Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
Sign in to follow this  
Gregory Matthews

SDA Fundamentalism

Recommended Posts

Gregory Matthews

In an earlier post, Kevin made the statement I have quoted below:

That statement is of great  value and should be understood by all.  One of its points that Ellen White often used Scripture in a manner that was NOT an exegetical  statement of the meaning of the passage she used.

 

There are 3 ways we can read the Bible. Two of these ways we frequently see in both the Bible and Mrs. White and one is rarely seen but is expected. The first view, which we don't find that often in how later Bible writers and Mrs. White is Exegesis: What the text meant to the original community that the Bible writer or editor was writing to. The other two which we find frequently in the Bible and Mrs.White, are analogy or application to a similar situation and homiletical or as you put it illustrative applications. You are spot on with that and we need to be aware of these. Mrs.White refused to answer questions when people wanted an exegetical answer from her to solve controversies. She would either say things like "My writings are not to answer questions such as what is the meaning of the daily in the Bible" or tell them to study it out, that exegesis is our job not hers (and she seemed baffled that we were not taking advantage of this. She was very interested in exegesis but knew that was not her job so could not spend much time on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

Gregory Matthews

On EGW and oysters The following is as quote written by Ron Graybill, and published by the White Estate:

For more see:  https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-clean-uncl-html/

 

 

Quote

In 1882, when she was living at Healdsburg, California, she wrote a letter to her daughter-in-law, Mary Kelsey White, in Oakland, in which she made the following request: "Mary, if you can get me a good box of herrings, fresh ones, please do so. These last ones that Willie got are bitter and old. If you can buy cans, say, half a dozen cans, of good tomatoes, please do so. We shall need them. If you can get a few cans of good oysters, get them."11

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
5 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Stinsonmarri:  You have informed us of  your scholarly background.    I have taken that seriously.  In taking that seriously, I have provided you with a book that I thought you would find of value.  The same is true for the book that I suggested you might find of value.  IT is clearly not a book that has a focus on what EGW taught on the Trinity.  Did you read the Table of Contents?  Did you note a chapter on John Kellogg and the Trinity?  That would be of interest to Gustave, as he has commented on that subject.  If you have not interest on that part of our SDA history, you would not be interested in that chapter.  Did you note the chapter on Islam and the Trinity?  If you have no interest in what that major religion teaches, you would not be interested in that book.

You have been telling us of your scholarly interest in the subject of the Trinity, and now are telling us that you have not interest in that book.   Instead, you only want to focus on what EGW wrote on that subject.  Well, with that focus you will not be interested in that book.  It clearly does not have EGW as a central focus.

I guess I was in error in thinking you would be interested in this book.  In the future I will attempt to refrain from suggesting books to you that you might find of value.

By the  way,  I find books with which I disagree to be of great value in  informing me as to what is being said in the scholarly world.  "Therefore, my library has many books with which I disagree.

 

Pastor Matthew: Once again you have belittle me because I do not want to accept the writings that you feel should suit me because I informed you as you put it of my scholarly background! So because of this background I should step in line? I don't actually have a mind of my own to think? I did not ask you about your library of books or of those you may disagree with sir! I kindly ask you to show me in EGW book what she wrote and only her writings that she said she had changed and starting believing in the trinity! Do my degree in History make you feel that you have to suggest books for me to read? If I wanted to request that from you sir I would. But I haven't and I appreciate your offer but not in the manner you have stated above. It is like because I said I have a degree in History, that in order to be in your circle of approvement I must rely on your suggestion of books I should read? I guess next you would like to see my degree correct! I informed about my background to let all know that I am knowledgeable somewhat. I don't have a Master but my true knowledge or gift comes from THE HOLY SPIRIT! That's all I have to say!

Blessings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Rather - individuals who trust the LORD to know what is best for us.  He created oysters to be cleaning filters for bodies of water.  Why would He want people to eat the filters from His sanitation plant. 

Even in the areas where Oysters are readily harvestable and consumed - Poultry has caused more foodborne illness and death than eating the "filters" from God's sanitation plant. 

I look forward to observing your cognitive dissonance from this fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
3 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Pastor Matthew: Once again you have belittle me because I do not want to accept the writings that you feel should suit me because I informed you as you put it of my scholarly background! So because of this background I should step in line? I don't actually have a mind of my own to think? I did not ask you about your library of books or of those you may disagree with sir! I kindly ask you to show me in EGW book what she wrote and only her writings that she said she had changed and starting believing in the trinity! Do my degree in History make you feel that you have to suggest books for me to read? If I wanted to request that from you sir I would. But I haven't and I appreciate your offer but not in the manner you have stated above. It is like because I said I have a degree in History, that in order to be in your circle of approvement I must rely on your suggestion of books I should read? I guess next you would like to see my degree correct! I informed about my background to let all know that I am knowledgeable somewhat. I don't have a Master but my true knowledge or gift comes from THE HOLY SPIRIT! That's all I have to say!

Blessings!

I am sorry that I have to point to other sources, however you will need to answer these: When sent to Australia she brought W. W. Prescott and A. G. Daniels with her. While there she gave them both assignments: To Prescott she gave him the job to study the Holy Spirit in the Bible, and to Daniels she gave the job to study Jesus in the Bible. Both men were anti-trinitarians when she gave them the assignment. 

Prescott ended up seeing the the Holy Spirit as fully God, and came to the conclusion that the Godhead was composed of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. 

Daniels ended up seeing Jesus as fully God and came to the conclusion that the Godhead was composed of God the Father and God the Son. 

When the two men came together to report their findings to Mrs. White they found out that between them they had the trinity and they thus became trinitarians. I take it that Mrs. White was wrong to not freak out and tell them that they were wrong or at least ask them to restudy the topic. 

A second issue was about 1908 when Elder Andresen wrote to her asking to visit because some people said that she had become a trinitarian, others said that she did not become a trinitarian but that others have mixed statements into her writings (I read a few documents from the first decade of the 1900s accusing Prescott of hijacking the church by making it trinitarian by mixing his trinitarian ideas with Mrs. White's writings in Australia that he was working with. I also read other documents from that time accusing Mrs. White of apostasy and the first two items was that she became trinitarian and that she did not believe that her messages from God were inflatable and could contain errors... The Fundamentalism issue.) Andresen came to her home as a strong anti-trinitarian. They visited, he read the questioned quotes in her handwriting and he left a trinitarian.  Now the anti-trinitarians say that Andresen must not have been clear in his request and thus Mrs. White did not know what he was asking and thus gave him the wrong answer, and that if they were not both confused about what he was asking that she would have straightened him out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Even in the areas where Oysters are readily harvestable and consumed - Poultry has caused more foodborne illness and death than eating the "filters" from God's sanitation plant. 

I look forward to observing your cognitive dissonance from this fact.

Only because poultry farmers raise  and slaughter them in unsanitary conditions.  It's not the fault of the chicken meat.  It's contamination.   With the Oysters, the waste is already in the "animal".  

I can agree that Oysters, especially raised in clean water and fed special food, would be much better for human consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
43 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Only because poultry farmers raise  and slaughter them in unsanitary conditions.  It's not the fault of the chicken meat.  It's contamination.   With the Oysters, the waste is already in the "animal".  

I can agree that Oysters, especially raised in clean water and fed special food, would be much better for human consumption.

A Chicken or Turkey could live in a state of the art medical facility and undergo butchering by a medical Doctor with sterile medical equipment and still be swarming with salmonella. It's just how Poultry is. Have you ever wondered why Chicken tastes almost indistinguishable from reptiles? Reptiles are also swarming with salmonella. 

An Oyster does not have Salmonella. 

It's stunning that poultry causes more illness and death than beef, fish, Oysters, Pork and every other food item combined. 

Being raised on a farm I can confirm Chickens do things that Hog's never would even consider.

The point I'm making is if someone doesn't want to eat these things for health, because they love animals and don't want to kill them or even just because they are vegan that's all great. To say God and the angels get upset or don't like people eating shrimp is simply not supported by the Bible. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
7 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

On EGW and oysters The following is as quote written by Ron Graybill, and published by the White Estate:

For more see:  https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-clean-uncl-html/

 

 

 

At least she was familiar enough to know the difference between ok Oysters and the good ones LOL! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
Just now, Gustave said:

At least she was familiar enough to know the difference between just the ok Oysters and the good ones LOL! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Kevin H,

What year/s do you see Mrs White transitioning to the Trinitarian view. 

YI 7/7/98  "The Father and the Son alone are to be exalted."

Manuscript 124, 1903;  Education pg.131  "The mighty power that works through all nature and sustains all things is not, as some men of science claim, merely an all-pervading principle, an actuating energy.  God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being, for man was made in His image.  As a personal being, God has revealed Himself in His Son.  Jesus, the outshining of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person, was on earth found in fashion as a man." 

Manuscript 25, 1898;  Manuscript Releases volume Three pg.425    "The Father and the Son rested after Their work of Creation. . . (text of Genesis 2:1-2) . . The death of Christ was designed to be at the very time in which it took place.  It was in God's plan that the work which Christ had engaged to do should be completed on a Friday, and that on the Sabbath He should rest in the tomb, even as the Father and Son had rested after completing Their creative work."

YI Dec 16, 1897   "From eternity there was a complete unity between the Father and the Son.  They were two, yet little short of being identical; two in individuality, yet one in spirit, and heart, and character."

RH  Nov 8, 1898; Bible Commentary Vol.6 pg.1068   "There is a personal God, the Father;  there is a personal Christ, the Son."

RH  July 19, 1892, pr.7  "It is the Father who 'so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'"

Bible Echo and Signs of the Times  October 28, 1895 pr.4   "No man, nor even the highest angel, can estimate the great cost; it is known only to the Father and the Son."

Regarding the Holy Spirit:

Signs of the Times May17, 1899, pr.3   "He would send it.  It was a representation of Himself, and after He was glorified it was manifest." 

Signs of the Times October 3, 1892 pr4   "Jesus is seeking to impress upon them the thought that in giving his Holy Spirit he is giving to them the glory which the Father has given him, that he and his people may be one in God."

RH Nov 5, 1908 pr4  "The Father gave his Spirit without measure to his Son, and we also may partake of its fullness."

The glorious dove at the baptism

RH January 21, 1873 pr.5    "Direct from the Father issues the light of his glory.  The heavens were opened, and beams of glory rested upon the Son of God and assumed the form of a dove, in appearance like burnished gold.  The dove-like form was emblematical of the meekness and gentleness of Christ."

RH Aug 18, 1874 pr.2   "The opening heavens, and descent of the heavenly dove, were assurances that his Father would unite his power in Heaven with that of his Son upon the earth. . . These tokens, received from his Father, were inexpressibly precious to the Son of God through all his severe sufferings, and terrible conflict with the rebel chief."

No mention of a third divine being here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

After 1896 "three" statements begin showing up frequently, especially in the context of baptismal vows.

 MS 57, 1900; Bible Commentary Vol. 6, pg 1074   "The work is laid out before every soul that has acknowledged his faith in Jesus Christ by baptism, and has become a receiver of the pledge from the three persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

MS 57, 1900   "The three great powers in heaven are witnesses; they are invisible but present."

Ms11, 1901  "Our sanctification is the work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." . . .  Then cooperate with the three great powers of heaven who are working in your behalf." 

Ms85, 1901  "have pledged ourselves to serve God, the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit--the three dignitaries and powers of heaven --"

Sermons and Talks pg.366 pr1  1990  "Those who have been baptized can claim the help of the three great Worthies of heaven to keep them from falling"

Bible Training School  Mar1, 1906, pr2; Bible Commentary Volume 7A pg441   "There are three living persons of the heavenly trio.  In the name of these three powers, --the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ."

This one was written in Mrs White's own handwriting. 

(Australasian) Union Conference Record April 1, 1901   "The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit gave themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption.  In order to fully carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only begotten of God, should give Himself an offering for sin." 

This is the first time that the Holy Spirit is said to have given himself to the working out of the plan of redemption, along with the Father and the Son.   Before this statement, only the Father and His Son are said to have agreed upon and covenanted together to carry out the plan of salvation. 

Compare these:

ST  June 17, 1903 pr.2  "The plan of salvation devised by the Father and the Son will be a grand success."

RH Sept 13, 1906, pr.4   "Before the fall of man, the Son of God had united with his Father in laying the plan of salvation." 

ST Oct 10, 1892 pr1   "A covenant has been entered into by the Father and by the Son to save the world through Christ."

ST May 17, 1905 pr5  "The Father and the Son in consultation decided that Christ must come to the world as a babe, and live the life that human beings must live from childhood to manhood," 

Ministry of Healing pg.429  "Even the angels were not permitted to share the counsels between the Father and the Son when the plan of salvation was laid. "

RH  Sept 24, 1908 pr1   "In the psalms, in the prophecies, in the gospels and in the epistles, God has by revelation made prominent the vital truths concerning the agreement between the Father and the Son in providing for the salvation of a lost race." 

 

Something definitely changed.  It's almost as if two different people are writing.  Mrs White went from two divine beings - God the Father and His Son, to three persons of a "heavenly trio".   You can say she "grew" in her understanding.  Or you can say she was confused by men like HC Lacey. 

I have dozens and dozens of quotations from her writings in a volume I published back in 1996.  If anyone wants a copy, let me know.  I will check into the cost of photocopying  or digital copying.  Rachel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
1 hour ago, Gustave said:

To say God and the angels get upset or don't like people eating shrimp is simply not supported by the Bible. 

Who are you kidding Gustave?  I know you've read Leviticus Chapter Eleven.  Shrimp do not have "fins and scales". 

Then again, there were not likely any "shrimp" - as we know them today, in any shallow "waters" the Israelites came across in the wilderness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
10 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Who are you kidding Gustave?  I know you've read Leviticus Chapter Eleven.  Shrimp do not have "fins and scales". 

Then again, there were not likely any "shrimp" - as we know them today, in any shallow "waters" the Israelites came across in the wilderness. 

The food type restrictions were not enjoined on Israel for "health reasons", they were enacted to help separate Israel from the surrounding peoples. You CAN'T generally fellowship with people you can't eat with. It's the same way today. All that separation terminated at the Resurrection of Christ.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
Just now, Gustave said:

The food type restrictions were not enjoined on Israel for "health reasons", they were enacted to help separate Israel from the surrounding peoples. You CAN'T generally fellowship with people you can't eat with. It's the same way today. All that separation terminated at the Resurrection of Christ.

 

We will have to start a new thread on what changed at the resurrection.  I personally find only one "change of the law".  That change involved "the priesthood".  I believe the LORD "changed" the priesthood at Mt Sinai, from "the firstborn" to Aaron and his sons exclusively. At the death of Christ, the priesthood was changed back - to "the firstborn".  Christ is "the firstborn, over all creation".  We - Israel redeemed, are God's "firstborn" which is why we will become "priests of God and of Christ". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
Just now, 8thdaypriest said:

We will have to start a new thread on what changed at the resurrection.  I personally find only one "change of the law".  That change involved "the priesthood".  I believe the LORD "changed" the priesthood at Mt Sinai, from "the firstborn" to Aaron and his sons exclusively. At the death of Christ, the priesthood was changed back - to "the firstborn".  Christ is "the firstborn, over all creation".  We - Israel redeemed, are God's "firstborn" which is why we will become "priests of God and of Christ". 

Start one Sister and I'll join ya there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

SDAs have taken a position on the classification of food to eat based upon Leviticus 11.

Gustave is asking well known questions, for which we (SDAs) do not have a good answer for some of those questions.  On some questions, we may have good answers.

However, let it be said that the SDA understanding is different from the understanding of that passage among Jews.  We, generally are not as  rigid in the application as were the Jews.  As an example, we generally would be willing to take some medical pills  that are packaged in a form that an observant Jew would refuse.  I could expand upon this further.  I am simply making a point with this one illustration.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GHansen
10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Until late in her life,  Ellen White enjoyed eating oysters.  When she was ill, she would often request  food that contained oysters.

EGW also ate fish well beyond the time she was advocating a flesh free diet. She didn't consider fish to be flesh food. It may be that she understood that the NT does not mandate the observance of a kosher diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
1 hour ago, Gustave said:

The food type restrictions were not enjoined on Israel for "health reasons", they were enacted to help separate Israel from the surrounding peoples. You CAN'T generally fellowship with people you can't eat with. It's the same way today. All that separation terminated at the Resurrection of Christ.

 

I'm sorry but much of the food restrictions in the Bible was followed by other nations around them. Eventually the restrictions became highly ritualized and had loopholes that missed the health benefits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Kevin H,

What year/s do you see Mrs White transitioning to the Trinitarian view.  No mention of a third divine being here. 

 

This is a very hard question as Mrs. White was a Methodist and thus presumably a trinitarian and it would be hard to see her transitioning to a non-trinitarian view. This may be why the people who knew James White could remark that when ever they discussed the trinity he would refuse to comment and only listen, and why whenever he was the editor of the review there was an amazing drop in anti-trinity articles printed in the review. 

Mrs. White also wanted people to have people decide on the weight of evidence rather than from external control psychology. We on the other hand look for external control psychology in doing things. A lot of the Jewish traditions were developed because the scriptures were not specific enough and they wanted to have more details and they filled in the blanks. Mrs. White was not like that. She would from time to time nudge but she would not share things until the church was ready to discuss them.

Now, you see elements that lead to trinitarian thought coming with the Great Controversy vision. She said that part of the issue of 1888 was her fault for not telling all about the Great Controversy.  She became more blatant starting in Australia after giving two of her assistants assignments. She assigned W. W. Prescott to do a study on the Holy Spirit, and A. G. Daniels an assignment to do a similar study about Jesus. Prescott came to the conclusion that the Bible taught that the Holy Spirit was indeed God and believed that the Godhead consisted of God the Father and God the Spirit. Meanwhile Daniels came to the conclusion that the Bible taught that Jesus was indeed God and believed that the Godhead consisted of God the Father and God the Son. As the two men came and reported the findings of their studies to Mrs. White the two men realized that between them they have formed the teaching of the trinity and they became trinitarians.

Mrs. White saw the solution of "The law the law the law until we were as dry as the hills of Giloba" to transfer from seeing God the Father (God as power, law, authority) as God in total to hold the tension between the three roles of the revelations of the infinite God to finite beings through the trinity. 

This leads to your quotes and last line "No mention of a third divine being here. " Your statement does not show an understanding of the roles and purposes of the trinity. The trinity is how the ONE infinite God made himself known to finite beings so that they could have the life giving relationship with him. If you don't mind me being frank, but it looks like you only want to accept the trinity if the concept of three divine beings was pushed upon you through external control psychology. You seem to be looking for three gods which you don't see and thus rightly reject. But it is one God too big for us to understand, so God needed to reveal information about himself that we could have some understanding of for the ability to have a life giving relationship. God the Father is the revelation that God is creator, power, law. If God only reveled himself as God the Father he would have scared his poor creatures to death. So he also needs to reveal himself as our dear precious friend, approachable. To exist creatures needed to hold in tension that their precious friend was also the great powerful creator and that this great powerful creator was also their close friend. Now God the Father and God the Son are both objective revelations of the infinite God. But both God and his creatures are both objective and subjective. The Holy Spirit is NOT pictured as  "a third divine being here." because he would have to be another objective revelation to fill that position, while the Holy Spirit is God's revelation to our subjective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
9 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I am sorry that I have to point to other sources, however you will need to answer these: When sent to Australia she brought W. W. Prescott and A. G. Daniels with her. While there she gave them both assignments: To Prescott she gave him the job to study the Holy Spirit in the Bible, and to Daniels she gave the job to study Jesus in the Bible. Both men were anti-trinitarians when she gave them the assignment. 

Prescott ended up seeing the the Holy Spirit as fully God, and came to the conclusion that the Godhead was composed of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. 

Daniels ended up seeing Jesus as fully God and came to the conclusion that the Godhead was composed of God the Father and God the Son. 

When the two men came together to report their findings to Mrs. White they found out that between them they had the trinity and they thus became trinitarians. I take it that Mrs. White was wrong to not freak out and tell them that they were wrong or at least ask them to restudy the topic. 

A second issue was about 1908 when Elder Andresen wrote to her asking to visit because some people said that she had become a trinitarian, others said that she did not become a trinitarian but that others have mixed statements into her writings (I read a few documents from the first decade of the 1900s accusing Prescott of hijacking the church by making it trinitarian by mixing his trinitarian ideas with Mrs. White's writings in Australia that he was working with. I also read other documents from that time accusing Mrs. White of apostasy and the first two items was that she became trinitarian and that she did not believe that her messages from God were inflatable and could contain errors... The Fundamentalism issue.) Andresen came to her home as a strong anti-trinitarian. They visited, he read the questioned quotes in her handwriting and he left a trinitarian.  Now the anti-trinitarians say that Andresen must not have been clear in his request and thus Mrs. White did not know what he was asking and thus gave him the wrong answer, and that if they were not both confused about what he was asking that she would have straightened him out.  

Kevin: I want you to understand that I have been in the church since the 50's. I went to church school and I know the history of the church. You wrote: "A second issue was about 1908 when Elder Andresen wrote to her asking to visit because some people said that she had become a trinitarian, others said that she did not become a trinitarian but that others have mixed statements into her writings (I read a few documents from the first decade of the 1900s accusing Prescott of hijacking the church by making it trinitarian by mixing his trinitarian ideas with Mrs. White's writings in Australia that he was working with." However, Pastor Andresen was allowed to view her original writings that she wrote herself before it was given to the stenographer. It took him three months to review her work. He was astonish that she acknowledge YAHSHUA to be DIVINE like THE FATHER! She reveal that HE was DIVINE to be able to die for flesh! He had carefully viewed her writing she already stated in 1870 the Spirit of Prophecy Vol 1 before the Desire of Ages was published in 1898.

THE FATHER consulted Jesus in regard to at once carrying out their purpose to make man to inhabit the earth. SP p. 24

THE FATHER and THE SON engaged in the mighty, wondrous work they had contemplated, of creating the world. The earth came forth from the hand of the CREATOR exceedingly beautiful.

After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it, THE FATHER and THE SON carried out THEIR Purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in THEIR own IMAGE SP p. 25

Notice she used the word "THEIR," so when Andresen wrote this later:

 “I remember how astonished we were when Desire of Ages was first published, for it contained some things that we considered unbelievable, among others the doctrine of the Trinity which was not then generally accepted by the Adventists.” (M. L. Andreasen, Chapel Talk, Loma Linda, California, November 30th, 1948”)

He was not trueful but she started believe THE DIVINITY of YAHSHUA for a while! I never read anything about him being confused after both EGW and her son permitted him for over three month to review her work at her home. 

Again, my question is where in her writing did she claim to believe in the trinity. Yes, she believe in the godhead. But she said this concerning THE HOLY SPIRIT just before she died!

The nature of THE HOLY SPIRIT is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. AA p. 52

I agreed that HE is a mystery because HE never speaks of HIMSELF! John 16:13 But HE has been reveal, YAHWEH did not give her the revelation on HIM but the Bible makes it clear. I do not agree with the word person it was place in the Bible by the Europeans in the Middle Ages. They are THREE INDIVIDUAL BEINGS who even the Chaldean stated as a fact. The KJV writers tried to make the Aramaic word ELAHH which is plural. Notice because most do not notice that word "gods," plural is used. THE ELAHH whose dwelling is not with flesh! So all I ask is to show where EGW said she start believing in the trinity! So everyone is stating everything but what I ask and I wonder why?

Blessings!

Edited by stinsonmarri
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
6 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I'm sorry but much of the food restrictions in the Bible was followed by other nations around them. Eventually the restrictions became highly ritualized and had loopholes that missed the health benefits. 

Which nations, other than Israel, attributed their abstinence from specific foods because of instruction from the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob? 

Similarities of practices between separate nations with different religious beliefs is simply cultural norms in the area - Israel abstaining from certain foods classified as unclean was absolutely "ceremonial"  (religious). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
On 7/9/2019 at 9:50 PM, Gustave said:

To Israel it did but not prior to Moses.

So yes, a "Christian" abstaining from Oysters (because they God doesn't want them consumed) is a form of fundamentalism. Scripture describes such individuals as possessing weak faith. 

Stinsonmarri,

I got notification that you were "confused" so I'll try to clarify for you why the dietary restrictions ended at the Resurrection. 

1 Corinthians 10, 25: Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

If you've been in a meat market you know they pretty much have everything, from the traditional norms to the stomach turning ghoulish stuff. What Paul is here saying is that 1) Christians can eat ANYTHING sold in a meat market without worry they are violating any divine law and 2) if an unbeliever invites a Christian to dinner they are to eat ANYTHING that's put before them without raising question of conscience. 

If you don't like a certain food because you don't like it, that's totally ok. If you don't like a certain food because it involves the killing of animals thats totally ok. The Bible even says if you don't eat certain foods because you have weak faith and  you think God doesn't want you to eat those things THAT's even ok. 

What's not ok is running around telling people God doesn't want you to eat Shrimp, Oysters or certain types of Trout because of the Book of Leviticus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
5 hours ago, Kevin H said:

This is a very hard question as Mrs. White was a Methodist and thus presumably a trinitarian and it would be hard to see her transitioning to a non-trinitarian view. This may be why the people who knew James White could remark that when ever they discussed the trinity he would refuse to comment and only listen, and why whenever he was the editor of the review there was an amazing drop in anti-trinity articles printed in the review. 

Mrs. White also wanted people to have people decide on the weight of evidence rather than from external control psychology. We on the other hand look for external control psychology in doing things. A lot of the Jewish traditions were developed because the scriptures were not specific enough and they wanted to have more details and they filled in the blanks. Mrs. White was not like that. She would from time to time nudge but she would not share things until the church was ready to discuss them.

Now, you see elements that lead to trinitarian thought coming with the Great Controversy vision. She said that part of the issue of 1888 was her fault for not telling all about the Great Controversy.  She became more blatant starting in Australia after giving two of her assistants assignments. She assigned W. W. Prescott to do a study on the Holy Spirit, and A. G. Daniels an assignment to do a similar study about Jesus. Prescott came to the conclusion that the Bible taught that the Holy Spirit was indeed God and believed that the Godhead consisted of God the Father and God the Spirit. Meanwhile Daniels came to the conclusion that the Bible taught that Jesus was indeed God and believed that the Godhead consisted of God the Father and God the Son. As the two men came and reported the findings of their studies to Mrs. White the two men realized that between them they have formed the teaching of the trinity and they became trinitarians.

Mrs. White saw the solution of "The law the law the law until we were as dry as the hills of Giloba" to transfer from seeing God the Father (God as power, law, authority) as God in total to hold the tension between the three roles of the revelations of the infinite God to finite beings through the trinity. 

This leads to your quotes and last line "No mention of a third divine being here. " Your statement does not show an understanding of the roles and purposes of the trinity. The trinity is how the ONE infinite God made himself known to finite beings so that they could have the life giving relationship with him. If you don't mind me being frank, but it looks like you only want to accept the trinity if the concept of three divine beings was pushed upon you through external control psychology. You seem to be looking for three gods which you don't see and thus rightly reject. But it is one God too big for us to understand, so God needed to reveal information about himself that we could have some understanding of for the ability to have a life giving relationship. God the Father is the revelation that God is creator, power, law. If God only reveled himself as God the Father he would have scared his poor creatures to death. So he also needs to reveal himself as our dear precious friend, approachable. To exist creatures needed to hold in tension that their precious friend was also the great powerful creator and that this great powerful creator was also their close friend. Now God the Father and God the Son are both objective revelations of the infinite God. But both God and his creatures are both objective and subjective. The Holy Spirit is NOT pictured as  "a third divine being here." because he would have to be another objective revelation to fill that position, while the Holy Spirit is God's revelation to our subjective. 

Kevin H, 

Could you point me toward any statements by Ellen White where she affirmed she was in error when she repeatedly maintained Christ was subject to mutation and had He sinned God would have annihilated Him eternally? 

There is quite a bit of evidence in the record that "it was vital" for SDA's to believe that Christ was "subject to change" from Holy to sinner and this affirmation is ABSOLUTELY incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity.  

Council of Nicaea Letter to the Egyptian Church:

"Since, by the grace of God, a great and holy Synod has been convened at Nicæa, our most pious sovereign Constantine having summoned us out of various cities and provinces for that purpose, it appeared to us indispensably necessary that a letter should be written to you on the part of the sacred Synod; in order that ye may know what subjects were brought under consideration and examined, and what was eventually determined on and decreed. In the first place, then, the impiety and guilt of Arius and his adherents were examined into, in the presence of our most religious emperor Constantine: and it was unanimously decided that his impious opinion should be anathematized, with all the blasphemous expressions he has uttered, in affirming that ‘the Son of God sprang from nothing,’ and that ‘there was a time when he was not’; saying moreover that ‘the Son of God, because possessed of free will, was capable either of vice or virtue; and calling him a creature and a work. All these sentiments the holy Synod has anathematized, having scarcely patience to endure the hearing of such an impious opinion, or, rather, madness, and such blasphemous words."

The Creed itself affirms that when it says "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God" and "for us men and our salvation He came down from heaven". 

Versus

The following statements which can't be reconciled with the Trinity Doctrine

Signs of the Time April 2, 1940
It is VITAL for every Christian TO KNOW that Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned. The Master was not beyond the clutches of temptation. The Heaven-sent Gift could have been eternally lost and the doom of humanity would have been eternally sealed. Jesus Christ knew the pull of evil. "In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."

 

Charles S Longacre
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed &; His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost

It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth
. The Deity of Christ’, paper presented to the Bible Research Fellowship Angwin, California January 1947, page 13 & 14)

 

Ellen White, ST, June 9, 1898
Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.”

Ellen White, Desire of Ages, page 49 unto you a savior
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.”

Ellen White
Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured. . . . In man's behalf, Christ conquered by enduring the severest test. For our sake He exercised a self-control stronger than hunger or death.--The Desire of Ages, p. 117. {7ABC

 

I would be interested to see any statements Ellen made where she reversed her teaching on peccability. Given the quotes above are just represenataive of what Ellen wrote on that subject (there are many more quotes). 

I believe that Ellen White remained a rabid anti-Trinitarian right up until her death HOWEVER, if you could point me to a statement from Ellen White where she reversed her bedrock Arian Doctrine of claiming that Christ could have sinned I would have to reverse what I believe about Ellen White evolving into a Trinitarian. 



 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GHansen
13 hours ago, Gustave said:

Even in the areas where Oysters are readily harvestable and consumed - Poultry has caused more foodborne illness and death than eating the "filters" from God's sanitation plant.  

I look forward to observing your cognitive dissonance from this fact.

The Pritikin organization has been a pioneer in lifestyle medicine and reversing illnesses directly related to poor diet and inactivity e.g. type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease. After years of experience in the field, the Pritikin diet allows some meat consumption and dairy simply because they believe, based on extensive experience and research, that there are no negative effects from light consumption of certain kinds of meat. Personally, I started transitioning into vegan/vegetarianism when I was 16 and have been vegan/vegetarian for more than 50 years. Meat eating repulses me but  vegetarianism is not mandated by the NT, which, I must admit, annoys me just a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GHansen
On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 2:25 PM, Kevin H said:

and you want to cling to your conclusions to put down Mrs. White

Kevin, "Putting down Mrs. White" is a fool's errand and one I need to repent of. While true that I have a lot of issues with her entire theological scheme and certain details it may be because I have misunderstood her, i.e., I have done exactly what I accuse others of doing--reading her writings through the filter of my own prejudices. MR # 747 in MR vol 9 contains an article in which EGW mentions the law and gospel. It's likely that EGW was using the term "law" not to refer to the Decalogue but to the OT, just as Paul did in Romans 3. Whether the Decalogue or the OT in general, sinful man is condemned by the testimony of both. Of course, if I only understand the law to refer to the Decalogue and interpret EGW in that false light, she can hardly be blamed.

Appreciate your comment. 

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...