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.