You must understand also that the majority of people , pastors , christians they believe that we can forfiet and lose salvation by doing in sinning, wilfuly sinning, habitual sinning, live in sinning, keep sinning and disobedience to God that can cause forfiet and lose salvation and end up in hell fire or everlasting punishment thats what the majority believe that good works, obedience, Not sinning, Not live in sinning and also Faith are needed to be saved

​@@vince.sarigumba And what do you think? What do you think "salvation" is? And what would it mean to gain or lose it?

@@transfiguredword7892 you must understand that it is not easy for me because lately my pastor ondo he said to us that he did not believe in Universal Salvation and that he did not believe in Purgatorial punishment in hell fire because for pastor ondo once the last judgment comes those who sent to hell fire or everlasting punishment in eternal hell fire cannot come out and cannot be save again for my pastor believe that its final judgment and those who go in hell fire cannot come out

@@transfiguredword7892 many christians believe in everlasting punishment eternal hell fire or that its endless torment and my pastor is one of them who said to that once you are in eternal hell fire you cannot come out there its so sad for that idea of endless torment eternal suffering

You must understand also that the majority of people , pastors , christians they believe that we can forfiet and lose salvation by doing in sinning, wilfuly sinning, habitual sinning, live in sinning, keep sinning and disobedience to God that can cause forfiet and lose salvation and end up in hell fire or everlasting punishment thats what the majority believe that good works, obedience, Not sinning, Not live in sinning and also Faith are needed to be saved

I posted a reply to your good question but it never appeared. From memory: the brevity of a ten-minute video and the question I addressed did not give me time to talk about the differences between Tillich and earlier theologians, the most important one being this: Tillich, following Boehme and Schelling, introduces a dynamic component into his concept of God as being-itself that you will not find in antiquity. "Being" here is not the same thing as "substance," the latter of which is static and inert. Perhaps the Cappodocians are an exception, but in classical theism generally, "substance" implies the static nature of the Godhead.

@@DanPeterson-wl5cl Thanks for this response. Herbert McCabe, amongst others, argues that classical theism as exemplified by Thomas Aquinas doesn't imply that God is "static and inert". Negations such as impassible (i. e, that God does not undergo change) and so forth don't mean that God is therefore "static" (a charge levelled against Aquinas by Berdyaev and Moltmann, amongst others) : in a sense its a negation of both change and inertness in God; in other words its saying: we don't know what God is, he transcends such dichotomies. McCabe says that Aquinas was the most 'agnostic' of all the great theologians as to the essence of God. I will read Tillich to discover how he conceptualises this dynamism within being.

@@bayreuth79 That makes so much sense with regard to Aquinas, who has the benefit of writing on the other side of the via negativa as exemplified by Gregory of Nyssa and especially Pseudo-Dionysius. To negate change does not necessarily mean that change or dynamism does not apply to God; it's just that such dynamism must be understood in a transcending way. Does that sound correct (as in this is how McCabe would read Aquinas)? Of course, as you know from my response above, I was talking about theologians of antiquity for whom substance is inert, not about Aquinas in the medieval era who writes with nuance and subtlety. Thank you for your response. I really learned from it!

@@DanPeterson-wl5cl Thanks for your response. Yes; I think that’s basically how McCabe reads Aquinas regards the impassibility of God. This was a good exchange; thanks again.

Not quite: he's an eschatological panentheist, as I pointed out in the video. Maybe you could say he's a friendly neighbor to pantheism, depending on how you interpret him. There is a distinction between God and world for Tillich, such that God is "being-itself" and the world is "being mixed with non-being." It stands out from its source (exsistere in Latin apparently means to stand out), whereas as God is the "something" that is no-thing out of which all being stands. How's that for a leap? By emphasizing our estrangement in this regard from God, Tillich stops short of straight-up pantheism, hence panentheism as an alternative. Presumably, it maintains the distinction between God and world that pantheism absolves entirely.