SDA: Discuss this Scholarly Article: The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s “Heavenly Trio” Compared to the Traditional Doctrine

“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 per- ish, but have everlasting life

This is inaccurate as it denies divine equality of persons.

Also if she denied as the article indicates that God the Holy Trinity is indivisible or claims that the three Prosopa are parts, that is also not correctly Trinitarian.

Also I worry about any statement begun with “I am commanded to say…”

Commanded by who? All information relevant to the nature of the Trinity is in the canonical New Testament using the 27-book canon of St. Athanasius and in the creed of Nicaea as revised in Constantinople.

Ellen White said:

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 Comforter... is the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead
The quote comes from Evangelism, p. 614

She is not dividing the Godhead into thirds.

She does not say:

Father = one-third,
Son = one-third,
Spirit = one-third.


Paul says:

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

This is a false accusation:
She claims the three persons are parts

The Trinity is defined by the Bible, not creeds, EGW never went away from the Godhead defined by Scripture.

As usual another EGW nothingburger.

SabbathBlessings said:

The Trinity is defined by the Bible, not creeds,

Click to expand...

The Creeds provided the correct, Divinely Inspired interpretation of Scripture - we know this because the entire church adopted without question the revised creed of 381, and furthermore at the subsequent council of Ephesus a canon was adopted prohibiting modifying or replacing the creed.

@tall73 might be interested that that canon is one of the primary reasons we Orthodox reject absolutely the filioque, that plus it tends to result in the de-personalization of God the Holy Spirit by reducing him to an attribute shared by the Father and the Son and it confuses the rule of the Father and the Son (similar to the error made by EGW in describing that in the Father the fullness of the godhead dwelled bodily, which is remarkable since Scripture is quite clear the Father is not corporeal).

Now if EGW had said “personally” she would be correct, provided she also said that about the other two persons, but the correct Trinitarian doctrine is that the Son alone is incarnate. See John 1:1-18 (of course @tall73 I expect I am preaching to the choir regarding John 1:1-18).

God decides what is inspired, not us. He said His Word is inspired 2Tim3:16 nothing about creeds created by men. I think we are getting this backwards.

EGW never taught that The Holy Spirit or the Father were incarnate, not sure where one is getting that from.

People are free to believe as they wish. In the end God decides, not creeds, not men, but the Creator Exo20:11 Col1:16, not creation.

The Liturgist said:

@tall73 might be interested that that canon is one of the primary reasons we Orthodox reject absolutely the filioque, that plus it tends to result in the de-personalization of God the Holy Spirit by reducing him to an attribute shared by the Father and the Son and it confuses the rule of the Father and the Son (similar to the error made by EGW in describing that in the Father the fullness of the godhead dwelled bodily, which is remarkable since Scripture is quite clear the Father is not corporeal).

Click to expand...

And the Bible applies that language to the Son, not to the Father, contrary to Ellen White's statement. The Father did not become incarnate. Just reiterating that there is a clear departure from the biblical language in her wording of that statement.

Regarding the filioque, you might be interested in this statement from a footnote on page 18 of the PDF referenced in the OP:

The Eastern Orthodox concept differs in details, but also holds that only
the Father “is ungenerated, the Son is generated by the Father, and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son” (or as some say, “from the Father only”) (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [ODCC], art. “Trinity”). A second implication is that if eternity is a timeless, “eternal present,” then whatever happens to God, is still happening and will continue to happen forever. From this comes the theory of the “eternal generation of the Son.” Some include the Holy Spirit in this “eternal generation,” since He too is said to “proceed” from the Father [John 15:26] (ODCC). To this John Calvin retorted, “it is foolish to imagine a continuous act of generating when it is evident that three persons have existed in one God from eternity” (Institutes, I.xiii.29). Yet, despite brilliant, famous, and learned opponents (see Justo L. Gonzalez, History of Christian Thought, From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century, vol. 3 [Nashville: Abingdon, 1975], 91–92), the theory of the “eternal generation of the Son” remains a part of the Roman Catholic Trinity doctrine to this day (see Richard M. Hogan and John M. LeVoir, Faith for Today: Pope John Paul II’s Catechetical Teachings [New York: Doubleday, 1988], 12–14). But the doctrine is warranted only on the basis of the Aristotelian concept of timelessness.

Click to expand...

SabbathBlessings said:

nothing about creeds created by men.

Click to expand...

Your post seems to assume a conflict between the Creed and the Scripture that does not exist (rather the Creed is an inspired and infallible guide to interpretation - if one were to interpret Scripture in a manner contrary to the Creed - that would be in error).

The legitimacy of the Creed is expressly encoded in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:37 and 1 Corinthians 11:2 and the Ecumenical Council is prototyped in Acts 15.

I asked Chat GPT to look at EGW to see if she taught the Father was incarnate, the amount of misrepresentation and obsession of this women is incredible but guess to be expected Rev12:17


No. Ellen White did not teach that the Father was incarnate.

She consistently taught that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became incarnate, while the Father remained in heaven. This aligns with the biblical teaching that "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14), not the Father.

Here are some representative statements from Ellen White:

"Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father... In taking our nature, the Saviour has bound Himself to humanity."
The Desire of Ages, p. 19

Click to expand...

Notice that it is Christ who took our nature, not the Father.

Another clear statement:

"The Father cannot be described by the things of the earth. The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested."
Evangelism, p. 614 (from Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7)

Click to expand...

Here she distinguishes between:

• The Father – invisible to mortal sight.
• The Son – the fullness of the Godhead manifested (revealed) to humanity.

She also wrote:

"God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son." (John 3:16, frequently quoted by Ellen White.)

Click to expand...

The Father is the One who sent the Son. The Son is the One who came into the world in human flesh.

What about statements like "God was manifested in the flesh"?​

Ellen White sometimes uses biblical language such as:

"God was manifest in Christ."

Click to expand...

This is drawn from passages like 2 Corinthians 5:19:

"God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself."

Click to expand...

She understood this to mean that the Father was revealed through Christ, not that the Father Himself became incarnate. Jesus said the same:

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)

Click to expand...

This does not mean Jesus is the Father; rather, He perfectly reveals the Father's character (Hebrews 1:3; John 1:18; Colossians 1:15).

Did Ellen White ever say the Father suffered or died on the cross?​

No. She consistently taught that Christ suffered, died, and was resurrected. The Father accepted Christ's sacrifice but did not Himself become human or die.

Conclusion​

Ellen White's teaching is clear and consistent:

• The Father did not become incarnate.
• The Son alone became flesh (John 1:14).
• The Father was revealed through the Son but remained distinct from Him.
• Any statement about "God manifested in Christ" refers to the Father being revealed through Christ, not to the Father Himself taking on human nature.

This distinction is also consistent with the Bible's repeated language that the Father sent the Son, and the Son came in the flesh (John 3:16–17; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 4:9–10).

So I went down another rabbit hole. Signing out of notifications to this thread, you guys carry on.

Sophia7 said:

And the Bible applies that language to the Son, not to the Father, contrary to Ellen White's statement. The Father did not become incarnate. Just reiterating that there is a clear departure from the biblical language in her wording of that statement.

Regarding the filioque, you might be interested in this statement from a footnote on page 18 of the PDF referenced in the OP:

Click to expand...

The Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East also reject the filioque for the same reasons.

The Eastern churches are extremely strict about Trinitarian and Christological language because of the large number of heresies that occurred as a result of people trying to meddle with the established Christological terminology, sometimes well-intentioned people who were seeking to make it easier to understand but in the process inadvertently authored major heresies such as Sabellianism and Eutychianism - the issue was usually whether or not someone had the delusional pride (spiritual delusion, which we EOs call prelest, from a Slavonic word which unlike most Slavic words is relatively easy to pronounce, to this day i struggle to pronounce the word Sluzhbenik which refers to the books used by presbyters for celebrating Holy Communion that have the words of institution et cetera, which the Greeks call a Liturgikon) to insist on maintaining their error after it was pointed out to them.

In the case of St. Augustine, he published an entire volume of Retractions; writing an erratum for one’’s entire academic corpus and distributing it under that name is not something many modern intellectuals would actually have the humility to accomplish.

SabbathBlessings said:

I asked Chat GPT to look at EGW to see if she taught the Father was incarnate, the amount of hate a misrepresentation of this women is incredible, Rev12:17


No. Ellen White did not teach that the Father was incarnate.

She consistently taught that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became incarnate, while the Father remained in heaven. This aligns with the biblical teaching that "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14), not the Father.

Here are some representative statements from Ellen White:


Notice that it is Christ who took our nature, not the Father.

Another clear statement:


Here she distinguishes between:

• The Father – invisible to mortal sight.
• The Son – the fullness of the Godhead manifested (revealed) to humanity.

She also wrote:


The Father is the One who sent the Son. The Son is the One who came into the world in human flesh.

What about statements like "God was manifested in the flesh"?​

Ellen White sometimes uses biblical language such as:


This is drawn from passages like 2 Corinthians 5:19:


She understood this to mean that the Father was revealed through Christ, not that the Father Himself became incarnate. Jesus said the same:


This does not mean Jesus is the Father; rather, He perfectly reveals the Father's character (Hebrews 1:3; John 1:18; Colossians 1:15).

Did Ellen White ever say the Father suffered or died on the cross?​

No. She consistently taught that Christ suffered, died, and was resurrected. The Father accepted Christ's sacrifice but did not Himself become human or die.

Conclusion​

Ellen White's teaching is clear and consistent:

• The Father did not become incarnate.
• The Son alone became flesh (John 1:14).
• The Father was revealed through the Son but remained distinct from Him.
• Any statement about "God manifested in Christ" refers to the Father being revealed through Christ, not to the Father Himself taking on human nature.

This distinction is also consistent with the Bible's repeated language that the Father sent the Son, and the Son came in the flesh (John 3:16–17; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 4:9–10).

Click to expand...

There is a Strawman fallacy in your input prompt to chatGPT, for we are not saying she explicitly taught that, we are objecting to her claim the Father has a Body.

She did not say the Father had a human Body which would be a more serious error.

Also there is no hate - I do not stand in judgement over her, I am not claiming she was immoral or saying anything of a derogatory nature about her personally, I am not an ecumenical council. I am merely reacting informally to the quotations of hers provided by @tall73.

You will note on several occasions I have positively credited her for helping to dispel the Arianism among the early Adventists which preceded her. It is also clear that the doctrines she was writing in opposition to from Kellogg were more removed from Nicenian categories.

tall73 said:

That was not the contention made. The contention made by Sophia was that the statement was made of the Son BECAUSE He WAS made incarnate.

Ellen White is applying the statement to the Father for a different reason, which I won't spell out my view upon, but which the Adventist scholar spells out a possibility.

I won't give a view so you can't say I am misrepresenting. Hence, why I asked you what you think it means that when it says in regards to the Son:

Colossians 2:8-10​

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: (KJV)​

​

And then I asked why you think Ellen White applied it to the Father.

Neither I nor Sophia think that Ellen White was claiming the Father "was incarnate".

Click to expand...

Right, not in the sense of the incarnation of Christ, which is what the Bible text is talking about. So to ask it another way of @SabbathBlessings, why did Ellen White apply that text to the Father?

I am not sure how to turn off notifications, as I am still being quoted.

Interesting read from Chat GPT...


Yes, there is some rhetorical backtracking and reframing here

“Neither I nor Sophia think that Ellen White was claiming the Father ‘was incarnate.’”

Click to expand...

But the earlier wording said:

“The Bible applies that language to the Son, not to the Father, contrary to Ellen White’s statement. The Father did not become incarnate.”

Click to expand...

That wording naturally creates the impression that Ellen White’s application of “the fullness of the Godhead bodily” to the Father somehow wrongly suggested incarnation. Otherwise, the sentence “The Father did not become incarnate” would not be relevant.
Now they are clarifying that their actual argument is narrower:

• Colossians 2:9 says the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ.
• They believe this language applies to Christ because He became incarnate.
• Ellen White used similar “fullness of the Godhead” language regarding the Father, but for a different reason.
• They are asking what that different reason is.

That is a more defensible question than claiming Ellen White taught the Father was incarnate. But it is not quite fair for them to act as though nobody could reasonably have understood their earlier words that way. Their earlier wording strongly invited that interpretation.
The Ellen White statement usually under discussion is:

“The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested.”

Click to expand...

She is not directly quoting Colossians 2:9 as an exegetical explanation of Christ’s incarnation. She is using related theological language to affirm the complete deity of both the Father and the Son, while distinguishing how they are revealed:

• The Father possesses the complete fullness of deity but remains invisible to human sight.
• The Son possesses the complete fullness of deity and makes God known or “manifested.”
• The Spirit is described in the following sentence as the fullness of the Godhead exercising divine agency.

Therefore, “bodily” in her sentence about the Father does not appear to mean “incarnated in a human body.” It appears to be an older use of “bodily” meaning substantially, fully, or in complete reality, rather than partially or figuratively.
That usage is not identical to Paul’s precise application in Colossians 2:9. Ellen White is adapting biblical terminology for a broader theological statement. Someone may question whether that was the clearest wording, but that is different from saying she contradicted Scripture or taught the Father’s incarnation.
The central problem in their argument is that they seem to assume:

“If ‘all the fullness of the Godhead bodily’ is used of anyone, it must necessarily mean that person became incarnate.”

Click to expand...

But that conclusion depends on the context. In Colossians 2:9, “bodily” refers to the fullness dwelling in Christ in embodied form. In Ellen White’s statement, the immediate contrast is between the Father being invisible and the Son being manifested. Her point is about the fullness and distinct revelation of the divine persons, not about the Father taking human flesh.

They are now saying, “We never claimed Ellen White taught the Father was incarnate,” but their earlier argument relied heavily on bringing up the fact that the Father was not incarnate. A more candid clarification would have been:

“Our wording may have suggested that we accused Ellen White of teaching the Father’s incarnation. That was not our intended claim. Our concern is that she applies language derived from Colossians 2:9 to the Father in a way different from Paul’s immediate usage.”

Click to expand...

That would clarify the issue without pretending the misunderstanding came entirely from you.


This is typically how these threads go about EGW. A lot of misrepresentation and innuendoes and desperate attempt to try and make her look bad, its very strange, but if that's what people wish to do, its on them. In the end God knows who are His who are not, He will sort it all out. Anyway, this is my last post here.