Except of course that if the principle of studying the text is brought to bear on the chapter where this sentence occurs, it is clear for all to see that it is not one about principles or practise of study but rather is one long exhortation for the priesthood to "get their act together"..

You may be right about the example not illustrating the point as I intended. I posted just after midnight, my neurons might not have as awake as they should have been. When I just reviewed some other posts to be sure that I up to date on the context of the thread, I see that I said something very similar a few posts earlier from a slightly different angle.

To follow up on your point: is or can "time honed interpretation" be a problem? If time honed interpretation casts a Scripture in a certain light (which is true in its Scriptural context) can that become a stumbling block when more light is given at a later date?

As I read Scripture that has been the case.

Example Cain refused to offer a blood sacrifice - he was wrong. Blood sacrifices continued from Eden to Calvary. If someone were to believe that we were obligated to offer a blood sacrifice now that would be to deny the blood of Jesus - it would be wrong.

Thus the time honed interpretation that blood sacrifices are required that is substantiated in the Bible, is a principle in context that we should apply in a context that is different from the context that the principle is in. (tricky diction???)

Context: Cain MUST offer blood sacrifice
Still required?
YES
but if the principle is forced to remain in the context as it was in the days of Cain, it becomes sin to us.

The application of the principle is valid, the original context is valid, and Paul could change the context and rightly apply the principle to Jesus

Amen!

For example, Moses wrote about Isaac and Paul took what he wrote and arrived at new truth not specifically spelled out by Moses.

Genesis
15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Galatians
3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

His Child

The solution, in my opinion, is to consider the wider context and teaching of the entire scriptures as the next step after considering the immediate context. Then time honed interpretations follows as the third step. For instance the church fathers, the reformers, sda pioneers. I would add telly evangelists (like Ascherick & Bachelor et al), but am not sure any of them could fill the shues of Augustine, Luther, Wesley or White.

The initial steps sound solid.

But the time honored interpretations get onto "shaky ground."

Sabbath and Sunday for example. The third step: time honored view of many if not most is that Sabbath was changed to Sunday. So if the time honored view is not biblical, rather than help our understanding, it will lead us astray.

And of course the next step is just as dangerous: the church fathers, the reformers, sda pioneers. They did not get everything right in their day and by using them as "authorities" we run the risk of perpetuating their errors. On some matters the SDA Pioneers will disagree with the Church fathers and the Reformers.

I'm not saying that their counsel is not worthy to consider, but they are not the final word and in some instances we might do better to not have to sort through the conflicting positions.

And the telly evangelists (like Ascherick & Bachelor et al)might right-on on some issues, we are warned by EGW that in the endtime some will be basking in the sparks of their own kindling.

In the book "The Last Church Meets the Obama-Nation" some great EGW quotes are given that I find very helpful.







Even if these quotes are found not to be in context, the principles that they outline may safely be applied to many different areas of life.

Be blessed

There is a reason it is the third step rather than the first or the second step.Orthodoxy, and the united voice of the Church is to some degree a defence against fanaticism and herecy, which easily overcome the one who has all his trust in himself.You might learn that there is nothing new under the sun, that the questions we raise today has been raised before, through all the phases of the Church. I see that we all choose which authority to listen to. The title you mention here together with reading between lines that it is a quote collection makes it one I personally would place no trust in. (Quote collections bring the message of the compiler, not the message of the person whom the compiler choose to name drop to gain support by association from.)Sentences or short paragraphs are often not enough to discern what is being said, and especially so regarding Ellen. A chapter the very least size of context when it comes to her work, unless you are happy to be lead around by the one who provide you with the quote.

But does that not go full circle to "line upon line, here a little, there a little"? Connecting the dots to get the full picture with a "little"?

You seem to be saying "line upon line, here allot, there allot"

As I understand it, the Holy Spirit is the inspiration behind inspired writings and He is the interpreter that knows what settings are appropriate when truth progresses from generation.

When we remember the parable of the 10 Virgins, 1/2 of them are lost because they lack the Holy Spirit that is to give them discernment in Holy things. Thus even though 5 of the Virgins think that they are rich with the Bible, Spirit of Prophecy, and the Sabbath Truth, they are lost. Why? Because they do not have the Holy Spirit to give them the "Spirit of Prophecy" which is more than some books on a shelf, but it is the Spirit moving them to understand prophecy.

In my humble opinion, all prophetic understanding is a private interpretation apart from the Holy Spirit no matter how well we might think that we understand the context, the history, the Church Fathers, or the Spirit of Prophecy (I am a firm believer in the SOP, but apart from the Holy Spirit to impress it upon our hearts, private interpretations and traditions can skew it like the Bible itself).

His Child

I didnt realise I had been so difficult to understand.
No, what I mean to say does not go a full circle to "a big quote here and a big quote there and I will convince you that I am right". In the part you quoted above, I am merely pointing out that reading as little as the surrounding chapter may be enough to illustrate that you are led around in a dance by the one who compiled the quote collection. I dont see why you go from there to suggesting I would promote leading others around in bends and circles with thicker and more wordrich quote collections.

As I understand it, the Holy Spirit is the inspiration behind everything that is truth, whether anyone recognize it as inspired or not and whether it is considered theology or not.

Half of the virgins dont have the Holy Spirit to give them the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Prophecy? I thought it was Jesus who sent the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Prophecy to the Church? Yes, I regard "the Holy Spirit" and "the Spirit of Prophecy" to be two names for the same person. Thus the Spirit of Prophecy is a book nor a collection of books no more than is Truth a proposition written down in such a book. They are both words representing persons of the trinity.
I can only agree. However, I was not aware anyone was contesting this particular point.

Inspired writings (the Bible and the SOP) seem uninspired to people not led by the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers can read them and feel unblessed, even indignant and outraged. If Jesus really is the one and only way, and all other ways lead to punishment and death, then Christianity is the only right way and all others ways are wrong. To unbelievers it most certainly sounds bigoted, arrogant, and unendearing.

Inspiration is in the eyes of the beholder. When equipped with faith and eyes anointed with spiritual "eyesalve" the Bible and SOP are rich veins of gold and treasure. Otherwise, they must necessarily be offensive and despicable.