What Ellen White Has Written About the Godhead

[John317]

Here is an example of a non-Trinitarian statement in 1898 which is when Ellen White is supposedly almost "up-to-speed" in terms of the Trinity doctrine.

Originally Posted By: EGW

"... But the men who claimed to stand high in knowledge and spiritual understanding failed to comprehend his meaning; and that which had been evolved from eternity by the Father and Son, they in their ignorance stood as critics to condemn.(YI 09-22-98)

....When Christ spoke these words, He addressed His Father. Christ was not alone in making this great sacrifice. It was the fulfillment of the covenant made between the Father and the Son before the foundation of the earth was laid. ... (Ms. 111, 1897)

A mixture of statements that can be taken either Trinitarian OR non-Trinitarian makes for a true dilemma. Unless we have "divine enlightenment," we shall fail of reaching the truth.

Your mistake is in thinking that if Ellen White doesn't refer to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit must not exist or be a person.

Your idea means that you would expect Ellen White to write, "that which had been evolved from eternity by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Or: "the covenant made between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit..."

But why would this be necessary in order for there not to be a contradiction or an error, etc.? Every time you mention a family, do you always mention every member of the family whenever you refer to two of them? If you don't mention all of them by name, wouldn't it be foolish of people to assume that the ones not mentioned must be non-existent and else not really persons?

Here is the whole paragraph:

Quote:

Christ's conscious superiority, even as He descended step by step in the path of humiliation, gave His words an amazing power. What lessons of instruction He gave, and with what authority He rebuked the sins of men in high position. Truth was truth to Him, and it never suffered in His hands; for He was the author of truth. "To this end," He says, "was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." . . . He was the embodiment of truth and holiness. He who had stood in the councils of God, who had dwelt in the innermost sanctuary of the Eternal, was speaking that whereof He knew....But the men who claimed to stand high in knowledge and spiritual understanding failed to comprehend His meaning; and that which had been evolved from eternity by the Father and the Son, they in their ignorance stood as critics to condemn. {SD 26.2}

Notice above that Christ is the author of truth. If Christ had a beginning, it would mean that there was a point when there was no truth, for truth would of perforce have a beginning also. And wouldn't this necessarily mean that God the Father must have existed totally alone for an eternity without any truth?

Quote:

The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order fully to carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love? God would make it impossible for man to say that He could have done more. With Christ He gave all the resources of heaven, that nothing might be wanting in the plan for man's uplifting. [color:#FF0000]Here is love--the contemplation of which should fill the soul with inexpressible gratitude! Oh, what love, what matchless love! The contemplation of this love will cleanse the soul from all selfishness. It will lead the disciple to deny self, take up the cross, and follow the Redeemer. {CH 222.2}

NOTE: 1) The Holy Spirit was stirred with pity for the Human race. (Obviously, then, the Holy Spirit is able to feel.)

2) The Holy Spirit gave Himself to the working out of the plan of redemption. (The Holy Spirit has a will or else He could not give Himself. He must also have a mind or else He could not work out a plan.)

3) Together the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit "decided" that Christ should give Himself an offering for sin." (Obviously the Holy Spirit was involved in the sacrifice of Christ.)

4) The eternal Godhead consists of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three were/are cooperating together for the salvation of sinners.

5) We should feel inexprfessible graditude not only to Christ but to the Father AND the Holy Spirit.

By the way, as you study Ellen White's statements regarding the Godhead, you will find evidence that she sang praises and worship to the Holy Spirit, and she prayed to the Holy Spirit, which Ellen White included among "the three great Worthies of heaven."

Quote:

Here is where the work of the Holy Ghost comes in, after your baptism. 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. {7MR 267.2}

Are these the words of somewho who is either non-Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian? I don't know of any such who would say they agree with what Ellen White says here, at least if they understand what it says.

[Gustave]

Ellen White

Before the entrance of evil, there was peace and joy throughout the universe. All was in perfect harmony with the Creator's will. Love for God was supreme, love for one another impartial. Christ the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,--one in nature, in character, and in purpose,--the ONLY BEING in all the universe THAT could enter into ALL the counsels and purposes OF GOD. By Christ, the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings. "By him were all things created, that are in Heaven, . . . whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers;" [COL. 1:16.] and to Christ, equally with the Father, all Heaven gave allegiance. {GC88 493.1}

Methodist

Article I—Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity—the Father, the Son, AND the Holy Ghost

If Christ and God were considered "BEINGS" by default the Holy Spirit was NOT....

...One thing is clear and that's GC 493.1 is an ABSOLUTE violation of Article 1 of the Methodist Church.

...If Ellen came into the Adventist faith "as a Methodist" she would have had to have DUMPED that faith.

...To write what she did in the GC.

[John317]

...One thing is clear and that's GC 493.1 is an ABSOLUTE violation of Article 1 of the Methodist Church.

...If Ellen came into the Adventist faith "as a Methodist" she would have had to have DUMPED that faith.

...To write what she did in the GC.

In fact, she dumped much more. She didn't believe one idea simply because she was taught it as a Methodist. She tested everything by the Bible. If it plainly contradicted Scripture, it was rejected.

She didn't give a hoot-- and neither do I-- about any of the Articles of the Methodist Church. They are interesting to read, but that is all.

Quote:

Before the entrance of evil there was peace and joy throughout the universe. All was in perfect harmony with the Creator's will. Love for God was supreme, love for one another impartial. Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,--one in nature, in character, and in purpose,--the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. By Christ the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings. "By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, . . . whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" (Colossians 1:16); and to Christ, equally with the Father, all heaven gave allegiance. {GC 493.1}

The law of love being the foundation of the government of God, the happiness of all created beings depended upon their perfect accord with its great principles of righteousness. God desires from all His creatures the service of love--homage that springs from an intelligent appreciation of His character. He takes no pleasure in a forced allegiance, and to all He grants freedom of will, that they may render Him voluntary service. {GC 493.2}

Compare what she says in CH 222--

Quote:

The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order fully to carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love? God would make it impossible for man to say that He could have done more. With Christ He gave all the resources of heaven, that nothing might be wanting in the plan for man's uplifting. [color:#FF0000]Here is love--the contemplation of which should fill the soul with inexpressible gratitude! Oh, what love, what matchless love! The contemplation of this love will cleanse the soul from all selfishness. It will lead the disciple to deny self, take up the cross, and follow the Redeemer. {CH 222.2}

I see no contradiction between the two EGW quotes.

The context of GC 493.1 and PP 34: paragraph 1 is the issue of Lucifer's desire to enter into the counsels of God. It is explained in PP 36:

Quote:

Lucifer allowed his jealousy of Christ to prevail, and became the more determined. {PP 35.3}

To dispute the supremacy of the Son of God, thus impeaching the wisdom and love of the Creator, had become the purpose of this prince of angels. To this object he was about to bend the energies of that master mind, which, next to Christ's, was first among the hosts of God. But He who would have the will of all His creatures free, left none unguarded to the bewildering sophistry by which rebellion would seek to justify itself. Before the great contest should open, all were to have a clear presentation of His will, whose wisdom and goodness were the spring of all their joy. {PP 36.1}

The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng--"ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. {PP 36.2}

Obviously Ellen White is not excluding the Third Person of the Godhead from the councils of the Godhead. But did the Father tell the angels that the Holy Spirit also was prohibited from entering the councils of the eternal Godhead? Of course not. And why not? Because that was not in question. The question was whom among the Beings that the angels could see could enter into the councils of the Eternal?

It is very clear from Ellen White's descriptions that the angels were not clear about the identity of the pre-incarnate Christ. That is why the Father "summoned the heavenly hosts before Him."

It is even possible if not likely that the angels did not know at that time that there was such a Being as the Holy Spirit. After all, the Holy Spirit is invisible and can be everywhere at one time. He is infinite, Omnicient, Omnopotent, and Omnipresent, all of which is too much for the human intellect to comprehend. Doubtless we'll spend eternity studying and learning about God.

[John317]

Methodist

Article I Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is but one living and true God, everlasting without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity the Father, the Son, AND the Holy Ghost

The part in blue Ellen White totally rejected, and it was the reason she didn't believe the Methodist Articles about God. It is why Ellen White waited on God to reveal to her what she should write on this topic. Therefore she didn't write anything simply because she THOUGHT it was true.

I believe everything in the above article except the part in blue, which Ellen White and the other Adventist Pioneers also rejected.

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

Your mistake is in thinking that if Ellen White doesn't refer to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit must not exist or be a person.

[Pastor_Chick]

Gus,

I am not finding at least one of your posts. I am referring particularly to the one that had some source material about Kellogg.

I had thanked you for the information on another post, and that one seems missing as well.

Am I overlooking these, or has someone deleted them? If your post was removed, please email that information to me at csda_academy at yahoo.com. Thank you.

[Gustave]

Gus,

I am not finding at least one of your posts. I am referring particularly to the one that had some source material about Kellogg.

I had thanked you for the information on another post, and that one seems missing as well.

Am I overlooking these, or has someone deleted them? If your post was removed, please email that information to me at csda_academy at yahoo.com. Thank you.

It appears that some of them have indeed been deleted....

...I didn't do it but my guess is that the "personality of God".

...As understood by Ellen White & the Pioneers.

...Is not something the authority of the SDA CHurch wants to be discussed / understood.

[Pastor_Chick]

So, if you please, send me what you had posted here via email. OR, in the alternative, if you can direct me to an online source, that is fine. I like to keep some archives - sorry I did not save what you posted. I never realized that they would obliterate the information as the denomination has done in the past. Thanks in advance.

[miz3]

Gustave and pastorchick,

Could the post you are looking for be on page twelve of this thread?

I saw a post by Gustave that included something from Dr. Kellogg.

[Pastor_Chick]

The missing post that I am looking for had something from Kellogg about the "scientific" definition of "personality" along with other source material. I have not yet found it.

[ClubV12]

I remember seeing that post where Kellog makes referrence to the definition of personality. I didn't give that particular post a lot of weight as I don't hold Kellog, or exacting definitions of any given word, to a strict or high standard.

Definitions change over time or are to easy to take literally when someone might be using the particular word in a different way than a "strict" definition. I do that to often, use a word that I think embraces the thought, but a dictionary may prove such a word to have an all together different meaning. It's difficult to transmit what you want to say on-line when your missing the human element of gestures, expressions, tone of voice, a wave of the hand, a nod of the head, etc. So it is also with the bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, trying to decipher the deeper meaning of some passage or quote.

[John317]

Yes, the moderator-- that is, myself-- deleted them because they contained things that I have told members several times that I will not allow on the Forum. If they continue to be posted, the members who post may find themselves banned from the theology threads. I am talking specifically about claims that SDAs and Ellen White herself taught or believed that God has certain body parts that will go unnamed. These are falsehoods and are not based on any valid evidence, besides being totally disrespectful to God.

Please read the rules of the forum and abide by them.

[John317]

The Trinity in Seventh-day Adventist History

Merlin Burt

E. G. White Estate Branch Office

Andrews University

The last decade has seen increased anti-Trinitarian activity within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Though significant, anti-Trinitarianism has remained at the margins of the movement. Four reasons for this activity should be mentioned.

(1) There is the availability of information through the internet.

(2) Several other Adventist groups, that emerged from the Millerite movement, continue to hold to an anti-Trinitarian perspective.

(3) Some Adventists think that the doctrine of the Trinity comes from Catholic theology and therefore must be false. What many have not realized is that the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity differs from the Seventh-day Adventist biblical doctrine of the Trinity. This includes eternal generation of the Son and divine impassability, which are influenced by Greek philosophy.

(4) Perhaps most significant, over the last few decades some Seventh-day Adventists have thought to return to the early historical Adventist faith, or what might be called neo-restorationism.

Some have failed to recognize the dynamic nature of Seventh-day Adventist theology. Adventists have always sought a clearer understanding of Bible truth. Historically, their doctrines have developed in the context of the original distinctive core of the Three Angel’s Message and kindred concepts. A small though significant and growing segment of “historic” Adventists are advocating a return to an anti-Trinitarian stance. Seventhday Adventists have always been Bible-centered in their theology and doctrine. They have rejected a static creed and have ever sought to study, understand, and follow the Bible as the source of doctrine and the guide for experience. Consequently, it should not be surprising that Adventist doctrine has developed over time building upon previous and new Bible study.

As Sabbatarian Adventism emerged during the late 1840s, it brought various Christian truths and placed them in the framework of fulfilled prophecy and ongoing discovery of biblical teachings. A cluster of biblical teachings explained what had happened in 1844 and why Jesus had not come. The heavenly sanctuary, the end-time ministry of Jesus in the Most Holy Place, and the Sabbath as the seal of God were a particular focus. Adventist understanding of various theological perspectives continued to develop and improve over time. Two examples are the Sabbath and tithing. Early Adventists initially concluded that the Sabbath should begin and end at 6:00 p.m. It was in 1855, nearly a decade after the initial Sabbath emphasis, that J. N. Andrews’ biblical and historical presentation influenced believers to adopt sundown as the correct time to begin and end the Sabbath. Tithing first began in 1859 as “Systematic Benevolence” and had little or no link to the Biblical teaching of ten percent. It was not until the 1870s that a careful restudy of the topic led Seventh-day Adventists to adopt the tithing framework we practice today. A similar process is evident in the Adventist understanding of the nature of God and the Trinity.

The purpose of this article is to briefly outline the historical development of the view of the Trinity for Seventh-day Adventists from its beginning to the present day.

Up to 1890: Anti-Trinitarian Period

Until near the turn of the twentieth century Seventh-day Adventist literature was almost unanimous in opposing the eternal deity of Jesus and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. During the earlier years some even held the view that Christ was created. It is very important to understand that Adventist views were not homogeneous. Theological tension within Adventism began during the Millerite movement and is illustrated by the two principal leaders, William Miller and Joshua V. Himes.

Miller, being a Baptist, was a Trinitarian. He wrote, “I believe in one living and true God, and that there are three persons in the Godhead. . . . The three persons of the Triune God are connected.”1 Himes, a close associate of William Miller, was of the Christian Connection

persuasion. The northeastern branch of the Christian Church rejected the Trinitarian doctrine as unscriptural.2 It is important to note that Millerite Adventists were focused on the soon coming of Jesus and did not consider it necessary to argue on the subject of the Trinity.

Two of the principal founders of the Seventh-day Adventist church, Joseph Bates and James White, like Himes, had been members of the Christian Connection and rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. Joseph Bates wrote of his views, “Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was an impossibility for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God.”3 James White wrote: “Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away [with] the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ.”4 Both Bates and White were anxious to maintain the separate personalities of the Father and the Son. This concern was caused, in part, by the strong spiritualizing influence among Bridegroom Adventists during 1845 and 1846. A similar problem would resurface around the turn of the twentieth century with the de-personalizing of God and J. H. Kellogg’s pantheistic views.5

Though James White rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, he did believe in the three great powers in heaven. This is reflected in his first hymn book.6 Though opposed to the Trinity he did not believe that Christ was inferior to the Father. In 1877 he wrote, “The inexplicable trinity that makes the godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but the ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse.”7

Not all agreed with James White on the equality of Father and Son. During the 1860s Uriah Smith, long time editor of the Review and Herald, believed that Jesus was “the first created being.”8 By 1881, he had changed to the belief that Jesus was “begotten” and not created.9

A selective list of Adventists who either spoke against the Trinity and/or rejected the eternal deity of Christ include J. B. Frisbie, J. N. Loughborough, R. F. Cottrell, J. N. Andrews, D. M. Canright, J. H. Waggoner, and C. W. Stone.10 W. A. Spicer at one point told A. W. Spalding that his father, after becoming a Seventh-day Adventist (he was formerly a Seventh Day Baptist minister), “grew so offended at the antiTrinitarian atmosphere in Battle Creek that he ceased preaching.”11

In surveying the writings of various pioneers, certain concerns frequently appear. In rejecting the Trinity, some saw the “orthodox” Christian view as pagan tri-theism. Others argued that the Trinity degraded the personhood of Christ and the Father by blurring the distinction between them. While the early positions on the Trinity and deity of Christ were flawed, there was a sincere attempt to oppose certain legitimate errors.

By about 1890, Adventists had come to a more-or-less harmonious position that viewed Jesus as the “begotten” or originated divine Son of God. He was seen as the divine Creator with the Father. The nature of the Holy Spirit was lightly discussed though He was generally considered to be the omnipresent influence from the Father or the Son rather than a person.

From 1890 to 1900: Emergence of Trinitarian Sentiment

As the 1890’s began, two of the key thinkers on each side of the righteousness by faith/law in Galatians issue agreed on the derived divinity of Jesus. E. J. Waggoner wrote in his 1890 Christ and His Righteousness, “There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God . . . but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it was practically without beginning.”12 In 1898 Uriah Smith wrote in Looking Unto Jesus, “God alone is without beginning. At the earliest epoch when a beginning could be,---a period so remote that to finite minds it is essentially eternity,---appeared the Word.”13

The period after the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference saw a new emphasis on Jesus and the plan of salvation. This naturally led to a consideration of His deity and what it meant for the redemption of humanity. A. T. Jones was among the first (with the significant exception of Ellen White) to suggest that Christ was eternally pre-existent. Jones emphasized Colossians 2:9 and the idea that in Christ was the “fullness of the Godhead bodily.” He also described Christ as “the eternal Word.”14 Though he avoided the word “Trinity,” in 1899 he wrote: “God is one. Jesus Christ is one. The Holy Spirit is one. And these three are one: there is no dissent nor division among them.”15

Ellen White played a prophetic role in confirming the eternal deity of Jesus and the three-person Godhead. As early as 1878, she referred to Jesus as the “eternal Son of God.”16 In Desire of Ages she wrote: “[Christ] announced Himself to be the self-existent One” and “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.”17 She wrote of the Holy Spirit as the “Third Person of the Godhead.”18 Ellen White played an important role in urging the church toward a biblical Trinitarian position. However, for years after the publication of Desire of Ages, the church generally avoided these and other statements. While she never used the term “Trinity” in her published writings, she repeatedly conveyed the concept.

M. L. Andreasen questioned whether Ellen White had actually written some of her statements in Desire of Ages and other books. During 1909, Andreasen spent three months at Elmshaven, California, and was convinced of the accuracy of her published position.19

From 1900 to 1931: Transition and Conflict

During the first three decades of the twentieth century, the church remained divided in its position on the deity of Christ. The use of the word “Trinity” in print continued to be avoided. W. W. Prescott and F. M. Wilcox, both editors of the Review and Herald, were key supporters of the full and eternal deity of Jesus. During the 1890s Prescott was slower than Jones to accept the new view. But after 1900, as editor of the Review and Herald, he published articles on the personhood, and eternal nature of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.20 Still Prescott believed that Jesus had a derived existence from God the Father. At the 1919 Bible Conference he presented a series of eight devotionals for the conference titled “The Person of Christ” that expressed this view. Careful discussion at this conference showed that there were varying opinions.21

The early twentieth century saw Adventists and Protestant Fundamentalists battling higher criticism and the “new modernism” growing in Christianity. Liberalism rejected the deity of Jesus and His virgin birth. Adventist articles defending the biblical view began to appear more frequently in church papers. Irrespective of individual differences on details, Adventist ministers pulled into line against dangerous liberal views. Naturally, those who rejected the eternal pre-existence of Christ did not want to speak of His beginning and weaken the argument against higher criticism. Even articles on the Trinity were tolerated.22 The result was an increased appreciation of the full deity of the Son of God.

From 1931 to 1957: Acceptance of the Trinitarian View

F. M. Wilcox was crucial in facilitating the final transition to an accepted Seventh-day Adventist view on the Trinity through his guidance in the 1931 Statement of Fundamental Beliefs and his articles in the Review and Herald.23 Doctrinal summaries were carefully avoided during the first decades of the twentieth century due in part to the conflict on the Trinity. According to L. E. Froom, Wilcox was “respected by all parties for his soundness, integrity, and loyalty to the Advent Faith—and to the Spirit of Prophecy—he, as editor of the Review, did what probably no other man could have done to achieve unity in acceptance.”24 It was not until 1946 that the General Conference Session officially voted a Statement of Fundamental Beliefs.25

During the 1940s an ever-increasing majority of the church believed in the eternal underived deity of Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit, yet there were some who held back and even actively resisted the change. These were mainly comprised of a few older ministers and Bible teachers. In 1944 Uriah Smith’s Daniel and the Revelation was revised and his comments on the derived nature of Christ’s divinity were removed.26

In 1957, the book Questions on Doctrine anchored the doctrine of the Trinity or Godhead for Adventists. While the book produced theological conflict in other areas, there was virtually no dissent on the book’s clear teaching of the Trinity.27 The current unambiguous statement on the Trinity in the Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Beliefs was revised and voted at the 1980 General Conference Session.

The process of adopting the Trinity continued from 1900 to 1950. Key influences in the change were:

(1) Repeated published biblical studies on the topic;

(2) Ellen White’s clear statements;

(3) Adventist response to the attacks of “modern liberalism” on the deity of Christ and his virgin birth; and

(4) F. M. Wilcox’s statement of “Fundamental Beliefs” and his Review and Herald editorials.

We may learn several lessons from the history of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventh-day Adventist church. First, we must acknowledge that the development of Adventist biblical theology has usually been progressive and corrective. This is clearly illustrated in the doctrine of the Trinity. The leading of the Holy Spirit is dynamic and not static. Other doctrinal concepts like the time to begin the Sabbath (1855) and tithing (1878) developed in a similar manner. This development never supposed a paradigm shift that contradicted the clear Biblical teaching of the heavenly sanctuary ministry of Jesus and the prophetic foundation of the Church. Second, the development of the doctrine of the Trinity demonstrates that doctrinal change sometimes requires the passing of a previous generation. For Seventh-day Adventists it took over 50 years for the doctrine of the Trinity to become normative. Third, the gift of prophecy helped the church to have confidence and biblical unity on the Trinity. Ellen White’s unambiguous statements subdued controversy and provided confidence in the transition to our current view. Finally, Adventist theology is always supremely dependent upon Scripture. The Bible tells us that the “path of the just [is] as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.”28 Hebrews 2:1 reads: “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard.” It was ultimately the Bible that led Seventh-day Adventists to adopt their present position on the Godhead or Trinity.

______________________________

1

Sylvester Bliss, Memoirs of William Miller (Boston: Joshua V. Himes, 1853), 77-78.

2

Joshua V. Himes, “Christian Connection,” in Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. J. Newton Brown (Brattleboro, VT:

Brattleboro Typographic, 1838), 363.

3

Joseph Bates, Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates (Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-day Adventist, 1868), 205.

4

James White, Review and Herald, December 11, 1855, 85.

5

See J. H. Kellogg, The Living Temple (Battle Creek, MI: Good Health, 1903), 26-36, 396-398, 450-460, 484-486.

6

Arthur L. White to Hedy Jemison, July 2, 1969; James White, comp., Hymns for God’s Peculiar People (Oswego, NY: Richard

Oliphant, 1849), 47.

7

James White, Review and Herald, November 29, 1877, 72.

8

Uriah Smith, Thoughts, Critical and Practical (Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-day Adventist, 1865), 59.

9

Smith, Thoughts, 1881, 74.

10

J. B. Frisbie, Review and Herald, March 7, 1854, 50; J. N. Loughborough, Review and Herald, November 5, 1861, 184; R. F.

Cottrell, Review and Herald, July 6, 1869, 10-11; [J. N. Andrews], Review and Herald, September 7, 1869, 84; D. M. Canright,

Review and Herald, August 29, 1878, 73-74; September 5, 1878, 81-82; September 12, 1878, 89-90; September 19, 1878, 97; J.

H. Waggoner, The Atonement (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1884), 164-179; C. W. Stone, The Captain of our Salvation (Battle

Creak, MI: n.p., 1886), 15-20.

11

A. W. Spalding to H. C. Lacey, June 2, 1947.

45

12

E. J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1890), 21-22.

13

Uriah Smith, Looking Unto Jesus (Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1898), 10.

14

A. T. Jones, General Conference Bulletin, February 25, 1895, 332; idem, General Conference Bulletin, February 27, 1895, 382.

15

A. T. Jones, Review and Herald, January 10, 1899, 24.

16

Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, August 8, 1878, 49, 50.

17

Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1898), 530.

18

White, Desire of Ages, 671.

19

M. L. Andreasen, “Testimony of M. L. Andreasen,” October 15, 1953, 3.

20

W. W. Prescott, Review and Herald, April 4, 1896, 232; General Conference Committee Minutes for February 15, 1902, cited

in Gilbert Valentine, William Warren Prescott (Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 1982), 351; W. W. Prescott, Review and

Herald, September 2, 1902, 4; idem, Review and Herald, September 23, 1902, 6; idem, Review and Herald, December 23, 1902,

4; idem, Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly, first quarter, 1921, 2, 9, 20; idem, The Doctrine of Christ (Washington, DC: Review

and Herald, 1920), 3, 20, 21.

21

Donald E. Mansell, “How the 1919 Bible Conference Transcript Was Found,” White Document File, July 6, 1975.

22

Stemple White, Canadian Watchman, September 1923, 18; C. P. Bollman, Review and Herald, March 15, 1923, 4; Lyle C.

Shepard, Canadian Watchman, September 1927, 12.

23

F. M. Wilcox, Review and Herald, March 23, 1944, 2; idem, Review and Herald, January 3, 1945, 5-6.

24

L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1971), 413, 415.

25

Robert Olson and Bert Haloviak, “Who Decides What Adventists Believe: A Chronological Survey of Sources, 1844-1977,”

February 24, 1977.

26

Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing, 1941), 400; idem, The Prophecies of Daniel and

the Revelation (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing, 1944), 391.

27

Questions on Doctrine (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1957), 30, 31, 36.

28

But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. Proverbs 4:18

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

In 1913, the editor of the SDA paper, the Review & Herald, published an article in that paper in which he stated that the SDA Church believes in "the Trinity." He wasn't kicked out, and in fact, Ellen White afterwards selected this editor to be one of the original directors on the Ellen White Estate, something she never would have done if she didn't have full confidence in the views and character of this man. He name was Wilcox, a highly respected and regarded leader in the SDA Church.

This blog offers another perspective on the F. M. Cox 1913 "Trinity" statement.

http://www.maranathamedia.com/site/index...tion=com_myblog

[skyblue888]

The trinity is a side issue, one of the enemy's favorites. It is as a "crying baby" distracting us from the most vital issue of the third angel's message. This is what happened in 1888. The law in Galatians was the "crying baby" then.

sky

[Pastor_Chick]

I want to revisit an EGW statement from 1895 that we had some difference of opinion respecting the meaning.

In 1895 Ellen White penned the following:

Quote:

Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent.... (Ms. 5a, 1895)

This statement was used in the Desire of Ages with modifications to read:

Quote:

The Holy Spirit is Christ’s representative, but divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. 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 Spirit to be His successor on earth. (DA 669)

Notice carefully the differences between the former and latter quotations. The sentences were reversed making it appear as if Ellen White were saying the Holy Spirit was a separate individual. As we look at the original statement we can see clearly that Ellen White was stating that "the Holy Spirit is Himself [Christ] divested of the personality of humanity." And again, she said He would send "His Holy Spirit."

There is one major problem with the quotation after the sentences have been reversed. If we are supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit is a separate being other than the Father and His Son, it makes no sense to say that the Holy Spirit was "divested of the personality of humanity." According to The American Heritage Dictionary the word "divested" means, "to strip, to dispossess, to free of; to rid." If the Holy Spirit is a third being it is certain that he never was a human, and therefore it would be impossible for him to strip, or rid himself of humanity.

I discovered a passage in the writings that actually shows what the church believed about the Holy Spirit and its relationship to Christ in 1891.

I have received yours dated June 3. In this letter you speak in these words: "Elder Robinson does not wish me to leave, but urges that I enter the canvassing field until such time as the conference can afford to employ me in some other capacity, but states positively that I cannot be sent out to present the truth to others until some points held by me are changed or modified in order that the views regarded by us as a people should be properly set forth. He quotes as a sample, 'My idea in reference to the Holy Ghost's not being the Spirit of God, which is Christ, but the angel Gabriel, and my belief that the 144,000 will be Jews who will acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. On all fundamental points I am in perfect harmony with our people; but when I try to show what seems to me to be new light on the truth, those in authority, none of whom have seemingly ever made a personal investigation of the matter, refuse to look into the Bible, but brand me as a fellow with queer ideas of the Bible.'" [...]

Your ideas of the two subjects you mention do not harmonize with the light which God has given me. The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery not clearly revealed, and you will never be able to explain it to others because the Lord has not revealed it to you. You may gather together scriptures and put your construction upon them, but the application is not correct. It is not essential for you to know and be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, and the Comforter is the Holy Ghost, "the Spirit of truth, which the Father shall send in My name." "I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him, for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you" [John 14:16, 17]. This refers to the omnipresence of the Spirit of Christ, called the Comforter. There are many mysteries which I do not seek to understand or to explain; they are too high for me, and too high for you. On some of these points, silence is golden.(14MR 175, 179; 1891)

[Gustave]

The atomic bomb contained within Kellogg's Living temple book...

...Which caused Ellen White to absolutely erupt ( along with every SDA pioneer ).

...Was simply the affirmation; 'God', The Holy Spirit Vs. God's holy spirit.

Kellogg, Living Temple page 23

Says one, 'God may be present by His Spirit, OR by His power, but certainly God himself cannot be present everywhere at once.' We answer: How can power be separated from the source of power? Where God's Spirit is at work, where God's power is manifested, God himself is actually and truly present".

In the rubric of the Adventist godhead ONLY the Father was "GOD"....

...And because God was a PERSON aka PERSONALITY an affirmation that the Holy SPirit was also God.

...Was considered in the Arian mind to be destroying "God".

Ellen White, RH

He who denies the personality of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, is denying God and Christ. “If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.” If you continue to believe and obey the truths you first embraced regarding the personality of the Father and the Son, you will be joined together with him in love. There will be seen that union for which Christ prayed just before his trial and crucifixion

Directly after Kellogg got his teaching out in the open....

...The SDA apologetic machine started feeding the flock 'truth'.

...What follows is a small portion of it.

...With a dump-truck sized load more where it came from.

Haskell, RH 8 Oct 1903

Therefore WE repeat WHAT WE previously said, to DENY the personality of God, is to deny the existence of the sanctuary in the heavens; for there God dwells. It is to deny the existence of the angels; for they are his throne. It is to deny the law of God; for it is the foundation of his throne. It is to deny the existence of Satan; for he is a fallen angel. It makes the light and life which God created, and which proceeds from him, whether it be in the grass or in cats or dogs or in man kind, to be the god. Since man, however, is the highest form of light and life, he necessarily becomes the supreme deity. It leads men to worship the creature more than the Creator. We lift a warning voice against any such doctrine, from whatever source it comes. We say the Bible, and the Bible only, shall be our creed. In it is salvation

In the mind of Ellen White God = Father ONLY.....

...Therefore to say "God, the Holy Spirit" was heresy.

[John317]

The trinity is a side issue, one of the enemy's favorites. It is as a "crying baby" distracting us from the most vital issue of the third angel's message. This is what happened in 1888. The law in Galatians was the "crying baby" then.

Yes, you are right, sky. It's a diversion from the central issues, which are the Third Angels Messages. Satan wants to divide the church in order to keep us from being united in the proclamation of the Third Angels' Messages. He fears a united and Spirit-filled church under the banner of the Three Angels' Messages more than anything else.

[John317]

..This blog offers another perspective on the F. M. Cox 1913 "Trinity" statement.

It's Wilcox.

[John317]

Here is the startment of editor F.M. Wilcox in the Review & Herald, 1913, two years before the death of Ellen White:

"For the benefit of those who may desire to know more particularly the cardinal features of the faith held by this denomination, we shall state that Seventh-day Adventists believe,—

1. In the divine Trinity. This Trinity consists of the eternal Father, a personal, spiritual being, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal Father, through whom all things were created, and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the one regenerating agency in the work of redemption." (F. M. Wilcox, The Message for Today, RH Oct. 9, 1913, p. 21)

[John317]

...In 1895 Ellen White penned the following:

Quote:

Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent.... (Ms. 5a, 1895)

This statement was used in the Desire of Ages with modifications to read:

Quote:

The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative, but divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. 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 Spirit to be His successor on earth. (DA 669)

Notice carefully the differences between the former and latter quotations. The sentences were reversed making it appear as if Ellen White were saying the Holy Spirit was a separate individual. As we look at the original statement we can see clearly that Ellen White was stating that "the Holy Spirit is Himself [Christ] divested of the personality of humanity."

There's one very simple explanation that you are avoiding: "Himself" is a reflexive pronoun. It is like saying "The president is himself an outstanding statesman..."

The statement as it appears in DA 669 is exactly the way she intended it to be.

But even if we were say that "the Holy Spirit is Christ divested of the personality of humanity," it wouldn't matter. It is obvious from all her other statements as well as the statements in Scripture that the Holy Spirit and Christ are not one and the same person. To say that "the Holy Spirit is Christ divested of the personality of humanity" is saying that the Holy Spirit and Christ are one in nature, character, and purpose. We're to regard the Holy Spirit's presence as the presence of Christ Himself. But that doesn't mean they are the same person. One is the second PERSON of the Godhead and the other is the third PERSON of the Godhead. Therefore it is self-evident that they are not same person. As Ellen White says, the Holy Spirit is Christ's representative, not Christ personally.

A president's representative is never the president himself, and the same applies to Christ. If the Holy Spirit is Christ's represenative, the representative is not Christ Himself. Christ can't be simultaneously both His own representative and Himself, too.

Originally Posted By: Pastor_Chick

And again, she said He would send "His Holy Spirit."

That's because the Holy Spirit is Christ's personal representative. The Spirit does not speak of His accord. He cooperates totally with the Father and with the Son. He doesn't come to glorify Himself but to glorify the Son.

Ellen White wrote: "The office of the Holy Spirit is to take the things of Christ as they fall from His lips, and infuse them as living principles into the hearts opened to receive them. They will then know both the Father and the Son." (14 MR 174)

Why does she say they will then know both the Father and the Son? Why doesn't she say they will also know the Holy Spirit? Because the Holy Spirit doesn't come to speak of Himself or show us Himself. He comes to show us Christ.

Yet if the Holy Spirit and Christ are the same Person, the Spirit would then be speaking of Himself, would He not?

Jesus also calls the angels "My angels." Yet it clearly doesn't mean that Christ and the angels are the same. The same principle applies to Christ and the Holy Spirit.

[John317]

....I discovered a passage in the writings that actually shows what the church believed about the Holy Spirit and its relationship to Christ in 1891.

Originally Posted By: EGW

I have received yours dated June 3. In this letter you speak in these words: "Elder Robinson does not wish me to leave, but urges that I enter the canvassing field until such time as the conference can afford to employ me in some other capacity, but states positively that I cannot be sent out to present the truth to others until some points held by me are changed or modified in order that the views regarded by us as a people should be properly set forth. He quotes as a sample, 'My idea in reference to the Holy Ghost's not being the Spirit of God, which is Christ, but the angel Gabriel, and my belief that the 144,000 will be Jews who will acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. On all fundamental points I am in perfect harmony with our people; but when I try to show what seems to me to be new light on the truth, those in authority, none of whom have seemingly ever made a personal investigation of the matter, refuse to look into the Bible, but brand me as a fellow with queer ideas of the Bible.'" [...]

Your ideas of the two subjects you mention do not harmonize with the light which God has given me. The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery not clearly revealed, and you will never be able to explain it to others because the Lord has not revealed it to you. You may gather together scriptures and put your construction upon them, but the application is not correct. It is not essential for you to know and be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, and the Comforter is the Holy Ghost, "the Spirit of truth, which the Father shall send in My name." "I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him, for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you" [John 14:16, 17]. This refers to the omnipresence of the Spirit of Christ, called the Comforter. There are many mysteries which I do not seek to understand or to explain; they are too high for me, and too high for you. On some of these points, silence is golden.(14MR 175, 179; 1891)

Please show what views of the Holy Spirit you believe the church believed in 1891. I hope you do not mean that Brother Chapman, who wrote to Ellen White, represented the beliefs of the SDA church. He clearly did not. He actually had many strange ideas, such as that the Holy Spirit was the angel Gabriel.

By the way, please notice that Ellen White capitalized "the Holy Spirit." People who don't believe the Spirit is a living person do not capitalize His name. Ellen White, of course, did believe He is a living person and a personality distinct from the person and personality of Christ.

Ellen White is saying that we don't need to go into any greater detail in defining the Holy Spirit than the Bible allows us to. All we know about the Holy Spirit is what God has revealed to us about Him through Inspiration. Ellen White clearly is not saying that with the Spirit guiding us, we cannot understand what the Bible is teaching on the subject. The Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth-- that is, all the truth that God wills for us to know. The question is, are we willing to follow the Spirit into all the truth even when it is different from what we want to believe or different from tradition or from the beliefs of uninspired men?

[John317]

Quote:

The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative, but divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. 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 Spirit to be His successor on earth. (DA 669)

...There is one major problem with the quotation after the sentences have been reversed. If we are supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit is a separate being other than the Father and His Son, it makes no sense to say that the Holy Spirit was "divested of the personality of humanity." According to The American Heritage Dictionary the word "divested" means, "to strip, to dispossess, to free of; to rid." If the Holy Spirit is a third being it is certain that he never was a human, and therefore it would be impossible for him to strip, or rid himself of humanity.

There's a simple solution to this, and that is, The Holy Spirit is the same as Christ except that the Spirit doesn't have a human personality and is able to be everywhere at once.

Remember that the Holy Spirit and Christ are ONE in nature, purpose, and character, but not in person.

"Divested" here simply means that the Holy Spirit doesn't have a human personality like Christ has. She is saying the Holy Spirit is free of a human personality. That is one of the meanings of "divested."

Ellen White is not saying or implying that the Holy Spirit once had a human personality.

The fact that Ellen White speaks of the three great heavenly dignitaries and otherwise describes three living persons in the heavenly trio shows that the Holy Spirit is separate and distinct from the Father and the Son.

Can you explain how "the third person of the Godhead" could possibly be the same person as the "second person of the Godhead"?

Can the first person of the Godhead be the same person as the second person of the Godhead? If not, then how do you think the second and third persons of the Godhead are the same person?

[Gustave]

There's a simple solution to this, and that is, The Holy Spirit is the same as Christ except that the Spirit doesn't have a human personality and is able to be everywhere at once.

Remember that the Holy Spirit and Christ are ONE in nature, purpose, and character, but not in person.

Just like the Christ was ONE with His disciples - one in unity and purpose AND....

...It was THUS that "God" and Christ were ONE.

...By default that makes the disciples AS MUCH ONE with God as the Holy Spirit.

...Which is exactly what SDA teaching was at that time = the Holy Spirit was NOT God.

God is "ONE" and the early SDA's simply took the Arian meaning of that text.....

...Ellen White goes allong with it AND issues her "prophetic utterance".

...Thus confirming the heresy.

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

It's Wilcox.

I agree. Please forgive the typo.