Did Ellen White believe in the Holy Spirit...

as part ot the GodHead?

I had one of my friends surprise me this morning, and tell me that Ellen White did not support the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. He said that her 'original' writings did not support the Holy Spirit as part of the GodHead. Well of course, I nearly fell off my chair, and we got into a deep discussion. But I thought this would be a good excercize for everyone here in the Forum. Lets see what everyone can find in 'original' writings in the Spirit of Process in which Ellen White wrote direct statements or passages that supports the Holy Spirit as part of the GodHead. My friend was adamant their were none, and we must be ready when a brother (or sister) brings questions such as these so we may allow the brother (or sister) to see the light....

By "original" do you mean manuscripts? I don't think many of us have seen the originals.

Is he saying that her books and articles have been corrupted by the editors? Or is he saying that they have been misunderstood?

If it's just an anti-compilation argument, there's "In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived." (DA 530)

After our discussion, it began to dawn on me that it was a anti-compliation view as he felt that Ellen White did not support it in the Desire of Ages, Great Controversy, Steps to Christ, etc.. But he also has a Catholic background so then we had a discussion of use of 'Trinity' versus the 'GodHead' as I have yet to hear anyone give a good understanding of how the Catholic view of the Trinity differs from the standard traditional Protestant view...

Last time I encountered this discussion, the definition of "original" was something like: "I agree with what Ellen wrote in Early Writings but I don't like what she wrote in her last decade. Therefore since I agree with what she wrote first and disagree with what she wrote later, her later work must have been corrupted by outsiders. This is obvious because Ellen would surely never write anything which would make me have to reconsider what I already made up my mind about.."

If this is the case, the whole search is futile because anything Ellen has written supporting the Holy Spirit being part of the Godhead is by default corrupted by others simply because it says that the Holy Spirit is being part of the Godhead.

That's the essence of the "corrupted by editors" crowd.

Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. {DA 671.2}

we need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds, unseen by human eyes {2SAT 136.6}

The Holy Spirit is a person; for He beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God. {20MR 68.5}

The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. {20MR 69.1}

The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. {RH, May 2, 1912 par. 3}

There are three living persons of the heavenly trio. In the name of these three powers,--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. {BTS, March 1, 1906 par. 2}


I think I know someone who lists the differences. I'll check.

In the Catholic view, the Son emanates from the Father (is continuously begotten), and the Holy Spirit emanates from both the Father and the Son. In the Protestant view, the three persons stand on their own, so to speak.

Ah yes, sorting out the Holy Spirit's personality and "the trinity": yes, we can! - and not let go of values that matter...unlike recently popular slogans!

SOP held back from fully describing the Holy Spirit but confirmed his personality as the omnipresence among us of Father and Son. Also, affirming the literal Sonship of the Son of God "from the days of eternity", correcting the RC, Nicene nonsense of 'emanation' for the properly personal, physical "only begotten" Son, who is also the not-physical-Word of God from the beginning.

Thanks to my SDA friend, Terry Hill's, website (in Bristol, England, UK) www.theprophetstillspeaks.co.uk, I've cleared up my own confusion which resulted from compilation complaints, after I began with no clear understanding. That website is the result of 8 years of part-time research and I've barely read half of it in the 2 years since it went live.

The three personalities of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are true but not the same ("personalities" (original) or "persons" (courtesy of the editors) is not the issue), unlike both RC and Protestant views Tom mentions - and SDAism today subscribes to the latter, of course.

Ellen White and her contemporaries supported neither, but upheld the divinity and personality of all three: the Father and Son as physical persons, etc - unlike Nicea's "personas" without body parts and all in one non-descript blob of substance, and the Holy Spirit as a different sort of person to them, being their omnipresence among their people and not having a body of its own. The power of the Spirit fills and sustains the created universe, but its presence indwelling us is the presence of the Father and the Son, their divine Spirit: the infinite Spirit of their divine nature.

They have physical bodies, the Spirit does not. A mystery, but so is the incarnation.

From what I read here so far, Ellen White obviously believed in the Holy Spirit, as the 3rd Person of the Godhead.

I don't think she ever used the word "Trinity" in her writings, however, she did use the word "Godhead."

I know of no significant differences between the Catholic and the standard Protestant views.

By "no significant difference" are you saying there is still a difference between the Catholic and "standard" Protestant views?

And what do you mean by the "standard" views?

There may be some minor differences. The Wiki says:


The "standard" view would be that of the main Protestant churches: Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist and Baptist. Some of the other denominations hold "nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity/two persons), Unitarianism (one deity/one person), the Oneness belief held by certain Pentecostal groups, Modalism, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' view of the Godhead as three separate beings who are one in purpose rather than essence" (Wiki).

What would you say is the SDA view?

Certainly none of the "nontrinitarian positions" mentioned in the Wiki article:

not Binitarianism (one deity/two persons) [though the position of some is very similar to this one]:

"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." {Ev 615.1}

"The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit." {Ev 617.2}

not Unitarianism (one deity/one person): (see quotes above)

not the Oneness belief (there is one God, a singular spirit who manifests himself in many different ways, including as Father, Son and Holy Spirit): (see quotes above)

not modalism (God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes; God does not exist as Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the same time): (see quotes above)

not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' view of the Godhead as three separate beings who are one in purpose rather than essence:

"The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes." {ST, November 27, 1893 par. 5}

So our view would be closer to the "standard" view.

The Athanasian Creed says:



I see apparently nothing wrong with this Creed. We believe in three divine persons in one substance (essence), and these persons are coeternal and coequal. Ellen White uses the term "coequal" for the persons of the Godhead:

"It was to save the transgressor from ruin that he who was co-equal with God, offered up his life on Calvary." {RH, June 28, 1892 par. 3}

What about the Nicene Creed?

The Nicene Creed says:



I also apparently see nothing wrong with this, nothing which could disagree with what Ellen White says.

I am not disagreeing with you, however, what was the belief of our SDA pioneers regarding this, and why?

They were not trinitarians, and they believed Christ had a beginning. I suppose they thought the doctrine of the Trinity was part of the wine of Babylon. Their view only began to change after Ellen White wrote The Desire of Ages.

What did EGW say in the Desire of Ages that changed their view?

She said about Christ:

“From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father” (p. 19).

"The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, "whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. {p. 469}

“In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. . . . The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life” (p. 530).

“The Saviour came forth from the grave by the life that was in Himself” (p. 785).

The book included also clear statements about the personhood of the Holy Spirit (which they did not believe):

“Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead” (p. 671).

I assume there are other quotes in DA on the Third Person (Holy Spirit)?

The denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit among Adventists appears to growing rapidly. A few years ago when this thread started it seemed like an anomaly but is becoming pervasive, similar to the feast day and 2520 movements. From the several contacts I've had with it, the denial of the person-hood of the Holy Spirit is invariably coupled with the denial of the eternal existence of Christ. The reason for that coupling seems to be that several of our Advent pioneers, excluding Ellen White, held these views initially. From what I've seen they came to a better understanding.

The Holy Spirit is many things:

1. Our Father (John 4:24)
2. His only begotten Son (Rev. 2:1 & 2:7; and so for all seven churches)
3. His words of truth (John 6:63)
4. His angels of heaven (Heb. 1:14)

Except for #3, which is a metaphor, they are all spirit (not flesh and blood like us) AND are holy. No.3 likens the breath that escapes our mouth, when we speak kind and truthful words to uplift others, to spirit which goes out from us to heal (to give hope and wisdom to) the object of our concern.

When Jesus spoke of the Comforter to come, he was not speaking of someone who was absent while he was with the disciples. The Comforter was already present. He said, "you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." (John 14:17) In other words, the Comforter ARE really the angels of God, "ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation." They come in the name of Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:1) and because they are able to reach further than Jesus Christ could have done in his humanity, they are said to be "IN US". They are of God, but not God (Rev. 22:8-9).

There are ONLY TWO BEINGS to whom worship is due: God the Father, and His Son with whom He has shared all His glory (Rev. 22:3). No one else!

Brother James, until recently most Adventists, including myself, had not given any thought to whether the Holy Spirit should be worshiped or not. Most of us assumed that He should be. A few years ago, one of my friends who's part of the anti-trinitarian movement within the church said that there is no scriptural mandate to worship the Holy Spirit. That took me by surprise but I studied it and had to agree there is no direct command to worship the Holy Spirit. In stead we're told many times that we should worship the Father and the Son. So I've been grateful ever since for learning that and rather than worshiping the Holy Spirit, I worship the Father and the Son, seeking the infilling of the Holy Spirit who represents them.

Another thing I learned from this movement is to place due weight on the Sonship of Christ. Jesus says of Himself that He is the eternal God, the I AM, yet He is also the Son. This is a seeming contradiction but only because we as finite humans can't fully grasp the notion of an eternal being who is also a Son. A son in our minds always has a beginning; Christ is eternal. But scripture says these are both true. We have to accept both ideas by faith.

James regarding the angel's being ministering spirits, I agree. The Comforter is the same though, not as the angels but as the Holy Spirit who we've been baptized into at the direction of our Lord. The office of the Holy Spirit is so essential to the plan of salvation that Christ spoke more of Him than any other topic. This is a topic He wants us to understand because it will help us co-operate with the Divine agencies that have been at work in the plan of salvation from the very beginning. The Holy Spirit was present when Christ took counsel with the Father to provide a ransom for man if he should fall. The Holy Spirit was at the cross when Christ died because we're told that it was through the Holy Spirit that Christ offered himself. Heb 9:14. And it's through the present intercession of the Holy Spirit pleading with our spirits that our prayers are sanctified. Romans 8:13-28. Denying the presence and reality of this Third Person results in regression of our understanding of the present work of God and Christ to seal His people in these final moments of the Day of Atonement. I hope you'll reconsider, my friend. Consider carefully the warning of Christ - all sin will be forgiven man but one - the sin against the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:31. What could be a more direct sin against the Holy Spirit than to deny His very existence?

The Holy Spirit is many things:

1. Our Father (John 4:24)
2. His only begotten Son (Rev. 2:1 & 2:7; and so for all seven churches)
3. His words of truth (John 6:63)
4. His angels of heaven (Heb. 1:14)

The Holy Spirit is a heavenly being, holy and true, not of flesh and blood. Their word is metaphorically spoken of as being spirit as well.

According to the above the Holy Spirit is simply a composite of all, and not a being at all.

I don't agree. EGW definitely says the holy Spirit is a person and scripture characterizes Him as a literal being.

He speaks (Acts 8:29)
teaches (Luke 12:12)
reveals (Luke 2:26)
testifies (Acts 20:23)
searches (1 Cor. 2:10,11)
He sets people apart for service and sends them on their way (Acts 13:2,4)
He commands and guides (Acts 8:29)
He declares things to come (John 16:13)

Romans 8:5 He sets our minds on the things of God
Romans 8:13 Through the Spirit we put to death the deeds of the body
Romans 15:30 says the Holy Spirit loves.
Romans 8:27 Says He has a mind



Looking at your texts:
John 4:24 which says God is spirit only tells us that God the Father and the Holy spirit are of the same substance. God the Father did not take on humanity, only Christ is encumbered with (glorified) human body. The problem is that modern language puts a meaning to "spirit" (as in no body or substance) that isn't scriptural. Scripture says there are DIFFERENT types of bodies (see 1 Cor. 15) Actually John 4:24 is saying God the Father is an intelligent Being and those who worship Him will worship with intelligence and in truth.

Rev. 2:1, 7 Christ speaks to the churches THROUGH the Holy Spirit. It is not saying Christ is the Holy Spirit. Christ gave the words to John, John wrote them down, we read them and the Holy Spirit impresses the truths of those words upon our minds.

John 6:63 "spirit" is in small letters. Again it is speaking of the mind - or thinking/believing ability -- it is by believing in Christ that we receive life, His Words are to become part of us for they will bring life.

Hebrews 1:14 -- Angels are ministering spirits (each one is a very real, intelligent, individual being) they are NOT the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is many things:

1. Our Father (John 4:24)
2. His only begotten Son (Rev. 2:1 & 2:7; and so for all seven churches)
3. His words of truth (John 6:63)
4. His angels of heaven (Heb. 1:14)

The Holy Spirit is a heavenly being, holy and true, not of flesh and blood. Their word is metaphorically spoken of as being spirit as well.



No.

Rather the same term, HOLY SPIRIT, as used in the Bible, could mean one of three BEINGS, or the word of Truth: depending on the context.

This is much the same as THE Christ is either Michael, the Angel of the LORD, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, the Lamb, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and so forth: depending on the context.

Except that the HOLY SPIRIT refers to different heavenly Beings: sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes, the angel of God, or, metaphorically, sometimes the word of Truth. It is like the Prime Minister can refer to Stephen Harper, or Pierre Trudeau, or John MacDonald, etc., etc.: depending on the year.

...
..

What does the word "another" mean?

When Jesus says,
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

was He talking about Himself, or an essence of Himself? Or about "another"?

This "other" One (another Comforter) will not testify about Himself, (John 16:13) but about Christ. (John 15:26)

Of course there are texts that seem to say it is Christ "coming to us". For the nature of the Godhead is that when ONE of the three is present, all three are present. For they know each others thoughts as if they were their own

So according to your understand there is no Holy Spirit, it only refers to a "job" that can be filled by any heavenly being?

No -- your example is backwards.
All those terms above refer to ONE AND THE SAME Person of the Godhead. (Our Savior Jesus Christ)

Whereas your definition of the Holy Spirit seems to say "one term" (Holy spirit) refers to any one of several different heavenly persons or their words -- thus Holy Spirit is no Person at all, but simply a function or title.

1. No. Jesus said "God is Spirit" and in another place, God said, "Be holy, for I AM HOLY." Our Father is the Holy Spirit, as much as our Saviour is the Holy Spirit, and each angel too. The angels come to us on behalf of God in the name of Jesus Christ.

2. I NEVER said that the Holy Spirit has "no body or substance". I said, instead, that the Holy Spirit does not have flesh and blood like we do. Jesus said so.

3. No. Jesus was telling the Samaritan woman that God was not an idol located in either Jerusalem or Samaria, but an invisible Being that is accessible only through our mind. He is someone with whom you can communicate anywhere at any time through your thoughts.

...
..

I used that example to illustrate a principle: that context is important in matters of interpretation. When you see "the Lamb", it conjures up images of self-sacrifice.

Why didn't you read further?

...
..

1. The Comforter was already present with the disciples when Jesus Christ was talking to them. He said, "He (the Comforter) DWELLS WITH YOU and will be in you."

2. The Comforter is an angel. Heb. 1:14 says, they are "all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation." And to John was sent one to tell him of things to come. See Rev. 1:1

No. It is a TERM that is much the same as God. We have God, the Father; and then we have God, the Son: both are worthy of our worship because both were involved in our creation.

NO ONE ELSE! Rev. 22:3 says, "the throne of God AND of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him." There are only two of them in that capacity.

...
..

True the word "lamb" must be read in context. The word refers to young sheep. However, whenever it is speaking of the "The lamb of God" it is NOT referring to a young sheep but to Christ our Lord and Savior -- a very distinct individual.

The same with the word "spirit" -- the word can mean many things. BUT the HOLY SPIRIT is a very distinct individual. He is not an angel or the person of God the Father or the person of God the Son, He is the third person of the Godhead.

The ONENESS of the Godhead does not negate that there are three distinct individuals within that ONENESS.

They know each others thoughts as if they were their own -- thus the Holy Spirit's presence is the presence of the fullness of the Godhead. Just as Jesus' presence is the presence of the fullness of the Godhead.

The word or term "god" also must be read in context. It is a title and refers to a "function. There are many false "gods". The term is also used to refer to Baal and other false gods.

But that doesn't take away the fact that God -- the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are the one and only true Godhead.

While "spirit" is a word with different meanings--
The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead, (not just a function done by angels or other heavenly Being.)

WHEN people hear the term “spirit,” what comes to their minds? Many believe that these words mean something invisible and immortal that exists inside us. They think that at death this invisible part leaves the body and continues to live.
Many believe that these "departed spirits" can come back, thus spiritualism grows popular. But scripture makes it plain those "departed spirits" are devils (fallen angels).Matt 8:16

Let's consider the Bible’s use of the term “spirit.”
Bible writers used the Hebrew word ru′ach or the Greek word pneu′ma when writing about the “spirit.” The Scriptures themselves indicate the meaning of those words. For instance, Psalm 104:29 states: “If you [Jehovah] take away their spirit [ru′ach], they expire, and return to their dust.” And James 2:26 notes that “the body without spirit [pneu′ma] is dead.” In these verses, then, “spirit” refers to that which gives life to a body. Without spirit, the body is dead.

So every person alive in that sense has "spirit", but it does not necessarily have anything to do with the Holy Spirit.
It is the spirit that sustains a person through illness ( Prov 18:14 ), but the spirit of the troubled person can be crushed ( Psalm 34:18 ). This spirit can be impaired or diminished as well as renewed or increased.
So "spirit" can mean our attitude to life as well.

"Ruah" can also refer to the will. Those whose spirits God had stirred up went up to rebuild the temple ( Ezr 1:5 ). Caleb had a different spirit from the other spies ( Num 14:24 ) and thus was resolute in his assessment relative to the conquest of the land. The psalmist prays for a steadfast spirit ( Psalm 51:10 ).

We are to worship in spirit and truth -- again this refers to our attitude, motives and belief.

In the New Testament spirit is also seen as that dimension of human personality whereby relationship with God is possible ( Mark 2:8 ; Acts 7:59 ; Rom 1:9 ; 8:16 ; 1 Cor 5:3-5 ). It is this human spiritual nature that enables continuing conversation with the divine Spirit ( Rom 8:9-17 ).

So yes indeed, the word 'spirit' applies even to human beings, and to angels etc.

BUT all that does not negate the reality of the third person of the Godhead -- the HOLY SPIRIT, and most certainly does NOT justify confusing "spirit" with the "HOLY SPIRIT".

When speaking of the Holy Spirit, "the comforter", in John 14-16 Jesus refers to HIM with the masculine pronoun. Now the word itself is neuter and the correct grammatical pronoun would be "it", but Christ did not follow the rules of grammar when referring to the Holy Spirit, Christ repeatedly used the pronoun HE: A pronoun showing us that this Spirit was a "divine person".
One Who would not speak of HIMSELF, but point people to Christ. (John 16:3, John 15:26)

The Holy Spirit is a Divine Person whose great purpose is to shape our sinful spirits (our attitudes, motives, view of life, and lives) into spirits that communicate with God.

The Holy Spirits speciality is to repair our spirits!

Some good analysis Dedication. Thanks for that.

I need to correct the underlined part above. Several of the pioneers initially viewed Christ as not being co-eternal with the Father. They believed he was begotten at an infinitely early period of the universe (which is an incomprehensible thought). But I've not found any evidence so far that any of the pioneers denied the person-hood of the Holy Spirit.

U. Smith did -- he wrote:
"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, Oct 28, 1890, Review and Herald}


On the other hand, EGW wrote:

"Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. DA 671

"We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds.--Manuscript 66, 1899

"The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."--Manuscript 20, 1906.

Have you found any other examples, Dedication? I noted that the date of Smith's statement that you quoted is 1890, two years after the 1888 conference when he initially rejected the message of Jones and Waggoner. Are there any examples of a pioneer between 1844 and let's say 1880 (which is the time when many believed that Christ was not co-eternal with the Father,) who also rejected the person-hood of the Holy Spirit.