Have to talk to Maria for a while before she goes to work. I'll be back.

Do you agree with the other statements on that post?

But that passage is not a formal statement of the doctrine.

We could quote Bible passages that state as clearly that Christ is God and that the Holy Spirit is God, but those do not formally state the doctrine, although they do teach it, just as Luke 1: 35 is part of the Bible teaching on the Incarnation.

I plan to reply to each one of your posts on this discussion, and in fact, I hope to answer each objection to the doctrine of the Trinity.

But could you do two things?

1) Post the source where you are getting your statements, i.e., the Return of Elijah.

Do you have an on-line link to it? If not, can you tell the name of the author?

2) Summarize the point you are making on your posts, so I will know what you are trying to get across in them. Most of them contain a number of points.

Ok...

"Return Of Elijah" by Adrian Ebens

http://www.maranathamedia.com/site/index...2&Itemid=77


In the future I will give the chapter and location on the page. I think you will have to be logged in to view this manuscript.

Yes, I'm familiar with Adrian Ebens and his beliefs.
I was able to access the sites.

Here is what Adrian wrote about "the Return of Elijah":



I have a problem with the distribution of this manuscript because I believe it is contrary to the counsel of Ellen White, in 5 T 293. She wrote that if we believe we have "light" for the church, we should first submit it to men of experience in the church and accept their judgment. If they decide they see no light in what we claim to be truth, Ellen White said we should lay it aside. (This is what Desmond Ford should have done also.)

While Adrian Ebens did submit his "light" to men in the church, one wonders why he did it because after they told him their judgment, he ignored it and continues to circulate and agitate the teachings found in the manuscipt.

I would like to discuss the ideas and teachings of Adrian Ebans and other anti-Trinitarians, but I prefer to make it a dialogue or conversation or exchange of views and interpretations rather than having Ebans writings posted in long unbroken sections. I think it would be more interesting and instructive to look carefully at the Bible's and the SOP's teachings on the Godhead.

How do these diagrams contradict what the Bible teaches about the Godhead?

Isn't it true that we worship one God?

Isn't it also true that the Bible teaches that there are three distinct, living persons, or beings, in the eternal Godhead?

Is the Father in the fullness of the Godhead?

Is the Son in the fullness of the Godhead?

Is the Holy Spirit in the fullness of the Godhead?

Is the Holy Spirit the third person of the eternal Godhead?

If we answer yes to all of the above questions, it seems to me that we must then conclude that the diagrams are accurate illustrations of what the Bible (and the SOP) teaches.

Adrian repeatedly gets this charge about New Light. The truth of the Son of God is not new light, it was our original position.

He did present some thoughts that were new ideas, but he had been teaching those in the church for years before without any issues. The new thoughts had to do with the value system which no one had any problems with until he applied them to the Godhead, then everything hit the fan!

The reason he lost his credentials and why they rejected the manuscript was because he stated that he believed Jesus was begotten of the Father and that is not new light.

I understand that, but he takes positions that the world church in GC session has already rejected.

Christ is the only begotten of the Father but not "begotten" in the sense that he received His life and existence from the Father. Neither the Bible nor the SOP teach that Christ derived His life or existence from the Father. But of course Christ was certainly "begotten" of the Father at the Incarnation. See Hebrews 1: 5.

It's true that many in our church were non-Trinitarian, but there were many others who were Trinitarian, and the non-Trinitarian view was never an official doctrine of the church. The period you refer to-- 1862 to 1888-- was during a time when the church was in transition and not united on a doctrine of the Godhead. It was never voted on by the world church in GC session, and when the church did vote on the doctrine of the Godhead, the church rejected the position that Adrian is taking. It is not really true that Adrian's position on the Son of God was our original position. The truth is that there was a variety of views in the church of the Son of God.

Since the world church had many decades to study the question and decicded against Adrian's positions, it seems to me that it is even more important that Adrian take Ellen White's counsels to heart. I think it's fair to say that the principles of Ellen White's counsel on "new light" also applies to "old light" that has been long considered and rejected by virtually the entire church.

On the discussion, "Should SDAs Worship Allah," Dr. Waite posted the following:



I would like to know what "anti-Trinitarian doctrine statements" Dr. Waite has in mind.

I would also like him-- or anyone else who might agree with him-- to show evidence that the acceptance of the Trinity was not because of the Bible and Ellen White's writings but because of Leroy Froom.

You seem to be one of those who believe the world church can do no wrong. Just like the Catholics. In that regard, the church has become very much like the catholic church.

According to Mrs. White, anyone who takes their brethren to court, is not even having their prayers heard. Our leaders have been using tithe money to sue the brethren for many years now. So I don't know how much faith I can put in them to always arrive at the proper conclusions concerning doctrine.

If you are unaware of just how far our beloved church has gone into apostacy, and for how long, then that would explain your "whatever the church says is right" attitude. We could start a whole new topic on that alone.

I will get to Leroy Froom, but maybe not today. I always have a million things to do on sunday.

My position has never been that the world church can do no wrong, and I've never suggested that "whatever the church says is right." Of course the church can do wrong. Ellen White wrote what she did in 5 T 293 with the realization that the church is well able to do wrong. However, the wrongs of the church do not make her counsels of none effect. In fact, it is the wrongs done in the church that make it even more imporant for us to follow her counsels. The wrongs and mistakes never excuse our ignoring or rejecting what God revealed to us through her. At the very time she wrote her statements, there were serious mistakes and errors in the church.

Yet she wrote, "All should be careful about presenting new views of Scripture... Introduce nothing that will cause dissension, without clear evidence that in it God is giving a special message for this time." TN 106.

This instruction certainly applies to those who would present old views that the world church has rejected for almost a hundred years on the basis of clear Bible teachings and the the Spirit of prophecy.

"The only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to the brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment." 5 T 293

"God has a church upon the earth who are His chosen people, who keep the commandments. He is leading, not stray offshoots, not one here and one there, but a people." TN 61

"God has not passed His people by, and chosen one solitary man here and another there as the only ones worthy to be entrusted with His truth. He does not give one man new light contrary to the established faith of the body... Let none be self-confident, as though God had given them special light above their brethren/" 5 T 291

The fact that the world church is able to make mistakes does not nullify the counsels of Ellen White. They were actually written because of the mistakes.

She said, "If you really search for the truth with the right motive, you will come with the body, for they have the truth." 3 T 447-449.

You'll notice that some people have the same view of the New Testament that others have of the church-- that since the church can do wrong, you can't trust the NT and you can't trust the FB 28, particularly the belief regarding the Trinity. There is plenty of evidence that both the NT and the FB 28 are trust-worthy and biblical, but when people persist in their own way, ignoring the counsels of EGW, they will believe what they choose despite the things God has revealed that clearly teach the contrary.

OK, see ya Monday. :-)

Dr. Waite denied earlier that Ellen White ever sang, "Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," but the documentation proves that she did, beyond any question.

Ellen White believed in worshipping the Trinity, or, as she called the eternal Godhead, "the heavenly trio." She defined the Godhead as "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," and said that the Holy Spirit is the "third person of the Godhead." [If there is a "third person of the Godhead," who is the first person and the second person of the Godhead? It is obvious, isn't it?)

So here is proof that she worshipped the Holy Spirit in song along with her worship of the Father and the Son, and she encouraged all of us to do the same:

Did Leroy Froom have anything to do with Ellen White's making the following statements?

[quote]We are to "hold fast" and live up to all the light we receive from heaven. Why? Because God wants us to grasp the eternal truth, and act as His helping hand by communicating the light to those who are not acquainted with His love for them. When you gave yourself to Christ, you made a pledge in the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--the three great personal Dignitaries of heaven. "Hold fast" to this pledge. {7BC 959.8}

While God's Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding His pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father. From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom all nations of /the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted Him, were to be blessed. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God. {LHU 16.2}
The world was made by Him, "and without Him was not any thing made that was made" (verse 3). If Christ made all things, He existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. {LHU 16.3}

The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by Him as His right. This was no robbery of God. "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way," He declares, "before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depths" (Prov. 8:22-27). {LHU 16.4}



Those who claim to be Christ's followers pledge themselves to obedience at the time of their baptism. When they go down into the water, they pledge themselves in the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that they will henceforth be dead unto the world and its temptations, and that they will arise from the watery grave to walk in newness of life, even a life of obedience to God's requirements. {2SAT 228.4}



Those who are baptized in the threefold name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, at the very entrance of their Christian life declare publicly that they have accepted the invitation, "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" (2 Cor. 6:17, 18). "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (chapter 7:1). . . . {AG 143.4}

Let those who received the imprint of God by baptism heed these words, remembering that upon them the Lord has placed His signature, declaring them to be His sons and daughters. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, powers infinite and omniscient, receive those who truly enter into covenant relation with God. They are present at every baptism, to receive the candidates who have renounced the world and have received Christ into the soul temple. These candidates have entered into the family of God, and their names are inscribed in the Lamb's book of life. {AG 143.5}



The open path, the safe path of walking in the way of His commandments, is a path from which there is no safe departing. And when men follow their own human theories dressed up in soft, fascinating representations, they make a snare in which to catch souls. In the place of devoting your powers to theorizing, Christ has given you a work to do. His commission is, Go throughout the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, {UL 148.3}

Before the disciples shall compass the threshold, there is to be the imprint of the sacred name, baptizing the believers in the name of the threefold powers in the heavenly world. The human mind is impressed in this ceremony, the beginning of the Christian life. It means very much. The work of salvation is not a small matter, but so vast that the highest authorities are taken hold of by the expressed faith of the human agent. The eternal Godhead--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--is involved in the action required to make assurance to the human agent, . . . confederating the heavenly powers with the human that man may become, through heavenly efficiency, partakers of the divine nature and workers together with Christ. {UL 148.4}

==============================

Let cheerful freewill-offerings be brought to the Lord, let us consecrate to Him all that we are, and all that we have, and then may we all unite to swell the songs,--


"Praise God, from whom all blessings flow;
Praise him, all creatures here below;
Praise him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

-
{RH, January 4, 1881 par. 18}

======================================

III. Three Persons in the Godhead

There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers--the Father, the Son, and the

(442)

Holy Spirit--those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.-- Evangelism, p. 615. {7ABC 441.9}

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.--Counsels on Health, p. 222. {7ABC 442.1}

Those who proclaim the third angel's message must put on the whole armor of God, that they may stand boldly at their post, in the face of detraction and falsehood, fighting the good fight of faith, resisting the enemy with the word, "It is written." Keep yourselves where the three great powers of heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, can be your efficiency. These powers work with the one who gives himself unreservedly to God. The strength of heaven is at the command of God's believing ones. The man who takes God as his trust is barricaded by an impregnable wall.--The Southern Watchman, Feb. 23, 1904, p. 122. {7ABC 442.2}

Our sanctification is the work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is the fulfilment of the covenant that God has made with those who bind themselves up with Him, to stand with Him, with His Son, and with His Spirit in holy fellowship. Have you been born again? Have you become a new being in Christ Jesus? Then co-operate with the three great powers of heaven who are working in your behalf. Doing this you will reveal to the world the principles of righteousness.--The Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901. {7ABC 442.3}

The eternal heavenly dignitaries--God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit--arming them [the disciples] with more than mortal energy, . . . would advance with them to the work and convince the world of sin.--Evangelism, p. 616. {7ABC 442.4}

We are to co-operate with the three highest powers in heaven, --the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,--and these powers will work through us, making us workers together with God.-- Ibid., p. 617. {7ABC 442.5}

Those who are baptized in the threefold name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, at the very entrance of their Christian life declare publicly that they have forsaken the service of Satan and have become members of the royal family, children of the heavenly king.--Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 91. {7ABC 442.6}



Evil had been accumulating for centuries, and could only be restrained and resisted by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. Another spirit must be met; for the essence of evil was working in all ways, and the submission of man to this satanic captivity was amazing.--Letter 8, 1896, p. 1 (To "My Brethren in America," February 6, 1896.)

White Estate Washington, D. C. June 10, 1980 {10MR 63.3}[quote]

Did Leroy Froom have anything to do with Ellen White's making the following statements? He became active in the SDA church long after editor F.M. Wilcox published a statement in the R&H that the SDA Church believes in the Trinity.

I've been sort of in and out of this thread so I haven't seen all of the posts. From those who oppose the doctrine of the Trinity I haven't seen their Biblical determination of exactly what they see the Holy Spirit as being. Is the Holy Spirit a separate personal entity (person)? Is the Holy Spirit a Who or a What? Since SDA's are unanamous in their belief that Jesus is a separate Divine Being from The Father it appears that the fate of the Holy Spirit is all that hangs in the Trinity balance.If the Holy Spirit is not a distinct part of a triune Godhead then citing historical SDA beliefs or attaching it's theological origins to Catholicism proves nothing.Even those who reject the Divinity of Jesus attempt to prove that He was something other than Divine.Have I missed this part of the discussion?

All good and important questions.

Most of those who oppose the Trinity believe that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person but the influence, or power, of the Father and of Christ. They don't see the Holy Spirit as a seperate or distinct being, but as a part of God. They compare it to our own "spirit." They say that just as we speak of "my spirit" without meaning a distinct person, so God's Spirit is not a person distinct from the Father.


The SDA view of the Trinity is that Christ did not derive His life and existence from the Father--- that is, that Christ is not a literal son in the sense that humans are sons who come out of their Father's being. As a church, we do not believe that the title "Son of God" refers to Christ's origin, but it refers to Christ's identity as equal to God and to Christ's relationship within the Godhead, particularly His relationship with the Father. "Son of God" means "of the order of God," just as "son of man" means "of the order of man."

The Seventh-day Adventist Church understands the Bible to teach that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person just as God the Father and Christ are distinct persons. But not only are all three "holiest persons of heaven" distinct persons, but they are equal and eternal. Christ is not merely "divine" but He is all the fullness of the Godhead. He is God just as much as the Father is God. So is the Holy Spirit. Yet we do not worship three Gods, or gods, but one God. As Ellen White says, "there are three living persons of the Godhead-- the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit." See Evanglism 614-617 & UL 148.

I agree that references to the "pionees" or the Catholics don't prove anything because the only thing that counts is what the Bible and Spirit of prophecy teaches. Our pioneers did not all agree, nor are they our standard of truth,and SDAs don't get their view of the Trinity from the Catholic Church or from the Christian creeds. I personally care nothing for those sources-- they are not authoritative to the SDA church or to me.

So it would seem that the many explicit references by EGW that have been posted here must be taken at face value or contradicted by either Bible testimony to the contrary or other EGW quotes opposing the ones that identify the Holy Spirit as a distinctive Person? While the Bible itself doesn't teach the Trinity in a clear and undeniable way, Mrs. White does.This would seem to clearly pit the early pioneer's views against EGW's later categorical utterances. Hmmmmm.........what to do???

Yes, I agree with you, except that I would say that the Bible evidence for the Trinity is clear, but like all other doctrines, God didn't inspire the Bible to be written in such a way that people are compelled to believe a particular viewpoint. God always leaves people with the freedom to choose to believe. If God had wanted to, He could have presented the evidence in such a way that people would have no choice but to believe a particular view, but that is not God's way. He always respects our freedom to choose. I believe this is why Christ said that belief is a matter of the will and of the heart, not a matter of how intelligent someone is.

So while the Bible is clear that there is one God and that this God is revealed in three persons, there are ways of getting around these evidences if people choose to, just as there are ways to get around every other Bible doctrine if people want to do it. We can see how this is done in regard to Christ's deity as well as the creation of the world in 6 literal days, the Sabbath, the state of the dead, the second coming, the prophcies, the use of alcohol, homosexuality,etc.

Ellen White's writings are much more clear and straight-forward on the Trinity than the Bible is. Yet even here, God has not removed our freedom to wiggle out of the truth if we are determined to do it.

I do agree with your last statement--that her wrtiings on the Godhead, especilly those of her last 20 years, are pitted against the beliefs of the Advetist pioneers with respect to the Godhead; ut this should not be surprising to us when we consider the history of the theological development of our church.

If Ellen White had come out strongly and in no uncertain terms about the truth of the Trinity, it would have had the affect of splintering the church and destroying the confidence many had in the Spirit of prophecy. The truth about the Godhead had to be the result of Bible study and not based on the writings of Ellen White.

There was great prejudice among many of the leaders and the lay members against the Trinity. We have to remember that most of them had come out of churches which had been opposed to the Trinity, and some of them did not even understand the Trinity. They had misconceptions of the doctrine. For instance, Joseph Bates thought the Trinity taught that the Father and Christ were the same being, or person. People had invested themselves emotionally and intellectually in the denial of the doctrine, and such investments are usually not easy to disavow or change.

Our people were mostly involved in building and establishing an organization that was focused on other issues, such as the Second Coming, the Sabbath, the Investigative Judgment, state of the dead, and the Third Angels Messages. These distinctive truths were the primary reasons that God raised up our church, and it was essential that we not be broken up over a teaching that was at the time considered a side-issue. That both James and Ellen White believed it to be a side issue is shown by the fact that in those years prior to James' death in 1881, they did not believe that the Trinity was a doctine which should be made a test of fellowship or Christian characeter.

Furthermore, James and Ellen White were in the process of adjusting their viewpoints as God revealed more and more truth to them. This can be seen by an examination of the chronological order of Ellen White's statements on the Godhead between 1850 and 1905. Such a well-documented analysis can be found in the book, The Trinity, by Whidden, Moon, and Reeve, published by the Review &n Herald Publishing Ass., 2002, pages 206-212. We see a definite progression there, and yet Ellen White never needed to go back and change anything that she had written in order to make it harmonize with what God was slowly teaching her through both the Bible and the visions. I believe this can only be explained by the fact that God was patiently and lovingly guiding Ellen White in her understanding of the Godhead so that she would be enabled to lead the church into greater light without causing it to experience a division or a collapse that would have made it impossible to carry out its mission of taking the Three Angels' Messages to the world.

But who that is not infinite can understand the infinite? Christ declares, "No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him." It is recorded of Epictetus that when his hearers said to him, "You have uttered many excellent things of God; but we cannot as yet understand what he is," he truly and nobly replied, "Were I able fully to set forth God, I should either be a god myself, or God himself would cease to be what he is." The greatness of God cannot be measured or comprehended. And that doctrine that denies the absolute Godhead of Jesus Christ, denies also the Godhead of the Father; for no man knoweth the Son but the Father. {ST, June 27, 1895 par. 3}

Amen!

Hmmm, I haven't quite figured that one out yet....

Ellen White was a trinitarian-protestant/papal doctrine-while a Methodist...Methodists are trinitarians.

Then, during bible studies where they "took each doctrine point by point and searched the scriptures" with much prayer and God coming on her when they had gone as far as they could, she gave up the protestant/papal trinity doctrine...

Then reverted back to it over the years...

Or Adventists have "borrowed" the word. trinity, to name their concept of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now I will admit that I have heard variations from "trio"-Ellen White's term- to "three-in-one"-3 persons in one being, indivisible, inseparable-...

The average "layperson" of the church does not have a clue as to what the church believes/teaches regarding what we call the "trinity", unless they read these books that are recommended which will tell them what to think and believe.

As for the Pioneers originally believing that the Holy Spirit was just a part of God, I'm not real sure they did. Not in light of all they wrote concerning the nature of man and spiritualism. If they didn't believe man had a "detachable spirit" why on earth would they believe God did?

I think they were all in agreement that the Holy Spirit was the Representative of God and left it at that.

The confusion here is believing that only "anti-trinitarians" believe that Jesus was literally begotten of the Father...Trinitarians also believe that Jesus was begotten of the Father but "eternally"..."it is a mystery".

anti-trinitarians believe that Jesus was begotten of the Father sometime so far back in eternity...

protestant/papal trinitarians believe He is being eternally begotten...





Unfortunately saying "Trio" makes us look too much like tritheists, sooo, we "compromise" and call it "trinity".

The Sabbath Bible conferences never considered the doctrine of the Godhead. That never came up during those meetings. Their focus was on the second coming, the Sabbath, and other distinctivre teachings of the Adventists.

The Methodists' view of the Trinity is different from the view of Ellen White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

God gave Ellen White visions in which she saw that the Methodists' view was in error. Methodists view God the Father as not having a body or form, and Ellen White was shown that this is wrong. So Ellen White rejected the Methodists understanding of the Trinity. She wrote that the Father and Christ were personal beings with tangible forms. See EW 54, 77.

The Methodists have what James and Ellen White referred to as a "spiritualized" view, which they both fought against. But while James White wrote statements condemning the Trinity doctrine per se, Ellen White never did condemn the Trinity doctrine as a whole. What she condemned were certain elements as understood by groups such as the Methodists and Roman Catholics.

We have to remember that Ellen White didn't write her own opinions but only what she was shown by God in vision. That is why there is a definite progression in Ellen White's writings concerning the Godhead. She didn't write anything until God made the subject clear through Bible study and verified it through the visions.

As an example, it was in 1872 when Ellen White wrote that Christ was not created. She continued to reveal more of what God had shown her about the Godhead until the late 1890s and early 1900s when she made statements that clearly support the Trinity, such as that the Holy Spirit is the third persons of the Godhead and that there are "three living persons of the heavenly trio," "three holiest beings of heaven," etc. See Evangelism 614-617.

Trio is another word for three, the same as "trinity." A trio of course consists of three people.

The Trinity doctrine is simply that there is one God, or Godhead, which is manifested in three distinct, eternal, infinite, omnipotent divine persons.

I don't see Ellen White's expression of "heavenly trio" as making us look like "tritheists," or believers in three Gods. Anti-Trinitarians make the same accusation against those who use the name Trinity. A problem with "Trinity" is that it comes with a lot of unwanted historical baggage because many people think that believers in the Trinity accept all the definitions as given in the creeds.

That's why it's important for each individual member to study their Bibles and the Spirit of prophecy and find out what they believe and why they believe it. I think those books you mention publisehd by the church are a good thing to read, but our study should go beyond them and include everything Ellen White wrote on the doctrine.

Here's an important statement by Ellen White on the Godhead:



They should be considered along with everything else she wrote, and they should also be studied in their context. Their context is the false teaching that Ellen White was fighting, that is, the spiritualization of the Trinity by John H. Kellogg. (Read the entire chapter, A Personal God, as well as page 5 in the Introduction to vol. 8.) The context is also that of Hebrews 1, which she quotes immediately before the statements referred to on page 268.

Near the beginning of this chapter, on page 264, she refers to God as "personal, self-existing." Self-existing means not dependent on anything or anyone outside of oneself for one's existence. This is how she describes both God the Father and the pre-incarnate Christ. That's pretty plain.

Notice that on page 268, Ellen White's comment about Christ being given an exalted position and having been made equal to the Father follows her quote of Hebrews 1: 5. That verse is not talking about the pre-existent Christ but the Incarnate Son, the same One that is described in Phil. 2: 9-11 as having been exalted to the right hand of God following his ascension to heaven after His resurrection. It is speaking then of Jesus Christ the God-man, not the pre-incarnate Word of God as described in John 1: 1. Both are Jesus Christ, but the Word of God as we see Him in John 1: 1 is not yet a man but pure God. "And the Word was God." (cf.Phil. 2: 6.) John 1: 1 means that everything that may be said of God is equally true of the Word. One of the things we can say about God is that He is self-existent and is God from everlasting to everlasting. So is Christ.

Consider Hebrews 1: 5-10--

For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son,
today I have begotten you"?
Or again,
"I will be to him a father,
and he shall be to me a son"?
[6] And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him."
[7] Of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire."
[8] But of the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
[9] You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."
[10] And,
"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;

When does Hebrews 1: 5 take place? Is it taking place before John 1: 1? Or does it take place after Christ came to this earth as a human?

We might ask the same question of verse 6. When did God bring His first-born into the world and command the angels to worship Him? Was it before John 1: 1 or after Christ's death?

How about Hebrews 1: 9? When did God "set Christ above his companions" and anoint Him with oil?

Wasn't Christ God before those things happened?

Ellen White says that "Christ was God, essentially, and God from all eternity." She speaks of Christ as being the fullness of the Godhead, and this Godhead is "eternal." When used in reference to God, who is immortal and has existed from everlasting to everlasting, "eternal" has the meaning of "without beginning and without end." I believe those words preclude any additions to or subtractions from the number of the living persons of the Godhead.

Thoughts, anyone?

John I am with you all the way as far as showing from the Bible and the SoP that there is one God in Three Persons.

Do you have anything about John H Kellogg "spiritualizing" the trinity? Who said he did and can you quote what he wrote on the trinity? What did he teach exactly?

sky

Have you read the opening chapter of Kellogg's The Living Temple? It's entitled "The Mystery of Life."

Kellogg argues that "God himself" is "present everywhere at once."

When Kellogg claimed that his views "regarding the personality of God" were in agreement with Ellen White's, she denied it, saying, "God forbid that this opinion should prevail. We need not the mysticism that is in this book. [T]he writer of this book is on a false track. He has lost sight of the distinguishing truths for this time. He knows not whither his steps are tending. The track of truth lies close beside the track of eerror, and both may seem to be one to minds which are not worked by the Holy Spirit, and which, therefore, are not quick to discern the difference between truth and error." (See Letter 211, Sept. 22, 1903, in Spalding-Magan, pp. 320, 321.)

In another letter, she also wrote, "The Lord Jesus... did not represent God as an essence pervading nature, but as a personal being. Christians should bear in mind that God has a personality as verily as has Christ." ( Ibid., Sept. 23, 1903, page 324).

In 1 SM 203, Ellen White writes, "I am compelled to speak in denial of the claim that the teachings of Living Temple can be sustained by statements from my writings." (Read entire page.)

See also Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 61-63 ; 1 SM 202-206; and Ministry of Healing, 418-423.

In connection with Kellogg's Living Temple, Ellen White wrote, "The spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy." 1 SM 204.

See pages 212-220 of The Trinity, Whidden, Moon, Reeve, Review & Herald Publishing Ass.

Ellen White wrote:

My Dear Brother:


I am given a message to bear to you and the rest of our physicians who are connected with the Medical Missionary Association. Separate from the influence exerted by the book Living Temple; [A 568-PAGE BOOK ISSUED IN 1903 BY DR. J. H. KELLOGG IN WHICH PANTHEISTIC PHILOSOPHIES WERE PROMULGATED.--COMPILERS.] for it contains specious sentiments. There are in it sentiments that are entirely true, but these are mingled with error. Scriptures are taken out of their connection, and are used to uphold erroneous theories. {1SM 199.1}
The thought of the errors contained in this book has given me great distress, and the experience that I have passed through in connection with the matter has nearly cost me my life. {1SM 199.2}
It will be said that Living Temple has been revised. But the Lord has shown me that the writer has not changed, and that there can be no unity between him and the ministers of the gospel while he continues to cherish his present sentiments. I am bidden to lift my voice in warning to our people, saying, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked" (Galatians 6:7). {1SM 199.3}
You have had access to Testimonies for the Church, volumes 7 and 8. In these Testimonies the danger signal is raised. But the light so clear and plain to minds that have not been influenced by deceptive theories, has not been discerned by some. While the misleading theories of this book are entertained by our physicians, there cannot be union between them and the ministers who are bearing the gospel message. There should be no union until there is a change. {1SM 199.4}
When medical missionaries make their practice and example harmonize with the name they bear, when they feel their need of uniting firmly with the ministers of the gospel, then there can be harmonious action. But we must
200
firmly refuse to be drawn away from the platform of eternal truth, which since 1844 has stood the test. {1SM 199.5}

Alpha Presented in "Living Temple"

I am instructed to speak plainly. "Meet it," is the word spoken to me. "Meet it firmly, and without delay." But it is not to be met by our taking our working forces from the field to investigate doctrines and points of difference. We have no such investigation to make. In the book Living Temple there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given. {1SM 200.1}
Our physicians, upon whom important responsibilities rest, should have clear spiritual discernment. They are to stand constantly on guard. Dangers that we do not now discern will soon break upon us, and I greatly desire that they shall not be deceived. I have an intense longing to see them standing free in the Lord. I pray that they may have courage to stand firm for the truth as it is in Jesus, holding fast the beginning of their confidence unto the end.--Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, pp. 49, 50. {1SM 200.2}

Chap. 25 - The Foundation of Our Faith
[THIS
ARTICLE APPEARED IN SPECIAL TESTIMONIES,
SERIES B, NO. 2, PAGES 51-59, PUBLISHED IN 1904.]
-

The Lord will put new, vital force into His work as human agencies obey the command to go forth and proclaim the truth. He who declared that His truth would shine forever will proclaim this truth through faithful messengers, who will give the trumpet a certain sound. The truth will be criticized, scorned, and derided; but the closer it is examined and tested, the brighter it will shine. {1SM 201.1}
As a people, we are to stand firm on the platform of eternal truth that has withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of our faith. The principles of truth that God has revealed to us are our only true foundation. They have made us what we are. The lapse of time has not lessened their value. It is the constant effort of the enemy to remove these truths from their setting, and to put in their place spurious theories. He will bring in everything that he possibly can to carry out his deceptive designs. But the Lord will raise up men of keen perception, who will give these truths their proper place in the plan of God. {1SM 201.2}
I have been instructed by the heavenly messenger that some of the reasoning in the book Living Temple is
202
unsound, and that this reasoning would lead astray the minds of those who are not thoroughly established on the foundation principles of present truth. It introduces that which is nought but speculation in regard to the personality of God and where His presence is. No one on this earth has a right to speculate on this question. The more fanciful theories are discussed, the less men will know of God and of the truth that sanctifies the soul. {1SM 201.3}
One and another come to me, asking me to explain the positions taken in Living Temple. I reply, "They are unexplainable." The sentiments expressed do not give a true knowledge of God. All through the book are passages of Scripture. These scriptures are brought in in such a way that error is made to appear as truth. Erroneous theories are presented in so pleasing a way that unless care is taken, many will be misled. {1SM 202.1}
We need not the mysticism that is in this book. Those who entertain these sophistries will soon find themselves in a position where the enemy can talk with them, and lead them away from God. It is represented to me that the writer of this book is on a false track. He has lost sight of the distinguishing truths for this time. He knows not whither his steps are tending. The track of truth lies close beside the track of error, and both tracks may seem to be one to minds which are not worked by the Holy Spirit, and which, therefore, are not quick to discern the difference between truth and error. {1SM 202.2}

A View of Approaching Danger

About the time that Living Temple was published, there passed before me in the night season, representations indicating that some danger was approaching, and that I must prepare for it by writing out the things God had revealed to me regarding the foundation principles of our faith. A copy of Living Temple was sent me, but it remained in my library, unread. From the light given me by the Lord, I knew that some of the sentiments advocated in the book did not bear the endorsement of God, and that they were a snare that the enemy had prepared for the last
203
days. I thought that this would surely be discerned, and that it would not be necessary for me to say anything about it. {1SM 202.3}
In the controversy that arose among our brethren regarding the teachings of this book, those in favor of giving it a wide circulation declared: "It contains the very sentiments that Sister White has been teaching." This assertion struck right to my heart. I felt heartbroken; for I knew that this representation of the matter was not true. {1SM 203.1}
Finally my son said to me, "Mother, you ought to read at least some parts of the book, that you may see whether they are in harmony with the light that God has given you." He sat down beside me, and together we read the preface, and most of the first chapter, and also paragraphs in other chapters. As we read, I recognized the very sentiments against which I had been bidden to speak in warning during the early days of my public labors. When I first left the State of Maine, it was to go through Vermont and Massachusetts, to bear a testimony against these sentiments. Living Temple contains the alpha of these theories. I knew that the omega would follow in a little while; and I trembled for our people. I knew that I must warn our brethren and sisters not to enter into controversy over the presence and personality of God. The statements made in Living Temple in regard to this point are incorrect. The scripture used to substantiate the doctrine there set forth, is scripture misapplied. {1SM 203.2}
I am compelled to speak in denial of the claim that the teachings of Living Temple can be sustained by statements from my writings. There may be in this book expressions and sentiments that are in harmony with my writings. And there may be in my writings many statements which, taken from their connection, and interpreted according to the mind of the writer of Living Temple, would seem to be in harmony with the teachings of this book. This may give apparent support to the assertion that the sentiments in Living Temple are in harmony with my writings. But God forbid that this sentiment should prevail. {1SM 203.3}
Few can discern the result of entertaining the sophistries
204
advocated by some at this time. But the Lord has lifted the curtain, and has shown me the result that would follow. The spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy. They estimate as nothing the light that Christ came from heaven to give John to give to His people. They teach that the scenes just before us are not of sufficient importance to be given special attention. They make of no effect the truth of heavenly origin, and rob the people of God of their past experience, giving them instead a false science. {1SM 203.4}
In a vision of the night I was shown distinctly that these sentiments have been looked upon by some as the grand truths that are to be brought in and made prominent at the present time. I was shown a platform, braced by solid timbers--the truths of the Word of God. Someone high in responsibility in the medical work was directing this man and that man to loosen the timbers supporting this platform. Then I heard a voice saying, "Where are the watchmen that ought to be standing on the walls of Zion? Are they asleep? This foundation was built by the Master Worker, and will stand storm and tempest. Will they permit this man to present doctrines that deny the past experience of the people of God? The time has come to take decided action." {1SM 204.1}
The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a
205
wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure. {1SM 204.2}
Who has authority to begin such a movement? We have our Bibles. We have our experience, attested to by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit. We have a truth that admits of no compromise. Shall we not repudiate everything that is not in harmony with this truth? {1SM 205.1}
I hesitated and delayed about the sending out of that which the Spirit of the Lord impelled me to write. I did not want to be compelled to present the misleading influence of these sophistries. But in the providence of God, the errors that have been coming in must be met. {1SM 205.2}

An Iceberg! "Meet It"

Shortly before I sent out the testimonies regarding the efforts of the enemy to undermine the foundation of our faith through the dissemination of seductive theories, I had read an incident about a ship in a fog meeting an iceberg. For several nights I slept but little. I seemed to be bowed down as a cart beneath sheaves. One night a scene was clearly presented before me. A vessel was upon the waters, in a heavy fog. Suddenly the lookout cried, "Iceberg just ahead!" There, towering high above the ship, was a gigantic iceberg. An authoritative voice cried out, "Meet it!" There was not a moment's hesitation. It was a time for instant action. The engineer put on full steam, and the man at the wheel steered the ship straight into the iceberg. With a crash she struck the ice. There was a fearful shock, and the iceberg broke into many pieces, falling with a noise like thunder to the deck. The passengers were violently shaken by the force of the collisions, but no lives were lost. The vessel was injured, but not beyond repair. She rebounded from the contact, trembling from
206
stem to stern, like a living creature. Then she moved forward on her way. {1SM 205.3}
Well I knew the meaning of this representation. I had my orders. I had heard the words, like a voice from our Captain, "Meet it!" I knew what my duty was, and that there was not a moment to lose. The time for decided action had come. I must without delay obey the command, "Meet it!". {1SM 206.1}
That night I was up at one o'clock, writing as fast as my hand could pass over the paper. For the next few days I worked early and late, preparing for our people the instruction given me regarding the errors that were coming in among us. {1SM 206.2}
I have been hoping that there would be a thorough reformation, and that the principles for which we fought in the early days, and which were brought out in the power of the Holy Spirit, would be maintained. {1SM 206.3}

If I'm not mistaken, Doug Batchelor, has a sermon on the trinity, where he mentions that the RCC is not the first to introduce the trinity, but that the OT is where its found. I can't remember the sermon. But if I come across it I will try to post the it.

Have you read the opening chapter of Kellogg's The Living Temple? It's entitled "The Mystery of Life."

Kellogg argues that "God himself" is "present everywhere at once."

John317
________________________________________

John, could you quote the whole statement, please.

Do you want to be on record saying that you don't believe that God Himself is everywhere present? God is not omnipresent anymore? "Where shall I go from Your Spirit? Where shall I flee from Your presence?" Psalm 137:9.

Dr. Kellogg taught that it is by His Spirit that God is present everywhere. He did not teach anything else. He identified the Spirit as the infinite Intelligence moving in and through all, just as Mrs. White did. But W.C. White who was amenable to the men of the General Confernce embarked with them on a campaign against Dr. Kellogg forging testimonies against him because they could not bring him under their control just as they did against brother Jones and others.

"The greatness of God is to us incomprehensible. The Lord's throne is in Heaven (Psalm 11:4); yet by His Spirit He is everywhere present. He has an intimate knowledge of and apersonal interest in all the works of His hand." Education, p.132.

What did brother Kellogg teach that was any different that that? He talked about the intelligent Presence that pervades all created things. Here is a sample of what he taught:

"There is a clear, complete, satisfactory explanation of the
most subtle phenomena of nature,--namely, an infinite Intelligence working out its purposes. God is the explanation of nature,--not a God outside of nature, but in nature, manifesting Himself through and in all the objects, movements, and varied phenomena of the universe... Where God's Spirit is at work, where God's power is manifested, God Himself is actually and truly present."

Being a strong believer and supporter of the Trinity, you should be able to appreciate what Dr. Kellogg is saying.

sky

We have yet to see the statements from Dr. kellogg that would show that he was teaching pantheistic theories.

Here is why brother Jones refused to join the men who composed the General Conference committee in a campaign against Dr. Kellog. He is writing to brother Daniells:


I told you in the very beginning of it, that I would never take any part in it. You can remember that in the month of November, 1902, in Battle Creek, in the same room where you and Brother Irwin met the Church Board and others of us when you were here last month --as you and I and several others of the General Conference Committee were sitting around a table, I told you all, that, admitting all to be the truth that was then being said about Dr. Kellogg, I would take no part in pursuing him, nor in making any kind of war upon him --not even with the Testimonies.

I told you of the experience of a previous General Conference Committee when I was a member of it --that Testimonies had come reproving Brother A. R. Henry; that the Committee had used the Testimonies in a way, and had taken such a course toward him, that he was offended: that then, Testimonies came reproving the Committee for treating him so, and telling the Committee to go and confess to Brother Henry. "Shall the soul of A. R. Henry be lost?"--And upon this I told you that I never would take any course toward Dr. Kellogg or any other man that would make it possible for any Testimony to tell me to go and confess to him the wrong way that I had treated him, even with the Testimonies; and, because of anything that I had done, appeal to me "shall the soul of" that man be lost?

I told you then that whatever Dr. Kellogg's wrong-doing might be, I never would treat him, nor take any part with others in treating him in any other way than the way that I would choose to be treated if I were in a like situation. All that, I told you then, and I tell it to you now. That is where I stood then, that is where I have stood ever since, and that is where I shall stand forever with respect to Dr. Kellogg and everybody else in the world.

I was at that time ready to stand with you, and did stand with you, in working for him, to get him to see where mistakes had been made, and to correct them. On the eighteenth day of that same month of November, 1902, in the General Conference Committee room in Battle Creek, with Dr. Kellogg and a number of other brethren present, I, on the part of the General Conference Committee, and at your request, read some Testimonies concerning kingship in the medical work and a "species" of bondage or slavery of minds in the matter of written contracts for the medical missionary workers. And even while I was reading it, Dr. Kellogg spoke out and said: "I see that. I see it now: I never saw it before. I could not see how that was; but I see it now. And I will stop it immediately. We will abolish all those contracts."

In the same meeting he also made other changes and concessions; so that the only thing that I expected to see, was that you would reach out your hand to him and say: All right, Brother, here is my hand. Let us go on together, working to find out whatever else may be wrong, and to put it away.

But lo! instead of that or anything of that nature, I was surprised and humiliated and hurt, at your standing up, and planting yourself on your heels, and, in a decisive tone, saying "I'm not satisfied. Dr. Kellogg has an imperious will, that's got to be broken--with God."

From that moment I have not had any sympathy with you, nor any support for you, in that campaign. The thing there said, and tone and manner of saying it, all showed that there was such an element of personal domination, of personal triumph, of a man ruling man, that I would have no part in it. I know that you have since explained that you meant only what is always meant when it is said that a man's will is to be surrendered to God, etc.

Whatever you meant, the words as given above are what you said. And said in the tone and manner in which you said it, and said openly in a company of men, in a time of tension; the only possible effect of the words was certain to be just what the words said. Surely the effect, or at least the danger of the effect, of such a statement would be bad enough if spoken only to a man in perfect privacy.

How much more when spoken about a man, openly to a company of other men, with the man himself present. To this day I feel the impression that the words made upon me. And I know that if in such circumstances such a thing were said about me, I have not the meekness to take it in any way near as quietly as Dr. Kellogg did at that moment. Surely, Brother Daniells, if you had thought only as far as a b c, you would have known that God never breaks any man's will; nor does he ask that any man's will shall be broken; and you would not have said what you did.

At Berrien springs in May, 1904, a written testimony was given to you personally addressed,

"Dear Brethren Daniells and Prescott," in which were the following words:--

"Last night I saw a hand stretched out to clasp his [Dr. Kellogg's] hand, and the words were spoken: 'Let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with Me, and he shall make peace with Me. Satan is striving for the victory. I will help Dr. Kellogg to stand on vantage ground, and every soul who loves Me must work with Me as he sees Me do, so he must do.'"

You received that Testimony on Friday. Yet as late as Monday following, Dr. Kellogg knew nothing of it--at least so far as you were concerned--and he was there the most of the time. And when on Monday morning I read the Testimony openly in the morning meeting, you said that you had received it on Friday, but did not know what to do with it.

It would seem that loyalty to the Testimonies would have given you plainly to know what to do yourself whether you knew what to do with it or not. It would seem that loyalty to the Testimonies would have caused you to go straight to Dr. Kellogg and stretch out your hand to him, as the Testimony told you to do. But you did not do it then: And when I asked you in Battle Creek last month whether you had ever done it, you were obliged to say "No." Is that loyalty to the Testimonies, or is it merely loyalty to some of the Testimonies?

A.T. Jones to brother Daniells.

God is not present everywhere. He can be everywhere at once if He chooses to be, which means that the Holy Spirit is with every single believer, but God's omnipresence doesn't mean God Himself is present everywhere in the universe or in the world.

Dr. Kellogg taught that God Himself is in the water in which we bathe or shower and in the food we eat and in the trees and in our boots. That is false. Kellogg didn't distinguish between God's power and God's presence. His idea of God results in God's losing His distinct personality. Ellen White described it as a "spiritualization" of the Godhead. It was an idea very similar to the one she and James White fought against in the 1840s and 50s. (See 1 SM 203.)

She rejected the spiritualized view fo the Trinity as held by the Methodists, which was that God does not have a form or a body but that He is everywhere at once. Their statement was that "there is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts." (See page 15 of Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church [1856].)

By contrast, Ellen White wrote that Christ and the Father are "two distinct, literal, tangible persons." So Ellen White saw two diferent types of teaching regarding the Trinity-- one was the false, spritualized view in which God has neither parts nor body; and the other view is the biblical one in which God is three distinct, living, persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Ellen White writes about the errors of The Living Temple in her letters and other writings which I've posted. She said the spiritualized view of God that are contained in Kellogg's book "would sweep away the whole Christian economy." (1 SM 204)

Do you believe that Dr. Kellogg and Ellen White were in perfect agreement in regard to the Godhead? If so, how do you explain what she wrote on pages 201-206 of 1 SM, that God had shown her that the book was in error and that "we need not the mysticism that is in this book"?

Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is supported by the Old Testament, but the doctrine's clearest evidence is found in the NT. God doesn't reveal all truth at once but it is progressively revealed as people are able to grasp and appreciate it.

Ellen White wrote:

I have been instructed by the heavenly messenger that some of the reasoning in the book Living Temple is unsound, and that this reasoning would lead astray the minds of those who are not thoroughly established on the foundation principles of present truth. It introduces that which is nought but speculation in regard to the personality of God and where His presence is. No one on this earth has a right to speculate on this question. The more fanciful theories are discussed, the less men will know of God and of the truth that sanctifies the soul. {1SM 201.3}

One and another come to me, asking me to explain the positions taken in Living Temple. I reply, "They are unexplainable." The sentiments expressed do not give a true knowledge of God. All through the book are passages of Scripture. These scriptures are brought in in such a way that error is made to appear as truth. Erroneous theories are presented in so pleasing a way that unless care is taken, many will be misled. {1SM 202.1}

We need not the mysticism that is in this book. Those who entertain these sophistries will soon find themselves in a position where the enemy can talk with them, and lead them away from God. It is represented to me that the writer of this book is on a false track. He has lost sight of the distinguishing truths for this time. He knows not whither his steps are tending. The track of truth lies close beside the track of error, and both tracks may seem to be one to minds which are not worked by the Holy Spirit, and which, therefore, are not quick to discern the difference between truth and error. {1SM 202.2}

NOTE: Ellen White makes it crystal clear that it was God who revealed to her that The Living Temple contains false and dangerous teachings. It is not true that she was misled or deceived by her son, Willie White.

If Ellen White was that easily deceived and if she wrote falsely that God showed her that Kellogg's book was wrong, then she was no true prophet and can't be depended upon.

I've read parts of The Living Temple myself (it can be read online) and I can see that it teaches the errors exactly as Ellen White describes.

Jones' issue here had to do with their treatment of Dr. Kellogg, and I agree with Jones on this point. They were wrong to treat him at they did, and Ellen White also spoke out against it as well. But that is another issue entirely, and does not addresss the problem that Ellen White wrote about concerning the false teachings in Kellogg's book, The Living Temple. I'm not defending anyone's ill treatment of Dr. Kellogg. My only point here is that Ellen White's opposed Kellogg's spiritualized view of the Trinity.

God is not present everywhere. He can be everywhere at once if He chooses to be, which means that the Holy Spirit is with every single believer, but God's omnipresence doesn't mean God Himself is present everywhere in the universe or in the world.
__________________________________

How can you say that God is not present everywhere, since when? You and I just read from Psalm 137:9 and Education, 132 that "By His Spirit He is everywhere present." What then is your authority to say that God is not present everywhere? "Life is mysterious and sacred. It is the manifestation of God Himself, the source of all life." Ministry of Healing, p.397.

In the book Education, p.14 Mrs. White speaks of the true knowledge of God and says, "Whatever line of investigation we pursue, with a sincere purpose to arrive at truth, we are brought in touch with the unseen, mighty Intelligence that is working in and through all."

In the same paragraph she identifies this unseen, mighty Intelligence as "the mind of God."

sky
____________________________________


Dr. Kellogg taught that God Himself is in the water in which we bathe or shower and in the food we eat and in the trees and in our boots. That is false. Kellogg didn't distinguish between God's power and God's presence. His idea of God results in God's losing His distinct personality. Ellen White described it as a "spiritualization" of the Godhead. It was an idea very similar to the one she and James White fought against in the 1840s and 50s. (See 1 SM 203.)

She rejected the spiritualized view fo the Trinity as held by the Methodists, which was that God does not have a form or a body but that He is everywhere at once. Their statement was that "there is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts." (See page 15 of Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church [1856].)

John
________________________________________


Whose words are you quoting? You have no statement from Dr. Kellogg. Without knowing it, you are repeating the words of those who forged lies against him. Here is what Dr. kellogg really taught:

"Said an objector, 'God made the tree, it is true, just as a shoemaker makes a boot; but the shoemaker is not in the boot; so God made the tree, but He is not in the tree.' The objector overlooked the fact that the process of tree-making in the living tree is never complete so long as the tree is alive. The tree does not create itself; a creative power is continually going forward in it. Buds and leaves come forth from within the tree. So there is present in the tree a power which creates and maintains it, a tree-maker in the tree, a flower-maker in the flower,--a divine Architect who understands every law of proportion, an infinite artist who possesses a limitless power of expression in color and form; there is, in all the world about us, an infinite, divine, through invisible Presence, to which the unenlightened may be blind, but which is ever declaring itself by its ceaseless, beneficient activity." Dr. J. H. Kellogg

This is exactly what we just read from Education, p.14, that in nature there is the unseen, mighty Intelligence that is working in and through all! Read it again and again until this truth makes an indelible imprint upon your mind!

sky
_________________________________________________


By contrast, Ellen White wrote that Christ and the Father are "two distinct, literal, tangible persons." So Ellen White saw two diferent types of teaching regarding the Trinity-- one was the false, spritualized view in which God has neither parts nor body; and the other view is the biblical one in which God is three distinct, living, persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

John
____________________________________________________

What makes u think that Dr. Kellogg did not believe in the trinity? I believe in the trinity and I also believe that by the Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead, God is everywhere present. This is the teaching of the Scriptures and of the SoP.

sky
_____________________________________________________

Ellen White writes about the errors of The Living Temple in her letters and other writings which I've posted. She said the spiritualized view of God that are contained in Kellogg's book "would sweep away the whole Christian economy." (1 SM 204)

Do you believe that Dr. Kellogg and Ellen White were in perfect agreement in regard to the Godhead? If so, how do you explain what she wrote on pages 201-206 of 1 SM, that God had shown her that the book was in error and that "we need not the mysticism that is in this book"? [/quote]

John
___________________________________________________

So far you have not quoted Dr. Kellogg who did not teach that God is a mere essence pervading all created things but that God by His Spirit pervades all nature in harmony with the Testimonies. The Spirit is God's personal presence in all the works of His hand. This is what Dr. Kellogg taught.

"The heart not yet hardened by contact with evil is quick to recognize the Presence that pervades all created things." Education, p.100.

"Nature in her work testifies of the intelligent presence and active agency of a Being who moves in all things according to His will." Ministry of Healing, p.416.

"The Lord puts His own Spirit into the seed causing it to spring into life. Under His care the germ breaks through the case enclosing it and springs up to develop and bear fruit." Testimonies, Vol.8, p326.

These statements alone show that Dr. kellogg was the target of men bent on destroying him.

sky