Within my many dialogues with Adventist, there is a stubbornness in Adventism within topic of Ellen White’s Nestorianism. Most of the time, Adventist will deny that Ellen White was a Nestorian. Nestorianism is the idea that one can separate the Human and Divine natures of the Lord Jesus insofar as the “Divine” aspects of the Person of Christ are to be separated from the “Human” aspects of the one Person of Christ. For example, Nestorians would say that “Mary is the Mother of Jesus (christotokos) but not the Mother of God (theotokos)”. Or that “Jesus died at the Cross” but “God did not die at the Cross”. The Theological implications of this belief logically follows to two separate persons/subjects in the Incarnation. As in contrast to the Faith of the Council of Ephesus that “The One Divine Person Christ assumes a Human Nature” such that there is only one subject/person in the Incarnation. The reason why is is so important to affirm statements such as “God died for us”, is because the denial of this claim is to logically imply that only a “man” Jesus died for us. Undermining the very sacred nature of God reconciling us from sin by the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-18, Acts 20:28). It is because of the One Person of Christ, without separation of Humanity and Divinity that we are reconciled to the Father.
In this article, I will demonstrate quotes from Ellen White reinforcing this accusation of Nestorianism.
(John 1:1-3, 14; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:6, 8; 2:14-17; 4:15). Deity Did Not Die—Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. Christ, the sinless One, will save every son and daughter of Adam who accepts the salvation proffered them, consenting to become the children of God. The Saviour has purchased the fallen race with His own blood. (5BC 1113.2)
Ellen White is right to point out that death is something that only the Human Nature can undergo, since Divinity by nature is not corporeal. However, the issue lies in her statement after that “Deity did not sink and die”. By saying Jesus’ “Divinity” did not undergo death, she implies that there are two subjects/persons in the Incarnation. Insofar-as that we can not associate the “Divine” functions with the “Human” functions. Also, the fact that White states that the “human” Jesus could die yet the “divine” Jesus would be unaffected is obvious Nestorianism.
Another point is that the Council of Chalcedon rebukes Ellen White of heresy by mixing the human and divine natures of Christ and dividing the two natures of Christ: “We confess that in these latter times the only-begotten Son of God appeared in two natures, WITHOUT CONFUSION, without change, without division, WITHOUT SEPERATION—the distinction of natures not having been taken away by the union.” By Ellen White claiming that the human and divine natures of Christ are “blended into one person”, and affirming a seperation between the human and divine nature of Christ, she is found guilty of blasphemy and heresy.
For anyone that wants to argue that Ellen White was merely making a “distinction” between the two natures of Christ do not understand Adventist Anthropology. Since Seventh-Day Adventists are proponents of “soul sleep/ soul death” they affirm that once someone dies, consciousness and existence ceases until the Second Return of Christ where He will quicken the dead. This only adds further insult to injury since if one is to take this position logically, once must assert that the “human” Jesus in Adventism truly ceased consciousness while He was in the grave. While at the same time the “divine” Jesus was still existent. Which is heresy, espousing the heresy of Nestorianism. Also this calls into question the Resurrection, since in Adventism–there is no immaterial soul that animates the body(see Matthew 10:28, James 2:26, Revelation 6:9-11 etc). Turning the Resurrection into a re-creation of the Breath of Life into the lifeless body of Jesus. Which is borderline blasphemy.
(Matthew 28:5, 6; Luke 24:5, 6; John 2:19; 10:17, 18; Acts 13:32, 33.) When the voice of the angel was heard saying, “Thy Father calls thee,” He who had said, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again,” “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. Deity did not die. Humanity died, but Christ now proclaims over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” In His divinity Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. He declares that He had life in Himself to quicken whom He will. (5BC 1113.4)
Here again is another admission of Nestorianism, “Deity did not die” separating the “Divine” functions with the “Human” functions. And again with “In His divinity Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death”. Separating the “Divine” functions from the “Human” functions of Christ such that we can not associate the function to create with the Humanity of Jesus.
“I am the resurrection, and the life.” This language can be used only by the Deity. All created things live by the will and power of God. They are dependent recipients of the life of the Son of God. However able and talented, however large their capabilities, they are replenished with life from the Source of all life. Only He who alone hath immortality, dwelling in light and life, could say, “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again.” All the human beings in our world take their life from Him. He is the spring, the fountain of life (Manuscript 131, 1897). (5BC 1113.5)
By stating that Jesus’ claim to be the “resurrection and the life” is only proper to the Divine functions of Christ such that one can not contribute creation to Humanity is Nestorian.
In conclusion, Nestorianism is an attempt to combat logical issues within the Incarnation, however when taken to its logical conclusion reduces aspects of the Gospel such as “God dying and reconciling humanity”.
Home 