J H Kellogg & God's Nature

[Gustave]

13 hours ago, ReturntoDar said:

"What organ(s)"?: What does the bible or the SOP have to say about that? Only silence. Without a clear "thus saith the Lord" I'll leave that for others to debate. We are told Jesus is the same substance of His Father, the express image of His Father. He was begotten and brought forth from His Father. As to their internal makeup, we can only guess, and Ellen White counsels, "we ought not guess at anything".

As it concerns the Holy Spirit we have no thus saith the Lord that even suggests He has any substance of any kind!

That's the rub Dar, there is no guessing here.

The SDA P.O.G. Doctrine was explicitly defined as the Father possessing every member, part and organ of a perfect man (you could use Adam here). The whole point of this exercise I'm running you through is to get you to realize that provided an ancient Greek viewed a collection of his god's that were united as one - a pagan Greek would be as much of a monotheist as an SDA. The Mormons believe Father God has a complete hominid body with organs (functioning testicles which impregnated Mary), Christ is understood as a separate "personality" - the Mormons are fond of saying Father, Son & Holy Spirit, the Mormons believe in the Father, Son & Holy Spirit yet they are not Trinitarian, they believe in multiple God's - Jesus is "a god", the Father is "a god", etc. Mormons believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in agreement and united in purpose - how is this different than what you believe?

Ellen White
As a member of the human family he was mortal, but as a God he was the fountain of life to the world. Sabbath Herald Sept 4,1900
 

To GHansen's point, I'm sure it was quite the shock for Adam when he got his 1st stomachache. I had not thought of this before but certainly stomachaches and every other malady would have been confusing and horrifying to Adam and Eve. 

 

[ReturntoDar]

"The SDA P.O.G. Doctrine was explicitly defined as the Father possessing every member, part and organ of a perfect man (you could use Adam here)."

I've never seen or have never heard of this "explicit description" of the Father (whose Son is Jesus Christ). A clear "thus saith the Lord" would be helpful. I don't believe there is one. The major points of the thread, are, bizzare as it deals with the internalt organs of divinity.

Jesus is God because He is the express image of His Father, begotten and brought forth by His Father, The Father is the ONE TRUE God the bible directly notes. There was no confusion on this point among the prophets, nor with Ellen White.

Again, who created the heavens and the earth? The FATHER of Christ THROUGH His Son, who inherited every aspect of His Father, even to His own substance. A prince is not the king, but he is destined to become the king at some point.

I believe the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit are divine and eternal. I know the bible speaks of one God. SDA have misunderstood this to be speaking about a mysterious "fourth god" that represents a committee of three gods. The God Head is not God, this is a serious mistake without biblical support. WHICH the SDA Church readily admits, it is an assumption because they don't know how to explain it any other way. FACT: you can't explain it, but like Peter, you need to accept it. It is a salvational question, it is not some side issue. This is literally deadly serious.

[ReturntoDar]

Sabbath Herald Sept 4,1900, "...that the Scripture might be fulfilled; and the plan was entered into by the Son of God..."

[GHansen]

10 hours ago, ReturntoDar said:

GHansen: "He [God] has a diet of some kind; therefore, he would also have eliminative processes." Divinity, the angels and the unfallen worlds have a perfect digestion system. There is no waste. Image Adams surprise following his sin, when he discovered his digestive system was no long working perfectly.

When the Israelites ate the food of angels for 40 years, how did that work for them? Your response is pure speculation, based on the assumption that God has a digestive system. Got any Scripture that evinces God has internal organs?

[GHansen]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

The SDA P.O.G. Doctrine was explicitly defined as the Father possessing every member, part and organ of a perfect man (you could use Adam here).

What SDA doctrine are you referring to? Articles in a magazine are not necessarily official doctrine.

[Gustave]

On 11/14/2022 at 3:47 PM, GHansen said:

What SDA doctrine are you referring to? Articles in a magazine are not necessarily official doctrine.

"The Personality of God Doctrine" was codified by the SDA Pioneers - that Doctrine stated God had an actual hominid, flesh & bone, member and part body - exactly like a perfect man. Ellen White was explicit that an individual who denied the P,O.G. Doctrine severed themself from "God and Christ". 

 

Ellen White, Sabbath Herald, March 8, 1906
He who denies the personality of God and of his Son Jesus 'Christ, is denying God and 'Christ.
" If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in
the Son, and in the Father." If you continue to believe and obey the truths you first embraced regarding 
the personality of the Father and the Son, you will be joined together with him in love.

[GHansen]

59 minutes ago, Gustave said:

The Personality of God Doctrine" was codified by the SDA Pioneers

So where was it codified? Codified implies part of some sort of official declaration. Most of EGW's remarks on the POG were in the context of Kellogg's "pantheism." Statements like the one you quoted, free from context, are simply nonsense. I've yet to discover any single volume devoted to the PoG. Smith wrote a Synopsis of Present Truth, prior to 1903. No chapter in there about the PoG.

Prior to 1881, J. White wrote an article "The personality of God" in which he opined that both the Father and Son had a body with parts and bones:

"What is God? He is material, organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. Man is in his image. PERGO 7.4
What is Jesus Christ? He is the Son of God, and is like his Father, being “the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person.” He is a material intelligence, with body, parts, and passions; possessing immortal flesh and immortal bones." PERGO 7.5

 

 Early SDA held views with which some people disagreed now, and then. Nothing new there. A lot of people today are unaware of some of these things, including myself. Not a big deal. The problem is the spin you put on this information. You would have more credibility without your commentary and interpretation.

[Gustave]

51 minutes ago, GHansen said:

So where was it codified? Codified implies part of some sort of official declaration. Most of EGW's remarks on the POG were in the context of Kellogg's "pantheism." Statements like the one you quoted, free from context, are simply nonsense. I've yet to discover any single volume devoted to the PoG. Smith wrote a Synopsis of Present Truth, prior to 1903. No chapter in there about the PoG.

Prior to 1881, J. White wrote an article "The personality of God" in which he opined that both the Father and Son had a body with parts and bones:

"What is God? He is material, organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. Man is in his image. PERGO 7.4
What is Jesus Christ? He is the Son of God, and is like his Father, being “the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person.” He is a material intelligence, with body, parts, and passions; possessing immortal flesh and immortal bones." PERGO 7.5

 

 Early SDA held views with which some people disagreed now, and then. Nothing new there. A lot of people today are unaware of some of these things, including myself. Not a big deal. The problem is the spin you put on this information. You would have more credibility without your commentary and interpretation.

 

Who was Ellen White directing her words at in that 1906 Sabbath Herald article? 

Answer: To SDA's, no? 

What had SDA's 1st embraced pertaining to the "Personality of God"?

Answer: That God had a body with all the members and parts of a perfect man. 

That Father God had a hominid flesh body with all the members and parts of a perfect man was being taught by SDA's long before John H. Kellogg became a Trinitarian. 

 

Signs of the Time, July 4, 1938
But pantheism, wherever it is held, is a denial of the personality of God;

SDA's (during Ellen White's lifetime) believed that Trinitarianism WAS Pantheism because Trinitarianism maintained The Father was SPIRIT - and claiming that Father God didn't have a material form of flesh, bones, etc.  "DESTROYED THE PERSONALITY [FLESH BODY] OF GOD". Isn't that what Ellen White accused John H. Kellogg of doing after his conversion to Trinitarianism, that he "destroyed the Personality of God"? 

 

Again, long prior to Kellogg accepting the Trinity Doctrine, as in back when Kellogg believed in T.P.O.G. Doctrine, he articulated his belief in the P.O.G. when he was writing apologetic articles defending the SDA Church and her anti-Trinitarianism. 

 

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 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 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.

I certainly hope you have the candor to agree that the above was written by Kellogg when he wasn't a Trinitarian / Pantheist and that when Kellogg said;

"WE DO NOT AGREE" - "WE BELIEVE IN BUT ONE DIETY, GOD WHO IS A UNITY, NOT A COMPOUND BEING" - "WE DO NOT BEIEVE IN A TRIUNE GOD", "WE REPEL THE CHARGE OF TRINITARIANISM WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST HESITATION"- etc. 

Kellogg was reflecting the SDA Faith on behalf of the denomination - notice when Kellogg was saying what he did above he was maintaining Father God was a material hominid AND Christ was a material hominid and what made them ONE was that they were united in purpose, character and the other things Ellen affirmed. 

When Kellogg accepted the Trinity he destroyed the hominid body of Father God according to Ellen White, which, according to Adventism at the time, was Pantheism. 

This isn't difficult to plot out at all. 

 

[GHansen]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

This isn't difficult to plot out at all.

Gustave, We've been over this before, as I now recall. You read too much into the statements, giving them an authority they don't have. Much of what you post is free of context; consequently, the statements, as you display them are more or less not useful.

"When Kellogg accepted the Trinity he destroyed the hominid body of Father God according to Ellen White, which, according to Adventism at the time, was Pantheism." There were definitely issues regarding the Godhead in the denomination. Not a problem for me, probably not for many others who are church members. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. The developing views on the Godhead among SDA have been known for a long time. Some of the views they held were wrong, just as some of the early views on prophecy were/are wrong. Shouldn't be a shock to anyone. It hadn't been well sorted by 1919. There are still differences of opinion. Some of the current views are probably wrong.

This is the official position of the SDA church today:

2. Trinity

 

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2)

There are individual remarks on the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost which you can read here.

Adventist Archives | Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists

 

Some of the remarks you make, I'm not sure if they reflect ignorance, falsehood, a personal agenda or what. Perhaps they reflect eternal truth. Digging around in the SDA doctrinal cemetery is interesting when the subject is right. This particular subject doesn't interest me that much.

Trinity (sdanet.org)

 

Why not just state your point, agenda, etc., and move on?

 

[ReturntoDar]

God, the literal Father of Christ, without doubt has a body and a distinct personality. His Son, Jesus, is the express image of His Father. The SERIOUS problem I have with this discussion is that it assumes what internal organs God, and His Son from eternity, have. They have a body, two arms, two legs in the same manner as Adam. Beyond that, it is offensive and repulsive to speculate on the details. It is horrendous that such a discussion should even be suggested. Why does God have a representative, His Holy Spirit? Because He cannot be more than one place at a time. His Son, shares the Holy Spirit for the same reason. Of course Jesus has a new physical body, with scars from His crucifixion, since returning from earth. But He has always had a body, from eternity. Ellen White tells us that eternity has no "time", as we understand that word. "Time" began when sin entered, we will return to eternity when sin is fully resolved. Beyond what has specifically been revealed, that the Father and His Son literally have bodies, we should not dare to go. Eternity has no beginning and no end, it cannot be measured. God begat His Son NOT AT SOME POINT, but in eternity. Jesus is literally a Son and literally eternal.

SDA: Since Jesus is eternal, He is not the literal Son God.

Inspiration: the bible and Ellen White say He IS the literal Son of God. The choice between these two conflicting positions should be obvious. The first is the opinions of men. The second is the very Testimony of Jesus as given to us in the bible and the SOP. Chose you this day whom you will serve. This IS a salvational issue. Worship men, or worship God.

[Gustave]

Quote

GHansen said:

Why not just state your point, agenda, etc., and move on?

I had honestly thought I had but you asked me back into this thread by quoting a post I had made back on August 26 of 2018. I accommodated. 

Quote

GHansen said:

Some of the remarks you make, I'm not sure if they reflect ignorance, falsehood, a personal agenda or what. Perhaps they reflect eternal truth. Digging around in the SDA doctrinal cemetery is interesting when the subject is right. This particular subject doesn't interest me that much.

Given the subject matter of this thread and other similar threads on this forum which I've participated in I'm finding it difficult to believe, at this point, this subject doesn't interest you that much. 

Basically, my agenda, if one could call it that was to illustrate that Ellen White left the Methodist Church and joined a group of individuals who were very vocal in their anti-Trinitarianism. Ellen White, went on to make theological statements that confirmed what the anti-Trinitarian SDA Pioneers were saying. 

Here is a couple of examples of what the SDA Beef was with the Methodists.

Sabbath Herald, June 6, 1878
For, fifteen years I was a member of the Wesleyan Methodist church, and during the whole of that time I was deeply convinced
of sin. Although the last three years of that time I was appointed class leader and local preacher, I did not feel what I tried to point out to others,—the experience of a true believer in Jesus; but the more I studied their doctrines the more I became bewildered, until I finally decided to try no longer to attain that height of perfection which is set forth in the Scriptures; for when I examined their teaching in describing the personality of God, I found that it was altogether contrary to the word of God. 

The above is a testimony of a man who converted to Adventism - what convicted him of the need to leave the Methodist Church and join the SDA Church was the Methodist Church teaching on THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. The Beef SDA's had with the Methodist Church was well known with one example of many being articulated below:

Sabbath Herald, March 7, 1854
The first article of the Methodist Religion, p. 8. There is but one living and true God, everlasting,
without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness : the maker and preserver of all
things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this God-head, there are three persons of one substance,
power and eternity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In this article like the Catholic doctrine, we are
taught that there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity making in all one living
and true God, everlasting without body or parts. But in all this we are not told what becameof the body 
of Jesus who had a body when he ascended,who went to God who " is everywhere" or nowhere.

&

"These ideas well accord with those heathen philosophers. One says, " That water was the principle
of all things, and that God is that intelligence, by whom all things are formed out of water." Another,
"That air is God, that it is produced, that it is immense and infinite," &c. A third, "That God is a soul 
diffused throughout all beings of nature," &c. Some, who had the idea of a pure Spirit. Last of all, " That God is an eternal substance."
These extracts are taken from Rollin's History, Vol. II, pp. 597-8, published by Harpers. We should rather mistrust that the Sunday god came
from the same source that Sunday-keeping did."

That's very specific and according to the article those who claim the ONE GOD "is without body or parts [NOT TANBIBLE] in fact worship "THE god IN THE DARK" which is in stark contrast to "THE SABBATH GOD" which has bodies and parts. It's not like the SDA's just picked on the Methodists about this particular issue either, for in print they bashed the Lutherans, Eastern / Greek Orthodox and Baptist Faith traditions (and others) for the exact same thing. Rest assured if you denied that Father God had a hominid body with all the members, parts of a perfect man YOU WERE A PANTHEIST. 

Ellen White, ST, April 25, 1878
The words and works of Christ testified to a divine power which accomplishes miraculous results, of a future, eternal life 
exalted above the finite life, of God as a Father to the children of men, watchful of their true interests, and guarding them. 
He taught that God was a rewarder of the righteous, and a punisher of the transgressor. He was not an intangible spirit, 
but a living ruler of the universe. This gracious Father was constantly working for the good of man, and mindful of all

 

I'm unclear how illustrating these things could be migrated into some sort of personal bias, agenda, ignorance or falsehood I may have - I'm simply demonstrating that THIS indeed was the teaching while Ellen White was alive. I do appreciate that you included that I might be speaking an eternal truth - that's what I believe I am doing here. 

To be clear, I DON'T believe that today the SDA Church teaches this intentionally - they certainly don't write article after article in their Church papers castigating the Trinitarian part of the Creeds of the Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists and Greek Orthodox churches. I'm just saying that they indeed DID do this while Ellen White was alive. 

 

 

[ReturntoDar]

"...when I examined their teaching in describing the personality of God, I found that it was altogether contrary to the word of God." Ellen White

That is MY testimony today!!! When I examined the official position of the SDA Church TODAY (since 1980): That God is NOT the Father of Christ. God is a committee of three, a concept, an idea, without body or parts of any kind. This ASSUMPTION, without biblical or SOP support is altogether contrary to the word of God. I am in perfect agreement with the above Testimony of Jesus given to us through His prophet, Ellen White. Few modern SDA actually know WHO God is. Likewise, they will hear: "I don't even know you." Why? Because they did not know Him!

[GHansen]

Gustave, it's not the topic that interests me. It's the way you have exaggerated, misstated, and misrepresented the topic. If a person [you] wants to relate some history, it should be done in a truthful manner, which you have not done. As an example, I cite your remark that Kellogg was expelled from the SDA denomination because he believed in the "trinity" which was pantheism in the eyes of SDA at that time. That's simply false. It's not true.

The way you read into passages prophetic/denominational authority when they are simply the opinions of various writers is  hyperbole and exaggeration. It doesn't make your point, it damages your credibility. Trying to discuss something with you is like playing whack-a-mole. Swat down one falsehood and another one pops up. 

The articles on SDA net dealing with the trinity would be helpful to anyone actually interested in the history of doctrinal development among SDA. Yes there were issues among earlier SDA on the subject of the Godhead; however, those issues are largely irrelevant today. It indicates that Adventists are progressive in the sense that in some areas, there is a willingness to discard error and move into a better understanding of the Bible.

I appreciate that you have brought to my attention some things of which I was unaware. I'm still not especially interested in those things. The time I spend trying to fact check your posts robs me of time in which I could be pursuing things that do interest me. I apologize for dragging you back into a discussion which has little redemptive value.

[Gustave]

Quote

GHansen said:

Gustave, it's not the topic that interests me. It's the way you have exaggerated, misstated, and misrepresented the topic. If a person [you] wants to relate some history, it should be done in a truthful manner, which you have not done. As an example, I cite your remark that Kellogg was expelled from the SDA denomination because he believed in the "trinity" which was pantheism in the eyes of SDA at that time. That's simply false. It's not true

I just recently showed you two examples of Pantheism being equated with rejecting the Personality of God (refusing to accept Father God had a flesh body with all the parts of a perfect man). In the past I've argued that Kellogg himself denied being a Pantheist. Perhaps you can affirm or deny that the following was indeed said by Kellogg. 

"You speak of making a public confession of some kind or something. Please do not imagine for I an instant that I am going to do any such thing. I am willing to renounce all the awful doctrines you and others attribute to me. I am willing to confess that I am not a pantheist nor a spiritualist, and that I believe none of the doctrines taught by these people or by pantheistic or spiritualistic writings. I never read a pantheistic book in my life. I never read a book on "New Thought," or anything of that kind. Anybody who will read care­fully the "Living Temple" from the first page right straight through to the last, and will give the matter fair and consistent consideration, ought to see very clearly that I have no  accord whatever with these pantheistic and spiritualistic theories.

Now let us get down to business for a few minutes and talk straight. I know it is risky business for a man to say I what is in his heart nowdays. If a man is slandered, misrepresented, the only proper thing for him to do is to sit quietly still and let the thing go on. You have talked frankly and like an honest man to me, and have trusted me, and I am going to treat you in just the same way.

What is a pantheist? First, he is a man who believes that everything is God. To him every tree is a god; every pig is a God; and in a real sense so that they are proper objects of worship. Second, the pantheist believes that the real man is not the thing we see, but a soul or a spirit, which lives in the body and which at death moves into some other body, it may be of some beast or it may be another man, and finally attains perfect happiness by being absorbed into the great mind or over soul or something else having no body at all.

Now, I ask you to put your finger on a line or on a word in my book, "The Living Temple," which endorses any such notions or which even gives countenance to any such notions. I will be exceedingly thankful if you will show me one single instance. This has been charged upon me, and I have waited patiently now for several months for some one to come forward and point out wherein I have taught these things, in what words or what sentences. For the sake of peace and in order that I might not do harm to those whom I respect and those in whom I believe, I have remained quiet while wrong ideas respecting me and my work have been widely promulgated, and I do not now propose to take any different course in this matter. I am only writing this to you so that you may know the inside of my heart.

I abhor pantheism as much as you do. I have endeavored in my book to simply teach the fact that man is dependent upon God for everything, and that without the divine power working in him the Spirit of God operating upon the elements which compose his body, he would be dust. God, the fountain of all like, is man's life; that is, the Spirit of God is man's life. You will find clear statement of this in the preface of the "Living Temple" on the third page. I have also stated clearly in the preface of "The Living Temple" that my whole discussion relates only to the operation of the Spirit of God in the body in a physiological sense. Now, those who say I an in error in this must come forward and present some theory by which they can account for the marvelous manifestations of creative power and intelligence within the body, far transcend­ing the human intelligence and entirely outside of the human will. I have been waiting for someone to do this. I say, reverently, that human life is momentarily dependent upon God's care; that man is not self‑existent; but that every man has been created by God and maintained by God, and when sick is healed by God. I believe this Spirit of God to be a personality, you don't. But this is purely a question of definition. I believe the Spirit of God is a personality; you say, No, it is not a personality. Now the only reason why we differ is because we differ in our ideas as to what, a personality is. Your idea of personality is perhaps that of semblance to a person or a human being. This is not the scientific conception of personality and that is not the sense in which I use the word. The scientific test for personality is the exercise, of will, volition, purpose, without any reference to form or material being. When a frog with his head cut off is made to hop and jump around by pinching his skin, the physiologist says, Here is proof of personality residing in the spinal cord of the frog. In the same way I say, when I see a manifestation of intelligence in the tree, in the flower, in the human body, This is not the result of the operation of the human brain; here is an evidence of the work of a Personality which is independent of man, and which is above man, which is wiser and greater; which has power to, create, power to maintain, power to restore. I am not alone in this way of thinking; every scientist who is a Christian is compelled to think the same way. One cannot study the anatomy and physiology of the human body without being driven to accept the facts which are, brought to his attention continually as evidence of the power of an ever‑present God. Sister White has clearly taken the same position with reference to this matter which I have taken. You will find it, in her little work on Education in the chapters "God in Nature" and "Science and the Bible." You will find it all through "Desire of Ages," and "Patriarchs and Prophets." Mrs. Henry's book presents the same views which I present in "Living Temple," only much more emphatically. To say these things are not true; to call them pantheistic and spiritualistic and heap other opprobrious titles on these views does not change the facts. I am not a pantheist; I am no spiritualist. I hold nothing in common with the teachings of these isms. I believe the Bible, I believe in God;..."

 

I've read the Living Temple and concur with Kellogg that he was NOT a Pantheist nor was he flirting in anyway with Pantheism. I understand that's the tact SDA's today take because they simply don't want to deal with the PERSONALITY OF GOD embarrassment. If you were aware of Kellogg denying he was a Pantheist and the arguments he used to defend himself where was he off base? I'd like to hear your answer to this. 

[Gustave]

Anyone reading Mr. Kellog's defense of himself can readily see that he categorically denies being a Pantheist or promoting pantheistic ideas, particularly in his book Living Temple. to draw out Kellogg's point I'll quote one of the points he makes. 

From J.H. Kellogg's leter to G.I. Butler, Feb 21, 1904
I say, reverently, that human life is momentarily dependent upon God's care; that man is not self‑existent; but that every man has 
been created by God and maintained by God, and when sick is healed by God. I believe this Spirit of God to be a personality, you don't.  But this is purely a question of definition. I believe the Spirit of God is a personality; you say, No, it is not a personality.  Now the only reason why we differ is because we differ in our ideas as to what, a personality is. Your idea of personality is perhaps  that of semblance to a person or a human being. This is not the scientific conception of personality and that is not the sense in which I use the word. The scientific test for personality is the exercise, of will, volition, purpose, without any reference to form or material being.  When a frog with his head cut off is made to hop and jump around by pinching his skin, the physiologist says, Here is proof of personality  residing in the spinal cord of the frog. In the same way I say, when I see a manifestation of intelligence in the tree, in the flower, in the human body,  This is not the result of the operation of the human brain; here is an evidence of the work of a Personality which is independent of man, and which is  above man, which is wiser and greater; which has power to, create, power to maintain, power to restore. I am not alone in this way of thinking;  every scientist who is a Christian is compelled to think the same way. One cannot study the anatomy and physiology of the human body without being  driven to accept the facts which are, brought to his attention continually as evidence of the power of an ever‑present God.
 

Part of accepting the Trinity Doctrine is accepting that:

"There are three persons of one substance, power and eternity making in all one living and true God, everlasting without body or parts".

As you may have noticed the above is a quote from the Sabbath Heard where SDA's were CONDEMNING the above as the wine of Babylon - part of "the god in the dark" worship system. This was the position Kellogg also held when he was writing anti-Trinitarian apologetic articles for the Sabbath Herald Church paper. 

Kellogg became to believe in the Trinity and this would have included his new understanding on God, which would have approximated what a Methodist, Baptist or Catholic believes. This would have been a stinging insult to the SDA Church at that time and most horrific -one of possibly their most famous members aside from Ellen White had drank deeply the wine of Babylon. Kellogg was stating that God (whatever it is that God is, WAS NOT TANGIBLE! Kellogg had destroyed, according to Ellen White "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD" [Father's flesh hominid body]. 

I spent quote a bit of time on the Kellogg issue and believe I've collected everything documentation wise - would anyone be interested in a new thread dedicated to Kellogg and the Trinity??? It's interesting to compare his earlier anti-Trinitarian apologetic articles in the Sabbath Herald with how he saw it later. 

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

It's interesting to compare his earlier anti-Trinitarian apologetic articles in the Sabbath Herald with how he saw it later. 

Maybe interesting to you.

 

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

I just recently showed you two examples of Pantheism being equated with rejecting the Personality of God (refusing to accept Father God had a flesh body with all the parts of a perfect man).

When you can show that Kellogg was put out of the SDA church for believing in a triune God, we might have more to discuss. You continue to post falsehoods to cover your tracks. For the most part, nothing is resolved by jumping around, skating here, there everywhere. If my interest in the topic is piqued, I'll consult other sources.

Reading "Living Temple" doesn't mean you understand it or are qualified to opine on it in an authoritative manner. From what I have observed, you often play fast and loose with what you read.

[Gustave]

More than likely interesting to any SDA not an ideologue - over the years I've had enough P.M.'s on forums I've belonged to asking me for additional information I can reasonably conclude the fruit of my research is interesting to folks not under orders like below.

 

Ellen White / The Early Elmshaven Years 426
We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here but she said EVEN if the Bible appears to go against SDA Doctrine...
...It would be a mistake to move any SDA Pillar that God had sustained over the prior 50 years.
...You already witnessed that Ellen identified the P.O.G. as one of those PILLARS.

You've already seen quotes that the P.O.G. meant "EVERYTHING" to SDA's and you couldn't be an SDA and reject the P,O.G. - - here is an additional quote I've not posted yet to add additional context. 

Sabbath Herald October 8, 1903 (smack dab in the elmshaven years)
 

"The doctrine of the personality of God is the fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures."

&

Therefore we repeat what we previously said, To deny the personality of God, is to deny the existence of the sanctuary
in the heavens; for there God dwells. It is to deny the existence of the angels ; for they are his throne. It is to deny'  
the law of God; for it is the foundation of his throne. It is to deny the existence of Satan; for he is a fallen angel. It makes the light
and life which God created, and which proceeds from him, whether it be in the grass. or in cats or dogs or in mankind, to be the god. 
Since man, however, is the highest form of light and life, he necessarily becomes the supreme deity. It leads men to worship the
creature more than the. Creator. We lift a warning voice against any such doctrine, from whatever source it comes.
We say the Bible, and the Bible only, shall be our creed. In it is salvation.

I have not misrepresented in the least bit that during Ellen White's Ministry the PERSONALITY OF GOD was the most important Doctrine that everything else hung on or was supported by. Their reasoning which they DOCUMENTED was that the Sabbath, the Sanctuary and all the other doctrines depended on THE PERSONALITY OF GOD. 

Your claiming that I post falsehoods to cover my tracks is an encouragement to me to continue to post quotes which say exactly what I've said they say. 

The P,O.G. was a huge deal, and IT IS not compatible with the Trinity Doctrine. There is my agenda. 

 

 

 

[ReturntoDar]

"The doctrine of the personality of God is the fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures." Sabbath Herald October 8, 1903

What WAS this doctrine? The Fundamental Principles tells us exactly what the relationship of God (the FATHER of Christ), with His representative, the Holy Spirit, and His literal SON, Christ. Jesus was "brought forth", He was "begotten" NOT at some poin in time, but in eternity. Jesus had no beginning because Ellen White tells us "time" did not yet exist! He is at once, eternal and yet begotten! If you don't understand this, you can ask His Father about it. If you don't believe it, you will not likely get that opportunity. A fundamental part of salvation is believing the Jesus IS the Son of God. This, sadly, the SDA Church rejected in 1980. This. IS. The. OMEGA false doctrine Ellen White said would be "startling".

Jesus is NOT the Son of God, says Fundamenatl Belief #2 (1980)! WHAT??? This is indeed "startling" that the Church would take such a position in spite of the clear TESTIMONY of JESUS as given us through His prophet, Ellen White. Startling! Amazing! OMEGA, and Laodicea doesn't even see it...

Fundamental PRINCIPLES, 1890's. 
1. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the Creator of all things,
omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal; infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice,
goodness, truth and mercy; unchangeable and every-where present by his
representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7.
2. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal Father.

There is ONE true God, says the bible, not three!

 

[ReturntoDar]

Jesus said, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3

And this is death: to deny the only true God and His only true Son.

[GHansen]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

our claiming that I post falsehoods to cover my tracks is an encouragement to me to continue to post quotes which say exactly what I've said they say.

Where's the quote saying that Kellogg was disfellowshipped for believing in the "trinity?"

Sabbath Herald October 8, 1903 (smack dab in the elmshaven years).

 

What's that supposed to mean? Why is something EGW wrote "smack dab in the Elmshaven years" especially significant?

[GHansen]

Andrews University Seminary Studies: Trinity Debate Part 1 (sdanet.org)

 

Andrews University Seminary Studies: Trinity Debate Part 2 (sdanet.org)

[ReturntoDar]

The trinity issue has a very basic flaw: The God Head, composed of three divine beings are not "role playing". Together they do not make a "one God". God is the Father of Christ, period, the ONE true God. Jesus is His Son, in His express image. Therefore He is divine, just like His Father, but He is His Fathers Son. The bible and the spirit of prophecy are very, very clear on this. The Father has a representative that can be everywhere at once, BECAUSE, the Father cannot be everywhere at once, nor can Jesus. The Holy Spirit is also divine, but divinity does not make him or them God. One is the Father, one is the Son, one is they're representative, these three are the God Head, together they are not "God". This false concept of "three gods" makes the one god a "concept", a "theory", without body, it has made for massive confusion. It has KELLOGG written all over it! Is Jesus the SON of God, or not? The bible says He is. SDA deny that, they say Jesus is God! The bible never says that, it is a guess, without biblical support. "This is my beloved Son..." said Christs Father. SDA, "not really, the Father is just pretending to be the father of Christ." Don't you see how foolish this is? How ridiculous? Laodicea is blind as a bat to what is completley obvious!

[GHansen]

Lot of questions about this matter can be cleared up by defining "personality" as Webster did in his 1828 dictionary:

"Personality: That which constitutes an individual a distinct person." In the context of the times, i.e., Kellogg's "Living Temple", which spiritualized the nature of  God, EGW contended for the distinct individuality/personhood of the Godhead. That's why everything in Adventism hung on that doctrine. It signified the actual individuality of the persons of the Godhead, opposing Kellogg's spiritualizing of God's nature. Reading Kellogg's comments, they remind me of the Chinese concept of Qi, an impersonal life force which  actuates human beings, as opposed to a personal God. EGW was arguing for a personal God, intelligently involved in the life of his children.

[My opinion today, as a hobbyist]

[ReturntoDar]

On 11/22/2022 at 5:32 PM, GHansen said:

Kellogg's "Living Temple", which spiritualized the nature of  God,

Do we not do the same today? That god is a committee of three. This god, which is three, has no distinct personhood. It is without body, without personality. It is a concept an idea, a "best guess", a "spiritualization". This has Kellogg written all over it! THIS is the "startling" Omega deception that Ellen White told would follow the Alpha. Why startling? Because virtually the entire SDA Church has accepted this false doctrine and serious anger is delivered to those who would dare question their position. I "dare" to do so, because God as the Father of Christ is the very foundation of the gospel. "For God so loved the world He gave us..." Who? A colleague? An associate? A close friend? He gave us His Son, that I might live. What sacrifice is this, that the Father would give up His Son, who risked loosing everything, and finally died, that we might live. Praise God, the Father of Christ. Praise Christ, the Son of God. Praise the Holy Spirit, their representative. Without the Holy Spirit it is impossible to grasp what God has done on our behalf,

[GHansen]

9 hours ago, ReturntoDar said:

Without the Holy Spirit it is impossible to grasp what God has done on our behalf,

Amen to that!