RE: On Tillich

From: Rich Blinne (e-lists@blinne.org)
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 18:24:28 EDT

  • Next message: Vernon Jenkins: "The forgotten verses (was Re: Response to Howard on Tillich & Bultmann"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: John W Burgeson [mailto:jwburgeson@juno.com]
    > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 2:23 PM
    > To: dfsiemensjr@juno.com; asa@calvin.edu
    > Cc: e-lists@blinne.org
    > Subject: Re: On Tillich
    >
    >
    > >
    > One may go back further. Note "...anyone who comes to him must believe
    > that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews
    > 11:6)>
    >
    > and
    >
    > >>
    > > That is not historically correct. Note the following from Anselm's
    > > Cur Deus
    > > Homo (Why the God-man?):>>
    >
    > Your difference is, of course, with Karen Armstrong, not me. I am not
    > convinced that Armstrong's comments are necessarily in tension with the
    > above.
    >
    > Her comments did resonate with the way I became a Christian. But it may
    > come down, ultimately, to a definition of the word "faith."
    >

    Thanks for the correction. I just don't see how her comments that belief as
    defined as assent to a creed not existing prior to the Enlightenment can be
    defended historically. From the small bit I have seen from your quotes I
    wouldn't trust her historical analysis very much. She can advance the cause
    of mysticism if she wants to. But, she shouldn't distort the historical
    record to make her point. [N.B. This is not an anti-mysticism post but an
    anti-sloppy history post.]



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 27 2003 - 18:25:00 EDT