| Author | Message | ||
| Insearchof Registered user Username: Insearchof Post Number: 29 Registered: 8-2005 |
I was browsing the R/S forum and found this. There has been much back-and-forth over the issue of the Trinity, some (the majority including Pastor O'Ffill) for, some few against. As we do as Adventists, the question came up as to what EGW had to say about the Trinity some claiming that although she never used the word, she endorsed the concept. Ohters are adamant that the doctrine of the Trinity is a heresy adopted from the RCC. I found this quote posted today. I copied the entire email to keep the context: -------------------------------------------------- Why should I trust the White Estate, Pastor? We can read as well as they can. I know that she never used the word "trinity" to describe the Godhead. I also know she never used the word "triune" to describe it either. However, the word "trinity" did, in fact, appear in one of her writings: "The ìmystery of iniquityî began to work in the church in Paulís day. It finally crowded out the simplicity of the gospel, and corrupted the doctrine of Christ, and the church went into the wilderness. Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation. The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors. (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, February 7, 1856)" But if one does a search of the EGW estate website, they will not find this quote. How come? I know we have our enemies watching. This is an opportunity to show that we can openly discuss an issue within the church and remain unified. I want the truth as it is in Christ. Let us reason together.... -------------------------------------------------- I don't know where this quote comes from since apparently it cannot be found at the offical website. I thought all EGW's published works were accessible there? Is it possible that this is not her comment but someone else's? Just thought you might find it interesting... InSearchOf | ||
| Insearchof Registered user Username: Insearchof Post Number: 30 Registered: 8-2005 |
Just an FYI... This post was deleted from the R/S forum about 5 minutes after I copied it off. Since you can't go read it, it was posted by sdazeal InSearchOf InSearchOf | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1082 Registered: 7-2003  |
Insearchof, one of the true facts that few of us knew as Adventists is that much of EGW's works have been cleaned up. Problematic statements have beend deleted, rewritten, or repressed. A number of individuals have compared the oldest published works and letters with newer additions and have documented this fact. It would not suprise me at all if EGW made such an anti-trinitarian statement that has now been covered up. SDAZeal is correct, the early Adventists opposed the Trinity and were Arian in their views of Christ as a lesser created being. Even SDA scholars will acknowledge the SDA history of Arianism. The writings of EGW are the reason that modern SDAs are stuck with trying to defend calling Jesus "Michael the Archangel". I'm sure that the those who are most Biblically literate would love to get rid of this heresy, but it's too pervasive in EGW's sritings to completely excise it. Chris | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 377 Registered: 7-2004  |
Several places reference this as a James White quote, not Ellen. http://smyrna.org/Books/ff/ff_html/FF16.htm http://www.restorationministry.com/Open_Face/html/pre_2000/open_face_june_1997.htm http://www.sdarm.net/issues/godhead.htm So in this case Ellen is off the hook. And there is no apparent conspiracy on the part of the EGW Estate. | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 234 Registered: 6-2001  |
I googled the pertinant phrase from the quote, and apparently the quote was made by James White and not Ellen, according to the following site: http://omega77.tripod.com/bledsoelandmarksabandoned.htm The site is still a good read because it also is attempting to prove that EGW was not a trinitarian, although the purpose of its argument is to elminate the Trinity doctrine from Adventism. "Who does Ellen ultimately give the credit to the building of the early SDA Churchís foundational doctrines? To the Master Worker, God himself. Now to review, the Alpha and the coming Omega dealt with the doctrine of God. This doctrine would be against the Pillars of the SDA faith, which had been held for over fifty years (1844-1904). The foundation was laid by men like James White, Elder Edsen, Uriah Smith, Joseph Bates, and Ellen White herself. Now friends I ask, Has the Churchís Doctrine concerning God changed after the death of Ellen White in 1915? What did the pioneers believe, and what does the church teach today about the Godhead? JOSEPH BATES: Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being. I said to my father, "If you can convince me that we are one in this sense, that you are my father, and I your son, and also that I am my father, and you my son, then I can believe in the trinity."Ö In a few days I was immersed and joined the Christian Church.---Joseph Bates, The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates (Battle Creek, Mich.: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868). URIAH SMITH: Mr. Smith was strongly anti-trinity. The 1899 edition "Thoughts on the Book of Daniel and the Revelation" by Uriah Smith states: "Others, however, and more properly we think, take the word to mean "agent" or "efficient cause," which is one of the definitions of the word, understanding that Christ is the agent through whom God has created all things, but that he himself came into existence in a different manner, as he is called "the only begotten" of the Father. It would seem utterly inappropriate to apply this expression to any being created in the ordinary sense of the term." The Southern Publishing Association in the 1944 revision excluded the Semi-Arian view from this work. The statement now reads: "Others, however, and more properly we think, take the word, arche, to mean the "agent" or "efficient cause," which is one of the definitions of the word, understanding that Christ is the agent through whom God has created all things." (*Note: there were almost another dozen changes preformed to this book to remove any anti-Trinitarian statements. This is the process that has been performed on all the writings of the pioneers; in order to make them appear pro-trinitarian. The following quote shows exactly what Uriah Smith believed about the Godhead.) But respecting this Spirit, the Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonized with the idea that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shown to be a divine influence from them both, the medium which represents their presence and by which they have knowledge and power through all the universe, when not personally present. Uriah Smith, "In the Question Chair," Review and Herald, LXVII (October 28, 1890), 664. Note by Ron Beaulieu: Before the Incarnation the Holy Spirit was a divine influence. After the Incarnation, it was still the divine influence of the Father and the Son, but more specifically the impartation of the life of Christ that He laid aside as His crowing gift and regenerating agency for us at His Incarnation. In this sense it was also the life of Christ prior to His Incarnation and after His glorification that life is sent to all who subscribe to it by yielding the will to His Holy Spirit, to wit: "The Holy Spirit is the breath of spiritual life in the soul. The impartation of the Spirit is the impartation of the life of Christ. It imbues the receiver with the attributes of Christ. Only those who are thus taught of God, those who possess the inward working of the Spirit, and in whose life the Christ-life is manifested, are to stand as representative men, to minister in behalf of the church." Desire of Ages, 805. End Note by Ron Beaulieu. JAMES WHITE: James White, prior to becoming an Adventist, was an ordained minister of the Christian Connection, which held an anti-trinitarian doctrine. He clearly shows here that he held to the semi-arian belief by denying both the Trinity and the Unitarian doctrines. "The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, ëlet us make man in our image?í " - James White, Review and Herald, November 29, 1877 The "mystery of iniquity" began to work in the church in Paulís day. It finally crowded out the simplicity of the gospel, and corrupted the doctrine of Christ, and the church went into the wilderness. Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation. The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors. (James White, February 7, 1856, Review & Herald, vol. 7, no. 19, page 148, par. 26) James White was editor of the Review and Herald in 1861. In November of that year, he published J. N. Loughboroughís answer to the question, "what serious objection is there to the doctrine of the trinity?" Loughborough replied: There are many objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the following: 1. It is contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to Scripture. 3. Itís origin is Pagan and fabulous. Review and Herald, XVIII (November 5, 1861), 184 D.M. CANRIGHT: Christ came into existence first of all thingsÖMy grounds for this proposition are John i:1,2; Col. i, 17; Prov. viii, 22, 30. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. the same was in the beginning with God." Here, the existence of the Word, or Christ, is placed as far back as language can place it, even in the beginning with the great God. D. M. Canright, "Jesus Christ the Son of God," Review and Herald, III (June 18, 1867), J.H.WAGGONER: Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the atonement, by bringing this sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of socinianism." J. H. Waggoner, The Atonement (Oakland, Cal.: Pacific Press, 1884), p. 174. " ....the great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, is this: they make no distinction between a denial of a trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the preexistence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a trinity."- J. H. Waggoner, Review and Herald, November 10, 1863 And what of Ellen White? As Kellogg took bits and pieces of her work to make it look like she supported his doctrine, those who brought in the Omega heresy have done the same. How can one ever believe Ellen was a Trinitarian, when history so clearly declares that her husband and all the pioneers of the SDA Church were semi-arian? She was married to her husband for 35 years and never once did she rebuke him for his belief. Never once did she ever teach against the semi-arian doctrine. In fact, she never used the term trinity, and she taught decidedly against it. "The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that He migh in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon His Son.... The Father then made known that it was ordained by Himself that Christ His Son, should be equal with Himself; so that wherever was the presence of His Son, it was as His own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son He had invested with authority to command the heavenly host." - E.G. White, the Story of Redemption, p.13." Umm I just realized that quote is really long. But it is really good! Quotingly, Hannah | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2989 Registered: 12-2003  |
So true. And, InSearchOf, EGW's anti-trinitarian views underly the confusion that persists to this day in SDAism over the nature of Christ. While the church has tried to reframe its official beliefs to sound "mainstream" regarding Christ's sinless nature (Norm Gulley in the early 1980's did much to help this cause), they still can't completely abandon confusion. Until the early 50's when Walter Martin began scrutinizing the church, SDAs actively taught that Jesus was born with a sinful nature. In the Adventist mind, Jesus has always been diminished, less-than-sovereign, less-than-the-Father, etc. Ellen wrote many spurious things about Jesus, many of them much later than the 1856 quote you shared above! Colleen | ||
| Insearchof Registered user Username: Insearchof Post Number: 31 Registered: 8-2005 |
I wondered if it might have actually been James White's statement. I know some SDAs that have no real problem with the fact that most of the pioneers were anti-Trinitarian (remember, truth is progressive!) as long as it wasn't EGW. Never mind the fact that she never corrected their wrong thinking... I realize all too well the issue with the nature of Christ within Adventism. I was a diehard believer that Christ took Adam's post fall nature - how else could He 'be like us?'. I have since let that view go. InSearchOf | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1083 Registered: 7-2003 |
Here's an interesting quote I found on the EGW Estate Website in an article entitled, "Hermeneutical Principles in the E. G. White Writings":
Chris | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1041 Registered: 3-2005 |
InSearchOf, You hit the nail on the head with your last post. Just the fact that EGW did not have a vision from God correcting these heretical anti-trinitarian pioneers, including her own husband proves beyond any doubt that she was not a true prophet of God. The Trinity is the very basis of Christian doctrine and salvation, because all three persons in one God actively worked and still work in guaranteeing our salvation. Stan | ||
| Insearchof Registered user Username: Insearchof Post Number: 32 Registered: 8-2005 |
Stan, You are correct. I was thinking about that very thing after I posted it. One would think that one of two things would have to happen if she was in fact a messenger of God: 1. She corrects the erroneous views of her husband (as well as Joseph Bates, Uriah Smith, and others), or 2. She confirms that what they believe is correct and speaks out against the doctrine of the Trinity. As it stands now, both sides use her arguments for and against each other. It is interesting to me that I have Adventists make a specific point of saying that EGW did not preach anti-Trinitarianism, but others say she never used the word 'Trinity', therefore that proves she was not corrupted by the doctrine of the RCC. I never really noticed before how we (speaking as an Adventist) danced all around the things she wrote to make them say what we want or need them to say depending on our particular theological construct.... InSearchOf |
