Uriah and Desire of Ages

[ClubV12]

I'm a big fan of Uriah and Daniel and the Revelation. As I continue to search deeper into what made Uriah tick the more fascinating he becomes. Wow, what a man of God. What a history so intimately tied to our Church!

Uriah gets a bad rap for being aryan as we typically understand it (Christ created being, etc.). I see a man that was 100% aryan one day, and semi-aryan the next. A man trying to explain the unexplainable aspects of the nature of Christ.

Then Ellen White comes out with Desire of Ages and sets the whole discussion on it's ear. Sets into motion a train of thoughts we still contemplate today. What IS the nature of Christ? Tough questions.

I have come to the conclusion that BOTH Uriah AND Desire of Ages are correct. They are compatible, two apparently incompatible beliefs ARE compatible! Therefore, like Uriah, I cannot explain it. It is a mystery, we cannot comprehend it in it's fullness. We don't have the words.

Uriah got it right,,, so did Ellen White! It's a wonderful revelation of the nature of Christ for me.

[John317]

Please explain how both Uriah Smith and Ellen White were right about the Deity of Jesus Christ.

[ClubV12]

To long a post? Check! Written for everyone? NO! Written for John317 primarily and for others who are SERIOUSLY interested in this mystery of the nature of Christ from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective. I have no desire to entertain speculation and radical concepts that are entirely INCOMPATIBLE with Seventh-day Adventist doctrine in the 1800's and today.

Since the 1940's the Church has viewed Daniel and the Revelation as an embarrasement because of it's arian views. It was in the 1940's that substantial editing of the book was done. Not just a few comments here or there, but but whole pages were removed, whole sections. In some cases rewording what Uriah had written to make it appear he said something he never said. Why would the Church even waste it's time, if the book has no value, if it's out of date, then quit publishing it. In my opinion the editing was so extensive it was dishonest and unethical. It makes the author say things he never believed and never said.

Uriah Smith was a man struggling to explain the unexplainable. Wrestling with concepts like, CAN we fix a time on when Christ came into existence? Should we? He recognized Christ was NOT created, and yet, he mused, how did He come into existence? Some comments by Smith lead me to believe he was 100% arian! Then other comments lead me to believe he was semi-arian. A man unable to put into words the mystery of the nature of Christ. A question that to this day lingers within the Church. Different aspects of the question, but it has never been fully resolved, there remains a certain mystery to it even today.

Ellen White never entered into these kinds of questions. She made her classic and simple statements in the Desire of Ages, without imagining or speculating on what they might mean. She never attempted to explain it beyond those statements. Life unborrowed. Life within Himself. Fully divine. For over a decade after she wrote this, she never changed her view of Smiths book. She never counseled against it or tried to correct Smiths views on the subject. In fact she continued to recommend Smiths book along side of hers. In the same category as the Conflict Series, giving Smiths book equal weight.

She recognized Smiths book was NOT written for the Church, but for the world. Church history reveals the remarkable impact of Smiths book as it relates to converts to the Church. It was (and is) a very powerful witness for the truth. It was (and is) reaching people all over the world.

I understand and support the editing done to some of Ellen Whites work, as herself approved of. Clearing up minor historical points, she was after all, not a historian. This is clear evidence she wrote in her own words, not verbal but thought inspiration. In every case of editing for her various books the changes were minor, clairification and met with her approval. She never recommended not was it ever considered needful to correct Smiths book, ever! It was not until the 1940's that sweeping changes were made. Following 1940 Smiths book is so heavily edited I don't feel comfortable calling it Smiths book. In this, the Church has made a serious error.

The common thinking was, and is, that Smiths book cannot possibly be compatible with our newly founded trinitarium beliefs and therefore heavy editing was required. The prophet never suggested this was a problem. But this is "new light" some say. It was "new light" in 1898 when Desire of Ages came out, there is nothing "new" about it. But Ellen White never had a problem with the two books sharing the same space.

HOW is it possible Uriah Smiths views and the Desire of Ages CAN be compatible? To answer that question is to stand on Holy ground. To ventue into areas Ellen White never entered. To attempt to explain the mind of God. I am convinced of this, Uriah Smiths views and Ellen Whites views on the nature of Christ ARE compatible and this is a mystery that cannot be explained.

In closing, I support the Churches views, all though, like Ellen White I don't use the word trinitarium. I prefer "triune" myself. I don't dwell on the unexplainable and attempt to figure it out. In that respect I follow Ellen Whites example! I know this, my study has given me a much deeper appreciation and love for the FATHER. An even deeper mystery than the Son.

[ClubV12]

I don't know about your monitor, but mine shows over a 140 responses to "The Trinity", some entirely off the wall and obviously from very confused individuals!

But I see the principle, this debate/argument has been raging for centuries. Attempting to nail down, put in a box, answer the unanswerable!

[Ted Oplinger]

I don't know about your monitor, but mine shows over a 140 responses to "The Trinity", some entirely off the wall and obviously from very confused individuals!

But I see the principle, this debate/argument has been raging for centuries. Attempting to nail down, put in a box, answer the unanswerable!

I think you left a zero off that number, Club.

Last count I see is over 1450 posts to that thread.

The debate rages, because the human mind wants to try to make God a mathematical one, yet the incarnation of Christ blew that out of the water permanently. Man tries to piece its humpty-dumpty back together again, yet the evidence of the Word to the open, rationale mind does not allow this.

As for the compatibility of Uriah's and EGW's Christological understandings, I think Ellen was much further down the path of a true understanding, as I understand Uriah to still accept some of the false premises of just what "Trinity" meant, at the time he was penning the words to "Daniel and the Revelation". Uriah's book is currently on my active reading list - good timing, considering the subjects at hand.

If you haven't checked into the link John317 provided just a short bit ago, by all means do. It is an excellent contrast of both sides of the Christology question.

Blessings,

[ClubV12]

Wow, I left off a zero, it is mind boggling the length of that discussion on the nature of Christ. That alone speaks volumes! I will be studying closely the link John317 provided, looks terrific.

http://eslmission.truth-is-life.org/docs...t%20Babylon.pdf

I don't want to discourage a close look at this subject. I don't mean to imply it's not worthy of deep consideration. I do believe that a final end result and specific answer will not be found, this side of the kingdom! One must be careful to stay within the bounds of a sanctified imagination and not cross into speculation on the subject.

The BIG mistake I see Uriah, Loughborough and many other pioneers making was entering to deeply into a field impossible to comprehend, then or now. It is not lost on me Ellen White did not engage in these rampant speculations. In that regard, she was certainly well ahead of her brethren!

One major problem I see with the pioneers is the insistence on finding a way to explain how, at some point in "time", Christ came into existence.

I reject this concept of "time", it is of human devisings and we cannot seem to think outside this mandatory "box". Time is irrelevant to one who knows no beginning, no end. And yet we talk in terms of, "So far back in time it was practically without beginning." No, it is beyond farther than that, time has no place, serves no purpose, is not in relation to anything else, it doesn't exist!

[Gail]

Quote:

In closing, I support the Churches views, all though, like Ellen White I don't use the word trinitarium. I prefer "triune" myself. I don't dwell on the unexplainable and attempt to figure it out. In that respect I follow Ellen Whites example! I know this, my study has given me a much deeper appreciation and love for the FATHER. An even deeper mystery than the Son.

Quote:

The BIG mistake I see Uriah, Loughborough and many other pioneers making was entering to deeply into a field impossible to comprehend, then or now. It is not lost on me Ellen White did not engage in these rampant speculations. In that regard, she was certainly well ahead of her brethren!

Yes!

[phkrause]

Quote:

In closing, I support the Churches views, all though, like Ellen White I don't use the word trinitarium. I prefer "triune" myself. I don't dwell on the unexplainable and attempt to figure it out. In that respect I follow Ellen Whites example! I know this, my study has given me a much deeper appreciation and love for the FATHER. An even deeper mystery than the Son.

Quote:

The BIG mistake I see Uriah, Loughborough and many other pioneers making was entering to deeply into a field impossible to comprehend, then or now. It is not lost on me Ellen White did not engage in these rampant speculations. In that regard, she was certainly well ahead of her brethren!

Yes!

[rktreadwell]

I find it unbelievable that people here are really trying to conform to the mind of Ellen White. Is she your savior? It certainly seems to me that SDAs spend more time and energy quoting her than the bible, and using her to settle all matters of doctrine and morals. I wonder how many of you have ever read 'On the Incarnation of the Word of God' by Saint Athanasius. Are you allowed to read anything lacking the imprimatur of EGW? Just asking.

[ClubV12]

"Time", Einstein touched on it, it's relative. It's a "fabric" including "space". Since all things were created by Him, at some point in, what shall we call it, "time", there was no "space". You see, we can barely even carry a conversation without the concept of time intruding in some way.

I can grasp the idea of "eternity without end", but I am unable to grasp this idea of "no beginning", no nothing, what IS "nothing" like? I think all of us have contemplated this mystery of no beginning at some point and other mysteries of the Father!

Time was created for man, not for God. For her entire lifetime Ellen White had ample opportunity to correct, guide, comment on the doctrinal ideas of the pioneers. In particular toward Uriah Smith. That champion of the Church, by far the most well known, well written outside of Ellen White herself. If anyone, it would have been HIM to whom she whispered this or that. All we have is accolades, encouragement and statements that place his work on the highest order. A work she said that would endure to the close of probation.

Think of that, endure till the close of probation! And what do we find today concerning that work. His book sits on the shelf gathering dust. Adventist authors who condem it in various ways. A Church that had it heavily edited.

Whats wrong with this picture? Ellen White did not dismiss Brother Smiths work, nor will I. I will accept it, as written, in it's orginal form. At the same time, I will accept the Adventist doctrine concerning the triune aspects of God.

I cannot explain it, I just accept it.

[Ted Oplinger]

I find it unbelievable that people here are really trying to conform to the mind of Ellen White. Is she your savior? It certainly seems to me that SDAs spend more time and energy quoting her than the bible, and using her to settle all matters of doctrine and morals. I wonder how many of you have ever read 'On the Incarnation of the Word of God' by Saint Athanasius. Are you allowed to read anything lacking the imprimatur of EGW? Just asking.

Welcome to ClubAdventist, rktreadwell.

Yes, unfortunately, there are some Adventists who make such a mistake as to elevate her writings to be on par with the Biblical canon. Ellen White gave explicit instructions on how her writings were to used in relation to the Scriptures, and how her writings stood in relation to the Scriptures. And, yes, some Adventists just don't get it, even when her own words are put before them.

Many of us are indeed well versed in her writings, but we use them as she instructs. Personally, most of the time I quote her, it's when I have already made my case from the Scriptures. Quoting her is the icing on the cake, not the meat and potatoes of the point.

Turning to your concern - the broad brush to paint all SDA's with on the point of her writings leads me to think you have very little knowledge of the people comprising the Advent movement or the SDA Church.

This particular thread, for example, is an open invitation comparing the writings of two different people very prominent in SDA Church history, so of course you will see her mentioned quite a bit here.

As to extra-Scriptural writers - why would you take issue with SDA's on two different authors, than make a case for a different one altogether (one quite familiar to studied Catholics)?

Blessings,

[phkrause]

As to extra-Scriptural writers - why would you take issue with SDA's on two different authors, than make a case for a different one altogether (one quite familiar to studied Catholics)?

Exactly, isn't that always the case!!!!!

[rktreadwell]

Studied, yes. Catholic, no. Saint Athanasius is more highly regarded by the Orthodox churches than by the Roman Catholic church. In any case, the Church Fathers' writings have never been elevated to the level of scripture by the church. According to your 28 beliefs, EGW's writings are on the same level as the bible. I consider that heretical.

[LoneRanger]

Studied, yes. Catholic, no. Saint Athanasius is more highly regarded by the Orthodox churches than by the Roman Catholic church. In any case, the Church Fathers' writings have never been elevated to the level of scripture by the church. According to your 28 beliefs, EGW's writings are on the same level as the bible. I consider that heretical.

Welcome to the forum, rktreadwell.

[Kevin H]

We humans have a sinful nature. I understand that as the line in the Desire of Ages "There is in man a disposition to esteem himself more highly than his breathern, to serve self, to seek the highest place and often this results in evil surmisings and bitterness of spirit." the Poet-Philosopher Eli Siegel I believe also got it right when he described it as "There is in every person a disposition to think they are for themselves by making less of the outside world."

We view everything by the fight in us to either give in to this disposition, or to love the world as Jesus has loved it.

In addition to this we are western Greek thinkers. The Greeks were very interested in metaphysics. The Bible's only interest in metaphysics was to merely recognize their existence in the words "Holy, Holy, Holy" and leave it there and focus on what we can learn through our relationship with God and God's creations.

For us our definition of a chair would focus on it's shape, include the materials that it is made of, whether it has a back or just a stool. for the Hebrews the definition of chair would be where I can rest after standing and walking.

With us being sinful nature Greeks, we want to describe God in God-self and want something to be the top and complete. Again being sinners we tend to want the top to be powerful. So we choose the member of the trinity that we see as powerful. However we become like who we worship and if we elevate God as power, it focuses on his power, the law and the natural results is that we preach the law the law the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboah.

The Hebrew approach would be more like approaching a mountain where you can only see and experience part of the mountain due to cloud cover. The mountain analogy breaks down in that mountains tend to be smaller above the clouds than below, while with God the above the clouds in infinitely larger and it's description is satisfied in the words "Holy, Holy, Holy" and the rest is how we relate to what we experience under the clouds. And to the Hebrews that was God as the all powerful ultimate source or God the Father. God as our personal friend and intimately caring about us or God the Son, and God working in us keeping us alive, breathing and guiding our lives working with our perceptions, or God the Holy Spirit.

While we think that the idea of the trinity was designed by Christians, however fairly recent discoveries of Jewish Rabbis who are experts in second temple Judaism has discovered that actually the trinity was designed by second temple Rabbis to explain Old Testament Concepts to the Greek Thinking world after Alexander the Great.

[Ted Oplinger]

Studied, yes. Catholic, no. Saint Athanasius is more highly regarded by the Orthodox churches than by the Roman Catholic church. In any case, the Church Fathers' writings have never been elevated to the level of scripture by the church. According to your 28 beliefs, EGW's writings are on the same level as the bible. I consider that heretical.

Perhaps your are referring to...Eastern Orthodoxy? Yet, your distancing Roman Catholics from being "Orthodox", I think, would find Catholics a little surprised with that assessment. A simple Google of "saint Athanasius" brings up first his entry in the Roman Catholic encyclopedia, followed by the a listing of several Catholic churches and parishes named after this man. While I would not regard listing priority in Google as a correlation to how popularly regarded the man would be, I do see him listed with prominence within Roman Orthodoxy.

At any rate, my point earlier was that he was well-known in Catholic studies, and you take nothing away from that. That he is more regarded in Eastern Orthodoxy is a moot to my point.

After the East-West schism of 1053-4, there were 2 Orthodoxies - Roman and Eastern. All of the 'saints' prior to the schism are well-regarded by both Orthodoxies. The writings of Athanasius of Alexandria are well within that time frame.

And yes, whether you would admit it or not, both Orthodoxies regard the traditions and writing of the Church Fathers (including Athanasius) to be on par or even above Scriptures. Hence, your heresy charge carries little weight with the serious Bible student. However, I will meet you on your own ground:

With respect to your closing points, I guess I will have to say the old saying you are indeed entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. In your venturing out to look at other people's faiths, close investigation (whether of ours, or of your own) does appear to rank that high in your efforts.

You say "our 28 beliefs" - indicating you must have read them at some time. Yet, you do not appear to read that closely, for the counter to your assessment is right there in that official belief. According to our 28 fundamental beliefs, it is #18 wherein Ellen White is mentioned, in referring to the gift of prophecy. Here it is in its entirety:

18. The Gift of Prophecy: 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.

Could you enlighten us as to where the heresy is?

This belief declares 5 points:

1) Prophecy is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. What is unscriptural about that point?

2) This gift is an identifying point of the Bible's remnant church. Prophecy, like the other spiritual gifts - which include pastoring, teaching, and evangelizing - were placed in the apostolic church. The Bible makes no mention of those gifts being removed from the church; hence, any last day remnant church would also have that gift, no? Any point in heresy there?

3) It states one person recognized having that gift: Ellen G. White. What is heretical about recognizing someone having that kind of Scriptural ministry?

4) "Her writings are considered a continuing and authoritative source of truth for church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction". This must be the point that you consider heretical. Do you have any demonstrative quotations from SDA leadership that lift the word "authoritative" to be equal to or above Canonical authority? What? you don't? That's because...

5) They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. "They", as in the writings of this woman Ellen G. White point back to the Bible as THE standard. I bolded the words twice to emphasize the point SDA's do not take your assessment as an official belief. That you could find some which do means...they really aren't holding to the SDA's teaching - or even Ellen White's teaching - on the point, now are they?

Which would mean you have a very false image of what Ellen White's role in relation to both Scriptures and the SDA Church...

Ellen White herself never called herself a prophetess, nor at any time told anyone her writings were equal to or above Scriptural authority. The SDA denomination does not regard her writings to be equal to, nor above, Scriptural authority. Even Wikipedia gets that one right...

The pertinent point is right there in the last sentence of the belief. And the heresy is....where?

Athanasius, on the other hand, DID regard himself with Church Father authority (something foreign to the Bible), particularly on the subject of the Trinity. He was instrumental in the declaration of Arius' teachings to be heretical, and his legacy includes the embellished and authoritative Creed on the Trinity (the Athanasius Creed of 386 AD) which bears his name - by which Orthodox Churches (East AND Roman) use as a means to judge Christian profession...contrary to the Scriptures.

Again, rktreadwell, you will need to do just a LITTLE more research on both our beliefs AND those you are holding as an example against us.

Thanks for playing. If you'd like, we can discuss this...again...in another thread. Either way, I think it best to return this thread back to topic.

Blessings,