What sources do Liberal Christians accept as authoritative?

[XianGoth1334]

What sources do Liberal Christians accept as authoritative?
In your own theology, what do you use and accept? Is it just your own personal experience(s) / encounter(s) with God or do you accept other sources (the Bible, creeds, etc)? When you arrive at a conclusion, how do you know it is the right one? I am just curious as to how other liberal Christians would answer these questions.

I will answer for myself by deferring to what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Though I do not necessarily understand myself as planted in Wesleyan theology, I nonetheless affirm a similar approach to epistemology. So this would be Scripture (Jewish, Intertestamental, Christian testament), tradition (creeds), reason / logic (including higher criticism) and personal experience(s). Or to state this in a more personalized way: it is Scripture, as later understood by Scripture, and then by the Church, and then by textual criticism and finally in my own life experience.

 

[PloverWing]

I like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral as well. In my Anglican tradition, it's common to speak of the three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and reason. But I think it's useful to pull out experience to be its own category, instead of squeezing experience into the twin categories of reason and tradition.

So, much as you have said. Scripture is the unchanging anchor of Tradition that we look back to, to see if our beliefs and practices have drifted too far. Tradition is the faith as lived through the centuries, including our own century. Reason is the tool I use to think about truth at all. And experience is the empirical side of things, our spiritual and emotional and sensory and interpersonal perceptions as we go through life, providing data for reason to work with. I use a combination of these in my theological reasoning.

With reluctance, I gave up certainty in the religious realm some decades ago. So, I don't often use the word "authoritative", in a "that settles it" kind of way. But the four categories of the Quadrilateral provide a good framework for making some pretty good guesses at religious truth.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

What sources do Liberal Christians accept as authoritative?
In your own theology, what do you use and accept? Is it just your own personal experience(s) / encounter(s) with God or do you accept other sources (the Bible, creeds, etc)? When you arrive at a conclusion, how do you know it is the right one? I am just curious as to how other liberal Christians would answer these questions.

I will answer for myself by deferring to what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Though I do not necessarily understand myself as planted in Wesleyan theology, I nonetheless affirm a similar approach to epistemology. So this would be Scripture (Jewish, Intertestamental, Christian testament), tradition (creeds), reason / logic (including higher criticism) and personal experience(s). Or to state this in a more personalized way: it is Scripture, as later understood by Scripture, and then by the Church, and then by textual criticism and finally in my own life experience.

Regarding authority, I recognize only the written Word of God as the divinely inspired text from God Himself and as the primary authority for truth.

I then consider reason /logic as a secondary authority, especially to discern matters that do not have a firm answer in the Scriptures. This can be useful in understanding certain matters in the primary authority because you can't respect the Word of God taken as a whole while blatantly disregarding their setting and context. Personal experiences can also be useful in identifying problems with prevailing narratives.

I don't consider established tradition to be a reliable source of truth. I would also not consider prominent Christian thinkers as reliable authorities as they have failed many times.

 

[hedrick]

I agree with the four or three legged stool. But the role of Scripture is typically different for liberal and conservative Christians. On many issues we think our circumstances differ from the first century. So we look more at principles taught than to find specific answers. That seems to match the nature of the Bible, which is much more examples than laws (with the exception of parts of the OT). I think most of us also give priority to Jesus teachings over Paul's, and the authentic Paul over the other letters.

I do find tradition useful. Fortunately the mainline churches (along with much of Catholic scholarship) tend to form a single tradition, even if not everyone agrees on everything. I'm definitely guided in both theology and ethics by current scholarship and church decisions. Since we don't expect to find the Bible dictating answers, it's useful to have a whole community looking at questions, in light of what Scripture says, what we know from other sources, and experience of the Church. Although in principle this isn't that far from some Catholic attitudes, we lack the Catholic confidence in the inerrancy of tradition, and thus are more willing to make changes when recent evidence seems to suggest them.

 

[XianGoth1334]

A process of continual reformation.
The Prophets were reformers. Jesus was a reformer. And so on with Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Barth, Bonhoeffer, etc. etc. etc.
God is still speaking.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What sources do Liberal Christians accept as authoritative?
In your own theology, what do you use and accept? Is it just your own personal experience(s) / encounter(s) with God or do you accept other sources (the Bible, creeds, etc)? When you arrive at a conclusion, how do you know it is the right one? I am just curious as to how other liberal Christians would answer these questions.

I will answer for myself by deferring to what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Though I do not necessarily understand myself as planted in Wesleyan theology, I nonetheless affirm a similar approach to epistemology. So this would be Scripture (Jewish, Intertestamental, Christian testament), tradition (creeds), reason / logic (including higher criticism) and personal experience(s). Or to state this in a more personalized way: it is Scripture, as later understood by Scripture, and then by the Church, and then by textual criticism and finally in my own life experience.

I accept reality as authoritative, past and present.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A process of continual reformation.
The Prophets were reformers. Jesus was a reformer. And so on with Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Barth, Bonhoeffer, etc. etc. etc.
God is still speaking.

I agree, but rather than going down the line from Luther and Calvin, I prefer to start with Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and Pascal... then maybe make my way to some Kierkegaard, a little Barth, a little Bonhoeffer, Paul Tillich, and Langdon Gilkey (just to name a few). These are those whom I count as the main 'reformers.'

... basically because the World is bigger than just the Bible.

 

[XianGoth1334]

I agree, but rather than going down the line from Luther and Calvin, I prefer to start with Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and Pascal... then maybe make my way to some Kierkegaard, a little Barth, a little Bonhoeffer, Paul Tillich, and Langdon Gilkey (just to name a few). These are those whom I count as the main 'reformers.'

... basically because the World is bigger than just the Bible.

Would you consider Bishop Spong to be a reformer?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Would you consider Bishop Spong to be a reformer?

I suppose he could be considered as such.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I suppose he could be considered as such.

No. He holds a Post-Modernist theology which has the appearance of Christianity, but not the substance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No. He holds a Post-Modernist theology which has the appearance of Christianity, but not the substance.

"Post-Modern theology" isn't some one, singular, monolithic thing, Watchman1. It is possible for someone like me to me Post-Modern AND STILL disagree over various issues or topics with somone like Spong.

Notice, too, that I didn't say that I consider myself "post-modern." As an existentialist, I might be considered as such to some hyper fundamental, inflexible Christians, but that doesn't place me into a clear and distinct category. For others, I could be seen as an anti-liberal.

Maybe keep this in mind, or else you'll be committing the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Liberal theology stems from Post-Modernist theology that treats the Bible as mainly allegory, Genesis 1-11 as myth rather than history. Part of this is Progressive Christianity which says that the Christ of faith is to be observed rather than the Jesus of history, that His miracles never happened, no virgin birth, and the Crucifixion was not about the Atonement, but rather a demonstration of someone's love for mankind. Because it erases all of the orthodox basics of the Christian faith, it is more of a pseudo-christian heresy than mainstream Christianity.

If a Liberal theologian doesn't believe that Jesus Christ didn't write the Bible and that it is all about Jesus Christ, then he is not subscribing to the Jesus of the Gospels, but to another "Jesus" which he defines as a concept of existential faith. God stops being a real Person and becomes a concept, just a word that suggests an initial cause for the universe. Evolution, rather than Creation becomes the explanation of the origin of the universe. The big bang happened when there was nothing, and nothing exploded! Because there were no actual Adam and Eve, serpent, the Fall, historical Jesus, crucifixion, resurrection of Christ, there can be no basis on which a person can actually say they are saved, and that they will be resurrected to life one day after they die. This life is all there is, and once one dies and goes into the grave, that's it.

As for me, Jesus wrote the Bible, and He doesn't lie. Genesis was actually history, inspired by someone who was really there to witness the events. The Gospel of Christ is really true and that the historical Jesus really died on the Cross to atone for my sins, and that as I trust in Him, I am forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness. Because He rose from the dead, the day will one after I die, that I will also rise to live in His presence. This is why I am not a Liberal believer.

Jesus didn't write the Bible.

But I think we can say (more realistically) that disciples and followers of a historical Jesus wrote various documents and letters during the first 100 years after His Life, death and [reported] Resurrection.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

"Post-Modern theology" isn't some one, singular, monolithic thing, Watchman1. It is possible for someone like me to me Post-Modern AND STILL disagree over various issues or topics with somone like Spong.

Notice, too, that I didn't say that I consider myself "post-modern." As an existentialist, I might be considered as such to some hyper fundamental, inflexible Christians, but that doesn't place me into a clear and distinct category. For others, I could be seen as an anti-liberal.

Maybe keep this in mind, or else you'll be committing the fallacy of equivocation.

Does this mean that you are betting a dollar each way? So to conservatives you are appearing conservative, and to liberals you appear liberal? I don't identify myself as being conservative or anti-liberal. I am just an old guy who takes the Bible seriously.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Jesus didn't write the Bible.

But I think we can say (more realistically) that disciples and followers of a historical Jesus wrote various documents and letters during the first 100 years after His Life, death and [reported] Resurrrection.

John 1:1 says that the Word and Jesus are one and the same. Because the Holy Spirit does exactly what Jesus tells Him, this means that Jesus is the author of the Bible, and the Holy Spirit did the executive work by inspiring the authors. When people do their homework with the Bible, they discover that every book of the Bible is connected together to form closely related components that show the development of God's plan of salvation through the history of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Each successive book has links that show a central source of inspiration and design, even though there are 40 different authors, and different styles of writing. Take just one component out and the rest of the design falls over. What this means is that if there were no Adam and Eve, then neither is Jesus real, and there is no plan of salvation. This makes us mere mortals with no hope of anything after death. In fact, the Bible just becomes a work of literature just like every other book, instead of the living Word of God. If Ruth never married Boaz, then David would never have been born, and it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been born to be our Saviour.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does this mean that you are betting a dollar each way? So to conservatives you are appearing conservative, and to liberals you appear liberal? I don't identify myself as being conservative or anti-liberal. I am just an old guy who takes the Bible seriously.

No. I'm a philosopher. And where betting is even a possibility, I'll take Pascal's Wager any day over others.

I'm glad to know that you take the Bible seriously. Please don't assume that I don't just because my mode of belief may be on different epistemic lines than your own.

Be blessed!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

John 1:1 says that the Word and Jesus are one and the same. Because the Holy Spirit does exactly what Jesus tells Him, this means that Jesus is the author of the Bible, and the Holy Spirit did the executive work by inspiring the authors. When people do their homework with the Bible, they discover that every book of the Bible is connected together to form closely related components that show the development of God's plan of salvation through the history of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Each successive book has links that show a central source of inspiration and design, even though there are 40 different authors, and different styles of writing. Take just one component out and the rest of the design falls over. What this means is that if there were no Adam and Eve, then neither is Jesus real, and there is no plan of salvation. This makes us mere mortals with no hope of anything after death. In fact, the Bible just becomes a work of literature just like every other book, instead of the living Word of God. If Ruth never married Boaz, then David would never have been born, and it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been born to be our Saviour.

These conclusions of yours are mandatorily inconclusive and perhaps a small collection of bona-fide nonsequiturs. I'll let you peruse and engage my sources to figure out "why." They're not hard to find here on CF, if you're willing to look for them.................

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

These conclusions of yours are mandatorily inconclusive and perhaps a small collection of bona-fide nonsequiturs. I'll let you peruse and engage my sources to figure out "why." They're not hard to find here on CF, if you're willing to look for them.................

The Bible is no ordinary book. Along with the great number of prophecies that were fulfilled in history hundreds of years later, the actual original Hebrew and Greek show evidence of intricate design, which would take thousands of years of random tries to replicate. Chuck Missler shows this in his Youtube video, "What Really Happened At Easter part 2, The technology of resurrection", where he shows that although the author of the text wrote his own words, there is an overseeing design in what was written to show that the text in a particular book is divisible by 7 without a remainder, and this goes through the whole of the Old and New Testaments. There is no other book that does this. This sets the Bible apart from any other literature, and shows God's overall design even in the format and letters making up the text.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Bible is no ordinary book. Along with the great number of prophecies that were fulfilled in history hundreds of years later, the actual original Hebrew and Greek show evidence of intricate design, which would take thousands of years of random tries to replicate. Chuck Missler shows this in his Youtube video, "What Really Happened At Easter part 2, The technology of resurrection", where he shows that although the author of the text wrote his own words, there is an overseeing design in what was written to show that the text in a particular book is divisible by 7 without a remainder, and this goes through the whole of the Old and New Testaments. There is no other book that does this. This sets the Bible apart from any other literature, and shows God's overall design even in the format and letters making up the text.

I never said the Bible is an "ordinary book."

Additionally, I never said there isn't some underlying prophetic pattern. You're the one who has inferred that I think to the contrary.

I think the problem here is that you and I have different understandings about what constitutes the term, "inspiration."

Since you've voiced a concern about the trustworthiness of the Bible, you might want to invest some time in realizing that there are various definitions of Inspiration among Christians where the Bible is their concern. For your convenience, I'll briefly present in a very summarized (and revisable) way here some of those other definitions via what I've adapted from Don Thorsen and Keith H. Reeves in their book, What Christians Believe About the Bible (2012):

​

1) Dictation (or Mechanical) Theory - God dictated exact words for certain people to write.​

​

2) Verbal, Plenary Theory - God inspired the words which each writer chose to use.​

​

3) Dynamic Theory - A dynamic is involved between the Holy Spirit and the writers; the bible is God's Ideas using human abilities.​

​

4) Concursive Theory - Like the Dynamic Theory, but maintains that the dynamic is a mystery which can't be fully explained.​

​

5) Sacramental Theory - Generally, God uses physical things and people to signify His meanings to and through His people.​

​

6) Partial, Limited or Degrees Theory - Some parts of the Bible may be directly influenced by God; other parts are people's attempts to represent what they have experienced or learned about God.​

​

7) Dialectical Theory - The biblical authors write under the influence of God in and through the experience of their lives.​

​

8) Humanized Theory - Just as it sounds: humans write what they think God is and thinks.​

And I, myself, would add (the theory I subscribe to)

​

9) Existential, Critical Theory - We find the Bible in this world, such as it is from the past, with its claims of divine influence; and we have to wrestle with these claims as best as we can, and we do so now, in THIS current life and time.​

 

[XianGoth1334]

The Bible did not just appear one day. Oral tradition existed long before anything was written. It is the result of many different authors writing over a very long time period (with multiple redactors). Genesis borrows from other creation mythologies. The earliest parts of the Hebrew Scriptures show influence from neighboring polytheistic communities. At times it comes across redundant because the Northern and Southern Kingdoms kept similar, though not identical, accounts of history. Certainly they took history keeping as a serious endeavor and certainly believed God wanted them to be accurate and would hold them accountable to the truth. The Prophets spoke to a people in exile who literally could not keep every aspect of the Law (due to estrangement from the Temple). The Prophets were reformers who were able to enter into the pathos of God and speak both messages of judgment and encouragement. They returned from exile and rebuilt the temple and had debates over how to practice Judaism. As had always been the case, those who wrote Scripture as well as those who tried to follow it saw through the mirror dimly. The so-called apocryphal writings are important to understand historical and theological context. Both Jesus and Paul were clearly informed and influenced by them (and probably considered them to be Scripture). The earliest part of the New Testament was written by Paul, who wrote in Koine Greek and was clearly the first Christian systematic theologian, attempting to reconcile Jewish Scripture with early Christian thinking. Paul was very human and was honest enough to tell us that some of his ideas were directly from the Lord and some were his own. The first gospel written was Mark. Then came Matthew. Each of the synoptic gospels are very similar though were written by different people to different audiences. Luke and Acts were written by the same person, who attempted to consult all of the existing material (which certainly includes writings which did not make it into the New Testament) and write a historical account of Jesus and the early Christian Church. Again, I can see they all took this very seriously and were led by God to do so -- though clearly their words are their own. There were many writings that almost made it into the New Testament and some (like the book of Revelation) that were almost omitted. It is clear to see what Jesus' message was and we can see how the Church came into existence and the early years of persecution. Similar to how Paul wrote to his congregations, there were other bishops who also wrote to their churches to help guide them. Thus we can see that God leading us through the Bible continued in God leading us through the bishops. We do not have volumes and volumes of continuing Scripture over the past 2,000 years because God leads us through the Church. This is the gift of the Holy Spirit to lead in the Church over the ages.

Scripture is already building upon itself... and then Jesus builds upon Scripture and then Paul builds upon Jesus and the Church builds upon Paul... and here we are, thousands of years later, with our own contexts and our own experiences of God... with a wide diversity of churches which all believe they have used the Bible in the way(s) in which God willed.

 

[XianGoth1334]

I never said the Bible is an "ordinary book."

Additionally, I never said there isn't some underlying prophetic pattern. You're the one who has inferred that I think to the contrary.

I think the problem here is that you and I have different understandings about what constitutes the term, "inspiration."

Since you've voiced a concern about the trustworthiness of the Bible, you might want to invest some time in realizing that there are various definitions of Inspiration among Christians where the Bible is their concern. For your convenience, I'll briefly present in a very summarized (and revisable) way here some of those other definitions via what I've adapted from Don Thorsen and Keith H. Reeves in their book, What Christians Believe About the Bible (2012):

​

1) Dictation (or Mechanical) Theory - God dictated exact words for certain people to write.​

​

2) Verbal, Plenary Theory - God inspired the words which each writer chose to use.​

​

3) Dynamic Theory - A dynamic is involved between the Holy Spirit and the writers; the bible is God's Ideas using human abilities.​

​

4) Concursive Theory - Like the Dynamic Theory, but maintains that the dynamic is a mystery which can't be fully explained.​

​

5) Sacramental Theory - Generally, God uses physical things and people to signify His meanings to and through His people.​

​

6) Partial, Limited or Degrees Theory - Some parts of the Bible may be directly influenced by God; other parts are people's attempts to represent what they have experienced or learned about God.​

​

7) Dialectical Theory - The biblical authors write under the influence of God in and through the experience of their lives.​

​

8) Humanized Theory - Just as it sounds: humans write what they think God is and thinks.​

And I, myself, would add (the theory I subscribe to)

​

9) Existential, Critical Theory - We find the Bible in this world, such as it is from the past, with its claims of divine influence; and we have to wrestle with these claims as best as we can, and we do so now, in THIS current life and time.​

I believe in a blend of all of the above (except number 1 and 2).