SDAs & Mary

[Gustave]

39 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:

 

*  I acknowledge that at that time early SDA leaders were not Trinitarian.

*  I acknowledge that in those early days, EGW was not Trinitarian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I wrote was mainly directed at user: Humble Servant 

I had the impression / understanding he didn't believe Ellen White ever wrote anything anti-Trinitarian. 

 

[Humble Disciple]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:

*  The article that you cite was written by D. M. Canright, not Ellen White.

*  I fail to find anything that suggests that EGW revised and edited it prior to publication.  The Review at that time was edited by her husband, not her.

*  I acknowledge that at that time early SDA leaders were not Trinitarian.

*  I acknowledge that in those early days, EGW was not Trinitarian.

*  I consider Canright to be responsible for the article, not EGW.

 

 

 

 

 

Are there any direct quotes of Ellen White to suggest at any time that she was not Trinitarian? Didn't she refer to a "Heavenly Trio"?

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, Humble Disciple said:

Are there any direct quotes of Ellen White to suggest at any time that she was not Trinitarian? Didn't she refer to a "Heavenly Trio"?

There are literally GOB'S of direct quotes. 

"The value of a soul, who can estimate? Would you know its worth, go to Gethsemane, and there watch with Christ through those hours of anguish, when He sweat as it were great drops of blood. Look upon the Saviour uplifted on the cross. Hear that despairing cry, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' Look upon the wounded head, the pierced side. the marred feet. Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled."

1st, Christ didn't make a despairing cry, He was quoting the 22nd Psalm. Any devout Jew who knew Scripture would have immediately realized Jesus was claiming Psalm 22 was referring to Him & that Psalm ends in vicrtory. Perhaps one of the Roman soldiers, if he knew Aramaic, assumed Jesus was making a cry of despair but that would only be because the Roman soldier was ignorant of Jewish Scripture.

2nd, Heaven was NOT imperiled, there was no "risk", Jesus is not a "part" of God - all these concepts are anti-Trinitarian. 

 

[Humble Disciple]

5 minutes ago, Gustave said:

There are literally GOB'S of direct quotes. 

"The value of a soul, who can estimate? Would you know its worth, go to Gethsemane, and there watch with Christ through those hours of anguish, when He sweat as it were great drops of blood. Look upon the Saviour uplifted on the cross. Hear that despairing cry, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' Look upon the wounded head, the pierced side. the marred feet. Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled."

1st, Christ didn't make a despairing cry, He was quoting the 22nd Psalm. Any devout Jew who knew Scripture would have immediately realized Jesus was claiming Psalm 22 was referring to Him & that Psalm ends in vicrtory. Perhaps one of the Roman soldiers, if he knew Aramaic, assumed Jesus was making a cry of despair but that would only be because the Roman soldier was ignorant of Jewish Scripture.

2nd, Heaven was NOT imperiled, there was no "risk", Jesus is not a "part" of God - all these concepts are anti-Trinitarian. 

 

It seems like you are just misconstruing her words. They don't need to be interpreted as against the Trinity.

[Gustave]

49 minutes ago, Humble Disciple said:

It seems like you are just misconstruing her words. They don't need to be interpreted as against the Trinity.

So you're saying Canright misconstrued her words, James White misconstrued her words and I have as well. Enjoy staying in your safe spot. 

[Gregory Matthews]

1)  SDA scholars agree that Ellen White in the early days of the developing SDA denomination was not a Trinitarian.  As far as I know, no serious SDA scholar debates that point.  There is some disagreement on some points as to exactly what she did believe.   In addition, there is some discussion as to how and when she changed her viewpoint to move to a Trinitarian position. But, the idea that she at one time was not a Trinitarian cannot be seriously challenged.

2)  Gustave has proved his point that a reasonable person would agree that Ellen White advised Canright on the nature of the article published in what I call today the Review.  Exactly what that advice amounted to is not clear.

 

[Humble Disciple]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

1)  SDA scholars agree that Ellen White in the early days of the developing SDA denomination was not a Trinitarian.  As far as I know, no serious SDA scholar debates that point.  There is some disagreement on some points as to exactly what she did believe.   In addition, there is some discussion as to how and when she changed her viewpoint to move to a Trinitarian position. But, the idea that she at one time was not a Trinitarian cannot be seriously challenged.

2)  Gustave has proved his point that a reasonable person would agree that Ellen White advised Canright on the nature of the article published in what I call today the Review.  Exactly what that advice amounted to is not clear.

 

Do I need to explain how the quote provided of Ellen White could be interpreted in a perfectly Trinitarian way?

[Humble Disciple]

I was raised Catholic, and the Catholic veneration of Mary borders on idolatry. While I regard Catholics as Christians, their Marian devotion makes me uncomfortable. 

There were early church fathers who taught the doctrine of soul sleep, a doctrine which was ultimately rejected because it conflicted with the extrabiblical doctrine of praying to Mary and the saints. 

If Mary is going to have a special place in the church, it should begin with searching the writings of Ellen White and the Adventist pioneers, not ignoring them. 

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, Humble Disciple said:

Do I need to explain how the quote provided of Ellen White could be interpreted in a perfectly Trinitarian way?

It doesn't work that way. There was a period of time in SDA history where Ellen White claimed the status of a Prophet while making anti-Trinitarian statements. Some of the more militant anti-trinitarians were quick to capitalize on the prophetic gift. 

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 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 Adventist Sabbath Herald June 13, 1871

The PRIMARY part of the Christian Creed the Adventists had a beef with was the part specific to the Trinity, specifically that God was simple and COULDN'T consist of "PARTS".  You've said you are familiar with the Pioneer's positions as well as that of Ellen White's so you know I'm not embellishing anything when I say what I do about this.

"Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe." And so we
have the strongest evidence that we shall not be put to shame before the law, if we can only obtain this righteousness.
For we know that Christ, as part of the Godhead, is equal with the Father. He is the Word, and is God." Present Truth March 24, 1892.

It clearly says that Christ is PART OF the Godhead and as you already know Ellen repeatedly taught that Christ could have failed, eternally ceased to exist causing "PART OF GOD" to eternally cease to exist. 

Ellen White, GCB Dec 1, 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked EVEN his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption

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

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

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

EVERY composite thing consists of parts and is the kind of thing that depends on something other than itself for its existence. In EVERY composite whole, by its nature, the "PARTS" are other than and PRIOR to the whole. I.E., you can't have a Pizza without the crust, the cheese, the pepperoni whatever you like on it - these "parts" exist prior to the Pizza and are OTHER THAN the Pizza yet the Pizza depends on these parts for its existence. This can't happen with God - God is the 1st cause - God caused everything seen and unseen to exist. If you were raised Catholic you know this as bedrock Catholicism -its literally the 1st thing covered in CCD

The Pioneers and Ellen White attacked this teaching with great vigor - the Trinity doesn't exist without Divine Simplicity. It would be better to come to grips with this truth and just accept that at a point in Ellen's ministry she indeed taught anti-trinitarianism. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Humble Disciple]

6 hours ago, Humble Disciple said:

Do I need to explain how the quote provided of Ellen White could be interpreted in a perfectly Trinitarian way?

 

18 hours ago, Gustave said:

There are literally GOB'S of direct quotes. 

"The value of a soul, who can estimate? Would you know its worth, go to Gethsemane, and there watch with Christ through those hours of anguish, when He sweat as it were great drops of blood. Look upon the Saviour uplifted on the cross. Hear that despairing cry, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' Look upon the wounded head, the pierced side. the marred feet. Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled."

1st, Christ didn't make a despairing cry, He was quoting the 22nd Psalm. Any devout Jew who knew Scripture would have immediately realized Jesus was claiming Psalm 22 was referring to Him & that Psalm ends in vicrtory. Perhaps one of the Roman soldiers, if he knew Aramaic, assumed Jesus was making a cry of despair but that would only be because the Roman soldier was ignorant of Jewish Scripture.

2nd, Heaven was NOT imperiled, there was no "risk", Jesus is not a "part" of God - all these concepts are anti-Trinitarian. 

 

Philippians 2:6-7 explains that Jesus emptied Himself in taking on human flesh. It's docetism to say that He couldn't have made a despairing cry. 

The full quote of Ellen White is that Christ risked all by taking on mortal flesh because of he had succumbed to temptation and sinned, He would have forfeited salvation for the whole world. 

[Humble Disciple]

Here is an article looking at quotes of Ellen White commonly used say she was not a Trinitarian:

http://www.ellenwhiteanswers.org/answers/mischarges/arianism/

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, Humble Disciple said:

 

Philippians 2:6-7 explains that Jesus emptied Himself in taking on human flesh. It's docetism to say that He couldn't have made a despairing cry. 

The full quote of Ellen White is that Christ risked all by taking on mortal flesh because of he had succumbed to temptation and sinned, He would have forfeited salvation for the whole world. 

The emptying of Himself had nothing to do with potency & everything to do with being humble. Christ didn't use / leverage the fact that He was God as a reason or excuse to not fulfil the Will of the Father. As Christians we are to emulate that behavior. You clearly lack even a surface level understanding of Docetism. According to you St. Chrysostom believed that Jesus humanity was at best an illusion. No, that's not how it works. 

The full quote of Ellen White is that Christ (along with the world) would have - went down the toilet. I'll provide some additional context so you can know I'm not joshing you. 

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

http://text.egwwritings.org/publicat...isLastResult=1

Ellen White, Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898
Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.”

Ellen White, Desire of Ages page 124
Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss.

This is Arianism. 

Scripture tells us that God knows the beginning to the end - God tells us early on in the Bible THE END. God doesn't fail, God's purposes don't fail. 

 

[Theophilus]

On 1/15/2022 at 12:26 PM, Gustave said:

 

A while back I read an article that was posted on this forum by a couple of SDA's (possibly Professors) that were promoting a methodology of interpretation whereas heavy emphasis was placed on the original hearers (as in what would the people who actually heard or read the Scriptures Understand the Apostles to be saying). 

In the case of a Jewish person familiar with the Jewish Scriptures at the time of the New Testament the message (type & anti-type) would have been deafening. 

A devout Jew would have known that God gave order that His "Word" was to be housed in the Ark - the construction of which was essentially the best of the best (acacia wood covered with gold inside & out). Jesus is otherwise known as "THE WORD OF GOD", "AND THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH", etc., etc. 

A devout Jew would have known from the Scriptures that a Devine cloud overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 40,35) so note would have certainly been taken when St. Luke ( 1, 35 ) said that Mary was overshadowed just like it was said of the Ark. 

A devout Jew would unequivocally know that David danced with all his might in front of the Ark so it would cause a Jews eyebrow to raise when St. Luke informs him that Elizabeth's baby while still in the womb leapt for joy when Elizabeth was standing next to Mary. David said something to the effect of HOW WAS IT that the Ark of the Lord came to him and Elizabeth says something stunningly similar to Mary. 

A devout Jew would have known that the Ark of the Covenant stayed in the house of Obed-edom for THREE MONTHS and ironically enough Mary stayed in the household of Elizabeth FOR THREE MONTHS. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed and we have Elizabeth stating the word blessed three times. 

A devout Jew would have known that Abu Ghosh (where the ark was taken) and Elizabeth home were the same area. 

A devout Jew would have known that the Ark of the Covenant held the ten commandments, the staff of Aaron and Manna which ironically lines up with Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant with Jesus, The Word made Flesh, Jesus being the true Priest and Jesus being the bread that came down from heaven. 

St. John would have given devout Jews another jaw dropper when he wrote in the Revelation that he saw "THE ARK IN HEAVEN". No one had seen the Ark for over 500 years by this time! John is saying he saw it in heaven. Read Revelation 11 and 12 realizing that chapters and verses were added much later - this is a narrative that continues. 

Revelation 11,19: And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. add Revelation 12 to this and realize if the Child is Jesus than Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. We're told that the dragon goes on to persecute the woman's OTHER CHILDREN. I'd say that those other Children are indeed Christians and if that's true that would make Mary what? 

 

The woman in Rev 12 is the church.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

12 minutes ago, Theophilus said:

The woman in Rev 12 is the church.

aa

"And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.  And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.  And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."

 

That sounds like a singular child being spoken of there - if that's true who would the woman be? 

[Theophilus]

the woman in prophecy is a church.

Our church has a great study on irev 12, and the resulting time the woman spent in the wilderness. (which shows it wasn't Mary.--she never did that)

I can give you a link

 

https://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-woman-dragon-Revelation-12-commentary

and here for the 1260day in the wilderness:

https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/the-1260-days-in-the-book-of-revelation/

 

 

[BlessedMan]

On 1/15/2022 at 10:19 AM, Humble Disciple said:

The article didn't even attempt to base itself in traditional Adventist teachings or the writings of Adventist pioneers. If the reason isn't Jesuit infiltration, then what is it? Is it blatant disrespect for Ellen White as a prophet or something else?

I KNOW there IS green cheese on the moon. I have seen it. 

[Gregory Matthews]

What you ate was 2nd hand leftovers from the previous person who visited and ate it all up.

 

[Humble Disciple]

I don't believe, word for word, that Ellen White was right about everything she ever said and did. But if you want to radically change Adventist doctrine and practice, you should be able to explain, from the Bible, why Ellen White was wrong about it. 

[Gustave]

21 hours ago, Theophilus said:

the woman in prophecy is a church.

Our church has a great study on irev 12, and the resulting time the woman spent in the wilderness. (which shows it wasn't Mary.--she never did that)

I can give you a link

 

https://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-woman-dragon-Revelation-12-commentary

and here for the 1260day in the wilderness:

https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/the-1260-days-in-the-book-of-revelation/

 

 

Mary, is the Mother of Christ, Christ is the head of the Church. The Church is made up of members so this isn't an either or sort of thing, it's both. Historically, there is no way out of it not being Mary - it's Mary - who images the Church. 

[BlessedMan]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

What you ate was 2nd hand leftovers from the previous person who visited and ate it all up.

 

I think you are right my friend...?

[BlessedMan]

On 1/15/2022 at 9:54 PM, Humble Disciple said:

It seems like you are just misconstruing her words. They don't need to be interpreted as against the Trinity.

I would agree with this. many times over the years I have seen one writer post stuff like this "about Ellen White" but when one looks into it more, it can be seen they are usually beautiful examples of cherry-picking. Comparing said quotes to Roman Catholic teachings as one means of "objecting to Ellen White," is typical. None of the quotes that anyone would wish to lift out of context can be a reliable indicator of anything.

But then, there are Madventists, Sadventists, Argueventists that feed right into it by also quoting quite out of context. Its kind of given the whole subject quite the taint.  Taint truth, taint error. Its just FOG.

Ellen White's advice:

"Use the scriptures FIRST, and always.

Its not hard to just stick to the scriptures to demonstrate the fallacy and adhominems in the Mary dogma of the Roman Catholic Church

Edited January 23, 2022 by BlessedMan
sp

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

I would agree with this. many times over the years I have seen one writer post stuff like this "about Ellen White" but when one looks into it more, it can be seen they are usually beautiful examples of cherry-picking. Comparing said quotes to Roman Catholic teachings as one means of "objecting to Ellen White," is typical. None of the quotes that anyone would wish to lift out of context can be a reliable indicator of anything.

But then, there are Madventists, Sadventists, Argueventists that feed right into it by also quoting quite out of context. Its kind of given the whole subject quite the taint.  Taint truth, taint error. Its just FOG.

Ellen White's advice:

"Use the scriptures FIRST, and always.

Its not hard to just stick to the scriptures to demonstrate the fallacy and adhominems in the Mary dogma of the Roman Catholic Church

 

Evidently ONLY when the Scriptures support SDA teachings.

 Ellen White
"We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God” (1SM 161; CW 32; The Early Elmshaven Years 426).
 

That explicitly is Ellen White saying EVEN Sacred Scripture is subject to distinctive SDA doctrines - unless you have a novel interpretation, you're willing to share with me. 

[BlessedMan]

On 1/16/2022 at 5:46 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

1)  SDA scholars agree that Ellen White in the early days of the developing SDA denomination was not a Trinitarian.  As far as I know, no serious SDA scholar debates that point. 

 

"Serious" SDA "scholars" do not all agree with this idea. This is an essential point to make here.

[BlessedMan]

On 1/22/2022 at 4:03 PM, Humble Disciple said:

I don't believe, word for word, that Ellen White was right about everything she ever said and did. But if you want to radically change Adventist doctrine and practice, you should be able to explain, from the Bible, why Ellen White was wrong about it. 

One reason you are correct here is simply that she was no different than any of us. She is just like anyone of us here posting about her. She was human. She did not claim to be a prophet, nor did she claim that everything she wrote was "prophecy."  As I mentioned earlier above, some have made her into something she is not, including those who would say "Adventists/EGW are "wrong."  Posting snippets and crumbs from her writings and magically making them to say what they actually do not say is simply cherry-picking, and adhominem  smoke screening. The distractions from the Bible, from God's Word, are rife amongst the pro and con side here. It will never end. Next thing that would have to be done here is to "prove" that the Bible is not the entire word of God. There are many things that some would add to the Bible, such as tradition, apologetics, Magisterium, and a few other Vatican "carrots" to lure the vegetarians in.

Quote

God's holy, educating Spirit is in His word. A light, a new and precious light, shines forth from every page. Truth is there revealed, and words and sentences are made bright and appropriate for the occasion, as the voice of God speaking to the soul.  {COL 132.2}

 

[BlessedMan]

On 1/15/2022 at 9:45 PM, Gustave said:

There are literally GOB'S of direct quotes. 

"The value of a soul, who can estimate? Would you know its worth, go to Gethsemane, and there watch with Christ through those hours of anguish, when He sweat as it were great drops of blood. Look upon the Saviour uplifted on the cross. Hear that despairing cry, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' Look upon the wounded head, the pierced side. the marred feet. Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled."

1st, Christ didn't make a despairing cry, He was quoting the 22nd Psalm. Any devout Jew who knew Scripture would have immediately realized Jesus was claiming Psalm 22 was referring to Him & that Psalm ends in vicrtory. Perhaps one of the Roman soldiers, if he knew Aramaic, assumed Jesus was making a cry of despair but that would only be because the Roman soldier was ignorant of Jewish Scripture.

2nd, Heaven was NOT imperiled, there was no "risk", Jesus is not a "part" of God - all these concepts are anti-Trinitarian. 

 

I guess this is fair enough for now Gustave. I appreciate your candor and sincerity in "sticking up for Jesus." I think its a bit of a stretch to try and say "all these concepts are anti-trinitarian." I have noticed for several years now your persistence in bringing up the anti-T thing, often, even when that is not the stated subject matter of the topic in question. Not sure why you do this. I was under the impression that this topic was about Mary?? Why do you feel the need to keep dredging up your anti-T stuff?