Chapter 4: Revelation and Inspiration (Fernando Canale)

Question 1

We know about God only by way of __(?)_\_, and Christians have generally recognized Scripture as __(?)_\_. Besides __(?)_\_(2 Tim 3:16), theologians also speak about __(?)_\_ by which all people have some knowledge of a supreme Being. God has specifically presented us with such a thought in Scripture (e.g., __(?)_\_).

Answer 1

We know about God only by way of His revelation, and Christians have generally recognized Scripture as the public and specific revelation of divine thought and will to us. Besides God’s special revelation in Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), theologians also speak about a general revelation through nature by which all people have some knowledge of a supreme Being. God has specifically presented us with such a thought in Scripture (e.g., Rom 1:18-20).

Question 2

[“Revelation and Inspiration” by Fernando Canale] will discuss the biblical evidence for the inspiration of Scripture and for the various models used to articulate it. It will suggest __(?)_\_based on __(?)_\_ and __(?)_\_.

Answer 2

[“Revelation and Inspiration” by Fernando Canale] will discuss the biblical evidence for the inspiration of Scripture and for the various models used to articulate it. It will suggest a new understanding of the evidence based on biblical presuppositions and a careful listening to the entire range of the biblical evidence.

Question 3

With the arrival of __(?)_\_, many Christians have concluded that the existence of a special cognitive revelation from God is impossible. Unfortunately, these theologians attempt to interpret Scripture from the assumption that __(?)_\_. They are dogmatically persuaded that __(?)_\_. Scripture and theology, then, are the product of __(?)_\_. Thus, these theologians deny Peter’s conviction that in Scripture we do not find myths but truths (__(?)_\_).

Answer 3

With the arrival of the modern and postmodern ages, many Christians have concluded that the existence of a special cognitive revelation from God is impossible. Unfortunately, these theologians attempt to interpret Scripture from the assumption that it was written only by human beings. They are dogmatically persuaded that God cannot communicate knowledge to human beings. Scripture and theology, then, are the product of ever-changing human imaginations. Thus, these theologians deny Peter’s conviction that in Scripture we do not find myths but truths (2 Pet 1:16).

Question 4

Whenever we read a text, we correctly assume that someone has written it. We do not always need to know the author of a text to understand its meaning, but __(?)_\_.

The same dynamic takes place when we read Scripture. Most of the time we understand the face-value meaning of texts. If we are convinced that God is the author of what we read in Scripture, our theological understanding of it will differ considerably from a reader who is persuaded that Scripture was written by well-intentioned religious persons describing their own experiences. Thus, the understanding of __(?)_\_becomes a pivotal presupposition from which believers and theologians __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, and __(?)_\_.

Answer 4

Whenever we read a text, we correctly assume that someone has written it. We do not always need to know the author of a text to understand its meaning, but such knowledge may add depth to the meaning.

The same dynamic takes place when we read Scripture. Most of the time we understand the face-value meaning of texts. If we are convinced that God is the author of what we read in Scripture, our theological understanding of it will differ considerably from a reader who is persuaded that Scripture was written by well-intentioned religious persons describing their own experiences. Thus, the understanding of who the author or authors of Scripture are becomes a pivotal presupposition from which believers and theologians approach their interpretation of Scripture, formulate Christian teachings, and experience its transforming power in everyday life.

Question 5

In short, [Fernando Canale summarizes that the SDA] understanding of __(?)_\_(__(?)_\_) becomes __(?)_\_for our hermeneutics of Scripture and its theology. [Footnote: “The words __(?)_\_ are hyphenated to indicate they are inseparable aspects of the same process”]

Answer 5

In short, [Fernando Canale summarizes that the SDA] understanding of Revelation-Inspiration (R-I) becomes a necessary assumption for our hermeneutics of Scripture and its theology. [Footnote: “The words Revelation-Inspiration are hyphenated to indicate they are inseparable aspects of the same process”]

Question 6

We know that someone is the author of Scripture. Yet, how do we know who the person or persons were? In answering this question, we begin by paying close attention to what biblical authors have to say about the origin of Scripture. Extensive Old and New Testament evidence tells us that __(?)_\_. The classical passages used in the formulation of the __(?)_\_ doctrine of Scripture are __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_.

Answer 6

We know that someone is the author of Scripture. Yet, how do we know who the person or persons were? In answering this question, we begin by paying close attention to what biblical authors have to say about the origin of Scripture. Extensive Old and New Testament evidence tells us that biblical authors considered God to be the author of Scripture. The classical passages used in the formulation of the biblical doctrine of Scripture are 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Question 7

Paul’s statement on the origin of Scripture is brief and general: “All Scripture is inspired by God [pasa graphē theopneustos]” (2 Tim 3:16, NAB). While our word “inspiration” comes from __(?)_\_, “divinitus inspirata,” Paul uses the word “theopneustos,” which literally means “​__(?)_\_.” We have no idea about what a “​__(?)_\_” could mean when literally applied to the generation of Scripture, yet we may attempt to understand it ​__(?)_\_. Thus understood, the text is saying that ​__(?)_\_, although it does not explain ​__(?)_\_.

Answer 7

Paul’s statement on the origin of Scripture is brief and general: “All Scripture is inspired by God [pasa graphē theopneustos]” (2 Tim 3:16, NAB). While our word “inspiration” comes from the Latin equivalent, “divinitus inspirata,” Paul uses the word “theopneustos,” which literally means “God-breathed.” We have no idea about what a “divine breathing” could mean when literally applied to the generation of Scripture, yet we may attempt to understand it metaphorically. Thus understood, the text is saying that God is directly involved in the origin of Scripture, although it does not explain the mode and particulars of divine operation.

Question 8

Peter’s remarks on the origin of Scripture are more nuanced, analytic, and specific [than Paul’s—see: 2 Tim 3:15-17]. By stating that “men spoke from God being led [pheromenoi, “__(?)_\_”] by the Holy Spirit” (​__(?)_\_), Peter explicitly underlines the fact that ​__(?)_\_. In short, ​__(?)_\_.

Yet Peter carefully and forcefully qualified the intervention of ​__(?)_\_. “Knowing this first: every prophecy of Scripture does not come into being [ginetai] from ​__(?)_\_ [epiluseōs]” (​__(?)_\_). Given the context in which he uses the Greek word epilusis, Peter may be arguing that ​__(?)_\_.

Answer 8

Peter’s remarks on the origin of Scripture are more nuanced, analytic, and specific [than Paul’s—see: 2 Tim 3:15-17]. By stating that “men spoke from God being led [pheromenoi, “being moved”] by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21), Peter explicitly underlines the fact that human beings have written Scripture under the leading of the Holy Spirit. In short, both God and human beings were involved in the generation of Scripture.

Yet Peter carefully and forcefully qualified the intervention of human agents. “Knowing this first: every prophecy of Scripture does not come into being [ginetai] from [one’s] own interpretation [epiluseōs]” (2 Pet 1:20). Given the context in which he uses the Greek word epilusis, Peter may be arguing that even when human beings were involved in writing Scripture they did not originate the explanations, expositions, or interpretations of the various subject matters presented there.

Question 9

…Peter explains that “not __(?)_\_was ever a prophecy brought about/derived [from pherō], but men __(?)_\_, being __(?)_\_[pheromenoi] __(?)_\_” (2 Pet 1:21). Peter again denies __(?)_\_by excluding __(?)_\_. What did human beings do? They __(?)_\_(elalēsan), __(?)_\_, and __(?)_\_the __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, and __(?)_\_ that originated __(?)_\_. Speech and writing are expressions of thought. Thus, __(?)_\_ not only when they wrote but also when they spoke. What they said was __(?)_\_.

Answer 9

…Peter explains that “not by the will of man was ever a prophecy brought about/derived [from pherō], but men spoke from God, being led [pheromenoi] by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21). Peter again denies the human origin of Scripture by excluding the will of human beings. What did human beings do? They spoke (elalēsan), proclaimed, and communicated the explanations, expositions, and interpretations that originated in God as author. Speech and writing are expressions of thought. Thus, God’s direction accompanied the writers of Scripture not only when they wrote but also when they spoke. What they said was the manifestation of God’s thoughts and actions.

Question 10

Notably, while Peter and Paul unequivocally affirm God’s direct involvement in the generation of Scripture, neither explains __(?)_\_, nor details __(?)_\_. __(?)_\_nowhere addresses this problem. To provide answers of our own is to embark on __(?)_\_, for __(?)_\_.

Answer 10

Notably, while Peter and Paul unequivocally affirm God’s direct involvement in the generation of Scripture, neither explains the concrete ways in which the divine and human agencies interfaced, nor details their specific modus operandi. Scripture nowhere addresses this problem. To provide answers of our own is to embark on a theological task, for theology searches for understanding.

Question 11

The statements of Paul and Peter teach rather significantly that God is the author of Scripture, of all Scripture (__(?)_\_; __(?)_\_). Theologians should find a way to understand __(?)_\_, and, at the same time, __(?)_\_.

The various answers given to this question throughout history have become __(?)_\_. They decidedly influence __(?)_\_, even to the point of dividing Christianity into two distinctive schools of thought across denominational lines [i.e., seemingly, “__(?)_\_or __(?)_\_ interpretations of R-I”].

Answer 11

The statements of Paul and Peter teach rather significantly that God is the author of Scripture, of all Scripture (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21). Theologians should find a way to understand how this took place, and, at the same time, account for the human side that appears in the way in which Scripture was conceived and written.

The various answers given to this question throughout history have become leading hermeneutical presuppositions. They decidedly influence the entire task of exegetical and theological research, even to the point of dividing Christianity into two distinctive schools of thought across denominational lines [i.e., seemingly, “fundamentalist or liberal interpretations of R-I”].

Question 12

Before briefly considering some leading models of interpretation of R-I… We need (1) __(?)_\_, (2) ​__(?)_\_, and (3) ​__(?)_\_. This will help us understand what others have said on this issue and what we should bear in mind in our own interpretation of it.

Answer 12

Before briefly considering some leading models of interpretation of R-I… We need (1) to ascertain with precision the technical meaning of R-I, (2) determine on what evidence theologians build their understanding of R-I, and (3) note from what hermeneutical presuppositions they work out their views. This will help us understand what others have said on this issue and what we should bear in mind in our own interpretation of it.

Question 13

When theologians deal with the R-I doctrine, they use the words “revelation” and “inspiration” in a technical sense. “Revelation” broadly refers to __(?)_\_. “Inspiration,” broadly speaking, refers to __(?)_\_. Thus, revelation is __(?)_\_while inspiration is mainly __(?)_\_.

Answer 13

When theologians deal with the R-I doctrine, they use the words “revelation” and “inspiration” in a technical sense. “Revelation” broadly refers to the process through which the contents of Scripture emerged in the mind of prophets and apostles. “Inspiration,” broadly speaking, refers to the process through which the contents in the mind of prophets and apostles were communicated in oral or in written forms. Thus, revelation is a cognitive process while inspiration is mainly a linguistic one.

Question 14

A word of caution is necessary to avoid confusion [when considering “the R-I doctrine” as explained by Fernando Canale]. Biblical writers did not use the word “inspiration.” Moreover, neither the biblical authors nor Ellen G. White used the notions of “revelation” and “inspiration” in the technical analytical sense in which we are using them in this chapter [i.e., “Revelation and Inspiration”]. They __(?)_\_. According to the context, they may refer to __(?)_\_, to __(?)_\_, or __(?)_\_. Not surprisingly, a large number of Adventist and Evangelical theologians __(?)_\_. A proper understanding of the origination of Scripture, however, requires __(?)_\_.

Answer 14

A word of caution is necessary to avoid confusion [when considering “the R-I doctrine” as explained by Fernando Canale]. Biblical writers did not use the word “inspiration.” Moreover, neither the biblical authors nor Ellen G. White used the notions of “revelation” and “inspiration” in the technical analytical sense in which we are using them in this chapter [i.e., “Revelation and Inspiration”]. They used them interchangeably. According to the context, they may refer to the origin of contents in the mind of prophets and apostles, to the process of communicating them in a written format, or to both. Not surprisingly, a large number of Adventist and Evangelical theologians do the same. A proper understanding of the origination of Scripture, however, requires a careful analysis of the cognitive and literary processes involved.

Question 15

On what evidence do theologians build their understandings of R-I? Since one does not directly observe R-I in process today, theologians work from the results of R-I; namely, from __(?)_\_. Theologians have come to recognize two lines of evidence in __(?)_\_. They are __(?)_\_[see __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_] and __(?)_\_…

Answer 15

On what evidence do theologians build their understandings of R-I? Since one does not directly observe R-I in process today, theologians work from the results of R-I; namely, from Scripture. Theologians have come to recognize two lines of evidence in Scripture. They are the doctrine of Scripture [see 2 Tim 3:15-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21] and the phenomena of Scripture…

Question 16

When theologians talk about the “phenomena” of Scripture, they are not usually referring to biblical teachings in Scripture but to __(?)_\_. Consequently, while access to the biblical “doctrine of Scripture” involves theological analysis, access to the “phenomena” of Scripture takes place through __(?)_\_. The first line of evidence underlines the role of the divine agency in R-I while the second uncovers __(?)_\_. Failure to integrate both lines of evidence adequately leads respectively to __(?)_\_.

Answer 16

When theologians talk about the “phenomena” of Scripture, they are not usually referring to biblical teachings in Scripture but to the characteristics of Scripture as a written work and its entire contents. Consequently, while access to the biblical “doctrine of Scripture” involves theological analysis, access to the “phenomena” of Scripture takes place through historical and literary analysis. The first line of evidence underlines the role of the divine agency in R-I while the second uncovers the role of human agencies. Failure to integrate both lines of evidence adequately leads respectively to either fundamentalist or liberal interpretations of R-I.

Question 17

[Fernando Canale observes that] It is evident that “the time has come for Seventh-day Adventists to move beyond __(?)_\_into the task of developing __(?)_\_.” [Footnote: Alberto Timm, “A History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration (1844-2000),” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 10, (1999): 542 (emphasis author’s).] But how do we develop an understanding of a subject matter that Scripture addresses indirectly? What is required is nothing short of __(?)_\_…

Answer 17

[Fernando Canale observes that] It is evident that “the time has come for Seventh-day Adventists to move beyond apologetic concerns into the task of developing a more constructive theology of inspiration.” [Footnote: Alberto Timm, “A History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration (1844-2000),” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 10, (1999): 542 (emphasis author’s).] But how do we develop an understanding of a subject matter that Scripture addresses indirectly? What is required is nothing short of a constructive, pioneering task in systematic theology…

Question 18

Since all theological construction is based on presuppositions, the formulation of an Adventist understanding of R-I could __(?)_\_ from analyzing the way other interpretations have been conceived.

Answer 18

Since all theological construction is based on presuppositions, the formulation of an Adventist understanding of R-I could benefit from analyzing the way other interpretations have been conceived.

Question 19

The systematic theological task envisaged [and intended to help us “move beyond apologetic concerns into the task of developing a more constructive theology of inspiration”] here must take into consideration three different levels of hermeneutics: (1) the hermeneutics of __(?)_\_, (2) the hermeneutics of __(?)_\_, and (3) the hermeneutics of __(?)_\_. The interpretation of __(?)_\_ and __(?)_\_is conditioned by the doctrine of R-I, which in turn depends on __(?)_\_.

Answer 19

The systematic theological task envisaged [and intended to help us “move beyond apologetic concerns into the task of developing a more constructive theology of inspiration”] here must take into consideration three different levels of hermeneutics: (1) the hermeneutics of the text, (2) the hermeneutics of theological issues, and (3) the hermeneutics of philosophical principles. The interpretation of biblical texts and theological issues is conditioned by the doctrine of R-I, which in turn depends on the philosophical principles presupposed by the exegete.

Question 20

…what are the presuppositions involved in the understanding of R-I? Who decides which presuppositions should be used? Let us begin with the latter question. Since biblical evidence shows that the R-I phenomenon always involves __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_ actions, theologians unavoidably bring __(?)_\_to play in their doctrines of R-I. These are __(?)_\_, because __(?)_\_. __(?)_\_ and __(?)_\_, as well as __(?)_\_ and __(?)_\_, have been variously interpreted by Christian theologians. Different views of __(?)_\_ and __(?)_\_ have produced different interpretations of R-I…

Answer 20

…what are the presuppositions involved in the understanding of R-I? Who decides which presuppositions should be used? Let us begin with the latter question. Since biblical evidence shows that the R-I phenomenon always involves divine and human actions, theologians unavoidably bring their own conceptions of divine and human natures to play in their doctrines of R-I. These are hermeneutical philosophical principles, because they are assumed as principles in biblical and theological hermeneutics. God’s nature and actions, as well as human nature and actions, have been variously interpreted by Christian theologians. Different views of God and human nature have produced different interpretations of R-I…

Question 21

Let us review… First, we decided to use the words “revelation” and “inspiration” in the __(?)_\_sense to __(?)_\_. Second, we realized that a proper understanding of R-I must start by __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_ (__(?)_\_).

Third, we learned that doctrines of R-I are __(?)_\_involving not only __(?)_\_ but also __(?)_\_. Any doctrine of R-I is __(?)_\_ that hinges on __(?)_\_.

Answer 21

Let us review… First, we decided to use the words “revelation” and “inspiration” in the technical sense to foster clarity. Second, we realized that a proper understanding of R-I must start by listening to which biblical writers say about the origin of Scripture and consider the actual work they produced (phenomena of Scripture).

Third, we learned that doctrines of R-I are interpretations involving not only biblical data but also presuppositions. Any doctrine of R-I is an interpretation that hinges on the way in which theologians understand the natures and actions of God and of human beings.

Question 22

Theologians have interpreted R-I in many ways, yet, most explanations fall into two main models of interpretation, namely, the __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_ models. We need to acquaint ourselves with these models, because they have influenced the development of Adventist thought on R-I…

Answer 22

Theologians have interpreted R-I in many ways, yet, most explanations fall into two main models of interpretation, namely, the classical and modern models. We need to acquaint ourselves with these models, because they have influenced the development of Adventist thought on R-I…

Question 23

[According to Fernando Canale,] During __(?)_\_following the death of Christ the doctrine of R-I was not a disputed matter. Following Christ’s example, His followers took the biblical teaching about its inspiration __(?)_\_. Briefly put, they assumed __(?)_\_, through __(?)_\_, wrote the Bible.

As classical theologians maximized __(?)_\_in R-I, they were minimizing __(?)_\_, seeing __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_ merely as __(?)_\_. Because __(?)_\_ was believed to have written the words of Scripture, this notion, which led to a high view of biblical authority, came to be known as __(?)_\_. The words of the Bible are __(?)_\_…

Answer 23

[According to Fernando Canale,] During the first eighteen centuries following the death of Christ the doctrine of R-I was not a disputed matter. Following Christ’s example, His followers took the biblical teaching about its inspiration at face value. Briefly put, they assumed God, through human instrumentality, wrote the Bible.

As classical theologians maximized the role of divine activity in R-I, they were minimizing the role of human agencies, seeing prophets and apostles merely as instruments God used to write the very words of Scripture. Because God was believed to have written the words of Scripture, this notion, which led to a high view of biblical authority, came to be known as the “verbal” theory of inspiration. The words of the Bible are the words of God…

Question 24

[Canale explains that “the doctrine of R-I” during “the first eighteen centuries following the death of Christ” reflected a consensus view built] on __(?)_\_. The replacement of __(?)_\_ with __(?)_\_made the idea of divine sovereign providence __(?)_\_. By the fifth century A.D., Augustine already was using these ideas, linking the notion of __(?)_\_with __(?)_\_. [Footnote: Augustine Confessions, 12.15.18.] Centuries later, it came to shape Luther’s understanding of the gospel, as well as the understanding of the __(?)_\_inspiration of Scripture. Consequently, the biblical affirmation that the Holy Spirit led the prophets’ writing was understood on the assumption that __(?)_\_. On this assumption, God becomes not only __(?)_\_but also __(?)_\_.

Answer 24

[Canale explains that “the doctrine of R-I” during “the first eighteen centuries following the death of Christ” reflected a consensus view built] on an extrabiblical philosophical understanding of hermeneutics. The replacement of the biblical notion of God with the Greek idea of a timeless God made the idea of divine sovereign providence an overpowering, all-encompassing causal phenomenon. By the fifth century A.D., Augustine already was using these ideas, linking the notion of divine will and activity with the timeless nature of God. [Footnote: Augustine Confessions, 12.15.18.] Centuries later, it came to shape Luther’s understanding of the gospel, as well as the understanding of the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Consequently, the biblical affirmation that the Holy Spirit led the prophets’ writing was understood on the assumption that God operated as an irresistible sovereign influence, overruling any initiative originating in human freedom. On this assumption, God becomes not only the author of Scripture but also the writer.

Question 25

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Evangelical theologians used the verbal inspiration theory to fight __(?)_\_with its challenge to traditional Christian theology. Working from the philosophical hermeneutical perspective of divine sovereign providence, __(?)_\_ (1823-1886) and __(?)_\_(1851-1921), while denying dictation, spoke of inspiration as __(?)_\_.

Answer 25

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Evangelical theologians used the verbal inspiration theory to fight modernism with its challenge to traditional Christian theology. Working from the philosophical hermeneutical perspective of divine sovereign providence, Archibald A. Hodge (1823-1886) and Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921), while denying dictation, spoke of inspiration as divine superintendence in the confluence of the divine and human agencies.

Question 26

The sculptor-chisel-sculpture analogy helps to visualize the way in which __(?)_\_conceives the manner in which the divine and human agencies operate when generating the writings of the Bible. As the sculptor, and not the chisel, is the author of the work of art, so __(?)_\_, and not __(?)_\_, is __(?)_\_. __(?)_\_, as the chisel, play only an instrumental role.

Answer 26

The sculptor-chisel-sculpture analogy helps to visualize the way in which the verbal theory of inspiration conceives the manner in which the divine and human agencies operate when generating the writings of the Bible. As the sculptor, and not the chisel, is the author of the work of art, so God, and not the human writer, is the author of Scripture. Human writers, as the chisel, play only an instrumental role.

Question 27

The most noticeable hermeneutical effects of the verbal theory [of inspiration] are __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_. (1) In claiming that a timeless God is the author and writer of Scripture, verbal inspiration __(?)_\_. __(?)_\_ and __(?)_\_are bypassed in favor of __(?)_\_.

This __(?)_\_has assumed various forms. They spread from __(?)_\_ to __(?)_\_and to the fundamentalist reading of Scripture in which __(?)_\_. (2) We are more familiar with the notion of __(?)_\_, according to which __(?)_\_.

Answer 27

The most noticeable hermeneutical effects of the verbal theory [of inspiration] are recontextualization and inerrancy. (1) In claiming that a timeless God is the author and writer of Scripture, verbal inspiration places the origin of biblical thought in the nonhistorical realm of the supernatural. Historical contexts and contents are bypassed in favor of timeless divine truths.

This nonhistorical recontextualization has assumed various forms. They spread from the classical depreciation of the historical literal meaning of biblical texts to allegorical spiritual meanings and to the fundamentalist reading of Scripture in which each biblical statement is an objective communication of supernatural absolute truth. (2) We are more familiar with the notion of inerrancy, according to which every biblical statement is absolute truth.

Question 28

Modern times generated a radically new understanding of R-I, based on complex philosophical arguments. __(?)_\_ (1768-1834), the father of modern theology, proposed a blueprint that later proponents of encounter revelation would follow.

Briefly put, revelation is __(?)_\_. “Thus, the content of revelation is regarded no longer as __(?)_\_, not even __(?)_\_, but __(?)_\_.” [Footnote: Raoul Dederen, “The Revelation-Inspiration Phenomenon…” in Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, (1992), p. 11.] Consequently, __(?)_\_. Encounter revelation is the opposite of __(?)_\_.

Answer 28

Modern times generated a radically new understanding of R-I, based on complex philosophical arguments. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), the father of modern theology, proposed a blueprint that later proponents of encounter revelation would follow.

Briefly put, revelation is a divine-human encounter devoid of the impartation of knowledge. “Thus, the content of revelation is regarded no longer as knowledge about God, not even information from God, but God Himself.” [Footnote: Raoul Dederen, “The Revelation-Inspiration Phenomenon…” in Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, (1992), p. 11.] Consequently, not a single word or thought that we find in Scripture comes from God. Encounter revelation is the opposite of verbal inspiration.

Question 29

[Assuming the logic of “encounter revelation” theory, whereby “revelation is a divine-human encounter devoid of the impartation of knowledge,” Canale posits the following:]

If the contents of Scripture do not come from God, then from where? The answer is simple: __(?)_\_. The Bible is __(?)_\_. The study of how the contents of Scripture originated is left to __(?)_\_ investigation.

Assuming that __(?)_\_, historical critics see Scripture as __(?)_\_. Human imagination, community, and tradition become __(?)_\_.

Answer 29

[Assuming the logic of “encounter revelation” theory, whereby “revelation is a divine-human encounter devoid of the impartation of knowledge,” Canale posits the following:]

If the contents of Scripture do not come from God, then from where? The answer is simple: from the historically conditioned response of human beings to the personal non-cognitive encounter with God. The Bible is a human book like any other book. The study of how the contents of Scripture originated is left to historical investigation.

Assuming that God did not contribute to the contents of Scripture, historical critics see Scripture as the product of a long process of cultural evolution. Human imagination, community, and tradition become the grounds from which the all-human books of Scripture arise.

Question 30

…some exegetes [tracking along “encounter revelation” lines] believe that inspiration operates not on __(?)_\_but on __(?)_\_. According to this view, “inspiration” did not reach the __(?)_\_level of prophetic thoughts or words directly but influenced __(?)_\_. Not surprisingly, Scripture’s contents remain __(?)_\_, not __(?)_\_.

The foregoing change on how inspiration is viewed is a direct result of the application of __(?)_\_’s (1724-1804) restriction of __(?)_\_’s capabilities to the realm of __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_.

Answer 30

…some exegetes [tracking along “encounter revelation” lines] believe that inspiration operates not on individuals but on the entire community. According to this view, “inspiration” did not reach the personal level of prophetic thoughts or words directly but influenced the social level of the community within which the authors of Scripture lived and wrote. Not surprisingly, Scripture’s contents remain human, not divine.

The foregoing change on how inspiration is viewed is a direct result of the application of Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) restriction of reason’s capabilities to the realm of time and space.

Question 31

Modern theologians found themselves assuming that God is timeless and that human reason cannot reach timeless objects. Within these parameters, there can be no __(?)_\_. But Christianity revolves around the notion that __(?)_\_. Encounter revelation suggests that the divine-human relation (encounter) takes place not at __(?)_\_but at __(?)_\_, through __(?)_\_. Thus, revelation is __(?)_\_, but __(?)_\_.

Answer 31

Modern theologians found themselves assuming that God is timeless and that human reason cannot reach timeless objects. Within these parameters, there can be no cognitive communication between God and human beings. But Christianity revolves around the notion that God relates to human beings. Encounter revelation suggests that the divine-human relation (encounter) takes place not at the cognitive but at an “existential” or inner “personal” level, through the soul. Thus, revelation is a divine-human encounter, real and objective, but involving absolutely no communication from God.

Question 32

The most noticeable hermeneutical effects of the encounter theory of inspiration can be summed up in two words, __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_. (1) As the verbal theory of inspiration led to __(?)_\_so does the encounter theory of revelation. While verbal inspiration assumes that Scripture reveals objective timeless truths, encounter revelation assumes that Scripture is __(?)_\_. Scripture then has __(?)_\_but is simply __(?)_\_. (2) Since the content of Scripture originated (contrary to the views of __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_) from __(?)_\_, we must subject it to __(?)_\_ and use them for religious purposes __(?)_\_. (3) Due to the __(?)_\_ origination of the biblical contents, the interpreter assumes Scripture __(?)_\_.

Answer 32

The most noticeable hermeneutical effects of the encounter theory of inspiration can be summed up in two words, recontextualization and criticism. (1) As the verbal theory of inspiration led to recontextualization so does the encounter theory of revelation. While verbal inspiration assumes that Scripture reveals objective timeless truths, encounter revelation assumes that Scripture is a pointer to an existential, non-cognitive, divine-human encounter. Scripture then has no revelatory contents but is simply a pointer or witness to revelation. (2) Since the content of Scripture originated (contrary to the views of Paul and Peter) from the impulse and wisdom of human beings, we must subject it to scientific criticism and use them for religious purposes only metaphorically. (3) Due to the human origination of the biblical contents, the interpreter assumes Scripture contains errors not only in historical details but also in all that it expressly teaches, even teachings about God and His salvation.

Question 33

How do these ideas [imparted from verbal inspiration and encounter revelation theory] affect Adventists today? Perhaps Edward Heppenstall properly described the general way in which most Adventist writers approach the study of R-I by saying that ‘this church has __(?)_\_. We have aligned ourselves with the evangelical or traditional position.” [See: “Doctrine of Revelation and Inspiration (part 1),” Ministry, July 1970, p. 16.]

Answer 33

How do these ideas [imparted from verbal inspiration and encounter revelation theory] affect Adventists today? Perhaps Edward Heppenstall properly described the general way in which most Adventist writers approach the study of R-I by saying that ‘this church has no clearly defined and developed doctrine of revelation and inspiration. We have aligned ourselves with the evangelical or traditional position.” [See: “Doctrine of Revelation and Inspiration (part 1),” Ministry, July 1970, p. 16.]

Question 34

Early in the history of our church Adventists used __(?)_\_ as an apologetic argument against Deism. [See Alberto Timm, “A History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration…” (1999).] This trend intensified after the death of Ellen G. White when Adventists faced modernism.

During the first half of the twentieth century, Carlyle B. Haynes, for example, addressed the issue in two chapters of his God’s Book. His implicit adoption of __(?)_\_appears when he affirms that “revelation is __(?)_\_, and __(?)_\_.” “Whether dealing either with revelation or with facts within his knowledge,” explains Haynes, “the Bible writer __(?)_\_.” __(?)_\_follows __(?)_\_; God is __(?)_\_, and the human agent is __(?)_\_. This concept may still be the default understanding of R-I held by most Adventists who have not yet explicitly considered the issue…

Answer 34

Early in the history of our church Adventists used verbal inspiration as an apologetic argument against Deism. [See Alberto Timm, “A History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration…” (1999).] This trend intensified after the death of Ellen G. White when Adventists faced modernism.

During the first half of the twentieth century, Carlyle B. Haynes, for example, addressed the issue in two chapters of his God’s Book. His implicit adoption of the verbal theory of inspiration appears when he affirms that “revelation is wholly supernatural, and altogether controlled by God.” “Whether dealing either with revelation or with facts within his knowledge,” explains Haynes, “the Bible writer required inspiration to produce a record preserved from all error and mistake.” Absolute inerrancy follows total control of the human agent by the Holy Spirit; God is totally in control of the process of writing, and the human agent is a very passive instrument. This concept may still be the default understanding of R-I held by most Adventists who have not yet explicitly considered the issue…

Question 35

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim offers a recent explicit example of this trend [i.e., here Canale describes an “implicit adoption of the verbal theory of inspiration” which leads to the view that “God is totally in control of the process of writing, and the human agent is a very passive instrument”]; see his Receiving the Word: How New Approaches to the Bible Impact our Biblical Faith and Lifestyle (Berrien Spring, MI: Berean Books, 1996). As with Alden Thompson, who will be discussed later, Pipim does not explicitly deal with the doctrine of Revelation-Inspiration but assumes the evangelical verbal theory, as many Adventists have done in the past (ibid. 51). As with Haynes, Pipim’s approach is apologetic against __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_. Pipim distances himself from the evangelical verbal theory of inspiration when he emphasizes the “trustworthiness” of Scripture rather than its “inerrancy” (pp. 54-55). Yet, he comes near when explaining that while “no distortions came from the hand of the original Bible writers, some alterations and minor distortions have crept into the Word during the process of transmission and translation” (p. 227).

Answer 35

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim offers a recent explicit example of this trend [i.e., here Canale describes an “implicit adoption of the verbal theory of inspiration” which leads to the view that “God is totally in control of the process of writing, and the human agent is a very passive instrument”]; see his Receiving the Word: How New Approaches to the Bible Impact our Biblical Faith and Lifestyle (Berrien Spring, MI: Berean Books, 1996). As with Alden Thompson, who will be discussed later, Pipim does not explicitly deal with the doctrine of Revelation-Inspiration but assumes the evangelical verbal theory, as many Adventists have done in the past (ibid. 51). As with Haynes, Pipim’s approach is apologetic against the inroads of Modernism and the Historical Critical method of exegesis in Adventist theology. Pipim distances himself from the evangelical verbal theory of inspiration when he emphasizes the “trustworthiness” of Scripture rather than its “inerrancy” (pp. 54-55). Yet, he comes near when explaining that while “no distortions came from the hand of the original Bible writers, some alterations and minor distortions have crept into the Word during the process of transmission and translation” (p. 227).

Question 36

Unknowingly… the verbal inspiration theory, embraced by conservative Adventist theologians, draws from __(?)_\_derived from __(?)_\_. While the verbal theory affirms a high view of Scripture, de facto it __(?)_\_(the __(?)_\_ principle) in the task of practicing Christian theology, since the theory itself is __(?)_\_.

Answer 36

Unknowingly… the verbal inspiration theory, embraced by conservative Adventist theologians, draws from the Augustinian-Calvinistic understanding of philosophical hermeneutical presuppositions derived from a particular Greek view of reality. While the verbal theory affirms a high view of Scripture, de facto it denies its revelatory supremacy (the sola scriptura principle) in the task of practicing Christian theology, since the theory itself is not built on biblical foundations.

Question 37

Ellen G. White strongly influenced Adventist thought on R-I. By her example and teachings, she pointed away from both __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_. This did not discourage some Adventists, however, past and present, from adopting such views…

Answer 37

Ellen G. White strongly influenced Adventist thought on R-I. By her example and teachings, she pointed away from both verbal inspiration and encounter revelation. This did not discourage some Adventists, however, past and present, from adopting such views…

Question 38

Attempting to understand R-I by taking clues from Ellen G. White’s teachings and prophetic experience, many Adventists have adopted the idea called “__(?)_\_,” convinced that their representation of this view properly reflects her views on inspiration. Thus, by “__(?)_\_” we mean, specifically, the theological reflection of some Adventist scholars on R-I, supposedly based on the views of Ellen G. White on inspiration. These comments, therefore, not only affirm that __(?)_\_but that __(?)_\_…

Answer 38

Attempting to understand R-I by taking clues from Ellen G. White’s teachings and prophetic experience, many Adventists have adopted the idea called “thought inspiration,” convinced that their representation of this view properly reflects her views on inspiration. Thus, by “thought inspiration” we mean, specifically, the theological reflection of some Adventist scholars on R-I, supposedly based on the views of Ellen G. White on inspiration. These comments, therefore, not only affirm that the thoughts of the prophets were inspired but that in a very particular way, in the words of Ellen G. White, the “men” themselves were inspired…

Question 39

One of the earliest expressions of thought inspiration among Adventists took place in __(?)_\_. It affirmed “We [Adventists] believe the light given by God to his servants is by the enlightenment of the mind, thus imparting the thought, and not (except in rare cases) the very words in which the ideas should be expressed.” [Footenote: “General Conference Proceedings,” Review and Herald, November 27, 1883, pp. 741-742.] On the basis that inspiration acts on biblical writers’ thoughts, not on their words, this marks __(?)_\_. This initial statement was a sign along the way, not a theory.

Eighty-seven years later, __(?)_\_ articulated this insight within a broad theoretical profile…

Answer 39

One of the earliest expressions of thought inspiration among Adventists took place in 1883. It affirmed “We [Adventists] believe the light given by God to his servants is by the enlightenment of the mind, thus imparting the thought, and not (except in rare cases) the very words in which the ideas should be expressed.” [Footenote: “General Conference Proceedings,” Review and Herald, November 27, 1883, pp. 741-742.] On the basis that inspiration acts on biblical writers’ thoughts, not on their words, this marks a clear departure from verbal inspiration. This initial statement was a sign along the way, not a theory.

Eighty-seven years later, Edward Heppenstall articulated this insight within a broad theoretical profile…

Question 40

[Edward] Heppenstall’s work came as both an alternative to encounter revelation and a departure from verbal inspiration. Correctly rejecting __(?)_\_of encounter revelation, Heppenstall proposed that divine revelation took place at the level of __(?)_\_. Unfortunately he did not __(?)_\_. Also inspiration, says Heppenstall, took place in __(?)_\_. He suggested that in inspiration the Holy Spirit __(?)_\_in order to __(?)_\_.” “Inspiration is __(?)_\_with the scope of what is revealed and assures us that the truths revealed correspond to __(?)_\_.” In both revelation and inspiration God operates on __(?)_\_, not on __(?)_\_. Through revelation ideas are generated in __(?)_\_and through inspiration those ideas are __(?)_\_. However, uncertainty is introduced on the basis that “one of the unknown factors in inspiration is __(?)_\_.” Heppenstall’s position implied that divine inspiration does not reach to __(?)_\_. Consequently, he advances to what could be called “thought inerrancy.” Only biblical thoughts, not __(?)_\_, are inerrant.

Answer 40

[Edward] Heppenstall’s work came as both an alternative to encounter revelation and a departure from verbal inspiration. Correctly rejecting the non-cognitive basis of encounter revelation, Heppenstall proposed that divine revelation took place at the level of the biblical writer’s ideas, concepts, and teachings in the mind of the writer. Unfortunately he did not specify the means through which such conceptual revelation was formed. Also inspiration, says Heppenstall, took place in the mind of the writer. He suggested that in inspiration the Holy Spirit took control of the mind of the human writer in order to guarantee “the accuracy of that which is revealed.” “Inspiration is co-extensive with the scope of what is revealed and assures us that the truths revealed correspond to what God had in mind.” In both revelation and inspiration God operates on thought, not on words. Through revelation ideas are generated in the mind of the prophet and through inspiration those ideas are faithfully communicated. However, uncertainty is introduced on the basis that “one of the unknown factors in inspiration is the degree of the Holy Spirit’s control over the minds of the Bible writers.” Heppenstall’s position implied that divine inspiration does not reach to the words of Scripture. Consequently, he advances to what could be called “thought inerrancy.” Only biblical thoughts, not words, are inerrant.

Question 41

Very conveniently, for the sake of apologetics against biblical and scientific criticisms of scriptural contents, the believer [who subscribes to a kind of “thought inspiration” paradigm as worked out by Edward Heppenstall] can argue that __(?)_\_. In brief, according to thought inspiration, divine R-I operates in __(?)_\_ but falls short of __(?)_\_. Hence, in Scripture we have __(?)_\_. Scripture, therefore, contains __(?)_\_which __(?)_\_.

Answer 41

Very conveniently, for the sake of apologetics against biblical and scientific criticisms of scriptural contents, the believer [who subscribes to a kind of “thought inspiration” paradigm as worked out by Edward Heppenstall] can argue that errors and inconsistencies are due to imperfect language, not to imperfect thought or truth. In brief, according to thought inspiration, divine R-I operates in the truth behind the words but falls short of affecting the words. Hence, in Scripture we have infallible truth presented in fallible language. Scripture, therefore, contains errors in matters of detail which do not affect the revealed thought.

Question 42

Working from Ellen G. White’s classical statement on thought inspiration, some scholars have concluded that thought inspiration works on the thinking process of biblical writers but stops short of __(?)_\_. They also assume a dichotomy between thought and words. Thoughts are independent from words. In Scripture, then, we have perfect __(?)_\_ or __(?)_\_conveyed in imperfect __(?)_\_. On this basis they suggest that Scripture presents __(?)_\_. Scripture’s salvific message, however, __(?)_\_.

Answer 42

Working from Ellen G. White’s classical statement on thought inspiration, some scholars have concluded that thought inspiration works on the thinking process of biblical writers but stops short of reaching their words. They also assume a dichotomy between thought and words. Thoughts are independent from words. In Scripture, then, we have perfect truths or thoughts conveyed in imperfect fallible words. On this basis they suggest that Scripture presents a limited verbal errancy in matters of detail at the level of words. Scripture’s salvific message, however, remains inerrant.

Question 43

In 1991, coming precisely from the perspective of biblical studies, __(?)_\_elevated the issue of biblical inspiration to the forefront of Adventist discussion. [Footnote: __(?)_\_, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers (1991).] A year later, a group of Adventist theologians published a critical response to his proposal. [Footnote: Holbrook and Van Dolson, eds. Issues in Revelation and Inspiration.]

Answer 43

In 1991, coming precisely from the perspective of biblical studies, Alden Thompson elevated the issue of biblical inspiration to the forefront of Adventist discussion. [Footnote: Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers (1991).] A year later, a group of Adventist theologians published a critical response to his proposal. [Footnote: Holbrook and Van Dolson, eds. Issues in Revelation and Inspiration.]

Question 44

__(?)_\_distinguishes between revelation and inspiration. Revelation is the supernatural communication of thoughts and truth to prophets, “some kind of special input from God, a message from Him to His creatures on earth.” Divine thought is communicated by means of supernatural interventions, such as visions, dreams, a voice from heaven, miracles, words written on stone, and Jesus Christ. Inspiration, however, becomes a very fuzzy and subjective “fire in their bones” that moves prophets and apostles to write and to speak from the presence of the Holy Spirit. Far from claiming that inspiration transforms the words of the prophets into the words of God, __(?)_\_ thinks inspiration means, “God stays close enough to the writers so that the point comes through clear enough.” Note that through inspiration God works on neither the prophet’s thoughts nor his words. Inspiration is a divine presence that the prophet senses in the bones, not in the mind.

Answer 44

[Alden] Thompson distinguishes between revelation and inspiration. Revelation is the supernatural communication of thoughts and truth to prophets, “some kind of special input from God, a message from Him to His creatures on earth.” Divine thought is communicated by means of supernatural interventions, such as visions, dreams, a voice from heaven, miracles, words written on stone, and Jesus Christ. Inspiration, however, becomes a very fuzzy and subjective “fire in their bones” that moves prophets and apostles to write and to speak from the presence of the Holy Spirit. Far from claiming that inspiration transforms the words of the prophets into the words of God, Thompson thinks inspiration means, “God stays close enough to the writers so that the point comes through clear enough.” Note that through inspiration God works on neither the prophet’s thoughts nor his words. Inspiration is a divine presence that the prophet senses in the bones, not in the mind.

Question 45

Canale explains that [Alden] “Thompson thinks inspiration means, ‘God stays close enough to the writers [of Scripture] so that the point comes through clear enough’…

The question is, who is originator of the point that comes through “clear enough” in the words of Scripture? At this point another feature of Thompson’s view on R-I comes into view. While the entire Scripture is inspired (the divine presence felt in the bones of the writer) only some portions are revealed (that is coming from divine thought, propositions and miraculous actions). Thompson argues this point by __(?)_\_.”…

In fact, because Scripture does not assume the technical distinction between revelation and inspiration that we use to probe into the understanding of the origins of Scripture, Paul claims that __(?)_\_. Thus, according to Scripture, __(?)_\_.

From where then, according to Thompson, do other portions of Scripture come? He __(?)_\_that many portions of Scripture originate from research and experience. Such contents, however being of human origin, can hold only authority when based on inspiration. Yet, if biblical writers experienced inspiration neither cognitively nor linguistically but subjectively as a fire in their bones, we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that __(?)_\_…

Answer 45

Canale explains that [Alden] “Thompson thinks inspiration means, ‘God stays close enough to the writers [of Scripture] so that the point comes through clear enough’…

The question is, who is originator of the point that comes through “clear enough” in the words of Scripture? At this point another feature of Thompson’s view on R-I comes into view. While the entire Scripture is inspired (the divine presence felt in the bones of the writer) only some portions are revealed (that is coming from divine thought, propositions and miraculous actions). Thompson argues this point by asserting, incorrectly, that “the Bible does not say that all Scripture was given by revelation.”…

In fact, because Scripture does not assume the technical distinction between revelation and inspiration that we use to probe into the understanding of the origins of Scripture, Paul claims that the entire contents of Scripture originated in God. Thus, according to Scripture, the entire Bible is both revealed and inspired.

From where then, according to Thompson, do other portions of Scripture come? He correctly argues that many portions of Scripture originate from research and experience. Such contents, however being of human origin, can hold only authority when based on inspiration. Yet, if biblical writers experienced inspiration neither cognitively nor linguistically but subjectively as a fire in their bones, we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that large portions of Scripture present fallible human ideas…

Question 46

Reacting against [Alden Thompson’s] notion [that “the Bible does not say that all Scripture was given by revelation”], Raoul Dederen concludes that “to hold that all is inspired but only part—i.e., a small part—is revealed and on that basis address and attempt to solve the apparently contradictory statements in Scripture __(?)_\_.” [Footnote: “On Inspiration and Biblical Authority,” in Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, p. 101.]

Answer 46

Reacting against [Alden Thompson’s] notion [that “the Bible does not say that all Scripture was given by revelation”], Raoul Dederen concludes that “to hold that all is inspired but only part—i.e., a small part—is revealed and on that basis address and attempt to solve the apparently contradictory statements in Scripture remains unsatisfactory.” [Footnote: “On Inspiration and Biblical Authority,” in Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, p. 101.]

Question 47

[Alden] Thompson’s use of thought inspiration for exegetical purposes shows how the historical-critical method may be used in Adventist theology, namely, __(?)_\_.

Answer 47

[Alden] Thompson’s use of thought inspiration for exegetical purposes shows how the historical-critical method may be used in Adventist theology, namely, by circumscribing the biblical materials that fall outside the reach of thought inspiration.

Question 48

Thought inspiration, as reflected by Adventist theologians noted above, involves positive and negative points. On the positive side, for instance, it __(?)_\_. Thought inspiration also has the positive effect of __(?)_\_. Finally, this view of inspiration has the obvious advantage of __(?)_\_.

However, those reflections on thought inspiration have certain disadvantages. __(?)_\_leads to the claim that __(?)_\_. Unfortunately, this claim and __(?)_\_are not supported by Scripture, Ellen G. White, or philosophical analysis. Although thought inspiration accounts better for the phenomena of Scripture and Ellen G. Whites experience in writing her books than does verbal inspiration, a radical understanding of it fails to account for the clear biblical claim that __(?)_\_ (2 Tim 3:16).

Answer 48

Thought inspiration, as reflected by Adventist theologians noted above, involves positive and negative points. On the positive side, for instance, it provides a middle way between modernistic non-cognitive encounter revelation and absolutely inerrant classical verbal inspiration. Thought inspiration also has the positive effect of directing the interpreter’s attention to the weightier matters discussed in Scripture and away from minutiae. Finally, this view of inspiration has the obvious advantage of accounting for biblical phenomena that do not fit within the verbal inspiration theory.

However, those reflections on thought inspiration have certain disadvantages. The thought-words dichotomy leads to the claim that inspiration does not reach the words of Scripture. Unfortunately, this claim and the thought-words dichotomy are not supported by Scripture, Ellen G. White, or philosophical analysis. Although thought inspiration accounts better for the phenomena of Scripture and Ellen G. Whites experience in writing her books than does verbal inspiration, a radical understanding of it fails to account for the clear biblical claim that inspiration reaches the words (2 Tim 3:16).

Question 49

…a detailed study of Ellen G. White’s thought on inspiration seems to suggest that, according to her, divine inspiration does reach the words and assures the “total trustworthiness of the biblical record.” [Footnote: Gerard P. Damsteegt, “The Inspiration of Scripture in the Writings of Ellen G. White,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 5, no. 1 (1994): 162.] The classical Ellen G. White quotation that Adventist proponents of thought inspiration use to persuade others of their view reads: “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. Nevertheless, the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God” (1SM 21). Unfortunately, they leave out the last sentence of the paragraph in which Ellen G. White clearly says that inspiration reaches the words of the prophets. Ellen G. White clearly says that divine inspiration—which includes our technical revelation and inspiration—works not on the words (as the verbal theory affirms) but in the formation of the writer’s thought. Nevertheless inspiration reaches the words of the prophets, which “are the words of God.” In numerous passages, Ellen G. White refers to Scripture as “the inspired word,” or “words” of God (Ev 269; 1SM 17; SC 108), and “words of inspiration” (LS 198; 2T 605). It seems clear that __(?)_\_. Consequently, it appears __(?)_\_.

Answer 49

…a detailed study of Ellen G. White’s thought on inspiration seems to suggest that, according to her, divine inspiration does reach the words and assures the “total trustworthiness of the biblical record.” [Footnote: Gerard P. Damsteegt, “The Inspiration of Scripture in the Writings of Ellen G. White,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 5, no. 1 (1994): 162.] The classical Ellen G. White quotation that Adventist proponents of thought inspiration use to persuade others of their view reads: “It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. Nevertheless, the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God” (1SM 21). Unfortunately, they leave out the last sentence of the paragraph in which Ellen G. White clearly says that inspiration reaches the words of the prophets. Ellen G. White clearly says that divine inspiration—which includes our technical revelation and inspiration—works not on the words (as the verbal theory affirms) but in the formation of the writer’s thought. Nevertheless inspiration reaches the words of the prophets, which “are the words of God.” In numerous passages, Ellen G. White refers to Scripture as “the inspired word,” or “words” of God (Ev 269; 1SM 17; SC 108), and “words of inspiration” (LS 198; 2T 605). It seems clear that Ellen G. White would not support “thought” inspiration as many understand it at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Consequently, it appears misleading to use one aspect of her complex view on inspiration to give authority to a theory she would not approve.

Question 50

Although as Adventists we do not believe that the words of Scripture were inspired, i.e., __(?)_\_, the process of R-I nevertheless __(?)_\_. In other words, __(?)_\_. Sometimes Ellen G. White did not know how best to express what she was shown; “as my pen hesitates a moment,” she wrote “__(?)_\_ (1MCP 318; 2MR 156-157).

Answer 50

Although as Adventists we do not believe that the words of Scripture were inspired, i.e., they were neither dictated nor do they represent the divine language per se, the process of R-I nevertheless reaches the words of the prophets. In other words, the Holy Spirit guided the prophets in the writing process, ensuring that the prophets’ own words expressed the message they received in a trustworthy and reliable form. Sometimes Ellen G. White did not know how best to express what she was shown; “as my pen hesitates a moment,” she wrote “the appropriate words” came to her mind (1MCP 318; 2MR 156-157).

Question 51

Philosophical reflection suggests that “language and thinking about things are so bound together that it is an abstraction to conceive of the system of truths as a pregiven system of possibilities of being [thoughts] for which the signifying subject [biblical writer] selects corresponding signs [words].” [Footnote: Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 2d rev. ed., trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall (New York: Continuum, 1989), p. 417.] Thought and words __(?)_\_. A thought with no word or words to be communicated __(?)_\_.

Answer 51

Philosophical reflection suggests that “language and thinking about things are so bound together that it is an abstraction to conceive of the system of truths as a pregiven system of possibilities of being [thoughts] for which the signifying subject [biblical writer] selects corresponding signs [words].” [Footnote: Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 2d rev. ed., trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall (New York: Continuum, 1989), p. 417.] Thought and words belong together. A thought with no word or words to be communicated perishes in the mind of the thinker.

Question 52

…for all practical purposes, thought inspiration as defined [in relation to the perspective of Alden Thompson, for example,] reduces __(?)_\_to ​__(?)_\_. We should explain. Technically, ​__(?)_\_deals with the formation of ideas in the mind of biblical writers and ​__(?)_\_ as part of the process of communicating revelation in written or in oral formats. When ​__(?)_\_claims that divine assistance to the prophet does not reach the words it is thereby ​__(?)_\_. The practical problem with this view is that ​__(?)_\_.

Answer 52

…for all practical purposes, thought inspiration as defined [in relation to the perspective of Alden Thompson, for example,] reduces inspiration to revelation. We should explain. Technically, revelation deals with the formation of ideas in the mind of biblical writers and inspiration as part of the process of communicating revelation in written or in oral formats. When thought inspiration claims that divine assistance to the prophet does not reach the words it is thereby limiting divine intervention to revelation. The practical problem with this view is that we have no access to prophetic thought, which died with the prophets leaving only their fallible, human words.

Question 53

…a thought-word dichotomy creates __(?)_\_that finds its ground not in __(?)_\_ but __(?)_\_thinking. Since theological content is not tied strictly to the words of Scripture, exegetes and theologians end up __(?)_\_. Not surprisingly, some Seventh-day Adventist theologians and scientists, trying to accommodate the biblical account of creation to evolutionary scientific teachings, use __(?)_\_… to justify their approach.

But if the separation between thought and words makes room for __(?)_\_, why should it not also make room for __(?)_\_?

Answer 53

…a thought-word dichotomy creates a disjunction between history and salvation that finds its ground not in biblical but Platonic thinking. Since theological content is not tied strictly to the words of Scripture, exegetes and theologians end up using their imagination and presenting it as the theological content of the text. Not surprisingly, some Seventh-day Adventist theologians and scientists, trying to accommodate the biblical account of creation to evolutionary scientific teachings, use thought inspiration… to justify their approach.

But if the separation between thought and words makes room for small errors, why should it not also make room for substantial errors in theological teachings?

Question 54

NT scholar __(?)_\_’ well-argued article, published in 1975, represents another way of making room for the use of the historical-critical method in Adventist theology. ​__(?)_\_ believes revelation takes place as a non-cognitive divine human encounter. “I do not understand revelation,” he explains, “to be essentially the communication of divine information given by the Spirit to the writers of the Bible; nor do I consider faith to be the acceptance of this information. Revelation, rather, is first of all, a divine disclosure that creates a community in which life expresses this revelation in symbols of action, imagination and thought under the guidance of prophets.” [Footnote: ​__(?)_\_, “Revelation and the Bible: Beyond Verbal Inspiration,” Spectrum 7, no. 3 (1975): 52.]

What, then, is the source of the concepts and words of Scripture? Not ​__(?)_\_, but ​__(?)_\_. This view produces ​__(?)_\_. While ​__(?)_\_ belongs to ​__(?)_\_and is ​__(?)_\_, ​__(?)_\_belongs to ​__(?)_\_ and is ​__(?)_\_. Scripture as a written work represents ​__(?)_\_, not of ​__(?)_\_. The goal of this exercise is not to ​__(?)_\_ but to ​__(?)_\_in order to ​__(?)_\_.

Answer 54

NT scholar Herold Weiss’ well-argued article, published in 1975, represents another way of making room for the use of the historical-critical method in Adventist theology. Weiss believes revelation takes place as a non-cognitive divine human encounter. “I do not understand revelation,” he explains, “to be essentially the communication of divine information given by the Spirit to the writers of the Bible; nor do I consider faith to be the acceptance of this information. Revelation, rather, is first of all, a divine disclosure that creates a community in which life expresses this revelation in symbols of action, imagination and thought under the guidance of prophets.” [Footnote: Herold Weiss, “Revelation and the Bible: Beyond Verbal Inspiration,” Spectrum 7, no. 3 (1975): 52.]

What, then, is the source of the concepts and words of Scripture? Not God, but the prophets and apostles. This view produces a dichotomy between faith and belief. While belief belongs to the realm of history and is verifiable, faith belongs to the realm of the divine transcendence and is not verifiable. Scripture as a written work represents the thoughts and words of the prophets, not of God. The goal of this exercise is not to find truth but to delineate the nonhistorical, non-cognitive mystical experience with God in order to inspire our own life experiences.

Question 55

Summing up… we can say that presently Adventist scholars work by assuming three different interpretations of R-I [largely informed by either verbal inspiration theory, encounter revelation theory, or, thought inspiration theory]. The differences reveal __(?)_\_. They decidedly influence the entire task of exegetical and theological research even to the point of __(?)_\_.

Should we __(?)_\_? Alternatively, should we __(?)_\_? To answer these questions we must begin by evaluating present theories on R-I. How do we evaluate them? We assess them by __(?)_\_. Our understanding, then, without distortion, should account for __(?)_\_. Moreover, we should look at the origin and content of the philosophical hermeneutical presuppositions explicitly or implicitly involved in the conception and in the formulation of each model of R-I…

Answer 55

Summing up… we can say that presently Adventist scholars work by assuming three different interpretations of R-I [largely informed by either verbal inspiration theory, encounter revelation theory, or, thought inspiration theory]. The differences reveal different theological schools and paradigms. They decidedly influence the entire task of exegetical and theological research even to the point of dividing Adventists into distinctive schools of thought across the world.

Should we choose one interpretation over the others? Alternatively, should we seek a new understanding? To answer these questions we must begin by evaluating present theories on R-I. How do we evaluate them? We assess them by carefully listening to all the evidence. Our understanding, then, without distortion, should account for tensions or contradictions found in the full range of Scripture’s self-testimony and in other phenomena of Scripture. Moreover, we should look at the origin and content of the philosophical hermeneutical presuppositions explicitly or implicitly involved in the conception and in the formulation of each model of R-I…

Question 56

Raoul Dederen approaches an understanding of R-I by using a different methodology. Instead of embracing available interpretations for apologetic or hermeneutical purposes, Dederen subjects current interpretative patterns to criticism based on attentive listening to what biblical authors and Ellen G. White have to say on this issue. [Footnote: Raoul Dederen, “Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration,” in North American Bible Conference (North American Division: unpublished paper, 1974), 10.] On this basis, he finds the encounter revelation and thought inspiration alternatives wanting.

Dederen recognizes that revelation is not merely an intellectual phenomenon but a personal encounter of the prophet with God. Yet according to Scripture, he argues, in the encounter of revelation, God __(?)_\_. Moreover, the disjunction between divine act and human word on which encounter revelation builds its case ​__(?)_\_. This position can be argued ​__(?)_\_. [Footnote: This switch ​__(?)_\_ seems to undergird ​__(?)_\_’s methodological proposal for Adventist theology in his Thinking Theologically: Adventist Christianity and the Interpretation of Faith (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1999).]

Answer 56

Raoul Dederen approaches an understanding of R-I by using a different methodology. Instead of embracing available interpretations for apologetic or hermeneutical purposes, Dederen subjects current interpretative patterns to criticism based on attentive listening to what biblical authors and Ellen G. White have to say on this issue. [Footnote: Raoul Dederen, “Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration,” in North American Bible Conference (North American Division: unpublished paper, 1974), 10.] On this basis, he finds the encounter revelation and thought inspiration alternatives wanting.

Dederen recognizes that revelation is not merely an intellectual phenomenon but a personal encounter of the prophet with God. Yet according to Scripture, he argues, in the encounter of revelation, God communicates, though partially, knowledge about Himself and His will. Moreover, the disjunction between divine act and human word on which encounter revelation builds its case has no biblical support. This position can be argued only on a scientific and philosophical basis. [Footnote: This switch at the scientific-philosophical level of hermeneutics seems to undergird Fritz Guy’s methodological proposal for Adventist theology in his Thinking Theologically: Adventist Christianity and the Interpretation of Faith (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1999).]

Question 57

Raoul Dederen approaches an understanding of R-I by using a different methodology. Instead of embracing available interpretations for apologetic or hermeneutical purposes, Dederen subjects current interpretative patterns to criticism based on attentive listening to what biblical authors and Ellen G. White have to say on this issue…

Proceeding on the same biblical basis, Dederen implicitly dismisses __(?)_\_as discussed [elsewhere]. He argues that ​__(?)_\_. Consequently, “​__(?)_\_to the revelation-inspiration process.” Also correctly, he argues that after reviewing Ellen G. White’s writing on R-I “everything points to the fact that ​__(?)_\_.” Scriptures are “​__(?)_\_.” Finally, Dederen feels ill at ease with the notion that Scripture is ​__(?)_\_, and encourages the church to ​__(?)_\_.”

Answer 57

Raoul Dederen approaches an understanding of R-I by using a different methodology. Instead of embracing available interpretations for apologetic or hermeneutical purposes, Dederen subjects current interpretative patterns to criticism based on attentive listening to what biblical authors and Ellen G. White have to say on this issue…

Proceeding on the same biblical basis, Dederen implicitly dismisses thought inspiration as discussed [elsewhere]. He argues that in the Scriptures word and thought belong together. Consequently, “words are intrinsic to the revelation-inspiration process.” Also correctly, he argues that after reviewing Ellen G. White’s writing on R-I “everything points to the fact that God who imbued the prophets’ mind with thoughts and inspired them in the fulfillment of their task also watched over them in their attempts to express ‘infinite ideas’ and embody them in ‘finite vehicles’ of human language.” Scriptures are “in the highest and truest sense God’s creation.” Finally, Dederen feels ill at ease with the notion that Scripture is only partially revealed, but totally inspired, and encourages the church to find “other solutions.”

Question 58

[A] succinct evaluation [recounting the arguments of Raoul Dederen in “Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration,” in North American Bible Conference (North American Division: unpublished paper, 1974)] disqualifies __(?)_\_. Because each view works from __(?)_\_, no amount of reflection will make them responsive to the entire range of biblical evidence. Therefore, we must __(?)_\_by __(?)_\_.

Answer 58

[A] succinct evaluation [recounting the arguments of Raoul Dederen in “Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration,” in North American Bible Conference (North American Division: unpublished paper, 1974)] disqualifies the three views of R-I presently operative in Adventist theology. Because each view works from philosophical definitions of hermeneutical presuppositions, no amount of reflection will make them responsive to the entire range of biblical evidence. Therefore, we must develop a new understanding by using biblical definitions of the hermeneutical presuppositions involved in R-I.

Question 59

In our search for another model of interpretation, we should recognize the strength and contributions of present models on R-I. From “encounter” revelation we should retain __(?)_\_(e.g., __(?)_\_). From “thought” inspiration we should retain __(?)_\_(__(?)_\_). From “verbal” inspiration we should retain __(?)_\_(__(?)_\_). Finally, because in Scripture God has incarnated His thoughts in human thought and writing, the human and divine elements are __(?)_\_. Consequently, we should never attempt to __(?)_\_.

From this starting point we should consider the many ways in which God and the biblical writers interacted in __(?)_\_and of __(?)_\_. We should ask the same regarding __(?)_\_ (Heb 1:1).

Answer 59

In our search for another model of interpretation, we should recognize the strength and contributions of present models on R-I. From “encounter” revelation we should retain the biblical conviction that God’s work of R-I takes place within a personal historical I-Thou relationship (e.g., Deut 34:10). From “thought” inspiration we should retain the biblical teaching that God’s work of R-I focuses on the thought-process level of biblical writers (2 Pet 1:21). From “verbal” inspiration we should retain the biblical teaching that the divine work of R-I also reaches the level of the words (2 Tim 3:16). Finally, because in Scripture God has incarnated His thoughts in human thought and writing, the human and divine elements are inseparable. Consequently, we should never attempt to distinguish between divine and human contributions in the conception and in the writing of Scripture.

From this starting point we should consider the many ways in which God and the biblical writers interacted in the process of conceiving the ideas and of gathering the information we find in Scripture. We should ask the same regarding the process through which these ideas and information were put into writing (Heb 1:1).

Question 60

It is true that God acts in ways hidden from our sight. Yet, __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_ give us abundant evidence on which to build our understanding. The evidence we find in them includes both __(?)_\_.

Answer 60

It is true that God acts in ways hidden from our sight. Yet, Scripture and Ellen G. White give us abundant evidence on which to build our understanding. The evidence we find in them includes both the self-testimony and the phenomena of Scripture.

Question 61

The key to any interpretation lies in __(?)_\_. Basic scientific procedure requires that __(?)_\_. Since in our case we are trying to understand the origin of Scripture, we not only must __(?)_\_but also __(?)_\_, rather than __(?)_\_. Fundamentally, we presuppose a God who __(?)_\_.

[Raoul] Dederen affirms, “revelation __(?)_\_.” By __(?)_\_, God __(?)_\_. It is not __(?)_\_, but __(?)_\_who __(?)_\_.

Answer 61

The key to any interpretation lies in applying the appropriate hermeneutical principles. Basic scientific procedure requires that we derive our hermeneutical presuppositions from the thing we want to understand. Since in our case we are trying to understand the origin of Scripture, we not only must listen to what biblical authors say about R-I but also take note of the hermeneutical presuppositions they used, rather than adopting them from human philosophy and science. Fundamentally, we presuppose a God who personally acts within the flow of human history.

[Raoul] Dederen affirms, “revelation takes place and unfolds within history.” By adapting His infinite thoughts, ideas, and actions to our creaturely level, to our limited, imperfect thought patterns and words, God enables divine history to take place within human history. It is not the prophet, but God who translates His ideas into our cognitive and linguistic patterns.

Question 62

The idea that God acts historically in time, which is assumed by __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_ and which lies at the foundation of __(?)_\_, requires a reinterpretation of the philosophical hermeneutical presuppositions that underlie encounter revelation, verbal inspiration, and thought inspiration, understood as __(?)_\_.

Answer 62

The idea that God acts historically in time, which is assumed by the biblical writers and Ellen G. White and which lies at the foundation of the Great Controversy theme, requires a reinterpretation of the philosophical hermeneutical presuppositions that underlie encounter revelation, verbal inspiration, and thought inspiration, understood as a radical dichotomy between words and thoughts.

Question 63

In contrast to the classical, evangelical, and modern idea that God used only one pattern of divine operation in R-I, Scripture speaks about a variety of divine patterns. __(?)_\_affirms that “in the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at various times (polumerōs) and in various ways (polutropōs), but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (​__(?)_\_).

Answer 63

In contrast to the classical, evangelical, and modern idea that God used only one pattern of divine operation in R-I, Scripture speaks about a variety of divine patterns. The introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms that “in the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at various times (polumerōs) and in various ways (polutropōs), but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Heb 1:1).

Question 64

In contrast to the classical, evangelical, and modern idea that God used only one pattern of divine operation in R-I, Scripture speaks about a variety of divine patterns…

Some Adventists have begun to recognize this variety and have suggested that to the generally accepted “prophetic” model we should add __(?)_\_. Other suggestions include the “__(?)_\_,” “__(?)_\_,” “__(?)_\_,” and “__(?)_\_” patterns of revelation. Additional analytical work needs to be done in order to discover, as far as possible, in what ways divine and human agencies contributed to the generation of biblical thought and information.

Answer 64

In contrast to the classical, evangelical, and modern idea that God used only one pattern of divine operation in R-I, Scripture speaks about a variety of divine patterns…

Some Adventists have begun to recognize this variety and have suggested that to the generally accepted “prophetic” model we should add the “research model” of revelation. Other suggestions include the “witness,” “counselor,” “epistolary,” and “literary” patterns of revelation. Additional analytical work needs to be done in order to discover, as far as possible, in what ways divine and human agencies contributed to the generation of biblical thought and information.

Question 65

In contrast to the classical, evangelical, and modern idea that God used only one pattern of divine operation in R-I, Scripture speaks about a variety of divine patterns…

It seems clear that, in the origination of Scripture, divine and human agencies interacted in at least the following patterns: __(?)_\_(__(?)_\_), __(?)_\_(__(?)_\_), __(?)_\_(__(?)_\_), __(?)_\_(__(?)_\_), __(?)_\_(__(?)_\_, __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_), and __(?)_\_(__(?)_\_). Analyzing these patterns and their hermeneutical presuppositions will allow us to __(?)_\_and will enable us to __(?)_\_.

Answer 65

In contrast to the classical, evangelical, and modern idea that God used only one pattern of divine operation in R-I, Scripture speaks about a variety of divine patterns…

It seems clear that, in the origination of Scripture, divine and human agencies interacted in at least the following patterns: Theophanic (Exod 3:1-5), prophetic (Rev 1:1-3), verbal (Exod 31:18), historical (Luke 1:1-3), wisdom (Eccl 1:1, 12-14; 12:9-11), and existential (Lam 3:1). Analyzing these patterns and their hermeneutical presuppositions will allow us to understand better how the entire Bible resulted from revelation and from inspiration and will enable us to overcome the radical thought-versus-words disjunction implicit in thought inspiration.

Question 66

The prophets have not left us much information about the ways in which divine interventions operated while they were communicating their messages in oral or in written forms. Yet, from the information available, we are entitled to draw some working conclusions.

It seems the biblical writers __(?)_\_before they sat down to write. The role of the Holy Spirit in inspiration, therefore, was not primarily __(?)_\_ but __(?)_\_.

Answer 66

The prophets have not left us much information about the ways in which divine interventions operated while they were communicating their messages in oral or in written forms. Yet, from the information available, we are entitled to draw some working conclusions.

It seems the biblical writers received ideas and information before they sat down to write. The role of the Holy Spirit in inspiration, therefore, was not primarily to generate thoughts but to assure the trustworthy communication of the information received.

Question 67

The prophets have not left us much information about the ways in which divine interventions operated while they were communicating their messages in oral or in written forms. Yet, from the information available, we are entitled to draw some working conclusions…

When God sent Moses to liberate Israel from Egyptian bondage, the Moses-Aaron team worked in ways like __(?)_\_. Moses ​__(?)_\_ in “​__(?)_\_. Meanwhile, Aaron, speaking for Moses to the people, played the role of ​__(?)_\_.

The act of “​__(?)_\_meant that ​__(?)_\_; ​__(?)_\_. ​__(?)_\_. ​__(?)_\_. Aaron had strong verbal skills, and God called him to use his gift. In the same way, ​__(?)_\_.

Answer 67

The prophets have not left us much information about the ways in which divine interventions operated while they were communicating their messages in oral or in written forms. Yet, from the information available, we are entitled to draw some working conclusions…

When God sent Moses to liberate Israel from Egyptian bondage, the Moses-Aaron team worked in ways like the God-prophet team. Moses represented God in “putting words” into Aaron’s mouth. Meanwhile, Aaron, speaking for Moses to the people, played the role of the prophet.

The act of “putting words in the mouth” of someone meant that the recipient became a subservient representative of another; the representative, however, had freedom to represent. He or she had, so to speak, power of attorney. Verbatim representation makes no sense. Aaron had strong verbal skills, and God called him to use his gift. In the same way, prophets and apostles, as representatives of God, were subservient to His thoughts but expressed them according their understanding and manner of expression.

Question 68

…we must bear in mind that, in revelation, divine thought adapted itself to __(?)_\_. With inspiration, divine thought, already adapted to __(?)_\_, adjusts itself to __(?)_\_. The mode of thinking and writing we find in Scripture, then, is not __(?)_\_, but __(?)_\_. Therefore, Ellen G. White tells us “the Bible is __(?)_\_, but it is not __(?)_\_. It is that of __(?)_\_. God, as a writer, is __(?)_\_. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. However, God __(?)_\_. The writers of the Bible were __(?)_\_, not __(?)_\_” (1SM 21, italics supplied).

This does not mean that __(?)_\_. It means only that __(?)_\_. The true content generated by revelation becomes expressed in __(?)_\_.

Answer 68

…we must bear in mind that, in revelation, divine thought adapted itself to the limitations and imperfections of human-thought processes. With inspiration, divine thought, already adapted to the human mode of thinking, adjusts itself to human-writing patterns. The mode of thinking and writing we find in Scripture, then, is not divine, but human. Therefore, Ellen G. White tells us “the Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. However, God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen” (1SM 21, italics supplied).

This does not mean that the content of Scripture is unreliable. It means only that we must not expect in Scripture divine absolute perfection to the minutest detail, as if God would have used His perfect mode of thinking and writing. The true content generated by revelation becomes expressed in the imperfect mode of human thought and writing.

Question 69

…biblical writers did not have __(?)_\_; they __(?)_\_. They did not possess __(?)_\_. They were not able to __(?)_\_. Moreover, our words may have __(?)_\_. Our syntax allows for __(?)_\_, and so on. All this is part of __(?)_\_.

Did divine inspiration always __(?)_\_or __(?)_\_ the imperfections of __(?)_\_? Contrary to the claims of “verbal” inspirationists, the phenomena of Scripture clearly shows that __(?)_\_. God used __(?)_\_to __(?)_\_. In Scripture, then, we find __(?)_\_. God wanted it to be this way, because __(?)_\_. [Footnote: “The Lord gave His Word __(?)_\_. He gave it through different writers, each __(?)_\_, though going over the same history” (PM 2).]

Answer 69

…biblical writers did not have perfect memories; they forgot things as we do. They did not possess perfect sensory perception. They were not able to grasp all the richness of divine thoughts and ideas revealed to them. Moreover, our words may have several, even contradictory, meanings. Our syntax allows for arranging sentences in different ways with different meanings, and so on. All this is part of the human mode of thinking and writing that God used in revealing and in inspiring Scripture.

Did divine inspiration always erase or overrule the imperfections of the human mode of thinking and of writing? Contrary to the claims of “verbal” inspirationists, the phenomena of Scripture clearly shows that it did not. God used our imperfect means of communication to reveal Himself and His word to us. In Scripture, then, we find God’s truth expressed in an imperfect human mode of communication. God wanted it to be this way, because it is the best way to reveal Himself and His salvific truths to us. [Footnote: “The Lord gave His Word in just the way He wanted it to come. He gave it through different writers, each having his own individuality, though going over the same history” (PM 2).]

Question 70

The goal of inspiration is not to __(?)_\_but to ​__(?)_\_. The Holy Spirit’s guidance did not ​__(?)_\_but ​__(?)_\_. In other words, we should not conceive of the continuous guidance of the Holy Spirit in the process of writing as ​__(?)_\_. Instead, we should consider ​__(?)_\_.

Answer 70

The goal of inspiration is not to upgrade the human mode of thinking or of writing but to ensure that writers do not replace God’s truth with their own interpretations. The Holy Spirit’s guidance did not overrule the thinking and the writing process of biblical writers but supervised the process of writing in order to maximize clarity of ideas and to prevent, if necessary, the distortion of revelation, or changing divine truth into a lie. In other words, we should not conceive of the continuous guidance of the Holy Spirit in the process of writing as continuous divine intervention, causing the choice of every thought and word in Scripture. Instead, we should consider a less intrusive pattern of inspiration, one more consistent with the freedom of human writers.

Question 71

Ellen G. White’s comments on her own writing experience provide us with examples of the many remedial-corrective patterns of direct intervention that the Holy Spirit used during the process of inspiration. For instance, we note __(?)_\_(2SG 292-293; 1SM 36-37), __(?)_\_” (2MR 156-157; 1MCP 318), and __(?)_\_(3SM 36, 110). From these examples we can see that __(?)_\_. On the contrary, we see __(?)_\_.

Answer 71

Ellen G. White’s comments on her own writing experience provide us with examples of the many remedial-corrective patterns of direct intervention that the Holy Spirit used during the process of inspiration. For instance, we note enhancing the memory (2SG 292-293; 1SM 36-37), helping find a “fit word” (2MR 156-157; 1MCP 318), and giving new revelation (3SM 36, 110). From these examples we can see that God is not causing the words by overruling the normal function of the human agency. On the contrary, we see the thinking and the writing processes freely taking place in the human agency under the careful guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Question 72

Scripture presents an example of an occasional divine intervention pattern also used by the Holy Spirit to guide biblical writers. We note Balaam’s prophecies (__(?)_\_). The biblical text and Ellen G. White’s comments make it clear that __(?)_\_ (__(?)_\_; PP 439, 443, 448-449). This pattern is not __(?)_\_, as __(?)_\_suggests. Obviously, we cannot apply __(?)_\_ to __(?)_\_.

This incident helps us to see that __(?)_\_. The Spirit made sure that __(?)_\_.

Answer 72

Scripture presents an example of an occasional divine intervention pattern also used by the Holy Spirit to guide biblical writers. We note Balaam’s prophecies (Num 22:1-24:25). The biblical text and Ellen G. White’s comments make it clear that Balaam’s freedom was overridden by the Holy Spirit (Num 22:18, 20, 28-31; PP 439, 443, 448-449). This pattern is not the usual pattern of divine inspiration, as the verbal theory suggests. Obviously, we cannot apply Balaam’s pattern of divine operation to the biblical prophets.

This incident helps us to see that God will not allow Himself to be misrepresented by recognized prophets who, because of self-interest, are willing to change God’s truth into a lie. The Spirit made sure that chosen prophets did not change divine truths into human imagination.

Question 73

…we can affirm the total reliability of Scripture within the parameters of __(?)_\_. Since the whole Bible is revealed and inspired within ​__(?)_\_, it does not represent divine perfection; yet, its words reliably disclose God’s thoughts and will to us.

This view of inspiration explains why ​__(?)_\_and ​__(?)_\_ that we find in the phenomena of Scripture do not affect ​__(?)_\_.

Answer 73

…we can affirm the total reliability of Scripture within the parameters of the normal human limitations of the thought and the linguistic process. Since the whole Bible is revealed and inspired within the level of human thought and language, it does not represent divine perfection; yet, its words reliably disclose God’s thoughts and will to us.

This view of inspiration explains why certain discrepancies and the lack of absolute precision in matters of detail that we find in the phenomena of Scripture do not affect the trustworthy communication of revealed contents.

Question 74

How do the biblical understanding of God, the diversity of His operations in the process of creating the contents of Scripture (revelation), and the communication of it in oral and written ways (inspiration) shape our understanding of R-I? We shall seek to describe what can be designated a __(?)_\_…

Answer 74

How do the biblical understanding of God, the diversity of His operations in the process of creating the contents of Scripture (revelation), and the communication of it in oral and written ways (inspiration) shape our understanding of R-I? We shall seek to describe what can be designated a Biblical Model…

Question 75

…the classical statements of Paul and Peter on inspiration (__(?)_\_; __(?)_\_) set the general parameters within which we have attempted to understand the Holy Spirit’s “guidance” and “moving” of human agencies involved in the process of writing Scripture. Since those statements did not distinguish technically between the processes of origination of contents and of writing, we should understand their statements on “inspiration” as applying to __(?)_\_…

Answer 75

…the classical statements of Paul and Peter on inspiration (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21) set the general parameters within which we have attempted to understand the Holy Spirit’s “guidance” and “moving” of human agencies involved in the process of writing Scripture. Since those statements did not distinguish technically between the processes of origination of contents and of writing, we should understand their statements on “inspiration” as applying to both…

Question 76

• Summary:* We must understand the divine inspiration of Scripture, of which Paul, Peter, and Ellen White spoke, as including at least the following (1-3 of 9 total) points:
  1. __(?)_\_.
  2. __(?)_\_.
  3. __(?)_\_.

Answer 76

• Summary:* We must understand the divine inspiration of Scripture, of which Paul, Peter, and Ellen White spoke, as including at least the following (1-3 of 9 total) points:
  1. Divine “guidance” or “moving” acted directly on the human agency in the R-I process.
  2. The divine “guiding” or “moving” of human agencies followed the various ways of divine providence working within the flux of historical events, not as God’s timeless, absolute sovereign power working by way of eternal decrees and overruling the freedom of biblical writers.
  3. God guided the reception of information and the formation of ideas in the biblical writers by means of a historical process of divine cognitive revelations given to them in a diversity of patterns.

Question 77

• Summary:* We must understand the divine inspiration of Scripture, of which Paul, Peter, and Ellen White spoke, as including at least the following (4-6 of 9 total) points:
  4. __(?)_\_.
  5. __(?)_\_.
  6. __(?)_\_.

Answer 77

• Summary:* We must understand the divine inspiration of Scripture, of which Paul, Peter, and Ellen White spoke, as including at least the following (4-6 of 9 total) points:
  4. The divine “guidance” and “moving” of human agencies embraced multiple patterns of divine operations, both in the revelation and inspiration processes (Heb 1:1) with strong emphasis on the former. That emphasis allows for the inclusion of the dynamics of “thought” inspiration in the Biblical Model.
  5. The whole of Scripture was both revealed and inspired. In this sense the Biblical Model of R-I is plenary, for it embraces the entirety of Scripture.
  6. The Holy Spirit’s “guidance” or “moving” harnessed the freedom and literary skills of human agencies in their historical and spiritual development. Divine overruling of the human agency was not the main pattern of divine “guidance” or “moving” but a possible last resort to avoid human misrepresentation.

Question 78

• Summary:* We must understand the divine inspiration of Scripture, of which Paul, Peter, and Ellen White spoke, as including at least the following (7-9 of 9 total) points:
  7. __(?)_\_.
  8. __(?)_\_.
  9. __(?)_\_.

Answer 78

• Summary:* We must understand the divine inspiration of Scripture, of which Paul, Peter, and Ellen White spoke, as including at least the following (7-9 of 9 total) points:
  7. Because the guidance of the Holy Spirit respected human modes of thinking and writing, we should not expect to find in Scripture the absolute perfection that belongs only to the inner life of the Trinity. On the contrary, we should not be surprised to find in Scripture imperfections and limitations that essentially belong to human modes of knowing and writing.
  8. Although the divine “guiding” and “moving” operated on human agencies, through them it reached the words of Scripture. In this sense the Biblical Model of R-I is “verbal.”
  9. Divine “guidance” in the process of writing did not assure absolute divine perfection, but in their entirety the Scriptures truthfully and trustworthily represent God’s teachings, will, and works.

Question 79

In short, God, not the human writers, is the author of Scripture in the sense that He is the source of __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, and __(?)_\_.

Answer 79

In short, God, not the human writers, is the author of Scripture in the sense that He is the source of content, action, and interpretation.

Question 80

The Biblical Model of R-I differs from the encounter, thought, and verbal theories of inspiration in significant ways. The Biblical Model and the encounter theory of inspiration share __(?)_\_, but the latter denies __(?)_\_.

With regards to the nature of information generated in revelation, the Biblical Model envisages __(?)_\_, whereas the “thought” revelation theory generates __(?)_\_. While for some “thought” inspiration stops short of __(?)_\_, the Biblical Model __(?)_\_.

Answer 80

The Biblical Model of R-I differs from the encounter, thought, and verbal theories of inspiration in significant ways. The Biblical Model and the encounter theory of inspiration share a personal existential element, but the latter denies any communication of truth in the encounter.

With regards to the nature of information generated in revelation, the Biblical Model envisages concrete, historical, spatio-temporal truths, whereas the “thought” revelation theory generates timeless, nonhistorical truths. While for some “thought” inspiration stops short of affirming divine guidance in the writing of Scripture, the Biblical Model affirms it.

Question 81

In common with the “verbal” theory of inspiration, the Biblical Model affirms that __(?)_\_. However, the two models depart at the grounding level of the foundational hermeneutical presuppositions that determine the way in which we understand God’s supernatural contributions to the formation of Scripture. The “verbal” theory assumes ​__(?)_\_. In contrast, the Biblical Model assumes that ​__(?)_\_.

Answer 81

In common with the “verbal” theory of inspiration, the Biblical Model affirms that the Holy Spirit guided biblical writers not only while receiving information and revealed ideas but also in the process of writing Scripture in its entirety. However, the two models depart at the grounding level of the foundational hermeneutical presuppositions that determine the way in which we understand God’s supernatural contributions to the formation of Scripture. The “verbal” theory assumes God acts timelessly and sovereignly, overruling the human freedom of biblical writers. In contrast, the Biblical Model assumes that God’s providence acts within the spatio-temporal flux of concrete human freedom and history.

Question 82

…we must not forget that we are dealing with __(?)_\_that we know and understand __(?)_\_. Therefore our model of interpretation [i.e., Canale’s Biblical Model] should be understood as a first step rather than the final word. As a first step, it leads us in a quite different theological path from current models operating within present Adventist and Christian theologies. The importance of a correct, though partial, understanding of R-I centers on its hermeneutical role in the task of doing Christian theology.

Answer 82

…we must not forget that we are dealing with a mystery that we know and understand only in part. Therefore our model of interpretation [i.e., Canale’s Biblical Model] should be understood as a first step rather than the final word. As a first step, it leads us in a quite different theological path from current models operating within present Adventist and Christian theologies. The importance of a correct, though partial, understanding of R-I centers on its hermeneutical role in the task of doing Christian theology.

Question 83

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

According to the Biblical Model of R-I, God revealed Himself in many ways by condescending to human patterns of thought and writing. The entire Bible is revealed. The words of the prophets have become the words of God. When doing exegesis and theology, then, we should not distinguish between __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_ or between __(?)_\_.

We have access to divine teachings and revelation only __(?)_\_. Consequently, the entire text of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, becomes __(?)_\_.

Answer 83

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

According to the Biblical Model of R-I, God revealed Himself in many ways by condescending to human patterns of thought and writing. The entire Bible is revealed. The words of the prophets have become the words of God. When doing exegesis and theology, then, we should not distinguish between divine thought and human words or between portions of Scripture.

We have access to divine teachings and revelation only through words. Consequently, the entire text of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, becomes the most specific, sufficient, and only reliable source of data and hermeneutical principles that we have for knowing God and His will for us.

Question 84

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

According to the Biblical Model of R-I, God reveals Himself within the historical process (__(?)_\_; __(?)_\_). In other words, revelation is historical, primarily because God executes His plan of redemption historically from within the spatio-temporal flow of human history. However, this divine condescension does not mean that __(?)_\_. It simply means that God’s transcendent truths appear not only within the limitations of humanity, in general, but also within __(?)_\_. Guided by the Holy Spirit, prophets __(?)_\_.

Answer 84

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

According to the Biblical Model of R-I, God reveals Himself within the historical process (Exod 25:8; John 1:1-14). In other words, revelation is historical, primarily because God executes His plan of redemption historically from within the spatio-temporal flow of human history. However, this divine condescension does not mean that biblical teachings are the outgrowth of cultural trends. It simply means that God’s transcendent truths appear not only within the limitations of humanity, in general, but also within the limitations of the historical times in which each prophet lived and wrote. Guided by the Holy Spirit, prophets used culture critically and selectively.

Question 85

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

Divine revelation is not historically conditioned. Cultural aspects in sacred history are dated, but they form part of divine actions and revelation. The Adventist interpreter will therefore assume that the biblical text, in toto, is __(?)_\_. Awareness of __(?)_\_ becomes a necessary step to a proper understanding of divinely revealed thoughts and teachings.

Answer 85

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

Divine revelation is not historically conditioned. Cultural aspects in sacred history are dated, but they form part of divine actions and revelation. The Adventist interpreter will therefore assume that the biblical text, in toto, is the result of divine revelation in history, received, understood, and composed by prophets and apostles. Awareness of the historical situations in which divine revelation and the prophetic writing took place becomes a necessary step to a proper understanding of divinely revealed thoughts and teachings.

Question 86

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

Because the Biblical Model of R-I flows from within the flux of human history, it understands the purpose of the Scriptures to reveal truths not only about God but also __(?)_\_. Biblical truths, then, cannot be __(?)_\_, as other models seem to suggest, but __(?)_\_. Exegetes and theologians must take special care not to quench this richness by __(?)_\_. To do so sets theologians on __(?)_\_.

Answer 86

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

Because the Biblical Model of R-I flows from within the flux of human history, it understands the purpose of the Scriptures to reveal truths not only about God but also about everything God has created in nature and done in history. Biblical truths, then, cannot be confined to God or salvation, as other models seem to suggest, but embrace the astonishing diversity of interconnected truths about God and His works. Exegetes and theologians must take special care not to quench this richness by unilaterally deciding that only certain salvific truths are relevant, discarding the rest. To do so sets theologians on a reductive and distortive pursuit of the “essence” of the Christian message, discarding the great majority of biblical teachings as culturally conditioned and, therefore, disposable.

Question 87

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

According to the Biblical Model of R-I, divine revelation is limited by __(?)_\_. Interpreters should always bear in mind that not even biblical writers __(?)_\_ (c.f. John 21:25). [Footnote: Ellen G. White explains, “It is impossible for __(?)_\_” (Ed 171).] Even human truths are always __(?)_\_. Consequently, interpreters dealing with divine mysteries will beware of the hermeneutical error of assuming that the interpretation of a passage stands for __(?)_\_.

Moreover, revealed knowledge is limited by __(?)_\_. The interpreter is forced to make choices based on __(?)_\_; hence the great importance of __(?)_\_and of __(?)_\_ involved in the interpretation of Scripture.

Answer 87

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

According to the Biblical Model of R-I, divine revelation is limited by all the characteristics of our human modes of knowing and of writing. Interpreters should always bear in mind that not even biblical writers can present completely a single truth in human language (c.f. John 21:25). [Footnote: Ellen G. White explains, “It is impossible for any human mind to exhaust even one truth or promise of the Bible” (Ed 171).] Even human truths are always greater and fuller than what our language can express. Consequently, interpreters dealing with divine mysteries will beware of the hermeneutical error of assuming that the interpretation of a passage stands for the whole truth on that subject.

Moreover, revealed knowledge is limited by the imperfection of human syntax. The interpreter is forced to make choices based on assumptions; hence the great importance of a clear understanding of the hermeneutical presuppositions and of the Biblical Model of R-I involved in the interpretation of Scripture.

Question 88

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

The Biblical Model of R-I assures us that divine revelation is reliably communicated in the words of Scripture. Therefore, in Scripture we do not find the understanding or philosophy of its human authors, but of God. R-I is __(?)_\_.

Answer 88

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

The Biblical Model of R-I assures us that divine revelation is reliably communicated in the words of Scripture. Therefore, in Scripture we do not find the understanding or philosophy of its human authors, but of God. R-I is the process used by the Holy Spirit to communicate God’s views on nature, history, our human plight, and His dynamic, salvific involvement in them.

Question 89

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

Scripture reveals God’s views and operations in nature and history. Moreover, there is no dichotomy between history and salvation, because salvation takes place as a historical process in which God is personally involved. Scripture gives us __(?)_\_necessary for our life in this world and in the world to come. In this __(?)_\_ sense, Scripture __(?)_\_and is __(?)_\_.

Answer 89

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

Scripture reveals God’s views and operations in nature and history. Moreover, there is no dichotomy between history and salvation, because salvation takes place as a historical process in which God is personally involved. Scripture gives us the broad picture necessary for our life in this world and in the world to come. In this broad and all-inclusive sense, Scripture does not err and is the ultimate reliable source of divine knowledge available this side of eternity.

Question 90

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

According to the Biblical Model, R-I takes place within the historical-temporal continuum. Thus the Scriptures include many indispensable historical and natural data that belong essentially to God’s revelations and actions. Biblical revelation, however, does not seek to provide us with __(?)_\_, but rather ​__(?)_\_. Facts in Scripture always are incorporated ​__(?)_\_.

The interpreter, therefore, should read Scripture not as ​__(?)_\_but as ​__(?)_\_. He or she should search for the meaning of ​__(?)_\_without expecting to find ​__(?)_\_. Lack of precision in factual details should be considered as evidence of ​__(?)_\_.

Answer 90

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

According to the Biblical Model, R-I takes place within the historical-temporal continuum. Thus the Scriptures include many indispensable historical and natural data that belong essentially to God’s revelations and actions. Biblical revelation, however, does not seek to provide us with an exhaustive, accurate account of historical and scientific data, but rather with a reliable synthesis of God’s multifarious wisdom, will, and activities within the spatio-temporal realm of creation. Facts in Scripture always are incorporated as required by God’s all-inclusive salvific activities within the flow of human history.

The interpreter, therefore, should read Scripture not as science but as a philosophy of history. He or she should search for the meaning of biblical revelation at the all-inclusive theological level without expecting to find the kind of accuracy regarding historical and natural facts that one anticipates in scientific studies. Lack of precision in factual details should be considered as evidence of the full incarnation of divine thinking from within the everyday flow of human history.

Question 91

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

The Biblical Model of R-I grounds the authority of Scripture in __(?)_\_. Authority means that __(?)_\_. Since in Scripture God explicitly reveals __(?)_\_, Scripture is to __(?)_\_ and to __(?)_\_ (1 Cor 2:15; 2 Cor 10:5).

Certain consequences follow from Scripture’s authority. In exegetical and theological studies, for instance, the interpreter never will attempt to __(?)_\_. Scripture __(?)_\_. One may apply __(?)_\_ to scientific and philosophical studies but never to Scripture.

Answer 91

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

The Biblical Model of R-I grounds the authority of Scripture in God. Authority means that Scripture is the reliable source of information about God, His actions, His teachings, and His salvific will for us. Since in Scripture God explicitly reveals His thoughts and His actions about everything, Scripture is to judge every thought and to be judged by nobody (1 Cor 2:15; 2 Cor 10:5).

Certain consequences follow from Scripture’s authority. In exegetical and theological studies, for instance, the interpreter never will attempt to understand Scripture from hermeneutical presuppositions based on human sciences and philosophies. Scripture interprets itself. One may apply a hermeneutic of suspicion to scientific and philosophical studies but never to Scripture.

Question 92

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

…the authority of Scripture and its inspiration is confirmed by the truthfulness of its teachings (__(?)_\_). This confirmation, however, depends on __(?)_\_. Otherwise, interpreters applying __(?)_\_to Scripture never will __(?)_\_, and, therefore, never will __(?)_\_.

Answer 92

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s Biblical Model] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles?

…the authority of Scripture and its inspiration is confirmed by the truthfulness of its teachings (John 17:17). This confirmation, however, depends on accepting the Biblical Model of R-I. Otherwise, interpreters applying the hermeneutic of suspicion to Scripture never will understand its truths, and, therefore, never will be capable of verifying them.

Question 93

During the past fifty years a large segment of Adventist scholars has adopted some version of __(?)_\_. Others have felt satisfied by working within __(?)_\_. Some theologians have ventured into the land of __(?)_\_. Behind these positions, we find very little serious theological and philosophical reflection. In general, Adventists have “solved” the issue of revelation practically; that is, they simply adopted the ready-to-use interpretation of R-I in order to preempt interpretive and practical problems.

As a result, by the beginning of the twenty-first century __(?)_\_seems to hold the loyalties of a broad spectrum of Adventist theologians. Their argument against __(?)_\_ and in favor of __(?)_\_ rests on a few selected statements by Ellen G. White on R-I.

Answer 93

During the past fifty years a large segment of Adventist scholars has adopted some version of thought inspiration. Others have felt satisfied by working within a verbal view of inspiration. Some theologians have ventured into the land of modernistic encounter revelation. Behind these positions, we find very little serious theological and philosophical reflection. In general, Adventists have “solved” the issue of revelation practically; that is, they simply adopted the ready-to-use interpretation of R-I in order to preempt interpretive and practical problems.

As a result, by the beginning of the twenty-first century thought inspiration seems to hold the loyalties of a broad spectrum of Adventist theologians. Their argument against verbal inspiration and in favor of thought inspiration rests on a few selected statements by Ellen G. White on R-I.

Question 94

Theologians have used the wedge between __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_, which is characteristic of thought inspiration, for diverse purposes. They range from explanations of literary and historical inconsistencies to an accommodation to scientific and to philosophical theories, such as the historical-critical method and evolution. While __(?)_\_does not affect the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Scripture within the framework of the Great Controversy motif, an accommodation to scientific and philosophical theories implies __(?)_\_.

Answer 94

Theologians have used the wedge between thought and word, which is characteristic of thought inspiration, for diverse purposes. They range from explanations of literary and historical inconsistencies to an accommodation to scientific and to philosophical theories, such as the historical-critical method and evolution. While the former does not affect the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Scripture within the framework of the Great Controversy motif, an accommodation to scientific and philosophical theories implies its abandonment and replacement.

Question 95

One thing is clear. Adventists __(?)_\_in their understanding of the fundamental issue of R-I. Moreover, the three views circulating among them [i.e., verbal inspiration theory, encounter revelation theory and thought inspiration theory] have been conceived and formulated by __(?)_\_ who worked from __(?)_\_. These principles are not only __(?)_\_ but __(?)_\_. Moreover, none of the three options __(?)_\_; hence, the need for __(?)_\_ comes clearly into view.

Answer 95

One thing is clear. Adventists are not united in their understanding of the fundamental issue of R-I. Moreover, the three views circulating among them [i.e., verbal inspiration theory, encounter revelation theory and thought inspiration theory] have been conceived and formulated by Christian philosophers and theologians who worked from hermeneutical principles derived from human philosophy. These principles are not only extra-biblical in origin but contrary to biblical thinking in content. Moreover, none of the three options satisfactorily integrates all the evidence; hence, the need for a new model of understanding comes clearly into view.

Question 96

Some Adventists have searched for a better way of understanding R-I by attentively listening to Scripture (teachings and phenomena) and Ellen G. White. Building on their work, we have suggested in this chapter a new model of understanding R-I. It is a __(?)_\_, because it builds on __(?)_\_ and carefully listens to __(?)_\_(__(?)_\_ and __(?)_\_). We need to continue searching for a better and deeper understanding of the __(?)_\_ of R-I. In so doing we must work from __(?)_\_. Only on such a basis can we overcome the deficiencies of verbal inspiration, thought inspiration, and encounter revelation.

Answer 96

Some Adventists have searched for a better way of understanding R-I by attentively listening to Scripture (teachings and phenomena) and Ellen G. White. Building on their work, we have suggested in this chapter a new model of understanding R-I. It is a Biblical Model, because it builds on biblical foundational hermeneutical presuppositions and carefully listens to the entire range of biblical evidence (doctrine and phenomena). We need to continue searching for a better and deeper understanding of the Biblical Model of R-I. In so doing we must work from the biblical understanding of the foundational hermeneutical presuppositions involved in our interpretation of R-I. Only on such a basis can we overcome the deficiencies of verbal inspiration, thought inspiration, and encounter revelation.

Question 97

We must account for, and integrate, in detail all the evidence we find in the teachings and phenomena of Scripture relating to R-I. In this way, we will __(?)_\_. We should continue to surrender all theological authority to __(?)_\_, in spite of __(?)_\_. From __(?)_\_, Adventist theologians will be able to __(?)_\_. They also will be able to explain their views vis-à-vis any and all schools of theologies that built on the quicksand of __(?)_\_ and __(?)_\_.

Answer 97

We must account for, and integrate, in detail all the evidence we find in the teachings and phenomena of Scripture relating to R-I. In this way, we will further understand how God revealed knowledge and information to us in a reliable written account, a love letter intended for our salvation. We should continue to surrender all theological authority to God’s written revelation in the entire text of Scripture, in spite of minor inconsistencies in historical detail. From such a strong and rich source of revelatory data, Adventist theologians will be able to probe further into the astonishing richness of divine revelation, reaching for its inner historical logic, centered in God’s continuous involvement in the Great Controversy. They also will be able to explain their views vis-à-vis any and all schools of theologies that built on the quicksand of human philosophies and scientific convictions.