Ellen White's MOST Controversial Statement. Response To
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ส.ค. 2024
- Critics such as @answeringandventism hold the position that Ellen White did not believe that Jesus was God Almighty. What they have done erroneously as they have many times is that they failed to consider the context of her statements. Lets see what happens when you read Ellen White in context.
#sda #seventhdayadventist #sdachurch #sdasermons #adventistchurch #adventist #sabbath #sabbathsda #answeringadventism #prophecy #christianity #jesus #ellengwhite #ellengouldwhite #seventhdayadventistchurch
0:00 - Intro
0:37 - Myles' Claim
1:26 - The Traditional SDA View
5:14 - Ellen White Believed that Jesus was the Lord God Almighty
9:44 - The Context of the Quote
15:14 - The Meaning of the Quote
23:33 - Myles's Church Father Believed What EGW Believed
28:32 - Summary
Dialoging with this guy is an exercise in frustration! He will torture scripture and logic to keep his position and it seems doubtful he will ever see the light.
He isn't interested in the truth. Doesn't care. Just wants to argue. He's in satan snare. Don't let satan get us in the same snare.
@@rickcruse1515 Thanks for the encouragement! I believe the ADL has invited him to dialog concerning his statement that the Waldenses were not sabbath keepers and he never showed!
Flesh and bone did not reveal this, God is good! Thank you brothers for defending our sister. ❤❤❤❤
I should say this often but this random Adventist layman from Nigeria who is very much interested in attaining to the intellectual side of his faith appreciates you guys so much-all four of you, and anyone else who enables these video productions of yours. Your channel has quickly become one of my favourites on TH-cam. Thank you and God bless you.
Happy to help brother! Thanks for the support.
Excellent response to this argument...praise God! Context is key! So many people lack this understanding and method of study, even within the church. God bless this presentation, and may he be glorified!
Ellen White wrote so much and it's therefore easy to pick on her writings! Apostle Paul warned that we should NOT despise prophecy!
@@rayhchc6451Paul also said to beware of those teaching a false gospel and false Jesus
⚠️ finray ⚠️ For how long are the indignant ignorant ones gonna keep crawling back for some ever more spiritual beatings? Now YOU tell ME who's faith is being questioned in Luke 18:8 and who's faith is being endorsed in Revelation 14:12?
Nice try? Wanna try again?
But please be sure to answer the question 😇
@@rayhchc6451 which question? You had several.
@@rayhchc6451 to be honest your way of speaking and phraseology is different and cryptic. I'm not totally sure what point you are trying to make. I think you are speaking Adventese and not the way most Christians speak.
Some good points were made here. I remember about 7 years ago that same statement nearly got me into the non trinitarian side of Adventism. They love that quote and others like it. Man those were some times. I remember agonizing over those statements.
I am non trinitarian, coming from a Baptist church originally, but now an SDA but still non trinitarian.
Let me explain.
Trinity is a word used for a pagan concept. "Trinity" is not found anywhere in the Bible.
As a Bible reading Christian that searches out God's Word,, in context, I found, like Luther, in independent study, going down the cross reference "rabbit holes," There is just one God Almighty, One Yahweh, whose Son, Yeshua/Jesus divested himself of his heavenly godhood to come to earth as the second Adam, at the will of his Father and himself, for they are of one purpose. The Holy Spirit is the supernatural force that helps us, heals us, seals us, and fights our battles on behalf of our loving Father by the grace of our Lord, Yeshua/Jesus Christ the messiah who redeemed us that have and hold the faith that by his blood sacrifice and the ressurrection hope that all evil will be removed from this world to be created anew, inhabited by His faithful and obedient saints forever.
The sick thing is that people do not want to be obedient because we are arrogant, prideful beings thinking we are in charge.
The Word of God is clearly discernable, but revealed by the Holy Spirit. That's why theologians miss the mark using pure intellectualism.
Wars are blamed on Christianity, but Yeshua/Jesus told us to love our enemies, and to Peter, to sheath his sword, "for those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."
The Spirit of the antichrist has been at play for 2 millenia. Constantine perverted what Chistianity means by incorporating pagan sun worship and denying the right of conscience and our God given free will. He claims the first day of the week as a sign of his authority...Daniel 7:25
Protestants have forgotten their PROTEST in the ecumenical movement of the new religion that worships the creation rather than the Creator.
Jesus is coming soon!
@@ksgraham3477 Jeremiah 16 Romans 9 - 11
@@ksgraham3477 Trinity doesn't have to be found anywhere in the bible to make it a reality.
Is Adventist found anywhere in the bible ?. No. But is describes a legitimate Christian belief
that being in the second coming of Jesus.
It's not smart to diss the word trinity because it is also used to describe something pagan.
it's a word.
I can't actually see where you've studied regarding the trinity.
It's written all over the bible. But either way; know this; either you are right
or the SDA's are right, but your both coming from polar opposite directions.
Someone has the wrong Jesus, and might probably not have salvation through their wrong Jesus (as Paul said).
Critics don't like proper context
Mr Context is King is one who lead me to SDA with his misrepresentation. Just uploaded parts of my testimony.
Context cover up.
I dont call it context it's just anither way to cover up the many errors of EG White who copied so much that you can find error and truth in most of her writings.
@danieloostendorp9286 that's some solid projection. I'm going to give you my secret, the very secret that led me to join The Seventh-Day Adventist church. Take a claim against Ellen white, then look at the Bible verses being referenced, and then actually read the context of the Bible verse, not the verse itself but the entire context of what's being referenced. Then also understand that she's writing from a 19th century literary style. I haven't seen a single issue with anything she's written, in context, especially compared to early church fathers and Protestant Reformation leaders, etc etc. It's par for the course... let me guess, your secret gospel Prophet is CS lewis.
Loved the in-depth study last night. Comparing scripture with scripture and analyzing key words was very helpful, praise God. ❤
Thank you for being there!
Which is why I love these Men of God, they give enough Scriptures to prove the point, which is all in the Bible and no outside source.
Critics do not take on board context, but one off quotes in isolation of context and then run with it, which is dangerous and misleading. Myles was I think a four generation SDA, but left the faith and has become an active critic of the faith. My questions to Myles are ‘who hurt you and what do you believe?’
You should listen to Myles’ testimony to find out why he thinks this way.
@@lavieenrose5954 I have listened to Myles’ testimony and watched his discussion with three young SDA Pastors however, my issue is that Myles (and I pray that he will change his stance) criticise virtually every teaching of the faith. His stance on the three Angels message, the scapegoat, the fourth commandment, soul sleep and other issues are incorrect and even when shown, he refuse to accept it. He made it clear that he would never return to SDA church.
The issue with debates is that the focus is proving that you are right and the other is wrong and who wants to be wrong, essentially when televised. All debates ends up with both parties shaking hands and walking off stage more convicted in their stance even if they are wrong.
Debates does not lend itself to discussion in the sense of finding out what is the truth and changing once held view if wrong.
I absolutely love you guys and have referred to your website numerous times through the last several years as I have struggled with questions from those who have issues with Adventists. What is the most sorrowful, is the loss that others have not possessing the Spirit of Prophecy, or the great understanding of our Adventist Pioneers. They simply operate in a more or less crippled state without this blessing - and it is a blessing that God Himself has bestowed on the Seventh Day Adventist Movement. How so very blessed we are!
The upshot ; God cannot die.
Jesus came to this earth and took on humanity, dwelling as it were, in our tents as a man, so that He could die the death which we as sinners should have died , and subsequently have forgiveness of our sins and the hope of eternal life.
Praises be to God for His unspeakable gift in the person of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. I am hoping to place my crown of life at the feet of Jesus one day.
Maranatha my friends!
Keep up the good work!!!!
0:00 - Intro
0:37 - Myles' Claim
1:26 - The Traditional SDA View
5:14 - Ellen White Believed that Jesus was the Lord God Almighty
9:44 - The Context of the Quote
15:14 - The Meaning of the Quote
23:33 - Myles's Church Father Believed What EGW Believed
28:32 - Summary
NO, She did not call Jesus the Almighty.
She quoted the words of God, spoken by Jesus the Mediator speaking in the place of his Father, the Almighty, as the Almighty.
Here is a crucial point that most miss.
Is Jesus the Mediator, what is a mediator and when did He become the mediator?
Jesus is the mediator, the ambassador, the one that speaks in the place of God and therfore He speaks for God as God. When Christ speaks He speaks the words of His Father in the first Person. Just like any countries ambassador would speak in the place of his country, as the country, not as himself.
IF you grasp the following statement by EG White you will understand:
“To Adam in his innocence was granted communion, direct, free, and happy, with his Maker. After his transgression, God would communicate to man *ONLY* through Christ and angels. ST January 30, 1879, par. 19
Adam could no longer speak directly to the Father, the source of ALL LIFE, after he sinned.
Adam from that point on could ONLY communicate with The Son of God and Angels. ONLY THOSE TWO.
Jesus became the mediator immediately after Adam sinned, that means, before The Son of God was sent to become the Son of man He started as mediator.
Sin prevented Adam from communication with the Father, "the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. 1 Tim 6:16
Sin did not prevent Adam or the Patriarchs from looking upon and communicating with The Son of God, because it is the Father that dwells in light unapproachable, NOT the Son of God.
Why was it possible for Adam to speak with Christ but not to The Father, what makes them different?
The Father is the Source of ALL life ALL things are of the Father, who created ALL things by His Son.
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
The Father also gave the Son the same life that He has.
Jesus came from heaven and took the form of man and spoke these words to His disciples before His death and ressurection:
Jhn 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
When did the Father give this life to His Son? He did not start life when He clothed His Divinity with humanity and took the form of a man, He already had the life that He received from the Father.
"All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, THE FATHER’S LIFE FLOWS OUT TO ALL; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life. DA 21.2
"THE FATHERS LIFE FLOWS OUT TO ALL" Christ received the Fathers Life, and Gives us the Life that He received from His Father.
"Our Heavenly Father is the God of the universe, and Christ is the divine Son, the One equal with the Father. “. 21LtMs, Ms 49, 1906, par. 26
“God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son.” 8T 268.3
When Was Christ given an exalted position? Read Patriarchs and Prophets CH1, it was before creation, that Christ received this from His Father. It makes no sense for One Co-equal to give another Co-equal an exalted position in a Trinity where all are already equal.
Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Blessings.
@@francois1546 you can't be serious. The video from the 5:14 mark has so many quotes of EGW calling Jesus God, even the The Lord God Almighty.
@@francois1546 one's like YOU that lead me to the SDA. I just gave my testimony and uploaded part of it. Keep misrepresenting us, you'll make more.
@@FishermensCorner Not quite following what you are trying to get across, could you clarify please.
@francois1546 .... misrepresenting the bible, and even just misrepresenting what people are saying... you want me to give you Clarity on the confusion you cause? Sorry my friend, only the Holy Spirit can do that.
This fellow answering adventism cherry picks bits and pieces certain lines to prove his point . I feel sorry for the man he really needs our prayers he seems to spend his whole life trying to find fault with THE SDA church .
I am thankful for Myles. Because me as SDA I never read the writings of Ellen G white. But I believe that SDA is the most correct church rightly dividing the word of truth. So because Myles is accusing the SDA church, and this four brothers are showing us what Ellen G white believed, I can see that Her writings are inspired. Keep up the Good works brothers. And bring it on Myles so we can have more discussions like this. Bless you all. And if I tell you guys how I became SDA that’s a miracle in it self.
Would love to hear ... and appreciate the positive take on Myles POV.
Yes I agree I think the riling accusation of SDA doctrine by Myles has been a blessing for me as it helped to wake me up,this forced me to dig deeply and read the words of inspiration and dig Bible prophecy so I can search out truth and become grounded in it. Sadly enough persons passing by on his channel might not get the same message but might be led astray. I think it’s our duty to help unmask the deception and refute the claims using the Bible even on His channel but we must do it in a loving Christ-like manner… Personal opinion now if I’m being completely honest I think his channel is Jesuit based or he was really hurt by an SDA or the movement. Tbh listening to his ministry it doesn’t really gives me the sense of Christlike attributes, the ministry gives no Bible studies neither does it present the gospel, it seems like an Adventist hate channel, where it seems there are text deliberately twisted to deceive. Then again that could just be me 🤷🏽♂️
Don't be fooled
@@danieloostendorp9286 I think the point missed you I do not agree with Him I’m an Adventist. However these accusations or claims helped to prepare me to search the spirit of prophecy and the Bible as it sharpens us to know what we stand for and is willing to defend for our faith. I took the positive from learning the false claims by looking into them and reading the writings more earnestly to pick up on his error in interpretation. The more I looked however is the more I realize he might be doing these misquotes deliberately rather than bringing persons to the truth. That’s what I’m saying
@javaunpowell925 exactly how I came to the SDA. Myles used to have "context is king" in the background.... well, that's long gone out the window
I’ve only been Adventist for about 7 years now but the first time I heard a sermon, I knew it was the truth and never looked back.
It’s crazy to me how much this guy takes quotes out of context. I saw a video the other day where he responded to bible flock box.
Where his point was the quote about how she said the Christ laid aside His divinity when He came here as a man as to how ridiculous of a claim it was.
How is that even remotely controversial? Did He not die on the cross?
Keep up the great work fellas. God bless you all.
It's as if he searches high and low for beliefs that contradicts SDA and adopts that belief and exalts it.
Amen pastors.iam very happy with these answers you have given to these critics of e.g writings.i hope the critics shall open their minds and understand the truth from the spirit of prophecy by e.g. White.
I brlieve it was cunning of Myles to go to Lift Him Up, rather than the original source. Using half-hearted evidence such as this in combination with how confident he sounds can, I believe, be deceptive. We have to be on our guard! 🙏
👍 28:13 👍 Everything Ellen White was saying, Calvin said the exact same thing! Nine seconds later followed by a standing ovation! 🥳🥳🥳
Great presentation and explanation my Brothers. To God be the Glory. I am proud to be SDA 33 years and counting. God bless and keep you, your families and ministry.🙏🏽🙋🏽♀️🕊🇺🇸
Amen 🙏 and thank you for your comment!
Yes brothers,,I know heaven is glad for you all coming to defend the inspired writings.You all said things I did not even understood previously they way you all did. Praise God from whom all blessings and wisdom flow.
Despite of what is negatively going on amongst our churches ,there are still a few faithful defenders of the faith,,,I am so proud of being an SDA ,wow! My brethren,you made me feel some kind of righteous arrogance.We do not study the word to argue but to correct in righteousness.We should retain the original characteristic of being known as "The people of the book".
@@avandalebaptiste5742
The Hebrew Israelites think they’re the people of the book. So do Mormons and JWs.. And so do you SDAs. A whole lotta infighting amongst Christianity going on today…
❤ Thanks for proclaiming the Truth brothers.
Praises to God guys, truth always prevail ❤
This was actually awesome.
Btw the discord server almost ready 💪🏿
@@sttuffwithjoe4477 woot! woot!
I have heard or read that M.L. Andreasen preferred original writings "in context" over compilations, etc.
Thank God for ADL. Studying with them has really helped me with a deeper understanding of the word of God. The way they pay attention to commas and them encouraging people to read things in context has really help me understand both Ellen White writings and the Bible in a better light. To God be the glory.
Great work, praise the Lord! What you are doing is very important. Please keep it up, guys!
See 1 Corinthians 11:3 and also 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. Even though the Father and Son are equal, the Father gives Jesus the authority to act on his behalf. See John 5:19,30.
Thank you for this excellent response to the accusations of yet another Seventh-Day Adventist basher. I’m including a quotation from Ellen White that perfectly speaks to this problem:
“Letters come to me entreating an answer; I know that many men take the testimonies the Lord has given, and apply them as they suppose they should be applied, picking out a sentence here and there, taking it from its proper connection, and applying it according to their idea. Thus poor souls become bewildered, when could they read in order all that has been given, they would see the true application, and would not become confused. Much that purports to be a message from Sister White, serves the purpose of misrepresenting Sister White, making her testify in favor of things that are not in accordance with her mind or judgment. This makes her work very trying.” - Ellen White
Excellent! We should have included that quotation!
18:16 Kevin Barrett: "Context is King." But Myles chose not to bow to the king.
I mean it's not a surprise that Myles ignores context when it suits him to use fallacious reasoning. As bro Jason said, you could have the factual and truthful answer regardless of whether or not you answer him, like Jason did with the quote he sent him about a year ago. In the end, "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8
@@nathanhuggins2242 Apparently he needs a contradiction, so--Voila!--there's a contradiction.
It's funny how they literally quote only half of the sentence.
Are you really surprised?
Ellen White did it too, to prove her doctrine! But she advised others not to do it
How can anyone seeking Christ not see the beauty and humility of Christ as it is written? Every word she wrote took you right back to the scriptures.
The Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the only begotten Son of God, binds the human agent, body, soul, and spirit, to the perfect, divine-human nature of Christ. This union is represented by the union of the vine and the branches. Finite man is united to the manhood of Christ. Through faith human nature is assimilated with Christ’s nature. We are made one with God in Christ.
- Ellen G White, Review and Herald, April 5, 1906
Nice that the John Calvins commentary is on line so we can read it for ourselves.
Where’s the offering plate my dear brothers?
Job well done replying to the critics of Sis Ellen White.
But you know, dogs do not bark at parked cars. !
Dr Jason: Myles needs to build a channel saying 'Answering Presbyterian. 😂😂😂 Context is King.
I shared this link with my brother who loves to talk Bible and even my Pastor. I respectfully told the pastor to check out this link because I feel this is the deepest bible study that I am getting right now. Even my 18 year old daughter loves how ADL explain scripture. I plan to share the link until we reach the 144,000. Yep.
Amen and very correct.
Sister White does state in 18LtMs, Ms140, 1903, par.28 that Christ is not God Almighty.
This is concordant with scripture. Certainly, some of her unclear statements are misconstrued. This one? is not unclear.
Let us review the consonant Bible texts.
Beginning with Paul,
'And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.' 2 Cor 6:18
This passage is quite strait forward, although the naysayers would counter with Isaiah 9:6. And granted... Jesus is a father to us, of which Adam also was a father to us.
Alright, let us continue.
'He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High, shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.' Psalm 91:1 [see also Numbers 24:16]
This text helps us in that Almighty is associated with and analogous to...'the most High.'
Who is the most High?
Well even the devils tell us 'What have I to do with thee Jesus, thou Son of the most High God? I adjure thee by God that thou torment me not.' Mark 5:7
Some may argue...'devils are liars'.
But they make an accurate claim for they are not corrected nor reproved by Christ.
So as we learn here...Jesus's Father is the Most High.
Amen.
Another passage.
'And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by the name of JEHOVAH was I not known unto them.' Ex 6:3
So here the title of God Almighty is linked with JEHOVAH.
Who is JEHOVAH?
As recorded,
'That men might know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most High over all the earth.' Psalm 83:18
So here, we ascertain that JEHOVAH is our heavenly Father.
An EGW word search will also authenticate this. She states that only our heavenly Father is JEHOVAH.
Amen.
Proceeding onward.
'Seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?' Ruth 1:21
Here Almighty is intertwined with LORD. LORD translated from the Hebrew... YHWH.
This connects with a most cherished text,
'But the LORD [YHWH] is the true God, he is the living God.' Jer 10:10
Here we have two more distinct and allied titles of LORD. Those being 'true God' and 'living God'.
Who is the living God?
There are numerous linking texts just in the new testament.
Let us cite the most forthright, of which Jesus blesses Simon Barjona for his declaration.
'And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Matt 16:16
So...the living God is again the Father of Christ.
Amen.
And who is the true God?
Jesus praying to his heavenly Father,
'And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.' John 17:3
The second witness to Christs words are?... recorded in 1 John 5:20.
Amen.
So to conclude, for now, an overview of these titles of our blessed heavenly Father are?
The Almighty.
The Most High.
JEHOVAH.
LORD. [YHWH]
The living God.
The only true God.
And of course there are others titles such as...
'Ancient of days' Dan 7:9/ Dan 7:13/ Dan 7:22.
And 'God of our fathers' Acts 3:13/ Acts 5:30/ Acts 22:14.
And 'which was and is and is to come'. Rev 1:4/ Rev 1:8/ Rev 4:8/ Rev 11:17.
AMEN
The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Almighty. Ellen White agrees with the Bible on that also.
Thank you for your reply Elijah. I am in full agreement with the sister White statement that is brought out in this presentation. I reposted it in my comment.
I too am a defender of the Advent doctrine.
Can you supply the texts in our Bible that authenticate that Jesus is the Almighty?@@elijahrodgers416
If you perused my initial lengthy post, you will find that our Bible proves all the said titles of our heavenly Father.
And I did not even delve into how our final book of Revelation further validates the same theme.
We can go there if you wish.
The verification of the title of 'The Almighty' centers around the repeated phrase of 'who is, who was, and who is to come.'
Our God of heaven of course knew in advance of the perturbation over the surface read of Rev 1:8.
Thus and therefore...
This is why he tied in with the title of 'Almighty' the descriptive phrase as I just noted.
When one invests just a bit of time in this, then the whole of the matter is peacefully settled.
I encourage you to review the four Revelation texts that I listed in the tail end of my initial post.
God bless you Elijah!
@@elijahrodgers416
Wow this is so beautiful thank you for so much context, God bless you all❤
Is this book Lift Him Up a complilation as oppose to her direct writings. Compilations of books put together by others is NOT Sister White's doing although they are her writings. Just goes to show how our opposition is grasping at straws using this one sentence to try to discredit a lifetime of work by Ellen G White.
1000% understand...The "Man" Jesus Christ was not God Almighty... Ellen G white was straightforward and plain in explaining the scripture.
@24:00. It doesn't matter what anybody say, as long as SDA don't say it. 😂😂
When God became man he did not sieze to be God, he did not sieze to be the Lord God Almighty.
EGW's version of Jesus is not the biblical Jesus but rather the Jesus who was made equal to the father before the creation of the world.
Also known as Michael the archangel who became man.
There are two narratives namely the biblical narrative and the great controversy narrative.
At this point all these men are doing is trying to keep their heads above water and defend the errors of the false prophet.
There is NO THIRD BEING for the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son of God.
Romans 8:8-11 KJV
[8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. [9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. [10] And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. [11] But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Breaking this all down as you guys did is awesome, thus putting to the curb *the misapplication* of what was used to declare that Ms. White did not think Jesus was God Almighty, when she did in fact *did* think He was.
👍 30:33 👍 Edwin, me too! If I were these guys, Myles etc., I'd first check what did our own fathers and pioneers teach on that particular topic before I go on an ignorant rant! Iur opponents do it ALL THE TIME !!!
I asked Myles about Ellen White and her prophetic gift and the validity of it based on Iasiah 8:20. I said yes or no, in the last 1,000 years can you give me just one example, JUST ONE, of any other self-proclaiming, or proclaimed prophet or prophetess that lives up to Iasiah 8:20? If not, when dealing with the context of the Law in this verse it means the commandments of God, this being the case none that came before her promoted ALL 10 including the Sabbath.
You guys will love this!! It shut him down, completely, and silently because the implication of this verse proves that over at least the last 1,000 years no one has spoken to the Law ( 10 Commandments ) or to the Testimony in the same way she did! Soooo BOOM!! Mic drop!!
Thank you ever sooooo much for explaining! God bless you brother!
Myles is a comfortability seeker for his Faith, He doesn't want the truth, he wants a way to live in his sin and still be obedient to Christ. He should know by now there's no way Possible!
I’m not a subscriber to his channel but what you said about him is false.
Thank you for all of your hard work! May our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ bless this channel!
ADL should re-visit this issue again but in terms of saint worship in catholic ideology suggesting that worship of saints is necessary because Jesus Christ didn’t come all the way down from infinite glory to being fully human
Hope to hear your team address this as it has infiltrated Protestantism
Nice work brethren
This is what Myles does, he picks quotes takes it out of context and misrepresents Adventist theology.
He does so repeatedly! What he also loves doing is to point out that SDA are the only ones believing heretical things, but when we point out that even Calvin and other reformers or even Puritans believed and taught the same, he accuses us of depending on man for doctrine!
So, either way, HE WILL ALWAYS FIND FAULT AND ALWAYS DISMISS ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING WE ATTEMPT TO REFUTE OR COUNTERACT!!
@@rayhchc6451I don’t think he wants to be saved he has ears but doesn’t hear. His mind and heart is hardened. Not even God can save him unless he falls on the rock to be broken
@@javaunpowell925 👍
@@javaunpowell925ONLY God knows them that are HIS --- just be sure you ARE SAVED
If you do not know the FINISHED work of the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation you are not saved. God will NEVER accept anyone into heaven who is NOT trusting in the FINISHED work of the Lord Jesus Christ
@@Over-for-now Amen
If i may ask who is sitting on the throne in the book of revelation?
God bless brother
So are compilation books like "lift him up" good or bad in terms of being able to see the full context of something egw said? If they are bad why wouldn't have scholar who created the compilations not for see the confusion that it could possibly create . The fact that misunderstandings maybe be proof of this?..maybe
People often don't see issues that may arise. But I think God calls us all to be wise and diligent to seek out all truth. We should be diligent to find the full context of everyone's statements and not jump to conclusions that may be faulty.
Thank you, ADL, for calling out this kid who thinks he knows more all these pastors who have studied, taught, and preached in easily 5 to 6 times his age of combined years of knowledge over his tiny time on the planet! I'm new here and you all have shown how intelligent and informed you all are but I'd love to make a panel to go up against him and whoever he thinks he has that could stand up against. All of the people I've seen here, plus so many others pastor's that we get to see, thanks to TH-cam, pastors like Randy Skeete. So many others but I don't want to be presumptuous. It's just flabbergasting to see that he thinks he's so smart but if you invited him to have a formal debate and he heard the names of all the pastors that I have in mind and those I know you all would name he'd be quacking in his boots!
Thank you this discussion
Amen
Amen. Glory to God
Myles is one of that lead me to the SDA. I just gave my testimony and uploaded part of it.... because they (Sam and Myles) refuse to debate me.
I have a question for all of the Ellen supporters in this forum. Ask yourself, can you name any of her sins? And why not?
Jacob was a coward
Joseph was arrogant
Moses was a murderer with a temper.
David was an adulterous murderer
Lesser lights have absolutely no value when the sun (son) is out.
Jesu s walked the earth as a man. 1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
Thank you.
Amen 🙏 🙏 🙏
Ultimately sounds like you are saying that Myles took Ellen's quotes out of context. But I think what is going on is you do not understand the biblical Trinity and the perspective that myles is coming from. Myles is correctly critiquing Ellen for having bad Trinity theology.
Why is it so hard for her to say GOD Almighty in regards to Jesus???????
There are so many quotes of her saying it in this video. Just look starting at 5:14.
Can we then conclude that since Jesus is in Heaven now and is the firstborn from the dead that He is no longer a human being but devine - just what He was before He came to Earth as Jesus?
When Jesus appeared to his disciples in the book of Luke, he was bearing print of nails in his hands and feet, If he is no more a human, his body couldn’t have those marks.
Again, Jesus told the 12 z he has flesh and blood z is human according to Eph 6:12.
Also, Jesus is gonna b both our redeemer and brother. Then he should bear the same flesh and his brothers for l eternity.
Amen powerful yo!!!
I believe that the first clause of Ellen White's statement is saying that Jesus didn't come in the identity of the Lord God Almighty, but as a humble servant, yet was the Lord God Almighty.
Adventist critics seem upset about something unrelated to the issues being brought up. Their arguments are classic begging the question fallacies and many times trivial given the data.
I believe the bigger issue is soteriology. So many Adventist critics are Calvinists or Free Gracers. They fail to realize the truth and beauty of a covenant relationship as defined by Wesleyan Arminianism. They constantly call this soteriology another gospel, when this theology of salvation is much more defensible from the Bible than the other two soteriologies common among Protestants.
Blessings.
that...and, they had to do Sunday Law persecution drills in school
Amen. From what I have studied, if you break down the Calvinist TULIP and the Wesleyan Arminianism version this newer "hybrid" group of Christians will take the first four letters of the Arminianism side (free will), but when they get to the P in TULIP, they accept the Calvinist view. My brother (Pastor in Texas Conf) and I have discussed this at great length (both during University in Theology until now--about 14 years) because of the pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian concept of Christ's nature is affected by whatever view you take on Christ. That view will affect everything in one's idea of soteriology and thus deciding if you're going to be a classical Arminianist or a Calvinist or OSAS hybrid.
That "P" in Calvinist theology believes: Perseverance of the Saints - Since God has decreed the elect, and they cannot resist grace, they are unconditionally and eternally secure in that election. ----> In other words Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS).
In contrast, the Wesleyan Arminianism, which is Adventists and others, albeit very few in Christendom, believe this regarding the Wesleyan "P": Assurance and Security - "There is security in God’s grace that allows assurance of salvation, but that security is in relation to continued faithfulness; we can still defiantly reject God."
What we have to ask anyone including and unfortunately some of our fellow SdAs before discussing Soteriology these two questions that Mike Manea and Marcos Torres rightly point out in an article on SSNET:
1) Are you a Calvinist?
2) If not, do you believe in “Once Saved, Always Saved”?
"Why does this matter? It matters because all classical Arminians reject the idea of Once Saved, Always Saved. They all believe that a person who has experienced a genuine new birth can still be lost, and therefore all believe in some form of investigative judgment differentiating between believers, even though they don’t call it an “investigative judgment.”
Many major Biblical doctrines that we believe as Seventh-day Adventists are in opposition to the Calvinist concept of the OSAS and the new hybrid Christian world (Adventists have fallen or are falling into this deception as well, such as the One Project, Love Reality, etc.) that accepts it.
@@NateH1984 Nicely identified.
@@NateH1984 That is an excellent observation. I would like to see an open discussion on this topic. It would be fruitful to hash out the presumptions that exist due to our soteriology.
I have just finished a book on Free Grace Theology by Wayne Grudem. It was written for a lay audience, but it highlighted the misconceptions of such a position. The idea that an atoning relationship with Christ will not produce the fruits of the Spirit is entirely foreign to New Testament thought, but this idea is nonetheless held by Free Gracers. Then these same theologians accuse Arminians of having a false gospel. This mud slinging needs to stop and we need to start having honest discussions about our basic understandings of salvation. We also need to understand the implications of our beliefs. As you mentioned the idea of an investigative judgment is instrumental within Arminianism and is not antithetical to the Biblical gospel.
Blessings.
@@thegreatcontroversychannel1611 Did that involve covering your head under a desk? Oh wait, those were those crazy nuclear war drills we did as kids. We all thought those were silly. The 80s were great 😁
I don't know if this was already mentioned, but Isaiah 9:6 was a Prophecy of Christ being called the Mighty God. But this would have had to be applied, post-resurrection, after his ascension and glorification...
I found a more controversial statement from Ellen.
And plz tell me how this is out of context.
"You must not get angry, but remember the Lord could not love you if you should be naughty."
"The Lord loves those little children who try to do right and He has promised that they shall be in His kingdom, but wicked, naughty children, God does not love."
Letter 9, 1859, Letter 10, 1859, Letter 3, 1860, to Willie White
I love how other denominations think that mankind will be able to understand God just from reading the Bible. If a finite mind could understand everything about God then He stops being God. But with humility our church and the theologians understand that just like Job they come to realize that even if much has been learned, there are still many things that will not be revealed until we get to heaven. There is much light in scripture but also God states that there are things that even if we don't understand we accept by faith. Deut 29:29
🤣 9:47 🤣 Oh yeah... brother... Chill Edwin, that nice kid the Doc has your back‼️
🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
Even Randy had a good chuckle 😁
😄
Bless Answering Adventism's heart.
Oh be careful now Jason, Myles will come back and say Ellen Plagiarize Calvin😂.
Good caution! She had indeed plagiarised the doctrine in discussion from Herman Humphrey's introduction in The Great Teacher, 1836.
@@19818456 No she did not!
Myles seem is so disingenuous. Its hard to believe that he didn’t read the paragraphs and chapters before. Its almost as if he is relying on his listeners to not read the context. Seems so deliberately malicious and deceptive . Makes one wonder whats his motive
Wait, sda's believe in the trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Spirit. In Genesis God said let us make man in our own image. The trinity is a difficult concept. Based on Genesis 1:26-27 It seems as thought the 3 while linked have different roles. When Jesus ascended to heaven he told his disciples that God would send a helper (the holy Spirit). Please shed light on this. Thanks!
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
According to Ellen White, Holy Spirit was not included in the statement, 'Let us make...' but only the Father and the Son only! “And I saw that when God said to his Son, Let us make man in our image, Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man. He was filled with envy, jealousy and hatred” (1SG, p. 17, 1858).
“God in counsel with his Son, formed the plan of creating man in their own image” (ST, February 24, 1874).
“After the earth was created, and the beasts upon it, the Father and Son carried out their purpose, which was designed before the fall of Satan, to make man in their own image.” (3SG, p. 33, 1864).
The third person of the godhead was absent in these statements.
In that Isaiah quote Jesus was also described as Everlasting Father.
Who is this guy?
The Doctor J himself 😂. Good to see you Christina!
@@deontemcken oh I meant the person that was making these claims smh
@@christinaalexaaa a person with an ax to grind.
He's an Adventist that is apostozising.
🔥🔥🔥
The antitrinitarians will again say that he received his omnipotence only from the Father, but would he then really be omnipotent?
Starting at 3:35 there is a discussion about the Trinity. The gentleman says that not referring to Jesus as god the father is very trinitarian... actually that is incorrect. A trinitarian would not have a problem with referring to jesus as god the father. A trinitarian views the three as more one than it appears SDA doctrine teaches.
Biblically Trinity is God is one being in three persons.
The name and title of a celestial being mentioned in Jude 9 as contending with the devil about the body of Moses. The name Michael occurs also in Dan. 10:13 , 21 ; 12:1 as one of the “chief princes” of the Jews, who had been helping Gabriel at the court of Persia, who alone shared Gabriel’s knowledge of the future, and who would deliver Daniel’s people from their foes at the end of time. The context requires that Michael be considered a supernatural being. In Rev. 12:7 Michael commands the angelic forces in the great struggle in heaven that resulted in the expulsion of Lucifer and his angels. In each instance the name occurs in the context of conflict with Satan. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Didymus refer to Jude 9 as a quotation from the pseudepigraphal Assumption of Moses, extant portions of which, however, do not contain such a statement. The Millerites and others identified Michael the archangel with Christ. In an exposition of Dan. 12:1 William Miller wrote: “Michael, in this passage, must mean Christ; He is the great Prince, and Prince of princes” ( Evidences From Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ [1840], pp. 108, cf. p. 209). Other commentators set forth three main arguments for holding that Michael is simply another name for Christ: (1) the statement in Jude 9 ; (2) the voice of Christ is the voice of the archangel ( 1 Thess. 4:16 ); (3) Michael is called a prince ( Dan. 12:1 ) even as Christ is ( Isa. 9:6 , 7 ; Eze. 37:25 ; Dan. 8:25 ; 9:25 ; Acts 5:30 , 31 ) (F. H. Berick, The Lord Soon to Come [1854], pp. 137-139). Most Seventh-day Adventists have held that Michael is Christ. On the basis of these and other passages of Scripture, Seventh-day Adventists conclude that Michael is none other than Christ-“archangel” not in the sense of being the highest angel (chief among equals), but of being ruler over the angelic hosts (as infinitely superior to them). According to 1 Thess. 4:16 , the voice of the archangel is heard when Christ descends and the righteous dead are raised, whereas in John 5:25-29 it is the voice of Christ, the Son of God, that summons the dead. In view of the fact that Michael means “Who is like God?” and that Satan’s rebellion was essentially a challenge of the deity and prerogatives of Christ as the Son of God, the name is particularly appropriate in the context of conflict with Satan, in which it always occurs. See SDACom 7:706; SDADic 714.
Your critic of Myles is invalid because you are not understanding the biblical doctrine of the trinity. In the sda view of trintiy there is a greater separation of the godhead into separate parts. I think you do not understand myles critic because your description of the trinity is actually off.
I am not receptive to studying Ellen White's teachings in the SDA church as a non member. I do enjoy studying the church's end times prophetic studies, however.
Just by seeing Myles tatoos, I already know he is not genuine and not working for God but for the 'enemy'.
Concealing and emptying are two different things. Concealing it would still be at his disposal vs emptying he would not have access to it.
If you have a weapon but it is concealed...it is still at your disposal but if you emptied your weapon at the door then it is not at your disposal. What Calvin described is not the same as what Ellen White described.
In otherword Divinity did not become humanity nor humanity did not become Divinity. Rather Divinity took on humanity. Christ Divinity was veiled. It however flashes forth ot times such as on the mount of transfiguration and when He visit the temple for the first time. Matthew 17:2(1-9).Mark 9:2(1-9).Luke 2:48(41-52).
Just for the anti-trinitarians in this chat: The early adventist pioneers didn't know what the doctrine of the Trinity is. A few quotes will prove the point, trinitarianism teaches THREE persons, not one person. And this isn't just a few pioneers, many make this error and yet we are looking to them and trusting them for what they are saying:
“It is not very consonant with common sense to talk of three being one, and one being three. Or as some express it, calling God "the Triune God," or "the three-one-God." If Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each God, it would be three Gods; for three times one is not one, but three. There is a sense in which they are one, but not one person, as claimed by Trinitarians.”- J. N. Loughborough, Battle Creek, Review and Herald 1861 “Questions for Bro. Loughborough
“It is contrary to Scripture. Almost any portion of the New Testament we may open which has occasion to speak of the Father and Son, represents them as two distinct persons. The seventeenth chapter of John is alone sufficient to refute the doctrine of the Trinity. Over forty times in that one chapter Christ speaks of his Father as a person distinct from himself.”- ibid. Answer nr. 2, by J. N. Lougborough
“To believe that doctrine, when reading the scripture we must believe that God sent himself into the world, died to reconcile the world to himself, raised himself from the dead, ascended to himself in heaven, pleads before himself in heaven to reconcile the world to himself, and is the only mediator between man and himself.”
No self-respected trinitarian has ever claimed to believe in one person, on the contrary, that has always been seen as the heresy of modalism/sabellianism. The SDA church today explicitly teaches THREE persons, and NOT ONE person. Although I love tbe pioneers, let's not forget that we have to go with the Bible and that they were faillable men, who didn't arrive at sound conclusions except after a while of study. Trinitarianism is neither modalism, nor tritheism.
Athanasius puts it this way: "The person of the Father is one, The person of the Son IS ANOTHER, and the person of the Holy Spirit IS ANOTHER."- Athanasian Creed
So, this is a historical evidence as to why trinitarians have never believed in ONE PERSON.
God bless you all!
Now I get that the pioneers were not trained theologians. But they seemed to be well read enough to at least understand what other people believed. What I don't get is how they could create such a strawman repeatedly among multiple pioneers. Perhaps because I'm just not aware of the theological climate of the times. But who exactly was arguing what they were arguing against? If there were people who made such arguments clearly the Pioneers were not interacting with the mainstream theology and must have been interacting with fringe Christian groups. But wouldn't they have known that they were fringe and not what the traditional teaching on the trinity is? I just find it very puzzling.
@DanielnKitavi Brother, the pioneers didn't purposely strawman the Trinity, nor did they speak against something that didn't exist. However, what they were reacting to was not the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity which is taught in the adventist church today but some fringe groups (which I wouldn't call christian) that falsely styled their doctrine of God and called it "Trinity". These groups were the Swedennorgians, Quakers and Shakers, which had theological conflicts with our pioneers pretty early on. Consider this James White statement published in the Daily Star, 1846:
"This class can be no other than those who spiritualize away the existence of the Father and Son as two distinct literal, tangible persons.… The way spiritualizers have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed".
So, according to James White there is a category of people which he names "spiritualizers" who "DENY THE PERSONALITY OF GOD AND OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST".
The question we have to figure is who are these spiritualizers, Joseph Bates will tell us:
"I have been thus particular in quoting the Scriptures, in answer to the questions proposed, to endeavor if possible to dispel some of the thick darkness and mist of SHAKERISM, QUAKERISM, SWEDENBORGIANISM, and all the SPIRITUALISMS that now seem to be settling down all over the moral world, and shutting out even the very light from the horizon."- Joseph Bates, "Bates-Pamphlet #1", page 5
So, the spiritualizers are the Shakers, Quakers and Swedenborgianists. Now, in order to solidify my position I will give a bit of insight in the theology of the church of Swedenborg to show that these people called their doctrine "Trinity" while actually confessing the heresy of modalism. Here is a passage from Swedenborg's book "True Christianity", in chapter 3:
"THERE WAS NEVER MORE THAN ONE PERSON OF GOD. There is a TRINITY in the Lord, but a trinity like that of the spirit, the body, and the actions of an individual. (The Lord)
ONE PERSON includes the THREE ASPECTS (not persons) known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Swedenborg summarizes this most briefly as follows: “There is ONE God; the divine TRINITY exists within HIM; and he is the Lord God the Savior JESUS CHRIST” (True Christianity 3).
"There is a divine Trinity, which is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
These three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are three essential components of one God. They are one the way our soul, our body, and the things we do are one."- True Christianity, Swedenborg #163
This is modalism at its best and not at all the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Orthodox trinitarians have believed and confessed THREE PERSONS, not these 17th century innovations that styled their modalism and called it "Trinity". Calling your belief Trinity isn't sufficient to make you a trinitarian.
@@dariusmot8440 that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the historical background. I went back and read a few statements by the pioneers and it seems like theres more going on than just their objection to those groups. Take for example this statement:
“The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The infamous, measures by which it was forced upon the church which appear upon the pages of ecclesiastical history might well cause every believer in that doctrine to blush.” - (J.N. Andrews, Review and Herald, March 6, 1855)
Andrews is going beyond the 17th century "spiritualizers" Bates is talking about. I would find it very weird that Andrews could be so meticulous in his History of the sabbath and yet fail so miserably in his articulation of the trinity. The more plausible explanation is that Andrews was aware of the orthodox view of the trinity and just simply didn't believe it. This is evident in that he was an Arian. He believed Christ had a beginning. So it's not like the pioneers rejected heretical views which falsely called themselves Trinitarian but held views which were inline with traditional trinitarian concepts. It seems they must have been aware of the traditional view but didn't think it was true and lumped both the traditional and heretical views in the same category of error.
Does not Scripture say Shema Israel. 4HEAR, O ISRAEL: THE LORD OUR GOD, THE LORD IS ONE.
@DanielnKitavi I would like to clarify my position, so that I am not misunderstood. I never said that Bates, White or Andrews were orthodox trinitarians or that the pioneers were supposedly triniarian. It's a known fact that they were non-trinitarian. What I am arguing for is that non of them can be labeled "anti-trinitarian", because what they described as the Trinity was not the Trinity, but trinitarian Heresies, either tritheism or modalism, especially the later. My simple point was that what they described as the Trinity doesn't fit with the orthodox doctrine. Now, to the statement of Andrews, I still think he is espousing the same thing. Notice his repetition of things spoken by Bates and James White "denies the personality of God and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord", precisely understood in the historical context I argued for to be modalism. Quite frankly, I would add just because they were repeating a conspiracy theory heard from Unitarian churches that "the Trinity was invented at Nicaea" doesn't mean that they were aware of the actual teaching of the Nicene Creed. It would simply seem to be a re-itaration of conspiracy theories heard in anti trinitarian backgrounds of the time. His claim about Nicaea is of a historical nature, that means he appeals to what he wrongly understands to be history; and not of a theological nature, since his statement doesn't adress the theology of the first ecumenical council.
Calvin might have said something similar but the definitions are different.
Calvin described nothing compared to Ellen White. Concealed and emptied are two different things. When something is concealed it is still at their disposal but when emptied it is no longer at their disposal. Ellen White speaks many blasphemous things.
NO, She did not call Jesus the Almighty.
She quoted the words of God, spoken by Jesus the Mediator speaking in the place of his Father, the Almighty, as the Almighty.
Here is a crucial point that most miss.
Is Jesus the Mediator, what is a mediator and when did He become the mediator?
Jesus is the mediator, the ambassador, the one that speaks in the place of God and therfore He speaks for God as God. When Christ speaks He speaks the words of His Father in the first Person. Just like any countries ambassador would speak in the place of his country, as the country, not as himself.
IF you grasp the following statement by EG White you will understand:
“To Adam in his innocence was granted communion, direct, free, and happy, with his Maker. After his transgression, God would communicate to man *ONLY* through Christ and angels. ST January 30, 1879, par. 19
Adam could no longer speak directly to the Father, the source of ALL LIFE, after he sinned.
Adam from that point on could ONLY communicate with The Son of God and Angels. ONLY THOSE TWO.
Jesus became the mediator immediately after Adam sinned, that means, before The Son of God was sent to become the Son of man He started as mediator.
Sin prevented Adam from communication with the Father, "the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. 1 Tim 6:16
Sin did not prevent Adam or the Patriarchs from looking upon and communicating with The Son of God, because it is the Father that dwells in light unapproachable, NOT the Son of God.
Why was it possible for Adam to speak with Christ but not to The Father, what makes them different?
The Father is the Source of ALL life ALL things are of the Father, who created ALL things by His Son.
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
The Father also gave the Son the same life that He has.
Jesus came from heaven and took the form of man and spoke these words to His disciples before His death and ressurection:
Jhn 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
When did the Father give this life to His Son? He did not start life when He clothed His Divinity with humanity and took the form of a man, He already had the life that He received from the Father.
"All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, THE FATHER’S LIFE FLOWS OUT TO ALL; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life. DA 21.2
"THE FATHERS LIFE FLOWS OUT TO ALL" Christ received the Fathers Life, and Gives us the Life that He received from His Father.
"Our Heavenly Father is the God of the universe, and Christ is the divine Son, the One equal with the Father. “. 21LtMs, Ms 49, 1906, par. 26
“God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son.” 8T 268.3
When Was Christ given an exalted position? Read Patriarchs and Prophets CH1, it was before creation, that Christ received this from His Father. It makes no sense for One Co-equal to give another Co-equal an exalted position in a Trinity where all are already equal.
Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Blessings.
This video shows that EGW called Jesus the Lord God Almighty. Just look starting from 5:14.
@@thatnicekid04 you are correct the video is attempting to prove that Jesus is the Lord God Almighty by interpreting EG Whites statements.
Have you read all EG White ever wrote? Books, letters, Manuscript etc.
For us to determine what the Bible teaches we need to study every single scripture to get the complete picture. Otherwise we might be so confused as to keep Sunday Holy.
If you now move away from the bible as your only base of refrence for your doctrine, you must apply the same logic, and study every single thing EG White wrote, don't you agree?
I see all these presenters using selective statements and ignoring statements that brings more clarity and understanding.
Every quote these presenters brought up can be explained correctly if they do not ignore the fact that Christ is the spokesperson for The Father, and as such Jesus speaks in the place of His Father, as His Father.
Take this statement for instance:
“To Adam in his innocence was granted communion, direct, free, and happy, with his Maker. After his transgression, God would communicate to man *ONLY* through Christ and angels. ST January 30, 1879, par. 19
Think a little bit about what is said here and ask some question
When did this happen, before Jesus was born in Bethlehem or after?
Who is it that Adam could not communicate to any longer after he sinned?
Why could he still communicate with Jesus?
Why ONLY Jesus and Angels ?
Would love to hear your answer to these questions
@@francois1546 this video is not attempting to prove that Jesus is the Lord God Almighty through EGW statements. This video is proving that Ellen White believed that Jesus is the Lord God Almighty.
The Bible is already clear that Jesus is the Lord God Almighty.
Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
*@francois1546:* - *PAGE 1 of 2*
The way to navigate around this is to go back to the very beginning and we know that Ellen White *never* changed her beliefs [Gospel Workers 1915, p. 307.1; 25LtMs, Ms 1, Feb 24, 1915, par. 2-4]; and also we need to realize that Christ *INHERRITED His Names and TITLES.*
*Find below just a few statements from Ellen White on the position of Christ BEFORE He came to earth.* - *This should settle the matter once and for ALL.*
*It is PIVOTAL to NOTICE the Heavenly POSITION BEFORE the FALL.*
*“Before the entrance of evil* there was peace and joy throughout the universe. All was in perfect harmony with the Creator's will. Love for God was supreme, love for one another impartial. *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. “By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, ... whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers”* (Colossians 1:16); and to Christ, equally with the Father, all heaven gave allegiance. GC 493.1
“The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence *HE MIGHT SET FORTH THE TRUE POSITION OF HIS SON* and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. PP 36.2
“The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that He might in the presence of all the angels *CONFER SPECIAL HONOR UPON HIS SON.* The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that *IT WAS ORDAINED BY HIMSELF THAT CHRIST, HIS SON, SHOULD BE EQUAL WITH HIMSELF;* so that wherever was the presence of His Son, it was *as* His own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily *as* the word of the Father. His Son He had invested with authority to command the heavenly host. *Especially was His Son to work in union with Himself in the anticipated creation of the earth and every living thing that should exist upon the earth. His Son would carry out His will and His purposes but would do nothing of Himself alone. The Father’s will would be fulfilled in Him.”* - *1SP 17.2*
"Our great Exemplar was *EXALTED TO BE EQUAL* with God. " - *2T, p. 426*
"The Scriptures clearly indicate the relation between God and Christ, and they bring to view as clearly the personality and individuality of each. [Hebrews 1:1-5 quoted] God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been GIVEN AN EXALTED POSITION. HE HAS BEEN MADE EQUAL WITH THE FATHER. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son." - *8T, p. 268, 1904*
*Note:* - *The reality here is that the ontological equality of the Son of God was not fully perceived by the angels.* This is because He ruled “under God” *(7LtMs, Ms43b-1891 par. 3)*
and functioned “next in authority” to the great Lawgiver *(2SP 9.1)* and even Lucifer knew that “Christ had the first place next to God”. Thus when Lucifer saw the Son going into all of the counsels but he himself was not permitted he began to question things.
“There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer’s envy and misrepresentation and *HIS CLAIMS TO EQUALITY WITH CHRIST HAD MADE NECESSARY a statement of the TRUE POSITION OF THE SON OF GOD;* but THIS HAD BEEN THE SAME FROM THE BEGINNING. MANY OF THE ANGELS WERE, HOWEVER, BLINDED BY LUCIFER’S DECEPTIONS.” PP 38.1 ‘Why was sin permitted?’
*Note:* - *Again, Christ’s position “had been the same from the beginning”, meaning, Christ inherited His exalted position from the "beginning" as the only begotten Son and assumed a position that was equal to the Father but this reality had been questioned by Lucifer and God had to clarify and make sure the angels understood Christ's true position. Despite His Son’s wonderfully humble persona and while He *“imparted to the angelic family the high commands of His Father”,* - *(3SP 36.1)* Christ was actually the Father's equal.
*The Heart of the Great Controversy:* The following statements reveal how Satan’s envy and jealousy toward Christ's position as the Son of God led him to rebel. *The statements below show how Jesus was the Son of God before the incarnation [virgin birth] and that Satan got up a warfare over the matter:* "When the rebellion took place in heaven, it was led by the angel that was next to Christ *BECAUSE HE COULD NOT HAVE THE POSITION OF CHRIST.* He desired to be first, and therefore there was created a rebellion…". 25LtMs, Ms 80, April 7, 1910, par. 8
“Lucifer in heaven, before his rebellion, was a high and exalted angel, *NEXT IN HONOR TO GOD'S DEAR SON.* His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing a powerful intellect. His form was perfect; his bearing noble and majestic. *A SPECIAL LIGHT BEAMED IN HIS COUNTENANCE AND SHONE AROUND HIM BRIGHTER AND MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN AROUND THE OTHER ANGELS; YET CHRIST, GOD'S DEAR SON, HAD THE PRE-EMINENCE OVER ALL THE ANGELIC HOST.* He was one with the Father before the angels were created. Lucifer was envious of Christ, and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone.” SR 13.1
“Well, Lucifer, he was striving; he had glory in the heavenly courts, *BUT HE WAS STRIVING FOR CHRIST’S PLACE NEXT TO GOD. NEXT HE WANTED TO BE GOD,* but he could not obtain that.” 25LtMs, Ms 86, 1910-1915, par. 28
*Note:* Lucifer's position in heaven had been - *“next” in authority to the Son of God.* - *Lucifer being “next to” the Son of God most certainly means that he was the next in line in the hierarchy and the chain of command.* He was under Christ. *This is a statement that most certainly places the Son above Him. Consequently, Christ being “next to” to God [Father] then certainly places the Son below the Father.* Hierarchy: *1st* = Father, *2nd* = Christ, *3rd* = Lucifer [Satan] *prior his fall.*
*"CHRIST WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, AND LUCIFER, THAT GLORIOUS ANGEL, GOT UP A WARFARE OVER THE MATTER,* until he had to be thrust down to the earth. - 25LtMs, Ms 86, Aug 21, 1910, par. 29; and “It was in *SEEKING TO EXALT HIMSELF ABOVE THE SON OF GOD THAT SATAN HAD SINNED* in heaven.” DA, p.129.3
"Lucifer was envious and jealous of Jesus Christ. Yet when all the angels bowed to Jesus to acknowledge His supremacy and high authority and rightful rule, he bowed with them; *BUT HIS HEART WAS FILLED WITH ENVY AND HATRED. Christ had been taken into the SPECIAL COUNSEL OF GOD IN REGARD TO HIS PLANS, WHILE LUCIFER WAS UNACQUAINTED WITH THEM. HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND, NEITHER WAS HE PERMITTED TO KNOW, THE PURPOSES OF GOD.* But Christ was acknowledged sovereign of heaven, His power and authority to be the same as that of God Himself." SR 14.1
“Satan, who was once a beautiful angel in the heavenly courts, became a fallen angel because *HE DID NOT WANT TO OCCUPY A SECONDARY PLACE, BUT TO BE NEXT TO GOD. HE WOULD HAVE THE LORD JESUS BECOME SECOND TO HIM,* for his own glory was very precious in his own sight. He was jealous of Christ, the Saviour.” 25LtMs, Ms 74, March 20, 1910, par. 6
“Angels were expelled from heaven because they would not work in harmony with God. …*THIS FACT THE [FALLEN] ANGELS WOULD OBSCURE, THAT CHRIST WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD,* and they came to consider that they were not to consult Christ.” This Day With God, 128.2 (bracket appears in the published article)
“I am instructed to say to you, All this holding to sentiments of infallibility is a specious device of the angel that was so exalted in the heavenly court. His [Lucifer] beauty was so highly exalted that he[Lucifer] thought he should be as God, and Christ must be second to him; BUT THE LORD INFORMED SATAN THIS COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. *CHRIST WAS HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.”* 25LtMS, Lt157, 1910, par.7
*NB:* What is most significant here in these statements is that the core issue surrounding Lucifer’s rebellion was the *“REALITY” that Christ was the Son of God and that *THIS FACT THE [FALLEN] ANGELS WOULD OBSCURE*. Furthermore, it was this very thing that Lucifer took issues within that he *“GOT UP A WARFARE OVER THE MATTER.”* Lucifer coveted Christ’s position as the only begotten Son of God. “in *SEEKING TO EXALT HIMSELF ABOVE THE SON OF GOD THAT SATAN HAD SINNED* in heaven.” This was the heart of the great controversy. Christ’s pre-existent Sonship which allowed Christ to be ‘one with the Father,’ is something that Satan hated. *If Christ’s pre-incarnate Sonship was merely a metaphor or a salvicfic title only in a proleptic sense, pointing to a future event [i.e., incarnate birth or resurrection], how could Satan be jealous of and hated something that did not really exist?*
So, If Ellen White was Trinitarian as so many are claiming, then the heavenly hierarchy should at least read as follows: God the Father. *1st* = God the Son = Christ *2nd* God the Holy Spirit *3rd*, and then Lucifer [Satan] prior his fall* 4th. *WE CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE IN ELLEN WHITES WRITINGS NEITHER IS IT FOUND IN THE BIBLE.*
*Please Read Page 2*
*@francois1546: - *PAGE 2 of 2*
*With regards Names and Titles, the Bible numerously tells us that Christ by INHERRITANCE OBTAINED A MORE EXCELLENT “NAME”.* [Exodus 23:20-21;6:3; Isaiah 12:2; Heb.1:1-9; John 5:43; Mark 11:9; John 5:43] and His CHARACTER and NATURE [Exodus 33:18-19; 34:5-6.].* - *So, it’s not of any benefit debating this subject.* - *This title [God] was not given to Christ in consequence of some great achievement, but it is His by right of inheritance.*
*‘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.”* ST, May 3, 1899, par. 18 Quoting Isaiah 12:2; SDA BC. Vol.7A 439.3
*Christ also inherits His Father’s life.* ‘For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself.’ John 5:26.*
In Exodus 23:20 The word mal’ak, ‘angel’, means ‘messenger,’ and is translated as often one way as the other. Christ was ever the Messenger of God to Israel, and as such conveyed to them a knowledge of the character, will, and mercy of God (Gen.22:1, 10-12; Ex.32:34; Isa.63:7-9; Mal. 3:1-2; John 8:54-58; 1 Tim. 2:5). SDA BC. Vol.1. Page 628.9
*Jesus is God in the sense of being divine just like His Father, as being the Son, He inherits the characteristics of His Father. The Father is God and so His Son is God by nature just as any human by inheritance possesses the very nature and form of humanity.* Thus, Jesus was with God in the beginning, but He is not *“the”* [Jn 1:1] God the Father but God by inheritance and nature being the Son. He is God because He is the Son of God. It is that simple.
*In 1915 she wrote:* *”Let none seek to tear away the foundations of our faith,-the foundations that were laid at the beginning of our work [1844, 1845, and 1846],..” *Gospel Workers 1915, p. 307.1’*
Jesus is NOT a 'lesser' being than His Father. The Bible confirms that Jesus is equal with the Father [Philippians 2:6]. Jesus is as divine as His Father, just as my son is as human as myself. What I’m addressing here are those confusing ideas that make Jesus and the Father part of the same being.
Jesus is the *”Living Ladder”* between earth and Heaven [1 John 1:51], and our prayers and entreaties ascend to God “through Christ,” and all divine gifts and graces flow from God to us *”through Him”.* - *There are vital truths concerning the saving ministry of Christ and to remove it would be as disastrous as removing the hub from a wheel or the heart from a living body.*
*Ellen White wrote,* “There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. *THE MAN CHRIST JESUS WAS NOT THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY,* yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is none the less true that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” - 18LtMs, Ms140, 1903. Par.28
*“There!!! you see!,” they will shout. “the Man Christ Jesus IS NOT the Lord God Almighty!” - *Yet is that what the quote really says?*
*We need to pay careful attention to the grammer.* - *The statement does not say “the Man Christ Jesus IS NOT the Lord God Almighty.”* - *Rather it says, “the Man Christ Jesus •WAS NOT the Lord God Almighty.”*
*Now while that might seem like an excellent parse. I believe the tense of the verb is very important here.* As we saw in the RH, March 12, 1908, par.4 quote the angels actually worship Christ as the Lord God Almighty. *“…The angels bow before him in adoration exclaiming, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty…”*
*So, are the angels confused in their worship? I don’t think so.* - *Then what is going on here? Why does sister White say He WAS NOT the Lord God Almighty?* - The only answer to that question is due to Christ incarnation.* - *The context of her quote is about “the mystery of the incarnation.”* - *You see when the Son stepped down from the throne of heaven, He actually handed the scepter back into the hand of God which, by the way, shows you where He first got it from.*
*“He stepped down from the throne of honor, laid off his royal robe and his royal crown, gave back into his Father’s hand the scepter, and veiling divinity with humanity, humbled himself, and came to a world all seared and marred with the curse. “For your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” Although he was the Majesty of heaven, he bore the cross of shame.” YI May 27, 1897, par. 3.
*Thus, what is happening here, in this giving back the scepter into the Father’s hand, is that the Son temporarily gave up His rights and status as the Almighty.* - *Again, the following quote clarifies:*
“When Jesus was awakened to meet the storm, He was in perfect peace. There was no trace of fear in word or look, for no fear was in His heart. *BUT HE RESTED NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF ALMIGHTY POWER. It was not as the “Master of earth and sea and sky” that He reposed in quiet. THAT POWER HE HAD LAID DOWN,* and He says, “I can of Mine own self do nothing.”* John 5:30. He trusted in the Father’s might. It was in faith-faith in God’s love and care-that Jesus rested, and the power of that word which stilled the storm was the power of God.” Desire of Ages, page 336.1
*This is why the Man Christ Jesus WAS NOT the Lord God Almighty during His time here on earth. That power He had laid down.* - *He was not manifest in His fully glory. However, He has now been reinstated to His original glory that He had in His oneness with the Father. [read John 17] Thus, He is currently carrying that title once again for the angels worship Him as such.* - I trust that this is clear.* - *It cannot be explained an better.*
*“Thus the prayer of Christ was answered. He was glorified with the glory which He had with His Father before the world was.* But amid this glory, Christ does not lose sight of His toiling, struggling ones upon earth. He has a request to make of His Father. He waves back the heavenly host until He is in the direct presence of Jehovah, and then He presents His petition in behalf of His chosen ones. ST May 10, 1899, par. 16.
“Father,” He says, “I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am.” *And then the Father declares, “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” The heavenly host prostrate themselves before Him, and raise their song of triumph and joy. Glory encircles the King of heaven, and was beheld by all the heavenly intelligences. No words can describe the scene which took place as THE SON OF GOD WAS PUBLICLY REINSTATED IN THE PLACE OF HONOR AND GLORY WHICH HE VOLUNTARILY LEFT WHEN HE BECAME A MAN.” ST May 10, 1899, par. 17
And in conclusion, there are some honest Trinitarians, like Eugene Prewitt who publicly admitted that there is only one God, the Father. *He wrote:*
“MY NON-TRINITARIAN FRIENDS ARE CERTAINLY RIGHT THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD, THE FATHER. (See John 17:2-3). The word God is used that way very many times in Scripture. And IN THOSE MANY CASES IT MEANS “THE ULTIMATE EXECUTIVE OF THE UNIVERSE.” SO THERE IS JUST ONE, AND THAT IS THE FATHER. (Eugene Prewitt, “The Godhead for Seventh-day Adventists)
*Furthermore, he says,* “But we shouldn’t deny to our non-trinitarian friends the pleasure of showing us that there is One True God, again, in that ultimate sense.
And our friends are correct that when the Bible says the Father and Jesus are one, it is a reference to their purpose, not to their person. So the middle-age dark ideas of one head with three faces, we all consider to be badly misguided.
And non-trinitarians show correctly that in the future even Jesus will be subject to the Father. That is true. It is the plain teaching of 1 Corinthians 15.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Our friends are also basically right that we should not be directing our prayers to the Holy Spirit. Our instructions are to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus.” *Quote closed.*
*Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.*
The man Jesus Christ is the God Almighty.
Jesus being a man was fully God and Fully man and not divided but in perfect union.
The Jesus according to EGW even doubted his own resurrection and if his sacrifice would be acceptable to the Father.
And yet the man Jesus said:
18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”
John 20:18
Even in his humanity Christ was God Almighty as this is who is and not what he becomes.
Christ did not empty himself of his divinity. Are you familiar with hypostatic union?
Myles does not even understand the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Jesus humbled Himself and was found in fashion as a man. He lived on earth as a man to give us an example so that we can walk in his footsteps (1 Peter 2:21)
He did not use his own power, he depended on the Father fully that on the cross when he became sin for us, God turned his back on him to the point where all hope was lost and he could not see through the tomb. DA 753
When he cried My God My God why has thou forsaken me, he felt the separation that all the wicked who have rejected his sacrifice will feel during the second death which is an eternal separation from God.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
If I’m not mistaken Myles (former 3rd generation SDA, son of a SDA Pastor) believes in the hypostatic union, the concept of hypostatic union states that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man. He is simultaneously perfectly divine and perfectly human, having two complete and distinct natures at once. My understanding is that Adventist do not believe that man has an immaterial nature, therefore the teaching that Christ laid aside all his Divinity. Also, EGW seems to be saying Christ was a man in heaven according to the information Dr. Thomas read. Where in the Bible it teach “Christ left His position in the heavenly courts and came to this earth to live the life of human beings. “ and“The sacrifice He made in order to that Satan’s charge against God is false-that it is possible for man to obey the laws of God’s kingdom.”
Philippians 2:5-8 is where the concept is that Jesus became man. By the end of the video, you see how Myles's Church father viewed Philippians 2 to come to the same conclusion.
The concept of Satan accusing God that man can not keep His commandments is in Job 1:8-12. God would not have said what He said to Satan if there wasn't a prior charge against God that Satan brought up.
@@thatnicekid04 I don't see that charge in Job 1:8-12. In fact the Satan doesn't contest God's claim that Job is blameless and upright. That's agreed by both parties. The charge is on motive not capability. Would Job continue to obey God (as he evidently has) if God was to remove His blessings?
@@DanielnKitavi God is all knowing. Satan is not.
Clearly there was a discussion that led to that point. God let Satan know that there is a man named Job that no matter the circumstance he would keep God's Commandments.
Satan obviously didn't believe that was true because he went on to test him. Satan said the only reason why Job was righteous was because of God's blessing. He believed without God's blessing no one could keep God's law.
Clearly Satan was trying to prove the point that keeping God's Law was impossible.
@@thatnicekid04 thanks for your response, as I read my questions. The question should have been more clear. EGW seems to be saying Christ was a man in heaven, before taking on the form of man as referenced in Philippians 2:5-8 that you posted. Wondering where that teaching is at in the Bible.
The Job verses are focused on Job’s and didn’t read anything about commandments in the text you referenced.
@@mauricethomas7090 I'm not sure what passage of EGW you are referring to that says Jesus was a man before incarnation. Can you post what you read that said that?
In Job 1:8, God lists 4 things about Job:
1. He is perfect
2. He is an upright man,
3. He is one that feareth God
4. He escheweth evil
1. God saying Job is perfect means that he kept God's Commandments. (1 Kings 8:61)
2. Upright in the concordance is synonymous with being righteous. Righteousness is keeping God's Commandments (Psalms 119:172)
3. Fearing God is synonymous with not sinning and keeping God's Commandments. (Exodus 20|20; Ecclesiastes 12|13)
4. Departing from evil means keeping the commandments (2 Samuel 12:9)
So even though God didn't say Commandments, everything God said about Job shows that he kept God's Commandments. So there must be a reason why God is bringing up these characteristics about Job to Satan. There must have been an accusation to God about these points that God mentioned. All of them are related to keeping God's Commandments. So the accusation of Satan must be that it isn't possible. Satan said Job is only doing those things because God put a hedge around him. Satan was trying to prove this.
Job 1|22
In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.
If you accept the fact that EG White did not believe in the Trinity, you would understand her statements better.
The Titles God, the Father is Known By, and EG White points out that it is the Father and not Christ that holds these titles.
God, a singular individual being not a compound of three, is described in scripture and in S.O.P. in many ways, He and He alone is ever referred to as:
• The Ancient of days
"The Ancient of Days is God the Father. He, the source of all being, the fountain of all law, is to preside in the judgment. And holy angels as ministers and witnesses, attend.” HF 295.2
• The Infinite One
“The glory of God descended upon him in the form of a dove like burnished gold, and the voice of the infinite One declared, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” RH February 13, 1900, par. 14
“The gulf of sin is bridged by the Son of the infinite One.” 15LtMs, Ms 58, 1900, par. 57“This world was seared and marred by the curse, but still Christ came to it. He, the Son of the most high God, was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” RH March 4, 1902, par. 6
• The Most High God
Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
“This world was seared and marred by the curse, but still Christ came to it. He, the Son of the most high God, was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” RH March 4, 1902, par. 6
• The Almighty
“…while Jesus remains a mediator between God and man. But when the warning voice of the third angel shall cease, and Christ leave the Sanctuary, then the unmingled cup of the wrath of Almighty God will be poured out upon those who have trampled upon his authority, and have rejected his Son, Jesus Christ. ARSH May 26, 1853, page 4.17
“Thus the great and blessed Redeemer, at the age of thirty years, was baptized by John and received His inauguration. He was declared by the Highest Authority, the Almighty Himself, to be the Son of God, the long-looked-for Deliverer. All who witnessed this representation were amply convinced by the infallible testimony of the Highest Authority.” 25LtMs, Ms 63, 1910, par. 7
• The Supreme Ruler
"The Saviour of the world had no controversy with Satan, who was expelled from Heaven because he was no longer worthy of a place there. He who could influence the angels of God against their Supreme Ruler, and against his Son, their loved commander, and enlist their sympathy for himself, was capable of any deception. Four thousand years he had been warring against the government of God, and had lost none of his skill or power to tempt and deceive" (RH August 18, 1874, par. 10 [1SM 279]).
• The God of the Universe
“Our heavenly Father is the God of the universe, and Christ is the divine Son, the One equal with the Father. “. 21LtMs, Ms 49, 1906, par. 26
“God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son.” 8T 268.3
• The Great Lawgiver
“The Son of God was next in authority to the great Lawgiver. He knew that his life alone could be sufficient to ransom fallen man. He was of as much more value than man as his noble, spotless character, and exalted office as commander of all the heavenly host, were above the work of man. He was in the express image of his Father, not in features alone, but in perfection of character.” 2SP 9.1
• The Sovereign of the Universe (Read this one carefully, and ask yourself why the Father only had a singular co-worker, an associate and not two associates)
“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.” PP 34.1
• The Invisible God
“Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity, and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He who had been in the presence of the Father from the beginning, He who was the express image of the invisible God, was alone able to reveal the character of the Deity to mankind.” MH 422.2
• The Great Source of All (Life, Creation)
“I seek not Mine own glory,” but the glory of Him that sent Me. John 8:28; 6:57; 8:50; 7:18. In these words is set forth the great principle which is the law of life for the universe. All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Father's life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life. DA 21.2
• More Terms: The Only True God, The Only Potentate, The One God etc
Jesus is not the Lord God Almighty, He is the Son of the Lord God Almighty. A child that is not indoctrinated will understand this fact.
Eg white believed in the trinity
You compiled a commendable collection of sister White statements.
They all validate the apparent.
I agree wholeheartedly. It was my pleasure to survey them. Thank you for your post.
I just did read the same line of reasoning from a scriptural perspective. It is in this same comment section.
Praise God and amen.
@@SevenThunders-si4ci do you agree that eg white called Jesus the almighty God?
Yes or no
I agree with the sister White statement @ the 3 min mark of this video.
Do you?
I agree with the two statements of sister White of who the Almighty is as posted by francois1546 above.
Do you?
I agree with our Bible on who the 'Almighty' is.
Do you? Yes or no?@@edafematthew8406
'I saw no temple therein; for the Lord God Almighty, and the Lamb are the temple of it.' Rev 21:22 The people of God are privileged to hold open communion with the Father and the Son.' 4SP491.2
Does not this plain statement emphatically pronounce who the Lamb is, and who the Almighty is?
Or are you suggesting that Jesus is the Almighty and our heavenly Father is the Lamb?
So again the question, do you believe in the published record of EGW?@@edafematthew8406
Ellen White said we serve a personal God who represents a personal savior.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the woman and the woman was with the human and human was the woman. Human=Adam & Eve In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE deity and deity was the Word. Divine nature
Jesus Christ is NOT the Only True God! (Jn. 17:3-5) Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the living God!
He is the only true God as explicitly stated in 1 John 5:20.
> You left your friends and comfortable home and came to teach me how to find Jesus and BELIEVE IN HIM [CHRIST] as the ONLY TRUE GOD. I demolished my idols and worshiped God, and now I see Him face to face. I am saved, eternally saved, ever to behold Him whom I love. Mar 303.3, Ellen White
@@dariusmot8440 I think you might not quite understand 1John 5:20
"Christ came to our world to reveal the Father amid the gross darkness of error and superstition which then prevailed" TM 152.1
Christ has come to give us an understanding of the Father, so that we might know the Father.
Also see how John replicates what is said in John17:3 at the end.
1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true (The Father), and we are in him that is true (The Father), even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God (The Father), and eternal life.
Jhn 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said...this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
The More You read of EG Whites writings, the better you get at understanding her use of words and their meaning at the time she use it, just as you get used to reading the King James versions "Old English " that also have some less understandable phrases and words.
EG White never contradicts the Scripture as the ONLY AUTHORITY for our faith
> You left your friends and comfortable home and came to teach me how to find Jesus and BELIEVE IN HIM [CHRIST] as [EVEN] or [AS WELL AS] the ONLY TRUE GOD. I demolished my idols and worshiped God, and now I see Him face to face. I am saved, eternally saved, ever to behold Him whom I love. Mar 303.3,
More clearly explained here:
asitreads.com/2021-11-23-believing-in-jesus-as-the-only-true-god/
Blessings
“Wonderful will be the revealing as the lines of holy influence, with their precious results, are brought to view. What will be the gratitude of souls that will meet us in the heavenly courts, as they understand the sympathetic, loving interest which has been taken in their salvation! *All praise, honor, and glory will be given to God and to the Lamb for our redemption; but it will not detract from the glory of God to express gratitude to the instrumentality he has employed in the salvation of souls ready to perish.* {RH January 5, 1905, par. 12}
*The redeemed* will meet and recognize those whose attention they have directed to the uplifted Saviour. What blessed converse they have with these souls! “I was a sinner,” it will be said, “without God and without hope in the world, and you came to me, and drew my attention to the precious Saviour as my only hope. And I believed in him. I repented of my sins, and was made to sit together with his saints in heavenly places in Christ Jesus,” *Others will say, “I was a heathen in heathen lands. You left your friends and comfortable home, and came to teach me how to find Jesus, and believe in him as the only true God. I demolished my idols, and worshiped God, and now I see him face to face. I am saved, eternally saved, ever to behold him whom I love. I then saw him only with the eye of faith, but now I see him as he is. I can now express my gratitude for his redeeming mercy to him who loved me, and washed me from my sin in his own blood.* ” {RH January 5, 1905, par. 13}
“Wonderful will be the revealing as the lines of holy influence, with their precious results, are brought to view. What will be the gratitude of souls that will meet us in the heavenly courts, as they understand the sympathetic, loving interest which has been taken in their salvation! *All praise, honor, and glory will be given to God and to the Lamb for our redemption; but it will not detract from the glory of God to express gratitude to the instrumentality he has employed in the salvation of souls ready to perish* . {RH January 5, 1905, par. 12}
The redeemed will meet and recognize those whose attention they have directed to the uplifted Saviour. What blessed converse they have with these souls! “I was a sinner,” it will be said, “without God and without hope in the world, and you came to me, and drew my attention to the precious Saviour as my only hope. And I believed in him. I repented of my sins, and was made to sit together with his saints in heavenly places in Christ Jesus,” *Others will say, “I was a heathen in heathen lands. You left your friends and comfortable home, and came to teach me how to find Jesus, and believe in him as the only true God. I demolished my idols, and worshiped God, and now I see him face to face. I am saved, eternally saved, ever to behold him whom I love. I then saw him only with the eye of faith, but now I see him as he is. I can now express my gratitude for his redeeming mercy to him who loved me, and washed me from my sin in his own blood* .” {RH January 5, 1905, par. 13}
There’s context behind the quote. But sharing the context, it feels like ADL is deleting it twice already!
"The Lord rebukes you" Christ says to Satan
The reason EW said Jesus is not THE Almighty is because all power and authority was given to him, and the son came in the Fathers name. Moses was a prefigure of the son of God, he preformed the power of a Almighty God but he was only His representative. Jesus said clearly, “I am the beginning and the ending,” he had a beginning and he will have a ending as stated in 1Cor 15:28. What the son established for the Father will be remembered throughout eternity, but all things will go back to the Eternal Living God the Father. Only the Father is Omniscience, Christ is Omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit of God is His Omnipresent which gives life and communion with all living. Anyone disconnected from His Omnipresent would parish, lights out! By being connected we become one with them, a unity of love, one big happy family. Jesus is god because he came forth from God, but he is not the All knowing Eternal One but the son.
Does not sound like Myles to take things out of context. He is very thorough in his research.
You must be his biggest fan 🙂
@@AdventDefenseLeague I wish I had the time to research as much as he does. I am impressed with his ability to go through the historical documents and books and find things that probably not even most adventists know about.
@@AdventDefenseLeague first of all I would not be here in the comments if I did not care about people and that the gospel is being preached. I do not care about being right just biblical and that others are hearing the gospel. I am truly burdened for those who are not hearing the gospel.
@@AdventDefenseLeague have you ever watched the Cultish video series on the millerites and Ellen White?
@@finray2 you'll see in our videos responses that we aren't as impressed as you are. There's always more to the story that he doesn't reveal. Please watch them..