항쟁파(Remonstrants)의 교회와 국가의 관계: 위텐보가르트(Johannes Wtenbogaert: 1557-1644)를 중심으로

Abstract

This thesis deals with the relationship between the church and the state that appeared in the Remonstrants with a focus on Wtenbogaert (1557-1644). In order to research this, we must turn our attention to the issues of the church of the Netherlands and its relationship with how its laws and history were formed by looking at “De Pacificatie van Gent” (1576) and “De Unie van Utrecht” (1579). The point was that each individual needed their freedom of religion to be insured and guaranteed so that meant the state should not persecute any kinds of religion. This is expressed clearly in the law that was established by state parliament regarding the issue of religion, especially in Article 13 of “De Unie van Utrecht.” This concept of protecting and ensuring one’s religious freedom has guided the society to modern times. Grounded on this, Arminians and Gomarists presume that the State should not interfere with the issues of religion since the State supports and ensures that the individual can have religious freedom. Following in the same of thought, Johannes Wtenbogaert presented his theological Remonstrance to the council of Holland which was the most powerful region in Netherlands at the time. Arminius, theological companion of Wtenbogaert, showed particularism and decentralization concerning Church and State matters, which echoed those of Wtenbogaert. The Gomarists tried to summon a national conference that in order to solve this issue they must have a national synod. Though there were differences between regionalism and the whole country, they could understand the mentality and the continuity of De Pacificatie van Gent and De Unie van Utrecht. Following this, the Gomarists tried to summon a national synod saying that in order to solve this issue they must have a national synod. In the process of the coming of the Synod of Dort, we can see most clearly the ideology the Arminians, led by Johannes Wtenbogaert, regarding the relationship between the church and the State in the published “Remonstrance” and “Tractate on the office and authority of a higher Christian magistracy in ecclesiastical affairs” (Tractaet van’t Ampt ende Authoriteyt eener hooger Christelijcker Overheydt in Kerckelycke Saeckken). Based on this important book, Johannes Wtenbogaert did not want to base his ideology of the church and the State on human reason or freedom of will. He placed the Chief of State to be under the authority of God’s Word. The Chief of State’s authority exists under God and His Word but is above clergy. At the same time, Johannes Wtenbogaert criticizes Gomarists as those who follow the Pope. The monarch that Wtenbogaert wants is one who is the head or on top of the Christian church. Wtenbogaert states that statesmen and clergy are all under God and each have equal authority which they both have to mutually adhere to. He saw it that the church and the State are both God-established institutes so they must not encroach on the authority of one another. But the problem with Wtenbogaert is that there is no guarantee of how deep of an understanding of God’s Word the states person or those who govern have realized nor how faithful the Christian leader is in doing political activity according to the Bible. Also, Wtenbogaert believed that the State can decide and determine the theology of the nation which goes beyond religious freedom to granting excess authority and decision-making power regarding the matters of theology to the State which makes it fall under the trap of Erastianism. Furthermore, due to the fact that the point that the church must be free from the government and State was not emphasized enough, there exists the weakness of not being able to logically explain the resistance of the immoral or unjust government in modern times. From this we can see that Wtenbogaert was farther away from Calvin or Beza than Gomarists.