Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

James White's Essays


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • the1888message

    17

  • Gregory Matthews

    14

  • Don777

    8

  • teresaq

    4

The Lord's Supper and the Emblems Suitable

In the communion of believers with their Lord and with one another, the emblems to be used are bread and the fruit of the vine, or the cup, the broken bread representing his broken body, and the red juice of the grape his spilled blood.

It is an unsettled question with some what kind of bread should be used at the Lord's supper. But we see no objections to the white, raised loaf. And it is an established rule with us not to depart from established custom unless good reasons can be given for such departure. Singularity for the sake of differing from others is no real advance. And such differences often raise prejudice, and hinder the progress of the cause of truth.

But some object to the raised loaf, because on the occasion of the institution of the supper our Lord used bread that was unleavened. It should be remembered that then were the days of unleavened bread, at, which feast, leaven was put out of all their houses. The Jews had no other bread at that time, and no other could used unless obtained of the Gentiles. This seems to be sufficient reason for the use of unraised bread on that ever memorable night. There certainly was nothing in the mangled body of our divine Saviour to be illustrated by leaven, or by its absence in the bread.

Some have carried this matter even so far as to request the removal of the raised loaf after the emblems have been prepared on the table, and have chosen in its stead the brown, rye and indian meal, even mixed with pumpkin and sweetened with molasses! But here is an objection of the same nature that led them to change the emblem; namely, Christ did not use bread at the institution of the supper partly composed of indian corn meal, as this article of food was first found on this hemisphere, among the Indians, known by the name of maize. In order to shun a supposed objection on the one hand, if we run into another, of the same nature, equally objectionable, we do not advance. And there certainly is something to the refined taste very objectionable in representing the body of our dear Saviour by a brown loaf of rye and indian bread. We do not object to the graham loaf, as it is probable that what is now called superfine flour, was not known until the unfortunate introduction of bolts into our mills. The bread made eighteen centuries ago was of barley or wheat meal, ground in hand mills, and probably coarse, made without separating from it what is now called the bran.

But we do not urge the use of the graham bread at the Lord's supper, but choose rather, lest we appear singular, without a good cause, the use of the white loaf.

But what shall be used at the table of the Lord as an emblem of the precious blood of Christ? The answer in Scripture language is, "the fruit of the vine' and " the cup." That the grape-vine is here meant no one will call in question. The prophet, speaking of the death of Christ, represents his garments as being red, as he that, treadeth the wine-press.

Some, however, object to grape wine, because it is fermented, and they have even chosen in its place, water sweetened with molasses. We freely admit that this is a suitable article to go with rye and indian bread. But there is something disgusting in the idea of representing the blood of the holy Jesus by molasses, the cane from which it is made, raised in slavery, and its juice, pressed and boiled in slavery, and with slave hands barreled and .shipped North for free Christians to use instead of the juice of the grape, cultivated on free soil. This objecting to a few drops if domestic wine with which to only wet the lips at be Lord's supper, is carrying total abstinence principles to great length. To those who are conscientious in this matter, we would recommend pure cold water.

We would object to purchasing wine of liquor-venders for two reasons; first, it is patronizing and, to an extent, sustaining, them in an unholy traffic; and, second, you do not know whether you get the fruit of the grape-vine in what they may give you, although the barrel from which they draw it may be branded "Wine." There may be some grape juice in it, but diluted with water, fired with alcohol, and colored with poisons. Know what you use. Let the deacons obtain the cultivated grape, see the wine made, and secured from the air to keep it from fermenting as much as possible. Then you have an article comparing well with the white loaf, fitting the occasion of celebrating the Lord's supper.

James White

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18670416-V29-19__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=6

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18670416-V29-19__B.pdf#view=fit

Review and Herald, April 16, 1867, p. 6

Observations:

1. Note how reason plays a role in church practices and doctrine.

2. James White's abolitionist nature is palpable.

3. Don't be different just to be different.

4. I wouldn't say that James White comes across as stringent regarding not using fermented wine ever, at all.

5. Much can be learned from this leader of early Adventism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Extremes

It is common saying, and, probably, a true one, that if the Devil cannot succeed in holding persons back from duty, he will, if he can, push them over the mark. If this maxim be true, then we may readily account for the extremes which have existed in religious experiences in all past time. These extremes, then, are not the result of true religion. Christianity neither teaches nor sanctions them. And the well-instructed, sincere Christian, will be free from these extremes which so often appear to mar the cause of Christianity, because he has learned to guard against the weaknesses of his own nature, and the wiles of the Devil.

Formalists, who fall far below the standard of Bible religion may boast of an even experience, of being free from extremes. But their cases in the sight of Heaven may be far worse than those who, in striving to drink of the living waters of Christian experience, and for want of instruction fall into extremes. That there have been extremes among Adventists, none should deny. But these are by no means chargeable to the Bible doctrines they hold, but rather to the fact that their instructions in mental and spiritual discipline have not been proportionate to the stirring sentiments which have moved them to vigorous action. Seventh-day Adventists, without proper instruction and discipline, may be in greater danger of extremes than others, in proportion as their standard of moral rectitude and Christian consecration is higher than theirs. But let those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus be well instructed, and they cheerfully embrace the discipline of the sacred Scriptures; and they will grow stronger, stand firmer, become deeper and still deeper rooted in the principles of righteousness, and grow up in true holiness. Such will be free from extremes.

Seventh-day Adventists are in danger of the spirit of the world. They are not in greater danger than others; no, their faith is calculated to cast a shade over the things of this world, and lead them to set their affections on the things of the world to come. But while having to do with the things of time and sense in this age when the world with its treasures, pleasures and mirth is the all-absorbing theme, they are in danger of being overcome by the spirit of this world ; hence the many exhortations of holy Scripture so applicable to our time.

Luke xxi, 34. " And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness and the cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares."

1 Pet. iv, 7. "But the end of all things is at hand, be ye therefore sober and watch unto prayer."

2 Pet. iii, 11. "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness ?"

And they are in danger while witnessing the fact that the worldly, the rich, the proud and the vain fall into temptations and snares, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition, of falling into the opposite extreme, which renders them incapable of doing all that good in the world they should do.

• Christians should be active and not worldly,

• economical and not stingy,

• neat in dress and appearance, and not proud,

• cheerful and not light and vain.

• They are the salt of the earth,

• the light of the world,

• a city set upon a hill.

They may keep separate from the spirit of the world without putting their light under a bushel.

James White. “Extremes.” Review and Herald, April 5, 1864, p. 4

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18640405-V23-19__B.pdf#view=fit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one as he was one with his Father. This prayer did not contemplate one disciple with twelve heads, but twelve disciples, made one in object and effort in the cause of their master. Neither are the Father and the Son parts of the “three-one God.” They are two distinct beings, yet one in the design and accomplishment of redemption. The redeemed, from the first who shares in the great redemption, to the last, all ascribe the honor, and glory, and praise, of their salvation, to both God and the Lamb. (James White, 1868, Life Incidents, page 343)

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE faith which was once delivered unto the saints…” (Jude 3, 4) …The exhortation to contend for the faith delivered to the saints, is to us alone. And it is very important for us to know what for and how to contend. In the 4th verse he gives us the reason why we should contend for THE faith, a particular faith; “for there are certain men,” or a certain class who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.… The way spiritualizers have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God.” (James White, January 24, 1846, The Day Star)

The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, “Let us make man in our image?” (James White, November 29, 1877, Review & Herald)

The Father was greater than the Son in that he was first. (James White, January 4, 1881, Review & Herald; found in EGW Review and Herald Articles, vol. 1, page 244)

We are told by those who teach the abolition of the Father’s law, that the commandments of God mentioned in the New Testament, are not the ten, but the requirements of the gospel, such as repentance, faith, baptism and the Lord’s supper. But as these, and every other requirement peculiar to the gospel, are all embraced in the faith of Jesus, it is evident that the commandments of God are not the sayings of Christ and his apostles. To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God. And as the faith of Jesus embraces every requirement peculiar to the gospel, it necessarily follows that the commandments of God, mentioned by the third angel, embrace only the ten precepts of the Father’s immutable law which are not peculiar to any one dispensation, but common to all. (James White, August 5, 1852, Review & Herald, vol. 3, no. 7, page 52, par. 42)

Bro. Cottrell is nearly eighty years of age, remembers the dark day of 1780, and has been a Sabbath-keeper more than thirty years. He was formerly united with the Seventh-Day Baptists, but on some points of doctrine has differed from that body. He rejected the doctrine of the trinity, also the doctrine of man’s consciousness between death and the resurrection, and the punishment of the wicked in eternal consciousness. He believed that the wicked would be destroyed. Bro. Cottrell buried his wife not long since, who, it is said, was one of the excellent of the earth. Not long since, this aged pilgrim received a letter from friends in Wisconsin, purporting to be from M. Cottrell, his wife, who sleeps in Jesus. But he, believing that the dead know not anything, was prepared to reject at once the heresy that the spirits of the dead, knowing everything, come back and converse with the living. Thus truth is a staff in his old age. He has three sons in Mill Grove, who, with their families are Sabbath-keepers. (James White, June 9, 1853, Review & Herald, vol. 4, no. 2, page 12, par. 16)

Catholic Reasons for Keeping Sunday

1. Because “it is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of Dies Solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred.” “Sunday was a name given by the heathens to the first day of the week, because it was the day on which they worshipped the sun.”

2. Because it is “in honor of the blessed Virgin Mary.”

3. Because “it is a day dedicated by the apostles to the honor of the most Holy Trinity.” (James White, April 4, 1854, Review & Herald, vol. 5, no. 11, page 86, par. 16-18)

The Position of the Remnant

As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit sabbath other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, the trinity, the consciousness of the dead and eternal life in misery. The mass who have held these fundamental errors, have doubtless done it ignorantly; but can it be supposed that the church of Christ will carry along with her these errors till the judgment scenes burst upon the world? We think not. “Here are they [in the period of a message given just before the Son of man takes his place upon the white cloud, Rev. 14:14] that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” This class, who live just prior to the second advent, will not be keeping the traditions of men, neither will they be holding fundamental errors relative to the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. And as the true light shines out upon these subjects, and is rejected by the mass, then condemnation will come upon them. When the true Sabbath is set before men, and the claims of the fourth commandment are urged upon them, and they reject this holy institution of the God of heaven, and choose in its place an institution of the beast, it can then be said, in the fullest sense, that such worship the beast. The warning message of the third angel is given in reference to that period, when the mark of the beast will be received, instead of the seal of the living God. Solemn dreadful, swiftly approaching hour! (James White, September 12, 1854, Review & Herald, vol. 6, no. 5, page 36, par. 8)

Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, and of sprinkling or pouring instead of being “buried with Christ in baptism,” “planted in the likeness of his death:” but we pass from these fables to notice one that is held sacred by nearly all professed Christians, both Catholic and Protestant. It is, The change of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment from the seventh to the first day of the week. (James White, December 11, 1855, Review & Herald, vol. 7, no. 11, page 85, par. 16)

The “mystery of iniquity” began to work in the church in Paul’s day. It finally crowded out the simplicity of the gospel, and corrupted the doctrine of Christ, and the church went into the wilderness. Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation. The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday- keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors. (James White, February 7, 1856, Review & Herald, vol. 7, no. 19, page 148, par. 26)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had presentations regarding the deceptions that Satan is bringing in at this time. I have been instructed that we should make prominent the testimony of some of the old workers who are now dead. Let them continue to speak through their articles as found in the early numbers of our papers. These articles should now be reprinted, that there may be a living voice from the Lord’s witnesses. The history of the early experiences in the message will be a power to withstand the masterly ingenuity of Satan’s deceptions. This instruction has been repeated recently. I must present before the people the testimonies of Bible truth, and repeat the decided messages given years ago. I desire that my sermons given at camp meetings and in churches may live and do their appointed work.— Letter 99, 1905. (Ellen White, 1905, Counsels to Writers and Editors, page 26)

How many Adventist today study the old writings of the men of this church I wonder?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after-suppositions, contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit.

A few are still alive who passed through the experience gained in the establishment of this truth. God has graciously spared their lives to repeat and repeat till the close of their lives, the experience through which they passed even as did John the apostle till the very close of his life. And the standard-bearers who have fallen in death, are to speak through the reprinting of their writings. I am instructed that thus their voices are to be heard. They are to bear their testimony as to what constitutes the truth for this time. Preach the Word, p. 5. (Ellen White, 1905, Counsels to Writers and Editors, pages 31, 32)

Link to post
Share on other sites

When men come in who would move one pin or pillar from the foundation which God has established by His Holy Spirit, let the aged men who were pioneers in our work speak plainly, and let those who are dead speak also, by the reprinting of their articles in our periodicals. Gather up the rays of divine light that God has given as He has led His people on step by step in the way of truth. This truth will stand the test of time and trial. Ms 62, 1905, p. 6. (A Warning Against False Theories, May 24, 1905.) (Ellen White, 1905, Manuscript Releases Volume One, page 55)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often read those quotes that I posted and wondered why is it that the writings of the men of the church are so ignored and the few times in which I have seen them quoted they were misquoted or a partial quote. To me this is very sad. I have been into the ‘ABC’ and I see very little of the pioneers writings but I can find tons of modern writers of both SDA and non-SDA teachings, why is this I have asked of the managers of the ‘ABC’s’ and I have not been given an answer, other than it sells and it is approved. So very sad.

I re-quote in partial from the above quote I gave above; “let the aged men who were pioneers in our work speak plainly, and let those who are dead speak also, by the reprinting of their articles in our periodicals. Gather up the rays of divine light that God has given as He has led His people on step by step in the way of truth. This truth will stand the test of time and trial.” These new writers and non-SDA writers will not stand the test of time nor will the non- KJV Bibles either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is different between what the pioneers taught and what is being taught today?

I like your question, 1888. I will try to identify the differences, as I see them. You, and others, may want to add insights, as well:

Over the last few years, with the help of adventistarchives.org, I have studied the writings of the early pioneers, especially James White.

Some of my observations follow; certainly not a comprehensive, or dogmatic, list:

James White wrote as an editor promoting:

* the Sabbath,

* the Second Coming of Christ,

* the spiritual gift of prophecy manifested in his wife's ministry,

* balance in view, for example, he guided the church to not be so strict against fermented wine as to interfere with the use of wine in the Communion Service. He opposed the use of wine in general.

* kindly relations with other Sabbath-keeping groups, eg. the Seventh Day Baptists. His counsel surprises me at one point where he told SDA evangelists not to conduct meetings in small towns where the Seventh Day Baptists had a presence.

* clarity in review of truths held up to the point of writing

* creative meeting of situations as they would arise, such as how to relate to the civil war and racial discrimination, the need for organization in the late 1850s and early 1860s.

The early pioneers wrote as though the Bible's slightest details could be applied to today. I think this is the biggest difference I have found between then and now. For example, the parable of the ten virgins of Matthew 25 received line by line application.

* The Midnight Cry of the parable was identified as the 7th month movement beginning in the summer of 1844.

* The Shut Door represented the time immediately after October 22, 1844 when the door was shut to the world. For a while, our group was known as the Shut Door Adventists.

They got really specific regarding the three angels' messages:

* The first angel's message was William Miller's proclamation that Christ was coming back.

* The second angel's message as the time from the beginning of 1844 when the mainline churches removed the Millerite Adventists from their membership rolls; thus Babylon had fallen.

* The third angel's message focused on the Sabbath. It began after the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844. After 1888 the message of Justification by faith was recognized as part of the third angel's message. Revelation 14:12 was the focus of this message: "Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."

The early Adventists viewed the Christian era to be different than the Mosaic era. Practices such as avoiding pork and tithing was first promoted from a reasonable argument rather than the use of Old Testament directives. This changed in the late 1870s but the earlier writings reflected a clearer New Testament base for developing doctrines.

More later, I hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The adventistarchives.org is a great tool if one wants to read many articles that were printed by the pioneers and it is photo copy which to me is even better.

Is the Sabbath taught as it was by the pioneers?

What about the 3 Angels message?

Are there differences in what was taught and what is taught?

I went to a ‘Daniel & Revelation’ seminar to use that term they called it something different I do not recall it was about 2 years back. I only went to 1 meeting part way through the weeklong event. I remember a little but not much of this night. What the speaker offered as truth I found wanting he gave a lot of milk and very little meat.

When I have read and studied the pioneers there is much meat to the subject and very deep understanding therein, but not today.

They teach differently today.

I have heard may ‘preachers’ speak on the 7th church and the SDA church as being the 7th church of Revelation as if it were a good thing that the church is in that position, did the pioneers teach this?

I write this because people in the church today, that I know, that I studied and prayed with believe that there is NO difference between the pioneers SDA church and the church as it is today and this is a fallacy.

Sister White said that if we want the truth that we needed to read the pioneer men’s writings. And people do not do this, it is always Sister White.

Looking at the men’s writing and comparing it to the messages today that is give, what are the differences?

Look at the 27/28 fundamental beliefs even.

If they are different then why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We probably should look carefully at the advice she gave regarding the writings of the pioneer men. They wrote the pioneer Adventist views but they also developed their own understanding of truth. Here are a few examples:

1. The early, early (Shut Door) Adventists viewed themselves as the faultless Philadelphia church. The other Adventist groups were Laodicea. It was not until a little while later that they concluded that their church was Laodicea.

2. The early, early Sabbath-keeping Adventists did not link Leviticus 11 with the unfitness of the pig for food. It was decades later before this chapter of the Old Testament became the one used to promote proper diet.

I agree that the pioneers' writings need to be carefully studied, even reprinted but some careful thought needs to go into which writings we choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

1. The early, early (Shut Door) Adventists viewed themselves as the faultless Philadelphia church. The other Adventist groups were Laodicea. It was not until a little while later that they concluded that their church was Laodicea.

True but were these understandings of the 7th day Adventist after they formed the church? Even if it was after the church was formed as a church, did the Spirit of God correct or direct them to the truth?

Quote:

2. The early, early Sabbath-keeping Adventists did not link Leviticus 11 with the unfitness of the pig for food. It was decades later before this chapter of the Old Testament became the one used to promote proper diet.

Again was this before the SDA church was formed as a church?

Quote:

I agree that the pioneers' writings need to be carefully studied, even reprinted but some careful thought needs to go into which writings we choose.

The books articles that where printed after the church was formed. Even if you have their writings pre-pig eating as long as you also teach what they were further taught by the Spirit of God. But look at her statements, "In the future, deception of every kind is to arise, and we want solid ground for our feet. We want solid pillars for the building. Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith. Where shall we find safety unless it be in the truths that the Lord has been giving for the last fifty years? (Ellen White, Review & Herald, May 25, 1905) "

What was the pioneers teaching from 1855 to 1905? There is a good guideline to start with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting that people go back to the pork issue. But if we looked at the 27 fundamental principles (which is not the same as the 28 fundamental beliefs) here is a standard of what God taught the pioneers, look at what they taught and wrote about the Sabbath, the 3 angels message, the sanctuary message, Christ and His righteousness. these things are NOT taught today, yes there is a symbolism of what was taught but it is not the same. There have been changes made to the truth that God had given the SDA church / pioneers.

Look at the pillars of the church then and now compare them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DON777

our pastor had a sermon of the advent movement of the mid 1850's--1854--1855--1856

these people would meet in individuals houses---they would study their bibles

they stay until the sun was set---but they women would cook meals and serve

pork --and the men would go to the sitting room and smoke cigars---the health

message or parts of the health message did not come until 1863

dgrimm60

Here is an article in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald July 24 1855, 50 years prior to Sister White comment on the truth of the past 50 years. I posted it in another post or two.

It is in a PDF format it concerns tobacco http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18550724-V07-02__B.pdf#view=fit

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

James S. White is a modern Moses for God's people today 1844 until Christ's second coming. His lips are silent, but his voice still speaks. We are well able to go up and possess Heavenly Canaan.

IF we believe that Ellen G. White was inspired, then we must believe that her husband was inspired as well because the inspired messenger of the Lord has this to say about her husband James S. White:

Ellen White states her husband was "Keen, Nobel & True" and was given "GREAT LIGHT ALSO" and "he was to speak and WRITE it out for OTHERS", Selected Messages bk.1, p. 206-207 1904.

“He (James White) received a commendation that few others have attained. God has permitted the precious light of truth to shine upon His word and illuminate the mind of my husband. He may reflect the rays of light from the presence of Jesus upon OTHERS by his preaching and WRITING.” {E. G. White, Testimonies for the Church Volume 3, p. 502}

James S. White a type of Moses figure to lead spiritual Israel Today:

Ellen White states: "In a vision given me at Bordoville, Vermont, December 10, 1871, I was shown that the position of my husband has been a very difficult one. A pressure of care and labor has been upon him. His brethren in the ministry have not had these burdens to bear, and they have not appreciated his labors. The constant pressure upon him has taxed him mentally and physically. I was shown that his relation to the people of God was similar, in some respects, to that of Moses to Israel. There were murmurers against Moses, when in adverse circumstances, and there have been murmurers against him."

Although Ellen rebuked many different people, she had no rebukes for her own husbands blatant rebuke of the trinity doctrine, who called it a: "Catholic error", "spiritualism", "Neither are the Father and the Son parts of the “three-one God”, " the trinity "denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ", "The inexplicable Trinity" that it is "bad enough", "the old trinitarian absurdity", "a fundamental error", "the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ", a "vestige of Papacy"...etc. The fact is that James Springer White totally and unequivocally rejected the doctrine of the trinity.

"The same arguments are still urged against all who dare to present, in opposition to established errors, the plain and direct teachings of God's word." {Great Controversy p. 148}

Ellen G. White held her husband, James S. White up as an example for others to follow. She, of all people knew he vehemently rejected the trinity doctrine as unbiblical. She said James White was a similar in some respects, to that of Moses to Israel, (Moses was a type of Christ) that he was KEEN, NOBEL & TRUE and that he had been given GREAT light also, and was to speak and WRITE it out for OTHERS.

She, as a true prophet of God would not ask others to follow her husband's leading if she herself did not believe the trinity was error. Remember? She stated that ALL of the pioneers came into harmony and were UNITED in the TRUTH! That included herself too! When they came to something they all did not agree and understand, they would pray together, and God would show her the truth. They all worked together to hammer out the foundations of the early SDA church beliefs.

"The “mystery of iniquity” began to work in the church in Paul’s day. It finally crowded out the simplicity of the gospel, and corrupted the doctrine of Christ, and the church went into the wilderness. Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation. The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, THE TRINITY, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors." (James White, February 7, 1856, Review & Herald, vol. 7, no. 19, page 148, par. 26)

"Whatever contradicts God's word, we may be sure proceeds from Satan." Patriarchs and Prophets, page 55, paragraph 2. "There is one straight chain of truth without one heretical sentence in that which I have written." — Ellen G. White, Letter 329A, 1905.

As Moses was a type of Christ leading the ancient children of

Israel, so James White, says Ellen White, was a type of Moses, leading the modern spiritual children of Israel into the Heavenly Canaan, flowing with milk and honey!

"Like the Jews, many have closed their eyes lest they should see; but there is as great peril now, in closing the eyes to light, and in walking apart from Christ, feeling need of nothing, as there was when he was upon earth." {RH, Aug. 26, 1890}.

"A clear conception of what God is, and what He requires us to be, will give us humble views of self." {RH June 2, 1896}

"I saw that the strength of the children of God is in their humility. When they are little in their own eyes, Jesus will be to them their strength and their righteousness, and God will prosper their labors." 3 Testimonies p. 307

Today, in modern times, we see the same murmuring and complaining about Elder James White and the other pioneers who upheld the Truth about God & His Son Jesus. Remember:

Ellen White said James S. White was:

* similar to "Moses to Israel" Testimonies for the Church

Volume 3, Page 85; "Moses was a type of Christ." {Patriarchs

& Prophets, Chapter 43, p. 480-481;

• "KEEN, NOBEL & TRUE" SM bk.1, p. 206-7 1904;

• given "GREAT LIGHT also" and SM bk.1, p. 206-7

1904;

• "he was to speak and WRITE it out for OTHERS", SM bk.1, p. 206-7 1904;

• "He received a commendation that few others have attained." TC v. 3, p. 502

• "God has permitted the precious light of truth to shine upon His Word and illuminate the mind of my husband." TC v. 3, p. 502

• "He may reflect the rays of light from the presence of

"Jesus upon OTHERS" TC v. 3, p. 502

• "by his preaching and WRITING.” TC v. 3, p. 502

In contrast, you see many people today, respected, cultured & refined, leaders of churches, pastors, promoting the trinity doctrine, the very doctrine that James White, the type of Moses, vehemently rejected.

Remember what Ellen White said? Read it again, carefully: "ALL the brethren came into HARMONY. The whole company of believers were UNITED IN THE TRUTH.".—MS 135, 1903. (Ellen G. White, The Early Years Volume 1 - 1827-

1862, page 145)

She said that ALL the brethren came into HARMONY, and that they were UNITED in the TRUTH! She also states that her husband was given GREAT LIGHT ALSO! That means INSPIRED! And many that studied with them were what? KEEN, NOBAL and TRUE!

If you believe Ellen White to be inspired by the TRUE GOD, then we must believe that "Whatever contradicts God's word, we may be sure proceeds from Satan." Patriarchs and Prophets, page 55, paragraph 2. "One sentence of Scripture is of more value than ten thousand of man's ideas or arguments." {7T 71}

"Who has authority to begin such a [NEW] movement? [to abandon the pillars of the pioneers] We have our Bibles, we have our experience, attested to by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit. WE HAVE A TRUTH THAT ADMITS OF NO COMPROMISE. Shall we not repudiate everything that is not in harmony with this truth?" E.G. White, Selected Messages, Vol. 1, 204, 205.

"The opinion prevails with many that all which appears like courtesy or refinement must, in some sense, pertain to Christ. Never was there a greater mistake. These qualities should grace the character of every Christian, for they would exert a

powerful influence in favor of true religion; but they must be consecrated to God, or they also are a power for evil. Many a man of cultured intellect and pleasant manners, who would not stoop to what is commonly regarded as an immoral act, IS BUT A POLISHED INSTRUMENT IN THE HANDS OF SATAN. The insidious, deceptive character of his influence and example renders him a more dangerous enemy to the cause of Christ than are those who are ignorant and uncultured." — Ellen G. White, Great Controversy p. 509

"Under a religious guise, Satan will seek to extend his

influence over the Christian world." (The Great Controversy, p. 464).

A LINE OF TRUTH EXTENDING FROM THAT TIME (1844) TO THE TIME WHEN WE SHALL ENTER THE CITY OF GOD, WAS MADE PLAIN TO ME, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me. What influence is it that would lead men at this stage of our history to work in an underhand, powerful way to TEAR DOWN the foundation of our faith–the foundation that was laid at the beginning of our work by prayerful study of the Word and revelation? Upon this foundation we have been building for the past fifty years. (Selected Messages bk.1, p. 206-7 1904).

Most People Don't Realize that Dr. Kellogg believed in the Trinity of gods doctrine and Ellen White rebuked him for it!

About Dr. Kellogg. He went from pantheism to the trinity belief, and Ellen White KNEW it! Dr Kellogg wanted to REVISE his book, the Living Temple. He wanted to REVISE it, after he began believing in the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, the Trinity of gods. Ellen White said the Satan was his inspiration or the one by his side while he was writing that book, and that no revised book would be

acceptable, while he was in this frame of mind to believe in the trinity...not these exact words, but it is pretty plain to see. You could, in your easy going style of writing put this to the forefront, and show that Ellen White called this trinity a mockery of God, just by her warning others of Dr. Kellogg's attempt to use her writings to prove the trinity, just as they do today!

Now in 1904 Ms. White points Dr. Kellogg to her husband's understanding of “who God is” and tells him also of the other pioneers of the faith. But she is also pointing YOU “brother, sister” to “who God is”. She is pointing to the time after 1844. What foundation is Dr. Kellogg being pointed too? The faith delivered to the saints.

“The third angel's message was, and still is, a WARNING to the saints to "hold fast," and not go back, and "receive" the marks which the virgin band got rid of, during the second angel's cry.” A Word to the "Little Flock" JAMES WHITE, Topsham, Maine April 21, 1847.

James White in 1846: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE faith which was once delivered unto the saints…” (Jude 3, 4) …The exhortation to contend for the faith delivered to the saints, is to us alone. And it is very important for us to know what for and how to contend. In the 4th verse he gives us the reason why we should contend for THE faith, a particular faith; “for there are certain men,” or a certain class who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.… The way spiritualizers have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God.” (James White, January 24, 1846, The Day Star)

Scriptures declare “one God the father, and one Lord Jesus Christ” [1 Cor 8:6]. Ms. White is pointing Kellogg to what her husband and the pioneers believed.

Ellen White warns, "The SPIRITUALISTIC theories regarding the personality of God, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy." 1 Selected Messages, p. 204

James White says that trinity worship is SPIRITUALISM. SATAN WORSHIP. Elder White warns, "The way SPIRITUALIZERS have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old UNSCRIPTURAL Trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God.” (James White, January 24,

1846, The Day Star)

“The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism

that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, “Let us make man in our image?” “(James White, November 29, 1877, Review & Herald) inexplicable = Unable to be explained or accounted for

James White was a blatant non-Trinitarian. Ellen White never once rebuked him. She was never told to stand up against James or any of the other leading brethren who were all non- Trinitarian. If you’re a Trinitarian, do you not find this strange? Ellen White said ALL the pioneers were in HARMONY and UNITED in TRUTH! That would include herself as being anti-Trinitarian!

Do you really think that Ellen White could have secretly been trinitarian or CHANGED to one? How could God bless that person with visions if she "secretly" held other views around all these staunch anti-trinitarian colleagues? She stated just before she died that she believed the same truths that had been in place as the FOUNDATION for the past some 50-60 years. Incredible! When you really study, the flimsy lies are shown for what they are. "There is one straight chain of truth without one heretical sentence in that which I have written." — Ellen G. White, Letter 329A, 1905. An angel of the Most High God stood by her side telling her word for word what to write when she was writing the Great Controversy! Think, folks!

Ellen White held up her husband as an example for others to follow. She, of all people knew he vehemently rejected the trinity doctrine. She, as a true prophet of God would not ask others to follow her husbands leading if she herself did not believe the trinity was error.

Remember? She stated that ALL of the pioneers came into harmony and were UNITED in the TRUTH! That for sure would include HERSELF as being in harmony with the early pioneers! When they came to something they all did not agree and understand, they would pray together, and God would show her the truth. They all worked together to hammer out the foundations of the early church beliefs.

James White, Ellen's husband was one of the people Ellen White said was KEEN, KNOBLE & TRUE! Remember, she said HER HUSBAND was a type of Moses for Israel today! That he was given GREAT LIGHT and he was to speak and WRITE it out for others! Do we believe Ellen White is telling the truth about her husband? She had to agree with him, because she held him up as an example for others to follow LIKE MOSES instead of rebuking him!

James White was an avid and vehement anti-trinitarian and remained that way up until the day that he died. Repeatedly he spoke out against the trinity doctrine (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) as did the other SDA pioneers.

The reason I am quoting the above quotes is so you can notice, that Ellen White said the truth that the pioneers had, would go from that time in 1844 till we get to Heaven and enter the city of GOD.

“Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are NOT

holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as BLIND MEN. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.” {MR760

9.5} What harbor are YOU headed to now?

James White's colleague J. S. Washburn wrote in 1939, "However kindly or beautiful or apparently profound his sermons or articles may be, when a man has arrived at the place where he teaches the heathen Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, and denies that the Son of God died for us, IS he a true Seventh-day Adventist? Is he even a TRUE preacher of the Gospel? And when many regard him as a great teacher and accept his unscriptural theories, absolutely contrary to the Spirit of Prophecy, it is time that the watchmen should sound a note of warning.…" [Portions of a letter written by J. S. Washburn in 1939. This letter was liked by a conference president so much that he distributed it to 32 of his ministers.]

James White firmly opposed the trinity doctrine. In 1846, White wrote in The Day Star, and on a number of occasions in the Review & Herald (1852, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1877 & 1881) that the trinity was 'unscriptural'. This teaching was common among ALL the early Adventists, including Joshua Himes, Joseph Bates, Uriah Smith, J. N. Loughborough and J. H. Waggoner.

Here James is referring to 2 Tim 4:4, "they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables," and gives an example of such a fable: "Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God and His Son Jesus Christ." - Review end Herald, Dec. 11, 1855. p. 85.

Also: "... the old UNSCRIPTURAL trinitarian creed, viz. that Jesus is the Eternal God." - The Day-Star, Jan 21, 1846.

Joseph Bates:

"Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being." - Autobiography (Battle Creek, 1888), 205.

J N Loughborough:

On the Trinity: "There are many objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following: 1. It is contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to scripture. Its origin is pagan and fabulous." - Review and Herald, Nov. 5, 1861.

R. F. Cottrell:

"To hold the doctrine of the trinity is not so much an evidence of evil intention as of intoxication from that wine of which all the nations have drunk. The fact that this was one of the leading doctrines, if not the very chief, upon which the bishop of Rome was exalted to the popedom, does not say much in its favor." - Review and Herald, July 6, 1869.

N. Andrews:

He teaches that everything in the universe except God the Father had a beginning, and then writes: "And as to the Son of God, he would be excluded also, for he had God for his Father,

and did, at some point in the eternity of the past, have a beginning of days." - Review and Herald, Sept. 7, 1869.

W. W. Prescott:

"Christ as twice born, once in eternity, the only begotten of the Father, and once in the flesh ..." - Review and Herald, April 14, 1886, 232.

Ellen White:

"A special light beamed in his (Satan's) countenance, and shone around him brighter and more beautiful than around the other angels: yet Jesus, God's dear Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before the angels were created, Satan was envious of Christ, and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone. "The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son... The Father THEN made known

that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was his own

Devolve: To transfer from one person to another: hand down. Webster's Dictionary

presence... His Son would carry out His will and His purposes, but would do nothing of himself alone." - Spirit of Prophecy,

1:17, 18. Notice Christ was not ALWAYS co-equal with His invisible, IMMORTAL Father? Everything was GIVEN to Him by His Father. The Trinity denies that he had a beginning...that he was twice born, once in Heaven, prior to His being born in Bethlehem of the flesh.

"As Christ was twice born, once in eternity, the only begotten of the Father, and again here in the flesh, thus uniting the divine with the human in that second birth, so we, who have been born once already in the flesh, are to have the second birth, being born again of the Spirit, in order that our

experience may be the same, the human and the divine being joined in a life union." W.W. PRESCOTT Review and Herald, April 14, 1896 p. 232.

"He was born of the Holy Ghost. In other words, Jesus Christ was born again. He came from heaven, GOD's first- born, to the earth, and was born again, But all in Christ's work goes by opposites for us: he, the sinless one, was made to be sin, in order that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. He, the living one, the prince and author of life, died that we might live. He whose goings forth have been from the days of eternity, the first-born of GOD, was born again, in order that we might be born again." A.T. JONES

"If Jesus Christ had never been born again, could you and I have ever been born again? No. But he was born again, from the world of righteousness into the world of sin; that we might be born again, from the world of sin into the world of righteousness. He was born again, and was made partaker of the human nature, that we might be born again, and so made partakers of the divine nature. He was born again, unto earth, unto sin, and unto man, that we might be born again unto heaven, unto righteousness, and unto God." Review and Herald, Aug. 1, 1899 (Lessons on Faith p. 154.)

"Others rashly denied the light behind them, and said it was not God that had led them out so far. The light behind them went out, leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and lost sight of the mark and of Jesus, and fell off the path down into the dark and wicked world below." TESTIMONIES FOR THE CHURCH VOLUME 1, PAGE 59

Only those who obey Rev 18:4 and Matthew 25:6 will be a part of the 144,000. Those who make up the 144,000 started in 1844. To those who GO OUT TO MEET THE BRIDEGROOM will the loud cry message of Isaiah 60:1 be given.

Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 420: - “"Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee." Isa. 60:1. To those who go out to meet the Bridegroom is this message given.” {COL 420.3}:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 5 weeks later...
Gregory Matthews

Jeremiah said:

Quote:
IF we believe that Ellen G. White was inspired, then we must believe that her husband was inspired as well because the inspired messenger of the Lord has this to say about her husband James S. White:

Ellen White states her husband was "Keen, Nobel & True" and was given "GREAT LIGHT ALSO" and "he was to speak and WRITE it out for OTHERS", Selected Messages bk.1, p. 206-207 1904.

You could not be more wrong in what you said above:

1) You have not correctly cited that passage from 1SM 206 - 207.

a) In that passage, whatever she actually says about James White, she also says about Joseph Bates, Stephen Pierce Edward Andrews. Are you telling us that these people were also inspired as was EGW?

B) Nowhere in your listed pages does it say that anybody has been given "GREAT LIGHT."

2)SELECTED MESSAGES, BOOK 1, was published in 1958. It was not published in 1904.

3) The passage that you cited as coming form SELECTED MESSAGES, BOOK 1, actually came from: SPECIAL TESTIMONIES SERIES B, which was published in 1904 and in some reproductions is printed on page 5.

4) The passage in SPECIAL TESTIMONIES SERIES B, is accurately printed in 1 SM pages 206 - 207. In other words, as printed in 1904, it does not say anything about "GREAT LIGHT" and everything said about

James white also is said about Stephen Pierce, Edward Andrews and Joseph Bates.

In short, I will suggest that in your statement at the beginning of this post, you have established a new standard for the misuse of EGW in your failure to properly quote her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Jeremiah said:

Quote:
“He (James White) received a commendation that few others have attained. God has permitted the precious light of truth to shine upon His word and illuminate the mind of my husband. He may reflect the rays of light from the presence of Jesus upon OTHERS by his preaching and WRITING.” {E. G. White, Testimonies for the Church Volume 3, p. 502}

If you read what EGW actually said, you will note that her commendation was much less than you have presented it as being. Here is what she also said about her husband, James White, and on the same page, 3T 502:

{quote] . . . . he has sometimes viewed matters in an exaggerated light.

On 3t page 501 she also said this about her husband:

Quote:
He has sometimes used apparent severity and has spoken so as to give offense. . . and he has spoken impulsively. . . . He has led an unenjoyable life, and he has increased his unhappiness by complaining of his brother ministers who neglected to do what they might have done.

It seems to me that you have deeply misrepresented what EGW had to say about James White.

If you have done this here, where I have responded to you, why should we accept as accurate anything else that you have to say in your post? You have established the standard and it is lacking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

I want to be clear:

James White was a great leader in the developing SDA denomination. But, he was not perfect and he was not inspired in the sense that we say EGW was inspired.

We owe a large debt to James White for what he contributed to our developing denomination. He is sometimes not give the credit that he deserves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Jeremiah said:

Quote:
James White was a blatant non-Trinitarian. Ellen White never once rebuked him. She was never told to stand up against James or any of the other leading brethren who were all non- Trinitarian. If you’re a Trinitarian, do you not find this strange? Ellen White said ALL the pioneers were in HARMONY and UNITED in TRUTH! That would include herself as being anti-Trinitarian!

The above over states the case.

For a view of the development of the Trinity doctrine in the SDA Chruch see:

THE ELLEN G. WITE ENCYCLOPEDIA, 2013. Review & Herald Publishing Association.

Then go to the article titled: "Godhead" on pages 843 & 844.

It is true that in the early days of our developing denomination many (not all) of the early members and leaders were either Arian or Semi-Arian.

In the development of her own Trinitarian views, EGW began to shift in that direction in 1850. By 1869 she was in opposition to the anti-Trinitarian views of others. You can read such a statement in 2T 200. But, her Trinitarian views were still developing.

From 1872 onward, she began to express views that were more Trinitarian.

In the 1897/1898 time frame she identified the Holy Spirit as the 3rd person of the Godhead. [spTA 10, 25 & 37]

In THE DESIRE OF AGES, pages 530 & 671 she makes statements about Christ and the Holy Spirit that clearly place EGW in the Trinitarian camp.

I have just touched on this. If you reference the SDA Encyclopedia, that I mentioned above, you will see much more on this subject.

In short, the idea that EGW remained an anti-Trinitarian during the years of her ministry and until her death is simply false. She clearly moved to a Trinitarian position as God led her to do in a study of the Bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the1888message

Jeremiah said:

Quote:
James White was a blatant non-Trinitarian. Ellen White never once rebuked him. She was never told to stand up against James or any of the other leading brethren who were all non- Trinitarian. If you’re a Trinitarian, do you not find this strange? Ellen White said ALL the pioneers were in HARMONY and UNITED in TRUTH! That would include herself as being anti-Trinitarian!

The above over states the case.

For a view of the development of the Trinity doctrine in the SDA Chruch see:

THE ELLEN G. WITE ENCYCLOPEDIA, 2013. Review & Herald Publishing Association.

Then go to the article titled: "Godhead" on pages 843 & 844.

It is true that in the early days of our developing denomination many (not all) of the early members and leaders were either Arian or Semi-Arian.

In the development of her own Trinitarian views, EGW began to shift in that direction in 1850. By 1869 she was in opposition to the anti-Trinitarian views of others. You can read such a statement in 2T 200. But, her Trinitarian views were still developing.

From 1872 onward, she began to express views that were more Trinitarian.

In the 1897/1898 time frame she identified the Holy Spirit as the 3rd person of the Godhead. [spTA 10, 25 & 37]

In THE DESIRE OF AGES, pages 530 & 671 she makes statements about Christ and the Holy Spirit that clearly place EGW in the Trinitarian camp.

I have just touched on this. If you reference the SDA Encyclopedia, that I mentioned above, you will see much more on this subject.

In short, the idea that EGW remained an anti-Trinitarian during the years of her ministry and until her death is simply false. She clearly moved to a Trinitarian position as God led her to do in a study of the Bible.

This is that statement from the Da that SDA teachers claim proves that Sister White began to change her non-Trinitarian belief.

“Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “DA 530

The problem is the is not one single statement where Sister White in a book or R&H article etc. that she had published were she stated her understandings of the trinity had or was changing.

There is not one time in her writings where she uses the term “god the sod or god the holy spirit”. Why did she not use these terms if her understanding was changing? She was not afraid to speak, if God told her this was truth she would have OPENLY spoke it and written it yet she did neither.

Further this quote “THE ELLEN G. WITE ENCYCLOPEDIA, 2013. Review & Herald Publishing Association.” Is written by men and not by Sister White and it full of ASSUMPTIONS no facts.

Now look at the DA quote, what did those words mean original, unborrowed, underived.

Using either the Webster’s 1828 or 1913 Dictionaries for their meanings during her life time and not the modern dictionaries for today’s understand we find this;

1) Original; Pertaining to the origin or beginning; Not copied, imitated, or translated, That which precedes all others of its class

2) Unborrowed; Not borrowed; genuine; original; native; one''s own, Not borrowed; being one's own.

3) Underived; Not derived; not borrowed; not received from a foreign source.

Did God the Father of Christ and of us not give His Son all power?

Is this “LIFE” that the Son of God have and still has come from a foreign source? Did not gave unto His Son this life so if God gave this “life” to His Son then it would not be from a “foreign” source?

This “life” is not copied nor imitated for God Gave this “Life” to His Son, it was GIVEN not “borrowed”.

At the https://egwwritings.org/singleframe.php at the end of this quote they give the Bible text in support of this verse is 1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Sister White did not give this verse but the people at the White estates did. Most people today will just read that one verse only that is if they even check it out at all. I mean it is in her writings so it must be accurate. The problem is that misleading, here it is INCOTEXT.

1Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

1Jn 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Notice that the “LIFE” that the Son of God has GIVEN us is His Son! It ALL comes from God through His Son to US!

As for 2T page 200 it truly amazes me that anyone could ever take this to give any credence to the teaching that “her Trinitarian views were still developing”.

“The glorious plan of man’s salvation was brought about through the infinite love of God the Father. In this divine plan is seen the most marvelous manifestation of the love of God to the fallen race. Such love as is manifested in the gift of God’s beloved Son amazed the holy angels.”

Where is this assumed change here?

Further; “This Saviour was the brightness of His Father’s glory and the express image of His person. He possessed divine majesty, perfection, and excellence. He was equal with God. “It pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell.” “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.””

Where is this assumed change here?

Further still; “Christ consented to die in the sinner’s stead, that man, by a life of obedience, might escape the penalty of the law of God. His death did not make the law of none effect; it did not slay the law, lessen its holy claims, nor detract from its sacred dignity. The death of Christ proclaimed the justice of His Father’s law in punishing the transgressor, in that He consented to suffer the penalty of the law Himself in order to save fallen man from its curse. The death of God’s beloved Son on the cross shows the immutability of the law of God.”

You stated, “In THE DESIRE OF AGES, pages 530 & 671 she makes statements about Christ and the Holy Spirit that clearly place EGW in the Trinitarian camp.”

This can only be done if, one makes many assumptions, does not understand the meaning of the words that she used and follows blindly to what the denomination now teaches as truth. Today’s trinity, WAS NOT given to the SDA church by God but instead it was given to the church by men.

If this is TRUE “In the development of her own Trinitarian views, EGW began to shift in that direction in 1850.”

Then why did she publish this in the R&H May 25, 1905?

“Early Experiences

After the passing of the time in 1844 we searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with the brethren, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, " We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me. I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, his mission, and his priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me.”

Did you notice this “Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, his mission, and his priesthood” or “A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God,”.

They were anti-trinitarians, there was no change, they clearly understood Christ in regards to the Scriptures, CLEARLY. This understanding WOULD not change it in FACT would take through time even right to the New City.

Further, she gave this instruction to all those there at this meeting.

Everything that you quoted is in clear contradiction to what the Bible teaches as well as Sister and the Men of the church before their deaths.

The trinity is Catholic, it is pagan, and it is Satanic.

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Quote:
As for 2T page 200 it truly amazes me that anyone could ever take this to give any credence to the teaching that “her Trinitarian views were still developing”.

“The glorious plan of man’s salvation was brought about through the infinite love of God the Father. In this divine plan is seen the most marvelous manifestation of the love of God to the fallen race. Such love as is manifested in the gift of God’s beloved Son amazed the holy angels.”

Where is this assumed change here?

You are the only person that I have ever heard say that the passage you quoted is evidence of her changing viewpoint on the Trinity.

The evidence for her changing view on the Trinity, on 2T page 200, begins and ends as follows:

Quote:
This Savior was the brightness of His Father's glory and the express image of His person. HE possessed divine majesty, perfection, and excellence. He was equal with God. 'It pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell.' 'Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, H humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.'

The statement immediately above does, if you have read well her earlier writings, show that her viewpoint was changing, even if not yet fully developed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...