The Gulf, pt. 1

Larry Kirkpatrick ++ Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists ++ 5 April 2003

As Seventh-day Adventist Christians we are all familiar with strong inspired statements concerning how challenging things will be for us at the end of time. We've heard such statements over and over again. But where we often fail is at the point of translating these potent warnings about that which we know shall one day come, into present application to dangers already arrived. But could it be that already there are deep inroads of dangerous methods of Bible study in our midst?

A Sucker Born Every Minute

Of course, we all know that P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." But that sucker is not us. We are Bible-based Christians. We have PhD's and teachers and scholars who help us and tell us what the truth is. We're safe. "There's a sucker born every minute." But not us.

Let me tell you a quick story.

In the 1860s a man named George Hull became interested in one topic: how to pull off a hoax. He studied the current ideas in archeology and paleontology. Hull's ingenious plan involved a 12 foot slab of gypsum, stone-carvers, the carving of a statue, its shipment by rail, burial by night, and at last its carefully orchestrated discovery. It was near a town called Cardiff, New York that it was "found."

A tent was erected around the find and the curious were charged 25 cents to see the wonder. This was increased to 50 cents and then more. Thousands came every day -- and paid to see. Event the experts thought it was an ancient discovery, either a real man turned to fossilized stone, or else an ancient statue that indeed had been discovered.

Ten days after the "discovery" Hull sold shares in it to a syndicate of five people for $30,000. The head of this group of men was a fellow name David Hannum. They moved the giant to an exhibition hall in Syracuse, New York. The admission price was raised to a dollar. About this time P.T. Barnum sent someone to look at the Cardiff giant. An offer was made by Barnum to purchase the giant for $50,000. It was rejected. Barnum proceeded to have his own giant made, and then claimed Hannum had sold him the original and that Hannum was displaying a fake. Hannum objected that his was the true giant. Meanwhile, great crowds were paying to see Barnum's giant. This was when Hannum -- not Barnum -- uttered the famous statement, "There's a sucker born every minute." Hannum, still thinking that his giant was authentic, was referring to the thousands of "suckers" who were paying money to see Barnum's fake.

Eventually there was a lawsuit and a trial and Hull at last came forward to admit that the Cardiff giant was a fake. The judge ruled that Barnum could not be sued for calling Hannum's giant a fake since it was a fake after all. Hannum's name was lost to history while to Barnum was assigned the quotation -- never uttered by him -- that "There's a sucker born every minute." (For a more detailed account concerning the Cardiff giant, see www.HistoryBuff.com.)

Hull's hoax affected many. There was a considerable sum of money flying around, and many folks altogether certain that they were dealing with the real thing. But with Hull's confession interest in the giants ended. No longer did wonder-seekers line up to pay to see either of the fakes. The game was over. Almost everyone involved had been taken in by a false knowledge. Almost everyone. It was a deceived man (Hannum) himself, who in his certainty that he had the real Cardiff giant uttered, "There's a sucker born every minute."

The Bible warns us: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called" (1 Timothy 6:20).

Consider what this verse says. It is a warning to pastor Timothy to guard something that does not belong to him but that is committed to him. What is it? It is a true knowledge of God. He is a pastor. He must be actively engaged in keeping this knowledge of God, not for himself only, but for those whom he is charged with protecting, feeding, equipping for the journey to fullness of stature in Christ.

He is to avoid a certain kind of talking, labeled by inspiration as profane in quality, open to everyone, common talk, cheap talk, talk that is not in relation to divine things. That and talk that is empty. Additionally, the talk is described as babbling. The ideas summed through these words indicate that there is a kind of talking that is common, and which he is to avoid. More concerning this is indicated by the latter part of the verse, which speaks of the "oppositions," antithesis in the Greek, of that which is named "science" or "knowledge." But the text speaks of that which is falsely named, of a kind of pseudo-knowledge -- that which was claimed to be insight concerning God, but was not.

Ellen G. White Warnings Regarding Higher Criticism

Did Ellen White have anything to say about our topic today? "The warnings of the word of God regarding the perils surrounding the Christian church belong to us today. As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths. To many the Bible is as a lamp without oil, because they have turned their minds into channels of speculative belief that bring misunderstanding and confusion. The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God's word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives" (Ellen G. White, Acts of the Apostles, p. 474).

In the days of the apostles men sought by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures. Recalling this fact now Sister White fast-forwards to our day and warns of a yet more sophisticated and expanded cluster of dangers: five threats especially characterized as being "pleasing sentiments." These are, (1) higher criticism, (2) evolution, (3) spiritualism, (4) theosophy, and (5) pantheism. In common these five threats share the capacity to direct minds into channels of speculative belief. Note that the idea of a channel is that of a narrow passageway blocked-off from other passageways. These are different means to a common end: locking people into systems of thinking that are calculated to bring misunderstanding and confusion.

Foremost in this passage from the Spirit of Prophecy are her statements concerning higher criticism. Don't miss that she launches her list of dangers first with high criticism. Then notice that she focused especially on this one foremost item of danger. She wrote of what she called "the work" of higher criticism. What was this work? Dissecting, conjecturing, and reconstructing. Keep in mind that dissecting is not the same as merely analyzing. Dissecting means to take apart. Conjecturing is forming an opinion based upon incomplete information. Reconstructing means to put something back together -- after its been taken apart.

These are all viewed in a negative light as destructive agencies. Whatever she means by them, we know this: as utilized by higher criticism, the effect of these techniques is to rob "God's word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives." This method is likened to making the Bible to the reader as a lamp without oil. A lamp without oil can give no light. But the method of higher criticism does not rob the Bible of its light, it merely locks the student into an ideological prison house which veils the Scriptures.

Here's another item from the Spirit of Prophecy: "What is the condition in the world today? Is not faith in the Bible as effectually destroyed by the higher criticism and speculation of today as it was by tradition and rabbinism in the days of Christ?" (Ellen G. White, Ministry of Healing, p. 142).

That is a very interesting quotation, for it puts higher criticism and speculation into the same breath. It speaks of its destructive nature. It parallels it with blinding effect of tradition and rabbinism in the days of Christ.

Here's another incident concerning higher criticism: "A day or two later, some one brought to Elder Starr a pamphlet containing the sermon of an influential Wesleyan minister delivered at a recent conference held in Dunedin, in which he defended the 'higher criticism' of the Bible, and made light of the opinion that it is a divine book, and that all portions of it are inspired. This led to more lessons on this subject, and a sermon on the 'Higher Criticism' that was well attended by the people of Napier. We were surprised to see the extent to which our own brethren had been affected by this infidelity. We see more and more clearly, that, in all our labours, the Bible must be exalted, and that our people must come to know the wisdom and the power that are in the Word of God" (Ellen G. White, Bible Echo, June 1, 1893).

What does she say? She was surprised "to see the extent to which our own brethren" were affected by this, as she called it, "infidelity." In contrast to those false ideas, she says that "in all our labours, the Bible must be exalted." Not ripped down; not dissected, conjectured upon, and reconstructed, but exalted. So that our people come to know "the wisdom and the power that are in the Word of God." Not that are in the theologians, or are in the methods of theologians, but that are in the Word.

And one more. . .

"Night, dark and portentous, is enclosing the Christian world. Apostasy from God's commandments is evidence of this night, deep, dark, and apparently impenetrable. Systems that make the truth of God of none effect are cherished. Men are teaching for doctrine the commandments of men; and their assertions are taken as truth. The people have received man-made theories. So the gospel is perverted, and the Scripture misapplied. As in the days of Christ, the light of truth is pushed into the background. Men's theories and suppositions are honoured before the word of the Lord God of hosts. The truth is counteracted by error. The word of God is wrested, divided, and distorted by higher criticism. Jesus is acknowledged, only to be betrayed by a kiss. Apostasy exists, and will enclose the world till the last. Its hideous character and darkening influence will be seen in the maddening draughts dealt out from Babylon . . . . Satan had the highest education that could be obtained. This education he received under the greatest of all teachers. When men talk of higher criticism; when they pass their judgment upon the word of God, call their attention to the fact that they have forgotten who was the first and wisest critic. He has had thousands of years of practical experience. He it is who teaches the so-called higher critics of the world today. God will punish all those who, as higher critics, exalt themselves, and criticise God's Holy word" (Ellen G. White, Bible Echo, February 1, 1897).

We live in an extraordinary age. It is the age of apocalupsis, of unveiling, of coming to a deeper and brighter understanding of the end-times prophesies in the Revelation. At the same time it is an age of "enclosing," an age of the arrival of deeper and deeper darkness. What characterizes this age? "Systems that make the truth of God of none effect are cherished."

Right here we want to pause. Consider what is under discussion here. Systems that make the truth of God of none effect. Not a word here or an idea there or a stray idea off to the side over there. Systems. Systems that oppose the truth. Not systems that necessarily oppose the truth openly; but systems that make the truth of none effect. The truth is not necessarily destroyed, just neutralized, rendered of none effect. But we learn more.

These systems involve teaching. The teachings are from man, not God. They include the making of assertions received as truth. "The word of God is wrested, divided, and distorted by higher criticism. Jesus is acknowledged, only to be betrayed by a kiss." Do you know what one higher critic said about the Bible? He said this: "Symbols of the eternal must be taken seriously but cannot be taken literally" (Reinhold Niebuhr cited in Kurt E. Marquart, Anatomy of an Explosion, p. 112). We see here but the tip of the iceberg, the dank entrance to a cold swamp of wordcrafting and robbery. These are maddening drafts from the cup of Babylon.

At the core of all this sophistry is Satan himself. Again, Mrs. White parallels two ideas side by side. Do we catch her sense? "When men talk of higher criticism; when they pass their judgment upon the word of God. . ." Higher criticism is the passing of our judgment upon the Bible. We become the judge, the supreme court, and make our determinations about God. That is higher criticism. And we must not forget that all this is couched in the negative context of systems that rob the Bible of its power, that neutralize it.

We are left in no doubt as to heaven's opinion of "higher criticism," what we today call the "historical-critical" method of Scriptural study. Is Satan teaching its proponents? "He it is who teaches the so-called higher critics of the world today." Then we had best get a grip on what it is. Our purpose in this series of talks is very practical. It is to show you, the layperson how you can identify the historical-critical method when you see it. We will provide several current examples.

Historical What?

But let's be clear about one more point. In addressing these issues today am I guilty of using the pulpit as a forum -- something we are not to do? Not at all. In fact, I am here today advocating the clear positions taken in official actions of the church. Those advocating the erroneous new views, who use the pulpit to do so, are actually those guilty of using the pulpit as a forum. The Bible warns, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them . . . But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light" (Ephesians 5:11, 13).

This statement is addressed to all members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with the purpose of providing guidelines on how to study the Bible, both the trained biblical scholar and others.

Seventh-day Adventists recognize and appreciate the contributions of those biblical scholars throughout history who have developed useful and reliable methods of Bible study consistent with the claims and teachings of Scripture. Adventists are committed to the acceptance of biblical truth and are willing to follow it, using all methods of interpretation consistent with what Scripture says of itself. These are outlined in the presuppositions detailed below.

In recent decades the most prominent method in biblical studies has been known as the historical-critical method. Scholars who use this method, as classically formulated, operate on the basis of presuppositions which, prior to studying the biblical text, reject the reliability of accounts of miracles and other supernatural events narrated in the Bible. Even a modified use of this method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists.

The historical-critical method minimizes the need for faith in God and obedience to His commandments. In addition, because such a method de-emphasizes the divine element in the Bible as an inspired book (including its resultant unity) and depreciates or misunderstands apocalyptic prophecy and the eschatological portions of the Bible, we urge Adventist Bible students to avoid relying on the use of the presuppositions and the resultant deductions associated with the historical-critical method. (This statement was approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council Session in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 12, 1986).

Additional paragraphs went on to outline in a positive manner what are legitimate and profitable methods for the study of Scripture. However, we see here the plain and unambiguous decision that this method is so dangerous that our leaders had this to say concerning its use: "Even a modified use of this method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists."

Today the theological climate in the church is filling with polarization in large part because of the great gulf between church members and certain of our scholars and editors who have adopted historical-critical methodologies of study which undermine confidence in present truth.

The acid test of a method of biblical interpretation is never the name by which it is labeled, but the outcome of its use. What comes out of the oven after all the baking is the finished product. You can call it a pie all day long, but if at the end you have prepared a casserole, then your method produced a casserole; calling it a pie anyway can't change the reality.

The reason for that warning? Because today, clothed in angel robes, this methodology is in our midst, and few ever call it by its factual name. Instead, we have it called the "historical method," the "principled method," the "contextual approach," the "progressive approach," the "casebook approach," and more (See Receiving the Word, Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, p. 90, fn 38, p. 98, fn 50, p. 99).

Sound methods of Bible study are, at the same time, tagged by advocates of the historical critical method by deprecatory terms such as "proof-text," "key-text," and "fundamentalist" methods.

Presuppositions of the Historical Critical Method

So. What is the historical-critical method all about? With roots as far back as back to the 1600s, what Ellen G. White and her contemporaries called "higher criticism," in its contemporary form owes its matured principles to one Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923). Modern liberals come in two varieties, whom we may call "classical" liberals and "moderate" liberals. Classic liberals accept all these principles, "moderate" liberals compromise and go but part way.

We can liken these kinds of liberalism to Hepatitis type A and type B, and call them Liberalism A and Liberalism B. Remember, Liberalism A stands for classical liberalism, and Liberalism B stands for moderate Liberalism. What is invading our denomination is mostly Liberalism B. At this point you will want to refer to the accompanying chart (See handouts or chart linked to at top of this webpage).

The approaches of historical-critical theology are founded on three ideas. We call these anti-supernatural presuppositions. Anti-supernatural means that they rise from a view that says there are no miracles or events that do not occur naturally; there is no God who intervenes and makes anything happen. A presupposition is an idea (supposition) that is held before (pre) other things. In other words, before opening the pages of the Bible to see what it has to say about itself, one holding anti-supernatural presuppositions comes to the Bible and says that anything he is about to read that contains any assertion that God did something, he will deny. The very first verse of the Bible thus immediately is held to be untruthful by the classical historical-critical thinker ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1).

Here are three historical-critical starting points:

• The Principle of Correlation. Every effect must be explained solely by natural causes. No miracles.
• The Principle of Analogy. Past events must be explained on the basis of present occurrences. Are people being raised from the dead today? If not, then we must reinterpret the Bible.
• The Principle of Criticism. Whatever you read in the Bible, you must begin by being skeptical and doubting it. It might be true. Maybe.

From these three foundational ideas flow a resulting approach to the Bible. First of all, the Bible is not inspired; there is no special quality or phenomenon in what we've always understood that God has written. Why? Because before we opened its pages we ruled it out. No miracles. Nothing different than what we see operating today. Notice here too that no provision is made for the fall and how it impacted humankind. Our reasoning capacity, so highly exalted by historical-criticism, was damaged at the fall, rendered untrustworthy, undependable. But under this theory, all of that is thrown out the window out of the starting gate. Never mind that even under the reign of scientific thinking one should realize that at his best man's knowledge is limited, and he has no means of ruling out the possibility that there is a God, there are miracles, there are things that occur in his world which he cannot convincingly and conclusively explain.

Next, if the there is no special phenomenon of inspiration operating, then we cannot say the Bible is trustworthy. It is just like all other books. It could be right, it could be wrong. If it says anything that we cannot explain by our current "science," we'll know of course that it was wrong.

Next, the Bible, like all other writings, is culturally conditioned. That is, again, with no special protective and guiding supernatural power at work in those who wrote, we must assume that anything these writers said was subject to their own biases. Moses could have been wrong when he wrote about what happened at creation. Genesis is simply based on some old wise tales he'd heard when growing up. Paul, when he made certain statements concerning women may have been subject to cultural biases. And so it goes.

Finally, when the Bible discusses salvation -- or any other topic -- it is not really determinative or authoritative. It is just a set of opinions that is very old. Do you see how all this works? Do you understand how where we start determines where we begin? For what we have just outlined is the basic starting point of Liberalism A. It is with just such ideas that the full-strength historical-critical scholar opens the cover of his Bible to examine what it says. No wonder, under this system that makes God's truth of none effect the Bible is likened to a lamp without oil.

Now let's look at an approach that is quite opposite. We call it the "historical-grammatical" method, although you probably don't need to remember that. But whereas the historical-critical method is based on anti-supernatural presuppositions, ideas that are from the beginning critical concerning the possibilities of God in a negative sense, here we have a much more open theory, only it is one that is founded upon the possibility of the supernatural. And we might discuss three ideas that parallel and contrast with those of the historical-critical.

The first presupposition we may call, "In the beginning, God." As the Bible begins, it simply accepts the pre-idea that there is a God. There is a Creator. There is One who knew enough to create and thus knows how to operate via the laws of nature so as to do that which to us may be inexplicable and that which we may call supernatural.

Next, whereas in the historical-critical mindset the present explains the past, we will say virtually the opposite -- the past explains the present. According to the Bible, God broke through into the world we are able to see and revealed Himself and His truth through the phenomenon of revelation. Things we couldn't know, which we have no access to in our fallen situation, we are informed of through an intervention from beyond. The Creator made for the crowning work of His creation, humankind, an owner's manual. He bent down low to His children and began to teach us about our world.

Thirdly, we choose to begin by placing our trust in that which is outside of ourselves. We understand that the Bible has certain things to tell us about the human condition and we say, OK, I will go ahead and explore this theory by experience, I will try it on for size, see how it works. I will go ahead and entertain these ideas as a possibly valid starting-point. I shall begin by saying not only it could be true, but let's test it as if it is true. I will put my trust in something beyond my little self and see if it works.

With this set of initial ideas, how do I relate to the Bible? Again, now we are in the Seventh-day Adventist column at "Resultant Deductions." We say that the whole Bible is inspired without degrees. We do not say that Moses was more inspired than Paul, or that one prophet's writings get an A grade for their inspiration and another prophets writings get a C grade. What about the Bible's trustworthiness? We find the Bible to be fully trustworthy. What it has to say about a literal six day period of creation from nothing, we accept. What it has to say concerning the flood of Noah's day and the waters covering the tops of the highest mountains, we accept. What the Bible has to say about gender roles of men and women, we accept, and what it has to say about the practice of homosexuality, we accept.

Is the Bible infallible? Yes, it is infallible. Whatever impact culture had upon the Bible writers it was sieved by the Holy Spirit and nothing was allowed to contaminate the Word of God through the word of man. Along with these principles also we find that the Bible is authoritative on not only salvation, but science, history, health, etcetera. In all these things we submit our reason to God. If an answer to an apparently difficult question is not apparent we are willing to suspend judgment on a topic, put it on the shelf until some later time. We do not insist that God has to answer us on our terms, but we are willing to submit our reasoning capacity, which belongs to Him in any case, to Him. The use of historical criticism whether in full strength or in a modified form only, compromises this position of humility and submission. Arguably it is worse in the form of Liberalism type B, where there is (to the uninitiated) an appearance of submission to God. But even that apparent submission is decidedly compromised.

The middle column we will look at with our next presentation, since that really is where the problems in Adventism are, and that is the main topic of our next presentation on this topic.

Why Liberalism B Can Never Harmonize With Adventism

Why can Liberalism B never harmonize with Adventism? Because Liberalism B is a chimera. Its presuppositions flow from somewhere. They are the plastic stretch of compromise between unfaith and faith. They represent ideas that are somewhere less than faith. And without faith it is impossible to please Him.

The root behind the historical-critical method is the illusion of science, reason, and objectivity. It begins walking by sight rather than by faith. Its starting point is not the possibility of miracles, but the impossibility of miracles. Therefore a priori the supernatural is ruled-out. The enterprise of life is recalibrated to operate outside of the true facts about the human race. God is not reduced to a possibility but to an impossibility; He is locked-out. And a race of worshipping beings inevitably seeks for that which it would worship. It reapplies its energies with vigor. It constructs its own virtual reality -- a false or pseudo reality excluding the truth about its origins. A house of cards is constructed. We may toy in the private recesses of our minds with other ideas, but the "real" world says we must all operate scientifically.

Our existence is made valid only so long as we consent to be measured within this virtual reality. We are lured to repackage our belief system accordingly. We must clothe it in the values that science supposedly values. Just there is where the historical-critical method originates. It claims to be scientific by starting within the material realm only, basing itself only upon the reality that we see (actually, the imaginary reality). All three of the naturalistic presuppositions are rooted here.

Eta Linnemann has nailed it:

"The methods of science and the systems of evaluation in culture furnish a residence for humanity outside of the truth of revelation. But this residence which we may liken to a modern Tower of Babel designed to bring the human race together, does not prevent the scattering and fragmentation of human thought and life, but rather causes it. For dissent is built into the system and is an ongoing feature of the science and culture industry. . . Genuine freedom of thought exists only where there is truth, and truth is present only in connection with Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6)." There is truth only in Jesus. In humanism, truth is replaced by recognition, a prestige wrapped up in the conferring and accepting of honor. This enterprise is, without doubt, subject to manipulation." (Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? pp. 27-28).

"Genuine freedom of thought exists only where there is truth." Supposedly the historical-critical method gives us genuine freedom, it liberates us from biases, it frees us from the necessity of belief and replaces that with the necessity of unbelief! Two starkly clashing, mutually-exclusive conceptions directly confront each other. The middle path compromises not only the principles of the Bible-believer, but it compromises also the principles of the Bible-rejector. It is the mental equivalent of an optical illusion. It attempts to straddle the infinite distance between Liberalism A and Seventh-day Adventism. But you can't do that. Even with a PhD.

Conclusion

We must conclude by stating that really we have just begun what will likely consist of at least three presentations.

We have noted warnings in inspiration against false science in general and faith-destroying systems of biblical interpretation specifically. We have noted the basic foundations of the historical-critical method and begun to explore the significance of Liberalism B.

In our next presentation in this series we will very briefly review the above materials and then proceed to examine certain Adventist publications to see where they fall on our chart: under Liberalism A, Liberalism B, or Seventh-day Adventism. The material will at that point become much more practical as we see it in action.

Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick is an ordained minister of the gospel. Since 1994 he has served in the American Southwest as pastor to several churches. He received his BA in Religion from Southern Adventist University in 1994 and a Master of Divinity from Andrews University in 1999 with a specialization in Adventist Studies. While in Michigan he was employed by the General Conference at the White Estate Berrien Springs branch office. More important than his scholastic preparation has been his immersion in the biblical and Spirit of Prophecy materials. He is author of the 2003 book Real Grace for Real People. Presently he serves as Pastor of the Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists, located near Loma Linda, California. Larry is married to Pamela. The couple presently live in Highland, California along with their two children, Etienne and Melinda.