How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Kevin H]

Interesting note: Once one of my professors was called to task on his "Liberal" views and was given a paper shown how to properly use Ellen White, it was conserned about the liberalism in the church and was defending the conservative views. The professor responce after reading the paper was that he hoped that the pastor would remain in ignorance otherwise he was going to cause a lot of trouble in the church. The guy who wrote that paper was Walter Rea.

[Guest]

What Is Being Gained by These Attempts at Change?

What are we gaining from the liberal attempts to make our message more "palatable" to the world? When so many seeds of doubt, uncertainty, and strife are sown, what else can be expected? Liberalism is reaping what it has sown. It sowed unbelief and it is harvesting apostasies.

During the early 1980s, an unprecedented number of ministers and lay people left the church in Australia and New Zealand. During the 1970s our church in those two countries lost one believer for every three who came in. In 1981, after a particularly notable attempt to

effect a liberal change, the percentage of loss rose to 46 percent. It peaked at 63 per cent in 1982 and then settled down at approximately 50 percent--a loss of one member for every two

believers. (See Australasian Record, Oct. 28, 1989.)

We must not remain indifferent to such staggering losses. We must not minimize the tragic consequences of our internal confrontations caused by new theologies. The casualties are thousands of perplexed souls who, spiritually confused, are departing from us, throwing away

their confidence in the validity of our message. They have lost the landmarks of our faith and no longer have a clear understanding of what we stand for.

The following set of North American Division statistics reflects the consequences of ongoing theological and other attempts to change our beliefs in the United States and Canada:

Years ............... Annual Growth Rates

1931-1940 ..................4.4%

1941-1950 ..................3.1%

1951-1960 ..................2.9%

1961-1970 ..................2.8%

1971-1980 ..................3.2%

1981-1988 ..................2.3%

What is the message in these numbers? Oscar Wilde, famous dramatist of the past century, with inimitable irony affirmed that "there are three kinds of lies in the world: common lies, small lies, and statistics." Thus Wilde underlined the fact that statistics may deceive and lead us to wrong conclusions. But even though statistics are susceptible of incorrect interpretation, we dare not minimize their importance in an analysis of the crisis that we face. They can help us understand the gravity of our problems.

It is true that we can be deceived by numbers and conclude that in spite of what seems apparent the North American Division is still growing. But it is not growing. According to reliable sources, 30 to 35 percent of our believers no longer attend church. With this decrease in attendance has come a decrease in offerings. Sharp cutbacks in church budgets have been approved. Enrollment in our schools is declining. Institutions have been closed. We are in the

process of trimming down our church's operations and reducing our task forces. The market for our books is shrinking. Denominational periodicals have been merged and yet their circulation has still dropped. We have come to a time of financial restraints, with most

conferences cutting back on their ministerial forces. These are inevitable consequences of what has happened in theological areas.

After so many seeds of doubt and uncertainty have been sown within the church by those who are obsessed with the desire to reinterpret our theology, after so many years of theological disputation, what else should we expect? We are witnessing the inevitable harvest

of liberalism. When unbelief is sown, the harvest is bound to be apostasy.

After its insidious penetration within the walls of God's city, liberalism in its various shapes and forms has succeeded in opening the gates of the church to the invasion of such other evils as pluralism, secularism, humanism, materialism, futurism, and preterism.

[Guest]

RH - I think the problem is not so much with the historical critical hermeneutic as with the theology of the liberals who use it.

There could be something to that.

[Guest]

Pluralism

To diffuse the polarization we are facing, some articulate scholars suggest the official adoption of theological pluralism, the acceptance of peaceful coexistence of conflicting, even

opposing, views among us. "On fundamental beliefs, unity; on non-essentials, liberty; in everything, love," is the popular dictum that inspires pluralistic scholars in their appeal for flexibility and openness.

But who is going to determine what is essential and what is negotiable? Individuals, independent ministries, theological societies, the annual council, or the church as a whole under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Would we be able to retain our self understanding as God's last prophetic movement, if we were to fragment our beliefs by including in them divergent schools of thought?

We need theological unity in our preaching and in our publications, but above all, we need unity in the theological departments of our colleges and universities. I submit that no school of theology, under pluralistic influences, shaken by the confrontation of ideas, is able to produce preachers with strong convictions. Without preachers having certainty, there is no power in their preaching.

The successful spread of the gospel over the Mediterranean world in the days of the apostles threatened Christian unity. People of widely divergent backgrounds were baptized, bringing into the church some of the popular religious concepts of the age. Thus, there was a

real danger that the teachings of the church would be affected by syncretism. Aware of this danger, Paul exhorted the Ephesians to maintain unity. See Eph 4:4-6.

Addressing "the churches of Galatia," the apostle expressed his regret for the way the Galatians, under pluralistic influences, changed their minds and turned away from the grace of Christ to a "different" gospel (Gal 1:6). Was Paul being narrow-minded in his appeal for unity? After all, those Jewish-Christians certainly preached salvation through Christ.

They never denied, as far as we know, that it was necessary to believe in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour. Why then was Paul so vehement in his opposition to this Jewish-Christian preaching? Because the Judaizers insidiously distorted the gospel of Christ, throwing the believers into a state of mental and spiritual confusion. At the real risk of being labeled intransigent, Paul exhorted the Galatians to pay no attention to those messengers who,

claiming ecclesiastical authority, were disrupting the peace and unity that had existed among the saints.

[Guest]

Let's Learn from Methodist Experience

Methodism in our day is known for its wide latitude of beliefs. Its clergy have freedom to subscribe to different schools of Bible interpretation. Attempts to define basic Methodist doctrine have met much opposition, and Methodist theology has become surprisingly

divorced from its own tradition.

Persons who want to be accepted as church members are no longer required to endorse any specific creed. To the question, "What do Methodists believe," ministers and laity respond by saying that they believe in Jesus.

Today the Methodist Church is in a steep numerical decline. "In the 1965-1975 period the United Methodist Church lost over one million members," says C. Peter Wagner, Leading Your Church t Growth, p. 32.

And who is responsible for this sharp defection? The exodus that the Methodists are facing is not to be blamed on outside forces. The real blame lies within their church. If the Methodist Church were attacked by enemies from outside, if it were suffering persecution as a result of its endeavors to evangelize the world, there would be

hope. But the world does not persecute a church that seems to stand for nothing.

The Methodist Church is declining as a result of its failure to preserve its own religious heritage. Can we learn some profitable lessons from its perplexing experience?

[Kevin H]

What Is Being Gained by These Attempts at Change?

What are we gaining from the liberal attempts to make our message more "palatable" to the world? When so many seeds of doubt, uncertainty, and strife are sown, what else can be expected? Liberalism is reaping what it has sown. It sowed unbelief and it is harvesting apostasies.

During the early 1980s, an unprecedented number of ministers and lay people left the church in Australia and New Zealand. During the 1970s our church in those two countries lost one believer for every three who came in. In 1981, after a particularly notable attempt to

effect a liberal change, the percentage of loss rose to 46 percent. It peaked at 63 per cent in 1982 and then settled down at approximately 50 percent--a loss of one member for every two

believers. (See Australasian Record, Oct. 28, 1989.)

We must not remain indifferent to such staggering losses. We must not minimize the tragic consequences of our internal confrontations caused by new theologies. The casualties are thousands of perplexed souls who, spiritually confused, are departing from us, throwing away

their confidence in the validity of our message. They have lost the landmarks of our faith and no longer have a clear understanding of what we stand for.

The following set of North American Division statistics reflects the consequences of ongoing theological and other attempts to change our beliefs in the United States and Canada:

Years ............... Annual Growth Rates

1931-1940 ..................4.4%

1941-1950 ..................3.1%

1951-1960 ..................2.9%

1961-1970 ..................2.8%

1971-1980 ..................3.2%

1981-1988 ..................2.3%

So are the resutls of this pole purely the rise of liberalism in the church? Could it not be effected that over those same years there was a rise in TVs and Video games which are keeping people home? There was a time where there was the circus and campmeeting, the movies and the tent meetings. They were the things that were exitement and the entertainment in town. Durring these same years we see similar decreases in the attendence of the circus and theaters, is it because the circus and theater were conservative in the 1930s and 40s then suddenly became liberal in the 50s?

Also, why did it take all the way until the 1950s as we have had this liberal / conservative problem in most of our history. Your posts sound like the complaints against Jones and Wagner, Willie White and W. W. Prescott and A. G. Daniels and the religion faculty of Washington Missionary college.

Here it is 90 years after 1919 and it is the same arguments, same views, same subgroups. There was Fifield with his view of hell fire, and Butler who even thought he opposed Jones and Wagner, was still what Richard would consider a liberal when it comes to the inspiration of the scripture and attacked fundamentalism in the Review, and Watson and Washburn for the conservatives. Then Willie White, W. W. Prescott, A.G. Daniels and the faculty of Washington Missionary College, vs. Stephen Haskell (more moderate) and Wilkerson the historic Adventist saying much of what Watson and Washburn said. Then there was 1923 when Haskells view won out and the Adventist church entered what Richard would consider our golden age, where witch hunts got rid of the liberals and the church was split between the views of Haskell or Washburn. Haskell's view became what became main line Adventism with Washburn's view becoming what became Historic Adventism. But even in this golden age of conservative Adventism, there were people who read widely in Adventism including the works of some of these liberals who were either kicked out or put into lesser roles. In the 1920's Lynn Harper Wood developed his views on Hell fire, similar to Fifields (and probably others but Fifield's name is one I have availble) and HMS Richards Sr.

And also, when we look at most of the crisis in our church's history, it has not been liberalism, but the conservative camp where the problems arose from. Our church has always had liberals and conservatives. And the issue is not whether we want to be liberals or conservatives, but what is being fair to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. Are we to close our eyes to the facts just so that we can jump on the conservative wagon? Are we to impose our ideas on the Bible and make the Bible slaves to our ideas, or are we to study the Bible and let the chips fall where they will and have the Bible teach us about how God is like?

Like I said, I would love to have a couple of months to just meet with Elder Pipim over a cup of postum and discuss these things.

As for the United Methodists, yes this is a problem that they have, but yet they also have some of the strongest Bible believing Christians that there are while too many other churches are split between the unbelief of modernism and the narrowmindedness and constriction of the scriptures with Fundamentalism. Today people are not interested in the Bible. They are very interested in Religion but they want traditon, either the liberal traditions or the fundamentalist traditions. The Methodists at least get to preach the Bible boldly while everyone else has to walk on eggshells.

An exmple of what is happening in United Methodisism: They are starting to say that the idea of Paul teaching that the law has been done away with is not Biblical, and while they don't see the Sabbath as a requirement for gentiles, that God still expects Jews to keep the Sabbath even if they are converted to Christianity and that churches should make accomidations for Jews and Sabbath keepers. Not quite a bullseye, but sure not like the marlarkie we hear from Ratslaf. Once I leard a tape where this one Methodist was saying he wonders what his mother in heaven is thinking seeing him on the platform with two other Methodist ministers he respected. 6 months after that meeting that I heard the tape of I heard this exact same Methodist minister teaching the truth about the state of the dead to another lady who was attending the meeting. The lady was both excited over the news but mentioned that she was feeling like when she had left Catholisism to Methodisism and realized that Purgertory was not Biblical. This minister said "How do you think I felt, I have been a Methodist minister for years, I have my doctorate in Biblelical Studies, but I only recently learned that the Bible teaches death and resurection, not the souls going to heaven or hell at death." You try to teach this in a conservative church and you would get all these Paul quotes that Ratslaf loves to quote. Hey there membership may be declining but there is a very powerful movement going on among some of those left in Methodisism.

[Guest]

Then there was 1923 when Haskells view won out and the Adventist church entered what Richard would consider our golden age, where witch hunts got rid of the liberals and the church was split between the views of Haskell or Washburn.

That's funny

[Guest]

Preterism, Historical Criticism, and Futurism

A segment of the Seventh-day Adventist scholarly community no longer accepts the principles of prophetic interpretation that made our church what it is. In the books of Daniel and Revelation, our pioneers found our time and our mission.

Applying the historicist method of prophetic interpretation, which had been used by the majority of Christians over the centuries and which earned the subsequent endorsement of Ellen G. White, our forefathers were able to unfold the history of the long conflict between Christ and Satan. They were able to look upon themselves as an integral part of the cosmic program.

Today, however, we sense a gradual rejection of the historicist approach and a growing acceptance of the Counter Reformation schools of prophetic interpretation. Furthermore, historical-criticism does not allow for true long-range prediction. As a result, in some quarters our message has been changed and has lost its distinctiveness and its power.

Moving the fulfillment of the long-term prophecies to the end of the age (the futurist view), or relegating their significance to the distant past (the preterist view), or denying true long-term prophecy (the historical-critical view), makes the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation irrelevant and transforms the Adventist movement into just another denomination without power and special prophetic message.

[Guest]

Secularism

Another intruder that is expanding its presence within the walls of God's city is the trend known as "secularism," often defined as the organization of life as if God did not exist. Its growing influence is producing a decline in attendance, reduced commitment to Christian

ideals, and an increasing tendency to view the church--any church--as obsolete and irrelevant.

Professional growth and prestige, business and profits, economic status and academic attainments are overestimated, while Christian virtues are neglected, or relegated to second place.

According to Norman Blaike, American Christians today can be divided into two groups, the "supernaturalists" and the "secularists." The "supernaturalists," Blaike observes, are generally to the right theologically, while the "secularists" are to the left. The

"supernaturalists," he states, prize Christian virtues, such as devotion, piety, and church commitments, while "secularists" admire tolerance, success, efficiency, and academic achievements. (See N. W. H. Blaike, "Atruism in the Professions: The Case of the Clergy,"

Australia and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 10 [1974]:87.)

The process of secularization is affecting not only believers but also institutions. According to George Marsden, Duke University historian, the religious character of many erstwhile Christian institutions has been eclipsed with "nobody noticing and nobody seeming to mind" (Time, May 22, 1989).

In the past two decades we have seen Seventh-day Adventist institutions affected by substantial changes that have not all been on the plus side. Surreptitiously, secularism makes inroads that tend to eclipse the religious character of these institutions.

Religious services are still held in their chapels, but they are more a form than a spiritual force. Theological liberalism makes an immense contribution to this insidious secularism of believers and institutions by its rejection of an authoritative church, an authoritative Bible, and an authoritative body of truth. It is more than willing to accommodate religion to the spirit of the times.

[Guest]

Other Evils

Other evils, such as exaggerated academic freedom, the historical-critical approach to Scripture, and theistic evolution (with its very long chronology) are making their contribution to the undermining of confidence in basic beliefs and leading congregations to spiritual disaster.

It is impossible to prevent the teaching of aberrant views within the church, when the concept of academic freedom without sound confessional responsibility is accepted. Defenders of academic freedom in our midst state that we are not a creedal denomination and

so every believer should be free to endorse different theological views. But we understand that if an individual is a Seventh-day Adventist, he or she should subscribe to our Fundamental Beliefs in their entirety. Otherwise, he or she ceases to be a Seventh-day

Adventist.

I still remember the strong opposition manifested by some Adventist scholars when the historical-critical methodology was condemned officially by the General Conference on the basis that this method, by definition, excludes our belief in the transcendence of the

Scriptures.[4]

I believe, however, that the church has the unquestionable right to decide which approach should be used by our scholars and preachers. This is our only safeguard to protect our religious heritage, which subscribes to the Reformation principle that the Bible is the

infallible Word of God and its own interpreter. Theistic evolution (or progressive creationism) is a concept accepted by a growing number of scientists in our ranks. It involves the subordination and accommodation of the Scriptures to the Darwinian view of gradual

evolution. Those who endorse this school of thought no longer regard key portions of the Bible as reliable sources of historical information. In taking this position they place scientific

hypotheses above Scripture, making science a judge of the Word of God.

[Kevin H]

How does the Historical-critical method exclude our belief in the transendence of the scriptures?

Once again Modernism excludes our belief in the transendence of the scriptures, and yes it uses the historical critical method to show editing of the scriptures to show the human element and thinking that the human excludes the divine.

But this is false presupositions of the Moderists, not anything inherent in the historical-critical method. We all know that Mrs. White supervised the compilation and edititing of her books, such as the Desire of Ages. We find the developement of her writing the great controversy theam from Spiritual Gifts until the conflect of the ages series. Then there were to books complied by the White estate after Mrs. White died. The study of this development of her books is the historical-critical method. That no way cancels out the transendence of Mrs. White's writings.

Who wrote the laws for the King? According to the Bible it's Samuel, so why does the laws for the king show up in Deuteronomy? Did Moses write the law 400 years before it was needed and then lost at the time it was needed? Did Samuel have a dream where God gave him the missing passage? Or did Samuel write it and since Samuel was in the position of Moses that it got edited into the book of the law which developed into Deuteronomy.

Modernists look at this and say "See the Bible is inconsistant with it self, in Deuteronomy Moses wrote it, yet in 1 Samuel, Samuel wrote it, that is because they were only ancient myths (with the negative narrow definition as opposed to the broader mythopotic) and there was no Samuel and no Moses, No Saul and No David. They just wanted to make it look like the law of the king was ancient and made up the story but confused as to what fictional character to give it to.

But for us who believe in the historisity of scripture, we can live with the idea that the Samuel compromise was a very important part of scripture, that Samuel was in the position of Moses and thus it can be saved with the important rules and thus get edited into Deuteronomy. The fact that the Bible books came about in the same way Mrs. White's books came about does NOT cancel out their transendence.

The problem is with the presuposiiton of the Modernist, not the tool that they are abusing.

[Kevin H]

Preterism, Historical Criticism, and Futurism

Traditional historism has grown as Biblical Studies have grown. The historical critical method gives evidence that historisism is basically what the Bible used with in it self, thus we are on the right track.

However, with Fundamentalism and conservativism we have stripped Historism of it's ability to grow. We claim to be historisists, but we have set it in concreat, to where we hold historisist applications but with the mindset of futurism, so that we have a mishmash of historisisim and futurism. We do not have a consistant principle to make the proper applications and to grow in our knowlege, which was the hallmark of historism. Historisism is the principle of the 40 years -- the Hebrews were on the verge of the promised land, they choose not to go in so they would later cycle again to be back on the verge of the promised land.

The early historisisits used the local application and understanding ancient cycles sees how the issues can cycle around again over history, thus applying the text over history. The better we see the local application, the better we can tell if we are making correct applications. Otherwise you end up with applications that may or may not be correct. There is the book "Warning, Revelation is about to be fulfilled" and the applications of David Koresh that comes from a fundamentalist apporact to historism. But the principle of the early church historisists, and the use of historisism with in the scriptures, by looking at the original setting and drawing applications to similar situations can help us to see how these people were misapplying historisism.

But since we approach historisism with the mindset of the futurists: The idea that those who first got the letter of Revelation either scratched their heads wondering what John was talking about, or else they were leaving church saying "The pope is coming" will only open us up to more books like "Warning..." and people like Koresh.

We need to return from this historisisits applications from a futureist mind set back to pure historism.

[Kevin H]

I am a supernaturalist. However, we supernaturalists need to be careful about the oneness of natural and supernatural.

Today in Christianity there are two health messages; One where you come up front and the preacher calls upon God for instant healing. The other where we study the laws of health and God works through our cooperation with the laws of health.

There is the sensentational supernaturalism that says that God pays no reguard to his law. And the supernaturalism that says that God is above his law, controls his law, but that the law is a reflection of his character that he wants us to cooperate with and that he will cooperate with.

The conservative is in danger of going for the sensational instead of the Ellen White view of natural and supernatural working together, a God who is trustworthy to cooperate with his laws. Maybe speeding up or slowing down, but a law that is purposeful and not arbatary with a God who can suspend his law just on a whim. We tend to want miricals to be amazing, and the more amazing the better. "Come up front ye cancer patient, I don't care about your diet and how much you smoke, just be healed!!!" we see the danger when it comes to faith healing, but tend to throw away the principle when we have other chances of seeing a God who respectes and works with his law, and who can give us amazing things when we cooperate with his law. But we tend to see these as attacks on the ispriation of the Bible.

[Guest]

The conservative is in danger of going for the sensational instead of the Ellen White view of natural and supernatural working together

I'm not in danger of doing that, and I'm a conservative.

[Guest]

The Fifth Column

The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) left a million dead. Wen the conflict seemed to be reaching its climax, General Emilio Mola commanded four columns moving toward the capital of the country. But in addition to his four columns he was counting on a fifth column,

one that had entered Madrid behind its defenses, to deliver the city to him when the decisive moment arrived.

Among the lessons that history teaches us, we find the fall of empires and institutions that succumbed to internal forces. The historian Gibbon (1737-1796) ascribes the fall even of Rome to internal, not external, causes. He mentions the fourteenth-century Italian poet, Petrarch, who described the fall of Rome as follows: "Behold the remains of Rome, the shadow of its early greatness! Neither time nor the barbarians can glory in having brought about this stupendous destruction: it was accomplished by its own citizens, the most illustrious of her children."

Many civilizations have been defeated by the internal sabotage of fifth columnists. History warns us what can take place in the church. External opposition is not our worst enemy. Instead, the insidious deteriorating influences introduced by Satan, our great adversary, do the most harm.

What has been the greatest defeat suffered by the Christian church? Was it the loss of life as a result of violence, martyrdom, and torture? No. The church's greatest defeat took place when it accepted the favor of the Roman Empire and lost its purity and fervor. When the church left the catacombs, it adjusted to the splendor of the world. Satan's fifth columnists--his Trojan horse--weakened the church internally, paving the way for dilution of

faith and the establishment of pseudo-Christianity.

[Guest]

Conclusion

The picture I have presented of the Seventh-day Adventist church can be considered bleak and dark. But in my closing remarks, I would like to present a brighter side. In spite of the problems we face today, we have many reasons to believe in the triumph of our message as long as we stay faithful to the Bible. A revival will come and our eyes will see powerful miracles of evangelism.

Our message and movement deserve to be characterized by a triumphant spirit. They arenot based on "cunningly devised fables" but on the unshakable foundation of "the sure word of prophecy." "The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out--the chaff separated from the precious wheat" (Selected Messages, 2:380).

The conviction that God guides this movement allows us to declare, without a shadow of doubt, that the fire on Seventh-day Adventist altars will never go out. The determination to win the world to Christ will motivate us in our united evangelistic program. The world will be lighted with the glory of our proclamation of the Advent hope.

[Guest]

Chapter Seven

Upholding the Word

In our day we see an indifference, even a reluctance, on the part of some Christians to allow the Bible to address contemporary issues of faith and practice. Thus, the Bible is believed to be silent on almost every question--abortion, homosexuality, women's ordination, polygamy, war, divorce and remarriage, etc. This attitude is a symptom of the theological

uncertainty infecting much of Christendom.

Reflecting upon the situation in Protestant churches, a well-respected evangelical scholar remarked, "The outside observer sees us as staggering on from gimmick to gimmick and stunt to stunt like so many drunks in a fog, not knowing at all where we are or which way we should be going.

Preaching is hazy; heads are muddled; hearts fret; doubts drain our strength; uncertainty paralyzes action." Moreover, Bible-believing Christians are told that "the wish to be certain is mere weakness of the flesh, a sign of spiritual immaturity."

The technical name for this state of affairs is "theological pluralism." And while its advocates celebrate the "diversity" of theological views as a mark of open-mindedness, the Bible writers call it an end-time loss of faith in the Bible and its God (2 Tim 4:3-4; cf. Isa 5:21). Such erosion of the Bible's authority leads Christians to choose and accept only those

parts of the Bible palatable to their taste. When this happens, the Bible is taken merely as an inspiring booklet, rather than an inspired Book.

How and why did this happen? How is it playing out in the churches? How is it affecting the attitude of Christians on issues of faith and practice? And how can Christians continue upholding the Word in an age of theological pluralism?

[Guest]

The Silence of the Bible

Over two decades ago, James D. Smart observed with great concern "the growing silence of the Scriptures" in the preaching and teaching of the church and in the consciousness of Christian people, "a silence that is perceptible even among those who are most insistent upon their devotion to the Scriptures." Smart described a conspiracy among the various liberal and conservative factions of Christianity to reduce the Bible to a subordinate status in the church.

He argued that because an open attack upon the whole Bible, or even upon a portion of it (e.g., the Old Testament), would undoubtedly have met with almost universal resistance, their strategy was to work "unobtrusively, not by any concerted plan of any faction but as the result of factors that are at work unconsciously in all of us." If successful, the conspiracy would create a situation in which most Christians would "awaken one day to find ourselves a church

almost totally alienated from the Scriptures."

Smart found the scheme so dangerous that he felt compelled in his book "to sound an alarm." Although Bible-believing Christians cannot agree with Smart's own liberal position on biblical authority, yet his observation on the growing silence of the Bible has merit. Until the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, the overwhelming majority of Christians affirmed faith in the full inspiration, trustworthiness, and dependability of the entire Bible as the Word of God.

Since the rise of rationalism, however, various attempts have been made to silence the authority of the Bible on issues of faith and life. These have taken several forms: from (1) outright denial of the uniqueness of God's word, through (2) hesitancy to accept its

teaching because of its supposed ambiguities, inconsistencies, or irrelevance to contemporary issues, to (3) reinterpretation of its teaching to accommodate unbiblical views and lifestyles.

Although some of the most creative theological minds of the century contributed to undermining faith in the Scriptures, the "conspiracy" to silence the Bible was not recently hatched by some liberals or conservatives, as Smart suggests. Actually, silencing the Bible

has been Satan's master strategy all through history.

[Guest]

Satan's Master Strategy

Genesis 3:1-6 not only tells of the human race's fall but also describes the strategy Satan followed. Approaching Eve in the guise of a serpent, he employed a two-fold scheme to undermine the Word of God. First, he asked, "Did God really say that . . . ?" thus raising

doubts about the nature of God's Word. This is no different from the contemporary skepticism over the inspiration of the contents of the entire Bible.

Second, Satan moved from the nature of God's Word to a methodological issue--the question of interpretation. In effect he argued, "Let's even assume that God actually said something to you. Do you think that He really means what He said?" This question takes

different forms today: Does the Bible really teach that Christians should not lie, steal, kill, or break the Sabbath under any circumstances?

Does the Word of God really forbid homosexuality, polygamy, abortion, the use of alcohol, or the wearing of jewelry?

In other words, the Genesis account of the fall highlights two major reasons for the erosion of biblical authority: (1) uncertainty over the nature of the Word of God (inspiration) and (2) uncertainty over how it should be understood (interpretation or hermeneutics).

Mistaken views in these areas set the stage for theological pluralism. Notice how the crisis came to Adam and Eve.

The Lord explicitly stated that they would "surely die" if they disobeyed His Word. Satan countered: "You will not surely die." The two statements are contradictory and lead to different destinations. But contemporary pluralistic scholars, following the lead of Satan,

maintain that both contradictory statements are true. They even pride themselves on believing that this kind of pluralism of thought is a mark of "open-mindedness"--the very lie that Satan

told, when he said to Adam and Eve, "Your eyes shall be opened. . . ."

Because theologians are the architects of theological pluralism, and because it is they who have laid the foundation for the erosion of biblical authority in the various churches, we will briefly summarize the confusing voices of scholarship regarding the exact nature of the Bible's insiration and how the Bible should be understood.

[Kevin H]

I agree with your Richard about Satan with the silencing of the Bible. Satan has two methods of attack: The Modernists who do not see any special message in the Bible outside of literature and some moral lessons, and there are others who claim to follow the Bible but they already made up their minds as to what the Bible teaches and who's interest in the Bible does not go beyond reenforsing their ego that they are right.

When people try to encourage deeper study of the Bible, when we learn things that don't agree with what we already know then they are not interested in the Bible. As long as the Bible shuts up and only says what they want it to say they are happy. It is just another way Satan has gagged the Bible. But the people who fall for that deception think they are respecting the Bible. Thus it is an even more dangerous Trojan horse.

What we both want is to be faithful to the Bible. You can tell the difference between those who want to be faithful to the Bible, and those who are just trying to do away with it. The problem is do we want to present the evidence to the best of our ability, and be open for discussion, or do we just want to have a spirit of "I'm right and your'e wrong so you better get your act together and think just like I do."

Like I keep saying, I wish I could have a few months of meeting once a week over a cup of postum for a discussion of these matters with Elder Pipim.

[Guest]

Yes I guess there are those.

[Kevin H]

One nice thing about the problems pointed out about the Methodists is that it has opened the door for some of them to preach the Bible boldly and not have to toe the party line for either liberal or conservative.

[Guest]

Scholars and the Word of God

Bible-believing Christians have always held that the entire Scripture, consisting of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is the authoritative word of God. They believe that the Holy Spirit so guided the Bible writers that even though they employed their own words to communicate the message, what they finally put down in writing is a trustworthy and dependable account of God's message (2 Pet 1:20-21; 2 Tim 3:16).

The written Word is, therefore, not merely the words of fallible men, but the Word of the living God which should be accepted, believed, and obeyed (1 Thess 2:13). But this historic Christian belief is being challenged in several ways.

Over a century ago, B. B. Warfield, one of the leading scholars who brought the issue of biblical inspiration to the forefront of discussion, quipped that "wherever five 'advanced thinkers' assemble, at least six theories as to inspiration are likely to be ventilated."

Conflicting positions on inspiration have led to a plurality in methods of Bible interpretation. This plurality in turn has led to the reduction of the Bible's authority, as is evident in the

subtle, even ambiguous, manner in which the Bible has been described. A few examples will illustrate this shrinking authority of the Bible from an objective Book to a subjective booklet.

[Guest]

New Views on the Word of God.

For instance, some scholars, following the influential Swiss theologian Karl Barth, hold that the Bible only contains the Word of God or that it only only becomes the Word of God to individuals when it grips their hearts. In this view, unless the Bible "becomes" the word of God to the interpreter or reader, it is only the word of fallible human beings. This belief, known as neo-orthodoxy, might well be described as the "potential Word of God" position.

Other scholars teach that not every part of the Bible is inspired. In their estimation some sections reflect the mistaken opinions of the Bible writers. Not accepting the Bible in its entirety as inspired, they use higher critical methods to determine which parts are accurate or true and what, if anything, some portions of the Bible can teach us about the beliefs and history of the times.

These theologians would see the Bible as either a partial Word of God (if the alleged mistakes in the Bible are counted as substantial), or they would treat the Bible as primarily the Word of God (if the alleged inaccuracies are deemed few). But in either case, based on their theories of inspiration and interpretation, these scholars reject the Bible as entirely God's authoritative Word, dependable and trustworthy in all of its teachings. They accept only the portions of Scripture that "make sense" to them or which support positions they already hold.

In so doing, they reduce the Bible from an inspired Book to an inspiring booklet--the latter referring to those portions they consider worthy of God's inspiring activity.

[Guest]

Catchy Phrases.

Theologians use well-crafted phrases to express their revised ideas of biblical authority. For example, one English theologian has suggested the phrase "Scripture as a whole" instead of "the whole Scripture"; another person proposed the expression, "biblical authorization" rather than "biblical authority"; other scholars believe that the Scriptures provide only a "biblical direction" (or trajectory, flow, or plot, as in a play) and not necessarily a "biblical directive." One ecumenical document described the Bible as possssing a "normative priority," but not in the sense of "normative supremacy." John Shelby Spong, the Episcopal bishop of Newark, understands the Bible as "a historic narrative of the journey

of our religious forbears," not "a literal road map to reality."

None of the above subtle phrases ascribes full authority or normative role to the whole Bible as the Word of God. Some otherwise Bible-believing scholars are finding these new ideas on the Bible

appealing. For instance, one prominent evangelical scholar suggested that when Christians approach the Bible, they must "look to it with an expectation of finding God's sure word in it." He urged readers of the Bible to "listen in faith for the Word of God in these human words . . . in spite of all its [the Bible's human] limitations."

The implication is that the Bible is not the Word of God but only contains the Word of God. This view has found liturgical expression in some churches where the traditional expression before the reading of the Scriptures, "Let us listen to the Word of God," has been

replaced by the statement, "Let us listen for the word of God."

Another spin-off of this approach is found in some schools of missiology and contextual theology which attempt to isolate the cultural and supracultural elements from Scripture. Thus, one evangelical theologian asserts that the Bible is an inspired classic casebook, a collection of case studies portraying and interpreting instances of divine-human encounter; or, as one Adventist

scholar promotes, the Bible is a casebook, as distinguished from a codebook.