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

Phone: (876) 963-1847 or 385-5982; E-mail: ddgillespie@live.com

3

CONTENTS

Page

Author‘s Foreword. ……………………………………………………………………………2

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….4

Landmark 1: James White‘s Change of Attitude to Trinitarianism as a Test………………….7

Landmark 2: The 1888 Doctrinal Turning Point………………………………………………10

Landmark 3: E.G. White‘s Endorsement of, and Parallel Statements to the 1888

Message (1888 – 1915)…………………………………………………………..16

Landmark 4: The First Publication of Trinitarian Teachings in Adventism (1892),

And the Aftermath. …………………………………………………………….31

Landmark 5: Personalizing the Holy Spirit in Adventism After 1888 (1892-1915)

– The Key To Trinitarianism…………………………………………………….38

Landmark 6: The First Trinitarian Statement By An Adventist General Conference

Committee, in 1931….……………………………………………………………….….45

Landmark 7: The 1942, and 1950 General Conference Vote to Accept a Trinity in

Adventist Theology………………………………………………………………50

Epilogue: - Does the Adventist ―Trinity” Statement of Belief Make Sense? …………………51

Bibliography. ………………………………………………………………………………….63

Appendix 1: Crucial Facts and Interesting Tit-bits About Some Key Pioneers, Regarding

the Trinity Doctrine. …………………………………………………………….64

Appendix 2: What Does the ‗Nicene‘ Creed Really Say About the Godhead? ………………72

4

INDISPUTABLE FACTS ABOUT THE TRINITY

DOCTRINE IN ADVENTISM!!

(SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT) By D. Gillespie

INTRODUCTION –

In February, *1892, probably for the first time in all of the Seventh Day Adventist

pioneering history, the Pacific Press Publishing Association (P.P.P.A.) officially published a

pro-Trinitarian tract, entitled by SDA pioneers themselves: ―THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF

THE TRINITY‖- a tract outlining the arguments for the doctrine of the Trinity without

certain traditional speculative thought involved!! When as a writer, I saw for the first time

this provable piece of history, it almost blew me away, because it meant a whole lot in my

continued search for forensic type evidence to understand the, sometimes, rather puzzling

Adventist history concerning this controversial doctrine. What became even more startling were

the other facts surrounding this monumental first-time event. And before giving the full

evidence, this writer challenges any and all readers of this presentation to disprove (if they can)

the facts being presented here, by even going to the publishing houses and historical archives of

the S.D.A. church, and determining otherwise.

*For so long I thought that it was true that it was Leroy Froom (the SDA historian) who first

introduced Trinitarian thinking among Adventists in the 1920s, and only after Mrs. E.G. White

(SD Adventism‘s leading pioneer) died in 1915. But here now is the full evidence effectively

debunking that faulty viewpoint.

Dr. E.J. Waggoner was the editor at the Pacific Press, one of the main publishing organs

of the S.D.A church, up to just before 1892 (serving as assistant editor from 1884 to 1891). This

tract, which Pacific Press officially published in 1892, presented the straight Trinitarian

hypothesis (for the most part), but devoid of certain traditional speculative thought as it

concerns the “mode” of the oneness of the Godhead, and was (note this carefully) not even

written by an Adventist, but by a Trinitarian non-Adventist, Dr. Samuel Spear (a Presbyterian

minister)! It was reprinted and published by permission from the New York Independent,

November 14, 1889! Interesting!! Even more interesting is the fact that it was the SDA pioneers

themselves who renamed the article ―The Bible Doctrine [or true biblical version] of the

Trinity‖, since the article was originally titled “The Subordination of Christ” by the Trinitarian

non-SDA minister who penned it.

This kind of reminds me of the 1845 Sabbath tract, reprinted and published among Adventists,

by permission through T.M. Preble, a Sabbatarian Baptist who introduced Sabbath keeping to SD

Adventists for the first time. While the Sabbath was and is today a very controversial issue only

outside Adventism, Trinitarianism was controversial for the early SDA pioneers, and today is

still very controversial among some (the minority) within Adventism. However, certain

similarities in their official introduction into Adventism are astounding! What is even more

astounding is that the 1892 pro-Trinitarian tract was published while Mrs. White was alive, and

was published by Pacific Press just four (4) years after the 1888 “Godhead” and

“Righteousness by Faith” controversies at the General conference session, which had Waggoner

5

himself presenting in a “new light”, certain ―old truths” about Christ being “a part of”, and

“one of the constituent persons of” the “Eternal Godhead” (later described as a “Trio”). But

there is more.

A full reproduction of this tract was personally and permanently recorded by M.L.

Andreason (another SDA pioneer) in his book entitled: “The Book of Hebrews” (1948). There,

on pages 115-124, is, unabridged, the same reprint of the entire Dr. Spear tract, defending the

Trinity, but avoiding certain speculative thought of traditional Trinitarianism!! The question is

why, if they had not become supportive of the Trinitarian doctrine in basic terms, while Mrs.

White was alive, would the Church publish unabridged, and evidently unchallenged, this

REPRESENTATIVE non-Adventist article, and in the face of (what is easily proven to be) so

many anti-Trinitarian pioneers? Now a number of other things can be observed here also:

1. It was E.J. Waggoner (along with A.T. Jones) who brought to the S.D.A. General

Conference of 1888, of four years before 1892, anti-Arian doctrine which was opposed and

resisted by very many pioneers in Adventism (even rejected by some), but fully supported by

Mrs. White, and later even expanded on in her own writings regarding the “Eternal Godhead” of

a “Trio” of “Three *LIVING [i.e. literal, real, genuine] Personalities/Persons”, with the

expression ―three living personalities‖ or ―persons‖ borrowed directly from another non-

SDA Trinitarian writer by Mrs. White herself…but more on that later.

2. It is evident that, from 1844-1888 (44 years), no Trinitarian doctrine or supportive was

in print in Adventism; only Arian and or semi-Arian (both anti-Trinitarian) sentiments were

being aggressively presented by Adventist writers, while Mrs. White, it seemed, remained silent

and observant on this issue. Then immediately after 1888, then came the 1892 tract, and other

new and ‗ground breaking‘ events, written expressions, and circumstances in Adventism which

gradually led to the official acceptance of a new version of the trinity doctrine by a growing

majority (not all) in the S.D.A. Church by 1913, yes, by 1913 (note that I did not say by 1931).

This will be proven by irrefutable documented evidence later. Just read on.

* It took over forty (40) years for the denomination to start to officially break with Arianism and

or semi-Arianism, and another forty or so years to fully accept trinitarianism (if even in a

revised/non-traditional form). What happened to reverse this pre-1892 anti-Trinitarian

sentiment in the S.D.A. Church? And the greater question is why did it happen?

The purpose of this presentation is to answer these questions in the most honest way possible,

and in effect showing or debunking the faulty viewpoints and groundless arguments of certain

detractors, who claim that trinitarianism was first introduced through ‗a new generation of

thinkers‘, such as Leroy Froom in the 1920s and, (as it is often argued by some) only after Mrs.

White died, an introduction which culminated in what they call the “omega heresy” of 1931, led

by the ―heretical” LeRoy Froom, and his General Conference “cohort”.

This presentation will trace the historic events, starting as early as 1876, which led to greater

tolerance for basic trinitarianism, and then the gradual, but resisted acceptance of a new version

of trinitarianism in Adventism before 1915. Yes, despite there was continued resistance all along

the way among some (both verbal and written resistance), but starting from 1892, while Mrs.

White was alive, „tailored‟ trinitarianism was destined to be what most in Adventism would

see as revealed Bible truth.

The format of the presentation will be as follows: an explanation of seven (7) historical

„landmarks‟ (chapters) in Adventist history which led to the acceptance of ‗a trinity‘ or ‗ a trio‘

6

(three persons) in the “Eternal Godhead”. See any dictionary about these two words (―trinity‖

and ―trio‖), as they are defined as simple nouns from their root, ―tri‖.

SEVEN HISTORICAL LANDMARKS TOWARDS ACCEPTANCE OF A

TRINITY DOCTRINE IN ADVENTISM

LANDMARK No. 1: James White‘s Change of Attitude to Trinitarianism as a membership Test (1876-1881)

LANDMARK No.2:

The 1888 Doctrinal Turning Point

LANDMARK No.3

Mrs. White‘s Endorsement of and Parallel Statements to the 1888 Message (1888-1915)

LANDMARK No.4

The First Publication of Trinitarian Teachings in Adventism (1892), and the Aftermath

LANDMARK No.5

Personalizing the Holy Spirit in Adventism after 1888 (1896-1915) – The Key to

Trinitarianism

LANDMARK No.6

The First Trinitarian Statement of Belief in 1913 and the General Conference Committee

Endorsement in 1931

LANDMARK No.7

The 1942, and 1950 General Conference Vote to Accept a Trinity in Adventist Theology

This writer believes that any and all facts that will be presented under the above listed headings

can be easily verified, and are „provable‟, if one is willing to take the time to investigate

objectively, and piece together the evidence that is available about the Seventh-day Adventist

history. However, before moving to the subject at hand, note the following historical facts.

THE TRINITY- CRITICAL HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. In just the same way there was no Jew until Abraham there was no true ―Roman

Catholic‖ until the conversion of Constantine (after 313 A.D.), and the making of

Christianity into the official state religion of the Roman Empire (thus forming

―Christendom‖). Before that, all Christians were just simply that; ―Christians‖, even

being persecuted and martyred by Rome itself up to Constantine.

2. Also, the Papacy (the supreme rule of the Pope through the Roman Catholic Church), or

the ―little horn‖ in prophecy, had no real separate existence as a political force until after

the collapse of the political Roman Empire under the emperors, thus ―coming up after‖

the ―ten kingdoms‖ arising out of the collapsed Roman Empire after 476 A.D. There was

therefore no true Papacy or ―little horn‖ until the emperors all passed off the scene,

despite popes (very important Roman bishops) existed in the Western part of the Roman

7

Empire before this reality. Constantine joining Church and State in 312 A.D. was just the

embryonic stage of the Papacy‘s origin, and the founding of Roman Catholicism.

3. Thus it is not true to say that the trinity doctrine was “invented” by the Roman Catholics

and the Papacy, since many early Christian writers such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr,

Polycarp, Hippolytus, Athenagoras, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Ignatius, Clement of

Alexandria, Tertullian in the West, Origen in the East, etc. (whom are usually called the

―Apostolic Fathers‖ and ―Church Fathers‖) existed during the period covering the stages

of the Christian Church prophetically called ―Ephesus‖ and ―Smyrna‖, from about 60 –

313 A.D., and they wrote the basic truths of the trinity doctrine, if even in rudimentary

form, long before the Roman Catholic system of state religion was founded (see the

website http://www.bible.ca/trinity/ for the historical facts and pre-papal documents,

writings, etc, on the Trinity). During this time the word ―trinity‖, and concepts of the

―eternal co-existence‖, and unity/similarity of ―substance‖ of the Persons of the Godhead

already existed alongside basic Arian concepts (evident in early Christian doxologies and

written expressions). The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. only provided a ―universal‖

(i.e. ―catholic‖; not a Roman Catholic), non-denominational Christian conference for the

airing of the views of Trinitarians and Arians alike. A pope was not even present at

Nicea, and those bishops who could be called ―Roman Catholics‖ of the West numbered

less than 10 out of over 300 bishops (pastors) in attendance. Later, despite Nicea,

Arianism and or semi-Arianism even became the official doctrine of Rome for a

time after emperor Constantine became ―Christian‖… proving that it was not only

Trinitarianism as a Godhead doctrine that was associated with the Church of/at Rome.

LANDMARK No. 1: James White‟s Change of

Attitude to Trinitarianism as a Test

It is no secret, and is easily proven, that James White, the husband of E.G. White, like quite a

few of our leading pioneers, prior to 1888 and even after (note- James White died in 1881), not

only NAMED but also registered in writing their serious objection to the doctrine of the trinity

(as traditionally taught at the time); leaving no room for tolerance or compromise. Those who

held on to the doctrine of the trinity (no matter the version), they believed (it was felt) in the

most grievous of errors, and were threatened with certain doom if they rejected the ‗truth‟- that it

destroyed the deity of Christ, and that it resembled nothing even close to the truth.

Condemnation was thus a certainty, once the ‗light‟ concerning this „abominable‟ teaching was

rejected; thus no hope of heaven. Note some of James White‘s early sentiments from the 1850‘s

(emphases supplied), illustrating the forgoing sentiments:

“As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit Sabbath [Sunday] other errors

which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic Church, such as sprinkling for baptism,

*THE TRINITY, the consciousness of the dead [soul immortality] and eternal life in misery…

8

As the true light shines out upon these subjects, and is rejected by the mass [in the ‗Catholic‘ and

Protestant Churches] then condemnation will come upon them” [after failing the test of fitness

for heaven, as it were].

-James White, September 12, 1854, Review and Herald, Vol.6, No.5, pg. 36

Notice carefully that he saw “the trinity” as one of the *―FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS‖ (not a minor

or secondary issue), and that anyone who rejects the “true light” about it, and other chief errors

in the same ―class” will be condemned, and would in effect not be fit for heaven after failing to

adhere to the revealed ―test‖ of truth. Thus none of the above listed errors, it seemed at the time,

could ever be ignored, or removed from the list, when highlighting the “errors” of “Babylon”

(i.e. Roman Catholicism and her ‗daughter‘ Protestant churches). It would be unthinkable; it

seemed, to ignore the trinity.

Now it abuses literacy and reason, or would probably show dishonesty or hypocrisy, if

someone read the following and did not see a CHANGE of attitude to the subject of the trinity by

James White in later years. This is absolutely critical, so read and analyze very carefully, what

this leading pioneer felt long before 1892.

In an editorial, on the differences between the Seventh-Day Baptists (Trinitarians), and

Seventh-day Adventists (largely anti-Trinitarians at the time), he said in 1876 9inserts and

emphases mine):

“The principal [fundamental or chief] difference between the two bodies is the

immortality question [not the Godhead issue]. The S.D.A.s hold the divinity [deity] of Christ so

[notice]*NEARLY WITH THE TRINITARIAN [i.e. the Seventh-day Baptists] that we

apprehend no trial here… Seventh –Day Adventists cannot afford a controversy [with the

Trinitarian] on doctrines which NEITHER regard as tests of Christian character …In the divine

Law, and in the gospel of the divine Son are the *tests of Christian character [producing fitness

for heaven]. And it is with an ill grace that those who have been splitting up into petty sects

[offshoot groups] during the nineteenth century [still happening today] over forms of church

government, matters of expediency, * TRINITY [the Godhead consisting of three persons united]

and Unity [the Father only is the Godhead], whether we may sing any good hymn in church, or

only the Psalms of David, and other matters [of similar nature or class] which constitute no test

of fitness for heaven [hence no condemnation involved] now pounce upon us [Adventists], and

display any amount of religious horror, simply because we regard strict conformity to the

Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, the only true test of Christian character”.

- James White, Review and Herald, October 12, 1876, pg.116

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

1. This statement was the official voice of the church at the time (amidst other Adventist

voices saying otherwise); coming from a General Conference president of many years;

coming from a man who was the closest to the leading pioneer and the inspired and

molding influence in the pioneering S.D.A. church, namely Mrs. White; and coming from

a man who must have shared his viewpoints with his wife before publishing them (that

she agreed with him is evident, and will be proven hereafter).

9

2. Notice his now more ‗mature‘ attitude to the Trinitarian concept of Christ‘s‘ deity; that it

was even then, in 1876, in nearness to the Adventist high esteem of Christ, and more

importantly

3. Notice that the Trinity doctrine, as held by original/traditional Trinitarians was now

removed from the list of issues of grave concern, which included the ―immortality

question”, and placed among perspective related issues of lesser concern (such as, what

hymns to sing in church), issues being fought over, and still today being fought over, by

those “splitting up into petty sects” or off-shoot groups. Clearly trinitarianism was by

then, that is, by 1876, not seen by James White as breaking the first of the Ten

Commandments, because if it was, then it would have to be a seen as a FAILURE of the

―test of fitness‖ for Heaven, and would have to be the first of all errors mentioned by

anyone writing about Babylon. Clearly Mrs. White was supportive of her husband in this

regard.

*Could this be the reason why if you search all of „spirit of prophecy‟ writings by Mrs.

White you will not find her even once NAMING, much more condemning the trinity

doctrine? How could she spend so much time detailing the errors of ―Babylon‘ and the

Papacy in particular, and ignore this issue in her most critical book, “The Great

Controversy” of 1888 (revised in 1911 herself)? It is absolutely clear that she agreed with her

husband from as early as 1876 even before the dramatic events of 1888 and 1892.

What precipitated this change of attitude? Clearly a more mature approach, a greater

spirit of tolerance for the view points of others on this issue, and a focus on what really is

important as a ―test of fitness for heaven”; obedience and faith in Jesus (or faith like that of

Jesus‘, which bears the natural fruit of obedience).

Another important question could be: Can we understand what Mrs. White would also class

among issues mentioned by her husband that should not be made a ―test‖ of ―fitness for

heaven? Yes we can, from the following quote:

“I have words to speak to…all who have been active in urging their views in regard to

the meaning of „the daily‟ of Daniel 8 [Dan. 8:11,12]. This is not to be made a *test question,

and the agitation that has resulted [among Adventists] from it being treated as such has been

very unfortunate.”

E.G. White, Selected Messages, Vol.1, pg .167

This establishes the principle of respect for fellow S.D.A.s who may have valid reasons for

holding their point of view on certain issues, especially in cases where not everything is crystal

clear, and thus could afford more than one possible explanation which may be close in meaning,

or where “mysteries” are involved. It also shows what can be classed among issues not to be

regarded as a “test” of fitness for heaven; “matters of expediency”, views on “forms of church

government”, the exact meaning of “the daily” in Daniel 8, and yes, the exact explanation of all

the “mysteries” of the “three persons” in the Godhead!! One may wish to take issue with this

1876 approach of James White, and the example of Mrs. White in ignoring the trinity when

10

dealing with “fundamental errors” of ―Babylon”, but this writer believes that if one follows the

example of Mrs. White, then an ounce of inspiration is for greater than a ton of speculation!

Now back to James White.

In my final words on this first historical landmark of 1876, it should be noted however,

that it is true that, after 1876, James White still disagreed with, not just the supposed

immortality of the soul, but also many points in the Trinitarian creed (even valid points

such as there being “three persons” in the Godhead, or Jesus being fully equal in authority

with the Father, or Jesus being “very God‖, in just the same way/sense he is ―very man‖),

but clearly would not have been around, in 1888 or in 1892, when new and revolutionary

events took place in his church regarding the Godhead doctrine. He died in 1881, but had

established a principle of tolerance for Trinitarians as it related to „Godhead” issues. Even

while he still disagreed with them on some points, he became less judgmental on this matter

as a test. If only he could see what fully happened later in 1892 in his church, and in the written

expression of even his very own wife… a coming change which began to be signaled, somewhat,

just before his death; signaled probably by the following honest historical account of D.M.

Canright before he left the SDA Church, as a pioneer. D.M. Canright said, in an article which he

published in the Review and Herald, the Seventh-day Adventist Church paper, under the date of

April 12, 1877:

“Do we not all agree that in the providence of God, special light is now being given upon the

subjects of the second advent near, the kingdom, the new earth, the sleep of the dead, the

destruction of the wicked, the doctrine of the Trinity, the law of God, God's holy Sabbath, etc.?

All Seventh day Adventists will agree in these things.‖

Notice how all the things listed here by Canright in 1877, ―subjects‖ he then declared that

―special light‖ was then ―shining upon‖ them, are doctrinal subjects Adventism came to accept

eventually and within Mrs. White‘s lifetime, but each in their own time? Interesting indeed,

when one considers what James White said about the Trinity just the year before, in 1876 (as just

quoted in this chapter), and considering what happened as of the publication and endorsement of

the Spear‘s Trinitarian article among Adventist pioneers in 1892!! I repeat. Interesting indeed!!

LANDMARK No.2: The 1888 Doctrinal Turning Point

It is no secret and is easily proven (yet too many Adventists are today unaware) that “many‖ (not

all) of the Adventist pioneers had either strict Arian, or semi Arian viewpoints about Christ, prior

to and even after 1888; not Trinitarian viewpoints. What this meant then, in essence, according to

E.J Waggoner in 1888, was that despite they all honestly and strongly believed in the divinity of

Christ, but, through certain faulty views and opinions, “many” (especially the strict Arians) did

in fact “actually deny his divinity” (Christ and His Righteousness, 1890, pgs.19, 20).

This early pioneering reality is often denied by some today in the minority in Adventism (i.e. the

dissident anti-Trinitarians), but was candidly admitted by SDA pioneer W.W. Prescott:

11

―WE [many Adventists] BELIEVED A *LONG TIME THAT CHRIST WAS A

CREATED BEING, in spite of what the Scripture says…‖

-W.W. Prescott, The 1919 [S.D.A.] Bible Conference Transcripts, July 6, 1919,

pg. 62

Who should we believe? Honest pioneers who were there at the beginning, or modern SDA anti-

trinitarians in the minority with certain biases to support? I suggest that the former seems more

prudent.

And even though some pioneers (who could be termed ‗homoeans‘ or semi-Arians) expressed

before 1888 that Christ is fully divine and was begotten (not created), they still could not all

accept (along with the strict Arians in Adventism) that Christ is ―God in the highest sense”; that

He is “one of the constituent persons of” or “a part of the Godhead”, “completely and

intrinsically”; that He is ―equal with the Father in all respects”(thus co-equal), and is ―of one

substance” with the Father. Hence the prime reason why so many would resist and reject the

1888 message that brought these and other monumental considerations to the young Adventist

movement for the first time.

At the 1888 General Conference of S.D.A.s, E.J. Waggoner and A.T. Jones brought

before the representatives, not only the truth that Christ is‖ begotten”, not created, but also other

truths never before presented in that light, or in those terms, regarding Christ. This fact was

clearly attested to and affirmed by Mrs. White, who was at the Conference herself; to be proven

hereafter. While it is true that Waggoner‘s *main intention was to counter the subtle spirit of

‗legalism‘ by Law keeping among Adventists, he also highlighted controversial concepts about

Jesus‘ divinity, as he uplifted the righteousness of Christ as the only means of salvation.

Apart from Christ‘s saving righteousness, here now is a quick summary of the other,

according to Mrs. White, “old truths”, presented in a “new light” (thus revised) by both E.J.

Waggoner and A.T Jones, followed by the subsequent endorsements by Mrs. White. Keep in

mind that their exact words, and the concepts used at the Conference of 1888, they themselves

recorded in books written later, and thus can be easily proven and contextually analyzed.

E.J. Waggoner‟s Testimony about Christ *(All taken from “Christ and His Righteousness”, 1890) Emphasis supplied

1. “He [Christ] must receive the same [equal measure of] honor that is due to God, and for

that reason He is God” - pg.8

2. “He is *of the very [identical] substance and nature of God” – page 22 [Thus He is ―very

God‖ in the same sense as He is said to be ―very man‖]. *N.B – see what the word ―of”

means in a good dictionary

3. “When He comes it will be as „the Mighty God‟ [Ps.50: 1-6;Is. 9:6;Is. 25:8,9]‖ – page 11

4. “Life inheres in Him” [pg. 22] and ―Having life in Himself He [also] is properly called

*Jehovah [LORD, I AM], the self- existent One” [Why not just the ‗Son of the self-

existent one‘?] – page 23 *N.B see Ps. 83:18 about the name “Jehovah”

12

5. “Christ is a part of the Godhead, possessing all the attributes of divinity, being the equal

of the Father in all respects [thus co-equal] as Creator and *Lawgiver [Is.33: 22]…If He

lacked one iota [the smallest item] of being equal to God [the Father] He could not [as

the human Messiah and sacrifice] bring us to Him”[this denies all concepts of Christ‘s

inferiority to the Father] – page 43.

*N.B see Is. 33:22 before continuing

6. “He did not first become *Mediator at the fall of man, but was such from eternity” [―all

eternity‖, Mrs. White later said]. – Page 141 *N.B see ―mediator‖ in the dictionary, and

determine the meaning of Jesus‘ personal (individual) distinction from ―all eternity‖.

7. Only a*TRANCENDENT Christ, who is completely and intrinsically one of the

constituent persons [essential members] of the Eternal [without beginning or end] Godhead

in the highest [nothing higher] and fullest [absolute] sense could be our all –sufficient

Creator [John 1:1-3], Lawgiver [Is. 33:22], Atoning Sacrifice, Redeemer, Judge [2 Cor.

5:10], Advocate, Justifier [Heb.2: 11], Sanctifier [Heb.2: 11], Glorifier [Phill.3: 20,21] and

Coming King [Rev. 19:11,13,16/Is. 33:22]. Only such a One could constitute the sole and

completely adequate source of righteousness imperative for sinful man…”

– Page 43. N.B-*see who the word ‗transcendent” usually refers to, in the

dictionary (e.g. Oxford Dictionary)

8. “If the reader [of Waggoner‟s 1890 book] finds it difficult to harmonize some of the

statements in the bible concerning the nature of Christ, let him remember that it would be

IMPOSSIBLE to express it terms that would enable finite minds to grasp it fully”

– pages 25 and 26

9. “Finally, we know the Divine unity of the Father and the Son from the fact that both have

the same *Spirit [Rom. 8:9]… we find that the Holy Spirit is both the Spirit of God and

the Spirit of Christ” [this denies that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, as

stated by strict Arians]. –pages 23,24

*NB Waggoner said very little in 1888 about the Holy Spirit‘s nature, since the real

focus of his message was Jesus‟ nature, but Pacific Press (which he led up to the 1890s)

probably made known his viewpoint on the Holy Spirit‘s nature by later presenting and

publishing, in 1892, the Trinitarian viewpoint. It is quite possible that he saw the Holy Spirit,

even then, in 1888, as (in his own words) “one of the constituent persons of the Eternal

Godhead”. Who knows whether or not even then he had not started to see the Spirit as

indeed one of the “three living personalities of the Heavenly Trio”, or the “third person of

the Godhead” (expressions subsequently borrowed from Trinitarian authors, and then clearly

endorsed and presented for the first time by Mrs. White herself in the succeeding years). But

of course we can only speculate, yet what is certain is that 1888 was a time of transition to

new viewpoints and the use of certain expressions that started to lean somewhat towards

Trinitarianism, though still being clearly Semi-Arian. But the clear support for basic

Trinitrianism was to come, and long before 1915.

13

Before moving on, the question could be asked: Was the word, “Godhead”, *in the sense of a

plurality of “constituent persons”, a ‗favourable‘ context Waggoner was using in 1888? Was

it favourable to all Adventists? The answer is NO! The honest answer is that the word

‗contextualized‘, or used in this sense, is NOT specifically stated anywhere in the Bible, and

was, historically, a word so used only by Trinitarians!

Thus it can be seen, from the following quote, that Adventists, prior to the 1888 and 1892

―doctrinal turning point‖, opposed the use of the word in the ―three persons‖ context (which

was then, exclusively, a Trinitarian type usage of the word).

“What a contradiction of terms is found in the language of [the] Trinitarian creed: „In [the] unity

of this [God] head are three persons*of one substance, one power and one eternity, the Father,

the Son and the Holy Ghost‟. There are many things that are mysteries, written in the word of

God, but we may safely presume the Lord never calls upon us to believe impossibilities”

[i.e. that three personalities are operating in and form the one Eternal Godhead].

-A.J. Dennis, May 22, 1879, Signs of the Times

The above quote is sufficient to establish the opposition Waggoner probably faced in 1888

regarding the use of the word ―Godhead‖ in the context of a plurality of persons involved.

Now let us turn to A.T. Jones‘ testimony in 1888, one which he later recorded in a

book, entitled, “The Consecrated Way” (1905), and the issues of contention will definitely be

made even clearer. Both Jones and Waggoner presented the 1888 message, so Jones‘ testimony

cannot be ignored, or divorced from Waggoner‘s. Inserts and emphases are mine.

A.T. Jones‟ Testimony about Christ “In the first chapter of Hebrews Christ is revealed as God, of the name of God [thus ―Lord‖ or

―Jehovah‖ is also his name]; because He is of nature of God. And so entirely is His nature of the

nature of God, that it is the very [identical] impress*OF [i.e. possessing, came from,

characterized by] the substance of God…This is Christ the Savior, spirit of spirit, SUBSTANCE

OF SUBSTANCE, of God…Therefore as in heaven He was higher than the angels [equal with

Father in all respects, including authority] as God, so on earth He was lower than the angels, as

man [thus could then declare the Father greater than He]. As when He was higher than the

angels, as God [divine], He and God [the Father] were*OF ONE [note the wording]; so when

He was on earth, lower than the angels, as man, He and man are [still presently] ‗of one‟ [Heb.

2:11]. So that just as certainly on the side of God, Jesus and God [the Father] are*OF one Spirit,

of one nature, *OF ONE SUBSTANCE [Why not ‗of like substance‘?]; so on the side of man

Christ and man [all humanity] are „of one‟ – of one flesh, of one nature, OF ONE

SUBSTANCE” [see the exact wording of the Nicene Creed in Appendix 2]

-A.T. Jones, The Consecrated Way, 1905, pgs 16,20

Clearly he meant Jesus and the Father had the same type of ―substance‖. However notice

carefully his stress on the ―of ONE substance‖ wording. Why, if he wanted to present the

historically strict semi- Arian wording of ―like‖ or of ―similar substance‖, did he not choose his

words more carefully, so as not to have his intended meaning or context misconstrued? Where

did he get such a precise phrasing? Certainly he did not quote verbatim from the Bible. Who is it

that would spend so much time clarifying the nature of Christ as it regards his ―substance‖? Only

14

someone versed in theology, and history! And A.T. Jones himself must have known that it was

traditionally the Trinitarian preference to express the Trinity of ―three persons‖ as being ―of one

substance‖. It was A.T. Jones who honestly and candidly remarked/admitted after 1888, in his

historical account of what happened at Nicea, that there never was any dispute among early

Christians that there is in fact a ―trinity‖ of ―three persons‖ (since that was a given), but rather

the REAL debate was about the nature and mode of unity of the persons involved. He admitted

clearly:

―In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them [i.e. those supporting

either Arius or Alexander at the Council of Nicea] wrote volumes, as if contending against

adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct

person and existence, and *all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of persons, yet,

from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore

were never at peace [quoted from Socrates]…

There was no dispute about *THE FACT of there being a Trinity; it was about the nature of

the Trinity. Both parties believed in precisely the same Trinity, but they differed upon the

precise relationship which the Son bears to the Father‖

-A.T. Jones, The Two Republics, 1891, pg. 333

A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner knew very well the historical facts concerning the

expressions used in the debate over the centuries by the ―orthodox‖ Trinitarians and opposing

Arians and semi-Arians, and knew the controversial import of the Trinitarian expression, ―of one

substance”, yet he freely used it. Notice, too, in the foregoing quote how A.T. Jones came to

recognize the trinity as a ―fact‖ (not just a teaching), and a “fact” that was a given before

Nicea, and accepted by all at the Council of Nicea, including those opposed to Alexander

(despite differences on the nature of that trinity). Thus, I must repeat and emphasize that the

Nicene debate was not about whether three persons were in the Godhead, since that was

already a given among Christians from the first century, but the debate was over the

nature of Christ and the mode of the Trinity. Notice as a result what A.T. Jones finally

brought himself to admit later in 1899:

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

third person of three]. And these three are one: there is no dissent nor division among them.‖

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

Seems clear which position he eventually took from as early as 1899 after 1888 and his earlier

stanch anti-Trinitarian viewpoints; viewpoints which earlier rejected ―three persons‖ of the

Godhead in the first place, and which earlier denied that ―these three are one‖ in the Godhead.

One anti-Trinitarian Sabbath keeper, Colin Gyles (a Jamaican), with some amount of

‗Adventist‘ orientation, stated recently that:

―The Bible is entirely silent on such questions as the substance of the Father and the pre-

incarnate Son.” [Thus anything else is speculation]

Colin Gyles -“The Trinity and the Foundations of the Christian Faith”, Open Face,

No. 26, June 2002, pg.6, column 2

15

Now if this statement is to be taken seriously, this could be seen as an indictment against A.T.

Jones‘ effort to be so clear and precise on this matter (and also an indictment against Mrs. White,

for endorsing his expressions on this matter), a matter that the Bible is, according to Gyles, so

―entirely silent on”.

The truth of the matter is that, historically, the Arian and Trinitarian controversy made it

necessary for the precise phrasing of this matter. The truth of the matter is that, for instance, all

reputable encyclopaedias (e.g. Britannica) show that all anti-Trinitarians are careful to avoid

using the expression, “of one substance” (from ―homoousion” in Greek).

Semi-Arians (sometimes called ‗Homoeans‘ or ‗Homoiousians‘) never say ―of one

substance with the Father‖ (from ―homoousion to patri‖), because they are ever careful to say,

“of like substance” (from ―homoiousion”in Greek), to avoid confusion of meanings; while strict

Arians (sometimes called ‗Anomoeans‘ or ‗heteroousians‘) always say Jesus is ―unlike” the

Father, or “of a different substance” (from “anomoios‖ in Greek), and thus is of a different order

of being (specie).

Now the question is, why would E.J.Waggoner team up with A.T Jones to present the,

“of one substance” concept, but all along really intend to present the full semi-Arian concept (as

some claim today), while using phrases that may be misconstrued as Trinitarian? To make it

even worse, how could Pacific Press, four years after 1888, in 1892, totally create further

difficulty by publishing a pro-trinitarian tract, if all along Waggoner and Jones intended to

present the so called full semi-Arian hypothesis? It does not make one bit of sense; only probably

to these who are either unable or unwilling to face the truth; that 1888 saw a „doctrinal

revolution‟ in Adventism regarding “Godhead” issues, and one which would have

Adventism gradually starting to accept, as of 1892, certain basic truths in Trinitarianism

before 1915, while still rejecting certain traditional explanations traditionally given about

the three persons and the mode of their unity.

Quoting what certain pioneers said against the trinity before and after 1888 (and 1892)

does not really solve the problem either, because it is clear that there were differing viewpoints

on the issue among pioneering Adventists, especially made clear after 1892. What must now be

ascertained must be, what was Mrs. White‘s viewpoint, as she guided the S.D.A. church towards

gradual unity on this controversial matter?

A careful analysis of her endorsements of, and parallel statements to (with even expansions

made on) the message of Waggoner and Jones, is now a matter of prime importance, and will be

attempted hereafter. But before doing so, please note carefully the following points:

1. If Mrs. White, after 1888, felt that all variations of the Trinitarian type thinking were

‗abominable‘, and borrowing phrases or ideas from the doctrine (whether fully or in part)

was so seriously objectionable, then she could only make this known by clear statements,

not silence; especially in the face of what happened in 1892! Why? Because Waggoner

and Jones (in 1888) and then even Mrs. White herself (after 1888) clearly borrowed

and presented concepts which either resembled or came straight from

trinitarianism, even if there were slight variations in their use, and Pacific Press later

affirmed and endorsed, in 1892, that the Godhead “trinity” is biblical- “The Bible

Doctrine of the Trinity” was the title of the 1892 tract it published, AND AS A

MISSIONARY TOOL!!

16

2. A comparison of the literal wording of the original Trinitarian/Nicene creed, with what

Waggoner and Jones presented in 1888 (and what Pacific Press affirmed in the

Trinitarian tract of 1892) show very little (minor) difference in wording about Christ. A

simple quote will suffice to show this, and also some of the basic premises of the

Trinitarian creed, which compares with Adventist beliefs after 1888 and 1892 (see

Appendix 2). Inserts and emphases mine.

“We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only begotten

[now notice] *that is, from the substance of the Father, God [divinity] from God, light from light,

true God [true divinity] from [the] true God, begotten not made [i.e. not created], *OF ONE

SUBSTANCE with the Father [‗homoousion to patri‘] through whom all things came into

existence…”

Encyclopedia Britannica, ―The Nicene Creed‖ 1970, Vol. 6- pg.719

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

Adventist theology regarding the, “Eternal Godhead”.

After all, wasn‘t Mrs. White candid enough to admit about Waggoner‘s 1888 message that:

―Is it not possible that through earnest, prayerful searching of the Scriptures he has seen still

greater light on some points?” -E.G. White, Manuscript 15, 1888. That‘s instructive!! The

doctrinal ―old landmarks‖ were not to be moved, true, yet they were ―landmarks‖ that they

“HAVE BEEN BUILDING UPON‖ (present tense), a process which clearly allows for things to

be added to the ―building‖ process…not a tearing down of the foundation.

Note what Mrs. White saw as the doctrinal “old landmarks” before 1888:

―In Minneapolis [1888 Conference] God gave precious gems of truth to His people in new

settings [i.e. old truths seen in a new light]. This light from heaven by some was rejected with

all the stubbornness the Jews manifested in rejecting Christ, and there was much talk about

standing by the old landmarks. But there was evidence they knew not what the old landmarks

were. There was evidence and there was reasoning from the word that commended itself to the

conscience; but the minds of men were fixed, sealed against the entrance of light, because they

had decided it was a dangerous error removing the "old landmarks" when it was not moving a

23

peg of the old landmarks, but they had perverted ideas of what constituted the old landmarks.

The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes

the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God's

people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels' messages and the third, unfurling

the banner on which was inscribed, "The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." One

of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in

heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. The light of the Sabbath of the fourth

commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God's law. The

non-immortality of the wicked is [also] an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that

can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks

is all imaginary.‖ —E.G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, page 30-31.

―We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are

infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have

occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and

opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed.‖ —E.G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, page 37.

What frankness and honesty! But more importantly, we see that up to that point NO

MENTION IS MADE OF THE GODHEAD DOCTRINE AS A SETTLED

“LANDMARK” WITH NOTHING MORE TO DISCOVER BEFORE I888, AND OR

THE 1890s. It is indisputable that the early Adventist Godhead doctrine (except, of course

emphasizing the separate being of Father and Son) was not seen by EGW as forming the

settled, and unmovable ―old landmarks‖ before 1888 and the 1890s, since 1888 proved that

new light came on this subject, and there were varying anti-Trinitarian viewpoints among early

Adventists about even these two divine beings. Here is one SDA pioneer‘s honest admission of

the situation in the early days:

―Although we [Adventists] claim to be believers in, and worshippers of one God, I have thought

that there are as many gods among us as there are conceptions of the Deity. And how many there are

of these, and how limited are most of them. Rather, how limited are all of them! We do not half study

the character of God the Father and [now notice very carefully] God the Son (!!), and the result is we

make Christ such beings as ourselves‖ [that is, having a beginning and limited as the Son of God]

-D.T. Bordeau – Review and Herald, Vol. 67, Nov. 18, *1890, pg. 707

Thus E.G. White could not mention this Godhead subject as fully hammered out, since more was

to come on the Godhead matter, especially as it concerns Christ‟s and the Holy Spirit‟s

nature. And more did come, starting from 1888, and 1892, as the irrefutable evidence will show

hereafter.

Keeping in mind that Adventism‘s Pacific Press, immediately after 1888, published a

Trinitarian tract in 1892 outlining and endorsing the reality of the three persons of the Godhead

in basic Trinitarian (yet non-speculative) terms, now notice this subsequent and very critical

development thereafter. While Waggoner probably had his eye one the matter in 1888, yet he did

not go as far as Mrs. White did in actually stating that our “personal God” can be considered as

not just the Father (which she did emphasize to be just the Father in very many places), but also

admitted that ―God‖ (obviously the group or specie of divinity) can be seen as a ―unity‖ of

24

―Christ with his Father‖, and ―God‖ (the specie of divinity) can be thought of as the unity of all

three speaking and acting in unison. Proof?

“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

"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 Lord Almighty." [Now notice

carefully] This is the 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

This again was a marked development after 1888 and 1892. Why were these kind of statements

never written by Ellen White before 1888 or 1892. It was simply because it was a case of one

thing leading naturally and logically to the other. Adventism first relied on the statements of a

Trinitarian, Dr. Samuel Spear (a non-Adventist), to express its endorsement of certain basic

elements in Trinitarianism for the first time in the pioneering Church. What Waggoner stated

before, in 1888, was simply that Christ and the Father share, not only an evident oneness or unity

by both having “the same Spirit”, but did so as co-equal and “constituents persons of the eternal

Godhead” ; co-equal “in all respects”. We now know that to be absolutely true, and yet this

revolutionary message sent a shockwave through the pioneering Church, and created much stir,

resistance, and rejection even. The Church (through Pacific Press) then later expanded on that

message through the full Trinitarian discourse of a non-Adventist Trinitarian in the 1892

tract….a tract that was never condemned by Mrs. White. Never!! The content of the tract will be

looked at under the next chapter; “Landmark No. 4”.

The question could be asked at this point, did Mrs. White mean for her statements about

the Godhead, together speaking as ―God‖ in unison for instance, i.e. the Father, the Son and the

Spirit, or because she agreed with Waggoner and Jones that Jesus and his Father have one Spirit,

or because they are ―of one substance‖, that they are one individual Being? Did Mrs. White mean

for her statement regarding “the existence of a personal God”, the unity of Christ with his

Father”, to reflect the Papal concept of the trinity (or three persons united as one Being) in the

Godhead, as one body with three faces (as others in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are

sacrilegiously portraying)? The honest answer is, NO! That is why I am careful to point out that

the Adventist concept of the trinity, from 1892 onwards, is markedly different from the

original/traditional …despite the closeness.

That also explains why some detractors (both within and without Adventism) point out that the

Adventist version of the trinity is ‗unorthodox‘, and that mainstream Adventists actually worship

‗three Gods‘, or three persons (beings) as God, because the Adventist version of the doctrine

divides the “substance” of the Godhead into co-equal beings. Notice the three beings that were

even prayed to by Mrs. White:

25

―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 of THE 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,"--wonderful

transformation. 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 own strength.

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. . .‖

-E.G. White, Manuscript Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268 (taken from Manuscript 95, 1906,

pp. 8-12, 14-17; "Lesson from Romans 15," October 20, 1906.)

While I think that the anti-Trinitarian detractors in Adventism may be honest and sincere

in their opinion of “three Gods” in Adventism, I can only honestly respond that the same could

be said about their worship of ‗two Gods‘, one higher, and “Almighty”, and the other lower, and

just “Mighty”. That would be so if their argument was valid, or if brother Thomas had it wrong

in John 20:28,29, in calling Jesus his ―Lord‖ and his ―God”, the separate being whom the

Father sent, and if he was ignoring Matthew 4:10 or Exodus 20:3. The truth in John 20:28 was

not just about the presence of another divine being (apart from the Father), but a recognition of

―sovereignty‖, as an object of veneration equal with and united with the Father (John 5:23).

There is no escaping the unity and co-quality of Father and Son in the Bible!

Was the Father confused about Himself, that He was “God” alone, but then declared His Son the

same as Himself, to be worshipped by man and angels (Hebrew 1:6,8,10)? No! Because His

Deity is never considered in isolation from that of His Son or His Holy Spirit, with whom he is

naturally united as the one Godhead from all eternity. He being ―God alone‖ is in comparison

with all false gods of human and Satanic devising on earth. Thus Waggoner was dead right in

1888, about the Godhead unity, made even plainer by Mrs. White below. How are the Father and

Son “one”?

“It seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, „I and my Father are one‟!

The words of Christ were full of deep meaning, as He put forth the claim that He and the Father

were [notice] *OF ONE SUBSTANCE, possessing [notice] the SAME attributes”.

-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, November 27, 1893, pg.54

COMMENTS: It is absolutely clear to this writer that-

1. A.T. Jones had it right in 1888, five years before this 1893 E.G. White statement was

made; involving a first time use of the words “of one substance” by Mrs. White. Why

did she not avoid this popular Trinitarian type expression, and instead used, “of like

substance” or “of similar substance”, as all ancient and modern semi-Arians (Homoeans

or homoiousians) would always say? Here again she obviously borrowed the statement

from Trinitarians, just like many others she did after 1888.

26

2. If, after the 1892 tract of one year before, in this 1893 statement she saw no need to be

careful in not using “of one substance”, then it follows logically that she was not

promoting strict semi-Arianism, but rather ‗tailored‖ Trinitarianism.

Semi-Arians, though they accepted that Jesus was ―begotten‖ from the Father‟s

substance, and that He is truly God in nature (similar in substance), they never

historically accepted the absolute equality of the Son with the Father. Some have been

known to accept even the three personalities as “beings” in the Godhead, but believe that

there is a gradation (not equality) of the personalities in rank, from the Father down to the

Holy Spirit. This truth is reflected in the following quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

“Semi-Arians…refused to call he Son a creature, were prepared to acknowledge *a trinity

[group of three persons in the Godhead]… and affirmed a GRADATION [denies equality]

of beings within the Trinity” [Godhead].

-Encyclopedia Britannica, ―Arianism”, 1970, pg. 382

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

minds.”

-G.C. Tenny- “To Correspondents”, Review& Herald, June 9, *1896, pg. 362

*N.B. “Veneration” – comes from Latin, “Venerari” – which means, “to worship”!!

This was the first time, as far as this writer knows that such a statement was published

in Adventism, setting forth the ‗personhood‘ and independence (thus individuality) of the Holy

Spirit, and presenting Him as “a heavenly intelligence”, who is an “object of veneration”.

Service to, honor, reverence or ―veneration‖ being given to the Holy Spirit is a Trinitarian

concept!! One only has to read the Nicene Creed and that reality is undeniable. Semi-Arians in

Adventism today (modern anti0Trinitarians) see this idea as ‗abominable‘ that is, serving the

Holy Spirit as you would serve the Father and the Son, not just responding to His impulses or

urgings by being obedient. Yet here again they are debunked by their own historical records.

Four years before this 1896 statement, in 1892, Pacific Press published the straight

Trinitarian hypothesis in tract form, while, in that same year, Mrs. White for the first time

directly referred to the Holy Spirit as a “being”. Evidence? Well here it is:

39

―The Savior‘s [Jesus‘] life and death and resurrection, the ministry of angels,

the pleading of the Spirit, the Father working above and through all… the unceasing interest

of Heavenly *BEINGS – all are enlisted in behalf of man‘s redemption.‖

-E.G. White, Steps to Christ, *1892, pgs. 20,21

No true Adventist will deny that in Heaven (apart from the already translated saints, e.g. Enoch,

Elijah, and Moses), there are two sets of “Heavenly beings”, namely, the angels, and the

members of the Godhead (Father, Son, and yes, the Holy Spirit). Now notice carefully here that

Mrs. White clearly lists the Holy Spirit as *one of the “Heavenly beings”, showing “unceasing

interest” in, and is “enlisted in behalf of man‟s redemption”. And why would she call upon

Him as one of the ―three Great Worthies‖ or ―three holiest Beings‖ in prayer (!!) if

inspiration did not lead her to see Him as an entity. Do you number a non-entity, and call

upon it? Carefully take note of her later clarifying statement in 1906:

―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 of THE 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,"--wonderful

transformation. 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 own strength.

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. . .‖

-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.)

Now, some faced with this truth may quickly respond, ―but the Holy Spirit is not

really seen as an individual being since other pioneers stated otherwise‖. See again the 1896

Review and Herald quote, as outlined before. Well, who says that full unity in this matter was

immediately achieved after 1892, or 1896?

However the truth of the root meaning of words cannot be denied. What does the word

“independent” mean? What does “personal capacity” mean? What does “One given” (as a

Representative) mean? What does ―representative‖ mean? What does ―three beings‖ means?

Some would force the word “Representative” to *falsely mean the ―actual presence‖ of the

Father and Son when it relates to the “Third Person of the Godhead”, yet declare Jesus as the

“Representative” of the Father in a different sense, that is, ‗not actual presence‟. That is what

dishonesty, and truth ―twisting‖ is all about. One cannot send Himself, and yet the Spirit is

repeatedly sent by BOTH the Father and Jesus, just as Jesus was by the Father and the

Spirit (see Is. 48:16), and so he is not the person of the Father or the Son literally. Notice

now the indisputable sequence of events in Adventism, which makes the matter so clear.

In 1898, immediately after the (earlier quoted) 1896 statement from G.C. Tenny, then

came the new “Desire of Ages” publication of Mrs. White, declaring for the first time that the

40

Holy Spirit is the “third Person of the Godhead” (remember only Trinitarians at the time

were speaking of the Spirit as the third person of the Godhead; not anti-Trinitarians).

One year after that, in 1899, she then stated in “Counsels on Health”, on page 222 (excerpted

from an 1899 speech made), that the “Godhead” of ―Father, Son *AND HOLY SPIRIT gave

Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption”. Now it is logical that only an

individual can have a „self‟ to „give‟, even if he is ―sent‖ by another. The same way Jesus

was ―sent‖ by his Father, but gave Himself, is the same way that Mrs. White described the

Holy Spirit, after the „doctrinal turning point‟ of 1888.

When you combine all of these expressions concerning the Holy Spirit– His

independence, His ―personal capacity‖, Him being ―a heavenly intelligence‖, Him being one

of the ―heavenly beings‖, and Him being also an ―object of veneration‖, as the ―third person

of the Godhead‖ – what do you get? A Trinitarian type concept of the Holy Spirit!! To say

otherwise would mean dishonesty, and or ignorance of the meanings of words.

Now, not many Adventists know this, but it is a fact that even ‗Catholics‘ have fully

endorsed the book, “Desire of Ages”, and even went as far as advertising and recommending it

to ‗Catholics‘ for reading, in the “Universal Fatima News”, of 1965!! Why? Because Roman

Catholics felt that it was not just a sterling discourse on the life of Christ, but is also

theologically sound as far as basic Trinitarian thinking goes. Yes! That‘s how they saw it in

September 1965.

Now it is logical to assume that the ‗Catholics‘ know what they teach (at least at that

level), and would not promote that which does not compare with, or is not close in essence to

what they believe! I have already stated that this does not mean that there are not some

differences in what the Adventist pioneers after 1892, came to accept, and what ‗orthodox‘

Trinitarians believe. But notice that the closeness was sufficient grounds for Mrs. White not to

condemn the Trinitarian type thinking, and for the Roman Catholics to endorse her teachings.

Roman Catholics would not endorse the ―Desire of Ages‖ referring to the ―third person of

the Godhead‖, if it did not reflect Trinitarian type thinking. They would not recommend a

book referring to Jesus, as “the begotten” Son of the Father, who was Himself also called “the

Deity”, and “Jehovah” (or “LORD God”), as a result of being the Son of God, if that was not

Trinitarian type thinking! That too is beyond dispute, as is also the fact that Mrs. White never

once named trinitarianism, as a subject to be condemned.

Remember the book, “The Great Controversy”? Remember “Daniel and the

Revelation” of 1897? Even Uriah Smith, who was vocally anti-Trinitarian before 1892, became,

it seemed, tolerant of the Pacific Press‟ 1892 Trinitarian tract, and he too (just like Mrs. White)

did not decry, much more condemn trinitarianism after 1892. Remember how he did not list the

trinity as an error of Babylon in his unabridged 1897 version of “Daniel and the Revelation”?

That too is beyond dispute, and speaks volumes about how he responded to 1892.

Now dear reader, whether you agree with these observations or not, it is a fact that you

must pause and give them some amount of thought. It should also be remembered that, what

would make any doctrine draw support from the Trinitarians (of the Roman Catholic order of

thinking), despite some differences, would of necessity have to be the declarations:

1. That, with the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit too must be equally an “object of

veneration” and must be “served” (according to Mrs. White), despite religious service of

this nature only should be given to ―the Lord thy God‖ or “ALL that is called God” [see

2 Thess. 2:4]. You do not number, and venerate, etc, a non-entity!!

41

2. That the Holy Spirit, just like Jesus, is part of the Godhead, and thus “must also be a

divine person”, the “third person of the Godhead”, proceeding from (and is sent by) both

the Father and the Son, and who, with the Father and Son together form the “Great

Threefold [unity of three] Power” [Authority], as stated by Mrs. White in S.D.A. Bible

Commentary, Vol. 6, page 1102.

3. That Jesus is “equal with the Father in all respects”, is a “distinct person” while “of

one substance” with Him, that is, “begotten” from His substance, but is also “from all

eternity” as a “distinct person”; all believed to be true by Mrs. White (as already proven

or will hereafter proven).

The above would serve the criteria of being seen as basic Trinitarianism, whatever the

prophetic truth is about the Papacy as the “man of sin”. Truth is truth, no matter if Roman

Catholics mishandled that truth. That truth about trinitarianism is what Pacific Press recognized

in 1892, and chose to align itself with, despite its sad history of being associated with those who

mix truth with error. Read again the preceding chapter in this presentation, “Landmark No.4”,

and see whether you can disregard or successfully refute all of those critical considerations. It

would take considerable “kicking against the pricks” to do so. Denial will not silence the

conscience.

It must be seen that all that took place in the Adventist Church between 1888 and 1892,

from 1896 to1899, and then from 1900 to 1913, as described in this book so far, was simply a

matter of, ‗one thing leads to another‘. The question is, why are the detractors today so ‗ignorant‘

of these pre-1915 facts, especially the 1892 Trinitarian tract? Could it be that they chose to

become aware of, or probably just select only those events, and doctrinal expressions of some

pioneers, which can be skillfully manipulated to give a certain slant or impression, while

ignoring the others?

It is hardly an argument worth worrying about, that some pioneers still opposed the

trinity in writing even after 1888 and 1892, because that was only natural. What must be seen is

what was gradually taking place: a new way of thinking was presented by a few in 1888, then

expanded on in 1892, endorsed by and expanded on by Mrs. White in 1888 and after 1892, but

was RESISTED BY SOME IN THE CHURCH.

Another indisputable fact is that if you look at the anti-Trinitarian sentiments of the

Adventist pioneers, it will strike a careful analyzer that the ‗bulk‘ of them came before 1888 and

1892. The opposition continued after 1892, but faded out and became *less over the years

following 1892. Notice I said “less”, not absent. This is simply explained by the fact that Arian

and semi-Arian thinking existed after 1892 but alongside Trinitarian thinking among the

pioneers, EVEN WHILE MRS. WHITE WAS ALIVE!!

Some still showed resistance (as some still do today), and an unwillingness to break with

the past. Even Mrs. White‘s own son, William White, after her death in 1915, said he was

“perplexed” over some things written by his mother in the period after 1892, and wished he

could have understood some of these statements as it concerned Godhead issues. Of course he

gave his personal opinions which, at times, reflected what many in the pre-1892 period thought,

especially as it concerned the ‗personhood‘ of the Holy Spirit that his mother eventually prayed

to as one of the ―three Great Worthies‖: the third of ―the three holiest beings in heaven‖.

However, it can be seen that gradually the Church came to a more full understanding of Bible

42

truth; “old truth” seen in a “new light”, which the ‗prophetess‘ was leading Adventism back to,

despite resistance.

This can be clearly seen, for instance, in 1890 (2 years after 1888), when an Adventist pioneer,

initials “J.W.W.” [J.W. Westphal?], asked:

“Are we [Adventists] to understand that the Holy Ghost is a person, the same as the

Father and the Son? Some [among us] claim that it is, others that it is not.”

-Review and Herald, October 28, 1890

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 1890 was not yet achieved on Godhead issues. Even

up to that point, in 1890, the issue of the ‗personhood‘ of the Holy Spirit was not yet a settled

issue in Adventism, contrary to what some today claim.

Uriah Smith was among those who did not believe the Holy Spirit to be a person, as is

clearly evident from his answer to the above question in 1890; a question which would be

unnecessary if it was a settled issue. He clearly said:

“Respecting this Spirit, the Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonized with the

idea that it is a person like the Father and Son. Rather it is shown to be a *DIVINE

INFLUENCE…”

-Uriah Smith, ibid

However, Mrs. White, G.C. Tenny (quoted earlier), A.T. Jones, along with M.L. Andreasen,

R.A. underwood, F.M. Wilcox, etc, were among those breaking with past thinking; and declared

the Holy Spirit‘s personal independence, and distinct/separate „personhood‟ (He is “a person

as God is a person” Mrs. White personally said), even though He is seen as inseparably linked

to the Father and the Son. Why else would Mrs. White state categorically (after 1890) the

following?

―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

“The Holy Spirit HAS [note „has‟] a PERSONALITY… He MUST ALSO BE A

DIVINE PERSON” [seems clear enough].

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

There is a clear difference between saying „something [the Spirit] is the personality‟

(or expression) of another, and in saying instead that*someone [the Holy Spirit]―has a

personality‖ [of His own], simply because He is ― a divine person‖ ―AS God is a person‖

among ―three persons‖ who are divine; not just two. The latter expression is clearly what

Mrs. White emphasized, by even saying, there are ―three living [literal, real, genuine]

personalities‖ in the Godhead, or ―three holiest beings in heaven‖ who can ALL be called

43

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 to send after He ascended to Heaven is the Spirit in

all the fullness of the Godhead [compare Col. 2:9]. There are three LIVING [literal, real

genuine] personalities [persons] of the Heavenly Trio” [group of three persons].

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

Notice how far Mrs. White was prepared to lead the Church regarding ‗personhood‘ of the Holy

Spirit, after her 1898 affirmation that the Holy Spirit is the ―third Person of the Godhead”, not

just a “personality” (see “Desire of Ages”, 1898, pgs.469-470).

Now the question could be asked, why did it take over forty (40) years (after the church‘s 1844

inception), for her to make this, and the following clarifying statements, regarding the Holy

Spirit‘s nature?

1899 - “The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and [not just] the Father, [but

also] the Son *AND the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of

the plan of redemption.”

-E.G. White, Counsels on Health, pg. 222 (from an 1899 speech)

Feb. 27, 1899- “He [Jesus] determined to give His Representative, the third Person of

the Godhead [the Holy Spirit;, ‗One given to act in Christ‘s place‘]”

-E.G. White, Bible Echo

1900 – The Holy Spirit is one of the “Three Persons” of the Godhead –

S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 6, pg. 1074 (from Manuscript 57)

1901 – He is one of “The [Three] Eternal Heavenly Dignitaries” of the Godhead, and

one of the “Three Powers, Infinite and Omniscient” in the Godhead –

S.D.A Bible Com., Vol. 6, pg. 1075, (from Manuscript No. 145)

1901 – He is a member of “The Great Threefold [unity of three] Power” [Authority] –

S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 6, pg. 1102 (from Manuscript 11)

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.

-Named: M.E. Kern, F.M. Wilcox, E.R. Palmer, C.H. Watson [G.C. president]”.

– General Conference Minutes, Dec. 29, 1930, pg. 195

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

1. First of all, notice carefully that the above is the report of what was voted on by a

meeting of the world body of Adventists (the General Conference); not a clandestine

group. A new statement was requested for the “Yearbook”; not for debate and

putting to vote. Why did they not just ask for a reprint of the old statement, which

existed from 1899?

A request of this nature (not from Froom of course) meant that for many years the last

printed statements of belief, i.e. the ones before F.M. Wilcox‘s 1913 Trinity

Statement of Belief in the editorial of Review and Herald, was not fully

47

comprehensive, as it was appearing in the Adventist yearbook. Was this only

happening after Mrs. White (the leading pioneer) died? The truth is, NO! Edson

Rodgers became the G.C. statistician from 1903 (to 1941), and since that time, even

while Mrs. White was alive, he was agitating for a *new statement of belief because

much had changed in Adventist thinking since 1888. This again is self-evident.

Remember the 1892 Trinitarian tract published by Pacific Press, and the gradual

personalizing of the Holy Spirit after 1892 (the very key to trinitarianism)?

It is also self-evident that because there was ongoing conflict about the new doctrinal

changes in Adventism since 1888, it just so happened that the last statements of belief

(written while Mrs. White was alive, and before 1913) did not take into account all

issues eventually agreed upon.

2. The official request from the African Division, headed by President J.F. Wright at the

time, made the earlier unheeded requests of Edson Rodgers even more forceful and

thus led to final action. This just happened to be the series of events as they unfolded,

not some ‗diabolical plot‘ (as some would think) to wait until the old pioneers all died

off to then change Adventist thinking. And by the way, several of the pioneers who

worked alongside E.G. White were still very much alive. The facts will show

hereafter that all the individuals involved were pioneers from the time of Mrs. White,

and not a new generation of Adventists.

3. Notice, carefully, that Leroy Froom had nothing to do with the request for the

Yearbook. He also had nothing to do with the G.C. committee of 1930-1931. He was

not in the picture at all. He was only later responsible for reporting the facts as they

took place, in his historical treatise on Adventism entitled, “Movement of Destiny”

(1971). Of course he was just one among many Adventists at the time gradually

recognizing, as Pacific Press did before him (while Mrs. White was alive), that there

was some validity to much of the Trinitarian type thinking, as it related to the

“Eternal Godhead”, and the personhood of the Holy Spirit (even if not all

explanations by original/traditional Trinitarians were valid).

He along with the Pacific Press (in 1892) and another pioneer called R.A.

Underwood (way back in in 1896) recognized that because of the earlier ‗acidic‘ anti-

Trinitarian sentiments in Adventism, there was very little written in Adventism to

recognize the personhood of the Holy Spirit, except for, according to Froom,

“priceless leads” in Mrs. White‘s writings. They therefore drew on non-Adventist

literature as a starting point (just as the Adventist Church did when it first accepted

the true Christian Sabbath); the only difference being the Pacific Press, in 1892,

published non-Adventist writings on the Trinity while Mrs. White was alive, but

Froom studied non-Adventist writings along with Mrs. White‘s thoughts on the Holy

Spirit, and then published his own book entitled, “The Coming of the Comforter”

(1928), after Mrs. White died. Mrs. White herself drew on Trinitarian literature

and authors (it is now being discovered more and) to borrow several phrases and

expressions which were then tailored to express truths about the Holy Spirit‟s

personhood as well as the personhood of the “three living persons” of the

Godhead. Fancy that!

48

Notice too that Froom had nothing to do directly with the FRAMING of the

1931 statements of belief, as they appeared in the Adventist Yearbook of that

same year. Four others (all pioneers) were responsible. The committee of four

were all top ranking men at the G.C. (who all knew Mrs. White personally).

Two of these men, F.M. Wilcox and E.R. Palmer, personally experienced

what happened in 1888 and 1892, but all four were fully aware of all the

doctrinal developments after 1892 (M.E. Kern and C.H. Watson became

Adventists in the early 1900‘s while Mrs. White was alive). Were they a “new

generation” of Adventists? Hardly!!

This writer has personally read one of F.M. Wilcox‘s pioneering works on the life and

teachings of Mrs. White entitled, “Testimony of Jesus” (1934), and I

personally feel that he, more than any other, was the most suitable member of

the committee. Why? He (apart from being the chief editor of the Review

& Herald while Mrs. White was alive) was also one of the original members of the

E.G. White Publication Board of Trustees (or E.G. White Estate) who, despite his

1913 editorial declaring Adventist as then believing ―in the divine Trinity‖, was

selected for this role personally by Mrs. White herself before she died. It would

therefore be difficult on my part to see him betraying the trust of Mrs. White, and

after being declared as trustworthy and spiritual by Mrs. White, then help to frame

statements contrary to her teachings he was entrusted with. No! No! I will

believe Mrs. White had too much insight into his character to see him leading

the church into apostasy.

F.M. Wilcox, along with E.R. Palmer, was there (as pioneers) in 1888 and

1892, and saw all the happenings (as described so far in this historical review) and

thus fully conversant with their implications in Adventism. C.H. Watson (the G.C.

President) and M.E. Kern (Associate Secretary of the G.C) were fully learnt in

Adventist thinking from the early 1900‘s (while Mrs. White was alive) and knew

what Adventists had come to believe since 1888 and 1892, despite the resistance from

the “old timers”, who were bent on holding tight to either the Arian type or semi-

Arian type thinking. Semi-Arians would hardly affirm, as Pacific Press did, Dr.

Spear‘s tract on the “The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity”, since even the word,

“trinity” (a group of three persons), in its root meaning as a simple noun, they believe

has no parallel in scripture. I wonder where they found the parallel to ―trio‖ (as used

by Mrs. White) in scripture, upon which the Adventist ‗Trio-istic‘ version of the

Godhead is based. “Oh what a tangled web we weave…”

4. The committee of four were doctrinally competent to frame the statement *for the

Yearbook! The statement was not to be framed for putting to the vote. This is self-

evident to those willing to see the facts. Also, it is evident to the insightful that the

four men were intelligent enough to realize that what was needed at the time was the

publishing of a new statement, which would probably need sufficient time for gradual

acceptance overtime, not an immediate vote by a representative few at the G.C. which

would ‗force‘ it upon the entire world church. So in 1931 they did just that.

An introduction of the word “trinity” (i.e. “three persons” being “constituent

persons” of the ―Eternal Godhead‖) into the official Adventist ‗creed‘ (statement of

belief), while it was then really just an evident ‗repeat-affirmation‘ of non-Adventist

49

expressions (like Dr. Spears, in 1892) and was the just a logical summary of what

started in 1892 and what F.M. Wilcox signaled in his Trinitarian editorial of 1913

while Mrs. White was alive, however, this move in 1931 still needed gradual

acceptance. So from 1931 to 1942, this new statement, having for the second time

since 1913, the word, “trinity” in the sense of the “three persons” (or ―Trio‖) of the

“Eternal Godhead”, was allowed to go un-voted for a few years.

Now notice carefully the wording of the 1931 Statement of Belief “No.2”; emphases

in brackets supplied:

“FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS [1931]

2. That the GODHEAD, or * TRINITY consists [notice] of the Eternal Father, a

Personal, spiritual being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom

and love; [secondly] the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through

whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; [and thirdly] the

third person of the Godhead, the Great regenerating Power in the work of

redemption. Matt.28: 19.That Jesus is very God, being OF the same nature and

essence as the Eternal Father. While retaining his divine nature took upon himself the

nature of the human family…”

-Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists, 1931 Yearbook, page 377

N.B. Please notice the word ―of‖ coming before the words “the same nature and essence”, and

notice the Father being called “a being” separately, all indicating that Jesus was not seen as the

same Being as the Father. This was therefore tailored Trinitarianism; not the traditional version.

Now dear reader, anyone is free to take issue with any, and all Adventist beliefs, but what

no one can dispute is that this is the very same thing the Pacific Press affirmed in the Dr. Spear‘s

pro-Trinitarian tract of 1892 and expressed by F.M. Wilcox in the Review and Herald‘s editorial

in 1913, WHILE MRS. WHITE WAS ALIVE!

Now it follows logically that affirmation is almost the same as a direct proclamation.

Also, “silence means consent” (our wise grandparents would say), and since Mrs. White did not

oppose or take issue with the 1892 tract, or with F.M. Wilcox, then what are we to make of this?

Her consent!

It stands to reason that since Mrs. White never directly defined her own use of the phrase

“Eternal Godhead” to mean nothing more than what Pacific Press affirmed in 1892, that is, it

being a “trio” or “trinity” (three persons united) in the Godhead, then no honest thinking

Adventist could say that this 1931 statement was contrary to what went before.

Also, as so clearly outlined in the foregoing chapters, namely “Landmark No.2” and

“Landmark No. 3”, since Waggoner and Jones personally declared Jesus to be, “very God”

(divine), and “of one substance”, “of one nature” (or essence) and “of one Spirit” with the

Father, then no one can hardly say this was contrary to what went before Mrs. White died, except

to say Father, Son and Spirit are not one being, despite they are together our God (John 20:28).

50

I am prepared to allow anyone to disagree with me on interpretation of scripture, but

cannot find myself respecting someone who has clear *historical facts before him and

endeavor to deny them or explain them away in order to deceive. That is what some in

Adventism are doing today, and the fruit of their labor will prove itself in the end.

But in closing on this sixth historical “landmark”, it must again be acknowledged that,

yes, the 1931 Trinitarian statement was not officially voted until later. Yes it just started

appearing in the Adventist Yearbook after 1931, but only in fulfillment of a direct General

Conference mandate; but unwittingly it served as a stimulus to test the responses and reactions

within Adventism. However only those unwilling to be objective enough to see the wisdom in

this move (as just described) would feel that this was ‗underhanded‘ and ‗demonically designed‘

to be surreptitiously ‗passed off‘ on the masses of Adventists. But notice now what then took

place thereafter. And again I challenge any and all readers to disapprove if they can, the

historical facts being presented here, upon which I am prepared to recant or retract

publicly my statements as a writer. This writer is prepared, as many of the early pioneers

were, to accept that truth is constantly unfolding, and one must be prepared to see truth

triumph (at the personal expense of even your pride), and show a humility, low enough and

willing enough, to admit that even when you think you knew it more than others, you can

still be taught by others, and be prepared to say, “I had it wrong”.

LANDMARK No. 7:

The 1942, And 1950 General Conference Vote

to Accept ‗A Trinity‘ in Adventist Theology. In 1942 (on January 14), as the “Minutes” show, the General Conference Committee

then voted that the revised “trinity” statements from 1913, which had been appearing in the

Yearbook since 1931 (and the Church Manual since 1933), be made available in leaflet from,

since by common consent it was agreed to by most, despite it met some, but not widespread

resistance.

Then in 1950, as revealed by the General Conference Bulletin of July 23, 1950, page 230,

the FULL General Conference body of world representatives officially voted in San Francisco

(U.S.A.) that no change be made in the “Fundamental Beliefs” statement which had the word

“trinity” to mean the Godhead Trio of BEINGS. This session of 1950 would have afforded the

airing of the necessary objections by those opposing, but as is well known, the S.D.A. Church

has always respected the DEMOCRATIC principle of ‗majority vote‘. Not that truth is to be held

hostage to a vote, but unity in doctrine must also subscribe to the organization of the church,

else there would be utter confusion among the brethren, as some are “tossed to and fro” by

“every wind of doctrine” (see Eph. 4:11-16 and Rom 16:17).

FINAL WORD:

The foregoing facts stand on record, and only when ALL or even MOST facts (here

presented) can be discounted or successfully proven false, would this writer see the

arguments of the detractors or „nay-sayers‟ as valid. Today the Adventist Church is

51

„Trinitarian‟, if even it is so after many years of gradual development before 1931, and not

the result of a „voted-by-a-few‟, „overnight‟, occurrence. Today the Adventist Church will

remain „Trinitarian‟, even if it is so in an „unorthodox‟ way (as so often pointed out by the

detractors). Historical events cannot be denied, even if doctrinal matters may be a matter

of interpretation and is opposed by some. Let every man be convinced in his own mind.

*The Epilogue that follows is open to all for analysis, as it looks at whether the Trinity

statement in mainstream Adventism is logical, and or Biblical.

EPILOGUE: Does The Adventist “Trinity”

Statement of Belief Make Sense? Detractors and ‗nay-sayers‘ in Seventh-day Adventism, both today and in the past (since

1931), charge the Adventist Church with ―heresy‖ and ―apostasy‖, for introducing trinitarianism

into the church‘s theology only after Mrs. White and the early pioneers all died. However, if the

historical facts and data, as presented in the main body of this research, were to be presented in a

court of law, for analysis, there would be too much ‗reasonable doubt‘ existing, based on the

evidence, to declare the post-1915 Adventist church guilty of introducing new thinking. The

honest verdict would either be ‗case dismissed‘, or ‗not guilty‘, based on irrefutable evidence.

The actual truth is that the post-1915 church simply built and expanded on the ideological

changes, which were already evident in Adventist literature since 1888 and 1892. Since the

1890s Mrs. White had been drawing on Trinitarian authors, borrowing popular Trinitarian

expressions and phrases, and penning expressions similar to the essence of the following quote,

which had not yet been expressed in the official Statements of Belief of the Adventist Church

until F.M. Wilcox‘s Review and Herald (Oct. 9) editorial in 1913 (as seen in the following).

"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..."

All the Statements of Belief up to, and including the one in *1912 (the last one

formulated before the 1913 “Trinity” affirmation seen above) never expressed these truths

about the Holy Spirit‟s place in the Godhead as the “Third” member, simply because they

were not yet fully „hammered out‟ in Adventism. In 1889 for instance, certain truths were

not yet established about the Holy Spirit, to be finally expressed in the Statements of Belief

of that year. No one who really knows the full truth can deny this fact. This is what 1931

was therefore all about-- a public re-acknowledgement and official declaration of what

many in Adventism had been endorsing since 1892 and up to 1913, that is, an affirmation

of Trinitarianism, if even in a „tailored‟ form (that is, the Holy Spirit was fully personalized,

52

and Jesus accepted as equal with the Father, but the Godhead Persons were still not seen as

one individual Being).

IT‟S ALL A MATTER OF CONTEXT OF MEANING

Some detractors in Adventism try to show, but rather unconvincingly, that their

belief in a ―Trio‖ of ―Personalities‖ in the ―Godhead‖ is not basic Trinitarianism, but they

do so only by either DENYING in one sense, or LIMITING in another sense the very

similar root meanings of the simple nouns ―trinity‖ and ―trio‖, and by denying or forgetting

the exclusive Trinitarian use (historically) of the word ―Godhead‖ in the COLLECTIVE

“threefold” sense. Only if the words ―trio‖ and ―trinity‖ had unrelated root meanings, and

the word ―trinity‖ could not, in any shade of meaning, be correctly applied to the unity of

the Personalities in the Godhead, would their arguments be seen as valid.

„Trio-ism‟ in Adventism, as far as semantics go, is basic trinitarianism to a certain degree,

despite protestations to the contrary. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is no less Trinitarian, despite its “unorthodox”

version of the doctrine, than a ―liberal‖ Jew is Jewish. Jews are categorized today as ―orthodox‖,

―conservative‖, and ―liberal‖ based on how close they stick to the tenets of Judaism (traditional,

that is). And yet not all traditional Jewish beliefs were supported by Jesus (a Jew) while he was

on earth. He himself added on to and amplified traditional Judaism. It is therefore an argument

that is invalid, and steeped in ‗intellectual pride‘, which argues that trinitarianism is not

trinitarianism, or even Arianism is not Arianism, unless it is so in an ―orthodox‖ way. It was

“orthodox” Judaisers that rejected Jesus as “God”, and yet the first “Christians” were all

Jews accepting new and unfolding truths about the Godhead!! Remember that.

Trinitarianism is predicated upon the principle of a belief in ―three Persons‖ within the

―one Godhead‖, no matter how you explain the relationship of the three Personalities (the trio),

or the nature of the three Personalities. It is Biblical to affirm “three living [literal]

personalities” in the Godhead, and this is what “a trinity” is. Even the false trinities, triads and

trios in pagan religious – proclaim the true definition of ―trinity‖.

Once, by a Christian, ―three persons‖ are affirmed in the Godhead, whether as three separate

persons (beings), or personalities, but all are related and in union (which some mistakenly call

tri-theism), or as three personal ―manifestations‖ of the one ―existence‖ or reality (being), but all

related in ―substance‖, then that Christian is a Trinitarian (whether in an unorthodox or

orthodox/traditional way). Some, unwittingly, are Trinitarians (unorthodox maybe), 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 affirmed three persons

in the Godhead, stated that trinitarianism is simply based upon the true definition of the word

“trinity”, which means “three [distinct] persons” who exist together by close relationship; just

like “trio”, “triplet”, “triad” and “triumvirate” – all coming from the prefix “tri” [three].

―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

53

Thus a TRUE trinity is simply ―thee persons‖ (trio), and is not supposed to be, in by Waggoner‘s

own admission, a single person, personality, individual, or even a three-faced singular Being, as

critics rightly charge the Roman Catholics, for instance, to be sacrilegiously teaching since the

Apostle‟s Creed (of the fourth century) summarized the early Trinitarian-type expressions of the

first and second century Christians. See Appendix 2.

But if in Adventism, between 1892 and 1913, and long before 1931, the three Persons

in/of the Godhead (and in fact ―Biblical‖ trinitariansim through Dr. Spear‘s article) were directly

affirmed by SDA pioneers in the church and declared to be “three holiest beings in heaven” by

Mrs. White, then as sure as trilogy, tricycle, triennial, triplicate, trident, tripod, and tripartite all

relate to ―three‖ distinct, but related entities, pioneering Adventism became supportive of a

“trinity” in the Godhead (if even not by orthodoxy); the type which accepts the persons three as

distinct beings, just as J.H. Waggoner defined a true trinity to be in 1884. This seems more

logical, it would appear, and underscores the reality that if Father and Son are separate beings

then these two could not be the same being of the Holy Spirit at the same time, but the

Spirit must, of necessity, be a third representative being, in order to “preserve” the

“distinction” of the beings of the Father and Son that Waggoner spoke of above…hence

―three holiest beings in heaven‖ by Mrs. White‟s own admission; not just two!!

With that said, let us now look closely at the “trinity” statement in Adventism as it concerns

three beings of the Godhead.

ANALYSING THE S.DA. ―TRINITY‘ STATEMENT OF BELIEF

The Adventist Statement of Belief, regarding the “trinity” [unity of three Persons] in the

“Godhead”, has since 1931, undergone some changes in terms of the wording. Look back at the

1931 statement, under “Landmark No. 6” (Chapter 6). Today (since 1981), it reads; emphases in

brackets supplied:

―Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists [1981]

2. The Trinity

There is *one God [i.e. one divine specie of beings, or divinity]: Father, Son and Holy

Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal [each existing from all eternity] Persons. God [the

divine specie] is immortal, all-powerful [that is, omnipotent], all knowing [omniscient],

above all [sovereign], and ever present [omnipresent]. He [all of divinity] is infinite and

beyond human comprehension [transcendent], yet known through his self-revelation. He

is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service [or veneration] by the whole

creation… [Notice that the ―He‖ here is collective; similar to the ―he‖ for all mankind]

3. The Father

God the Eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all

creation…the qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also

revelations of the Father…

4. The Son

God the Eternal son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through him all things were

created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and

54

the world is judged. Forever truly God [divine], He became as truly man [human], Jesus

the Christ…

5. The Holy Spirit

God the Eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation,

and [our] redemption… sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children…”

-Fundamental Beliefs of S.D.A.s, Adventist Yearbook, 1981, pg. 5

*N.B. Orthodox Trinitarians declared, ―We worship One God [i.e.one divine Being] in

trinity [three persons or personal manifestations] and trinity [three persons or personal

manifestations] in unity [in union]‖. Adventists, even after the above 1981 statement

insist on three separate Godhead beings when explaining the trinity; note one Being only

Evidently the foregoing was the same doctrine, at least in basic terms, which the Pacific Press

affirmed in 1892, by publishing Dr. Samuel Spear‘s article, which it renamed “The Bible

Doctrine of the Trinity” long before 1931. This has to be so, since Dr. Spear made it clear that

the mode of the oneness of the Trinity is a mystery, and so all one is left with after affirming

―three persons‖ are three persons or beings united in a way we cannot fathom, and any

speculation beyond that is unnecessary. Pioneering Adventism accepted a Trinity only on those

terms. But be that as it may, one is probably moved to ask the following honest questions, when

one reads the foregoing Adventist statements of belief, especially Belief No.2:

1. Does the foregoing statement make sense; is it intelligible?

2. According to this statement, is God a person (or is He personal), or just

a ―unity‖, a group entity? And how can more than one person be called a ―he‖?

3. Does that not mean that three persons are one person?

4. Would you say that the statement is Biblical, to see God as a unity of persons or

group of persons?

5. And doesn‘t the Bible refer to the “one God”, our “personal God”, as the Father

only?

In response I say, compare the following E.G. White quotes (representing true Adventism), and

then ask the same type of questions about the persons involved.

“The existence of A [singular] PERSONAL GOD, the UNITY [oneness] of Christ with His

Father lies at the foundation of all true science.”

-E.G. White, Manuscript 30, October 29, 1904

"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 Lord Almighty." [Now notice

carefully] This is the pledge of [not just one person, but] the Father, the Son, and the Holy

55

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

The foregoing statements make perfect sense (whether two or three persons of the Godhead are

in focus), if the full truth of the Bible is considered, and not turned against itself by ‗human

wisdom‘ (Cor. 2:5-7) to produce nonsense.

The statements are intelligible to those who make intelligent summary of spiritual things, which

can only be ―spiritually discerned‖, by ―comparing spiritual things with spiritual‖ (1Cor. 2:13,

14), not scientific with the spiritual.

Science will not always explain that which is transcendent, infinite, mysterious, and divine;

which is what the ―Eternal Godhead‖ is. Sometimes logic is helpful, but other times not.

Sometimes, only by looking at the simple illustrations of certain spiritual things on earth, are we

then able to capture a glimpse of the complex nature of eternal things in Heaven. Notice the

following very helpful illustration, also from Mrs. White‘s writings, which proves this point:

“Man [collective] came from the hands of the Creator, perfect in organization and

beautiful in form. The fact that HE [collective] has for six thousand years withstood the

ever increasing weight of disease and crime is conclusive proof of the power and

endurance with which HE [collective] was first endowed.”

– E.G. White, S.D.A Bible Comm., Vol. 1, pg. 1082

Now does the foregoing statement make sense? Is it intelligible? Is “Man” a person,

a group entity, or specie? How can more than one human person/being, male *and female, be

called “he”? Does that mean that all humanity existing for the last six thousand years is just one

person? And would you say that the foregoing statement about “man” is Biblical? The answers

are all obvious.

The truth is that *CONTEXT of language is all that matters, in order not to turn the simple and

intelligible meaning (within a certain context) into complex nonsense.

Firstly, notice that the word ―is‖ (not ―are‖) always comes after the word “man”, despite

the word is, at times, collective in nature. Thus in the same way the generic word ―Man‖ is a

collective noun for all persons of humanity, properly referred to as “he”, while at the same

time it functions as a singular noun, the same is true of the word ―God‖, meaning all

Persons of divinity within the Godhead (see 2 Thess. 2:4). The word “God” is both a

collective and a singular noun describing all persons of the ―Eternal Godhead‖, properly

referred to as “He”, whether in collective or in singular, while it also refers specifically to

the Father of all, Jehovah Himself. So “God” for the Christian is, firstly, the Father, but

also Jesus His Son, and the Holy Spirit (“the third Person of the Godhead‖), their

Representative. To deny this is to deny the full teaching of the Scriptures (e.g. John 1: 1;

John 20:28, 29; and Acts 5:3-5). ―Man‖ (meaning all humanity) *is an earthly being (reality, or existence) or specie, who

is mortal, finite, limited and is not worthy of veneration, unlike ―God‖ (meaning all the Persons

of divinity), who is forever immortal, infinite and transcendent. The meaning in context is clear,

at least to this writer.

56

Ellen White, Adventism‘s chief pioneer, almost everywhere she wrote about God usually means

the Father exclusively, BUT NOT ALWAYS!! In several places she calls Jesus God, or the

Deity‖ as if it was the Father she was talking about. This is not unlike her because she usually

means that Jesus being seen as God has to do with his office of representing the Father, as well

as his right to the transcendent title because of not just his unity with the Father, but also his

natural inheritance to be “God over all” and “God in the highest sense” ―from all eternity‖.

Notice the context in which she calls Jesus God in just one place:

“God has a church [who is she talking about here? Read on]. It is not the great cathedral,

neither is it the national establishment, neither is it the various denominations; it is the people

who love God and keep His commandments. "Where two or three are gathered together in my

name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20). Where Christ [notice whom she makes the

subject of her discourse as God and the High and Lofty One and the eternal Rock] is even among

the humble few, this is Christ's church, for the presence of the High and Holy One who

inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church. Where two or three are present who love and

obey the commandments of God, Jesus there presides, let it be in the desolate place of the earth,

in the wilderness, in the city enclosed in prison walls…. They that will be doers of the word are

building securely, and the tempest and storm of persecution will not shake their foundation,

because their souls are rooted to the eternal Rock. --Letter 108, Oct. 28, 1886

So we see that Mrs. White at times speaks of Jesus as God just as she would speak about the

Father, despite it is true that most times when she speaks of God she was indeed speaking of the

Father. In fact, whenever she was speaking of ―our personal God‖ she usually meant the Father,

but not always, and in fact sometimes means Father and Son united, and at other times

(especially after 1892) she wrote about the Father, Son, and the Spirit (all three) united and

depicted as speaking or acting together as ―God‖ or ―the great threefold Power‖ (singular);

obviously with the Father being seen through Jesus as His visible Revealer and Representative,

and the Spirit as His omnipresent but invisible Representative. That is precisely the way historic

Trinitarians explain the relationship of the three in the one Godhead. Notice carefully in the

following quotes from her:

“For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the

foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 1 Cor. 1:21.

The existence of a personal God, 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. We see the working of His power and His wisdom, but He Himself is beyond our

comprehension. The ocean, the cataract, the lofty, rugged mountains reveal but imperfectly His

handiwork. Satan has introduced confusion and deformity into the creation of God. Something

more than nature is needed to reveal the character of the Father.

Christ came to this earth to reveal what finite minds can comprehend of the glory of God. He

came to unite divinity and humanity that through Him, with character made perfect, human

beings might at last behold God in the fullness of His glory.”

- Manuscript 30, Oct. 29, 1904, "Redeem the Time."

“When you accept Christ, you are in one sense cut away from the world. You are dead to its

ambitions, dead to its greed for advantage over your brethren and neighbors. God says, "Come

57

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

Lord Almighty." This is the pledge of [the Lord Almighty, and yet it was NOT the saying or

pledge of one person only but notice] the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; made to you if

you will keep your baptismal vow, and touch not the unclean thing. You are to turn aside from

all that would pervert the pure, sacred principles of truth. You are to enter into no intrigue.

Sharp practice with believers or unbelievers, is an offense in God's sight. It is a sin which places

those who commit it in connection with the author of all sin.

-Special Testimonies, June 19, 1901 par. 6

After we have formed a union with the great threefold power [singular], we shall regard our

duty toward the members of God's family with a sacred awe. We shall seek to answer the prayer,

"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," by living pure, sanctified lives, showing the world

how the will of God is done in heaven. –Special Testimonies, June 19, 1901 par. 8

COMPARING GOD‟S NATURE WITH MAN‟S

So far I have just looked at context of language. Let us now compare ―spiritual things with

spiritual‖, in order to get a deeper insight.

At creation God made only one human race; not different species of “Neanderthal”, “Homo-

erectus”, or “Cro-Magnon” human-like beasts (Acts 17:26) All humanity is “of one blood” (or

of one substance- Acts 17:26), of one nature, of one specie or order of being.

At creation only one specie of ―Man‖ was created, but notice that two persons of humanity, both

of one substance, and forever more truly human, were together called “Adam” (Gen. 5:1,2) or

“man”, but as far as distinction goes are male and female serving different functions. ―Man‘s‖

own nature reflects God‘s own image (see Acts 17:28).

Today, with billions on the planet, all persons are still together called ―Man‖, and

properly speaking called ―he‖, and on the spiritual level the male and female united form “one

flesh”. Notice, Man (collective) in his billions, male and female, is the creature of God. Is there

any difficulty here? Evidently, NO!

There is no difficulty, for instance, in understanding that God drove “the man” or

“him” out of the Garden of Eden (Gen.3: 22-24), but in fact drove a plurality of persons out –

two individuals! There is no difficulty in understanding that, in the spiritual sense, the male and

female united produce, spiritually, “one flesh”, and hence the reason why the Bible called both

(of one substance) “Adam”.

There is no difficulty in understanding that, spiritually, the male of the specie is the ―head‖ of

the wife, but each are still absolutely equal (co-equal), even if the woman came from the

male. Simply, by reason of being of one substance (flesh), of one nature (essence), and should be

of one purpose, as a specie acting together, they are co-equal.

God made “man” (plural) “in his own image” to be a plurality of persons, who would

exist together, whether as male or female, or even as all humanity, *IN UNITY, to reflect His

own nature within the Godhead. That is seen as perfectly understandable and logical, but the idea

of “God” speaking as an “US”, that is, the Father speaking about Himself and His Son

(see Gen.1: 26/Gen 3:22/Gen 11:7/Is.6:8), and thus are revealed as a specie of divine Persons –

the Father, revealed in the Son, and present everywhere by the Holy Spirit – is an idea that is

seen as ridiculous.

58

I put it to you dear reader, for contemplation, that “all that is called God, or that is

worshipped” [2 Thess. 2:4], as far as divinity is concerned, is NOT one Person, in just the same

way that “Man”, as far as humanity is concerned, is not one person.

The Bible, while distinguishing them as personalities, also clearly describes and identifies the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as “God”. And they are rightly so, “in the highest sense”

Mrs. White declares, but the Father is the “head” of Christ (the God-man), His “equal in all

respects”, just like Adam was to Eve, his equal in all respects.

The Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit are each “of one [the same type] substance”, having

“the same attributes”, and thus, being of the same kind of specie, or same order of being, are

therefore each fully “God”, and each possess the “fullness of the Godhead”! I put it to you that

they are not one Person, but three – thus a “trio” or “trinity”, as the various dictionaries prove

the two simple nouns to mean the same thing.

CAN MONOTHEISM AND TRINITARIANISM RECONCILE?

Lest one forget, it was J.H. Waggoner (a pioneer) who declared this dictionary

meaning of the simple noun “trinity”, that is, “three persons”. Why should the word “trio” be

any different? If only he knew (at the time) that the Pacific Press, and his church, would come to

acknowledge this in 1892, 1900, and 1913 , that is, in the truest meaning of the word, not the

faulty explanation given by some. If only he knew that Mrs. White would affirm monotheism, or

belief in ―the existence of a personal God‖, to be more than one divine Person in ―unity‖. The

truth is that Christianity is the only monotheistic religion which uses the conjunctive ―AND‖

(John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6) when talking about God, because ―God‖ as a Person, and ―God‖ as

a specie, was truly ―manifested in the flesh‖ (1 Tim. 3: 16) in the human Personage of Jesus

Christ. Thus ―God‖, as a Person, and as a specie, is both divine and, by way of Christ, also

human. But the Father and Son are truly distinct beings.

Muslims (monotheists) say, “there is no God but Allah”, full stop. Why? God, they

believe, cannot have a Son, or share his glory and supremacy, or cannot exist as a specie of

divine persons (according to the Koran).

Jews, without accepting the unfolded truths of the New Testament, say there is no God

but Yahweh, the Person of the Father; “He reigned alone” (as quoted from the Jewish hymn,

“Lord of the World”). Why? This is because they, like the Muslims, reject Jesus, and never

accept the “us” of Genesis to mean more than one divine Person described as “God”.

Christianity, however says (according to the Bible):

1. There is but “one God the Father *AND (notice the conjunctive) one Lord Jesus Christ”

[the man]-1 Cor 8: 6. Interestingly, the portion of the text SOME endeavor to omit begins “and

one Lord Jesus Christ”. Notice that in the verse before, Paul shows that the word “God” and

“Lord” was meant to convey the same meaning of divine supremacy or deity. Thus Jesus was

also seen as the Christian‘s “Lord” and “God”, as testified to by Thomas (John 20:28,29

compared with Isaiah 25:8,9) without making of non-effect Ex. 20:3. Thomas was not just

recognizing ‗divineness‘ in Jesus, but His supremacy equal to the Father. This can only be

denied by twisting Scripture.

59

Now here is where many get into difficulty. If Jesus only is the “one Lord”, then is the

Father not our Lord, (but see Jude 4,5/Acts 17:24) and if only the Father is supposed to be our

God, (the “one God”) what was Thomas saying, in John 20:28, calling Jesus *his God and Lord

(with Jesus endorsing his words in verse 29)? Also, what was Mrs. White really saying in her

letter, titled, “Letter 97”, in1898? She clearly said:

―Christ lived and died as a man, that he might be *God both of the living and of the dead‖

[Here He is not just seen as ‗divine‘, but Supremely ―God‖ just like the Father, yet some of

the ―living‖ in Adventism refuse Him as their God, despite the existing clear evidence]

-E.G. White, Letter 97, 1898

Did God not say “My glory will I not share with another”, and “There is none other like me”?

The only explanation for this seeming difficulty is in the spiritual (not numeric) ―oneness‖ of

the Father and Son, who are represented by the Holy Spirit, the “third person of the Godhead”.

They were together “from all eternity”, forming the one “Eternal Godhead” They are our God,

and our Lord, our “personal God” in “unity” (said Mrs. White), but as separate personalities.

Signs of the Times, 6-27-1895, paragraph 3— "The greatness of God

can not be measured or comprehended. And that doctrine that denies the

absolute Godhead of Jesus, denies also the Godhead of the Father; for no man

knoweth the Son but the Father."

But what about the Holy Spirit? The word “representative” has no relevance or meaning if the

Holy Spirit (and the Son) were not distinct personalities from the Father. Their presence was not

the actual, but representative presence of the Father. Why? This is because they are exactly like

the Father in nature and authority, that is, fully “God”, and in the highest sense. If Jesus is equal

with the Father, then is there only one Supreme Person in Heaven? NO! Yet there is only “one

God”, the Bible says. He is distinctly called “the Father”, but He makes Himself known in a

way inseparable from Jesus and the Spirit, who are ―completely and intrinsically‖ ―constituent

Persons of the Eternal Godhead‖. Who am I to question why it is so? I simply accept it by faith.

2. Luke, along with the Apostolic Church, testified to the Divine presence of the “third person

of the Godhead” (the Holy Spirit) and they distinctly recognized him as “God”- Acts 5:3, 4 and

Acts 13:2

3. John testified that anyone that has God has both the Father and the Son, obviously by way of

having the Holy Spirit (2 John 9). And we all know we will have to greet both the Father and the

Son on the final day as ―King of Kings‖ and saying to both ―this is our God we have long waited

for Him‖ [not them] – Is. 25: 8, 9. That is unity of acceptance.

4. Today, many directly or indirectly “deny the only Lord God AND Jesus Christ” (Jude 4, 5).

How? It cannot be denied by an honest Adventist, exposed to all the facts, that the Father is not

the only Person in the Godhead called “Lord” or “God”, or “Jehovah”, or “I AM”, or

“Everlasting Father”, or “Mighty God”, or “Sovereign” (the Supreme One), or “First and

Last”, or “King of Kings” or “the High and Lofty One who Inhabiteth Eternity”, or “the Deity”,

or “God essentially and in the highest sense” – because Jesus is all of the above, “equal with the

60

Father in all respects”. That is what “co-equal” means in the 1981 statement of belief. Denying

this denies the Father‘s own words in Hebrews 1: 8, 10.

So a belief in the “one God” of the Bible (monotheism) does not conflict with these truths, since

it is the same God who declares them to be true. Faith in what He reveals about His “Eternal

Godhead” is all this one true God asks for, not a seeking to fully explain all things about Him.

THE REVEALED NATURE OF THE ―ETERNAL GODHEAD‖

The Father is clearly the ‗Leader‘ of the Godhead, a Godhead consisting of the Father,

the Son, and Holy Spirit, but the Son and Holy Spirit are not inferior to the Father. Despite

Jesus was “begotten” of the Father, He is no less eternal or less supreme than He, likewise the

Holy Spirit ―proceeding from‖, and “sent” by both the Father and Son.

Only as a man did Jesus worship God! It was already clearly established that Jesus

was “begotten” of the Father, but, in an “incomprehensible” way (according to Mrs. White) He

is “from all eternity” as a “distinct person”; not just because His Father‘s substance is eternal,

but because He Himself is from the “dateless ages” of “all eternity”. That is what “co-eternal”

means; each existing “from all eternity”!

A man is 100 years old, not by virtue of the age of his father‘s substance, but by his own

existence as a distinct or separate person. Thus Jesus is “eternal” by reason of his own distinct

or separate existence “from all eternity”, just like the Father from whom he was “begotten”.

Incomprehensible? Yes! Mysterious? Yes! But that is official Adventism, as confirmed in the

confessions of Mrs. White. That is why she described him as “leaving the courts of Heaven”,

where he is the “Lord of the temple”, as seen by Isaiah in Is. 6: 1-5, and declared Himself the

―I AM‖ to Moses (see again under “Landmark No. 3” or Chapter 3). Yet in declaring Himself

such, He was simply manifesting what the Father is also. That is why He is the Godhead‘s

Mouthpiece, Representative (just like the Holy Spirit), and the “Word of God” (John 1:1).

IS THE GODHEAD JUST ACTING OUT ROLES?

Some declare that Jesus should not be called “God, the Son” because it reduces Him to an

Actor, and does not portray Him as a true Son. That limited view is based on simple lack of

insight. Jesus is the ―Son of God‖ and ―God, the Son‖, based on context of usage.

If Jesus, as the “Son of God”, is Himself “God”, and He takes the names of the Father (whether

that name is “God Almighty” from “El Sheddai”, or “LORD” from “Yahweh”, or “Jehovah”,

or “I AM”) then when He is called “God”, or “LORD”, or “Yahweh”, or “Lord God”, then the

words “the Son” seem logical as a means of differentiation.

Thus, in just the same way that a human father and son share the name “Gillespie”, and to

differentiate between them it is appropriate to say “Gillespie, the son” or “Gillespie, the father”,

since both are titled ―Mr.”, the same is true with the members of the Godhead.

It was “I AM”, the Son (that is) who spoke to Abraham, to Moses and Jacob, and it was

“God”, the Son (that is) who Isaiah saw “high and lifted up”. It was however, “God”, the

Father (that is) who declared, “this is my beloved Son of whom I am well pleased”, and “God”,

the Spirit (that is) who revealed to Peter the sin of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:3,4 – the sin

of lying to the Holy Spirit, who is also called “God”.

61

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD, BUT IS HE A SEPARATE, AND THIRD PERSON?

Adventist (like many other Christians) spend so much time on the subject of Jesus as

“the Deity”, simply because historically He is tangibly known as a man, but can only, by faith

in the Scriptures, be believed to be in a rightful position of being truly “equal with the Father

in authority, dignity and divine perfection”, and is “God essentially and in the highest sense” (as

stated by Mrs. White in 1895 and 1906). However, I submit to you dear reader that it may come

as a surprise, but it is probably easier to establish the Holy Spirit‟s place as ―God‖, in

substance, in eternity, and Creatorship, and as One whom we must ―serve‖, than even

Jesus; at least it can be done in less words.

The Bible says, ―THE LORD IS THE SPIRIT‖ (2 Cor. 3:17, 18), and the Spirit is the

God of Israel (2 Samuels 23:2, 3). Notice that the Holy Spirit is called “He” all over the Old

Testament, and has a personality, and sometimes assumes personal form, as seen in Ez. 8:1-5.

Notice however that despite the Bible says God is the Spirit, Mrs. White confessed that ―He

must *also be A divine Person‖, or one of the ―three holiest BEINGS‖ in heaven, and thus she

could only logically see Him NUMERICALLY as the “third Person of the Godhead” (of a

―Trio”, and not a ―Duo‖). This seems perfectly logical and natural since, as “God”, the Spirit is

“sent” to “speak what He hears” (John 16:13), obviously from both Father and Son. But the

point is, God is not a ‗thing‘ or ‗force‘, and since “the Lord is the Spirit”, how dare anyone

reduce the Spirit to a personified force or influence. Only a person can represent the other

Godhead Persons as the Spirit does.

The Bible also says that the Spirit is ―eternal‖, even presented by Ellen G. White as one

of the “eternal heavenly dignitaries” of the “Eternal Godhead” (see Hebrews 9:14), and

because the Spirit is never presented as “begotten”, then there should be no controversy

regarding His co-eternity with the Father, or Him being “of one substance with the Father”.

Why?

Well, since God Himself is the Spirit, and is Himself Spirit, and He (God) is eternal, then why

should the Holy Spirit be less than ―co-eternal‖ with God, as His eternal “Representative‖ all

over the universe?

Everything God did in creation was as a Spirit, and by way of the Spirit (Ps. 104:30),

that is, while the Father and Son conferred with each other in the courts of Heaven (Gen. 1:26).

Thus the Holy Spirit is our Creator (Job 33:4), who did the work on behalf of the Father and

the Son; not as just a force or power, but as NUMERICALLY the “third Person of the

Godhead”, one of the “Eternal Heavenly Dignitaries” (as Mrs. White so delicately phrased it in

Adventist literature, after 1892). That is plain personal distinction, which is supported in

Scripture (Is. 48:16).

HOW DO YOU SERVE GOD WITHOUT SERVING HIS SPIRIT?

In closing it could be asked, how do you serve God who is “a Spirit” (John 4:24), and

“is the Spirit”, without serving His Spirit? To talk of the Father is to talk of the Eternal Spirit

automatically. How do you sing to, pray to, worship and obey a spirit Father without

worshipping His Spirit present in Church, that is, what He is entirely composed of? The Bible

never told us to worship the Spirit because clearly it is simply not necessary to state the

obvious; that worshipping God automatically results in that reality. It told us to worship

62

Jesus, because of the fact that Jesus was known tangibly as a Man. Now, back to my main

point. How is our spirit Father and the Holy Spirit not composed “of one substance”? Talk about

nonsense to believe otherwise!!

The real crux of the Christian religion is: ―Whom do you serve?‖ in a spiritual

sense, after you have accepted Christ? Is it only the Father that Jesus was seemingly instructing

the Devil to worship in Matt. 4:10? See Heb. 1: 6,8,10 for the Father‘s own answer.

Notice the same unity of service, in the following statement of Mrs. White, as she captured the

truth in words so clear, even a child would understand why pioneer G.C. Tenny, in 1896, said

even the Holy Spirit too is “an object of veneration”:

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

the Holy Spirit have pledged ourselves to *SERVE [Joshua 24:14,15] God, the Father, Christ

AND [thirdly] the Holy Spirit – the Three Dignitaries and Powers of Heaven – pledge

themselves that even facility will be given us if we carry out our... vows”.

-E.G. White, Manuscript 85, 1901

I find it absolutely ridiculous to believe that I must “serve” only One who is truly called “God”

(as Joshua 24 declares), and yet fail to see Jesus and the Holy Spirit as truly “God”, worthy of

being “an object of veneration”, in the above E.G. White quote. Thus, rightly understood, the

profound truth of the Bible is this –

There is one God, the Father Almighty, but He cannot be known, and has not been

made known apart from His Eternal Son, and Eternal Spirit. Only by way of and

through the Son can He be worshipped or served, and only by the „unction‟ of, and

through the Holy Spirit can we accept Him and ―serve‖ him. In serving the Father it

automatically means you MUST serve the Son, who is God (divine) equally, and

obviously you are automatically serving the Holy Spirit, who is God (divine) also.

However, the unity does not destroy the Personality of neither, because ―there are

three living [literal] personalities of the Heavenly Trio‖, said the leading pioneer in

Adventism, Mrs. White (who sheds clear light on the Word of God).

CONCLUSION?

The basic premises of the Trinitarian thinking are correct, but who is to say that the ‗unorthodox‘

version of the doctrine, as taught by Adventism since 1892, is not the real truth rescued from

Papal contamination (despite certain RECENT weaknesses which has crept in regarding the

explanation about the “begetting” of Christ)? God knows! Here, however, is what this writer

knows, without any shadow of doubt or intent of turning –

***Every man must be convinced in his own mind, for ―we must all [individually] appear

before the judgment seat of Christ‖. Each man should, to God, and his own self be true. That

is all he can do. Amen

63

NOTE TO READER: The Appendices that follow will, firstly, deal candidly with the

indisputable facts about certain key pioneers in Adventism, and their expressions on the trinity

before and after 1892. Secondly, the actual wording of the Nicene Creed, accompanied by a

brief analysis of what it really says, as opposed to what critics declare it to be saying, will be

presented, and in the process comparing it‘s statements with undeniably similar confessions by

Mrs. White in Adventism. This further reading should prove to be quite helpful to any reader

who would like to delve further in to this historical adventure.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beach, Walter R. –THE CREED THAT CHANGED THE WORLD (The Apostles Creed)

-Pacific Press Publishing Association 1971

Beachy, Lynnford- DID THEY BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY? -August 1996

Benton, William- ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA, Volumes 2, 6, and 22 (1970 edition)

Cooper, Emma M. - THE GREAT ADVENT MOVEMENT- Review and Herald, 1968 edition

Clayton, David- “OPEN FACE” PUBLICATIONS (Periodicals)- Restoration Ministries

(Independent) – Vol.16, July 2000 – Vol. 26, June 2002

Froom, Leroy E. – MOVEMENT OF DESTINY -Review and Herald, 1971

Smith, Uriah- DANIEL AND THE REVELATION -Review and Herald, paperback version of

the1897 edition

White, Ellen G. - GREAT CONTROVERSY (1888)

DESIRE OF AGES (1898)

STEPS TO CHRI ST (1892)

COUNSELS ON HEALTH (1951)

EVANGELISM

TESTIMONIES, *Various Volumes

BIBLE ECHO

*Also quotes from her, from Review & Herald Magazines, Signs of the Times, the

S.D.A. Bible Commentaries, the Youth Instructor, and various Manuscripts

(especially in Manuscript Releases).

Wilcox, F.M. – TESTIMONY OF JESUS

-Review & Herald 1934

64

- AUTHORISED KING JAMES VERSION OF THE HOLY BIBLE

Word Publishing 1997 edition

- COLLINS DICTIONARY 1985 edition

- LONGMAN NEW GENERATION DICTIONARY

Longman Publishing 1987 edition

- ROGET‟S THESAURUS OF ENGLISH WORDS AND PHRASES 1852 (first

publishing); Edited by Betty Kirkpatrick in the1980‟s -Penguin publishers

APPENDIX NO. 1 – Crucial Facts and Interesting Tit-bits About Some

Key Pioneers, Regarding the Trinity

Doctrine

It is certainly important to take a look at some vital, yes vital considerations about certain

Adventist pioneers, in order to get a better understanding of the S.D.A church‘s history regarding the

doctrine of the trinity, before and after 1892 (and the first Trinitarian tract). Some, without being

objective enough to look carefully at ALL the facts, proclaim that most pioneers died off before

Adventism accommodated trinitariansim, and only after Mrs. White (the leading pioneers) died, along

with most of those who opposed the trinity. Is this true? Well, here are the real facts about some key

pioneers, to test this proclamation. The evidence will speak for itself. The following list of pioneers is

sufficient, as a reasonable sample, to test the fore mentioned proposition, and to highlight crucial facts.

J.M. Stephenson Uriah Smith W.W. Prescott

Joseph Bates E.J. Waggoner F.M. Wilcox

James White A.T. Jones M.L. Andreason

J.N. Andrews J.N. Loughborough J.W. Westphal

J.H. Waggoner A.G. Daniells

1. J.M. Stephenson was the first to publish Arian teachings in Adventism in 1854, thus was among

those who opposed trinitarianism. He, however, apostatised from (left) Adventism in 1855 (10 years

after the church‘s 1844 inception as a movement), but his views were not singular, but

REPRESENTATIVE of “many” in Adventism (the “many” alluded to by E.J. Waggoner in 1888,

to be believing in a “created” Christ). Other pioneers who evidently shared his “Arian hypothesis”

and came from (or was associated with) the Christian Connection church (an Arian group) included

Bates, White, Himes, Fleming and Cole. Other early supporters of his views were J.H. Waggoner and

Uriah Smith, who both later adjusted their views to reflect Semi-arianism. Stephenson wrote that

Christ was “created” and is not an “Eternal Son”. Some, in Adventism today, quote his anti-

Trinitarian statements to support their position against the Church‘s trinity doctrine, but craftily omit

his statements expounding on a “created” Christ. This is evident in Lynnford Beachy‘s, “Did They

Believe in the Trinity”, (1996), who is an associate of the Smyma (independent) Ministries in the U.S.

With so many errors in Stephenson‘s writings, it is no wonder that those who quote him, in their

support lead others astray. See Selected Messages, Book 1,page 165 (Mrs. White) on “errors in our

older literature”.

65

2. All the following key pioneers (listed from 2a-d), who stayed with Adventism, and who are on record

to have opposed trinitarianism, all died before 1888 and 1892. Yes, they all died years BEFORE the

church saw a gradual change in ideology among most of its pioneers (since 1892), in terms of a new

version of trinitarianism, accommodated even while Mrs. White was alive. Thus they would not have

been around to oppose or share in the new developments of 1888 and 1892. Thus it is faulty reasoning

to say if they arose today they would be “disfellowshipped” from their church, because who can say

that they would not have supported E.J. Waggoner in 1888, Pacific Press in 1892, and F.M. Wilcox

in 1913? The dead know not anything.

a) Joseph Bates died in 1872 (16-20 years before 1888 and 11892 respectively) before his anti-

Trinitarian views were repudiated by the church, starting from 1892 onwards.

b) James White died in 1881, after showing that trinitarianism was not to be made an issue for

determining “fitness for heaven” (see “Landmark No.1”), but obedience to the Ten

Commandments and faith in the Son and the “gospel” about him. It is logical that

trinitarianism does not fall within the scope of breaking the first commandment, as indicated

by James White. Thus that is why Mrs. White never condemned it after James White made

this 1876 ‗revolutionary‘ declaration. If trinitarianism broke the first commandment, how

could James White say it should not be seen as ”test”, of “fitness for heaven”, but obedience

to the commandments, which some say condemn Trinitarians? Interesting! Remember too

that Mrs. White herself ignored the matter entirely, as proof that attitudes had changed in

Adventism regarding the trinity.

c) J.N. Andrews also died in 1883, after opposing trinitariansim, but before the 1892

developments within his church – new developments accepting “three persons” in the

“Godhead”, or “the nature of God”.

d) J.H. Waggoner (the father) – died in 1889, just as the issues of contention, presented by his

own son, were being understood and gradually accepted by those who disputed the 1888

declarations, that Jesus is “equal with the Father in all respects”, and that he is ―one of the

constituent persons [of a trio]” which make up the “Godhead”, not just the Father. Who can

say that Waggoner (the father) did not now agree with his son that Jesus is “co-equal” with

the Father “in every respect”, which would be a change on his part, a recanting of his earlier

1872 statements that: ―we cannot believe what men say abut his being co-equal [fully equal

in rank] with God in every respect‖ (The Atonement, 1872,pg. 108)? Who can say that he

would also not have agreed with Pacific Press publishing, in 1892, Dr. Spear‘s, “Bible

Doctrine of the Trinity”, which taught this same 1888 truth. J.H. Waggoner is on record, yes,

opposing the trinity, but before 1888 and 1892. It was he who pointed out that “a trinity is

three persons” (Atonement, 1884) long before the Church accepted the “trio of three living

persons” within the Godhead, including the Holy Spirit; the same Holy Spirit he denied was

a person (in “The Spirit of God”, 1877, pg.8). If only he was alive long enough after 1888 to

see his church accepting the literal definition of the word “trinity” in 1892, but later using a

word also not found in scripture, “trio”, to convey a more precise meaning.

3. We now look at all of the pioneers in the list who died after 1888 and 1892. All of the pioneers

mentioned after this (listed from 3 a-h) died after 1892, and were either never as vocally anti-

Trinitarian as before (clearly shown by the written records), or helped to promote the new

‗revolutionary‘ ideas about the Godhead, after 1888 and 1892, which eventually led to the official

“trinity”, statements of belief in 1930-31. Why are there less anti-trinity expressions of pioneers on

66

record after 1892? The truth is that the bulk of their anti-Trinitarian statements should come after

1892, in order to dispute the Dr. Spears Trinitarian tract, published by Pacific Press, that is, if there

was widespread opposition. The written record proves the opposite situation. That also speaks

volumes, about the changed attitudes after 1888 and 1892.

a) Uriah Smith – died in 1903, eleven years after the Dr. Spear Trinitarian tract was published

by E.J. Waggoner. The report of certain pioneers indicated that Smith initially opposed E.J.

Waggoner‘s message in 1888. The records clearly show that he also opposed trinitarianism in

his writings up to 1888, but, curiously, there is very little he said after 1892 mentioning,

much more condemning the trinity. Before 1888 he had shared Stephenson‘s view of a

“created” Christ, but then moved away from this view to support the ‗homoean‘ (semi-

Arian) view of a “begotten” Christ, and an impersonal Holy Spirit, who he saw as just an

“influence” (Review and Herald, Oct. 28,1890). His views, like J.H. Waggoner‘s, were

REPRESENTATIVE of “many” in Adventism, since he used the word “we” so much in his

writings, to show that his views were not singular. Although after the 1892 publishing of Dr.

Spear‘s Trinitarian tract, and the 1888 declarations, Smith did not seem to accept the

personality of the Holy Spirit or that Jesus is “from all eternity” as a “distinct person”, as

Mrs. White did clearly in her writings, he did show in his writings after 1888, that Jesus

“ranks equally with the Father”. He even went as far as recognizing Jesus speaking as “the

Almighty” in his commentary on Rev. 1:8 (see Daniel and the Revelation, 1897 version). His

writings showed some ideological adjustment, but not a full adjustment to reflect the new

thinking of the Pacific Press, F.M. Wilcox, and the endorsements of Mrs. White. Who can

say, however, what his thoughts were in his aging years? God knows!

b) E.J. Waggoner (Dr.) – died in 1916 (just after Mrs. White died in 1915), after championing

and promoting the ‗revolution‘ in Adventist thinking on “righteousness by faith” over law

keeping, and “Godhead” issues, in 1888. Though he was among the minority putting

forward his views on the “constituent persons of the Eternal Godhead” in 1888, Mrs. White

stoutly supported him in that regard. His views then gradually became representative of the

increasing majority after Pacific Press‟ publishing of Dr. Spear‘s Trinitarian tract, and

coming after his E.G. White-supported declarations in 1888. He is not on record opposing

trinitarianism, he actually promoted its basic concepts (using even similar expressions, e.g.

“of one substance”), which he ‗tailored‘ to reflect the full Bible truth. He evidently later

believed (like Mrs. White) in the “three persons” in the Godhead; that they are equal and

united; that they all are “eternal” (in the “eternal Godhead”); that they are “of one

substance”; and that Jesus is “properly” called “Jehovah, the Son of God (inheriting from all

eternity this name) but as a separate person from God, the Father (see Christ and his

Righteousness, 1890).

c) A.T. Jones - died in 1923, after his colleague published a pro-Trinitarian tract saying almost

everything they (he and E.J Waggoner) presented in 1888 at Minneapolis. He helped

Waggoner in 1888, to establish that the law cannot save (despite obedience is inseparable),

and that Jesus and the Father are “of one substance”, are “equal in all respects”, and that

they are united, by having the “same Spirit” as “constituent persons of the Eternal

Godhead”. Thus his writings in the book, “The Consecrated Way” (1905), expounding on

the 1888 issues should never be divorced from Waggoner‘s 1890 recording of his views on

the same issue, in “Christ and His Righteousness”. This some forget.

A.T. Jones is not on record opposing the 1892 trinitarian tract, but is on record only

mentioning, the trinity after 1892, as he compared the Papacy, in past history, forcing the people (by

state law) to believe in the “inspiration of the Holy Scriptures”, the doctrine of “the trinity”, and

67

Christianity in general, with the U.S. presenting a similar threat to liberty of conscience by forcing

politicians to be “religious” or ―belong to a religious denomination”, to be qualified “for office under

the United Sates” (see his books,” Ecclesiastical Empire”, 1901, pgs. 837-838, and “The Two

Republics”, 1891, pages 590 and 801). This could hardly be seen as him opposing trinitarian ideology,

since he also spoke against forcing anyone (by state law) to accept the “Holy Scriptures”, “a religious

denomination”, and Christianity “professed by almost the whole community”. He even mentions the

belief in the “communion” of saints and the “resurrection of the dead” as part of the Christian faith that

Roman state religion, in the past, forced upon people. His subject was “religious liberty” as against

“religious test” (as seen by the U.S. Constitution), NOT the trinity! But if you want clues to suggest how

he began to favorably see the trinity itself AFTER 1892 then see the quote below:

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

of three]. And these three are one: there is no dissent nor division among them.‖

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

―In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them [Arians and Trinitarians] wrote volumes, as

if contending against adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has

a distinct person and existence, and ―all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of persons,

yet, from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were

never at peace [quoted from Socrates]…

There was no dispute about the [notice, not ‗opinion‘, or ‗teaching‘, but the] *FACT of there being a

Trinity; it was about the nature of the Trinity. Both parties believed in precisely the same Trinity, but

they differed upon the precise relationship which the Son bears to the Father‖

-A.T. Jones, The Two Republics, 1891, pg. 333

―Alexander [REPRESENTING ORTHODOXY] declared: --

"The Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, differing only in

this one respect, that the Father is unbegotten. He is the exact image of his Father. Everything is found

in the image which exists in its archetype; and it was this that our Lord taught when he said, `My

Father is greater than I.' And accordingly we believe that the Son proceeded from the Father; for he is

the reflection of the glory of the Father, and the figure of his substance. But let no one be led from this

to the supposition that the Son is unbegotten, as is believed by some who are deficient in intellectual

power: for to say that he was, that he has always been, and that he existed before all ages, is not to say

that he is unbegotten." ( Theodoret's "Ecclesiastical History," book i, chap. iv. )

Arius [REPRESENTING DISSENTION] said: --

"We say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way

unbegotten, even in part; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his

own will and counsel he has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, and only begotten

and unchangeable, and that he existed not before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or

established. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son had a

beginning, but that God was without beginning. This is really the cause of our persecution, and

likewise, because we say he is from nothing. And this we say, because he is neither part of God, nor of

any subjacent matter." (Quoted from Theodoret's "Ecclesiastical History," book i, chap. v. )

From these statements by the originators of the respective sides of this controversy, it appears that with

the exception of a single point, the two views were identical, only being stated in different ways. The

single point where the difference lay was that Alexander held that the Son was begotten of the very

essence of the Father, and is therefore of the same substance with the Father, while Arius held that the

Son was begotten by the Father, not from his own essence, but from nothing; but that when he was

68

thus begotten, he was, and is, of precisely the like substance with the Father. Whether the Son of God,

therefore, is of the same substance, or only of like substance, with the Father, was the question in

dispute.‖

The Two Republics – A.T Jones, pg.. 333

d) J.N. Loughborough – died in 1924. He had opposed the ‗Catholic‘ (Roman) and general

Protestant (‗Athanasian‘ or ‗orthodox‘) explanation of the Godhead “trinity”, but only

before 1888 and 1892. He is not on record taking issue with Pacific Press, or F.M. Wilcox,

because of 1892, or 1913 respectively, or taking issue with A.G. Daniells‘ 1915 proclamation

about the “third person of the Godhead”, or with W.W. Prescott‘s 1920 views that Christ is

called “the I AM” (all trinitarian type concepts). He, before the 1890‘s and early 1900‘s,

stated that the word “trinity” is found nowhere in scripture, but had to later accept that,

though as a word it is not there, as a basic concept it is there, but described as “trio” (though

―trio‖ is also not there).

e) A.G. Daniells – died in 1935. Being the longest serving General Conference President, for 21

years (1901-1922), he saw all that happened in 1888 and 1892 and never opposed the issues

presented in those years except for the pantheism of Dr. Kellogg mixed with trinitarianism.

He is not on record opposing the 1892 trinitarian tract, the 1913 and 1931 trinitarian

statement of belief, or the 1933 Church Manual with the word “trinity”. What did he

support? Here‘s a clue. At Mrs. White‘s funeral service (1915), he is on record declaring the

Church‘s acceptance (officially), yes, official acceptance of the fact that her teachings

“exalted” (venerated) the “third person of the Godhead”, as one who is “Christ‟s

Representative on earth” (Review and Herald, Aug. 5,1915). No one can deny that there is no

“trinity” (three persons) in the Godhead without the “person” called the Holy Spirit, and

without Him being venerated, exalted and served as you would the Father and Son. See again

“Landmark No.5” on the “Personalizing of the Holy Spirit in Adventism” after a1892.

Evidence speaks louder than opinion. The facts in chapter 5 are clear for all to see, about the

“Heavenly Trio”.

f) W.W. Prescott – died in 1944 (13 years after the 1931 trinitarian statement of belief, and 52

years after the 1892 trinitarian tract). He was an associate and close working partner of E.J.

Waggoner after the Waggoner-headed Pacific Press published Dr. Spear‘s Trinitarian tract in

1892. Despite he had opposed A.T. Jones‘ ‗mannerism‘ in giving the 1888 message, he

accepted the message (as reported by other pioneers), and never opposed Pacific Press‟ 1892

actions, nor the 1913 and 1931 Trinitarian statements of belief (in the 1931 Yearbook).

Prescott is remembered as the first to publish in the 1920‘s, in the book form, the same truths

of 1888 (and the 1892 tract) entitled “The Doctrine of Christ” (1920). In chapter (section) 4,

he showed how Christ appeared as ―I AM” in the Old Testament, and was incarnated in the

New Testament as the manifested “I AM”, but as a separate Godhead person, equal with the

Father. The following quote, from an earlier post-1892 article he wrote, in the Review and

Herald, shows just how he saw Jesus as “I AM” (clearly a Trinitarian type argument):

“It has come to be quite fashionable in some quarters to acknowledge the divinity of

Christ, using the term however, in an accommodated [restricted] sense, while denying his

DEITY [or his place as being supremely God like the Father]”.

-W.W. Prescott, Review and Herald, Feb. 11,1909

In 1919 (at the famous 1919 Bible Conferences) he was instrumental in showing why

69

trinitarianism, already declared by pioneer F.M. Wilcox in 1913, was a warranted belief. He

was honest to represent the last surviving pioneers in admitting:

―WE [ many Adventists] BELIEVED A *LONG TIME THAT CHRIST WAS A

CREATED BEING, in spite of what the Scripture says. I say this, that, passing

over the experience I have passed over myself [my limited views] in this matter –

this accommodating use of terms which makes Deity without eternity, is not my

conception now [in 1919]of the gospel of Christ. I think it falls short of the whole

idea expressed in the Scriptures…the Deity[of Christ] involves [full] eternity. The

very expression involves it. You cannot read the Scripture and have the idea of

Deity without eternity‖.

-W.W. Prescott, The 1919 [S.D.A.] Bible Conference Transcripts, July 6,

1919, pg. 62

g) M.L. Andreasen – died after 1948. He was a pioneer in the 1890‘s and observed the church‘s

reactions to the 1892 publishing of the Dr. Spear Trinitarian tract. The tract was clearly

Trinitarian because upon the official publishing of the 1931 Trinitarian statement of belief,

Andreasen added the full reprint of the tract to his book, entitled “The Book of

Hebrews”(1948), a few years after 1931. He too was not a new generation member but

personally knew and spoke to Mrs. White about Godhead issues, just like F.M. Wilcox. He

too was able to observe, ‗first hand‘, how Mrs. White ‗accepted‘ Dr. Spears Trinitarian tract.

H) F.M. Wilcox - died in 1951. He was a pioneer in 1888 and 1892, and accepted the new

developments related to the new version of the doctrine of the trinity. He never opposed

trinitarianism and was well learnt in what Adventists had come to believe after 1888. He was

trusted by Mrs White, and was chosen by her to be among the first five (5) men to be in charge of

her estate (Board of Managers of E.G. White Estate) after she died. He helped to frame the new

―trinity‖ statement of belief in 1931 based on his vast knowledge of the history and later pre-1915

teachings of pioneering Adventism, that is, after distinctly declaring in 1913, in full view of Mrs.

White: ―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 (editor of Review and Herald), *Review and

Herald, October 9, 1913

See again “Landmark No. 6”. This chapter (chapter 6) clearly shows Wilcox‘s qualification to

take on such a monumental and revolutionary task in 1931.

-N.B. See “Landmark No. 5” (chapter 5) for the role played by J.W. Westphal (died 1949).

THE TRINITY ACCEPTED IN ADVENTISM BEFORE 1915- The Clearest Evidence in the

Pioneers‟ Own Words!

Here are some crucial quotes from certain Adventist articles, showing conclusively that

among some pioneers there were changed attitudes to the trinity doctrine, its terminology and its

teachings, long before the death of Mrs. White in 1915, and before the first official “Trinity” statement

of belief of 1931. Note carefully the years of the quotes and the titles of the articles. Emphases supplied.

“[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

70

know, beloved, how surprisingly beautiful are the blended personalities of [now notice carefully] our

*TRIUNE GOD (!!), manifested by the personal presence of the Holy Ghost‖

The Kings Messenger, *―Blended Personalities‖, Review and Herald, Vol. 77,

April 3, *1900, pg. 210

―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. Underwood – ―The Holy Spirit a Person‖, Review and Herald,

Vol. 75, May 17, *1898, pg. 310

―We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a Person [not just split ‗personality‘] as

[in same way that] God is a Person (!!) is walking through these grounds…He 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)

―There are three living [literal] Personalities of the Heavenly Trio…‖

E.G. White – Evangelism, pg. 615 (from *1905 Manuscript)

―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 (editor of Review and Herald), *Review and Herald, October 9, 1913

Note Carefully-

Now notice carefully that by *1900 there was now an acceptance of the term ―TRIUNE

GOD‖ by the Review and Herald, in referring to the ―blended Personalities‖ of the Godhead; a clear

similarity in meaning to the earlier published Trinitarian pamphlet (of Dr Spear) in 1892, a tract which

stated and supported the basic tenets of trinitarianism. The tract, among other things, stated that:

―This doctrine [‗The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity‘], as held and stated by those who adopt it, is NOT a

system of tri-theism [belief in three Gods], but is the doctrine of one God [one divinity or divine

nature] subsisting and acting in three Persons [a tri-unity]…‖

Pamphlet No. 90 – “The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity”, Pacific Press, March 1892

(A reprint of Dr Samuel T. Spear‘s article of 1889, included in the 1892 Bible

Student Library series, as a missionary tool)

There is no getting around this reality of the church publishing basic trinitarianism at this point, despite

the resistance of some. While, admittedly, the tract also spoke about the “eternal generation” of Christ

as, at best, just “mystical speculation” , and Jesus being “subordinate” to the Father, both in His “divine

as well as human nature” (pages 3, 7, 11 and 12), to focus only on this aspect of it is to ‗bury one‘s head

in the sand‘ regarding the ‗bigger picture‘ of it‘s Trinitarian teachings.

Its statements about Jesus being ―subordinate‖ or, in one context of the word, ‗accountable to and led

by‘ the Father are probably best understood in light of the following considerations:

(a) Mrs. White saw Jesus as ―God in the highest [not just delegated] sense”, and equal

with the Father in all respects‖ [and would never contradict herself], but still saw ―the Father working

above and through all‖ (Steps to Christ, 1892, pgs. 20-21). All modes of operation demand leadership,

even among true equals (just like Adam and Eve).

(b) Orthodox Trinitarians still accept, in a certain context, the ―primacy‖ of the Father,

71

that is, His leadership in “Eternal Godhead”, despite the “absolute” co-equality of Christ with Him as

“head”, and the Holy Spirit being one with and representing them both.

What is critical here is that the Spear article laid out the basic Trinitarian viewpoints that Adventism was

now gradually leaning towards, after years of anti-Trinitarianism in Adventist literature. After this 1892

article, reprinted for the church‘s use, the change in Adventist thinking was gradual, but took on

momentum after Mrs. White‘s 1898 “Desire of Ages” publication (coming six years after 1892). Now we

can clearly see why Mrs. White for the first time referred to the Holy Spirit as the “Third Person of the

Godhead” in this book. She clearly supported the earlier publication of 1892, which came long before

her death in 1915, and before the “Trinity” statement of belief 1931(despite opposing views were still

being expressed by some). Mrs. White *never once (after 1888) wrote against her colleagues now

accepting the Holy Spirit as a Person, or using terms such as ―God the Son‖ (in 1890), and “our Triune

God” (in 1900). Yet she named and spoke against the “pantheistic teachings” of the Dr Kellogg

heresies, which came later.

Where is the evidence of Adventism using the expression “God the Son” before the death of Mrs. White?

Notice carefully again:

―Although we [Adventists] claim to be believers in, and worshippers of one God, I have thought

that there are as many gods among us as there are conceptions of the Deity. And how many there are

of these, and how limited are most of them. Rather, how limited are all of them! We do not half study

the character of God the Father and [now notice very carefully] God the Son (!!), and the result is we

make Christ such beings as ourselves‖ [that is, having a beginning and limited as the Son of God]

-D.T. Bordeau – Review and Herald, Vol. 67, Nov. 18, *1890, pg. 707

Why did the Review and Herald publish this expression? This was simply because the truths of the

Godhead controversies of the 1888 Conference had begun to take effect. Notice it was just two years after

1888 that brother Bordeau was expressing that Jesus was “God the Son”, and just two years after that (in

1892) that trinitarianism was then published, clearly indicating that only trinitarianism was seen as

placing Jesus in a rightful and natural place of being fully eternal, and fully ―God in the highest

sense‖, without the resultant teaching of an “Almighty God”, and a lower, separate, and just “Mighty”

Son of God, that is, two Gods!! That is why the brethren started to use the expression “our Triune

God”!! And if this evidence is not enough, here now is the final ―bombshell‘ for all those who are very

limited in their command of the facts, having a zeal for ‗restoring‘ Adventist heritage, but not armed

with all the knowledge of the true facts:

―WE [many Adventists] BELIEVED A *LONG TIME THAT CHRIST WAS A CREATED BEING, in

spite of what the Scripture says. I say this, that, passing over the experience I have passed over myself

[my limited views] in this matter – this accommodating use of terms which makes Deity without

eternity, is not my conception now [in 1919]of the gospel of Christ. I think it falls short of the whole

idea expressed in the Scriptures…the Deity[of Christ] involves [full] eternity. The very expression

involves it. You cannot read the Scripture and have the idea of Deity without eternity‖

-W.W. Prescott- 1919 [SDA] Bible Conference Transcripts, July 16, 1919, pg. 58

This quote effectively shatters the arguments of some anti-trinitarians in Adventism today, who say that

the pioneers were not for “a long time” Arians. Who should we believe; those who were there on the

scene as pioneers, and reported ‗firsthand‘, or those who today (not being pioneers) deny the obvious,

EVEN THE WORDS OF THE PIONEERS, because they refuse to see the truth, or accept all that

happened? In the final analysis, every man‘s work will prove itself. However, no one can cover up or

distort the truth for too long. It simply will refuse to remain imprisoned.

The most crucial truth is, in the words of our pioneers, who accepted the Trinitarian type

72

approach to the subject of the “Eternal Godhead”:

―…Moses stood in the presence of the Eternal One [Christ], and he was not afraid; for

his soul was in harmony with the will of his maker…The Deity [Christ] proclaimed *Himself, ‗THE

LORD [I AM], THE LORD GOD, merciful and gracious…‖

- E.G. White- Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890, pg. 329

―Our Lord Jesus Christ is to His people an Eternal Father, because He is *ETERNALLY ‗the

same yesterday, and today, and forever‖ [that is, “God overall , blessed forevermore” and “God

essentially and in the highest sense”, as Mrs. White earlier testified, in April 1906].

-J.M. Cole, ―The Everlasting Father‖, Review and Herald, Oct.31, 1929, pg. 3

The cornerstone of the Trinitarian doctrine is that Jesus is “essentially” God “in the highest sense” along

with the Father, “of one substance” with Him, and with both being represented by the Holy Spirit as

“a Person”, “the third Person of the Godhead”. “How surprisingly beautiful are the blended

personalities of our Triune God?”, as stated by Review and Herald in 1900! Want more evidence?

It was Mrs. White who said:

―All the evidence produced they decide shall not weigh a straw with them

and they tell others the doctrine is not true, and afterward when they see as light, evidence they were so

forward to condemn, they have too much pride to say I was wrong…‖ -Manuscript 15, 1888

May God help us all to be honest with ourselves in this matter.

CONCLUSION:

The charge of the detractors, that it was a new generation of ―philosophers‖, who knew nothing

about the beliefs of the pioneers, that led the church to ―abandon‖ what ALL pre-1915 pioneers

held to firmly until Mrs. White‟s death (1915), is a spurious charge, and is based on either

ignorance of all the facts, or the inability to be objective despite personal opinion.

„Tailored‟ Trinitarianism showed its head in Adventism from as early as 1892, long before 1931

and was never condemned by Mrs. White until her death in 1915. Also, Mrs. White never saw it as,

the ―mother of all heresies‖, because, apart from clearly showing another issue to be the chief

―heresy‖, she never once even spoke against the trinity, not even mentioning the word in order to

condemn it! That too is indisputable!

APPENDIX NO. 2 –

What does the ‗Nicene‘ Creed Really Say About the Godhead?

The formal (orthodox) doctrine of the Trinity (three persons united in the Godhead) is based upon the

Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. (expanded on in 381 A.D.), which was formulated in response to the

unscriptural teachings of Arianism. The creed itself is an expansion on the earliest Christian expressions

(of the first centuries A.D.), which was first summarized in the Apostles Creed, which Arius was

deviating from, in terms of fundamental Bible teachings of the early Apostles. See Walter R. Beach on

this much earlier Creed (earlier than Nicea), in “The Creed that Changed the World” (Pacific Press

Publishing Association, 1971). Thus the Nicene Creed sought to be more pointed and clear (than the

73

Apostle‘s Creed) about God, the Father Almighty, Jesus, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit – the three

personalities in the Godhead (Romans 1:19,20). Suffice it to say that the idea of a ―trio‖ of personalities

in the Godhead is nowhere explicitly stated in the Bible, but historically was the result of the summary

of evident truths, first brought together in the Nicene Creed, upon which trinitarianism is based.

Though Seventh-day Adventists have affirmed trinitarianism since 1892, it cannot be said

(justifiably) that the church after that fully supported ALL of the ‗Athanasian‘ explanations of the

Nicene Creed, as given by the Christians of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church and

Protestant churches of the West. The ‗Athanasian‘ explanation of the Nicene Creed came over three

centuries after Nicea, and is what the early Adventist pioneers found offensive, especially as it concerns

the explanation of the ―oneness‖ of the ―Persons‖ in the Godhead. The ―oneness‖ they felt (and rightly

so) was not numeric, forming one individual Being (numeric organism), but spiritual, forming a united

“Eternal Godhead”.

However, since 1888 and 1892, the S.D.A. Church has found it difficult to deny most of the

declarations in the Nicene Creed and that is why it is absolutely important that we take a look at what the

creed states. In so doing, we can see why Adventists share many of the basic tenets in the creed, to the

point where Mrs. White evidently refused to condemn trinitarianism after 1892.

Some condemn the Nicene Creed, without taking the time to read and or analyze it carefully, thus

failing to see that many of the same things they support Mrs. White in saying, are actually found stated in

the Creed. Here now is what the creed says quoted in part, as it relates to the Godhead. Emphases in

brackets, and added Scripture references, are supplied for a better understanding of the Creed:

“We believe in [firstly] one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things

visible and invisible; and [secondly] in one Lord Jesus Christ [1Cor. 8:6], the only begotten

*Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages [from all eternity]; only begotten, that is

[or meaning], from the substance of the Father, God [divinity] from God [divinity], light from

light, true God [true divinity] from [the] true God, begotten, not made [not created] but, of one

[same type] substance with the Father [‗homoousion‘], through whom all things came into

existence, who because of us men, and because of our salvation, came down from heaven, and

was incarnate [made flesh] from [by or through] the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became

a man and was crucified…buried, and rose again…ascended to the heavens, and sits on the right

hand of the [distinct] Father, and will come again with glory to judge the living and the

dead…;and [thirdly] in the Holy Spirit, [who is] the Lord [2 Cor. 3:17-18] and the Life Giver

[Job 33:4], who proceeds [comes from and is sent] from the Father *AND THE SON [a later

addition by the Western Church – see Rom. 8:9], who with the Father and the Son is together

worshipped [venerated or served – Joshua 24:14,15] and glorified…”

―The Nicene Creed‖ -Source – Encyclopedia Britannica, 1970 edition

COMMENTS

Now it is interesting how, when taken as they read, many of these statements could not be denied by

many honest Adventists, when they are confronted with similar statements by Mrs. White, especially as

they relate to:

1) The ‗begetting‘ of Jesus from the Father‘s substance “before all ages [from all eternity], despite

he is seen as a ―distinct person” “from all eternity”. Trinitarians, like Mrs. White, saw no

Biblical contradiction in these two truths. Adventists (some, not all) run into trouble by thinking

that the two ideas are incompatible. See “Landmark No.3” (or Chapter 3).

2) The “of one substance”[homoousios] clause of the creed - the key factor in explaining the

relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are all similar and equal in nature, but

distinct personalities. Notice how the creed was emphatic in explaining the meaning of the same

74

“of one substance” expression used by Mrs. White (see again “Landmark No.3” or chapter 3).

The clause is not the problem, just context of explanation.

3) The fact that ”three living [literal] personalities” make up the Godhead, the “Eternal Godhead”

as stated so clearly by Mrs. White (see “Landmark No. 5” or chapter 5), despite neither the word

“trio”, or that the Godhead has three personalities, are explicitly stated (but implied) in the Bible.

The Nicene Creed and Mrs. White agree on the matter of the “constituent persons of the Eternal

Godhead” being a “trio”.

4) The serving (venerating, worshipping) of the Holy spirit, together with the Father and the Son – a

key factor in trinitarianism. See again “Landmark No. 5” for the clear evidence in Mrs. White‘s

writings on this matter of ”serving” or “venerating” the Spirit, “the third person of the

Godhead”.

These are all the basic premises of trinitariansim, even if explanations differed somewhat between the

original (orthodox) explanation and the Adventist explanation (e.g. the “oneness” in the Godhead, and

the distinction of Christ from the Father).

Another consideration could be that, too many criticize Trinitarians for, in their opinion, making Jesus

seem “subordinate” [subject] to the Father, forgetting that Trinitarians, more than many other, declare

that in the Godhead there is “no superiority or inferiority of RANK”, rather ―co-equality‖ [full equality

of all]. However Trinitarians *HAVE reconciled this truth with the ‗leadership‘ of the Father in the

Godhead, just like a husband must (or should) reconcile leadership over his wife, with her co-equality

(full equality) with him as a person.

Mrs. White accepted that Jesus is equal with the Father, but also clearly accepted the Father “working

above and through all” (Steps to Christ, 1892,pgs. 20-21), that is, the angels, Jesus himself, and the Holy

Spirit – all referred to as “Heavenly beings” by her in this quote. Some, without really coming to grips

with what really are the criteria for trinitarianism, quote the following from Mrs. White and triumphantly

declare it to be “anti-trinitarian”, because the Spirit is not mentioned at this juncture:

“All things Christ received from God [the Father], but he took to give. So in the heavenly courts,

in his ministry for all created beings; through the beloved Son the Father‟s life flows out to all;

through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the Great Source [the

Father] of all.”[Remember Father & Son are both “from all eternity”]

-E.G. White, Desire of Ages, 1898, pg.21

This is a huge mistake on their part (on two counts), to believe this to be an anti-trinitarian statement.

Here are the true facts.

Firstly, the Roman Catholics (Trinitarians) read the book, “Desire of Ages”, cover to cover, and

in September 1965, recommended it for reading to Roman Catholics, in the “Universal Fatima News”.

Why? Because they felt it was, apart from beautifully portraying the life of Christ, also theologically

sound as far as trinitarian thinking goes, in its basic tenets.

Secondly, the following quote, from the Encarta Encyclopedia (2000), on the subject of “The

Trinity”, shows why Trinitarians supported the above description by Mrs. White:

“The doctrine of the trinity may be understood on different levels. On one level it is a means of

construing the word „God‟ in Christian discourse. „God‟ is not uniquely a Christian word, and it

needs specific definition in Christian theology…Paul says, there are many „gods‟ and many

„lords‟ – yet for us there is one God, the Father…AND one Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:5-6).

These words constitute the beginning of a process of clarification and definition, of which the end

75

product is the doctrine of the trinity…The God of the Hebrew tradition had become known in a

new way, first in the person of Christ, [tangibly], and then in the Spirit that moved into the

Church. On a speculative level of understanding, the doctrine reveals the dynamism of the

Christian conception of God [the specie] - INVOLVING NOTIONS OF A SOURCE, A COMING

FORTH, AND A RETURN (PRIMORDIAL, EXPRESSIVE, AND UNITIVE…)”

-“Trinity”, Encarta Encyclopedia (Microsoft) – 2000

This reveals clearly that some, unwittingly, are Trinitarians (Roman Catholics and Jehovah

Witnesses know it about them), but they deny and resist that the are, all the while pronouncing that which

betrays and identifies trinitarianism in basic terms (if even not in ‗orthodox‘ terms), that is, the Father

begetting the Son equal with Himself, and the Godhead Persons united in Spirit as a ―Trio‖. Notice the

starting point for the Trinitarian – 1 Cor. 8:5,6 – the very passage so many think is anti-Trinitarian,

forgetting the conjunctive “AND one Lord Jesus Christ” in the text, as well as the synonymous meanings

of “Lord” and “God” in the passage!!

Notice that the same Spirit unites the Father, and Son, in action and representative presence.

Once the Spirit is ever shown to be a “mysterious personality” proceeding from the Father through the

Son, then trinitarianism is affirmed. Obviously the Father must be distinct (separate) from the Son, for the

Father (the Source) to see his Son as the Medium ―through” which his life flows out to all, and return in

praise. That is what the Roman Catholics recognized in “Desire of Ages”, as the deepest level of

understanding about the nature of the Godhead, and thus recommended it without reservation TO THEIR

TRINITARIAN BRETHREN!! Why? Because the same basic truth is found in their Nicene Creed!

It is clear that this is the same premise on which the Nicene Creed is built, with the very opening

words of the creed affirming 1 Co.8: 6. Could it be that those who claim, in Adventism, to be anti-

Trinitarian, but support Mrs. White in affirming that the Holy Spirit is evidently a mysterious personality

inseparable from the Father and the Son, KNOW NOT WHAT BASIC TRINITARIANISM IS? Could it

be that they fail to recognize that ‗semi-Trinitarianism‘ or ‗Trio-ism‘ is, in essence, trinitarianism just the

same– the same way semi-Arianism (by ‗homoeans‘) is a brand of Arianism? Being under the same

theological ‗roof‘, does not necessarily mean being in the same specific ‗room‘ (contextually). Thus,

logically, in order not to be seen as under the Trinitarian ‗umbrella‘, the only true anti-Trinitarian is

one who rejects the ―Trio‖ in the Godhead, and teaches that the Spirit is just a force.

*OTHER INDEPENDENT PRESENTATIONS BY THE AUTHOR, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE

GODHEAD IN ADVENTISM:

1. THE ADVENTIST HERESY? -Did the S.D.A. Church change its Doctrine on God after 1915?

(A 2000 booklet and audiotape)

2. DO ADVENTISTS WORSHIP THREE GODS? (A 2001 booklet)

3. THE OMEGA HERESY EXPLORED! (A 2001 booklet)

4. WHAT IS HERESY? (A 2001 tract or leaflet)

5. LUCIFER THE MOST HIGH GOD? (A 2001 tract/leaflet and audiotape)

6. ITCHING MINDS IN ERROR! (A revised 2001 pamphlet)

76

7. SEVEN EXPLOSIVE TRUTHS IN ADVENTISM! (A 2001 audiotape)

8. TRINITY- THE ISSUES OUTLINED! (A 2000 audiotape)

*AND MORE!!

Call (876) 539-4734 or 385-5982

ddgillespie@live.com

Or Write:

Derrick Gillespie

Munro College P.O.,

St Elizabeth

Jamaica, W.I.