1 INDISPUTABLE FACTS ABOUT THE TRINITY DOCTRINE IN ADVENTISM!! (SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT) By Derrick D. Gillespie *Edited & Updated in August, 2011 ―The only true anti-Trinitarian is one who rejects the ‗trio‘ of personalities existing in, and operating within the Godhead, and teaches that the Holy Spirit is a force‖ -Anonymous
See what the minority anti-Trinitarians in SD Adventism will have to fully refute about Adventism's history before they can ever be considered as lights to lead the blind and misguided!!
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
INDISPUTABLE
FACTS ABOUT THE
TRINITY
DOCTRINE IN
ADVENTISM!!
(SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT)
By Derrick D. Gillespie
*Edited & Updated in August, 2011
―The only true anti-Trinitarian is one who rejects the
‗trio‘ of personalities existing in, and operating within
the Godhead, and teaches that the Holy Spirit is a force‖
-Anonymous
2
AUTHOR‟S FOREWORD
Did you know that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was not always officially
Trinitarian in doctrine? Why is it a Trinitarian church today, which believes in a trinity in
the Godhead? Here is your chance to know why.
Dear reader, this writer believes that if you are an Adventist (S.D.A.), this may just be
one of the most important researches you may ever read about your church‘s doctrinal heritage.
The real background to the S.D.A. Church‘s historical and doctrinal heritage is too often ignored,
and while I believe it is, for the most part, an ‗unexplored frontier‘ for most Adventists, yet it
can, and does provide an interesting adventure into the past.
Too often, the doctrines of the church are taken for granted, and are believed by too many
in the church to have been easily arrived at or effortlessly ‗hammered out‘. However, this
historical research draws back the curtain to show some rather interesting twists and
controversial turns in the pioneering history of the Adventist Church, as it concerns the
“Godhead” doctrine (of a trinity in the Godhead).
I am a Jamaican History/Social Science (and Geography) teacher by profession, and believes my
God-given expertise (as an Adventist) lies in this area; thus the reason for my special interest in
historical matters, and especially in this area of our Adventist background.
Now, I dare you to look behind the historical curtain and see how Adventism became a
Trinitarian church. This presentation may just serve as a means of strengthening your faith in
Adventism, or it may just open the door to more controversy, a controversy that is presently
ongoing within the Church, regarding the subject of the Trinity doctrine. This very subject has
been causing division within the ranks of Adventism for a while now, and it is time that the
church confronts the issues of contention squarely.
Some may ignore this research; some may read it for information, while some may just
read it with a view to finding fault with it. However, whatever may be your motivation for
reading this research, as an Adventist (or non-Adventist), you are advised not to put away, and or
disregard this research, until you have exposed yourself to its‘ critical findings. I believe you will
be the better for it. God bless you as you read. Always, however, keep this thought in mind as
you read:
―The only true anti-Trinitarian is one who rejects the ‗trio‘ of personalities existing in, and
operating within the Godhead, and teaches that the Holy Spirit is a force‖ [this fact the
Watchtower‘s, ‗Jehovah‘s Witnesses‘ know to be very true].
-Anonymous
From Author,
Derrick Gillespie
Munro College P.O., St Elizabeth, Jamaica, West Indies
Obviously the Waggoner and Jones‘ use of the controversial Trinitarian expression ―of one
substance‖ was used to show that Christ and the Father are exactly alike in substance as
separate beings; not that they are one Being as traditional Trinitarians explain.
The Nicene Creed went on to state that the Church should see as accursed anyone who believes
that Jesus is of a different or unlike substance from the Father, or who believes that Jesus is not
from all eternity as a distinct person, simply because He was begotten. Did Mrs. White condemn
this belief or ideas resembling this statement of belief? I am yet to see evidence anywhere in all
of her writings to that effect. Her never mentioning or naming even once the trinity (in all of her
writings), to speak against it, speaks volumes. Let us now turn to her endorsement of, and
expansions made on the 1888 Message.
LANDMARK No.3: E.G. White‟s Endorsement of, and
Parallel Statements to the 1888 Message
For those who may be in doubt, regarding the real place that Jesus occupies in the
minds of Adventists (since 1888), as the Son of God, here now is the real confession of what
true Adventism today believes:
“Christ Himself was the Lord of the temple [see Is. 6:1-5]. When He should leave it, its glory
would depart- that glory once visible in the holy of holies over the mercy seat…This was the
Skekinah, the visible pavilion of Jehovah. It was this glory [notice, in a scene in heaven, not
on earth] that was revealed to Isaiah when he says, „In the year that King Uzziah died I saw
also the *Lord [Christ Himself] sitting upon a throne high and lifted up‟…”
E.G. White, Manuscript 71, 1897
Some read the description of Isaiah‘s vision of Jehovah, in Isaiah 6:1-5, and 8, in which
the Person on the throne is worshipped, or of whom the angels cry, ―Holy, Holy, Holy, is the
LORD [Jehovah]‖, and they feel this can only apply to the Father of Jesus. However, both the
17
apostle John (John 12:36-42), and Mrs. White in Adventism, testified to the truth of the
unity of its application to Jesus as well as to the Father (who are both represented by the
personality of the Holy Spirit) despite they are separate Persons or Personalities. If that
was not so, then the Father would not be our ―Lord‖ (Acts 17:24), but only Jesus, the ―one
Lord‖ (1 Cor. 8:6), and Jesus could not be called our ―God‖ (John 20:28, 29), but only the
Father, the ―one God‖. It is their “oneness” which solves the problem. That is what the unity
of the Persons in the Godhead, and their total co-equality is all about, in terms of rank, authority,
dignity, and glory, despite their distinction, or ‗separateness‘ of personality. Ever wonder why no
Old Testament scene of the throne room in heaven ever shows two, or three divine thrones
(always just one), and never shows visibly three, or even two beings of the Godhead on the one
throne… despite we now know that more than one divine person/being was there all along? The
unity of the three persons are of such that the Bible depicts ONLY one seat/throne of divine
authority (Rev. 3:21), and we see only Jesus tangibly and visibly manifesting the invisible
Godhead of the personal Father and His personal Spirit…despite admittedly they are all
distinct persons.
Now, despite certain weaknesses in the original/traditional explanation, only the
doctrine of the Trinity has, historically, accepted all the truths of the ―1888‖ Message; not
Arianism, not semi-Arianism, and not Unitarianism- all of which placed Jesus *below the
Father‘s rank and authority. Those who proclaim otherwise have simply ‗invented‘ the historical
facts, or are ignorant of the real facts.
In truth, Jesus is equal with the Father in all His authority and rank, as His ―only
begotten Son‖, not ―next‖ in rank or authority, ―because He was given all things‖, as was
unfortunately stated by James White (a leading SDA pioneer) before he died in 1881 (Review
and Herald, Jan. 4, 1881).
Now, concerning the co-equal Son of God, Mrs. White (James White‘s own wife), in
repudiation of her husband‘s earlier view on the matter, later declared, in no uncertain manner in
1895, that which was initially established by Jones and Waggoner in 1888 (years after James
White‘s death), that:
“God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son – not a son by creation, as
were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the
express image of the Father‟s Person, and in all the brightness of His majesty and glory, One
equal with God*IN AUTHORITY, [notice] DIGNITY [i.e. rank, office, title], and divine
perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”.
-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895
Clearly this is a basic premise of the Trinitarian ‗Nicene‘ Creed, and thus in 1899 she
naturally expanded on this thought by stating distinctly, for the very first time, the following,
which, before 1888 and 1892, would have been resisted by most in Adventism:
“The *Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and [now notice] the Father, the Son *and
the Holy Spirit gave themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order to fully
carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, should give himself
an offering for sin.”
-E.G. White, Counsels on Health, pg.222 (from an *1899 manuscript)
18
Now dear reader, if you search all of ‗Spirit of Prophecy‘ writings it will be realized that it was
only after 1888 and indeed especially after 1892 and that Mrs. White started to use the
term, ―the Godhead‖ TO MEAN THE ―THREE PERSONS‖, FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT! A careful analysis of the years of her ―Trio‖ statements will also reveal this fact. The year 1888
saw her publishing the monumental book, “The Great Controversy”, in which she had already
stated that, “The Son of God was the acknowledged *Sovereign [supreme ruler] of Heaven, one
[equal, united] in power and AUTHORITY with the Father” (G.C., pg. 494), but only in the
years subsequent to 1888 did she start to clearly pen the concept of ―three persons‖ of/in
the ―Eternal Godhead‖. What are we to make of this?
1. This was simply the logical aftermath of 1888, and the 1892 Trinitarian tract
2. This simply means that A.J. Dennis‘ recorded objection (as a pioneer, in 1879), to the
―Godhead‖ having, “three persons” united, and them being “of one substance [and],
one power” (as quoted earlier), was now repudiated by Mrs. White (his pioneering
colleague), despite the oneness of substance of the Godhead was explained in the
non-traditional sense to mean personal beings united; not one invisible substance or
Being.
3. This also means that the following recent statement by David Clayton (a Jamaican),
another anti-Trinitarian of somewhat an ‗Adventist‘ orientation, needs to be re-
examined by him:
“When all the evidence is examined and assessed in a reasonable and logical way it is
evident that Michael [Christ] is NOT EQUAL TO GOD *IN AUTHORITY, though he is
Lord of the angels and superior to them” [clearly contradicting Mrs. White]
-David Clayton, ―Paradox of Michael‖, Open Face, No. 16, July 2000, back page
Mrs. White (whom he upholds), after years of uncertainty in early Adventist thinking,
clearly stated the official Adventist position. She, on the contrary, stated that:
“The world‟s Redeemer was equal with God. His authority was AS [to the same amount,
nature or degree as] the authority of God… The authority by which He spoke and
wrought miracles [while on earth], was expressedly *His own, yet He assures us that He
and the Father are one… As Legislator [Lawgiver], Jesus exercised the authority of
God”.
-E.G. White, Review and Herald, Jan. 7, 1890
4. This means that Jesus was now (after 1888) seen as, notice, “one in power and
authority with the Father”, simply because He was now accepted as being, “of one
substance with the Father”, but not together forming one Being (if any would think
this is what it automatically means).
19
All of this was the aftermath of Mrs. White clearly expressing her endorsement of the Waggoner
and Jones 1888 Message, and giving deeper insights into the issues presented, in the face of
resistance and mixed reactions within the Adventist Church at the time.
Note her words carefully in the following series of quotes, as she made it clear what happened
in 1888. Was the message just about the Law and Christ‘ righteousness?
Mrs. White‟s Testimony about 1888
Among the main intentions of Waggoner and Jones, in 1888, was that of establishing the
naturally inherited co-equality of Jesus with the Father. If that was not an indication that too
many in Adventism before 1888 failed to see it that way, then the widespread resistance to the
message would be unexplainable, the following quote from Waggoner would be irrelevant and
pointless, along with the endorsements of Mrs. White which will follow:
“Our object in this investigation is to set forth Christ‟s RIGHTFUL position of EQUALITY
with the Father, in order that his power to redeem may be better appreciated”.
-E.J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, 1890, pages 19-22
Those were his exact words as he and Jones set about to give Biblical truths, notice, in their
“investigation” to “set forth Christ‟s rightful position of equality with the Father.” This was
because, as Mrs. White‘s own words will now reveal, “many” (not all) in Adventism did not
present Christ in relation to the law in that light before. Inserts and emphases mine.
―That which God gives his servants [Waggoner and Jones] to speak today would perhaps NOT
have been present truth twenty years ago [i.e. up to 1868] but is God‘s message for the time‖
[thus this was a new development].
-E.G. White, Manuscript 8,1888
―You say, many [not all] of you, it [Waggoner and Jones‘ message] is light and truth [present
truth]. Yet you [many of you] have NOT presented it *IN THIS LIGHT HERETOFORE
[before]”.
-E.G. White, Manuscript 15, 1888
Notice she was endorsing their “investigation” into *ALSO proving the full “equality” of
Christ with the Father, which was not presented by ―many‖ before. Why “set forth” and why
“investigate” what was already accepted by all from the beginning (as some falsely argue
today), or was already “present truth” long before 1888? That argumentation by some makes
no sense and is a vain anti-Trinitarian attempt to clutch at straws. However, notice E.G. White
capturing the essence of this new development among SD Adventists:
―The fullness of the Godhead in Jesus has been *SET FORTH [same words of Waggoner]
among us with beauty and loveliness…we know that God has wrought among us.”
-E.G. White, Letter dated, June 17, 1889
20
*Notice what she thought was the ‗cream‘, or real essence of their presentation- “the fullness of
the Godhead in Jesus”; thus His “equality with the Father” ―in all respects‖
(thus his co-equality) was “set forth”.
Now, was this only a repetition of what all Adventists had accepted before? Well, Mrs.
White‘s own words give the answer (from the same letter quoted above):
‗It [Waggoner and Jones‘ message] was the first clear teaching on this subject [Jesus‘ full
Deity and power to redeem] from any human lips [including other pioneers] I had heard,
excepting the [private] conversations between myself and my husband‖ [remember James
White died in 1881, seven years before the 1888 Conference]. ---
-E.G. White, ibid
What were others saying, before 1888, about Jesus‘ position in Heaven with the Father? Note
E.J. Waggoner‘s own father saying what he labored to refute in 1888:
*―We cannot believe what men say about his [Jesus] being co-equal [i.e. fully equal] with God
in every [all] respect…‖
- J.H. Waggoner. The Atonement, 1872, pg. 108
That was early and standard belief among early SDA pioneers. Then came these two men (E.J.
Waggoner and A.T. Jones) to proclaim that Jesus is not unequal with the Father, not even in the
least iota!! Fancy that!! This was a marked development!! No wonder the widespread
resistance and rejection even by some. Could it be possible that E.J. Waggoner‘s father was
among those who Mrs. White referred to after the 1888 Conference, when she said the
following?
―All the evidence produced they decide [those disagreeing] shall not weigh a straw
with them and they tell others the doctrine is not true [showing disunity], and afterward when
they see as light, evidence they were so forward to condemn, they have too much pride to say I
was wrong; they cherish doubt and unbelief, and are too proud to acknowledge their
convictions.‖
-E.G. White, Manuscript 15, 1888
Some today say that what the pioneers resisted (or were not ready for) was only the truth that
the commandments could not save them, or probably they disliked the manner and accusative
spirit in which Waggoner and Jones presented the “righteousness” of Christ. However, only
certain anti-Trinitarians within Adventism today will grope for this rather unconvincing
explanation as the *only reason why some (not all) rejected the 1888 message. The closing
quotes from Mrs. White, on this 1888 Conference, speaks volumes, and give certain clues about
the issues directly related to the truth about Him who was effectively “God manifested in the
flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16); whose full equality with the Father is as important to believe and
accept as His saving righteousness (the two truths are inseparable).
―I have been shown that Christ will reveal to us precious OLD TRUTHS in A
NEW [revised] LIGHT, if we are ready to receive them‖ -E.G. white, Ibid
21
―God has raised up men to meet the necessity of this time who will cry aloud and spare not,
who will lift up their voice like a trumpet…Their work is not only to proclaim the law, but to
preach the truth for the time – the LORD [i.e. Jesus as Jehovah] OUR RIGHTOUSNESS…‖
[equal with the Father in all respects]
-E.G. White, Review & Herald, Aug. 13, 1889, pg. 514
This emphasis by Mrs. White, after endorsing the message of Waggoner and Jones in 1888, was
not appreciated by quite a few in Adventism, and it took time for unity by the increasing
majority to be achieved. Note the words of another pioneer, S.G. Haughey, who lived in the
time of the aftermath of the 1888 Conference, and was able to report ‗first-hand‘.
“Despite the misunderstandings and the polemics [controversies] in the decade FOLLOWING
1888, minds began increasingly to open to a truer and fuller concept of truth as it centered in
Christ*AND HIS FULLNESS [of the Godhead]. The nineties were marked by a succession of
powerful revivals…and confessions, and surrender to truth on the part of a growing majority
of the Minneapolis [Conference of 1888] disputants…from 1888 to 1890 Mrs. White constantly
urged acceptance of the righteousness of Christ as *special light calling for advance to higher
ground… We were to become foremost among all professing Christians in preaching Christ*IN
ALL HIS FULLNESS. However, prior t o 1888, with some still holding to a *RESTRICTED
concept of Christ, that call was NOT previously sounded by her. Christ, in all his effulgence
[glory], was now to be made pre-eminent. And Christ is to be lauded, not merely the message”
[about His saving righteousness].
*-S.G. Haughey, Letter dated, May 26, 1930
It should be noted that Haughey was a delegate at the General Conference (G.C.) of SD
Adventists just after 1892, that is, in 1893, and notice he mentioned nothing about a
condemnation of the 1892 Trinitarian tract, which was published one year before 1893. Notice
too what he stressed in his report about the period following 1888, and what was the reality
before 1888.
When the full evidence, including the circumstantial evidence, is weighed and
assessed, only one conclusion is logical: Waggoner introduced the first stage of „tailored‟
Trinitarianism among Adventists in 1888, and then Pacific Press followed suit, and
plainly and directly introduced the other elements of „tailored‟ Trinitarian sentiments in
1892, but with less opposition than at the 1888 Conference. This will be looked at even more
closely in the next historical ‗landmark‘ (No.4), because the issues are too important and the
implications too serious for me to be careless in drawing conclusions. Let us now look at Mrs.
White‘s parallel statements to and the expansions made on the 1888 “Godhead” concepts (of
Waggoner) in the years following 1888.
Mrs. White‟s Parallel Statements To, And Expansions on the 1888
Message Before dealing with the truths which flowed from Mrs. White‘s pen after 1888, it
would be appropriate to address the view of some, that Mrs. White thought that the 1888
message was ‗perfect‘ in its scope, and hence no new thought on, or addition to it was necessary.
However, what she actually said will speak to the context of her meaning regarding what
22
“harmonizes perfectly” with all the “light” God gave her before and up to 1888 (when she
spoke thus).
“I see the beauty of truth in the presentation *OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST IN RELATION TO
THE LAW as the doctor [Waggoner] has placed it before us…Is it not possible that through earnest, prayerful
searching of the Scriptures he has seen still greater light on some points? That which has been presented
harmonizes perfectly with the light which God has been pleased to give me all the years of my experience [up to
that point in 1888]”.
-E.G. White, Manuscript 15, 1888
You will notice that what she said “perfectly harmonizes” with what light she was given up to
1888 was the “truth” about “the righteousness (notice her focus) of Christ in relation to the
law‖. It is evident that no one presentation can be ‗perfect‘ in its scope about the ―mystery of
godliness‖ in Christ‘s nature, because its‘ scope is transcendent, and involves a “science” which
is ever giving new and deeper insights as it is studied. She herself later said:
“The MYSTERIES of redemption, embracing Christ‟s divine-human character, his incarnation,
his atonement for sin, could employ the pens and the highest mental powers of the wisest
men…but though these men should seek with all their powers to give a representation of Christ
and his work, the representation would FALL SHORT OF THE REALITY…”
-E.G. White, Letter 280, September 3, 1904
“The existence of A PERSONAL GOD [singular], the *UNITY of Christ with his Father lies at the
foundation of all TRUE SCIENCE. From nature we can gain only an IMPERFECT idea of the
greatness and majesty of God.” [See Romans 1:19, 20]
-E.G. White, Manuscript 30, October 29, 1904
I think these two quotes set the stage, first to refute the claim of some that Waggoner and Jones
had it ‗perfect‘ in scope about the deity of Christ‘s nature, and no new light or additions were
necessary, and second, to see why 1888 was just the beginning of new advancements in
N.B. – as a simple noun, “trinity” means three persons
The honest truth is that strict Arianism and semi-Arianism have never placed Jesus on the
same level of equality with the Father, that is, He is NOT “equal with the Father in all
respects”. And the honest truth is that the 1888 doctrinal turning point repudiated this
constricted type thinking by way of employing Trinitarian sentiments. The “oneness” of
Christ with the Father was affirmed to be in “substance”, in “power”, in “equal”
“authority”, in “eternity”, and in specie or order of being, BUT NOT IN TERMS OF THE
FORMING THE SAME BEING!!
The truth is that only Trinitarians, historically, have had to *defend themselves against
attacks regarding the “distinction” of “persons in the Godhead”, but their “oneness” in
“substance”, in answering the logic questions. Now notice Mrs. White defending the
Adventist theology from those married to logic, not faith:
“As God‟s servants proclaim these things [the unity of Father and Son] Satan steps up to
some of those who have itching minds and presents his scientific problems. Men will be
tempted to place science [logic] above God…Let not finite man attempt to interpret
Jehovah…Christ is ONE [united] with the Father… but the unity does not destroy the
personality [individuality] of either” [the very same type of argument used by historic
Trinitarians]. -E.G. White, Manuscript 58, May 19, *1905
*Notice that it was only after 1892 and after Kellogg tried (in 1903) to make God and nature
to be synonymous (pantheism) that Mrs. White saw the need to make this clarification, and
stage this defense (in 1905). Why? She needed to clarify the meaning of the „ONENESS‟ of
the inseparable Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to prevent these ―three persons‖ being seen
either as one indivisible Being in the Godhead of a ―Trio‖, or as some omni-present
pantheistic substance or essence present in nature. The Father, as God, has always been seen
through His co-equal Son, who, in essence, is all that He Himself is, with both represented
by the, “third person of the Godhead” a “living person” of “three”. That is trinitarianism in
the most basic terms, despite pioneering Adventism‘s rejection of the traditional explanation
27
of the unity of the three forming one Being. Notice carefully how Christ is seen as God by
her, much like the Trinitarian of her time:
“Christ Himself was the Lord of the temple [citing Is. 6:1-5]. When should He leave it, its
glory would depart- that glory once visible in the holy of holies over the mercy seat…This
was the Skekinah, the visible pavilion of Jehovah. It was this glory [notice, in a scene in
heaven, not on earth] that was revealed to Isaiah when he says,‟ In the year that King Uzziah
died I saw also the *Lord [Christ Himself] sitting upon a throne high and lifted up…”
-E.G. White, Manuscript 71, 1897
*N.B. – see John 12:36-42 to confirm this E.G. White explanation
“It will baffle the keenest intellect to interpret the divine manifestation of the burning bush. It
was not a dream; it was not a vision; it was a living [literal] reality – something that Moses
saw with his eyes. He heard the voice of God calling to him out of the bush, and he covered
his face, realizing that he stood in the immediate [not just representative] presence of God.
God was conversing with humanity…Heaven came very near to him, and with reverent awe,
he listened to the words „I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob‟! What wondrous condescension for God to *leave the Heavenly
courts and manifest himself to Moses, talking to him face to face, „as a man speaketh unto his
friend‟ [see Heb.11: 27]”.
-E.G. White, Youth Instructor, December 13, 1900
“The burning bush, in which *Christ [God] appeared to Moses [after leaving the courts of
Heaven] revealed God. The symbol chosen for the representation of *THE DEITY was a
lowly shrub… This [bush] enshrined the Infinite. The all-merciful God shrouded his glory in
a most humble type… It was Christ, who from the bush on Mount Horeb spoke to Moses
saying,„I AM THAT I AM‟…” [Thus Jesus is also “I AM”, but as a separate person from the
Father- see Genesis 18:1]
-E.G. White, Desire of Ages, 1898, pages 22-24
*N.B. Jesus as “the Deity” and “the Infinite” spoke on both his own behalf, and his Father‘s
“Christ lived and died as a man, that he might be *God both of the living and of the dead”
[some of the living refuse him as their God]
-E.G. White, Letter 97, 1898
Thus, the post-1892 use of this ‗Trinitarian-type‘ kind of language (by Adventists), which is
quite similar to that used by Trinitarians, is usually seized upon (by anti-Trinitarians, like the
Jehovah‘s Witnesses) to mean that Jesus is being presented as the being of the Father
Himself, simply because He is called our ―God‖, when this has never been so for Adventists.
Now notice also why it is easy to mistakenly see the “absolute Godhead‖ as one person or
being:
―Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them (Matt
18:20). Where *Christ is even among the humble few, this is Christ‟s church, for the
presence of the HIGH AND LOFTY ONE WHO INHABITETH ETERNITY [Is. 57:15] can
alone constitute a church” [The ‗Jesus-Only‘ adherents would be here confused]
-E.G. White, Letter 108, October 28, 1886
28
This was a statement Mrs. White made two years before 1888, describing Christ with titles
which some in Adventism had claimed before 1888 could only belong to the Father.
However, notice how she expanded on this truth in the logical aftermath of 1888 and 1892.
―The name of God [Jehovah, I AM], given to Moses to express the idea of ETERNAL
PRESENCE, has been claimed as his OWN [John 8:58,59] by this Galilean Rabbi [Jesus].
He had announced HIMSELF [not just the Father] to be the Self-Existent One…‖
- E.G. White, Desire of Ages, * 1898, pgs.469-470
―I AM means an ETERNAL PRESENCE: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE…‖
-E.G. White Comments, S.D.A Bible Comm., Vol.1, pg. 1009
―Christ was GOD *essentially, and IN THE HIGHEST SENSE. He was with [alongside]
God [the person of the Father] FROM *ALL ETERNITY [Ps. 93:2/Micah 5:2]”
E.G. White– S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 5, pg. 1126
*N.B. – Notice her use of the words “essentially”
―He [Jesus] who said, ‗I lay down my life that I may take it again‘, came forth from the
grave to life that was in Himself. Humanity died, divinity did not die. In his divinity Christ
possessed the power to break the bonds of death… Only He [Jesus] who alone hath
immortality, dwelling in light and life could say, ‗I have power to lay my life, and power to
take it up again‖ [see 1 Tim 6:16]
-E.G. White, S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 6, pg. 1113
“It was Christ [‗the LORD‘] who spoke with Abraham under the oaks of Mamre [Gen 18:1];
with Isaac…with Jacob…with Moses” [compare Ex. 6:3]
-E.G. White, Desire of Ages, pgs. 290-291
Thus the *exact representation of the Father through the distinct Son is clearly seen without
confusing the Persons. This is trinitarianism in basic terms!!
NOTICE:
1. That, “many” in Adventism after 1888 now had to accept that almost every title
applied to the Father is equally attributable to the Son, since they are “equal in all
respects”. Thus the idea as expressed by several SDA pioneers before 1888 that only
the Father is called “The High and Lofty One who inhabiteth Eternity”, or “the
Blessed and only Potentate who only hath immortality”, or “the Self-Existent One”
was, after 1888, repudiated by Mrs. White.
2. Also, the truths about the individual existence of Jesus “from all eternity” despite
being “begotten”, and Him being “God in the highest [absolute] sense” were firmly
established, along with why Pacific Press could agree with Trinitarians in most
29
things they believed in 1892, e.g. that the church should disregard those who say that
Jesus is not from “all eternity” like the Father.
3. Clearly the ‗begetting‘ of Jesus (in the Biblical sense), from the Father, enhances His
full Deity and “eternal” nature with the Father, it does not deny it, even if it cannot
be explained. It must be accepted by faith! Too many Adventists (like myself in the
past; no longer anyway) felt that the two ideas were Biblically conflicting. That idea
needs to be changed since Mrs. White clearly believed He was both “begotten”, and
at the same time ―God in the highest sense‖ “from all eternity”, as a “distinct
person”. Clearly this truth is, “infinitely mysterious in itself, and
incomprehensible”, but Mrs. White represented all true Adventists in
acknowledging this fact, in 1906 (Review and Herald, April, 1906). While most
traditional Trinitarians try to explain the ‗how‘ of his begetting, and some
Adventists try to reconcile this truth with logic and theological exegesis, however,
that is simply futile speculation, and speaks to the ‗awesomeness‘ of the nature of the
Godhead!
The point I think is already made – Waggoner and Jones were indeed right about the
nature of Jesus; about him being fully equal with the Father as his “begotten‖ Son. However,
Mrs. White went further than they did, in declaring Jesus to be an individual (“distinct‖) being
―from all eternity”, despite “begotten”, and, as the final quotes will show, that He is so “equal”
with the Father that he is *ALSO “the Deity”, the “King of Glory”, and “Sovereign” [supreme
ruler] of the universe, just like “the Almighty” Himself. This fact most Adventists have accepted.
In fact, while opinions differed, Uriah Smith, who never seemed to accept Jesus‘ full ―distinct‖
eternal existence, was even prepared, after realizing the truth to some degree, to call Jesus “the
Almighty”. Note his words from the 1897 version of his book, ―Daniel and the Revelation‖,
before comparing the same idea in the words of Mrs. White, who was more pointed than he was.
“He [Jesus] is seated with his Father upon the throne of*UNIVERSAL DOMINION and
RANKS EQUALLLY WITH HIM…‖
-Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 1897, pg. 346 (paperback).
*[Commenting on Rev. 1:8, Smith stated distinctly] “In declaring who he is, he [the
Speaker] uses two of the same characteristics „Alpha and Omega‟… as found in Rev.
22:13, where according to verses 12 and 16 of that chapter [Rev. 12] it is plainly Christ
who is speaking. We conclude then, that it is Christ who is speaking in [Rev.1]*VERSE 8‖
[as the Almighty‘].
-Uriah Smith, ibid. Pgs. 350-351 (paperback)
Notice how far he was prepared to go, in recognizing that MOST of the titles applied to the
Father are equally attributable to Christ. Thus we can even call Jesus, “Everlasting Father” in
prayer (Isaiah 9:6), and would in no way be discrediting, but instead honoring the Father
equally with Him, despite they are separate!!
30
Notice too FURTHER AFFIRRMATION in absolute terms:
“I am the Good Shepherd…This figure the prophet Isaiah had applied to the Messiah‟s
mission, in the comforting words, „O Zion, that bringest good tidings… say unto the cities of
Judah, Behold your God…Is. 40:9-11. David had sung, „The LORD [Jehovah] is my shepherd…
*Christ applied these prophecies to Himself [see Ps. 80:1]…”
“Hosea will tell you, He [Jesus] is „the LORD [Jehovah] of Hosts; the LORD [the name] is His
memorial‟, Hosea 12:5…”
“Over the recent sepulcher of Joseph, Christ had proclaimed in triumph, „I am the resurrection,
and the life‟. These words could be spoken only by *THE DEITY [the Supreme God]…only He
who is one [in unity] with God [the Father] could say, „I have power to lay down my life‟… In
His divinity Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death!!”
-E.G. White, Desire of Ages, 1898, Pgs 476, 578, 785
NOW NOTICE VERY CAREFULL AND FINALLY:
“Christ ascended to Heaven amidst a cloud of angels who glorified Him, saying, „Who is this
KING OF GLORY?‟ And from thousands times ten thousands the answer comes, [He Jesus is]
the Lord [Jehovah], He is the King of Glory‖.
- E.G. White, Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899
“Unbelief [in Jesus as our ―Lord‖ and our ―God‖] is seldom overcome by
controversy. It is rather put upon self-defense, and finds new support and excuse. But let
Jesus, in His love and mercy, be revealed as the crucified Savior, and from the many once
unwilling lips will be heard the acknowledgement of Thomas, * ―My Lord and my God‘‖ [Compare Exodus 20:3] -E.G. White, Desire of Ages, 1898, pgs. 807-808
CONCLUSIONS:
Now, looking at what the expressions, “the Deity‖, ―Sovereign‖, “the LORD” and
“equal” mean, in very many dictionaries, only heresy would deny that Jesus is ―co-equal‖ with
the Father and is Himself ―God in the highest sense‖. Only heresy would return to the past
restrictions of declaring that there cannot be more than one person as the “Highest Authority” or
“Sovereign” [supreme] or “the Deity” in Heaven. It is clear that Jesus is all of these, by reason
of being united with His Father, and by reason of, or by being His” only begotten Son”, thus “of
one substance” with Him, and “equal with the Father in all respects”; but as a separate
individual or being. Thus Jesus brings the Father‘s presence by being all that He Himself is in
nature.
But what about the Holy Spirit? The question is, how can the Holy Spirit not
be all that the Father is, in substance, in authority, in rank, in divinity, if “God is spirit”,
and, “the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17,18)? Clearly the Spirit is God, but is He another
person, the “third person of the Godhead”? See ―Landmark, No.5‖ on that matter.
31
If the foregoing expressions were not, in many respects, related to the Trinitarian type
thinking, then why would Pacific Press, four years after 1888, in 1892, further present
controversial views, and in essence declared itself pro-Trinitarian, by publishing a pro-
trinitarian tract, which SDA pioneers themselves later spoke glowing about and which was never
condemned by Mrs. White? Let us now look at this reality very, very closely, and in so doing
recognize that the Dr. Spear‘s 1889 thesis of a ―trinity‖ of personalities (―trio‖), in the “Eternal
Godhead”, may just be where the real truth is.
LANDMARK No.4
The First Publication of Trinitarian Teachings in
Adventism (in 1892), and The Aftermath.
We now turn to the year 1892 (mentioned in the introduction), which was just
four (4) years after 1888, and a few crucial things must now be noted.
It was in 1892, long before the death of Mrs. White, that Pacific Press, published a pro-
Trinitarian tract, entitled, “THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY”. And it was
published as REPRESENTATIVE OF the S.D.A. church‘s growing majority; not published
independently but officially, and thus Adventists cannot disown it.
The article was originally titled in 1889 as ―the Subordination of Christ‖, but subsequently
RENAMED ―the Bible Doctrine of the Trinity‖ by SDA pioneers themselves, and
published as a missionary tool (―Bible Series, No 90‖) expressing what Adventists had
come to believe/endorse…or at least was beginning to endorse in basic elements.
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 forth the Bible doctrine of the trinity of Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit with a devout adherence to the words of the Scripture, in the best brief way we
ever saw it presented." -Signs of the Times , Vol.18, No.22, 1892.
―…It presents the Bible view of the doctrine of the Trinity in the terms used in the Bible,
and therefore avoids all philosophical discussion and foolish speculation. It is a tract
worthy of reading." -Signs of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 29, 1894
Now if anyone had doubts, regarding from what doctrinal thesis it was that Waggoner and
Jones drew their carefully phrased expressions, which created so much controversy, and
rejection by some in 1888, then this 1892 development leaves no honest person in doubt.
Waggoner clearly saw some validity in most of the Trinitarian type thinking. Why else
would Pacific Press, almost immediately after their 1888 controversial presentation (with
A.T. Jones stressing so much the “of one substance” concept), then turn around and publish,
an unabridged, non-Adventist pro-Trinitarian tract? And what was the tract saying in 1892?‖
32
CONTENT OF THE 1892 TRINITARIAN TRACT (BY DR. SAMUEL
SPEAR)
Now here is some of what SDA pioneers published/endorsed as ―the Bible doctrine of the
Trinity‖ way back in 1892, long before 1915 (note the distinct Trinitarian undertones and
expressions, despite the article‘s rejection of the traditional explanation of ―the mode‖ of the
Trinity):
―…The Godhead makes its appearance in the great plan for human salvation. God
in this 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 basis of the doctrine of the tri-personal God… The exact
mode in which the revealed Trinity is … must be to us a perfect mystery, 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 Trinity—whether, as to its elements,
taken collectively or separately — so far from being a dry, unpractical, and useless dogma
adjusts 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, and God the Son in the redeeming and
saving work assigned to Him in the same Bible, and God the Holy Ghost in his office of
regeneration and sanctification – whether considered collectively as one God, or separately
in the relation of each to human salvation—are 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 isn‘t it?
This tract declared:
1. On page 3, that “Jesus is truly divine and truly God in the absolute [highest and fullest]
sense”; thus He‘s ―very God‖ as (in the same sense) He is said to be ―very man‖.
2. On page 4, that there is a clear “distinction between God the Father and Christ” as l
persons, despite they are of the same order of being (existence or specie)
3. On page 5, that the “unity of the Godhead” consist of three Personalities
4. On page 6, that the “Arian” view is “fallacious”
33
5. On page 9, that there is “diversity in the offices, relations and actions towards men” on
the part of the Persons of the Godhead, and that “Trinitarians are not tri-theists”, or
believers in three Gods, but rather in three Personalities described as ―God‖
6. On page 10, that the baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19 emphasizes the singular “name”
of the “one Spirit”, the “one Lord‖, and the “one God and Father of all,” and
7. On page 14 that it is the three distinct Persons who make up, comprise, or are the
constituent Persons of the ―divine trinity‖ of the Godhead.
-N.B. The word ―trinity‖ (as a simple noun) simply means ―a group of three persons‖ in unity,
just like the word, ―Trio‖.
Now a release for the first time, of this type of tract from one of the two highest
publishing houses of the S.D.A. Church, if it was not preceded by the CONTROVERSIAL
1888 General Conference, and time between 1888 and 1892, for those objecting to the 1888
Message to think over the new issues presented (for four years), then this 1892 occurrence
would have resulted in the most widespread condemnation among most Adventists. Even
more controversy than 1888 would have resulted, and a highly-publicized E.G. White
commentary, in a way similar to, and even greater than her coming out, clearly and in no
uncertain manner, against the Kellogg ―pantheistic‖ teachings in the late 1890s, and against
his „heretical‟ book, ―The Living Temple‖ (1903).
This 1892 move by Pacific Press would have to have been called the “alpha [beginning] of
apostasy”, that is, if Mrs. White had objected; not the later Dr Kellogg ―heresies‖.
But notice very carefully that:
1. There is no record of condemnation specifically related to this tract of 1892. This
condemnation would have been necessary to prevent any future re-occurrence, or the
confusion of the issues, that is, if the Pacific Press‘ action was so ‗abominable‘
2. M.L. Andreasen (another pioneer) would probably not have LATER reprinted this entire
tract in a book that he wrote, entitled, “The Book of Hebrews” (1948), if the Pacific Press‟
actions were condemned, because he was a pioneer during the time when Mrs. White was alive,
and saw the church‘s reactions to it then.
3. If E.J. Waggoner did not mean for his 1888 Message to be misconstrued and the A.T
Jones ―of one substance‖ concept of the Godhead (equally presented in 1888) to be associated
with trinitarianism, as it could have easily been, then why would Pacific Press make such a
“blunder‖? And more importantly Mrs. White could not, for any justifiable reason, remain so
completely silent on this specific event, since this would have been the introduction of ―heresy‖,
as some detractors in Adventism today feel about the trinity. She could not leave any room for
any confusion; that of comparing the Trinitarian creed with the “new” advancements in
Adventist theology, that is, as it concerns the “constituent persons of the Eternal Godhead”.
34
This she could not have done if the actions of the Pacific Press in 1892 were so ‗abominable‘, as
it probably would have been seen by some today.
If “heresy” was involved, action was demanded; not silence! However, she remained completely
silent unit her death, and never once, in all her writings, directly condemn this 1892 first time
action of Pacific Press, nor directly name or condemn the doctrine of the trinity for that matter.
What instead happened was she herself started to borrow Trinitarian phrases and expression
subsequent to that, and tailor them to express „tailored‟ Trinitarianism herself. Plain and
simple.
Four years before 1892, in her most critical book “The Great Controversy”
(1888 version) she said nothing about the trinity as spoke in detail, and listed the ―errors‖ of the
Papacy. Now it stands to reason that if she had (by oversight) left out the trinity in her 1888
version of the book, then after 1892 she would be duty bound to now mention and speak clearly
against the trinity. But again in 1911, when she revised the same book, she did NOT mention the
Trinity. This would not be like her not to call by name this subject, if she had opposed it. Talk
about circumstantial evidence! Well, there is more!!
Uriah Smith (unlike Mrs. White) was, prior to 1892, vocal, and on record as an anti-
Trinitarian who NAMED and denounced the Trinity. In 1897 he revised his book ―Daniel and
the Revelation‖, and he too REMARKABLY ignored or left out the trinity as an error of
“Babylon” and the Papacy. If he too had made an earlier oversight in not listing the trinity as an
error, and indeed as one of the ―fundamental errors‖, according to James White (prior to 1888
and 1892), how do you explain this 1897 revised version of his most memorable and detailed
work on “Babylon” ignoring the trinity?
How could he, after 1892, proceed to detail the errors of “Babylon” (in chapter 14), listing over
twenty (20) false doctrines under the heading, “Babylon is Fallen”, and ignore what he was
himself before 1888 declaring as the most fundamental error?
If you read ANY unabridged and unedited copy of the 1897 version of ―Daniel and
the Revelation‖, you are called upon to account for this curious absence of the trinity from his
list of false doctrines, i.e. after the 1889 pro-Trinitarian tract of Dr. Samuel Spear, published by
E.J. Waggoner himself in 1892.
Dear reader, in all honesty, you are left with only one possible conclusion, one which fit all of
the facts and happenings in the S.D.A. Church from 1888 to 1897: Uriah Smith also changed his
position on the trinity as one of, or, as he himself felt before, the chief error of “Babylon”!!
He was now (in 1897) evidently refusing to speak against it, even if he did not necessarily share
all of the viewpoints the Pacific Press after 1888.
And if you think there is another explanation, what justification can you give for him presenting
such a long list of false doctrines, in detailing the errors of Babylon, and ignored what is
regarded by anti-Trinitarians as the “mother of all heresies”? His own words made it clear what
he now (in 1897) saw as critical, even after Dr. Spear‘s tract.
“The Church which is to be prepared for the second coming of Christ must be entirely free from
papal errors and corruptions. A reform must hence be made on the Sabbath question. The third
angel of revelation 14 proclaim the commandment of God, leading men to the true Sabbath in
place of the counterfeit.”
-Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 1897, chapter 13, pg. 616 (paper back version).
35
Now, notice that he brought to the fore what the “third angel” saw as the most
critical issue in rejecting the errors of “Babylon” - a rejection of the “counterfeit” Sabbath
(Sunday), in favor of the unchanged law of God, which upholds the true seventh day Sabbath
(Saturday).
Notice even more carefully that, when he, in the following chapter (chapter 14), highlighted the
other counterfeit doctrines of “Babylon”, which are to be likewise rejected, he totally ignored the
trinity! Oversight? Unthinkable! It is futile to speculate and ‗manufacture‘ arguments to account
for this curious absence of the trinity in Smith‘s main work on “Babylon”, and also in Mrs.
White‘s main work on “Babylon”, ―The Great Controversy‖ (the 1888 and 1911 versions), if the
logical arguments do not have a bearing on the circumstantial evidence, and especially
considering what took place in1892.
To close on the fourth ―landmark‖ (the 1892 Trinitarian tract, and the aftermath) it must
be said to those in Adventism who are now proclaiming that the trinity, not the false Sabbath
(Sunday), is what will ‗ecumenically‘ unite all of Christendom in the future, be careful not to
make of non-effect the visions of Mrs. White herself, who declared:
“Clinging to the papal error of natural immortality, and man‟s consciousness in death, they have
rejected the only defense against the delusion of spiritualism…. As the work of Sabbath reform
extends… rejection of the divine law to avoid the claims of the fourth commandment will become
well-nigh *UNIVERSAL… Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday
sacredness [the trinity not even mentioned], Satan will bring the people [of the ecumenical
movement in the future] under his deceptions. While the former [soul immortality] lays the
foundation of spiritualism, the latter [Sunday sacredness] creates a *BOND of sympathy with
Rome.” -E.G White, Great Controversy, 1911, pgs.586-587
Again you will notice no mention of the trinity. And this came not from just scholastic
interpretation of prophecy, or from speculation, but from the eyes of vision seeing into the future.
Today it seems that the Trinity is an article of ecumenism, but where is the evidence that
*after 1892 the Adventist pioneers (including Mrs. White) felt this will be the real issue?
In the first place it can be seen that many of the Protestant Churches (e.g. Pentecostals,
or ―Jesus only‖ believers of large numbers) do not even subscribe to the trinity, and yet are part
of the ecumenical movement. They subscribe to the more commonly held Sunday observance,
and supposed soul immortality.
Secondly, only the false doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul (Satan‘s first
earthly lie), and Sunday observance (more than any other) are clearly held by most of
Christendom, Trinitarians and anti-Trinitarians alike (e.g. the Watch Tower observe Sunday, as
their main meeting and worship time, out of convenience, despite they are anti-Trinitarians).
Thirdly, and critically, we are not left to speculate, because the foregoing quote, from the
visions of Mrs. White, and the following from her husband before his death, are instructive:
“The principal difference between the two bodies [the Trinitarian Seventh-day Baptists, and non-
Trinitarian Adventists in 1876] is the immortality question [both were Sabbath keepers]. The
S.D.As hold the divinity of Christ [even before 1888 and the 1892 trinitarian tract] so nearly with
the Trinitarian that we apprehend no trial here…Seventh-day Adventist cannot afford a
controversy [with the Trinitarian Baptists] on doctrines which neither regard as tests of
Christian character.” -James White, R. & H., October 12, 1876,pg. 116
36
What is true is that the Adventist can afford a controversy on the “immortality” and the
“Sabbath” questions, clearly issues of distinction between the true and the false *Church (as
indicated by Mrs. White), despite only Christ‘s righteousness can fit one for Heaven.
Always remember that the trinity was never NAMED and placed on record (thus cannot
be quoted) to be an issue of concern for Mrs. White, and, I say here, this speaks volumes in
unanswerable tones of silence, which is as loud as if she had shouted from the rooftop. Why?
When she began repeatedly to speak clearly on ―Godhead‖ issues, it was in the post- 1888 and
post-1892 period, when Pacific Press had already accommodated non-Adventist literature on the
trinity, which was published within the church. This move was representative of the changing
ideology among some pioneers long before 1915 or 1931.
No one can disprove the fact that the 1892 Trinitarian tract was published, and thus must
account for the aftermath of silence from Mrs. White, and the limited resistance from the
majority of the pioneers. Denial of the fact is simply futile attempt at ‗escape‘.
If the 1892 Trinitarian tract was a reversal of the truths presented in the in 1888, about the
“constituent persons of the Eternal Godhead”, why is there so little anti-Trinitarian sentiments
expressed by the leading pioneers after 1892? If this 1892 occurrence were not representative of
changed sentiments, then the bulk of the anti-Trinitarian expressions of the pioneers would have
come after 1892, not before. Written anti-Trinitarian expressions among Adventists became
significantly less after 1892, and the following pre-1915 sentiments were increasingly
appearing on record, until in 1913 (I didn‟t say 1931) the Church declared for the first time
its belief in the Trinity while Mrs. White was still alive (despite differences in explanation
from the traditional version):
1900
―[The Holy Spirit] is one with and sent by the Father and the Son… He [the Holy Spirit] would make us know His
personality, but ever IN LIVING CONNECTION with Christ… Let Him [the Spirit] make you know, beloved,
how surprisingly beautiful are the BLENDED PERSONALITIES of our *TRIUNE GOD (!!) manifested by the
personal presence of the
Holy Ghost.‖
―Blended Personalities‖, Review and Herald, Vol. 77, April 3, 1900, pg. 210
1909
There is a trinity, and in it there are three personalities…We have the Father described in Dan. 7:9,
10…a personality surely…In 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 God…But this union is not one in which individuality is lost…There 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
1913
In 1913 a statement of some of the points of the SDA faith was published on page 21 of the
October 9 edition of The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. The following is the section
important for our study, revealing quite clearly how modern SDA anti-Trinitarians are debunked
and continue to be debunked) by our own historical records regarding what Adventist came to
believe WHILE MRS WHITE WAS STILL ALIVE:
37
"For the benefit of those who may desire to know more particularly the cardinal features of
the faith held by this denomination, we shall state that Seventh-day Adventists believe, -
1. In the divine Trinity. This Trinity consists of the eternal Father, a personal, spiritual being,
omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; of 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 Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead,
the one regenerating agency in the work of redemption..."
F.M. Wilcox, SDA pioneer, chief writer and editor at the time, whom Mrs. White herself
recommended among those charged to guard her estate upon her death (thus he was no
heretic) was careful to point out exactly what was meant in the 1913 SDA Statement of
Belief, when he explained:
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 in Christ Jesus…”
- F.M. Wilcox, Christ is Very God, Review and Herald
And get this too. Mrs. White was actively publishing even up to this point in 1913 (despite her
age) because an article from her appeared in the very same publication right beside this first
Trinity belief declaration of Adventists. Now, Mrs. White, who was so pointed in calling sin,
―sin‖, and error, ―error‖, and clearly listed and called by name, or described directly the errors
of “Babylon”, would not, could not ignore calling direct attention to what some call the “mother
of all heresies” (the trinity), that is, if she saw it as such. However, notice her clear words below,
regarding what is the ―mother of all heresies”. See also Appendix 1 for more on the pioneers
after 1892.
“No error accepted by the Christian world strikes more boldly against the authority of Heaven,
none is more directly opposed to the dictates of reason, none is more pernicious in its results,
than the modern doctrine, so rapidly gaining ground, that God‟s law is no longer binding upon
men [including the Sabbath command]”
-E.G. White, Great Controversy, 1911, pg.583
This writer is thus not left to speculate or ‗clutch at straws‘ of possible ‗hints‘ here or there. The
foregoing is plain for all to see. If trinitarianism broke the first commandment, then Mrs. White
would have no choice but refer to it directly. Did she see it as such? Well let us now look at
―Landmark No. 5‖ to discover more telling evidence which declares a resounding, NO, NO, NO!
38
LANDMARK No. 5:
Personalizing the Holy Spirit in Adventism After
1888 (1892-1915) - The Key to Trinitarianism
Let us begin here with these provoking quotations:
―The only true anti-Trinitarian is one who rejects the ‗trio‘ of personalities existing in, and
operating within the Godhead, and teaches that the Holy Spirit is a force‖ [this fact the
Watchtower‘s, ‗Jehovah‘s Witnesses‘ know to be very true]. - Anonymous
―No circumstances, no distance can separate us from the Heavenly Comforter [the Holy
Spirit]. Wherever we are, wherever we may go, He is always there, One [notice, „some-One‟,
not ‗something‘] given [by the Father] in Christ‘s place, to act in His stead [as a
Representative]‖
-E.G. White, That I May Know Him, pg. 171
N.B. Certainly, the words, ―One given‖ [as a Representative], are profound and can
hardly be explained away.
In 1896, the Review and Herald publishing house, probably for the first time in all of Adventist
history, officially published the following type of statement in Adventism:
“He [the Holy Spirit] is included in the apostolic benediction [2 Cor.13: 14], and is
spoken by our Lord [Jesus] as acting in an INDEPENDENT and PERSONAL [thus
individual] capacity as Teacher, Guide, and Comforter. He is an object of
*VENERATION [honor, reverence], and is A [singular] Heavenly INTELLIGENCE,
everywhere present, and is always present [Heb. 9:14]. But as limited beings we cannot
understand the problems, which the contemplation of *the DEITY presents, to our
In brief commentary it can 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 the words, ―three holiest beings‖, ―three great personal dignitaries‖,
―eternal heavenly dignitaries‖. The Spirit is a divine ―being‖, a ―personal dignitary‖ or
―living person‖ of three‖. Plain and simple. That is how Mrs. White truly saw the Holy Spirit
after 1888, ―One given to act in Christ‘s place‖, that is, after Pacific Press proclaimed the
―constituent persons of Eternal Godhead‖, by endorsing Dr. Samuel Spear‟s Trinitarian
tract in 1892. The Adventist Church therefore had a firm foundation on which to fully formulate
its 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 21
years), could then officially declare, at Mrs. White funeral service, that in her teachings:
44
“The Holy Spirit, the third *PERSON of the Godhead, and Christ‟s Representative on
earth is set forth [by her] and *exalted [venerated] as the Heavenly Teacher and Guide
sent to this world by our Lord…[notice the repeated use of the words “Third Person”]”
-A.G. Daniels – Review & Herald, August 5, 1915 (as reported by F.M.
Wilcox, another pioneer, in “Testimony of Jesus”, 1934, pg.43)
Why could he now be so bold and reject Uriah Smith‘s (and even William White‘s) view of Him
not being a person in the true sense? All he was doing was echoing Mrs. White‘s confessions;
what many in Adventism had been resisting just before and after her death (which Willie White,
her own son, was ―perplexed‖ about; confessions also stating that:
―When we have accepted Christ, and …have pledged ourselves t o *SERVE God, the
Father, Christ *AND the Holy Spirit, the Three Dignitaries…pledge THEMSELVES
that every facility will be given us if we carry out our…vows‖
– E.G. White, Manuscript 85, 1901
Some today in Adventism, make much ado about their description of the Holy Spirit‘s
nature, nailing it down to either “the extension of the Father”, or the “split personality” of the
Father and the Son – all the while usurping and denying the counsels of Mrs. White on this
matter. Clearly we are not left to speculate about ―who‖ the Holy Sprit is – He is the ―third
person of the Godhead‖; He is ―One given‖ as ―Christ‘s Representative on earth‖; He is ―the
Comforter‖; ―He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality‖; He is one of the ―three
living [literal, or genuine] personalities of the Heavenly Trio‖; He is one of the ―Eternal
Heavenly Dignitaries‖; and He is one of the ―three holiest beings‖ or three ―Highest
Authorities in Heaven‖. That was Mrs. White‟s testimony about who the Holy Sprit is. However, concerning ―what‖ He is – whether an “extension”, or “split personality”, or
“projection of the Father”, or “transported energy” of the Father and Son, like a telephone
connection – all are speculations failing to accept Mrs. White‘s plain counsels stating that, just
the Father:
“It is not essential for us to be able to define just *WHAT [not ‗who‘, but ‗what‘] the
Holy Sprit is. Christ tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, „the Spirit of truth,
which proceedeth from the Father‟. It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that,
in His work guiding men into all truth, „ He shall 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 is distinctly specified in the words of Christ:
[declaring „who‟ He is] When He 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 1896 Review
and Herald, that is, accepting the same “problems” related to the Spirit‘s nature, in
45
“contemplating the Deity”. He was content, like Mrs. White, to accept ―whom‖ the Spirit is, but
left, unmolested, the subject of ―what‖ He is, preferring rightly to see it a ―mystery‖.
Today, it is interesting to see some in Adventism, seeking to uphold the pioneers, not
only reject this counsel, but, through logical reasoning and intellectual arrogance, even draw
diagrams to show the “extension of” the Spirit, proceeding from the Father, and mediating
through the Son to all creation. And yet forgetting this is the same concept held by ‗orthodox‘
Trinitarians, who, in accepting the ―mysterious personality‖ of the Holy Spirit, even try to
represent the nature of the Godhead in pictures and diagrams. “Oh what a tangled web we
weave…”
This writer stands on firm foundation in accepting the following:
1. While Jesus was on earth He spoke of the Sprit that “proceedeth from the Father”,
but now that He has returned to His place of equal glory with the Father, the Holy
Spirit “proceeds” also “from the Savior” (Jesus) – See Acts of the Apostles, by E.G.
White, pg. 284, and confirm in Rom.8: 9
2. “The Holy Spirit is [‗representationally‘] Himself [Jesus], divested of the [limiting]
personality OF HUMANITY [not ‗divested of personality‘ but ‗of the personality of
humanity‘]…He would represent Himself *AS [like or as if He was] present in all
places, by His Holy Spirit”. - E.G. White, Manuscript Release, No. 1084
3. It is speculation and presumption, which manufactures argument to say ―what‖ the
Holy Spirit is, to belittle the declared truth of ―who‖ He is. It is heresy, which denies
the ―MYSTERY” of His nature, and tries to assume more than that which has been
revealed; all the while asking, “where is the third person?” Jesus, the final authority
on the subject of the Holy Spirit, said, “He shall not speak of himself” (John 16:13),
and clearly He [the Spirit] has not. Thus the reason for all the mystery!
There is no danger in declaring, “thus saith the Lord” about the Spirit, even if what is declared
cannot be thoroughly explained to satisfy the need for reconciling with all logic. That is the truth
about how Adventism advanced to a more Biblical view of the Holy Spirit‘s nature, “confirmed
in the Spirit” (or the writings of Mrs. White).
LANDMARK No. 6:
The First Trinitarian Statement in 1913, and Official
Acceptance by an Adventist General Conference Committee
(in 1931)
We now come to that very crucial year in Adventist history, 1931. You will notice that so
far nothing was said about Leroy Froom. He is said by detractors in Adventism to be the first
person to inject Trinitarian type thinking among Adventists (in the 1920s), when he used (for the
first time, it is claimed) non-Adventist writings or literature on the Trinity, as he did a series of
46
studies among Adventists on the personality of the Holy Spirit. By now you realize that this
assumption is far from true.
While it is true that Froom did use non-Adventist literature on the Holy Spirit, he was not the
first, and he did not even go as far as Pacific Press did in 1892 to *PUBLISH (almost
unabridged) a non-Adventist pro-Trinitarian tract, neither was he the first to declare, as F.M.
Wilcox did in 1913, in an official editorial in Adventism‘s Review and Herald magazine (and as
chief editor), that SD Adventists had come to ―believe in the divine Trinity‖!!
Now dear reader, lest one may take this lightly, it must be remembered that the 1892
tract spoke about the “Divine Trinity” as a * “Bible Doctrine” and it defended “Trinitarians”
in saying they “are not tri-theists” even while believing in a “clear distinction between God, the
Father and Christ” (and the personality of the Holy Spirit) who are, however, united by the
singular “name” of the “One Spirit”, the “One Lord”, and the “One God and Father of all”
(Matt, 28:19). Why should I point out again that this is basic trinitarianism that Pacific Press
published, and that Adventism‘s Signs of the Times magazine declared itself supportive of the
same article twice, in 1892 and 1894 respectively (without any rebuke from Mrs. White, mind
you), when it is self evident to he who will to his own self be true? Your conscience, dear reader,
tells you that this event in Adventism, and Mrs. White‘s silence on the trinity*after 1892 is a
powerful argument.
We now come to the period after Mrs. White died, that is, after 1915. Some declare that
Leroy Froom influenced the General Conference towards trinitariansim in the 1920‘s, because
Mrs. White was now out of the way to arrest the so-called, “apostasy”. However, that too will
fall by the wayside when the true facts are examined carefully by anyone interested in the
historical facts; facts, which are as unbeatable as the truth about the year in which Adventism
first published Trinitarian teachings (1892).
In the General Conference “Minutes” of December 29, 1930 are the following
(easily proven) words (in verbatim). Inserts and emphases are mine:
“Statement of Faith For Year Book –
A request was presented by the African Division [not Leroy Froom] that a statement of what
S.D.A‟s. believe should be printed in the year book, since they felt that such a statement would
help government officials and others to a better understanding of our work.
-Voted; that the chair [C.H. Watson, G.C. president] appoint a committee of which he shall be a
member, to prepare such a statement for publication in the year book.