April 18–24

This weekly feature is dedicated to Adventists who are looking for biblical insights into the topics discussed in the Sabbath School lesson quarterly. We post articles which address each lesson as presented in the Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, including biblical commentary on them. We hope you find this material helpful and that you will come to know Jesus and His revelation of Himself in His word in profound biblical ways.

 

Lesson 4: “The Bible—the Authoritative Source of Our Theology”

The lesson this week examines some of the things that can influence our thoughts, beliefs and behaviors. It lists them as tradition, experience, culture, reason, and the Bible itself.

It starts off early by saying:

“The priority given to any source or sources leads to very different emphases and results and will ultimately determine the direction of our entire theology.”

When a religion places an extra-Biblical source of authority over that of the Bible by claiming to interpret the Bible, it most certainly does determine the direction of an entire theology; it leads to a theology that puts man’s wisdom and thoughts in a position of more importance than those of God. It leads to a theology that embraces an extra-Biblical authority over the authority of the Bible whenever they are found to disagree—even when that “authority” contradicts itself over and over, while still claiming to be directly from God.

In the section titled “Tradition”, the author deals with human traditions that can lead to faulty theology.

“These human traditions—even though they are promoted by respected ‘elders’ (see Mark 7:3, 5), for example by the religious leaders of the Jewish community—are not equal to God’s commandments.”

The Jewish tradition of Jesus’ day had in fact expanded the teachings of the Torah into a host of man-made requirements that Jesus aptly described in Mark 7:6-9 as “precepts of man” and “traditions of men” that were held as more important than the commands of God. The lesson picks out verses 3 and 5, but to truly understand the meaning of Jesus’ words, they need to be read in context, not picked out here and there, so let’s read it all, starting with verse 3, and continue through the thought, through verse 9:

(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) 

The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” 

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. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.”

He condemned them for putting the traditions of man before the word of God. And yet, we see the same thing being done now in Adventism with an outside “authority” that frequently contradicts the Bible and even itself. As God cannot lie, any source of information inspired by God cannot contradict God and itself and still be believed as truth.

“Thus, the Bible holds a unique role that supersedes all human traditions. The Bible stands higher and above all traditions, even good ones. Traditions that grow out of our experience with God and His Word constantly need to be tested against the measuring rod of Holy Scripture.”

But what happens when that tradition, or the extra-Biblical source on which it is based, contradicts the Bible? How can you still hang onto that source when it so clearly goes against the Bible?

The lesson asks us to look at the warning found in 2 Corinthians 11:1–3. Sadly, it stopped one verse too soon, so let’s look at verse 4: 

“For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.”

What “different Jesus” do people teach? What did Paul mean by “another Jesus”? Is there truly more than one?

There is the different Jesus who was elevated to that position in some distant past, which event was supposedly the cause of jealousy for Lucifer who thought he should have been the one consulted about the creation of the world.

There is the weak Jesus who is in a conflict with His own created being, the devil. A conflict, furthermore, that is still going on, which means that Jesus could still lose.

Then there is the weak Jesus whose power is crippled by the fact that He has to allow His created beings to exercise their free will, who has to answer to those beings and explain Himself or risk being called unfair. (See Job 38-41 for God’s answer to that!)

This is the same weak Jesus who needs His created beings to perfectly keep the law in order to prove to a supposed watching universe that He wasn’t too harsh and demanding after all, and who needs those inferior, created beings to convince those supposed watchers that He is not unjust to insist that His created beings obey His law.

This weak Jesus also “could not see through the portals of the tomb” to know that He would come back from the grave, completely contrary to Jesus’ words when He repeatedly told His disciples that He would rise again on the third day.

All of these describe “another Jesus”, but none of them is the Jesus of the Bible.

Reason cannot determine truth

In the section called Reason, the author deals with the human tendency to use our own reason as the basis on which to decide what is true and what we must believe. While it is true that we need to think and reason, however good our reasoning ability may be, it must always give way to faith.

But what about when our reason leads us to beliefs that contradict clear Biblical teaching about such things as the state of the dead; the fact of the human soul that is born dead in sin and must be regenerated, brought to life, by the Holy Spirit; or even the location of the saved during the millennium? They are all clearly taught in the Bible with numerous verses that must be studied carefully, together and in context. To do that study and then to believe something different is to deny the veracity of the Word of God by doing exactly what the lesson warns against—putting human reason above God’s words.

On a side note, the lesson makes this interesting statement:

“Centuries ago, American President Thomas Jefferson made his own version of the New Testament by cutting out anything that, in his view, went against reason. Gone were almost all of the miracles of Jesus, including His resurrection. What should this alone teach us about the limits of human reason for understanding truth?”

It baffles me how someone can say that with a straight face and still sell a book called The Clear Word [Bible] which adds to, takes away from, and drastically changes the Bible—and which carelessly inserts many, many words and ideas into the Bible from an “outside source”, quite contrary to the message taught in last week’s lesson which roundly condemned the use of such sources that disagree with the Bible. Does the author actually think that we won’t remember what he said last week when we read this week’s lesson?

From the lesson:

“Why is the Bible a safer guide in spiritual questions than are subjective impressions? What are the consequences when we do not accept the Bible as the standard by which we test all teachings and even our spiritual experience? If private revelation were the final word in spiritual questions, why would this lead to nothing but chaos and error?”

And here is the ultimate irony of all the claims this lesson makes for “the Bible and the Bible only”, as this lesson repeatedly refers to and relies on a “private revelation” that is used as the basis for interpreting the Bible and is believed over the truths of the Bible whenever there is a discrepancy between the two. The author is right about one thing—it did lead to a whole lot of error which leads to a lot of chaos in the minds of people as they come to realize the errors in that revelation and turn from it to the simple gospel.

The Bible

“The Holy Spirit, who has revealed and inspired the content of the Bible to human beings, will never lead us contrary to God’s Word or astray from the Word of God. For Seventh-day Adventists, the Bible has a higher authority than human tradition, experience, reason, or culture. The Bible alone is the norm by which everything else needs to be tested.”

And yet, once again, those “private revelations” from an outside source, who is considered to be the only authoritative interpreter of the Bible, are studied and believed even when they clearly disagree with the clear message of the Bible. So, even if it is claimed that the Bible has higher authority than tradition, experience, reason or culture, it is firmly downplayed to a level of authority below the authority of that outside source.

And in fact, that last claim from the lesson is circumvented by this:

“Some people claim to have received special “revelations” and instructions from the Holy Spirit, but these go against the clear message of the Bible. For them the Holy Spirit has attained a higher authority than God’s Word. Whoever nullifies the written and inspired Word of God and evades its clear message, is walking on dangerous ground and is not following the leading of God’s Spirit. The Bible is our only spiritual safeguard. It alone is a reliable norm for all matters of faith and practice.”

Those quote above almost made me wonder if the author was going to repudiate the authority of Ellen White, but then it was followed immediately by a quote from her, so I guess not. 

But the statement about not letting the Holy Spirit attain a higher authority than God’s word is odd as it separates the Holy Spirit from God and His word. It was through the working of the Holy Spirit that God inspired the authors of the Bible, so everything in the Bible is God’s word and is, therefore, also the word of the Holy Spirit, because that Spirit is God. How could the Spirit have any different—lower or higher—authority than His own words? Furthermore, any spirit that gives “special revelations” with authority above that of the Bible is most certainly not the Holy Spirit and should be denounced.

In Friday’s lesson, in an apparent attempt to sum up the lesson, we are directed to read—but not from the Bible. Instead, we are directed to that “outside source”—Ellen White. This last assignment makes it quite clear just who is considered the last word and the highest authority.

In summing up, the lesson says that the five areas discussed all week,” tradition, experience, culture, reason, and the Bible itself” can “…become problems when they contradict what Scripture teaches”. 

Then it goes on to say: “What’s worse, however, is when these things take precedence over the Word of God. So much of the history of apostasy in both Old Testament and New Testament times is when outside influences took precedence over divine revelation.”

That much is certainly true! When outside influences take precedence over the Bible, you will find apostasy.

But notice how that statement from the lesson doesn’t say “when outside influences” took precedence over the Bible. It says “precedence over divine revelation.” Just what “divine revelation” could the author be referencing? Perhaps the one who is considered to be “the only reliable interpreter” of the Bible and who, by claiming multiple “private revelations”, has been put into a position of authority over even that of the Bible—in direct contradiction to the claims of the lesson.

This is a difficult, convoluted lesson as the author dances around the subject without actually admitting that he holds the authority of an extra-Biblical source of “special revelation” above that of the Bible. If he truly held to “the Bible and the Bible only” he should have summed it up in one or two sentences instead of talking in circles to avoid admitting that his “outside authority” is the real basis for belief. †