SDA please explain the failed prediction of Ellen White (SDA Prophet)

[tall73]

Which is full-on Tritheism, basically, as opposed to one God, with one divine essence, abiding in three persons with three hypostases, that of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son and Word of God, uniting in it both the divine nature of God with the created nature of humanity, so that fallen man might be restored and glorified and remade in the image of God through His redemptive work on the Cross, which is the orthodox doctrine of the traditional Christian churches such as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Assyrians, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, traditional Methodists, most Calvinists, and so on.

Yes, the later statements essentially are tritheistic. Her earlier statements have the Son as the only "being" that can enter into all the counsels of God, and next to him in rank is satan.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Which is full-on Tritheism, basically, as opposed to one God, with one divine essence, abiding in three persons with three hypostases, that of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son and Word of God, uniting in it both the divine nature of God with the created nature of humanity, so that fallen man might be restored and glorified and remade in the image of God through His redemptive work on the Cross, which is the orthodox doctrine of the traditional Christian churches such as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Assyrians, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, traditional Methodists, most Calvinists, and so on.

Quite true, which is why the SDA has been viewed as being on the fringe of orthodox Christianity, at best.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, the later statements essentially are tritheistic. Her earlier statements have the Son as the only "being" that can enter into all the counsels of God, and next to him in rank is satan.

That’s even more problematic from a Christological perspective.

 

[BobRyan]

Curiously, I don't find them in my copy of the ten commandments in Exodus 20, so I guess they are merely suggestions or, perhaps, recommendations.

WE don't claim that the TEN are the only commandments of God in the moral law of God found in scripture.
Most Christian denominations affirm this point.

 

[BobRyan]

@bbbbbbb

Another quote:

Special Testimonies, Series B, 7 -- SpTB07

The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fulness 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 fulness 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.

Compare:

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

one God Deut 6:4 in THREE Persons Matt 28:19

Such that in John 17 -- Jesus is not "praying to Himself"

 

[BobRyan]

So now we are back to the question asked by the other poster, @bbbbbbb. Which other commandments do you include with the ten and why?

Some people get stuck on opposing one or more of the TEN.
If you find a conversation here where that is not the case - we can get to the next step because obviously SDAs affirm distinctions in Lev 11, the commandments in Deut 6:5 , Lev 19:18 etc

 

[Leaf473]

Some people get stuck on opposing one or more of the TEN.
If you find a conversation here where that is not the case - we can get to the next step because obviously SDAs affirm distinctions in Lev 11, the commandments in Deut 6:5 , Lev 19:18 etc

Peace be with you, Bob, my man

Disagreement does not prevent anyone from quoting scripture.

The official SDA website does not say what those other commandments are. (If they do, please post the link.)

Why quote the scriptures? Because "all scripture is... beneficial."

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Timothy 3:16 - New American Standard Bible

All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness;

www.biblegateway.com

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, the later statements essentially are tritheistic. Her earlier statements have the Son as the only "being" that can enter into all the counsels of God, and next to him in rank is satan.

Not entirely correct since in the more full context she rejects "three gods" and states that the Holy Spirit is fully God and is not excluded -- so then SDAs believe it is the Triune Godhead and next to that in rank is Lucifer the highest of the created beings. ONE God in three persons - not THREE GODS - obviously.

See how much of a difference it makes when one who actually believes SDA doctrine gives the view that SDAs have of a given topic.

I think that is very "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader that honestly want to know what SDAs believe rather than how this-or-that could be spun in a direction that almost no SDAs accept.

 

[BobRyan]

The official SDA website does not say what those other commandments are. (If they do, please post the link.)

The official SDA doctrine teaches that all 66 books are inspired scripture, the Word of God, and that the animal sacrifices , offerings ended at the cross as Heb 10 says. Civil laws end with the theocracy and ceremonial laws end with the priesthood and sacrifices (as almost all denominations teach as well)(

Interesting that I think this was stated for Leaf a few dozen times at this point - but I like that he is so interested in getting this message out in as many threads as possible.

 

[tall73]

Not entirely correct since in the more full context she rejects "three gods" and states that the Holy Spirit is fully God and is not excluded --

Here is the chapter Bob. Please show us the full context for the statement that shows the Holy Spirit is fully God and not excluded. Because the statement lists one "being" that can enter the counsels and purposes of God.

The Great Controversy, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 29: The Origin of Evil

It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence. Yet enough may be understood concerning both the origin and the final disposition of sin to make fully manifest the justice and benevolence of God in all His dealings with evil.

www.ellenwhite.info

Before the entrance of evil there was peace and joy throughout the universe. All was in perfect harmony with the Creator's will. Love for God was supreme, love for one another impartial. Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,—one in nature, in character, and in purpose,—the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. By Christ the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings. "By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, . . . whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" (Colossians 1:16); and to Christ, equally with the Father, all heaven gave allegiance.

Ellen White says Christ is the only "being" in the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. Even if she is using "being" in the sense of "person" in the traditional formula, she is missing a person in that statement. So how do you get from Christ being the only being that enters into the counsels and purposes of God, to there being Three in One? This statement ruled that out.

Now if by full context you mean some years later she started acknowledging the Holy Spirit as one of three "powers", or part of the "trio" or the three "dignitaries", etc. and indicated the Holy Spirit has a personality, and that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead, then yes, that is true. But those later statements cannot match up with statements like the above, which are not compatible with Trinitarianism.

In her early statements, while she mentioned the Holy Spirit, for instance, descending at Jesus' baptism, etc. she did not attribute to the Spirit a peronality, etc., or indicate that the Holy Spirit was part of the God head.

But it is not just a matter of not mentioning it. If Jesus is the only "being" that can enter into the counsels and purposes of God, then

a. the term "being" is used in a meaning similar to "person" in the traditional formula, but you only have two persons

b. The term "being" is used in a different way, and "God" and "Christ" are two separate beings.

See how much of a difference it makes when one who actually believes SDA doctrine gives the view that SDAs have of a given topic.

I think that is very "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader that honestly want to know what SDAs believe rather than how this-or-that could be spun in a direction that almost no SDAs accept.

Numerical acceptance of one view or the other is not what was highlighted. There were a number of non-Trinitiarian SDA's in early SDA history. There are still some today. And there were even some posting on this forum for a time, but I don't think they are here any longer. And there are still anti-Trinitarian Adventists who publicize their views online.

The larger issue is that Ellen White's statements changed over time. And while I would say relatively few SDA's now reject the Trinity, many SDA claim to accept the inspiration of Ellen White. But the statement of Ellen White from the Great Controversy is not describing the Trinity they claim to also accept.

It is arguable that her later statements represent a similar conception to the Trinity, but in different terms, due to some disagreements with the language of Trinitarian creeds. Even then various Adventists have noted that her unity arguments framed around relational unity leave room for tritheistic understandings.

If you were to argue that Ellen White paved the way for Trinitarian thought being largely accepted in the Adventist church, I would agree with you completely. I would argue that some of her later statements sound very Trinitarian. Starting in 1890 she seemed to make progressively more Trinitiarian arguments, and clarified elements regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But that doesn't change that her early writings, which the church claims inspiration for, did not match up with the Trinity.


EDIT:

I wanted to clarify one point. If by "not entirely" you mean that her later statements could be taken as fully Trinitarian, and not tritheistic, in that we agree. I think some of her statements certainly could. Other of her statements sound ill advised if you wanted to not convey tritheism. But her further clarifications regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the use of the formula in the great commission regarding the singular name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit do for me indicate that she in later years held a view of Three in One that she never put in those terms due to the history of those terms in the movement.

But that doesn't change her earlier statements, which are not compatible with Trinitarianism.

 

[Leaf473]

The official SDA doctrine teaches that all 66 books are inspired scripture, the Word of God, and that the animal sacrifices , offerings ended at the cross as Heb 10 says. Civil laws end with the theocracy and ceremonial laws end with the priesthood and sacrifices (as almost all denominations teach as well)(

Does the website list the passages where the remaining laws are found? That is, the laws from the Old testament that are still in effect today? I haven't been able to find it

Interesting that I think this was stated for Leaf a few dozen times at this point - but I like that he is so interested in getting this message out in as many threads as possible.

The doctrinal position has been stated, not the actual scriptures.

All scripture is beneficial. Broad categories are sometimes beneficial and sometimes not.

If you would like to post the scripture passages where the laws that SDA's follow today are found, that would be beneficial.

I know you'll include the ten commandments.
Leviticus 11? All of it?

Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 11:35 - New American Standard Bible

Moreover, everything on which part of their carcass may fall becomes unclean; an oven or a stove shall be smashed; they are unclean and shall continue as unclean to you.

www.biblegateway.com

Any other passages?

 

[tall73]

one God Deut 6:4 in THREE Persons Matt 28:19

Such that in John 17 -- Jesus is not "praying to Himself"

Now Bob, put that with another statement you made:

Where more differences show up is "Being" vs "person". Some argue as if one person is not one Being but rather 1/3 of a being. And so when you ask "who is Christ praying to in John 17..? Himself?" they don't know the
answer.

It sounds like you see the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as persons, and also beings.

But in any case, you are missing a being/person in Ellen White's Great Controversy statement. She knows of only one "being" in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.

The Great Controversy

Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,—one in nature, in character, and in purpose,—the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

one God Deut 6:4 in THREE Persons Matt 28:19

Such that in John 17 -- Jesus is not "praying to Himself"

Now Bob, put that with another statement you made:

Now Tall, no matter how you misconstrue my posts the point above is not going to change AND the point above is actually in SDA Fundamental beliefs.

So try-as-you-may that just is not going to change. I think we both know that.

It sounds like you see the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as persons, and also beings.

IT also sounds like we view the concept/term GOD as ABOVE the "THREE PERSONS" term that ALL Christian denominations accept.

Now you may try-as-you wish to get all Christian denominations to back away from ONE God since they also affirm THREE PERSONS but we both know that your work in that area is doomed to fail. Can we agree on at least that much?

But in any case, you are missing a being/person in Ellen White's Great Controversy statement. She knows of only one "being" in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.

In context that is a reference to something "not God" and as we all know the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all GOD - just as even Ellen White admitted.

That is just not going to change -- and I think we both know that.

 

[tall73]

I think that is very "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader that honestly want to know what SDAs believe rather than how this-or-that could be spun in a direction that almost no SDAs accept.

Now Bob, you know well the arguments of non-Trinitarian Adventists, and have debated them in the Traditional Adventist section here on CF.

They point out these same early non-Trinitarian statements because they AGREE with them. Non-Trinitarianism was the position of most of the pioneers, as the article from Knight earlier in the thread already documented.

So you can drop the notion that I am just making things up.

 

[BobRyan]

Does the website list the passages where the remaining laws are found?

Do you accept the TEN in their unedited unchanged form as included in the moral law of God - just as stated in scripture?

I think we both know the answer to that one... so given that you already fail to agree on that basic point about the Law of God - what is the point of going to anything else other than a diversion from this primary, basic, first-step?

 

[BobRyan]

Now Bob, you know well the arguments of non-Trinitarian Adventists,

Indeed I have met a few of them (a tiny group as it turns out) and when confronted with the clear statements in our doctrine affirming the Trinity they reject our doctrine.

When confronted with the "Holy Spirit as the THIRD person of the Godhead" and other statements affirming the triune Godhead from Ellen White they resort to games like "well then the document was somehow edited/changed" or "Ellen White was influenced to say that so it would match up".

Their arguments fall apart quickly.

Even THEY have not been able to move the SDA denomination away from its "ONE God in THREE Persons" statement on the Godhead - so how in the world are you hoping to have any success at all in that area?

 

[tall73]

Now Tall, no matter how you misconstrue my posts the point above is not going to change AND the point above is actually in SDA Fundamental beliefs.

Yes, and it is in conflict with Ellen White's early statements.

IT also sounds like we view the concept/term GOD as ABOVE the "THREE PERSONS" term that ALL Christian denominations accept.

Now you may try-as-you wish to get all Christian denominations to back away from ONE God since they also affirm THREE PERSONS but we both know that your work in that area is doomed to fail. Can we agree on at least that much?

Pretty sure the fellow Trinitarians reading are not going to be confused by your statement here Bob.

But it is ok, you have clarified your terminology. And by doing so you have pointed out how non-Trinitarian Ellen White's statement is.

In context that is a reference to something "not God"

Do tell Bob. How is Ellen White's statement that Christ the Word, the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God, is referring to something NOT God in context.

Great Controversy:

Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,—one in nature, in character, and in purpose,—the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.


What we do know by now is when you say "in context" you don't provide the context. But I already linked to it.

and as we all know the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all GOD - just as even Ellen White admitted.

You mean as she admitted LATER, but ruled out in the above statement from the Great Controversy.

She only knew of one being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God--which was Christ the Son.

You are missing a being Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

Now Bob, you know well the arguments of non-Trinitarian Adventists,

Indeed I have met a few of them (a tiny group as it turns out) and when confronted with the clear statements in our doctrine affirming the Trinity they reject our doctrine.

When confronted with the "Holy Spirit as the THIRD person of the Godhead" and other statements affirming the triune Godhead from Ellen White they resort to games like "well then the document was somehow edited/changed" or "Ellen White was influenced to say that so it would match up".

Their arguments fall apart quickly.

Even THEY have not been able to move the SDA denomination away from its "ONE God in THREE Persons" statement on the Godhead - so how in the world are you hoping to have any success at all in that area?

Yes, and it is in conflict with Ellen White's early statements.

Just not in reality. Even James White admitted that his views eventually lined up with the Trinitarian position. Ellen White of course never went for James White's anti-trinitarian views -- SHE was in fact raised as a Methodist and firmly trinitarian the entire time - as we both know.

==========================================
Jesus said that He would go to 'my God and your God"
Jesus said "the Father is greater than I"
Jesus said "no one knows that future detail not even the Son - only the Father knows"

and when taken OUT of the larger CONTEXT our JW friends can spin those to mean that Jesus is not God -
We really don't need to follow the JW model on that one -- rather we need to keep the statements in context.

 

[tall73]

Indeed I have met a few of them (a tiny group as it turns out) and when confronted with the clear statements in our doctrine affirming the Trinity they reject our doctrine.

Not as tiny as you let on, or perhaps you just were not in the regions where they are plentiful. I can say I ran into more than I would like to in real life while in more conservative regions.

When confronted with the "Holy Spirit as the THIRD person of the Godhead" and other statements affirming the triune Godhead from Ellen White they resort to games like "well then the document was somehow edited/changed"

Indeed they do! in fact, that happened in these very forums! They are convinced that her later writings were a fabrication. Which I agree is rather silly, given there were numerous ones over more than a decade.

Their arguments fall apart quickly.

Indeed, so quickly you never get around to addressing their actual evidence. Because when you note their conspiracy theory is silly it falls apart.

But the problem is, you never address their actual presented contradictions, which are real.

I, unlike the non-Trinitarian Adventists, no longer have to try to reconcile Ellen White's early non-Trinitarian statements, with her later more Trinitarian statements. I just note she changed her story.

But if you want to show that Ellen White is inspired, you have to explain why her early statements present a far different picture than the current fundamental beliefs.

Even THEY have not been able to move the SDA denomination away from its "ONE God in THREE Persons" statement on the Godhead - so how in the world are you hoping to have any success at all in that area?

Why would I want to move you further away? No, I just point our your inspired author contradicted the Trinity in her early statements.

 

[BobRyan]

Now Bob, you know well the arguments of non-Trinitarian Adventists,

Indeed I have met a few of them (a tiny group as it turns out) and when confronted with the clear statements in our doctrine affirming the Trinity they reject our doctrine.

When confronted with the "Holy Spirit as the THIRD person of the Godhead" and other statements affirming the triune Godhead from Ellen White they resort to games like "well then the document was somehow edited/changed" or "Ellen White was influenced to say that so it would match up".

Their arguments fall apart quickly.

Even THEY have not been able to move the SDA denomination away from its "ONE God in THREE Persons" statement on the Godhead - so how in the world are you hoping to have any success at all in that area?
======================
Indeed I have met a few of non-trinitarians (in fact a tiny group as it turns out) and when confronted with the clear statements in our doctrine affirming the Trinity they reject our doctrine.

Not as tiny as you let on,

Over 22 million SDAs today. And the SDA Fundamental Beliefs are solidly, explicitly "One God in THREE Persons".

Where is your "tiny" group of non-trinitarians??

or perhaps you just were not in the regions where they are plentiful. I can say I ran into more than I would like to in real life

Did you run into 22 million?
11 Million?
4 Million?

20??