Spirit of Prophecy is incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine

[Gustave]

Hanseng asked me to back-up the comments I had about Ellen G. White. 

Quote

James White said: "THE WAY SPIRITUALIZERS HAVE DISPOSED OF OR DENIED THE ONLY LORD GOD AND OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IS FIRST USING THE OLD UNSCRIPTURAL TRINITARIAN CREED, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God." (James White, January 24, 1846, The Day Star)

To view the above in context go to: WMC18460124-V09-07,08.pdf (adventistarchives.org) and look on page 1

Correct me if I'm wrong here but Ellen became directly associated with James White CIRCA January 1845 did she not? The point I'm making here is that Ellen had been assisting James White, in his "Ministry", for the better part of a year PRIOR TO James White affirming that Jesus Christ was NOT ETERNAL GOD in the Day Star article and 7 months after James White publicly affirms Christ ISN"T God Ellen White marries James and gets right to producing offspring. A theological belief that Christ isn't The Eternal God IS INCOMPATIBLE with the Doctrine of the Trinity,  Hanseng. Where did Ellen "CORRECT" the ministry of James White? 

6 years later James White again blows his theological trumpet. 

Quote

James White said: To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God. Sabbath Herald, August 5, 1852

The above can be read in context by going to: RH18520805-V03-07.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

By this time Ellen White had been directly involved with James White's ministry for 7 years. Again, feel free to correct me here but was not James (and the other early SDA's) PRIMARY beef with the Nicene Creed and Trinitarianism was that they taught God was "WITHOUT BODY AND PARTS" and was not it explicitly stated that Trinity "spiritualized away" the flesh body of Father God? To refresh your memory, I refer you to the following: 

Quote

James White said: We cannot be mistaken here. We know then that the time for, this third message, is now. We know also that the time for keeping all the commandments right has been since 1844, since God called us out of. Babylon. If we had stayed there, bound down by ministers and creeds, the glorious light of the Holy. Sabbath never would have reached us ; but glory to 'God, the, second angel's message called us out frem the fallen churches where we are now free to think, and act for ourselves in the fear of God

The above can be read in context by going to: PT-AR-Part1-09.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

Here is where the "body and parts" of God affirmation comes from. 

Quote

Sabbath Herald says:  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.

The above can be read in context by going to: RH18540307-V05-07.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

These Sabbath Herald articles go on and on rebuking ANY Christian Creed that affirms that God is ONE SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE WITHOUT BODY AND PARTS claiming that any Creed that says so has spiritualized away The Personality of God (AKA Father's Flesh body). In fact was it not Ellen's initial vision that affirmed what James White and the other SDA Pioneers had been saying about the Personality of God? 

Quote

Ellen White said she visited Jesus and found out: I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist."

So, supposedly Ellen White was the last person to have an actual conversation with Jesus about the first question she asks is if "HIS FATHER HAD A FORM LIKE HIMSELF". It's for the above reasons and many, many more that James White could gloat in 1871 that: 

Quote

James White said: "We invite all to compare THE TESTIMONIES of the Holy Spirit THROUGH Mrs. White 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 testimonies of Mrs. White ]

The above can be read in context by going to: RH18710613-V37-26.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

So, as SDA Scholars have repeatedly said, 'Ellen didn't create ONE DOCTRINE of the SDA Church' - she confirmed as truth the doctrines other people suggested - Ellen did this by exercising the Spirit of Prophecy supposedly. The very public SDA understanding of the Spirit of Prophecy was that "THE TESTIMONIES" were INCOMPATIBLE with the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

Since Hanseng has said I may have very poor scholarship I will now display the SDA understanding of what role Ellen had in the Church. 

Quote

SDA Fundamental Belief #18
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and WAS manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

Quote

Ellen White, Testimonies Vol 4, p 147
In ancient time God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His spirit. There never was a time when God instructed His people more earnestly the He instructs them now concerning His will and the course that He would have them pursue. But will they profit by His teachings? Will they receive His reproofs and heed His warnings? God will accept no partial obedience; He will sanction no compromise with self."

Quote

Ellen White
If you seek to turn aside the counsel of God to suit yourselves, if you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies He has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan, and Abiram." Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 66

 

 

Quote

Ellen White
The Spirit fell upon me and I was taken off in vision. I saw the state of some who stood on present truth, but disregarded the visions, -the way God had chosen to teach in some cases, those who erred from Bible truth. I saw that in striking against the visions they did not strike against the worm - the feeble instrument that God spake through; but against the Holy Ghost. I saw it was a small thing to speak against the instrument, but it was dangerous to slight the words of God. I saw if they were in error and God chose to show them their errors through visions, and they disregarded the teachings of God in visions, they would be left to take their own way, and run in the way of error, and think they were right, until they would find it out too late. Then in the time of trouble I heard them cry to God in agony - 'Why didst thou not show us our wrong that we might have got right and been ready for this time'... He spoke through visions, and he gave you up to your own ways, to be filled with your own doings." 1849 Broadside Paper

 

Quote

General Conference statement on Ellen White
As Seventh-day Adventists we are uniquely fortunate in approaching this question. We are not left to find our way, drawing conclusions only from writings penned 19 centuries ago, which have come down to us through varied transcriptions and translations. Concerning inspiration, with us it is an almost contemporary matter, for we have a prophet in our midst... What is more, rather than having in our possession only relatively short documents or a handful of letters, as is the case with the extant records of the Bible prophets, we have the full range of Ellen G. White writings penned through a period of 70 years, embodying her published books, her 4,600 periodical articles, and her manuscripts, letters, and diaries. We have also the testimonies of her contemporaries - eyewitness accounts of those who lived and worked closely with her. Both she and they discussed many points touching on the visions and on the manner in which the light was imparted to her, and how she, in turn, conveyed the messages to those for whom they were intended. In other words, the eyewitnesses discussed the operation of inspiration... Further, she wrote in a modern language, so a large number of people today can study her writings in the original language, without needing to depend on a translation. Rarely, too, is it necessary to depend upon a transcription." - Inspiration and the Ellen G. White Writings, reprint, p. 3.

Now, to demonstrate how serious this "PERSONALITY OF GOD" Doctrine was to the SDA Church this is what we find nearly 60 years after Ellen White confirmed THE MORMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE "BODIES & PARTS" OF GOD.

Quote

RH October 8,  1903
OF late the question has repeatedly come to me, Does it make any real difference whether we believe in the personality
of God, as long as we believe in God? My answer invariably is, It depends altogether upon the standpoint from which we view it. If from the Spiritualist's, -the Christian Scientist's, the Universalist's, or if from the standpoint of any other " ist" or " ism," it makes but little or no difference. But from the standpoint of Seventh-day Adventists it makes all the difference in the world.

We can see that Spirit of Prophecy is NOT compatible with the Trinity Doctrine and given Ellen's role was to correct and guide the Church the argument can be made she very publicaly muscled the SDA Church into an anti-Trinitarian faith position as Ellen stated she had been ordained by God to be the reprover of His People. 

Quote

Ellen White
"God has set me as a reprover of His people; and just so surely as He has laid upon me the heavy burden, He will make those to whom this message is given responsible for the manner in which they treat it. God will not be trifled with, and those who despise His work will receive according to their deeds." (Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 679)

Reprover - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.com

 

[Kevin H]

I do not understand why on earth you make such a fuss about the Father having a body or an image. As the infinite, God is way to big for finite minds to comprehend. The trinity is simply the three aspects we need to communicate and relate to this infinite God by how he reveals Godself to us within time and space. God the Father represents how the infinite God is all glorious, powerful and awesome, way out there etc. God the Son is how he reveals Godself to us within time and space as friend, approachable, right here etc. God the Holy Spirit is how he reveals Godself to us through our subjective existential experience.

God the Father and God the Son are two objective experiences to experience the one infinite God. They would of course be in some form or another. You seem to be so focused on the truth about the transcendence about God in the realm of the infinite, outside of what we can conceive that you don't seem to have room for the truth that this great being has also revealed Godself to us in a way we can relate. 

Also, you do not show respect for the Whites. You take what they said early in life, and do not allow them to think and grow. Would you want me to hold you responsible today for what you may have thought years ago but have grown away from? 

Ok, you have documented words from the young James White. That's fine. But did he consistently repeat these views or no? The answer is "No". the first piece of evidence is how the Review would often print anti-trinitarian articles. Yes, when James was the editor of the review, it still printed these articles. However, they had a remarkable decline under his editorship. He did not print more. He did not print about the same, but he consistently printed less and less.   The second piece of evidence is how those who knew him noticed that he would be involved in discussions on all the topics they were talking about; yet, whenever they discussed the trinity, James would shut up and only listen to the conversations. He would not join into the conversation until they changed the topic. A fourth is that in forming our tests of fellowships; our pillars/landmarks did NOT include their anti-trinity views. They allowed membership to both trinitarians as well as anti-trinitarians. While they may have been few, there were members who were trinitarians. Finally, in one of his last letters he wrote "I'm starting to find the arguments for the trinity to be more convincing than the arguments against the trinity." 

You seem to constantly want to build you views on the early understanding and close your eyes and plug your ears to the evidence that Seventh-day Adventism, and specifically James White did not stop there. 

As for Ellen White: First, she was a Methodist and thus trinitarian, but as she married James she would have given their views the benefit of the doubt and support them no matter what her personal views were. Yes, she may have become convinced. But just like with James, you need to watch her actions and words over time. 

Mrs. White tells us what visions did and did not do for her, and how she wanted her writings to be used. She said that they were like seeing pictures that she had to describe. That it was her basic framework and and basic principles, not necessary how she described or applied, nor what she said outside of this framework and basic principles. Also, that while she would make applications to what the church needed at the time, that she was not an (she did not use the word bout she described it) an exegete. She saw the job of exegesis as the job of the members. She was fascinated by it but she sadly had to turn away to do her job. 

Her framework was reveled to her in bits and pieces with themes that her visions at that time were limited to (with the exception of needing to tell someone something.) Her first set of visions had no other information except to not believe that their Millerite experience was a deception, but that those who experienced it had a true experience with God. God was indeed leading them. The second set was only on how to develop into a church structure and laying our landmarks, now to evangelize cities, our publishing houses etc. The third set was the development of our health and education work. She was then allowed to get as close to exegesis and find some sort of relief from her typical tasks, in seeing and getting to develop a philosophy based on the Great Controversy vision.  She would study and think, and realize deeper meanings in what she had seen long before. She would attack the concept of "Fundamentalism" but this was not a major focus until the last decade or so of her life. She helped with the reorganization of the General Conference in 1902 (which was simply a compromise between the structures of Leviticus, with a very strong centralized General Conference, and Deuteronomy which was far more congregational. Most churches tend to latch on to either one or the other, finding their "proof texts" but they tend to be for the one from Leviticus, and for the other they tend to be from Deuteronomy. With fundamental mindsets, they find their "proof texts" THE BIBLICAL command. The Bible actually illustrates how both have their strong points and weak points.). And of course she worked with the 1888 message. Due to her support of the 1888 message, she was sent away to Australia. 

In Australia she thought a lot about the 1888 message and how it applied to her visions, especially her great controversy vision. The 1890s were very focused on who Jesus was and books about Jesus. In this process she asked A. G. Daniels to do a study about who does the Bible really teach Jesus to be; and she gave a similar assignment to W. W. Prescott only his topic was the Holy Spirit. Both Prescott and Daniels started out believing what you want to force upon all early Adventists. However, as they studied, they (GASP, UNBELIEVABEL, NO THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE SO LET'S ONLY USE THEIR EARLIER VIEWS AND REJECT THIS MOMENT.) changed their views completely. Daniels accepted that Jesus was indeed the infinite God, and Prescott accepted that the Holy Spirit was an actual identity and indeed the infinite God. As the two compared notes they realized that through both studies they had become trinitarians. 

The topic of the trinity then began to spread in the church. As for Mrs. White, it became the center-point and foundation to her great controversy philosophy. There were the three aspects of the trinity, there were the three deceptions of Satan, each an attack on a member of the trinity. A realization that most, if nor all, the threes in the Bible were dealing with the aspects of the trinity and the three deceptions of Satan. In the early 1900s Milian Andresen went to Ellen White and asked her bluntly if she had or had not become a trinitarian. She told him that she did, let him read some of her "trinitarian" passages that he heard was written by others and put in with her writings, in her own handwriting, and he left the visit with at least some form of trinitarian views. (He held some other views that limited how he could apply the concept.)

You need to be fair to how people grow.. 

[Gustave]

That was a thoughtful post Kevin, definitely deserving of a response - I'll do my best to provide one over this coming weekend. 

[Gustave]

Quote

Kevin H said: I do not understand why on earth you make such a fuss about the Father having a body or an image. As the infinite, God is way to big for finite minds to comprehend.

It's about as big a deal as can exist. You could ask a Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist or any other Protestant that question and I'm fairly certain they would be aghast at the suggestion the Father had a "body" with all the members, organs of a perfect man. To state simply you CAN'T be a Trinitarian and assert such a thing. 

Quote

Kevin H said: The trinity is simply the three aspects we need to communicate and relate to this infinite God by how he reveals Godself to us within time and space. God the Father represents how the infinite God is all glorious, powerful and awesome, way out there etc. God the Son is how he reveals Godself to us within time and space as friend, approachable, right here etc. God the Holy Spirit is how he reveals Godself to us through our subjective existential experience.

To ONE God, not three, God, according to Scripture is ontologically ONE. Therefore when one claiming to be a Prophet states that Christ not only could have sinned BUT would have eternally ceased to exist had He sinned - that defaults into NOT being the Trinity but a 1/3rd of God - which again, is impossible within the Trinity Doctrine.

Quote

Kevin H said: Also, you do not show respect for the Whites. You take what they said early in life, and do not allow them to think and grow. Would you want me to hold you responsible today for what you may have thought years ago but have grown away from? 

If they thought and grew in this area they would have repudiated what they previously had affirmed. I've quoted SDA Church members in good standing stating that the Spirit of Prophecy was against the Trinity Doctrine, that had Christ sinned the Father alone would be left to be a shot caller for the universe. This is antithetical to the Trinity Doctrine. I had many views and did many things in my youth that I repudiated later in life. If you could show me where Ellen repudiated her blatant anti-Trinitarianism I would gladly reformat my understanding. 

Quote

Kevin H said: Ok, you have documented words from the young James White. That's fine. But did he consistently repeat these views or no? The answer is "No".

Of course the answer is no - James White was an anti-Trinitarian who was married to a Prophet who confirmed James views. After Ellen weighed in on the matter what else is there to say? What else would need to be said after Ellen claims the Father has an actual body, that Christ wasn't the Almighty, that Christ might have eternally ceased to exist, etc.? 

Quote

Kevin H said: A fourth is that in forming our tests of fellowships; our pillars/landmarks did NOT include their anti-trinity views. They allowed membership to both trinitarians as well as anti-trinitarians. While they may have been few, there were members who were trinitarians. Finally, in one of his last letters he wrote "I'm starting to find the arguments for the trinity to be more convincing than the arguments against the trinity." 

According to Ellen the primary "pillar" did include the primary anti-Trinitarian view. 

Quote

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

I'm doubting you need me to re-quote what the Sabbath Herald, Signs of the Times and other official SDA Church publications said about the "Personality of God Doctrine" and how it PROTECTED the SDA Church from the Trinity Doctrine (which was described repeatedly as the destroyer of the Personality (body) of God). I certainly could post all those again but it seems like beating a dead horse. If you could find me one example of Ellen White reversing what she taught, like the Personality of God WAS NOT a landmark or pillar doctrine that would go a long way to convincing me I was being to inflexible with Ellen. Remember, Ellen and those around her were classifying her as a Prophet, literally. 

I hold, as well as Protestants, that the Trinity Doctrine is the most important Doctrine of Christianity as everything flows from that one understanding that God is Ontologolically one. Obviously no one knows exactly how to define the Almighty, we can only know for sure what Sacred Scripture says God is NOT. God is NOT 3 Persons with each being a third of God. 

I have more to add and to keep this post from getting too large I'll respond to the rest as soon as I'm able. Please if you don't feel my logic chain is solid let me know where you believe it's weak. I appreciate the discussion. 

[Gustave]

Quote

Kevin H said: They allowed membership to both trinitarians as well as anti-trinitarians. While they may have been few, there were members who were trinitarians. Finally, in one of his last letters he wrote "I'm starting to find the arguments for the trinity to be more convincing than the arguments against the trinity." 

There were no Trinitarians that I know of. There were anti-Trinitarians such as Ellen & James White and eventually, down the road some folks within the Church that said they were advocating for the Trinity when it clearly wasn't the Trinity.

Several years ago I stumbled onto one of those Big Foot reality t.v. shows while watching tv. There was some sort of town-hall type of meeting where one half of the group was pushing for categorizing Bigfoot as an "endangered species"  while another half of the group was pushing for hunting licenses and TAGS they they could hunt the like other big game. 

The fact was BOTH of the above groups were wrong - Big Foot doesn't exist so there is no danger of a hunter killing one - its also a fact you don't need to put an imaginary animal on the endangered species list. YET, here I was watching this t.v. show that had the two halfs of the bigfoot argument read to fist fight over the issue. This is what you see going on with the Trinity issue between the mid 19th century up to this very day. 

I have beat the weeds hard and have only witnessed TWO (what I would say are famous) SDA's publicly admit that God is Ontologolically one Being. One of the two is Sean Boonstra and the other is a SDA theologian that participated in a Trinity Symposium a while back (I forget his name). EVERYONE else I've seen online parrot the Mormon Godhead of 3 separate Beings who are unified in character and purpose. Like below

Quote

Ellen White the Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts: The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one

Again, this isn't like what Mormonism teaches, IT IS WHAT MORMONISM teaches. Mormonism is not Trinitarian, and they will tell you that openly. Its for the above reasons and several others what James White was talking about toward the end of his life was NOT the Trinity Doctrine despite his calling it that. 

Quote

Kevin H said: ou seem to constantly want to build you views on the early understanding and close your eyes and plug your ears to the evidence that Seventh-day Adventism, and specifically James White did not stop there. 

Look, what I'm saying is that where James and Ellen stopped was no closer to the Trinity Doctrine than when Ellen said Jesus wasn't the Almighty and James said the Father had every part and organ a healthy human man had. The point I'm making is that there was no repudiation of the former statements against the Trinity - instead we find the SDA Education department in 1923 making anti-Trinitarian statements and drawing thick black lines through educational books made by "Protestants" when they discussed that God was one Being so that the kiddies might know Father had nostrils and all the parts their Daddy's had. 

Quote

Kevin H said: As for Ellen White: First, she was a Methodist and thus trinitarian, but as she married James she would have given their views the benefit of the doubt and support them no matter what her personal views were. Yes, she may have become convinced. But just like with James, you need to watch her actions and words over time. 

Yes, that's been my point - Ellen was a Trinitarian before joining up with James White and she remained silent when her husband and others castigated the Trinity Doctrine in SDA papers for decade after decade. 

Quote

Kevin H said: Mrs. White tells us what visions did and did not do for her, and how she wanted her writings to be used. She said that they were like seeing pictures that she had to describe. That it was her basic framework and and basic principles, not necessary how she described or applied, nor what she said outside of this framework and basic principles. Also, that while she would make applications to what the church needed at the time, that she was not an (she did not use the word bout she described it) an exegete. She saw the job of exegesis as the job of the members. She was fascinated by it but she sadly had to turn away to do her job. 

Above. Where can I look into what you are saying above? 

[Kevin H]

As for the landmarks, this is what Mrs. White said:

 

The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God's people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels' messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, "The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God's law. The nonimmortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary. {CW 30.2}

[Kevin H]

As to trinitarian members: we have William Spicer's parents. William Spicer became General Conference President in 1922. His parents became Adventists when he was a young boy. They were trinitarians. His father had become an Adventist minister. Now, he was pressured to add some anti-trinitarian sermons to his sermons, but was not able to since he was a trinitarian. What he finally did was become a lay preacher, where he was free to preach and to be a practicing trinitarian. 

[Kevin H]

"It's about as big a deal as can exist. You could ask a Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist or any other Protestant that question and I'm fairly certain they would be aghast at the suggestion the Father had a "body" with all the members, organs of a perfect man. To state simply you CAN'T be a Trinitarian and assert such a thing"

In a Bible Class taught by Methodist Archaeologist, the way he explained the trinity is like if you have a mountain with three ridges, that goes up to a cloud that covers the top of the mountain. He said that this illustration does fall short in that mountains are smaller as they get higher, while the "above the cloud" aspect of the trinity is infinite, but the only way we are able to understand and relate to God would be like how we can only relate to this mountain by it's three ridges below the cloud. 

This sound does not sound much different from my Adventist teachers. 

God does not have a body/an image in the aspect of his infinite, but where he beaks through time and space to communicate with us he has a body.  

"To ONE God, not three, God, according to Scripture is ontologically ONE. Therefore when one claiming to be a Prophet states that Christ not only could have sinned BUT would have eternally ceased to exist had He sinned - that defaults into NOT being the Trinity but a 1/3rd of God - which again, is impossible within the Trinity Doctrine."

Fortunately, Jesus did not fail. Until the incarnation, God had never been a creature before. If Jesus had failed, it would have shown that there was something selfish in God, and thus that God was not what he claims to be.  It would have destroyed the entire universe. We finite beings can only speculate at the most about what would have happened to God in the realm of the infinite. We probably cannot begin to comprehend what the could have happened if God had any selfishness and sinfulness.  It would not simply be Enoch, Moses, Elijah and the humanity of Jesus to be called before a firing squad of angels. 

"If they thought and grew in this area they would have repudiated what they previously had affirmed. I've quoted SDA Church members in good standing stating that the Spirit of Prophecy was against the Trinity Doctrine, that had Christ sinned the Father alone would be left to be a shot caller for the universe. This is antithetical to the Trinity Doctrine. I had many views and did many things in my youth that I repudiated later in life. If you could show me where Ellen repudiated her blatant anti-Trinitarianism I would gladly reformat my understanding. "

Why is James White's letter saying "I'm starting to find the arguments for the trinity sounding more convincing than the arguments against the trinity" and Ellen White telling Milian Andresen that yes, she had become a trinitarian. As well as turning to (I don't remember his name, it always reminded me of the name of author Herman Melville) but who wrote about the traditional understanding of the trinity, especially the trinitarian understanding of the human nature of Christ, and copied some of the best of his work. Should she not have avoided reading and copying from him or only to read him to refute?

Mrs. White's Great Controversy philosophy starts out with the three aspects of the trinity, God as power (God the Father) God as personal friend (God the son), and God revealing himself and working with our subjective (God the Holy Spirit.)

Then there are the three deceptions of Satan. The first being that God is not really God but just a more highly evolved life form, but is as natural as you and me, but is a cruel arbitrary, unfair tyrant who uses his claim to be God to force a law on us that he himself does not keep and is only to keep us in our place, but that he does not have a right to place a law over us. This is an attack on God the Father. 

The second and third are based on God claiming to be both just and merciful, and Satan saying that it is impossible for God to be both, that he needs to be one or another. and since he is a cruel tyrant he would be just and destroy the sinner. This attacks God the Son who died to save us. 

Satan has a third lie saying that if God does end up being merciful, then it does not matter what you do, he will still let you into heaven. God's law has been done away with. This attacks the Holy Spirit who writes God's law upon our hearts. 

Even before 1888 and her asking Elder Daniels and Prescott to do their studies, you can still find bits and pieces of this that were fleshed out as she became a trinitarian. 

Also when Daniels did his study on Jesus and Prescott did his study on the Holy Spirit that ended up bringing the trinity into a more prominent position in our church. Why did Mrs. White allow them to but their two studies together and become trinitarians and allow the trinity to grow in the church? Why did she not sit Daniels and Prescott down and stop them from their conclusions. And as their study started to make more trinitarian members, why did she not fight this?

How much more evidence do you need to reformat your understanding? I find these pretty convincing. 

 

[Gustave]

54 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

As for the landmarks, this is what Mrs. White said:

 

The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God's people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels' messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, "The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God's law. The nonimmortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary. {CW 30.2}

This is what I was referring to: 

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

 

It's hardly "imaginary, it's right there. The personality of God doctrine is, by it's own definition & by it's own supporters, Anti-Trinitarian. 

[Gustave]

41 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

"It's about as big a deal as can exist. You could ask a Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist or any other Protestant that question and I'm fairly certain they would be aghast at the suggestion the Father had a "body" with all the members, organs of a perfect man. To state simply you CAN'T be a Trinitarian and assert such a thing"

In a Bible Class taught by Methodist Archaeologist, the way he explained the trinity is like if you have a mountain with three ridges, that goes up to a cloud that covers the top of the mountain. He said that this illustration does fall short in that mountains are smaller as they get higher, while the "above the cloud" aspect of the trinity is infinite, but the only way we are able to understand and relate to God would be like how we can only relate to this mountain by it's three ridges below the cloud. 

This sound does not sound much different from my Adventist teachers. 

God does not have a body/an image in the aspect of his infinite, but where he beaks through time and space to communicate with us he has a body.  

I can assure you that this Methodist Archaeologists Doctrine of God would NOT include the Ability for God the Son to sin and eternally cease to exist (become as if he never existed, permanently). This is radically different than any (and I mean any) protestant stance. From my understanding of history the only groups that advocated such were the ancient Arians and the 19th century Restorationist movements such as the Mormons, Christadelphians, JW's and SDA's. 

[Gustave]

58 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

As to trinitarian members: we have William Spicer's parents. William Spicer became General Conference President in 1922. His parents became Adventists when he was a young boy. They were trinitarians. His father had become an Adventist minister. Now, he was pressured to add some anti-trinitarian sermons to his sermons, but was not able to since he was a trinitarian. What he finally did was become a lay preacher, where he was free to preach and to be a practicing trinitarian. 

At what date range was William Spicer's father pressured to preach anti-Trinitarian sermons? I'd like to read more about this? In particular if Ellen White was considered to be executing her prophetic ministry during the time Spicer's Father was pressured to feed the SDA flock anti-Trinitarianism from the pulpit. 

[Kevin H]

I'm sorry. but where on this list does it say the non-trinitarian understanding of God? 

And again, why would James White write that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity to sound more convincing than the arguments against it.  Why would he even consider arguments for the trinity? Why did Mrs. White tell Andresen that she was indeed a trinitarian. Why did she not stop Daniels and Prescott from uniting their studies and becoming trinitarian? Why would she copy a large amount from an author who did an excellent job discussing the traditional understanding of the trinity and of the nature of Christ in the trinity, and set it out for us to follow instead of trying to refute his works if she was even going to look at them at all? Why did she allow the rapid growth of the trinity among our members in the 1890s and early 1900s?  Would the Jehovah's Witnesses encourage their young leaders to do a study like Mrs. White had Daniels and Prescott do? And even if they did and the young leaders start to become trinitarians from their study, would the JW leadership allow these leader's study to be public and allow the trinity to become a part of their church? 

[Kevin H]

7 minutes ago, Gustave said:

At what date range was William Spicer's father pressured to preach anti-Trinitarian sermons? I'd like to read more about this? In particular if Ellen White was considered to be executing her prophetic ministry during the time Spicer's Father was pressured to feed the SDA flock anti-Trinitarianism from the pulpit. 

I do not know all the dates, but they occurred when when William Spicer was a child, and he was born in 1865. So it was probably around the 1870s. 

[Gustave]

7 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I'm sorry. but where on this list does it say the non-trinitarian understanding of God? 

And again, why would James White write that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity to sound more convincing than the arguments against it.  Why would he even consider arguments for the trinity? Why did Mrs. White tell Andresen that she was indeed a trinitarian. Why did she not stop Daniels and Prescott from uniting their studies and becoming trinitarian? Why would she copy a large amount from an author who did an excellent job discussing the traditional understanding of the trinity and of the nature of Christ in the trinity, and set it out for us to follow instead of trying to refute his works if she was even going to look at them at all? Why did she allow the rapid growth of the trinity among our members in the 1890s and early 1900s?  Would the Jehovah's Witnesses encourage their young leaders to do a study like Mrs. White had Daniels and Prescott do? And even if they did and the young leaders start to become trinitarians from their study, would the JW leadership allow these leader's study to be public and allow the trinity to become a part of their church? 

The Personality of God Doctrine's stated function was to PROTECT the SDA Church from the Trinity. 

The Trinity claimed "God" has no body, is Spirit.

The Personality of God Doctrine stated that God has skin, organs, nostrils for sniffing and enjoying the odor of a sacrifice, etc. The Trinity Doctrine says God is present EVERYWHERE while the Personality of God Doctrine requires that if God is in the heavenly temple God CAN'T be somewhere else at the same time. 

Merlin D. Burt throws the word "Trinity" around all the time and is about as anti-Trinitarian as one can be - His definition of the Trinity would be rejected by Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Evangelicals, etc. Merlin D Burt would fit right in with the Mormons, who by the way are openly frank about their rejection of the Trinity. 

Like I said, I've only heard of two SDA's who are in the business of media say the Trinity is an Ontological Oneness. 

If James White wrote and considered arguments for the Trinity to be valid I can assure you it's the Trinity doctrine Merlin Burt, Ellen White and Walter Veith subscribed to and not Trinity Doctrine you would find in a dictionary or encyclopedia. 

[8thdaypriest]

Hello to all.  I've been gone from Club Adventist for quite some time.  Been dealing with health issues, but mostly have been working on my own website.  

ANNOUNCEMENT:  Relevant to this thread topic.   

I have posted a pdf copy of my old book/syllabus, "The Persons of God," up on my website, prophecyviewpoint.com.

It is under a hidden link, because I have chosen NOT to site Ellen White for the studies on Prophecy Viewpoint.  Those wanting access can email me through the website, or can message me here on Club Adventist, and I will send the link to the pdf.  Once you have the link, you are free to share it with anyone you wish. 

That book is an almost complete collection/compilation of every statement by Ellen White on the nature of God.  Statements by Ellen White referencing "three" divine persons, began to appear  in 1900.  In "Desire of Ages" (1896) the Holy Spirit is referred to as "the third person of the Godhead," but she clearly stated that this personal presence, this "representation of Himself" was "Christ's gift to His church."   

[Kevin H]

Here is an article by Elder Burt on the trinity:

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2778&context=pubs

How do you see Elder Burt's views of the trinity as something that would not be accepted by by Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Evangelicals, etc,?  I've heard some very, very strange views of the trinity by some in these groups. I don't know what we could say that would be stranger than some of the theories of the trinity I've heard.  My understanding of the trinity from the perspective of Ellen White fits how Methodist Archaeologist Jim Fleming describes the trinity. He says that his view comes from the views that we can find in the Eastern Orthodox churches rather than the views that have developed in the Western church. While I'm only starting a book (and don't have it with me to list the title and author) I am comfortable with the view of trinity in this book. If I remember correctly, it was written by a Lutheran. 

As for some of the views we are finding in Adventism, there are subgroups who I'm not comfortable with; especially those who have formed an uneasy union of the beliefs that lead to the 1888 crisis, with a way of adapting Jones and Wagner to earlier views in how they want Jesus to be less our substitute and more our example as they have a very strict "last generation" theology, And also with in this group are those who are very anti-women's ordinations, and thus presents Jesus in a submission to the Father, but where the Father does not submit to anyone. (I understand the trinity to submit to each other.) 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

I will take a look at the article Kevin.  Soon as I get time.  

I can only tell you what I believe, after many years of study.  

Ephesians 4:6 "one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (NKJ)

If God the Father is "above all,"  then He is also "above" his Son.  

1 Corinthians 15:28 "Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." (NKJ)

"Subject to" means what it says, and "above all" means what it says.  

If the Father is "though all" and "in" all believers, then He is Spirit.   God the Father "beget" a second divine being/person, out of Himself.  The second being was begotten in the Father's "express image."   When we come to the end of Revelation, describing the final kingdom of God, we see TWO divine persons as "the Temple" of the New Jerusalem. 

 Revelation 21:22 "But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple." (NKJ)

I do not find a third divine being/person in the Bible.  

I know that "the last Adam was made a life-giving spirit," (1Cor 15:45) but "the last Adam," is Christ Jesus.  

So BOTH the Father and His Son are now with us, because both are "spirit."  

Show me one passage where we are commanded to specifically worship "the Holy Spirit."  Or pray to, sing to, praise, bless, glorify, or thank the Holy Spirit specifically, in ADDITION to God the Father and His Son.

I worship God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 

THIS is what Ellen White taught prior to 1898.  This is what James White believed.  So you might say that I am closer to the Adventist pioneers on this issue, than most in the official denomination are presently.   

 

[Gustave]

On 12/8/2023 at 9:29 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Hello to all.  I've been gone from Club Adventist for quite some time.  Been dealing with health issues, but mostly have been working on my own website.  

ANNOUNCEMENT:  Relevant to this thread topic.   

I have posted a pdf copy of my old book/syllabus, "The Persons of God," up on my website, prophecyviewpoint.com.

It is under a hidden link, because I have chosen NOT to site Ellen White for the studies on Prophecy Viewpoint.  Those wanting access can email me through the website, or can message me here on Club Adventist, and I will send the link to the pdf.  Once you have the link, you are free to share it with anyone you wish. 

That book is an almost complete collection/compilation of every statement by Ellen White on the nature of God.  Statements by Ellen White referencing "three" divine persons, began to appear  in 1900.  In "Desire of Ages" (1896) the Holy Spirit is referred to as "the third person of the Godhead," but she clearly stated that this personal presence, this "representation of Himself" was "Christ's gift to His church."   

Where the Holy Spirit is the Father and Son are also, but that's not at all what Ellen meant - she rejected a one Being God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and instead opted for multiple Beings who luckily were united in character and purpose - Like Hades and Zeus were when they fought the Titan Kronos. 

Just like in Greek and Roman view - the God's were separate Beings and could indeed be killed - they could eternally cease to exist and this is the teaching Ellen White sledge-hammered into SDA theology to the point it's very rare for a Seventh-day Adventist to go against it. 

I'm glad to hear you are better 8th day and pray / hope for your healing. 

[Gustave]

Kevin, my apologies, I did not see your last post here. 

Quote

Kevin H said: How do you see Elder Burt's views of the trinity as something that would not be accepted by by Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Evangelicals, etc,?

Because Elder Burt said the SDA Trinity doctrine is different than the Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, etc. You realize that the Trinity Doctrine of Catholicism IS the Trinity Doctrine of the Lutheran Church, etc. Right? 

Start playing the video at the 3 minute 30 second mark and go forward from there - you'll hear Burt come right out and say it. 

If you went up to a Methodist or Baptist and said The Father was a separate Being from the Son who was another Being and that it was possible for the Son to have sinned and if He would have Christ would have been annihilated eternally - as in KAPUT, game over - to eternally beome as if He never was. 

Explain that to anyone other than a Mormon, JW or Christadelphian and report back as to their reaction. I've already asked a Lutheran, Baptist and Methodist Seminary and they are explicit that the Son ceasing to exist would mean the Father would cease to exist, it's impossible. 

The Orthodox Church Trinity is the same as the Roman Catholic.