Ellen White statements attacking the Trinity or advancing Arian or Semi-Arian views.

[Gustave]

 

 

Hanseng has asked me to produce statements of Ellen White that attack the Trinity Doctrine or advance Arian or Semi-Arian views. Here we go!

Quote

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

To read the above in context see page 2 of:ST18990510-V25-19.pdf (adventistarchives.org) 

The Trinity Doctrine affirms that the Son is as fully God as is the Father & the Holy Spirit. The Trinity Doctrine affirms that Almighty God is ONE SPIRIT or Substance with an indwelling of 3 inseparable Person's. The Son could no more cease to exist than the Father or Holy Spirit cease to exist. It is therefore against the Trinity and VERY Arian to suggest that Christ's deity could be lost by any hypothetical situation. This is ABSOLUTELY ARIAN. 

We can be sure Ellen is above saying exactly what it sounds like because she also said:

Quote

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

This is absolutely Arian in that Christ's Deity was CONDITIONAL on His continued obedience. If Christ screwed up the real God would bring the hammer down on him. 

This isn't just LIKE what the SDA Pioneers said about Christ - IT IS WHAT THE PIONEERS SAID ABOUT CHRIST, exactly. If SDA Scholars have zero issues with admitting that the SDA Pioneers were Arian and Semi-Arian it defies logic to assert that Ellen didn't produce statements that affirmed what those Arians and Semi-Arians were preaching when that's exactly what Ellen describes she did. 

The historically documented Arian position was that Christ COULD HAVE sinned and fallen - The SDA Pioneers were Arian and Semi-Arian - Ellen White repeatedly affirmed that Christ could have sinned and fallen, ceased to exist, etc. 

10 years prior to Ellen's passing she said the following did she not? 

Quote

R&H Jan 26,1905
The word given me is, 'You are faithfully to reprove those who would mar the faith of the people of God. Write out the things which I shall give you, that they may stand as a witness to the truth till the end of time.' I said, 'If any of the citizens of Battle Creek wish to know what Mrs. White believes and teaches, let them read her published books. My labors would be naught should I preach another gospel. That which I have written is what the Lord has bidden me write. I have not been instructed to change that which I have sent out

If you know of ANYWHERE Ellen White retracted or "CHANGED" what she said below please, by all means, let me know so I can adjust my thinking in this area. 

Quote

Ellen White
Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen,

Quote

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

Quote

Ellen White 
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.”

The above is hardly all Ellen wrote about this - she was so militant and prolific others boldly parroted what she was preaching. 

Quote

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

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

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

Quote

Signs of the Time April 2, 1940
It is VITAL for every Christian TO KNOW that Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned. The Master was not beyond the clutches of temptation. The Heaven-sent Gift could have been eternally lost and the doom of humanity would have been eternally sealed. Jesus Christ knew the pull of evil. "In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."   
 

There is the 1st proof. After we discuss this in the context of the Scriptures, we can move onto the 2nd proof. 

 

 

[Hanseng]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

There is the 1st proof. After we discuss this in the context of the Scriptures, we can move onto the 2nd proof. 

 

What Jesus could have done in his humanity, as a human, made in the likeness of men is irrelevant to His divinity which was clothed in humanity. Incidentally, Charles Longacre is not Ellen White. Perhaps you could explain what the "trinity" has to do with whether or not Jesus could have sinned.

[Gustave]

22 minutes ago, Hanseng said:

What Jesus could have done in his humanity, as a human, made in the likeness of men is irrelevant to His divinity which was clothed in humanity. Incidentally, Charles Longacre is not Ellen White. Perhaps you could explain what the "trinity" has to do with whether or not Jesus could have sinned.

Jesus was ONE PERSON. 

Charles Longacre was saying exactly what Ellen White said. 

Ellen White said exactly what Arius said.

God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) is ONE SPIRIT that is inseparable. Take away the Son and you don't have God. 

You have just provided yourself with the 2nd proof. 

 

[Hanseng]

You still haven't provided an EGW statement attacking the trinity or espousing an Arian point of view. If that's the best you can do, I'll consider the matter settled. You don't know what you are talking about. Gane, Froom, and Moon are correct, You are incorrect.  

[Gustave]

LOL!

Present what I've said to a Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist Minister and note their reaction. 

As you can tell your re-defining the Trinity Doctrine to comply with your Ellen White rubric isn't cutting the mustard here so it's probably best you run along and occupy yourself with something other than demonstrating your lack of knowledge on the basics of the Trinity Doctrine. 

[Hanseng]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

LOL!

 

5 hours ago, Hanseng said:

You still haven't provided an EGW statement attacking the trinity or espousing an "Arian" point of view.

 

[Gustave]

The issue here is that you can't recognize when Ellen White makes statements that are incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine because you have poured a new definition into the word - a definition ONLY a Mormon would accept and agree with. 

Read this several times: I've included the link at the end of each quote so you can read the quote in context.

Quote

[For discussions about the three members of the Godhead and their divine attributes and manifestations in the world, see God; God the Father; Elohim; Man of Holiness; Jehovah, Jesus Christ; Holy Ghost; Holy Spirit; Gift of the Holy Ghost; Dove, Sign of the.See also Godhood; Endless and Eternal; Name of God; Intelligence; Foreknowledge of God; Omnipotent God; Omnipresence of God; Omniscience of God.] Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (A of F 1). These three Gods form the Godhead, which holds the keys of power over the universe. Each member of the Godhead is an independent personage, separate and distinct from the other two, the three being in perfect unity and harmony with each other (AF, chap. 2). Godhead - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (byu.edu)

Quote

Latter-day Saints view the members of the Godhead in a manner that corresponds in a number of ways with the views of others in the Christian world, but with significant differences. Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being. Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father’s divine plan of salvation. Godhead (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Read the below quote at least 3 times slowly Hanseng, I will share with you where the Sabbath Herald and Ellen White say the same thing - over and over and over again. 

Quote

Although the three members of the Godhead are distinct personages, their Godhead is "one" in that all three are united in their thoughts, actions, and purpose, with each having a fulness of knowledge, truth, and power. Each is a God. This does not imply a mystical union of substance or personality. Joseph Smith taught: Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow-three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for those that thou hast given me…that they may be one as we are."…I want to read the text to you myself-"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which thou hast given me out of the world,…that they all may be agreed," and all come to dwell in unity [TPJS, p. 372; cf. John 17:9-11, 20-21; also cf. WJS, p. 380]. Godhead - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (byu.edu)

Here is 1

Sabbath Herald, September 4, 1900 / 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". 

You are rejecting the evidence I'm providing you because you have hijacked a word with a defined meaning and poured in an alien definition and then act indignant when I tell you that Ellen White's testimonies are incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

Why don't you do what the Mormons do and just be honest about this and admit it? 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

 

 

The following comes from: Do Latter-day Saints Believe in the Trinity? | ComeUntoChrist (churchofjesuschrist.org)

 

Do Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Believe in the Trinity?

Like many Christians, we believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. However, we don’t believe in the traditional concept of the Trinity. We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings who are one in purpose.

 

 

Three distinct beings

The Church’s first Article of Faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” We believe They are three distinct personages, not one singular being. We call Them the Godhead.

This belief is informed by the Bible. The account of Jesus’s baptism in the New Testament is one great example of the Godhead acting together to accomplish the will of Heavenly Father. Matthew 3:16–17 reads:

“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

 

 

At that moment, all three members of the Godhead were present: Jesus, who was being baptized; Heavenly Father, whose voice was heard from heaven; and the Spirit of God, as indicated by the sign of the dove.

Each member of the Godhead has a specific role, united in the purpose of bringing all of God’s children back to His presence.

Unique roles

God

God is our loving Heavenly Father. He is the father of our spirits. We communicate with Him through prayer, as Jesus Christ Himself did. Heavenly Father always listens to our prayers. He authored the plan of salvation, a plan to help all of His children return to live with Him. As Latter-day Saints, we love and worship Him.

Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is Heavenly Father’s Son. He is our Savior and Redeemer. He was God’s Only Begotten Son, born of Mary. He lived on earth and taught his Father’s gospel. He was rejected by the world and crucified on the cross. Because of His perfect, sinless life and ultimate sacrifice, we all have the hope of returning to live with Him and our Heavenly Father again. John 3:16 reads, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

The Holy Ghost

The Holy Ghost is the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. A personage of spirit, He helps us learn and recognize the truth of all things, including the gospel. It is through the Holy Ghost that God and Jesus Christ communicate their love, comfort, and peace to us.

One purpose

Though the Godhead is made up of three distinct divine beings with certain different roles and characteristics, They are perfectly united in purpose. They work in harmony to help us come to know God, live righteously, be forgiven, and ultimately return to live with Them again. Together, They work “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). 

[Gustave]

Attached, SDA Scholar at an SDA Symposium admitting Scripture teaches ONTOLOGICAL ONENESS in God. The Scholar makes the point we don't know how God is one! No kidding, no one knows how this is possible and that's why Scripture calls this a great mystery. All we know is that God is ONE BEING (Spiritual Substance) and that somehow within that one Being which is God subsist 3 Persons. 

NOT 3 Beings but ONE BEING.  

[Hanseng]

J.H. Waggoner:  Denying such a contention, Waggoner again insists that Christ "bears the title of God subordinate to his Father" (p. 101). He then reaffirms: "Therefore the title [God] is applied to him [Christ] in a subordinate and restricted sense. In its unrestricted and universal sense it applies only to the Supreme One, 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.'" (Ibid.,
p. 102.) Cited in MOD 169, 170

J.M. Stephenson: "the Father only is self-existent; i.e., hath life (eternal life) in himself; and he has given his Son to have life in himself; that he should give it to them that are his at his coming." (J. M. Stephenson, The Atonement, p. 50.)
[John 5:26, 27 refers to His Incarnate life.] Cited in MOD, p. 153

U. Smith: "'From Him which . . . was, and which is to come,' or is to be: an expression which signifies complete eternity, past and future, and can be applicable only to God, the Father. This language, we believe, is never applied to Christ. He is spoken of as another person, in distinction from the being thus described." (Uriah Smith, Thoughts on the Revelation, "1865," * p. 14.) Cited in MOD, 159.

Other quotes could be added from the sources cited as well as people such as Canright, all of which are explicit in their Arian type sentiments.

The explicit quotes on the Godhead from EGW: 

"The eternal, self-existent, untreated One" (PP 305).
"Equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. . . . He is the eternal, selfexistent Son" (Ms 101, 1897; Ev 615).
"From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father" (DA 19).
"The self-existent One . . . 'whose goings forth have been . . . from the days of eternity'" (DA 470).
"Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God. . . . He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God" (Signs, Aug. 29, 1900; Ev 615).

All recognizing that Christ is the express image of God in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells.

When you get an explicit EGW statement along the lines of Smith, J.H. Waggoner, or Stephenson, post it. Otherwise confess such a statement doesn't exist as have Gane, Moon, and Froom.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: 

The explicit quotes on the Godhead from EGW: 

"The eternal, self-existent, untreated One" (PP 305).
"Equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. . . . He is the eternal, selfexistent Son" (Ms 101, 1897; Ev 615).
"From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father" (DA 19).
"The self-existent One . . . 'whose goings forth have been . . . from the days of eternity'" (DA 470).
"Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God. . . . He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God" (Signs, Aug. 29, 1900; Ev 615).

All recognizing that Christ is the express image of God in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells.

When you get an explicit EGW statement along the lines of Smith, J.H. Waggoner, or Stephenson, post it. Otherwise confess such a statement doesn't exist as have Gane, Moon, and Froom.

Hanseng, "The Eternal Self-Existent, untreated One" was defined to be the FLESH FATHER ONLY. 

As in:

Quote

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

Here is Ellen White doing it:

Quote

The king of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, “ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.” Revelation 5:11. Before the inhabitants of heaven, the King declared that none but Christ could fully enter into His purposes and execute the mighty counsels of His will. Christ was still to exercise divine power in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. 

The Son of God "shared" the Father's throne AND the glory of the ETERNAL, SELF-EXISTENT ONE encircled both? Who do you identify as "both" Hanseng? Which one Does Ellen say is the self-existent one? 

Past that I've already given you explicit references where Ellen White made Arian statements - she said Christ had infinite power ONLY because he obeyed the Father - Ellen went on to say Christ could have sinned and if that had happened Father God would have ensured creature Christ would have been no more, eternally. 

If you don't except that as proof, you could be shown footage of Ellen White urinating and defecating on the Bible while practicing witchcraft and claim what you were seeing was just the cameras interpretation.  

You can try all you want to divorce Arianism from the context of the actual Trinity Doctrine but it's not going to work. Understand and accept that Ellen White taught the same Godhead Doctrine that the Mormon's teach in that the oneness is only in purpose, character, etc. You need to deal with that and cease doing curtsies around the corners of Ellen White's Doctrines. 

 

[Hanseng]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

If you don't except that as proof, you could be shown footage of Ellen White urinating and defecating on the Bible while practicing witchcraft and claim what you were seeing was just the cameras interpretation. 

Your hatred and disrespect of EGW has been previously noted.

[Hanseng]

I have not noted any explicit Arian remarks by EGW, similar to those made by J.H. Waggoner, Smith, Canright, Stephenson or others. You haven't provided any. Respectable SDA scholars say that there aren't any. You remind me of a sea kayaker who developed a stirrup for reentering his boat during open water touring. He shopped it around but other recognized experts in the field did not see the merit in his system. They relied on traditional reentry techniques. The poor guy became unhinged, more or less, making a big noise wherever he could. It was unfortunate. Rather than introducing a new product, he became known as a somewhat deranged individual. The reputation of his opponents remained unscathed.

I've asked you numerous times for a plain statement of EGW. I have provided examples of Arian sentiments provided by others. You have failed to provide any convincing examples.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: 

I have not noted any explicit Arian remarks by EGW, similar to those made by J.H. Waggoner, Smith, Canright, Stephenson or others. You haven't provided any

Ellen didn't contradict those Pioneers you mentioned - her function was to confirm and validate what they said - which she absolutely did. 

Arianism maintained that Christ could have sinned and lost His Salvation and in keeping with that Ellen White repeatedly pounded that home again and again. One could say Ellen was Arius' hammer! 

Show me a Baptist, Methodist, Orthodox, Catholic or Evangelical theologian who claims that Christ could have sinned and lost His Salvation. I think you will have difficulty in doing that. However, I will EASILY be able to show you where Arianism maintains that and other groups that are arian teach that. 

Again, you thumb your nose at the direct evidence I've shown you. 

The Mormons are honest when it comes time to discuss the Trinity topic - it's past time that you should join them in that honesty, 

[Hanseng]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Again, you thumb your nose at the direct evidence I've shown you.

You haven't shown me any direct evidence, that I'm aware of. What you have done is shifted the focus away from the Deity of Christ to his humanity, i.e., whether or not he could sin. Apparently, your point is that because EGW wrote that Jesus could have sinned, you consider that direct evidence that she was an Arian. Most of the discussion I have heard about Arianism concerns the deity of Christ, not his humanity. 

I would first need to see evidence that this was an integral element of the teaching of Arius. If it was an integral, heretical element of Arianism, why isn't it mentioned in the creeds? Since I do believe that Jesus, being fully human, was capable of sin, this is a non-issue for me. If Arius taught that Jesus was capable of sin, good on him.

There is nothing in the Nicene creed or that of Athanasius about the potential of Jesus to sin. If you can show me something in either of those creeds indicating that the potential of Jesus to sin was an issue at the time those documents were prepared, I'd like to see it.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said:

You haven't shown me any direct evidence, that I'm aware of. What you have done is shifted the focus away from the Deity of Christ to his humanity, i.e., whether or not he could sin. Apparently, your point is that because EGW wrote that Jesus could have sinned, you consider that direct evidence that she was an Arian. Most of the discussion I have heard about Arianism concerns the deity of Christ, not his humanity. 

Like I said, you'd 1st have to know what the Trinity Doctrine IS prior to coming to the realization that Ellen taught contrary to it. Since you brought up the two Natures of Christ I might as well start there. Here is how Ellen said the cow ate the cabbage:

Quote

Ellen White, 21MR 418.5

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

Now, observe the Methodist article of faith pertaining to the two natures of Christ. 

Quote

Full divinity and humanity. The two articles cited above also affirm the two natures of Christ, fully divine and fully human. The unity of these two natures in one person is described in ways similar to the Definition of Chalcedon and its balanced statement of the two natures of Christ united without confusion, change, division, or separation: the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ are “never to be divided” (AR 2) and are “perfectly and inseparably united” (CF 2). Furthermore, both articles mention the Virgin Birth (cf. Matthew 1:20-25) as part of the explanation of the hypostatic union.

The Baptist:

Quote

Jesus’ two natures, human and divine, are inseparable. Jesus will forever be the God-man, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one Person. Jesus’ humanity and divinity are not mixed, but are united without loss of separate identity. Jesus sometimes operated with the limitations of humanity (John 4:6, 19:28) and other times in the power of His deity (John 11:43; Matthew 14:18-21). In both, Jesus’ actions were from His one Person. Jesus had two natures, but only one personality. What is the hypostatic union | THE WALL: a blog of Baptist Voice Ministries

Feel free to look up the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Evangelical, etc. ALL OF THEM will explicitly state that the Trinity Doctrine affirms that Christ's two natures were NOT BLENDED (AKA mixed or confused). Ellen rejected her former Methodist upbringing and opted to conjoin with James White and the other anti-Trinitarians whereby she affirmed the heresy of Monophysitism where the Divine Nature blended with the Human Nature resulting in a NEW NATURE that was neither human nor divine. And yes Hanseng, a Monophysite is NOT A TRINITARIAN.

The confusing part of all this to me is how could folks who spends so much time on religious forums discussing / debating Doctrines not know about this stuff - this is really 101 stuff and is literally the 1st thing someone learns when being instructed in the Christian Faith.

• God the Son became Man without ceasing to be God.  
• Jesus was a person with two natures that were NOT blended but perfectly united.

This isn't deep theological stuff but bedrock 101 Christian education. I'll let the two Nature thing rest for now.

If you want to read about Arianism read the documents of Nicaea, in particular read the Synodal letters associated with Council and read slowly at the part that starts explaining what Arius was teaching - you will SEE IT. I would post it but something tells me you really need to get a little familiarity with this part of Christian history and I don't want to deprive you of the experience. 

 

 

 

 

 

r

[Hanseng]

Gustave, I got involved in this discussion, at least in part, not because the topic especially interested me. It was because you were falsely relying on Canright, even though he was plainly listed as the author of the articles in question, attributing his sentiments to EGW.

I asked for a truly EGW anti-trinity sentiment, similar to those written by J.H. Waggoner, U.Smith, J.M. Stephenson and others. I also pointed out that 3 respectable SDA scholars, E. Gane, Froom, and Moon all stated that no such EGW statement existed.

Your response was to say that because EGW said Jesus could have sinned, she was expressing anti-Trinity sentiments. I then pointed out that the possibility of Jesus sinning is mentioned in neither the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed; consequently; this issue, which deals with the humanity of Christ, is more or less irrelevant to EGW being an Arian. If you have an EGW statement clearly expressing Arian sentiments related to the relationship of Christ and the Father, please display it.

It was also pointed out the EGW did not use the term trinity in her writings. She used the term Godhead, directing us back to Colossians. Scripture is where the nature of God is revealed. The creeds and traditions, even EGW, carry no real authority compared to the correct understanding of Scripture.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said:

Gustave, I got involved in this discussion, at least in part, not because the topic especially interested me. It was because you were falsely relying on Canright, even though he was plainly listed as the author of the articles in question, attributing his sentiments to EGW.

Your refusal to recognize the consequences of Ellen White revising / editing what was perhaps the most anti-Trinitarian article to ever be published in the Sabbath Herald is irrelevant to the fact Ellen did just that - you say it doesn't mean anything - feel free to let it rest at that Hanseng - down the road we will see how that apologetic rubric works out for you.

Quote

Hanseng said: 

I asked for a truly EGW anti-trinity sentiment, similar to those written by J.H. Waggoner, U.Smith, J.M. Stephenson and others. I also pointed out that 3 respectable SDA scholars, E. Gane, Froom, and Moon all stated that no such EGW statement existed.

We've established that this is pointless because because E Gane, Froom and Moon are operating with a definition of the Trinity like the Mormons which I've already shown you here in this post. I've seen SDA's literally come off the handle when an evangelical calls Sunday "the sabbath" - they accuse the evangelical of pouring in a new definition to an established word. This is what SDA's have done with the Trinity. 

Quote

Hanseng said:

Your response was to say that because EGW said Jesus could have sinned, she was expressing anti-Trinity sentiments. I then pointed out that the possibility of Jesus sinning is mentioned in neither the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed; consequently; this issue, which deals with the humanity of Christ, is more or less irrelevant to EGW being an Arian. If you have an EGW statement clearly expressing Arian sentiments related to the relationship of Christ and the Father, please display it.

 

You folks are fond of Philip Schaff, right? 

Quote

First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a creature.  All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words.  And of the charges against him and of the results they had, ye have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting recompense for his own sin.  So far indeed has his impiety prevailed, that he has even destroyed Theonas of Marmorica and Secundes of Ptolemais; for they also have received the same sentence as the rest. Synodal Letter Philip Schaff: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org)

The First Ecumenical Council: Nicea – AD325 – Creed, Canons, and Synodal Letter – COLLIGAVIT NEMO (wordpress.com)

CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) (newadvent.org)

Read the Synodal Letter which discusses those teachings of Arius that the Counci was condemning and Anathematized. 

 

I've already shown on this forum where everything bolded above was either promoted by the General Conference or Ellen White. I think very few SDA's have even read the documents from that Council which is quite contrary to EVERY Christian Church excepting of course Adventist groups.  i.e. Baptists, Methodists and Lutherans along with Evangelical Churches are well aware with the Trinity Doctrine and Nicaea AND AGREE WITH IT. 

Quote

Hanseng said:

It was also pointed out the EGW did not use the term trinity in her writings. She used the term Godhead, directing us back to Colossians. Scripture is where the nature of God is revealed. The creeds and traditions, even EGW, carry no real authority compared to the correct understanding of Scripture.

Ellen's Husband, very publicly, in the primary Church paper gloated that THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY did not agree with the Trinity Doctrine / Creed. Combine this with Ellen revising Canright's anti-Trinitarian article along with those statements that are incompatible with the Trinity doctrine and one can be assured that Ellen White was AGAINST the Trinity Doctrine. 

 

[Hanseng]

12 hours ago, Gustave said:

Ellen's Husband, very publicly, in the primary Church paper gloated that THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY did not agree with the Trinity Doctrine / Creed.

What are you referring to with the above statement regarding the "gloating" of JW?

You'll be happy to know that I noticed this remark in a synodal letter to the church of Alexandria: "and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, and that☀️ the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue;☀️ saying also that he is a creature."

I'm assuming that this a reference to the doctrine that Jesus could have sinned, which you consider the taint of Arianism found in EGW. Of course, I consider this idea, that Jesus could have sinned, a biblical doctrine. It has nothing to do with EGW. In the same sinless state of Adam, with the fallen physical nature of sinful humanity, Jesus could have sinned. Even Adam in his physical and moral purity sinned. If Jesus was truly human, as the synodal letter states, Jesus was "capable of vice and virtue."

Interesting, Gustave. Although we don't agree, I've learned a lot through our quarrel.

[Gustave]

From reading the articles James wrote for the Sabbath Herald and other Adventist publications I could tell he really enjoyed speaking against the Trinity - I can almost see him grinning like a Cheshire cat as he unveils another (what he believes to be) crafty argument as to why God is an actual person with "parts". James believed he was restoring the true Bible teaching that the Flesh Father alone was God in the ultimate sense and that his cunning arguments were slamming and shaming the historic Christian position not unlike like you'd see on "Big Time Wrestling." 

Thanks for letting me know you found what I was (and have been) referencing Hanseng! Yes, that's the part I was hoping you'd notice. The Trinity Doctrine has "details" far beyond just saying "Father, Son & Holy Spirit" as every heretical group down through the ages has been able to say that - the details here do definitely matter. 

The Trinity teaches that Jesus was ONE PERSON with two Natures (a Divine Nature & a Human Nature). The totality of Scripture ascribes the attributes of both humanity and Divinity to Christ. God does NOT CHANGE therefore the two natures were not confused or mixed as Ellen White taught - the human nature was perfectly united with the Divine Nature. The simplest way I can put it is what's been said for a very long time by Christians - "GOD BECAME MAN WITHOUT CEASING TO BE GO". Scripture is explicit that God is Ontologically ONE BEING and that Christ is the Almighty exactly as the Father is the Almighty. How this is possible I haven't the faintest idea - all I know is that Scripture says this is a mystery and as such we won't be figuring it out any time soon. 

You will notice that the language of the Church in this area is basically marker buoys to keep people from falling into heresy. Historic Christianity holds that God would come and that He would save us. Adventist groups agree that Scripture indeed teaches this but places a caveat into it by claiming this was a "conditional prophecy" whereby Divinity and Humanity would be blended or mixed resulting in a new "nature" capable of sinning and had this been realized part of the Godhead would have been eternally lost - become as if "IT" (that part) had never existed. I can't imagine a "conditional God" - to me it's like imagining Jesus taking a big Bong Hit of weed and then preaching the Gospel while bouncing up and down on a pogo-stick and laughing. It just doesn't work for me and I'l admit causes me problems. 

That being said I do understand that different people have different faith traditions and folks have different special devotions to things they believe bring them closer to God. I respect you for showing the courage of your convictions by exchanging ideas with me and also thank you for doing it. This forum is special in that it gives more than a little freedom to people who don't see things the same way. I've learned a lot here as well. 

Very best of wishes to you and all the members here.