Sola Scriptura principle in SDA FB#1 good or bad?

[BobRyan]

In SDA believe #1 - we have a statement that argues in effect that all doctrine stands or falls sola scriptura.

In your mind is this a good thing or a bad thing?

As a Moderate SDA -- is this good or bad for SDAs to have this doctrine?

As a Progressive SDA -- should SDAs give up FB#1?

As an non-SDA -- doesn't this FB#1 offer you just the golden opportunity that you would wish for - because it means that all SDA doctrinal arguments have to stand the test of the Bible or else even by SDA standards they must fall.

Am I missing soemthing here? Is FB#1 really a "bad thing"??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Joe67]

The things of the Spirit, concerning which our Lord Jesus talked to Nicodemus and the woman at the well, cannot be proved by Scripture. The written record bears a witness concerning the world of spirit and Jesus Christ our Lord as the personification of that Spirit.

The written code is a witness against us, since we are flesh.

What would be the purpose of the question(s)?

Joe

 

[BobRyan]

There was a similar question on the goodness vs badness of FB#1 asked by JohnT on the Conservative SDA board. When I pointed to these aspects of the benefit for proving all doctrine "sola scriptura" -- John responded by saying that he could not speak freely on the conservative SDA board without being sanctioned - so I agreed to give him a chance to let us know about his objection to this rule in favor of "Sola Scriptura" doctrine on this board instead.

Just trying to be as accomodating as possible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Pythons]

JohnT is correct, he certainly would have been sanctioned on the Traditional board. I'm here now and I would say that the SDA Church is about as Sola Scriptura as the one I belong to. Care to discuss that?

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know what church you belong to - but I affirm EVERY Christian denomination that is willing to EXPLICITLY state a sola scriptura basis for doctrine. That is the right way to go and it sets the BASIS for having a discussion with them.

It does not mean that I would agree with all their OTHER doctrines - but it means that I agree with that one and it means that we have a common-ground foundation for dialogue.

what is not to like?

having said that -- I just checked your religion-icon -- you claim to be Catholic. EVERY time I bring up the IDEA of "sola scriptura" on a Catholic board -- that ALONE get's me loaded with groaning and moaning responses about how sola scriptura is the wrong way to test doctrine. I would say that your claim above then is false since your own group explicitly argues AGAINST sola scriptura each time that is posted as a subject title on a thread.

hmmm - time to conduct that experiement here...
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50152282&postcount=1

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Pythons]

I'm not saying that SS is right or even Biblical. What I'm saying is that Seventh-day Adventism is "no more sola scriptura" then Catholicism, which is saying that Adventism IS NOT SS by any stretch of the means.

 

[pmcleanj]

EVERY time I bring up the IDEA of "sola scriptura" on a Catholic board -- that ALONE get's me loaded with groaning and moaning responses about how sola scriptura is the wrong way to test doctrine. I would say that your claim above then is false since your own group explicitly argues AGAINST sola scriptura each time that is posted as a subject title on a thread.

hmmm - time to conduct that experiement here...
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50152282&postcount=1

Except, unfortunately for your experiment, you posted it on a board that defines "Catholic" somewhat differently from the way that you and Python do. With the result that support for some form of scriptural doctrine test is running rather positively.

To reiterate in this thread, we (at least some of us) believe that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation;" moderated however by the understanding that "What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever" -- and further moderated by the fact that among us neither statement has dogmatic force.

You probably wanted to post your poll here: http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26

 

[BobRyan]

Well I did not realize that the Orthodox and Catholic thread had no real Roman Catholics. But I find it odd that I voted for Sola Scriptura on that thread making 1 of only TWO who did!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Avonia]

Well I did not realize that the Orthodox and Catholic thread had no real Roman Catholics. But I find it odd that I voted for Sola Scriptura on that thread making 1 of only TWO who did!

in Christ,

Bob

The Bible as an exclusive window on God is like Allen, Kansas (pop. 211) as an exclusive window on the world.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible is not an exclusive window -- it is the exclusive ruler -- the exclusive measuring rod.

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO"

Is 8:19 "To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to THIS word it is because they have NO light"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[pmcleanj]

Well I did not realize that the Orthodox and Catholic thread had no real Roman Catholics. But I find it odd that I voted for Sola Scriptura on that thread making 1 of only TWO who did!

in Christ,

Bob

And I was the OTHER one!

But you did get more who voted for "other" than voted for either affirming or opposing it -- a typical Anglican response. Not that seven responses is statistically relevant, except to refute the absolutes in "EVERY time I bring up the IDEA of "sola scriptura" on a Catholic board -- that ALONE get's me loaded with groaning and moaning responses about how sola scriptura is the wrong way to test doctrine."

I voted "for" because I believe the Anglican understanding of "the sufficiency of Scripture" is closer to the historic meaning of "Sola Scriptura" than is the kind of shallowly fundamentalist literalism that often co-opts the term. I suspect some of my fellow churchwomen and churchmen were avoiding the term in order to avoid those latter connotations.

 

[Avonia]

The Bible is not an exclusive window -- it is the exclusive ruler -- the exclusive measuring rod.

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO"

Is 8:19 "To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to THIS word it is because they have NO light"

in Christ,

Bob

Our knowledge of God progresses as we progress. We have vastly greater understanding of many things than the authors of the Bible did. God has not stopped radiating Its nature.

Valuing the Bible inappropriately is a form of undervaluing.

 

[moicherie]

The Adventist church does not practise sola scriptura - if it did polygamy, slavery stoning kids would happen more often.

 

[JonMiller]

Our knowledge of God progresses as we progress. We have vastly greater understanding of many things than the authors of the Bible did. God has not stopped radiating Its nature.

Valuing the Bible inappropriately is a form of undervaluing.

New understanding shouldn't counter/invalidate old understanding. While special relativity is more correct, for most everything that we do/see around us we can use Newtonian relativity.

In the Bible, the basics (What is really truely needed) is all available. If someone says something else that isn't in the Bible is truly needed than they are wrong.

This is another reason why the doctrine of the IJ being important is wrong (even if IJ itself happens to be correct).

And finally, I don't see the evidence that we have a greater understanding of things of core importance compared to the authors of the Bible. I will agree that our views of God/sin/etc are a lot more developed/etc than those of the writers, however that makes me think that we are missing out on what is important by focusing on details where we lack sufficient evidence.

JM

 

[Avonia]

New understanding shouldn't counter/invalidate old understanding. While special relativity is more correct, for most everything that we do/see around us we can use Newtonian relativity.

This depends on the "most everything" you are looking at. But I understand your basic point.

In the Bible, the basics (What is really truely needed) is all available.

Agreed. But many Christians don't understand the difference between the basics (principles) and beliefs - or the importance of context.

And finally, I don't see the evidence that we have a greater understanding of things of core importance compared to the authors of the Bible.

Slavery.

 

[JonMiller]

Also, it's not even just can, it is that it is too complicated if we use special relativity.

How is slavery something of core importance to our spiritual life?

By the way, if one followed the rules for slavery outlined in the Bible you wouldn't have anything like the terrible practice of 150ish years ago. Additionally, we would find the freedom of a large percentage of the population unacceptable, as much for cultural/financial reasons as others.

JM

 

[Mankin]

There's nothing wrong with putting that in as a FB. However, to say that any church is Sola Scriptura is simply false. Many churchs define Sola Scriptura to mean: our interpretation of the Bible+ commentators, prophets etc. Sola Scriptura is not something one group can claim.

 

[AzA]

How is slavery something of core importance to our spiritual life?

By the way, if one followed the rules for slavery outlined in the Bible you wouldn't have anything like the terrible practice of 150ish years ago. Additionally, we would find the freedom of a large percentage of the population unacceptable, as much for cultural/financial reasons as others.

I'm uncertain as to how seriously you're advancing this position.

 

[JonMiller]

Completely seriously. I mean, the Roman government was corrupt and terrible, and Jesus wasn't preaching against it. He was preaching about treating others nicely/etc.

I don't see much difference between some practices of slavery (or serfdom, which was actually worse then some practices of slavery), and what goes on today.

People seem to be unable to discern what is really important, rather focusing on the symptoms.

JM

 

[BobRyan]

Bob

The Bible is not an exclusive window -- it is the exclusive ruler -- the exclusive measuring rod.

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO"

Is 8:19 "To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to THIS word it is because they have NO light"

Our knowledge of God progresses as we progress. We have vastly greater understanding of many things than the authors of the Bible did. God has not stopped radiating Its nature.

Valuing the Bible inappropriately is a form of undervaluing.

So to summarize -- we now know "more than God" or "still LESS than God"?

"Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit SPOKE FROM GOD" 2Peter 1:21

George Knight's book "Neutering of Adventism" speaks to the historic fact that when the mainline protestant churches finally figured out that they knew MORE than God - and that the Bible was little more than a book on "ethics" they decimated their own membership by half in many cases.

in Christ,

Bob