TRINITY HISTORY IN THE SDA CHURCH

Good evening beloved of God, we'll enter another section of our study. For
the next few days, we'll consider the development of the Trinity doctrine
within adventism. Being a historical study, we will basically look at the
history of the doctrine from the roots of adventism till today.

I'll request each to pray even as we shall be studying. We will begin with an
overview today. And then we shall look at the real history in the coming days

The first point we will notice is the summary of the doctrine of God in the
early years and compare it to the declaration of the doctrine in our days.

We read in the 1872 declaration of fundamental principles taught and

practiced by S. D. Adventists

I – That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all
things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness,
justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present
by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7.

II – That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the
one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist....

We compare with the current church's position on the same doctrine.

" There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three
coeternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all,
and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet
known through His self-revelation. God, who is love, is forever worthy of
worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation."

Any mind can discern the difference between the two views of God. The
original position was that the one God is a personal spiritual being but
the current position is that the one God is a unity of three coeternal
persons. The fact is that both positions cannot be correct. The former
position was non-trinitarian while the latter position is pro- trinitarian.

Some have advocated that the present view is a result of progressive truth.
But is it really progressive truth or is it retrogressive error? Others have
claimed that our pioneers were arians or semiarian in their view but what
evidence is there to prove what Arius believed? It is a historical fact that
books containing what Arius believed were burnt hence no one can positively
tell what he taught. The attempt to link our pioneers to arianism are as the
attempts of a drowning man to clutch at the straws. The modern church
historians are trying to discredit their position by throwing a tantrum of
arianism upon the pioneers so that their position is not candidly investigated.

Among the adventist pioneers who are well known include James White,
Uriah Smith, John Andrews, John Loughborough, Joseph Bates, Stephen
Haskell. Many others can be mentioned in the list and the evidence is
abundant that to a man, they all rejected the Trinity.

Now these pioneers were from different backgrounds. We give a sample;

William Miller- Baptist
James White- Christian connection
Ellen White- Methodist
John Loughborough- Methodist
Joseph Bates- congregationalist then Christian connection
Hiram Edson- Methodist
J. H. Waggoner- Baptist
R. F Cottrell- Baptist
G. I. Butler- Baptist
J. N. Andrews- Methodist

Now all these churches except the Christian connection believed in the
Trinity. The Christian connection had just come to reject the Trinity some
years prior to 1844.

Most of these primitive adventists came from trinitarian communities and by

study, they all rejected the Trinity to a man. None of the early pioneers
sympathized with the doctrine. As an example we will look at William Miller.
His early believe was evidently trinitarian but he changed his position later
on. Compare the following;

"ART. II. I believe in one living and true God, and that there are three
persons in the Godhead, - as there is in man, the body, soul and spirit. And
if any one will tell me how these exist, I will tell him how the three persons
of the Triune God are connected."

"ART. III. I believe that God, by his Son, created man in the image of the
Triune God, with a body, soul and spirit; and that he was created a moral
agent, capable of living, of obeying, or transgressing the laws of his Maker."
MWM 77.4 - MWM 78.1.

Notice the following declaration years later and see the shift in
understanding.

"I believe in God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is a Spirit,
omnipresent, omniscient, having all power, creator, preserver, and self-
existent. As being holy, just and beneficent, I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, having a body in fashion and form like man, divine in his nature,
human in his person, godlike in his character and power. He is a Savior for
sinners, a priest to God, a mediator between God and man, and King in Zion.
He will be all to his people, God with us forever. The spirit of the Most High
is in him, the power of the Most High is given him, the people of the Most
High are purchased by him, the glory of the Most High shall be with him, and
the kingdom of the Most High is his on earth". MWV1 32.2.

From a Baptist background Miller believed in the Trinity or as he says "triune

god" or "three persons in one God" but in his later years Miller came to
believe in one God even the father. This change was inevitable because of the
truth of the first angel he proclaimed. Any person preaching the first
angel's message cannot worship a Trinity! Miller's new view is quite
similar to that presented in the 1872 declaration of fundamental principles.
Ellen White, J. N. Loughborough, J. N. Andrews and many more were
originally Methodists and the Methodists as the baptists are, are believers of
the Trinity.

"The first article of the Methodist Religion, p. 8. There is but one living and
true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom
and goodness: the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible.
And in unity of this God-head, there are three persons of one substance,
power and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. ARSH
March 7, 1854, page 50.12

The believe in the Trinity must of necessity make God a pure spirit for how
else can he be three in one?

Having this view of the Methodist faith concerning God, and knowing that E.
G. White was a Methodist initially, then the statements in Early writings
where she asks whether God is a person and has a form becomes doubly
significant.

"I have frequently been falsely charged with teaching views peculiar to
Spiritualism. But before the editor of the Day-Star ran into that delusion, the
Lord gave me a view of the sad and desolating effects that would be
produced upon the flock by him and others in teaching the spiritual views. I
have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person . I asked Him if His
Father was a person and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus, "I am in
the express image of My Father's person ." EW 77.1

Again,
"I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus'
countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father's person I could not
behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His
Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it,
for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would
cease to exist." EW 54.2.
This view of sister White as given in Early Writings is contrary to the idea of
a three-in-one God because God and Christ are recognized as two distinct
personages. The Trinity doctrine requires them to be a single being. One
Adventist theologian recognizes this and says that the view presented in
Early writings cannot be harmonized with the Trinity doctrine. Some have
suggested that Ellen White's former views was arian.

Before we have a look at history, it behooves us to define the doctrine of the

Trinity. To those who have studied this matter, there are three main views
regarding the Trinity within Christianity.

1. Modalistic Trinity. In this view God is a single being who manifests

himself in three forms sometimes as the father, sometimes as the son and
sometime as the holy Spirit. This is basically not Trinity but modalism.

2. Tritheisic Trinity. In this view, we have three beings and each of them is
God and each being is related to another functionally and not ontologically.
In adventist literature they go a step further saying that any of the three
beings can be the father and the other the son and the other the Holy spirit.
But this view also is not Trinity but a species of polytheism called
tritheism.

3. Consubstantial Trinity or simply the Trinity. In this view, God is one being
composed of three inseparable persons, the father, son and holy Spirit.
The three persons are consubstantial and their material indivisible. Also
in this view God is generally considered a pure spirit. This last view is the
official definition of the Trinity.

There are many variations in people's minds concerning the Trinity but these
view can generally be classified into these three with slight variations among
the adherents.

Here are some features on the Trinity doctrine

1. God is one being.
2. This being is composed of three persons.
3. The three persons are inseparable connected.
4. God is indivisible
5. God is a pure spirit/ without body parts/ immaterial.

What is the biblical concept of God?

We see in the Bible a personal God. The Bible doesn't present God as an
impersonal being, or as an essence pervading all nature. God has a form
for he made man in his image.

God is not represented as a composite being of three persons but as a single

being even the father.

The phrase "one God" does not mean a "united God" but simply one God.
When God spoke to Abraham he didn't leave any slightest impression that he
was a triune being, Neither did he reveal himself to Moses as s Trinity but
simply as one God.

When God formally and officially introduced himself to Israel he introduced

himself thus: "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Exodus 20:2. We note that God
introduced himself in the singular. He did not say "we are the LORD thy
God" but "I am the LORD your God". Later on Moses would write, "Hear, O
Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" Deuteronomy 6:4. In the entire
history of Judaism, except when in apostasy, they worshipped only one God
even the Father. This is a well known fact.

Even in the days of Christ, the Jews worshipped one God and Christ told the
Jews that the God they worshipped was his Father. Consider the following
text

John 8:41-42:- "Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be
not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto
them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth
and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 8:54-55 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is
my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet
ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not,
I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

The person whom the Jews called their God Jesus identified him as his
own Father. I don't think Jesus would have been any more clearer than that
and the Jews understood him and were ready to stone him. If Jesus wanted to
present a Trinity he would have said, "I am one of the three persons of your
God". But we never find such intimation in the Bible.

But the God of the Jews was the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob. Did
these holy men worship a Trinity? Notice the words of the apostle:
The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers,
hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the
presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go."
We see that the God of Abraham was the father of Christ. This is the God
taught in the scriptures by the apostles. Nobody who reads the writings of
Paul can conclude that the God whom Paul worshipped was a Trinity. The
same can be said of Peter, John, Luke, James, Peter and the other writers.

So is the God of the Jews the same as the God of the Christians? "Seeing that
it is one God who created all men and that it is one God that justifies all men
then we conclude that the God of the Jews is the God of the Bible and is the
only true God and is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So whence came the
Trinity?

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed outside the Bible at about the time
Sunday worship was introduced into the church about 220 years after the
Bible was completed and all the apostles had died. This doctrine took about 4
centuries to be fully developed and it was implemented in the most inhumane
measures by force and the strength of arm.

Emperor Constantine I or "Constantine the great" played a key role in the

development of two major doctrines; Sunday observance, 321AD and Trinity
325AD.
We will seek to cover the following ground
1. The gradual development of the Trinity doctrine
2. The usage of the word Trinity in adventism.
3. Church manual, baptismal formula and church hymnal with respect to the
Trinity doctrine.
4. The 1919 Bible conference and 1980 general conference.

We shall see some subtopics within these main topics. We will try and cover
the first point today.

The gradual development of the Trinity within adventism

Within the first 50 years, the doctrine of the Trinity was totally rejected. The
word Trinity itself was treated negatively. It is important to notice that at this
time the pioneers or the first generation Adventists were living at this time
and all of them had come from apostate protestant churches and had a first
hand experience in the declaration of the first, second and third angel's
message. None of the pioneers got their ministerial credentials from
accredited universities and colleges but were unctioned of the holy ghost.
Let's consider a few testimonies inside this years.

As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit sabbath other

errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such
as sprinkling for baptism, the trinity, the consciousness of the dead and
eternal life in misery. The mass who have held these fundamental errors, have
doubtless done it ignorantly; but can it be supposed that the church of Christ
will carry along with her these errors till the judgment scenes burst upon the
world? We think not.... James White, Review & Herald, vol. 6, no. 5,
September 12, 1854 page 36, par. 8

The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped
reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of
Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and
Sunday- keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural
errors.” James White, Review & Herald, vol. 7, no. 19, February 7, 1856,
page 148, par. 26

QUESTION 1. What serious objection is there to the doctrine of the Trinity?

ANSWER. There are many objections which we might urge, but on account
of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following: 1. It is
contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to scripture. 3. Its origin is Pagan
and fabulous. J. N. Loughborough, November 5, 1861, Review & Herald,
vol. 18, page 184, par. 1-11

My reasons for not adopting and defending it, are 1. Its name is unscriptural
—the Trinity, or the Triune God, is unknown to the Bible; and I have
entertained the idea that doctrines which require words coined in the human
mind to express them, are coined doctrines. 2. I have never felt called upon to
adopt and explain that which is contrary to all the sense and reason that God
has given me. All my attempts at an explanation of such a subject would
make it no clearer to my friends. R. F. Cottrell, Review and Herald, June 1,
1869, vol. 33, no.23, p.180, 181

Perhaps this explanation by Joshua v. Himes, an associate of William Miller,

concerning the Christian connection applies more forcefully upon the early
primitive Adventists.

"At first, they were generally Trinitarians; subsequently they have, almost
unanimously, rejected the Trinitarian doctrine as unscriptural. We believe
that there is one living and true God, the Father almighty, who is
unoriginated, independent and eternal, the Creator and Supporter of all
worlds: and that this God is one spiritual intelligence, one infinite mind,
ever the same, never varying.

“That the Holy Spirit is the power and energy of God, that holy influence of
God. . . That Christ is the Son of God, the promised Messiah and Saviour of
the world. . .” Joshua V. Himes, "Christian Connection", Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge, edited by T. Newton Brown, Boston: Shattuck & Co.,
1835, p. 362).
We see therefore that the early pioneers shifted from trinitarianism to no
trinitarianism. Was this shift in doctrine led by God?

From the pen of inspiration we read:

"Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has
been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder Hiram
Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those
who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for
hidden treasure. I met with them, and we studied and prayed earnestly.
Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the
entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these
brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know
its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the
point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the
Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision,
and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be
given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively.
Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in
regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of truth
extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God,
was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord
had given me. 1SM 206.4

The pioneers came to their belief by Bible study and by revelation.

Today we will finish by looking at the current SDA theology on the

"godhead"

The terms in the godhead are metaphorical/ role play

“It may be inferred from the Scriptures that when the Godhead laid out the
plan of salvation at some point in eternity past, They also took certain
positions or roles to carry out the provisions of the plan.” (Frank
Holbrook, These Times, June 1st 1981, ‘What is the Trinity’)
"A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three
Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In
order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore
harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, and entered into,
the role of the Father, another the role of the Son. The remaining divine
Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the plan of
salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion transpired in heaven.
As sin progressively developed in heaven and later, on earth, so the plan to
deal with it was progressively revealed— the divine Beings entered into the
roles they had agreed upon before the foundations of the world were laid
(see Peter 1:20).” (Gordon Jenson, Adventist Review, October 31, 1996,
Week of Prayer readings, ‘Jesus the Heavenly Intercessor’)

Because the theologians believe that God, Christ and the Holy spirit are "role
playing" or "acting", they also believe that their roles are interchangeable.
This is seen from the Sabbath School lesson:

“But imagine a situation in which the Being we have come t know as God
the Father came to die for us, and the One we have come to know as Jesus
stayed back in heaven (we are speaking in human terms to make a point).
Nothing would have changed, except that we would have been calling Each
by the name we now use for the Other. That is what equality in the Deity
means.”

(Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath School Quarterly, page 19, Thursday April

10th 2008, ‘The Mystery of His Deity)

We shall proceed tomorrow. I pray that God lead us and help us see more of
the truth.

I invite all of us to pray before and during the study. I'll also pray from my
side. May God lead us all.
I was thinking of the best way to introduce today's study and what
information will be particularly most important and I concluded that it would
appropriate to begin this way:

"My first encounter with the Trinity question was in 2017-2018. A friend
shared a compilation from a certain website showing the Trinity to be a false
doctrine. After only reading 3 pages, I stopped reading and quickly started
writing a rebuttal. Basically I copy pasted the two pages from the book
evangelism and a huge chunk from SDA Bible commentary volume 7A and
replied to my friend.

But the two or three pages I read from what he shared burnt my mind and I
felt that the response I gave wasn't sufficient for it wasn't my view and I had
no biblical support. So I decided to look for proofs for the Trinity from the
Bible. Having not studied before and wanting a quick response, I turned to
YouTube to look for answers from my favorite pastor at that time. I went to
secrets unsealed and watched four presentations from Stephen Bohr on the
Trinity and wrote all the "Bible evidence" that he gave. I was glad because
my fears had been lulled.

After some months again I heard of serious discussions on the Trinity. I

thought it was just a diversion but O, boy, how was I wrong!!!. Someone
mentioned that James White, Uriah Smith etc had rejected the Trinity. I had
never heard of such names in my entire life before. I had not known who they
were. I didn't know of anything about our history. The only thing I knew was
William Miller, 1844, the great disappointment and Ellen White. Nothing
more. In the same day I happened to listen to Stephen Bohr's sermon on
Daniel 11 in which he quoted Louis F. Were who misrepesented Uriah Smith
as influenced by news to claim Turkey was the king of the North. Of course I
held to the view at that time that the king of North was the papacy and I
concluded that all the pioneers apart from Ellen White were wrong. But o
boy, how was I wrong again.

I then heard for the first time of the 1888 Minneapolis conference by reading
the book testimony to ministers in which E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones
were mentioned. I didn't know who these guys were so I decided to look for
their materials. I came across Waggoners book "Christ and his righteousness"
and chapter one was very strange for me. After reading this chapter I didn't
proceed reading. I thought I found the wrong book. So I looked for another
version of the book but I realized that they were exactly the same. I ended up
believing that sister white might have endorsed the wrong message.

A few weeks later, I met a friend of mine in the local church and he asked me
to read John 3:16. Of course I was glad because I didn't have to open the
Bible for this one. But when I reached the word "begotten" he told me "stop".
That was unexpected then he asked what the meaning of the word "begotten"
meant. I had never thought of it before. Basic English told me to say 'born"
but the trinitarian mindset told me to say "it is mysterious word". There was a
conflict in my mind so I told my friend, "I feel as if something warns me not
to discuss the matter". And that discussion ended. But my Trinity doctrine
was now hanging by a thread.

Afterwards I studied the book of John and for the first time in my life I
thought I was reading heresy from the Bible. The language in John is so non-
trinitarian that I had to either accept the position of John or of the church. I
decided to accept the Bible. I then went back to our pioneers and discovered
that they were all right. It was a difficult conclusion to see that we were in
error on the Trinity. For sometime I comforted myself that the church's view
of the Trinity was not the same as the Catholic's view but when I saw that
they were identical, I comforted myself that this doctrine is not important.
The most important message, I said, was the third angel's message. But I had
not done any study on the third angels message apart from listening to
Stephen Bohr's presentations.

Now I will present evidence on the church's official position that I found
from that period until today so that we may all see what the church teaches.

Many of the current trinitarian supporters don't know what their church
teaches. Not even their pastors know these apart from a few. I have had
plenty of experiences especially over the last three years with many
trinitarian adventists who support the Trinity vehemently and have no idea of
what they support. Many of them are simply tritheists who masquerade as
Trinitarians and that gives them security for their church membership but
basically they are non-trinitarians and they should in reality be
disfellowshipped as those who preach the One True God message.

I have also been accused of falsifying the trinitarian position severally but
here I will give enough evidence verbatim of the official church's position.
Many have told me that I am rejecting the Trinity due to preconceived ideas
and I realized they have never studied the matter. One once told me I am
quoting scripture to exalt myself etc. But that was testimony that I was
providing enough evidence and I gloried in God for that.

John F Kennedy says:

"No matter how big the lie, repeat it often enough and the masses will regard
it as truth"

This statement is very true especially with the Trinity. The pen of inspiration
tells us that truth has been hid beneath the rubbish of error. Today we want to
unearth the truth by first digging out the error.

General overview of the matter

The Trinity doctrine was officially voted into the fundamental beliefs of
adventism in 1980 at the Dallas conference. Before 1980, the Trinity doctrine
as we know it was not the official position of the church. Anybody familiar
with Adventist history will tell you that for the first 100 years the
denomination was generally non-trinitarian. The major push for the trinity
began in the 1950s and the champion for the trinity was Dr. Leroy Edwin
Froom. Prior to 1950s we find a few instances where the word Trinity is used.
But in all these instances the understanding of the Trinity was widely
different from the current Orthodox view. The Trinity as we know it today
began to be embraced in the 1960s and was formally birthed in 1980.

Official Statements from high church officials, authors, editors,

presidents and theologians, concerning the development of the Trinity in
adventism
Group one: statements showing that the official acceptance of the Trinity
began in the 1950s.

The following is a compilation of well known trinitarian church leaders on

the development of the Trinity. They, although being trinitarians,
acknowledge the change in the church's position. I will give complete
references to the quotations provided and citations given.

The development of the Trinity doctrine demonstrates that sometimes

doctrinal changes require the passing of a previous generation ... From
1900 to the 1950s the church gradually shifted to the Biblical Christian
view on the trinity and deity of Christ. Merlin Burt, Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society: Volume 17, Issue 1, Article 9, 2006, page 139
‘History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on the Trinity’

Notice he says "biblical Christian view" and not "biblical view" intimating
that before 1900 the view of the church was "non-christian". This usage of
term "Christian view" springs from the 1950s when evangelicals Donald
Barnhouse, Walter Martin & co. held studies on various doctrines of
adventism with Adventist leaders Roy Allan Anderson, Leroy Edwin Froom
&co. And the adventists changed their view so that Adventists were no longer
called "cults" like the mormons or Jehovah wtnesess etc. but adventist were
called "Christian brethren" and Dr. Barnhouse gave Adventist a right hand of
fellowship into Christian brethren fellowship.

"One of the remarkable aspects of the history of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church is the development of its position of the trinity and the
deity of Christ. These doctrines did not become normative in the church
until the middle of the twentieth century”. Merlin D. Burt, 1996, Preface
to ‘Demise of Semi-Arianism and anti-trinitarianism in Adventist Theology,
1888-1957’

Group 2: statements affirming that the church was originally non

trinitarian.
"That most of the leading SDA pioneers were non-Trinitarian in their
theology has become accepted Adventist history..." Jerry Moon, Ph. D.,
The Trinity, chapter 13, ‘Trinity and Anti-trinitarianism in Seventh-day
Adventist History, page 190, 2002

“The period from 1980 to the present has been characterized by renewed
debate along a spectrum of ideas from the reactionary to the contemporary.
Soon after the Dallas statement—and perhaps in reaction to it—voices from
the "edges" of the church began to advocate that the pioneers' earliest
views were correct, that Ellen White's apparently trinitarian statements had
been misinterpreted, and that the Dallas statement represented apostasy from
the biblical beliefs of the pioneers.” Jerry Moon op. cit,, page 127

Group 3: Leroy Froom was the main protagonist of the Trinity doctrine.

"From the retirement of F. M. Wilcox in 1944 to the publication of

Movement of Destiny in 1971, L. E. Froom was the most visible
champion of trinitarianism among Seventh-day Adventists.” Jerry Moon
Ph. D., Andrews University Seminary Studies, Volume 41, No. 1, 113-129,
page 124, The Adventist Trinity Debate, ‘Part 1: Historical overview’

Group 4: the two understandings of the Trinity are in conflict.

“Adventists beliefs have changed over the years under the impact of present
truth. Most startling is the teaching regarding Jesus Christ, our Saviour
and Lord.” William Johnsson, Adventist Review, January 6th, 1994,
‘Present Truth - Walking in God’s Light’

“More recently, a further question has arisen with increasing urgency: was
the pioneers’ belief about the Godhead right or wrong? As one line of
reasoning goes, either the pioneers were wrong and the present church is
right, or the pioneers were right and the present Seventh-day Adventist
Church has apostatized from biblical truth.” Jerry Moon, Ph. D., The
Trinity, chapter 13, ‘Trinity and Anti-trinitarianism in Seventh-day Adventist
History, 2002
"Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to
join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination's
Fundamental Beliefs. More specifically, most would not be able to agree
to belief Number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the Trinity.” George
Knight, Ministry magazine, October 1993, page 10, ‘Adventists and Change’

Two questions beg to be asked:

First, if the founders of the church would not be able to join the church today,
is the church today the same church they established or is it a different
organization?

Second, In whose hands are we safer? Is it in the modern theologians trained

in the accredited colleges of the world and apostate protestantism or is it in
the early pioneers guided and instructed by the spirit of God?

Is it James White or Leroy Froom?

Is it j. N. Andrews or R. A. Anderson?
Is it Uriah Smith or Jerry Moon?
Is it John Byington or Ted Wilson?

Group 5: a few more statements.

Remember that all these statements have been compiled from Adventist
trinitarians!!!

“Some Adventists have discovered that practically all of our pioneers

were anti-Trinitarian and have concluded that the church today should
reject the doctrine of the Trinity. The truth is that the Lord guided this
movement to a more biblical understanding of God. Today, based on the
Bible, we affirm the truth of one God in a plurality of Persons.” Angel
Manuel Rodriguez, BRI Article, ‘The Holy Spirit and the Godhead, 11th July
2002

"Mervyn Maxwell concludes that early Adventists were “about as uniform

in opposing Trinitarianism as they were in advocating belief in the
Second Coming.... In contrast, Seventh-day Adventist thinkers today are
as uniformly supportive of the idea. They use explicitly Trinitarian
language to talk about God and they interpret the concept of Trinity
with care and subtlety.” Richard Rice, Spectrum, Fall 2013, Volume 41,
Issue 4, ‘Adventists Finding Identity in God’

Now we can consider the current church's teaching of the Trinity. We will
give them in numerical form.

1. God the Father, Christ and the Holy spirit are role playing or "acting"

This question was sent to the times by a reader. “I am a fledgling Christian

and am mystified by the doctrine of the Trinity. To whom should I
address my prayers?” These Times, June 1st 1981, ‘Frank answers’

In response Pastor Holbrook wrote: "It may be inferred from the

Scriptures that when the Godhead laid out the plan of salvation at some
point in eternity past, They also took certain positions or roles to carry
out the provisions of the plan."

In an adult Sabbath School lesson, we read,

"But imagine a situation in which the Being we have come to know as

God the Father came to die for us, and the One we have come to know as
Jesus stayed back in heaven (we are speaking in human terms to make a
point). Nothing would have changed, except that we would have been
calling Each by the name we now use for the Other. That is what equality
in the Deity means.” Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath School Quarterly, page
19, Thursday April 10th 2008, ‘The Mystery of His Deity

And in another article,

"While the three divine persons are one, They have taken different roles or
positions in the Godhead‘s work of creation, redemption, and the loving
administration of the universe. The Father has assumed overall leadership,
the Son has subordinated Himself to the leadership of the Father, and the
Spirit is voluntarily subordinate to both the Father and the Son.”
Woodrow Whidden, The Trinity, page 243, ‘Why the Trinity is important –
part 1‘

And in another,

"Because the Bible requires us to believe that God is a Trinity we can

accept that, for the purposes of the plan of redemption, the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit decided in the Councils of the Godhead, to
accept various positions in conducting the plan. The Father accepted
what we might call the position of ‘Managing Architect’. Jesus accepted
the position of ‘Mediator Redeemer’ and the Holy Spirit accepted the
position of ‘Comforter Sanctifier’” Max Hatton, Understanding the
Trinity, pages 76-77, 2001

Yet another,

"The Father seems to act as source, the Son as mediator, and the Spirit
as actualizer or applier.”
Seventh-day Adventists Believe, page 24, 1988, ’The Godhead’

Yet another,

"“A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three
Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In
order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore
harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, and entered into,
the role of the Father, another the role of the Son. The remaining divine
Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the plan of
salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion transpired in heaven.
As sin progressively developed in heaven and later, on earth, so the plan to
deal with it was progressively revealed— the divine Beings entered into the
roles they had agreed upon before the foundations of the world were laid
(see 1 Peter 1:20).” Gordon Jenson, Adventist Review, October 31, 1996,
p.12 Week of Prayer readings, ‘Jesus the Heavenly Intercessor’
From the above, they make the following conclusionary remarks:

"The gospel commission commands surrendered souls to be baptized in

the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The apostolic benediction
lists the Three and names Christ first. Paul usually places God the
Father first, but here it is reversed. To me this signifies the
interchangeableness of the members of the Godhead since they are one in
action and purpose.”

J. R. Spangler, Review and Herald, Oct. 21, 1971, ‘I believe in the Triune
God’.

We seriously object the idea of a "role playing god or gods" whatever name
he or they may be called for many reasons but we shall give the following
reasons for now

1. There is no scripture evidence that God is role playing. God is not anything
close to a player.

2. The idea of role playing belittles the majesty of God.

3. The idea of role playing makes the plan of salvation the greatest joke of the
universe.

4. This idea undermines all other fundamental principles of our faith

including the sanctuary, second coming of Christ etc because they fall be
founded on roleplay and not reality.

5. The idea of role playing makes God a liar and undermines our faith in him.

Think of this, O chid of God, If God says that Christ is his son but in reality
Christ is not his son but another person playing as his son, why should we
take God at his word? Why should we have faith in him? What else does God
claim which is not truth? How can we take God at his word?
2. The second view of the Church is that Christ was not begotten. That
Christ is not a true son.

"The Person who is our Saviour has always and forever sustained a unique
and special relationship with the Father. This relationship existed before He
came to this earth, as both He and the Father existed before that time, and as
long as they both were. He was NOT begotten, for it is a mistranslation to
translate monogenes as "only begotten." He is forever, one with the Father,
and He is forever God. The fact that He is forever with the Father (which no
other being was), speaks of a relationship with the Father that is unknown
by any other being. He is "the only Son, Deity Himself, who lies upon His
Father's breast" (John 1:18, Williams).” Austen G. Fletcher, Ministry, April
1977, ‘The Only Begotten’

"Jesus was not begotten, neither was he created. Many who say Jesus was a
literal Son of God make claims for one or more of these ways He is said to
have come into being. If people want to follow this line of literalness they
should explain how it is possible to be absolutely literal when there was
no mother. The terms Father and Son, when related to Jesus, can hardly
be literal really.” Max Hatton, Understanding the Trinity, page 97, 2001

"“These statements clearly describe Christ as God in the highest sense. He is

not derived from the Father as most Adventists up to that time believed,
nor has divinity been bestowed upon him.” Gerhard Pfandl, Seventh-day
Adventist Biblical Institute, ‘The doctrine of the trinity among Adventists’
1999

“The preeminence of God the Father over God the Son suggested by the
analogy to the human father-son relationship seems to be sustained by some
passages that appear to teach that the Son is generated by the Father, and that
the Son is subordinated to the Father. The generation of the Son from the
Father cannot be analogically deduced from the process of human
generation. Such a deduction would produce a speculative theory without any
ground in revelation. However, some biblical expressions seem to suggest
some kind of generation; for instance, when God the son is called the “first-
born” (prototokos), Col. 1:15; Romans 8:20; Heb 1:6: Rev 1:5) and “only-
begotten” (monogenes), John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9 [KJV]).
However, prototokos is also used in a metaphorical sense (LXX of Ex. 4:22;
Ps 89:27 and when applied to Christ expresses superiority and pre-eminence.
In a similar vein, monogenes does not contain the idea of begetting but
rather of uniqueness and, when applied to Christ, emphasizes His unique
relationship with the Father. On the other hand, Hebrews 1:5 gives no idea
of physical or spiritual generation. These statements clearly testify to the
existence of a relation of subordination between God the Son and God the
Father. The subordination expressed in these texts must not be understood in
an ontological sense, as if the reality of God the Son were dependent on the
reality of God the Father. The Biblical idea of the subordination of God the
Son to God the Father belongs, not to the inner structure of divine reality, but
rather to the sphere of the accomplishment of the plan of salvation. There is,
therefore, no ground within the biblical understanding of the Godhead for the
idea of a generation of the Son from the Father. In the Bible, therefore, no
ground is found for the idea that there is an ontological subordination of the
Son to the Father or that the divine reality of the Father has in any way a
primacy of origin over the divine reality of the Son. Fernando Canale,
Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, page 125, ‘The doctrine of
God’

The theologians claim that the word translated to "only begotten" means
unique. They say that "only begotten son" should be "unique son" but how is
Christ the unique son of God? This they leave it hanging so that they can
provide more philosophical criticism. But I pray that we would believe in the
Bible as it reads and stay away from these false teachers

We seriously object this view again because we read it plainly that Christ is
the son of God in truth and love. 2 John 3. Christ says he "proceeded forth"
and "came out of God". Etc. But we are not doing a rebuttal at the moment
just presenting what the church teaches.

3. A metaphorical father and son relationship.

What does the Bible mean when it refers to Jesus as “the Son of God”?
“Metaphorical Significance: In our humanity the image of a child conveys
some obvious ideas. First, it indicates that a child is of the same nature as that
of the parents; they are human beings. When Christ is called “Son of God,”
we are being told that He, like the Father, is a divine being (John 5:18).
Second, a child is distinguishable from their parents. The metaphor of
sonship means that although Christ and the Father have the same
nature, they are different persons, implying a plurality of persons within
the Godhead. Third, the relationship between parents and children is
unique. Their union is practically indissoluble. The metaphor is therefore a
good symbol for the deep unity that exists within the members of the
Godhead (John 17:5). Fourth, a human child comes from its parents through
natural birth. In the case of the Godhead, however, the Son proceeded
from the Father, not as a divine emanation or through natural birth, but
to perform a work of creation and redemption (John 8:42; 16:28). There is
no biblical support for the eternal generation of the Son from the Father.
The Son came from God but was not generated by Him. Fifth, the father-son
image cannot be literally applied to the divine Father-Son relationship
within the Godhead. The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father.
A natural child has a beginning, while within the Godhead the Son is eternal.
The term “Son” is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead. It
conveys the ideas of distinction of persons within the Godhead and the
equality of nature in the context of an eternal, loving relationship. Ellen
White wrote: “The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from
eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father.” This statement
summarizes the main purpose of the metaphor.”

Angel Rodriquez, Adventist World, November 2015, ‘A Question of

Sonship’

There are so many errors here presented at once but we shall give only three
for now.

1. Eternal generation is not the same as begotten in the days of eternity.

Eternal generation implies Christ is being continually begotten. This is not
what we teach. It's an error from Catholicism.
2. Christ was not brought forth in order to do the works of creation and
redemption. Christ's being broth forth is independent of the work of creation
and redemption.

3. No verse is provided to proof the theory that the expression "son of God"
is applied metaphorically to Christ.

Now let's look at a deeper matter

Adventism and orthodoxy

Some adventist scholars have seen the tendencies of this false views of
metaphorism and role playing etc and are trinitarians in the scritest sense.
One wrote in response to the "role-playing" view thus:

"That's like writing a dramatic theater play, for which some persons take on
specific roles and then, after the performance, change clothes and look as
they did before entering the dressing rooms. Of course, the Holy Scriptures
are a precipitation of God's involvement with this planet and its inhabitants;
many things are said in a human way. But do we honestly believe that it
was like this when our salvation was thoroughly planned and set into
motion? Distributing roles? How does this relate to John 3:16? In loving
us, God gave His only-begotten Son. He didn't need to take on a role. Do
the unfallen worlds not need a father? Is God only our Father? If God
the Son does not need to act as a Saviour on behalf of the unfallen
worlds, isn't He still their Creator, God the Son, or is He a nameless one
of the Three? Please, let us be careful in wording the Trinity's initiative
in regard to the redemption of humankind. I would still like to cling to
the old Nicene Creed—certainly with my Orthodox fellow Christians in
mind.” Herman J. Smit, President Greek Mission, Review and Herald,
Adventist Review, December 26th 1996

The detailed theological Adventist view in harmony with Nicene Creed

follows below.
"The core elements of the doctrine of the Trinity are oneness and
distinctiveness. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, yet three.
To express this conviction, words and expressions came into use that are
not explicitly used in the Bible. The oneness of God we confess by
claiming that God is one in being; the distinctiveness we confess by
teaching that there are three persons.” Paul Petersen, Andrews University,
May 2015, page 3, ‘God in 3 Persons — in the New Testament

“There is only one God (Deut. 6:4), however, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are
all called God (Matthew 27:46, John 20:28: Acts 5:3-4). Consequently, we
do not worship three Gods, but one God who reveals Himself in and
consists of three “persons”. The three persons share one indivisible
nature. Each person of the Godhead is by nature and essence God, and
the fullness of the deity dwells in each of them. On the other hand, each
person of the Godhead is inseparably connected to the other two.”
Ekkehardt Mueller, Biblical Research Institute, Reflections newsletter, July
2008, Page 8, ‘Scripture Applied, - A Bible Study’

“Trinitarianism is the orthodox belief that there is but one living and
true God. Nevertheless this one God is a unity of three persons, who are
of one substance, power and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit.” Gerhard Pfandl, Associate Director, Seventh-day Adventist Biblical
Research Institute, The Doctrine of the Trinity among Adventists’, 1999

“In Scripture God has revealed His transcendent nature as Trinity,

namely three distinct divine Persons who act directly and historically in
history and constituting the one divine Trinitarian being.” Dr Fernando
Canale, Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, SDA Bible
Commentary series, Volume 12, page 138

“The three persons of the Trinity, however, must be inclusive and not
independent of one another. Because there is but one true God, by nature
we have to conclude that He is plural as to persons but single as to
substance.” Max Hatton, Understanding the Trinity’, page 20, 2001
“Therefore, we must confess that the Trinity is one indivisible God and
that the distinctions of the persons do not destroy the divine unity. This
unity of God is expressed by saying that he is one substance.
Nevertheless, in the divine unity there are three co-eternal and co-equal
persons, who, though distinct, are the One undivided and adorable God.
This is the doctrine of Scripture.” Raoul Dederen, Reflections on the
Doctrine of the Trinity, page 16, Andrews University Seminar Studies

“The everlasting gospel teaches of one God in three persons, existent

from eternity. He is before all things, and is the Author of life and the
universe.” W. H. Branson, Australasian Record, October 1st 1945, ‘The
everlasting Gospel’

Else where he continues the thought

“For instance, we find in the Bible that the gospel teaches us of one God
in three persons; that this God is existent from eternity; that He is before
all things; and that He is the author of all things.” W. H. Branson, Review
and Herald, February 1st 1934, ‘The faith of Jesus concluded’

“The basic definition of the Trinity is "One God in three persons. This
definition contains two elements that seem contradictory to our finite minds.
First it says there is one God. Then it says the one God is somehow three.
There are three persons in the one The Bible clearly teaches that there is
only one God ….At the same time, the whole Bible teaches the threeness of
God — that He is three in one….The first fact already has been noted. God
has one essence but three distinct persons (see John 10:30; 14:16, 17; 17:5,
11, 21, 22, 23). We had better not say "three bodies"; such wording is not
founded on Scripture, not supported by the Spirit of Prophecy, and detracts
from the Deity.” R. M. Johnson, Ministry, November 1964, ‘What Can We
Know About the Holy Trinity?’

"By saying God has one essence and three persons it is meant that he has
one “What” and three “Whos.” The three Whos (persons) each share the
same What (essence). So God is a unity of essence with a plurality of
persons. Each person is different, yet they share a common nature. God
is one in his substance. The unity is in his essence (what God is), and the
plurality is in God’s persons (how he relates within himself). The Trinity
is not like a chain with three links. For these are three separate and separable
parts. But God is neither separated nor separable. Neither is God like the
same actor playing three different parts in a play. For God is simultaneously
three persons, not one person playing three successive roles. Nor is God like
the three states of water: solid, liquid, and gaseous. For normally water is not
in all three of these states at the same time, but God is always three persons at
the same time. Dr. Norman Geisler, The Trinity - Part Two, ‘A Philosophical
Defense of the Trinity’.

“One of the mysteries of the Bible is that it teaches that God is a Trinity.
There is one God, and yet He exists in three persons. This does not mean
that God is one and three in the same sense, which is impossible. God is
one in respect to substance, or nature, but in three persons.” Australasian
Record, January 23rd 1939 ‘The mystery of the trinity’

This is quite a telling compilation.

This is a summary of the adventist theological views of the Trinity

* God is only one being.

* This one being is made up of three persons.
* These three persons share the same substance/essence.
* These three persons are coexistent and coequal.
* These three persons are not three separate beings but three persons in one
"ousia" or substance.
* The three persons are inseparably connected in the one trinitarian being.
* Since the three persons are coequal, they are interchangeable. Any of the
three can be the Father or the son or the holy Spirit at any time they decide.
* This trinitarian being is an immaterial being.

For this reason, the BRI admits that upon the question of the Trinity, they are
in harmony with the Catholics and the Nicae-constantinopolitan creeds. The
Catholics also admit that upon this doctrine they are in harmony with the
adventist church.
The above God is the Trinitarian God worshipped by Catholics, protestants
and Adventist. It is the same god and he is described exactly the same way in
these churches.

But I will tell you the truth: this god is a philosophical idol and does not
exist. They that worship this god are but worshipping themselves for this is
idolatry.

We now have a clear idea why we reject the Trinity and why our pioneers
rejected this god.

Nobody having corrects facts can misrepresent our position on the

relationship between God and Christ. Our position is irreconcilable with the
trinitarian position and is so wide as is the universe. This is a summary of our
position and of our pioneers.

*God the Father is the God of the universe, the Creator of all things and the
only true God. John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Deuteronomy 6:4.

*Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of the only true God and was the
father's agent in creation and redemption. 1 Thesalonians 1:9-10, John 1:14,
Ephesians 3:9.

* Jesus Christ has his father's name and nature by inheritance. Hebrews 1:4.

* Jesus Christ bearing the father's nature and having the father's name and
being in the form of God has "no robbery to be equal with God" Philippians
1:6.

*The Sonship of Christ is the ground and basis of his equality to God. John
5:18.

* The term begotten means begotten or "brought forth" even when applied to
Christ. Micah 5:2, proverbs 8:22-30.
* The Holy spirit is the omnipresence of God. Psalms 139:7.

* The Holy Spirit is the power of God both in creation and in redemption.
Luke 1:35.

* The holy Spirit personifies Christ or the holy Spirit is the comforter in
Christ's name. John 14:26.

* God and Christ are not immaterial. They have a physical form. Daniel 7:9-
14.

* The Holy Spirit is not presented as having a physical tangible form. It is

compared to wind, breath, water, fire, light, dove etc. God the Father has not
been compared to any of these things.

* The redeemed shall see the face of God and Christ shall dwell with them.
There is no promise in the Bible that we shall see the holy Spirit. Angels in
heaven behold the face of God always. No one has ever seen the face of the
holy Spirit.

*The Father and the son share the throne of the universe. Only two sit upon
the throne and not three.

I will quote a text sent yesterday

The believe in the Trinity must of necessity make God a pure spirit for how
else can he be three in one? But sister white confirms that God is a personal
being and so is Christ.

"I have frequently been falsely charged with teaching views peculiar to
Spiritualism. But before the editor of the Day-Star ran into that delusion, the
Lord gave me a view of the sad and desolating effects that would be
produced upon the flock by him and others in teaching the spiritual views. I
have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person . I asked Him if His
Father was a person and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus, "I am in
the express image of My Father's person ." EW 77.1

Again,

"I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus'
countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father's person I could not
behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His
Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it,
for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would
cease to exist." EW 54.2.

This view of sister White as given in Early Writings is contrary to the idea of
a three-in-one God because God and Christ are recognized as two distinct
personages. The Trinity doctrine requires them to be a single being. One
Adventist theologian recognizes this and says that the view presented in
Early writings cannot be harmonized with the Trinity doctrine. This is what
he says;

"The fact that Mrs White says she saw in vision that Jesus and the
Father are quite separate individuals does not fit with the Trinitarian
concept found in Scripture.” Max Hatton, Website article, Ellen G. White
and the Trinity Doctrine.

Allow me in conclusion share a few pictures on how a few people understand

the Trinity and compare it with the Bible.
This one above is a graduate from St Andrews University. Notice my
response:

This below is the second one. Notice my response below it.

A final one:
I have given these samples because they were public conversations and not
private. Many more could be given but the ones cited show the confusion in
the church regarding the Trinity doctrine.

I will conclude by giving a general observation regarding our study of the

Trinity with professedly trinitarians.

There is a very big issue on the trinitarian side. They use big theological
terms to express their ideas. They lack simplicity in presentation. The second
thing is that they ask many questions at a time so that you are unable to
answer all at once. Third, they don't answer the questions you ask. Fourth,
they keep repeating the same question or statement like "is Jesus God?" "Was
Christ created." no matter how many times you answer them. Fifth they
deflect questions. Sixth they play with semantics. If you ask them who is the
true God they'll say, "I believe God the Father is the true God and that Jesus
is not a false God". Seventh, they turn into attacks on personality or
academics etc.
Eighth, some who don't understand trinitarian terms like "consubstantiation"
and "eternal generation" etc take these terms and charge them upon non-
trinitarians claiming that non-trinitarians believe in consubstantiation etc.

In our study today we have seen that

1. The church's position on the Trinity is the orthodox view and similar to
Catholics and Protestants. And can be traced to Nicea and Constantinople
2. The original church position was not trinitarian at least for the first 100
years or so.
3. Our Adventist pioneers were originally trinitarian but by study they all
came to reject the Trinity.
4. The change from non-trinitarian to trinitarian was gradual and occurred
after all the pioneers had died.
5. The Trinity doctrine was officially accepted by voting and not through
Bible study and Revelation by the holy Spirit.

Tomorrow we shall consider the history of change. May God bless us all till
then 🙏🙏.

Good evening... I will start our presentation for today early to enable us finish
in time. Again we have alot of information to cover but I pray God gives us
the understanding. I request once more for prayers wherever we may be and
for God's guidance.

Yesterday we saw how new interpretations came to be adopted within

Adventism. Redefining of terms, restating of positions, restructuring of words
etc. Consider the following example
Today we'll get some history.
In 1904, sister White penned the following statement:

"Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our
faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder
Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who,
after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden
treasure. ..... Thus light was given that helped us to understand the
scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of
truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of
God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the
Lord had given me. SpTB02 56.4

She also penned another statement which we quote:

"The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great
reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this
reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the
pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this
reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that
God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded.
Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have
sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new
organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A
system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this
system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath, of
course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing
would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders
would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they
would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is
worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and
tempest would sweep away the structure. SpTB02 54.3

From the two statement we note the following

• Satan would suggest a reformation should take place among seventh day
adventists.
• This reformation would consist in two things:
1. Giving up the doctrines that stand as pillars of our faith.
2. Engaging in a process of reorganization.

• The result of this would be:

1. The God-given principles of truth will be discarded.
2. Our religion would be changed.
3. Fundamental principles would be accounted as error.
4. A new organization would be established.
5. Books of a new order will be written.
6. Introduction of a new system of intellectual philosophy.
7. Founders would do a wonderful work (humanitarian work) eg ADRA
8. Sabbath would be lightly regarded.
9. The God of the Sabbath would be lightly regarded.
10. Nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of this movement.
11. God will be removed and human power will be depended upon.

•The final destiny of this movement will be destruction since it will be built
upon sand.
This is a most fearful warning. Have the things described above happened in
adventism? More details will be covered in another study but for now we
notice the two points that this new system is biult upon.

1. Giving up of the doctrines that stand as the pillars of our faith

2. Engaging in the process of reogarnization.

Have these two things happened?

1. Giving up of doctrines that stand as pillars of our faith

When the testimony under consideration was penned in 1904, two particular
doctrines were under attack.
1. The personality of God primarily by J. H. Kellogg.
2. The sanctuary doctrine by A. F. Ballenger.

We read the following quotation:

"Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are
not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring
in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the
sanctuary, or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are
working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set
the people of God adrift, without an anchor. Ms 62, 1905, par. 14

Concerning A. F. Ballenger, sister white said:

"Elder Ballenger's proofs are not reliable. If received they would destroy
the faith of God's people in the truth that has made us what we are.
We must be decided upon this subject; for the points he is trying to prove by
Scripture, are not sound. They do not prove that the past experience of God's
people was a fallacy. We had the truth; we were directed by the angels of
God. It was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the presentation of
the sanctuary question was given. It is eloquent for everyone to keep
silence in regard to the features of our faith, in which they acted no part.
God never contradicts Himself. Scripture proofs are misapplied if forced to
testify to that which is not true. Another and still another will arise and bring
in supposedly great light, and make their assertions. But we stand by the old
land-marks. We are hindered in our work by men who are not converted
who seek their own glory. They wish to be thought originators of new
theories, which they present claiming that they are truth. But if these theories
are received they will lead to a denial of the truth that for the past fifty years
God has been giving to this people, substantiating it by the demonstration of
the Holy Spirit. PH020 15.1 - PH020 15.2

Now A. F. Ballenger was the forerunner of men like Louis Conradi, Edward
Eppenstall and Desmond Ford who rejected the sanctuary. But since we are
interested in the subject of the personality of God at present, we will let alone
the sanctuary at this point for we have seen it has been under attack even to
this day, the sanctuary message is not generally preached and if it be
preached, it is in a corrupted form.

The second doctrine that was under attack at that time was the personality of
God. To Dr. J. H. Kellogg sister White penned the following.

"The sanctuary question is a clear and definite doctrine as we have held it as

a people. You are not definitely clear on the personality of God, which is
everything to us as a people. You have virtually destroyed the Lord God
Himself. Lt 300, 1903, par. 7

The statement implies that Kellogg's view on the personality of God affected
the sanctuary message. But that's a topic for another day. The two questions
pleading to be asked are:

1. What did Kellogg advocate concerning the personality of God?

2. What position had been held on the personality of God for the last
50years?

To answer the second question first, we turn to the 1872 declaration of

fundamental principles as taught and practiced by S. D. Adventist and
consider the statement on the personality of God.
I – That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all
things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness,
justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere
present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7

We turn to the spirit of prophecy and see another expression of the belief at
the time.

"The greatness of God is to us incomprehensible. "The Lord's throne is

in heaven" (Psalm 11:4); yet by His Spirit He is everywhere present. He
has an intimate knowledge of, and a personal interest in, all the works of
His hand. Ed 132.2

“The Bible shows us God in His high and holy place, not in a state of
inactivity, not in silence and solitude, but surrounded by ten thousand
times ten thousand and thousands of thousands of 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 He is
everywhere present. Through the agency of His Spirit and His angels He
ministers to the children of men.” MH 417.2.

This view given above is what the church taught concerning the personality
and presence of God. But Kellogg's view differed from the general view then.

Having answered what the church believed concerning the personality and
presence of God, we now ask the second question, "what did Kellogg teach
concerning this doctrine?" I will give a brief summary because this topic has
been covered already.

Kellogg's view on the personality of God or "Kellogg and the Trinity"

Kellogg suggested in his book that God was a being of infinite proportions
and that he filled the whole universe. According to his view, God was not in
any place locally but at every place equally. He taught that God filled all
space and every living thing. He particularly cited Isaiah 40 as his main
biblical evidence. He also said that he was trying to make the teaching of E.
G. White, A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner clearer. But sister white distanced
herself from Kellogg. Kellogg in 1907 admitted that his book, "the living
temple" had trinitarian doctrine.

In a particular confession concerning his book, the Living Temple, Kellogg

said: "Now, I thought I had cut out entirely the theological side of
questions of the trinity and all that sort of things. I didn't mean to put it
in at all, and I took pains to state in the preface that I did not. I never
dreamed of such a thing as any theological question being brought into
it. I only wanted to show that
the heart does not beat of its own motion but that it is the power of God
that keeps it going” Interview, J. H. Kellogg, G. W. Amadon and A. C.
Bourdeau October 7th 1907 held at Kellogg’s residence

Kellogg also had confessed about four years before this visit that he had
come to accept the Trinity doctrine within a short while. It was only a little
while after the publication of the book LT that Kellogg came to believe fully
in the Trinity. "He [Kellogg] then stated that his former views regarding
the trinity had stood in his way of making a clear and absolutely correct
statement but that within a short time he had come to believe in the
trinity and could now see pretty clearly where all the difficulty was and
believed that he could clear up the matter satisfactorily. He (Kellogg)
told me that he now believed in God the Father, God the Son and God
the Holy Ghost and his view was that it was God the Holy Ghost and not
God the Father that filled all space and every living thing.” Letter, A. G.
Daniells to W. C. White Oct 29th
1903

What were the former views of Kellogg concerning the Trinity? We find an
article in 1880 where Kellogg wrote against the Trinity. "The only grounds
upon which our reviewer could be justified in making such a statement
would be the supposition on his part that we believe in the doctrine of
the trinity; but he very well knows, from positions taken and arguments
used in previous articles, that we do not agree with him on this subject
any better than on that of the nature of the soul. We believe in but one
Deity, God, who is a unity, not a compound being. We think the Bible as
well as common sense sustains this view. We repel the charge of
"trinitarianism" without the slightest hesitation. We do not believe in a
triune God, as before remarked. And we will not, as did our reviewer in a
former article, leave the reader in doubt as to our position on this point.
We are utterly at a loss to comprehend how our reviewer could have
blundered so strangely as to suppose us to share in so gross an error as
we believe the orthodox doctrine of the trinity to be.” J. H. Kellogg, RH,
November 25th 1880, ‘Reply to Eld. Wardner’s rejoinder’

We see that in 1880 Kellogg had rejected the Trinity but by 1903 he had
come to accept the Trinity. But what led Kellogg to accept the Trinity
doctrine? John Harvey Kellogg was married to Ella Eaton, who was an active
seventh day Baptist. The Kellogg's were constantly visited by the Battle
Creek pastor and had discussions. This could be one of the reasons but it
remains to be proved. ( i have lost my references on how they influenced
Kellogg and the Trinity). Another possible reason may have been the
trinitarian books such as Boardman's that he may have been reading. But we
can not tell positively how he came to accept the Trinity. What we know
however, is that Kellogg did not get the Trinity from the Bible, or SoP or the
church. He was influenced by external sources.

When Kellogg received many admonitions regarding the LT, he wanted to

revise his book and include trinitarian words. But this was not welcomed
either. “I placed before him the objections I found in the teaching, and tried to
show him that the teaching was so utterly contrary to the gospel that I did not
see how it could be revised by changing a few expressions.” A. G. Daniells to
W. C. White.

This letter was read by E. G. White and she wrote to Kellogg. "I must tell
you that your ideas in regard to some things have been decidedly wrong.
I would that you could see your errors. The book Living Temple is not to
be patched up, a few changes made in it, and then advertised and praised
as a valuable production. It would be better to present the physiological
parts in another book under another title. When you wrote that book,
you were not under the inspiration of God. There was by your side the
one who inspired Adam to look at God in a false light. Your whole heart
needs to be changed, thoroughly and entirely cleansed. Lt 250 1903 par 1.

The problem with Kellogg's book was not the words used but the ideas
presented. These ideas made God a pure spirit and made him a nonentity or
an immaterial God. If Kellogg did not make God immaterial, he made him a
being filling all space and matter. Whatever way you look at it, his ideas were
"decidely wrong,". Suppose we ask Kellogg the question

"Dr. Kellogg, what do you think is the issue with the book living temple?"
What would he answer?

"As far as I can fathom, the difficulty which is found in ‘The Living Temple’,
the whole thing may be simmered down to the question: Is the Holy
Ghost a person? You say no. I had supposed the Bible said this for the
reason that the personal pronoun ‘he’ is used in speaking of the Holy Ghost.

Sister White uses the pronoun ‘he’ and has said in so many words that
the Holy Ghost is the third person of the Godhead. How the Holy Ghost
can be the third person and not be a person at all is difficult for me to see. –
Letter, J. H. Kellogg to G. I. Butler. Oct 28. 1903.

Don't trinitarians today use the same ideas as Kellogg used to defend their
position? Kellogg to defend his position, said sister White used the
expression "third person of the godhead" and that the Bible and SoP used the
pronoun "he" when speaking of the Holy Spirit. etc. How often do we hear
today men echoing the sentiments of Kellogg! What was White's response
to Kellogg's claim? That he was misusing her writings. It would do well to
note that at that time many did not think that "third person" as used in SoP
proved a Trinity.

After seeing how the pillars of our doctrine were changed we notice how the
process of reogarnization was done. We won't go to details for that is a
subject of another study. We will notice two things only
1. The form of representation was changed from representative to
hierarchical.
2. The Introduction of a church manual.

In 1901, the GC finally accepted God's counsel on doing away with a

president and instead having a general conference committee. 25 men were
appointed and they were to chose a chaiman and secretary for their seatings.
The chairman and secretary would be changed as the committee decided. But
a few years down the line, A. G. Daniells became president and sister white
said it was one of "her greatest disappointments". Sister White then advised
that he should not be president for a long time but the counsel was unheaded.
Daniells was president long after the death of Ellen white in 1915. He
actually led in the 1919 Bible conference.

The adoption of the church manual is among the saddest things to occur in
the church. We notice a report by G. I. Butler on the church manual.

"While brethren who have favored a manual have ever contended that such a
work was not to be anything like a creed or a discipline, or to have authority
to settle disputed points, but was only to be considered as a book containing
hints for the help of those of little experience, yet it must be evident that such
a work, issued under the auspices of the General Conference, would at once
carry with it much weight of authority, and would be consulted by most of
our younger ministers. It would gradually shape and mold the whole body;
and those who did not follow it would be considered out of harmony with
established principles of church order. And, really, is this not the object of the
manual? And what would be the use of one if not to accomplish such a
result? But would this result, on the whole, be a benefit? Would our ministers
be broader, more original, more self-reliant men? Could they be better
depended on in great emergencies? Would their spiritual experiences likely
be deeper and their judgment more reliable? We think the tendency all the
other way.

The religious movement in which we are engaged has the same influences to
meet which all genuine reformations have had to cope with. After, reaching a
certain magnitude, they have seen the need of uniformity, and to attain to it
they have tried to prepare directions to guide the inexperienced. These have
grown in number and authority till, accepted by all, they really become
authoritative. There seems to be no logical stopping-place, when once
started upon this road, till this result is reached. Their history is before us;
we have no desire to follow it. Hence we stop without a church manual
before we get started. Our brethren who have favored such a work, we
presume never anticipated such a conclusion as we have indicated. Very
likely those in other denominations did not at first. The Conference thought
best not to give even the appearance of such a thing.

Thus far we have got along well with our simple organization without a
manual. Union prevails throughout the body. The difficulties before us, so far
as organization is concerned, are far less than those we have had in the past.
We have preserved simplicity, and have prospered in so doing. It is best to let
well enough alone. For these and other reasons, the church manual was
rejected. It is probable it will never be brought forward again."

It was some 50 years later during the presidency of C. H. Watson that for the
first time SDAs had a church manual. In this church manual, the
foundation for accepting the Trinity was laid.

Now let us focus on key things and dates in the adventist timeline.

1831- William Miller begins preaching First Angel’s Message (4SP207)

1838-1843 Josiah Litch, Joseph Bates, Joshua Himes, Samuel Snow, Ellen
Harmon and family, James White, Charles Fitch, George Storrs, William
Farnsworth, O. R. L. Crosier, Hiram Edson, J.N. Andrews accept Second
Coming.
1844 Second Angel’s Message begins to sound (GC389);
Midnight Cry Message begins to sound (GC398-400); Passing of the time or
the great disappointment (GC403, 429, 431); Third Angel’s Message begins
to sound (GC432; EW254).
1848 Stephen Pierce accepts the Third Angel's message.
It was around this period that the great Sabbath conference happened and our
pillars were established.
"Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has
been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder Edson,
and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after
the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden
treasure." SpTB02 56.4.
1848 sealing message began. See all adventist articles in sealing. Authors: J.
Bates, J. N. Loughborough, S. N. Haskell, U Smith. Etc
1851-1856 J. H. Waggoner, R. F. Cottrell, Uriah Smith, John Byington, M. E.
Cornell, J. N. Loughborough, George Amadon, S. N. Haskell, G. I. Butler
accept the Third Angel's message.
1860-1863 church organization. John Byington becomes first president of the
General Conference of Seventh day Adventists

The above text dealt with establishment and organization of the SDA. Now
we consider their doctrine on God.

1872 publishing of "The Declarationof Fundamental Principles taught

and
practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists".
1874 republishing of the fundamental principles.
1883 it was decided against church manual; first Adventist yearbook
published.
1888 Minneapolis conference
By 1903 the following had died: Joseph Bates, Rachel Present, John
Byington, J. H. Waggoner, J. N. Andrews, J. S. White, R. F. Cotrell, M. E.
Cornet, Hiram Edson, Stephen Pierce, William Farnsworth, Uriah Smith.

All these pioneers were non-trinitarian. All those that lay the foundation of
our faith had died except Ellen White. Other notable elderly pioneers that
remained by 1903 were G. I. Butler, J. N. Loughborough and S. N. Haskell
and do I need to say that they were non-trinitarian? When all these men of
God were alive, the church was decidely non trinitarian.

Let me add a few words to this

1872 publishing of "The Declaration of Fundamental Principles taught
and
practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists".
1874 republishing of the fundamental principles.
1883 it was decided against church manual; first Adventist yearbook
published.
1888 Minneapolis conference
By 1903 the following had died: Joseph Bates, Rachel Present, John
Byington, J. H. Waggoner, J. N. Andrews, J. S. White, R. F. Cotrell, M. E.
Cornet, Hiram Edson, Stephen Pierce, William Farnsworth, Uriah Smith.

All these pioneers were non-trinitarian. All those that lay the foundation of
our faith had died except Ellen White. Other elderly pioneers that remained
by 1903 were G. I. Butler, J. N. Loughborough and S. N. Haskell and don't I
need to say that they were non-trinitarian? When all these men of God were
alive, the church was decidely non trinitarian.

It was around 1903 that many statements regarding "landmarks" "waymarks"

"pillars" of our faith should be preserved and "No pin or tittle" should be
removed. "Stand on solid timbers" "firm platform of our faith" etc appeared
in huge amounts from EGW. I will now quote again a statement we posted
yesterday.

"The development of the Trinity doctrine demonstrates that sometimes

doctrinal changes require the passing of a previous generation" Merlin
Burt, journal of the ATS, vol 17, issue 1, Art 9, 2006, page 139 ‘History of
Seventh-day Adventist Views on the Trinity’

But even at the death of these pioneers the church was still decidedly non-
trin. The following are extracts from a letter by Hebert Camdem Lacey to
Leroy Edwin Froom.

"As to any special controversy, or agitation, over the matter of the Trinity, I
cannot recall anything serious at all. Of course I have always known that
Elder Uriah Smith was an Arian in belief, (‘Thoughts on Daniel and the
Revelation’ reveal that!) and that our people undoubtedly generally followed
that view. But we, as a family, had been brought up in the Church of
England, and were naturally, may I say, Trinitarians. We just believed it,
subconsciously, and I do not remember our ever discussing the question with
the brethren who brought us into the Truth, Elder M. C. Israel, and young
brother W. L. H. Baker. One thing I do recall is my mother’s remarking on
the strange language used by our ministers in speaking of the Holy Ghost
as ‘it’ and ‘its’ as though they thought of the Holy Spirit as an influence,
instead of as a Person. That seemed very strange to her, and in a measure to
me also (I was about 17 then)."

"Perhaps a few words of historic background may be helpful here:

"As I already stated, I was really a Trinitarian at heart. And I went

through Healdsburg College, and Battle Creek College, _with a dim sort of
a feeling that there was something wrong about our teaching on the Ministry
and Personality of the Holy Ghost. (Of course, that term was never used,
except in reading from the Bible,— it was always ‘Holy Spirit’ and
referred to as ‘it.’) And then in the Testimonies I noticed that, practically
everywhere, the same language was used,— ‘Holy Spirit’ ‘it’ ‘its’ etc., as
though the ‘Spirit of God’ were an influence, instead of a Person, the
Third Person of the Godhead.

Before we proceed I will make few remarks.

1. Herbert C. Lacey was raised up in the church of England or Anglican
Church.
2. He was brought into adventism by the ministry of Elder M. C. Israel and
pastor W. L. H. Baker (of the famous Baker letter).
3. H. C. Lacey confirms that he was a trinitarian at heart.
4. In 1894, as he attended our colleges he was worried concerning the non-
trinitarian position of the church.
5. Hebert says that in adventist literature even in the SoP, the Holy Ghost was
always referred to as the spirit of God, holy Spirit, it, etc and not as a
"person."
6. The shock is a big one when we realize that in a trinitarian mindset, the
holy spirit is called "God the spirit" but in adventist literature such an
expression did not exist. This was in 1894.

We continue with the letter

"During my college course at Battle Creek, in March 1894, I attended as a

delegate from the College, the second international convention for the
Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, held at Detroit,
Michigan. There I heard such men as Mr. J.R. Mott, Mr. Robert Speer, and
such Spirit-filled servants of the Lord as J. Hunson Taylor, A. T. Pierson, A. J.
Corden, with Miss Geraldine Guiness and others. I remember too how Sr.
Georgia Burruss (now Mrs. L.J. Burgess of National City, California, who
was also a delegate at that convention, and who became afterwards our first
woman missionary to India, I believe) was impressed by the spiritual
teachings and appeals of these men. I recall her saying something like this:

Brother Lacey, these men are not Sabbath-keepers, as we understand

it….the emphasis placed by all these teachers upon the ministry of the
‘Holy Ghost’ in our lives as God’s servants and missionaries, a ministry
as of a real, definite, divine person, always with us, and in us, the
Comforter as taught by Jesus Christ in His last pascal discourse, and as
revealed in the book of Acts, and presented everywhere throughout the
Epistles and the Revelation.

"On the voyage back to Australia during September 1895, I made that
theme, the Personality and Work of the Holy Ghost, a special subject of
Bible Study. And I became convinced for myself!

Again we stop to note one thing. Herbert Lacey's view of the Holy spirit was
influenced by non-adventiststs. It was the same to Leroy Froom about 30
years later.
In the previous text we note that H. C. Lacey studied the personality of the
Holy Spirit but he did not study it from the scriptures. He used other
materials. Now I will prove this claim by a quote from Ellen White. It would
be good to note that at this time both E. G. White and H. C. Lacey were in
Australia. Also A. G. Daniells and W. W. Prescott were there in Australia.

"Brother Herbert Lacey called and made a short visit. We engaged in

profitable conversation. He stated that while in America at Healdsburg, he
engaged in Bible studies. After going to Battle Creek, he went deeper into
study but did not take Bible studies at all. Here he has lost much, for the
most important of all education is to understand what saith the Scriptures –
and yet he was ordained for the ministry when he had not fitted himself at all
for such a position…..The very first work he needs is thorough conversion.
He is ignorant of the Scriptures and the power of God. This is the great
mistake, that has been made in this young man’s education. Oh, that as a
teacher in this school, he may be a learner.” - EGW, Manuscript 174, 1897.

We emphasize that H. C. Lacey was ordained into ministry without him

having knowledge of scripture this was a great mistake. We shall presently
see how Lacey was first to preach the Trinity doctrine in fact within
Adventism.

I would like to turn our attention to a question which Professor A. W.

Spalding asked H. C. Lacey.

"D.E. Robinson says that you are the first one he knows of to teach the
straight doctrine of the trinity, in Australia …..There is to me a twilight
zone in this history which I wish to have lighted. Did all the fathers
(pioneers) sin? And if so, did they repent? How prove the unity of the
faith in our succession if our pioneers were Arians and we are
Athansians? Andreasen is very positive that, “Waggoner must be
repudiated,” which I understand means, “condemned”. I am slow to censure
any of the fathers, but I am ready to make situations as clear as they appear to
me. In the beginning of my writing I did not realize that the question of
the trinity among us was of so serious a nature…..Let me know, if you
please, what your part in this movement was, where you got your view
and inspiration, who else was instrumental in presenting it, what the
actual views of the pioneers were, what relation to the question Sister
White had through the years.”
Letter, A.W. Spalding to H. C. Lacey, June 2, 1947

As we saw earlier on, Lacey obtained his views by much studies- but not of
the Bible. We now provide the response of Lacey to Spalding.

"Most assuredly our people were anti-trinitarians, when we (the Lacey

family) accepted the ‘Truth’ in 1888. At least, that is how it appeared to
us at that time.

You see, we were pretty strong ‘Church of England’ members then, - my

father, one of the main supporters of St. John’s (of course it was a state
church), my mother, the organist, and practically the choir leader, and May
(now Mrs. W.C. White) and I, singers in the choir.

Mother was something of a composer of church music too, often adapted

selections from ‘Hymns and Tunes’ – our old Church Hymnal-for voluntaries
(for we still remained members of the ‘Church’ even after we had
become ‘Adventists) and these ‘Voluntaries’ were greatly liked by the
congregation: Mother was often complimented upon them!

Now we couldn’t help noticing two things about the wording of the
hymns in our book, as contrasted with the standard Church Hymnal:
1st. the obliteration of all references to the Trinity: 2nd. the weakening of
the truth of the Personality of the Holy Ghost! (Perhaps the latter, chiefly
in the sermons, etc, and prayers of our ministers, who always spoke of
the Holy Spirit as IT: never ‘HE’ except when they were reading the
verses in John, and then immediately afterwards they would say IT,
again! I particularly remember Mother commenting wonderingly on
that!)

“It was your humble servant who taught the Personality of the Holy
Spirit (not Corporeality – a very different thing, as I know you
understand!) but that the Holy Ghost was not a mere influence, but a
distinct Person, even the Third Person in the Godhead…….We had a
good time in those studies, and among the most interested ones were Sr.
Marian Davies (who had charge of the production of the ‘Desire of Ages,’)
and Elder A.G. Daniells, and Sr. A.T. Robinson, who was a sister of Elder
E.W. Farnsworth.

Did we catch that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Herbert C. Lacey confessed that he was the first person to teach in adventism
that the holy Spirit was a distinct person. He however did not teach that the
holy spirit was a corporeal being as many today understand it. He also
confessed that even after accepting the adventist message in 1888, he
remained an Anglican. It was from Hebert Lacey that A. G. Daniells and W.
W. Prescott obtained their Trinity from. Leroy Froom would later on build on
the works of Lacey and teach his views of the holy Spirit in the late 1920s
onward. Froom, as Lacey before him obtained his ideas from outside the
faith.

Another man that influenced the adventist to receive the trinitarian position
of whom we shall not say much was Dudley Marvin Canright. He apostatized
from the faith and joined the Baptist. He wrote one particular book called
"Seventh-day Adventism renounced" in this book he claimed Adventists were
out of harmony with the great Christian faith and cited as an example the
doctrine of the Trinity. Canright knew what he said for he was a mighty
adventist preacher before. It was reactionary theology that led to the church
using the word Trinity to offset Canrights attacks. A book has been shared on
this in this group and if you can, may you read it.

In 1902, E. J. Waggoner wrote

"YOU ASK WHAT WE TEACH ABOUT THE TRINITY. INASMUCH

AS WE FIND NO SUCH EXPRESSION IN THE SCRIPTURE, WE DO
NOT TEACH ANYTHING ABOUT IT. BUT as to the Being of God,-the
Godhead,-Divinity as revealed in the Father, the Word (the Son), and the
Holy Spirit, we believe and teach just what the Bible says, and nothing else.
No man can by searching find out God. No creature can understand the
Almighty to perfection. The finite mind cannot comprehend infinity.
THEREFORE, IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE TRINITY, ABOUT
THE NATURE OF GOD, CHRIST AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, ARE
MANIFESTATIONS OF GROSS PRESUMPTION. (E.J. Waggoner “ The
Editor's Private Corner. The Spirit that Witnesses" The Present Truth 18, 6.
1902)

In 1902, Waggoner states that the church did not preach the Trinity doctrine.
Notice a few more things from Waggoner up till 1906.

“If I knew what you meant by the term [trinity], I might tell you; but
from the days of Athanasius until now all discussion about the Trinity
has been an attempt to define the indefinable and the incomprehensible.
Thousands have been put to death for not professing belief in a formula
which even its professors could not comprehend, nor state in terms that
anybody else could comprehend.” E. J. Waggoner, Present Truth – British
edition, 30th July 1903, ‘The editor’s private corner’

Another reader who asked if SDA’s were trinitarian received this reply. This
was in 1904

“While the Bible speaks clearly of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, and tells us all we need to know, or can understand of their
relation to one another, it does not define any of them within exact limits,
as men have tried to do… God does not wish us to spend time in guessing
at His Divine and Infinite Being.” Present Truth, Questions and Bible
Answers, March 10th 1904, page 149, 'The Trinity'

Almost two years later (in 1906), this answer was given to another question
concerning the trinity:

“With regard to your further question concerning the Trinity, we shall better
understand the Bible the more closely we hold to its teaching. The ideas of
the Trinity which are found in the Creeds are human attempts to define
an incomprehensible mystery, and bewilder rather than assist the
mind… The truth concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is
altogether too large to be bound about by any definitions that created
minds can frame.” Present Truth, January 11th 1906, ‘Questions and Bible
Answers, ‘The Unpardonable Sin

This is enough evidence that by 1906 the church had not accepted the Trinity.
But we saw that the in roads had began in the late 1890s.

I will move quickly due to time.

In the adventist year books from 1905 up to the death of E. G. White in 1915,
the 1889 declaration of fundamental principles were repeated. This
declaration had no vestige of trinitarianism. However after Ellen White died,
the reproduction of the 1872/1889 principles ceased. Ellen white in her death
bed spoke the following words

"I tell you now, that when I am laid to rest, great changes will take place.

"I do not know when I shall be taken; and I desire to warn all against the
devices of the devil.

"I want the people to know that I warned them fully before my death.

"I do not know especially what changes will take place; but they should
watch every conceivable sin that Satan will try to immortalize." Ms 1, 1915,
par. 1 - par. 5

The main changes were in the 1919 Bible conference.

The main changes began in the 1919 Bible Conference.

1919 Bible conference and co-eternity.

We stated of a series of presentations given by H. C. Lacey in Cooranboog,

Australia in the late 1890s where he taught the new view of the personality of
the holy Spirit. At the same place, W. W. Prescott was giving studies on a
new teaching of Christ being co-eternal with God. H. C. Lacey confessed this
in his letter to Leroy Froom already quoted previously. But this views were
for sometime put on check by the reogarnization plans in the late 1890s, the
united fight against Dr. Kellogg in the first decade of the twentieth century,
and by the insistence of Ellen white in standing upon the platform of truth
based upon unquestionable authority. These remarks by sister white led to the
fundamental principles being republished in the yearly books till 1915 when
Ellen White died. After her death, the fundamental principles disappeared
from publications in the year books. Four years later, the biggest hindrance
being removed -Ellen White and the fundamental principles- the 1919 Bible
conference was organized rather secretly and a few leading men invited.
Among the issues discussed was the Sonship of Christ which is our main
interest of study today.

Here are some of the minutes from 1919 Bible study:

A. G. DANIELLS: The way is now open for any who wish to do so to ask
Professor Prescott questions concerning the topic of the morning.

W. E. HOWELL: I would like to ask Professor Prescott if he is willing to

enlarge just a little on the point of the "beginning" as he explained it this
morning.

W. W. PRESCOTT: Taking the first chapter of John, the 3d verse: At a

certain point where finite beings begin time, it does not mean that that is
where the word began. When the scripture says, "In the beginning was the
word, and the word was with God, and the word was God," it does not mean
that when you get back to that point that we denominate the beginning, then
looking back into eternity, you can point to the time when the word was.

H. C. LACEY: Can we go one step further and say that the word was
without beginning?

W. W. PRESCOTT: I was going to raise the question. Are we agreed in

such a general statement as this, that the Son of God is co-eternal
with the Father? Is that the view that is taught in our schools?

C. M.SORENSON: It is taught in the Bible.

W. W. PRESCOTT: Not to teach that, is Arianism. Ought we to
continue to circulate in a standard book a statement that the Son is not
co-eternal, that the Son is not co-eval or co-eternal with the Father? That
makes Him a finite being. Any being whose beginning we can fix is a finite
being. We have been circulating for 40 years a standard book which
says that the Son is not co-eternal with the Father. That is teaching
Arianism. Do we want to go on teaching that?

.....

C. P. BOLLMAN: I would like to ask, do you think it is necessary, or

even helpful in the defining of Christian doctrine, to go outside of
the New Testament for terms to use in the definition?

W. W. PRESCOTT: As to whether or not we shall accept dictionary terms?

C. P. BOLLUAN: No, I do not mean that.

W. W. PRESCOTT: Please illustrate what you mean.

C. P. BOLLMAN: The scripture says Christ is the only begotten of

the Father. Why should we go farther than that and say that He was co-
eternal with the Father? And also say that to teach otherwise is
Arianism?

W. W. PRESCOTT: I do not find in the New Testament expressions as "co-

eternal," but I find expressions that are equivalent to that, as I
understand it.

C. P. BOLLMAN: Give an example, please.

W. W. PRESCOTT: I think the expression "I am" is the equivalent of

eternity. I think these expressions, while they do not use the term co-
eternal, are equivalent in their meaning. That-brings up the whole
question of the relation of the Son to the Father. There is a proper sense,
as I view it, according to which the Son is subordinate to the Father, but
that subordination is not in the question of attributes or of His existence.
It is simply in the fact of the derived existence, as we read in John
5:26: "For as the Father bath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son
also to have life in himself." Using terms as we use them, the Son is
co-eternal with the Father. That does not prevent His being the only-
begotten Son of God. We cannot go back into eternity and say where this
eternity commenced, and where thateternity commenced. There is no
contradiction to say that the Son is coeternal with the Father, and yet the
Son is the only-begotten of the Father.

C. P. BOLLMAN: I think we should hold to the Bible definitions.

W. W. PRESCOTT: We take the expression co-eternal, and that is

better.

C. P. BOLLMAN: My conception of the matter is this; that at some

point in eternity the Father separated a portion of Himself to be
the Son. As far as the substance is concerned, He is just as eternal
as the Father, but did not have an eternal separate existence. I do
not think that approaches any nearer to Arianism than the other does
to ____.

**

J. ANDERSON: Did you state that He derived life from the Father?

W. W. PRESCOTT: No. Simply in the fact that equality with the Father
is derived equality, but equality is the same.

J. ANDERSON: I thought you said that he derived life from the Father.

W. W. PRESCOTT: No. I used the Scripture statement -- John 5:36: "As

the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in
himself.* But the two expressions referred to must apply equally both to the
Father and the Son.
***

In the above minutes, it is clear that Prescott was contradicting himself and
lying at the same time. He sates that Christ was begotten from the Father and
then later on he says he didn't say that. Prescott claims that Christ was
begotten and then says he is co-eternal. The truth is that Christ cannot be
begotten and again be co-eternal with the person that begot him. Again
Prescott bluntly says he prefers to use non biblical terns to biblical terms to
explain his doctrine because according to him non-biblical terms are better.
Such was the state of Prescott's mind. I will say he was really confused on
what he was sharing.

It will be good to note that by 1919, more "pioneers had died". We shall list a
few: G. I. Butler, J. H.Morrison and W.H.Littlejohn.

In 1922, J. S. Washburn wrote an open letter to A. G. Daniells saying that the

1919 Bible Conference was "the most terrible thing that had ever
happened in the history of this denomination." J. S. Washburn, An
Open Letter to Elder A.G. Daniells and an Appealto the General Conference,
1922, p. 28, 29 By the way, the minutes of the 1919 Bible conference were
discovered in 1974.

Allow me now to gives dates to some history in a very concise manner

1926 Leroy Froom is asked to give lectures on the holy Spirit and he does his
research from materials among the evangelicals.
1928 Froom founds ministry magazine. He published the book "coming of
the comforter". Professor Prescott and Dr. Froom exalt the American
Revised Version above the King James version. The GC adopts the ARV
Bible as the official Version.
1930 B. G. Wilkinson published his book, "Our Authorized version
vindicated". In the same year the general conference votes to introduce a
church manual.
1931 A new interpretation of the fundamental belief concerning God is given
in the 1931 year book
"That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father,...the Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father,... the Holy Spirit, the third
person of the Godhead..."(p. 377)

According to Froom, this statement was penned by F. M. Wilcox. However

though the statement contains the word Trinity, the view at this time was not
the same as the one we have now. They still held the view that Christ is the
begotten son of God and the Holy Spirit was still the spirit of God and the
spirit of Christ. In the 1931 view, they said that the godhead consists of
three persons but in the current view, they say that God consists of three
persons. Note the difference. The main difference between 1872 and 1931, is
that in 1872 the holy Spirit was said to be the omnipresence of God but in
1931 no reference is made to that effect we find that the view held by the
church at this time was not fully trinitarian but the main obstacles had been
removed by the death of the "old-timers".

1936-1938 introduction of trinitarian terms to non trinitarian concepts in the

adult Sabbath School Bible lessons. A few citations will be given

under the heading "Trinity" we read,

✓"three powers wrought in the work of creation,"
✓ ""the name God is used of the Father, of the Son, and of the Spirit--a
kind of heavenly family name. These three constitute the
Godhead."
✓ "The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. The Spirit is 'the
Spirit of God' and 'the Spirit of Christ.' Hence all three dwell together, and
the three are one." 4th quarter 1936, Lesson 3, p.10)
✓ "Since the divine Trinity is composed of three persons, there is established
a personal relationship between the Godhead and the one baptized."
Dec.5, p.31

However we note that even in 1936 and in the lessons cited above, the idea of
begottennes was not entirely repudiated.
✓“He was therefore no part of creation but was ‘begotten of the Father’ in
the days of eternity, and was very God Himself.” Lesson 4, p.13
✓The holy Spirit was still considered the spirit of God and spirit of Christ.
"The Spirit is both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ…” Lesson
3, p.11

1939 professor Prescott teaches the Trinity in his sermon at Takoma Park. He
says thus "There are three persons in the Godhead, but they are so
mysteriously and indissolubly related to each other, that the presence of
one is equivalent to the presence of the other.” He also stated that the
scriptures “clearly implied the doctrine of the Trinity". At this time however
Prescott was well into apostasy. J. S. Washburn wrote strongly against his
"pagan monstrosity translated from heathenism to Christianity"

1941 new baptismal vow that says first person, second person, third person
mainly authored by W. W. Prescott.

1944 SDA hymnal is published. The former hymnals "Christ in song" and
"hymn and tunes" are taken back by the GC to be burnt. The new hymnal had
trinitarian songs as opposed to the ones which were to be burnt under Roy
Allan Anderson, who was Froom's companion in championing trinitarianism.
Changes in SoP books by introducing upper case and capitalization of terms
such as "Third Person" instead of "third person" . Uriah Smith's book was
edited to remove any reference to Christ being begotten in the days if
eternity.

I will now skip alot of history because of time. In 1946 Froom published
statements in the eternity magazine compiled from formally unpublished and
transcribed materials. At this time, the book Evangelism began to be
circulated with these new sentiments. In the 1950s, the SDA Church
represented by Froom, Unruh, Anderson and Reed met with evangelicals
Barnhouse and Martin. After a series of studies together, the evangelicals
were satisfied that SDAs now preach "Christian doctrines" like Trinity,
limited atonement, unfallen nature of Christ etc. These new doctrines were
published in 1957 under the title, "Questions on Doctrine". Many of the
sentiments in QoD were repeated in SDA Bible commentary volume 7A
which was then later on explained in the 27 fundamental beliefs published
when the Trinity was accepted in 1980.

In 1976, Neil Wilson [Ted Wilson's father] was elected G. C. President. In

1980, the Trinity was formally adopted. Neil Wilson said, "...there is another
universal and truly catholic organization, the Seventh-day Adventist
Church." Adventist Review, March 5,1981, p 3.

In the following year in the review appeared the following words, "While no
single scriptural passage states formally the doctrine of the Trinity, it is
assumed as a fact by Bible writers and mentioned several times… Only
by faith can we accept the existence of the Trinity."(p.4).

Fernando Canale wrote: "The concept of theTrinity, namely the idea that the
three are one, is not explicitly stated but only assumed."

In the following years after the adoption of the Trinity, the church completely
lost it's message and those with the original view are now called "hedges,"
"offshoot", "lunatic fringes" etc.

Now brothers and sisters here is a complete unaldurated summary on the

journey of the new god into adventism.

Conclusionary remarks

Before Moses died, he rehearsed the history of God's leadings and God's
teaching to the Israelites. Before the close of the Jewish history, Stephen
Narrated the leadings and teachings of God. We are admonished to rehearse
our history on how God taught us and led us. Benjamin Wilkinson gave the
following statements in Truth Triumphant:

"The present can never be properly understood without correct information

concerning the past."

"Those who have been taught falsified history or who

have had their minds filled with the twisted interpretations of events gone
by, stagger like the blind with a darkened mind."

"Everyone today wants to

be modem. But those who neglect the lessons of the past do not achieve
modernity. They achieve only contemporaneity."

"The ideas that one has concerning vanished

generations have a great deal to do with one’s relation to the present."

"It is equally true that a person who has distorted views of the present cannot
build for a better future."

Sister White said, "The Lord has declared that the history of the past shall be
rehearsed as we enter upon the closing work. Every truth that He has given
for these last days is to be proclaimed to the world. Every pillar that He
has established is to be strengthened. We cannot now step off the
foundation that God has established. We cannot now enter into any new
organization; for this would mean apostasy from the truth.- GRC 53.2.

"In reviewing our past history, having traveled over every step of advance to
our present standing, I can say, Praise God! As I see what the Lord has
wrought, I am filled with astonishment, and with confidence in Christ as
leader. We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the
way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history. LS 196.2.

The prophet says, "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see,
and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and
ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16.

I have endeavored to present history not so much as events that happened but
I dwelt so much on the teachings so that everyone has an informed decision.
The question is what shall you do with the evidence presented? Shall you
cling to an "assumed doctrine" or will you "dare to be a Daniel?"
"Dare to be a Daniel
"Dare to stand alone
"Dare to have a purpose
"Dare to make it known.

Amen