长久以来，基督复临安息日会将《圣经》视为信仰和实践的最高权威的事实被很多其他教派的信徒所质疑。当迈尔斯·格兰特指控复临信徒对于天上圣所的理解是基于怀·爱伦的著作而并非《圣经》时，复临信徒就从1874年宣告“唯独圣经”。

《圣经》与早期复临运动的先驱

复临运动的先驱们认为，《圣经》是他们信仰与行为的最高权威。本会的共同创始人之一贝约瑟宣称， “《圣经》 拥有充分的确据”²让我们明白安息日的道理。 同样也适用于其他教义，另一位创始人怀雅各，相信“《圣经》完全、完整的启示，也是我们信仰和实践的唯一准则。”以此为基础，他解释道“《圣经》是永恒的磐石，是我们信仰和行为的标准。”每一个基督徒都当以《圣经》为信仰的完美准则……以真理为基石，教会的根基应该立于此之上，作为前行的法则，和智慧的泉源。”

乌利亚·史密斯，《复临评阅及安息日宣报》的编辑，回应了迈尔斯·格兰特否认复临信徒有关圣所的教义的指控。他写道，“关于这个主题已经写了很多。 但在论述中，没有一个认为曾提到的异象是该主题的权威，也不是我们所持有的任何观点的来源。也没有任何传道人在这个问题上提及这些异象。我们总是以《圣经》为依据，且我们所持的观点都能在《圣经》中找到大量的证据。”

复临信徒并没有以怀爱伦的异象来解读《圣经》教义。相反地，他们是以《圣经》为凭据。

怀爱伦先知是教会的第三位先驱，在她参加的最后一期总会会议（1909）中提到：“弟兄们，姐妹们，我将这本书举荐给你们。”⁶ 在她的整个事工中她一直坚守这个权威。在1885年，她曾表达过相同的观点：“《圣经》，只有《圣经》，才是我们信仰的依据和团结的唯一纽带。一切顺从圣经的人都会和谐相处。我们不可以用自己的观念和见解来支配我们的努力。人是会犯错误的，但上帝的道是永无错谬的。不要彼此争论，而要高举主。让我们像主那样，用‘经上记着说’来应付一切反对的意见。让我们高举旗帜，上面写着：‘《圣经》是我们信仰和纪律的准则。’”她将《圣经》高举为教会教义的唯一权威。

在安息日会刚刚成立时，复临信徒是为顺从《圣经》的人，因为他们教义以《圣经》为唯一的根据。这在早期复临教会是真实的，那么后来的神学演变又如何呢？怀爱伦是如何回应在教义之争的呢？她是依据《圣经》还是自己的著作来解决问题的呢？

《圣经》与教义之争

基督复临安息日会历史上1888年的全球总会会议或许最具争议，所争论的问题是关于加拉太书所讨论的律法究竟是仪文律还是道德律。全球总会会长乔治·艾德·巴特勒让怀爱伦止息争论。然而她观点显明地认为上帝“希望我们从《圣经》中找到依据。”她还提议：“殷勤的研究不会使真理受损。让《圣经》自己开口解释自己，真理就会像珍贵的宝石在灰尘中发光。”没有人能利用她使教义的争论平息，相反地，她建议教会一同研究《圣经》来解决问题。

另一次重大的争议是约翰·哈维·凯洛格在他的著作《活的圣殿》中所提出的泛神论观点。他的书中有一个关于上帝的特殊观点。他论道：假设现在我们面前有一只靴子——不是一只普通的靴子，而是一只活的靴子。 . . 当我们看着它时，我们看到接缝处挤满了小靴子。 . . 几十，成百上千只的靴子，一堆靴子不断从我们的活靴子里冒出来，——我们难道不会说，‘靴子里有一个鞋匠’吗？ 因此，树中存在一种创造和维持它的力量，树中有位造树者。”凯洛格认为万物里都有上帝，这使得上帝不再是有感情的而像物体一样，这与教会所相信的上帝是有感情个性的个体是相反的。为了确认教会长期坚持的有关上帝性情的观点。怀爱伦再一次将关注点放在《圣经》上。“上帝曾引领我们。”她讲到，“赐给我们真理，永恒的真理。我们靠着真理站立。”对于凯洛格，她很直接地写道：“很明显你并不了解上帝的性情。”她没有给出解决这个问题的确切亮光，而是用教会的结论作为回应，应当全面的在《圣经》中学习和了解上帝的性情。

1905年，A.F.巴伦杰对圣所的教义提出质疑。他阐述了一个教导，即耶稣升天后进入至圣所¹⁸ ，但那不是当时教会所相信的圣所¹⁷ 。巴伦杰的想法引起了许多复临信徒对于此概念的混淆。怀爱伦将焦点引向复临信徒已经信仰多年的《圣经》教导。她写道：“主已加给我力量，让我经过华盛顿的长途旅行到这次聚会作我的见证，证实《圣经》的真理和圣灵在确认圣经真理时的表现。”

通过查阅《圣经》，她验证了教会所接受的真理。在她一生中，她一直将关注点放在《圣经》上，并且唯独以《圣经》为信仰和教义的准则。她呼吁教会所有的教导都要以《圣经》为唯一的依据。教会需要持续学习《圣经》以平息有关教义的争论。

《圣经》与复临信仰的基础

自教会初期，复临先驱们就把《圣经》视为信仰和行为的最高权威。无论是将星期日守为安息日会的人还是基督复临安息日会的信徒的或私下或公开地表明他们对于《圣经》权威的立场从未发生改变。

在1854年有这样一件事，《复临评阅及安息日宣报》发表了安息日教会的五个核心教义。尽管这不是一个正式的信仰宣告，但也表明了他们的普遍认知。在四个多月的时间里，这一声明就成为了“评论期刊的方向性教义”的副标题。编辑表示，第一教义就是“《圣经》且唯有《圣经》，是信仰和行为的准则”。因此，在教会正式成立组织之前基督复临安息日会的信徒们就已经坚定地认为《圣经》就是他们信仰和行为的唯一准则。

全球总会成立后，乌利亚·史密斯起草了基督复临安息日会“基础信仰原则”。尽管这仅由他个人所立，但这之后成为了“早期信徒的统一标准”。 ²¹ 第三个信仰宣告怎是：“《圣经》，新约和旧约，是上帝所默示的，包含上帝给人的全部启示，也是信仰和行为唯一可靠无误的原则。”

在1931年刊发的信仰基础包含22条声明。第一条宣称：“《圣经》新约和旧约是上帝所默示给人的所有重要启示，也是唯一准确无误的信仰与实践原则。”这里将《圣经》描述为对于“信仰与实践”是“准确无误”的。

在1980年的信仰基础中也有相同的规定。它的第一条为“《圣经》是上帝的旨意准确无误的启示，是品格的标准、经验的检验、教义的权威启示，以及上帝在历史上作为的可靠记录。”最后一条和最近一版的基础信仰是一样的。这些观点表明，基督复临安息日会坚持《圣经》是教义和实践唯一也是最高权威的依据。

我们始终坚信

纵观基督复临安息日会的历史，《圣经》一直是制定教义和实践的唯一标准。它的位置从未被包括怀著在内的任何著作或作品所取代。怀爱伦承认并把《圣经》作为基督徒生活和信仰的唯一标准。复临先驱的声明表明他们持有相同的立场。即使在教义有争论的情况下，包括怀爱伦在内的先驱们也将《圣经》视为权威依据。

历史上复临信徒基本信仰的发展同样表明，《圣经》是教义的唯一来源，也是检验教导和经验的唯一来源。 这是基督复临安息日会的官方立场。靠着上帝的恩典，我们仍然努力作“《圣经》的见证者”。

参考文献

1. 乌利亚,史密斯 “圣所”, 圣经评论与安息日通讯期刊 44, no.26，1874 年 12 月 22 日，204。^

2. 约瑟夫·贝茨 (Joseph Bates)，《安息日的辩护和上帝的诫命：上帝特殊子民的进一步历史》，从 1847 年到 1848 年（新贝德福德，马萨诸塞州：1848 年），136。^

3. James White, ed., A Word to the “Little Flock” (Brunswick, ME: [James White], 1847), 13. ^

4. “福音教会的恩赐”，Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald，1851 年 4 月 21 日，第 70 页；强调补充。 ^

5. 史密斯，“圣所”，204。^

6. William Ambrose Spicer, The Spirit of the Prophecy in the Advent Movement: A Gift that Build up (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1937), 30. Cf. A. L. 怀特，艾伦 G. 怀特传记，卷。 6（华盛顿特区：评论与通讯出版社。协会，1982），197。^

7. 怀爱伦，“传教士的呼吁”，圣经评论与安息日通讯期刊 62，不。 49，1885 年 12 月 15 日，770。^

8. George R. Knight, A Search for Identity: The Development of the Seventhday Adventist Beliefs (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 2000), 60. ^

9. 奈特，96。^

10. 怀爱伦，“怀爱伦的早间谈话”，1888 年 10 月 24 日，手稿 9，1888 年。^

11. Ellen G. White, The Ellen G. White 1888 材料：与 1888 年明尼阿波利斯总会相关的信件、手稿、文章和讲道，卷。 1（华盛顿特区：Ellen G. White Estate，1987 年），38；强调补充。 ^

12. Brian C. Wilson、John Harvey Kellogg 博士和生物生活的宗教（布卢明顿，印第安纳大学，2014 年），90。^

13. John Harvey Kellogg, Living Temple (Battle Creek, MI: Good Health Publishing Company, 1903), 29. ^

14. 基督复临安息日会总会一般信息部，基督复临安息日会年鉴（密歇根州巴特尔克里克：评论与先驱，1889 年），147。^

15. 怀爱伦致医生和牧师，1903 年 10 月，1903 年第 242 号信；强调补充。 ^

16. 怀爱伦致 J. H. 凯洛格，1903 年 3 月 16 日，信件 300，1903 年。^

17. Calvin W. Edwards 和 Gary Land, Seeker After Light: A. F. Ballenger, Adventism, and American Christian (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 2000), 137. ^

18. 信息部，年鉴，149。^

19. 怀爱伦，“哨兵和长老巴伦杰观点中的安息日真理”，1905 年 5 月 20 日，手稿 59，1905；强调补充。 ^

20. “Leading Doctrines Taught by the Review”，Advent Review and Sabbath Herald，1854 年 8 月 15 日至 9 月 12 日，1； 1854 年 9 月 19 日至 12 月 19 日，《复临评论》和《安息日使者》的标题为“领先的教义”；强调补充。 ^

21. 迈克尔 W. 坎贝尔，“复临安息日会、教义声明和合一”，复临神学学会杂志 27，第 2 期。1, 2 (2016): 96。^

22. 乌利亚·史密斯，基督复临安息日会所教导和实践的基本原则宣言（密歇根州巴特尔克里克蒸汽出版社，1872 年），5；强调补充。 ^

23. 1931 年基督复临安息日会年鉴（华盛顿特区：评论与通讯出版社，1931 年），377；强调补充。 ^

24. 基督复临安息日会年鉴 1981（华盛顿特区：评论与通讯出版社，1981 年），5；强调补充。 ^

25. 基督复临安息日会总会会议，基督复临安息日会相信：基本教义的圣经阐述（Silver。Spring，MD：Review and Herald Pub. Assn.，2018），11. ^

弟兄姐妹们，我们想通过本平台分享更多国外本会优质影像资料。因为人手有限，希望招募一些志同道合的主内同工，做英文视频字幕翻译，视频字幕合成制作，视频中文配音，配音对轨制作。有意者请留言输入“义工申请”。以马内利！

The Bible in the Seventh-day Adventist Church

Whether the Seventh-day Adventist Church considers the Bible as the highest authority in faith and practice has been questioned by fellow Christians for a long time. Adventists have proclaimed sola Scriptura since 1874, when Miles Grant accused Seventh-day Adventists of basing their understanding of the heavenly sanctuary on the writings of Ellen G. White and not on the Bible.¹

THE BIBLE FOR THE ADVENTIST PIONEERS

For Adventist pioneers, the Bible was the highest authority of faith and practice. One of the cofounders, Joseph Bates, stated that “the Bible is a sufficient rule” in understanding the Sabbath.² That also applies to other doctrines. James White, another cofounder, believed that “the Bible is a perfect, and complete revelation. It is our only rule of faith and practice.”³ Accepting Scripture as the standard for doctrines and Christian behavior, he explained that “the Bible is an everlasting Rock. It is our rule of faith and practice.” Every Christian should “take the Bible as a perfect rule of faith and duty. . . . The Word should be in front, and the eye of the church should be placed upon it, as the rule to walk by, and the fountain of wisdom.”⁴

Uriah Smith, an editor of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, answered Miles Grant’s accusation against Adventist belief about the heavenly sanctuary. He wrote that much has “been written upon the subject. But in no one of these are the visions once referred to as any authority on this subject or the source from whence any view we hold has been derived. Nor does any preacher ever refer to them on this question. The appeal is invariably to the Bible, where there is abundant evidence for the views we hold on this subject.”⁵

Seventh-day Adventists did not see themselves as depending on Ellen White’s visions to formulate doctrines. Instead, they went to the Bible as their source.

Ellen White, the church’s third cofounder and its prophetic voice, during the last General Conference Session that she attended (1909), stated, “Brethren and Sisters, I commend unto you this Book.”⁶ She consistently held this position for her entire ministry. In 1885, she had expressed the same idea: “The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this holy word will be in harmony. . . . Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, ‘It is written.’ Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.”⁷ She upheld Scripture as the only authority for doctrine in the church.

During the early stage of their formation as an organization, Adventists “were a people of the ‘book’ ” because they based their doctrines only on the Bible.⁸ While this is true for the initial formation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, what about later theological development? How did Ellen G. White respond to doctrinal controversy? Did she refer to the Bible or her own writings to settle problems?

THE BIBLE IN THE DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES

Perhaps the most controversial General Conference session in Seventh-day Adventist history occurred in 1888. At issue was whether the law discussed in the book of Galatians was the ceremonial law or the moral law. General Conference president George I. Butler asked Ellen White to settle the controversy.⁹ However, she decided that God “wants us to go to the Bible and get the Scripture evidence.”¹⁰ She also advised that “the truth can lose nothing by close investigation. Let the word of God speak for itself, let it be its own interpreter, and the truth will shine like precious gems amid the rubbish.”¹¹ Refusing to be used to settle doctrinal controversy, she instead suggested that the church study the Bible to resolve the issue.

Another significant doctrinal controversy involved the pantheistic ideas John Harvey Kellogg presented in The Living Temple. His book presented a unique view of God.¹² He argued, “Suppose now we have a boot before us,—not an ordinary boot, but a living boot . . . and as we look at it, we see little boots crowding out at the seams . . . scores, hundreds, thousands of boots, a swarm of boots continually issuing from our living boot,—would we not be compelled to say, ‘There is a shoemaker in the boot’? So there is present in the tree a power which creates and maintains it, a tree-maker in the tree.”¹³ Kellogg’s belief that God is in all things actually depersonalized Him, striking at the church’s belief that God is personal.¹⁴ In confirming the church’s long-standing position about God’s personal nature, Ellen White again called attention to the Bible. “God has led us in the past,” she declared, “giving us truth, eternal truth. By this truth we are to stand.”¹⁵ To Kellogg, she straightforwardly wrote, “You are not definitely clear on the personality of God.”¹⁶ She did not give new light to settle the issue. Instead, she referred to the church’s conclusions as a result of its thorough biblical study about God’s nature.

In 1905, A. F. Ballenger challenged the doctrine of sanctuary. He expounded a teaching that Jesus, after His ascension to heaven, entered the Most Holy Place and not the Holy Place¹⁷ as the church had believed until then.¹⁸ Ballenger’s idea led to confusion among many Adventists. Ellen White directed attention to the understanding of the Bible that the Adventists had believed for many years. She wrote, “The Lord has strengthened me to come the long journey to Washington to this meeting to bear my testimony in vindication of the truth of God’s Word and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in confirmation of Bible truth.”¹⁹

Referring to the Bible, she only confirmed the biblical truth that the church had received. Throughout her life, she called the church’s attention to the Bible and the Bible alone as the standard of doctrine and belief. She urged the church to test all teachings using only the Bible. The church should consistently study the Bible in settling doctrinal controversy.

THE BIBLE IN ADVENTIST FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS

Since the beginning, Adventist pioneers saw the Bible as the highest authority for faith and practice. Statements of belief of both Sabbatarian Adventists and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, whether written personally or voted corporately, have shown that their position about the Bible has remained unchangeable.

In 1854, for example, the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald articulated five core doctrines for the Sabbatarian Adventism. Even though it was not a formal statement of beliefs, it did outline their general understanding. For more than four months, it appeared as a header statement under the title “Leading doctrines taught by the Review.” The editor stated that the first doctrine was “The Bible and the Bible alone, the rule of faith and duty.”²⁰ Hence, even before the formal organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, believers held the position that the Bible was their only “rule of faith and duty.”

After the establishment of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Uriah Smith prepared “Fundamental Principles” of Seventh-day Adventism. Even though it was his personal statement, it came to be “considered somewhat normative among early believers.”²¹ The third statement of the belief declared: “that the Holy Scriptures, of the Old and New Testaments, were given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of his will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”²²

The list of fundamental beliefs published in 1931 by Seventh-day Adventists contained 22 statements of belief. The first declared: “That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, contain an all-sufficient revelation of His will to men, and are the only unerring rule of faith and practice.”²³ It described the Bible as “unerring” in defining “faith and practice.”

The Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, voted in 1980, expressed the same stance toward the Bible. Its first statement indicated that “the Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history.”²⁴ The last sentence is still the same in the more recently expanded set of fundamental beliefs.²⁵ Through these statements, Seventh-day Adventists have constantly reminded themselves that the Bible is the primary source and highest authority for defining doctrine and practice.

WE STILL BELIEVE

Throughout Seventh-day Adventist history, the Bible has been the only standard for determining doctrine and practice. Its place was never taken by any writings or works including by Ellen G. White. She recognized and placed the Bible as the sole standard in the life and faith of the Christian. Statements from Adventist pioneers show they held the same position. Even during doctrinal controversy, the pioneers, including Ellen White, referred to the Bible as the source of authority.

The development of Adventist fundamental beliefs throughout the history gives the same hint that the Bible is the only source of doctrine and test of teaching and experience. This has been the official standing of the Seventh-day Adventist church. By God’s grace, we still strive to be “people of the book.”

1. 1. Uriah Smith, “The Sanctuary,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 44, no. 26, December 22, 1874, 204. ^
2. 2. Joseph Bates, A Vindication of the Seventh-day Sabbath, and the Commandment of God: With A Further History of God’s Peculiar People, From 1847 to 1848 (New Bedford, MA: 1848), 136. ^
3. 3. James White, ed., A Word to the “Little Flock” (Brunswick, ME: [James White], 1847), 13. ^
4. ·
5. 5. “The Gifts of the Gospel Church,” Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, April 21, 1851, 70; emphasis added. ^
6. 6. Smith, “The Sanctuary,” 204. ^
7. 7. William Ambrose Spicer, The Spirit of the Prophecy in the Advent Movement: A Gift that Builds Up (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1937), 30. Cf. A. L. White, Ellen G. White Biography, vol. 6 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1982), 197. ^
8. 8. Ellen G. White, “A Missionary Appeal,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 62, no. 49, December 15, 1885, 770. ^
9. 9. George R. Knight, A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 2000), 60. ^
10. 10. Knight, 96. ^
11. 11. Ellen G. White, “Morning Talk by Ellen G. White,” October 24, 1888, Manuscript 9, 1888. ^
12. 12. Ellen G. White, The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials: Letters, Manuscripts, Articles, and Sermons Relating to the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Ellen G. White Estate, 1987), 38; emphasis added. ^
13. 13. Brian C. Wilson, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and the Religion of Biologic Living (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 2014), 90. ^
14. 14. John Harvey Kellogg, Living Temple (Battle Creek, MI: Good Health Publishing Company, 1903), 29. ^
15. 15. Department of General Information of General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist Church, Seventh-day Adventist Year Book (Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1889), 147. ^
16. 16. Ellen G. White to physicians and ministers, October 1903, Letter 242, 1903; emphasis added. ^
17. 17. Ellen G. White to J. H. Kellogg, March 16, 1903, Letter 300, 1903. ^
18. 18. Calvin W. Edwards and Gary Land, Seeker After Light: A. F. Ballenger, Adventism, and American Christianity (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 2000), 137. ^
19. 19. Department of General Information, Yearbook, 149. ^
20. 20. Ellen G. White, “The Sabbath Truth in the Sentinel and Elder’s Ballenger Views,” May 20, 1905, Manuscript 59, 1905; emphasis added. ^
21. 21. “Leading Doctrines Taught by the Review,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, August 15–September 12, 1854, 1; and then under the title “Leading Doctrines,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, September 19–December 19, 1854, 1; emphasis added. ^
22. 22. Michael W. Campbell, “Seventh-day Adventism, Doctrinal Statements, and Unity,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 27, nos. 1, 2 (2016): 96. ^
23. 23. Uriah Smith, A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press, 1872), 5; emphasis added. ^
24. 24. Year Book of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination 1931 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1931), 377; emphasis added. ^
25. 25. Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook 1981 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1981), 5; emphasis added. ^
26. 26. Ministerial Association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrine (Silver Spring, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 2018), 11. ^