Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ADVENTISM
ON TRIAL!!!
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GODHEAD
DOCTRINE IN SD ADVENTISM.
(NEWLY REVISED AND ILLUSTRATED IN COLOUR)
1st Edition
By Derrick Gillespie
December 2001
1
INTRODUCTION:
More and more, it has become evident to this writer, at the time of
writing (2001), that the subject of the Godhead, and more
specifically, the subject of the Trinity, is one of major concern,
producing much contention in some quarters *within the ranks of
Seventh-day Adventism. It was a subject of major concern in the
past, that is, during the early pioneering days of the Church, and
seems to have incited new and growing controversy (though for a
different reason) in modern Adventism. Suffice it to say it appears
that this ongoing controversy may well trouble the Adventist
(S.D.A.) Church until Jesus comes. However, this is
understandable because of the nature of the subject involved.
This writer has done and is doing, since 1998, an in depth and honest
research into the issues, surveying the various perspectives in this controversy
within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and strongly believes that this
presentation is necessary for the S.D.A. Church at this time. The Seventh-day
Adventist needs to know what the true Adventist should believe about God at
this time, and on what evidence this belief should be based.
In order to make this presentation reader friendly, and in order that the
facts be quickly arrived and assessed, the format of this presentation will be that
of question and answer. You may choose to look at the questions in sequence
as they are laid out, or you may choose to look at questions, which you deem
more important first, and then the others later. The following content page of
questions may be helpful if you choose to select which questions you will
address first. Please note that all references are noted immediately after each
quote within the presentation, so that you can verify for yourself the accuracy
and or truthfulness of each quote. All emphases in brackets, [ ], within the body
of each quote, are supplied by this writer. All Bible references are taken from the
King James Version (K.J.V.), unless otherwise stated. God bless you as you
read, and may this presentation stimulate interest in further research, to the glory
of Jesus, the Author of the everlasting gospel (Rev. 14:6, 7). May as you read,
and research, and meditate, you will come to a more full knowledge of Him
(Jesus), whom we hope to greet in peace, on that Day when all the saints shall to
Him proclaim: Lo this is our God, we have waited for Him and He will save
us (see Isaiah 25:8, 9 and Great Controversy, pgs. 640-644). Today we can only
wait with anticipation, believing that our God shall come, and shall not keep
silence (Psalm 50:3). Is He your God today? See John 20:28, 29.
2
Page
1. THE ADVENTIST HERESY? -Did the S.D.A. Church change its Doctrine
on God after 1915? (A 2000 booklet and audiotape)
2. DO ADVENTISTS WORSHIP THREE GODS? (A 2001 booklet)
3. THE OMEGA HERESY EXPLORED! (A 2001 booklet)
4. WHAT IS HERESY? (A 2001 tract or leaflet)
5. LUCIFER THE MOST HIGH GOD? (A 2001 tract/leaflet and audiotape)
6. ITCHING MINDS IN ERROR! (A revised 2001 pamphlet)
7. SEVEN EXPLOSIVE TRUTHS IN ADVENTISM! (A 2001 audiotape)
8. TRINITY- THE ISSUES OUTLINED! (A 2000 audiotape)
9. INDISPUTABLE FACTS ABOUT THE TRINITY DOCTINE IN
ADBVENTISM (A 2002 Historical Expose)
*AND MORE!!
QUESTION 1
.
DO ADVENTISTS REGARD THE SUBJECT OF THE GODHEAD A
MYSTERY?
The truth is that the Godhead, which is the divine
nature and the unity of God the Father, Christ the
God-man, and the Holy Spirit, the Three Eternal
Heavenly Dignitaries or the three Holiest Beings in
Heaven (according to Mrs. White, respectively
recorded in Evangelism, pg. 616, and Manuscript
Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268 or Ms 95, 1906, pp. 8-12,
14-17; "Lesson from Romans 15," October 20,
1906) presents the greatest mysteries to the human
mind, as is expected. These mysteries (divinely revealed truths,
incomprehensible by nature) are clearly presented in the Bible and
highlighted by the Spirit of Prophecy writings, or the writings of Mrs.
White, the official voice of Adventism expounding on our only creed the
Bible. Mrs. Whites view has always served as the official blue print
of the Seventh-day Adventist Churchs perspective on Bible doctrines,
and difficult topics, which require an inspired insight or opinion.
What are the mysteries of the Godhead or the divine nature of God?
These we must accept as they are revealed and are obvious to our minds.
We cannot invent that which is not declared by the word of God to be a
mystery, neither should we deny those that have been declared and
confirmed as such by the testimony of the Spirit.
Note carefully the following testimonies:
And without controversy great is the*MYSTERY of
GODLINESS for God [Christ] was manifested in the flesh
(1 Tim. 3:16)
Christs divinity [Him being God] is to be
steadfastly maintained Great is the *MYSTERY of
godliness. There are *MYSTERIES in the life of Christ
[God manifested in the flesh] that are to be believed, even if
they CANNOT BE EXPLAINED.
Here Mrs. White clearly confirms that the mystery of godliness in 1 Tim.
3:16 relates to unexplainable truths about Jesus, His Godhead or divine
nature, and obviously the same would apply to the Godhead unity of
Father, Son and Holy Spirit to which He belongs. Here following is the full
confirmatory evidence:
In divine revelation God has given to men mysteries that are incomprehensible, to
command their faith. This must be so. If the ways and works of God could be
explained by finite minds, he would not stand as supreme. Men may be ever searching,
ever inquiring, ever learning, and yet there is an infinity beyond. The light is shining,
ever shining with increasing brightness upon our pathway, if we but walk in its divine
rays. But there is no darkness so dense, so impenetrable, as that which follows the
rejection of heaven's light, through whatever source it may come.
-E.G. White, GC Daily Bulletin, February 18, 1897 par. 11}
Skeptics refuse to believe in God [and in what He reveals about divine nature]
because they cannot comprehend the infinite power by which He reveals Himself.
-E.G. White- Ministry of Healing, pg. 431
There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the
foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it
resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself,
explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in
light, unapproachable and incomprehensible. . . .
-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899
The existence of *A [singular] PERSONAL GOD [note God, not Gods] the
*UNITY of Christ with His Father [a plurality of Persons] lies at the foundation of
ALL TRUE SCIENCE [and true religion]. From nature we can gain only an imperfect
idea of the greatness and majesty of God. We see the working of His power and His
wisdom, but He Himself is beyond our comprehension.
E.G. White-Manuscript 30, Oct. 29,1904
Christ, at an infinite cost, by a painful process, *MYSTERIOUS to angels as well as
to man, assumed humanityThis is the *MYSTERY of godliness, that One equal
with the Father should clothe His divinity with humanity, and laying aside all the glory
of His office of Commander in Heaven, descend step after step in the path of
humiliation.
-E.G. White- Manuscript 29,Mar. 17, 1889
6
these views will not strengthen the Church. Regarding such *MYSTERIES which are
too deep for human understanding, silence is golden.
-E.G. White- Acts of the Apostles, pgs. 51,52
QUESTION 2.
WHEN ADVENTISTS REFER TO GOD WHOM DO THEY MEAN?
Before going on, carefully note that the
Adventist Church uses the word God to mean:
(1) the person of the Father, and (2) the class
of Heavenly persons who have the divine
nature (or Godhead), or natural divine
substance, and is called the Deity.
reference. The truth here is inescapable! The Apostle Paul knew that
GOD to the Christian couldnt be known or worshipped without an
acceptance of the Father through the Son by the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit, the Three Persons in the Godhead. Why? A few quotes will make
you see the truth.
1. Thou shalt worship the Lord (Jehovah) thy God [the Father] and Him
*only shalt thou serve- Jesus- Matthew 4:10
2. And Thomas answered and said unto Him [Jesus] *MY LORD
(Jehovah) and MY GOD [O Theos mou, or the God of me]. Jesus said
unto him, Thomas because thou hast seen ME, thou hast believed: blessed
are they that have not seen ME and yet have believed[do you?]
- John 20:28
And again, when HE [the Father] bringeth in the firstbegotten [Jesus] into
the world [that is, into our world at Jesus incarnation], He saith, and let all
the angels of God worship Him [Jesus, the man]. Hebrews 1:6
3. The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and *HIS [the Spirits] word was in
my tongue. The GOD of Israel [the Spirit] said, the Rock of Israel [the
Spirit] spake by me... David- 2 Samuel 23:2,3
Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghostthou hast
not lied unto men but unto GOD [the Spirit]. Peter- Acts 5:3,4
But isnt this confusing? Are there three (3) Lord (Jehovah) God or God of
Israel? Is there more than one Person called Jehovah God? Are there
others, in addition to the Father, truly called GOD, and in the highest
sense, despite the Bible declare one God, the Father, as recorded in
Deuteronomy 6:4 and 1Corintians 8:6? Let us see how Adventism historically
saw the truth.
In 1872 Adventists declared in its Fundamental Principles that, quote:
There is One God, a personal spiritual being who is the Creator of all
thingsand is everywhere present by His Representative, the Holy Spirit.
However, the official and inspired voice in Seventh-day Adventism
subsequently (or later) made it clear that this *singular PERSONAL GOD
exists from all eternity as a * UNITY OF CHRIST WITH HIS
10
FATHER. Yes, a UNITY!! Here is this amazing truth again for you to
contemplate dear reader:
***The existence of a [singular] Personal God [not personal Gods] the
UNITY OF Christ with His Father [a plurality of Persons] lies at the foundation of all
true science [and true religion]
E.G. White- Manuscript 30, Oct. 29,1904- quoted in The Upward Look(1986), pg. 316
So the truth is that both Paul (1 Cor.
8:6) and Spirit of Prophecy (Mrs.
Whites writings) instruct the
Seventh-day Adventist Church to
recognize, by the authority of
scripture compared with scripture,
that our Personal God is clearly the
Father, who has always been
revealed in a UNITY with His eternal
Son, and this Personal God is
everywhere present by His very real
and Personal Representative, the
Holy Spirit! Adventisms leading
pioneer and writer put it this way:
"The salvation of human beings is a vast
enterprise, that calls into action *every
attribute of the divine nature [i.e. the
Godhead]. The Father, the Son, and the
eternity by the Father. Note the following Biblical truth, and supporting Spirit of
Prophecy testimony:
But unto the Son [Jesus] He [the Father] saith, Thy throne *O God is foreverAnd
Thou *LORD [Jehovah-Ps. 102:1,25] in the beginning laid the foundation of the
earth -Hebrews 1:8,10.
Hosea will tell you, He [Jesus] is the LORD [Jehovah] God of Hosts, The LORD
[the name Jehovah] is His memorial, Hosea 12:5
E.G. White- Desire of Ages, pg. 578-579
So it becomes clear that Jesus, by a mysterious
eternal unity with the Father, is not just God in
nature, having the true God identity, but is
also God in equal *AUTHORITY and
function[see *John 20:28,29 and page 34 of this
presentation], even though He is not the Father in
Person (who is often just called God, simply
because he never became man like Jesus). That is
part of the mystery of godliness.
Note carefully below how true Adventism sees Jesus as God:
Notice that Mrs. White saw Jesus as God, to the point where the words
Christ and God were interchangeable to her without any need for
clarification. Jesus was, and is God, *just like the Father!! That is why the
Pope could assume the place of God by pretending to be, not the Father,
but another Jesus (2 Thess. 2:4), thus equating himself with the Father.
But the question is, was Jesus just God on earth on behalf of His (unseen)
Father, or in His Fathers absence, but is not God in His Fathers presence
along with Him in Heaven? Note again what Adventists really believe:
From everlasting [Micah 5:2/Psalms 93:2] He [Jesus] was the Mediator of
the Covenant [Hebrews 7:3] was *GOD essentially and *IN THE
HIGHEST [nothing higher] SENSE [existing] from *ALL ETERNITY
GOD OVER ALL [Rom. 9:5] a distinct [separate] Person, yet one
[united] with the Father.
-E.G. White- Review and Herald, April, 1906
The Son of God was the acknowledged *SOVEREIGN [supreme ruler]
of Heaven, *ONE [equal and united] in power and *AUTHORITY with the
Father.
E.G. White- Great Controversy, pg. 494
Christ ascended to Heaven [after coming to earth as God] amidst a cloud
of angels who glorified Him saying who is this King of Glory? [so He is
not just Prince of Heaven] And from thousand times ten thousands the
answer comes, the LORD [Jehovah], *HE [Jesus] IS the King of Glory.
--E.G. White- Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899 and
*Desire of Ages, pgs. 832-833
That is very clear dear reader about Jesus and the Father * BOTH being
recognized and served as God over all and as Jehovah.
The fact that Jesus was pictured as being given all things by the Father,
does not diminish, even by one iota, His equality with the Father in the
office of being GOD over all, and Him being such from *ALL eternity,
whether He is in or out of the Fathers immediate presence. No true
Adventist would deny this truth!
But the next obvious question is, WHY DO ADVENTISTS ALSO REGARD
AND SERVE (EVEN PRAY TO) THE HOLY SPIRIT AS GOD?
14
Here is the absolute, undeniable truth about what SDAs believe about the
Spirit in the following references:
You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of
life--to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the
sanction and the power of THE THREE HOLIEST *BEINGS IN
HEAVEN, who are able to keep you from fallingWhen I feel
oppressed, and hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that
God has given me to do, I just *CALL UPON THE THREE GREAT
WORTHIES, and say; You know I cannot do this work in my own
strength. You must work in me, and by me and through me, sanctifying
my tongue, sanctifying my spirit, sanctifying my words, and bringing me
into a position where my spirit shall be susceptible to the movings of the
Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and character. And this is the prayer
that every one of us may offer. . .
-E.G. White, Manuscript Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268 (Ms 95,
1906, pp. 8-12, 14-17; "Lesson from Romans 15," October 20, 1906.)
When we have accepted Christ, and in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy spirit, have pledged ourselves to *SERVE [worship]
[1] God, the Father, [2] Christ and [thirdly] *THE HOLY SPIRIT, the
Three Dignitaries [Persons of important position, high rank or officeOxford dictionary] and Powers of Heaven, pledge Themselves that every
facility shall be given us if we carry out ourvows
E.G. White- Manuscript 85,1901
God is a Spirit -John 4:24
The Lord is the Spirit - 2 Cor. 3:17,18
The Spirit of the Lord [is]The God of
Israel[and] the Rock of Israel 2
Samuel 23:2,3
To lie to the Holy Ghost? Thou
haslied to GOD -Acts 5:3,4,9
Thou shalt worship [only] the Lord thy
15
God [who is the Spirit] and Him *only shalt thou *SERVE [worship] Matthew 4:10
Now *if the Holy Spirit is not to be SERVED Mrs. White was in serious
error. But clearly she is not, since the Bible, as shown in the foregoing,
supported her, as is similarly the case with the modern Adventist. The
foregoing references, among others, clearly show why Mrs. White could
make such an amazing statement, and even exemplified prayer directed to
Him along with the Father and the Son; the three holiest beings in Heaven.
The Holy Spirit is God, seemingly even pictured literally as the Father
Himself!! Notice carefully however that the Holy Spirit is mentioned
separately and specifically by her to be worthy of service, due only to all
that is called God, or that is worshipped (2 Thessalonians 2:4) in the
Godhead. She even made it absolutely clear that the Spirit is separate from
Christ Himself, though he effectively personifies Christ (and the Father):
The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies
[represent] Christ, yet is a distinct personality Manuscript Release,Vol. 20
Thats plain and doesnt beat around the bush. The Spirit is the third
being of the three holiest beings of heaven. Plain and simple!! The words
three and beings CANNOT be explained away or watered down, as some
on the fringes of Adventism often seek to do!! The Holy Spirit is not God the
Father or Christ themselves literally in personage, but is their
Representative (as used so often by Mrs. White). He is a third Godhead
being and operates as if the other two themselves are present. And the word
Representative speaks rather eloquently in this regard. Much more will be
said on the Holy Spirit later in this presentation. But in conclusion here, it
must be reiterated that:
Put another way, the Three Persons are called GOD, not gods, because
the One true God the Father is, by His very nature, revealed in and worshipped
through His Eternal Son, and is present everywhere and served through His Holy
Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead. The idea of gods in the Godhead is one
of Satans first lies told on earth. This lie, recorded distinctly in Genesis 3:5,
and illuminated in E.G. Whites, Great Controversy, pgs. 532-533, is one which
he told because he knew that more than one Person in the Godhead is properly
called GOD(Gen. 3:22), but also knowing that
a misunderstanding of *the unity is what would
cause us to falsely see Them either as separate
gods or worse, as a monstrous three headed
individual being. This lie (counterfeit) is found in
almost all ancient religions of the world, simply
because, by his knowledge of the real truth,
Satan was able to plant the seed of
misunderstanding.
Why is there such a coincidence of divine
threes in counterfeit religions? Evidently it was by Satans influence (himself
knowing the truth about the true Godhead) that these ancient pagan religions
unwittingly recognized that truly there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead, but
unfortunately the persons are either seen as gods, or God is seen as a personal
being (personality) with three forms!
No Christian should therefore seek to promote these pagan lies, or on the other
hand go to the other extreme of unwittingly opposing all that is called God (2
Thessalonians 2:4), in the Persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, simply
because they cannot understand how, when the Three are spiritually united in the
Godhead, 1x1x1 =1(one) God, and not 1+1+1=3(three) gods.
The true nature of this unity will be looked at later.
17
QUESTION 3.
IS THE HOLY SPIRIT REGARDED IN ADVENTISM AS A
SEPARATE PERSONALITY, PERSON, OR BEING IN
THE GODHEAD?
The truth in Adventism is that of all the Three
Persons in Godhead, the Holy Spirit is
arguably the subject of most uncertainty and
disagreement. The Father is accepted as a
separate Personal divine Being from the
separate divine-human Being of His Son.
However there is much contention over the
nature or mode of existence of the Holy
Spirit. This is understandable, since as was stated earlier under Question 1,
the Holy Spirits nature is a mystery! It follows logically that no one (not
even this writer) can regard his perspective or viewpoint on the Holy Spirits
nature as infallible or fool proof, since anything that possesses a
mysterious nature, leaves no one with clear-cut answers to all questions.
However, it is evident that sufficient truth is revealed for the Seventh-day
Adventist Church to be able to have reasonable consensus, at least about
WHO the Spirit is, yet it should sufficiently acknowledge that it cannot
answer all questions about the Holy Spirit. What is revealed truth about the
Holy Spirit?
Firstly, the honest truth is that, if the Father only was the Godhead,
as some so falsely claim, the Holy Spirit could not be called the Third
Person *OF the Godhead, but He would be the second person-ality,
that is, manifesting the personality of only the First Person, or that of
the Father! It was E.J. Waggoner, an S.D.A. pioneer, who said it best,
that Jesus is, quote: completely and intrinsically, ONE OF the
CONSTITUENT [see constituent in the dictionary] PERSONS of the
Eternal Godhead, in the highest and fullest sense (Christ and His
Righteousness, 1890). The Godhead is therefore not regarded in historic
Adventism as one Person only! That much is very clear to the Adventist.
18
No more need to be said on that! Secondly, the honest truth is that Mrs. White
presents the Holy Spirit as ALL of the following:
19
20
The Holy Spirit HAS [note has, not is] a personality He must *ALSO be A
DIVINE [Godhead] *PERSON [an individual being] else He could not search out
the secrets, which lie hidden in the mind of God [notice, the Spirit does not just
know, but by an inseparably close association with God, He is able to search out the secrets of the
Godhead. He then speaks what He hears, note, what He hears, not just what He knows, John
16:13,14] - E.G. White- Evangelism, pg. 617
Note the difference she made between just having a personality and being a
Person. ONLY A PERSON HAS A PERSONALITY!!! Why did she not say the Spirit
is just the divine personality of the First Person, the Father, but is not a Person
Himself? Instead she emphasized, in addition to Him being * alsoa Divine Person
(and not just having personality), that He is the third Person of the Godhead, the
Representative of the other two? The words a person, third, and
representative all have dictionary meanings. See them for yourself. See also for
21
yourself (below) what Mrs. White thought Jesus meant by the Holy Spirit, His
Representative, being as it were, He Himself present on earth (John 14:23).
The Holy Spirit is Christs Representative [equally the Fathers], but divested of the
personality OF *HUMANITY, and independent thereof [thus the Spirit cannot be
literally compared with human nature or mans mode of existence]. Cumbered with
humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally. Therefore it was for their
interest that He should go to the Father, and send the Holy Spirit [who similarly has
all the fullness of the Godhead] to be His SUCCESSOR on earth. No one could then
have any advantage because of His location or His personal contact with Christ.
By the Spirit the Saviour would be accessible [representationally] to all. *IN THIS
SENSE [notice, in this sense, not in this form] He would be nearer to them than if He
had not ascended on high.
-E.G. White- Desire of Ages, pgs. 668, 669
That is very, very clear about Jesus being present, but representationally!
Now, it is true that Mrs. White (like the Bible), in many instances refers to the Holy
Spirit as an it, but just like Jesus is also called an it in the context of being called
the Eternal Life, in 1 John 1:1-3, or the Lamb in Rev. 5:6. Even in everyday speech
a young child (an individual being) is called an it, in a certain context of course (see
dictionary for it). The IT references to the Spirit must also be seen as contextual,
and as a metaphorical figure of speech, since she clearly regarded the Spirit as a Divine
Person and the THIRD (specific, distinctive, and individual designation) of the
Highest Authorities in Heaven itself.
Also, even though Paul in his writings wrote metaphorically or figuratively of his
own spirit being, as it were, in another place to judge matters in the Church on
his behalf (1 Cor. 5:3-5), this cannot be in the same sense that the Holy Spirit is
seen as a Representative. Paul was actually saying that if the brethren, in his absence,
kept him in mind (thus his spirit is present), and being assisted by *the Holy Spirit, did
what they already knew he would do about certain sins and sinners, their decision
making would be as if he was literally present assisting them to judge matters. That is
what Paul meant about his spirit being present among them. This is not the same sense
in which Christs Holy Spirit is present within the Church. Pauls spirit could never
be called a second person in the same sense that the Spirit is called the Third
Person of the Godhead. Nor was his spirit literally present among the brethren in
the same sense that the Third Person of the Godhead is today literally present
since coming in increased and visible power on the day of Pentecost. Nor could his
spirit be literally sent to speak what was heard as the Spirit does today, even
literally giving gifts to the Church members as He will, and literally influencing
them, in order that they may minister to others (see again *1Corintians 12:11).
22
Can so much Biblical evidence be denied about the Spirits individuality? Not by a
deep thinker! The following are also strong pieces of evidence indicating the Spirits
individuality since, obviously *parallelism in meaning cannot be ignored or denied, in
the face of Mrs. White, equally and repeatedly, referring to the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit in the same way:
It should be noted here that her special effort to call the Holy Spirit ONE OF
the LIVING Personalities of the Heavenly Trio is strong evidence that
she wanted us to see the Holy Spirit as a living, breathing, conscious,
individual Person (the Third Person of the Godhead) in the Heavenly
Courts, having His own will (1 Cor. 12:11). Note the following evidence
of this.
It is the glory of the gospel that it be founded upon the principle of
restoring in the fallen race the divine image by a constant manifestation of
benevolence. This work began *IN THE HEAVENLY COURTS[and
23
there] the Godhead [which is not just the Father] was stirred with pity [an
individual emotion] for the race, and the Father, the Son, *AND THE
HOLY SPIRIT, [the third Person, Living Person] gave Themselves [self
giving means independent will] to the working out of the plan of
redemption
-E.G. White, Counsels on Health, pg. 222
Some may say that it is fanciful speculation by this writer (and most
Adventists) that the Holy Spirit was evidenced here as being regarded as
Person in the Heavenly courts, as are the Father and the Son. They may
disagree on the basis that they feel that Mrs. White never calls the Holy Spirit
a Being. On this matter, note the following misleading words of a certain
writer, in a certain independent ministrys monthly publication claiming that
it is the true descendant of the pioneering Adventism of the 1800s.
Clearly the Remnant Church is at war in these last days, that is, a war to
protect the truth!!
Surely, it is evident that in her [Mrs. Whites]
mind, there was a difference between a person and
a personality [this part of this statement is evidently
only partially true]. Her concept of the Holy Spirit
was not properly described by the word PERSON
but rather by the word personality [evidence of
this?]The Holy Spirit is a person (personality)
[what contradiction!], but is not a Being. This is
clearly the proper explanation.
*Name of author withheld - emphasis in brackets [] supplied
The truth is evident there, that the Holy Spirit, this divine person has a
personality!!! This writer will use direct evidence, not surmises, to establish
truth. Is it also true that she never saw the Spirit as an individual being? The
following evidence is to the contrary, and honesty requires a full acceptance
of the following fact.
In the widely read book, STEPS TO CHRIST, published while Mrs.
White was alive (in 1892), she makes the following crucial point:
the unceasing interest of *Heavenly BEINGS all are enlisted in behalf of
mans redemption -Steps to Christ, pgs. 20-21
Who are these BEINGS she was referring to as enlisted on behalf of
mans redemption? Considering that usually only persons or beings are
referred to as enlisted, now notice carefully, in the *lines directly
preceding this statement, the list of BEINGS that she intended to
highlight:
[1] The Saviors [Jesus] life and death and resurrection, [2] the
ministry of angels, [3] the pleading of the *SPIRIT, [4] the Father working
above and through all
Steps to Christ, pgs. 20-21
Notice elsewhere what she meant by the Spirit pleading as a Heavenly
Being:
Christ our Mediator, *AND the Holy Spirit *ARE [plural] constantly
interceding in mans behalf, but the Spirit pleads not for us as does Christ
[the Mediator], who presents His blood, shed from the foundation of the
world; the Spirit works upon our hearts, drawing out prayers and penitence,
praise and thanksgiving. The gratitude, which flows from our lips, is the
result of the Spirits striking the cords of the soul...
-E.G. White, Selected Messages, Vol. 1, pg. 344
No true Adventist will deny that in Heaven
there are originally two sets of Heavenly
beings, namely [1] angels and [2] the
members of the Godhead. Now notice
carefully here that Mrs. White clearly
mentions the Holy Spirit as one of the
Heavenly BEINGS, showing unceasing
25
interest in, and was enlisted in behalf of mans redemption. Some, faced
with this truth (and convicting piece of evidence), may claim that Mrs. White
may have been careless in her choice of words here, or she did not really see
the Holy Spirit as a distinct or separate Heavenly Being, as are the angels,
Christ and the Father. The question is then, what more evidence do they need
than her saying in 1899, the Spirit is as much a person as God is a person?
Did Mrs. White not know what she was talking about? Is it that she was not
expert at theological matters, exegesis and semantics in doctrine, and hence is
in error here? That is the excuse some will make. However, Mrs. White
appropriately describes this dishonest approach to truth in the following way:
All the evidence produced they decide shall not weigh a straw with
them, and they tell others the doctrine is not true, and afterwards, when
they see as light evidence they were so forward to condemn they have too
much pride to say I was wrong
Manuscript 15, 1888
Now notice carefully how Mrs. White repeated the way she equally referred
to the angels and the Holy Spirit together as beings in MINISTRY OF
HEALING, another widely read book, one that was published in 1905,
thirteen years after she made the previously quoted statement in Steps to
Christ of 1892.
The Bible shows us God in His high and holy place*SURROUNDED by
holy *BEINGS, all waiting to do His will. Through these messengers He
is in active communication with every part of His dominion. By His
*SPIRIT [one of the Holy beings which are before His throne, Rev. 1:4]
He is everywhere present. Through the agency of [1] His *SPIRIT and
[2] His angels [all Heavenly beings, according to Mrs. White], He
ministers to the children of men.
E.G. White- Ministry of Healing, 1903, pg. 417
Having considered that WHILE ALIVE she had already published that the
Holy Spirit is one of the Heavenly beings who was enlisted for mans
redemption, now notice carefully the following fact. In the quote just read,
she focused on the holy BEINGS who SURROUND the throne of God,
who represent Him, and who minister on His behalf. Who does she
26
immediately mention here among them? The Holy Spirit! The same Holy
Spirit who is described by the Bible as the sevenfold Spirit before His
[Gods] throne in Revelation 1:4! Is He not a separate holy being? The
truth in Mrs. Whites writings is obvious to those who wish to see it. No
one can cover it up! Considering all proven before (showing what she
published while alive), now notice again the further proof below, in her later
published manuscripts (i.e. published after her death), climaxing all she said
while alive. And there is no evidence of tampering here since it matches
perfectly with what was published while she was alive.
You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of
life--to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the
sanction and the power of THE THREE HOLIEST *BEINGS IN
HEAVEN, who are able to keep you from falling. You are to reveal that you
are dead to sin; your life is hid with Christ in God. Hidden "with Christ in
God,"--wonderful transformation. This is a most precious promise. When I
feel oppressed, and hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that
God has given me to do, I just call upon the three great Worthies, and say;
You know I cannot do this work in my own strength. You must work in me,
and by me and through me, sanctifying my tongue, sanctifying my spirit,
sanctifying my words, and bringing me into a position where my spirit shall
be susceptible to the movings of the Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and
character. And this is the prayer that every one of us may offer. . .
-E.G. White, Manuscript Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268
The Adventist Church therefore has several reasons why it can remain united
on this doctrinal truth, that the Spirit is a separate holy being, the third
Person of the Godhead. Prove this for yourself in Isaiah 48:16!!!
THE HOLY SPIRITS INDIVIDUALITY- OUR SURE FOUNDATON
What are the main reasons why the Adventist Church can continue to be
united on its doctrine about the individual Personhood of the Holy Spirit?
The following things are clear to those who are honest, and to those who have
the eye salve of understanding.
27
[1] In the Heavenly courts there would be no need for the Holy Spirit to be
manifested as the third Person of the Godhead (when the Father and Son
met to work out and commit Themselves to the plan of redemption) if, firstly,
His individual presence was not important and, secondly, if the Father and
Son were the only members of the Godhead who actually met before Jesus
came to earth. Yet, notice carefully that in Counsels on Health, page 222223, Mrs. White faithfully recorded that the Spirit was equally present in the
Heavenly courts with the Father and the Son. The Spirit was equally
stirred with pity (expressing the emotion of a Person) and equally gave
Himself, and He did this (according to Steps to Christ, pgs.20-21), as a one of
the HEAVENLY BEINGS enlisted in behalf of mans redemption,
working harmoniously with the Father and the Son. Self-giving demands
individual will!! The Father is presented as the Head (a normal
organizational arrangement) of the entire operation.
[2] The Spirit is described by the Bible as the Eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14)
and thus must be co-eternal with God. At the creation of the world, the Father
said to the Son: Let us make man, according to Mrs. White in the book
The Story of Redemption, pages 20-21. This creates no real difficulty if one
wonders: At Creation, when the Father was speaking to the Son in Heaven,
*Where was the Third Person of the Godhead? The answer is clear! The
Holy Spirit was all over the universe, and on earth (where His full attention
was focused during Creation) manifesting the omnipresence of the Father and
the Son. The Spirit *Himself effected, Personally on earth, the work of
creating man on behalf of the Father and the Son. The Bible clearly records
this:
Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest
the face of the whole earth [by the Spirit] -Psalms 104:30
The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters Genesis 1:2
The Spirit of God hath made me Job 33:4
So the Spirit was on earth doing the work, as the Father spoke to the Son
in Heaven about creating man! Notice carefully also that the Spirit is
connected to the Almighty in Job 33:4, meaning that whosoever He
28
represents must be the Almighty, that is, Father *and Son! It was the
Spirits breath or life force that entered Adam, on behalf of the
Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is the Creator, our Creator! His
office is to represent the Father and the Son, in a real and Personal way, all
over the universe, that is, manifest their omnipresence. This can explain why
the Spirit is never seen in vision on the Throne of the universe, or in the future
New Jerusalem fellowshipping with the saved. The business of His office is
not to sit upon a throne and rule, but He is presented as being, not upon, but
before His Throne (Rev. 1:4), as the sevenfold Spirit in symbol (see
comments in Uriah Smiths, Daniel and the Revelation, on Rev. 1:4). This
further highlights the Spirits separateness and individual distinction. The
Spirit would have been seen in vision*upon the Throne as the Father if He
was not meant to be seen as separate Person. Ezekiel, way back in the Old
Testament, shows Him, as a He, not an it, being sent out with an
assumed personal form (Ezekiel 8:1-5), transporting Ezekiel by a
hand in vision towards the Throne of the Father and Son in another
location. What the Spirit actually looks like no one really knows! That is
why His nature is a mystery!! He is, however, clearly personal, not an
impersonal dove or active force.
[3] Since God is Spirit, there is an automatic reference to the Holy Spirit
every time God is referred to, whether Father or Son is meant (read
carefully John 4:24/ Acts 5:3,4/ 2 Cor. 3:17,18/ 1 Cor. 2:11-16). Yet, though
the Spirit is God, He (the Spirit) is presented through the inspired eyes of Mrs.
White, not as the First Person or the Second Person-ality of the Godhead
but, notice carefully, as the Third PERSON of the Godhead, even while He
is pictured as the Father and Son Himself. *What is the strongest evidence
that the Spirit is a separate Person, not just a second personality or the split
personality of someone else? Before giving you this strong piece of evidence,
it should be noted that *some people are so bent on proving the Holy Spirit
to be simply a personality, not a Person, that they will even use the
syndrome of human madness or psychosis (with split personality as its
symptom) as the only way to illustrate the Holy Spirit of God. How
irreverent, and how sad!! To whom will you liken the Holy One, a
madman? See Isaiah 40:18, 25 before continuing!
29
Jesus came to earth not to speak of Himself or to glorify Himself, but the
One who sent Him. See John 12:49, 50/ John 7:18/ John 5:31 for this
important truth, especially noting the way it was stated. Jesus could only
logically do this because He was distinct or separate from the Father and
His Spirit who sent Him. Note this distinction of the Spirit in Isaiah 48:16.
Now listen to the words of Jesus making it plain why the Holy Spirit should
*ALSO be regarded as a distinct or separate Person. Keeping in mind what
the words Third and Living, chosen by Mrs. White, already strongly
suggest about the Spirits individual separateness, now carefully note Jesus
own words here on this matter:
human being of Jesus. The Spirit is not the literal self presence of the Father, but
it is a matter of one spirit Person representing another spirit Person. The Spirit is
also not the spirit part (or inner part), separate from, and is the extension of, the
body part of God, since *God is pure spirit, and not a material body and spirit as
He made man. The Spirit is so similar to, and closely related to, the Father that the
Spirit is to be seen as He Himself or the Son Himself, His own inner self, as it
were. No one will call his literal inner self his own representative, but will call
another person such, who is present on his behalf, acting on his behalf.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit equally have, and are all the fullness
of the Godhead (see Mrs. White in Evangelism, page 615), and so the presence of Jesus
at His incarnation was the presence of the Father, yet in a representative way in human
form (Matt. 1:23/1 Tim. 3:16).
Equally, the presence of the Spirit is the presence of both the Father and
the Son, yet in a representative way (see John 14:18,23 and compare Rev. 22:16,20).
Both the Father and the Son equally sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:26/John 16:7)
into, what can only be seen as a special or new phase of ministry on the Day of
Pentecost, since evidently the Spirit was always present on earth, even when Jesus
was here in tangible human form (Ps. 139:7-12). It becomes evident why the Holy
Spirit is not always presented together with the Father and the Son in Heaven (see John
14:23/21:23/ 17:3,23/ 1 John 1:3 and Luke 10:22). This is because the Spirit is the Person
who brings to earth, personally, the presence of both Father and Son, but in a
representative way. We fellowship with Them, that is, the other Two, by the Holy Spirit
Himself being in our hearts on their behalf. In the same way that we can be filled by
any of the personal Satanic demons or spirit beings (Acts 5:3) and it be said that Satan
fills the heart, then it should be no strange thing that the Spirit, an Infinite and thus
an omni-present Person, can enter and fill us in the same sense (Ezekiel 3:24), on
behalf of the Father and Son, yet it be said that they are in us, despite they are
geographically in Heaven fellowshipping together as two other distinct or separate
Persons. Today the Holy Spirit make Them known to us by His teaching, and by the
impression He makes on our minds (2 Cor. 13:14), and by the love of the Spirit that
we feel (Rom. 15:30).
In closing here on this question, it must be clearly understood that *despite the
Spirits nature remains a true mystery, with so many questions still to be answered,
with so many viewpoints (including that of this writer) falling so infinitely short, of
properly expressing in words even the very minute glimpses into His mysterious
nature, the following reality is no mystery at all. *It is no mystery that the Holy
Spirit, whether you believe Him to be a separate individual or not, must be
served, if we are going to serve the Father and the Son. Obviously you cannot
serve the Father without serving His Spirit. You cannot sing to, pray to, or
worship a spirit being without worshipping His Spirit, which is the essence of
Him present in Church. Mrs. White, however, lists the Spirit *separately as One
31
that is to be served. This would be hardly logical if the Spirit did not deserve
service in His own right, even though He is seen as the Father and Son Himself.
QUESTION 4
DO ADVENTISTS BELIEVE THAT JESUS AND THE
FATHER ARE IDENTICAL?
There are those who trouble the Adventist Church from within and without
on this point of identity. However there is a real simple explanation.
The word identical means both *absolutely alike and also one and the
same (see Oxford Dictionary). The truth is that Adventists believe that
Jesus and the Father are identical in substance, in the very same way
that two twins are identical (or absolutely alike- referring to two different
things). Identical twins are * of (an important word) the same substance, and
are absolutely alike in substance, but are clearly not one and the same
person. If the word of were not in the expression, then it would read that
twins are the same substance, meaning they are the same person. However
this is not how it reads when the word of is used in the expression; thus they
are not the same person, just having the same attributes. At the infinite
level, Jesus is the exact copy or express image (that is, He is of the very
substance) of the Father (Heb.1: 3), but they are not the same in Person,
neither are they twins. He is the only one perfect photograph of God (as
quoted earlier from E.G. White). The following quotes clearly give the
Adventist position, and are vital to remember:
It seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, I and my
Father are one. The words of Christ were full of deep meaning, as He put
forth the claim that He and the Father were *OF ONE SUBSTANCE
[identical substance], possessing the *SAME [note same] attributes E.G. White- Signs of the Times, Nov. 27, 1893, pg. 54
32
So, what of the One who is equal to the Father Himself, of one substance
with Him, being His very own Son? He must therefore be, not a god, but
God!! He is God because, by reason of the Father-Son relationship, He and
the Father are of *ONE substance, possessing [note carefully] the *SAME
attributes!
This EXACT SIMILARILITY OF SUBSTANCE between the Father and the
Son was believed, and taught by Christians long before even the Council of
Nicea (325 A.D), as seen below (in a quote from as early as 190 A.D):
When [he John] says: what was in the beginning [1 John 1:1], he
touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-equal
with the Father. [The word] Was therefore is indicative of an eternity
without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is, the Son, being one
with the Father, in regard to EQUALITY [similarity] OF SUBSTANCE, is
eternal and uncreated. That the Word always existed is signified by the
saying: In the beginning was the Word [John 1:1]
- Clement of Alexandria (*190 A.D.), Fragment in Eusebius History, Book 6,
Chapter 140
Thus no one can say that Nicea invented these ideas (325 A.D), but only
brought together, officially, these early Christian ideas in a creed (Nicene
Creed).
The word * HOMOOUSIOS is a theological word which is used to
mean of one substance or of the same (or identical) substance, as it
relates originally to the doctrine of the Three Persons of the Godhead. The
following quotes, from the Encarta Encyclopedia 2000, should shed some
light on this fact:
Jesus himself, acknowledged as the Christ, was understood as the incarnate
Son, or Word (Logos), the concrete manifestation of God within the finite
order. Both expressions, Son and Word, imply a being who is both distinct
from the Father and yet so closely akin to him as to be *OF the same
substance (Greek *homoousios) with him
-"God, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000.
1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Arianism, a Christian heresy of the 4th century that denied the full divinity of Jesus
Christ. It was named for its author, Arius. Arius taught that The Son was not
generated from the divine substance of the Father; he did not exist from all eternity,
34
but was created out of nothing like all other creatures, and exists by the will of the
Father. In other words, the relationship of the Son to the Father is not natural, but
adoptive. In proposing this doctrine, Arius was attempting to safeguard the absolute
transcendence of God The teaching of Arius was condemned in 325 at the first
ecumenical council at Nicaea . The 318 bishops assembled there drafted a creed that
stated that the Son of God was begotten not made, and consubstantial (Greek
homoousios, *OF the same substance) with the Father
-"Arianism," Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000.
Please notice the following quotation taken from a letter written by Eusebius of Csarea.
When this form was dictated by the prelates, their expressions of the
substance of the Father,
were not
doctrine, that the Son was of the Father; but not, however, a part of the Father.
We therefore agreed to this opinion; nor did we reject the word consubstantial,
having in view the promotion of peace, and being anxious to avoid a departure
from the right belief. For the same reason, we approved also of the words
begotten, not made, since the word make, they said, was common to the
other creatures which were made by the Son, and to which He has nothing
similar; and that therefore He is not made like those who were created by
Himself, but is of a more excellent substance than any created being. The divine
oracles inform us, that He was of the Father, by a mode of generation, which can
neither be conceived nor expressed by any created intelligence. But by the
expression consubstantial with the Father
the Son of God has no similitude with created beings, but resembles in all things
the Father only, by whom He was begotten, and that He is of no other substance
or essence than that of the Father. The proposition being thus explained, we
thought that we might justly accede to it We finally embraced, without further
contention, those expressions which were found to be unexceptionable, when,
on a candid examination of the sense of the words, it appeared that they entirely
agreed with those admitted by ourselves, in the exposition of faith which we at
first proposed.
36
the challenge to carefully clarify meanings in usage, since words can have
different shades of meaning. For example, despite the word itself does not
occur originally in the Bible, Adventism uses, from original Roman
Catholic Latin, the controversial word HELL (for Sheol, Hades,
Gehenna, and Tartaroo in the Bible). However, the Adventist teaching on
Hell is distinctively different from Catholicism! Adventism also uses,
just like the Catholics, the word GODHEAD, in the controversial
sense of Three Persons of Divinity, yet with some distinctive
differences even in the face of much similarity in usage.
Doctrinally, the Church has had to, and must continue to carefully clarify
meanings each time it uses these words to prevent confusion. The same
principle must equally apply to the use of the controversial term,
consubstantial, which comes from the Greek homoousios, and
undeniably it *literally means, of one (the same) substance or related
in substance, as Jesus is consubstantially related to us and is, in the
same sense, related also to the Father. Those who feel hesitant are free to
not use such a term, but should not set themselves up within the
Adventist Church as judges over other mens consciences, simply because
others choose to use this word, and clearly are using it in a certain
*restricted context. More will be said later in this presentation on the
matter of word usage or semantics.
QUESTION 5
DO ADVENTISTS BELIEVE THAT JESUS HAD A
BEGINNING BECAUSE HE WAS BEGOTTEN?
The following quote, from the latest and official explanation of the S.D.A.
27 Statements of Belief in the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe(1988)
can serve as a good starting point to answer this question:
That scripture alludes to Jesus as only begotten and the first
born and speaks of the day of His begetting does not deny [exclude] His
divine nature and *ETERNAL [I AM] existence. The term only begotten
(John1: 14/ John 1:18/ John 3:16/ 1 John 4:9) comes from the Greek word
38
If Christ made all things He existed before all things [John 1:1-3]. The
words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in
doubt. Christ was GOD essentially, and in the HIGHEST [nothing-higher]
sense. He was *WITH [alongside] God [the Person of the Father] FROM
[now notice]*ALL ETERNITY
-E.G. White- S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 5, pg. 1126
From *ALL ETERNITY [Micah 5:2] Christ was united with [note with]
the Father, and when He took upon Himself human nature [and was separated from
His Fathers immediate presence], He was STILL [in the same way as before] one with
God [existing as two distinct Beings, separate but united for all eternity]
-E.G. White Comments- S.D.A. Bible Comm., Vol. 5, pg. 1115
From everlasting [Micah 5:2/Psalms 93:2] He [Jesus] was the Mediator of the
Covenant [Hebrews 7:3] was *GOD essentially and *IN THE HIGHEST [nothing
higher] SENSE [existing] from *ALL ETERNITY GOD OVER ALL [Rom. 9:5] a
*DISTINCT [separate] Person, yet one [united] with the Father.
-E.G. White- Review and Herald, April, 1906
This truth [about Jesus eternal pre-existence and distinction] infinitely
MYSTERIOUS in itself, explains [Heb.7:3] otherwise unexplainable truths, while
enshrined in light unapproachable and INCOMPREHENSIBLE
-E.G. White- Review and Herald, April, 1906
because, under inspiration, and from her conviction in what the Bible
teaches, she herself also distinctly stated that, quote:
In speaking of His pre-existence Christ takes the mind back through
*DATELESS [infinite] AGES [in all eternity], He assures us that there
never was a time [in the dateless ages of all eternity] when He was not in
close *FELLOWSHIP [association with another] with the eternal God.
- Mrs. White- Evangelism, pg. 615
Could Mrs. White be any clearer? What other words could she choose to
make it more explicit that Jesus simply had no beginning, in the sense of a
point in time? What is an infinite mystery? What does incomprehensible
mean? Clearly there is no mystery involved in saying that Jesus, the Son,
came after the Father, at a point in time, which is normal human
experience. But there is mystery involved in saying that the divine Son
and His Father both existed, distinct, from all eternity, despite
begotten by the Father.
Only one led by the spirit of presumption would want to solve this
MYSTERY, to satisfy his own need for reconciling with logic, and thus
unwittingly discredit, not just the servant of the Lord (Mrs. White) but even
God Himself who said:
Before me there was *no GOD formed, neither shall
there be any *AFTER me
-Isaiah 43:10
Clearly Jesus could not have been formed as GOD *after the
Father, whether in nature or in authority, even by divine birth, because the
Father would have no explanation or answer to His own words in Isaiah here!
So, how do we reconcile with the two truths that Jesus, as God, was both
begotten from the Father, yet was distinct or separate as a Person, and
God over all for all eternity? We CANNOT reconcile the two (logically,
that is), but must accept both truths by faith, without denying any, since both
truths are the unerring word of God! That is what infinitely mysterious and
incomprehensible mean. If logic is applied here, it will fail, because who
by searching can find out God?(Job 11:7-9). With God all things are
possible!! The truth is that Jesus is divinely begotten, the only begotten,
and is the true Son of God, but just not so by the laws of human experience.
The truth is that Jesus simply had no beginning, at a point in
time, even though He is presented as the Son of God (Heb. 7:3). The truth
41
Who will venture to propose that Jesus name (I AM), does not fully fit His
nature, or that He has a false name? This writer will not.
42
There is very little that need to be said after this on this matter, except to
remind you dear reader that the Father and the Son are both called the
First and the Last, clearly indicating equality in time or length of
existence. Jesus is not the Second but also First(Rev. 2:8/22:12,13).
Resist not the word of God, or twist it, but believe it unto salvation!
QUESTION 6
DO ADVENTISTS REGARD JESUS AS EQUAL OR
SUBJECT TO THE FATHER?
There is some today in Adventism, a growing sect, who continues
to struggle over a truth that was long settled in historic Adventism. They
cannot understand how the Bible declares only one true God (John 17:3),
the Father (1 Cor. 8:6/ Eph. 4:6), and yet Adventism is declaring that Jesus
is God in the highest sense, that Jesus is God over all, that Jesus is equal
in substance to the Father, that Jesus is equal in dignity (every title, office,
name) and glory (every divine quality) with the Father, that Jesus is one
(equal) in power and authority with the Father, and thus co-equal with Him.
Does this not make two Gods (they argue) of a so-called group of three
Deities, as taught by modern apostate Adventism? Doesnt the Bible teach
that Jesus is subject(subordinated) to the Father, whom He calls His own
God? This is the substance of their protest as they even denounce the
Churchs teachings, many of them, and often separate themselves from it.
This writer humbly submits that it is because the mystery of godliness is too
great, for minds unwilling to accept fully what the Bible teaches, why this
problem persists! However, this aspect of the mystery of godliness is
probably a truth best illustrated or discerned, in working principle, when one
studies and compares spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2: 13, 14).
God made man (plural) in His own image, and yet many fail to
see how this reflection of Gods nature is full of truth, simple and
profound. In what way does the male and female unite and become one
flesh (or one body), not just one in purpose or action, while they remain
separate individuals? The question could also be asked how can 1+1=1?
43
An answer to that would clearly illustrate the context of the unity of the
Godhead. In the same vein, one could also ask how is it that both the
male and female are absolutely equal, but by Gods plan the male is the
head of the woman? The answer to this is plain. That is Gods plan in
the scheme of things: an absolute equality in beings of the same class, but
a *functional leadership of one, and subordination of another, for unity
in action! So likewise, Jesus is *BOTH equal to and, at the same time,
subject to the Father, as part of Gods plan (see Patriarchs and
Prophets, pg. 36, E.G. White). Jesus is not inferior in nature, authority,
or in no reality, to the Father, even though His equality is pictured as
being given to Him or bestowed upon Him from all eternity! He
has been, and always will be subject to the Father, but only by choice,
as part of Gods plan. Jesus is not inferior in nature or in authority, as
He exalts the Father and the Father exalts Him. O how great is the
mystery of godliness!
The following quotes from Mrs. White should throw some light on the full
teaching of the Bible:
As the veil which conceals Christs glory from our view is drawn
aside the Savior is shown to be in His High and Holy place
E.G. White- Manuscript 94, Sept. 23, 1904
The Son of God was the acknowledged *Sovereign [supreme ruler] of
Heaven, *ONE [equal and united] in power and *AUTHORITY with
[alongside] the Father[thus there was more than one Person acknowledged
as Supreme Ruler or Highest Authority in Heaven]
E.G. White- Great Controversy, pg. 494
It was in seeking to exalt himself [Is. 14:12-14] above the Son of God that
Satan had sinned in Heaven[Jesus is therefore both Sovereign or
supreme ruler, and Most High along with His Father]
E.G. White- Desire of Ages, pgs. 129-130
With human nature upon Him [Jesus], He met the arch apostate
[Satan- Is. 14:12-14] face to face and single handedly withstood the foe of
His throne [His own throne in Heaven, which was equally His Fathers
throne, not the future Davids throne] - S.D.A. bible Comm., Vol. 7, pg. 927
44
Jesus is equal in DIGNITY and glory with [alongside] the Father [Jesus
holds every rank, title, and office of the Father, including the Almighty]
E.G. White- Questions on Doctrine (1957)
As they question, who is this [Jesus], the disciples, filled with the spirit of
inspiration, answer this question. In eloquent strains, they repeat the
prophecies concerning Christ: [among other things]Hosea will tell you,
He [Jesus] *IS [Himself also]the LORD [Jehovah] God of Hosts
[John 20:28, 29], the LORD [the name Jehovah] is His memorial, Hosea
12:5
-E.G. White- Desire of Ages, pgs. 578-579
Over the recent sepulcher of Joseph, [at His resurrection] Christ had
proclaimed in triumph, I am the resurrection and the life. These words
could be spoken only by *THE DEITY [the Supreme God]
E.G. White-Desire of Ages (1898), pgs.785-786
[2] If He [Jesus] lacked one iota of being equal to God the Father, He
could not bring us to Him(said a pioneer, E.J. Waggoner, Christ and
His Righteousness, 1890, pgs. 43-45).
No juggling of terms or semantics can confuse the issue here. The Father
and the Son are *ABSOLUTELY EQUAL, (thus are co-equal) in name,
rank, nature and authority, but not in Person!
The foregoing is plain. Yet, Jesus, while on earth, Himself declared that the
Father is greater than I. Paul declared that the Son is subject to Him who
placed all things under His feet. How is this to be true? How is this to be
understood? How can the two things be simultaneously true? Here is where
many get into doctrinal trouble. This is precisely what Satan uses among
*some within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in order to rob Jesus of
His rightful place of absolute equality with Father. Under the guise of
reformed Christianity, working to seemingly restore so-called truth,
he skillfully, deceptively, uses his sophistry to capture waiting souls, who
are either overzealous or unlearned in the truth, and use them to lead
others astray. In their overzealousness to uplift and exalt the Father, as
the only true God, they unwittingly oppose [or down play] all that is
called God, in the Person of Jesus (and the Person of the Holy Spirit),
while at the same time, working as accusers of the brethren who do not
believe as they do.
The following should shed some faint light on this awesome subject, which
only eternity in Heaven will give us a full grasp of this mystery of
godliness.
JESUS IS SUBJECT(WHILE EQUAL) TO THE FATHER
Notice carefully the real meaning of the following in the Bible:
One [David] in a certain place [Psalms 8:3-8] testified saying, what is man, that thou
art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou MADEST [made
or created] him a little lower than the angels; thou crownest him with glory and
honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: THOU HAST PUT ALL IN
SUBJECTION UNDER HIM [Gen.1:26-28]. But now we see NOT yet all things put
under him. But WE SEE JESUS, who was made [for a little while] a little lower than
the angels [then] crowned with glory and honour [that is, after he became man]
[and made] the captain of their salvation. For both he that sanctifieth [Jesus] and they
who are sanctified [Christians] are all of one [created by the same Father the same flesh
46
and blood or same substance- verse 14]; which cause He is not ashamed to call them
brethren, saying I will declare thy name unto my brethren [John 17:3,4], in the midst
of the church will I sing praise unto thee Hebrews 2:6-12
This passage is full of profound truth about Jesus being subject to the
Father. Man (plural) was promised that he would not only inherit Paradise,
but even judge angels (1 Cor. 6:3) in the world to come (notice the proper
use of the singular he and his for humans here). However, man (plural),
who from the beginning was given dominion (Gen.1: 26-28), lost his place
and thus this promise could only begin to be fulfilled through Jesus, our
forerunner and the perfect and second Adam. So it is in this context that
Paul (1Cor. 15: 22-28) was able to say that God placed all things under His
feet, quoting Psalms 8:3-8, which originally was meant only for humans.
Since Jesus became us He [Jesus] is Himself subject to the Father,
as he fulfills this prophecy. His subjection being described here, is in the
context of Him being a man, being in all things like unto His brethren, and
thus His Father, our Father, is in this context greater than He. Also, in this
context the Father is also His God, because He is one of us, praising the
Father in the midst of the Church (Heb. 2:12). Nowhere, in the entire
Bible, or in Spirit of Prophecy writings, was the Father ever called
Jesus God, BEFORE He became man. But when He became man this all
changed. In this context of Jesus being a man, the Father was greater in
reality than He was, and today is, that is, as a man. However, as God, Jesus
has always been, in reality, equal in authority, rank or dignity and glory
with the Father.
Notice, as a man, or one of us, He will eventually give up the
kingdom and His reign(1 Cor. 15:24,25), and yet in Daniel 7:13,14 and 18,
He will have a kingdom and dominion(reign) which *will never end.
As the Captain of the saints, He and the saints, who are joint heirs with
Him, will possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever (or for
eternity), as Daniel 7:18 clearly states. So will he literally give up the
kingdom and dominion to the Father? As a man he will seem to do so, but
as God He will always be God over all and always one [equal] in power
and AUTHORITY with the Father, having an everlasting dominion and
being eternally served(worshipped) by all people, just like the Father
(Daniel 7:14). These are the mysterious and complex roles of the divine yet
human Person we now know as Jesus.
47
The Father was also willing to sit back, as it were, and from all
eternity, allow the Son to be God over all, to exercise all the powers as the
Creator, Sustainer, and then later, as God of Israel, and to be worshipped and
praised by both angels and man, in His own right, alongside Him, and on His
behalf, without jealousy. Even when He was human the Father ordered all to
worship Him, despite a man should not be worshipped in the highest sense
(Heb. 1:6/ Acts 10:25,26/ Rev. 22:8,9). The Son (as a human model on earth) in turn
directed all to praise and worship only the Father (Matthew 4:10) even as the
Father insists that all worship and praise the Son. And now, today, the Father is
Himself the Sons own Representative (as it were) in the universe, by way of the equal
representation of Them both, in the Person of the Holy Spirit (the third of the Highest
Authorities in Heaven). If that is not mutual exalting and Divine unity, then what is?
48
The truth is that self-exaltation is not a part of divine nature, but is part of the
QUESTION 8
DO ADVENTISTS REGARD JESUS AS TWO PERSONS
IN ONE BEING, AND WHICH PART OF HIM DIED?
Here again we are confronted with a question that thousands have debated
over the centuries. Even today within the Adventist Church there are those
who still exhibit uncertainty or ignorance about what the Church believe and
teach about this issue. One learned Adventist, who falls in this category just
described, tried to explain, quite faultily to this writer, that Jesus was regarded
by Mrs. White as, quote, one being, but are two persons blended in that one
being; thus the reason for my stating Question 8 (above) that way.
Others do know what the Church teaches on this issue, but disagree
with it, and believe that what the Church teaches is either closely related to
the New Age philosophy, or is an abominable teaching resulting from the
Trinity doctrine. The leader of one independent ministry, endeavoring to, socalled, restore old truths wrote:
Unhappily, the doctrine of the trinity has led many Christians to adopt a concept of
the incarnation of Christ which is similar to the teaching of the New Age religions.
Many Christians today teach that on Calvary the human part [human nature] of Jesus
died but the divine part [divinity] did not die. Does this not suggest that Jesus was not
one person, but two, and that the incarnation was not a divine being becoming human,
but rather a divine being sharing a body with a human being? Clearly see that this
abominable teaching is the result of an attempt to make sense of the Trinitarian
doctrine. *Name of author withheld.
Having read this statement, it became very obvious that the writer in this
independent ministry (which has separated itself from the Church) need to
recognize that you cannot restore truth if you do not have a full grasp of
what you should be restoring. He was wrong on so many counts. Mrs. White
49
summarizes what the Adventist Church teaches on this issue in the following
way:
Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine
nature of the Son of God? No, the two natures [not two persons] were
*MYSTERIOUSLY blended in one person [or being]- the Man Christ
Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ
was crucified, it was His *HUMAN NATURE [the human part] that DIED.
*DEITY [the divine part] DID NOT SINK AND DIE: that would have been
impossible The Savior has purchased the fallen race with His own blood.
This is a *GREAT MYSTERY, a mystery that will not be fully, completely
understood in its greatness until the translation of the redeemed shall take
place Who by searching can find out God to perfection? When finite
man [are you?], under the subtle influence of the tempter, comes to
question [in order to satisfy logic] the words of the One who is called the
Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6), his
conception of himself increase, and his conceptions of Christ decrease
The *MYSTERIES of redemption, embracing Christs divine-human
character, His incarnation, His atonement for sin, could employ the pens
and the highest mental powers of the wisest menbut though these men
should seek with all their power to give a representation of Christ and His
work, the representation would fall short of the reality
E.G. White- Letter 280, Sept. 3, 1904
This writer believes that the foregoing is so clear, that not much commentary is needed.
A disagreement with the Adventist Church on this issue is equal to a disagreement
with the inspired words of Mrs. White, whose views were purely Biblical. Just read
again and ponder deeply the words of 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 and 1Timothy 3:16
in the Bible, before reading how Mrs. White explained herself in the following:
When He closed His eyes in death upon the cross, the soul of Christ did not go at
once to heaven, as many believe, or how could His words be true- I am not yet
ascended to my Father? The spirit of Jesus slept in the tomb with His body, and did
not wing its way to heaven, there to maintain a separate existence, and to look down
upon the mourning disciples embalming the body from which it had taken flight. ALL
THAT COMPRISED THE LIFE AND INTELLIGENCE OF JESUS REMAINED
WITH HIS BODY IN THE SEPULCHER; AND WHEN HE CAME FORTH IT WAS
AS A WHOLE BEING
E.G. White- Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 3, pgs. 203,204
*DIVINITY DID NOT DIE. IN HIS DIVINITY CHRIST POSSESSED THE POWER
TO BREAK THE BONDS OF DEATH Only He [Jesus] who alone [not just the
Father alone] HATH [notice, not had or now have, but hath immortality]
IMMORTALITY [deathless nature], dwelling in light and life [1 Tim. 6:16] could say,
I have power to lay down my life and power to take it up again [see John 2:18-22]
-E.G. White Comments- S.D.A Bible Comm., Vol. 5,pg. 1113
That is what true Adventism believes! The difficulty that would accompany
explaining it should be an accepted reality; in just the same way we should
accept that the very fact in itself is in reality part of the mystery of
godliness. Those who want to break themselves against it, thats their choice.
QUESTION 9
WHAT DO ADVENTISTS REGARD AS THE
ESSENCE OF GOD?
The word essence means what a thing or person really is in substance
or fundamental nature (Oxford dictionary). The Bible says, God is spirit.
What really is spirit? What is God really like in substance, how does He
exist? How can we know Him, what is He like as a Being? That is what the
question of the essence of God is seeking to address. To better understand
what is meant (in context) let us ask the same thing about man. What is the
essence of man?
Man is a personal and material being made of flesh and blood
(Acts 17:26). He exists, by nature, as male and female whom, when
combined, form one flesh or one body, spiritually. You will notice the
proper use of the *singular pronoun he for man, whether the singular
or plural of man is meant. However, the male is especially called the
man or Adam, but He cannot, and does not, exist apart from the female,
who is also man, and is a type of, or a part of Adam (Gen. 5:1,2). The
spiritual union is so close that the wife is regarded as the man himself, as it
were (Ephesians 5: 28,29). There is only one (1) reality of man, or
52
humanity, in the entire universe (that we know of). However man exists as
male and female, different individuals, who are all of one substance, notice
the word of; they are therefore not one substance (or one person
literally), but of that one substance. Man also exists as soul. He
consists of body and spirit (that is, a life force, a mind, and personality),
and is therefore a conscious, personal, living being. He is however mortal, or
subject to death. That is the essence of man. This illustration now sets the
stage for us to better understand the question of the essence of God, in
context.
God is a spirit; pure, immortal, infinite, spirit! This is the first
challenge to our minds. No one really knows what the substance called
spirit (the stuff of which God is composed) is really like. God cannot be
literally compared with anything in nature, but God gives us a faint image
of the nature of God, or the Godhead in the nature of man. This can give us
an idea of what Gods nature is like, but only in human terms. We therefore
can understand that in the same way that mans complete nature is to exist
as male and female (a plurality of persons), likewise the complete nature of
God, or the Godhead is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (also a plurality of
persons). However, the true nature of God or the Godhead, whether in
substance and nature, is a still a mystery, except for what is clearly, and
more substantially, revealed in the personality of the Man, Jesus Christ. Let
us now discover how Adventism really sees the essence of God. This is
clearly recorded in the words of Mrs. Ellen G. White, the inspired voice in
Adventism:
The great Teacher [Jesus] held in His hand the entire map of truth The question of
the *ESSENCE OF GOD was a subject on which He maintained a wise reserve, for
their entanglements [the disciples] and specifications would bring in science [and
logic] which could not be dwelt upon by unsanctified minds without confusion. In
regard to *GOD [the essence of God] and in regard to His *PERSONALITY, the
Lord Jesus said *HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HAS SEEN THE FATHER
[in substance, nature, and personality] In the place of devoting your powers to
theorizing [about the oneness, substance, nature and personality of God], Christ has
given you a work to do. His commission is, Go throughout the world and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the NAME [a singular noun of unity] of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [Mathew 28:19]. Before the disciples
shall compass the threshold, there is to be the imprint of the *SACRED NAME,
baptizing the believers in the name of the *THREEFOLD [unity of three] POWERS in
53
the Heavenly world. The work of salvation is not a small matter, but so vast that the
HIGHEST AUTHORITIES are taken hold of THE ETERNAL GODHEAD- THE
FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY GHOST *is [not are but is] involved
That They All May Be One- Manuscript 45, May 14, 1904
Can anyone deny, after reading this, that the essence of God is
regarded in true Adventism as the Eternal Godhead of Father, Son and
Holy Spirit? Notice that Mrs. White was not discussing here the essence of
the Godhead, but rather the essence of GOD, and Gods PERSONALITY.
The title God, primary and ultimately, refers to the Father, but is also
a title which cannot be separated from the Son and the Spirit. Careful
note should be made of the fact that after referring to the question of the
essence of God she did NOT stop at the Father. Notice that she immediately
dealt with the Eternal Godhead, outlines the symbolism in the baptismal
formula (the sacred NAME) and then shows the united action of the
Threefold [unity of three] Powers in the Heavenly world, the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit. So the Eternal Godhead is the same as the
essence of God. Why did Jesus maintain a wise reserve on this issue?
Notice the title of this manuscript, written by Mrs. White: That They All
May Be One. That is very instructive. It is obvious that there is much
difficulty involved in trying to explain the mystery of the essence of God.
Jesus therefore did not become too theological on this issue, in order that His
disciples would not become sidetracked or divided over this issue. This could
explain a lot, such as the reason for the early Apostles simple approach to the
complex issue of the Godhead, choosing not to expound on the Trio in the
Godhead (Matt. 28:19). Notice again how inspiration shows the oneness of
who is considered as God (of the God-kind)
Have you been born again? Have you become a new being in Christ
Jesus? Then co-operate with the three great powers of heaven *who [all
three called who] are working in your behalf. Doing this you will reveal
to the world the principles of righteousnessGod says, [notice after this
whom she means says this] "Come out from among them, and be ye
separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and
will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith
the Lord Almighty." This is the pledge of [not one person, but] the Father,
54
the Son, and the Holy Spirit [*pledge to receive and be a Father to you];
made to you if you will keep your baptismal vow, and touch not the
unclean thing In order to deal righteously with the world, as members
of the royal family, children of the heavenly King, Christians must feel
their need of a power, which comes only from the [three] heavenly
agencies that have pledged themselves to work in man's behalf. After we
have formed a union with the great THREEFOLD POWER [singular;
collective], we shall regard our duty toward the members of God's family
with a sacred awe. We shall seek to answer the prayer, "Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven," by living pure, sanctified lives, showing the
world how the will of God is done in heaven.
-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901
The very fact that Jesus, the greatest teacher, maintained a wise reserve on
this issue, is clear indication that the matter is not simple but *complex. Hear
the words of the inspired voice in Adventism again on this issue:
In regard to the personality and prerogatives of God, where He is and WHAT HE IS,
this is a subject which we are not to dare to touch. On this theme *SILENCE IS
ELOQUENCE.
-E.G. White- Manuscript 132, Nov.8, 1903 (written during the Dr. Kellogg
pantheism crisis)
Human talent and human conjecture [surmising, guessing] have tried by searching to
find out God. Many have trodden this pathway. The highest intellect may tax itself
until it is wearied out in conjectures regarding God, but the effort will be fruitless, and
the fact will remain that man by searching cannot find out God [Job 11:7-9]. This
problem has not been given us to solve [for example, the problem of: how can two
persons, or three, be seen mathematically as a a personal God]. All that man needs to
know and can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son, the
Great Teacher [Jesus].
E.G. White- Letter 240, Nov. 5, 1903
It should be noted here that Mrs. White wrote most of her clear statements on the
Three Persons of the Godhead after the pantheism crisis, led by Dr Kellogg in 1903,
had developed within the Adventist Church. One only has to note the years of her
manuscripts that especially mentioned the Heavenly Trio or the Three Dignitaries and
Powers of Heaven, etc., and this truth becomes clear, very clear. Dr Kellogg, who later
left the Adventist Church, was trying to teach that the essence of God was His
55
presence in nature and in all life. This was clearly pantheism and Mrs. White came out
strongly against it.
56
QUESTION 10
WHY DO ADVENTISTS TODAY ADMIT TO A TRINITY,
BUT NOT THE TRINITY OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM?
After looking at the full evidence discussed so far, it is now easy to see why
Adventists, since 1931, have accepted, and have been using, the word
trinity in referring to the Godhead. This, the Church has endeavored to do,
by the method of common consent over time, (not by Church decree);
despite there are those within the Church who differ in opinion on the matter.
This writer believes that every man should be convinced in his own mind; that
is his God-given right. This presentation is not forcing anyone to believe or
accept what it supports doctrinally, but is simply meant to show why, within
all good reason, Adventists can feel justified in being Trinitarians. When the
following points are borne in mind, it will be seen that the Adventist Churchs
acceptance of a Trinity (though not exactly the Roman Catholic
explanation), is an acceptance that has reasonable foundation.
REASONS WHY THE ADVENTIST CHURCH IS TRINITARIAN
Reason 1.
Firstly it must be recognized that no one has a divine copyright on the
doctrinal use of words, even if they were the first to coin or use certain words.
Christians cannot claim exclusive rights in the use of certain words coined to
express doctrines, such as hell, or the incarnation, or the millennium, or
the Trio in the Godhead. These words, though not originally found in the
Bible, do have some foundation in the scriptures, as Christians try to capture
in these words, what is evident in the scriptures, even though Christians may
sometimes differ in their explanations. The same is true of the noun trinity,
which comes from the Latin, TRINUS, and literally means a group of three
persons. Though the Catholics were among those first to doctrinally use the
word Trinity (certain Apostolic Fathers and other Church Fathers
predating Roman Catholicism used it too), they too have no exclusive rights
to how the word should be used, since its root meaning, drawn from the
prefix, tri (three), and the suffix, nity (union of), cannot be denied, that is,
57
It is true that Adventism did not at first use the word trinity to
express its Godhead doctrine. This, however, was understandable because of
the then strong anti-trinity sentiments, and even a denial, in some quarters,
of the third Person of the Godhead, in the early days of the Church. This
fact will be proven by concrete evidence, but a little later in this presentation.
Eventually, interestingly, the Adventist Church taught a Trio in the Eternal
Godhead, simply because Mrs. White was inspired enough to admit that
not only (in reality) is there a group of three persons (or Trio) in the
Godhead union of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, but that their oneness
is not numeric but spiritual, as John 17:21 stated. So, contrary to what
some in the Adventist Church may think, the Adventist Church is probably
the only church really teaching a true Godhead of three persons, since
there must be a distinction between the Father and Son if one is to
recognize a trinity, as J.H. Waggoner so unwittingly phrased it. The truth
about the meaning of words should be admitted to. There should not be the
throwing out the baby with the baby water as falsehood is rejected. This is
the challenge to you dear reader. Will you be honest in this?
Reason 2.
When Adventists are therefore said to be Trinitarian, it does not mean they
fully accept what all other Trinitarians teach about the Godhead, but only
what a true literally trinity is. To illustrate this point, let the reader bear in
mind that Adventists share the label Christian with all other Christians, but
this does not mean they fully accept what all other Christians deem to be
Christian (such as what the true Christian Sabbath is). Many forget that
pagans have even been the ones to have coined the word Christian, as a
mock and tease word for the followers of Christ in the pagan city of Antioch
(Acts 11:19-22, 25,26). Does this mean that the basic meaning of the word
Christian should be rejected, because of its pagan source, or because
denominations differ on what a Christian should be? Certainly not! The
same is true about the word trinity. Even the various dictionaries of the
world show that there are various definitions of what Christians call The
Trinity. However, all definitions have one common element, an undeniable
truth, that is, three divine Persons are in a cooperating union in the one
Godhead. Notice carefully the following definitions.
59
the Christian Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), from Latin, trinus,
meaning threefold.
(c) WEBSTERS DICTIONARY
TRINITY (in Theology)- a threefold, consubstantial personality
[singular] existing in one Being or substance
(d) ENCARTA ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2000
TRINITY- in Christian theology, the doctrine that God exists as three
persons- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit- who are united in one substance or
being
Before going on, carefully note again that the Adventist Church uses
the word God to mean: (1) a class of persons having the divine nature
(or Godhead) and is called Deity, and (2) the person of the Father.
Grammatically, it is correct to say that Man, the class of beings with the
human nature, exist only as male and female. Likewise, to an Adventist, it is true
to say that God, or the class of beings with the divine nature, exist only as
three Persons. This is because that is what historic Adventism teaches; that
the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but are three
Persons! However there is only one Person of the Father; that is, one God,
the Father. It is also true to say that there is a union [cooperating group] of
Three Divine Persons in one Godhead, because that is what Adventism
believes. How many Godhead (union) is there? Only one! How many
persons are there in that one Godhead? Three! Let the reader here note
that the word Godhead, used to mean a cooperating union of three divine
Persons in Heaven, is (historically) exclusively Trinitarian. The true Adventist
cannot deny trinitarianism, because by the dictionary definitions of
the Godhead, to believe in the Three Persons of the Godhead, that is
what trinitarianismis! However you will quickly notice that there are
significant differences in the dictionary definitions of the Godhead:
60
(1)
In the definitions (c) and (d) above, some see God as one (1)
single, solitary Person or Being, but existing as three
extensions or forms (so- called persons) living in that one
indivisible substance. This is the orthodox (common)
Trinity explanation that Adventism was opposed to (see the
illustrative picture for this orthodox trinity below).
(2) In definitions (a) and (b), others see one (1) Godhead (a divine
nature and divine union) as, not one person, but a group of Three Divine
Persons (trio). This is historically what Adventism gradually came to
accept; a Godhead doctrine true to the root meaning of the word trinity.
ADVENTISM COULD NOT DENY TRINITARIANISM IN COURT!
The Adventist Church is technically Trinitarian because it clearly taught,
even when Mrs. White was alive, a group of three persons (or a Trio) in, what it
calls, the Eternal Godhead, not as an indivisible substance, but as a group of
inseparable persons who are united for all eternity (past, present and future).
Because the word trio (group of three persons) and the simple noun trinity (a
group of three persons) both mean the same thing literally (see the Oxford and Collins
Dictionary), the Adventist Church is in reality trinitarian. At least by one definition,
Adventists believe in and serve a group of three persons, or a union of three
Divine Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in one Godhead (the union). It must be
repeated, that is basic trinitarianism! Let the reader note the following overwhelming
evidence, which, in a court of law, would be enough to declare trinitarianism in
Adventism. The quoted phrases below, from Mrs. White (her exact words in underlined
quotation marks), can be easily verified, for accuracy, by anyone wishing to do so. The
lately published CD-ROM of her writings, along with the earlier quotations in this
presentation, would be a useful tool. The Seventh-day Adventist Church, evidenced by
the writings of Mrs. Ellen G. White (before her 1915 death), believed in the following
even before 1931:
61
1. That there exists the Eternal Godhead of Three Persons. The Church believed in a
Heavenly Trio. The word trio was clearly a coined word, just like trinity (also a
coined word), which sought to express a group of three living persons in the
Godhead, not the traditional Catholic view of one Being, with three forms existing in
one indivisible substance. Adventism felt that the traditional Trinity was misleading
because, in the true sense of the word, a trinity is three persons, literally a trio.
It taught, however, that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is also
God, and that the essence of God is found in Matthew 28:19, the Eternal Godhead.
2. That the Holy Spirit is not just the personality of another. Note carefully, He has a
personality (E.G. White, Evangelism, pg. 617). He is also a Divine Person, the
Third Person of the Godhead. He is described as a Heavenly Dignitary, as
omniscient (knowing all things), as infinite (beyond comprehension), as
Eternal (Heb. 9:14), and as God (Acts 5:3, 4/ 2 Sam. 23:2, 3). More importantly,
Mrs. White said we shouldserve the Spirit (compare Matt.4: 10). This alone amount to
trinitarianism, if nothing else does. Any Jehovahs Witness or Watch Tower Bible
student would know this to be true. Only those unable to or unwilling to come to grips
with our doctrinal history as a Church would continue to deny the obvious. Note again
dear reader the full impact of the following crucial evidence:
The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to Heaven, is
the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead [compare Col.2: 9] There are *THREE
LIVING PERSONS [or personalities] of the Heavenly Trio; in the name of these
*THREE GREAT POWERS- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit- those who
receive Christ by living faith are baptized
E.G. White- Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pg. 63
When we have accepted Christ, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit have pledged ourselves to *SERVE God, the Father, Christ,
*and [thirdly] THE HOLY SPIRIT- the three Dignitaries and Powers of Heaven
E.G. White- Manuscript 85, 1901
Who are we only to serve in the spiritual sense? God! Adventism teaches what the
Bible declares; that the Father is God, Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is also God.
Adventism also teaches that these three are living Persons of the Eternal Godhead.
The truth here is obvious. That is basic trinitarianism!
However, Adventism CANNOT successfully show mathematically how the three
Persons, all called God, each having the fullness of the Godhead, make up one
[person] God, for this is impossible. It simply has to accept that the three persons are
one as John 17:21and 22 illustrates it.
3. The Adventist Church also taught that Jesus, though subject to the Father (in a
certain context), is with the Father, one in authority, not next in authority. He is also
62
Sovereign (supreme ruler), equal in dignity (rank, title, office) and glory with
Him. Jesus is the Deity because he is one with God. The existence of a personal
God is the unity of Christ with His Father. Jesus and the Father are of one
substance. Jesus was from all eternity God over all, along with the Father, and is
Himself called Jehovah God or the I AM because, though begotten from eternity,
He was a distinct (separate) person, not from partial eternity, but from all eternity.
This again is basic trinitarianism!
CONCLUSION
Truth is truth, though it may make you uncomfortable, or it may surprise you, or it may
force you to rethink your position, or it may even make you unable to answer all
questions about that truth. The truth is that the Adventist Church, gradually, in its
history, showed the basic features of Trinitarianism, even before 1931 (when the
*term was first officially adopted), even if it was of a different kind from the
original. This conclusion is not based on speculation, but on factual evidence. The
blindest person is he who will not see. Amen!
QUESTION 11
DID THE FOUNDERS OF AND THE EARLY PIONEERS
IN ADVENTISM OPPOSE THE ORIGINAL TRINITY?
WHY?
After reading the answer to question 10 in this presentation, it is clear that the
answer is yes! However, an honest, open, and frank analysis of the Seventhday Adventist Churchs history, of the development of its Godhead
doctrine, will continue to reveal a truth which some are unable, or unwilling,
to recognize. This is a truth that many non-Adventist writers have
discovered independently by surveying for themselves the Churchs doctrinal
history before 1915. This truth even outsider writers and religious critics have
discovered for themselves (with some of these writers still calling the Church
a cult, despite this discovery- see under Question 17). This truth was dealt
with frankly and openly under Question 10. Read it again dear reader. But for
the record it must be re-iterated that the Adventist Church, gradually, in its
history, showed the basic features of Trinitarianism, even before 1931
63
(when the term was first officially adopted), but of a different kind from
the original.
There are those in Adventism, however, who are so anti-Catholic, and
so anti-Trinity, that the real truth gets lost on them, or gets thrown out
by them, in their passionate or emotional bid to be separate. And in this bid
to appear not to have anything even distantly resembling what Catholics
believe about the Eternal Godhead, they go to the extreme of twisting and
even denying the very root meanings of certain words that have long been
historically used in Adventism. Though to an honest, unbiased thinker, that
action would appear ridiculous, if not dishonest, however, to some dissidents
in Adventism today, calling themselves Adventists, that is what the message
of Rev. 14:6-12 seemingly call upon them to do: twist and deny. And yet they
wish not to have any doctrinal guile in their mouth regarding the Godhead.
Notice carefully some words and phrases, which though they have
long been used in Adventism from its pioneering days, some in the Church
today twist or deny even their very root meanings, in order to appear antiTrinitarian. To them the following has nothing to do with what the dictionary
says:
WORDS USED BY THE PIONEERS, BEING DENIED BY SOME TODAY
Eternal Godhead- does not mean three persons with the divine nature,
but the Father only
Trio- does not mean three persons but only two (a duo)
Third- (when it relates to the Holy Spirit) does not mean separate from and
coming after 1st and 2nd, but an extension of 1st
Person- (when it relates to the Holy Spirit) does not always mean an
individual being but sometimes a split-personality of one person, similar to
what a mad-man has (when it relates to the Holy Spirit)
From all eternity when it relates to Jesus, it does not mean the complete
measure of eternity, but partial eternity or everlasting in a limited sense
Of one substance- when it relates to Jesus in the divine sense, it does not
mean that He and the Father, different persons, have the same attributes, but
64
must mean they are the same identical person numerically, however when
used of Jesus in the human sense it does mean that He is related to us, as a
different person, but is not an extension of us
Equal in dignity- when it relates to Jesus, it does not mean He is on the
same level with the Father, but inferior in rank, title, or office, while being
equal in nature only with Him
One in authority- when it relates to Jesus, it does not mean equal or united
in authority, but next to, or inferior, in authority to the Father.
However, the Adventists pioneers were Biblically convinced that though the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all fully God, they are not one Person or
individual Being, but are a Trio, literally three Persons. If this is not what
was literally meant, as some would mislead us to think, then Adventism
would be forever handicapped with hard-to-explain-away words (such as
Trio, and the Third Person of the Godhead), and the following E.G.
White quote, but evidently chosen by its pioneers to express special truths
about its doctrine of the Eternal Godhead.
You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of
life--to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the
sanction and the power of THE THREE HOLIEST *BEINGS IN
HEAVEN, who are able to keep you from fallingWhen I feel
oppressed, and hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that
God has given me to do, I just *CALL UPON THE THREE GREAT
WORTHIES, and say; You know I cannot do this work in my own
strength. You must work in me, and by me and through me, sanctifying
my tongue, sanctifying my spirit, sanctifying my words, and bringing me
into a position where my spirit shall be susceptible to the movings of the
Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and character. And this is the prayer
that every one of us may offer. . .
-E.G. White, Manuscript Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268 (Ms 95,
1906, pp. 8-12, 14-17; "Lesson from Romans 15," October 20, 1906.)
67
Today, because true Adventists recognize, and insist upon, the true root
meaning in words, certain dissidents within the ranks of Adventism, having
itching minds, continue to plague the Church with logic questions, as if the
Eternal Godhead is a mathematical problem given to us to solve. But the
pioneers, after gradually, and eventually, finding their way to truth, were very
clear in their meanings, and their choice of words used to express these
meanings. Note the following examples:
If it be said that the spirit of the Father, and the [the spirit of the] Son, and
the [spirit of] the Holy Ghost is one spirit [that is, similar substance, mind,
and personality], with this we [Adventists] all agree. But if it be said that the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three persons in one person,
making in all one God without body or parts [in the sense of the absence of
separate and different individuals], with an idea so inconsistent we cannot
agree. The oneness of Christ with the Father [existing together as a
personal God, according to Mrs. White] may be plainly seen by any who
will refer to John 17:22. That they (that believe) may be one, even as [or in
the same way] we are one. Who could believe that Christ prayed that His
disciples should be one disciple? Yet this would be no more inconsistent
than the idea of some that Christ and His Father are one Person.
Review and Herald, Vol. 9, No. 19, pg. 146
That is very revealing. But is anything wrong in saying that the Persons of the
Godhead are one God, at least from the Adventist perspective? What would
this mean? Note again the words of the leading pioneer, Mrs. White:
The existence of *A PERSONAL GOD [singular], the *UNITY of
Christ with His Father [not just the Father, but a plurality of divine
Persons], lies at the foundation of all true science [and true religion]. From
nature [our common experience] we can only gain an imperfect idea of the
greatness and majesty of God. We see the working of His power and His
wisdom, but He Himself is above our comprehension.
E.G. White- Manuscript 30, Oct. 29, 1904
There is no getting around this statement, and the earlier mentioned
three beings quote of E.G. White! That is true Adventism talking about,
68
note carefully, a personal God, SINGULAR! Who was mentioned here, one
person only? No! More than one person in unity! Dear reader, you can
almost hear the critics arguing: how is this possible? How can more than one
person be a personal God, and not Gods? Thus science and logic take
precedence over spiritual discernment. Logic has a place, since it is logic that
says that the Father and Son are separate individuals. However, at some point,
science and logic must bow before the truth, that there is a spiritual unity
between the Father and the Son, which is so close, that it is above and beyond
logic (see Gen 2:24). That is why Mrs. White was able to say, in the above
quote, that God is above our comprehension. Note again the words of Mrs.
White on the nature of this unity in the Godhead (emphasis in brackets []
supplied:
As Gods servants [Adventists] proclaim these things [about the unity or
oneness of the Godhead Persons], Satan steps up to some, who have itching
minds, and presents his scientific [or logic] problems. Men will be tempted
to place science [logic] above God [e.g. how can three be one and one be
three?]. But who by searching can find out God? Men may put their own
interpretation upon God, but no human mind can comprehend Him. This
problem [of His being and unity] has not been given us to solve [whether
mathematically, scientifically or logically]. Let not finite man [are you?]
attempt to interpret Jehovah. Christ is one [united] with the Father [John
10:30,33] are two distinct [separate] Personages [or beings]. Read the
prayer of Christ [as a man] in the seventeenth chapter of John [see
especially John 17:21,22] and you will find this point clearly brought out.
But the unity [oneness] does not destroy the Personality [separate being]
of either [the Father or the Son].
-E.G. White- Manuscript 58, May 19, 1905
That is very, very clear dear reader. And notice what her subject was about in
the above quote, the unity of the Godhead Persons!! Thus the theme has
been consistent throughout: Adventism rejected, not the Three Persons,
nor their full and individual divinity, nor the Eternal Godhead
union, but instead, the explanation of them being one indivisible being, as
traditional Trinitarians then explained the oneness of the Godhead.
69
You will note however that, in dealing with the unity, Mrs. White
referred to more than one Person as a personal God. She further stated that
itching minds would want to place science above God and interpret
Jehovah. It is evident that itching minds would do this in one of two ways.
Some would try to mathematically solve the unity by interpreting, and
representing, the three persons united, as the indivisible number one (1), in
order to preserve the truth of Deut. 6:4. On the other hand, some would go to
the other extreme of calling the three persons in the Godhead, Gods, as
Satan originally did in Gen 3:5, because logic, they think, defies any other
description. But the real truth is obvious! The unity of the Godhead is not
our problem to solve mathematically. Neither should we, by using
logic, deny or twist the truth about the reality of three Persons in the
Eternal Godhead. Neither should one oppose all that is called God
(2 Thessalonians 2:4), by proclaiming that to serve the Father, the
Son, and Holy Spirit, as God(divine), must mean that you are
blasphemously serving three Gods. All that should be accepted is the
truth as evident in the scriptures, and confirmed by the Spirit of
Prophecy, though it may be of the most mysterious nature. That is all
that faith asks.
70
QUESTION 12
DID SOME OF THE ADVENTIST PIONEERS MAKE
MISTAKES ON THE SUBJECT OF THE GODHEAD, AND
WHAT EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IS THERE OF THIS?
The leading pioneer in Adventism, Mrs. White, in Selected Messages,
Volume 1, page 165, and in Manuscript 11, 1910, declared distinctly that
there were errors in our older literature, which called for careful study and
correction. This is evidence of Christian honesty, frankness, and openness,
coming from an inspired person, on the doctrinal history of the Adventist
Church. This is the honesty, which some find it difficult to exhibit, as they try
desperately to over defend the divine calling of the Church and its pioneers.
Well, who could have said it better than Mrs. White, that the pioneers made
doctrinal mistakes in the first fifty years of the Churchs existence? Let the
reader take note that, this does not mean that everything written by the early
pioneers was of an erroneous nature. It does mean, however, that the Church
gradually acquired a later doctrinal maturity which rendered some earlier
statements in print ERRONEOUS! And if be said, by some in the Adventist
Church today, that to find errors in the writings of the early pioneers is equal
to discrediting them and their true calling, then the following two (2) things
are evident in this kind of argument:
[1] Indirectly, it would be charging Mrs. White also with discrediting
her own pioneering colleagues, and the divine nature of the Churchs calling
[2] At the same time, it would be ascribing doctrinal infallibility to the
early pioneers, a trait that not even the early Disciples of Christ possessed,
when they first started following Jesus
However, since in reality this could not be the case in both instances
(mentioned above), there is therefore no difficulty involved in refuting this
faulty view, that there are not errors in the Churchs older literature. Hear
the words of another leading pioneer, I.H. Evans, at that time president of the
North American Division Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, regarding
the corrective work of Mrs. White on doctrinal matters:
71
During those early years [of the first fifty years] of development,
much depended upon the unity and faith of the believers. On many
occasions when the little companies were uncertain in their course, or were
DIVIDED IN THEIR COUNCILS, Sister White presented what God had
shown her in dream or vision, and plainly marked the way this people
[Adventists] should go. The Church has ever tried and intended to follow
this instruction; BECAUSE OF IT STRONG MEN HAVED CHANGED
THEIR VIEWPOINT Here and there from time to time some have
broken from the denomination, under the leadership of those who refused
to accept the instruction given; but all this breaking away has come to
naught, and most of those who departed from the light given have made sad
shipwreck of their faith
I.H. Evans, Review and Herald, July 29, 1915
The truth is that, this foregoing quote gives reason why some of Mrs.
Whites statements differ considerably with some earlier statements made by
early pioneers, in the Churchs older literature. The important and
corrective nature of Mrs. Whites writings have been stated categorically by
Mrs. White herself in the following way:
All truths are immortalized in my writings. The Lord never denies His word. Men
may set up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will seek to seduce souls from the
truth, but all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister White, and has given
her a message, will be safe from many delusions that will come in these last days
E.G. White- Manuscript Release, pg. 22, 23
In another place she described her writings as the lesser light leading to
the understanding of the greater light (The Bible), a principle understood
when one considers the story of the Apostle Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch.
Phillip asked: Understandest what thou readest? Then the Holy Spirit used
him, an inspired person, to guide the eunuch to a deeper understanding of the
Bible, in answer to his response: How can I except someone teaches me? So
it may be true that at times someone inspired is needed to guide ones
interpretation of the Bible, as the pioneers of the S.D.A. Church then needed,
on some issues. The Bible only, or sola scriptura is the Adventist
Churchs only creed, but some have so twisted its truths and meanings that the
72
Before going on, carefully note again that the Adventist Church uses the word
God to mean: (1) a class of persons having the divine nature (or Godhead) and
is called the Deity, and (2) the person of the Father. As was stated earlier, to
deny that each Person in the Godhead is God or Divine, simply because they are not
all the one Person of the Father (nor three Gods), show either lack of insight or failure
to accept by faith the obvious; that the Godhead is not our problem to solve, just a
reality to accept by faith.
As the pioneers struggled with the context of the truth, of Jesus being
begotten and being the firstborn of every creature, they clearly needed the
later corrective insights of Mrs. White. She affirmed that Adventism later
came to see that Jesus, though pictured as begotten, was however
uncreated, is self-existent, and has life original, unborrowed, and
underived. He was also affirmed to be, not just now, but from all eternity,
God over all, and was so as a distinct person. Also there never was a
time when He was not in close fellowship with the Father, even in the
dateless ages from all eternity. The contrast in these two sets of
pioneering statements, here quoted, is so clear that no further elucidation is
needed. Compare Micah 5:2 / Psalm 93:2 / Hebrews 7:3 / Revelation 22:12,13
on the eternal pre-existence of Jesus.
74
Nowhere does the Bible say only the Father is First (see Rev. 1:8 /
Rev. 2:8 / Rev. 22:12, 13). Mrs. White could thus constantly affirm (after the
1888 Conference) what the Church had eventually accepted that, though as a
man Jesus was even lower than the angels, making the Father greater than
He was then (see Hebrews 2:3-8), He is (in reality) *equal Sovereign of
Heaven or supreme Ruler along with the Father. Notice her choice of
words here. JESUS WAS ALSO AFFIRMED TO BE ONE IN AUTHORITY [EQUAL AND
UNITED] WITH THE FATHER (see again pages 36-37 of this presentation for the
evidence). This was in perfect keeping with the Bible declaring Him to be
First with the Father, not next to in authority, but equally King of Kings
75
and Lord of Lords (or ruler of all), just like the Father. So today the
Adventist Church has matured doctrinally to recognize that when united, the
Father and Son (more than one person) are together, in the words of Mrs.
White, our personal God, they are together the Deity and they are also
together Sovereign (supreme ruler) in the universe. The simple truth is
that, if Jesus is, according to E. J. Waggoner (and endorsed by Mrs. White), equal
with the Father in all respects, there cannot be any other but following an
endorsement of this statement by the pioneers, except to say He and the Father are
not the same person. Nothing can be taken away from the statement being the
equal of the Father in all respects, except for what heresy, or a denial of
fundamental doctrine, would evidently cause one to try to do. Dear reader, there
Just what the Holy Spirit is, is a mooted question among theologians,
and we may not hope to give a positive answer, but we may learn something of its
nature and the part it acts in human salvation.
J.E. Swift- Our Companion, Review and Herald, July 3,1883, pg.421
He [the Holy Spirit] is included in the apostolic benediction [2 Cor. 13:14],
and is spoken by our Lord [Jesus] as acting in an independent and personal capacity
as Teacher, Guide and Comforter. He is an object of veneration, and is a heavenly
intelligence, everywhere present, and is always present. But as limited beings, we
cannot understand the problems, which the contemplation of the Deity presents, to our
minds. -G.C. Tenny- To Correspondents, Review and Herald, June 9, 1896, pg. 362
Notice that one writer emphasized the Spirit as an it, while the other
emphasized the He of the Spirit, His independent and personal
capacity, and that He is an object of veneration as a heavenly
intelligence. And yet both writers were pioneers living at the same time
with Uriah Smith, and *writing in the same magazine, the Review and
Herald (now The Aventist Review).
It is therefore evident that, up to this point (the late 1800s) there was still no
real consensus on this issue. Thus Uriah Smith, in the foregoing quote gave, it
is evident, his personal opinion; that the Holy Spirit is a divine influence. In
response to this historical fact, it must be said, first of all, that Uriah Smith
evidently, at the time of writing, forgot that the Holy Spirit appeared as a
He with a personal form in Ezekiel 8:1-5, and was regarded by the
Apostles as a person in Acts 13:2-4. All he seemed to focus on at the time was
the symbols and emblems that the Holy Spirit was metaphorically presented
as. He seemed to have forgotten that even Jesus Himself appeared as a
burning bush, as pillars of fire and cloud, that His soul was described as
poured out unto death (Is. 53:12), and that Satan (a spirit being) could fill
the heart of a person (Acts 5:3), in just the same way that descriptively the
Spirit is pictured as poured out, and fills Christians (compare Ez. 3:24).
Secondly, this statement by Uriah Smith is a total contrast to what
Mrs. White later testified to in Desire of Ages in 1898, and other writings
afterwards. But this was understandable since Uriah Smith was strictly
Arian in his thinking (See Question 18 in this presentation on Arians)
before gradually adjusting his views, as a more doctrinally-mature Seventhday Adventist. He gradually had to break with the ideas that:
77
Who was being described here as the Infinite One? The Person of the
Holy Spirit! Only a Divine Person, in the fullest sense, having all the
fullness of the Godhead, is Infinite. Lest it be said that this writer is taking
liberty in this interpretation, let the reader refer to S.D.A. Bible Commentary,
Volume 6, and page 1075, where it will be clearly seen that Mrs. White
equally referred to the Holy Spirit as one of the powers infinite (all
powerful and incomprehensible) and omniscient (knowing all), not just the
Father and the Son.
Now notice carefully that, it was in describing the Spirits coming on
the Day of Pentecost, that Mrs. White sought to emphasize Him as the Third
Person of the Godhead, as a living Person of the Heavenly Trio, as
having the fullness of the Godhead, and that there are three Persons, not
two or a duo, in the Eternal Godhead. It would take considerable denial,
and or twisting of words, to believe that she meant otherwise. If as some
claim, the Spirit is just the extension of the Father, the symbol of unity
between the Father and the Son, and is not a living Person, neither is He the
Third Person of the Godhead, it could be charged upon Mrs. White that she
78
has not made it easy to see that viewpoint, because of the descriptive words
she chose to use, and the time when she chose to use them.
Carefully analyze her choice of words, and her timing in the use of those
words, in the following quote:
The Comforter whom Jesus promised to send is the Spirit in all the fullness of the
Godhead [compare Col 2:9]. There are [now notice the timing here] three living
Persons [or personalities] of the Heavenly Trio [a group of three persons]; in the
name of these three Great Powers- the Father [a person], the Son [a person], and the
Holy Spirit [also a Divine Person, the third Person of the Godhead Ev. pg. 617],
those who receive Christ are baptized- E.G. White- Special Testimonies, 1905,
Series B, No.7, pg. 63
Only one bent on denial, or dishonesty, would think that this is equally what
Uriah Smith was saying in 1890, fifteen years before Mrs. White made this
statement. Who could believe that Mrs. White was here saying that the Holy
Spirit is not a person, but is just being personified in the Father and the Son,
as Uriah Smith, and others before and after Him (even today in Adventism),
believed? Only one who is skilful at twisting and denying evident truth could
accomplish this. It abuses literacy and reason to believe that the foregoing
quote should not be taken as it reads. Dear reader judge for yourself, by
reading this quote again carefully, with a dictionary as your guide (also
comparing the facts given under Question 3 in this presentation).
[7] That, while it can be compared in some ways with human nature, there are
certain logical and comprehension difficulties involved in the Godhead doctrine,
that is, the nature, and the union among the Godhead Persons. It is however not a
scientific problem that has been given us to solve. Let none venture to
interpret Jehovah or explain God or enter into controversy over the topic.
Let the reader here ponder the foregoing, then join the writer in saying:
Amen!
QUESTION 13
WHAT IS ROMES GREATEST CHALLENGE TO, AND
ITS GREATEST HOLD OVER PROTESTANTISM? IS IT
THE TRINITY DOCTRINE?
Experience has taught this writer that what determines truth is not how
passionately one states a matter, how much zealous conviction is involved, or even how
intense is ones sincerity about what is stated, but truth is determined only by evidence.
There are those who believe that the greatest stranglehold that Roman Catholicism
(Rome baptized) has over general Christendom, and most of Protestantism, is what she
herself proclaims to be its chief doctrine, that is, the Trinity. However, no matter how
often this is repeated, and no matter how passionately this view may be stated or
presented, that does not necessarily make it the truth. Whether this view is true or not, or
is deemed to be correct in true Adventism, can be tested by plain declarations, and
sometimes by circumstantial evidence, in pioneering Adventism. So, let us calmly,
objectively, and honestly look at this matter.
If, as some assume, admitting to a trinity (three persons in the Godhead), no
matter the differing explanation from the original, this constitutes the greatest danger one
faces in contending with Babylon, then a number of things would prove this to be true.
[1] If the Trinity was Romes greatest challenge to, and would be its greatest
stranglehold over Protestantism (including Adventism in the future) Mrs. White would
not, could not, within all justifiable reason, ignore or fail to mention it. What do we
find however? The truth is that Mrs. White, in ALL of Spirit of Prophecy
writings, never even once mentioned, much more to condemn a Trinity, what
some call the greatest form of doctrinal error. What is even more remarkable is the
fact that the very important book Great Controversy, a book especially written to
81
highlight the prominent doctrinal errors of Babylon and the Papal system, totally
ignored the subject. Chapter 3 of this book (both the 1888 and 1911 versions published
while she was alive) highlighted the chief doctrinal errors of Roman Catholicism, among
which were mentioned the adoration of Mary (as divine), the exaltation of the Pope (as
God) and Sunday (his mark of authority), the blasphemous work of priests, and the
supposed mediatorial work of dead saints and Mary; all errors which eclipse the true
worship of Jehovah. And yet the subject of the Trinity was not even mentioned, much
more to be referred to as the chief error? How could this be? According to Mrs. White in
Chapter 3, entitled An Era of Spiritual Darkness, the supposed immortality of the soul
is what was seen as prominent among, quote, the serious errors introduced into the
Christian faith, an issue she further devoted a whole chapter to, Chapter 33.
Was a Trinity mentioned anywhere in Chapter 3, or even the entire book? No! This,
while remarkable, is also very revealing.
What is even more revealing is that, she did not mention the Trinity in the face
of much of her pioneering colleagues having Semi-Arian and anti-Trinitarian
perspectives. She was very aware that many of her pioneering colleagues thought, just
like some in the Church today, that a Trinity, no matter the variation in explanation, is
the chief doctrinal error of the Babylon and the Papacy. Many of them, in the earlier
years, were even judgmental of the idea that all three (3) Persons of the Eternal
Godhead should be served. She was then bound by duty, it would seem, to show support
for her colleagues when her greatest chance came to write about the Trinity, if she felt it
was the most crucial issue at stake, or the most serious error to be avoided. For a woman
who quoted so profusely from historians and religious writers, who placed on record
their disagreement with the Trinity (e.g. the Albigenses and Edward Gibbon in Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire), it is remarkable that a woman of such deep spiritual
insight, and being the chief watcher on the walls of Zion, went against all
expectations and ignored the subject of the Trinity. There can only be one conclusion.
The truth is, the original Trinity is not the chief doctrinal error of Babylon, only
certain aspects of its teaching needed correction. That is very, very clear!
[2] If the Trinity was Romes greatest challenge to, and would be its greatest
stranglehold over Protestantism (including Adventism in the future), Uriah Smith
would not, could not, also fail to mention the subject in his greatest work Daniel
and the Revelation. Keep in mind that he was vocally anti-Trinitarian (probably
because of being associated with the Christian Connection, an Arian group). Of all the
persons, you would therefore expect him, probably more than any other, to directly speak
to this issue in his most widely read book. What do we see however? As he developed a
more mature doctrinal understanding, he not only abandoned some of his previously held
Arian viewpoints on Jesus but notice, he also did not highlight the Trinity as the chief
doctrinal error of Babylon in writing the book. The subject was not even
Notice that by 1876 (32 years after the Advent Movement began in 1844) the
Trinity issue (the acceptance, or revision, or rejection of it) was now regarded by James
White, the husband of the leading pioneer, to be of such little importance, that not only
was the issue not a test of Christian character, or of ones fitness for Heaven, but
was placed among matters of little importance, among perspective related issues, as it
were, issues that were being fought over by those splitting up into petty sects. Also,
the gospel of the Divine Son (what was seen as important) did not necessarily concern
itself with, as a test, ones rejection or acceptance of the Trinity. The change of attitude
to the subject was clearly evident here (see the quote again), and is brought out even
more clearly when it is considered that Mrs. White published the book The Great
Controversy(1888) *AFTER her husband made this revealing statement and, quite
remarkably, it was in that most crucial book that she did not even mention, much
more to condemn the Trinity doctrine. Yes, it is true that Mrs. White never believed in
(and never accepted, even up to her death) the faulty version or explanation of the
Eternal Godhead being one Person with three heads or three faces, as Catholics
have sought to represent the three persons of the Eternal Godhead (even in
paintings). This was the part of the traditional explanation of the Godhead that was
always rejected. However, it was not long after the 1876 statement of James White
(quoted earlier) that the Church accepted the idea of three Persons in the Eternal
Godhead, signaling that only some things, not everything, in the doctrine of the
Trinity was rejected. This was evidenced by Mrs. White, for the first time in the
Churchs doctrinal history (after 1876 and 1888), starting to repeatedly use the term
Trio (signaling an acceptance of three persons), along with similar terms used by
traditional Trinitarians, such as the Eternal Godhead in the sense of three constituent
persons, that is, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus it can be here repeated for emphasis:
AN ANTI-TRINITARIAN POSITION DOES NOT MEAN AN ANTI-THREEPERSONS-IN-THE- GODHEAD, OR AN ANTI-TRIO-IN-THE-GODHEAD
CONCEPT, JUST A REJECTION OF *HOW THE THREE ARE ONE!!!
There is clear evidence of the Church gradually coming to grips with old truths, being
seen in a new light, but with much internal resistance (still existing even today), as
evidenced at the 1888 General Conference. See again page 65 of this presentation, on the
E.J. Waggoners message, and here ponder Mrs. Whites comments on its significance:
That which God gives His servants [E.J. Waggoner and A.T. Jones] to speak today
[at the 1888 Conference] would perhaps NOT have been present truth twenty years ago
[in 1868], but is Gods message for the time Manuscript 8, 1888
So up to 1888 the Church had not fully formulated all of what is now regarded as saving
truths, despite there are those who think otherwise, that this took place by 1863 when
the Church adopted its present name. But the evidence is hard to deny. The Adventist
84
Church, not at one time, but gradually, came to unity on its doctrines, and seemed to
have only fully formulated what it believed about Jesus and the Holy Spirit after 1888.
[4] If the Trinity issue was Romes greatest challenge to, and would be its greatest
stranglehold over Protestantism (including Adventism in the future), then Mrs. White,
in her most crucial book (The Great Controversy), would not, could not, first
ignore the subject, and then present, over and above it, the supposed natural
immortality of the soul and Sunday as the chief errors of the Papacy. However note
her words on what is the real issue at stake:
Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and
*SUNDAY SACREDNESS, Satan will bring the people [Christendom and
religions of the world] under his deceptions. While the former [supposed
soul immortality] lays the foundation for spiritualism, the latter [supposed
Sunday sacredness] creates a *BOND of sympathy WITH ROME
-E.G. White- Great Controversy (1888), pgs. 587-588
Thus it is very clear that Sunday observance is what is the most critical issue, and is the
bond which connects the Roman Catholic Church to ALL of its Daughters, NOT
THE GODHEAD DOCTRINE! The Trinity doctrine is not even followed strictly in its
original form by all trinitarians, neither is the Eternal Godhead of three Persons
even taught today (in no form whatsoever) by very many Christian denominations
(e.g. Mormons, Pentecostals, Unitarians, Jehovahs Witnesses, Worldwide Church of
God, among others). Sunday is the symbol of Romes supposed supremacy, and the link
to her daughters; despite many proclaim it is the Trinity. Even the Papacy, in modern
times, has made it known that the issue of the Christian Sabbath is, quote, the
*most essential doctrine of Protestantism, not the Godhead doctrine. Here
following is the full evidence.
In an 1893 Roman Catholic publication, titled as shown, note carefully the following
strong words of the Papacy:
This is so very, very clear. Only one bent on pretending to know more than what even
Mrs. White, an inspired prophet, would deny that Sunday, and not the Godhead
doctrine, is the most serious issue at stake. Mrs. White, whom Adventists believe saw the
future events in vision, right up to the coming of Christ, said the following about
Adventists in the future, and about the Sunday issue:
The whole world is to be stirred with enmity against Seventh-day Adventists,
because they *WILL NOT YIELD HOMAGE TO THE PAPACY BY HONORING
SUNDAY, the institution of this antichristian power.
--E.G. White- Testimonies to Ministers, Chapter 1
(Excerpted in the Remnant Church, pg. 27)
However, despite this clear statement, there are those, within the ranks of Seventh-day
Adventism, who believe, and have been teaching, that the Adventist Church has now
become a part of Babylon. They declare Adventism to be embraced in its bosom, and
is now yielding homage as one of the Daughters of Roman Catholicism, because,
and despite, it teaches a different brand of Trinitarianism from the original. And this
view they base upon an un-explained and ambiguous prophecy of Mrs. White, claiming
she herself predicted this. Is the Church now a part of Babylon (religious confusion),
and did Mrs. White predict this? This question now warrants full attention, and will be
honestly and objectively addressed under the answers to Questions 14 and 15, which
follow.
86
QUESTION 14
IS THE ADVENTIST CHURCH A PART OF BABYLON
TODAY BECAUSE OF ITS VERY DIFFERENT BRAND
OF A TRINITY DOCTRINE?
First of all, in response to this question, let us address the view that some
within the Adventist Church have, that Mrs. White herself predicted that the organized
Seventh-day Adventist Church would become a part of Babylon before Jesus comes.
If this were the case, it would be clearly stated, not left up to private interpretation
since that would be a most important prophecy for the Church. However, if it were,
such an interpretation would have to be compatible with all other Ellen G. White
proclamations, since by nature, the Sprit is not the author of confusion.
Did Mrs. White make such a prophecy? Let us take a look at the following clear and
*UNAMBIGOUS declarations (and prophecy), made by Mrs. White, before she died in
1915:
God is leading out a people. He has a chosen people, and a church on
earth, which He has made the depositories of His Law. He has committed to them
sacred trust and eternal truth to be given to the world. He would reprove and correct
them. The message to the Laodecians is applicable to Seventh-day Adventists, who
have had great light and have not walked in the light. It is those who have made great
profession, but have not kept in step with their Leader, that will be spewed out of His
mouth, unless they repent. *THE MESSAGE TO PRONOUNCE THE SEVENTHDAY ADVENTIST CHURCH BABYLON, AND CALL THE PEOPLE OF GOD OUT
OF HER, DOES NOT COME FROM ANY HEAVENLY MESSENGER, OR ANY
HUMAN AGENT INSPIRED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD.
E.G. White- Testimonies to Ministers, Chapter 1
(Also quoted in The Remnant Church, pgs. 51,52).
Dear reader, that is as plain and undeniable a declaration as the nose is on your face. This
has no two meanings to it, no way to twist it to suit ones own private interpretation. That
was Mrs. White who spoke in the authority of the Spirit. But there are some who may
think that this statement was probably only applicable to her time. Let us see if that is
true, in her following statements, quoted from the same source:
87
sign when men refuse to unite with their brethren and prefer to act alone. Let laborers
take into their confidence the brethren who are free to point out every departure from
right principles. If men wear the yoke of Christ, they can not pull apart [from the
organized Remnant Church]; they will draw with Christ.
E.G. White- Testimonies, Vol. 9, pg. 258
That again is very clear. The subject of the Godhead is a matter the Adventist Church, in
this writers humble opinion, can feel justified about (as this presentation has already
shown under Question 11), however, some within still go as far as rejecting and
denouncing, not just the Churchs Godhead doctrines, but also the General Conferences
judgments on the matter. This, those in the minority, continue to do because they feel
they have the prophecies of Mrs. White on their side, but do they really? Let us look
again at what Mrs. White said about this situation of *minorities in the Adventist
Church acting against the Church:
I have been shown that no mans judgment should be surrendered to the
judgment of any one man. But WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF THE *GENERAL
CONFERENCE, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY THAT GOD HAS ON
EARTH, IS EXERCISED, PRIVATE INDEPENDENCE AND PRIVATE
INTERPRETATION MUST *NOT BE MAINTAINED, BUT SURRENDERED.
E.G. White- Testimonies, Vol. 3, pg. 492
The demon of heresy [denial of fundamental doctrine, and
*sectarianism] has mapped out the world [and the Church], and has resolved to possess
it as his kingdom. Those who are in his army are numerous. They are disguised, and
are subtle and persevering. They resist every divine influence, and employ every
instrumentality in order to compass the ruin of even one soul. They possess the zeal,
tact, and ability that is marvelous, and they press their way into every opening [this is
so very evident today]
E.G. White, Letter 89, Sept. 17, 1894 (Quoted in The Upward Look, 1986, pg. 275)
MANY WILL STAND IN OUR PULPITS WITH THE TORCH OF FALSE
PROPHECY [or false interpretation of prophecy] IN THEIR HANDS, kindled from
the hellish torch of Satan.
E.G. White- Testimonies to Ministers, pgs. 409-410.
In place of working with divine agencies to prepare a people to stand in the day of
the Lord, they [those within declaring the Adventist Church, Babylon] have taken their
stand with him who is an *ACCUSER OF THE BRETHREN, who accuses them
before God day and night. Satanic agencies have been moved from beneath, and they
have inspired men to unite in a confederacy of evil, that they may perplex, harass, and
89
cause the people of God great distress. --E.G. White- Testimonies to Ministers, Chapter
1
(Also quoted in the Remnant Church, pg. 27)
Those who accuse the Adventist Church, and declare it Babylon on so many
Godhead issues, issues they were warned not to enter into controversy over, and
who do so on the basis of a false interpretation of Mrs. Whites prophecies, and who
reject the judgments of even the General Conference, and who believe that the best
way to go is to act independently, what is their foundation, Mrs. Whites counsels?
So what about those just read? What hypocrisy!! This writer prays that God may help
them to see their serious self-deception now, before it is too late.
Before moving on, to dealing with the final point of consideration under this
question, it can be asked, is the Adventist Church a part of Babylon today? The honest
truth is that, to say yes can only be the result of ones private interpretation of certain
writings of Mrs. White (see the omega heresy under Question 15 after this), which can
only be achieved by twisting or denying many other things she has said, quoted here
under Question 14 of this presentation.
THE REAL ESSENCE OF PAPAL WORSHIP
In closing on this question, it can be further asked: Is Roman Catholic
worship really about serving the three Persons of the Eternal Godhead? That is
what Roman Catholicism claims, as it pretends that this is so by even declaring the
Trinity to be its central doctrine. However, as is the case with deception, what is
proclaimed on the surface is not usually the reality. Let the reader at this point stop to
analyze this following crucial point:
ROMAN CATHOLIC WORSHIP IS NOT REALLY ABOUT SERVING THE
FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT (a Christian duty even Mrs. White
endorses, see again pages 12 and 13 of this presentation) BUT RATHER, SERVING
THE ANCIENT PAGAN GODDESS AND CHILD, DECEPTIVELY, THROUGH
THE ADORATION OF MARY AND HER DIVINE SON!!
This thought is given much force when one considers the truth in the following
quotes, taken from the well renowned book, The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop
who, by the way, was not an Adventist:
In Papal Italy [where Catholicism is most developed], as travelers universally
admit (except where the gospel has recently entered), all *APPEARANCE of
worshipping the King Eternal and Invisible is almost extinct, while *the Mother and
Child are grand objects of worship. Exactly so in this latter respect, also was it in
ancient Babylon [the literal civilization]. The Babylonians, in their popular religion,
*supremely worshipped a Goddess Mother and a Son, who was represented in pictures
90
and images as an infant in his mothers arms. From Babylon, this worship of the
Mother and Child spread to the ends of the earth. In Egypt, the Mother and Child were
worshipped under the names of Isis and Osiris. In India, even to this day, as Isi and
Iswara and even in Tibet, in China, and Japan, the Jesuit missionaries were
astounded to find the counterpart of Madonna and her child as devoutly worshipped as
in Papal Rome itself; Shing Moo, the Holy Mother in China, being represented with a
child in her arms and a glory around her exactly as if a Roman Catholic artist had
been employed to set her up.
It is evident that the goddess enshrined in the Papal Church for the *supreme
worship of its votaries, is that Babylonian Queen who set up Nimrod, or Ninus the
Son, as the rival of Christ
If these things be true (and gainsay [disprove] them who can), who will venture now to
plead for Papal Rome, or call it a Christian Church? Is there one who fears God, and
who reads these lines, who would not admit that paganism alone [without Satans help]
could never have inspired such a doctrine as that avowed [unsuccessfully] by the
Melchites at the Nicene Council [Council of Nicea, 325 A.D.] that the Trinity [The
Godhead] consisted of the FATHER, *THE VIRGIN MARY, and the Messiah their
Son?
-Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, 1959, pgs. 20,21, 88 and 89
This is quite revealing, coming from a man who, like Mrs. White, recognized the
Godhead of three Divine Persons, but equally rejected the Roman Catholic explanation
of the numeric oneness of the Godhead, evidencing a balanced perspective, as opposed
to fanaticism. In Chapter 2 of his book just quoted, he too objected, to the Godhead being
represented as a single being or person with three heads, tracing this idolatrous practice,
of representing the invisible Godhead *tangibly in this way, to ancient Babylon (see
Isaiah 40:18,25 and Ex. 20:4,5). This he honestly did despite having to admit to the three
Persons, which he still calls a trinity (three persons), in the Eternal Godhead.
Concerning the series of quotes, here taken from his book, let the reader recognize
that Alexander Hislops findings are evidently true, when one considers the following.
[1] Both Mrs. White and Uriah Smith, in writing on the same subject, in their main
literary works (Great Controversy, and Daniel and the Revelation) on Babylon and
the Papacy, highlighted Mary worship in their list of chief errors of Babylon, however
[2] Both Mrs. White and Smith ignored the subject of the Trinity all together, even
while they stressed the distinction of the Father and the Son and, with Mrs. White in
particular, clearly teaching a Trio in the Godhead. This must have been for a reason,
and to an objective thinker the reason is obvious. Only some things in the original
Trinity doctrine held by the Catholics and most Protestants needed correcting, not
everything!!
Pure and true Roman Catholicism is simply a pretense at serving Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit (an undeniably necessary Christian duty), while supremely worshipping
the pagan goddess and child, deceptively, through Mary and the infant Jesus.
91
The idea of Rome supposedly serving, to borrow the phrase by E. J. Waggoner, the
constituent Persons of the Eternal Godhead, is simply a smoke-screen (covering) for
the false Church called Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots (Rev. 17:5).
Its real worship is supremely expressed in Mary worship (for pure Catholics), and
Sunday observance (the Churchs mark of its supposed authority, and its bond
connecting it to all her daughters in Protestantism). Is Adventism sharing in any of these?
Certainly not! What Adventism share with the Catholics is the true Christian duty that
Mrs. White endorses; that we should serve the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the
constituent Persons of the Eternal Godhead, as E.J. Waggoner phrased it (see again
pages 12 and 13 in this presentation).
So in closing, it can be asked again: Is the Adventist Church a part of Babylon
today? And again it can be said that, the honest truth is, to say yes can only be the
result of ones own private interpretation of certain writings of Mrs. White (on the
omega heresy), which are ambiguous in their meanings at best. To say yes also can
only be achieved by twisting or denying many other unambiguous things she has said,
about the Church not being, not becoming, or will never become any part of Babylon!
And finally, to say yes can only be successfully achieved if the circumstantial
evidence, as presented here under Questions 13 and 14, as well as that which will be
hereafter presented under the following question, be ignored or denied.
QUESTION 15
DID LEROY FROOM BRING IN THE OMEGA
HERESY, MAKING THE ADVENTIST CHURCH A
PART OF BABYLON TODAY?
What is heresy, and what is apostasy, with which it is sometimes equated?
The Encarta Encyclopedia 2000 defines the two words as follows:
HERESY- any religious doctrine [or movement] opposed to the
dogma [set principles of doctrine] of a particular church, especially doctrine held by a
person professing faith in the teachings of that church. The term originally meant
belief that one arrived at by ones self (Greek hairesis- choosing for oneself) and is
used to denote *SECTARIANISM [smaller dissident group] in Acts of the Apostles and
92
in the epistles of Paul. In later Christian writings, the term is used in the opprobrious
[approved by some] sense of belief held in opposition to the teaching of the church.
APOSTASY- (from Greek apostasia- insurrection, uprising), the
total abandonment of Christianity [or a particular denomination] by a baptized
person Apostasy is distinguished from laxity in the practice of religion and [from]
*HERESY, [which is] the formal denial of one or more doctrines of the Christian faith
[or of ones denomination]
It is necessary in answering the question before us that we first look at:
[1] Who was Leroy Froom, and what exactly is he charged with by some within the
Adventist Church today?
[2] What was Mrs. Whites omega heresy prediction really about?
First of all, Leroy Froom is probably the Adventist Churchs greatest historian,
who did an intense and comprehensive study (over a span of 40 years), on the Adventist
Churchs doctrinal and organizational history. In 1971 he published his findings in his
greatest work as an Adventist writer (after being assisted by hundreds of sincere
Adventist researchers, and even by late pioneers of the time). This very detailed work
was entitled, Movement of Destiny. In this book he traces the history of the Advent
faith, as it doctrinally and organizationally found its feet, from infancy to what it is
presently.
He is also famous for publishing another valuable book, the Coming of the
Comforter, in which he outlines in detail what Adventists should believe about the
third Person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, in light of Biblical and Spirit of
Prophecy truths. Let the reader here note that, this writer has personally read Leroy
Frooms over 700 page book, Movement of Destiny, and can attest to the depth,
overall accuracy, honesty, general consistency, and the comprehensive nature of his
research. This was easily determined, by cross referencing with other researchers who,
many of them, were not even Adventist writers, but who presented many of the same
historical facts, and, independently of the Church, came to certain similar conclusions as
Leroy Froom. However, as is usually the case, and which is understandable, in this book,
Leroy Froom gave his personal opinion on some issues under discussion, which
remained simply that, his opinion, despite the Church either seemingly held another
official opinion, or minorities in the Church opposed him. This will be proved shortly.
WHAT LEROY FROOM IS CHARGED WITH
After the evidence presented by Leroy Froom was carefully and honestly analyzed
by this writer, it can be said that despite Leroy Froom is charged with heresy or
falsehood by some, these charges have been found to be, for the most part, groundless.
He is charged with:
1. Falsely declaring Jesus to be fully eternal and without beginning, despite He was
begotten, falsely declaring Jesus to be fully equal with the Father, though subject to
93
demonstrated time and time again, in this presentation, the numeric oneness concept,
not the three Persons (or Heavenly Trio), was what the pioneers rejected. Thus Leroy
Frooms analysis was here evidenced to be at fault, but only on this point.
However, you will notice the lasting and powerful effect, which the insightful
molding influence of Mrs. Whites writings have had on the Churchs official
explanation of the Three Persons (the Trio) in the Godhead. Despite Leroy Froom
never seemed to properly clarify the oneness of the Godhead, the Church did not, have
not, and does not today officially accept this explanation, despite individual mainstream
Adventist writers, in their opinion, may have thought and expressed otherwise. If Leroy
Froom had caused the Adventist Church to fulfill the omega heresy, as explained
by some to be the Churchs official adoption of the *ORIGINAL Trinity
explanation, then the Church would not now be charged with teaching three
separate persons or beings (a trio) in the Eternal Godhead (even seen as a
different brand of trinitarianism) because this was neither Leroy Frooms thesis,
nor the original explanation of the oneness in the Godhead by the Athanasian
Creed.
It is obvious that the word trinity is not the real problem. What is of greater importance
is the explanation of truths about the Trio in the Godhead, and their oneness, a
oneness which, though not confounding the persons, is as mysteriously close as
illustrated in Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:28 and 29. Let the reader be again reminded
of the meaning of the simple nouns trinity and trio, by referring to several
dictionaries, and also be reminded of the following words of Mrs. White, on the
oneness of the constituent persons in the Eternal Godhead:
The existence of A [singular] PERSONAL GOD, the UNITY of Christ with His Father
[individual persons who are obviously united with the Person of the Holy Spirit], lies at
the foundation of all true science [and true religion].
-Manuscript 30,Oct. 29, 1904
When we have accepted Christ, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit, have pledged ourselves to *SERVE [see Joshua 24:2, 14 and 15] God,
the Father, Christ, and [thirdly] the Holy Spirit the Three Dignitaries and Powers of
Heaven pledge themselves that every facility will be given us if we carry out
ourvows. Manuscript 85, 1901
Let the reader be reminded that Mrs. White expressly indicated that there are
three living persons in the Heavenly Trio, or the Eternal Godhead, whom we
should serve, but that there is an obvious distinction between them because, even the
Holy Spirit is described as, quote, also a Divine Person, He has a personality, and
He is the Third Person of the Godhead (see again page 16 of this presentation).
And you will notice that no outside (or non-Adventist) source is really needed to
establish this point; despite some non-Adventist sources have also expressed the same
95
sentiments. The distinction between the Father and Son is, already, very, very obvious
(see John 17:21 and 22). That is the truth in the later-matured, pioneering, and historic
Adventism, which, though sometimes misunderstood, could not have been successfully
denied, by Leroy Froom then, or others in the Church today. Case dismissed. So much
for the charge against Froom, that he caused the Church to be in error today.
THE FIRST RULE IN INTERPRETING THE OMEGA HERESY
Let us now look at the view expressed by some, that Mrs. White predicted, in the churchrelated prophecy of the omega heresy to come, that the Adventist Church would
become a part of Babylon after her death took place in 1915. It is claimed by some,
that Mrs. White declared that our religion was going to be changed by the omega
heresy. But did she really say this specifically? The evidence is there for all to see, and
we will now scrutinize it carefully and closely, using the rules of prophetic interpretation.
However, before even reading the evidence, it is worthy of mention that the
interpretation of the omega heresy finding fulfillment in the Church becoming a part of
Babylon was already shown to be groundless, under Question 14. Prophecies of Mrs.
White, like those of the Bible, cannot, or should not be made to, contradict or
nullify each other, by being in total contrast. For instance, the Bible could not,
simultaneously, or at the same time, speak of quote, the day that cometh shall burn
them [the wicked] up it shall leave them neither root nor branch they shall be ashes
(Malachi 4:1,3), while at the same time speaking of the lost consciously living forever,
while being tormented in an eternally burning hell (as a result of a supposed natural soul
immortality)!! It is obvious that anything else in the Bible, about hell fire, which goes
against the clear statements in Malachi 4, and other similar Bible passages, must have an
application that does not contradict or nullify this clear and unambiguous declaration.
That is the first rule of prophetic interpretation.
Likewise, using the same obvious rule of interpretation, Mrs. White could not, on
the one hand, be declaring (indirectly) that the Adventist Church will become a part
of Babylon in the future while, simultaneously, declaring directly that we should
denounce as, quote, not bearing the message of truth, when anyone arises, that
is, at any time, whether within or without the Church to declare this in the future.
See again the answer to Question 14.
So the omega heresy, even though it can be shown to be probably connected to the
subject of the Godhead, it must, however, have another application, other than the
Church becoming a part of Babylon. Is there another strong possibility in its
application, while still being connected to the subject of the Godhead? Let us see.
96
It is interesting how statements and words can be wrested from their tense, or twisted
from their meaning, to mean something totally different from its original and intended
meaning. This again amounts to denial and dishonesty, and breaks another rule of
prophetic interpretation. Was this prophecy here declaring that the Adventist Church was
*officially going to become a part of Babylon, and its religion was going to be
changed, and fundamental doctrines were going to be given up? This can be forced upon
its interpretation, or read into it, by those who fail to be careful readers, or by those who
fail to be fully logical in their thinking, or by those who ignore another prophecy, as
97
quoted earlier in this presentation, which must be made compatible with any
interpretation of this omega prophecy before us.
Here, in this above quote, Mrs. White was simply looking at the possibilities that
would present themselves *if Dr. Kelloggs denial of the existence of a personal God,
in the unity of Christ with His Father, and who are personally represented by the third
person of the Godhead (the Holy Spirit), was allowed to take over the Church. That was
the essence of her reasoning here, and needs no further elucidation.
Another important rule of prophetic interpretation is: Study the
representative features of one prophecy already fulfilled, in order to determine the
features of another future prophecy yet unfulfilled, but which was compared to that
prophecy. For example, studying the features of ancient literal Babylon will give
valuable insights into the features of spiritual Babylon today. This can now be applied.
First of all, was the Seventh-day Adventist Church a part of spiritual Babylon
during the alpha heresy? The answer is NO! So what should prevent the same
application today? Secondly, since the alpha heresy denied, indirectly, the individual
personhood of the Father, the Son, and their representation in the third Person of the
Godhead, truths already established in Adventism, then it is highly likely that the
omega heresy would also deny, probably directly, the personhood of one or more of
the constituent persons in the Eternal Godhead, or deny already established and
essential truths about them. But in all of this the Church would still not be a part of
Babylon, just like in the alpha heresy. Dear reader, now judge for yourself, in the
contemplation of the answers for the following questions, the possible fulfillment of the
omega heresy.
POSSIBLE CLUES TO IDENTIFYING THE OMEGA HERESY TODAY
1. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists, more than any other group, denying
the personhood of the third Person of the Godhead? See again under Question 3 of
this presentation.
2. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists, denying, en masse, the fundamental
root meanings in words and expressions long used in Adventism, as connected with the
Godhead doctrine?
3. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists, making the Godhead issue (the
acceptance or rejection of a trinity of persons in the Eternal Godhead) a test? And
not just a test of membership, but a test of Christian character, or a test of ones
fitness for Heaven, in direct contrast to what the pioneers otherwise came to believe
eventually?
4. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists today, making the Trinity issue (the
acceptance of the word, no matter the version or explanation of it) grounds for
98
condemnation, or as a test to determine ones fitness for Heaven, and also making it
the chief error of Christendom, despite they can find no such precedence in Mrs. Whites
or Uriah Smiths greatest works (Great Controversy, and Daniel and the Revelation)
written when the Church was doctrinally mature?
5. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists, denying that there were errors in
the Churchs older literature, in contrast to what was so clearly stated by Mrs. White,
and refusing to admit that there were errors on record, concerning even the Godhead
issue? See again pages 61-70 in this presentation. Who do we find *forgetting that what
the Church was counseled to hold fast to, during the alpha heresy and after, was not
necessarily everything said by the pioneers, but rather the principles that have stood
the test, and which after the passing of time (or the Churchs gradual development)
have been substantiated by the Spirit (by the writings of Mrs. White)? That is what
was not to be denied, not even one jot or principle, according to Mrs. White. See Mrs.
White in Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pages 57-58, and Selected Messages,
Vol. 1, pgs. 199-200. Hear again the words of Mrs. White, about her writings:
All truths are immortalized in my writings. The Lord never denies
His word. Men may set up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will seek to seduce
souls from the truth, but all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister
White, and has given her a message, will be safe from many delusions that will come
in these last days
E.G. White- Manuscript Release, pg. 22, 23
6. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists, upon the false interpretation of Mrs.
Whites prophecies, declaring that the Adventist Church is now a part of Babylon, in
contradiction to her clear words to the contrary? Who do we find declaring that God has
rejected the Adventist Church, and calls all to come out of her, in favor of membership
in certain independent ministries, acting alone, even defying the General Conferences
judgment on fundamental issues? Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists,
building their foundation upon, and finding their greatest missionary work in, being
accusers of the brethren, even defying the counsel in the very prophecy of the omega
heresy not to, quote, enter into controversy over the presence and personality of God
(or the Godhead)?
What is clear is that, historically, the Church has been opposed by individuals
from within, or by those who apostatized, such as D.M. Canright. However, never
before has there been such a growing, well-orchestrated and organized movement,
aimed at discrediting the Church and its leadership, and calling people to come out
of her. Never before has there been so many, originating from within the ranks of
Adventism, declaring the Church a part of Babylon, and are doing so on *mainly
the subject of the Godhead, a subject they were warned not to enter into
controversy over. This development is indeed of a most startling nature, and has
99
no other parallel in the Churchs history! No wonder Mrs. White then said that she
trembled for our people, when she saw the future! Surely the Dragon is wroth
with the Remnant who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony
of Jesus. See again Question 14 in this presentation.
Dear reader, the evident fulfillment of the foregoing is NOT FOUND IN THE
*ORGANIZED S.D.A. CHURCH, or in the writings of Leroy Froom, but rather among
its dissidents, and certain (not all) off-shoot and independent ministries. That is clear
for all to see, and this writer would ask you to stop and consider where you stand on
these issues, issues that are here so clearly outlined. May God open your eyes to a fresh
perspective on these issues before it is too late!
QUESTION 16
DO ADVENTISTS REGARD THE GODHEAD DOCTRINE
AS SALVIFIC, THAT IS, SALVATION IS BASED UPON
A FULL UDERSTANDING OF IT, MAKING IT A TEST
OF CHRISTIAN CHARACTER, OR OF ONES FITNESS
FOR HEAVEN? OR IS IT A QUESTION OF
THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE?
It was Jesus Himself who said to the Samaritan woman: You worship you know
not whatthey that worship Him [God] must worship Him in Spirit and in truth (John
4:22-24). That is a good starting point in looking at this very crucial question before us.
There are many and varied Adventist viewpoints on this question, but what is obvious is
that ones perspective on who the Bible presents as God, and what the word God
means, will determine who is ones center and focus in the Godhead.
On one hand some may proclaim that the essence of salvation is, quote, this is life
eternal that they might know thee [The Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ
whom thou hast sent (John 17:3). Others, on the other hand, may equally declare Jesus
to be truly my Lord and my God (John 20:28, 29), and proclaim that what is salvific,
or the essence of salvation is, as Paul said, quote, I determined not to know anything
[or anyone] among you, save Jesus and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Who should the
focus be on, if God is to be known or worshipped as God? Is it the Father only, Jesus
only, the Father and Jesus together, or the three Persons of the Godhead in unity? There
100
are several positions that one could take, but what is evident is that, at the end of the day,
Jesus, our God [who] shall come (Psalms 50:3), must be the center, focus and hub
around which all arguments must revolve. At the end of the day, every man must give
an account of himself [and his own conscience] to God, based upon his own stance on
the Bible. However, because there can be so many wind of doctrine based on the very
same Bible that, sometimes there is safety in being guided by the gifts of the Spirit
(Ephesians 4:10-15), or by the united consensus of the brethren led by the Spirit of God,
because in the multitude of counsel there is safety.
What has always been controversial is whether ones perspective on the Godhead
(whether a trinity, or a unity) should be a test of fitness for Heaven. For the
Adventist, while he cannot be too dogmatic, and reserves the right to his opinion, his
outlook, as a member of the united body of Christ, can be guided by the following
considerations in Adventism.
[1] The united consensus of the brethren was that the counsels of the spirit of Prophecy
through Mrs. White, is a valuable guide in technical matters related to Bible doctrine.
What did she say on this matter? It should be noted that while Mrs. White, no doubt,
believed that a correct understanding of the Godhead is important, Mrs. White counseled
not to enter into controversy over the Godhead issue. So many within Adventism are
in direct opposition to this wise counsel, and yet never lose a chance to quote the words
of spirit of prophecy writings. She however made it clear that the foundation of all
true science, that is, that which should absorb the constantly searching and enquiring
mind, is the truth about the existence of a personal God, in the unity of Christ with
His Father!
[2] Mrs. White did not even mention, much more to make the Trinity (the acceptance or
rejection of it) an issue, but instead focused mainly on Jesus, the individual, and saw
Sunday, the unifying force in Christendom, as the issue of greatest concern, the
acceptance of which must be avoided at all cost.
[3] Finally, after several years of making the Trinity (the acceptance or rejection of it) an
issue of contention and concern, and even condemnation, the pioneers, led by Mrs.
Whites own husband, later took the position that the Godhead (whether trinity or
unity) is not to be regarded as a test of fitness for Heaven. Only faith in
Jesus, in the truth about Him, that is, the truth in the gospel of the Divine Son,
as well as strict obedience to the commandments of God, were to be regarded as
the only true test of Christian character. One may take issue with this viewpoint,
but not while claiming to be an Adventist and upholding the pioneers and their
perspectives.
The foregoing is the historical and united consensus of the brethren, and
behooves us to remember, In the multitude of counsel there is safety; those who want
101
to beat their own path or blaze their own trail, that is their choice, and their God-given
right. But who knows where this may lead them.
QUESTION 17
IF THE ADVENTIST CHURCH IS TODAY
TRINITARIAN, WHY IS IT STILL REGARDED AS A
CULT BY SOME AND NOT A CULT BY OTHERS?
There are those who make much ado in declaring Adventism a part of the
fellowship of Babylon, simply because some non-Adventist writers, who believe that
Adventism should not be labeled a cult, regard the Church as practicing orthodox or
acceptable Christianity since Adventism believes in the absolute Deity of Christ and
A trinity (cooperating union of three Persons) in the Godhead. While it can be seen as
justified for Adventism to, in order to reach out in missionary service and friendship,
labor to be accepted as Christian, and not anti-Christian, or cultist, the truth is
that, this label is not something that should be given much attention. That is the opinion
of this writer. Why?
The truth is that the concept of what a cult is, usually seen as negative and antiChristian, is purely a perspective-driven, opinion-based, or subjective matter. The fact
that Adventism is not now regarded by some Trinitarian writers as cultist (e.g. Walter
Martin, in Kingdom of the Cults), should neither be here nor there for the balanced
Adventist, in the opinion of this writer, because the truth is that many other writers, both
Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian, still see Adventism as a cult because, in their opinion,
among other things:
[1] It does not teach the natural immortality of the soul
[2] It does not teach an eternally burning and tormenting hell
[3] It demands strict obedience to the Saturday- Sabbath command, and all
The Ten Commandments
[4] It believes the writings of Mrs. E.G White are inspired like the Bible
Notice the following quotes, highlighting the view of one of the many writers (which this
writer has read) which labels Adventism cultist, because of the Sabbath and the
writings of Mrs. White:
102
103
QUESTION 18
ARE THERE ARIANS AND SEMI-ARIANS AMONG
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS TODAY? WHAT DO
THEY BELIEVE AND TEACH?
A careful and honest review of the doctrinal history of the Adventist Church
will reveal that many of its leaders and bench members were, in varying degrees,
Arian and semi-Arian in their beliefs, at least in the early years. It will also reveal
that the Church was always opposed to the concept that the Godhead is one person
having three faces. That is why the Church was seen as anti-Trinitarian', but this
was so only in one sense. It has already been shown, in this presentation, that this form
of anti-Trinitarianism was clearly misunderstood by some to mean that Adventism
has always been anti-Three-Persons-in-the-Godhead, or anti-Trio. This was not
the case. See again Questions 10 and 11.
However, one of the accepted realities within the Adventist Church is that,
over the years, some of its members continue to hold on to Arian and semiArian perspectives, and continue to be the dissenting voice in Adventism on the
issue of the Godhead. This is a reality that should not make the Church feel
uncomfortable, it may just be the means of inciting brethren to study more, and to be
honest and more objective about its doctrinal history. Sometimes what may be a bother
may have some benefit, indirectly.
Who really is an Arian or semi-Arian, and what do the modern ones in
Adventism believe and teach?
An Arian is any Christian, past or present, who follow directly or indirectly
the teachings of Arius (a 4th century theologian), who denied the absolute divinity or
Deity of Jesus, in stating that He was created, and who regarded only the Father in the
Godhead as the Deity, that is, only the Father is truly God in the highest sense, and
only the Father is Sovereign (supreme ruler) of the universe. He also contended that
the Holy Spirit is simply Gods active force, or a divine influence created by Jesus; it
is not a person.
A semi-Arian (or *homoiousian) is one who reviews or revises the teachings of
Arius, accepting that Jesus is truly God in nature, because He is begotten of the same
substance of the Father, but He is God with limits (thus He is not infinite), He is not
God in the infinity, and cannot be called a Power infinite, because He did not exist as
an independent and conscious Being from all eternity (or existed co-eternally with the
Father). Jesus, they contend, is all powerful, worthy of worship, and is God in nature,
but is not fully eternal, not equal in dignity (rank, title, office), nor is He equal in
authority with the Father, since the Father was First, He (Jesus) was derived, and
was then given everything by the Father. The Holy Spirit, they contend is sometimes
104
properly called a person or being, but only when He is being personified in the Father
and the Son as their split-personality, but He is not a separate Person (thus there is no
real Trio, but rather a Duo, in the Godhead). THAT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF
THEIR TEACHINGS.
Today there are still those in the Adventist Church, who hold on to
these beliefs, in varying degrees, even after he Adventist Church matured doctrinally to
abandon these views, with the result being that they teach the following, directly or
indirectly:
105