From the pen of Ellen White

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Adventageous

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2022
887
297
63
Noneya
archive.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ellen White...

You can claim her as a prophet
You can claim her as a crazy nut

Doesn't matter to me. I am just not into SDA teachings.... Not interested!
Ok, I understand, and will say / ask this, "That if you truly are 'just not into SDA teachings.... Not interested!" (emphatic) and that they "[do not] matter to [you]", then why waste your time posting material about Seventh-day Adventists and Ellen G. White? Why not just go your merry way and leave such things be?" I think such really does matter to you in my observational opinion, and you show that (demonstrate this) by spending such time and effort (as is) on it in this thread as others. It is kinda like those (new) atheists (really God-haters) that go around spending their time, money, resources, & energy on making sure everyone else besides themselves also do not believe in "God" (or in your case, sister White / Seventh-day Adventism). Doesn't make much sense to me, but that is their (and your own choice). Ok, I will not press you further on the matter.

She herself never claimed the title 'prophet' (and with good reason), but always was the "messenger of the LORD", for her function included "much more" than the office of "prophet" would entail in general, as John the Baptists did in his generation. There are several citations to this effect, and if you need them, they may be posted at your request, and pretty sure someone in this thread, already has.

I hope you can see, that I mean you no ill will, and have tried most earnestly to address the concerns raised, and so thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, and responses, as whether right or wrong, you are valued, and what you say matters, and the truth itself on those subjects matters to me a great deal, and in that, I do thank you for allowing me, as others, to respond with points that perhaps some have yet to consider.
 

rockytopva

Mod
Staff member
Dec 31, 2010
6,525
3,390
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Ok, I understand, and will say / ask this, "That if you truly are 'just not into SDA teachings.... Not interested!" (emphatic) and that they "[do not] matter to [you]", then why waste your time posting material about Seventh-day Adventists and Ellen G. White? Why not just go your merry way and leave such things be?" I think such really does matter to you in my observational opinion, and you show that (demonstrate this) by spending such time and effort (as is) on it in this thread as others. It is kinda like those (new) atheists (really God-haters) that go around spending their time, money, resources, & energy on making sure everyone else besides themselves also do not believe in "God" (or in your case, sister White / Seventh-day Adventism). Doesn't make much sense to me, but that is their (and your own choice). Ok, I will not press you further on the matter.

She herself never claimed the title 'prophet' (and with good reason), but always was the "messenger of the LORD", for her function included "much more" than the office of "prophet" would entail in general, as John the Baptists did in his generation. There are several citations to this effect, and if you need them, they may be posted at your request, and pretty sure someone in this thread, already has.

I hope you can see, that I mean you no ill will, and have tried most earnestly to address the concerns raised, and so thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, and responses, as whether right or wrong, you are valued, and what you say matters, and the truth itself on those subjects matters to me a great deal, and in that, I do thank you for allowing me, as others, to respond with points that perhaps some have yet to consider.
Well... You tell me... Why did the Apostle Paul say...

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. - 1 Timothy 2:12
 
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo

Dan Clarkston

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2023
3,363
1,224
113
56
Denver Colorado
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well... You tell me... Why did the Apostle Paul say...

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. - 1 Timothy 2:12

And let's not forget that it was the Holy Spirit Who told Paul to write that and the Holy Spirit did so through directions from Jesus, Who got it from the Father.

Here's the skinny:

Women were created by the Lord to serve in a helper role not in a role of authority.

Only men can serve in a role of authority according to scripture.

Quote from - 1 Timothy 3:1-13
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife

Quote from - Titus 1:6-9
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God

Quote from - 1 Timothy 2:12,13
I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man

Related TRUTH from Scripture:

1 Corinthians 11:8,9
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Concerning 1 Timothy 2:8-15
The Lord Jesus teaching thru Paul gave two reasons, both of them are theological not cultural.

1. The created order: Adam was first created as an independent person, then Eve was created from his rib to be his helper. She was therefore not created to be independent of the man in authority.

2. Eve, and consequently all women, were placed under a penalty of the curse. This included pain in childbearing and that her husband would rule over her.
 
  • Love
Reactions: amigo de christo

amigo de christo

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2020
37,025
60,720
113
54
San angelo
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
JESUS I KNOW SPOKE TRUTH
its every man , woman and child , donkey or angel or whatever speaks
THAT MUST BE TESETED against HIS WORDS . And when or if Their words contradict HIS
Just know and understand , THEY BE THE LIAR . CAUSE GOD IS TRUE , HIS WORD IS TRUE , HIS WORDS are TRUE .
Hopefully that helps to remind us all .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvelloustime

Adventageous

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2022
887
297
63
Noneya
archive.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well... You tell me... Why did the Apostle Paul say...

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. - 1 Timothy 2:12
Simple. It's missing a comma. In the koine Greek text from which the verse is translated into English, no such punctuation exists, and there is simply a comma missed in the printing of the currently used edition, as is also the case for Luk. 23:43.

Consider (in brief, a whole lot more may be provided as needful):

1Ti 2:12 γυναικι δε διδασκειν ουκ επιτρεπω ουδε αυθεντειν ανδρος αλλ ειναι εν ησυχια​

Any may see an interlinear (if they need one) here - 1 Timothy 2:12 Interlinear: and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,

In other words, the text correctly (and in context, and in harmony with everything else in scripture, including Paul's other statements on the matter) reads,

1 Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority, over the man, but to be in silence.​

Thus, reads:

But I [Paul] suffer not [do not allow]​
a woman ro teach ... over the man​
But I [Paul] suffer not [do not allow], ... nor to​
a woman ... to usurp authority, over the man,​
but to be in silence [why? context of the issues]​

consider the parallelism Paul is making:

1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.​
1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.​

Should Kings be spoken over by those not in the same authority in the common sense? Should Christians just go around willy-nilly speaking over a King's authority? If so, where is Jesus' example of this? (I am not saying that Kings cannot be rebuked at proper times, but in the proper way, this is speaking in generalities).

Thus, since the Husband, and Eldership (Males) of the churches similarly hold such authority within the churches, women (and / or wives) have their proper place as well, not to be authoritatively over the Husbands or Eldership in the general sense (it does not mean that individuals cannot properly correct if such persons are in error, see 1 Tim. 5:1). Consider Anna (Luk. 2:36 KJB) in the Temple, in her proper sphere speaking of the Gospel to those in the Temple. Other examples may be provided as needful.

Thus, in scripture, as a people of God (the rightful Highest King), they are likened unto a woman as a whole (as the church is), and should be subject (in proper lawful arrangement; Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2:17) to that King. Peter (as a member of that 'woman', church) tried to teach Jesus, and be authoritative over Jesus:

Jesus said / taught authoritatively:

Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.​

Peter said in response, publically:
Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.​

Jesus then immediately said in response:
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.​

Peter (as a member of the 'woman' / church) misappropriated authority, he was not to have with Jesus (KING of kings). The zealots and those that tried to overthrow the Kings, misappropriated authority.

The text / and surrounding passages of 1 Tim. 2:12, as elsewhere in all of scripture, does not say that a woman cannot, in their proper sphere, teach men. It is speaking, contextually about mishandled / misapropriated authority, like as when Miriam (a prophetess), along with Aaron, tried to rebuke Moses, and God made an example of both, but morso of Miriam, since she was a woman (leprosy and put out of the camp a while).

Can women be teachers in the church? Yes.

Tit_2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;​

The problem with Eve, was she stepped out of her line, and proper sphere of authority, as also with Miriam, as others, also have (like Peter with Jesus), and thus lead to confusion and sin.

Many more examples may be provided.
 
Last edited:

The Learner

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2022
4,833
1,453
113
69
Brighton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
No, she (sister White) does not (and did not ever) teach that "Jesus was "made" by the Father at some point before creation" (by either of the two citations in the original context), and she never adhered to "arianism" once in her life (she began Methodist, and her material on Jesus' eternality is plethora in Desire of Ages, &c., as a Seventh-day Adventist).

For the context of those two quotes see:

Quote #1, "tore from his bosom" (which does not mean that the Father (for if that were true (perish the thought) that the Son was created / birthed into existence at some point in eternity past, this automtically means that the Father now could not have been a Father beforehand, which would destroy an eternal attribute, "Father" of the Father, and eternal attribute "Son" of the Son) physically divided like a cell would in 'mitosis' and out popped the Son, but means that the Father could hardly let go of the eternal Son in their eternal embrace (think of the Son in the everlasting arms / embrace of the Father ('in his bosom', iow., being held close, cherished) as a mental picture; which means it was a struggle for the Father to let the Son go. The Father gave in sacrifice. It cost the Father, as well as the Son, and Holy Ghost in the plan of redemption / salvation.). The portion "which was made in the express image" refers (in context) to the timing of after the Father had let the Son go to the earth and be born as a child in the nature of the likeness of sinful (fallen) flesh).

Here is the original article in scanned periodical - https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18950709-V72-28.pdf

See Page 306, #139, from (RH July 9, 1895, par. 13; and also, EGWVRWSDA 21.5 [R.W.C.] 2018; citing (RH July 9, 1895)) - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"... Please NOTE: This citation, abused by some, does not teach that the Son was “made” in eternity past, but refers to the sending of the Eternal Son (Deity) to be God manifest in the flesh of humanity, “sent ... down to earth”, and so was “made” in “the express image of his person”. See passages in scripture (KJB) as Luk. 20:13; Jhn. 1:1-18, 3:16-17; Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:3, 10:5; 1 Jhn. 4:9-15 KJB; &c. ..."​

See also Pages 544-545; part of answer to question "22" out of 50 so called hard questions on an obscure apostate website, citing (partially) from (RH July 9, 1895, par. 13) - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive & Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"... These citations (among others), abused and wrested (Psa. 56:5; 2 Pet. 3:16 KJB) by some, do not teach that the Son was “made” or ‘birthed’ in eternity past by the Father, but refers to the sending of the Eternal Son (Deity) to be God manifest in the flesh of humanity, “sent ... down to earth”, and so was “made” in “the express image of his person”. See passages in scripture (KJB) as Luk. 20:13; Jhn. 1:1-18, 3:16-17; Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:3, 10:5; 1 Jhn. 4:9-15 KJB; &c. ..."​

... to be continued ...
There was a group of Adventist known as semi-arians. The editor or their main publishing house and Mrs White's Husband who were Christian Conextion.

Early Seventh-day Adventist pioneers (1840s–1890s) held non-Trinitarian, specifically Arian or semi-Arian, views, believing Christ was begotten by the Father and not co-eternal. Prominent founders like James White and Uriah Smith argued against the Trinity, viewing the Holy Spirit as God's power rather than a person. The church shifted toward Trinitarianism in the 1890s, solidified by the 1930s-1950s.
Key Historical Details regarding Adventism and Semi-Arianism:
Pioneer Beliefs: Early leaders generally believed that Christ had a beginning and was not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father.
Key Figures: James White, Joseph Bates, and Uriah Smith were prominent non-Trinitarian, semi-Arian proponents.
Influence of Ellen G. White: While early leaders held these views, Ellen White's writings in the 1890s helped shift the church toward a full understanding of the Trinity, emphasizing the full deity of Christ.
The Shift: The church moved away from these views, officially adopting a Trinitarian position in the 20th century.
Biblical Research Institute
Biblical Research Institute

While some modern, non-mainstream Adventists ("Historic Adventists") may still hold to the earlier, non-Trinitarian views, the official, mainstream Seventh-day Adventist Church holds to the Trinitarian,co-eternal nature of the Godhead.
 

The Learner

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2022
4,833
1,453
113
69
Brighton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Anti SDA Was the Seventh Day Adventist movement started by Arians? – Answering Adventism
James White plainly expressed that he did not believe that Jesus was co-eternal with the Father: “The old unscriptural trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus is the eternal God” (The Day-Star, January 24, 1846, 25).
In 1854, J. M. Stevenson wrote, “If the inspired writers had wishes to convey the idea of the co-etaneous existence, and eternity of the Father and the Son, they could not possibly have used more incompatible terms.”
In 1865 Uriah Smith referred to Christ as “the first created being”.
In 1869 J. N. Andrews (ironically the namesake for the University that houses the Adventist seminary) stated, “And as to the Son of God, he would be excluded also, for he had God for his Father, and did, at some point in the eternity of the past, have a beginning of days.”

 
  • Like
Reactions: Brakelite

The Learner

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2022
4,833
1,453
113
69
Brighton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
posssible sda anti-arians today
Gogle for more seventh day adventist semi-arians websites present truth ministries
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
10,875
7,252
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
There was a group of Adventist known as semi-arians. The editor or their main publishing house and Mrs White's Husband who were Christian Conextion.

Early Seventh-day Adventist pioneers (1840s–1890s) held non-Trinitarian, specifically Arian or semi-Arian, views, believing Christ was begotten by the Father and not co-eternal. Prominent founders like James White and Uriah Smith argued against the Trinity, viewing the Holy Spirit as God's power rather than a person. The church shifted toward Trinitarianism in the 1890s, solidified by the 1930s-1950s.
Key Historical Details regarding Adventism and Semi-Arianism:
Pioneer Beliefs: Early leaders generally believed that Christ had a beginning and was not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father.
Key Figures: James White, Joseph Bates, and Uriah Smith were prominent non-Trinitarian, semi-Arian proponents.
Influence of Ellen G. White: While early leaders held these views, Ellen White's writings in the 1890s helped shift the church toward a full understanding of the Trinity, emphasizing the full deity of Christ.
The Shift: The church moved away from these views, officially adopting a Trinitarian position in the 20th century.
Biblical Research Institute
Biblical Research Institute

While some modern, non-mainstream Adventists ("Historic Adventists") may still hold to the earlier, non-Trinitarian views, the official, mainstream Seventh-day Adventist Church holds to the Trinitarian,co-eternal nature of the Godhead.
True. And as much as I love my fellow adventist here and respect immensely his scholarship and passion for our faith, I have what I believe to bevalid reasons for tending more toward the pioneer view with a couple of changes. The Son is absolutely the equal to His Father in every respect except rank, inheriting the life of the Father which in Ellen White's own words, describes the quality of that life...
“In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” It is not physical life that is here specified, but immortality, the life which is exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life. Physical life is something which each individual receives. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the lifegiver, takes it again. Man has no control over his life. But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from him. “I lay it down of myself,” he said. In him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ ST April 8, 1897, par. 1 - ST April 8, 1897, par. 2

She said elsewhere...
“A complete offering has been made; for "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,"-- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, 30th May 1895, ‘Christ our complete salvation’)

Ellen White believed Christ was begotten in eternity.

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." (Ellen G. White, Review & Herald 9th July 1895 ‘The Duty of the Minister and the People’)

Before Christ came in the likeness of men, he existed in the express image of his Father. He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Nevertheless he voluntarily emptied himself, and took the form of a servant. He was the incarnate God, the light of heaven and earth. In him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Ellen G. White, Youth’s Instructor, December 20th 1900”)

In His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God. Said the angel to Mary, "The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” While the Son of a human being, He became the Son of God in a new sense.” (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times August 2nd 1905, 'Christ our only hope') If in the incarnation Christ became the Son of God in a “new sense”, then previous to the incarnation He must have been the Son of God in a different sense. In other words, there are two senses in which Christ is the Son of God. The first was (in His pre-incarnate state) as the only begotten of God whilst the second was His birth from Mary. Note that this was written in 1905, which was 7 years after the publication of the Desire of Ages. This was in keeping where she penned these words in a letter addressed to John Harvey Kellogg (this was two years earlier in 1903) “When Christ first announced to the heavenly host His mission and work in the world, He declared that He was to leave His position of dignity and disguise His holy mission by assuming the likeness of a man when in reality He was the Son of the infinite God.” (Ellen G. White, letter, to J. H. Kellogg, Letter No. K-303, August 29th 1903)

Remember our discussion concerning Kellogg who at that time was devising into panthseism. Ellen White is here correcting him, explaining the full divinity and personality of Christ.
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
10,875
7,252
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
And yet , the above having been said, I am still a Trinitarian, but a begotten Son in eternity, before the creation of all things, does not and cannot harmonize with creedal trinitarianism. Another reason I cannot agree with the creeds, is that they unite the Father, Son, and Spirit in such a way that they cannot be divided. Which means there was a part of Jesus still in heaven connected indivisible from the Godhead, which if taken to its logical conclusion, means Jesus didn't really die, at least only the human side of Him. One could ask in that case, where was the risk? Where was the sacrifice? If Christ's temptations were genuine, and He could have sinned, what loss would that have been to the Godhead if a part of Christ was still connected to God? Again, where was the risk? But the way I look at the incarnation, the risk was a factor, and glorifies the love of God exponentially.
 
  • Love
Reactions: The Learner

Marvelloustime

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2020
7,864
13,067
113
Heaven bound
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
JESUS I KNOW SPOKE TRUTH
its every man , woman and child , donkey or angel or whatever speaks
THAT MUST BE TESETED against HIS WORDS . And when or if Their words contradict HIS
Just know and understand , THEY BE THE LIAR . CAUSE GOD IS TRUE , HIS WORD IS TRUE , HIS WORDS are TRUE .
Hopefully that helps to remind us all .
@amigo de christo
save-image.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.