Anda di halaman 1dari 105

SEVENTH-DAY

ADVENTISM
ON TRIAL!!!
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GODHEAD
DOCTRINE IN SD ADVENTISM.
(NEWLY REVISED AND ILLUSTRATED IN COLOUR)

YOUR TOUGH OR DIFFICULT QUESTIONS


HONESTLY ANSWERED, ABOUT WHAT SEVENTHDAY ADVENTISTS REALLY BELIEVE, AND
SHOULD BELIEVE, ABOUT GOD!!

1st Edition
By Derrick Gillespie
December 2001
1

INTRODUCTION:

More and more, it has become evident to this writer, at the time of
writing (2001), that the subject of the Godhead, and more
specifically, the subject of the Trinity, is one of major concern,
producing much contention in some quarters *within the ranks of
Seventh-day Adventism. It was a subject of major concern in the
past, that is, during the early pioneering days of the Church, and
seems to have incited new and growing controversy (though for a
different reason) in modern Adventism. Suffice it to say it appears
that this ongoing controversy may well trouble the Adventist
(S.D.A.) Church until Jesus comes. However, this is
understandable because of the nature of the subject involved.
This writer has done and is doing, since 1998, an in depth and honest
research into the issues, surveying the various perspectives in this controversy
within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and strongly believes that this
presentation is necessary for the S.D.A. Church at this time. The Seventh-day
Adventist needs to know what the true Adventist should believe about God at
this time, and on what evidence this belief should be based.
In order to make this presentation reader friendly, and in order that the
facts be quickly arrived and assessed, the format of this presentation will be that
of question and answer. You may choose to look at the questions in sequence
as they are laid out, or you may choose to look at questions, which you deem
more important first, and then the others later. The following content page of
questions may be helpful if you choose to select which questions you will
address first. Please note that all references are noted immediately after each
quote within the presentation, so that you can verify for yourself the accuracy
and or truthfulness of each quote. All emphases in brackets, [ ], within the body
of each quote, are supplied by this writer. All Bible references are taken from the
King James Version (K.J.V.), unless otherwise stated. God bless you as you
read, and may this presentation stimulate interest in further research, to the glory
of Jesus, the Author of the everlasting gospel (Rev. 14:6, 7). May as you read,
and research, and meditate, you will come to a more full knowledge of Him
(Jesus), whom we hope to greet in peace, on that Day when all the saints shall to
Him proclaim: Lo this is our God, we have waited for Him and He will save
us (see Isaiah 25:8, 9 and Great Controversy, pgs. 640-644). Today we can only
wait with anticipation, believing that our God shall come, and shall not keep
silence (Psalm 50:3). Is He your God today? See John 20:28, 29.
2

CONTENT OF QUESTIONS -------------------

Page

1. Do Adventists regard the GODHEAD subject a mystery? ----------------5


2. When Adventists refer to GOD who do they mean and why? ----- ------8
3. Is the Holy Spirit regarded in Adventism as a separate Personality, Person,
or Being in the GODHEAD? --------------------------------------------------------- 18
4. Do Adventists believe that Jesus and His Father are identical Persons? --32
5. Do Adventists believe that Jesus had a beginning because He was begotten
of the Father? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------38
6. Do Adventists regard Jesus as equal or subject to the Father? -------------43
7. How can Adventists regard the Father as Jesus God, if Jesus is Himself
God over all(Rom. 9:5) and equal to the Father? ------------------------------38
8. Do Adventists regard Jesus as two persons in one Being? Which part of
Him died? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------49
9. What do Adventists regard as the essence of GOD? ----------------------52
10. Why do Adventists today admit to A Trinity but not the Trinity of
Catholicism? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------57
11. Did the early founders of and pioneers in Adventism oppose the original
Trinity? Why? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------63
12. Did some of the pioneers make errors on the subject of the GODHEAD,
and what evidence, if any, is there of this? ----------------------------------------71
13. What is Romes Greatest Challenge to, and its greatest hold over
Protestantism? Is it the Trinity doctrine? --------------------------------------81
14. Is the Adventist Church a part of Babylon because of its very different
brand of a Trinity doctrine? ---------------------------------------------------------87
15. Did Leroy Froom bring in the omega heresy, making the Adventist
Church a part of Babylon today? Did Mrs. White predict this to occur? ---92
16. Do Adventists regard the Trinity subject as salvific (i.e. salvation is
based upon it, making it is a test of Christian character) or is it merely a
question of theological perspective? -----------------------------------------------100
17. If the Adventist Church is Trinitarian, why is it still regarded as a cult
by some and not a cult by others? ------------------------------------------------102
18. Are there Arians and semi-Arians among S.D.A.s today? What do
they believe and teach? ---------------------------------------------------------------104

*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)
7. SEVEN EXPLOSIVE TRUTHS IN ADVENTISM! (A 2001 audiotape)
8. TRINITY- THE ISSUES OUTLINED! (A 2000 audiotape)
9. INDISPUTABLE FACTS ABOUT THE TRINITY DOCTINE IN
ADBVENTISM (A 2002 Historical Expose)
*AND MORE!!

Call: (876) 385-5982 or 539-4734


E-mail: ddgillespie@live.com
Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie
Or Write:
Derrick Gillespie
Munro College P.O.,
St Elizabeth,
Jamaica, W.I.
4

QUESTION 1
.
DO ADVENTISTS REGARD THE SUBJECT OF THE GODHEAD A
MYSTERY?
The truth is that the Godhead, which is the divine
nature and the unity of God the Father, Christ the
God-man, and the Holy Spirit, the Three Eternal
Heavenly Dignitaries or the three Holiest Beings in
Heaven (according to Mrs. White, respectively
recorded in Evangelism, pg. 616, and Manuscript
Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268 or Ms 95, 1906, pp. 8-12,
14-17; "Lesson from Romans 15," October 20,
1906) presents the greatest mysteries to the human
mind, as is expected. These mysteries (divinely revealed truths,
incomprehensible by nature) are clearly presented in the Bible and
highlighted by the Spirit of Prophecy writings, or the writings of Mrs.
White, the official voice of Adventism expounding on our only creed the
Bible. Mrs. Whites view has always served as the official blue print
of the Seventh-day Adventist Churchs perspective on Bible doctrines,
and difficult topics, which require an inspired insight or opinion.
What are the mysteries of the Godhead or the divine nature of God?
These we must accept as they are revealed and are obvious to our minds.
We cannot invent that which is not declared by the word of God to be a
mystery, neither should we deny those that have been declared and
confirmed as such by the testimony of the Spirit.
Note carefully the following testimonies:
And without controversy great is the*MYSTERY of
GODLINESS for God [Christ] was manifested in the flesh
(1 Tim. 3:16)
Christs divinity [Him being God] is to be
steadfastly maintained Great is the *MYSTERY of
godliness. There are *MYSTERIES in the life of Christ
[God manifested in the flesh] that are to be believed, even if
they CANNOT BE EXPLAINED.

-E.G. White, Letter 65, Feb. 13, 1905


5

Here Mrs. White clearly confirms that the mystery of godliness in 1 Tim.
3:16 relates to unexplainable truths about Jesus, His Godhead or divine
nature, and obviously the same would apply to the Godhead unity of
Father, Son and Holy Spirit to which He belongs. Here following is the full
confirmatory evidence:
In divine revelation God has given to men mysteries that are incomprehensible, to
command their faith. This must be so. If the ways and works of God could be
explained by finite minds, he would not stand as supreme. Men may be ever searching,
ever inquiring, ever learning, and yet there is an infinity beyond. The light is shining,
ever shining with increasing brightness upon our pathway, if we but walk in its divine
rays. But there is no darkness so dense, so impenetrable, as that which follows the
rejection of heaven's light, through whatever source it may come.
-E.G. White, GC Daily Bulletin, February 18, 1897 par. 11}
Skeptics refuse to believe in God [and in what He reveals about divine nature]
because they cannot comprehend the infinite power by which He reveals Himself.
-E.G. White- Ministry of Healing, pg. 431
There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the
foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it
resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself,
explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in
light, unapproachable and incomprehensible. . . .
-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899
The existence of *A [singular] PERSONAL GOD [note God, not Gods] the
*UNITY of Christ with His Father [a plurality of Persons] lies at the foundation of
ALL TRUE SCIENCE [and true religion]. 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.
E.G. White-Manuscript 30, Oct. 29,1904
Christ, at an infinite cost, by a painful process, *MYSTERIOUS to angels as well as
to man, assumed humanityThis is the *MYSTERY of godliness, that One equal
with the Father should clothe His divinity with humanity, and laying aside all the glory
of His office of Commander in Heaven, descend step after step in the path of
humiliation.
-E.G. White- Manuscript 29,Mar. 17, 1889
6

The *MYSTERIES of redemption, embracing Christs 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 power to
give a representation of Christ and His work, the representation would fall short of the
reality
-E.G. White, Letter 280, Sept. 3, 1904
Skeptics refuse to believe in God [and in what He reveals about divine nature]
because they cannot comprehend the infinite power by which He reveals Himself.
-E.G. White- Ministry of Healing, pg. 431
The great Teacher [Jesus] held in His hand the entire map of truthThe question of
the ESSENCE [substance, nature,] OF GOD was a subject on which He maintained a
wise reserve, for their [the disciples] entanglements and specifications [relating to this
mystery] would bring in science [logic] which could not be dwelt upon by unsanctified
minds without confusion [because of the logical difficulties involved]. In regard to
GOD and in regard to His PERSONALITY the Lord Jesus saidhe that has seen me
has seen the Father In the place of devoting your powers to theorizing [about the
oneness and unity of God], Christ has given you a work to do Go throughout the
world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghostthe name of the threefold Powers in the Heavenly
worldthe Eternal Godhead
-E.G. White-Manuscript 45,May 14, 1904- *That They All May be One

In regard to the personality and prerogatives of God, where He is, and


what He is, this is a subject which we are not to dare to touch. On this
theme silence is eloquence. It is those who have no experimental knowledge
of God who venture to speculate in regard to Him. Did they know more of
Him, they would have less to say about what He is. The one who in the daily
life holds closest communion with God, and who has the deepest knowledge
of Him, realizes most keenly the utter inability of human beings to explain
the Creator. . . .
E.G. White, Medical Ministry, pg. 92
The nature of the Holy Spirit [the third Person of the Godhead manifesting Gods
presence] is a *MYSTERY, men cannot explain it [that is, the Spirits nature], because
it has not been revealed to them. Men, having fanciful views may bring together
passages of scripture, and put their own construction upon them, but the acceptance of
7

these views will not strengthen the Church. Regarding such *MYSTERIES which are
too deep for human understanding, silence is golden.
-E.G. White- Acts of the Apostles, pgs. 51,52

Not much commentary is needed here, after such an overwhelming display of


just a small sample of evidence from the official explanatory voice in
Adventism, expounding on the either declared, or self-evident mysteries in the
Bible. God the Father himself, in nature and power, as well as the
Godhead unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the nature of the
other Persons in that Godhead is a MYSTERY(!!) in very many respects.
To deny that this first doctrine in the Christian experience really does
abound with mysteries is a denial of the basic truths in Adventism and
Christianity, and amounts to what is called heresy!! See Job 11:7-9.

QUESTION 2.
WHEN ADVENTISTS REFER TO GOD WHOM DO THEY MEAN?
Before going on, carefully note that the
Adventist Church uses the word God to mean:
(1) the person of the Father, and (2) the class
of Heavenly persons who have the divine
nature (or Godhead), or natural divine
substance, and is called the Deity.

The truth is that God for the Adventist


refers to He who is called and identified by
*the Bible as LORD (Jehovah) God, or
the I AM. Principally and ultimately this
refers to the Father, but carefully note the following inescapable truth of
how bona fide Adventism uses the word God in a collective sense.
"God says, [notice after this whom the writer 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
8

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 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

How is this to be explained if, as it does appear in the Bible, God is


supposed to be the Father, one individual being? Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:4
distinctly declares that Satan will oppose, through false religion, * ALL
[plural] that is called God or that is worshipped. Who is called God, and
is to be worshipped or served, according to the Bible? Many fail to
recognize the truth here, even though they read this passage over and over.
This verse refers to the true God, not to false gods, despite various Bible
commentaries have literally so translated this verse, simply because they
recognize the inescapable, inherent or internal plural element in this verse. It
is obvious that Satan would not oppose or exalt himself above false gods
(his own inventions) since they fulfill his purpose, but clearly he has and
always will continue to be opposed to ALL that is called God in the true
and highest sense. Mrs. White sheds light on this verse in Chapter 3 of the
book Great Controversy, by relating it specifically to the Jehovah Godhead.
After quoting this verse, Mrs. White re-worded the very same verse this way:
Compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the man
of sin foretold in prophecy OPPOSING AND EXALTING HIMSELF
AGAINST *GOD [not gods, but the proper noun God].
-E.G. White- Great Controversy
See the first page, and pages 50-51, of Chapter 3 (or the whole chapter) of
that book for confirmation of this truth. Yet notice that this verse distinctly
refers to all that is called God or that is worshipped; a *PLURAL
9

reference. The truth here is inescapable! The Apostle Paul knew that
GOD to the Christian couldnt be known or worshipped without an
acceptance of the Father through the Son by the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit, the Three Persons in the Godhead. Why? A few quotes will make
you see the truth.
1. Thou shalt worship the Lord (Jehovah) thy God [the Father] and Him
*only shalt thou serve- Jesus- Matthew 4:10
2. And Thomas answered and said unto Him [Jesus] *MY LORD
(Jehovah) and MY GOD [O Theos mou, or the God of me]. Jesus said
unto him, Thomas because thou hast seen ME, thou hast believed: blessed
are they that have not seen ME and yet have believed[do you?]
- John 20:28
And again, when HE [the Father] bringeth in the firstbegotten [Jesus] into
the world [that is, into our world at Jesus incarnation], He saith, and let all
the angels of God worship Him [Jesus, the man]. Hebrews 1:6
3. The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and *HIS [the Spirits] word was in
my tongue. The GOD of Israel [the Spirit] said, the Rock of Israel [the
Spirit] spake by me... David- 2 Samuel 23:2,3
Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghostthou hast
not lied unto men but unto GOD [the Spirit]. Peter- Acts 5:3,4
But isnt this confusing? Are there three (3) Lord (Jehovah) God or God of
Israel? Is there more than one Person called Jehovah God? Are there
others, in addition to the Father, truly called GOD, and in the highest
sense, despite the Bible declare one God, the Father, as recorded in
Deuteronomy 6:4 and 1Corintians 8:6? Let us see how Adventism historically
saw the truth.
In 1872 Adventists declared in its Fundamental Principles that, quote:
There is One God, a personal spiritual being who is the Creator of all
thingsand is everywhere present by His Representative, the Holy Spirit.
However, the official and inspired voice in Seventh-day Adventism
subsequently (or later) made it clear that this *singular PERSONAL GOD
exists from all eternity as a * UNITY OF CHRIST WITH HIS
10

FATHER. Yes, a UNITY!! Here is this amazing truth again for you to
contemplate dear reader:
***The existence of a [singular] Personal God [not personal Gods] the
UNITY OF Christ with His Father [a plurality of Persons] lies at the foundation of all
true science [and true religion]
E.G. White- Manuscript 30, Oct. 29,1904- quoted in The Upward Look(1986), pg. 316
So the truth is that both Paul (1 Cor.
8:6) and Spirit of Prophecy (Mrs.
Whites writings) instruct the
Seventh-day Adventist Church to
recognize, by the authority of
scripture compared with scripture,
that our Personal God is clearly the
Father, who has always been
revealed in a UNITY with His eternal
Son, and this Personal God is
everywhere present by His very real
and Personal Representative, the
Holy Spirit! Adventisms leading
pioneer and writer put it this way:
"The salvation of human beings is a vast
enterprise, that calls into action *every
attribute of the divine nature [i.e. the
Godhead]. The Father, the Son, and the

Holy Spirit have pledged themselves to


make God's children more than
conquerors through Him that loved
them."
- E.G. White- Pacific Union Recorder,
January 5, 1905

Notice now, very carefully, how, to


Mrs. White, every attribute of
divine nature equates with whom
she described as God and whom
she distinctly calls the Eternal
Godhead of Father Son, and Holy
11

Spiritall three united!!


Have you been born again? Have you become a new being in Christ Jesus?
Then co-operate with the three great powers of heaven *who [all three called
who] are working in your behalf. Doing this you will reveal to the world
the principles of righteousnessGod 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." 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
"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 God, the Father,
Christ and the Holy Spiritthe 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."
-E.G. White, SDA Bible Commentary Vol. 6, pg. 1075
This means that for the TRUE Adventist the Three CANNOT be separated
generically or relationally, and in our worship and salvation experience!! This
means that if the true God of the Bible is to be known and worshipped, one Person
of the Godhead cannot be known without accepting and serving the others. That
is why the Christian experience of God MUST be through the recognition of a TRIUNITY (unity of a Trio of Persons) in the Godhead. Clearly GOD is the
Father, Jehovah or the I AM by name, but is eternally and inseparably united
with His Spirit and His Son, who are also GOD in nature and authority. The
Person we now know as Jesus is the Eternal Son. He is also truly God in the
highest sense. He is THE ONLY ONE PERFECT PHOTOGRAPH OF GOD (E.
G. White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, paragraph. 906). As a separate Person,
He functions as the Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6) and, from all eternity, is
Himself also called Jehovah or the I AM, seemingly given this name from all
12

eternity by the Father. Note the following Biblical truth, and supporting Spirit of
Prophecy testimony:
But unto the Son [Jesus] He [the Father] saith, Thy throne *O God is foreverAnd
Thou *LORD [Jehovah-Ps. 102:1,25] in the beginning laid the foundation of the
earth -Hebrews 1:8,10.
Hosea will tell you, He [Jesus] is the LORD [Jehovah] God of Hosts, The LORD
[the name Jehovah] is His memorial, Hosea 12:5
E.G. White- Desire of Ages, pg. 578-579
So it becomes clear that Jesus, by a mysterious
eternal unity with the Father, is not just God in
nature, having the true God identity, but is
also God in equal *AUTHORITY and
function[see *John 20:28,29 and page 34 of this
presentation], even though He is not the Father in
Person (who is often just called God, simply
because he never became man like Jesus). That is
part of the mystery of godliness.
Note carefully below how true Adventism sees Jesus as God:

Think of the life of MosesPaul in his epistle to


the Hebrews says, for he endured as seeing Him
who is invisible [Hebrews 11:27]. Moses had a
deep sense of the presence of GOD. He saw GOD.
He was not only looking down through the ages to
a Christ that would be revealed [God manifested],
but [in reality, and at that very time] he saw Christ
[God] in a special manner accompanying the
children of Israel in all their travels
[1Corintians10: 1-5]. God [Christ] was real to Him and present in his thoughts. When
called upon to face dangerfor Christs [Gods] sake, he was persevering God
[Christ] was to Him a present help in every time of need.
-E.G. White-Letter 42, April 7, 1886; or in The Upward Look(1986) pg. 111.

Papal [Roman Catholic] priests pretended to convert the simple bread


and wine into the actual body and blood of *CHRIST with blasphemous
presumption, they openly claim to the power of creating *GOD [Christ], the
Creator of all things -- E.G. White- Great Controversy, pgs. 59-60
13

Notice that Mrs. White saw Jesus as God, to the point where the words
Christ and God were interchangeable to her without any need for
clarification. Jesus was, and is God, *just like the Father!! That is why the
Pope could assume the place of God by pretending to be, not the Father,
but another Jesus (2 Thess. 2:4), thus equating himself with the Father.
But the question is, was Jesus just God on earth on behalf of His (unseen)
Father, or in His Fathers absence, but is not God in His Fathers presence
along with Him in Heaven? Note again what Adventists really believe:
From everlasting [Micah 5:2/Psalms 93:2] He [Jesus] was the Mediator of
the Covenant [Hebrews 7:3] was *GOD essentially and *IN THE
HIGHEST [nothing higher] SENSE [existing] from *ALL ETERNITY
GOD OVER ALL [Rom. 9:5] a distinct [separate] Person, yet one
[united] with the Father.
-E.G. White- Review and Herald, April, 1906
The Son of God was the acknowledged *SOVEREIGN [supreme ruler]
of Heaven, *ONE [equal and united] in power and *AUTHORITY with the
Father.
E.G. White- Great Controversy, pg. 494
Christ ascended to Heaven [after coming to earth as God] amidst a cloud
of angels who glorified Him saying who is this King of Glory? [so He is
not just Prince of Heaven] And from thousand times ten thousands the
answer comes, the LORD [Jehovah], *HE [Jesus] IS the King of Glory.
--E.G. White- Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899 and
*Desire of Ages, pgs. 832-833
That is very clear dear reader about Jesus and the Father * BOTH being
recognized and served as God over all and as Jehovah.
The fact that Jesus was pictured as being given all things by the Father,
does not diminish, even by one iota, His equality with the Father in the
office of being GOD over all, and Him being such from *ALL eternity,
whether He is in or out of the Fathers immediate presence. No true
Adventist would deny this truth!
But the next obvious question is, WHY DO ADVENTISTS ALSO REGARD
AND SERVE (EVEN PRAY TO) THE HOLY SPIRIT AS GOD?
14

Here is the absolute, undeniable truth about what SDAs believe about the
Spirit in the following references:
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 fallingWhen 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 of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy spirit, have pledged ourselves to *SERVE [worship]
[1] God, the Father, [2] Christ and [thirdly] *THE HOLY SPIRIT, the
Three Dignitaries [Persons of important position, high rank or officeOxford dictionary] and Powers of Heaven, pledge Themselves that every
facility shall be given us if we carry out ourvows
E.G. White- Manuscript 85,1901
God is a Spirit -John 4:24
The Lord is the Spirit - 2 Cor. 3:17,18
The Spirit of the Lord [is]The God of
Israel[and] the Rock of Israel 2
Samuel 23:2,3
To lie to the Holy Ghost? Thou
haslied to GOD -Acts 5:3,4,9
Thou shalt worship [only] the Lord thy
15

God [who is the Spirit] and Him *only shalt thou *SERVE [worship] Matthew 4:10
Now *if the Holy Spirit is not to be SERVED Mrs. White was in serious
error. But clearly she is not, since the Bible, as shown in the foregoing,
supported her, as is similarly the case with the modern Adventist. The
foregoing references, among others, clearly show why Mrs. White could
make such an amazing statement, and even exemplified prayer directed to
Him along with the Father and the Son; the three holiest beings in Heaven.
The Holy Spirit is God, seemingly even pictured literally as the Father
Himself!! Notice carefully however that the Holy Spirit is mentioned
separately and specifically by her to be worthy of service, due only to all
that is called God, or that is worshipped (2 Thessalonians 2:4) in the
Godhead. She even made it absolutely clear that the Spirit is separate from
Christ Himself, though he effectively personifies Christ (and the Father):
The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies
[represent] Christ, yet is a distinct personality Manuscript Release,Vol. 20
Thats plain and doesnt beat around the bush. The Spirit is the third
being of the three holiest beings of heaven. Plain and simple!! The words
three and beings CANNOT be explained away or watered down, as some
on the fringes of Adventism often seek to do!! The Holy Spirit is not God the
Father or Christ themselves literally in personage, but is their
Representative (as used so often by Mrs. White). He is a third Godhead
being and operates as if the other two themselves are present. And the word
Representative speaks rather eloquently in this regard. Much more will be
said on the Holy Spirit later in this presentation. But in conclusion here, it
must be reiterated that:

OUR PERSONAL GOD IS THE FATHER *IN UNITY


WITH HIS ETERNAL SON, AND IS EVERYWHERE
PRESENT BY THE REPRESENTATION OF THE THIRD
PERSON OF THE GODHEAD, THE VERY REAL AND
PERSONAL HOLY SPIRIT, WHO MUST ALSO BE
SERVED AS GOD!
16

Put another way, the Three Persons are called GOD, not gods, because
the One true God the Father is, by His very nature, revealed in and worshipped
through His Eternal Son, and is present everywhere and served through His Holy
Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead. The idea of gods in the Godhead is one
of Satans first lies told on earth. This lie, recorded distinctly in Genesis 3:5,
and illuminated in E.G. Whites, Great Controversy, pgs. 532-533, is one which
he told because he knew that more than one Person in the Godhead is properly
called GOD(Gen. 3:22), but also knowing that
a misunderstanding of *the unity is what would
cause us to falsely see Them either as separate
gods or worse, as a monstrous three headed
individual being. This lie (counterfeit) is found in
almost all ancient religions of the world, simply
because, by his knowledge of the real truth,
Satan was able to plant the seed of
misunderstanding.
Why is there such a coincidence of divine
threes in counterfeit religions? Evidently it was by Satans influence (himself
knowing the truth about the true Godhead) that these ancient pagan religions
unwittingly recognized that truly there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead, but
unfortunately the persons are either seen as gods, or God is seen as a personal
being (personality) with three forms!
No Christian should therefore seek to promote these pagan lies, or on the other
hand go to the other extreme of unwittingly opposing all that is called God (2
Thessalonians 2:4), in the Persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, simply
because they cannot understand how, when the Three are spiritually united in the
Godhead, 1x1x1 =1(one) God, and not 1+1+1=3(three) gods.
The true nature of this unity will be looked at later.

17

QUESTION 3.
IS THE HOLY SPIRIT REGARDED IN ADVENTISM AS A
SEPARATE PERSONALITY, PERSON, OR BEING IN
THE GODHEAD?
The truth in Adventism is that of all the Three
Persons in Godhead, the Holy Spirit is
arguably the subject of most uncertainty and
disagreement. The Father is accepted as a
separate Personal divine Being from the
separate divine-human Being of His Son.
However there is much contention over the
nature or mode of existence of the Holy
Spirit. This is understandable, since as was stated earlier under Question 1,
the Holy Spirits nature is a mystery! It follows logically that no one (not
even this writer) can regard his perspective or viewpoint on the Holy Spirits
nature as infallible or fool proof, since anything that possesses a
mysterious nature, leaves no one with clear-cut answers to all questions.
However, it is evident that sufficient truth is revealed for the Seventh-day
Adventist Church to be able to have reasonable consensus, at least about
WHO the Spirit is, yet it should sufficiently acknowledge that it cannot
answer all questions about the Holy Spirit. What is revealed truth about the
Holy Spirit?
Firstly, the honest truth is that, if the Father only was the Godhead,
as some so falsely claim, the Holy Spirit could not be called the Third
Person *OF the Godhead, but He would be the second person-ality,
that is, manifesting the personality of only the First Person, or that of
the Father! It was E.J. Waggoner, an S.D.A. pioneer, who said it best,
that Jesus is, quote: completely and intrinsically, ONE OF the
CONSTITUENT [see constituent in the dictionary] PERSONS of the
Eternal Godhead, in the highest and fullest sense (Christ and His
Righteousness, 1890). The Godhead is therefore not regarded in historic
Adventism as one Person only! That much is very clear to the Adventist.
18

No more need to be said on that! Secondly, the honest truth is that Mrs. White
presents the Holy Spirit as ALL of the following:

1. A living Personality(or Living Person), also a Divine Person


2. The Third Person of the Godhead and
3. A Heavenly Being (with individual will and consciousness)
*See 1Corinthians 12:11 and Acts 13:2,4 before continuing.
Note the following evidence carefully about Mrs. Whites
*Biblically based viewpoint on the Holy Spirit.

EVIDENCE OF MRS. WHITES VIEW ON THE HOLY SPIRIT


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 fallingWhen 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.)
At the funeral service of Mrs. White in 1915, A.G. Daniels, a past General
Conference President, serving for 21 years, in his eulogy, summarized what
Mrs. White believed about the Holy Spirit in the following way:

19

The Holy Spirit, the Third *PERSON of the


Godhead and Christs Representative on earth, is
set forth [by her] and exalted as the Heavenly
Teacher and Guide sent to this world by our
Lord
No Christian teacher in this generation, no
religious reformer in any preceding age, has placed
a higher value on the Bible [than her]Not a trace
of higher criticism, new thought, or skeptical,
destructive philosophy can be found in any of her
writings.
-A Statement by A.G. Daniels at the Funeral Service
of Mrs. White quoted from Review & Herald,
August 5, 1915

Now, it is absolutely clear that by 1915 the


S.D.A. Church, represented here by the voice of A.G. Daniels (a General
Conference President for 21 years), had fully declared its acceptance of
the individual Personhood of the Holy Spirit, not just His personality.
In the above quote he distinctly calls the Holy Spirit the THIRD PERSON
OF THE GODHEAD and declares that Mrs. White, who introduced no
new thought, or skeptical, destructive philosophy over what the Bible
teaches, exalted the Holy Spirit as Christs Representative on earth and
as the Heavenly Teacher and Guide.
Apart from the introductory quote at the start of this chapter, carefully
note the following specific evidence that *Mrs. White, before her death in
1915, regarded the Holy Spirit as an individual *Person. Note carefully the
wording and the date of each quote:
The Holy Spirit is as much a person as God is a person
-Manuscript 66, 1899;Avondale College speech in Australia
The office of the Holy Spirit is distinctly specified in the words of Christ: when He is
come, He will reprove the world of sinIn describing to His disciples the office of the
Holy Spirit, Jesus sought to inspire them with joysin could be resisted and overcome
only through the mighty agency of the Third *PERSON of the Godhead
-Review and Herald, Nov. 19, 1908. *See also Desire of Ages (1898), pg.670-671

20

This Third Person of the Godhead


expression was a much-repeated statement by
Mrs. White in several publications WHILE
SHE WAS ALIVE. The Holy Spirit is the
the [specific] Third *PERSON of the
Godhead and not just a personality, in the
secondary sense.
It should be noted here again that if the
Father only was the Godhead, as some so
falsely claim, then the Holy Spirit could not
be called the Third *PERSON OF the
Godhead, but He would be the second
person-ality, that is, manifesting the
personality of only the First Person, or that of
the Father! However, the Spirit is called a
*person, or as the 1828 Websters dictionary (of Mrs. Whites time ) defines
person to mean, a personal individual being!
See dictionary for the meaning of PERSON.
Now notice how she makes it clear about her literal view of the individual Personhood
of the Holy Spirit, whom she called one of the three holiest beings in Heaven:
The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to Heaven is
the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead. There are three living persons
[personalities] of the Heavenly Trio [group of three persons].
E. G. White- Evangelism, pg. 615.

The Holy Spirit HAS [note has, not is] a personality He must *ALSO be A
DIVINE [Godhead] *PERSON [an individual being] else He could not search out

the secrets, which lie hidden in the mind of God [notice, the Spirit does not just
know, but by an inseparably close association with God, He is able to search out the secrets of the
Godhead. He then speaks what He hears, note, what He hears, not just what He knows, John
16:13,14] - E.G. White- Evangelism, pg. 617

Note the difference she made between just having a personality and being a
Person. ONLY A PERSON HAS A PERSONALITY!!! Why did she not say the Spirit
is just the divine personality of the First Person, the Father, but is not a Person
Himself? Instead she emphasized, in addition to Him being * alsoa Divine Person
(and not just having personality), that He is the third Person of the Godhead, the
Representative of the other two? The words a person, third, and
representative all have dictionary meanings. See them for yourself. See also for
21

yourself (below) what Mrs. White thought Jesus meant by the Holy Spirit, His
Representative, being as it were, He Himself present on earth (John 14:23).
The Holy Spirit is Christs Representative [equally the Fathers], but divested of the
personality OF *HUMANITY, and independent thereof [thus the Spirit cannot be
literally compared with human nature or mans mode of existence]. Cumbered with
humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally. Therefore it was for their
interest that He should go to the Father, and send the Holy Spirit [who similarly has
all the fullness of the Godhead] to be His SUCCESSOR on earth. No one could then
have any advantage because of His location or His personal contact with Christ.
By the Spirit the Saviour would be accessible [representationally] to all. *IN THIS
SENSE [notice, in this sense, not in this form] He would be nearer to them than if He
had not ascended on high.
-E.G. White- Desire of Ages, pgs. 668, 669
That is very, very clear about Jesus being present, but representationally!
Now, it is true that Mrs. White (like the Bible), in many instances refers to the Holy
Spirit as an it, but just like Jesus is also called an it in the context of being called
the Eternal Life, in 1 John 1:1-3, or the Lamb in Rev. 5:6. Even in everyday speech
a young child (an individual being) is called an it, in a certain context of course (see
dictionary for it). The IT references to the Spirit must also be seen as contextual,
and as a metaphorical figure of speech, since she clearly regarded the Spirit as a Divine
Person and the THIRD (specific, distinctive, and individual designation) of the
Highest Authorities in Heaven itself.
Also, even though Paul in his writings wrote metaphorically or figuratively of his
own spirit being, as it were, in another place to judge matters in the Church on
his behalf (1 Cor. 5:3-5), this cannot be in the same sense that the Holy Spirit is
seen as a Representative. Paul was actually saying that if the brethren, in his absence,
kept him in mind (thus his spirit is present), and being assisted by *the Holy Spirit, did
what they already knew he would do about certain sins and sinners, their decision
making would be as if he was literally present assisting them to judge matters. That is
what Paul meant about his spirit being present among them. This is not the same sense
in which Christs Holy Spirit is present within the Church. Pauls spirit could never
be called a second person in the same sense that the Spirit is called the Third
Person of the Godhead. Nor was his spirit literally present among the brethren in
the same sense that the Third Person of the Godhead is today literally present
since coming in increased and visible power on the day of Pentecost. Nor could his
spirit be literally sent to speak what was heard as the Spirit does today, even
literally giving gifts to the Church members as He will, and literally influencing
them, in order that they may minister to others (see again *1Corintians 12:11).

22

Can so much Biblical evidence be denied about the Spirits individuality? Not by a
deep thinker! The following are also strong pieces of evidence indicating the Spirits
individuality since, obviously *parallelism in meaning cannot be ignored or denied, in
the face of Mrs. White, equally and repeatedly, referring to the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit in the same way:

The Holy Spirit is *ONE OF-

The Three Holiest *Beings in heaven


-Manuscript Release, Vol. 7, pgs. 267-268
The Three Persons[of the Godhead]
- S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 6, pg.1074
The Heavenly *Trio [group of three persons] of Three *Living
Personalities/Persons
-Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7(1905), pgs. 62,63
The Eternal [existing always] Heavenly Dignitaries [high ranking persons]
Evangelism, pg. 616
The Three Dignitaries and Powers of Heaven
-S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 6, pg. 1075
The Three Great Agencies
- S.D.A Bible Comm., Vol. 6, pg. 1102
The Three Highest Powers in Heaven
Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7(1905), PG. 51
Powers infinite and omniscient
- S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 6, pg. 1075

It should be noted here that her special effort to call the Holy Spirit ONE OF
the LIVING Personalities of the Heavenly Trio is strong evidence that
she wanted us to see the Holy Spirit as a living, breathing, conscious,
individual Person (the Third Person of the Godhead) in the Heavenly
Courts, having His own will (1 Cor. 12:11). Note the following evidence
of this.
It is the glory of the gospel that it be 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[and
23

there] the Godhead [which is not just the Father] was stirred with pity [an
individual emotion] for the race, and the Father, the Son, *AND THE
HOLY SPIRIT, [the third Person, Living Person] gave Themselves [self
giving means independent will] to the working out of the plan of
redemption
-E.G. White, Counsels on Health, pg. 222
Some may say that it is fanciful speculation by this writer (and most
Adventists) that the Holy Spirit was evidenced here as being regarded as
Person in the Heavenly courts, as are the Father and the Son. They may
disagree on the basis that they feel that Mrs. White never calls the Holy Spirit
a Being. On this matter, note the following misleading words of a certain
writer, in a certain independent ministrys monthly publication claiming that
it is the true descendant of the pioneering Adventism of the 1800s.
Clearly the Remnant Church is at war in these last days, that is, a war to
protect the truth!!
Surely, it is evident that in her [Mrs. Whites]
mind, there was a difference between a person and
a personality [this part of this statement is evidently
only partially true]. Her concept of the Holy Spirit
was not properly described by the word PERSON
but rather by the word personality [evidence of
this?]The Holy Spirit is a person (personality)
[what contradiction!], but is not a Being. This is
clearly the proper explanation.
*Name of author withheld - emphasis in brackets [] supplied

This is what he claims, after drawing conclusions simply by looking at the


handwritten form of just one manuscript, in which Mrs. White seemed, at the
time, undecided whether to use the word persons or personalities when
referring to the Heavenly Trio of Three Living Personalities. So he chose
not to use the evidence in her self-published writings, but instead the
scribbling in her unpublished handwritten manuscripts as a means of trying to
delve into her mind. Is that logical? Did Mrs. White prefer to call the Holy
Spirit a personality but not a Person while she was alive? Look back at
the evidence of her OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED WRITINGS WHILE SHE WAS ALIVE.
24

The truth is evident there, that the Holy Spirit, this divine person has a
personality!!! This writer will use direct evidence, not surmises, to establish
truth. Is it also true that she never saw the Spirit as an individual being? The
following evidence is to the contrary, and honesty requires a full acceptance
of the following fact.
In the widely read book, STEPS TO CHRIST, published while Mrs.
White was alive (in 1892), she makes the following crucial point:
the unceasing interest of *Heavenly BEINGS all are enlisted in behalf of
mans redemption -Steps to Christ, pgs. 20-21
Who are these BEINGS she was referring to as enlisted on behalf of
mans redemption? Considering that usually only persons or beings are
referred to as enlisted, now notice carefully, in the *lines directly
preceding this statement, the list of BEINGS that she intended to
highlight:
[1] The Saviors [Jesus] life and death and resurrection, [2] the
ministry of angels, [3] the pleading of the *SPIRIT, [4] the Father working
above and through all
Steps to Christ, pgs. 20-21
Notice elsewhere what she meant by the Spirit pleading as a Heavenly
Being:
Christ our Mediator, *AND the Holy Spirit *ARE [plural] constantly
interceding in mans behalf, but the Spirit pleads not for us as does Christ
[the Mediator], who presents His blood, shed from the foundation of the
world; the Spirit works upon our hearts, drawing out prayers and penitence,
praise and thanksgiving. The gratitude, which flows from our lips, is the
result of the Spirits striking the cords of the soul...
-E.G. White, Selected Messages, Vol. 1, pg. 344
No true Adventist will deny that in Heaven
there are originally two sets of Heavenly
beings, namely [1] angels and [2] the
members of the Godhead. Now notice
carefully here that Mrs. White clearly
mentions the Holy Spirit as one of the
Heavenly BEINGS, showing unceasing
25

interest in, and was enlisted in behalf of mans redemption. Some, faced
with this truth (and convicting piece of evidence), may claim that Mrs. White
may have been careless in her choice of words here, or she did not really see
the Holy Spirit as a distinct or separate Heavenly Being, as are the angels,
Christ and the Father. The question is then, what more evidence do they need
than her saying in 1899, the Spirit is as much a person as God is a person?
Did Mrs. White not know what she was talking about? Is it that she was not
expert at theological matters, exegesis and semantics in doctrine, and hence is
in error here? That is the excuse some will make. However, Mrs. White
appropriately describes this dishonest approach to truth in the following way:
All the evidence produced they decide shall not weigh a straw with
them, and they tell others the doctrine is not true, and afterwards, 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
Now notice carefully how Mrs. White repeated the way she equally referred
to the angels and the Holy Spirit together as beings in MINISTRY OF
HEALING, another widely read book, one that was published in 1905,
thirteen years after she made the previously quoted statement in Steps to
Christ of 1892.
The Bible shows us God in His high and holy place*SURROUNDED by
holy *BEINGS, all waiting to do His will. Through these messengers He
is in active communication with every part of His dominion. By His
*SPIRIT [one of the Holy beings which are before His throne, Rev. 1:4]
He is everywhere present. Through the agency of [1] His *SPIRIT and
[2] His angels [all Heavenly beings, according to Mrs. White], He
ministers to the children of men.
E.G. White- Ministry of Healing, 1903, pg. 417
Having considered that WHILE ALIVE she had already published that the
Holy Spirit is one of the Heavenly beings who was enlisted for mans
redemption, now notice carefully the following fact. In the quote just read,
she focused on the holy BEINGS who SURROUND the throne of God,
who represent Him, and who minister on His behalf. Who does she
26

immediately mention here among them? The Holy Spirit! The same Holy
Spirit who is described by the Bible as the sevenfold Spirit before His
[Gods] throne in Revelation 1:4! Is He not a separate holy being? The
truth in Mrs. Whites writings is obvious to those who wish to see it. No
one can cover it up! Considering all proven before (showing what she
published while alive), now notice again the further proof below, in her later
published manuscripts (i.e. published after her death), climaxing all she said
while alive. And there is no evidence of tampering here since it matches
perfectly with what was published while she was alive.
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
The Adventist Church therefore has several reasons why it can remain united
on this doctrinal truth, that the Spirit is a separate holy being, the third
Person of the Godhead. Prove this for yourself in Isaiah 48:16!!!
THE HOLY SPIRITS INDIVIDUALITY- OUR SURE FOUNDATON
What are the main reasons why the Adventist Church can continue to be
united on its doctrine about the individual Personhood of the Holy Spirit?
The following things are clear to those who are honest, and to those who have
the eye salve of understanding.
27

[1] In the Heavenly courts there would be no need for the Holy Spirit to be
manifested as the third Person of the Godhead (when the Father and Son
met to work out and commit Themselves to the plan of redemption) if, firstly,
His individual presence was not important and, secondly, if the Father and
Son were the only members of the Godhead who actually met before Jesus
came to earth. Yet, notice carefully that in Counsels on Health, page 222223, Mrs. White faithfully recorded that the Spirit was equally present in the
Heavenly courts with the Father and the Son. The Spirit was equally
stirred with pity (expressing the emotion of a Person) and equally gave
Himself, and He did this (according to Steps to Christ, pgs.20-21), as a one of
the HEAVENLY BEINGS enlisted in behalf of mans redemption,
working harmoniously with the Father and the Son. Self-giving demands
individual will!! The Father is presented as the Head (a normal
organizational arrangement) of the entire operation.
[2] The Spirit is described by the Bible as the Eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14)
and thus must be co-eternal with God. At the creation of the world, the Father
said to the Son: Let us make man, according to Mrs. White in the book
The Story of Redemption, pages 20-21. This creates no real difficulty if one
wonders: At Creation, when the Father was speaking to the Son in Heaven,
*Where was the Third Person of the Godhead? The answer is clear! The
Holy Spirit was all over the universe, and on earth (where His full attention
was focused during Creation) manifesting the omnipresence of the Father and
the Son. The Spirit *Himself effected, Personally on earth, the work of
creating man on behalf of the Father and the Son. The Bible clearly records
this:
Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest
the face of the whole earth [by the Spirit] -Psalms 104:30
The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters Genesis 1:2
The Spirit of God hath made me Job 33:4
So the Spirit was on earth doing the work, as the Father spoke to the Son
in Heaven about creating man! Notice carefully also that the Spirit is
connected to the Almighty in Job 33:4, meaning that whosoever He
28

represents must be the Almighty, that is, Father *and Son! It was the
Spirits breath or life force that entered Adam, on behalf of the
Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is the Creator, our Creator! His
office is to represent the Father and the Son, in a real and Personal way, all
over the universe, that is, manifest their omnipresence. This can explain why
the Spirit is never seen in vision on the Throne of the universe, or in the future
New Jerusalem fellowshipping with the saved. The business of His office is
not to sit upon a throne and rule, but He is presented as being, not upon, but
before His Throne (Rev. 1:4), as the sevenfold Spirit in symbol (see
comments in Uriah Smiths, Daniel and the Revelation, on Rev. 1:4). This
further highlights the Spirits separateness and individual distinction. The
Spirit would have been seen in vision*upon the Throne as the Father if He
was not meant to be seen as separate Person. Ezekiel, way back in the Old
Testament, shows Him, as a He, not an it, being sent out with an
assumed personal form (Ezekiel 8:1-5), transporting Ezekiel by a
hand in vision towards the Throne of the Father and Son in another
location. What the Spirit actually looks like no one really knows! That is
why His nature is a mystery!! He is, however, clearly personal, not an
impersonal dove or active force.
[3] Since God is Spirit, there is an automatic reference to the Holy Spirit
every time God is referred to, whether Father or Son is meant (read
carefully John 4:24/ Acts 5:3,4/ 2 Cor. 3:17,18/ 1 Cor. 2:11-16). Yet, though
the Spirit is God, He (the Spirit) is presented through the inspired eyes of Mrs.
White, not as the First Person or the Second Person-ality of the Godhead
but, notice carefully, as the Third PERSON of the Godhead, even while He
is pictured as the Father and Son Himself. *What is the strongest evidence
that the Spirit is a separate Person, not just a second personality or the split
personality of someone else? Before giving you this strong piece of evidence,
it should be noted that *some people are so bent on proving the Holy Spirit
to be simply a personality, not a Person, that they will even use the
syndrome of human madness or psychosis (with split personality as its
symptom) as the only way to illustrate the Holy Spirit of God. How
irreverent, and how sad!! To whom will you liken the Holy One, a
madman? See Isaiah 40:18, 25 before continuing!

29

*THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE OF THE SPIRITS INDIVIDUALITY

Jesus came to earth not to speak of Himself or to glorify Himself, but the
One who sent Him. See John 12:49, 50/ John 7:18/ John 5:31 for this
important truth, especially noting the way it was stated. Jesus could only
logically do this because He was distinct or separate from the Father and
His Spirit who sent Him. Note this distinction of the Spirit in Isaiah 48:16.
Now listen to the words of Jesus making it plain why the Holy Spirit should
*ALSO be regarded as a distinct or separate Person. Keeping in mind what
the words Third and Living, chosen by Mrs. White, already strongly
suggest about the Spirits individual separateness, now carefully note Jesus
own words here on this matter:

He [the Spirit] shall not speak of Himself; but


whatsoever He shall hear, that He shall speak
He shall glorify me - John 16:13,14
Now notice, first of all, the similar attitude of the Holy Spirit to His Sender.
Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit came not to glorify or speak of self, but rather
of another. Now, if the Spirit was not a separate Person, but is an
extension of the being of the Father (as some claim), whom would the
Spirit hear from in Heaven to speak about Jesus? Would the Father
be hearing from Himself? Also, if the Holy Spirit was not truly the Third
Person of the Godhead *representing the other Two, but is simply the
literal second self of Jesus Himself and the Father Himself(as some
mistake John 14:18,23 to mean), how will He [the Spirit] not speak of
Himself if the Spirit is literally Jesus own inner self? It is evident that
this can only happen when the Spirit, portrayed as Jesus Himself, will not
speak of or glorify self but rather the Jesus whom He represents! Sounds
confusing? It may appear so but the truth is simple and clear. The Spirit is
clearly a separate Person representing Jesus, but is so akin to Him or like Him (but
without human form) that the Spirit is to be seen as Jesus Himself. Notice, He
lacks the confining personality *OF HUMANITY, He does not lack personality
as a Divine representative!
The key here is the word *REPRESENTATIVE! That is what the Holy
Spirit is, the Representative of the spirit being of the Father and the divine30

human being of Jesus. The Spirit is not the literal self presence of the Father, but
it is a matter of one spirit Person representing another spirit Person. The Spirit is
also not the spirit part (or inner part), separate from, and is the extension of, the
body part of God, since *God is pure spirit, and not a material body and spirit as
He made man. The Spirit is so similar to, and closely related to, the Father that the
Spirit is to be seen as He Himself or the Son Himself, His own inner self, as it
were. No one will call his literal inner self his own representative, but will call
another person such, who is present on his behalf, acting on his behalf.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit equally have, and are all the fullness
of the Godhead (see Mrs. White in Evangelism, page 615), and so the presence of Jesus
at His incarnation was the presence of the Father, yet in a representative way in human
form (Matt. 1:23/1 Tim. 3:16).
Equally, the presence of the Spirit is the presence of both the Father and
the Son, yet in a representative way (see John 14:18,23 and compare Rev. 22:16,20).
Both the Father and the Son equally sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:26/John 16:7)
into, what can only be seen as a special or new phase of ministry on the Day of
Pentecost, since evidently the Spirit was always present on earth, even when Jesus
was here in tangible human form (Ps. 139:7-12). It becomes evident why the Holy
Spirit is not always presented together with the Father and the Son in Heaven (see John
14:23/21:23/ 17:3,23/ 1 John 1:3 and Luke 10:22). This is because the Spirit is the Person
who brings to earth, personally, the presence of both Father and Son, but in a
representative way. We fellowship with Them, that is, the other Two, by the Holy Spirit
Himself being in our hearts on their behalf. In the same way that we can be filled by
any of the personal Satanic demons or spirit beings (Acts 5:3) and it be said that Satan
fills the heart, then it should be no strange thing that the Spirit, an Infinite and thus
an omni-present Person, can enter and fill us in the same sense (Ezekiel 3:24), on
behalf of the Father and Son, yet it be said that they are in us, despite they are
geographically in Heaven fellowshipping together as two other distinct or separate
Persons. Today the Holy Spirit make Them known to us by His teaching, and by the
impression He makes on our minds (2 Cor. 13:14), and by the love of the Spirit that
we feel (Rom. 15:30).
In closing here on this question, it must be clearly understood that *despite the
Spirits nature remains a true mystery, with so many questions still to be answered,
with so many viewpoints (including that of this writer) falling so infinitely short, of
properly expressing in words even the very minute glimpses into His mysterious
nature, the following reality is no mystery at all. *It is no mystery that the Holy
Spirit, whether you believe Him to be a separate individual or not, must be
served, if we are going to serve the Father and the Son. Obviously you cannot
serve the Father without serving His Spirit. You cannot sing to, pray to, or
worship a spirit being without worshipping His Spirit, which is the essence of
Him present in Church. Mrs. White, however, lists the Spirit *separately as One
31

that is to be served. This would be hardly logical if the Spirit did not deserve
service in His own right, even though He is seen as the Father and Son Himself.

The Holy Spirit must be served!! And only a person called


God in the true sense should be served in this sense. No one,
no true Adventist, can get around that!!

QUESTION 4
DO ADVENTISTS BELIEVE THAT JESUS AND THE
FATHER ARE IDENTICAL?
There are those who trouble the Adventist Church from within and without
on this point of identity. However there is a real simple explanation.
The word identical means both *absolutely alike and also one and the
same (see Oxford Dictionary). The truth is that Adventists believe that
Jesus and the Father are identical in substance, in the very same way
that two twins are identical (or absolutely alike- referring to two different
things). Identical twins are * of (an important word) the same substance, and
are absolutely alike in substance, but are clearly not one and the same
person. If the word of were not in the expression, then it would read that
twins are the same substance, meaning they are the same person. However
this is not how it reads when the word of is used in the expression; thus they
are not the same person, just having the same attributes. At the infinite
level, Jesus is the exact copy or express image (that is, He is of the very
substance) of the Father (Heb.1: 3), but they are not the same in Person,
neither are they twins. He is the only one perfect photograph of God (as
quoted earlier from E.G. White). The following quotes clearly give the
Adventist position, and are vital to remember:
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 *OF ONE SUBSTANCE
[identical substance], possessing the *SAME [note same] attributes E.G. White- Signs of the Times, Nov. 27, 1893, pg. 54
32

Being by nature *OF THE VERY


SUBSTANCE of God, and having life in
Himself, He [Jesus] is properly called
*JEHOVAH, the Self Existent One
- E.J. Waggoner- Christ and His
Righteousness (1890), pg. 23
Christ is one with the Father [Yet] are
two distinct [separate] Personages. Read the
prayer of Christ in the seventeenth chapter of
John, and you will find this point clearly
brought out [especially in John 17:21].
But the unity does not destroy the
Personality of either
- E.G. White-Manuscript 58, May 19, 1905
Pioneer E.J. Waggoner
However much a shepherd may love his sheep, he loves his sons and
daughters more. Jesus is not only our shepherd; he is our Everlasting
Father. John 10:14 [Isaiah 9:6; Heb. 2:13]
- E.G. White, Desire of Ages, 1898, pg. 483
The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is *TRULY
GOD in the *INFINITY [no limitations] but NOT in Personality [Hes not
the Person of the Father, even as He functions as the Everlasting Father].
-E.G. White- Manuscript 116, Dec. 19,1905
From the foregoing it is clear that Adventism believes that Jesus is God
in every sense of the word, *except He is not His own Father.
Careful note should be made of what Jesus really meant in saying I and
my Father are one. Not only were they united in purpose, but also it was
His claim to absolute divinity or to Him being the Deity (see page 38) or
God in the highest sense, that is, being God *IN AUTHORITY (John
10:30-33). That was why the Jews took up stones to stone Him for, what
they thought was blasphemy!!
Humanly speaking, to be human gods was based on a simple matter
of importance or divinely appointed rank among men (according to Jesus).
33

So, what of the One who is equal to the Father Himself, of one substance
with Him, being His very own Son? He must therefore be, not a god, but
God!! He is God because, by reason of the Father-Son relationship, He and
the Father are of *ONE substance, possessing [note carefully] the *SAME
attributes!
This EXACT SIMILARILITY OF SUBSTANCE between the Father and the
Son was believed, and taught by Christians long before even the Council of
Nicea (325 A.D), as seen below (in a quote from as early as 190 A.D):
When [he John] says: what was in the beginning [1 John 1:1], he
touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-equal
with the Father. [The word] Was therefore is indicative of an eternity
without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is, the Son, being one
with the Father, in regard to EQUALITY [similarity] OF SUBSTANCE, is
eternal and uncreated. That the Word always existed is signified by the
saying: In the beginning was the Word [John 1:1]
- Clement of Alexandria (*190 A.D.), Fragment in Eusebius History, Book 6,
Chapter 140
Thus no one can say that Nicea invented these ideas (325 A.D), but only
brought together, officially, these early Christian ideas in a creed (Nicene
Creed).
The word * HOMOOUSIOS is a theological word which is used to
mean of one substance or of the same (or identical) substance, as it
relates originally to the doctrine of the Three Persons of the Godhead. The
following quotes, from the Encarta Encyclopedia 2000, should shed some
light on this fact:
Jesus himself, acknowledged as the Christ, was understood as the incarnate

Son, or Word (Logos), the concrete manifestation of God within the finite
order. Both expressions, Son and Word, imply a being who is both distinct
from the Father and yet so closely akin to him as to be *OF the same
substance (Greek *homoousios) with him
-"God, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000.
1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Arianism, a Christian heresy of the 4th century that denied the full divinity of Jesus

Christ. It was named for its author, Arius. Arius taught that The Son was not
generated from the divine substance of the Father; he did not exist from all eternity,
34

but was created out of nothing like all other creatures, and exists by the will of the
Father. In other words, the relationship of the Son to the Father is not natural, but
adoptive. In proposing this doctrine, Arius was attempting to safeguard the absolute
transcendence of God The teaching of Arius was condemned in 325 at the first
ecumenical council at Nicaea . The 318 bishops assembled there drafted a creed that
stated that the Son of God was begotten not made, and consubstantial (Greek
homoousios, *OF the same substance) with the Father
-"Arianism," Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000.

Truthfully, it must be admitted that the word homoousios, translated as


consubstantial, is defined by the Oxford Dictionary to mean of one
substance (quite similar to Mrs. Whites expression, of one substance).
Remembering the role that the word of plays in this expression, it follows
logically that, in this context the word is applicable to the Father and the
Son. At the later Church Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), Christians agreed,
quote:
We confessJesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also
perfect in manhood; truly God and truly manCONSUBSTANTIAL
WITH THE FATHER according to the Godhead, and
*CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH US according to the manhood; IN ALL
THINGS LIKE UNTO US, without sin.
-Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 2, pg.62
While Adventists do not necessarily subscribe to every point in this creed
(as explained by Catholics), you will however notice the intended context of
consubstantial here. Jesus is not literally seen as all of us in person, or
an extension of us, because He is said to be consubstantial with us.
But He is in all things like unto us, or of one substance with us, thus He is
consubstantial with us. All men can be said to be consubstantial, or
of one substance (Acts 17:26), that is, possessing the same attributes, yet
each is a different individual. The famous historical, and orthodox
Trinitarian, Athanasius made this identical point, by even comparing
three of Jesus disciples as being consubstantial or of one substance,
to show how he understood the term, despite spirit, and flesh and blood
(by their very nature) would be united in different ways (despite the
comparisons made). Even the famous semi-Arian, *Eusebius,
acknowledged this, when contending against Trinitarians after the
Council of Nicea.
35

Please notice the following quotation taken from a letter written by Eusebius of Csarea.

When this form was dictated by the prelates, their expressions of the
substance of the Father,

and consubstantial with the Father,

were not

suffered to pass without examination. Hence, therefore, several questions arose,


and answers were made, and the sense of these terms was carefully
considered. They admitted that the words of the substance signified that the
Son was of the Father, but not as a part of the Father [the same individual
Being]. We thought it well to assent to this explanation, as conveying the pious

doctrine, that the Son was of the Father; but not, however, a part of the Father.
We therefore agreed to this opinion; nor did we reject the word consubstantial,
having in view the promotion of peace, and being anxious to avoid a departure
from the right belief. For the same reason, we approved also of the words
begotten, not made, since the word make, they said, was common to the
other creatures which were made by the Son, and to which He has nothing
similar; and that therefore He is not made like those who were created by
Himself, but is of a more excellent substance than any created being. The divine
oracles inform us, that He was of the Father, by a mode of generation, which can
neither be conceived nor expressed by any created intelligence. But by the
expression consubstantial with the Father

nothing else is intended, than that

the Son of God has no similitude with created beings, but resembles in all things
the Father only, by whom He was begotten, and that He is of no other substance
or essence than that of the Father. The proposition being thus explained, we
thought that we might justly accede to it We finally embraced, without further
contention, those expressions which were found to be unexceptionable, when,
on a candid examination of the sense of the words, it appeared that they entirely
agreed with those admitted by ourselves, in the exposition of faith which we at
first proposed.
36

(Taken from a letter written by Eusebius Pamphilus of Csarea to the church at


Csarea; Cited in, A Historical View of the Council of Nice with a Translation of

Documents, pages 44-46 by Isaac Boyle.)

This is the truth which even original semi-Arians agreed to (despite


Eusebius rejected the full eternality of Jesus), and the use of the word
consubstantial being applicable in this sense or context, and that, no one
(exposed to all the relevant data) can deny, despite, admittedly, many do
apply the word in an unbiblical context.
Thus, when Jesus is said to be consubstantial with the Father, He is in
all things like unto the Father, or of one substance with Him,
possessing the same attributes (as Mrs. White so delicately phrased it
to mean the same thing). A denial that He is consubstantial with the
Father, in the sense of being of one [similar] substance with Him, is
equally a denial that He is consubstantial, or of one substance with
us.
Notice that crucial word of in the expression. That is the context in which
Adventism uses the word consubstantial. This, some willfully or
unwittingly fail to see. The blindest man is he who will not see, someone
once said. To deny that the word can be correctly used in the divine sense,
as it relates to Jesus, is equally a denial that it can be used in the human
sense to mean in all things like unto us, a view which could not be
successfully defended. That is self-evident.
However, while this may be true, careful note should be made of the fact that
the word consubstantial, translated from homoousios, if not carefully
clarified when used, also could be taken to mean (as some did, and still
do) that Jesus and the Father would be the one and the same identical
Person, or individual being! This could not be true!! But since the word
consubstantial is acceptable when it means of the same substance or
of one substance, it therefore means that whenever it is used in
Adventism it should not be used to mean, or taken to mean one and the
same Person, just possessing the same attributes.
Since, historically, the word consubstantial is a controversial term, it
must be contextualized when used in Adventism, since it may misrepresent
Adventist teachings about the Godhead. There is no real problem here, just
37

the challenge to carefully clarify meanings in usage, since words can have
different shades of meaning. For example, despite the word itself does not
occur originally in the Bible, Adventism uses, from original Roman
Catholic Latin, the controversial word HELL (for Sheol, Hades,
Gehenna, and Tartaroo in the Bible). However, the Adventist teaching on
Hell is distinctively different from Catholicism! Adventism also uses,
just like the Catholics, the word GODHEAD, in the controversial
sense of Three Persons of Divinity, yet with some distinctive
differences even in the face of much similarity in usage.
Doctrinally, the Church has had to, and must continue to carefully clarify
meanings each time it uses these words to prevent confusion. The same
principle must equally apply to the use of the controversial term,
consubstantial, which comes from the Greek homoousios, and
undeniably it *literally means, of one (the same) substance or related
in substance, as Jesus is consubstantially related to us and is, in the
same sense, related also to the Father. Those who feel hesitant are free to
not use such a term, but should not set themselves up within the
Adventist Church as judges over other mens consciences, simply because
others choose to use this word, and clearly are using it in a certain
*restricted context. More will be said later in this presentation on the
matter of word usage or semantics.

QUESTION 5
DO ADVENTISTS BELIEVE THAT JESUS HAD A
BEGINNING BECAUSE HE WAS BEGOTTEN?
The following quote, from the latest and official explanation of the S.D.A.
27 Statements of Belief in the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe(1988)
can serve as a good starting point to answer this question:
That scripture alludes to Jesus as only begotten and the first
born and speaks of the day of His begetting does not deny [exclude] His
divine nature and *ETERNAL [I AM] existence. The term only begotten
(John1: 14/ John 1:18/ John 3:16/ 1 John 4:9) comes from the Greek word
38

* MONOGENES. The Biblical use of monogenes reveals that its range


of meanings extends to [includes contextually] only or unique, depicting
a special relationship, *NOT an event in time [this event took place outside
the bounds of time].
-S.D.A.s Believe... An Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (1988)
References, No.7, pg. 56
There are those who misunderstand this statement. They take it to be saying
that Jesus was not begotten of the Father in His divinity. To their minds,
this is evidence to indicate that mainstream Adventism, or what they call
apostate Adventism, now denies that Jesus is truly the Son of God.
However, a careful contextual analysis of this statement would recognize the
truth. The emphasis here is that Jesus declared begetting does *not suggest
that He had a beginning at an *EVENT IN TIME [emphasis on it
happening in time], but a begetting in the context of a special or unique
divine relationship with His Father. This statement does not deny a
begetting, but it does deny that Jesus had a beginning at an event in
time, and disagrees with any use of begetting to suggest his beginning
at a point in time, or limit His eternal existence.
The same passage, quoted in part here, later indicated (please see it for
yourself) that Jesus did become at a specific event in time, and in a unique
sense, the *divine-human Son, at His incarnation, when divine and human
nature united in His Person. Which is why He is even more special or
monogenes, that is begotten twice, to become so impacted in His being.
The earthly process of Jesus becoming, at a *specific time, the
human Son of God (by his human birth, his resurrection, and priestly
enthronement) cannot be seen in the same context of His begetting in His
divinity. While He is really and truly presented as the only begotten Son of
the Father (Mrs. White) in His divinity, brought forth, or set up, or
given birth from everlasting (Prov. 8:22-31), this cannot be taken to
mean He had a beginning in the same way a human son has a beginning, at a
point in time. Why? This is precisely the reason why Mrs. White declared that
Jesus eternal oneness with the Father, His pre-existence, and His Heavenly
begetting is infinitely mysterious and incomprehensible, and why
Trinitarians, while accepting His birth, removes it from the sphere of time.
Here, following, is the proof of Mrs. White making such an inspired
admission.
39

If Christ made all things He existed before all things [John 1:1-3]. The
words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in
doubt. Christ was GOD essentially, and in the HIGHEST [nothing-higher]
sense. He was *WITH [alongside] God [the Person of the Father] FROM
[now notice]*ALL ETERNITY
-E.G. White- S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 5, pg. 1126
From *ALL ETERNITY [Micah 5:2] Christ was united with [note with]
the Father, and when He took upon Himself human nature [and was separated from
His Fathers immediate presence], He was STILL [in the same way as before] one with
God [existing as two distinct Beings, separate but united for all eternity]
-E.G. White Comments- S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 5, pg. 1115
From everlasting [Micah 5:2/Psalms 93:2] He [Jesus] was the Mediator of the
Covenant [Hebrews 7:3] was *GOD essentially and *IN THE HIGHEST [nothing
higher] SENSE [existing] from *ALL ETERNITY GOD OVER ALL [Rom. 9:5] a
*DISTINCT [separate] Person, yet one [united] with the Father.
-E.G. White- Review and Herald, April, 1906
This truth [about Jesus eternal pre-existence and distinction] infinitely
MYSTERIOUS in itself, explains [Heb.7:3] otherwise unexplainable truths, while
enshrined in light unapproachable and INCOMPREHENSIBLE
-E.G. White- Review and Herald, April, 1906

Here it is evidenced, from inspired testimony, that true Adventism believes


that Jesus was from all eternity a distinct Being, in the sense of
separateness (as the Oxford dictionary defines distinct), since that is what
Mediator (go between) of the Covenant, from all eternity also means.
But there are those within Adventism who strive to put a limit on these all
eternity statements of Mrs. White, feeling that at some time, which can be
dated back into the far recesses of eternity, Jesus must have come into
existence after the Father, since that is what begetting logically suggests
a pre-existing (or antecedent) Father. However, this view, while
understandable from the standpoint of logic, has no real support. Why is this
view, with its foundation based only on logic, not supported? Spiritual
things are spiritually discerned!!
First of all, such a view, if correct, would automatically turn Mrs. White into a
false prophet (even if only by some of her own people). This would happen
40

because, under inspiration, and from her conviction in what the Bible
teaches, she herself also distinctly stated that, quote:
In speaking of His pre-existence Christ takes the mind back through
*DATELESS [infinite] AGES [in all eternity], He assures us that there
never was a time [in the dateless ages of all eternity] when He was not in
close *FELLOWSHIP [association with another] with the eternal God.
- Mrs. White- Evangelism, pg. 615
Could Mrs. White be any clearer? What other words could she choose to
make it more explicit that Jesus simply had no beginning, in the sense of a
point in time? What is an infinite mystery? What does incomprehensible
mean? Clearly there is no mystery involved in saying that Jesus, the Son,
came after the Father, at a point in time, which is normal human
experience. But there is mystery involved in saying that the divine Son
and His Father both existed, distinct, from all eternity, despite
begotten by the Father.
Only one led by the spirit of presumption would want to solve this
MYSTERY, to satisfy his own need for reconciling with logic, and thus
unwittingly discredit, not just the servant of the Lord (Mrs. White) but even
God Himself who said:
Before me there was *no GOD formed, neither shall
there be any *AFTER me
-Isaiah 43:10
Clearly Jesus could not have been formed as GOD *after the
Father, whether in nature or in authority, even by divine birth, because the
Father would have no explanation or answer to His own words in Isaiah here!
So, how do we reconcile with the two truths that Jesus, as God, was both
begotten from the Father, yet was distinct or separate as a Person, and
God over all for all eternity? We CANNOT reconcile the two (logically,
that is), but must accept both truths by faith, without denying any, since both
truths are the unerring word of God! That is what infinitely mysterious and
incomprehensible mean. If logic is applied here, it will fail, because who
by searching can find out God?(Job 11:7-9). With God all things are
possible!! The truth is that Jesus is divinely begotten, the only begotten,
and is the true Son of God, but just not so by the laws of human experience.
The truth is that Jesus simply had no beginning, at a point in
time, even though He is presented as the Son of God (Heb. 7:3). The truth
41

is that He is fully eternal, as a distinct or separate Person for all


eternity, even though He is pictured as being fully related to the Father,
who is pictured as giving Him all things. That is why many Christians
believe that the Father and the Son, being both fully and truly GOD, being
both fully and truly FROM ALL ETERNITY, are therefore both
CO-ETERNAL!! That is what the true Adventist believes!!
Time would be wasted, and one would be blasphemously arrogant
to even begin to think he can explain this mystery, which is described by
Mrs. White as infinitely mysterious and incomprehensible!
Some try to resolve this mystery in their minds by saying that the Son
existed (past tense) figuratively, but not individually and independently,
within the Fathers bosom, but later (during eternity) became independent
of the Father as a separate Being. This is a proposition that is neither true nor
mysterious!
Firstly, this view is neither mysterious nor incomprehensible
because the mind can reconcile with this view, and even illustrate it on a
human level (as some try to do) by referring to Hebrews 7: 9,10.
Secondly, this view is not true because Jesus is presented, in John 1:17,
as being IN (present tense) the bosom(a symbol of fellowship) of the
Father, not His loins (a symbol of generation). Clearly the Fathers
bosom does not mean a place of generation, but a place of fellowship, since
Jesus would not now be in it after returning to it! He was, is, and always
will be in the bosom(in the fellowship) of the Father! With that now
understood it must now be said that the belief that the Son existed for all
eternity as a distinct (separate) Person along with His Father, from
whom He was begotten is the better proposition that fits the Scriptures,
and one that is a veritable mystery!
Hear the words of one who saw the truth in vision:
The name of God [I AM or Jehovah], given to Moses to express
the idea of ETERNAL PRESENCE, had been claimed as His *OWN [John 8:58,59] by
this Galilean Rabbi [Jesus]. He had announced *HIMSELF [not just His Father] to
be, the Self-Existent One... -Mrs. White- Desire of Ages, pgs. 469-470
I AM means an eternal presence: past, present, future...
-Mrs. White S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol.1, pg. 1009

Who will venture to propose that Jesus name (I AM), does not fully fit His
nature, or that He has a false name? This writer will not.
42

There is very little that need to be said after this on this matter, except to
remind you dear reader that the Father and the Son are both called the
First and the Last, clearly indicating equality in time or length of
existence. Jesus is not the Second but also First(Rev. 2:8/22:12,13).
Resist not the word of God, or twist it, but believe it unto salvation!

QUESTION 6
DO ADVENTISTS REGARD JESUS AS EQUAL OR
SUBJECT TO THE FATHER?
There is some today in Adventism, a growing sect, who continues
to struggle over a truth that was long settled in historic Adventism. They
cannot understand how the Bible declares only one true God (John 17:3),
the Father (1 Cor. 8:6/ Eph. 4:6), and yet Adventism is declaring that Jesus
is God in the highest sense, that Jesus is God over all, that Jesus is equal
in substance to the Father, that Jesus is equal in dignity (every title, office,
name) and glory (every divine quality) with the Father, that Jesus is one
(equal) in power and authority with the Father, and thus co-equal with Him.
Does this not make two Gods (they argue) of a so-called group of three
Deities, as taught by modern apostate Adventism? Doesnt the Bible teach
that Jesus is subject(subordinated) to the Father, whom He calls His own
God? This is the substance of their protest as they even denounce the
Churchs teachings, many of them, and often separate themselves from it.
This writer humbly submits that it is because the mystery of godliness is too
great, for minds unwilling to accept fully what the Bible teaches, why this
problem persists! However, this aspect of the mystery of godliness is
probably a truth best illustrated or discerned, in working principle, when one
studies and compares spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2: 13, 14).
God made man (plural) in His own image, and yet many fail to
see how this reflection of Gods nature is full of truth, simple and
profound. In what way does the male and female unite and become one
flesh (or one body), not just one in purpose or action, while they remain
separate individuals? The question could also be asked how can 1+1=1?
43

An answer to that would clearly illustrate the context of the unity of the
Godhead. In the same vein, one could also ask how is it that both the
male and female are absolutely equal, but by Gods plan the male is the
head of the woman? The answer to this is plain. That is Gods plan in
the scheme of things: an absolute equality in beings of the same class, but
a *functional leadership of one, and subordination of another, for unity
in action! So likewise, Jesus is *BOTH equal to and, at the same time,
subject to the Father, as part of Gods plan (see Patriarchs and
Prophets, pg. 36, E.G. White). Jesus is not inferior in nature, authority,
or in no reality, to the Father, even though His equality is pictured as
being given to Him or bestowed upon Him from all eternity! He
has been, and always will be subject to the Father, but only by choice,
as part of Gods plan. Jesus is not inferior in nature or in authority, as
He exalts the Father and the Father exalts Him. O how great is the
mystery of godliness!
The following quotes from Mrs. White should throw some light on the full
teaching of the Bible:
As the veil which conceals Christs glory from our view is drawn
aside the Savior is shown to be in His High and Holy place
E.G. White- Manuscript 94, Sept. 23, 1904
The Son of God was the acknowledged *Sovereign [supreme ruler] of
Heaven, *ONE [equal and united] in power and *AUTHORITY with
[alongside] the Father[thus there was more than one Person acknowledged
as Supreme Ruler or Highest Authority in Heaven]
E.G. White- Great Controversy, pg. 494
It was in seeking to exalt himself [Is. 14:12-14] above the Son of God that
Satan had sinned in Heaven[Jesus is therefore both Sovereign or
supreme ruler, and Most High along with His Father]
E.G. White- Desire of Ages, pgs. 129-130
With human nature upon Him [Jesus], He met the arch apostate
[Satan- Is. 14:12-14] face to face and single handedly withstood the foe of
His throne [His own throne in Heaven, which was equally His Fathers
throne, not the future Davids throne] - S.D.A. bible Comm., Vol. 7, pg. 927

44

Jesus is equal in DIGNITY and glory with [alongside] the Father [Jesus
holds every rank, title, and office of the Father, including the Almighty]
E.G. White- Questions on Doctrine (1957)
As they question, who is this [Jesus], the disciples, filled with the spirit of
inspiration, answer this question. In eloquent strains, they repeat the
prophecies concerning Christ: [among other things]Hosea will tell you,
He [Jesus] *IS [Himself also]the LORD [Jehovah] God of Hosts
[John 20:28, 29], the LORD [the name Jehovah] is His memorial, Hosea
12:5
-E.G. White- Desire of Ages, pgs. 578-579
Over the recent sepulcher of Joseph, [at His resurrection] Christ had
proclaimed in triumph, I am the resurrection and the life. These words
could be spoken only by *THE DEITY [the Supreme God]
E.G. White-Desire of Ages (1898), pgs.785-786

That is crystal clear! That is what true Adventism believes! There is no


getting around it, no escaping of the truth by the true Seventh-day Adventist:
[1] Jesus is EQUAL in rank, title, office, or dignity with the Father.
So, every title, rank or office, ascribed to the Father, is equally ascribable
to Jesus, whether there is record of Him being directly called that title or
not, because that is what one in power and authority means. That is
what equal in dignity and glory means, whether that title is the
Almighty (pantokrator or ruler of all), Most High, First and
Last, LORD or Jehovah, or the Deity, or Sovereign
God(supreme ruler), or Supreme God. Some, struggling with THIS
truth, asks just what the anti-Christ (Satan) would want them to ask,
How can more than one Person be Supreme Ruler, Most High, or
Almighty? They may well pause to recognize, in the following quote, the
plan of the enemy to oppose all that is called God, in the Person of
Jesus, the Sovereign of the universe:
The [evil] spirits deny the *DEITY of Christ and place even the
Creator [Christ] on a level with themselves. Thus under a new guise
[seemingly sincere religion, and spiritism], the Great Rebel [Satan] carries
on his warfare against God [including Christ-The Deity], begun in
Heaven -E.G. White Great Controversy, pgs. 524,552
45

[2] If He [Jesus] lacked one iota of being equal to God the Father, He
could not bring us to Him(said a pioneer, E.J. Waggoner, Christ and
His Righteousness, 1890, pgs. 43-45).
No juggling of terms or semantics can confuse the issue here. The Father
and the Son are *ABSOLUTELY EQUAL, (thus are co-equal) in name,
rank, nature and authority, but not in Person!
The foregoing is plain. Yet, Jesus, while on earth, Himself declared that the
Father is greater than I. Paul declared that the Son is subject to Him who
placed all things under His feet. How is this to be true? How is this to be
understood? How can the two things be simultaneously true? Here is where
many get into doctrinal trouble. This is precisely what Satan uses among
*some within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in order to rob Jesus of
His rightful place of absolute equality with Father. Under the guise of
reformed Christianity, working to seemingly restore so-called truth,
he skillfully, deceptively, uses his sophistry to capture waiting souls, who
are either overzealous or unlearned in the truth, and use them to lead
others astray. In their overzealousness to uplift and exalt the Father, as
the only true God, they unwittingly oppose [or down play] all that is
called God, in the Person of Jesus (and the Person of the Holy Spirit),
while at the same time, working as accusers of the brethren who do not
believe as they do.
The following should shed some faint light on this awesome subject, which
only eternity in Heaven will give us a full grasp of this mystery of
godliness.
JESUS IS SUBJECT(WHILE EQUAL) TO THE FATHER
Notice carefully the real meaning of the following in the Bible:
One [David] in a certain place [Psalms 8:3-8] testified saying, what is man, that thou
art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou MADEST [made
or created] him a little lower than the angels; thou crownest him with glory and
honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: THOU HAST PUT ALL IN
SUBJECTION UNDER HIM [Gen.1:26-28]. But now we see NOT yet all things put
under him. But WE SEE JESUS, who was made [for a little while] a little lower than
the angels [then] crowned with glory and honour [that is, after he became man]
[and made] the captain of their salvation. For both he that sanctifieth [Jesus] and they
who are sanctified [Christians] are all of one [created by the same Father the same flesh
46

and blood or same substance- verse 14]; which cause He is not ashamed to call them
brethren, saying I will declare thy name unto my brethren [John 17:3,4], in the midst
of the church will I sing praise unto thee Hebrews 2:6-12

This passage is full of profound truth about Jesus being subject to the
Father. Man (plural) was promised that he would not only inherit Paradise,
but even judge angels (1 Cor. 6:3) in the world to come (notice the proper
use of the singular he and his for humans here). However, man (plural),
who from the beginning was given dominion (Gen.1: 26-28), lost his place
and thus this promise could only begin to be fulfilled through Jesus, our
forerunner and the perfect and second Adam. So it is in this context that
Paul (1Cor. 15: 22-28) was able to say that God placed all things under His
feet, quoting Psalms 8:3-8, which originally was meant only for humans.
Since Jesus became us He [Jesus] is Himself subject to the Father,
as he fulfills this prophecy. His subjection being described here, is in the
context of Him being a man, being in all things like unto His brethren, and
thus His Father, our Father, is in this context greater than He. Also, in this
context the Father is also His God, because He is one of us, praising the
Father in the midst of the Church (Heb. 2:12). Nowhere, in the entire
Bible, or in Spirit of Prophecy writings, was the Father ever called
Jesus God, BEFORE He became man. But when He became man this all
changed. In this context of Jesus being a man, the Father was greater in
reality than He was, and today is, that is, as a man. However, as God, Jesus
has always been, in reality, equal in authority, rank or dignity and glory
with the Father.
Notice, as a man, or one of us, He will eventually give up the
kingdom and His reign(1 Cor. 15:24,25), and yet in Daniel 7:13,14 and 18,
He will have a kingdom and dominion(reign) which *will never end.
As the Captain of the saints, He and the saints, who are joint heirs with
Him, will possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever (or for
eternity), as Daniel 7:18 clearly states. So will he literally give up the
kingdom and dominion to the Father? As a man he will seem to do so, but
as God He will always be God over all and always one [equal] in power
and AUTHORITY with the Father, having an everlasting dominion and
being eternally served(worshipped) by all people, just like the Father
(Daniel 7:14). These are the mysterious and complex roles of the divine yet
human Person we now know as Jesus.
47

At this point it must also be noted that in Heaven, before He came to


earth, Jesus was voluntarily humble enough to exalt the Fathers glory, and
did not seek power or exaltation for Himself, according to Mrs. White, in
Patriarchs and Prophets, page 36. It would be contrary to Gods plan
(notice plan), and would upset the order of things ordained by the Father, if
Jesus refused to voluntarily accept the Father as the Head of Him. All
societies, including Heaven, require leadership even among equals. Thus
this self -humbling of Jesus who, as the pre-incarnate and Eternal Word
(or Mouthpiece) of God, was being willing to subject Himself to the Father
with whom He was absolutely equal, is the very essence of divine
HUMILITY! This is humility, which Satan himself cannot understand,
because it is a humility, which is intrinsically a part of the mystery of
godliness, or the mystery of Divine Nature.
The Father Himself has been mutually exhibiting this same humility of
Jesus, because He was willing to sit back as it were, in His invisibility, and
allow the Son to get all the attention as the visible Word or the Divine
Mouthpiece of the Godhead, appearing on His behalf as the awesome Jehovah
in almost all of the Godheads contact with man (example in Is. 6:1-3,8-10
and John 12:39-42). So almost everywhere you look in the Old Testament Bible
and see God in His awesome majesty, it was Jesus being seen, showing what the
Godhead is like, being Himself completely and intrinsically one of the constituent
Persons of the Eternal Godhead in the highest and fullest sense (according to our
pioneer, E.J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, 1890, pgs. 43-45). This truth Mrs.
White also fully testified to in Patriarchs and Prophets, pages 366-367. That is truly
awesome.

The Father was also willing to sit back, as it were, and from all
eternity, allow the Son to be God over all, to exercise all the powers as the
Creator, Sustainer, and then later, as God of Israel, and to be worshipped and
praised by both angels and man, in His own right, alongside Him, and on His
behalf, without jealousy. Even when He was human the Father ordered all to
worship Him, despite a man should not be worshipped in the highest sense
(Heb. 1:6/ Acts 10:25,26/ Rev. 22:8,9). The Son (as a human model on earth) in turn
directed all to praise and worship only the Father (Matthew 4:10) even as the
Father insists that all worship and praise the Son. And now, today, the Father is
Himself the Sons own Representative (as it were) in the universe, by way of the equal
representation of Them both, in the Person of the Holy Spirit (the third of the Highest
Authorities in Heaven). If that is not mutual exalting and Divine unity, then what is?
48

The truth is that self-exaltation is not a part of divine nature, but is part of the

mystery of iniquity. Let all true Adventists say: Amen!

QUESTION 8
DO ADVENTISTS REGARD JESUS AS TWO PERSONS
IN ONE BEING, AND WHICH PART OF HIM DIED?
Here again we are confronted with a question that thousands have debated
over the centuries. Even today within the Adventist Church there are those
who still exhibit uncertainty or ignorance about what the Church believe and
teach about this issue. One learned Adventist, who falls in this category just
described, tried to explain, quite faultily to this writer, that Jesus was regarded
by Mrs. White as, quote, one being, but are two persons blended in that one
being; thus the reason for my stating Question 8 (above) that way.
Others do know what the Church teaches on this issue, but disagree
with it, and believe that what the Church teaches is either closely related to
the New Age philosophy, or is an abominable teaching resulting from the
Trinity doctrine. The leader of one independent ministry, endeavoring to, socalled, restore old truths wrote:
Unhappily, the doctrine of the trinity has led many Christians to adopt a concept of
the incarnation of Christ which is similar to the teaching of the New Age religions.
Many Christians today teach that on Calvary the human part [human nature] of Jesus
died but the divine part [divinity] did not die. Does this not suggest that Jesus was not
one person, but two, and that the incarnation was not a divine being becoming human,
but rather a divine being sharing a body with a human being? Clearly see that this
abominable teaching is the result of an attempt to make sense of the Trinitarian
doctrine. *Name of author withheld.

Having read this statement, it became very obvious that the writer in this
independent ministry (which has separated itself from the Church) need to
recognize that you cannot restore truth if you do not have a full grasp of
what you should be restoring. He was wrong on so many counts. Mrs. White
49

summarizes what the Adventist Church teaches on this issue in the following
way:
Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine
nature of the Son of God? No, the two natures [not two persons] were
*MYSTERIOUSLY blended in one person [or being]- the Man Christ
Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ
was crucified, it was His *HUMAN NATURE [the human part] that DIED.
*DEITY [the divine part] DID NOT SINK AND DIE: that would have been
impossible The Savior has purchased the fallen race with His own blood.
This is a *GREAT MYSTERY, a mystery that will not be fully, completely
understood in its greatness until the translation of the redeemed shall take
place Who by searching can find out God to perfection? When finite
man [are you?], under the subtle influence of the tempter, comes to
question [in order to satisfy logic] the words of the One who is called the
Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6), his
conception of himself increase, and his conceptions of Christ decrease
The *MYSTERIES of redemption, embracing Christs divine-human
character, His incarnation, His atonement for sin, could employ the pens
and the highest mental powers of the wisest menbut though these men
should seek with all their power to give a representation of Christ and His
work, the representation would fall short of the reality
E.G. White- Letter 280, Sept. 3, 1904

OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS:


The following points should be borne in mind regarding this issue.
1. The foregoing quote summarizes what the Adventist Church teaches
2. Mrs. White saw the elements concerning the incarnation and death of
Christ as wrapped in MYSTERY, thus the reason for so much controversy
on this issue, not just in the past, but also in the present.
3. Mrs. Whites views were Biblical, and were not based on any New Age
philosophy or the so-called abominable teaching of the Trinity, and yet she
herself stated that[a] Jesus was one person with two naturesmysteriously blended
[b] Only Jesus human naturedied. His Deity [divine nature] did
not sink and die, despite Jesus was one being only (1 Peter 3:18).
50

This writer believes that the foregoing is so clear, that not much commentary is needed.
A disagreement with the Adventist Church on this issue is equal to a disagreement
with the inspired words of Mrs. White, whose views were purely Biblical. Just read
again and ponder deeply the words of 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 and 1Timothy 3:16
in the Bible, before reading how Mrs. White explained herself in the following:
When He closed His eyes in death upon the cross, the soul of Christ did not go at
once to heaven, as many believe, or how could His words be true- I am not yet
ascended to my Father? The spirit of Jesus slept in the tomb with His body, and did
not wing its way to heaven, there to maintain a separate existence, and to look down
upon the mourning disciples embalming the body from which it had taken flight. ALL
THAT COMPRISED THE LIFE AND INTELLIGENCE OF JESUS REMAINED
WITH HIS BODY IN THE SEPULCHER; AND WHEN HE CAME FORTH IT WAS
AS A WHOLE BEING
E.G. White- Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 3, pgs. 203,204

To the casual or unlearned reader, or to one with a spirit of presumption, this


may seem contradictory, since they may argue how is this possible if his
Deity did not die? Thus they set about trying to explain the mysteries of
the incarnation of Christ in order to satisfy logic, trying by searching to
find out God unto perfection. But the truth is that Jesus fully and
completely died, as all humans die, as a man. This does not mean that the
mystery of His Deity not dying and His resurrection can be fully
explained or fully understood. This is because Jesus was just not like any
other man, He was more; He was also Deity. Notice that despite He said in
death, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit (or life force), yet,
according to Mrs. White, it remained with His body in the tomb, along
with His intelligence. Listen to the words of Mrs. White again on this matter
of His death and mysterious resurrection:
As a member of the human family, Jesus was mortal; but
as God, He was the Fountain of Life to the world. He could in His divine
person have withstood the advances of death, and refused to come under its
dominion; but he voluntarily laid down his life, that in so doing he might
give life and bring immortality to lightWondrous union of man and
God!
-E.G. White, Review and Herald, July 5, 1887
He [Jesus] who said I lay down my life that I may take it up again, CAME FORTH
FROM THE GRAVE TO*LIFE THAT WAS IN HIMSELF. Humanity died,
51

*DIVINITY DID NOT DIE. IN HIS DIVINITY CHRIST POSSESSED THE POWER
TO BREAK THE BONDS OF DEATH Only He [Jesus] who alone [not just the
Father alone] HATH [notice, not had or now have, but hath immortality]
IMMORTALITY [deathless nature], dwelling in light and life [1 Tim. 6:16] could say,
I have power to lay down my life and power to take it up again [see John 2:18-22]
-E.G. White Comments- S.D.A Bible Comm., Vol. 5,pg. 1113

That is what true Adventism believes! The difficulty that would accompany
explaining it should be an accepted reality; in just the same way we should
accept that the very fact in itself is in reality part of the mystery of
godliness. Those who want to break themselves against it, thats their choice.

QUESTION 9
WHAT DO ADVENTISTS REGARD AS THE
ESSENCE OF GOD?
The word essence means what a thing or person really is in substance
or fundamental nature (Oxford dictionary). The Bible says, God is spirit.
What really is spirit? What is God really like in substance, how does He
exist? How can we know Him, what is He like as a Being? That is what the
question of the essence of God is seeking to address. To better understand
what is meant (in context) let us ask the same thing about man. What is the
essence of man?
Man is a personal and material being made of flesh and blood
(Acts 17:26). He exists, by nature, as male and female whom, when
combined, form one flesh or one body, spiritually. You will notice the
proper use of the *singular pronoun he for man, whether the singular
or plural of man is meant. However, the male is especially called the
man or Adam, but He cannot, and does not, exist apart from the female,
who is also man, and is a type of, or a part of Adam (Gen. 5:1,2). The
spiritual union is so close that the wife is regarded as the man himself, as it
were (Ephesians 5: 28,29). There is only one (1) reality of man, or
52

humanity, in the entire universe (that we know of). However man exists as
male and female, different individuals, who are all of one substance, notice
the word of; they are therefore not one substance (or one person
literally), but of that one substance. Man also exists as soul. He
consists of body and spirit (that is, a life force, a mind, and personality),
and is therefore a conscious, personal, living being. He is however mortal, or
subject to death. That is the essence of man. This illustration now sets the
stage for us to better understand the question of the essence of God, in
context.
God is a spirit; pure, immortal, infinite, spirit! This is the first
challenge to our minds. No one really knows what the substance called
spirit (the stuff of which God is composed) is really like. God cannot be
literally compared with anything in nature, but God gives us a faint image
of the nature of God, or the Godhead in the nature of man. This can give us
an idea of what Gods nature is like, but only in human terms. We therefore
can understand that in the same way that mans complete nature is to exist
as male and female (a plurality of persons), likewise the complete nature of
God, or the Godhead is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (also a plurality of
persons). However, the true nature of God or the Godhead, whether in
substance and nature, is a still a mystery, except for what is clearly, and
more substantially, revealed in the personality of the Man, Jesus Christ. Let
us now discover how Adventism really sees the essence of God. This is
clearly recorded in the words of Mrs. Ellen G. White, the inspired voice in
Adventism:
The great Teacher [Jesus] held in His hand the entire map of truth The question of
the *ESSENCE OF GOD was a subject on which He maintained a wise reserve, for
their entanglements [the disciples] and specifications would bring in science [and
logic] which could not be dwelt upon by unsanctified minds without confusion. In
regard to *GOD [the essence of God] and in regard to His *PERSONALITY, the
Lord Jesus said *HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HAS SEEN THE FATHER
[in substance, nature, and personality] In the place of devoting your powers to
theorizing [about the oneness, substance, nature and personality of God], Christ has
given you a work to do. His commission is, Go throughout the world and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the NAME [a singular noun of unity] of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [Mathew 28:19]. Before the disciples
shall compass the threshold, there is to be the imprint of the *SACRED NAME,
baptizing the believers in the name of the *THREEFOLD [unity of three] POWERS in
53

the Heavenly world. The work of salvation is not a small matter, but so vast that the
HIGHEST AUTHORITIES are taken hold of THE ETERNAL GODHEAD- THE
FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY GHOST *is [not are but is] involved
That They All May Be One- Manuscript 45, May 14, 1904

Can anyone deny, after reading this, that the essence of God is
regarded in true Adventism as the Eternal Godhead of Father, Son and
Holy Spirit? Notice that Mrs. White was not discussing here the essence of
the Godhead, but rather the essence of GOD, and Gods PERSONALITY.
The title God, primary and ultimately, refers to the Father, but is also
a title which cannot be separated from the Son and the Spirit. Careful
note should be made of the fact that after referring to the question of the
essence of God she did NOT stop at the Father. Notice that she immediately
dealt with the Eternal Godhead, outlines the symbolism in the baptismal
formula (the sacred NAME) and then shows the united action of the
Threefold [unity of three] Powers in the Heavenly world, the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit. So the Eternal Godhead is the same as the
essence of God. Why did Jesus maintain a wise reserve on this issue?
Notice the title of this manuscript, written by Mrs. White: That They All
May Be One. That is very instructive. It is obvious that there is much
difficulty involved in trying to explain the mystery of the essence of God.
Jesus therefore did not become too theological on this issue, in order that His
disciples would not become sidetracked or divided over this issue. This could
explain a lot, such as the reason for the early Apostles simple approach to the
complex issue of the Godhead, choosing not to expound on the Trio in the
Godhead (Matt. 28:19). Notice again how inspiration shows the oneness of
who is considered as God (of the God-kind)
Have you been born again? Have you become a new being in Christ
Jesus? Then co-operate with the three great powers of heaven *who [all
three called who] are working in your behalf. Doing this you will reveal
to the world the principles of righteousnessGod 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." This is the pledge of [not one person, but] the Father,
54

the Son, and the Holy Spirit [*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. 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.
-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901
The very fact that Jesus, the greatest teacher, maintained a wise reserve on
this issue, is clear indication that the matter is not simple but *complex. Hear
the words of the inspired voice in Adventism again on this issue:
In regard to the personality and prerogatives of God, where He is and WHAT HE IS,
this is a subject which we are not to dare to touch. On this theme *SILENCE IS
ELOQUENCE.
-E.G. White- Manuscript 132, Nov.8, 1903 (written during the Dr. Kellogg
pantheism crisis)
Human talent and human conjecture [surmising, guessing] have tried by searching to
find out God. Many have trodden this pathway. The highest intellect may tax itself
until it is wearied out in conjectures regarding God, but the effort will be fruitless, and
the fact will remain that man by searching cannot find out God [Job 11:7-9]. This
problem has not been given us to solve [for example, the problem of: how can two
persons, or three, be seen mathematically as a a personal God]. All that man needs to
know and can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son, the
Great Teacher [Jesus].
E.G. White- Letter 240, Nov. 5, 1903
It should be noted here that Mrs. White wrote most of her clear statements on the
Three Persons of the Godhead after the pantheism crisis, led by Dr Kellogg in 1903,
had developed within the Adventist Church. One only has to note the years of her
manuscripts that especially mentioned the Heavenly Trio or the Three Dignitaries and
Powers of Heaven, etc., and this truth becomes clear, very clear. Dr Kellogg, who later
left the Adventist Church, was trying to teach that the essence of God was His
55

presence in nature and in all life. This was clearly pantheism and Mrs. White came out
strongly against it.

The theory that God is *AN ESSENCE PERVADING ALL NATURE


[pantheism] is received by many who profess to believe the scriptures; but
however beautifully clothed this theory is a most dangerous deception. It
misrepresents God, and is a dishonor to His greatness and majesty. And it
surely tends not only to mislead, but to debase men The result of
accepting it is separation from God.
-E.G. White-Ministry of Healing, 1905, pg. 248
Pantheistic theories are not sustained by the word of God. The light of His
truth shows that these theories are soul-destroying agencies.
E.G. White- Review and Herald, Jan. 21, 1904, pg. 9
That is one of the clearest no holds-barred rejection, that we have on record,
of what Mrs. White saw as false doctrine about the Godhead. Here, the
leading pioneer, and watchman on the walls of Zion, did not ignore the
issue or fail to say what was Gods attitude to this representation of the
Godhead. She could not do otherwise since she was Gods mouthpiece
in the Church. The greatest doctrinal errors within or without, *ABOUT
THE GODHEAD, must be laid bare. The trumpet was thus sounded, as
she had sounded it time and time again in the past on the subject of the
Godhead! What did she then hold up as the truth in its place? This is
probably the most fascinating part of the story and dear reader you should
take note. In its place she clearly taught that the essence of God is, firstly,
one that is *PERSONAL. The existence of *A PERSONAL GOD is in
reality the *UNITY of Christ with His Father. Secondly, she taught
that the essence of God is exhibited in the life and character of the man
Christ Jesus and that, ultimately, the complete essence of God is itself
exhibited in the Godhead unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, in other words THE ETERNAL GODHEAD. Never, ever, did
she speak out against a trinity, only directly against Kellogg (a
Trinitarian) who mixed pantheism with the truth about the Godhead.

56

QUESTION 10
WHY DO ADVENTISTS TODAY ADMIT TO A TRINITY,
BUT NOT THE TRINITY OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM?
After looking at the full evidence discussed so far, it is now easy to see why
Adventists, since 1931, have accepted, and have been using, the word
trinity in referring to the Godhead. This, the Church has endeavored to do,
by the method of common consent over time, (not by Church decree);
despite there are those within the Church who differ in opinion on the matter.
This writer believes that every man should be convinced in his own mind; that
is his God-given right. This presentation is not forcing anyone to believe or
accept what it supports doctrinally, but is simply meant to show why, within
all good reason, Adventists can feel justified in being Trinitarians. When the
following points are borne in mind, it will be seen that the Adventist Churchs
acceptance of a Trinity (though not exactly the Roman Catholic
explanation), is an acceptance that has reasonable foundation.
REASONS WHY THE ADVENTIST CHURCH IS TRINITARIAN
Reason 1.
Firstly it must be recognized that no one has a divine copyright on the
doctrinal use of words, even if they were the first to coin or use certain words.
Christians cannot claim exclusive rights in the use of certain words coined to
express doctrines, such as hell, or the incarnation, or the millennium, or
the Trio in the Godhead. These words, though not originally found in the
Bible, do have some foundation in the scriptures, as Christians try to capture
in these words, what is evident in the scriptures, even though Christians may
sometimes differ in their explanations. The same is true of the noun trinity,
which comes from the Latin, TRINUS, and literally means a group of three
persons. Though the Catholics were among those first to doctrinally use the
word Trinity (certain Apostolic Fathers and other Church Fathers
predating Roman Catholicism used it too), they too have no exclusive rights
to how the word should be used, since its root meaning, drawn from the
prefix, tri (three), and the suffix, nity (union of), cannot be denied, that is,
57

it should denote a unity of a group of three persons or things. Even in


false religions, divine personalities existing in groups of threes, even being
of different sexes, have been called trinities. Thus the word trinity does
not properly mean, from its root, a single being or multi-faced person,
as Catholics have so used the word. In the same vein, Adventists could
not sensibly use the word Trio to mean only two (2) separate persons
or beings (a duo) in the Godhead (as some falsely claim), else this
would be a denial of the very root meaning of the word. This truth in
semantics is what J.H. Waggoner and R.F. Cottrell, two Adventist pioneers,
were seeking to remind Catholics of, when they stated, quote:
Is Christ the Father in the trinity? If so, how is he the Son? Or if he is
both Father and Son, how can there be a trinity? For *A TRINITY IS
THREE PERSONS [or supposed to be]. To recognize a trinity [a true group
of three persons, or trio], the *DISTINCTION [separation] between the
Father and the Son must be preserved.
J.H. Waggoner, Review and Herald, Vol. 22, Nov. 10, 1863, pg. 189
That one person is three persons, and that three persons are only one
person, is the doctrine [of the Godhead as explained by others at the time]
which we [Adventists] claim is contrary to reason and common sense. The
being and attributes [nature of] of God are above, beyond, out of reach of
my sense and reason, yet our Creator has made it an absurdity to us that
one person should be three persons, and three persons but one person
R.F. Cottrell, Review and Herald, July 6, 1869
Did this mean that the Adventist Church rejected the Three Persons in the
Godhead? Eventually NO! This, the evidence discussed earlier has clearly
shown! What Adventism clearly rejected then, about the Catholic
doctrine concerning the Eternal Godhead, was the explanation of how
the three persons are one.
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT, TOO MANY IN THE CHURCH TODAY
BELIEVE THAT, AN ANTI-TRINITARIAN POSITION IS EQUAL TO
AN ANTI-THREE-PERSONS- IN- THE -GODHEAD CONCEPT, OR
AN ANTI-TRIO-IN-THE- GODHEAD CONCEPT, WHEN THIS NOT
ALWAYS THE CASE.
58

It is true that Adventism did not at first use the word trinity to
express its Godhead doctrine. This, however, was understandable because of
the then strong anti-trinity sentiments, and even a denial, in some quarters,
of the third Person of the Godhead, in the early days of the Church. This
fact will be proven by concrete evidence, but a little later in this presentation.
Eventually, interestingly, the Adventist Church taught a Trio in the Eternal
Godhead, simply because Mrs. White was inspired enough to admit that
not only (in reality) is there a group of three persons (or Trio) in the
Godhead union of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, but that their oneness
is not numeric but spiritual, as John 17:21 stated. So, contrary to what
some in the Adventist Church may think, the Adventist Church is probably
the only church really teaching a true Godhead of three persons, since
there must be a distinction between the Father and Son if one is to
recognize a trinity, as J.H. Waggoner so unwittingly phrased it. The truth
about the meaning of words should be admitted to. There should not be the
throwing out the baby with the baby water as falsehood is rejected. This is
the challenge to you dear reader. Will you be honest in this?

Reason 2.
When Adventists are therefore said to be Trinitarian, it does not mean they
fully accept what all other Trinitarians teach about the Godhead, but only
what a true literally trinity is. To illustrate this point, let the reader bear in
mind that Adventists share the label Christian with all other Christians, but
this does not mean they fully accept what all other Christians deem to be
Christian (such as what the true Christian Sabbath is). Many forget that
pagans have even been the ones to have coined the word Christian, as a
mock and tease word for the followers of Christ in the pagan city of Antioch
(Acts 11:19-22, 25,26). Does this mean that the basic meaning of the word
Christian should be rejected, because of its pagan source, or because
denominations differ on what a Christian should be? Certainly not! The
same is true about the word trinity. Even the various dictionaries of the
world show that there are various definitions of what Christians call The
Trinity. However, all definitions have one common element, an undeniable
truth, that is, three divine Persons are in a cooperating union in the one
Godhead. Notice carefully the following definitions.
59

(a) COLLINS DICTIONARY

TRINITY (noun)- a unit formed of three persons (from Latin, trinus,


triple) and (in Christian theology)- the union of Three Divine Persons
(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in one Godhead
(b) OXFORD DICTIONARY
TRINITY (noun)- a group of three and (in Theology) The Three Persons of

the Christian Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), from Latin, trinus,
meaning threefold.
(c) WEBSTERS DICTIONARY
TRINITY (in Theology)- a threefold, consubstantial personality
[singular] existing in one Being or substance
(d) ENCARTA ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2000
TRINITY- in Christian theology, the doctrine that God exists as three
persons- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit- who are united in one substance or
being
Before going on, carefully note again that the Adventist Church uses
the word God to mean: (1) a class of persons having the divine nature
(or Godhead) and is called Deity, and (2) the person of the Father.
Grammatically, it is correct to say that Man, the class of beings with the
human nature, exist only as male and female. Likewise, to an Adventist, it is true

to say that God, or the class of beings with the divine nature, exist only as
three Persons. This is because that is what historic Adventism teaches; that
the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but are three
Persons! However there is only one Person of the Father; that is, one God,
the Father. It is also true to say that there is a union [cooperating group] of
Three Divine Persons in one Godhead, because that is what Adventism
believes. How many Godhead (union) is there? Only one! How many
persons are there in that one Godhead? Three! Let the reader here note
that the word Godhead, used to mean a cooperating union of three divine
Persons in Heaven, is (historically) exclusively Trinitarian. The true Adventist
cannot deny trinitarianism, because by the dictionary definitions of
the Godhead, to believe in the Three Persons of the Godhead, that is
what trinitarianismis! However you will quickly notice that there are
significant differences in the dictionary definitions of the Godhead:
60

(1)

In the definitions (c) and (d) above, some see God as one (1)
single, solitary Person or Being, but existing as three
extensions or forms (so- called persons) living in that one
indivisible substance. This is the orthodox (common)
Trinity explanation that Adventism was opposed to (see the
illustrative picture for this orthodox trinity below).

(2) In definitions (a) and (b), others see one (1) Godhead (a divine
nature and divine union) as, not one person, but a group of Three Divine
Persons (trio). This is historically what Adventism gradually came to
accept; a Godhead doctrine true to the root meaning of the word trinity.
ADVENTISM COULD NOT DENY TRINITARIANISM IN COURT!
The Adventist Church is technically Trinitarian because it clearly taught,
even when Mrs. White was alive, a group of three persons (or a Trio) in, what it
calls, the Eternal Godhead, not as an indivisible substance, but as a group of
inseparable persons who are united for all eternity (past, present and future).
Because the word trio (group of three persons) and the simple noun trinity (a
group of three persons) both mean the same thing literally (see the Oxford and Collins
Dictionary), the Adventist Church is in reality trinitarian. At least by one definition,
Adventists believe in and serve a group of three persons, or a union of three
Divine Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in one Godhead (the union). It must be
repeated, that is basic trinitarianism! Let the reader note the following overwhelming
evidence, which, in a court of law, would be enough to declare trinitarianism in
Adventism. The quoted phrases below, from Mrs. White (her exact words in underlined
quotation marks), can be easily verified, for accuracy, by anyone wishing to do so. The
lately published CD-ROM of her writings, along with the earlier quotations in this
presentation, would be a useful tool. The Seventh-day Adventist Church, evidenced by
the writings of Mrs. Ellen G. White (before her 1915 death), believed in the following
even before 1931:
61

1. That there exists the Eternal Godhead of Three Persons. The Church believed in a
Heavenly Trio. The word trio was clearly a coined word, just like trinity (also a
coined word), which sought to express a group of three living persons in the
Godhead, not the traditional Catholic view of one Being, with three forms existing in
one indivisible substance. Adventism felt that the traditional Trinity was misleading
because, in the true sense of the word, a trinity is three persons, literally a trio.
It taught, however, that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is also
God, and that the essence of God is found in Matthew 28:19, the Eternal Godhead.
2. That the Holy Spirit is not just the personality of another. Note carefully, He has a
personality (E.G. White, Evangelism, pg. 617). He is also a Divine Person, the
Third Person of the Godhead. He is described as a Heavenly Dignitary, as
omniscient (knowing all things), as infinite (beyond comprehension), as
Eternal (Heb. 9:14), and as God (Acts 5:3, 4/ 2 Sam. 23:2, 3). More importantly,
Mrs. White said we shouldserve the Spirit (compare Matt.4: 10). This alone amount to
trinitarianism, if nothing else does. Any Jehovahs Witness or Watch Tower Bible
student would know this to be true. Only those unable to or unwilling to come to grips
with our doctrinal history as a Church would continue to deny the obvious. Note again
dear reader the full impact of the following crucial evidence:
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 PERSONS [or personalities] of the Heavenly Trio; 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
E.G. White- Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pg. 63
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 God, the Father, Christ,
*and [thirdly] THE HOLY SPIRIT- the three Dignitaries and Powers of Heaven
E.G. White- Manuscript 85, 1901
Who are we only to serve in the spiritual sense? God! Adventism teaches what the
Bible declares; that the Father is God, Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is also God.
Adventism also teaches that these three are living Persons of the Eternal Godhead.
The truth here is obvious. That is basic trinitarianism!
However, Adventism CANNOT successfully show mathematically how the three
Persons, all called God, each having the fullness of the Godhead, make up one
[person] God, for this is impossible. It simply has to accept that the three persons are
one as John 17:21and 22 illustrates it.
3. The Adventist Church also taught that Jesus, though subject to the Father (in a
certain context), is with the Father, one in authority, not next in authority. He is also
62

Sovereign (supreme ruler), equal in dignity (rank, title, office) and glory with
Him. Jesus is the Deity because he is one with God. The existence of a personal
God is the unity of Christ with His Father. Jesus and the Father are of one
substance. Jesus was from all eternity God over all, along with the Father, and is
Himself called Jehovah God or the I AM because, though begotten from eternity,
He was a distinct (separate) person, not from partial eternity, but from all eternity.
This again is basic trinitarianism!

CONCLUSION
Truth is truth, though it may make you uncomfortable, or it may surprise you, or it may
force you to rethink your position, or it may even make you unable to answer all
questions about that truth. The truth is that the Adventist Church, gradually, in its
history, showed the basic features of Trinitarianism, even before 1931 (when the
*term was first officially adopted), even if it was of a different kind from the
original. This conclusion is not based on speculation, but on factual evidence. The
blindest person is he who will not see. Amen!

QUESTION 11
DID THE FOUNDERS OF AND THE EARLY PIONEERS
IN ADVENTISM OPPOSE THE ORIGINAL TRINITY?
WHY?
After reading the answer to question 10 in this presentation, it is clear that the
answer is yes! However, an honest, open, and frank analysis of the Seventhday Adventist Churchs history, of the development of its Godhead
doctrine, will continue to reveal a truth which some are unable, or unwilling,
to recognize. This is a truth that many non-Adventist writers have
discovered independently by surveying for themselves the Churchs doctrinal
history before 1915. This truth even outsider writers and religious critics have
discovered for themselves (with some of these writers still calling the Church
a cult, despite this discovery- see under Question 17). This truth was dealt
with frankly and openly under Question 10. Read it again dear reader. But for
the record it must be re-iterated that the Adventist Church, gradually, in its
history, showed the basic features of Trinitarianism, even before 1931
63

(when the term was first officially adopted), but of a different kind from
the original.
There are those in Adventism, however, who are so anti-Catholic, and
so anti-Trinity, that the real truth gets lost on them, or gets thrown out
by them, in their passionate or emotional bid to be separate. And in this bid
to appear not to have anything even distantly resembling what Catholics
believe about the Eternal Godhead, they go to the extreme of twisting and
even denying the very root meanings of certain words that have long been
historically used in Adventism. Though to an honest, unbiased thinker, that
action would appear ridiculous, if not dishonest, however, to some dissidents
in Adventism today, calling themselves Adventists, that is what the message
of Rev. 14:6-12 seemingly call upon them to do: twist and deny. And yet they
wish not to have any doctrinal guile in their mouth regarding the Godhead.
Notice carefully some words and phrases, which though they have
long been used in Adventism from its pioneering days, some in the Church
today twist or deny even their very root meanings, in order to appear antiTrinitarian. To them the following has nothing to do with what the dictionary
says:
WORDS USED BY THE PIONEERS, BEING DENIED BY SOME TODAY

Eternal Godhead- does not mean three persons with the divine nature,
but the Father only
Trio- does not mean three persons but only two (a duo)
Third- (when it relates to the Holy Spirit) does not mean separate from and
coming after 1st and 2nd, but an extension of 1st
Person- (when it relates to the Holy Spirit) does not always mean an
individual being but sometimes a split-personality of one person, similar to
what a mad-man has (when it relates to the Holy Spirit)
From all eternity when it relates to Jesus, it does not mean the complete
measure of eternity, but partial eternity or everlasting in a limited sense
Of one substance- when it relates to Jesus in the divine sense, it does not
mean that He and the Father, different persons, have the same attributes, but
64

must mean they are the same identical person numerically, however when
used of Jesus in the human sense it does mean that He is related to us, as a
different person, but is not an extension of us
Equal in dignity- when it relates to Jesus, it does not mean He is on the
same level with the Father, but inferior in rank, title, or office, while being
equal in nature only with Him
One in authority- when it relates to Jesus, it does not mean equal or united
in authority, but next to, or inferior, in authority to the Father.

Now if this is not heresy, a denial of fundamental doctrine,


as it concerns the meanings of words used in the Godhead
doctrine, then what is? If this is not doctrinal confusion of the
highest order, and even dishonesty, then what is?
Let the reader take note that it was precisely this type of doctrinal
confusion that the Adventist pioneers were opposed to when they objected to
the original Trinity, based on the then explanation being given in the
1800s. Someone had to bring back the true meaning to words, and break the
cycle of confusion. The word Babylon has come to mean religious
confusion, and that is precisely what the Adventist Church broke away from
through the bold stand of the pioneers. But some may argue: is the Adventist
Church not back in religious confusion to accept a Trinity, and does this
not mean that Babylon taught Adventism the truth about the Eternal
Godhead? To this the honest answer is:
Adventism was not taught the truth about the Eternal Godhead by
Catholicism, no more than it was taught the truth about Christmas.
True Adventism was honest enough to show an acceptance of what is
truth about an issue, but equal rejection of what is error concerning that
very same issue. Christmas, seen as associated with paganism, and even
offensive by many, was accommodated in Adventism, because of:
(1) the Christian event with which it is associated, (2) the spirit of
goodwill that it brings, and (3) the missionary opportunities that it
affords that time of the year. Its date (December 25) however, was
rejected as error (see Mrs. White, on Christmas, in the book
Adventist Home). That is what is called having a balanced view, as
65

opposed to fanaticism. Likewise, Adventism was probably the first


Protestant Church to bring back clarity and accuracy to the undeniable
truth of three persons in the Eternal Godhead. This it has done by
consistently using the word trio, which literally means three persons,
not one person with three forms, and not two persons (a duo) united in
spirit. However, it rejected the traditional Trinity explanation of the
Eternal Godhead, to be an indivisible threefold substance, despite
having to admit to and share in certain basic truths about the true root
meaning of the word trinity, that is, quote, a trinity is three persons,
literally. So it accepted, eventually, that there are literally three
persons (a Trio) in the union of the Eternal Godhead.
WHAT ADVENTIST PIONEERS REJECTED
What did the pioneers really reject, when they rejected the Trinity in
1844 and onwards? No amount of twisting can hide the following truth from
the careful reader, and the deep, reflective, and honest thinker.
Among a few other things related to the then Trinity (e.g. the eternal
generation or continuous begetting of Jesus), what Adventists were united
in rejecting was the *EXPLANATION of the Eternal Godhead being a
threefold indivisible substance. In terms of the now accepted three persons
of the Heavenly Trio, that was then the only existing widespread
explanation of the Eternal Godhead, at the time of the Churchs formation
in 1844, and onwards (even William Miller was an avowed traditional
Trinitarian up to his death). Adventism had not yet fully formulated its own
version of the Godhead doctrine. This explanation was what was called the
Trinity, so in rejecting this explanation, they also rejected what was
popularly accepted by most Churches to be the Trinity, in favor of the true
explanation, the Trio. Similarly they rejected, among other things, what was
popularly accepted and explained to be the Christian Sabbath, Sunday (see
under Question 13), in favor of the true Christian Sabbath explanation, the
seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday). So today, if an Adventist is asked whether he
believes in the Christian Sabbath, or in Christian baptism, or in the
Communion Service, or in Hell, or in the Second Coming or parousia
of Christ, or Rapture of the saints, or in Christmas, or in the Trinity, the
necessary question, before responding, should be: Which version or
explanation do you mean?
66

To Catholics and most Protestants (including Unitarians), the


oneness of the Eternal Godhead was numeric, not so much a spiritual
and inseparable union as found in John 17: 21,22, or Gen 2:24, but a
oneness that was indivisible as the number one (1). See again the
illustrative picture of this concept below. This meant that the Godhead
substance, being indivisible, could not form separate beings (as is the case
with Jesus the Divine Son), or the result, they feared, would be Gods.

However, the Adventists pioneers were Biblically convinced that though the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all fully God, they are not one Person or
individual Being, but are a Trio, literally three Persons. If this is not what
was literally meant, as some would mislead us to think, then Adventism
would be forever handicapped with hard-to-explain-away words (such as
Trio, and the Third Person of the Godhead), and the following E.G.
White quote, but evidently chosen by its pioneers to express special truths
about its doctrine of the Eternal Godhead.
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 fallingWhen 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.)
67

Today, because true Adventists recognize, and insist upon, the true root
meaning in words, certain dissidents within the ranks of Adventism, having
itching minds, continue to plague the Church with logic questions, as if the
Eternal Godhead is a mathematical problem given to us to solve. But the
pioneers, after gradually, and eventually, finding their way to truth, were very
clear in their meanings, and their choice of words used to express these
meanings. Note the following examples:
If it be said that the spirit of the Father, and the [the spirit of the] Son, and
the [spirit of] the Holy Ghost is one spirit [that is, similar substance, mind,
and personality], with this we [Adventists] all agree. But if it be said that the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three persons in one person,
making in all one God without body or parts [in the sense of the absence of
separate and different individuals], with an idea so inconsistent we cannot
agree. The oneness of Christ with the Father [existing together as a
personal God, according to Mrs. White] may be plainly seen by any who
will refer to John 17:22. That they (that believe) may be one, even as [or in
the same way] we are one. Who could believe that Christ prayed that His
disciples should be one disciple? Yet this would be no more inconsistent
than the idea of some that Christ and His Father are one Person.
Review and Herald, Vol. 9, No. 19, pg. 146
That is very revealing. But is anything wrong in saying that the Persons of the
Godhead are one God, at least from the Adventist perspective? What would
this mean? Note again the words of the leading pioneer, Mrs. White:
The existence of *A PERSONAL GOD [singular], the *UNITY of
Christ with His Father [not just the Father, but a plurality of divine
Persons], lies at the foundation of all true science [and true religion]. From
nature [our common experience] we can only gain an imperfect idea of the
greatness and majesty of God. We see the working of His power and His
wisdom, but He Himself is above our comprehension.
E.G. White- Manuscript 30, Oct. 29, 1904
There is no getting around this statement, and the earlier mentioned
three beings quote of E.G. White! That is true Adventism talking about,
68

note carefully, a personal God, SINGULAR! Who was mentioned here, one
person only? No! More than one person in unity! Dear reader, you can
almost hear the critics arguing: how is this possible? How can more than one
person be a personal God, and not Gods? Thus science and logic take
precedence over spiritual discernment. Logic has a place, since it is logic that
says that the Father and Son are separate individuals. However, at some point,
science and logic must bow before the truth, that there is a spiritual unity
between the Father and the Son, which is so close, that it is above and beyond
logic (see Gen 2:24). That is why Mrs. White was able to say, in the above
quote, that God is above our comprehension. Note again the words of Mrs.
White on the nature of this unity in the Godhead (emphasis in brackets []
supplied:
As Gods servants [Adventists] proclaim these things [about the unity or
oneness of the Godhead Persons], Satan steps up to some, who have itching
minds, and presents his scientific [or logic] problems. Men will be tempted
to place science [logic] above God [e.g. how can three be one and one be
three?]. But who by searching can find out God? Men may put their own
interpretation upon God, but no human mind can comprehend Him. This
problem [of His being and unity] has not been given us to solve [whether
mathematically, scientifically or logically]. Let not finite man [are you?]
attempt to interpret Jehovah. Christ is one [united] with the Father [John
10:30,33] are two distinct [separate] Personages [or beings]. Read the
prayer of Christ [as a man] in the seventeenth chapter of John [see
especially John 17:21,22] and you will find this point clearly brought out.
But the unity [oneness] does not destroy the Personality [separate being]
of either [the Father or the Son].
-E.G. White- Manuscript 58, May 19, 1905

That is very, very clear dear reader. And notice what her subject was about in
the above quote, the unity of the Godhead Persons!! Thus the theme has
been consistent throughout: Adventism rejected, not the Three Persons,
nor their full and individual divinity, nor the Eternal Godhead
union, but instead, the explanation of them being one indivisible being, as
traditional Trinitarians then explained the oneness of the Godhead.
69

You will note however that, in dealing with the unity, Mrs. White
referred to more than one Person as a personal God. She further stated that
itching minds would want to place science above God and interpret
Jehovah. It is evident that itching minds would do this in one of two ways.
Some would try to mathematically solve the unity by interpreting, and
representing, the three persons united, as the indivisible number one (1), in
order to preserve the truth of Deut. 6:4. On the other hand, some would go to
the other extreme of calling the three persons in the Godhead, Gods, as
Satan originally did in Gen 3:5, because logic, they think, defies any other
description. But the real truth is obvious! The unity of the Godhead is not
our problem to solve mathematically. Neither should we, by using
logic, deny or twist the truth about the reality of three Persons in the
Eternal Godhead. Neither should one oppose all that is called God
(2 Thessalonians 2:4), by proclaiming that to serve the Father, the
Son, and Holy Spirit, as God(divine), must mean that you are
blasphemously serving three Gods. All that should be accepted is the
truth as evident in the scriptures, and confirmed by the Spirit of
Prophecy, though it may be of the most mysterious nature. That is all
that faith asks.

70

QUESTION 12
DID SOME OF THE ADVENTIST PIONEERS MAKE
MISTAKES ON THE SUBJECT OF THE GODHEAD, AND
WHAT EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IS THERE OF THIS?
The leading pioneer in Adventism, Mrs. White, in Selected Messages,
Volume 1, page 165, and in Manuscript 11, 1910, declared distinctly that
there were errors in our older literature, which called for careful study and
correction. This is evidence of Christian honesty, frankness, and openness,
coming from an inspired person, on the doctrinal history of the Adventist
Church. This is the honesty, which some find it difficult to exhibit, as they try
desperately to over defend the divine calling of the Church and its pioneers.
Well, who could have said it better than Mrs. White, that the pioneers made
doctrinal mistakes in the first fifty years of the Churchs existence? Let the
reader take note that, this does not mean that everything written by the early
pioneers was of an erroneous nature. It does mean, however, that the Church
gradually acquired a later doctrinal maturity which rendered some earlier
statements in print ERRONEOUS! And if be said, by some in the Adventist
Church today, that to find errors in the writings of the early pioneers is equal
to discrediting them and their true calling, then the following two (2) things
are evident in this kind of argument:
[1] Indirectly, it would be charging Mrs. White also with discrediting
her own pioneering colleagues, and the divine nature of the Churchs calling
[2] At the same time, it would be ascribing doctrinal infallibility to the
early pioneers, a trait that not even the early Disciples of Christ possessed,
when they first started following Jesus
However, since in reality this could not be the case in both instances
(mentioned above), there is therefore no difficulty involved in refuting this
faulty view, that there are not errors in the Churchs older literature. Hear
the words of another leading pioneer, I.H. Evans, at that time president of the
North American Division Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, regarding
the corrective work of Mrs. White on doctrinal matters:

71

During those early years [of the first fifty years] of development,
much depended upon the unity and faith of the believers. On many
occasions when the little companies were uncertain in their course, or were
DIVIDED IN THEIR COUNCILS, Sister White presented what God had
shown her in dream or vision, and plainly marked the way this people
[Adventists] should go. The Church has ever tried and intended to follow
this instruction; BECAUSE OF IT STRONG MEN HAVED CHANGED
THEIR VIEWPOINT Here and there from time to time some have
broken from the denomination, under the leadership of those who refused
to accept the instruction given; but all this breaking away has come to
naught, and most of those who departed from the light given have made sad
shipwreck of their faith
I.H. Evans, Review and Herald, July 29, 1915
The truth is that, this foregoing quote gives reason why some of Mrs.
Whites statements differ considerably with some earlier statements made by
early pioneers, in the Churchs older literature. The important and
corrective nature of Mrs. Whites writings have been stated categorically by
Mrs. White herself in the following way:
All truths are immortalized in my writings. The Lord never denies His word. Men
may set up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will seek to seduce souls from the
truth, but all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister White, and has given
her a message, will be safe from many delusions that will come in these last days
E.G. White- Manuscript Release, pg. 22, 23

In another place she described her writings as the lesser light leading to
the understanding of the greater light (The Bible), a principle understood
when one considers the story of the Apostle Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch.
Phillip asked: Understandest what thou readest? Then the Holy Spirit used
him, an inspired person, to guide the eunuch to a deeper understanding of the
Bible, in answer to his response: How can I except someone teaches me? So
it may be true that at times someone inspired is needed to guide ones
interpretation of the Bible, as the pioneers of the S.D.A. Church then needed,
on some issues. The Bible only, or sola scriptura is the Adventist
Churchs only creed, but some have so twisted its truths and meanings that the
72

only safety lies in doctrines substantiated by the Spirit, according to Mrs.


White.
The truth is that, while the pioneers were sincere and obviously called of
God, they did make some mistakes on the subject of the Godhead, as well
as on other subjects, which was corrected by the writings of Mrs. White. And
this does not only refer to Dr Kellogg (referred to earlier under Question 9)
and others who apostatized (such as D.M. Canright), but also to some of the
long-standing pioneers who continued with the Church until death. *And let
the reader here note, before moving on, that, if it be said that Dr Kellogg
and D.M. Canright ONLY accepted the Three Persons of the Trinity when
they left the Advent faith, that too is a short-sighted view. It should be
remembered that what they accepted, in joining another Church, was the
faulty explanation of the Three being one NUMERIC organism, not as
Three Living Persons(of separate minds and consciousness) of the
Heavenly Trio, who are one in the sense that John 17:21 and 22
explains it.

PAST ERRORS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE


GODHEAD
The following evidence will be clear to the honest reader and deep thinker.
And let the reader take note that the following is just a sample of the errors
on record, concerning the subject of the Godhead.
1. ON THE DIVINITY OF THE TRIO IN THE ETERNAL GODHEAD
If Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God [divine], it would be three Gods;
for three times one is not one but three. There is a sense in which they are one, but not
one person
J.N. Loughborough, Review and Herald, Vol. 18, Nov. 5, 1861
Let the reader take note that the last part of this statement is obviously correct,
that the Three are not one person. However, one has only to refer to John 1:1 / Heb.
1:8, 10/ 2 Sam. 23:2,3 / Acts 5:3,4 and Acts 13:2-4, and both the personhood of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and more importantly, the fact that each are called
God, will be clearly seen, in contrast to the first part of this statement.
73

Before going on, carefully note again that the Adventist Church uses the word
God to mean: (1) a class of persons having the divine nature (or Godhead) and
is called the Deity, and (2) the person of the Father. As was stated earlier, to
deny that each Person in the Godhead is God or Divine, simply because they are not
all the one Person of the Father (nor three Gods), show either lack of insight or failure
to accept by faith the obvious; that the Godhead is not our problem to solve, just a
reality to accept by faith.

2. ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS


The idea of an eternal Son is a self-contradiction
J.M. Stephenson, Review and Herald, Vol. 6, Nov.14, 1854
The Father only is self-existent
Creature signifies creation [comments on Col 1:15]; hence to be firstborn of every
creature, He [Jesus] must be a created being
J.M. Stephenson, The Atonement, 1854, pgs. 50 and133
Testimonies [Biblical] show that Christ is now an object of worship equally with the
Father; but they do not prove that with Him he holds an *ETERNITY of past
existence.
Uriah Smith, Daniel and Revelation (1882 version), pg. 430
Complete eternity [all eternity], past present, and future, can be applicable only to
God, the Father. This language we believe is never applied to Christ.
Uriah Smith, Thoughts on Revelation, 1865, pg. 14

As the pioneers struggled with the context of the truth, of Jesus being
begotten and being the firstborn of every creature, they clearly needed the
later corrective insights of Mrs. White. She affirmed that Adventism later
came to see that Jesus, though pictured as begotten, was however
uncreated, is self-existent, and has life original, unborrowed, and
underived. He was also affirmed to be, not just now, but from all eternity,
God over all, and was so as a distinct person. Also there never was a
time when He was not in close fellowship with the Father, even in the
dateless ages from all eternity. The contrast in these two sets of
pioneering statements, here quoted, is so clear that no further elucidation is
needed. Compare Micah 5:2 / Psalm 93:2 / Hebrews 7:3 / Revelation 22:12,13
on the eternal pre-existence of Jesus.
74

3. ON JESUS EQUAL DEITY AND AUTHORITY WITH THE FATHER


He [the Father] is the only Supreme Ruler [Sovereign]. There cannot be two
supreme rulers at the same time.
-J.M. Stephenson, Review and Herald, Vol. 6, Nov. 14, 1854
The Father is the greatest in that He is first. The Son is next in authority
James White, Review and Herald, Jan. 4, 1881

These statements are understandable, written as they were before the


1888 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (James White died in
1881, and J.M. Stephenson had left the Church before then). At the 1888
General Session, the Church accepted fully and officially, for the first time,
the absolute Deity (Divinity) of Christ, in terms of in relation to the old
truths about the constituent persons of the Eternal Godhead, and came to
believe, in a new light, along with Dr. E.J. Waggoner and E.G. White that,
quote:
Only a transcendent [incomprehensible, pertaining to God] Christ who is
completely and intrinsically one of the constituent Persons of the Eternal Godhead
[of three living Persons] in the *HIGHEST [nothing higher] sense could be our all
sufficient Creator Christ is a part of the Godhead possessing all the attributes of
Divinity [being God], being the equal of the Father in ALL respects [nothing left out].
-E.J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, 1890, pgs. 43-45
I have been shown that Jesus will reveal to us precious OLD TRUTHS in a NEW
[revised] LIGHT, if we are ready to receive themYou say, many of you, it
[E.J. Waggoners message] is light and truth. Yet you have not presented it in this light
[in keeping with the truth of the Eternal Godhead of three Persons] heretofore [before]
E.G. White- commenting on the 1888 Message, Manuscript 15, 1888

Nowhere does the Bible say only the Father is First (see Rev. 1:8 /
Rev. 2:8 / Rev. 22:12, 13). Mrs. White could thus constantly affirm (after the
1888 Conference) what the Church had eventually accepted that, though as a
man Jesus was even lower than the angels, making the Father greater than
He was then (see Hebrews 2:3-8), He is (in reality) *equal Sovereign of
Heaven or supreme Ruler along with the Father. Notice her choice of
words here. JESUS WAS ALSO AFFIRMED TO BE ONE IN AUTHORITY [EQUAL AND
UNITED] WITH THE FATHER (see again pages 36-37 of this presentation for the
evidence). This was in perfect keeping with the Bible declaring Him to be
First with the Father, not next to in authority, but equally King of Kings
75

and Lord of Lords (or ruler of all), just like the Father. So today the
Adventist Church has matured doctrinally to recognize that when united, the
Father and Son (more than one person) are together, in the words of Mrs.
White, our personal God, they are together the Deity and they are also
together Sovereign (supreme ruler) in the universe. The simple truth is
that, if Jesus is, according to E. J. Waggoner (and endorsed by Mrs. White), equal
with the Father in all respects, there cannot be any other but following an
endorsement of this statement by the pioneers, except to say He and the Father are
not the same person. Nothing can be taken away from the statement being the
equal of the Father in all respects, except for what heresy, or a denial of
fundamental doctrine, would evidently cause one to try to do. Dear reader, there

can be no dilly-dallying in this matter. The words of the pioneers in true


Adventism ring loud and clear on the issue. Let not the subtle spirit of the
anti-Christ blind you!
4. ON THE HOLY SPIRITS PERSONHOOD
Respecting this Spirit [the Holy Spirit], the Bible uses expressions which cannot be
harmonized with the idea that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is
shown to be *A DIVINE INFLUENCE [a thing] from them both Usually it is
spoken of in a way to show that it cannot be a person, like the Father and the Son
If it were a person, it would be nothing strange for it to appear in bodily shape [like a
mans]; and yet when it has so appeared, that fact has been noted as peculiar. Thus
Luke 3:22 says: and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove.
Uriah Smith, Review and Herald, Oct. 28, 1890

This is one of the clearest statements on record, of a well-respected


and leading pioneer, in the older literature of Adventists, denying even the
personhood of the Holy Spirit. In fact, his article quoted here was in direct
response to an Adventist question, which asked: Are we to understand that
the Holy Spirit is a person? The questioner further went on to comment that,
some [in Adventism] claim that it is, and others claim that it is not, thus
reflecting the searching and explorative nature of Adventism on this question
at the time. This reflected the early infant state of the Church at the time,
where the evidently differing viewpoints, as well as the gradual changes in
viewpoints, can be shown, as the Church developed a more mature approach
to controversial issues, such as the nature of the Holy Spirit. Notice the
differing, and yet open viewpoints, of two other pioneers, writing on the same
issue, before Mrs. Whites viewpoints came later:
76

Just what the Holy Spirit is, is a mooted question among theologians,
and we may not hope to give a positive answer, but we may learn something of its
nature and the part it acts in human salvation.
J.E. Swift- Our Companion, Review and Herald, July 3,1883, pg.421
He [the Holy Spirit] is included in the apostolic benediction [2 Cor. 13:14],
and is spoken by our Lord [Jesus] as acting in an independent and personal capacity
as Teacher, Guide and Comforter. He is an object of veneration, and is a heavenly
intelligence, everywhere present, and is always present. 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 and Herald, June 9, 1896, pg. 362

Notice that one writer emphasized the Spirit as an it, while the other
emphasized the He of the Spirit, His independent and personal
capacity, and that He is an object of veneration as a heavenly
intelligence. And yet both writers were pioneers living at the same time
with Uriah Smith, and *writing in the same magazine, the Review and
Herald (now The Aventist Review).
It is therefore evident that, up to this point (the late 1800s) there was still no
real consensus on this issue. Thus Uriah Smith, in the foregoing quote gave, it
is evident, his personal opinion; that the Holy Spirit is a divine influence. In
response to this historical fact, it must be said, first of all, that Uriah Smith
evidently, at the time of writing, forgot that the Holy Spirit appeared as a
He with a personal form in Ezekiel 8:1-5, and was regarded by the
Apostles as a person in Acts 13:2-4. All he seemed to focus on at the time was
the symbols and emblems that the Holy Spirit was metaphorically presented
as. He seemed to have forgotten that even Jesus Himself appeared as a
burning bush, as pillars of fire and cloud, that His soul was described as
poured out unto death (Is. 53:12), and that Satan (a spirit being) could fill
the heart of a person (Acts 5:3), in just the same way that descriptively the
Spirit is pictured as poured out, and fills Christians (compare Ez. 3:24).
Secondly, this statement by Uriah Smith is a total contrast to what
Mrs. White later testified to in Desire of Ages in 1898, and other writings
afterwards. But this was understandable since Uriah Smith was strictly
Arian in his thinking (See Question 18 in this presentation on Arians)
before gradually adjusting his views, as a more doctrinally-mature Seventhday Adventist. He gradually had to break with the ideas that:
77

[1] Christ was created (stated in Thoughts on Revelation, 1865, pg.59)


[2] The Holy Spirit was simply an afflatus, or divine impulse or energy,
and a divine influence (as stated in Review and Herald, Oct. 28,1890, from
which the foregoing quote was taken).
These were clearly Arian viewpoints in the strictest sense.
Careful research by this writer has revealed that Uriah Smiths earlier
stance, on the creation of Christ from eternity, was abandoned, but it is not
absolutely clear whether, when he died (in 1903), he still held his previous
views about the Holy Spirit. From the available evidence, it can be argued
that this was probably the case. Historically, it can be shown however, that
Uriah Smith often differed doctrinally with Mrs. White, but only in some
things. The contrasting, but inspired view of Mrs. White on the Holy Spirit
(which came later), is on record for all to see. Let us take another look:
The Holy Spirit came upon the waiting, praying disciples with a fullness that reached
every heart. The Infinite One revealed Himself in power to His ChurchE.G. White- Acts of the Apostles, 1910, pgs. 38,39

Who was being described here as the Infinite One? The Person of the
Holy Spirit! Only a Divine Person, in the fullest sense, having all the
fullness of the Godhead, is Infinite. Lest it be said that this writer is taking
liberty in this interpretation, let the reader refer to S.D.A. Bible Commentary,
Volume 6, and page 1075, where it will be clearly seen that Mrs. White
equally referred to the Holy Spirit as one of the powers infinite (all
powerful and incomprehensible) and omniscient (knowing all), not just the
Father and the Son.
Now notice carefully that, it was in describing the Spirits coming on
the Day of Pentecost, that Mrs. White sought to emphasize Him as the Third
Person of the Godhead, as a living Person of the Heavenly Trio, as
having the fullness of the Godhead, and that there are three Persons, not
two or a duo, in the Eternal Godhead. It would take considerable denial,
and or twisting of words, to believe that she meant otherwise. If as some
claim, the Spirit is just the extension of the Father, the symbol of unity
between the Father and the Son, and is not a living Person, neither is He the
Third Person of the Godhead, it could be charged upon Mrs. White that she
78

has not made it easy to see that viewpoint, because of the descriptive words
she chose to use, and the time when she chose to use them.
Carefully analyze her choice of words, and her timing in the use of those
words, in the following quote:
The Comforter whom Jesus promised to send is the Spirit in all the fullness of the
Godhead [compare Col 2:9]. There are [now notice the timing here] three living
Persons [or personalities] of the Heavenly Trio [a group of three persons]; in the
name of these three Great Powers- the Father [a person], the Son [a person], and the
Holy Spirit [also a Divine Person, the third Person of the Godhead Ev. pg. 617],
those who receive Christ are baptized- E.G. White- Special Testimonies, 1905,
Series B, No.7, pg. 63

Only one bent on denial, or dishonesty, would think that this is equally what
Uriah Smith was saying in 1890, fifteen years before Mrs. White made this
statement. Who could believe that Mrs. White was here saying that the Holy
Spirit is not a person, but is just being personified in the Father and the Son,
as Uriah Smith, and others before and after Him (even today in Adventism),
believed? Only one who is skilful at twisting and denying evident truth could
accomplish this. It abuses literacy and reason to believe that the foregoing
quote should not be taken as it reads. Dear reader judge for yourself, by
reading this quote again carefully, with a dictionary as your guide (also
comparing the facts given under Question 3 in this presentation).

THE PIONEERS EVENTUALLY SAW ALL TRUTH


In closing on this question, it must be stated that it was evident that the

Spirit of Prophecy writings was a molding and guiding influence in the


Churchs understanding of doctrine. The Adventist Church eventually
found its way through uncertainty on some issues, to a point where it
could have reasonable consensus on the matter of the Godhead
Persons. For Adventism, between the 1800s and 1915, the truth about the
Godhead, was found between two extremes. On one extreme was the
traditional explanation of the Trinity, not being true to the root
meaning of the words tri (indicating three persons) and nity (union),
as J.H. Waggoner indicated. This explanation saw the Eternal
Godhead as simply a threefold consubstantial personality (singular),
79

or indivisible substance. On the other extreme was the Unitarian (and


Arian) doctrine of the Eternal Godhead being seen as only the Person
of the Father, with Jesus being inferior or limited, in one way or the
other, no matter how exalted He might have been, and the Holy Spirit as
a divine influence. Adventism rejected both explanations and found the
truth in the middle:
A SUMMARY OF WHAT THE ADVENTIST PIONEERS ACCEPTED ABOUT
THE GODHEAD
[1] That there is, in reality, the Eternal Godhead, only one (1) in number
[2] That there is a Heavenly Trio [group of three persons] who are united in that
one Godhead union, and that a a trinity is three persons (or is supposed to be,
that is, distinct or separate) in the true sense of the word (from its root meanings)
[3] That the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (as distinct persons) are all God,
or Divine, each having the fullness of the Godhead, being powers infinite and
omniscient
[4] That the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead, because He is also a
Divine Person, being one of the three living persons of the Heavenly Trio who
has a personality
[5] That the three Persons in the Godhead, all called God, are not one person, and
are not three Gods
[6] That there is one God, the Father [or one divine person of the Father], and one
Lord Jesus Christ [or one true human Messiah or Christ, who is Lord or God]
[7] That Jesus is, mysteriously, fully God (divine) and fully man, being of one
substance with the Father, and of one substance with us, that is, having the same
attributes
[8] That Jesus was, from all eternity, both the Mediator of the Covenant and
also God over all, yet He was so as a distinct Person, existing with the Father in
the dateless ages of all eternity.
[9] That Jesus, when on earth, only His human nature died. His Deity did not
sink or die, that would have been impossible
80

[7] That, while it can be compared in some ways with human nature, there are
certain logical and comprehension difficulties involved in the Godhead doctrine,
that is, the nature, and the union among the Godhead Persons. It is however not a
scientific problem that has been given us to solve. Let none venture to
interpret Jehovah or explain God or enter into controversy over the topic.

Let the reader here ponder the foregoing, then join the writer in saying:
Amen!

QUESTION 13
WHAT IS ROMES GREATEST CHALLENGE TO, AND
ITS GREATEST HOLD OVER PROTESTANTISM? IS IT
THE TRINITY DOCTRINE?
Experience has taught this writer that what determines truth is not how
passionately one states a matter, how much zealous conviction is involved, or even how
intense is ones sincerity about what is stated, but truth is determined only by evidence.
There are those who believe that the greatest stranglehold that Roman Catholicism
(Rome baptized) has over general Christendom, and most of Protestantism, is what she
herself proclaims to be its chief doctrine, that is, the Trinity. However, no matter how
often this is repeated, and no matter how passionately this view may be stated or
presented, that does not necessarily make it the truth. Whether this view is true or not, or
is deemed to be correct in true Adventism, can be tested by plain declarations, and
sometimes by circumstantial evidence, in pioneering Adventism. So, let us calmly,
objectively, and honestly look at this matter.
If, as some assume, admitting to a trinity (three persons in the Godhead), no
matter the differing explanation from the original, this constitutes the greatest danger one
faces in contending with Babylon, then a number of things would prove this to be true.
[1] If the Trinity was Romes greatest challenge to, and would be its greatest
stranglehold over Protestantism (including Adventism in the future) Mrs. White would
not, could not, within all justifiable reason, ignore or fail to mention it. What do we
find however? The truth is that Mrs. White, in ALL of Spirit of Prophecy
writings, never even once mentioned, much more to condemn a Trinity, what
some call the greatest form of doctrinal error. What is even more remarkable is the
fact that the very important book Great Controversy, a book especially written to
81

highlight the prominent doctrinal errors of Babylon and the Papal system, totally
ignored the subject. Chapter 3 of this book (both the 1888 and 1911 versions published
while she was alive) highlighted the chief doctrinal errors of Roman Catholicism, among
which were mentioned the adoration of Mary (as divine), the exaltation of the Pope (as
God) and Sunday (his mark of authority), the blasphemous work of priests, and the
supposed mediatorial work of dead saints and Mary; all errors which eclipse the true
worship of Jehovah. And yet the subject of the Trinity was not even mentioned, much
more to be referred to as the chief error? How could this be? According to Mrs. White in
Chapter 3, entitled An Era of Spiritual Darkness, the supposed immortality of the soul
is what was seen as prominent among, quote, the serious errors introduced into the
Christian faith, an issue she further devoted a whole chapter to, Chapter 33.
Was a Trinity mentioned anywhere in Chapter 3, or even the entire book? No! This,
while remarkable, is also very revealing.
What is even more revealing is that, she did not mention the Trinity in the face
of much of her pioneering colleagues having Semi-Arian and anti-Trinitarian
perspectives. She was very aware that many of her pioneering colleagues thought, just
like some in the Church today, that a Trinity, no matter the variation in explanation, is
the chief doctrinal error of the Babylon and the Papacy. Many of them, in the earlier
years, were even judgmental of the idea that all three (3) Persons of the Eternal
Godhead should be served. She was then bound by duty, it would seem, to show support
for her colleagues when her greatest chance came to write about the Trinity, if she felt it
was the most crucial issue at stake, or the most serious error to be avoided. For a woman
who quoted so profusely from historians and religious writers, who placed on record
their disagreement with the Trinity (e.g. the Albigenses and Edward Gibbon in Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire), it is remarkable that a woman of such deep spiritual
insight, and being the chief watcher on the walls of Zion, went against all
expectations and ignored the subject of the Trinity. There can only be one conclusion.
The truth is, the original Trinity is not the chief doctrinal error of Babylon, only
certain aspects of its teaching needed correction. That is very, very clear!
[2] If the Trinity was Romes greatest challenge to, and would be its greatest
stranglehold over Protestantism (including Adventism in the future), Uriah Smith
would not, could not, also fail to mention the subject in his greatest work Daniel
and the Revelation. Keep in mind that he was vocally anti-Trinitarian (probably
because of being associated with the Christian Connection, an Arian group). Of all the
persons, you would therefore expect him, probably more than any other, to directly speak
to this issue in his most widely read book. What do we see however? As he developed a
more mature doctrinal understanding, he not only abandoned some of his previously held
Arian viewpoints on Jesus but notice, he also did not highlight the Trinity as the chief
doctrinal error of Babylon in writing the book. The subject was not even

mentioned, in the entire book. Why?


82

In the chapter entitled Gods Final Warning, expounding on Revelation 14, he


mentioned over twenty (20) doctrinal errors of Babylon and the Papacy (including
those later highlighted by Mrs. White in Great Controversy), and yet he did not
mention the Trinity. In this same chapter, to Uriah Smith, quote, the crowning
blasphemy of the Papacy was the idolatrous sacrifice of the mass(the Roman Catholic
form of the Communion service), and yet no mention of the Trinity. And let the reader
here note that Uriah Smiths book Daniel and the Revelation was reprinted and revised
several times (after 1865) by the author himself before his death (in 1903). Both the
Church-edited and unabridged versions are still available today, if one needs to verify the
points made here. If Uriah Smith had left anything out in the earlier versions he would
have surely added it later. Did he ever mention in this book, in any of its versions, or any
of his thoughts on Daniel or Revelation, that the Trinity is the main issue in the Churchs
controversy with error? No! What is clear is that it can be shown that some of the early
pioneers, in our older literature, believed and wrote that the doctrinal issue of the
Trinity, the acceptance or rejection of it (no matter the variation in explanation), was a
test of Christian character, and that the gospel of the Divine Son" made it an issue of
priority and concern. However, the following point will show why Uriah Smith could
have ignored it in his later writings, patterning Mrs. Whites similar approach to
ignoring the issue.
[3] If the Trinity was Romes greatest challenge to and would be its greatest
stranglehold over Protestantism (including Adventism in the future), then James
White, the husband of Mrs. White, would not, could not, have changed his attitude
to the subject of the Trinity in later years leading up to his death in 1881, and list it
among non-essential issues of lesser concern. Notice carefully what he said in 1876
(five years before his death):
In the Divine Law and the gospel of the Divine Son *ARE THE TESTS OF
CHRISTIAN CHARACTER. And it is with an ill grace that those who have been
splitting up into petty sects [groups] during the nineteenth century [even today] over
forms of church government, matters of expediency [matters of convenience, but not
morality], *TRINITY [the Godhead of Three] and Unity [only one Person is God],
whether we may sing any good hymn in church, or only the Psalms of David, and
other matters [views similarly of secondary importance, as those listed], which
constitute no test of fitness for heaven, 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
If this statement was made in the 1850s (just after the Churchs inception) it would not
have been welcomed by the vocal anti-Trinitarians and prominent leaders in the Church,
because they would not have yet achieved the doctrinal maturity of the later years.
83

Notice that by 1876 (32 years after the Advent Movement began in 1844) the
Trinity issue (the acceptance, or revision, or rejection of it) was now regarded by James
White, the husband of the leading pioneer, to be of such little importance, that not only
was the issue not a test of Christian character, or of ones fitness for Heaven, but
was placed among matters of little importance, among perspective related issues, as it
were, issues that were being fought over by those splitting up into petty sects. Also,
the gospel of the Divine Son (what was seen as important) did not necessarily concern
itself with, as a test, ones rejection or acceptance of the Trinity. The change of attitude
to the subject was clearly evident here (see the quote again), and is brought out even
more clearly when it is considered that Mrs. White published the book The Great
Controversy(1888) *AFTER her husband made this revealing statement and, quite
remarkably, it was in that most crucial book that she did not even mention, much
more to condemn the Trinity doctrine. Yes, it is true that Mrs. White never believed in
(and never accepted, even up to her death) the faulty version or explanation of the
Eternal Godhead being one Person with three heads or three faces, as Catholics
have sought to represent the three persons of the Eternal Godhead (even in
paintings). This was the part of the traditional explanation of the Godhead that was
always rejected. However, it was not long after the 1876 statement of James White
(quoted earlier) that the Church accepted the idea of three Persons in the Eternal
Godhead, signaling that only some things, not everything, in the doctrine of the
Trinity was rejected. This was evidenced by Mrs. White, for the first time in the
Churchs doctrinal history (after 1876 and 1888), starting to repeatedly use the term
Trio (signaling an acceptance of three persons), along with similar terms used by
traditional Trinitarians, such as the Eternal Godhead in the sense of three constituent
persons, that is, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus it can be here repeated for emphasis:
AN ANTI-TRINITARIAN POSITION DOES NOT MEAN AN ANTI-THREEPERSONS-IN-THE- GODHEAD, OR AN ANTI-TRIO-IN-THE-GODHEAD
CONCEPT, JUST A REJECTION OF *HOW THE THREE ARE ONE!!!
There is clear evidence of the Church gradually coming to grips with old truths, being
seen in a new light, but with much internal resistance (still existing even today), as
evidenced at the 1888 General Conference. See again page 65 of this presentation, on the
E.J. Waggoners message, and here ponder Mrs. Whites comments on its significance:
That which God gives His servants [E.J. Waggoner and A.T. Jones] to speak today
[at the 1888 Conference] would perhaps NOT have been present truth twenty years ago
[in 1868], but is Gods message for the time Manuscript 8, 1888
So up to 1888 the Church had not fully formulated all of what is now regarded as saving
truths, despite there are those who think otherwise, that this took place by 1863 when
the Church adopted its present name. But the evidence is hard to deny. The Adventist
84

Church, not at one time, but gradually, came to unity on its doctrines, and seemed to
have only fully formulated what it believed about Jesus and the Holy Spirit after 1888.
[4] If the Trinity issue was Romes greatest challenge to, and would be its greatest
stranglehold over Protestantism (including Adventism in the future), then Mrs. White,
in her most crucial book (The Great Controversy), would not, could not, first
ignore the subject, and then present, over and above it, the supposed natural
immortality of the soul and Sunday as the chief errors of the Papacy. However note
her words on what is the real issue at stake:

Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and
*SUNDAY SACREDNESS, Satan will bring the people [Christendom and
religions of the world] under his deceptions. While the former [supposed
soul immortality] lays the foundation for spiritualism, the latter [supposed
Sunday sacredness] creates a *BOND of sympathy WITH ROME
-E.G. White- Great Controversy (1888), pgs. 587-588
Thus it is very clear that Sunday observance is what is the most critical issue, and is the
bond which connects the Roman Catholic Church to ALL of its Daughters, NOT
THE GODHEAD DOCTRINE! The Trinity doctrine is not even followed strictly in its
original form by all trinitarians, neither is the Eternal Godhead of three Persons
even taught today (in no form whatsoever) by very many Christian denominations
(e.g. Mormons, Pentecostals, Unitarians, Jehovahs Witnesses, Worldwide Church of
God, among others). Sunday is the symbol of Romes supposed supremacy, and the link
to her daughters; despite many proclaim it is the Trinity. Even the Papacy, in modern
times, has made it known that the issue of the Christian Sabbath is, quote, the
*most essential doctrine of Protestantism, not the Godhead doctrine. Here
following is the full evidence.
In an 1893 Roman Catholic publication, titled as shown, note carefully the following
strong words of the Papacy:

THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH [Sunday]


THE GENUINE OFFSPRING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HIS SPOUSE.
THE CLAIMS OF PROTESTANTISM TO ANY
PART THEREIN PROVED TO BE GROUNDLESS,
SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND SUICIDAL.
The Adventists are the only body of Christians with the Bible as their teacher, who
can find no warrant in its pages for the change of the day from the seventh to the first.
85

Hence their appellation [title], Seventh-day AdventistsThe Catholic Church for


over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine
mission, changed the day from Saturday to SundayTheir [the Protestants] pretense
for leaving the bosom of the Catholic Church was for apostasy from the truth as taught
in the written word. They adopted the written word as their sole teacher, which they
had no sooner done than they abandoned it promptlyand by a perversity as willful as
erroneous, they accept the teaching of the Catholic Church in direct opposition to the
plain, unvaried, and constant teaching of their sole teacher *IN THE MOST
ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE OF THEIR RELIGION [the Christian Sabbath], thereby
emphasizing the situation in what may be aptly designated a mockery, a delusion, and
a snare
--The Catholic Mirror (sanctioned by Cardinal Gibbons), Sept. 2, 1893

This is so very, very clear. Only one bent on pretending to know more than what even
Mrs. White, an inspired prophet, would deny that Sunday, and not the Godhead
doctrine, is the most serious issue at stake. Mrs. White, whom Adventists believe saw the
future events in vision, right up to the coming of Christ, said the following about
Adventists in the future, and about the Sunday issue:
The whole world is to be stirred with enmity against Seventh-day Adventists,
because they *WILL NOT YIELD HOMAGE TO THE PAPACY BY HONORING
SUNDAY, the institution of this antichristian power.
--E.G. White- Testimonies to Ministers, Chapter 1
(Excerpted in the Remnant Church, pg. 27)

However, despite this clear statement, there are those, within the ranks of Seventh-day
Adventism, who believe, and have been teaching, that the Adventist Church has now
become a part of Babylon. They declare Adventism to be embraced in its bosom, and
is now yielding homage as one of the Daughters of Roman Catholicism, because,
and despite, it teaches a different brand of Trinitarianism from the original. And this
view they base upon an un-explained and ambiguous prophecy of Mrs. White, claiming
she herself predicted this. Is the Church now a part of Babylon (religious confusion),
and did Mrs. White predict this? This question now warrants full attention, and will be
honestly and objectively addressed under the answers to Questions 14 and 15, which
follow.

86

QUESTION 14
IS THE ADVENTIST CHURCH A PART OF BABYLON
TODAY BECAUSE OF ITS VERY DIFFERENT BRAND
OF A TRINITY DOCTRINE?
First of all, in response to this question, let us address the view that some
within the Adventist Church have, that Mrs. White herself predicted that the organized
Seventh-day Adventist Church would become a part of Babylon before Jesus comes.
If this were the case, it would be clearly stated, not left up to private interpretation
since that would be a most important prophecy for the Church. However, if it were,
such an interpretation would have to be compatible with all other Ellen G. White
proclamations, since by nature, the Sprit is not the author of confusion.
Did Mrs. White make such a prophecy? Let us take a look at the following clear and
*UNAMBIGOUS declarations (and prophecy), made by Mrs. White, before she died in
1915:
God is leading out a people. He has a chosen people, and a church on
earth, which He has made the depositories of His Law. He has committed to them
sacred trust and eternal truth to be given to the world. He would reprove and correct
them. The message to the Laodecians is applicable to Seventh-day Adventists, who
have had great light and have not walked in the light. It is those who have made great
profession, but have not kept in step with their Leader, that will be spewed out of His
mouth, unless they repent. *THE MESSAGE TO PRONOUNCE THE SEVENTHDAY ADVENTIST CHURCH BABYLON, AND CALL THE PEOPLE OF GOD OUT
OF HER, DOES NOT COME FROM ANY HEAVENLY MESSENGER, OR ANY
HUMAN AGENT INSPIRED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD.
E.G. White- Testimonies to Ministers, Chapter 1
(Also quoted in The Remnant Church, pgs. 51,52).

Dear reader, that is as plain and undeniable a declaration as the nose is on your face. This
has no two meanings to it, no way to twist it to suit ones own private interpretation. That
was Mrs. White who spoke in the authority of the Spirit. But there are some who may
think that this statement was probably only applicable to her time. Let us see if that is
true, in her following statements, quoted from the same source:

87

FOR YEARS I HAVE BORNE TESTIMONY TO THE EFFECT THAT


WHEN ANY ARISE [at any time] CLAIMING TO HAVE GREAT LIGHTWHO
ASSERT THAT THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCHES CONSTITUTE
BABYLON, OR ANY PART OF BABYLON, MIGHT BETTER STAY AT HOME
WHEN ANYONE ARISES [AT ANY TIME], EITHER *AMONG US OR OUTSIDE
OF US, WHO IS BURDENED WITH A MESSAGE, WHICH DECLARES THAT
THE PEOPLE OF GOD ARE NUMBERED WITH BABYLON, AND CLAIMS THAT
THE LOUD CRY IS A CALL TO COME OUT OF HER, *[by this sign] YOU MAY
KNOW THAT HE IS NOT BEARING THE MESSAGE OF TRUTH. RECEIVE HIM
NOT, NOR BID HIM GODSPEED; FOR GOD HAS NOT SPOKEN BY HIM,
NEITHER HAS HE GIVEN A MESSAGE TO HIM
Ibid- (same source)
Those who are guilty of fulfilling this very clear prophecy, what are they going to do?
Ignore it? Explain it away, and silence their consciences? That would be foolish, and
may spell their doom in the end! Dear reader, there are those who are so bent on
fulfilling this prophecy that only God can help them to change their course, but only if
they will let Him. This writer hopes they will take heed before it is too late!
It may be that, at this point, to make the following point may be jumping the
gun a little, since the matter will be dealt with fully later, however the point must be
introduced here. After looking back at the reality of the situation, as discussed under
Question 13 in this presentation, it is absolutely clear to this writer what the *omega
of deadly heresies may be in these last days. It is strongly suggesting a movement
of those in the *minority within the Church, not only ignoring this prophecy just
outlined, but also defying it even when it is pointed out to them. Clearly, it is on the
very point that Mrs. White declared that we are not to enter into controversy, the
Godhead, that they have sought to fulfill this here quoted prophecy, even while
upholding the reliability and truthfulness of Mrs. White (see under Question 15
which follows).
Dear reader, it is the firm belief of this writer that, if anyone is to denounce the
organized Adventist Church as Babylon, it cannot be upon the basis of Mrs.
Whites prophecies, but rather upon a rejection of her prophecies, or at least this
one just outlined, because her prophecies should not, and cannot, contradict or
nullify each other.
Hear again the words of Mrs. White, about those whose purpose it is, not to unite, but to
divide the Remnant Church of God, claiming that the Remnant Church can be any
company upholding what they perceive to be truth:
Some have advanced the thought that, as we near the close of time,
every child of God will act independently of any religious organization [because only a
remnant out of a remnant will be saved]. But, I have been instructed by the Lord that,
in this work there is no such thing as every mans being independent It is not a good
88

sign when men refuse to unite with their brethren and prefer to act alone. Let laborers
take into their confidence the brethren who are free to point out every departure from
right principles. If men wear the yoke of Christ, they can not pull apart [from the
organized Remnant Church]; they will draw with Christ.
E.G. White- Testimonies, Vol. 9, pg. 258
That again is very clear. The subject of the Godhead is a matter the Adventist Church, in
this writers humble opinion, can feel justified about (as this presentation has already
shown under Question 11), however, some within still go as far as rejecting and
denouncing, not just the Churchs Godhead doctrines, but also the General Conferences
judgments on the matter. This, those in the minority, continue to do because they feel
they have the prophecies of Mrs. White on their side, but do they really? Let us look
again at what Mrs. White said about this situation of *minorities in the Adventist
Church acting against the Church:
I have been shown that no mans judgment should be surrendered to the
judgment of any one man. But WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF THE *GENERAL
CONFERENCE, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY THAT GOD HAS ON
EARTH, IS EXERCISED, PRIVATE INDEPENDENCE AND PRIVATE
INTERPRETATION MUST *NOT BE MAINTAINED, BUT SURRENDERED.
E.G. White- Testimonies, Vol. 3, pg. 492
The demon of heresy [denial of fundamental doctrine, and
*sectarianism] has mapped out the world [and the Church], and has resolved to possess
it as his kingdom. Those who are in his army are numerous. They are disguised, and
are subtle and persevering. They resist every divine influence, and employ every
instrumentality in order to compass the ruin of even one soul. They possess the zeal,
tact, and ability that is marvelous, and they press their way into every opening [this is
so very evident today]
E.G. White, Letter 89, Sept. 17, 1894 (Quoted in The Upward Look, 1986, pg. 275)
MANY WILL STAND IN OUR PULPITS WITH THE TORCH OF FALSE
PROPHECY [or false interpretation of prophecy] IN THEIR HANDS, kindled from
the hellish torch of Satan.
E.G. White- Testimonies to Ministers, pgs. 409-410.
In place of working with divine agencies to prepare a people to stand in the day of
the Lord, they [those within declaring the Adventist Church, Babylon] have taken their
stand with him who is an *ACCUSER OF THE BRETHREN, who accuses them
before God day and night. Satanic agencies have been moved from beneath, and they
have inspired men to unite in a confederacy of evil, that they may perplex, harass, and
89

cause the people of God great distress. --E.G. White- Testimonies to Ministers, Chapter
1
(Also quoted in the Remnant Church, pg. 27)
Those who accuse the Adventist Church, and declare it Babylon on so many
Godhead issues, issues they were warned not to enter into controversy over, and
who do so on the basis of a false interpretation of Mrs. Whites prophecies, and who
reject the judgments of even the General Conference, and who believe that the best
way to go is to act independently, what is their foundation, Mrs. Whites counsels?
So what about those just read? What hypocrisy!! This writer prays that God may help
them to see their serious self-deception now, before it is too late.
Before moving on, to dealing with the final point of consideration under this
question, it can be asked, is the Adventist Church a part of Babylon today? The honest
truth is that, to say yes can only be the result of ones private interpretation of certain
writings of Mrs. White (see the omega heresy under Question 15 after this), which can
only be achieved by twisting or denying many other things she has said, quoted here
under Question 14 of this presentation.
THE REAL ESSENCE OF PAPAL WORSHIP
In closing on this question, it can be further asked: Is Roman Catholic
worship really about serving the three Persons of the Eternal Godhead? That is
what Roman Catholicism claims, as it pretends that this is so by even declaring the
Trinity to be its central doctrine. However, as is the case with deception, what is
proclaimed on the surface is not usually the reality. Let the reader at this point stop to
analyze this following crucial point:
ROMAN CATHOLIC WORSHIP IS NOT REALLY ABOUT SERVING THE
FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT (a Christian duty even Mrs. White
endorses, see again pages 12 and 13 of this presentation) BUT RATHER, SERVING
THE ANCIENT PAGAN GODDESS AND CHILD, DECEPTIVELY, THROUGH
THE ADORATION OF MARY AND HER DIVINE SON!!
This thought is given much force when one considers the truth in the following
quotes, taken from the well renowned book, The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop
who, by the way, was not an Adventist:
In Papal Italy [where Catholicism is most developed], as travelers universally
admit (except where the gospel has recently entered), all *APPEARANCE of
worshipping the King Eternal and Invisible is almost extinct, while *the Mother and
Child are grand objects of worship. Exactly so in this latter respect, also was it in
ancient Babylon [the literal civilization]. The Babylonians, in their popular religion,
*supremely worshipped a Goddess Mother and a Son, who was represented in pictures
90

and images as an infant in his mothers arms. From Babylon, this worship of the
Mother and Child spread to the ends of the earth. In Egypt, the Mother and Child were
worshipped under the names of Isis and Osiris. In India, even to this day, as Isi and
Iswara and even in Tibet, in China, and Japan, the Jesuit missionaries were
astounded to find the counterpart of Madonna and her child as devoutly worshipped as
in Papal Rome itself; Shing Moo, the Holy Mother in China, being represented with a
child in her arms and a glory around her exactly as if a Roman Catholic artist had
been employed to set her up.
It is evident that the goddess enshrined in the Papal Church for the *supreme
worship of its votaries, is that Babylonian Queen who set up Nimrod, or Ninus the
Son, as the rival of Christ
If these things be true (and gainsay [disprove] them who can), who will venture now to
plead for Papal Rome, or call it a Christian Church? Is there one who fears God, and
who reads these lines, who would not admit that paganism alone [without Satans help]
could never have inspired such a doctrine as that avowed [unsuccessfully] by the
Melchites at the Nicene Council [Council of Nicea, 325 A.D.] that the Trinity [The
Godhead] consisted of the FATHER, *THE VIRGIN MARY, and the Messiah their
Son?
-Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, 1959, pgs. 20,21, 88 and 89
This is quite revealing, coming from a man who, like Mrs. White, recognized the
Godhead of three Divine Persons, but equally rejected the Roman Catholic explanation
of the numeric oneness of the Godhead, evidencing a balanced perspective, as opposed
to fanaticism. In Chapter 2 of his book just quoted, he too objected, to the Godhead being
represented as a single being or person with three heads, tracing this idolatrous practice,
of representing the invisible Godhead *tangibly in this way, to ancient Babylon (see
Isaiah 40:18,25 and Ex. 20:4,5). This he honestly did despite having to admit to the three
Persons, which he still calls a trinity (three persons), in the Eternal Godhead.
Concerning the series of quotes, here taken from his book, let the reader recognize
that Alexander Hislops findings are evidently true, when one considers the following.
[1] Both Mrs. White and Uriah Smith, in writing on the same subject, in their main
literary works (Great Controversy, and Daniel and the Revelation) on Babylon and
the Papacy, highlighted Mary worship in their list of chief errors of Babylon, however
[2] Both Mrs. White and Smith ignored the subject of the Trinity all together, even
while they stressed the distinction of the Father and the Son and, with Mrs. White in
particular, clearly teaching a Trio in the Godhead. This must have been for a reason,
and to an objective thinker the reason is obvious. Only some things in the original
Trinity doctrine held by the Catholics and most Protestants needed correcting, not
everything!!
Pure and true Roman Catholicism is simply a pretense at serving Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit (an undeniably necessary Christian duty), while supremely worshipping
the pagan goddess and child, deceptively, through Mary and the infant Jesus.
91

The idea of Rome supposedly serving, to borrow the phrase by E. J. Waggoner, the
constituent Persons of the Eternal Godhead, is simply a smoke-screen (covering) for
the false Church called Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots (Rev. 17:5).
Its real worship is supremely expressed in Mary worship (for pure Catholics), and
Sunday observance (the Churchs mark of its supposed authority, and its bond
connecting it to all her daughters in Protestantism). Is Adventism sharing in any of these?
Certainly not! What Adventism share with the Catholics is the true Christian duty that
Mrs. White endorses; that we should serve the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the
constituent Persons of the Eternal Godhead, as E.J. Waggoner phrased it (see again
pages 12 and 13 in this presentation).
So in closing, it can be asked again: Is the Adventist Church a part of Babylon
today? And again it can be said that, the honest truth is, to say yes can only be the
result of ones own private interpretation of certain writings of Mrs. White (on the
omega heresy), which are ambiguous in their meanings at best. To say yes also can
only be achieved by twisting or denying many other unambiguous things she has said,
about the Church not being, not becoming, or will never become any part of Babylon!
And finally, to say yes can only be successfully achieved if the circumstantial
evidence, as presented here under Questions 13 and 14, as well as that which will be
hereafter presented under the following question, be ignored or denied.

QUESTION 15
DID LEROY FROOM BRING IN THE OMEGA
HERESY, MAKING THE ADVENTIST CHURCH A
PART OF BABYLON TODAY?
What is heresy, and what is apostasy, with which it is sometimes equated?
The Encarta Encyclopedia 2000 defines the two words as follows:
HERESY- any religious doctrine [or movement] opposed to the
dogma [set principles of doctrine] of a particular church, especially doctrine held by a
person professing faith in the teachings of that church. The term originally meant
belief that one arrived at by ones self (Greek hairesis- choosing for oneself) and is
used to denote *SECTARIANISM [smaller dissident group] in Acts of the Apostles and
92

in the epistles of Paul. In later Christian writings, the term is used in the opprobrious
[approved by some] sense of belief held in opposition to the teaching of the church.
APOSTASY- (from Greek apostasia- insurrection, uprising), the
total abandonment of Christianity [or a particular denomination] by a baptized
person Apostasy is distinguished from laxity in the practice of religion and [from]
*HERESY, [which is] the formal denial of one or more doctrines of the Christian faith
[or of ones denomination]
It is necessary in answering the question before us that we first look at:
[1] Who was Leroy Froom, and what exactly is he charged with by some within the
Adventist Church today?
[2] What was Mrs. Whites omega heresy prediction really about?
First of all, Leroy Froom is probably the Adventist Churchs greatest historian,
who did an intense and comprehensive study (over a span of 40 years), on the Adventist
Churchs doctrinal and organizational history. In 1971 he published his findings in his
greatest work as an Adventist writer (after being assisted by hundreds of sincere
Adventist researchers, and even by late pioneers of the time). This very detailed work
was entitled, Movement of Destiny. In this book he traces the history of the Advent
faith, as it doctrinally and organizationally found its feet, from infancy to what it is
presently.
He is also famous for publishing another valuable book, the Coming of the
Comforter, in which he outlines in detail what Adventists should believe about the
third Person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, in light of Biblical and Spirit of
Prophecy truths. Let the reader here note that, this writer has personally read Leroy
Frooms over 700 page book, Movement of Destiny, and can attest to the depth,
overall accuracy, honesty, general consistency, and the comprehensive nature of his
research. This was easily determined, by cross referencing with other researchers who,
many of them, were not even Adventist writers, but who presented many of the same
historical facts, and, independently of the Church, came to certain similar conclusions as
Leroy Froom. However, as is usually the case, and which is understandable, in this book,
Leroy Froom gave his personal opinion on some issues under discussion, which
remained simply that, his opinion, despite the Church either seemingly held another
official opinion, or minorities in the Church opposed him. This will be proved shortly.
WHAT LEROY FROOM IS CHARGED WITH
After the evidence presented by Leroy Froom was carefully and honestly analyzed
by this writer, it can be said that despite Leroy Froom is charged with heresy or
falsehood by some, these charges have been found to be, for the most part, groundless.
He is charged with:
1. Falsely declaring Jesus to be fully eternal and without beginning, despite He was
begotten, falsely declaring Jesus to be fully equal with the Father, though subject to
93

Him in a certain context, and falsely declaring Jesus to be consubstantial, or of one


substance with the Father, in the same way, or in the same sense that He is said to be
consubstantial, or of one substance, with us humans.
2. Falsely declaring the Holy Spirit to be a Person, the Third Person of the Godhead, to
be served as God, just like the Father and the Son, even drawing on non-Adventist
literature in his initial research on this issue.
3. Falsely declaring that the Adventist Church, at the 1888 General Conference and after,
came to grips with the truth about the constituent Persons of the Eternal Godhead, or
the Heavenly Trio, and certain other old truths, closely related to the Trinitarian type
viewpoints, but seen in a new light in some points.
Froom is charged with heresy, meaning, a denial of fundamental doctrine of
ones Church, but is this charge valid? Let the reader simply look again at pages 55 and
56 of this presentation, and it will be seen who really is in denial of fundamental
doctrine. Is it Leroy Froom, or is it those who charge him with denial? The truth is very
evident there to those who read honestly, and who listen to the silent throbbing of their
conscience.
Let the reader also refer again to the discussion of any of the points referred to in
the above charges, by carefully analyzing the points under Questions 3-7 and 10-13 in
this presentation (see Content Page). It will be clearly seen that Leroy Froom was not
in error, at least for the most part. What, in this writers humble opinion, could be
honestly counted as faulty on Frooms part, was his treatment of the creeds of
Christendom on pages 284 and 285, in his book Movement of Destiny, 1971, which
related to the oneness of three Persons of the Eternal Godhead. It can be said that,
though many of the statements in the creeds certainly has *some (not all) truths which
Adventism shared in basic terms, Leroy Froom failed to properly clarify the oneness
between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which is not a numeric oneness, but a
spiritual oneness, as so graphically illustrated in John 17:21 and 22.
The creeds spoke, almost unanimously, of the oneness, quote, not confounding
the persons [of the Godhead] *NEITHER DIVIDING THE SUBSTANCE, as was
stated by the Athanasian Creed originally. His failure to properly address the last part of
this here quoted creedal statement, that is, neither dividing the substance, is where
Leroy Frooms personal opinion on this issue was evidenced. There is, obviously, no
problem with the first part of this creedal statement, that is, not confounding the
persons, because that part is certainly a correct viewpoint, which Adventism also
shared; that there is a Trio of Persons in the Eternal Godhead.
He subsequently seem to draw the conclusion that because there was such a
closeness between these creeds, and what Adventism came to gradually accept about the
constituent persons of the Eternal Godhead after 1888, that nothing in the original
Trinity explanation of the Eternal Godhead was faulty. However, as it was
94

demonstrated time and time again, in this presentation, the numeric oneness concept,
not the three Persons (or Heavenly Trio), was what the pioneers rejected. Thus Leroy
Frooms analysis was here evidenced to be at fault, but only on this point.
However, you will notice the lasting and powerful effect, which the insightful
molding influence of Mrs. Whites writings have had on the Churchs official
explanation of the Three Persons (the Trio) in the Godhead. Despite Leroy Froom
never seemed to properly clarify the oneness of the Godhead, the Church did not, have
not, and does not today officially accept this explanation, despite individual mainstream
Adventist writers, in their opinion, may have thought and expressed otherwise. If Leroy
Froom had caused the Adventist Church to fulfill the omega heresy, as explained
by some to be the Churchs official adoption of the *ORIGINAL Trinity
explanation, then the Church would not now be charged with teaching three
separate persons or beings (a trio) in the Eternal Godhead (even seen as a
different brand of trinitarianism) because this was neither Leroy Frooms thesis,
nor the original explanation of the oneness in the Godhead by the Athanasian
Creed.
It is obvious that the word trinity is not the real problem. What is of greater importance
is the explanation of truths about the Trio in the Godhead, and their oneness, a
oneness which, though not confounding the persons, is as mysteriously close as
illustrated in Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:28 and 29. Let the reader be again reminded
of the meaning of the simple nouns trinity and trio, by referring to several
dictionaries, and also be reminded of the following words of Mrs. White, on the
oneness of the constituent persons in the Eternal Godhead:
The existence of A [singular] PERSONAL GOD, the UNITY of Christ with His Father
[individual persons who are obviously united with the Person of the Holy Spirit], lies at
the foundation of all true science [and true religion].
-Manuscript 30,Oct. 29, 1904
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 [see Joshua 24:2, 14 and 15] God,
the Father, Christ, and [thirdly] the Holy Spirit the Three Dignitaries and Powers of
Heaven pledge themselves that every facility will be given us if we carry out
ourvows. Manuscript 85, 1901
Let the reader be reminded that Mrs. White expressly indicated that there are
three living persons in the Heavenly Trio, or the Eternal Godhead, whom we
should serve, but that there is an obvious distinction between them because, even the
Holy Spirit is described as, quote, also a Divine Person, He has a personality, and
He is the Third Person of the Godhead (see again page 16 of this presentation).
And you will notice that no outside (or non-Adventist) source is really needed to
establish this point; despite some non-Adventist sources have also expressed the same
95

sentiments. The distinction between the Father and Son is, already, very, very obvious
(see John 17:21 and 22). That is the truth in the later-matured, pioneering, and historic
Adventism, which, though sometimes misunderstood, could not have been successfully
denied, by Leroy Froom then, or others in the Church today. Case dismissed. So much
for the charge against Froom, that he caused the Church to be in error today.
THE FIRST RULE IN INTERPRETING THE OMEGA HERESY

Let us now look at the view expressed by some, that Mrs. White predicted, in the churchrelated prophecy of the omega heresy to come, that the Adventist Church would
become a part of Babylon after her death took place in 1915. It is claimed by some,
that Mrs. White declared that our religion was going to be changed by the omega
heresy. But did she really say this specifically? The evidence is there for all to see, and
we will now scrutinize it carefully and closely, using the rules of prophetic interpretation.
However, before even reading the evidence, it is worthy of mention that the
interpretation of the omega heresy finding fulfillment in the Church becoming a part of
Babylon was already shown to be groundless, under Question 14. Prophecies of Mrs.
White, like those of the Bible, cannot, or should not be made to, contradict or
nullify each other, by being in total contrast. For instance, the Bible could not,
simultaneously, or at the same time, speak of quote, the day that cometh shall burn
them [the wicked] up it shall leave them neither root nor branch they shall be ashes
(Malachi 4:1,3), while at the same time speaking of the lost consciously living forever,
while being tormented in an eternally burning hell (as a result of a supposed natural soul
immortality)!! It is obvious that anything else in the Bible, about hell fire, which goes
against the clear statements in Malachi 4, and other similar Bible passages, must have an
application that does not contradict or nullify this clear and unambiguous declaration.
That is the first rule of prophetic interpretation.
Likewise, using the same obvious rule of interpretation, Mrs. White could not, on
the one hand, be declaring (indirectly) that the Adventist Church will become a part
of Babylon in the future while, simultaneously, declaring directly that we should
denounce as, quote, not bearing the message of truth, when anyone arises, that
is, at any time, whether within or without the Church to declare this in the future.
See again the answer to Question 14.
So the omega heresy, even though it can be shown to be probably connected to the
subject of the Godhead, it must, however, have another application, other than the
Church becoming a part of Babylon. Is there another strong possibility in its
application, while still being connected to the subject of the Godhead? Let us see.

96

WHAT WAS THE OMEGA HERESY REALLY PREDICTING?


In the book called Selected Messages, Volume 1, on pages 197-204, (excepted
from Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2; a compilation of some of Mrs. Whites late
manuscripts; from 1903) there is a reference to a future heresy that was to come after
her time. In this writing she compares the alpha of deadly heresies, of Dr Kellogg
(already referred to under Question 9 of this presentation), to a future omega of
likewise deadly heresies that, quote, would follow in a little while (Selected
Messages, Volume 1, pg. 203). While she explained what the alpha heresy was then,
she did not explain the future omega heresy, but left its explanation up to the insightful
among the future members, who would use careful rules of prophetic interpretation to
find its fulfillment.
Let us now apply the second rule of prophetic interpretation: Do not change or
add to what is said directly, accept what is said! Did she say the omega was going to
change the Churchs religion and make it a part of Babylon? Let us see.
In what Mrs. White calls the alpha of deadly heresies, Dr. Kelloggs pantheistic
teachings, in his book, Living Temple (1903), were shown to be denying what she later
expressed as, quote, the existence of a personal God, in the UNITY of Christ with His
Father, and who is everywhere present by His Representative, the Holy Spirit (a clear
plurality of individual persons, in unity). It was in direct reference to this alpha
heresy then present, or the theory that God is an essence pervading all nature, that
Mrs. White argued HYPOTHETICALLY that, quote:
The enemy of souls HAS SOUGHT [not will seek] to bring in the supposition
that a great reformation WAS TO [not will] take place among Seventh-day
Adventists, and that this reformation WOULD CONSIST [not will consist] in us
giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faithWERE THIS
REFORMATION TO TAKE PLACE [not this reformation will take place] what
WOULD RESULT [not will result]? The principles of truth, that God, in His wisdom
has given the Remnant Church, WOULD BE [not will be] discarded. OUR
RELIGION WOULD BE CHANGED [not will be but would be changed if]
Mrs. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, Vol. 1, pg. 204

It is interesting how statements and words can be wrested from their tense, or twisted
from their meaning, to mean something totally different from its original and intended
meaning. This again amounts to denial and dishonesty, and breaks another rule of
prophetic interpretation. Was this prophecy here declaring that the Adventist Church was
*officially going to become a part of Babylon, and its religion was going to be
changed, and fundamental doctrines were going to be given up? This can be forced upon
its interpretation, or read into it, by those who fail to be careful readers, or by those who
fail to be fully logical in their thinking, or by those who ignore another prophecy, as
97

quoted earlier in this presentation, which must be made compatible with any
interpretation of this omega prophecy before us.
Here, in this above quote, Mrs. White was simply looking at the possibilities that
would present themselves *if Dr. Kelloggs denial of the existence of a personal God,
in the unity of Christ with His Father, and who are personally represented by the third
person of the Godhead (the Holy Spirit), was allowed to take over the Church. That was
the essence of her reasoning here, and needs no further elucidation.
Another important rule of prophetic interpretation is: Study the
representative features of one prophecy already fulfilled, in order to determine the
features of another future prophecy yet unfulfilled, but which was compared to that
prophecy. For example, studying the features of ancient literal Babylon will give
valuable insights into the features of spiritual Babylon today. This can now be applied.
First of all, was the Seventh-day Adventist Church a part of spiritual Babylon
during the alpha heresy? The answer is NO! So what should prevent the same
application today? Secondly, since the alpha heresy denied, indirectly, the individual
personhood of the Father, the Son, and their representation in the third Person of the
Godhead, truths already established in Adventism, then it is highly likely that the
omega heresy would also deny, probably directly, the personhood of one or more of
the constituent persons in the Eternal Godhead, or deny already established and
essential truths about them. But in all of this the Church would still not be a part of
Babylon, just like in the alpha heresy. Dear reader, now judge for yourself, in the
contemplation of the answers for the following questions, the possible fulfillment of the
omega heresy.
POSSIBLE CLUES TO IDENTIFYING THE OMEGA HERESY TODAY
1. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists, more than any other group, denying
the personhood of the third Person of the Godhead? See again under Question 3 of
this presentation.
2. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists, denying, en masse, the fundamental
root meanings in words and expressions long used in Adventism, as connected with the
Godhead doctrine?
3. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists, making the Godhead issue (the
acceptance or rejection of a trinity of persons in the Eternal Godhead) a test? And
not just a test of membership, but a test of Christian character, or a test of ones
fitness for Heaven, in direct contrast to what the pioneers otherwise came to believe
eventually?
4. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists today, making the Trinity issue (the
acceptance of the word, no matter the version or explanation of it) grounds for
98

condemnation, or as a test to determine ones fitness for Heaven, and also making it
the chief error of Christendom, despite they can find no such precedence in Mrs. Whites
or Uriah Smiths greatest works (Great Controversy, and Daniel and the Revelation)
written when the Church was doctrinally mature?
5. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists, denying that there were errors in
the Churchs older literature, in contrast to what was so clearly stated by Mrs. White,
and refusing to admit that there were errors on record, concerning even the Godhead
issue? See again pages 61-70 in this presentation. Who do we find *forgetting that what
the Church was counseled to hold fast to, during the alpha heresy and after, was not
necessarily everything said by the pioneers, but rather the principles that have stood
the test, and which after the passing of time (or the Churchs gradual development)
have been substantiated by the Spirit (by the writings of Mrs. White)? That is what
was not to be denied, not even one jot or principle, according to Mrs. White. See Mrs.
White in Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pages 57-58, and Selected Messages,
Vol. 1, pgs. 199-200. Hear again the words of Mrs. White, about her writings:
All truths are immortalized in my writings. The Lord never denies
His word. Men may set up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will seek to seduce
souls from the truth, but all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister
White, and has given her a message, will be safe from many delusions that will come
in these last days
E.G. White- Manuscript Release, pg. 22, 23
6. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists, upon the false interpretation of Mrs.
Whites prophecies, declaring that the Adventist Church is now a part of Babylon, in
contradiction to her clear words to the contrary? Who do we find declaring that God has
rejected the Adventist Church, and calls all to come out of her, in favor of membership
in certain independent ministries, acting alone, even defying the General Conferences
judgment on fundamental issues? Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists,
building their foundation upon, and finding their greatest missionary work in, being
accusers of the brethren, even defying the counsel in the very prophecy of the omega
heresy not to, quote, enter into controversy over the presence and personality of God
(or the Godhead)?
What is clear is that, historically, the Church has been opposed by individuals
from within, or by those who apostatized, such as D.M. Canright. However, never
before has there been such a growing, well-orchestrated and organized movement,
aimed at discrediting the Church and its leadership, and calling people to come out
of her. Never before has there been so many, originating from within the ranks of
Adventism, declaring the Church a part of Babylon, and are doing so on *mainly
the subject of the Godhead, a subject they were warned not to enter into
controversy over. This development is indeed of a most startling nature, and has
99

no other parallel in the Churchs history! No wonder Mrs. White then said that she
trembled for our people, when she saw the future! Surely the Dragon is wroth
with the Remnant who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony
of Jesus. See again Question 14 in this presentation.
Dear reader, the evident fulfillment of the foregoing is NOT FOUND IN THE
*ORGANIZED S.D.A. CHURCH, or in the writings of Leroy Froom, but rather among
its dissidents, and certain (not all) off-shoot and independent ministries. That is clear
for all to see, and this writer would ask you to stop and consider where you stand on
these issues, issues that are here so clearly outlined. May God open your eyes to a fresh
perspective on these issues before it is too late!

QUESTION 16
DO ADVENTISTS REGARD THE GODHEAD DOCTRINE
AS SALVIFIC, THAT IS, SALVATION IS BASED UPON
A FULL UDERSTANDING OF IT, MAKING IT A TEST
OF CHRISTIAN CHARACTER, OR OF ONES FITNESS
FOR HEAVEN? OR IS IT A QUESTION OF
THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE?
It was Jesus Himself who said to the Samaritan woman: You worship you know
not whatthey that worship Him [God] must worship Him in Spirit and in truth (John
4:22-24). That is a good starting point in looking at this very crucial question before us.
There are many and varied Adventist viewpoints on this question, but what is obvious is
that ones perspective on who the Bible presents as God, and what the word God
means, will determine who is ones center and focus in the Godhead.
On one hand some may proclaim that the essence of salvation is, quote, this is life
eternal that they might know thee [The Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ
whom thou hast sent (John 17:3). Others, on the other hand, may equally declare Jesus
to be truly my Lord and my God (John 20:28, 29), and proclaim that what is salvific,
or the essence of salvation is, as Paul said, quote, I determined not to know anything
[or anyone] among you, save Jesus and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Who should the
focus be on, if God is to be known or worshipped as God? Is it the Father only, Jesus
only, the Father and Jesus together, or the three Persons of the Godhead in unity? There
100

are several positions that one could take, but what is evident is that, at the end of the day,
Jesus, our God [who] shall come (Psalms 50:3), must be the center, focus and hub
around which all arguments must revolve. At the end of the day, every man must give
an account of himself [and his own conscience] to God, based upon his own stance on
the Bible. However, because there can be so many wind of doctrine based on the very
same Bible that, sometimes there is safety in being guided by the gifts of the Spirit
(Ephesians 4:10-15), or by the united consensus of the brethren led by the Spirit of God,
because in the multitude of counsel there is safety.
What has always been controversial is whether ones perspective on the Godhead
(whether a trinity, or a unity) should be a test of fitness for Heaven. For the
Adventist, while he cannot be too dogmatic, and reserves the right to his opinion, his
outlook, as a member of the united body of Christ, can be guided by the following
considerations in Adventism.
[1] The united consensus of the brethren was that the counsels of the spirit of Prophecy
through Mrs. White, is a valuable guide in technical matters related to Bible doctrine.
What did she say on this matter? It should be noted that while Mrs. White, no doubt,
believed that a correct understanding of the Godhead is important, Mrs. White counseled
not to enter into controversy over the Godhead issue. So many within Adventism are
in direct opposition to this wise counsel, and yet never lose a chance to quote the words
of spirit of prophecy writings. She however made it clear that the foundation of all
true science, that is, that which should absorb the constantly searching and enquiring
mind, is the truth about the existence of a personal God, in the unity of Christ with
His Father!
[2] Mrs. White did not even mention, much more to make the Trinity (the acceptance or
rejection of it) an issue, but instead focused mainly on Jesus, the individual, and saw
Sunday, the unifying force in Christendom, as the issue of greatest concern, the
acceptance of which must be avoided at all cost.
[3] Finally, after several years of making the Trinity (the acceptance or rejection of it) an
issue of contention and concern, and even condemnation, the pioneers, led by Mrs.
Whites own husband, later took the position that the Godhead (whether trinity or
unity) is not to be regarded as a test of fitness for Heaven. Only faith in
Jesus, in the truth about Him, that is, the truth in the gospel of the Divine Son,
as well as strict obedience to the commandments of God, were to be regarded as
the only true test of Christian character. One may take issue with this viewpoint,
but not while claiming to be an Adventist and upholding the pioneers and their
perspectives.
The foregoing is the historical and united consensus of the brethren, and
behooves us to remember, In the multitude of counsel there is safety; those who want
101

to beat their own path or blaze their own trail, that is their choice, and their God-given
right. But who knows where this may lead them.

QUESTION 17
IF THE ADVENTIST CHURCH IS TODAY
TRINITARIAN, WHY IS IT STILL REGARDED AS A
CULT BY SOME AND NOT A CULT BY OTHERS?
There are those who make much ado in declaring Adventism a part of the
fellowship of Babylon, simply because some non-Adventist writers, who believe that
Adventism should not be labeled a cult, regard the Church as practicing orthodox or
acceptable Christianity since Adventism believes in the absolute Deity of Christ and
A trinity (cooperating union of three Persons) in the Godhead. While it can be seen as
justified for Adventism to, in order to reach out in missionary service and friendship,
labor to be accepted as Christian, and not anti-Christian, or cultist, the truth is
that, this label is not something that should be given much attention. That is the opinion
of this writer. Why?
The truth is that the concept of what a cult is, usually seen as negative and antiChristian, is purely a perspective-driven, opinion-based, or subjective matter. The fact
that Adventism is not now regarded by some Trinitarian writers as cultist (e.g. Walter
Martin, in Kingdom of the Cults), should neither be here nor there for the balanced
Adventist, in the opinion of this writer, because the truth is that many other writers, both
Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian, still see Adventism as a cult because, in their opinion,
among other things:
[1] It does not teach the natural immortality of the soul
[2] It does not teach an eternally burning and tormenting hell
[3] It demands strict obedience to the Saturday- Sabbath command, and all
The Ten Commandments
[4] It believes the writings of Mrs. E.G White are inspired like the Bible

Notice the following quotes, highlighting the view of one of the many writers (which this
writer has read) which labels Adventism cultist, because of the Sabbath and the
writings of Mrs. White:
102

Their [the Adventists] doctrine of keeping the Sabbath is an error Doctrinal


error such as this leads many to believe that the adherence to dayswill save them.
It is a fallacy to think that the old Mosaic Law of the Sabbath still stands, or
that Sunday is the Sabbath transferred to the first day of the week.
Mrs. White, one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventists, claimed that her
writings were inspired like the BibleClaims of this nature bear strong identifying
marks of a CULTIST. To accept anyone elses writings as inspired (as the Word of
God) will bring a curse upon those personsThis is the error of the Seventh-day
Adventists.
-Jimmy Swaggart, Cults, 1984, pages 43, 51, and 53
This clearly illustrates the point that cultism is simply determined by men,
based upon what they perceive as error or unorthodox. Here Jimmy Swaggart
labeled the Church cultist, because of his own perspectives on what he thinks is
Mosaic, which spiritual gift he thinks should be important, or which gift is Holy Spirit
inspired, as opposed to another (e.g. tongues, which he so desperately cling to as
Holy Spirit inspired). Any Adventist can easily and Biblically refute these views, and
yet some will still see him as cultist, because he is different, even while sharing
certain Christian tenets of faith. The truth is that, if the word had existed then, even the
early Christian (Apostolic) Church would have been seen as a cult by the
Sanhedrin and the Pharisees, if the definition of cult, which is, the [religious]
devotion to a person or thing (Oxford Dictionary), was to be considered literally.
Jesus Himself was seen as a rabble leader and insurrectionist, and seen as
going against certain Jewish traditions! However, the question is, was He concerned
about this? Certainly not! He used tact and strategy in effectively carrying out His
mission, and did not unnecessarily invite trouble before time, thus fulfilling His own
words: be wise as a serpents and harmless as doves. However, this was as far as His
concern with being called even a wine bibber and Beelzebub went.
The Remnant Church should follow this example of Jesus today. It therefore
simply means that, to use the cult argument against Adventism is inconsequential; it
has no real substance to it, and should not be cause for concern. The word or label should
not be paid much attention; only false charges against the content of Adventist
doctrines should be stoutly refuted. Adventism did this in the 1950s. It defended the
content of its doctrines, in the book Questions on Doctrine (1957), when others,
calling it cultist, clearly misunderstood the content of the teachings of Adventism.

103

QUESTION 18
ARE THERE ARIANS AND SEMI-ARIANS AMONG
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS TODAY? WHAT DO
THEY BELIEVE AND TEACH?
A careful and honest review of the doctrinal history of the Adventist Church
will reveal that many of its leaders and bench members were, in varying degrees,
Arian and semi-Arian in their beliefs, at least in the early years. It will also reveal
that the Church was always opposed to the concept that the Godhead is one person
having three faces. That is why the Church was seen as anti-Trinitarian', but this
was so only in one sense. It has already been shown, in this presentation, that this form
of anti-Trinitarianism was clearly misunderstood by some to mean that Adventism
has always been anti-Three-Persons-in-the-Godhead, or anti-Trio. This was not
the case. See again Questions 10 and 11.
However, one of the accepted realities within the Adventist Church is that,
over the years, some of its members continue to hold on to Arian and semiArian perspectives, and continue to be the dissenting voice in Adventism on the
issue of the Godhead. This is a reality that should not make the Church feel
uncomfortable, it may just be the means of inciting brethren to study more, and to be
honest and more objective about its doctrinal history. Sometimes what may be a bother
may have some benefit, indirectly.
Who really is an Arian or semi-Arian, and what do the modern ones in
Adventism believe and teach?
An Arian is any Christian, past or present, who follow directly or indirectly
the teachings of Arius (a 4th century theologian), who denied the absolute divinity or
Deity of Jesus, in stating that He was created, and who regarded only the Father in the
Godhead as the Deity, that is, only the Father is truly God in the highest sense, and
only the Father is Sovereign (supreme ruler) of the universe. He also contended that
the Holy Spirit is simply Gods active force, or a divine influence created by Jesus; it
is not a person.
A semi-Arian (or *homoiousian) is one who reviews or revises the teachings of
Arius, accepting that Jesus is truly God in nature, because He is begotten of the same
substance of the Father, but He is God with limits (thus He is not infinite), He is not
God in the infinity, and cannot be called a Power infinite, because He did not exist as
an independent and conscious Being from all eternity (or existed co-eternally with the
Father). Jesus, they contend, is all powerful, worthy of worship, and is God in nature,
but is not fully eternal, not equal in dignity (rank, title, office), nor is He equal in
authority with the Father, since the Father was First, He (Jesus) was derived, and
was then given everything by the Father. The Holy Spirit, they contend is sometimes
104

properly called a person or being, but only when He is being personified in the Father
and the Son as their split-personality, but He is not a separate Person (thus there is no
real Trio, but rather a Duo, in the Godhead). THAT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF
THEIR TEACHINGS.
Today there are still those in the Adventist Church, who hold on to
these beliefs, in varying degrees, even after he Adventist Church matured doctrinally to
abandon these views, with the result being that they teach the following, directly or
indirectly:

ARIAN AND SEMI-ARIAN TEACHING TODAY


[1] There is duo of Beings in the Godhead, not a real or literal Trio,
because the words being and person do not always mean the same thing when
talking about a conscious intelligence. Only the Father and Son are truly Persons.
[2] Jesus, as Michael the Archangel, is not absolutely equal with the Father, is
not from all eternity as a distinct person, since He is begotten, He has a beginning,
and thus is not God in the highest sense.
*Note to reader: the name Michael is asking the question in literal Hebrew,
Who is like God? It is not making a statement. See the S.D.A. Bible Commentary, on
Dan.10: 13.
[3] The Holy Spirit is not a separate Person, thus he is not literally the Third
Person of the Godhead, only symbolically so (whether figuratively or metaphorically)
See the discussion of any of the foregoing points, by referring to the Content of
Questions in this presentation.
In closing dear reader, all that needs to be said is, though they (the Arians and
semi-Arians) have the God-given right to their own beliefs, but-

To the Law [the Bible] and the Testimony [Spirit of Prophecy


confirmation], if they speak not according to this word, it
is because there is no light in them [Isaiah 8:20]. Amen!

105