Who Was Bishop Ryle

You almost have to unload the presuppositions before you can ask the questions. I suggested earlier that the

Bible reflects the mentality of people who lived in the period of history that wrote it. That's inevitable.

You can't do it any other way. I don't live in a world where there's a three -tiered universe and God is a person who lives above the sky manipulating the effects of history.

I don't know how anybody that lives in the 21st century can be there, so I simply ask, how do you deal with those parts of the

Bible and the creeds that assume a three -tiered universe that I presume you don't accept?

It's tremendously ironic, because in my seminary education, I went to a seminary that's considerably more liberal than my own perspectives, and so I had to study the works of Gerhard von

Rath and those who were far to my left, and so we learned exactly where their worldview was, as well as my understanding my own worldview, but it's been my experience that when people come from the other direction, they're not familiar with the vast body, we have book tables around here, the vast body of conservative scholarship that can believe in an inspired and inerrant scripture in the 21st century and have no problem with it and can do so by exegeting the text within its original context and its original language.

When you talk about a three -tiered universe, evidently, again, this is why I asked you a question earlier, I believe that my

God can reveal his truth in human language in such a way that it remains valid and communicative throughout the entirety of human history, and I believe that because I do not believe that the limited technological knowledge of the

Israelites somehow limits the ability of God being able to communicate to me today. There is nothing in scripture that demands that I somehow reject the findings of science to be able to follow what it is being said.

When, for example, you have in the Old Testament law when the people of Israel were told about the purity laws, they were told that a certain animal chewed the cud.

Now, we know today through biological sciences that that particular animal does not have the dual stomach that is required for chewing the cud, and people said, see, these people were ignorant.

They didn't know what they were talking about, but the reality is that animal, when it eats, makes the very mouth movements of chewing the cud, and so it communicated to those individuals at their technological level in a way that they could understand.

Now, I can understand that. That doesn't mean it's somehow not the word of God. It doesn't mean that I somehow have to interpret it outside of its own context, and so there is no reason for me to go, well, since I know so much more about space travel, somehow what

Jesus Christ said about the only way of salvation is no longer valid for me today. I do not embrace the naturalistic materialism that is required of that kind of a scholarly perspective, and there are many, many, many people, and in fact,

I would submit the great Anglican bishops like Bishop Ryle and others who likewise did not have to embrace that, even at the level of technology that they had in their day.

What year did he live? I don't know him. You don't know Bishop Ryle, one of the greatest of, oh, okay, that was in the 1800s.

We've had a lot of bishops. We've got some books back there, brother, by Bishop Ryle. I think we've got some back there, but my point is that.

I could quote other Anglican bishops, but that's okay. Okay, well, we could talk about Lightfoot and some others, but the point is that there is absolutely no reason why a recognition of their technological level means that what they spoke does not come from God.

That is the fundamental difference between us is I believe that God can communicate through his creatures in such a way that his communication remains valid to this day, and the history of the

Christian church is of interpretation of that scripture in such a way that allows for my position.

I don't believe that abuses, as I've said, of reading text of scripture means that that was what was forced by exegesis.

Most of the time, it is ignoring the exegesis of the text of scripture that led to those abuses of scripture.

I think you'd have to agree with me. No, I don't. That solid exegesis, that solid exegesis in context would have led to a different understanding if tradition had not gotten in the way.

I think that there's a presupposition that you're making that would make that almost impossible, and it's not just technological.

I find in the biblical story that slavery is thought of as an acceptable institution. It's not to me.

I can quote Old Testament and New Testament. May I respond to that? You may respond. Let me finish asking the question.

I find the behavior of so much of the biblical story in treating women as second -class citizens, which continued to manifest itself in this country until relatively recently, probably still does.

In 1874, a woman was denied the right to practice law in the state of Illinois because according to the chief, to the majority opinion,

God had created the woman for the more domestic role. Now, that's the heritage that I think we've had, and I find that that is behavior, and I think it diminishes 50 % of the human race, and I'm embarrassed that I've been a part of a movement that has diminished women, including my daughters and my wife and my mother, the way

Christianity has diminished women, and I'd say the same thing about people of color, and today, I think the battle is simply about people who are different in their sexual orientation, so I don't accept even the premise of what you're suggesting, that within the biblical story is some objective reality.

That does seem to be the difference between us, but there is logically no connection between the condemnation of homosexuality, the reality that slavery existed in the ancient world, and the scriptures recognizing that did not overthrow the entirety of the economic system of the day, throwing everybody into chaos, but regulated it and did so in a humane fashion.

So that has nothing, I've allowed for questions that are 10 minutes in length, please allow me to at least have a few moments to respond to them.

Okay. There is likewise, when we look at what the scriptures state about women in comparison to the context in which it was stated, it is amazing.

The Genesis account made in the image of God, and that's why I said, if the entirety of the text of scripture had been taken into account,

Ephesians 5 had been taken into account, husbands would have loved their wives as Christ loved the church. If true exegesis had taken place, the

Bible could never be used to attack women, but only to elevate them. But as I said in one of my previous statements, being thrown in here is the idea of some sort of egalitarianism that is unbiblical, that does not recognize the difference between men and women, and that's not the same thing as, quote unquote, oppression or suppression.

So if we would use language accurately, then I submit to you, there is no reason for any modern person today to reject what the scriptures say as having relevance to us today, because if we would apply sound rules of exegesis to them, they would not be able to be used in this abusive fashion that was just cited.