Early Adventists and the Trinity

faith

focusin

Reasons why early Seventh-Day Adventists

RE JECTED THE TRINITY

Dr. Devron A. Thomas Chief Editor Pastor Apologist

REASONS

By Dr. Devron A. Thomas

The reasons attributed to the rejection of the Trinity can be described as follows. First, some pioneers rejected the classical Christian view of the Trinity as a pagan belief, a later forgery, due to a faulty or inaccurate view of what the doctrine espouses. Second, they perceived a lack of evidence from Scripture to validate such a concept. Third, the perceived origins of the doctrine of the Trinity as a Roman Catholic phenomenon further fueled their antiTrinitarianism. Fourth, the doctrine of the Trinity distorted their concept of the atonement. Fifth, a denominational predisposition to anti-Trinitarianism influenced their views. Sixth, the doctrine of the Trinity had creedal overtones that some pioneers found objectionable. Seventh, their appropriation of common sense philosophy to understand the Trinity created misunderstandings. Lastly, Ellen White’s ambivalent statements before the 1880s indirectly influenced other leaders to reject the Trinity.

Reason Number One: A Faulty Comprehension of the Trinity

The early Seventh-day Adventists needed an accurate and comprehensive grasp of the intricate tenets of the doctrine of the Trinity. According to Fortin, the early pioneers’ “view of the Trinity does not correspond with the traditional orthodox understanding of the Triune God; it nonetheless highlights that in early Adventism, the doctrine was not accurately understood to start with.”1 Fortin’s

observation aptly highlighted the epistemic inaccuracy of the early Seventh-day Adventists concerning the Trinitarian theological tenets from the inception.

Some early Adventists believed the doctrine espoused that three beings make up the Godhead, thus three gods. For example, in 1861, Loughborough wrote, “If Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each God, it would be three Gods.”2 Loughborough postulated that the attribution of divinity to each of the three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, would have necessitated the existence of a triad of deities, thereby contradicting the fundamental tenet of monotheism in Christianity. Loughborough erroneously believed that the doctrine of the Trinity espoused tritheism - a heretical belief that posited the existence of three separate gods, as opposed to the classical teaching of one God in three distinct persons.3 Others thought the doctrine of the Trinity taught that the Father and the Son were the same being.4 This view was called modalism or Sabellianism: one person in the Godhead manifests himself in three modes.5 Cottrell believed the Trinity doctrine taught “that one person is three persons, and that three persons are only one person.”6 Cottrell’s belief was based on his understanding of the Trinity doctrine, which he perceived as teaching that one person was three beings and that three beings were also one person.

James White believed that the Trinity taught that Jesus was identical to the Father. He stated, “But to say that Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God, makes him his own son, and his own father, and that he came from himself, and went to himself.”7 White postulated that the notion of Jesus as the ‘eternal God’ engendered a logical inconsistency, mainly because Jesus would be both the progenitor and the offspring of himself, having originated from and returned

1 Denis Fortin, “God, the Trinity, and Adventism: An Introduction to the Issues,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/1 (Spring 2006): 4.

2 J. N. Loughborough, “Questions for Bro. Loughborough,” Review and Herald (November 5, 1861), 184.

3 Augustine wrote, “In this Trinity there is nothing greater and nothing less, no separation of works, no dissimilarity of substance. The Father is one God, the Son is one God, the Holy Spirit is one God. However, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three gods, but one God; so that he who is the Son is not the Father, nor he who is the Father the Son, nor he who is the Holy Spirit either the Father or the Son. But the Father is the Father of the Son; and the Son is the Son of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Hie Father and of the Son; and each of these is one God, and the Trinity itself is one God. Let this faith saturate your hearts and direct your confession. Hearing this, believe so that you might understand, so that in making progress you might understand what you believe [reference to Isa 7.9].” Quoted in John P. Hoskins, The Unity of The Spirit: The Trinity, the Church and Love in Saint Augustine of Hippo (Durham theses, Durham University, 2006), 32.

4 Bates stated that, “respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being.” (Joseph Bates, The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates (Battle Creek, MI: SDA Publishing, 1868), 205. Smith also stated about the Holy Spirit, that “the Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonized with the idea that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shown to be a divine influence from them both, the medium which represents their presence…...” Uriah Smith, “In the Question Chair,” Review and Herald (March 23,1897),188.

5 G. T. Stokes, “Sabellianism,” in A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines, eds. William Smith and Henry Wace (London: John Murray, 1877), 567.

6 Cottrell, “The Trinity,” Review and Herald (July 6, 1869), 10.

7 James White, “Mutual Obligation,” Review and Herald (June 6, 1871), 197.

to himself. According to White, the ascription of the title ‘eternal God’ was reserved solely for the Father, and thus, to apply it to Jesus would make him identical to the Father.

Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears observed that “the three main heresies that contradict the doctrine of the Trinity are Modalism (the persons are ways God expresses himself, as in Oneness theology), Arianism (the Son is a creature and not divine, as with Jehovah’s Witnesses), and Tritheism (there are three distinct gods, as in Mormonism and Hinduism).”8 Early Seventh-day Adventists believed in the “distinct personality of the Father and Son, rejecting as absurd that feature of Trinitarianism which insists that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three persons, and yet but one person.”9

Given that early Adventists misunderstood the concept of the Trinity, it is pertinent to provide a clear definition and analysis of the Christian perspective on the doctrine of the Trinity. Trinitarian theology postulates that there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who deserve to be called God, and yet there is but one God, not three.10 The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Despite this distinction, they are one God, a mystery complex for the human mind to comprehend fully. James R. White posited that “within the one Being that is God, there exist eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”11 Bruce Ware provided a succinct yet comprehensive definition of the Trinity:

The Christian faith affirms that there is one and only one God, eternally existing and fully expressed in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each member of the Godhead is equally God, eternally God, and fully God—not three gods but three Persons of the one Godhead. Each

person is equal in essence as each possesses fully the identically same, eternal divine nature, yet each is also an eternal and distinct personal expression of the one undivided divine nature. 12

In other words, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms that God is one, yet exists in three Persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each member of the Godhead - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - is equally God, eternally God, and fully God. This means that the divine nature of each Person was identical and that there was no hierarchy or subordination among them. Moreover, the three persons are not construed as three separate deities but as distinct yet indivisible entities of the same divine essence. Trinitarianism utilized specific theological terminology that early Seventh-day Adventists did not fully comprehend. Among these phrases were “one being consisting of three persons” and “same substance.” These terms created theological complications when interpreted through a materialistic lens as referring to a singular body. It seems that the early Adventist community struggled with using these expressions. This notion of the oneness of God was so central to ancient Israel that it could not have been missed, given that they lived in a pagan/ polytheistic culture. John MacArthur commented on the importance of God’s oneness, “That truth was central to Israel’s religious convictions. Because they lived in the midst of polytheistic societies, it was vital that they give their allegiance to the one true God.”13

The theological concept of the Trinity has a rich and intricate history spanning many centuries. The Council of Nicaea in AD 325 was a pivotal assembly that sought to define God’s essence and elucidate the interrelationships between the Father and the Son. The council ultimately formulated the Nicene Creed, which validated the belief in the Trinity and condemned the heretical teachings of Arius, who contested the full divinity of Christ.14

8 Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 71.

9 W. H. Littlejohn, “Scripture Questions. 96 - Christ Not a Created Being,” Review and Herald (April 17, 1883), 250.

10

“There is only one God (Deut. 6:4), however, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all called God (Matthew 27:46, John 20:28: Acts 5:3-4). Consequently, we do not worship three Gods, but one God who reveals Himself in and consists of three “persons”. The three persons share one indivisible nature. Each person of the Godhead is by nature and essence God, and the fullness of the deity dwells in each of them. On the other hand, each person of the godhead is inseparably connected to the other two.” Ekkehardt Mueller, “Biblical Research Institute,” Reflections Newsletter, July 2008, 8.

11 James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief (Bloomington, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 25.

12 Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles and Relevance (Wheaton: Crossway Books. 2005), 121-122.

13 John MacArthur Jr., God: Coming Face to Face with his Majesty (Victor: Wheaton, 1993), 18. 14 H. M. Gwatkin, The Arian Controversy, (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1898), 20 and Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,

Over time, various challenges and heterodoxies arose, necessitating subsequent councils and gatherings to clarify and consolidate the doctrine of the Trinity. One such council was the Council of Constantinople in AD 381, which reasserted the Nicene Creed and expounded further on the nature of the Holy Spirit, affirming the orthodox belief in the Trinity as three co-equal and co-eternal persons in one Godhead.15

For Seventh-day Adventists, a fundamental component of Trinitarian theology is the co-equality and co-eternality of each person of the Godhead.16 The logical implication is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all equal in their ontology; none is derived from the other. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have no beginning and have always existed as the One God.

Adventist theologian Fernando Canale believes that the “Bible simultaneously affirms both the oneness and the plurality of God.”17 He notes:

The Old Testament notion regarding divine oneness distinguishes Jehovah from the general polytheism of the times. However, Old Testament revelation does not conceive God’s oneness as a monad or single, simple, indivisible entity. Its writers do not limit their understanding of God to the simplicity of one divine entity. By using language that implies a duality of divine entities, the Old Testament opens a beyond-oneness complexity in the reality of God.18

According to Canale, the Old Testament does not view God as a singular entity but rather as a complex reality that defied simple categorization. This complexity is hinted at through language that implies the existence of more than one divine entity. Canale believes the Old Testament reveals God as one and a plurality simultaneously; the New Testament is more explicit in its declaration of the Trinity. He views Jesus as the person who unveiled the concept of the Trinity. He posits:

Jesus Christ personally revealed the Trinity. 2000), 48.

Through His ministry, His less-than-obvious divine nature shone through humanity in deeds and words. As a divine entity, Christ is directly and personally related to God in heaven. God in heaven was His “Father,” a second intelligent, active, powerful, eternal divine entity standing side by side with Christ. Finally, when the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection was drawing near, Christ presented His successor, the divine person of the Holy Spirit. Thus, through the Trinity Christ revealed that the plurality implicitly present in the Old Testament included three full divine entities, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Christ revealed the doctrine of the Trinity because it is the necessary presupposition for the possibility and proper understanding of both the incarnation and the cross as divine acts.19

Canale asserts that Jesus Christ revealed the Trinity during his ministry on earth, and it is necessary to understand the incarnation and the cross as divine acts. Canale emphasizes that each person of the Trinity is a complete divine entity and that Christ relates directly and personally to God the Father in heaven. In Canale’s view, the Old and New Testaments affirm the oneness and threeness of God. God is one essence, but three persons or entities, as he calls it.

Although Seventh-day Adventists are officially Trinitarians, they maintain, “in no way could human minds achieve what the classic doctrine about the Trinity claims to perceive, namely, the description of the inner structure of God’s being. Together with the entire creation, we must accept God’s oneness by faith (James 2:19).”20

Given that some early Seventh-day Adventists lacked a nuanced comprehension of the Trinitarian doctrine, disavowing a concept that eluded their grasp would be fallacious. Substantive research and dialectical engagement with knowledgeable interlocutors are pivotal in pursuing a comprehensive understanding of theological concepts. Moreover, it is critical to recognize that an initial lack of comprehension, as in the case of the Trinitarian doctrine, does

15 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (HarperCollins 2014), 298.

16 “There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.” Seventh-day Adventists Believe (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 2005), 16.

17 Fernando L. Canale, Basic Elements of Christian Theology: Scripture Replacing Tradition (Berrien Spring, MI: Andrews University Lithotech, 2005), 78.

18 Ibid., 82.

19 Ibid., 83.

20 Fernando Canale, “Doctrine of God,” in Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 150.

not necessarily render it spurious or erroneous. Aiming for a robust apprehension of the concept in question is necessary before levying any judicious determination regarding its validity.

Reason Number Two: Perceived Lack of Biblical Evidence

The pioneers and early Seventh-day Adventists saw no evidence in Scripture supporting the Trinity. Their theological understanding was deeply rooted in a literal and straightforward interpretation of the Scriptures and a desire to return to what they believed were the pure teachings of the early Christian church. Their quest for a return to the teachings of the early Christian church fostered a deep commitment to the purity of biblical doctrine. Consequently, they refrained from subscribing to theological tenets not explicitly articulated in Scripture.

According to Loughborough, the Trinity “is contrary to Scripture.”21 James White called the concept of the Trinity “the old unscriptural”22 doctrine. To many early Seventh-day Adventists, Trinitarian theology involved complex theological jargon and concepts that took centuries to develop and articulate through creeds and councils. They further argued, “the word Trinity nowhere occurs in the Scriptures.”23 This strict biblicism was characteristic of Miller’s approach, which the early Seventh-day Adventists adopted. Biblicism is the “method [in which] one asks a question or makes a propositional statement and then cites one or more Scripture passages, in the first instance to answer the question, and in the second to support the proposition.”24 According to the 1857 Review and Herald:

God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2Tim. 3:16,17.25

The statement accentuated the Bible’s indispensability as the exclusive fount of veracity and direction. It encouraged us to scrutinize and apprehend the Scriptures, as they comprised the testimony of Jesus and furnished readers with eternal life. The text acknowledged that certain mysteries might be exclusive to God, but the revelations contained in Scripture were crucial for its readers. Moreover, the quotation underscored that readers should consider the Scriptures’ totality as their guide, not just a fragment. All the Scriptures were divinely inspired and were advantageous for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Through adherence to the Scriptures, readers could be perfected and thoroughly equipped for all good works.

Cottrell postulated, “The Trinity, or the Triune God, is unknown to the Bible; and I have entertained the idea that doctrines which require words coined in the human mind to express them, are coined doctrines.”26 Canright also wrote, “The Bible says nothing about the Trinity. God never mentions it, Jesus never named it, the apostles never did. Now men dare to call God, Trinity, Triune, etc.” 27 Cottrell and Canright expressed their skepticism about the Trinity as it was commonly understood in Christian theology. According to Cottrell, the Trinity was not mentioned in the Bible, and he believed that doctrines that require newly coined words to express them were not valid. Canright also argued that the Bible did not refer to the Trinity and was not named by God, Jesus, or the Apostles. Instead, he suggested that the terms “Trinity” and “Triune” were invented by men.

The bible, and the bible alone. It is our duty to search the Scriptures. “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they that testify of me.” John 5:39; Isa. 8: 20. The Scriptures may be understood. “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed, belong unto us and to our children for ever.” Deut. 29: 29. The whole, and not a part only, of the Scriptures our Guide. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of 21 J. N. Loughborough, “Questions for Bro. Loughborough,” Review and Herald (November 5, 1861), 184.

22 White, Day-Star, 25.

To the early Seventh-day Adventists, the Scriptures emphasized God’s oneness and unity. For them, the absence of explicit endorsement for the Trinity in Scripture provided a basis for alternative perspectives that propelled rejection of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. In their view, Scripture did not endorse the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, they saw deep entrenched incompatibilities with the doctrine of the Trinity and biblical revelation. However, the Bible speaks about the plurality within the Godhead in several places. A case in point is Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” Commenting on this text, Millard Erickson argued,

23 Loughborough, “Questions for Bro. Loughborough,” 184.

24 Francis D. Nichols, “What’s Wrong With the Proof-Text Method?,” Review and Herald, (March 11, 1976), 10.

25 “The Bible and the Bible Alone,” Review and Herald (May 19, 1857), 155.

26 R. F. Cottrell, “The Doctrine of the Trinity,” Review and Herald (June 1, 1869), 180.

27 D. M. Canright, “The Personality of God,” Review and Herald (August 29, 1878), 73.

“Here the plural occurs both in the verb, ‘let us make’ and in the possessive suffix ‘our.’ What is significant from the standpoint of logical analysis is the shift from singular to plural. God is quoted as using a plural verb with reference to himself.”28 In his commentary of Genesis 1:26, Erickson highlighted God’s use of the plural form while declaring, ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.’ This usage of the plural indicated an intriguing dimension of the doctrine of the Trinity, which asserts the unity of God’s essence while acknowledging His existence as a tripersonal being. Erickson’s interpretation of this verse as a testimony to the Trinity posited that God was addressing other members of the Godhead, thus indicating that He was a coequal community of persons in perfect relational unity.

Deuteronomy 6:4, generally cited by antiTrinitarians to support their position, is often misinterpreted. The word translated “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4 is the Hebrew word אֶחָֽד-echad. This word אֶחָֽד-echad is frequently used in the Old Testament to mean compound plurality, “for a unity that is not a simple singularity.”29 It is the kind of united plural one, as in “one nation under God,” or the idea behind “bunch,” as in “a bunch of grapes.” The usage of the term in other places in the Old Testament will surely help put into perspective in what way is God ‘one.’ Genesis 1:9 (“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered into one place”); Genesis 2:24 (“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”). The consistent idea behind אֶחָֽד-echad, then, is one made up of others or “a united one.”30

The New Testament also confirms the “three-ness” of God. Matthew 28:19, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” In the scripture text above, “name” is used in the singular to denote the one nature of God. Erickson observed, “So name is singular, but there are three persons included in that name.”31 Wayne Grudem also expressed similar thoughts when he wrote:

Once we understand God the Father and God the Son to be fully God, then Trinitarian expressions in verses like Matthew 28:19 (“baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) assume significance for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, because they show that the Holy Spirit is classified on an equal level with the Father and the Son.32

According to Grudem, the Father and Son to be fully God is crucial because it establishes the Holy Spirit’s classification on an equal level with the Father and the Son.

Ellen White provided commentary on the baptismal formula, “There are three living persons 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, and these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.”33 She mentioned three living persons in the heavenly trio: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. She further emphasized that those who receive Christ by living faith were baptized in the name of these three great powers and that these powers would cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. This quote reflected the Christian belief in the Trinity and the importance of baptism to receive salvation and live a new life in Christ.

Anti-Trinitarians often cite John 14:28, where Jesus states, “My Father is greater than I.” This, they claim, showed Jesus’s subordination to the Father, thus disqualifying Jesus to be God (possessing divine immortality before the incarnation). Jesus is indeed subordinate to the Father, but it does not describe His essence or substance but His operations as a human being. Bruce Metzger argued, “Equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood.”34 French Reformer John Calvin commented on this text: “Christ does not here compare the divinity of the Father with his own, nor his own human nature with the divine essence of the Father; but

28 Millard J. Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Baker: Grand Rapids, 2001), 110.

29 W.A. Pratney, The Nature and Character of God: The Magnificent Doctrine of God in Understandable Language (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1988), 291.

30 James Strong, The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 5.

31 Millard J. Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine , 110.

32 Wayne Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1999), 109.

33 Ellen G. White, Evangelism (Washington DC: Review and Herald, 1946), 615. See also, Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, 62, 63.

34 Bruce M. Metzger, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal,” Theology Today (April 1953): 81.

rather his present condition with the celestial glory to which he would be presently received.”35

Jesus was not simply human but Divine-human. John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Word is expressed as God himself and is not an impersonal idea. “Word” in the text is not “a personification but a Person, and that Person is divine. The Word is nothing less than God.”36 The Greek preposition πρὸς- pros is generally used (in this instance) to describe relationships of a personal nature. It further distinguishes the Father and the Word, making the Father God, the Word (Jesus) God, but distinct persons having one essence and substance. Furthermore, in John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus as “My Lord and my God.” To think that Jesus would rebuke Thomas, instead, He accepts and commends Thomas’s statement of faith. Metzger thus concluded, “As has often been pointed out, Jesus’ statement is either true or false. If it is true, then he is God. If it is false, he either knew it to be false, or he did not know it to be false. If while claiming to be God he knew this claim to be false, he was a liar. If while claiming to be God he did not know this claim to be false, he was demented. There is no other alternative.”37

According to 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” C. S. Lewis reasoned that “God is love has no meaning unless God contains at least two persons. Love is something that one person has for another person. If God was a single person, then before the world was made, he was not love.”38 This is a potent observation on the part of Lewis. If God is love, then He cannot be one solitary person. God must be understood as a family of persons who have always related to each other in eternity. The interplay of love between two individuals may still be perceived as self-centered due to the exclusive nature of their bond, which allows them to monopolize each other’s attention without the need for external involvement. However, introducing a third party necessitates a redistribution of attention, thereby requiring each individual to relinquish their self-interest to facilitate the interaction between the other two parties. Consequently, it can be inferred that the minimum number of individuals needed for unselfish love is not two but rather three. Robert Letham expressed those same sentiments but in a reverse

manner when he wrote, “Islam’s doctrine of God leaves room neither for diversity, diversity in unity, nor a personal grounding of creation, for Allah is a solitary monad with unity only. The Islamic doctrine of God is centered on power and will. There is virtually no room for love.”39 This relational attribute, love within the Godhead, gives credence to the distinctness of personhood that Trinitarians confirm. MacArthur thus contended, “God is one, yet exists not as two but three distinct persons. That is a mystery unparalleled in our experience.”40 Simply put, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Father. The publication of Questions on Doctrine by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1957 was a response to inquiries made by Evangelical Christians regarding the beliefs and practices of the Adventist Church. The book’s primary objective was to elucidate Adventist doctrines and foster harmonious interactions between Adventists and other Christian denominations.

According to the authors of Questions on Doctrine:

As to Christ’s place in the Godhead, we believe Him to be the second person of the heavenly Trinity, comprised of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are united not only in the Godhead but in the provisions of redemption. . . .Christ is one with the Eternal Father, one in nature, equal in power and authority, God in the highest sense, eternal and selfexistent, with life original, unborrowed, underived; and that Christ existed from all eternity, distinct from, but united with, the Father, possessing the same glory, and all the divine attributes.41

The statement asserted that the three persons of the Godhead are united in nature and the provisions of redemption. It further affirmed that Christ was one with the Eternal Father, equal in power and authority, and God in the highest sense. Christ was eternal and self-existent, possessing original, unborrowed, and underived life. Jesus’ co-equality and coeternity with the Father were expressed unambiguously, having the same glory and all the divine attributes.

For Seventh-day Adventists today, “Scripture

35 John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, II (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847), 103.

36 Joseph Barclay, Alice Lucas, and S. L. MacGregor Mathers, Hebrew Literature: Comprising Talmudic Treatises, Hebrew Melodies and the Kabbalah Unveiled (New York: The Colonial Press, 1901), 109.

37 Metzger, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal,” 74.

38 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Harper Collins, 2001), 174.

39 Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 442.

40 John MacArthur Jr., God: Coming Face to Face with his Majesty, 19.

41 Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington: Review and Herald, 1957), 30, 31, 36.

presents God as a relational Trinity, in which the three Persons of the Godhead experience an eternal, divine, reciprocal love among themselves, which necessitates a temporal experience in the give-and-take exchange in their nature as a God of love.”42

In explaining early Seventh-day Adventist theological discourse, it is evident that several terms, such as investigative judgment, pre-advent judgment, and millennium, were employed. These terms were not explicitly expressed in biblical texts, but proponents of this theological paradigm contended that their underlying concepts could be adduced from Scripture. Nonetheless, the same hermeneutic principle could be applied to the notion of the Trinity, which could be considered a biblical concept despite a conspicuous absence of explicit biblical references. Thus, the salient criterion for theological analysis should not explicitly mention a term in the Bible but rather identify its underlying concept. In this regard, according to its adherents, Trinitarianism can be deemed a biblical concept.

Reason Number Three: Preconceived Origins of the Trinity

Another reason for the rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity was its preconceived origins. Several pioneers believed that Trinitarian theology was an invention of Roman Catholicism.43 In 1854, James White wrote:

As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit sabbath other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, the Trinity, the consciousness of the dead and eternal life in misery. The mass who have held these fundamental errors, have doubtless done it ignorantly; but can it be supposed that the church of Christ will carry along with her these errors till the judgment scenes burst upon the world? We think not.”44

White argued that specific errors, such as the belief in sprinkling for baptism, the Trinity, the consciousness of the dead, and eternal life in misery, are not compatible with the teachings of the church of Christ. He suggested that those who keep the commandments of God and have faith in Jesus will not hold such fundamental errors and will reject the traditions of men. The perceived Roman Catholic association

was sufficient to reduce Trinitarianism to paganism, a concept adopted by apostate Christianity. Consequently, any idea or language associated with Trinitarian theology was viewed with heightened skepticism. In 1909, Robert Hare made the following statement:

In the fourth and fifth centuries, many absurd views were set forth respecting the Trinity, views that stood at variance with reason, logic, and Scripture. 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 God’s great plan is clear and logical. There is a Trinity, and in it there are three personalities [or three individuals]… We have the Father described in Dan. 7:9, 10 … a personality surely … In 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 God. But this union is not one in which individuality is lost. There is indeed a divine trio, but the Christ of that Trinity is not a created being as the angels, He was the “only begotten” of the Father.45

In his discourse, Hare expounded on the doctrine of the Trinity, which posits the existence of three distinct divine persons - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - within the Godhead. While conceding the prevalence of erroneous views in the past, which contradicted the tenets of logic, reason, and Scripture, Hare contended that the notion of the Trinity was unequivocal and coherent and enjoyed substantial biblical validation. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were depicted as distinct personages united in the divine enterprise. Notwithstanding this union, Hare underscored that individuality was not subsumed within it, and each person within the Trinity retained their unique identity while endeavoring towards a shared objective. Hare further addressed the notion that Christ was a created being and refuted it by invoking the term “only begotten” of the Father. This phraseology denoted that Christ was not a created being akin to the angels but one who existed perpetually and was an inseparable constituent of the Trinity.

42 Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: God as Trinity, vol. 1 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2011), 3.

43 James White stated that “the greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors.” James White, “The Word,” Review and Herald (February 7, 1856), 149.

44 James White, “The Position of The Remnant, Their Duties and Trials Considered,” Review and Herald (September 12, 1854), 36.

45 Robert Hare, Australasian Union Conference Record, July 19, 1909.

In essence, the statement attempted to elucidate the doctrine of the Trinity and repudiate any spurious beliefs that may have arisen in the past. The author underscored that the concept of the Trinity was rational and logical, buttressed by numerous biblical references.

Because the doctrine of the Trinity, based on mainstream Protestantism and Roman Catholicism,46 taught that “there is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts,”47 early Adventists vehemently opposed such a view, perceiving this doctrine as perverting God’s personality. To the pioneers, this view of the Trinity “spiritualizes the existence of the Father and the Son as two distinct persons, literal and tangible.”48 For the pioneers, this view of God was incompatible with what the Bible revealed about God’s nature. Thus, they saw the Bible depicting God in a material way, which appeared contrary to saying that God has no body or body parts.

Notwithstanding the strong repugnance harbored by the early Adventists towards many Roman Catholic doctrines, their comprehension and articulation of the relationship between the Father and the Son exhibited a semblance to the Roman Catholic perspective. Although not identical, the terminology employed to designate the correlation between the Father and Jesus bore a resemblance. Many pioneers and early Seventh-day Adventists espoused the belief that the Father’s act of begetting the Son took place in a temporal reality that is so far removed that it is beyond the complete comprehension of the human intellect. Despite this, this event was undoubtedly firmly situated within the context of time. They emphatically asserted that Jesus was not a created being but rather begotten of the Father and that this event transpired so remotely in the depths of eternity that it transcends human comprehension. For example, C.W. Stone stated:

The Word then is Christ… He is the only begotten of the Father. Just how he came into existence the Bible does not inform us any more definitely; but we may believe that Christ came into existence in a manner different from that in which other beings first appeared; That he sprang from the Father’s being in a way not necessary for us to understand.49

Stone acknowledged that the Word, Christ, was the Father’s only begotten Son. He believed that Christ’s origin differed

from that of other beings, and the Bible did not provide a clear explanation of Christ’s origin but asserted that Christ came into existence in a way that is beyond our understanding. Observe Stone’s choice of words, Jesus “sprang from the Father,” Jesus, “the only begotten of the Father.” Interestingly, this language utilized by Stone resembles the terminology employed in the Nicene Creed. The Son’s begottenness took place so far into eternity that the mind cannot understand it. Uriah Smith once believed that Jesus was a created being but changed his view some years later, adopting the position that the Son was begotten. According to Smith, “The Scriptures nowhere speak of Christ as a created being, but plainly state that he was begotten of the Father.”50 He further stated:

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. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1. This uncreated Word was the Being, who, in the fulness of time, was made flesh, and dwelt among us. His beginning was not like that of any other being in the universe. It is set forth in the mysterious expressions, “his [God’s] only begotten Son” (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9), “the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14), and, “I proceeded forth and came from God.” John 8:42.51

Smith believed that God was the only one without a beginning and that the Word (referring to Jesus Christ) was with God from the earliest epoch when a beginning could be discerned. According to Smith, the Word was not created like any other being in the universe but was the only begotten Son of God, who proceeded forth and came from God.

Speaking about Jesus’ past existence, J. N. Andrews posited, “And as to the Son of God, he would be excluded also, for he had God for his Father, and did, some point at the eternity of the past, have beginning of days.”52 According to Andrews, the Son of God had a beginning of days in the past, implying that the Son of God was not intrinsically eternal but had a finite existence at some point. The Son, he believed, was begotten in time but in the eternity past. According to the Catholic Catechism, “the onlybegotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light

46 “The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the Church……” Handbook for Today’s Catholic, 1977. 12.

47 Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1856), 15.

48 James White, “Letter from Bro. White,” The Day-Star (January 24, 1846), 25.

49 C. W. Stone, The Captain of our Salvation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 17.

50 Smith, Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Revelation, 430.

51 Smith, Looking Unto Jesus, 10.

52 John N. Andrews, “Melchisedec” Review and Herald (September 7, 1869), 84.

from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.”53 The statement emphasizes that Jesus Christ was begotten and not made, which meant He was not created but begotten of the Father in an eternal and unchanging relationship. Catholics believe that the Son is eternally generated by/from the Father in eternity in a timeless manner. The Son proceeds from the Father; the Father has no origination, so He has no procession. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This procession takes place in a timeless manner in eternity.

It is worth noting that the perspective mentioned above resembles the theological stance of the early pioneers concerning the Son’s relationship with the Father. However, our analysis has revealed that some of these pioneers did not recognize the Holy Spirit as a distinct person but as a manifestation of the Father and the Son. This position bears some semblance to the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit as explicated by the Catholic Church, which posits that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The only discernable difference is that the pioneers did not accord personhood to the Holy Spirit but perceived it as an influential presence emanating from both the Father and the Son. According to the Catholic Church, “the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as ‘the principle without principle,’ is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that, as Father of the only Son, He is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.”54 According to Catholicism, the Father is the first origin of the Holy Spirit, and as the Father of the only Son, He is also the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This reflects the idea that the Father is the source and origin of both the Son and the Holy Spirit and that there is an eternal order and relationship among the members of the Trinity.

Modern-day Seventh-day Adventist anti-Trinitarians who think that the pioneers’ view of the “begotten of the Son” or that the Son “sprang from the Father” was an original idea that the pioneers extrapolated from Scripture would be astonished to discover that the Cappadocian Fathers taught a similar concept.

The Cappadocian Fathers were Basil (c. 330- 379), bishop of Caesarea, and his brother Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335- 394), together with a friend, Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329- 389). The Western and Eastern Churches highly revere and celebrate the Cappadocian Fathers. Basil is honored as a Doctor in the West, while Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus are hailed as the “Great Hierarch” in Eastern traditions. According to Gregory of Nazianzus, “The Father is the begetter and the emitter; without passion of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner. The Son is begotten, and the Holy Ghost is the emission.”55 Gregory of Nazianzus believed the Father was the source of the Son and the Holy Ghost. He was the begetter and emitter, but not in a physical sense. The Son was begotten by the Father, which meant that he was of the same essence as the Father but was not identical to him. The Holy Ghost was the emission of the Father, which meant that he proceeded from the Father but was also of the same essence as the Father and the Son.56

The Cappadocian Fathers taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were distinct persons within the Godhead, co-equal and co-eternal. They also believed in the eternal generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In their view, the Son was begotten from the Father before all ages, not created, and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, not created either. This view became the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity after it was ratified at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.57

Before the Cappadocian Fathers, Origen (c.185c.253 AD) taught a similar concept about the eternal generation of the Son. The language the pioneers and early Seventh-day Adventists used was similar to that of Origen’s description of how the Son relates to the Father. This will be explained below.

Origen has been classified as the first Christian systematic theologian,58 a prolific author dubbed “the greatest genius the early church ever produced.”59 Origen’s Trinitarian model is predicated upon reflecting a person’s spiritual journey toward God combined with Platonic and Greek ideologies. He affirmed the oneness of God when

53 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition, part 1, sec. 2, 242. Date of Access: 9/26/2023 http:// www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm

54 Ibid., part 1, sec. 2, 248.

55 Gregory of Nazianzus, “The Third Theological Oration - On the Son,” op. cit.,161.

56 John McGuckin, “Gregory of Nazianzus,” in The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Part 1 (ed., Lloyd Gerson; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 491.

57 Robert Letham, “The Three Cappadocians,” in Shapers of Christian Orthodoxy: Engaging with Early and Medieval Theologians, ed., Bradley G. Green (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010).

58 C. Kannengiesser, “Divine Trinity and the Structure of Peri Archon,” in Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy, eds. C. Kannengiesser and W. L. Petersen (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), 238-241.

59 John A. McGuckin, “The Life of Origen (ca. 186–255),” in The Westminster Handbook to Origen: The Westminster Handbooks to Christian Theology, ed. John A. McGuckin (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 25.

he wrote, “We Christians, however, who are devoted to the worship of the only God, who created these things, feel grateful for them to Him who made them.”60 He also affirmed the threeness of the Godhead:

As, then, after those first discussions which, according to the requirements of the case, we held at the beginning regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it seemed right that we should retrace our steps, and show that the same God was the creator and founder of the world, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., that the God of the law and of the prophets and of the Gospel was one and the same; and that, in the next place, it ought to be shown, with respect to Christ, in what manner He who had formerly been demonstrated to be the Word and Wisdom of God became man; it remains that we now return with all possible brevity to the subject of the Holy Spirit. It is time, then, that we say a few words to the best of our ability regarding the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Savior in the Gospel according to John has named the Paraclete. For as it is the same God Himself, and the same Christ, so also is it the same Holy Spirit who was in the prophets and apostles, i.e., either in those who believed in God before the advent of Christ, or in those who by means of Christ have sought refuge in God.61

Though distinct from the Father, the Son is God, eternally begotten by the Father but consubstantial with Him. For Origen, the Father is the source of all existence beyond being, while the Son is generated from the Father. This eternal generation in Origen’s mind did not have a starting point or an end but was best understood as light generates its splendor continuously. Thus, the Son is God in essence, but not by participation because the Father begets Him in eternity, while the Father is not begotten.

It is necessary at this juncture to juxtapose the Cappadocian Fathers and Origen’s theology of the Son’s relationship with the Father with a statement from E. J. Waggoner:

As to when He was begotten, it is not for us

to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it in these words, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall Hepaper come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.” Micah 5:2. There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning.62

Waggoner postulated that the cognitive capacity of the human psyche was insufficient to comprehend the enigma surrounding the origin of Christ. He substantiated his claim by alluding to Micah 5:2, emphasizing that the advent of Jesus was predestined from eternity and that He emanated from God. The statement underscored that at one point, Christ emanated and proceeded from God, that is, from the Father’s bosom. Waggoner espoused the notion that the Father procreated the Son, albeit in a distant past, so profound that the human mind could not comprehend this intricate enigma. It is worth noting that this idea was not exclusive to Waggoner or the early Seventh-day Adventists. According to Origen, “the God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father).”63 Origen advanced an ontological inferiority in the Son because the Son is less than the Father. For Origen, the Holy Spirit derives His substance (ousia) from the Son and the Father.64 Thus, the Holy Spirit is also ontologically subordinate to the Father and the Son. Just as the Son is ontologically subordinate to the Father, so is the Holy Spirit subordinate to the Son. The Holy Spirit, he writes, “is the most honored of all things which came to be through the ‘Word’ and is the first in rank ‘of all the things which came to existence by the Father through Christ.”65

Both the Cappadocian Fathers and Origen held to

60 Origen, “Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV,” Against Celsus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2013), 531.

61 Origen, “Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV,” in Origen De Principiis, trans. Frederick Crombie (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2013), 284.

62 Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, 21, 22.

63 Origen, On First Principles, trans. G. W. Butterworth (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973), 33, 34.

64 “For if … the Son is distinct from the Father in essence and in underlying reality (kat’ ousian kai hypokeimenon), then we should pray to the Son and not to the Father, or to them both, or to the Father alone.” Origen, “On Prayer,” in Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, On the Lord’s Prayer, trans. and annotated by Alistair Stewart-Sykes (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 147.

65 Origen, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1–10, trans. R. Heine, Fathers of the Church, 80 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 114.

the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father while also affirming the unity of God and the trinity of the Godhead. However, certain distinctions exist in their respective perspectives.

For the Cappadocian Fathers, the Son was begotten from the Father before all ages, not created, and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, not created either. They posited that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit constituted distinct persons within the Godhead who were co-equal and co-eternal. On the other hand, Origen maintained that the Father is the source of all existence beyond being, while the Son is generated from the Father. This eternal generation was without a starting point or an end and was best understood as the continuous generation of light and its splendor. In this manner, the Son is God in essence but not by participation since the Father begets Him in eternity, while the Father is not begotten.

Furthermore, the language employed by the pioneers and early Seventh-day Adventists was similar to Origen’s depiction of how the Son relates to the Father. They held that the Son was begotten of the Father, which indicated that He was of the same essence as the Father but not identical to Him. They believed that the Son was begotten so far back in the past that the human mind could not comprehend it.

They diverged from the Cappadocian Fathers and Origen in that they believed the begottenness of the Son occurred in time. In contrast, the Cappadocian Fathers and Origen thought it took place in a timeless manner in eternity.

During the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas, on whose views much of Roman Catholic theology is built, had a unique view of how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate to each other. The pioneers’ view bears a striking resemblance to his perspective as well. Aquinas amplified Augustine’s66 notion that the persons of the Trinity were identified or defined by their relations. His idea of relation was predicated upon Aristotelian metaphysics:

According to the Philosopher, in Metaphysics, every relation is founded either on quantity (for example, double and half); or on action and passion (for example, that which does something and the thing which it produces, or father and son, or master and servant). And there is no quantity in God: he is ‘great without quantity’, as Augustine says. It follows that a real relation in God can only be founded on action.67

Aquinas claimed that for relations to be real, there must be action, and actions presuppose both an acting subject and that which is being acted upon. This notion implied a double relation of giving and taking, proceeding and being responsible for the procession of another. According to Christopher Hughes, for Aquinas, “relations both constitute and distinguish the divine persons: insofar as relations are the divine essence (secundum res) [i.e., they are the same thing], they constitute those persons, and insofar as they are relations with converses, they distinguish those persons.”68 Relations were the divine essence, constituting and distinguishing the divine persons. This meant that relations were not just properties or attributes of the persons but were the same thing as the persons themselves. However, relations also had converses, which meant that they were not identical but distinguished the persons from one another. In other words, relations both unified and differentiated the divine persons, and they were essential to understanding the nature of the Trinity. Aquinas understood ‘person’ primarily as an ontological reality. We refer to God as three persons for him, but this must be construed analogously. Thus, any acceptable definition of person, in which we express how we understand persons, cannot be applied as such to God. Aquinas’s position was that the term ‘person’ signified a relationship in a certain way and that, therefore, the term was especially suited to be used for the relational ‘three’ in God.69 Relations in God can exist without any composition

66 “As Augustine affirmed, the distinction of Persons is constituted precisely by the differing relations among them, in part manifested by the inherent authority of the Father and inherent submission of the Son.” Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Roles, Relationships, and Relevance (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005), 79–80.

67 Aquinas in Gilles Emery, The Trinitarian Theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas, trans. Francesca Aran Murphy (Oxford University Press, 2007), 54.

68 Christopher Hughes, On a Complex Theory of a Simple God: An Investigation in Aquinas’ Philosophical Theology (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), 217.

69 Rudi A. Te Velde (lecturer in philosophy and professor in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas at the School of Catholic Theology of Tilburg University) posits: “When Christian doctrine speaks of the Trinity as consisting of three ‘persons’, person does not have quite the same meaning as that intended by our current use of the term. The specifically theological use of ‘person’ may rather impress us as quite abstract and even ‘impersonal’ in so far as we usually perceive the meaning of ‘person’ from the perspective of the ability to share in the human symbolic framework of communication and mutual recognition.” He further notes: “The relational aspect, Aquinas argues, is part of the meaning of person as applied to God. The term ‘person’, therefore, can be legitimately used of God personaliter, and this in virtue of its proper meaning. However, initially the term ‘person’ was used of

due to their nature, “compared to the divine essence in which they subsist, the divine relations differ from the essence in a merely rational way (to be exact, Aquinas says that in this way, the relation “is only a ratio”).”70

For Aquinas, divine persons were subsistent relations (relation ut subsistens), and these relations came from processions, and “in each of the processions, all of the divine attributes are brought into play ‘concomitantly’. All divine attributes concur in the begetting of the Son, and all concur in the breathing forth of the Spirit. In begetting as in spiration, one must recognize the fullness of God, by the mode of the speaking of the Word and the procession of Love.”71 These divine processions were not external but an internal reality in which these relations were real.72 Aquinas’ perspective on the Trinity “remains the classical explanation for the Trinity to the present day,” 73 at least among Roman Catholic theologians.

Canale rejects the notion of the eternal procession of the Son from the Father and the Holy Spirit from the Son and the Father because he believes that the idea of divine processions inevitably leads to subordinationism. He contends:

relation of dependence on the entity of the Father. And so we see that the orthodox view of the Trinity departs from Scripture both by assuming that divine entities are timeless, and by implicitly subordinating the entity of the Son to that of the Father. Because they view divine eternity as timeless, the “eternal generation” of the Son is not a divine movement but an immutable “relation” of dependence. The unavoidable result is that the divinity of the Son becomes less divine than the divinity of the Father who eternally generates Him.74

Canale’s theological position on the concept of ontological subordination is a nuanced one. While he rejects the notion of subordinationism in a strict sense, he acknowledges a certain subordination of roles among the persons of the Trinity, as expressed in the language of Scripture. This subordination, however, is understood by Canale in a temporal and salvific sense and must be interpreted in light of the divine processions. Specifically, Canale argues that the Father sent the Son and that within the context of the incarnation, the Son sent the Spirit as the Comforter, who was responsible for the governance of the Church in this present dispensation.75

This view places the entity of the Son in an eternal God in such a way that the indirectly signified aspect of relationship was not yet perceived clearly. Only later, as a consequence of heresies, Catholic theologians began to emphasize the relational dimension of the meaning of ‘person’ as applied to God. This emphasis on the relational aspect of ‘person’ must not be understood merely as a linguistic accommodation of the use of ‘person’ in order to deal politically with the heresy resulting from the fact that the term ‘person’ has an absolute signification; on the contrary, Aquinas claims that the term lent itself, in virtue of what it properly signifies, to express relationship. It was, thus, a matter of making explicit what was already implicitly present in the meaning of ‘person’.” Rudi A. Te Velde, “The Divine Person(s): Trinity, Person, and Analogous Naming,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, ed. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 360, 365.

70 Russell L. Friedman, Medieval Trinitarian Thought from Aquinas to Ockham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 13.

71 Emery, The Trinitarian Theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas,70. Gilles Emery observed, “The doctrine of the persons and of their relationships (including those in the economy: the divine missions) constitute quite clearly for Aquinas the summit to which Trinitarian thinking leads us.” Gilles Emery, O.P., Trinity in Aquinas (Naples, FL: Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University, 2006), 71.

72 “(a) The relation of the Father to the Son. This is paternity or fatherhood, (b) The relation of the Son to the Father. This is filiation or sonship. (c) The relation consequent upon the proceeding in which Father and Son are the principle whence proceeds the Holy Ghost. This is the spiration or breathing forth of the Holy Ghost. (d) The relation consequent upon the same proceeding as considered from the standpoint of the Person spirited. This is the procession of the Holy Ghost.” Paul J. Glenn, A Tour of the Summa (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 1978), 45.

73 McGinn, “Theologians as Trinitarian Iconographers,” in The Mind’s Eye: Art and Theological Argument in the Middle Ages, eds. Jeffrey F. Hamburger and Anne-Marie Bouché (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 187:

74 Canale, Basic Elements of Christian Theology: Scripture Replacing Tradition, 87.

75 According to Canale, “Jesus’ promise of the coming Counselor is not stated in the context of Greek ontology regarding divine eternal entities. Instead, Jesus is talking about the mission which the Holy Spirit will fulfill in the historical flow of created space and time to achieve the goals of the Trinity’s plan of salvation. In this context, Christ, “sends” the Holy Spirit as His representative. The

The pioneers and early Seventh-day Adventists utilized language and expressions about the relationship between Jesus and the Father that appeared to be more in line with the Roman Catholic and early Church Fathers’ understanding of the Trinity rather than the official Trinitarian language used by the Seventh-day Adventist church today. These expressions were characterized by a focus on the notion of the Father begetting the Son, the generation of the Son from the Father, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and the Son’s subordination to the Father.

The Roman Catholic and mainstream Protestant understanding of the Trinity is predicated upon a timeless view of God. The notion of God’s timelessness has its roots in Greek philosophy. Greek philosopher Plato (423-348 BC) advocated a dualistic cosmology that posited the existence of two distinct ontological domains: the world of forms and appearances.76 The world of forms was characterized as the realm of absolute reality, where eternal, unchanging, and perfect forms exist. These forms are regarded as the ultimate reality and the source of all knowledge and truth.77 On the other hand, the world of appearances was identified as the physical reality, where imperfect, changing, and transient objects exist. According to Plato, the world of forms was timeless and eternal, whereas the world of appearances was temporal and subject to change. Therefore, divine timelessness was rooted in this dualistic ontological framework, positing a clear distinction between the temporal world of human experience and the eternal world of divine reality.78

Plato believed that the world of forms was the ultimate reality, and the world of appearances was merely an imperfect copy or imitation of the Forms. He argued that the physical world was constantly changing; therefore, having proper knowledge of it was impossible. The only way to

achieve actual knowledge was to access the world of forms through reason and contemplation. He further surmised that these spheres of reality are mutually exclusive, and there was no point of intersection between the two.79

Aristotle (384–322 BC) developed Plato’s ideas into a dualistic ontology. For Aristotle, there were two spheres in which beings exist. One was the ultimate reality, the sphere of forms. In this sphere, nothing changed; nothing moved; it was pure existence.80 The other sphere of existence was that which was movable and mutable. This was the sphere of the tangible, which humans were a part of. These two spheres were mutually exclusive.81 Aristotle proposed a dualistic ontology that divided reality into two categories: the material and the immaterial. The material world was composed of physical substances that change, while the immaterial world consisted of non-physical substances that did not change.82 A central component of timelessness is the exclusion of past, present, and future events, which transcends chronological time. God exists, lives, and acts outside the future-present-past sequence of time. Wolterstorff writes, “I am persuaded that ... the most important factor accounting for the tradition of God eternal (i.e., His being above time) within Christian theology was the influence of classical Greek philosophers on the early theologians.”83 As taught by the Greeks, this view of God was introduced into the Church by Augustine (c. 354- 430) and later by Thomas Aquinas (1225 -1274).

Augustine, one of the most influential theologians in the Western tradition, drew on the writings of Plato and Aristotle to explain the concept of God’s timelessness. Augustine posited, “Since time did not exist, God did not have time to do anything....in the Eternal nothing passeth, but the whole is present; whereas no time is all at once present: and that all time past, is driven on by time to come, and all to come followeth upon the past; and all past and to come, is

Holy Spirit, sent by Christ to testify about Him, comes or proceeds from the Father. Thus, this is not a statement about God’s reality but about God’s life and mission.” Basic Elements of Christian Theology, 90.

76 Douglas R. Campbell, “Located in Space: Plato’s Theory of Psychic Motion”, Ancient Philosophy 42, no. 2 (2022): 419-442; John M. Cooper, ed., Plato: Complete Works (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997).

77 Russell Dancy, Plato’s Introduction of Forms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

78 David Ebrey and Richard Kraut, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Plato (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022).

79 Gabriela R. Carone, Plato’s Cosmology and its Ethical Dimensions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

80 Jonathan Beere, “Activity, actuality, and analogy: Comments on Aryeh Kosman, The Activity of Being: An Essay on Aristotle’s Ontology,” European Journal of Philosophy 26 (2018): 872–880.

81 Rogers Albritton, “Forms of Particular Substances in Aristotle’s Metaphysics,” Journal of Philosophy 54 (1957): 699-707.

82 Jonathan Beere, Doing and Being: An Interpretation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Theta (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 7.

83 Nicholas Wolterstorff, in God and the Good. Essays in Honor of Henry, eds. Stob Clifton Orlebeke and Lewis Smedes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 182, 181.

created, and flows out of that which is ever present... see how eternity is ever still-standing, neither past nor to come.”84 According to Augustin, there was a qualitative difference between eternity and time, where the latter was seen as a constantly flowing stream of past, present, and future. At the same time, the former was in a constant state of being without any fluctuations.

For Augustine, God existed in timeless eternity before he created the world. God was in a timeless state, seated, contemplating Himself. This view taught that God’s knowledge of all past, present, and future events is complete and unchanging. According to Augustine, God’s knowledge of the future did not interfere with human free will; instead, he knew what we would choose to do. For centuries, this view of God’s relationship to time has influenced Christian theology and philosophy. Augustine’s ideas about God’s timelessness were also influenced by his belief in divine simplicity, which asserts that God is not composed of any parts and is, therefore, not subject to change. Augustin perceived time as a four-dimensional block in which one entered and exited. He surmised that God was outside the block; thus, He existed timelessly in an eternal now.85

Like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas postulated that “there is no before and after in Him: He does not have being after non-being, nor-nonbeing after being, nor can any succession be found in His Being. For none of these characteristics can be understood without time.”86 Aquinas made a distinction between eternity and endless time. For him, eternity was now forever; time, on the other hand, included past, present, and future, now and then. The now of time was movable. The now of eternity was not movable in any way. The eternal now was unchanging, but the now of time was ever-changing. This meant that God was not affected by the past, present, or future but existed beyond them. This view of God had significant implications for understanding His relationship to the world and human beings. This implied that God existed outside of time and that the universe was a temporal creation that flowed out of the eternal present. It also suggested that time was a linear construct, with the past driving the future and the present ever fleeting. This view had significant implications for how

we understood the nature of reality and our place within it. These ideas are also seen in the writings of later Protestant scholars. For example, Charles Hodge argued, “God does not exist during one period of duration more than another. With Him, there is no distinction between the present, past, and future, but all things are equally and always present to Him. With Him, duration is an eternal now. This is the popular and the scriptural view of God’s eternity.”87 Hodge posited the notion of God’s ubiquitous and perpetual existence throughout all temporal phases, without any differentiation between the past, present, and future. He further contended that for God, the concept of duration was an everlasting present. Nonetheless, the idea that God existed beyond time raised questions about how the eternal God could become a temporal being, such as Jesus Christ. If God was outside of time, then how could God enter into time and take on human form? Some scholars argue that the traditional doctrine of the incarnation, which asserts that Jesus was fully God and fully man, was incompatible with the notion of God’s timelessness.

For instance, Canale critiques the traditional Christian interpretation of the term “only begotten” about Jesus as the Son of God. He argues that the conventional view of the term as indicating an eternal, ontological relationship between the Father and the Son was based on an incorrect reading of the biblical texts. For Canale, the term “only begotten” should be understood in its historical context rather than in a timeless, abstract context. He challenges the traditional view of the Trinity, which holds that the Father generates the Son in a timeless, spaceless reality. To Canale, this view is problematic because it posits the existence of divine entities that are beyond human comprehension.88 The notion of a timeless God directly relates to hermeneutics and God’s ontology. How we read and interpret Scripture is contingent upon how we interpret God’s ontology. Hermeneutics is a three-dimensional paradigm: Macro, meso, and micro. Micro-hermeneutics approaches the interpretation of texts and proceeds within the realm of biblical exegesis.89 Meso-hermeneutics deals with the interpretation of theological issues and, therefore, belongs appropriately to the area of systematic theology.90

84 Augustine, Confessions, book 11, chap. 13, Section 16. .262.

85 Ettiene Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of St. Augustine, trans. L.E.M. Lynch (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1961), 191-196; Richard Sorabji, Time, Creation, and the Continuum (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983).

86 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, trans. Vernon J. Bourke (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1956), 153.

87 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 385.

88 See Fernando L. Canale, “Doctrine of God,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Heralds Publishing Association, 2000), 179-183.

89 See Fernando L. Canale, “From Vision to System: Finishing the Task of Adventist Biblical and Systematic Theologies—Part II,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 16/1-2 (2005): 129-133.

90 See Fernando L. Canale “From Vision to System: Finishing the Task of Adventist Theology Part III

Macro-hermeneutics interprets the first principles from which doctrinal and textual interpretations derive. Macrohermeneutics is related to the study and clarification of philosophical issues directly or indirectly related to the criticism and formulation of concrete principles of interpretation.91 This macro-hermeneutic, rooted in God’s timelessness, gave rise to the traditional concept of the Trinity in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.92

Early Adventists refrained from using philosophical and technical theological terms when discussing the relationship between the Father and the Son. This is not to suggest that they were ignorant of such terms as substance (ousia), person (hypostasis), and face (prosopon). However, there is no evidence in their writings where it can be shown that they utilized these categories when expressing views about the Father or Jesus. They described the unity in God in simple Scriptural language, as in the Father and Son are one in mind, purpose, and unity. Thus, early Adventists shunned the philosophical abstractions about the Godhead.

of God’s being, as described by the classic doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, Canale suggests that faith was required to accept God’s oneness, as the Bible stated. This implies that the Trinity is ultimately a mystery that may only be grasped through faith rather than rational understanding alone.

The belief in the “eternal begotten Son of God” and the idea that “the Son sprang forth” from the Father, as taught by early Seventh-day Adventists, resembles certain aspects of the traditional expressions of the Roman Catholic understanding of the Trinity. Although they did not use philosophical terms to express their perspective, some similarities can be seen.

Reason Number Four: The Trinity Destroyed the Concept of the Atonement

As per the initial Seventh-day Adventist perspective on the Atonement, the notion of the Trinity was deemed pernicious. This stance was premised on their interpretation of the Atonement, which accentuated that only Christ could mediate between the divine and human realms. Early Adventists held a divergent view from Trinitarianism due to the latter’s postulation that Jesus Christ possessed two distinct natures, divine and human. Subsequently, only the human nature died, while the divine nature remained unscathed. This perspective was perceived as inherently

Canale states, “In no way could human minds achieve what the classic doctrine about the Trinity claims to perceive, namely, the description of the inner structure of God’s being. Together with the entire creation, we must accept God’s oneness by faith (James 2:19).”93 Canale argues that the human mind cannot fully comprehend the inner structure Sanctuary and Hermeneutics,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/2 (Autumn 2006): 36–80.

91 For a detail analysis see Fernando L. Canale, A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial Presuppositions, vol. 10, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, (Berrien Springs: Andrews UP, 1983).

92 Canale argued: “Tradition erroneously understood these texts (texts about Jesus as the “only begotten” of the Father) as referring to the relationship of reality that exists between the eternal Father and the eternal Son. In other words, they moved the meaning of the words from its historical biblical context to the timeless context where the eternal entities of the timeless Father and the timeless Son were supposed to exist. The result of tradition reading these texts “ontologically,” that is to say, from the assumption that divine reality is timeless and spaceless, was the orthodox teaching that the eternal Father actually and at the level of divine reality, generated the eternal Son. Of course, since tradition views God the Father and God the Son as entities that exist in a timeless spaceless reality, we have to conceive the Father’s generation of the Son as “eternal.” Origen was among the earliest theologians to speak about the “eternal generation of the Son.” This theological construct became part of what history identifies as a component of the “orthodox” doctrine of the Trinity.” Fernando Canale, Basic Elements of Christian Theology: Scripture Replacing Tradition (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Lithotech, 2005), 85. Canale further suggests that, “Tradition takes biblical statements about the “only begotten God,” and the “firstborn” and interprets them as speaking about the reality of God: The entity of the timeless Father begets the entity of the timeless Son. This view places the entity of the Son in an eternal relation of dependence on the entity of the Father. And so we see that the orthodox view of the Trinity departs from Scripture both by assuming that divine entities are timeless, and by implicitly subordinating the entity of the Son to that of the Father. Because they view divine eternity as timeless, the “eternal generation” of the Son is not a divine movement but an immutable “relation” of dependence. The unavoidable result is that the divinity of the Son becomes less divine than the divinity of the Father who eternally generates Him.” Fernando Canale, Basic Elements of Christian Theology: Scripture Replacing Tradition (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Lithotech, 2005), 87.

93 Fernando Canale, “Doctrine of God,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 150.

incompatible with the Adventist belief system. In 1854, several articles relating to “The Atonement” were authored by J. M. Stephenson. He wrote: We have failed to find in the entire history of the Son of God, from his origin, as “the first born of every creature,” to his death, one intimation of the duplicity of his nature; but on the contrary, he is invariably presented as a unit being, having but one personality. It having been shown, in a previous part of this work, that man is a unit, in the sense of his being but one man, it follows, as a matter of course, that if the Son of God became a real man, he must have been a unit being. Indeed this was actually necessary in order to his becoming a real substitute for man. One nature cannot be a substitute, in fact, for another and entirely different nature; hence to have any analogy between the means employed and the end to be attained, Christ must have been a real man, having but one nature, and personality. He must also have died a literal death, as a whole being; for thus were those for whom he became a substitute, condemned to die.94

Stephenson postulated that Christ had to be “a unit being,” having only one personality and nature, in order to serve as a true substitute for humanity. Stephenson asserted that throughout the Son of God’s entire history, there was no indication of the bipartite nature. He then argued that this one nature was necessary for Christ to become a literal substitute for humanity, as one nature could not substitute for another entirely different nature.

Stephenson further posited that “this theology which teaches that Christ had two distinct natures, at the same time, the one of which died, and the other escaped to realms of bliss, has no foundation in the word of God.”95 Stephenson’s statement challenged a particular theological belief that posited that Christ had two distinct natures, one of which died while the other escaped to the realms of bliss. The assertion was that such a belief had no foundation in the word of God. This statement could be interpreted as a critique of a particular interpretation of Christian theology, positing that Jesus Christ, as God and man, had two distinct natures united in his person. According to this view, Christ’s divine nature did not die on the cross, but his human nature did. However, Stephenson’s statement called into question the validity of this view, suggesting that the biblical text did not support it.

This belief had implications for the theory of atonement. Stephenson’s argument posited that the occurrence of human nature’s demise alone would not suffice for our expiation. Given that God could not perish, a

purely divine nature could not have undergone death. Thus, Stephenson deduced that Christ had a divine-human nature, which was not entirely divine, hence not immortal, and could experience death entirely. This reasoning concluded that Christ’s death could provide a comprehensive atonement. It is important to note that this argument was a product of pure logical deduction. Stephenson’s critique of this belief suggested that the traditional understanding of atonement may have needed to be revised or reinterpreted in light of a more nuanced understanding of Christ’s nature and the meaning of his death.

Stephenson said:

The Trinitarian view, I think is exceptionable. They claim that the Son of God had three distinct natures at the same time; viz., a human body, a human soul, united with his Divine nature: the body being mortal, the soul immortal, the Divinity co-equal, co-existent, and co-eternal with the everlasting Father. Now, none of the advocates of this theory, claim that either his soul or Divinity died, that the body was the only part of this triple being which actually died “the death of the cross;” hence, according to this view (which makes the death of Christ the grand atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world) we only have the sacrifice of the most inferior part, the human body, of the Son of God.96

Stephenson’s argument contended that the Trinitarian view of Christ’s three distinct natures—human body, human soul, and divine nature—was fundamentally flawed. The view suggested that only the human body died on the cross, while the soul and divinity remained untouched. Consequently, the sacrifice of Christ was limited to the most inferior part of his being, which was insufficient for the atonement of sins. The logical implications of this Trinitarian view were significant. If only the human body of Christ died on the cross, questions arose regarding the completeness and efficacy of his sacrifice for the sins of the world. The most superior parts of Christ’s being, his soul and divinity, remained unaffected by the crucifixion, indicating that his sacrifice was incomplete and insufficient for the atonement of sins. Furthermore, the Trinitarian view implied a division within Christ, with his human and divine natures operating independently, which raised questions about the unity and coherence of Christ’s being, a fundamental tenet of Christian theology. In conclusion, according to Stephenson’s argument, the logical implications of the Trinitarian view suggested that it was an inadequate and flawed understanding of Christ’s sacrifice and nature.

Stephenson’s understanding of the concept of atonement was not a singular manifestation, as several

94 James M. Stephenson “The Atonement,” Review and Herald (November 21, 1854), 113. 95 Ibid., 113. 96 Ibid., 114.

Adventists also espoused a comparable conceptualization of the identical theological principle. In 1859, D. W. Hull posited that Trinitarian theology undermined the atonement. In a commentary on Philippians 2, He stated: Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God (very God, our opponents would read it) thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant and was made (not his humanity, but he himself was made) in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death (No, says the Trinitarian, his body became obedient unto death, but the divine part never suffered) even the death of the cross.97

The explication put forth by Hull in his Philippians 2 commentary carried significant ramifications for the theory of the atonement. Hull posited that the Trinitarian explanation of the passage indicated that only Christ’s human nature underwent the agony of the cross, whereas his divine essence remained unaltered. According to Hull, this perspective curtailed the theological significance of the atonement by construing it as a mere vicarious act in which only Christ’s human nature served as the ransom for the transgressions of humanity. Hull’s thesis raised inquiries regarding the character of the atonement and the role of Christ’s divinity. If, during the crucifixion, Christ’s divine nature remained unaffected, how could it be declared that the atonement was a thorough and satisfactory payment for the sins of humanity? This also brought to the forefront queries regarding the nature of Christ’s humanity and divinity and their interrelation. Hull’s statement highlighted the complexity of the doctrine of the atonement and the various implications of different interpretations.

In 1884, Waggoner advocated that if Jesus was the “almighty God,” then he could not have died on the cross since God cannot die. He reasoned that since the doctrine of the Trinity taught that Jesus had two separate natures, human and divine, he wondered who died on the cross. If it was the human nature that died and not the divine nature, then this was insufficient to secure humanity’s salvation. Consequently, these Adventists denied the notion of Jesus’ divine immortality before His incarnation. Waggoner posited:

As before remarked, the great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, is this: they make no distinction between a denial of a Trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies, and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a Trinity. The declaration, that the divine Son of God could not die, is as far from the teachings of the Bible as darkness is from light. And we would ask the Trinitarian, to which of the two natures are we indebted for redemption? The answer must, of course, be, to that one which died or shed his blood for us; for “we have redemption through his blood.” Then it is evident that if only the human nature died, our Redeemer is only human, and that the divine Son of God took no part in the work of redemption, for he could neither suffer nor die. Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a Trinity degrades the Atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism.98

Waggoner argued that Trinitarians conflate a denial of the Trinity with a denial of the divinity of Christ and mistakenly interpret every reference to Christ’s pre-existence as evidence of the Trinity doctrine. He believed that the Bible taught the pre-existence and divinity of Christ but was silent on the concept of the Trinity. Waggoner contended that the doctrine of the Trinity degraded the Atonement by reducing the sacrifice of Christ to the level of Socinianism.99 Waggoner’s assertion bore significant implications for the Christian tenet of salvation. If indeed only the human aspect of Jesus underwent death on the cross, it inevitably raised questions about the adequacy of Jesus’ atonement for the redemption of mankind. Additionally, it prompted inquiries into the involvement of the divine aspect of Jesus in the process of redemption and the requisite of Jesus’ full divinity in ensuring humanity’s salvation.

These discussions held by the early Seventh-day Adventists were not unprecedented in Christendom, as similar conversations existed centuries earlier regarding the concept of God’s impassibility.

In the 5th century, Nestorius (c. 386-451) espoused

97 D. W. Hull, “Bible doctrine of the divinity of Christ,” Review and Herald, November 17, 1859.

98 J. H. Waggoner, The Atonement in The Light of Nature and Revelation (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1884), 173.

99 Socinianism was influential in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th and 17th centuries and had followers in other parts of Europe. However, mainstream Christianity later rejected it, and is no longer a widely held belief. Socinians hold that Jesus Christ was a human being who was divinely inspired but not divine himself. They also reject the idea of original sin and the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, which holds that his death on the cross reconciled humanity with God.

the view that God could not suffer.100 Nestorius’s Christology aligned with this view, as he saw the divine nature of Christ as eternally unchangeable and impassible. He emphasized a clear distinction between the divine and human natures in Christ. He argued that Jesus Christ was fully divine and human, asserting that the divine Logos (the Word of God) dwelt in a human body.101

This perspective sought to preserve the distinctiveness of both natures while acknowledging their inseparable union in Christ. Nestorius placed a dichotomy between the divinity and humanity of Jesus, which resulted in the rejection of the notion of God suffering or dying. The divine Christ could not suffer or die; therefore, He was not present at the cross. The human Christ alone suffered and died. Carl Braaten posits, “Nestorius’ theory was that the two distinctly existing persons combine to make a new person, who is called Jesus. Hence, Jesus is one person made up of two persons.”102 The discourse by Carl Braaten puts forth Nestorius’ theological proposition concerning the nature of Jesus, where he posited that Jesus Christ was a single entity comprising two distinct persons. This concept, popularly

known as the “two-person theory,” was met with significant opposition from the early church and was eventually rejected in the Council of Ephesus in 431.103

Nestorius’ theological “two-persons theory” was primarily based on a dichotomy between the divine nature and the human nature of Jesus. According to this theory, Jesus Christ had two separate natures, one divine and the other human, combined into a new being. However, this view was deemed problematic by the view of the early church because it implied that there were two persons in Jesus Christ rather than one. The view held that Jesus Christ was a singular person with two natures, completely divine and human. In Nestorius’s understanding, the divine nature within Christ remained unaffected by the human experiences and emotions Jesus encountered during his earthly life. While Jesus experienced human emotions and suffering on the human side of his nature, Nestorius maintained that the divine Logos, being impassible, remained transcendent and unchanged. However, Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376 – 444) argued that the Logos became fully human, and he suffered and died.104 In a letter to Nestorius, Cyril wrote:

100 John O’Keefe believed that Nestorius was influenced by Greek philosophical thought in relation to God’s being. He posited, “concern about God’s impassibility goes to the heart of the controversy itself…..Cyril wanted to say that when philosophy and the biblical narrative conflict, preference ought to be given to the biblical narrative. [Nestorius] tended to do the reverse…it may be helpful to see [Nestorianism] less as a debate about terminology and more as a debate about the fullness of God’s presence in the world.” (John. J. O’Keefe, “Impassible Suffering? Divine Passion and Fifth-Century Christology.” Theological Studies, 1997. 58, 41). See also, Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine; v. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 52- 54. Hallman also makes this observation when he writes: “For Nestorius, orthodoxy demands that one holds to the impassibility of the Logos in the Incarnation. The Logos ‘by nature is impassible and unchangeable and invariable, does not even suffer in any manner in the human nature, since it is not his to suffer in his nature.’” Hallman, “The Seed of Fire: Divine Suffering in the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople,” 390.

101 J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine (London: Methuen &Brothers Publishers, 1958), 310-317.

102 Carl E. Braaten, “Modern Interpretations of Nestorius.” Church History 32 (1963): 258.

103 The Council of Ephesus, the third ecumenical council convoked by Emperor Theodosius the Younger in 431 AD. At the Emperor’s command, delegates (Approximately 200 bishops. Apart from ten accompanying Nestorius, most were Cyril’s allies) gathered in the city of Ephesus, the provincial capital of Asia Minor. Cyril of Alexandria championed the cause against Nestorianism partly because Nestorius’ position amounted to questioning the divinity of Christ. When all the deliberations were over, the final verdict was thus, “all the bishops acclaimed together: Whoever will not anathematize Nestorius let him be anathema, for the orthodox faith anathematizes him. We all anathematize this letter and the doctrines of Nestorius.” [Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, trans. and ed. J. A. McGuckin (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995), 83]. The Council condemned Nestorius and his views and affirmed Mary as “Theotokos.” It clarified and confirmed Jesus’ divine-human nature. It provided a doctrinal basis for Jesus’ humanity and divinity without confusing their respective substance by explaining the hypostatic union. [William P. Anderson, A Journey through Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010), 444; Stevenson, and W. H. C. Frend, eds. Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church AD 337-461. 2nd ed. (London: SPCK, 1989), 305].

104 Cyril asserted: “Those who say that there was a mixture or confusion or blending of God the Word with the flesh, let your Holiness think fit to stop their mouths, for such people are probably spreading such rumours about me, as though I had thought or said this. But I am so far from thinking anything of the kind that I consider that anyone who thinks there could ever be the shadow of a change (James 1:17) in the divine nature of the Word must be completely mad. For he ever remains what he is and does not change or undergo alteration. Moreover, all of us confess that the divine Word is impassible, even if in his all-wise economy of the mystery he is seen to attribute to himself the sufferings that befall his own flesh. What is more, the all-wise Peter says: ‘And so Christ has suffered for us in the flesh,’ and not in the nature of the ineffable deity (1Peter 4:1). He bears the suffering of his own flesh in an economic appropriation to himself, as I have said, so that we may believe him to be the Saviour of all.” Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, trans. and ed. J. A. McGuckin (Crestwood, NY:

Because the Word hypostatically united human reality to himself “for us and for our salvation,” and came forth from a woman, this is why He is said to have been begotten in a fleshly manner…. but if we reject this hypostatic union as either impossible or unfitting, then we fall into saying that there are two sons.105

In contrast to Nestorian Christology, the Trinitarian theological viewpoint posits the existence of a hypostatic union of complete divinity and complete humanity within Jesus. Thus, there is one person but two natures. The hypostatic union is significant because it affirms that Jesus is the unique and only mediator between God and humanity. Because he is fully God, Jesus can represent God to humanity, and because he is fully human, Jesus can represent humanity to God. This means that Jesus can reconcile humanity to God and provide a way to save people from sin and death.

Ellen White’s exposition on the reconciliatory role of Jesus Christ in providing salvation from sin and death is a profound articulation of the Christian theological concept of atonement. The notion that Jesus’ death and resurrection can serve to reconcile humanity with God has been a recurrent theological theme. White’s insights on this subject testify to her deep understanding of the Christian faith and its theological underpinnings. Her work provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing scholarly discourse on this fundamental aspect of Christian theology. In 1890, Ellen White made the following statement: In Christ, divinity and humanity were combined. Divinity was not degraded to humanity; divinity held its place, but humanity by being united to divinity, withstood the fiercest test of temptation in the wilderness. He withstood the temptation, through the power that man may command. He laid hold on the throne of God, and there is not a man or woman who may not have access to the same help through faith in God. Man may become a partaker of the divine nature. Christ came to reveal the Source of his power, that man might never rely on his unaided human capabilities.106

Based on her statement, it could be inferred that, first, Jesus exhibited a perfect and indissoluble union of divine and human natures. Second, the divine and human aspects of Jesus did not compromise each other, thereby ensuring the efficacy of His redemptive work. Third, Jesus’ human St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995), 346, 347.

experience enabled Him to empathize with the struggles of humanity and intercede on their behalf. Fourth, Jesus, as a human, lived a life free of sin and successfully overcame the challenges and temptations faced by humanity.

In several other places in her writings, Ellen White taught that Christ was a hypostatic union of humanity and divinity, highlighting His redemptive role, empathy for humankind, and ultimate significance in the Christian faith. Contrary to the viewpoints presented by Stephenson, Hull, and Waggoner, Ellen White’s theological perspective posited no impediment to the hypostatic union of Jesus Christ in his capacity as both fully divine and fully human during his crucifixion. In 1872, she wrote:

Man could not atone for man. His sinful, fallen condition would constitute him an imperfect offering, an atoning sacrifice of less value than Adam before his fall. God made man perfect and upright, and after his transgression, there could be no sacrifice acceptable to God for him, unless the offering made should in value be superior to man as he was in his state of perfection and innocency. The divine Son of God was the only sacrifice of sufficient value to fully satisfy the claims of God’s perfect law. . . . He had power to lay down his life, and to take it again. No obligation was laid upon him to undertake the work of atonement.107

Ellen White posited that man could not atone for his sins due to his sinful and fallen nature. She argued that man’s condition made him an imperfect offering and that the only sacrifice acceptable to God would be one of greater value than man in his perfection and innocence. She then posited that the divine Son of God was the only sacrifice of sufficient value to satisfy God’s perfect law, as he could lay down his life and take it up again.

Ellen White presented a specific theological perspective on atonement, emphasizing the need for a perfect sacrifice to atone for human sin. It also highlighted the central role of Jesus Christ in this process and suggested that his sacrifice was necessary and unique. In Ellen White’s perspective, the quintessential characteristic that rendered his sacrifice flawless and efficacious in atoning for sins was not primarily the exact nature of the offering but rather the impeccable manifestation of Jesus’s divine nature during his earthly sojourn.

White further contended that “When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not

105 Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, trans. and ed. J. A. McGuckin (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995), 212.

106 Ellen G. White, “How to Meet a Controverted Point of Doctrine,” Review and Herald, (February 18, 1890), 97.

107 Ellen G. White, “The First Advent of Christ,” Review and Herald (December 17, 1872), 2.

sink and die; that would have been impossible.”108 Ellen White examined the nature of Christ’s death during the crucifixion and distinguished between His human and divine nature. Although Jesus was one person, White suggested that while Christ’s human nature experienced death, His divine nature did not. 1904, she wrote, “Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No, the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person, the man Christ Jesus. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.”109 Ellen White posited a theological argument wherein she contended that Christ’s human and divine natures were enigmatically fused in one person, namely the man Christ Jesus. White maintained that the death of Christ on the cross was a manifestation of His human nature succumbing to death and not His divine nature. This view aligned with traditional Christian theology and the doctrine of the Incarnation. The expression, “in him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” was taken from Colossians 2:9. This verse has been interpreted in various ways throughout Christian history. Still, it affirmed the belief that Christ was both fully divine and fully human. Furthermore, White’s assertion that the divine essence did not die when Christ was crucified was a widely held view in Christian theology. The notion underpinning this viewpoint was that Christ’s death did not signify God’s defeat but rather a triumph over sin and death.

Commenting on the crucifixion of Jesus, Jürgen Moltmann states, “What happened on the cross was an event between God and God. It was a deep division in God himself, in so far as God abandoned God and contradicted himself, and at the same time a unity in God, in so far as God was at one with God and corresponded to himself.”110 Jürgen Moltmann’s statement about the crucifixion of Jesus reflects a complex and paradoxical understanding of the nature of God and the events that took place on the cross. Moltmann suggests that the crucifixion was not simply a historical

event but an existential one that took place within the being of God himself. According to Moltmann, the crucifixion was a moment of deep division within God, as God abandoned God and contradicted himself. This suggests that the crucifixion was not simply a pre-ordained act of atonement but a moment of genuine conflict within the Godhead. At the same time, Moltmann also sees the crucifixion as a moment of unity within God, as God was at one with himself and corresponded to himself. This suggests that the crucifixion was not simply an act of divine wrath but a moment of divine love and self-sacrifice. Moltmann’s statement invites us to think deeply about the nature of God and the meaning of the crucifixion. It challenges us to move beyond simplistic understandings of the cross as a mere transactional event and to embrace the paradoxical and mysterious nature of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of the Trinity has profound implications for Christian theology and practice. It underscores the unity and diversity within God, highlighting the importance of unity and love among believers. Additionally, it guides the understanding of salvation, emphasizing the role of each person of the Trinity in the redemptive plan.

Reason Number Five: Bates and White’s Predisposition

A fifth factor that one must consider in an attempt to understand why the pioneers rejected the Trinity was that two of the three founders of Seventh-day Adventism started with a strong predisposition to anti-trinitarianism. Pfandl notes that “Joseph Bates and James White were originally members of the Christian Connexion Church, which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. James White was an ordained minister of that church. When he and Bates joined the Advent Movement, they continued to hold the anti-Trinitarian view which they had learned in the Christian Connexion Church.’’111

According to Knight, “Bates and White brought anti-trinitarianism into Adventism from their Restorationist background. Certain Restorationists pointed out that the Bible nowhere uses the word ‘Trinity’.”112 White and

108 Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 21 [Nos. 1501-1598] (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 418.

109

Ellen G. White to Ministers, Physicians, and Teachers, Middletown, Connecticut, September 3, 1904, Lr 280, 1904. 1.

110 Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1974), 244.

111 Gerhard Pfandl, “The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists,” Biblical Research Institute (Silver Spring, MD (June 1999): 1.

112 Knight, A Search for Identity, 32. See George R. Knight, Joseph Bates: The Real Founder of Seventh–day Adventism (Hagerstown MD: Review and Herald Pub Assoc, 2004). Arasola observes that the “Restorationism, sometimes called Christian primitivism, is a descriptive title for any religious movement which believes that it represents the essence of what it would mean to bring Christianity back to its original form and ideals. In the context of North America, the term is applied in particular to a widespread indigenous

Bates, exerting considerable influence upon early Adventist theology, played critical roles in influencing other key figures to their stance on the doctrine of the Trinity. Their religious worldview was aligned with Unitarians and Socinians.113 Socinians derive their name from their founder, Faustus Socinus (1539 – 1604), an Italian theologian. During the 16th and 17th centuries, Socinians rose to prominence and rejected the concept of the Trinity. Unitarians similarly reject the Trinity and, like Socinians, place great importance on reason and individual interpretation of the Bible.114 The Christian Connexion advocated for a unitarian theology, affirming the absolute oneness of God. This departure from the Trinitarian understanding was pivotal in distinguishing the Christian Connexion from other Christian denominations during the Second Great Awakening. Connectionists emphasized the importance of the Bible as the ultimate authority for faith, morals, and doctrine, interpreting it through the lens of reason. They did not see any support for the Trinity in the Bible.

rejection of complex theological and philosophical concepts. Rooted in a desire to return to a perceived early Christian simplicity and influenced by the changing intellectual landscape of the time, their unitarian beliefs were central to their interpretation of the scriptures and their religious practices.

Like other movements during the Restoration era, the Christian Connexion emphasized a return to the simplicity of New Testament Christianity and the denial of the traditional understanding of a triune God, instead emphasizing God’s oneness.

Reason Number Six: Creedal Overtones of the Trinity

A sixth reason Adventists rejected the Trinity was its formulation in creeds. Within Christendom, creeds are official written expressions of doctrinal propositions that define and summarize fundamental theological concepts. “The three great ecumenical creeds—the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed—are all structured around our three-in-one God, underlying the essential importance of Trinitarian theology.”115

In the years leading up to 1863, when the Seventhday Adventist Church became an official organization, the leaders debated whether they should have a creed. James White vehemently opposed the notion of having a creed. He

As shown above, the broader cultural context that birthed these religious movements was saturated with Enlightenment philosophies such as rationality, common sense philosophy, and individualism. Their rejection of the Trinity mirrored the broader cultural context that gravitated toward the rational interpretations of religious beliefs and a American phenomenon that started towards the end of the 18th century with the Second Great Awakening and culminated in the rise of a wide range of revivals and churches that represent the full spectrum of 19th century American religiosity. The so-called Christian Churches or Connexionists are usually thought to represent the essence of Restorationism. Connexionism grew into thousands of independent churches and had by 1850s up to half a million supporters. However, the full picture of Restorationism is much wider. It had a powerful effect on the established mainline churches and contributed to the rise of several religious groups that represented the wide spectrum of American 19th century religiosity. Unitarians, Millerites and Adventists, Latter day Saints, the Watchtower Society, and, a little later, the Pentecostals all represent the huge impact of Restorationism. The Restorationist movement’s unwritten ambition was to do to Protestantism what the Reformation had done to Catholicism. Restorationists were distrustful of church organisations and of creeds and while, in general, they did not go for clear-cut doctrinal definitions, they had over the early part of the 19th century increasingly turned against Trinitarianism.” Kai Arasola, “Historical Reflections on Early Adventist Anti-Trinitarianism,” CATALYST, Vol. 3, No.1 (Nov 2008), 47.

113 For further study on the Socinians, see Otto W. Heick, A History of Christian Thought (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1965), 137-145. Another significant figure who vehemently opposed the Trinity was Faustus Socinus. Socinus denied and downplayed the divinity of the Son, while placing emphasis on his humanity. Socinus’ and Servitus’ anti-Trinitarianism would gain impetus in later Unitarian movements in America. According to Christian Universalist Association: Most Unitarian Universalist Christians believe in God, but not the traditional God-asTrinity that most Christian churches promote. The UU Christian God is all-loving, as our Universalist forbears taught, and a unity, as our Unitarian forebears taught. This God is too big to be contained in one person, one book, one tradition, or one time in history. To UU Christians, Jesus is an inspiration and his teachings are profound he possesses a divine spark that is born in all of us, and can be cultivated our whole lives long. “Christian Unitarian Universalists,” Date of access: January, 222, 2023 https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe

114 “The Unitarian Denomination,” The Quarterly Journal of the American Unitarian Association (Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1858): 168.

115 DeYoung, The Good News We Almost Forgot: Rediscovering the Gospel in a 16th Century Catechism, 49.

stated:

But the Seventh-day Adventists have no human creed or discipline, therefore give room for God to teach through the gifts of the Spirit. They ardently desire to cast aside the traditions and fables of men, and keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ. Their weekly practice in keeping the Sabbath is a standing rebuke on the churches and the world, and on almost every point of Bible truth they stand in direct opposition to the popular doctrines of the churches. And, besides this, there has been an unceasing testimony among us, warning us to stand out separate from the world. The Bible is our creed. We reject everything in the form of a human creed. We take the Bible and the gifts of the Spirit; embracing the faith that thus the Lord will teach us from time to time. And in this we take a position against the formation of a creed.116

White’s statement presupposed that the Seventh-day Adventists did not have a human creed or discipline, which allowed room for God to teach through the gifts of the Spirit. He also suggested that Seventh-day Adventists were committed to casting aside the traditions and fables of men, and keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ. For the early pioneers, the Bible was their only creed; the doctrine of the Trinity was seen as a creedal formulation instead of a biblical concept. Consequently, the doctrine of the Trinity was rejected. James White posited, “Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one as he was one with his Father. This prayer did not contemplate one disciple with twelve heads, but twelve disciples made one in object and effort in the cause of their master. Neither are the Father and the Son parts of the ‘three-one God’.”117 He further expressed his disdain against creeds:

It is the opinion of the mass of professors of religion that human creeds are indispensable to the maintenance of the gospel order. Creed making has produced the Babel confusion now existing among them. And while we reject all human creeds, or platforms, which have failed to effect the order set forth in the gospel, we take the Bible, the perfect rule of faith and practice, given by inspiration of God. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth,’ so is our creed, which is the word of God, higher in perfection than all human creeds118

White believed that the practice of creating creeds confused the religious community. He asserted a belief in the Bible as the perfect rule of faith and practice, given by God’s inspiration. For White, the Bible, which represents the word of God, is of higher perfection than all human-made creeds. The Bible and the Bible alone should be the creed and final authority for doctrine, faith, and morality.

Other leaders such as Joseph Bates, John Loughborough, and A. T. Jones equated the adoption of a creed as one of the identifying marks of the apostate church, otherwise called Babylon. Sometime in 1861, while attending a Conference, Loughborough wrote, “We call the churches Babylon, not because they covenant together to obey God. The first step in apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce those who do not believe that creed as heretics. And, fifth, to commence persecution against such.”119 Loughborough and his contemporaries strongly opposed the institutionalization and rigid dogmatism of organized religion. He argued that churches often become corrupt by imposing beliefs on their members and treating them as the only acceptable truth.

For Loughborough, institutionalization and dogmatism were the first steps towards apostasy or falling away from the true faith. By imposing a creed and using it as a test of fellowship, churches risk losing sight of the fundamental message of their religion and instead become obsessed with enforcing their interpretation. Ellen White also expressed her disapproval of creeds when she wrote in 1885:

The Bible and the Bible alone is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God’s Word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, ‘It is written.’ Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline120

Ellen White emphasized the importance of the Bible as the sole source of belief and unity among people, implying that personal opinions and views should not dictate one’s actions. Still, instead, one should submit to the infallible Word of God. For the early Seventh-day Adventists, making a creed sets the stakes and bars up the way to all

116 James White, Review and Herald (October 1, 1861), 170.

117 James White, Life Incidents (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press of the Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association, 1869), 343.

118 James White, “Gospel Order,” Review and Herald (December 13, 1853), 180.

119 J. N. Loughborough “Doings of the Battle Creek Conference, Acts 5:16, 1861,” Review and Herald, (October 8, 1861), 148-149.

120 Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, 1 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1958), 416

future advancement. God put the gifts into the church for a good and great object; but men who have got up their churches, have shut up the way or have marked out a course for the Almighty. They say virtually that the Lord must not do anything further than what has been marked out in the creed. A creed and the gifts thus stand in direct opposition to each other.121

This statement highlighted the danger of creating a fixed set of beliefs or creeds in religious institutions. According to the early Seventh-day Adventists, having a creed restricted the growth and progress of the church. The statement suggested that the church was a living entity that should be open to new ideas and revelations from God, which a creed created by men could not limit. Moreover, the quote underscored the significance of fully expressing spiritual gifts within the church. These gifts were deemed vital to church life, and the church should have never restricted its operation. The gifts, being inspired by God, were intended to aid the church in its growth and development in novel directions, which a creed would have impeded.

Furthermore, the statement accentuated the danger of trusting human-made regulations and traditions over God. Relying on a creed implied that we knew everything there was to know about God and His purposes for our lives, which was a difficult position since God’s ways are infinite and His designs are higher than ours.

In summary, the quote encouraged readers to be open-minded about their faith and to allow the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. They should not permit humanmade creeds to restrict their spiritual growth or limit the operation of the spiritual gifts in the church. The church should be a place of continual discovery and development, with a willingness to be led by the Holy Spirit into new and uncharted territories.

At this juncture, it is noteworthy that the early Seventh-day Adventist leaders encountered a challenge while attempting to reconcile their objection to creeds with their promulgation of the 1872 Fundamental Principles, essentially a compendium of Adventist beliefs and teachings. The Fundamental Principles were deemed by many to be similar to creeds but with some notable differences.

Adventists’ primary concern with creeds was their perceived restrictiveness and exclusivity, given that they often demanded strict adherence to a set of beliefs that could alienate those who did not fully agree with each point. In contrast, the Fundamental Principles were more flexible and allowed for some diversity of opinion. They were designed not as rigid rules but as a general framework of Adventist beliefs.

Nonetheless, certain similarities remained between the Fundamental Principles and a creed. Both comprised statements of belief and were intended to guide church members. However, the Fundamental Principles were deemed more organic and thus could be updated and revised as necessary, unlike a static creed. By creating a document that bore similarities and differences to a creed, the early Seventh-Day Adventist leaders could reconcile their objections to creeds and guide their members while avoiding excessive restrictiveness or exclusivity and allowing for some diversity of opinion within the church.

The notion that creeds are somehow evil or a move away from biblical Christianity was not invented by the Adventist pioneers. Restorationist movements sought to restore Christianity to its supposed early apostolic roots, believing the early Christian church did not rely on formalized creeds. They aimed to emulate the simplicity and purity of the early Christian community by adhering strictly to the teachings and practices outlined in the New Testament. James O’Kelly, one of the leaders of the Restoration Movement, stated, “The Holy Bible…our only creed, and a sufficient rule of faith and practice.”122 Restorationists believed “the ground on which we then stood was the Bible alone, as the only rule of our faith and practice. This ground we yet occupy, to the exclusion of all creeds of human mold and device, as authoritative.”123 Leroy Halsey has shown that many Christian groups during the Second Great Awakening sought to “do away with all human creeds and systematic treatises, and to study the Bible only.”124 The cry of that era was “the Bible, the Bible, is our only acknowledged creedbook.”125

Seventh-day Adventists “clearly recognized that Bible truth must unfold through continuing study and divine leading. They feared any hampering, stultifying creed or

121 James White, “Doings of the Battle Creek Conference, Oct. 5 & 6, 1861,” Review and Herald (October 8, 1861), 148.

122 W. E. McLenny, The Life of Rev. James O’Kelly and the Early History of the Christian Church in the South (Raleigh, NC: Edwards & Broughton, 1910), 111.

123 Barton W. Stone, “The Christian Messenger,” February 1835, 41-42

124 Leroy J. Halsey, “Address to the Alumni Society of the University of Nashville, on the Study of Theology as a Part of Science, Literature and Religion, 1841,” Nashville, TN; 19. in Protestants in an Age of Science: The Baconian Ideal and Antebellum American Religious Thought, ed. Theodore D. Bozeman (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1977), 149.

125 John L. Winebrenner, History of All the Religious Denominations in the United States (Harrisburg, PA: 1853), 595.

rigid formulary. They determined not to drive in any creedal boundary stakes, as most others had done, saying, ‘Thus far and no farther.’ The tragedy of the creed-bound churches all about them was an example of that fallacy and futility.”126

The statement highlights Seventh-day Adventists’ approach to interpreting and understanding the Bible. It emphasizes their belief in continuing study and divine leading instead of rigid formulary or creedal boundary stakes. The author suggests that the tragedy of the creed-bound churches around them provided an example of the fallacy and futility of such an approach. The statement raises questions about the role of tradition and authority in religious interpretation. It also discusses the relationship between religious beliefs and practices and their social and historical contexts. Moreover, the statement highlights the importance of flexibility and openness to new ideas in interpreting religious texts and the dangers of dogmatism and rigidity in this context.

Because the Trinity throughout the history of the Christian church has been expressed in creedal tones, Adventist pioneers vehemently opposed the concept altogether. Therefore, “the Seventh-day Adventist people have no creed or discipline except the Bible, but the following are some of the points of their faith upon which there is quite general agreement.”127

Despite the early Seventh-day Adventists’ rejection of the concept of the Trinity due to its strong association with creeds, it is worth noting that creeds can serve multiple purposes within the theological spectrum.

Creeds offer a common lexicon and conceptual framework for communicating theological propositions. By clearly articulating pivotal beliefs in a concise and accessible manner, creeds facilitate individuals in comprehending and expressing their religious convictions while enabling them to engage in theologically oriented dialogues with others.

Secondly, creeds can provide a sense of connectedness and continuity with the historical heritage of a particular religious community. By affirming beliefs that have persisted for centuries, creeds can help individuals to feel integrated into a larger community of adherents and offer a sense of rootedness and stability in an ever-changing world.128

Thirdly, creeds can act as a bulwark against theological fallacies and heresies. By articulating

126 Froom, Movement of Destiny, 135

significant theological beliefs explicitly, creeds can prevent misunderstandings and deviations from orthodox doctrine. Moreover, creeds can furnish a basis for assessing new theological ideas and determining their consistency with the core beliefs of a given religious tradition.

Fourthly, within the Bible are concise and formulaic summaries that resemble creeds. One of the most prominent examples of such formulations is the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4, which commences with the words “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” Paul elaborates upon this creed-like statement in 1 Corinthians 8:6 to incorporate the subsequent revelation about Jesus Christ. Further creed-like statements are also present within the New Testament, such as Romans 10:9- 10 (“Jesus is Lord”) and 1 Corinthians 15:3- 4, among others.129 Finally, creeds can play a cohesive role within a religious community. By offering shared beliefs and values, creeds can forge solidarity and nurture a sense of belonging among adherents.

In summary, while creeds may impediment theological progress and stifle intellectual advancement, they can also serve as valuable tools in theology. They provide a common language and framework for theological discussions, connect individuals to the historical traditions of their religious community, safeguard against theological errors, and foster unity and solidarity among believers.130

Reason Number Seven: Common Sense Philosophy

James White was among those who appropriated a common sense approach to reading Scripture. For White, the Seventh-day Adventist movement “has given to the church and world a simple, plain, common sense system of interpretation of the sacred canon, so that every man, who will take the trouble of reading the Bible and collating the different portions of it, may understand the word of God without the aid of learned commentaries.”131 White highlighted the contribution made by the Seventh-day Adventist movement in providing a straightforward and practical method for interpreting the Bible. He emphasized the importance of reading the Bible and studying its different portions to understand God’s word. White suggested that the interpretation of the Bible need not be limited to scholars or learned individuals but can be achieved by anyone who takes the time to read and understand it. This approach to

127 “Membership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of Battle Creek, Michigan, as it Stood April 16, 1894,” 12, quoted in Guy, “Uncovering the Origins of the Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs,” 28.

128 Brian Dennert, “Creeds and Councils,” February 26, 2020. Accessed November 26, 2023 https://wearefaith.org/blog/ creeds-and-councils/

129 Keith Mathison, “5 Things You Should Know about Creeds,” October 10, 2022. Accessed November 26, 2023. https:// www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/5-things-creeds

130 J. V. Fesko, The Need for Creeds Today: Confessional Faith in a Faithless Age (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Academic, 2020).

131 White, Life Incidents, 150-151.

interpreting the Bible is founded on common sense and simplicity, which makes it accessible to everyone. He further postulated:

The reason why we are Adventists is because we take the Bible as meaning just what it says. And why should we not believe that when God speaks to his people, his words mean what they say? If he does not mean what he says in his word, then pray tell us what he does mean. If his words do not have their plain, simple, and obvious meaning, then the Bible ceases to be a revelation, and God should give us another book to tell us what this one means. But the Bible is its own interpreter.132

White believed in a plain and literal interpretation of the Bible. He believed that the Bible was a revelation from God, and therefore, its words should be taken at face value. White argued that if we do not accept the plain, simple, and obvious meaning of the Bible, it would cease to be a revelation. He emphasized that the Bible is its own interpreter. We should not rely on external sources or interpretations to understand its message. Instead, we should read and interpret the Bible within its context, allowing it to speak for itself. They thought that if God spoke to His people, His words should mean what they said.

J. H. Waggoner adopted an identical approach. He wrote, “In developing the argument, we have tried to follow the Scriptures in their plain, literal reading, without regard to the positions of others who have written before us. It would be a pleasure to us to agree with all who are considered evangelical, and we have differed with them only because our regard for the truths of the Bible compelled us to do so.”133 Waggoner claimed that they (the pioneers) have followed the Scriptures in their plain, literal reading without being influenced by the opinions of others who have written before them. They believed their interpretation of the Scriptures was based solely on what the Bible said, not external factors. This plain and common sense reading of the Bible was a central theme among the Adventist pioneers, who often affirmed it in their hermeneutical methodologies. In contrast, according to E. J. Waggoner, the Papal system of religion was “so imbued with the spirit of heathen philosophy, which consisted simply in a show of learning, to mystify and awe the simple-minded, that they could not come down to the plain, common sense teaching of the Bible.”134 Waggoner criticized the Roman Catholic theological system, suggesting

that it was heavily influenced by heathen philosophy rather than the plain teachings of the Bible.

Another early Seventh-day Adventist who was influenced by common sense philosophy was Uriah Smith. Smith described the literal approach one must utilize when studying the Bible as follows, “By the literal method, everything is subject to well-established and clearly defined law; and, viewed from this standpoint, the reader will be surprised to see how simple, easy, and clear many portions of the Scriptures at once become, which, according to any other system, are dark and unsolvable.”135 According to Smith, a literal interpretation of the Scriptures can provide a clear understanding of its meaning. This approach, Smith believed, can resolve many of the difficulties and complexities that arose from other interpretive systems. Smith advocated a straightforward approach to understanding the Scriptures rather than relying on more abstract or symbolic interpretations.

Common-sense philosophy helped the pioneers approach their religious beliefs from a practical and rational perspective accessible to the layperson. For the early pioneers, “the Bible is eminently a practical book; its great object is to make the man of God perfect; to thoroughly furnish him unto all good works.”136 Adventists rejected traditional denominational authority and believed in the importance of personal experience and interpretation of Scripture. Hatch has shown that this approach was ubiquitous and deeply rooted in the culture of the day:

Democratic values and patterns of biblical interpretation were moving in the same direction, mutually reinforcing ideas of volitional allegiance, self reliance, and private judgment. Both cultural values and hermeneutics balked at vested interests, symbols of hierarchy, and timeless authorities. Both addressed the common man without condescension and dismissed, out of hand, theories that would not square with common sense. Both reinforced the importance of the individual as beholden to no one and master of one’s own fate. At one level, then, the Enlightenment in America was not repudiated but popularized. Revivalists of the Second Great Awakening championed a Bible unencumbered by theological systems and authoritative interpreters. The rhetoric of rights that the Enlightenment had nurtured came to resonate as powerfully within American popular religion as it did within the

132 James White, Bible Adventism (Battle Creek: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1877), 5.

133 Joseph H. Waggoner, The Atonement: An Examination of a Remedial System in the Light of Nature and Revelation (Oakland: Pacific Press, 1884), 4.

134 E. J. Waggoner, Fathers of the Catholic Church. A Brief Examination of the “Falling Away” of the Church in the First Three Centuries (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1888), 145.

135 Smith, Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Books of Daniel and Revelation, 6.

136 Waggoner, The Atonement, 325

democratic politics of the young republic.137

Hatch highlights the convergence of democratic values and biblical interpretation in America during the Enlightenment period. He argues that democratic values and biblical hermeneutics shared similar values, such as voluntary allegiance, self-reliance, and private judgment. Both cultural values and biblical interpretation rejected symbols of hierarchy and vested interests. Instead, they emphasized the importance of the individual as being beholden to no one and master of one’s own fate. Hatch noted that the Enlightenment in America was accepted and popularized during the Second Great Awakening. Revivalists championed a Bible that was free from theological systems and authoritative interpreters. This popularization of the Enlightenment’s rhetoric of rights and democratic values within American popular religion was as powerful as it was within the democratic politics of the young republic.

This approach gave every believer access to the Bible to read and study for themselves. There was no need for a clergy or Pope to interpret Scripture. Each person was encouraged to read and comprehend the teachings without relying on clergy or scholars for interpretation. Encouraging the common man to read the Bible empowered them to form their understanding and interpretations of religious teachings, fostering a sense of personal autonomy and intellectual engagement. Thus, it allowed people to critically assess religious teachings without being overly influenced by religious hierarchy or tradition. This approach was, as Burt notes, “fundamental to Miller’s theology. He believed the Bible could be understood, was consistent with itself, answered human needs, and revealed God’s plan for the future. As a former deistic rationalist, he expected the Bible to make sense.”138 Miller’s theological methodology was grounded on the premise that the Bible constituted a cohesive and meaningful body of knowledge that offered solutions to human necessities and divulged the divine blueprint for the future. Miller’s approach broached momentous inquiries regarding the intersection of faith, rationality, and explanation and beckoned further investigation into the essence and significance of the Scriptures. This perspective was a widespread outlook among many adherents of religion who deemed the Bible as an authoritative fountainhead of spiritual direction and divine revelation. Hiram Munger, one of Miller’s disciples, rejoiced:

I was astonished, when I read the Bible for myself, without a Papal comment upon it. I was convinced that they had got the truth on the nature of the events, saying nothing of the time, and many things I learned that I never knew were in the Bible before. It was a new book indeed….In fact I had never read expecting to understand for myself, and thousands are in the same situation…139

Seventh-day Adventists adopted Miller’s hermeneutical methodology. Thus, “the Millerite background is a key element in understanding the development of the SDA church”140 and the way common-sense realism impacted their hermeneutical methodology.

The Adventist belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible and the rejection of traditional church hierarchy can be traced back to the influence of common sense philosophy. The traditional church hierarchy taught that God was a Trinity, but since early Adventists were averse to church organization and creedal formulation, they rejected the Trinity. Common sense realism contributed to the early Adventist rejection of the Trinity. Adventist theology was characterized by a rejection of traditional authority and an emphasis on individualism, democracy, and freedom.

While it is noteworthy that the early Seventhday Adventists employed the principles of common sense philosophy as the foundation of their intellectual framework, which facilitated their rejection of the Trinity, it is important to recognize that other denominations, such as the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, similarly utilized common sense philosophy in their hermeneutical approach, albeit with Trinitarian implications. Hence, it can be observed that both Trinitarian and anti-Trinitarian factions adopted the same philosophical framework but arrived at diametrically opposed theological conclusions.

The observation above bears significant implications, accentuating the intricacy and subjectivity accompanying the interpretation of religious texts and doctrines. It indicates that intellectual frameworks like common sense philosophy cannot determine one’s beliefs. Instead, it is the application of such frameworks in one’s hermeneutical methodology that plays a decisive role. This realization holds crucial relevance for interfaith dialogue and understanding, as it serves as a reminder that individuals of different faiths can employ the same philosophical framework and yet reach different

137 Nathan O. Hatch, “Sola Scriptura and Novus Ordo Seclorum.” In The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History, eds. Nathan O. Hatch and Mark A. Noll (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 74.

138 Merlin D. Burt, “Historical Introduction,” in Adventist Classic Library: Memoirs of William Miller, ed. George R. Knight (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2005), xv-xvi. 139

Hiram Munger, The Life and Experience of Hiram A. Munger: Including Many Singular Circumstances Connected With Camp-meetings and Revivals (Chicopee Falls, MT: Published by the Author, 1861), 53.

140 Edmund A. Parker, “Islands and Bridges: A Study of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics, Beginning in 1844 and Ending in 1957” (MA thesis, La Trobe University, 1991), 25.

conclusions. Furthermore, it stresses the significance of adopting a humble and open-minded approach when engaging in theological discourse, as it is possible to gain knowledge from those with contrasting beliefs and interpretations.

Reason Number Eight: Ellen White’s Ambiguous Statements

Ellen White’s ambiguity on the Godhead from 1846 to 1888 may have indirectly influenced the other early Seventh-day Adventists to reject the Trinity. Moon and other Adventist theologians have argued that White’s “writings about the Godhead show a clear progression, not primarily from anti- to pro-trinitarianism, but from relative ambiguity to greater specificity.”141 Although the veracity of this assertion cannot be disregarded, one can deliberate on the factors that contributed to the equivocal nature of her treatises regarding the Trinity. While this study does not analyze her involvement in the shift from opposition to advocacy of Trinitarianism within the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, it remains a pertinent subject for further scholarly inquiry. But, suffice it to say that since the publication of her book, The Desire of Ages, in 1898, she made statements in support of Trinitarian theology: the full deity, co-equality, and co-eternality of Jesus, and the full deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit.142 Her statements encouraged several leaders to adopt, or at least promote, similar views on the Trinity.143 This has been accepted by mainstream/official Seventh-day Adventist historians and theologians.

The matter of Ellen White’s theological authority that potentially swayed an entire organization to adopt the doctrine of the Trinity is of paramount importance. Notably, this development was not an abrupt occurrence but rather a gradual shift, and it is erroneous to attribute the entire responsibility to White. On the same note, it is plausible that

her influence could have steered the organization towards a divergent theological position. White remains the paramount and most influential figure in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Within Seventh-day Adventism, she serves as the medium for manifesting God’s prophetic discourse. The Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual states: One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth that provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)144

Though not on par with Scripture, her writings are considered inspired and authoritative. As such, her views on theological matters are paramount for Seventh-day Adventists. It is highly probable that her neglect to explicitly endorse the doctrine of the Trinity in the early years contributed to the contextual backdrop that ultimately led to the rejection of this concept, whether in its creedal formulations or those espoused by mainstream Protestantism. In view of Ellen White’s apprehension to be set forth as a theological authority and Adventism’s ardent commitment to the authority of Scripture as the “sole rule of faith and practice,” any explicit declaration of Trinitarian beliefs by her during the early stages of her prophetic ministry, when her position was not yet firmly established, could have easily led other Adventists to repudiate her claim to prophethood on the grounds that she would have advanced a doctrine which is not sanctioned by the sacred text, thereby failing the test of authenticity as a true prophet. It is plausible that Ellen

141 Jerry Moon, “The Adventist Trinity Debate, Part 2: The Role of Ellen G. White.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 41 (Autumn 2003): 278.

142 Ellen White concept of the Trinity departed from the traditional understanding of Romanism and mainstream Protestant denominations. Instead of being God as a timeless being, existing in an ‘unmovable’ sphere, Ellen White understood God as a being with form and parts. She had to defend her view of the Trinity, even against some leaders within the church. White repudiated Kellogg’s view, that God is pervading in nature. Kellogg held to a pantheistic view of God. The leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist church, including Ellen White opposed Kellogg’s view of the Godhead, as it made the Holy Spirit into an impersonal force pervading nature. There are some of her statements that were ambiguous, but no statement has been found in her writings that can be sighted to prove that she rejected the Trinity. The late 1890’s, possibly some years earlier, Ellen When begun expressing Trinitarian sentiments in her writings. Between 1897-1903 she affirmed the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit, the eternal deity of the Son, the co-equality and co-eternality of the Son and confessed that there are three persons in the Godhead.

143 See Denis Kaiser, “The Reception of Ellen G. White’s Trinitarian Statements by Her Contemporaries, 1897–1915.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 50, no. 1 (2012): 25-38.

144 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual (Doral, FL: Inter- American Division Publishing Ass., 2010), 161.

White encountered a perplexing situation, the resolution of which could have influenced her hesitancy to adopt a decisive position on the Trinity. Her limited understanding of the theological intricacies of the Trinity might have contributed to her hesitancy in adopting a decisive stance on the issue. Further research is warranted to examine the factors contributing to Ellen White’s ambiguous position on the Trinity.

In 1850, Ellen White claimed to have seen Jesus in a vision, but the Father, she was not permitted to see. Her account said nothing about the Holy Spirit. She never reported seeing the Holy Spirit or enquiring about Him. White wrote:

I gazed on Jesus’ countenance, and admired His lovely person. The Father’s person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, ‘If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist. Before the throne I saw the Advent people, the church and the world. I saw a company bowed down before the throne, deeply interested, while the most of them stood disinterested and careless. Those who were bowed before the throne would offer up their prayers and look to Jesus; then he would look to his Father, and appeared to be pleading with him. A light would come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son to the praying company. Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son it waved over the people before the throne.’” 145

As per White’s account, she saw the Son, the throne, the Advent people, and the world during her visionary experience. Notably, she did not report any sighting of the

Holy Spirit. This observation led some readers to conjecture that White would have reported seeing the Holy Spirit if the Trinity doctrine was valid. The absence of the Spirit in her narration of the vision may have indicated that the third person of the Trinity was not a divine entity. Therefore, some proponents of the non-Trinitarian belief system interpreted White’s descriptions of heaven and God as agreeing with their theological convictions, yet that would have been an argument from silence. In 1879, White made a statement that may be interpreted as promoting Arianism or semiArianism.146 She wrote:

The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence. His word was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host.147

The statement was made in the context of her discussion of Lucifer’s character before his rebellion against God, depicting him as an esteemed angel of high rank who was second only to God’s Son in honor. He possessed a formidable intellect, a flawless physique, and an admirable countenance. However, his resentment towards Christ due to envy and jealousy led him to take charge of responsibilities that were solely Christ’s. In this regard, White emphasized the Father’s endorsement of Christ as equal to Himself, with the authority to command the celestial host and to collaborate with Him in the creation of the earth and all living beings.148 According to White, the Father conferred

145 Ellen G. White, A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White (Saratoga Springs, NY: James White 1851), 43. Also, Ellen G. White, Early Writings (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1882, 1945), 54-77.

146 “Semi-Arians attempted a compromise between the orthodox and Arian position on the nature of Christ. They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios - dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was “of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.” Semi Arians taught that Christ was similar (homoios) to the Father, or of like substance (homoiousios), but still subordinate.” Gerhard Pfandl, “The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists,” Biblical Research Institute (Silver Spring, MD: June 1999): 1

147 Ellen G. White, “The Fall of Satan,” The Signs of the Times (January 9, 1879), 10.

148 See Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1 (Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1858), 17, 18. Here is the quotation: “Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, next to Christ. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing great intelligence. His form was perfect; his bearing noble and majestic. But when God said to His Son, “Let us make man in our image,” Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man, and because he was not, he was filled with envy, jealousy, and hatred. He desired to receive the highest honors in heaven next to God. Until this time all heaven had been in order, harmony, and perfect subjection

exceptional honor upon His Son and sanctioned that the Son be regarded as equal to Himself. The Son collaborated with the Father and executed His Father’s will and objectives. The Son did not act independently of His Father and carried out His Father’s will. The statement alluded to a hierarchical relationship between the Father and the Son, in which the Father occupied the supreme authority position, and the Son submitted to His will. The clause, “the Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ should be equal with himself,” has been a topic of debate regarding Ellen White’s stance on Jesus’s co-equality and co-eternality with the Father. The phrase could imply that the Son was subordinate to the Father, which would border on the denial of the co-equality of the Son and that his equality with the Father had a beginning.

The ontological origin of the Son’s divine immortality is uncertain from the passage’s description of the heavenly scene. Specifically, it remains unclear whether the Son’s divine immortality was endowed upon him by the Father or had always been an inherent attribute of his eternal nature. What further compounded the problem was a statement by James White in 1871. he said:

with your creed. That is quite another thing. The Trinitarian may compare them with his creed, and because they do not agree with it, condemn them. The observer of Sunday, or the man who holds eternal torment an important truth, and the minister that sprinkles infants, may each condemn the testimonies’ of Mrs. W. because they do not agree with their peculiar views. And a hundred more, each holding different views, may come to the same conclusion. But their genuineness can never be tested in this way.149

The statement implied that Ellen White rejected the Trinity, and James White pleaded to the readers to meticulously scrutinize her literary works. He urged them to juxtapose her writings with the Scriptures, not with the conventional creeds. He alluded to those who uphold the Trinitarian doctrine, asserting that they are unlikely to concur with Ellen White’s perspective, given their dogmatic extrapolations. James White’s assertion confirmed his perception that Ellen White did not espouse the Trinitarian doctrine.150

Due to these and similar statements, Pfandl suggested that “the position of Ellen G. White during the early decades of our church…. could be interpreted as anti-Trinitarian.”151

For His part, Moon concluded that “these statements are

We invite all to compare the testimonies of the Holy Spirit through Mrs. W., with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them to the government of God. It was the highest sin to rebel against His order and will. All heaven seemed in commotion. The angels were marshaled in companies, each division with a higher commanding angel at its head. Satan, ambitious to exalt himself, and unwilling to submit to the authority of Jesus, was insinuating against the government of God. Some of the angels sympathized with Satan in his rebellion, and others strongly contended for the honor and wisdom of God in giving authority to His Son. There was contention among the angels. Satan and his sympathizers were striving to reform the government of God. They wished to look into His unsearchable wisdom, and ascertain His purpose in exalting Jesus and endowing Him with such unlimited power and command. They rebelled against the authority of the Son. All the heavenly host were summoned to appear before the Father to have each case decided. It was there determined that Satan should be expelled from heaven, with all the angels who had joined him in the rebellion. Then there was war in heaven. Angels were engaged in the battle; Satan wished to conquer the Son of God and those who were submissive to His will. But the good and true angels prevailed, and Satan, with his followers, was driven from heaven. After Satan and those who fell with him were shut out of heaven, and he realized that he had forever lost all its purity and glory, he repented, and wished to be reinstated in heaven. He was willing to take his proper place, or any position that might be assigned him. But no; heaven must not be placed in jeopardy. All heaven might be marred should he be taken back; for sin originated with him, and the seeds of rebellion were within him. Both he and his followers wept, and implored to be taken back into the favor of God. But their sin their hatred, their envy and jealousy had been so great that God could not blot it out. It must remain to receive its final punishment.”

149 James White, “Mutual Obligation,” Review and Herald (June 13, 1871), 204.

150 The argument posits that the accuracy of the perception about Ellen White’s accounts of the fall of Lucifer in heaven is reinforced by the presence of several similarities between her accounts and John Milton’s book Paradise Lost. Milton was known to hold beliefs in British Arianism and the subordination of the Son to the Father, which are strikingly similar to those espoused in White’s writings. This observation was initially made by John Andrews, who heard Ellen White narrate her great controversy vision in 1858. James White, in turn, made an honest assertion that Ellen White’s writings were non-Trinitarian, given that they were aligned with the principles of British Arianism.

151 Gerhard Pfandl, “The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Seventh-day Adventists,” Journal of the

basically nontrinitarian in emphasis, but because of their ambiguity, could be read without conflict by Adventists regardless of both trinitarian and antitrinitarian leanings.”152 Gane shows that Ellen White eventually opposed the Arian view and supported the co-equality and co-eternity of the Son with the Father.153 However, he failed to highlight these ambiguous statements from White before the late 1880s that may be interpreted as supporting Semi-Arian views.

The corpus of Ellen White’s writings holds an authoritative position among Seventh-day Adventists, with her views on the Godhead prior to 1888 neither explicitly negating nor affirming the doctrine of the Trinity. However, the absence of positive evidence for the Trinity does not necessarily indicate a rejection of the doctrine. This ambiguity could result in divergent interpretations of her views on the subject. Moreover, there is a dearth of White’s statements prior to 1888 that unambiguously affirm the full divinity and individuality of the Holy Spirit. These ambivalent statements between 1846 and 1888 lend credence to the proposition that she may have played a role in the early Adventist’s rejection of the Trinity.

Summary and Conclusion

Many of the Seventh-day Adventist pioneers were anti-Trinitarians. The eight reasons they rejected the Trinity support the fundamental fact that they outrightly parted ways with the rest of Christendom regarding their view of the Godhead as three persons in one God.

Some reasons why they rejected the doctrine of the Trinity were, first, a faulty or inaccurate view of what the doctrine espoused. Second, their perceived as a lack of evidence from Scripture to validate such a concept. Third, their perceived origins of the doctrine of the Trinity as a Roman Catholic heresy. Fourth, their understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity distorted the biblical concept of atonement. Fifth, their religious predisposition to antiTrinitarianism. Sixth, the creedal overtones of the doctrine of the Trinity. Seventh, their appropriation of a rationalistic approach and common-sense philosophy to understand the Trinity; and finally, Ellen White’s silence about the doctrine of the Trinity and ambiguous statements before the late 1880s may have indirectly influenced the other pioneers to reject the Trinity.

The rationales expounded in this feature for the rejection of the Trinity in the Adventist church are not exhaustive, as there may have existed other contributing factors. However, these reasons were elucidated to aid readers in situating the Trinity debate within the Adventist context. It was not an endorsement of the pioneers’ position

Adventist Theological Society, 17/1 (Spring 2006):163.

but rather an augmentation of the discourse on the topic to enhance transparency. Although Adventist theology later gradually transformed towards embracing a Trinitarian conception of God, an appreciation of their early perspectives elucidates the constantly evolving theological milieu within the Adventist movement.

152 Moon, The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s “Heavenly Trio” Compared to the Traditional Doctrine,” 148.

153 Gane, “The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer.”

Theological Validation of the Trinity

By Dillan Edwards B.A.

Introduction:

A pagan extrapolation? Ecclesiastical imposition?

Imperial coercion? Or biblical exposition? The word “Trinity” is derived from the Latin “Trinitas” and means “triad” or “threeness.” Although the term itself is not present in the biblical canon, the theological concept offers a systematic synthesis of all biblical data concerning the identity and nature of God in this regard. Grudem succinctly summarizes the essential tenets of this doctrine by stating that “God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.”1

Biblical Monotheism

God has revealed himself to us, propositionally, through the Holy Scriptures and the Bible repeatedly and clearly affirms a monotheistic conception of God. This means that in contrasts to all that exists there is only one true God.2 The well-known Judaic Shema, situated in Deuteronomy 6:4, states “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one (echad) Lord.” In contrast to ancient near eastern polytheism God emphatically declares “I am the Lord, and there is none else, there

is no God beside me...” (Isaiah 45:5). Even Jesus himself affirmed that “The Lord our God is one Lord” (Mark 12:29). However, biblical monotheism does not negate a unity as even the word “echad” , used in Deuteronomy, is used to refer to the union of the Edenic pair as “one.” (Genesis 2:24).

Personhood: Hypostatic Diversity

Scripture clearly outlines that there are three persons, or centres of consciousness, within the Godhead.

Notice this passage in John 14:16 “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;” Jesus here refers to three distinct persons namely, I (Jesus), the Father and another comforter all in interpersonal relations with one another. The Greek word for “another” is “ἄλλος” and means “another of the same kind”3 further emphasizing distinct personhood.

Trinitarian Ontology: Each as Fully God

A coherent doctrine of God must account for the extensive internal biblical evidence that identifies three distinct Persons who are each fully and properly designated as God. In relation to the Father, 1 Corinthians 8:6 affirms “there is but one God, the Father.” The Son, Jesus, is also referred to as God in many Biblical passages (John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8).

1 Gerhard Pfandl, The Trinity in Scripture, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 86, quoting Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 226.

2 Fernando Canale, “Doctrine of God,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 121.

3 Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek, rev. by Thomas Sawyer (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 27.

Consider John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 1:14 makes it makes it unmistakably clear that the “Word” is identical to the incarnate Son of God. Observe Titus 2:13, “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Following the Granville Sharp Rule of the koine Greek’s grammatical structure both nouns “God” and “Saviour” refer to Jesus Christ. Scripture also refers to the Holy Spirit as divine (Acts 5:3-4) and ascribes non-communicable attributes of God to Him i.e., omnipresence (Psalm 139:7–8) and eternality (Hebrews 9:14).

Conclusion

The Bible clearly affirms the central tenets of trinitarian theology. Namely, there is but one God, and there are three distinct persons properly called God. This scriptural data is necessary to a right conception of God and of the plan of salvation as each member of the Godhead plays a unique role in the salvation of mankind. The Pauline benediction to the church of Corinth is fitting here “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

References

Canale, Fernando. “Doctrine of God.” In Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, edited by Raoul Dederen, 105–188. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Pfandl, Gerhard. The Trinity in Scripture. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 80–94.

Summers, Ray. Essentials of New Testament Greek Revised by Thomas Sawyer. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Dr. Devron A. Thomas Chief Editor Pastor Apologist

Final Thought

This feature of Faith in Focus showed that the rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity by the early Seventh-day Adventist pioneers was not simply a theological issue but also a philosophical and cultural one. The pioneers were influenced by many factors, including their theological perspectives, the cultural milieu in which they lived, and the philosophical presuppositions underpinning their beliefs The religious and philosophical climate in which Seventh-day Adventists were born demonstrated that they inculcated some ideas that percolated within the broader cultural context. Deism, Methodists, Restorationists, Christian Connexionists, and common sense philosophy influenced early Adventist theology and practice.

Overall, we provided a historical and philosophical perspective on the early Seventh-day Adventist pioneers’ rejection of the Trinity and shed light on the intellectual underpinnings of their theological beliefs. Being a by-product of the Millerite Movement and, by extension, the Second Great Awakening, early Seventh-day Adventists utilized common sense philosophy, creating the context for their rejection of the Trinity.

Dr. Devron A. Thomas Editor in Chief