I’m taking a break from the Forum, when/if I get back I will continue this study.
Cheer up, ye saints of God!
Dave
Lots of water under the bridge since last post.
I’ll be doing what I call “Tidbits from Tillich” instead of a page by page rewording and explanation - the material is way too dense for that. Instead I will pick out interesting things as I go along. This for instance, which I posted a week ago or so on another part of the Forum:
"“Therefore, the Christian message points to an ultimate salvation which cannot be lost because it is reunion with the ground of being. This ultimate salvation is also the ultimate revelation, often described as the 'vision of God”. The mystery of being is present without the paradoxa of every revelation in time and space and beyond anything fragmentary and preliminary.
This does not refer to the individual in isolation. Fulfillment is universal. A limited fulfillment of separated individuals would not be fulfillment at all, not even for these individuals, for no person is separated from other persons and from the whole of reality in such a way that he could be saved apart from the salvation of everyone and everything. One can be saved only within the Kingdom of God which comprises the universe. But the Kingdom of God is also the place where there is complete transparency of everything for the divine to shine through it. In his fulfilled kingdom, God is everything for everything. This is the symbol of ultimate revelation and ultimate salvation in complete unity.
The recognition or nonrecognition of this unity is a decisive test of the character of a theology."
Now THAT is a tidbit!!
Well, just hit a button and deleted an entire post. 
I’ve worked through a long section of Ontological Theory - wonderful section! - T is moving toward his thoughts on the reality of God, here’s a tidbit he drops along the way:
“God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him.”
That’s, like, provocative, dude. 
What does he mean? He prefaces that bombshell by reviewing historical arguments for the existence of God (I call them A4GE to save typing). The arguments and rebuttals ended in stalemate. Why? T thinks because:
-one group attacked the arguments because it felt they were unsound
-other group accepted the IMPLICIT meaning of the arguments
Thus both groups were aiming at different targets, but did not see that, so it resulted in some real head-bashing. (Hmmmm…have we seen that somewhere before?)
I will now quote a paragraph that leads up to the bombshell above.
“There can be little doubt that the arguments are a failure in so far as they claim to be arguments. Both the concept of existence and the method of arguing to a conclusion are inadequate for the idea of God. However it is defined, the ‘existence of God’ contradicts the idea of a creative ground of essence and existence.
The ground of being cannot be found within the totality of beings, nor can the ground of essence and existence participate in the tensions and disruptions characteristic of the transition from essence to existence.
The scholastics were right when the asserted that in God there is no difference between essence and existence. But they perverted their insight when in spite of this assertion they spoke of the existence of God and tried to argue in favor of it.
Actually they did not mean ‘existence’. They meant the reality, the validity, the truth of the idea of God, and idea which did not carry the connotation of someTHING or someONE who might or might not exist.
Yet this is the way in which the idea of God is understood today in scholarly as well as in popular discussions about the ‘existence of God’.
It would be a great victory for Christian apologetics if the words ‘God’ and ‘existence’ were very definitely separated except in the paradox of God becoming manifest under the conditions of existence, that is, in the christological paradox.
God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him.”
FYI from a web wiki: Essence: In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. …
Any comments?
I should really feel ashamed.
Paul Tillich is one of the greatest German theologians who have ever lived but I know almost nothing about him, even though I am a Germanic Frenchman and most of my ancestors spoke a German dialect.
Vielleicht ist es Zeit, das zu ändern 
I am not even sure he believed in a personal God, though.
We shall see
T is now dealing with human finitude and how a consideration of that opens up whole new areas of inquiry into the question of God. This is a powerful section, drawing on existential and historical elements. I’ll get to those in a minute.
A personal observation: T’s genius, above and beyond the amazing grasp of his materials, is his ability to find Big Distinctions in trains of thought where most of us would never guess there was ANY distinction, and to explain and exploit those distinctions vividly and with penetration and with the power to rouse one from ‘dogmatic slumbers’ and change the course, permanently, of the way one once perceived a supposedly ‘given’ train of thought.
But man, it takes work ( from the Latin word that means ‘a real pain in the butt’ or PITB in shorthand ( a substitute for the somewhat cruder but more descriptive “PITA” )
So:
He has concluded that the A4GE do not work. The ‘ground of being’ cannot be ‘found’ within the totality of beings; nor can ‘God’ be derived from as a conclusion of an argument from the given world. He who transcends all things and beings cannot be derived as a conclusion from those things.
He will flesh that out more as we go on.
Here is his big point:
"The arguments for the existence of God neither are arguments,
nor are they proof of the existence of God.
THEY ARE EXPRESSIONS OF THE QUESTION OF GOD WHICH IS IMPLIED IN HUMAN FINITUDE.
THIS QUESTION IS THEIR TRUTH; EVERY ANSWER THEY GIVE IS UNTRUE.
I did the capitalizing there.
I read this to mean that the A4GE are ACTUALLY an analysis of the human situation. “The question of God is possible because an awareness of God is present in the question of God.” The awareness precedes the question, it is the presupposition of the question.
To put it another way:
“Neither side (theoretical-Augustinian/practical-Kantian) has constructed an argument for the reality of God, but al elaborations have shown the presence of something unconditional within the self and the world. Unless such an element were present, the questio of God never could have been asked, nor could an answer, even the answer of revelation, have been received.”
This reminds me of something CSL wrote, I forget where. Something about blind people asking about light - unless light existed, there could be no such question? Someone know where that Lewis comment came from?
Short break.
Okay, T is now getting closer to his goal of corresponding his conceptual framework thus far with the existential, lived predicament of finite human beings.
Remember that he contends that cosmological arguments won’t prove the existence of God, but do point to the real possibility of the question of that existence.
We’re at about page 206.
“The ontological argument in its various forms gives a description of the way in which potential infinity is present in actual finitude. As far as the description goes, that is as far as it is analysis and not argument.”
He is stating that there is some unconditional element in human finitude that transcends it, theoretically and in practice (morally)
That element is:
Being-itself expressed as theoretical in the verum ipsum, the true-in-itself; this is the measure of all other approximations to truth
" " " " practical (moral) in the bonum ipsum, the good-in-itself; the measure of all approximations to goodness
Without those measures being in some way a part of the human awareness of finitude, there would be no ‘approximations’ to truth or goodness.
Here is something Allan - and many others - may agree/disagree with:
“Augustine, in his refutation of skepticism, has shown that the skeptic acknowledges and emphasizes the absolute element in truth in his denial of the possibility of a true judgment. He becomes a skeptic precisely because he strives for an absoluteness from which he is exluded. Veritas ipsa is acknowledged and sought for by no one more passionately than by the skeptic.”
??
Augustine and Kant err when they try to go beyond just pointing these things out via analysis, and try instead to derive a concept of God from them.
“In both cases, the starting point (analysis) is right, but the conclusion is wrong. The experience of an unconditional element in man’s encounter with reality is used for the establishment of an unconditional being (a contradiction in terms) within reality.”
Anselm’s analysis points to the unconditional element as making the idea of truth possible. But he too goes beyond analysis to argument, and this is invalid if it tries to say that the element is the highest being called God. “The existence of such a highest being is not implied in the idea of truth.”
A long paragraph to sum up this section:
“The limits of the ontological argument are obvious.
But nothing is more important for philosophy and theology than the truth it contains, the acknowledgement of the unconditional element in the structure of reason and reality…a philosophy of religion which does not begin with something unconditional NEVER REACHES GOD” (my emphasis)
“The destruction of the ontological argument is not dangerous. What IS dangerous is the destruction of an approach which elaborates the possibility of the question of God. This approach is the (actual) meaning and truth of the ontological argument.”
Short break
Okay, one more short section and then we are into “The Reality of God”. That sounds like it could be an important section. Duh. 
This short section, first: T shows his hand here - it is the human being in all his/her existential predicament that leads to the big questions; it is not just an intellectual enterprise after all.
“The question of God must be asked because the threat of nonbeing, which mankind experiences as anxiety, drives them to the question of being conquering nonbeing and of courage conquering anxiety. This question is the cosmological question of God.”
Finally, whew!
A GREAT line follows: “They ( the A4GE) are not valid in so far as they claim that the existence of a highest being is the logical conclusion of their analysis, which is impossible logically,
as it is impossible existentially to derive courage from anxiety.”
I LOVE that conclusion.
It is the threat of nonbeing, according to T, that drives the human question concerning God.
I now wonder if many of the misunderstandings/flaps/dustups/meanness displayed between people of good will is because some are asking the existential questions, and some are asking the conceptual questions, and we end up talking past each other? Both sides are authentic human expressions. T addresses both sides, trying to make the eternal truths accessible to our situation (from the opening posts). After all, we are not and never will be First-century Christians.
That’s it for today. Tomorrow will begin Part 2 of Section 2 of volume 1: The reality of God. And the first section of THAT is: The meaning of God.
Stay tuned!!
In German the question of God is called the Gottesfrage
I’m almost sure that the English expression has been introduced by German theologians. It is almost never used in French.
Liebe Grüsse in Christus / Lovely greetings in Christ!
The German theologians were and are SUCH a major part of the whole enterprise.
This next section is difficult. If you’ve ever done any serious rock-climbing you’ll know that there is always one pitch that is the crux move. The move that stretches out your skill just that little bit more; get through it and, as long as you pay attention the rest of the way, you’ll make it. As long as your belay partner doesn’t let his mind wander. I have stories…
This chapter feels like it may be that crux move. It is not difficult to grasp the concepts, but it is hard for me to make a mental space for them to live in.
Perhaps you will see what I mean as we go along.
I’ve had a little time to think about this, and also to glance ahead at what is coming, especially at the sections concerning Christ. It is not easy sledding but I’ve gotten a better feel for it now.
BTW, here’s a good page at GodWeb that gives a short bio of Tillich - he was a very interesting man. Surprise - he was also a sinful human being, among other things!!!
godweb.org/Tillich.htm
We’re in Part ll of vol 1 The Reality of God , section A - the meaning of “God”
This section deals with phenomenology:
web definition: a philosophical doctrine based on the study of human experience in which considerations of objective reality are not taken into account
That is, T is first going to look at the meaning of the concept “God” before looking at the Reality of God.
So when I use “God” in the following, I am referring to the concept, not to the objective reality. Kinda important to remember this. He does get to considerations of God as Being in further sections.
““God” is the answer to the question implied in man’s finitude; he is the name for that which concerns man ultimately…Whatever concerns man ultimately becomes god for him.”
The existential problem is two-fold:
-It is not possible to be that concerned about something that can’t be encountered as a concrete reality
-On the other hand, we find it impossible to be ultimately concerned unless the object of our concern transcends all concrete reality
Big Thought:
"The conflict between the concreteness and the ultimacy of the religious concern is actual wherever God is experienced and this experience is expressed, from primitive prayer to the most elaborate theological system. It is the key to understanding the dynamics of the history of religion, and it is the basic problem of every doctrine of God, from the earliest priestly wisdom to the most refined discussions of the trinitarian dogma. (My emphasis)
After a further discussion, T arrives at this phenomenological meaning of “God”:
“Gods are beings who transcend the realm of ordinary experiences in power and meaning, with whom men have relations which surpass ordinary relations in intensity and significance.”
Further, on the tension above : “The ultimacy of the religious concern drives toward universality in value and in meaning; the concreteness of the religious concern drives toward particular meanings and values”.
Another Big Thought: “The tension in the nature of the gods, which is the tension in the structure of man’s ultimate concern (and which, in the last analysis, is the tension in the human situation), determines the religions of mankind in all their major aspects.”
So T has build on the existential dilemma of being human, to a study of the phenomenology of “God”, and found the same tensions in each. To be human is to live in the concrete, the conditioned, the finite, but to be forced by nature to crave the ultimate, the unconditioned , the infinite. For the meaning of the world comes from beyond the world. Our hearts cannot rest until they rest in Him.
The tension shows in how “God” is experienced - and T goes through quite the catalogue of various approaches in various religious types - from very primitive cults that try to influence the god of the weather, basically turning the god into an object to be manipulated for human purposes, all the way to an absolute total surrender on man’s side.
His progression is, then:
The tension in the human situation —tension in the structure of ultimate concern----tension in the nature of the gods.
That is an interesting analysis.
Next he will discuss the types of monotheism, and then into the Actuality of God. Finally.
First, types of monotheism, in my next post.
Long story short - the various polytheisms and monotheisms all fall under the weight of the tensions mentioned in the last post. The gods/god either get lost in their ultimacy and lose concretenesss, or become concrete and relativized and lose ultimacy.
With one exception.
T calls this exception Exclusive Monotheism, unheard of in the world until the prophetic religion of Israel.
-this elevates a ‘concrete god’ to ultimacy AND universality WITHOUT losing concretness.
-Yahweh is the concrete God who led his people out of Egypt, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
-At the same time, He declares himself to be the Lord of Hosts; He judges the ‘gods’ of the other nations; before whom the nations are as a drop in the bucket.
-Yahweh demonstrates the principle of Justice - universally - He judges his own people, shows no partiality, the relationship is covenental, and if broken, He will punish even his chosen, in the name of justice.
Thus Yahweh is concrete (I might call this immanent) AND universal (transcendent?).
Another Big Thought: - “This undercuts the basis of polytheism. In breaks through the demonic implications of the idea of God, and it is the critical guardian which protects the holy against the temptation of the bearers of the holy (priests and others-db) to claim absoluteness for themselves. The Protestant Principle is the restatement of the prophetic principle as an attack against a self-absolutizing and, consequently, demonically distorted church.”
By ‘demonic’ he means anything finite that is taken to be ultimate.
HOWEVER - exclusive monotheism needs an expression of the concrete element in man’s ultimate concern.
"This posits the Trinitarian problem."
Oh boy.
This brings us to Trinitarian Monotheism.
Key: “TRINITARIAN MONOTHEISM IS NOT A MATTER OF THE NUMBER THREE. IT IS A QUALITATIVE AND NOT A QUANTITATIVE CHARACTERIZATION OF GOD. IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO SPEAK OF THE LIVING GOD, THE GOD IN WHOM THE ULTIMATE AND THE CONCRETE ARE UNITED.”
He calls the one-and-three problem a ‘trick question’. “The trinitarian problem is the problem of the unity between ultimacy and concreteness in the Living God. It is an affirmation of the living God.”
As my mother-in-law used to say, about other subjects: “Now put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.” She did not mean it, being against smoking, drinking, bowling alleys (not lit brightly enough), pizza parlors (same reason) football games (who know WHAT goes on under those bleachers??) but my point is: I am going to have to ‘cogitate’ on this.
Any input here?
Next post!
It is hard for me to understand if Tillich believed God to be a person or an impersonal force which is described metaphorically.
We’ll be getting to that answer before long. I hope.
Well we are through the holidays, and I must make a decision whether to pursue Tillich for the next few months or so.
To be honest, his "The God beyond the God of Theism’ theme is not providing me much more than a little intellectual fun. So, unless a number of you are really digging this, I will probably just chalk it up to experience and move onto another study.
I love some academic books; particularly when facts and resources are dripping from the comb… other academic books that are as dry as sandpaper due to the personality of the author bore me to tears.
Strangely enough, I’m now eager to continue this thread, and I think it’s because I started that George MacDonald thread - the time I was spending on Tillich was a great time, but left me with little time to take care of the ‘inner man’ - intellectual pursuit is a good, but needs a balance. GMac speaks to the feeling intellect and provides a wisdom that Tillich does not. So I will give some time to each one. There is much much more to Tillich’s theology than this first volume.
Hey Dave,
I don’t feel the need to intellectualize about God or reality. When I try and piece reality together with logic it doesn’t fit and I become confused. Reality is a mixed blessing for me. For me it’s better to let go and get out of my head and into my heart and experience God rather than intellectualize about Him. I’m a nut job when I start to analyze and try and figure out life out with my rational mind. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t use reason in areas like math and science. But for me I try not to figure God out. My God is a mystery and is better known through experiencing His love.