Ellen White did say that they were wrong about Christ and the Holy Spirit. She said that Jesus Christ was the one who wrote the Ten Commandments and gave them to Moses at Mt. Horeb. She said in Desire of Ages that Christ was eternal, equal with the Father, uncreated, and did not have a beginning. She also said the Holy Spirit is a person, not an influence. All of these things are in direct opposition to what her husband and other Arians believed.

Three points are especially important to keep in mind:

1) The early Adventists, or former Millerites, came out of many different churches with various views regarding the Trinity. The nature of Christ was not what they believed was important. They were organizing a church around the Second Coming, the Sabbath, and the Sanctuary truths.

2) Even during those early years there were some disagreements between SDAs on the subject of the Trinity. Not all our pioneers were Arians. Some had come out of churches that held Trinitarian beliefs. However, the pioneers did not want to cause division over something they viewed as relatively minor at that time. This was the attitude of Ellen White while her husband was alive-- i.e., prior to 1890.


3) It was Ellen White's books Desire Of Ages and Patriarchs and Prophets which caused the SDA church to cease being Arian and eventually adopt the doctrine of the Trinity. After the publication of those books, virtually all SDA leaders ceased to agitate about the Trinity. The process of adopting the doctrine of the Trinity was not completed until about 1920.

Today there are some SDAs who are striving to take the church back to its Arian roots. It's opposed by both the Bible and the writings of Ellen White.

(Evangelism (1946), Chap. 18 - Dealing with False Science, Cults, Isms, and Secret Societies)

To me, this quotation explains and clarifies a lot about the actual work of The Holy Spirit (His "responsibilities"), and the magnificent role He plays (especially in our fallen world, which is the battlefield) in the the big controversy between Jesus and Lucifer.

The Trinity and the Godhead are the same thing.

Some may be interested in the following article (short version) I put together about a change that occurred in the SDA church regarding the Trinity doctrine.

There can be no denying that in the early days of Adventism, the majority of our prominent workers were Anti-Trinitarian. This is clearly no longer the case. A definite change in our denominational stance has taken place, and today we openly teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

Many contend that this change did not occur until the 1930’s (more than 15 years after the death of Ellen White), and a growing number believe that the change involved significant conspiracy. However, I am confident that the following few thoughts will show that this view cannot be sustained.

James White, Bates, Smith, Andrews, Loughborough (and others) all came to Adventism with strong Anti-Trinitarian views, but this fact carries little weight in my view, because as early as 1869 God was working through Mrs. White to alter those views. The change was brought about gradually, and in my view it needed to be a gradual work, as the primary focus during that time was necessarily elsewhere.

In 1869 she wrote that Christ “was equal with God.” (2T 200). This point had been something the majority of workers had not believed. They held that Christ was in some sense a created being and that He was therefore inferior to God. They also held that the Holy Spirit was an influence emanating from God, and that that emanation could not in any sense be thought of as a distinct Person. Yet by the agencies of God these things began to be met, and a change was gradually effected. Then in 1897 came a statement that many Adventists struggled to believe could have been written by Mrs. White.

Speaking of Jesus she said:
“In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived.” (5BC1130.)
An Adventist named M.L. Andreasen visited Mrs. White and asked to see her original handwritten papers. He wrote of this visit in October 1953:

“In her own handwriting I saw the statements which I was sure she had not written—could not have written. Especially was I struck with the now familiar quotation in Desire of Ages,
p. 530: “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.” This statement at that time was revolutionary and compelled a complete revision of my former view—and that of the denomination— on the deity of Christ.”

“In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived.” To effectively say that the Son did NOT derive His existence from the Father, severely shook many of our leading men, and before long it was clear that a once cherished view had been dealt a heavy blow. Just as Andreasen says -- it brought about a “complete revision” of the SDA presentation on the deity of Christ.
Christ’s equality with the Father was being established. But at the same time the Holy Spirit was being presented as a distinct Personage – the third Person of the Godhead. This work also involved the overturning of the contrary, once cherished view.


Speaking to the students at Avondale College in 1899 Mrs. White said,
“we have been brought together as a school, and we need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds, that the Lord God is our keeper, and helper. He hears every word we utter and knows every thought of the mind.”
(7MR 299, Ev 616) Today a growing number of SDA’s hold the view that, while referring to the Holy Spirit, Mrs. White actually means Jesus. Yet this, in my view, is a desperate measure that seems to defy the very sense and language employed.


Note 1.
D. M. Canright, in an article entitled “The Holy Spirit”, printed in The Signs of the Times (July 25, 1878), expressed the view held by many:
“All Trinitarian creeds make the Holy Ghost a person, equal in substance, power, eternity, and glory with the Father and Son. . . . But this we cannot believe. The Holy Spirit is not a person. ”



Regards,
Stewart

I believe in the three in one, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost...

The Holy Trinity, the Godhead--are the same thing.

When we talk of God being "One God" this is defendable from scripture Deut.6:4. It says here that Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah. It is interesting to compare other scripture to understand this passage.

For instance Gen 19:24 where Jehovah had been visiting with Abraham about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Then as the destruction takes place it is recorded "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven". Not withstanding the omnipresence of Jehovah God, it might be seen that the name Jehovah is applied to two different Divine beings.

It is also worth comparing Gen. 2: 24, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” The original language uses the same word to describe the union of Adam and Eve as one as is used in Deut. 6:4 when one speaks of One Lord.

This appears to be interesting... and yes exciting.

Isaiah 43:11 says “I, even I, am the LORD (Jehovah); and beside me there is no saviour.” The Bible makes it clear that Jesus is our Savior (Matt. 1:21) The rest of this 43rd chapter of Isaiah through the 47th chapter seems to show clearly how Jesus is identified with Jehovah Lord. It is quite revealing.

I appreciate the comparison you showed from the original language concerning Adam and Eve becoming one when they united, as well as Deut. 6:4 claims there is one Lord. That is fascinating and inspiring. I try never to put cart before the horse.

Completely agree with your post. Excellent quotes and info. Thanks.

There are some problems with using the word "trinity" because the doctrine does carry some historical and theological "baggage" that SDAs are not in agreement with.

For instance, the Roman Catholic view of it is what many think of when they hear the word, and we SDAs don't believe everything they teach about it.

Also, we aren't coming to the Trinity doctrine on account of the Church creeds. So our viewpoint is more biblical and not influenced by the language used by church councils and creeds. Our church was against the Trinity doctrine for a long time, and that's why Ellen White never used the word. It would have been divisive since so many had been completely opposed to the Trinity up to that point. To use the word in that way would have caused a lot of people to feel we were betraying the "truth" once delivered to the saints.

I'm "talking" to some SDAs and former SDAs who believe the same thing today.