For a Biblical breakdown on the Deity of Christ please click here. Below I am going to present a few troubling quotes in proper context and attempt to get a better understanding of Ellen White’s view on the doctrine.
“The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind.” EGW, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 07-09-1895, “The Duty of the Minister and the People,” Par. 14.
The quote above is troubling, she is plainly stating that Jesus Christ was “made”. Those who have studied scripture know that Jesus is uncreated, thus it would not be accurate to refer to him as “made”.
Below we see another troubling quote of Ellen White, where she is directly stating that Jesus wasn’t God.
“The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty” (Letter 32, 1899, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129).
I’ve passed this around and many will complain that the context clarifies her statement though. The problem is that there is no clarification that changes “not” into “is”. One must engage in sophistry to twist her words around another way. No matter how you shake it out she is confessing a heresy. Either she is dividing the two natures of Christ into two persons entirely and confessing Nestorianism or she is abrogating the divine nature with the human and confessing some form of Arianism.
I think it is the latter as that plays in well with her comments in Patriarchs and Prophets.
“The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor.” EGW, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 37
It is common knowledge that Arianism and Anti-Trinitarianism were widely held views in the early Seventh Day Adventist Church. Since I do not believe Ellen White was a prophet I have no trouble whatsoever accepting that she was catering to her audience by teaching views in line with those heresies.
Over time these heresies in the SDA Church have watered down a great deal. The problem is that the teachings of Ellen White are still commonly used in the SDA Church and despite their formal rejection of Arianism the themes and images conveyed in her writings taint their views. Just to give a personal example, when I was an SDA I pictured the Trinity as a Tri-unity of three beings united in a common purpose. Though their fundamental beliefs don’t read as such since the local teachers of the Church read her books, when the topic of the Trinity comes up it is taught using the themes and imagery that she uses.
My goal in this post is to prove this claim by analyzing Patriarchs and Prophets pages 34-37. Every so often I will drop in a verse or two which should clarify the Biblical doctrine being maligned by Ellen White.
“The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence. He had an associate–a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1, 2. Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father–one in nature, in character, in purpose–the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 34
Though there are many problems in the above statement what is most glaring is that she qualifies “one in nature” with character and purpose and then states Jesus as being the “only being that could enter”.
Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity not the second being. The doctrine of the Trinity is ONE BEING expressed in three persons. Ellen White is teaching a tri-unity of three beings in purpose rather than the Holy Trinity that the Bible teaches.
“The Father wrought by His Son in the creation of all heavenly beings” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 34
The problem with this is the Bible doesn’t say that the Father created through the Son in these verses (John 1:1-5, Col 1:16). Rather they attribute creation entirely to the Son. The only way of harmonizing this with other passages that also ascribe creation to the Father and to the Holy Spirit is the doctrine of the Trinity. God is one being in three persons. Here in this above quote Ellen is separating the persons of the Trinity into different beings acting through each other.
“So long as all created beings acknowledged the allegiance of love, there was perfect harmony throughout the universe of God. It was the joy of the heavenly host to fulfill the purpose of their Creator.” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 35
Though it is not entirely clear in this passage what Ellen means by “all created beings” and “the universe of God” we know from other writings that she taught there are beings on other planets, like Jupiter for example. Nowhere in scripture does it clearly state that beings live on Jupiter or any other planets except for earth.
“Little by little Lucifer came to indulge the desire for self-exaltation” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 35
This is important because we see the first mention of Satan desiring exaltation in Ellen’s writings. I want to point this out because I think it is key in defining her use of the word exaltation. Simply notice for now that the Devil wishes to be exalted. Right after stating this EGW quotes Isaiah 14:13 “Thou has said in thine heart, …. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God…” Isaiah 14:13, 14. So we can see that in using the word “exaltation” with regards to the Devils desires she is referencing a passage in Isaiah where the one being spoken of desires to be exalted to a place not only equal to but above God. For one to be exalted to a level higher than God they would logically have to start at a level that is lower than God in one fashion or another.
“And coveting the glory with which the infinite Father had invested His Son, this prince of angels aspired to power that was the prerogative of Christ alone.” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 35
This is an interesting statement as she states that the Devil is “coveting the glory with which the infinite father had invested”. How is it that the father “invested” glory in an uncreated one? By definition the glory of an uncreated Deity is intrinsic unto themselves. The Bible teaches that Christ already had the Glory of God before he humbled himself, and he doesn’t ascribe the pre-incarnate Glory he possessed as something given to him, but rather as something he simply had.
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” John 17:5 KJV
Above we see the Son speaking of his Glory, the glory “which [he] had”. It does not say ‘glorify me with the glory you once invested in me’. The later would work with Ellen Whites statement but the former does not.
Instead we see later on page 36 the following:
“The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 36
Here we see the “King” setting “forth the true position of His Son”. This makes no sense for anyone who believes what the Bible because as Christ did not humble himself before creation, but after. What we are seeing here on page 36 is an event that Lucifer later looks back to as an injustice. Putting it bluntly, Ellen White is saying that Lucifer and the other angels were actual eye witnesses to an event in which Christ is exalted to the level of God. It’s not enough that she has to teach Arian heresy but she is going to accuse the angels in heaven of being witnesses to and praising such a thing.
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:5-8 KJV
The reason you can Biblically assert that the Father exalted the Son (Php 2:9) without lessening the deity of the Son is that before he was exalted by the Father he humbled himself. Instead with EGW we saw above that the Son was exalted before creation, before the incarnation. That means she is teaching that Christ was in a humbled state in heaven. Since the manner in which he humbled himself in the incarnation is defined as taking the form of a man what possible “lower” state was Christ exalted from in heaven according to Ellen White? Fair question, and it is one she seems to explore later on the same page.
“Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father’s will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 36
Notice she connects a defining line between “Only Begotten of God” and “wrought the Father’s will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven”. Tying this in with the fact that she is teaching a lesser state of Christ prior to a heavenly exaltation I can only conclude that her meaning by Begotten here is that she is saying Christ is the first creation of the Father that created everything else.
The problem is that this would imply that Christ is a created being. The Bible removes that as a possibility in the following verses:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” John 1:1-3 KJV
In the above verse we see Jesus being ascribed with the following creative works “and without him was not any thing made that was made”. Logically, if Jesus was created then nothing was created because one would have to assert that Christ created himself.
“ His desire for supremacy returned, and envy of Christ was once more indulged.” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 37
Notice we see the theme of the jealousy of the Devil re-appear. Keeping everything in context, he is jealous of Christ. The Devil desires to be exalted from a lower place in created order to a higher place. And in the narrative of this heavenly story he is jealous of that which he just witnessed, the Son who was in a lower place of created order and was just exalted to a higher one. This is a full blown denial of the Deity of Christ in the writings of Ellen White.
“Yet the Son of God was exalted above him , as one in power and authority with the Father…..
The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 37
Above we see that the exaltation of Christ is again cited, a recent event that Lucifer just witnessed in the previous page, and he is jealous of it. The obvious problem of a pre-incarnate exaltation is that to exalt one must be lower in some fashion than they were before they were exalted otherwise the word has no meaning. So in effect, Ellen White is teaching that Jesus Christ was a created being and less than God before he was exalted to the level God, and that this exaltation was what the Devil had desired for himself. There is no getting around this, Ellen White functionally denies the Deity of Christ in her writings.
What does the reader feel about this? Do you want to follow the teachings of a false prophet that denies Jesus? Is she not promoting one of the false Christ’s that Jesus warned us about when he was on Earth?
Who is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of every creature:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
And the days of Adam after he had BEGOTTEN Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the FIRSTBEGOTTEN into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD;
I don’t know if its just my reading that has a problem,but these verses support EGW’s claim.
Jesus Christ is God,fully God. But to ask if God can be created is the same as asking if God can die,if God can be tempted by evil. Yet in the word we get that God is Immortal yet Christ died,we get that God cannot be tempted yet Christ was tempted,what does this mean? God is a mystery!!!!
You should really keep quoting in colosians.
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Colossians 1:16 ESV
If Jesus is created and he created all things are you saying he created himself?
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Colossians 1:16 ESV
“All things” in “heaven”…. Even himself? How did he created himself?
I don’t think you thought this through bro. All of your objections are easily explained. Christ is the first born in preeminence not in existence. Not something our modern minds jump to right away. But in ancient societies firstborn didn’t have the same meaning it does today. Today it really only means coming out of the womb first. Back then it was a position in the family.
The the word ” image” you have the Greek word icon which essentially means the same. So Paul is saying Christ is the same as the father in terms of deity.
This is part of how we come to the understanding of “same substance”.
But thanks for demonstrating that to be an Ellen White believer one must reject the Deity of Christ. That was actually the point of the post.
As far as temptation goes Christ was incarnate. He had hands that could steal and lips that could lie. And in these respects he could be tempted. But just as he is fully man he is fully God. He had no moral propensity to sin.
So I have a nose that can snork cocain but it will never happen. On that one sin I have no moral propensity to do so though the temptation in the world remains.
I’m simply arguing so was Christ in this respect yet in all sins.
You cannot claim mystery when the scripture clearly speaks on something. You’re expected to understand it. The scriptures are clear that Christ is God (Titus 2:13) and that he is uncreated.
Seriously you should read EGW’s stuff,you’ll see the wisdom.
And again, WHEN HE bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, HE SAITH, “And let all the angels of God worship him.”
When was Christ given the glory?
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
One thing I love about the testimonies is that,they really do make wise the simple.
You’re problem is Phillipians 2 is talking about a post incarnation exaltation. Ellen White is talking about a pre incarnation exaltation.
Ellen White is teaching Arianism. It’s an old heresy.
Post incarnation exaltation is simply a change in address. The scriptures say Christ emptied himself as a servant “kenosis” which you recall he said the greatest in heaven is the greatest servant. In doing so he abandons the privileges of heaven. And in the exaltation he receives it again by raising up to heaven.
At no point does exaltation imply he was less in nature. He was lower in location.
With Ellen White she is teaching that while Christ was in heaven he was exalted. The scriptures never say this. And since change in location is not logical you are left with exaltation to godhood. This is Arianism.
Combine that with the other quote that Jesus was made and you have a full blown heretic deceiving people for hundreds of years.
You know,when it comes to the things of God I just learned that one doesn’t have to take it anyhow because these things are holy. I’m sorry for the above arianism.
These topics are delicate and we shouldn’t treat them with indifference. I will quote a few quotes from the same pages of Patriachs and Prophets.
“The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. PP 36.2”
“There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer’s envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer’s deceptions. PP 38.1”
From the two quotes we see that Ellen says the reason for the exaltation,and on the 2nd quote she makes it clear that this exaltation wasn’t something new,it has always been like that,but because of the claims of satan,Christ’s position had to be reminded the heavenly beings. Which from these statements,by reason,it tells me that Christ must have been so humble to a state where Lucifer forget that Christ was divine,and when the counsel of God took place and only Christ could enter therein,He became jealous.
But that was just my reasoning. But we are now clear that Ellen doesn’t mean exalted to a certain state,but more like making His position clear.
There is something about the Godly oneness,Christ in
….. Holy Father,keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me,that they may be ONE,as WE ARE.
And the glory which thou gavent me I have given them; that they may be ONE,EVEN AS WE ARE ONE.
I don’t know if this ONE means same substance or seperate beings who can be one in another sense.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be ONE flesh.
And in passing:
“A person is a thinking intelligent BEING”
Noah websters 1828 dictionary.
But let me not argue further,as the above mentioned quotes sets the record straight. Its a pity because when you read this from the patriachs and prophets,you get all the words ellen uses,but you quote that which you want to fight against,where as if you had quoted the whole pages,everything is explained there. Like,the exaltation that she talks about,which it was setting the record straight and not a higher position. 2) Christ as God is not in question in the whole story,but obviously when you start breaking it down,you do find it.
Another thing I would ask from you is please brother,quote verses to the things you say and don’t pick and choose when you respond,like Rev 3:14 you didn’t respond to it,and firstborn in the context of Col 1:15 doesn’t mean preeminence,but it is the same as Firstbegotten found in Hebrews 1:6 which in greek it is Prototokos,taken from Protokos which means: before,beginning and so on. So your explanation would be easy to take if you include sources my brother.
I may add this to the post later as I get it alot online. What bakes your cookies sir is that Ellen White used the word “exalt”. It doesn’t mean to present as you seem to assume. It actually can’t mean that. Look up the word in a 19th century dictionary and this is what you get:
“1. To raise high; to elevate.
2. To elevate in power, wealth, rank or dignity; as, to exalt one to a throne, to the chief magistracy, to a bishopric.”
So point of fact is that Ellen White was saying Christ was higher one point than he was another in a preincarnate sense. No getting around that.
I realize she contradicts herself later but you do need to understand that Ellen White contradicts herself, the Bible, and history many times that’s nothing new. I think it just depends on who she is plagiarizing from at the moment so I guess I don’t put all the blame on her. It is what it is.
I put together a study on the Holy Trinity a while back.
Take a look, you will see when all the clear scripture is assembled the Bible teaches three clear theses
1) One God
2) Three persons
3) One substance
We say one being because if you have more than one being then you don’t have one God. We say three persons because three personalities are ascribed all of the attributes of God. (Including being uncreated)
3) we say one substance because the Bible teaches their substance is the same, its not just a oneness of purpose.
I realize this can get confusing when you’re reading Ellen White as she divides them into separate bodies in an Arian narrative in heaven. So you’re trying to reconcile the two. It’s easier if you just ignore her and focus on the Bible.
First you say you are against Arianism but now you’re confessing it again? I’m sorry but I don’t see the need to address every single verse you quote I think one tends to explain the other. But if there is one you want me to focus on lets do that.
First of all, you should also read verse 8 where the father literally calls the son God.
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Hebrews 1:5, 8 ESV
So we don’t have a creator created relationship. Both persons are the same being. Begotten is the relationship of the son to the Father in like manner that proceeding is the relationship of the Father to the Holy Spirit.
To substantiate my claim of relationship further one has to delve into the Greek. I am not a Greek scholar. But I can quote one. The people over at gotquestions. Org did a good job on this so if you don’t mind I’ll quote and link their work.
“It’s this last phrase (“only begotten” used in the KJV, NASB and the NKJV) that causes problems. False teachers have latched onto this phrase to try to prove their false teaching that Jesus Christ isn’t God; i.e., that Jesus isn’t equal in essence to God as the Second Person of the Trinity. They see the word “begotten” and say that Jesus is a created being because only someone who had a beginning in time can be “begotten.” What this fails to note is that “begotten” is an English translation of a Greek word. As such, we have to look at the original meaning of the Greek word, not transfer English meanings into the text.
So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogeneshas two primary definitions. The first definition is “pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship.” This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten son” (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.
The second definition is “pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind.” This is the meaning that is implied inJohn 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenesto highlight Jesus as uniquely God’s Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God’s sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.
The bottom line is that terms such as “Father” and “Son,” descriptive of God and Jesus, are human terms that help us understand the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. If you can understand the relationship between a human father and a human son, then you can understand, in part, the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The analogy breaks down if you try to take it too far and teach, as some Christian cults (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses), that Jesus was literally “begotten” as in “produced” or “created” by God the Father.”
The scriptures also teach that the Holy Spirit is creator, uncreated, same substance etc etc.
If you really want to learn about the Trinity I recommend you take a look at my blog post I linked above. Also I recommend this book linked below. It is written by a sound Biblical scholar who actually believes in the Bible. I know….. Those are getting rare these days!
The Forgotten Trinity https://www.amazon.com/dp/1556617259/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_HU7Jwb6W85BY3
No I better leave you on Ellen Issue because you don’t want to take her at her own words.
But I really don’t get the Oneness in substance of God. You say He is one,yes the bible says that. But what about John 17:11,21,22,John 10:30,1 John 5:7?
The thing about God being one in substance is that you have to ignore Christ’s definition of oneness,but you will have to read other verse and make your own conclusion.
I would say to you,we have more proof of God being 3persons than we have have of one Substance. Why? You may ask?
Because in the Baptism of Christ(Matt 3:16-17),we see 3 God’s,tell me if I’m lying?
1) And Jesus was baptized
2) He saw the Spirit descending
3) This is my beloved Son
Tell me if I’m wrong; The bible was written by God for humans,in a language that humans can understand and be able to relate to. Heavenly things we can not understand if they will be direct,but using what we know and have seen,we can be able to understand. E.g Christ used parables of nature and man alike to relate His teachings. Of which I believe it is the theme of the whole bible.
Now my question to you will be,how do you communicate with yourself? How do you talk to yourself?
To me then the bible doesn’t make sense.
Well I would like you to explain what you think Ellen White meant by the use of the word “exalt” in keeping with its definition and not deviating from that.
I would really like you to please read my post on the Trinity. I explain one substance there.
There are three clear theses in the Bible. Each taught by many passages
1) One God
2) Three persons
3) one substance
To deny one of those three you have to use the verses in one of them to try to delete the one you don’t like. I’m saying accept them all as true.
To counter your last point, you can only understand what the Bible explains. If it is silent on something then you can’t expect that area of silence to be clear or even reasonable. You are free in those areas to theologically reflect the connecting of ideas but not to be dogmatic. As long as said ideas do not contradict clear scripture.
So, all three theses are true but we don’t know how. I would argue that God is one substance but not necessarily one molecule on the periodic table either. This is part of the miracle of the incarnation as the substance of God expanded to include flesh in the incarnation. And in this an omnipotent omnipresent being also became a human who grew and learned. Both at the same time, not less or more of the other. Not a part of the substance of God, but God of very God.
Yet distinct enough in persons that we can hear one and see two at the baptism.
The substance of God isn’t just in two or three locations at one time he is omnipresent. So your conclusion limiting God into three bodies falls apart with that.
No I better leave you on Ellen Issue because you don’t want to take her at her own words.
What obligates anyone to believe the lies of a woman prophet who claims God has a sinful nature?
I thought Jesus was God. You mouth those words, but add in your own evil ideas that He has a sin nature. Scripture teaches no such thing about God. That means you are incontinent, cannot control your mouth, and are certainly NOT denying self, which shows you are not obeying this command from Jesus:
Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, Whoever wants to be My disciple must DENY themselves and take up their cross and follow Me.
When you break one of His commands, you have broken them all, remember?
Your ‘faith’ witthout the good works of obeying Jesus are dead. James 2:17
James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
This means that your taking His name in vain, worship Him in vain, and are a massive 10 commandment breaker. You keep NOTHING holy, not even your much ballyhoo’d sabbath. You are bearing false witness that you keep any day holy!
Such is the lot of people deceived by Ellen White via Wm Miller, via the devil.
1cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, THE FATHER, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one LORD JESUS CHRIST, by whom are all things, and we by him.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
One only true God with his only begotten Son
The scripture teaches that there is only one God. And that Jesus is God. And that Jesus is man. And that the Holy Spirit is God. And that the Father is God. And that these three persons are not each other but are all God. And that all three persons are the same substance.
All of these are plainly taught from scripture. You either end up picking and choosing which ones you believe or, if you’re a Christian, you accept all as true and start using the word Trinity.
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”-Is. 9:6
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”-Acts 20:28
Easy 🙂 Praise God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You should not leave out context. For example… “The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless.” She is clearly referring to His humanity when she makes the statement. In other words, He was not the Lord God Almighty in human form, subject to human frailty and weakness, yet, His Deity did not sink… it is nonetheless. That’s why I find sites like this to be deceptive, inconclusive in its statements and carrying a personal agenda. In just the first statement that you made, you have been exposed in error and lacking the discernment that comes for the Holy Ghost. In seeking to be wise, you have become foolish. And it is the fool that follows the fool into the ditch. I’m not trying to be cruel or condescending, but I am exhorting you to be careful lest you blaspheme the work of the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of prophecy.
I disagree. The context doesn’t save her statement. Also, Christ is fully man and fully God. To divide the two is called the nestorian heresy. So you actually make my point even further even if your assumption is true.
Hi, awesome post. Must report a dead link(Biblical breakdown on the Deity of Christ).
Please change it from http://www.armchairtheologian.info/2016/02/14/deity-of-christ/
Is I part, allow me to add my 2 pence worth of knowledge from simple reasoning and it is this…
That a lot of the bible ceases to make sense if believers do not accept the concept of the “Trinity” i.e. that the Godhead is made up of one person who is at the same time 3 people who are all equal in power and origin. For example:
1. *God raised Christ from the dead.* – Romans 8:11, Acts 2:24
2. *Christ raised Himself from the dead.* – John 10:18, John 2:19
If Christ is not God yet He died on the cross, then how did He resurrect Himself if He was totally dead? Adams death was to be eternal death i.e. the total no coming back from one. If Christ was not totally equal with God the Father, then we have a serious resurrection problem because we have just been conned out of eternal existence i.e. we acquire an eternity short of equality with God. If God created Jesus, then Jesus cannot give us God’s eternity which would not be eternity at all if it means that he borrowed it or was loaned it from the Father. Jesus could not give what He did not own period!
Isaiah 9:6 equates God to Christ when talking about the per-incarnate Christ says … *He will be called _Wonderful Counselor_ , _Mighty God_ , _Everlasting Father_ , _Prince of Peace_* We know the counselor is the Holy Spirit, The Everlasting Father is obviously God and the Prince of Peace is definitely Jesus. Now, if they are not one and the same, then we have a problem here.
Heb 7:3 says that Christ has no beginnings i.e. no mother, no father, has no ancestors and thus no genealogy. That is why in John 8:58, Jesus in describing Himself used the words *I AM* meaning the self-existent one. Yet in other numerous verses we see them say that God is His Father. This can only mean one thing, that they are ONE, despite the apparent contradiction in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, the truth is that this is what Paul calls the *MYSTERY OF GODLINESS* in 1 Tim 3:16. Therefore, we must accept it as divinely inspired word of God from both the Prophets of old and sister E.G.White even though their seemed to be an apparent contradiction otherwise our salvation means nothing and out faith no different from the Christ refuting religions of this world.
This website is full of lies and misquotes from EW writings.
Please show me what I’ve misquoted and I’ll address it. With respect to the lies accusation, I must point out SDA generally claim anything they disagree with to be a lie. So I’d need more details in order to take it seriously.
This was well articulated and those who claim ACTheologian was misquoting and lying about Ellen White’s militant anti-Trinitarianism can be silenced easily by referring them to perhaps the most anti-Trinitarian work to ever grace the pages of the SDA Sabbath Herald – the person directly responsible for that article was none other than Ellen White herself. I’ll be emailing the proof to ACT so he can make use of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person