Biblical Religion and the Search for Ultimate Reality
by
Paul Tillich
3.93 · Rating details · 115 ratings · 15 reviews
Dr Tillich shows here that in spite of the contrast between philosophical and biblical language, it is neither necessary nor possible to separate them from each other. On the contrary, all the symbols used in biblical religion drive inescapably toward the philosophical quest for being. An important statement of a great theologian's position, this book presents an eloquent plea for the essential function of philosophy in religious thought. (less)
GET A COPY
Kobo
Online Stores ▾
Book Links ▾
Paperback, 96 pages
Published March 15th 1964 by University of Chicago Press (IL)
===
To read at Scribd
https://www.scribd.com/book/187537859/Biblical-Religion-and-the-Search-for-Ultimate-Reality
=====
Aug 19, 2010
Wayne rated it it was amazing
Prepare to take a lot of notes, highlight and re-read a lot. This thin little volume is very dense, but teriffically rewarding as the reader follows Paul down a clear and succinctly defined path of both logic and empathy.
flag3 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Dec 03, 2018Roger rated it it was amazing
I read this book as part of my research into Tillich's thought for a required paper in a graduate school class. Like all of Tillich's works, it takes some effort to comprehend, mostly because of Tillich's unique use of the theological and philosophical vocabulary, but I found it to be one of his more approachable works . . . and short, too!
The closing paragraph is illustrative:
"Faith comprises both itself and the doubt of itself . . . Biblical religion is the negation and the affirmation of ontology. To live serenely and courageously in these tensions and to discover finally their ultimate unity in the depths of our own souls and in the depth of the divine life is the task and dignity of human thought." (less)
flag2 likes · Like · comment · see review
Nov 22, 2011Tylor Lovins rated it it was amazing
Shelves: theology-biblical-studies, religious-studies
This book is merely suggestive but useful if one is interested in how theologians have thought about the relationship between philosophy and theology.
(1) The main purpose of this article is to argue that “…in spite of the tremendous tension between biblical religion and ontology, they have an ultimate unity and profound interdependence” (1). (2) In light of his claim, Tillich seeks to answer: what is the ultimate concern? By establishing the ultimate concern, Tillich is able to show the unity of biblical religion and ontology.
(5) Before the analysis of the interdependence of biblical religion and ontology can be shown, they must be separated into distinct entities, although the distinction fails when Tillich shows the union of the two. To set up the interdependence, the two are embodied in the concepts of eros and agape. Eros “intuits the universals… of which the concrete is only a weak imitation” (50-51). Ultimately, “It uses the concrete as a starting point. But then it “transcends it and dissolves it into the universal” (51). Agape, on the other hand, is concerned with the “here and now” (50), and “seeks the person, the other one who cannot be exchanged for anything or anyone else” (50). More key terms are the Bible and is defined as “the document of God’s final self-manifestation” (2) and religion as the reception of revelation (3). So biblical religion is formally defined as the reception, and therefore the embodiment of the revelation, of the Bible. Philosophy is characterized by asking the question of being, making ontology the “center of all philosophy” (6). Throughout the article, Tillich sets up a contrast between ontology, eros, philosopher on one hand and biblical religion, agape, prophet, on the other. Again, the distinction fails when faith enters the equation: “the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern” (51). The ultimate concern is God (27), being-itself.
(3) I see the conflict between eros and agape as central in Tillich’s book. Tillich says, on page 50, “If agape and eros exclude each other, the case for a synthesis between biblical religion and ontology is hopeless.” Following is an examination of the interdependence of eros and agape. Whereas eros starts with the particular, the particular is absorbed in the transcendent, in the infinite, agape starts with the particular and accepts it as it is. As a result, eros is determined, not by the historical salvation event, such happened historically (it is only a concern of agape), but by sin. Because, to put it bluntly, eros does not rely on the historical situation—it is swallowed by an idea of history, not history itself. Thus, eros can never accomplish the ontological task. “Whereas revelation through the word keeps him who reveals himself apart from him who receives revelation, ontology tries to penetrate into the power of being which we encounter when we meet ourselves” (34). Ontology relies on biblical religion, being unable to reach being-itself (56) unless already participating in the historical reality of the eschaton (77). Agape, too, is shown in this interdependence because, staying with the particulars, one will never ask the question of being because the transitory will forever stay ostensibly infinite. Thus, the interdependence of biblical religion and ontology is characterized by biblical religion’s appeal to salvation history and ontology’s appeal to the universal (66). Being-itself is never found outside of biblical religion, but it is never asked inside of biblical religion—it is always assumed.
This is shown in a few ways, one is explored here. In the doctrine of creation, God creates something out of nothing (36). Accordingly, ontology cannot find God on its own because there is no substance of being-itself to be found in creation (36). Ontology, by itself, does not find being-itself. “Ontology dissolves the infinite into the finite or the finite into the infinite. Ontology seems to deprive God of his creative Word” (37). The creative manifestation of God is blended with God as being-itself. Thus, the Word of God is never received. “The doctrine of creation through the word denies any substantial participation of man in God. It replaces substantial identity by personal distance” (36). Thus, again, biblical religion is needed because by it we receive the “message that the divine Word was incarnate in a personal life, in the life of Jesus, who for this reason is called the Christ” (37). God becomes man because God is personal, God is Word (38). Indeed, the possibility for a person-to-person relationship is actualized through word, through the creation, in one sense, of a reality (31). As such, ontology cannot receive the Word of God, “the command of God, the expression of his will and purpose, the means of creating and ordering the universe, of legislating and directing nations and individuals, of ruling and fulfilling history as a whole,” because it cannot see the distinction between a universe being ordered and an ordered universe. The Bible critiques philosophy because it uses “unregenerated reason for the knowledge of God” (56). In its estrangement, by seeking being-itself, it increases its estrangement (56). “The philosopher has not and has; the believer has and has not” (62).
(4) Concluding, biblical religion reaches being-itself through ontology, and ontology reaches being-itself through biblical religion. Or, in other words, “…each side needs the other for its own realization” (42). The union between ontology and biblical religion is expressed most saliently on page 75, when Tillich says, “The Logos universal and the Logos as the power of a personal life are one and the same Logos. Only against the background of the universal Logos is the incarnate Logos a meaningful concept.” By recognizing the ultimate concern, the interdependence of ontology and biblical religion destroys itself, making the false distinction a single entity in the life of the person of faith.
(6) The main assumption underlying the author’s thinking is that the structure of being is distinct from the manifestation of being-itself.
(7) If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are seemingly simple. Whereas philosophy deals with the Logos, theology deals with the Word. Philosophy, then, gives us a way to articulate the rationality of faith; theology gives us symbols for expressing the meaning of faith.
(8) If we fail to take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are that faith becomes something esoteric, whereby one is unable to become a member of the group because one wasn’t born a member of the group. Or faith becomes mistaken as philosophy and where once there was participation, now there is only estrangement. In other words, faith will disregard the manifestation of being for being-itself: it will try to make a distinction between revelation and reception of revelation.
(less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Dec 10, 2013Ronald rated it it was amazing
The definitive synthesis of existentialism and the Christian theological paradigm. The concept of God as the ground of being was a turning point in understanding the unity and timelessness of God creator and His immanence.
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Dec 27, 2013Tom Talamantez rated it did not like it
Shelves: heresy, contemporary-theology
Heresy: Tillich worldview is grounded in Panenthesism, so his attempt to interpret the Bible in light of his worldview leads to an exegetical catastrophe. His philosophical footing is weak because he ignores the Biblical message on origins and takes you off into philosophical speculation that cannot be reconciled with the Bible. The book would be more cohesive without Biblical reference though it would eventually break down as all finite worldviews eventually do. I give it one star because he did write the book, a star for effort no matter how misguided. (less)
flagLike · see review
Nov 22, 2013John rated it liked it
Short and concise summary of Tillich's thought in the early fifties. The influence of his Systematic Theology is visible here. Tillich makes an effective argument for the use of philosophical concepts to make sense of the biblical God, indeed shows that this is being done even by the antiphilosophers, whether they are conscious of it or not. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Dec 17, 2012Gene rated it it was amazing
Shelves: ideas, religion
A clear and succinct statement of Tillich's position regarding biblical truths and philosophical investigation. He posits his view of God as the "ground of being" and opens the way for philosophy to investigate being ("ontology"). I would assume that would include Vedanta, Taoism, and prajnaparamita studies. But who knows? (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Jun 07, 2015Regina Kelly rated it it was amazing
Excellent book for it's length. It skims over several concepts, but I believe that's because Tillich writes about them in depth elsewhere. Over all an good read for anyone who thinks philosophically about biblical religion. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
May 03, 2007Craig Pope rated it really liked it
Recommends it for: those tracking the onto-theology debate/issue/illusion or whatever
Shelves: philosophy
Tillich's view of the relationship between philosophy (ontology) and theology (biblical religion). In a way his answer to Heidegger's critique of onto-theology. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Apr 06, 2012Erik Graff rated it liked it
Recommends it for: Tillich fans
Recommended to Erik by: Dennis Haas
Shelves: religion
I believe this little essay was assigned for the senior seminar for religious studies students at Grinnell College, Iowa.
flagLike · comment · see review
Feb 03, 2010Meg rated it liked it
Shelves: philosophy, non-fiction, religion
What is the connection between philosophy and biblical religion (between ontology and revelation, being and the word)? Between faith and doubt? Tillich questions his way to an answer.
flagLike · comment · see review
Top reviews from the United States
WayneSL
5.0 out of 5 stars Ultimate reality cannot be rushed
Reviewed in the United States on September 20, 2009
Verified Purchase
This tiny tome is the thickest piece of reading I have ever encountered. Tillich is crystal clear and exhaustive in his treatment of very abstruse matters here. I found that, in order to truly comprehend Tillich's message, I had to return again and again to certain passages. With teutonic concision, he parses and defines, then synthesizes and proceeds to the next level of certainty, gradually building very cogent models of philosophic endeavor and mystic revelation, then comparing and contrasting them dispassionately and honestly. If you really want to come to terms with the differences between religion and philosophy, the subjective acceptance of knowledge and principles delivered from another, versus the relatively objective testing of hypotheses and building of thoretic systems, this is the book for you. Do not, however, be deceived by its appearance of brevity. The weighty matters so elegantly covered in this book will take time and serious study to digest. A worthy venture, but not one to be embarked upon lightly. To the reader who perseveres, this book offers much clarity and discernment. To any other, it will seem nonsense.
18 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Jim Marcum
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent in every way!
Reviewed in the United States on January 16, 2017
Verified Purchase
Tillich has a way of including all of us as members of the human family and has a message for all of us, not just a particular sect that tends to exclude those outside their particular club. God is relevant and present in every life as the ground of our being, and therefore the answer to our search for meaning.
2 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
