Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Eric Potts wrote:
> 
>> You sound as if you are conducting a cross-examination rather than
>> engaging in conversation.
> 
> Sorry about that. It was, though, you who demanded a trial by
> your peers :-).

I thought everybody had a right to such a trial! Not that I sought a 
trial; I merely indicated that if a trial was needed, that's what I 
would find reasonable.

> Anyway: thanks for the answers. I don't propose to poke at them
> in detail, but please be assured I read everything. I do have
> one comment. You said, before, that "always [...] there is the
> yardstick of the Nicene Creed which [...] always remains in the
> original as a means to test new language". And when asked about
> how this works, it turns out that (1) you don't know what would
> constitute going outside the bounds set by the N.C., and (2)
> what you'd actually look for as evidence of maybe having gone
> too far is being told by your colleagues that you've abandoned
> authentic Christianity. So I still don't see how the N.C. is
> actually functioning as any sort of yardstick for you. Never
> mind; doubtless I'm just being dim.

The colleagues I refer to all have the same yardstick, as far as I know.
So I would respect their assessment rather than that of someone who 
doesn't! The Creed was a collective statement and I would expect a 
collective judgement as to its interpretation.

If I had indeed gone outside the creed, while still believing that I 
hadn't, I would look to those who held to the creed to make my situation 
clear. In the nature of things, one would be unlikely to be fully aware 
of the extent of one's own deliquency (assuming of course that one 
doesn't deliberately repudiate the Creed.)


-- 


Revd. Eric Potts

"Go in peace, in the power of the Spirit
to live and work to God's praise and glory."