Truth and Falsehood regarding Christian dogma
Eberhard Jüngel writes in his essay “God - As a Word of Our Language”:
The sole danger [of assertions about God which claim to be true] is that they are only too true and that they can thus easily be misunderstood to the point of not permitting of being proved false under any circumstances. In reply to such misunderstanding it should be stated that only such theological sentences can reasonably claim to be true as really expose themselves to the conflict between true and false and therefore do not in principle exclude the possibility of being falsified.Do Christian truth claims (i.e., doctrines) require the possibility of being falsified, as Jüngel claims? If so, what are we to make of Roman Catholic truth claims, particularly those that come ex cathedra? Are Protestants any safer from the "sole danger" that Jüngel points out? Is there a slippery slope that begins once we allow doctrine to enter the realm of possibility? Was C. S. Lewis wrong by using the same argument Jüngel makes to explain why he refused to join the Catholic church? Are Protestants wrong for denouncing a doctrine a false? In other words, what happens when two Christian parties both make a truth claim that excludes the other, thus denouncing the opposite side as a "false" claim? Is this appropriate, or not?