Ellen White statements attacking the Trinity or advancing Arian or Semi-Arian views.

[Gregory Matthews]

The book of 27 that you reference dev0tes about 60 pages to discussing the Godhead.  In checking with my copy, I am unable to determine your point of reference.  Please provide.  

Many people misunderstand the book and consider the entire book to be a statement of the official beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, which is false.  I illustrate from the third chapter, which runs for about 8-pages, and is devoted to God the Father.

The first page contains only a very short paragraph of about 50 words.  Those 50-words and the officially voted statement of Fundamental Belief.   It is only those words that contain the official belief of the SDA Church.  Each chapter in the book begins with a page that contains only the officially voted belief.

The main part which follows contains a discussion of that official belief.  It contains a statement as to how the author understands that official belief.  While this may (?) be a general understanding among the members, it is not an official statement of belief and may not reflect the diversity of belief that actually exists withing Adventism.

I will illustrate with a comment related to the Sabbath.  The official statement (page 248) states that the Sabbath goes from sunset to sunset.  That is generally accepted by SDAs.  But diversity exists.  I was once a member of a congregation that observed the Sabbath from 6 PM to 6 PM.  He was accepted and a faithful member.  In addition, SDAs who live in certain areas far North are clearly divided on this point of doctrine.  SDA members who live there observe the Sabbath in about three different time periods.  All are accepted.

[Gustave]

Quote

Page 85: The Bible indicates that some people have seen "parts" of God's person. Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders saw his feet (Ex 24:9-11). Although He refused to show His face, after covering Moses with His hands God revealed His back to him......................."

At no point did Judaism understand the Biblical anthropomorphic descriptions of God to be literal and additionally the statements found on page 85 are literally identical to those statements found in the numerous articles in the Sabbath Herald during the time where SDA belief in God The Father having a body with parts was mandatory and non-negotiable. After-all Ellen White classified this very Doctrine as one of the Pillars of Seventh-day Adventism. 

I understand that I'm hailing from a different Faith tradition but in this area, I share the identical Trinity Doctrine with the Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, etc. I hold that God is one "Being" (spirit) and that somehow within this single spiritual substance exist 3 Divine Persons (Father, Son & Holy Spirit). I hold it impossible that one of these Divine Persons could eternally cease to exist due to 1 or more of the Persons committing an act that is contrary to the 1 Nature. 

As I've often said one could ask a million SDA's if it could be possible that God the Father be destroyed by some type of a catastrophic event (such as a super-nova of a star) or a lapse in holiness for any reason. The answer would be a definite NO. However, despite this SDA's (or any member of an Adventist group - such as a Christadelphian, JW's, etc) would immediately agree that Jesus could have sinned, lost His Salvation and eternally ceased to exist. Admittedly I disagree with this sort of concept of "God". 

I don't have any issues with SDA's devotion to the Sabbath. As to the timing I would disagree that the Sabbath day Moses observed was what is considered Sabbath by Jews and SDA's today. I believe that a Biblical day starts in the morning and that this was altered by the Jewish religious authority in an effort to better protect against the breaking of the Sabbath. Still, I have zero issues with SDA's devotion to the Sabbath. 

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I am now beginning to understand where you are coming from. l That section of the book is not officially voted doctrine.  I will acknowledge that it presents a view that is probably held by many SDAs.  However, I will state that the idea that God had internal digestive organs which included organs of excrement, goes well beyond what I would consider to be a position of SDA members.  

I will also point out that many members would suggest that cited passages are simply God presenting to humans in a form that was familiar to them, and not a reality.  That has always been the understanding that I have had to include my understanding as I grew up.  I was not educated to think of such representing the reality of God.   

In my early education in SDA schools, my education suggested to me that to be created in the image of God was very imprecise and did not suggests that God looked like me.   Rather it suggested to me that it meant that in the original creation back in Edon, humanity was created in a sinless perfection such as God is, but without the powers of God.

NOTE:  I have spoken to my wife about this.  The above is exactly how she was taught as a child and in SDA schools.

 

[Gustave]

12 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I am now beginning to understand where you are coming from. l That section of the book is not officially voted doctrine.  I will acknowledge that it presents a view that is probably held by many SDAs.  However, I will state that the idea that God had internal digestive organs which included organs of excrement, goes well beyond what I would consider to be a position of SDA members.  

I will also point out that many members would suggest that cited passages are simply God presenting to humans in a form that was familiar to them, and not a reality.  That has always been the understanding that I have had to include my understanding as I grew up.  I was not educated to think of such representing the reality of God.   

In my early education in SDA schools, my education suggested to me that to be created in the image of God was very imprecise and did not suggests that God looked like me.   Rather it suggested to me that it meant that in the original creation back in Edon, humanity was created in a sinless perfection such as God is, but without the powers of God.

Glad to hear you say what you did about the image of God not meaning God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit were 3 separate Beings) that had bodies or "parts". You are indeed rare as literally every SDA I've ever pressed about these matters have been explicit that The Father looks like a human with "parts".  You've the same concept that I have. 

I totally agree with you about the Bible portraying God in language that's familiar to us as it would be difficult if God were portrayed as a giant praying mantis or something along those lines. Based off what I could find in SDA publications the last militant proclamation heralding "The Personality of God" was in 1923 -  SDA promotion of that pillar doctrine seems to really grind to a halt after that time despite Ellen White's position that it was a pillar doctrine that could not be moved while she was alive.

So, in a book such as the fundamental beliefs how is one to know what official Doctrine of SDA is and is not? I thought the whole book constituted official SDA belief. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave asked:  "So, in a book such as the fundamental beliefs how is one to know what official Doctrine of SDA is and is not? I thought the whole book constituted official SDA belief."

That is a very fair question.  In actual fact, many SDA members consider the entire book to reflect official SDA beliefs.  The result of this is that people who disagree with some element of the discussion in the Chapters are often considered to not be "true" Adventists who must fully accept all beliefs.

To start to answer the question raised: Writing in the November 28, 1991 edition of the Adventist Review. Calvin B. Rock,  in the article, "Doctrines, Teachings, and Policies, specified important differences in SDA Thought:

Doctrines are authoritative tenets or fundamental beliefs voted by the world church in formal session.

Teachings are position that have high value, but have not been formally voted.  They are not tests of fellowship.

Policies are not theological statements, but are rules of organization and structure.

Guidelines tell us how to implement policy.

https://adventistdigitallibrary.org/adl-355953/adventist-review-november-28-1991

NOTE:  In the interest of space, my citations from the above article have been slightly edited and are not exactly as written in the article.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In posted comments, reference has been made to the 27 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists.  My comments refer to that book, published in 1988.  It should be noted that in 2015 a book of 28 Fundamental Beliefs was published.  At succeeding General Conference Sessions, further revisions have been suggested but not accepted.

The book of 27 contains three statements, consisting of 5 pages that explain what the book is about.  In short, they all clearly state that the book is not intended to be a formal creed.  It is from that perspective that each of the 27 chapters begins with a page that only contains the officially voted SDA belief.  There is no other discussion on that page.  The chapter that follows, is an extended discussion as to how that official statement of belief is understood to be Biblical and how it is understood among the Adventist members.  

The Baptismal Vows historically are a listing of the 13 statements of belief that we said potential members should believe in order to become a member.  Those vows require a belief in Spiritual Gifts, but do not require a belief in Ellen White on any level.

In more recent times, the Baptismal Vows have included a second version that has been shorted to three statements of belief.  Adventists are divided as to what that set of three actually require.

It should be noted that SDA members often treat the 27/28 as a creed in violation of its original intention.  This includes, in my understanding, the position of our current President.  If I am correct, he is clearly outside of the intention of the authors of those books and lacks voted authority for it to be true that they are a creed.

 

[Gustave]

I think the difficulty I'm having comes from those things I've read from Ellen White. 

Is it not true that Ellen claimed to have been given information from God pertaining to the upper management events subsequent to Adam & Eve's fall? I remember something about Ellen White saying that "God" rejected Michael the Archangel's plan about incarnating as a man twice but on the 3rd attempt God agreed Michael could come to earth and attempt to vindicate God from Lucifer's charge that humans were not able to keep the commandments. This, on its face indicates that [according to Ellen White] God is a separate "Being" from Michael the Archangel (potential Christ) and The Holy Spirit (who would be another separate "Being". 

The above is such a radical departure from the Methodist confession of "God" that it can't be attributed to an oversight or simple misunderstanding. I base this understanding off of the multiple times the Sabbath Herald lambasted the Methodist official Doctrinal affirmation that God was 1 undivided Spiritual Substance without body or parts. 

[Gustave, to enhance understanding my reference, I will post here a comment on the above.  I can not imagine that Ellen White ever claimed such events ever happened in heaven.  I do not have any idea as to where you might  have gotten such an idea.  However, I do not dispute any suggestion that you might make as to Ellen White, in her early life, held to some heretical (Arian) ideas related to the Trinity.  That is clearly accurate, although the exact nature of those beliefs can be debated.  Her husband came out of the so-called Christian Connection, which clearly held to Arian beliefs. Yes, there is also room for debate as to the extent to  which she changed her understanding of the Trinity over her life-time.  Ellen White was a human being who was imperfect in her understanding off Biblical teachings and she grew in faith just as you and I must do.  She was human--Gregory Matthews.]

If as Ellen White (and SDA teaching posits):

Ellen White
The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one. {8T 269.4}

How could there be such a divergence in views that Michael the archangel had to "plead" with "God" 3 times for a shot at saving humanity?  At the minimum this doesn't look like being one in "mind". It would be easier to explain this had there not been such militant documentation in the Sabbath Herald and other SDA publications throughout Ellen White's life - especially that brutally anti-Trinitarian article Ellen herself revised and edited in 1878 where God having a body and "parts" is such an important issue to SDA theology and is so clearly expressed. 

Signs of the Time April 2, 1940
It is VITAL for every Christian TO KNOW that Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned. The Master was not beyond the clutches of temptation. The Heaven-sent Gift could have been eternally lost and the doom of humanity would have been eternally sealed. Jesus Christ knew the pull of evil. "In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."

I've already posted the scores of quotes from Ellen White that asserts the same as the above 1940 Sabbath Herald, so I won't take up space here posting them again. It is impossible that "God" (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) could cease to exist because God is one Being - you can't have the Father without the Son or the Holy Spirit without the Son or any other combination you can think of. It is impossible that "the heaven sent gift could have been eternally lost". I say this because God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) swore this wouldn't happen and that it couldn't happen - the guarantee of victory before the Incarnation is literally half of the Gospel message itself. 

Quote

1st Corinthians 15, 1 - :  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Quote

Acts 2, 30:  Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

I've now found over 160 explicit references that affirm zero possibility of failure and 100% success in what Isaiah 35, 4 states. "God Himself will come and save you". I don't belabor these things to take pot shots, I mention them because I honestly and firmly believe them to be true - "God" really did come and save us and there was never any possibility of a lapse in nature (i.e. the possibility of sinning) or cosmic disaster (such as God being to close to an exploring star or black hole that could have negated Isaiah 35,4. 

The only way the religious rubric of the Father remaining subsequent to the Son eternally ceasing to exist is if the SDA Pioneers (and Ellen White's prophetic endorsement of the anti-Trinitarian Pioneers) was right, that God was a separate Being from Christ and the Holy Spirit thereby providing the possibility of the Christ failing and eternally becoming as if He never existed in the first place giving birth to a disturbing future whereby "God" and the Holy Spirit go off to sulk somewhere in the universe while Lucifer gloats and parades himself about. I just don't see it. 

I know SDA Scholars claim the difference between their version of the Trinity and Historic Christianity is about impassability but the reality is they are forced to hold that God is a tight collection of 3 Beings who are mostly united in mind, character and purpose (excepting the time where one Being had to plead / argue with another Being 3 times before the 1 Being got His way. I'll admit I'm having a difficult time seeing how these concepts are Trinitarian. 

[Gustave, I am not going to suggest that Ellen White and you are in agreement on every aspect of what you have posted above.  I think that part of the issue here relates to the nature of Christ.  You and I will both agree that Christ was in some strange manner fully God and fully human.  From that perspective, God can not (Does not) sin and God can not die.  However, humanity can sin and die.  I think that we will both agree on that.  How that works out in the nature of Christ,  fully God and fully human, is something that I find  impossible to understand.   Perhaps your better understand it.  In any case, I think that this lack of full understanding is at the core of our stated differences--Gregory Matthews.]

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I have placed some responses to Gustave inside his post.  Please read his post again to see my responses.

*The Bible is inerrant, my understanding of the Bible is not.

*  Ellen White's understanding of the Bible was not inerrant.  I could provide you with multiple instances of her changing her doctrinal views over her lifetime.  The spiritual life of every human does not lead them to an inerrant understanding of all that God has for them to know during the period of their human life.  In eternity humans will increase their understanding of God well beyond what they have learned in their  human life.

 

[Gustave]

I'll clarify what I mean a little better. 

Quote

He became subject to temptation, endangering as it were, His divine attributes. Satan sought, by the constant and curious devices of his cunning, to make Christ yield to temptation.” (Ellen G. White, Letter 5, 1900, as quoted in the Seventh-day Adventists Bible Commentary Volume 7 page 926)

Christ's "divine attributes" were endangered, this precludes that Mrs. White was speaking of the "human nature" side of the hypostatic union - she considered (and stated such) that the divine and human natures were "blended" into the person Jesus Christ.  

Quote

“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.

While on earth, had Christ "stumbled" or waddled into the tar pit of sin His Deity COULD BE lost. This is speaking of the Divine Nature (which is none other than God). 

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

Heaven itself was imperiled because whatever it was that Ellen White believed Christ was [prior to the incarnation] was "risked" in that if failure would have been realized 1 "part" of God would have been eternally exterminated - this is why the risk was said to be realized by Christ prior to Him Incarnating into the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Ihave removed my post as it contained factual errors.

[Gustave]

Here is the link for the that 1st Ellen White quote: Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 15 (1900) — Ellen G. White Writings / when I hover over the link it says "EGQ SDA Bible Commentary Volume 7, page 926.5 / EGW SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7 — Ellen G. White Writings

When

Is this the one that was in question? 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

I found a .pdf online for the Commentary. 

SDA Bible Commentary VOL 7.pdf

If you do a search for "Divine Attributes" the page with the quote will appear. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I have researched the post that Gustave made:

*  I have found it on the EGW website.

* I have also located it on page 926 of the 1980 edition of vol. 7, of the 1980 SDA Bible Commentary.

* I have therefore removed a previous post of mine which contained factual errors.

No informed person challenges the proposition that Ellen White was incorrect in her view of a Biblical teaching. She was human.  She grew spiritually over time as we also should do.  I could list multiple examples in her writings in which she developed her views over time and made changes in them.  No informed person could challenge the idea that in her early life, she held so-called heretical views on the Trinity.  Over time, she made changes in her understanding of the Trinity.  She likely held some of her erly views due to the fact that her husband, and some other early SDA leaders, came from the so-called Chrisian Connection, which is thought today to have held Arian views on the Trinity.   Some aspects of this are subject to debate among SDA scholars.  I will not attempt to settle those issues.  I simply point out that I have found the citation that Gustave referenced and therefore I have removed a post that I made which contained some factual errors.

 

[Gustave]

Pastor Matthews you indeed are a class act! Something tells me if they had sent you to Sweeden for cloning the SDA Church would today have more members. 

I'm certainly no expert on contemporary SDA theological matters but I believe myself competent on basic SDA belief between 1844 - 1940. My musings on this time period are fairly simple.

During the time Ellen White was claiming that God had rejected the world for rejecting the 1844 message Ellen White and the leadership of the SDA Church were militantly promulgating Anti-Trinitarianism. I find it difficult to believe that God would use an abstract tiny group of [admitted] heretics in a tiny geographical area on the east coast to herald a Gospel message that ran contrary to what was plainly stated in Scripture. 

1st Corinthians 15 says that of 1st importance is the Gospel and the 1st importance is that  (1) Jesus came and died for our sins according to the Scriptures AND (2) that on the 3rd day He was raised from the dead ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES.

It's hard to imagine God would use a lie (that Jesus was returning in 1844) and judge people for rejecting that message, harder yet is it to process that a tiny fraction of the Millerite movement which promulgated militant anti-Trinitarianism came up with a different event for 1844 - an event which was different than originally advertised and again the people who rejected this new idea were rebuked by God and under the influence of Satan? 

In any event I do appreciate the kindness this forum has extended to me in it's allowing me to put forward what I believe. It's not unnoticed. 

[Gregory Matthews]

One of my basic understandings, is that God uses imperfect people to do His will.  I do not expect perfection in myself, in the leadership of the SDA Church, in the members of the SDA Church.  I do not expect perfection in the other leadership and members of the Christian community.

I can believe that God has given imperfect organizations a specific task, mission, ministry to perform in a specific time and place.  I do not exclude other Christian groups from such.  God is a God of truth.  If I am to be faithful in representing Him, I must also acknowledge truth, wherever it leads.  It is from that perspective that I removed my previous post.  It contained factual errors.  It is in the same sense that I believe that you are an honest person, Gustave.  Let no one misunderstand me, I do not believe that Gustave is correct in all that he states.  We have our differences, but I am OK in engaging in civil discussions of them.  It is from that perspective that Club Adventist exists:  To engage in civil discussions of our differences.

With 22,000,000 SDA members, we are not solely able to provide the witness to the world that God wants to be made.  God has to be using others, on some levels, at the present time, to do what God wants done.  In many ways, the Church of God on Earth today is made up of Christians of very diverse backgrounds.  That is actually SDA teaching.

 

[Gustave]

Quote

Hanseng said: I have not noted any explicit Arian remarks by EGW, similar to those made by J.H. Waggoner, Smith, Canright, Stephenson or others. You haven't provided any. Respectable SDA scholars say that there aren't any. You remind me of a sea kayaker who developed a stirrup for reentering his boat during open water touring. He shopped it around but other recognized experts in the field did not see the merit in his system.

My apologies Hanseng, I evidently didn't read what you said closely enough - Although my response is late here is some information for your edification. 

1st, 

James White publicly affirmed that the Spirit of Prophecy was incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. By this time (June 13, 1871) Ellen had been exercising the gift of prophecy for nearly 27 years and James was not pulling any punches when he said, 

James White ( Ellen's husband )
"We invite all to compare THE TESTIMONIES of the Holy Spirit THROUGH Mrs. White with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The TRINITARIAN may compare them with his creed, and because THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, CONDEMN them [ the testimonies of Mrs. White ]. The Adventist Review & Sabbath Herald June 13, 1871

There simply isn't any way out of concluding that Ellen White's testimonies of the Holy Spirit were incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine as found in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox & Protestant Creeds. SDA's, after the SDA Church was formally started had the exact same BEEF with the Trinity Doctrine as did the subgroup of anti-Trinitarians prior to the official founding of the Seventh-day Adventist Church & this BEEF was well documented. To save time I'll simply say that the BEEF the Adventists (including Ellen) had with the Trinity Doctrine was that "it destroyed the personality of God". This fact is so well attested to it would be foolish to attempt to dispute it. 

As I've already well documented what the Adventist Personality of God Doctrine meant to SDA's and how Ellen White taught that the personality of God Doctrine was THE Pillar of the Seventh-day Adventist Faith. Ellen additionally issued warnings to those individuals who accepted her role as a prophet and a conduit for the Holy Spirit to be on their guard against ANY teaching that denied this landmark, pillar Doctrine which the SDA Church was founded upon. 

“I entreat every one to be clear and firm regarding the certain truths that we have heard and received and advocated. The statements of God's Word are plain. Plant your feet firmly on the platform of eternal truth. Reject every phase of error, even though it be covered with a semblance of reality, which denies the personality of God and of Christ.” {RH, August 31, 1905 par. 11}

Sabbath Herald October 8, 1903

OF late the question has repeatedly come to me, Does it make any real difference whether we believe in the personality of God, as long as we believe in God? My answer invariably is, It depends altogether upon the standpoint from which we view it. If from the Spiritualist's, -the Christian Scientist's, the Universalist's, or if from the standpoint of any other " ist" or " ism," it makes but little or no difference. But from the standpoint of Seventh-day Adventists it makes all the difference in the world. Second^ At the creation God said to Christ, " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen. 1: 26, 27. Man bore the image of God both morally and physically; for -after man sinned, we 'read 'that Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." Gen. 5:3. Here is an explanation of the words " image " and "- likeness." As Seth bore both the physical and the moral nature of Adam, so Adam bore the physical and the moral likeness of God. Neither was this image of God which man bore a mere concept; for the Bible declares that the Lord has parts, the same as the human body. Therefore we repeat what we previously said, To deny the personality of God, is to deny the existence of the sanctuary in the heavens

So, to get to my point and directly address your question I'll refer you to the August 29, 1878 Sabbath Herald (Volume 52 No. 10) and read for yourself how D.M. Canright walks the readers of the Sabbath Herald through on just what exactly the personality of God Doctrine is and how its primary purpose is to combat the Papal Doctrine of the Trinity which had been adopted by the Protestant Churches. RH18780829-V52-10.pdf

It would be pointless to argue that the above Sabbath Herald personality of God article wasn't the most articulate and venomous polemic against the basic elements of the Trinity Doctrine to ever appear in an official SDA publication & a week prior to that personality of God article the same Sabbath Herald paper credits Ellen White as directly participating in the article's revision after enjoying many worshipping sessions with Mr. Canright "at the family altar". That's right, Ellen White revised / edited Canright's article prior to its publication in the Sabbath Herald. 

 

Here is the definition of revision: REVISION Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

So, in closing you'd have to pour in a new and alien meaning to "the personality of God Doctrine", "Pillar of SDA faith" & the word "revision" to argue that Ellen White didn't make the same exact kinds of anti-Trinitarian (and VERY Arian) statements found in Adventist publications between 1854 through to well after Ellen passing in 1915.