What Ellen White Has Written About the Godhead

[John317]

John,

I understand you are convinced, and that adamantly, the Holy Spirit is that third "individual" making up the Godhead.

You can make "vain repetitions" and even shout in my ears, but it will not change what I "see" from the Holy Spirit itself.

One way to really "win me," and I am NOT a debater or an arguer by nature, is to reason with me.

Let's read what Ellen White wrote in the following statements and reason about what those statements are saying:

Quote:

The Father and the Son each have a personality... Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God... there never was a time when when [Christ] was not in close fellowship with the Eternal God... [Christ] was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent... [Christ] is the eternal, self-existent Son....[Christ] had [for]ever stood at the right hand of the Father... Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense... It was Christ who from the bush on Mount Horeb spoke to Moses, 'I AM THAT I AM'.... [Christ] had announced Himself to be the self-existent One...The Holy Spirit is a person... The Holy Spirit has a personality... the Holy Spirit..is as much a person as God is a person... He must also be a divine person... The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead... The three great powers of heaven are working... The three great powers in heaven are witnesses; they are invisible but present... The eternal heavenly dignitaries-- God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit-- arming thems [the disciples] with more than mortal energy,.. would advance with them to the work and convince the world of sin.... The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the three holy dignitaries of heaven, have declared that they will strengthen men.... We are to cooperate 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.... The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are pledged to cooperate with sanctified human instrumentalities... 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...The Father, 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... The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight... The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested... The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead...In whose name are we baptized? In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost-- the three highest powers in the heavenly courts. They pledge themselves in our behalf... You went down into the water in the name of the three great Worthies in heaven-- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers-- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit-- those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven...You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of the three holiest Beings in heaven who are able to keep you from falling...When I feel oppressed and hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, i just call upon the three great worthies....

[John317]

...The quote does show quite a bit more than simply that Willie didn't have a good grasp of what his mother taught about the Godhead; that's not actually what he said. What he said was regarding the "personality of the Holy Spirit" he could not give a definitive statement on what his mother taught, because it perplexed him.

And why did it perplex him? It was because she was saying things that he understood were contrary to what his father and the Pioneers taught and believed. Of course it was perplexing to W.C. White. It was perplexing to many people, including M.L. Andreasen. Do you know his story-- of how he went to Ellen White's home in 1909 and stayed for a week-end, reading her manuscripts in her own handwriting? He was especially interested in DA 530. This passage caused Andreasen to study the Godhead and he eventually became a convinced Trinitarian (as the SDA church teaches it).

Originally Posted By: Qinael

What he did say, however, was what he obviously understood her to not teach - the efforts of some that "perplexed him, and sometimes made him sad" by teaching the Holy Spirit was an individual as were the Father and the Son.

Of course he was sad, because he believed them to be teaching error. Yet that is what his mother was teaching from about 1896 to 1906 and afterwards.

Originally Posted By: Qinael

Obviously, "personality" vs. "individuality" were very different concepts in his mind. One he could not speak definitively on; the other was disturbing enough to cause him distress when taught.

He was clearly wrong when you compare what he believed with what the Bible and his mother taught in the last 20 years of her life. Clearly she believed that the Holy Spirit is both a distinct person and a personality. He has a will and can be made sad and feels hurt by what believers do and say. W.C. White's problem was that he was resisting the light that God had shown to his mother. As I said before, there is no evidence that she was urging him to change his views of the Godhead. She said she didn't do this. She didn't "discuss" the Holy Spirit. She believed that if people don't come to the truth through reading, listening to heer sermons, studying the Bible, and prayer, they wouldn't come to it by arguing about it. And my experience confirms for me that she was right.

(If you ask why then do I write so much, I would answer that I write for the many people who read but never write on the Forum.)

Originally Posted By: Qinael

As far as the quote from Mrs. White, that's... I'm trying not to put too fine a point on it, but that's simply not how English works.

I tutor and have taught English grammar. Please show how it is not "how English works."

Originally Posted By: Qinael

Reading the very next sentence with it:

"Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent."

What you are advocating is a switch in the subject from Christ (before the sentence) to the Holy Spirit. Okay, that much could be granted - if the letter didn't continue. Who is the "He" that begins the next sentence? By your rendition, it must be the Holy Spirit. So, "The Holy Spirit would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit?"

No. You are badly mistaken here. I am not saying that the pronoun "He" at the beginning of that sentence is referring to the Holy Spirit. "He [Christ] would represent Himself [Christ] as present in all places by His [Christ's] Holy Spirit."

Originally Posted By: Qinael

No, that is not accurate.

You are right. If I was saying what you claim, I would be completely wrong. But as I said, you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. You are confused as to what I am saying.

Originally Posted By: Qinael

The subject was Christ before the sentence, was Christ after the sentence, and thus was Christ in the sentence itself as well. Further, when did the Holy Spirit have the personality of humanity in order to be divested of it? "Divested" means removed, stripped, put off. There's really no other way to read this statement other than the Holy Spirit is [Christ] Himself.

Wow, Qinael. You are confused. It is saying that the Holy Spirit is not human, as Christ is. It is not implying that there was a time when the Holy Spirit had a human personality.

Remember that one of the primary rules of interpretation is to take the clear statement, not the unclear statement. The clear statement is that the Holy Spirit is a distinct personage and is "the third person of the Godhead." That means the Father is the first Person of the Godhead, and Christ is the Second Person of the Godhead. Do you believe that Christ is both the second and the third persons of the eternal Godhead?!! Is Christ two persons at the same time? He would have to be if He is both the Christ and the Holy Spirit. Don't you agree? If not, explain why not?

That would make no sense whatever, especially considering the fact that Ellen White describes the Holy Spirit as a distinct and separate entity and person who helped to make the Plan of Salvation. See Counsels On Health, 222. She also says the Holy Spirit took part in the creation of the earth. Genesis 1: 2 shows that the Spirit of God was active in the creation. That Spirit was not Jesus Christ. Those are two distinct and different Beings, just as the Father and Christ are two distinct and different Beings. As Ellen White says, "there are three living Beings of the heavenly trio."

Can this be any clearer? I don't see how it could be.

Originally Posted By: Qinael

I haven't been following this discussion particularly closely (viz. at all before today), and I'm not sure if I'll continue to do so or not. I wanted to present that for the sake of the discussion you seem to be carrying on, however.

Well, I do certainly hope you come back and read and study what is being said. I would like to know what you think on the issue of the Godhead, and particularly what you think of the Ellen White statements I posted several times.

Next time you come here, though, please be sure to read and understand what people are saying before you write. You totally misstated my position and what I am saying about the Ellen White quote under discussion here. :-)

[Light Fox]

John,

Part of the reason I'm not particularly interested in entering into this thread on any regular basis is the debative nature of it. I don't really see much conducive to actual learning or progress... for example, I would estimate that you've pasted roughly 40 different sections of Ellen White's writings in that quote you keep presenting.

Now, what do you expect as a response? A reasonable, intelligent discussion would require going to the context of each statement looking for the truth through study. At that number, it is highly unlikely to happen. More likely, you will simply get a matching, opposite list of quotes from Ellen White that seem to indicate the opposite regarding the individuality of the Spirit, or present the picture of a heavenly duo rather than trio. I could compile such a list, but why would I? It would benefit nothing to either of us.

The other option would be to yes, sit and go to the context of every single one of those quotes in turn and discuss them. That would consume more time and energy than anyone is likely to see value in investing in a forum discussion, and would be an extremely one-sided presentation, as it would be only your supplied quotes being examined.

I would suggest that when it comes to forum discussion, not only does quantity not equal quality; quantity diminishes quality when it gets to the point no real discussion can be had. I really don't even see value in replying to your reply to my reply about Willie White, because well... I think it would just be repetition. I already explained myself, and it seems that you just repeated yourself in response.

That said, I have a somewhat unrelated question for you. You've made mention of Ellen White starting out her career confused about her beliefs on the Godhead, and changing them over the years to the Trinitarian viewpoint. Now, this is my question... what do you think caused that initial confusion? I'm sure you are aware that Mrs. White began her life as a Methodist, and with that, accepting the Trinity doctrine. It would seem that your timeline would have her beginning Trinitarian, abandoning or questioning that for an unknown reason, then "re-gaining the light" over the years? That isn't how "progressive light" works in my understanding, so I'm genuinely interested in what you might have to present on that issue as far as references are concerned.

Thanks.

-Edit-

I just noticed that you seem to have "sniped" me with a post right above this one, made while I was typing this reply to an earlier post of yours. I may or may not respond to the one directly above this at a later time. Presently, it seems such a reply would consist largely of cut-and-pasting dictionary entries on words such as "divested", which I'm not inclined towards.

[John317]

...Now, what do you expect as a response? A reasonable, intelligent discussion would require going to the context of each statement looking for the truth through study. At that number, it is highly unlikely to happen. More likely, you will simply get a matching, opposite list of quotes from Ellen White that seem to indicate the opposite regarding the individuality of the Spirit, or present the picture of a heavenly duo rather than trio. I could compile such a list, but why would I? It would benefit nothing to either of us.

Does Ellen White speak out of both sides of her mouth? Is she confusing and unclear? We need to study everything she wrote and said on the subject, just as we need to study everything the Bible says about it.

Let us look at all the statements that you believe would show an opposite view. That is what this forum is all about.

I see you have not been on the Forum very long. Make your case, please.

[John317]

The other option would be to yes, sit and go to the context of every single one of those quotes in turn and discuss them. That would consume more time and energy than anyone is likely to see value in investing in a forum discussion, and would be an extremely one-sided presentation, as it would be only your supplied quotes being examined.

What I am suggesting is that people look at those quotes and tell if there is a clear view of the Godhead as three Beings.

I don't see how it can be referring to anything else. Can you show me how those quotes don't refer to three heavenly Beings? I'm asking you to use reasoning here about the language that Ellen White uses.

[Light Fox]

Thank you for the offer, but I don't think I was particularly "confusing or unclear" regarding whether I would be doing so.

-Edit-

Okay, "sniped" again... You seem to post twice in rapid succession quite often. The above was intended for your second post up, for the record.

[John317]

... I have a somewhat unrelated question for you. You've made mention of Ellen White starting out her career confused about her beliefs on the Godhead, and changing them over the years to the Trinitarian viewpoint. Now, this is my question... what do you think caused that initial confusion? I'm sure you are aware that Mrs. White began her life as a Methodist, and with that, accepting the Trinity doctrine. It would seem that your timeline would have her beginning Trinitarian, abandoning or questioning that for an unknown reason, then "re-gaining the light" over the years? That isn't how "progressive light" works in my understanding, so I'm genuinely interested in what you might have to present on that issue as far as references are concerned.

Thanks.

Good question. The answer is well documented in a book entitled, The Trinity, by Whidden, Moon, and Reeve (Review & Herald Pub) 2002. In it you will find a time-line of Ellen White's writings on the topic and the views of various other Pioneers at those same times. It shows what she believed and when she believed it.

Ellen White began as a Methodist, but during the time she spent with James White and Joseph Bates, etc., who were non-Trinitarian, she doubted many of the things that the Methodists had taught regarding the Godhead. For instance, she didn't accept the Methodist view of God without body and parts. So, yes, that is what happened. Ellen White chose to believe and write only what God was showing her and what she was learning from her study. That is why when we read her early writings, they don't contradict what she wrote later in life. It was because she didn't write her opinions but only what she knew to be true on the basis of God's revelations to her.

She never did accept the view of the Trinity that other churches believed. So it is not true that she rejected the views that she later accepted again. The SDA view of the Trinity is different some some important respects from the views of the Trinity as held by Catholics and Methodists, etc.

That was part of God's plan-- so that the church would only accept what God had revealed on the topic and not accept the traditional views of the Trinity. God was gradually and slowly leading our church to accept more and more light. But today there are those who want to go back to the way the Pioneers believed--- before Ellen White wrote Patriarchs and Prophets, Desire of Ages, and the statements found in Evangelism 614-617. The Pioneers were wrong on this topic, and many of them changed when they saw their error. Why return to the error?

[John317]

Okay, "sniped" again... You seem to post twice in rapid succession quite often. The above was intended for your second post up, for the record.

I will respond to all your posts and questions. I can tell what you are responding to. I ususally answer people in detail, often discussing their entire post.

I view my posts not as debates but as conversations and exchanges, just as we would converse if you were here in my house. I hate debates and will not take part in them.

[John317]

You seem to post twice in rapid succession quite often.

Yep. I do write fast. I hope that's alright. :-)

I've never had any complaints about that before. I do deal in detail with your posts and comments.

[ClubV12]

I'm learning a great deal from this thread, about the three great worthies. I love that way she phrases it... :)

[John317]

Good to hear.

[Dr. Rich]

John317, have you ever found a place where EGW said she actually SAW the Holy Spirit in it's original form as a 'being'?

[Dr. Rich]

Also John, what did EGW have to say about the "Woman" of Revelation 12? It is my opinion that this woman IS the Holy Spirit because Mary and the Church were never in heaven (Rev. 1:1)

[John317]

No, she never said such a thing-- about seeing the Holy Spirit. People have seen representations of the Holy Spirit but never the actual Being Himself.

[Guest]

Also John, what did EGW have to say about the "Woman" of Revelation 12? It is my opinion that this woman IS the Holy Spirit because Mary and the Church were never in heaven (Rev. 1:1)

Neither were a lot of other things that John saw in heaven, in VISION. It's SYMBOLIC Rich. The book of Revelation is almost 100% symbolism. Everything is not literal, as your line of reasoning would require.

The only way to understand it is to let the Bible interpret what all the symbols mean. That, and the Holy Spirit guiding. Without that, nobody can get it right.

[John317]

We've been over the topic of the Woman of Rev. 12. This is no symbol of the Holy Spirit. It is a symbol of God's people, His Church, which brought forth the Messiah. That is to say, the Messiah came from the Jewish people, who were God's Church prior to 34 AD.

To say that this woman was the Holy Spirit makes no sense because it would mean that the Holy Spirit was attacked by Satan and driven into the wilderness, where the Holy Spirit was nourished and fed for a long period of time. We know that this is precisely what happened to significant portions of the church, and for the length of time the prophecy specifies.

The Bible is plain that woman is a symbol of a church-- a pure woman being a symbol of a pure church and a impure woman being a symbol of an impure, adulterous church.

This is also Ellen White's view of the woman of Rev. 12. See 4 SP 276.

Your mistake is in thinking that "in heaven" (12: 1) refers to God's dwelling place, whereas it almost certainly refers to the sky. So in vision John was shown this sign, or symbol, in the sky. Notice that it says that the moon was under the woman's feet. That would not be the case if "heaven" is a description of God's dwelling place. The moon is in the sky, not in God's dwelling place.

[Guest]

No, she never said such a thing-- about seeing the Holy Spirit. People have seen representations of the Holy Spirit but never the actual Being Himself.

That's because "He" is the spirit of Jesus, and/or the Father. And yes you can acurately say it is the third person of the Godhead, because you could not see or encounter Him/it while talking face to face with Jesus. That's why He said he HAD to go away before He could send the comforter. He also said:

Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Right there he identified himself as the comforter, and the one who would be coming to do the job. To say it's not Him, but somebody else would make God a liar. And we both know that's impossible.

[John317]

Yes, Christ comes to us by the Holy Spirit. But Christ and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same person. Ellen White tells us that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, or personage.

If we say that Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same person, what do we do with the statement of Ellen White that "the [eternal] 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.."?

We see right there that there was a distinction in the person of the Son and in the person of the Holy Spirit, long before Christ came to this earth as a human being.

Also, to say Christ and the Holy Spirit are the same person would mean that Gen. 1: 2 is describing Christ. Ellen White is quite clear in the book Education that this is referring to the same Holy Spirit that Christ and the Father sent down to this earth to teach and guide us into all truth. John 14 and 16 make clear that this is "another" Comforter, not the same one as Christ was. If Christ was a person, and He said He was sending another Comforter, we could reasonably expect Him to send another person, since Christ Himself is a person.

Christ did not say, "I will send me to you when I am in heaven."

Another point that is important to consider is that Ellen White says that Christ is the fullness of the Godhead, and that the Holy Spirit is the fullness of the Godhead. If we say Christ is both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, it would mean that Christ is two persons, both of whom are the fullness of the Godhead.

[Dr. Rich]

No, she never said such a thing-- about seeing the Holy Spirit. People have seen representations of the Holy Spirit but never the actual Being Himself.

Thanks John, as I would agree. In all my reading of her books and letters I never read where she said anything about actually seeing the Holy Spirit. I just wanted to be sure I didn't miss something.

[Dr. Rich]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Also John, what did EGW have to say about the "Woman" of Revelation 12? It is my opinion that this woman IS the Holy Spirit because Mary and the Church were never in heaven (Rev. 1:1)

Neither were a lot of other things that John saw in heaven, in VISION. It's SYMBOLIC Rich. The book of Revelation is almost 100% symbolism. Everything is not literal, as your line of reasoning would require.

The only way to understand it is to let the Bible interpret what all the symbols mean. That, and the Holy Spirit guiding. Without that, nobody can get it right.

Oh I fully agree RLH. Of course the Holy Spirit would not look like a girl or woman, that was not my question. Thanks.

[John317]

Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Right there he identified himself as the comforter, and the one who would be coming to do the job. To say it's not Him, but somebody else would make God a liar. And we both know that's impossible.

No, we know He is not a liar. No doubt about that.

Let's look at what Jesus said in John 14 to make sure we understand Him correctly.

In verse 16, Jesus says, "I will ask the Father, and He will give you ANOTHER ADVOCATE (Helper), to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you."

So Jesus is promising to send them "another" or "some other" (not the same) to them. Again, since Christ is a person, we can be sure that this different Comforter will also be a person. Jesus is talking about some other Comforter, not Himself.

Then see verses 26 and onwards. "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

Now 15: 26: "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, He will testify on my behalf."

NOTICE that verse 26 would mean that Christ sends Himself from the Father, and Christ will testify on Christ's behalf.

16: 13-- "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on his own, but He will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because He will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For that reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."

If the Holy Spirit is actually Christ, and therefore Christ is the Advocate, it would necessarily mean that Christ is sending Himself from the Father after Christ arrives in heaven. Not only that but Christ then is saying that He Himself will glorify Himself and that He will take what is His own and declare His own things to His disciples.

[Dr. Rich]

We've been over the topic of the Woman of Rev. 12. This is no symbol of the Holy Spirit. It is a symbol of God's people, His Church, which brought forth the Messiah. That is to say, the Messiah came from the Jewish people, who were God's Church prior to 34 AD.

To say that this woman was the Holy Spirit makes no sense because it would mean that the Holy Spirit was attacked by Satan and driven into the wilderness, where the Holy Spirit was nourished and fed for a long period of time. We know that this is precisely what happened to significant portions of the church, and for the length of time the prophecy specifies.

The Bible is plain that woman is a symbol of a church-- a pure woman being a symbol of a pure church and a impure woman being a symbol of an impure, adulterous church.

This is also Ellen White's view of the woman of Rev. 12. See 4 SP 276.

Your mistake is in thinking that "in heaven" (12: 1) refers to God's dwelling place, whereas it almost certainly refers to the sky. So in vision John was shown this sign, or symbol, in the sky.

Yep, we have been over it. I did not need a sermon, just wanted to know what you thing EGW's view was.

Of course it couldn't be Mary as she isn't around to give birth to those living righteous at the end of time. And of course it can't be the church, because the church can't give birth to itself. Also, the church never gave birth to Jesus Christ. Since Jesus said one must be BORN of the Holy Spirit, it fits that the woman of Rev. 12 is the Holy Spirit. This is only my opinion, as I have now presented my evidence as to why I I believe this way.

[John317]

Yep, we have been over it. I did not need a sermon, just wanted to know what you thing EGW's view was.

Like I've said before, I write responses for other people who come here and read and may never write a post.

[Dr. Waite]

But I would like to ask you: what aspect of the Trinity doctrine (as SDAs believe it) is not found in Ellen White's writings?

Quote from "The Trinity in Scripture by Gerhard Pfandl":

"The sonship of Jesus, however, is not ontological, but functional. In the plan of salvation each member of the trinity has accepted a particular role."

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "Ontological" means "related to or based upon being or existence"

Does the writing of the Bible or EGW teach that Jesus was not the Son of God "in being or existence" and that he took a particular role?

Does this teaching make Jesus a liar like the Satan?

[John317]

Of course it couldn't be Mary as she isn't around to give birth to those living righteous at the end of time.

You're right-- the woman in Rev. 12: 1 is not a symbol of Mary. That is often the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted By: Dr.Rich

And of course it can't be the church, because the church can't give birth to itself.

The Messiah is not the church. The Church in Rev. 12: 1 is referring not to the Messiah but to the people of God from whom the Messiah came. Remember, Jesus Himself said, "Salvation is of the Jews." John 4: 22. That is to say, The Messiah came from the Jews. Every school boy knows this-- well, OK, they used to know it. Who were the Jews but God's people-- His church (the called out ones) in the wilderness?

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Also, the church never gave birth to Jesus Christ. Since Jesus said one must be BORN of the Holy Spirit, it fits that the woman of Rev. 12 is the Holy Spirit. This is only my opinion, as I have now presented my evidence as to why I I believe this way.

What people did Jesus come out of? Was it not the Jews? And weren't the Jews God's people until after the death of Christ?