J H Kellogg & God's Nature

[Gregory Matthews]

I have challenged Gustave on previous comments that he has made related to an alleged SDA belief that God had digestive organs.

Today I mentioned this to a person who responded to the effect that John Harvey Kellogg had such a belief.

I am attempting to substantiate that statement.  But, I have not done so yet.

But, if it is true about J. H. Kellogg,  simply remind you that he left the SDA denomination due to a number of heretical beliefs about the nature of God.  Scholars today to debate some aspects of those beliefs, but no one challenges the fact that he held a number of beliefs about God that SDAs soundly rejected,  to the point where he and the SDA denomination separated and each went their respective separate ways.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have done some research as to J. H. Kellogg and the nature of God.  The result is that I am conflicted.  On the one hand, it looks to me like J. H. Kellogg could have believed that God had digestive organs.  But, on the other hand, it looks to me like he would not have believed such.

On another note about J. H. Kellogg, the classical SDA view of him is that he accepted the idea of pantheism.  This view has been challenged in more modern times.  Some SDA Scholars have suggested that J. H. Kellogg actually accepted the idea of panentheism (spelled correctly).  I will leave it to the scholars to debate that.

Pantheism:  God and everything that exists are identical.  The universe is the supreme God.

Panentheism:  God is in everything.  IOW, God includes the world as part of God's being.  The world is God.

 

 

[Gustave]

The short answer is that prior to Kellogg accepting the Doctrine of the Trinity he did believe “The Father” had digestive organs. At that time, when Kellogg believed this way, he was accepted within the denomination as a true believer.

Kellogg, after he accepted the Trinity, claimed that God was spirit and could exist and operate without a body of flesh — his new affirmation caused Ellen to say he had virtually destroyed “The Personality of God” . It went downhill for Kellogg from there. 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, there was a time when J. H. Kellogg was a valued member of the SDA Church.  But, his heretical beliefs about the nature of God preceded his publication of The Living Temple and his essential separation from the denomination.  I will suggest that his relationship is more complex than Gustave has implied it to be.

 

 

[Gustave]

I've got a rather large work product that's taking up much of the free time I normally enjoy so I'll jump back into this thread  ( and the others )with a substantive response as soon as I can. 

ps.

Gregory, Wanderer, Joemoe, 8thdaypriest, and everyone else I appreciate these discussions!

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, the open discussions in this forum, between you, myself and the others, who may or may not be SDA members demonstrates the range of belief that is allowed in the SDA denomination and our willingness to dialogue with people.  Does every member demonstrate this?  No.

But it exists in the SDA denomination.

 

[Gustave]

Ok, I'm done with the 14 hour days, at least for the time being....

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

You are welcomed back.

[ReturntoDar]

Gregory says, "...discussions in this forum, between you, myself and the others, who may or may not be SDA members demonstrates the range of belief that is allowed in the SDA denomination and our willingness to dialogue with people.  Does every member demonstrate this?  No. But it exists in the SDA denomination".

Perhaps that USED to be the case. Today, Pastors are being removed, their retirement slashed. Some have been disfellowshipped. Elders in the Church (not Pastors, Elders) have been removed from office. Members have been disfellowshipped. These acts are increasing world wide, it is no longer safe to discuss the nature of God, His Son, or they're Holy Spirit without substantial risk of serious disciplinary action, up to and including membership removal. How did we get here? A fulfillment of prophecy, just as Ellen White said would happen.

“The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced.” (Selected Messages bk.1, p. 204, written in 1904) The fundamental principles decalre there is One God, the Father of Christ. He has a representative, His Holy Spirit. He has a Son, who is the express image of His Father and carries most of His Fathers names. I too cary my fathers name, but I am not my father.

Who does Peter say Jesus is? Matthew 16: 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

If men reject the testimony of the inspired scriptures concerning the Sonship of Christ, it is in vain to argue with them, for no argument, however convincing, can convince them. Like Peter, the Holy Spirit is your only hope, "deep study", long discussions, will not resolve this. By denying that Jesus is the Son of God, you make it impossible for the Spirit to reveal the truth! Step 1. Except that Jesus IS the Son of God. There is no Step 2.

Jesus is divine, but there is only ONE God, His Father. Jesus is eternal, yet, begotten and brought forth, in eternity. Before time began. When DID time begin? When sin entered, says Ellen White. When will time end? When sin is done and the new earth begins, then, we return to eternity. Where the years, the centuries, the milleniums are without measure. No one was counting before, no one will be counting them in the future.

Gregory, and others, as long as you continue to assume that Christ is NOT God's Son, the Holy Spirit will not interfere. You will never learn otherwise until you, like Peter, just accept it on faith. And this is true for EVERY SDA and every Christian in the world. You can, and most have wounded the Holy Spirit. A deeply serious mistake.

 

 

 

 

[GHansen]

On 8/27/2018 at 12:37 AM, Gustave said:

The short answer is that prior to Kellogg accepting the Doctrine of the Trinity he did believe “The Father” had digestive organs.

Simple way to resolve this matter: provide a quote from Kellogg stating the God had digestive organs

[Gustave]

5 hours ago, GHansen said:

Simple way to resolve this matter: provide a quote from Kellogg stating the God had digestive organs

I thought we recently covered this? 

The P.O.G. was a well-defined Doctrine and a PILLAR / fundamental part of the SDA Faith while Ellen White was alive. The P.O.G. Doctrine was explicit that Father God had ALL the parts of a perfect man. Prior to Kellogg accepting the Trinity Doctrine he wrote lengthy apologetic articles against the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

When I have some additional time, I can again post these articles and other things from the SDA Church archives so that you can see them in their context. It's possible you didn't see the documentation I went through previously so let me know if you didn't - I'm happy to post it here or email it directly to you. 

 

"The only grounds upon which our reviewer could be justified in making such a statement would be the supposition
on his part that we believe in the doctrine of the trinity ; but he very well knows, from positions taken and arguments used in previous articles, that we do not agree with him on this subject any better than on that of the nature of the soul. We believe in but one Deity, God, who is a unity, not a compound 'being. 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 " trinitarianism " without the slightest hesitation. We do notbelieve 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. We are utterly at a loss to comprehend how our reviewer could have blundered so strangely as to suppose us to share in so gross an error as we believe the orthodox doctrine of the trinity to be." Kellogg 

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

I thought we recently covered this?

Perhaps we did. I suggested a quote to resolve the question between you and Chaplain Matthews as well as others who might be interested.

[Gustave]

21 hours ago, GHansen said:

Perhaps we did. I suggested a quote to resolve the question between you and Chaplain Matthews as well as others who might be interested.

 

Far enough. 

For those interested the SDA Church use to have a foundational Doctrine upon which they claimed all other Doctrines depended - the Doctrine was called "The Personality Of God". The Doctrine affirmed that God (The Father Alone) was a literal "Person" that had tangle flesh and possessed every part that a perfect man would have in his body. It was reasoned by the early Adventists that since the Bible describes God "talking" to Moses it defaulted into God having actual "organs of speech", likewise when the Bible says God smelled the sacrifice the early SDA's affirmed that meant God had nostrils and so on. 

This flesh hominid God Doctrine was vigorously maintained and taught while Ellen White was alive and persisted several years after her death. Eventually it appears the SDA Church dropped the Doctrine like a hot potato - likely because the P,O.G. is incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. 

If someone rejected the P,O.G. Doctrine they were classified as a Pantheist. This is what happened to Kellogg, the inventor of the corn flake - possibly one of the most famous of all SDA's. 

July, 5, 1938 Signs of the Times
Pantheism is very widely held at the present day. The Buddhists of India and other countries in the Orient are pantheists; and so are plenty of others, even in America, who may be members of orthodox Protestant churches. But pantheism, wherever it is held, is a denial of the personality of God.....

 

April 15, 1923 SDA Educational Department, Eastern Tidings
As soon as our schools are opened the first difficulty, we meet is what to put into the hands of our, children, in their mother tongue, as they progress in its study. There are many "Readers" produced by the C. L. S and by Indian educators. In our school at Prakasapuram, we have used many kinds, but we prefer the latest publications of the C, L. S. to all the previous ones. In the former C. L. S. Readers we
have come across certain anti-Scriptural expressions here and there on the personality of God, immortality of the soul, and the fate of the wicked. In such cases we used to draw tMok lines over those express1ons in the books for the lower classes and not assign them for lessons. But in the classes where students have little knowledge of the truth, we leave such points to be discussed, and take that occasion to teach them the truth concerning those topics mentioned in the Readers.

 

For the folks that would like to read more about The Personality of Father God and the various organs He was said to possess please see the following. 

Sabbath Herald, March 7, 1854 , see article on the difference between the Sabbath Father God (who had buttocks) and the Sunday God who was formless (Spirit).

 

Sabbath Herald, September 5, 1878 The following was revised (edited) by Ellen and James White. 
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.

There are many, many additional quotes but I've ran out of time and have a very busy day ahead of me. 

 

 

[ReturntoDar]

It's mind boggling, and evil, to relegate the foundation of the gospel to a poison "trinity" topic. Shame on you Gregory Matthews! Those who support the BIBLE and the SPIRIT of PROPHECY in prophesing that Jesus really is the Son of God, are pushed off into a corner??? How is this possible? How in the world did we get here? Satan, and his co-workers, whether they realize or not. And they don't, the reason being "Laodicea".

I proclaim Jesus IS the Son of God. Divine, eternal, the express image of His Father, who begat and brought forth His Son in eternity, no beginning, no end. The Omega deception is here, and they know not who god or His Son are. That Jesus IS the Son of God is irrelevant to the trinity question, which is the foundation of attacking those who would dare proclaim it. Wow... denial of the very foundation of the gospel.

[ReturntoDar]

Those who deny the Sonship of Christ will be met with Matthew 7:23, "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

[GHansen]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

Sabbath Herald, March 7, 1854 , see article on the difference between the Sabbath Father God (who had buttocks) and the Sunday God who was formless (Spirit).

This article says nothing about a buttocks. It quotes Exodus 33:23 which distinguishes the "back parts" from the face. Most versions say "You can see my back but not my face." There is a word for "buttocks" in the Bible and that word is not used in Exodus 33:23.

As for Canright's articles, they reflect what he believed at that time and they were printed in the Review. Apparently, others thought they had merit. No matter. The denomination was based upon the error regarding the cleansing of the sanctuary. It was soon after its inception repudiated. Not sure how many SDA would agree with Canright's views of 100+ years ago. I do recall that we had this discussion a while back. Probably, my views are about the same, Neither EGW nor the SDA pioneers necessarily reflect my personal beliefs.

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, GHansen said:

This article says nothing about a buttocks. It quotes Exodus 33:23 which distinguishes the "back parts" from the face. Most versions say "You can see my back but not my face." There is a word for "buttocks" in the Bible and that word is not used in Exodus 33:23.

As for Canright's articles, they reflect what he believed at that time and they were printed in the Review. Apparently, others thought they had merit. No matter. The denomination was based upon the error regarding the cleansing of the sanctuary. It was soon after its inception repudiated. Not sure how many SDA would agree with Canright's views of 100+ years ago. I do recall that we had this discussion a while back. Probably, my views are about the same, Neither EGW nor the SDA pioneers necessarily reflect my personal beliefs.

 

 

 

Look up back parts in your Strong's, in that context its the entire backside and absolutely includes the buttocks. Remember Ellen White and the SDA Pioneers were militantly anthropomorphic in their view of Father God.  If God was said to smell the sacrifice - to SDA's that meant God just had to have had nostrils. 

Read Psalm 78, 66 describing how God smote Israel's enemies in the hinder parts -1 Samuel 5 verse 6 and 12 identifies the region.

Verse 6:  But the hand of the Lord was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof.

Verse 12: And the men that died not were smitten with the emerods: and the cry of the city went up to heaven

 

I would agree with you that there probably are not many if any SDA's that today agree that Father God crafted a flesh body with all the parts a perfect man would have for the preincarnate Michael / Christ. I'm not saying this at all - I'm just saying that while Ellen White was alive the General Conference of SDA endorsed this teaching and voted to perpetuate it as a fundamental Bible truth they were to spread to the world. 

 

 

[Gustave]

On 11/9/2022 at 7:08 AM, ReturntoDar said:

It's mind boggling, and evil, to relegate the foundation of the gospel to a poison "trinity" topic. Shame on you Gregory Matthews! Those who support the BIBLE and the SPIRIT of PROPHECY in prophesing that Jesus really is the Son of God, are pushed off into a corner??? How is this possible? How in the world did we get here? Satan, and his co-workers, whether they realize or not. And they don't, the reason being "Laodicea".

I proclaim Jesus IS the Son of God. Divine, eternal, the express image of His Father, who begat and brought forth His Son in eternity, no beginning, no end. The Omega deception is here, and they know not who god or His Son are. That Jesus IS the Son of God is irrelevant to the trinity question, which is the foundation of attacking those who would dare proclaim it. Wow... denial of the very foundation of the gospel.

Please, if you would, define the Omega deception. 

I'd prefer to not read a morass of stuff that goes on and on - simply condense what you are saying into a short paragraph so I can get a radar fix on where you are coming from here. 

[ReturntoDar]

The Alpha concerned itself with the nature of God, or more precisely, with the individual members of the God Head. Ask any member of the Church today if they believe Jesus is the Son of God. Of course He is, most will say! Most don't understand or haven't seriously considered the official position of the Church on this point: that Christ is NOT the Son of God! He is only playing a role. They say He IS God. Well, He certainly carries His Fathers name, He is the express image of His Father. He is eternal, He is divine, just like His Father, the ONE true God. He is His Fathers Son.

The bible could not be any clearer on who Jesus is. Peter knew it. How did Peter know? Jesus told him how he knew, the Holy Spirit revealed it to him. That applies today, WHO Jesus is must be revealed by the Holy Spirit, or you will reject it, will fight against it, will become angry about it, just as the Jews did. Jesus is the Son of God, period. No beginning, no end, Jesus is eternal. How is that possible? You may ask His Father, IF and when you can. Do you even know who His Father is? The official position of the Church, since 1980 is that Jesus has no Father. To a great degree, this mirrors the alpha issue, the nature of God, His Son, and their representative, the Holy Spirit. What is "startling" (Ellen Whites word for the omega) is that the Church, in 1980, officially took the position that Jesus is NOT the Son of God. I believe this the omega deception. As a church, since 1980, we have rejected who Jesus is. We make the God Head into three Gods, and the fourth god (small g) is a concept, an idea, a theory inclusive of the three members of the God Head. This is why MOST SDA today, have no clear concept of WHO God, or Jesus, really is. Ellen White tells us (but we ignore her counsel): "God is the Father of Christ. Christ is the Son of God." Do you believe that? A simple question MOST cannot give a clear simple answer to. The wise will understand, as did Peter. Those who reject the Testimony of Jesus on this point, will not be able to understand though one rose from the dead! The Omega is here, it is very foundation of the gospel, the fact that Jesus is the Son of God has been obliterated by the Church.

[ReturntoDar]

Gutave, I like your question. What IS the issue? Jesus asked Peter, "Who do you say I am?" I ask the same question. The trinity issue is a distraction, the question is simple, straight forward and is the very foundation of the gospel message. Who do you say Jesus is? It's not complicated, its a simple question that can be answered in a short, single sentence, without qualification or deep theology. Peter knew. Do you? Do others? Who IS Jesus? In like manner, who IS Jesus' Father?

2 Timothy 2:12, this verse will apply to those who cannot answer clearly and simply, WHO is Jesus.

[GHansen]

8 hours ago, Gustave said:

absolutely includes the buttocks.

A person's backside includes the buttocks but that's not what you said in your original remark. Several versions I consulted did not translate the word as buttocks. If someone says "Don't turn your back on me," normally that doesn't mean "Don't show me your buttocks." The word numbered 0268 that you say means "buttocks" is not translated as buttocks in the versions I have i.e. ESV, NRSV, ASV, ERV, KJV, LXX, WEB. Douay and others. The LXX doesn't translate it as buttocks, either.

I find the idea that God having a buttocks was a fundamental truth of SDA that should be shared with the world, according to the general conference, hard to believe.

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

A person's backside includes the buttocks but that's not what you said in your original remark. Several versions I consulted did not translate the word as buttocks. If someone says "Don't turn your back on me," normally that doesn't mean "Don't show me your buttocks." The word numbered 0268 that you say means "buttocks" is not translated as buttocks in the versions I have i.e. ESV, NRSV, ASV, ERV, KJV, LXX, WEB. Douay and others. The LXX doesn't translate it as buttocks, either.

I find the idea that God having a buttocks was a fundamental truth of SDA that should be shared with the world, according to the general conference, hard to believe.

 

Yes, it does include it. I suppose that's why it says back 'parts'. 

I was simply illustrating that prior to Ellen White's death the SDA Church doubled down on Father God having a body and Father God creating a flesh body for the pre-Incarnate Christ (with every member and part of a perfect man). When I say SDA Church I'm not talking about individual members but the General Conference. I have collected such from the General Conference and can post at a later time if you've not seen it. 

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

The idea that God having a buttocks was a fundamental truth of SDA that should be shared with the world, according to the general conference, hard to believe.

 

Unclear the significance of early SDA beliefs. Most people are aware that the early Adventists came about consequent to a significant error, i.e., misidentifying the earth as the sanctuary  of Daniel 8:14, to be cleansed. EGW herself, more or less, cursed the denomination for being legalists who didn't understand the gospel. It wasn't until the 1880s that a course correction was set. There was more of a focus on the gospel but mostly baby steps were being taken. This kind of stuff, interesting to some people, has absolutely no redemptive value      

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, ReturntoDar said:

Gutave, I like your question. What IS the issue? Jesus asked Peter, "Who do you say I am?" I ask the same question. The trinity issue is a distraction, the question is simple, straight forward and is the very foundation of the gospel message. Who do you say Jesus is? It's not complicated, its a simple question that can be answered in a short, single sentence, without qualification or deep theology. Peter knew. Do you? Do others? Who IS Jesus? In like manner, who IS Jesus' Father?

2 Timothy 2:12, this verse will apply to those who cannot answer clearly and simply, WHO is Jesus.

Jesus is God The Son. 

As in whatever it is that makes the Father God, Jesus also equally possesses. The same is true for the Holy Spirit. 

God The Father is Jesus' Father. 

[ReturntoDar]

"... whatever it is that makes the Father God..." I think you have identified the problem: "we", as a people, don't know who God is. Some say He is a spirit, without body, without personality. A concept, not a real being, no distinct personality. This is Kellogg, and his alpha error. We are repeating in a similar manner the same issue. We don't know who God is because we cannot resolve the apparent conflcts. Jesus is called God (I am called by fathers name as well, but I am not my father). Jesus was "brought forth" and "begotten", anti-trintairians incorrectly conclude therefore that He had a beginning. Ellen White NEVER suggested this anywhere in her writings! The bible and the Spirit of Prophecy clearly say He is eternal, yet, begotten and brought forthe! Explain that!!! You can't, but Kellogg tried, the alpha had come. The SDA Church in 1980 tried again, the omega is here, a Kellogg adapatation of the mystery of the One true God that we cannot explain. So what to do? Fake it... 

As a churh, our official position today: Christ is NOT the Son of God. A most startling position, without a doubt, this IS the omega doctrine!

By the way, was it the Father or His Son who showed Himself to Moses in the cleft of the rock? We know it was not the Holy Spirit, who can be everywhere at once. We know the Father and the Son CANNOT be everywhere at once. Why? They both have a body! This is WHY they have a representative, "their" Holy Spirit, who CAN be everywhere at once (because He has no body)!