Seeming Contradictions

I am aware that there are statements that have been attributed to Ellen G. White that, on the face of it, appear to give a Trinitarian viewpoint.  However, a number of them can be explained otherwise.  In fact, they must be explained otherwise if contradiction is not to be conceded, since the overwhelming weight of evidence does not support a Trinity.

As supporting a Trinity persons cite, for example, Evangelism p. 615: “He is the eternal self-existent Son”. This is not the same as saying He is eternally self-existent.  To say that Christ is self-existent does not preclude His being begotten.  Once begotten in the Father’s exact image, He would then be self-existent just as the Father is self-existent.  In fact, that is what the Bible says in St. John 5:26: “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself”.  The expression eternal Son does not preclude His being begotten either.

One that is begotten of God’s own essence would be eternal since the essence of God from which such One is born had no beginning.  Even the Nicene Creed recognizes a difference between being created and being begotten in the following words: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made.” Of course, I am not endorsing the concept of eternal generation.  I am only making the point here, that being created and being begotten are two different things that even the Nicene Creed recognizes, and further, that being begotten does not imply inferiority.

Why should we seek to deny that a literal Father-Son relationship exists?  This does not detract from the Divinity of Christ.  This does not make Him an inferior kind of Being.  What make us think that an offspring could be other than the same kind as the parent?

Another statement of Ellen G. White that is seized upon to advance the concept of a Trinity is the following: “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived” (Desire of Ages, p. 530).  The full statement shows that it is not Jesus Himself that is being described, but rather, life – which Jesus has and is able to impart.  Here is the full statement as it was originally published in Signs of the Times: “In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived.  This life is not inherent in man.  He can possess it only through Christ.  He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as a personal Saviour.” (The Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897; also Selected Messages, vol. 1, pp. 296,297.)   Those who are diligent enough to do a little research will realize that the statement was not saying anything about the life that Christ had that is not within the possibility for humans to experience.

Being described is the nature and quality of this life and not the origin of it.   Original – not a pattern or copy, but something genuine, authentic.  Unborrowed – does not have to be returned.  Underived – not drawn from a source; He has it in Himself.   How He came in possession of it?  It was given to Him by His Father.   St. John 5:26 says: “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself”. In like manner as He has received this life from His Father, Jesus will impart it to His people.

This matter seems to be quite straightforward and should not lend itself to much of the confusion that this statement is used to create, since Ellen G. White was not even discussing the matter of a Trinity.

Give Prophet the Benefit of the Doubt

It is only reasonable that the prophet be given the benefit of the doubt by understanding her statements in a manner that is consistent with other clear statements that she made and with the unanimous position that the church held during her lifetime.  Indeed, the non-Trinitarian statements of faith of 1874, (Signs of the Times, June 4, 1874), 1889, and 1894 represented the generally accepted position of the church of which Ellen G. White was a part, and she did not object to it.

It is not reasonable to construe the words of the prophet in a manner that brings the prophet into disrepute and calls into question the credibility of the entire foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist movement.  Nowhere in Ellen G. White’s writings is God referred to as a Trinity or Triune.  She never corrected any of the pioneers, including her own husband, James White, who were staunchly non-Trinitarian.  Quite to the contrary, she strongly endorsed the doctrinal foundation that was laid by the pioneers, describing it as “a solid, immovable platform” (Early Writings, p. 259).

READ MORE:
Calvary answers all mysteries PART ONE ARGUMENT OF CALVARY
Calvary answers all mysteries PART TWO TRINITY, PAPAL TEACHING and more
Calvary answers all mysteries PART THREE SEEMING CONTRADICTIONS
Calvary answers all mysteries PART FOUR DESIRE OF AGES
Calvary answers all mysteries PART FIVE VIOLENCE TO THE GOSPEL?