reformed

[Apologetic_Warrior]

@Apologetic_Warrior I am quoting this part of my post again that you conveniently ignored so as to prove you are the only one committing a straw man here:

Had you looked at my post properly and quoted it in its proper contexts, you would have noted that I pointed out BOTH good and bad traits I've come across in Calvinists. Indeed, I started with the good in hopes that people would notice that first.

Nonetheless, proving my point about their bad traits, of course you chose to focus only on the criticism, jump all over it, and get all sensitive and defensive over it, accusing me of a fallacy that doesn't apply whatsoever to my post. If I were trying to poison the well, I would not have listed any good traits, but I did. Moreover, to poison the well means to present irrelevant information about another party. The information I presented was entirely relevant, and your response proves my thesis perfectly.

I would encourage you to read C.H. Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening", read the "Valley of Vision" which is a collection of Puritan Prayers, read the "Book of Common Prayer", and countless other love letters by Reformed/Calvinist believers and tell me how loving the Lord with all of one's mind leads to frozen choseness, to cold heartedness, to flatline Christian devotion. The bad traits you mention exist in all expressions, forms, and denominations within Christianity, they are not exclusive to the Reformed/Calvinists, as you made them out to be.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not nessacarily, Paul Tillick had a systematic theology that was predicated on the, 'God above God' concept, he argued that arguing for the existance of God was meaningless, the God was being itself. As odd as all that seems its whats known as a dialectic. I wont get into the details but essentially its atheism put in theological language.

I don't think its accurate to describe Tillich as an atheist, that is a misunderstanding of his approach.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, that is not what I said. What I mean is that just because a person identifies themselves as a Calvinist, that does not in itself mean the person is saved. A person can attend a Presbyterian Church for years and years, acquire much knowledge even accept the Westminster Confession, without true conversion by the Spirit of God. So I made a distinction between apostates and born again Christians in the Church, which applies throughout Christian Churches globally.

That would be extraordinary for that to be the case. Presumptive regeneration is generally assumed to be the norm in traditional Reformed theology. Those who denied presumptive regeneration tended to be confined to the more extreme forms of Puritanism and of course, revivalism. But not all Presbyterians and Reformed Christians accepted what they saw as a religious novelty.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That would be extraordinary for that to be the case. Presumptive regeneration is generally assumed to be the norm in traditional Reformed theology. Those who denied presumptive regeneration tended to be confined to the more extreme forms of Puritanism and of course, revivalism. But not all Presbyterians and Reformed Christians accepted what they saw as a religious novelty.

What do you mean by "presumptive regeneration"? Reformed theology, like Lutheran theology, assumes monergistic regeneration, and so far as I know has been the view on the new birth from the beginning. All that I expressed is the common sense that one can identify as a Christian without actually being one. IOW, a profession alone does not a Christian make. But what is meant by "presumptive regeneration"?

 

[FireDragon76]

What do you mean by "presumptive regeneration"? Reformed theology, like Lutheran theology, assumes monergistic regeneration, and so far as I know has been the view on the new birth from the beginning. All that I expressed is the common sense that one can identify as a Christian without actually being one. IOW, a profession alone does not a Christian make. But what is meant by "presumptive regeneration"?

Presumptive regeneration means that there is a presumption that those who are baptized and believe are among the elect. It is a Reformed, rather than Lutheran concept. But it generally means traditional Reformed theology is not that different in practice from the Lutheran approach.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Presumptive regeneration means that there is a presumption that those who are baptized and believe are among the elect. It is a Reformed, rather than Lutheran concept. But it generally means traditional Reformed theology is not that different in practice from the Lutheran approach.

I agree and baptism with belief is solid ground for the presumption of belief to be among the elect. Our grounds may be shaken such that doubts might spring forth but it is cause to exercise faith by repenting of the sin of unbelief mixed with belief. "Lord I believe, help my unbelief!" So we are not as houses divided against ourselves.

 

[thecolorsblend]

the reformation took us back to the church fathers not the apostles.

What makes you say that?

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think its accurate to describe Tillich as an atheist, that is a misunderstanding of his approach.

No actually its bot, tje term is dialectical atheism. This is very common in liberal theology to put a nontheological philosophy in theological terms. Pragmatisn, Scientisic Objectivism and Darwinism all made major incursion into Christian institution under thw guise of ambiguous semantics and liberal theology

 

[hedrick]

Not nessacarily, Paul Tillick had a systematic theology that was predicated on the, 'God above God' concept, he argued that arguing for the existance of God was meaningless, the God was being itself. As odd as all that seems its whats known as a dialectic. I wont get into the details but essentially its atheism put in theological language.

I'm not convinced. He's trying to avoid treating God as an object in the same sense as chairs and people. If God is truly the source of the universe, he can't be an object within it. But God is the source of revelation, which is something beyond what science or history can understand, with Christ as the final revelation. He is to be treated personally, though he goes beyond person. I don't think Tillich is in any reasonable sense atheist.

When I was in high school I understood his theology as tautologically true. Being obviously exists. That would make him effectively atheist, or at least consistent with atheism. But reading him again I don't think that's the case. He's saying that being reflects something beyond materialism that reveals himself to us in Christ.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not convinced. He's trying to avoid treating God as an object in the same sense as chairs and people. If God is truly the source of the universe, he can't be an object within it. But God is the source of revelation, which is something beyond what science or history can understand, with Christ as the final revelation. He is to be treated personally, though he goes beyond person. I don't think Tillich is in any reasonable sense atheist.

Your talking about the aseity (utter independence) of God. That is not the 'God above God' concept Tillick built his systematic theology on.

When I was in high school I understood his theology as tautologically true. Being obviously exists. That would make him effectively atheist, or at least consistent with atheism. But reading him again I don't think that's the case. He's saying that being reflects something beyond materialism that reveals himself to us in Christ.

His theology is a system, it can still be useful but its bot a theistic philosophy. The formula is thesis, antithesis, synthesis. You have two things diametricly oppossed resolved in a syntesis, Darwinism was synthesised with Mendelian genetics in that way.

 

[FireDragon76]

No actually its bot, tje term is dialectical atheism. This is very common in liberal theology to put a nontheological philosophy in theological terms. Pragmatisn, Scientisic Objectivism and Darwinism all made major incursion into Christian institution under thw guise of ambiguous semantics and liberal theology

Tillich isn't atheist. Liberal and dialectic theology is not synonymous with atheism. For Tillich, God is primarily the ground of being. Which is not a heretical opinion, and has been expressed before numerous times in Christian history by various theologians. But it's quite different from the naive belief that God is a man in the sky, which is merely a psychological projection of humanity writ large.

It is a terrible judgment to call a Christian an atheist, especially if that person is dead.

 

[mark kennedy]

Tillich isn't atheist. Liberal and dialectic theology is not synonymous with atheism. For Tillich, God is primarily the ground of being. Which is not a heretical opinion, and has been expressed before numerous times in Christian history by various theologians. But it's quite different from the naive belief that God is a man in the sky, which is merely a psychological projection of humanity writ large.

It is a terrible judgment to call a Christian an atheist, especially if that person is dead.

Thats his legacy, think what you like, its philosophical atheism, I'm sure of that. What you think og his theology is your opinion and your welcome to it. I've read him extensively and he is putting philosphical atheism in theological terms, I'm sure of that.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thats his legacy, think what you like, its philosophical atheism, I'm sure of that. What you think og his theology is your opinion and your welcome to it. I've read him extensively and he is putting philosphical atheism in theological terms, I'm sure of that.

Tillich, in a talk with the psychologist Carl Rogers, once summed up the essence of the Evangelical faith as "I am accepted". But that implies being accepted by a Someone. For Tillich, that Someone is so much bigger than what can be captured in the concept of God. But he still believes that God is a useful religious symbol, but it's a religious symbol that points beyond itself to a great spiritual reality.

That's not atheism. It's no more atheistic than the theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Aeropagite, which comes to very similar conclusions.

 

[mark kennedy]

Tillich, in a talk with the psychologist Carl Rogers, once summed up the essence of the Evangelical faith as "I am accepted". But that implies being accepted by a Someone. For Tillich, that Someone is so much bigger than what can be captured in the concept of God. But he still believes that God is a useful religious symbol, but it's a religious symbol that points beyond itself to a great spiritual reality.

That's not atheism. It's no more atheistic than the theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Aeropagite, which comes to very similar conclusions.

God as a symbol is idolatry. The living God is the core a nd the source of life, you can't get away from that.

 

[FireDragon76]

God as a symbol is idolatry. The living God is the core a nd the source of life, you can't get away from that.

Tillich actually doesn't contradict this.

 

[mark kennedy]

Tillich actually doesn't contradict this.

Yea actually he does but your entitlted to your opinion.

 

[FireDragon76]

According to Keith Ward, a prominent Anglican priest and theologian, Tillich is actually much more conservative and classically theist than his critics realize. Tillich was critical of attempts to think of God in Hegelian terms, for instance.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not convinced. He's trying to avoid treating God as an object in the same sense as chairs and people. If God is truly the source of the universe, he can't be an object within it. But God is the source of revelation, which is something beyond what science or history can understand, with Christ as the final revelation. He is to be treated personally, though he goes beyond person. I don't think Tillich is in any reasonable sense atheist.

When I was in high school I understood his theology as tautologically true. Being obviously exists. That would make him effectively atheist, or at least consistent with atheism. But reading him again I don't think that's the case. He's saying that being reflects something beyond materialism that reveals himself to us in Christ.

Yes, that's more or less his point. Christ, as a religious symbol, reveals God's accepting nature that sustains us as our own ground of being. In this way, it's just a modern reiteration of medieval mystical theologies, going all the way back to Pseudo-Dionysius (who was actually very influential for German Dominicans, who in turn greatly influenced Luther, by his own admission). In this way, Tillich is just a Lutheran modernist who is nonetheless not all that radical.

Tillich was living in a world where you must either accept a kind of wooden scholastic fundamentalism or atheist materialism. Tillich rejects both.

 

[mark kennedy]

According to Keith Ward, a prominent Anglican priest and theologian, Tillich is actually much more conservative and classically theist than his critics realize. Tillich was critical of attempts to think of God in Hegelian terms, for instance.

Hegal liked to ignore the miraculous, thats not theistic.

 

[FireDragon76]

Hegal liked to ignore the miraculous, thats not theistic.

Ever since Hume, that's been the tendency in western thought, though not without some reservations, perhaps. And in fairness, it's easy to understand why. People that are prone to believing miracles are also prone to doing some foolish things, like forgoing medical treatment in favor of prayer, or believing that God will prevent global warming, because "the Bible says so".