By Schubert Ogden
There is clear!y clearly a problem with talking about "the meaning of x for us."
To say, for example, that christological predicates are by way of
expressing the meaning of Jesus for us may be (mis)W1.derstood to mean that
they express the meaning that Jesus has only for those asserting the
predicates, or, worse still, that the christological assertion they somehow
express or imply is true only in the sense of true for them. But as certain as it
is that faith, sensu stricto, exists only where I accept the meaning of Jesus for
me, it is just as certain that his meaning for me is not the only meaning I
intend to express when I confess, e.g., "Jesus is the Christ." In making this
confession, I also intend to assert or imply that Jesus is worthy of having the
same meaning for any human being whatsoever.
To say, for example, that christological predicates are by way of
To say, for example, that christological predicates are by way of expressing the meaning of Jesus for us may be (mis)understood to mean that they express the meaning that Jesus has only for those asserting the predicates, or, worse still, that the christological assertion they somehow express or imply is true only in the sense of true for them. But as certain as it is that faith, sensu stricto, exists only where I accept accept the meaning of Jesus for mefor me, it is just as certain that his meaning for me is not the only meaning I intend I intend to express when I confess confess, e.g., "Jesus is the Christ." In making this confessionthis confession, I also also intend to assert or imply that Jesus is worthy of having the same the same meaning for any any human being whatsoever..
Recognizing this is evidently closely connected with the criticism I've long made of Marxsen's typical analysis of "second statements." That God is my my Creator is indeed what I confess confess when I confess confess the Creed authentically as a as a symbol of my own obedient faith and belief. But what I imply imply-and necessarilyand necessarily imply-by my confession is that God is the primal source and final end and final end of everything and everyone and is therefore worthy of being acknowledged being acknowledged as such by anyone "capable of God," and so capable of making such making such an acknowledgement.
Of course, that x is worthy of being so acknowledged need not imply thatimply that y isn isn't-where x and yare and y are different values of the variable, "the allencompassing allencompassing whole from, through, and for which are all things and for which and for which we exist, and which is therefore our primal source and final end end." Provided Provided that x and and y, altho1:lgh although verbally and even conceptually different, are not are not really so because they both necessarily imply the same self-understanding as understanding as authentic and the same metaphysics and morals as as true-provided that this that this condition is satisfied, x and and y may may both be worthy of being acknowledged by acknowledged by anyone as the primal source and the final end end of her or his own existence and existence and of all existence, even though her or his actual experience and reflection warrant reflection warrant so acknowledging one or the other but not both.
To say, for example, that christological predicates are by way of expressing the meaning of Jesus for us may be (mis)W1.derstood to mean that they express the meaning that Jesus has only for those asserting the predicates, or, worse still, that the christological assertion they somehow express or imply is true only in the sense of
Recognizing this is evidently closely connected with the criticism I've long made of Marxsen's typical analysis of "second statements." That God isOf course, that
22 February 2005