How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Woody]

There are far more of us here that are inspired of God than one would think or hear about. I have been inspired at times. Most of our authors in the church appear to me to have been inspired to share a message of Truth.

I can name a few ... Ed Dickerson, Jon Paulien, Jack Sequeira, Edward Heppenstall, George Knight, Martin Weber, Morris Vendon and Alden Thompson.

[Guest]

A Classical Liberal's View. The following is a sampling of Rudolf Bultmann's article in

which he argued for the necessity of "demythologization":

"Modern thought as we have inherited it provides us with a motive for criticizing the New

Testament view of the world.

"Man's knowledge and mastery of the world have advanced to such an extent through

science and technology that it is no longer possible for anyone seriously to hold the New

Testament view of the world--in fact, there is hardly anyone who does. . . . No one who is old

enough to think for himself supposes that God lives in a local heaven. There is no longer any

heaven in the traditional sense of the word. . . . We can no longer look for the return of the Son of

Man on the clouds of heaven or hope that the faithful will meet him in the air (1 Thess. 4:15ff).

"Now that the forces and laws of nature have been discovered, we can no longer believe

in spirits, whether good or evil. . . . Sickness and the cure of disease are likewise attributable to

natural causation; they are not the result of demonic activity or of evil spells. The miracles of the

New Testament have ceased to be miraculous. . . .

"It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern

medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of

demons and spirits. . . ."The mythical eschatology [view of last day events] is untenable for the simple reason

that the parousia [appearance] of Christ never took place as the New Testament expected. History

did not come to an end, and, as every schoolboy knows, it will continue to run its course. Even if

we believe that the world as we know it will come to an end in time, we expect the end to take the

form of a natural catastrophe, not of a mythical event such as the New Testament expects. . . .

"Again, the biblical doctrine that death is the punishment of sin is equally abhorrent to

naturalism and idealism, since they both regard death as a simple and necessary process of nature.

. . . Human beings are subject to death even before they have committed any sin. And to attribute

human mortality to the fall of Adam is sheer nonsense, for guilt implies personal responsibility,

and the idea of original sin as an inherited infection is sub-ethical, irrational, and absurd.

"The same objections apply to the doctrine of the atonement. How can the guilt of one

man be expiated by the death of another who is sinless--if indeed one may speak of a sinless man

at all. What primitive notions of guilt and righteousness does this imply? And what primitive idea

of God? The rationale of sacrifice in general may of course throw some light on the theory of the

atonement, but even so, what a primitive mythology it is, that a divine Being should become

incarnate, and atone for the sins of men through his own blood!

"The resurrection of Jesus is just as difficult, if it means an event whereby a supernatural

power is released which can henceforth be appropriated through the sacraments. To the biologist

such language is meaningless, for he does not regard death as a problem at all. The idealist would

not object to the idea of a life immune from death, but he could not believe that such of a life is

made available by the resuscitation of a corpse. . . .

"And as for the preexistence of Christ, with its corollary of man's translation into a

celestial realm of light, and the clothing of the human personality in heavenly robes and a

spiritual body--all this is not only irrational but utterly meaningless. Why should salvation take

this particular form? Why should this be the fulfillment of human life and the realization of man's

true being?"9

The reason why Bultmann rejects many biblical truths is that those truths are either not in

harmony with today's scientific discoveries or they are offensive to the modern person's

sensitivities. Because of this naturalistic, anti-supernatural assumption, when liberal scholars

approach the Scriptures they adopt the historical-critical method of interpretation to explain away

the supernatural activities recorded--the creation account, the worldwide flood, the crossing of the

Red Sea by a large number of people, the shekinah that represented God's visible presence in the

sanctuary, the fall of Jericho, prophecies about the future, the virgin birth, miracles of Jesus,

Christ's bodily resurrection, a literal second coming, etc.

Consequently, the various approaches of the historical-critical method assume that the

Bible is not inspired, trustworthy, or authoritative. Classical liberalism's naturalistic assumption

that denies supernatural occurrences became the basis of a plethora of methods to interpret the

Bible. Collectively, these are called the historical-critical method.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

well, that was a big waste of my time to read

[Guest]

Naturalistic Foundations of the Historical-Critical Method

The various approaches included within contemporary higher criticism are all built on the

following three naturalistic (anti-supernaturalistic) assumptions, all of which contribute to

doubting the Word. These cardinal principles, without which there can be no historical-critical

method, find classical expression in the works of the nineteenth-century German theologian and

historian Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923)

The Principle of Correlation. Every Effect Has a Natural Cause.

This principle states that every event must be explained solely by natural causes, that is, by cause and effect in the natural world. This means that there can be no miracles or supernatural occurrences; therefore, wherever miracles occur in the Bible, we must either reject those sections or give the miracles a

naturalistic explanation. On the basis of this principle, such events as the six-day creation, the

exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, the provision of manna in the wilderness, etc., are all rejected

or considered as theological statements--not scientific or historically accurate accounts, but

rather, history-like statements.

How does this principle explain the miracle of Christ's resurrection, for example? Since

classical liberals maintain that there cannot be miracles, if Jesus was really seen on Easter Sunday

as the Bible says, then either Jesus never really died on Friday (He may have been unconscious or

in a coma), or those who claimed to have seen Him may have been hallucinating.

[Guest]

well, that was a big waste of my time to read

Then it was also a waste of your precious time to post a response to it.

[Guest]

The Principle of Analogy.

The Present is the Key to the Past. This principle holds that

past events must be explained on the basis of present occurrences.

For instance, to the question: "Could Jesus have been resurrected bodily from the grave?"

classical liberalism replies that the key to this past event is found in the present. Therefore, a

person must go to the cemetery and find out how many dead people are currently rising from the

grave. If one does not find dead people rising out of their graves, it means the Gospels' accounts

of Jesus' resurrection could not have been true. Consequently, the doctrine of a future resurrection

of believers at the second coming must be rejected or re-interpreted (as, perhaps, a coming of

Jesus in your heart).

The Principle of Criticism.

Don't Believe Everything You Hear or Read. According to

this principle, whenever you read any account in the Bible, instead of accepting it as truth, treat it

with a level of skepticism or accept it only tentatively, with the possibility of revision. In today's

terms, it's cool to be skeptical, naive to be trusting. After all, the Watergate and the Iran-Contra

cover-ups by past presidents of the United States have taught us that one should not trust

something until it can be fully checked out with scientific or investigative scrutiny. Skepticism is

the key to establishing truth. Therefore, as one approaches the Bible, one must begin with

suspicion rather than trust.

How does this principle relate to the account of Christ's resurrection found in the New

Testament? For classical liberals, it means being suspicious of the intentions of the Bible writers

who recorded this event. They argue, among other things, that the resurrection accounts could

have been designed to explain away the fact that the followers of Christ were misguided in the

first place in believing that He was the Messiah.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

this is a FORUM. Your sarcasm is noted.

[Guest]

Method Denies Full Inspiration and Trustworthiness.

The above three naturalistic

assumptions became the basis of the classical formulation of the historical-critical method. If the

Bible accounts cannot be accepted as trustworthy until they have been "checked out" by the critic,

one must determine how to arrive at "the truth" about what is recorded in the Bible. Therefore,

using the above three naturalistic assumptions, classical liberalism came up with various, often

inconsistent and conflicting, methods of interpreting the Bible, all of which are bracketed

together under the label "historical-critical method."

The method is based on the above presuppositions. There cannot be a historical-critical

method without an a priori denial of the full inspiration, trustworthiness, and authority of

Scripture. Take away the naturalistic assumptions, and the historical-critical method ceases to

exist.

[Guest]

this is a FORUM. Your sarcasm is noted.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was being straight forward. No one is forcing you to waste your time.

[Guest]

Liberalism's Methods of Biblical Interpretation

Since liberal scholars hold that the Bible is essentially a human document and that the

reports recorded in the Bible may not be reliable or accurate accounts of what actually happened,

liberals have put forward several approaches (they term these methods "scientific," "historic," or

"objective" paradigms) of Bible interpretation.

Examples of contemporary higher-critical methods include:

(1) literary-source criticism, which attempts to determine the various literary sources

presumed to lie behind the present record in the Bible;

(2) form or tradition criticism, which seeks to get behind the written sources of the Bible

to the period of oral tradition and isolate the oral forms and traditions alleged to have gone into

the written sources;

(3) redaction criticism, which tries to study the activity of the "editors" of the Bible as

they allegedly shaped, modified and even created the final product;

(4) comparative-religion criticism, which assumes that the Bible writers borrowed from

the neighboring polytheistic cultures and which seeks to study the evolutionary development of

the biblical faith from its assumed polytheistic or primitive forms to its present monotheistic or

matured form;

(5) historical criticism, which employs all of the above and, in addition, draws upon

archeology and secular historical sources; it seeks to determine authorship, date of writing, and

what actually led to the writing of the biblical books; and

(6) structural criticism, which attempts to investigate the relationship between the surface

structure of the writing and the deeper implicit structures that belong to literature as such.11

Theology as taught in most seminaries and universities today is based on liberalism's

historical-critical method. This method forms the basis of many scholarly commentaries, articles,

and books and also filters down to the pulpits. Unfortunately, those who are most affected by it

are not acutely conscious of it. And herein lies the danger. Scholars belonging to Bible-believing

conservative churches and seeking to be considered "scholars" by the liberal academic

community may think that they can successfully use liberalism's methods--literary-source

criticism, form or tradition criticism, redaction criticism, comparative-religion criticism, historical

criticism, etc.--without adopting the naturalistic foundation upon which old-fashioned classical

liberalism established the methods!

This theological experiment has given birth to "accommodationism" or "moderate

liberalism" in conservative churches. Scholars give the appearance of being Bible-believing

conservatives, but because they accept the use of the historical-critical method they are actually

neo-liberals. For in order to use the methods of the historical-critical approach, a scholar

belonging to a Bible-believing church such as our own would ultimately be forced by the liberal

methodology to teach that inspired writings (the Bible and Ellen White) are not fully inspired,

trustworthy, authoritative. In other words, the use of the historical-critical method leads to

doubting the Word.

[Guest]

Moderate Liberalism's View of the Bible

Anglican scholar David L. Edwards, provost of Southwark Cathedral in London, is an

articulate moderate liberal. He stated his views regarding the nature and purpose of the Bible in a

dialogue with John Stott, an internationally respected Bible-believing evangelical scholar.12

Although Edwards identifies himself as liberal, he is a church-oriented liberal. His position

therefore is a true reflection of the "accommodationist" viewpoint--the kind gaining currency in

the Seventh-day Adventist church.

A Moderate Liberal's View.

For now, however, we wish only to acquaint readers with

moderate liberalism's subtle skepticism towards the Bible's inspiration and reliability. In the

paragraphs that follow, Edwards states briefly what he understands to be the saving truth which

the Bible affirms. He also mentions a few things which, though found in the Bible, he considers

not inspired. He writes:

"God's purpose in inspiring the composition of the Bible which Christians hold in their

hands today was 'severely practical.' . . . It was to tell us that we and the rest of the universe are

wonderfully his creation--not to propose that science is corrected by either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2

(the myths in these two chapters, which come from different sources and dates, contradict each

other in some details). It was to tell us that we are sinners--not to instruct us how the serpent who

was already wicked could speak to Eve or how the murderous Cain, so primitive that he was

Adam's firstborn son, found a woman to be a farmer's wife or how a flood covered the earth

(including the mountains) without leaving any worldwide traces. It was to assure us that,

although we are sinners, we are loved and delivered by God--not to inform us that the children of

Israel included no fewer that 603,550 adult males plus families during the journey to Canaan

(Numbers 1:46). It was to command us to live as God's children--not to persuade us that he

dictated the law of Moses 430 years after his promise to Abraham (Galatians 3:17) although the

time spent by the people of Israel in Egypt before the exodus had also been 430 years (Exodus

12:40). It was to tell us how he used a unique people, Israel, 'people who live apart and do not

consider themselves one of the nations'--not to inform us that Balaam prophesied this having held

conversations with a donkey and an angel (Numbers 22:21-35). It was to teach us, through his

self revelation to the Israelites, that we must worship God alone--not to complain that the

genocide of the Canaanite was incomplete. . . . It was to show that the holy God demands

holiness--not to tell us that the number of wicked Israelites killed off by the plague in Shittim was

twenty-four thousand (Numbers 25:9) or twenty-three thousand (1 Cor. 10:8). It was to reveal his

holy love through Israel's great prophets--not to provide fully accurate predictions of coming

events. It was to proclaim his demand for justice--not to give us a completely coherent account of

the origins of the Israelite monarchy. It was to reveal himself in the whole bitter-sweet history of

Israel--not to recount that history with complete accuracy (somehow reconciling the books of

Samuel and the Kings with the later Chronicles). It was to show how when swallowed up into

victorious empires amid the storms of history, when exiled and deprived of all political identity,

the Jews reached a better understanding of God's holiness and mercy--not to tell us how a whale

could swallow and regurgitate Dove (in Hebrew Jonah). . . . It was to give us spiritual light--not

to affirm that the sun once halted its journey across the sky for 'about a full day' (Joshua 10:13) or

went backwards (Isaiah 38:8).

"God's purpose was to proclaim that Jesus is 'a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for

glory to your people Israel'--not to tell us whether Joseph's father was called Jacob (Matthew

1:16) or Eli (Luke 3:23). It was to say that the love of God was embodied in the carpenter of

Nazareth--not to argue with the historians about the dates when Quirinius took a census in Judea

(Luke 2:2) and when Judas and Theudas led their rebellions (Acts 5:36-37). . . . It was to tell us

that Jesus died for us (whether he died on the day of the Passover feast, as in three of the gospels,

or on the day before as related by John) and was raised from the dead (whatever may have been

the details of his resurrection, which the gospels report differently). . . . It was to speak with

converting and sustaining power about ourselves and our salvation. 'For the word of God is living

and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit,

joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart' (Hebrews 4:12)."

[Guest]

"Magnificent Demolition Job."

Edwards' assertions may sound familiar to you; his

address is the kind heard from many pulpits and in many seminary lecture rooms today. Not a few Bible-believers sense that something is wrong with this view of Scripture, and yet they do

not know what it is. They could readily discount the outright denials of miracles by radical

(old-fashioned) liberals like Bultmann; but they cannot do so as easily with this "fascinating"

view of Scripture--even though, ultimately, radical liberals and moderate liberals say the same

things. Others, after reading this "magnificent demolition job" on the Bible by Edwards, feel like

John Stott, who pictured himself as a peanut, lying "bruised, battered and broken beneath the

Mighty Liberal Steamroller!"

Readers who closely follow developments among Seventh-day Adventists will notice that

the view of biblical inspiration presented above has been popularized in the church. Regrettably,

some have hailed this kind of doubt regarding Scripture's inspiration and trustworthiness as

"provocative, challenging, and extremely helpful in answering questions on inspiration"; others

think it is "faith-building." In subsequent chapters of Receiving the Word we shall highlight the

implications of such a view of Scripture for Adventist doctrine and mission, and we shall also

address some of the questions the "magnificent demolition job" raised.

[phkrause]

Why would you say that Rudywoofs? I'm just curious. And you don't need to answer if you don't want to.

pk

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

this is a FORUM. Your sarcasm is noted.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was being straight forward. No one is forcing you to waste your time.

Moderator hat on - I am inclined to agree with Rudywoofs. If not sarcastic, you were clearly rude - not straight forward. And your sarcastically rude last sentence of your follow-up post noted above renders your erstwhile denial the more disingenuous. As I said before, your approach discourages an open and honest exchange of ideas, which should be basic to a forum. Learn some tact and courtesy - and use it liberally.

And to Rudy's main point and legitimate observation - I agree. Reading Pipim's material is a waste of time. I do not see how it helpfully answers the question concerning what inspiration is. And it doesn't really do more than create a straw-man for your topic to set up and cut down. It still does not do anything to help answer your rhetorical bait question with which you started this thread. And posting reams of so-called experts also doesn't do much for encouraging discussion.

What was your point and reason for posting Pipim's material?

Tom

[Guest]

1. A Human Face on the Liberal Approach.

Historical-critical scholars put a human

face on their method by giving the impression that they alone are the champions of human

"liberation." Here the agenda of the historical-critical method has intersected with the goals of the

different forms of liberation theology--a theological orientation which seeks to "liberate" the

poor, the oppressed, the underclass, the marginalized, women, ethnic minorities, and "sexual

minorities."

While the cause of human liberation is legitimate biblically, any agenda that leads to

narrowing the Bible's scope of authority to a few sections that support the causes being promoted

deserves rejection by Bible-believing Christians. And yet, some proponents of the different

liberal theologies (liberation theology, feminist theology, cultural theologies, social gospel, etc.)

have attempted to win Adventist support to their causes in this way, as we shall show in Chapter

Eleven.

It is no passing coincidence that since the 1970s, when an increasing number of the

church's Bible scholars began adopting the higher critical methods of liberal theology, the

Adventist church has also been thrown into much turmoil over such "hot" issues of social ethics

as abortion, polygamy, divorce and remarriage, women's ordination, homosexuality, and racism.

In the debate over these issues, advocates of the higher-critical method have harnessed the

ethical sensitivities and sympathies of many good-willed Christians who are concerned about

issues of injustice (whether of race, gender, or class) into supporting the liberal agenda. Thus,

those in the church who are justifiably standing up against any form of injustice, unfairness, and

discrimination are led to believe that in order to fight racism, gender injustice, oppression of

minorities, etc., one must don the robes of liberalism. However, one can address such issues

without resorting to the use of the historical-critical method--an approach that leads to diminishing the Bible's authority.

[Guest]

2. Confusing an Illegitimate Method with an Inconsistent One.

As noted earlier, two

major kinds of defects in Bible interpretation affect many scholarly attempts to explain the

meaning of Scriptures: (1) the use of a wrong methodology, and (2) inconsistency with a right

methodology. Unfortunately, because these two defects are often confused, the misunderstanding

has furthered the aims of those who espouse the liberal approach to interpreting Scripture.

Thus, the current quarrel between conservatives and liberals is made to appear as a debate

among fellow conservatives. Those who employ liberalism's higher criticism give the impression

that they are also Bible-believing conservatives who happen to hold different views on some

subjects.

To give legitimacy to their claim, proponents of higher criticism point to disagreements

among the Bible-believing Adventist pioneers, and also differences of opinion among today's

Bible-believing conservatives, as no different from their own cases. However, the truth is that

while the Adventist pioneers and today's conservatives are united in accepting the Bible's full

inspiration, trustworthiness, and sole authority, higher-critical scholars do not accept this position.

This point will become clearer in the next chapter.

[Guest]

3. Discrediting the Traditional Adventist Approach.

A third strategy is to discredit

traditional Adventism's method by insinuating that it is defective. Sometimes the impression is

given that until the scholars of contemporary higher criticism came on the scene in the

mid-twentieth century, Adventists did not have sound hermeneutics. Proponents imply that

because our pioneers had not formally studied Hebrew, Greek, philosophy, and theology from

established seminaries, they could not have done serious biblical interpretation or exegesis.

Historical-critical advocates express this unjustified disdain for the Seventh-day

Adventist pioneers in several ways. In the past some have commented that "the pioneers did

theology, not exegesis"; "they employed allegorical (Alexandrian) method, not

historical-grammatical (Antiochian) method"; "they did practical or devotional theology, not a

seriously thought-out system of beliefs."

Thus, one group of authors writing as "evangelical Adventists" maintains: "While early

Adventists were clearly committed to scripture they did not understand how to interpret it. They

often used a proof-text method of biblical interpretation to defend their distinctive beliefs and

consequently missed the overall, uniting purpose of scripture as a revelation of God's salvation."40

Another author writes that "the Seventh-day Adventist church has never fully outgrown the

Fundamentalist view of Inspiration that it grew up with in the nineteenth century"--a view of

inspiration he characterizes as "a literal, rigid, propositional, or 'proof text' interpretation of

Scripture."41

A more nuanced, subtle discrediting of the works of those following the footsteps of the

pioneers characterizes their position as the "key-text" method, over against the "contextual

method."42

Some dismiss anyone who does not operate on historical-critical assumptions as

employing an obscurantist "proof-text" method. We have already noted how one author describes

the well-crafted 1986 "Methods of Bible Study" document's stance as a "myopic position,"43

symptomatic of a "proof-text method." "In essence, the historical-grammatical method does

scholarly investigation of the Bible under the control of fundamentalist proof-text principles and

presuppositions, and appears to confirm proof-text conclusions by scholarly procedures."44

Those who are familiar with the key issues of hermeneutics reject such an assessment as a

misunderstanding of the Adventist approach. In fact, a quick reference to the "Methods of Bible

Study" document, reproduced in Appendix C of this book, will challenge the contention that the historic Adventist approach is a "proof-text" method.

[Woody]

I'm getting really bored.

[phkrause]

So than Redwood go watch a game of golf. Not that's boring!

pk

[Woody]

Hey. I like watching Tiger play golf. But it IS Sabbath. I don't do such things on Sabbath.

[Guest]

4. Point to the "Clear Majority" of Historical-Critical Scholars.

A fourth strategy for domesticating the historical-critical method in the Adventist church is to suggest that since many

Adventist scholars in the industrialized world are traveling the "wide and broad way" of liberal

scholarship, the path being trodden by the "majority" must be right. This strategy can be very

tempting to those who crave the applause of "progressive," "open-minded" and "enlightened"

scholarship.

Statements like, "virtually all Adventist exegetes of Scripture do use historical critical

methodology"45 and "the clear majority of Adventist biblical scholars . . . favor the use of such

descriptive [historical-critical] methodologies"46 can have a powerful psychological impact. Who

wants to go against a position that is backed by an "overwhelming majority of our Bible teachers

and theologians"? Which church member, student, administrator, even Bible teacher would want

to be scorned as belonging to an uneducated, uninformed, "out-of-touch," "ultra-conservative,"

"extremist," or "fundamentalist" group of Adventist scholars?

Notice how the alleged "clear majority" often dismisses scholars who are traveling "the

strait and narrow way" of traditional Seventh-day Adventism. Even though the approach of

mainstream Adventism is consistent with the sola scriptura of the sixteenth-century Reformers,

William Miller, and Ellen G. White, and even though their plain reading of Scripture (the

historical-grammatical method) is shared by a majority of church members around the world,

observe how a historical-critical author refers to the traditional Adventist approach: "the

historical-grammatical method has gained [should have read "has retained"] only limited

acceptance among Adventist scholars."47

The subtle implication is that the historic Adventist approach is defective because it is not

embraced by historical critical scholars! Some have wondered how Joshua and Caleb would vie

this approach (Num 13 & 14).

[phkrause]

OK Redwood.

pk

[Guest]

The Crucial Issues in the Debate

No matter how one defines "growth," "progress," "maturity," "sensitive," "infantile,"

"principle," "literal," and "proof-text" in the above statements, there is no doubt that, indeed, "the

method that rules in the coming years will determine whether the Adventist church will continue

to grow and mature or whether it will always remain in an infantile state."54 What is really at

stake in this crisis over biblical interpretation is the identity, message, and mission of the

Seventh-day Adventist movement.

The crucial issues are these: Is the Bible fully inspired, trustworthy, and the sole authority

for the Christian believer? Are the new approaches viable alternatives to the historic Adventist

method? The questions, then, have to do with the inspiration and interpretation of Scripture.

What the Church Did.

In addressing these crucial issues, we need to be reminded again

of key events in our recent history. Since the 1950s, as more of the church's scholars began using

the higher critical approaches of liberal theology, the church has seen increasing challenges to its

distinctive truths--the prophetic significance of 1844, the necessity and relevance of the

Sanctuary doctrine, the inspiration of Ellen G. White, etc. And beginning in the 1970s, the church

has experienced turmoil over such contemporary issues as abortion, polygamy, divorce and

remarriage, women's ordination, homosexuality, etc.

What did the church do when it discovered that its theological house was crumbling?

Rather than simply offering some cosmetic changes to embellish the crumbling walls, the church

chose to identify the cause of the problem and attempted to repair the theological damage.

Thus in 1974, the church leaders and scholars--the key players in the quarrel over the

Word--traced the problem to the church's theological foundation: the inspiration, trustworthiness,

and sole authority of the Bible. At the Bible Conferences that year, they took an uncompromising

stand against the historical-critical method. Given the influence of the historical-critical scholars,

this decision required the courage of biblical convictions. But they rose to the occasion,

publishing a book, A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, which laid the groundwork for the

1986 Annual Council document, "Methods of Bible Study."

[Woody]

It is now definately time for golf. Actually ... I'm watching my favorite team ... the Dodgers finsh off the Cardinals. Go Dodgers.

[Guest]

The Result of an Unwavering Decision.

As a result of the church's unwavering decision,

some individuals who had earlier believed in the higher critical methodology experienced

conversion and abandoned it.

One such scholar is the current chairman of the Old Testament department of the

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary. He recounted something of his pilgrimage from

using the historical-critical method to giving it up as a result of the 1974 Bible Conference:

"While attending that conference, I awoke as from a dream. I came to realize that my approach to the Scriptures had been much like Eve's approach to God's spoken word. She was

exhilarated by the experience of exercising autonomy over the word of God, deciding what to

believe and what to discard. She exalted her human reason over divine revelation. When she did

so, she opened the floodgates of woe upon the world. Like Eve, I had felt the heady ecstasy of

setting myself up as the final norm, as one who could judge the divine Word by my rational

criteria. Instead of the Word judging me, I judged the Word." He concluded: "I am now

convinced that the issue of the authority of Scripture is basic to all other issues in the church. The

destiny of our church depends on how its members regard the authority of the Bible."