Sola Scriptura

Perhaps it is time to tip the scale in our understanding of Sola Scriptura. For too long, we have allowed our proclivity for biblical literalism to apply also to Sola Scriptura. Our insistence on a literal understanding of Sola Scriptura risks worshipping scripture itself rather than God who inspired it. Additionally, one result of our arguments over the authority of scripture and its relation to other sources of authority, is a loss of the inspirational value scripture normally provides. This strikes me as unnecessary and tragic. My commentary will attempt to show that we use Sola Scriptura more rhetorically than literally all the while arguing the opposite. We are better served to recognize our rhetoric openly for in the literal we risk bibliolatry and a loss of inspiration.

On Bibliolatry or Worshipping the Bible

Although I am not an oratorical or literary scholar, as I understand it, “rhetoric” is a literary flourish intended to persuade listeners. It may use figures of speech that move beyond straightforward, proposition statement of fact. For the context of making my point here, suffice it to say that when we assert the standard of Sola Scriptura, we are making a statement of faith, not a statement of fact. We have stated it so often and so forcefully that we’ve come to believe it to be a statement of fact rather than faith.

I do not think it necessary to establish that we Adventists take our Sola Scriptura rhetoric too literally. One recent article by Elder Ted Wilson is illustrative. On page 16 of his article “Our Sure Foundation” in Adventist World, January 2020, Wilson writes, “Our sacred responsibility as Seventh-day Adventists is to protect, lift up, and promote the lifesaving power of God’s sure Word—the Bible.”[1] Wilson’s words illustrate the risk of bibliolatry. If our attention to scripture turns scripture itself into the means of our salvation, we run the risk of idolizing the Bible. To be sure, there is a fine line between drawing attention to scripture and drawing attention to the God of scripture. Our tendency toward literalism risks sacralizing the text itself.

Wilson goes on to call scripture a “handbook for living.” Mind you, there is nothing unique about him saying this. I’ve heard this for years, but what do we really mean in calling it a handbook? And if we mean it literally, that scripture is our sole source of authority serving as a type of handbook, then we are sorely mistaken. I’ve just spent hundreds of hours over the past month working on a handbook of sorts for how to deal with COVID-19 in the worst-case scenario of having to ration ventilators. If my experience can be illustrative, a truly useful handbook for COVID-19 necessitates complete clarity and intimate detail; a document that needs no further clarification, no additional tools, or commentary. After all, if and when it comes into usage, persons will die.

Scripture is vastly messier than a handbook. What, for instance, would we make of Jesus’ comments about families in the Gospel stories if we used his comments in handbook fashion? What of Paul’s assertion of male-female relations when used in handbook fashion? This says nothing of so many other passages that strike even the most Bible-naïve readers as flatly contradictory: Who inspired David to number the soldiers of Israel? Did the rooster crow once, twice, or thrice? Do women really have to give birth in order to be saved? Was the altar of incense in the Holy Place or Most Holy Place?

The lesson makes contradictory claims within a few sentences, but we’ve grown so used to our rhetoric that it no longer strikes us as odd. In the introduction to the quarter’s lessons we learn that it is because of the egregious “proliferation of false doctrines” that we need the principles of interpretation offered in this quarter’s lessons. The final emphasis in the introduction makes a startling statement given our traditional argument that anyone can understand scripture: “believing in the Bible itself isn’t enough. We must learn how to interpret it, as well.”

Again, turning to my recent efforts to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, one document in wide use regarding appropriate methods of triage is the Minnesota Department of Health Patient Care Strategies for Scarce Resource Situations.[2] It is a large document with multiple additional massive documents that form its foundation. Imagine if your loved one were dying of COVID-19 and I come to talk to you about the unfortunate reality that she is ineligible for a ventilator. I hand you a 50-page document and assert that it is a clear and unified document as it reads; it will interpret itself. In the event you want further detail, I hand you a 350-page notebook of supporting documents. I tell you to read the supporting documents in order to properly understand how the smaller document works. As it turns out, I tell you, some people falsely interpret the large document, so I have prepared an interpretive system you’ll need for the Minnesota protocol.

Would this be confusing to you? In simple terms, I give you a document and tell you it is all you need. Then I hand you a second document, saying you will also need it to properly interpret the document I just gave you. Our lesson for this week notes on Sabbath that we will “learn that sola Scriptura implies some fundamental principles of biblical interpretation that are indispensable for a proper understanding of God’s Word.” Yet, on Tuesday we read that the “Bible is so clear that it can be understood by children and by adults alike.”

So, which is it? Well, it is both, but the problem is we fail to honestly note our usage of Sola Scriptura in rhetorical ways. Over time we begin to take the inspirational rhetoric of the up lifting of scripture as a literal proposition. We begin to literally believe that scripture is the only source of knowledge and authority needed to navigate our daily lives.

Revealing Our Use of Sola Scriptura as Rhetorical

We should recognize that in our present time Sola Scriptura is a rhetorical device used by preachers and evangelists to highlight the value of scripture. Indeed, the lesson implicitly acknowledges this. The verbiage of the lesson actually reveals a Prima Scriptura orientation over against the stated, rhetorical assertion of Sola Scriptura.

According to the lesson, Sola Scriptura:

* Is “the sole standard and decisive source for theology.” (Sabbath)

* Is “the final authority when matters of faith and doctrine are at issue.” (Sabbath)

* Is “[our] ultimate authority.” (Sabbath)

* Is “the Ruling Norm for our theology.” (Sunday)

* Teaches that “Other sources [of authority, namely, experience, reason, tradition] are subservient to the Bible.” (Sunday)

* As a Ruling Norm “does not exclude insights…resources…aspects, sciences, secondary helps, and viewpoints” (Sunday)

The fact that the lesson takes pains to nuance what we mean by Sola Scriptura is evidence that we don’t really mean it literally. Perhaps we mean it more along the lines of Prima Scriptura, namely, as we ourselves say, it is the most important authority (not the only authority) in matters of theology, doctrine, and faith. Wouldn’t it be clearer if we just said this explicitly, particularly if we mean our words in lessons such as this, to be straightforward and propositional rather than rhetorical?

Without directly saying so, however, last week’s lesson undercut the idea that we operate on a Prima Scriptura basis or by way of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Last week we were supposed to learn that tradition, experience, and reason are not to be trusted as sources of authority. Elder Wilson made similar assertions in his Adventist World article referenced above. “[E]xperiential religion,” he argues, is a ruse of the devil, urging us instead to search scripture without need for feeling the movement of the spirit.[3]

Losing the Inspirational Value of Scripture in the Midst of Our Debates

Our disputes over scripture among church leadership, ministers, and educators is at times harsh. Without much effort, over my relatively short ministerial career, I can name a half dozen educators, ministers, and administrators who have lost their jobs over their use of authoritative resources in matters of our life and faith. Think of Glacier View if you need a particular reference. I heard one pastor recently introduce himself as a “Bible-believing Adventist.” I guess I was supposed to recognize what was behind such defining language. I wondered who among us might introduce herself as a “Non-Bible-believing Adventist.”

One recent illustration of our inability to come to agreement in our interpretation of the supposed clear and unified teaching of scripture is the Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC). TOSC is one of the clearest examples of the fact that we ourselves cannot agree upon the unity and clarity of scripture. Biblical students and scholars from every corner of the Adventist world gathered together to offer a final, biblical answer to our theology of ordination and how women do (or do not) fit into that answer. There was no consensus.

Why does this week’s lesson take such a simple stance toward the issues of unity and clarity of scripture? As an ethicist, it strikes me as irresponsible to avoid our own history in a lesson that purports to be about one of the most important of our Fundamental Beliefs. Wouldn’t our members be better served with the truth of how messy and difficult it is to find coherence and consensus in our Church’s understanding of scripture? Through most of our short history, finding consensus in our beliefs has indeed centered around scripture and we’ve managed that process fairly well. I think, for instance, of the “Sabbath Conference”[4] meetings of our early pioneers in 1848–1850 as they narrowed in on the biblical teachings thought to be most important to our budding movement. The trouble with what happened in the TOSC event was that for the first time, perhaps in our history, scripture did not resolve our dispute.

In the lead-up to the 2015 General Conference, GC Vice President Artur Stele, met with a group of young adult delegates about the pending vote on women’s ordination. According to Stele, as reported in Spectrum, PREXAD (President’s Executive Administrative Council) came to the conclusion that resolution of the women’s ordination issue would have to come through a church decision; ecclesiological determination.[5] By definition, this fails to meet the standard of Sola Scriptura. Of course, it could be that Stele was mistaken. Whatever the case may be, the point here is that our lived experience as a church demonstrates the fallacy of using Sola Scriptura in a literal fashion. Rather, our own experience over the decades of debating the role of women in ministry demonstrates that we do not actually operate by the Sola Scriptura model; its role is rhetorical. Scripture, it seems, from our own experience is not actually clear enough to serve as our sole source of authority. Perhaps it is time we face this head on.

In light of our deep divisions over proper interpretation of scripture, I must confess it is sometimes difficult to pick up my Bible in search of inspiration. Aside from all else that we might say or believe about scripture, aside from all the disputed, debated, and dismissive positions we take about it, I need it to be inspirational. As a follower of Christ in this day and age, I need something beyond the ordinary to inspire me toward something greater. Scripture does that, or at least it should.

Rediscovering the Inspiration of Scripture:

I find inspiration and I agree with Elder Wilson in his article “Our Sure Foundation,” when he writes, “There are physical and mental benefits from studying the Bible and focusing on eternal values.” I breath in fresh hope alongside him when through its pages we learn together that our “salvation is possible through Christ.”[6]

I find inspiration in the now distant but searing words of my dear professor, Alden Thompson, when, in my Biblical Exegesis class at Walla Walla College thirty-seven years ago, he declared, “Boys, (because we really were all boys) you can read the whole Bible through and find lots of issues to argue about, disagree with, and debate, but if you read your way through it and miss the fact that God’s salvation is present in Jesus Christ, then you’ve missed the point.”

I find inspiration in Peter Enns’ efforts to bring scripture to life in new ways for us today. The view he brings to his scholarship, identifying how messy scripture is, inspires me to take a fresh look and read it again. He writes of the purpose of scripture:

Its purpose is to invite us to explore, ponder, reflect, muse, discuss, debate, and in doing so work out a life of faith—not to keep that hard work from happening. The Bible is not the problem. The Bible is great—not because it is an answer book, but precisely because it isn’t; not because it protectively hovers over us, but because it most definitely doesn’t. The Bible will make that clear to us if we let it.[7]

I find inspiration and see the positive effect of well-used reason and church tradition in the published works of one of the world’s pre-eminent theological and biblical scholars, David Bentley Hart. In his newly published Theological Territories, he writes of his experience upon recently translating the New Testament for publication with the Yale University Press.

Engaging the difficult work of translating an ancient text, he notes that some words “defy translation altogether because their ranges of connotation are simply too immense and varied to be captured in any available modern term.”[8]

When I came to the task of producing my own translation of the New Testament, I knew that there are certain words and phrases in the text that present special difficulties and that no solution I chose would please everybody. In some cases, the difficulty lies in an inherent ambiguity in the word itself—an uncertainty regarding what concept or set of concepts it signifies or implies—but, in other cases, the difficulty lies precisely in the word’s clarity, because any truly literal translation will fall afoul of dearly held theological or doctrinal conventions….To be fair, the real world of the New Testament is an unsettlingly strange one.[9]

Being honest with the text is essential to the idea of Sola Scriptura and it is simultaneously inspirational. When one engages with the text in light of all we now know about human nature, psychology, and experience we are simply hard-pressed to maintain that scripture interprets itself. When we accept this reality, we also come to understand Sola Scriptura as a precious truth from the history and experience of Western Christianity. Perhaps in the process of this spawning honesty, we can re-capture some of scripture’s inspirational value.

Hart goes on to describe his personal experience while translating God’s word:

The moral of all of this is, perhaps, an unexpected one. At least, it was for me. As I say, when I began my translation I took it as my primary task to restore some proper sense of the distance separating the world of the New Testament from ours—to make the text strange again, so to speak. At the very least, I succeeded in making it stranger to myself. And yet, curiously enough, it was precisely this desire to find that forgotten distance once more than allowed me to cross it, or rather allowed it to be crossed from the other side. As the historical backdrop of the texts drew further away, the players in the drama drew ever nearer. What emerged from my sometimes deeply frustrating struggles with everything alien and impenetrable about the early Christian conceptual world—especially as the veils of conventional phrasing and received ideas melted away—were living personalities: the diverse voices of the scriptures’ authors (many of whom were very ordinary men) became distinct for me, and progressively clearer, proclaiming something that to them was absolutely and consumingly urgent. And somehow I was hearing that urgency for the first time and being persuaded by it with a force wholly new to me. Precisely in making the texts strange—in trying to make them truly remote—I experienced them with an immediacy that I had never really know before. It was not what I expected. But, then again, he is never what we expect.[10]

May you also find the unexpected in the pages of scripture today.

[7] Peter Enns, How The Bible Actually Works, (New York; HarperOne, Harper Collins Publishers, 2019), 20. You may also enjoy a podcast that Peter Enns is involved with:

[8] David Bentley Hart, Theological Territories, (Notre Dame, Indiana; University of Notre Dame Press, 2020), 336.

[10] Ibid, 338–339.

Mark F. Carr, MDiv, PhD, is regional director of Ethics for Providence Health & Services.

Photo by Pixabay from Pexels

We invite you to join our community through conversation by commenting below. We ask that you engage in courteous and respectful discourse. You can view our full commenting policy by clicking here.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Thanks for putting into readable words my own thoughts and answers to many questions!


Thank you for the article, and thank you Spectrum for publishing a range of opinion on this subject, which we certainly won’t get in the Quarterly.

If we take a rational POV that doesn’t allow for unnecessary false reification of concepts that give scripture agency… which it doesn’t have any independent agency by itself… how can we viably conclude that Scriptures have authority? Only people and structures that are comprised of people have authority. Even that concept becomes an allegory or a metaphor which really means Biblical Writers have authority to teach us about basic issues regarding spirituality. But can we make that case to be of everything they have written to have some Universal and timeless application?

We could make a case that they are experts on how Christian narrative applied in their own culture. But, if they would magically transported to our day and age… They would be hopelessly lost and overwhelmed. Think about the sheer volume of information that our children have to be drilled with in order to have a chance to successful participation in society. Paul today wouldn’t even know how to use a toilet, and he would likely be absolutely terrified of digital media and magic frames that capture people.

We don’t really realize how strange our world is for someone writing down Biblical narrative 2000 years ago. They can’t have authority over any of us, except for some ontological claims that God exists, and basics of proper human relationships that we went much further with when it comes to tolerance, and respect. Really think about it… Paul was running around assaulting people. He’d be in jail today with a criminal record that would make a permanent stain on his reputation, crippling his efforts. Likewise, he had no anticipation of digital communication and media revolution at all. He had not idea. No one would listen to him today, especially Adventist theologians who typically demand some Academic credentials before one could viably engage in theological discussions in that strata of the church.

So, I doubt we really think the implications of these things through, especially when it comes to concretizing Biblical narrative in time and space as though it doesn’t have any continuum in history beyond 1st century, and we constantly have to look in that deep past for answers and authoritative narrative.

We don’t really mean what we say about either Sola Scriptura, or Bible being the ultimate authority. These tend to be empty words that are only verbalized for the sake of maintaining some focus on where we go for historical references for origination of the narratives that we promote, but we shape and mold these as we see it fit before presenting these to the modern listener . That’s why your pastor doesn’t just gets up and reads the Bible every Sabbath. He reads a small sliver of texts, which likely take about a minute of a typical 30-40 minute sermon. The rest of the content is not derived through “Sola Scriptura” or even Biblical authority of the writers. It’s derived through authority of the pastor, referencing very stretched analogies of the modern culture.


In writing, a dialogue always works to tell you about the character that is speaking and how they converse or react. When the dialog (and I am hoping that Spectrum articles are always intended to be that) begin with a pejorative it becomes difficult for the other characters to retain a balanced approach throughout the dialog.

“Our Sure Foundation” in Adventist World , January 2020, Wilson writes, “Our sacred responsibility as Seventh-day Adventists is to protect, lift up, and promote the lifesaving power of God’s sure Word—the Bible."

I think the author is giving Ted undue credit for the SDAC does not have a pope and we are in no danger of adapting bibliolatry as stated. I think most SDA members realize the Bible does not need “protecting”, it has done remarkably well over millennia in spite of best efforts by the most notorious powers in this world to destroy it. Ted is just speaking of believers defending the character of God as revealed in His Word.

Seriously? Does anyone really believe that this is an issue for the SDAC as a corporate body of believers or even by a significant number? In this case I would expect to see a lot more confirming facts than the one offered here.

The next paragraph is replete with subjective reading, while I am not specifically defending any portion of the quarterly here, I see other options such as:

It is because of egregious “proliferation of false doctrines”, of which anyone with an objective mind would agree this is a fact, that we need to deepen our understanding of the principles of interpretation defined, not by Schleiermacher et al in hermeneutics, but rather by Scriptures themselves.

Perhaps this is telling of where the author stands on this belief, not the church as a whole.

For believers, faith is fact, spiritual fact “…faith is the essence of things not seen”.

1 Like

The most compelling “evidence” that Adventism does NOT truly believe/practice Sola Scriptura is the belief in EGW as a true “Prophetess”. There would be no need for her or her writings if this were not so.


Exactly what I was told by a fav Bible teacher. What Sola and Prima Scriptura mean.

“You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,” John 5:39


The formula,
works for neophytes and for people who “trust but don’t verify.”

I can’t believe that the Church still teaches such an absurdity while insisting that “our faith is based on the Bible only.” Such a deceiving statement. Considering the amount of information that we have in public nowadays, I can’t figure out why so many people refuse to the “Sola Scriptura” Christians. I chose it about 40 years ago, and never regretted. :+1: :+1:

  1. From the lesson - “The Protestant claim of “Scripture alone” (sola Scriptura) elevated
    Scripture to the sole standard and decisive source for theology.
    In contrast to Roman Catholic theology, which emphasized
    Scripture and tradition,”

  2. From the Bible:
    2 Thessalonians 2:15
    ¹⁵ So then, brothers and sisters,e stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
⁶ Now we command you, beloved,a in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

‌Martin Luther Sola Scriptura principle meant scripture plus what may be reffered to as apostolic traditions or early church traditions, minus the traditional inventions of the popes and their councils eg. Indulgenses, infallibility of the pope etc

What is being presented in the lesson as Sola Scriptura are the scriptural authority views of the radical reformers (anabaptists, spiritualists), who rejected the early church statements of belief and traditions eg the Trinity belief

It is not Sola Scriptura


Please do not forget our very own personal background : One of my grandmothers wholeheartly accepted the Sabbath and not eating pork and not going t the winery and paying tithe and studying the Luther Bible according to her understanding. Yet she remained somehow a *rural “*catholic” in her worldview. And she practized true Christian values - so in inviting a young SS - soldier to desert when the Wehrmachts Military Poice = “Kettenhunde” were still sneaking around and Russians were already in the woods one mile westwards from us in 1945 - - and weeks later taking Christian loving care of a young lieutenant of the Red Army , Mischa - - in our house - - -and and - -
yes, on her deathbed she askedfor communion service with the elder and the minister and her deacon - the RC viaticum, as in practice in a rural environment, where the priest comes to your home when you are to die ! !


Last night I watched an asteroid moving through space in real time. Someone in the UK was making various telescopes available for viewing this event. One was in the Canary Islands and the other, in Chile. As the visual skipped from one to the other, the asteroid showed a different location when compared to a very bright star (which of course was stationary). The reason for the apparent discrepancy was something called parallax - which means “perspective”. This can be commonly demonstrated by holding up one finger and look at it one eye at a time while closing the other eye. The finger appears to have moved each time.

Reading anything from a former era is going to need interpretation since our “perspective” is going to be different. In case of the Bible, not only is time distortion (in the singular) a problem, but also culture. In effect, we have multiple perspectives to deal with. Are we reading the NT as our base of perspective; or do we hold the OT as the base from which to interpret the NT? Add to that, the perspectives of the individual writers.

Eye opener to what this all amounts to can be found in a hilarious book, A Year of Living Biiblically; "One Man’s Humble Quest to follow the Bible as Literally as Possible… by A.J. Jacobs.


" The formula,
works for neophytes and for people who “trust but don’t verify.”

It also works for people who are at a certain level of spiritual development in their lives…and may stay there forever. Just an observation, not a condemnation.


I just remeber - a case of divorce in church . The SDA minister :“Well, wanna change the words of Jesus !!!?? : " - be it for adultery ?” - No, Brother, Matthews Gospel speaks of “porneia” !

        • decades ago I was handling drafts in business. the crime “wechselreiiterei” - a special abuse of drafts no mor e is in our criminal law - yet I evaluate it simply a s a sin.A little group of us SDAs studied Medicine. We sought to shape a Bible founded anthropology for our professional life - yes, I signet the turning off ovf a ventilation machinery. We were ready for triages , we were ready to give - or refuse - a certificate for abortion (sixty years before the GC published an “advice” on this matter) we were not sufficiently prepared for transplantations - I deeply regret once giving my consent to turn off the vetilation - that was emotional, not considered ! - and loose one young liver, two young kindeys - - Apply an emergency ECT - catatonic type of schizophrenia, malignant subtype, developing into hyperpyrexia - risk a teens life - or safe it - -

Thank you. Sola scriptura as taught by the reformers (Lutheran and Calvinist) is not what the radicals turned it into. And what the radicals tried to turn it into is merely rhetorical flourish.

The Bible cannot be understood or interpreted without knowledge of the human language in which the text is rendered, and knowledge of that language comes from non-biblical sources. The historical, geographical and linguistic context in which the Bible was written is necessary to understand it. Sola scriptura does not mean that we don’t consider these extra-biblical sources in our attempt to interpret the text.

As you pointed out in your citations from Thessalonians, the irony of the radical reformers’ position , is that this radical view of sola scriptura is not even biblical.


even the concept of sola scripture, itself, isn’t biblical…in OT times, the prophets clearly preempted anything written through through their unverifiable claims that their messages were from god…in NT times, the apostles radically upended the written word on everything from circumcision to sacrifice and the priesthood through what they claimed were visions, dreams and trances…it’s only in our time that the notion persists that a 16th century clergy can define scripture and forever end its occurrence…

BINGO…welcome to adventist world 101…50% of the reason why we are the remnant church - according to what we commonly call the bible, and in terms of our own interpretation of it - is because we have egw, and others don’t…without egw, the adventist church wouldn’t and couldn’t exist…

WRONGO…while personal testimonies of reproof wouldn’t have been necessary if people were correctly reading their bibles, egw was definitely necessary for such important teachings as IJ, the sabbath, the state of the dead and everything else that distinguishes adventism…it is true that various individuals came up with our doctrines through bible study, but nothing was agreed upon or settled without a vision from egw…her whole purpose in the beginning of her ministry, well before incorporation, was defining what was, and what wasn’t, bible truth…

the difference between 1848-1850 and TOSC was egw…1848-1850 had egw, TOSC didn’t…as a consequence, 1848-1850 came to consensus through the use of the bible, while TOSC set aside the bible, i.e., the dual policy solution in Acts 15, and essentially clung to pre-TOSC extra-biblical leanings: conservatives settled on headship, progressives settled on WO…

what we really need at this time is a resurgence of the gift of prophecy, where supernatural visions inspire our imaginations, and open up new ways of seeing scripture (and egw)…perhaps the latter rain, still future, will be such a time…

"her whole purpose in the beginning of her ministry, well before incorporation, was defining what was, and what wasn’t, bible truth…"

As usual…we will agree to disagree.

"what we really need at this time is a resurgence of the gift of prophecy, where supernatural visions inspire our imaginations, and open up new ways of seeing scripture (and egw)…perhaps the latter rain, still future, will be such a time…"

I don’t see it as a necessity. I personally have enough as a Christian without these “extras” to conduct my life spiritually.


@pierrepaul, See, I can quote the classic Greek authors when I want to know the sense amnd meaning of one vocabulary out of the NT. - peithw - peithomai for instance.

But : Here in Austria someSDA refused to take Greek or Hebrew on University because there they would have also to read /interpret heathen or non - canonical authors in both, the OT and the NT languages !

Just try to learn English by just reading “Steps to Christ” !!!


I know of some people around these circles that are not neophytes for whom

1 Like

desmond ford is a bit of an issue still…

1 Like

If we could manage a modicum of openness without preconceived “truths” we might experience what was promised through the HS. Do we really ever expect to find anything new as we follow the “yellow brick road” through our marked up Bibles?


whether we follow a yellow, green or blue brick, asphalt or dirt road, we still can’t advance until the HS opens up our understanding through a prophet…that’s how it’s been in the past, that’s how it is now, and that’s how it will be in the future…