Alternative Hermeneutics and Their Implications for the Church: A Reading in the Light of the Biblical Principle Sola Scriptura

Carlos F. Teixeira

Introduction

Recently, the Christian church in general, has been the target of persistent attempts to accept new readings of the Bible. People and groups have defended previously unthinkable ideas in the Adventist theology context, with the clear objective of promoting understandings that they believe to be the most appropriate for specific subjects in the church. On the agenda of these initiatives are included ideas such as that homosexuality and queerness can be acceptable, abortion tolerable in some cases, feminism necessary, political and social activism is part of the role of the church collectively, and that the doctrine and lifestyle of the “modern” believer must adapt to the new forms of religiosity, bearing in mind the ideal of love and non-judgmental relationships, which would ultimately be the essential characteristic of being a Christian.

In the face of these initiatives, church members and leaders have been challenged to take a stand, and while some have acted as true light bearers for the everlasting gospel, others have remained reticent and uninvolved on the matter. In this scenario, it is essential to notice the theological notions behind these ideas and assess whether such proposals are compatible with the Holy Scriptures. In an attempt to assist in such a reflection, this brief article proposes to recall the following: (1) What is the broader hermeneutic paradigm that underlies these new readings? (2) What are its main problems? (3) What are the results of these attacks on the church?

Alternative Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics (Gk. hermēneuō) is generally about how the reader interprets a text. In the case of the Bible, we call biblical hermeneutics the way in which its content is interpreted. Relevant to understanding this is the fact that many Christians believe that through the process of revelation-inspiration, carried out by the Holy Spirit, the Bible is the word of God expressed in human language (2 Tim 3:14–17; 2 Pet 1:20–21). Committed to this (revelational) nature and the (canonical) content of Scripture, they understand that the criteria for its interpretation are established right there in its content (sola scriptura). In this perspective, any proposal for approximation, understanding, and application of the Bible, which differs from that prescribed in its text, is reprehensible because it is at odds with what was set by the Revelator himself.

The types of interpretive initiatives that are in non-compliance with the directives of the biblical text have been commonly called in recent decades “new hermeneutics,” “alternative hermeneutics,” “new readings,” or “new models.”¹ The essence of this kind of perspective can be observed since Eden, when, as an alternative to the word of God, was presented a contrary notion, which unfolded in an understanding and practice opposed to divine guidance (Gen 3:5–7). Since then, and throughout the human journey, countless alternative interpretations² have been proposed to the truths revealed by God in his Word. The most recent resurgence has developed since the Enlightenment (eighteenth century), unfolding like waves over the following centuries. The nineteenth century was the scene of the emergence of various rationalist ideologies that sought to reinterpret the narratives on the meaning of life, including the Bible.³ Through persistent attempts, the impetus for the autonomous reason of the revolutionary Enlightenment thinking also gradually impacted Christian theology.⁴

While there was some resistance, over the twentieth century, two concomitant movements pushed even harder for a new way of interpreting the Scriptures. Adding to the movement from the inside out (made by philosophers of interpretation)⁵ that was already taking place came a movement from the outside in (made by social groups).⁶ In the 1960s, for example, in the context of counterculture movements (Hippie, Flower/Power, sexual emancipation, antimilitarism, Woodstock, punk, anarchism, etc.), new existentialist readings of life and human relations began to be widely disseminated in the social environment. In the following decades, these movements generated a strong expectation of their acceptance in political and religious settings.

Since the 1930s and beyond, the religious context had been under strong internal pressure from the influence of German philosophers of interpretation (Frankfurt School), who proposed different emphases on the methods of text interpretation.⁷ The historical-critical approach adopted, with its practices of literary criticism, canonical criticism, and historical criticism, gave rise to what became known as “new hermeneutics.”⁸ Through it, they proposed to go beyond the interpretation centered on the text for an understanding centered on the experiences of the author or the reader, with contextualization and relevance.

Thus, the interpretative eclecticism that was already emblematic in the academic environment, mainly due to the influence of elements of higher criticism, facilitated the process of reception and gradual accommodation of some of the ideas of the counterculture movements. Such movements, both of counterculture and of interpretative openness, began to feed back, and their consequences reached even more expressively the Catholic, Protestant, and Evangelical branches, starting from the 1980s onwards. As their ideas were progressively accepted, the denominations and their new generations of followers were being redirected in their way of believing, many without realizing that they were being shaped by the same old ideologies contrary to the Bible, now formatted in a diversity of new theological readings.

These, in turn, proposed since the 1960s and strongly disseminated in the 1970s, could be seen throughout the 1980s as being very present and their ideas well accommodated in the various ecclesiastical areas (seminaries, theological symposia, publications, church pulpits, lay movements, some para-ecclesiastical organizations, etc.). In these public manifestations, the activities that presented themselves as supporting initiatives soon assumed the role of collision/resistance movements to what they understood to be skewed and oppressive traditional structures regarding theological interpretation and ecclesiastical praxis. The goal was to free individuals and churches—and through these, society—from the interpretative ties that would not correspond to the proposed new readings.

Over time, it became clear that each new theological reading resulted from a peculiar alternative hermeneutics. Although it is impossible to map all in this chapter, we can observe below the outlines of those many scholars cite as the main ones.

The ideas mentioned in the chart above have been proposed and practiced interchangeably, and often one or more theories serve as the basis for more than one of the proposed theologies. Theories and their theologies interact, and, as presented today, it is impossible to separate them. However, they have a common denominator called “hermeneutics of suspicion.” They are based on critical and deconstructive doubt about biblical accounts, denying them literality and, consequently, the existence of a single meaning defined by the text. This criticism also reaches the structures, authorities, discourses, and practices established in such narratives. In the criticism of this set that they call the “oppressive tradition,” the idea is to propose “post-traditional” theologies capable of subverting systems (whether political, economic, social, or religious) that reproduce such values, thus forcing the emergence of a new mentality and society through a rupture. However, it is possible to see that these alternative hermeneutics face several insurmountable problems.

The Problems Facing the Alternative Hermeneutics

The Bible contains teachings that allow us to notice how human beings reproduce theological knowledge.²⁴ Like other types of knowledge, the theological trait is built from notions that, once articulated in the form of beliefs, begin to motivate and direct the corresponding attitudes. However, according to the Scriptures, God established that this kind of knowledge—the theological—would involve notions, beliefs, and attitudes whose meaning was defined solely by God and communicated through his word. This knowledge was revealed from the beginning, first in audible form and then in writing, being reaffirmed by expressions such as “God said” (Gen 2:16, 18), or “thus says the Lord” (Josh 7:13) or “it is written” (Matt 4:4, 7:10). The spoken word of God, and later his written word, were the established means of making revealed truths (each with a definite and definitive meaning) accessible to human knowledge.

However, the first temptation, in which our first parents fell, had a distinctly hermeneutic character. God said that in case of disobedience, “you shall surely die” (Gen 2:17). But by arguing otherwise, “you will not surely die” (Gen 3:4), it created a perspective of alternative interpretation to the already established word of God. As a result of accepting it (Gen 3:7), there was a change:

(1) Of understanding (Heb. śāḵǎl), referred to in the expression “their eyes were opened” (vv. 5–7);

(2) Of self-perception and perception of the world, for they “knew [Heb. yāḏǎʿ] that they were naked”; and

(3) Of attitudes, since they “made [Heb.ʿāśāh] coverings” and “hid” (Heb. ḥāḇāʾ).²⁵

Since that moment, it was evident that alternative hermeneutics propose readings of the Scriptures based on the acceptance of notions, beliefs, or attitudes that do not conform to “thus says the Lord.” Therefore, an alternative hermeneutic is not only dissonant to the word of God but also contrary to its teachings. Moreover, the resulting ideas, beliefs, and attitudes confront (implicitly or expressly) the way of thinking, seeing, and reacting prescribed in the Scriptures.

However, even over the centuries, the technique of questioning the revealed truths has remained the same. Christ’s temptations reveal this. For each temptation (Matt 4:1–11), the hypothetical “if” (Gr. ei) was used in the form of speculation as to the word of God, observing its occurrences through the “if” of doubt in the first temptation (Matt 4:3), the “if” of decontextualization in the second (Matt 4:6), and the “if” of the alternative in the third (Matt 4:9). Not by chance, after resurrecting, Christ left a practical lesson in how to interpret the Scriptures correctly. On his journey with the two travelers to Emmaus (Luke 24), he “expounded” to them (v. 27, Gr. diermēneuō), that is, he opened and explained (v. 32, Gr. dianoigō)²⁶ the definite and unequivocal meaning of it, without openness to doubt or resignification. Later that day, the same reality was reaffirmed to the other disciples: the Scriptures must be interpreted according to Scripture itself (Luke 24:27, 32, 44–45).

Considering this context, one insurmountable problem facing alternative hermeneutics is the violation of the biblical principle of sola Scriptura (Isa 8:19–20; John 17:17; Rom 15:4; Gal 1:8–9; 2 Tim 3:16–17; 2 Pet 3:15–16). This can be noticed in the origin or sources of the ideas that underpin these new readings. Philosophical speculations, rationalist theories, traditionalist propositions, and sensory perceptions of everyday and cultural experiences are arbitrarily taken as sources of truth. They are imposed on the Scriptures, which are thus forced to conform to existentialist and subversive ideas. So, there is an arbitrary redefinition of elementary definitions: sin, forgiveness, discipline, couple/marriage, family, home, hierarchy, authority, church, etc. This is possible due to the critical method of interpretation adopted, a second major problem. Using tools of higher criticism and thereby calling into question the clear statements of the text, it ends up denying (already a priori) the literality of what was said, adopting metaphorical or allegorical interpretations, without which it would not be possible to re-signify truths that were already clearly established.²⁷

Thus, starting from sources foreign to the Bible, and adopting methods that are also inappropriate, the third insurmountable problem of alternative hermeneutics becomes inevitable, which is its results.

Results of Alternative Hermeneutics

The results of accepting any alternative hermeneutic to the one established by the Bible have been disastrous since the fall of humanity. First, it causes the distancing from God and his truths (Gen 3:8–9), then leads to disunity (Gen 3:12), and ultimately leads to apostasy (Gen 4:5, 8). It was no different in the history of the Christian church.²⁸ Behind many doctrinal questions or critical stances regarding doctrine, the church, and its leadership, there is a hermeneutic impasse resulting from the acceptance of assumptions derived from sources other than the Holy Scriptures.²⁹

Since the authority of the Scripture is denied or weakened, consequently, the authority delegated by revelation to the church and its leadership is also undermined. Not by chance, Christian denominations (or some of their branches—United Methodist, Anglican, Quaker, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian)³⁰ that to some extent have welcomed alternative hermeneutics in recent decades have recently been paying a high and irreversible price. The results of accepting and accommodating such ideas had a high cost ranging from theological disunity via denominational division and missionary sterility. Thus, the loss of identity leads to the loss of unity, which in turn causes failure in doing the mission, foreshadowing the future existence of a community of faith that was once vigorously established.

In the face of the destructive potential that the Bible’s misinterpretation already showed in her day, Ellen G. White recalled that when it comes to revealed truths, “it is not the inspiration of God that leads people to come to diverse opinion.”³¹ Differing opinions on doctrinal topics on which there is a clear and unequivocal “thus says the Lord” is a clear warning sign of the inadequacy in interpreting the word of God. White warns that “skepticism and infidelity in the interpretation of the Scriptures” would lead many to question clear points in the Bible. She explains that for those who approach the word of God in this way, “nothing stands out in clear and distinct lines, upon rock bottom. This is one of the marked signs of the last days.”³²

The questioning and deconstructive criticism that denies the values, principles, and rules presented in Scripture indicates a denial of the revealed truths. This is usually done to re-signify and redefine their practice for personal life and the church. It attempts to repackage the church from an endeavor to change its theological understanding. About how this occurred in her time, White mentions that “a few words of Scripture are separated from the context, which would in many cases show their meaning to be exactly opposite to the interpretation put upon them; and such disjointed passages are perverted and used in proof of doctrines that have no foundation in the word of God.”³³

About why some people act in this way in relation to the Bible, she recalls that

the stamps of minds are different. All do not understand expressions and statements alike. Some understand the statements of the Scriptures to suit their own particular minds and cases. Prepossessions, prejudices, and passions have a strong influence to darken the understanding and confuse the mind even in reading the words of Holy Writ.³⁴

As for one of the results of this type of interpretation, she warns that

those who undertake to interpret the Bible, have corrupted the Word of God and wrested the Scripture from its true meaning, by seeking to harmonize the truth of God with the inventions and doctrines of men. The Scriptures are perverted and misapplied, and the gems of truth are set in the framework of error. These teachers are blinded, and cannot clearly discern what is the true meaning of the Scriptures.³⁵

Faced with the risks of these and other inappropriate attitudes in the interpretation of Scripture, White exhorts that

all who handle the Word of God are engaged in a most solemn and sacred work; for in their research, they are to receive light and a correct knowledge, that they may give to those who are ignorant. Education is the inculcation of ideas which are light and truth. Everyone who diligently and patiently searches the Scriptures that he may educate others, entering upon the work correctly and with an honest heart, laying aside his preconceived ideas, whatever they may have been, and his hereditary prejudices at the door of investigation, will gain true knowledge. But it is easy to put a false interpretation on Scripture, placing stress on passages, and assigning to them a meaning, which, at the first investigation, may appear true, but which by further search, will be seen to be false. If the seeker after truth will compare Scripture with Scripture, he will find the key that unlocks the treasure house and gives him a true understanding of the Word of God. Then he will see that his first impressions would not bear investigation, and that continuing to believe them would be mixing falsehood with truth.³⁶

Given the seriousness of the interpretive task, she said that we do well to remember that

we cannot with safety accept the opinions of any man, however learned, unless they are in harmony with the words of the Great Teacher. The opinions of erring men will be presented for our acceptance, but God’s Word is our authority, and we are never to accept human teaching without the most conclusive evidence that it agrees with the teaching of God’s Word. We are to know that we do know that we are standing on the platform of eternal truth—the Word of the living God.³⁷

Final Considerations

In this brief chapter, I indicated that narrative criticism is the broader hermeneutic paradigm that underlies alternative readings of the Bible. This perspective puts into question the literalness and the defined/definitive meaning of the text. Further, this interpretive posture violates the biblical principle of sola Scriptura as it uses unconventional sources and methods that are, therefore, incompatible with the Bible itself. Finally, the already-known results of this type of hermeneutics and its many readings have been destructive to the church.

In this horizon, it is noticeable that the church faces a problem whose cause is hermeneutic. Therefore, the only safeguard is to turn with humility, commitment, and diligence to the study and proclamation of the word of God and, through His grace, remain faithful to “thus says the Lord.” In this challenging scenario, pastors, workers, and church leaders need to assume their roles in the face of the pressures and conflict these readings have caused. It is expected that, with integrity, balance, and ethics, they will not run away from their duty to teach the Scriptures to the church and to position themselves clearly and openly against such attacks, signaling to all that, although they might be called “new readings,” they are actually new clothing on old ideas. One needs to understand that the minister or church leader is acting against the authority of the Scriptures (a) when they do not instruct the congregation about biblically established notions, beliefs, and attitudes; (b) when they do not stand in favor of the word of God in the face of attempts to re-read it; or (c) even when they manifest support for these ideas and their practices, at any level of advertising.

Furthermore, as Peckham points out, the “hermeneutical diversity stems from the fact of disparate human minds, none of which works perfectly and all of which are temporarily and partially separated from the authoritative interpreter — the Holy Spirit — because of the Fall.”³⁸ In such a situation, the only sure directive for God’s people is “thus says the Lord.” May God help his followers to think, act, and proclaim the sola Scriptura hermeneutic.

__________

¹ See, e.g., D. K. McKim. A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation, ed. by Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986); P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989); Osiek, Carolyn. “The Feminist and the Bible: Hermeneutical Alternatives.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 1997, Vol. 53 (4), pp: 956–968; Vaka’uta, Nasili. “Relocating the Boundaries: An Alternative for Biblical Interpretation.” Pacific Journal of Theology 1998, Vol. 20, pp: 40–53; Emerson B. Powery, “African American Criticism,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 333; Kwabena Donkor, “Hermeneutics Today,” in Perplexing Doctrinal Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2020).

² For a sense of the emblematic journey of interpretation see Bray, Gerald. Biblical interpretation: past and present (Downers Grove: InterVasity Press, 1996); Henry Wansbrough, The Use and Abuse of the Bible: A Brief History of Biblical Interpretation (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2010); Stephen Westerholm and Martin Westerholm, Reading Sacred Scripture: Voices from the History of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016); Ian Christopher Levy, Introducing Medieval Biblical Interpretation: The Senses of Scripture in Premodern Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018);

³ For more details, see Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1974).

⁴ See Hermisten Maia Pereira da Costa, Raízes da Teologia Contemporânea (São Paulo: Cultura Cristã, 2004), 293–315.

⁵ Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, Twentieth Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age (Grover Downers, IL: IVP Academic, 1993).

⁶ Cauê Kruger, “Impressões de 1968: Contracultural e identidades,” Acta Scientiarum: Human and Social Sciences, 32.2 (2010): 139–145.

⁷ Urbano Zilles, Panorama das filosofias do século XX (São Paulo: Paulus, 2016).

⁸ For a broader study on “new hermeneutics,” see Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 221–228, 465ff.

⁹ For a detailed study on the topic, see Hugh R. Mackintosh, Types of Modern Theology (Londres: Nisbet, 1937); John Barton, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Ed. L. Miller and Stanley J. Granz, Fortress Introduction to Contemporary Theologies (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1998); Grenz and Olson, Twentieth Century Theology.

¹⁰ W. Randolph Tate, Handbook for Biblical Interpretation: An Essential Guide to Methods, Terms, and Concepts, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 280. The author sums up the central thinking of the narrative criticism paradigm as follows: “The narrative critic does not identify the narrative world with the real world… . The real world exists in time and space. The narrative world is limited, bounded. The only access to this narrative world is through the secondary medium of the text. The objects, persons, and events in the narrative may not correspond to anything in the real world… . According to the narrative critic, meaning is in the narrative world, not in the real world… . What any character says or does in the narrative must find its significance within the world of the narrative, not within the real world in which the character purportedly lived… . This process of selectivity immediately excludes the possibility of the narrative world being a complete replica of the real one. All meaning therefore must be found in the narrative world, which is a construct of the text. Meaning must be a function of the relationships, experiences, and connections that the implied reader is called upon to create. Everything within the narrative world comes together to create the context and meaning.” In short, for narrative criticism, the text does not mean exactly what is expressed in it. It is up to the reader to exercise his role of completing the meaning of the text.

¹¹ Jacques Arnould, Darwin, Teilhard de Chardin e Cia: a igreja e a evolução (São Paulo: Paulus, 1999).

¹² André S. Musskopf, “Theologies Gay/Queer,” in Teologia e Pós-Modernidade: Ensaios de teologia e filosofia da religião, ed. Jaci Maraschin and Frederico Pieper Pires (São Paulo: Fonte Editorial, 2008). In this work, the author mentions that gay theology is a product of the dialogue of the “discourse of the churches” with “other areas of knowledge and this dialogue generated important shifts. Philosophies of language, theory of complexity, theories of knowledge, as well as studies in the area of sociology, anthropology, economics, were mixed in the production of theological knowledge”, and that this provoked “even unusual theological constructions, seen by many as something strange (queer)” (pp. 267–268). Therefore, gay theology aims to “break with previous ways of approaching the subject” (p. 269).

¹³ Rosino Gibelini, A teologia do século XX, 3rd ed. (São Paulo: Loyola Editions, 2021), 326.

¹⁴ Susan Frank Parsons, The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

¹⁵ Christopher Rowland, The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Miller and Grenz, Fortress Introduction to Contemporary Theologies, 163–180.

¹⁶ Rosino Gibelini, A teologia do século XX, 3rd ed. (São Paulo: Loyola Editions, 2021), 383–414.

¹⁷ Jione Havea, Postcolonial Voices from Downunder: Indigenous Matters, Confronting Readings (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017). See also Pliny Aisoa de Oliveira, Indigenous Tribalism, Ideal Comuno-Missionary for Brazil in the 21st Century, 2nd ed. (São Paulo: Artpress, 2008).

¹⁸ Rosino Gibelini, The Theology of the Twentieth Century, 3rd ed. (São Paulo: Loyola Editions, 2021), 301–321.

¹⁹ Jeremy Punt, “Paul and Postcolonial Hermeneutics: Marginality and/in Early Biblical Interpretation (2Cor 10–13)” Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation, Studies in Theology and Religion 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 107–134.

²⁰ Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964); H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1975).

²¹ Stephen G. Fowler, Probing the Mind to Free the Soul: Toward a Psychoanalytic Protest Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2017).

²² Gibelini, A teologia do século XX, 506.

²³ A prominent feature of emerging theology is that it results from combining other contextual theologies. This notion can be noted in, e.g., Dan Kimball, The Emerging Church – Vintage Christianity for new generations (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003); Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001); David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991).

²⁴ For more details, see Dan-Adrian Petre, Knowing God As an Evangelical: Towards a Canonical-Epistemological Model (Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2023).

²⁵ James A. Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos, 1997), Logos Bible Software edition.

²⁶ J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 1:404.

²⁷ This is a very evident hermeneutical feature of the new readings. See J. Kevin Vanhoozer, The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 46.

²⁸ David S. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation then and now (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), 150ff.

²⁹ Roger Olson, The mosaic of Christian belief (Downers Grove: InterVasity Press, 2003).

³⁰ See Elizabeth Dias, “United Methodist Church Announces Plan to Split Over Same-Sex Marriage,” 3 January 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/methodist-split-gay-marriage.html; Dorothy Ann Lee and Muriel Porter, “Is the Anglican Church about to Split? It Is Facing the Gravest Threat to Its Unity in more than 200 Years,” 26 November 2020, https://theconversation.com/is-the-anglican-church-about-to-split-it-is-facing-the-gravest-threat-to-its-unity-in-more-than-200-years-150365; Megan Creighton, “Quaker Church Splits Over Disputes on LGBT Issues,” 10 November 2017, https://www.gfucrescent.com/news/2017/11/10/quaker-church-splits-over-disputes-on-lgbt-issues; Antje Binder, “Lutheran Church Split on Same-Sex Marriage,” 11 December 2013, https://www.dw.com/en/lutheran-church-split-on-same-sex-marriage/av-17221871; Dave Condren et al., “Presbyterian Church faces split over same-sex unions,” 12 March 2001, https://buffalonews.com/news/presbyterian-church-faces-split-over-same-sex-unions/article_fa1da8f4-a62e-5746-bb26-64b17ca923d2.html; Drew Haxby, “Episcopal Church Splits Over Gay Equality,” 29 December 2008, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/episcopal-church-splits-over-gay-equality.

³¹ Ellen G. White, This Day with God, 164.

³² Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, 15.

³³ Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, 539.

³⁴ Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, v. 1, 20.

³⁵ Ellen G. White, This Day with God, 164

³⁶ Ellen G. White, This Day with God, 43.

³⁷ Ellen G. White, That I May Know Him, 210.

³⁸ John C. Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and the Theological Method (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 163.