Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@garage.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Sola Scriptura Message-ID: Date: 5 Jun 90 04:06:54 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner) Lines: 34 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Charley Wingate commented on something I wrote: > >Once they did this, the progression to agnosticism in matters of faith > >and morals became inevitable. Certainty does indeed become both > >impossible and irrelevant if one's ancestors made big mistakes in > >theological matters. For we could be just as wrong as they were. > > This is the *wildest* of speculations, and, I think, quite wrong. Well, here I have to disagree, of course. I think my comment was quite to the point, though perhaps exaggerated, as is my habit. Scripture gets quoted with free abandon here and in t.r.m, sometimes complete with Greek verb tenses, etc., but seldom is there any mention of the historical interpretation of the Church. For the most part, there seems to be great ignorance that there even is such a thing. Witness the recent discussions in this group. Why are the historical interpretations so ignored? I can name, say, a half dozen central doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church over which there is no dispute from the period of the Fathers until the Reformation. Say, 1000 years. I am not speaking of theological quibbles, but of fundamentals. Like, are we going to invoke the intercession of the Saints, or not? What model am I supposed to have of Church doctrine, if one can overturn fundamental doctrines? I see little left but a Modernist one: doctrines change to suit the needs of the times. To give a rough idea of what I'm talking about, what if we were to decide that Scripture was not a source of Revelation? This is akin to what the Reformers decided relative to Catholic doctrine. Joe Buehler