Seventh Day Adventists and Sola Scriptura

[Gerr]

If her writings are inspired by God:

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

We might have a different understanding about infallibility than you. At least I do. Here's what EGW said about herself and I believe her writings:

“In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning” (ibid. 37).

Dederen, R. (2001). Vol. 12: Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (electronic ed.). Commentary Reference Series (647). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

But let's leave the subject of infallibility for another topic.

Quote:

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?

As member sitting on the pew, and one who believes in her inspiration, yes, I do try to follow the principles she is trying to point out, just as I do with the Scriptures. But what she says I always subject to the standard. I must admit, there are SDAs who are having trouble with her writings, precisely for the points you brought above. My observation, however, is that just as many Christians ignore certain parts of the Bible because it goes against what they believe or want to practice, so there are SDAs who reject or ignore parts of what she says because it does not square with what they wish to do.

[doug yowell]

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.

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.

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?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: troyjs

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.

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.

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

[jasd]

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.

[Gerr]

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?

[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.

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.

[troyjs]

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.

[Gerr]

Before I respond to your above post, I would like you to explain your understanding of "infallibility" so that you would not be talking apples and me oranges.

[Gerr]

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.

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.

[troyjs]

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

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Gerry Cabalo

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

Quote:jasd

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.

>>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. :(

[jasd]

"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:

Quote:

In their ignorance, they actually thought they had a committee that would rubber stamp whatever they were told to agree to. But after a few meetings they saw that they couldn’t get a consensus from us, they couldn’t bully us, and they shut it down. They saw that they were about to open Pandora’s box and so they shut it down.

[...]

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.”

Quote:

As far back as April, and then in June and December of 1843, and in February of 18442 – months before [William] Miller’s original date expired for the ending of the “Jewish year 1843” at the time of the vernal [spring] equinox in 1844 – his associates (Sylvester Bliss, Josiah Litch, Joshua V. Himes, Nathaniel Southard, Apollos Hale, Nathan Whiting, and others) came to a definite conclusion. This was that the solution of Daniel’s prophecy is dependent upon the ancient or original Jewish form of luni-solar time, and not upon the altered modern rabbinical Jewish calendar. . . . They therefore began to shift from Miller’s original date for the ending of the 2300 years (at the equinox in March), over to the new moon of April, 1844. (Leroy E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 796.)

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.

Quote:

...the whole body of Rabbinical scholarship and the general current practice of Jewry which change was introduced in the same century and at approximately the same time that the Roman Church . . . changed the Sabbath by church law from the seventh to the first day of the week.

(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.

[troyjs]

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

[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.<<

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.

[Gerr]

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.

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.

[Gerr]

JASD, I respect Troy's wishes, so if you want to pursue what we were discussing, then start another thread.

[doug yowell]

JASD, I respect Troy's wishes, so if you want to pursue what we were discussing, then start another thread.

In actuality, jasd did pursue the topic, only he gave an example of Sola Scriptura that was, as you noted, based on the premise of verbal inspiration (and included a misunderstanding of the meaning of what was actually preserved).

[jasd]

>>JASD, I respect Troy's wishes,<<

Well, no diss to you Gerry Cabalo, but as worded _I_ do not respect troyjs wishes. I thought it projected reductivism and was without legitimate standing -- as my posts were to the subject.

>>so if you want to pursue what we were discussing, then start another thread.<<

No, on both counts upon this moment; however, I do not wish my posts to remain where there is so little latitude, too much prissiness, and no sense of the scope of the material posted. My posts contain immeasurable truths and value.

Corn story: should I be standing in 20 acres of corn and see a few gold nuggets at my feet -- I would destroy the entire 20 acres to search for more nuggets, being enormously grateful for the few in hand.

So, am waiting for a response to my post addressed to troyjs... before deciding my course of action. However, not wishing to seem entirely inconsiderate, I may simply anticipate a response...

[troyjs]

Gerry,

Even given your understanding of the term, 'infallibility', that has no bearing on the soundness or validity of the arguments I proposed.

If God's word in the Scriptures is infallible (according to your understanding of 'infallibility'),

are the inspired Word's of God in Ellen White's writing's not also infallible?

You believe that the writings of both the Scriptures, and Ellen White, are inspired by GOd.

What reason is there for you to believe that the former is infallible, whereas the latter are not?

kind regards

ThoroughlyFurnished.blogspot.com

[Gerr]

Gerry,

Even given your understanding of the term, 'infallibility', that has no bearing on the soundness or validity of the arguments I proposed.

If God's word in the Scriptures is infallible (according to your understanding of 'infallibility'),

are the inspired Word's of God in Ellen White's writing's not also infallible?

You believe that the writings of both the Scriptures, and Ellen White, are inspired by GOd.

What reason is there for you to believe that the former is infallible, whereas the latter are not?

kind regards

ThoroughlyFurnished.blogspot.com

I'm not sure you are reading carefully what I am posting. Nowhere did I say that one is more infallible than the other. Both have authority, but because the Bible IS the accepted rule by which we judge doctrine, all other authorities are subject to it. All courts and judges in the land have authority, but all ultimately bow to the authority of the US Supreme Court. Therefore, as a SDA, hold her writings as inspired authority but subject to the accepted ultimate authority, i.e. the Bible.

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: troyjs

Gerry,

Even given your understanding of the term, 'infallibility', that has no bearing on the soundness or validity of the arguments I proposed.

If God's word in the Scriptures is infallible (according to your understanding of 'infallibility'),

are the inspired Word's of God in Ellen White's writing's not also infallible?

You believe that the writings of both the Scriptures, and Ellen White, are inspired by GOd.

What reason is there for you to believe that the former is infallible, whereas the latter are not?

kind regards

ThoroughlyFurnished.blogspot.com

I'm not sure you are reading carefully what I am posting. Nowhere did I say that one is more infallible than the other. Both have authority, but because the Bible IS the accepted rule by which we judge doctrine, all other authorities are subject to it. All courts and judges in the land have authority, but all ultimately bow to the authority of the US Supreme Court. Therefore, as a SDA, hold her writings as inspired authority but subject to the accepted ultimate authority, i.e. the Bible.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and the writings of Ellen White are both inspired, BUT, they do not have the same purpose. The purpose of the writings of Ellen White are not to take the place of the Bible, but to bring men and women back to the Bible.

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 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}

[troyjs]

Gerry, I apologise for the confusion. Protestants believe that the authority of the Bible is based upon the fact that it is God's inspired word and therefore infallible, so I automatically thought you were making a contradiction in saying that both are infallible, but one is more authoritative than the other.

It seems then,

That the SDA church believes that the Bible is not the sole infallible word of God, but that the Scriptures are more authoritative than the inspired writings of Ellen White -- or that Ellen White's writings have a different role to that of the Bible.

It seems to me that nothing is more authoritative than God's inspired Word. If Ellen White's inspired writings were inspired by God, then how can any other writing be more authoritative than it? What does the Bible have which Ellen White's inspired writings lack, which makes the Bible more authoritative than Ellen White's inspired writings?

Even if we can ignore that question for the sake of argument, let us consider this scenario:

An adventist believes that God has inspired the writings of Ellen White. This adventist reads an interpretation of a passage of the Bible, given by Ellen White. If this adventist believes Ellen White's inspired interpretation is also God's interpretation, isn't the adventist bound by conscience to hold this interpretation as true? If so, then this adventist has just used Ellen White's inspired writings as a rule of faith and practice in his life.

Let us consider the idea that Ellen White's writings have a different role.

Is this role necessary for any christian at all?

If so, then is not the Bible insufficient if it does not also have this role?

If the Bible also has this role, then it is not true that Ellen White's writings have a different role.

Therefore, if this role is necessary for any christian and the Bible doesn't have it, then the Bible is insufficient.

If however this role is necessary for any christian and the Bible also has this role, then the writings of EGW don't have a different role.

It is said that the moon directs it's light to point us to the light of the Sun -- but does not the Sun also direct us to itself by it's own light?

In any case, it seems we all agree that the Adventist doesn't hold the Bible alone as infallible. I would just ask for what the Adventist church defines the meaning of, 'rule of faith and practice', and how the inspired writings of EGW are not a rule of faith and practice for adventists.

kind regards

ThoroughlyFurnished.blogspot.com

[Gibs]

Consider these scriptures,

Mal 3:1 ¶ Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

EGW, Only declared to be a messenger,

Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

But notice both verses above point to His coming.

Whether any greater come than she will be seen.

We do know the 144,000 will be HIS SERVANTS,

Re 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

Re 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[troyjs]

Gibs,

What you posted does not defend the idea that SDA believes in Sola Scriptura.

The SDA church affirms to hold to Sola Scriptura, but I am claiming that it does not consistently do so because the SDA church also holds EGW to have been inspired and her inspired writings to be infallible.

Perhaps you believe that the passages you quoted refute the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I do not believe so.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that 'the Scriptures consisting of the Old and New Testaments, are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice'.

I understand that the SDA church claims that EGW is only a messenger, but she is claimed to be an infallible messenger, and one who has taught or interpreted infallibly in her inspired writings.

Maybe you don't hold to Sola Scriptura, and maybe you believe that the verses you quoted refute the doctrine.

Although I believe that Sola Scriptura is Biblical, I am not even attempting to defend it here. I have presented the doctrine and the basis for the doctrine, and I am asking for an Adventist defence of the claim that the SDA church believes Sola Scriptura, while also believing that EGW's inspired writings are infallible and teach us today.

It has been said that EGW's writings and Scripture are different, in that the Bible is more authoritative, or that EGW's inspired writings have a different role. I am humbly waiting for an example of a role that EGW has which the Scriptures do not have, or the basis for thinking that the words of God as inspired in EGW's writings, are less authoritative in the inspired writings of the Bible.

kind regards

ThoroughlyFurnished.blogspot.com

[CoAspen]

Quote:

I understand that the SDA church claims that EGW is only a messenger, but she is claimed to be an infallible messenger, and one who has taught or interpreted infallibly in her inspired writings.

Just repeating something over and over does not make it a truth! The above statement in red has been denied time and time again, yet you keep pushing that.