Herman C.

Hanko (1993) says that

perhaps no single issue has dominated the agenda of the Reformed and Presbyterian

churches in the world today more than the issue of Hermeneutics. This is not only

because various methods of interpretation have been proposed in the last few decades

which have more or less made concessions to higher criticism, but many other issues

which the church has faced are rooted to Hermeneutical approaches to Scripture.

Evolutionism vs. Creationism, homosexuality, marriage and divorce, women in

ecclesiastical office -- all these issues and more are at bottom hermeneutical. The answers

which theologians and ecclesiastical assemblies have given to these questions have

depended upon how Scripture is to be interpreted. The door has been opened wide to

every heresy within the church; evolutionism has become almost the only way to teach

science; women have been ordained into the offices of minister, elder, and deacon;

homosexuality has been condoned and homosexuals have not only been permitted church

membership, but have even been ordained into office; and all this has happened on the

basis of specific and concrete theories of hermeneutics. The way in which one interprets

the Scriptures has determined one's position in all these matters.

It is worrisome that concessions of every conceivable sort have not only been made to

higher criticism, but also, that the concessions have been defended even by those who claim to

hold to the doctrine of infallible inspiration. The Adventist Church is not exempted from this

contemporary trend, thus, giving rise to many issues related to hermeneutical methodologies of
1
scholars and laymen alike, leading to dissident movements, Lesbianism/Homosexualism, Gay

marriage, Christological heresies, feminist activism, female-church leadership protagonism and

women ordination, Theistic evolutionism, and so on. But notwithstanding how justifiable any

personal or group stand points on these issues might appear, it is pertinent to note that

hermeneutical controversy is one which concerns the authority of Scripture. Now that we have

found ourselves in this hermeneutical entanglement in the church, this paper is intended to draw

attention back to our hermeneutical foundation as Adventist Christians as to chart a way forward

in our missiology. In this enterprise, I hope to take the reader generally, through the theory and

practices of hermeneutics, then specifically, back to Adventist hermeneutical foundations,

followed by a broad overview of hermeneutical issues in the church, and finally, we shall

consider the way forward.

Hermeneutics and Biblical Hermeneutics Defined

Hermeneutics is the theory of text interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical

texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts. Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the

principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part of the broader field of

hermeneutics which involves Talmudal Hermeneutics and Christian-Biblical Hermeneutics.

Biblical hermeneutics is the science of properly interpreting the various types of literature found

in the Bible. For example, a psalm should often be interpreted differently from a prophecy. A

proverb should be understood and applied differently from a law. This is the purpose of biblical

hermeneutics-to help us to know how to interpret, understand, and apply the Bible.

Methods of biblical hermeneutics

 Diverse methods in interpreting the Bible exist-ranging from the allegorical methods

which believe that the Scripture is figurative and has layers to be pilled as to arrive at the true

meaning, hence, the belief that laymen cannot read and understand it; to the literal methods,

which see the Scripture as plain and easily understood. Between these two broad spectrums are

numerous shades of hermeneutics including: (1) Feminist Hermeneutics, which says that the

Bible needs to be revised because it is gender biased-God should not be addressed as “He” but

“She”. Feminist hermeneutists are gender sensitive, believing that we are functionally created as

male or female; (2) the “Liberal” view, which denies the full inspiration, authority, internal

consistency, and trustworthiness of Scripture. Because the Bible is believed to be a fallible

human document, it cannot always be trusted, this view employs the methodology of higher-

criticism to interpret Scripture; (3) the “Fundamentalist” view (some refer to it as the “Ultra-

Conservative” view)-which upholds the full inspiration, authority, internal consistency, and

infallibility of Scripture, and a mechanical dictation or word-for-word mode of inspiration. This

view tends to employ the “proof-text” method of interpretation, using an isolated text arbitrarily

to prove one‟s own point; (4) the Evangelical “Orthodox” view (also known as the Conservative

view)-this view holds that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God, fully inspired,

internally coherent, and trustworthy or dependable in whatever it teaches or touches upon; this

view rejects the mechanical dictation view of inspiration (unless the text indicates so), and

employs the plain reading method of interpretation (known technically as the grammatical-

historical method); (5) the “Neo-Orthodox” view (sometimes referred to as the Barthian view,

after Swiss theologian Karl Barth)-which holds that the Bible is not the Word of God, it only

contains the Word of God or becomes the Word of God to individuals when it grips their hearts.

It also employs higher-criticism to interpret Scripture; (6) the “Neo-Evangelical” or “Neo-

Reformed” view (some call it the “Moderate Liberal” view)-which, while claiming to believe in

the inspiration and authority of the Bible on issues of salvation, is nonetheless skeptical about the

Bible‟s full inspiration, authority, authenticity and reliability on historical and scientific issues;

this view employs modified aspects of higher criticism to interpret Scripture. There are however,

two major approaches to biblical interpretation into which I would like to classify all the above

methods for the practical purpose of this work. They are Historical-Grammatical approach and

Historical-Critical approach.

Historical-Grammatical approach is precisely, one that has a high regard for the

Scripture. It takes the authority of the Bible as unquestionable. The fundamental principles of

this approach are embodied in the Hermeneutic Decalogue below. The Historical-Critical

approach on the other hand, is one that has a low regard for the Bible. It does not see the Bible as

a sole basis for arriving at the truth; rather, there are other sources of knowledge that should be

delved into, like philosophy, culture, and so on. It does not see the Bible as being totally

inspired-some came from God and some from human authors. One very damaging influence of

Historical-Critical method is that it deifies reason above the Word of God. It applies mechanistic

principles (or word for word mode of inspiration) to biblical interpretation and talks of

Demytholization of the Bible, meaning that portions of the Bible are myths that never happened

but are included to teach spiritual lessons.

The Adventists are people of the Bible. Hence, we adopt Historical-Grammatical

approach in our biblical interpretations though there is a vocal minority that is critical of the

Bible, whose activities have given rise to numerous hermeneutical issues throughout the history

of the church. However, Davidson (1993) aptly captures our corporate attitude to hermeneutics

in the following statement: “We come to the Scripture acknowledging our own biases and our
pre-understandings, but we come willing and claim the divine promise that the Holy Spirit will

bring our presuppositions ever more in harmony with the biblical suppositions.”

A Hermeneutical Decalogue
(Foundation for Adventist biblical interpretation)

Adventists subscribe to the following Hermeneutical Decalogue as suggested by Davidson

(1993):

1. The Bible and Bible alone: This is rooted in the Scripture (Isa 8:20). Two corollaries are

implicit in this principle-the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture. The first corollary insists that

the Scripture is the supreme authority over tradition (Matt 15:3,6), human philosophy (Col 2:8),

and human reason, experience, knowledge or science (1Tim 6:20; Prov 14:12). The second

corollary says that Scripture provides the framework, the divine perspective, the foundational

principles for every brand of knowledge and experience or revelation, and all additional

knowledge and experience or revelation must build upon and remain faithful to, the all-sufficient

foundation of the Scripture (2Tim 3:15-17; Ps 119:105). Therefore, the appropriate human

response is not a critique of its content, but a total surrender to its ultimate authority (Isa 66:2).

2. The Totality of Scripture: It is not enough to affirm the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture,

we must accept the totality of it as having divine origin (1Tim 3:16; 2Pet 1:19-21). The Bible

does not just contain the Word of God, but equals the Word of God (2Chron 36:15-16; Matt 4:4).

Even though the prophet is the human instrumentality used by God to deliver the divine message,

yet what they utter is reliable Word of God. Again, just as the incarnate Word is fully God and

fully man (John 1:1-3,14), the written Word of God is an inseparable union of the human and the
divine, and as Jesus‟ humanity was sinless, so Scriptures though written by men are fully

trustworthy.

3. The Analogy (Harmony) of Scripture: Since all the Scripture was inspired by the same Spirit

and all of it is the Word of God, there is a fundamental unity and harmony among its parts (Matt

5:17; John 5 39). Therefore, the Scripture is its own expositor; it is consistent and cannot be

broken; and it is clear and straightforward, able to be grasped by the diligent student (Luke 1:3-4;

John 20:30-31). The Bible is to be taken in its plain, literal sense unless a clear and obvious

figure is intended and there is a single truth-intention for each passage, not a subjective,

multiplicity of meanings. More difficult or obscure biblical passages are to be interpreted by the

clearer passages, and vice versa.

4. Spiritual Discernment: Spiritual things are spiritually discerned (2Cor 2:11,14), hence, the

Bible, being from God, cannot be studied without the aid of the Holy Spirit through prayer.

5. Text and Translation: Emphasizes the importance of preserving the original text of the Bible

as far as possible (Deut 4:2; 12;32). The faithful translation of the words of Scripture needs to be

done in the target language (Neh 8:8; Matt 1:23).

6. Historical Context/Question of Introduction: Since the OT is largely real time historical

description of God‟s real space-time interrelationships with His people, OT prophets, Jesus and

NT writers continually referred back to the earlier OT account. The historical context is accepted

at face value as true and no attempt is made to reconstruct history in a different way than

presented in the biblical record.

7. Literary Context and Analysis: For biblical writers, the literary context of the Scripture is no

less important than the historical context as Scripture is not only a historical book but also a
literary work of art. Therefore, attention is paid to the literary characteristics and conventions of

Scripture in its immediate literary context to determine the limits of the passage in terms of

paragraphs, units or stanzas or in terms of specific genres or literary types, e.g., history, legal

materials, songs, visions, lamentations, gospel, prophetic oracles and figures. Each of these

genres has special characters that emerge from a careful study and are often significant in

interpreting the message. Hence, literary form and interpretation go hand in hand. Generally,

biblical materials are separated into prose and poetry.

8. Grammatic/Syntactic/Semantic Analysis: Scripture provides evidence of engagement in

analysis of grammatical forms and syntactical relationships with attention to the meaning of

words in context to arrive at the straightforward sense of the passage being interpreted, e.g., the

seed of Gal 3 (citing Gen 12:7; 22: 17-18).

9. Theological Context/Analogy: Biblical writers provide evidence for the need to ascertain the

theological message of a passage as part of hermeneutical enterprise. An example is when Jesus

laid bare the far reaching implications of the Decalogue in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:17-

28).

10. Practical Application: For the NT writers, the contemporary application arose out of their

theological interpretation of OT passages. This means that Scripture is not culture bound,

applicable only to certain people and certain time, but is permanent and universal. Most of the

ethical instructions in the NT gospel and epistles may be seen as practical application of OT

passages, though there are exceptions like ceremonial/sanctuary rituals and Israel‟s civil and

Theocratic laws. The final goal of interpreting Scripture is to make practical applications of each
passage to the individual life and to bring hearers to salvation and closer personal relationship

with God.

According to Davidson (1993),

to accept the above Decalogue entails three conversions: Conversion to Jesus as Lord and

Savior; Conversion to the Bible as inspired by the Holy Spirit; Conversion to the

hermeneutic of scripture to accept the way of interpretation of the inspired biblical writers

as to their guided hermeneutical presuppositions, principles and procedures. Only this third

conversion will allow us to function with a radically (“back to roots”) biblical hermeneutic-

which alone will provide a solid foundation for a theology that is utterly faithful to God‟s

Word.

Fritz Guy (1999), on his part, says that in one way or the other, all Christian theology, be it

fundamentalist, conservative, progressive, or liberal, must affirm the authority of Scripture. He

identifies three principles for the way Scripture should function in Christian interpretation of

faith, or faith‟s search for understanding, namely, (1) Scriptures‟ priority over every tradition; (2)

its wholeness; and (3) its theological Christocentricity. These three principles are in tune with

Davidson‟s Decalogue.

Both Davidson‟s Hermeneutical Decalogue and Guy‟s hermeneutical principles, in my

opinion, provide a solid basis for Adventist hermeneutics which defines our fundamental beliefs,

and which, may serve as parameter for Adventist hermeneutists. This view is supported by what

William Johnson (1999) referred to as his Nine Foundations for an Adventist Hermeneutic. He

proposes the following points as the foundation: (1) it must be one for the whole church, lay

people as well as scholars; (2) the divine factor is the Scripture; (3) the divine-human nature of
Scripture must be accepted; (4) let the Bible interpret itself; (5) interpretation is more an art than

science; (6) we need each other; (7) jettison loaded terminology; (8) concentrate on the plain

teaching, not the “hard nuts”; and (9) study, apply, do.

Kwabena Donkor (2013), in his discourse on the role of fundamental beliefs in the church

noted that, “Adventists have a statement of beliefs (not creeds), a set of faith-consciousness

based on Scripture. We have insisted that our creed is the Bible.” The implication of this to every

baptized member is that he/she has “accepted a statement of fundamental beliefs which reflects a

group‟s corporate faith-consciousness, based solely on the Scripture.” It is a “conscious

document that mirrors the belief commitment garnered from Scripture that a group regards as

essential to its identity and mission.” To this extent, I believe that all professed Adventists, no

matter their theological or hermeneutical leanings, owe at least, a duty of conscience (may be of

ethics too), to show expected loyalty to group commitment in respect and honor to the God of the

church. Therefore, any issue arising within the church from hermeneutics is rooted to a deviation

from the corporate hermeneutical foundation and beliefs, which in turn, indicates either a lack of

Davidson‟s (1993) “first”, or “second” and/or “third” conversions or even outright apostasy, not

just regarding the Adventist beliefs, but towards the Bible upon which they are based. A great

duty of accountability therefore rests on every member as soon as he/she realizes that in the

matter of Adventist biblical interpretation, each is called to serious self-examination before the

God of the Word. The hermeneutical choice made, is then, made either for God or against Him.

Knowing this reality should make everyone to weigh carefully the eternal gravity of taking sides

with either Historical-Grammatical approach or Historical-Critical approach in one‟s biblical

hermeneutics. It is against this background that I proceed to examine some major hermeneutical

issues in the church.

Issues in Adventist hermeneutics

I have chosen to classify all issues in Adventist hermeneutics into two broad categories.

They are: issues of dissident movements and issues in doctrinal controversies.

Issues of Dissidents Movements

Our history is inundated with numerous cases of dissident movements, right from

inception. A case example is the offshoot group called The Shepherd‟s Rod or Davidians, which

emerged in 1929 under the leadership of Victor T. Hoeteff. Figueroa (2014) indicates that the

issues of controversy bordered on the interpretation of the gift of prophecy concept in the

remnant church along with numerous other issues like the Lord‟s vineyard in Isaiah 5: does it

represent the world or Israel? The angel of the covenant of Malachi 3:1-3, is it the Lord or not?

The 144,000, are they children of Levi or the children of Israel? The 144,000, do they sing, or

not? Matthew 25:13, does it refer to Christ‟s second coming to this earth or not?

Ellen G. White had counseled in her “Testimonies to the Church”, that to face any error

coming into the SDA Church, we do not need to enter into a controversy, but just present the

truth and contrast it with the error. She said:

When errors come into our ranks, we are not to enter into controversy over them. We are

faithfully to give the message of reproof, and then we are to lead the minds of the people

away from fanciful, erroneous ideas, presenting the truth in contrast with error. The

presentation of heavenly themes will open up to the mind principles that rest upon a

foundation as enduring as eternity.

 Following the above counsel, the pioneers published a detailed comparison of the

writings of Hoeteff with those of Ellen White and the Bible which showed some clear

contradictions. It gave the readers a chance to form their own judgment and decide. The result

was that the erroneous teachings were soon exposed. It is also noteworthy that the leadership of

the mainstream church remained patient, careful and firm while they gave Davidians a fair

hearing.

Records available on White‟s Estate website also reveal issues that are related to

individual dissidents within and without, affecting leaders with secular motives and more, at

Battle Creek Sanitarium, who were carried away with over centralization of power, huge debts,

inordinate monetary quest, immoral deals and relationship with spiritualists. These issues arose

way back mid-nineteenth century and beyond. Ellen White confronted the leaders with her

testimonies and with the Word. A number of times, such leaders rejected her counsels, even her

ministry, to their own doom. She noted that apostasy follows some four steps that we must watch

out for: jealousy and spirit of dissatisfaction towards leaders; rejection of testimony and beliefs;

rejection of the authority of the Bible and final apostasy. These are timeless insights for handling

issues of dissident movements any day.

Issues in Doctrinal Controversy

Ratsara and Davidson (2013) observed rightly that doctrinal controversies have

characterized the experience and growth of the Christian church and it is present as an enemy in

the Adventist Church, of which, it must be dealt with. Indeed, doctrinal issues have dotted the

lines of Adventist history in various forms and shapes-including the extent of involvement of

women in ministry and their ordination; creationism vs evolutionism; baptism of polygamists

and polygamy as a concept in marriage; divorce and remarriage; Gay marriage; Christological
interpretations; worship styles and the use of African musical instruments; speaking in tongues;

vegetarianism, and so on. It has been observed that in most cases, controversy arises due to

failure on the part of protagonists or antagonists to strike a balance while expressing their views,

and especially, because of diversity of hermeneutic approaches, some of which, are not in

agreement with Adventist hermeneutical foundations already discussed above.

The Way Forward

As I have earlier mentioned, issues involving both dissidence and doctrines are rooted

first and foremost to the hermeneutical deviances of a vocal minority which works like “little

leaven that leavens the whole lump.” As long as we remain in this sin-infested world, such

differences will remain. The questions we then need to ask include: must we sacrifice our unity

and mission upon the altar of doctrinal or hermeneutical polarizations? Can we ever have reasons

good enough to deify reason above the Bible? What is the way forward?

Roy Gane (1999), while admitting that among Adventist scholars, we are divided along

Historical-Grammatical and Historical-Critical lines, said that there are areas of agreement and

areas of disagreement. He therefore, counseled mutual understanding as the way forward. He

believes that we can narrow the gap by (1) appreciating what we have in common regarding

biblical inspiration and hermeneutics; (2) appreciating what influences have affected our

orientations; (3) asking, what potential do historical-critical tools have for making positive

contributions to biblical interpretation?; (4) marking where we should draw a line between

proper and improper use of historical-critical disciplines as to check unbiblical influences

flowing into our scholarship; (5) consider using other terminology in place of historical-critical

as to accord better with our concept of inspiration, and (6) weigh how our role as interpreters of
Scripture affects our responsibility to the teachings and world-wide membership of Seventh-day

Adventist Church. In the light of all these, Gane advocates that while we move with care

towards dialogue, we should watch out for distracting factors. I believe that what Gane is

proposing is a diplomatic approach to compromise, and, though it could bring us some succor,

such a marriage of ideology (syncretism or unequal yoking) should be consummated with

caution going by Linnemann‟s (1985) post-conversion testimony, “My „No‟ to historical-critical

theology stems from my „Yes‟ to my wonderful Savior… .” and “No truth could emerge from

this scientific work on biblical text and such labor does not serve proclamation of the gospel.”

Ratsara and Davidson (2013) proffer what I may call spiritual ground rules, which I

believe will help us make real headway with our ongoing hermeneutical differences. By drawing

upon how Christ led the bewildered disciples through the crisis of uncertainty to a solid

understanding and experience of truth regarding Himself, His mission and future mission of the

disciples (Luke 24; Acts 1-2), the authors suggest seven ground rules for dealing with doctrinal

issues in the church. These rules are as follows: (1) accept the foundational authority of the

Scripture; (2) employ a solid biblical hermeneutic; (3) maintain a Christ-centered focus; (4)

foster a spirit of unity of mind/purpose/impulse; (5) engage in frequent seasons of earnest prayer

and fasting; (6) seek for the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to correctly understand

spiritual truth; and (7) maintain an evangelistic motivation and passion for the lost soul.

Furthermore, from the analogy of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, the writers also provide at

least seven additional ground rules for the church to follow in dealing with doctrinal issues. They

are: (1) assemble representative leaders of the church to investigate the controversial issues; (2)

engage in frank spirited discussion and give clarifying public presentations of relevant biblical

and other data; (3) present reports and personal testimonies of the Holy Spirit‟s working through
council members and others in relation to the issue under discussion; (4) verify and test these

testimonies reports by the witness of the Scripture; (5) allow the Holy Spirit to lead the council

to an emerging consensus (unity although not necessarily uniformity) from their close

investigation of Scripture; (6) if the council is so mandated (as with the Annual Council and

General Conference in session), make a formal decision, commit it to writing, and circulate the

document among the world church; and (7) implement the council‟s decision as binding

throughout the world church.

Ratsara and Davidson (2013) further presented two cases from the Adventist pioneers to

illustrate wrong and right approaches to doctrinal controversies. The wrong approach was used

during 1888 Minneapolis Bible Conference which was characterized by a battle for supremacy,

disregard for the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, instead of a humble and prayerful spirit. The

better approach was used by the Adventist movement in most of their seven Sabbatarian Bible

Conferences of 1840-1855. Spiritual preparedness characterized the nature of all people and

groups involved in the study of the Scripture. There was openness of mind and willingness to

discern God‟s voice as to understand His will for the church.

The implication of the above experiences to the church today is that where there is

controversy, a lot of energy is wasted and a lot of activity will lead towards disunity as

controversial issues have the potential of causing compromise of unity. We must avoid the

approach of the early pioneers as manifest in 1888 and promote the approach of the early church

and Adventist pioneers from 1848-1855. Church leadership can help by exercising care and

firmness when dealing with controversial issues. I believe that the foregoing approaches will take

us long way ahead in dealing with issues involving hermeneutics in the church.
 Let us now take steps towards conclusions with the following remarks: Richard Davison

(2013) appeals to us to remember that “a fundamental principle set forth by Scripture is that it

alone is the final norm of truth, the foundational and absolute source of authority, the ultimate

court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice.” This principle is premised on Isaiah 8:20

(KJV): “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because

there is no light in them.” As Isaiah had warned apostate Israel against turning from the authority

of the Law and the prophets to seek counsel from spirit mediums, sources that threatened to

usurp the final authority of the biblical revelation (Isa 8:19), so also today the warning goes forth

against turning to contemporary sources of enlightenment, including human philosophy and

science/knowledge (Col 2:8; 1Tim 6:20), nature (Rom 1:20-23; 2:14-16), reason (Prov 14:12),

and experience (Gen 3:1-6) or traditions (Matt 15:3,6; Col 2:8). Let us rather go back to the

Bible and Bible alone as our rule of life and practice. Ellen White (Great Controversy) states this

principle succinctly:

But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as

the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the

deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and

discordant as the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority-not one nor all

should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before

accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its

support.

Let us honor the testimony of God, the Spirit of Prophecy and it shall be well with us.

The Bible stands alone as the unerring guide to truth; it is sufficient to make one wise unto

salvation (2Tim 3:15). It is the standard by which all doctrines and experience must be tested
(2Tim 3:16-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5,6). The Bible, the whole Bible is trustworthy. It is its own

interpreter and it is consistently reliable, plain, and equal to the Word of God. All additional

knowledge and experience, or revelation, must build upon and remain faithful to the foundation

of Scripture. The appropriate human response must be one of total surrender to the ultimate

authority of the Word of God (Isa 66:2). Therefore, the best approach in dealing with issues in

hermeneutics in the church would require total repentance from all contrary views.

REFERENCES

Davidson R.M. (1993), Interpreting Scripture: An Hermeneutical “Decalogue”. Journal of the

Adventist Theological Society, 4(2), 95-114.

Davidson, R. M. (2013). The Role of the Church in the Interpretation of Scripture. Message,
Mission, and Unity of the Church. Biblical Research Institute. Hagerstown, M. D.
Review and Herald, 323-343.

Donkor, K. (2013). The Role of Fundamental Beliefs in the Church. Message, Mission, and
Unity of the Church. Biblical Research Institute. Hagerstown, M. D. Review and Herald,
287-302.

Ellen White G. Estate. Dissidents Within and Without. Retrieved from

www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt21.html

Figueroa, V. F. (2014). The Bible, Ellen G. White and the Shepherd’s Rod Compared. Ellen G
White Estate Branch office Newsletter. Retrieved from www.aua.ac.ke/index.php/.../95-
ellen-g-white-estate-branch-office.html

Gane, C. (1999, March). An Approach to the Historical-critical Method. Hermeneutics:

Unlocking the Meaning. Ministry international Journal for Pastors. Seventh-day
Adventist Church Ministerial Association, 73(3), 5-9.

Guy, F. (1999). How Scripture Should Function in Theology. Hermeneutics: Unlocking the
Meaning. Ministry international Journal for Pastors. Seventh-day Adventist Church
Ministerial Association, 73(3), 18-22.

Hanko, H. C. (1993, April). Issues in Hermeneutics. Protestant Reformed Theological

Journals. Retrieved from theodion.blogspot.com/2008/04/issues-in-hermeneutics-
conservative.html
Johnson, W. (1999, March). Nine Foundations for an Adventist Hermeneutic. Hermeneutics:
Unlocking the Meaning. Ministry international Journal for Pastors. Seventh-day
Adventist Church Ministerial Association, 73(3), 13-16.

Linnemann, E. (1991). Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? Reflection

of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelicalism), translated by W. Yarbrough. Baker Book
House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 17.

Ratsara, P. S. and Davidson, R. M. (2013). Dealing with Doctrinal Issues in the Church: Proposal
for Ground Rules. Retrieved from: https://www.adventistarchives.org/dealing-with-
doctrinal-issues-in-the-ch...

The Holy Bible. King James Version (1873 ed,).

White, E. G. (1911). Great Controversy, 595. Mountain View, C. A. Pacific Press, Cited in
Davidson, R. M. (2013). The Role of the Church in the Interpretation of Scripture.
Message, Mission, and Unity of the Church, 324.

White, E. G. (1994). Testimonies for the Church. Review and Herald. Cited in Dissidents Within
and Without. Retrieved from www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt21.html

Younker, R. W. (2004, autumn). Consequences of Moving Away from a Recent Six-Day

Creation. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 15(2), 59-70.