Chapter 4: Revelation and Inspiration (Fernando Canale) Flashcards

Question

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

Answer 1

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

Answer 2

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

Answer 3

The most noticeable hermeneutical effects of the verbal theory [of inspiration] are **recontextualization** and **inerrancy.** (1) In claiming that a timeless God is the author and writer of Scripture, verbal inspiration **places the origin of biblical thought in the nonhistorical realm of the supernatural.** **Historical contexts** and **contents** are bypassed in favor of **timeless divine truths.** This **nonhistorical recontextualization** has assumed various forms. They spread from **the classical depreciation of the historical literal meaning of biblical texts** to **allegorical spiritual meanings** and to the fundamentalist reading of Scripture in which **each biblical statement is an objective communication of supernatural absolute truth.** (2) We are more familiar with the notion of **inerrancy,** according to which **every biblical statement is absolute truth.**

Answer 4

Modern times generated a radically new understanding of R-I, based on complex philosophical arguments. **Friedrich Schleiermacher** (1768-1834), the father of modern theology, proposed a blueprint that later proponents of encounter revelation would follow. Briefly put, revelation is **a divine-human encounter devoid of the impartation of knowledge.** “Thus, the content of revelation is regarded no longer as **knowledge *about* God,** not even **information *from* God,** but **God Himself.”** [Footnote: Raoul Dederen, “The Revelation-Inspiration Phenomenon…” in *Issues in Revelation and Inspiration*, (1992), p. 11.] Consequently, **not a single word or thought that we find in Scripture comes from God.** Encounter revelation is the opposite of **verbal inspiration.**

Answer 5

[Assuming the logic of “encounter revelation” theory, whereby “revelation is a divine-human encounter devoid of the impartation of knowledge,” Canale posits the following:] If the contents of Scripture do not come from God, then from where? The answer is simple: **from the historically conditioned response of human beings to the personal non-cognitive encounter with God.** The Bible is **a human book like any other book.** The study of how the contents of Scripture originated is left to **historical** investigation. Assuming that **God did not contribute to the contents of Scripture,** historical critics see Scripture as **the product of a long process of cultural evolution.** Human imagination, community, and tradition become **the grounds from which the all-human books of Scripture arise.**

Answer 6

…some exegetes [tracking along “encounter revelation” lines] believe that inspiration operates not on **individuals** but on **the entire community.** According to this view, “inspiration” did not reach the **personal** level of prophetic thoughts or words directly but influenced **the social level of the community** **within which the authors of Scripture lived and wrote.** Not surprisingly, Scripture’s contents remain **human**, not **divine.** The foregoing change on how inspiration is viewed is a direct result of the application of **Immanuel Kant**’s (1724-1804) restriction of **reason**’s capabilities to the realm of **time** and **space.**

Answer 7

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

Answer 8

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

Answer 9

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

Answer 10

Early in the history of our church Adventists used **verbal inspiration** as an apologetic argument against Deism. [See Alberto Timm, “A History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration…” (1999).] This trend intensified after the death of Ellen G. White when Adventists faced modernism. During the first half of the twentieth century, Carlyle B. Haynes, for example, addressed the issue in two chapters of his *God’s Book*. His implicit adoption of **the verbal theory of inspiration** appears when he affirms that “revelation is ***wholly supernatural*,** and ***altogether controlled* by God.”** “Whether dealing either with revelation or with facts within his knowledge,” explains Haynes, “the Bible writer **required *inspiration* to produce a record preserved from all error and mistake.”** **Absolute inerrancy** follows **total control of the human agent by the Holy Spirit;** God is **totally in control of the process of writing,** and the human agent is **a very passive instrument.** This concept may still be the default understanding of R-I held by most Adventists who have not yet explicitly considered the issue…

Answer 11

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

Answer 12

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

Answer 13

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

Answer 14

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

Answer 15

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

Answer 16

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

Answer 17

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

Answer 18

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

Answer 19

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

Answer 20

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

Answer 21

Canale explains that [Alden] “Thompson thinks inspiration means, ‘God stays close enough to the writers [of Scripture] so that the point comes through clear enough’… The question is, who is originator of the point that comes through “clear enough” in the words of Scripture? At this point another feature of Thompson’s view on R-I comes into view. While the entire Scripture is inspired (the divine presence felt in the bones of the writer) only some portions are *revealed* (that is coming from divine thought, propositions and miraculous actions). Thompson argues this point by **asserting, incorrectly, that “*the Bible does not say that all Scripture was given by revelation*.”…** In fact, because Scripture does not assume the technical distinction between revelation and inspiration that we use to probe into the understanding of the origins of Scripture, Paul claims that **the entire contents of Scripture originated in God.** Thus, according to Scripture, **the entire Bible is both revealed and inspired.** From where then, according to Thompson, do other portions of Scripture come? He **correctly argues** that many portions of Scripture originate from research and experience. Such contents, however being of human origin, can hold only authority when based on inspiration. Yet, if biblical writers experienced inspiration neither cognitively nor linguistically but subjectively as a fire in their bones, we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that **large portions of Scripture present fallible human ideas…**

Answer 22

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

Answer 23

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

Answer 24

Thought inspiration, as reflected by Adventist theologians noted above, involves positive and negative points. On the positive side, for instance, it **provides a middle way between modernistic non-cognitive encounter revelation and absolutely inerrant classical verbal inspiration.** Thought inspiration also has the positive effect of **directing the interpreter’s attention to the weightier matters discussed in Scripture and away from minutiae.** Finally, this view of inspiration has the obvious advantage of **accounting for biblical phenomena that do not fit within the verbal inspiration theory.** However, those reflections on thought inspiration have certain disadvantages. **The thought-words dichotomy** leads to the claim that **inspiration does not reach the words of Scripture.** Unfortunately, this claim and **the thought-words dichotomy** are not supported by Scripture, Ellen G. White, or philosophical analysis. Although thought inspiration accounts better for the phenomena of Scripture and Ellen G. Whites experience in writing her books than does verbal inspiration, a radical understanding of it fails to account for the clear biblical claim that **inspiration reaches the words** (2 Tim 3:16).

Answer 25

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

Answer 26

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

Answer 27

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

Answer 28

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

Answer 29

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

Answer 30

NT scholar **Herold Weiss’** well-argued article, published in 1975, represents another way of making room for the use of the historical-critical method in Adventist theology. **Weiss** believes revelation takes place as a non-cognitive divine human encounter. “I do not understand revelation,” he explains, “to be essentially the communication of divine information given by the Spirit to the writers of the Bible; nor do I consider faith to be the acceptance of this information. Revelation, rather, is first of all, a divine disclosure that creates a community in which life expresses this revelation in symbols of action, imagination and thought under the guidance of prophets.” [Footnote: **Herold Weiss,** “Revelation and the Bible: Beyond Verbal Inspiration,” *Spectrum* 7, no. 3 (1975): 52.] What, then, is the source of the concepts and words of Scripture? Not **God,** but **the prophets and apostles.** This view produces **a dichotomy between faith and belief.** While **belief** belongs to **the realm of history** and is **verifiable,** **faith** belongs to **the realm of the divine transcendence** and is **not verifiable.** Scripture as a written work represents **the thoughts and words of the prophets,** not of **God.** The goal of this exercise is not to **find truth** but to **delineate the nonhistorical, non-cognitive mystical experience with God** in order to **inspire our own life experiences.**

Answer 31

Summing up… we can say that presently Adventist scholars work by assuming three different interpretations of R-I [largely informed by either verbal inspiration theory, encounter revelation theory, or, thought inspiration theory]. The differences reveal **different theological schools** **and** **paradigms.** They decidedly influence the entire task of exegetical and theological research even to the point of **dividing Adventists into distinctive schools of thought across the world.** Should we **choose one interpretation over the others?** Alternatively, should we **seek a new understanding?** To answer these questions we must begin by evaluating present theories on R-I. How do we evaluate them? We assess them by **carefully listening to *all* the evidence.** Our understanding, then, without distortion, should account for **tensions or contradictions found in the full range of Scripture’s self-testimony and in other phenomena of Scripture.** Moreover, we should look at the origin and content of the philosophical hermeneutical presuppositions explicitly or implicitly involved in the conception and in the formulation of each model of R-I...

Answer 32

Raoul Dederen approaches an understanding of R-I by using a different methodology. Instead of embracing available interpretations for apologetic or hermeneutical purposes, Dederen subjects current interpretative patterns to criticism based on attentive listening to what biblical authors and Ellen G. White have to say on this issue. [Footnote: Raoul Dederen, “Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration,” in *North American Bible Conference* (North American Division: unpublished paper, 1974), 10.] On this basis, he finds the encounter revelation and thought inspiration alternatives wanting. Dederen recognizes that revelation is not merely an intellectual phenomenon but a personal encounter of the prophet with God. Yet according to Scripture, he argues, in the encounter of revelation, God **communicates, though partially, knowledge about Himself and His will.** Moreover, the disjunction between divine act and human word on which encounter revelation builds its case **has no biblical support.** This position can be argued **only on a scientific and philosophical basis.** [Footnote: This switch **at the scientific-philosophical level of hermeneutics** seems to undergird **Fritz Guy**’s methodological proposal for Adventist theology in his *Thinking Theologically: Adventist Christianity and the Interpretation of Faith* (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1999).]

Answer 33

Raoul Dederen approaches an understanding of R-I by using a different methodology. Instead of embracing available interpretations for apologetic or hermeneutical purposes, Dederen subjects current interpretative patterns to criticism based on attentive listening to what biblical authors and Ellen G. White have to say on this issue… Proceeding on the same biblical basis, Dederen implicitly dismisses **thought inspiration** as discussed [elsewhere]. He argues that **in the Scriptures word and thought belong together.** Consequently, **“words are intrinsic** to the revelation-inspiration process.” Also correctly, he argues that after reviewing Ellen G. White’s writing on R-I “everything points to the fact that **God who imbued the prophets’ mind with thoughts and inspired them in the fulfillment of their task also watched over them in their attempts to express ‘infinite ideas’ and embody them in ‘finite vehicles’ of human language.”** Scriptures are **“in the highest and truest sense God’s creation.”** Finally, Dederen feels ill at ease with the notion that Scripture is **only partially revealed, but totally inspired,** and encourages the church to **find** **“other solutions.”**

Answer 34

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

Answer 35

In our search for another model of interpretation, we should recognize the strength and contributions of present models on R-I. From “encounter” revelation we should retain **the biblical conviction that God’s work of R-I takes place within a personal historical I-Thou relationship** (e.g., **Deut 34:10**). From “thought” inspiration we should retain **the biblical teaching that God’s work of R-I focuses on the thought-process level of biblical writers** (**2 Pet 1:21**). From “verbal” inspiration we should retain **the biblical teaching that the divine work of R-I also reaches the level of the words** (**2 Tim 3:16**). Finally, because in Scripture God has incarnated His thoughts in human thought and writing, the human and divine elements are **inseparable.** Consequently, we should never attempt to **distinguish between divine and human contributions in the conception and in the writing of Scripture.** From this starting point we should consider the many ways in which God and the biblical writers interacted in **the process of** **conceiving the ideas** and of **gathering the information we find in Scripture.** We should ask the same regarding **the process through which these ideas and information were put into writing** (Heb 1:1).

Answer 36

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

Answer 37

The key to any interpretation lies in **applying the appropriate hermeneutical principles.** Basic scientific procedure requires that **we derive our hermeneutical presuppositions from the thing we want to understand.** Since in our case we are trying to understand the origin of Scripture, we not only must **listen to what biblical authors say about R-I** but also **take note of the hermeneutical presuppositions they used,** rather than **adopting them from human philosophy and science.** Fundamentally, we presuppose a God who **personally acts within the flow of human history.** [Raoul] Dederen affirms, “revelation **takes place and unfolds within history.”** By **adapting His infinite thoughts, ideas, and actions to our creaturely level, to our limited, imperfect thought patterns and words,** God **enables divine history to take place within human history.** It is not **the prophet,** but **God** who **translates His ideas into our cognitive and linguistic patterns.**

Answer 38

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

Answer 39

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

Answer 40

In contrast to the classical, evangelical, and modern idea that God used only one pattern of divine operation in R-I, Scripture speaks about a variety of divine patterns… Some Adventists have begun to recognize this variety and have suggested that to the generally accepted “prophetic” model we should add **the “research model” of revelation.** Other suggestions include the **“witness,” “counselor,” “epistolary,”** and **“literary”** patterns of revelation. Additional analytical work needs to be done in order to discover, as far as possible, in what ways divine and human agencies contributed to the generation of biblical thought and information.

Answer 41

In contrast to the classical, evangelical, and modern idea that God used only one pattern of divine operation in R-I, Scripture speaks about a variety of divine patterns… It seems clear that, in the origination of Scripture, divine and human agencies interacted in at least the following patterns: **Theophanic (Exod 3:1-5), prophetic (Rev 1:1-3), verbal (Exod 31:18), historical (Luke 1:1-3), wisdom (Eccl 1:1, 12-14; 12:9-11),** and **existential (Lam 3:1).** Analyzing these patterns and their hermeneutical presuppositions will allow us to **understand better how the entire Bible resulted from revelation and from inspiration** and will enable us to **overcome the radical thought-versus-words disjunction implicit in thought inspiration.**

Answer 42

The prophets have not left us much information about the ways in which divine interventions operated while they were communicating their messages in oral or in written forms. Yet, from the information available, we are entitled to draw some working conclusions. It seems the biblical writers **received ideas and information** before they sat down to write. The role of the Holy Spirit in inspiration, therefore, was not primarily **to generate thoughts** but **to assure the trustworthy communication of the information received.**

Answer 43

The prophets have not left us much information about the ways in which divine interventions operated while they were communicating their messages in oral or in written forms. Yet, from the information available, we are entitled to draw some working conclusions… When God sent Moses to liberate Israel from Egyptian bondage, the Moses-Aaron team worked in ways like **the God-prophet team.** Moses **represented God** in **“putting words” into Aaron’s mouth.** Meanwhile, Aaron, speaking for Moses to the people, played the role of **the prophet.** The act of **“putting words in the mouth” of someone** meant that **the recipient became a subservient representative of another; the representative, however, had freedom to represent.** **He or she had, so to speak, power of attorney. Verbatim representation makes no sense.** Aaron had strong verbal skills, and God called him to use his gift. In the same way, **prophets and apostles, as representatives of God, were subservient to His thoughts but expressed them according their understanding and manner of expression.**

Answer 44

…we must bear in mind that, in revelation, divine thought adapted itself to **the limitations and imperfections of human-thought processes.** With inspiration, divine thought, already adapted to **the human mode of thinking,** adjusts itself to **human-writing patterns.** The mode of thinking and writing we find in Scripture, then, is not **divine,** but **human.** Therefore, Ellen G. White tells us “the Bible is **written by inspired men,** but it is not **God’s *mode* of thought and expression.** It is that of **humanity.** God, as a writer, is **not represented.** Men will often say such an expression is not like God. However, God **has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible.** The writers of the Bible were **God’s penmen,** not **His pen”** (1SM 21, italics supplied). This does not mean that **the content of Scripture is unreliable.** It means only that **we must not expect in Scripture divine absolute perfection to the minutest detail, as if God would have used His perfect mode of thinking and writing.** The true content generated by revelation becomes expressed in **the imperfect mode of human thought and writing.**

Answer 45

…biblical writers did not have **perfect memories;** they **forgot things as we do.** They did not possess **perfect sensory perception.** They were not able to **grasp all the richness of divine thoughts and ideas revealed to them.** Moreover, our words may have **several, even contradictory, meanings.** Our syntax allows for **arranging sentences in different ways with different meanings,** and so on. All this is part of **the human mode of thinking and writing that God used in revealing and in inspiring Scripture.** Did divine inspiration always **erase** or **overrule** the imperfections of **the human mode of thinking and of writing?** Contrary to the claims of “verbal” inspirationists, the phenomena of Scripture clearly shows that **it did not.** God used **our imperfect means of communication** to **reveal Himself and His word to us.** In Scripture, then, we find **God’s truth expressed in an imperfect human mode of communication.** God wanted it to be this way, because **it is the best way to reveal Himself and His salvific truths to us.** [Footnote: “The Lord gave His Word **in just the way He wanted it to come.** He gave it through different writers, each **having his own individuality,** though going over the same history” (PM 2).]

Answer 46

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

Answer 47

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

Answer 48

Scripture presents an example of an occasional divine intervention pattern also used by the Holy Spirit to guide biblical writers. We note Balaam’s prophecies (**Num 22:1-24:25**). The biblical text and Ellen G. White’s comments make it clear that **Balaam’s freedom was overridden by the Holy Spirit** (**Num 22:18, 20, 28-31;** PP 439, 443, 448-449). This pattern is not **the usual pattern of divine inspiration,** as **the verbal theory** suggests. Obviously, we cannot apply **Balaam’s pattern of divine operation** to **the biblical prophets.** This incident helps us to see that **God will not allow Himself to be misrepresented by recognized prophets who, because of self-interest, are willing to change God’s truth into a lie.** The Spirit made sure that **chosen prophets did not change divine truths into human imagination.**

Answer 49

…we can affirm the total reliability of Scripture within the parameters of **the normal human limitations of the thought and the linguistic process.** Since the whole Bible is revealed and inspired within **the level of human thought and language,** it does not represent divine perfection; yet, its words reliably disclose God’s thoughts and will to us. This view of inspiration explains why **certain discrepancies** and **the lack of absolute precision in matters of detail** that we find in the phenomena of Scripture do not affect **the trustworthy communication of revealed contents.**

Answer 50

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

Answer 51

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

Answer 52

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

Answer 53

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

Answer 54

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

Answer 55

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

Answer 56

The Biblical Model of R-I differs from the encounter, thought, and verbal theories of inspiration in significant ways. The Biblical Model and the encounter theory of inspiration share **a personal existential element,** but the latter denies **any communication of truth in the encounter.** With regards to the nature of information generated in revelation, the Biblical Model envisages **concrete, historical, spatio-temporal truths,** whereas the “thought” revelation theory generates **timeless, nonhistorical truths.** While for some “thought” inspiration stops short of **affirming divine guidance in the writing of Scripture,** the Biblical Model **affirms it.**

Answer 57

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

Answer 58

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

Answer 59

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s *Biblical Model*] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles? According to the Biblical Model of R-I, God revealed Himself in many ways by condescending to human patterns of thought and writing. The entire Bible is revealed. The words of the prophets have become the words of God. When doing exegesis and theology, then, we should not distinguish between **divine thought** and **human words** or between **portions of Scripture.** We have access to divine teachings and revelation only **through words.** Consequently, the entire text of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, becomes **the most specific, sufficient, and only reliable source of data and hermeneutical principles that we have for knowing God and His will for us.**

Answer 60

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s *Biblical Model*] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles? According to the Biblical Model of R-I, God reveals Himself within the historical process (**Exod 25:8; John 1:1-14**). In other words, revelation is historical, primarily because God executes His plan of redemption historically from within the spatio-temporal flow of human history. However, this divine condescension does not mean that **biblical teachings are the outgrowth of cultural trends.** It simply means that God’s transcendent truths appear not only within the limitations of humanity, in general, but also within **the limitations of the historical times in which each prophet lived and wrote.** Guided by the Holy Spirit, prophets **used culture critically and selectively.**

Answer 61

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s *Biblical Model*] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles? Divine revelation is not historically conditioned. Cultural aspects in sacred history are dated, but they form part of divine actions and revelation. The Adventist interpreter will therefore assume that the biblical text, in toto, is **the result of divine revelation in history, received, understood, and composed by prophets and apostles.** Awareness of **the historical situations in which divine revelation and the prophetic writing took place** becomes a necessary step to a proper understanding of divinely revealed thoughts and teachings.

Answer 62

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s *Biblical Model*] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles? Because the Biblical Model of R-I flows from within the flux of human history, it understands the purpose of the Scriptures to reveal truths not only about God but also **about everything God has created in nature and done in history.** Biblical truths, then, cannot be **confined to God or salvation,** as other models seem to suggest, but **embrace the astonishing diversity of interconnected truths about God and His works.** Exegetes and theologians must take special care not to quench this richness by **unilaterally deciding that only certain salvific truths are relevant, discarding the rest.** To do so sets theologians on **a reductive and distortive pursuit of the “essence” of the Christian message, discarding the great majority of biblical teachings as culturally conditioned and, therefore, disposable.**

Answer 63

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s *Biblical Model*] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles? According to the Biblical Model of R-I, divine revelation is limited by **all the characteristics of our human modes of knowing and of writing.** Interpreters should always bear in mind that not even biblical writers **can present completely a single truth in human language** (c.f. John 21:25). [Footnote: Ellen G. White explains, “It is impossible for **any human mind to exhaust even one truth or promise of the Bible”** (Ed 171).] Even human truths are always **greater and fuller than what our language can express.** Consequently, interpreters dealing with divine mysteries will beware of the hermeneutical error of assuming that the interpretation of a passage stands for **the whole truth on that subject.** Moreover, revealed knowledge is limited by **the imperfection of human syntax.** The interpreter is forced to make choices based on **assumptions;** hence the great importance of **a clear understanding of the hermeneutical presuppositions** and of **the Biblical Model of R-I** involved in the interpretation of Scripture.

Answer 64

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s *Biblical Model*] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles? The Biblical Model of R-I assures us that divine revelation is reliably communicated in the words of Scripture. Therefore, in Scripture we do not find the understanding or philosophy of its human authors, but of God. R-I is **the process used by the Holy Spirit to communicate God’s views on nature, history, our human plight, and His dynamic, salvific involvement in them.**

Answer 65

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s *Biblical Model*] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles? Scripture reveals God’s views and operations in nature and history. Moreover, there is no dichotomy between history and salvation, because salvation takes place as a historical process in which God is personally involved. Scripture gives us **the broad picture** necessary for our life in this world and in the world to come. In this **broad and all-inclusive** sense, Scripture **does not err** and is **the ultimate reliable source of divine knowledge available this side of eternity.**

Answer 66

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s *Biblical Model*] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles? According to the Biblical Model, R-I takes place within the historical-temporal continuum. Thus the Scriptures include many indispensable historical and natural data that belong essentially to God’s revelations and actions. Biblical revelation, however, does not seek to provide us with **an exhaustive, accurate account of historical and scientific data,** but rather **with a reliable synthesis of God’s multifarious wisdom, will, and activities within the spatio-temporal realm of creation.** Facts in Scripture always are incorporated **as required by God’s all-inclusive salvific activities within the flow of human history.** The interpreter, therefore, should read Scripture not as **science** but as **a philosophy of history.** He or she should search for the meaning of **biblical revelation at the all-inclusive theological level** without expecting to find **the kind of accuracy regarding historical and natural facts that one anticipates in scientific studies.** Lack of precision in factual details should be considered as evidence of **the full incarnation of divine thinking from within the everyday flow of human history.**

Answer 67

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s *Biblical Model*] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles? The Biblical Model of R-I grounds the authority of Scripture in **God.** Authority means that **Scripture is the reliable source of information about God, His actions, His teachings, and His salvific will for us.** Since in Scripture God explicitly reveals **His thoughts** **and His actions about everything,** Scripture is to **judge every thought** and to **be judged by nobody** (1 Cor 2:15; 2 Cor 10:5). Certain consequences follow from Scripture’s authority. In exegetical and theological studies, for instance, the interpreter never will attempt to **understand Scripture from hermeneutical presuppositions based on human sciences and philosophies.** Scripture **interprets itself.** One may apply **a hermeneutic of suspicion** to scientific and philosophical studies but never to Scripture.

Answer 68

In what ways does the understanding of R-I [implicit within Canale’s *Biblical Model*] impact our interpretation of Scripture and the task of doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. If so, what are the major derivative principles? …the authority of Scripture and its inspiration is confirmed by the truthfulness of its teachings (**John 17:17**). This confirmation, however, depends on **accepting the Biblical Model of R-I.** Otherwise, interpreters applying **the hermeneutic of suspicion** to Scripture never will **understand its truths,** and, therefore, never will **be capable of verifying them.**

Answer 69

During the past fifty years a large segment of Adventist scholars has adopted some version of **thought inspiration.** Others have felt satisfied by working within **a verbal view of inspiration.** Some theologians have ventured into the land of **modernistic encounter revelation.** Behind these positions, we find very little serious theological and philosophical reflection. In general, Adventists have “solved” the issue of revelation practically; that is, they simply adopted the ready-to-use interpretation of R-I in order to preempt interpretive and practical problems. As a result, by the beginning of the twenty-first century **thought inspiration** seems to hold the loyalties of a broad spectrum of Adventist theologians. Their argument against **verbal inspiration** and in favor of **thought inspiration** rests on a few selected statements by Ellen G. White on R-I.

Answer 70

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

Answer 71

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

Answer 72

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

Answer 73

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

Chapter 4: Revelation and Inspiration (Fernando Canale) Flashcards

(97 cards)