Answering the Best Anti-trintarians in Adventism

8/9/2019 Answering the Best Anti-trintarians in Adventism

1/29

ANSWERING THE BEST ANTI-TRINTARIAN

ARGUMENTS IN ADVENTISM!!(A 2010 presentation) By Derrick Gillespie

INTRODUCTION:

An ongoing debate is raging in certain quarters within Seventh-day Adventism at themoment. On one side are those committed to a certain type of Trinitarianism, and on

the other are those opposed to Trinitarianism in all its forms. Both sides appeal to theSDA pioneers and their gradually developed understanding of the Godhead as revealedin the Bible. Obviously, both sides cannot be fully correct at the same time, even

though they share some things in common which are correct. Who really is correct?

In 1909, an insightful SDA pioneer, Robert Hare, wrote the following words, which

capsules the true essence of what the Trinitarian debate in Adventism has been all aboutfrom the very beginning of Seventh-day Adventist movement:

Where Satan cannot lead into absolute unbelief, he will endeavor to mystify so that

the belief remaining may prove ineffectual. From the confusing idea of one God inthree Gods[i.e. the traditional Catholic Trinity explanation, of a singular threefold

organism/Being or singular tri-personal substance]the enemy gladly leads to whatappears to be a more rational, though not less erroneous ideathat there is no

trinity, and that Christ is merely a created being. But Gods great plan is clear andlogical. There is a trinity, and in it there are three personalitiesWe have the Father

described in Dan. 7:9, 10a personality surelyIn Rev. 1:13-18 we have the Son

described. He is also a personality The Holy Spirit is spoken of throughout

Scripture as a personality. These divine persons are associated in the work of

GodButthis union is not one in which individuality is lostThere is indeed a

divine trio, but the Christ of that Trinity is not a created being as the angels- He was

the only begotten of the Father- Robert Hare, Australasian Union Conference Record, July 19, 1909

Robert Hare (who became an Adventist in 1885 and who was ordained in 1888) was a

pioneering SDA minister, administrator, theological editor, and College teacher (atAvondale 1908-11;1916-19) who was positioned at a very advantageous period in

Adventisms doctrinal history, in which he was able to see much of the earlydevelopment of Adventist theology on the matter of the Godhead, as well observe the

Godhead controversies of the 1890s through to the 1930s and thereafter (he died in1953), and so was able to recognize what Adventism had come to believe officially

before the death of Adventisms chief pioneer, Mrs. E.G. White, in 1915. He, like

another but even more noted SDA pioneer, in the person of F.M. Wilcox, was able to

recognize what very many anti-Trinitarians in Adventism today are either unable, or

unwilling to recognize, that there is a trinity, and in it there are three personalitiesThese divine persons are associated in the work of GodButthis union is not one inwhich individuality is lostThere is indeeda divine trio, but the Christ of that

Trinity is not a created being as the angels-He was the only begotten of theFather This is a rather painful admission for very many of the anti-Trinitarians that

exist in Adventism today to ever make in full, and yet it is the REAL truth of the matteras this presentation will prove as we shall proceed.

In 1913, Adventisms chief writer and editor, F.M. Wilcox, another SDA pioneer livingat the time of Robert Hare, and one of those personspersonally chosen by Mrs. Whiteto guard her estate upon her death (thus he was a trusted SDA pioneer, and one who

was no heretic) very much made the very same admission of Robert Hare when he said

while Mrs. White was alive (and is on record later explaining what he meant):


2/29

Seventh-day Adventists[not just myself]believe[now]in ... the Divine *TRINITY.

This Trinity consists of the Eternal Father the Lord Jesus Christ[and]the Holy

Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead-F. M. Wilcox (chief editor), *Review and Herald, October 9, 1913

the Godhead,or Trinity, consists of theEternal Father, a personal, spiritualBeing, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love;the Lord

Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created

and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished;the HolySpirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work ofredemptionWe [Adventists] recognize the divine Trinity, the Father, the Son, and

the Holy Spirit, each possessing a distinct and separate personality, but one in natureand in purpose, so welded together in this infinite union that the apostle James

speaks of them as "one God." James 2:19.This divine unity is similar to the unity

existing between Christ and the believer, and between the different believers in theirfellowship in Christ Jesus

- F.M. Wilcox, Christ is Very God, Review and Herald

This demonstrates quite effectively that leading SDA pioneers had gradually come torecognize (before even 1915, when Mrs. White died) that indeed there are three

individuals or beings involved in the Godhead, who are united just as Christ and His

Church is united (as separate beings), and these pioneers never had any difficulty

seeing this union as a trinity!! In fact, this was a belief eventually adopted by even therenowned SDA pioneer, A.T. Jones, who had brought the Righteousness by faith

message at the monumental but controversial 1888 General Conference of SDAs, in

which the absolute Godhead of Christ was uplifted and solidified more than everbefore. He himself admitted in 1899:

God is one [person]. Jesus Christ is one [i.e. another person]. The Holy Spirit is one[the third person of three]. And thesethree are one: there isno dissent nor division

among them.

-A. T. Jones,Review and Herald, January 10, 1899, 24

Keeping in mind that the expression amongthem always indicates three or more

beings involved (not just two), then it is plain evidence that A.T. Jones had already

come to believe that there is not just a Godhead duo of beings, as anti-Trinitarians in

Adventism today desperately struggle to uphold, but rather that there is a Godhead

oneness of three (not two) beings, otherwise A.T. Jones could never have spoken about

there is no dissent or division among them; he would have instead said no division

between them.

With these opening statements made, it now brings me to the issue of what are the chief

arguments relied upon by anti-Trinitarians in Adventism seeking to decry Adventismsacceptance of a trinity? Well here they are:

MAIN MODERN ANTI-TRINITARIAN ARGUMENTS IN ADVENTISM:

1.The SDA pioneers always rejected the Trinity, and never used the word trinity todescribe the Godhead since it is an unscriptural word

2.The SDA pioneers always maintained that there are only two beings of the Godhead3.The SDA pioneers always saw the Holy Spirit as just the being/presence of the Father or

Christ, but not a third or separate being or member of the Godhead

4.The SDA pioneers never directed worship or prayer to the Holy Spirit


3/29

5.The SDA pioneers never accepted that Christ is fully eternal just like the Father since he

was begotten by him

6.The SDA pioneers never saw our God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit together7.The omega heresy predicted by E.G. White is fulfilled by an acceptance of a trinity of

the Godhead after 1931 in Adventism, and amounts to tri-theism or the worship of

three Gods

8.A Godhead trinity cannot be proven from the Bible itself, and is a Roman Catholicinvention of the 4th century and after (a doctrine which borrowed largely from ancient

pagan ideas of trinities)

9.It cannot be shown in the Scriptures that the Spirit is more than just the mind andpresence/being of the Father and Son themselves

10.Worship in song or praise, and prayer is never directed to the Spirit in the Scriptures,hence he/it should not be so revered separately from Father and Son

Of course there are other arguments used by various anti-Trinitarians in Adventism, but

these are related to some of the above mentioned and so will be dealt with andanswered together as we proceed through the presentation. It will be shown, both from

documented writings of SDA pioneers before 1915 (including from that of Mrs. E.G.

White), but especially from Scripture itself, that indeed the modern anti-Trinitarians inAdventism, while admittedly pointing outsome errors being held by mainstreamTrinitarian Adventists, yet they themselves (as anti-Trinitarians) are also short-sighted

in certain regard, and are indeed holding on to certain gross errors that are just as faulty

and dangerous!! In the end, their main arguments will be shown to be groundless andneeding reform in very many areas.

ARGUMENT # 1: The SDA pioneers always

rejected the Trinity, and never used the word

trinity to describe the Godhead since it is an

unscriptural wordWithout much ado let me launch into addressing the very first argument commonlyused by non-Trinitarians in the SDA Church today. Truth be told? Only the first part of

the above argument is actually correct. Yes, it is CORRECT to say that the SDA

pioneers alwaysrejected theTrinity. Even when SDA pioneers like F.M. Wilcox

admitted in 1913 that Seventh-day Adventists [came to] believe [eventually] in the

divine Trinity, and even when Richard Hare in 1909 proclaimed unreservedly thatthere is a trinity, and in it are three personalities, yet paradoxically they were not

adhering to theTrinity as held to by Christendom (i.e. as taught by Roman

Catholicism and most Protestant Churches). This may come as a surprise to many

readers to hear me, a Trinitarian (an unorthodox one, surely), saying that from the veryoutset, but CONTEXT is always critical to observe in any debate, polemical

undertaking or controversial exercise.

CONTEXT IS KEY

To illustrate the point, let me use another case in point. Adventists have never endorsed

Christendoms adherence to theLords Day as the expression is popularly

understood, simply because the expression is commonly understood to mean Sunday

as the traditional day of weekly rest and worship; the main day set aside weekly, but

only by human tradition (not by divine command) for such activity. Some in

Christendom have even ventured to call Sunday the Christian Sabbath (with even


4/29

Roman and blue laws enforcing its civil observance historically), and yet Adventists

can find no such description or divine endorsement in the Scriptures themselves,

whether directly or indirectly, and so we have never attached any holy, sacred orconscience-driven significance to the Lords Day. And yet, SD Adventists, in a

certain context, still believes that the weekly Saturday Sabbath, as given to the Jews, as

observed by the Lord Jesus and all his apostles, as faithfully kept by many faithful

Christians for the first three centuries, and indeed by true Christians scatteredthroughout the many centuries even after Sunday was (by tradition, not divine

command) made to overshadow the divinely commanded Saturday Sabbath, we believe

that if there is any TRUE weekly Lords day, or any TRUE weekly Christian

Sabbath,fromthe Bible alone it can only be proved to be the weekly Sabbath on

Saturday!! Period! Yet, because of the popular use and understanding of the expression

theLords day, and since Adventists do not adhere to this tradition of the observance

of the Lords day- Sunday, we therefore dont subscribe to or accept the Lords

Day as held by Christendom!! Now let me apply the object lesson.

Going back to what the introduction to this presentation started out by saying, let me

quote much more of what SDA pioneer Robert Hare actually said in 1909, and the point

being made here will become clear. He said on the Trinity:

In the fourth and fifth centuries many absurd views were set forth respecting the

Trinity- views that stood at variance with reason, logic, and Scripture. As these viewswere formulated into creeds, humanity had to shut its eyes and receive them as the

dictates of God, though they were verily human, and some even satanic. Mystery was

heaped upon mystery, and the mind of man at least gave up the effort to reason outthe dogmas of what claimed to be religion. Satan was behind the work of

mystification, just as he has been behind every other false idea of God. Where Satan

cannot lead into absolute unbelief, he will endeavor to mystify so that the belief

remaining may prove ineffectual. From the confusing idea of one God in three

Godsand three Gods in one God the unexplainable dictum of theology-[i.e. thetraditional Catholic Trinity explanation, of a singular threefold organism/Being or a

singular tri-personal substance] -the enemy gladly leads to what appears to be a morerational, though not less erroneous ideathat there is no trinity, and that Christ is

merely a created being. But Gods great plan is clear and logical. There is a trinity,

and in it there are three personalitiesWe have the Father described in Dan. 7:9,

10a personality surelyIn Rev. 1:13-18 we have the Son described. He is also a

personality The Holy Spirit is spoken of throughout Scripture as a personality.

These divine persons are associated in the work of GodButthis union is not one in

which individuality is lostThere is indeeda divine trio, but the Christ of thatTrinity is not a created being as the angels-He was the only begotten of theFatherlet not the lips of man speak of Christ as a created being. He is one of the

divine trio- the only begotten Son of the Father

- Robert Hare, Australasian Union Conference Record, July 19, 1909

Now, to put this monumental pioneering SDA statement into perspective certain criticalobservations must be made, and made against the historical background of SDA

Godhead theology as it gradually developed to this point just before the death of Mrs.

White (SDAs leading pioneer) in 1915.


5/29

CRUCIAL OBSERVATIONS:

1. SDA pioneer Robert Hare clearly showed that Adventism has always been opposed to

the popular Trinitarian creeds that expressed the Godhead or the Trinity in a rather

illogical way from the 4th

century onwards- i.e.as one substance indivisible, or as one

being having three persons sharing one undivided substance, allwithoutbody

parts, or allunited in that one numeric being, but who are not individual beings inthemselves!! Another SDA pioneer, R.F. Cottrell expressed the consistent Adventist

opposition this way:

That one person[being] is three persons, and that three persons are only one person

[being], is the doctrine[of the Godhead as explained by general Christendom at the

time]which we [Adventists]claim is contrary to reason and common sense. The

being and attributes[nature of] of God are above, beyond, out of reach of my sense

and reason, yet our Creator has made it an absurdity to us that one person[being]should be three persons and three persons but one person [being]

-R.F. Cottrell, Review and Herald, July 6, 1869

Now, heres officially what SDA pioneers consistently opposed in terms of the creedal

explanation of the Godhead (first from Protestant and then Catholic creeds):

There is but one living and true God; everlasting, without body parts, or passions;

of infinite power, wisdom and goodness; the Maker and preserver of all things bothvisible and invisible. Andin unity of this Godhead[being] there be three Persons, of

one substance, power and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost-Book of Common Prayer. Thirty Nine Articles of Religion. No.1. p376. (Anglican)

Now this is the Catholic faith; We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in

unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance.-Athanasian Creed. New [Catholic] Catechism p. 67, 68.

Now it is absolutely true to say that Adventism has never ever officially endorsed this

explanation (no matter ifsome Trinitarians in Adventism today unfortunately think

so), even when pioneering Adventism gradually came to later admit to three personsinvolved in the one Godhead, and even described this Godhead as a trinity before

even 1915. This is simply because Adventists believe that Jesus could never expect us

to accept John 17: 21,22 as it reads, and properly see the Godhead unity like how he

and his disciples (the Church members) are united, if the Godhead was literally onebeing with three faces on one neck (as Catholic painting illustrate the Godhead). This

therefore explains the reason for the consistent SD Adventist rejection of this

explanation of the Godhead over the many years of our Churchs existence.

What is true also is that because of the popular explanationof theTrinity, to mean

three personalities united in one undivided substance who are not individuals, but whoare simply one being, therefore Adventism has always been opposed to theTrinity in

this context, and initially avoided the use of the term trinity even when long beforethe 1915 death of Mrs. White it came to admit to three persons or trio of the oneEternal Godhead (a trinity or triad of sorts, as the dictionary clearly indicates).

2. You will notice that in the foregoing I said pioneering Adventism gradually came tolater admit to three persons in the one Godhead. That statement needs further

clarification. It is a fact that no anti-Trinitarian existing in Adventism today can

find even one shred of evidence that early SD Adventists, before the late 1880s or

more so the 1890s, ever spoke freely of and admitted to three persons of the

Godhead. In fact what can be found in earlier years are very strong sentiments


6/29

opposing the idea that the Holy Spirit could even be considered a personality, much

more deemed a third and distinct personality. Early pioneering Adventism never

gave assent to the view that the Holy Spirit was a person or personality in any waywhatsoever. It was not until pioneering Adventism first endorsed basic Trinitarianism

in 1892 ---by publishing Dr Samuel Spears Trinitarian article, originally titled the

Subordination of Christ, but subsequently RENAMED the Bible Doctrine of the

Trinityby SDA pioneers themselves, and published as a missionary tool expressingwhat Adventists had come to believe/endorse--- that we then see an increase of E.G.

White expressions about three persons comprising one Eternal Godhead. None of

the SDA pioneers before Mrs. White ever went so far to admit to these threepersons of the one Godhead in their own writings.I wait for the day when any anti-

Trinitarian in Adventism today can prove otherwise with solid documented evidence.

Now here is some of what SDA pioneers published/endorsed as the Bible doctrine ofthe Trinityway back in 1892, long before even the Robert Hare or F.M. Wilcox

trinity admission before 1915 (note the distinct Trinitarian undertones and

expressions, despite the articles rejection of the traditional explanation of the mode

of the Trinity):

The Godhead makes its appearance in the great plan for human salvation. God inthis plan is brought before our thoughts under the personal titles of Father, Son, and

Holy Ghost, with diversity in offices, relations, and actions toward men. These titles

and their special significance, as used in the Bible, are not interchangeable. The term

Father is never applied to the Son, and the term Son is never applied to the

Father. Each title has its own permanent application, and its own use and sense. The

distinction thus revealed in the Bible is the basisof the doctrine of the tri-personal

God The exact mode in whichthe revealed Trinity is must be to us a perfectmystery, in the sense of our total ignorance on the point. We do not, in order to

believe the revealed fact, need to understand this mode. The Christian doctrine of the

Trinitywhether, as to its elements, taken collectively or separatelyso far from

being a dry, unpractical, and useless dogmaadjusts itself to the condition and wants

of men as sinners.The truth is that God the Father in the primacy attached to Him

in the Bible, andGod the Son in the redeeming and saving work assigned to Him inthe same Bible, andGod the Holy Ghost in his office of regeneration andsanctificationwhether considered collectively as one God, or separately in the

relation of each to human salvationare really omnipresent in, and belong to, the

whole texture of the revealed plan for saving sinners."- The Bible doctrine of the Trinity- Pacific Press, 1892

Rather telling isnt it? In fact, in 1892 and 1894 respectively here is what SDA

pioneers said glowingly about the same Spear article quoted above:

We believe that it sets forththe Bible doctrine of the trinity of Father, Son,

and Holy Spirit with adevout adherence to the words of the Scripture, in the best briefway we ever saw it presented."

-Signs of the Times , Vol.18, No.22, 1892.

It presentsthe Bible viewof the doctrine of the Trinity in theterms used in the

Bible, and thereforeavoids all philosophical discussion and foolish speculation. It is a

tract worthy of reading."-Signs of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 29, 1894.

And so what we see is a GRADUAL development of Adventist thought regarding theacceptance of a threefold Godhead, and yet this development became a radical

departure from traditional Trinitarian thought because the Adventist explanation


7/29

of the Godhead has always maintained that in the Godhead individuality of the

persons is not lost(!!). This would explain Mrs. Whites later monumental admission

(quoted below) to there being three holiestbeingsin heaven, while speaking of them

collectivelyas God, and as being our Fathercollectively, who all pledged to and

henceforth subsequently receiveus as sons and daughters upon our baptism (a

matter some, especially the modern anti-Trinitarians in Adventism, find hard to come to

grips with even today):

"God says,[notice after this whom she means says this] "Come out from among them,

and be ye separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and

will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the LordAlmighty." [Now notice carefully] This isthe pledge of[not just one person, but]the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [i.e. the *pledge to receive and be a Father to

you]; made to you if you will keep your baptismal vow, and touch not the unclean

thing

-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901

You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You

are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life--to live a new life.You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power ofTHE

THREE HOLIEST *BEINGS IN HEAVEN, who are able to keep you from falling. .

.-E.G. White,Manuscript Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268

How very telling, in terms of how well this compares with what the PresbyterianTrinitarian minister Samuel Spear said in his Trinitarian article way back in 1889; an

article which was directly affirmed by Adventist pioneers in 1892, and said to be a

devout adherence to the words of the Scripture about the trinity of Father, Son, and

Holy Spirit. There is no escaping this reality, no matter how much some anti-

Trinitarians today in Adventism would like to cover up or escape this fact!!

Now, most modern anti-Trinitarians in Adventism (and certain ones of the past) engagein semantic gymnastics and talk about Mrs. White always speaking of the Spirit as a

personality without individuality, and never speaking of the Holy Spirit as a being,

but only as a personality of the Father and Son, as if he is a non-entity, yet the recordplainly testifies that she used all three descriptive words, namely personality,

person and being to describe all three of the Godhead, as the foregoing and the

following shows, and, more importantly, she treated all three the same way in terms ofinfinite divinity being ascribed to them, as well as prayer and religious service directed

to all three by her word and example. She distinctly said:

The Holy Spirit is *ONE OF-

The Three Holiest *Beings in heaven-Manuscript Release, Vol. 7, pgs. 267-268

The Three Persons[of the Godhead]

- S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 6, pg.1074

The Heavenly *Trio[group of three persons] ofThree *Living

Personalities/Persons-Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7(1905), pgs. 62,63


8/29

TheEternal[existing always] HeavenlyDignitaries[high ranking persons]

Evangelism, pg. 616

The Three Dignitariesand Powers of Heaven-S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 6, pg. 1075

The Three Great Agencies[of the Godhead]

- S.D.A Bible Comm., Vol. 6, pg. 1102

The [three]Highest Powersin Heaven

Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7(1905), PG. 51

[three]Powers infinite and omniscient- S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 6, pg. 1075

It should be noted here that her special effort to call the Holy Spirit ONE OF the

LIVINGPersonalities of the Heavenly Trio is strong evidence that she wanted us

to see the Holy Spirit as a living, conscious, individualPerson (the Third Person of

the Godhead) in the Heavenly Courts, having His own will (1 Cor. 12:11), and

who (according to her) though he personifies Christ,yet is a distinct personality.

How else do you logically or intelligently explain her praying to the Holy Spirit alongwith Father and Son, her repeatedly numbering three personsor three holiest

beings (not two), her indicating that we must serve all three that she listed

separately when she said they should be served, and, more importantly, her

indicating that all three pledges to be a Father to all those who carry out theirbaptismal vows? Some try to sidestep and foolishly explain away these matters but I

will not. All these matters I will delve into and give the documentary evidence when we

deal with the question of the Spirits identity; the third of the three holiest beings in

heaven (according to Adventisms chief pioneer, Mrs. E.G. White). But this now leads

me to determine whether this trio is really a trinity, as F.M. Wilcox and RobertHare testified to before 1915.

3. Trinitarianism is predicated upon the principle of a belief in three Persons within

the one Godhead. It is Biblical to affirm three living [literal] personalities in theGodhead, and this is what atrinity is (as EVENTUALLY attested to honestly before1915 by SDA pioneers; seen in introductory quotes). Even the false trinities, triads and

trios in pagan religious (even consisting of individuals with differing genders)

proclaim the true definition of a trinity. Once, by a Christian, three persons areaffirmed in the Godhead, whether as three separate persons or beings (which some

mistakenly call tri-theism), whether as threedistinct personalities, but all are related

and in union, or whether as three personal and distinct manifestations of the one

existence or reality (being), but all related in substance, then that Christian is aTrinitarian (but can either be an "orthodox" or "unorthodox" one). Some, unwittingly,

are Trinitarians (unorthodox ones of course), and believe in a Trio in the Godhead,

but resist and deny the label.

J.H. Waggoner (a pioneer), a few years before the SDA church started to

increasingly affirm three persons in the Godhead, stated that trinitarianism is simplybased upon the truedefinition of the word trinity, which means three [distinct]

persons who exist together by close relationship; just like trio, triplet, triad andtriumvirate all coming from the prefix tri [three]. Here are his words:

A Trinity is three persons. To recognize[admit to]a trinity[the true type],the

distinction between the Father and Son must be preserved.

-J.H. Waggoner, 1884, The Atonement, pgs. 167-169


9/29

Thus a TRUE trinity in not supposed to be, by Waggoners logical reckoning, a single

person, personality, or individual, or even a three-faced singular being, as critics

rightfully charge the Roman Catholics to be teaching!! But, if in Adventism, since

1892, and long before 1931, the three Persons in the Godhead, and in fact

basic/economic trinitariansim through Dr. Spears article were directly affirmed by

SDA pioneers, then as sure as trilogy, tricycle, triennial, triplicate, trident, tripod, and

tripartite all relate to three distinct, but related entities, pioneering Adventism

became supportive ofatrinity in the Godhead (if even not by orthodoxy).

Many anti-trinitarians cant appreciate this reality, as if only Catholicism (since the

fourth century) has a divine copyright on the word trinity, and only they can explainwhat abasic trinity is, and contrary too to what the etymology of the prefix tri and the

suffix nity means. But in just the same way even Sunday worshippers were, at

one time, historically referred to as sabbatarians- because they insisted (withoutconcrete biblical proof) that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath- whats to hinder

SD Adventists also (but even more so) properly referring to themselves as

sabbatarians, and yet the meaning is different from the expression as it appliesto Sunday sabbatarians? I see nothing to discount that reality. The same

principle applies to trinitarianism. And so, all I am left to do here is to finally discusswhether the charge that the term trinity- it being admittedly an extra-biblical term- isso sinful to use when talking about the threefold Godhead.

UNCSCRIPTURAL WORDS FOR THE GODHEAD?

As it concerns the issue of condemning extra-biblical words and phrases like trinity

or God the Son as employed/endorsed by even bonafide SDA pioneers before the

death of Mrs. White (and without rebuke from her, mark you), I must hasten to pointout the following reality to the anti-Trinitarians in the SDA Church today who usually

insist on being accusers of the brethren in this regard, without stopping to think their

stance through carefully.

*As seen hereafter, in several instances even Mrs. White herself was working from

a framework of what is IMPLICIT in the Bible about the Godhead trio of

beings. True too is that she even presented certain teachings about the Godhead

that cannot be even substantiated by the Bible itself (whether by deduction orassumption based on implications there), but by SDA faith only that she got that

special revelationin vision!! That therefore means that pioneering Adventism is

not free from both deducted theology, or assumed theology (based on implications

in Scripture), and even more importantly, we are not free from extra-biblicalexpressions regarding the Godhead, as some make out, even as they lash out at all

forms of Trinitarian thought. That too must be confronted honestly and squarelyand addressed if one is going to be consistent!!

FOR EXAMPLE:

NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE IS IT EXPLICITLY STATED THAT:

1. It was because of being jealous of Jesus' position (not the Father's) that Lucifer

sinned against God when the Bible said he sought to "be like the Most High". Yet thisis what the extra-biblical revelations of Mrs. White declare. Speculations? Deductions?

Or extra-biblical revelations?


10/29

NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE IS IT EXPLICITLY STATED THAT:

2. The Godhead, the "Eternal Godhead", is a Great threefold Power, consisting of a"heavenly trio" of "three living personalities" or "three holiest beings of heaven". Yet

this is what Mrs. White's teachings indicate. Speculations? Deductions? Or extra-

biblical revelations?

NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE IS IT EXPLICITLY STATED THAT:

3. All three are to be "served"as "a Father", after we have accepted Christ, as seen inthe following clearly expressed E.G. White statements. Speculations? Deductions? Or

extra-biblical revelations?

6BC 1075"When we have accepted Christ, and in the name of the Father, and of

the Son, and of the Holy Spirit havepledged ourselves to serve God, the Father,

Christ and the Holy Spiritthe three dignitaries and powers of heavenpledge

themselves that every facility shall be given to us if we carry out our baptismal vowsto come out from among them, and be...separate."


and be ye separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and

will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the LordAlmighty." [Now notice carefully] This isthe pledge of[not one person, but]the



thing In order to deal righteously with the world, as members of the royal family,

children of the heavenly King, Christians must feel their need of a power, whichcomes only fromthe [three]heavenly agencies that have pledged themselves to work

in man's behalf. After we have formed a union withthe great THREEFOLDPOWER [singular; collective], we shall regard our duty toward the members of God's

family with a sacred awe.


The expression, sweep around your own front door, seems rather apt at this time in

response to all those in Adventism so hung-up on condemning extra-biblicalexpressions that may not be explicitly stated in the Bible, but are implicit there when

one looks at the big picture. But suffice it to say, when modern SD Adventist anti-

Trinitarians (opponents to any form of Trinitarianism) attempt to prove that the Trinityis not a Bible doctrine, they always seem to focus (most times unwittingly) on either the

Roman Catholic Trinity, or on the recent (admittedly faulty) mainstream SD Adventist

Trinity explanation of three self-originate, role-playing Godhead beings, rather than

on the truly Biblical trinity or trio of"the three holiest beings of heaven" (asAdventism's E.G. White so succinctly puts it), and usually they do so while forgetting

the simple noun definition ofa trinity in the dictionary (it being defined asa trio as

well). Truth be told though? These SDA anti-Trinitarians are right in a certain regard!The explained Roman Catholic Trinity after the fourth century is not found in the

Bible, neither is Adventisms more recent insistence on three role-playing self-

originate beings there. But, most assuredly, the Headship and distinct/separate beingof God the Father, the distinct/separate being and the Deity of Christ ( the truly

begotten Son of the Father), and the distinct/separate personality/being and the Deity

of the Holy Spirit (a distinct representative personality originating from the Father

and the Son), along with the harmonious working of a symbolicone-body-but-three-

members filial type relationshipof the Three Persons in the Godhead (as


11/29

Biblically indicated in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, 11, 12) are clearly taught! No wonder the

Father is the "Head" of Christ, with Jesus being depicted as the "arm of the Lord" (other

times His wisdom, word, power, mind, eternal life, et al), and with the Holy Spiritbeing deemed to be the "hand" or the "finger of God" (other times his presence, mind,

power, et al); a clear symbolic union of oneness (like one human body in principle and

not one literal, consubstantial, or indivisible substance in actuality)... which still

shows why the three (despite being called three holiest beings in heaven) are not'three Gods', but the one Godhead!! It is just like Christ having many members but this

does not produce many true Christs or true Churches, but one mystical body of

Christ, with one head (i.e. one true Church).... all symbols showing the spiritual and

relational oneness that is quite similar to the Godhead in family terms.

WHAT I AGREE WITH THE SDA ANTI-TRINITARIANS ON

In closing on this response to the first main argument of Adventist anti-Trinitarians, letme hasten to say that mainstream Adventism, while clearly correct in admitting to a

trinity, as SD pioneers themselves gradually accepted before 1915, yet we are indeed

guilty of some of the charges of the anti-Trinitarians in our Church. It is true that many

of us on the Trinitarian side in Adventism, have not only denied that Jesus was indeedbegotten by the Father from all eternity (a truth Mrs. White and all the SDA pioneers

upheld, just like all Trinitarians historically), but, in our poor handling of the truth that

a trinity or literal trio of separate beings are indeed in the Godhead, have gone to the

extreme of teaching that they are all eternally self-originate beings who are simply 'roleplaying' as Father and Son, and Holy Spirit. That I have unreservedly rejected several

years now, and continue to agitate for its rejection as a recent teaching. Others of us

(not all) have even been reverting to the traditional Trinity explanation (i.e. the threesharing one indivisible substance) because it is thought that this is what Mrs. White's

teaching meant when using the expression "of one substance" about Father and Son.

These are clearly all dangerous denials of what the pioneers came to believe and accept

about the Godhead. Closeness to what Catholics believe about the three persons of theGodhead does not mean we should not note the critical differences. As Adventists we

have been entrusted with truths that differ from what Roman Catholics teach, no matterthe closeness of certain common truths that we share.

ARGUMENT # 2:The SDA pioneers always

maintained that there are only two literal

persons/beings of the Godhead, andalways saw

the Holy Spirit as just the actual being/presence

of the Father and/or Christ, but not literally athird or separate person/being or member of the

Godhead.

Anti-trinitarians know deep down in their psyche that since the existence (or non-

existence) of a Godhead trinity (or trio, or triad) is closely tied to whether the Holy

Spirit is a real person or individual (or not), and since it is on this subject of the identityof the Holy that their case is either proven or disproven, therefore it is here they strive

to make their strongest arguments. It is only natural. The same can be said of the

Trinitarian.


12/29

ADMISSIONS:

The challenge one faces as a researcher when dealing with this subject of the HolySpirit is to ever recognize the limitations one confronts, since, firstly, the Biblical data

on the Holy Spirit is not as voluminous, clear-cut, definitive, and unambiguous as is the

case with the identity of Jesus, the real and truly begotten Son of God who is distinct as

a being from God the Father from all eternity, and secondly, it must be recognized thatwhere not much is revealed in the Bible one must tread softly. However, what must be

done is to look at the big picture and recognize certain common threads of truth, as well

as eliminate grossly erroneous viewpoints in order to arrive at truth based on weight ofevidence. In addition, it must be recognized that it is on the subject of the Holy Spirit

that SDA pioneers demonstrated much more ambivalence and divided opinion over a

longer period of time, more so than on the subject of Jesus identity, and fully divinenature. This is simply because it is plain that less has been biblically revealed about the

Holy Spirit. But what is certain is that when the big picture is looked at then the

arguments of the modern anti-Trinitarians in Adventism can be proven to be groundless

and or inconclusive as it concerns the gradually developed viewpoints of SDA pioneers.

Here are the key facts that I will prove here:

a] It will be proven that in the earlier years of Adventism (i.e. between the 1840s and

before the 1890s) the dominant Adventist viewpoint was that the Spirit was simply a

force, power, influence, afflatus, mysterious impersonal energy emanating fromFather and Son; never a personality, much more a thirdor distinctpersonality or

also a divine person.

b] It will be proven that after the publishing and affirmation of the Spears Trinityarticle in 1892 a marked transition in SDA viewpoint developed in which three distinct

personalities of the Godhead was subsequently affirmed by increasing numbers of SDA

pioneers, yet discussion and debates within Adventism still indicated an unwillingnessto see the Spirit as nothing more than just the literal or actual being/presence of the

Father and Son themselves, and finally

WHAT MUST BE PROVEN IF A TRINITY IS TO BE AFFIRMED INPIONEERING ADVENTISM

c] It will be proven that pre-1915 written expressions from both Mrs. White

(Adventisms leading pioneer) and from other contemporary, bona fide and more so

leading SDA pioneers started to lean heavily (despite resistance by some) in favor of

three SEPARATE Godhead beings; a viewpoint in which individuality is not

considered as lost in the Godhead, and one in which the Holy Spirits nature ( i.e.whathe is, just like the nature of the Father Himself) is still accepted as mysterious,yet his identity (i.e. whohe is), and his distinct/separatepersonhood as the third

person of three holiest beings IN Heaven is affirmeda clearirrefutable case for

affirming a trinity, though not(and I repeat, not) the traditional Trinity of RomanCatholicism or general Christendom.

PROOFS OF EARLY SDA THOUGHT ON AN IMPERSONAL SPIRIT

The Holy Spirit is not a person. In all our prayers we naturally conceive God as a

person, and of the Son as a person; but who ever conceive of the Holy Spirit as being

a person, standing there beside the Father and equal with Him? Such a conception


13/29

never enters any ones mind The simple truth is that God is a real person, in bodily

form; andthe Holy Spirit is truly the spirit of God, A DIVINE INLUENCEproceeding from the Father and also from the Son as their POWER, ENERGY, etc.

The Bible never in any case calls the Holy Spirit a person, though it frequently does

both the Father andthe Son.

-Signs of the Times, Vol. 4, July 25, 1878

Respecting this Spirit[the Holy Spirit], the Bible uses expressions whichcannot be

harmonized with the idea that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shownto be *A DIVINE INFLUENCE[a thing]from them both Usually it is spoken of in a way

to show that it cannot be a person, like the Father and the Son If it were a person, it wouldbe nothing strange for it to appear in bodily shape [like a mans]; and yet when it has so

appeared, that fact has been noted as peculiar. Thus Luke 3:22 says: and the Holy Ghost

descended in a bodily shape like a dove.Uriah Smith, Review and Herald, Oct. 28, 1890

This viewpoint on the Holy Spirit dominated Adventist thought for very many years (as

the two quotes above, written several years apart, shows). Very many similarsentiments from early SDA pioneers could be furnished. It was the commonly held

viewpoint of basically the vast majority of the earliest SDA pioneers. Here it is plain

that it was never admitted that the Holy Spirit is a person, but simply a power, energyor influence from the Father and Son. In fact it would be unthinkable for Adventist

pioneers then to ever conceive of the Holy Spirit as a being worthy of being prayed to

as the Father and Son, since that would be an acceptance of his personhood like them,as well an acceptance of his equality with them. Only a Trinitarian, or one with

Trinitarian leanings would ever conceive of such a thing!! That was how earlyAdventists thought.

A MONUMENTAL CHANGE IN SDA VIEWPOINT ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

The following words are some of the most difficult ones that modern anti-Trinitariansconfront in the pre-1915 expressions of pioneering Adventism, and are usually avoided

like the plague. These quotes hardly, if ever, appear in their presentations, and theyhardly, if ever, are honestly analyzed, critiqued, and worse, are hardly, if ever, admitted

to or accepted. The one or two who ever face up to them usually either dismiss them,

gloss over them, try to lamely explain them away, or worse yet, try to discredit their

authenticity. Reading the words below, and allowing their true import to sink in willexplain why the modern anti-Trinitarians relate to them that way. These words

demonstrate very clearly such a monumental change in Adventist theology that only

plain dishonesty would not see them for what they really mean.

You are baptized inthe name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You areraised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life--to live a new life. You areborn unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power ofTHE THREE HOLIEST

*BEINGS IN HEAVEN, who are able to keep you from falling. You are to reveal that you

are dead to sin; your life is hid with Christ in God. Hidden "with Christ in God,"--wonderfultransformation. This is a most precious promise. When I feel oppressed, and hardly know

how to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, I just *CALL UPON THE

THREE GREAT WORTHIES,and say; You know I cannot do this work in my ownstrength. You must work in me, and by me and through me, sanctifying my tongue,

sanctifying my spirit, sanctifying my words, and bringing me into a position where my spirit

shall be susceptible to the movings of the Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and character.

And this is the prayer that every one of us may offer. . .


14/29

-E.G. White,Manuscript Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268 (Ms 95, 1906, pp. 8-12, 14-

17; "Lesson from Romans 15," October 20, 1906.)

When we have accepted Christ, and in thename [singular] of the Father, and the Son, and

of the Holy Spirithave pledged ourselves to *SERVE[see Joshua 24:14,15]God, the Father,

Christ AND [notice, thirdly and separately listed] the Holy Spiritthe Three Dignitaries and

Powers of Heavenpledgethemselves that even facility will be given us if we carry out our...

vows.-E.G. White, Manuscript 85, 1901


and be ye separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, andwill be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the LordAlmighty." [Now notice carefully] This isthe pledge of[not just one person, but]the



thing


The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a

distinct personality.

-E.G. White, Manuscript Release, Vol. 20, pg. 324

Now, remember that the earliest SDA expressions, for nearly fifty years (from

1844-1888), never ever gave consent to there being three persons of the Godhead.

Remember they never ever consented to the Holy Spirit being a personality, adistinct personality, much more being called the thirdof the three holiest

BEINGS in heaven. Seeing that one doesnt call upon a non-existent individual in

prayer, they never ever conceived of calling upon the Holy Spirit in prayer just

like the Father and Son (i.e. all together being seen as the three Great Worthies

deserving of that token of worship). They never ever considered that the HolySpirit should be servedlike Father and Son (and worse by humans pledging

to do so at their baptism). They never in the least ever considered the Holy SpiritPERSONAL enough to have equally pledged to receive and be a Father to us

after we are baptized. And worse, they never ever considered representing him as

speaking in unison with Father and Son as the Almighty and as God (or the

Godhead) who together says "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, . . .and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto

you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters.Yet, by the early 1900s this is what

Mrs. White, Adventisms leading pioneer, was now PLAINLY saying!!

Obviously any one of the Godhead persons whom we are born unto is a fatherto us, and we have must have their name to show their ownership of us. Mrs.White confessed that we are born unto God, and then explains elsewhere that it

is all three divine persons who are that Father to us (not just one Godhead

person), and it is in their name (singular) we are baptized. Conclusion? Thatsplain Trinitarianism in basic terms (except for the traditional indivisible

substance idea), and indicates a clear change or gradual development of thought

when one compares what earlier SDA pioneers were objecting to. Thats the truthof the matter. It is simply futile to run from it, somersault over it, or cover it up. Thiswriter/researcher thinks it is time the propaganda tactics of the modern anti-Trinitarians

in Adventism be shown up for what they really are. Futile!! But the key question is,

how did the SDA Church get to this place of teaching so much of what represents an


15/29

almost complete reversal of what was earlier believed about the Holy Spirit? The

following will give a brief peek into the transition that took place before 1915.

A TRANSITION PERIOD IN SDA VIEWS ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

In 1890, Uriah Smith (a leading SDA pioneer), in the earlier quoted article, was actually

directly responding to an Adventist question (probably from pioneer W.W. Westphal), which

asked: Are we [Adventists]to understand that the Holy Spirit is a person?The questioner

further went on to comment that, some [in Adventism] claim that it is, and others claim

that it is not, thus reflecting the searching and explorative nature of Adventism on this

question at the time. This reflected the early infant state of the Church at the time, where the

evidently differing viewpoints, as well as the gradual changes in viewpoints can be shown, asthe Church developed a more mature approach to controversial issues, such as the identity of

the Holy Spirit. Notice the differing, and yet open viewpoints, of two other pioneers, writing on

the same issue, before Mrs. Whites viewpoints came later:

Just what the Holy Spirit is, is a mooted question among theologians, and we may not hope

to give a positive answer, but we may learn something ofits nature and the part it acts in

human salvation.

-J.E. Swift- Our Companion, Review and Herald, July 3, 1883, pg.421

He [the Holy Spirit] is included in the apostolic benediction [2 Cor. 13:14], and is spoken

by our Lord[Jesus] asacting in an independent and personal capacity as Teacher, Guide

and Comforter.He is an object of veneration, and is a heavenly intelligence, everywherepresent, and is always present. But as limited beings, we cannot understand the problems,

which the contemplation of the Deitypresents, to our minds.

-G.C. Tenny- To Correspondents, Review and Herald, June 9, 1896, pg. 362

Notice that one writer emphasized the Spirit as an it, while the other emphasized theSpirit as a He, as well as His independent and personal capacity, and that He is an

object of veneration (i.e. WORSHIPFUL RESPECT) as a heavenly intelligence. And yet

both writers were pioneers living at the same time with Uriah Smith, and *writing in the

same magazine, the Review and Herald (now The Adventist Review).

It is therefore evident that up to this point (the late 1800s) there was still no real

consensus on this issue. But there was clearly a period of searching and exploration and

a greater leaning towards what the Spears Trinitarian article of 1889 (renamed andpublished as the Bible doctrine of the Trinity by SDA pioneers themselves) had

affirmed from 1892; that the Holy Spirit is indeed a personasGod is a person, and

though he personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality (in the words later expressed

by E.G. White herself)!! How much plainer can one get?

No wonder SDA pioneer R.A. Underwood, in 1898, while running a series of biblestudies on the topic The Holy Spiritis a Person, he HONESTLY and distinctly

admitted in Adventisms leading doctrinal paperthat (note the title of the article):

It seems strange to me now[in 1898], that I ever believed that the Holy Spirit was only an

influence, in view of the work He doeswe want the truth because it is truth, and we

reject error because it is error, regardless of any views we may formerly have held, orany difficulty we may have had, or may now have, when we view the Holy Spirit as aperson.Light is sown for the righteous. Satan's scheme is to destroy all faith in the

personality of the Godhead,the Father, Son, *AND Holy Ghost,also in his own


16/29

personality Let us beware lest Satan shall lead us to take the first step in destroying

our faith in the personality of this person of the Godhead,the Holy Ghost It wasonce hard for me to see how a spirit could be a person[but] Christ has put into the

field, as his personal representative, the Holy Ghost, who is in charge of all the forces

of God's kingdom to overthrow Satan and his angels; and the Holy Ghost is the only

one to whom is delegated this authority from God. "The prince of the power of evil canbe held in check only by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy

Spirit.""Special Testimony," No. 10, page 37. God and Christ have placed all theangels and the power of the throne of omnipotence under him [the Holy Spirit], to

overthrow the rebellion against God's government.-R.A. UnderwoodThe Holy Spirit a Person, Review and Herald, Vol. 75, May 17,

*1898, pg. 310

The above is more than a mouthful, coming long before 1915, and speaks volumes ofthe transitional viewpoints entering pioneering Adventism on this awesome subject

long before the death of Mrs. White in 1915. The transition took on momentum by the

first decade of the 1900s, as another striking 1900 quote below shows:

To receive the message of the Spirit is to receive the message of the Father and the Son. There

is something charmingly beautiful about their union. With exquisite delicacy of utterance does

Jesus declare the divine authority of his message, "The word which ye hear is not mine, but the

Father's which sent me;" and again, "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself."

He is ever in union with the Father, and came, really, that men might see the Father, and

know his love. So the Holy Spirit cherishes the same delicacy of spirit and expression. He is the

administrator, revealer, and guide of this age. And as such he must make himself known and

understood; but withal he does not speak from himself alone. He does not manifest himself as

apart from the Father and the Son; but as one with and sent by the Father and the Son.

He is here that he may make us know the things of Christ, and any nominal honor given to the

Spirit that does not really make known the character and things of Christ is a great grief to his

unassuming, dovelike nature. He would make us know his personality, but ever in living

connection with Christ. He abides in our hearts down here, while Christ Jesus is our Advocate

with the Father above; but he abides in us as Christ, making the very life that speaks and

works in Christ to also speak and work in us. Christ in you."

Let us not grow overbold concerning the Spirit alone; but remember that he is ever

with the Father and the Son, and that whatever he speaks to us he speaks as from

them; for it is written, "Whatsoever he hall hear, that shall he speak."Let him make

you know, beloved, howsurpassingly beautiful are the blended personalities of *ourtriune God, manifested by the personal presence of the Holy Ghost. To know him is to

know the Father and the Son, and these cannot be truly known and really honored

until we receive and know the Spirit; for no man can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy

Ghost.

-The Kings Messenger, *Blended Personalities, Review and Herald, Vol. 77, No. 14,

April 3, *1900, pg. 210

What a remarkable transition in pioneering SDA thought (!!), as connected to thegrowing acceptance of the Spirit as a distinct person, a third personality who helps to

comprise a threefold Eternal Godhead, so that by 1900 (as the above quote

irrefutably shows) SDA pioneers were publishing the pioneering use of the distinctTrinitarian expression our triune God; no doubt in the untraditional sense of the

three persons NOT making up one Being!! What a pre-1915 change!! So much so

thatby 1913, Adventisms leading writer and chief editor of Adventisms doctrinal


17/29

literature (a much respected man chosen by E.G. White herself to guard her estate after

she died; so he was no heretic) was able to say:

Seventh-day Adventists[not just myself]believe[now]in ... the Divine *TRINITY.

This Trinity consists of the Eternal Father the Lord Jesus Christ[and]the Holy

Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead-F. M. Wilcox (chief editor), *Review and Herald, October 9, 1913

We [Adventists] recognize the divine Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,

each possessing a distinct and separate personality, but one in nature and in purpose,

so welded together in this infinite union that the apostle James speaks of them as"one God." James 2:19.This divine unity is similar to the unity existing between

Christ and the believer, and between the different believers in their fellowship inChrist Jesus

- F.M. Wilcox, Christ is Very God, Review and Herald

Now, despite these pre-1915 realities, with even bona fide SDA pioneers publishing

and endorsing a known Trinitarian document by a known Presbyterian Trinitarian

minister (Samuel Spear) and they themselves renaming his article the Bible doctrineof the Trinity way back in 1892, thus indicating that SDA pioneers themselves felt that

there is a true version of the Trinity in the Bible, yet here are those in Adventism

today who use propaganda to mislead those who are either unlearnt or who wontresearch and think for themselves.

SMOKESCREEN TACTICS OF MODERN ANTI-TRINITRIANS AGAINST

THE SPIRITS PERSONHOOD

In order to cloud the issue, and mislead the unlearnt, many modern anti-Trinitarians in

Adventism today use several tactics (unwittingly though) to escape from, cover up, ordivert people from seeing the real truth about the Holy Spirit as later understood by

SDA pioneers themselves before 1915 (when Mrs. White died). Here are some of their

chief tactics:

a] they quote profusely the earlier thoughts of SDA pioneers before the post-1892 andpre-1915 transitional viewpoints on the Holy Spirit entered Adventism in order to

overwhelm the reader with the idea that seeing the Holy Spirit as a person, and

individual, is a falsehood. Coupled with this they appeal to the it references related tothe Spirit, usually forgetting themselves that human infants (living beings) are

acceptably called it, that the human soul (the whole human being) is called it in

Ezekiel 18:4, that demons (personal spirit beings) are called it e.g. in Lk. 9:39-42,

and that even Jesus, depicted as the Lamb in Rev. 5:6, is called it in that context.

Clearly they dont see that this is a straw man argument about the Spirit being called

it even when considered a personality.

b] they explain away the later changed (pre-1915) views of the pioneers, and usually do

so by denying or twisting what the dictionary defines certain key words to mean ,

i.e. words such as trio(a synonym for trinity as a simple noun), person,

personality, beings, and three. They are usually seen engaging in much cultic-

type redefinition of terms, semantic hop scotching and doctrinal somersaulting, with the

result more confusing that they themselves realize

c] they appeal to the E.G. White statements about Lucifer being next to Christ in

authority, about Jesus being the only being who could enter into counsel with God the

Father, and about the Spirit being described as Jesus Himself our Comforter. Yet they


18/29

never stop long enough to see the various possible and other logical ways (not just their

way) these statements could be understood/resolved without doing injustice to Mrs.

White LATER presenting the Holy Spirit as being one of the threehighest authorities

ofheaven (i.e. being among the three comprising the Eternal Godhead), or better

yet, as being one of the three holiest beings inHeaven whom she called upon in

prayer (you dont call upon a non-existent individual in prayer , I remind you), and

about whom she also confessed that though he personifies Christ yet is a distinct

personality, and hence she stated categorically that there are three holiest beings in

heaven; not just two. Obviously for many of the modern SDA anti-Trinitarians their

definition of the words beingsand threeis different from what the dictionaryreally says. And obviously too they would want us to think that Lucifer (before sinning)

was the third of the three holiest beingsin heaven or was the third of the three

highest authorities of heaven; not the Holy Spirit who alone could be the third of

the three eternalheavenly dignitaries (see Heb. 9:14). How blasphemous a notion!!

Who knows whether or not this notion by modern SDA anti-Trinitarians -- of Lucifer

being considered the third highest being in heaven-- is not integrally part of what the

omega heresies were predicted by Mrs. White to be about? More on the omegaheresies later. But suffice it to say here (in response to that notion), that if (according

to the SDA pioneers themselves) Jesus was equal in all respects and one inauthority with the Father (an authority obviously shared by their

Representative Holy Spirit), then it was Lucifer who was really second to or

next in authority to the Eternal Godhead, or the Great threefold Power (as

Mrs. White so succinctly phrased it); not Jesus being next in authority to theFather at all at all!!

d] they appeal to the views of a few SDA pioneers, like Willie White (son of E.G.

White), who, after 1915, chose to hold on to the old SDA viewpoint about the HolySpirit (i.e. him being a personality without individuality) without recognizing that

differing viewpoints in themselves prove nothing really, if the facts are always

collectively and objectively looked at by the careful reader and deep thinker. Willie

White himself, as an old timer in some viewpoints, admitted (in a famous but much

misused letter) about being perplexedover much of his mothersutterances on theHoly Spirit (undoubtedly as it concerns her utterances in the later years leading up to

her death), and he also admitted that he was not able himself to clearly say what were

his mothers views on the personality of the Spirit. So how can people quote Willie

White as if he is an expert or authority on his mothers utterances on the subject

when he himself admitted his perplexities and lack of understanding regarding herteachings in the area? How ironic. One can easily see what would have perplexed

Willie White in him trying to hold on to the older pioneering views about the

impersonal Spirit, and then confronting perplexing statements from his mother, like

her calling upon the Spirit in prayer (alongside the Father and Son), etc. And I repeat:

you dont call upon a non-existent individual in prayer. Period!!

e] they appeal to the omega heresy prediction of Mrs. White, and interpret it to meanthat to accept the Holy Spirit as part of a trinity is fulfillment of that prophecy, and they

usuallypoint to Dr Kelloggs intermingling of pantheism and a belief in the distinct

personhood of the Godhead as a model of heresy on the issue. They however never stopto realize that Trinitarian sentiments (especially since the Spears article) were already

being published in Adventism (since 1892) several years beforeKelloggs heresies of

1903 (and without any condemnation from Mrs. White), hence to admit to a trinity

could not be the omega coming beforethe alpha heresies of Kellogg (a rather

illogical notion, if you ask me). In addition, they failed to recognize that, firstly, Mrs.

White admitted that Kelloggs viewpoints had some truths mixed with falsehood, and,

secondly, that Mrs. White herselfnamedpantheismas what was wrong with


19/29

Kelloggs theories. She nevernamedtrinitarianism as the problem (!!), nor did she

denounce his view on the separate personhood of the Spirit as the problem; contrary to

what some want us to think. In addition they appeal to the fact that several mainstreamAdventist writers/theologians have recently been actually teaching a faulty version of a

Godhead trinitythat of three independently self-originate, role-playing Godhead

beings (only acting as Father and Son)- and then they give the impression that to

correctly reject this falsehood (as even this writer has done himself) means that allconcepts of a trinity must be faulty; not realizing that one can in fact correctly accept a

relationship-based trinity ofthree holiestbeingsin heavenwith the Father as the

Source and Head of both the Son and Spirit themselves from all eternity, and yet all

three must be served in the one Godhead union as Mrs. White instructstrue

Adventists to do.

f] they usually try to say that because Mrs. White says whatthe Spirit is must be

considered a mystery then whohe is, i.e. his identity as the third of three holiest

beings in heaven, is also unknown and unknowable, without realizing how faulty thisapproach is (especially in light of her also saying whatGod the Father is must also

be considered a mystery as well; not whohe is). Many of these dissidents fail to see

the faulty logic in their argument that, according to them, we cannot prove that theSpirit is a person (i.e. an individual) like Father and Son, based on the notion that notmuch is revealed. Yet, upon the same body of evidence, it could be said they

themselves cannot irrefutably prove that the Spirit is not a person like the Father and

Son, since so much (both from the Bible, as well as from E.G. White writings) stronglysuggest otherwise!!

We [Adventists] need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a Person *AS [i.e. insame way that]God is a person (!!) is walking through these groundsHe hears every word

we utter, and knows every thought of every mind-E.G. White- Manuscript Release, Vol. 7, pg. 299 (from an 1899 speech at Avondale

College)

Mrs. White stated categorically, upon her belief in what the Bible itself teaches, that theSpirit is a person asGod is a person, and so concluded logically that he is the

third ofthreeholiest beings in heaven itself. That is plain English! What more do

you need?

g] they appeal to the Bible being silent on the Holy Spirit in some things, as if it is

evidence against his personhood, and yet fail to see that there could be otherpossibilities for this silence; and not any indication of a denial of his distinct

personhood. They forget that the Old Testament, for instance, was largely (not

completely) silent on the later revealed Son of God who was there with the Father all

along, with no real Old Testament emphasis on a duo (only on the Father) until after

Jesus incarnation (accounting for why so many Jews today never see the Godhead asbeing more than one person), and yet this was no denial of Jesus being a distinct

personality from the Father from all eternity. The same could be said about the Holy

Spirit today as it concerns the New Testament not placing as much emphasis on Him ason the Father and Son, and yet this means no denial of his distinct personhood as

(according to Mrs. White) one of the eternal heavenly dignitaries (note the words

eternal and dignitaries, and allow their significance to sink in).

h] Finally, they also appeal to the fact that the Holy Spirit (in relation to God theFather) is presented metaphorically in the Bible as the mind of God, as His presence, as

the hand of the Lord, as the finger of God, and is also compared to the inseparable

union between a human person and his spirit, and argues that this means that likewise


20/29

Gods Spirit cannot be separate as a person from God the Father, while forgetting that

even Jesus is presented metaphorically as the logos (reason), wisdom, and power of

God, also as the arm of the Lord (things not usually separate from a person), and yetJesus is a distinct personality from the Father; distinct enough to be sent to represent

Him, and later sit at his right hand, just as the Spirit is also distinct enough to be also

sent to represent them both, and is also depicted as the seven fold Spirit BEFORE

His throne who sends greetings to the Church separately and equally along with theFather and Son (see Rev. 1:4,5). Obviously they forget that a Sent (or distinct

representative) and the Sender could never ever be the same being or person.Period!! In addition, some argue, rather lamely, I might add, that the Spirit could not beanother person representing Father and Son; otherwise, (as they argue) they would have

lied when they said we [Father and Son] will come to you, and make our abode with

you. This is so short-sighted, since they forget that in many things the Father is said

to have done Himself, and will do Himself he has distinctly done (and will do)

it through Jesus as His representative. Prime examples include the Bible saying

that God by Himself created the universe (Is. 44; 24), and that God will beJudge Himself (Ps. 50:3-6), and yet the Father accomplished and will

accomplish these through Jesus His VISIBLE representative in the Godhead.

Was he lying then? Certainly not!! Just as he is not lying when He represents

Himself INVISIBLY everywhere by another Godhead person in the form of theHoly Spirit, the third of the three holiest beings in Heaven, and yet God the

Father (as well as the Son) is effectively said to be present everywhere just the

same. Thats because that is precisely how the Godhead operates in a sort ofoneness of operation. The presence of one sent person is effectively

representative of the other two in the group of three as if the Sender Himself is

in action, and the action of one person of the Godhead is, in many instances,deemed to be the action of all three acting as one. No wonder, despite the humanJesus did not literally raise Himself from the dead (his Father in Heaven through the

Spirit here on earth literally did do), and yet Jesus represents it as akin to He raising

Himself , as if he did it by Himself (Iwill raise it up he distinctly said about His

body). Amazing!! Thats the truth of the Godhead so many stumble and fall over!!

REFUTING MODERN ANTI-TRINITARIAN ARGUMENTS AGAINST THESPIRIT

Let me point out here that no one presentation could ever address (at once) all of the

arguments against the Holy Spirits identity, and so to avoid too much volume andbulk-arguments here I am recommending the following separate articles and

manuscripts by this researcher, which can be had upon request by e-mailing me at

[email protected] by calling (876) 539-4734 or 385-5982. Also, I am

recommending the following web-link where one could access online some of thearticles indicated belowClick here.

a] Who Only is One with and Enters into Counsel With God?

b] Who Only is to be Exalted?

c] The Holy Spirits Identity Aint No Mystery

d] The Truth About the Heavenly Greetings in Rev. 1:4,5

e] The Omega Heresy in Adventism
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scribd.com/people/documents/24829138-ddgillihttp://www.scribd.com/people/documents/24829138-ddgillihttp://www.scribd.com/people/documents/24829138-ddgillihttp://www.scribd.com/people/documents/24829138-ddgillimailto:[email protected]


21/29

f] Binitarian and semi-Arian Flaws

g] Did the Papacy Invent the Trinity?

h] Critiquing Willie Whites Letter on the Holy Spirit

i] Did Kelloggs Aplha Heresy Reject the Spirits Identity?

j] The Truth about the Holy Spirit

k] The Holy Spirit is Separate from Christ

Some today say that the Adventist Church was never divided on this issue before or after 1888.

Only dishonesty, or a morbid desire to paint the perfect picture of a perfect pioneering

Church, would fail to see that full unity in 1888 was not yet achieved on all Godhead issues.

Even up to that point, in 1888, the issue of the personhood of the Holy Spirit was not yet asettled issue in Adventism, contrary to what some today claim. But note evidence below of

changing views of SDA pioneers themselves by the late 1890s.

It seems strange to me now[in 1898],that I ever believed that the Holy Spirit was only an

influence, in view of the work He does

-R.A. UnderwoodThe Holy Spirit a Person, Review and Herald, Vol. 75,

May 17, *1898, pg. 310

We [Adventists] need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a Person *AS [i.e. insame way that]God is a Person (!!) is walking through these groundsHe hears every word

we utter, and knows every thought of every mind-E.G. White- Manuscript Release, Vol. 7, pg. 299 (from an 1899 speech at Avondale

College)

God is one [person]. Jesus Christ is one [i.e. another person]. The Holy Spirit is one [the

third person of three]. Andthese three are one: there is no dissent nor division among them.-A. T. Jones,Review and Herald, January 10, 1899, 24

Mrs. White and the certain key pioneers (e.g. G.C. Tenny, R.A. Underwood, and A.T. Jones,just to name a few) were among those breaking with past thinking; and declaring the Holy

Spirits personhood and personal independence, even though He was still seen as

inseparably linked to the Father and the Son. But the transition went even further. Why else

would Mrs. White state categorically (after 1890) the following?

The Holy SpiritHAS[note has]a PERSONALITY HeMUST ALSO BE A DIVINEPERSON[seems clear enough].

Evangelism, pg. 615, excerpted from a *1905 manuscript

There is a clear difference between saying something[the Spirit] is thepersonality (or expression) of another, and in saying that*someone [the Holy Spirit]hasapersonality[of His own], simply because He is a divine person. The latter expression

is clearly what Mrs. White emphasized, by even saying though the Spirit personifiesChrist, yet is a distinct personality, so much so that there are three living[literal]

personalitiesin the Godhead, or three holiestbeings existing IN HEAVENitself,


22/29

who can ALL be called upon in prayer. Oh how sad it is when someone will twist and

deny these clear meanings, and lead others astray!!

Notice carefully:

The Comforter that Christ promised tosendafter He ascended to Heaven is the Spirit in allthe fullness of the Godhead[compare Col. 2:9].There arethree LIVING[i.e. literal]personalities[persons]of the Heavenly Trio[group of three persons].

- E.G. White, Evangelism, pg. 615, excerpted from a *1905 manuscript

Clearly Mrs. White could not be teaching that Christ can SEND himself (that would be

absurd), and so notice how far Mrs. White was prepared to lead the SDA Church regarding the

personhood of the Holy Spirit, after her 1898 affirmation that the Holy Spirit was SENT as

thethirdPersonof the Godhead; a Godhead consisting of THREE holiest BEINGS.

Despite writing metaphorically (and understandably so) at times as ifthe Spirit is literally

Christ Himself, she was so pointed in saying in one place that the Spirit personifies Christ,

yet is a distinct personalitythat it became clear that the Spirit is not just apersonality of

the Father and Son, but his own person!! Period!! No wonder pioneer Robert Hare made it

clear by 1909 that:

There is a trinity, and in it there are three personalitiesWe have the Father described inDan. 7:9, 10a personality surelyIn Rev. 1:13-18 we have the Son described. He is also a

personality The Holy Spirit is spoken of throughout Scripture as a personality. These

divine persons are associated in the work of GodButthis union is not one in which

individuality is lostThere is indeeda divine trio, but the Christ of that Trinity is not acreated being as the angels-He was the only begotten of the Father

- Robert Hare, Australasian Union Conference Record, July 19, 1909

Notice VERY carefully that pioneer Robert Hare never sought to say (like some pioneers were

saying at the time) that the individuality of the Holy Spiritis lost when one considers the

Godhead union (a union which he legitimately calls BOTH a trinity and a trio, as all unbiasedEnglish dictionaries do also), but he spoke of all three in the context of their being united just

as the Church is (i.e. separate members are involved). This means that it proves nothing really

if the differing views of other pioneers be appealed to who say the Spirit has no individuality inthe Godhead (a contradiction in terms if you ask me). It is the weight of evidence looked at

objectively which matters; not necessarily what some thought/think in contradiction to the

clear evidence.

In must be said that while some today, unwittingly, play games and semantic

hopscotch with the words person(being) and personality, the same *cannot be done

with some words and expressions used by Mrs. White as it relates to the Holy Spirit: i.e.

he being one of the three holiestbeings in heaven, and one of the three eternalheavenly

dignitaries, and her explaining that the Spiritpersonifies Christ, yet isa distinctpersonalityas Hisrepresentative(ever remembering that a representative CANNOT beliterally the same person as the one who sends that representative!!). In addition it is a

difficult thing to explain away the fact that Mrs. White prayed to the Holy Spirit, and she

saw Him as equally pledging to receive and be a Fatherto us as both the Father and Son

did, and then that we in turn must pledge to serveall three (a matter modern SDA anti-

Trinitarians have not yet pledged themselves to do, it seems). That is how Mrs. White

truly saw the Holy Spirit after 1888, i.e. one SENT to act or One given to act in Christsplace, that is, afterPacific Press proclaimed the constituent persons of EternalGodhead, by endorsing Dr. Samuel Spears Trinitarian tract in 1892. And remember it is

the most ridiculous thing to be intimating that either Christ or the Father sendthemselves as the one being of the Spirit. The Adventist Church therefore had a firm


23/29

foundation on which to gradually fully formulate its new doctrine on the Holy Spirit, that is,

after 1892 when it was made clear to those agreeing.

Thus in 1915, A.G. Daniels, the then General Conference President (who served for 21years), could then officially declare, at Mrs. White funeral service, that in her teachings:

The Holy Spirit, thethird *PERSONofthe Godhead, and Christs Representative on earth,

is set forth [by her] and *exalted[venerated] as the Heavenly Teacher and Guide sent to thisworld by our Lord[Notice the repeated use of the words the Third Person of the

Godhead]

-A.G. DanielsReview & Herald, August 5, 1915(as reported by F.M. Wilcox, another pioneer, in Testimony of Jesus, 1934, pg.43)

Why could this long-standing pioneer and G.C. President of S.D.A.s be now so bold and reject,for instance, Uriah Smiths view of Him not being a person? All he was doing was echoing

Mrs. Whites confessions; what many in Adventism had been resisting even just before andeven after her death (even today).

Some today in Adventism, make much ado about their description of the Holy

Spirits nature, nailing it down to either the extension of the Father, or the split

personality of the Father and the Sonall the while usurping and denying the counsels of

Mrs. White on this matter. Clearly we are not left to speculate about whothe Holy Sprit

isHe is thethirdpersonof the Godhead; He is One givenasChrists Representative

on earth; He is the Comforter; He is one of the three living[literal] personalities of the

Heavenly Trio; He is one of the Eternal Heavenly Dignitaries; and He is one of thethree holiest beingsorthe three Highest Authorities in Heaven itself. That was Mrs.Whites testimony about who the Holy Sprit is. So the Spirits identity as a distinct

personality in heaven itself is no mystery at all, as some make out; only what he is(just like God Himself)!! Remember that identity mean the individual characteristics

by which a thing or person is recognized or known or the distinct personality of an

individual regarded as a persisting entity. This is WHO the Spirit is in identity!!

Thats why he can benumbered as third.However, concerning whatHe iswhether an extension, or split personality, or

projection of the Father, or transported energy[of the Father and Son], like a telephoneconnectionall are speculations failing to accept Mrs. Whites plain counsels stating that:

It is not essential for us to be able to define just*WHAT[not who, but what] the Holy

Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, whichproceedeth from the Father. It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, inHis workguiding men into all truth, Heshall not speak of Himself (John 15:26; 16:13). The nature of

the Holy Spirit is a MYSTERY. Men cannot explain it[the nature]. Many having fanciful views

may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the

acceptance of these views will not strengthen the Church. Regarding such MYSTERIES, which

are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. The office of the Holy Sprit isdistinctly specified in the words of Christ: [declaring who He is] WhenHe is come; He will

reprove the world of sin He shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you [He shall

speak what He hears, clearly from the Father and Jesus- John 16:13,14].

-E.G. White, Acts of the Apostles, pgs. 51,52

This was the same conviction, and testimony of pioneer, G.C. Tenny, in the 1896Review

and Herald, that is, accepting the same problemsrelated to the Spirits nature, in

contemplatingthe Deity. He was content like Mrs. White, to accept whomthe Spirit is, butleft, unmolested, the subject ofwhatHe is, preferring rightly to see it a mystery.


24/29

Some who found out that they may just have been wrong about the Holy Spirit, when confronted

with the force of the alreadyestablished truth in Adventism about the Holy Spirit's identity as the"third" of "three holiest beings of heaven", find it too humbling to admit to, and so they pass it off

as being a truth not as important as accepting that Jesus is the real and literal Son of the Father,

who was really begotten from all eternity. This betrays an equally potent heresy (as denying that

Jesus is really the begotten Son of the Father), because an important truth that is alreadyestablished about a Godhead person is being DENIED and downplayed in favor of another truth.

How ironic, and how sad, because servants who wish to have "no guile in their mouths", find

themselves falling prey to the same "father of lies" who deceived many into thinking that Jesus isnot a real Son of the Father in the "begotten" sense"!! Yet, if the purity of the truth about Jesus

being the literal Son of the Father, as a separate being, is to be preserved it must relate to the fact

that he and the Father CANNOT be the same being at the same time as the Holy Spirit. The truthabout Jesus and the Father being separate beings can only be truly preserved if they are

"represented" by the Holy Spirit as a "third" separate being.Why?Because if the Holy Spirit is

simply the literal being and literal presence of both the Father and Son at the same time, then the

only inescapable conclusion is that they in fact are not separate beings, but are literally "blended"together even more than conjoined Siamese twins, in order to own the same literal presence and

being at the same time. This literal "blending" of being/identities is what both the traditional

Trinity teaches, as well as (ironically) the teaching of those SDA anti-Trinitarians who deny that the

Holy Spirit is a third representative being of the Godhead.

SUMMARY:

We see clearly in the Bible that:

a] If the Holy Spirit is owned by both the Father and the Son *at the same time, and Scripture is replete

with the Holy Spirit being depic

Answering the Best Anti-trintarians in Adventism

Documents