Christian Forums

Seems to have been discussed here recently quite a bit. 

That would depend upon what exactly one meant by the trinity, as there are many differing views concerning just exactly what that means. She believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As the majority of Christians I would say do. Now the exact place, function, and or hierarchy of each or not, is where everyone begins to differ. Which is understandable, in that this mystery is not fully explained in scripture.

The following are quotes from Ellen G. White concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Emphasis is mine.

QuoteIn baptism we are given to the Lord as a vessel to be used. Baptism is a most solemn renunciation of the world. Self is by profession dead to a life of sin. The waters cover the candidate, and in the presence of the whole heavenly universe the mutual pledge is made. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, man is laid in his watery grave, buried with Christ in baptism, and raised from the water to live the new life of loyalty to God. The three great powers in heaven are witnesses; they are invisible but present.

In the first chapter of Second Peter is presented the progressive work in the Christian life. The whole chapter is a lesson of deep importance. If man, in acquiring the Christian graces, works on the plan of addition, God has pledged Himself to work in his behalf upon the plan of multiplication. "Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord." [Verse 2.] The work is laid out before every soul that has acknowledged his faith in Jesus Christ by baptism, and has become a receiver of the pledge from the three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

(15LtMs, Ms 57, 1900, par. 10&11/ Letters and Manuscripts-Volume 15)

QuoteThe vows which we take upon ourselves in baptism embrace much. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit we are buried in the likeness of Christ's death and raised in the likeness of His resurrection, and we are to live a new life. Our life is to be bound up with the life of Christ. Henceforth the believer is to bear in mind that he is dedicated to God, to Christ, and to the Holy Spirit. He is to make all worldly considerations secondary to this new relation. Publicly he has declared that he will no longer live in pride and self-indulgence. He is no longer to live a careless, indifferent life. He has made a covenant with God. He has died to the world. He is to live to the Lord, to use for Him all his entrusted capabilities, never losing the realization that he bears God's signature, that he is a subject of Christ's kingdom, a partaker of the divine nature. He is to surrender to God all that he is and all that he has, employing all his gifts to His name's glory.

(1900 Testimonies for the Church Vol. 6 98.3)

QuoteChrist has made baptism the sign of entrance to His spiritual kingdom. He has made this a positive condition with which all must comply who wish to be acknowledged as under the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Before man can find a home in the church, before passing the threshold of God's spiritual kingdom, he is to receive the impress of the divine name, "The Lord our Righteousness." Jeremiah 23:6.

(Ibid. 91.2)

QuoteThe Bible, and the Bible alone, can produce this good result. It is the wisdom of God and the power of God, and it works with all power in the receptive heart. Oh, what heights we might reach if we would conform our wills to the will of God! It is the power of God that we need, wherever we are. The frivolity that cumbers the church makes it weak and indifferent. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are seeking and longing for channels through which to communicate to the world the divine principles of truth.

(Testimonies for the Church Vol. 8, 194.1)

QuoteThe 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.

(Special Testimonies, Series B, 7:62, 63. (1905).)

More on the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost from EGW.

QuoteMarch 1, 1906

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost

EGW
The Father can not be described by the things of 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. 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.BTS March 1, 1906, par. 1

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 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

What is the sinner to do?—Believe in Christ. He is Christ's property, bought with the blood of the Son of God. Through test and trial the Saviour redeemed human beings from the slavery of sin. What then must we do to be saved from sin?—Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as the sin-pardoning Saviour. He who confesses his sin and humbles his heart will receive forgiveness. Jesus is the sin-pardoning Saviour as well as the only begotten Son of the infinite God. The pardoned sinner is reconciled to God through Jesus Christ our Deliverer from sin. Keeping in the path of holiness, he is a subject of the grace of God. There is brought to him full salvation, joy, and peace, and the true wisdom that comes from God.BTS March 1, 1906, par. 3

Faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ is the assurance of pardon. Christ can cleanse away all sin. Simple reliance on that power day by day will give the human agent keen wisdom to discern what will keep the soul in these last days from the bondage of sin. By faith and prayer, through the knowledge of Christ, he is to work out his own salvation.BTS March 1, 1906, par. 4

The Holy Spirit recognizes and guides us into all truth. God has given His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Christ is the sinner's Saviour. Christ's death has redeemed the sinner. This is our only hope. If we make a full surrender of self, and practice the virtues of Christ, we shall gain the prize of eternal life.BTS March 1, 1906, par. 5

"He that believeth in the Son, hath the Father also." He who has continual faith in the Father and the Son has the Spirit also. The Holy Spirit is his comforter, and he never departs from the truth.BTS March 1, 1906, par. 6

[EGW, March 1, 1906, (1902 Bible Training School)]

The General Conference Bulletin

April 4, 1901
Our Supply in Christ
EGW

QuoteHave you thought of what this means to us;—that in this prayer is included every son and daughter of Adam, who will believe in Christ as a personal Saviour, and take the requisite steps in repentance, conversion, faith, and baptism? We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three great, infinite powers are unitedly pledged to work in our behalf if we will co-operate with them. We are buried with Christ in baptism as an emblem of his death. We are raised from the water as an emblem of his resurrection. We are to live as new-born souls, that we may be raised at the last great day. You are to live in newness of life; for you are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." This is where you are to place your treasure.(GCB April 4, 1901, Art. A, par. 16)

It will take a lifetime to understand how it all comes together..

I agree. But not this lifetime. It is far too short.

I came across this on what Ellen White says on the Deity and Nature of Christ. It clearly shows the form of the GodHead and how Christ is from everlasting and our Creator.

"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. 'His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace' (Isaiah 9:6). His 'goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting' (Micah 5:2).'Patriarchs and Prophets, 34.

The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, 'I and My Father are One.' 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.'The Signs of the Times, November 27, 1893, p. 54.

Yet the Son of God was the acknowledged Sovereign of heaven, one in power and authority with the Father.'The Great Controversy, 495.

To save the transgressor of God's law, Christ, the One equal with the Father, came to live heaven before men, that they might learn to know what it is to have heaven in the heart. He illustrated what man must be to be worthy of the precious boon of the life that measures with the life of God.'Fundamentals of Christian Education, 179.

The only way in which the fallen race could be restored was through the gift of His Son, equal with himself, possessing the attributes of God. Though so highly exalted, Christ consented to assume human nature, that He might work in behalf of man and reconcile to God His disloyal subject. When man rebelled, Christ pleaded His merits in his behalf, and became man's substitute and surety. He undertook to combat the powers of darkness in man's behalf, and He prevailed, conquering the enemy of our souls, and presenting to man the cup of salvation.'The Review and Herald, November 8, 1892, p. 690.

The world was made by Him, 'and without Him was not anything made that was made.' If Christ made all things, He existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore....

There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself, explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible.'The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906, p. 8.

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. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both.'Patriarchs and Prophets, 36.

However much a shepherd may love His sheep, He loves His sons and daughters more. Jesus is not only our shepherd; He is our 'everlasting Father.' And He says, 'I know Mine own, and Mine own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father.' John 10:14, 15, R.V. What a statement is this!'the only-begotten Son, He who is in the bosom of the Father, He whom God has declared to be 'the Man that is My fellow' (Zechariah 13:7),'the communion between Him and the eternal God is taken to represent the communion between Christ and His children on the earth!'The Desire of Ages, 483.

Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared, 'I am the resurrection, and the life.' In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. 'He that hath the Son hath life.' 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life.'The Desire of Ages, 530.

Silence fell upon the vast assembly. 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.''The Desire of Ages, 469.

The world's Redeemer was equal with God. His authority was as the authority of God. He declared that He had no existence separate from the Father. The authority by which He spoke, and wrought miracles, was expressly His own, yet He assures us that He and the Father are one.'The Review and Herald, January 7, 1890, p. 1.

Jehovah, the eternal, self-existent, uncreated One, Himself the Source and Sustainer of all, is alone entitled to supreme reverence and worship.'Patriarchs and Prophets, 305.

Jehovah is the name given to Christ. 'Behold, God is my salvation,' writes the prophet Isaiah; 'I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; He also is become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation. And in that day ye shall say, Praise the Lord, call upon His name, declare His doings among the people, make mention that His name is exalted.' 'In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah: We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks. Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in. Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee. Trust ye in the Lord forever; for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength.''The Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899, p. 2.

The heavenly gates are again to be lifted up, and with ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands of holy ones, our Saviour will come forth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Jehovah Immanuel 'shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord, and His name one.''Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, 108.

This is the reward of all who follow Christ. Jehovah Emmanuel'He 'in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,' in whom dwells 'all the fulness of the Godhead bodily' (Colossians 2:3, 9)'to be brought into sympathy with Him, to know Him, to possess Him, as the heart opens more and more to receive His attributes; to know His love and power, to possess the unsearchable riches of Christ, to comprehend more and more 'what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God' (Ephesians 3:18, 19)''This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of Me, saith the Lord.''Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, 57.

Before the entrance of sin among the angels: Christ the Word, the only-begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,'one in nature, in character, and in purpose,'the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. By Christ, the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings.'The Great Controversy, 493.

If men reject the testimony of the inspired Scriptures concerning the deity of Christ, it is in vain to argue the point with them; for no argument, however conclusive, could convince them. 'The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' 1 Corinthians 2:14. None who hold this error can have a true conception of the character or the mission of Christ, or of the great plan of God for man's redemption.' The Great Controversy, 524.

YES....

I ran into an article about her and I actually posted that on another forum....

The following book, chapter, and quotes may be viewed in their entirety at the link below.

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/1137.2442#2442

Emphasis in the quotes below is mine.

Quote

Excerpts from - THE GREAT EMPIRES OF
PROPHECY
by Alonzo Jones

CHAPTER 33.

ROME — ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

1 THE Donatist dispute had developed the decision, and established the fact, that it was "the Catholic Church of the Christians" in which was embodied the "Christianity" which was to be recognized as the imperial religion. Constantine had allied himself with the church only for political advantage. The only use he had for the church was in a political way. Its value for this purpose lay entirely in its unity. If the church should be all broken up and divided into separate bodies, its value as a political factor would be gone.

2. The Catholic Church, on her part, had long asserted the necessity of unity with the bishopric, — a unity in which the bishopric should be possessed of authority to prohibit, as well as power to prevent, heresy.......................................

6. The Donatist dispute had resulted in the establishment of the Catholic Church. Yet that dispute involved no question of doctrine, but of discipline only. Just at this time, however, there sprang into prominence the famous Trinitarian controversy, which involved, and under the circumstances demanded, an imperial decision as to what was the Catholic Church in point of doctrine — what was the Catholic Church in deed and in truth; and which plunged the empire into a sea of tumult and violence that continued as long as the empire itself continued, and afflicted other nations after the empire had perished.................................

9. One of the chief reasons for the rapid and wide-spread interest in the controversy was that nobody could comprehend or understand the question at issue. "It was the excess of dogmatism founded on the most abstract words in the most abstract region of human thought." (Stanley. "History of the Eastern Church," lec, 3. par. 8.)There was no dispute about the fact of there being a Trinity, it was about the nature of the Trinity. Both parties believed in precisely the same Trinity; but they differed upon the precise relationship which the Son bears to the Father...................................

13. Whether the Son of God, therefore, is of the same substance, or only of like substance, with the Father, was the question in dispute. The controversy was carried on in Greek, and as expressed in Greek the whole question turned upon a single letter. The word which expressed Alexander's belief is Homoousion. The word which expressed the belief of Arius is Homoiousion. One of the words has two "i's" in it, and the other has but one; but why the word should not have that additional "i," neither party could ever exactly determine. Even Athanasius himself, who succeeded Alexander in the bishopric of Alexandria, and transcended him in every other quality, "has candidly confessed that whenever he forced his understanding to meditate upon the divinity of the Logos, his toilsome and unavailing efforts recoiled on themselves; that the more he thought, the less he comprehended; and the more he wrote, the less capable was he of expressing his thoughts." (Gibbon."Decline and Fall," chap. 21:par. 8.)

14. It could not possibly be otherwise, because it was an attempt of the finite to measure, to analyze, and even to dissect, the Infinite. It was an attempt to make the human superior to the divine. God is infinite. No finite mind can comprehend Him as He actually is. Christ is the Word — the expression of the thought — of God; and none but He knows the depth of the meaning of that Word. "He had a name written, that no man knew, but He himself;... and His name is called The Word of God." Neither the nature, nor the relationship, of the Father and Son can ever be measured by the mind of man. "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." This revelation of the Father by the Son can not be complete in this world. It will require the eternal ages for man to understand "the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."..................

16. One who lived near the time of, and was well acquainted with, the whole matter, has well remarked that the discussion "seemed not unlike a contest in the dark; for neither party appeared to understand distinctly the grounds on which they calumniated one another. Those who objected to the word 'con-substantial' [Homoousion, of the same substance], conceived that those who approved it, favored the opinion of Sabellius and Montanus; they therefore called them blasphemers, as subverters of the existence of the Son of God. And again, the advocates of this term, charging their opponents with polytheism, inveighed against them as introducers of heathen superstitions.... In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes, as if contending against adversaries; and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of persons, yet, from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were never at peace." (Socrates. "Ecclesiastical History," book 1, chap. 23.)

17. That which puzzled Socrates need not puzzle us. Although he could not divine why they should not agree when they believed the same thing, we may very readily do so, with no fear of mistake. The difficulty was that each disputant required that all the others should not only believe what he believed, but they should believe this precisely as he believed it, whereas just how he believed it, he himself could not define. And that which made them so determined in this respect was that "the contest was now not merely for a superiority over a few scattered and obscure communities; it was agitated on a far vaster theater — that of the Roman world. The proselytes whom it disputed were sovereigns.... It is but judging on the common principles of human nature to conclude that the grandeur of the prize supported the ambition and inflamed the passions of the contending parties; that human motives of political power and aggrandizement mingled with the more spiritual influence of the love of truth, and zeal for the purity of religion." (Milman. "History of Christianity," book 3, chap. 4 par. 5.)....................................

19. The controversy spread farther and farther, and raged more fiercely as it spread. "All classes took part in it, and almost all took part with equal energy. 'Bishop rose against bishop, district against district, only to be compared to the Symplegades dashed against each other on a stormy day.' So violent were the discussions that they were parodied in the pagan theaters; and the emperor's statues were broken in the public squares in the fierce conflicts...............................

21. Constantine's golden dream of a united Christendom was again grievously disturbed. The bow of promise (of the bishops) which had so brilliantly irradiated all the political prospect when his alliance was formed with the church party, was rudely dissipated by the dark cloud of ecclesiastical ambition, and the angry storm of sectarian strife. He wrote a letter to Alexander and Arius, stating to them his mission of uniting the world under one head, and his anxious desire that there should be unity among all, and exhorted them to lay aside their contentions, forgive one another, use their efforts for the restoration of peace, and so give back to him his quiet days and tranquil nights.

22. This letter clearly shows the views and the hopes of Constantine as to the unity of the church, and that it was this that controlled him in his alliance with the church party: —

"Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus to Alexander and Arius: I call that God to witness (as well I may) who is the Helper of my endeavors, and the Preserver of all men, that I had a twofold reason for undertaking that duty which I have now effectually performed.

"My design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and secondly, to restore a healthy tone to the system of the world,.............................

"Let, therefore, both the unguarded questions and the inconsiderate answer receive your mutual forgiveness. For your difference has not arisen on any leading doctrines or precepts of the divine law, nor have you introduced any new dogma respecting the worship of God. You are in truth of one and the same judgment; you may therefore well join in that communion which is the symbol of united fellowship....

"Let us withdraw ourselves with a good will from these temptations of the devil. Our great God and common Savior has granted the same light to us all. Permit me, who am His servant, to bring my task to a successful issue, under the direction of His Providence, that I may be enabled through my exhortations, and diligence, and earnest admonition, to recall His people to the fellowship of one communion. For since you have, as I said, but one faith and one sentiment respecting our religion, and since the divine commandment in all its parts enjoins on us all the duty of maintaining a spirit of concord, let not the circumstance which has led to a slight difference between you, since it affects not the general principles of truth, be allowed to prolong any division or schism among you......................

"Restore me then my quiet days and untroubled nights, that henceforth the joy of light undimmed by sorrow, the delight of a tranquil life, may continue to be my portion. Else must I needs mourn, with copious and constant tears, nor shall I be able to pass the residue of my days without disquietude. For while the people of God, whose fellow servant I am, are thus divided amongst themselves by an unreasonable and pernicious spirit of contention, how is it possible that I shall be able to maintain tranquillity of mind?... Permit me speedily to see the happiness both of yourselves and of all other provinces, and to render due acknowledgment to God in the language of praise and thanksgiving for the restoration of general concord and liberty to all." (Eusebius's "Life of Constantine," book 2, chaps. 65-72.)

23. This letter he sent by the hand of Hosius, whom he made his ambassador to reconcile the disputants. But both the letter and the mission of Hosius were in vain; and yet the more so by the very fact that the parties were now assured that the controversy had attracted the interested attention of the imperial authority. As imperial favor, imperial patronage, and imperial power were the chief objects of the contest, and as this effort of the emperor showed that the reward was almost within the grasp of whichever party might prove successful, the contention was deepened rather than abated.

24. It had already been decided that the imperial favor and patronage were for the Catholic Church. Each of these parties claimed to be the orthodox and only Catholic Church. The case of the Donatists had been referred to a council of bishops for adjudication. It was but natural that this question should be treated in the same way. But whereas the case of the Donatists affected only a very small portion of the empire, this question directly involved the whole East, and greatly concerned much of the West. More than this, the Catholic religion was now the religion of the empire. This dispute was upon the question as to what is the truth of the Catholic religion. Therefore if the question was to be settled, it must be settled for the whole empire. These considerations demanded a general council. Therefore a general council was called, A.D. 325, which met at the city of Nice, the latter part of May or the first part of June, in that year.

As is obvious from the above account, it was the worldly political aspirations of both emperor and contending parties of already apostate "Christianity", which settled the trinitarian matter for the empire in defining Roman Catholicism as the imperial religion of the state. A position that church has ever since sought to maintain and spread throughout the entire world unto domination. Being the root cause of untold persecutions, strife, bloodshed, wars, chaos, and confusion throughout history.

The emperor Constantine himself, thought the matter to trifling to cause such dissensions, but the contending parties knew all too well the exaltation or abasement of the winners or losers of the conflict. The power of the state or empire for the winner, and persecution for the loser. Results only made possible by the ungodly unification of religion or church and state. An Old Covenant style theocracy, without God directly leading, but rather men who claimed to be leading for our Lord. Things which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself came to abolish, and replace with His New Covenant spiritual nation or church unto salvation for anyone and everyone who believes in and through our Lord Jesus Christ alone.

Here we are today, still thinking we can define God in a written doctrine for all. As though this or that denomination has figured Him out exactly enough to claim they have finished such a task, which all others should therefore acknowledge. I don't think so.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Jan 11, 2025 - 13:01:26I agree. But not this lifetime. It is far too short.

We will study this for eternity as we go over the books in heaven and talk to the source Himself.

Quote from: Rella on Thu Dec 11, 2025 - 07:05:25YES....

I ran into an article about her and I actually posted that on another forum....

She was very clear on this, but there are always doubters to say the least.

Quote

SDA Hymnal

Praise God, From Whom All Blessings
1
Praise God, from whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Used to sing this every Sabbath after the church prayed as a body.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sat Mar 16, 2024 - 18:57:19Seems to have been discussed here recently quite a bit. 

Ellen White did not believe in the Trinity...
...She was a militant anti-Trinitarian.
...Exercising the Spirit of Prophecy against the Trinity.

QuoteSabbath Herald, June 13, 1871
"We invite all to compare THE TESTIMONIES of the Holy Spirit THROUGH Mrs. White with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The TRINITARIAN may compare them with his creed, and because THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, CONDEMN them.

Ellen had been burping up "prophecy" since late 1844 and above we read that the people consuming Ellen's products concluded that the Trinity as taught by the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical, Orthodox & Catholic Church was wrong and blasphemous, BECAUSE, Ellen's prophetic utterances repudiated the Baptist, Methodist, etc. Doctrine of God (The Trinity Doctrine).

So no, Ellen White absolutely did not believe in the Trinity Doctrine. Ellen was an advocate of Arianism - a specific theology that affirmed that Christ could have sinned, lost His salvation & had Christ sinned He would have eternally become as if He never existed in the first place.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Mon Dec 29, 2025 - 17:22:16Ellen White did not believe in the Trinity...
...She was a militant anti-Trinitarian.
...Exercising the Spirit of Prophecy against the Trinity.

Ellen had been burping up "prophecy" since late 1844 and above we read that the people consuming Ellen's products concluded that the Trinity as taught by the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical, Orthodox & Catholic Church was wrong and blasphemous, BECAUSE, Ellen's prophetic utterances repudiated the Baptist, Methodist, etc. Doctrine of God (The Trinity Doctrine).

So no, Ellen White absolutely did not believe in the Trinity Doctrine. Ellen was an advocate of Arianism - a specific theology that affirmed that Christ could have sinned, lost His salvation & had Christ sinned He would have eternally become as if He never existed in the first place.

I amm not an EGW fan, nor an SDA proponent, but you are so wrong about her....
I have studied on her, as much as, if not more so then Joseph Smith, and many in your religion.

https://text.egwwritings.org/read/951.2298

The Trinity

In chapter 1, page 25, paragraph 2 of his work, he professes to enumerate the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that differ from those held by other evangelical churches. His very first statement of these differences is, "They reject the doctrine of the Trinity." Had Mr. Canright said that when he was among them there were some Seventh day Adventists who did not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, it might have been difficult to challenge his statement. But his sweeping indictment, involving, as it does, the whole denomination, is not true today, nor was it true when made. And this Mr. Canright well knew, for in an article which he published in the Review and Herald, the Seventh-day Adventist Church paper, under date of April 12, 1877, he himself had said:DOF 370.1

"Do we not all agree that in the providence of God, special light is now being given upon the subjects of the second advent near, the kingdom, the new earth, the sleep of the dead, the destruction of the wicked, the doctrine of the Trinity, the law of God, God's holy Sabbath, etc.? All Seventh day Adventists will agree in these things."DOF 370.2

For many years our theological schools have taught the doctrine of the Trinity very definitely, and for almost as many years it has appeared incidentally in some of our denominational books. For example, we quote this from page 671 of The Desire of Ages, by Mrs. E. G. White, printed in 1898:DOF 370.3

"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. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world's Redeemer."DOF 370.4

In the statement of belief found in the' Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, which sets forth the official discipline and doctrinal position of the denomination, is found this statement on the subject of the Trinity:DOF 371.1

"That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the. redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption."—Page 180.DOF 371.2

Doubtless there were those of a different opinion when Mr. Canright was an Adventist, as there may be such individuals even today, but a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be justly charged against Seventh-day Adventists as a body, and never could, for in their earlier history the issue was not raised, and when later on it was raised, it was decided, not by official vote, but by common consent, in favour of the Bible doctrine of three persons in the Godhead-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.DOF 371.3


Ellen G. White® Estate
Sharing the Vision
I'm wondering about the Trinity. I have a friend who has been handing me a lot of booklets that say that thinking of the Holy Spirit as a Third Person is dangerous and that Adventists haven't always held this view. She states that Ellen and James White were not Trinitarians. Can you help me understand what our beliefs are and have been in the past?

James White would not have considered himself a Trinitarian, nor would others of our early pioneers. In at least some cases (James White included here), they seem to have been objecting to the idea, apparently held by some Trinitarians, that God is really only one Person who has appeared at different stages of earth's existence as Father or Son or Holy Spirit. James White believed that They were separate Beings, so that in Gethsemane and on the cross the Son could actually pray to the Father, not to Himself.

However, various statements from Mrs. White uphold the eternal, self-existent nature of the Son and the full personality of the Holy Spirit. Some of these statements are conveniently collected in the book Evangelism, pages 613-617. I've copied some of them and a statement from The Desire of Ages at the end of this response.

However, as clear as Mrs. White's statements are, the Bible is the source of Adventist belief in the Trinity. Several lines of evidence in the Bible provide firm support for this doctrine. The Father, of course, is not in doubt here—He is included as God in everyone's list. But the Bible makes Jesus equal with God; see, for example, such texts as John 5:17, 18; 8:58, 59; Philippians 2:6; and the many texts that call Jesus "Lord," which is the term used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to refer to God. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is called a Person and is equated with God; see, for example, Acts 5:3, 4, where the Holy Spirit is identified as a Person because He can be lied to, and where lying to the Holy Spirit is equated with lying to God.

So, the Bible indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate Persons, yet it also says there is one God (as in Deuteronomy 6:4). How can we account for this? Frankly, it's more than human minds can grasp—but that shouldn't surprise us, for God must surely be greater than our minds can encompass. We express these Bible truths about God by using the term Trinity, which signifies a unity of three. I can't find a satisfactory way of accounting for all the Bible evidence other than by this means, which is why I believe in a Trinity.

Some Ellen G. White statements:

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. . . .—Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63. (1905). . . .

Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God. . . . In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. . . .—Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900. . . .

He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. . . . He is the eternal, self-existent Son.—Manuscript 101, 1897. . . .

While God's Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding His pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father. From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted Him, were to be blessed. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God." Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God.—Review and Herald, April 5, 1906. . . .

Jesus declared, "I am the resurrection, and the life." In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life. —The Desire of Ages, p. 530 (1898). . . .

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. (From a talk to the students at the Avondale School.) . . .

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. [The preceding Ellen G. White statements are all found in the book Evangelism, pages 615-617.]

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. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world's Redeemer (The Desire of Ages, 671).

For a detailed article on the God hand and the Trinity please see https://media1.whiteestate.org/legacy/issues/The-Trinity.pdf

Check out his link it is 27 pages long.
[/size]

QuoteRella said: In chapter 1, page 25, paragraph 2 of his work, he professes to enumerate the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that differ from those held by other evangelical churches. His very first statement of these differences is, "They reject the doctrine of the Trinity." Had Mr. Canright said that when he was among them there were some Seventh day Adventists who did not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, it might have been difficult to challenge his statement. But his sweeping indictment, involving, as it does, the whole denomination, is not true today, nor was it true when made

Yes, I have a copy of that myself.

I think you misunderstand the point I've made. Any Seventh-day Adventist who accepts Ellen White as the Spirit of Prophecy is anti-Trinitarian by default.

Ellen White militantly taught that Christ had the potential to sin, loose His salvation and eternally cease to exist. This type of teaching is absolutely anti-Trinitarian - it's like 'tell me you are anti-Trinitarian WITHOUT telling me you are anti-Trinitarian. 

Seriously, you couldn't have formulated a Doctrine that flies in the face of 1 Corinthians 15 more than affirming Christ was conditionally God and while Christ was engaged in His earthly Ministry He yearned or lusted for certain sins but resisted the pull he felt   

So, I'm not labeling Ellen White and SDA's who believe she was a prophet as anti-Trinitarian for no reason. I've just gave you the primary reason that any Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Evangelical Christian would agree with.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Mon Dec 29, 2025 - 17:22:16Ellen White did not believe in the Trinity...
...She was a militant anti-Trinitarian.
...Exercising the Spirit of Prophecy against the Trinity.

Ellen had been burping up "prophecy" since late 1844 and above we read that the people consuming Ellen's products concluded that the Trinity as taught by the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical, Orthodox & Catholic Church was wrong and blasphemous, BECAUSE, Ellen's prophetic utterances repudiated the Baptist, Methodist, etc. Doctrine of God (The Trinity Doctrine).

So no, Ellen White absolutely did not believe in the Trinity Doctrine. Ellen was an advocate of Arianism - a specific theology that affirmed that Christ could have sinned, lost His salvation & had Christ sinned He would have eternally become as if He never existed in the first place.

Delusional is as delusional does.

The following book, chapter, and quotes may be viewed in their entirety at the link below.

https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/1137.2442#2442

Emphasis in the quotes below is mine.

Quote

Excerpts from - THE GREAT EMPIRES OF
PROPHECY
by Alonzo Jones

CHAPTER 33.

ROME — ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

1 THE Donatist dispute had developed the decision, and established the fact, that it was "the Catholic Church of the Christians" in which was embodied the "Christianity" which was to be recognized as the imperial religion. Constantine had allied himself with the church only for political advantage. The only use he had for the church was in a political way. Its value for this purpose lay entirely in its unity. If the church should be all broken up and divided into separate bodies, its value as a political factor would be gone.

2. The Catholic Church, on her part, had long asserted the necessity of unity with the bishopric, — a unity in which the bishopric should be possessed of authority to prohibit, as well as power to prevent, heresy.......................................

6. The Donatist dispute had resulted in the establishment of the Catholic Church. Yet that dispute involved no question of doctrine, but of discipline only. Just at this time, however, there sprang into prominence the famous Trinitarian controversy, which involved, and under the circumstances demanded, an imperial decision as to what was the Catholic Church in point of doctrine — what was the Catholic Church in deed and in truth; and which plunged the empire into a sea of tumult and violence that continued as long as the empire itself continued, and afflicted other nations after the empire had perished.................................

9. One of the chief reasons for the rapid and wide-spread interest in the controversy was that nobody could comprehend or understand the question at issue. "It was the excess of dogmatism founded on the most abstract words in the most abstract region of human thought." (Stanley. "History of the Eastern Church," lec, 3. par. 8.)There was no dispute about the fact of there being a Trinity, it was about the nature of the Trinity. Both parties believed in precisely the same Trinity; but they differed upon the precise relationship which the Son bears to the Father...................................

13. Whether the Son of God, therefore, is of the same substance, or only of like substance, with the Father, was the question in dispute. The controversy was carried on in Greek, and as expressed in Greek the whole question turned upon a single letter. The word which expressed Alexander's belief is Homoousion. The word which expressed the belief of Arius is Homoiousion. One of the words has two "i's" in it, and the other has but one; but why the word should not have that additional "i," neither party could ever exactly determine. Even Athanasius himself, who succeeded Alexander in the bishopric of Alexandria, and transcended him in every other quality, "has candidly confessed that whenever he forced his understanding to meditate upon the divinity of the Logos, his toilsome and unavailing efforts recoiled on themselves; that the more he thought, the less he comprehended; and the more he wrote, the less capable was he of expressing his thoughts." (Gibbon."Decline and Fall," chap. 21:par. 8.)

14. It could not possibly be otherwise, because it was an attempt of the finite to measure, to analyze, and even to dissect, the Infinite. It was an attempt to make the human superior to the divine. God is infinite. No finite mind can comprehend Him as He actually is. Christ is the Word — the expression of the thought — of God; and none but He knows the depth of the meaning of that Word. "He had a name written, that no man knew, but He himself;... and His name is called The Word of God." Neither the nature, nor the relationship, of the Father and Son can ever be measured by the mind of man. "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." This revelation of the Father by the Son can not be complete in this world. It will require the eternal ages for man to understand "the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."..................

16. One who lived near the time of, and was well acquainted with, the whole matter, has well remarked that the discussion "seemed not unlike a contest in the dark; for neither party appeared to understand distinctly the grounds on which they calumniated one another. Those who objected to the word 'con-substantial' [Homoousion, of the same substance], conceived that those who approved it, favored the opinion of Sabellius and Montanus; they therefore called them blasphemers, as subverters of the existence of the Son of God. And again, the advocates of this term, charging their opponents with polytheism, inveighed against them as introducers of heathen superstitions.... In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes, as if contending against adversaries; and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of persons, yet, from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were never at peace." (Socrates. "Ecclesiastical History," book 1, chap. 23.)

17. That which puzzled Socrates need not puzzle us. Although he could not divine why they should not agree when they believed the same thing, we may very readily do so, with no fear of mistake. The difficulty was that each disputant required that all the others should not only believe what he believed, but they should believe this precisely as he believed it, whereas just how he believed it, he himself could not define. And that which made them so determined in this respect was that "the contest was now not merely for a superiority over a few scattered and obscure communities; it was agitated on a far vaster theater — that of the Roman world. The proselytes whom it disputed were sovereigns.... It is but judging on the common principles of human nature to conclude that the grandeur of the prize supported the ambition and inflamed the passions of the contending parties; that human motives of political power and aggrandizement mingled with the more spiritual influence of the love of truth, and zeal for the purity of religion." (Milman. "History of Christianity," book 3, chap. 4 par. 5.)....................................

19. The controversy spread farther and farther, and raged more fiercely as it spread. "All classes took part in it, and almost all took part with equal energy. 'Bishop rose against bishop, district against district, only to be compared to the Symplegades dashed against each other on a stormy day.' So violent were the discussions that they were parodied in the pagan theaters; and the emperor's statues were broken in the public squares in the fierce conflicts...............................

21. Constantine's golden dream of a united Christendom was again grievously disturbed. The bow of promise (of the bishops) which had so brilliantly irradiated all the political prospect when his alliance was formed with the church party, was rudely dissipated by the dark cloud of ecclesiastical ambition, and the angry storm of sectarian strife. He wrote a letter to Alexander and Arius, stating to them his mission of uniting the world under one head, and his anxious desire that there should be unity among all, and exhorted them to lay aside their contentions, forgive one another, use their efforts for the restoration of peace, and so give back to him his quiet days and tranquil nights.

22. This letter clearly shows the views and the hopes of Constantine as to the unity of the church, and that it was this that controlled him in his alliance with the church party: —

"Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus to Alexander and Arius: I call that God to witness (as well I may) who is the Helper of my endeavors, and the Preserver of all men, that I had a twofold reason for undertaking that duty which I have now effectually performed.

"My design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and secondly, to restore a healthy tone to the system of the world,.............................

"Let, therefore, both the unguarded questions and the inconsiderate answer receive your mutual forgiveness. For your difference has not arisen on any leading doctrines or precepts of the divine law, nor have you introduced any new dogma respecting the worship of God. You are in truth of one and the same judgment; you may therefore well join in that communion which is the symbol of united fellowship....

"Let us withdraw ourselves with a good will from these temptations of the devil. Our great God and common Savior has granted the same light to us all. Permit me, who am His servant, to bring my task to a successful issue, under the direction of His Providence, that I may be enabled through my exhortations, and diligence, and earnest admonition, to recall His people to the fellowship of one communion. For since you have, as I said, but one faith and one sentiment respecting our religion, and since the divine commandment in all its parts enjoins on us all the duty of maintaining a spirit of concord, let not the circumstance which has led to a slight difference between you, since it affects not the general principles of truth, be allowed to prolong any division or schism among you......................

"Restore me then my quiet days and untroubled nights, that henceforth the joy of light undimmed by sorrow, the delight of a tranquil life, may continue to be my portion. Else must I needs mourn, with copious and constant tears, nor shall I be able to pass the residue of my days without disquietude. For while the people of God, whose fellow servant I am, are thus divided amongst themselves by an unreasonable and pernicious spirit of contention, how is it possible that I shall be able to maintain tranquillity of mind?... Permit me speedily to see the happiness both of yourselves and of all other provinces, and to render due acknowledgment to God in the language of praise and thanksgiving for the restoration of general concord and liberty to all." (Eusebius's "Life of Constantine," book 2, chaps. 65-72.)

23. This letter he sent by the hand of Hosius, whom he made his ambassador to reconcile the disputants. But both the letter and the mission of Hosius were in vain; and yet the more so by the very fact that the parties were now assured that the controversy had attracted the interested attention of the imperial authority. As imperial favor, imperial patronage, and imperial power were the chief objects of the contest, and as this effort of the emperor showed that the reward was almost within the grasp of whichever party might prove successful, the contention was deepened rather than abated.

24. It had already been decided that the imperial favor and patronage were for the Catholic Church. Each of these parties claimed to be the orthodox and only Catholic Church. The case of the Donatists had been referred to a council of bishops for adjudication. It was but natural that this question should be treated in the same way. But whereas the case of the Donatists affected only a very small portion of the empire, this question directly involved the whole East, and greatly concerned much of the West. More than this, the Catholic religion was now the religion of the empire. This dispute was upon the question as to what is the truth of the Catholic religion. Therefore if the question was to be settled, it must be settled for the whole empire. These considerations demanded a general council. Therefore a general council was called, A.D. 325, which met at the city of Nice, the latter part of May or the first part of June, in that year.

As is obvious from the above account, it was the worldly political aspirations of both emperor and contending parties of already apostate "Christianity", which settled the trinitarian matter for the empire in defining Roman Catholicism as the imperial religion of the state. A position that church has ever since sought to maintain and spread throughout the entire world unto domination. Being the root cause of untold persecutions, strife, bloodshed, wars, chaos, and confusion throughout our worlds history.

The emperor Constantine himself, thought the matter to trifling to cause such dissensions, but the contending parties knew all to well the exaltation or abasement of the winners or losers of the conflict. The power of the state or empire for the winner, and persecution for the loser. Results only made possible by the ungodly unification of religion or church and state. An Old Covenant style theocracy, without God directly leading, but rather men who claimed to be leading for our Lord. Things which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself came to abolish, and replace with His New Covenant spiritual nation or church unto salvation for anyone and everyone who believes.

Amo, your verbose post didn't address the elephant in the room. Scripture states unequivocally that there was no possibility of Christ failing to fulfill everything the Law, the Psalms & the Prophets said about Him. Ellen White on the other hand said that there WAS possibility, not only of Christ failing but had He failed He would eternally cease to exist.

This is infinitely Luciferian teaching rejected by all Christian denominations excepting non-Trinitarian groups (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Christadelphians, WWCOG 7th Day, etc.).

How do you explain this?

Quote from: Cathlodox on Tue Dec 30, 2025 - 10:17:38Yes, I have a copy of that myself.

I think you misunderstand the point I've made. Any Seventh-day Adventist who accepts Ellen White as the Spirit of Prophecy is anti-Trinitarian by default.

Ellen White militantly taught that Christ had the potential to sin, loose His salvation and eternally cease to exist. This type of teaching is absolutely anti-Trinitarian - it's like 'tell me you are anti-Trinitarian WITHOUT telling me you are anti-Trinitarian. 

Seriously, you couldn't have formulated a Doctrine that flies in the face of 1 Corinthians 15 more than affirming Christ was conditionally God and while Christ was engaged in His earthly Ministry He yearned or lusted for certain sins but resisted the pull he felt   

So, I'm not labeling Ellen White and SDA's who believe she was a prophet as anti-Trinitarian for no reason. I've just gave you the primary reason that any Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Evangelical Christian would agree with.

To lust, is to sin. Our Lord Jesus never lusted after any sinful act, or entertained sinful thoughts. Nor did EGW ever say or insinuate that He did. You are delusional. Emphasis in the following quotes is mine.

QuoteJesus Himself, while He dwelt among men, was often in prayer. Our Saviour identified Himself with our needs and weakness, in that He became a suppliant, a petitioner, seeking from His Father fresh supplies of strength, that He might come forth braced for duty and trial. He is our example in all things. He is a brother in our infirmities, "in all points tempted like as we are;" but as the sinless one His nature recoiled from evil; He endured struggles and torture of soul in a world of sin. His humanity made prayer a necessity and a privilege. He found comfort and joy in communion with His Father. And if the Saviour of men, the Son of God, felt the need of prayer, how much more should feeble, sinful mortals feel the necessity of fervent, constant prayer.(Steps to Christ, 93.4)

Be careful, exceedingly careful, as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. (Letters and Manuscripts, Lt 8, 1895, par. 14)

Quote from: Cathlodox on Tue Dec 30, 2025 - 12:20:01Amo, your verbose post didn't address the elephant in the room. Scripture states unequivocally that there was no possibility of Christ failing to fulfill everything the Law, the Psalms & the Prophets said about Him. Ellen White on the other hand said that there WAS possibility, not only of Christ failing but had He failed He would eternally cease to exist.

This is infinitely Luciferian teaching rejected by all Christian denominations excepting non-Trinitarian groups (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Christadelphians, WWCOG 7th Day, etc.).

How do you explain this?

First and foremost, as it is with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, some things are presently beyond human explanation and or comprehension. This is the exact sin of the Roman Church in the whole apostate Christian created trinity debate. The Roman church claiming they know and fully understand God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost well enough force what they have concluded upon everyone else when they had the power to do so. Even to this day, right here with you, claiming that all who do not see or submit to your narrowly defined, puny, sinful, and woefully limited understanding and explanation, cannot truly worship God or be Christians. Sorry my friend, neither you, your Pope, or any other fallen sinful human being has been given such authority to condemn all others as outside of Christ, unless they submit to such blasphemous claims. 

Apart from this, bring forth the scriptures you speak of, and EGW quotes together as well. To be examined and discussed. Now I will ask you a question regarding the following scriptures.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

How is it possible to be tempted by sin, if you simply cannot sin? I don't expect you to answer this question, as though you could really know how and or understand the inner workings of our Saviors mind and heart when here as one of us. Nevertheless, why does Holy Scripture make the above statement, if according to your understanding it could not be true? Could it be, that neither you yourself, or your Pope, or anyone else will not understand this and many other things in this present world? Does the bible say we will understand everything, even the deep things of God, this side of heaven? It does not. Just because you do not presently understand how things specifically related to God and or the incarnation now, does not mean they are not true, and or do not mean exactly what they state. As nothing about God and His word, is or ever will be subject to humanities extremely limited understanding, at this particular time and or any other.

QuoteAmo said: First and foremost, as it is with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, some things are presently beyond human explanation and or comprehension.

Is this your excuse for taking something that The Father, Son & Holy Spirit said was ABSOLUTE and turning it on it's head so that Ellen White can be 'true'?

Again, you are being verbose in your answer. Scripture said it was impossible that the Christ could fail. This wasn't said once but hundreds of times. Jesus said only fools believe it could have been possible He would have failed.  Deal directly with this Amo.

Jesus was indeed tempted BY or OF "the Devil".

Jesus was not tempted within Himself as Ellen White gloated.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Tue Dec 30, 2025 - 15:09:00Is this your excuse for taking something that The Father, Son & Holy Spirit said was ABSOLUTE and turning it on it's head so that Ellen White can be 'true'?

Again, you are being verbose in your answer. Scripture said it was impossible that the Christ could fail. This wasn't said once but hundreds of times. Jesus said only fools believe it could have been possible He would have failed.  Deal directly with this Amo.

Jesus was indeed tempted BY or OF "the Devil".

Jesus was not tempted within Himself as Ellen White gloated.

You do not know the exactness of exactly how Jesus was tempted, just like the rest of us. Just like you do not know the exactness of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost either. Nor did you answer my question, but are ignoring that which you have no answer for.

The scripture says that our Lord was tempted in all points like as we are. Not just that He was tempted of the devil. How can someone who simply cannot sin, be tempted in all points like as those who are in fact prone to fall to temptation? Just admit you do not know, or that you choose to ignore this detail of Holy Scripture, in order to continue to understand it as you wish. So that you may accuse others I suppose, of being deceived based upon the words of Cathlodox, not the word of God.

Are you suggesting that the Lord Jesus did not come in the flesh? Is this why you do not believe He could be tempted? If He came in our flesh, then He could be tempted through the same flesh we are. If He was just God then He could not be tempted, but He was not just God. He was also man, who can be tempted. We do not fully understand this mystery, any more than we fully comprehend what you refer to as the trinity. If we say Christ came not in our same flesh, we are antichrist.

1Jn 4:3  And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jn 1:7  For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Of course according to Roman Catholicism, Jesus was not like us, and did not really come in our flesh. As per the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, neither His mother or Father were like us. Perhaps this is why you cannot see and or admit what scripture says about Him being tempted in all points like as we are. Your extra biblical beliefs will not allow for such.

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

QuoteAmo said: You do not know the exactness of exactly how Jesus was tempted, just like the rest of us.

No, we both know from Scripture that Jesus was driven into the desert by the Holy Spirit "to be tempted OF the Devil". Matthew 4,1 & Luke 4,2.

Being tempted of an external source is not the same thing as being tempted within oneself! For the Biblical understanding of this read James 1, 13-15 that says a man is ONLY tempted when his own lust pulls him toward the sin he yearns / lusts for.

What unborn "sin" is it that Ellen White & you believe that Jesus yearned to commit so that you can validate Ellen White's Doctrine that Jesus "felt the pull" of sin?

You don't need to be verbose Amo - just stick to the facts here and give us your Biblical understanding of what temptation is.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Tue Dec 30, 2025 - 20:47:13No, we both know from Scripture that Jesus was driven into the desert by the Holy Spirit "to be tempted OF the Devil". Matthew 4,1 & Luke 4,2.

Being tempted of an external source is not the same thing as being tempted within oneself! For the Biblical understanding of this read James 1, 13-15 that says a man is ONLY tempted when his own lust pulls him toward the sin he yearns / lusts for.

What unborn "sin" is it that Ellen White & you believe that Jesus yearned to commit so that you can validate Ellen White's Doctrine that Jesus "felt the pull" of sin?

You don't need to be verbose Amo - just stick to the facts here and give us your Biblical understanding of what temptation is.

You are giving us double-speak. If you think James 1:13-15 says that "a man is ONLY tempted when his own lust pulls him toward the sin he yearns / lusts for", and if you think that in Jesus there was no lust pulling him, toward the sin he yearns and lust for, then Jesus wasn't tempted.  You can't have it both ways.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Tue Dec 30, 2025 - 20:47:13No, we both know from Scripture that Jesus was driven into the desert by the Holy Spirit "to be tempted OF the Devil". Matthew 4,1 & Luke 4,2.

Being tempted of an external source is not the same thing as being tempted within oneself! For the Biblical understanding of this read James 1, 13-15 that says a man is ONLY tempted when his own lust pulls him toward the sin he yearns / lusts for.

What unborn "sin" is it that Ellen White & you believe that Jesus yearned to commit so that you can validate Ellen White's Doctrine that Jesus "felt the pull" of sin?

You don't need to be verbose Amo - just stick to the facts here and give us your Biblical understanding of what temptation is.

Like I said, you accept the verse you quoted above because it does not create any conflict with what you have chosen to believe. While you reject and or ignore the verses I shared because they do cause a problem for what you believe. Many of us though, accept both as true by faith, though we cannot fully comprehend how this mystery of godliness transpired.

Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; 3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Ok Amo, that was a much better response you just gave.

You quoted 1st John 4,3 & 2nd John 1,7.  Both those texts agree with the Biblical point I made, i.e. that Christ was like us in all ways EXCEPT FOR SIN. Scripture has already informed you that there was NO SIN in Jesus which is exactly in keeping with "like us in all ways APART from sin. So, those two texts you offered only served to prove the historic Orthodox position (which is the position of all Protestant groups). Restorationists groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, SDA's and Mormons reject the Orthodox position and THAT'S MY POINT.

Romans 1,1 and Hebrews 2, 14 are saying the exact same thing - that God became man without ceasing to be God. God became like us in everything EXCEPT FOR SIN.

Now we are getting somewhere! Ya see, you don't need to be verbose to get your point across.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Wed Dec 31, 2025 - 11:23:26Ok Amo, that was a much better response you just gave.

You quoted 1st John 4,3 & 2nd John 1,7.  Both those texts agree with the Biblical point I made, i.e. that Christ was like us in all ways EXCEPT FOR SIN. Scripture has already informed you that there was NO SIN in Jesus which is exactly in keeping with "like us in all ways APART from sin. So, those two texts you offered only served to prove the historic Orthodox position (which is the position of all Protestant groups). Restorationists groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, SDA's and Mormons reject the Orthodox position and THAT'S MY POINT.

Romans 1,1 and Hebrews 2, 14 are saying the exact same thing - that God became man without ceasing to be God. God became like us in everything EXCEPT FOR SIN.

Now we are getting somewhere! Ya see, you don't need to be verbose to get your point across.

The accusation being addressed, is your claim that EGW did not believe this as well. As she most obviously did, according to her own words. The main point of our disagreement, is that you refuse that Christ could have sinned, which basically means He could not have been tempted. Let alone tempted like as we are in all things. I see this as a manifestation of the Catholic doctrine which basically prevents Christ from being fully human. They accept that He was fully God, but bring the fully human part into question with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

QuoteWhen Adam was assailed by the tempter he was without the taint of sin. He stood before God in the strength of perfect manhood, all the organs and faculties of his being fully developed and harmoniously balanced; and he was surrounded with things of beauty, and conversed daily with the holy angels. What a contrast to this perfect being did the second Adam present, as he entered the desolate wilderness to cope with Satan, single-handed. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and deteriorating in moral worth; and, in order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he stood. He assumed human nature, bearing the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He humiliated himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that he might fully sympathize with man and rescue him from the degradation into which sin had plunged him.

"For it became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
(The Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 2, Chap. 6, pg. 88)

QuoteAmo said:The accusation being addressed, is your claim that EGW did not believe this as well. As she most obviously did, according to her own words. The main point of our disagreement, is that you refuse that Christ could have sinned, which basically means He could not have been tempted. Let alone tempted like as we are in all things. I see this as a manifestation of the Catholic doctrine which basically prevents Christ from being fully human. They accept that He was fully God, but bring the fully human part into question with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

No, I affirm that Christ "was tempted" in the precise way Scripture said He was...
...Tempted by OR of "the Devil".
...& NOT within Himself.

This is the same understanding Protestants have so I'm not odd in this...
...Restorationist groups (JW's, Mormons, & SDA's) see it the way you do.
...The Trinity Doctrine doesn't allow for the way you see it.

You have confirmed the points I made again by Ellen Quote you posted...
...You realize that this is the Arian Christ Ellen is promulgating, right?
...Do you believe that Arius was a Trinitarian?

What I'm saying here isn't believed by just Catholicism Amo, every Protestant Denomination says the same thing...
...You would need to find support in the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons or Christadelphians.
...Who, being non-Trinitarian, agree with you.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Thu Jan 01, 2026 - 13:20:07No, I affirm that Christ "was tempted" in the precise way Scripture said He was...
...Tempted by OR of "the Devil".
...& NOT within Himself.

This is the same understanding Protestants have so I'm not odd in this...
...Restorationist groups (JW's, Mormons, & SDA's) see it the way you do.
...The Trinity Doctrine doesn't allow for the way you see it.

You have confirmed the points I made again by Ellen Quote you posted...
...You realize that this is the Arian Christ Ellen is promulgating, right?
...Do you believe that Arius was a Trinitarian?

What I'm saying here isn't believed by just Catholicism Amo, every Protestant Denomination says the same thing...
...You would need to find support in the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons or Christadelphians.
...Who, being non-Trinitarian, agree with you.

I don't care what Arius was or was not. Nor do I care what category or designation you wish to label me with. Nor am I subject to any for what I believe, but God alone as He has convicted my own heart concerning the testimonies of Holy Scripture He has provided and preserved for humanity.

Both Arians and Catholics believed in, and did try to force each other to believe as they did, when they had the powers that be of this world unto such backing them up. In this manner did they both err. Even Constantine thought their arguments upon this subject to trifle to cause the division they each made it into by demanding the other see it exactly as they did. And here you are today still trifling about the same matter. The exactness of which neither you, I, or any other save perhaps those who would claim to be in the place of God Himself would boast of. Which of course amounts to blaspheme.

You do not believe our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was tempted the same way we are, and I do. That is all. We will not change each other's minds.

Any Protestant denomination which still believes in Sola Scriptura, still believe the following scriptural testimony -

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

AMEN!

QuoteAmo said:I don't care what Arius was or was not. Nor do I care what category or designation you wish to label me with. 

I'm not labeling you with anything - you've done that to yourself.

QuoteAmo said: Nor am I subject to any for what I believe, but God alone as He has convicted my own heart concerning the testimonies of Holy Scripture He has provided and preserved for humanity.

That's what this discussion is all about Amo. The "testimony of Holy Scripture" is that God knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46,9) & God told us exactly what the end result was going to be (Isaiah 35,4). There are hundreds of explicit texts in Holy Scripture which had told you what the end would be. Jesus Himself stated if you didn't believe that everything foretold about Him in the Law, Psalms & Prophets would be fulfilled according to the Scriptures YOU ARE A FOOL (Luke 24, 25-27). Understand I'm not calling you a fool for cherishing Ellen White's Arian Doctrine - Jesus is.

You quote Hebrews 2,16 & Hebrews 4, 14 yet continue to ignore where Scripture says SIN was the only way Jesus wasn't like us. Look Amo, Arius yearned for a creature christ that could have failed, sinned. Scripture condemns this horrific Doctrine yet you pay homage to it. Why is that? What's the mechanism? You can't say Holy Scripture because I've already shown you where Holy Scripture rejects your (& Ellen's) doctrine.

Quote from: Cathlodox on Fri Jan 02, 2026 - 17:23:31I'm not labeling you with anything - you've done that to yourself.

That's what this discussion is all about Amo. The "testimony of Holy Scripture" is that God knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46,9) & God told us exactly what the end result was going to be (Isaiah 35,4). There are hundreds of explicit texts in Holy Scripture which had told you what the end would be. Jesus Himself stated if you didn't believe that everything foretold about Him in the Law, Psalms & Prophets would be fulfilled according to the Scriptures YOU ARE A FOOL (Luke 24, 25-27). Understand I'm not calling you a fool for cherishing Ellen White's Arian Doctrine - Jesus is.

You quote Hebrews 2,16 & Hebrews 4, 14 yet continue to ignore where Scripture says SIN was the only way Jesus wasn't like us. Look Amo, Arius yearned for a creature christ that could have failed, sinned. Scripture condemns this horrific Doctrine yet you pay homage to it. Why is that? What's the mechanism? You can't say Holy Scripture because I've already shown you where Holy Scripture rejects your (& Ellen's) doctrine.

Babyl-on, son of Babylon. No one is anything you label them, including fools, simply because you do or have. I am neither Roman Catholic or Arian, condemning both's willingness to force their best guesses concerning the unrevealed mysteries of God and or God in human flesh, by imperial mandates.

Both EGW and I have and do point out the most important difference scripture makes between our Savior and the rest of us, in that He never sinned. Nor does biblical prophesy negate the testimony of later inspired Holy Scripture, but rather serves the purpose of supporting and or proving it. You and the Pope may believe that you have more wisdom and authority from God than the author of the book of Hebrews, but I most certainly do not.

You have not shown me or anyone where Holy Scripture rejects what Holy Scripture itself simply states. You simply continue to show everyone that you are willing to reject certain testimonies of Holy Scripture, which do not fit into the box you wish God's word to be contained by. As though it were subject to you or your Pope, instead of the other way around.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Nevertheless, the scriptures you reject are quoted above for your observation once again. Which themselves state that which you claim EGW and I reject, which we most certainly do not. We are not the ones of this conversation rejecting Holy Scripture. You are, by insisting we and Holy Scripture itself are restricted to your narrow and extremely limited views. As though either we or Holy Scripture are bound by them. Get a grip, and get over yourself. We neither agree with you, or the labels you choose to apply to those who will not.

Psa 14:1  To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

No one in this conversation is saying there is no God, you are therefore out of line in suggesting such.

Mat 5:22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Not to mention, in danger of hell fire.

QuoteAmo said: Both EGW and I have and do point out the most important difference scripture makes between our Savior and the rest of us, in that He never sinned.

You did it again Amo, I've already shown you what Holy Scripture said was the most important part of the Gospel something like 5 times already. Here it is again.

Quote1st Corinthians 15, 3-5: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.

If that isn't clear to you I think you need some reading comprehension classes. "According to the Scriptures" is a well known Jewish idiom that means (just like Jesus said) IT HAD TO HAPPEN, THERE WAS NO WAY IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN, IT WAS SET IN STONE, etc. So no, you're NOT, according to the Bible, pointing out the most important part as I've just shown you for like the 5th time.

QuoteAmo said: I am neither Roman Catholic or Arian, condemning both's willingness to force their best guesses concerning the unrevealed mysteries of God and or God in human flesh, by imperial mandates

Read the documents of the Council of Nicaea paying attention to what was said about Arius and his specific teaching that Christ had the potential to sin and explain how that's not Arian.

QuoteAmo said: You have not shown me or anyone where Holy Scripture rejects what Holy Scripture itself simply states. You simply continue to show everyone that you are willing to reject certain testimonies of Holy Scripture, which do not fit into the box you wish God's word to be contained by. As though it were subject to you or your Pope, instead of the other way around.

I've shown you that Scripture affirms there was nor could be any possibility of Jesus sinning, scores and scores of times. You just choose to ignore all those examples so you can continue to pay homage to an 18th century woman who proved herself to be a false prophet. That's what we're dealing with here, not much more.