Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!whuxl!whuxp!scott
From: scott@whuxp.UUCP (steve scott)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re: Fundamentalism Revisited -- A Liberal View
Message-ID: <116@whuxp.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 09:46:55 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxp.116
Posted: Thu Dec  6 09:46:55 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Dec-84 02:16:39 EST
References: <1124@akgua.UUCP> <1546@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany NJ
Lines: 62

> Let me begin by recalling Bob's five Fundamentals:
> 
> > 1) The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, trustworthy on all
>      subjects that it deals with.
> 
> > 2) The Deity of Jesus of Nazareth, that He was/is God incarnate
>      and the awaited Messiah of Israel.
> 
> > 3) The Virgin Birth, that Jesus was fathered by the Holy Spirit. 
>      His mother was Mary, Joseph's wife.
> 
> > 4) The Crucifixion and shedding of Jesus's Blood as remission
>      for everyone's sin problem.
> 
> > 5) The Resurrection of Jesus, bodily, and His imminent return.
> 
> In what I will refer to as a "radical conservative" formulation, we accept
> points 2, 4, and 5 without any reservations as givens. (Number 3 is
> accepted too, but is a derived truth.)  Number one is the sticking point.
> In its place we have the following two principles:
> 
>   A) Together, human reason, scripture, and church tradition are authorative.
> 
>   B) No one of these is inerrant or possesses ultimate authority.
> 
> Second, there is no way to guarantee that we are free of error.  Given the
> history of christianity, I see recognition of the fact as a positive good;
> we need to keep a LOT of humility in our theology.

	Isn't that the truth!
> 
> [Would someone like to do us the service of presenting Catholic and
>  Orthodox theology in a nutshell? Other protestant positions?]
> 
> Charley Wingate  umcp-cs!mangoe

In response to Charley Wingate's article:

	I consider myself a liberal Catholic, and am in the unfortunate
	position of having to agree in part with his views.  However,
	the point of no one of the sources he mentions as being 
	authoritative causes some pause.  A Council of the church
	(notice the small c) does have authority.  I won't go into
	the whole discussion of it, but Nicea, Vatican II, and even
	Trent were all authoritative statements of the faith.  It 
	must also be recognized that human beings are infallible 
	and therefore are subject to error.  Does this mean we can 
	throw out the decisions of previous Councils or traditions?
	No, we must constantly strive to retain our faith in the 
	Lord Jesus and remember His commandment of love, which
	mandates that we try to integrate our spitituality of love
	with our every day faith.  We must also not fall prey to the
	idea that God is no longer among us.  He is infallible and
	therefore can guide our imperfect musings on Him and our lives.

	This is not well phrased or is it the official position of
	the Roman Catholic Church.  To my mind, it is impossible to
	sum up the entirety (sp?) of Catholic thought in a nutshell.
	The only statement that can sum up the RC Church's theology
	is in the Nicene or Apostle's Creeds.

	Steve Scott	..!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxp!scott