April 25–May 1

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 5: “By Scripture Alone—Sola Scriptura”

This week’s lesson is an amazingly well-constructed argument, and I must commend the author for how he put it together; and for how he repeatedly used statements that blatantly contradicted each other, and never seemed to mind the inconsistencies. It is a classic Adventist argument, one that is regularly made in all seriousness, apparently without even noticing that it contradicts itself over and over, and it thoroughly misuses the Bible to “prove” its points; all while blithely ignoring those parts of Scripture that rather inconveniently destroy those very arguments. 

There are three areas of concern here that I would like to address. They are:

1. The fascination with the Catholic Church
2. The claim of sola scriptura plus EGW
3. The disreputable practice of proof texting

Right from the start, this week’s lesson exhibits the usual Adventist obsession with the Catholic Church (RCC). Instead of simply showing how the Bible is its own authority, the lesson works to show how the RCC is wrong, comparing that to how the rest of Christianity, specifically the Adventist Church, is better because they claim to use the Bible only.

We see these prideful claims: 

“We do not need any ecclesiastical magisterium” (defined as teaching authority especially of the Roman Catholic Church) “to provide the Bible’s meaning for us.”

And this:

“In contrast to Roman Catholic theology, which emphasized Scripture and tradition, the Protestant faith emphasized the keyword ‘alone’; that is, Scripture alone is the final authority when matters of faith and doctrine are at issue.”

So no, the Adventist Church doesn’t need any “ecclesiastical magisterium”; instead, they have Ellen White who is considered the only reliable interpreter of the Bible—which amounts to the same thing by making much the same claim of infallibility that Catholics make for the pope.

This problem becomes very clear when we get to Thursday’s lesson title—±and the second point I want to address: “Sola Scriptura and Ellen G. White”

There are actually two separate and opposing entities in that title, and it is amazing how they can put those two together and still claim that each is true. Scripture and Ellen White are actually diametrically opposed and cannot both be true; but that fact doesn’t seem to matter or even to occur to the author.

First, Ellen is held up as important but still something less than the Bible:

“Think about what an incredible gift we have been given through the ministry of Ellen G. White. How can we learn to appreciate better the amazing light coming from her while also upholding the supremacy of Scripture?”

Then, she is almost as important as the Bible, and just as necessary, since she is supposed to lead our minds to the Bible:

“In Ellen G. White’s own view, her writings, when compared with Scripture, were a “lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light,” the Bible (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, January 20, 1903).

To need a “lesser light” to lead to us to the Bible would be like needing a flashlight to find the sun! And this claim also ignores the purpose of the Holy Spirit Whose very purpose is to lead us to God and to teach us (John 16:13). He is thoroughly capable of teaching us, and there is no Biblical indication that He needs an intermediary in order to reach us. 

But then, in a question at the end of Friday’s lesson, Ellen is elevated to being at least equal to the Bible, if not actually superior to it, but in a very odd way—simply because she does not have a book in the Bible. 

“In Matthew 11:11, Jesus said of John the Baptist: 

“ ‘Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’ ” (NKJV). Jesus points to a prophet here who has no writings in the Bible and yet said such things about Him. What should this tell us about why a true prophet does not have to have a book in the Bible and can still be a true prophet? What message can we Seventh-day Adventists take away from this fact?”

Here, finally, we see her true position in the mind of the author—she is at least equal to those who wrote the Bible because of her claims of inspiration.

And here, we see some of the most blatant contradictions in this lesson. In a section titled “By Scripture Only”, why are there so many supporting quotes from an extra-Biblical ‘authority’? This week’s lesson would have been an excellent opportunity to use only the Bible in support of the claims made about the supremacy of the Bible as God’s word. The very act of including extra-Biblical statements actually undermines the claim of Biblical superiority and its standing as the only authority we need, and it shows just who is the actual last word on doctrine and beliefs.

This quote from the lesson is a clear example of how Ellen White herself did not think the Bible and the Bible only is the rule of faith:

“I took the precious Bible and surrounded it with the several Testimonies for the Church, given for the people of God.” 2T605

If she truly believed that the Bible is the ultimate authority, she would have had no need to “surround” it with her own words.

And this quote from her is the ultimate in pride and self-aggrandizement and even outright blasphemy:

“In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the testimonies of his Spirit. There was never a time when God instructed his people more earnestly than he instructs them now concerning his will and the course that he would have them pursue.—Testimonies for the Church 5:661.” {3SM 30.2}

(Understand that “the testimonies of his Spirit” is code word for whatever she wrote.)

She is saying that she is equal to the Bible; a Bible which she frequently contradicted and “interpreted” to say things God never intended. In fact, she elevated herself to a position of authority above that of the Bible and its importance by saying that if you lose faith in her testimonies, you will lose faith in God:

“One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan’s banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God’s Spirit.” {3SM 84.3}

And, in a harsh rebuke to parents:

“God loves your children; but they have had little encouragement to live a religious life. If you destroy their faith in the Testimonies you cannot reach them.” 4T 54

That last one is particularly blasphemous as it says that God, working through the parents, cannot even reach the children unless they first have faith in what she wrote. So much for “the Bible and the Bible only”.

The third point to address this week comes naturally out of believing that Ellen White is equal to the Bible or even in a place of greater authority as its sole interpreter. When the authority of the Bible is downgraded, the next natural step is to feel justified in misusing it to prove whatever you choose to believe, something that is usually done with proof-texting. 

That way, they pick out texts that seem to support their ideas, while giving them the full authority of being Biblical, without bothering with any true context. Since taking things in context will destroy almost all proof-texting conclusions, it becomes necessary to ignore the context, and there are some rather blatant examples of that in this lesson.

First, it starts on good ground by saying this in the introduction to the week’s study:

“This week we will look at sola Scriptura in greater detail. We will learn that sola Scriptura implies some fundamental principles of biblical interpretation that are indispensable for a proper understanding of God’s Word. As Protestants, we must maintain the Bible as the ultimate doctrinal authority.” 

(Notice that it says “ultimate” not “only” authority. That is a very important point.)

And in the lesson for Sunday, this good-sounding claim is made;

“What we positively affirm when we practice the sola Scriptura principle is that if a conflict arises in the interpretation of our faith, then Scripture alone carries the authority that transcends and judges any other source or church tradition. We should not go beyond or against what is written in the Bible. True Christianity and convincing, gospel preaching depend on a firm commitment to the authority of Scripture.”

And this:

“The beauty of letting Scripture interpret Scripture is that it sheds further light on its own meaning. In doing so, we do not indiscriminately string together various passages to prove our opinion.”

Those are good, solid claims so let’s look at just one example of how it is actually applied to using the Bible to support Adventist theology—that of the Millennium.

On the SDA website where the 28 Fundamental Beliefs are listed, here is the first part of their doctrinal belief on the Millennium:

“The Millennium and the End of Sin 

The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the first and second resurrections. During this time the wicked dead will be judged; the earth will be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but occupied by Satan and his angels.”

The second half of that belief is more Biblical, so let’s consider just the first half. It is “supported” by several (6 in total) texts to consider. So let’s look at them and follow the reasoning.

1. The first, Jeremiah 4:23-26, is used to support the idea that the earth will be completely desolate and, other than the devil, will be lifeless. 

But if you read that chapter in context, the entire chapter is not about the Millennium at all; it is about the coming judgment on Israel for their apostasy. Their land will be empty and desolate for the 70 years that they will be in Babylon.

2. The second text used is Ezekeil 28:18,19, but it is also taken out of context. Ezekiel 28 is a warning to the king of Tyre of judgment that is going to come against him because of the “multitude of your iniquities”. Again, it has no relation to the Millennium, just some words about desolation that are lifted out of context because they seem to support a predetermined idea.

3. The third is from Malachi 4. This chapter follows three chapters that rebuked the priests in Israel for their failure to obey God and to properly lead His people. It does tell how the wicked will be destroyed and the righteous will “skip like calves” but it says that they will skip on the ashes of the wicked who will be destroyed by God’s fire. 

So, unless you think there will be the ashes of the wicked in heaven, or on the restored earth throughout eternity, it can only happen during the Millennium on earth.

4. The next text given is 1 Corinthians 6:2, 3 which has nothing to do with the condition of the earth during the Millennium or with the location of the saints of God during that time. It says that we will “judge the angels” but without any reference to just when or where that will take place. Once again, some verses are taken out of context and forced into position to support a predetermined idea.

5. The last texts are the familiar passages in Revelation 20 and 21 which tell how the devil will be bound and cast into the abyss or pit where he will remain for 1,000 years. But because of Ellen White’s teaching on the Millennium, which she says will consist of those who are saved living in heaven doing an audit of God’s bookkeeping, with the devil bound on a desolate earth, these texts are also twisted to support an idea from outside of the Bible, rather than allowing the Bible to speak for itself and to say what it means.

In contrast, if you take the Bible at its word there are quite a few places which, if read in context, place the location of life during the Millennium right here on earth. Texts such as Isaiah chapter 2 and Isaiah 65:20 which says:

“No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.”

Just what and where is this time when Isaiah says that death will be rare? 

Right now, people don’t usually live to be 100, so it hasn’t happened yet—it isn’t during our current life on earth. 

During eternity, there will be no more death so it has to be a time before that. 

That leaves either the Millennium or the Tribulation. The Tribulation is a time where at least half of those alive at the beginning will be dead by the end, so it obviously cannot be referring to that time. That leaves the Millennium. 

If the Millennium takes place in heaven, there will be no death, so no infant will live “but a few days”, and no youth will “die at the age of 100”. Therefore, the Millennium can only be here on earth.

There is further support of that conclusion in both Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 which use almost identical words to say that Jesus will rule the nations “with a rod of iron”. 

He isn’t doing that right now and has never done so in the past, so it must still be future to us. During eternity, there will be no sin, so there will be no need for Jesus to “rule with a rod of iron”. That kind of rule indicates the presence of sin and the need for a just Ruler to firmly deal with it.

During the Tribulation, although the massive destruction and loss of life is the result of judgments from God, it is not a time of Jesus ruling the earth; rather, it is when God is pouring out judgments on the earth in the form of death and destruction.

So, only during the Millennium, on earth, will Jesus “ruling with a rod of iron” be possible.

So you can see how taking the Bible at its word and using it in context is the only way to arrive at a rational, correct interpretation. 

All of this discussion just points out the irony of this statement in the lesson:

“The beauty of letting Scripture interpret Scripture is that it sheds further light on its own meaning. In doing so, we do not indiscriminately string together various passages to prove our opinion.“

The irony comes from the fact that the doctrinal statement on the Millennium does exactly that—it “indiscriminately strings together” various texts to prove doctrine rather than base those doctrines on careful, contextual Bible study. It is exactly backwards, starting with a doctrinal belief and claiming texts and parts of texts that can be twisted into position so that they apparently support that belief.

So, I once again commend the author for wading through an impossible minefield of contradictory, un-Biblical ideas by thoroughly ignoring the inconsistencies, and safely arriving at the typical, safely Adventist conclusion. †