THE SDA PIONEERS' REASONS TO REJECT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC TRINITY BUT TO EMBRACE AND WORSHIP THE TRUE BIBLICAL TRINITY; A REAL "STUMPER" FOR SOME!!!! *2nd EDITION (Oct. 2017) ---Compiled by Derrick Gillespie
INTRODUCTION: For years Triniitarian SDA members have been bombarded with the truth from antiTrinitarian dissidents in Adventism that SDA pioneers denounced and rejected the Roman Catholic explanation of the Trinity, but what has normally been covered up by the dissidents is that the pioneers themselves eventually accepted “the bible doctrine of the Trinity” (an expression they themselves coined and used as of 1892). It would be hypocritical to reject the testimony of the very same pioneers telling the other side of their own story. Now, from their own lips, let the SDA pioneers speak candidly concerning why they rejected the Papal or Roman Catholic Trinity but later embraced and worshiped the “Biblical” Trinity. This is a much denied and often unrecognized truth among certain dissidents in SD Adventism. It’s time to let the full story (i.e. both sides of the truth) become known to the world!!
***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 1 (Robert Hare): “In the fourth and fifth centuries many absurd views were set forth respecting *the Trinityviews that stood at variance with reason, logic, and Scripture... [BUT] ...the enemy [Satan] gladly leads to what appears to be a more rational, though not less erroneous idea – that there is no trinity, and that Christ is merely a created being. But God’s great plan is clear and logical. There is *A TRINITY, and in it there are three personalities [or three individuals]…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
The foregoing statement is clear from the pioneer Robert Hare, and explains why the SDA pioneers themselves eventually began to accept a certain type of “Trinity” or “Trio” (to the pioneers the words/terms were interchangeable) where there were separate beings involved. They could not accept the Catholic explanation (which developed in the fourth century) that the Father, Son and Spirit have no individuality, that they have no body parts or personal form, and that they simply were one substance indivisible or undivided as a single ‘organism’ (as it were) without any form of individuality of the “persons” involved in the group. But they gradually came to accept after 1888 that the Godhead consisted of THREE separate “supreme BEINGS” (plural) worthy of being worshipped as such. Click link above to see more details on thic crucial issue. Let’s now explore how this all developed, backed by, in many cases, the actual photocopied exhibits of the evidence available. Before delving deeply into this issue before us, let’s briefly address a pertinent issue which, am sure, some will question. Seen below is a snapshot of my Facebook dialog (in 2016) with antiTrinitarian dissidents about who really should we call “the pioneers” of the SDA Church. This is important when dealing with the changes which took place in Adventism under their watch, so see this exhibit of how the issue should be dealt with when dealing with the dissidents.
***SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM’S FIRST SUPPORTIVE USE OF THE TERM “THE TRINITY” FOR THREE “SUPREME BEINGS” OF THE GODHEAD “We [Adventists] understand the Trinity, as applied to the Godhead, to consist of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ... These supreme Beings we cannot comprehend or measure…There is certainly nothing incongruous in the idea of the Spirit being a personal representative, hence saying that the Spirit' is the representative of the Father and Son does not deny his personality...He [the Spirit] occupies in our minds an exalted place with Deity …as a supreme Being” --- Bible Echo & Signs of the Times (Australia), Vol. 7, April 1, 1892, p112 The following exhibits (on the next page) are the actual cover and related page of the very April 1, 1892 Signs of the Times SDA magazine which had Adventism’s first pioneering defense of its supportive use of the term “the Trinity”; as was done on page 112 under the article entitled “A Criticism Considered”. To see more details on this matter Click here. Nothing beats evidence!
In the above page exhibit (as directly Xeroxed from the actual page 112 of the April 1, 1892 Signs of the Times magazine published in Australia) we see that Mrs. White herself , while in Australia when the foregoing quote was put out by SDA pioneers, she was quoted in the very same magazine (as indicated by the red arrow), yet she never registered any objection to the
supportive use of the term “Trinity” by SDA pioneers then, and she never did in years following while in Australia, nor for the rest of her lifetime. Instructive! One SDA anti-Trinitarian, Jason Smith, in 2017 he candidly (honestly) admitted to the following as a result of his own research: TESTIMONY OF THE SDA ANTI-TRINITARIAN, JASON SMITH: “... While it is true that Sister White never used the word “trinity” herself when speaking of God it is also equally true that she never rebuked or repudiated the SDA pioneers who used it during her lifetime and there were several of them. It is unfathomable that she missed all of those references. The truth is that she remained neutral and thus honest logicality compels the conclusion that there is a “trinity” that one can hold to which is in no way a salvific danger. I know some of my SDA anti-trinitarian brethren get upset when I say this but I don't serve them… if there wasn't an acceptable "trinity" view possible then surely the Spirit of Christ would have warned us clearly through Mrs. White’s prophetic gift. This is not the case though…" --- Jason Smith, Facebook discussion, October 2, 2017
The above quote needs no further commentary, except for me to laud the honesty and openness of this dear brother, Jason Smith, despite…. And, by the way, let’s hear the 1884 testimony of J.H. Waggoner on the true definition of the word “trinity” even before the SDA pioneers had begun to supportively use it, and even when they were still rejecting both the word itself and the Roman Catholic faulty explanation of it:
“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
See then why they later started to teach the true definition of it; i.e. involving separate beings? I think the testimony is clear for those who carefully and honestly assess the facts! Let’s now bring to the witness stand one Uriah Smith, and allow his monumental testimony to be entered into evidence (despite many read his words for years but never saw changes).
***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 2 (Uriah Smith): In 1896, Uriah Smith was the Editor of the Review and Herald (Adventism’s main doctrinal publishing paper), and, despite some dissidents in Adventism today lamely deny he did pen the following, but writing as Editor of the same “In the Question Chair” column he earlier penned in 1890, and in answer to the question seen in the quote below, he made plain the following (despite admitting that no specific Scripture exists commanding the worship of the Spirit): “Do the Scriptures warrant praise or worship of the Holy Sprint? ...in the formula for baptism, the name “Holy Ghost,” or” Holy Spirit,” is associated with that of the Father and the Son. And if
the name can be used thus, why could it not properly stand as a part of the same *TRINITY in the hymn of praise, “Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost”?” -- Uriah Smith (“U.S.”), In the Question Chair, Review and Herald, 1896, Vol. 73, No. 43, pg. 685 By 1896, we see Uriah Smith changing significantly with regards to the so-called “unscriptural” and “pagan” word "trinity" being directly applied to the Godhead, and as it concerns praise to the separately listed Holy Spirit in "the same trinity" (considering that this would immediately imply “three persons” inherently involved). For much more detail on this monumental historical event see my free booklet on Uriah Smith at this link (click). It’s an eye-opening read. Suffice it to say here that, keep in mind that this 1896 “trinity” defense, of sorts, from Uriah Smith was not just Uriah Smith using the word “trinity” as just an ‘innocent label’ for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as a mere “group of three”, as some would want to argue, (since he could have used “trio”), but he is using it in the context of WORHIP DIRECTED TO THE HOLY SPIRIT AS A MEMBER OF “THE TRINITY” …knowing full well that a “trinity” of the Godhead is “three persons”; not two. Uriah Smith knew full well the implications of him using this formerly considered “heretical” and “unscriptural” Trinitarian term directly applied to the Godhead, and the implications of him defending worship of the Holy Spirit in those Trinitarian-type terms. Was he now leaning in the direction of endorsing certain aspects (not all) of the Trinity doctrine he had formerly frowned upon (terminology and all)? You bet! And I KNOW this was the case because this was taking place with Uriah Smith at precisely the time when other SDA pioneers were adopting Trinitarian sentiments in the late 1890s as well; applying formerly considered “heretical” expressions to their Godhead expressions, like “Trinity”, “God the Son”, and “the third person of the Godhead” –a Trinitarian expression quoted and used by Mrs. White herself (click the link to see). And if you need greater evidence Click this link to see even more details on this post-1888 matter; details not easily explained away by the modern dissidents who fail to study as they should. Below is seen the actual photocopy of the very page in the 1896 Review and Herald where Uriah Smith ascribed acceptable praise to the Spirit (as sung in the SDA doxology since the 1840s), but for the first time he distinctly defended praise to the Spirit as a member of “the Trinity”. That’s monumental, and cannot be ignored; try as some might to ignore it!
***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 3 (S.N. Haskell): "Gabriel was only an angel, upheld by the same Power that sustained John, and he would not for one moment allow John to be deceived by thinking he was a part of the great *TRINITY of heaven, and worthy of the worship of mankind.” – S.N. Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet, 1905 edition, pg. 132
Here in 1905, S.N. Haskell published his book “The Story of the Seer of Patmos”, and for the first time ever, on page 132, admitted “the great *Trinity” of heaven as being deemed worthy of the praise of mankind; and notice he used the term in the capitalized form, and called the group “the great *Trinity”…even though he could have used the expression “the heavenly trio”. He too knew that to apply the term “the Trinity” (“the great Trinity”) to the Godhead, this immediately is an irrefutable admission to three persons in involved. By the way, keep in mind that both Catholics and general Christendom, and even SDA pioneers, refer to “the Trinity” and the “doctrine of the trinity” both in the capitalized and non-capitalized form of the expression, so it is no strange thing to see them use the expression written both ways (despite the denial of this reality by some dissidents in Adventism today). The following year, in 1906, S.N. Haskell was personally lauded by Mrs. White for his work as a bible teacher…proving he was no heretic drifting off into “spiritualism’ as some dissidents would want to accuse him of (i.e. for admitting worship as acceptable for “the great Trinity” of heaven). And this again underscores the fact that Mrs. White had no issues with the use of the term in this way (as even the anti-Trinitarian, Jason Smith, has honestly observed); otherwise she could not laud Haskell’s work the very following year!! See the related exhibits below and over page:
Here, as seen below, is an excerpt from an online booklet written by an active anti-Trinitarian dissident (*name withheld) who lauded S.N. Haskell’s work in his 1905 book, and spoke of how Mrs. White respected him as a grounded bible teacher. But he obviously never saw in Haskell’s 1905 book that he by then admitted/wrote clearly that there is a “great Trinity of heaven” who is “worthy of the worship of mankind”. When that same dissident (*name withheld) was shown Haskell’s 1905 “Trinity” admission, he tried then to make it seem that Haskell, by 1905, had lost his way and had become a “spiritualistic” heretic. How ironic, when the following excerpt from his own review of Haskell after 1905 is considered. Smile, dear reader (Paul Williams included, if you are reading this)!! You know it’s funny.
***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 4 (A.T. Jones): “ [Among Arians and Trinitarians at Nicea in 325 A.D.] … 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 … There was no dispute about *notice, not ‘opinion’, or ‘teaching’, but the+ 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” [as supportively quoted from Socrates who was there in the fourth century] ---A.T. Jones, The Two Republics, 1891, pg. 333 “God [the Father] 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
Keeping in mind that the expression ‘among them’ always indicates three or more beings involved (not just two), then it is plain evidence that A.T. Jones had already come to believe that there is not just a Godhead ‘duo’ of beings, as anti-Trinitarians in Adventism today desperately struggle to uphold, but rather that there is a Godhead oneness of three (not two) beings, otherwise A.T. Jones could never have spoken about “there is no dissent or division among them”; he would have instead said no division “between” them. And to be sure that he meant that the Holy Spirit is a third separate personal being just like the Father and Son, notice his own words in 1907: "...the Holy Spirit IS A PERSON. This great truth is not recognized, indeed it is NOT believed, by more than a very few even of Christians [many SDA pioneers at the time included]....The Holy Spirit is a Person, ETERNALLY A DIVINE PERSON. And he must be ALWAYS RECOGNIZED and spoken of as a Person, or he is not truly recognized or spoken of at all...the Scriptures make perfectly plain the truth that the Holy Spirit is, none other than a living, speaking, divine, and eternal person. Exactly as Christ is a person and as God is a person..." ---A.T. Jones, Medical Missionary, March 27, 1907, pg. 98 It’s clear where A.T. Jones’ mindset was after 1888 (just as Mrs. White herself explained in 1899 that the Spirit is “a person as God is a person”), and so no further commentary needed.
***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 5 (F.M. Wilcox.: “Seventh-day Adventists [not just myself] believe [now] in ... the Divine *TRINITY. This Trinity consists of the Eternal Father… the Lord Jesus Christ… [and] the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead” ---F. M. Wilcox (chief editor), *Review and Herald, October 9, 1913 “…the Godhead, or *TRINITY, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption…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 In 1913, the Church’s leading editor of its publications, F.M. Wilcox, (a man highly regarded by E.G. White herself; and asked by her, among others, to guard her estate upon her death), he released in the Review and Herald Seventh-day Adventism’s first Statement of Belief recognizing “the Trinity” but as separate beings. And that same F.M. Wilcox is on record later explaining (in a doctrinal book officially published by the Review and Herald) that the Godhead of three persons/beings have “separate individuality” but was to SDAs unitedly praised as “one God”; proving this was not (as some like to falsely argue) a sentiment only established in
Adventism in 1980, and only after Leroy Froom so-called ‘introduced” it to and “imposed” it on Adventism after the 1920s. Leroy Froom inherited all of these previously described realities in Adventism, when he became active in the 1920s and thereafter!! This again is irrefutable!
***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 6 (R.A. Underwood) on the Spirit "It seems strange to me, now, that I ever believed that the Holy Spirit was only an influence, in view of the work he does. But we want the truth because it is truth, and we reject error because it is error, regardless of any views we may formerly have held, or any difficulty we may have had, or may now have, when we view the Holy Spirit as a person. Satan's scheme is to destroy all faith in the personality of the Godhead, — the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,— also in his own personality...Let us beware lest Satan shall lead us to take the first step in destroying our faith in the personality of this person of the Godhead,—the Holy Ghost. It was once hard for me to see how a spirit could be a person; but when I saw "that God is a spirit" (John &: 24), and that he is no less a person; when I saw that the last Adam (Christ) "was made a quickening spirit" (1 Cor. 15: 45), and that he is a person…. I could understand better how the Holy Spirit can be a person..." --- R.A. Underwood – “The Holy Spirit a Person”, Review and Herald, Vol. 75, No. 20, May 17, *1898, pg. 310 His pioneering testimony is self-explanatory, and explains clearly why another pioneer, G.C. Tenny, would come out in the very same year (1896) and say, in response to the public inquiries: “From the figures which are brought out in Revelation, Ezekiel, and other Scriptures, and from the language which is used in reference to the Holy Spirit, we are led to believe he is something more than an emanation from the mind of God. He is spoken of as a personality [or individual being], and treated as such. 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 capacity as Teacher, Guide, and Comforter. He is an object of *VENERATION [worship] and is A [singular] Heavenly INTELLIGENCE, everywhere present, and is always present [thus was alays in existence; Heb. 9:14].” ---G.C. Tenny- “To Correspondents”, Review& Herald, June 9, *1896, pg. 362 The term “veneration” comes from Latin, “venerari” – which means, “to worship”!! The above quote from the Review to the public in 1896 is self-explanatory…no further comments needed, except to point out that, again, this was the very same year (1896) Uriah Smith (as Editor of the Review) applied the term “the Trinity” to the Godhead persons for the very first time when speaking of worship acceptably ascribed to the Spirit. If that’s not collaborative testimony among leading pioneers (despite resistance from some/others), I don’t know what is. Never forget that if the Spirit is not deemed numerically the third person of three divine persons then there is no “Trinity”. Is the picture becoming clear now, dear reader, about the cumulative testimony of all SDA pioneers quoted so far? Let’s now hear the testimony of Mrs. White, the leading pioneer in Adventism, and who is deemed
as the inspired prophetess of the SDA Church. Her testimony bears the greatest weight (among the pioneers) for SDAs and its time to hear from her.
***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 7 (E.G. White): First, let me remind you of the potent observation of Jason Smith, before I delve into Mrs. White’s direct and indirect testimony. As an SDA anti-Trinitarian, Jason Smith, in 2017 he candidly (honestly) admitted to the following a result of his own research:
as
“... While it is true that Sister White never used the word “trinity” herself when speaking of God it is also equally true that she never rebuked or repudiated the SDA pioneers who used it during her lifetime and there were several of them. It is unfathomable that she missed all of those references. The truth is that she remained neutral and thus honest logicality compels the conclusion that there is a “trinity” that one can hold to which is in no way a salvific danger. I know some of my SDA anti-trinitarian brethren get upset when I say this but I don't serve them… if there wasn't an acceptable "trinity" view possible then surely the Spirit of Christ would have warned us clearly through Mrs. White’s prophetic gift. This is not the case though…" --- Jason Smith, Facebook discussion, October 2, 2017 The above is a mouthful as it concerns her ‘unspoken testimony’ about the validity of the term “Trinity” when applied to the separate BEINGS (plural) of the Godhead, since, to the SDA pioneers, the term “Trio” and “Trinity” were synonyms (as earlier quotes proved), and as all reputable dictionaries show clearly (including the 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary of American English used by the pioneers at the time). And it’s not an ‘arguments from silence’ am here using (as some might want to say), because not only did Mrs. White not rebuke these pioneers for adopting “Trinity-related terminology, but she adopted her own as well (to be proven hereafter). And for those dissidents who become hung up on Mrs. White not using the “Trinity” term per se, soon it will become clear that’s a lame cop-out from facing up to the painfully obvious!! Her colleagues did, and she not only did not chastise them for it, but tacitly endorsed its use by using its synonym (i.e. “trio”) and explainiing the Godhead to mean the same thing her colleagues gradually accepted as truth. Now notice that within the same period in which all of these afore-described post-1888 events were taking place in Adventism for the very first time, here is Mrs. White’s own testimony just before the afore described:
“There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair....There are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ. The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many [i.e. SDA pioneers in 1892] who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease, saying, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing." --E.G. White, Review and Herald, December 20, 1892.
Can you imagine, dear reader, Mrs. White is here telling the SDA pioneers just after 1888 (nearly fifty years after the founding of the Advent Movement) that they didn’t necessarily have everything correctly worked out doctrinally, and that they didn’t necessarily have all truths already hammered out, but allowance should be made even then for new light to come. And then notice that it was primarily after that Mrs. White begun to introduce new light on not just the Law, on salvation through faith, but on the Godhead. It’s as plain as the nose on your face, dear reader, and as bright as the sun!! No one can cover it up!! Notice now Mrs. White’s own post-1888 or post-1892 gradual/cumulative testimony about the THREE Godhead “persons” (a testimony given for the first time and mostly after her eyeopening 1892 quote just looked at), and notice her unequivocal messages about how we should relate to them as true SDA members: "...let us [SDAs] consecrate to Him ["the Lord" our God] all that we are, and all that we have, and then may we all unite to swell the songs, “Praise God, from whom all blessings flow; Praise him, all creatures here below; Praise him above, ye heavenly host; Praise Father, Son, *AND Holy Ghost.” ---E.G. White, RH January 4, 1881 “We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds. ---E.G. White—Manuscript 66, 1899 (From a talk to the students at the Avondale School, Australia.). “The Holy Spirit is a person, for He beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God. When this witness is borne, it carries with it its own evidence… The Holy Spirit has a personality, [or individuality] else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person….” -- E.G. White, Manuscript 20, 1906.
“…there are three living persons of the heavenly trio *“trio” being an interchangeable term for “trinity” among the SDA pioneers themselves; as evidence proves]; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. ----E.G. White, Manuscript 21, 1906, pg.11 Never forget that it’s not just a “third person” style of language Mrs. White employed when speaking of the Holy Spirit as “the third person of the Godhead” (as dissidents in Adventism love to mislead the unlearned with this faulty argument), but rather it’s a NUMERIC reality of “three living personalities” or individuals involved (since its always the word/expression “personality” or “distinct personality” she adopted and used, among the Trinitarian expressions, when she wanted to express separate individual beings in the Godhead in relation to each other). And this was why this Trinitarian “third person of the Godhead” expression was understood by the pioneers initially (or in the earlier years; before 1888) to be a “heretical” Trinitarian expression connected to the Trinity, as they fully well knew it meant “three persons”, and not two!! This was what pioneer W.W. Prescott candidly admitted at the
1919 Bible Conference (making us know Mrs. White herself was now adopting formerly considered “heretical” expressions connected to the Trinity), when he said: "I was in the same place that Brother Daniells was, and was taught the same things by authority [of the SDA Church], that Christ was the beginning of God's creative work, that to speak of the third person of the Godhead or of the trinity was heretical..." --- W.W. Prescott, July 6, 1919 Bible Conference. DID YOU CATCH THAT??? Not only did the earlier expressions of some of the SDA pioneers ( like that of Uriah Smith, and J.M. Stephenson , among others ) present Jesus as a “created being” but the expressions "third person of the Godhead" and "the trinity" were considered "heretical" by early SDA pioneers because they were TRINITARIAN EXPRESSIONS...and the whole world knows it!! So when later pioneers (like Uriah Smith, A.T. Jones, S.N. Haskell, Robert Hare, F.M. Wilcox, E.G. White, et al) started to use these formerly deemed “heretical” Trinitarian expressions after 1888, it is plain they were now leaning in the direction of Trinitarianism (clearly the revised version ); not continuing in a totally non-Trinitarian direction!! Here is the actual photocopied proof of SDA pioneer W.W. Prescott admitting at the 1919 Bible Conference that early SDA pioneers opposed the use of Trinitarian expressions like "the third person of the Godhead", and "trinity"---a solid proof of the later acceptance of certain Trinity-related concepts/expression by E.G. White and other pioneers even before Kellogg did in 1902-1903 (this scan is from the Minutes on July 6, 1919):
With the foregoing now establishing that even Mrs. White herself was borrowing from the stock of Trinitarian-type expressions, and with the reality of even herself quoting Trinitarian authors after 1888 (click link for details), we can now proceed to further look at her testimony, and its monumental implications. She further said (note the years she did):
“When we have accepted Christ, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit have pledged ourselves to serve [i.e. reverence, honor, worship and obey; see Joshua 24:15; Psalm 100:2] God, the Father, Christ, *AND the Holy Spirit --the three dignitaries and powers of heaven--pledge themselves that every facility shall be given to us if we carry out our baptismal vows to "come out from among them, and be . . . separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing. ----E.G. White, Manuscript 85, 1901 "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 [notice hereafter who is speaking as “I” and “the Almighty” here], and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith [or pledges] the Lord Almighty." [Now notice carefully] This is the pledge of [not 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… In order to deal righteously with the world, as members of the royal family, children of the heavenly King, Christians must feel their need of a power, which comes only from the [three] heavenly agencies that have pledged themselves to work in man's behalf. After we have formed a union with the great THREEFOLD POWER [singular; collective], we shall regard our duty toward the members of God's family with a sacred awe.” -E.G. White, Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901
"As the saints in the kingdom of God are accepted in the beloved, they hear: “Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” And then the golden harps are touched, and the music flows all through the heavenly host, and they fall down and worship the Father and the Son *AND the Holy Spirit." ---E.G. White, Manuscript 139, 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...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… this is the prayer that every one of us may offer…” -E.G. White, 1906, Manuscript Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268 The foregoing quotes, again, are self-explanatory, and while some dissidents in Adventism try to deny she wrote all of the above quoted, the evidence is compelling that she did, since the E.G. White Estate has reasonable evidence indicating she did pen them, and the quotes consistently state or imply the same truths in principle, and all around her other pioneers were saying the same thing in essence, and she never objected. Let’s now look at what other (named and un-named) pioneers were saying within the same post-1888 and pre-1915 period, as well as how the PIONEERS collectively worshiped in the same period (i.e. in the post-1888 and pre-1915 period), signaled by their hymnals which underwent significant pro-Trinity CHANGES to match what the post-1888 doctrinal developments were.
Miscellaneous COLLECTIVE Pioneering Testimony in SDA publications (mostly by un-named SDA pioneers):
In the same year 1892 when Mrs. White signaled that the SDA Church should/can accept new doctrinal changes/additions compared to earlier years, the SDA Church via the Pacific Press publishing house, supportively published a non-SDA Trinity article by the Trinitarian minister of the Presbyterian Church, Samuel Spear, which the SDA pioneers themselves renamed and entitled it “The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity”…obviously admitting that there is indeed a biblical version of the Trinity that is acceptable!! It was clearly a Trinitarian article penned by Samuel Spear, which preferred to stay away from certain mystical speculations about the “triune God” (the Trinitarian term the SDA pioneers omitted from the article when publishing it; proving it was Trinitarian at its core, or in all the basics), and the following quote from it is telling (i.e. as taken the very portions the SDA pioneers supportively published unaltered in 1892): "...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...This doctrine... is not a system of tri-theism, or the doctrine of three Gods, but is the doctrine of one God subsisting and acting in three persons, with the qualification that the term “person,” though perhaps the best that can be used, is not, when used in this relation, to be understood in any sense that would make it inconsistent with the unity of the Godhead,
and hence not to be understood in the ordinary sense when applied to men. Bible trinitarians are not tritheists. They simply seek to state, in the best way in which they can, what they regard the Bible as teaching. Our Saviour [Jesus], in prescribing the formula to be observed in baptism, directed that converts to Christianity should be baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matt. 28:19. Here we have the distinct element of threeness in three personal titles of the Godhead; and while this implies some kind of distinction between the persons thus designated, the language places them all on the same level of divinity. The baptismal formula, as given by Christ, is a strong argument in favor of this distinction; and yet no trinitarian ever understood Christ as here asserting or implying anything inconsistent with the essential unity of the Godhead....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. Paul said to the Ephesians that there is “one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling,” and then added that there is “one Lord,” Jesus Christ, connecting with him “one faith” and “one baptism,” and then, ascending to the climax of thought, added again that there is “one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Eph. 4:4-6. What Christian head or heart will object to this statement of the Trinity?... The truth is that God the Father in the primacy attached to Him in the Bible, and God the Son in the re¬deeming 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…. Content with the revealed facts, and spiritually using them, he has no trouble with them. He does not attempt metaphysically to analyze the God he worships, but rather thinks of him as revealed in His word, and can always join in the following Doxology: “Praise God, from whom all blessings flow! Praise Him, all creatures here below! Praise Him above, ye heavenly host! Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!” ---The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity, 1890, Pacific Press
The foregoing explains quite nicely what growing numbers of SDA pioneers were prepared to accept and support after 1888, and it also indicates what the word “trinity” or “trio” now meant to them after 1888 (since they used both words interchangeably), and it indicates why the
Roman Catholic version of the “trinity” doctrine, seeking to explain the Godhead persons as not being personal individual beings (but rather one undivided substance or organism), would forever be a problem to SDA pioneers even when they eventually accepted the basic truth about “the Bible doctrine of THE Trinity”. In the year 1894, this same Spear Trinity article speaking supportively of the “triune God”, and which presented a "tri-personal God" and deemed/defended "bible trinitarians" as "not tritheists", it was again glowingly endorsed in the following words (after omitting only the “triune God” expression): “This tract of 16 pages is a reprint of an article in the New York Independent, by the late Samuel Spear, D.D. It presents the Bible view of the *doctrine of the Trinity [not just the "trinity" group] 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, May 28, 1894. Notice the words "the *DOCTRINE of the Trinity" in the quote above, and recognize the SDA pioneers were endorsing not just the term "trinity", as some dissidents in Adventism today would want you to believe; but the "BIBLE *DOCTRINE of the Trinity" when correctly explained without philosophical and mystical speculations ( as evident in the Spear Trinitarian article). That’s an irrefutable reality which several dissidents in Adventism go to extreme measures to deny and cover up!! Notice now a later or another monumental pre-1915 development as it concerns the very expression “triune God” which was earlier frowned upon and rejected by SDA pioneers (as earlier omitted from the Spear article). In 1900 the April 3rd Review and Herald published the thought that “how surprisingly beautiful are the blended personalities of our TRIUNE GOD”…”; obviously with separate beings involved and not the Roman Catholic version, since SDAs have always maintained the existence of separate beings of divinity). Click here to see more details on this and to access the actual Review and read the whole article. Yes, to the pioneers the “surprisingly beautiful” truth begun to emerge; after many years of denouncing both the expressions “trinity” and “triune God” when applied to the Godhead. The very “triune God” expression seen in the Spear article, published in 1892 without that expression, was now being countenanced by SDA pioneers as early as 1900; but always applied to separate BEINGS of the Godhead united spiritually. In the photocopy seen on the next page we see the April 3, 1900 Review and Herald allowing for the publication of the fact that “our triune God” is beautifully seen in the Holy Spirit representing the Father and Son. Click here to see more details on this and to access the actual Review and read the whole article
Two years after, in 1902, while still refusing to accept the traditional mystical and speculative explanations about “the Trinity” in traditional Christendom, and while indicating why SDAs earlier did not teach anything about the Trinity, E.J. Waggoner was now willing to deem God in the following way, showing further marked changes in pioneering thinking: "...as to the Being of God,—the Godhead,—Divinity as revealed in the Father, the Word (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, we [SDAs] believe and teach just what the Bible says, and nothing else. No man can by searching find out God. No creature can understand the Almighty to perfection. The finite mind cannot comprehend infinity..." ---E. J. Waggoner, The Present Truth for 1902 - Vol. 18 - No. 06, pg. 83) It’s interesting that pioneers like E.J. Waggoner were now deeming the Godhead beings (plural) as “the being [existence] of God” (proving that using this ‘tri-unitive’ language about the Godhead beings (plural) was not an idea introduced by Leroy Froom after the 1920s, or by a later generation of SDAs far removed from the time of the pioneers, as dissidents love to claim).
By 1908, here is what the Present Truth magazine was deeming as a “present truth” in that year (while Mrs. White was very much alive and still active): “The Person by whom God will judge the world is Jesus Christ, God-Man. The second Person in THE *Trinity, that same Person of Whom we read in our Bibles...was born of the Virgin Mary…” ---Present Truth, 1908, Vol. 24, No. 51-52, pg. 812 Yes, by 1908, SDAs were deeming Jesus the “God-Man” as “the second person in the Trinity”, and that this was now “present truth”….what it clearly wasn’t in earlier years among the earliest pioneers who died before this development (like James White, J.H Waggoner, etc.). And this year 1908 became the year when the SDA pioneers would COLLECTIVELY signal to the public that certain Trinitarian expressions would now be added to their hymnal, which was unheard of in the years before 1888. Let’s now explore that new pre-1915 development as well.
***SDA Pioneers’ COLLECTIVE Testimony in their "Christ in Song" Hymnal (1900 and 1908 versions)
Previous to the years 1888 (and after) obviously any worship/praise of the Spirit that SDA pioneers would allow for the Spirit (as sung in the pre-1888 SDA doxology “Praise God from whom all blessings flow”) this would be only in the sense of the two divine “persons” of Jesus and the Father being themselves the Spirit *literally. But in 1908 the General Conference of SDA pioneers (taking counsel together) vetted and passed the new Christ in Song hymnal, where (on page 6) it had, for the first time ever, songs dedicated to “the Trinity”, (yes, an entire section directly named as such); where both the Holy Spirit and the “Eternal Three” were equally praised together in songs listed in that section (and they too in 1908 knew that to refer to the Godhead as “the Trinity” immediately expressed “three persons”; not two). This was while Mrs. White was alive, and she herself would have sung from that hymnal (yet no objection registered on her part). That’s instructive, but dissidents try to ignore this GLARING reality! See on the next page the actual page 6 of the 1908 Christ in Song pioneering hymnal. The left side says it all.
Now The following Trinitarian-type *prayer songs being sung by SDAs DURING MRS. WHITE’S TIME--addressing directly IN PRAYER the personal and divine Holy Spirit, as well as pointedly and explicitly praising “the Eternal Three” as explicitly identified and listed---these songs says it all: No. 104 (Hover O’er me Holy Spirit) in the SDA “Christ in Song” hymnal of 1900: “Hover o’er me, Holy Spirit, Bathe my trembling heart and brow; Fill me with Thy hallowed presence, Come, O come and fill me now… At Thy sacred feet I bow; Blest, divine, eternal Spirit, Fill with pow’r, and fill me now” No. 296 (Praise ye the Father) in the SDA “Christ in Song” of 1900 (verse 3): “Praise ye the Spirit, Comforter of Israel, Sent of the Father and the Son to bless us. Praise ye the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit— Praise ye the Eternal Three!”
Here is song No. 377 from the revised 1908 “Christ in Song” hymnal of SDA pioneers while Mrs. White was alive (it’s listed under the Contents on page 6 as one of the songs of “Praise to the *Trinity”). Note carefully all the words in the exhibit, and the three separate praises:
If you still need further details, dear reader, on the historical SDA hymnals and how (when analyzed carefully and intelligently) they reflect the doctrinal realities and changes in Adventism over time click this link. It is another worthwhile free booklet to read and contemplate.
BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR THE POST-1888 AND PRE1915 DOCTRINAL CHANGES IN ADVENTISM!!
The Bible is the final authority on any doctrine in Adventism, and when I carefully and objectively consult it, I see clearly that the SDA pioneers were indeed biblical after 1888, and thus my faith is settled and secure. How do we BIBLICALLY know there is a "trinity" or "group of three persons united" as listed and mentioned in Matthew 28:19? Here's how:
a] If the Father and Son are separate beings (Gen. 1:26; Prov. 30:4; John 1:1-3, 14), they therefore could not both be the one Holy Spirit literally at the same time. If the one OMNIPRESENT Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:4; Psalm 139:7-10) is owned by both the Father and the Son *at the same time (Rom. 8:9), and Scripture is replete with the Holy Spirit being depicted as personal (e.g. Acts 13:2-4 and Eph. 4:30), and is listed separately from Father and Son in very many Scriptures (e.g. Matthew 28:19, Hebrews 9:14 and 1 Cor. 12:4-6), and b] If both Jesus and the Father equally SENDS the Spirit to us (e.g. John 14:26, John 15:26 and John 16:7), and c] If a "sent" and a "sender" (like the Father sending His Son) must logically be personally separate (it would be absurd otherwise, *unless one is a "Jesus only" or "Sabellian" believer), and d] If both Father and Son could not send themselves (that too would be absurd), and e] If the Father is *never sent by Jesus, since the Father is *not subject to or led ("Headed") by Jesus, but both Jesus and the Spirit are owned by the Father, and both speak/act in response to the Father who leads them both, and sends them both, and f] If the Holy Spirit intercedes (Romans 8:26-27) to the Father for us in our praying (not in human priestly function as the Jesus the slain Lamb, or the one Mediator does, but the Spirit influences our prayers while he resides in our hearts/minds, and God reads the mind of the Spirit in us to know what is meant when we pray), and g] If the Father could not intercede to himself (that would be equally absurd), and only a person "intercedes", then *THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION WHICH SATISFIES *ALL THE RULES OF LOGIC *AT THE SAME TIME IS THAT THE OMNIPRESENT HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSONAL"REPRESENTATIVE" OWNED BY BOTH FATHER AND SON, AS A THIRD AND SEPARATE PERSON! IN THAT ROLE HE CAN BE SENT BY BOTH AS THEIR OMNI-PRESENT 'EMISSARY', AND NONE BE SEEN AS RIDICULOUSLY SENDING THEMSELVES (AS SABELLIANS OR 'JESUS ONLY' PROPOPONENTS BELIEVE)!! AND THUS WE CAN SEE WHY BOTH FATHER AND SON WHO SAID, "WE WILL COME TO YOU AND MAKE OUR ABODE WITH YOU", "COMES"*REPRESENTATIONALLY THROUGH THE AGENCY OF THE SPIRIT AS IF THEY THEMSELVES ARE LITERALLY PRESENT! THE SPIRIT CAN ALSO INTERCEDE TO THE FATHER FOR US, BUT *ONLY IN OUR PRAYING, AS HE RESIDES IN OUR HEARTS/MINDS, AND IT WOULD MAKE PERFECT SENSE ALL AROUND, SINCE THE FATHER WOULD NOT BE RIDICULOUSLY SEEN AS INTERCEDING TO HIMSELF.THESE CRUCIAL FACTS IRREFUTABLY PROVE THE *NECESSITY OF THE DISTINCTLY LISTED HOLY SPIRIT BEING *NUMERICALLY A "THIRD" OR SEPARATE PERSONAL BEING IN THE GODHEAD; A GODHEAD OF FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT-ALL BEARING ONE "NAME" (SINGULAR) AND ALL WORKING IN UNISON, AS 1 COR. 12:4-6,11 CLEARLY SHOWS--AND DESPITE UNITED THEY'RE DISTINCTLY PERSONAL, THUS INDICATING WHY MATTHEW 28:19 LISTS THEM SEPARATELY IN JESUS 'OWN WORDS!! WHO KNOWS THE TRUTH BETTER THAN JESUS HIMSELF SENT TO REVEAL IT TO US?" Finally, since the distinct and personal Holy Spirit represents the very presence of
the Father and the Son (see 2 Sam 23:2-3; Acts 5:3-5; 2 Cor. 3:17, 18), then it is impossible to praise or worship Father and Son and not praise or worship the Spirit!!
The preponderance of evidence is clear for me. Therefore as I close let me remind the misguided dissidents refusing to take another or unbiased look at the story of Adventism that:
"When someone who is genuinely mistaken learns the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or will no longer remain genuine." – Anonymous ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Many of the dissidents sadly display the following traits (*quote from Lazarus Castang)
Let’s pray for them that God will humble them and release them from the chains of self-deception that they have allowed themselves to be in. I am certainly doing so myself (i.e. praying for them and myself), even as I do what Isaiah 58:1 calls me to do, i.e. lift up my voice like a trumpet, and, speaking fearlessly and frankly, but with the deepest love for all concerned, show my people in Zion where they are going wrong….living in denial and refusing to accept historical and biblical truth when it becomes evident!!!
____________________
Derrick Gillespie is a trained teacher in the Social Sciences, History, and Geography, and remains a member of the SDA Church in Jamaica and a lay evangelist for SDAs. (Contact Info:
[email protected] OR https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie
