The Trinity doctrine

[Gail]

I read this today from the devotional, The Faith I Live By:

Quote

In regard to the personality and prerogatives of God, where He is, and what He is, this is a subject which we are not to dare to touch.... The one who in the daily life holds closest communion with God, and who has the deepest knowledge of Him, realizes most keenly the utter inability of human beings to explain the Creator.... FLB 42.2

 

[Gail]

This month the devotional theme is: The Three Dignitaries of Heaven

The Faith I Live By is the evening (adult?) devotional of the year

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Gail said:

I read this today from the devotional, The Faith I Live By:

In regard to the personality and prerogatives of God, where He is, and what He is, this is a subject which we are not to dare to touch....

The bolded part of what you said above - who told you that dare not touch?

While I would wholeheartedly agree that finite beings can't fathom or attempt to reduce the Infinite God to a scientific formula we are instructed to know what God can't be.

• God is power absolute
• God is absolutely good with no possibility of mutation to evil
• God is eternal - there was never a time in the past or future God doesn't exist ( i.e. God isn't conditional ).

Ellen White was explicit that God, Lucifer & Michael the archangels were "flesh, bone and blood" hominids - complete with all the parts and organs of a perfect "man".

This is why I ask you about your understanding the personality of God isn't too be touched?

 

1 hour ago, Gail said:

 

 

[Gary K]

27 minutes ago, Gustave said:

The bolded part of what you said above - who told you that dare not touch?

While I would wholeheartedly agree that finite beings can't fathom or attempt to reduce the Infinite God to a scientific formula we are instructed to know what God can't be.

• God is power absolute
• God is absolutely good with no possibility of mutation to evil
• God is eternal - there was never a time in the past or future God doesn't exist ( i.e. God isn't conditional ).

Ellen White was explicit that God, Lucifer & Michael the archangels were "flesh, bone and blood" hominids - complete with all the parts and organs of a perfect "man".

This is why I ask you about your understanding the personality of God isn't too be touched?

 

 

Hi Gustave,

I find it pretty odd that you keep on claiming Ellen White said that Michael and Lucifer were both archangels.  I have done searches on the complete writings of Ellen White on the White estate database and I get zero returns when searching for the words Lucifer and archangel in the same query.  

The way the queries work is if both words are in the same paragraph it makes a hit, so I find it very odd that Ellen White could have called Lucifer an archangel and both words not appear in the same paragraph in any of her writings.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gary K said:

Hi Gustave,

I find it pretty odd that you keep on claiming Ellen White said that Michael and Lucifer were both archangels.  I have done searches on the complete writings of Ellen White on the White estate database and I get zero returns when searching for the words Lucifer and archangel in the same query.  

The way the queries work is if both words are in the same paragraph it makes a hit, so I find it very odd that Ellen White could have called Lucifer an archangel and both words not appear in the same paragraph in any of her writings.

I don't find it odd you didn't find it.

Satan & Lucifer are interchangeable with the former identification ( Satan ) being attributed after his expulsion from Heaven.

 

Ellen White, Seventh Day Adventist Signs of the Times Sept 14 1882
Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God's purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence. His complaints against God's government, at first met with no favor; yet being urged again and again, they were finally accepted by those who had before been loyal and happy subjects of the King of Heaven. There was not the shadow of justification or excuse for disaffection; but envy and jealousy, once cherished, gained a power that paralyzed reason and destroyed honor and loyalty. As the result, Satan and all his sympathizers were cast out of Heaven.

I'm assuming you would agree that Ellen White, multiple times, affirmed Jesus was AKA Michael.

If not I can direct you to quotes for confirmation of this.

 

[Gustave]

For further clarification of how this teaching was understood & promulgated by the Denomination see the article "How Evil Began" on page two of the following publication.

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/do...pdf#search=%22

"The first rebellion, or sin, which is transgression of the divine law (i John 3:4), originated in a leader of the angels, one high in the administration of God's government. It was an archangel who, through pride in his brilliancy, fell, and so committed himself to an age-long controversy with his Maker".

 

 

[Gary K]

Hi Gustave,

It looks to me that the usage of Lucifer as an archangel is in terms of him being the personal angel of the Son of God just as Gabriel has been since the fall of Lucifer.  In that sense, as the personal representative of the Son of God both during their time serving as His personal representative could be logically referred to as archangels for Gabriel now speaks with authority of the Son of God and Lucifer once did.  Same position for both angels.  To appear with the authority of the archangel is to appear, for all intents and purposes, as the Archangel Himself.  I see no conflict in that at all.

[Gustave]

3 minutes ago, Gary K said:

Hi Gustave,

It looks to me that the usage of Lucifer as an archangel is in terms of him being the personal angel of the Son of God just as Gabriel has been since the fall of Lucifer.  In that sense, as the personal representative of the Son of God both during their time serving as His personal representative could be logically referred to as archangels for Gabriel now speaks with authority of the Son of God and Lucifer once did.  Same position for both angels.  To appear with the authority of the archangel is to appear, for all intents and purposes, as the Archangel Himself.  I see no conflict in that at all.

There are MANY "archangels" within the Army of God - & likely many archangels that were expelled along with Lucifer when he fell.

An archangel is a class of angel.

 

Ellen White
Listen to their voices as they sing loud hosannas and as they wave the palm branches of victory. Rich music fills heaven as their voices sing forth these words: "Worthy, worthy is the Lamb that was slain and rose again forevermore. Salvation unto our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." And the angelic host, angels and archangels, covering cherub and glorious seraph, echo back the refrain of that joyous, triumphant song saying, "Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever" (Rev. 7:12). {Mar 329.3}

Seventh Day Adventist Bible Training School
The Son of God was rich and mighty and blessed. But when he would
win the hearts of proud, selfish, and passionate men, he did not put on his robes of
glory and surround himself with angels and archangels and the whole company of
heaven.

 

[Gary K]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

There are MANY "archangels" within the Army of God - & likely many archangels that were expelled along with Lucifer when he fell.

An archangel is a class of angel.

 

Ellen White
Listen to their voices as they sing loud hosannas and as they wave the palm branches of victory. Rich music fills heaven as their voices sing forth these words: "Worthy, worthy is the Lamb that was slain and rose again forevermore. Salvation unto our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." And the angelic host, angels and archangels, covering cherub and glorious seraph, echo back the refrain of that joyous, triumphant song saying, "Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever" (Rev. 7:12). {Mar 329.3}

Seventh Day Adventist Bible Training School
The Son of God was rich and mighty and blessed. But when he would
win the hearts of proud, selfish, and passionate men, he did not put on his robes of
glory and surround himself with angels and archangels and the whole company of
heaven.

 

So?  I'm not here to settle your doubts.  You want to doubt and cavil?  There is no one who can stop you, including God Himself.  He will allow you to cavil all you desire.  He will not interfere with your will to do so.  Do what you will.

[Gustave]

4 minutes ago, Gary K said:

So?  I'm not here to settle your doubts.  You want to doubt and cavil?  There is no one who can stop you, including God Himself.  He will allow you to cavil all you desire.  He will not interfere with your will to do so.  Do what you will.

I'm not about doubt or caviling and it's unfortunate ( and regrettable ) you attribute quotes from Sister White and the Pioneers to be "petty & unnecessary" just because those same quotes threaten your cherished belief in dogmas not taught or supported by Sister White or the Pioneers.

In any event best wishes.

 

 

 

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

it's unfortunate ( and regrettable ) you attribute quotes from Sister White and the Pioneers to be "petty & unnecessary" just because those same quotes threaten your cherished belief in dogmas not taught or supported by Sister White or the Pioneers.

It's unfortunate (and regrettable) that you attribute any alternate views as petty and unnecessary just because these views threaten your cherished belief in an outdated man-made construct of the Kingdom.  I happen to find a governmental hierarchy in heaven (i.e., "sons of God", archangels, and angels - in that order) as perfectly feasible and Biblical.  They are spirit beings - not flesh and blood (at least as we understand flesh and blood).

[Gustave]

40 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

It's unfortunate (and regrettable) that you attribute any alternate views as petty and unnecessary just because these views threaten your cherished belief in an outdated man-made construct of the Kingdom.  I happen to find a governmental hierarchy in heaven (i.e., "sons of God", archangels, and angels - in that order) as perfectly feasible and Biblical.  They are spirit beings - not flesh and blood (at least as we understand flesh and blood).

You misunderstand me JoeMo.

I believe that there is a governmental hierarchy in heaven with tens of thousands of angels ranging through every angelic class.

Sister White ( and the Pioneers ) taught that God, Lucifer & Michael the archangels & every other angelic being were flesh bone and blood hominids.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT ( fleshy hominid teaching ) myself - I believe they are spiritual beings who have the power to manifest themselves as anything.

What on earth did you understand me as saying?

 

 

[JoeMo]

I inferred from your comment (which I quoted above) that we should throw our own ideas out the window and put our "faith" in whatever proceedeth from the mouth of EGW.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

Sister White ( and the Pioneers ) taught that God, Lucifer & Michael the archangels & every other angelic being were flesh bone and blood hominids.

 

I've never heard or read of that.  Could you please supply a reference indicating such?  

Thanks.

[Samie]

29 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I inferred from your comment (which I quoted above) that we should throw our own ideas out the window and put our "faith" in whatever proceedeth from the mouth of EGW.

 

Even EGW herself counsels her readers to uphold the Bible and the Bible alone:

Quote

“When God’s word is studied, comprehended, and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon, will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this holy word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God’s word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, “It is written.” Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.” {RH December 15, 1885, Art. A, par. 16} 1SM 416.2 (Selected Messages Book 1)

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

I've never heard or read of that.  Could you please supply a reference indicating such?  

Thanks.

1st,

Adventist Review & Sabbath Herald, March 7, 1854 : The article on page two titled contrasts the difference between "The Sabbath God" & "The Sunday God". The Sabbath God, it is argued has a body and parts & therefore occupies "a precise location". This is contrasted with "THE SUNDAY GOD" where the author quotes a Catholic Catechism that states in answer to the question 'where is God' & the answer being given is: "everywhere". You may observe the article by clicking: http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18540307-V05-07__B.pdf#view=fit

2nd,

Adventist Review & Sabbath Herald, September 5, 1878: Page 1 article titled "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD" calls out the Methodist & Episcopal Creeds grievous theological error by stating that God ( The Father ) lacks a body of flesh with all "the members and parts of a perfect man" ). You may inspect the wording by clicking: http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18780905-V52-11__B.pdf#view=fit

The above is only part 1 - the continuation can be found in the same publication, on September 12, 1878 by clicking: http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18780912-V52-12__B.pdf#view=fit

"IT IS HIS FLESH, THEN, IN WHICH THE LIKENESS CONSISTS"

 

3rd,

Eastern Tidings Report of the Educational Department of the Southern Asia Division April 15, 1923:

"We have come across certain ANTI SCRIPTURAL expressions here and there on the personality of God, immortality of the soul and the fate of the wicked. In such cases we used to draw thick lines over THOSE expressions in the books for the lower classes and not assign them for lessons...."

The wording can be confirmed by clicking here: http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/ET/ET19230415-V18-08__B.pdf#view=fit  and going down to page 8 ( bottom right ).

Rudywoofs, I've found that the larger the post is the less folks are inclined to read it so I'm keeping this short and asking you IF at this point you would agree that between 1854 through to well past the death of Ellen White that SDA teaching ( MINUS anything from Ellen White ) clarifies what the personality of God meant to Seventh-day Adventists?

If you agree I've accurately and fairly described "The Personality of God" Doctrine as contained in the material I've referenced by links to the archives I can then proceed to list some of the Ellen White quotes that confirm what you've read in this post was exactly what she thought.

If not I have somewhere south of 30 more articles contained in Adventist publications I can go through.

Thanks for asking the question by the way.

Gustave

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I inferred from your comment (which I quoted above) that we should throw our own ideas out the window and put our "faith" in whatever proceedeth from the mouth of EGW.

No problem - I'm not SDA nor do I use Ellen White's materials  to inform my thinking. Figured I had better clarify that LOL - given you thought I was advocating for her accuracy.

[Gustave]

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 2:56 PM, Samie said:

 

Even EGW herself counsels her readers to uphold the Bible and the Bible alone:

 

She also was clear "THE TESTIMONIES" identified exactly what the Bible meant to say. People need to understand that  Ellen White or the Pioneers believed it was Ellen musings on this or that - it was DIRECTLY coming from God  - word for word. Like a sock puppet show.

James White ( Ellen's husband )
"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 Adventist Review & Sabbath Herald June 13, 1871

James White rejected the Trinity & believed that God ( The Father ) had a "personality" ( I.e. a body of flesh, bone, members and parts ) - James also believed Michael & Lucifer were the same way with bodies of flesh. James White believed and taught the Holy Spirit was NOT GOD because it lacked a "personality". This is why James, Ellen and the other Pioneers were against the Trinity.

Adventist Review and Herald Oct 8,1903
"The doctrine of the Personality of God IS the fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures..."
...""NEITHER was this image of God a mere concept; FOR the Bible declares that the Lord has PARTS, THE SAME AS the human body"."OUR EXISTENCE as a people is FOUNDED on a belief in the truths stated above".

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.

The Seventh-Day Adventist Church was FOUNDED on the above - it was literally one of the 1st things James White taught once he took control of the publication.

I posted this so you could see that when James White said he invited all to compare the testimonies of the Holy Spirit through his wife - he was saying COMPARE WHAT GOD IS SAYING THROUGH MY WIFE WITH THE BIBLE.

 

 

 

[Gustave]

Remember, that God the Father ( is a flesh, bone, organ & member hominid ). This pillar of Seventh-day Adventist Faith was supposed to remain intact.

 

“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.” {E. G. White, Manuscript Release No.760, p. 9} 1905

 

The following documentation should settle any doubt one would have as to the importance of "The Personality Of God Pillar".

 

"Here WE [ Ellen White, J.N Andrews, Uriah Smith & James White ] after prayerful and careful deliberation, decided VERY IMPORTANT MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE CAUSE, and here, too WE [ Ellen White, J.N. Andrews, Uriah Smith & James White ] have assisted him [ Elder Canright ] in the revision of his very valuable work entitled "The Bible From Heaven" and his article on THE PERSONALITY OF GOD, the Divinity of Christ, The Father, Son & Holy Spirit". Review & Sabbath Herald, August 22, 1878 No 9 - see article "COLORADO TENT"

 

At this time period I doubt no one viewing this form would deny that D.M. Canright ( J.N. Andrews, Uriah Smith & James White ) was anti-Trinitarian. The article Ellen, her husband, Uriah Smith & J.N. Andrews helped Canright "revise" says the following.

"Jesus says His Father is the only true God. "But Trinitarians contradict this by saying that the Son and the Holy Ghost are just as much true God as the Father is".

&

"Any one who is familiar with the teachings of the Trinitarians will readily see that we do not at all misrepresent them in the following statements".

&

"There is NO TRUE GOD BESIDES THE FATHER"

Review & Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1878 Volume 52 #10

 

 

[Kevin H]

Of course at the end of his life James White wrote and told his friends that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than the arguments against it. But I guess we should follow the younger less experienced James White instead of the older wiser James White.

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Of course at the end of his life James White wrote and told his friends that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than the arguments against it. But I guess we should follow the younger less experienced James White instead of the older wiser James White.

James White passed in August 1881 & in 1905 Sister White wrote:

"Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they 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".  MR 760 - 9.5

&

"God has given me light regarding our periodicals. What is it? He said that the dead are to speak. How? Their work shall follow them. WE ARE TO REPEAT THE WORDS OF THE PIONEERS IN OUR WORK, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure and who labored to lay the foundation for our work. They moved forward step by step under the influence of the spirit of God. One by One these pioneers are passing away. The WORD GIVEN ME IS, LET THAT WHICH THESE MEN HAVE WRITTEN IN THE PAST BE REPRODUCED. Ellen White/ Review and Sabbath Herald, May 25, 1905

 

On March 6, 1855 James White said specifically of the Trinity that:

"This doctrine DESTROYS the personality of God and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord"

 

Since March 6, 1855 I have counted 249 lengthy statements of the same exact thing in the Review & Sabbath Herald alone - they are more in the "Gospel Sickle" & "Signs of the Times publications". Some of these direct objections appear directly prior to or after lengthy articles of Ellen White on various topics.

Do you have a reference of an SDA publication repudiating the Personality of God Doctrine as it was understood and taught by the Pioneers ( Flesh, bone, organ, members and parts hominid God & archangels, angels ) & supported by Ellen White via her visions while Ellen White was still alive? I would be most interested in seeing that.

And Kevin, I appreciate your question - that was a good one!

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustav said in the quote below:

Pam asked him to support this statement.  In his first response, Gustav cites an article from the Review of March 7, 1854.  I have reviewed that article.

1)  It should be noted that the article does not have a named author.  It clearly does not reflect the writing style of Ellen White.  Gustave did not    say that it was written by her.  I Do not want anyone to misunderstand and to think that she did write it.

2)  The article is complex and it makes references to the beliefs of other religious groups.  I am not going to argue that Gustave has misunderstood it.   But, I will say that it could be easy to misunderstand.  Please note the difference. 

NOTE:   I appreciate the references that Gustave have provided to us.

Quote

Sister White ( and the Pioneers ) taught that God, Lucifer & Michael the archangels & every other angelic being were flesh bone and blood hominids.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Ellen White was a human being who should not be believed to be either to have had a complete and total  knowledge of any Biblical truth.  In addition, she should  not be believed to be without error in anything.  As she taught, the Bible was the standard that god had given us to be the final authority in everything needed for our spiritual life and growth today.

From this perspective, one must be prepared to find in some manner that EGW held a belief that was not in harmony with the Biblical teaching.  Such does not distract from the fact that God gave this developing SDA denomination a gift in the work and ministry of EGW.  It should not cause us to dismiss and discard her ministry.

Unfortunately, there are those today who believe otherwise. 

 

   

[APL]

15 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Of course at the end of his life James White wrote and told his friends that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than the arguments against it. But I guess we should follow the younger less experienced James White instead of the older wiser James White.

And without documentation - this is hearsay. 

[Kevin H]

First of all there is the letter that James White wrote in the twilight of his life. It was discovered as Elder Wheeler was going through James' letters when preparing for the James White biography where James White wrote the letter that said "I'm starting to see the arguments for the trinity to be more convincing than those against the trinity." He told us about this at the New York Campmeeting right after his book was published and he gave a workshop on James White.

We have Daniels and Prescott while in Australia.  Independently one was studying about Jesus and came to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed the infinite God. The other was studying about the Holy Spirit and became convinced that He was indeed a personality and the infinite God and not just a power. As they compared notes they realized that as they combined their studies that they had the trinity. This has been documented in the new biography on Elder Daniels.

There were people accusing Prescott for trying to sneak in the doctrine of the trinity by inserting his views into Mrs. White's works. Also that some other men placed bogus Mrs. White quotes into her vault to make her sound like she had become a Trinitarian. M. L. Andresen had heard this and wrote to Mrs. White asking if people like Prescott and others have been adding the Trinitarian looking quotes to her writings or if she really has become a Trinitarian. She invited him to come. Meet him and had a short discussion that he did not reveal just what was said but that she also had the quotes available for him to see in her handwriting, and he left that visit a convinced Trinitarian. This has been published in a few places.

So here we have at least 4 documentations during her life time that indicate the switch to Trinitarian. 1. The James White letter, 2. the work of Prescott and Daniels in Australia, 3. the writings going around accusing the Trinitarian quotes being added to Mrs. Whites writings and the claim that they are forgeries (I've even held in my hands and read some of these documents at the White Estate vault an Andrews, They were from the first decade of the 20th century, some of these even accused Mrs. White of Apostasy for having become a Trinitarian. Why would there be such an uproar during that decade if nothing of the sort was happening.) and 4.) Andresen visiting Mrs. White to ask about those accusations and to ask if she became a Trinitarian, and left that visit a committed Trinitarian.