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

[BobRyan]

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?

Each individual does via sola scriptura testing

2 Cor 5: 9 Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive compensation for his deeds done through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad.

Rom 14:
10 But as for you, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or you as well, why do you regard your brother or sister with contempt? For we will all appear before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written:

“As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow,
And every tongue will give praise to God.”

12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

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

When confronted with a new doctrine (new to "you") the two choices are
1. ignore the Bible and just look at "who is speaking" to see how much you like or trust them.
2. Go with the Bible - test all things by the Bible.

Gal 1:6-9 says it does not matter WHO is speaking -- not even if they are an Angel from heaven or an Apostle like Paul. So that eliminates option 1.

That leaves only option 2 - test them by the Bible.

 

[Fidelibus]

Each individual does via sola scriptura testing

2 Cor 5: 9 Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive compensation for his deeds done through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad.

Rom 14:
10 But as for you, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or you as well, why do you regard your brother or sister with contempt? For we will all appear before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written:

As a non-believer of Sola Scriptura, I disagree with your fallible and personal interpretations/opinions that these passages are some how proof positive every individual makes their own correct determination on which group has the correct understanding of the Bible and which group does not through "sola scriptura testing."

When confronted with a new doctrine (new to "you") the two choices are
1. ignore the Bible and just look at "who is speaking" to see how much you like or trust them.
2. Go with the Bible - test all things by the Bible.

Where in the bible does it say there are only two choices?

Gal 1:6-9 says it does not matter WHO is speaking -- not even if they are an Angel from heaven or an Apostle like Paul. So that eliminates option 1.

Again, would you agree that this is nothing more than your personal and fallible interpretation/understanding of this passage, and is subject to error?

That leaves only option 2 - test them by the Bible.

By who's or what authority makes this true and absolute? Besides, I don't recall seeing in the bible a book, chapter or verse where it say's "Go with the Bible - test all things by the Bible."

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[BobRyan]

As a non-believer of Sola Scriptura, I disagree with your fallible and personal interpretations/opinions

You are of course welcome to your own fallible and personal views to the contrary. Everyone has free will.

that these passages are some how proof positive every individual makes their own correct determination

Your not actually quoting the text or any detail in it - which is why you can insert terms like "makes their own correct determination" where in fact I merely said "makes their own determination".

Each person does have to make a determination "on which group has the correct understanding of the Bible and which group does not through "sola scriptura testing." " -- as you state.

And they do so by going contrary to their own magisterium in Acts 17:11 to reach the right conclusion - as already pointed out there. "Studying the scriptures to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO" -- as already pointed out.

Out of curiosity - do you find that Bible detail to be "inconvenient"??

Again, would you agree that this is nothing more than your personal and fallible interpretation/understanding of this passage, and is subject to error?

All humans are fallible even the Pope. But scripture is infallible. And God IS capable of providing both scripture and the Holy Spirit so that individuals "can choose" the right course. the fact that one "can choose" it does not mean that the person WILL choose it - see John 1:11 for proof.

By who's or what authority makes this true and absolute?

Instead of ignoring the two Bible examples I gave that answer that question - why not address the Bible details in each of those two examples and show how NOT relying on scripture would also have given the right conclusion in each case.

 

[ChetSinger]

All humans are fallible even the Pope...

Hello Bob, sorry for butting in.

I agree with your statement. But my first thought regarding it was this: does this mean that Ellen White's interpretations of scriptures can also be fallible? Why or why not? I'm asking because I'm fascinated with the position that she holds among SDA beliefs. I can think of no other Protestant denomination that holds anyone in such high regard.

 

[BobRyan]

Hello Bob, sorry for butting in.

Hi Chet, This is an open discussion thread so all comments welcomed. No apology needed.

I agree with your statement. But my first thought regarding it was this: does this mean that Ellen White's interpretations of scriptures can also be fallible?

All humans are fallible including Moses, Paul, Agabus, Nathan, and Ellen White. The reason any message from God is held in high regard is not due to the infallibility of fallen human beings with sinful natures -- it is because God himself is capable of conveying information accurately.

I'm fascinated with the position that she holds among SDA beliefs.

The Bible teaching on spiritual gifts is found in 1 Cor 12. In 1 Cor 14 everyone appears to have been showing up at church "with a revelation" according to Paul. 1 Cor 14:1 is "instructive".

2 Peter 1:20-21 says this
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

So that means that "Anna in the temple" at Christ's birth , and Deborah in the OT and Miriam in the OT, and the daughters of Phiiip Acts 21:9 - were speaking from God by virtue of the spiritual gift of prophecy - a work of the Holy Spirit according to 1 Cor 12.

The Bible teaching on prophets that pass the sola scriptura test -- is that Christians are to listen to what God says through them. If Ellen White were to argue against that Bible teaching then in that regard she would be in error. If she said God told her to oppose that Bible teaching then we would have to reject her claim to the gift of prophecy.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

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.

thank you for your kind reply. I am sorry that work is so busy and limits my time to give thoughtful replies.
The point that I would like to make is that the divisions among Christians are human and not godly. As Paul says during his ministry, Is Christ divided? Some of you say I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Christ.
I agree with you that we must follow all Ten Commandments and Christ has placed higher restrictions on us than the old covenant. Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees you will not enter the kingdom of heaven
As humans, we like to be tribal, my team is better than yours, but God calls us to Himself
When looking at a Church, we do not look at the people, but rather the teaching authority
Which one is the most authentic teaching and true to the original apostles?
There are 10 commandments not just one. Does my church follow all ten, or does it hold to one and explain away the others?
That is my line of thought. As the psalmist says, if today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Scripture answers these questions:



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.​

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.​

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.​

I like your conclusion, but it still does not answer how we determine which one to choose. We are basing it on scripture, but we are choosing based on feelings and associations, or that is what I hear from a majority of the people that I talk with. How do we know that we are right, when multiple people have read the same scripture and come to different conclusions?

In the Catholic Church, we base it on the Apostles teaching authority in the magisterium of the Church as written in the Catechism. People live and die, arguments come and go, but the Catechism is not contradicted; teachings develop over 2000 years but are not reversed. I see rebellions and human disagreements in those that have separated, but no charge of scriptural error that has stood up under scrutiny

 

[The Liturgist]

So here is a question: if the SDA regards Ellen G White as an infallible prophet whose interpretations of Scripture are themselves infallible, why not simply add her writings to the canon? If that was done, there would be no cognitive dissonance around this issue. And it is logical, because Sola Scriptura holds the Bible as the sole infallible source of doctrine, but a large number of Adventist doctrines surrounding the history of the Roman Catholic Church, and the church in general, Eschatology, the identity of Michael the Archangel (specifically the idea that he is Jesus Christ), and of course, adherence to the Sabbath, come from Ellen White.

So, really, since from an Adventist perspective her writings seem to be unimpeachable, how are they not scripture?

It seems to me that Sola Scriptura can only really be applied to the Adventist church if Ellen White’s works are made part of the canon. Otherwise, the Adventist Church has as much of a Magisterium or Tradition as anyone else.

Which frankly, wouldn’t bother me, except I feel like the traditional Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches are subjected in this thread to an unfair criticism, that they follow the “traditions of men,” which by the way is an out of context eisegesis of that verse*, when the SDA is doing basically the same thing.

Indeed there are several Adventist traditions which predate Ellen White, which she presumably endorsed, so even if her works were declared canonical, there would still be a traditional element within Adventism. Indeed, even the canon of scripture is a Tradition, which is why some Protestant churches have fewer books in their Old Testament than the Anglicans, as well as the Orthodox and Catholics, and conversely, why the Ethopians and Eritreans have more.

*As I have often said, our Lord was referring to the Pharisees and their traditions, which after the fall of the temple and the end of the Sadduceans, Essenes, and Hellenes as major forces in Judaism, were codified in the Mishnah and consolidated in the Talmud, forming Rabinnical Judaism as we know it today.

 

[Freth]

I like your conclusion, but it still does not answer how we determine which one to choose. We are basing it on scripture, but we are choosing based on feelings and associations, or that is what I hear from a majority of the people that I talk with. How do we know that we are right, when multiple people have read the same scripture and come to different conclusions?

In the Catholic Church, we base it on the Apostles teaching authority in the magisterium of the Church as written in the Catechism. People live and die, arguments come and go, but the Catechism is not contradicted; teachings develop over 2000 years but are not reversed. I see rebellions and human disagreements in those that have separated, but no charge of scriptural error that has stood up under scrutiny

What are the attributes of a devout Christian?

• Faith [1]
• Word of God [1]
• Love [2]
  
• Lowliness of Mind, Humbleness [2]
• Prayer [3]
  
• Obedience [4]
  
• Servant of God [4]
• Righteousness [4]
  
• Holiness [4]

[1] John 8:31-32
[2] Philippians 2:2-5
[3] John 14:26
[4] Romans 6:15-23
​

What then are the opposites of the Christian attributes listed above?

• Disbelief
• Word of Men
• Hate
• Selfishness, Vanity
• Disobedience
• Serving Self
• Disconnected from God
• Unrighteousness
• Unholiness

And what of discernment? Jesus said that every one that asks will receive. Discernment isn't exclusive.

Matthew 7:7-8 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.​

The spiritual man receives of the Spirit of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14-16 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. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
​

We can know the truth. We can find it for ourselves, through prayerful study of the word of God. We can live as we are called to. The Bible is full of examples of everyday people who received of the spirit, spoke the truth and did the will of God. If it were not possible for any man/woman to receive of the Spirit of God, have discernment and know the truth, then what is the point of Christianity and a personal relationship with Jesus?

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.​

2 Timothy 3:16-176 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
​

Thank God that we can find the truth for ourselves directly, outside of the purview of men.

 

[BobRyan]

The point that I would like to make is that the divisions among Christians are human and not godly.

I think we both agree on that point.

I agree with you that we must follow all Ten Commandments and Christ has placed higher restrictions on us than the old covenant.

agreed.

As humans, we like to be tribal, my team is better than yours, but God calls us to Himself
When looking at a Church, we do not look at the people, but rather the teaching authority

I would say "When looking at a Church, we do not look at the people, but rather the teaching"

Because in Gal 1:6-9 Paul completely destroys the "Sola authority" option by saying "EVEN if WE apostles or an ANGEL from HEAVEN should come to you bringing a different gospel - let him be accursed". His entire point there is that the argument from "teaching authority" is empty.

So also in Mark 7:6-13 Jesus did not say "let us compare our teaching authority - do you not agree that mine is higher than yours?" - that logic is not found anywhere in His sola-scriptura hammering of the teaching of the magesterium of the nation-church He started at Sinai.

There are 10 commandments not just one.

Agreed.

There is also Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart'
and Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".

A number of the commands in the Law of Moses would have been included in the "Law of God written on the heart" (as the moral law of God that defines what sin is) as known to Jeremiah and his readers in his "New Covenant" statement in Jer 31:31-34

New Covenant - is Old Testament Jer 31:31-34 which is how it turns out that Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in glory in Matt 17 - even before the cross.

Does my church follow all ten, or does it hold to one and explain away the others?
That is my line of thought

Agreed - the effort to downsize/edit the Ten is a problem.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think we both agree on that point.



agreed.



I would say "When looking at a Church, we do not look at the people, but rather the teaching"

Because in Gal 1:6-9 Paul completely destroys the "Sola authority" option by saying "EVEN if WE apostles or an ANGEL from HEAVEN should come to you bringing a different gospel - let him be accursed". His entire point there is that the argument from "teaching authority" is empty.

So also in Mark 7:6-13 Jesus did not say "let us compare our teaching authority - do you not agree that mine is higher than yours?" - that logic is not found anywhere in His sola-scriptura hammering of the teaching of the magesterium of the nation-church He started at Sinai.



Agreed.

There is also Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart'
and Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".

A number of the commands in the Law of Moses would have been included in the "Law of God written on the heart" (as the moral law of God that defines what sin is) as known to Jeremiah and his readers in his "New Covenant" statement in Jer 31:31-34

New Covenant - is Old Testament Jer 31:31-34 which is how it turns out that Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in glory in Matt 17 - even before the cross.



Agreed - the effort to downsize/edit the Ten is a problem.

With all due respect, I don’t think the Adventist interpretation of the Decalogue is correct, and furthermore, with regards to the Jewish law, there is the whole issue of Galatians, and Acts 15.

And as I have said repeatedly, Christians should worship on Saturday, to commemorate the repose of God the Son in the tomb following His recreation of humanity on Friday (on which we should also worship), but there is no scriptural prohibition, and on the contrary, extremely ancient precedent, for worshipping on Sunday, to celebrate the Resurrection of Our Lord.

When it comes to scripture, scripture must interpret scripture, but there is a hierarchy, in that the New Testament and in particular the Holy Gospels provide, as indicated by the Resurrection sequence in Luke, the basis for understanding the Old Testament, and not vice versa. Recall where our Lord opened the Scriptures for the disciples and showed them how all of the books in fact spoke about Him.

So basically, if you start at Genesis and read the Old Testament in a manner that is out of sync with the New, or worse, read the New Testament as subordinate to the Old, you are doing it wrong.

Since the arrangement of scriptural books is arbitrary, and the Old Testament is where it is in Bibles largely because the early church used it to prepare Catechumens to hear the Gospels, and today, the Gospels are no longer secret texts of the Church, but available to anyone, it would perhaps make sense if the first books in the Bible were the Gospels, starting with John. But given my respect for tradition, I am profoundly disinclined to make such a change, although my recommended order of reading the Bible follows that path.

 

[BobRyan]

With all due respect, I don’t think the Adventist interpretation of the Decalogue is correct,

That's not "Adventist" it is Bible scholars in almost all denominations on planet Earth not just the ones on "one side" of the Sabbath topic. So then when it comes to THE TEN - as they existed before the cross, (as recorded in the actual Bible) - we have...
D.L. Moody
The Baptist Confession of Faith
The Westminster Confession of Faith
Matthew Henry
C.H. Spurgeon
R.C. Sproul
...

and furthermore, with regards to the Jewish law, there is the whole issue of Galatians, and Acts 15.

Even the RCC in "Dies Domini" (by Pope John Paul II) and also "The Faith Explained" admit that the TEN are NOT simply limited to "Jewish Law" -- but rather are applicable to all mankind.

 

[BobRyan]

And as I have said repeatedly, Christians should worship on Saturday, to commemorate the repose of God the Son in the tomb following His recreation of humanity on Friday (on which we should also worship), but there is no scriptural prohibition, and on the contrary, extremely ancient precedent, for worshipping on Sunday, to celebrate the Resurrection of Our Lord.

Adventists also hold worship services on Sunday for evangelistic series, weeks of prayer, and other special events. We do not claim that attending a worship service on Tuesday or Monday or Sunday is a sin.

 

[BobRyan]

When it comes to scripture, scripture must interpret scripture,

Agreed. And scripture is what Paul was tested by - even by non-Christians in Acts 17:11

but there is a hierarchy, in that the New Testament and in particular the Holy Gospels provide, as indicated by the Resurrection sequence in Luke, the basis for understanding the Old Testament, and not vice versa. Recall where our Lord opened the Scriptures for the disciples and showed them how all of the books in fact spoke about Him.

No doubt the Holy Spirit and God the Son are great expositors of scripture. But in Gal 1:6-9 Paul says that Angels don't count and Apostles don't count when it comes to "authority" to tell you what to think. The onus is on each individual to check it out against scripture - according to Paul in Gal 1.

 

[BobRyan]

I like your conclusion, but it still does not answer how we determine which one to choose. We are basing it on scripture, but we are choosing based on feelings and associations, or that is what I hear from a majority of the people that I talk with. How do we know that we are right, when multiple people have read the same scripture and come to different conclusions?

Again - in Acts 17:11 these who are not even Christians at all and whose magesterium declares Paul's teaching to be in error - check it out for themselves "searching the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO".

Your objection is in a form to say that the Acs 17:11 method should not have been blessed/approved by the writer of Acts 17. Yet it is.

"The Spirit of Truth will lead you into all Truth" - John 16:13

The Jews in Mark 7:6-13 were adamant that their traditions were god-inspired and infallible. Yet look at what Christ said.

Jesus is responding to the Jews “making stuff up” about how sin gets into the body and rules about baptizing fingers to cleanse from sin after having been at the public market place in Mark 7.

1. He argues against “teaching as doctrine the commandments of men”.

2. He points to the outright contradiction between some Jewish tradition and the Word of God

He then gets to the point of giving them the straight answer Mark 7:14-18 that sin is a matter of the heart “out of the abundance of the heart – the mouth speaketh” Matt 12:34

Mark 7:6-13
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.”

Jesus' argument is "sola scriptura" and his target is the established tradition of the magesterium of the one-true nation church started by God at Sinai.

 

[zoidar]

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.

Only 20%? I heard from a preacher (not SDA) the average paid American should give at least 30% or it's a sin. I'm glad I'm not an American.

I think generous giving is great, but I have bit hard time with set numbers.

 

[BobRyan]

Only 20%? I heard from a preacher (not SDA) the average paid American should give at least 30% or it's a sin. I'm glad I'm not an American.

The Bible does have a number in it for Tithe - is that what you are getting at or are you just saying that some preachers have an interesting habit of coming up with their own numbers?

 

[zoidar]

The Bible does have a number in it for Tithe - is that what you are getting at or are you just saying that some preachers have an interesting habit of coming up with their own numbers?

I meant the idea is crazy that it's a sin not giving a specific percentage.

I think a tenth is a good rule, but since we are not Jews we can give generously without the numbers.

And "I'm glad I'm not an American" if as an American I have to give 30%.

 

[The Liturgist]

D.L. Moody
The Baptist Confession of Faith
The Westminster Confession of Faith
Matthew Henry
C.H. Spurgeon
R.C. Sproul

I reject both of those confessions of faith as I am not a Baptist nor a Calvinist, and I reject Sproul, Spurgeon and Henry as irrelevant theologians compared to, say, Psuedo Dionysius the Aereopagite or St. Ephrem the Syrian, or St. Jacob of Sarugh, or St. Maximus the Confessor or St. Gregory Palamas, or St. Severus of Antioch, or St. Athanasius the Great, or in more recent times, Soren Kierkegaard, Ignatius Brianchaninov, John of Kronstadt, John Wesley, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Thomas Merton, and Edward B. Pusey.

 

[The Liturgist]

Only 20%? I heard from a preacher (not SDA) the average paid American should give at least 30% or it's a sin. I'm glad I'm not an American.

I think generous giving is great, but I have bit hard time with set numbers.

I’ve never heard an American say that about tithing. I am an American presbyter and my view is that tithing is part of the Jewish law, and is not required for Christians - because Christians can be trusted to give what is required to the Church and God provides for us.