Theo Rios - Revelation, Inspiration, and Prophetic Guidance (Paper For The Term) PDF

Adventist International Institute
of Advanced Studies
THE INERRANTISTS AND THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH:

A STATEMENT IN PERSPECTIVE
A paper
presented in partial fulfillment
of requirements for the course
THST 811 – REVELATION, INSPIRATION, AND PROPHETIC GUIDANCE
by
Théo Rios
August 2019
i
Table of Contents
Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... i
Background of the Study .................................................................... i
Statement of the Problem ................................................................... i
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................... i
Significance of the Study ................................................................. ii
Delimitation of the Study ................................................................. ii
Methodology ................................................................................... ii
2. THE INERRANTISTS’ APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES .................... 1

A Statement of Belief ....................................................................... 2
The Authority of Scripture ...................................................... 4
The Obedience to the Scripture ................................................ 6
The Truth and Trustworthiness of the Scripture ........................ 7
The Case for Inerrancy .................................................................... 10
Challenges to Inerrancy .................................................................. 13
3. THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST’ APPROACH TO THE

SCRIPTURES ................................................................................. 21
A Statement of Belief ..................................................................... 22
The Authority of Scripture .................................................... 23
The Obedience to the Scripture .............................................. 26
The Truth and Trustworthiness of the Scripture ...................... 29
The Case Against Inerrancy ............................................................ 30
4. PERSPECTIVE ON THE INERRANTISTS’ AND THE SEVENTH-DAY

ADVENTISTS’ APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES ....................... 37
A Statement of Belief ..................................................................... 38
The Authority of Scripture .................................................... 38
The Obedience to the Scripture .............................................. 38
The Truth and Trustworthiness of the Scripture ...................... 39
The Case of Inerrancy ..................................................................... 39
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ..................................................................................41
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................42
i
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The acceptance of the Scriptures as authoritative and God-breathed is a belief
shared for both inerrantists and the Seventh-day Adventists. Among the inerrantists, those
who accept the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy constitute its current primary
representation. The Seventh-day Adventists correspond to those who do not see the
inspiration as a synonymous to inerrancy.
Statement of the Problem
The inerrantists, especially those who adhere to the Chicago Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy, view the issue of inerrancy as a must for the believer, while the Seventh-day
Adventists do not share this same understanding. Both claim to be faithful to the Scripture,
although having a totally different view regarding its inspiration.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to look at the Chicago Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy’s preamble as the representation of the inerrantists’ statement of belief regarding
the Scriptures – with its claims to the authority of the Scriptures, the obedience to the
i
Scriptures, and the trustworthiness of the Scriptures – and compare it with the Seventh-day
Adventists’ statement of belief regarding the Scriptures, concerning the same claims.
Significance of the Study
The identification and the correct understanding of the statement of belief
concerning Scriptures of both the inerrantist movement, as represented by the Chicago
Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church – and their aspects
of authority, obedience, and trustworthiness – represent the official voice of both groups.
Any claim in favor, or against, the inerrancy will be judged by the mainstream churches
through the eyes of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and the Seventh-day
Adventist Church is not an exception to these reactions.
Delimitation of the Study
In analyzing both the inerrantist position, as formulated by the Chicago Statement
on Biblical Inerrancy, and the Seventh-day Adventist position on the issue of inerrancy,
this study is aware of the different types of inerrancy but does not intend to define or
analyze each one of them.
Methodology
This study employs a descriptive analysis in seeking to understand the inerrantists’
and the Adventists’ statement of belief regarding the Scripture.
ii
CHAPTER 2
THE INERRANTISTS’ APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES
The doctrine of inspiration, according to many evangelicals, leads logically and
rightly to inerrancy,1 which is crucial to secure the centrality of the Bible.2 The view that
“the verbal inerrancy of Scripture has been the historic faith of the church in all ages,”3
having an integral place in this historic faith,4 has led to the conclusion that “if someone
suggests otherwise, he is either ignorant of the facts or lying. Only heretics, past and
present, have claimed otherwise.”5
Inerrancy has led to different reactions. At one side some have argued like Robert
Bratcher, an ordained Southern Baptist minister and a main translator of the Good News
for Modern Man Bible, working as a research associate with the American Bible Society,
who said that “only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim
1
Paul Benware, “Inerrancy in the Old Testament Historical Books,” Conservative
Theological Journal 2, no. 6 (1998): 287.
2
J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, “Introduction: On Debating Inerrancy,” in Five
Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, Counterpoints (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 9.
3
Stewart Custer, Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy?: A Study of the Biblical Doctrine
of Inspiration in the Light of Inerrancy (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1968), 63.
4
L. R. Bush and Tom J. Nettles, Baptists and the Bible (Nashville, TN: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1999), 333.
5
George C. Scipione, “Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo: Is Biblical Counseling It or No?,” The
Journal of Pastoral Practice 9, no. 4 (1989): 44.
1
that the Bible is inerrant,” and that “no truth-loving, God-respecting, Christ-honoring
believer should be guilty of such heresy. To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy
and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into ‘a false God.’6 According to Kenneth
S. Kantzer, in his editorial of Christianity Today, referring to the above statement, such
strident language “brings neither peace nor light to the church.”7
A Statement of Belief
In 1973, the magazine Christianity Today reported, in its article entitled The
Infallible Word, that among evangelicals, “there is a raging battle about the infallibility or
inerrancy of the Bible.”8 This was the situation they faced those days in large and small
denominations and in some of the evangelical colleges and theological seminaries.
The doctrine of inerrancy was virtually absent in academic circles from the mid-
twenties to the eighties.9 By 1978, due to the fact that many inerrantists believed that “some
teachers have been deceptive in their stand on inerrancy,”10 more than three hundred
evangelicals scholars and leaders held a summit for the International Council on Biblical
6
James M. Boice, “The Foolishness of Preaching,” in Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea
for Preaching, 2nd ed., ed. R. A. Mohler and Don Kistler (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust
Publishing, 2008), 28.
7
Kenneth S. Kantzer, “Inerrancy: Clearing Away Confusion,” Christianity Today 25,
no. 10 (1981): 12.
8
L. N. Bell, “Editorials: The Infallible Word,” Christianity Today 17, no. 21 (1973): 27.
9
Timothy George and David S. Dockery, eds., Theologians of the Baptist Tradition
(Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 357.
10
Norman L. Geisler, “Philosophy: The Roots of Vain Deceit,” Christianity Today 21,
no. 16 (1977): 925.
2
Inerrancy (ICBI) and agreed upon the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI),
which was reaffirmed in 2006.11
This meeting was chaired by the conservative Dr. Paige Patterson, considered to be
one of the most influential Baptists in the world,12 and it was an attempt to systematize the
evangelical understanding on the issue of inspiration. The CSBI was, then, considered to
be “the best statement of inerrancy”13 and a helpful tool “in teaching and communicating a
proper understanding of what inerrancy actually does and does not mean.”14 Its formulation
consists of a summary statement, articles of affirmation and denial, and of an
accompanying exposition.
The preamble of the CSBI is a statement of belief of the inerrantists, and it declares
the following:
The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every
age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show
the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written
Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master.
Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to
a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.15
11
For a list with names of signers of such document, see Norman L. Geisler and William
C. Roach, Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 346–48.
12
Emir F. Caner and Ergun M. Caner, The Sacred Trust: Sketches of the Southern Baptist
Convention Presidents (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 202.
13
Rodney J. Decker, “Verbal-Plenary Inspiration and Translation,” Detroit Baptist
Seminary Journal 11 (2006): 31.
14
Henry B. Smith, Jr., “The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,” Bible and Spade 20, no. 1
(2007): 1.
15
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is available in many works, including
Norman L. Geisler, Inerrancy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), 493–502.
3
This statement affirms (1) the authority of Scripture, (2) the obedience to the
Scripture, and (2) the truth and trustworthiness of the Scripture. Such affirmations, in
Nichol’s opinion, “sustained an entire generation in the battle for the Bible.”16
The Authority of Scripture
The CSBI declares that ‘the authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian
Church in this and every age.’ Sproul sees the need for such preamble because, according
to him, “the Bible’s authority is linked to inerrancy.”17 Others see these opening words as
clearly setting the issue of biblical inerrancy, and essential to the question of evangelical
consistency.18
The relationship between the inerrancy of Scripture with the authority of Scripture
is seen as happening “like Siamese twins – they are inseparably joined to each other,”19
and lies close to the heart of Christian theology.20 This ‘inerrant authority’21 occurs due to
16
Stephen J. Nichols, “How We Got Here,” in Inerrancy and the Doctrine of Scripture,
ed. R. C. Sproul, Tabletalk Magazine 39, no. 3 (Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2015), 10.
17
R. C. Sproul, Can I Trust the Bible?, The Crucial Questions Series 2 (Lake Mary, FL:
Reformation Trust, 2009), 1.
18
R. A. Mohler Jr., “Review of 'The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical
Approach,' by Michael R. Licona,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15, no. 3 (2011): 88.
19
Wayne A. Mack, “The Sufficiency Of Scripture In Counseling,” Master’s Seminary
Journal 9, no. 1 (1998): 61.
20
Clark H. Pinnock, “Our Source of Authority: The Bible,” Bibliotheca Sacra 124,
no. 494 (1967): 150.
21
John Goldingay and David F. Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah
40-55, 2 vols., The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments 1 (New York, NY: T & T Clark, 2006), 16; Kenneth S. Kantzer, “Neo-Orthodoxy and
the Inspiration of Scripture,” Bibliotheca Sacra 116, no. 461 (1959): 15.
4
the fact the “an inerrant Bible is an authoritative Bible,”22 and it is also supreme for the
Christians in every single aspect of their life.23 For those who adhere to the total inerrancy
of Scripture, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that such inerrancy is a synonymous to
unrestricted authority.24
Most of the denominations under the Reformed tradition adhere to the doctrine of
inerrancy concerning the Scripture, and it is interesting to see Wierenga’s comments that
Calvin, “while submitting to the Word’s authority, he was not restricted by a rigid inerrancy
doctrine or unquestioning acceptance of traditional interpretations. His freedom has much
to teach the church in the current debate over biblical authority.” It is more interesting to
note that “none of the Reformers had ever defended the verbal inerrancy of Scripture.”25
In other words, it is still possible to accept the authority of the Bible and not subscribe to
the inerrancy of the Scripture, especially on its more strict version.26 And, as Packer
22
James T. Draper and Kenneth Keathley, Biblical Authority: The Critical Issue for the
Body of Christ (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 108.
23
James M. Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive & Readable
Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 69.
24
Charles C. Ryrie, “Some Important Aspects of Biblical Inerrancy,” Bibliotheca Sacra
136, no. 541 (1979): 21.
25
Werner G. Jeanrond, “History of Biblical Hermeneutics,” in The Anchor Yale Bible
Dictionary, ed. David N. Freedman, 3 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1992), 438 Not every scholar
will agree with such statement regarding the reformers and say that “there was no tenet of
Christian doctrine to which the Reformers clung more tenaciously than the inerrancy of Holy
Scripture,” on Henry S. Curr, “The Inerrancy of the Bible,” Bibliotheca Sacra 99, no. 394 (1942):
221.
26
See Robert Wierenga, “Calvin the Commentator,” Reformed Review 32, no. 1 (1978)
According to William Sailer, ed., Religious and Theological Abstracts (Myerstown, PA:
Religious and Theological Abstracts, 2012), n.p.
5
reflected, “it is not enough to fight and win the battle for biblical inerrancy if we are then
going to lose the battle for understanding the Bible and so for living under its authority.”27
The Obedience to the Scripture
For the CSBI, ‘those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called
to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written
Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master.’ In this way,
the adherence to the concept of biblical inerrancy “is a token of obedience to Jesus
Christ.”28 Curry sees in this an urgent need for the evangelicals not only to proclaim the
gospel, but also to be exemplary in their evangelistic endeavour and to demonstrate the
relevance and authority of the Bible by living, using the words of Schaeffer, “in obedience
to the full inerrant authority of the Bible in the crucial moral and social issues of the day
just as much as in the area of doctrine.”
The obedience to the Scripture is ‘the watershed,’ a turning point event.29 This
obedience is a must for the individual believer, especially for the inerrantist, and Renihan
saw it as an issue of personal frustration when people who are eager to defend the inerrancy
of the Bible before those who have a different position “are slow to implement the
principles in their own life and worldviews.” He, then, asks, “What good does it do to
27
J. I. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible (Westchester, IL: Cornerstone Books,
1980), 36.
28
Pinnock, “Our Source of Authority,” 153.
29
Francis A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Westchester, IL: Crossway
Books, 1984), 143 In George Curry, “Evangelicals in the Church of England,” The Churchman
111, no. 4 (1997): 325.
6
believe in an inerrant revelation from God if we are not going to obey it?” He, then, names
this an “impractical inerrancy,” because by His grace “He gives us the Spirit who works in
us to make us willing to obey the Word.”30 But, above all, this conflict between the
inerrancy and the obedience to the Scripture “is not Christian fellowship. Even though
biblical inerrancy is very important, it is wrong to say that those who deny it are for that
reason not Christians or do not have a sincere and saving faith in Jesus Christ.”31
The Truth and Trustworthiness of the Scripture
The CSBI states how trustworthy the Bible is in the following terms, ‘Recognition
of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and
adequate confession of its authority.’ This belief in the trustworthiness and the inerrancy
of the Scripture is normally seen as “a leap of faith beyond what historical evidence alone
can demonstrate.” But instead of being a leap in the dark, it is “a conscious choice
consistent with the evidence that does exist.”32 While the inerrantists say that “only the
inerrant Scriptures testify authoritatively to the infinite God of truth,”33 others affirm that
30
Mike Renihan, “Daily Studies: Dead Men Speak,” in Christian Classics, ed. R. C.
Sproul, Jr., Tabletalk Magazine 17, no. 1 (Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 1993), 25.
31
Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once For All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College
Press, 2002), 58.
32
Craig L. Blomberg, “John,” in The Apologetics Study Bible: Understand Why You
Believe, ed. Ted Cabal (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1569.
33
Rolland D. McCune, “The New Evangelicalism And Apologetics,” Detroit Baptist
Seminary Journal 6 (2001): 101.
7
“the Bible speaks of trustworthiness, endurance, and usefulness – not inerrancy,”34 and that
“the acknowledgment that we have trustworthy but not inerrant versions of the Bible
undercuts the argument that inerrancy is essential for an authoritative Bible and trustworthy
knowledge about God.”35
Unfortunately, the inerrantists have been using the term ‘trustworthiness’ with
different meanings. One time Scripture is “an infallibly trustworthy source for theology,”36
and another it is trustworthy as the infallible Word of God.37 One says that the strength of
Christianity lies in the historical truth of the Gospels, not the critical infallibility of the
Gospels, but their substantial trustworthiness;38 and another inerrantist says that those who
want to believe that the Scripture is infallible will discover its total trustworthiness.39
The trustworthiness of the Scripture is, then, directly related to its infallibility – and
the inerrancy of the Scripture is seen as a ‘subset’ of its infallibility.40 J. I. Packer, in his
34
John R. Yeatts, Revelation, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, PA:
Herald Press, 2003), 432.
35
Steve W. Lemke, “The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture,” in Biblical
Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, 2nd ed., ed. Bruce
Corley, Steve Lemke and Grant Lovejoy (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 186.
36
C. N. Kraus, “The Great Evangelical Coalition: Pentecostal and Fundamentalist,” in
Evangelicalism and Anabaptism, ed. C. N. Kraus (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1979), 56.
37
Gerard Chrispin, The Bible Panorama: Enjoying the Whole Bible with a Chapter-by-
Chapter Guide (Leominster, England: Day One Publications, 2005), 427.
38
Charles Gore, Belief in God, The Reconstruction of Belief (London, England: John
Murray, 1921), 174.
39
R. T. Kendall, Understanding Theology, 3 vols., 3 (Ross-shire, England: Christian
Focus, 2001), 22.
40
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “The Semantics of Biblical Literature: Truth and Scripture’s
Diverse Literary Forms,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John D.
Woodbridge (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2005), 95; Barry G. Webb, “Biblical
8
book Beyond the Battle for the Bible, opposes the distinction between the ‘infallibility’ and
the ‘inerrancy.’ For him, it is impossible to accept the Scripture as infallible and, at the
same time, to deny its inerrancy. He argues vehemently that those who act in this way are
“individuals with two convictional horses to ride – religious certainty about the Bible’s
power, and intellectual uncertainty about its full truth.”41
For the inerrantists, the claim that the Scripture is inerrant is to focus on the fact
that the Bible can be trusted wherever it is making a true claim.42 But it was Carson, the
well-known New Testament scholar, who said that,
There’s no point talking about the truthfulness of Scripture, the truthfulness of the
gospel, what inerrancy means, or what authority means, if you don’t already have
an epistemological place carved out for the possibility of such things in the first
place. It’s just a waste of time. If you start talking about the truthfulness of
Scripture when the people you’re listening to don’t have a category for objective
truthfulness in the first place, then all of your arguments are just terribly
meaningless.43
Authority and Diverse Literary Genres,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures,
ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2016), 580.
41
Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible, 51.
42
D. A. Carson, “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion,” in Carson, The Enduring
Authority of the Christian Scriptures, 25.
43
D. A. Carson, “Sacred and Sure: Foundations of Knowing,” 2013 in D. A. Carson
Sermon Library, by D. A. Carson (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2016), n.p.
9
The Case for Inerrancy
The inerrantists see the inerrancy of the Bible as a logical necessity44 and the proper
implication of inspiration. 45 It is important46 and does not consist of a peripheral matter,47
but it is a much important dogmatic terminology.48 They consider the inerrancy to be a
crucial doctrine,49 “a theological important concept implied by the nature and character of
God,”50 because it is a sovereign work of God’s Spirit.51
The doctrine of inerrancy is “an extension of the doctrine of inspiration”52 and “the
keystone of biblical authority.”53 Such doctrine needs to be accepted due to its importance
44
Ron J. Bigalke, “Editorial,” Journal of Dispensational Theology 17, no. 51 (2013):
105.
45
David S. Dockery, “Christian Faith and the Christian Community,” in Holman Bible
Handbook, ed. David S. Dockery (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992), 817.
46
Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in
Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 22.
47
Kenneth S. Kantzer, “Editorial: Inerrancy Matters,” Christianity Today 23, no. 5
(1978): 10.
48
David P. Scaer, “Current Religious Thought: The Two Sides of Justification,”
Christianity Today 25, no. 12 (1981): 45.
49
Ryrie, “Some Important Aspects of Biblical Inerrancy,” 17.
50
Kent Sparks, “The Sun Also Rises: Accommodation in Inscripturation and
Interpretation,” in Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics, ed. Vincent
Bacote, Laura C. Miguélez and Dennis L. Okholm (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2004), 129.
51
Mal Couch, “Inerrancy and the Gospels,” Conservative Theological Journal 4, no. 11
(2000): 88.
52
Ibid., 82.
53
Cottrell, The Faith Once For All, 64.
10
in continuing the affirmation of an orthodox and biblical confession of salvation,54 which
“ultimately affects both the life and the worldview of the person who either holds to or
rejects this doctrine.”55 This inerrancy is related “with what we think and say about the
Bible.”56
The need for accuracy for the Bible is directly related to its importance,57 and to be
in a position on being unable to affirm the inerrancy is to be in a tragical position,58 but
they believe, as seen above, that through the inerrancy they are comfortably united with
the Reformation legacy and the ancient church.59 For them, the inerrancy is the formal
principle of the Reformation.60 That is why although they consider this to be an important
doctrine to promote and defend, they recognize that “caution is urged in choosing
arguments to support it. Not all arguments for inerrancy are valid.”61
54
Dockery, “Christian Faith and the Christian Community,” 817.
55
Greg J. Sheryl, “Interrupting Bart Ehrman: Responding to a Contemporary Apostle of
Doubt,” The Journal of Modern Ministry 7, no. 2 (2010): 151.
56
Donald N. Bastian, “Ministries: We Have Been Bible Samplers Long Enough,”
Christianity Today 26, no. 16 (1982): 104.
57
58
Douglas E. Potter, “Review of 'Introducing Apologetics: Cultivating Christian
Commitment,' by James E. Taylor,” Apologetics Journal 8, no. 2 (2009): 98.
59
Ronald F. Satta, “Inerrancy: The Prevailing Orthodox Opinion of the Nineteenth-
Century Theological Elite,” Faith and Mission 24, no. 1 (2006): 79.
60
Gordon H. Clark, “Concerning Justification,” Christianity Today 17, no. 12 (1973):
600.
61
Stephen L. Andrew, “Biblical Inerrancy,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 8,
no. 1 (2002): 2.
11
The CSBI affirmed the inerrancy stating that “Scripture is without error or fault in
all its teaching,”62 and most definitions of inerrancy share this negative description of
‘being without error,’63 but those definitions only apply to the autographs,64 which are the
result of perfect accuracy.65 For the inerrantists, it makes perfect sense a divine revelation
producing an inerrant written text,66 and the ‘divine perfection of inerrancy and
infallibility’ are demanded by logic.67
The same inerrantists recognize that the term ‘inerrancy’ alone is not sufficient to
describe the Scripture,68 even though they talk about “past, present and perfect
inerrancy.”69 Although they affirm that inerrancy is non-negotiable, they also believe that
62
Charles C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy, Current Christian Issues
(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981), 30 The three statements which can summarize the basic
argument of the inerrantist are the following: (1) God is the author of the Bible; (2) God is never
the author of error; (3) therefore the Bible is free of error. See Richard Rice, Reign of God: An
Introduction to Christian Theology from a Seventh-Day Adventist Perspective, 2nd ed. (Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1997), 35.
63
Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy, 30.
64
Rick Cornish, 5 Minute Theologian: Maximum Truth in Minimum Time (Colorado
Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004), 55.
65
Ibid., 54.
66
Ernest C. Reisinger and D. M. Allen, Beyond Five Points (Cape Coral, FL: Founders
Press, 2002), 13.
67
John A. Witmer, “The Biblical Evidence for the Verbal-Plenary Inspiration of the
Bible,” Bibliotheca Sacra 121, no. 483 (1964): 246; W. R. Cook, “Biblical Inerrancy and
Intellectual Honesty,” Bibliotheca Sacra 125, no. 498 (1968): 166.
68
Norman L. Geisler, “An Evaluation of McGowen’s View on the Inspiration of
Scripture,” Bibliotheca Sacra 167, no. 665 (2010): 22.
69
Ed. Harrell, “Past, Present and Perfect: Inerrancy,” Christianity Magazine 5, no. 8
(1988): 6.
12
this doctrine is “anchored firmly in the epistemological issue,”70 but they also recognize
that theological terms such as these are “frequently in need of qualification and cannot be
taken in a crass, literal sense.71
Their conviction is that “the word of God clearly teaches that it is inspired and
inerrant”72 and that “inspired means inerrant.73 The Bible is, then, perfect divine guidance,
being “utterly inerrant in all that it teaches.”74
Challenges to Inerrancy
The concept of inerrancy has faced many challenges, both inside and outside of the
Evangelicalism. Firstly, the definition of what the term ‘inerrancy’ means has divided
many theologians. For Packer, “terms which one cannot safely use without first stating
what one does not mean by them are of little practical worth, and it might be argued that
they, like the word ‘fundamentalist,’ would be better dropped.”75 Even some of the
70
Rex A. Koivisto, “Clark Pinnock And Inerrancy: A Change In Truth Theory?,” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 24, no. 2 (1981): 147.
71
Sproul, Can I Trust the Bible?, 43.
72
Steven P. Mueller, ed., Called to Believe, Teach, and Confess: An Introduction to
Doctrinal Theology, Called by the Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005), 41; Steven P.
Mueller, ed., Called to Believe: A Brief Introduction to Doctrinal Theology, Called by the Gospel
(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 24.
73
Mueller, Called to Believe, Teach, and Confess, 41; Mueller, Called to Believe, 24.
74
Mark R. McMinn and Timothy R. Phillips, eds., Care for the Soul: Exploring the
Intersection of Psychology & Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), 67.
75
J. I. Packer, “Scripture,” in The Scripture Cannot Be Broken: Twentieth Century
Writings on the Doctrine of Inerrancy, ed. John MacArthur (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 97.
13
language used in the CSBI needed more clarification a short later in the 1982 Chicago
Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.76 It was Olson who said that “defenders of inerrancy
cannot agree among themselves what it means, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy (1978) kills the concept with the death of a thousand qualifications.”77
The inerrantists need to understand that it is not enough to say that those who deny
the inerrancy of Scripture are doctrinal heretics,78 and that “the denial of inerrancy has
almost always led to some form of heresy if not total unbelief,”79 when it is clear that
“heretical groups have at times affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture.”80 More than one
hundred years ago, inerrantists defended the view that if someone “limits the inerrancy of
Holy Scripture to things of faith and morals only he is not far from being a heretic.”81
Another challenge, also noted shortly above, is the usage of terms as
interchangeable and at other times these same words are not synonymous. Lea recognized
this attitude when he said that “some evangelical Christians use the terms ‘infallible’ and
‘inerrant’ in almost a synonymous sense. Others distinguish between them by linking the
76
G. K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New
Challenges to Biblical Authority (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 268.
77
Roger E. Olson, “Postconservative Evangelicalism,” in Four Views on the Spectrum of
Evangelicalism, ed. Stanley N. Gundry, Counterpoints. Bible & theology (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2011), 183.
78
Mark Driscoll, “A 9news Pastors’ and Theologians’ Forum: What Do You Hope Will
Ultimately Emerge From the Emerging Church Conversation for Evangelicals?,” 9Marks Journal
3, no. 7 (2006): 14.
79
Boyd and Eddy, Across the Spectrum, 20.
80
Ibid.
81
A. E. Breen, A General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, 2nd ed. (Rochester,
NY: John P. Smith Printing Company, 1908), 229.
14
term ‘infallible’ more closely with theological truth and the term ‘inerrant’ more closely
with historical truth.”82 One inerrantist says that ‘infallibility’ and ‘inerrancy’ are
synonymous,83 and the other inerrantist says that “the terms ‘infallible’ and ‘inerrant’ go
together, but they are not synonymous.”84 One inerrantist affirms that “sometimes the word
‘infallible’ is used synonymously with the term ‘inerrancy.’ It is possible, however, to
distinguish between these two terms.”85 But, how can you clearly distinguish terms that are
considered to be synonymous, and make a statement such as Begbie, who said that “these
terms are carefully distinguished by some protagonists in modern inerrancy debates”?86
Concerning this same challenge concerning the term ‘inerrancy,’ one says that these
words frequently get used as synonymous,87 the other says that they are “loosely
synonymous,”88 and another says that “infallibility and inerrancy may be differentiated.”89
Still another inerrantist declares that “infallibility and inerrancy are clearly not viewed
82
Thomas D. Lea, “1, 2 Timothy,” in 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, ed. David S. Dockery, The New
American Commentary 34 (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 239.
83
Harold Lindsell, “The Infallible Word: First of Two Parts,” Christianity Today 16,
no. 23 (1972): 9.
84
85
Matthew Barrett, “Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the Trustworthiness of God,” Credo
Magazine 1, no. 1 (2011): 18–19.
86
Jeremy Begbie, “Who Is This God?: Biblical Inspiration Revisited,” Tyndale Bulletin
43, no. 2 (1992): 263.
87
Daryl Aaron, Understanding Theology in 15 Minutes a Day (Minneapolis, MN:
Bethany House Publishers, 2012), 32.
88
Kenneth S. Kantzer, “Why I Still Believe the Bible Is True,” Christianity Today 32,
no. 14 (1988): 25.
89
Barrett, “Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the Trustworthiness of God,” 19.
15
synonymously by many Pentecostals,”90 showing how confused is the evangelical
community even regarding the use of these two different terms as applied to the doctrine
of inspiration.
In 2002, Reisinger and Allen defended that “the inerrancy battle is largely
complete,”91 but the reality is that it is far from it! The book Five Views on Inerrancy92 is
a witness that there are many different views and that the inerrantists still have a lot to
discuss concerning the subject, showing that not every evangelical will agree that inerrancy
is crucial to securing the centrality of the Bible. According to Turner, “the crucial need for
clarification of what evangelicals mean by inerrancy still exists.”93
There is a need to recognize that there are some challenges in the CSBI. It was
Vanhoozer who affirmed the following,
In asking whether the Chicago statement is well-versed, I have four major

concerns: (1) whether its definition of inerrancy is clear; (2) whether it gives
primacy to a biblical-theological rather than a philosophical understanding of
truth; (3) whether it is sufficiently attentive to the nature and function of language
and literature; (4) whether it produced a theological novelty.94
90
Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (London, England:
T & T Clark, 2008), 184.
91
Reisinger and Allen, Beyond Five Points, 17.
92
J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, eds., Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy,
Counterpoints (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013).
93
David L. Turner, “Evangelicals, Redaction Criticism, and Inerrancy: The Debate
Continues,” Grace Theological Journal 5, no. 1 (1984): 44.
94
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Augustinian Inerrancy: Literary Meaning, Literal Truth, and
Literate Interpretation in the Economy of Biblical Discourse,” in Merrick and Garrett, Five Views
on Biblical Inerrancy, 206.
16
Erickson, among many others, also highlights that “the term ‘inerrancy’ means
different things to different people, who contend over which position properly deserves to
be called by that name,”95 and he follows such statement showing the particularities of each
of these types of inerrancy. With these different characterizations of inerrancy one may
argue “whether limited or partial inerrancy can qualify as holding to the authority of the
Bible,”96 and the other may say that “limited inerrancy is a half-way house on the way to
unlimited errancy.”97
Challenges regarding the origin of the concept of inerrancy are also to be
considered, with Rogers and McKim proposing that this doctrine was created after the
Reformation, when “Scripture’s message had to accord with Lockean reason, and
Scripture’s language had to conform to Newtonian notions of perfection.”98 And also
concerning inerrancy as equal to inspiration – a view also held by the Catholic Church.99
Another challenge faced by the inerrantists is due to the fact that their acceptance
of this doctrine of inerrancy works as an excuse not to recognize their own limitations when
dealing with the Scriptures. James Barr, in his work Fundamentalism, challenged
fundamentalists who insisted on a literal interpretation of Scripture but abandoned such
95
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2013), 191–93.
96
Ryrie, “Some Important Aspects of Biblical Inerrancy,” 21.
97
Koivisto, “Clark Pinnock And Inerrancy,” 148.
98
Jack Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An
Historical Approach (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1999), 235.
99
Leon J. Suprenant and Philip C. L. Gray, Faith Facts: Answers to Catholic Questions,
1 (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 1999), 164.
17
attitude when dealing with the creation story in Genesis. He argued that “as the scientific
approach came to have more and more assent from fundamentalists themselves, they
shifted their interpretation of the Bible passage from literal to non-literal in order to
save...the inerrancy of the Bible.”100 In other words, because the conservative evangelicals
did not have enough answers to the question of creation in Genesis they preferred to defend
the inerrancy of the Bible instead of recognizing that the fact that they did not have the
answers did not mean that those answers did not exist. Barr concluded that the
fundamentalist “has tried every possible direction of interpretation other than the literal”
in order to avoid the claims of the errantists.101 Many other challenges are to be considered
in this ‘Inerrancy Debate,’ the need for clarity102 and the need for charity103 are among
them.
Another challenge the inerrantists face is regarding the reality of the limitations of
human language when dealing with God’s interaction and revelation, and the further
clarification of the implications of Geisler’s statement that “human language is not limited
to one mode of expression. So there is no reason to suppose that only one literary genre
was used in a divinely inspired Book. The Bible reveals a number of literary devices.104
100
James Barr, Fundamentalism, 1st ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1978), 42.
101
Ibid.
102
Jason S. Sexton, “How Far Beyond Chicago? Assessing Recent Attempts to Reframe
the Inerrancy Debate,” Themelios 34, no. 1 (2009): 30.
103
Ibid., 31.
104
Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 1999), 79.
18
A great challenge was exposed by Raschke when he affirmed that “inerrancy is an
idolatry of the text. It is bibliolatry, plain and simple.”105 Barr highlights another challenge,
which is faced by all inerrantists regarding the literality of the Scripture by saying that,
Interpretation is literal, but only at those points where it is important to

fundamentalist religion that it should be literal; where literal interpretation would
be dangerous to fundamentalist religion (e.g., through questioning the unity or
inerrancy of the Bible), literality is abandoned, and nonliteral meanings are
accepted.106
Finally, Schreiner argues regarding the behavioral challenge faced by conservative
churches, that “may embrace the inerrancy of scripture, but still deny in practice the
sufficiency of God’s word. We may say that scripture is God’s inerrant word, yet still fail
to proclaim it seriously from our pulpits.”107 Olson reflected that whatever that the term
‘inerrancy’ means, the authentic evangelicalism considers it to be essential, but “why have
so many noted evangelicals over the years rejected it? Are these luminaries of evangelical
theology not really evangelicals?”108
It was Charles Farah who may have correctly synthesized the challenges faced by
the inerrantist movement, especially by the acceptance of the CSBI as its ‘statement of
belief,’ when he concluded in the following way, “Are evangelicals as serious about their
fidelity to the whole of the Scripture as they want us to believe? Evangelicals seem to be
105
Carl A. Raschke, The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace
Postmodernity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 135.
106
James Barr, “Fundamentalism,” in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, ed. Angelo
Di Berardino, 3 vols., 2 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 364.
107
Thomas Schreiner, “Preaching and Biblical Theology,” 9Marks Journal 3, no. 9
(2006): 15.
108
Olson, “Postconservative Evangelicalism,” 183.
19
playing mind games with inerrancy. At the same time, they engage in ferocious battle with
those who disagree on the inerrancy issue.”109
109
Charles Farah, “America’s Pentecostals What They Believe: Speaking in Tongues
Isn’t Everything,” Christianity Today 31, no. 15 (1987): 26.
20
CHAPTER 3
THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST’ APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES
The Adventists recognize that the precise meaning of the term ‘inerrancy’ of the
Bible is not something which has achieved unanimity.110 This theory, which entirely
distorted the use and handling of historical evidence, was the “old theory of verbal
inspiration and inerrancy of every part of Scripture.”111 In their literature, they recognize
the biblical inerrancy as one of the historical cornerstones of classic Protestant
fundamentalism.112 They, also, sometimes use some strong statements to refer to it such as
the fact the “not surprisingly, the mortal sin of Fundamentalism is an epistemological
transgression, the inerrancy of Scripture, which in their view has far-reaching negative
implications for Evangelicalism.”113
110
Peter M. van Bemmelen, “Revelation and Inspiration,” in Handbook of Seventh-day
Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, 12 vols., Commentary Reference Series 12 (Hagerstown,
MD: Review and Herald, 2001), 52.
111
Wilson Paroschi, “Archaeology and the Interpretation of John’s Gospel: A Review
Essay,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 20, no. 1 (2009): 70.
112
Ervin Taylor, “Creation, Catastrophe and Calvary,” Adventist Today 8, no. 6 (2000):
23.
113
Fernando Canale, “The Emerging Church - Part 2: Epistemology, Theology, and
Ministry,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 22, no. 2 (2011): 81.
21
The Seventh-day Adventist Church holds twenty-eight non-static fundamental
beliefs, which constitute the church’s official doctrinal position, and the current expression
of its biblical understanding. Its statement of belief regarding the Bible states the following,
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God,
given by divine inspiration. The inspired authors spoke and wrote as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to humanity the
knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the supreme,
authoritative, and the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of
character, the test of experience, the definitive revealer of doctrines, and the
trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20;
John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Heb. 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20, 21.).114
For the Adventists “all Scripture, both the Old and the New Testament, from its
first to its last page, was “given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16), and constitutes the
very word of God – the truth that ‘liveth and abideth forever’ (1 Peter 1:23).”115 They also
recognize Paul as reminding his fellow brethren “that when they listened to the Scriptures
being read, they were hearing, not the words of men, but in truth, the word of God.”116
The statement affirms (1) the authority of Scripture, (2) the obedience to the
Scripture, and (2) the truth and trustworthiness of the Scripture.
114
Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines,
3rd ed. (Silver Spring, MD: Ministerial Association; Review and Herald, 2018), 11.
115
George R. Knight, ed., Seventh-Day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine,
Adventist Classic Library (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003), 25.
116
Ibid.
22
The Seventh-day Adventist Church highlights that “the Holy Scriptures are the
supreme, authoritative, and the infallible revelation of His will.” The Bible provides to
human being “core authoritative answers to the grand cosmological questions,”117 and
“Jesus Himself accepted the Scriptures as the trustworthy and authoritative Word of God,
given by the Holy Spirit in human language.”118 The Seventh-day Adventists “take the
Bible in its entirety, believing that it not merely contains the word of God, but is the word
of God.”119
Christ is the supreme content of the Bible, and the authority of Scripture lies in that
“the only authoritative Christ Christians know is the Christ of the Bible.”120 The Word of
God is “the sole rule of faith and practice for Christians.”121 It is the source of truth122 and
the ultimate and final authority on what the truth is.123
117
Cindy Tutsch, “Ellen White on Eschatology and the End of Evil,” in The Great
Controversy and the End of Evil: Biblical and Theological studies in Honor of Ángel Manuel
Rodríguez in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Gerhard Pfandl (Silver Spring, MD:
Review and Herald, 2015), 285–86.
118
van Bemmelen, “Revelation and Inspiration,” 22.
119
Knight, Seventh-Day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, 26.
120
Raoul Dederen, “The Church,” in Dederen, Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist
Theology, 560.
121
122
Leanne M. Sigvartsen, Jan A. Sigvartsen, and Paul B. Petersen, Beyond Beliefs: What
Millennial Young Adults Really Think of the 28 Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, 1
(Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Department of Religion & Biblical Languages, 2014),
326.
123
23
Seventh-day Adventists take the study of the Scripture seriously, and for this
reason, they use the historical-grammatical approach for the interpretation of Scripture.
This approach “takes the self-testimony and the claims of the Bible seriously and exegetes
the text carefully”124 because the Bible authoritatively and infallibly expresses God’s will
for humans.125 The reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries are the fore-runners of the
evangelicals, who are “those who believe in Scripture as authoritative and trustworthy,126
and those whose “authority resides in the Bible not in the church.”127
The Bible is inspired and fully authoritative,128 because “if the Bible was God’s
word, surely it must be authoritative.”129 It is an authoritative norm of theology,130 in
which, through the process of inspiration, God purposed to make it canonical and
124
Gerhard Pfandl and Ekkehardt Mueller, “How Do Seventh-Day Adventists Interpret
Daniel and Revelation?,” in Interpreting Scripture: Bible Questions and Answers, ed. Gerhard
Pfandl, Biblical Research Institute Studies 2 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute,
2010), 79.
125
Miroslav M. Kiš, “Christian Lifestyle and Behavior,” in Dederen, Handbook of
Seventh-day Adventist Theology, 717.
126
Norman R. Gulley, “Basic Issues between Science and Scripture: Theological
Implications of Alternative Models and the Necessary Basis for the Sabbath in Genesis 1–2,”
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14, no. 1 (2003): 217.
127
Fernando L. Canale, “The Emerging Church - Part 3,” Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society 23, no. 1 (2012): 61.
128
Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Crisis of the Authority of the Bible as the Word of God,”
129
E. E. Zinke, “The Pilgrimage of a Believer,” Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society 3, no. 2 (1992): 115.
130
See Gerhard F. Hasel, “Scripture and Theology,” Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society 4, no. 2 (1993): 75–76.
24
authoritative.131 It speaks with authoritative relevance,132 and “needs no additional help to
give it authority.133 It has to be the basis and the authoritative norm for all of the believer’s
reasoning134 because it is “the authoritative source of religious truth.”135 The theology of
the Adventist’s proclamation must be grounded in it as “authoritative for faith and
praxis.”136
For the Adventists, the Bible must be accepted as authoritative,137 and, because the
Bible is authoritative, we can discern between right and wrong,138 “over any contrary view
offered by human philosophy.139
131
Gerhard F. Hasel, “Divine Inspiration and the Canon of the Bible,” Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 5, no. 1 (1994): 99.
132
Larry L. Lichtenwalter, “Living under the Word: The Pragmatic Task of Moral Vision,
Formation, and Action.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9, no. 1–2 (2000): 96–
113.,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9, no. 2 (2000): 111.
133
Jack J. Blanco, “The Sanctuary and the Mission of the Church,” Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 9, no. 2 (2000): 249.
134
Frank M. Hasel, “Theology and the Role of Reason,” Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society 4, no. 2 (1993): 184.
135
Rice, Reign of God, xv.
136
Frank M. Hasel, “The Remnant in Contemporary Adventist Theology,” in Toward a
Theology of the Remnant: An Adventist Ecclesiological Perspective, ed. Angel M. Rodriguez,
Studies in Adventist Ecclesiology 1 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2009), 179.
137
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, 5 vols., Conflict of
the Ages Series 5 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911), vii.
138
Frank M. Hasel, “Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture,” in Understanding
Scripture: An Adventist Approach, ed. George W. Reid, Biblical Research Institute Studies 1
(Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,
2005), 37.
139
Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: God as Trinity (Berrien Springs, MI:
Andrews University Press, 2011), 175.
25
The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s statement of belief declares that the Scriptures
“are the standard of character, the test of experience.” The obedience to the Word of God
affects the not only individuals but, also, the history of a nation; 140 it brings blessings and
life when the disobedience brings suffering and death. 141 True obedience to the Scripture
is something which involves an appropriate attitude and a correct action.142
In the Adventist theology, the “sacrificial theme of obedience” is found in many
scriptural passages,143 and God is “a kind and tender parent, rather than a stern tyrant
compelling men to blind obedience,”144 Who requires not mere obedience to cultic laws
and sacred traditions, but desires that His people relate in justice to Him and to others.145
This obedience comes through enabling grace.146
140
Jon L. Dybdahl, ed., Andrews Study Bible (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University
Press, 2010), 457.
141
Ibid., 414.
142
Ron Du Preez, “A Holocaust of Deception: Lying to Save Life and Biblical Morality,”
143
P. R. Choi, “What Does the Apostle Mean When He Says Jesus Had to Learn
Obedience?,” in Pfandl, Interpreting Scripture, 400.
144
Ellen G. White, Life Sketches of James White and Ellen G. White (Battle Creek, MI:
Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1888), 160.
145
Reinder Bruinsma, The Body of Christ: A Biblical Understanding of the Church,
Library of Adventist Theology (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2009), 167.
146
Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, Commentary
Reference Series 6 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1980), 596.
26
The Scriptures consistently and regularly teaches that the Holy Spirit is the enabling
power in every man and woman’s obedience147 when they can testify before angels and
other human beings that the Christian believer lives by every word that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God.148 The Scriptures also testify that God created man and woman “very
good” (Gen 1:31) and “expected in them a response of willing, joyful, and loving
obedience. That obedience must be not by coercion but by willing choice.”149
The Adventists understand that it is the Spirit who enables “the believer to accept,
understand, and apply the Bible to one’s own life as he seeks divine power to render
obedience to all scriptural requirements and to appropriate personally all Bible
promises.”150 And the obedience to the Bible, instead of inhibiting the freedom of reason,
establishes it, and true freedom is only obtained in obedient subjection to the Scripture.151
They see the faithfulness to Scripture as a mandate for a theological system true to
Scripture.152 For them, “whenever an outward conformity to religious forms begins to
eclipse the importance of inward consecration and the obedience to God’s Word that
springs from it, the leavening influence of Pharisaism is at work and a genuine Christian
147
Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, Commentary
Reference Series 7 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1980), 557.
148
Ibid., 51.
149
John M. Fowler, “Sin,” in Dederen, Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology,
243.
150
“Appendix A - Methods of Bible Study,” in Reid, Understanding Scripture, 331.
151
Hasel, “Theology and the Role of Reason,” 189.
152
Gulley, Systematic Theology, xxi-xxii.
27
experience is at risk.”153 This experience is expressed in loving obedience and constitutes
the trembling reverence for God (see Deut. 10:12, 13; Eccl. 12:13).154
Finally, faith and obedience are inseparable, while the obedience is proof of faith,
the disobedience is a proof of disbelief.155 This loving obedience is a response on the part
of God’s people, where love is the foundation of God’s covenant156 and His people is
blessed by Him. They consider that “the qualification of fulfillment on the part of humans
is faith, genuine faith, in the Lord of Scripture, manifesting itself in faith obedience.”157
The fundamental reason for obedience is the fact that His commandments are the
manifestation of God’s unquestionable will. They consider that “this authoritative
approach is not popular in our age where authority is questioned and everything is
evaluated not merely in terms of what is reasonable but particularly in terms of the benefit
to be gained from it.”158
153
Clinton Wahlen, “Did Jesus Make All Foods Clean?,” in Pfandl, Interpreting
Scripture, 303.
154
Hans K. LaRondelle, “The Remnant and the Three Angels' Messages,” in Dederen,
Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, 875.
155
C. R. Holmes, “Adventist Identity and Evangelical Criticism,” Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 2, no. 2 (1991): 85; C. R. Holmes, “Are Adventists Suffering an
Identity Crisis?,” Perspective Digest 8, no. 1 (2003): 46.
156
Dybdahl, Andrews Study Bible, 1232.
157
Gerhard F. Hasel, “Israel in Bible Prophecy,” Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society 3, no. 1 (1992): 148.
158
Ángel M. Rodríguez, Jewelry in the Bible: What you Always Wanted to Know But
Were Afraid to Ask (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1999), 106.
28
The Seventh-day Adventist Church sees the Scriptures as “the definitive revealer
of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history.” Ellen G. White argued
the following,
it is one of the strongest evidences of the truth of Scripture, that facts are not
glossed over, nor the sins of its chief characters suppressed. The minds of men are
so subject to prejudice that it is not possible for human histories to be absolutely
impartial. Had the Bible been written by uninspired persons, it would no doubt
have presented the character of its honored men in a more flattering light. But as it
is, we have a correct record of their experiences.159
For them, “one of the supreme truths of Scripture is that it was the Father who
provided the Savior.”160 In their book, popularly known as Questions on Doctrine, they
declare, “we believe in the authority, veracity, reliability, and truth of the Holy
Scriptures.”161 They also say that Christians must accept Scripture as truth,162 against critics
of the Christian faith, who have seen in the Bible a thoroughly human book, challenging
its truthfulness, while claiming that the Bible contains numerous mistakes.163
159
Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 5 vols., Conflict of the Ages Series 1
(Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1890), 238.
160
George R. Knight, The Cross of Christ: God’s Work for Us, Library of Adventist
Theology 1 (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2008), 62.
161
162
Frank M. Hasel, “Are There Mistakes in the Bible?,” Perspective Digest 18, no. 4
(2013): 10.
163
Ibid.
29
Truthfulness is one of the qualities of Scripture.164 In modern times, the denial of
its trustfulness is due to the assertion of the autonomy of human reason, seeing only myths
or legends in the reinterpretation of biblical narratives.165
The Case Against Inerrancy
Alberto R. Timm, in his article, A History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on
Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration (1844-2000), argues that it is evident from the reprint
in the Review of many portions from non-Adventist authors who fostered the inerrancy,
and the fact that such portions were not criticized, demonstrate that “early Seventh-day
Adventists regarded the Scriptures as infallible and inerrant.”166 But this does not reflect
the reality of the Seventh-day Adventism in our days. Although many have somehow
viewed the writings of Ellen G. White as being inerrant, the acceptance that she was not
inerrant may disturb only those who had exalted her “to a pedestal of inerrancy and
infallibility, a position she did not claim for herself or even for the Bible writers.”167
164
van Bemmelen, “Revelation and Inspiration,” 40.
165
Ibid., 43–44.
166
Alberto R. Timm, “A History of Seventh-Day Adventist Views on Biblical and
Prophetic Inspiration (1844-2000),” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 10, no. 1
(1999): 490.
167
Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White, 3rd ed., trans.
Jonathan M. Butler, Library of Reigious Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans,
2008), 27.
30
The Adventists recognize that some of the best-known evangelicals in the world
are supporters of inerrancy,168 but “the judgment of history on fundamentalism is that it
has failed.”169 And, although they may have a number of theological beliefs in common
with Fundamentalists, they, “for various reasons have never been identified with the
movement.”170 In its essence, this Fundamentalism is a reactionary protest against the
excesses found in the modernization of the Bible, and “a distinctly twentieth-century
phenomenon” – a movement “precipitated by the crisis occasioned by the introduction of
the theory of evolution, it was aimed at restoring and preserving the fundamentals of the
Faith.”171
They recognize that their understanding of how inspiration and revelation work has
been “constantly expanding,” what means that, in this growth process, they will always be
confronted with ‘problems.’ And, especially because they have come out of a 19th-century
conservative religious tradition, they have tended “willy-nilly, toward the inerrancy
position.172
168
Rice, Reign of God, 34–35.
169
Don F. Neufeld and Julia Neuffer, eds., The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Students’
Source Book, Commentary Reference Series 9 (Review and Herald, 1962), 445.
170
Don F. Neufeld, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., Commentary
Reference Series 10-11 (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1996), 488.
171
Neufeld and Neuffer, The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Students’ Source Book, 444.
172
Harold L. Lee and Monte Sahlin, Brad: Visionary Spiritual Leadership (Lincoln, NE:
Center for Creative Ministry, 2005), n.p.
31
For the Adventists, both the recontextualization and the inerrancy are “the most
noticeable hermeneutical effects of the verbal theory,”173 and “inspiration doesn’t
automatically include inerrancy.”174 They see the belief in the inerrancy as a key factor in
holding dispensationalism in place,175 and inerrancy as a philosophical concept,176 “a
strictly psychological anchor that simply does not match the evidence in Scripture.”177
Even though some Adventists fear a moving toward verbal inspiration or
inerrancy,178 and others Adventist affirm it,179 the Fundamental Belief does not refer to it.
They support Ellen White’s concept of inspiration when she declared that “every part of
the Bible is given by inspiration of God and is profitable.”180 They support her thoughtful
statement,
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. But 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. Look at the different writers.
173
Fernando L. Canale, “Revelation and Inspiration,” in Reid, Understanding Scripture,
53.
174
Clifford Goldstein, Graffiti in the Holy of Holies: An Impassion Response to Recent
Attacks on the Sanctuary and Ellen White (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2003), 14.
175
Alden Thompson, “Why Adventism?,” Adventist Today 22, no. 1 (2014): 21.
176
Hans K. LaRondelle, LaRondelle Biblical Theology Courses (Bradentown, FL:
Barbara LaRondelle, 2015), 11.
177
Alden Thompson, “The Adventist Advantage,” Adventist Today 15, no. 5 (2007): 20.
178
Richard W. Coffen, “Wilson Faces a Dilemma Over Sabbath-Sunday Adventists in
Samoa,” Adventist Today 22, no. 2 (2014): 17.
179
Thompson, “The Adventist Advantage,” 20.
180
Ellen G. White, Lift Him Up (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1988), 115.
32
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. But 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.181
Finally, they see the embrace of modernity by the Old Princeton theologians as
leading them to distort the classical Evangelical doctrine of Scripture into an indefensible
precisionism and inerrancy.182 They consider that although affirming a high view of
Scripture, the verbal theory “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.”183 For them, “inspiration is not infallible, inerrant, or verbal.”184
There have been in general a good relationship between Adventist theologians and
those adhering to the inerrancy of the Scriptures. A good example of this is how theologians
from the Adventist Theological Society (ATS) relate to the Evangelical Theological
Society (ETS), although the ETS requires for its membership the acceptance of the CSBI,
181
Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, 3 vols., 1 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1958), 20–21 For a clear understanding of Ellen G White’s view concerning Revelation and
Inspiration, see Frank M. Hasel, “Revelation and Inspiration,” in The Ellen G. White
Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., ed. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald,
2013), 1087-1093.
182
Canale, “The Emerging Church - Part 3,” 53.
183
Canale, “Revelation and Inspiration,” 55.
184
George R. Knight, Reading Ellen White: How to Understand and Apply Her Writings
(Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1997), 105.
33
being mandatory to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.185 Their exposition of inerrancy
and acceptance of the CSBI as a ‘must’ for membership in the ETS reflect their theological
view of a timeless God, which is strongly opposed to the Adventist understanding that “the
Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language… Everything that is human is
imperfect… It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were
inspired.”186
Such statement above not only show that the timeless view of God of classic
theology influences how it views the issue of inspiration, but also shows that most
Adventists who still holds to inerrancy have not yet explicitly considered the issue that
“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.”187 This theological concept “does not fully account for the human dimension
of Scripture”188 and seems to overlook it.189 The persistence of many evangelicals in
denying the inerrancy of the Bible is highlighted by Hasel, who says,
Sometimes this human dimension of Scripture is charged with being responsible

for mistakes in the Bible. After all, to err is human, as the saying goes. But even
sinful human beings are capable of telling the truth and do so regularly. How
much more should the biblical God of truth help His chosen instruments to
185
For a short description of this relationship and the ETS requirement of acceptance to
the inerrancy of the Scripture, see Jim Walters, “Ronald L. Numbers and the New Quest for the
Historical Ellen G. White,” Adventist Today 22, no. 3 (2014): 7.
186
Ibid.
187
Canale, “Revelation and Inspiration,” 55.
188
LaRondelle, LaRondelle Biblical Theology Courses, 12.
189
Rice, Reign of God, 35.
34
communicate His truth faithfully! Being human does not necessarily entail
falsehood or error.190
A significant challenge highlighted by Adventist theologians in connection with the
doctrine of inerrancy is that concerning the inerrantists “there is a sharp disagreement
among them as to what this belief involves,”191 and sometimes the inerrancy “leads to
distorted and unconvincing interpretations of the Bible.”192 The fact that there are 14
different definitions fo inerrancy could be a good starting point for their clarification,
testifying that among the inerrantists there is not a clear understanding to what inerrancy
means.”193
Discussions about the original manuscripts are often raised when dealing with
inerrancy, as it is understood by CSBI as something related explicitly to the autographs.
Rice has highlighted that “as important as the quality of inerrancy is, it applies only to
documents which no longer exist! The Bible as we have it is not inerrant, but only
infallible.194
One more challenge to the concept of inerrancy has to do with the fact that such
doctrine “miscasts the fundamental purpose of Scripture,”195 leading, according to Canale,
190
Hasel, “Are There Mistakes in the Bible?,” 11.
191
192
Ibid., 35.
193
“Focus on Tidbits,” Perspective Digest 6, no. 1 (2001): 61.
194
195
Ibid., 36.
35
“into an indefensible precisionism and inerrancy.”196 LaRondelle saw it as giving “undue
weight to the form of Scripture, while the fundamental purpose of Scripture is its saving
function for men.” He summarizes by saying that “the Bible writers never claim inerrancy
for their inspired writings.”197
196
Fernando Canale, “A Closer Look at the Emerging Church,” Perspective Digest 19,
no. 1 (2014): 48.
197
LaRondelle, LaRondelle Biblical Theology Courses, 12.
36
CHAPTER 4
PERSPECTIVE ON THE INERRANTISTS’ AND THE SEVENTH-DAY

ADVENTISTS’ APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES
Both the inerrantists and the Seventh-day Adventists regard the doctrine of
inspiration as worthy of their theological commitment. They have both been involved in
the study of Scripture in order to better understand how inspiration works and the real
impact of such doctrine in the way the Scripture is perceived. Both have used strong
language in their literature concerning those who do not see the doctrine of inerrancy in
the same way their particular group sees.
The imposed difficulty in considering the term inerrancy is clearly recognized by
many theologians. The inerrantists affirm that “it is difficult to understand how a
sophisticated, qualified doctrine of inerrancy with numerous exceptions differs
substantially from the high view of biblical inspiration put forth by some non-
inerrantists.”198 But they also agree that “it has always been difficult for Christians to
defend biblical inerrancy.”199 On the other side, Adventists have held that even without
198
Lemke, “The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture,” 187.
199
John M. Frame, “Foundations of Biblical Inerrancy: Definition and Prolegomena,” in
The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives, ed. John
MacArthur (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 185.
37
being fully aware of it, the most honest and straightforward of the evangelical inerrantist
experts will find more difficult to be honest with Scripture.200
Both the inerrantists and the Seventh-day Adventists have declared through their
‘statement of belief’ their position concerning the Scriptures The inerrantists, mainly
supported by the CSBI, and the Adventists, through their Seventh-day Adventists Believe,
have both advocated for (1) the authority of Scripture, (2) the obedience to the Scripture,
and (3) the truth and trustworthiness of the Scripture.
Both the inerrantists and the Seventh-day Adventist Church agree on the authority
of Scripture, while the CSBI declares that ‘the authority of Scripture is a key issue for the
Christian Church in this and every age,’ the Seventh-day Adventist Church highlights that
“the Holy Scriptures are the supreme, authoritative, and the infallible revelation of His
will.”
For the inerrantists, according to the CSBI, ‘those who profess faith in Jesus Christ
as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and
200
Alden Thompson, “Need Not Be a Preacher, Must Not Be a Policy Man,” Adventist
Today 22, no. 1 (2004): 29.
38
faithfully obeying God’s written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is
disloyalty to our Master.’ For the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Scriptures “are the
standard of character, the test of experience.” Each of these statements promote the
important of obedience to God’s will as revealed in the Bible.
The CSBI states how trustworthy the Bible is in the following terms, ‘Recognition
of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and
adequate confession of its authority.’ At the same time, the Seventh-day Adventist Church
sees the Scriptures as “the definitive revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of
God’s acts in history.” Both recognize the truth and trustworthiness of the Bible.
The Case of Inerrancy
Even though both statements declare the authority of Scripture, the obedience of
Scripture, and the trustworthiness of Scripture, they do not share the same view concerning
the adherence to the inerrancy. This should not be a surprise when considering that even
among the evangelicals there are those who disagree with inerrancy but still supports the
aspects of authority, obedience, and trustworthiness of Scripture.
Inerrancy has faced many challenges. These challenges involve, among others,
issues concerning its definition, its allegedly interchangeability with the term infallibility,
39
the different views on inerrancy, the origin of this concept, the limitations of human
language, the behavioral challenge faced by many conservative churches, its inheritance
from the Greek philosophy idea of a timeless God and His interaction with human beings,
and the recognition of the inerrantists’ own limitations when dealing with the Scriptures,
as well as the need for clarity and charity. The Seventh-day Adventists have recognized
these challenges and have moved one in their pursuit to understand how inspiration works.
Kantzer, an inerrantist himself, may have summarized well theses challenges
adding a practical aspect for the claims of authority, obedience and trustworthiness of
Scripture, when he affirmed that “the great difficulty evangelicals have with the Bible, of
course, lies not in its infallible truth and inerrant authority, but in obedience to its
teaching.”201
201
Kantzer, “Inerrancy,” 13.
40
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The study of inerrancy has been present in both Evangelicalism and the Seventh-
day Adventist Church. Some of the many reasons already pointed out here show that the
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, even though well-intentioned, has not answered
all the questions involved in the doctrine of inspiration.
The Seventh-day Adventists has also struggled with this topic and have developed
so far into a position which sees inspiration as a divine activity which also involves the
human being. Such a position is also shared by many Evangelicals who do not support
inerrancy, and is partially supported by many inerrantists who do not adhere totally to the
CSBI.
Both the inerrantists, especially those who adhere to the CSBI, and the Seventh-
day Adventists, agree that there are many challenges for the inerrantists to consider upon.
So far, it looks like the development shown by the Seventh-day Adventists regarding the
doctrine of inspiration is more suitable to the biblical teaching of everything involved in
inspiration.
41
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Appendix A - Methods of Bible Study.” In Understanding Scripture: An

Adventist Approach. Edited by George W. Reid. Biblical Research
Institute Studies 1, 329–37. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research
Institute, General Conference of Seventh -day Adventists, 2005.
“Focus on Tidbits.” Perspective Digest 6, no. 1 (2001): 61–62.
Aaron, Daryl. Understanding Theology in 15 Minutes a Day . Minneapolis,

MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2012.
Andrew, Stephen L. “Biblical Inerrancy.” Chafer Theological Seminary

Journal 8, no. 1 (2002): 2–21.
Barr, James. “Fundamentalism.” In Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity .

Edited by Angelo Di Berardino. 3 vols. 2, 363 –65. Downers Grove, IL:
IVP Academic, 2014.
———. Fundamentalism. 1st ed. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1978.
Barrett, Matthew. “Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the Trustworthiness of God.”

Credo Magazine 1, no. 1 (2011): 14–21.
Bastian, Donald N. “Ministries: We Have Been Bible Samplers Long

Enough.” Christianity Today 26, no. 16 (1982): 104–5.
Beale, G. K. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New

Challenges to Biblical Authority. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.
Begbie, Jeremy. “Who Is This God?: Biblical Inspiration Revisited.” Tyndale

Bulletin 43, no. 2 (1992): 259–82.
Bell, L. N. “Editorials: The Infallible Word.” Christianity Today 17, no. 21

(1973): 26–30.
Benware, Paul. “Inerrancy in the Old Testament Historical Books.”

Conservative Theological Journal 2, no. 6 (1998): 286-302.
42
Bigalke, Ron J. “Editorial.” Journal of Dispensational Theology 17, no. 51
(2013): 105.
Blanco, Jack J. “The Sanctuary and the Mission of the Church.” Journal of
the Adventist Theological Society 9, no. 2 (2000): 243–59.
Blomberg, Craig L. “John.” In The Apologetics Study Bible: Understand Why

You Believe. Edited by Ted Cabal, 1567-1618. Nashville, TN: Holman
Bible Publishers, 2007.
Boice, James M. “The Foolishness of Preaching.” In Feed My Sheep: A

Passionate Plea for Preaching. 2nd ed. Edited by R. A. Mohler and
Don Kistler, 19–33. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2008.
———. Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive & Readable

Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding
Issues in Evangelical Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2009.
Breen, A. E. A General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture . 2nd ed.

Rochester, NY: John P. Smith Printing Company, 1908.
Bruinsma, Reinder. The Body of Christ: A Biblical Understanding of the

Church. Library of Adventist Theology. Hagerstown, MD: Review and
Herald, 2009.
Bush, L. R., and Tom J. Nettles. Baptists and the Bible. Nashville, TN:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999.
Canale, Fernando L. “Revelation and Inspiration.” In Understanding

Scripture: An Adventist Approach. Edited by George W. Reid. Biblical
Research Institute Studies 1, 47–74. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical
Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh -day Adventists,
2005.
———. “The Emerging Church - Part 3.” Journal of the Adventist

Theological Society 23, no. 1 (2012): 46–75.
Canale, Fernando. “A Closer Look at the Emerging Church.” Perspective

Digest 19, no. 1 (2014): 45–56.
———. “The Emerging Church - Part 2: Epistemology, Theology, and

Ministry.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 22, no. 2
(2011): 67–105.
43
Caner, Emir F., and Ergun M. Caner. The Sacred Trust: Sketches of the
Southern Baptist Convention Presidents . Nashville, TN: Broadman &
Holman, 2003.
Carson, D. A. “Sacred and Sure: Foundations of Knowing.” 2013 In D. A.

Carson Sermon Library, by D. A. Carson, n.p. Bellingham, WA:
Faithlife, 2016.
———. “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion.” In The Enduring

Authority of the Christian Scriptures . Edited by D. A. Carson, 3–40.
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2016.
Choi, P. R. “What Does the Apostle Mean When He Says Jesus Had to Learn
Obedience?” In Interpreting Scripture: Bible Questions and Answers .
Edited by Gerhard Pfandl. Biblical Research Institute Studies 2, 398 –
402. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2010.
Chrispin, Gerard. The Bible Panorama: Enjoying the Whole Bible with a
Chapter-by-Chapter Guide. Leominster, England: Day One
Publications, 2005.
Clark, Gordon H. “Concerning Justification.” Christianity Today 17, no. 12

(1973): 600–602.
Coffen, Richard W. “Wilson Faces a Dilemma Over Sabbath -Sunday

Adventists in Samoa.” Adventist Today 22, no. 2 (2014): 14–17.
Cook, W. R. “Biblical Inerrancy and Intellectual Honesty.” Bibliotheca Sacra

125, no. 498 (1968): 157–75.
Cornish, Rick. 5 Minute Theologian: Maximum Truth in Minimum Time .

Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004.
Cottrell, Jack. The Faith Once For All: Bible Doctrine for Today . Joplin,
MO: College Press, 2002.
Couch, Mal. “Inerrancy and the Gospels.” Conservative Theological Journal

4, no. 11 (2000): 82–97.
Curr, Henry S. “The Inerrancy of the Bible.” Bibliotheca Sacra 99, no. 394
(1942): 221–30.
Curry, George. “Evangelicals in the Church of England.” The Churchman

111, no. 4 (1997): 315–26.
44
Custer, Stewart. Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy?: A Study of the
Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration in the Light of Inerrancy . Nutley, NJ:
The Craig Press, 1968.
Decker, Rodney J. “Verbal-Plenary Inspiration and Translation.” Detroit

Baptist Seminary Journal 11 (2006): 25–61.
Dederen, Raoul. “The Church.” In Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist

Theology. Edited by Raoul Dederen. 12 vols. Commentary Reference
Series 12, 538–81. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2001.
Dockery, David S. “Christian Faith and the Christian Community.” In

Holman Bible Handbook. Edited by David S. Dockery, 806–55.
Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992.
Draper, James T., and Kenneth Keathley. Biblical Authority: The Critical
Issue for the Body of Christ. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 2001.
Driscoll, Mark. “A 9news Pastors’ and Theologians’ Forum: What Do You

Hope Will Ultimately Emerge From the Emerging Church
Conversation for Evangelicals?” 9Marks Journal 3, no. 7 (2006): 14–
15.
Du Preez, Ron. “A Holocaust of Deception: Lying to Save Life and Biblical

Morality.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9, no. 2
(2000): 187–220.
Dybdahl, Jon L., ed. Andrews Study Bible. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Press, 2010.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2013.
Farah, Charles. “America’s Pentecostals What They Believe: Speaking in

Tongues Isn’t Everything.” Christianity Today 31, no. 15 (1987): 22–
26.
Fowler, John M. “Sin.” In Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology.

Edited by Raoul Dederen. 12 vols. Commentary Reference Series 12,
233–70. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2001.
Frame, John M. “Foundations of Biblical Inerrancy: Definition and

Prolegomena.” In The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical,
Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives . Edited by John MacArthur,
185–96. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016.
45
Geisler, Norman L. “An Evaluation of McGowen’s View on the Inspiration of
Scripture.” Bibliotheca Sacra 167, no. 665 (2010): 17–39.
———. “Philosophy: The Roots of Vain Deceit.” Christianity Today 21,

no. 16 (1977): 924-928.
———. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics . Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker Books, 1999.
———. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980.
Geisler, Norman L., and William C. Roach. Defending Inerrancy: Affirming

the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation . Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 2011.
George, Timothy, and David S. Dockery, eds. Theologians of the Baptist

Tradition. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2001.
Goldingay, John, and David F. Payne. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary

on Isaiah 40-55. 2 vols. The International Critical Commentary on the
Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 1. New York, NY: T &
T Clark, 2006.
Goldstein, Clifford. Graffiti in the Holy of Holies: An Impassion Response to

Recent Attacks on the Sanctuary and Ellen White . Nampa, ID: Pacific
Press, 2003.
Gore, Charles. Belief in God. The Reconstruction of Belief. London, England:

John Murray, 1921.
Gulley, Norman R. “Basic Issues between Science and Scripture: Theological

Implications of Alternative Models and the Necessary Basis for the
Sabbath in Genesis 1–2.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
14, no. 1 (2003): 195–228.
———. Systematic Theology: God as Trinity. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews

University Press, 2011.
Harrell, Ed. “Past, Present and Perfect: Inerrancy.” Christianity Magazine 5,

no. 8 (1988): 6.
Hasel, Frank M. “Are There Mistakes in the Bible?” Perspective Digest 18,
no. 4 (2013): 10–14.
———. “Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture.” In

Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach . Edited by George
46
W. Reid. Biblical Research Institute Studies 1, 27 –46. Silver Spring,
MD: Biblical Research Institute, General Confer ence of Seventh-day
Adventists, 2005.
———. “Revelation and Inspiration.” In The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia .

2nd ed. Edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, 1087 -1093.
Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2013.
———. “The Remnant in Contemporary Adventist Theo logy.” In Toward a

Theology of the Remnant: An Adventist Ecclesiological Perspective .
Edited by Angel M. Rodriguez. Studies in Adventist Ecclesiology 1,
159–80. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2009.
———. “Theology and the Role of Reason.” Journal of the Adventist

Hasel, Gerhard F. “Divine Inspiration and the Canon of the Bible.” Journal of
the Adventist Theological Society 5, no. 1 (1994): 68–99.
———. “Israel in Bible Prophecy.” Journal of the Adventist Theological

Society 3, no. 1 (1992): 120–48.
———. “Scripture and Theology.” Journal of the Adventist Theological

Society 4, no. 2 (1993): 47–86.
———. “The Crisis of the Authority of the Bible as the Word of God.”
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 1, no. 1 (1990): 16–38.
Holmes, C. R. “Adventist Identity and Evangelical Criticism.” Journal of the

Adventist Theological Society 2, no. 2 (1991): 81–89.
———. “Are Adventists Suffering an Identity Crisis?” Perspective Digest 8,

no. 1 (2003): 41–49.
Jeanrond, Werner G. “History of Biblical Hermeneutics.” In The Anchor Yale

Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. 3, 433–43. New York,
NY: Doubleday, 1992.
Kantzer, Kenneth S. “Editorial: Inerrancy Matters.” Christianity Today 23,

no. 5 (1978): 10.
———. “Inerrancy: Clearing Away Confusion.” Christianity Today 25,

no. 10 (1981): 12–13.
———. “Neo-Orthodoxy and the Inspiration of Scripture.” Bibliotheca Sacra

116, no. 461 (1959): 15–29.
47
———. “Why I Still Believe the Bible Is True.” Christianity Today 32,
no. 14 (1988): 22-25.
Kendall, R. T. Understanding Theology. 3 vols. 3. Ross-shire, England:

Christian Focus, 2001.
Kiš, Miroslav M. “Christian Lifestyle and Behavior.” In Handbook of

Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Edited by Raoul Dederen. 12 vols.
Commentary Reference Series 12, 675 -723. Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald, 2001.
Knight, George R. Reading Ellen White: How to Understand and Apply Her
Writings. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1997.
———. The Cross of Christ: God’s Work for Us . Library of Adventist

Theology 1. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2008.
———, ed. Seventh-Day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine . Adventist

Classic Library. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003.
Koivisto, Rex A. “Clark Pinnock And Inerrancy: A Change In Truth Theory?”

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 24, no. 2 (1981): 138–
51.
Kraus, C. N. “The Great Evangelical Coalition: Pentecostal and

Fundamentalist.” In Evangelicalism and Anabaptism. Edited by C. N.
Kraus, 39–61. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1979.
LaRondelle, Hans K. “The Remnant and the Three Angels' Messages.” In

Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Edited by Raoul
Dederen. 12 vols. Commentary Reference Series 12, 857 –92.
Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2001.
———. LaRondelle Biblical Theology Courses. Bradentown, FL: Barbara

LaRondelle, 2015.
Lea, Thomas D. “1, 2 Timothy.” In 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. Edited by David S.

Dockery. The New American Commentary 34, 60 -261. Nashville, TN:
Broadman Press, 1992.
Lee, Harold L., and Monte Sahlin. Brad: Visionary Spiritual Leadership.
Lincoln, NE: Center for Creative Ministry, 2005.
Lemke, Steve W. “The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture.” In Biblical

Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting
48
Scripture. 2nd ed. Edited by Bruce Corley, Steve Lemke and Grant
Lovejoy, 176–241. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2002.
Lichtenwalter, Larry L. “Living under the Word: The Pragmatic Task of

Moral Vision, Formation, and Action.” Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society 9, no. 1–2 (2000): 96–113.” Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 9, no. 2 (2000): 96–113.
Lindsell, Harold. “The Infallible Word: First of Two Parts.” Christianity

Today 16, no. 23 (1972): 8-12.
Mack, Wayne A. “The Sufficiency O f Scripture In Counseling.” Master’s

Seminary Journal 9, no. 1 (1998): 61-83.
McCune, Rolland D. “The New Evangelicalism And Apologetics.” Detroit

Baptist Seminary Journal 6 (2001): 75–115.
McMinn, Mark R., and Timothy R. Phillips, eds. Care for the Soul: Exploring
the Intersection of Psychology & Theology . Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2001.
Merrick, J., and Stephen M. Garrett, eds. Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy.
Counterpoints. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.
———. “Introduction: On Debating Inerra ncy.” In Five Views on Biblical

Inerrancy. Edited by J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett.
Counterpoints, 9–25. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.
Mohler Jr., R. A. “Review of 'The Resurrection of Jesus: A New

Historiographical Approach,' by Michael R. Licona .” Southern Baptist
Journal of Theology 15, no. 3 (2011): 88–92.
Mueller, Steven P., ed. Called to Believe, Teach, and Confess: An

Introduction to Doctrinal Theology. Called by the Gospel. Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005.
———, ed. Called to Believe: A Brief Introduction to Doctrinal Theology.

Called by the Gospel. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Neufeld, Don F., and Julia Neuffer, eds. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible
Students’ Source Book. 12 vols. Commentary Reference Series 9.
Review and Herald, 1962.
Neufeld, Don F., ed. Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. 12 vols.
Commentary Reference Series 10 -11. Hagerstown, MD: Review and
Herald, 1996.
49
Nichol, Francis D., ed. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary.
12 vols. Commentary Reference Series 6. Washington, DC: Review
and Herald, 1980.
———, ed. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. 12 vols.

Commentary Reference Series 7. Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1980.
Nichols, Stephen J. “How We Got Here.” In Inerrancy and the Doctrine of

Scripture. Edited by R. C. Sproul. Tabletalk Magazine 39, no. 3, 8–11.
Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2015.
Numbers, Ronald L. Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White . 3rd ed.

Translated by Jonathan M. Butler. Library of Reigious Biography.
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2008.
Olson, Roger E. “Postconservative Evangelicalism.” In Four Views on the

Spectrum of Evangelicalism. Edited by Stanley N. Gundry.
Counterpoints. Bible & theology, 161-205. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2011.
Packer, J. I. “Scripture.” In The Scripture Cannot Be Broken: Twentieth

Century Writings on the Doctrine of Inerrancy . Edited by John
MacArthur, 81–112. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015.
———. Beyond the Battle for the Bible. Westchester, IL: Cornerstone Books,
1980.
Paroschi, Wilson. “Archaeology and the Interpretation of John’s Gospel: A

Review Essay.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 20, no. 1
(2009): 67–88.
Pfandl, Gerhard, and Ekkehardt Mueller. “How Do Seventh -Day Adventists

Interpret Daniel and Revelation?” In Interpreting Scripture: Bible
Questions and Answers. Edited by Gerhard Pfandl. Biblical Research
Institute Studies 2, 79–89. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research
Institute, 2010.
Pinnock, Clark H. “Our Source of Authority: The Bible.” Bibliotheca Sacra

124, no. 494 (1967): 150–56.
Potter, Douglas E. “Review of 'Introducing Apologetics: Cultivating

Christian Commitment,' by James E. Taylor.” Apologetics Journal 8,
no. 2 (2009): 95-100.
50
Raschke, Carl A. The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace
Postmodernity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.
Reisinger, Ernest C., and D. M. Allen. Beyond Five Points. Cape Coral, FL:
Founders Press, 2002.
Renihan, Mike. “Daily Studies: Dead Men Speak.” In Christian Classics.

Edited by R. C. Sproul, Jr. Tabletalk Magazine 17, no. 1, 24–25. Lake
Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 1993.
Rice, Richard. Reign of God: An Introduction to Christian Theology from a

Seventh-Day Adventist Perspective. 2nd ed. Berrien Springs, MI:
Andrews University Press, 1997.
Rodríguez, Ángel M. Jewelry in the Bible: What you Always Wanted to Know
But Were Afraid to Ask. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1999.
Rogers, Jack, and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the
Bible: An Historical Approach . Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1999.
Ryrie, Charles C. “Some Important Aspects of Biblical Inerrancy.”

Bibliotheca Sacra 136, no. 541 (1979): 16–24.
Ryrie, Charles C. What You Should Know About Inerrancy. Current Christian
Issues. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981.
Sailer, William, ed. Religious and Theological Abstracts . Myerstown, PA:

Religious and Theological Abstracts, 2012.
Satta, Ronald F. “Inerrancy: The Prevailing Orthodox Opinion of the

Nineteenth-Century Theological Elite.” Faith and Mission 24, no. 1
(2006): 79–91.
Scaer, David P. “Current Religious Thought: The Two Sides of Justification.”

Christianity Today 25, no. 12 (1981): 44–46.
Schaeffer, Francis A. The Great Evangelical Disaster. Westchester, IL:

Crossway Books, 1984.
Schreiner, Thomas. “Preaching and Biblical Theol ogy.” 9Marks Journal 3,

no. 9 (2006): 15–22.
Scipione, George C. “Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo: Is Biblical Counseling It or

No?” The Journal of Pastoral Practice 9, no. 4 (1989): 44–54.
51
Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental
Doctrines. 3rd ed. Silver Spring, MD: Ministerial Association; Review
and Herald, 2018.
Sexton, Jason S. “How Far Beyond Chicago? Assessing Recent Attempts to

Reframe the Inerrancy Debate.” Themelios 34, no. 1 (2009): 26–49.
Sheryl, Greg J. “Interrupting Bart Ehr man: Responding to a Contemporary

Apostle of Doubt.” The Journal of Modern Ministry 7, no. 2 (2010):
135–70.
Sigvartsen, Leanne M., Jan A. Sigvartsen, and Paul B. Petersen. Beyond

Beliefs: What Millennial Young Adults Really Think of the 28 Beliefs of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 1. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Department of Religion & Biblical Languages, 2014.
Smith, Henry B., Jr. “The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.” Bible and Spade
20, no. 1 (2007): 1–2.
Sparks, Kent. “The Sun Also Rises: Accommodation in Inscripturation and

Interpretation.” In Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority, and
Hermeneutics. Edited by Vincent Bacote, Laura C. Miguélez and
Dennis L. Okholm, 112–32. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2004.
Sproul, R. C. Can I Trust the Bible? The Crucial Questions Series 2. Lake
Mary, FL: Reformation Trust, 2009.
Suprenant, Leon J., and Philip C. L. Gray. Faith Facts: Answers to Catholic
Questions. 1. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 1999.
Taylor, Ervin. “Creation, Catastrophe and Calvary.” Adventist Today 8, no. 6

(2000): 22–23.
Thompson, Alden. “Need Not Be a Preacher, Must Not Be a Policy Man.”

Adventist Today 22, no. 1 (2004): 28–30.
———. “The Adventist Advantage.” Adventist Today 15, no. 5 (2007): 18–
21.
———. “Why Adventism?” Adventist Today 22, no. 1 (2014): 17-22.
Timm, Alberto R. “A History of Seventh -Day Adventist Views on Biblical

and Prophetic Inspiration (1844 -2000).” Journal of the Adventist
52
Turner, David L. “Evangelicals, Redaction Criticism, and Inerrancy: The
Debate Continues.” Grace Theological Journal 5, no. 1 (1984): 37–45.
Tutsch, Cindy. “Ellen White on Eschatology and the End of Evil.” In The
Great Controversy and the End of Evil: Biblical and Theo logical
studies in Honor of Ángel Manuel Rodríguez in Celebration of his
Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Gerhard Pfandl, 285 –95. Silver Spring,
MD: Review and Herald, 2015.
van Bemmelen, Peter M. “Revelation and Inspiration.” In Handbook of

Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Edited by Raoul Dederen. 12 vols.
Commentary Reference Series 12, 22–57. Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald, 2001.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Augustinian Inerrancy: Literary Meaning, Literal

Truth, and Literate Interpretation in the Economy of Bib lical
Discourse.” In Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. Edited by J. Merrick
and Stephen M. Garrett. Counterpoints, 199 –258. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2013.
———. “The Semantics of Biblical Literature: Truth and Scripture’s Diverse

Literary Forms.” In Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon. Edited by D.
A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, 49–104. Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock Publishers, 2005.
Wahlen, Clinton. “Did Jesus Make All Foods Clean?” In Interpreting

Scripture: Bible Questions and Answers . Edited by Gerhard Pfandl.
Biblical Research Institute Studies 2, 301 –3. Silver Spring, MD:
Biblical Research Institute, 2010.
Walters, Jim. “Ronald L. Numbers and the New Quest for the Historical Ellen
G. White.” Adventist Today 22, no. 3 (2014): 6–9.
Warrington, Keith. Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter . London,

England: T & T Clark, 2008.
Webb, Barry G. “Biblical Authority and Diverse Literary Genres.” In The

Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures . Edited by D. A.
Carson, 577–614. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2016.
White, Ellen G. Life Sketches of James White and Ellen G. White . Battle
Creek, MI: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1888.
———. Lift Him Up. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1988.
53
———. Patriarchs and Prophets. 5 vols. Conflict of the Ages Series 1.
Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1890.
———. Selected Messages. 3 vols. 1. Washington, DC: Review and Herald,

1958.
———. The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan . 5 vols. Conflict of
the Ages Series 5. Mountain View, C A: Pacific Press, 1911.
Wierenga, Robert. “Calvin the Commentator.” Reformed Review 32, no. 1

(1978): 4–13.
Witmer, John A. “The Biblical Evidence for the Verbal -Plenary Inspiration of
the Bible.” Bibliotheca Sacra 121, no. 483 (1964): 243–52.
Yeatts, John R. Revelation. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale,

PA: Herald Press, 2003.
Zinke, E. E. “The Pilgrimage of a Believer.” Journal of the Adventist

54

Theo Rios - Revelation, Inspiration, and Prophetic Guidance (Paper For The Term) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theo Rios - Revelation, Inspiration, and Prophetic Guidance (Paper For The Term) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adventist International Institute

THE INERRANTISTS AND THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH:

presented in partial fulfillment

of requirements for the course

THST 811 – REVELATION, INSPIRATION, AND PROPHETIC GUIDANCE

2. THE INERRANTISTS’ APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES .................... 1

3. THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST’ APPROACH TO THE

4. PERSPECTIVE ON THE INERRANTISTS’ AND THE SEVENTH-DAY

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ..................................................................................41

Background of the Study

The acceptance of the Scriptures as authoritative and God-breathed is a belief

inspiration as a synonymous to inerrancy.

Statement of the Problem

although having a totally different view regarding its inspiration.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to look at the Chicago Statement on Biblical

Inerrancy’s preamble as the representation of the inerrantists’ statement of belief regarding

Significance of the Study

The identification and the correct understanding of the statement of belief

concerning Scriptures of both the inerrantist movement, as represented by the Chicago

Adventist Church is not an exception to these reactions.

Delimitation of the Study

In analyzing both the inerrantist position, as formulated by the Chicago Statement

analyze each one of them.

This study employs a descriptive analysis in seeking to understand the inerrantists’

and the Adventists’ statement of belief regarding the Scripture.

THE INERRANTISTS’ APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES

The doctrine of inspiration, according to many evangelicals, leads logically and

present, have claimed otherwise.”5

strident language “brings neither peace nor light to the church.”7

denominations and in some of the evangelical colleges and theological seminaries.

which was reaffirmed in 2006.11

consists of a summary statement, articles of affirmation and denial, and of an

The Authority of Scripture

of Scripture, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that such inerrancy is a synonymous to

doctrine or unquestioning acceptance of traditional interpretations. His freedom has much

The Obedience to the Scripture

just as much as in the area of doctrine.”

The Truth and Trustworthiness of the Scripture

knowledge about God.”35

power, and intellectual uncertainty about its full truth.”41

well-known New Testament scholar, who said that,

implication of inspiration. 45 It is important46 and does not consist of a peripheral matter,47

but it is a much important dogmatic terminology.48 They consider the inerrancy to be a

God,”50 because it is a sovereign work of God’s Spirit.51

in a position on being unable to affirm the inerrancy is to be in a tragical position,58 but

infallibility’ are demanded by logic.67

taken in a crass, literal sense.71

being “utterly inerrant in all that it teaches.”74

Another challenge, also noted shortly above, is the usage of terms as

‘infallible’ is used synonymously with the term ‘inerrancy.’ It is possible, however, to

terms are carefully distinguished by some protagonists in modern inerrancy debates”?86

clarification of what evangelicals mean by inerrancy still exists.”93

Vanhoozer who affirmed the following,

In asking whether the Chicago statement is well-versed, I have four major

Challenges regarding the origin of the concept of inerrancy are also to be

Scripture’s language had to conform to Newtonian notions of perfection.”98 And also

fundamentalists who insisted on a literal interpretation of Scripture but abandoned such

Interpretation is literal, but only at those points where it is important to

Finally, Schreiner argues regarding the behavioral challenge faced by conservative

theology not really evangelicals?”108

those who disagree on the inerrancy issue.”109

THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST’ APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES