Lance wrote: > David Miller says: 'Basically, I hold Scripture(implied: > AS I ALONE INTERPRET THOSE SCRIPTURES..
No implication like this at all. The Scriptures are of no private interpretation. The idea implied here is that Scritpures, every jot and tittle, are an authority which can be trusted. Our interpretations of what is written might change as new knowledge comes our way, either from other Scriptures, or from other sources. Lance wrote: > ... 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. Yeah, that is pretty much true. Although we are not judged by God for what creeds we believe or do not believe, creeds can very much influence our behavior, which is judged by God. Therefore, creeds play an indirect role in how we might be judged. Ultimately, each of us alone must come before God and be held accountable. God judges us as individuals. When I stand before the Lord on judgment day, I cannot say, "I did such and such because my pastor told me ..." or, "the creed I was told to believe said ..." Because I stand before the Lord as an individual, I do the best I can to consider the knowledge that comes my way and to judge righteous judgment concerning it. If I decide to accept or reject a particular creed, I alone am responsible for that action. Lance wrote: > David, I'm assuming that you believe the 'creeds' in question > to have undergone the exact same process you wish to employee. Yes I do, but I also realize that the knowledge I have now is greater than the knowledge of those in the fourth century who may have attempted to formulate a creed. Also, the issues they focused upon in the creed may not be the issue I am focusing upon now. For example, one of the major issues of the Nicene creed was the homousia versus homoiusia dispute. I always chuckle at such a heated debate over a single iota in the creed, yet that single iota was very important. I do side with those who won out in choosing homousia to describe the relationship of the son to the father. At the same time, I'm not sure so much attention was given to phrases like "co-equal" when Jesus himself said that his father was greater than him. I agree with the idea of "co-equal," but only in certain aspects of its use. I'm not sure everyone who uses the term uses it in that way. It is just like the husband and wife relationship. Many say husbands and wives are equal. Well, in certain context, that is true. My wife has my name and she owns everything I own. However, there are ways in which we are not equal. In regards to physical strength, I am superior to my wife. I also am intellectually superior. I also am the ultimate authority in our household. So it depends upon what is in view when we talk about equality. It is important to consider that departure from creedal statements concerning the relationship of the son to the father has caused Protestants to put to death men like Michael Servetus and Giovanne Gentile. It continues to be a reason that millions of Mormons are excluded from the label of Christian by many other Christians. Could it be that our understanding of the relationship of the son and the father is not so set in stone as some would lead us to believe? Could it be that the creeds are not the final word on this subject? I think that is a distinct possibility, considering the memory of those whose convictions led them to face death instead of rejecting their convictions and embracing the popular creed of orthodoxy that was the foundation of condemning them to death. Lance wrote: > 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)? Perhaps, or we can keep our understanding open ended, as some of the quotes you provided suggested to us, in which case the adherence to creeds can sometimes be skipped altogether. Lance wrote: > 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 think this is your department, Lance. You are much better versed in philosophy than I am. Give it a shot if you think it helpful to do so. 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.
