Sola Scriptura - foundational to Protestantism - and to good Bible doctrine

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The "sola scriptura" teaching of Acts 17:11 is not only foundational to Protestantism - it is also foundational to good Bible doctrine.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

1. The Bible was their standard by which all doctrine was to be tested.
2. Those who were "doing the testing" in Acts 17 were not even Christians - yet they could do it accurately.
3. They are approved for doing it.
4. The one being tested was an Apostle and that is the highest level in the Christian church for any human to ever have had.

Gal 1:6-9 "Though we (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed"

By contrast Mark 7:6-13 is an example where Christ said some traditions were failing the sola scriptura test... and so those traditions should be rejected.
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,997
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The "sola scriptura" teaching of Acts 17:11 is not only foundational to Protestantism - it is also foundational to good Bible doctrine.
Agreed. But now you will have Catholics asking you where you find this in the Bible, and no matter which Scripture you provide to support it, they will always question Sola Scriptura because it totally undermines *Holy Tradition* and the writings and teachings of the Early Church Fathers.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Personally I don't see anything wrong with tradition as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible. It isn't a problem of "is it in the Bible", but one of "does it go against the Bible".
 

Mjh29

Well-Known Member
May 28, 2017
1,466
1,433
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Agreed. Being reformed, the Solas are pretty much tradition for me lol. It is tradition like that of the Pharisees, tradition aimed at self-slavation, THAT is tradition that is not to be followed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LC627 and Enoch111

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,997
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Agreed. Being reformed, the Solas are pretty much tradition for me lol. It is tradition like that of the Pharisees, tradition aimed at self-slavation, THAT is tradition that is not to be followed.
The interesting thing is that the Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers never once questioned or doubted the authority of the Scriptures as they existed at the time of Christ (the Hebrew Tanakh with 24 books equal to our Old Testament). Yet they elevated the *traditions of men* above the Word of God, and were soundly rebuked for this by Christ. So it is with the *traditionalist churches*, since *Holy Tradition* trumps Scripture every time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mjh29

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Agreed. But now you will have Catholics asking you where you find this in the Bible, and no matter which Scripture you provide to support it, they will always question Sola Scriptura because it totally undermines *Holy Tradition* and the writings and teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

That is true - they do argue against the Acts 17:11 instance claiming that we should in no case follow that example.

What is interesting is that in Mark 7:6-13 Christ gives a perfect example of how accepted "tradition" is to be hammered "sola scriptura" style when it conflicts with the Word of God.
 

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The interesting thing is that the Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers never once questioned or doubted the authority of the Scriptures as they existed at the time of Christ (the Hebrew Tanakh with 24 books equal to our Old Testament). Yet they elevated the *traditions of men* above the Word of God, and were soundly rebuked for this by Christ. So it is with the *traditionalist churches*, since *Holy Tradition* trumps Scripture every time.

And Christ hammers their tradition outright in Mark 7:6-13 showing it to be in violation of scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enoch111

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
="BobRyan, post: 424456, member: 7908"]The "sola scriptura" teaching of Acts 17:11 is not only foundational to Protestantism - it is also foundational to good Bible doctrine.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

1. The Bible was their standard by which all doctrine was to be tested.
The Bible as we know it did not exist for 350 years. Therefore Paul's "standard" could only have been the Old Testament.
2. Those who were "doing the testing" in Acts 17 were not even Christians - yet they could do it accurately.
The Bereans were Greek Pharisees under Paul's instructions, who was also a Pharisee.
3. They are approved for doing it.
First they listened to Paul's inspired oral teaching, THEN they checked it with scripture, which included the GREEK Dueterocanon, that they had been reading as scripture for 200 years before Christ. Paul's inspired oral teaching AND the scriptures they searched are BOTH the word of God. Both/and, not either/or.
4. The one being tested was an Apostle and that is the highest level in the Christian church for any human to ever have had.
Paul received his apostleship from Christ and the Magisterium (Peter, James and John) Galatians 2 Both/and, not either/or. Nowhere does Paul pit his divine calling against the Church. That is a false man made Protestant tradition, it's no where in the Bible.

Gal 1:6-9 "Though we (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed"

By contrast Mark 7:6-13 is an example where Christ said some traditions were failing the sola scriptura test... and so those traditions should be rejected.
Nonsense. Christ opposed false man made traditions, that's why it says "...YOUR traditions..." Not the traditions that Paul commands us to keep. There are bad traditions in the bible, but there are good traditions too.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages (among others):

1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

St. Paul makes no distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn't regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. This is made even more clear in two other statements to Timothy:

2 Timothy 1:13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, . . .

2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “follow” his oral teaching which “heard from” him, but to also pass it on to others. This is a clear picture of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine: precisely what the Catholic Church calls sacred tradition, or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.”

The phrase “deposit of faith” is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered to the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42, Jude 3). The Catholic Church considers itself merely the “custodian” or “guardian” of this public revelation or “deposit” from God, because we believe that God set up His Church (Matthew 16), making St. Peter the leader, and that it has continued through history ever since. It's all God's doing, not ours. We participate in His plan by His grace and mercy.
Tradition is NOT a Dirty Word
And Christ hammers their tradition outright in Mark 7:6-13 showing it to be in violation of scripture.
Yes, "THEIR" tradition they invented. They gave everything to the Temple to look holy, while ignoring the needs of their parents. That's why Jesus said they make void the word of God with their false invented tradition, because honoring your parents is all over the Bible. Mark 7:6-13 has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Honoring your parents is something you DO, not just something you READ.


bible alone.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Philip James

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The "sola scriptura" teaching of Acts 17:11 is not only foundational to Protestantism - it is also foundational to good Bible doctrine.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

1. The Bible was their standard by which all doctrine was to be tested.
2. Those who were "doing the testing" in Acts 17 were not even Christians - yet they could do it accurately.
3. They are approved for doing it.
4. The one being tested was an Apostle and that is the highest level in the Christian church for any human to ever have had.

Gal 1:6-9 "Though we (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed"

By contrast Mark 7:6-13 is an example where Christ said some traditions were failing the sola scriptura test... and so those traditions should be rejected.

Agreed. But now you will have Catholics asking you where you find this in the Bible, and no matter which Scripture you provide to support it, they will always question Sola Scriptura because it totally undermines *Holy Tradition* and the writings and teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

That is true - they do argue against the Acts 17:11 instance claiming that we should in no case follow that example.

What is interesting is that in Mark 7:6-13 Christ gives a perfect example of how accepted "tradition" is to be hammered "sola scriptura" style when it conflicts with the Word of God.

The Bible as we know it did not exist for 350 years.

The Bible did exist.

And so Jesus could say he was teaching "from all of scripture" Luke 24.

And was so easy to access and apply the principle that even "non-christians" could do it in Acts 17:11.

Nonsense. Christ opposed false man made traditions,

Indeed He did. Demonstrating by scripture alone - in Mark 7 : 6-13 that the tradition of the magisterium was in error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHolyBookEnds

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The "sola scriptura" teaching of Acts 17:11 is not only foundational to Protestantism - it is also foundational to good Bible doctrine.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

1. The Bible was their standard by which all doctrine was to be tested.
2. Those who were "doing the testing" in Acts 17 were not even Christians - yet they could do it accurately.
3. They are approved for doing it.
4. The one being tested was an Apostle and that is the highest level in the Christian church for any human to ever have had.
Gal 1:6-9 "Though we (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed"
By contrast Mark 7:6-13 is an example where Christ said some traditions were failing the sola scriptura test... and so those traditions should be rejected.
That is true - they do argue against the Acts 17:11 instance claiming that we should in no case follow that example.

What is interesting is that in Mark 7:6-13 Christ gives a perfect example of how accepted "tradition" is to be hammered "sola scriptura" style when it conflicts with the Word of God.
False traditions were not"accepted" in Mark 7:6-13, they were INVENTED.

The Bible did exist.
The canon of Scripture was in dispute until it was authoritively closed in 397 A.D.
Sources all Protestant:
1) Douglas, J.D., ed., New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 194-98.
2) Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 232,300,309-10,626,641,724,1049,1069;
3) Geisler, Norman L. & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12,117-25.
And so Jesus could say he was teaching "from all of scripture" Luke 24.
Jesus interprets scripture, scripture does not interpret itself. If Jesus wanted to teach sola scriptura, He would have just handed them a book. There can be no denying in Luke 24 that a divine interpreter is needed, namely, Jesus Himself. Sola scriptura allows for the individual to interpret, with divine guidance a mere assertion.
And was so easy to access and apply the principle that even "non-christians" could do it in Acts 17:11.

Indeed He did. Demonstrating by scripture alone - in Mark 7 : 6-13 that the tradition of the magisterium was in error.
Chapter and verse, please, where the Jewish magisterium, or the Seat of Moses, invented false traditions to avoid parental responsibility. Peter, James, John, Paul, and all the Apostles were the Magisterium of the Church. It means "Teaching Authority". Do you need proof texts?
If anything, the sinful Jews invented their false traditions using sola scriptura. Satan used sola scriptura when Jesus was tempted. So did Arius, Nestorius, Appolinarius, and every heretic in the world who thumbed their noses at the Church and went with sola scriptura.
Seventh Day Adventists profess sola scriptura as well.
it is also foundational to good Bible doctrine.


sola_013.png
 
Last edited:

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Sola Scriptura
Formal versus Material Sufficiency

There is a very critical distinction to always keep in mind when discussing the topic of Sola Scriptura. This distinction determines whether the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true or not. The distinction is "material" versus "formal" sufficiency of Scripture.

On his wonderful blog, Dr Michael Liccione was having a discussion with a Protestant systematic theology professor on this very subject. The Protestant professor succinctly explained the difference between the two understandings of Scripture (highlights by me):
The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!

This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition don't exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).

What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.

Take the example of Baptism: If Scripture were formally sufficient, it would have to lay out in a very systematic manner what effects Baptism has on the individual, whether it is required, who can be Baptized, and how to Baptize. Contrary to the formal approach, what happens in real life and throughout history is that theologians of both the Protestant and Catholic camps have had to "derive" various doctrines like Baptism piece by piece, starting with the explicit references to baptism, then any allusions to it, and then the support of related doctrines, all to come to their final conclusions on Baptism. As everyone is aware, there is no such systematic treatment of Scripture on this teaching - and as everyone is equally aware, Protestants have disagreements on every one of those facets mentioned (e.g. whether infants can be baptized).
Given this very solid example against the notion of formal sufficiency, we can have great confidence that no specific passage will ever teach formal sufficiency (since the Scriptures cannot contradict or mislead).

Probably the most famous - and most important - example that contradicts formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity. As Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong explains: "The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian."

(the tradition of Arianism did not exist)

One last important thing to note (as apologists like Mark Shea and Dave Armstrong point out) is that when one affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture, there is no "fear" of "undermining" the authority of Scripture or "subordinating" the authority of Scripture with Tradition or Magisterium - fears which Protestants regularly inject in such discussions. The reason why there is no such "fear" from the Catholic end is because material sufficiency by *nature* means Tradition and Magisterium are necessary to arrange the "bricks" in the right order to form the right structure. That "fear" can only exist if the Protestant can demonstrate formal sufficiency to be true - and until then is fallaciously fear mongering.
sola-scriptura-formal-versus-material

read bible.jpg
 
Last edited:

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The "sola scriptura" teaching of Acts 17:11 is not only foundational to Protestantism - it is also foundational to good Bible doctrine.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

1. The Bible was their standard by which all doctrine was to be tested.
2. Those who were "doing the testing" in Acts 17 were not even Christians - yet they could do it accurately.
3. They are approved for doing it.
4. The one being tested was an Apostle and that is the highest level in the Christian church for any human to ever have had.

Gal 1:6-9 "Though we (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed"

By contrast Mark 7:6-13 is an example where Christ said some traditions were failing the sola scriptura test... and so those traditions should be rejected.

Agreed. But now you will have Catholics asking you where you find this in the Bible, and no matter which Scripture you provide to support it, they will always question Sola Scriptura because it totally undermines *Holy Tradition* and the writings and teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

That is true - they do argue against the Acts 17:11 instance claiming that we should in no case follow that example.

What is interesting is that in Mark 7:6-13 Christ gives a perfect example of how accepted "tradition" is to be hammered "sola scriptura" style when it conflicts with the Word of God.


False traditions were not"accepted" in Mark 7:6-13, they were INVENTED.

Indeed.

The magesterium was up to its old tricks of using creative writing and nice sounding ideas - to replace Bible truth. And in Mark 7 -- they got caught at it.


The canon of Scripture was in dispute until it was authoritively closed in 397 A.D.

Not for NT writers.

Luke 24: 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE if those things were so"

No wonder Christ slams the magesterium of his day "sola scriptura"
Mark 7:6-13
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts 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, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Seventh Day Adventists profess sola scriptura as well.

Indeed we do!
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Indeed we do!

That explains re-posting the same refuted arguments, changing the meaning of words even after the proper definition has been patiently explained, demonizing legitimate teaching authority, being impossible to reason with, and deifying Ellen G. White who has been proven to be a false teacher by your own SDA scholars.

However, I appreciate your honesty in admitting to be SDA.
 

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The "sola scriptura" teaching of Acts 17:11 is not only foundational to Protestantism - it is also foundational to good Bible doctrine.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

1. The Bible was their standard by which all doctrine was to be tested.
2. Those who were "doing the testing" in Acts 17 were not even Christians - yet they could do it accurately.
3. They are approved for doing it.
4. The one being tested was an Apostle and that is the highest level in the Christian church for any human to ever have had.

Gal 1:6-9 "Though we (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed"

By contrast Mark 7:6-13 is an example where Christ said some traditions were failing the sola scriptura test... and so those traditions should be rejected.

Agreed. But now you will have Catholics asking you where you find this in the Bible, and no matter which Scripture you provide to support it, they will always question Sola Scriptura because it totally undermines *Holy Tradition* and the writings and teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

That is true - they do argue against the Acts 17:11 instance claiming that we should in no case follow that example.

What is interesting is that in Mark 7:6-13 Christ gives a perfect example of how accepted "tradition" is to be hammered "sola scriptura" style when it conflicts with the Word of God.


False traditions were not"accepted" in Mark 7:6-13, they were INVENTED.

Indeed.

The magesterium was up to its old tricks of using creative writing and nice sounding ideas - to replace Bible truth. And in Mark 7 -- they got caught at it.


The canon of Scripture was in dispute until it was authoritively closed in 397 A.D.

Not for NT writers.

Luke 24: 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE if those things were so"

No wonder Christ slams the magesterium of his day "sola scriptura"
Mark 7:6-13
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts 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, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Seventh Day Adventists profess sola scriptura as well.

Indeed we do!

I do love posting the irrefutable arguments - as you point out each time you avoid the scriptures posted.

However, I appreciate your honesty in admitting to be SDA.

As Christianity Today pointed out in 2015 -- the SDA church is the fifth largest Christian denomination on planet earth.
 

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The "sola scriptura" teaching of Acts 17:11 is not only foundational to Protestantism - it is also foundational to good Bible doctrine.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

1. The Bible was their standard by which all doctrine was to be tested.
2. Those who were "doing the testing" in Acts 17 were not even Christians - yet they could do it accurately.
3. They are approved for doing it.
4. The one being tested was an Apostle and that is the highest level in the Christian church for any human to ever have had.

Gal 1:6-9 "Though we (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed"

By contrast Mark 7:6-13 is an example where Christ said some traditions were failing the sola scriptura test... and so those traditions should be rejected.

Sola Scriptura
Formal versus Material Sufficiency

There is a very critical distinction to always keep in mind when discussing the topic of Sola Scriptura. This distinction determines whether the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true or not.

Indeed. We call it "the Bible" -- and "paying attention to the bible".

In fact --- exegesis.

Have a try at it -- I think you will enjoy it.

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

No wonder Christ slams the magesterium of his day "sola scriptura"
Mark 7:6-13
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts 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, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
You magnify bad traditions, and ignore good traditions.

The SDA is in a state of schism and your leaders are too stubborn to admit it. According to 17 May 2018 - SPECTRUM, an official SDA quarterly, you are an uneducated die-hard, out of touch with your own scholars.
+...
MATTHEW 16:29
You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my temporary church and the gates of hades shall prevail sometime before 1860.

...no, wait...

You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Whore of Babylon, for the gates of Hades have already prevailed.

...no, wait...

You are "Get-Behind-Me-Satan", and upon this rock I will build my divided house and the gates of hades can take a vacation.

...no, wait...

You are Thrice-Deny-Me, and upon your cowardice I will build a temporary church, so the gates of hades won't have to work so hard.

...no., wait...

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

...no, wait...

That only applies to the Book of Rebelation, us Whore da Babble-onians can translate erroneously and get away with it.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
THE SDA/NAZI CONNECTION
or The Seventh Day Whore of Nazism.

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 6 [2010], No. 1, Art. 2
(SDA publication)

It is estimated that a staggering 55 million people perished during WW II, including the six million Jews—men, women, and children—who died in the ethnic extermination camps and ghettos across Europe (US Holocaust Museum:2008)... (no mention of the 3 million Polish Catholics and 1000+ priests, italics mine)

...churches in Germany, then looking at the interactions of theNazi State and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and concluding with some of the lessons learned from this sad chapter of Adventist history so that hopefully our church will not stumble again over the same issues in the future...(they already have)

It is mind boggling to attempt to understand how the hermeneutical ...contortions of the leading theologians could excuse and even legitimize such actions against any human being; and yet history sadly attests that it happened. The question we need to ask is: In all this, where did the Seventh day Adventist Church stand?...

...Following in the footsteps of the Christian majority, the Seventh-day Adventist Church cannot be commended for its actions during the Nazi Regime. Echoing the praises for the rise of Hitler to power, Adolf Minck, President of the Adventist German Church, penned his satisfaction with the election of Adolf Hitler in the August Edition of Advenbote (the offical periodical of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Germany at that time):

...Another example expressing enthusiasm for the Nazi state was Wilhem Mueller who went so far as to label Hitler as “chosen by God” for the office of chancellor and praising his similarity with Adventism’s health reform:...

...Not only did the Seventh-day Adventist leadership sing praises to the Nazi government, it even went so far as“strongly recommending” how its members were to vote in every plebiscite of the Nazi Regime...

...Sadly, in spite of all the praise and official stance that the church took in favor of the government, the Nazi state decided to ban the Adventist Church on November 26, 1933. This ban lasted until December 6, 1933 (Blaich 1994:262)... (2 weeks)

...The Adventist Church’s pro-government PR campaign became much more aggressive after the ban. It went on to support the notion of the Volkisch state, ascribing validity to that idea and saying it was in accordance with biblical principles. In the December 1933 edition of Gegenwartsfragen, one of the Adventist periodicals, it proudly proclaimed that “we are part of this revolution as well—as individual Christians and also as a corporate denominational body” (Blaich 1994:264). This type of enthusiastic approval of the state was not an isolated incident. The acceptance of the Volk concept with its racial undertones, its ideology of ethnic purity, and its implicit proscription of the Jews due to their racial heritage was accepted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church as part of the gospel proclamation...

... “While continuing the traditional emphasis on healthful living, Adventist publications soon adopted elements of the Nazi racial agenda. . . . A curious path led from caritas, the caring for the less fortunate and weak, to elimination of the weak, as the work of God” (Blaich 2002:180)...

...The church leadership was aware of this twisting of terms and meanings. G. W. Schubert, vice-president of the German Adventist Church, shared his “faint hope” with a fellow vice-President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists that “perhaps this might be the way of the Lord to get the same freedom later on for the distribution of our religious literature” (Blaich 2002:182). That freedom never came and time proved that the compromise was not to be “the way of the Lord.”...

...In a circular passed around on April 4, 1938, the German Union recommended that Adventists hand the Fuhrer “a thankful ‘yes’” (Blaich 1994:265)...

...Furthering its compromise the Adventist Church also agreed with the forced sterilization policy, also known as the Eugenics Laws (Blaich 2002:176). At first the opposition to such policies was open and general among the church members and leadership as it was viewed to be a violation of Christian principles. However in response to this resistance the government responded with an educational campaign that used Adventist journals to defend the new eugenics laws...

...Again, hermeneutical acrobatics were used to defend the government’s position that was based on principles that were completely antagonistic to Adventist beliefs...

...As the eugenics policies became law the opposition to such concepts and legislation was silenced from Adventist publications. Sterilization was only a first step in this racial attack; the next step involved the elimination of those who were deemed to be hazardous elements to the German gene pool. (Blaich 2002:180)....

...As a result the leadership of the Adventist Church recommended that their members should submit to the authorities and not bring any problems among themselves or the church (Blaich 1994:270). As the state regulations against religion increased year after year, the church obeyed them closely in order to avoid a second banishment at the hands of the regime (Pratt 1977:4)...

...the church had little choice but to conform to Nazi standards if it wanted to publish . . . it is also clear that German Adventist leaders eagerly courted Nazi goodwill by accommodating to the new order” (2002:181).by accommodating to the new order” (2002:181). After the war, the Adventist German leadership reacted by closing ranks and resisted all outside pressures from the General Conference to denounce or proscribe their perceived errors. It appears that the actions taken were wholly justified by the German leadership. In a letter to the General Conference President, J. L. McElhany, Adolf Minck expressed this sentiment of self-defense by rationalizing that they had followed church policy, they had maintained the structure of the church, and also that they had had to adapt to living the commandments according to the times they lived in, times of war, and not peace, nonetheless maintaining in their minds the holiness of the Decalogue (Minck 1994:277).

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/...g.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1042&context=jams

Again, this is an SDA publication.



"We have so much in
common...how about a date?