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

[The Liturgist]

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%.

I agree. Note that in the US there is not a church tax like what exists in some countries such as Germany; there is no established church in the US, and so every church in the US was funded through voluntary contributions.

 

[The Liturgist]

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



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.

Actually Galatians 1:6-9 says the exact opposite, in that it anathematizes anyone who preaches a Gospel other than that taught by St. Paul and the other Apostles (Galatians 1:8). I don’t know where you got that exegesis from, but it is completely backwards.

 

[The Liturgist]

Now, to pursue my previous line of inquiry, since the SDA regards Ellen White as an inspired prophet and basis its doctrines on her writings, why are her writings not canonical scripture? After all, the SDA, like any denomination, can define its own canon. Several Protestant churches have an open canon, including the Lutherans; the Anglicans regard the Deuterocanonical books as canonical, and they are in any complete copy of the KJV, and the Ethiopian Orthodox church adds even more books to both the Old and the New Testament (1 Enoch, the Didascalia).

 

[zoidar]

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.

This guy is an Anabaptist. Don't know if they are more strict with giving.

 

[Freth]

Now, to pursue my previous line of inquiry, since the SDA regards Ellen White as an inspired prophet and basis its doctrines on her writings, why are her writings not canonical scripture? After all, the SDA, like any denomination, can define its own canon. Several Protestant churches have an open canon, including the Lutherans; the Anglicans regard the Deuterocanonical books as canonical, and they are in any complete copy of the KJV, and the Ethiopian Orthodox church adds even more books to both the Old and the New Testament (1 Enoch, the Didascalia).

Ellen considered herself a lesser light, leading men to the greater light, which is the word of God, that she herself states is the authority by which we should sustain our positions. This is why we do not defend our positions with Ellen White, but with scripture. A lesser light should not be elevated to canon.

Ellen's own words:

In public labor do not make prominent, and quote that which Sister White has written, as authority to sustain your positions. To do this will not increase faith in the testimonies. Bring your evidences, clear and plain, from the Word of God. "Thus saith the Lord" is the strongest testimony you can possibly present to the people. Let none be educated to look to Sister White, but to the mighty God, who gives instruction to Sister White. (Letter 11; To Brother and Sister Colcord, January 16, 1894)

Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. (The Review and Herald, Jan. 20, 1903. Quoted in Colporteur Ministry, p. 125.)

The Word of God is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind, and may be understood by those who have any desire to understand it. But notwithstanding all this, some who profess to make the Word of God their study are found living in direct opposition to its plainest teachings. Then, to leave men and women without excuse, God gives plain and pointed testimonies, bringing them back to the Word that they have neglected to follow.

The Word of God abounds in general principles for the formation of correct habits of living, and the testimonies, general and personal, have been calculated to call their attention more especially to these principles. (Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 663, 664.)
​

I've noticed that some who are opposed to Ellen's writings seem to want to elevate them to a status higher than even the SDA church put them. We do not put her writings above the word of God. A quick search of this forum will show that all of us (SDA members) use scripture first and always to back our positions, not Ellen White—unless a member brings her into the discussion. The exception to this, of course, may be one or more of the Adventist-specific forums, where a lesser light is used to point to the greater light, the word of God.

I may be wrong, but I think this was already hashed out in another thread (or two, or three) months ago, of which I believe you were a participant.

 

[The Liturgist]

Ellen considered herself a lesser light, leading men to the greater light, which is the word of God, that she herself states is the authority by which we should sustain our positions. This is why we do not defend our positions with Ellen White, but with scripture. A lesser light should not be elevated to canon.

The problem with this argument (which I do not recall being “hashed out” in any thread I have participated in), aside from the fact that it constitutes an admission of a doctrinal source other than Scripture, which is my point - if EGW’s works are not canon, they are on a par with works such as the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas or Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, except unlike either of the above, they are held to be infallible, which makes them closer to the infallible dogmatic definitions made by recent Popes since Vatican I, such as Pope Pius XII’s doctrinally infallible (for Roman Catholics) expression of belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is that the positions you are defending are unique to the doctrine of Ellen White and to a lesser but extremely problematic event, those of extent her predecessors in the Adventist movement who she approved of.

I say that is extremely problematic, because Miller made a serious error and ignored the words of our Lord about predicting the exact time of the Parousia (the second coming, when our Lord will sit in judgement at the general resurrection), and one of the more problematic doctrines of EGW which cannot be said to be sola scriptura, but rather is essentially Adventist tradition with some proof texts used to prop it up, but not the plain reading, is the Investigative Judgement, which has the effect of explaining away the serious error made by the Millerites and the Great Disappointment into a mere misunderstanding as to the important cosmic events occurring. However, you will not find any explicit description of an investigation of judgement in Scripture. Nor did anyone else who adhered to Sola Scriptura or not, including the Early Church Fathers, the Magisterial Reformers like Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Jan Hus, or the Radical Reformers and Restorationists such as the Baptists, Puritans*, Anabaptists, Mennonites, Quakers, the Plymouth Brethren or the Stone-Campbell Movement, come to the conclusion that this doctrine.

Neither did they come to believe certain other unusual doctrines such as the idea that St. Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ (indeed, the Patristic consensus is that in the angelic hierarchy, while he was leader of the Archangels which did not follow the example of the fallen “Son of the Morning”, which is to say, the devil, but rather lead the Archangels in contending against them, he was outranked by higher choirs of angels, specifically the Cherubim and Seraphim, and it is unclear if he is counted among the Thrones, Dominions, Powers or Principalities or is of the ordinary choir of Archangel, but he is clearly of the same general group as St. Gabriel, St. Rafael and St. Uriel).

It interesting to note that with many of the churches of the Radical Reformation and Reformist movement, a Nuda Scriptura approach was used, in which a purely Biblical exegesis was developed, from which we get, from the Plymouth Brethren and John Nelson Darby, as an example, the idea of the Rapture and Tribulation popularized in recent years by the Left Behind novels. The difference between this innovative doctrine, which is not found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and the more unusual Adventist doctrines, is that many churches adopted a Premillenial Dispensationist eschatology based directly on the teaching of John Nelson Darby. Conversely, I know of no other denomination outside certain breakaway Adventist groups which adhere to EGW doctrines such as the Investigative Judgement, and I haven’t heard of anyone else who believes St. Michael to be the same person as God the Son, although I would be less surprised to find the latter, because the former doctrine is very specifically rooted in the history of the Adventist movement.

So because you have an infallible “lesser light” from which unique doctrines not taught elsewhere, nor evident from a plain reading of scripture, but indeed in the case of the Investigative Judgement, extremely scripturally obscure, in that they depend both on Miller’s revised calculations as to the date of the Second Coming, and various texts that are used to show that he got the date right but the specific nature of the cosmic event was somehow misunderstood, I feel like the SDA Church, while you obviously are sincere in your belief that you are a Sola Scriptura definition, define Sola Scriptura radically differently than anyone else.

*It is from Puritanism from which my church is historically but not doctrinally descended, and this is to our chagrin, as there are few people one would less like to have in the history of one’s denomination than Increase Mather and his son Cotton Mather. Indeed the history of Congregationalism as a denominational movement is the history of churches of Congregational polity becoming aware, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, of the errors, excesses and hypocrisies of the Puritan movement, and instead embracing a liturgical high church form of worship with vaguely but not definitively Calvinist theology.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

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.

That was a really nice post to read. The question is not are we able to find the truth on our own; we know that we can't because the Bible says we can't. We read in John chapter 6:

[43] Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. [44] No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. [45] It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

The three theological virtues are Faith, Hope, and Charity. They come from God alone, by grace alone.
They are quickened in Baptism, as it says in John 3:5
5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

and Paul reinforces in Titus 3:5

[5] Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;

and as Jesus says in Mark 16

[16] He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.


The remaining four Cardinal virtues (cardinal meaning hinge on which the others turn), of Fortitude, Justice, Prudence and Temperance, are obtained by human effort cooperating with God's grace. We obtain these virtues by preparing ourselves in four ways. Distrust of self, Confidence in God, right use of the faculties of mind and body, and the duty of prayer. This is explained by Dom Lorenzo Scupoli in the book The Spiritual combat.

The last part of your post is a bit troublesome; we can find the truth directly outside the purview of men? I do not believe that is Biblically correct. We don't all pick up the Bible on our own and come to the truth individually; we have teachers. Those that have gone before us as it says in Ephesians:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.


We, as men, require other men to help us in our quest for Christian truth. That is not in doubt, the question is which men do you believe, and what standard do you use to measure their teaching?

The Bible tells us that there are those that use the argument of sola scriptura in a way that is in error. We read in 2 Peter 3:

. [15] And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:

[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [17] You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. [18] But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen.

 

[The Liturgist]

That was a really nice post to read. The question is not are we able to find the truth on our own; we know that we can't because the Bible says we can't. We read in John chapter 6:

[43] Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. [44] No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. [45] It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

The three theological virtues are Faith, Hope, and Charity. They come from God alone, by grace alone.
They are quickened in Baptism, as it says in John 3:5
5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

and Paul reinforces in Titus 3:5

[5] Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;

and as Jesus says in Mark 16

[16] He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.


The remaining four Cardinal virtues (cardinal meaning hinge on which the others turn), of Fortitude, Justice, Prudence and Temperance, are obtained by human effort cooperating with God's grace. We obtain these virtues by preparing ourselves in four ways. Distrust of self, Confidence in God, right use of the faculties of mind and body, and the duty of prayer. This is explained by Dom Lorenzo Scupoli in the book The Spiritual combat.

The last part of your post is a bit troublesome; we can find the truth directly outside the purview of men? I do not believe that is Biblically correct. We don't all pick up the Bible on our own and come to the truth individually; we have teachers. Those that have gone before us as it says in Ephesians:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.


We, as men, require other men to help us in our quest for Christian truth. That is not in doubt, the question is which men do you believe, and what standard do you use to measure their teaching?

The Bible tells us that there are those that use the argument of sola scriptura in a way that is in error. We read in 2 Peter 3:

. [15] And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:

[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [17] You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. [18] But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen.

Also 2 Thessalonians and Galatians ch. 1 refer to the importance of the Apostolic kerygma. This represents the basis for the Tradition which is believed in by your church, and by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrians, the Anglicans, the Methodists, the confessional Lutherans who regard themselves as Evangelical Catholics, and other traditional Protestants.

 

[Freth]

That was a really nice post to read. The question is not are we able to find the truth on our own; we know that we can't because the Bible says we can't. We read in John chapter 6:

[43] Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. [44] No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. [45] It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

The three theological virtues are Faith, Hope, and Charity. They come from God alone, by grace alone.
They are quickened in Baptism, as it says in John 3:5
5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

and Paul reinforces in Titus 3:5

[5] Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;

and as Jesus says in Mark 16

[16] He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.


The remaining four Cardinal virtues (cardinal meaning hinge on which the others turn), of Fortitude, Justice, Prudence and Temperance, are obtained by human effort cooperating with God's grace. We obtain these virtues by preparing ourselves in four ways. Distrust of self, Confidence in God, right use of the faculties of mind and body, and the duty of prayer. This is explained by Dom Lorenzo Scupoli in the book The Spiritual combat.

The last part of your post is a bit troublesome; we can find the truth directly outside the purview of men? I do not believe that is Biblically correct. We don't all pick up the Bible on our own and come to the truth individually; we have teachers. Those that have gone before us as it says in Ephesians:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.


We, as men, require other men to help us in our quest for Christian truth. That is not in doubt, the question is which men do you believe, and what standard do you use to measure their teaching?

The Bible tells us that there are those that use the argument of sola scriptura in a way that is in error. We read in 2 Peter 3:

. [15] And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:

[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [17] You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. [18] But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen.

Allow me to clarify.

purview: the scope of the influence or concerns of something​

The phrase "purview of men" refers to men in power (i.e. principalities and powers), who would seek to assert their authority as described in prophecy.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.​

Matthew 24:4-5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you [discernment]. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.​

Revelation 13:5-7 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.​

There is a deception problem that God's people overcome (through discernment), despite the aforementioned principalities and powers. Those who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus (Revelation 12:17, Revelation 14:12).

We are told to study to show ourselves approved, rightfully dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 3:16-17), which is discernment. If discernment were not possible on a personal level (personal level being you, the Bible and the Holy Spirit) then all would be deceived; but we have the ability to discern, to know what the truth is (John 8:31-32).

 

[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
...

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

That's fine... but you also can't ignore the fact that they are not all SDA so this is not "the Adventist interpretation" --

John Wesley

I. The moral law of the Ten Commandments can never be broken while we are conscious of good and evil.
II. The law and the gospel agree perfectly well together.
III. God demands an entire obedience; there is no such thing as a little sin.
IV. Righteous Christians fulfill the spirit as well as the letter of the law.

http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/25/

John Wesley

Exodus 20 Commentary - Wesley's Explanatory Notes


Comment on Exodus 20
20:8The fourth commandment concerns the time of worship; God is to be served and honoured daily; but one day in seven is to be particularly dedicated to his honour, and spent in his service. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy; in it thou shalt do no manner of work - It is taken for granted that the Sabbath was instituted before. We read of God's blessing and sanctifying a seventh day from the beginning, Genesis 2:3 , so that this was not the enacting of a new law, but the reviving of an old law. 1st. They are told what is the day, they must observe, a seventh after six days labour, whether this was the seventh by computation from the first seventh, or from the day of their coming out of Egypt, or both, is not certain. A late pious Writer seems to prove, That the sabbath was changed, when Israel came out of Egypt; which change continued till our Lord rose again: But that then the Original Sabbath was restored. And he makes it highly probable, at least, That the sabbath we observe, is the seventh day from the creation.


In Genesis the 7th day is not the 7th day of Adam's life - Adam had only be alive for one day. In Genesis 2:1-3 it is the 7th day of Creation week itself "The 7th day is the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH)" Ex 20:10. It was God's 7th day of creation week and man's first full day of life after being created on day 6.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

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.

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.

Bob, I hope you know that I respect you as a man that wants to follow God with his whole heart. I think you misunderstand me a little bit. I am not saying that the Scriptures should never be used, or that tradition trumps scripture.
Christ did tell the Jews that they were nullifying the word of God by their tradition, but that does not make ALL tradition bad; just those practices which would nullify the word of God in a false piety. God said to honor our mother and father, but their tradition said that if you gave the money to God, you don't have to honor your parents with it. Jesus was justifiably angry with this reasoning, but it does not nullify ALL tradition.
A modern example would be when Jesus says, you have heard it said, thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say whoever looks on a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Jesus' word just says a woman; He does not say a strange woman or a woman not your wife. The word of God just says a woman. Modern tradition says that you are free to practice lust with your wife, using contraception, if you want to be a good steward and not have too many children. That nullifies the word of God, as the proper response of a good steward would be to mortify his sexual desire and practice restraint, if he did not want to have children.
So many times we are told to flee fornication; mortify the deeds of the flesh. He who fornicates sins against his own body. Modern tradition nullifies that; it tells us to not concern ourselves with lust, just prevent children with contraception.

Even Ellen White did not teach people to live like that, her teachings on sexuality are what started the whole breakfast cereal industry, as she believed that men consuming too much meat would produce too much sexual desire that would lead to masturbation. She advocated consumption of grain instead.
She advocated attempts at mortification of the desires rather than the modern practice of unbridled desire and mitigated consequences. I believe she correctly discerned that we either rule our desires, or we are ruled by them. I do not believe she would have been an advocate for contraception.

Scripture alone is hard to see, and we need tradition to keep us from having to "reinvent the wheel" all the time. We need scripture to see if our traditions are good or bad. Both and, not either or

peace be with you, Bob

 

[BobRyan]

you said...

boughtwithaprice said: ↑
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?

I respond with a number of Bible examples , one showing an Apostle being tested by non-Christians "sola scriptura" (Acts 17:11) and another where church magesterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai - is getting hammered "sola scriptura" Mark 7:6-13.

I think you misunderstand me a little bit. I am not saying that the Scriptures should never be used, or that tradition trumps scripture.

And so we agree on that part. But your response to the texts showing sola scriptura testing appears to be that this method would not work since it would just be feelings... unless I missed something.

Christ did tell the Jews that they were nullifying the word of God by their tradition, but that does not make ALL tradition bad;

We agree there as well. I am not saying that all tradition would violate/contradict/set-aside scripture as it did in Mark 7. It has to be tested to "see if" it does that in each case.

God said to honor our mother and father, but their tradition said that if you gave the money to God, you don't have to honor your parents with it. Jesus was justifiably angry with this reasoning, but it does not nullify ALL tradition.

Agreed.

I was just trying to show unmistakable examples of sola scriptura "testing".

 

[BobRyan]

A modern example would be when Jesus says, you have heard it said, thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say whoever looks on a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Jesus' word just says a woman; He does not say a strange woman or a woman not your wife. The word of God just says a woman. Modern tradition says that you are free to practice lust with your wife, using contraception, if you want to be a good steward and not have too many children.

That is an interesting suggestion. Is it the POV that if a couple is married and has relations that this would be lust if one of them happens to be sterile or in some way biologically prevented from having children? Do the elders/leaders in that denomination not have any relations with their wife if one of the other of them is incapable of having offspring?? Is that how they define "lust"???

(This is a side issue so I don't want to get too side tracked along those lines).

Even Ellen White did not teach people to live like that, her teachings on sexuality are what started the whole breakfast cereal industry, as she believed that men consuming too much meat would produce too much sexual desire that would lead to masturbation.

I have never heard that one before. The real reason is that her statements on health benefits ( for both men and women) to be had from healthy foods, veganism, high fiber meals etc gave incentive for that sort of breakfast - which is why both men and women were highly motivated to eat that sort of breakfast.

She and her husband were both eating some meat (at least from time to time) until the day he died.

She never said that the only benefit of healthy food was related to victory over lust. She was explicit about a number of benefits such as diseases prevented that come from a healthy diet.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

That is an interesting suggestion. Is it the POV that if a couple is married and has relations that this would be lust if one of them happens to be sterile or in some way biologically prevented from having children? Do the elders/leaders in that denomination not have any relations with their wife if one of the other of them is incapable of having offspring?? Is that how they define "lust"???

(This is a side issue so I don't want to get too side tracked along those lines).



I have never heard that one before. The real reason is that her statements on health benefits ( for both men and women) to be had from healthy foods, veganism, high fiber meals etc gave incentive for that sort of breakfast - which is why both men and women were highly motivated to eat that sort of breakfast.

She and her husband were both eating some meat (at least from time to time) until the day he died.

She never said that the only benefit of healthy food was related to victory over lust. She was explicit about a number of benefits such as diseases prevented that come from a healthy diet.

marital relations are both procreative and unitive. The couple that is rendered sterile through no fault of their own such as infertility, disease or age commit no sin and are blessed with the unitive benefits of the sex act
It is those that are fertile that deliberately frustrate the procreative aspect of the sex act that are committing the offense of adultery. Also those that abandon the natural use of the woman and engage in acts designed to satisfy lust but are intrinsically sterile are grave sins. These would include oral sex where the man’s seed is wasted, anal sex, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and masturbation. Pornography is also gravely sinful in itself, regardless if one masturbates or not.
Those involved in those sins need to repent. Lust is difficult to overcome, and requires supernatural grace and prayer, but if we believe that lust is ok and do not fight it how can we repent ? My testimony is that I have been given great freedom to love my wife, when God gave me the grace to overcome lust and live in chastity. We still have sex, but I no longer look at her as an object to use to keep my lust satisfied, nor do I resent her when her desires do not match mine. I am free to love her and show her the dignity that is her due. I can do that by the grace and mercy of God, but I would not have gotten that grace without asking, and I would have not asked had I not been taught that contraception is lust and lust is sinful. I cannot tell you enough about the incredible freedom that this gives
Christ calls us to follow, and He says if anyone wants to follow me let him deny himself take up his cross and follow Me. Self denial involves mortifying our appetites and overcoming lust, lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and pride of life.
This is from the Catholic catechism
2392 "Love is the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being" (FC 11).

2393 By creating the human being man and woman, God gives personal dignity equally to the one and the other. Each of them, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.

2394 Christ is the model of chastity. Every baptized person is called to lead a chaste life, each according to his particular state of life.

2395 Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

2397 The covenant which spouses have freely entered into entails faithful love. It imposes on them the obligation to keep their marriage indissoluble.

2398 Fecundity is a good, a gift and an end of marriage. By giving life, spouses participate in God's fatherhood.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.


every Christian held that contraception was sinful until the Lambeth conference of the Anglican Church in 1930. Once that happened, the rest of the Protestant denominations followed suit. There is nothing in the word of God that says that contraception is good but it became the tradition of men at that time.
The teaching of the Catholic Church and the word of God remains that contraception is intrinsically evil. There are Catholics that use contraception and there were even Bishops that advocated for a change in teaching, but the Catechism has not changed


I am sorry if I misrepresented the SDA. I thought Kellog was SDA and he began making his cereal to help men comply with EGW teaching on masturbation. I need to research that further and I am open to correction

peace be with you Bob

 

[BobRyan]

marital relations are both procreative and unitive. The couple that is rendered sterile through no fault of their own such as infertility, disease or age commit no sin and are blessed with the unitive benefits of the sex act

Thanks for sharing that. It means that the term "lust" cannot be said to be simply the act of having relations with one's wife without the purpose of having a baby. In Song of Solomon a number of benefits of marriage are mentioned and it never says that the wife is only"physically desirable" to the husband because of child bearing.

I agree with this view. It is not a form of lust.

 

[BobRyan]

Scripture alone is hard to see, and we need tradition to keep us from having to "reinvent the wheel"

Do you agree with me - that the following text is not a very clear or obvious way to say " Scripture alone is hard to see, and we need tradition to keep us from having to reinvent the wheel"??

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.

Which makes the opposite point from " Scripture alone is hard to see, and we need tradition to keep us from having to reinvent the wheel".

The same is true in Acts 17:11 - there the magisterium and its traditions proclaimed that Paul's teaching was error - yet even non-Christians in Acts 17:11 were able to test Paul "sola scriptura" and decide against the teaching and traditions of their own magesterium in favor of Paul's teaching.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Thanks for sharing that. It means that the term "lust" cannot be said to be simply the act of having relations with one's wife without the purpose of having a baby. In Song of Solomon a number of benefits of marriage are mentioned and it never says that the wife is only"physically desirable" to the husband because of child bearing.

I agree with this view. It is not a form of lust.

It is not a free for all though. I can give you testimony from my own life. My mother was rendered infertile after the birth of my brother due to her having a hysterectomy. She was 26 years old and married only 5 years. Up to that point, my dad was having a great old Catholic time; no birth control, sex all the time, and he has three children as a responsible father. They were both virgins on their wedding night, and my mother was disappointed she did not get pregnant until her third month of marriage. I was born 11 months to the day of my parents wedding on the feast of the Assumption of Mary. My brother and sister were born at 18 and 36 months after me. Sounds like an ideal family that would look forward to years of marital bliss right? Wrong
This all happened almost 60 years ago and I could only piece it together in retrospect. My middle childhood and teenage years were full of turmoil; my mother almost left my father when I was 12. They never divorced, but many times I thought they were going to get divorced. I found out later it was because my dad was a sex maniac.
While my mother was fertile, his appetite was regulated by my mother's menstrual periods and the birth of children. When she had the hysterectomy, it was no periods, no kids, lets have sex all the time. I even remember there being pornographic magazines that he tried to justify by saying he wanted to read the articles. Really? you read playboy for the articles? yeah right. As it went, he began to treat my mother as his property for his use, and not his partner. I suspect, but cannot confirm that she resented his behavior and distanced herself, so he had an affair.
They never got divorced and have been married for 59 years. My father has repented and is following the Lord, but those years were rough. I wont go into anymore detail, but I can say with all my heart that the grace of God is boundless, and His mercy endures forever. Repent.
It is possible to commit adultery with ones own wife. Mortify the deeds of the flesh. The command men are given is, husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church and gave Himself for her. She is not there to demand sex all the time. Learn to control your desire or you will be controlled by it. Pray, fast and repent; don't act entitled.

I am not guiltless or a poor victim of abuse. My observation of my parents behavior was my excuse to drift into sin that never should have been. My cry is that of the psalmist

[1] Out of the depths I have cried to thee, O Lord: [2] Lord, hear my voice. Let thy ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication. [3] If thou, O Lord, wilt mark iniquities: Lord, who shall stand it. [4] For with thee there is merciful forgiveness: and by reason of thy law, I have waited for thee, O Lord. My soul hath relied on his word: [5] My soul hath hoped in the Lord.

I repented and the Lord heard me; I can live in chastity and still have sex with my wife. Out of love, not lust.

 

[BobRyan]

From the Bible we can see three possible states for "tradition"
1. It is in harmony with the Bible and conveys useful rules/doctrine valuable in our battle against sin.
2. It is useless and contains no practical value when it makes stuff up as if God endorsed it.
3. It teaches outright error and contradicts scripture.

for case #1 we have this
2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

paradosis (traditions)


for case #2 useless and contains no practical value when it makes stuff up as if God endorsed it.

we have this

Mark 7:8 Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
Col 2:
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.​

For case #3 "teaches outright error and contradicts scripture.
have Mark 7

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down;​

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.

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

Which makes the opposite point from " Scripture alone is hard to see, and we need tradition to keep us from having to reinvent the wheel".

The same is true in Acts 17:11 - there the magisterium and its traditions proclaimed that Paul's teaching was error. Tradition needed to be ignored to objectively and accurately compare Paul's teaching to scripture.

Not only was this "possible" but even non-Christians in Acts 17:11 were able to test Paul "sola scriptura" and decide against the teaching and traditions of their own magesterium in favor of Paul's teaching.

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

In real history there could never have been Catholic reformers contrasting scripture with tradition to find more of the "many such things as that" that Christ mentions in Mark 7 .. if their only option was "when you think tradition is in error just assume you don't know enough about the Bible or tradition to figure it out right, continue to believe whatever you were told".

 

[BobRyan]

It is possible to commit adultery with ones own wife. Mortify the deeds of the flesh. The command men are given is, husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church and gave Himself for her. She is not there to demand sex all the time.

I fully agree with you on this point. Everything good can be taken to excess and used to commit sin. We need to eat as humans - and yet - Eve was not supposed to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.

The two great commandments "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5 and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (includes spouses and family members etc) Lev 19:18 - cannot be kept while abusing someone or acting in anyway against their best interest, causing them sorrow or pain or suffering and injuring Christ in the person of that "other person" that the proverbial "you" (which is also "we/anyone") are offending/abusing.

Not arguing against that point you are making at all in the example you give.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Do you agree with me - that the following text is not a very clear or obvious way to say " Scripture alone is hard to see, and we need tradition to keep us from having to reinvent the wheel"??

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.

Which makes the opposite point from " Scripture alone is hard to see, and we need tradition to keep us from having to reinvent the wheel".

The same is true in Acts 17:11 - there the magisterium and its traditions proclaimed that Paul's teaching was error - yet even non-Christians in Acts 17:11 were able to test Paul "sola scriptura" and decide against the teaching and traditions of their own magesterium in favor of Paul's teaching.

I see what you are saying, but my meaning is better summed up in Acts 8


Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter,

and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,

so he opened not his mouth.

33In (his) humiliation justice was denied him.
Who will tell of his posterity?
For his life is taken from the earth.”
34Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, “I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else?”
35Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.

Scripture alone is insufficient to rightly interpret. The Eunuch needed Phillip to explain it to him. The same way we need tradition to explain scripture. If you give the Bible to 50,000 people without a point a reference, you will get 50,000 different interpretations as to its meaning. There may be some agreement in some areas, but no complete agreement. This is why it says in 2Peter that no prophesy of scripture is of private interpretation. We can understand the Bible and use it to judge whether traditions are true, but not to start our own traditions