The Trinity Doctrine

The article below is an unfinished rewrite of another article I wrote years ago. I have no intentions of bringing the article to completion. I now operate from a fixed position of not getting involved publicly in internal Adventist discussions on 1888, perfectionism, the nature of Christ and the trinity doctrine. But since this draft was on files anyway I thought I would make this one time only contribution to a debate that has gone on more or less unabated within Christianity for the last 1600 years.

Please remember the article is under construction (permanently) and make allowances for that.

Kind regards,

Victor

The Trinity Doctrine and the Seventh-day Adventist Church

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has for the last 100 years repudiated the pioneer's Arian teachings which rejected the eternal pre-existence of Christ. Does the Church's full acceptance of the complete deity of Christ and the acceptance of the Holy Spirit as the third "person" of the Godhead constitute proof the church has entered a state of apostasy as some claim?

R. F. Cottrell Review of June 1, 1869,

"This has been a popular doctrine and regarded as orthodox ever since the bishop of Rome was elevated to the popedom on the strength of it. It is accounted dangerous heresy to reject it; but each person is permitted to explain the doctrine in his own way. All seem to think they must hold it, but each has perfect liberty to take his own way to reconcile its contradictory propositions; and hence a multitude of views are held concerning it by its friends, all of them orthodox, I suppose, as long as they nominally assent to the doctrine. For myself, I have never felt called upon to neither explain it, nor to adopt and defend it, neither have I ever preached against it. "

"The Trinity doctrine did not exist in the SDA Church from its inception. It was not a doctrine at all during Ellen G. White's lifetime to her death in 1915." (Ichabod, The Glory Is Departed! Richard Nickels)

In 1892 the Pacific Press published an article originally written by a non-Adventist writer that demonstrated a wide acceptance of the Trinity doctrine within the Adventist Church. The article entitled, "The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity" was written by Samuel Spear and had been previously published in 1889 in the New York Independent. The Pacific Press reprinted it in 1892 as No. 90 if the Bible Student's Library. The Spear article defines the Godhead as a trinity of three divine persons. It says,

"This doctrine, as held and stated by those who adopt it, is not a system of tri-theism, or the doctrine of three Gods, but it is the doctrine of one God subsisting and acting in three persons, with the qualification that the term "person", though perhaps the best that can be used, is not, when used in this relation, to be understood in any sense that would make it inconsistent with the unity of the Godhead, and hence not to be understood in the ordinary sense when applied to man."

The period 1845 to 1900 represented a time of transition in Adventist Christology and during that period the pioneers, albeit slowly, progressively adopted positions that were nearer to but never fully biblical in their teaching. It cannot be denied that because many of the leaders among the early Adventist came from the Christian Connection Church, which taught the Arian doctrine, the Seventh-day Adventist Church itself began as an Arian Church. However, an important qualification needs to be made.

Almost from the beginning the Arian doctrine was under challenge and although it was widely accepted by those in leadership positions there is no evidence it had the status of a cardinal doctrine among the laity.

The evidence indicates that many of those who joined the church in the early days were trinitarians and that they did not abandon that belief. Because of this the Arian doctrine came under sustained pressure very early in Adventist history and this fact allow us to say that statistically at least the Seventh-day Adventist Church has never wholly been an Arian Church. The mere fact Uriah Smith was editor of the Review and Herald for forty years and persistently promoted Arianism does not prove Arianism was the only teaching around.

What the evidence essentially shows is that Smith retained his Arian beliefs years after others, including Ellen White, embraced the trinity doctrine. Moreover, while the Arian doctrine was the prevailing interpretation of Christ's preexistence for the early Adventists there is clear evidence that it progressively lost ground. The Seventh-day Adventist Church was not organized until 1863 so the important question is, was the Arian doctrine the only belief held by Adventist in 1863? The answer is a plain and distinct NO.

In 1846 James White spoke of "the old unscriptural trinitarian Creed"1 and in 1852 he condemned "the old trinitarian absurdity that Christ is the very and eternal God."2 James White never accepted the eternal preexistence of Christ yet in 1876 he wrote: "the S D Adventist hold the deity of Christ so nearly with the trinitarians that we apprehend no trial here."3 1 The Day Star Jan. 21, 1846 , 2 R&H Aug.5, 1852, 3 R&H Oct. 12, 1876.

What are we to make of this? We can say this much, by 1878 James White had adopted an understanding of the deity of Christ that placed him nearer to the Trinitarian teaching than he was in 1852. A teaching he once called an "absurdity" in 1652 he came to call "so nearly" his own in 1878. This fact offers clear evidence by 1876 a significant change had taken place in his thinking.

White's opposing statements are not merely a reflection his own experience, they demonstrate a major shift in the understanding of Christology had taken place for many of the early pioneers. 1 The Day Star Jan. 21, 1846, 2 R&H Aug.5, 1852, 3 R&H Oct. 12,

Being vs. Status

According to J.H. Waggoner,

"The great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, seems to be 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." (J.H. Waggoner The Atonement, 1872 ed, chapter 4, "Doctrine Of A Trinity Subversive Of The Atonement" p. 165)

"But while as the Son he does not possess a coeternity of past existence with the Father, the beginning of his existence, as the begotten of the Father, antedates the entire work of creation, in relation to which he stands as joint creator with God. John 1:3; Heb 1:2. Could not the Father ordain that to such a being worship should be rendered equally with himself, without its being idolatry on the part of the worshiper? He has raised him to positions which make it proper that he should be worshipped, and has even commanded that worship should be rendered him, which would not have been necessary had he been equal with the Father in eternity of existence." (Uriah Smith Thoughts on the Book of Daniel and the Revelation 1882, p. 430)

Some claim the church has apostatized from the pioneers teaching. But how is it possible to teach what they taught when from 1850 to 1890 Adventism was progressively revising its thinking? The pioneers continually modified existing beliefs and because this was done gradually and over a long period even they were not always aware of the full extent to which they had changed. The truth is, by 1900 the Adventist Church had embraced a Christology identical to the one the first generation of Adventists opposed.

The Arian doctrine was limited to the American experience and was not exported elsewhere. The first training school established in Australia (now Avondale College) taught the trinity doctrine from its inception which means significantly, the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Australia has never taught the Arian doctrine. Those who are promoting the Arian doctrine are not only misinformed biblically, they hold to a false view of Adventist history. Over a period of just over fifty years the Seventh-day Adventist Church transformed itself from an Arian church into a Trinitarian church. That is progress, it is not apostasy.

Christ a Created Being

For almost forty years some Adventists taught that Christ was a created being. In 1865 Uriah Smith wrote,

"Moreover he (Christ) is "the beginning of the creation of God." Not the beginner, but the beginning, of creation. the first created being next to the self existent eternal God." (Thoughts Critical and Practical on the Book of Revelation p.59)

Smith continued to teach that Christ was a "created being" for the next seventeen years. However, in 1882 he adopted a new position, he then began to teach, "the Scriptures nowhere speak of Christ as a created being." (Daniel and Revelation, p.430, 1882 edition.)

When he wrote his book, Looking Unto Jesus in 1898 he described Christ as the "uncreated Word". (See p.10) His writings therefore constitute documented evidence that that for around four decades the pioneers taught that Christ was a created being albeit eventually many of them abandoned that position.

In an article on the atonement printed in the Review and Herald Nov. 14 1854 J M Stephenson set out what was at the time a standard position for the pioneers that Christ was a created being. After commenting on Col.1: 15 and identifying Christ as "the first born of every creature" he wrote,

"Creature signifies creation; hence to be the first born of every creature (creation), he must be a created being; and as such, his life and his immortality must depend upon the Father's will just as much as angels, or redeemed men."

While Stephenson said that Christ "must be a created being" he also argued that His title as the only begotten Son of God "must be understood in a different sense than to be a Son by creation". In spite of appearances Stephenson is not contradicting himself, he was simply saying that Christ's role as the only begotten "Son of God" makes Him "different" to those who can only be called the sons of God in earthly terms.

When Stephenson claimed that there are "different" types of sons of God he was not reject the teaching that Christ was created, he was merely defining variation of status within the created order.

In 1890 E J Waggoner rejected the idea that Christ was a created being. He claimed Christ was "begotten" not created.1 For Waggoner the terms begotten and created were understood to mean different things. However, the pioneers treated them as synonymous terms, which means Waggoner's arbitrary distinction created a break with the past. Waggoner wrote, "the idea that Christ is a created being" is "an opinion that is honestly held by many." Among the "many" who Waggoner said believed Christ was a created being were some who held key positions in the church.1 E. J. Wagoner Christ and His Righteousness p. 21, 2 Ibid p.19

The fact that Uriah Smith could write in 1882 after having taught the exact opposite for thirty years that "the Scriptures nowhere speak of Christ as a created being" suggests that early Adventism had in some ways modified its teachings. But for some, like Uriah Smith, the modifications were only cosmetic. In his 1899 edition of Thoughts on the Book of Daniel and the Revelation" Smith wrote:

"Others, however, and more properly we think, take the word to mean "agent" or "efficient cause," which is one of the definitions of the word, understanding that Christ is the agent through whom God has created all things, but that he himself came into existence in a different manner, as he is called 'the only begotten' of the Father. It would seem utterly inappropriate to apply this expression to any being created in the ordinary sense of the term."

"Moreover, he [Christ] is the beginning of the creation of God. ... The language does not necessarily imply that he was created; for the words... may simply signify that the work of creation, strictly speaking, was begun by him. Without him was not anything made. Others, however, and more properly we think, take the word (for beginning in Greek) to mean the agent or efficient cause, ... understanding that Christ is the agent through whom God has created all things, but that he himself came into existence in a different manner, as he is called the only begotten of the Father." (J. N. Loughborough)

Conditional Immortality

The pioneers taught that Christ had no inherent immortality in the sense that God has it, they believed He possessed the conditional immortality of an unfallen created being and was immortal only in the sense the angels are immortal. In an article on the atonement J M Stephenson claimed Christ "must be a created being; and as such, his life and immortality must depend upon the Father's will just as much as angels or redeemed men. "(1) In his book on the atonement J H Waggoner challenged Christ's complete deity and spoke strongly against "the Supreme Deity of Christ". He argued Christ could not be inherently immortal because if Christ had the "self existent" nature of deity there could be no atonement because Christ could not have died. (1) R&H The Atonement Nov. 14 1853. (2) J H Waggoner, The Atonement Pacific Press 1884 p.174.

The idea that Christ derived His immortality from a source outside of Himself was also a constant theme of A T Jones. Jones claimed, "as God is the only one who has it, it follows that immortality must be sought of God through Christ." 1 D M Canright stated, "God is the only one who, in himself possesses immortality."2 In this thinking only God has immortality within Himself; Christ got His from an outside source. For the pioneers Christ was the medium, but not the source of immortality.1( A T Jones Bible Questions and Answers Concerning Man Pacific Press 1890 p.4., (2) R&H Aug. 29 1878)

By 1890 the pioneers had begun to give up their belief that Christ possessed a conditional immortality and E J Waggoner was teaching that Christ had the same inherent immortality God has. J H Waggoner (E J's father) had claimed that Christ could only be called God "in a subordinate sense" (1) but in 1890 E J Waggoner rejected this teaching and taught Christ was "the equal of the Father in all respects." (1) J H Waggoner, The Atonement p.153, (2) E J Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness p.43)

In Waggoner's 1890 presentation we are taken from the concept that Christ could only be called God "in a subordinate sense" to the higher thought that His divinity is "equal" with God in the full sense. It is clear that EJ Waggoner's 1890 Christology represented a real rejection of the pioneers' early teachings.

By accepting in 1890 that Christ was inherently immortal Waggoner had clearly rejected the pioneers position that Christ needed to have conditional immortality in order to die on the cross. This means, if Waggoner was not a Trinitarian in 1890 neither was he a defender of the Christoloqv of the pioneers.

The Emergence of Trinitarian Adventism in 1892

The rise of the trinity doctrine to a dominant position within the church was not an event accomplished by the conspiratorial maneuvers of a few men in a short time as some imagine. It was the outworking of a slow process that occurred over a period of not less than fifty years. The trinity doctrine was not imposed on the church arbitrarily as some claim it evolved slowly from within as an emerging popular opinion.

Almost from the beginning there were trinitarians in the church. The reason was, those who converted to the church from other Christian denominations were Trinitarians. And the reality is, Trinitarians are inclined to remain Trinitarians, regardless of what other allegiances they may alter. Because the majority of those who came into the church as Trinitarians remained Trinitarians this built up a solid Trinitarian presence in the church. There was no great act of conspiratorial apostasy rather very simple means brought the trinity doctrine to the church. The church embraced the trinity doctrine through the simple process of continually baptizing trinitarians through its church growth until eventually the trinitarians outnumbered the Arians.

History was playing a numbers game. As the missionary endeavors of the church intensified, most converts were trinitarians. Accordingly, time itself guaranteed the Trinitarian presence would ultimately become the strongest. Was the gradual conversion to trinitarianism an accident of history, or was God using history?

Tension over the trinity doctrine occurred early. According to J H Waggoner aspects of the trinity doctrine were being debated in the church in 1877. Waggoner writes; "There is one question which is much controverted ... the personality of the Holy Spirit." (The Spirit of God, Its Office and Manifestations) After a time the debate over the personality of the Holy Spirit got permanently bogged down on what the term "person" was supposed to mean. Waggoner concluded that there was so much confusion no resolution was in sight. He writes,

"Prevailing ideas of a person are very diverse, and the word is differently understood; so that unity on this point cannot be expected until all shall be able to define precisely what they mean by the word, ... But as this agreement does not exist, it seems that a discussion of the subject cannot be profitable, especially as it is not a question of direct revelation." Ibid.

Waggoner's statements reveal that in 1877 there was intense discussion over the personality of the Holy Spirit. A debate over the personality of the Holy Spirit represents a debate over the trinity doctrine. Since Waggoner's statement reveals that the church was experiencing doctrinal tension in 1877 in an open debate on the Godhead issue this shows that many Adventists were already openly Trinitarians by 1877.

In 1890 the Godhead was again being debated, and the polarization in our ranks intensified. An article by D T Bourdeau in the Review and Herald in November 1890 points to Adventists having more than one concept of deity because Bourdeau paints a picture of the church entertaining a smorgasbord of opinions.

"Although we claim to be believers in, and worshipers of, only one God, I have thought that there are as many gods among us as there are conceptions of Deity. And how many there are of these."

Here we see that in 1877 and in 1890 the church was involved in discussions over the "personality" of the Holy Spirit and various "conceptions of deity". Now if there was public debate over the trinity doctrine in 1877 and 1890, how could the trinity doctrine have been introduced to the church for the first time by Kellogg in 1903 or "secretly" by Froom in 1931? If the church was having internal debates over the trinity doctrine in 1877 and 1890 does not that mean many in the church already held the Trinity doctrine?

Some claim that Kellogg introduced the trinity doctrine along with his pantheism into the church in 1904. However, the Seventh-day Adventist Church identified itself with the trinity doctrine in 1892 when the Pacific Press published the tract, The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity, NO.90 in The Bible Students Library.

A reprint of Samuel Spear's article, the tract upheld "the doctrine of one God subsisting and acting in three persons." (p.9) This tract on the Trinity was read by hundreds of Adventist ministers and church members, and it was extensively distributed to the public. Because of its endorsement and distribution by official sources Spears article is proof the Seventh-day Adventist church was teaching the trinity doctrine in 1892.

The church began to teach the trinity doctrine eleven years before Kellogg published his views on pantheism. Moreover, the records show Kellogg did not embrace the trinity doctrine until 1904 about a year after The Living Temple was written and 12 years after the church distributed Spears article on the trinity. The claim Kellogg introduced the trinity doctrine into the church is nonsense.

An article in the Review and Herald April 3 1900 stated; "Let Him [the Holy Spirit] make you know, beloved, how surpassingly beautiful are the blended personalities of our triune God." If the church published a tract on "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity" in 1892, and published an article promoting "the triune God" in 1900, how could Kellogg have introduced the trinity doctrine into the church for the first time in 1904?

In 1898 R A Underwood stated in the in the Review and Herald that he had accepted the Trinitarian concept of the Holy Spirit. Looking back at his Arian beliefs he wrote, "It seems strange to me now, that I ever believed the Holy Spirit was only an influence, in view of the work he does.1 Underwood's doctrinal conversion shows that Adventists in key positions in the 1890's were not only accepting the trinity doctrine, they were teaching it in the church paper. 1 The Holy Spirit a Person R&H May 17 1898

As he tells the story, when he first read Desire of Ages M L Andreasen was surprised to see it was teaching the "doctrine of the Trinity" and advocating a teaching that the pioneers had vehemently opposed.

"I remember how astonished we were when Desire of Ages was first published, for it contained some things we considered unbelievable; among other things the doctrine of the trinity which was not generally accepted by Adventists then." (The Spirit of Prophecy unpublished Chapel address, Loma Linda, Nov. 30 1948)

Andreasen's statement that the trinity doctrine "was not generally accepted by Adventists then" confirms the fact that it was accepted by some, and that there was a trinitarian presence in the church in 1898.

The Spear article defines the Godhead as a trinity of three divine persons. It says,

Ellen White's Trinitarian Confession

By 1898 Ellen White had completed her transition from being an Arian to becoming a Trinitarian. Prior to 1898 Ellen White never refers to the Holy Spirit as the "third person of the Godhead", however, after 1898 the Holy Spirit is consistently, with a few exceptions, referred to as the "third person" within deity.

Ellen White eventually came to refer to the Godhead as the "heavenly trio". That is irreducible Trinitarian terminology. A heavenly "trio" is a trinity, and cannot mean anything else. Whoever believes in a "heavenly trio" is saying they believe in a Godhead made up of three persons. If the following statements cannot be described as an endorsement of the trinity doctrine then Ellen White's writings are incomprehensible.

"The Comforter that Christ premised to send after He ascended to heaven is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio. In the name of these three powers, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, those who receive Christ by faith are baptized." (Bible Training School March 1906)

"Here is where the work of the Holy Ghost comes in, after your baptism. You are baptized in the name of Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ... You are born unto God, and stand under the action and power of the three holiest beings in the universe, who are able to keep you from falling. When I feel oppressed ... I just call upon the three great worthies, and say; "You know I cannot do this in my own strength. You must work in me." (Manuscript Release Vol. 7 p.267, 268)

The pioneers taught that Christ "derived" His life from the Father. Against this Ellen White wrote,

Jesus declared, "I am the resurrection, and the life." In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life. The Desire of Ages, p. 530.

The pioneers taught that there was a time when Christ did not exist. Against this Ellen White wrote,

"Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God.... In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him". (Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900)

The following abbreviated references from Ellen White's writings clearly identify her with the Trinitarian teaching.

Desire Of Ages p.671 "the third person of the Godhead."

Southern Watchman Nov. 28 1905 "the third person of the Godhead."

Review And Herald May 19 1904 "the third person of the Godhead."

Review And Herald Nov.19 1908 "the third person of the Godhead."

Signs Dec.1 1989 "the third person of the Godhead."

Signs June19 1901 " the three great powers of heaven."

Signs Feb.12 1902 "the three great powers of heaven."

Signs March 11 1903 "the three great powers of heaven."

Signs May 10 1905 "the three great powers of heaven."

Signs July 16 1905" the three highest powers in the universe... the three great powers."

Signs May 10 1910 "the three great powers of heaven n. the third person of the Godhead."

8 Testimonies p.254 "the three great powers of heaven."

Australasian Conference Record Oct. 7 1907" the three powers of the Godhead."

Bible Training School March 1 1906 "three Living persons in the heavenly trio."

General Conference Bulletin April 4 1901 "these three great, infinite powers."

General Conference Bulletin April 14 1901 "these three great powers of heaven."

Pacific Union Recorder July 2 1908" the three highest powers in the universe."

Southern Watchman Feb, 23 1904 "the three great powers of heaven."

Southern Watchman Dec. 15 1908 the three highest powers in the universe.

Review And Herald May 5 1903 "the three great powers of heaven."

Review And Herald May 26 1904" the three highest powers Of heaven."

Review And Herald June 15 1905 "the three great powers of heaven."

Review And Herald June 22 1905 the three great powers

Review And Herald July 18 1907 "the three powers of the Godhead."

Review And Herald Aug.12 1909 "the three highest powers in the Universe."

Australasian Conference Record Oct. 7 1907 " the three powers of the Godhead."

Manuscript Releases Vo. 7 p. 267 "the three holiest beings in heaven."

Manuscript 95, 1906, p.4" the three great worthies in heaven."

Testimonies Containing Letters to Physicians and Ministers 1904 "the three living persons of the heavenly trio."

The word Trinity means three and a Trinitarian is someone who believes there are three persons in the Godhead. The above statements cannot do anything other than identify Ellen White as a Trinitarian. To say Ellen White opposed the Trinity doctrine after she wrote Desire of Ages is nonsense.