Do Adventists believe in the reformation principle of Sola Scriptura?

First of all, what is Sola Scriptura -- Sola Scriptura is one of the 5 Solas of the protestant reformation:

Sola Scriptura; Sola Fidei; Sola Gratia; Solus Christus; Soli Deo Gloria.

It can be put in this way:Grace alone through faith alone, according to Scripture alone, by Christ alone, to the Glory of God alone. The Sola Scriptura part is the 'Scripture Alone' part.

It is the doctrine that the Bible of the Old and New Testaments, are the sole infallible rule of faith in practice.

This doctrine is founded upon the fact that the Bible is 'theopneustos', or 'God-breathed' as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Because Scripture is God's word, it can not fail to be true, and because it is God's word, it is binding upon our consciences.

According to the SDA church however, Scripture alone is not the only inspired Word of God.

If the prophetic writings of Ellen White have God as their primary author, are we not disbelieving God, when we disbelieve the words of her prophwetic writings?

If they are also God's words, then are they not also infallible and binding upon our consciences?

Seventh-day Adventists are the only protestant Christian group who claims to have writings which are inspired outside of the Bible. All other christian denominations which are protestant, maintain that Scripture alone is inspired of God. They believe this because Christ Jesus gave authority to His disciples to teach and keep His flock, and they passed on to us the Scriptures. The Apostles did not pass onto us Ellen White's visions, and therefore they are not backed by the authority of Jesus our God.

The reference in Acts where it says people will dream dreams and see visions, is a prophecy regarding the pouring of the Spirit upon all peoples -- which is why Peter quoted this prophecy from Joel when everyone could understand the Apostles preaching, even though they came from different parts of the world. In other words, Peter was claiming the reference to point and verify what was happening in front of him.

Does the SDA chuerch believe in Sola Scriptura?

kind regards

ThoroughlyFurnished.blogspot.com

It does NOT state that the old and new testament scriptures are the ONLY infallible rule of faith and practice.

In Ellen White's day the SDA church was truly protestant. It is not the same today.

Let me remind you of what Sola Scriptura meant to the Protestants: The Bible and the Bible ONLY as the RULE of faith and duty. The Bible is the measuring rod to measure things claiming to be truth.

There is a difference between using a yard stick to measure wood to build a house and trying to live in a house built out of rulers, which is what too many people are trying to do today with the phrase sola scriptura. We are suposed to use the Bible for guidance on how to love the world as Jesus has loved it, not as a prision to lock ourselves away from God's world. It is what we use to test all things, to test the spirits, and to help us follow truth where ever it comes from.

ALL Protestants were much more Protestant in Mrs. White's day althought it was starting to change as Fundamentalism was startig to grow, then the pamflits the "fundamentals" starting to be published in the early 1900s and the Fundamentalist Bible Conference in Philadelphia in 1919. A large number of our problems stem from wanting to look at the Bible, Mrs. White or others through the eyes of the Fundamentalists.

If we will take the Bible alone for our authority, which is what we are supposed to do, we will find that the Bible itself says "Do not despise prophecies. Test all things, hold fast what is good." 1 Thess.5:18; 1 John 4:1.

If God sends a messenger or a prophet among us, it is for the purpose of magnifying the Scriptures and making them honorable.

I personally have tested the writings of Ellen White and also of Jones and Waggoner and I have found them to be not only in harmony with the Scriptures but they magnify them.

So when God is working through an instrument of His own, be it a messenger or prophet, is He acting contrary to the Scriptures? Of course not. He is pointing to the Scriptures and shedding light upon them to lead is into safe paths.

sky

In Ellen White's day the SDA church was truly protestant. It is not the same today.

Dr. Waite.
_____________


The order of things that exists in the church today and which has been waxing stronger and stronger is the very order of things of which the Lord, more than a century ago, said:

"The self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men. If you allow this to continue, your faith will soon become extinct." T.M.481. (1907)

In 1895 the Lord had sent this testimony:

"Men have taken unfair advantage of those whom they supposed to be under their jurisdiction. They were determined to bring the individuals to their terms; they would rule or ruin. There will be no material change until a decided movement is made to bring in a different order of things." Ibid,360.

There has been no decided movement to bring in a different order of things on the part of the General Conference ever since these words were written.

The only time the church was truly protestant was at the very beginning but it did not take many years for the Laodicean condition to settle in (1855) and only to worsen with every passing year until, in 1903, the Lord said,

"The message to the church of the Laodiceans applies especially to the people of God today. It is a message to professing Christians who have become so much like the world that no difference can be seen." RH Aug.20,1903.

In 1901 this message was sent:

"We may have to remain in this world because of insubordination many more years." Evangelism,696.

sky

Considering when that was written, we are the fulfillment of that prophecy.

God blesses!

Yes LHC and that will leave the Lord with no choice but to fulfill this other prophecy:

"Unless those who can help in--are aroused to a sense of their duty, they will not recognize the work of God when the loud cry of the third angel shall be heard. When light goes forth to lighten the earth, instead of coming up to the help of the Lord, they will want to bind about His work to meet their narrow ideas. Let me tell you that that the Lord will work in this last work in a manner very much out of the common order of things and in a way that will be contrary to any human planning." T.M.300.

sky :)

Thanks for the reminder, skyblue888. I already feel quite overwhelmed with what is happening now, as I listen to Amazing Discoveries with Walter Veight as well as the news from around the globe, not the least of which is the vast numbers of young people who are dedicating their lives to the spreading of the gospel on an unprecedented scale in the history of the world.

"[ I Am Coming Quickly ] He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming quickly.” Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!"Revelation 22:20 NKJV

God blesses!

There is a reason why the pioneers of SDA church used the word "ONLY". The original SDA belief is this:

"That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, were given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of his will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice."

It is obvious that the leaders of the SDA church left the word "ONLY" out of the 28 fundamental beliefs - they do not believe and teach that the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the "ONLY" infallible rule of faith and practice.

So do not following the leaders of the SDA church - follow the man Christ Jesus.

Greetings,

skyblue said:

If we will take the Bible alone for our authority, which is what we are supposed to do, we will find that the Bible itself says "Do not despise prophecies. Test all things, hold fast what is good." 1 Thess.5:18; 1 John 4:1.

Remember, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Old and New Testaments are the only or sole infallible rule of faith and practice. During the times of the prophets and apostles, when the Scriptures were still being written, Sola Scriptura was not adhered to. The early 1st century christians id not believe that the Bible was THE or the ONLY word we have from God. For example, when Jesus was preaching, His words coming from His mouth were not yet written in Scripture, but they were still regarded as being authoritative. Remember, Jesus gave teaching authority to His apostles. The word 'Apostle', means 'sent one'. The meaning of the word during that time denotes someone who has been given the authority to speak on behalf of another. For example, during that time an 'apostle' for someone could make legally binding decisions on behalf of another person. When Jesus sent out Apostles, He sent out persons who could speak on His behalf -- which is why the teachings of the Apostles must be recognised as teachings of Christ. That is the basis of why they could speak authoritatively.

During the times of the Apostles, there was a pouring out of the gifts of the Spirit, beginning at Pentecost. Infact, Peter qoutes the book of Joel, where it says that people will dream dreams and see visions and prophecy. Peter quoted this passage in Joel, because Peter believed that this prophecy was being fulfilled in his day. What this prophecy was to indicate was the universality of God's calling and salvation. During the Old Testament, it was the Israelites alone who were considered the children of God, as promised descendants of Abraham. In the New Testament era, everyone who holds to Christ by faith, is a spiritual child of Abraham -- whether Jew or Gentile.

Those prophecies during the time of the Apostles, as well as all of the teachings during that time, was for the laying of the foundation of the church. These gifts are mentioned in Ephesians 4:11:

11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,


However, none of these offices were regarded as to be continued, or given rules for continuance. Infact, the only church offices which have been given for continuance with the existence of the church on earth, are listed in 1 Tim 3, and Titus 1. These offices include only those of elder, and deacon.

During this time when Scripture was being made complete, Paul warned Timothy and the Church of the times to come, that deceivers would wax worse and worse. What Paul told Timothy to hold onto, was the Scriptures. It is the Scriptures alone which the Apostles ever gave to the church for continued and perpetual guidance:

Ephesians 3:
1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

....

10 You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11 persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The apostles with the help of those who received gifts as listed in Ephesians 4, have finished laying down the foundation of the church, and we are to hold fast to what they have delivered to us. Also, in 1 Corinthians 12: 28, we see that Christ had appointed certain offices at that time:

28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.

Today, we no longer have the apostles with us because that office was not instituted to be a permanent office. Likewise, all other offices have passed with the laying of the foundation of the church. The only permanent offices, are that of elder and deacon.

What the apostles have delivered to Timothy, and to the church for all ages however, is the Scriptures which are able to make the man of God thoroughly furnished for all good works.

Today, and since the end of the apostolic era, we have the all-sufficient, God-breathed Scriptures. The Apostles have not given or prescribed any body of truth other than that of Scriptures, and is why the protestant churches of the reformation believe that:

The Bible of the Old and New Testaents is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

Since the time of the reformation, some denominations have sprung up claiming to possess a source of inspiration apart from Scripture. These include pentecostals, the Roman Catholic church, the Mormons, and I am arguing also the Seventh-Day Adventist church.

I believe that the SDA church is a christian body of people who love the Lord Jesus Christ. That is not in contention here. What I am arguing, is that the SDA church doesn't consider the Bible to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Rather, the SDA church considers other writings to be inspired of God, and terefore are to be believed and obeyed as the words of God.

If the SDA church believes anything else other than the Scriptures to be God's inspired word, then they can not believe that the Bible alone is God's word.

I love the ASdventist people, but it does not seem that these christians who love the Lord, also believe in Sola Scriptura.

Maybe the SDA church believes in Prima Scriptura, which gives greater or primary authority to the Scriptures. Prima Scriptura is not Sola Scriptura though.

kind regards

I respond to SDA apologist on this issue at my website:

ThoroughlyFurnished.blogspot.com

That is so not true.

If you already had your mind made up, why did you begin this thread, except to start another unprofitable debate, the topic of which has been hashed and rehashed, beaten to death?

Here's an excellent quote by someone who should be familiar to you:

rudywoofs,

I am trying to provide a platform for members of the SDA church to clarify and defend their position.
I believe that the SDA church is a christian body of people, who love the Lord. However, there is something which is dear to all of us, and it clearly teaches us that it is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. I believe that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is Biblical, and I am appealing to fellow christians who love God's word, and are willing to join me in 'reasoning together' upon God's inspired word. I would gladly discuss other topics such as the Sabbath and the Investigative Judgement, if any Adventist desired to teach me what they believe concerning these things. We as christians, are not only 'allowed', but are edified and commanded to fellowship and learn by the Spirit through the Word. I believe that the SDA church does not actually affirm Sola Scriptura, even though it may claim to do so. I am not slandering anyone, and I sincerely love the Adventist people. I believe God has blessed the Adventist church with talents which glorify Him.

I apologise for appearing to be uncharitable, but let me say that I speak and proclaim what I believe to be true concerning God's word, because I love you, and want to share what I have come to cherish with you.

I understand if you or other Adventists would prefer if I do this in another context, if you believe that what I am doing is causing greater confusion that what the purpose of this forum is -- this forum is an Adventist forum, primarily for Adventists after all.

Only say the word, and I will leave peacefully. If however, I have done nothing which is spiritually harmful or ungracious, then please allow me to continue to share and study the Scriptures with those who don't agree with myself on certain issues.


kind regards

ThoroughlyFurnished.blogspot.com

sorry...it appeared that you were interested in pushing your view of what Adventists believe..



the reason I wrote my first post was that this issue **has** been discussed:

here

@troyjs: rest assured that my opinions and ideas are not the consensus of this forum; indeed, quite the opposite..

I agree with both your posts...sounds like a set up for 'you say, I say', which often has no ending. Perhaps the author of the post would like to tell us more about themself and what the end result of such a 'discussion' would be. For any official belief by the church, going to the .org site will answer the question, simple and easy to do. However, asking individuals on their views is not necessarily the view of the .org church and may/will not lead to any conclusion as to membership belief systems, but open room for argument.

So what is the real reason for the question posed???



Really??

Thank you all for kindly allowing me to stay and continue on this topic.

I understand that Ellen White, Miller, James White, the pioneers, and the document, '28 Fundamental Beliefs', claim that Seventh Day Adventists hold to the Bible alone as their infallible rule of faith and practice.

The issue for me is that it is also claimed that Ellen White's prophetic writings are just as inspired as the writings of Scripture. If that is true, then we have several points which seem to be irreconcilable with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. We all agree that wherever God speaks, His words:
are infallible; teach us; and we are bound by conscience to believe them.

Through Ellen White's inspired, prophetic writings, God has spoken.

Therefore, Ellen White's inspired, prophetic writings are: infallible; teach us; and we are bound by conscience to believe them.

I pray that we may all be sanctified in Truth -- His word is Truth.


John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.




kind regards

Gerry,

Thank you for your response.

Allow me to state your position, so that I will not be responding to a misunderstanding.

It seems to me that the SDA church believes Ellen White's writings to be inspired, but the authority of her writings is founded or posterior to the authority of the Scriptures. Analogously, the authority of the New Testament is posterior or founded upon the testimony of the Old Testament.

The Spirit of Prophecy does not add to the Scriptures, but confirms, directs us to, and explains more fully, the doctrine of Scripture.

I now respond to your quotes:

quote 1:
I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged. God has, in that Word, promised to give visions in the "last days"; not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth. Thus God dealt with Peter when He was about to send him to preach to the Gentiles. (Acts 10.) {EW 78.1}

White, E. G. (1882; 2002). Early Writings of Ellen G. White; Early Writings (78). Review and Herald Publishing Association.



Here, E.G White prescribes for us the Scriptures. This is what Paul did for us in 2 Timothy 3. When Paul was writing to Timothy, the canon had not been closed. Rather, the Scriptures which Timothy had known since childhood, was the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul was not teaching us to hold to the Old Testament alone however, but was prescribing that which is 'theopneustos', which is thoroughly furnishing unto every good work. In this quote, White does not define the extent of Scriptures, although she does do so elsewhere. Because she elsewhere explicitly refers to the Bible alons as our rule of faith, she elsewhere explicitly affirms Sola Scriptura.

quote 2:
The Lord desires you to study your Bibles. He has not given any additional light to take the place of His Word. This light is to bring confused minds to His word, which, if eaten and digested, is as the lifeblood of the soul. Letter 130, 1901

“The Spirit was not given—nor can it ever be bestowed—to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested” (GC vii).

Dederen, R. (2001). Vol. 12: Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (electronic ed.). Commentary Reference Series (97). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.


In this quote, White teaches us that her writings do not supersede or abrogate the Scriptures. Rather, she directs us to the Scriptures. She explicitly says that her writings are not a new rule of faith. We must test all things by Scripture alone.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I understand that she explicitly proclaims and defends the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, however I don't believe that is sufficient to prove that one can hold her writings to be inspired, while also believing in Sola Scriptura.

You mention the canon, and the inspired prophets whose teachings we do not possess. Remember what the canon is, and why it is regarded as canonical in the first place:

A 'canon' is a rule, measure, or standard, by which one tests other things, and of which one believes to be normative.

As God spoke through those prophets, their teachings were canonical to all those God providentially delivered it to. The Jews who were the 'oracles of God', passed down to us the 39 books of the Old Testament because it is those alone which God in His providence, had delivered for the people of God in the Old Testament. The Gospel of John records that there were many things Jesus said and did, which he did not record. However, there was a peculiar task for that canonical writer, which did not include those unrecorded things. The task of the prophets we do not consider canonical, was not to give something to the church for all ages, but was peculiar to those God delivered it unto. It would actually be impossible for us to find one of these writings, unless God did not consider these writings necessary for His people. It would mean that for 2000+ years, God had failed to sustain His word within the body of His people. However, we know that His words never pass away.

What our Lord Jesus confirmed however, was the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, by noting the first and last deaths which correspond to that canon, and by declaring the Jews to be the oracles of God. The New Testament canon, is founded upon the authority of Christ, sending out apostles with His own authority to teach. These apostles had the task of laying the foundation for the church, with the help of the New Testament prophets and teachers:

Ephesians 4
11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

In this passage, we learn that after the work of these New Testament apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, and pastors, we will be able to work together in maturity, and will not be tossed back and forth by every wind of doctrine. The church has been built up, and we now have the complete body of doctrine these early builders of the church gave to us -- the Scriptures.

See the parallel of this passage, with 2 Timothy 3. In this passage, we learn of the apostles prophets, and teachers who will build us up to a point where will no longer be blown about by every wind of doctrine, but may work together in unity. In 2 Timothy 3, Paul teaches us that deceivers will wax worse and worse, and prescribes for the Scriptures which are thoroughly furnishing for every good work.

The work of the apostles, prophets, teachers, and evangelists has the same function as the Scriptures, because they are exactly the same. The Scriptures is the work of the Old Testament prophets, the New Testament apostles, prophets, teachers, and evangelists. Remember that the apostles task was to build up the church so that we will not be tossed about by every wind of doctrine? They completed their task, before the last apostle died. Likewise, the task of the New Testament builders of the church, finished their task of delivering to us an unshakeable foundation with the close of the canon of Scripture.

The early offices of building up the church, was completed 2000 years ago. We now have only 2 offices, which were prescribed to be normative for the church of all ages -- elder and deacon. Those who hold these offices, as well as those who hold the priesthood of all believers, are commanded to hold to the Scriptures which the early builders of the church gave us, so that we will not be deceived.

The doctrine of Sola SCriptura then, is founded upon the following principles:

The Word of God alone, and in its entirety, is infallible and normative for all His people.

The Bible alone, is the only Word of God He has providentially delivered unto the church, for sound doctrine and faith.

Therefore, the Bible alone is infallible, and is normative for all God's people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the SDA church explicitly says that the canon is closed, it also explicitly teaches that revelation has not ceased. The problem I see with this, is that if God reveals something to anyone something apart from Scripture, is that person not bound by conscience to obey the content of that revelation? Is not that person to regard what has been revealed by God, as infallible?

The doctrine of the canon being closed, is intimately tied to the doctrine that revelation has ceased. And the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, is intimately tied to the belief that one will not receive God's word apart from Scripture.

It is believed that the SOP is God's word, only so far as it is confirmed by The Bible. However, it is also true that the New Testament is true, only so far as it is confirmed by the Old Testament. Does this mean that the early Judaeo-christians held to 'Sola Old-Testament'? No. Rather, The Old Testament confirmed that the words of the New Testament were God's words, and therefore both the Old and New Testaments are God's infallible word. If the Bible confirms Ellen White to be a prophetess, aren't her inspired writings to be regarded as God's infallible word as well?

If her writings are inspired by God:

Are her inspired writings not infallible, being God's word?

Is the person reading her inspired writings, not also to believe them, since they are God's word?

Is the man of God reading her inspired writings, not bound by conscience to believe what God has said therein?

If so, then how are her inspired writings not: infallible; to believed; and binding upon the conscience of the one who recognises them to be God's word?

If so, then how is the SDA person in the pew, to believe that the Bible alone is God's infallible word?



kind regards

ThoroughlyFurnished.blogspot.com

Bro. Troy, may I suggest you make your posts more brief? I have a rather short attention span. Make multiple posts if necessary. It will also make it easier to respond to.

Originally Posted By: Troy

I understand that she explicitly proclaims and defends the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, however I don't believe that is sufficient to prove that one can hold her writings to be inspired, while also believing in Sola Scriptura.

[color:blue]

Why not? If we were to discover the Book of Nathan or of Gad, or writings of the NT prophets, how would we deal with them? They are inspired, but are we not to test them by the Scriptures? John says, "Do not believe every Spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 Jn 4:1. How do we test them? By the ruler that has been established as normative.


Your premise that revelation ceased when the canon was established, is false, imho. I don't believe that the promise in Joel 2:28 applies only before the canon was closed. In fact, two of the distinguishing marks of the true end-time church given in Rev 12:17 is that this church, represented by the woman, keeps ALL of God's commandments and not just 9/10, and also will have the "testimony of Jesus," which John says is "the spirit of prophey," Rev 19:10.

Everything we need to know about the Plan of Salvation is in the Bible. But do all understand it? Here's what EGW had to say:

That the Testimonies were not given to take the place of the Bible, the following extract from a testimony published in 1876 will show: {5T 663.1}
"Brother J would confuse the mind by seeking to make it appear that the light God has given through the Testimonies is an addition to the word of God, but in this he presents the matter in a false light. God has seen fit in this manner to bring the minds of His people to His word, to give them a clearer understanding of it." [VOL. 4, P. 246 (1876).] The word of God is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind and may be understood by those who have any desire to understand it. But notwithstanding all this, some who profess to make the word of God their study are found living in direct opposition to its plainest teachings. Then, to leave men and women without excuse, God gives plain and pointed testimonies, bringing them back to the word that they have neglected to follow." [VOL. 2, P. 455 (1870).] The word of God abounds in general principles for [BEGIN P.664] the formation of correct habits of living, and the testimonies, general and personal, have been calculated to call their attention more especially to these principles." [VOL. 4, P. 323 (1879).] {5T 663.2}


Testimonies for the Church, Volume 5. 1855; 2002 (663–664). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

In the Scriptures God has set forth practical lessons to govern the life and conduct of all; but though He has given minute particulars in regard to our character, conversation, and conduct, yet in a large measure, His lessons are disregarded and ignored. Besides the instruction in His Word, the Lord has given special testimonies to His people, not as a new revelation, but that He may set before us the plain lessons of His Word, that errors may be corrected, that the right way may be pointed out, that every soul may be without excuse.-- Letter 63, 1893. (See Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 665.) {3SM 31.3}

White, E. G. (1980; 2002). Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 3; Selected Messages, Book 3 (31). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

[/color]

Troy, your reasoning is quite consistent and instructive but you don't address fully what you use as evidence. You quote Eph.4 but pass over the part of it that clarifies the difference between what you assert about spiritual gifts and the principle of Sola Scriptura.Notice that the gifts given by Christ include gifts to those that were not a part of the NT canon? Acts makes it clear that there were prophets whose contributions were not based on their canonical status? Important to not pass over is the duration of the need for all of those gifts found in v.13 "...till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." It can hardly be argued that either the individual Christian of the corporate church has reached that point yet.In fact, the last book of the NT validates that the church had not even come close and every writer of the NT seems to have included a warning of the internal apostasy that would occur in the future. Maybe the SDA acceptance of the continuance of spiritual gifts is the real issue here and that your beliefs about the duration and place of spiritual gifts (including prophesy)needs reexamining?

Right on! Well said.

sky

QR frame:

I suggest that one cannot find Writ supporting the idea Sola Scriptura. So saying...,

one is obliged to view 'Sola Scriptura' itself as tradition.

That, in turn, argues that one proposing Sola Scriptura is actually proposing tradition.

Seems best argument supports both written text and [oral] tradition as vehicles for the transmission of Die Verbum, the Word of Gd, as received. It only remains that...,

one rightly divide what one receives, which is possible today, as we all have access to the means by which we may; whereas, centuries prior, most peoples had no access to written text and moreover, could neither read nor write...

Large areas of the world still have that same lack today.

>>So, when Scripture & tradition are in conflict, which do you follow?<<

I can find many texts that testify that the Seventh-day is the Sabbath; yet, the smallest texts of Hosea and Lamentations turn the many front to back. And then there is tradition re same, yes? Well, in this matter of the Sabbath -- tradition followed its nose without the knowing of it. It was done in ignorance.

So, I am left with the knowledge that Gd left His people of Bible text in their ignorance, secreting His Holy Day until such time as it will be reintroduced (Millennium). Therefore, in this instance, per your query -- I am textually free to honor a day of my choosing, as unto the Lord.

Those who formulated the present day Hebrew calendar readily admit to its incorrectness acknowledging that it is but a facsimile -- effectively allowing for any seven-day period as equally valid as any other seven-day cycle.

Then there are the instances where text contradicts text -- for example:

2 Sam 24:24 And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy [it] of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.

1 Chron 21:24 And king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will verily buy it for the full price: for I will not take [that] which [is] thine for the LORD, nor offer burnt offerings without cost.
1 Chron 21:25 So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.

Upon this sort of evidence, one simply has to acknowledge that traditions found their way into written text as error -- and recognize that at times both traditions and text are errant.

Then, there is such as the matter of incorrect interpretation of text, ie: the matter of the use of the cardinal, the ordinal, the definite article, and the latent indefinite article re their application to the individual days of the seven days of creation (Gen 1&2). The matter of 'contiguity' enters into interpretation...

It is well that the .Org clarified its position this past year re the matter of contiguity.

And then there's the matter of the outright hubris of tradition having no sound foundation, imposed upon the laity. A matter perhaps, for another day.

One tries, in one's integrity. Perfection belonging only to Gd.

Greetings,

I am glad that some have responded.

I apologise for not being as brief as I should be -- at the same time, I apologise for not including everything which is pertinent to the discussion.

In the name of brevity, I will base my initial argument on those things Adventists believe:

God's word alone is infallible.

Ellen White's inspired writings are God's word.

Therefore, Ellen White's inspired writings are infallble.


If God has spoken, then we ought to believe those words.

God has spoken through the writings of Ellen G White's inspired words.

Therefore, God's words in Ellen G White's inspired writings ought to be believed.


If God has spoken, then we can test things by comparing them with God's words.

God has spoken through the inspired words of Ellen WEhite.

Therefore, we can test things by comparing them with the inspired words of Ellen White.


Therefore, the inspired words of Ellen White are:
Infallible; ought to be believed; and can be used to test the truth of some things in faith.

Therefore, The Bible alone is not infallible, ought to be believed, and can be used to test the truth of some things in faith.

Sola Scriptura, is the doctrine that the Bible alone is infallible, ought to be believed as God's word, and can be used to test the truth of some things in faith.

Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false.

If Sola Scriptura is true however, then Ellen G White's inspired writings can not be infallible, ought to be believed as God's word, and can not be used to test things of faith.

kind regards

ThoroughlyFurnished.blogspot.com


In regards to Ephesians, remember that the apostles are an intrinsic part of placing the church on an unshakeable foundation. The apostles are no longer with us, but have delivered unto us the thoroughly furnishing -- all--sufficient Word of God. In Ephesians where it says that we will be built up in love, it teaches us about the state of the church after the work of the Apostles is complete, and when we have a firm foundation for doctrine. I will discuss how it is that we are built up, and what is the 'ligaments' and 'structure' which builds us up in love, at a later time.

quote=jasd]
>>So, when Scripture & tradition are in conflict, which do you follow?<<

I can find many texts that testify that the Seventh-day is the Sabbath; yet, the smallest texts of Hosea and Lamentations turn the many front to back. And then there is tradition re same, yes? Well, in this matter of the Sabbath -- tradition followed its nose without the knowing of it. It was done in ignorance. [/quote]

The whole world knows which one is the 7th day Sabbath. Please cite the verses in Hosea & Lamentations that "turn the many front to back."

The notion that Sola Scriptura itself is tradition is false, imo. This idea derived from Scripture which says:

To the law and to the testimony:
If they speak not according to this word,
It is because there is no light in them.


The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2009 (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version.) (Is 8:20). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

If you want to disregard the plain word of God in favor of tradition, that's between you and God. But that is the kind of disregard for the command of God in favor of tradition that Jesus spoke against:

&#8206;ESV &#8206;&#8206;Mt 15:3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 6 So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

Do that at your own peril.

Gerry,

Infallibility is the incapability or unability to teach error. When God speaks, He can not lie, and therefore all that is His Word, is true and without error.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.


Inerrancy, is the doctrine that the Bible does not contain error, in any of it's teachings.

When we say that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, we mean that it alone is by nature, necessarily true, binding on our conscience, and regulative for our faith and practice, for the simple reason that the Bible alone is the only inspired Word of God, which He has providentially given to us today.

When I dispute the claim that Adventists really hold to Sola Scriptura, even though Ellen White taught the doctrine, this is because of the infallibility of God's Word wherever He has inspired them, and the fact that Ellen White's inspired writings are said to have God as their author. Adventist apologist Merlin D. Burt, in defending the claim that Sola Scriptura is compatible with Ellen White's inspired writings, has said:

"While Seventh-day Adventists do not see a difference in the nature or character of Ellen White’s inspiration compared with the Bible writers, they are very clear on the difference between the role and function of Bible and her writings."

Whether or not they have a role that Scripture does not have, he understands that the writings of Ellen White are no less inspired than the writings of Scripture. If God is the author of both 'Corinthians 1', and 'Christ's Object Lessons', and God can not fail to be true, then God's words in both cases must be considered infallible, and demand our belief in them as such.

Not everything Jesus ever said or did is recorded for us in Scripture. Those who gave us the New Testament, had specific tasks, and the collective work of all their tasks give us the all-sufficient, thoroughly furnishing Word of God. Likewise, those who gave us the Old Testament did not give us everything every prophet ever said or wrote. However, they had a specific task, and they presented and delivered unto us what the prophets of the Old Covenant had said, for the task that God had given to them. The reason why not all that Nathan wrote is given to us today, is the same reason why we do not possess all the words of Jesus Christ. Rather, some things were given to those in the immediate context, while what we have received due to God's providence, is delivering to us what is normative for the body of Christ throughout the ages, by those who gave us the Old and New Testaments.


In 1-2Samuel, 1-2Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, we have the recordings and details about David and the kings of Israel. at the end of all these writings, we have the sources for all these details:

26 David son of Jesse was king over all Israel. 27 He ruled over Israel forty years—seven in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem. 28 He died at a good old age, having enjoyed long life, wealth and honor. His son Solomon succeeded him as king.
29 As for the events of King David’s reign, from beginning to end, they are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer, 30 together with the details of his reign and power, and the circumstances that surrounded him and Israel and the kingdoms of all the other lands.

And as for the New Testament:

John 20:30-31 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.


kind regards


ThoroughlyFurnishing.blogspot.com

>>The whole world knows which one is the 7th day Sabbath.<<

For most of man's history man knew that the earth was flat. That aside, yes, the whole world knows of a seven-day cycle ending upon Saturdays, which are taken to be the Biblical Seventh-day Sabbaths. However, the most cursory reading yields the fact that the OT Seventh-day Sabbath was dependent upon its 'establishment' month to month and year to year by edicts from the priesthood. For instance...,

should the barley have not yet ripened by the time of a Pasch -- another month was added to the year.

Everyone knows that that month cannot be divided equally by the number seven (even when factoring the nights the darkness of the new moon could not be counted). That would leave unaccounted the several days remaining after four periods of seven days were allotted for the weekly Sabbaths. There would also be that additional month added to the year. What of those days? More than a 30-day month of days altogether. How were they dealt with that the seasons would not 'progress'? One can only arrive at the fact that there had to have been calendrical interstices set by the priests.

The formula for that process is lost.

The OT calendar was a thing of fluidity, a thing of successions, with the Seventh-day Sabbaths being upon one day of the week this month and another the next; whereas, the Julian and the Gregorian's weekly cycle -- and extrapolating, the modern Hebrew calendar -- were/is one of relative continuity. The OT's modern counterpart only serves as the roughest of facsimiles sans the every-month-every-year appointed times calculations of the priesthood. (Note the problem of postponements in the modern Hebrew calendar v the OT calendar, for instance. Hillel II found it impossible to reproduce the postponements of the OT calendar -- so the Hebrew calendar today just does a workaround...)

>>Please cite the verses in Hosea & Lamentations that "turn the many front to back."<<

Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

Lam 2:6 And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as [if it were of] a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest.

Hosea prophesied to the Northern Kingdom and Jeremiah prophesied to the Southern Kingdom.

For reason that they polluted His Sabbaths, Gd removed their Sabbath reckonings. He removed knowledge of their appointed times, as it were -- the specific words were: "cause to cease, to be forgotten -- your new moons, your feasts, and your sabbaths", which were the pillars and waymarkers of their calendar.

There exists no text after - which reinstated that which Gd caused to cease and to be forgotten. The evidence abounds that that state continues to this day.


Re the pagan god Saturn, whose signifier is the sickle/scythe, and Baal were gods of agriculture and vegetation. (vegetarianism?) [/kidding] ;-)

For curiosity and/or educational purposes: until the 4th century 'Saturn'sday' (hierarchical) was the first day of the week. (This was after Rome discarded the eight-day week adopting the planetary week instead) It was Constantine who transferred Saturday to the seventh day of the week. Yet, it remains that Saturn rules the first hour of the day, the eighth, etc..., with the first hour of the second day ruled by Sol/sun, the first hour of the third by Luna/moon, etc. One notices that the weekdays and the hours are named for Astrological reason -- to cast horoscopes.

That is not the OT calendar. Moreover, for the Seventh-day Sabbath would appropriately fall upon, successively by month, any day of the week vis-a-vis the Roman Calendar -- depending upon the moon.

>>The notion that Sola Scriptura itself is tradition is false, imo. This idea derived from Scripture which says:

To the law and to the testimony:
If they speak not according to this word,
It is because there is no light in them.<<

The above was of the 'historical' part of Isaiah and was written ca eighth century BC -- with the writing of the Torah preceding and the books of Hosea, Amos, and Nahum being contemporaneous -- all other books of the OT were yet to be written. That translates to a lot of prophecy and testimony yet to be put to parchment/vellum and canonized.

As I said, the text that substantiates the idea Sola Scriptura does not exist; therefore, almost all of Writ was first tradition before becoming scripture.

>>If you want to disregard the plain word of God in favor of tradition, that's between you and God. But that is the kind of disregard for the command of God in favor of tradition that Jesus spoke against:<<

The 'traditions' which Jesus Christ spoke so adamantly against were the traditions brought from Babylon. Much of the Babylonian Talmud, as well the Palestine Talmud (which was subsequently rejected in favor of the Babylonian) were extant, taught, and subscribed-to at the time of Jesus Christ. Much of those traditions were simply abominable.

Almost the entirety of the NT was first tradition before becoming text; thereby, serving as precedent.

>>Mt 15:3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 6 So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.<<

Indeed. But then, there were tradtitions and there were traditions. And in this age there are yet traditions and there are traditions...

>>Do that at your own peril.<<

Sadly, peril assail and overwhelms me. I can naught but trust. :(

"In the mid-1990s, questions arising out of California and Washington regarding the concept of the lunar Sabbath and the 1844 Day of Atonement prompted the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (GC) to take action. In 1995, an order originating from the office of then-GC president, Robert Folkenberg, Sr., commissioned a study group to ascertain how Day of Atonement was determined in 1844 as well as resolve the effect such calculation might have on the seventh-day Sabbath.

The committee members consisted of five scholars hand-picked from the seminary at Andrews University. In addition to these five, there was also a representative from the Ministerial Department of the North American Division (NAD) of Seventh-day Adventists and another representative from the Ministerial Department of the General Conference. Robert M. Johnston, professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the seminary, was selected to head this research committee. No representative from the Biblical Research Institute was on the committee as it was felt that the well-respected scholarship of the various members was of sufficient authority that it was not needed.

The vaults were thrown open for the committee. They were asked to research the Grace Amadon Collection (housed at the Center for Adventist Research at Andrews University) as well as the four volume series, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Leroy Edwin Froom. Additional material supplied the committee for study was a series of letters, written by well-respected Adventist scholar, M. L. Andreasen. A research paper on the subject by Elder J. H. Wierts was to be provided, but before it could be studied, something unexpected happened.

It had been expected that the committee would be able to very quickly refute the idea of the Sabbath being calculated by the ancient Hebrew luni-solar calendar. However, that is not what happened. As the committee members began thoroughly studying into the subject of the Biblical calendar used for calculating the Day of Atonement in 1844 and the facts of the crucifixion date, several of them became convicted of obvious inconsistencies revealing that Saturday is not the Bible Sabbath.

[...]

When asked if the church officials who appointed the committee, in their ignorance of the topic, actually thought that the Study Committee could refute the lunar Sabbath, he replied:



[...]

In order to spare the corporate Church the embarrassment of having to admit that Saturday was not actually the Biblical Sabbath, the Study Committee was shut down and the subject was suppressed. Or, as one committee member recalled, it was feared the truth “would blow up the Church.”



It is important to note in the above quote that a distinction must be made between the “ancient or original Jewish form of luni-solar time” and the “altered modern rabbinical Jewish calendar” in use by Jews around the world today. The calendar used by Jews today is not the same as was used in Bible times. Under intense persecution following the Council of Nicæa, The Jews “fixed” their calendar to align with the continuous weekly cycle of the Julian calendar. Consequently, the Jews in 1844, kept Day of Atonement, or “Yom Kippur,” on September 23, and not on October 22 as the Millerites and later the Seventh-day Adventists claimed was the true Day of Atonement. The fact that the Jews observed Day of Atonement on September 23 and not October 22 was a point well known to the Millerites.



(It was both Jewry and Romanism that changed the Sabbath -- at approx the same time... one by a calendar change and the other by church law. So, one finding that they went to church on the same day as today's Jews -- are noticed that they keep a Seventh-day Sabbath of a Rabbincal calendation and not that of the OT calendar.) [mine:jasd)

[...]

The problem is when the Sabbath is calculated by the original Biblical calendar, it does not routinely fall on Saturday because the weekly cycle of the luni-solar calendar does not align with the weekly cycle of the Gregorian calendar, which is a solar calendar.

[...]

In the end, the difficulties of presenting a new calendar by which to calculate the seventh-day Sabbath seemed overwhelming. Andreasen urged that the resulting confusion would be only detrimental to the Church and for that reason, it should not be pursued.

[...]

In other words, Andreasen was urging, let us focus on how the Millerites established October 22, rather than September 23, as the Day of Atonement for 1844, but let us not come right out and admit that we agree with how they established it. Let us test the waters and, depending upon the reaction to our test, we can know whether or not we wish to say more.

This is not intellectual honesty! It is intellectual cowardice. Truth remains the same, regardless of the reaction against it. Andreasen was most eloquent in his arguments in favor of staying silent about the effect the Biblical calendar has on the weekly seventh-day Sabbath. He wrote a number of letters in which he urged the Research Committee to remain silent on the subject.

These letters are not available to the general public. Apparently, the Church still considers the content too revealing, too explosive to want it released. Copies of these letters were given to the members of the Research Committee of 1995, but the committee members were not allowed to leave the room with them. “We would have made copies of them, but they picked them up before they let us leave the room,” recalled one committee member.

Ultimately, cover it up is exactly what the original Research Committee did." [ed.jasd]

Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

I've abbreviated the half I posted of the article. Should anyone wish to review the matter as it arose and concerned those most honored of the .Org -- I've provided the URL, which you may have to cut and paste to an address bar.

http://www.vogey.com/bibletruthers/

The entire matter, when read, is sadly disturbing. Very disquieting to one's being. Read it and weep.

jasd,

I started this thread to be kind and informative discussion on the relationship between Sola Scriptura, and the SDA church. If you would like to discuss other matters, I must kindly ask you to start your own thread.


For those who were following the original discussion, you will find my latest post a few posts back, in which I define infallibility.


kind regards


ThoroughlyFurnished.blogspot.com

>>I started this thread to be kind and informative discussion on the relationship between Sola Scriptura, and the SDA church. If you would like to discuss other matters, I must kindly ask you to start your own thread.<<

Then you'd probably rather be and/or remain kind and informative, yes?

Perhaps, you've forgotten the Title Line: Re: Seventh Day Adventists and Sola Scriptura

Should you not have noticed - I've dwelt entirely upon the matter laid out in the Title Line; otherwise, please advise as to how it is that I've taken this thread off topic, and how I've not been kind and informative as well.

I should be surprised to see how you interpret that -- for my kindness excelled as did the quality of the information proffered. Much more than one might expect in open dialogue.

Mebbe, you understand "other matters" to have been too informative, too enlarging to the subject at hand? Umm, perhaps it is that you prefer the thread to be leaner than the 'fatness' of the information I've brought to it?

Otherwise, I suggest that when you open a thread and not wish others to post as you do not perceive appropriate -- that you be up front and explicit per the guidelines you wish adhered.

Otherwise, the concern seems pouty.

>>For those who were following the original discussion, you will find my latest post a few posts back, in which I define infallibility.<<

I was also following the original and entire discussion. Did I give reason to doubt?

Per infallibility: I daresay that I addressed the matter of "infallibility" more directly and acutely than you have.

Take a breath, troyjs.

Thanks for defining your terms. As I stated in another post, SDAs (at least I do), have a different take on infallibility and inerrancy. The SDA position is - “In His word, God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrine, and the test of experience” (GC vii).
Dederen, R. (2001). Vol. 12: Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (electronic ed.). Commentary Reference Series (628). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

However, I do not believe in the view that the Bible is, as you stated, "without error". The Scriptures are a product of the human and the Divine. For the Bible to be absolutely perfect and therefore infallible/inerrant, it would have to have been verbally dictated as it was written down. I don't think you will find many SDAs who believe in verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Since man is fallen, fallible, and imperfect, there is bound to be imperfections in any product that he is involved in. To illustrate this point, Matthew wrote, "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me 3x."[Mt 26:34] But Mark says, "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me 3x." [Mk 14:30]. In Mt 8, his account mentions 2 demon-possessed men, whereas Mk in ch 5 mentions only one. JASD mentioned the discrepancy between 2 Sam 24:24 and the 1 Ch 21:24 account of how much David paid for the property. Look at Luke's & Matthew's account of the genealogy of Jesus. I see no way to reconcile them as they are written. Now, all these may very well be just apparent contradictions and not real. None the less, it illustrates the point the side of human imperfections.

Therefore,the syllogisms you used:

God's word alone is infallible.
Ellen White's inspired writings are God's word.
Therefore, Ellen White's inspired writings are infallble.


If God has spoken, then we ought to believe those words.
God has spoken through the writings of Ellen G White's inspired words.
Therefore, God's words in Ellen G White's inspired writings ought to be believed.


If God has spoken, then we can test things by comparing them with God's words.
God has spoken through the inspired words of Ellen WEhite.
Therefore, we can test things by comparing them with the inspired words of Ellen White.


are false, imo. EGW said, "God and heaven alone are infallible." CWE, p.37. And she NEVER claimed infallibility, either for herself or her writings. Yes, up to a point we can cite her writings for authority, and we do that amongst ourselves (SDAS). But I would NEVER cite her as authority when speaking to a non-SDA, or to an SDA who do not accept her authority. Just as the power of US State Supreme Courts emanate (or suppose to) from the Constitution but subject to the power of the US Supreme Court, so is the authority of EGW's writings subject to the ultimate authority of the Canon of Scripture.