[Vision2020] Bible 101 for Mr. Stile

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:24:43 -0800

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
Dear Mr. Gier:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Thank you for the attempt to enlighten my understanding with your version of Bible 101.&nbsp; While I have to admit that it is tempting to jump into a dialog/debate on this issue, my better judgment tells me that, considering both your hermeneutic and commitment to higher criticism, and my commitment to the Bible being the revealed Word of God, it would be an exercise in futility for the both of us.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
By way of some response, I do submit a couple of observations and comments beginning with the fact that I think you do a grave disservice to your readers by presenting a very narrowly defined “literal” exegesis/hermeneutic – one such as is described in the James Barr quote.&nbsp; While there are some who hold to a narrow and wooden biblical literalism, it is intellectually dishonest to imply that this takes into account all literalists including those whose literalism does consider literary forms, historical narrative, parallelisms, story, culture, principle, custom and lastly, Scriptura sui ipsius interpres [Scripture is its own interpreter].<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
From your book, I discovered the following statements, “The question of whether the Christian tradition has supported detailed inerrancy is a controversial one…I do not have the expertise to judge these historical matters, but in this section I will use some passages from Luther and Calvin which seem to…”&nbsp; These are revealing since when I suggested that these views were orthodox and historic, you responded, “When Stile claims that his position is the one of the historic church, he does not know what he’s talking about”.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
In my earlier submission, I made a point and claimed that Stan Thomas’ presentation proved my point.&nbsp; To reiterate, the root of the scuttle in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1:place>Moscow</st1:place></st1:City> is nothing more than an intolerance for a Biblical Christianity that claims ultimate truth and authority over all – a Christian faith that proclaims the crown rights of Jesus Christ, who is the only Savior and Redeemer of mankind.&nbsp; That Christianity, Professor Gier, is nothing new under the Son – despite your academic objections, despite your rendering of its history, and despite your entire high council of scholars who have !
 taken their “scientific” approach to the Bible and in whom you seem to have placed YOUR faith.&nbsp; My faith in the inerrant Word of God (the one that does instruct us in history, geography and the natural sciences) may be considered intellectual fraud by you and yours, but your scientific paradigm of “truth,” your faith in scholarship, science and “reason,” I consider covenantal fraud. May the God of the Bible open your eyes as He did Paul’s!<o:p></o:p>
&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>
Scholarship and credentials are a cheap substitute for character, Professor. The fact that you are among the individuals on this forum who want to turn every issue/post into a Doug Wilson or <st1:place><st1:PlaceName>Christ</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType>Church</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> assignation/slur/insult is telling indeed. Even the opening of your response to my post was a direct insult to me and an indirect insult to Doug Wilson.&nbsp; Quite frankly, insult may work to intimidate a captive group of twenty-something year olds, but I’m a bit older than that and this is the real world, not a classroom. Having read your!
 contributions to this very public forum and others, I’m not convinced that you are as much concerned with promoting your particular brand of religious beliefs as you are with your attempts to destroy the reputation of an old student – one with whom you seem to have an obsession. This smells more of envy than it does conviction (especially considering your last shameful but “well-timed” contribution).&nbsp; I know, just doing your self-justified and aggrandizing “duty” to the community. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Hunting for and feasting on every juicy morsel of “<st1:City><st1:place>Wilson</st1:place></st1:City>” meat has become an obsession with the likes of the fox who calls himself <st1:City><st1:place>wayne</st1:place></st1:City> – whose behavior I consider akin to a ravenous dog. You too have displayed your bitterness in a very public way and it’s nothing to be desired or esteemed – it’s all just plain ugly.&nbsp; I think someone, in a post several months ago, called it palpable hatred. What a pity if this is what warms your bed at night.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
On a final note of agreement, I close with one of your statements, “For Christians God’s Word is not a gnostic but a life-giving gospel.”&nbsp; To that I say AMEN!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Counting it all joy,<o:p></o:p>
P.S. Stile<o:p></o:p>
Romans Chapter One<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
P.S. Mr. Thomas asserted, “The Bible, rather than being seen as the Word of God, is seen as a human report of many peoples experience of God.” Since you’ve discussed Calvin I thought I’d copy here a bit of his commentary on 2Tim <st1:time Hour="15" Minute="16">3:16</st1:time>. “This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare.&nbsp; Whoever then wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him, first of all, lay down this as a settled point, that the Law and th!
 e Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit.&nbsp; If it be objected, “How can this be known?” I answer, both to disciples and to teachers, God is made known to be the author of it by the revelation of the same Spirit.&nbsp; Accordingly, we need not wonder if there are many who doubt as to the Author of Scripture; for, although the majesty of God is displayed in it, yet none but those who have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit have eyes to perceive what ought, indeed, to have been visible to all…”&nbsp;2Peter <st1:time Hour="13" Minute="21">1:20-21</st1:time>, <st1:time Hour="15" Minute="16">3:16</st1:time>; Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20; 1Corinthians 2:5; 2Thess. <st1:time Hour="14" Minute="15">2:15</st1:time>; Matt. 15:6.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
“God's central message and demand in Scripture is so clear that any hearer or reader using the common and ordinary means of literary interpretation may understand it.”<o:p></o:p>
 </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;From: Nick Gier <NGIER@UIDAHO.EDU>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;To: vision2020@moscow.com 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Subject: [Vision2020] Bible 101 for Mr. Stile 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:45:23 -0800 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Dear Mr. Stile: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Having you been taking scholarship lessons from Doug Wilson? It 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;certainly looks as if you have! 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;In the piece that follows, I’ll be defending the comments that my 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;friend Stan Thomas made at the Feb. 7 panel “Slavery as It Wasn’t.”&nbsp;&nbsp; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Stan gave a very accurate account of the history of American 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;fundamentalism and its distorted view of traditional orthodox 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Christianity. 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div> <hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2752??PS=">Get fast, reliable access with MSN 9 Dial-up. Click here for Special Offer!</a> </html>