What do you think?
Rate this book
Systematic Theology, Vol 2: Existence and the Christ
In this volume, the second of his three-volume reinterpretation of Christian theology, Paul Tillich comes to grips with the central idea of his system—the doctrine of the Christ. Man's predicament is described as the state of "estrangement" from himself, from his world, and from the divine ground of his self and his world. This situation drives man to the quest for a new state of things, in which reconciliation and reunion conquer estrangement. This is the quest for the Christ.
195 pages, Paperback
First published July 31, 2012
42 people are currently reading
529 people want to read
About the author
Paul Tillich
277 books421 followersPaul Tillich was a German-American theologian and Christian existentialist philosopher. Tillich was – along with his contemporaries Rudolf Bultmann (Germany), Karl Barth (Switzerland), and Reinhold Niebuhr (United States) – one of the four most influential Protestant theologians of the 20th century. Among the general populace, he is best known for his works The Courage to Be (1952) and Dynamics of Faith (1957), which introduced issues of theology and modern culture to a general readership. Theologically, he is best known for his major three-volume work Systematic Theology (1951–63), in which he developed his "method of correlation": an approach of exploring the symbols of Christian revelation as answers to the problems of human existence raised by contemporary existential philosophical analysis.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
July 23, 2019
After reading Tillich's Systematic Theology several times, my view of reality has been transformed into something that makes sense at every level.
July 11, 2012
This is a great follow up to the first volume of Systematic Theology. I can see why Tillich might be unpopular with typical Evangelical Fundamentalists. While the first volume pushed the line toward Process Theology and Open Theism, Tillich continues to be controversial by advocating an Adoptionist Christology and a symbolic ressurection. His arguments are compelling and thought provoking, and if they are valid then the merging of Christianity with modern society will be uncontroversial at all. Tillich may seem to be a liberal theologian from a fundamentalist perspective, but it would be a mistake to classify him as such. Tillich has just as much conviction and respect for authority as any fundamentalist might have, but his penetrating intellect has given him a perspective that should not be ignored. He provides a thought provoking historical analysis to back up his claims and of course communicates everything in existential terms which is a challenge to accept because it almost completely redefines what most people think Christianity is. Tillich has provided a shocking update to the Christian faith. This is done in every generation, but Tillich has gone farther perhaps then any other mainstream theologian. Whether or not he has lost Christianity along the way will be left for smarter people then myself to decide, but he should not be forgotten. I recommend this book for anyone interested in theology, as theology.
August 19, 2025
THE SECOND VOLUME OF THE MAJOR WORK OF A CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER
Paul Tillich (1886-1965) was a German-American theologian and Christian philosopher, who was dismissed from his teaching position in Germany after Hitler came to power in 1933. He came to America, where he taught at Union Theological Seminary and the Harvard Divinity School. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 187-page hardcover edition.]
He wrote in the Preface to this 1951 book, “So many have asked for and urged the speedy publication of the second volume of ‘Systematic Theology’ that I am afraid that its actual appearance will be something of an anticlimax… The problems discussed in this volume constitute the heart of every Christian theology---the concept of man’s estrangement and the doctrine of the Christ… This volume is smaller than the first and the projected third one, but it contains the largest of the five parts of the system… Here I want to say a word to the prospective critics of this volume. I hope to receive much valuable criticism… But I cannot accept criticism as valuable which merely insinuates that I have surrendered the substance of the Christian message because I have used a terminology which consciously deviates from the biblical or ecclesiastical language. Without such deviation, I would not have deemed it worthwhile to develop a theological system for our period.”
He states, “Man has freedom in contrast to all other creatures… But man is finite, excluded from the infinity to which he belongs. One can say that nature is finite necessity, God is infinite freedom, man is finite freedom. It is finite freedom which makes possible the transition from essence to existence… Traditional theology discussed the possibility of the Fall in terms of Adam’s … freedom to sin. This freedom was not seen in unity with the total structure of his freedom and therefore was considered as a questionable divine gift… But the freedom of turning away from God is a quality of the structure of freedom as such. The possibility of the Fall is dependent on all the qualities of human freedom taken in their unity… Only he who is in the image of God has the power of separating himself from God. His greatness and his weakness are identical. Even God could not remove the one without removing the other.” (III, B2, pg. 31-33)
He explains, “Creation and the Fall coincide in so far as there is no point in time and space in which created goodness was actualized and had existence. This is a necessary consequence of the rejection of the literal interpretation of the paradise story. There was no ‘utopia’ in the past, just as there will be no ‘utopia’ in the future. Actualized creation and estranged existence are identical. Only biblical literalism has the right to deny this assertion… If God creates here and now, everything he has created participates in the transition from essence to existence… Creation is good in its essential character. If actualized, it falls into universal estrangement through freedom and destiny… In spite of its tragic universality, existence cannot be derived from essence.” (I, B5, pg. 44)
He points out, “Nevertheless, the word ‘sin’ cannot be overlooked. It expressed what is not implied in the term ‘estrangement,’ namely, the personal act of turning away from that to which one belongs. Sin… expresses personal freedom and guilt in contrast to tragic guilt and the universal destiny of estrangement… Man’s predicament is estrangement, but his estrangement is sin. It is not a state of things… but a matter of both personal freedom and universal destiny. For this reason the term ‘sin’ must be used after it has been interpreted religiously.” (I, C1, pg. 46)
He observes, “The theological paradox is not ‘irrational.’ But the transition from essence to existence, from the potential to the actual, from dreaming innocence to existential guilt and tragedy, is irrational… We encounter the irrationality of this transition from essence to existence in everything, and its presence is irrational, not paradoxical. It is an undeniable fact which must be accepted, although it contradicts the essential structure of everything created.” (I, E5, pg. 91) He adds, “The paradoxical statement that the situation of the Christian… is not a paradox beside the christological paradox: that Jesus is the Christ… This is neither irrational nor absurd, and it is neither reflectively nor dialectically rational; but it is paradoxical, that it, against man’s self-understanding and expectations. The paradox is a new reality and not a logical riddle.” (pg. 92)
He asserts, “Christianity is what it is through the affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth, who has been called ‘the Christ,’ is actually … he who brings the new state of things, the New Being. Wherever the assertion that Jesus is the Christ is maintained, there is the Christian message; wherever this assertion is denied, the Christian message is not affirmed. Christianity was born, not with the birth of the man who is called ‘Jesus,’ but in the moment in which one of his followers was driven to say to him, ‘Thou are the Christ.’ And Christianity will live as long as there are people who repeat this assertion.” (II, 1, pg. 97)
He argues, “The problem is: Exactly what can faith guarantee? And the inevitable answer is that faith can guarantee only its own foundation, namely, the appearance of that reality which has created the faith. This reality is the New Being, who conquers existential estrangement and thereby makes faith possible. This alone faith is able to guarantee---and that because its own existence is identical with the presence of the New Being. Faith itself is the immediate… evidence of the New Being within and under the conditions of existence. Precisely that is guaranteed by the very nature of the Christian faith. No historical criticism can question the immediate awareness of those who find themselves transformed into the state of faith.” (II, A6, pg. 114)
He explains, “New Being is essential being under the condition of existence, conquering the gap between essence of existence… The term ‘New Being’… points directly to the cleavage between essential and existential being---and is the restorative principle of the whole of this theological system… The New Being … in new in two respects: it is new in contrast to the merely potential character of essential being; and it is new over against the estranged character of existential being… There are other ways of expressing the same idea. The New Being is new in so far as it is the conquest of the situation under the law---which is the old situation… Where there is New Being, there is no commandment and no judgment. If, therefore, we call Jesus as the Christ the New Being, we say with Paul that the Christ is the end of the law.” (II, B1, pg. 118-119)
He states, “The third expression of the New Being in Jesus as the Christ is his suffering. It includes his violent death and is a consequence of the inescapable conflict between the forces of existential estrangement and the bearer of that by which existence is conquered. Only by taking suffering and death upon himself could Jesus be the Christ, because only in this way could he participate completely in existence and conquer every force of estrangement which tried to dissolve his unity with God… The sacrificial death of the Christ is, for him, the [work] which makes it possible for God to overcome the conflict between his love and his wrath.” (II, B3, pg. 123)
He says, “The symbol ‘Son of Man’… agrees with the eschatological frame; the symbol of the ‘Messiah’ agrees with the passages in which the healing and preaching activity of Jesus are reported… But in all cases the substance is untouched. It shines through as the power of the New Being is a threefold color: first and decisively, as the undisrupted unity of the center of his being with God; second, as the serenity and majesty of him who preserves this unity against all the attacks coming from estranged existence; and, third, as the self-surrendering love which represents and actualized then divine love in taking the existential self-destruction upon himself. There is no passage in the Gospels… which take away the power of this threefold manifestation of the New Being in the biblical picture of Jesus as the Christ.” (II, B6, pg. 138)
He asserts, “There are three theories which try to make the event of the Resurrection probable. The most primitive theory… is the physical one.. Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the event, interpreting it with physical categories that identify resurrection with the presence of absence of a physical body. Then the absurd question arises as to what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse of Jesus of Nazarelth. Then absurdity becomes compounded into blasphemy. A second attempt… is the spiritualistic one… in analogy to the self-manifestationsof the souls of the dead in spiritualistic experiences… The third attempt ... is the psychological one… But the psychological theory misses the reality of the event which is presupposed in the symbol---the event of the Resurrection of the Christ.” (II, D3, pg. 155-156)
He summarizes about the ‘Threefold Character of Salvation,’ “(a) Salvation as participation in the New Being (Regeneration)… It is the objective side, the relation of the New Being to those who are grasped by it… (b) Salvation as acceptance of the New Being (Justification)… Justification brings the element of ‘in spite of’ into the process of salvation… Justification is first an objective event and then a subjective reception… (c) Salvation as transformation by the New Being (Sanctification)… Sanctification is the process in which the power of the New Being transforms personality and community, inside and outsief the church.” (II, E5, pg. 176-180)
Tillich's magnum opus is certainly a cornerstone of any complete modern theological library.
Paul Tillich (1886-1965) was a German-American theologian and Christian philosopher, who was dismissed from his teaching position in Germany after Hitler came to power in 1933. He came to America, where he taught at Union Theological Seminary and the Harvard Divinity School. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 187-page hardcover edition.]
He wrote in the Preface to this 1951 book, “So many have asked for and urged the speedy publication of the second volume of ‘Systematic Theology’ that I am afraid that its actual appearance will be something of an anticlimax… The problems discussed in this volume constitute the heart of every Christian theology---the concept of man’s estrangement and the doctrine of the Christ… This volume is smaller than the first and the projected third one, but it contains the largest of the five parts of the system… Here I want to say a word to the prospective critics of this volume. I hope to receive much valuable criticism… But I cannot accept criticism as valuable which merely insinuates that I have surrendered the substance of the Christian message because I have used a terminology which consciously deviates from the biblical or ecclesiastical language. Without such deviation, I would not have deemed it worthwhile to develop a theological system for our period.”
He states, “Man has freedom in contrast to all other creatures… But man is finite, excluded from the infinity to which he belongs. One can say that nature is finite necessity, God is infinite freedom, man is finite freedom. It is finite freedom which makes possible the transition from essence to existence… Traditional theology discussed the possibility of the Fall in terms of Adam’s … freedom to sin. This freedom was not seen in unity with the total structure of his freedom and therefore was considered as a questionable divine gift… But the freedom of turning away from God is a quality of the structure of freedom as such. The possibility of the Fall is dependent on all the qualities of human freedom taken in their unity… Only he who is in the image of God has the power of separating himself from God. His greatness and his weakness are identical. Even God could not remove the one without removing the other.” (III, B2, pg. 31-33)
He explains, “Creation and the Fall coincide in so far as there is no point in time and space in which created goodness was actualized and had existence. This is a necessary consequence of the rejection of the literal interpretation of the paradise story. There was no ‘utopia’ in the past, just as there will be no ‘utopia’ in the future. Actualized creation and estranged existence are identical. Only biblical literalism has the right to deny this assertion… If God creates here and now, everything he has created participates in the transition from essence to existence… Creation is good in its essential character. If actualized, it falls into universal estrangement through freedom and destiny… In spite of its tragic universality, existence cannot be derived from essence.” (I, B5, pg. 44)
He points out, “Nevertheless, the word ‘sin’ cannot be overlooked. It expressed what is not implied in the term ‘estrangement,’ namely, the personal act of turning away from that to which one belongs. Sin… expresses personal freedom and guilt in contrast to tragic guilt and the universal destiny of estrangement… Man’s predicament is estrangement, but his estrangement is sin. It is not a state of things… but a matter of both personal freedom and universal destiny. For this reason the term ‘sin’ must be used after it has been interpreted religiously.” (I, C1, pg. 46)
He observes, “The theological paradox is not ‘irrational.’ But the transition from essence to existence, from the potential to the actual, from dreaming innocence to existential guilt and tragedy, is irrational… We encounter the irrationality of this transition from essence to existence in everything, and its presence is irrational, not paradoxical. It is an undeniable fact which must be accepted, although it contradicts the essential structure of everything created.” (I, E5, pg. 91) He adds, “The paradoxical statement that the situation of the Christian… is not a paradox beside the christological paradox: that Jesus is the Christ… This is neither irrational nor absurd, and it is neither reflectively nor dialectically rational; but it is paradoxical, that it, against man’s self-understanding and expectations. The paradox is a new reality and not a logical riddle.” (pg. 92)
He asserts, “Christianity is what it is through the affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth, who has been called ‘the Christ,’ is actually … he who brings the new state of things, the New Being. Wherever the assertion that Jesus is the Christ is maintained, there is the Christian message; wherever this assertion is denied, the Christian message is not affirmed. Christianity was born, not with the birth of the man who is called ‘Jesus,’ but in the moment in which one of his followers was driven to say to him, ‘Thou are the Christ.’ And Christianity will live as long as there are people who repeat this assertion.” (II, 1, pg. 97)
He argues, “The problem is: Exactly what can faith guarantee? And the inevitable answer is that faith can guarantee only its own foundation, namely, the appearance of that reality which has created the faith. This reality is the New Being, who conquers existential estrangement and thereby makes faith possible. This alone faith is able to guarantee---and that because its own existence is identical with the presence of the New Being. Faith itself is the immediate… evidence of the New Being within and under the conditions of existence. Precisely that is guaranteed by the very nature of the Christian faith. No historical criticism can question the immediate awareness of those who find themselves transformed into the state of faith.” (II, A6, pg. 114)
He explains, “New Being is essential being under the condition of existence, conquering the gap between essence of existence… The term ‘New Being’… points directly to the cleavage between essential and existential being---and is the restorative principle of the whole of this theological system… The New Being … in new in two respects: it is new in contrast to the merely potential character of essential being; and it is new over against the estranged character of existential being… There are other ways of expressing the same idea. The New Being is new in so far as it is the conquest of the situation under the law---which is the old situation… Where there is New Being, there is no commandment and no judgment. If, therefore, we call Jesus as the Christ the New Being, we say with Paul that the Christ is the end of the law.” (II, B1, pg. 118-119)
He states, “The third expression of the New Being in Jesus as the Christ is his suffering. It includes his violent death and is a consequence of the inescapable conflict between the forces of existential estrangement and the bearer of that by which existence is conquered. Only by taking suffering and death upon himself could Jesus be the Christ, because only in this way could he participate completely in existence and conquer every force of estrangement which tried to dissolve his unity with God… The sacrificial death of the Christ is, for him, the [work] which makes it possible for God to overcome the conflict between his love and his wrath.” (II, B3, pg. 123)
He says, “The symbol ‘Son of Man’… agrees with the eschatological frame; the symbol of the ‘Messiah’ agrees with the passages in which the healing and preaching activity of Jesus are reported… But in all cases the substance is untouched. It shines through as the power of the New Being is a threefold color: first and decisively, as the undisrupted unity of the center of his being with God; second, as the serenity and majesty of him who preserves this unity against all the attacks coming from estranged existence; and, third, as the self-surrendering love which represents and actualized then divine love in taking the existential self-destruction upon himself. There is no passage in the Gospels… which take away the power of this threefold manifestation of the New Being in the biblical picture of Jesus as the Christ.” (II, B6, pg. 138)
He asserts, “There are three theories which try to make the event of the Resurrection probable. The most primitive theory… is the physical one.. Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the event, interpreting it with physical categories that identify resurrection with the presence of absence of a physical body. Then the absurd question arises as to what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse of Jesus of Nazarelth. Then absurdity becomes compounded into blasphemy. A second attempt… is the spiritualistic one… in analogy to the self-manifestationsof the souls of the dead in spiritualistic experiences… The third attempt ... is the psychological one… But the psychological theory misses the reality of the event which is presupposed in the symbol---the event of the Resurrection of the Christ.” (II, D3, pg. 155-156)
He summarizes about the ‘Threefold Character of Salvation,’ “(a) Salvation as participation in the New Being (Regeneration)… It is the objective side, the relation of the New Being to those who are grasped by it… (b) Salvation as acceptance of the New Being (Justification)… Justification brings the element of ‘in spite of’ into the process of salvation… Justification is first an objective event and then a subjective reception… (c) Salvation as transformation by the New Being (Sanctification)… Sanctification is the process in which the power of the New Being transforms personality and community, inside and outsief the church.” (II, E5, pg. 176-180)
Tillich's magnum opus is certainly a cornerstone of any complete modern theological library.
March 22, 2025
A more clear exposition of his theories than in volume I. I recommend skipping Vol 1 and starting here. I think the criticism he received for the first volume made him sharpen and clarify his argument. In this volume, he makes it clear that this is existential philosophy and only secondarily theology. The work is an existential framework spray-painted with a thin coat of Christian terminology (symbols).
The first half or so of this volume is about the estrangement of man from essential being. In the state of existence, man is estranged from the foundations of essential being (God). This results in anxiety, despair, angst, etc. In the second half, enter Jesus. He is a pretty good guy (who may not have existed), not a perfect mind, you know, but he was able to bring essential being into existential being. This is the New Being. This type of removes his estrangement from the ground of being (God, for those not following along). There is no incarnation or anything like that. All those traditional theological statements are ‘symbols’ of this New form of Being. (He loves to call everything a symbol - gives him carte blanche to fill the concept with his particular ideas.) What matters is not what Jesus did or said, but that he had this New Being which bridged the estrangement. What matters is people recognized the Christ in him, which is in fact what Christ is, the recognition of the Christness. Yes, circular i know.
It is not hard to see that a church that propagated this “theology” would not endure for the next generation. There is no there there. One (thin) coat of paint is as good as any other for this existential framework. Substitute in the religious symbols of your choosing. As the dust jacket blurb notes of the work: “…the author’s saturation in the main currents of thought….” So saturated in the existentialism and psychoanalytics of the 1950s that it has no enduring value. No author can escape his own historic epoch. Writings of the 1950s, both liberal and conservative, are characterized by hubris. The peak of modernism, where confidence was high that the final answers had finally been discovered, only for the modernist foundations to crumble in the next decade or so.
The work has a negative focus. A kind of reverse fundamentalism. He often calls ideas his disagreements with as demonic. That includes most of orthodox, creedal Christianity. What he actually means by that is hard to know. In his negation, he attempts to show how historic orthodox theology is completely wrong. In the end, he negates so much that there is virtually nothing left. We are left only with the potential for New Being. Yes, that is a valid formulation, but if that is all, what’s the point?
It should really be called “Systematic Existentialism with a Christian twist” (said ‘tweest’ like Serge in Beverly Hills Cop) .
The physical book itself is wonderful! Nothing beats these old hardcovers. Excellent paper and print quality. Fabric-covered boards. Tight-sewn binding, heavy dust jacket. As good 60 years after it was printed as it was new. Dust jacket price: $4.50 or $47 in 2025. What happened that we can’t get this kind of quality hardcover? This copy was also no doubt printed in the US. What happened to book publishing?
The first half or so of this volume is about the estrangement of man from essential being. In the state of existence, man is estranged from the foundations of essential being (God). This results in anxiety, despair, angst, etc. In the second half, enter Jesus. He is a pretty good guy (who may not have existed), not a perfect mind, you know, but he was able to bring essential being into existential being. This is the New Being. This type of removes his estrangement from the ground of being (God, for those not following along). There is no incarnation or anything like that. All those traditional theological statements are ‘symbols’ of this New form of Being. (He loves to call everything a symbol - gives him carte blanche to fill the concept with his particular ideas.) What matters is not what Jesus did or said, but that he had this New Being which bridged the estrangement. What matters is people recognized the Christ in him, which is in fact what Christ is, the recognition of the Christness. Yes, circular i know.
It is not hard to see that a church that propagated this “theology” would not endure for the next generation. There is no there there. One (thin) coat of paint is as good as any other for this existential framework. Substitute in the religious symbols of your choosing. As the dust jacket blurb notes of the work: “…the author’s saturation in the main currents of thought….” So saturated in the existentialism and psychoanalytics of the 1950s that it has no enduring value. No author can escape his own historic epoch. Writings of the 1950s, both liberal and conservative, are characterized by hubris. The peak of modernism, where confidence was high that the final answers had finally been discovered, only for the modernist foundations to crumble in the next decade or so.
The work has a negative focus. A kind of reverse fundamentalism. He often calls ideas his disagreements with as demonic. That includes most of orthodox, creedal Christianity. What he actually means by that is hard to know. In his negation, he attempts to show how historic orthodox theology is completely wrong. In the end, he negates so much that there is virtually nothing left. We are left only with the potential for New Being. Yes, that is a valid formulation, but if that is all, what’s the point?
It should really be called “Systematic Existentialism with a Christian twist” (said ‘tweest’ like Serge in Beverly Hills Cop) .
The physical book itself is wonderful! Nothing beats these old hardcovers. Excellent paper and print quality. Fabric-covered boards. Tight-sewn binding, heavy dust jacket. As good 60 years after it was printed as it was new. Dust jacket price: $4.50 or $47 in 2025. What happened that we can’t get this kind of quality hardcover? This copy was also no doubt printed in the US. What happened to book publishing?
February 17, 2018
A stunning successor to volume one. This volume is much shorter and more concerned with Christology.
April 14, 2023
"Nooooooo you're just reading him wrong"
May 18, 2025
I found the pages near the end on the atonement both comforted me and gave me a sense of profound optimism for the future 😊
August 12, 2011
Normally I like to write a semi-substantial review after reading books such as this. This, however, is not the time for Tillich's volume 2 of his seminal Systematic Theology. I will need at least one more read to formulate any coherant thoughts on this thrilling yet puzzling volume.
Unlike traditional theologies, Tillich does no less than re-invent the language we use to describe the Christ-event and its ramifications of the, to use Tillich's language, existential estrangement of humanity to God.
My initial impression is that I commend Tillich for this effort and I laud his attempt to re-orient talk of sin. I am curious about his take on the historical AND symbolic nature of the Christ event. I am appreative of his efforts to speak of the atonement in a broader way. However, I am a bit suspicious of what seems like an adoptionist Christology and often, as in the example of history vs. symbol, he tries to have the best of both worlds.
I am looking forward to reading this again, hopefully soon. At any rate it has given me much food for thought.
Unlike traditional theologies, Tillich does no less than re-invent the language we use to describe the Christ-event and its ramifications of the, to use Tillich's language, existential estrangement of humanity to God.
My initial impression is that I commend Tillich for this effort and I laud his attempt to re-orient talk of sin. I am curious about his take on the historical AND symbolic nature of the Christ event. I am appreative of his efforts to speak of the atonement in a broader way. However, I am a bit suspicious of what seems like an adoptionist Christology and often, as in the example of history vs. symbol, he tries to have the best of both worlds.
I am looking forward to reading this again, hopefully soon. At any rate it has given me much food for thought.
September 1, 2014
This is one of those rare ratings that warrants a review. First of all, I mostly skimmed it/read it quickly as a sampling of Tillich's ideas to decide if I want to read more of him in my free time.As a Protestant theologian, I find Tillich much too liberal to get behind, but as an Existentialist philosopher who believed that Christian revelation held the answers to existential questions, I find Tillich much more approachable. Maybe that's just a matter of semantics, but that's okay considering how concerned Tillich is with language (one of the things I really liked about him).While I disagreed with many of Tillich's ideas, I found the book to be incredibly thought-provoking and well constructed. There were also ideas, such as the existential implications of both The Fall and reconciliation through Jesus ("a man who lived under the conditions of existence without being overcome by them," or something to that effect) that I found brilliant. Tillich, much like Nietzsche, is one of those important and influential thinkers that should be read regardless of what one thinks of him.
July 8, 2016
This volume starts strong with an amazing analysis of existance and enstrangement but it ends up being repetitive and leaves too much unanswered. Let me illustrate this complaint: Tillich tells us dozens of times that Christ restaures the creation by curing the enstrangement but he never properly explains what does this means and how does it happens. Many questions will probably be answered in the 3rd volume.
January 15, 2013
The most interesting part of Tillich's system so far. I read the first two volumes straight through but will take a break after this one, as I feel it gives the core of his ideas, especially his existentialist perspective. It was interesting to compare Marcus Borg's more recent work on the historical Jesus to Tillich's comments here on the failure of the search for the historical Jesus.
Want to read
March 12, 2011HI Chelsea,
Iam bero,please can you help me to read SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY1,2,3
If you want to help me my email
omarya_2020@hotmail.com
THANKS FOR ALL
Iam bero,please can you help me to read SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY1,2,3
If you want to help me my email
omarya_2020@hotmail.com
THANKS FOR ALL
February 10, 2010
Even better than Volume 1- he's more clear about his complex systematic theology here.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews