Jump to content

Spirit of Prophecy Writings Coordinator


GHansen
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

Affirming the Trinity Doctrine requires the believer to define God as a single, simple, spiritual BEING (Father, Son & Holy Spirit).

Well, that's obviously false. The Bible depicts 3 distinct entities in Revelation 4, for example. The Father upon the throne, the HS as the 7 lamps of fire, and  the slain lamb. In Daniel 7, we have the Ancient of Days, the river of fire, and the Son of Man. Haskell's article sees the distinct persons of God as essential to Adventism due, in part,  to this depiction in Daniel 7:

"If God has no personality,
there is no sanctuary in heaven, for God
dwells in it; there are no angels, for they
compose his throne; there is no Satan,
for he is a fallen angel, and was cast out
of heaven (John 12 : 31 ; Luke HI: 18)
the Bible is a myth, and bears false tes-
timony, because it declares all this."

Advent Review and Sabbath Herald | October 8, 1903 | Adventist Digital Library

The heavenly sanctuary is foundational to Adventism.

The unsubstantiated claims you have made to which I refer include:

1. That EGW herself ever wrote against the "trinity."

2. That Kellogg's issues with the denomination pertained to his belief in the "trinity."

3. That EGW's references to the personality of God were in themselves anti-trinitarian.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Human attempts to define God are always restricted to our frame of reference and lacking in truth.

However, we must, along with other musts, be careful not to define God in terms of tritheism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

GHansen:

Well, that's obviously false. The Bible depicts 3 distinct entities in Revelation 4, for example. The Father upon the throne, the HS as the 7 lamps of fire, and  the slain lamb. In Daniel 7, we have the Ancient of Days, the river of fire, and the Son of Man. Haskell's article sees the distinct persons of God as essential to Adventism due, in part,  to this depiction in Daniel 7:

You've fallen into the same trap the SDA Pioneers did. 

Quote

GHansen:

"If God has no personality,
there is no sanctuary in heaven, for God
dwells in it; there are no angels, for they
compose his throne; there is no Satan,
for he is a fallen angel, and was cast out
of heaven (John 12 : 31 ; Luke HI: 18)
the Bible is a myth, and bears false tes-
timony, because it declares all this."

Advent Review and Sabbath Herald | October 8, 1903 | Adventist Digital Library

Look at that quote again, read it a couple more times. 

Quote

GHansen:

The heavenly sanctuary is foundational to Adventism.

The Personality of God Doctrine is Foundational because as the October 8, 1903 Sabbath Herald you just quoted from explicitly stated the Sanctuary is SUBSERVIENT to The Personality of God because IF there is no Personality of God Doctrine there is no Sanctuary, no God, no heaven, no angels and no Satan. Below is another Sabbath Herald that identifies the Sanctuary as built upon the Doctrine of the Personality Of God. 

"THE greatest truths of Christianity are all bound up in the doctrine of the personality of God. Were there no personal God, the whole mission of Jesus Christ were in vain, for his life!s purpose was to reveal God to men. And it was a personal God that he revealed, a heavenly Father who watches over his children with a tender and constant solicitude". Sabbath Herald, February 13, 1919

There is also the October 8, 1903 Sabbath Herald you quoted from that says the same thing in a different way:

"OF late the question has repeatedly come to me, Does it make any real difference whether we believe in the personality of God, as long as we believe in God? My answer invariably is, It depends altogether upon the standpoint
from which we view it. If from. the Spiritualist's, ,the Christian Scientist's, the Universalist's, or if from the standpoint
of any other " ist " or " ism," it makes but little or no difference.
But from the standpoint of Seventh-day Adventists
it makes all the difference in the world
. No man who is a Seventh-day Adventist can understandingly take that
position; neither can 'a Seventh-day Adventist 'hold that position for a moment. In it is involved a denial of the " Father and the Son," the law of Moses, the prophets, the psalms, the holy angels, the personality of the devil, and all that is according to sound doctrine
". 

 

I'm not taking indecent liberties with the Sabbath Herald here - the Sabbath Herald has been asserting the Sanctuary cowtowed to the Personality of God Doctrine since the 1860's. 

Quote

GHansen:

The unsubstantiated claims you have made to which I refer include:

1. That EGW herself ever wrote against the "trinity."

Unsubstantiated? Come on! I'm seriously doubting no one reading this thread thinks that but in the event someone actually does I'll go about it by a different angle. 

Here is the Mormon teaching on the Godhead.

  • Three Beings (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) make up the Godhead.
  • Each Member of the Godhead is a separate and distinct personality (HAS AN ACTUAL BODY)
  • Each Being IS A PART of The Godhead and the three material Beings are united in purpose and mind and are in perfect harmony with each other - this is how they are ONE.

 

Joseph Smith stated, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost……However, if by ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’ one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils–that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essencethen Latter-day Saints do not believe it". The Doctrinal Exclusion: Trinity and the Nature of God (lightplanet.com)

I'm sorry to put you on the spot here GHansen but exactly how does the SDA Trinity differ from the Mormon Godhead? Does the Seventh Day Adventist Church in your town teach that the Latter-day Saints affirm and hold to the Doctrine of the Trinity? I've shown you multiple times where Ellen has affirmed the same thing as the Mormons teach and you keep saying my claims that many of Ellen White's statements are incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine are unsubstantiated. I'm afraid that's a bridge to far. 

I've already shown you from the SDA Archives that the Personality of God Doctrine was defined and meant that Father God (1 BEING) had an actual hominid body with all the members and parts of a perfect man and that Michael the archangel (2nd BEING) also had a PERSONALITY (hominid body with all the members and parts of a perfect man. Ellen White was crystal clear that Father, Michael & Lucifer the archangels all possessed hominid bodies PRIOR TO THE INCARNATION. If we exclude the Holy Spirit you have two God's do you not? 

Look at the last Ellen White statement I provided.

"The Father and the Son EACH HAVE A PERSONALITY. Christ declared, "I and My Father are one". Yet it was the Son of God who came to the world in human form". Evangelism p. 614 / T9 p 68

The Father and the Son EACH HAVE A BODY, Christ said "I and my Father are one". YET........

How do you interpret that? 

From what I've read Kellogg loved the SDA Church, he didn't want to leave it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what "trap" you are talking about. Both Revelation 4 and Daniel 7 depict three entities representing God

2 hours ago, GHansen said:

1. That EGW herself ever wrote against the "trinity."

2. That Kellogg's issues with the denomination pertained to his belief in the "trinity."

3. That EGW's references to the personality of God were in themselves anti-trinitarian.

These are the three I asked you to justify. I'd prefer plain declarations. I don't have any issues with the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are presented as three distinct entities in Daniel and Revelation. If that makes me an SDA pioneer, so be it.

"The Father and the Son each have a personality. Christ declared:
“I and My Father are one.” Yet it was the Son of God who came to the
world in human form. Laying aside His royal robe and kingly crown,
He clothed His divinity with humanity, that humanity through His
infinite sacrifice might become partakers of the divine nature and
escape the corruption that is in the world through lust." EGW 9 T p. 61/68

Not sure what the problem is with this statement. Christ and the Father are distinct yet they remain "one." Jesus was incarnated, the Father wasn't. What's the problem?

As for the diverse views held by earlier SDA, not my problem. I still haven't seen anything that affirms EGW wrote against the trinity or that Kellogg was out of the church because he believed in it. From what I can tell, EGW's references to the "personality of God" were mainly concerned about preserving the distinct "personhood" of the Father and Christ. 

Since the "personality of God" pertains to his nature as divinity, of course everything in not only Adventism but Christianity, including RC, is undergirded by that doctrine. When Haskell wrote about it in the article you originally cited, he was primarily referring to the distinct natures of the Father and Son who interacted in Daniel 7. That passage is central to the cleansing of the sanctuary doctrine, 1844, and so forth, according to Haskell's article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

GHansen:

These are the three I asked you to justify. I'd prefer plain declarations. I don't have any issues with the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are presented as three distinct entities in Daniel and Revelation. If that makes me an SDA pioneer, so be it.

1. That EGW herself ever wrote against the "trinity."

2. That Kellogg's issues with the denomination pertained to his belief in the "trinity."

3. That EGW's references to the personality of God were in themselves anti-trinitarian.

And I answered those questions. 

Ellen White
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; that they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one: I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them, as Thou hast loved Me." John 17:20-23. Wonderful statement! The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person." It is thus that God and Christ are one. {8T 269.4}



Exactly like the Mormon reasoning AND the Dr. Kellogg (when he was still anti-Trinitarian) reasoning - Ellen White above says in what way God is one. Ellen's above statement would pass a Mormon's sniff test as easily as it would pass Uriah Smith's sniff test in 1870. It would NOT however pass a Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, or any other Denominations sniff test that believes in the Trinity. 

 

Sabbath Herald, November 25, 1880: "The only grounds upon which our reviewer could be justified in making such a statement would be the supposition on his part that we believe in the doctrine of the trinity ; but he very well knows, from positions taken and arguments used in previous articles, that we do not agree with him on this subject any better than on that of the nature of the soul. We believe in but one Deity, God, who is a unity, not a compound 'being. Wethink the Bible as well as common sense sustains this view. Says Eld. W., "'His trinitarianism ' seems to shackle him much." We repel the charge of " trinitarianism " without the slightest hesitation. We do not believe in a triune God, as before remarked". 

If you don't recognize Ellen's blunt theological statement that God is a unity of multiple individuals as preclusionary to belief in the Trinity Doctrine....... I'm not sure what to say given I've shared so many Sabbath Hearld articles with you that lay this same thing out so clearly. 

Quote

GHansen:

2. That Kellogg's issues with the denomination pertained to his belief in the "trinity."

"He then stated that his former views regarding the trinity had stood in his way of making a clear and absolutely correct statement; but that within a short time he had come to believe in the trinity, and could now see pretty clearly where all the difficulty was, and believed that he now believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; and his view was that it was God the Holy Ghost, and not God the Father, that filled all space, and every living thing." – Dr. John Kellogg quoted in a letter from A.G. Daniells to Brother Willie White, Oct. 29, 1903

In a stunning turn of events one of the SDA Churches best anti-Trinitarian champions had become a Trinitarian and moved away from the position of Ellen White who taught that God was a unity of individuals who were of one mind, purpose & character to the position of a BAPTIST or a METHODIST or a LUTHERAN or God forbid a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian. 

Quote

GHansen:

3. That EGW's references to the personality of God were in themselves anti-trinitarian.

Ellen didn't create any Doctrine of the SDA Church, the Pioneers did. Part of the Personality of God Doctrine was its DEFINITION - which the Pioneers certainly provided. The Personality of God Doctrine precludes a belief in the Trinity Doctrine. 

In fact the Personality of God Doctrine was said to protect the SDA Church from the Trinity Doctrine yet when I say Ellen White's favorable statements about the Personality of God are anti-Trinitarian you claim that's not the case. Modern SDA's didn't and don't define what the Personality of God Doctrine is - the SDA Pioneers did that long ago and it is what it is - an anti-trinitarian construct. 

If we were to apply your apologetics of Ellen to Joseph Smith NOTHING Joe said would be considered anti-Trinitarian and the Morman Church today could be considered Trinitarian. I'm not seeing things the way you do evidently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person." It is thus that God and Christ are one. {8T 269.4}

Not sure what the problem is here. What's your criteria for judging orthodoxy? That statement is fine with me.

The statement from the November 25, 1980 is taken from an article J.H. Kellogg wrote.  He said "We don't believe in the trinity." I agree that the trinity was rejected by Adventists of that era. Then you cite an article, a poorly sourced one, that claims Kellogg did later believe in the trinity. I'd appreciate it if you would source your articles in such a way that they can be easily located.

As for EGW's personality of God statements being anti trinitarian, I reviewed again the 58 statements she made on the "personality of God. If we define the trinity as 3 distinct beings sharing a common purpose, mind, and character, I'm unaware of anything in her personality of God statements that contradicts that.

Both Daniel 7 and Revelation 4 clearly depict 3 distinct entities. I'm assuming that they are not at cross purposes with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Ellen didn't create any Doctrine of the SDA Church, the Pioneers did. Part of the Personality of God Doctrine was its DEFINITION - which the Pioneers certainly provided. The Personality of God Doctrine precludes a belief in the Trinity Doctrine. 

Gustave, I found the correspondence between Daniells and W. White. Kellogg allegedly said that he believed in the trinity. That new belief would allow him to make changes in Living Temple. It would now state that it was the Holy Ghost, not the Father, that filled all space and every living thing. That would hardly be satisfactory, since pantheism was the issue. I'd like to know how this change in beliefs came about. Any ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

If we were to apply your apologetics of Ellen to Joseph Smith NOTHING Joe said would be considered anti-Trinitarian and the Morman Church today could be considered Trinitarian. I'm not seeing things the way you do evidently.

Gustave, How about these EGW  quotes? Do they support your statement that EGW was anti-trinitarian to the end her life?

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 Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love?aucr 04011901 artApar.10

Those who have by baptism given to God a pledge of their faith in Christ, and their death to the old life of sin, have entered into covenant relation with God. The three powers of the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are pledged to be their strength and their efficiency in their new life in Christ Jesus aucr 10071907 par. 9

Every provision has been made for the salvation of the fallen race. All power was given to Him who offered Himself as a sacrifice to redeem every son and daughter of Adam who would accept Him as a personal Saviour. “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” [John 1:12.] Christ came to this world and stood before men with the hoarded love of eternity. The whole ocean of divine love was flowing forth from its great center. The Godhead—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—were working in behalf of man. Every power in the heavenly universe was put into activity to carry forward the plan of redemption. 16 ltrms ms 47. 1901

He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him freely give us all things?” [Romans 8:32.] Before the universe of heaven the plan was set forth whereby man might again come into right relation with God. To as many as would receive Christ as their light and their salvation would be given power to become the sons of God. Before that Gift could be bestowed, the Church of heaven was stirred to its unfathomable depths. Of all His infinite resources, God gave the whole. The three representative powers of the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, were pledged to carry out God’s plan for the salvation of the lost race. Thus fully did the Lord engage the heavenly universe in the work of redemption. How few understand and appreciate this infinite sacrifice! 22ltrms ms139, 1907 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

GHansen:

Not sure what the problem is here. What's your criteria for judging orthodoxy? That statement is fine with me.

Decade after decade anyone cracking open a Sabbath Herald would have encountered stuff like below:

"Paul, [Col. i, 15,] speaking of Christ, says, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature." Here Christ is said to be " the image of the invisible God." We have already shown, that Christ has a body composed of substance, flesh and bones; and he is said to be, "the image of the invisible God." Sabbath Herald, September 18, 1855.

"We might here add that the orthodox view of' God as expressed by them in several " Articles of Faith," is, that " God is without body, parts, passions, centre, circumference, or locality." It would be a very easy matter to prove that such a view is exceedingly skeptical, if not -atheistical in its nature. It certainly appears that such a God as this, must be entirely devoid of an existence". Sabbath Herald November 10, 1859.

"In the first chapter of Genesis we have a statement that God made man in his own image and after his own likeness. See chap. i, 26, 27. This account is often siezed upon by our opponents, as good proof that man has a deathless spirit or some immortal principle dwelling within. The argument with them is this : "God is a being without body or parts," man is made in his likeness and image, therefore man must be in the moral likeness and moral image of his Creator.- There
are many conclusive reasons which may be advanced against this species of argument. We might argue that Jesus Christ is "in the form of God," Jesus Christ after his resurrection had "flesh and bones," man is in the image of Jesus Christ, therefore God is a personal being
." Sabbath Herald, January 5, 1860.

"But those who deny the personality of God, assert that he is As much in every place as in any one place. In harmony with this assertion is the oft-repeated declaration that leave is everywhere. We inquire, then, What was the ascension of Jesus Christ? He was taken up to heaven. He went to his Father. If heaven be everywhere, and God everywhere, then Christ's ascension up to heaven, at the Father's right hand, simply means that he went everywhere! He was only
taken up where the cloud hid him front the gaze of his disciples, and then evaporated and went everywhere!
" Sabbath Herald June 25, 1861

Notice what that last one says  - read the full article - James White is defining Trinitarians who reject that Father God has a body of bone and flesh to be pantheists without using the word Pantheist. 

 

"HAVING noticed some of the evil effects of the doctrine of immortal soulism, and the errors growing out of it, we propose to refer briefly to another erroneous belief, equally popular and quite as unscriptural, if not fully as mischievous in its tendency, namely Trinitarianism. By this expression we mean the doctrine that the Father, Son and Spirit are united in one and the same person, making Christ the very and eternal God. We call it belief, although we question very much whether any one ever did really believe anything which the human mind cannot comprehend." Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1865

 

Now, really ponder the following.

 

"When we consider the Orthodox view (so called) of this subject, we find it left in dark obscurity, forming no foundation for Christian faith or hope. God is supposed to be a being without body or parts, thus denying virtually his real existence, and if believed in at all we must confidently endorse the notion that he is immaterial; and if form is in any way connected with him it must be ghost-like or shadowy ; and to doubt the sentiment of poets, and call in question their poetic fancy, that Heaven is " beyond the bounds of time and space," is an outrageous crime hardly to be forgiven in this world or in the world to come." Sabbath Herald June 25, 1867.

These statements are long before Kellogg's issue came onto the scene and it's made absolutely clear that Father God is a literal PERSON made of flesh and bones, God is in no way immaterial, God occupies a specific place and CAN'T BE EVERWHERE because He is somewhere (Heaven). 

Ellen White, in speaking about the Personality of God Doctrine said it was a Pillar and Landmark of the Adventist Faith and that if you REJECT The Personality of God (which maintains God is made of PARTS, Flesh, bones & organs) than YOU ARE REJECTING GOD

Look at Ellen's statement again. 

Quote

Ellen White said:

The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person." It is thus that God and Christ are one. {8T 269.4}

Ellen just told you HOW God is ONE and this only works if she is using the definition of God that the anti-Trinitarian Pioneers used. Ellen just said the Disciples of Christ were as much Christ as Christ was God - and you find no problem with that (insert vomit Gif here). Ellen's definition of God being a unity of persons united in purpose, mind and in character isn't just like the Latter-Day Saints - IT IS THE LATTER DAY SAINTS. Answer the question, are the Latter Day Saints Trinitarian? Would Joseph Smith's words that I quoted be considered anti-Trinitarian? 

I suppose if someone didn't know the most basic elements of the Trinity Doctrine it would be difficult for that person to recognize statements that are incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. You strike me as a person who is well read and plenty sharp I'm having difficulty in believing that you really don't see the issue of claiming that God consists of parts as being contrary to the Trinity Doctrine. 

I'll get to your other post later - work calls.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

GHansen: 

Gustave, How about these EGW  quotes? Do they support your statement that EGW was anti-trinitarian to the end her life?

Quote

GHansen quotes Ellen White:

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 Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love?aucr 04011901 artApar.10

I don't have time to fully answer this - this morning but here is a start so you can see where I'll be going and get a head start as to providing your responses. 

Well, for starters when Ellen says Godhead she means something radically different than what a Methodist, Lutheran or Baptist means. 

Example:

Methodist:

Article I — Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

You can pretty much apply the Methodist article on the Holy Trinity to all Trinitarian Denominations. Observe the difference below. 

 

"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).

Christ is understood to be "PART" or "ONE OF THE GODHEAD" - Longacre says he got this idea from reading Ellen White and the Scriptures. 

"Note the expression, “the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.” He has His abode there, and He is there AS PART OF THE GODHEAD, as surely when on earth as when in heaven. The use of the present tense implies continued existence. It presents the same idea that is contained in the statement of Jesus to the Jews (John 8:58), “Before Abraham was, I am.” And this again shows His identity with the One who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, who declares His name to be “I AM.” The Present Truth, vol. 11 — Ellen G. White Writings (egwwritings.org)

 

"The dictionary tells us that to fulfill is to 'manifest completely.' Jesus, part of the Godhead, was able to
manifest completely the law of God as well as the character of God
." Signs Of The Times, January 8, 1952

 

"For we know that Christ. as part of the Godhead, is equal with the Father. He is the Word, and is God. As the Word, the manifestation of Him whom no man hath seen, he spoke the law with his own voice. He spoke it " as one having authority," "for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, November 1, 1890.

The above was written by an anti-Trinitarian - has no problem calling Jesus "God" - Jesus is "PART OF THE GODHEAD" and as Elllen White said multiple times Jesus could have sinned and had He done so He would have lost His Deity and God would have destroyed Christ so that He eternally cease to exist. So much for the meaning of God head and Christ being "part of it". 

I've collected quote a lot publications with the above type of statements in them - enough to know it's not a "one off" misunderstanding. 

This is where I'm going with the remainder of my reply soon as I have the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2022 at 12:12 AM, Gustave said:

 as Elllen White said multiple times Jesus could have sinned and had He done so He would have lost His Deity and God would have destroyed Christ so that He eternally cease to exist. So much for the meaning of God head and Christ being "part of it".

I'd like to see one statement supporting the above. I doubt that EGW ever said such a thing, essentially that the Godhead would have been destroyed if Jesus had sinned. 

EGW never used the term trinity. She used the Biblical term Godhead. I consider that an implied rejection of the trinity doctrine. She was not subject to the Papacy, its traditions, or proclamations. She described three unique beings united in purpose and power. She frequently quoted Scripture, "In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Scripture is quite vivid in describing the triune nature of the Godhead. The baptismal formula "in the name of Jesus" subsumes the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" All power was given to Jesus. To baptize in his name includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That's the Godhead EGW correctly referred to.

What others believed, said or wrote is, as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant.  If the Athanasian creed agrees with EGW, that's fine. If not, that's the problem for the Papacy, not me. You've never shown a single statement in which EGW wrote against the Godhead. When she did speak of it, she referred to 3 unique beings united in purpose.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

GHansen:

Gustave, How about these EGW  quotes? Do they support your statement that EGW was anti-trinitarian to the end her life?

Quote

GHansen Quotes Ellen:

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 Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love?aucr 04011901 artApar.10

Anti-Trinitarian - Ellen White attributed an alien definition to the word Godhead - to Ellen and SDA's the word Godhead meant something RADICALLY different than it would to a Baptist, Methodist, Eastern Orthodox or any frankly ANY Trinitarian Christian. Ellen & the SDA Pioneers taught the Godhead was mutable as ONLY one member of it was "eternal" and "only wise God". Michael the archangel AKA creature Christ could have had His Deity extracted at any time leaving only a husk. 

Michael the archangel was "PART" of God, LITERALLY HALF - but not the most important half. 

 

Quote

GHansen quotes Ellen asking if see anti-Trinitarianism in the quote:

Those who have by baptism given to God a pledge of their faith in Christ, and their death to the old life of sin, have entered into covenant relation with God. The three powers of the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are pledged to be their strength and their efficiency in their new life in Christ Jesus aucr 10071907 par. 9

Yes, I see anti-Trinitarianism here because "Godhead" meant something radically alien and different to an SDA than it would have to a Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, etc. As you know - Ellen White not only helped to revise / edit Canrights anti-Trinitarian articles on the Personality of God - she also revised / edited Canrights article on the Holy Spirit - talk about anti-Trinitarian - WOW! 

Quote

GHansen quotes Ellen asking me if I see anti-Trinitarianism in the quote:

Every provision has been made for the salvation of the fallen race. All power was given to Him who offered Himself as a sacrifice to redeem every son and daughter of Adam who would accept Him as a personal Saviour. “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” [John 1:12.] Christ came to this world and stood before men with the hoarded love of eternity. The whole ocean of divine love was flowing forth from its great center. The Godhead—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—were working in behalf of man. Every power in the heavenly universe was put into activity to carry forward the plan of redemption. 16 ltrms ms 47. 1901

Ellen White unfortunately corrupted the word Godhead by pouring a new and alien definition into it - any time she uses that word you can take it to the bank the meaning is light years away from what your Bible beating Baptist or other conservative Protestant Trinitarian would understand. It's too bad, I like the above statement - its very powerful. 

Quote

GHansen quotes Ellen:

He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him freely give us all things?” [Romans 8:32.] Before the universe of heaven the plan was set forth whereby man might again come into right relation with God. To as many as would receive Christ as their light and their salvation would be given power to become the sons of God. Before that Gift could be bestowed, the Church of heaven was stirred to its unfathomable depths. Of all His infinite resources, God gave the whole. The three representative powers of the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, were pledged to carry out God’s plan for the salvation of the lost race. Thus fully did the Lord engage the heavenly universe in the work of redemption. How few understand and appreciate this infinite sacrifice! 22ltrms ms139, 1907 

If she would  not have used the word Godhead that one would have been another exceptionally worded statement. In any event [according to Ellen White] Christ came to earth mostly to vindicate God's law as Lucifer had made a Galactic legal charge against Father God that His law was too difficult to keep and that He had been too rough on Adam and Eve. Something needed to be done so Michael the archangel steps forward and rolled the dice wagering His continued existence on the outcome. 

Another error, even more generally endorsed than any of the foregoing, is the doctrine of the atonement on the cross. This also furnishes another support for Unitarianism. The Scriptures plainly teach that Christ died for all men. Now if his death on the cross was the atonement, then the sins of all men are atoned for, and all will be saved. The conclusion is unavoidable, and we deny the doctrine of the atonement on the cross, not because it leads to this belief, but because it is scripturally untrue, and then as an incentive for proclaiming its falsity we have the fact that it is a strong pillar for a destructive error.” Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1865 No. 13

 

Ellen White
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Christ did not come to change the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. He did not come to lessen the law of God in one particular. He came to express in His own person the love of God. He came to vindicate every precept of the holy law.--Ms 145, 1897, p. 4. ("Notes of Work," Dec. 30, 1897.) {11MR 345.3}

Ellen White
To be redeemed means to cease from sin. No heart that is stirred to rebellion against the law of God has any union with Christ, who died to vindicate the law and exalt it before all nations, tongues, and peoples.

Ellen White
The sum and substance of the arguments of Satan is that sin may be immortalized, that Christ abolished the law, and that evil doers may be in favor with God. But the death of Christ tells a different story; for he died to vindicate the claims of the lawto give to the world and to angels an unanswerable argument of the immutability of the law of Jehovah. {ST, February 5, 1894 par. 11}

Ellen White
Satan will continue to bring in his erroneous theories and to claim that his sentiments are true. Seducing spirits are at work. I am to meet the danger positively, denying the right of anyone to use my writings to serve the devil's purpose to allure and deceive the people of God. God has spared my life that I may present the testimonies given meto vindicate that which God vindicates, and to denounce every sophistry [intended] to deceive if possible the very elect.--Ms 126, 1905, pp. 3, 7. ("A Warning Against Present Dangers," typed December 29, 1905.) {5MR 144.1}




 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, GHansen said:

I'd like to see one statement supporting the above. I doubt that EGW ever said such a thing, essentially that the Godhead would have been destroyed if Jesus had sinned. 

EGW never used the term trinity. She used the Biblical term Godhead. I consider that an implied rejection of the trinity doctrine. She was not subject to the Papacy, its traditions, or proclamations. She described three unique beings united in purpose and power. She frequently quoted Scripture, "In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Scripture is quite vivid in describing the triune nature of the Godhead. The baptismal formula "in the name of Jesus" subsumes the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" All power was given to Jesus. To baptize in his name includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That's the Godhead EGW correctly referred to.

What others believed, said or wrote is, as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant.  If the Athanasian creed agrees with EGW, that's fine. If not, that's the problem for the Papacy, not me. You've never shown a single statement in which EGW wrote against the Godhead. When she did speak of it, she referred to 3 unique beings united in purpose.  

 

 

Here,

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, General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists Bulletin Dec 1, 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.

 

 

Ellen White
The new tomb enclosed Him in its rocky chambers. If one single sin had tainted His character the stone would never have been rolled away from the door of His rocky chamber, and the world with its burden of guilt would have perished

 

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

 

Signs of the Times Prophetic weekly 1933, Volume 60 No. 4
TO RESTORE MEN

God's plan of salvation was to reclaim a lost, bewildered world. Sin had degraded men, until vice had become a science and every type of evil was incorporated into the mind of man. When the heathen world had run its course of iniquity, when paganism and idolatry had engrossed the world, God sent forth His Son according to the plan, to restore men's rightful heritage as "sons of God." Jesus Christ took upon Himself the weakness, the tendencies, toward sin, that He might prove Himself a brother to His fellow men. His divine glory was hidden in humanity. "He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Hebrews 2:16, 17. There was the danger of eternal loss in the plan. Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned and the human race been lost. For He was tempted. He could have sinned!

 

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."

 

That's hardly all the quotes either. 

 

I'm actually VERY glad to hear you say what you did here! Hardly ANY SDA's claim what you just did - and I'm 100% on your side and agree with you - It would have been impossible for the Godhead to be destroyed. Because God doesn't sin. This was discussed in Detail at Nicea and condemned as heresy. 

Ellen White did use the term Trinity but ONLY in a negative way - remember she participated in revising / editing D.M. Canrights anti-Trinitarian articles on the Personality Of God and his anti-Trinitarian article on The Holy Spirit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

GHansen:

What others believed, said or wrote is, as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant.  If the Athanasian creed agrees with EGW, that's fine. If not, that's the problem for the Papacy, not me. You've never shown a single statement in which EGW wrote against the Godhead. When she did speak of it, she referred to 3 unique beings united in purpose.  

I have.

Every time the Sabbath Hearld castigated the Trinitarian Creeds it was specifically over those Creeds affirming that God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) was ONE BEING. Ellen White even defined how Christ was one with "God" and said it was the same exact way that Christ's Disciples were ONE with Christ. You'd have to admit that destroying Christ's Disciples couldn't "destroy Christ" - just like Longacre said the Spirit of Prophecy said that eternally Destroying Christ wouldn't / couldn't destroy the Eternal or only-wise God.

Ellen said that Christ was PART OF THE GODEAD and that had Christ sinned God would have exercised His wrath against Christ and eternally destroyed Christ. If Christ is PART OF the Godhead and that part is destroyed (OR COULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED) how is that NOT ANTI-TRINITARIAN?

In SDA theology (during the life of Ellen White) the Godhead was understood to be not unlike a Board of Directors with the Eternal or only-wise God (Father God) serving as "Chairman". As demonstrated in the quotes I've provided a person other than the Chairman could vacate the board eternally and "PART OF" the Godhead would have been lost. 

Sabbath Herald November 14, 1854
Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere; but that the Father ALONE is supremely, or absolutely, good; and that he ALONE is immortal in an absolute sensethat he alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life; for being. This idea is most emphatically expressed by our Savior himself; " For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John v, 26. This would be singular language for one to use who had life in his essential nature, just as much as the Father. To meet such a view, it should read thus: For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself If as Trinitarians argue, the Divine nature of the Son hath life in himself (i. e., is self existent) just the same, and in as absolute a sense, as the Father

 

Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, Sept 12, 1893
Was Christ the God of Israel?

Who was this being who thus called Moses to this important mission? Was it God the Father or God the Son? Was it "THE KING ETERNAL, IMORTAL, INVISIBLE, the only wise God" OR was it Immanuel?

Adventist Signs of the Times, March 21, 1878
Bible question to the editor
Q.
But does it not say that the Word was God?
A. Yes, and it says that he was with God. Being the Son of God of course he is properly called God. This is his name, but he was NOT THE VERY and ETERNAL God Himself for it says that he was with God

 

Ellen White, Desire of Ages, p. 483

“However much a shepherd may love his sheep, he loves his sons and daughters more.  Jesus is not only our shepherd; He is our “everlasting Father.”  And he says, “I know Mine own, and Mine own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father.”  John 10:14, 15 R.V.  What a statement is this!—the only-begotten Son, He who is in the bosom of the Father, He whom God has declared to be “the Man that is My fellow” (Zech. 13:7), --the communion between Him and the eternal God is taken to represent the communion between Christ and His children on the earth!”

 



 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gustave said:

Ellen White, General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists Bulletin Dec 1, 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.

I asked for a statement supporting your remarks and it looks like you have provided one. I congratulate you; however, that statement is contradicted by another statement/s she made. Here she  says it was not possible for Christ's deity/divinity to die 

"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God?—No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the Man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. Christ, the sinless One, will save every son and daughter of Adam who accepts the salvation proffered them, consenting to become the children of God. The Saviour has purchased the fallen race with His own blood." 19 ltrms ltr 280,1904 EGW

When the voice of the angel was heard saying, “Thy Father calls thee,” He who had said, “I lay down my life that I may take it again,” “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again,” came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. [John 10:17; 2:19.] Deity did not die. Humanity died, but Christ now proclaims over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, “I am the resurrection and the life.” [John 11:25.] In His divinity Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. He declares that He had life in Himself to quicken whom He will.  12LtMs, Ms 131, 1897, par. 1 EGW

There seems to be a tendency in your quotes to intermingle EGW's remarks with those of other writers which can be confusing.

Speculation about what would have happened had Jesus sinned is just that, speculation. The statements you cited are interesting but that's all they are. Jesus didn't sin. He ascended to heaven, was crowned as a priest forever, and empowered humanity by sending the Holy Spirit. That's what matters to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

GHansen:

I asked for a statement supporting your remarks and it looks like you have provided one. I congratulate you; however, that statement is contradicted by another statement/s she made. Here she  says it was not possible for Christ's deity/divinity to die 

"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God?—No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the Man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. Christ, the sinless One, will save every son and daughter of Adam who accepts the salvation proffered them, consenting to become the children of God. The Saviour has purchased the fallen race with His own blood." 19 ltrms ltr 280,1904 EGW

Ellen's statement is compliant with the Pioneer's repeated affirmations that Christ was Divine (possessed Divinity) BUT the Divinity WASN'T HIS NATIVELY, it was the Father's. This "Divinity" or "Deity" was Christ's to keep provided He didn't screw up. If Christ would have failed in His attempt His Deity would have been LOST - i.e. extracted. The Deity would not have DIED because it was on -loan from Father God. Remember, the Adventist teaching was that Father God "begat" Christ out of His own material flesh thereby creating a NEW and distinct PERSONALITY - the personality was simply a flesh hominid body with all the organs, members and parts of Father, it was basically a carbon copy of the Father with a NEW IDENTITY (The Son). 

When Ellen said "in Him was life eternal, unborrowed" the anti-Trinitarians would have rapidly nodded their heads and issued a loud guttural AMEN! 

Review and Herald, November 14 1854

Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere; but that the Father alone is supremelyor absolutely, goodAND that he alone is immortal in an absolute sensethat he alone is self-existentandthatconsequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life; for being. This idea is most emphatically expressed by our savior himself; " For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John v, 26.

Ellen White

Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc...C.pdf#view=fit  (see page 2)

 

 

Signs of the Time, Jan. 31, 1950

God, ‘who only hath immorality,’ possesses inherent eternal life. The Father has given this eternal life to Jesus. ‘As the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.” John 5:26."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The teaching that Jesus "could have sinned" and lost His salvation is a gross misrepresentation of Scripture and incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity (which systematizes Scripture). I've spent quite a bit of time on this particular subject (teaching that Christ was peccable) and Scripture is deafening in repudiating it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

The teaching that Jesus "could have sinned" and lost His salvation is a gross misrepresentation of Scripture and incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity (which systematizes Scripture). I've spent quite a bit of time on this particular subject (teaching that Christ was peccable) and Scripture is deafening in repudiating it. 

Welcome to post your Scriptural repudiation of the idea that Jesus could have sinned.

EGW said it was impossible for Christ's deity/divinity to die. EGW discussions in which she said this, that, or the other thing are more or less a waste of time. SDA conflict over the human nature of Christ includes 2 different groups, each with their own "gotcha" statements. It would be much better for you to demonstrate your points with Scripture.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GHansen said:

Welcome to post your Scriptural repudiation of the idea that Jesus could have sinned.

EGW said it was impossible for Christ's deity/divinity to die. EGW discussions in which she said this, that, or the other thing are more or less a waste of time. SDA conflict over the human nature of Christ includes 2 different groups, each with their own "gotcha" statements. It would be much better for you to demonstrate your points with Scripture.

 

Here are 8 below, I've got somewhere north of 100 more where they came from if you'd care to go through them. To systematize all this I'd simply say that Scripture says God indeed knows the end from the beginning AND in the case of how things all end up we've been informed of the end long before the end takes place. 

Jesus was explicit that the Scriptures (Old Testament) were clear that He had to suffer and die and be raised again to Glory. Suggesting that Christ might have sinned and lost His Salvation is like saying Christ:

  • could have been envenomated by a poisonous snake and DIED.
  • could have been the product of His Mother being raped by a Roman soldier.
  • could have been the victim of a shark attack when he walked on water.
  • insert whatever hypothetical you want

The fact is - had ANY of the above happened it would have only meant that Jesus WASN'T THE CHRIST in the 1st place. It's as simple as that. Jesus was tested by Satan not to see if He would sin but to prove that He COULDN'T SIN. That Jesus could have sinned is a teaching of Arius - it's part of the Arian system. 

 

Isaiah 46,10
I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose

Ephesians 1,9
he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he PURPOSED in Christ

 

Isaiah 35,4
Say to the fainthearted: Take courage, and fear not: behold your God WILL bring the revenge of recompense: God himself WILL come and WILL save you.Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be free: for waters are broken out in the desert, and streams in the wilderness.

 

Daniel 2,45
Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure [ as long as Christ doesn't sin & loose His salvation cuz if that happens yer all in the soup lol ]

 

Luke 24,22
Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, AND slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


Matthew 16,21
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, AND suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, AND
be killed, AND be raised again the third day.

Mark 8,31
And he began to teach them, that the Son of man MUST suffer many things, AND be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, AND scribes, AND be killed, AND after three days rise again

Mark 9,31
For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

GHansen:

EGW said it was impossible for Christ's deity/divinity to die. EGW discussions in which she said this, that, or the other thing are more or less a waste of time. 

And I've shown you statements from the Pioneers and Ellen White where Christ's "deity" was the Father's - that's why / how Ellen White was so explicit that this deity Christ had was His to keep SO LONG AS / PROVIDED THAT - Christ didn't mess up. 

Would there be any hypothetical situation you'd be able to put foward where Father God of the SDA Church during the time Ellen White was alive could have eternally ceased to exist by cosmic accident (like a super-nova) or any other reason? I'd be interested to hear your answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had earlier asked a question about Dr. Kellogg after claiming that his book was teaching Pantheism. Something along the lines of why did Kellogg become to believe in the Trinity. I think anyone who spends time thinking about it will become to believe in it frankly. From what I remember Kellogg had lost his clinic in a disaster and badly needed money to help with the costs of rebuilding it. He thought he could write a book and sell it - using the proceeds to build back what was lost. 

I don't think Kellogg's love for his medical practice outweighed his religious belief so I don't think he thought he would appeal to more book buyers if he became a Trinitarian - I don't believe that. 

I do know Kellogg denied being a Pantheist  - below is part of his denial - you can find Kellogg's letter to Buttler online to confirm I've not misrepresented anything I've copied and pasted. 

 

"You speak of making a public confession of some kind or something. Please do not imagine for I an instant that I am going to do any such thing. I am willing to renounce all the awful doctrines you and others attribute to me. I am willing to confess that I am not a pantheist nor a spiritualist, and that I believe none of the doctrines taught by these people or by pantheistic or spiritualistic writings. I never read a pantheistic book in my life. I never read a book on "New Thought," or anything of that kind. Anybody who will read care­fully the "Living Temple" from the first page right straight through to the last, and will give the matter fair and consistent consideration, ought to see very clearly that I have no [5] accord whatever with these pantheistic and spiritualistic theories.

Now let us get down to business for a few minutes and talk straight. I know it is risky business for a man to say I what is in his heart nowdays. If a man is slandered, misrepresented, the only proper thing for him to do is to sit quietly still and let the thing go on. You have talked frankly and like an honest man to me, and have trusted me, and I am going to treat you in just the same way.

What is a pantheist? First, he is a man who believes that everything is God. To him every tree is a god; every pig is a God; and in a real sense so that they are proper objects of worship. Second, the pantheist believes that the real man is not the thing we see, but a soul or a spirit, which lives in the body and which at death moves into some other body, it may be of some beast or it may be another man, and finally attains perfect happiness by being absorbed into the great mind or over soul or something else having no body at all.

Now, I ask you to put your finger on a line or on a word in my book, "The Living Temple," which endorses any such notions or which even gives countenance to any such notions. I will be exceedingly thankful if you will show me one single instance. This has been charged upon me, and I have waited patiently now for several months for some one to come forward and point out wherein I have taught these things, in what words or what sentences. For the sake of peace and in order that I might not do harm to those whom I respect and those in whom I believe, I have remained quiet while wrong ideas respecting me and my work have been widely promulgated, and I do not now [6] propose to take any different course in this matter. I am only writing this to you so that you may know the inside of my heart.

I abhor pantheism as much as you do. I have endeavored in my book to simply teach the fact that man is dependent upon God for everything, and that without the divine power working in him the Spirit of God operating upon the elements which compose his body, he would be dust. God, the fountain of all like, is man's life; that is, the Spirit of God is man's life. You will find clear statement of this in the preface of the "Living Temple" on the third page. I have also stated clearly in the preface of "The Living Temple" that my whole discussion relates only to the operation of the Spirit of God in the body in a physiological sense. Now, those who say I an in error in this must come forward and present some theory by which they can account for the marvelous manifestations of creative power and intelligence within the body, far transcend­ing the human intelligence and entirely outside of the human will. I have been waiting for someone to do this. I say, reverently, that human life is momentarily dependent upon God's care; that man is not self‑existent; but that every man has been created by God and maintained by God, and when sick is healed by God. I believe this Spirit of God to be a personality, you don't. But this is purely a question of definition. I believe the Spirit of God is a personality; you say, No, it is not a personality. Now the only reason why we differ is because we differ in our ideas as to what, a personality is. Your idea of personality is perhaps that of semblance to a person or a human being. This is not the scientific conception of personality and that is not the sense in which I use the word. The [7] scientific test for personality is the exercise, of will, volition, purpose, without any reference to form or material being. When a frog with his head cut off is made to hop and jump around by pinching his skin, the physiologist says, Here is proof of personality residing in the spinal cord of the frog. In the same way I say, when I see a manifestation of intelligence in the tree, in the flower, in the human body, This is not the result of the operation of the human brain; here is an evidence of the work of a Personality which is independent of man, and which is above man, which is wiser and greater; which has power to, create, power to maintain, power to restore. I am not alone in this way of thinking; every scientist who is a Christian is compelled to think the same way. One cannot study the anatomy and physiology of the human body without being driven to accept the facts which are, brought to his attention continually as evidence of the power of an ever‑present God. Sister White has clearly taken the same position with reference to this matter which I have taken. You will find it, in her little work on Education in the chapters "God in Nature" and "Science and the Bible." You will find it all through "Desire of Ages," and "Patriarchs and Prophets." Mrs. Henry's book presents the same views which I present in "Living Temple," only much more emphatically. To say these things are not true; to call them pantheistic and spiritualistic and heap other opprobrious titles on these views does not change the facts. I am not a pantheist; I am no spiritualist. I hold nothing in common with the teachings of these isms. I believe the Bible, I believe in God; I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only hope of salvation; I believe all the fundamental doctrines [8] of the Christian religion. I believe in the third angel's message; I believe the health movement is a part of it; and I have spent all my life working for it, and I expect to spend the rest of my life working for it. If the men who have been working with it, and who have sometimes preached and practiced the hole of the message, and sometimes only part of it, have come to the point where they want to spew me out, all right; they can push me out of their machine, but they cannot separate me from the Lord which I know and which I love."

 

I've read Kellogg's book and didn't detect any Pantheism in it beyond what Ellen White would have accused the Bible of teaching Pantheism in Romans 1,20. 

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Gustave said:
Quote

 

And I've shown you statements from the Pioneers and Ellen White where Christ's "deity" was the Father's

Gustave, You've done a good job on the historical aspects of this issue. By that I mean that the history of SDA thought on the trinity you have covered. This isn't a topic in which I had a previous interest. I learned a lot. As for your interpretation of the various views sampled, I remain unconvinced that you properly understand what you have uncovered. One example is the James White statement regarding the White's involvement with Canright's articles. It's hearsay. James White said Sr. White helped Canright. We don't really know how she helped him. It's entirely possible that his articles were too extreme and EGW helped him  dial them back a bit. We just don't know what her roll might have been; nevertheless, you seem to think what James White said Sr. White did is a smoking gun of sorts, proving her anti trinity views at that time. That may work for you but it doesn't work for me. A lot of what you cite requires interpretation. Many references you post must be checked for authorship. It's not clear who wrote them in the thread.

Jesus had a will of his own. He prayed that He would be faithful in carrying out His father's will instead of his own. If Jesus couldn't have sinned, he wasn't really tempted by Satan in the wilderness, it was just theater. I'm not sure how much there is in Scripture regarding the topic of whether Jesus could have sinned. The fact is that he didn't sin. Trying to think about what would have happened if Jesus did sin is a hellish descent into a bottomless pit.

The passages you posted to prove that Jesus could not sin certainly don't prove that to me. More like several pizzas thrown against a wall. I'm not sure why you measure EGW's views on the Godhead by what other denominations believe. SDA hold their own views on various topics, views that are different from what other denominations hold. Sometimes that's good, sometimes not so good. The state of the dead, Sabbath, the cleansing of the sanctuary, 1844, all are views not commonly held by most [but not all] denominations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gustave, Spending time digging through SDA historical rubbish is hardly an elevating endeavor. Kellogg was a great man in many respects, probably most respects. As a practical matter, he cared for many orphans. A friend of mine married a young woman who was a grandchild [?]] of Kellogg's through adoption. If you like his book "Living Temple" that's fine with me. EGW didn't like it and saw it as a threat to the denomination she loved. Her issue with it was that it contained pantheistic thinking.

I respect Kellogg as a physician, not a theologian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, Spending time digging through SDA historical rubbish is hardly an elevating endeavor. Kellogg was a great man in many respects, probably most respects. As a practical matter, he cared for many orphans. A friend of mine married a young woman who was a grandchild [?]] of Kellogg's through adoption. If you like his book "Living Temple" that's fine with me. EGW didn't like it and saw it as a threat to the denomination she loved. Her issue with it was that it contained pantheistic thinking.

I respect Kellogg as a physician, not a theologian.

Fair enough, all I'm saying is that Ellen White wasn't any better of a theologian than Kellogg was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

GHansen:

Gustave, You've done a good job on the historical aspects of this issue. By that I mean that the history of SDA thought on the trinity you have covered. This isn't a topic in which I had a previous interest. I learned a lot. As for your interpretation of the various views sampled, I remain unconvinced that you properly understand what you have uncovered. One example is the James White statement regarding the White's involvement with Canright's articles. It's hearsay. James White said Sr. White helped Canright. We don't really know how she helped him. It's entirely possible that his articles were too extreme and EGW helped him  dial them back a bit. 

James White said that Canright spent countless hours worshipping at his and Ellen's family altar - James White said that he and Ellen revised / edited Canrights articles on the Personality of God, the Holy Spirit and Divinity of Christ. Perhaps all of this (Canright spending all that time with the White's, Ellen assisting in the revision of Canright's anti-Trinitarian articles, all of it) is hearsay.

If you think about it, if what you're saying is correct, it would be like someone claiming that you said that viewing pornographic material is wholesome, healthy and good for the mind - in a publication that publishes all of your articles and advertises the books you've written. Oh, and you don't say ANYTHING ABOUT IT. 

The other thing that strains credibility is that NOTHING Ellen White wrote in the Sabbath Herald or in her books contradicted anything that the anti-Trinitarian Pioneers wrote - right down to Divinity that was on loan to Jesus while He was "ON PROBATION". 

Now, it's possible that Ellen dialed back the anti-Trinitarianism in Canright's articles but what was left was so extreme that anyone inside or outside of the SDA Church would classify the work as militant anti-Trinitarianism. But yes, that article could have been worse than it ended up being - I have to concede that. 

 

Quote

GHansen:

We just don't know what her roll might have been; nevertheless, you seem to think what James White said Sr. White did is a smoking gun of sorts, proving her anti trinity views at that time. That may work for you but it doesn't work for me. A lot of what you cite requires interpretation. Many references you post must be checked for authorship. It's not clear who wrote them in the thread.

I always heard that Ellen White never used the term Trinity, my angle here is that IF she participated in REVISING those Canright articles as her husband assures us she did - she certainly did use the word Trinity - and it was in a negative context. Past the P,O.G. article Canright's article on the Holy Spirit is markedly anti-Trinitarian. It seems unlikely that multiple decidedly anti-Trinitarian articles that attributed Ellen's direct participation in - didn't get so much as a whisper or clarification that the articles didn't represent her beliefs when the Sabbath Herald said that they did, ever.  Does that sound right? 

Quote

GHansen:

Jesus had a will of his own. He prayed that He would be faithful in carrying out His father's will instead of his own. If Jesus couldn't have sinned, he wasn't really tempted by Satan in the wilderness, it was just theater. I'm not sure how much there is in Scripture regarding the topic of whether Jesus could have sinned. The fact is that he didn't sin. Trying to think about what would have happened if Jesus did sin is a hellish descent into a bottomless pit.

According to Scripture Jesus ALWAYS did the will of His Father, eternally. 

John 4,34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work

John 6,38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me

John 8,29
And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him

 

Quote

GHansen:

The passages you posted to prove that Jesus could not sin certainly don't prove that to me. More like several pizzas thrown against a wall. I'm not sure why you measure EGW's views on the Godhead by what other denominations believe. SDA hold their own views on various topics, views that are different from what other denominations hold. Sometimes that's good, sometimes not so good. The state of the dead, Sabbath, the cleansing of the sanctuary, 1844, all are views not commonly held by most [but not all] denominations.

Let me try a different way to share why I believe what I believe with you - in the end, if it's just another pizza thrown against wall to you , I fault myself for not being able to express in writing what I'm convinced of. Here is my pitch.

Luke 2,25
And behold there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Ghost was in him. And he had received an answer from the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Christ of the Lord. And he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when his parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law, He also took him into his arms, and blessed God, and said: Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word in peace; Because my eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples

IF the Gospel of Luke can be accepted as truth it explicitly states that God The Holy Spirit had assured Simeon that he would not die until he had seen the Christ of the Lord. A failed Christ, by definition, WOULDN'T BE Christ  - it's then proven that Simeon would have had to wait for Jesus to be crucified prior to Simeon dying as Christ could have sinned and NOT secured Salvation, no?.

The text indicates that Simeon was already advanced in years and wished to be dismissed (die) - it's either that OR Simeon wanted God to let him die as a young man? The Gospel of Luke claims that Simeon, by holding the Baby Jesus, had witnessed salvation itself. There would be no possibility of failure here whatsoever. I suppose someone could argue that an old or young Simeon was made to remain alive another 30 plus years by God until the Roman soldier thrust the spear into Jesus' side and He breathed His last - to insure that Christ didn't screw up and fumble the touchdown but that doesn't sound reasonable to me.

See the source image

 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...