What about the TRINITY....have we lost our WAY?

[stinsonmarri]

On 7/29/2018 at 11:53 PM, Gustave said:

Stinsonmarri, you realize that Ellen White believed ( and taught ) that God ( AKA The Father ) was made out of "flesh" and had all the organs, bones and members of a perfect man? Do you believe that this was right? 

Really do you have that quote? If she did she was incorrect!

For HE received from ELOHIYM THE FATHER HONOUR and GLORY, when there came such a VOICE to HIM from the EXCELLENT GLORY, This is MY Beloved SON, in whom I AM well pleased. 2 Peter 1:17

ELOHIYM is a SPIRITUAL BEING: and those who worship HIM must be led by the SPIRIT worship to HIM according to the truth. John 4:24  Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC), Contemporary English Version (CEV)

I have never read that THE FATHER or THE HOLY SPIRIT became flesh! Flesh and blood will NOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

And answering, YAHSHUA said to him, Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but MY FATHER in Heaven. Mat 16:17 HRB

 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of EL; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1Co 15:50 SACRED NAMES KJV

Blessings!

[Gustave]

16 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Really do you have that quote? If she did she was incorrect!

For HE received from ELOHIYM THE FATHER HONOUR and GLORY, when there came such a VOICE to HIM from the EXCELLENT GLORY, This is MY Beloved SON, in whom I AM well pleased. 2 Peter 1:17

ELOHIYM is a SPIRITUAL BEING: and those who worship HIM must be led by the SPIRIT worship to HIM according to the truth. John 4:24  Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC), Contemporary English Version (CEV)

I have never read that THE FATHER or THE HOLY SPIRIT became flesh! Flesh and blood will NOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

And answering, YAHSHUA said to him, Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but MY FATHER in Heaven. Mat 16:17 HRB

 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of EL; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1Co 15:50 SACRED NAMES KJV

Blessings!

Stinsonmarri, please click 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Stinsonmarri:

1)  In regard to your statement that Bill Cork was incorrect:  You both cite the same statement, other than a typo that one has.  That statement was published in a number of SDA documents.  Both of you are correct as to a source for that statement.  Neither of you is wrong.  It simply appears that each of you correctly referenced the statement from different publication.

2) As to your statement to the effect that the early pioneers were not Arian at all.  Of course they did not use the word  "Arian."  That was not the style of those people.  But, their failure to use that word does not mean that they were not Arian.  To determine whether or not they were Arian, one must study their teachings and compare with Arian teachings.   In this regard, there was no one unified concept as to the fundamental nature of God among those early denominational leaders.  They differed among themselves.  What one believed was not exactly what another believed.

You have hit upon an interesting issue in raising this point.  SDA scholars today are debating the extent to which individual denominational leaders were Arian.  You see, there is not a one set of Arian doctrines that fits all.  It is well known that Arian doctrines existed in a range.   If you wish to study this, compare Semi-Arianism with Arianism.  Some SDA Scholars are currently suggesting that those early denominational leaders were Semi-Arian rather that full fledged Arian.  Even in this there exists a range of Semi-Arian beliefs.

Here is the bottom line as I see it:  When you say that they were not "Arian at all<"  I consider you to be wrong.   If your were to say that they were not fully Arian, you would find yourself in good company with other SDA Scholars.

3)  On another issue:  On February 5 I posted a Spanish (?) statement of SDA Fundamental Beliefs that was published in 1914.  It looks to me to be Trinitarian and it uses the word "Trindade."   That was published while EGW was alive. 

[Gregory Matthews]

The following areticle is of interest for those who want to study this issue.

http://www.atsjats.org/publication/view/240

 

 

 

[Gustave]

8 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The following areticle is of interest for those who want to study this issue.

http://www.atsjats.org/publication/view/240

 

 

 

Page 138 in the above article is explicit that Christ is, ONE IN NATURE WITH THE FATHER - much hassle would / could have been prevented had the Church just accepted that from the beginning. Everything I've seen written within the archives prior to the death of Ellen White stressed that God WAS a "unity" & absolutely NOT a compound Being. In the Pioneers ( and Ellen's ) view God was a REAL PERSON with a body with every part and member a perfect man has.

[Gregory Matthews]

Again,  you have quoted nothing that has said that God had the same digestive organs that Adam and Eve had.

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Again,  you have quoted nothing that has said that God had the same digestive organs that Adam and Eve had.

 

I was hoping you'd say that. 

[stinsonmarri]

16 hours ago, Gustave said:

Stinsonmarri, please click 

 

Gustave it shows that this was not EGW and you also did not provide the complete though. So I will provide it for you.

The humiliation which J (MESSIAH) voluntarily took upon Himself is best expressed by Paul to the Philippians. “Have this mind in you which was also in JC (MESSIAH YAHSHUA), who being originally in THE FORM of GD (EL), counted it not a thing to be grasped [that is, to be clung to] to be on an Equality with GD (EL), but emptied HIMSELF, taking the form of a bond-servant, becoming in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, HE humbled HIMSELF, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:5-8 By E. J. Waggoner ______and His Righteousness

Let this mind be in you, which was also in MASHIYACH YAHSHUA: Who, being in THE FORM of ELOHIYM, thought it not robbery to be Equal with EL: But made HIMSELF of no reputation, and took upon HIM the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, HE humbled HIMSELF, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Php 2:5-8 SACRED NAMES KJV

Just to let you know, I was raised on EGW, the history the church and the pioneers. I have a library of EGW on my shelf and desktop. When I was a little girl my mother sent her children to Church School. Back in the Fifties and Sixties we taught the history of the SDA Church. 

As I continue to say to all EGW was not sure who THE HOLY SPIRIT IS:

THE NATURE of THE HOLY SPIRIT is a mystery not clearly revealed, and you will never be able to explain it to others because ______ has not revealed it to you. You may gather together Scriptures and put your construction upon them, but the application is not correct.… It is not essential for you to know and be able to define just what THE HOLY SPIRIT IS.

She then a little later said this:

'I will pray THE FATHER, and HE shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever; even THE SPIRIT of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seethed HIM not, neither knoweth HIM: but ye know HIM, for HE dwelleth with you, and shall be in you' John 14:16.This refers to THE OMNIPRESENCE of THE SPIRIT of C, (MESSIAH) called THE COMFORTER... 

It appeared in her thinking that she felt it was might THE OMNIPRESENCE of YAHSHUA. But then she changed her mind and again said:

There are many mysteries which I do not seek to understand or to explain; they are too high for me, and too high for you. On some of these points, silence is golden.… (Ellen White, June 11, 1891, Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, pp. 175-180)

I will continue to say that she did not believe in the trinity. Yes, she did say the “third person,” in Desire of Ages, p. 671; but she again said it was YAHSHUA’S SPIRIT the same thought she stated above. This was her thoughts but she did not state or ever say the trinity. Everything was not revealed to the pioneers but the Bible shows clearly that there ARE THREE HOLY SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL HOLY SPIRIT BEINGS! Again everyone must choose for themselves.

Blessings!

[Gustave]

7 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

Gustave it shows that this was not EGW and you also did not provide the complete though. So I will provide it for you.

The humiliation which J (MESSIAH) voluntarily took upon Himself is best expressed by Paul to the Philippians. “Have this mind in you which was also in JC (MESSIAH YAHSHUA), who being originally in THE FORM of GD (EL), counted it not a thing to be grasped [that is, to be clung to] to be on an Equality with GD (EL), but emptied HIMSELF, taking the form of a bond-servant, becoming in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, HE humbled HIMSELF, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:5-8 By E. J. Waggoner ______and His Righteousness

Let this mind be in you, which was also in MASHIYACH YAHSHUA: Who, being in THE FORM of ELOHIYM, thought it not robbery to be Equal with EL: But made HIMSELF of no reputation, and took upon HIM the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, HE humbled HIMSELF, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Php 2:5-8 SACRED NAMES KJV

Just to let you know, I was raised on EGW, the history the church and the pioneers. I have a library of EGW on my shelf and desktop. When I was a little girl my mother sent her children to Church School. Back in the Fifties and Sixties we taught the history of the SDA Church. 

As I continue to say to all EGW was not sure who THE HOLY SPIRIT IS:

THE NATURE of THE HOLY SPIRIT is a mystery not clearly revealed, and you will never be able to explain it to others because ______ has not revealed it to you. You may gather together Scriptures and put your construction upon them, but the application is not correct.… It is not essential for you to know and be able to define just what THE HOLY SPIRIT IS.

She then a little later said this:

'I will pray THE FATHER, and HE shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever; even THE SPIRIT of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seethed HIM not, neither knoweth HIM: but ye know HIM, for HE dwelleth with you, and shall be in you' John 14:16.This refers to THE OMNIPRESENCE of THE SPIRIT of C, (MESSIAH) called THE COMFORTER... 

It appeared in her thinking that she felt it was might THE OMNIPRESENCE of YAHSHUA. But then she changed her mind and again said:

There are many mysteries which I do not seek to understand or to explain; they are too high for me, and too high for you. On some of these points, silence is golden.… (Ellen White, June 11, 1891, Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, pp. 175-180)

I will continue to say that she did not believe in the trinity. Yes, she did say the “third person,” in Desire of Ages, p. 671; but she again said it was YAHSHUA’S SPIRIT the same thought she stated above. This was her thoughts but she did not state or ever say the trinity. Everything was not revealed to the pioneers but the Bible shows clearly that there ARE THREE HOLY SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL HOLY SPIRIT BEINGS! Again everyone must choose for themselves.

Blessings!

Stinsonmarri, if you look at the August 22, 1878 Review & Herald it says:

"Here we have, after prayer and careful deliberation, decided very important matters pertaining to the cause. And here, too, we have assisted him in the revision of his very valuable work entitled, " The Bible from Heaven," and his articles on the Personality of God, the Divinity of Christ, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit".

The articles on "The Personality of God" WERE the articles that Ellen White & her husband helped Canright REVISE. 

You are still misunderstanding my position - I don't believe Ellen White was a Trinitarian between the time of her marriage to James White and her death. Ellen WAS a Trinitarian while a Methodist but she gave that up when she became part of the post Millerite Advent group ( which were all non-Trinitarians ). 

I'll come back to explain more to you later but I'm working on a post for Gregory about God the Father having internal organs. 

 

[stinsonmarri]

13 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The following areticle is of interest for those who want to study this issue.

http://www.atsjats.org/publication/view/240

 

 

 

Pastor Matthews too me we should study other writings and then compare them to the Bible. It is our creed of faith. Many SDA leaders will write and try to convince all about the trinity. I do not agree with their writings, I take the Bible. The Bible say many will be lost due to the lack of knowledge of the Law. I know clearly that EGW said words were changed in the Bible, this included context as well. EGW also said that many lights will go out and only 1 out of every 20 will be save in the Church. To me that's a wake up call! 

Since the Church has accepted the trinity, many things have creep in and truth have left. The Investigated Judgment is not taught anymore. Homosexuality are being baptized as couples taking official positions in the Church. I saw a minister that I went to Oakwood with, speak in tongues publicly and many saw it! He is very well known. Dr. Ben Carson has not stood up for YAHWEH'S Principles. The Church is split over women being ordain, and over many voting for Trump! Many new views are being taught and it is causing confusion. THE SACRED NAMES are rejected and more, when we should know and teach Paleo Hebrew. I was shock, when one minister said that our schools only teach Greek! Truth about Judaic versus Israel and Jews versus Hebrews. The religion is false and the people are not the same people, they are Ashkenazi's and they made this claim themselves. However, the Bible said that Japheth would dwell in the tents of Shem!

Our schools are not the same, I know Oakwood sold the cafeteria to Marriott! Why? The dairy, farm, furniture we use to build are all gone! It appears that the love we use to have is cold. I am not against jewelry that is modest and cheap, but not on the Sabbath! Our churches do not look the same anymore. People go out and eat on the Sabbath, I was guilty of that myself but I stopped. I was so a shame of how disrespectful YAHWEH. We are all about the Sabbath we preach about all the time. To me too much, and not enough on the entire Law and Testimony! Well if we don't keep HIS NAME HOLY, how can we keep HIS Holy Sabbath!!!!!! We sing the song: We come into this Holy Place!" What Holy Place?

Finally, I say with sadness that we have taken on what Nimrod introduce into the world and the Catholic brought it back in a great way. We have allow this pagan thing, the trinity to take over the Church and it is falling! Only the remnant of the woman will keep all the Commandments of YAHWEH and have the Testimony of YAHSHUA. We all must soon make a choice!

Blessings!

[stinsonmarri]

46 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Stinsonmarri, if you look at the August 22, 1878 Review & Herald it says:

"Here we have, after prayer and careful deliberation, decided very important matters pertaining to the cause. And here, too, we have assisted him in the revision of his very valuable work entitled, " The Bible from Heaven," and his articles on the Personality of God, the Divinity of Christ, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit".

The articles on "The Personality of God" WERE the articles that Ellen White & her husband helped Canright REVISE. 

You are still misunderstanding my position - I don't believe Ellen White was a Trinitarian between the time of her marriage to James White and her death. Ellen WAS a Trinitarian while a Methodist but she gave that up when she became part of the post Millerite Advent group ( which were all non-Trinitarians ). 

I'll come back to explain more to you later but I'm working on a post for Gregory about God the Father having internal organs. 

 

Here are the 1878 Review and Herald:

February 21, 1878

March 14, 1878

March 21, 1878

June 6, 1878

August 8, 1878

August 8, 1878

October 31, 1878

November 7, 1878

November 7, 1878

November 21, 1878

November 28, 1878

December 12, 1878

December 12, 1878

December 19, 1878

I do not see an August 22, nor do I find the writings you have provides. Give me the sight that you found this on! I am glad you do accept that as a Methodist she did once believed in the trinity. After leaving the Methodist Church and becoming and Adventist she no longer believe in the trinity! All the pioneers believe in the word godhead, but it means DIVINITY. Why the KJV change it is why she said words had been change in the Bible. This is one of those words!

Blessings!

[Gustave]

5 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

Here are the 1878 Review and Herald:

February 21, 1878

March 14, 1878

March 21, 1878

June 6, 1878

August 8, 1878

August 8, 1878

October 31, 1878

November 7, 1878

November 7, 1878

November 21, 1878

November 28, 1878

December 12, 1878

December 12, 1878

December 19, 1878

I do not see an August 22, nor do I find the writings you have provides. Give me the sight that you found this on! I am glad you do accept that as a Methodist she did once believed in the trinity. After leaving the Methodist Church and becoming and Adventist she no longer believe in the trinity! All the pioneers believe in the word godhead, but it means DIVINITY. Why the KJV change it is why she said words had been change in the Bible. This is one of those words!

Blessings!

Here it is, August 22, 1878 - scroll down to the article that says "COLORADO TENT" & you'll find it there.

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780822-V52-09.pdf

Understand that I AM a Trinitarian - but I do agree with you that Ellen wasn't a Trinitarian - Ellen agreed with Arius that Christ was mutable ( capable of mutation ) which is absolutely the direct opposite of what the Bible teaches. 

[Gregory Matthews]

In this discussion people have posted as to what several named leaders in the early SDA Chruch thought.  The following article is of interest as it discusses what EGW thought as to the Holy Sp;irit.

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2012/04/ellen-white-and-the-personhood-of-the-holy-spirit

 

[Gustave]

17 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Again,  you have quoted nothing that has said that God had the same digestive organs that Adam and Eve had.

 

Ok, you agree that Ellen & James White:  "assisted him [ Canright ] in the revision of his very valuable work entitled, " The Bible from Heaven," AND his articles on the Personality of God...." ( Review & Herald, August 29, 1878 under Colorado Tent )

Within those articles ( that Ellen helped write  ) there is a statement that reads :  "Thus it is declared that God has ALL the members AND parts of a perfect man". Review & Herald September 5, 1878

Knowing that both Ellen & James White viewed the "Personality of God" Doctrine as important to the Adventist cause we can conclude that the language within the articles was either approved of by Ellen White OR written herself. That being said all we have to do is establish what "members and parts" meant to the authors of the same periodicals the Personality of God was discussed.

"Our farmers seldom spend more than ten or fifteen minutes at a meal, and then go immediately to the field and engage in the most laborious work. At least one hour should be spent after each meal in repose of both body and mind. This will allow the stomach to collect to itself, so to speak, a due quantity of blood, out of which to elaborate the gastric juice. Violent exercise calls the blood to other PARTS of the body, and thus robs the stomach". Review & Herald December 12, 1865

The stomach IS a digestive organ and as you can see the author called it a "part" in that violent exercise would cause the blood to go to OTHER PARTS  of the body( away from the stomach ) 

This quote isn't exhaustive of the words "members" and "parts" within the context of the body - it's simply representative of what you'll find in the archives.

Before you claim that ISN'T what Ellen meant consider that since 1855 the Adventists had been repeatedly saying "GOD HAS A BODY" in article after article. Ellen didn't just say that "God has a body" she said that God has ALL the members AND parts of a perfect man. Would a perfect man not have a stomach, liver, rectum, etc? Ellen claimed this of "The Father" and pre Incarnate Michael the archangel.

[JoeMo]

Thanks for posting that article, Gregory. I liked it.  It was well balanced and objective.  I must say that I am a fan of the early Adventist viewpoint.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, the following quote is taken from the September 5, Review & Herald article by Canright.

1)  In that article, the parts of a perfect man are defined as hands, face, heart, hair, form and shape.  Nowhere in the article does it go beyond that to stated that a digestive system, etc, is included.  Your attempt to say such is reading your presupposition into the document, rather than taking the document at what it says.

2)  Ellen White did at times assist in that publication of a tract, pamphlet, document with another person.  SDA scholars know this and do not debate it.  I do not know whether or not she assisted Canright in the article that you cite.  However, it does not matter whether or not she did assist him.

3)  SDAs to include EGW have not considered her works to be verbally inspired/dictated.  Perhaps you can find some individual who  considered such, but that was neither her teaching nor that of the SDA denomination.   From this perspective, any work in which she assisted someone else, would not be verbally inspired, and  as you are probably aware of SDA history,  Canright is not  someone who should be placed in such a status.

4)  I would not argue with one who stated that there were SDAs who believed that God had the hands, feet, etc. mentioned in the quote.  But, it is not good scholarship to go beyond that and to state that they also believed that God had digestive organs. 

5)  However, even if some did, to include EGW, such would only indicate that she was wrong.  EGW was a human who was not perfect, and did not have a perfect understanding of God.

6)   But, your evidence is lacking.  You have tailed to prove your point.

 

 

 

Quote

All through the Scriptures God is described as a being in the form of man. Thus, he is said to have a head, and hairs of his

82  THE REVIEW AND HE ALD. [VoL. 52, No. 1

head, Dan. 7: 9; and hands, Ex. 33:22; feet, Ex. 24: 10; loins, Eze. 1:27; face, Matt. 18:10; heart, Gen. 6: 6; parts, Ex. 33: 23; a form, Phil. 2:6; shape, John 5: 87; person, Heb. 1:3; soul, Jer. 5:9; and spirit, Matt. 12: 28. Thus it is declared that God has all the members and parts of a perfect man. This is not said once, nor twice, but many times, not in parables and symbols, and figures, but directly and plainly.

 

 

[stinsonmarri]

18 hours ago, Gustave said:

Here it is, August 22, 1878 - scroll down to the article that says "COLORADO TENT" & you'll find it there.

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780822-V52-09.pdf

Understand that I AM a Trinitarian - but I do agree with you that Ellen wasn't a Trinitarian - Ellen agreed with Arius that Christ was mutable ( capable of mutation ) which is absolutely the direct opposite of what the Bible teaches. 

Thanks, I appreciate finding that missing periodical. I know that you believe in the trinity. And we  are on the same page about EGW did not believe in the trinity. However, why do you and others accuse her of Arianism just because she did not believe in the trinity. I am going to provide proof leaving it as it was written. I just want make it clear I still stand for THE SACRED NAMES!

“Let the brightest example the world has yet seen be your example, rather than the greatest and most learned men of the age, who know not God, nor Jesus Christ whom HE has sent. THE FATHER and THE SON alone are to be Exalted” (Ellen White, The Youth’s Instructor, 7 July 1898).

“After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it, THE FATHER and THE SON carried out their purpose, … And now God said to HIS SON, ‘Let US make man in OUR IMAGE’” (Ellen White, 1SP pp. 24-25).

The plan of salvation was made between two, not three. “The plan of redemption was arranged in the councils between THE FATHER and THE SON” (Ellen White, RH, 28 May 1908

"Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor." EGW, Manuscript Release 760 p. 9.5, 1905

"The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." J. N. Andrews, Review & Herald, March 6, 1855

"Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away [with] the personality of God, and of HIS SON Jesus Christ..." James S. White, Review & Herald, December 11, 1855

They felt that the trinity took away the DEITY of YAHSHUA and EGW felt that THE HOLY SPIRIT in her time was a mystery. Today it is known by looking clearly at Gen 1:1 in the original language of Paleo Hebrew; the word "of," is not there! It is THE SPIRIT ELOHIYM and YAHSHUA said that HE must leave so that COMFORTER could come. YAHSHUA also said that THE HOLY SPIRIT does not speak about HIMSELF. That is extremely important and only THE HOLY SPIRIT can seal us! EGW and the pioneers thought that the angels were the sons of ELOHIYM, the are not, they are spiritual beings who are ministers! These pioneers were ever learning and they did not understand everything. Today like the Hebrews, we should be on meat, SDA like Israel have gone astray!

Blessings! 

[Gregory Matthews]

Paleo Hebrew:  What is it?  It is a mistake to think of Paleo Hebrew as a language.  Rather, it is an alphabetic script.  As an alphabetic script, it was used by the Phoenicians, Canaanites, Moabites and Hebrews to write in their languages.    It continued to be used by the Hebrews for a very long time.  However, during the Babylonian Captivity, the Hebrews people began to write the Hebrew language in what is called today the Aramaic Square Script (ASS).    This ASS became the alphabetic script used in the majority of Hebrew writings.

While it might be said that some Biblical autographs were probably written in the Paleo Hebrews script in the autographs, none of those autographs exist today.  All we have are copies which we believe to be of the autographs.  In general, the Hebrew copies were written in the ASS.  They were not written in Paleo Hebrew. 

As no autographs exist, anytime one states that in the Paleo Hebrew of the Bible, something is written,   they are either using conjecture, speculation, or perhaps citing a copy.

Again, my major point is that Paleo Hebrew is an alphabetic script that was used at one time to write the Hebrew language as well as that of several other languages.

 

[Gustave]

29 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

Thanks, I appreciate finding that missing periodical. I know that you believe in the trinity. And we  are on the same page about EGW did not believe in the trinity. However, why do you and others accuse her of Arianism just because she did not believe in the trinity. I am going to provide proof leaving it as it was written. I just want make it clear I still stand for THE SACRED NAMES!

“Let the brightest example the world has yet seen be your example, rather than the greatest and most learned men of the age, who know not God, nor Jesus Christ whom HE has sent. THE FATHER and THE SON alone are to be Exalted” (Ellen White, The Youth’s Instructor, 7 July 1898).

“After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it, THE FATHER and THE SON carried out their purpose, … And now God said to HIS SON, ‘Let US make man in OUR IMAGE’” (Ellen White, 1SP pp. 24-25).

The plan of salvation was made between two, not three. “The plan of redemption was arranged in the councils between THE FATHER and THE SON” (Ellen White, RH, 28 May 1908

"Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor." EGW, Manuscript Release 760 p. 9.5, 1905

"The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." J. N. Andrews, Review & Herald, March 6, 1855

"Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away [with] the personality of God, and of HIS SON Jesus Christ..." James S. White, Review & Herald, December 11, 1855

They felt that the trinity took away the DEITY of YAHSHUA and EGW felt that THE HOLY SPIRIT in her time was a mystery. Today it is known by looking clearly at Gen 1:1 in the original language of Paleo Hebrew; the word "of," is not there! It is THE SPIRIT ELOHIYM and YAHSHUA said that HE must leave so that COMFORTER could come. YAHSHUA also said that THE HOLY SPIRIT does not speak about HIMSELF. That is extremely important and only THE HOLY SPIRIT can seal us! EGW and the pioneers thought that the angels were the sons of ELOHIYM, the are not, they are spiritual beings who are ministers! These pioneers were ever learning and they did not understand everything. Today like the Hebrews, we should be on meat, SDA like Israel have gone astray!

Blessings! 

Hi Stinson, I'm glad that you understand me that I DO BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY.

You ask: "WHY DO YOU and others accuse her of Arianism because she didn't believe in the Trinity"? 

I can't answer for other people Stinsonmarri but the reason I do is because she vigorously taught the primary element of Arius's theology.  

"First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, AND that the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, you have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting recompense for his own sin. So far indeed has his impiety prevailed, that he has even destroyed Theonas of Marmorica and Secundes of Ptolemais; for they also have received the same sentence as the rest". portion of the Synodal Letter / Council of Nicaea 

Ellen White fanatically taught that it was VITAL for Christians to know that Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation - AND detailed what would have happened IF Christ sinned. The Bible is explicit that there was  zero percent chance of this happening and would contradict God over a 100 times yet still Ellen insisted this was the case despite the absolute MOUNTAIN of Texts that said the direct opposite. All Arian systems teach that Christ could have sinned and the reason they do is because they don't believe Christ was God IN THE SAME SENSE THAT THE FATHER IS GOD. 

You should read the two articles on the Holy Spirit that Ellen helped Canright write IF you want to know specifically what she believed about the Holy Spirit ( at least in 1878 ). 

[stinsonmarri]

3 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Hi Stinson, I'm glad that you understand me that I DO BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY.

You ask: "WHY DO YOU and others accuse her of Arianism because she didn't believe in the Trinity"? 

I can't answer for other people Stinsonmarri but the reason I do is because she vigorously taught the primary element of Arius's theology.  

"First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, AND that the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, you have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting recompense for his own sin. So far indeed has his impiety prevailed, that he has even destroyed Theonas of Marmorica and Secundes of Ptolemais; for they also have received the same sentence as the rest". portion of the Synodal Letter / Council of Nicaea 

Ellen White fanatically taught that it was VITAL for Christians to know that Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation - AND detailed what would have happened IF Christ sinned. The Bible is explicit that there was  zero percent chance of this happening and would contradict God over a 100 times yet still Ellen insisted this was the case despite the absolute MOUNTAIN of Texts that said the direct opposite. All Arian systems teach that Christ could have sinned and the reason they do is because they don't believe Christ was God IN THE SAME SENSE THAT THE FATHER IS GOD. 

You should read the two articles on the Holy Spirit that Ellen helped Canright write IF you want to know specifically what she believed about the Holy Spirit ( at least in 1878 ). 

I gave you what she believed and Canright left the Church. All the books, she wrote over what the Whites tried to assist Canright with, does not change the facts. I read the article you gave of them assisting him did not change their views. I know that Elder White believe that THE FATHER and SON was not Equal at first. He changed and she in the writings of Spirit of Prophecy, showed what she believed about THE FATHER and THE SON and as she aged that's what she stated. She still did not understand THE HOLY SPIRIT! They did not believe in Arianism, nor was it stated by her or the pioneers. I know that THE FATHER, SON and THE HOLY SPIRIT are ALMIGHTY ONES but THEY ARE INDIVIDUAL SPIRIT BEINGS and the Bible states it and that's a fact!

She believe in ONE, but two personalities and I don't. As I have said and will say again a lot of what she or them thought was correct at the time, she clearly stated in TM p. 105 they we are fallible only THE MOST HIGH and HIS SON ARE not! She clearly told us not to hold on to error. If truth comes we should prove it and stand up to the  error that the church may have thought at one time was correct. She said explicitly not to be like the Papacy or the Pharisees that preconceive ideas can't be change once truth is reveal. Today more and more truth has been reveal, but traditions and doctrines of men are in the way and have blinded the eyes.

Blessings!

[Gregory Matthews]

Was EGW Arian in her theology:

*  There is no question that several of our early denominational leaders did accept views of the nature of Christ that were related to Arianism. 

*  However, Arian theology actually exists in more than one form.  That is why sometimes people are said to be Semi-Arian in their views.

*  Those early SDA leaders also varied in their specific views on the nature of Christ.  They were not all united.  Some were less Arian than were others.

*  EGW was probably less Arian than were other of our early leaders,  in those early years.  Over time, EGW moved to a more orthodox Trinitarian viewpoint.

*  These issues are currently under debate by SDA scholars who study the history of our denomination.

*  Gustave, may have some factual basis for some of what he is posting here.  My problem is that he comes across to me as exaggerating what actually existed and of lacking the foundational support for some of what he is posting.  He seems to read into history his own bias.  

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I think thats what Gustave is doing, I have not yet seen any proof that EGW has done this. If I have time, Ill try to provide more detail soon. The use of the word "fanatically" is one thing that gives you away pretty quick. I am not sure what your motive could be, even when you are presented with evidence to the contrary.

Ellen White, Review and Herald, Jan 14, 1909
We are to be partakers of knowledge. As I have seen pictures representing Satan coming to Christ in the wilderness of temptation in the form of a hideous monster, I have thought, How little the artists knew of the Bible! Before his fall, Satan was, next to Christ, the highest ANGEL in heaven

Conditional Immortality & Divinity for Michael the archangel as he works his way to becoming Christ.

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

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

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

 

Here is where Charles Longacre got that idea from

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

Ellen White
Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty

Ellen White, L5,1900 SDA BC Volume 7,page 926
He became subject to temptation, endangering as it were, HIS DIVINE attributes. Satan sought, by the constant and curious devices of his cunning, to make Christ yield to temptation

Ellen White MS 99,1903 page 3,4
He had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will

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

Ellen White, SM book 1, page 256
Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.”

Ellen White, SDA GBC 1 Dec 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Jesus would have yielded up his life, we may estimate the value of a soul

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

The Above Arianism -  Versus 

Job 42,2
I know that you can do all things; NO purpose of yours can be thwarted

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

Ephesians 1,10
to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out EVERYTHING in conformity with the PURPOSE of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory

2 Timothy 1,8
Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the GOSPEL according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, WHICH WAS GIVEN US in Christ Jesus BEFORE the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel

Psalm 33,11
But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through ALL generations


Luke 2,25
And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should NOT see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed

Luke 24,36
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. And he said unto them, These ARE the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that ALL things MUST be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day



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

And over 90 other equally explicit texts saying Christ had to come, had to succeed and had to rise on the 3rd day 'According to the Scriptures'. 

it's all straightforward. 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

This doesnt sound very fanatical to me. I think you have got some facts mixed up

2/ Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.  {13MR 18.1}  
     
Bro. Baker, avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God; for, said the angel, "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord shall give unto him the throne of his Father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."  {13MR 18.2}  
     
These words are not addressed to any human being, except to the Son of the Infinite God. Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called that holy thing. It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves: for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the rock, Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity.  {13MR 19.1}

"He could have sinned, He could have fallen" IS the same thing as saying DON'T listen to what God said about the way He was going to do things and the way things would end up happening - listen to Ellen White.

Contrast what you quoted Ellen White saying above with what's below - it should jump out at you.

Matthew 1,20
the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he SHALL save his people from their sins

Luke 2, 25
And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, BEFORE he had seen the Lord's Christ.

The angel of the Lord is understood to be an angel sent by God with a trustworthy message - in the case Matthew 1, 20 the message from God to Joseph was that the Baby inside Mary WOULD SAVE His people from their sins.

In the case of Luke 2, 25 we have God the Holy Spirit promising Simeon that he flat out wouldn't die UNTIL he had seen the Christ - you know how that Scripture ends - Simeon says he could finally die BECAUSE he was told by God that he was holding Salvation itself in his arms WHEN he was holding the Baby Jesus. Think about that for a minute, IF Jesus would have sinned ( because Ellen said He COULD HAVE SINNED ) SIMEON would have NEVER DIED because Jesus would have NEVER BECAME THE CHRIST - God would have been driven into deep outer space by Lucifer and Michael the archangel would have been boiling with maggots in the rocky tomb AND SIMEON would have been forced to live for all eternity unless another archangel took a crack at it and succeeded in completing the hunger games without sinning.

It's either that or just accepting that Matthew 1, 20, Luke 2, 25 AND OVER 90 other Texts in the Bible were right that God would not fail and that God in addition to coming WOULD save us. 

 

 

[Gustave]

1 minute ago, The Wanderer said:

Gustave; I actually have NO IDEA what you are talking about, who you are saying it to, or why you are even doing this. I have completely lost track.

 

You said ( I thought ) that you had not seen any examples of Ellen White advocating Arianism.

I showed you what Arius said about Christ being mutable in the Synodal Letter of Nicaea. 

I provided proof that Ellen said the same thing that Arius did then provided Scriptures that showed the affirmation that Christ could have sinned is against the Scriptures.

In answer to that you imply I'm part of a satanic agency and you have no idea what I'm talking about? 

[Gregory Matthews]

Earlier, Gustave posted a series of quotes from EGW in response to a post made to The Wanderer.  I, personally, have problems with what I believe is characteristic of the manner in which Gustave posts.

*  I am often confused as to  whether Gustave is actually posting a quote, or whether he is stating a personal belief as to what someone said/wrote.  There is a difference.  Both may be done in writing and I do both when I write.  But, Gustave often leaves me confused as to what he has done.

*  In one place Gustave wrote that Longacre got a position from EGW.  It is true that EGW supported the position that Gustave stated Longacre held.  That does not mean that Longacre got it from EGW.  He may have gotten it from some other source.  Gustave does not support his idea that Longacre actually got it from EGW.

*  In the statement above, Gustave does not provide a source to support what EGW is alleged to have believed.  As a source is not provided, It becomes hard to locate a source for the alleged position of EGW.  In actual fact, I was able to locate that statement..  It is also a fact that Gustave was accurate in quoting her.  But, it would have been better if a source had been given.  It seems  to me that Gustave often fails to give a source, even though,  he often does provide a source.

*  I also find that often when Gustave provides a source, that source is either incomplete, or it is not a source that is  easily available, to be checked, by most people reading his post.  I would suggest that any source be complete, and of a source that is easily available to  most reading his post.  As an example,  Gustave cited a  quote form EGW as found in Vol. 7, page 926, of the SDABC.  That source was incomplete in a couple of aspects.  The SDABC has been printed in two major editions--1957 & 1980.  Both are easily available and are owned by SDAs.  His source is actually from the 1980 edition.  I seriously doubt that it was on that same page, in the 1957 edition, if it was in that edition at all.

*  You will note that in my listing, I have not challenged what Gustave actually posted, although I have challenged such in other cases.  My point here was to specific frustrations that I have with his posts.

*  In general, due in part to what I have stated above, Gustave comes across to me as one who has often based his views upon  what he has read in another Internet post and  has not checked actual sources.  Why?  Due to the fact that the issues that I have stated here, I can sometimes (I have not checked all.) find to exist on other Internet websites.    IOW when Gustave states a partial source, another Internet website may also partially state that same source.