“How the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA) changed what Sola Scriptura really means?”

Definition: Sola Scriptura in Scripture and History

Sola Scriptura is the Latin phrase meaning “by Scripture alone.” In the Protestant Reformation, it was formulated as a principle: the Bible is the only infallible, final authority for Christian doctrine and practice, and all other sources (tradition, church councils, extra-biblical revelation) are subordinate and subject to it. (Sabbath School Net)

Historical Details

• The Reformers (Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc.) insisted that Scripture is “self-authenticated” and that church traditions or ecclesiastical judgements do not have the same normative authority as Scripture. (ministrymagazine.org)

• For example, Luther declared at the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures … I cannot and will not recant.” (ministrymagazine.org)

• The doctrine implies these sub-principles:

  1. Authority of Scripture: Scripture has the final word on faith and practice.

  2. Sufficiency of Scripture: What is necessary for salvation and Christian life is found in Scripture.

  3. Clarity of Scripture: Essential teachings are understandable (though not everything is trivial).

  4. Finality of Scripture: Any other source must be tested by Scripture and cannot override it. (AskAnAdventistFriend.com)

SDA’s Statement (and claimed definition)

The SDA church Profile (Fundamental Belief #1) states: “The Holy Scriptures are the supreme, authoritative, and infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the definitive revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history.” (SDA Fundamental Beliefs) (atoday.org)

In an SDA-source article: “Sola Scriptura is the recognition that the Bible alone is the source of doctrines and practice, not church tradition or other authority.” (columbiaunion.org)

So, at the surface level, the SDA definition appears to align with the classical Protestant one.

Notes on SDA Scholarly Sources

The handbook Handbook of Seventh‑day Adventist Theology (Dederen et al.) outlines the Reformation view: “early in his career [Luther] became convinced that the ultimate standard for faith and doctrine should be Scripture alone (sola scriptura) …” (pdfcoffee.com)

Another SDA article, “The principle of articulation in Adventist theology,” observes the role of the sola Scriptura principle as a “criterion of evaluation”. (adventistbiblicalresearch.org)

Thus, the SDA literature acknowledges the concept and its provenance.

Summary Definition

In summary: Sola Scriptura originally meant that the Bible alone (Old & New Testaments) is the infallible, normative, final authority for doctrine and life; all church traditions, extra-biblical writings, or church decisions are subordinate and testable by Scripture. But as we’ll see below, there is a divergence in how SDA historically practised or understood this principle.

Reference to SDA Pioneers’ Books that Mention Sola Scriptura

In examining how the SDA movement handled scripture authority, several pioneer writings are relevant (though explicit use of the Latin phrase “sola scriptura” is rare). Here are some examples:

• James White, co-founder of the SDA movement, wrote The Bible Sabbath and Our Faith and Hope, etc. Although not always using “sola scriptura” verbatim, he emphasised the Bible as the rule of faith (e.g., Review & Herald, April 4, 1854, quoted in pioneer statements) (theos.institute)

• Uriah Smith wrote Daniel & the Revelation and Fundamental Principles of Seventh-day Adventists. While his works do not typically use “scripture alone” as the classic Reformation phrase, his emphasis on Bible study and the Word of God as primary is evident.

• Ellen G. White, though not strictly a “book about sola scriptura”, wrote repeatedly about the Bible’s authority and the Bible being its own expositor (see Cannale article) (ministrymagazine.org)

• The site “SDA Pillars” (which lists early SDA pamphlets) reveals many pamphlets by pioneers emphasising Scripture, for example, The Bible Class by R. F. Cottrell, The Truth Found, etc. (sdapillars.org)

While explicit usage of “sola scriptura” as coined in the Reformation may not be abundant in these pioneer texts, the idea of Scripture as primary authority is present.

Breakdown of Each SDA’s Distortions 

Here, we identify how the SDA movement’s practice (or institutional structure) diverges from the classical sola scriptura concept, then give examples. Because of space and available documentation, I focus on a few prominent distortions rather than every possible one.

Distortion #1: The Bible + Prophetic Writings as Equivalent

Problem: In classical sola scriptura, only Scripture (canon) is infallible and final. Traditions, commentaries, and extra writing are subordinate. However, in SDA self-understanding, there is often a second source of authority: the writings of Ellen G. White (EGW) are sometimes treated as having interpretive or quasi-canonical status. This creates a “Bible +” model rather than “Bible alone.”

Example Quote: From the article “Does the SDA Church believe in Sola Scriptura?”: “The other source being the writings of Ellen G. White, which they believe are inspired no differently than that of the scriptures. Her writings function as an infallible, interpretive guide to properly understanding the Bible…” (Answering Adventism)

Analysis: This conflicts with the Reformers’ principle that Scripture interprets Scripture and that no extra-biblical writing holds the same infallible authority.

Distortion #2: The Church (Conference) as Final Interpreter

Problem: In the Reformation principle, individual believers and the church are subject to Scripture, not Scripture subject to ecclesial authority. The SDA structure places conference sessions, General Conference, or church bodies as authoritative institutions for doctrine.

Example Quote: Same source: “The other source being … the SDA General Conference when in session. … they have the power to make something doctrinally so, and ‘private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered’ to them.” (Answering Adventism)

Analysis: This implies an authority beyond or equal to Scripture (the institutional church), which is antithetical to classic sola scriptura.

Distortion #3: Tradition and Pioneers’ Writings as Binding

Problem: Classical sola scriptura holds that creeds, traditions, and writings of church leaders are subordinate and can be reformed if they contradict Scripture. However, in SDA culture, there is a strong emphasis on “the pioneers’ writings” being foundational and not to be weakened.

Example Quote: From the pioneer-statements site: “We are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure… One by one these pioneers are passing away.” (theos.institute)

Analysis: This elevates pioneer testimony almost to the level of a normative standard alongside Scripture, which shifts the authority from the Bible alone to Bible + pioneer/tradition.

Distortion #4: The Hermeneutical Control via Extra-Biblical Interpretive Frameworks

Problem: Classical sola scriptura considers Scripture self-interpreting (scripture interprets scripture) under the Holy Spirit. Some SDA practices, however, adopt particular interpretive frameworks (prophetic charts, typological systems) that are treated as normative even when not plainly derived from Scripture alone.

Example: While not a direct quote, the article “Sola Scriptura? It’s Complicated” comments: “the church has additional prominent factors shaping… But driving and dominantly overshadowing every other influence is the life and ministry of Ellen White.” (atoday.org)

Analysis: If an interpretive framework (e.g., prophetic chart) becomes fixed and held as authoritative over Scripture’s own grammar/historical meaning, then sola scriptura is compromised.

Distortion Comparison Summary

SDA Distortion	Reformational Sola Scriptura Principle Violated
Bible + EGW writings equivalent	Only Scripture is infallible; extra-biblical writings are subordinate
Church/Conference as doctrinal final authority	Scripture alone is final, even church councils are subject
Pioneer/tradition elevated	Traditions are subordinate and reformable by Scripture
Interpretive frameworks overshadow the text	Scripture is its own interpreter; no extraneous hermeneutic controls

Diagram: Historic Reformation Understanding vs SDA Distortion

Below is a diagrammatic comparison (textually described) of how sola scriptura should function (Reformation model) versus how SDA often functions (distorted model).

Reformation Model:
                     Scripture (canon)
                           ↑
           Scripture interprets Scripture (analogy of faith)
                           ↑
                  Church & Tradition (subordinate)
                           ↑
           Believer (subject to Scripture’s authority)

SDA Distorted Model:
            Scripture (canon)
               ↑       ↑
       EGW Writings +   Church/Conference
               ↑             ↑
            Pioneer Tradition/Charts
               ↑
            Believer (subject to these authorities)

In the Reformation model, the arrow of authority flows upwards from believer → church/tradition → Scripture, with Scripture having primacy. In the SDA model as practiced, there is a network of authorities (Scripture + EGW + Conference + Pioneer tradition) that function at somewhat the same level, or the extra-biblical authorities even dominate.

Exegesis (Historico-Grammatical, with Hebrew/Greek)

Let’s apply a typical Scripture used in support of sola scriptura, namely 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Greek), and show how the reformers read it, then contrast how SDA practice sometimes modifies it.

Text: 2 Tim 3:16-17 (Greek)

Πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγχόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τῆς δικαιοσύνης, 17 ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ θεοῦ ἂν ἁρπαστῇ εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἕτοιμος ᾖ. 

Literal: “Every Scripture [graphe] is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Historico-grammatical observation

• Πᾶσα γραφή = “every writing/scripture” (literally “all scripture”).

• θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) = “God-breathed”, i.e., inspired.

• καὶ ὠφέλιμος = “and profitable/useful”.

• The following four prepositional phrases (πρὸς …) show the functional direction: teaching (didaskalian), reproof (elegchon), correction (epanorthōsin), training (paideian) in righteousness.

• The final clause shows purpose: “so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Implication for sola scriptura

• Since “every Scripture” is God-breathed, the Reformers argued that this means the canon is uniquely authoritative (not any extra-biblical revelation).

• The “complete/equipped” clause means the written word suffices for equipping the believer for good works, thus supportive of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Hebrew background with an Old Testament verse often used: Psalm 19:7

Hebrew: תּוֹרַת יְהוָה תְּמִימָה מְשִׁיבַת-נָפֶשׁ

“The law of YHWH is perfect, restoring the soul…”

• תּוֹרָה (torah) = “law” or “instruction” (here used for the Word of God).

• תְּמִימָה (temimah) = “complete,” “whole,” “without defect.”
  This suggests that God’s Word is perfect/comprehensive.

How SDA practice can diverge

While SDA publications quote 2 Tim 3:16-17 in support of Scripture’s authority, the practical structuring of authority (EGW writings, church pronouncements) means Scripture’s role is somewhat inhibited by these other authorities. That is, even though they affirm “infallible revelation” (Fundamental Belief #1), they still grant extra-biblical “counsel” that functions authority-wise. Thus, the exegetical implication of 2 Tim 3:16-17 (that Scripture alone equips) becomes qualified in practice.

Historic Reformation Understanding of Sola Scriptura vs SDA Distortion 

Reformation Understanding

• Scripture alone is the norming and formative source of doctrine (norma normata). (ministrymagazine.org)

• Other authorities (church, tradition, creeds) are normed by Scripture (norma normans) and subject to correction.

• The believer can appeal to Scripture and is not required to submit uncritically to ecclesiastical authority if it conflicts with Scripture.

• Scripture interprets Scripture (analogy of faith) and is self-authenticated.

SDA Distortion

• While SDA officially affirms Scripture as “supreme… infallible”, in practical theology, it places EGW writings, conferences, institutional pronouncements, pioneer writings, and adopted interpretive frameworks as complementary or even superior in effect to Scripture.

• These extra-biblical authorities are often treated as binding norms rather than subordinate ones.

• Therefore, the locus of authority becomes “Bible + extra sources” rather than “Bible alone”.

• The practical effect is that Scripture is not alone sufficient in the sense that the Reformers intended, that is, the believer must align with institutional interpretation and accepted tradition.

• Thus, the meaning of sola scriptura is changed: the “alone” is eroded.

Summary and Conclusion 

We began with the historical Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura that the Bible alone is the infallible, final authority for faith and practice, and that other sources (church traditions, creeds, extra-biblical writings) are subordinate and correctable by Scripture. We traced the SDA church’s formal definition, which appears to affirm Scripture’s primacy. We reviewed pioneer SDA writings that emphasise Scripture, showing the movement’s initial orientation toward Bible-based faith.

However, upon examination, we identified several “distortions” in SDA practice: the elevation of Ellen G. White’s writings to near-authoritative status, the institutional church (conferences/General Conference) as de facto final interpreter, the strong role of pioneer tradition, and the use of interpretive frameworks (charts, typologies) treated as normative. We illustrated the difference via diagram and through exegetical analysis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Greek) and Psalm 19:7 (Hebrew). We compared how the Reformers’ meaning of sola scriptura differs from how the SDA‐model functions, showing that the “alone” is diminished.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the SDA church claims the sola scriptura principle, the practice shows that scripture does not stand entirely alone in theory or practice. Instead, the church’s authority‐structure, prophetic writings, pioneer tradition, and interpretive apparatus all share or compete with scripture for normative status. In effect, the SDA meaning of sola scriptura becomes something like “Bible plus authoritative extras” which is a significant shift from the Reformation intent of scripture alone.

An Appeal to SDA Believers

To you, fellow believer within the Adventist orbit or in dialogue with Adventism: I urge you to examine whether your theology places the Bible truly alone (in the sense of final infallible authority) or whether you have inadvertently elevated other writings or institutional voices to that status. If Scripture is indeed the “sole” norm, then any teaching (however venerable) must be measured by it. Let us return to the old landmarks (see Jeremiah 6:16) and ensure that our confession and our practice honour the Bible alone as the final authority. I encourage you to re-evaluate how your adherence to prophecy, institutional decisions, or pioneer tradition may affect your commitment to Scripture, as this alone.

---

Selected Reference Notes

1. Dederen, Raoul et al., Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Review & Herald Publishing Association, 2000. (Scribd)

2. F. Canale, “Sola Scriptura and Hermeneutics: Are Adventist and …”, Andrews University Digital Commons, 2016. (Digital Commons)

3. “Sola Scriptura – What it Means and Why It Matters”, AskAnAdventistFriend.com. (AskAnAdventistFriend.com)

4. “Does the SDA Church believe in Sola Scriptura?”, AnsweringAdventism.com. (Answering Adventism)

5. “Sola Scriptura – The Reformers and Ellen G. White”, Ministry Magazine, Oct 2016. (ministrymagazine.org)

6. “Sola Scriptura? It’s Complicated”, AdventistToday.org, Nov 28 2022. (atoday.org)

---

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph