BI-THEISM vs TRI-THEISM IN ADVENTISM?

By Derrick Gillespie Adventist anti-Trinitarians, who are believers in and worshippers of two Godhead beings, persons whom they direct worship to as Creator, Redeemer, and King of kings (with one being having come from or begotten by the other), are usually seen attacking the Adventist trinity, which consists of three beings in one Godhead, describing it as being unorthodox and as proof of tri-theism (the worship of three gods). Well, the truth is that Adventism's present acceptance of a trinity is unorthodox, as believed today, and the earlier SDA pioneers' eventual acceptance of a certain type of trinity, and their explanation of it was unorthodox, as believed and explained by them between 1892 and up to 1915. So what? Being "unorthodox" has never bothered Adventists!! Mind you, this writer is not saying that the historic "orthodox" Trinity does not have inherent flaws in certain explanations, nor am I saying that the present unorthodox version of the Trinity in Adventism does not have certain inherent flaws in certain explanations, but what is certain is that worshiping two beings as God or divine, or as members of the Godhead does not escape the critics charge of polytheism (i.e. bi-theism or the worship of two gods) any more than worshiping three beings or persons as one God. It is time we all wake up to that fact. As for the argument or charge of "tri-theism", simply because three beings are believed to be involved in the Godhead, it is a straw-man argument coming from any SDA anti-Trinitarian, since: [1] Opponents to the orthodox Trinity, which consists of one Being with three "persons" united in one indivisible substance of that one Being, have also used the tri-theism ("three Gods") argument against the belief even when three separate beings are not considered as objects of worship. This proves that it is all a matter of perspective and is highly subjective. [2] The very same SDA anti-Trinitarians who charge mainstream Adventists with worshiping " three Gods", simply because we see three separate beings in the Godhead, they would be equally guilty of polytheism or worshiping "two Gods", i.e. if the tri-theism charge they level against Adventism was indeed correct. They believe in two Godhead beings whom they direct worship to, with both being seen as Sovereign (*supreme), as

Creator, as the Deity, as Redeemer, as Lord (supreme Master) and as King of kings (with one being having come directly from the other, and who is naturally equal in all respects to the other he was begotten by). That premise all monotheistic Muslims and Jews see as polytheism (bi-theism). No wonder the Jews, in light of Jesus calling Himself (not God the Father but) the Son of God in the divine sense, accused Him of blasphemy. Why? This was simply because he made Himself equal with the Father by claiming to be his Son in the highest sense. See John 5:18. Thus, even the Jews of Jesus day also made the charge against Jesus that claiming to be Gods Son could be considered as polytheism, because he made himself (not the person of the Father but simply) equal with the Father. So SDA anti-Trinitarians themselves too are faced with this ancient argument of the critics who lack the insight about the Father and the Son. Usually they try to escape this charge from the critics of them worshiping two Gods by lamely explaining that only the Father is God (i.e. supreme, and the source of all), and that he Son merely inherited divine equality (or divine supremacy) and the right to being worshiped as God, but only as God by nature, and so that is not really polytheism. But this is simply a case of cock mouth kill cock, and the "kettle calling the pot black". You cant have your cake and eat it. If polytheism is defined to be worshiping and praying to more than one separate being as God, then using their same weak tri-theism arguments against them one could easily overturn their belief in the worship of Father and Son together. And their appeal to ancient pagan religions of many gods being the pattern for polytheism in Christianity does not help their cause either, since many pagans worshiped gods in twos, as separate beings, with one being having come from the other, even as ancient pagan religions also worshiped groups of three separate beings or individuals (even of different genders), as well as very many beings (pantheons of beings), often with all originating from a higher god/divine figure. To escape this similarity of two or more divine beings the antiTrinitarians in Adventism would have to admit that similarity does not always mean source... and in principle this equally applies to the Godhead duo of SDA anti-Trinitarians as well as to the trio or trinity of mainstream Adventists as well. Otherwise they too would be guilty of polytheism, even as they point the finger. Obviously the Bible's presentation of the Godhead having more than one being considered as deserving of highest worship is not regarded in God's eyes as polytheismwhether two or three divine beings are involved. That this truth has being caricatured and counterfeited by paganism and false Christianity is undoubtedly true. So what's new? So are other truths in

Christianity as well. Satan's plans to launch an attack against truth are longranging and more deceptive than many of us realize.

What is true is that Adventism has good reason, from its pioneering days, for believing (as so potently stated by E.G. White) in "three holiest beings in heaven" or three "eternal heavenly dignitaries" comprising the "threefold" "Eternal Godhead"; "holiest beings" who all "gave themselves" to the "plan of redemption", who all deserve or are worthy to be called upon in prayer as the "three Great Worthies", and who all deserve to be "served"...unless E.G. White is woefully wrong!! Mainstream Adventism today (at least as represented by some in leadership) is at fault in believing in three equally in-originate, and role-playing beings (i.e. simply role playing as Father and Son from eternity, etc.), and believing in a Christ not begotten from all eternity (but in him only begotten as a man). The biblical truth is that only the Father of Jesus is ultimately in-originate, or un-begotten. But what is also true is that while the SDA anti-Trinitarians recognize certain errors in the present explanations of the SDA trinity, yet they themselves deceive themselves into thinking that they have all explanations of their Godhead "duo" correct, and they themselves exhibit stubborn refusal to accept certain realities about the "three holiest beings in heaven". Sadly both sides may never reach the point where they both accept their shortcomings and come clean, and so I must believe that God will always have a true remnant in Israel that will be able to accept both sides of the truth!! But, finally I must say that this writer is comfortable with the basic premise as written so clearly by an Adventist pioneer as early as 1909, when he said: From the confusing idea of one God in three Gods and three Gods in one God the unexplainable dictum of theology- [i.e. the traditional Catholic Trinity explanation, of a singular threefold organism/Being or a singular tri-personal substance] - the enemy gladly leads to what appears to be a more rational, though not less erroneous idea that there is no trinity, and that Christ is merely a created being. But Gods great plan is clear and logical. There is a trinity (!!), and in it there are three personalitiesWe have the Father described in Dan. 7:9, 10a

personality surelyIn Rev. 1:13-18 we have the Son described. He is also a personality The Holy Spirit is spoken of throughout Scripture as a personality. These divine persons are associated in the work of GodBut this union is not one in which individuality is lostThere is indeed a divine trio, but the Christ of that Trinity is not a created being as the angels- He was the only begotten of the Fatherlet not the lips of man speak of Christ as a created being. He is one of the divine trio- the only begotten Son of the Father
- Robert Hare, Australasian Union Conference Record, July 19, 1909

Much earlier than this a more renowned SDA pioneer eventually brought Himself to make the very same admission, when he reported on the beliefs of all Christians represented at the controversial Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and about what they never really disputed. He admitted:

all [at the Council, whether supporting Arius or Alexander] acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of personsThere was no dispute about the [notice, not the opinion, or teaching, but the] *FACT of there being a Trinity; it was about the nature of the Trinity. Both parties believed in precisely the same Trinity, but they differed upon the precise relationship which the Son bears to the Father -A.T. Jones, The Two Republics, 1891, pg. 333 Was this reality, of COMMONLY believing in a Godhead trinity, a new invention at Nicea? Evidently not, because very many Christians long before echoed the same sentiments by saying:

200 A.D. who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e. the number) and disposition of [three] persons in the *TRINITY [Greek, triavdo, or Godhead of three] - Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus

What was always in dispute was HOW these persons were united; not whether they existed in the first place. So likewise in 1899, here we see A.T. Jones, an SDA pioneer who once probably even opposed the thought that a trinity/trio of the Godhead existed in the first place, after carefully reviewing what happened in general Church history, and after carefully considering what his own SDA Church started seeing as of 1888 and 1892, finally brought himself to say almost the same thing that Hippolytus said way back in 200A.D., and which his own pioneering brother, Robert Hare, later (in 1909) admitted to as well. It was A.T. Jones who plainly admitted in 1899: God is one [person]. Jesus Christ is one [i.e. another person]. The Holy Spirit is one [i.e. the third person of three]. And these three are one: there is no dissent nor division among them. -A. T. Jones, Review and Herald, January 10, 1899, 24 Clearly A.T. Jones could not say the Holy Spirit is one, and mean anything else than what Mrs. White herself began to lead the SDA Church to admit after 1888, because all three were being grouped and equally described by her in the very same wayas three persons, as three living personalities, as three dignitaries, and as three holiest beings in heaven; but never united in a way where their individuality is ever lost. I am comfortable that these three personalities/persons can be called the three holiest beings in heaven, that all three pledge to receive and be a Father to us, that, in response, we must pledge to serve all three, and am comfortable that when we need help it is our privilege to call upon the three Great Worthies; all doctrinal matters confirmed by Adventisms leading pioneer, E.G. White (which can be easily proven by way of pioneering Adventist literature; which I have proven adequately elsewhere). As an Adventist I am comfortable with the basics, and upon this platform I stand to agitate for a reform in certain areas of our mainstream Trinitarian belief, areas in explanation that admittedly deny other equally important truths; truths like the historic Christian faith that Jesus is the real and truly begotten Son of the Father, despite existing as such from all eternity (i.e. hes not just an incarnational Son), and that both he and the Holy Spirit (though existing as eternal heavenly dignitaries or as holiest beings in heaven, yet) themselves are of/from the Father, whos presented by the Bible (despite it seems paradoxical, yet not contradictory) as the one and only God, the Great Source of all (since only he is in-originate and owes his existence to none other). Amen.