I found only two more objections (the other one was simply a vacuous one concerning my use of the terms) to my posts concerning the incompatibility of liberalism with Christianity. The following is a summary of what they are and my answer to them.
1. Liberals don't attribute ultimate authority to Self because they attribute that authority to community.
Liberals see community as a power to be wielded, not an authority to which one must submit himself. I've been a part of too many liberal fellowships, have had too many liberal friends, and read too widely in liberal scholarship to take that claim seriously. The idea that liberals somehow see community as authority works well if you don't think past the rhetoric. Do liberals often claim the "Spirit via community" as authoritative? Yes, when the community agrees with that particular individual. When it doesn't, suddenly the liberal sees community as that which must be reformed via education, protest, political power, etc. In other words, community is a way to give power and persuasion to enact one's self-interpreted reality, but it is not an authority that is seen above Self. So, Yes, liberals see community (and the Bible, and tradition, etc.) as authoritative in the sense of powerful vehicles through which the individual's ideas can be bolstered. No, the liberal does not see these as ultimately authoritative in terms of needing to submit to these authorities when these authorities disagree with his personal experience (empirical or existential).
2. Everyone chooses and so everyone is making Self authoritative. Hence, everyone is liberal.
This objection is just plain bad reading on the part of those who make it. I didn't say anything about choice. The distinction is not that one side makes a personal choice and the other does not. The distinction concerns what authority primarily drives that choice. Is it a choice that must experience the truth for oneself or is it a choice that bows the Self to a higher authority, even though the Self did not experience that thing to which he is being called to subject the Self? In other words, one act of choosing is based upon the authority of Self, and the other is based upon trusting an external authority that is higher than the Self. One is an act consistent with what one is inclined to believe, given one's personal experience, and the other is what one is inclined to believe, given one's submission to an external authority. So merely pointing out that Protestants choose in disregard of one particular ecclesiastical tradition is not going to cut my argument one bit (especially since I'm not an anabaptist, but believe in orthodoxy via the Majesterial Reformation, i.e., an external tradition--not to mention that Prots believe in the Bible as their ultimate external authority within that tradition).