Christianity QA

Question:

My late mother was also Filipina-American as well and she turned me on to the Adventist church.  If she had read this particular verse I’m quite sure she would have steered me away from such a place.  As it stands she ended up leaving after a few years because she felt she was always being judged (she was part of the church in the 50’s when things were REALLY strict).  After having some particularly odious members suggest that I join a "minority" adventist congregation I left. People who believe the kingdom of heaven is going to be balkanized like 20th century America are going to be in for a rude awakening. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As a Filipina-American this is the E.G. White quote that really trips me out:

Response:

E.G. White quote that really trips me out:

Ellen white is not jesus.  She is recognized as a prophet.  Also you need to get your facts straight.  ellen white did not establish the seventh day adventist church.  Instead of focusing on ellen white, try finding some fault in the doctrine of our church as compared to Roman catholicism.  I am just trying to help you in your argument.  Show me something from the bible that we transgree. Or which commandments we so not observe, as compared to Roman catholicism.  The description of gods church is found in revelation 12:17 and other verses I do noy have time to find.  It says that Gods remnant will keep ALL his commandments.  Which are the two that jesus gave. and the two that jesus gave are the ten commandments put into two.  because the next verse after when he says these two commandments, he replies: upon these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.  THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Response:

E.G. White quote that really trips me out: Ellen white is not jesus.  She is recognized as a prophet.  Also you need to get your facts straight.  ellen white did not establish the seventh day adventist church.  Instead of focusing on ellen white, try finding some fault in the doctrine of our church as compared to Roman catholicism. [ . . .]

SDAs believe the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura (Scripture alone) which proves itself to be false from a Biblical standpoint: 1. Protestants assert "All revealed truth is to be found in the inspired Scriptures." However, this is quite useless unless we know which books are meant by the "inspired Scriptures" since many different sects and religions have many different books which they call "inspired Scriptures." 2. The theory we are considering, when it talks of "inspired Scriptures," means in fact those 66 books which are bound and published in Protestant Bibles. (henceforth referred to as "the 66 books") 3. The statement of the theory we are examining thus becomes Proposition B: "All revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books." 4. It is a fact that nowhere in the 66 books themselves can we find any statements telling us which books make up the entire body of inspired Scripture. There is no complete list of inspired books anywhere within their own pages, nor can such a list be compiled by putting isolated verses together.  This would be the case: (a) if you could find verses like "Esther is the Word of God," "This Gospel is inspired by God," "The Second Letter of Peter is inspired Scripture," etc., for all of the 66 books; and (b) if you could also find a Biblical passage stating that no books other than these 66 were to be held as inspired. Obviously, nobody could even pretend to find all this information about the canon of Scripture in the Bible itself. 5.  It follows that Proposition B – the very foundation of all Protestant Christianity – is neither found in Scripture nor can be deduced from Scripture in any way. Since the 66 books are not even identified in Scripture, much less can any further information about them (e.g., that all revealed truth is contained in them) be found there. In short, it must be now affirmed in Proposition C: "Proposition B is an addition to the 66 books. " 6.  It follows immediately from the truth of Proposition C that Proposition B cannot itself be revealed truth. To assert that it is would involve a self-contradictory statement: "All revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books, but this revealed truth itself is not found there." 7.  Could it be the case that Proposition B is true, but is not revealed truth? If that is the case, then it must be either something which can be deduced from revealed truth or something which natural human reason alone can discover, without any help from revelation. The first possibility is ruled out because, as we saw in steps 4 and 5, B cannot be deduced from Scripture, and to postulate some other revealed extra- Scriptural premise from which B might be deduced would contradict B itself. The second possibility involves no self- contradiction, but it is factually preposterous, and is doubtful whether any Protestant has seriously tried to defend it – least of all those traditional Protestants who strongly emphasize the corruption of man’s natural intellectual powers as a result of the Fall. Human reason might well be able to conclude prudently and responsibly that an authority which itself claimed to possess the totality of revealed truth was in fact justified in making that claim, provided that this authority backed up the claim by some very striking evidence. (Catholics, in fact, believe that their Church is precisely such an authority.) But how could reason alone reach that same well-founded certitude about a collection of 66 books which do not even lay claim to what is attributed to them? (The point is reinforced when we remember that those who attribute the totality of revealed truth to the 66 books, namely Protestant Church members, are very ready to acknowledge their own fallibility – whether individually or collectively – in matters of religious doctrine. All Protestant Churches deny their own infallibility as much as they deny the Pope’s.) 8.  Since Proposition B is not revealed truth, nor a truth which can be deduced from revelation, nor a naturally-knowable truth, it is not true at all. Therefore, the basic doctrine for which the Reformers fought, and which Protestants  accept, is simply false. So . . .  how do you know from the Bible which books constitute the Canon of Scripture? — http://www.flash.net/~timothyc/

Response:

Excuss me Rocko, but I have a real difficulty with this statement

Related Posts