WHICH IS THE ONLY "BEING" WHO IS "ONE WITH" AND "ENTERS" THE COUNSELS OF GOD?

By Derrick Gillespie

(*Edited July 5, 2012)

Many Adventists (and former ones too) get either all bent out of shape, or grossly misinterpret, or, worse yet, give up in frustration over the following seemingly contradictory E.G. White quotes, in light of LATER E.G. White statements about there being "three holiest beings in heaven" (whom she also calls the eternal heavenly dignitaries), whom she directed prayer to as the three Great Worthies (and remember prayer could never be directed to a non-existent being), whom, according to her, all work together in unison and who, after having "pledged themselves", are "enlisted" in the "plan" to save fallen humanity: "Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father--one in nature, in character, in purpose--the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God." -E.G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890, pg. 34 The only being who was one with God lived the law in humanity, descended to the lowly life of a common laborer, and toiled at the carpenters bench with his earthly parent. E.G. White, Signs of the Times, Oct. 14, 1897 Now depending on whom you talk with or listen to in Adventism there are several takes on these challenging passages. 1. Some apostate or former SDAs point to the seeming contradictory nature of the above statements, in light of other three persons of the Godhead statements by Mrs. White, but this position will be shown to be simply groundless at the end of this presentation. Just read on.

2. On the other hand, anti-Trinitarians in the Church usually triumphantly parade these quotes as a 'trump card' against those who think that SDA pioneers gradually grew into an acceptance of three persons or distinct beings of the Godhead who counsel and work together eternally. To them it is a road-block, they feel, to any

argument supporting three literal beings of the Godhead, because they believe it means that in reality, if Jesus seems to be the only being who was one with God or the "only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God [the Father]", then, they argue the Holy Spirit is either not a being like Father and Son, or it does mean that there are in fact not three beings of the Godhead but just two (a duo). Unfortunately however this argument fails to address the following glaring and inescapable realities in Mrs. Whites writings: [a] It cannot and does not explain how the Father and Son, if (as some argue) they were simply being spoken of in the so-called third person as the Holy Spirit how this would LOGICALLY produce three eternal heavenly dignitaries, or three holiest beings in heaven, who sends three separate greetings to the Church in Rev. 1:4,5. To say the Spirit is the expressed or extended personality of the Father and or the Son at the same time does not LOGICALLY account for three persons or three holiest beings in heaven, or three Great Worthies (equally addressed in prayer by E.G. White), or three eternal heavenly dignitaries, or three dignitaries and powers of heaven; it only accounts for two!! The words THREE persons, THREEWorthies, THREEbeings and THREE dignitaries CANNOT be so easily and lamely explained away as when one reads the expression more ambiguous expression three personalities.

[b] It cannot and does not explain how the Father and Son could be two separate beings if the one Holy Spirit is simply both of them in literal being or personage at the same time. This would make them one being if they are both the same being of the one divine Spirit at the same time.

[c] It cannot and does not explain how Mrs. White could pray to a non-existent being among three Great Worthies, or how she could logically say we should serve a non-existent being among three holiest beings of heaven, i.e. along with the Father and Son. The following words are some of the most difficult ones that modern antiTrinitarians confront in the pre-1915 expressions of pioneering Adventism, and are usually avoided like the plague. These quotes hardly, if ever, appear in their presentations, and they hardly, if ever, are honestly and FULLY analyzed, critiqued, and worse, are hardly, if ever, admitted to or accepted. The one or two who ever face up to them usually either dismiss them, gloss over them, try to lamely explain them away, or worse yet, try to discredit their authenticity. Reading the words below, and allowing their true import to sink in will explain why the modern anti-Trinitarians relate to them that way 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.) 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 [see Joshua 24:14,15] God, the Father, Christ AND [notice, thirdly and separately listed] 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 "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 The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality. -E.G. White, Manuscript Release, Vol. 20, pg. 324 Now, the earliest SDA expressions, for nearly fifty years (from 1844-1888), never ever gave consent to there being three persons of the Godhead. They never ever consented to the Holy Spirit being a personality, a distinct personality, much more being called the third of the three holiest BEINGS in heaven. Seeing that one doesnt call upon a non-existent individual in prayer, early SDA pioneers never ever conceived of calling upon the Holy Spirit in prayer just like the Father and Son (i.e. all together being seen as the three Great Worthies deserving of that token of worship). They never ever considered that the Holy Spirit should be served like Father and Son (and worse by humans pledging to do so at their baptism). They never in the least ever considered the Holy Spirit PERSONAL enough to have equally pledged to receive and be a Father to us after we are baptized. And worse, they never ever considered representing him as speaking in unison with Father and Son as the Almighty and as God (or the Godhead) who together says "Come out

from among them, and be ye separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters. Yet, by the early 1900s this is what Mrs. White, Adventisms leading pioneer, was now PLAINLY saying!! Thats either plain Trinitarianism being eventually assented to by pioneering Adventism in basic terms (except for the traditional indivisible substance idea), as the 1892 publication of the Spears article clearly indicates, or it is simply that Mrs. White was BLATANTLY CONTRADICTING HERSELF, and the SDA Church is woefully misguided in following her. It is one or the other!! Thats the truth of the matter. It is simply futile to run from it, somersault over it, or cover it up. THIS WRITER WILL BE TRUE TO ISSUES AND FACE THEM SQUARELY. Read on to see how the issues can be reconciled in all good conscience!

3. Finally, Trinitarians within the SDA Church either believe, on the one hand, that these passages are probably an indication that Mrs. White herself gradually grew into later knowledge/acceptance about there being three beings of the Godhead, and so these "only being" declarations were simply earlier statements by her before arriving at greater knowledge and later acceptance about a trio of "beings" of the Godhead, who are all related to and not independent of each other. This however does not account for Mrs. White continuing to speak (right up to her death) of Jesus being "the only being" taking counsel with and united with God the Father, and other similar duo-type statements from her, even while speaking of the "three holiest beings" in the Godhead who. To reconcile this matter, other other SDA trinitarians feel it could mean that Mrs. White saw Christ as a special being comparative to other "sons" of God (since all created beings are called God's "sons"), and so it was in this context that she spoke of him being the only SON (compared to the created spirit sons of God) that was one with or could "enter" into the counsels of God. They feel that since the Holy Spirit is not depicted as a begotten Son, and is depicted as a person/being directly, invisibly, and eternally linked to the inner thoughts of God from whom he proceeds, then there is no need for him to be depicted as "entering" from outside the counsels of the Father as a Son would, or to be declared as one with God, since that is already obvious. COMMENTS: Which of the above viewpoints are valid when one carefully and honestly considers *all (not just some) of the facts about E.G. White's teachings regarding the Godhead, as well as the historical facts about the pre-1915 progression of SDA pioneering thought on the subject of the Godhead? Before giving you my final conclusion on the matter, let me furnish you with some important considerations: a) Mrs. White being considered a 'visionary' or 'inspired' individual over her contemporaries it never meant that she is seen as always knowing it all, and she had no need to grow into knowledge of things she later led the Church to accept b) Several things Mrs. White said in earlier years were qualified and amplified by

later statements of greater knowledge, and she was humble enough to accept that she herself was no expert on Biblical exegesis, and so studied with the brethren (very late into the night sometimes) to gain better understanding, even as the church gradually hammered out its statements of beliefs and codes of conduct over time. Critical examples include: (i) In earlier years (e.g. in 1858) Mrs. White was not yet convinced about abandoning pork, and other unclean meats, and spoke out against those forcing the issue on other Adventist brethren before the Church got a united revelation about the issue. Yet when in 1863 she got the health message visions she became the staunchest preacher for healthy diet, including the abandonment of all unclean foods as stipulated by the Bible. See her remarkable early 1858 statements about "swines flesh" on page 207 of Testimonies Vol. 1, and what I saying here will become clear. (ii) In earlier years the Adventists kept the Sabbath from 6 pm Friday to 6 pm Saturday, and with no counsel from Mrs. White on the issue especially as it concerns the Sabbath beginning and ending either earlier or later in the day according to the change in the seasons. Yet, as soon as other pioneers grew into the knowledge that the Sabbath is best kept from sunset to sunset (according to the season), and not just "from 6 to 6", as earlier practiced, then Mrs. White herself adopted this view as well. (iii) A final example which will illustrate what I am saying here. It has to do with how Mrs. White dealt with the Godhead issues in light of the progressive knowledge and understanding of the brethren. In the earlier years of pioneering Adventism many of our stanch preachers remarkably felt that Jesus was created, not begotten, that he was inferior in rank and dignity to the Father, and not equal, and in addition many felt that the Holy Spirit was simply an impersonal influence, power or "afflatus" created by God the Father and Christ to carry out their bidding (rather similar to the heretical Watchtower teaching), and so to most of the early pioneers it would be unthinkable to be speaking about "three holiest beings of heaven", about three dignitaries of heaven as being the eternal heavenly dignitaries or about "the third person of the Godhead", since it was only the Father who was the Godhead, or so they thought!! Yet, as soon as A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner, at the famous and seminal 1888 Minneapolis Conference of SDAs, brought before the delegates the truth that Christ is one of the "constituent persons of the Eternal Godhead", and that Christ was not created but is indeed the TRULY begotten Son of the Father "from all eternity", and that by right of inheritance he is "of one substance" with the Father, and hence is "his equal in ALL respects", even rightly owning the name "Jehovah", and the highest title "God", the way was opened up for Mrs. White to start to speak more forcefully on the issues of there being not one person who is of the Godhead. Then in 1892 the Church presented its first official publication supporting basic Trinitarianism (i.e. the Spear's "Bible Doctrine of the Trinity" article), and gradually after that Mrs. White started to, for the first time, speak about "the third person of the Godhead" in the 1898 Desire of Ages publication, and then there flowed from her pen many first time "three" and "trio" statements about the Godhead right up until she died in 1915. In fact it was only after 1892 that she began to indicate that all

three of the Godhead must be "served" (or prayed to as three Great Worthies), only after 1892 that she said all three of the Godhead pledged to "receive" and be "a Father" to all who are baptized, and only after 1892 she ever spoke of "three holiest beings of heaven", or that they are "three living persons" of the Godhead. Coincidence? I think not, because the facts speak for themselves when they are confronted honestly and squarely. WHO THEN ARE PART OF THE COUNSELS OF GOD? Many fail to recognize that the statement by Mrs. White that Christ was "the only being" that could enter into the counsels of God" DOES NOT CONFLICT with her speaking of three holiest beings in heaven, of three persons of the eternal Godhead subsequent to 1892, or with her ascribing distinct person-hood to the Holy Spirit after a certain point in Adventisms history. After 1892 Mrs. White was soooo plain that the Holy Spirit is one of "the THREE holiest BEINGS of heaven", that "he personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality" (how much plainer can one get?), that he is "sent" by both Father and Son as "the [specific article] third person of the Godhead" (i.e. he is the THIRD of "three holiest BEINGS of heaven"), that he is one who "is a person AS God is a person", because "he [himself] has a personality" (NOT that he is the personality of another', but notice he himself "has a personality") and so therefore in conclusion she was pointed that he "is ALSO a divine person". She was so pointed after 1892 in talking about "three" beings/personalities/persons of the Godhead (all descriptive words used by her), that it amounts to the purest form of HERESY (!!) for an SDA member to deny that this is indeed an established teaching by her, but only after 1892. Her continuing to speak of Christ as the only being who was one with God has to explained in light of the foregoing realities as outlined, and again I say it is logically explained by the view that Mrs. White saw Christ as a special being comparative to other "sons" of God (since all created beings are called God's "sons"), and so it was in this context that she CONTINUED to speak of him being the only SON (compared to the created spirit sons of God) that was one with or could "enter" into the counsels of God. Her CONTINUING to speak of Father and Son in counsel, even after accepting three persons in the Godhead, does not in any way deny the Spirit being part of the whole process since how can one separate the Father and Son from their inseparable Spirit? There is always automatic unity among all three!! In fact, the stalwart of pioneering Adventism, A.T. Jones, demonstrated his full conversion to this new pioneering thinking after the controversial 1888 Conference, and the subsequent and controversial publishing of Trinitarian teachings in Adventism for the first time way back in 1892 (through the Spear's Trinitarian article, "The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity"), when he said in 1899:

God is one [person]. Jesus Christ is one [i.e. another person]. The Holy Spirit is one [the third person of three]. And these three are one: there is no dissent nor division among them. -A. T. Jones, Review and Herald, January 10, 1899, 24

Notice carefully his 1899 use of the trinitarian-type language "no dissent nor division AMONG THEM", when he spoke of "these three" being "one" in the Godhead (i.e. they are not one undivided substance of the traditional Trinity teaching, but are literally subsistent beings). Only when three [or more] beings are in focus do you use the expression "among them" (and not "between them"; an expression which would have suggested only two beings involved in the Godhead). This is perfectly clear as to what A.T. Jones had come to accept long before Mrs. White died in 1915, yet this is a truth many are denying today. But more importantly, it was only after 1892, and in fact in 1899 (the same year A.T. Jones admitted for the first time in writing that "three are one" in the Godhead) that Mrs. White penned the following: "It is the glory of the gospel that it is founded upon the principle of restoring in the fallen race the divine image by a constant manifestation of benevolence. This work began in the heavenly courts. There God decided to give human beings unmistakable evidence of the love with which He regarded them.... The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order fully to carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin." - Counsels on Diet and Foods, pg. 222 (as taken from an 1899 manuscript) OBSERVATIONS ON THIS IMPORTANT QUOTE: 1. 'Self giving' means that each being alluded to above must have a "self" to give, including the Holy Spirit 2. The statement that "it was decided" clearly indicates a counseling operation among the three, otherwise A.T. Jones could not say in the same year (1899)"there is no dissent nor division among them" 3. The "plan" of redemption (which indicates a foregone counseling session) began "in the heavenly courts", and it is there that Mrs. White indicated resides "three holiest beings of heaven", and it is there she said they "decided" to send Christ to save us, and it was there they "pledged themselves" (i.e. ALL three covenanted; not just Father and Son) to "give themselves" to the "working out of the plan". What does all this mean? Clearly this was an expansion on Mrs. White's earlier declarations which make it seem only two Godhead beings existed. Clearly here she SUBSEQUENTLY assented to the fact that all three counsels together, and then together "it was decided" to effect the "plan"; a plan that all three "pledged themselves" to put into operation; not just Father and Son. Clearly this was a progression of thought; NOT a contradiction of earlier writings!! Thus the view that Mrs. White grew into later knowledge that the Holy Spirit

also counsels with God is indeed very valid (otherwise the Holy Spirit could not be presented by the Bible itself (!!) as "speaking" what he "hears" and "receives" and subsequently "sent" to speak - John 16:13,14). "Hearing" and being "sent" to speak what one hears irrefutably indicates an operation involving taking counsel together. In the end, I find that the thoughts of the anti-Trinitarians in Adventism on this matter (who insist Mrs. White always taught only two Godhead beings) is far from convincing, and in fact borders on a ridiculous refusal to accept that Mrs. White was just like what the bible says: Pro 4:18 But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. If even the people of Israel needed God's gradual revelation of truths about the Godhead, and even the very disciples of Christ grew into their knowledge of the deeper things of God, then why should this not apply to Mrs. White as well? I see nothing at all to discount that reality. Let every man be convinced in his own mind, but let me remind us all that Mrs. White also said about those too stubborn to accept evidence on a matter: 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