Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22



*2nd EDITION (Oct. 2017) ---Compiled by Derrick Gillespie

For years Triniitarian SDA members have been bombarded with the truth from anti-
Trinitarian dissidents in Adventism that SDA pioneers denounced and rejected the Roman
Catholic explanation of the Trinity, but what has normally been covered up by the dissidents
is that the pioneers themselves eventually accepted the bible doctrine of the Trinity (an
expression they themselves coined and used as of 1892). It would be hypocritical to reject the
testimony of the very same pioneers telling the other side of their own story. Now, from their
own lips, let the SDA pioneers speak candidly concerning why they rejected the Papal or
Roman Catholic Trinity but later embraced and worshiped the Biblical Trinity. This is a
much denied and often unrecognized truth among certain dissidents in SD Adventism. Its
time to let the full story (i.e. both sides of the truth) become known to the world!!

***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 1 (Robert Hare):

In the fourth and fifth centuries many absurd views were set forth respecting *the Trinity-
views that stood at variance with reason, logic, and Scripture... [BUT] ...the enemy [Satan]
gladly leads to what appears to be a more rational, though not less erroneous idea that
there is no trinity, and that Christ is merely a created being. But Gods great plan is clear and
logical. There is *A TRINITY, and in it there are three personalities [or three individuals]We
have the Father described in Dan. 7:9, 10a personality surelyIn Rev. 1:13-18 we have the
Son described. He is also a personality The Holy Spirit is spoken of throughout Scripture as a
personality. These divine persons are associated in the work of GodBut this union is not one
in which individuality is lostThere is indeed a divine trio, but the Christ of that Trinity is not a
created being as the angels- He was the only begotten of the Father
-----Robert Hare, Australasian Union Conference Record, July 19, 1909
The foregoing statement is clear from the pioneer Robert Hare, and explains why the SDA
pioneers themselves eventually began to accept a certain type of Trinity or Trio (to the
pioneers the words/terms were interchangeable) where there were separate beings involved.
They could not accept the Catholic explanation (which developed in the fourth century) that
the Father, Son and Spirit have no individuality, that they have no body parts or personal
form, and that they simply were one substance indivisible or undivided as a single organism
(as it were) without any form of individuality of the persons involved in the group. But they
gradually came to accept after 1888 that the Godhead consisted of THREE separate supreme
BEINGS (plural) worthy of being worshipped as such. Click link above to see more details on
thic crucial issue. Lets now explore how this all developed, backed by, in many cases, the actual
photocopied exhibits of the evidence available.

Before delving deeply into this issue before us, lets briefly address a pertinent issue which, am
sure, some will question. Seen below is a snapshot of my Facebook dialog (in 2016) with anti-
Trinitarian dissidents about who really should we call the pioneers of the SDA Church. This is
important when dealing with the changes which took place in Adventism under their watch, so
see this exhibit of how the issue should be dealt with when dealing with the dissidents.


We [Adventists] understand the Trinity, as applied to the Godhead, to consist of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit ... These supreme Beings we cannot comprehend or measureThere is
certainly nothing incongruous in the idea of the Spirit being a personal representative, hence
saying that the Spirit' is the representative of the Father and Son does not deny his
personality...He [the Spirit] occupies in our minds an exalted place with Deity as a supreme
Being --- Bible Echo & Signs of the Times (Australia), Vol. 7, April 1, 1892, p112

The following exhibits (on the next page) are the actual cover and related page of the very April
1, 1892 Signs of the Times SDA magazine which had Adventisms first pioneering defense of its
supportive use of the term the Trinity; as was done on page 112 under the article entitled A
Criticism Considered. To see more details on this matter Click here. Nothing beats evidence!
In the above page exhibit (as directly Xeroxed from the actual page 112 of the April 1, 1892
Signs of the Times magazine published in Australia) we see that Mrs. White herself , while in
Australia when the foregoing quote was put out by SDA pioneers, she was quoted in the very
same magazine (as indicated by the red arrow), yet she never registered any objection to the
supportive use of the term Trinity by SDA pioneers then, and she never did in years following
while in Australia, nor for the rest of her lifetime. Instructive! One SDA anti-Trinitarian, Jason
Smith, in 2017 he candidly (honestly) admitted to the following as a result of his own research:


... While it is true that Sister White never used the word trinity herself when
speaking of God it is also equally true that she never rebuked or repudiated the
SDA pioneers who used it during her lifetime and there were several of them.
It is unfathomable that she missed all of those references. The truth is that she
remained neutral and thus honest logicality compels the conclusion that there is
a trinity that one can hold to which is in no way a salvific danger. I know some
of my SDA anti-trinitarian brethren get upset when I say this but I don't serve them if there
wasn't an acceptable "trinity" view possible then surely the Spirit of Christ would have
warned us clearly through Mrs. Whites prophetic gift. This is not the case though"
--- Jason Smith, Facebook discussion, October 2, 2017

The above quote needs no further commentary, except for me to laud the honesty and
openness of this dear brother, Jason Smith, despite.
And, by the way, lets hear the 1884 testimony of J.H. Waggoner on the true definition of the
word trinity even before the SDA pioneers had begun to supportively use it, and even when
they were still rejecting both the word itself and the Roman Catholic faulty explanation of it:

A Trinity is three persons. To recognize [admit to] a trinity [the true type], the
distinction between the Father and Son must be preserved.

-J.H. Waggoner, 1884, The Atonement, pgs. 167-169

See then why they later started to teach the true definition of it; i.e. involving separate
beings? I think the testimony is clear for those who carefully and honestly assess the facts!
Lets now bring to the witness stand one Uriah Smith, and allow his monumental testimony
to be entered into evidence (despite many read his words for years but never saw changes).

***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 2 (Uriah Smith):

In 1896, Uriah Smith was the Editor of the Review and Herald (Adventisms main doctrinal
publishing paper), and, despite some dissidents in Adventism today lamely deny he did pen
the following, but writing as Editor of the same In the Question Chair column he earlier
penned in 1890, and in answer to the question seen in the quote below, he made plain the
following (despite admitting that no specific Scripture exists commanding the worship of the

Do the Scriptures warrant praise or worship of the Holy Sprint? ...in the formula for baptism,
the name Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, is associated with that of the Father and the Son. And if
the name can be used thus, why could it not properly stand as a part of the same *TRINITY in
the hymn of praise, Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost?
-- Uriah Smith (U.S.), In the Question Chair, Review and Herald, 1896, Vol. 73, No. 43, pg. 685

By 1896, we see Uriah Smith changing significantly with regards to the so-called
unscriptural and pagan word "trinity" being directly applied to the Godhead, and as it
concerns praise to the separately listed Holy Spirit in "the same trinity" (considering that this
would immediately imply three persons inherently involved). For much more detail on this
monumental historical event see my free booklet on Uriah Smith at this link (click). Its an
eye-opening read. Suffice it to say here that, keep in mind that this 1896 trinity defense, of
sorts, from Uriah Smith was not just Uriah Smith using the word trinity as just an innocent
label for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as a mere group of three, as some would want to
argue, (since he could have used trio), but he is using it in the context of WORHIP DIRECTED
TO THE HOLY SPIRIT AS A MEMBER OF THE TRINITY knowing full well that a trinity of
the Godhead is three persons; not two. Uriah Smith knew full well the implications of him
using this formerly considered heretical and unscriptural Trinitarian term directly applied to
the Godhead, and the implications of him defending worship of the Holy Spirit in those
Trinitarian-type terms. Was he now leaning in the direction of endorsing certain aspects (not
all) of the Trinity doctrine he had formerly frowned upon (terminology and all)? You bet! And I
KNOW this was the case because this was taking place with Uriah Smith at precisely the time
when other SDA pioneers were adopting Trinitarian sentiments in the late 1890s as well;
applying formerly considered heretical expressions to their Godhead expressions, like
Trinity, God the Son, and the third person of the Godhead a Trinitarian expression
quoted and used by Mrs. White herself (click the link to see). And if you need greater evidence
Click this link to see even more details on this post-1888 matter; details not easily explained
away by the modern dissidents who fail to study as they should.
Below is seen the actual photocopy of the very page in the 1896 Review and Herald
where Uriah Smith ascribed acceptable praise to the Spirit (as sung in the SDA doxology since
the 1840s), but for the first time he distinctly defended praise to the Spirit as a member of
the Trinity. Thats monumental, and cannot be ignored; try as some might to ignore it!
***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 3 (S.N. Haskell):
"Gabriel was only an angel, upheld by the same Power that sustained John, and he would not
for one moment allow John to be deceived by thinking he was a part of the great *TRINITY of
heaven, and worthy of the worship of mankind.

S.N. Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet, 1905 edition, pg. 132

Here in 1905, S.N. Haskell published his book The Story of the Seer of Patmos, and
for the first time ever, on page 132, admitted the great *Trinity of heaven as being
deemed worthy of the praise of mankind; and notice he used the term in the
capitalized form, and called the group the great *Trinityeven though he could have used the
expression the heavenly trio. He too knew that to apply the term the Trinity (the great
Trinity) to the Godhead, this immediately is an irrefutable admission to three persons in
involved. By the way, keep in mind that both Catholics and general Christendom, and even
SDA pioneers, refer to the Trinity and the doctrine of the trinity both in the capitalized
and non-capitalized form of the expression, so it is no strange thing to see them use the
expression written both ways (despite the denial of this reality by some dissidents in
Adventism today). The following year, in 1906, S.N. Haskell was personally lauded by Mrs.
White for his work as a bible teacherproving he was no heretic drifting off into
spiritualism as some dissidents would want to accuse him of (i.e. for admitting worship as
acceptable for the great Trinity of heaven). And this again underscores the fact that Mrs.
White had no issues with the use of the term in this way (as even the anti-Trinitarian, Jason
Smith, has honestly observed); otherwise she could not laud Haskells work the very
following year!! See the related exhibits below and over page:
Here, as seen below, is an excerpt from an online booklet written by an active anti-Trinitarian
dissident (*name withheld) who lauded S.N. Haskells work in his 1905 book, and spoke of how
Mrs. White respected him as a grounded bible teacher. But he obviously never saw in Haskells
1905 book that he by then admitted/wrote clearly that there is a great Trinity of heaven who
is worthy of the worship of mankind. When that same dissident (*name withheld) was shown
Haskells 1905 Trinity admission, he tried then to make it seem that Haskell, by 1905, had lost
his way and had become a spiritualistic heretic. How ironic, when the following excerpt from
his own review of Haskell after 1905 is considered. Smile, dear reader (Paul Williams included,
if you are reading this)!! You know its funny.

***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 4 (A.T. Jones):

[Among Arians and Trinitarians at Nicea in 325 A.D.] although it was admitted on
both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged
that there is one God in A TRINITY of persons, yet, from what cause I am unable to divine,
they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were never at peace There was no
dispute about *notice, not opinion, or teaching, but the+ the *FACT of there being A TRINITY;
it was about the nature of the Trinity. Both parties believed in precisely the same Trinity, but
they differed upon the precise relationship which the Son bears to the Father [as supportively
quoted from Socrates who was there in the fourth century]

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

God [the Father] is one [person]. Jesus Christ is one [i.e. another person]. The Holy Spirit is
one [the third person of three]. And these three are one: there is no dissent nor division
among them.
-A. T. Jones, Review and Herald, January 10, 1899, 24
Keeping in mind that the expression among them always indicates three or more beings
involved (not just two), then it is plain evidence that A.T. Jones had already come to believe
that there is not just a Godhead duo of beings, as anti-Trinitarians in Adventism today
desperately struggle to uphold, but rather that there is a Godhead oneness of three (not two)
beings, otherwise A.T. Jones could never have spoken about there is no dissent or division
among them; he would have instead said no division between them. And to be sure that
he meant that the Holy Spirit is a third separate personal being just like the Father and Son,
notice his own words in 1907:

"...the Holy Spirit IS A PERSON. This great truth is not recognized, indeed it is NOT believed, by
more than a very few even of Christians [many SDA pioneers at the time included]....The Holy
Spirit is a Person, ETERNALLY A DIVINE PERSON. And he must be ALWAYS RECOGNIZED and
spoken of as a Person, or he is not truly recognized or spoken of at all...the Scriptures make
perfectly plain the truth that the Holy Spirit is, none other than a living, speaking, divine, and
eternal person. Exactly as Christ is a person and as God is a person..."
---A.T. Jones, Medical Missionary, March 27, 1907, pg. 98

Its clear where A.T. Jones mindset was after 1888 (just as Mrs. White herself explained in 1899
that the Spirit is a person as God is a person), and so no further commentary needed.

***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 5 (F.M. Wilcox.:

Seventh-day Adventists [not just myself] believe [now] in ... the Divine *TRINITY.
This Trinity consists of the Eternal Father the Lord Jesus Christ [and] the
Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead
---F. M. Wilcox (chief editor), *Review and Herald, October 9, 1913

the Godhead, or *TRINITY, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being,
omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the
salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the
Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemptionWe [Adventists]
recognize the divine Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each possessing a distinct
and separate personality, but one in nature and in purpose, so welded together in this infinite
union that the apostle James speaks of them as "one God." James 2:19. This divine unity is
similar to the unity existing between Christ and the believer, and between the different
believers in their fellowship in Christ Jesus

--- F.M. Wilcox, Christ is Very God, Review and Herald

In 1913, the Churchs leading editor of its publications, F.M. Wilcox, (a man highly regarded by
E.G. White herself; and asked by her, among others, to guard her estate upon her death), he
released in the Review and Herald Seventh-day Adventisms first Statement of Belief
recognizing the Trinity but as separate beings. And that same F.M. Wilcox is on record later
explaining (in a doctrinal book officially published by the Review and Herald) that the Godhead
of three persons/beings have separate individuality but was to SDAs unitedly praised as one
God; proving this was not (as some like to falsely argue) a sentiment only established in
Adventism in 1980, and only after Leroy Froom so-called introduced it to and imposed it on
Adventism after the 1920s. Leroy Froom inherited all of these previously described realities in
Adventism, when he became active in the 1920s and thereafter!! This again is irrefutable!

***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 6 (R.A. Underwood) on the Spirit

"It seems strange to me, now, that I ever believed that the Holy Spirit was only an influence,
in view of the work he does. But we want the truth because it is truth, and we reject error
because it is error, regardless of any views we may formerly have held, or any difficulty we
may have had, or may now have, when we view the Holy Spirit as a person. Satan's scheme
is to destroy all faith in the personality of the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
also in his own personality...Let us beware lest Satan shall lead us to take the first step in
destroying our faith in the personality of this person of the Godhead,the Holy Ghost.
It was once hard for me to see how a spirit could be a person; but when I saw "that God is a
spirit" (John &: 24), and that he is no less a person; when I saw that the last Adam (Christ)
"was made a quickening spirit" (1 Cor. 15: 45), and that he is a person. I could understand
better how the Holy Spirit can be a person..."

--- R.A. Underwood The Holy Spirit a Person, Review and Herald, Vol. 75, No. 20, May 17,
*1898, pg. 310

His pioneering testimony is self-explanatory, and explains clearly why another pioneer, G.C.
Tenny, would come out in the very same year (1896) and say, in response to the public

From the figures which are brought out in Revelation, Ezekiel, and other Scriptures, and from
the language which is used in reference to the Holy Spirit, we are led to believe he is
something more than an emanation from the mind of God. He is spoken of as a personality
[or individual being], and treated as such. He [the Holy Spirit] is included in the apostolic
benediction [2 Cor.13: 14], and is spoken by our Lord [Jesus] as acting in an INDEPENDENT and
PERSONAL capacity as Teacher, Guide, and Comforter. He is an object of *VENERATION
[worship] and is A [singular] Heavenly INTELLIGENCE, everywhere present, and
is always present [thus was alays in existence; Heb. 9:14].
---G.C. Tenny- To Correspondents, Review& Herald, June 9, *1896, pg. 362

The term veneration comes from Latin, venerari which means,

to worship!! The above quote from the Review to the public in 1896 is
self-explanatoryno further comments needed, except to point out that, again, this was the
very same year (1896) Uriah Smith (as Editor of the Review) applied the term the Trinity to
the Godhead persons for the very first time when speaking of worship acceptably ascribed to
the Spirit. If thats not collaborative testimony among leading pioneers (despite resistance from
some/others), I dont know what is. Never forget that if the Spirit is not deemed numerically
the third person of three divine persons then there is no Trinity. Is the picture becoming
clear now, dear reader, about the cumulative testimony of all SDA pioneers quoted so far? Lets
now hear the testimony of Mrs. White, the leading pioneer in Adventism, and who is deemed
as the inspired prophetess of the SDA Church. Her testimony bears the greatest weight (among
the pioneers) for SDAs and its time to hear from her.

***Testimony of SDA Pioneer No. 7 (E.G. White):

First, let me remind you of the potent observation of Jason Smith, before I delve
into Mrs. Whites direct and indirect testimony. As an SDA anti-Trinitarian,
Jason Smith, in 2017 he candidly (honestly) admitted to the following as
a result of his own research:

... While it is true that Sister White never used the word trinity herself when speaking of
God it is also equally true that she never rebuked or repudiated the SDA pioneers who used it
during her lifetime and there were several of them. It is unfathomable that she missed all of
those references. The truth is that she remained neutral and thus honest logicality compels the
conclusion that there is a trinity that one can hold to which is in no way a salvific danger. I
know some of my SDA anti-trinitarian brethren get upset when I say this but I don't serve them
if there wasn't an acceptable "trinity" view possible then surely the Spirit of Christ would have
warned us clearly through Mrs. Whites prophetic gift. This is not the case though"
--- Jason Smith, Facebook discussion, October 2, 2017

The above is a mouthful as it concerns her unspoken testimony about the validity of the term
Trinity when applied to the separate BEINGS (plural) of the Godhead, since, to the SDA
pioneers, the term Trio and Trinity were synonyms (as earlier quotes proved), and as all
reputable dictionaries show clearly (including the 1828 Noah Websters Dictionary of American
English used by the pioneers at the time). And its not an arguments from silence am here
using (as some might want to say), because not only did Mrs. White not rebuke these pioneers
for adopting Trinity-related terminology, but she adopted her own as well (to be proven
hereafter). And for those dissidents who become hung up on Mrs. White not using the Trinity
term per se, soon it will become clear thats a lame cop-out from facing up to the painfully
obvious!! Her colleagues did, and she not only did not chastise them for it, but tacitly endorsed
its use by using its synonym (i.e. trio) and explainiing the Godhead to mean the same thing
her colleagues gradually accepted as truth. Now notice that within the same period in which all
of these afore-described post-1888 events were taking place in Adventism for the very first
time, here is Mrs. Whites own testimony just before the afore described:

There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be
revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain
doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas
are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair....There are
those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing
they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of
Christ. The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity
of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many [i.e. SDA
pioneers in 1892] who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease, saying, "I am
rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing."
--E.G. White, Review and Herald, December 20, 1892.
Can you imagine, dear reader, Mrs. White is here telling the SDA pioneers just after 1888
(nearly fifty years after the founding of the Advent Movement) that they didnt necessarily
have everything correctly worked out doctrinally, and that they didnt necessarily have all
truths already hammered out, but allowance should be made even then for new light to
come. And then notice that it was primarily after that Mrs. White begun to introduce new
light on not just the Law, on salvation through faith, but on the Godhead. Its as plain as the
nose on your face, dear reader, and as bright as the sun!! No one can cover it up!!

Notice now Mrs. Whites own post-1888 or post-1892 gradual/cumulative testimony about the
THREE Godhead persons (a testimony given for the first time and mostly after her eye-
opening 1892 quote just looked at), and notice her unequivocal messages about how we should
relate to them as true SDA members:

"...let us [SDAs] consecrate to Him ["the Lord" our God] all that we are, and all that we have,
and then may we all unite to swell the songs, Praise God, from whom all blessings flow;
Praise him, all creatures here below; Praise him above, ye heavenly host; Praise Father, Son,
*AND Holy Ghost. ---E.G. White, RH January 4, 1881

We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is
walking through these grounds. ---E.G. WhiteManuscript 66, 1899 (From a talk to the
students at the Avondale School, Australia.).

The Holy Spirit is a person, for He beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of
God. When this witness is borne, it carries with it its own evidence The Holy Spirit has a
personality, [or individuality] else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits
that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person. -- E.G. White, Manuscript
20, 1906.

there are three living persons of the heavenly trio *trio being an interchangeable term for
trinity among the SDA pioneers themselves; as evidence proves]; in the name of these three
great powersthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiritthose who receive Christ by living
faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in
their efforts to live the new life in Christ. ----E.G. White, Manuscript 21, 1906, pg.11

Never forget that its not just a third person style of language Mrs. White employed when
speaking of the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Godhead (as dissidents in Adventism
love to mislead the unlearned with this faulty argument), but rather its a NUMERIC reality of
three living personalities or individuals involved (since its always the word/expression
personality or distinct personality she adopted and used, among the Trinitarian
expressions, when she wanted to express separate individual beings in the Godhead in
relation to each other). And this was why this Trinitarian third person of the Godhead
expression was understood by the pioneers initially (or in the earlier years; before 1888) to be a
heretical Trinitarian expression connected to the Trinity, as they fully well knew it meant
three persons, and not two!! This was what pioneer W.W. Prescott candidly admitted at the
1919 Bible Conference (making us know Mrs. White herself was now adopting formerly
considered heretical expressions connected to the Trinity), when he said:
"I was in the same place that Brother Daniells was, and was taught
the same things by authority [of the SDA Church], that Christ was the beginning of God's
creative work, that to speak of the third person of the Godhead or of the trinity was
heretical..." --- W.W. Prescott, July 6, 1919 Bible Conference.

DID YOU CATCH THAT??? Not only did the earlier expressions of some of the SDA pioneers ( like
that of Uriah Smith, and J.M. Stephenson , among others ) present Jesus as a created being
but the expressions "third person of the Godhead" and "the trinity" were considered
"heretical" by early SDA pioneers because they were TRINITARIAN EXPRESSIONS...and the
whole world knows it!! So when later pioneers (like Uriah Smith, A.T. Jones, S.N. Haskell,
Robert Hare, F.M. Wilcox, E.G. White, et al) started to use these formerly deemed heretical
Trinitarian expressions after 1888, it is plain they were now leaning in the direction of
Trinitarianism (clearly the revised version ); not continuing in a totally non-Trinitarian
direction!! Here is the actual photocopied proof of SDA pioneer W.W. Prescott admitting at the
1919 Bible Conference that early SDA pioneers opposed the use of Trinitarian expressions like
"the third person of the Godhead", and "trinity"---a solid proof of the later acceptance of
certain Trinity-related concepts/expression by E.G. White and other pioneers even before
Kellogg did in 1902-1903 (this scan is from the Minutes on July 6, 1919):

With the foregoing now establishing that even Mrs. White herself was borrowing from the
stock of Trinitarian-type expressions, and with the reality of even herself quoting Trinitarian
authors after 1888 (click link for details), we can now proceed to further look at her testimony,
and its monumental implications. She further said (note the years she did):
When we have accepted Christ, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit have pledged ourselves to serve [i.e. reverence, honor, worship and obey; see
Joshua 24:15; Psalm 100:2] God, the Father, Christ, *AND the Holy Spirit --the three dignitaries
and powers of heaven--pledge themselves that every facility shall be given to us if we carry
out our baptismal vows to "come out from among them, and be . . . separate, . . . and touch
not the unclean thing. ----E.G. White, Manuscript 85, 1901

"God says, [notice after this whom she means says this] "Come out from among them, and be
ye separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father
unto you [notice hereafter who is speaking as I and the Almighty here], and ye shall be my
sons and daughters, saith [or pledges] the Lord Almighty." [Now notice carefully] This is the
pledge of [not one person, but] the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [i.e. the *pledge to
receive and be a Father to you]; made to you if you will keep your baptismal vow, and touch
not the unclean thing In order to deal righteously with the world, as members of the royal
family, children of the heavenly King, Christians must feel their need of a power, which comes
only from the [three] heavenly agencies that have pledged themselves to work in man's
behalf. After we have formed a union with the great THREEFOLD POWER [singular; collective],
we shall regard our duty toward the members of God's family with a sacred awe.
-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901

"As the saints in the kingdom of God are accepted in the beloved, they hear: Come, ye blessed
of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. And
then the golden harps are touched, and the music flows all through the heavenly host, and they
fall down and worship the Father and the Son *AND the Holy Spirit."
---E.G. White, Manuscript 139, 1906.

You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are raised
up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life--to live a new life. You are born unto
God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of THE THREE HOLIEST *BEINGS IN
HEAVEN, who are able to keep you from falling...When I feel oppressed and hardly know how
to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, I just call upon the three great
Worthies, and say: You know I cannot do this work in my own strength. You must work in me,
and by me, and through me this is the prayer that every one of us may offer

-E.G. White, 1906, Manuscript Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268

The foregoing quotes, again, are self-explanatory, and while some dissidents in Adventism try
to deny she wrote all of the above quoted, the evidence is compelling that she did, since the
E.G. White Estate has reasonable evidence indicating she did pen them, and the quotes
consistently state or imply the same truths in principle, and all around her other pioneers were
saying the same thing in essence, and she never objected.
Lets now look at what other (named and un-named) pioneers were saying within the same
post-1888 and pre-1915 period, as well as how the PIONEERS collectively worshiped in the
same period (i.e. in the post-1888 and pre-1915 period), signaled by their hymnals which
underwent significant pro-Trinity CHANGES to match what the post-1888 doctrinal
developments were.
Miscellaneous COLLECTIVE Pioneering Testimony in SDA
publications (mostly by un-named SDA pioneers):

In the same year 1892 when Mrs. White signaled that the SDA Church should/can accept new
doctrinal changes/additions compared to earlier years, the SDA Church via the Pacific Press
publishing house, supportively published a non-SDA Trinity article by the Trinitarian minister of
the Presbyterian Church, Samuel Spear, which the SDA pioneers themselves renamed and
entitled it The Bible Doctrine of the Trinityobviously admitting that there is indeed a
biblical version of the Trinity that is acceptable!! It was clearly a Trinitarian article penned by
Samuel Spear, which preferred to stay away from certain mystical speculations about the
triune God (the Trinitarian term the SDA pioneers omitted from the article when publishing it;
proving it was Trinitarian at its core, or in all the basics), and the following quote from it is
telling (i.e. as taken the very portions the SDA pioneers supportively published unaltered in

"...the Godhead makes its appearance in the great plan for human salvation. God, in this
plan, is brought before our thoughts under the personal titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
with diversity in offices, relations, and actions toward men. These titles and their special
significance, as used in the Bible, are not interchangeable. The term Father is never applied to
the Son, and the term Son is never applied to the Father. Each title has its own permanent
application, and its own use and sense.
The distinction thus revealed in the Bible is the basis of the doctrine of the tri-personal
God...This doctrine... is not a system of tri-theism, or the doctrine of three Gods, but is the
doctrine of one God subsisting and acting in three persons, with the qualification that the
term person, though perhaps the best that can be used, is not, when used in this relation, to
be understood in any sense that would make it inconsistent with the unity of the Godhead,
and hence not to be understood in the ordinary sense when applied to men. Bible trinitarians
are not tritheists. They simply seek to state, in the best way in which they can, what they
regard the Bible as teaching.

Our Saviour [Jesus], in prescribing the formula to be observed in baptism, directed that converts
to Christianity should be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. Matt. 28:19. Here we have the distinct element of threeness in three personal titles of
the Godhead; and while this implies some kind of distinction between the persons thus
designated, the language places them all on the same level of divinity. The baptismal formula,
as given by Christ, is a strong argument in favor of this distinction; and yet no trinitarian ever
understood Christ as here asserting or implying anything inconsistent with the essential unity of
the Godhead....The exact mode in which the revealed Trinity is ....must be to us a perfect
mystery, in the sense of our total ignorance on the point. We do not, in order to believe the
revealed fact, need to understand this mode...

The Christian doctrine of the Trinitywhether, as to its elements, taken collectively or

separately so far from being a dry, unpractical, and useless dogma, adjusts itself to the
condition and wants of men as sinners. Paul said to the Ephesians that there is one Spirit, even
as ye are called in one hope of your calling, and then added that there is one Lord, Jesus
Christ, connecting with him one faith and one baptism, and then, ascending to the climax of
thought, added again that there is one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all,
and in you all. Eph. 4:4-6. What Christian head or heart will object to this statement of the
Trinity?... The truth is that God the Father in the primacy attached to Him in the Bible, and
God the Son in the redeeming and saving work assigned to Him in the same Bible, and God
the Holy Ghost in his office of regeneration and sanctification whether considered
collectively as one God, or separately in the relation of each to human salvationare really
omnipresent in, and belong to, the whole texture of the revealed plan for saving sinners.
Content with the revealed facts, and spiritually using them, he has no trouble with them. He
does not attempt metaphysically to analyze the God he worships, but rather thinks of him as
revealed in His word, and can always join in the following Doxology:
Praise God, from whom all blessings flow!
Praise Him, all creatures here below!
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host!
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!

---The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity, 1890, Pacific Press

The foregoing explains quite nicely what growing numbers of SDA pioneers were prepared to
accept and support after 1888, and it also indicates what the word trinity or trio now meant
to them after 1888 (since they used both words interchangeably), and it indicates why the
Roman Catholic version of the trinity doctrine, seeking to explain the Godhead persons as not
being personal individual beings (but rather one undivided substance or organism), would
forever be a problem to SDA pioneers even when they eventually accepted the basic truth
about the Bible doctrine of THE Trinity.
In the year 1894, this same Spear Trinity article speaking supportively of the triune God, and
which presented a "tri-personal God" and deemed/defended "bible trinitarians" as "not tri-
theists", it was again glowingly endorsed in the following words (after omitting only the triune
God expression):

This tract of 16 pages is a reprint of an article in the New York Independent, by the late
Samuel Spear, D.D. It presents the Bible view of the *doctrine of the Trinity [not just the
"trinity" group] in the terms used in the Bible, and therefore avoids all philosophical discussion
and foolish speculation. It is a tract worthy of reading."
--- Signs of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 29, May 28, 1894.

Notice the words "the *DOCTRINE of the Trinity" in the quote above, and recognize the SDA
pioneers were endorsing not just the term "trinity", as some dissidents in Adventism today
would want you to believe; but the "BIBLE *DOCTRINE of the Trinity" when correctly explained
without philosophical and mystical speculations ( as evident in the Spear Trinitarian article).
Thats an irrefutable reality which several dissidents in Adventism go to extreme measures to
deny and cover up!!

Notice now a later or another monumental pre-1915 development as it concerns the very
expression triune God which was earlier frowned upon and rejected by SDA pioneers (as
earlier omitted from the Spear article). In 1900 the April 3rd Review and Herald published the
thought that how surprisingly beautiful are the blended personalities of our TRIUNE GOD;
obviously with separate beings involved and not the Roman Catholic version, since SDAs have
always maintained the existence of separate beings of divinity). Click here to see more details
on this and to access the actual Review and read the whole article. Yes, to the pioneers the
surprisingly beautiful truth begun to emerge; after many years of denouncing both the
expressions trinity and triune God when applied to the Godhead. The very triune God
expression seen in the Spear article, published in 1892 without that expression, was now being
countenanced by SDA pioneers as early as 1900; but always applied to separate BEINGS of the
Godhead united spiritually.

In the photocopy seen on the next page we see the April 3, 1900 Review and Herald allowing
for the publication of the fact that our triune God is beautifully seen in the Holy Spirit
representing the Father and Son. Click here to see more details on this and to access the actual
Review and read the whole article
Two years after, in 1902, while still refusing to accept the traditional mystical and speculative
explanations about the Trinity in traditional Christendom, and while indicating why SDAs
earlier did not teach anything about the Trinity, E.J. Waggoner was now willing to deem God in
the following way, showing further marked changes in pioneering thinking:

"...as to the Being of God,the Godhead,Divinity as revealed in the Father, the Word (the
Son), and the Holy Spirit, we [SDAs] believe and teach just what the Bible says, and nothing
else. No man can by searching find out God. No creature can understand the Almighty to
perfection. The finite mind cannot comprehend infinity..."
---E. J. Waggoner, The Present Truth for 1902 - Vol. 18 - No. 06, pg. 83)

Its interesting that pioneers like E.J. Waggoner were now deeming the Godhead beings (plural)
as the being [existence] of God (proving that using this tri-unitive language about the
Godhead beings (plural) was not an idea introduced by Leroy Froom after the 1920s, or by a
later generation of SDAs far removed from the time of the pioneers, as dissidents love to claim).
By 1908, here is what the Present Truth magazine was deeming as a present truth in that year
(while Mrs. White was very much alive and still active):

The Person by whom God will judge the world is Jesus Christ, God-Man. The second Person in
THE *Trinity, that same Person of Whom we read in our Bibles...was born of the Virgin
Mary ---Present Truth, 1908, Vol. 24, No. 51-52, pg. 812

Yes, by 1908, SDAs were deeming Jesus the God-Man as the second person in the Trinity,
and that this was now present truth.what it clearly wasnt in earlier years among the
earliest pioneers who died before this development (like James White, J.H Waggoner, etc.).
And this year 1908 became the year when the SDA pioneers would COLLECTIVELY signal to the
public that certain Trinitarian expressions would now be added to their hymnal, which was
unheard of in the years before 1888. Lets now explore that new pre-1915 development as well.

***SDA Pioneers COLLECTIVE Testimony in their "Christ in

Song" Hymnal (1900 and 1908 versions)

Previous to the years 1888 (and after) obviously any worship/praise of the Spirit that SDA
pioneers would allow for the Spirit (as sung in the pre-1888 SDA doxology Praise God from
whom all blessings flow) this would be only in the sense of the two divine persons of Jesus
and the Father being themselves the Spirit *literally. But in 1908 the General Conference of
SDA pioneers (taking counsel together) vetted and passed the new Christ in Song hymnal,
where (on page 6) it had, for the first time ever, songs dedicated to the Trinity, (yes, an
entire section directly named as such); where both the Holy Spirit and the Eternal Three
were equally praised together in songs listed in that section (and they too in 1908 knew that to
refer to the Godhead as the Trinity immediately expressed three persons; not two). This
was while Mrs. White was alive, and she herself would have sung from that hymnal (yet no
objection registered on her part). Thats instructive, but dissidents try to ignore this GLARING
reality! See on the next page the actual page 6 of the 1908 Christ in Song pioneering hymnal.
The left side says it all.
Now The following Trinitarian-type *prayer songs being sung by SDAs DURING MRS. WHITES
TIME--addressing directly IN PRAYER the personal and divine Holy Spirit, as well as pointedly
and explicitly praising the Eternal Three as explicitly identified and listed---these songs says it

No. 104 (Hover Oer me Holy Spirit) in the SDA Christ in Song hymnal of 1900:

Hover oer me, Holy Spirit, Bathe my trembling heart and brow; Fill me with Thy hallowed
presence, Come, O come and fill me now At Thy sacred feet I bow; Blest, divine, eternal
Spirit, Fill with powr, and fill me now

No. 296 (Praise ye the Father) in the SDA Christ in Song of 1900 (verse 3):

Praise ye the Spirit, Comforter of Israel, Sent of the Father and the Son to bless us.
Praise ye the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Praise ye the Eternal Three!
Here is song No. 377 from the revised 1908 Christ in Song hymnal of SDA pioneers while Mrs.
White was alive (its listed under the Contents on page 6 as one of the songs of Praise to the
*Trinity). Note carefully all the words in the exhibit, and the three separate praises:

If you still need further details, dear reader, on the historical SDA hymnals and how (when
analyzed carefully and intelligently) they reflect the doctrinal realities and changes in
Adventism over time click this link. It is another worthwhile free booklet to read and



The Bible is the final authority on any doctrine in Adventism, and when I carefully and
objectively consult it, I see clearly that the SDA pioneers were indeed biblical after 1888, and
thus my faith is settled and secure. How do we BIBLICALLY know there is a "trinity" or "group of
three persons united" as listed and mentioned in Matthew 28:19? Here's how:
a] If the Father and Son are separate beings (Gen. 1:26; Prov. 30:4; John 1:1-3, 14), they
therefore could not both be the one Holy Spirit literally at the same time. If the one
OMNIPRESENT Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:4; Psalm 139:7-10) is owned by both the Father and the Son
*at the same time (Rom. 8:9), and Scripture is replete with the Holy Spirit being depicted as
personal (e.g. Acts 13:2-4 and Eph. 4:30), and is listed separately from Father and Son in very
many Scriptures (e.g. Matthew 28:19, Hebrews 9:14 and 1 Cor. 12:4-6), and

b] If both Jesus and the Father equally SENDS the Spirit to us (e.g. John 14:26, John 15:26 and
John 16:7), and

c] If a "sent" and a "sender" (like the Father sending His Son) must logically be personally
separate (it would be absurd otherwise, *unless one is a "Jesus only" or "Sabellian" believer),

d] If both Father and Son could not send themselves (that too would be absurd), and

e] If the Father is *never sent by Jesus, since the Father is *not subject to or led ("Headed") by
Jesus, but both Jesus and the Spirit are owned by the Father, and both speak/act in response to
the Father who leads them both, and sends them both, and

f] If the Holy Spirit intercedes (Romans 8:26-27) to the Father for us in our praying (not in
human priestly function as the Jesus the slain Lamb, or the one Mediator does, but the Spirit
influences our prayers while he resides in our hearts/minds, and God reads the mind of the
Spirit in us to know what is meant when we pray), and

g] If the Father could not intercede to himself (that would be equally absurd), and only a person
"intercedes", then
IT TO US?" Finally, since the distinct and personal Holy Spirit represents the very presence of
the Father and the Son (see 2 Sam 23:2-3; Acts 5:3-5; 2 Cor. 3:17, 18), then it is impossible to
praise or worship Father and Son and not praise or worship the Spirit!!
The preponderance of evidence is clear for me. Therefore as I close let me remind the
misguided dissidents refusing to take another or unbiased look at the story of Adventism that:

"When someone who is genuinely mistaken learns the truth, he will either quit
being mistaken or will no longer remain genuine." Anonymous
Many of the dissidents sadly display the following traits (*quote from Lazarus Castang)

Lets pray for them that God will humble them and release them from the chains
of self-deception that they have allowed themselves to be in. I am certainly
doing so myself (i.e. praying for them and myself), even as I do what Isaiah 58:1
calls me to do, i.e. lift up my voice like a trumpet, and, speaking fearlessly and
frankly, but with the deepest love for all concerned, show my people in Zion
where they are going wrong.living in denial and refusing to accept historical
and biblical truth when it becomes evident!!!


Derrick Gillespie is a trained teacher in the Social Sciences, History, and Geography, and remains a
member of the SDA Church in Jamaica and a lay evangelist for SDAs.
(Contact Info: ddgillespie@live.com OR https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie