Liberal?

John Kight · April 2010

I just got the Anchor Bible Dictionary. I was wondering if anyone who owns it would be kinda enough to point me in the direction of the more liberal articles? I want to know what to look out for! Thanks again Geeked

MJ. Smith · April 2010

John Kight said:
if anyone who owns it would be kinda enough to point me in the direction of the more liberal articles?

I fear "liberal" is in the eye of the beholder and thus falls into a theological discussion in which there will be no consensus. At the end of each article you will find the name of the author and the bibliography he used. If an article seems suspicious you can look online to find the credentials of the author and often descriptions of the resources used.

Mathew Haferkamp · April 2010

If I may be so bold as to say if you do not believe that the Bible is an inerrant book then you are a liberal!!!!!!!!!!

Rene Atchley · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/116943#Comment_116943

Liberal=everyone other than me....lol. On a more serious note follow up on individual credentials may well give one insight into what particular category a specific article would fall into.

MJ. Smith · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/116943#Comment_116943

Mathew Haferkamp said:

If I may be so bold as to say if you do not believe that the Bible is an inerrant book then you are a liberal!!!!!!!!!!

I wish I'd known it was that easy to identify 'em [:)]

Roger Feenstra · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/116943#Comment_116943

Mathew Haferkamp said:

if you do not believe that the Bible is an inerrant book

I would agree that is one definition.

Graham Owen · April 2010

John Kight said:
I just got the Anchor Bible Dictionary. I was wondering if anyone who owns it would be kinda enough to point me in the direction of the more liberal articles? I want to know what to look out for!

Liberal, like every other label, is relative and difficult to define other than perhaps at the extremes or as a stereo type. Also, assuming that your concern is theological, remember that a dictionary like AYBD will contain a lot of articles where the theological disposition of the writer will not actually make a lot of difference. Also with dictionaries its always worth checking in multiple different ones to see what they have to say and whether there is a consensus.Personally I have found that liberal does not necessarily equal bad and I try not to dismiss anything simply because the author holds a different theological position to mine.

Rene Atchley · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117060#Comment_117060

I think Graham you make several good points in your post. Often being a "liberal" really does come down to nothing more than one's own theological views in comparison to those other people over there...you know those liberals. As a theological movement I would suggest that "liberalism" had its height in the middle of the 20th century with folks like Tillich and what is known today in the Protestant movement makes those "liberals" seems quite moderate by political theological standards. Most works from Logos, given the overall universe of their product line, is quite safe (imo) for most Evangelicals to own and use without too much difficulty. My hope is that the this old debate (scary liberals vs. safe/orthodox conservative) is replaced by issues of quality and application of any given theological work in the Christian community...but that's just me.

Graham Owen · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117066#Comment_117066

ReneAtchley said:
My hope is that the this old debate (scary liberals vs. safe/orthodox conservative) is replaced by issues of quality and application of any given theological work in the Christian community...but that's just me.

That's a good comment, what I find amazing is how many people are unaware that authors they consider safe have extensively read and are influenced by theologians that they would consider scary. I remember a comment Noel Jones made about this at our denominational convention a few years ago about taking a good look at the bibliographies of the books on our book shelves. His observation was that we would not let these people into our pulpits in person but without careful analysis we allow them into our pulpits thorough our reading! Makes you think...

Alain Maashe · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117066#Comment_117066

While terms like “conservative” and “liberal” have
often been abused and the political meaning has been often confused with the
theological meaning, awareness of authors’ theological leanings (bias) and their
ramifications is an important step in the proper discernment of the material presented.

It is true that the topic is often oversimplified,
but I would guess that the OP referred the authors attitude towards the
authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible which is the main primary
source used is a ….bible dictionary.

I think it is best to think of the various positions
as falling into a continuum ranging from those who would affirm the verbal and
plenary inspiration of the Bible along with absolute inerrancy and hold that the
Bible is the final authority in all that it affirms to those who believe that
the Bible is just like any other literature of antiquity, the product of human imagination,
and which borrows from other works of antiquity and is not inspired. As such, the
Bible as a human product would therefore be susceptible to the same limitations,
prejudices, bigotry, errors, deception, short sightless that are common to
pre-scientific works where superstition instead of reason ruled the mind of the
authors.

Within this continuum, you have those who make minor
modifications to the most conservative of the positions by replacing for example
absolute inerrancy with full inerrancy (my own position) while others allow for
major modifications with view like limited inerrancy or infallibility. The same
happens also for minor and major modification made to the most liberal of the
positions.

I agree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
when it states:

Article
XIX.

WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority,
infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of
the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should
lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation.
However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave
consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

Even if one does not agree with the above, it is
however, certain that in matter of doctrine and authority, one’s presuppositions
concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible will often impact what
conclusions are reached.

A good example is the role of the Torah in salvation
history (simplified presentation of course), one’s view on the authorship,
origin, and veracity, and authority of the material included in the Pentateuch
will impact one’s conclusion about the way God has acted in history (or whether

He has even acted in history). Those who hold to inerrancy
and inspiration of the Bible will see the Torah at central to God’s dealing
with humanity and central to the rest of the Bible being both history and theology.
Those that see the Pentateuch as a late and at best exilic work (maybe allowing
for some older traditions) and a pious fraud will mostly try to place it in its
assumed “real” historical context and argue that it tells us a lot about Israelites
in exile but little about Moses, Abraham, and Jacob who most likely did not
exist and are just part of a made up story to justify the hope of an exiled
community who needs to keep hope alive by inventing a covenant with God, a
glorious past, and promises of future restoration.

While all the authors of AYBD do not all adopt the
second position, they are generally closer to it than to the first position. The
dictionary overall is still useful but many of its presuppositions and
conclusions will conflict with what evangelicals believe. It is important to be
aware of that and know that for an evangelical for example, its usefulness often
lies elsewhere (academic research, articles that are more theologically neutral
because of the subject matter, apologetics, and so on).

Consulting the Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible
on the same topic is enough to showcase the difference in presuppositions, approaches,
and the resulting conclusions.

I believe as an evangelical, that the above must be
considered before purchase an encyclopedia since “good scholarship” does not
always tell the whole story and some sources are best left to those who have
the training and spiritual discernment to handle them, even then, 1Co 10:12
still applies for the "scholar".

I know many will disagree with the above, especially if they do not share the same presuppositions (but this would also prove my point about the importance of discerning authors' bias).

Alain

Rene Atchley · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117081#Comment_117081

I understand that the Chicago Statement is one theological position on inerrancy. However, it is no more than just a statement which has neither the standing or importance of either Church Councils or Creeds as best that I can tell. Presuppositional theology seems to me to be no more than an "I said so" method of theological reflection in the line of Van Til (and others) which again is just one legitimate method of doing theology. Often these discussions seem to assume that there is some sort of theological "monitor" that measures the absolute position of someones elses theological tradition and training. Trying to replace Church tradition and historical positions with a new orthodoxy does not seem to me to be helpful when trying to measure the usefulness of Logos products in a discussion as exemplified in this thread. Again in the universe of Logos products being offered to consumers I feel comfortable asserting that most (if not all) could be used in a positive way in a local congregation for preaching, teaching, or correction. This all seems like an argument we have had before in another world at another time Alain.

MJ. Smith · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117081#Comment_117081

Alain Maashe said:
Those that see the Pentateuch as a late and at best exilic work (maybe allowing
for some older traditions) and a pious fraud will mostly try to place it in its
assumed “real” historical context and argue that it tells us a lot about Israelites
in exile but little about Moses, Abraham, and Jacob who most likely did not
exist and are just part of a made up story to justify the hope of an exiled
community who needs to keep hope alive by inventing a covenant with God, a
glorious past, and promises of future restoration.

Pardon my ignorance. This sounds a bit like the Jesus Seminar but I've not run into it before. Could you give me a couple of names of people holding this position? Thanks.

Alain Maashe · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117105#Comment_117105

ReneAtchley said:

I understand that the Chicago Statement is one theological position on inerrancy. However, it is no more than just a statement which has neither the standing or importance of either Church Councils or Creeds as best that I can tell. Presuppositional theology seems to me to be no more than an "I said so" method of theological reflection in the line of Van Til (and others) which again is just one legitimate method of doing theology. Often these discussions seem to assume that there is some sort of theological "monitor" that measures the absolute position of someones elses theological tradition and training. Trying to replace Church tradition and historical positions with a new orthodoxy does not seem to me to be helpful when trying to measure the usefulness of Logos products in a discussion as exemplified in this thread. Again in the universe of Logos products being offered to consumers I feel comfortable asserting that most (if not all) could be used in a positive way in a local congregation for preaching, teaching, or correction. This all seems like an argument we have had before in another world at another time Alain.

Rene,

I am not interested in arguing
the merits of the Chicago Statement, or even of the various views of inerrancy.

Whether or not one agree with the
Chicago Statement is irrelevant the point I am making. My purpose was merely to
describe the range of views represented in various theological works in
relation to the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible. Your statement that “in the universe of Logos
products being offered to consumers I feel comfortable asserting that most (if
not all) could be used in a positive way in a local congregation for preaching,
teaching, or correction” stretches to the extreme the meaning of "positive
use for teaching and correction" . Yes I could use the Koran and Gnostic
works (both part of Logos offerings), just to name a few, during a sermon or
while teaching but I would not be teaching or preaching their contents, rather I
would seek to correct their erroneous teachings. Even if one is not evangelical,
the principle is the same and would also be accepted by a Gnostic or a Muslim: works
that contradict each other at the most basic level and in relation to foundational
doctrines cannot possibly be equally useful to grow one’s faith. If it was so,
the very idea of "correction" would be meaningless

Yes,
the entire collection of works offered by Logos is useful for specific and often distinct purposes (apologetics,
academic research, syntax, etymology, archeology, and so on) but they are not
all useful for “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness, that the person dedicated
to God may be capable and equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-17)”

My point is simple, depending on
your theological persuasion; some works will be more useful to you than others
and some will not be useful at all when it comes to growing in your faith.

Publishers recognize this fact and
seek to offer collections build around a common theological framework (Lutheran,
Catholic, Orthodox, Southern Baptist, mainline protestant, Jewish and so on).

Potential buyers should be aware
of the above and understand the theological framework of the work and its assumptions (it is one of
the major features of scholarly book reviews and why they are useful)

Alain

Jeremy · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117133#Comment_117133

MJ. Smith said:

Alain Maashe said:
Those that see the Pentateuch as a late and at best exilic work (maybe allowing
for some older traditions) and a pious fraud will mostly try to place it in its
assumed “real” historical context and argue that it tells us a lot about Israelites
in exile but little about Moses, Abraham, and Jacob who most likely did not
exist and are just part of a made up story to justify the hope of an exiled
community who needs to keep hope alive by inventing a covenant with God, a
glorious past, and promises of future restoration.

Pardon my ignorance. This sounds a bit like the Jesus Seminar but I've not run into it before. Could you give me a couple of names of people holding this position? Thanks.

Martin Noth and Gerhard Von Rad are probably the major player with regard to this view. I would purchase the IVP OT dictionaries for a good evangelical appraisal.

I would take all the articles in the AB dictionary with a grain of salt, but it is a great but slightly dated resource.

MJ. Smith · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117161#Comment_117161

Jeremy said:
Martin Noth and Gerhard Von Rad are probably the major player with regard to this view.

Thanks.

Alain Maashe · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117133#Comment_117133

MJ. Smith said:

Alain Maashe said:
Those that see the Pentateuch as a late and at best exilic work (maybe allowing
for some older traditions) and a pious fraud will mostly try to place it in its
assumed “real” historical context and argue that it tells us a lot about Israelites
in exile but little about Moses, Abraham, and Jacob who most likely did not
exist and are just part of a made up story to justify the hope of an exiled
community who needs to keep hope alive by inventing a covenant with God, a
glorious past, and promises of future restoration.

Pardon my ignorance. This sounds a bit like the Jesus Seminar but I've not run into it before. Could you give me a couple of names of people holding this position? Thanks.

MJ

I guess the Copenhagen School
(the leader of the movement called biblical minimalism) could be seen as the
equivalent of the Jesus Seminar for the Old Testament. Key scholars are Thomas
L. Thompson, Niels Peter Lemche, and Philip Davies. Many of them see most of
the OT has having been composed in the Persian and Hellenistic period and they
go as far as denying the history of the events related to the united monarchy
including David and his kingdom.

However, “critical” scholarship
with the various incarnations of the Documentary Hypothesis is not too far
behind, they usually place the final composition of the Pentateuch around the
6th century well after Josiah “discovered” the Book of the Law in the temple
(the pious fraud) late in the seventh century. They would generally date the oldest
traditions in the Pentateuch around the 10 century BC, still nowhere near an
historical Moses.

Alain

Lynden O. Williams · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117060#Comment_117060

Graham Owen said:

Liberal, like every other label, is relative and difficult to define other than perhaps at the extremes or as a stereo type. Also, assuming that your concern is theological, remember that a dictionary like AYBD will contain a lot of articles where the theological disposition of the writer will not actually make a lot of difference. Also with dictionaries its always worth checking in multiple different ones to see what they have to say and whether there is a consensus.Personally I have found that liberal does not necessarily equal bad and I try not to dismiss anything simply because the author holds a different theological position to mine.

Well said Graham. The position you take is a sign of spiritual and academic maturity.

Rosie Perera · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117176#Comment_117176

Lynden Williams said:

Graham Owen said:

Liberal, like every other label, is relative and difficult to define other than perhaps at the extremes or as a stereo type. Also, assuming that your concern is theological, remember that a dictionary like AYBD will contain a lot of articles where the theological disposition of the writer will not actually make a lot of difference. Also with dictionaries its always worth checking in multiple different ones to see what they have to say and whether there is a consensus.Personally I have found that liberal does not necessarily equal bad and I try not to dismiss anything simply because the author holds a different theological position to mine.

Well said Graham. The position you take is a sign of spiritual and academic maturity.

I remember when I first heard a friend of mine in seminary say "I've actually learned a lot from liberals" and I was appalled. I've grown a lot since then. I would now say the same thing to others who are afraid of reading anything by liberals. My fear had been that I might be persuaded by them and move more towards their position (God forbid!). Well, well, well. If they have something persuasive to say, maybe I ought to listen to it. And if I'm so weak in my own theology that I could be persuaded away from it merely by listening to someone else talk about their position, then maybe I'm hanging onto my beliefs by a very thin thread indeed. I think we all grow stronger in our faith the more we listen to other people's positions. If we can learn why we believe what we believe, and learn to defend it rationally when other positions are expressed, that can only be good for us. And if we find that the foundations upon which our beliefs were based are erroneous or shaky, then maybe it's best to rethink them. And by a strong faith I'm not talking about a tenacious clinging to something despite evidence or arguments to the contrary. I'm talking about a calm, well-examined faith that holds up to scrutiny and isn't afraid of open questions.

MJ. Smith · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117185#Comment_117185

Everyone please go to http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/category/theology/ for the post “Why Doesn’t
Everyone Agree with Me?” or Doctrinal Disagreement to the Glory of God. This is written by a Calvinist, premillenial eschatology etc. Trust me this is worth reading in the context of this thread.

P.S. a copy & paste into a note worked just fine [:)]

Rene Atchley · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117189#Comment_117189

My only response to that artoc;e is that clearly they are not theologically enough (i.e. academically oriented) since they have written an understandable and precise position paper. I would have far more trust and confidence in their analysis if I didn't understand it.....[B] Uh...this is my pathetic attempt at theological humor...its divine.

MJ. Smith · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117269#Comment_117269

ReneAtchley said:
I would have far more trust and confidence in their analysis if I didn't understand it

Nicely done [:D]

spitzerpl · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117185#Comment_117185

Rosie Perera said:
I think we all grow stronger in our faith the more we listen to other people's positions. If we can learn why we believe what we believe, and learn to defend it rationally when other positions are expressed, that can only be good for us.

I agree with this, however I do believe we need to understand the over-arching, thematic views someone takes as we read their writings. journeys are taken one step at a time and in understanding the ultimate place the author ends up we can understand where the "next step" we are reading about is leading to. It may be that he got the "next step" right but somewhere along the way went off onto a tangent.

Rene Atchley · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117302#Comment_117302

Sometimes I think if we had a circle code of security or each work approved by an outside "safe" screener some of these questions would go away. However, being a Christian community there would an endless discussion on the color scheme and problems with the make up of the "safe" reviewers board. Perhaps the best thing to do is to look at each Logos product being examined with the understand that one is using it at one's own risk...Logos can not be held liable for dangerous ideas or author's....[:(]

spitzerpl · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117308#Comment_117308

ReneAtchley said:
being a Christian community there would an endless discussion on the color scheme and problems with the make up of the "safe" reviewers board.

Anything short of a Big Blue "D" (Duke symbol) would not meet my wife's approval. Then again, maybe the Duke symbol is not the best one to use to give those looking for evangelical scholars confidence :-)

Graham Owen · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117185#Comment_117185

Rosie Perera said:
I've grown a lot since then. I would now say the same thing to others who are afraid of reading anything by liberals. My fear had been that I might be persuaded by them and move more towards their position (God forbid!). Well, well, well. If they have something persuasive to say, maybe I ought to listen to it

I think that a lot of people share the fear of being subverted by 'liberal theology' sadly most of them don't actually know what they mean by that. Its a bit like the ten commandments its easier to get an amen from the congregation by saying we believe in them than it is to get someone from the congregation to name them all! I know that saying we don't believe in 'liberal theology' will get a real big amen whem I'm preaching but very few people can articulate what it means.

I teach people that they have to know what they believe and that what they believe MUST be based on the Bible and ONLY the Bible. It is frightening how much the average Christian believes that is not actually in the text but comes from the Pericope Titles, Traditions, a famous (or not so fkanous) preacher's interpretaion and through what it does not say (inference). I have been accused of being a liberal for highlighting these types of error to others!

I agree with an earlier comment about the liberal approach to the Bible, I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and in saying that I accept the challenges that are associated with holding that position. I would also add that liberal theology typically denies the supernatural nature of God and seeks undermine God's supremacy by elevating the status of man. In my opinion it is the last of these, the elevation of man, that has had the biggest negative impact on evangelical theology in the 20 to 30 years.

Al · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117176#Comment_117176

Graham Owen:

Liberal, like every other label, is relative and difficult to define other than perhaps at the extremes or as a stereo type. Also, assuming that your concern is theological, remember that a dictionary like AYBD will contain a lot of articles where the theological disposition of the writer will not actually make a lot of difference. Also with dictionaries its always worth checking in multiple different ones to see what they have to say and whether there is a consensus.Personally I have found that liberal does not necessarily equal bad and I try not to dismiss anything simply because the author holds a different theological position to mine.

And there would be those who would say that conservative does not necessarily equal bad. One of the best things I learned from my pastoral care professor in seminary is that all truth is perspectival.

MJ. Smith · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117341#Comment_117341

Graham Owen said:
I would also add that liberal theology typically denies the supernatural nature of God

Again I view I've not run into. Can you give me some names. Thanks.

Alan Macgregor · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117458#Comment_117458

At Glasgow University, while training for the ministry, from 1988-91 I had the privilege of working closely as a mature (40+) undergraduate in a small faculty of Divinity with several fine scholars whose theological persuasion was far from mine but from whom I learned a great deal – John Riches, John Barclay and Ernest (Paddy) Best in New Testament and Robert Davidson, Alistair Hunter and Robert Carroll in Old Testament.

It was the late, great Bob Carroll (SCM Commentary on Jeremiah), a self-confessed atheist who taught me Aramaic texts in a class of one! (there was no place to hide!) I loved it, though it was hard work – Daniel, Ezra and Genesis Apocryphon in two terms)! He used to say in exegeting the Aramaic texts in Daniel, "Don't let your theological presuppositions get in the way! What does the text say?"

Bob Davidson was brilliant on Wisdom literature, esp. Psalms and Qoheleth.

John Barclay on Paul. Wow!

John Riches (one of the co-translators of Bultmann's Commentary on John) on John's Gospel.

Paddy Best on Mark (his life's work).

These fellows opened my eyes and taught me how to handle the biblical texts in the original languages, but they never tried to change my convictions, even though they didn't share them.

I am so grateful to have known and learned from these fellows … and I'm still a Calvinist 5-Pointer! SDG.

John Kight said:
I just got the Anchor Bible Dictionary. I was wondering if anyone who owns it would be kind enough to point me in the direction of the more liberal articles? I want to know what to look out for! Thanks again

So, John (OP), don't be afraid of reading people whose theology differs from yours. They can still inform your mind, as long as the Lord has your heart!

Every blessing

Alan

Ken Shawver · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117185#Comment_117185

Rosie Perera said:
I remember when I first heard a friend of mine in seminary say "I've actually learned a lot from liberals" and I was appalled. I've grown a lot since then. I would now say the same thing to others who are afraid of reading anything by liberals. My fear had been that I might be persuaded by them and move more towards their position (God forbid!). Well, well, well. If they have something persuasive to say, maybe I ought to listen to it. And if I'm so weak in my own theology that I could be persuaded away from it merely by listening to someone else talk about their position, then maybe I'm hanging onto my beliefs by a very thin thread indeed. I think we all grow stronger in our faith the more we listen to other people's positions. If we can learn why we believe what we believe, and learn to defend it rationally when other positions are expressed, that can only be good for us. And if we find that the foundations upon which our beliefs were based are erroneous or shaky, then maybe it's best to rethink them. And by a strong faith I'm not talking about a tenacious clinging to something despite evidence or arguments to the contrary. I'm talking about a calm, well-examined faith that holds up to scrutiny and isn't afraid of open questions.

Rosie, well stated. If all we listen to is those with identical positions and steer away from other's opinions we can grow compacent and not be able to defend our beliefs. Also, by listening to others may open us up to allow the Holy Spirit to stir something up in our spirit to makes us take a hard look at something we hold dear. Just maybe, we might be taught something from the Holy Spirit to show us something we held as accurate wasn't and we need to dig deepr into the Father's Word and get to His truth.

Alain Maashe · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117458#Comment_117458

MJ. Smith said:

Graham Owen said:
I would also add that liberal theology typically denies the supernatural nature of God

Again I view I've not run into. Can you give me some names. Thanks.

Where to start? So many scholars, so little time

The majority of the entries in series like the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, Hermeneia, Old Testament library and so on...adopt an anti-supernaturalistic stance (a cornerstone of higher criticism (as understood by "liberals") that is still the majority approach when dealing with historical questions and the supernatural in the Bible). The willingness of evangelical to accept miracles and revelation is one of the main reason why the above school of thought is reticent to call what they do "scholarship" or even interact with them in issues involving historicity and the supernatural (ah! the things that bibliographies will reveal).

MJ. Smith · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117497#Comment_117497

Alain Maashe said:
The majority of the entries in series like the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, Hermeneia, Old Testament library and so on...adopt an anti-supernaturalistic stance (a cornerstone of higher criticism (as understood by "liberals") that is still the majority approach when dealing with historical questions and the supernatural in the Bible). The willingness of evangelical to accept miracles and revelation is one of the main reason why the above school of thought is reticent to call what they do "scholarship" or even interact with them in issues involving historicity and the supernatural (ah! the things that bibliographies will reveal).

Thanks for attempting an answer Alain, but I fear you've left me even more confused. To me, "the majority" of the entries in the AYBC would include nothing relating the (anti-)supernatural nature of God. And certainly miracles and revelation are not unique to evangelicals. So thanks for trying but I hope Graham Owen answers with more concrete examples.

Alain Maashe · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117513#Comment_117513

MJ. Smith said:

Alain Maashe said:
The majority of the entries in series like the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, Hermeneia, Old Testament library and so on...adopt an anti-supernaturalistic stance (a cornerstone of higher criticism (as understood by "liberals") that is still the majority approach when dealing with historical questions and the supernatural in the Bible). The willingness of evangelical to accept miracles and revelation is one of the main reason why the above school of thought is reticent to call what they do "scholarship" or even interact with them in issues involving historicity and the supernatural (ah! the things that bibliographies will reveal).

Thanks for attempting an answer Alain, but I fear you've left me even more confused. To me, "the majority" of the entries in the AYBC would include nothing relating the (anti-)supernatural nature of God. And certainly miracles and revelation are not unique to evangelicals. So thanks for trying but I hope Graham Owen answers with more concrete examples.

MJ

You will notice that I did not use Graham exact wording

Unless I am mistaken, Graham was referring (despite the ambiguous language) to an anti-supernaturalistic bias (which is not so much a denial that God is supernatural (although it often implies His non-existence), but a denial that He intervenes in the universe through miracles. instead such stance would try to find a naturalistic and "rational" explanation to miraculous events reported in the Bible). "the majority" of the entries in the AYBC take such naturalistic stance.

it is also possible that Graham's mention of "the (anti-)supernatural nature of God" refers to the reason behind a denial of the supernatural in the Bible: If one denies the existence of a personal God (God being merely a concept or idea used to explain life), the result is the same, the supernatural and revelation that are supposedly coming from God are also denied and the Bible is merely a human product .

My point was not to claim that evangelicals are the only one that believe in miracles, instead, I used a group I know very well as an example illustrating my point.

Alain

Alain Maashe · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117537#Comment_117537

I have the impression that two parallel conversations are
going on at the same time and this might confuse more than help.

What follows is written from an Evangelical viewpoint (which is usually the context is which issues pertaining to "liberals" are raised)

No one is denying that is it good and healthy to be exposed
to various theological systems (Calvinism, Arminianism, cessationism, continualism, dispensational theology,
covenant theology, and so on). The caveat is that the systems must be
within the framework of biblical orthodoxy. I understand that defining “biblical
orthodoxy” might be tricky at times however, there are doctrines that clearly
fall within that framework : the deity of Christ and His status as the Messiah
and savior, salvation by grace, the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the
possibility of revelation and the miraculous. Paul and other biblical writers clearly addressed
some of those issues and merely assumed the factuality of the rest.

While is it good to encourage all believers to wrestle with
the former issues, it is irresponsible to ask new believers or those immature
in their faith to study works that seek to undermine the latter expressions of “Biblical
orthodoxy”. I would not encourage new convert to read Bart Ehrman, authors from
the Copenhagen school, and other writers whose chief goals is to undermine “biblical
orthodoxy” and its foundations. They should
not begin by reading those works precisely because they do not have the necessary
spiritual discernment to handle them. I am in no way arguing that Christians
should under no circumstances read such books, I am arguing that those immature
in their faith have little if anything to gain in reading them and a lot to
lose if they read those works. Paul himself was of the inspired opinion that not
all teaching was profitable, even asking to silence some “deceivers” (Titus 1:11).
He was pretty clear about what to do concerning teachings that “oppose the
truth” (against I am not referring to secondary issues but to issues
foundational to the faith). Why we might not agree on the details, the biblical
testimony shows that such issues exist.

I understand that everything is not black and white and that
many often fight for their own “truth” and secondary issues, however, abuse of
a principle should not preclude usage.

My own library has books from the entire theological
spectrum, they are all valuable to me, but they are useful for different things
(I do not seek to grow my faith from works bent on attacking it, their usefulness
lies elsewhere as indicated in a previous post). I would not recommend some of
the books to a new convert and I often need to take a spiritual “shower” after
reading some of the book because they do not further “the administration of God
which is by faith. (1Ti 1:4)” even if they are useful for something else. some
works should be left to the discerning reader

Spiritual maturity is
not the ability to read everything out there and believe one would remain unaffected
(the principle is the same for physical food: you eat junk, your body produces
junk, from unhealthy fat to heart attacks), instead spiritual maturity is the
ability discern good from evil and seek the things that make one grow in the knowledge
of Christ as presented in the scriptures (Heb 5:12-14).

Alain

Matthew C Jones · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117308#Comment_117308

ReneAtchley said:
Perhaps the best thing to do is to look at each Logos product being examined with the understand that one is using it at one's own risk...Logos can not be held liable for dangerous ideas or author's....

Quite right! I have a several things in my library I would not subject young Christians to reading. My children do not access my Mormon, JW, Vedic, or Buddhist literature.There may come a day when they need to study these for legitimate reasons but for now I only provide them with the skills to study and reason.

There is no way Logos can officially endorse every viewpoint it publishes. Too many are contradictory.

As Alan Macgregor just said above, "...don't be afraid of reading people whose theology differs from yours. They can still inform your mind, as long as the Lord has your heart!"

Graham Owen · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117513#Comment_117513

MJ. Smith said:
I hope Graham Owen answers with more concrete examples.

Its late so here's a starter from a Logos resource...

modernism 1. Ideology arising out of the Enlightenment, often allied with liberalism, that hold that all forms of knowledge, including theology, must accept the laws of scientific validity and certitude, conform to the standards of reason, be intellectually coherent, and relate to human experience. 2. Movement within the Roman Catholic Church aimed at revising Catholic theology to conform to the standards and practices of modern culture, especially at establishing the compatibility of intellectual inquiry and faith. It arose independently in various countries as a reaction against dogmatics and Scholasticism, and flourished from the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. It declined after it was formally condemned by Pius X in 1907.

The three leading ideas of modernism were: 1. Critical view of the inerrancy of the Bible and adoption of considerable scepticism over its miraculous elements. The Bible was to be understood as the partial unfolding of divine plan in history. 2. Subordination of doctrine to practice. Christianity was interpreted as a moral scheme rather than as a creed or theological system. 3. Indifference toward history and skepticism toward Christian origins. Spirituality and salvation had less to do with the finished work of Jesus Christ than with the moral development of mankind.

Among the leaders of the modernist movement were Alfred F. Loisy, Maurice Blondel, E. I. Mignot, L. Laberthonniere, and Edouard Le Roy in France; Romolo Murri and A. Fogazzaro in Italy; and F. von Hugel and G. Tyrrell in England. It was finally condemned as the “synthesis of all heresies,” by St. Pius X in 1907 by the decree “Lamentabili” and the encyclical “Pascendi.” In 1910 all clerics were required to take an anti-modernist oath at their ordination. In Protestant churches, modernism has persisted throughout the twentieth century, leading to the reconstruction of the Christian faith as a system of ethics and adoption of a higher critical posture toward the Bible.

In New Testament studies, modernism expressed itself in a quest for a historical Jesus and in efforts to demythologize Jesus Christ. The leaders of Protestant modernism were F. D. E. Schleiermacher and A. Ritschl in Germany, R. J. Campbell in England, and H. E. Fosdick in the United States. It was embodied in the Broad Church movement in England and New England theology in the United States.

Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

MJ. Smith · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117549#Comment_117549

Matthew C Jones said:
My children do not access my Mormon, JW, Vedic, or Buddhist literature

Ah, now I know where I went wrong. In the summer following my first year of high-school, I was sent off to a two week Junior Engineers and Scientists Summer Instute. From the bookstore of the Christian College campus on which it was held, I came back with 2 Confucian and 1 Taoist Penguin paperbacks. Do you remember when they were 50 or 75 cents apiece[;)] I think I already had Buddhist texts but not Vedic texts in my library. That explains it all - why priests say my theology is so conservative it is positively Medieval.[:D]

Note: my father and his father were strictly independent Church of Christ.

MJ. Smith · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117553#Comment_117553

Graham Owen said:

Its late so here's a starter from a Logos resource...

modernism

Thanks. I now understand what you were referring to - it was terminology that had tripped me up.

Jim Dunne · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117549#Comment_117549

Matthew C Jones said:

ReneAtchley said:
Perhaps the best thing to do is to look at each Logos product being examined with the understand that one is using it at one's own risk...Logos can not be held liable for dangerous ideas or author's....

Quite right! I have a several things in my library I would not subject young Christians to reading. My children do not access my Mormon, JW, Vedic, or Buddhist literature.There may come a day when they need to study these for legitimate reasons but for now I only provide them with the skills to study and reason.

There is no way Logos can officially endorse every viewpoint it publishes. Too many are contradictory.

As Alan Macgregor just said above, "...don't be afraid of reading people whose theology differs from yours. They can still inform your mind, as long as the Lord has your heart!"

Matt,

This is excellent. My hackles start to rise whenever I hear (read) anyone suggesting that we should attempt to interfere with anyone reading anything - but your analysis puts this issue in an easily acceptable (for me) context. It's much the same reasoning that libraries use when theyissue juvenile library cards to young readers - they're not saying "no you can't read that" - it's more like they're saying "no, you're not ready to read that YET."

Thanks,

Jim D.

Matthew C Jones · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117560#Comment_117560

MJ. Smith said:
Note: my father and his father were strictly independent Church of Christ.

Biggest mistake I ever made was letting my 16 yr old start attending the local Jr. College. Just because she is intellectually gifted does not mean she was prepared for spiritual challenges.Now I do a lot more praying .

Many think we owe an equal consideration to all divergent views. We should weigh the content of the views and reject those that don't hold up under scrutiny. I have had to adjust some of my own views in life but I will never accept off-the-wall stuff if it can't pass the muster test. I don't care if the progenitor is minority, highly educated, or of different cultural background. That's why I like the Bereans; Don't even trust Apostles until you check the Word! [^o)]

btw: My father is Independent Christian Church

MJ. Smith · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117617#Comment_117617

Matthew C Jones said:
Biggest mistake I ever made was letting my 16 yr old start attending the local Jr. College.

One of the most important things my Father taught me from an early age was how to argue - much to Mother's dismay. [:)] However, it taught me how to reason and find errors in reasoning - something my teacher for 4th-6th grades did not appreciate [:(] What it truly taught me was to listen - to understand a different point of view so that I judge and respond to what is actually believed rather than what others think is believed.

Dan Sheppard · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117269#Comment_117269

If I may be objective (now THAT would be a FIRST), in the political realm, liberal and conservative have specific meanings. When translated to the theological realm, I have heard two other words; revisionist and traditionalist, with which I like to subscribe.

Even within one single denomination, there are those on both sides. I used to be Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), which believes the Bible is INSPIRED. I changed to Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS), which believes the Bible is INERRANT.

Within these two definitions used here only as examples, an LCMS'er would consider "inerrant" as a traditionalist view, with which they would concur, and the position of "inspired" as essentially accurate, in that we agree that the Bible IS GOD-INSPIRED. But where we would differ, is that we think that their use of INSPIRED is watered down, in revisionist manner, to draw away from the element of INERRANT.

Just for description purposes; not for arguing.

A good place to read about this might be to purchase from Logos, this book: http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/HSTINTRO which cost $29, is available on iPhone and would serve as an intro to anyone, who is just interested in where Lutherans really stand, with respect to the original church.

Graham Owen · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117565#Comment_117565

MJ. Smith said:
Thanks. I now understand what you were referring to - it was terminology that had tripped me up.

Personally I see liberal as an umbrella definition the same with conservative I do not think that I am unique in this regard but the danger is that a liberal becomes someone who has all the attributes of those that make up the the whole. In the context of the original question I think the one thing that we have failed to say specifically is that its not enough to ask whether some one is liberal we also need to ask in what way they are considered liberal and then consider how that might impact their writing on the topic in question.

I like Wayne Grudem's approach, in the from of his systematic theology he has a table that clearly states his personal position on a number of theological issues. I wish more writers had the courage to do this.

Ultimately liberal and conservative are both incredibly subjective terms.

I have been called a liberal by a KJV reader because I use the NASB and a conservative by an NIV reader for the same reason!

Personally I think that any mature Christian should recognise for themselves when they are reading something that contradicts their beliefs I think this is being addressed in other posts where others are suggesting how our exposure to different ideas should be extended as we grow. I enjoy reading material from many different perspectives because I find it strengthens my faith by making me reconsider what I believe and why I believe it.

Again trying to stay with the original topic, my advice is to read and enjoy the AYBD but read it like everything else carefully and judge each article not by the theological position of the author but by the quality of the content.

Rene Atchley · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117862#Comment_117862

Honestly this shouldn't be a Logos problem imo. How many of us go to our seminary library and require an ideological inventory of each book on the shelf so that the "freshmen" can be protected from the hard stuff...by whatever favored definition one wants to use. Are Christians truly this fragile?

I have run into this sort of paternalistic 'we must protect the children' defense on a favored web site of mine (in the past) and must say all this attitude protected was the sacred theology of the webs site sponsorship. It would be my hope that in an age where we can just about down load whatever (literally) what we want from the net that an organization with a solid reputation, like Logos, should be immune to 'save the children' theological paternalism. Thats just me though.

Paul Golder · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117867#Comment_117867

ReneAtchley said:
It would be my hope that in an age where we can just about down load whatever (literally) what we want from the net that an organization with a solid reputation, like Logos, should be immune to 'save the children' theological paternalism.

Agreed.

Friedrich · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117867#Comment_117867

ReneAtchley said:

Honestly this shouldn't be a Logos problem imo. How many of us go to our seminary library and require an ideological inventory of each book on the shelf so that the "freshmen" can be protected from the hard stuff...by whatever favored definition one wants to use. Are Christians truly this fragile?

I have run into this sort of paternalistic 'we must protect the children' defense on a favored web site of mine (in the past) and must say all this attitude protected was the sacred theology of the webs site sponsorship. It would be my hope that in an age where we can just about down load whatever (literally) what we want from the net that an organization with a solid reputation, like Logos, should be immune to 'save the children' theological paternalism. Thats just me though.

Rene, quite OT, but I have always thought of you as "male," but I see many have referred to you as "she." Not that it makes a difference in discussion, but I wondered if you could clear this up? [:O]

Matthew C Jones · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117874#Comment_117874

Dan DeVilder said:
Rene, quite OT, but I have always thought of you as "male," but I see many have referred to you as "she." Not that it makes a difference in discussion, but I wondered if you could clear this up?

Good question, Dan. My all-time favorite preacher to listen to is R. B. Oullette (Bridgeport Baptist Church -Michigan)

Although his first name is Rene, he says the "R. B." stands for "Real Butter." I believe it is a French name

Well, we will have to wait for Rene to tell us. [*-)]

Pastor Mick · April 2010

The misconception is that "liberal" and "conservative" positions lay on a "straight line" with the extremes being in the far right and far left. Life does not exist in a "straight line" but in a "circle."

A person on the left side of the circle can move so far along the circle that they end up on the right. In addition, the opposite is true as a person on the right can move along the circle until they actually end up on the left. You would have to draw a circle on paper labeling the left side "left" and right side "right" to see the illustration.

In political conversations, (if you adhere to the straight-line view) you can see a person traveling along the line left from liberal to socialist. However, what label is given if a person travels even farther left that socialist? This conception does not work because we really should look at the "circle of life" to provide insight.

From my own perspective, I do not want to be considered either conservative or liberal. In my circle illustration, Christ is in the "center" of the circle. That is where I find just living, equality, honesty, loving others as Christ loved me, and the Kingdom of God. The great thing for us is that Christ, being in the center, touches all points on the circle. That is where I want to be in the center with Christ seeing and learning (and loving all points) from all points.

I have studied with many individuals that some would call liberal that I have received great insight. Likewise, I have received equal insight from those that others would call conservative. I have discovered over the years that the divisions caused over discussions regarding liberal and conservative is actually a tool by the "evil one" used to divide the call of His Church.

If we are not feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the ill and in prison (the disenfranchised of our culture) then we have missed the boat and all our theological positioning is a mute point.

Yours in Christ, Mick

Matthew C Jones · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117867#Comment_117867

ReneAtchley said:
How many of us go to our seminary library and require an ideological inventory of each book on the shelf so that the "freshmen" can be protected from the hard stuff

I am assuming a real seminary doesn't have to bottle feed new Christians with milk like "30 days to knowing what you believe."

ReneAtchley said:
an organization with a solid reputation, like Logos, should be immune to 'save the children' theological paternalism. Thats just me though.

That is me too. I would be happy to see my daughter read from my Logos library and give it a fair consideration. (But then I don't have Karl Barth yet. [:O] )

Rene Atchley · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117886#Comment_117886

Renee is female in french ....at least that is what I am told.

Real seminaries have all kinds of weaklings who need oversight and guidance from the true moral parents....just ask the parents.

Jonathan West · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117883#Comment_117883

MichaelFinch said:
If we are not feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the ill and in prison (the disenfranchised of our culture) then we have missed the boat and all our theological positioning is a mute point.

Some might view this as a "liberal" interpretation of the parable of the sheep and the goats[:P]

Matthew C Jones · April 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/117905#Comment_117905

ReneAtchley said:

Renee is female in french ....at least that is what I am told.

Dr. Oullette did say he got beat up as a kid a few times for his name.

ReneAtchley said:
Real seminaries have all kinds of weaklings who need oversight and guidance from the true moral parents....just ask the parents.

Sad to agree with you. I've noticed three types of students enrolling: 1) Godly Christian ladies looking for a godly husband, 2) Godly Christian men answering the call to the minisrtry, and 3) Immature kids whose parents thought they'd get into less trouble at a Chrtistian school than a secular one. (Those kids go on to prove their parents wrong. [6] )

Liberal?

Comments

Categories