JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Paul:
I browsed through the link that you gave in an earlier post in order to try to understand what you are trying to say. If you have been reading my posts in the Apologetics forum then you will know that I reject part of that system of thought. I believe that it confuses the temporality of man's knowledge with the eternity of truth. For the life of me I cannot figure out what uninterpreted truth could be, or what it refers to. Nor do I know why that needs to be held up as point of argumentation, only to be denied existence as the point of the argument. It makes no sense to me. But it is basic to that line of thinking.
It has helped me begin to understand your dilemma, I think. Not that I do understand it fully, but I think I begin to see what you're driving at. So I wonder if maybe that problem of orthodoxy you mention is not a perceptual thing within that system of thought. I don't think the rest of us are on the same page as you are here. Let me try to paraphrase your concern, to see if I understand your original question.
People do not all see truth the same way. Some see one thing as important, and others see other things as important. It is not right that one should impose his importances upon someone else who cannot appreciate it's depth or scope. Thus there are different orthodoxies for different people, according to each as God has given them understanding. The only true test for orthodoxy must be that which all have in common, which you say is the three creeds formulated under a unified church. Therefore, though the Reformed confessions are great documents, they only pertain to those whose doctrine is described in them. For some understand truth in a different way.
Orthodoxy is not limited to one right way of thinking imposed on all. For there are some who have a different way of understanding the truth that is revealed to them. Though orthodoxy is defined as "right thinking", it may differ from one group to another what that right thinking may be. Where we all find commomality in right thinking is at the root of our religion, namely the early church's formulations. And that should be our basis for the use of the term in an over-all sense.
Does this summarize you basic point of concern? I tried to bridge the gap that I perceive. I may be way out here, though. If I am out in left field here, then I apologize.
I browsed through the link that you gave in an earlier post in order to try to understand what you are trying to say. If you have been reading my posts in the Apologetics forum then you will know that I reject part of that system of thought. I believe that it confuses the temporality of man's knowledge with the eternity of truth. For the life of me I cannot figure out what uninterpreted truth could be, or what it refers to. Nor do I know why that needs to be held up as point of argumentation, only to be denied existence as the point of the argument. It makes no sense to me. But it is basic to that line of thinking.
It has helped me begin to understand your dilemma, I think. Not that I do understand it fully, but I think I begin to see what you're driving at. So I wonder if maybe that problem of orthodoxy you mention is not a perceptual thing within that system of thought. I don't think the rest of us are on the same page as you are here. Let me try to paraphrase your concern, to see if I understand your original question.
People do not all see truth the same way. Some see one thing as important, and others see other things as important. It is not right that one should impose his importances upon someone else who cannot appreciate it's depth or scope. Thus there are different orthodoxies for different people, according to each as God has given them understanding. The only true test for orthodoxy must be that which all have in common, which you say is the three creeds formulated under a unified church. Therefore, though the Reformed confessions are great documents, they only pertain to those whose doctrine is described in them. For some understand truth in a different way.
Orthodoxy is not limited to one right way of thinking imposed on all. For there are some who have a different way of understanding the truth that is revealed to them. Though orthodoxy is defined as "right thinking", it may differ from one group to another what that right thinking may be. Where we all find commomality in right thinking is at the root of our religion, namely the early church's formulations. And that should be our basis for the use of the term in an over-all sense.
Does this summarize you basic point of concern? I tried to bridge the gap that I perceive. I may be way out here, though. If I am out in left field here, then I apologize.