BY RICK BARKER
Because I find it common that people will use the phrase “Scripture alone” without actually practicing that belief, I believe that this discussion starts with understanding what Protestants have historically meant when we claim “Sola Scriptura”. There are at least two views of scriptural authority that are presented as being Sola Scriptura.
The first is the belief that Scripture is the only authority on Spiritual/Doctrinal matters. This view is traced to the Reformation and followed by many conservative Protestants to this day. While there may be valuable tools and people who went before us who were careful students, these works do not hold any authority. Within this view, in order for something to be considered “in agreement” with Scripture, the concept would have to be found in, or directly derived from, Scripture.
Thus, the authority of a belief statement, confession, or creed isn’t based on the people who developed or agreed with the statement, but only on whether the statement accurately reflects what the Bible teaches. Embracing Sola Scripture, therefore, doesn’t mean throwing out the work that occurred before us and continually starting from scratch, but rather it involves embracing the fact that Scripture is the only authoritative source of doctrine and practice and testing any statement to be sure it accurately conveys the teaching of Scripture.
Partially Authoritative?
The second view of scriptural authority, Prima Scriptura, is slightly different, although easily confused with Sola Scriptura. Prima Scriptura teaches that Scripture is the final or primary authority on Spiritual/Doctrinal matters. This does not preclude other authorities such as confessions, traditions, Popes or prophets. This is the historical view of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. It is also adopted, at least informally, by certain Charismatic churches in how they view modern prophets. In order for something to be considered “in agreement” with Scripture, the concept must not be directly contradicted by Scripture, or there must at least be passages within it that appear to be in agreement with the Scriptures.
One key difference between these views can be found in the starting point. In other words, does one start with Scripture and confirm that the statement agrees with Scripture, or does one start with the other, extra-biblical authority and find support for that authority within Scripture? Where one starts matters, because the starting point can create the glasses through which one see an ambiguous passage. If we start with the extra-biblical authority, are we satisfied finding one verse providing ambiguous support, or do we seek to understand all that Scripture teaches on the subject?
A third view of Scriptural authority appears to be on the rise. This view teaches that Scripture is not an authority at all; it is simply a means for us to draw near to God. This view is made popular in the emergent church. The issues associated with this third view are beyond the scope of this article.
Another aspect of the authority question is the contention that something can be authoritative and fallible at the same time. When it comes to theological authority, I find the idea that an authoritative writing can be fallible to be oxymoronic, whether we are talking about the Bible, the Early Church Fathers, church councils, Papal edicts, confessions, creeds, or prophet writings. If a statement may or may not be true, can we truly call that statement “authoritative”?
If we conclude that an authoritative document may or does have errors, we have immediately called into question whether the content of the document is authoritative at all.
If we conclude that an authoritative document may or does have errors, we have immediately called into question whether the content of the document is authoritative at all. For instance, if we conclude that the Bible may have errors, which parts are in error? Can we be sure that any passage is completely true, or must we now decide whether each passage is true or in error?
What is the basis for this decision? Do we look to a specific church to tell us what is truth and what is error inside the Bible? Do we turn to a Pope, a prophet, a pastor, or even ourselves to pick and choose which aspects are true and which are not?
Once we conclude that a statement in Scripture may be in error, then we no longer have to conform our theology, church practices, or our own actions to scriptural statements. For example, if the idea of having an orderly worship service doesn’t fit our plans, that’s OK; Paul was writing errors when he instructed the Corinthians to have orderly worship services. In other words, as soon as one concludes that there are errors within Scripture, we take the authority away from Scripture and place it in something else. Usually that something is ourselves.
Defining Inspiration
This same problem of authoritativeness and errors exists for all writings. Some people try to have an authoritative Bible that is without errors plus an authoritative set of writings for their denomination that may have errors. Who decides which parts of the denominational writings are accurate and which parts are errors? And functionally, doesn’t this view of the denominational writings demote the statements to an individual’s whims?
It isn’t possible to talk about authoritative writings without also talking about inspiration—doubly so if the extra-biblical authoritative writings are attributed to a prophet. Since there is a wide variety of viewpoints on inspiration, I think it is useful to examine one’s own views of inspiration. Ask yourself the following questions:
- Is Scripture always true?
- Is Scripture true on every subject? (For instance, is it true regarding science or just on what it tells us about God?)
- Does truth change over time?
- Does Scripture include the personal views and attitudes of the authors along with the message from God?
- Is the content of Scripture influenced by the culture of the time when it was written?
- Are the authors of the Bible inspired people (they have great relationships with God and valuable insights into God), or is the writing inspired?
- Was God actively involved in the selection of words recorded in the original manuscripts (not talking about the translations), or did God only provide the thoughts which each writer tried their best to express in words?
I will discuss some of these assumptions a little more since several of these them preclude the idea of Scripture being the only authority (Sola Scriptura) or even the primary authority (Prima Scriptura).
Let’s look at the question, “Are the authors of the Bible inspired people (they have great relationships with God and valuable insights into God) or is the writing inspired?”
This question of what “inspired” actually means has a great number of implications. For example, some consider writings, including the Bible, to be inspired because the writings “inspire” them to something more. In this case it is the impact that the writing has on each person that determines its inspiration. The source of that writing doesn’t matter.
In other words, I could find comfort in a Native American saying that inspired me. The source of that saying is irrelevant because the criteria of its authority is the impact that it has on me.
In this view, anything could be “inspired”, and the primary reason for respecting Scripture is the amount of inspiring material contained within the writings. The final source of truth, then, is each individual’s experience. Authoritative writings of any type are meaningless within this view.
Inspiration can also be viewed as God-given insight. A pastor’s sermon, for example, can be inspired because of the God-given insights contained in the sermon. A Christian author may also be inspired by the Spirit’s influence on the writer’s understanding. In this sense, one might consider Max Lucado an inspired author.
It is important to understand that both of these scenarios can be true examples of inspiration. The question, however, is whether the inspiration of the pastor or author is identical, or even similar, to that found in Scripture, or do they represent two different types of inspiration?
This question is substantially trickier and more nuanced than the “inspiring writings” viewpoint. If the inspiration between the commentators and the Bible writers is considered to be equivalent, or nearly so, then the authority ascribed to each source is likely to be equivalent as well.
If all inspiration is equivalent, then there must be a basis for evaluating the claims in newly-inspired material.
If all inspiration is equivalent, then there must be a basis for evaluating the claims in newly-inspired material. From this viewpoint, the test is generally based on the agreement (or lack of contradiction) with earlier inspired materials. In other words, from this perspective, newer inspiration can present new truths, so long as those new truths don’t openly contradict previous ones. If there is no contradiction, the new truth logically carries the same authority as older truths.
This method of evaluating inspiration is how some interpret the New Testament; it is true, and can only be true, insofar as it doesn’t contradict or change any previously revealed truth (which could include rabbinical writings that also didn’t contradict earlier truths). In this approach, everything builds from Moses. The doctrines of Messianic Judaism, for example, naturally flow from this understanding (although not all Messianic Jews have this view of inspiration!).
This viewpoint can be either extremely restrictive of new truths, or it can be very accepting of new truths. Furthermore, this view can take one of two extremes: either Moses becomes the basis for everything, or there can be such equality between writings that it is hard to establish any final source of authority.
I would contend that there isn’t a middle ground that can be maintained. The theological road is too sloped towards these two ditches, and one eventually ends up in one of those two places. Within this framework of understanding inspiration, the words of one’s pastor or favorite author have no difference in accuracy or authority than the words of Paul, James, or Peter.
The Adventist Variant
Adventism has a variant of the viewpoint of all inspiration being considered equal. Ellen White isn’t technically considered to be the same as Scripture, but when she writes on a subject, those writings carry the same weight as Scripture. In theory, the Adventist church teaches that all of Ellen White’s writings must be tested against the Bible. In practice, this testing has been set up in a manner such that it is virtually impossible for her writings to be dismissed.
If she speaks on something that isn’t directly addressed in Scripture, her statement is true because it doesn’t directly contradict a specific statement of Scripture. If she adds details that are not contained in Scripture, those details are true because they aren’t directly contradicting the content of Scripture. If her teachings provide a new and different understanding of Scripture, she isn’t contradicting Scripture, she is only providing inspired insight into Scripture. If her teachings directly conflict with a statement from Scripture it is because her insights are a new truth for present times (or Present Truth as we are accustomed to hearing from Adventists). In order to maintain the idea that Ellen White is inspired, the Adventist church has had to lessen the meaning and authority attached to all inspiration.
The questions that I posed above interact with each other, because the topic of inspiration isn’t a simple question. Another idea of inspiration is that there are a small set of especially inspired people. These people have an extra-close relationship with God and, as a result, anything that comes from them will be “inspired” in a manner that isn’t true for the typical pastor or author.
Since according to this understanding it is the person who is inspired rather than a writing, everything said or written by the person carries more authority than similar things from an “average” Christian.
Since according to this understanding it is the person who is inspired rather than a writing, everything said or written by the person carries more authority than similar things from an “average” Christian. The person’s understandings of God and of the Bible, therefore, carry added significance because of these people’s special relationship with God.
However, these people are still limited in their ability to fully and accurately convey this deeper understanding to others. In other words, their inspired understanding isn’t specifically accompanied by inspired selection of words to express this understanding. Furthermore, their increased understanding of God may still be mixed with cultural biases common to their geography and history.
For perspective, this scenario is probably the most common understanding of Ellen’s inspiration. I don’t say this to conclude that her inspiration is automatically wrong but to help describe this understanding in a common framework. Furthermore, this view of inspiration certainly isn’t limited to Adventists, nor are Adventists the primary advocate of this viewpoint.
In 1996, Adventist Review published “The Dynamics of Inspiration: A Close Look at the Messages of Ellen White” (Juan Carlos Viera, May 30). In October, 2021, this article is still reprinted by the Ellen G. White Estate website. I point this out to emphasize that this is current Adventist teaching regarding Ellen White, inspiration, and the nature of authoritative writings.
In other words, this understanding concludes that God gives the prophet freedom to select the kind of language he or she wants to use. That freedom accounts for the different styles of the Biblical writers and explains why Ellen White describes the language used by inspired writers as “imperfect” and “human”. Because “everything that is human is imperfect,”(14) we must accept the idea of imperfections and mistakes in both the Bible and Ellen White’s writings. This conclusion means at least two things: first, the prophet uses his or her common, everyday language learned from childhood and improved through study, reading, and travel; second, there is nothing supernatural or divine in the language used (footnote 14 is Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 20, 21).
This quote from the Ellen G. White Estate illustrates the inescapable conclusion that (within this view of inspiration and authority) the writings of an inspired individual are, at best, a mix of eternal truths, cultural errors, personal biases, and incorrectly explained principles/concepts. It also illustrates how the authority of the Bible is inexorably linked to any other source of authority that a person or church accepts. Because the extra-biblical authority has known errors and mistakes, then Scripture must also contain these errors. If authoritative documents can have errors, can anything we read be 100% trusted?
That view also paves the way to explain any discrepancies between any two authorities. Either one may be wrong without reducing its authority. In this chain of reasoning, the final judge of truth must eventually be either each individual person or a larger church authority.
What we are witnessing now within the Adventist organization is the battle between those who believe the individual members are the final arbiters truth, and those who believe the church organization is the final determiner of truth.
What we are witnessing now within the Adventist organization is the battle between those who believe the individual members are the final arbiters truth, and those who believe the church organization is the final determiner of truth. Ironically, there is no standard of truth to mediate between these two views.
If, on the one hand, a person believes that the individual, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the final authority on all matters, he or she likely won’t find many issues with the view of inspiration that holds that the writer can be inerrant in some things and errant in others. If, however, one believes that the church (whatever church body that might be) should be the final authority on doctrinal matters, he or she also may find this errant-inerrant view very acceptable. Thus the internal battle is over the individual’s autonomy versus the authority of the organization. The question of absolute truth is eclipsed by the question of who holds the power to have the last word: the individual or the organization?
In practice, when a church has a source of extra-biblical authority (such as a prophet or a magisterium or a pope), that extra-biblical authority generally rises to become primary, despite all claims to the contrary. The church’s proponents might insist that the extra-biblical writings merely provide a lens through which they more fully view and better understand Scripture. Further, these apologists may even claim that they are still honoring the concept of Sola Scriptura, insisting that these “other authorities” are subject to Scripture.
In practice, however, just the opposite is true. If these other authoritative writings are used to rightly understand what Scripture really means, these writings have become the highest of all authorities. The meaning of Scripture has become subject to the conclusion of these “other authorities” rather than the other way around.
Seventh-day Adventism tries to claim a belief in Sola Scriptura while simultaneously espousing the belief that their prophet, Ellen White, wrote “with prophetic authority” (Fundamental Belief #18). That phrasing is a very recent change in their wording of this belief statement which previously read “Her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth.” I will leave it to each reader to decide whether this indicates a change in the underlying belief of the Adventist church or is merely a way to obscure their doctrine and practice to outsiders.
I will end, however, with some direct examples of how the Adventist organization misrepresents how much authority has been given to Ellen White’s writings. Adventist apologists routinely claim that all of their church’s teachings come straight from the Bible, but Ellen White did not describe her authority this way, as the following quotations demonstrate:
When they came to the point in their study where they said, “We can do nothing more,” the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labour and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me.
Special Testimonies, No. 2, p. 57 (quoted in Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 206, 207).
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.
Gospel Workers, p. 302.
These statements clearly illustrate that Seventh-day Adventism does not practice Sola Scriptura. Adventist doctrine is based on the special light received by Ellen White. That special light, in the words of their own prophet, informs their unique understanding of “Christ, His mission, and His priesthood”. She defined “what is truth and what is error” for the Seventh-day Adventist church. †
- Our Journey Out of Adventism - July 27, 2023
- 30. Adventism’s New Earth - July 27, 2023
- 29. The Adventist Millennium - July 20, 2023