SDAs, The Trinity & Christ Sinning

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Could you provide a reference or two which show that EGW held views on the Godhead contrary to her Methodist upbringing?

The Wesley Center Online: Sermon 55 - On The Trinity

Sure,

Quote

James White boasting about the Spirit of Prophecy said: 

James White
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"W 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 ]. Sabbath Herald June 13, 1871

By 1871 Ellen White (& her contemporaries) had been advertising Ellen as a "prophet" who the Holy Spirit was using to promulgate special messages directly from God - FOR over 26 years by that time. Her Husband it is stating, in the primary SDA Church Paper, that the Testimonies of the Holy Spirit are not compatible with the Trinity Doctrine. To put this into perspective Ellen's claim of being the mouthpiece of God by the time James White made that above statement - Ellen could have joined the Navy and put in her 20 years and have a full retirement and be nearly halfway way to a second retirement.

Does it sound reasonable to believe that it would be possible to find something in the 1st 5 books of the Bible where Moses encourages the Israelites to make golden Idols of Egyptians gods and worship them? I don't think so but this in effect is what we see Ellen basically doing. 

Trust me, had Ellen belched out anti-Trinitarian statements her Methodist Church would have tarred and feathered her prior to kicking her out. 

Seriously, Hanseng! The Sabbath Herald publically condemned the Methodist Church for holding onto the Trinity Doctrine. Did you not know this? 

[Gustave]

Sabbath Herald June 6, 1878

For, fifteen years I was a member of the Wesleyan Methodist church, and during the whole of that time I was deeply convinced of sin. Although the last three years of that time I was appointed class leader and local preacher, I did not feel what I tried to point out to others,—the experience of a true believer in Jesus; but the more I studied their doctrines the more I became bewildered, until I finally decided to try no longer to attain that hight of perfection which is set forth in the Scriptures; for when I examined their teaching in describing the personality of God, I found that it was altogether contrary to the word of God.

After being exposed to Adventist "Personality of God" teaching, which included Ellen White's "Testimonies" this man had zero problems condemning the Trinity doctrine in the Official SDA Church paper & the SDA Church was ecstatic to print it.

By 1878 this type of anti-Trinitarianism was "old hat". 

 

 

Sabbath Herald, March 7, 1854

The first article of the Methodist Religion, p. 8. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness : the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this God-head, there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In this article like the Catholic doctrine, we are taught that there are three persons of one substance, power and eternity making in all one living and true God, everlasting without body or parts. But in all this we are not told what became of the body  of Jesus who had a body when he ascended,who went to God who " is everywhere" or nowhere.

 &

These ideas well accord with those heathen philosophers. One says, " That water was the principle of all things, and that God is that intelligence, by whom all things are formed out of water." Another, "That air is God, that it is produced, that it is immense and infinite," &c. A third, "That God is a soul diffused throughout all beings of nature," &c. Some, who had the idea of a pure Spirit. Last of all, " That God is an eternal substance." These extracts are taken from Rollin's History, Vol. II, pp. 597-8, published by Harpers. We should rather mistrust that the Sunday god came from the same source that Sunday-keeping did.

I could go on and on here, but you get the idea. One thing is for certain - you can search the Acta Sanctae Sedis, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis or the Magnificat from beginning to end through all years and NEVER find a condemnation of the Trinity Doctrine or something like declaring that Mary ISN'T the mother of God. You are just not going to find it. 

Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, October 28, 1909
In the pervious article the chivalrous and romantic story of the birth of the Ottoman empire was traced. In this paper will be shown the rapid and remarkable rise of that people to opulence and power, and also the motive force back of this and all Mohammedan movements.

Perhaps it will be best to take the last feature first. The Turks hold that they are descended from Japheth, the son of Noah. He was the father of three sons. The Turks teach that to his firstborn Aboul-Turk, he gave the sovereignty of Turkestan.

Again: the Turks profess the religion of Mohammed: "The creed of that faith is generally compressed into the well known forumla: "There is no god but God, and Mohammed is his prophet." But there is another and longer form which reads as follow: --

"I believe in God and his angels, and his books, and his prophets, and the last day, and the predestination of good and evil by God, and the resurrection after death. I bear witness to that there is no God but God, and I bear witness that Mohammed is his slave and his prophet."

From the above IT MUST BE PERFECTLY CLEAR that Mohammedanism is very far from being a heathan religion, as some are wont to believe. It teaches belief in God, angels, the prophets, the last day, and the resurrection of the dead. MORE THAN THIS ABOUT ONE HALF OF THE KORAN IS A POLEMIC AGAINST POLYTHESIM AND TRINITARIANISM. In fact the word Allah is an abbreviation of Al-iah, which means the ONE, TRUE, ONLY God.

[Gustave]

This is just the tip of the iceberg whereas the anti-Trinitarianism of Ellen White and the Adventist communion between 1854 and well into the 20th century.

Ellen White, Sabbath Herald, March 8, 1906: "He who denies the personality of God and of his Son Jesus 'Christ, is denying God and 'Christ. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." If you continue to believe and obey the truths you first embraced regarding the personality of the Father and the Son, you will be joined together with him in love."

That's Ellen White saying if you don't affirm that Father God has a body of flesh with all the members and parts of a perfect man you are a pantheist. I can assure you that this is absolutely incompatible with the Methodist articles of faith.

 

Signs of the Time, July 4, 1938: "But pantheism, wherever it is held, is a denial of the personality of God;"

 

Ellen White and the Adventists between 1850 through to long after Ellen's death believed / taught that God was the Father alone and that the Father was a hominid flesh God who had a Son (the Son of God) who was known as Michael christ. Michael christ started go through a process the Adventists called "humiliation" where Michael christ changed his nature to that of an angel in the attempt to save the fallen angels but after a few thousand years of being unsuccessful michael christ sloughed off the angel nature and adopted human nature in an attempt to save humanity - in this endeavor christ actually made it - he succeeded. This information would be horrifying to even the most uninformed Methodist and is further confirmation of the disdain Ellen had for the Trinity Doctrine. 

Now, before I go further here I will readily admit that I've seen video's online of a few famous SDA's who DID (at least in the videos) admit to the historic Trinity Doctrine but these folks are very far and few between. Sean Boonstra is one and the other guy is a General Conference paid theologian who was part of a "Trinity Symposium" several years back that flat out affirmed the historic Trinity and said if people don't affirm that they are not Christian. 

[Hanseng]

17 hours ago, Gustave said:

Seriously, Hanseng! The Sabbath Herald publically condemned the Methodist Church for holding onto the Trinity Doctrine. Did you not know this? 

What the SDA pioneers believed or wrote or said is of interest to those interested. My primary interest is in what Scripture says. Since "trinity" is not a word in the Bible, I have no interest in defending it. Being a Roman Catholic philosophical construct rather than a Bible doctrine, It doesn't surprise me that early SDA eschewed it. EGW never mentioned the trinity, preferring the term "Godhead." Godhead is an English translation of Greek words which themselves require in depth study to understand. Acts 17:29 uses the term Godhead. 2 Peter 1:3,4 translate the same Greek word as "divine." These two verses refer to divine nature and divine power. Nature and power are different words. I'd also have to see how and if the words are used in the LXX.

No time or interest now. I'd still like to see some EGW statements where she denies the "trinity." Much of what you write makes no sense to me. Brief anti trinity statements she made I'm interested in . What other pioneers wrote, not so much. You recite statements about the personality of God, not the trinity.

 

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: No time or interest now. I'd still like to see some EGW statements where she denies the "trinity." Much of what you write makes no sense to me. Brief anti trinity statements she made I'm interested in .

I already gave you one; 

Quote

ELLEN WHITE SAID: Ellen White, Sabbath Herald, March 8, 1906 / He who denies the personality of God and of his Son Jesus 'Christ, is denying God and 'Christ." If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." If you continue to believe and obey the truths you first embraced regarding the personality of the Father and the Son, you will be joined together with him in love."

A Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. would categorically reject the above as incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. Now, I grant that "a Mormon" would swell up with pride if he heard Ellen White say that but Mormons are not Trinitarian Hanseng. Are you saying that Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox and Catholics are NOT Trinitarian? 

Quote

Hanseng said: You recite statements about the personality of God, not the trinity

You need to educate yourself what the SDA Pillar Doctrine of "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD" was. It wasn't some abstract idea a couple of cooky SDA's came up with one night - it was a bedrock "PILLAR" foundation of the SDA Church and it's purpose was to combat the Trinity Doctrine. 

[Gustave]

I forgot / failed to add that the "Personality of God" was, according to Ellen White, one of the Pillar Doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Do you accept Ellen White's endorsement? 

[Hanseng]

The passage you quoted from the 1906 RH has little or nothing to do with White's view of the Godhead in the context of Arianism.

Gustave, I've probably forgotten more of what EGW said than you have ever read. She wrote a lot of good things in books like Ministry of Healing and the book Education. One reason I've been unaware of or forgotten things is because I looked for the good in what she said, things that would help me understand the plan of salvation and how I could be a better person. It's unfortunate that you have missed the blessing and instead just found things to quarrel about.

I'm reminded of the following statement from Desire of Ages: "Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared,
“I am the resurrection, and the life.” In Christ is life, original, unborrowed,
underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” 1 John 5:12. The
divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life. “He that
believeth in Me,” said Jesus, “though he were dead, yet shall he live:
and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest
thou this?”" (p 460)

The only place she uses the word personality in Desire of Ages is here: "The Holy Spirit is Christ’s representative, but divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally."  (p 586) Desire of Ages is her authoritative work on the life of Christ, yet what you consider to be such an important teaching is mentioned statistically ~zero times.

This topic has been widely researched for decades by individuals who are not prejudiced Roman Catholics, looking to discredit her. If I want to know what she thought about the Godhead, their research is likely more balanced than yours. 

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: Gustave, I've probably forgotten more of what EGW said than you have ever read. 

I can appreciate that HansenG, it's obvious that you have forgotten some things, specifically that Ellen White's testimonies were unequivocally understood by the people consuming them - to be incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. You've also forgot that the SDA Doctrine of "The Personality of God" stood in defiance of the Trinity Doctrine and was endorsed by Ellen White to be one of the Pillars that allowed the SDA to stand. 

Remember, we're not talking about people who came long after Ellen White passed away but people who were VERY contemporary with Ellen, those who smell it when she passed gas. THESE folks understood Ellen's "testimonies" to be incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. 

I'm pretty sure you remember the "Personality of God" threads I've started in the past here where the Adventists of Ellen's time were affirming God had every member organ and part that a perfect man had, right? You remember how the SDA's explained that the true God has functional nostrils to "smell" the sacrifice, taste buds to savor the sacrifical meal and a digestive system to expel the waste - this was what the SDA's called "The Sabbath God" which they pitted against the Sunday God which didn't have members and organs and which was described the same way the Methodist article describes God. Did you forgot this or perhaps you didn't participate in these threads. In any event Ellen put her shoulder into all of this and did real work to insure the flock adhered to all of it. 

[Hanseng]

On 4/6/2026 at 10:18 PM, Gustave said:

"THE PERSONALITY OF GOD"

The personality of God doctrine asserted that God and Jesus were distinct beings, rather than mystical Spirits that abode in nature. The personality of God "doctrine" refutes the idea that God dwells in flowers, rock and trees.

While you make much of this as a SDA pillar, the idea that the Godhead consists of three distinct entities rather than a mystical spirit is what it asserts. I never heard of such a doctrine by that name. I have heard of a triune God, which is what the personality of God is about.  It is best understood in the context of the  Living Temple book. It clarifies what might better be called the personhood of God contra Living Temple. From what I can tell, it has essentially nothing to do with the  Arian controversy vis-a-vis the relationship between the Father and Son, in terms of their divinity.

Other SDA pillars such as the sanctuary, soul sleep, the gift of prophecy are common knowledge. The Godhead, consisting of three distinct entities, is also common knowledge. That's all the personality of God doctrine is about.

"The Pillars of Adventism in the World Today" identifies the landmark doctrines of the Second Advent, Sanctuary, Sabbath, Gift of Prophecy, and Conditional Immortality of the Soul as identity-markers of Adventism and traces their historical-theological development during the formative years of the church."

Biblical Research Institute The Pillars of Adventism in the World Today | Biblical Research Institute

Nothing in that contemporary statement on the personality of God.

[Hanseng]

The 1828 Webster's dictionary defines "personality" as "PERSONAL'ITY, noun That which constitutes an individual a distinct person, or that which constitutes individuality." EGW's use of the word in the expression "personality of God" conforms to this definition.

[Hanseng]

What did Ellen White believe regarding the Godhead?

Ellen White never used the term "trinity," although she did refer to the "three living persons of the heavenly trio" (Evangelism, p. 615). She believed in the full deity of Christ, stating that "Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore" (Review and Herald, April 5, 1906). She also referred to the Holy Spirit as "the Third Person of the Godhead" (The Desire of Ages, p. 671). Her comments, as collected in Evangelism, pages 613-617, suggest that she believed that the Scriptures taught the existence of three co-eternal divine persons.

EllenWhite.Org Website - Advanced Search - White Estate Archives

[Hanseng]

This article makes it clear that the personality of God pertained to his personhood, in harmony with Webster's 1828 dictionary, s.v. personality. There is no issue in the personality of God doctrine about Christ's deity compared to the Father's or the Holy Spirit. James White's article, in the first paragraph clearly identifies the issue as the "physical form" or image of God.

Furthermore, "Here is a sublime description of the action of two personages; viz, God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ. Deny their personality, and there is not a distinct idea in these quotations from Daniel. In connection with this quotation read the apostle’s declaration that the Son was in the express image of his Father’s person. “God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” Hebrews 1:1-3.

The "personality" of God refers to the personage of both the Father and son.

Personality of God | EGW Writings

These words show that God and Christ are two personalities, distinct and separate. The unity for which Christ prays, which is to make believers one with Him, as He is one with the Father, does not destroy the personality of God or the personality of Christ. The believers become sons of God, and the personality of all is preserved. Through their lives the world is given a living representation of what the truth can do for those who are sanctified through a belief of the truth 21LtMs, Lt 52, 1906, par. 23
 

[Hanseng]

In view of the falsehoods, misrepresentations, sloppy scholarship, and subterfuge that have been proffered in this discussion regarding Sr. White, consider the following: [Note, These remarks are taken from the book Evangelism, pp. 556-559. The EGW quotes appear after the --- dash. The remarks were compiled by the editors of Evangelism

Misrepresentations of the Godhead

Let People Know Our Position—Our policy is, Do not make
prominent the objectionable features of our faith, which strike most
decidedly against the practices and customs of the people, until the
Lord shall give the people a fair chance to know that we are believers
in Christ, that we do believe in the divinity of Christ, and in His
pre-existence.—Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, 253
(1895).

We Shall Have to Meet Erroneous Teaching—Again and
again we shall be called to meet the influence of men who are studying
sciences of satanic origin, through which Satan is working to
make a nonentity of God and of Christ. The Father and the Son each
[614] have a personality. Christ declared, “I and My Father are one.” Yet it
was the Son of God who came to the world in human form. Laying
aside His royal robe and kingly crown, He clothed His divinity with
humanity, that humanity through His infinite sacrifice might become
partakers of the divine nature, and escape the corruption that is in
the world through lust.—Testimonies For The Church 9:68 (1909).

Positive Truth Versus Spiritualistic Representations—I am
instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for
advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted. Such representations
as the following are made: “The Father is as the light invisible: the
Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit is the light shed abroad.”
“The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor; the Son is like the dew
gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is like the dew fallen to the
seat of life.” Another representation: “The Father is like the invisible
vapor; the Son is like the leaden cloud; the Spirit is rain fallen and
working in refreshing power.”

All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness.
They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken and diminish the Majesty
which no earthly likeness can be compared to. God cannot be compared
with the things His hands have made. These are mere earthly
things, suffering under the curse of God because of the sins of man.
The Father cannot be described by the things of earth. The Father
is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal
sight.

The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested. The
Word of God declares Him to be “the express image of His person.”
“God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting 
life.” Here is shown the personality of the Father.

The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended
to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making
manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe
in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons of
the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by
living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the
obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in
Christ.—Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63. (1905).

The Pre-existent, Self-existent Son of God—Christ is the preexistent,
self-existent Son of God.... In speaking of his pre-existence,
Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us
that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with
the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening
had been with God as one brought up with Him.—The Signs of the
Times, August 29, 1900.

He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent.... He is the
eternal, self-existent Son.—Manuscript 101, 1897.

From Everlasting—While God’s Word speaks of the humanity
of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding
His pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the
eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father. From
everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom
all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted
Him, were to be blessed. “The Word was with God, and the Word
was God.” Before men or angels were created, the Word was with
God, and was God.—The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906. [616]

Christ shows them that, although they might reckon His life to
be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by
human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation
is not measured by figures.—The Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899.

Life, Original, Unborrowed, Underived—Jesus declared, “I
am the resurrection, and the life.” In Christ is life, original, unborrowed,
underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” The divinity
of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life.—The Desire of
Ages, 530 (1898).

With the Father at Sinai—When they [Israel] came to Sinai,
He took occasion to refresh their minds in regard to His requirements.
Christ and the Father, standing side by side upon the mount, with
solemn majesty proclaimed the Ten Commandments.—Historical
Sketches, p. 231. (1866).

The Eternal Dignitaries of the Trinity—The eternal heavenly
dignitaries—God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit—arming them
[the disciples] with more than mortal energy, ... would advance with
them to the work and convince the world of sin.—Manuscript 130,
1901.

Personality of the Holy Spirit—We need to realize that the
Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking
through these grounds.—Manuscript 66, 1899 (From a talk to the
students at the Avondale School.).

The Holy Spirit is a person, for He beareth witness with our
spirits that we are the children of God. When this witness is borne,
it carries with it its own evidence. At such times we believe and are
sure that we are the children of God....

The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness
to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He
must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets
which lie hidden in the mind of God. “For what man knoweth the
things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the
things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”—Manuscript
20, 1906.

The Power of God in the Third Person—The prince of the
power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the
third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.—Special Testimonies,
Series A, No. 10, p. 37. (1897).

In Co-operation With the Three Highest Powers—We are to
co-operate with the three highest powers in heaven,—the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost,—and these powers will work through us,
making us workers together with God.—Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, p. 51. (1905).

[Gustave]

Quote

hanseng said: The personality of God doctrine asserted that God and Jesus were distinct beings, rather than mystical Spirits that abode in nature. The personality of God "doctrine" refutes the idea that God dwells in flowers, rock and trees.

I don't think I could have summarized the problem with Restorationist groups better than you just did hanseng! What you just said is EXACTLY the reason a Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, general run of the mill Evangelical would say that SDA's are not Trinitarian. You're right, the Personality of God doctrine DID assert that God and Jesus were distinct "beings". Identical to the Mormon Godhead doctrine where "multiple beings" constituted one god provided that the beings were united in love and purpose. For the record, Kellogg was NOT a Pantheist. I know this is a favorite SDA boogeyman but it's untrue. Ellen White was an anti-Trinitarian and shortly before Kellogg wrote the Living Temple he accepted the Trinity doctrine and therein lies the problem.

In Adventist theology and Bible study during Ellen White's life if someone rejected the Personality of God Doctrine of the Adventists and Mormons that person WAS A PANTHEIST. 

 

Quote

Signs of the Time, July 4, 1938

But pantheism, wherever it is held, is a denial of the personality of God

Quote

hanseng said: While you make much of this as a SDA pillar, the idea that the Godhead consists of three distinct entities rather than a mystical spirit is what it asserts. I never heard of such a doctrine by that name. I have heard of a triune God, which is what the personality of God is about.  It is best understood in the context of the  Living Temple book. It clarifies what might better be called the personhood of God contra Living Temple. From what I can tell, it has essentially nothing to do with the  Arian controversy vis-a-vis the relationship between the Father and Son, in terms of their divinity.

I didn't identify the anti-Trinitarian Personality of God Doctrine as a pillar, Ellen did. 

 

Quote

Ellen White said: Ellen White, MR760 9.5
“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.” 

What Ellen is saying here to SDA's that had been there from the beginning was that they should REMEMBER how they received and heard the "truth" that Trinitarianism was the "wine of Babylon". Here is how the cow eats the cabbage hanseng - James White and other well known anti-Trinitarian leaders of the SDA Church promulgated anti-Trinitarian teachings AND Ellen followed up behind them having visions which supported those anti-Trinitarian teachings. 

Kellogg was totally on board with all that UNTIL he became to believe in the Trinity and as James White said (so clearly) the Trinity Doctrine is NOT compatible with the Spirit of Prophecy.  Believe it or not hanseng, you are an answer to prayer! My Trinity threads got very little attention after they were moved out of the Theology area and I've been praying that some activity and it did. Prayer really does work. 

[Enabled]

6 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Identical to the Mormon Godhead doctrine where "multiple beings" constituted one god provided that the beings were united in love and purpose. For the record, Kellogg was NOT a Pantheist.

The beliefs of the Mormons and SDA are not the same, the Mormons are Tritheists and not Trinitarians. Kellogg was a Trintarian that advanced Panentheism and not Pantheist views. As for one God that is the Father, one Godhead is not a triumvirate of God's that is Pantheism, God is one Deity and that is the Father, his son is divine by virtue of his being a son and inherent to that is all that his Father God is. As for the spirit; IT is the spirit of God and of Christ, spirit is character and in God it is life. Spirit is not a being like our Father and his Son, nor is it ethereal, but it is the mind of God: let this mind be in you that was in Christ says it all.  

Now that said I appreciate that you for one unlike other SDA's admit that the founders of this particular denomination were non-Trinitarian; including their prophet. What I don't get is why you and others that acknowledge this have any part with the church for it seems to me that you have hooked your traces to the side of the cart and are trying to haul it off the road. 

 

[Gustave]

Quote

Enabled said: The beliefs of the Mormons and SDA are not the same, the Mormons are Tritheists and not Trinitarians.

SDA's who identify as historic are not Trinitarians, they are as far away from Trinitarian as Mormonism - it's just the Mormons are up-front and honest about this. 

Quote

Enabled said: Kellogg was a Trintarian that advanced Panentheism and not Pantheist views.

Kellogg, like Ellen White, was a militant ant-Trinitarian until he accepted the Trinity Doctrine and had a rapid "falling out" with the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Look at how Kellogg spoke when he was in Ellen White's "circle of trust". 

Quote

Dr. Kellogg writes in the Sabbath Herald, November 25, 1880: As it stands, it is as wide a departure from the truth as it can be. The only grounds upon which our reviewer could be justified in making such a statement would be the supposition on his part that we believe in the doctrine of the trinity ; but he very well knows, from positions taken and arguments used in previous articles, that we do not agree with him on this subject any better than on that of the nature of the soul. We believe in but one Deity, God, who is a unity, not a compound 'being. We think the Bible as well as common sense sustains this view. Says Eld. W., "'His trinitarianism ' seems to shackle him much." We repel the charge of " trinitarianism " without the slightest hesitation. We do not believe in a triune God, as before remarked. And we will not, as did our reviewer in a former article, leave the reader in doubt as to our position on this point. We are utterly at a loss to comprehend how our reviewer could have blundered so strangely as to suppose us to share in so gross an error as we believe the orthodox doctrine of the trinity to be.

I'm hoping that you and hansenG would agree that Kellogg is not pulling any punches here. Kellogg is presenting classical "Sabbath God" arguments in this lengthy debate between Seventh-day Adventism and someone outside of it who also is not Trinitarian. Note: Kellogg's above Sabbath god statements come nearly a DECADE after James White, in the Sabbath Herald Paper, stated that the Spirit of Prophecy was incompatible with the Trinty Doctrine. 

Another well-known militant anti-Trinitarian that was very close to Ellen White was D.M. Canright who after spending countless nights at Ellen White's Altar produced the most anti-Trinitarian diatribe to ever grace the pages of the Sabbath Herald Church paper. Like Kellogg, D.M. Canright was right as rain UNTIL he accepted the Trinity Doctrine. Observe how it's admitted that Ellen "EDITED" the brutally anti-Trinitarian articles Canright provided to the Sabbath Herald. 

Quote

Sabbath Herald, August 22, 1878, James White said: "MRS. WRITE had-an appointment to speak in the Colorado Tent at Boulder City, on the evening of the 11th, so in the morning we took Elder
Canright to the place with us, where we parted with him the morning of the 12th, he to take the cars for Battle Creek, to be with his wife, who is reported to be rapidly failing. We parted with this dear brother with feelings of deep: regret that he leaves us before our return, and. yet we could not hold him a day from his faithful wife, who deserves his sympathy and care in her last hours. On our journey to this State, and for the first few weeks after our,arrival, we, needed his assistance, and he has acted the part of a true Christian brother. We have had many precious seasons of prayer together at the family
altar, and when bowed together in the evergreen groves of the mountains. Here we have, after prayer and careful deliberation, decided very important matters pertaining to the cause. And here, too, WE have assisted him in the revision of his very valuable work entitled, " The Bible from Heaven," and his articles on the Personality of God, the Divinity of Christ, the Father,- Son and Holy Spirit, to be published in pamphlet form....."

The next thing I'd like you and hanseng to do is to pull up the Ellen White's "PERSONALITY OF GOD" article which bears the name D.M. Canright but forthrightly admits that Ellen helped revise and edit that same work product and tell me that's not the most militant attack on the Trinity Doctrine that's ever been in a Sabbath Herald or Signs of the Times. Remember, what that article is attacking is what was (and still is) upheld by Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. I'll even help you get started by providing a link to the series of articles so you can read them in context. 

To whet your appetite: 

Quote

Ellen White Approved: Jesus says his Father is the only true God. "But Trinitarians contradict this by saying that the Son and Holy Ghost are just as much the true God as the Father is. Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1878

Remember, the below URL only takes you to the 1st of many Sabbath Heralds that contain the anti-Trinitarian thesis which Canright wrote, and Ellen & her husband revised and edited. Ellen is not here playing Patty-Cake or "peek-a-boo" with this series of articles. This is a frontal assault on the Trinity as aggressive as a true Sith Lord is capable of bringing. 

RH18780829-V52-10.pdf

There is much, much more where the above came from and I hope this topic can be further developed. 

 

[Hanseng]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

I didn't identify the anti-Trinitarian Personality of God Doctrine as a pillar, Ellen did. 

Gustave,  On Thursday at 0957 hours I posted a collection of EGW statements on the Godhead. If you could explain  which of those statements  are wrong or disagreeable to you, I would appreciate it.

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: Gustave,  On Thursday at 0957 hours I posted a collection of EGW statements on the Godhead. If you could explain  which of those statements  are wrong or disagreeable to you, I would appreciate it.

The first quote is the one I've encountered the most and ironically it's really the only one worthy of commenting on in depth. 

Quote

Ellen White's famous Desire of Ages quote: Life, Original, Unborrowed, Underived—Jesus declared, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life.

This may look like a slam dunk to someone who doesn't understand what the historic SDA position was on the pecking order of Christ Vs. "God".  

Look at the following: 

Quote

Sabbath 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

Any of the militant anti-Trinitarian SDA Pioneers would have gutturally belched out a hearty AMEN to Ellen White's statement about the life in Christ being underived, original, etc. Of course it was, it was the life of the Father. This is the same concept that was put forth in Uriah Smith's "Daniel & the Revelation" which Ellen White pressured the General Conference to print and put into the hands of as many people as possible. As you know the General Conference voted on this project in the affirmative. 

When Ellen took the hard-line stance that she did in repudiating the Trinity Doctrine for decades it's not reasonable to take a few nebulous statements she made that as easily support the faith tradition of the anti-Trinitarian SDA Pioneers as they would a modern-day Evangelical Christian who has no knowledge of what the anti-Trinitarian SDA Church historically taught. That's all that's going on here. 

Quote

Counsel from the Spirit of Prophecy, Ministry Magazine, April 1958: 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. Surrounded with sorrow, suffering, and moral pollution, despised and rejected by the people to whom had been intrusted the oracles of heaven, Jesus could yet speak of Himself as the Son of man in heaven. He was ready to take once more His divine glory when His work on earth was done. —The Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899.

If Christ was not loyal to His loyalty His [on loan] deity COULD BE LOST. This is so far removed from the  Methodist Creed & Doctrine on God the distance between the two could not be quantified. I have a feeling you don't believe me when I say this so I'm asking you to reach out to a Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian or Evangelical non-Dom Church and see how agreeable any of them would be in asserting that Jesus was at risk of losing His Deity had he not remained loyal to His loyalty [Father God]. Again, this concept supports the anti-Trinitarian beliefs of the historic SDA Pioneers and Ellen White, it does not comport with the Trinity Doctrine whatsoever. 

Quote

Ellen Quote: Christ shows them that, although they might reckon His life to be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures.—The Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899

The same thing was said by Uriah Smith, one of the best known anti-Trinitarian SDA's to have ever been published by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 

 

Ellen most militant diatribe against the Trinity Doctrine was in the Sabbath Herald "PERSONALITY OF GOD" series of articles that she & her husband helped revise and edit for D.M. Canright. That article is a great backdrop for anyone to read as it shows the hatred Ellen & James White had for the Trinity Doctrine. What SDA apologists need to do is familiarize themselves with that significant work and find where Ellen repudiates those statements she was responsible for. 

Many of the other quotes opine the same thing you did when you said;

Quote

hanseng said: The personality of God doctrine asserted that God and Jesus were distinct beings, rather than mystical Spirits that abode in nature.

That's the issue right there. The Trinity Doctrine intentionally says the opposite of that, the Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. all say the opposite of that but you somehow still think that God and Jesus are distinct beings is the same thing Methodists believe. I hope you check me out because you will find out a Methodist would be horrified. 

I'm unfortunately not retired and work is calling. I'll have to go through the other quotes at a later time but I can say that none of them show Ellen was a Trinitarian. 

[Hanseng]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

I'm unfortunately not retired and work is calling. I'll have to go through the other quotes at a later time but I can say that none of them show Ellen was a Trinitarian. 

Gustave, 

The New Advent RC Encyclopedia describes Arianism like this: 

 "But the Arian, though he did not come straight down from the Gnostic, pursued a line of argument and taught a view which the speculations of the Gnostic had made familiar. He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be."..........

......"Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech."

 

You have damned EGW for believing and teaching that Jesus could have sinned, yet there is nothing in the New Advent article, The Athanasian Creed, or the Nicene Creed regarding whether or not Christ could have sinned. A casual reading of both  Creeds yields nothing  objectionable, except that they are not Scripture.

 

The Canright articles on the personality of God are unfortunate, even embarrassing, characteristic of the forum like nature of the Review in those days. You will recall that EGW had about a fourth grade education. She had a team of assistants who revised, compiled, and edited her books. She was not capable of editing her own material; consequently, the roll she played in "editing" Canright's material is uncertain. An acquaintance of mine was an attorney, editing the Law School journal of the school he attended. He was an editor.  EGW? Not so much. 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Gustave, 

The New Advent RC Encyclopedia describes Arianism like this: 

 "But the Arian, though he did not come straight down from the Gnostic, pursued a line of argument and taught a view which the speculations of the Gnostic had made familiar. He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be."..........

......"Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech."

 

You have damned EGW for believing and teaching that Jesus could have sinned, yet there is nothing in the New Advent article, The Athanasian Creed, or the Nicene Creed regarding whether or not Christ could have sinned. A casual reading of both  Creeds yields nothing  objectionable, except that they are not Scripture.

 

The Canright articles on the personality of God are unfortunate, even embarrassing, characteristic of the forum like nature of the Review in those days. You will recall that EGW had about a fourth grade education. She had a team of assistants who revised, compiled, and edited her books. She was not capable of editing her own material; consequently, the roll she played in "editing" Canright's material is uncertain. An acquaintance of mine was an attorney, editing the Law School journal of the school he attended. He was an editor.  EGW? Not so much. 

Ellen was voracious reader and had zero problems talking so her lack of higher education hardly minimizes the fact that she approved the final work product that bore Canrights name. 

Ellen denied that the Son was of ONE ESSENCE with the Father. Ellen taught that Christ could have eternally ceased to exist through His own fault YET the Father would continue on. The Nicene Creed teaches that the Divine Essence is ONE & UNDIVIDED. This is absolutely against the Nicene Creed. I'm sorry but you simply don't understand the Nicene Creed. 

[Hanseng]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Ellen denied that the Son was of ONE ESSENCE with the Father.

Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus was of "one essence" with the Father? Where does EGW deny that Jesus was of one essence with the father? Are you damning Ellen White because she did not use non-biblical Roman Catholic terms when discussing the Godhead? You have condemned her as an Arian for believing Jesus could have sinned, yet there is nothing in the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed about that. You cited a very few words from a synodal letter. I didn't notice The New Advent Encyclopedia, in its article on Arianism,  saying anything about whether Christ could sin, yet you make this this issue a central point and use it to condemn others as heretics. I certainly believe that Jesus could have sinned. A person who cannot sin cannot be tempted. Scripture says Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are... Are you suggesting that Jesus could not have turned stones into bread? He was able to "create" enough bread to feed thousands. The ministry of Christ was not a stage play in which he pretended to resist sin he was incapable of committing.

EGW was honest about her lack of qualifications and literary skills; consequently, she had numerous editorial assistants, She called one of them her "bookmaker" because she relied upon her so much. Ellen White's speaking ability does not demonstrate corresponding writing ability, certainly not editing ability.  Just how voracious a reader she was is entirely speculation on your part. The books in her library may well have been there as references for her literary assistants, including her husband, not for her reading pleasure.

You have demonstrated is that Canright opposed the trinity and wrote articles expressing his view. It's  unlikely that EGW edited his work in any meaningful way, since she admitted that she required help with grammar and style in her own books. Her own writings required extensive editorial input, yet you think she edited the work of others? I doubt it.

[Challenger]

Gustave, I have been reading the latest volley of post here on the nature of the Godhead. It seems this subject with regard to historic Adventist, especially EG Whites views is of utmost importance to you. Why is it that you are you so adamant in documenting our early anti-triune teachings since we as Adventists today have acknowledged that this was in error, and no longer teach it?  

 

You and I have dialogued on this issue in the past, in which I expressed my belief in the trinity as taught by the Adventist church today. However, in reading these post of yours, I learned that was not what our founding fathers originally believe. That got me to question when the change came about. I have attached a link documenting how the anti-triune teaching took hold within the Millerite movement and latter early Adventism, followed by the acceptance of greater light, the Trinity doctrine. Trust you will find this an interesting read as I.

 

THE TRINITY: A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRINITY IN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM

July 30, 2017 Lemuel Sapian

 

I  appreciate this deeper understanding of my church, knowing it has advanced in understanding by acknowledging it’s past errors. Can that be said of your faith?

 

[Hanseng]

"Other strange teachings, such as the conspiracy theory that LeRoy Froom modified certain Spirit of Prophecy passages to support the Trinity, or that trinitarianism is the heresy John Kellogg indulged in which led to Pantheism (ignoring all the trinitarians outside our church and within, including the above referenced writers, who never fell into Pantheism), show poor scholarship, ignorance of history, and an agenda geared towards kindling a very strange revival." Lemuel Sapian, Amen

Thanks for posting that!

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

Quote

hanseng said: Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus was of "one essence" with the Father? Where does EGW deny that Jesus was of one essence with the father? Are you damning Ellen White because she did not use non-biblical Roman Catholic terms when discussing the Godhead? 

You see what you're doing. 1st you imply there is nothing Ellen White had said which is incompatible with the Methodist Doctrine of "God". Then when I point it out to you that Ellen's teaching on God is totally incompatible with the Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, etc. Doctrine on God you switch gears and continue arguing for the anti-Trinitarian Personality of God Doctrine Ellen White and the other anti-Trinitarian Pioneers promulgated. I'll be happy to go through Trinity 101 with you but first you need to acknowledge that the idea that God could exist with God the Son eternally ceasing to exist and THAT a belief like that is heretical to Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. If you do that I'll be most happy to run you through a basic Catechism. Eastern Orthodoxy is no fan of Catholicism and they would find Ellen White's teaching on the Godhead to be completely heretical. 

[Gustave]

Quote

Challenger said: Why is it that you are you so adamant in documenting our early anti-triune teachings since we as Adventists today have acknowledged that this was in error, and no longer teach it?  

Where can you point me to within official SDA sources that I can see the SDA Church has repudiated the "vital"  SDA teaching that it was possible Christ could have sinned, lost His Salvation and eternally ceased to exist and "The Father" would simply trudge on? If the SDA Church has done that I owe everyone here a colossal apology.