에도 불구하고 구원과 양심의 평화를 획득하기에 충분하다는 것이 사실이다.(24항). 그러므로 자연언약, 율법 언약, 그리고 복음 언약이란 세 가지 언약을 주장하는 아미로의 견해는 적지 않게 견고한 진리와 경건의 핵심을 모호하거나 심지어 손상시킬 뿐 아니라, 아주 지나치게 느슨하고 적지 않게 위험한 것이다.(25항)

마지막으로 일치신조는 하나님의 교회가 무서운 방법들로 혼란되는 의견의 불일치의 두려운 점화를 방지하기 위하여, 하나님의 말씀과 스위스 신앙고백과 도르트 대회의 신경에 반대되고, 하나님의 말씀에 따라 형제들의 공적인 회의에서 승인되고 인정되지 않은 신앙의 의심스럽거나 새로운 교리를 금지한다.(26항)

 

Canon XXIII: There are two ways in which God, the just Judge, has promised justification: either by one’s own works or deeds in the law, or by the obedience or righteousness of another, even of Christ our Guarantor. [This justification! is imputed by grace to those who believe in the Gospel. The former is the method of justifying man because of perfection; but the latter, of justifying man who is a corrupt sinner. In accordance with these two ways of justification the Scripture establishes these two covenants: the Covenant of Works, entered into with Adam and with each one of his descendants in him, but made void by sin; and the Covenant of Grace, made with only the elect in Christ, the second Adam, eternal. [This covenant] cannot be broken while [the Covenant of Works] can be abrogated. Canon XXIV: But this later Covenant of Grace according to the diversity of times has also different dispensations. For when the Apostle speaks of the dispensation of the fullness of times, that is, the administration of the last time (Eph 1:10), he very clearly indicates that there had been another dispensation and administration until the times which the Father appointed. Yet in the dispensation of the Covenant of Grace the elect have not been saved in any other way than by the Angel of his presence (Isa 63:9), the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), Christ Jesus, through the knowledge of that just Servant and faith in him and in the Father and his Spirit. For Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8). And by His grace we believe that we are saved in the same manner as the Fathers also were saved, and in both Testaments these statutes remain unchanged: “Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him,” (the Son) (Ps 2:12); “He that believes in Him is not condemned, but he that does not believe is condemned already” (John 3:18). “You believe in God,” even the Father, “believe also in me” (John 14:1). But if, moreover, the holy Fathers believed in Christ as their God, it follows that they also believed in the Holy Spirit, without whom no one can call Jesus Lord. Truly there are so many clearer exhibitions of this faith of the Fathers and of the necessity of such faith in either Covenant, that they can not escape any one unless one wills it. But though this saving knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity was necessarily derived, according to the dispensation of that time, both from thc promise and from shadows and figures and mysteries, with greater difficulty than in the NT. Yet it was a true knowledge, and, in proportion to the measure of divine Revelation, it was sufficient to procure salvation and peace of conscience for the elect, by the help of God’s grace.

Canon XXV: We disapprove therefore of the doctrine of those who fabricate for us three Covenants, the Natural, the Legal, and the Gospel, different in their entire nature and essence, and in explaining these and assigning their differences, so intricately entangle themselves that they greatly obscure and even impair the nucleus of solid truth and piety. Nor do they hesitate at all, with regard to the necessity, under the OT dispensation, of knowledge of Christ and faith in him and his satisfaction and in the whole sacred Trinity, to speculate much too loosely and dangerously.

Canon XXVI: Finally, both to us, to whom in the Church, which is God’s house, has been entrusted the dispensation for the present, and unto all our Nazarenes, and to those who under the will and direction of God will at any time succeed us in our responsibility, in order to prevent the fearful enkindling of dissensions with which the Church of God in different places is disturbed in terrible ways, we earnestly wish the following to be done. That in this corruption of the world, with the Apostle of the Gentiles as our faithful monitor, we all keep faithfully that which is committed to our trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings (I Tim 6:20); and religiously guard the purity and simplicity of that knowledge which is according to piety, constantly clinging to that beautiful pair, Charity and Faith, unstained. Moreover, in order that no one may be induced to propose either publicly or privately some doubtful or new dogma of faith previously unheard of in our churches, and contrary to God’s Word, to our Helvetic Confession, to our Symbolical Books, and to the Canons of the Synod of Dort, and not proved and sanctioned in a public assembly of brothers according to the Word of God, let it also be required: that we not only hand down sincerely in accordance with the divine Word, the special necessity of the sanctification of the Lord’s Day, and also impressively teach and fervently urge its observation. In conclusion, that in our churches and schools, as often as occasion demands, we unanimously and faithfully hold, teach, and assert that the truth of the Canons recorded here, is deduced from the indubitable Word of God. The very God of peace and truth sanctify us wholly, and preserve our whole spirit and soul and body blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ! To whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit be eternal honor, praise and glory. Amen!

 

https://rscottclark.org/2012/09/helvetic-consensus-formula-1675/