(Snip)
> > 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)
It may not be germane to the central discussion here, but I think that
this second criterion is highly questionable. As a statement of your
personal faith-stance (or anyone's faih-stance, for that matter), it may
be unassailable in the sense that the statement "I believe that there are
seven levels of hell, as Dante claimed" [or whatever number he actually
claimed, if seven is incorrect] may be an accurate statement of your
belief or faith-stance. But, as a factual statement about the world (in
this case, about the nature of hell) it may indeed be false.
My point is this: Why, other than faith, should we, or anyone, accept the
central doctrines of Chrisianiy, or the historic creeds, as fully
normative? 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. Who can say,
of a certainty, that the central doctrines of Christianity and the
historic creeds may not embody similar mistakes?
Lloyd Eby
leby@nova.umuc.edu