|
A te and a he he. What 'the David' asks for 'the
David' gets.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: December 31, 2004 09:02
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The place of
creeds in relation to truth
Awesome. But I am thinking
that renewed effort will occur on TT urging you to limit your contributions to
a sentence or two.
John Boy
In a message
dated 12/31/2004 3:36:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
>
>
|
