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

[tall73]

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?

I think in context the lesser and greater light statement was saying her writings are a lesser light to lead people to the Scriptures.

The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.
Review and Herald January 20, 1903


Here is the link to the context.
The Review and Herald

However, an earlier paragraph states:

Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour.

 

[Leaf473]

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.

Suppose the question is how the ten commandments are to be kept. Then is it allowable for SDA's to talk about other laws?

 

[pasifika]

I think in context the lesser and greater light statement was saying her writings are a lesser light to lead people to the Scriptures.

The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light.
Review and Herald January 20, 1903


Here is the link to the context.
The Review and Herald

However, an earlier paragraph states:

Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her life-work God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given his servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour.

Okay thanks for that,
So those who don't read her writings don't get to see the "greater light" or understand Scriptures?

 

[Leaf473]

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.

I understand you believe I am rejecting the 10.

I do not believe I am rejecting the 10.

Suppose a person who doesn't keep the Sabbath according to SDA standards wants to talk about how all of the laws, including the ten, are to be kept.

Is it the SDA position that other laws cannot be discussed in that case, and is that seen as fully in line with Sola scriptura by the SDA?

 

[tall73]

Okay thanks for that,
So those who don't read her writings don't get to see the "greater light" or understand Scriptures?

The logic is that people were giving little heed to the Scriptures, so these would point them to it.

 

[pasifika]

The logic is that people were giving little heed to the Scriptures, so these would point them to it.

Thanks
Sounds more like the "serpent method" that use to deceive the first "woman" in Eden...

 

[BobRyan]

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

True - but 1 Cor 12 is very specific about this topic when it comes to the spiritual gift of prophecy. So while it is true that all need the Holy Spirit to be born again and guided and convicted - not all are apostles and not all are prophets.

God is not leading us to ignore His teaching in 1 Cor 12 regarding this doctrine.

1 Cor 12:
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

...
28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?


1 Cor 14:1Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy
..
39 Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy,

 

[BobRyan]

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...

Gal 2:Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that somehow I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 Yet it was a concern because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy on our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them, even for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 6 But from those who were of considerable repute (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism)—well, those who were of repute contributed nothing to me

Neither in Gal 2 nor in 1 Cor 12 are we told to submit the gift of the Holy Spirit to someone else as if some human were above the Holy Spirit.

By contrast the doctrine that anyone teaches (prophet or not) must be subjected to sola scriptura testing.

There is not a single SDA doctrine in our 28 Fundamental beliefs that came from Ellen White to the church.

 

[BobRyan]

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)...

good question.

take a close look a this post.

1. you agree that it is not surprising to find that a denomination believes its interpretation of the Bible has lead to correct doctrine and that is the doctrine that they teach.

2. Correct me if I am wrong but I think you posted previously that you do not object to the 1 Cor 12 doctrine on spiritual gifts - that scripture says is including the "gift of prophecy". - I think you first did comment to that effect here -
Monday at 4:18 PM #7

3. I assume that if you believe those first two - then you would also expect that a denomination that really had someone with the gift of prophecy should "notice" when a situation came up where that prophet had a message from God giving strong affirmation of a single doctrine that they already held based on sola scriptura testing (so Deut 6:4 and Matt 28:19 for example). So in that example suppose such a prophet had said "your understanding of One God - in Three Persons - is correct as far as it goes but this is an infinite topic and you will never fathom God completely". (As an easy example of a doctrine held by Adventists).

4. You might also agree that any other "group" that did not hold to the teaching of "One God in Three Persons" would view that message claimed to have come from God and to have affirmed the "one God in three persons" teaching --> must not be from God since in their view of the Bible - scripture does not teach that. They would then say "Since her interpretations came from visions I think she's either effectively infallible, or a habitual liar. And since I've caught her making mistakes by affirming the "one God in three persons" false doctrine well then ..."

And that problem would create an even wider gap if subsequent visions were found to show God's approval of a number of other Bible doctrines accepted by that denomination.

5. In that case the one and ONLY way such a denomination becomes the 5th largest and fastest growing Christian denomination in the world (As Christianity Today commented in its Feb 2015 article on Ben Carson and Adventists) - is to share the Bible case for its set of doctrines (just as almost all denominations do) and rely on that compelling case alone - as the means of growing through evangelism.

6. It would be somewhat illogical in Point 4 above -- to argue "first accept the prophet - THEN accept the Bible teaching of "one God - Deut 6:4" in "Three persons" Matt 28:19) -- no matter that some posts on this thread appear to want to have that suggestion taken seriously.

Notice point 4.

4. You might also agree that any other "group" that did not hold to the teaching of "One God in Three Persons" would view that message claimed to have come from God and to have affirmed the "one God in three persons" teaching --> must not be from God since in their view of the Bible - scripture does not teach that. They would then say "Since her interpretations came from visions I think she's either effectively infallible, or a habitual liar. And since I've caught her making mistakes by affirming the "one God in three persons" false doctrine well then ..."

And that problem would create an even wider gap if subsequent visions were found to show God's approval of a number of other Bible doctrines accepted by that denomination.

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

You could just as easily say "Hmm how come it is that the NT Christian Church agreed with Paul - but Paul's peers among the Pharisees and Sadducees claimed to find error in his teaching".

In a multi-denominational context where every distinct denomination has at least one doctrine that is distinctive for them - such differences exist "By definition"

 

[BobRyan]

I understand you believe I am rejecting the 10.
I do not believe I am rejecting the 10.

You said the law that is done away with includes the Ten on the other very long discussion thread we were on. So I specifically asked you on that thread - about "do not take God's name in vain"

 

[BobRyan]

Suppose a person who doesn't keep the Sabbath according to SDA standards wants to talk about how all of the laws, including the ten, are to be kept.

On the other thread you were not willing to discuss "do not keep the Sabbath according to SDA standards" as if that was even a thing. I specifically asked you for your view on that and on the Ten.

 

[BobRyan]

Suppose the question is how the ten commandments are to be kept. Then is it allowable for SDA's to talk about other laws?

If the claim is that some discussion exists where you explain your view on the ten -- that is not "the ten removed" or the "Ten taken away" - please point to it. That would help me to better know just what you mean.

When I reminded you that almost Bible scholars in almost all denominations on BOTH sides the Sabbath topic (so certainly no all treating the Sabbath as SDAs do) - they agree that all TEN apply to mankind and are written on the heart under the New Covenant - your response was that none of them should be taken into consideration AND that you don't want to discuss your view of the TEN until a vast litany of "every command" in scripture leading up to the time of Christ - be discussed first. Or is there a post there you would like to post to - as clarifying your view?

 

[BobRyan]

Okay thanks for that,
So those who don't read her writings don't get to see the "greater light" or understand Scriptures?

I never said that. Nor is that a statement you find in our Fundamental Beliefs. Nor do SDAs present that false idea to others. We believe everyone has free will and the Holy Spirit guides people into all truth -- as each person is willing. Many prophets were raised up in the OT to reform Israel - but it was not because the messages God gave on Sinai were "defective" and was not because the writings of Moses "Were not readable by later generations". That simply makes no sense.

I don't think your question accurately reflects the information in Tall73's post.

I don't see that he has a quote saying anything like - "those who don't read Ellen White's writings don't understand scripture"

 

[tall73]

but it is not accurate to say that our position is whatever a non-SDA posts.

I actually posted the context and the statement, etc. and noted what her statement was referring to with the lesser and greater light. And he drew his own conclusions from there.

You did not quote the statement, or give him the context to look at, then misrepresented what I said.

 

[BobRyan]

I actually posted the context and the statement, etc. and noted what her statement was referring to with the lesser and greater light. And he drew his own conclusions from there.

You of course did not quote the statement, or give him the context to look at, then misrepresented what I said.

I quote his statement and I suggest it should be of the form of a question -- "are you saying" or "are you accusing them of saying". Anyone can ask for clarification as to whether they are getting the right meaning from something someone else posts.

It looks like his post was over 2 hours again and I wanted to make the clarification as to what we (SDAs) say and what that means.

His post was asking a question that I don't think was accurately reflecting the content in your post - as you point out. I will reword my post. I apologize for the hasty wording.

 

[tall73]

I quote his statement and I suggest it should be of the form of a question -- "are you saying" or "are you accusing them of saying". Anyone can ask for clarification as to whether they are getting the right meaning from something someone else posts.

Yes, people can ask for clarification. He he instead preferred to give his view, which he also can do.

What I was responding to was your statement:

but it is not accurate to say that our position is whatever a non-SDA posts.

I agree, your position is not whatever a non-sda posts. Him posting his opinion does not make it your position. But I also wanted to clarify that his position:

So those who don't read her writings don't get to see the "greater light" or understand Scriptures?

was not stated by me either. In fact, in another follow-up I pointed out that was not the logic in the quote in context. Your statement about non-sda could apply to either of us. But only one took that position.

Perhaps in the future you could give him the reference and explain it if you are worried what conclusions he may jump to, since he referred to it on his own initiative, but without knowing the actual quote.

EDIT_________________

It appears you edited in some additional information:

BobRyan: I don't think your question accurately reflects the information in Tall73's post.

I don't see that he has a quote saying anything like - "those who don't read Ellen White's writings don't understand scripture"

Correct, I did not allege the statement said that. Thank you for the edit, as that clarifies your statement.

 

[pasifika]

I never said that. Nor is that a statement you find in our Fundamental Beliefs. Nor do SDAs present that false idea to others. We believe everyone has free will and the Holy Spirit guides people into all truth -- as each person is willing. Many prophets were raised up in the OT to reform Israel - but it was not because the messages God gave on Sinai were "defective" and was not because the writings of Moses "Were not readable by later generations". That simply makes no sense.

I don't think your question accurately reflects the information in Tall73's post.

I don't see that he has a quote saying anything like - "those who don't read Ellen White's writings don't understand scripture"

Thank you Bob,
Yes, I made a point regarding a statement I've heard (in tv programme) about EG White as a "lesser light" which lead people to Christ...

But as @tall73 reply to clarify the statement of a "lesser light" as people were giving little heed to Scriptures so her writings point people back to the bible "bigger light"...

This still to Me the work of the Holy Spirit Not anyone...even if people reads her writings they will read the bible in her (EG White) view Not theirs...

So whatever Scriptural interpretation or teachings in the bible becomes her teachings, her interpretation etc,

 

[pasifika]

Gal 2:Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that somehow I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 Yet it was a concern because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy on our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them, even for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 6 But from those who were of considerable repute (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism)—well, those who were of repute contributed nothing to me

Neither in Gal 2 nor in 1 Cor 12 are we told to submit the gift of the Holy Spirit to someone else as if some human were above the Holy Spirit.

By contrast the doctrine that anyone teaches (prophet or not) must be subjected to sola scriptura testing.

There is not a single SDA doctrine in our 28 Fundamental beliefs that came from Ellen White to the church.

Thanks,
1John 4 state we must test every "spirit" to see if they are from God, because many "false prophets have gone out into the world"...

 

[tall73]

...even if people reads her writings they will read the bible in her (EG White) view Not theirs...

So whatever Scriptural interpretation or teachings in the bible becomes her teachings, her interpretation etc,

Yes, it is in line with the whole context that she saw them not heeding what was in Scripture, and she saw her writings as pointing things out to them.

But her writings are so voluminous that reading all of them proves difficult.

And if the purpose is to point people to the Bible, then they could just read it, and heed it.

The Lord desires you to study your Bibles. He has not given any additional light to take the place of His Word. This light is to bring confused minds to His Word which, if eaten and digested, is as the life-blood of the soul. Then good works will be seen as light shining in darkness. Letters and Manuscripts Volume 16 16LtMs, Lt 130, 1901

 

[pasifika]

good question.

take a close look a this post.



Notice point 4.

4. You might also agree that any other "group" that did not hold to the teaching of "One God in Three Persons" would view that message claimed to have come from God and to have affirmed the "one God in three persons" teaching --> must not be from God since in their view of the Bible - scripture does not teach that. They would then say "Since her interpretations came from visions I think she's either effectively infallible, or a habitual liar. And since I've caught her making mistakes by affirming the "one God in three persons" false doctrine well then ..."

And that problem would create an even wider gap if subsequent visions were found to show God's approval of a number of other Bible doctrines accepted by that denomination.

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

You could just as easily say "Hmm how come it is that the NT Christian Church agreed with Paul - but Paul's peers among the Pharisees and Sadducees claimed to find error in his teaching".

In a multi-denominational context where every distinct denomination has at least one doctrine that is distinctive for them - such differences exist "By definition"

Thanks,
So you cannot find in Scriptures the teachings of "One God in three persons"?