A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

I'm a little lighter in the wallet today, (God love you, Seminary Bookstore) but it was a relatively painless trip. I always like to look around at the non-textbook shelves to see if there's anything from an intellectual standpoint or other vista that would make good reading. I always find something! Today, it was this book. I'm not sure if it will actually address the subjectivism issue that seems inherent in even the most nuanced versions of Sola Scriptura, but for hermeneutical process itself (if I may borrow a phrase--taking for granted that we mean the same thing--the "literal sense" of the text) theologically "conservative" Reformed people will find much agreement across the Christian world on the soundness of the process, even if the systematic theologies applied afterward widely differ. A rather boisterous, opinionated, gloriously anti-gnostic professor who teaches Covenant Theology here (let the reader understand) often unintentionally says "our tradition" a few too many times for my taste with respect to the fullness of Truth in Christ--as if I care what the Reformed tradition says, unless it's the whole Truth as best as we can know--doesn't seem to be at all bothered by hermeneutical subjectivity, as he said when pressed, "Hermeneutics is messy." Which was one of the things which started this whole inquiry. My pal Barrett Hamilton Turner said that statements like this and others provoked him as well, and now, chillingly, he has "swum the Tiber." I say "chillingly" because though I love Barrett and his young family and know that the Roman Church is ten times better (at least) with them in it, I don't see her claims as warranted yet. Comforting? Yes. Doctrine less confusing and contradictory than over here? It would appear. Christ's only real Church? Settle down, Sparky. She really is like a girl I'd lead on, but don't want to marry. (Not that I would do that in real life) What's with the crazy stuff she says?