I agree. But I'm not convinced even that's the main issue. I think there are plenty of people who believe what we believe, but just don't see any need to go to church regularly.
Upvote
0
Liberal Christians - What Do You Mean?
- Thread starter Tree of Life
- Start date
The *conservative* scholarly opinions. For another view, see Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers. Incidentally, I don't agree with the early dating of most of the non-canonical works in that list, and some of the later canonical works, such as the Pastorals, should have an earlier lower limit.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
"Quotation" is a bit strong, since the source isn't identified and they're pretty brief. To my knowledge, Greek didn't have quotation marks, so the quotation marks are a judgement by the scholars doing the translation.
The usual: wording, theology, difficulty of fitting it into Paul's life.
Of course it is possible that Paul changed over time. E.g. late in life Luther had things to say that most Lutheran currently wish he hadn't. Or the letters could show more influence than usual by the person who wrote on his behalf. There's enough of a difference from the other letters that the latter is a common hypothesis by people who think Paul was connected to them. If you assume that it was impossible in prison for him to dictate it, and he told someone "please write to Timothy and tell him ... " with a brief characterization of what he wanted to be said, I think that would fit the evidence.
From my point of view the latter theory has many of the same implications as being pseudonymous. It still means that while the overall message is probably Paul's, we can't depend upon details as being from him. However for the moment I'm going to stick with the usual critical judgement that Paul isn't the author.
Even if Polycarp was quoting it, there's no guarantee that he would have known. It appears that there were lots of pseudonymous works floating around the early Church.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've been doing further checking. The most recent critical commentary I could find on the Pastorals is by Marshall. While allusions in the early writers are by their nature ambiguous, he thinks it's very likely that Polycarp knew the Pastoral Epistles, but that Ignatius is less likely. However that doesn't solve the question of authorship, since Polycarp doesn't comment on authorship, and we also don't know how good his information is. It does, however make some late dates implausible. As of when Marshall wrote, he said there's a substantial minority that accept the Pastorals as Pauline (though often with a collaborator), but the majority of critical scholars don't accept it.
I should note that there's one author, Kenneth Berding, who argues that the location of the quotations in Polycarp is with others from Paul, so there's an implication that he thinks Paul wrote it. This seems like a reasonable claim, although there are possible allusions to non-Pauline material in the clusters of Pauline material. [I read a paper by Berding, and the relevant section of a commentary on Polycarp's letter edited by Paul Hartog.]
Communications during that time period wasn't great. Just because someone lived within a few decades of when the letters were written doesn't know they knew the circumstances. This is in contrast with Mark and other books, where there is early tradition about the authorship. There's evidence that Polycarp included quotations he had heard. I.e. he didn't necessarily have 1 Timothy in front of him, and his degree of knowledge might not have been high.
I should note that there's one author, Kenneth Berding, who argues that the location of the quotations in Polycarp is with others from Paul, so there's an implication that he thinks Paul wrote it. This seems like a reasonable claim, although there are possible allusions to non-Pauline material in the clusters of Pauline material. [I read a paper by Berding, and the relevant section of a commentary on Polycarp's letter edited by Paul Hartog.]
Communications during that time period wasn't great. Just because someone lived within a few decades of when the letters were written doesn't know they knew the circumstances. This is in contrast with Mark and other books, where there is early tradition about the authorship. There's evidence that Polycarp included quotations he had heard. I.e. he didn't necessarily have 1 Timothy in front of him, and his degree of knowledge might not have been high.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,673
- 18,555
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Traditional authorship of the pastoral epistles is within the mainstream, even if its a minority opinion. I don't think that's the definining difference between mainline and conservative Protestants. The difference is down to whether you think of your denomination as a big tent that can include a variety of perspectives.
Upvote
0
Christians are not allowed to question on ChristianForums whether the Bible is the infallible word of God.
The things all Christians have in common:
- Believe Nicene Creed
- Accept the canon of scripture
- Believe the Trinity
- Believe there are spiritual beings both good and bad
- Believe sin separates us from God and that Jesus was incarnated, died, and was resurrected to provide a way for us to restore our fellowship with God.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,673
- 18,555
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Politics
- US-Democrat
It's interesting that lists John A.T. Robinson as a source for early dating, and that lead me to some research on Wikipedia to confirm it. I remember from reading years ago, that Robinson is best known as the Anglican bishop whose book, Honest to God, popularized "Death of God" theology (which was inspired by Bonhoeffer, and also included theologians such as Harvey Cox). Yet it turns out he was also an advocate for early dates for all the Gospels, particularly John.
It just shows how Christian scholars and theologians be complicated. Some theology and scholarship labelled as "liberal" by certain Christians is inspired more by dissatisfaction or existentialism than skepticism.
I think its also noteworthy that Bishop John Spong has recently begun to focus on his conviction that the Gospel of John is situated in a mystical Jewish context, and not the earlier assumption that John is a mythologizing of Christ influenced by Greek thought. So there does seem to be a shaking up among scholars and theologians about the assumption that a more high christology or "developed" thought must necessarily mean a later date.
That makes sense because today we have a better understanding of the actual content of the intertestamental Second Temple period of Judaism and the Qumran Essene community, than in the 19th century, when these assumptions were laid down that primitive Christianity was primarily ethically focused and later "religious" influences only came from the Greek world.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 14, 2002
- 14,986
- 1,519
- 63
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Utrecht
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
You'll need to back up your assertion that liberal Christians reject all of these things. Sources are important.
Upvote
0
From Wikipedia:
The style of Scriptural hermeneutics (interpretation of the Bible) within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered a collection of factual statements, but instead an anthology that documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing, authors influenced by their own historical and cultural context. Instead, liberal Christian theologians have an allegorical interpretation of the Bible which emphasizes the moral or other spiritual lessons which can be learned from its stories.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
It's in the mainstream most likely because the majority of the church fathers even the notary 2nd century ones as in Irenaeus and Tertullian did not question the authorship of Paul's pastorals. They even quote them and attribute them to Paul.
Now Marcion questioned the pastoral epistles but not according to authorship but content. He didn't like the OT references and a few other doctrines.
No one other than Marcion I believe questioned Paul as the author of the pastoral epistles until 1807.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Thanks for the info. I did a bit of checking for more recent studies and older ones. Will share tomorrow.
Upvote
0
betterorworse
Active Member
- Mar 21, 2018
- 262
- 104
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I personally enjoy The Holy Bible. I don't find it dead as some claim. It is very much alive. Gods word is eternal.
Upvote
0
Most liberal theologians of which I'm aware believe in both the Trinity and Incarnation, and an atonement (as described in your 5; probably not penal satisfaction though). That includes the historical liberal Christians, and most of the current theologians used by the mainline. It's not so clear that this is true of some of the folks like Spong that tend to make the headlines. I'm not aware of any dispute over the canon. The typical liberal view is that we assess each book individually as to its purpose and viewpoint. However there has been uncertainty about the canon within the Lutheran tradition since the beginning. I don't believe that even now all Lutheran bodies have a defined canon.
The Nicene Creed was created primarily to reject Arianism. Thus the controversial part of it says that the Logos is God. I don't think most liberals would disagree with that. Whether they would accept every phrase is less clear. Many Protestants can do that only by adopting flexible definitions of some of the phrases. Check out the original meaning of "catholic and apostolic church" and "communion of saints." (There would be a lot less trouble over the original creed as adopted at Nicea.) Within the liberal churches probably the phrase about which there's the most doubt is the virgin birth. (That's not an issue about which CF permits discussion, so I won't say anything more.)
CF rules don't require inerrancy. They prohibit certain extreme views, e.g. that Paul shouldn't be in the canon. CF rules are generally intended to permit evangelical and Catholic theology, although not necessarily mainline theology. Many Catholics don't accept inerrancy.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is not entirely accurate. Critical scholars have put enormous effort into developing criteria to evaluate the historical accuracy of the Gospels. They did this because they think there is substantial historical content in them. Yes, the authors writing was also influenced by their beliefs, as is true of every author.
Most modern theology is based on the results, with substantial grounding in what Jesus actually taught. Indeed I'd argue that liberal theology is more Biblical, because it's not so concerned about interpreting the NT as support for later theological approaches.
This is the case for the Gospels, and to some extent Acts. The situation with early OT history is different, because there's limited historical content there. However it's not so much that interpreters adopt an allegorical approach. The OT authors are not writing disinterested history, even if you think it's accurate. They're using history to make points about God, quite probably points that were relevant for Israel at the time the documents were finally edited. Typically what liberal interpreters do is look for the point the authors were trying to make, even if their history may not be right. In many cases the point isn't so much moral or spiritual as an understanding of how God works in history and our lives. (Maybe that's spiritual, I guess.) My concern about the quote from Wikipedia is that it makes it sound like liberal interpretation is reading our own issues into the text. No one is perfect, so I'm sure some of that happens. But all of the methods are designed to prevent that. The goal is to understand what the original authors intended, whether we think their knowledge of the history was right or not.
There is, of course, another phase, which is to look at all of that Biblical evidence, and try to create a coherent picture from it. That's why Biblical studies and theology are separate disciplines. This is true even among conservatives.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Let me give you two examples of how liberal and conservative interpretation differs, both from the OT.
On the OT genocides. (If they were: a few interpreters think that we're misreading the language. Entire populations of cities weren't killed, just hardened militarists. For the purposes of this comparison I'm assuming the traditional understanding.)
Conservatives operate under two principles not shared by liberals:
* All Biblical authors agree.
* We must understand the Bible as supporting traditional theology (an odd principle for a Protestant, in my view).
Liberals will say that the early Israelites (or if it didn't happen, the authors who wrote the passages) were wrong, or at least operating under an older understanding of how God worked. Conservatives will often try to identify reasons why those cities were uniquely evil, and so killing everyone didn't violate Jesus' teachings.
Jonah: Conservatives see this as a miracle story about doing God's will. Liberals see it as an obvious satire, aimed against the narrow national / racial orientation shown in, for example, Ezra and Nehemiah.
On the OT genocides. (If they were: a few interpreters think that we're misreading the language. Entire populations of cities weren't killed, just hardened militarists. For the purposes of this comparison I'm assuming the traditional understanding.)
Conservatives operate under two principles not shared by liberals:
* All Biblical authors agree.
* We must understand the Bible as supporting traditional theology (an odd principle for a Protestant, in my view).
Liberals will say that the early Israelites (or if it didn't happen, the authors who wrote the passages) were wrong, or at least operating under an older understanding of how God worked. Conservatives will often try to identify reasons why those cities were uniquely evil, and so killing everyone didn't violate Jesus' teachings.
Jonah: Conservatives see this as a miracle story about doing God's will. Liberals see it as an obvious satire, aimed against the narrow national / racial orientation shown in, for example, Ezra and Nehemiah.
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,673
- 18,555
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Politics
- US-Democrat
That dichotomy is true mostly in the Reformed influenced churches, who seem to emphasize obedience more as a locus. Jonah is a popular theme for my pastor. Without going out of his way to bash the literal interpretation, he focuses on the meaning of the text in relation to the religion of the OT and how the story is about revealing God's character.
Upvote
0
It depends on what you mean. Jesus intended us to be controlled by his words and his commandments. God IS an authoritarian. With Jesus it was his way or the highway. Read the apostles letters. They are written to control what goes on in the body of Christ. It was not an anything goes gospel. That's why they talked about false teachers and "other gospels". The Bible is not a wishy washy conglomerate of teaching and doctrine that we have permission to pick and choose what we want to believe or don't. Either Jesus is the Lord or he's not. Either sin is sin or it's not . The teachings of Christ we're narrow minded and absolute. The teachings of the apostles were meant to guide the believer into truth and not some wiggly wobbly belief system that changes with the times or thought or feelings of the person. Jesus IS the Lord of his church. He rules with a rod of iron.
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,673
- 18,555
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I really disagree, and this goes to the heart of the issue I have with your approach to Christianity. Control is the opposite of love.
I disagree. Jesus practiced hospitality far too much for this statement to be taken seriously. He engaged in dialogue with people to find out what their needs were, asking "rabbinic" questions. He did not seek to needlessly alienate people.
And there is the problem, you cannot distinguish between Law and Gospel. You've confused the two.
And yet Isaiah 42:3 says that God will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick. That is the Gospel, that our Lord yields to us and serves us.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Yet he did alienate people.
“The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding party for his son.He sent his servants to call those invited to the wedding party. But they didn’t want to come.Again he sent other servants and said to them, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Look, the meal is all prepared. I’ve butchered the oxen and the fattened cattle. Now everything’s ready. Come to the wedding party!”’But they paid no attention and went away—some to their fields, others to their businesses.The rest of them grabbed his servants, abused them, and killed them.“The king was angry. He sent his soldiers to destroy those murderers and set their city on fire.Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding party is prepared, but those who were invited weren’t worthy.Therefore, go to the roads on the edge of town and invite everyone you find to the wedding party.’“Then those servants went to the roads and gathered everyone they found, both evil and good. The wedding party was full of guests.Now when the king came in and saw the guests, he spotted a man who wasn’t wearing wedding clothes.He said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ But he was speechless.Then the king said to his servants, ‘Tie his hands and feet and throw him out into the farthest darkness. People there will be weeping and grinding their teeth.’“Many people are invited, but few people are chosen.” - Matthew 22:2-14 Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 22:2-14 - Common English Bible
He also said not everyone who says Lord Lord to him gets in . There is a requirement to obedience .
Control is not the opposite of love. Authority is not the opposite of love. Not when it come from God for he is pure. His heaet is pure, he is love. If you try and control someone it is most likely self centered and selfish . If God seeks control it is for our benefit and not his. We can be like that when we say to our child don't put your hand on a hot stove. God acts like that ALL the time . He motives are pure and unselfish and perfectly healthy for us. He seeks to be our Lord and have authority over us for our benefit. He does not want us to suffer. Jesus said if you love me you will keep my commandments .
“Who then are the faithful and wise servants whom their master puts in charge of giving food at the right time to those who live in his house?Happy are those servants whom the master finds fulfilling their responsibilities when he comes.I assure you that he will put them in charge of all his possessions.But suppose those bad servants should say to themselves, My master won’t come until later.And suppose they began to beat their fellow servants and to eat and drink with the drunks?The master of those servants will come on a day when they are not expecting him, at a time they couldn’t predict.He will cut them in pieces and put them in a place with the hypocrites. People there will be weeping and grinding their teeth. - Matthew 24:45-51 Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 24:45-51 - Common English Bible
This sounds fairly controlling to me.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
