Seventh-day Adventist General Conference Statement

[tall73]

There are zero official statements from the church rejecting sola scriptura testing of all doctrine -- rather the official statements insist on it.

Belief #1 - of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs

1. Holy Scriptures

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)​

You have been pretty consistent in not quoting this statement in your representations

I have quoted it in this very thread!
Seventh-day Adventist General Conference Statement

And I quoted it, and the previous version of the fundamental, in the previous thread where it was the topic:

SDA Is it time for the church to remove Ellen White from fundamental beliefs

But I have also quoted the statements where the church doesn't go by that, because they use her writings to correct interpretations of Scripture.

And I note where she did not in fact follow that:

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

You see that Bob? That is not testing by Scripture. That is telling people NOT to test by Scripture when it comes to the special points of the SDA faith.

When it came down to application she did not do what she said.

 

[tall73]

the facts speak for themselves in this test case proving sola scriptura testing for all doctrine as we see in the first six posts regarding future judgment - Question for Seventh Day Adventist --

That proves only that you won't mention Ellen White in public. Your official statements prove the true view.

But more than that, Ellen White's statement when it actually came to Scriptural disagreement on the sanctuary doctrine is the test case. She told people not to entertain Scriptural objections to Adventist special points of faith.

And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

Instead, she pointed to experience.

 

[tall73]

" all Ellen White all the time" is not a compelling form of argument. You are free to go to an SDA forum and try to make that case stick - as if we do not already engage in sola-scriptura discussions with a great many folks today -

Quoting Ellen white refusing to use Scripture as the test of doctrine is in fact a compelling form of argument. It shows that she did not do what she claimed. And the statements that her writings correct interpretations of Scripture show the church still does not do what they claim.

Now Bob, it is no surprise you do NOT want to discuss her statement where she says not to test things by the Scriptures.

And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

 

[tall73]

No GC session is posting on this thread - I simply asked if your post was indicating that you wanted a Bible study on the gift of prophecy.. you then came back with yet another "all Ellen White" response which seems very limiting for you at this point.

This thread is about the GC statement Bob--your church, in official session. And those statements are in fact about Ellen White. You don't want to talk about her. But your official church statements sure do.

It is not limiting to me to discuss statements by the Adventist GC session, and Ellen White. It is in fact the topic of the thread.

It may be limiting to you however, to have to defends some of their statements.

 

[tall73]

My posts show that the voted Fundamental Belief statement #1 (which you are avoiding at all costs) -

I posted it in this thread, and even started a whole thread on the topic prior.

SDA Is it time for the church to remove Ellen White from fundamental beliefs

I am not avoiding it at all. I am pointing out Ellen White and the church don't follow it

 

[tall73]

They would need to read your posts to get "her view" since mine quote the Bible. But I do agree with you on the point that they should read each of my posts.

Yes, and those responding to yours. And they will see you inject her view into texts they never appear in.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

What I would suggest Tall73 is that you state which SDA doctrines specifically you do not understand that you believe all SDA's here can only explain using Ellen White.

Once they have been explained to you from the Bible directly WITHOUT any of her writings, perhaps then it's time to move on...it is pointless continuing down this pathway.

People join denominations because they are looking for something that a specific denomination provides. I think God has so many different faiths because the world is full of many different people. Some might argue that it's impossible for "Latter Day Saints"(Mormons) to fit the bill here, but I'm sure God knows what he is doing even within that group!

Also, I am convinced that even some atheists will be in heaven...I think God has a heck of a sense of humour and will take great delight in explaining to them how it happened! Jesus gave the stupid ones amongst us a simple golden rule...what they (atheists) don't realise in their ignorance is that "in as much as ye have done it to the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me!" (how cool is that?) I have this idea that believing on the Lord Jesus Christ might be a lot less complex than our words seem to make it.

 

[BobRyan]

So your posts on one thread are more representative of the Adventist church than their own official statements? .

My posts show that the voted Fundamental Belief statement #1 (which you are avoiding at all costs) - about establishing all doctrine - by the Bible, are what we do in practice and if you ever gave even one Bible study as an SDA pastor to someone wanting to join the church - you probably did that as well "sola scriptura". But it is difficult to be certain of that given your strong inclination to go "all Ellen White all the time" in each of your posts recently.

I posted it in this thread, and even started a whole thread on the topic prior.

SDA Is it time for the church to remove Ellen White from fundamental beliefs

I am not avoiding it at all. I am pointing out Ellen White and the church don't follow it

Because you think that belief #1 with its sola scriptura testing is contradicting what the Bible teaches about the gift of prophecy?? That makes no sense.

Since you appear to be reluctant to have a Bible discussion on the gift of prophecy - I have started this thread -- Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

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

Belief #1 - of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs

1. Holy Scriptures

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)​

Is in PERFECT agreement with the decision to ACCEPT rather than reject the Bible teaching on the gift of prophecy. ... as it turns out.

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

I have updated Oct 14, 2021 #19 with this point to cut to the chase of what the thread is all about.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, and those responding to yours. And they will see you inject her view into texts they never appear in.

By me - "never quoting Ellen White" ??? Seriously? isn't that a bit jaded/skewed?

As pointed out earlier - you can't seriously be condemning any and every Bible doctrine if it turns it was also known to Ellen White and accepted by her as being "of God".

 

[tall73]

What I would suggest Tall73 is that you state which SDA doctrines specifically you do not understand that you believe all SDA's here can only explain using Ellen White.

Once they have been explained to you from the Bible directly WITHOUT any of her writings, perhaps then it's time to move on...it is pointless continuing down this pathway.

You have been present in a number of threads where I have discussed my disagreements with Adventist doctrines. We can continue in those threads. This is about something more basic, which is the basis for testing.

Adventists say that they test all things by Scripture.

But then they have an official, GC statement (same authority as the fundamental beliefs), that states that her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture. And they are considering, per the executive committee draft, the following statement which would totally undermine the notion that they test all things by Scripture.

http://excom.zcuc.adventist.org/wp-...-in-the-Writings-of-Ellen-G-White-in-EN-1.pdf

Rather than replacing Scripture, they uplift its normative character, safeguard the Church from “every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14), and offer an inspired guide to Bible passages without exhausting their meaning or preventing further study.

If her writings are an inspired guide to Bible passages, then how do you test her writings by the Bible?

And this is why Adventists struggle to explain the relationship. They claim that the Scriptures are the rule of faith.

But they also say that Ellen White has doctrinal authority.

This creates a two-tier view of inspiration for testing purposes that looks something like this:

Bible tests all things - Above Ellen White's writings for testing

Ellen White's writings - Below the Scriptures for purposes of testing

However, in practice we see something different. If her writings are inspired, and they comment on a Bible passage then Adventists take her interpretation of a Bible passage as inspired. That is why you have statements such as her writings correcting inaccurate interpretations of Scripture, or the proposed one about her writings being an inspired commentary.

And in that case you are actually placing her writings above the Bible for purposes of testing. Anyone presenting Bible evidence is seen as personal interpretation/not inspired, while Ellen White's comments are seen as inspired.

So what we wind up with is:

Ellen White's inspired commentary about Bible passages - "corrects" interpretations.

Presented Bible evidence--considered inaccurate interpretations to be corrected.


And while I have acknowledged that the church claims they test all things by Scripture, and that Ellen White says to do the same (I even started a whole thread about it earlier), when it comes to actual application that is not what happens.

We see this even in Ellen White's day.

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

She appeals to their experience, rather than to the Scripture as a test.

 

[tall73]

My posts show that the voted Fundamental Belief statement #1 (which you are avoiding at all costs) - about establishing all doctrine - by the Bible, are what we do in practice

I have linked in this thread where I quoted this statement, and where I started an entire thread on this statement. Therefore, to continue to say I am avoiding this statement is now an intentional misrepresentation.

I have acknowledged what the voted Fundamental Beliefs statement says. This is about what some of your other voted statements--by the same body--also say, and pointing out that in practice you do not do what your fundamental belief says.

And I have pointed out Ellen White's statement, which you considered inspired, as an example.

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

She appealed to experience and said not to entertain Scriptural arguments against the special points of the Adventist faith.

1. Holy Scriptures

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)​

Is in PERFECT agreement with the decision to ACCEPT rather than reject the Bible teaching on the gift of prophecy. ... as it turns out.

And completely opposite of what happens in practice, such as here:

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

 

[tall73]

By me - "never quoting Ellen White" ??? Seriously? isn't that a bit jaded/skewed?

They can see in the thread and judge for themselves.

 

[tall73]

I have updated Oct 14, 2021 #19 with this point to cut to the chase of what the thread is all about.

We all wish we had said something different before. Going back to edit for damage control will just mean that I edit in responses.

 

[BobRyan]

We all wish we had said something different before. Going back to edit for damage control will just mean that I edit in responses.

Which is why I am informing you of my change - I want to make sure you are responding to the full detail I provide on page 1. And I want to make sure the reader sees a more balanced view on page one given "The cut to the chase" element in your thread where we see what your real interest is in the discussion about "Bible prophets speaking with prophetic authority" (- which you already agreed with).

 

[tall73]

Which is why I am informing you of my change - I want to make sure you are responding to the full detail on page 1. And I want to make sure the reader sees a more balanced view on page one given "The cut to the chase" element in your thread where we see what your real interest is in he discussion about "Bible prophets speaking with prophetic authority" - which you already agreed with.

Now Bob, you state you don't quote Ellen White at all, are not Ellen White all the time. But then you want to make sure you go back and revise your post on page one to defend her with your greatest hits.

Do you recommend I do the same and take various points I like and put them in the OP where they will have to read several posts to see your response? Or would you consider that poor form?

However, the edits are done now, and it allowed me to discuss a glaring example of the problem in more detail early on.

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

 

[BobRyan]

My posts show that the voted Fundamental Belief statement #1 (which you are avoiding at all costs) - about establishing all doctrine - by the Bible, are what we do in practice and if you ever gave even one Bible study as an SDA pastor to someone wanting to join the church - you probably did that as well "sola scriptura". ..

Belief #1 - of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs

1. Holy Scriptures

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)​

Is in PERFECT agreement with the decision to ACCEPT rather than reject the Bible teaching on the gift of prophecy. ... as it turns out.

I have linked in this thread where I quoted this statement, and where I started an entire thread on this statement.

ok - so you were willing to discuss that point of context on some "other" thread that you link to??

 

[BobRyan]

Now Bob, you state you don't quote Ellen White at all, are not Ellen White all the time.

I say that my treatment of the Dan 7 pre-advent judgment where "judgment is passed in favor of the saints" is visible for all to see in my many posts on the thread and can be easily seen in the first 6 posts of that thread to be a "sola scriptura" discussion as opposed to your "all Ellen White all the time" initiative that we see on many occassions.

But then you want to make sure you go back and revise your post on page one to defend her

There is no "to defend her" in my post #19 - rather there is the much-avoided "by some" Fundamental Belief #1 - posted for all to see. I don't quote her at all in that post (as is my pattern in general)

In fact the bit at the end that I added - does not quote Ellen White at all - and only says her name once in the form " I don't enjoy the all-Ellen-White-All-the-time" theme that some folks have. That is not a "defense of her" except possibly for the most jaded and extreme opposers.

 

[tall73]

ok - so you were willing to discuss that point of context on some "other" thread that you link to??

And earlier in the thread, also linked to.

The statement in the OP, by the same GC, is to show how they carry out interpretation in practice.

 

[tall73]

There is no "to defend her" in my post #19 - rather there is the much-avoided "by some" Fundamental Belief #1 - posted for all to see..

And now there is the note of one of the "some" who didn't apply Scripture as a test, which is the point of this thread, and why the OP deals with the quote it does.

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

But I am not running from the statement in the fundamental. I am saying it is not true in practice.

 

[BobRyan]

The statement that her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture in the OP, show that in fact they do not test everything by Scripture.

1. If you can imagine a scenario for us of no Bible testing of anything - just "quote Ellen White and that is the end" - as the practice of all Adventist scholars in the formal debate over Dan 7's pre-advent Judgment - you would still be very challenged to show that such a thing happened "in real life".

2. If you claim that any input an approved prophet of God might have on any disputed Bible doctrine should be ignored - according to the Bible teaching on the gift of prophecy - then you are making a claim about a Bible position -- that you have never taken any effort to actually show is a real Bible teaching about inspiration and the gift of prophecy.

3. If you are going to ignore all the sola scriptura Bible defense of the Dan 7 judgment by all SDA scholars - well you have free will and can ignore anything you wish. But how in the world is that a compelling argument for an SDA to take seriously?