Paul Terry said:

Is there general agreement on the best conservative and best liberal commentaries for each individual book of the bible?

None at all!

Paul Terry said:

Is there a web site where I can find out what are the best liberal and conservative commentaries for each book of the bible?

In addition to the website mentioned above, there are two books in Logos that might help.

• https://www.logos.com/product/5342/new-testament-commentary-survey-6th-ed
• https://www.logos.com/product/31954/old-testament-commentary-survey-5th-ed

Both authors are relatively conservative, but include the full range of commentaries in their scope, and their comments should give you a rough idea where a commentary falls on the conservative/liberal spectrum.

tom said:

There isn't even an understanding of what is considered to be conservative and what is considered to be liberal.

[Y][Y] I had been wanting to say that...   It has gotten so that I refuse to use the terms because they seem to have no meaning.

Kumbaya ! [:)]

Mark Barnes said:

In addition to the website mentioned above, there are two books in Logos that might help.

• https://www.logos.com/product/5342/new-testament-commentary-survey-6th-ed
• https://www.logos.com/product/31954/old-testament-commentary-survey-5th-ed

Probably your best move because one might say this series is liberal or that series is conservative and find out Volume B of a conservative series is rather liberal, and Volume A of this fairly liberal series is rather conservative. I personally do not care for the labels much. New Interpreter's Bible (12 vols.) is in many ways and books fairly conservative and in other ways fairly liberal, depending on the author of book and their approach to a topic. 

-Dan

Denise said:

... (even though I'm 'fundementalist').

We fundamentalists have dissenting opinions about what exactly is fundamental to the faith.  We do, however, universally agree on.... wait.... false alarm... we don't agree on much of anything.  [:|]

JPH said:

wbc, but then you spend a some years in and out of it and find that it's just not.

Word Biblical Commentary (WBC) (59 vols.) is one of my favourite series.

[:D]

William, that's a real keeper!  Kudos.

Denise said:That's one big reason I rarely have any problem with Catholic authors (even though I'm 'fundementalist').

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10643820/Snake-handling-pastor-dies-after-rattlesnake-bite.html 

Great thread. 

I am generally regarded as the most conservative voice theologically in our United Methodist Conference.  (I think that is an honest statement.). When my son married a precious young woman whose parents belonged to an independent church, the father was very concerned about her marrying the son of one of those liberal United Methodist pastors.  All that I could do was laugh and say was, "'Tis a charge that has seldom been made!". We so often judge each other prematurely.

Concerning commentaries these are my thoughts.

1.  One should not get one's understanding of a passage of Scripture from any commentary, but from inductive study.  Commentaries should come last in the study process for comparison purposes, and to check our results.  If our understanding of a passage is too far from all solid commentaries, we might want to reconsider.

2.  The most important thing is not whether the author is liberal or conservative, but the author's scholarship.  Does the author's theological bias and presuppositions control his understanding of the passage? Does the author of the commentary have an agenda?  Does the author have solid exegetical skills?

3.  The most helpful commentaries are not those that parrot my own views.  I already know what I think.  The best commentaries are ones that make me think, and help me understand why I believe what I believe.  Understanding the other side of an argument is crucial to understanding your own views.

4. A variety of types of commentaries are helpful - after I have thoroughly studied a passage inductively.  A mixture of scholarly, exegetical, and expository commentaries is a good approach. 

5.  When it comes to theology, remember John Wesley's wise words: "He may be almost as orthodox—as the devil, (though, indeed, not altogether; for every man errs in something; whereas we can’t well conceive him to hold any erroneous opinion,) and may, all the while be as great a stranger as he to the religion of the heart."

William Gabriel said:

Easy, anyone who believes in fewer points of doctrine than me is a flaming liberal and might as well deny the faith. Anyone who believes more points of doctrine than me is a fundamentalist whack-job, and I would never want to associate with them.

[Y]

William Gabriel said:

tom said:

There isn't even an understanding of what is considered to be conservative and what is considered to be liberal.

Easy, anyone who believes in fewer points of doctrine than me is a flaming liberal and might as well deny the faith. Anyone who believes more points of doctrine than me is a fundamentalist whack-job, and I would never want to associate with them.

I wonder how Jesus would be labelled if he turned up in a Church today. And what about Paul?. I'm sure that based on his apparent disregard of the law and Jewish traditions he would have been labelled as a liberal by some,

I wonder is we will ever reach the point where we talk about a commentary set being balanced rather than liberal or conservative.

Jack Caviness said:

Coots was not a Fundamentalist in the historic sense of the term. He probably never read The Fundamentals, and likely would not have understood them if he had read them.

Paul, those appear to be very fundemental questions.  Can we assume you subscribe to a fundemental logic?

Actually, I do take seriously the scorpions, snakes, and so forth. Not in the hands of pastors, of course.  But there does appear to  be some sort of cultural mileau that combined these.  Yesterday, I saw it again but in the Talmud regarding the benefits of a privy, but adding protection from evil spirits too.

I wonder (emphasis 'wonder') if in Palestine at least, the participants (scorpions, snakes) were combined with the demons who inhabited the 'wilderness' (uninhabited area)?  Like Sedona, for instance.

Denise said:

I wonder (emphasis 'wonder') if in Palestine at least, the participants (scorpions, snakes) were combined with the demons who inhabited the 'wilderness' (uninhabited area)?  Like Sedona, for instance.

Graham Owen said:

The Conservative/Liberal divide is, IMHO, a product of 19th and 20th Century European and American intellectualism.

Paul C said:

Do you see a connection between  intellectualism and say...Gnosticism ?

I see parallels in the way that both systems distract believers from the truth but personally I see them as having a very different philosophy at the core.

As I get older what I notice more and more is that the intellectual approach drives us into the mind numbing detail to the point where we miss the bigger picture and even start to invent some detail to fill in the blanks. There is also an obsession with being 'right', detail does that to you, an example of which is the camel debate that another thread here refers to. Francis Schaeffer expressed it like this:

We want to know more than we are actually given. So it is necessary for us to remind ourselves again just what kind of book the Bible is. As I have already indicated, the Bible is a book for fallen men. Wherever it touches upon anything, it does so with true truth, but not with exhaustive truth.

Schaeffer, F. A. (1982). The complete works of Francis A. Schaeffer: a Christian worldview (Vol. 2, p. 52). Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

I see a faith and sense of mystery in the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers that is missing from modern 'intellectual' Christianity.

Paul C said:

Now I will Attempt to digress, so as not to be held in contempt of the forum rules.

I always try and hide my OT stuff with a quote from a Logos book like the Schaeffer one!

If you find Matthew Henry useless, perhaps it's not whether its liberal or not, but the type of commentary you need to change. Matthew is devotional.

Paul Terry said:

Now I am at a place where I am really trying to understand what the different *CHRISTIAN* beliefs are based on. I was planning to use commentaries and theology books to try figure this out.

If you are referring to beliefs on a denominational perspective, the book "Complete Guide to Christian Denominations: Understanding the History, Beliefs, and Differences" by Ron Rhodes may give you some basic information. Logos does not have this book. I purchased a copy of it about a year and a half ago from www.christianbook.com.

I am very interested in this new series of commentaries that traces what has been thought about a certain passage over the centuries, and how it has been received and responded to historically, in theology, the arts, etc. I hope we can get it in Logos before long:

Blackwell Bible Commentaries

Paul Terry said:

Now I am at a place where I am really trying to understand what the different *CHRISTIAN* beliefs are based on. I was planning to use commentaries and theology books to try figure this out.

BTW, this is what ultimately drove me to seminary. I'd been exposed to bits of all kinds of streams of Christianity and wanted to understand what was true, and what I believed out of it all, and how to explain it to others. Came away much more understanding of others, and much less certain that there was ONE correct group out there for me to find and align myself with whereas all the others had it wrong (or partially wrong). The key to coming to this sense of peace about it all was that I chose to attend a transdenominational seminary. Obviously, if I'd picked a confessional one, that would have steered me in a particular direction which I would have either bought hook-line-and-sinker (unlikely, given the thinker that I am) or resisted to the point of hating my experience. I'm so glad I ended up studying at Regent College. It built a solid foundation for me to evaluate beliefs on my own, instead of feeding me what to believe.

Rosie Perera said:

I am very interested in this new series of commentaries that traces what has been thought about a certain passage over the centuries, and how it has been received and responded to historically, in theology, the arts, etc. I hope we can get it in Logos before long:

Blackwell Bible Commentaries

[Y]

William Gabriel said:

Given their doctrinal statement, though, can you say they're not confessional?

They have a doctrinal statement (modeled on that of the World Evangelical Fellowship), but students don't have to sign it to be admitted. Faculty do, though they've had some summer school faculty in the past (such as Madeleine l'Engle) who couldn't in good conscience sign, and they've made exceptions for them if it was someone extraordinary. They've had Catholic and Orthodox summer school profs, for example, and invited Neil Postman (secular Jew) to give the prestigious Laing Lectures one year. While they do believe there is ultimate Truth in some particulars (notably the areas where they are doctrinally firm), I think they celebrate a diversity of viewpoints on things that are not central to salvation. They are not afraid of a good debate between brothers and sisters in Christ where each takes an opposite position. They recognize that "now we know in part, then we shall know fully, even as we are fully known." And we grow from hearing each other present our views and findings. That isn't some kind of spiritual pluralism, where you pick what you like as if from a shopping mall. It's more of a trajectory towards fuller understanding of Truth.

I'm just the opposite Tom ... theology is more important than type.

I wonder if it's how I grew up; I was taught there was a single truth (ours of course). And unfortunately the billions of people that had obviously missed the boat ... well what can one say?

I exagerated that statement just to illustrate how the thinking worked. And so a diverse opinion is of no value if it's wrong.  (Again I exagerated the last statement to illustrate the point).