Seventh-day Adventist Church is sola-scriptura testing - but not sola-tradition testing

[BobRyan]

A tenth is 10%,

agreed - but our belief #21 does not specify "a tenth" - it speaks of tithe and leaves it to the reader to find out what the Bible means by tithe.

 

[BobRyan]

A tenth is 10%. This individual SDA church donation web page suggested giving 20%. .

As I said - the actual doctrines of the denomination don't specify 20% and in fact don't mention any percent other than saying the words "tithe" and "offering". But you make a good point that individual congregations may "suggest" details as they will.

 

[ChetSinger]

When you find that sola scriptura testing is revealing a problem in your current situation - and all else fails -- look for another fellowship that has that part right (if your own group refuses to accept light on that point)

So we should all use our best judgment?

 

[BobRyan]

So we should all use our best judgment?

Well you are already a member of your denomination as you state - and then you find that something in your primary set of doctrines for your denomination is in conflict with Bible teaching - so presumably you ask to discuss this with someone in your church after you have a pretty good understanding of what the Bible says. If that discussion does not resolve it for you - then look for some group that has solved that problem according to the Bible. If that group has better Bible doctrine as a rule ( better than where you are now) - then consider making a move.

People have made changes in that fashion once or twice in their lives and end up in a much better place usually.

 

[ChetSinger]

Well you are already a member of your denomination as you state - and then you find that something in your primary set of doctrines for your denomination is in conflict with Bible teaching - so presumably you ask to discuss this with someone in your church after you have a pretty good understanding of what the Bible says. If that discussion does not resolve it for you - then look for some group that has solved that problem according to the Bible. If that group has better Bible doctrine as a rule ( better than where you are now) - then consider making a move.

People have made changes in that fashion once or twice in their lives and end up in a much better place usually.

Sounds good to me.

 

[The Liturgist]

Christianity Today in its Jan/Feb 2015 article -- said that the Seventh-day Adventist church was at that time the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world.

So why does the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church still test its doctrines sola-scriptura instead of sola-tradition? Wouldn't that mean it is risking being "orthodox" in the Biblical sense but not "orthodox" in the traditional sense?

The Bible shows us a clash can exist between tradition and scripture in Mark 7:6-13 in Christ's day.

Mark 7:
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments 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. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

"Word of God" = "Commandments of God" = "Moses said" -- according to Christ in Mark 7

Here we see Christ slam-hammers the one-true-nation-church of His day - started by God at Sinai. And He does so - with a "sola scriptura" test of a given tradition.

Acts 17:11 Paul himself is tested "Sola scriptura" to SEE IF the things he as an Apostle taught "were so".
"11 Now these people were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, studied the Scriptures daily to see whether these things (spoken to them by the Apostle Paul) were so."

In Gal 1:6-9 Paul argues that if we read the Bible and see what the NT authors proclaimed as the Gospel and the full acceptance of scripture as the Word of God - and then find that someone comes along and contradicts that Word - they are to be rejected.

Gal 1:6-9
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel, 7 which is not just another account; but there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, even now I say again: if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Official belief statements - are tested sola scriptura and they are here:
What do Seventh Day Adventists Really Believe? | Adventist.org

The opening statement at that page says this:

"Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture."

1. Some people will object saying that you cannot really find out if something is true or not unless you add tradition to the Bible - but in that case the sola-scriptura position above should be easy to test and see if it proves its case using scripture alone.

2. Other people will object saying they didn't know the Adventist church limited itself to a sola-scriptura test. But in that case it should be easy to check out the statements there to see if sola scriptura is "enough" to make the case you find there.

But to be fair, that ignores the elephant in the room. Sure, the SDA does not test its doctrines against the ancient traditions of the church. No one denies it. But it does test everything, including scriptural interpretation, against the doctrine of Ellen White, and having carefully studied SDA doctrine, it seems to me that several unique beliefs the Adventists have about eschatology, the alleged identity between our Lord and Savior and the Archangel Michael, soul sleep, annhilationism, vegetarianism, the idea that worship on Sunday is somehow sinful, and many other points, do not really stand on their own merit as purely biblical doctrines; rather, they exist because of the continuing influence of Ellen White and the lack of objective criticism of her within the SDA church, and the fact that ordinary members of the Adventist church are not sufficiently empowered to challenge her doctrine and call for reform along more strictly Biblical lines.

So, I would argue, the SDA church certainly would seem to its members to be Sola Scriptura, but much of that scriptural study which is occurring is being conducted with a confirmation bias, in order to find proof texts for the writings of EGW, as opposed to seeking out a holistic understanding of the scriptures purely on their own term, with the knowledge that a plain reading of scripture might well invalidate some doctrinal positions or EGW - that certainly being the conclusion of most Christian denominations on issues like soul sleep, annhilationism, the identity of Michael the Archangel, the Investigative Judgment, and other areas.

 

[BobRyan]

But to be fair, that ignores the elephant in the room. Sure, the SDA does not test its doctrines against the ancient traditions of the church. No one denies it. But it does test everything, including scriptural interpretation, against the doctrine of Ellen White,

I have heard some folks who reject 1 or more of our 28 FB "say that" - but I have never actually SEEN it to be true.

The "test" for me is the many times I have seen someone with absolutely no objection/bias one way or the other - introduced to the 28 FB - sola scriptura step by step... not a single appeal to Ellen White's writings to prove the Bible doctrine under review - and even THEY conclude it is all lining up with scripture - where they have no bias in favor of Ellen White at all.

In the real life test - that assumption does not hold up.

By contrast when a sola-my-prophet group like Mormons come to my home - all they have is Joseph Smith to talk about.

and having carefully studied SDA doctrine, it seems to me that several unique beliefs the Adventists have about eschatology, the alleged identity between our Lord and Savior and the Archangel Michael, soul sleep, annhilationism, vegetarianism, the idea that worship on Sunday is somehow sinful, and many other points, do not really stand on their own merit as purely biblical doctrines; rather, they exist because of the continuing influence of Ellen White

Well it is easy to be very subjective and say given my POV I don't accept it. But what about being objective?

Step 1 - distinguish between your list and something that actually is in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Some things in your list don't exist in those 28.
Step 2 - show that our sola-scriptura presentation of that topic could not convince all the people it is convincing who have no acceptance of Ellen White at all as they go through that Bible doctrine.
Step 3 - show that the things you list are NOT also held as Bible doctrine by outside-SDA Bible scholars who had no access/acceptance of Ellen White at all, (since your argument rests so heavily on the idea that sola-scriptura evaluation does not support the doctrine.)

and the lack of objective criticism of her within the SDA church, and the fact that ordinary members of the Adventist church are not sufficiently empowered to challenge her doctrine and call for reform along more strictly Biblical lines.

There is nothing in our local churches stopping any member from saying - "hey! wait I minute - look at this in the Bible - doesn't that mean we have a problem with one of our 28?".

Even if they don't say "we have a problem" they still say "look at this - how can this be possible?" or something of that nature -- that happens all the time in real life in our churches. Members and visitors free to ask questions. If they want in-depth study we don't end the sermon then and there but we will get together after the service to study the subject and see what they are saying.

In FACT that is how the Adventist church became "Seventh-day Adventist" to begin with. A Seventh-day Baptist showed up and raised an objection.

So, I would argue, the SDA church certainly would seem to its members to be Sola Scriptura, but much of that scriptural study which is occurring is being conducted with a confirmation bias, in order to find proof texts for the writings of EGW,

ChristianityToday lists the SDA denomination as the 5th largest and fastest growing Christian denomination in the world - and Barna lists them as one of the best at reaching out to those who are not already SDA or former SDA or even Christian at all.

If your suggestion above were true - we should not be growing at all because as we rigorously take every single new person through all 28 - we would find that no new person will accept because they have no pre-existing confirmation bias toward someone they already do not think is a prophet.

In fact if your suggestion were true - the vast majority of the SDA denomination in Europe could not even exist since that group accepts everything except Ellen White's prophetic ministry.

There are a lot of objective metrics that point to your suggestion having some challenges.

 

[BobRyan]

The Liturgist said: ↑
So, I would argue, the SDA church certainly would seem to its members to be Sola Scriptura, but much of that scriptural study which is occurring is being conducted with a confirmation bias, in order to find proof texts for the writings of EGW,

You are making a great case for why this thread should NOT have been started by BobRyan out here in the open where a real sola-scriptura discussion could be had - but rather BobRyan should have posted this in the one and only SAFE-SDA forum on CF where no one could really challenge me in this thread and I could make sola-scriptura claims for the SDA denomination all day long without much of any challenge.

So if that is the case - then who in the world started this thread out here and craftily got "me" to agree to participate on it??

hmmm that would be "me" who did that to me. Nice going "me"

 

[The Liturgist]

ChristianityToday lists the SDA denomination as the 5th largest and fastest growing Christian denomination in the world - and Barna lists them as one of the best at reaching out to those who are not already SDA or former SDA or even Christian at all.

If your suggestion above were true - we should not be growing at all because as we rigorously take every single new person through all 28 - we would find that no new person will accept because they have no pre-existing confirmation bias toward someone they already do not think is a prophet.

In fact if your suggestion were true - the vast majority of the SDA denomination in Europe could not even exist since that group accepts everything except Ellen White's prophetic ministry.

There are a lot of objective metrics that point to your suggestion having some challenges.

The speed at which the SDA is growing has no bearing on the validity of its doctrines.

You are making a great case for why this thread should NOT have been started by BobRyan out here in the open where a real sola-scriptura discussion could be had - but rather BobRyan should have posted this in the one and only SAFE-SDA forum on CF where no one could really challenge me in this thread and I could make sola-scriptura claims for the SDA denomination all day long without much of any challenge.

So if that is the case - then who in the world started this thread out here and craftily got "me" to agree to participate on it??

hmmm that would be "me" who did that to me. Nice going "me"

Well, I don’t see the point in having a Sola Scriptura discussion on SDA doctrine as long as that doctrine is defined by EGW. If there were cases where the SDA actually rejected substantial portions of EGW, just as how the Lutherans reject much of what Martin Luther taught, and so on, like in every other denomination - to put it another way, there is no other denomination that elevates one deceased individual to the status of an infallible prophet and doctrinal authority. Even the Roman Catholic Church does not do that; Papal Infallibility was invoked only twice since being made doctrinal at the controversial First Vatican Council, and in a very limited way, to dogmatically define the RC doctrines of the immaculate conception and the assumption.

 

[BobRyan]

So, I would argue, the SDA church certainly would seem to its members to be Sola Scriptura, but much of that scriptural study which is occurring is being conducted with a confirmation bias, in order to find proof texts for the writings of EGW,

ChristianityToday lists the SDA denomination as the 5th largest and fastest growing Christian denomination in the world - and Barna lists them as one of the best at reaching out to those who are not already SDA or former SDA or even Christian at all.

If your suggestion above were true - we should not be growing at all because as we rigorously take every single new person through all 28 - we would find that no new person will accept because they have no pre-existing confirmation bias toward someone they already do not think is a prophet.

In fact if your suggestion were true - the vast majority of the SDA denomination in Europe could not even exist since that group accepts everything except Ellen White's prophetic ministry.

There are a lot of objective metrics that point to your suggestion having some challenges.

The speed at which the SDA is growing has no bearing on the validity of its doctrines. .

Nice deflect to avoid the entire point just made.

"IF" your point had been "SDA doctrine is not correct in my POV" then you would not get the answer to that statement that I just gave... your recent response just quoted makes it appear that you supposed this was the discussion we just had. I just provided the actual detail in what we just said to make the point that we were NOT have a discussion about your POV not agreeing with some SDA doctrine.

I find it hard to make that point any more clearer than it is in he exchange above.

You said that "confirmation bias" is the mechanism that we use to convince non-Chrisitians, non-SDAs to join our denomination as if this is how we have become the fastest GROWING group - by doing it via "confirmation bias".

I simply point out that such a false accusation fails on the face of it since it is not logical at all to assume that the non-churched and/or non-SDA Christians we give Bible studies to are all sharing our supposed "confirmation bias" when reading the Bible texts that support SDA doctrine. You need to pick a more compelling accusation to explain it.

Well, I don’t see the point in having a Sola Scriptura discussion on SDA doctrine as long as that doctrine is defined by EGW.

If we could imagine to ourselves that this thread consisted of SDAs posting that "Doctrine A must be correct since EGW agreed with it ... end of discussion" then your statement would appear to make a lot more logical sense.

Certain groups do make that kind of "We are right because we always say we are right and look what our Pope said 200 years ago about this doctrine, or look at what our church councils said 1500 years ago about this doctrine"... but SDAs did not do it on this thread ... and in fact don't do it.

details.

 

[BobRyan]

If there were cases where the SDA actually rejected substantial portions of EGW, just as how the Lutherans reject much of what Martin Luther taught, .

The fact that Lutherans reject Martin Luther on some key doctrines is not a funny kind of proof that Lutherans today are right and Martin Luther must have been wrong. At least not to a non-Lutheran like me. Whatever the topic is - the only thing that matters is the sola-scriptura test of it.

I know of no SDA saying to Lutherans "you must be wrong on justification by faith since you are agreeing with Luther on that point". Rather it must be tested "sola scriptura".

If Christians today rejected some key doctrine that Paul taught it would not be a funny kind of "proof" that Paul must have been wrong and modern Christians right.

Paul himself was tested "sola scriptura" in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - WERE SO" - That is the form of testing that matters - No MATTER that we have not been rejecting Paul's teaching.

 

[BobRyan]

put it another way, there is no other denomination that elevates one deceased individual to the status of an infallible prophet and doctrinal authority.

If what you were saying were remotely true then my starting this "sola scriptura -- not sola-tradition" thread would be a big mistake on my part since presumably all you would have to do is present the Bible case for your POV and presumably my only response would have to be limited to your proposed "yes but EGW does not agree with you so you must be mistaken". The perfect scenario proving the substance to your accusation should be seen here in the posts on this thread. Your post sets a certain expectation for what one is supposed to find happening here -- that cannot be found in the actual posts.

Instead of that scenario you suggest -- what do we find in the real world when we read the actual posts in this thread?

Left as an exercise for the objective unbiased reader. The facts speak for themselves.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I suspect a number of other Christian denominations would also choose to stand on this same "sola scriptura testing" platform - as did many Protestant Reformers.

Interesting thread, Bob. I always respect your scholarship and your desire to follow the word of God as much as you are able. What I am wondering, based on your post that I quoted, is what are the fruits of the doctrine of sola scriptura? We have multiple denominations all claiming sola scriptura. They don't all agree doctrinally. The question is does the human conscience submit to sola scriptura, or is sola scriptura subject to human conscience?

I don't want this to be a gotcha question, and I ask with all due respect. Is this Christian Animal Farm? We are all sola scriptura here, some are more sola scriptura than others? (parody of George Orwell's Animal Farm)

The Bible says that human conscience cannot be trusted. There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25. If conscience is not our guide, then who do we submit to?

Is it Luther and the Lutherans? Missouri synod or evangelical?, John Calvin and the Presbyterians? PCUSA or PCA? John Wesley and the Methodists? Queen Elizabeth and the Anglicans? Ellen White and the SDA? Each of those denominations of sola scriptura requires the addition of tradition to guide their flock as they don't all agree. How do you resolve this?

as an aside, I did buy and read, From Sabbath to Sunday, Interesting book. I'd like to talk with you about it sometime. The one point the author made was the change from Saturday to Sunday worship came from the Church of Rome. I would agree with that, and Rome was where both the Apostle Peter and Paul were. Your quote from Galatians comes from Paul, should we not listen to Paul?

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting thread, Bob. I always respect your scholarship and your desire to follow the word of God as much as you are able. What I am wondering, based on your post that I quoted, is what are the fruits of the doctrine of sola scriptura? We have multiple denominations all claiming sola scriptura. They don't all agree doctrinally.

There are various Orthodox churches as well as Roman Catholic groups that object to one degree or another against "sola scriptura" and yet they do not always agree between themselves.

The Catholic church itself spawned a great many "protesting Catholics" who said they found that their own denomination was not in harmony with scripture.

So it is difficult to single out "sola scriptura" denominations as causing confusion when we see its division comes from within the Catholic church and even between large denominations both claiming to reject sola scriptura - that do not agree with each other.

The question is does the human conscience submit to sola scriptura, or is sola scriptura subject to human conscience?

In Acts 17:11 we see "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul - were SO"

Here we have sola scriptura testing of a prime first-order apostle and they are "approved" for doing it.

What is worse - those doing it are not even Christians!

And worse than that - their own magisterium, their prior bias, their own prior conscience etc would be instructing them to reject Paul.

But the "sola scriptura" principle is so objective, so strong, it overcomes all of that. They accept the new teaching, the new Apostle, and find it to be in harmony with scripture.

The is a very powerful example of how it works when all bias and accepted-magisterium is "to the contrary" of the teaching. Only scripture is aligned with the teaching of Paul in that example.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't want this to be a gotcha question, and I ask with all due respect.

I thank you for that and I appreciate the Spirit of Christ that you demonstrate in your posts. I am fine with differing points of view and I do not take it personally. Everyone has free will. We all must choose according to the best information that we have.

 

[BobRyan]

Is this Christian Animal Farm? We are all sola scriptura here, some are more sola scriptura than others? (parody of George Orwell's Animal Farm)

The Bible says that human conscience cannot be trusted. There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25.

Conscience guided by the Holy Spirit and informed by scripture is reliable. But as you point out - not all conscience is so informed. In fact in some cases Paul refers to people "seared in their conscience" so that it does not work.

1 Tim 4:
1. But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

So for some - the conscience is not a safe guide - it is dead. seared.

But Acts 17:11 is not a case of seared consciences.
Acts 17:11 is not a case of everyone in the same denomination just saying "yes we always say yes"
Acts 17:11 is what we would call different-religions - and yet they come to agreement over scripture - "sola scriptura testing".
Acts 17:11 is most certainly not a case of just going along with whatever your magesterium tells you to believe about the teaching of the Apostle Paul.

This is true in Acts 13 where almost the entire city turns out to hear the gospel "the next Sabbath"

It is true in Acts 17:1-6 where Jews and gentiles - (not at all Christians like Paul) are persuaded by scripture and against the advice of Jewish magesterium. As we also see in Acts 18:4-11

Mark 7:6-13 Christ outright hammers the magesterium of His own denomination , his own nation-church started by God at Sinai with priests chosen according to the Sinai mandate, - and he hammers them "sola scriptura" in Mark 7.

 

[BobRyan]

Is it Luther and the Lutherans? Missouri synod or evangelical?, John Calvin and the Presbyterians? PCUSA or PCA? John Wesley and the Methodists? Queen Elizabeth and the Anglicans? Ellen White and the SDA? Each of those denominations of sola scriptura requires the addition of tradition to guide their flock as they don't all agree. How do you resolve this?

First of all I have pointed out 100's of times on CF how they all agree (including the Catholic Church) on certain things - that come as a surprise to a great many on CF. Namely that all TEN of the Ten commandments were given by God to mankind in Eden, are written on the heart under the New Covenant according to Jer 31:31-34, and apply to all mankind to this very day, defining what sin is (included in the moral law of God). In fact Bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath debate affirm this point in almost all denominations. In Dies Domini Pope John Paul II makes the point that the TEN are not at all limited to "Just the Jews".

But still I also agree you have a point that they do not all agree on everything -- they have differences. Nor do Catholics and the various Orthodox churches all agree on all points.

I could of course recommend that all Christian groups discard their own magesterium and just believe whatever the SDA magesterium teaches so we can all be in unity of doctrine - but I don't think that kind of solution is practical.

Also we see in Acts 20:28-30 Paul makes the point that doctrinal error would most certainly rise from within the church. In 3 john 1:9-10 - the Apostle informs us that by that time - Christians were in some cases expelled from church for listening to the teaching of the Apostles.

 

[BobRyan]

as an aside, I did buy and read, From Sabbath to Sunday, Interesting book. I'd like to talk with you about it sometime. The one point the author made was the change from Saturday to Sunday worship came from the Church of Rome. I would agree with that, and Rome was where both the Apostle Peter and Paul were. Your quote from Galatians comes from Paul, should we not listen to Paul?

1. We should listen to Paul ... in fact all of scripture.
2. I agree with your point about the origin of the change being uniquely associated with the Catholic church and I find a very helpful quote on that point in the book "The Faith Explained" by Leo Trese - a commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II where he makes the case that it is not consistent with the claims for "sola scriptura" to follow the change of the Sabbath when the only source you have for that change is Catholic tradition and it's claims to have the authority to make such a change.
3. As you point out - the book "from Sabbath to Sunday" covers that same ground in terms of history and origins of the change.

 

[Freth]

Interesting thread, Bob. I always respect your scholarship and your desire to follow the word of God as much as you are able. What I am wondering, based on your post that I quoted, is what are the fruits of the doctrine of sola scriptura? We have multiple denominations all claiming sola scriptura. They don't all agree doctrinally. The question is does the human conscience submit to sola scriptura, or is sola scriptura subject to human conscience?

Scripture answers these questions:

Q: What I am wondering, based on your post that I quoted, is what are the fruits of the doctrine of sola scriptura?

Scripture Is Profitable

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is...

• Profitable for doctrine.
• For reproof and correction.
• For instruction in righteousness.
• That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 2:15
Study...

• To shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.
• Rightly dividing the word of truth.

Discernment Is Given

Matthew 7:20
Ye shall...

• Know them by their fruits.
  • Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
    
  • A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.​

S: We have multiple denominations all claiming sola scriptura. They don't all agree doctrinally.

Either the doctrine is scripturally sound or it isn't. Possible reasons why doctrine isn't scripturally sound.

Satan

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.​

False Christs

Galatians 1:6-7
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:8-10
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
​

Tradition of Men

Mark 7:8
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.​

Q: The question is does the human conscience submit to sola scriptura, or is sola scriptura subject to human conscience?

I'll answer this question with a question:

Q: What is the state of the conscience of the human(s) in question?

Character of God

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

1 John 2:6
He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Romans 6:12-18
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.​

Are men servants of righteousness or servants of sin?

Conclusion

All of these things are reasons why there are so many denominations, why some of them bear no fruit and why false doctrine can rise to global acceptance. Just because a doctrine is widely accepted doesn't mean it's scripturally sound. In fact, scripture would tend to point to that not being the case.

Matthew 7:13-14
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
​

Let's not forget that these things were prophesied to happen. Satan has crept into the body of Christ, in every denomination to some degree. Scripture is our only means of determining the truth—through prayerful supplication, through the Holy Spirit. If we are truly centered in our walk with Christ, doing as we are called to do, we will easily discern and reject false doctrine.

Ephesians 4:23-24
And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.​

 

[Fidelibus]

Well you are already a member of your denomination as you state - and then you find that something in your primary set of doctrines for your denomination is in conflict with Bible teaching - so presumably you ask to discuss this with someone in your church after you have a pretty good understanding of what the Bible says. If that discussion does not resolve it for you - then look for some group that has solved that problem according to the Bible. If that group has better Bible doctrine as a rule ( better than where you are now) - then consider making a move.

Who makes the determination which of those groups has the correct understanding of the Bible and which one does not if they both claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit?