The Personality of God
Background. With the publication of Dr. John H. Kellogg's book, The Living Temple, in 1903, crisis and controversy occurred in the SDA Church over Dr. Kellogg's speculative theories regarding "the personality of God." Ellen G. White (EGW) put out a warning regarding this book and its teachings as follows:
- 18LtMs, Lt 230, 1903, par. 3: I am authorized to say to you that some of the sentiments regarding the personality of God, as found in the book Living Temple, are opposed to the truths revealed in the Word of God. Yet many physicians and teachers are inclined to accept these fanciful ideas of God. To these I say, Awake to a sense of your danger.
- SpTB07 37.3: It is something that can not be treated as a small matter that men who have had so much light, and such clear evidence as to the genuineness of the truth we hold, should become unsettled, and led to accept spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God. Those doctrines, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy.
What Dr. Kellogg put forward was not a minor theory regarding "the personality of God," but a deviance from majority held positions of doctrine within the Church. It was this crisis and the change in thinking that followed that would eventually lead to the change in the Church's teaching regarding the nature of God. Her warnings and predictions of this change eventually came true. The following is what she predicted.
- Sp TB02 54.3: Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced.
The three significant documents demonstrating this change in fundamental principles/beliefs are listed below:
Personality defined
To better understand this controversy, a proper definition of the word "personality" as it was used in EGW's day is in order.
Google's definition. The simplest definition for "personality" as understood then is as follows:
- personality. ARCHAIC. "the quality or fact of being a person as distinct from a thing or animal."
Noah Webster's definition. The Noah Webster Dictionary, 1828, defines "personality" as: That which constitutes an individual a distinct person, or that which constitutes individuality.
EGW's dictionary definition. If you search for the word "dictionary" in EGW Private and Office Libraries, you will find that EGW used The Encyclopaedic Dictionary, Rober Hunter, ed. The 1895 edition of this dictionary defines "personality" as follows:
- The quality or state of being personal; direct application or applicability to a person; specif., application or applicability of remarks to the person, conduct, manners, or habits of some individual.
- A remark reflecting on the person, conduct, manners, or habits of an individual; personal remarks.
- That which constitutes individuality; that which constitutes an individual a distinct person; existence as a thinking being.
- Application limited to certain persons, or classes of person.
- Personal qualities, or characteristics.
- A personage, a person.
- Person, body.
Personhood as a substitute. The use of "personality" today has more to do with the "characteristics" of a person (as in definition #5 above) than the quality of being a person—i.e. having a physical or material body. The term "personhood" might be a better approximation as to how personality was understood in EGW's day. Although, "personhood" has its own history of problems with definition, especially in philosophy and law (see Personhood in Wikipedia); nevertheless, if you have difficultly following the archaic meaning of the word personality, consider substituting it with the word "personhood" wherever personality is used. It may help.
Personality of God
When EGW referred to "the personality of God," she was speaking of the persons of the Father and the Son. (Why this is important will become apparent later.) In a letter addressed to Dr. J. H. Kellogg, in regard to the controversy over his book, The Living Temple, she writes the following:
- 18LtMs, Lt 253, 1903, par. 12: “I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person. I asked Him if His Father was a person, and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus, ‘I am the express image of My Father’s person!’ [Hebrews 1:3.]
- Letter 253, November 20th, 1903 - Ellen White Responds to the trinity doctrine. Duration 34:47. After Dr. J.H. Kellogg admitted to A.G Daniells on October 29th, that he "had come to believe in the trinity," this confession was read by Ellen G. White and on November 20th, 1903, Sister White responded to Dr. Kellogg with stern warnings of reproof concerning his theories in regard to the presence and personality of God. Though forgotten, this letter is a must read for Seventh-day Adventists who have adopted the same theories as the man whose mind was "as dark as Egypt (Lt 253)," to the detriment of his "eternal interests (Lt 253)."
James White, EGW's husband, had the same view:
- PERGO 7.4: What is God? He is material, organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. Man is in his image.
- PERGO 7.5: What is Jesus Christ? He is the Son of God, and is like his Father, being “the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person.” He is a material intelligence, with body, parts, and passions; possessing immortal flesh and immortal bones.
Dr. Kellogg's pantheistic views. Even Dr. Kellogg, who presented a speculative, pantheistic view of God in his book, The Living Temple, believed God to be a person, having a physical appearance.
- "The fact that God is so great that we cannot form a clear mental picture of his physical appearance need not lessen in our minds the reality of His personality..." —Dr. Kellogg, The Living Temple, p. 31.
However, Dr. Kellogg went on with mystical, speculative, pantheistic theories by ascribing "personality" not just to God and man but to all things created, including the inanimate. To Dr. Kellogg, "Every animal possesses a personality" (Ibid., page 450). He ascribed personality to the seasons, the distant stars, plant life, all of nature. "Nature reveals to us an infinite personality, working constantly, harmoniously. . . The very uniformity of nature is a striking evidence of the wisdom, intelligence, and power of the personality which presides at its heart" (Ibid., page 455).
The Star Wars film series defined the mystical power of the Force in its films as "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together." Dr. Kellogg would have been right at home with this concept of deity—God pervading in all things as a Force. Thus, God would not only be a tangible, physical Person, but also a mystical, ethereal "essence" permeating all nature.
EGW's definition of pantheism and her warnings. EGW saw Dr. Kellogg having views not unlike the Force in the Star Wars film series of recent past.
- 8T 5.4: These pantheistic views envisioned God not as a great personal being ruling the universe, but rather as a power, a force, seen and felt in nature and pervading the very atmosphere. Confusing the power of God with His personality, they saw God in the sunshine, in the flower, in the grass, in the tree, and in their fellow human beings. . .
It was this idea of God being both a Person and an "essence pervading nature" that EGW completely rejected.
- 18LtMs, Lt 212, 1903, par. 23: The new theories in regard to God and Christ, as brought out in The Living Temple, are not in harmony with the teaching of Christ. The Lord Jesus came to this world to represent the Father. He did not represent God as an essence pervading nature, but as a personal Being. Christians should bear in mind that God has a personality as verily as has Christ.
- 18LtMs, Lt 253, 1903, par. 16: The work of the Creator as seen in nature reveals His power. But nature is not above God, nor is God in nature as some represent Him to be. God made the world, but the world is not God; it is but the work of His hands. Nature reveals the work of a positive, personal God, showing that God is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
- 18LtMs, Ms 117a, 1903, par. 2: Dr. Kellogg has been regarded as a god, and he has been left to show what self-exaltation leads to when man acts a part similar to the part that Satan acted in Eden; when he presents to those who know the truth scientific, spiritualistic sentiments, which do away with a personal God, representing the Creator as an essence pervading nature.
Why the warning? Why was this teaching such a problem? What was the danger? In EGW's own words:
- 8T 291.1, 1904, et seq.: Already there are coming in among our people spiritualistic teachings that will undermine the faith of those who give heed to them. The theory that God is an essence pervading all nature is one of Satan's most subtle devices. It misrepresents God and is a dishonor to His greatness and majesty. Pantheistic theories are not sustained by the word of God. The light of His truth shows that these theories are soul-destroying agencies. Darkness is their element, sensuality their sphere. They gratify the natural heart and give license to inclination. Separation from God is the result of accepting them. . . . If God is an essence pervading all nature, then He dwells in all men; and in order to attain holiness, man has only to develop the power that is within him. These theories, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy. They do away with the necessity for the atonement and make man his own savior. These theories regarding God make His word of no effect, and those who accept them are in great danger of being led finally to look upon the whole Bible as a fiction.
Dr. Kellogg becomes trinitarian. On the Church's rejection of the first edition of his book, Dr. Kellogg decided to move forward with plans to revise and republish it and, in his mind, to correct the offensive, pantheistic, material that caused its rejection in the first place. We learn about this in a letter to W. C. White by A. G. Daniells which reads in part:
- Letter: A. G. Daniells to W. C. White. October 29, 1903: Ever since the council closed I have felt that I should write you confidentially regarding Dr Kellogg’s plans for revising and republishing ‘The Living Temple’… He [Kellogg] said that some days before coming to the council, he had been thinking the matter over, and began to see that he had made a slight mistake in expressing his views. He said that all the way along he had been troubled to know how to state the character of God and his relation to his creation works… He then stated that his former views regarding the trinity had stood in his way of making a clear and absolutely correct statement; but that within a short time he had come to believe in the trinity and could now see pretty clearly where all the difficulty was, and believed that he could clear the matter up satisfactorily. He told me that he now believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; and his view was that it was God the Holy Ghost, and not God the Father, that filled all space, and every living thing. He said if he had believed this before writing the book, he could have expressed his views without giving the wrong impression the book now gives. I placed before him the objections I found in the teaching, and tried to show him that the teaching was so utterly contrary to the gospel that I did not see how it could be revised by changing a few expressions. We argued the matter at some length in a friendly way; but I felt sure that when we parted, the doctor did not understand himself, nor the character of his teaching. And I could not see how it would be possible for him to flop over, and in the course of a few days fix the books up so that it would be all right.
Dr. Kellogg's original thesis was that God the Father was both a person and an "essence" that filled all space and every living thing. But this was at odds with the Church's teaching, where the Father was understood to be a person, but *not* an "essence." However, on thinking the matter over, Dr. Kellogg discovered that his speculative thinking fit better with the Trinity doctrine and so made the change in belief and went forward with the idea that "God the Holy Ghost" was the "essence" he was talking about. Understanding that the SDA Church's position on the nature of God was anti-trinitarian (or semi-Arian), his conversion to trinitarianism became even more problematic. And to make matters even worse (if they weren't bad enough already), Dr. Kellogg ascribed pantheistic, speculative ideas as well as personality to this third God—God the Holy Spirit. In Dr. Kellogg's own words:
- “I believe this Spirit of God to be a personality, you don't. But this is purely a question of definition. I believe the Spirit of God is a personality; you say, No, it is not a personality. Now the only reason why we differ is because we differ in our ideas as to what, a personality is. Your idea of personality is perhaps that of semblance to a person or a human being. This is not the scientific conception of personality and that is not the sense in which I use the word. The scientific test for personality is the exercise, of will, volition, purpose, without any reference to form or material being.” —J. H. Kellogg to G. I. Butler, February 21, 1904. [original letter not available]
The battle over the definition of "personality." Dr. Kellogg was now engaged in a battle over the meaning of the word "personality." Was personality merely the characteristics of a person or did it also include physical attributes? Dr. Kellogg leaned on "the scientific conception of personality" that an entity can have personality without being a person. It's not clear what "science" he was referring to since, even in our day, an entity having will, volition, and purpose is hard to imagine without also having form or material being. Dr. Kellogg, in his mystical way of thinking must have been referring to spirit beings like angels or demons. But those would not fit under the category of "science." G. I. Butler's response is reputed to be the following:
- "You undertake to make a distinction between the person and the bodily presence. I think your distinction will not stand the test of a true and careful examination. It is a rather difficult matter to enter into it without being too prolix, but I looked at it in Mr. Webster’s International Dictionary, the latest edition, which I have, and studied every definition where he brings in the words, “person,” or “personality,” or “personal,” or any of those, and I cannot find one single meaning that could separate between the actual person that is represented and the being himself. The person is the being himself, and any influence that goes out from the person is not the person himself, so far as I could see from a careful study of those meanings in the standard dictionary of our language." —G. I. Butler. [The source and date to this quote has not been found.]
To Dr. Kellogg, the purpose of ascribing personality to the Spirit was to have both personhood and "essence" residing in the same divine entity. Dr. Kellogg could then move forward with his pantheistic view of God being in everything, animate and inanimate. The question came down to whether the Spirit was a person or not. In his own words:
- “I have been studying very carefully to see what is the real root of the difficulty with the Living Temple, and as far as I can see the whole question resolves itself into this: Is the Holy Ghost a person? I had supposed it was thoroughly recognized that the Holy Ghost was a person, since the Bible uses the pronoun he in speaking of the Holy Ghost, . . . —J. H. Kellogg to G. I. Butler, October 28, 1903.
This is where Dr. Kellogg felt he had agreement with EGW. In EGW's writings she used the phrase "the third person of the Godhead." Surely, if "he" was the third person of the Godhead, then "he" must be a person. Here is G. I. Butler's response:
- “So far as Sister White and you being in perfect agreement is concerned, I shall have to leave that entirely between you and Sister White. Sister White says there is not perfect agreement. You claim there is. I know some of her remarks seem to give you strong ground for claiming that she does. I am honest and candid enough to say that, but I must give her the credit until she disowns it, of saying there is a difference too. And I do not believe you can fully tell just what she means. . . . God dwells in us by His Holy Spirit, as a Comforter, as a Reprover, especially the former. When we come to Him we partake of Him in that sense, because the Spirit comes forth from Him; it comes forth from the Father and the Son. It is not a person walking around on foot, or flying as a literal being, in any such sense as Christ and the Father are – at least, if it is, it is utterly beyond my comprehension of the meaning of language or words.” —Butler to Kellogg, April, 5, 1904.
So, whatever EGW meant by "the third person of the Godhead," it was not what Dr. Kellogg was proposing, since she denied it. To G. I. Butler, the mere fact that the Spirit "comes forth" from the Father and Son does not make the Spirit a person. To Butler, person and personality could not be separated.
As to the meaning of EGW's use of the phrase, "the third person of the Godhead," this is discussed elsewhere (see Desire of Ages, p. 671.2).
References
Theological implications
There are several theological implications of the Father having (or not having) personality. They include the following:
- If the Father is a real Person, then He sits on a real Throne.
- If the Father sits on a real Throne, then there is a real Heaven.
- If the Father sits on a real Throne in Heaven, then there is a real heavenly Sanctuary.
- If the Father sits on a real Throne in Heaven and there is a heavenly Sancturary, then Jesus is truly sitting at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:3) ministering for us as our High Priest (Hebrews 2:17).
- When we pray "Our Father which art in heaven" we are praying to a real Person in a real Heaven.
By contrast,
- If the Father is *not* a real Person (but only a Spirit which is everywhere), then He does not "sit" on a real Throne, because He dwells everywhere. The Throne is simply a metaphor.
- If the Father does *not* sit on a real Throne, then there is no real Heaven, since Heaven is everywhere because the Father is everywhere.
- If the Father does *not* sit on a real Throne in a real Heaven, then there is no real heavenly Sanctuary.
- If the Father does *not* sit on a real Throne in a real Heaven and there is no real heavenly Sanctuary, then Jesus' ascension to Heaven was his ascension to everywhere because Heaven is everywhere and the resurrected Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father is a metaphor as is his High Priestly role because there is no real heavenly Sanctuary.
- When we pray "Our Father which art in heaven" we should really be praying "Our Father which art everywhere."
Catholic Catechism. According to Catholic (and most Protestant) teaching, "God is everywhere." Here are a couple of noteworthy questions from The [Catholic] Catechism Simply Explained:
- "21. Where is God? God is everywhere. God is present in everything that He has made: in the farthest star, in the whole world and in every part of it, and in each of us wherever we are. Nor is He divided up so that part of Him is here and part there: but, since He is a Spirit, He is whole and complete everywhere. . ." [Does this sound familiar? Dr. Kellogg would have been proud.]
- "23. Has God any body? God has no body; He is a Spirit.
Reasoning through this: If God is three-Persons-in-One, made up of One Substance or Essence (homoousios), because there is only One triune God—God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit—then all three Gods are Spirit because (according to the answer for question #23) "God has no body; He is a Spirit."
Do you see a problem with this logic? The problem is with the Resurrection. What happened to Jesus' body in the Resurrection? Did he become a Spirit and lose his body, in order to be restored to the One Substance or Essence that makes up the triune God? Then what do you do with Luke 24:39 where the resurrected Jesus says, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." But if Jesus has flesh and bones, as he himself stated, then does the Father and Spirit have flesh and bones also, since all three are of the same substance (or essence)?
The personality of the Spirit
A complete study on the personality of the Spirit is beyond the scope of this article. Please refer to the ongoing study on The Spirit for more information. However, a few thoughts are presented below to give some context on what has already been discussed.
God is spirit [Greek: πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός], and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24). On the phrase, "God is spirit," spirit is the emphatic word; spirit is God. The phrase describes the nature, not the personality of God. Compare the expressions, God is light; God is love (1 John 1:5; 1 John 4:8). The KJV translates it as, "God is a spirit." However, the article indicates the subject, and the predicate is here generic, and not an indefinite; therefore we do not render it, "God is a spirit," but "God is spirit." (See Pulpit Commentary and Vincent's Word Studies.) Also, on the ending phrase, "in spirit and truth," the word for spirit here is pneumati (πνεύματι, dative singular noun). Therefore, "those who worship him must worship in spirituality and truth."
EGW on John 4:24. One quote from EGW may help to explain her understanding of this verse in the context of the personality of God:
- Ed 131.5: The mighty power that works through all nature and sustains all things is not, as some men of science claim, merely an all-pervading principle, an actuating energy. God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being, for man was made in His image. As a personal being, God has revealed Himself in His Son. Jesus, the outshining of the Father's glory, “and the express image of His person” (Hebrews 1:3), was on earth found in fashion as a man. As a personal Saviour He came to the world. As a personal Saviour He ascended on high. As a personal Saviour He intercedes in the heavenly courts. Before the throne of God in our behalf ministers “One like the Son of man.” Daniel 7:13.
In the above quote, EGW denies God (the Father) being a "pervading principle, an actuating energy." Basically, she denies God being an "essence" as speculated by Dr. Kellogg in his book, The Living Temple. EGW declares God to be a personal being, just as His Son is a personal Savior.
Loughborough on the Spirit. The words of J. N. Loughborough should add another perspective:
- ARSH September 18, 1855, page 41.10: “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.” Romans 8:11. Here is a plain distinction made between the Spirit, and God that raises the dead by that Spirit. If the living God is a Spirit in the strictest sense of the term, and at the same time is in possession of a Spirit, then we have at once the novel idea of the Spirit of a Spirit, something it will take at least a Spiritualist to explain.
Spirit of a Spirit sending a Spirit. Loughborough's reasoning would also apply to Jesus. If the triune God is a Spirit then Jesus is a Spirit. And if Jesus is a Spirit, then you have a Spirit sending a Spirit as his representative to Earth. As Jesus said in John 16:7, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." Jesus being a Spirit is sending a Spirit (i.e. the Comforter).
So here is the conundrum: Why would a divine Being who is a Spirit be sending another Spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit), if He is already a Spirit? This operation, if true, is needlessly redundant. Loughborough resolves this conundrum as follows:
- ARSH September 18, 1855, page 41.11: There is at least one impassable difficulty in the way of those who believe God is immaterial, and heaven is not a literal, located place: they are obliged to admit that Jesus is there bodily, a literal person; the same Jesus that was crucified, dead, and buried, was raised from the dead, ascended up to heaven, and is now at the right hand of God. Jesus was possessed of flesh and bones after his resurrection. Luke 24:39. “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I, myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.” If Jesus is there in heaven with a literal body of flesh and bones, may not heaven after all be a literal place, a habitation for a literal God, a literal Saviour, literal angels, and resurrected immortal saints? Oh no, says one, “God is a Spirit.” So Christ said to the woman of Samaria at the well. It does not necessarily follow because God is a Spirit, that he has no body. In John 3:6, Christ says to Nicodemus, “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” If that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, then on the same principle, that which has a spiritual nature is spirit. God is a spirit being, his nature is spirit, he is not of a mortal nature; but this does not exclude the idea of his having a body. David says, [Psalm 114:4,] “Who maketh his angels spirits;” yet angels have bodies. Angels appeared to both Abraham and Lot, and ate with them. We see the idea that angels are spirits, does not prove that they are not literal beings.
Again, "God is spirit" describes the nature of God, not His personality (or personhood). That God is spirit (or has a spiritual nature) does not preclude Him from having a body.
The Spirit has personality. Interestingly, EGW assigned personality and person(hood) to the Spirit. This may seem hypocritical or contradictory given her antagonistic comments regarding Dr. Kellogg's views on the Spirit. Yet, there is a difference. While giving personality and person(hood) to the Spirit, she was at the same time identifying the Spirit as Christ Himself, "divested of the personality of humanity." Here are a few quotes of her's on the subject.
- 21LtMs, Ms 20, 1906, par. 32: The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. “For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man, which is in him; even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” [1 Corinthians 2:11.]
- 10LtMs, Lt 119, 1895, par. 18: Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His Father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself, divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall [although unseen by you] teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ... Nevertheless, I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” [John 14:26; 16:7.]
- DA 669.2: The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative, but divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally. Therefore it was for their interest that He should go to the Father, and send the Spirit to be His successor on earth. No one could then have any advantage because of his location or his personal contact with Christ. By the Spirit the Saviour would be accessible to all. In this sense He would be nearer to them than if He had not ascended on high.
Effectively, the Holy Spirit is Christ (i.e. "Himself"), but without (i.e. "divested of") the personality of humanity.
- 20MR 324.2: The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality. We may have the Holy Spirit if we ask for it and make it [a] habit to turn to and trust in God rather than in any finite human agent who may make mistakes.
The Spirit is then another manifestation of the Son, but is not a person in the sense of physical manifestation. The Spirit is the presence of Christ without flesh and bones.
Wait, there is more. The Spirit comes from the Father and is given to the Son and is "poured out" on us (Acts 2:33). It is by the Spirit that we have fellowship with the Father and the Son (1 John 1:3). It is by the Spirit that we are united with fellow believers (Ephesians 4:3). Because we have a spirit and the Father and Son have a spirit and because fellow believers have a spirit, then we can have fellowship in spirit.
Miscellanous thoughts on God's personality
God is everywhere. This is by virtue of His spirit. Psalm 139:7, "Where shall I go from your spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?"
Undermine the ministration of angels. "I am bidden to say to our people, Do not confound the words of Sister White with the deceptive fallacies of the enemy. Extreme views of “God in nature” undermine the foundation truths of the personality of God and the ministration of angels. A confused mass of spiritualistic ideas takes the place of faith in a personal God." —18LtMs, Lt 271b, 1903, par. 3
Father and Son are distinct personalities. EGW identified both the Father and Son as representing two distinct personalities.
- 20LtMs, Lt 331, 1905, par. 5: Christ and the Father are represented as two distinct personalities, but they are one in purpose. They are united in an effort to save fallen human beings and to restore them to union with themselves.
- MR760 18.2: In this Scripture [John 1:1-4, 14-16; 3:34-36 quoted.] God and Christ are spoken of as two distinct personalities, each acting in their own individuality.
- RH August 1, 1907, par. 8: On Sabbath, April 27, many of our brethren and sisters from neighboring churches gathered in the parlors with the sanitarium family, and I spoke to them there. I read the first chapter of Hebrews as the basis of my discourse. This chapter clearly indicates the individual personalities of the Father and the Son.
Dr. Kellogg had these pantheistic theories 20 years earlier.
- 20LtMs, Ms70a, 1905, par. 11: Now this subject has been kept before me for more than twenty years. My husband has been dead twenty years, and before he died, things came in. Dr. Kellogg came into my room; I was occupying one of the large rooms at the office as my home. I had two or three rooms there, and he got a great light; and he sat down and told what his light was: it is just the same theories or errors, the same sophistries, that he is presenting, and did present in “Living Temple.” I said, “Dr. Kellogg, I have met that.” I met it when I first started out to travel. I met it in the North; I met it in New Hampshire. I saw the curse of its influence in Massachusetts, and the testimonies that were given to me were right to the point that we were not to have anything of this kind to be taught in our churches. And I talked with him. I gave the history—I have not time to give it to you here. I gave him the history of how that was treated by the Spirit of God, and how we as a people must escape the sophistries and delusions. And it was ministers that were deceiving the people with these sophistries. I will not tell you what they led to—it may have to come; but I will not tell you now what they led to; but I will tell you what this sophistry leads to: It leads to the nonentity of Christ, to the nonentity of God, his personality, and brings in,—what shall I call it?—a sort of manufactured theory of God and Christ.
EGW on pantheism. The following are clear statements from EGW against pantheistic theories.
- 4MR 57.3: I am instructed to warn our brethren and sisters not to discuss the nature of our God. Many of the curious who attempted to open the ark of the testament, to see what was inside, were punished for their presumption. We are not to say that the Lord God of heaven is in a leaf, or in a tree; for He is not there. He sitteth upon His throne in the heavens.
- 4MR 58.1: The work of the Creator as seen in nature reveals His power. But nature is not above God, nor is God in nature as some represent Him to be. God made the world, but the world is not God; it is but the work of His hands. Nature reveals the work of a positive, personal God, showing that God is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
However, you will find statements that might suggest otherwise. Until, of course, you read it in context. For example,
- 8T 326.4: Fathers and mothers, teach your children of the wonder-working power of God. His power is manifest in every plant, in every tree that bears fruit. Take the children into the garden and explain to them how He causes the seed to grow. The farmer plows his land and sows the seed, but he cannot make the seed grow. He must depend upon God to do that which no human power can do. The Lord puts His own Spirit into the seed, causing it to spring into life. Under His care the germ breaks through the case enclosing it and springs up to develop and bear fruit.
What causes the seed to spring into life is God's spirit, which is the "wonder-working power of God." In context, the spirit of God put into the seed is not God himself, but his power. His own spirit is not a person, but an attribute.
Appendix
Notes
|
