RE: On Tillich

From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 16:47:43 EDT

  • Next message: Joel Cannon: "Re: On Tillich"

    ASA defines Christian as professing the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. To
    believe that the resurrection was a thing of vision and not a thing of
    reality does appear to contradict those creeds, does it not? The very
    essence of the current discussion is of the very essence of Christianity. My
    point is, logically, how can one profess to believe in the resurrection
    while insisting that 'great' Christians believe it to be mere parable?

    -----Original Message-----
    From: John W Burgeson [mailto:jwburgeson@juno.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:27 PM
    To: deborahjmann@insightbb.com
    Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    Subject: Re: On Tillich

    >>Since our Christianity depends upon believing that Jesus is risen, if
    tillich did not believe this, he does not fulfill my definition of a
    Christian.>>

    Both Tillich and Bultmann, as far as I can see, would assent to the
    resurrection event. Neither held it, however, in the way that you do (or
    that I do, for that matter).

    Both claimed to be Christians and, reading sermons from either one, tells
    me that I must accept their claims as true.

    Last time I looked, God was not asking me (or anyone) for their
    definition of a Christian. That's his job. For which I am very thankful.

    <G>

    John Burgeson (Burgy)

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    ________________________________________________________________
    The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
    Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
    Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 27 2003 - 16:49:05 EDT