Jump to content
ClubAdventist is back!

More on the Trinity


Gregory Matthews

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

More on Leroy Edwin Froom:

*  His educational level never rose above that of what was college level at this time.  The college level does not make one a trained scholar.

*  He has often been recognized for the  quality of his research and by people not associated with the SDA Church.

*  The following quote is simply one of those that point out that  his analysis of what he discovered was sometimes flawed,  Of course he is not accused of always being flawed.  The bottom line is that his writings have both value and flaws.

 

Quote

 

While "useful as a reference work [and] astonishingly accurate", it is "virtually without historical merit when Froom lifts his eyes above the level of the catalog of the British Museum".[18]   

Gregory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hanseng said:

A majority of our own founding fathers were likewise
evidently Trinitarian.

Chaplain Matthews, Gustave plainly stated that the early SDA were comprised of Arian Millerites. The following is a quote from Gustrave which I quoted:

On 6/6/2023 at 4:37 PM, Hanseng said:

The vast majority of the Millerites were Trinitarian and when William Miller admitted his error everyone left the movement and returned to their former Churches EXCEPT the anti-Trinitarians. Those that rejected the Nicene Creed that were left soon started to squabble and subsequently fractured into different groups which became "Adventists". 

According to Froom, that is a false statement.

Gustave also said: "The hard facts are that the SDA Church started as Arian / semi-Arian and compliments of their "Bible Study" concluded that Jesus was a creature of God & subsequently the General Conference got fully behind promulgating this teaching out to the masses - folks that didn't realize that Scripture taught Christ was a creature that had a point of origin."

That's another falsehood. He considers proof to be that the denomination published Smith's Daniel and Revelation which contained Arian sentiments. I'm unaware that the group Bible study done by early SDA which included validation by EGW were either Arian or Semi Arian. If either you or he can demonstrate with relevant evidence that the early Adventist Bible studies contained Arian sentiments validated by EGW. Please show me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

While "useful as a reference work [and] astonishingly accurate", it is "virtually without historical merit when Froom lifts his eyes above the level of the catalog of the British Museum".[18

Froom is a man who made and continues to make numerous enemies. He's been called a Jesuit, a freemason and now an incompetent scholar, apparently from a Wikipedia quote. Froom wasn't writing a doctoral dissertation, attempting to make an original contribution to the knowledge of historical theology. His job, as evinced by the titles of his books, was to collate existing knowledge on prophetic understanding and the state of the dead. He did a good job without a doctorate in the limited portion with which I'm familiar. I asked one of his detractors when he studied to become a Jesuit, since he spent his life in the denomination and both his parents were SDA. Drew a blank look in response.

"Movement of Destiny" is certainly one of the best books I have read [in progress] on the development of SDA beliefs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

No serious person would ever call L.E. Froom some the things that you have mentioned.  You lower rhe quality of your defense of him, in my thinking, by bringing such nonsense up.  In addition, my comments are focused over his overall works and are not focused solely on his Movement of Destiny.

If you have understood my comments, you know that I consider him to have done much more than a good job in his research.  That is exactly where he excelled.

But it is exactly in his analysis where he had problems.  No, it would not be true to say that he was always wrong.  But, his analysis was faulty at times.  The overall reason, in my opinion his analysis was faulty at times due to the fact that he was not a trained scholar and simply did not understand.

Am I a trained scholar?  No, I am not.  But it is my graduate training that has informed me that I am not.  My analysis may at times be faulty.  But, I both  recognize it and also recognize the importance of analysis of the evidence.

As to L.E. Froom, I simply agree with the comments made by those who say that he is sometimes lacking in his analysis.

Gregory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hanseng said:

"DEDUCTION: The evidence attests that there were at least 38 known
Trinitarian ministers [among the Millerites], with but five known Arian Christian Connection
ministers—a ratio of seven to one, which is a preponderant majority.
That was the illuminating doctrinal background of the leading
Millerite ministers. A majority of our own founding fathers were likewise
evidently Trinitarian."

Froom, 147

We're not talking about Millerites here. 

Of course most Millerites were Trinitarian - the Millerite movement was all about the imminent 2nd Coming of Jesus - that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844 was a lie, albeit unintentional but still a lie - the Millerites disbanded leaving only the anti-Trinitarians who didn't have a church to go back to. 

"The Personality Of God" Pillar doctrine of the SDA Church was incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity - The Pioneers and Ellen White are quite clear about that. Don't confuse Millerism with Adventism - true, the vast majority of "Millerites" were Trinitarian, such as the Baptized Ellen White and her family - however, after Miller admitted his error and disbanded the Millerite group people like Ellen converted to Arianism and were re-baptized  - in order to wash away Babylon. Supposedly immediately after Ellen was Baptized by James White it triggered a significant "vision". 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gustave said:

the Millerites disbanded leaving only the anti-Trinitarians who didn't have a church to go back to. 

What proof do you have that only that antitrinitarians were left? Even Froom uses the word "apparently" to describe those who remained. He couldn't state his point with certainty but you can? 

"...however, after Miller admitted his error and disbanded the Millerite group people like Ellen converted to Arianism and were re-baptized." I don't recall reading this. It's interesting. Where did it come from?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

On page 37 of vol. 1 of the EGW Biography the following comments are made.  Note I am not making exact quotes.

*  On June 26, 1842 Ellen was baptized by immersion in the Casco Bay, and accepted into membership in the Methodist Church.

*  Ellen reports that she felt the power of God resting upon her as she arose from  the water.  She does not report this as a vision.

*  The earliest of  her dreams began, while a Methodist member and are reported in the pages that follow. 

*  Ellen reports her first vision as occurring sometime in December of 1844.   Page 55.

 

Gregory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Virgil Robinson, writing in his 1976 biography of James White reports that early in their married ministry James White baptized Ellen.  You may find a report of that at:

https://maranathamedia.com/article/view/ellen-white-baptised-by-her-husband-early-in-experience

 

Folks, do not discount the knowledge that Gustave has of the SDA Church.  Is he never wrong?  No.  But, his level of SDA Knowledge exceeds that of probably most SDA members.


 

 

 

 

Gregory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hanseng said:

What proof do you have that only that antitrinitarians were left? Even Froom uses the word "apparently" to describe those who remained. He couldn't state his point with certainty but you can? 

"...however, after Miller admitted his error and disbanded the Millerite group people like Ellen converted to Arianism and were re-baptized." I don't recall reading this. It's interesting. Where did it come from?  

Lutheran's, Methodist's, Catholic's, Presbyterian's and folks from about every denomination in existence joined Miller's movement based off the ONLY message the movement had - get ready because Jesus is coming back on such and such a day. When realization set in that the message was false Miller renounced his errors and terminated his involvement in it. 

A Baptist does not require re-Baptism if they become members of a Methodist Church nor does a Methodist require require re-Baptism should they join a Lutheran Church. I can tell you a Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist or whatever else DOES require re-Baptism if they join up with the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and in Ellen White's case she was re-baptized by James white not long after he Baptism by the Methodist Church. 

The Jehovah's Witnesses', Mormons and SDA's teach that the Christian Church followed Babylon and as such became apostate - one of the things Joseph Smith complained about as did the JW's and SDA founders was that the Trinity doctrine was drinking deep of the wine of Babylon. This is why Ellen was baptized again - because her former Baptism was Babylon. 

I'm unfortunately slammed at work right now and just don't have the time to give your questions the attention they deserve - I'll be back when I've got more time and we can both really get into the weeds on this issue. I've collected quite a bit of material on it and will be happy to share it with you. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

NOTE:  Seventh-day Adventists do not require a person who joins the SDA Church and has been baptized by immersion to be re-baptized again.  Their original baptism is accepted as valid.  However, if that person wants to be baptized again, that is allowed to happen, but it is not required.

In some circumstances when a person has left the SDA Church, and wants to join the SDA Church again. baptism may again be required.  This will happen when it is felt that the person has publicly left the Christian faith, not just the SDA faith.  But that 2nd baptism may not be required.

Baptism is one of two methods to join the SDA denomination.  The second method is by a "Profession of Faith," which does not require a 2nd baptism.  I have assisted people in joining the SDA denomination by that method.

 

Gregory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

NOTE:  Seventh-day Adventists do not require a person who joins the SDA Church and has been baptized by immersion to be re-baptized again.  Their original baptism is accepted as valid.  However, if that person wants to be baptized again, that is allowed to happen, but it is not required.

In some circumstances when a person has left the SDA Church, and wants to join the SDA Church again. baptism may again be required.  This will happen when it is felt that the person has publicly left the Christian faith, not just the SDA faith.  But that 2nd baptism may not be required.

Baptism is one of two methods to join the SDA denomination.  The second method is by a "Profession of Faith," which does not require a 2nd baptism.  I have assisted people in joining the SDA denomination by that method.

 

Similar w/ Catholicism.

Trinitarian Baptisms are valid so the individual only needs to make a profession of Faith. 

I know Ellen was baptized by the Methodist Church when (I believe) she was 12 or 14 years of age. James White then baptized Ellen again - at the time the SDA Church was it's most militant in its anti-Trinitarianism. 

"She has been taken off in vision most frequently when bowed in prayer. Several times, while earnestly addressing the congregation, unexpectedly to herself and to all around her, she has been instantly prostrated in vision. This was a case June 12, 1868, in the presence of not less than two hundred Sabbath-keepers, in the house of worship, in Battle Creek, Mich. On receiving baptism at my hands, at an early period of her experience, as I raised her up out of the water, immediately she was in vision. Several times, when prostrated by sickness, she has been relieved in answer to the prayer of faith, and taken off in vision." Ellen G. White Messenger to the Remnant page 29.

 

Messenger to Remnant.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/7/2023 at 10:01 PM, Gustave said:

however, after Miller admitted his error and disbanded the Millerite group people like Ellen converted to Arianism and were re-baptized  - in order to wash away Babylon. Supposedly immediately after Ellen was Baptized by James White it triggered a significant "vision". 

Another good example of the spin you put on history?  Arthur White, in his biography of EGW, volume 1 pages 121 and 122 said that EGW was rebaptized due to her acceptance of the 7th day Sabbath/third angel's message, not because she was converted to Arianism. There doesn't seem to be any stated reason why she was rebaptized.

Soon after accepting the Sabbath truth, Ellen White requested rebaptism—undoubtedly into the third angel's message. James White writes of this in Life Incidents, page 273, in connection with his presentation of Ellen White's visions:

Froom says MOD, p. 73

Then in the 1860's and 1870's a few began to put into print their personal,
minority Arian views on Christ, and denied the Trinity and the personality
of the Holy Spirit. This caused increasing misunderstanding and criticism,
both outside and inside the Adventist Church. Amazingly, the Spirit of
Prophecy was kept from being influenced by the positions of this vocal minority
of strong minds. 💀And remarkably, Ellen White's published utterances from
1846 to 1888 never needed revision, repudiation of position, or withdrawal
on these points. 💀These early enunciations of truth were developed with amazing
fullness following 1888, with continuity of harmony.

Froom says that EGW did not express Arian sentiments in her early writings. That should be easy to disprove, if you have evidence to the contrary, i.e., produce proof that EGW was involved in Arianism as evinced by any of her writings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 8:25 AM, Gustave said:

I'm unfortunately slammed at work right now and just don't have the time to give your questions the attention they deserve - I'll be back when I've got more time and we can both really get into the weeds on this issue.

Gustave, In order to save time, let's be specific as to the issues in question. From my end. 1) I'd like to see some proof/evidence that most of the early adventists were Arian. 2) I'd like to see evidence/proof that EGW was rebaptized because she had accepted Arianism. 3) Evidence that the early SDA were militant Arians when EGW was rebaptized. 4) Plain statements from EGW indicating her Arianism. When I say proof/evidence, I mean a historical record which does not require interpretation.

For example on page 460/530 of Desire of Ages, EGW said 

"Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared,
“I am the resurrection, and the life.” ☀️In Christ is life, original, unborrowed,
underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” ☀️1 John 5:12. The
divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life. “He that
believeth in Me,” said Jesus, “though he were dead, yet shall he live:
and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest
thou this?”"

EGW statements contradicting this comment would be considered evidence of Arianism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Editors, Paul Petersen & Rob McIver, Biblical & Theological Studies  on the Trinity. Avondale ACademic Press, 2014, 249 pages.

Ken Arasola, "The Influence of Restorationism on eerly Seventh-day Adenism and the Emergence of a Trinitarian Perspective.  Page 165.

Virtually all key Adventist pioneers held views varying from mildly Arian to a full rejection of trinitarianism.   This is not an exact quote, and this statement holds Ellen White to be an exception.  See page 165 for the exact statement.  NOTE, in stating that EGW was an exception one should not take the position that she did not hold to Arian views.  He is simply limiting his statement to other early DSA leaders,  of whom he lists nine.

On page 174, Arasola makes the comment that the early SDAs "totally misunderstood" the standard Chrisstian doctrine of the Trinity.  Again, not an exact quote.

Bginning on page 17+, Arasola asserts (not an exact quote) that early SDA,s were often enamored with Docetism, Modalism and Tritheism.  He attributes the potential beliefs to the following:

J B Frisbie--Docetism.

Joseph Bates-Modalistic Monarchianism.

John Loughborough--Tritheism.

My point is that as I understand him, he suggesting that Some early Adventists may have actually held other beleifs that were mistaken for Arianism.

 

Gregory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The following link takes you to an excellent statement on the issue of EGW and Arianism, even if somewhat dataed;

www.ellenwhiteanswers.org/answers/mischarges/Arianism/

The following is a partial statement from that article:

Anyone knowledgable about Seventh-day Adventist history, however, knows that many of the SDA pioneers held Arian or semi-Arian views. In his article,

 “The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists,” Dr. Gerhard Pfandl, associate director of the Biblical Research Institute at the General Conference of SDAs, articulated the situation accurately when he wrote:

While the Seventh-day Adventist Church today espouses the doctrine of the Trinity, this has not always been so. The evidence from a study of Adventist history indicates that from the earliest years of our church to the 1890s a whole stream of writers took an Arian or semi-Arian position (page 1).

Why did many early SDA pioneers espouse Arian views? How did they eventually move away from Arianism and semi-Arianism to the biblical position regarding Jesus Christ? For those interested in Adventist history on this subject, the following sources are indispensible:

All of the above studies demonstrate that Ellen White played a major role in moving the church away from Arian views regarding Jesus Christ.

Five Periods of SDA Trinitarian History . . . .

]

 

 

 

 

Gregory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Hanseng said: Gustave, In order to save time, let's be specific as to the issues in question. From my end. 1) I'd like to see some proof/evidence that most of the early adventists were Arian. 2)

Here:

Quote

Sabbath Herald, November 25, 1880: As it stands, it is as wide a departure from the truth as it can be. The only grounds upon which our reviewer could be justifiedin making such a statement would be the supposition
on his part that
we believe in the doctrine of the trinity ; but he very well knows, from positions taken and arguments used in previous articles, that we do not agree with him on this subject any better than on that
of the nature of the soul. We believe in but one Deity, God, who is a unity, not a compound 'being. We think the Bible as well as common sense sustains this view. Says Eld. W., "'His trinitarianism ' seems to shackle him much." We repel the charge of " trinita-. rianism " without the slightest hesitation.
We do not believe in a triune God, as before remarked. And we will not, as did our reviewer in a former article, leave the reader in doubt as to our position on this point.

Ellen's 1st vision was in December of 1844 was it not? It was nearly 36 years after Ellen's 1st vision that the above affirmation was made. The 1880 statement you see above is hardly novel - Ellen White had already been churning out the Spirit of Prophecy for over 26 years when the following blunt admission was made in the Herald of the Sabbath:

Quote

Herald of the Sabbath, June 13, 1871: We invite all to compare the testimonies of the Holy Spirit through Mrs. W., with the word of. God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The trinitarian may compare them with his creed, and because they do not agree with it, condemn them. The observer of Sunday, or the man who holds eternal torment an important truth, and the minister that sprinkles infants, may each condemn the testimonies of Mrs. W. because they do not agree with their peculiar views.

People who were living with Ellen White, people who were literally close enough to her daily to hear her pass gas and smell it spell out that over the prior 26 years the Spirit of Prophecy had been condemning the Trinity Doctrine. I'm not sure what you constitute as "PROOF" but I'd say that the two statements I've just provided you are more than proof. 

As for Arther White claiming that Ellen was rebaptized on account of the Sabbath  I agree with that. What Arther didn't tell you was that Sabbath Keeping introduced one to the "SABBATH GOD" which was defined to be a hominid flesh God that had every bone, member, organ and part a perfect man has. This "Sabbath God" was contrasted with the Sunday God who was Triune and "ONE SPIRIT".  Here is how the rubric was explained in the Sabbath Herald in 1854:

Quote

Sabbath Herald, March 7, 1854: We will make a few extracts, that the reader may see the broad contrast between the God of the Bible brought to light through Sabbath-keeping, and the god in the dark through Sunday-keeping. Catholic Catechism Abridged by the Rt. Rev. John Pubois, Bishop of New York. Page 5. Ques. Where is God ? Ans. God is everywhere. Q. Does God see and know all things 3 A. Yes, he does know and see all things. Q. Has God any
body 1 A. No; God has no body, he is a pure Spirit. Q. Are there more Gods than pne ? A. No; there is but one God. Q. Are there more persons than one in God ? A. Yes ; in God there are three persons. Q. Which are they 1 A. God
the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

Thus, it was taught that Sabbath Keeping would bring to light the flesh God, the Father alone. So, after keeping the Sabbath for a while Ellen starts to churn out "Testimonies" or "Spirits of Prophecy" that condemn the Trinity Doctrine. 

Arius taught that Christ was capable of sinning and loosing His Salvation, also that there was a point in time that Christ didn't exist. Ellen White taught that Christ could have sinned and loose His Salvation, eternally cease to exist and in addition to that supported a book that taught there was a time when Christ didn't exist. I'm happy to break this down for you again if you need it. 

Quote

Hanseng said: 3) Evidence that the early SDA were militant Arians when EGW was rebaptized.

You agree Ellen was re-baptized by James in 1868, yes? 

Arianism claimed that The Father Alone is self-existent and is the only True God. 

Quote

Review and Herald November 14, 1854
Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere; BUT that the Father alone is supremely, or absolutely, good; AND that he alone is immortal in an absolute sense; that he alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life; for being. This idea is most emphatically expressed by our Saviour himself; " For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John v, 26. This would be singular language for one to use who had life in his essential nature, just as much as the Father. To meet such a view, it should read thus: For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath the Son life in himself If as Trinitarians argue, the Divine nature of the Son hath life in himself (i. e., is self existent) jusl the same, and in as absolute a sense, as the Father, why should he represent himself as actually dependent upon the Father for life ? What propriety in representing the Father as conferring upon him a gift which he had possessed from all eternity ? If it be said that his human nature derived its life from the Father, I would answer, It does not thus read; 01 even if it did, 1 would still urge the impropriety of the human nature of the Son of God representing itself as being absolutely dependent upon the Father for the gift of life

Quote

Bible Eco and Signs of the times October 1, 1899: There are two facts which are amply sufficient to account for Christ's statement recorded in John 14 : 28. One is that Christ is the Son of God. While both are of the same
nature, t
he Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that he had no beginning, while Christ's personality had a beginning

I just got called back to work so I'll have to pick up later. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gustave said:

You agree Ellen was re-baptized by James in 1868, yes? 

Nope. James White rebaptized EGW soon after she accepted the Sabbath truth. (EGW bio by A.L. White, vol. 1, p. 122). According to Life Sketches, EGW learned of the Sabbath from Joseph and had a vision about it in 1846 (p,76).

[NOTE:  I will suggests that Page 121 is a more accurate source.  But, if you wish, call it pages 121 & 122--Gregory Matthews.]

In 1849, EGW saw people wailing in hell on whose garments was written "Weighed in the balance and found wanting." They had given up the Sabbath truth (Life Sketches, p.94).

Perhaps 1868 was a typo on your part?  

The article you quoted from the Review of March 7, 1854 makes no sense to me The Adventists of those days were legalists who didn't understand the gospel. In certain respects, they didn't care about it. Their attention was absorbed by other facets of Scripture.  As is often the case with media today, that which is published reflect the opinions of the writer.

"Thus, it was taught that Sabbath Keeping would bring to light the flesh God, the Father alone. So, after keeping the Sabbath for a while Ellen starts to churn out "Testimonies" or "Spirits of Prophecy" that condemn the Trinity Doctrine."

I remain unpersuaded that EGW's acceptance of the Sabbath required the acceptance of Arianism.

Can you provide any example of an EGW statement that condemns the trinity? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Hanseng said: Nope. James White rebaptized EGW soon after she accepted the Sabbath truth. (EGW bio by A.L. White, vol. 1, p. 122). According to Life Sketches, EGW learned of the Sabbath from Joseph and had a vision about it in 1846 (p,76).

 

so, 1846 - that makes it even worse. Very soon after Ellen was Baptized by the Methodist Church she was brought to knowledge of the flesh Father by 'Sabbath Keeping' and was subsequently dunked by means other than "TRINE IMMERSION" which would have been the case when she was baptized by the Methodist pastor. 

 

Quote

Hanseng said: In 1849, EGW saw people wailing in hell on whose garments was written "Weighed in the balance and found wanting." They had given up the Sabbath truth (Life Sketches, p.94).

Early Adventists believed that Sabbath keeping would reveal the true flesh hominid Sabbath God - if you went back to 'Sunday Keeping' the Sunday God would inspire you to accept Trinitarianism. So yes, I can see why Ellen would have claimed to have that vision. 

Quote

Hanseng said: Perhaps 1868 was a typo on your part? 

I got that date from Messenger to the Remnant which I'm attaching to this post below, page 29

 

Quote

Hanseng said: The article you quoted from the Review of March 7, 1854 makes no sense to me The Adventists of those days were legalists who didn't understand the gospel. In certain respects, they didn't care about it. Their attention was absorbed by other facets of Scripture.  As is often the case with media today, that which is published reflect the opinions of the writer.

 

They claimed they understood it and if you are right about Ellen being baptized into Sabbath keeping and the Sabbath God circa 1846 Ellen would have been providing testimonies / Spirit of Prophecy for nearly a decade to the group that was reading / relying on that periodical for their spiritual nourishment.  I've never heard an Arian claim that the Father could eternally cease to exist but I have heard of Arians and semi Arians maintain that Christ and Lucifer were both archangels and as Lucifer could and did sin Christ also could have sinned and lost his salvation. Compare that 1854 theological affirmation to 

SDA Deity of Christ, Longacre, pages 13 & 14
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
.

As you can see, Ellen White parroted exactly what was in that 1854 theological statement so that Mr. Longacre could claim that Christ's mission to save humanity was an incredibly high stakes poker game that imperiled the continued existence of heaven itself! This is all bedrock Sabbath God stuff here. 

 

Quote

Hanseng said: I remain unpersuaded that EGW's acceptance of the Sabbath required the acceptance of Arianism.

 

Quote

Hanseng said: Can you provide any example of an EGW statement that condemns the trinity? 

Look at the synodal letter below - it came out of the Council of Nicaea and states that Arius and his adherents made specific affirmations to include: 

 

Synodal Letter attached to the documents of the Nicene Creed.
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

Below are some quotes out of the book Ellen White said needed to be put into the hands of the world so that they could receive the precious light of truth. 

"But while as the Son he does not possess a co-eternity of past existence with the Father, the beginning of his existence, as the begotten of the Father, antedates the entire work of creation, in relation to which he stands as joint creator with God. John 1:3; Heb. 1:2. Could not the Father ordain that to such a being worship should be rendered equally with himself, without its being idolatry on the part of the worshiper? He has raised him to positions which make it proper that he should be worshiped, and has even commanded that worship should be rendered him, which would not have been necessary had he been equal with the Father in eternity of existence. Christ himself declares that "as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John 5:26. The Father has "highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name." Phil. 2:9. And the Father himself says, "Let all the angels of God worship him." Heb. 1:6. These testimonies show that Christ is now an object of worship equally with the Father; but they do not prove that with him he holds an eternity of past existence."

Did Ellen White not have and write out a vision that detailed where Christ was exalted in some type of heavenly council whereby the Father made it known that Christ should be equal with himself and commanded the heavenly host to worship Christ? This is where all this comes from - IT IS ARIANISM

Here is some more: 

"Here another speaker is introduced. Previous to this, John has been the speaker. But this verse has no connection with
what precedes nor with what follows. Who it is who here speaks must be determined, therefore, by the terms used.
Here we again have the expression, "Which is, and which was, and which is to come," which has already been noticed
as referring exclusively to God
.
But it may be asked, Does not the word Lord denote that it was Christ? On this point
Barnes has the following note: "Many MSS. instead of 'Lord,' read 'God,'" and this reading is adopted by Griesback,
Tittman, and Hahn, and is now regarded as the correct reading
." Bloomfield supplies the word God, and marks the
words "the beginning and the ending" as an interpolation. Thus appropriately closes the first principal division of
this chapter, with a revelation of himself by the great God as being of an eternity of existence, past and future, and
of almighty power, and hence able to perform all his threatenings and his promises, which he has given us in this book
. p. 362, Para. 3, [DR]".

Are you suggesting that the above is not Arianism, Henseng? 

Here are Ellen's endorsements of that book (Daniel and the Revelation). 

"Especially should the book Daniel and the Revelation be brought before people as the very book for this time. This book contains the message which all need to read and understand. Translated into many different languages, it will be a power to enlighten the world. This book has had a large sale in Australia and New Zealand. By reading it many souls have come to a knowledge of the truth. I have received many letters expressing appreciation of this book". 1MR 60.5

Manuscript Releases vol. pg. 63.9
The interest in Daniel and the Revelation is to continue as long as probationary time shall last. God used the author of this book as a channel through which to communicate light to direct minds to the truth. Shall we not appreciate this light, which points us to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, our King? {1MR 63.1}

Manuscript Releases vol 19 pg. 192.2.7
The Bible Readings was brought in before the books of great importance—Great Controversy and Daniel and Revelation—which relate to the vital interests before us. Through the special instruction to the canvassing agents, The Great Controversy had little opportunity to be circulated, and the very light which the people needed for that time was nearly eclipsed. 19MR 196.2.7

Daniel and the Revelation was the companion piece to the Great Controversy. According to Ellen both these books were "VITAL" to the interests the SDA's had and both communicated vital truth God wanted the people to have. 

The General Conference had little choice but to get on board. 

"RESOLVED, That this Conference earnestly recommend the extensive circulation of that important book, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation; first, because it covers a large field in the great system of present truth, introducing many important doctrines in a clear and interesting manner, well calculated to favorably impress the reader; secondly, because there is in the public mind a desire more or less strong to understand the meaning of these prophetic books, which are supposed to be so mysterious, of which desire we should take advantage to bring before them the great truths of the message; thirdly, because we have no book better calculated to reach intelligent, influential, business men, who cannot find time to attend courses of lectures and long series of meetings, but who would purchase such a book and read it at
home; fourthly, because such a book, bound in an attractive manner, presenting the truth in a permanent form, retaining its place on the center tables and in the libraries till the Lord comes, will command the attention of many persons...
.."

&

"and finally, because our past experience has demonstrated beyond all dispute the usefulness of the canvass on Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, and that we cannot afford to neglect it".

"RESOLVED, That we recommend that the work, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, be issued in the German, Danish, and Swedish languages."

- I'm attaching the receipt for this below - you can open it and read it "in context" to make sure I'm not misquoting anything. 

I'll answer your question about Ellen's statements condemning the Trinity as soon as I get some more time. 

 

 

GCB1863-88.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

c. Accepted From Scriptural Evidence. -In August, 1846, Joseph Bates published his forty-eight-page tract, "The Seventh-day Sabbath a Perpetual Sign." James and Ellen White received a copy of this about the time of their marriage. From the Scriptural evidence presented, they took their stand. "In the autumn of 1846 we began to observe the Bible Sabbath, and to teach and defend it." Testimonies," Vol. I, p. 75. There were at this time about fifty Sabbathkeepers throughout entire New England. (Id., p. 77.)

Gustave, Those are not EGW statements. Must be Uriah Smith. EGW's endorsement of a book does not necessarily indicate she agreed with everything in the book. She endorsed the Augsburg Confession which contained sentiments with which she probably didn't agree, such as the curses on the anabaptists. She also endorsed Luther's justification teaching with which she obviously didn't agree, since Luther was at heart, an antinomian according to chapter 3 of his Galatians commentary and some things he wrote in his comments on the 7 penitential Psalms.

I look forward to seeing quotes from EGW herself contra the trinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hanseng, 

Every Adventist apologist I've spoken with affirms that Ellen White DIDN'T create any Doctrine espoused by the SDA Church, would you agree with this statement? 

If you agree that Ellen didn't create any SDA Doctrines but instead confirmed / validated Doctrines others incepted via her charism of the spirit of prophecy the case I'm making becomes extremely clear. 

Like the following:

Ellen White, Gospel Works page 302
"At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon ME, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays."

What Ellen says above is very clear - she says many people would bring in new doctrines and God empowered HER to sort out what was truth and what was error [ by trans mediumship ] whereby she would receive information / explanations that she would subsequently write about. 

One of the 1st things, one of the 'pillar doctrines' was "The Personality Of God". This Doctrine was stated to defeat Trinitarianism. The primary feature of the P.O.G. Doctrine was a repudiation of God being ONE SPIRIT with an indwelling of 3 Persons. The SDA's went to great lenghs in the Sabbath Herald and other periodicals to castigate any Christian Creed that affirmed God was "WITHOUT BODY AND PARTS" and to repudiate the idea that a spirit could exist without a body. 

The argument went something like man was created in God's image and likeness and it was AFTER God breathed into man - man became a living soul. In other words a living man doesn't have a soul a living man IS A SOUL & because man was created in God's image that meant that man looked like God - i.e. God was a single hominid "BEING" with all the bones, organs, members and parts a perfect man would have. 

Also, contrary to the Trinity Doctrine God was defined to be THE FATHER ALONE and later was defined to be a collection of individual "BEINGS" [plural] who were understood to be ONE in the sense that a husband and wife are one, or a committee of beings who all think and vote the same way (perfectly united). This was the Adventist Doctrinal foundation Ellen confirmed by her "testimonies".

such as:

Ellen White, 1888 Great Controversy 493.1
Christ the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,--one in nature, in character, and in purpose,--the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. By Christ, the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings. "By him were all things created, that are in Heaven, . . . whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers;" [COL. 1:16.] and to Christ, equally with the Father, all Heaven gave allegiance. {GC88 493.1}

I shouldn't have to explain to you how this is an "anti-Trinitarian" statement nor should I have to explain to you how God the Father having a body of flesh complete with bones, organs members and parts is an anti-Trinitarian statement. 

Ellen claiming that Christ ONLY had infinite power because he was perfectly obedient to Father God is absolutely an anti-Trinitarian statement. 

the following is horrifically anti-Trinitarian: 

"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the Man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible"

Of course it would be impossible for Deity to sink and die - this is why Ellen was so clear that Christ's on loan Deity was his to keep provided (AS LONG AS) he towed the rope and didn't mess up.

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

As you can see Ellen is perfectly reflecting what is shown below:

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

I honestly believed you to be pranking me about your question about not knowing how Ellen was contra the Trinity - perhaps you are not pranking me and are sincere. I hope you can see literally everything she affirmed about Christ is contra the Trinity. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

I honestly believed you to be pranking me about your question about not knowing how Ellen was contra the Trinity - perhaps you are not pranking me and are sincere. I hope you can see literally everything she affirmed about Christ is contra the Trinity. 

Since I have yet to see a contra "trinity" statement from EGW, there is no need to prank you. You employ convoluted reasoning, inference, and hyperbole to make your points rather than a plain EGW said. You have done a good job citing early SDA writers other than EGW who made plainly contra trinity statements. EGW did not use the term trinity but referred to the Godhead; consequently, any effort on your part to defile her because she didn't agree with Athanasius is futile. She did not make Athanasius a rule of faith or practice, not did he define or control the words used in her writings to express her thoughts.
 
Jesus, in his humanity, was distinct from the Father in certain respects. He assumed the role of a servant. Actually, he willingly bound himself to humanity for eternity, laying aside some of his divine prerogatives. This is explained in Exodus 21, the servant who was pierced and served his master forever because he didn't want to leave his family.
 
Your quote from 1888 GC makes much of EGW referring to God as a being. Seems like a smoking gun to you, certifying EGW was anti trinity.  The statement says Jesus was one in nature, character, and purpose with the Father. You seem to interpret the word "being" as meaning God has bones, organs, and members. it doesn't mean that to me and I doubt it meant that to EGW. EGW statements contra trinity shouldn't require the convoluted reasoning you employ to make them anti trinity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Hanseng said:
Since I have yet to see a contra "trinity" statement from EGW, there is no need to prank you. You employ convoluted reasoning, inference, and hyperbole to make your points rather than a plain EGW said. You have done a good job citing early SDA writers other than EGW who made plainly contra trinity statements. EGW did not use the term trinity but referred to the Godhead; consequently, any effort on your part to defile her because she didn't agree with Athanasius is futile. She did not make Athanasius a rule of faith or practice, not did he define or control the words used in her writings to express her thoughts.
 
Jesus, in his humanity, was distinct from the Father in certain respects. He assumed the role of a servant. Actually, he willingly bound himself to humanity for eternity, laying aside some of his divine prerogatives. This is explained in Exodus 21, the servant who was pierced and served his master forever because he didn't want to leave his family.
 
Your quote from 1888 GC makes much of EGW referring to God as a being. Seems like a smoking gun to you, certifying EGW was anti trinity.  The statement says Jesus was one in nature, character, and purpose with the Father. You seem to interpret the word "being" as meaning God has bones, organs, and members. it doesn't mean that to me and I doubt it meant that to EGW. EGW statements contra trinity shouldn't require the convoluted reasoning you employ to make them anti trinity.

Its not convoluted reasoning Hanseng. 

Ellen's husband, in 1871, plainly stated that her testimonies condemned the Trinity Doctrine. If Ellen's started her prophetic ministry in 1844 that's close enough to 30 years to call it that. 30 years of listening to Ellen's testimonies / prophecies led her listeners to emphatically state the testimonies of the Holy Spirit denied the Trinity Doctrine. 

Past that what's likely the most pointed anti-Trinity article to ever grace the Sabbath Herald was edited & revised by Ellen White herself - and you accuse me of convoluted reasoning - you're a comedian. 

Christ didn't assume the role of a servant - He was eternally a servant of God the Father. In case you didn't realize it The Son was always the Son, in eternity. 

it's not my quote, its your General Conference's quote - they capitulated to Ellen's directive and catapulted Daniel & The Revelation into high gear. Furthermore, the Personality of God Doctrine of SDA was defined to mean God the Father was a flesh hominid "BEING" with everything a perfect man would have. Christ pre-incarnate was understood to be another "BEING", in fact THE ONLY OTHER BEING who could enter into all the councils with the other BEING (Father God). 

And yeah, the personality of God doctrine meant exactly that to Ellen - in fact it was a pillar Doctrine of the SDA Church. You will find that pouring in new and novel definitions into established words won't work very well with me - it may work on folks who are ignorant of your history but this isn't the case here. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hanseng and any other individual who questions what "The Personality of God Doctrine" was defined to be. Feel free to download the attached Sabbath Herald, it starts on page 1. 

Trust me when I say there are MANY more such articles and statements as to how VITAL this pillar doctrine was. It was so important that the Sanctuary Doctrine was said to collapse without it. 

Should you need some articles that lambasted the Christian Creeds about the Trinity I have plenty of those to share with you as well. 

I want to help. 

 

RH18780905-V52-11.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...