Sola Scriptura testing of all doctrine - or accept God's Prophets - but not both?

[BobRyan]

If you accept that God has modern/recent prophets there is no limiting factor. Inspired is inspired. So you can't say Scripture is what you judge things by.

Represents a flawed form of doctrine that (if true) would result in no first century NT Christian having any capacity to engage in sola-scriptura testing of any doctrine at all as long as they lived along with a NT Apostle/prophet or were members of the church in 1Cor 14 -- they would just wait for someone to tell them what to think and have no Bible doctrine at all using such flawed logic.

Acts 17:11 shows that this is not what was the case then nor is it now.

So that flawed doctrine as stated above is of the form

"you can either accept God's prophets when they speak or you can test all doctrine sola scriptura - but you can't do both" -- that is very flawed Bible doctrine.

So my question for this thread -- How do you think the first century NT saints operated in real life "ignoring sola scriptura testing" and just waiting for someone to tell them what to think? or testing by what the Bible says?

And can we avoid this error in logic -

• "Given a discussion where we exclude doctrinal topics - and just look at "details" that are not spelled out in the Bible (like the number of Children Adam had above 5) - then guessing is fine - but God can never tell someone the answer to that detail - because doing so would mean we have to banish all sola-scriptura testing of doctrine."

(Note there is a difference between sola scriptura -- vs -- solo scriptura)

 

[BobRyan]

solo scriptura is the extreme idea of taking the view that no detail is true if not explicitly stated in the Bible.

That is a problem for example - in Gal 3:8 we are told "The gospel was preached to Abraham" - but no statement existed in the Bible stating that explicitly - so one could have said that before Gal 3:8 was written -- Abraham did not have the gospel

 

[mmksparbud]

Isa 8:20 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 scriptures will always be the test of a true prophet.

 

[BobRyan]

Isa 8:20 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 scriptures will always be the test of a true prophet.

Amen - they will test all doctrine and will test all claims to a prophetic statement - it is not "either-or"

 

[The Liturgist]

The problem is that Ellen F White meets the criterion of a false prophet. Her works are riddled with factual and historical errors, and despite the terror Adventists have over “Blue Laws”, they are being weakened or eliminated altogether. Actually I would support legislation setting aside Sunday for worship in order to protect us from an Islamicizatiom where Thursday and Friday are the main days of worship. As for EGW, it is also worth noting what she failed to predict: really important, life changing technologies such as atom bombs, nuclear reactors and power stations, interstate freeways, and the global convergence of computers so advanced they would seem magical in the 1920s

So we cannot consider EGW a viable prophet based on the Scriptural criteria for testing a prophet, which is of course that their prophetic message must be 100% accurate. EGW failed to predict what was important, as I mentioned above, and instead made several inaccurate predictions (which were removed from her later books), for example, that the US and President Lincoln would lose the Civil War and the British Empire would invade, and another “whopper”, her unrealized promise to members attending a general conference around 1860 that some of them would live to see the eschaton in their flesh; of course, they all died many decades ago (may God protect their souls and grant them resurrection unto life everlasting).

 

[The Liturgist]

Amen - they will test all doctrine and will test all claims to a prophetic statement - it is not "either-or"

I myself have closely evaluated the SDA’s peculiar exegesis, and Ellen White, using Scripture, and I don’t believe White was divinely inspired prophet (although she may have been a medium), or that the SDA has entirely correct doctrines. I can find no scriptural warrant for the idea of “The investigative judgement. On the basis of the SDA’s acceptance of the Nicene Creed /CF.com Christian faith I do recognize it as Christian, and I have several close friends who are Adventist. Some Adventist churches rent their chapels out, for example, the parish in Ventura hosts St. George’s Anglican Church.

 

[mmksparbud]

The problem is that Ellen F White meets the criterion of a false prophet. Her works are riddled with factual and historical errors, and despite the terror Adventists have over “Blue Laws”, they are being weakened or eliminated altogether. Actually I would support legislation setting aside Sunday for worship in order to protect us from an Islamicizatiom where Thursday and Friday are the main days of worship. As for EGW, it is also worth noting what she failed to predict: really important, life changing technologies such as atom bombs, nuclear reactors and power stations, interstate freeways, and the global convergence of computers so advanced they would seem magical in the 1920s

So we cannot consider EGW a viable prophet based on the Scriptural criteria for testing a prophet, which is of course that their prophetic message must be 100% accurate. EGW failed to predict what was important, as I mentioned above, and instead made several inaccurate predictions (which were removed from her later books), for example, that the US and President Lincoln would lose the Civil War and the British Empire would invade, and another “whopper”, her unrealized promise to members attending a general conference around 1860 that some of them would live to see the eschaton in their flesh; of course, they all died many decades ago (may God protect their souls and grant them resurrection unto life everlasting).

I myself have closely evaluated the SDA’s peculiar exegesis, and Ellen White, using Scripture, and I don’t believe White was divinely inspired prophet (although she may have been a medium), or that the SDA has entirely correct doctrines. I can find no scriptural warrant for the idea of “The investigative judgement. On the basis of the SDA’s acceptance of the Nicene Creed /CF.com Christian faith I do recognize it as Christian, and I have several close friends who are Adventist. Some Adventist churches rent their chapels out, for example, the parish in Ventura hosts St. George’s Anglican Church.

Really? So God's prophets are supposed to predict technological advances? Silly me, here I thought they were to lead us to a closer walk with God and direct us to the scriptures. You did not post any proof of her being a false prophet---you posted only your opinion---and that is important because???
Yes, we rent our churches out to others while they are getting theirs ready---just as we have had to rent from other churches---is that a condemnation? You must not have read where Jesus is now our High Priest----why don't you do a study on exactly what a High Priest's duties are?

 

[tall73]

I can find no scriptural warrant for the idea of “The investigative judgement.

They can't entertain Scriptural arguments on that point:

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

She acknowledges that people have brought a mass of Scripture for 50 years, but she claims it is a mistake to listen to Scripture when it doesn't agree with her experience.

So you can't actually judge Adventist doctrine by Scripture, per her words.

 

[mmksparbud]

They can't entertain Scriptural arguments on that point:

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

She acknowledges that people have brought a mass of Scripture for 50 years, but she claims it is a mistake to listen to Scripture when it doesn't agree with her experience.

So you can't actually judge Adventist doctrine by Scripture, per her words.

Apparently you, also, need to do a study on what the duties of the High Priest are---You do know Jesus is our High Priest now? Again, like all the rest--please state your proof, not your opinion.

 

[tall73]

Apparently you, also, need to do a study on what the duties of the High Priest are---You do know Jesus is our High Priest now? Again, like all the rest--please state your proof, not your opinion.

I posted what Ellen White said. Adventists are not to entertain Scriptures when brought against their special points of faith.

 

[mmksparbud]

I posted what Ellen White said. Adventists are not to entertain Scriptures when brought against their special points of faith.

You have twisted what she says.

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}


She says we are not to listen to those who twist scripture to make it suite their theories that we are wrong. Like you just did with her words. This is n it proof that she is a false prophet, but that you are a false interpreter of what she has written. If you can't interpret what she says correctly, what makes you think your interpretation of scripture is accurate. I asked if you have studied what the High Priest's duties are as the original statement was about the Investigative Judgement. Jesus is now our High Priest, as such, what do you think He is doing now?

 

[BobRyan]

The problem is that Ellen F White meets the criterion of a false prophet.

1. No such thing as "Ellen F White" (I am assuming it was typo)
2. It is always "a given" that someone that holds to non-SDA doctrine also finds that Ellen White's comments are in line with SDA doctrine and not non-SDA doctrine. No one is questioning that.

your comment

"So we cannot consider EGW a viable prophet based on the Scriptural criteria for testing a prophet, which is of course that their prophetic message must be 100% accurate. EGW failed to predict what was important"

is not applicable because the first test of a prophet is to align with Bible doctrine and as a non-SDA that could never happen until the Bible study on each point was done and one had concluded in favor of the SDA doctrinal statements. You are taking "cart before horse".

So while I do have details missing from your statement below that drastically change the conclusion - it is pointless to go through it given that the starting point does not exist.

, as I mentioned above, and instead made several inaccurate predictions (which were removed from her later books), for example, that the US and President Lincoln would lose the Civil War and the British Empire would invade, and another “whopper”, her unrealized promise to members attending a general conference around 1860 that some of them would live to see the eschaton in their flesh; of course, they all died many decades ago (may God protect their souls and grant them resurrection unto life everlasting).

So for that reason this thread is simply dealing with the "more general topic" of how it is that "sola scriptura testing" was being done all-the-while having a contemporary prophetic gift active.

Your response appears to be in the "affirmative" that such sola scriptura testing is not blocked at all by having a contemporary prophet alive at the time. Which was the point of the thread.

 

[BobRyan]

I posted what Ellen White said. Adventists are not to entertain Scriptures when brought against their special points of faith.

And she also said not to lightly dismiss serious objections to SDA doctrine - and condemned SDA evangelists that would be dismissive in even the slightest degree in that regard.

" I saw that we must be prepared for objections, and with patience, judgment, and meekness, let them have the weight they deserve, not throw them away or dispose of them by positive assertions, and then bear down upon the objector, and manifest a hard spirit toward him; but give the objections their weight, then bring forth the light and the power of the truth, and let it outweigh and remove the errors. Thus a good impression will be made, and honest opposers will acknowledge that they have been deceived and that the commandment keepers are not what they have been represented to be. {EW 102.1}


... Those who profess to be teachers should be patterns of piety, meekness, and humility, possessing a kind spirit, to win souls to Jesus and the truth of the Bible. {EW 102.2}

What your quote shows is that the statement you are quoting - had the context of SDAs already accepting SDA doctrine as affirmed by the Bible already found to be "Bible truth" even by themselves in prior years (in many cases) -- where a few come along latter and try to "edit" change what they already knew to be Bible truth.

Ellen White condemned that idea just as Paul did in Gal 1:6-9 -- this is not too difficult to see by comparison.

 

[BobRyan]

I myself have closely evaluated the SDA’s peculiar exegesis, and Ellen White, using Scripture, and I don’t believe White was divinely inspired prophet (although she may have been a medium), or that the SDA has entirely correct doctrines.

I think that is to be expected as a fairly common non-SDA view of SDA doctrine. There would always be "some difference".

So "the details" are important. Thankfully you provide one in your post that we can look at.

I can find no scriptural warrant for the idea of “The investigative judgement.

That is Bible doctrine easily seen in Romans 2, and Daniel 7 as well as 2 Cor 5:10 and Rev 14:6-7.

"Investigative" is just a term used for "judged out of what is written in books" as we see in Daniel 7.


Romans 2:16 declares that future-to-Paul's-day-judgment to be "Gospel" saying "According to my Gospel - God will judge" - and the chapter shows in detail that difference between failing examples and succeeding ones.

But here again we illustrate the point - that determining of a doctrine is according to the Bible - is not hindered at all by having a prophet that happens to have some statement on that doctrine - because the Bible itself is the test of it.

 

[tall73]

You have twisted what she says....


She says we are not to listen to those who twist scripture to make it suite their theories that we are wrong. Like you just did with her words. This is n it proof that she is a false prophet, but that you are a false interpreter of what she has written.

You just interpreted it to say the same thing I was noting when I posted it. She thinks any view other than the Adventist view is twisting and Adventists are not to listen to them, even if they bring Scripture.

You get it? You are not to allow Adventists with another view to test her experience. You are not to entertain those with a different view, because it must be twisting.

If you can't interpret what she says correctly, what makes you think your interpretation of scripture is accurate

We just interpreted the quote the same. And of course Ellen White tells you how to know someone is misinterpreting Scripture--if it disagreed with the Adventist special points. And you shouldn't listen.

I asked if you have studied what the High Priest's duties are as the original statement was about the Investigative Judgement. Jesus is now our High Priest, as such, what do you think He is doing now?

And I answered the topic of the thread which Bob Ryan wrested from a different discussion with me.

 

[tall73]

And she also said not to lightly dismiss serious objections to SDA doctrine - and condemned SDA evangelists that would be dismissive in even the slightest degree in that regard. What your quote shows is that the statement you are quoting - had the context of SDAs already accepting SDA doctrine where a few come along latter and try to "edit" change what they already knew to be Bible truth.

Yes, Bob. She is referring to those Adventist ministers who had been for 50 years pointing to Scripture to note problems with Adventist doctrine.

And she said that you should not listen to their arguments involving Scripture. Now you are very correct that she said to answer other people's arguments in the context of evangelism with Scripture. They would have to in order to win people over.

But not those who were Adventists, who knew the issues best, and who found Scriptural problems with it. Don't listen to them, because it cannot be correct because of--experience.

So she refused Scriptural test by those who knew the issue best because she stated their experience couldn't be wrong.

Ellen White condemned that idea just as Paul did in Gal 1:6-9 -- this is not too difficult to see by comparison.

Paul addressed all the arguments of the false teachers regarding the true gospel, and the law. Ellen White did not address Ballenger's ideas. For those following who are not familiar, Albion Ballenger was an Adventist minister. He began to take issue with some of the statements of Ellen White because he could not make them match up with Scripture.

He wrote to Ellen white with the hopes that she would show him in the Scriptures where his view was wrong. Here are a couple of quotes from that letter. He had questions about the Adventist sanctuary doctrine.

What I am pleading for in this letter, is, that if there be a 'thus saith the Lord' to support your statement, that, out of compassion for my soul you furnish it.

And a bit later:

And now Sister White, what can I do? If I accept the testimony of the Scriptures, if I follow my conscientious convictions, I find myself under your condemnation; and you call me a wolf in sheep's clothing, and warn my brethren and the members of my family against me. But when I turn in my sorrow to the Word of the Lord, that Word reads the same, and I fear to reject God's interpretation and accept yours. Oh that I might accept both. But if I must accept but one, hadn't I better accept the Lord's? If I reject his word and accept yours, can you save me in the judgment?


Ellen White did not furnish the "thus saith the Lord" that Ballenger was asking for. However, she did tell people not to listen to Ballenger's views.


We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

She indicates that the experience of the Adventists for the past 50 years shows that their interpretation is correct, and therefore even scriptural arguments to the contrary are not to be entertained.

And she stated this:

I testify in the name of the Lord that Elder Ballenger is led by satanic agencies and spiritualistic, invisible leaders. Those who have the guidance of the Holy Spirit will turn away from these seducing spirits.—Manuscript 59, 1905. (“The Sabbath Truth in the Sentinel, and Elder Ballenger's Views,” May 20, 1905.)

Later Andreason, a well liked teacher on the sanctuary doctrine, and one of the foremost theologians of his day stated:

If my experience as a teacher in the Seminary may be taken as a criterion, I would say that a large number of our ministers have serious doubt as to the correctness of the views we hold on certain phases of the sanctuary. They believe, in a general way, that we are correct, but they are as fully assured that Ballenger's views have never been fully met and that we cannot meet them. Not wishing to make the matter an issue, they simply decide that the question is not vital - and thus the whole subject of the sanctuary is relegated, in their minds at least, to the background. This is not a wholesome situation. If the subject is as vital as we have thought and taught it to be, it is not of secondary importance. Today, in the minds of a considerable part of the ministry, as far as my experience in the Seminary is concerned, it has little vital bearing, either in their lives or theology. I dread to see the day when our enemies will make capital of our weakness. I dread still more to see the day when our ministry will begin to raise questions.


M. L. Andreason letter, 1942


The ministry has been asking questions for many years. But Ellen White said not to listen.

 

[BobRyan]

she also said not to lightly dismiss serious objections to SDA doctrine - and condemned SDA evangelists that would be dismissive in even the slightest degree in that regard.

" I saw that we must be prepared for objections, and with patience, judgment, and meekness, let them have the weight they deserve, not throw them away or dispose of them by positive assertions, and then bear down upon the objector, and manifest a hard spirit toward him; but give the objections their weight, then bring forth the light and the power of the truth, and let it outweigh and remove the errors. Thus a good impression will be made, and honest opposers will acknowledge that they have been deceived and that the commandment keepers are not what they have been represented to be. {EW 102.1}

... Those who profess to be teachers should be patterns of piety, meekness, and humility, possessing a kind spirit, to win souls to Jesus and the truth of the Bible. {EW 102.2}

Yes, Bob. She is referring to those Adventist ministers who had been for 50 years pointing to Scripture to note problems with Adventist doctrine

Adventist Ministers who used to accept the Bible truths found in the SDA denominational statements of faith - doctrinal points... and then later decide against it are perfectly right to do as you have done and find some denomination that is more in line with their views. I never complain about that.

My statement was about her actual words above calling for objections to be heard and Bible answers to be given. Facts that not everyone would be willing to post.

 

[BobRyan]

But there are these internal issues

What your quote shows is that the statement you are quoting - had the context of SDAs already accepting SDA doctrine as affirmed by the Bible already found to be "Bible truth" even by themselves in prior years (in many cases) -- where a few come along latter and try to "edit" change what they already knew to be Bible truth.

Ellen White condemned that idea just as Paul did in Gal 1:6-9 -- this is not too difficult to see by comparison.

Yes, Bob. She is referring to those Adventist ministers who had been for 50 years pointing to Scripture to note problems with Adventist doctrine.

And she said that you should not listen to their arguments involving Scripture. Now you are very correct that she said to answer other people's arguments in the context of evangelism with Scripture. They would have to in order to win people over.

And that would include all in your list of "objectors" as well - they all had to at one time look at the Bible and Adventist doctrine and then decide to either accept or reject.

It would be pretty hard to start out as an Adventist pastor with the banner "I am an Adventist pastor but I am convinced our doctrine is not correct".

For those following who are not familiar, Albion Ballenger was an Adventist minister. He began to take issue with some of the statements of Ellen White because he could not make them match up with Scripture.

This is the point where you were "supposed" to be saying "he took a second look at Adventist doctrine and could not make them match up with scripture" to make your earlier case about Adventist doctrine.

You make a passing reference to some unnamed group with unnamed objections to some detail about the Sanctuary in heaven. A method which I do not find compelling - but others might.

IN any case a minister who at first accepts a Bible doctrine and then later rejects it - is right to find a group more in line with his views. I never complain about that. But I always insist on sola-scriptura testing (not solo-scriptura)

I like a lot of what Andreason said - but I do object to his complaints about the Q.O.D book and the fact that he did not appear to fully accept the sinless nature of Christ at His birth. In any case I also agree with his statement that serious questions should get due attention. I find it "interesting" that you quote him in this regard of disunity.

 

[tall73]

Adventist Ministers who used to accept the Bible truths found in the SDA denominational statements of faith - doctrinal points... and then later decide against it are perfectly right to do as you have done and find some denomination that is more in line with their views. I never complain about that.

My statement was about her actual words above calling for objections to be heard and Bible answers to be given. Facts that not everyone would be willing to post.

How am I unwilling to post them? We agree she is willing to use the Bible to talk about those coming to the Adventist faith. I also note she is not willing to use the Bible to answer objections to the special points of faith among those who know it best. She only wants to use the Bible to address those who don't know the issues.

And she refused to answer Ballenger's questions from the Scripture.

 

[tall73]

But there are these internal issues

And that would include all in your list of "objectors" as well - they all had to at one time look at the Bible and Adventist doctrine and then decide to either accept or reject.

It would be pretty hard to start out as an Adventist pastor with the banner "I am an Adventist pastor but I am convinced our doctrine is not correct".

Many ministers initially thought it correct, then found questions regarding it due to the Scriptures.

And she refused to answer them.

This is the point where you were "supposed" to be saying "he took a second look at Adventist doctrine and could not make them match up with scripture" to make your earlier case about Adventist doctrine.

You make a passing reference to some unnamed group with unnamed objections to some detail about the Sanctuary in heaven. A method which I do not find compelling - but others might.

IN any case a minister who at first accepts a Bible doctrine and then later rejects it - is right to find a group more in line with his views. I never complain about that. But I always insist on sola-scriptura testing (not solo-scriptura)

This is the point where I quoted Ellen White refusing to give Scripture to an Adventist minster who had questions on doctrine, and quoted Andreason noting that answers were not given.

And she told others not to listen to his arguments. And she said not to listen to anyone of that sort if they go against Adventist doctrine because it went against their experience.