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

[tall73]

For someone that likes to claim Ellen White is the source for some doctrine -

i Never said that, and you know I didn't, because you were in the threads where I said the opposite.

The issue is not that she is the source. She did not originate the doctrines. The issue is that she endorses them. Once she endorses the view, while claiming to be the messenger of the Lord, then that is up for testing by Scripture.

A false teacher like Ballenger was in no way stopped from studying the Bible or from promoting his own false doctrine simply because Ellen White was not engaged in personal Bible study with him.

Bob, the question is how the denomination would test Ballenger's ideas that went directly against what Ellen White stated. Ellen White herself admits the seriousness of the situation. Because people were already familiar with what Ballenger was saying, as it spread during the General Conference session.

Elder Ballenger’s proofs are not reliable. If received, they would destroy the faith of God’s people in the truth that has made us what we are.

But instead of going through point by point and publishing where the Scriptures corrected him, she said that his views should not be received. She said that it was a mistake BECAUSE of their experience.

 

[tall73]

I think that is sort of true on this thread - but in General Theology and on other threads here - a lot of people do choose to reject the 1 Cor 12 gift of prophecy as something that is still available no matter what 1 Cor 14:1-2 or Eph 4 says to the contrary.

Agreed, some see a ceasing of the gifts. I do not see that in Scripture, especially in light of Acts 2:

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Ballenger was a fanatic SDA minister who lost his license and taught the false doctrine of holy flesh -- that you and I both know is pure error. That is not even debatable and only those non-SDAs reading this are the ones that might not be aware of the context for your "example" test case.

Ballenger was an SDA minister who also raised questions about the sanctuary teaching, and who Ellen white said not to entertain his views, even if he brings Scripture, because it would undermine the whole church.

And Prescott said he was never actually answered on some of these points.

"I have waited all these years for someone to make an adequate answer to Ballenger, Fletcher and others on their positions re. the sanctuary but I have not seen or heard it."

 

[tall73]

Well for one thing there is no such thing as that.

The Bible does not say that a prophet or that any person must engage in Bible study with every fanatic with a horse to ride. Jesus Himself refused to answer certain people during his trial because with them it would be a waste of time.

She didn't just say that she would not answer him. She said not to even entertain his ideas, and appealed to their experience.

He was presenting Scriptures and saying they contradicted her. She did not say, see what the Bible says. She said don't entertain his views. Even though Scripture is important we can't entertain those who bring Scripture against our special points of faith because our experience shows we were right.

 

[tall73]

How many would you like? - and why does it matter to you since my first statement was that it is in the Bible??

Then why did you put it if you thought it would not matter?

 

[tall73]

She does not have a doctrine - but the denomination does - and Ballenger had tons of discussion on this point not at all limited to "only if Ellen White knows the answer"

Sorry Bob, but it is her doctrine because she published it. She did not originate it. She did endorse it, and say it was from the Holy Spirit.

And since part of the controversy was that Ballenger could not take her word--that of a thought to be prophet--over Scripture, he had to disagree.

We would never quote Ellen White to establish that the Bible affirms or rejects something as you may have known at one time.

That is not the position of your denomination in their General Conference Session Bob:

Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White - Adventist.org

We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.

Prophets relay messages God gives them - they are not "debaters". Ballenger thought his bible affirmed the fanatical holy flesh doctrine and rejected the Dan 7 doctrine on future judgment. Ballenger was wrong.

You don't think Paul corrected the notions of the false teachers in Galatia by reference to the Scriptures?

You don't think Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, refuted those of the synagogue of the freedmen with Scripture?

But more to the point Ellen White said do not entertain such messages, even if they bring Scripture.

That is more than just declining to engage.

 

[tall73]

Well all this "Who did Ellen White study the Bible with" focus in your posts is not helping your case here -- because the doctrine is already stated sola-scriptura and IF you actually had an irrefutable Bible position from either Ballenger or Fletcher or .... you would have given it by now instead circling around and around the idea that there were fanatics in Ellen White's day that she would not take seriously. Jesus Himself refused to answer certain people who harassed him during his trial - and they too complained about it.

It is not just who she didn't want to have a Bible study with. Rather, it was who she said not the even try to have a Bible study with. Don't entertain those who try to disagree with our special points of faith even if they bring Scripture:

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 indicated not to study with him, if he brought Scripture to test her. That is the opposite of testing by Scripture. And that is the topic of this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

The issue is not that she is the source. She did not originate the doctrines. The issue is that she endorses them.

1. I assume you mean "the issue is that she claims God endorses those doctrines" - since no Bible text claims the prophet becomes all-knowing the moment they get any message at all from God.
2. Since you are not claiming to be SDA and since we all have free will - I would not expect you to agree with SDA doctrines.

That is all fine with me.

My interest is in sola scriptura testing and the fact that 1 Cor 12 does endorse the doctrine of the gift of prophecy - which a lot of folks here already claim to accept.

 

[BobRyan]

And since part of the controversy was that Ballenger could not take her word--that of a thought to be prophet--over Scripture, he had to disagree.

Nobody in the SDA church takes her word for Bible doctrine - you are spinning the detail a bit.

All doctrine is tested "sola scriptura" -- take a look at post #1.

 

[BobRyan]

We would never quote Ellen White to establish that the Bible affirms or rejects something (a doctrine) as you may have known at one time.

That is not the position of your denomination in their General Conference Session Bob:

Yes it is - take a look at post #1.

It includes this from the Adventist denomination -- official statement of belief - #1.

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

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.)​

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[BobRyan]

the position of your denomination in their General Conference Session Bob:

Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White - Adventist.org

We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.

1. Read that post #1 and see it quote 2 Tim 3:16-17


2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2. Since we find SDA doctrine to tested sola-scriptura and to be correct -- then we find her claim that God endorses that correct Bible doctrine - to be consistent.

3. And as noted in the OP - we agree that 1 Cor 12 describes the true gift of prophecy as a gift of the Holy Spirit that is given to the church.

 

[BobRyan]

You don't think Paul corrected the notions of the false teachers in Galatia by reference to the Scriptures?
.

A great many Bible prophets entered into no Bible debate with anyone and that includes all those listed in the OP as well as Moses, David, Samuel and many others. This is irrefutable.

No Bible text says prophets must debate the Bible with fanatics or those who object to the message God gives them - else they are a false prophet. This is irrefutable.

The reader/hearer must test the prophet sola-scriptura to see if they are in harmony with scripture - and then the reader/hearer makes their decision. The prophet is not told to try and debate them out of their decision as if that is some "test" of a prophet.

 

[Leaf473]

In the past 200 years there have been a few - but only God has the exact number.

There is no Bible doctrine dictating the exact number of genuine prophets that have lived on planet earth for any 200 year period of time - as far as know.

Which people in the last 200 years have been recognized by the SDA as prophets?

 

[tall73]

Nobody in the SDA church takes her word for Bible doctrine - you are spinning the detail a bit.

All doctrine is tested "sola scriptura" -- take a look at post #1.

You can claim that all you want Bob. But people can read the voted statement below. It was voted by the same General Conference as the Fundamental Beliefs. And it was voted more recently. They indicate that her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture.

Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White - Adventist.org

We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.

You claim I am spinning it. But the statement above still says what it says.

 

[BobRyan]

You can claim that all you want Bob. But people can read the voted statement below. It was voted by the same General Conference as the Fundamental Beliefs.

I assume you now want us to ignore the first fundamental belief #1 - voted by the General Conference that we all saw here -- in the OP.

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.)​

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

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

And at the same time Adventists affirm the 1 Cor 12 gift of prophecy where prophets speak with "prophetic authority" (obviously) because they are "moved by the Holy Spirit and speak from God" 2 Peter 1:19-21

21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (NIV)

21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (NASB 1955)

So then this applies to

• Anna in the temple at the time of Christ's birth. A prophet.
• Agabus in the book of Acts predicting events in Jerusalem
• Philip's four daughters
• Deborah - a judge and prophet in Israel in the book of Judges
• all the prophets in Corinth as we see in 1 Cor 14 "each one has a revelation"

Ephesians 4 tells us that the gifts remain until the second coming.

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

Yet we are to prove all doctrine "sola scriptura" and so then "test the prophets" as 1 John 4 says - rather than just accept that anyone who claims to be a true prophet of God - really is one.

They "test Paul" in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

============================
And of course any time a doctrinal dispute arises in the church - the leading teachers/scholars etc meet (and in some cases all the world-church meets via representatives) - find agreement with scripture that is understood by the group - no matter that few voices of dissent may still exist. (see Acts 15)

I find that "instructive".

They indicate that her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture.

Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White - Adventist.org

We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.

Interesting that you just switched from "28 Fundamental Beliefs" -- to --- "Statement of Confidence".

You claim I am spinning it. But the statement above still says what it says.

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

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??

 

[ChetSinger]

You can claim that all you want Bob. But people can read the voted statement below. It was voted by the same General Conference as the Fundamental Beliefs. And it was voted more recently. They indicate that her writings correct inaccurate interpretations of Scripture.

Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White - Adventist.org

We reaffirm our conviction that her writings are divinely inspired, truly Christ-centered, and Bible-based. Rather than replacing the Bible, they uplift the normative character of Scripture and correct inaccurate interpretations of it derived from tradition, human reason, personal experience, and modern culture.

You claim I am spinning it. But the statement above still says what it says.

Thanks. There it is: doctrine is the product of interpretation and the SDA claims to interpret correctly. That's no surprise to me because no denomination believes they interpret the scriptures wrongly.

What disturbs me is the SDA connecting correct interpretation to the visions of a single particular person. I know of no other denomination in the world that does that. 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...

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks. There it is: doctrine is the product of interpretation and the SDA claims to interpret correctly. That's no surprise to me because no denomination believes they interpret the scriptures wrongly.

What disturbs me is the SDA connecting correct interpretation to the visions of a single particular person. I know of no other denomination in the world that does that. 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...

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.

 

[tall73]

I assume you now want us to ignore the first fundamental belief #1 - voted by the General Conference that we all saw here -- in the OP.

They were both voted by the GC. I am not responsible for their inconsistency. But it is bound to happen.

If you say that the Scriptures are what tests, but say she is inspired, then her inspired interpretation of scripture wins out against other interpretations of Scripture.

I find that "instructive".

I find it instructive the GC keeps voting statements that don't work with their claims. And if they vote the proposed one at the next GC then it will be even more obvious:

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.

Interesting that you just switched from "28 Fundamental Beliefs" -- to --- "Statement of Confidence".

Interesting the same body approved them both, and has the same authority.

 

[tall73]

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

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??

You should test sola scriptura all statements of prophets. But when you state that her writings are not Scripture, and Scripture judges them, then you cannot turn around and say her writings correct interpretations of Scripture or you set that on its head.

You are not judging by Scripture if her writings correct interpretations of Scripture.

Just like any new prophet would not be used to correct interpretations of existing Scripture, but would be tested by Scripture.

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 their words must be continually tested against Scripture, and the other tests of a prophet. And they are not to be used to interpret Scripture.

The Fundamental and the other statement are at odds. Your church should get rid of the other statement, and certainly get rid of the proposed one for the next GC. They completely undercut your claims.

 

[BobRyan]

You should test sola scriptura all statements of prophets. But when you state that her writings are not Scripture, and Scripture judges them, then you cannot turn around and say her writings correct interpretations of Scripture or you set that on its head.
.

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".

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 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]

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

No. All that does is lock in a current understanding of Scripture, rather than being open to understand more of Scripture. If Scripture is the test then you must continually look to Scripture not a lesser authority.

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.

If Scripture is the test then it is always the test, no matter what Ellen White said.

If Ellen White is not the test, and Scripture is, then it doesn't matter at all what Ellen White said in regards to Scripture interpretation.

She is never the test, and Scripture always is.

Now when she adds information not touched on in Scripture, then that makes sense, if you accept her as inspired, to take on her authority.

That is the practical difficulty of a two-tiered inspiration model as you have outlined in your fundamental belief.