Autor: Melchin, R. Kenneth

Buch: History, Ethics and Emegent Probability

Titel: History, Ethics and Emegent Probability

Stichwort: These 1; verschiedene Meinung: Offenbarung, Dogma - Theologie, Verständnis

Kurzinhalt: There are unbelievers who deny the mystery itself. ... Then there are those who admit mystery and dogma and also desire understanding; not, however, a theological understanding, but ...

Textausschnitt: Divergent Opinions

153c There are unbelievers who deny the mystery itself. (Fs)

There are those who believe the scriptures but, now for this reason, now for that, are unwilling to accept the infallible dogmas of the church. (Fs)
There are those who believe the scriptures and accept the dogmas but consider mystery and problem two very different things; so they assert that the understanding of mystery should be disregarded. (Fs)

153d Then there are those who admit mystery and dogma and also desire understanding; not, however, a theological understanding, but either a rhetorical or a philosophical understanding. Those who seek a rhetorical understanding abhor the technical formulation and systematic solution of problems; they seek not one analogy but many different analogies, and without wishing to thematize any of them explicitly, they choose rather to proceed implicitly and unthematically. Diametrically opposed to this group are the semirationalists. They assert that one ought to proceed with regard to God as three just as one proceeds with regard to God as one. So they would have it that everything concerning God either be self-evident or be demonstrated from natural principles. Their view has been condemned as heretical (DB 1816, DS 3041, ND 137). (Fs)

153e Further, there are those who believe the scriptures and embrace the dogmas and seek theological understanding. But they think the understanding should be a theological conclusion demonstrated from the truths of faith and from naturally known principles. It eludes their notice that, while science is concerned with conclusions, understanding is concerned with principles. So, because they aim at conclusions, they do not arrive at understanding. (Fs)

153f Then again, there are those who believe the scriptures, embrace the dogmas, and deduce theological conclusions, but also proceed from those very conclusions to a technical formulation of a problem. They seek the solution to the problem not through deduction but through a hypothesis; and because they deny that we can attain any other understanding in this life, they think that the hypothetical understanding should be accepted.1 (Fs) (notabene)

155a Finally, there are those who proceed in a more obscure manner. What is hypothetical they strive to demonstrate, as if it were a conclusion. They do not draw an analogy from natural realities truly and properly known. In addition, they throw into the mix interpretations of authorities that are hardly consonant with the principles of hermeneutics.2 (Fs)