Posted on 04/06/2025 11:51:27 AM PDT by Cronos
← Three uses of the Law“Seated at the Right hand of the throne of God” → Ellen White Denies Deity of Christ Posted on October 15, 2015 by ACTheologian 408923_247114988699281_100002023463473_605563_179444531_n
For a Biblical breakdown on the Deity of Christ please click here. Below I am going to present a few troubling quotes in proper context and attempt to get a better understanding of Ellen White’s view on the doctrine.
“The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind.” EGW, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 07-09-1895, “The Duty of the Minister and the People,” Par. 14.
The quote above is troubling, she is plainly stating that Jesus Christ was “made”. Those who have studied scripture know that Jesus is uncreated, thus it would not be accurate to refer to him as “made”.
Below we see another troubling quote of Ellen White, where she is directly stating that Jesus wasn’t God.
“The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty” (Letter 32, 1899, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129).
I’ve passed this around and many will complain that the context clarifies her statement though. The problem is that there is no clarification that changes “not” into “is”. One must engage in sophistry to twist her words around another way. No matter how you shake it out she is confessing a heresy. Either she is dividing the two natures of Christ into two persons entirely and confessing Nestorianism or she is abrogating the divine nature with the human and confessing some form of Arianism.
I think it is the latter as that plays in well with her comments in Patriarchs and Prophets.
“The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor.” EGW, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 37
It is common knowledge that Arianism and Anti-Trinitarianism were widely held views in the early Seventh Day Adventist Church. Since I do not believe Ellen White was a prophet I have no trouble whatsoever accepting that she was catering to her audience by teaching views in line with those heresies.
Over time these heresies in the SDA Church have watered down a great deal. The problem is that the teachings of Ellen White are still commonly used in the SDA Church and despite their formal rejection of Arianism the themes and images conveyed in her writings taint their views. Just to give a personal example, when I was an SDA I pictured the Trinity as a Tri-unity of three beings united in a common purpose. Though their fundamental beliefs don’t read as such since the local teachers of the Church read her books, when the topic of the Trinity comes up it is taught using the themes and imagery that she uses.
My goal in this post is to prove this claim by analyzing Patriarchs and Prophets pages 34-37. Every so often I will drop in a verse or two which should clarify the Biblical doctrine being maligned by Ellen White.
“The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence. He had an associate–a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1, 2. Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father–one in nature, in character, in purpose–the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 34
Though there are many problems in the above statement what is most glaring is that she qualifies “one in nature” with character and purpose and then states Jesus as being the “only being that could enter”.
Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity not the second being. The doctrine of the Trinity is ONE BEING expressed in three persons. Ellen White is teaching a tri-unity of three beings in purpose rather than the Holy Trinity that the Bible teaches.
“The Father wrought by His Son in the creation of all heavenly beings” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 34
The problem with this is the Bible doesn’t say that the Father created through the Son in these verses (John 1:1-5, Col 1:16). Rather they attribute creation entirely to the Son. The only way of harmonizing this with other passages that also ascribe creation to the Father and to the Holy Spirit is the doctrine of the Trinity. God is one being in three persons. Here in this above quote Ellen is separating the persons of the Trinity into different beings acting through each other.
“So long as all created beings acknowledged the allegiance of love, there was perfect harmony throughout the universe of God. It was the joy of the heavenly host to fulfill the purpose of their Creator.” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 35
Though it is not entirely clear in this passage what Ellen means by “all created beings” and “the universe of God” we know from other writings that she taught there are beings on other planets, like Jupiter for example. Nowhere in scripture does it clearly state that beings live on Jupiter or any other planets except for earth.
“Little by little Lucifer came to indulge the desire for self-exaltation” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 35
This is important because we see the first mention of Satan desiring exaltation in Ellen’s writings. I want to point this out because I think it is key in defining her use of the word exaltation. Simply notice for now that the Devil wishes to be exalted. Right after stating this EGW quotes Isaiah 14:13 “Thou has said in thine heart, …. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God…” Isaiah 14:13, 14. So we can see that in using the word “exaltation” with regards to the Devils desires she is referencing a passage in Isaiah where the one being spoken of desires to be exalted to a place not only equal to but above God. For one to be exalted to a level higher than God they would logically have to start at a level that is lower than God in one fashion or another.
“And coveting the glory with which the infinite Father had invested His Son, this prince of angels aspired to power that was the prerogative of Christ alone.” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 35
This is an interesting statement as she states that the Devil is “coveting the glory with which the infinite father had invested”. How is it that the father “invested” glory in an uncreated one? By definition the glory of an uncreated Deity is intrinsic unto themselves. The Bible teaches that Christ already had the Glory of God before he humbled himself, and he doesn’t ascribe the pre-incarnate Glory he possessed as something given to him, but rather as something he simply had.
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” John 17:5 KJV
Above we see the Son speaking of his Glory, the glory “which [he] had”. It does not say ‘glorify me with the glory you once invested in me’. The later would work with Ellen Whites statement but the former does not.
Instead we see later on page 36 the following:
“The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 36
Here we see the “King” setting “forth the true position of His Son”. This makes no sense for anyone who believes what the Bible because as Christ did not humble himself before creation, but after. What we are seeing here on page 36 is an event that Lucifer later looks back to as an injustice. Putting it bluntly, Ellen White is saying that Lucifer and the other angels were actual eye witnesses to an event in which Christ is exalted to the level of God. It’s not enough that she has to teach Arian heresy but she is going to accuse the angels in heaven of being witnesses to and praising such a thing.
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:5-8 KJV
The reason you can Biblically assert that the Father exalted the Son (Php 2:9) without lessening the deity of the Son is that before he was exalted by the Father he humbled himself. Instead with EGW we saw above that the Son was exalted before creation, before the incarnation. That means she is teaching that Christ was in a humbled state in heaven. Since the manner in which he humbled himself in the incarnation is defined as taking the form of a man what possible “lower” state was Christ exalted from in heaven according to Ellen White? Fair question, and it is one she seems to explore later on the same page.
“Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father’s will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 36
Notice she connects a defining line between “Only Begotten of God” and “wrought the Father’s will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven”. Tying this in with the fact that she is teaching a lesser state of Christ prior to a heavenly exaltation I can only conclude that her meaning by Begotten here is that she is saying Christ is the first creation of the Father that created everything else.
The problem is that this would imply that Christ is a created being. The Bible removes that as a possibility in the following verses:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” John 1:1-3 KJV
In the above verse we see Jesus being ascribed with the following creative works “and without him was not any thing made that was made”. Logically, if Jesus was created then nothing was created because one would have to assert that Christ created himself.
“ His desire for supremacy returned, and envy of Christ was once more indulged.” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 37
Notice we see the theme of the jealousy of the Devil re-appear. Keeping everything in context, he is jealous of Christ. The Devil desires to be exalted from a lower place in created order to a higher place. And in the narrative of this heavenly story he is jealous of that which he just witnessed, the Son who was in a lower place of created order and was just exalted to a higher one. This is a full blown denial of the Deity of Christ in the writings of Ellen White.
“Yet the Son of God was exalted above him , as one in power and authority with the Father…..
The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor” Patriarchs and Prophets pg 37
Above we see that the exaltation of Christ is again cited, a recent event that Lucifer just witnessed in the previous page, and he is jealous of it. The obvious problem of a pre-incarnate exaltation is that to exalt one must be lower in some fashion than they were before they were exalted otherwise the word has no meaning. So in effect, Ellen White is teaching that Jesus Christ was a created being and less than God before he was exalted to the level God, and that this exaltation was what the Devil had desired for himself. There is no getting around this, Ellen White functionally denies the Deity of Christ in her writings.
Another writing by Ellen the false prophetess of Seventh Day Adventism
“‘The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 35)
the Adventist organization was founded by anti-trinitarians and Arians or semi-Arians. It was not merely a debated idea. The founders and doctrine-shapers were anti-Trinitarians and Arians. James White and Jospeh Bates were from the Christian Connexion, an anti-trinitarian organization. J.N. Andrew, for whom the Adventist seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan, was named, was a vocal anti-trinitarian and never changed his views. In fact, none of the founders changed their views
Originally she did, but she eventually came around to accepting it.
The intent of the SDA Founders was to start with a blank slate and build their faith on what they determined the Bible to teach and not build their church on the foundation of previous churches that may have been in error.
In Lucifer’s mind, that is what he thought it was.
Lucifer’s ambitions were to be like the Most High and being denied that was an injustice in his mind.
She is a false prophet just like you are false.
Well, that is a sticking point.
In my view, the study of Tabernacles, bridges all conflict in regards to the Christ and how He is equal to the Father but subservient to Him.
Actually she didn’t. If you read her writings she rejects the Trinity in favour of something called “The Holy Trio”, which, despite sou doing like a sixties band, is really tritheism not Trinitarianism.
A brief list of some of Ellen’s false prophecies:
E. G. White prophesied the world would end in 1843, 1844, 1845 & 1851: “Now time is almost finished, (1851) and what we have been 6 years in learning they will have to learn in months.” EARLY WRITINGS p. 57
Concerning some of her ``revelations,’’ Biederwolf, Seventh-Day Adventism, p. 8f “In one of her visions her accompanying angels told her that the time of salvation for all sinners ended in 1844. She now claims the door of mercy is still open...In another vision she discovered that women should wear short dresses with pants and she and her sister followers dressed this way for eight years. But the ridiculous custom has now been abandoned....’’
“I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: Some food for worms, some subject to the last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus’” (Vol. 1, p. 131). NOTE: This statement was made in 1856 and every one present in that meeting is now dead. Obviously, this was a false prophecy
that is purely B S! SDA’s ALL firmly believe in God the Father, God the Son AND God the Holy Spirit. it is YOU my friend that spits on those who don’t follow what YOU determine is the way to Salvation because YOU are a millstone yourself. but have a nice day!
“There are three living persons of the heavenly trio . . . the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
E. G. White, Special Testimonies, Series B, no. 7 (Sanitarium: n.p., 1905), 62–63,
emphasis supplied.
Her concept of the “heavenly trio” differs from the traditional Trinitarian view.
Seventh day Adventism rejects the Christian Trinity.
Seventh-day Adventism and Trinitarianism both affirm a belief in one God, but their understandings of the Godhead—the nature and relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—differ in emphasis, historical development, and some theological nuances.
**Trinitarianism (Mainstream Christian View):**
Traditional Trinitarianism, as held by most Christian denominations (e.g., Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants), teaches that God exists eternally as three distinct persons—Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit—who are co-equal, co-eternal, and of the same substance (homoousios). This doctrine was formalized in early church councils, like Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD), to counter heresies such as Arianism, which denied the full divinity of Christ. In Trinitarianism:
- The three persons are fully and equally God, sharing one divine essence.
- There is no subordination in essence or eternity; distinctions are relational, not hierarchical.
- The Trinity is a mystery, transcending human comprehension, but is foundational to salvation and worship.
**Seventh-day Adventist View of the Godhead:**
Seventh-day Adventists also affirm a belief in the “Godhead,” a term they often prefer over “Trinity,” though they officially accept the Trinity as a doctrine in their fundamental beliefs (see Fundamental Belief #2). However, their understanding has unique historical and theological characteristics:
- **Historical Development:** Early Adventism (mid-19th century) included semi-Arian tendencies, with some pioneers like James White and Uriah Smith questioning the eternal deity of Christ or the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Over time, particularly through the influence of Ellen G. White’s writings, the denomination moved toward a more orthodox Trinitarian stance by the early 20th century. This evolution distinguishes Adventism from denominations that embraced Trinitarianism from their inception.
- **Three Distinct Persons:** Adventists believe in three eternal, divine persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—united in purpose and love, not merely in function. Ellen White described them as “one in nature, in character, in purpose,” yet distinct beings (e.g., *The Desire of Ages*, 1898).
- **Subtle Subordination:** While Adventists affirm the equality of the Godhead, some interpretations of Ellen White’s writings suggest a functional subordination, especially in the context of Christ’s incarnation and role in salvation. For example, she refers to the Father as the “great Source” and Christ as submitting to the Father’s will, though this is not a denial of Christ’s eternal divinity.
- **Emphasis on Individuality:** Adventists stress the distinct personalities and roles of the Father, Son, and Spirit more explicitly than some Trinitarian formulations, avoiding modalism (the idea that God is one person manifesting in three modes). This reflects Ellen White’s statements, such as in *Evangelism* (p. 615), where she describes three “living persons of the heavenly trio.”
- **Practical Focus:** Adventism ties the Godhead closely to practical theology—creation, the Sabbath, and the plan of redemption—rather than abstract metaphysical speculation.
**Key Differences:**
1. **Terminology and Emphasis:** Adventists use “Godhead” and emphasize the individuality of the three persons, while Trinitarianism often focuses on their unity of essence. This can make Adventist language sound less philosophical and more relational.
2. **Historical Context:** Adventism’s gradual acceptance of the Trinity contrasts with the early, definitive adoption in mainstream Christianity, reflecting a restorationist approach rather than a continuation of creedal tradition.
3. **Functional Roles:** Adventists may imply a voluntary, functional hierarchy (e.g., Christ’s submission to the Father in the plan of salvation), though they reject ontological inequality, whereas strict Trinitarianism avoids any hint of subordination in essence or eternity.
4. **Ellen White’s Influence:** Adventist theology is shaped by Ellen White’s prophetic writings, which provide a distinctive lens not present in traditional Trinitarianism.
In summary, while Seventh-day Adventists align with the core of Trinitarian belief—three divine, eternal persons in one God—they differ in their historical journey, terminology, and emphasis on the relational distinctness of the Godhead, influenced heavily by their prophetic tradition.
They hold to a Tritheism
If Ellen White is a false prophet, then so is the long line of Popes. I can’t disagree a bit with the SDA criticism, but the RCC crowns Saints, and raises up the very human birth mother of Yeshua to the same level as Christ. Big religions make big mistakes. There is much money and control there.
She was incorrect because she used the wrong terms. God counts time Biblically one way, and Men don’t seem to want to figure it out.
No pope in the history of the Catholic Church has explicitly claimed to be a prophet in the sense of receiving direct, ongoing divine revelations or predicting future events as a primary role, akin to the biblical prophets like Isaiah or Jeremiah.
speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals differs from prophetic revelation.
In contrast, Ellen us called a prophets by the Adventist group despite her numerous failed prophecies:
Here’s an overview of the most commonly cited examples:
1. The Shut Door Doctrine (1844–1851)
Claim: After the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844, when Christ didn’t return as expected by the Millerites, Ellen White initially supported the “shut door” teaching. She claimed in visions that probation had closed for the world, meaning no further conversions were possible, and salvation was limited to those who had accepted the Millerite message (e.g., A Word to the Little Flock, 1847: “I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase and spread. The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth”).
In reality: By the early 1850s, Adventists, including White, began evangelizing widely, implying probation hadn’t closed. Critics argue this shift contradicts her early visions, suggesting they were false or revised post hoc.
2. Jerusalem Never to Be Rebuilt
Claim: In Early Writings (p. 75), White wrote, “I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up,” based on a vision she interpreted as divine revelation.
In reality: Since 1948, Jerusalem has seen significant rebuilding, especially after Israel’s establishment. Critics see this as a clear failed prediction, given modern Jerusalem’s growth.
3. England Declaring War on the U.S. During the Civil War
Claim: During the American Civil War (1861–1865), White predicted in Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1 (p. 259), that England would intervene: “England is studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present opportunity… to establish her power. Should England declare war, all nations would have an interest of their own to serve, and there would be general war.”
In reality: England never declared war on the U.S. during the Civil War, despite tensions (e.g., the Trent Affair). Critics say this was a false prophecy about a specific event.
4. Christ’s Return in Her Lifetime
Claim: White made statements suggesting she expected Christ’s return within her lifetime or soon after. For example, in 1856, she wrote about a vision of Adventists alive at the time: “I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: ‘Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus’” (Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 131). She also said in 1888, “The hour will come; it is not far distant” (Review and Herald, Oct. 9, 1888).
In reality: Christ didn’t return in the 19th century, and all those present in 1856 died. Critics argue this sets a failed timeline.
5. Slavery’s Continuance
Claim: In 1862, White wrote, “It seemed impossible for slavery to be stopped in its career” (Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 266), during the Civil War.
In reality: Slavery was abolished in the U.S. with the 13th Amendment in 1865, shortly after. Critics see this as a misjudgment of events unfolding in her time.
She was incorrect because she considered that Jesus as a man was not quite God. In addition she, like the other founders of Adventism were anti-Trinitarian
Who is he? His "About" in part --
I am a lay Christian and currently attend services at a local LCMS Church. I created this blog to share my personal studies with anyone interested. I am open to comments and critique.So a Missouri Synod Lutheran "amateur", a portion of his blog is titled "Leaving Adventism," so once he was an SDA sort?
Given the plurality of religious posts and perspectives -- Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and some Jewish commenters as well -- who participate in Free Republic, it seems odd that this "amateur" has much to say without easily identifying himself. But his "leaving Adventism" seems clear.
I've had friends of many faiths and denominations, including one very nice SDA fellow, and would hesitate to so blithely opine as he does. That SDA friend knew of the oddities in the beginnings of SDA, and accepted those faults. That was his business. Live and let live. Or attack those who don't think as you think.
But, stepping aside from the SDA stuff, put a Lutheran and a Catholic in a box and give it a good shake.... Watch for sparks.
Bte, no one “crowns” saints. The ones known are canonized, meaning showing them as paragons or examples of faith, kinda like medals for the brave. This doesn’t mean there aren’t many who are unacknowledged, it’s not an e exhaustive list.
Rather, these are examples for us of bravery.
so how about posting what seventh day Adventists believe from their official denominational beliefs? it will prove one thing beyond any shadow of a doubt...you are a liar and the Truth is not in you. a simple fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.