Faith on Tillich's Theology

Faith for Tillich does involve passionate emotions; “but emotion does not produce faith.” Faith cannot be confused with emotional outbursts or feelings of rapture, though it can involve such things. Faith for Tillich also includes a cognitive component, but only “as an inseparable element in a total act of acceptance and surrender.” If one reduces faith to a cognitive act, faith would be confused with mere belief. It would lose its quality as a living reality. Similarly, faith involves the will, but “faith is not a creation of the will.” To reduce faith to an act of the will is to confuse it with a mere act of obedience to a moral imperative.
 
In sum, faith assumes “being grasped and changed by Spiritual Presence,” without which faith is degraded “into a belief, an intellectual act produced by will and emotion”. Human capacities cannot ultimately account for the reality of faith.
 
Faith as an intellectual capacity is impossible in part because of the pneumatological nature of revelation. The Spiritual Presence grants not abstract meaning but rather “meaning-bearing power which grasps the human spirit in ecstatic experience”
 
“Faith is the state of being grasped by the transcendent unity of unambiguous life— it embodies love as the state of being taken into that transcendent unity”. The quality of our love, however, is not the basis of justification. In justification, “we surrender our goodness to God” and affirm unambiguous life in the midst of the ambiguity and estrangement of finite existence. Justifying faith as a transformative reality also locates justification within regeneration and healing as the more encompassing soteriological reality. Tillich is adamant in maintaining that “faith means being grasped by a power that is greater than we are, a power that shakes us and turns us, and transforms us and heals us.”

- Paul Tillich and Pentecostal Theology : Spiritual Presence and Spiritual Power, p90-92

Theology and Philosophy

The Task of Theology

The task of theology is to acquire not observational knowledge about God (as in naturalistic empiricism) or conceptual mastery of him (as in idealistic rationalism) but an understanding of his will and purpose disclosed in Jesus Christ, an understanding that eventuates in obedience. What characterizes theology is not the comprehension of divine mysteries nor the apprehension of human possibilities but fidelity to the Word of God, which involves acknowledging human limitations but also confessing the gift of divine illumination in the midst of these limitations.
 
Theology can never be definitive, for it is always a contemporary exposition of the definitive biblical word. It does not precede proclamation in the form of prediscussion but follows it in the form of reflection (Thielicke).
 
From the evangelical perspective, our knowledge of God is neither synthetic nor analytic in the purely philosophical sense. We do not take the way of idealism, seeking to analyze the individual parts of a comprehensive unified picture of reality. Nor do we take the way of empirical rationalism, striving for a unified vision of the various facets of experience. Instead, our task is simply to reiterate or reaffirm what is given in revelation, humbly listening to God’s Word and then endeavoring to translate this Word into human thoughts, words and actions. At the same time, we try as best we can to arrive at a coherent or comprehensive picture of reality by interpreting the whole of experience in the light of God’s Word. This picture will always be incomplete and open–ended, however, since the total vision of reality lies beyond the compass of human reason, even one informed by faith.
 
A Case for Theonomy
 
Theology’s criterion is the will and purpose of God as demonstrated in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, attested in Holy Scripture. The focus of theology is neither on divine essence nor on human existence but on divine existence in humanity as we see this in Jesus Christ. Philosophy is inclined to champion autonomy, trusting in the self for direction and certainty, as opposed to heteronomy, submission to an external standard or power alien to the self (Kant). Theology presents a case for theonomy, in which the self submits to an authority beyond the self that is at the same time its ground and goal.
In philosophy reality signifies either mind or matter, or an underlying unity between them, such as force or energy. In theology the prime reality is the living God, who brings the world of temporality and materiality into being and creates the energy that vitalizes this world. Moreover, this living God is not reducible to mind or thought but instead constitutes a dynamic unity of will and intelligence, of being and action. He is the self–existing and self–sustaining One (Causa sui) whose knowledge encompasses all human perceptions and conceptions but at the same time infinitely transcends them.
 
Idol by Imagination v.s. True God
 
I agree with Pascal that the God of the philosophers is something other than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is the difference between an idol created by the imagination and the experience of the true God. The relation between theology and philosophy is not one of synthesis or correlation but one of conflict and contradiction.
 
The passionate concern of theology is “God’s search for man,” not “man’s quest for God” (Barth). Our knowledge of God is based on God’s gracious initiative toward us, not on our perceptivity or striving. For Plato we reach the ultimate principle of unity by “pure intelligence.” For Plotinus we reach this principle by inward purification and ecstatic self–transcendence. For Kant we reach it by practical reason or moral will. For the theologian we receive it when we are confronted by the living Christ in the awakening to faith.

- Donald G. Bloesch, A Theology of Word and Spirit: 

Authority & Method in Theology, pp39-44.

 
 

 

Understanding of Faith and Reason

Neglect of integration results in a costly division between secular and sacred. While few would actually put it in these terms, faith is now understood as a blind act of will, a sort of decision to believe something that is either independent of reason or makes up for the paltry lack of evidence for what one is trying to believe. By contrast, the Bible presents faith as a power or skill to act in accordance with the nature of the kingdom of God, a trust in what we have reason to believe is true. Understood in this way, we see that faith is built on reason and knowledge. We should have good reasons for thinking that Christianity is true before we completely dedicate ourselves to it. We should have solid evidence that our understanding of a biblical passage is correct before we go on to apply it. We bring knowledge claims from Scripture and theology to the task of integration; we do not employ mere beliefs or faith postulates. 

Unfortunately, our contemporary understanding of faith and reason treats them as polar opposites. A few years ago I went to New York to conduct a series of evangelistic messages for a church. The series was in a high school gym and several believers and unbelievers came each night. The first evening I gave arguments for the existence of God from science and philosophy. Before closing in prayer, I entertained several questions from the audience. One woman (who was a Christian) complained about my talk, charging that if I "proved" the existence of God, I would leave no room for faith. I responded by saying ing that if she were right, then we should pray that currently available evidence for God would evaporate and be refuted so there would be even more room for faith! Obviously, her view of faith utterly detached it from reason.

If faith and reason are deeply connected, then students and teachers need to explore their entire intellectual life in light of the Word of God. But if faith and reason are polar opposites, then the subject matter of our study or teaching is largely irrelevant to growth in discipleship. Because of this view of faith and reason, there has emerged a secular-sacred sacred separation in our understanding of the Christian life with the result that Christian teaching and practice are privatized. The withdrawal of the corporate body of Christ from the public sphere of ideas is mirrored by our understanding of what is required to produce an individual disciple. Religion is viewed as personal, private and a matter of how we feel about things. Often, Bible classes and paracurricular Christian activities are not taken as academically serious aspects of the Christian school, nor are they integrated into the content of "secular" areas of teaching.

--- David Lyle Jeffrey & Gregory Maillet. Christianity and Literature: 

Philosophical Foundations and Critical Practice. 

《论做十架神学家》书摘

 唯独十架是我们的神学

十架首先是上帝对人所犯之罪发起的攻击。其次，也是最终，十架是使人脱离罪的救恩。但是，如果我们没有看到十架首先是在攻击罪，那么我们就没有真正认清十架。真是奇怪的攻击——上帝把自己交在我们手中受苦和受死！路德将其称为上帝的“与本性相异的工作”（alien work）。作为攻击手段，十架显明罪的真正巢穴不是在肉体中，而是在我们属灵的渴望中，在我们的“荣耀神学”中。要点在于：在十架上发生的事情，与我们通常的敬虔思维截然相反。保罗知道这一点。他在《哥林多前书》1：18—25说：

因为十字架的道理，在那灭亡的人为愚拙，在我们得救的人却为上帝的大能。就如经上所记： “我要灭绝智慧人的智慧，废弃聪明人的聪明。”智慧人在哪里？文士在哪里？这世上的辩士在哪里？上帝岂不是叫这世上的智慧变成愚拙吗？世人凭自己的智慧，既不认识上帝，上帝就乐意用人所当作愚拙的道理拯救那些信的人，这就是上帝的智慧了。犹太人是要神迹，希腊人是求智慧；我们却是传钉十字架的基督。在犹太人为绊脚石，在外邦人为愚拙，但在那蒙召的，无论是犹太人、希腊人，基督总为上帝的能力，上帝的智慧。因上帝的愚拙总比人智慧，上帝的软弱总比人强壮。

因此，十架神学是一种得罪人的神学。它得罪人的地方在于：与其他神学不同，它攻击的对象是我们通常认为的基督教精粹。我们将看到，十架神学家并不特别担心我们信仰里面那些明显的糟粕，即我们的恶行；他们担心的是由善行而来的自命不凡。因此必须要说的是，十架神学与其他所有神学都非常不同。为了表明这一点，路德对十架神学和荣耀神学做了根本上的区分。因此，十架神学并不把自己当作许多神学类别中的一个选项。实际上，尽管宗教和神学似乎层出不穷，然而从这个视角我们可以很安全地说：归根结底只有两种神学类型，即荣耀神学和十架神学。荣耀神学实际上是所有神学和宗教的总括，而十架神学则把自己分别出来，与其他所有神学相对立。本书的目的之一就是尽量清晰地说明这两种神学之间的不同，从而更加准确地阐明十架神学，并借此使十架的宣讲保持它的愚拙，那种通过摧毁聪明人的智慧来拯救他们的愚拙。

那么如何着手呢？我已经声明，针对十架神学进行写作是极难的。实际上，就十架神学甚至某种十架神学进行写作都是极难的。毫无疑问，这不过是再一次试图对耶稣在十架上的呼喊——“我的上帝，我的上帝！为什么离弃我？”——给出最终的回答。我们无法回答耶稣的问题。我们只能与他同死，并等待上帝在他里面做出回答。如果我们给出某种回答，那么这仅仅是为了书本上的神学，而丢弃真正的十架。我们给出的神学，不过是关于十架的又一种神学，而不是属于十架的神学。基本上，所有关于十架的神学最终都成为荣耀神学。

这里的困难在于：十架是关于上帝的知识，上帝的逻各斯；十架的道是攻击手段。它不是用那些我们可以盗用而仍然基本走在原来道路上的现成神学命题来铸成的。它将人治死，又使人复活。它把旧造钉在十架上，同时期盼新造的复活。“唯独十架是我们的神学”，路德可能这样说过。这句被多次引用的话要在字面上理解。但是我们一定会注意到，这是一个何等奇怪的宣告。十架如何能够是一种神学？十架是一个事件。神学是对事件的反思和解释。神学是关于事件的，难道不是吗？然而，正是这个原因，使得著述某种确定的十架神学成为不可能。所有这种神学，最多只能是为十架的宣扬开辟道路，推动我们真实地宣讲十架的道，保持它那种灭绝智慧人的智慧的愚拙形态。    

这即是说，十架不是静默的或者已死的。十架自身首先是上帝对旧有的罪人以及罪人的神学发动的攻击。十架是上帝在我们身上的作为。但是，这个十架，唯独十架，同时还为对付罪人的老我及其神学开启了一个全新的、闻所未闻的可能性。这意味着十架神学不可避免地非常好辩。它一刻不停地想要发现并暴露罪人将其背信隐藏在敬虔面具之下的种种方法。它的精髓是攻击我们所以为的最好，而非最糟的东西。这是十架神学通常作为荣耀神学的对立面被人谈论的原因。两种神学始终胶着在一场你死我活的争战之中。如果提到十架神学而不指出此争战，那么这种十架神学必定不是这里正在表述的十架神学。牧师—神学家必须知道这一点，并学会如何在这场争战中运用十架的道。

十架神学总是与荣耀神学战火不断，并且牧师—神学家必须知道如何在争战中运用十架的道，此事实表明我们可以勇敢地尝试在本书导言中做好两件事情，然后再进到具体的海德堡辩论。首先，我们要尽力通过讨论两个塑造人的存在和自我理解的“故事”——这两个“故事”在根本上是不同的，或者如当今神学家所青睐的表达方式：不同的“叙事”——来布设这场争战的背景。其次，我们要尽力说明做这些叙事所倡议的神学家的两条道路。我们盼望通过专心讨论这两条做神学家的道路，在一定程度上克服尝试“针对”十架神学进行著述所固有的困难。十架神学无意构造另外一套完善的教义，而是倾力培养不同的运作方式，我们将要看到这一点。这种十架神学的目标是使人成为十架神学家，而不仅仅是针对十架神学进行谈论或写作。

from: https://www.baojiayin.com/product-7513.html