SDA History of the Character of God
This page is a supplement to the page on the history of the character of God issue. It covers material from Seventh-day Adventist history and the writings of Ellen White that relate to the history of the character of God issue.
The Character of God is “the Last Message” for “the Closing Scenes”
Ellen White statements showing that this message is to be especially relevant right at the end.
“Even the prophets who were favored with the special illumination of the Spirit did not fully comprehend the import of the revelations committed to them. The meaning was to be unfolded from age to age, as the people of God should need the instruction therein contained.” (The Great Controversy, p344)
“The truth that we are to proclaim is 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.”This truth is to be developed in the closing scenes of this earth’s history.” (MS 53, 5/11/1905)
“Different periods of the history of the church have each been marked by the development of some special truth, adapted to the necessities of God’s people at that time. Every new truth has made its way against hatred and opposition; those who are blessed with its light were tempted and tried. The Lord gives a special truth for the people in an emergency. Who dare to refuse to publish it? He commands His servants to present the last invitation of mercy to the world. They cannot remain silent, except at the peril of their souls.” (The Great Controversy, p609)
What is the “last invitation of mercy”?
“The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love. The children of God are to manifest His glory.” (Christ’s Object Lessons, p415)
Also, from the same page:
“It is the darkness of the misapprehension of God that is enshrouding the world. Men are losing their knowledge of His character. It has been misunderstood and misinterpreted. At this time a message from God is to be proclaimed, a message illuminating in its influence and saving in its power. His character is to be made known. Into the darkness of the world is to be shed the light of His glory, the light of His goodness, mercy and truth.” (Christ’s Object Lessons, p415)
“Just before us is the closing struggle of the great controversy when, with ̳all power and signs and wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness,‘ Satan is to work to misrepresent the character of God, that he may ̳seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.‘ If there was ever a people in need of constantly increasing light from heaven, it is the people that, in this time of peril, God has called to be the depositaries of His holy law and to vindicate His character before the world.” (Testimonies, vol. 5, p746)
1879 – Ellen White’s Judgment Vision
Ellen White received an important vision regarding the judgment on October 23, 1879. It is described in Testimonies vol. 4, p384-7). Further description of what she was shown in that vision was given in a letter written in 1883 in which she said much about God withdrawing His protection from those who reject it and the resulting attacks of Satan:
“I was shown in the vision given me of the Judgment … I was shown that the time was in the near future that these whom God had warned and reproved and given great light but they would not correct their ways and follow the light, He would remove from them that heavenly protection which had preserved them from Satan’s cruel power; the Lord would surely leave them to themselves to follow the judgment and counsels of their own wisdom; they would be simply left to themselves, and the protection of God be withdrawn from them, and they would not be shielded from the workings of Satan; that none of finite judgment and foresight can have any power to conceive of the care God has exercised through His angels over the children of men in their travels, in their own houses, in their eating and drinking. Wherever they are, His eye is upon them. They are preserved from a thousand dangers, all to them unseen. Satan has laid snares, but the Lord is constantly at work to save His people from them.
But [from] those who have no sense of the goodness and mercy of God, [those] who refuse His merciful warnings, who reject His counsels to reach the highest standard of Bible requirements, who do despite to the Spirit of grace, the Lord would remove His protecting power. I was shown that Satan would entangle and then destroy, if he could, the souls he had tempted. God will bear long, but there is a bound to His mercy, a line which marks His mercy and His justice.
I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan’s decided attacks upon them. It is Satan’s power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey. And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath. He is at work. He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of.” (Letter 14, 1883; Manuscript Release 14, p1-3)
Look at all the references in that passage to heavenly protection and its removal:
- He would remove from them that heavenly protection
- the Lord would surely leave them to themselves
- they would be simply left to themselves
- the protection of God be withdrawn from them
- they would not be shielded from the workings of Satan
- (until withdrawn) preserved from a thousand dangers
- the Lord would remove His protecting power
- He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan’s … attacks
- if he (Satan) is not restrained
Does it seem like Ellen White is making a point? In her commentary on this passage, Marilyn Campbell observed:
“It appears that in the ‘vision of the judgement’ God also clarified the dynamics by which the wicked are destroyed. In testing this hypothesis I have been unable to find strong statements damaging to the COG message written after 1879, nor do I find clear statements in support of the COG message before that time.” (Adventist Supplement to Light Through Darkness, First edition, p42)
Timothy Jennings says that there are references to what could be called imposed law in Ellen White’s writings prior to about 1895 but after that, in the time she wrote books such as The Desire of Ages, Steps to Christ and Christ Object lessons, there is more of a shift in her writings to emphasize design law.
It is important that we take into account Ellen White’s growth in understanding of the topic. Further, regarding that, here is an Ellen White statement that would seem to contradict the character of God message:
“God’s love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner. Men reason from their own low standard of right and justice. … They measure God by themselves. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do. …
In no kingdom or government is it left to the lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who have broken the law. All we have, all the bounties of His grace which we possess, we owe to God. The aggravating character of sin against such a God cannot be estimated any more than the heavens can be measured with a span. God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the Lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force.
The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?” (Last Day Events, p 240-241; 12MR 207,209; 10MR 265, 1876).
But note the date this first appeared was 1876. She ended with the question “Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?” Well, it seems that God Himself saw fit to answer her with a special message a few years later. The additional light was not in contradiction to the earlier understanding but was more a clarification of it. God does punish, yes, but the 1879 vision clarified that He does it by removing Himself/His protection.
Actually, when it is correctly understood how God destroys sinners, how He punishes etc there are no contradictions. Ellen White’s description of the judgment vision makes it very clear that God punishes and destroys by removing His protection and allowing cause and effect to run their course so that, in the end, sin punishes sin.
1888 – Character of God in the 1888 Message
I received this comment from Kevin Straub in response to my comment that I had heard hints that the 1888 message involved the character-of-God truth:
“Re: Character of God truth in 1888 messenger teachings. I have not done a dedicated study on this. It would require a lot of reading. I have all their stuff, but have only read a fraction of it, to date. I have noted on occasion where there are hints that the Character of God message would have been under development and I do believe that given time, if the gospel had been accepted by the leadership and members following, the message would have blossomed rapidly. I have no doubt of it because I see that this is the final advance of the reformation. While the trashing of God’s character fomented the rebellion, the restoration of the truths on this point is what ends the rebellion. The first angel makes reference to the glory (character) of God, in that we are to ascribe it to Him. The fourth angel describes a message of His glory.”
Does anyone have the time and interest to delve into this? It may be a valuable contribution.
1893 – Truth Yet to be Seen
Here is a statement clearly saying that there is “truth yet to be seen”and understanding “in an altogether different light.”
“You may have seen something in regard to the righteousness of Christ, but there is
truth yet to be seen clearly, and that should be estimated by you as precious as rare
jewels. You will see the law of God and interpret it to the people in an entirely
different light from what you have done in the past, for the law of God will be seen
by you as revealing a God of mercy and righteousness. The atonement, made by the
stupendous sacrifice of Jesus Christ, will be seen by you in an altogether different
light. You will see sin in its heinous character.” (ST Nov. 13, 1893)
It seems that additional light soon came and was shared among Adventists shortly before the turn of the century.
1897 – It’s Not New News
At the 1897 General Conference Pastor George Fifield (secretary of the New England Conference of Seventh-day Adventists) delivered a series of sermons that show an understanding of the character of God very close to what is being shared by the contributors listed on this website. One of those contributors, Sherlene Turner, says the following about Fifield’s sermons:
Pastor George E. Fifield’s Sermons from 1897 Presented at the SDA General Conference Camp Meeting Attended by William White, Jones and Waggoner, Prescott and Kellogg
This is a powerful sermon given by Pastor George E. Fifield on the character of God. While Ellen White was not present at the camp meeting to hear Pastor Fifield’s sermons, she was given messages from God to present to the ministers who were to deliver the sermons. Pastor Fifield received no corrective messages from Ellen White for his presentations – in fact, it was noted in the SDA church’s official publications, that the particular camp-meeting was the most blessed event and that there was present an unusually peaceful spirit of brotherly love. Elders Jones and Waggoner also preached, but Pastor George Fifield attracted the most people at his presentations. Ellen White’s son Willie was present also. This article reveals that the SDA pioneers were indeed given the truth about God’s character being non-destructive.
Read those sermons and you will quickly see that there was an understanding of this issue back then much closer to what is presented on this website than is commonly understood within Adventism today. Here are links to George Fifield’s sermons at the 1897 General Conference Camp Meeting:
Sermon 1, Feb. 9, 1897 on Isaiah 53:3
Sermon 2, Feb. 10, 1897 on Hebrews 9:22, Christian Consecration
Sermon 3, Feb. 11, 1897 on John 12:24-25, Die to Live
At that same General Conference session Elder E.J. Waggoner also gave a sermon “Witnesses for God” talking about the importance of understanding the character of God.
It seems that even at the famous 1888 General Conference Session, the character of God may have been somewhat of an issue.
1915 – Ellen White and Appeasement
Ellen White understood that the popular understanding anciently among pagan religions was that of appeasement:
“Determined to keep the people in deception, the priests of Baal continue to offer sacrifices to their gods and to call upon them night and day to refresh the earth. With costly offerings the priests attempt to appease the anger of their gods;” (Prophets and Kings, p124)
She also recognized that Satan’s work, all along, has been to misrepresent God; to bring men to believe that God needed to be reconciled to us when the estrangement was entirely on our side. God’s effort has been to demonstrate His unconditional love to mankind that we might be reconciled to Him – the reconciliation is only in one direction.
“From the day the Lord declared to the serpent in Eden, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed” (Genesis 3:15), Satan has known that he can never hold absolute sway over the inhabitants of this world. When Adam and his sons began to offer the ceremonial sacrifices ordained by God as a type of the coming Redeemer, Satan discerned in these a symbol of communion between earth and heaven. During the long centuries that have followed, it has been his constant effort to intercept this communion. Untiringly has he sought to misrepresent God and to misinterpret the rites pointing to the Saviour, and with a great majority of the members of the human family he has been successful.
“While God has desired to teach men that from His own love comes the Gift which reconciles them to Himself, the archenemy of mankind has endeavored to represent God as one who delights in their destruction. Thus the sacrifices and the ordinances designed of Heaven to reveal divine love have been perverted to serve as means whereby sinners have vainly hoped to propitiate, with gifts and good works, the wrath of an offended God.” (Prophets and Kings, p685)
1957 – The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on the Permissive Idiom
The writers of the SDA Bible Commentary (first edition, 1957) seemed to understand the idiomatic expressions where scripture says God personally did something when He merely permitted or allowed it. Here is one example:
“God is frequently said to do that which He does not prevent.” (SDA BC vol. 3 p184, on 1 Chron 21:1)
See more examples here.
1957 – The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on the Wrath of God
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, at least in the section on Romans (which, I believe, was written by Graham Maxwell), shows a correct understanding of the wrath of God, one that is in harmony with God’s actions as described in Romans chapter 1. Here is part of the entry for Romans 1:18:
“The wrath of God. That is, the divine displeasure against sin, resulting ultimately in the abandonment of man to the judgement of death … God does not force His love upon those who are unwilling to receive His mercy … Thus, God’s wrath against sin is exercised in the withdrawal of His presence and life-giving power from those who choose to remain in sin and thus share in its inevitable consequences.” (SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p477)
1957, 1980 – Graham Maxwell and the SDA Bible Commentary
Graham Maxwell authored a sizable portion of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. He helped to advance the true character of God in light of the Great Controversy between good and evil. In one audio (the second one on this page) he shared something very interesting concerning the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. In the first edition (1957) of the SDA Bible Commentary the entry for Romans 5:10 says:
“The Bible nowhere speaks of God being reconciled to man. It is true that the death of Christ made it possible for God to do for man what He otherwise could not have done (see on Rom. 3:25, 26).
The second edition (1980) says:
“The Bible elsewhere mentions God’s being reconciled to man (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). The death of Christ made it possible for God to do for man what He otherwise could not have done (see on Rom. 3:25, 26).
That is kind of a different meaning isn’t it? Another section was dropped from the first edition:
“But this does not mean that God needed to be reconciled. The alienation was entirely on man’s part (see Col 1:21).”
The section on 2 Cor 5:18 was also changed. The original read:
“Reconciliation involves no change on God’s part for God never changes. It is not God who needs to be reconciled to man but man who needs to be reconciled to God. There has never been enmity on God’s part.”
In the second edition, again mysteriously, this was changed to:
“Here the thought is expressed that it is man who needs to be reconciled to God. However, it is also true that God needed to be reconciled to man. Sin had brought a separation between God and man, and this gap was bridged by Christ, who reconciled not only man to God but also God to man.”
Graham went on to explain how this change was made before the printing of the second edition without any authorization and no one knew (or would admit to knowing) how it happened. Very interesting; this shows that there were forces (agents?) at work within the Adventist system who would resort to such devious measures to encourage a wrong understanding of the character of God. The audio linked to above is very worthwhile listening to.
Here are images taken directly from both editions of the SDA Bible Commentary showing the changes:
Ellen White also confirms the earlier edition:
“We have not to reconcile God to us, but-O wondrous love!-God in Christ is ‘reconciling the world unto Himself.’ 2 Corinthians 5:19” (Steps to Christ p35)
Here is another statement relevant to this:
“…we have left the matter of reconciliation just where the Scriptures have put it; and while they have much to say about the necessity for man to be reconciled to God, they never once hint of such a thing as the necessity for God to be reconciled to man. To intimate the necessity for such a thing is to bring a grave charge against the character of God. The idea has come into the Christian Church from the Papacy, which in turn brought it from Paganism, in which the only idea of God was of a being whose wrath must be appeased by a sacrifice.
“Stop a moment, and think what reconciliation means. The existence of enmity is the only necessity for reconciliation. Where there is no enmity, there is no necessity for reconciliation. Man is by nature alienated from God; he is a rebel, full of enmity. Therefore man needs to be reconciled-to have his enmity taken away. But God has no enmity in His being. “God is love.” Consequently there is no necessity for Him to be reconciled; there is no possibility of such a thing, for there can be no reconciliation where there has been no enmity.” (E.J. Waggoner Present Truth UK September 21, 1893, page 386)
That is consistent with the meaning of the word “enmity”:
1.“a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.” (dictionary.com)
1. The quality of being an enemy; the opposite of friendship; ill will; hatred; unfriendly dispositions; malevolence. It expresses more than aversion and less than malice, and differs from displeasure in denoting a fixed or rooted hatred, whereas displeasure is more transient. (webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/enmity)
Enmity is not part of the character of God.
2015 – This Website
This site was started in December 2015 as an attempt to further this message by helping those who promote this message work together and learn from each other. See more about this site.
Ray’s note: The list on this site of contributors of the message includes non-SDA individuals to help them learn from those with a Great Controversy/Cosmic Conflict perspective and because they have some good thoughts to share on their own. I am trying to reach as many people as possible with this message and any help you can give to share it is appreciated and may have eternal consequences.
The Future
“When the character of Christ shall be
perfectly reproduced in His people, then
He will come to claim them as His own.”
(Christ’s Object Lessons, p69)