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