Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

[BobRyan]

And we also have a bit of a different situation in the time period of Scripture. Jesus affirmed His apostles, and they affirmed James, Paul, etc. They all still referred to the OT Scriptures to verify their claims. But they have an established witness to their validity. We have no such with new prophets. .

So you are saying you would have rejected John the baptizer even with sola scriptura testing - because you would need yet "another" new-prophet to come along and confirm John's teaching???

That makes sense???

 

[tall73]

Hmmm - I think you are getting confused about what 1 Cor 12, 2 Tim 3:16 actually say about the gift of prophecy.

It is not "logical" to say "I have tested so-and-so and they turn out to be a valid prophet from God - but then God gave a message of correction to me -- and I reject it".

It is not logical to say that Scripture is the test and then make Ellen White the test.

In your fundamental she is always tested by Scripture. So do that.

If you are saying she is now Scripture because you have affirmed her, that is something different than your fundamental. Also, even the NT prophets were still tested by OT Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

As @icedragon101 pointed out in some of these threads, Ellen White's net effect is to "lock in" interpretations made at a set point. That is not testing by Scripture. That is taking her endorsement of your conclusions on Scripture at a set point and cementing them on her say so, without leaving room for new understanding.

So then you and icedragon have or have not read Gal 1:6-9 when making that claim???

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

John outright condemned those "who do not listen to us" speaking of the NT writers. 3 John 1:9 "9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say."

They claimed the NT teaching was of God - and was not to be corrupted/rejected

 

[tall73]

So you are saying you would have rejected John he baptizer even with sola scriptura testing - because you would need yet "another" new-prophet to come along and confirm John's teaching???

That makes sense???

No, I am saying John was subject to Scripture testing when he arrived. So is Ellen White. But John was affirmed IN SCRIPTURE, by Christ.

And I am saying that you have by your own admission a two tiered system here, Scripture and non-Scripture, in your fundamental belief. And you say you ONLY test by Scripture, and that she is not scripture.

So then....what is the test? It is not her.

 

[BobRyan]

It is not logical to say that Scripture is the test and then make Ellen White the test. .

Since you don't have quote from me saying "Ellen White is the test for membership" - you have a bit of a problem just then. Do you see that as a problem?

 

[tall73]

Since you don't have quote from me saying "Ellen White is the test for membership" - you have a bit of a problem just then. Do you see that as a problem?

The discussion was on her writings correcting interpretations of Scripture. That is what the GC Voted. It is completely incompatible with the Scriptures being the test.

 

[BobRyan]

No, I am saying John was subject to Scripture testing when he arrived. So is Ellen White.

Indeed - but you went beyond that and said a modern prophet would also need the living Apostles of the NT and Christ on Earth to affirm them - a rule that no scripture supports for a prophet. Which leads to the logical conclusion that by your own rule - you would have had to reject John the baptizer.

But John was affirmed IN SCRIPTURE, by Christ.

John had no scripture to give his hearers showing that Christ affirmed him. John's ministry started before Christ's - who was then a carpenter in Nazareth and was not then accepted as a teacher or even a prophet by any of John's hearers. He had no way to say "See the Messiah affirms me so accept my teaching when I say the carpenter from Nazareth is the Messiah" -- you don't see that kind of circular argument used by John.

It is not logical.

 

[BobRyan]

The discussion was on her writings correcting interpretations of Scripture.

The discussion is on whether the 2 Tim 3:16 statement in scripture allows inspiration to be a source of correction. It is a very basic bible fact - as already noted.

Here we see the very thing you deny - which is that it IS the function of inspiration to correct someone. (already posted -- still waiting for the response)

So then you do or do not accept the Bible statement on the gift of prophecy as we find it in 1 Cor 12,

2 Tim 3:16
All Scripture is "given by inspiration of God"
And because of that: it is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Is this one of the Bible teachings where you differ?

How about 2 Peter 1:20-21??

Or is it your claim that if the Bible teaching on inspiration is true then sola scriptura testing should be tossed out the window??

And I handed you your own test-case of Ballenger - when it comes to a very easy-to-see fact about Ballanger's fanatical "holy flesh" teaching claimed to be "from the Bible".

It is not "logical" to say "I have tested so-and-so and they turn out to be a valid prophet from God - but then God gave a message of correction to me -- and I reject it".

Nor is it valid to say (in the case of a wayy off beat teacher like Ballenger) "god wants to correct me on my holy-flesh fanaticism but I won't let Him because god's view does not look like what I teach from the Bible". He (Ballanger) should at least "take a second look" at his Bible to see if just-maybe his holy-flesh fanaticism that he imagines the Bible to be teaching - might just be a mistake.

 

[tall73]

Indeed - but you went beyond that and said a modern prophet would also need the living Apostles of the NT and Christ on Earth to affirm them - a rule that no scripture supports for a prophet. Which leads to the logical conclusion that by your own rule - you would have had to reject John the baptizer.

No, he had the OT, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." And any prophet is to be tested by the established tests, including previous Scripture.

But what I was noting is that his hearers soon had the witness of Christ to endorse Him as well. And John WAS included in Scripture. Ellen White is not.

And this is what you are failing to wrestle with. Your denomination spells out Scripture, and Ellen White per them is not Scripture. They say everything is tested by Scripture. She is not Scripture. So she is not the test.

So she is always beneath Scripture per the admission of even your own fundamental.

So while the gift of prophecy continues, your own denomination has drawn a distinction between Scripture and not Scripture. And she is by that distinction NOT Scripture. She is ever to be judged by Scripture.

So to say her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture is against your own fundamental belief and should be dispensed.

 

[pasifika]

So you are saying you would have rejected John the baptizer even with sola scriptura testing - because you would need yet "another" new-prophet to come along and confirm John's teaching???

That makes sense???

Hello Bob,
Sorry just a quick question.."who tested EG White prophetic and bible teachings?

Is it people at her own church, friends, families etc or did she takes it to other Christian scholars to verify it???

 

[tall73]

The discussion is on whether the 2 Tim 3:16 statement in scripture allows inspiration to be a source of correction. It is a very basic bible fact - as already noted.

And it refers to Scripture, which Ellen White is not.

And I handed you your own test-case of Ballenger - when it comes to a very easy-to-see fact about Ballanger's fanatical "holy flesh" teaching claimed to be "from the Bible".

Bob, was Ballenger to be tested by Scripture or Ellen White?

If Scripture is the test then his interpretation of Scripture is to be tested BY Scripture. That is the test.

 

[pasifika]

No, he had the OT, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." And any prophet is to be tested by the established tests, including previous Scripture.

But what I was noting is that his hearers soon had the witness of Christ to endorse Him as well. And John WAS included in Scripture. Ellen White is not.

And this is what you are failing to wrestle with. Your denomination spells out Scripture, and Ellen White per them is not Scripture. They say everything is tested by Scripture. She is not Scripture. So she is not the test.

So she is always beneath Scripture per the admission of even your own fundamental.

So while the gift of prophecy continues, your own denomination has drawn a distinction between Scripture and not Scripture. And she is by that distinction NOT Scripture. She is ever to be judged by Scripture.

So to say her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture is against your own fundamental belief and should be dispensed.

Yes correct! I have heard she claim that she is the "lesser light" point people to Christ..But that's the work of the Holy Spirit isn't?

 

[BobRyan]

Hello Bob,
Sorry just a quick question.."who tested EG White prophetic and bible teachings?

Is it people at her own church, friends, families etc or did she takes it to other Christian scholars to verify it???

Everyone who joins the church or who is baptized into church membership does that. But in the beginning the Adventists were about 50 people in December of 1844 when as a teenager Ellen Harmon (Later to be Ellen White by marriage to James White) had her first vision.

The people in that group were all "Millerites" who followed the Bible prophecy outline that the Baptist evangelist "William Miller" had taught.

Nobody today inside the SDA church claims "I accept that Ellen White passes the sola scriptura test in her visions given by God - because someone in the 1800's thought she did". Any more than someone today would say "I accept that the Gospel is legit because someone in the 1800's thought so".

Each person must do that for themselves.

 

[Leaf473]

And if we were to compare that practice to scripture we would look at the scriptures that deal with those topics and try to get the full Bible teaching on those two practices.

Yes, I agree, the full Bible. That's why I have attempted to talk about laws in addition to the ten commandments with people who identify as SDA.

As I understand the SDA position, people who do not keep the Sabbath by their standards lack sufficient insight to understand the rest of laws.

So is the SDA approach to use Sola scriptura, but use only part of the scriptures when talking with "outsiders"?

Or did I misunderstand something along the way?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes correct! I have heard she claim that she is the "lesser light" point people to Christ..But that's the work of the Holy Spirit isn't?

The Holy Spirit is the source of inspiration for anyone who claims to have the "spiritual gift of prophecy" - there is only one God - and that means only one Holy Spirit.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, I agree, the full Bible. That's why I have attempted to talk about laws in addition to the ten commandments with people who identify as SDA.

There are a great many "other bible doctrines" and "other statements in scripture" other than the TEN Commandments. But - the TEN commandments ARE in scripture so if one feels they must reject the Ten Commandments - it really does not matter how many "other commandments" that person finds "to also reject" - depending on the context for that sort of discussion.

 

[BobRyan]

As I understand the SDA position, people who do not keep the Sabbath by their standards lack sufficient insight to understand the rest of laws.

Rejecting the TEN commandments but then saying "yes but I want to talk about grass, or mixing cloth, or eating meat with blood in it, or where lepers should go if diagnosed with leprosy" is not as substantive a framework in logic as some may have at first supposed. (Just a hypothetical example to illustrate the point).

A simple command like "do not take God's name in vain" is just not that hard a topic to grasp and accept.

People have free will - they can reject whatever part of the Bible they wish.

If your point actually were (which apparently it is not) "I think the TEN are only valid if downsized to NINE" - then there is an entire sub-forum here on "Sabbath and the Law" where Adventists and many others discuss that point all day long.

 

[pasifika]

Everyone who joins the church or who is baptized into church membership does that. But in the beginning the Adventists were about 50 people in December of 1844 when as a teenager Ellen Harmon (Later to be Ellen White by marriage to James White) had her first vision.

The people in that group were all "Millerites" who followed the Bible prophecy outline that the Baptist evangelist "William Miller" had taught.

Nobody today inside the SDA church claims "I accept that Ellen White passes the sola scriptura test in her visions given by God - because someone in the 1800's thought she did". Any more than someone today would say "I accept that the Gospel is legit because someone in the 1800's thought so"

Thanks Bob,
Why i ask the question is, comparing EG White with Apostle Paul who taught the Gospel in the Gentile region But he had to come back to Jerusalem to the elders to check his teaching Galatians 1...

So, why do other denominations seems to notice some fault in her teachings and prophetic interpretation of Scriptures But only her own church seems to agree with her,
I mean we all read the same book (bible)...

 

[pasifika]

The Holy Spirit is the source of inspiration for anyone who claims to have the "spiritual gift of prophecy" - there is only one God - and that means only one Holy Spirit.

Thanks, the Holy Spirit is available to "anyone" not just one person..

1John 2:27.." But as his anointed teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit- just as it has taught you, "remain in Him"...

 

[tall73]

So then you and icedragon have or have not read Gal 1:6-9 when making that claim???

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

in fact we have, and as I already mentioned, had you read it, Paul claimed to receive His gospel ONLY from Christ. But then Paul refuted the claims of the false teachers with the OT Scriptures. He applied the Scripture test. Just as he welcomed it from the Bereans.

John outright condemned those "who do not listen to us" speaking of the NT writers. 3 John 1:9 "9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say."

Yes Bob. The apostles, directly appointed by Christ. We do not in fact know that about Ellen White, though you claim it. And they still were subject to Scripture test as well.

Also, careful, you might become a Catholic with that logic.

They claimed the NT teaching was of God - and was not to be corrupted/rejected

Agreed, but it was subject to testing by existing Scripture.

Ellen White is too. Scripture is always the test, not Ellen White.