The Trinity doctrine

[Kevin H]

In the early 1900s M. L. Andresen went to ask Mrs. White if it was her trustees or others who made those quotes that stounded Trinitarian and if she became a Trinitarian. He came to visit her as an anti-Trinitarian. She showed the writings in question in her own pen and when Andresen left he was a convinced Trinitarian.

[Gail]

12 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Jesus always equated Himself, and The “Comforter” with God. There is not one exception to this in scripture, unless one chooses to isolate one text from many other texts which show clearly that all three are “One God.”

John 14:16,17 says that Jesus would send us another Comforter. Who is/was the other one?

[LifeHiscost]

Since we are told we (those who believe Jesus) will spend the rest of eternity expending our intelligence and energies into learning the mysteries of the Holy One, I find my efforts to do what He asks of me to do, too daunting to come to any final conclusion except as to conclude He is Love, especially while we're still in this dark world.

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[Gregory Matthews]

Enabled said below:

1)  The SDA denomination does NOT teach a verbal inspiration of the Bible.

2)  Neither the SDA denomination nor EGW has taught a verbal inspiration of her writings.

3)  EGW has clearly given total control of her writings to what is now the EGW Estate.  That authority allows them to publish her writings in modern English, rather than the English of the 1800s and as is being done.  To give permission to publish includes permission to edit to prepare for publication.

4)  The fact that you may not remember has no bearing on the actual situation. 

Let me get this do you mean its OK to change anothers writings and you are good with that. I don't remember her granting the Trustess permission to change her writing, only to publish them. To publish under her name if the words are not hers would be a lie.

[phkrause]

9 hours ago, Gail said:

John 14:16,17 says that Jesus would send us another Comforter. Who is/was the other one?

Gail, have you watched David Asscherick's  lectures? He talks about this very verse in his belief that there is a Trinity! I believe its part 4 or 5.

[Enabled]

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 9:58 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Enabled said below:

1)  The SDA denomination does NOT teach a verbal inspiration of the Bible.

2)  Neither the SDA denomination nor EGW has taught a verbal inspiration of her writings.

3)  EGW has clearly given total control of her writings to what is now the EGW Estate.  That authority allows them to publish her writings in modern English, rather than the English of the 1800s and as is being done.  To give permission to publish includes permission to edit to prepare for publication.

4)  The fact that you may not remember has no bearing on the actual situation. 

 

 

[Enabled has informed me that the above statement is in error and it does NOT reflect what he wanted to say.  He wishes to correct the above statement, but he is unable to do so.  So, after a conversation with him I am inserting this corrective statement into the body of this post.  The error is this:  The four comments above are comments that I made.  I did NOT post that Enabled had made those statements.  Again, I made them.  I understand Enabled intention and how this error happened.  I believe that it was not what he intended to say.  I appreciate that good conversation that he and I have had on this matter and his desire to correct it--Gregory Matthews.]

 

(1) I don't believe I implied that brother Gregory, nor do I believe in verbal inspiration. But I also don't believe in interpolation of word structure and context that are not included in the initial record. Like 1 John 5:7 as acknowledged by most scholars and our own Volume 7 of the SDA commentaries. 

(2) I was not in addressing Wanders statement referring to verbal inspiration but his comment on new light being license to change her original words from "it " to him or he. That is taking license to change the very meaning of what has been written to express the writers thoughts. (b) just an added note of interest, today this is our stance but in her day when she  desired to redo The great controversy they raise a real stink about causing people to doubt the inspired nature of her works. In addition to this my understanding of the Desire of ages was it is a compilation that she directed Miriam to create from what had already been published. So how do we explain her so called new statements that are taken to imply she was becoming Trinitarian in her views when they are not found in prior dcouments to 1898. I found in reading it some very decidedly non-trinitarian statements that led me to believe she continued to approve of them as representing her then position.

(3) & (4) When was the last time you read her direction to the trustees, just curious? My not remembering is my words taken out of context, I was implying its not there as I read her direction with in the last ten years and she gave direction to preserve for the people her writings, to compile her works, to release unpubished letters etc. to translate into other languages but not to correct her writings to suite a changing landscape. I would take offense to anyone changing my sermon notes in the future to reflect a new view and representing them as my notes, wouldn't you. To claim they are records of her understanding to a future generation having changed It to he etc. is a lie plain and simple especially when it is done with out disclaimer such as " some of the authors words have been changed to more accurately reflect our current position".

Please note She stated that certain of her writing and Uriah Smiths Daniel and Revelation should be found in every home, not just Adventist. She said of D&R that it contained the right view. Yet they changed much of it by removing all his references to the duality of Divinity that left no room for a trinity of divinity, with what right they only hold the right to publish not edit especially in the light of her statement. Yet their response is to state "it no longer reflects the SDA understanding".

Thanks non the less for your thoughts.

Just a note, I was raised a pastors son in the Pentecostal fellowship and through study and the leading of the  Lord found  the SDA church to be closer to the truth. I continued to study for myself, knowing that what I believed first in my youth was not biblically sound, I continue to study and find no solid reason to change some things and cause for concern in others. Growing in faith and knowledge denotes the reality but never have I found cause to believe that when the light grows brighter that I am asked to blindly accept any assertion. I find often people asert that my undrstaning is faulted or my memory but quote no source for their statements. 

[Enabled]

On November 8, 2016 at 9:20 PM, The Wanderer said:

Those who do wish to debate whether or not Mrs White had “changed” her wording,” or that her copyists did it somehow do not mention things such as the following:

Refuting Reports of Changes in the Writings.-- My copyists you have seen. They do not change my language. It stands as I write it.{3SM 90.3}

I will not only mention it but I will recommend that you go and read it in its context with out the heading added by the white estate. She was not making a general statement this applied to Fanny Bolton (a copyist only)and applies to all who would reproduce her works(copyists). Below is a larger excerpt but I would recommend that all who want the truth read the whole article.  She then goes on to clarify that Marian was the only one ever authorized to compile and create her books, yet only using her own words as they already were written. She emphasizes that her copyists were never given that latitude.  I have studied her words for over 20 years as one who had no faith in her as a prophet when I first found the SDA church, in time and thousands of pages and hours later I no longer doubt the accuracy of her speach. It will explain itself if you eat enough of it just like the Word. You cannot come to the banquet table and not be changed. My friends of old know me and would not accept a false statement about me as they know me. I believe that this applies in any relationship that is strong and full of years. I have found she seldom changed her words without explanation and never did it change something she said the Lord showed her accept in her own words: to better illustrate what he had shown her. She mentions a number of these points in the article, I remember reading this back in and around 1996.

Quote

My copyists you have seen. They do not change my language. It stands as I write it. Marian’s work is of a different order altogether. She is my book-maker. Fannie never was my book-maker. How are my books made? Marian does not put in her claim for recognition. She does her work in this way. She takes my articles which are published in the papers, and pastes them in blank books. She also has a copy of all the letters I write. In preparing a chapter for a book, Marian remembers that I have written something on that special point, which may make the matter more forcible. She begins to search for this, and if when she finds it, she sees that it will make the chapter more clear, she adds it. – {MR926 93.7}

Just a final thought for the night, I have found that one based on what she said should look for the origianl article in its context and then see what newer articles useing the same wording ad to the light. I generally toss all the compilations and their respective headings as they have a tendency to interpret rather than accurately repeat the context.

Good night and God Bless

[Enabled]

On November 8, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Kevin H said:

In the early 1900s M. L. Andresen went to ask Mrs. White if it was her trustees or others who made those quotes that stounded Trinitarian and if she became a Trinitarian. He came to visit her as an anti-Trinitarian. She showed the writings in question in her own pen and when Andresen left he was a convinced Trinitarian.

Not so, she was alive and as yet had no trustees and at this time was working exclusively with her son Willy and Marian. He never went to ask any such thing, he went with a long list of things of which the famous quote was only one. He spent three weeks with here if I recall. He never asked her if she had become a Trinitarian, only if the words were her words. His conclusions were his own unaided by her. You can find this in his own words in a paper he wrote about his visit. I have a copy here somewhere and if I find it I will post it. He was shocked as were others that she had written it because all were sure from her preivious works that she was a believer in the Father and the Son alone and the agency of the holy spirit which she had often called the spirit of God or of Christ. I have a study of  the context and the quote itself and will post when I have time to look for it.

[Enabled]

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Blessings to you Enabled. Just as a point of interest, not to prove anything re the Spirit, but because you mentioned it; I am very well studied on EGW writings, and have over 300 of her books and publications in my computer,and library. I actually did read, and previously know all that you suggested to me before posting, but it was my decision to make one, brief point, without proving anything about it. I trust that people will do their homework and see what you suggested for themselves. I find it interesting that you did not talk about one Scripture note I wrote in same comment. May I ask why? Was I "wrong?"  Is the Bible wrong? Help me out with this? Why would one sentence from my post by Ellen White, sidetrack all the scripture I posted which proved the Holy Spirit has a personality that we are to "commune" with. Good night, and God bless my friend.

Good morning, First of all I should have said all and not you  when starting my comments as my intent and conscious position is that this is a thread read by many and though we make our individual points I am ever conscious that others are reading. I have been a Sabbath school teacher for many years and am always looking at conversation as a plurality that is inclusive and conversational for the purpose of learning your/others views as well as tempering my own knowledge and understanding. That said, my comments were as much instructional/encouraging a point of thorough study as they were to draw out and better or clearer understanding of what you were getting at.

The scripture you posted like all scripture conversation etc. is and was not stated in a vaccum, but in a context of time place and lasting fact.

Quote

Are we to believe that the Father (who is a Father because he has a son) is not the only TRUE GOD as his son states here or is it the fact that eternal life is for those that have this knowledge.?”

I firstly took your response to the above statement of mine as the catylist for your following post of verse/scripture.

Quote

Joh_14:7  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh_14:9  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Now in response to these I can only assume your position of undertanding of his purpose of saying what he said to Philip is that he is some how other than just the "Son of God" as stated by Peter in response to his query "who do men say that I am. I myself see this in the same light as has been said of my eldest Son many times by others, "he is just like his Father". I had the privilege of my children growing up along side me in work and play and in later years when we left the farm my oldest son continued to work along side of me at a place of employment where I was the production supervisor/foreman. I became with time common for the men to say what should we do next in my absence, and the answer I would go something like this, ask his son he always seems to know what his Dad would want. As with on the farm I never knew him to instruct them apart from what I myself would have generally instructed them to do. Our hearts are linked. I believe that this is what the Christ was telling Philip, a deeper answer to his Query than Philip was getting from their relationship. I do not take Christ to have meant he was the Father as in the one True God but just as he said to Peter "no man has shown you this but my Father" in response to Peters answer "you are the Son of God." 

So no I don't believe necessarily you were wrong and certainly not that the bible was wrong. But I don't accept the common thought that the holy spirit is another person as in a another being nor a part of a three part mystery component of God.

Ellen asked in her first Vision in Christs presence these words as you may know being well read in her works. Does your Father have a " visage such as you have" He answered her "he has." Now I asked you this if you found yourself in the presence of  Christ and could ask a question of him why do you suppose she having this opportunity asked such a question. Well I believe it was  relative to her young years and that a dominant question at that time in her life amongst the denominations was "does God have a physical being or visage or is he spirit or invisible to  human sight" Christ's answer to her puts this to rest, he is thus in my understanding as the Christ that was standing before her another literal physical though spiritual being just like his Son before her eyes. I do not believe the holy spirit to be another personal visible being such as the Father and the Son who "alone are to be worshipped." She also said this " the holy spirit is as much a person as God, is a person." to be emphasizing his physical reality and not a comparative statement meaning to convey that the holy spirit just like God the Father is a another person. I believe that the holy spirit is the the person of the Father or the Son omnipresent. I believe to go farther than this is as Ellen said not profitable and is hidden from us. I will post more on this when time permits. None of this confusion was part of Adventism until some put forth the old and ancient idea that God is a Trinity of persons and defined it for the world, Barnhouse and Martin etc. to prove to the ecumenical churches that SDA is not a cult. I know this all started many years before these statements were made in Answers to Questions on doctrine, but believe culminated with its publication which I believe was the beginning of what she said would not profit the Church (people) to do in defining God to be three persons in an effort to define the holy spirit as part of a mystery God called the Trinity.

Hope that answers your queries.

[Gregory Matthews]

Enabled:  Nine (9) hours ago, you quoted a post that I had made twenty (20) hours earlier.  In your post you took words that I had written and posted them in a manner that presented them as having been written by you.  You then correctly stated that you did not write them.  That was correct,  I wrote them and you did not, contrary to how you presented them.

I do NOT believe that you intended to misrepresent what I posted.  I consider it be  a simple mistake in which my previous post was not clear.  all of us can make mistakes and I do make mistakes myself.  I am sorry that my post was so unclear that you did not understand it.  But, I believe that this error is important enough that I need to correct it.

[Gregory Matthews]

Enabled previously raised some questions regarding the publication of EGW materials today.  The following may be of interest as to that subject:

http://www.ellenwhiteestate.org/about/estate.asp

http://www.adventistreview.org/1513-28

http://library.ellenwhite.org/content/file/compilations-ellen-white%E2%80%99s-writings#document

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1935/12/the-custody-of-the-ellen-g.-white-writings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_G._White_Estate

http://www.whiteestate.org/estate/manuscriptbackground.asp

http://ellenwhite.org/content/faq/can-we-trust-compilations

http://ellenwhite.org/content/letters-and-manuscripts-collection

[Gregory Matthews]

In a previoius post, Enabled asked when I had last read EGWs instructions to her trustees.  Those instructions were recorded in her Will.  To respond to Enabled's question, this morning I last read her will.

EGWs Will is posted on then Internet.  you may read it at:

http://whiteestate.org/books/mol/Appendix N.html

[8thdaypriest]

On 11/8/2016 at 11:20 PM, The Wanderer said:

Refuting Reports of Changes in the Writings.-- My copyists you have seen. They do not change my language. It stands as I write it.{3SM 90.3}

It is FACT that the publishers changed "it" to "he" in her references to the Holy Spirit.

[8thdaypriest]

1 minute ago, The Wanderer said:

This " fact" is not fact to all...not even to Ellen White I just quoted what she wrote

She was not aware of their action.  They made the changes after she died.

[Gregory Matthews]

I would like to have the specific sources listed.  I do not challenge Rachel for her statement that the change was made.  Also, I am not saying that this has not been done following EGWs death.  E.G. In that last three (3) years (I think this is the time frame.) there is a publication in which that has probably been done.

But, I would like to see if this was ever done prior to her death--I suspect that it was so  done.  If so, one might  say that she approved.

In any case, in order to properly understand what happened, we need to look at any such changes that may have been made prior to her death as well as changes after her death.  In order to do this, we need to have specific references.

 

[8thdaypriest]

55 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

It is FACT that the publishers changed "it" to "he" in her references to the Holy Spirit.

"When Christ entered within the heavenly gates, He was enthroned, amid the songs of millions of angels.  As soon as this ceremony was completed, the Holy Spirit descended upon His followers in rich currents according to Christ's promise, and they were no more orphans.  How quickly Christ fulfilled His promise, and sent from the heavenly courts the guarantee of His love!  After His inauguration, the Spirit came and Christ was indeed glorified, even with the glory which He had from all eternity with the Father.  During His humiliation upon this earth, the Spirit had not descended with all its efficacy; and Christ declared that if He went not away, it would not come, but that if He went away, He would send it.  It was a representation of Himself, and after He was glorified it was manifest."  Signs of the Times May 17, 1899, pr.3

"Receive the Holy Spirit, and your efforts will be successful.  Christ's presence is that which gives power."  Notebook Leaflets Vol.1, pg 12

"All communication from heaven to earth since Adam's fall has come through Christ."  (July 4,1900)  The Kress Collection pg.126

"The mystic ladder of his dream represented Jesus, the only medium of communication between God and man."  Steps to Christ pg.20 (1892)

"After his transgression, God would communicate to man only through Christ and angels."  Signs of the Times January 30, 1879 pr.19

 

[8thdaypriest]

29 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I would like to have the specific sources listed.  I do not challenge Rachel for her statement that the change was made.  Also, I am not saying that this has not been done following EGWs death.  E.G. In that last three (3) years (I think this is the time frame.) there is a publication in which that has probably been done.

But, I would like to see if this was ever done prior to her death--I suspect that it was so  done.  If so, one might  say that she approved.

In any case, in order to properly understand what happened, we need to look at any such changes that may have been made prior to her death as well as changes after her death.  In order to do this, we need to have specific references.

 

Gregory,  I don't have evidence of every instance where this was done.  I can tell you that I saw quite a few instances, during my search of the database, while I was researching for myself, trying to determine just what she believed, and when she believed it. 

[8thdaypriest]

THE GLORIOUS DOVE - not a third divine being

"Never before had angels listened to such a prayer as Christ offered at his baptism,  and they were solicitous to be the bearers of the message from the Father to his Son.  But no!  Direct from the Father issues the light of his glory.  The heavens were opened, and beams of glory rested upon the Son of God and assumed the form of a dove, in appearance like burnished gold.  The dove-like form was emblematical of the meekness and gentleness of Christ."  Review and Herald January 21, 1873 pr.5

"The opening heavens, and descent of the heavenly dove, were assurances that his Father would unite his power in Heaven with that of his Son upon the earth, to rescue man from the control of Satan, and that God accepted the effort of Christ to link earth to Heaven, and finite man to the infinite.  These tokens, receive from his Father, were inexpressibly precious to the Son of God through all his severe suffings, and terrible conflict with the rebel chief."  Review and Herald Aug. 18, 1874, pr.2

"At the Saviour's baptism, Satan was among the witnesses.  He saw the Father's glory overshadowing His son."  Desire of Ages pg 116 (1898)

"'He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?' The Father gave his Spirit without measure to his Son, and we also may partake of its fullness.  Jesus says:  'If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?'"  Great Controversy pg 477 (1888); Review and Herald November 5, 1908 pr.4

 

 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

"Christ our Mediator is the one who gives the Holy Spirit"  Youth's Instructor July 5, 1894 pr.6

"Jesus is waiting to breathe upon all his disciples, and give them the inspiration of his sanctifying spirit, and transfuse the vital influence from himself to his people.  He would have them understand that henceforth they cannot serve two masters.  Their lives cannot be divided.  Christ is to live in his human agents, and work through their faculties, and act through their capabilities.  Their will must be submitted to his will.  They must act with his spirit, that it may be no more they that live, but Christ that liveth in them.  Jesus is seeking to impress upon them the thought that in giving his Holy Spirit he is giving to them the glory which the Father has given him, that he and his people may be one in God."  Signs of the Times October 3, 1892 pr.4

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel:   There are three issues that are involved here:

1)  Were there such changes made prior to the death of EGW?  If there were, based upon what we know about the preparation of her published works, subject to rebuttal, we must assume that such changes were approved by her.  In this case, absent rebuttal, we should assume that any such changes following her death are appropriate.

2)  Neither the SDA denomination nor EGW taught that her writings were verbally inspired.  As you are aware, this is clear in 1SM.  NOTE:  I am going by memory and have not checked the exact reference as I believe you know exactly my point of reference.

3)  We would probably all agree that EGW gave the trustees   of her estate the authority to publish her works.  Inherent in such authority if the right to edit them.  This is especially true due to the fact  that we do not teach verbal inspiration.  The history of the development of the various editions of The Great Controversy demonstrates the willingness of EGW to allow changes to be made.  NOTE:  MY reference here is to  what most people today understand ass the 1911 edition.  It is not to a 4-book set.

It is from the above perspective that I believe we should have specific citations to the places where you believe changes were  made.   With such we can intelligently discuss them as to whether or not they were appropriate.  Without such references we are simply left to talk without the support that we should have.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel, your last quotations do not relate to changing "it" to "he." 

Rather, they relate to EGW not being a Trinitarian.    Most students of SDA history agree that EGW was not in the early days of the developing SDA Denomination a Trinitarian as it is commonly understood today.  But, they do believe that over time she grew in knowledge and did change her thinking to become a Trinitarian. 

Rachel:  EGW was human.  No human, neither you nor I, have a perfect, total, understanding of any theological issue.  At no time did EGW have a perfect, total,   understanding of anything about God and salvation. 

The best revelation of God and salvation is contained in the life and ministry of Christ and in the Bible.  This is where our standard lies.  EGW is not our standard.  But, do not take that to mean that God did not use her.  God did use her to guide our developing denomination.

 

[8thdaypriest]

3 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rather, they relate to EGW not being a Trinitarian.    Most students of SDA history agree that EGW was not in the early days of the developing SDA Denomination a Trinitarian as it is commonly understood today.  But, they do believe that over time she grew in knowledge and did change her thinking to become a Trinitarian. 

 

Ellen White was not Trinitarian for the first 50 years of her ministry.  You call that "the early days".  My point is that she DID CHANGE, and she wrote nothing about receiving any special revelation concerning her CHANGE - from teaching two divine beings, to "three beings of the heavenly trio".  Her writings have guided millions.  Would not the LORD have given her some revelation concerning so drastic a change, especially considering almost all the early SDA founding fathers were staunchly anti-Trinitarian.  

She was not aware that Matthew 28:19 had been tampered with, just like 1John 5:7.  If she had been aware of the change to Matthew 28:19, I wonder if she would have changed her view of "the Godhead". 

[Enabled]

6 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Enabled:  Nine (9) hours ago, you quoted a post that I had made twenty (20) hours earlier.  In your post you took words that I had written and posted them in a manner that presented them as having been written by you.  You then correctly stated that you did not write them.  That was correct,  I wrote them and you did not, contrary to how you presented them.

I do NOT believe that you intended to misrepresent what I posted.  I consider it be  a simple mistake in which my previous post was not clear.  all of us can make mistakes and I do make mistakes myself.  I am sorry that my post was so unclear that you did not understand it.  But, I believe that this error is important enough that I need to correct it.

Please identify the post so I can go back and see where I messed up, I am on a Satellite link which is slow and an old I-pad sometimes the quote button doesn't grab everything and I have to cut and paste, I assume I missed the credit line. I should fix this so the reader isn't confused.

Thanks Gregory

[Gregory Matthews]

Enabled, the my post, which you quoted was posted yesterday at 9:58 AM.

Your post was posted three posts following my post.

Here is where it went wrong:

1) I began my post by saying: Enabled said below:

2)  At the bottom of my post, I enclosed what you had said in a box.  This is what I commonly do and I have done this many times.

3) Between my opening statement and the box which contained what you had said, I made several comments.

4) You cited those several comments of mine in a manner that said that I attributed them to you.  And, your did not cite your words which were in the box.

Again, I do not think this error was intentional.  I think that you simply did not understand that in my opening statement I had said that your words were in the box and therefore what I said before that box was my comments.  A simple error, easy to make.

I have developed this in an attempt to prevent exactly what happened with you.  I have found that for some reason unknown to me if I place the quoted box directly under my opening statement it often expands to include statement that are mine.  It is in an attempt to prevent this misunderstanding that I do it as I did it this time.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

There has been some discussion of the work of the Trustees of the EGW Estate.  The  following gives a detailed, chronological, statement as to their work:

http://www.whiteestate.org/estate/manuscriptbackground.asp