If I am with you "in spirit", am I in two places at the same time? Not technically, right? My "spirit" isn't a separate person. Neither is the spirit (lower case) of God a separate person. But the Spirit (upper case) of God is the third person of the Godhead. As such, He is a person.

Hi MM

You said

“I understand you are unwilling to state the obvious conclusion of your beliefs. But it doesn't detract from the fact it is obvious. If Jesus is not, as you say, as eternal as the Father, then it stands to reason there was a time when Jesus did not exist as a conscious, separate being. This conclusion is loud and clear whether it is stated or not.”

Please let me correct you. I did not actually say Jesus is not as eternal as the Father but I did say (see my post 92179 12th Oct)

“I answered you in the only way that I considered possible. This is in keeping with what the Scriptures say (Micah 5:2) which is that the divine life of Christ prior to His existence cannot be measured by any means known to human reckoning. In other words, it is indeterminable (concealed). Besides this I have no answer for you.”

You say that the conclusion regarding my remarks “is loud and clear whether it is stated or not.”?

Ok. Let me share with you something that was said by Ellen White in 1899. This was the year following the publication of ‘The Desire of Ages. First though the context. Context is always very important. In this case it is absolutely imperative. This is because recently there have been certain views expressed on this forum regarding the understanding of Ellen White’s remarks concerning the “I AM” statement of Jesus.

Here is the context

“The scribes and Pharisees accused Christ of blasphemy because He made Himself equal with God. But He promptly met and denied their accusations. "Art Thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead?" they asked Him; "whom makest Thou Thyself?" Jesus answered: "If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing; it is My Father that honoreth Me; of whom ye say, that He is your God; yet ye have not known Him, but I know Him; and if I should say, I know Him not, I shall be a liar like unto you; but I know Him, and keep His saying. Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto Him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, 3rd May 1899, ‘The Word made flesh)

Ok - now for what she said next. She wrote

“Here Christ shows them that, altho they might reckon His life to be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures.” (Ibid)

Here is my question for you. How much different is that to what I said?

I would also ask what you would say is the “loud and clear” conclusion of what Ellen White said here “whether it is stated or not”? Is it that Christ is not coeternal with the Father?

Would you also say (as you said to me) that Ellen White was “unwilling to state the obvious conclusion”? Note again that she made this statement the year AFTER the publication of ‘The Desire of Ages’. What is that saying to us about Jerry Moon’s ‘1898 continental divide’?

When I made my statement saying that Christ’s pre-existence could not be measured by any means known to humanity (see posts 92175 and 92179) I did not appeal to the writings of Ellen White but to Scripture alone (see Micah 5:2). It is very important that we can ‘prove’ our beliefs without quoting Ellen White. That is not undermining God’s purposes in this lady. Without her writings and regarding things of a spiritual nature, I would not know anything near what I know today (probably I would know nothing at all). I thank God for what He has done for His people through her. Through her He has given us an abundance of knowledge and wisdom. To be able to share our views with others though not of our faith, we need to be able to substantiate them from Scripture alone.

If you remember, I did say to you previously (post 92179, 12th Oct)

“In my years of study, I have never found anywhere where Ellen White says any differently, at least not when her writings are considered as a whole. I admit that when certain statements are singled out and the rest of what she says is ignored it can look as though she is saying that the Son is co-eternal (coeval) with the Father but this is not the way that I use her writings.”

It appears to me that this is as far as God has gone with His revelation concerning the pre-existence of His Son. As I said before, I think it best if we leave it there. I could not ‘prove’ from Scripture alone any different than what I now believe.

Regards
Terry

I was in a hurry yesterday, so could not give your post the attention it deserved. I'll try to address the other points you made here.

I know that the following is circumstantial evidence but when Kellogg said in 1903 that he had come to believe in the trinity, it not only took the brethren by surprise but in one testimony to him in 1904, EGW condemned all three-in-one beliefs of God. If what you and Moon says is true - meaning that her Desire of Ages (1898) revealed God as a trinity - then why should this have happened?

I'm not sure what you're referring to her, in regards to EGW condemning all three-in-one beliefs of God. What statement of hers do you have in mind?

Re the Desire of Ages statement (page 469-470) – I believe that it is legitimate and I quite agree with it. Why should I think that it has been altered? I do not understand???

Perhaps I misread you. If so, I apologize, but it was my understanding that you felt the life original etc. statement had been altered. If so, then other statements could be altered as well.

I read a little of your response to MM regarding this statement, and it did not seem to address the point that makes it a strong statement for me, which is that she identifies Jesus Christ as Jehovah. In regards to the views of contemporaries of EGW, here are some statements from Waggoner:

"In many places in the Bible Christ is called God." and he cites a number of these places. (Christ and His Righteousness 8). On page 15 he writes, "If He had been what they regarded Him, a mere man, His words would indeed have been blasphemy, but He was God." On page 23, "He is properly called Jehovah, the self-existent One." So here is a contemporary who is declaring that Jesus Christ is God, and that He is properly called Jehovah, the self-existent One, similar to what EGW wrote.

There is also something else here to be considered. It seems to me that you are attempting to say (along with Jerry Moon) that EGW advocated through what she wrote that we change our faith from non-trinitarian to trinitarian.

No, I didn't say that. I just cited Moon for one reason, which was to establish that 1898 was an important year.

Do you realise that in trinitarian theology, as held by our denomination and by orthodoxy, it is impossible for the pre-existent Son of God to lose His eternal existence? So what do we do with all the EGW statements as quoted in previous posts that say He could have lost it?

Something here seems to be amiss.

There are things, in general, our denomination has wrong (or, at least, elements of it), so it wouldn't surprise me if there are mistakes in this area, or in any other area. If there are contradictions with EGW statements and something the denomination teaches (or some element of the denomination), what we need to do is correct the denominational statements.

Was the Godhead or the nature of the Holy Spirit or Christ's pre-existence part of "the pillars of our faith" -- "the truths that have made us as a people what we are, leading us on step by step"? Did EGW count these as part of the "fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years"?

Hi Tom

Thanks for your kindly reply

The one thing I like about this forum is that there is a Christian spirit here rather than aggro. I was on a forum recently that was nothing short of abusive at times (rather immature really). It seems here that people are looking for the truth.

None of us have a monopoly on the truth. We are all the finite trying to get to grips with the infinite. Having said that none of us can go any further than what God has revealed – and maybe that’s not very far.

I can always remember many years ago that I was really surprised by something that EGW said in a General Conference Bulletin (you will see why). Perhaps to a degree it is relevant to our studies. She said

“Men of the greatest intellect cannot understand the mysteries of Jehovah as revealed in nature. Divine inspiration asks many questions which the most profound scholar cannot answer. These questions were not asked, supposing that we could answer them, but to call our attention to the deep mysteries of God, and to make men know that their wisdom is limited, that in the common things of daily life there are mysteries past the comprehension of finite minds; that the judgment and purposes of God are past finding out, is wisdom unsearchable. If he reveals himself to man, it is by shrouding himself in the thick cloud of mystery.” (Ellen G. White, General Conference Bulletin, 18th February 1897, ‘God in nature’)

She then said (it was the next two sentences that surprised me)

“God's purpose is to conceal more of himself than he makes known to man. Could men fully understand the ways and works of God, they would not then believe him to be the infinite One. He is not to be comprehended by man in his wisdom, and reasons, and purposes. "His ways are past finding out." His love can never be explained upon natural principles. If this could be done, we would not feel that we could trust him with the interests of our souls. Skeptics refuse to believe, because with their finite minds they cannot comprehend the infinite power by which God reveals himself to men.” (Ibid)

Anyway, back to the issues.

Sorry if I was not clear about the Desire of Ages statement but I have no argument with it.

I do believe that Christ is properly called Jehovah. That is not a problem to me unless the two personalities of God and Christ become confused. They must always be kept separate.

Re 1898 – I still cannot accept Jerry Moon’s statement. Never in Ellen White’s time did that book have any affect on the theology of the SDA Church.

I really do love your attitude here when you say

“There are things, in general, our denomination has wrong (or, at least, elements of it), so it wouldn't surprise me if there are mistakes in this area, or in any other area. If there are contradictions with EGW statements and something the denomination teaches (or some element of the denomination), what we need to do is correct the denominational statements.”

This is the voice of true hope and optimism. It is also the voice of someone wanting to get it right. Unfortunately Tom I am afraid it is not the voice of our church leadership. I have proven that for myself.

To try and get them to even think they are wrong is (I have found) an almost impossible task. I am not being pessimistic here but realistic and practical based on my own past personal experience. I will tell you about it sometime. It is too much for this post.

Have you listened to the keynote address given by Jan Paulsen at the 2007 AC? It is worth listening to. I don’t want to bring it into this thread as such but it is very relevant to what you have said and the trinity debate within our church today.

The article is here in the latest Review.

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1427

Click on the watch the sermon link to hear the entire message.

You also said

“I'm not sure what you're referring to her, in regards to EGW condemning all three-in-one beliefs of God. What statement of hers do you have in mind?”

I am going to assume that you know that in an attempt to justify what he had written in his book ‘The Living Temple’ Kellogg said that he had come to believe in the trinity. What he was actually saying was that he had come to believe that the Holy Spirit was a person like God and Christ, which is something that was not believed by SDA’s then (1903). They believed that the Holy Spirit was God and Christ omnipresent when the latter two were not bodily present. SDA’s still maintained that same belief after EGW said that He was a personality. In other words, they still did not see Him as a person like God and Christ. Kellogg (at least in his thinking) by saying that he believed that the Holy Spirit was a person like God and Christ managed to separate Him from the Father and Son. In this way he was not saying that God the Father was in nature but the Holy Spirit. That is the way that I see it anyway. Like in everything else, I am open to correction and modifying my views.

Where EGW condemned three-in-one illustrations of God was in a testimony she wrote condemning Kellogg and the way that he was treating the Testimonies. She said

“I am instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted.” (Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, page 62 ‘Come out and be separate’)

She then said (these are the three-in-one illustrations

“Such representations as the following are made: "The Father is as the light invisible; the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit is the light shed abroad." "The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor; the Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is like the dew fallen to the seat of life." Another representation: "The Father is like the invisible vapor; the Son is like the leaden cloud; the Spirit is rain fallen and working in refreshing power." (Ibid)

Here is the condemnation

“All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken and diminish the Majesty which no earthly likeness can be compared to. God can not be compared with the things His hands have made. These are mere earthly things, suffering under the curse of God because of the sins of man. “The Father can not be described by the things of earth.” (Ibid)

There then followed what I term the most comprehensive statement on the Godhead in all her writings. She said

“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. 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 fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour.” (Ibid)

She then said

"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. . . . "

Terry

Hi Arnold

That is a very good question. The short answer is that yes she did.

In the past there have been those (mainly trinitarians) who have tried to say that what we believed about the Godhead was not part of our landmark beliefs but when this is given some thought it does not really make sense. We are God’s remnant people. All of our beliefs are based on what we believe about God and Christ. In early SDA’ism, it was not a debated matter. The belief was that Christ is God essentially. The belief concerning the Holy Spirit was not so sure. It was still not a major issue though as far as I can tell.

Ellen White upheld the pioneer’s beliefs about Christ. Never did she say that they were wrong in what they believed. This was even though some were strongly anti-trinitarian.

Some people give these beliefs a label (I do not really like doing it). They call it semi-Arianism. It was the belief that some time in eternity (for want of a better turn of phrase), the Son was begotten of the Father. This was also Ellen White’s belief. As far as I know she maintained it until she died. I have never seen any evidence to the contrary.

When our beliefs were under attack in the early 1900’s she made this statement to the delegates at the 1905 GC session

“Let not any man enter upon the work of tearing down the foundations of the truth that have made us what we are. God has led His people forward step by step though there were pitfalls of error on every side. Under the wonderful guidance of a plain, "Thus saith the Lord," a truth has been established that has stood the test of trial. When men arise and attempt to draw away disciples after them, meet them with the truths that have been tried as by fire.” (Ellen G. White to the delegates at the 1905 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Takoma Park, Washington D. C., May 24th 1905, "A Warning against False Theories," MR 760)

Then, after quoting Revelation 3:1-3 (which was God’s message to Sardis telling them to hold fast to their beliefs) she said

“Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.” (Ibid)

Here it can be seen that in 1905, Ellen White included in our foundational truths the beliefs we then held regarding God and Christ. She was obviously appealing to remember how our faith had been established and 'hold fast' to them. Notice there was no mention of the personality of the Holy Spirit. Note also the differentiating between God and Christ as two separate beings.

Up to the late 1890’s, the belief was that the Holy Spirit was not a person like God and Christ were persons. In fact for very understandable reasons (the way that the Scriptures speak of the activities of the Holy Spirit) He was not even considered a person at all by some although the pioneers regarded both Him and His work in the redemption of mankind with the highest of esteem. In fact they said that He was ‘everything’ in the salvation of man.

The Holy Spirit was considered to be the presence of both the Father and the Son when the latter two were not bodily present. In other words, the Holy Spirit was God and Christ omnipresent. Even when EGW said that He was a personality they still went on believing the same. This did not change their theology so it was not a big deal as such. Ellen White insisted that the nature of the Holy Spirit was a mystery that God had not revealed. This is probably one of the reasons why they still did not regard Him as a person like God and Christ. As far as I know she never went beyond that statement. It was not until Froom started pushing a trinitarian view of the Holy Spirit (1920’s/1930’s) after Ellen White had died that the main body of members began to change their thinking. Even then it was a very slow process. A denomination’s beliefs cannot be changed overnight, even if some would like to have done it.

Hope this helps

Terry

Terry, I've appreciated your tone as well. Regarding Kellogg, you run into Kellogg vs. EGW on a number of issues, having to choose between the two, and I just don't find Kellogg's testimony to be trustworthy.

Regarding the three-in-one condemnations, I think she was arguing against making a representation and saying this represents God. Those illustrations are rather close to idolatry, it seems to me. It's human nature, I guess, to try to come up with ways to better comprehend God, but whatever illustration we come up with just winds up lessening Him.

Regarding Waggoner's statements, am I understanding you correctly that you have no problem with the statements that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus Christ is Jehovah? I understand you accept these statements, provided the personalities of the Father and the Son are not confused, which I don't think is an issue (I've only heard of one heresy involving this, which asserts that Jesus Christ and the Father are the same person, and simply different manifestations of God, but this is pretty rare).

Given it to be the case that these statements are accepted (i.e., Jesus Christ is God, Jesus Christ is Jehovah) then if we are to make the statement, "There was a time when Jesus Christ did not exist" this is tantamount to saying "There was a time when Jehovah did not exist," isn't it?

Terry: If you remember, I did say to you previously (post 92179, 12th Oct)

“In my years of study, I have never found anywhere where Ellen White says any differently, at least not when her writings are considered as a whole. I admit that when certain statements are singled out and the rest of what she says is ignored it can look as though she is saying that the Son is co-eternal (coeval) with the Father but this is not the way that I use her writings.”

It appears to me that this is as far as God has gone with His revelation concerning the pre-existence of His Son. As I said before, I think it best if we leave it there. I could not ‘prove’ from Scripture alone any different than what I now believe.

MM: Terry, sorry for the confusion. What I should have said is - Your unwillingness to say Jesus is as eternal as the Father is "loud and clear". To me, this implies Jesus may not be as eternal as the Father. I realize you believe Sister White was as uncertain about it as you are. What is my point? I don't have one. I'm just trying to understand what you believe. That's all. Have I understood you correctly?

G: Was the Godhead or the nature of the Holy Spirit or Christ's pre-existence part of "the pillars of our faith" -- "the truths that have made us as a people what we are, leading us on step by step"? Did EGW count these as part of the "fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years"?

MM: Gordon, did you overlook my post quoted above?

Hi again Tom

1. Kellogg said he had come to believe in the trinity.
2. The illustrations that EGW condemns in a testimony about him are the types that the trinitarians use to describe how God is three-in-one.

These are such as root, branch, fruit, also ice, water, steam, also stream, river, sea etc. They are all meant to show how one thing is in relation to the other two and how one comes from the other, meaning three individual things but one in essence. In other words, you cannot have the fruit without the branch and you cannot have the branch without the root etc etc. All of them are three-in-one. Do you see what I mean? This is supposed to represent how God's being is a trinity (a tri-unity or three-in-one)

Let me give you an SDA example. I cannot go into detail here (too much to type) but you see that comprehensive EGW Godhead statement in my last post to you, also the condemnation for 3 in 1 illustrations – well last year in our SS lesson book (March 26th 2006), and in attempting to ‘prove’ that God is a trinity, that comprehensive statement was quoted. Unfortunately it was quoted minus the condemnation of the 3 in 1 illustrations; also certain sentences were removed in the second paragraph that suggested a begotten Christ. This said the authors of the lesson showed that the EGW statement revealed God is 3 in 1 (sneaky?). They then asked

“What analogies—such as a triangle or a three-pronged fork — can help someone understand the idea of how one God can be composed of three equal Persons? What other examples might help us better understand this deep truth?” (The Seventh-day Adventist Lesson quarterly, 2nd quarter 2006 Sunday March 26th page 7)

Apart from the fact that we should never liken God’s being to a three pronged fork (you can see why God does not approve of 3 in 1 illustrations), what I am trying to say here is that if the 3 in 1 condemnations from EGW had been quoted, then obviously the author(s) of the lesson could not have said here that God is like a triangle or a three-pronged fork, neither could they have asked the SS students to think up even more 3 in 1 illustrations which they probably spent half the lesson study time in doing. Quite obviously, this is why the condemnation of 3 in 1 illustrations was omitted. I see this as a total abuse of the testimonies that God, through His Holy Spirit, has deemed fit to put in His church to save us from believing error. What I wonder at is God’s patience in all of this.

Here is what was quoted of EGW in the lesson study

“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. The Word of God declares Him to be ‘the express image of His person.’ . . . The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness 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.”—Ellen G. White, Evangelism, pp. 614, 615.” (The Seventh-day Adventist Lesson quarterly, 2nd quarter 2006 Sunday March 26th page 7)

Check it out and you will see that this is made up of 3 separate paragraphs. The 1st sentence is from a paragraph that has six sentences before it that are omitted. The next 2 sentences are from a paragraph with the last 2 sentences omitted. The 3rd paragraph is whole. This is a terrible way to treat the testimonies of God’s Spirit. No wonder EGW said

Why will not men see and live the truth? Many study the Scriptures for the purpose of proving their own ideas to be correct. They change the meaning of God's word to suit their own opinions. And they do also with the testimonies that He sends. They quote half a sentence, leaving out the other half, which, if quoted, would show their reasoning to be false” (Ellen G. White, Diary, January 10th 1890, MS 22 1890)

She then said

“God has a controversy with those who wrest the Scriptures, making them conform to their preconceived ideas” (Ibid)

I believe that is only reasonable to assume that God also has a controversy with those who do the same with the testimonies of His Spirit.

You said

“Given it to be the case that these statements are accepted (i.e., Jesus Christ is God, Jesus Christ is Jehovah) then if we are to make the statement, "There was a time when Jesus Christ did not exist" this is tantamount to saying "There was a time when Jehovah did not exist," isn't it?”

No it isn’t because the Father is Jehovah (God). This is not the same personality as the Son even though the Son is God (John 1:1). The Father and Son are two separate personalities. It was the Son of God (the Word) that became flesh (John 1:14) not God the Father. The Son was begotten of the Father (Jehovah) therefore He (the Son) is also Jehovah. It also follows that if the Son had gone out of existence (getting almost back to the beginning of this thread) then the Father (Jehovah) would have remained.

Regards

Terry