Perspective DigestVolume 13Issue 4 Fall Article 3

2008

Adventist Views on InspirationAlberto R. Timm

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd

Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Adventist Theological Society at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Perspective Digest by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contactrepository@andrews.edu.

Recommended CitationTimm, Alberto R. (2008) "Adventist Views on Inspiration," Perspective Digest: Vol. 13 : Iss. 4 , Article 3.Available at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/3

29

significant number of publica-tions came out during the 1950suplifting the reliability of theBible and the writings of EllenG. White. Of the books dealing

with Ellen White, Francis D. Nichol’sEllen G. White and Her Critics (1951)was the most outstanding. In this 702-page volume, Nichol responded to al-most all charges raised against EllenWhite since the days of Canright.

It was also during the 1950s that agroup of Seventh-day Adventistscholars combined their efforts toproduce a Seventh-day Adventist BibleCommentary (1953-1957). With thehelp of such groups as the Committeeon Bible Chronology and the Com-mittee on Problems in Bible Transla-

tions, the commentary integrated in asingle project the views of its variouscontributors. It was stated that whilerejecting the position that “the writersof Scripture wrote under verbal dic -tation by the Holy Spirit,” the com-mentary was carried out under the as-sumption that the writers of Scrip ture“spoke and wrote according to theirown individualities and characteris-tics, as is indicated by the varied stylesof writing that they display, but free of

ADVENTIST VIEWSON INSPIRATION

B Y A L B E R T O R . T I M M *

AThe last half of the 20th century provided

a continuation of the debate in the Adventist Church over the nature of inspiration.

*Alberto R. Timm, Ph., D., is Directorof the Brazilian Ellen G. White Re-search Center and Professor of ChurchHistory and Historical Theology atBrazil Adventist College (CentralCampus).

(Matt. 28:20, KJV). In obedience tothe Great Commission, Paul states, “Ihave not shunned to declare unto youall the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27,KJV). As a result of evangelism in theearly church, baptized believers “con-tinued steadfastly in the apostles’ doc-trine and fellowship” (2:42, NKJV).Those who were being saved were“added to the church” (vs. 47, KJV).The guidelines from the Church Man-ual are in harmony with the Scrip-tures.14 All policies related to the Gen-eral Conference should be in har monywith them.

There is an appropriate use of C-5strategies. These strategies should beviewed, however, as catalysts formovement into the next stage of thescale. The underlying issue is whetherthe use of C-5 strategies is an out-reach technique or is the mindset ofthe missionary. A mindset that seeksand is willing to accept and baptizeconverts who remain at this level isnot faithful to the Scriptures or to thechurch. An Adventist missionary oran Adventist sending organizationshould not compromise the integrityof the gospel for pragmatic purposes(i.e., to see church growth wherethere has been no success). A mis-sionary with a C-5 mindset does notadequately represent the Seventh-dayAdventist theology and message. Thesearch for and use of strategies shouldbe creative, but they should be basedon a solid foundation—faithfulnessto the Scriptures.

28

REFERENCES1 Evangelism, p. 140. 2 A. Scott Moreau, “Syncretism,” in Evan-

gelical Dictionary of World Missions, A. Scott

Moreau, ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker,

2000), p. 924.3 David J. Hesselgrave, “Syncretism: Mis-

sion and Missionary Induced?” in Context -

uali zation and Syncretism, pp. 71-98.4 Evangelism, p. 484.5 Jerald Whitehouse, “Issues of Identity,”

Global Center for Adventist-Muslim Rela-

tions (2005), Appendix 3, p. 27.6 __________, “Developing New Church

Structures for More Effective Mission, Nurture,

and Growth of New Believers,” Global Center

for Adventist-Muslim Relations, October 1997.7 Ibid.8 Global Mission Issues Committee, “Guide -

lines for Engaging in Global Mission” (Silver

Spring, Md.: General Conference of Seventh-

day Adventists, 1993), GM/BRI/AD COM to

MLR.9 Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, p. 95;

Testimonies to Ministers, p. 128.10 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual

(Silver Spring: General Conference of Sev-

enth-day Adventists, 2005), pp. 30, 31.11 Jerald Whitehouse, “Contextual Ad -

ventist Mission to Islam: A Working Model,”

in The Three Angels and the Crescent: A

Reader, Jonquil Hole and Børge Schantz, eds.

(Bracknell, England: Seventh-day Adventist

Global Centre for Islamic Studies, 1993), p.

257.12 _________, “Key Issues Foundational to

Comparison of Seventh-day Adventists Be-

liefs with Beliefs of Islam Leading to Sum-

mary Relation Statements,” Global Center for

Ad ventist-Muslim Relations, 2000, p. 15, ital-

ics supplied.13 The Desire of Ages, p. 478.14 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual,

pp. 30, 31.

1

Timm: Adventist Views on Inspiration

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

3130

emphasis on the personal content ofrevelation—that it consists in an ‘I-Thou’ relationship in which Godcommunicates Himself to man. Shedid not share Brunner’s hesitancy toaccept the revelation of specifictruths, for these, she believed, con-tribute to the ultimate reconciliationbetween man and God.”4

While acknowledging that EllenWhite recognized the communica-tion of specific truths in the processof revelation, Harder did not empha-size her understanding of that com-munication as an actual impartationof propositional truths. Although“the line between the natural and thesupernatural is almost nonexistent sofar as the attainment of knowledge isconcerned,” there is still a need for theWord of God because that Word was“communicated by methods less sub-ject to the distortions of sin” than innatural revelation.5

In regard to the inspiration ofScripture, Harder stated that for EllenWhite “inspiration reveals thought,but it does not set the mold for itsform of expression.”6 Harder recog-nized, however, that for Ellen Whitethe Bible was “a correct record” of bi-ography and history because (1) “thescribes wrote under direction of theHoly Spirit,” and (2) “this influencecounteracted the human biases whichcause biographers to gloss over manyderogatory facts about their heroesand thus present only a partialtruth.”7 “Inasmuch as both science

and the Bible have the same author,there can be no conflict betweenthem when they are rightly under-stood.”8 Varieties of “styles and sub-ject matters” are seen by Ellen Whiteas “a strength rather than weakness,”because they provide “varying em-phases” to the many aspects of truth“which would not be presented in atoughly uniform work.”9

Another slight move toward en-counter revelation was taken by JackW. Provonsha, professor of Chris -tian Ethics at Loma Linda Univer-sity, in his article “Revelation and In-spiration,” published in 1964 in theAndrews University Seminary Stud-ies. In this article, Provonsha spokeof encounter revelation in a muchfriendlier way than previous tradi-tional Seventh-day Adventists. Theoverall tenor of the article seemedeven to suggest a certain via-mediaposition between the propositionalconcept of revelation and the en-counter revelation theory.

The first edition of the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (1966)came off the press with a specificentry on the “Inspiration of Scrip-ture.” After quoting the statement onthe “Holy Scriptures” of the Funda-mental Beliefs that had been officiallyaccepted since 1931, the entry statedthat Seventh-day Adventists “do notbelieve in verbal inspiration, accord-ing to the usual meaning of the term,but in what may properly be calledthought inspiration.”10 This statement

the errors found in other writings.”1

In the mid-1950s, Carl W. Daggycompleted his M.A. in which he ex-plicitly suggested that Seventh-dayAdventists were not in full agree-ment with the Fundamentalist viewof inspiration. According to Daggy,“Fundamentalists and Seventh-dayAd ventists are in agreement that theBible is the Christian’s sole unerringrule of faith and practice. Theysharply disagree, however, on thequestion of verbal inspiration. TheFundamentalists generally take theposition that the words of Scrip-tures, as such, were inspired by God.Seventh-day Adventists, on the otherhand, believe that inspiration func-tioned in the minds of the Biblewriters, but that their choice ofwords was their own. At the sametime, they insist that this choice wasguarded so that the writers did notexpress error.”2

In 1957, the book Questions onDoctrine came out affirming that Sev-

enth-day Adventists believed that theBible “not merely contains the word ofGod, but is the word of God.”3

In the following year (1958) EllenWhite’s Selected Messages, Book 1,came off the press with an insightfulsection compiled from the author’swritings on inspiration.

Although Seventh-day Adventistshad traditionally held the proposi-tional view of revelation, a perceiv-able move toward the encounterview of revelation was taken byFrederick E. J. Harder in his 506-page Ph.D. dissertation, “Revelation,a Source of Knowledge as Conceivedby Ellen G. White,” defended in 1960at New York University. In this dis-sertation, Harder studied Ellen G.White’s concept of revelation in thelight of Thomas Aquinas, JohnCalvin, Friedrich Schleiermacher,Augustus Strong, and Emil Brunner.

In interpreting Ellen White’s con-cept of revelation, Harder suggestedthat “White agreed with Brunner’s

30

The first edition of the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia

(1966) came off the press with a specific entry on the

“Inspiration of Scripture.” After quoting the statement on the

“Holy Scriptures” of the Fundamental Beliefs that had been

officially accepted since 1931, the entry stated that Seventh-

day Adventists “do not believe in verbal inspiration,

according to the usual meaning of the term, but in what may

properly be called thought inspiration.”

2

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 3

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/3

3130

emphasis on the personal content ofrevelation—that it consists in an ‘I-Thou’ relationship in which Godcommunicates Himself to man. Shedid not share Brunner’s hesitancy toaccept the revelation of specifictruths, for these, she believed, con-tribute to the ultimate reconciliationbetween man and God.”4

While acknowledging that EllenWhite recognized the communica-tion of specific truths in the processof revelation, Harder did not empha-size her understanding of that com-munication as an actual impartationof propositional truths. Although“the line between the natural and thesupernatural is almost nonexistent sofar as the attainment of knowledge isconcerned,” there is still a need for theWord of God because that Word was“communicated by methods less sub-ject to the distortions of sin” than innatural revelation.5

In regard to the inspiration ofScripture, Harder stated that for EllenWhite “inspiration reveals thought,but it does not set the mold for itsform of expression.”6 Harder recog-nized, however, that for Ellen Whitethe Bible was “a correct record” of bi-ography and history because (1) “thescribes wrote under direction of theHoly Spirit,” and (2) “this influencecounteracted the human biases whichcause biographers to gloss over manyderogatory facts about their heroesand thus present only a partialtruth.”7 “Inasmuch as both science

and the Bible have the same author,there can be no conflict betweenthem when they are rightly under-stood.”8 Varieties of “styles and sub-ject matters” are seen by Ellen Whiteas “a strength rather than weakness,”because they provide “varying em-phases” to the many aspects of truth“which would not be presented in atoughly uniform work.”9

Another slight move toward en-counter revelation was taken by JackW. Provonsha, professor of Chris -tian Ethics at Loma Linda Univer-sity, in his article “Revelation and In-spiration,” published in 1964 in theAndrews University Seminary Stud-ies. In this article, Provonsha spokeof encounter revelation in a muchfriendlier way than previous tradi-tional Seventh-day Adventists. Theoverall tenor of the article seemedeven to suggest a certain via-mediaposition between the propositionalconcept of revelation and the en-counter revelation theory.

The first edition of the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (1966)came off the press with a specificentry on the “Inspiration of Scrip-ture.” After quoting the statement onthe “Holy Scriptures” of the Funda-mental Beliefs that had been officiallyaccepted since 1931, the entry statedthat Seventh-day Adventists “do notbelieve in verbal inspiration, accord-ing to the usual meaning of the term,but in what may properly be calledthought inspiration.”10 This statement

the errors found in other writings.”1

In the mid-1950s, Carl W. Daggycompleted his M.A. in which he ex-plicitly suggested that Seventh-dayAdventists were not in full agree-ment with the Fundamentalist viewof inspiration. According to Daggy,“Fundamentalists and Seventh-dayAd ventists are in agreement that theBible is the Christian’s sole unerringrule of faith and practice. Theysharply disagree, however, on thequestion of verbal inspiration. TheFundamentalists generally take theposition that the words of Scrip-tures, as such, were inspired by God.Seventh-day Adventists, on the otherhand, believe that inspiration func-tioned in the minds of the Biblewriters, but that their choice ofwords was their own. At the sametime, they insist that this choice wasguarded so that the writers did notexpress error.”2

In 1957, the book Questions onDoctrine came out affirming that Sev-

enth-day Adventists believed that theBible “not merely contains the word ofGod, but is the word of God.”3

In the following year (1958) EllenWhite’s Selected Messages, Book 1,came off the press with an insightfulsection compiled from the author’swritings on inspiration.

Although Seventh-day Adventistshad traditionally held the proposi-tional view of revelation, a perceiv-able move toward the encounterview of revelation was taken byFrederick E. J. Harder in his 506-page Ph.D. dissertation, “Revelation,a Source of Knowledge as Conceivedby Ellen G. White,” defended in 1960at New York University. In this dis-sertation, Harder studied Ellen G.White’s concept of revelation in thelight of Thomas Aquinas, JohnCalvin, Friedrich Schleiermacher,Augustus Strong, and Emil Brunner.

In interpreting Ellen White’s con-cept of revelation, Harder suggestedthat “White agreed with Brunner’s

30

The first edition of the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia

(1966) came off the press with a specific entry on the

“Inspiration of Scripture.” After quoting the statement on the

“Holy Scriptures” of the Fundamental Beliefs that had been

officially accepted since 1931, the entry stated that Seventh-

day Adventists “do not believe in verbal inspiration,

according to the usual meaning of the term, but in what may

properly be called thought inspiration.”

3

Timm: Adventist Views on Inspiration

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

necessarily in “the accuracy of wordsper se.”17

Thus, the years 1950 to 1970 sawthe emergence of some moves towardencounter revelation and a thoughtview of inspiration that was largelyinformed by a particular understand-ing of Ellen White’s phenomena. Notuntil the 1970s and early 1980s, how-ever, did these trends reach their cli-mactic expression.

Challenges of the Historicization ofInspired Writings (1970-1991)

While conflicting views of inspi-ration had been previously nurturedwithin Seventh-day Adventism, itwas in the early 1970s that Seventh-day Adventist scholars became morecontroversially divided on this par-ticular doctrine. The main forums tofoster those discussions were the As-sociation of Adventist Forums (offi-cially established in the fall of 1967)and its Spectrum magazine (first is-sued in the winter of 1969).

As a non-official church publica-tion, Spectrum assumed a revisionist-

critical stand, which would eventuallybe denounced by Neal C. Wilson,General Conference president, at the1984 Annual Council of the GeneralConference. Several articles advocat-ing encounter revelation and the useof the historical-critical method cameout in Spectrum, setting the agendafor many discussions on inspirationduring the period 1970-1991.Encounter Revelation. The theory

of encounter revelation was a neo-orthodox reaction to the traditionalconcept of propositional revelation.It perceives revelation as a subjectivepersonal divine-human encounterrather than as an objective commu-nication of propositional truth. TheBible is, therefore, reduced to a merehuman testimony of that encounter.

The Autumn 1970 issue of Spec-trum came out with several articlesdealing with Ellen White. Amongthose articles was one by F. E. J.Harder, dean of the School of Grad-uate Studies at Andrews University,in which he further elaborated somebasic concepts of his Ph.D. disserta-

The years 1950 to 1970 saw the emergence of some

moves toward encounter revelation and a thought view of

inspiration that was largely informed by a particular

understanding of Ellen White’s phenomena. Not until the

1970s and early 1980s, however, did these trends reach their

climactic expression.

was followed by some quotationsfrom Ellen White’s writings.

Also in 1966, Arthur L. White,sec retary of the Ellen G. White Estateand grandson of Ellen White, pre-sented a lecture at Andrews Univer-sity under the title “Toward a FactualConcept of Inspiration” (published in1973). In that lecture, he stated that“Seventh-day Adventists are uniquelyfortunate in approaching the ques-tion of the inspiration of theprophets. We are not left to find ourway, drawing all our conclusionsfrom writings of two thousand yearsor more ago that have come down tous through varied transcriptions andtranslations. With us it is an almostcontemporary matter, for we havehad a prophet in our midst. It is gen-erally granted by the careful studentof her works that the experience ofEllen G. White was not differentfrom that of the prophets of old.”11

Arthur White also said that “EllenG. White’s statements concerning theBible and her work indicate that theconcept of verbal inspiration is with-out support in either the Bible writ-ers’ or her own word.”12 He declaredalso that while “the Scriptures pro-vide an infallible revelation,” “the lan-guage used in imparting it to man -kind is not infallible.”13 He admittedthe existence of factual discrepanciesin “details of minor consequence.”14

The Sabbath school lesson forOctober 11, 1969, stated, however,that not only “the actual impartation

of the divine revelation of truthcame to the prophet under theSpirit’s guidance and control” (cf.Num. 12:6; Hosea 12:10; Rev. 1:10,11), but also that “the communi-cation to the people of the lightreceived by the prophet, was alsodirected by the Holy Spirit” (cf. 2Peter 1:21; Rev. 1:2, 11).15

Aware of the new critical trendsthat were slowly leading Seventh-dayAdventism into a crisis on inspira-tion, Edward Heppenstall, professorof systematic theology at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary,Andrews University, pointed out inMinistry magazine for July 1970 thatSeventh-day Adventists had simplyaligned themselves “with the evangel-ical or traditional position,” withouthaving a “clearly defined and devel-oped doctrine of revelation and in-spiration.”16

After blaming the encounter the-ory of revelation for confusing revela-tion with regeneration, Heppenstallaffirmed that “God’s communicationis addressed to the mind of man in ra-tional concepts and verbal proposi-tions.” “By inspiration,” according toHeppenstall, “God kept the Biblewriters within the conceptual truthsof His revelation,” so that “both thewriters and the message were God di-rected” (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Heppen-stall affirmed also that Scripture is“without error in what it teaches, inthe historical facts basic to the truthsthey are intended to unfold,” but not

32 334

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 3

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/3

necessarily in “the accuracy of wordsper se.”17

Thus, the years 1950 to 1970 sawthe emergence of some moves towardencounter revelation and a thoughtview of inspiration that was largelyinformed by a particular understand-ing of Ellen White’s phenomena. Notuntil the 1970s and early 1980s, how-ever, did these trends reach their cli-mactic expression.

Challenges of the Historicization ofInspired Writings (1970-1991)

While conflicting views of inspi-ration had been previously nurturedwithin Seventh-day Adventism, itwas in the early 1970s that Seventh-day Adventist scholars became morecontroversially divided on this par-ticular doctrine. The main forums tofoster those discussions were the As-sociation of Adventist Forums (offi-cially established in the fall of 1967)and its Spectrum magazine (first is-sued in the winter of 1969).

As a non-official church publica-tion, Spectrum assumed a revisionist-

critical stand, which would eventuallybe denounced by Neal C. Wilson,General Conference president, at the1984 Annual Council of the GeneralConference. Several articles advocat-ing encounter revelation and the useof the historical-critical method cameout in Spectrum, setting the agendafor many discussions on inspirationduring the period 1970-1991.Encounter Revelation. The theory

of encounter revelation was a neo-orthodox reaction to the traditionalconcept of propositional revelation.It perceives revelation as a subjectivepersonal divine-human encounterrather than as an objective commu-nication of propositional truth. TheBible is, therefore, reduced to a merehuman testimony of that encounter.

The Autumn 1970 issue of Spec-trum came out with several articlesdealing with Ellen White. Amongthose articles was one by F. E. J.Harder, dean of the School of Grad-uate Studies at Andrews University,in which he further elaborated somebasic concepts of his Ph.D. disserta-

The years 1950 to 1970 saw the emergence of some

moves toward encounter revelation and a thought view of

inspiration that was largely informed by a particular

understanding of Ellen White’s phenomena. Not until the

1970s and early 1980s, however, did these trends reach their

climactic expression.

was followed by some quotationsfrom Ellen White’s writings.

Also in 1966, Arthur L. White,sec retary of the Ellen G. White Estateand grandson of Ellen White, pre-sented a lecture at Andrews Univer-sity under the title “Toward a FactualConcept of Inspiration” (published in1973). In that lecture, he stated that“Seventh-day Adventists are uniquelyfortunate in approaching the ques-tion of the inspiration of theprophets. We are not left to find ourway, drawing all our conclusionsfrom writings of two thousand yearsor more ago that have come down tous through varied transcriptions andtranslations. With us it is an almostcontemporary matter, for we havehad a prophet in our midst. It is gen-erally granted by the careful studentof her works that the experience ofEllen G. White was not differentfrom that of the prophets of old.”11

Arthur White also said that “EllenG. White’s statements concerning theBible and her work indicate that theconcept of verbal inspiration is with-out support in either the Bible writ-ers’ or her own word.”12 He declaredalso that while “the Scriptures pro-vide an infallible revelation,” “the lan-guage used in imparting it to man -kind is not infallible.”13 He admittedthe existence of factual discrepanciesin “details of minor consequence.”14

The Sabbath school lesson forOctober 11, 1969, stated, however,that not only “the actual impartation

of the divine revelation of truthcame to the prophet under theSpirit’s guidance and control” (cf.Num. 12:6; Hosea 12:10; Rev. 1:10,11), but also that “the communi-cation to the people of the lightreceived by the prophet, was alsodirected by the Holy Spirit” (cf. 2Peter 1:21; Rev. 1:2, 11).15

Aware of the new critical trendsthat were slowly leading Seventh-dayAdventism into a crisis on inspira-tion, Edward Heppenstall, professorof systematic theology at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary,Andrews University, pointed out inMinistry magazine for July 1970 thatSeventh-day Adventists had simplyaligned themselves “with the evangel-ical or traditional position,” withouthaving a “clearly defined and devel-oped doctrine of revelation and in-spiration.”16

After blaming the encounter the-ory of revelation for confusing revela-tion with regeneration, Heppenstallaffirmed that “God’s communicationis addressed to the mind of man in ra-tional concepts and verbal proposi-tions.” “By inspiration,” according toHeppenstall, “God kept the Biblewriters within the conceptual truthsof His revelation,” so that “both thewriters and the message were God di-rected” (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Heppen-stall affirmed also that Scripture is“without error in what it teaches, inthe historical facts basic to the truthsthey are intended to unfold,” but not

32 33 5

Timm: Adventist Views on Inspiration

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

plained that “one’s encounter withChrist is effected only through hear-ing the prophetic and apostolicproclamation consigned to Scrip-tures. These fragile words of Scrip-ture passed down to us from the OTand the NT writers are intrinsic tothe revelational process. They are astrue as the Christ event they expli-cate, and they share in the ‘once-for-all’ character of the divine revela-tion.”21

After describing how “the age ofenlightenment” questioned theChristian traditional view of Scrip-ture as “a divine communication toman cast in written form under theexpress inflow of the Holy Spirit,”Dederen qualified any attempt to re-ject “the testimony of Scripture re-garding itself” as “unscientific.”22

Dederen read a paper entitled“Toward a Seventh-day AdventistTheology of Revelation-Inspiration”at the 1974 Bible Conference. In thispaper, Dederen again pointed outthat revelation “is more than a meremeeting or encounter, it is also aknowing, it implies a knowledge ofthe Lord and of His will.”23

The Historical-Critical Method.The historical-critical method is amethod of literary analysis used tostudy documents from the perspec-tive of their indebtedness to the par-ticular socio-cultural milieu in whichthey were produced. The methodgrew out of the Enlightenment as-sumption (or basic presupposition)

that history can be understood with-out taking into con si deration super-natural intervention.

The question whether the methodis adequate for the study of “in-spired” writings divided Seventh-dayAdventist scholars eventually intothree major groups: (1) Those whoaccept the method with its basic pre-supposition; (2) those who believethat a modified version of themethod can be used apart from itsbasic presupposition; and (3) thosewho hold that the method is unac-ceptable because it cannot be isolatedfrom its basic presupposition.

The existence of so-called “mod-ified” versions of the classical his-torical-critical method would re-quire a much more detailed study toidentify particular understandingsof the method by different Seventh-day Adventist scholars. However, noclassification of such variant under-standings are provided in the pres -ent article beyond the endeavor ofpointing out a few Seventh-day Ad-ventist studies that attempt to fosterthe use of the method and criti-cisms of those attempts.

Historical-critical studies ofEllen White’s writings were encour-aged by the Autumn 1970 Spectrumarticle “Ellen White: A Subject forAdventist Scholarship,” written byRoy Branson, then assistant profes-sor of Christian ethics at AndrewsUniversity, and Herold D. Weiss,then assistant professor of New Tes-

tion (1960). Seventh-day Adventistswere challenged by Harder’s articleto move beyond the 19th-centuryProtestant view of special revelation“as propositionally embedded withinan ancient book.” For Harder, specialrevelation was a “continuing conver-sation and communion betweenGod and living people” in personaland communal bases.18

In 1975, Herold Weiss, chairmanof the Department of Religious Stud-ies of St. Mary’s College, Indiana, andformer assistant professor of NewTestament at Andrews University,moved even more explicitly towardthe encounter theology of neo-ortho-doxy in his Spectrum article entitled“Revelation and the Bible: BeyondVerbal Inspiration.” Under the as-sumption that “both revelation andinspiration take place outside andprior to the Bible,” Weiss argued that“to equate God’s Word with a book isthe work of a corrupted faith that setsup for itself an idol. The words of thebook are the words of the prophetswhich only tangentially reflect the

Word of God. Nothing on earth is theultimate expression of God. To makethe Bible such is bibliolatry, just an-other form of idolatry.”19

Weiss rejected the “verbal inspi-ration” idea that “the Bible has oneAuthor” because “historical, gram-matical and literary” studies haveshown that “it is impossible to lumpall the books of the Bible under oneauthor.” Based on such an assump-tion. Weiss argued that “the Bible asa book can and must be studied asany other book.”20

Meanwhile, the most significantSeventh-day Adventist critical re-sponses to the encounter revelationtheory were penned by Raoul Ded-eren during the 1970s. In a paper en-titled “Revelation, Inspiration, andHermeneutics,” which came out inthe Symposium on Biblical Hermen -eu tics (1974), Dederen qualified theidea of setting “revelation-encounterover against revelation-doctrine” asa false dichotomy. While admittingthat revelation is indeed “an event,an encounter,” Dederen also ex-

34 35

Dederen read a paper entitled “Toward a

Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration” at

the 1974 Bible Conference. In this paper, Dederen again

pointed out that revelation “is more than a mere meeting or

encounter, it is also a knowing, it implies a knowledge of the

Lord and of His will.”

6

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 3

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/3

plained that “one’s encounter withChrist is effected only through hear-ing the prophetic and apostolicproclamation consigned to Scrip-tures. These fragile words of Scrip-ture passed down to us from the OTand the NT writers are intrinsic tothe revelational process. They are astrue as the Christ event they expli-cate, and they share in the ‘once-for-all’ character of the divine revela-tion.”21

After describing how “the age ofenlightenment” questioned theChristian traditional view of Scrip-ture as “a divine communication toman cast in written form under theexpress inflow of the Holy Spirit,”Dederen qualified any attempt to re-ject “the testimony of Scripture re-garding itself” as “unscientific.”22

Dederen read a paper entitled“Toward a Seventh-day AdventistTheology of Revelation-Inspiration”at the 1974 Bible Conference. In thispaper, Dederen again pointed outthat revelation “is more than a meremeeting or encounter, it is also aknowing, it implies a knowledge ofthe Lord and of His will.”23

The Historical-Critical Method.The historical-critical method is amethod of literary analysis used tostudy documents from the perspec-tive of their indebtedness to the par-ticular socio-cultural milieu in whichthey were produced. The methodgrew out of the Enlightenment as-sumption (or basic presupposition)

that history can be understood with-out taking into con si deration super-natural intervention.

The question whether the methodis adequate for the study of “in-spired” writings divided Seventh-dayAdventist scholars eventually intothree major groups: (1) Those whoaccept the method with its basic pre-supposition; (2) those who believethat a modified version of themethod can be used apart from itsbasic presupposition; and (3) thosewho hold that the method is unac-ceptable because it cannot be isolatedfrom its basic presupposition.

The existence of so-called “mod-ified” versions of the classical his-torical-critical method would re-quire a much more detailed study toidentify particular understandingsof the method by different Seventh-day Adventist scholars. However, noclassification of such variant under-standings are provided in the pres -ent article beyond the endeavor ofpointing out a few Seventh-day Ad-ventist studies that attempt to fosterthe use of the method and criti-cisms of those attempts.

Historical-critical studies ofEllen White’s writings were encour-aged by the Autumn 1970 Spectrumarticle “Ellen White: A Subject forAdventist Scholarship,” written byRoy Branson, then assistant profes-sor of Christian ethics at AndrewsUniversity, and Herold D. Weiss,then assistant professor of New Tes-

tion (1960). Seventh-day Adventistswere challenged by Harder’s articleto move beyond the 19th-centuryProtestant view of special revelation“as propositionally embedded withinan ancient book.” For Harder, specialrevelation was a “continuing conver-sation and communion betweenGod and living people” in personaland communal bases.18

In 1975, Herold Weiss, chairmanof the Department of Religious Stud-ies of St. Mary’s College, Indiana, andformer assistant professor of NewTestament at Andrews University,moved even more explicitly towardthe encounter theology of neo-ortho-doxy in his Spectrum article entitled“Revelation and the Bible: BeyondVerbal Inspiration.” Under the as-sumption that “both revelation andinspiration take place outside andprior to the Bible,” Weiss argued that“to equate God’s Word with a book isthe work of a corrupted faith that setsup for itself an idol. The words of thebook are the words of the prophetswhich only tangentially reflect the

Word of God. Nothing on earth is theultimate expression of God. To makethe Bible such is bibliolatry, just an-other form of idolatry.”19

Weiss rejected the “verbal inspi-ration” idea that “the Bible has oneAuthor” because “historical, gram-matical and literary” studies haveshown that “it is impossible to lumpall the books of the Bible under oneauthor.” Based on such an assump-tion. Weiss argued that “the Bible asa book can and must be studied asany other book.”20

Meanwhile, the most significantSeventh-day Adventist critical re-sponses to the encounter revelationtheory were penned by Raoul Ded-eren during the 1970s. In a paper en-titled “Revelation, Inspiration, andHermeneutics,” which came out inthe Symposium on Biblical Hermen -eu tics (1974), Dederen qualified theidea of setting “revelation-encounterover against revelation-doctrine” asa false dichotomy. While admittingthat revelation is indeed “an event,an encounter,” Dederen also ex-

34 35

Dederen read a paper entitled “Toward a

Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration” at

the 1974 Bible Conference. In this paper, Dederen again

pointed out that revelation “is more than a mere meeting or

encounter, it is also a knowing, it implies a knowledge of the

Lord and of His will.”

7

Timm: Adventist Views on Inspiration

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

trum magazine. There, John C.Brunt, professor of New Testamentat Walla Walla College, argued thatthe use of the historical-criticalmethod does not necessarily lead to“liberal conclusions.” Brunt furthersuggested that “virtually all Advent -ist exegates [sic] of Scripture do usehistorical-critical methodology, evenif they are not willing to use theterm. The historical-critical methoddeserves a place in the armamentar-ium of Adventists who are seriousabout understanding their Bibles.”29

Larry G. Herr, then professor ofOld Testament in the seminary ofthe Far Eastern Division in thePhilippines, argued in the same linethat “the ‘historical-critical’ methodof Bible study, used properly, can bea valid and powerful tool for Sev-enth-day Adventists.”30

Meanwhile, some of the most sig-nificant Seventh-day Adventist criti-cisms of the historical-criticalmethod were penned by E. EdwardZinke and Gerhard F. Hasel. Duringthe 1970s, Zinke, then research assis-

tant and assistant secretary of theBiblical Research Committee of theGeneral Conference, came out withseveral articles on the subject. Ofspecial significance was his supple-ment to Ministry magazine of Octo-ber 1977, entitled “A ConservativeApproach to Theology.” After sur-veying different approaches to theol-ogy from a historical perspective,Zinke stated that “method in theol-ogy must not be determined by an apriori consideration of the nature ofman, of the universe, or of any as-pect of these two. Rather, methodmust be determined totally by Scrip-ture itself. The method by whichScripture is studied must not be thesame as that applied to human liter-ature. Since God’s revelation is dis-tinct from that which takes placewithin the human sphere, themethod applied to its interpretationis not the same as that which is ap-plied to what is produced within thehuman sphere. Thus the nature ofrevelation itself must be consideredwithin the context of the method for

Zinke stated that “method in theology must not be

determined by an a priori consideration of the nature of

man, of the universe, or of any aspect of these two.

Rather, method must be determined totally by Scripture itself.

The method by which Scripture is studied must not be the

same as that applied to human literature.”

tament at the same university. Inthat article, Branson and Weiss chal-lenged Seventh-day Adventistsscholars to study Ellen White’s writ-ings with a four-step historical-criti-cal hermen eu tics, intended (1) “todiscover the nature of Mrs. White’srelationship to other authors,” (2)“to recover the social and intellec-tual milieu in which she lived andwrote,” (3) “to give close attention tothe development of Ellen White’swritings within her own lifetime,and also to the development of thechurch,” and (4) “to apply in our daythe words she spoke in her day.”24

Such hermeneutics set the trendfor several historical-critical studiesthat came out during this period(1970-1991) charging Ellen Whitewith historical errors, plagiarism,psychological trances, and theologi-cal pitfalls.

In the fall of 1979, BenjaminMcArthur, professor of Americanhistory at Southern Missionary Col-lege, pointed out in his Spectrum ar-ticle, “Where Are Historians Takingthe Church?” that Seventh-day Ad-ventism was “witnessing the firstgreat age of Adventist historical revi-sionism.” McArthur explained thatthe new generation of Seventh-dayAdventist revisionists worked underthe common presupposition that“the cultural milieu in which EllenWhite lived and worked to a largedegree shaped her writings on his-tory, prophecy, health and, by impli-

cation, every other topic she dis-cussed.” As a result, “the nature ofher inspiration” and “her authorityin the church” were at issue.25

McArthur explained that since“orthodox belief and critical histori-cal judgment are incompatible,” “theproblem is not that the Adventisthistorian lacks faith in God’s provi-dential leading, but that there is noway for him to include it in histori-cal explanation.”26 Thus, the use ofthe historical-critical method ledSeventh-day Adventist revisionistsnot only to deal with Ellen White’swritings as “historically condi-tioned”27 but also to a large extent togive up the Great Controversy themeas a philosophy of history.

In March 1980, Donald Mc -Adams, president of SouthwesternAdventist College, published an arti-cle in Spectrum under the explana-tory title “Shifting Views of Inspira-tion: Ellen G. White Studies in the1970s.” In that article, McAdams ex-plained how critical studies of EllenWhite during the 1970s tried toshow that her works were “not en-tirely original” (because she “copiedfrom other sources”) and were “notinfallible” (because she “made state-ments that were not correct”).28

The use of the historical-criticalmethod was also encouraged in re-gard to the study of Scripture. Ofspecial significance was the sectionentitled “Ways to Read the Bible” ofthe December 1982 issue of Spec-

36 378

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 3

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/3

trum magazine. There, John C.Brunt, professor of New Testamentat Walla Walla College, argued thatthe use of the historical-criticalmethod does not necessarily lead to“liberal conclusions.” Brunt furthersuggested that “virtually all Advent -ist exegates [sic] of Scripture do usehistorical-critical methodology, evenif they are not willing to use theterm. The historical-critical methoddeserves a place in the armamentar-ium of Adventists who are seriousabout understanding their Bibles.”29

Larry G. Herr, then professor ofOld Testament in the seminary ofthe Far Eastern Division in thePhilippines, argued in the same linethat “the ‘historical-critical’ methodof Bible study, used properly, can bea valid and powerful tool for Sev-enth-day Adventists.”30

Meanwhile, some of the most sig-nificant Seventh-day Adventist criti-cisms of the historical-criticalmethod were penned by E. EdwardZinke and Gerhard F. Hasel. Duringthe 1970s, Zinke, then research assis-

tant and assistant secretary of theBiblical Research Committee of theGeneral Conference, came out withseveral articles on the subject. Ofspecial significance was his supple-ment to Ministry magazine of Octo-ber 1977, entitled “A ConservativeApproach to Theology.” After sur-veying different approaches to theol-ogy from a historical perspective,Zinke stated that “method in theol-ogy must not be determined by an apriori consideration of the nature ofman, of the universe, or of any as-pect of these two. Rather, methodmust be determined totally by Scrip-ture itself. The method by whichScripture is studied must not be thesame as that applied to human liter-ature. Since God’s revelation is dis-tinct from that which takes placewithin the human sphere, themethod applied to its interpretationis not the same as that which is ap-plied to what is produced within thehuman sphere. Thus the nature ofrevelation itself must be consideredwithin the context of the method for

Zinke stated that “method in theology must not be

determined by an a priori consideration of the nature of

man, of the universe, or of any aspect of these two.

Rather, method must be determined totally by Scripture itself.

The method by which Scripture is studied must not be the

same as that applied to human literature.”

tament at the same university. Inthat article, Branson and Weiss chal-lenged Seventh-day Adventistsscholars to study Ellen White’s writ-ings with a four-step historical-criti-cal hermen eu tics, intended (1) “todiscover the nature of Mrs. White’srelationship to other authors,” (2)“to recover the social and intellec-tual milieu in which she lived andwrote,” (3) “to give close attention tothe development of Ellen White’swritings within her own lifetime,and also to the development of thechurch,” and (4) “to apply in our daythe words she spoke in her day.”24

Such hermeneutics set the trendfor several historical-critical studiesthat came out during this period(1970-1991) charging Ellen Whitewith historical errors, plagiarism,psychological trances, and theologi-cal pitfalls.

In the fall of 1979, BenjaminMcArthur, professor of Americanhistory at Southern Missionary Col-lege, pointed out in his Spectrum ar-ticle, “Where Are Historians Takingthe Church?” that Seventh-day Ad-ventism was “witnessing the firstgreat age of Adventist historical revi-sionism.” McArthur explained thatthe new generation of Seventh-dayAdventist revisionists worked underthe common presupposition that“the cultural milieu in which EllenWhite lived and worked to a largedegree shaped her writings on his-tory, prophecy, health and, by impli-

cation, every other topic she dis-cussed.” As a result, “the nature ofher inspiration” and “her authorityin the church” were at issue.25

McArthur explained that since“orthodox belief and critical histori-cal judgment are incompatible,” “theproblem is not that the Adventisthistorian lacks faith in God’s provi-dential leading, but that there is noway for him to include it in histori-cal explanation.”26 Thus, the use ofthe historical-critical method ledSeventh-day Adventist revisionistsnot only to deal with Ellen White’swritings as “historically condi-tioned”27 but also to a large extent togive up the Great Controversy themeas a philosophy of history.

In March 1980, Donald Mc -Adams, president of SouthwesternAdventist College, published an arti-cle in Spectrum under the explana-tory title “Shifting Views of Inspira-tion: Ellen G. White Studies in the1970s.” In that article, McAdams ex-plained how critical studies of EllenWhite during the 1970s tried toshow that her works were “not en-tirely original” (because she “copiedfrom other sources”) and were “notinfallible” (because she “made state-ments that were not correct”).28

The use of the historical-criticalmethod was also encouraged in re-gard to the study of Scripture. Ofspecial significance was the sectionentitled “Ways to Read the Bible” ofthe December 1982 issue of Spec-

36 37 9

Timm: Adventist Views on Inspiration

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

unacceptable to Adventists.”35

The use of the historical-criticalmethod was also criticized in severalarticles by Gerhard F. Hasel, Leon I.Mashchak, Richard M. Davidson,and Mario Veloso.Further Developments. Since

1970, a significant variety of defini-tions of inspiration have been pro-posed in Seventh-day Adventist cir-cles. Those definitions have oscil latedbetween attempts to accommodateapparent “discrepancies” of inspiredwritings and concerns of uplifting theinfallibility of those writings againstthe challenges imposed by revisioniststudies.

In 1972, Rene Noorbergen’s EllenG. White: Prophet of Destiny describedthe prophetic ministry in strongterms. According to Noorbergen, a“true prophet is not a psychic whoperforms with the aid of a mental or‘spiritual’ crutch, but is someone whohas no degree of freedom either inturning in or controlling the pro - phetic impulses or prophetic recall.These impulses are superimposedover the prophet’s conscious mind bya supernatural personal being, havingabsolute knowledge of both past andfuture, making no allowance for erroror human miscalculation.”36

Also in 1972, Hans Heinz’ Glau -benslehren der Heiligen Schrift cameout with a special chapter on “TheHoly Scripture.” After rejecting thetheory of verbal inspiration, Heinzdefined inspiration as “a positive di-

vine impact on the mind, will, andimagination of the author, who useshis means in order to write as Goddesires, whereby the author is underthe guidance of God, which preventserror.”37

Of special significance was the1974 Bible Conference, which wassummoned “to focus on the Bible asthe foundation of Adventist faithand doctrine, and to study soundprinciples of hermeneutics.”38 Thedoctrine of inspiration was ad-dressed in Raoul Dederen’s two pa-pers, “Revelation, Inspiration, andHermeneutics” and “Toward a Sev-enth-day Adventist Theology ofRevelation-Inspiration.”

In the latter, Dederen defined in-spiration as “the controlling influencethat God exerts over the human in-strument by whom His revelation iscommunicated. It has to do with thereception, by the prophet, of the di-vine revelation and the accuracy withwhich it is transmitted, whether in anoral or a written form. At the sametime it gives the record of revelationits authority and validity for us.”39

To this he added, “We can hardlybelieve that God, having performedthe mighty acts and revealed theirtrue meaning and import to theminds of prophets and apostleswould leave the prophetic and apos-tolic ministry to take care of itself.The same Holy Spirit, we hold, whocalled them to share God’s knowl-edge and plans, also aided their ef-

its interpretation.”31

In 1980, Gerhard F. Hasel, profes-sor of Old Testament and biblical the-ology at Andrews University, pub-lished his book Understanding theLiving Word of God, in which he criti-cized the historical-critical methodfor its “totally immanent view of his-tory on the horizontal level withoutany vertical, transcendent dimen-sion.”32 Hasel not only charged thatmethod with undermining the au-thority of the Scriptures, but also ar-gued in favor of an approach to Scrip-ture that could recognize its divine,supernatural element.

In 1985 the Biblical Research Insti-tute published Hasel’s book, BiblicalInterpretation Today, in which the au-thor strongly criticized the historical-critical method for “disallowing di-vine, supernatural intervention inhistory.”33 Under the assumption that“the Bible must remain the masterand the method the servant,” Haselargued that in the study of Scripture

the “method must always be subjectto the judgment of Scripture.” Thus“the study of Scripture must follow amethod that derives its philosophicalconceptuality, its norms and proce-dures from Scripture itself.”34

Concerns about the use of thehistorical-critical method by Sev-enth-day Adventist scholars also ledthe 1986 Annual Council of theGeneral Conference, which con-vened in Rio de Janeiro, to vote adocument on “Methods of BibleStudy.” In this official document,Adventist Bible students were urged“to avoid relying on the use of thepresuppositions and the resultantdeductions associated with the his-torical-critical method.” Under theassumption that “human reason issubject to the Bible, not equal to orabove it,” the document stated that“even a modified use” of the histori-cal-critical method “that retains theprinciple of criticism which subor-dinates the Bible to human reason is

38 39

Concerns about the use of the historical-critical

method by Seventh-day Adventist scholars also led the 1986

Annual Council of the General Conference, which

convened in Rio de Janeiro, to vote a document on “Methods

of Bible Study.” In this official document, Adventist Bible

students were urged “to avoid relying on the use of the pre-

suppositions and the resultant deductions associated with the

historical-critical method.”

10

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 3

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/3

unacceptable to Adventists.”35

The use of the historical-criticalmethod was also criticized in severalarticles by Gerhard F. Hasel, Leon I.Mashchak, Richard M. Davidson,and Mario Veloso.Further Developments. Since

1970, a significant variety of defini-tions of inspiration have been pro-posed in Seventh-day Adventist cir-cles. Those definitions have oscil latedbetween attempts to accommodateapparent “discrepancies” of inspiredwritings and concerns of uplifting theinfallibility of those writings againstthe challenges imposed by revisioniststudies.

In 1972, Rene Noorbergen’s EllenG. White: Prophet of Destiny describedthe prophetic ministry in strongterms. According to Noorbergen, a“true prophet is not a psychic whoperforms with the aid of a mental or‘spiritual’ crutch, but is someone whohas no degree of freedom either inturning in or controlling the pro - phetic impulses or prophetic recall.These impulses are superimposedover the prophet’s conscious mind bya supernatural personal being, havingabsolute knowledge of both past andfuture, making no allowance for erroror human miscalculation.”36

Also in 1972, Hans Heinz’ Glau -benslehren der Heiligen Schrift cameout with a special chapter on “TheHoly Scripture.” After rejecting thetheory of verbal inspiration, Heinzdefined inspiration as “a positive di-

vine impact on the mind, will, andimagination of the author, who useshis means in order to write as Goddesires, whereby the author is underthe guidance of God, which preventserror.”37

Of special significance was the1974 Bible Conference, which wassummoned “to focus on the Bible asthe foundation of Adventist faithand doctrine, and to study soundprinciples of hermeneutics.”38 Thedoctrine of inspiration was ad-dressed in Raoul Dederen’s two pa-pers, “Revelation, Inspiration, andHermeneutics” and “Toward a Sev-enth-day Adventist Theology ofRevelation-Inspiration.”

In the latter, Dederen defined in-spiration as “the controlling influencethat God exerts over the human in-strument by whom His revelation iscommunicated. It has to do with thereception, by the prophet, of the di-vine revelation and the accuracy withwhich it is transmitted, whether in anoral or a written form. At the sametime it gives the record of revelationits authority and validity for us.”39

To this he added, “We can hardlybelieve that God, having performedthe mighty acts and revealed theirtrue meaning and import to theminds of prophets and apostleswould leave the prophetic and apos-tolic ministry to take care of itself.The same Holy Spirit, we hold, whocalled them to share God’s knowl-edge and plans, also aided their ef-

its interpretation.”31

In 1980, Gerhard F. Hasel, profes-sor of Old Testament and biblical the-ology at Andrews University, pub-lished his book Understanding theLiving Word of God, in which he criti-cized the historical-critical methodfor its “totally immanent view of his-tory on the horizontal level withoutany vertical, transcendent dimen-sion.”32 Hasel not only charged thatmethod with undermining the au-thority of the Scriptures, but also ar-gued in favor of an approach to Scrip-ture that could recognize its divine,supernatural element.

In 1985 the Biblical Research Insti-tute published Hasel’s book, BiblicalInterpretation Today, in which the au-thor strongly criticized the historical-critical method for “disallowing di-vine, supernatural intervention inhistory.”33 Under the assumption that“the Bible must remain the masterand the method the servant,” Haselargued that in the study of Scripture

the “method must always be subjectto the judgment of Scripture.” Thus“the study of Scripture must follow amethod that derives its philosophicalconceptuality, its norms and proce-dures from Scripture itself.”34

Concerns about the use of thehistorical-critical method by Sev-enth-day Adventist scholars also ledthe 1986 Annual Council of theGeneral Conference, which con-vened in Rio de Janeiro, to vote adocument on “Methods of BibleStudy.” In this official document,Adventist Bible students were urged“to avoid relying on the use of thepresuppositions and the resultantdeductions associated with the his-torical-critical method.” Under theassumption that “human reason issubject to the Bible, not equal to orabove it,” the document stated that“even a modified use” of the histori-cal-critical method “that retains theprinciple of criticism which subor-dinates the Bible to human reason is

38 39

Concerns about the use of the historical-critical

method by Seventh-day Adventist scholars also led the 1986

Annual Council of the General Conference, which

convened in Rio de Janeiro, to vote a document on “Methods

of Bible Study.” In this official document, Adventist Bible

students were urged “to avoid relying on the use of the pre-

suppositions and the resultant deductions associated with the

historical-critical method.”

11

Timm: Adventist Views on Inspiration

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

White did not support the views ofverbal inspiration and inerrancy ofthe original autographs, Dederen ex-plained that Ellen White’s concept ofinspiration is that “the whole man isinspired, not just his words.”45

Meanwhile, Arthur White pre-pared two series of articles for theReview, trying to counteract some ofthe tensions unleashed by revisioniststudies of Ellen White. The first se-ries came out in early 1978, underthe general title “Toward an Advent -ist Concept of Inspiration.” In thisseries, Arthur White suggested againthat Seventh-day Adventists were ina better position to understand themodus operandi of inspiration, be-cause they still had the autographs ofa modern prophet (Ellen White),while those of the Bible were nolonger available.

White admitted that while “therevelation of God’s will is authorita-tive and infallible,” “the language usedin imparting it to mankind is humanand hence is imperfect.”46 He saw theprophet as under the influence of the

Spirit of God not only in receiving“his message through the visions” butalso in bearing testimony. Despitecertain occasions in which “the verywords to be used are impressed uponhis mind by the Spirit of God,” the in-fluence of the Spirit does not lead theprophet to “the point of being me-chanically controlled, or of beingforced into a mold.”47

Arthur White began his second se-ries, “The E. G. White Historical Writ-ings” (summer of 1979), explaining ina euphemistic way that probablynever before, since the death of EllenWhite in 1915, had Seventh-day Ad-ventists been so interested in thequestions of “inspiration in generaland the inspiration of Ellen White inparticular,” as well as “Ellen White’s‘sources’ for the Conflict of the Agesbooks in general, and The Great Con-troversy and The Desire of Ages in par-ticular.” He promised that this seriesof articles would lead the readers“some distance from the narrow con-cepts held by some of a mechanical,verbal inspiration according to which

forts to convey such a revelation tothose to whom they ministered.”40

Dederen also pointed out the ex-istence of a tendency in certain cir-cles “to caricature” as “some sort of adictation theory” the position ofthose who believed that the Biblewas “fully inspired” “in all its parts.”While recognizing that on “some oc-casions” God actually spoke andman just recorded the words (Gen.22:15-18; Ex. 20:1-17), Dederenstated that “in the main” inspirationfunctioned in such a flexible way asto allow for “human personalities.”41

After quoting Ellen White’s clas-sic statement, “It is not the words ofthe Bible that are inspired, but themen that were inspired” from Se-lected Messages, Book 1, page 21,Dederen raised the crucial question,“Since the thoughts rather than thewords are inspired, shall we con-clude that we are at liberty to treatthe text of Scripture as being of littleimportance?” Answering the ques-tion, he explained that “some, infact, do maintain that God suggestedthe thoughts and the general trendof His revelation, leaving theprophet free to express them in hisown language, as he liked. Quiteapart from the fact that ideas are notmost usually transferred by meansother than words, this scheme ig-nores the fact that if the thoughtcommunicated to a prophet is of theessence of a revelation, the form inwhich it is expressed is of prime sig-

nificance. The exegetical study of theScriptures in their original languagewould lose much of its meaning ifGod has not guided the prophet inthe writing of his message.”42

In regard to Ellen White’s posi-tion on the matter, Dederen assertedthat “Ellen White herself, who soclearly emphasizes that the thoughtsrather than the words of a prophetare inspired, stipulates: ‘While I amwriting out important matters, He isbeside me helping me . . . and whenI am puzzled for a fit word to expressmy thoughts, He brings it clearlyand distinctly to my mind.’ ‘I trem-ble for fear,’ adds the servant of theLord, ‘lest I shall belittle the greatplan of salvation by cheap words . . . .Who is sufficient for these things?’Everything points to the fact thatGod who imbued the prophets’minds with thoughts and inspiredthem in the fulfillment of their taskalso watched over them in their at-tempts to express ‘infinite ideas’ andembody them in ‘finite vehicles’ ofhuman language.”43

Such a view of inspiration “doesnot nullify,” according to Dederen,“the significant human authorshipof the biblical writings. It simply af-firms that the prophetic message aswe find it in Scripture is the testi-mony of God.”44

In 1977, Dederen came out withan insert in Ministry, under the title“Ellen White’s Doctrine of Scrip-ture.” While declaring that Ellen

40 41

[Arthur] White admitted that while “the revelation of

God’s will is authoritative and infallible,” “the language used

in imparting it to mankind is human and hence is

imperfect.” He saw the prophet as under the influence of the

Spirit of God not only in receiving “his message through

the visions” but also in bearing testimony.

12

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 3

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/3

White did not support the views ofverbal inspiration and inerrancy ofthe original autographs, Dederen ex-plained that Ellen White’s concept ofinspiration is that “the whole man isinspired, not just his words.”45

Meanwhile, Arthur White pre-pared two series of articles for theReview, trying to counteract some ofthe tensions unleashed by revisioniststudies of Ellen White. The first se-ries came out in early 1978, underthe general title “Toward an Advent -ist Concept of Inspiration.” In thisseries, Arthur White suggested againthat Seventh-day Adventists were ina better position to understand themodus operandi of inspiration, be-cause they still had the autographs ofa modern prophet (Ellen White),while those of the Bible were nolonger available.

White admitted that while “therevelation of God’s will is authorita-tive and infallible,” “the language usedin imparting it to mankind is humanand hence is imperfect.”46 He saw theprophet as under the influence of the

Spirit of God not only in receiving“his message through the visions” butalso in bearing testimony. Despitecertain occasions in which “the verywords to be used are impressed uponhis mind by the Spirit of God,” the in-fluence of the Spirit does not lead theprophet to “the point of being me-chanically controlled, or of beingforced into a mold.”47

Arthur White began his second se-ries, “The E. G. White Historical Writ-ings” (summer of 1979), explaining ina euphemistic way that probablynever before, since the death of EllenWhite in 1915, had Seventh-day Ad-ventists been so interested in thequestions of “inspiration in generaland the inspiration of Ellen White inparticular,” as well as “Ellen White’s‘sources’ for the Conflict of the Agesbooks in general, and The Great Con-troversy and The Desire of Ages in par-ticular.” He promised that this seriesof articles would lead the readers“some distance from the narrow con-cepts held by some of a mechanical,verbal inspiration according to which

forts to convey such a revelation tothose to whom they ministered.”40

Dederen also pointed out the ex-istence of a tendency in certain cir-cles “to caricature” as “some sort of adictation theory” the position ofthose who believed that the Biblewas “fully inspired” “in all its parts.”While recognizing that on “some oc-casions” God actually spoke andman just recorded the words (Gen.22:15-18; Ex. 20:1-17), Dederenstated that “in the main” inspirationfunctioned in such a flexible way asto allow for “human personalities.”41

After quoting Ellen White’s clas-sic statement, “It is not the words ofthe Bible that are inspired, but themen that were inspired” from Se-lected Messages, Book 1, page 21,Dederen raised the crucial question,“Since the thoughts rather than thewords are inspired, shall we con-clude that we are at liberty to treatthe text of Scripture as being of littleimportance?” Answering the ques-tion, he explained that “some, infact, do maintain that God suggestedthe thoughts and the general trendof His revelation, leaving theprophet free to express them in hisown language, as he liked. Quiteapart from the fact that ideas are notmost usually transferred by meansother than words, this scheme ig-nores the fact that if the thoughtcommunicated to a prophet is of theessence of a revelation, the form inwhich it is expressed is of prime sig-

nificance. The exegetical study of theScriptures in their original languagewould lose much of its meaning ifGod has not guided the prophet inthe writing of his message.”42

In regard to Ellen White’s posi-tion on the matter, Dederen assertedthat “Ellen White herself, who soclearly emphasizes that the thoughtsrather than the words of a prophetare inspired, stipulates: ‘While I amwriting out important matters, He isbeside me helping me . . . and whenI am puzzled for a fit word to expressmy thoughts, He brings it clearlyand distinctly to my mind.’ ‘I trem-ble for fear,’ adds the servant of theLord, ‘lest I shall belittle the greatplan of salvation by cheap words . . . .Who is sufficient for these things?’Everything points to the fact thatGod who imbued the prophets’minds with thoughts and inspiredthem in the fulfillment of their taskalso watched over them in their at-tempts to express ‘infinite ideas’ andembody them in ‘finite vehicles’ ofhuman language.”43

Such a view of inspiration “doesnot nullify,” according to Dederen,“the significant human authorshipof the biblical writings. It simply af-firms that the prophetic message aswe find it in Scripture is the testi-mony of God.”44

In 1977, Dederen came out withan insert in Ministry, under the title“Ellen White’s Doctrine of Scrip-ture.” While declaring that Ellen

40 41

[Arthur] White admitted that while “the revelation of

God’s will is authoritative and infallible,” “the language used

in imparting it to mankind is human and hence is

imperfect.” He saw the prophet as under the influence of the

Spirit of God not only in receiving “his message through

the visions” but also in bearing testimony.

13

Timm: Adventist Views on Inspiration

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

them word by word, except in certaininstances in which God or an angelspoke or voices were heard by theprophet.” In regard to the difficultiesof the Bible, the same documentwarned that “it is well to rememberthat such difficulties in Scripture maybe the result of imperfections ofhuman understanding, or lack ofknowledge of the circumstances in-volved. Some diffi culties may be re-solved by further research and discov-ery. Others may not be understood orresolved until the future life. How-ever, we must guard against sitting injudgment on the Scriptures. No mancan improve the Bible by suggestingwhat the Lord meant to say or oughtto have said.”50

The second document (far moreinfluential than the first one) was thenew 1980 “Statement of Fundamen-tal Beliefs,” officially accepted by thedelegates of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church at the 1980General Conference session in Dal-las, Texas. The new statement on theScriptures (statement 1) of that doc-ument reads as follows: “The HolyScriptures, Old and New Testa-ments, are the written Word of God,given by divine inspiration throughholy men of God who spoke andwrote as they were moved by theHoly Spirit. In this Word, God hascommitted to man the knowledgenecessary for salvation. The HolyScriptures are the infallible revela-tion of His will. They are the stan-

dard of character, the test of experi-ence, the authoritative revealer ofdoctrines, and the trustworthy rec -ord of God’s acts in history.”51

The new statement on the gift ofprophecy (statement 17) affirmedthe following: “One of the gifts ofthe Holy Spirit is prophecy. This giftis an identifying mark of the rem-nant church and was manifested inthe ministry of Ellen G. White. Asthe Lord’s messenger, her writingsare a continuing and authoritativesource of truth which provide forthe church comfort, guidance, in-struction, and correction. They alsomake clear that the Bible is the stan-dard by which all teaching and expe-rience must be tested.”52

Also published in 1980, GerhardF. Hasel’s book Understanding theLiving Word of God included a wholechapter on the inspiration of Scrip-ture. In that chapter, Hasel arguedthat the witnesses of Peter (2 Peter1:19-21) and Paul (2 Tim. 3:16) at-test that “’all Scripture is inspired byGod.’” “Having received the divinerevelation, the human penman wasinspired,” according to Hasel, “by theHoly Spirit to communicate thesedivine ideas and thoughts accuratelyand authoritatively in the languageof men.” The divine authorship ofScripture was seen as the source forboth “the unity of Scripture” and“the supreme authority of Scrip-ture.”53

In 1981, William G. Johnsson, as-

Ellen White wrote only what was re-vealed to her in vision or dictated toher by the Holy Spirit.”48

In recommending this series,Kenneth Wood, editor of the Review,suggested that readers keep in mind“four facts”: (1) “Inspired writings donot come to us ‘untouched by humanhands’”; (2) “in communi cating withthe human family, God inspired per-sons, not writings”; (3) “inspirationinvolves a variety of meth ods in com-municating truth and God’s will”;and (4) “the message of an inspiredwriter does not depend for its author-ity on whether it is accompanied bythe label, ‘This is God’s Word.’”Woodalso pointed out that “because Satanis today making supreme efforts toundermine confidence in the writ-ings of the Spirit of Prophecy, we feelconvinced that the end of all thingsis near.”49

Within the context of the con-temporary revisionist challenges,

Seventh-day Adventists published,in 1980, two major consensus docu-ments in order to confirm their faithin the trustworthiness of the in-spired writings. The first one, titled“Revelation and Inspiration of theBible,” was produced “over a periodof several years, involving scientists,theologians, administrators, teach-ers, and others throughout the worldchurch.” Although “numerous re -visions” in its text had been madetaking into consideration the sug-gestions received, the document ap-peared in the Adventist Review ofJanuary 17 with a special note askingfor additional “comments and sug-gestions” to be addressed to W. Dun-can Eva, a vice-president of the Gen-eral Conference.

The document under considera-tion recognized that “the writers ofthe Holy Scripture were inspired byGod with ideas and concepts,” but“He did not dictate His message to

42 43

Kenneth Wood, editor of the Review, suggested that

readers keep in mind “four facts”: (1) “Inspired writings do not

come to us ‘untouched by human hands’”; (2) “in com -

municating with the human family, God inspired persons, not

writings”; (3) “inspiration involves a variety of methods in

communicating truth and God’s will”; and (4) “the message of

an inspired writer does not depend for its authority on

whether it is accompanied by the label, ‘This is God’s Word.’”

14

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 3

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/3

them word by word, except in certaininstances in which God or an angelspoke or voices were heard by theprophet.” In regard to the difficultiesof the Bible, the same documentwarned that “it is well to rememberthat such difficulties in Scripture maybe the result of imperfections ofhuman understanding, or lack ofknowledge of the circumstances in-volved. Some diffi culties may be re-solved by further research and discov-ery. Others may not be understood orresolved until the future life. How-ever, we must guard against sitting injudgment on the Scriptures. No mancan improve the Bible by suggestingwhat the Lord meant to say or oughtto have said.”50

The second document (far moreinfluential than the first one) was thenew 1980 “Statement of Fundamen-tal Beliefs,” officially accepted by thedelegates of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church at the 1980General Conference session in Dal-las, Texas. The new statement on theScriptures (statement 1) of that doc-ument reads as follows: “The HolyScriptures, Old and New Testa-ments, are the written Word of God,given by divine inspiration throughholy men of God who spoke andwrote as they were moved by theHoly Spirit. In this Word, God hascommitted to man the knowledgenecessary for salvation. The HolyScriptures are the infallible revela-tion of His will. They are the stan-

dard of character, the test of experi-ence, the authoritative revealer ofdoctrines, and the trustworthy rec -ord of God’s acts in history.”51

The new statement on the gift ofprophecy (statement 17) affirmedthe following: “One of the gifts ofthe Holy Spirit is prophecy. This giftis an identifying mark of the rem-nant church and was manifested inthe ministry of Ellen G. White. Asthe Lord’s messenger, her writingsare a continuing and authoritativesource of truth which provide forthe church comfort, guidance, in-struction, and correction. They alsomake clear that the Bible is the stan-dard by which all teaching and expe-rience must be tested.”52

Also published in 1980, GerhardF. Hasel’s book Understanding theLiving Word of God included a wholechapter on the inspiration of Scrip-ture. In that chapter, Hasel arguedthat the witnesses of Peter (2 Peter1:19-21) and Paul (2 Tim. 3:16) at-test that “’all Scripture is inspired byGod.’” “Having received the divinerevelation, the human penman wasinspired,” according to Hasel, “by theHoly Spirit to communicate thesedivine ideas and thoughts accuratelyand authoritatively in the languageof men.” The divine authorship ofScripture was seen as the source forboth “the unity of Scripture” and“the supreme authority of Scrip-ture.”53

In 1981, William G. Johnsson, as-

Ellen White wrote only what was re-vealed to her in vision or dictated toher by the Holy Spirit.”48

In recommending this series,Kenneth Wood, editor of the Review,suggested that readers keep in mind“four facts”: (1) “Inspired writings donot come to us ‘untouched by humanhands’”; (2) “in communi cating withthe human family, God inspired per-sons, not writings”; (3) “inspirationinvolves a variety of meth ods in com-municating truth and God’s will”;and (4) “the message of an inspiredwriter does not depend for its author-ity on whether it is accompanied bythe label, ‘This is God’s Word.’”Woodalso pointed out that “because Satanis today making supreme efforts toundermine confidence in the writ-ings of the Spirit of Prophecy, we feelconvinced that the end of all thingsis near.”49

Within the context of the con-temporary revisionist challenges,

Seventh-day Adventists published,in 1980, two major consensus docu-ments in order to confirm their faithin the trustworthiness of the in-spired writings. The first one, titled“Revelation and Inspiration of theBible,” was produced “over a periodof several years, involving scientists,theologians, administrators, teach-ers, and others throughout the worldchurch.” Although “numerous re -visions” in its text had been madetaking into consideration the sug-gestions received, the document ap-peared in the Adventist Review ofJanuary 17 with a special note askingfor additional “comments and sug-gestions” to be addressed to W. Dun-can Eva, a vice-president of the Gen-eral Conference.

The document under considera-tion recognized that “the writers ofthe Holy Scripture were inspired byGod with ideas and concepts,” but“He did not dictate His message to

42 43

Kenneth Wood, editor of the Review, suggested that

readers keep in mind “four facts”: (1) “Inspired writings do not

come to us ‘untouched by human hands’”; (2) “in com -

municating with the human family, God inspired persons, not

writings”; (3) “inspiration involves a variety of methods in

communicating truth and God’s will”; and (4) “the message of

an inspired writer does not depend for its authority on

whether it is accompanied by the label, ‘This is God’s Word.’”

15

Timm: Adventist Views on Inspiration

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

45

Scripture can be fully understoodonly from the perspective of two dis-tinctive models of inspiration.

The first of those models wastermed “prophetic model,” by whichRice referred to “divine revelationcoming to the prophet throughdreams, visions, thought illumina-tion as seen in the psalms and thewisdom literature, and the recordingof these theophanies (divine mani-festations) un der the guidance of theHoly Spirit.”59

While recognizing that Seventh-day Adventists tended to see theprophetic model as “a big umbrellaunder which we gather all of thebooks of the Bible,” Rice pointed outthat this model “is inadequate to ex-plain the variations in the gospelportrait,” as well as the content of “1and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, andother Old Testament books.” Roomwas, therefore, left for a secondmodel of inspiration that wouldfunction as “the complement to andcompanion of the prophetic model.”60

That second model of inspirationis called the “Lucan model” (cf. Luke1:1-4), which Rice saw as “based on

research—reading and oral inter-views.”61 He explained that “the Biblewriter who operated under thismodel was an author and a theolo-gian in his own right. As an authorhe shaped and arranged the materialhe re searched so that the end prod-uct ex pressed his interests. As a the-ologian he worked with the materialso that the end product expressedhis the ological understanding. Yetthe Spirit guided throughout thewhole process.”62

In 1985, Richard Rice, professorof theology at Loma Linda Univer-sity, included a whole chapter on“The Doctrine of Revelation” in hisbook The Reign of God. Regardinginspiration as “one aspect” of “thelarger dynamic of God’s communi-cation to human beings,” the authorpointed out that “the doctrine ofrevelation” should not be reduced“to the phenomenon of inspira-tion.”63

Richard Rice saw the biblical doc-trine of inspiration as containingtwo important ideas: (1) “The divineauthority of Scripture,” and (2) “thedivine-human character of Scrip-

inconsequential errors of minor, in-significant detail.” He then listed afew examples of “errors” in the Bibleand in the writings of Ellen White.Among the “errors” in Scripture hementions: (1) the allusion to Jere-miah (instead of Zechariah) as theauthor of the quotation found inMatthew 27:9 and 10 (cf. Zech.11:12, 13); and (2) the differentwordings of the inscription placed atthe top of the cross (cf. Matt. 27:37;Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John19:19). The “errors” of Ellen Whiteare seen as including (1) a referenceto the Paradise Valley Sanitarium ashaving 40 rooms (instead of 38); and(2) a mentioning of the apostle Peter(instead of Paul) as the author of thesaying, “the love of Christ con-straineth us” (2 Cor. 5:14).57

Rejecting the theory of “degreesof inspiration (or revelation)” and“degrees of authority,” Coon statedthat “Ellen G. White is best under-stood in the role of the literary butnoncanonical prophets of the Bible.”Thus, though the writings of EllenWhite have the same level of inspira-tion and authority as the Bible, theyare not “an addition to the sacredcanon of Scripture.”58

In response to the charges of pla-giarism raised against Ellen White,George E. Rice, then associate pro-fessor of New Testament at AndrewsUniversity, in 1983 published hisbook Luke, a Plagiarist? In this bookhe suggested that the inspiration of

44

sociate editor of the Adventist Re-view, stated in a Ministry article,“How Does God Speak?” that “defin-ing inspiration is like catching a rain-bow. When we have put forth ourbest efforts, there will remain an elu-sive factor, an element of mystery.”54

Also in 1981, Roger W. Coon, as-sociate secretary of the Ellen G.White Estate, began a three-part se-ries on “Inspiration/Revelation” inThe Journal of Adventist Education.In this series Coon advocated “ple-nary (thought) inspiration,” in ex-clusion to both “verbal inspiration”and “encounter inspiration.”55

In addressing the subject of in-fallibility, Coon mentioned two the-ories: (1) The “strait-jacket” theory,in which true prophetic writings areregarded as “prevented from mak-ing any type of error,” and (2) the“intervention” theory, which holdsthat “if in his humanity a prophet ofGod errs, and the nature of thaterror is sufficiently serious to mate-rially affect (a) the direction ofGod’s church, (b) the eternal des-tiny of one person, or (c) the purityof a doctrine, then (and only then)the Holy Spirit immediately movesthe prophet to correct the error, sothat no permanent damage isdone.”56

Taking his stand on the side ofthe “intervention” theory, Coonstated that “in inspired writings, an-cient [the Bible] and modern [thewritings of Ellen White], there are

While recognizing that Seventh-day Adventists tended

to see the prophetic model as “a big umbrella under which we

gather all of the books of the Bible,” George E. Rice pointed

out that this model “is inadequate to explain the variations

in the gospel portrait.”

16

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 3

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/3

45

Scripture can be fully understoodonly from the perspective of two dis-tinctive models of inspiration.

The first of those models wastermed “prophetic model,” by whichRice referred to “divine revelationcoming to the prophet throughdreams, visions, thought illumina-tion as seen in the psalms and thewisdom literature, and the recordingof these theophanies (divine mani-festations) un der the guidance of theHoly Spirit.”59

While recognizing that Seventh-day Adventists tended to see theprophetic model as “a big umbrellaunder which we gather all of thebooks of the Bible,” Rice pointed outthat this model “is inadequate to ex-plain the variations in the gospelportrait,” as well as the content of “1and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, andother Old Testament books.” Roomwas, therefore, left for a secondmodel of inspiration that wouldfunction as “the complement to andcompanion of the prophetic model.”60

That second model of inspirationis called the “Lucan model” (cf. Luke1:1-4), which Rice saw as “based on

research—reading and oral inter-views.”61 He explained that “the Biblewriter who operated under thismodel was an author and a theolo-gian in his own right. As an authorhe shaped and arranged the materialhe re searched so that the end prod-uct ex pressed his interests. As a the-ologian he worked with the materialso that the end product expressedhis the ological understanding. Yetthe Spirit guided throughout thewhole process.”62

In 1985, Richard Rice, professorof theology at Loma Linda Univer-sity, included a whole chapter on“The Doctrine of Revelation” in hisbook The Reign of God. Regardinginspiration as “one aspect” of “thelarger dynamic of God’s communi-cation to human beings,” the authorpointed out that “the doctrine ofrevelation” should not be reduced“to the phenomenon of inspira-tion.”63

Richard Rice saw the biblical doc-trine of inspiration as containingtwo important ideas: (1) “The divineauthority of Scripture,” and (2) “thedivine-human character of Scrip-

inconsequential errors of minor, in-significant detail.” He then listed afew examples of “errors” in the Bibleand in the writings of Ellen White.Among the “errors” in Scripture hementions: (1) the allusion to Jere-miah (instead of Zechariah) as theauthor of the quotation found inMatthew 27:9 and 10 (cf. Zech.11:12, 13); and (2) the differentwordings of the inscription placed atthe top of the cross (cf. Matt. 27:37;Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John19:19). The “errors” of Ellen Whiteare seen as including (1) a referenceto the Paradise Valley Sanitarium ashaving 40 rooms (instead of 38); and(2) a mentioning of the apostle Peter(instead of Paul) as the author of thesaying, “the love of Christ con-straineth us” (2 Cor. 5:14).57

Rejecting the theory of “degreesof inspiration (or revelation)” and“degrees of authority,” Coon statedthat “Ellen G. White is best under-stood in the role of the literary butnoncanonical prophets of the Bible.”Thus, though the writings of EllenWhite have the same level of inspira-tion and authority as the Bible, theyare not “an addition to the sacredcanon of Scripture.”58

In response to the charges of pla-giarism raised against Ellen White,George E. Rice, then associate pro-fessor of New Testament at AndrewsUniversity, in 1983 published hisbook Luke, a Plagiarist? In this bookhe suggested that the inspiration of

44

sociate editor of the Adventist Re-view, stated in a Ministry article,“How Does God Speak?” that “defin-ing inspiration is like catching a rain-bow. When we have put forth ourbest efforts, there will remain an elu-sive factor, an element of mystery.”54

Also in 1981, Roger W. Coon, as-sociate secretary of the Ellen G.White Estate, began a three-part se-ries on “Inspiration/Revelation” inThe Journal of Adventist Education.In this series Coon advocated “ple-nary (thought) inspiration,” in ex-clusion to both “verbal inspiration”and “encounter inspiration.”55

In addressing the subject of in-fallibility, Coon mentioned two the-ories: (1) The “strait-jacket” theory,in which true prophetic writings areregarded as “prevented from mak-ing any type of error,” and (2) the“intervention” theory, which holdsthat “if in his humanity a prophet ofGod errs, and the nature of thaterror is sufficiently serious to mate-rially affect (a) the direction ofGod’s church, (b) the eternal des-tiny of one person, or (c) the purityof a doctrine, then (and only then)the Holy Spirit immediately movesthe prophet to correct the error, sothat no permanent damage isdone.”56

Taking his stand on the side ofthe “intervention” theory, Coonstated that “in inspired writings, an-cient [the Bible] and modern [thewritings of Ellen White], there are

While recognizing that Seventh-day Adventists tended

to see the prophetic model as “a big umbrella under which we

gather all of the books of the Bible,” George E. Rice pointed

out that this model “is inadequate to explain the variations

in the gospel portrait.”

17

Timm: Adventist Views on Inspiration

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

47

and dissertations defended at theSeventh-day Adventist TheologicalSeminary at Andrews Universityduring the late 1980s and early1990s. Among them is “Issues inBiblical Inspiration: Sanday andWarfield” (1987) by Peter van Bem-melen, which provided some in-sights on the relationship betweenthe claims and the phenomena ofScripture: “Once Scripture is ac-cepted as the only legitimate start-ing-point and source of reference inour quest, we must face up to thequestion whether the effort to estab-lish the doctrine of inspiration byletting the Bible speak for itselfshould proceed primarily from themultifarious phenomena of the con-tent and structure of Scripture orwhether it should start from the ex-plicit assertions of the Biblical writ-ers or whether both should receiveequal standing. It is evident that thedecision we take at this junction iscrucial. We suggest in view of con-siderations presented earlier that theinherent logic of the principle to letScripture speak for itself requiresthat the teachings (or assertions,claims, or whatever other terms maybe used) should be given priorityover the phenomena. We use advis-edly the word priority, for the phe-nomena cannot and should not beignored. Whatever conclusions maybe reached from a thorough study ofthe assertions must be examinedand evaluated in the light of the phe-

nomena, but just as surely, the phe-nomena must be examined andevaluated in the light of the conclu-sions derived from the assertions.”70

But all those discussions pre -viously mentioned have provedthemselves unable to bring generalagreement to the Seventh-day Ad-ventist scholarly circles on the mat-ter of inspiration. Those debateswould actually continue through the1990s.

This article is the second of three parts.

46

ture.” “The Bible,” according to Rice,“is not a combination of the wordsof God and the words of men” butrather “the word of God in thewords of men.”64

The same author regarded thedoctrine of inerrancy as “unbiblical”because: (1) “It seems to overlookthe human dimension of Scripture”;(2) “it sometimes leads to distortedand unconvincing interpretations ofthe Bible”; and (3) “it miscasts thefundamental purpose of Scripture.”He then stated that “Seventh-dayAdvent ists have never advocatedbiblical inerrancy, although theysupported the divine authority andcomplete reliability of the Scrip-tures.”65

In 1988, the Ministerial Associa-

tion of the General Conference cameout with a representative expositionof the 27 Fundamental Beliefs, enti-tled Seventh-day Adventists Believe.. . About Inspiration of the Scrip-tures, this book emphasized (1) that“God inspired men—not words”66;(2) that “the Bible is the writtenWord of God”; (3) that “the Bibledoes not teach partial inspiration ordegrees of inspiration”67; and (4)that the guidance of the Holy Spirit“guarantees the Bible’s trustworthi-ness.”68 While the Bible is regarded as“the supreme standard,” the writingsof Ellen White are seen as (1) “aguide to the Bible,” (2) “a guide inunderstanding the Bible,” and (3) “aguide to apply Bible principles.”69

Noteworthy also are a few theses

In 1988, the Ministerial Association of the General Confer-

ence came out with a representative exposition of the 27 Fun-

damental Beliefs, entitled Seventh-day Adventists Believe. . .

About Inspiration of the Scriptures, this book emphasized (1)

that “God inspired men—not words”; (2) that “the Bible is

the written Word of God”; (3) that “the Bible does not teach

partial inspiration or degrees of inspiration”; and (4) that the

guidance of the Holy Spirit “guarantees the Bible’s trustwor-

thiness.” While the Bible is regarded as “the supreme stan-

dard,” the writings of Ellen White are seen as (1) “a guide to

the Bible,” (2) “a guide in understanding the Bible,” and (3)

“a guide to apply Bible principles.” REFERENCES1 Siegfried H. Horn and Earle Hilgert,

“‘Lower’ and ‘Higher’ Biblical Criticism,” inSeventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol.5, p. 177.

2 Carl W. Daggy, “Comparative Study ofCertain Aspects of Fundamentalism WithSeventh-day Adventism” (1955), p. 61.

3 Seventh-day Adventists Answer Ques-tions on Doctrine (Washington, D.C.: Reviewand Herald Publ. Assn., 1957), p. 27, (italicsin the original).

5 Frederick E. J. Harder, Revelation, aSource of Knowledge, as Conceived by Ellen G.White, Ph.D. diss., New York University,1960, p. 485.

5 Ibid., p. 486.6 Ibid., p. 235.7 Ibid., pp. 150, 151.8 Ibid., p. 405.9 Ibid., pp. 234, 235.10 See Don F. Neufeld, ed., Seventh-day

Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington: Reviewand Herald Publ., Assn., 1966), p. 585.

11 Arthur L. White, The Ellen G. WhiteWritings (Washington: Review and HeraldPubl. Assn., 1973), p. 15.

12 Ibid., p. 13.

18

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 3

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/3

47

and dissertations defended at theSeventh-day Adventist TheologicalSeminary at Andrews Universityduring the late 1980s and early1990s. Among them is “Issues inBiblical Inspiration: Sanday andWarfield” (1987) by Peter van Bem-melen, which provided some in-sights on the relationship betweenthe claims and the phenomena ofScripture: “Once Scripture is ac-cepted as the only legitimate start-ing-point and source of reference inour quest, we must face up to thequestion whether the effort to estab-lish the doctrine of inspiration byletting the Bible speak for itselfshould proceed primarily from themultifarious phenomena of the con-tent and structure of Scripture orwhether it should start from the ex-plicit assertions of the Biblical writ-ers or whether both should receiveequal standing. It is evident that thedecision we take at this junction iscrucial. We suggest in view of con-siderations presented earlier that theinherent logic of the principle to letScripture speak for itself requiresthat the teachings (or assertions,claims, or whatever other terms maybe used) should be given priorityover the phenomena. We use advis-edly the word priority, for the phe-nomena cannot and should not beignored. Whatever conclusions maybe reached from a thorough study ofthe assertions must be examinedand evaluated in the light of the phe-

nomena, but just as surely, the phe-nomena must be examined andevaluated in the light of the conclu-sions derived from the assertions.”70

But all those discussions pre -viously mentioned have provedthemselves unable to bring generalagreement to the Seventh-day Ad-ventist scholarly circles on the mat-ter of inspiration. Those debateswould actually continue through the1990s.

This article is the second of three parts.

46

ture.” “The Bible,” according to Rice,“is not a combination of the wordsof God and the words of men” butrather “the word of God in thewords of men.”64

The same author regarded thedoctrine of inerrancy as “unbiblical”because: (1) “It seems to overlookthe human dimension of Scripture”;(2) “it sometimes leads to distortedand unconvincing interpretations ofthe Bible”; and (3) “it miscasts thefundamental purpose of Scripture.”He then stated that “Seventh-dayAdvent ists have never advocatedbiblical inerrancy, although theysupported the divine authority andcomplete reliability of the Scrip-tures.”65

In 1988, the Ministerial Associa-

tion of the General Conference cameout with a representative expositionof the 27 Fundamental Beliefs, enti-tled Seventh-day Adventists Believe.. . About Inspiration of the Scrip-tures, this book emphasized (1) that“God inspired men—not words”66;(2) that “the Bible is the writtenWord of God”; (3) that “the Bibledoes not teach partial inspiration ordegrees of inspiration”67; and (4)that the guidance of the Holy Spirit“guarantees the Bible’s trustworthi-ness.”68 While the Bible is regarded as“the supreme standard,” the writingsof Ellen White are seen as (1) “aguide to the Bible,” (2) “a guide inunderstanding the Bible,” and (3) “aguide to apply Bible principles.”69

Noteworthy also are a few theses

In 1988, the Ministerial Association of the General Confer-

ence came out with a representative exposition of the 27 Fun-

damental Beliefs, entitled Seventh-day Adventists Believe. . .

About Inspiration of the Scriptures, this book emphasized (1)

that “God inspired men—not words”; (2) that “the Bible is

the written Word of God”; (3) that “the Bible does not teach

partial inspiration or degrees of inspiration”; and (4) that the

guidance of the Holy Spirit “guarantees the Bible’s trustwor-

thiness.” While the Bible is regarded as “the supreme stan-

dard,” the writings of Ellen White are seen as (1) “a guide to

the Bible,” (2) “a guide in understanding the Bible,” and (3)

“a guide to apply Bible principles.” REFERENCES1 Siegfried H. Horn and Earle Hilgert,

“‘Lower’ and ‘Higher’ Biblical Criticism,” inSeventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol.5, p. 177.

2 Carl W. Daggy, “Comparative Study ofCertain Aspects of Fundamentalism WithSeventh-day Adventism” (1955), p. 61.

3 Seventh-day Adventists Answer Ques-tions on Doctrine (Washington, D.C.: Reviewand Herald Publ. Assn., 1957), p. 27, (italicsin the original).

5 Frederick E. J. Harder, Revelation, aSource of Knowledge, as Conceived by Ellen G.White, Ph.D. diss., New York University,1960, p. 485.

5 Ibid., p. 486.6 Ibid., p. 235.7 Ibid., pp. 150, 151.8 Ibid., p. 405.9 Ibid., pp. 234, 235.10 See Don F. Neufeld, ed., Seventh-day

Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington: Reviewand Herald Publ., Assn., 1966), p. 585.

11 Arthur L. White, The Ellen G. WhiteWritings (Washington: Review and HeraldPubl. Assn., 1973), p. 15.

12 Ibid., p. 13.

19

Timm: Adventist Views on Inspiration

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008

49

wording of this particular statement has beenslightly changed in some translations.

53 Gerhard Hasel, Understanding the LivingWord of God, pp. 66-82.

54 William G. Johnsson, “How Does GodSpeak?” Ministry (Oct. 1981), p. 4.

55 Roger W. Coon, “Inspiration/Rev e -lation: What It Is and How It Works—Part I,”The Journal of Adventist Education (JAE) 44:1(Oct./Nov. 1981), pp. 24-30: http://circle.adventist.org/files/jae/en/jae198850051616.pdf.

56 __________, “Inspiration/Reve la tion:What It Is and How It Works—Part II,” JAE44:2 (Dec. 1981/Jan. 1982): pp. 18, 19 (italics inthe original): http://circle.adven tist.org/files/ jae/ en/jae198144021715.pdf.

57 See ibid., pp. 19, 24-26.58 __________, “Inspira tion/Rev e la tion:

What It Is and How It Works—Part III,” JAE44:3 (Feb./March 1982): pp. 20, 21: http://circle.adventist.org/files/jae/en/jae198244031717.pdf.

59 G. E. Rice, Luke, a Plagiarist? pp. 11, 12.60 Ibid., pp. 11, 19.

61 Ibid., p. 25.62 Ibid., p. 27.63 Richard Rice, The Reign of God: An In-

troduction to Christian Theology From a Sev-enth-day Adventist Perspective (BerrienSprings, Mich.: Andrews University Press,1985), pp. 20-46.

64 Ibid., pp. 25, 26 (italics in the original).65 Ibid., p. 33.66 Seventh-day Adventist Believe. . . A Bibli-

cal Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines(Washington, D.C.: Ministerial Association ofthe General Conference of Seventh-day Ad-ventists, 1988), p. 8.

67 Ibid., p. 11.68 Ibid., p. 10.69 Ibid., pp. 227, 228.70 Peter M. Van Bemmelen, “Issues in Bib-

lical Inspiration: Sanday and Warfield” (Th.D.diss., Andrews University, 1987); idem, Issuesin Biblical Inspiration: Sanday and Warfield,Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dis-sertation Series, vol. 13 (Berrien Springs,Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1987).

48

13 Ibid., p. 23.14 Ibid., pp. 26-48.15 Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly, Senior

Division, No. 298 (4th quarter 1969), p. 9.16 Edward Heppenstall, “Doctrine of Reve-

lation and Inspiration—Part 1,” Ministry(July 1970), p. 16.

17 Ibid., Part 2, pp. 28, 29.18 F. E. J. Harder, “Divine Revelation: A Re-

view of Some of Ellen White’s Concepts,”Spectrum 2 (Autumn 1970): pp. 53-54.

19 H. Weiss, “Revelation and the Bible,”Spectrum 7:3 (1975), p. 53.

20 Ibid., pp. 49, 50.21 Raoul Dederen, “Revelation, Inspiration,

and Hermeneutics,” in Gordon M. Hyde, ed., ASymposium on Biblical Hermeneutics ([Wash-ington, D.C.]: Biblical Research Committee ofthe General Conference of Seventh-day Ad -ventists, 1974), pp. 7, 8.

22 Ibid., pp. 8-11.23 Raoul Dederen, “Toward a Seventh-day

Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspira-tion,” 8, in North American Bible Conference,1974 ([Washington: Bible Research Commit-tee], 1974).

24 Roy Branson and Herold D. Weiss,“Ellen White: A Subject for Adventist Scholar-ship,” Spectrum 2 (Autumn 1970), pp. 30-33.

25 Benjamin McArthur, “Where Are Histo-rians Taking the Church?” Spectrum 10 (Nov.1979), p. 9.

26 Ibid., p. 11.27 Ibid., pp. 12, 13.28 D. R. McAdams, “Shifting Views of Inspi-

ration,” Spectrum 10 (March 1980), pp. 27-41.29 John C. Brunt, “A Parable of Jesus as a

Clue to Biblical Interpretation,” p. 42, in“Ways to Read the Bible,” Spectrum 13 (Dec.1982), pp. 30-62.

30 Larry G. Herr, “Genesis One in Histori-cal-Critical Perspective,” ibid., p. 51.

31 E. E. Zinke, “A Conservative Approachto Theology,” supplement to Ministry (Oct.1977), pp. 24A-24P.

32 Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Liv-ing Word of God (Mountain View, Calif.: Pa-

cific Press Publ. Assn., 1980), pp. 24, 25.33 __________, Biblical Interpretation

Today: An Analysis of Modern Methods of Bib-lical Interpretation and Proposals for the Inter-pretation of the Bible as the Word of God([Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Insti-tute], 1985), p. 97.

34 Ibid., p. 99.35 “Methods of Bible Study Committee,”

Adventist Review (Jan. 22, 1987), p. 18.36 Rene Noorbergen, Ellen G. White:

Prophet of Destiny (New Canaan, Conn.:Keats, 1972), p. 21 (italics in the original).

37 Hans Heinz, Glaubenslehren der Heili-gen Schrift (Bern: Europaeisches Institut fuerFernstudium, 1972), pp. 159, 160.

38 Kenneth H. Wood, “The 1974 BibleConference,” Review and Herald (Aug. 1,1974), p. 2.

39 Dederen, “Toward a Seventh-day Ad-ventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration,”in North American Bible Conference, 1974, p. 9(italics supplied).

40 Ibid., pp. 9, 10.41 Ibid., p. 11.42 Ibid., p. 12.43 Ibid., p. 13.44 Ibid.45 R. Dederen, “Ellen White’s Doctrine of

Scripture,” supplement to Ministry (July1977), pp. 24G-24H.

46 A. L. White, “Toward an Adventist Con-cept of Inspiration—3,” Review and Herald(Jan. 26, 1978), p. 6.

47 Ibid., p. 8.48 A. L. White, “E. G. White Historical

Writings—1,” Adventist Review (July 12,1979), p. 4.

49 Kenneth H. Wood, “An Important Seriesabout Ellen G. White,” Adventist Review (July12, 1979), pp. 11, 12 (italics in the original).

50 “Study Documents on Inspiration andCreation,” AtR, Jan. 17, 1980, pp. 9, 10.

51 “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-dayAdventists—Church Manual Revision,” Ad-ventist Review (May 1, 1980), p. 23.

52 Ibid., pp. 25, 26. The original English

�

20

Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 4, Art. 3

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss4/3

49

wording of this particular statement has beenslightly changed in some translations.

53 Gerhard Hasel, Understanding the LivingWord of God, pp. 66-82.

54 William G. Johnsson, “How Does GodSpeak?” Ministry (Oct. 1981), p. 4.

55 Roger W. Coon, “Inspiration/Rev e -lation: What It Is and How It Works—Part I,”The Journal of Adventist Education (JAE) 44:1(Oct./Nov. 1981), pp. 24-30: http://circle.adventist.org/files/jae/en/jae198850051616.pdf.

56 __________, “Inspiration/Reve la tion:What It Is and How It Works—Part II,” JAE44:2 (Dec. 1981/Jan. 1982): pp. 18, 19 (italics inthe original): http://circle.adven tist.org/files/ jae/ en/jae198144021715.pdf.

57 See ibid., pp. 19, 24-26.58 __________, “Inspira tion/Rev e la tion:

What It Is and How It Works—Part III,” JAE44:3 (Feb./March 1982): pp. 20, 21: http://circle.adventist.org/files/jae/en/jae198244031717.pdf.

59 G. E. Rice, Luke, a Plagiarist? pp. 11, 12.60 Ibid., pp. 11, 19.

61 Ibid., p. 25.62 Ibid., p. 27.63 Richard Rice, The Reign of God: An In-

troduction to Christian Theology From a Sev-enth-day Adventist Perspective (BerrienSprings, Mich.: Andrews University Press,1985), pp. 20-46.

64 Ibid., pp. 25, 26 (italics in the original).65 Ibid., p. 33.66 Seventh-day Adventist Believe. . . A Bibli-

cal Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines(Washington, D.C.: Ministerial Association ofthe General Conference of Seventh-day Ad-ventists, 1988), p. 8.

67 Ibid., p. 11.68 Ibid., p. 10.69 Ibid., pp. 227, 228.70 Peter M. Van Bemmelen, “Issues in Bib-

lical Inspiration: Sanday and Warfield” (Th.D.diss., Andrews University, 1987); idem, Issuesin Biblical Inspiration: Sanday and Warfield,Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dis-sertation Series, vol. 13 (Berrien Springs,Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1987).

48

13 Ibid., p. 23.14 Ibid., pp. 26-48.15 Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly, Senior

Division, No. 298 (4th quarter 1969), p. 9.16 Edward Heppenstall, “Doctrine of Reve-

lation and Inspiration—Part 1,” Ministry(July 1970), p. 16.

17 Ibid., Part 2, pp. 28, 29.18 F. E. J. Harder, “Divine Revelation: A Re-

view of Some of Ellen White’s Concepts,”Spectrum 2 (Autumn 1970): pp. 53-54.

19 H. Weiss, “Revelation and the Bible,”Spectrum 7:3 (1975), p. 53.

20 Ibid., pp. 49, 50.21 Raoul Dederen, “Revelation, Inspiration,

and Hermeneutics,” in Gordon M. Hyde, ed., ASymposium on Biblical Hermeneutics ([Wash-ington, D.C.]: Biblical Research Committee ofthe General Conference of Seventh-day Ad -ventists, 1974), pp. 7, 8.

22 Ibid., pp. 8-11.23 Raoul Dederen, “Toward a Seventh-day

Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspira-tion,” 8, in North American Bible Conference,1974 ([Washington: Bible Research Commit-tee], 1974).

24 Roy Branson and Herold D. Weiss,“Ellen White: A Subject for Adventist Scholar-ship,” Spectrum 2 (Autumn 1970), pp. 30-33.

25 Benjamin McArthur, “Where Are Histo-rians Taking the Church?” Spectrum 10 (Nov.1979), p. 9.

26 Ibid., p. 11.27 Ibid., pp. 12, 13.28 D. R. McAdams, “Shifting Views of Inspi-

ration,” Spectrum 10 (March 1980), pp. 27-41.29 John C. Brunt, “A Parable of Jesus as a

Clue to Biblical Interpretation,” p. 42, in“Ways to Read the Bible,” Spectrum 13 (Dec.1982), pp. 30-62.

30 Larry G. Herr, “Genesis One in Histori-cal-Critical Perspective,” ibid., p. 51.

31 E. E. Zinke, “A Conservative Approachto Theology,” supplement to Ministry (Oct.1977), pp. 24A-24P.

32 Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Liv-ing Word of God (Mountain View, Calif.: Pa-

cific Press Publ. Assn., 1980), pp. 24, 25.33 __________, Biblical Interpretation

Today: An Analysis of Modern Methods of Bib-lical Interpretation and Proposals for the Inter-pretation of the Bible as the Word of God([Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Insti-tute], 1985), p. 97.

34 Ibid., p. 99.35 “Methods of Bible Study Committee,”

Adventist Review (Jan. 22, 1987), p. 18.36 Rene Noorbergen, Ellen G. White:

Prophet of Destiny (New Canaan, Conn.:Keats, 1972), p. 21 (italics in the original).

37 Hans Heinz, Glaubenslehren der Heili-gen Schrift (Bern: Europaeisches Institut fuerFernstudium, 1972), pp. 159, 160.

38 Kenneth H. Wood, “The 1974 BibleConference,” Review and Herald (Aug. 1,1974), p. 2.

39 Dederen, “Toward a Seventh-day Ad-ventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration,”in North American Bible Conference, 1974, p. 9(italics supplied).

40 Ibid., pp. 9, 10.41 Ibid., p. 11.42 Ibid., p. 12.43 Ibid., p. 13.44 Ibid.45 R. Dederen, “Ellen White’s Doctrine of

Scripture,” supplement to Ministry (July1977), pp. 24G-24H.

46 A. L. White, “Toward an Adventist Con-cept of Inspiration—3,” Review and Herald(Jan. 26, 1978), p. 6.

47 Ibid., p. 8.48 A. L. White, “E. G. White Historical

Writings—1,” Adventist Review (July 12,1979), p. 4.

49 Kenneth H. Wood, “An Important Seriesabout Ellen G. White,” Adventist Review (July12, 1979), pp. 11, 12 (italics in the original).

50 “Study Documents on Inspiration andCreation,” AtR, Jan. 17, 1980, pp. 9, 10.

51 “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-dayAdventists—Church Manual Revision,” Ad-ventist Review (May 1, 1980), p. 23.

52 Ibid., pp. 25, 26. The original English

�

21

Timm: Adventist Views on Inspiration

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2008