[Vision2020] Response to Mr. Gier - Part 1

Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:24:28 -0800

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
(Martin Luther) "The scriptures have never erred, the scriptures cannot err... it is certain that scripture cannot disagree with itself.” (Given the full body of Luther’s work, I found it amusing that you used one quote, obviously not this one,&nbsp;upon which to hang the idea that Luther was one of the earliest students of higher criticism)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
(Josephus) "There are no discrepancies in the facts recorded. The prophets learned their message by reason of the inspiration which they received from God...they compiled accurately the history of their own times.”<o:p></o:p>
(Clement of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1:place>Rome</st1:place></st1:City>) "You have carefully studied the sacred scriptures which are the true utterances of the Holy Ghost. You know that in them there hath not been written anything that is unrighteous or counterfeit.” <o:p></o:p>
(Justin Martyr) "The writers received from God the knowledge which they taught... men whose sole foundation was to present themselves pure to the energy of the Divine Spirit, in order that the Divine Plectrum itself, descending from heaven, and using righteous men as an instrument like a harp...might reveal the knowledge of things divine.” <o:p></o:p>
(Augustine) "His members gave out the knowledge which they had received through the diction of the Head; whatsoever He willed us to read concerning His own words and acts, He bade them write, as though they were His very own words.”<o:p></o:p>
(Isaiah 46.9-11) "..Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, my council shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth My council from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass: I have purposed it, I will also do it.” <o:p></o:p>
(Galatians 1.11-12) "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”<o:p></o:p>
(Psalm 2) “Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision.”<o:p></o:p>
Dear Mr. Gier:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Forgive me for the time it has taken to respond to your questions, but as I said before, I’ve had very little time this past week. &nbsp;For those who are not interested in this thread, please forgive the lengthy two-part post.&nbsp; Mr. Gier has insisted that I answer his several “questions” all of which require some fairly lengthy answers.&nbsp; So, forgive me in advance for the space this takes and for the thread itself for those not interested.&nbsp; As someone said, just hit delete.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Before I respond to Mr. Gier’s questions I feel it’s worth reviewing why the exchange began in the first place and in addition, and I’d like to comment on a couple of points.&nbsp; On 2/25, I posted the majority of a transcript from Stan Thomas’ presentation in which I stated that the point of his presentation was not an opposition to Doug Wilson/Christ Church per se, it was expressing concerns over “fundamentalists” in general.&nbsp; Thus, I posted my conclusions about the matter and said, “I think it is important to consider what is being put forward as the underlying “threat,” especially&nbsp;as seen through the eyes of this particular gentleman called to the community as a religious “expert”.&nbsp; Make no mistake about what the bigger, broader picture!
 being presented&nbsp;is - it is tolerance of all religion that claims no authority and no ultimate truth and it is intolerance for fundamentalist, evangelical, biblical Christianity (as was described in the presentation&nbsp;by Mr. Thomas) which claims both authority and ultimate truth.”<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Mr. Gier responded, first by insulting my “scholarship,” and second by correcting me with his religious worldview in the post entitled, “Bible 101” (a better title might have been, “The Bible According to Students of Higher Criticism”) and of course in his Professorial manner.&nbsp; In that same response he also objected to my use of a particular scripture (2 Timothy <st1:time Minute="16" Hour="15">3:16</st1:time>-17) which he zeroed in on as if I considered it the sole support for the fact that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. &nbsp;Another objection was to my statement that my view of Scripture as the inerrant, inspired Word of God is also the historic and orthodox view.&nbsp; </SPA!
 N>To the latter he replied, “When Stile claims that his position is the one of the historic church, he does not know what he’s talking about.”&nbsp; Considering what Mr. Gier implied in a later post when he said, “In addition to the moral virtues, there are the intellectual virtues and intellectual honesty and integrity are way up there on the list, as well as willingness to debate fairly and stick to the point,” I found it ironic that he did not acknowledge or apologize for accusing me of not knowing what I was talking about, especially when I pointed out to him that in his own book he admitted, “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; It se!
 ems to me that Mr.Gier is the one who needs to be concerned about inte
llectual honesty and integrity - especially since he himself admits that my premise is not only “controversial” (meaning it is entirely within the realm of possibility), but something he is not expert enough to judge.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Mr. Gier presented a challenge to answer several questions (bolded to aide in reading) – the following is my reply (not necessarily answers) to the questions he posed.&nbsp; I’ve used my own sources and quoted others liberally as he did in his quite lengthy post to me.&nbsp; &nbsp;I hope this won’t be met with the “Don’t quote Calvin to me” attitude he expressed previously.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Now, Mr. Gier, to the “challenge” of your three “undisputable facts” concerning Scripture:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
1. The New Testament did not exist at the time that Paul wrote this (early 50s), so it cannot be part of the scripture that he says is inspired. That's 27 books of the Bible that are not included!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
“We have two canonical works in the NT that make very explicit statements about early recognition of the special inspired character…of the NT writings: First Timothy and Second Peter. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
First Timothy 5.18 makes this statement: "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,' and 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.'" This text applies the word 'scripture' (graphe) to an OT quote (Deut 25.4) and to an NT quote (Luke 10.7), without ANY distinction. This accords scriptural/canonical status to a verse from a Synoptic gospel.<o:p></o:p>
&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>
Second Peter 3:15f makes this statement: "just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, vs.16, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures". This accords scriptural/canonical status to a collection of Paul's letters.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
“Both of these books are highly disputed by the non-conservative community. They are commonly seen as pseudonymous (i.e., being ascribed to Paul and Peter, even though written by someone else), even <A href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html">in spite of the large amounts of evidence against such a practice in NT times</A>. So, according to Kummel, a clear representative of the more 'liberal' community [<A href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#INT">INT]</A>, both of these works are forgeries by the followers of Peter and Paul and were accepted as authoritative (in spite of that!) by the early church. They are said to have been written in the 70-125 ad period (early in the Apostolic Fathers' time-frame, with which we are concerned in this article).<o:p></o:p>
&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>
“Let's assume for the moment that the liberal position is correct: that 1 Tim and 2 Peter only represent very, very early Christian teaching, presumably derived from or extensions to, the positions of Peter and Paul. If this is the case, then these documents demonstrate very, very forcefully that major 'schools of thought' in the early church--those associated with Peter and Paul--viewed parts of the NT as not only 'inspired' but as "scripture"!<o:p></o:p>
&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>
“In other words, even if these two canonical books are actually inauthentic, then they solve this entire issue of "did the early church consider the NT documents as scripture"! Their 'high' position on early scriptural recognition would answer the question definitively for us, with a resounding 'yes'.<o:p></o:p>
&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>
“And if my position--that they were written by Peter and Paul--is correct, then ANY data in the sub-apostolic writings (e.g. Apostolic Fathers) to the contrary would be much less important. For, if those closest to the heart of the church and those most in tune with the ministry of the Spirit, recognized these writings as scripture, then the opinions and usage patterns of those more removed from the center of activity should be weighted less heavily. In other words, I "trust" the orthodoxy of Peter and Paul much more than I do the orthodoxy of Clement, Ignatius, or Ireneaus, when it comes to ANY matter.<o:p></o:p>
&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>
“So, under either scenario (i.e. pastorals written by apostles, or pastorals written by accepted and authoritative students of the apostles'/followers), we have very early and very unambiguous evidence that the early church accepted the NT documents as "Scripture".”<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Above excerpted from the following article which has more from church fathers- see full article at <A href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dumbdad2.html">http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dumbdad2.html</A>,<o:p></o:p>
See “The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament” by B.B. Warfield at <A href="http://crta.org/bible/warfield_cannon.html">http://crta.org/bible/warfield_cannon.html</A>.&nbsp; Also,<o:p></o:p>
<A href="http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_05.html#conc">http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_05.html#conc</A> <o:p></o:p>
<A href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html">http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html</A><o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
2. There is no indication whatever that Paul thought that his own letters were God-inspired.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Most importantly, Paul identifies himself as an Apostle of Jesus Christ:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
“I Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God...”&nbsp; 1Corinthians 1:1 &nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Jesus Christ, the Viva Vox Jesu, breathed on these men the Spirit – they are the living voices of God and thus Paul writes,<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
“If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” 1Corinthians <st1:time Minute="37" Hour="14">14:37</st1:time><o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
Paul also says, <o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
“But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.&nbsp; But it is written: ‘Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God prepared for those who love Him.’ But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. &nbsp;For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.&nbsp; For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except !
 the Spirit of God.&nbsp; Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.&nbsp; These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with Spiritual.&nbsp; But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.&nbsp; Be he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.&nbsp; For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him.&nbsp; But we have the mind of Christ.”<S!
 PAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> <o:p></o:p>
1 Corinthians 2: 7-16 <o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
“But I make known to you brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.&nbsp; For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Gal. 1:11<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
For more see both “Inspiration and Inerrancy” by M. James Sawyer, Ph.D. at <A href="http://bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/inspdoct.htm">http://bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/inspdoct.htm</A> and “God-Inspired Scripture” by B.B. Warfield at <A href="http://www.aomin.org/THEOPNEU.html">http://www.aomin.org/THEOPNEU.html</A><o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
2. Paul says nothing about history, geography, or science.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
I wasn’t aware we were only discussing Paul.&nbsp; Your statement was, “Scripture is supposed ‘to instruct us for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus’; it says nothing about instructing us in history, geography, or the natural sciences.” The full body of scripture speaks to history, geography, science and much more so I simply see no need to spend time or space trying to convince you that this is the case. However, in regards to your statement about Scripture instructing us for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, I would agree and add a reference to 2 John 9-10, “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. &nbsp;He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.&nbsp; If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed.”&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
I also have two other questions for you:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
1. What constituted the Old Testament for Paul or Jesus for that matter?&nbsp; Remember, it was not yet canonized. Was it the very poor Septuagint translation in Greek, Targum paraphrases, or was it Erza's 24 books and 70 additional esoteric books? See I Esdras 14:1-48 for the last one. Lots of weird stuff was circulating in the First Century CE!&nbsp; Pick your poison!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
I find your description of God’s Word as “poison” to be offensive and one for which I am thankful I am not responsible.&nbsp; And a P.S. concerning your dating system - just another example of foolishness – the kind of foolishness that God himself delights to mock. Here’s the short answer to your question.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
“By the time of Jesus there existed a well-defined body of covenantal literature which, under the influence of the Old Testament prophets, was recognized as defining and controlling genuine faith. When Jesus or the apostles appealed simply to "the Scriptures" against their Jewish opponents, there is no suggestion whatsoever that the identity and limits of such writings were vague or in dispute. Confirmation of the contents of the Jewish canon is found toward the end of the first century in the writings of Josephus (the Jewish historian) and among the rabbis of Jamnia. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
“The New Testament church acknowledged the canonical authority of this Old Testament corpus, noting that "...not one jot or tittle" (Matt. <st1:time Minute="18" Hour="17">5:18</st1:time>) of "the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms" (Luke 24:44) was challenged or repudiated by our Lord. His full submission to that canon was evident from the fact that He declared "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John <st1:time Minute="35" Hour="10">10:35</st1:time>). As Paul later said: "whatever things were previously writt!
 en were written for our instruction" (Rom. 15:4). ”The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.”&nbsp; Bahnsen, The Concept and Importance of!
 Canonicity. <A href="http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-fr
iendly.asp?ID=131">http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=131</A><o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
The following are links to fuller works.<o:p></o:p>
<A href="http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/octcanon.htm">http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/octcanon.htm</A><o:p></o:p>
<A href="http://www.mvpca.com/systheo-7.htm">http://www.mvpca.com/systheo-7.htm</A><o:p></o:p>
&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
2. Are all of Paul's letters in the NT? There seem to be pieces of four <o:p></o:p>
letters in I and II Corinthians, according to good Pauline scholars anyway.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
To this question, and the multitude of other questions you could devise and throw my way, I quote the following: <o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
“To recapitulate: we know from God's Word (1) that the church of the New Covenant recognized the standing canon of the Old Testament, and (2) that the Lord intended for the New Covenant church to be built upon the word of the apostles, coming thereby to recognize the canonical literature of the New Testament. To these premises we can add the conviction (3) that all of history is governed by God's providence ("...according to the plan of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His own will," Eph. <st1:time Minute="11" Hour="13">1:11</st1:time>). So then, trusting Christ's promise that He would indeed build His church, and being confident in the controlling sovereignty of God, we can be assured the God-ordained recognition of the canon would be providentially accomplished -- which, in retrospect, is now a matter of historical record. “To think otherwise would be, in actual effect, to deprive the Christian church of the sure word of God. And that would in turn (a) undermine confidence in the gospel, contrary to God's promise and our spiritual necessity, as well as (b) deprive us of the philosophical precondition of any knowledge whatsoever, thus consigning us (in principle) to utter scepticism. Greg Bahnsen, The Concept and Importance of Canonicity<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
And from<A name=s5></A> CHAPTER VI. The Protestant Rule of Faith, Charles Hodge<o:p></o:p>
“It is not denied that the Scriptures contain many things hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to right knowledge and true faith. But it is maintained that in all things necessary to salvation they are sufficiently plain to be understood even by the unlearned. <o:p></o:p>
“It is not denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church. If the Scriptures be a plain book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential matters in their interpretation of the Bible. And from that fact it follows that for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal Church (i. e., the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting from the Scriptures!
 themselves.” <o:p></o:p>
And from Paul D. Ackerman:<o:p></o:p>
“The problem of higher criticism in trying to present a long-term viable threat to the historical biblical faith is that it will inevitably fall victim to itself. Higher criticism is not a genuine method of scientific analysis but basically an anecdotal method of attacking the credibility of the Bible by persons already rejecting the contention that it is God's inerrant Word. The fact is that higher criticism must ultimately fail because it cannot itself withstand the scrutiny of higher criticism. By this it is meant that when the procedure and method of higher criticism is itself subjected to critical, analytic scrutiny its true nature becomes apparent. Higher criticism is not a method of inquiry regarding biblical inerrancy but rather a method of speculative historical reconstruction based o!
 n the ironclad premise that the Bible contains errors.<o:p></o:p>
When the dust has settled and the new has worn-off this age of arrogant inference-by-analysis and its concomitant academic fad of "higher criticism," the children of God will be wiser, their faith will be stronger, and the Word of God will remain.”<o:p></o:p>
See the crux of the matter at <A href="http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PT034.htm">http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PT034.htm</A>&nbsp; “Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Presuppositionalism by Dr. Greg Bahnsen&nbsp; This particular paper discusses Pinnock and Fuller - you should find it very interesting.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>
In closing part one, I am compelled to ask you the following question. In light of your position on the Scriptures, I have to wonder why you would sign off with the following, “Yours for careful and accurate Bible reading” I am very puzzled.&nbsp; What possible difference could it make to you if I read the bible carefully or “accurately”?&nbsp; You say you agree with the plain meaning of the text but you refuse to believe what it says because you have subjected the text to your critical methods.&nbsp; Why then do you consider the Bible to be any different than any other book on the planet, or do you?&nbsp;&nbsp; You honestly believe that men seeking God should rely on YOUR accuracy and YOUR careful analysis – that they should have faith in your s!
 ystem of higher criticism? My faith is in the fact that God has given us His Word through His church and what we have accepted as His Word is exactly as He would have it through divine providence.&nbsp; If that is too unsophisticated, too simplistic, too uneducated, and too unscholarly for you then I’m sorry.&nbsp; Your position presupposes the kind of god that only a “scholar” could devise – one who has given&nbsp; a word that cannot be trusted – a word which mere men have themselves devised.&nbsp; The god of this word is no different than Baal of 1Kings 18, “Elijah mocked them and said, ‘Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.’”&nbsp; You know the rest of the story.<o:p></o:p>!
 
&nbsp;
Part two follows.
<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;
May the truth of God prevail,<o:p></o:p>
P.S. Stile<o:p></o:p>
</DIV></div> <hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2749??PS=">Get business advice and resources to improve your work life, from bCentral.</a> </html>