V
Vico
Guest
Try reading the entire applicable sections from the original sources and you may, after understanding that systematic theology, that there is no ambiguity in those terms.
- Status
M
Muzhik
Guest
I’m sorry. Have you ever read any stories by Robert Heinlein? In one novel, he introduced something called a “Fair Witness.” People licensed to witness events, who can give evidence in court without being cross examined. We’re introduced to them by a man asking his secretary (who is a Fair Witness), “What color is that house?” She looked at it and said, “This side is white.” Not that the entire house was white, only the part she could see. And if you got her to march around to the other side of the house, she would only say that THAT side was white, since she could no longer guarantee that someone hadn’t painted the first side blue.
Most people don’t live like that. We accept that G_D has created a rational universe, with rules that can be logically deduced. We, as Spirit-filled Catholics, accept that there are truths that are **implicit **based on logical extensions of what we already know and that, under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we can come to recognize these truths.
Those Christians who are “sola scripture” reject outright that there are implicit truths, since the only truths we can *know *are true are those explicitly laid out in Scripture. The more we discuss the issue, the more I sense you are like one of those “Fair Witnesses”, who only accept what is explicit and reject implicit truths – that the other side of the house that you just looked at is still white, even though you cannot observe it.
Since we cannot agree on common terms, I see no point in continuing the discussion.
Most people don’t live like that. We accept that G_D has created a rational universe, with rules that can be logically deduced. We, as Spirit-filled Catholics, accept that there are truths that are **implicit **based on logical extensions of what we already know and that, under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we can come to recognize these truths.
Those Christians who are “sola scripture” reject outright that there are implicit truths, since the only truths we can *know *are true are those explicitly laid out in Scripture. The more we discuss the issue, the more I sense you are like one of those “Fair Witnesses”, who only accept what is explicit and reject implicit truths – that the other side of the house that you just looked at is still white, even though you cannot observe it.
Since we cannot agree on common terms, I see no point in continuing the discussion.
S
setarcos
Guest
Don’t be sorry. I’m glad you take the time to interact with me. I enjoy learning other viewpoints, especially if they bring me closer to the truth.
Actually I have read some of Heinlein’s work, risque as they are some of his work is quite worth the time spent. The book out of which you take the character type of the “Fair Witness” is one of his most famous, “Stranger in a Strange land”. It was a favorite read of mine years ago. Thank you for reminding me of this amazing novel. I did have to refresh my memory on the “Fair Witness” characters
but it was pleasant to do so.
I think you abuse the position of the fair witness as regards acquiring religious truth . In my analysis a fair witness was an occupation in which certain individuals were trained. It wasn’t a lifestyle it was an acquired skill. They were trained to be literal observational recording devices only in as much as their skill was required. They gathered only the data verifiable through direct experience it is true, the interpretation and use of said data was done by others but their skill was used for answering those questions which would most benefit from that particular method of inquiry in which the best information could be transmitted to others equally. Christs apostles themselves would be a closely related model of the “fair witness” with regards to witnessing about Christ’s time on earth.
Most people aren’t police officers, or lawyers, or doctors, yet all these people have one thing in common which makes their learned skills, even their lives possible, their ability to be reasonable and logical. The ability to communicate to others intelligibly is what makes each of their skills and continued living possible. This is not possible with implicit information unless others are “forced” directly either mentally or physically to know the same truth as the one who is guided to an implicit truth. If an implicit truth is not communicable to others explicitly, it transfers no meaningful information to the recipient. One may take it on faith that a certain proposed truth imparted from another is true but one can never know that truth actually IS true unless that same implicit truth is experienced exactly the same way by the other person it is being imparted to. For instance through Gods universal but personal revelation to each person. In this way no information about the truth is imparted between individuals but directly from God.
And even then no two experiencers can know that they’ve experienced the same truth if it remains implicit. It remains, and must remain, between the experiencer and God. Implicit truth is always and must always remain subjective to the experiencer unless made somehow explicitly clear through logic and reason. The holy spirit fills everyone, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Scripture says God is in all, through all, and sustains all. No one has a monopoly on guidance from the holy spirit. Such guidance is available to anyone who asks according to scripture. Incidentally, one of the crown jewels of the holy spirits gifts to man is reason. I’m not sure what you trying to say to me here. Is it that you believe I am not being guided by the holy spirit but you are therefore I am wrong and you are right? This would be a rediculous abuse of faith.
S
setarcos
Guest
I am not an adherent to “sola scriptura” specifically. I do not reject that there may be implicit truths. However, even implicit truth if communicated to others as truth must be explicitly self coherent and consistent and cannot contradict explicit truth or other implicitly derived truth. '”Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason…”ccc159 Catholics believe God is not a God of deception don’t they? Unless you have reason to believe the house is white on the other side as well why believe it? God gave to man his expectations of what is desired of us to do explicitly. Look at what the Catholic Catechism says, '…revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason:”ccc156, '…submission of our faith…be in accordance with reason,'ccc156, 'the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind.”'ccc156, '”Faith seeks understanding”'ccc158, '…a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith’ccc158, etc…
I have no idea if we can or cannot agree on common terms. You’ve offered none to discuss. You’ve offered no commentary on my arguments in refutation. What explicit truths are you talking about that you think I don’t agree with you on ? The only proposition you’ve presented is actually an attempt at arguing explicitly using logic and reason. Logic and reasoning which I have refuted and you haven’t countered with any apposing data. I may be confused since when you presented your views on here, an Catholic apologist forum, I assumed you were desiring to have a discussion about them in order to defend or find further truth. I really don’t see that you’ve done either. Perhaps you just haven’t quite presented your proposition as clearly as you would have liked, or maybe you have no counter arguments to my proposals and need time to organize some, perhaps instead of abandoning an untenable position, your pride will not let you or you wish to simply ignore the situation and continue with a belief your comfortable with in spite of its untruth. What ever the case may be, I cannot see where simply dropping a discussion which has become difficult would benefit either one of us but alas it is your prerogative.
God bless
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
You could also use this argument against St. Paul, if you had been around in his time. St. Paul “was in power” and enforced his own conception of truth upon the Churches he founded, which were not given explicitly by God to everyone. In fact, that is exactly why the Jews opposed St. Paul. It is also why the Christian Jews or Judaizers opposed him, and it is why the Catholic Church today continues to be opposed.
S
setarcos
Guest
You’ll have to expound a little bit more on your statement for me. Are you agreeing with my statement, as an explanation as to why these difficulties arise? Are you saying I must be wrong if my statement can be applied to St. Paul? Are you using St. Paul as a scape goat for the continued misunderstanding and opposition to the Church you see today? Are you saying St. Paul received a revelation implicitly that no one else did? Are you saying that the message St. Paul delivered in establishing some Churches could not be reasonably discussed as to their truth or authenticity? Are you saying St. Paul established some Churches based on unreasonable claims? Are you saying that because St. Paul wasn’t able to convince Jews, Christian Jews, or Judaizers this indicates that his implicit knowledge could not be effectively communicated? Are you saying there is no justification for opposition to the equivocation and esoteric and vaguely defined theological concepts expounded by the Church leadership today, which has no baring on the explicit message delivered by Christ to those who would listen to him on how to be saved? How then is mankind to be protected from those who interpret the truth and are abusers of the truth as well? How then are we to be protected from those interpreters of the truth who might set up an unchallengeable authority by which a digression from Christ’s truth might be achieved if we cannot explicitly see this digression? How are we to be protected from falsehood if the same ones who interpret these implicit truths they’ve been entrusted with are the ones who interpret how this might be achieved? If truth cannot be explicitly acknowledged by all who seek it then those few who claim to have the truth implicitly can declare anything as the truth, so long as it fits their own personal goals. Why is it that the Holy spirit should confine his implicit truths to the few when Gods goal is to save everyone? Why is it that the Church leadership themselves create opposition to the Church by establishing unnecessary to salvation explanations for the unexplainable, creating “stumbling blocks” for those who would otherwise be saved? But I digress into the ravings of a frustrated truth seeker. My apologies.
Blessings be upon you and yours…
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Why isn’t Adam’s sin called the efficient cause of OS
- Status