Someone has said that we 'think reality through concepts'. I'm posting, once more, three printed statements for your consideration in lieu of David's new 'thread'.
Please, if you find nothing whatsoever of intrinsic value in any or all then, step to one side and walk around them. Leave off any petty criticisms. Number 1: "God grant that your mental horizon may grow wider every day. Systems are only dear to those who cannot take the whole truth into their hands and who want to catch it by the tail. A system is like the tail of truth but truth is like a lizard. It will leave its tail in your hands and then escape you. It knows that within a very short it will grow another" - Ivan Turgonev "What we realize is that behind this lies the whole temptation of the mind to control. But the nature of theology is that it should be receptive rather than controlling, open rather than grasping; a matter of delight rather than a matter of mastery. Grasping, controlling, and mastery are faster and seem surer. They are the shortcut to truth, but they produce a reduced vision of the truth. So always be suspicious of theological success." - James Houston Number II "The deepest questions are those which penetrate to our ultimate assumptions or beliefs and which exercise a regulative control over our knowledge in any sphere. These are questions as to the framework of thought with which we operate and, from which we put our questions. They are questions as to the hidden preconceptions of which we may not be properly aware. We all operate with regulative beliefs of this kind which are tacit and informal. They are not normally noticed and they operate axiomatically in our interpretive framework. Their power over us is in proportion to the fact that they are tacit and they are axiomatically held. But whenever a crisis arrives, whenever deep conflicts in opposing frameworks of thought arise, then our unconscious assumptions, our latent beliefs, are suddenly thrust to the surface and we are forced to think them out. Unless we believe we will not understand and it's only if we believe that we will understand. There is no understanding without the commitment of the mind to objective reality and to is natural or intrinsic intelligibility. - T. F. Torrance Number III "Theological statements operate with what we may call open concepts - concepts which, to be sure, must be closed on our side, for we have to formulate them as carefully and exactly as we can, but which on God's side are open to the infinite objectivity and inexhaustible reality of the divine Being. That is to say, the kind of conceptuality with which we operate in theology is one in which our acts of cognition are formed from beyond them by the reality disclosed so that the content of what is revealed constantly bursts through the forms we bring to it in order to grasp it. This can happen only under the power of the Spirit, as He presses upon us from the side of the divine Being. The Spirit is thus the act of God upon us which keeps our concepts or cognitive forms open, so that our thoughts and speech are stretched out beyond themselves toward the inexhaustible nature of the divine Being. Apart from this impact of the Spirit upon us, the forms of our thought and speech become quite obscure and indeed may even become a form of obstruction to the divine revelation or a means of suppressing the truth through the transmutation of knowledge into our own constructs. It is worship which keeps the epistemological process personal." T. F. Torrance David Miller says:'Basically, I hold Scripture(implied:AS I ALONE INTERPRET THOSE SCRIPTURES..Yes, I will engage any and all in 'truthtalk' regarding Scripture but, in the end it will indeed be MY INTERPRETATION that I hold to and live by and reasoning(implied:A LOGIC AND A RATIONALITY UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE SO AS TO COME TO THE 'TRUE' SENSE OF ANY AND ALL STATEMENTS CONCERNING REALITY) to be something that trumps creeds.David, I'm assuming that you believe the 'creeds' in question to have undergone the exact same process you wish to employee. So then, am I to understand that:David Miller (and each one of us) will, by the means outlined above, formulate our a creed and, determine whether 'ours' or 'theirs' is that to which we will, FOR THE TIME BEING, subscribe (believe)? Is it appropriate, at this juncture, to ask of the one self-identified scientist on TT (David Miller) to aid us in coming to an understanding of the distinction between 'relativity' and 'relativism'? I look forward to what I trust will be a 'fruitful' discussion. Note:It just may be that David Miller has put every credal statement by every group accessing Scripture and reason on a totally equal footing. IFF this is so then, I invite any such to make her/his case for the 'conversion' of all on TT to 'her/his truth'. Lance the non-originator ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: December 30, 2004 16:16 Subject: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth > Somebody wrote me privately, expressing being mystified from my not finding > the creeds of Christendom, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, > to be too important. I guess my willingness to deviate from these creeds > might be somewhat surprising to some. I am choosing to address this subject > in this forum because it relates to truth and our communication to one > another regarding truth and the standards of authority we use for > determining what is true and what is not. > > I consider creeds of any kind to be immature stepping stones on the path to > truth. They most likely will fail at some point when knowledge is increased > and greater understanding exists. Therefore, I do not hold creeds such as > the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed to be authoritative. Rather, they > are an effort to establish a truth that is really not yet apprehended by > all. The truth being established might be known to some but hidden from > others. Nevertheless, creeds often represent a compromise between conflict; > therefore, they ought not be trusted as standards of truth. They are, at > best, a picture into the consensus of a group of people at one particular > moment in time. For the most part, I consider a creed the same way I do a > working hypothesis or theory in the realm of science. It is a tentative > conclusion that is subject to change. > > We do not establish creeds for things that we know with certainty to be > true. Who has ever heard of a creed that establishes that 2+2=4 or that a > triangle has three sides, the hypotenuse of which equals the sum of the > squares of the two remaining sides? We don't mindlessly quote creeds every > week that says, what goes up must come down due to the force of gravity, or > that the sky is blue, or that the earth rotates around the sun, etc. In > other words, truth that is known to be true never has any need for a creed > in order to establish them. From this observation, we must conclude that > creeds are an immature way of forcing the realization of an idea upon > others. > > Basically, I hold Scripture and reasoning to be something that trumps > creeds. If Scripture and reasoning goes against a creed, I will consider > that to be a higher authority than the creed. The creed only holds > historical value of what people believed at the time, or of what people who > continue to embrace the creed believe. But the creed really has no > authority for me in regards to what is true. This does not mean that it > carries no weight at all. The weight it carries, however, is primarily that > it is the witness of truth given by a large group of people. That large > group of people, however, might be wrong. It is very possible that their > lack of knowledge and understanding is what caused them to embrace the creed > in the first place. One thing I am certain of, and that is that when > someone truly apprehends and knows a particular truth, he has no need for > any creed to declare it. At best, creeds give security to the insecure, and > that insecurity is the result of lack of knowledge and understanding. > Therefore, creeds are immature philosophical steps on the path to truth. > They do not represent the actual apprehension of truth, but only the hopeful > expectation of what might be found once that truth is fully apprehended. We > should not fear deviating from creeds. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
