The Reformers and Sola Scriptura

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Where does the notion come from that Christ intended that the disciples would develop his message through arguing among themselves until some compromise or consensus was achieved?

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

And since Galatians and Acts show that truth came about through discussion and prayer as well as direct prophetic inspiration, I think this makes pretty clear that Jesus expected the Christian community to experience a development of doctrine that included all the various means that are attested, first within the New Testament and the New Testament era, and then in the subapostolic era and the second century, and perhaps even into the era of the ecumenical councils and the church fathers.

Of course, I think the later go in that process, the father we are from the initial outpouring of that same Spirit on Pentecost. And therefore, the further we are from Pentecost, the more we need to be cautious of blindly accepting new truths (and I think the church fathers recognized that when they condemned the New Prophecy/Montanism). But I don't think the development of doctrine through discussion and consensus contradicts Christ's expectations for the church; indeed, in a limited way, they follow through on the same processes he set in motion by sending the Spirit.

 

[Albion]

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth

Please say that YOU, of all people, know that "guide you into all truth" does not mean "they're infallible."

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Please say that YOU, of all people, know that "guide you into all truth" does not mean "they're infallible."

As far as the church fathers, yes, absolutely, they're not infallible. The ecumenical councils? That I'm not positive about. Maybe something like the distinction between biblical infallibility (which I believe in) and biblical inerrancy (which I don't). Conciliar infallibility (doctrinal definitions) but not conciliar inerrancy (the canons for church governance?). Maybe?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Excuse me, but I said not a word about councils. I was referring to the fond notion that it was Christ's intent that anyone and everyone would speculate, argue, and offer opinions over a matter of decades until some theory or other became the norm.

I can't really speak to that. I don't know how long disagreement brewed or what exactly it took to resolve them. We do know there were other disagreements among the Apostles and those with them.

Your question really brings something home to me though. What do we have now in place of that? Everyone speculating, arguing, and offering opinions over a matter of decades (and more) ... And no resolution likely to come of it.

 

[Chesterton]

What do we have now in place of that? Everyone speculating, arguing, and offering opinions over a matter of decades (and more) ... And no resolution likely to come of it.

New Council. Tonight at my place. BYOB.

 

[~Anastasia~]

New Council. Tonight at my place. BYOB.

Gladly, lol.

 

[Rick Otto]

New Council. Tonight at my place. BYOB.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Which is the problem so often found with the RCC.

But notice that Christ exposes the issue clearly in Mark 7:6-13 for all to see.

in Christ,

Bob

Christ speaks on "sola scriptura" you think?

Mark 7:1-13 NAB

(1) Now when the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him,
(2) they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.
(3) (For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders.
(4) And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed, the purification of cups and jugs and kettles (and beds).)
(5) So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?
(6) He responded, Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me;
(7) In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.'
(8) You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.
(9) He went on to say, How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!
(10) For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.'
(11) Yet you say, 'If a person says to father or mother, Any support you might have had from me is qorban' (meaning, dedicated to God),
(12) you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
(13) You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.​

The passage does not teach sola scriptura. What it does teach is that one who wants to follow the Law ought to follow everything written in the Law. Naturally that is not what your post advocates because Ellen White did not advocate making animal sacrifices as the Law requires. Jesus was castigating the Pharisees and the scribes because they made such a song and dance about following the Law and the traditions that the rabbis derived from the Law but they were not so scrupulous about obeying what was written in the Law when it came to personal wealth which they taught could be kept from one's own needy parents by claiming it was dedicated to God! The hypocrisy was in their use of the Law, not in their view of scripture.

Since this thread is about the reformers and their teaching about sola scriptura we ought not to trouble ourselves too much about Ellen White's views on the Catholic Church. She was not one of the Protestant reformers. In fact, had she lived during the Reformation she would very likely have been condemned as a heretic by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly. Since re-baptism by immersion was a doctrine condemned by the main reformers and Ellen White taught it. No doubt the claims made about visions and the need to keep Saturday, avoid pork, and such things would also have been used to condemn her.

But I suppose it is your use of Mark chapter seven verses one through thirteen that is the point here. Your post, BobRyan, misuses the passage if you intended to teach that it contains teaching from Jesus Christ about sola scriptura. It doesn't.

 

[Albion]

I can't really speak to that. I don't know how long disagreement brewed or what exactly it took to resolve them. We do know there were other disagreements among the Apostles and those with them.

Your question really brings something home to me though. What do we have now in place of that? []/quote]
The Bible.

Everyone speculating, arguing, and offering opinions over a matter of decades (and more) ... And no resolution likely to come of it.

Well, I hope you know that WHATEVER the authority is, humans will bicker over it.

The notion that some silver bullet, whether it be councils or imaginary traditions or anything else like that, can cause humans to agree on all things religious is just not realistic. We already have churches that subscribe to each of these methods and is there unity as a result? Obviously, NO. People will disagree on this matter just as they do on everything else.

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic reformers - the catholic "protesters" trying to reform the catholic church were themselves trained by the RCC to interpret scripture as they did. They were not the laity they were the scholars, the theologians doing this "reforming" and the peasants followed to some degree.

It was not the interpretation - but rather the weight of importance the willingness to bend the text to fit the traditions of men.

Mark 7:6-13 is a perfect example of this.

6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”


It is often the question of application and relative importance that is in doubt when choosing between tradition and scripture - as Christ points out.

There is nothing in this from Christ about 'the real debate is going to be about someone coming along 100 years later to tell us what is scripture'

Yet how often does the RC argument on this topic go there. knowing that as we saw with the RCC in the first century thread - there are no RC distinctive doctrines actually taught in the NT text.

Why is the assumption that there were no voices among the ECF until 100 years after Christ? Does one think that no one was talking about doctrine? Kind of funny given the fact that I don't believe the Apostles carried around a bound copy of the Bible in their back pockets. And why the reference to "the RCC in the first century" ... As if the Church existed as such? (And if one admits that she DID then the Catholics would happily agree anyway, wouldn't they?)

Catholic distinctive doctrine is not found in the NT text.

You may suppose this is because they were all being quiet about it -- while believing it - but that makes no sense because this would have been the age where they were supposed to be "introducing it" not "keeping quiet about it".

As you appear to note - the RCC did not exist then and that is why you don't find her doctrines in the NT text.

My point about Mark 7 is that Christ points to the already existing problem of violating scripture via man-made tradition. A problem well known to first century NT authors.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christ speaks on "sola scriptura" you think?

Mark 7:1-13 NAB

(1) Now when the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him,
(2) they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.
(3) (For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders.
(4) And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed, the purification of cups and jugs and kettles (and beds).)
(5) So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?
(6) He responded, Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me;
(7) In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.'
(8) You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.
(9) He went on to say, How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!
(10) For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.'
(11) Yet you say, 'If a person says to father or mother, Any support you might have had from me is qorban' (meaning, dedicated to God),
(12) you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
(13) You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.​

The passage does not teach sola scriptura.

Indeed it does teach that very thing - if you accept the definition of sola scriptura as what Christ is teaching by condemning the man-made tradition of the one true church established by God at Sinai and still functioning in the days of Christ -- by comparing tradition to scripture and testing it.

What it does teach is that one who wants to follow the Law ought to follow everything written in the Law. Naturally that is not what your post advocates

If you read the actual chapter of Mark 7 you see that Christ condemns the act of setting aside the Commandment of God -- which is called the "Word of God" by Christ.

He is NOT arguing that they come up with "an even slicker way to disregard the WORD of God".

I think we both know that point is true -

because Ellen White did not advocate making animal sacrifices as the Law requires.

The Law does not require animal sacrifices (the type) after the antitype is completed according to the actual Bible in Heb 10:3-14 pointing to the "once for all sacrifice" completed and "removing the first to establish the second".

I think we all knew that -- even Ellen White.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Bible.


Well, I hope you know that WHATEVER the authority is, humans will bicker over it.

The notion that some silver bullet, whether it be councils or imaginary traditions or anything else like that, can cause humans to agree on all things religious is just not realistic. We already have churches that subscribe to each of these methods and is there unity as a result? Obviously, NO. People will disagree on this matter just as they do on everything else.

Now, ironically, I'm going to have to agree with you, Albion.

At least in part. I do certainly agree that apparently humans will bicker over any authority.

We have instances of it happening in the first century preserved in the Scriptural record.

We have instances from within the ECFs and glaring instances involving the heresies that arose.

We have instances within the Church itself, witness various schisms and reformations.

And we have instances here in GT - open pretty much any thread at all.


You cut my point out, but then remade it somewhat, so I'll agree. It is this way, and has always been to some degree.

We have the Bible - yes, we do. And that is the final authority, as I think anyone in any kind of Church will agree.

Of course we disagree on how to interpret it.

But I will say this. If the early reformers appealed to the Tradition of the Church for the sake of a framework within which to interpret Scripture, as the post I quoted from CL in the OP claims, then that argues for the value of an interpretive framework at least helping to minimize disagreement.

On many matters, the Orthodox, Catholic, Lutherans, (and I'm trying to decide whether to include Anglicans, because it seems I see some that do agree and some that don't - no offense, Albion) ... but on many matters these Churches come into agreement.

On the other hand, divorced from that framework, and devolving over centuries into sola scriptura interpreted differently by a number of denominations, and even further morphing into what happens when many individuals interpret with no framework at all ... well, it looks to me as though the divergence of ideas is increasing.

A Southern Baptist, a Full-Gospel, a Seventh-Day Adventist, and an Amish are probably going to find a lot more to disagree on than they agree on.

That's what it looks like to me anyway.

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding Mark 7

Christ speaks on "sola scriptura" you think?

Mark 7:1-13 NAB

(1) Now when the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him,
(2) they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.
(3) (For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders.​

​

The debate is specifically about "the tradition of the elders".

It is not at all about Christ arguing for "finding a slicker way to ignore the 5th commandment calling for us to honor Father and Mother" --- I think all know that.

Christ speaks on "sola scriptura" you think?Mark 7:1-13 NAB

(4) And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed, the purification of cups and jugs and kettles (and beds).)
(5) So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?

Here again the complaint from the magesterium of the one true church started by God at Sinai and still functioning at the time of Christ - is why their highly exalted "tradition" was being ignore as if it did not have the weight of scripture.

Christ then accuses THEM of making void the actual Word of God - via their own silly traditions.

NASB Mark 7

6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”​

The hypocrisy was in their use of the Law, not in their view of scripture.


Since this thread is about the reformers and their teaching about sola scriptura we ought not to trouble ourselves too much about Ellen White's views

Ellen White did not write Mark 7 as it turns out.

So the problem for the RCC in Mark 7 is that it condemns the idea of using man-made tradition to make void the Word of God. And it requires testing of all tradition as Christ does in Mark 7 - tossing bad tradition out the window where it contradicts the actual Word of God.

Here is a point that the protesting reformers - the Protestants today - the evanglicals, and almost every objective Bible reader can see clearly - regardless of your dislike of Ellen White.

So yes that means Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly, Jerom, Huss, Wycliff, Billy Graham, Charles Stanley and you-name-it will be able to see this point in Mark 7 -- the RCC opposition to Sola Scriptura not withstanding.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

. Since re-baptism by immersion was a doctrine condemned by the main reformers and Ellen White taught it. No doubt the claims made about visions and the need to keep Saturday, avoid pork, and such things would also have been used to condemn her.

But I suppose it is your use of Mark chapter seven verses one through thirteen that is the point here. Your post, BobRyan, misuses the passage if you intended to teach that it contains teaching from Jesus Christ about sola scriptura. It doesn't.

.

Believer's baptism and the annabaptist acceptance of this basic Bible doctrine is not the "Ellen White invented the doctrine" story you pretend it to be.

A great many Christians outside of the Seventh-day Adventist church know and accept the Bible doctrine on believer's baptism rather than infant sprinkling with holy water to avoid limbo.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

Indeed it does teach that very thing - if you accept the definition of sola scriptura as what Christ is teaching by condemning the man-made tradition of the one true church established by God at Sinai and still functioning in the days of Christ -- by comparing tradition to scripture and testing it.



If you read the actual chapter of Mark 7 you see that Christ condemns the act of setting aside the Commandment of God -- which is called the "Word of God" by Christ.

He is NOT arguing that they come up with "an even slicker way to disregard the WORD of God".

I think we both know that point is true -



The Law does not require animal sacrifices (the type) after the antitype is completed according to the actual Bible in Heb 10:3-14 pointing to the "once for all sacrifice" completed and "removing the first to establish the second".

I think we all knew that -- even Ellen White.

in Christ,

Bob

Hermeneutics like that exhibited in the above quote is the reason why heresy and error spread. Clearly in Mark 7:1-13 Jesus does not teach sola scriptura. Clearly the interpretation offered in the quote is erroneous. Clearly when the Lord refers to "the word of God" he is referring to the commandments that God spoke to the people who stood at the foot of mount Sinai. That the quote above treats "the word of God" as a synonym for "the bible" is one symptom of the bad hermeneutic used.

After reading your explanation for treating the law of sacrifices as irrelevant I wonder what else is irrelevant in the system of interpretation that you've used.

 

[BobRyan]

We have instances within the Church itself, witness various schisms and reformations.

And we have instances here in GT - open pretty much any thread at all.


You cut my point out, but then remade it somewhat, so I'll agree. It is this way, and has always been to some degree.

We have the Bible - yes, we do. And that is the final authority, as I think anyone in any kind of Church will agree.

Then how is that not sola scriptura testing of all doctrine, tradition, faith and practice?

How ELSE do you test it if not via the Mark 7 model that Jesus himself used.

A model that did not blindly hand off to the Jewish magesterium so they would simply tell him what to think?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

Which is the problem so often found with the RCC.

But notice that Christ exposes the issue clearly in Mark 7:6-13 for all to see.

in Christ,

Bob

Christ speaks on "sola scriptura" you think?

Mark 7:1-13 NAB

(1) Now when the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him,
(2) they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.
(3) (For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders.
(4) And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed, the purification of cups and jugs and kettles (and beds).)
(5) So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?
(6) He responded, Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me;
(7) In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.'
(8) You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.
(9) He went on to say, How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!
(10) For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.'
(11) Yet you say, 'If a person says to father or mother, Any support you might have had from me is qorban' (meaning, dedicated to God),
(12) you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
(13) You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.​

The passage does not teach sola scriptura. What it does teach is that one who wants to follow the Law ought to follow everything written in the Law. Naturally that is not what your post advocates because Ellen White did not advocate making animal sacrifices as the Law requires. Jesus was castigating the Pharisees and the scribes because they made such a song and dance about following the Law and the traditions that the rabbis derived from the Law but they were not so scrupulous about obeying what was written in the Law when it came to personal wealth which they taught could be kept from one's own needy parents by claiming it was dedicated to God! The hypocrisy was in their use of the Law, not in their view of scripture.

Since this thread is about the reformers and their teaching about sola scriptura we ought not to trouble ourselves too much about Ellen White's views on the Catholic Church. She was not one of the Protestant reformers. In fact, had she lived during the Reformation she would very likely have been condemned as a heretic by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly. Since re-baptism by immersion was a doctrine condemned by the main reformers and Ellen White taught it. No doubt the claims made about visions and the need to keep Saturday, avoid pork, and such things would also have been used to condemn her.

But I suppose it is your use of Mark chapter seven verses one through thirteen that is the point here. Your post, BobRyan, misuses the passage if you intended to teach that it contains teaching from Jesus Christ about sola scriptura. It doesn't.

Believer's baptism and the Anabaptist acceptance of this basic Bible doctrine is not the "Ellen White invented the doctrine" story you pretend it to be.

A great many Christians outside of the Seventh-day Adventist church know and accept the Bible doctrine on believer's baptism rather than infant sprinkling with holy water to avoid limbo.

in Christ,

Bob

It is important to read a post before replying to it; evidently the reply is based on something that is not said by me. To reiterate - In fact, had Ellen White lived during the Reformation she would very likely have been condemned as a heretic by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly. Since re-baptism by immersion was a doctrine condemned by the main reformers and Ellen White taught it. No doubt the claims made about visions and the need to keep Saturday, avoid pork, and such things would also have been used to condemn her.

 

[BobRyan]

Christ speaks on "sola scriptura" you think?

Mark 7:1-13 NAB

(1) Now when the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him,
(2) they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.
(3) (For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders.
(4) And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed, the purification of cups and jugs and kettles (and beds).)
(5) So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?
(6) He responded, Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me;
(7) In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.'
(8) You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.
(9) He went on to say, How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!
(10) For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.'
(11) Yet you say, 'If a person says to father or mother, Any support you might have had from me is qorban' (meaning, dedicated to God),
(12) you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
(13) You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.​

The passage does not teach sola scriptura.

Indeed it does teach that very thing - if you accept the definition of sola scriptura as what Christ is teaching by condemning the man-made tradition of the one true church established by God at Sinai and still functioning in the days of Christ -- by comparing tradition to scripture and testing it.

What it does teach is that one who wants to follow the Law ought to follow everything written in the Law. Naturally that is not what your post advocates

If you read the actual chapter of Mark 7 you see that Christ condemns the act of setting aside the Commandment of God -- which is called the "Word of God" by Christ.

He is NOT arguing that they come up with "an even slicker way to disregard the WORD of God".

I think we both know that point is true -

because Ellen White did not advocate making animal sacrifices as the Law requires.

The Law does not require animal sacrifices (the type) after the antitype is completed according to the actual Bible in Heb 10:3-14 pointing to the "once for all sacrifice" completed and "removing the first to establish the second".

I think we all knew that -- even Ellen White.

============================================

Hermeneutics like that exhibited in the above quote is the reason why heresy and error spread.

Empty accusations such as that - are easy to make.... more difficult to prove.

Clearly in Mark 7:1-13 Jesus does not teach sola scriptura.

He does when it is defined as does 2Tim 3:16-27 as the rule to test all doctrine, faith, tradition and practice because the man-made tradition of the magesterium of the One true church started by God at Sinai and STILL operating at the time of Christ - is being questioned, is being condemned, is being judged by the Bible - alone in the Mark 7 example Christ gives us.

How were we supposed to miss this obvious point?

Pretend not to see it???

Blame the details that we find in Mark 7 - on Ellen White???

Please be serious.

Clearly the interpretation offered in the quote is erroneous.

An accusation without a shred of evidence to support it.

again.

Clearly when the Lord refers to "the word of God" he is referring to the commandments that God spoke to the people who stood at the foot of mount Sinai. That the quote above treats "the word of God" as a synonym for "the bible" is one symptom of the bad hermeneutic used.

You accept the Ten Commandments as the Word of God -- but not the Bible??? that is what you want to blame on Ellen White?

I have news for you - a lot of Christians here are willing to fall on their swords for that one --- and they are not Seventh-day Adventists. But they all accept the Bible doctrine that the Bible itself is the Word of God.

After reading your explanation for treating the law of sacrifices as irrelevant I wonder what else is irrelevant

Are you saying that you studied my argument from Hebrews 10? really?

Then where did you find it to not fallow the Heb 10 text?? details please.

Sweeping hollow accusations are pretty much at the bottom of the pile.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

. Since re-baptism by immersion was a doctrine condemned by the main reformers and Ellen White taught it. No doubt the claims made about visions and the need to keep Saturday, avoid pork, and such things would also have been used to condemn her.

But I suppose it is your use of Mark chapter seven verses one through thirteen that is the point here. Your post, BobRyan, misuses the passage if you intended to teach that it contains teaching from Jesus Christ about sola scriptura. It doesn't.

.

Believer's baptism and the annabaptist acceptance of this basic Bible doctrine is not the "Ellen White invented the doctrine" story you pretend it to be.

A great many Christians outside of the Seventh-day Adventist church know and accept the Bible doctrine on believer's baptism rather than infant sprinkling with holy water to avoid limbo.

It is important to read a post before replying to it; evidently the reply is based on something that is not said by me.

i just checked it again -- and your post still reads ...

.... Since re-baptism by immersion was a doctrine condemned by the main reformers and Ellen White taught it. No doubt the claims made about visions and the need to keep Saturday, avoid pork, and such things would also have been used to condemn her.

But I suppose it is your use of Mark chapter seven verses one through thirteen that is the point here. Your post, BobRyan, misuses the passage if you intended to teach that it contains teaching from Jesus Christ about sola scriptura. It doesn't.

And my answer is still

Believer's baptism and the annabaptist acceptance of this basic Bible doctrine is not the "Ellen White invented the doctrine" story you pretend it to be.

A great many Christians outside of the Seventh-day Adventist church know and accept the Bible doctrine on believer's baptism rather than infant sprinkling with holy water to avoid limbo.

Were we "not supposed to notice"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is important to read a post before replying to it; evidently the reply is based on something that is not said by me. To reiterate - In fact, had Ellen White lived during the Reformation she would very likely have been condemned as a heretic by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly. Since re-baptism by immersion was a doctrine condemned by the main reformers and Ellen White taught it. No doubt the claims made about visions and the need to keep Saturday, avoid pork, and such things would also have been used to condemn her.

I already responded to that as follows -

Ellen White did not write Mark 7 as it turns out.

So the problem for the RCC in Mark 7 is that it condemns the idea of using man-made tradition to make void the Word of God. And it requires testing of all tradition as Christ does in Mark 7 - tossing bad tradition out the window where it contradicts the actual Word of God.

Here is a point that the protesting reformers - the Protestants today - the evanglicals, and almost every objective Bible reader can see clearly - regardless of your dislike of Ellen White.

So yes that means Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly, Jerom, Huss, Wycliff, Billy Graham, Charles Stanley and you-name-it will be able to see this point in Mark 7 -- the RCC opposition to Sola Scriptura not withstanding.