--- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > Rednall. June 18/64 > > My dear Hutton. > > <snip> > At least I *cannot* understand you to mean that you have come to a belief in > the Incarnation, without authority in *any shape whatever*--though it has not > been through the word of the *Church*. For what is there in the phenomena of > this world, what innate or quasi-innate idea, what deduction or induction > from natural sources of information, which can possibly teach that God became > man? Some extra-natural supernatural source of information there must be, > some revealed word, on which belief depends, as its root. > > <snip> > Whether in nature then, or by the supernatural, all religion is a > revelation--an acceptance of truths conveyed to us from a Personal God, but > of course in theology we restrict the *word* 'revelation' to the > communication of those truths which reason cannot reach, and the formal organ > of those truths is the Church, but, I repeat, not the only organ to > individuals. > <snip>
Robin has a serious misconception that the reality and truth has changed since WW2. The reality was always the same from antiquity to eternity. It's only the human perception that has expanded over the past 400 years. The paradigm of the "flat earth" gave way to "round earth". For thousands of years, India was the center of the universe. Then the worldview expanded to cover Eurasia. The worldview further expanded with the discovery of the American continent. Then, the Sun became the center of the universe. Then, came Edwin Hubble and he discovered the Sun is just a random star in a vast galaxy of 400 billion stars. Now scientists are already talking of parallel universes. The 'anthropomorphic worldview' is long gone. At no point did reality actually change. Only human perceptions did change. Robin talks as if he is caught in a timewarp. Could it be he lacks a clear understanding of Science? Does he understand Richard Dawkins? There is no personal god in this vast impersonal universe. I wonder what Xeno Taxius and Salyavin has to say on this? > <snip> > This being my view of the subject, there is nothing in what I hold to hinder > me believing that you may have a real, (or what Catholics call a divine) > faith, coming of supernatural grace, in the Incarnation, even though you > gained it from the Scriptures (so that I had not cause to think you had > wilfully set yourself against the Catholic Church, which is absurd) and > believing too that in no slight degree your whole mind co-operated > approvingly and lovingly with your assent to that revealed truth. And > therefore I cannot simply accept your account of my doctrine with which I > began, that I 'teach that the only road to theological truth is authority,' > i.e. in your sense of the words. > > See how much I have spun out of one small test which you have given me. > > Very truly Yours John H Newman >
