Hermeneutics of Cynicism or Hermeneutics of Difference: Laiu and Kersten


It has been pointed out by non-SDA’s that any attempt to set up a hermeneutics of difference is nothing else but a hermeneutics of suspicion of the Feuerbachian and Nietzschian way with a post-modern garb. G. Green.

The study by F. G. Laiu and H. Kersten is not far from this observation. It is not a secret that the Sanctuary Message is not accepted by Liberals who still cling to Adventism as their basis. They still get paid by faithful people’s tithes and offerings their salaries at SDA seminaries and schools, but they cannot leave. Where will they work elsewhere? So this storm inside their own selves cannot be kept at bay and must spill out in their papers, books, pamphlets, blogs, articles, sermons, videos, table-talks. Why? The way you live is the way you think and the way you think is the way you design your methodology or unpack your own subjectivity with or without the primary role of the objective norm of the biblical text (some even rejects this as Baconism like M. Blanco). And finally, the way you set up your ideas leads to a product, sermon, lecture, paper, talk, expression, advice that will reflect all the previous in the chain mentioned.

How do you recognize someone is “liberal” in thought?

1.     The person calls for cynicism to be permitted. The apologetics is “allow me to be different”. Instead of hermeneutics of harmony and unity, please allow me to do hermeneutics of cynicism or hermeneutics of difference.

2.    They do not want to be criticized. They want to be critical but not criticized.

3.    They use the jargon “critical”. “More dynamic”. “new hermeneutical approaches”.

4.    They cite those who did it already for years: Ballenger, R. Cottrell, D. Ford, S. van Rooyen, J. Paulsen, J. Paulien, R. Stefanovich, A. Rodriquez, Spectrum, Adventist Today and the list goes on. Their works are online and can be tested.

5.    They challenge the inspiration of the Bible (sometimes). They challenge the inspiration of Ellen White (most of the times). They appeal for the freedom to just get loose from Adventism but plead to be still called an Adventist.

6.    They call Ellen White a product of her time like Ford did and Laiu cited positively.

7.    They criticize the Sanctuary Message as a non-entity in the Bible although there are very good pericopes dealing with issues related to the Sanctuary Messsage: timing (2300), 1 Peter 4:17 (although two handful of modern scholars mostly after 1980 tried to squash the references to the Sanctuary truth out of this text and substitute it with the preteristic notion of Reformed Theologians that it is “persecution on earth” not Investigative Judgment in heaven in this text), heavenly temple, heavenly sanctuary, God’s throne in the heavenly sanctuary, Satan’s attack on God’s Heavenly Sanctuary (Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezechiel 28, Isaiah 6). The salvation engine is wrapped up with the Sanctuary Message. This aspect was missed by non-sda scholars in other denominations.

8.    They expect that other non-sda scholars must run to the Sanctuary Message and since they do not, therefore they took it as a marker that the Sanctuary Message is a misnomer in Adventism. Thus their cynicism. Rebuttal of this is the fact that hardly any non-SDA scholar come to the realization that Sunday is not the day of worship biblically and that Saturday is the Seventh-Day or Day of the Lord. So this is not a yardstick for measurement of truth.  

9.    They feel threatened when Adventists insist them to come in line with the Adventist truth regarding the Sanctuary Message and questions why all must fit into a “unity” straightjacket approach. They blame the conservatives for doing that.

10.Laiu and Kersten is trying to revive Ballenger’s critiques.

11.  Sometimes those who are part of the hermeneutics of cynicism or hermeneutics of difference, are actually in their personal lives divorced and remarried cases. Cognitive critical approaches became unfortunately part of the ontology as well as epistemology and spill over in their methodology and deontology or products they produce.

Dear God,

John Hurst in his History of Rationalism in 1864 has talked about this so many times, Gerhard Hasel in his books has talked about it, I have talked about it in many blogs. Help the people who cannot assess their own identity to come to grips with reality and change. To the good. I pray in Jesus Name. Amen.



Source:  F. G. Laiu and H. Kersten, “ The Sanctuary Doctrine -- A Critical-Apologetic Approach,” A theological study addressed to the Biblical Research Committee, based on the  paper prepared for the European Theology Teachers Convention, April 30, 2011, Cernica-Bucharest November 16, 2011 Cernica-Bucharest. Downloaded from Academia.edu.