Receiving the Word by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim

Brother Pipim hits the nail squarely on the head in determining the cause of the problem of divisions within the Seventh-day Adventist church today. The problem lies with how we view the Bible. Is the Bible to be trusted in its entirety? Or is it to be trusted in matters of salvation but not in some “minor” things? Or is it mostly a good book, but a product of its times?

The book is 368 pages long, and in my 2 hours of perusing it, i probably read about 1/4, and skimmed the rest, so this book review may not accurately reflect all that is in the book. My impression tho, is that while identifying the root problem of divisions within the church, Br. Pipim has not accurately identified what should be done to cure the problem.

Brother Pipim is considered a staunch conservative in the SDA church by almost anyone’s standards, and his views about the subject matter express the “conservative” position very ably. He goes into detail why there are disagreements in the church over many things. “Likewise, in the current debate over such issues as creation, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, abortion, women’s ordination, homosexuality, polygamy, etc., the issue is really over how to interpret the Bible. Thus, whether they are aware of it or not, church members may have shaped their views on the above issues at least in part by their alignment in the ongoing battle of interpretative approaches between the two opposing factions of Adventist scholarship – those who read Scripture through the lenses of liberalism’s historical-critical method and those who reject this methodology.”

He describes “The Three Major Theological Factions” as:
Liberals: Bible Rejecters
Conservatives: Bible Believers
Moderates or Accommodationists: Bible-Doubters

The “liberal” mindset is fundamentally different from the “conservative” mindset, and that all boils down to how one views the Bible. With the “liberal” camp believing that the Bible has some errors, it becomes easy to see how this group of people are always changing opinions and ideas to fit in with the culture and times they are personally living in. In other words, this group determines what is right and wrong by what they want to, not by what is written in the Bible. This group has no foundation upon which to stand, and is always sliding from error to error. In general tho, they have a “loving” attitude towards anyone except fundamentalists, which makes them appear close to the truth.

The “moderate” mindset says that while there are some very minor errors or discrepancies in the Bible such as whether or not 1 or 2 demoniacs met Jesus in the Gadarenes, everything that pertains to salvation is absolutely true. “Moderates tend to occupy high positions in the church where their neo-liberal influence is felt in the classrooms, in the pulpits, and in administrative decision-making positions.” This has been this reviewer’s personal experience too, seeing little outright rejection of the Bible as truth, but some accommodation of the idea that there are small mistakes in the original autographs of the Bible. Many of them are very sincere, dedicated people, and i have even met one who is seen as a very “conservative” pastor who does excellent work in spreading the gospel in China. But he told me there are errors in the Bible such as the OT saying that 70 people went with Jacob to Egypt, while Stephen says 75 went. Unknowingly, he is building his house on the sand, just as the “liberals” are. This is the most dangerous mindset, because the holder of it actually believes they are “upholding” the Bible, where in actuality, they are judging the Bible by their worldly education.

The “conservative” mindset accepts the “full reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible in matters of salvation as well as on any other subject the Bible touches upon.” Thus, everything in the Bible is seen to be absolutely true, and superseding everything else anyone outside of the biblical canon writes or says. We are to take everything to “the law and the testimony” and if there are discrepancies between the Bible and what someone says or writes, we are to follow the Bible and reject the other as error.

Br. Pipim continues with several other insightful things, such as how the use of wording by the liberal camp has basically painted the conservative camp into a corner. Even as i write this, many of the “liberals” take the moniker “progressive Adventist”. That’s sounds great – who doesn’t want to be “progressive”? But it is just a word-play to cover the same wolf – “liberalism” with its attendant worldly philosophy of putting man above God. The terms given to the two major schools of thot for translation also reveal this subtle attack – The method that says only the ideas in the Bible are from God, translates in a “dynamic” method, while those who hold to the view that the words in the Bible are from God translate in a style called “formal equivalence” or “literal”. Somehow it doesn’t sound quite so “modern” does it?

Up to this point, i would gladly give Br. Pipim’s work a A+. But unfortunately, he falls into some of the same traps he points out in the “liberals”, by using denigrating words to downplay those who are “fundamentalist”. Today it seems that everyone hates the “fundamentalists”. I’m one, by the grace of God. For example, i believe that the Bible is “dictated” by the Holy Spirit, just as Ellen White wrote twice, and as abundant evidence within the Bible itself points to. On page 51 he quotes what appears to be a Sunday-keeping Christian in how the Holy Spirit worked upon the Bible writers’ hearts, but fails to quote Ellen White’s positive quotes that the Bible was “dictated by the Holy Ghost”. In fact, he even disses that position, by saying “mechanical (dictation) inspiration, a mistaken theory which claims that the Holy Spirit dictated each word of Scripture.”

His writing method also is a point of concern. It is commendable that he brings down some of the technical terms “scholars” use to an understandable level, but in continuing to use these terms, and also in the quoting of all kinds of authors, he is following the same class of people he is pointedly trying to warn us of. Please look at what Jesus taught, the Bible, and the Spirit of Prophecy, Brother. Where do you find them quoting Babylonish writers at large? Where do you even see them quoting extensively from those of supposedly the same faith who are teaching/preaching error? Yes, there are a few quotes showing them the heart of their sins, but there are no lengthy quotes giving notoriety to their points of view. The Holy Spirit usually just points out the straight and narrow path, without giving much attention to the broad and winding path below. Shouldn’t we be making books giving more of the straight truth? Please re-read what Ellen White wrote about “Living Temple”, and the best way to unmask its error.

He seems to have made a large error in talking about how all the Bibles we have today come from essentialy the Byzantine manuscripts, which is not correct at all. This is probably what leads him to recommend not only the Bible in the KJV line, but the NASB, NIV, and even the Clear Word and other paraphrases. This undermines his core position – that the Bible is the word of God. Perhaps there is a huge world of difference in believing like i do that the Bible is the “Words of God”, and just believing that the Bible is the “Word of God”? If so, that would account for encouraging people to read books with the word “Bible” on them, but which do not contain the pure words of God.

Finally, he makes a big mistake in his definition of the words “infallible” and “inerrant”. “If we press the distinction, infallible would indicate “no potential for error” and inerrant “no actuality of error.” Infallible is the stronger word, although many people think that the reverse is true.” But actually, “inerrant” is stronger than “infallible”, as “infallible” has several different meanings, some of which overlap “inerrant”, and some which only show something as being usually dependable.

American Heritage Dictionary
infallible
ADJECTIVE: 1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
3. Roman Catholic Church Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.

Notice that part of the the first meaning of “infallible” is “incapable of erring”. Probably most people first think of this meaning when they hear this word. The 3rd meaning struck me as having a direct bearing on the question at hand – that is – a “limited” inerrancy. This form of inerrancy is limited to “expounding doctrine on faith or morals”. It is with distress that i see this definition become the standard usage in the SDA church to explain how we should view the Bible. Because the word “infallible” is used, many people who believe in absolute inerrancy see no problem with this definition. But those who believe in “limited” inerrancy see the same word in a totally different light, one that limits the Bible to being inerrant only in major doctrines, but not in details such as matters of science, geography, and history.

The SDA Church Manual in listing the Fundamental Beliefs in 1931 said the Bible is “unerring”, but today the Fundamental Beliefs uses the term “infallible”. This somehow seems to be the acceptable wording to all the “liberals”, “moderates”, and “conservatives” combined, but in actuality, it is a watering-down of belief in the absolute correctness of everything in the Bible.