Alden Thompson’s latest book, Escape From the Flames, is written out of his concern for a certain streak of fundamentalism in Adventism that forces some to make a choice between “thinking” and “believing.” In his view, fundamentalism’s attachment to “inerrancy” leads not only to an authoritarian attitude towards Scripture and E. G. White’s writings, but forces one not to be “honest” with these texts. The problem, as he sees it, is that an inerrant view adopts an all-or-nothing approach which says, “If you find one error, you can throw the whole thing out.” The result is that inerrantists “place the Bible and themselves in a hard place,” since the Scripture supposedly contains “contradictions.”

Thompson’s goal in writing this book is to help those who may feel somewhat uneasy about the mixture of apparently harsh, legalistic, and authoritarian elements, especially in the Old Testament, with the seemingly more gentle and loving elements in the New Testament. Formally then, his way of making sense of these varied elements in Scripture, as well as in the writings of Ellen White, is to advance a certain interpretation of the concept of “inspiration” which he revisits from a rather personal, biographical perspective.

Although Thompson’s approach raises many questions, he addresses important methodological issues that should not be dismissed lightly. However, it is important to note that in this work he provides no formal definition of “inspiration.” Unfortunately, he does not devote much space to 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:19-21. Based on quotations from E. G. White, it is apparent that Thompson works with a certain understanding of “thought inspiration” in which the human dimension is given well-nigh free reign. What we have is a “phenomenological” approach to inspiration in which we are told, based almost exclusively on the phenomena of Scripture with little attention to the self-testimony of Scripture, what the doctrine of inspiration should accommodate. What the doctrine of Scripture is made to accommodate is based on Thompson’s interpretive value judgment that the New Testament reflects a higher ethical standard than the Old Testament. Stated in other words, he observes that the Old Testament demonstrates “God’s power” whereas the New Testament reflects “God’s goodness.”

On the basis of the foregoing fundamental principle he turns the doctrine of inspiration into an ethical construct, using it to account for what he perceives as difficulties, contradictions, and errors in Scripture and in the writings of E. G. White, e.g., God uses violence for the ultimate good. Imperfections, ambiguities, misconceptions, contradictions, and even “errors” may be accommodated in anticipation of a future, greater good. However, we would argue that according to Scriptures’ own testimony (such as 2 Tim 3:16: 2 Pet 1:19-21) the divine superintendence of the process of inspiration endows the text with firmness, stability, and certitude (see the use of bebaioteron in 2 Peter 1:19). While this divine element may not imply a rigid, literalistic application of God’s Word, it does mean, however, the rejection of any approach that may potentially relativize it, as seems to be the case here. The fact remains that the application of Thompson’s ethical principle of the one, the two, the ten, and the many may not be as free from ambiguity as he hopes. On what principles are human needs and human love established? Or do we not need any such principles?

There are other matters that may be looked at and interpreted differently. For example, has the case really been made that E. G. White developed from an “authority mode” and from the fear of God to the joy in the Lord? One could argue, for example, that if there is a message that is less legalistic, highlighting God’s love for the sinner, it is the message of ‘righteousness by faith’. Interestingly Thompson uses a quote from E. G. White in connection with the Waggoner dispute, in which she says in effect that the message of righteousness by faith has marked “all the years of my experience” (p. 164). Also, should the fact that God uses imperfect speech to communicate His will, be interpreted to mean that He veils His truth? To what extent is the New Testament free from the attitude of authority and absolute obedience? In connection with the last point, for example, Matthew 5:17-18 sounds quite authoritative and absolute.

It is laudable for Thompson to take into consideration the phenomena of Scripture as he wrestles to formulate a doctrine of Scripture. It would be better yet, if he could confront Scripture’s self-testimony as well and articulate an understanding of the Bible that reflects a rapprochement of its phenomena and self-testimony.