When I began writing the articles on the Fundamental Beliefs about a decade ago, I had to fit my comments within the size available for a column in the printed magazine. I couldn’t always expand on points the way that I would have liked. I rarely had space to outline the reasons why traditional, evangelical Christians held different views than the one put forward by Adventists.
One’s view of inspiration forms the foundation for how every other doctrinal belief can be understood. Understanding what someone means when they affirm the inspiration of Scripture is a complex task because there are some subtle, yet profound, differences that are based on an accurate understanding of a few technical terms. One of the most important is the distinction between infallibility and inerrancy.
There is not a single view that is accepted as the mainstream view because, even within these technical terms there are nuances that lead to disagreements. Any critique of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine and teaching on this subject needs to start at this larger picture. So let’s begin to unpack the meaning of the terms:
- Dictation—God dictated the words of Scripture, and the writers of Scripture recorded those words verbatim. This view is often confused with the next approach. Oftentimes that confusion is intentionally sown by critics of the verbal plenary view.
- Verbal plenary—Human writers were guided by God to produce the words of Scripture. While the individual writing styles and experiences of the human writers were maintained, God’s direct guidance assured that the words chosen were completely accurate. The Word of God as a written document is a complete and perfect combination of God and man just like the Word made flesh is both fully man and fully God. Terms and their definitions are important, particularly as we look deeper into Adventist teachings. The phrase “verbal-plenary inspiration” emphasizes two things. Plenary means full or complete. As it relates to biblical inspiration it specifically means that all parts of the Bible are equally inspired. In practical terms, this means that the words spoken by Christ don’t have greater accuracy or authority than any other words in Scripture. Including the word “verbal” with plenary indicates that the inspiration, accuracy, and authority applies to the specific words chosen. Verbal-plenary is the predominate evangelical Christian doctrine of inspiration and is my personal view.
- Thought or dynamic—Human writers received inspired understanding of God and were left to their own abilities to express that understanding. The underlying message of Scripture is inspired, but the specific words and statements are derived solely by humans.
- Inspirational—The divine inspiration comes from the impact it has on the reader or listener. The inspiration of the Bible is similar to the inspiration of a good sermon, story, or any other book. God uses the message to individually touch a person. The inspired nature of the work isn’t the content of the work but rather its impact on you.
Inerrancy and Infallibility
Another important definition to understand about the views of inspiration is the difference between inerrancy and infallibility. Although the words inerrant and infallible sound like equivalent terms, they are not. They are used to convey slightly different understandings. Before I begin with those distinctions, I would like to point out that the historical view of evangelical leaders is that Scripture is both infallible and inerrant. Infallible means that the document accurately and completely conveys the author’s intent. Inerrancy means that the document is without error in the content. Infallibility is more of a general construct while inerrancy is about the specific details. It would be inaccurate and incomplete to conclude that one of these two was the “higher” or more demanding standard.
The power of the term infallibility is based largely on how the one using the term has defined the Author’s intent. Scripture could be infallible in an overall sense, meaning that we believe God has accurately and completely conveyed everything He wants us to know. However, if we define the intent of Scripture differently, the infallibility may take on a very different meaning. For example, if Scripture is infallible in conveying God’s character, there can be many other topics covered in Scripture that we are no longer affirming to be accurate and complete. If Scriptural infallibly conveys God’s intent for marriage, then marriage is between a man and woman and it is ideally between one man and one woman. However, if Scripture is infallible only as it relates to God’s character, then we can conclude that the descriptions of marriage and the teachings on marriage found in the Bible may not be accurate or complete, and we can, therefore, condone a marriage between two men. How one defines or limits the scope of God’s intent will dramatically change how the person understands Scripture. This is one reason that we see differences in doctrines and practices between churches that are relying on the Bible for their doctrine.
Inerrancy is a slightly different standard, it demands that everything stated in the Bible is free from error. Contrary to strawman arguments created to discredit inerrancy, this doesn’t mean that we have to accept the idea that the earth sits on pillars (see, for example, 1 Sam 2:8; Psalm 75:3); rather, we can distinguish figurative, poetic language from historical and didactic statements. The challenge for the adherents of inerrancy is to define a consistent hermeneutic for distinguishing what type of language is being employed (for instance, is a passage poetic or historical language).
Adventist doctrine affirms infallibility, within a limited scope. The Adventist view of inspiration is very nuanced. It is incorrect to simply conclude that the Adventist view of inspiration is outside of mainstream Christianity and move on. Without a strong commitment to teachings presented in the Bible, Adventism loses any reason to exist. In fact, without a claim to believe in the teachings of the Bible, Adventism can’t be the “remnant church”, can’t be the church that presents the third angel’s message to the world, and often would have to set aside their common arguments for their doctrines. For example, Adventist Bible studies make a large deal out of the word “remember” in the Sabbath commandment, and this requires an underlying belief in the accuracy of Scripture.
However, the attempts to defend and justify the writings of their Prophetess, Ellen G. White, present Adventists with some unique and difficult challenges. Without Ellen White, the Adventist church loses its ability to claim being the remnant church that has the Spirit of Prophecy. At the same time, it is clear that Mrs. White contradicted herself at times and made statements that are clear errors. If the Adventist church, therefore, is going to cling to Ellen White while also ignoring or nullifying many of her problematic statements, they need a view of inspiration that allows this.
The “Present Truth”
One doctrinal tool that allows this re-imaging of Ellen White is the Adventist doctrine of Present Truth. Ellen White’s later statements can contradict her earlier ones because each statement wasn’t the “truth” for that immediate point in time. This rationalization can also be applied backwards to account for any contradiction between Ellen White and Scripture. Both were “true” for the time they were written, and the more recent truth (Ellen White) can supersede the ancient truth due to the recency.
Their other doctrinal tool is to embrace a very limited version of infallibility. Once it is inevitably accepted that Ellen White’s writings aren’t 100% true and accurate, Adventist apologists focus on promoting a view of scriptural inspiration that shares a similar degree of errors and falsehoods as their church’s prophetess. The end result is often a very malleable view of both Ellen White and the Bible, where truth is really left in the hands of individuals (or church committees). Truth becomes whatever the reader wants, and anything the doesn’t align with those wants can be explained away as errors, or at least historical artifacts that were true long ago but no longer apply.
The challenge is that one can’t legitimately embrace both sola Scriptura doctrines and personal truths. Having one negates the other. One can certainly find plenty of churches that have chosen personal truths and decried doctrines as divisive. Other churches have seen these trends and more firmly embraced an inerrant view of Scripture. I contend that the Adventist church is generally trying to keep a foot in each camp, and they shift their weight from one foot to the other depending on the specific need (with the exception of the liberal wing of the Adventist church that has firmly embraced the “personal truths” position).
It would be wrong to conclude that the Adventist church, and individual Adventists, don’t believe the Bible or take the Bible seriously. However, it is important to understand the Adventist view of inspiration and Present Truth in order to evaluate their doctrines and sort through their apologetics regarding those teachings.
It is appropriate that the Adventist Fundamental Beliefs start with their view of inspiration. Every other doctrine flows from this starting point.
- Our Journey Out of Adventism - July 27, 2023
- 30. Adventism’s New Earth - July 27, 2023
- 29. The Adventist Millennium - July 20, 2023