On Thu, 28 Sep 1995 20:04:14 -0400 (EDT) you wrote:
GM>I am willing to accept accept new interpretations
>_if_ they meet certain criteria:
>1) They are the result of new scientific knowledge which indicates we may
>have misinterpreted the Scriptures in the past
>2) They don't affect the central doctrines of Christianity (e.g. as
>> >expressed in the historic creeds of Christianity)
LE>It may not be germane to the central discussion here, but I think
that >this second criterion is highly questionable.....
LH>My point is this: Why, other than faith, should we, or anyone,
>accept the central doctrines of Christianiy, or the historic creeds,
>as fully normative?
I agree that it is possible that a "central doctrine" of Christianity
could be changed, under the weight of new evidence. The doctrine of
Inspiration of Scripture has been undergoing some revision. Many
conservatives feel a bit uneasy using words like "Inerrant" and
"Infallible", without some qualifications, like "in the original" or
"as intended", etc.
It is possible, for example, that the Canon could change at the
margins. Luther had problems with James and considered exclude it
from his canon. Also, 2 Peter has had its problems.
Protestant Christianity does not consider itself to be Semper Idem
("always the same" ) as does the Roman Catholic Church. It can and
does accommodate some change. But if wholesale change was necessary
to central Christian doctrines, that would make one question the
Providence of God and the role of "the Spirit of truth" who was to
guide the Church into all truth" (Jn 16:13).
The central question, is what is really "central"? If the following
matters that Paul called "of first importance" (1Cor 15:3-5) were
disproved:
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that
he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the
Twelve...."
then I think that Christianity would be falsified and the Christian
Church would no survive in the long term
LE>Jesus, for example, made it clear in his teaching that some of the
>central doctrines of Judaism, as expressed in then-historic
>interpretations of the central Hebrew texts, were not accurate
>expressions of God's will and ideal, at least as Jesus understood
>things.
It is not clear that Jesus repudiated central *Biblical* doctrines of
Judaism. He seemed to be bringing Judaism back to the original
meaning and spirit of their Law.
LE>Who can say, of a certainty, that the central doctrines of
>Christianity and the historic creeds may not embody similar mistakes?
No one can say anything with "certainty". The Christian Church, like
individual Christians, "walks by faith, not by sight" (2Cor 5:7). But
the evidence to date is that its "historic creeds" seem to be
remarkably free of "mistakes". The expectation is, based on past
experience, that they will remain so.
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------