Monday, July 21, 2025

But Harmless As Doves - Table Of Contents


See My Brother Blog
Be Wise As Serpents
Christian Science, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses & Judeo-Freemasonry
www.BeWiseAsSerpents.blogspot.com


Also See
Hitler And The Trinity
The Trinity in Nazi Germany in regards to Positive Christianity, Freemasonry, Theosophy and the Cults of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Seventh Day Adventists





Beginning in Freemasonry










Back And Forth On The Trinity












Not Zionists 
(7th Day Adventist Specifically)




7th Day Adventists & Anti-Masonry?





7th Day Adventists & Nazism


















Wednesday, July 26, 2023

Jewish Encyclopedia says Adventists were Christian Zionists (might not apply to 7th Day Adventists)

See Table Of Contents

PLEASE SUPPORT ME 
https://www.patreon.com/VincentBruno

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Adventists were Christian Zionists, but this may not apply to the 7th Day Adventist Church but perhaps could go back to Miller, must research. 

https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/869-adventists

ADVENTISTS:

By: Kaufmann Kohler

A Christian sect. Among the chief tenets of the Adventist faith are: (1) The restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land (see Bengel, "Gnomon on the New Testament"), and their conversion, based on Rom. xi. 25, 26 (Ritschl, "Gesch. des Pietismus," i. 565-584). Hence the interest shown by the Adventists in the Zionist movement, though many believe that the return will not take place till after the Resurrection, basing their views on the passage of Ezekiel, "Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel"(xxxvii. 12). (2) Literal interpretation of the whole Bible, including the Old Testament and the Mosaic law.

The notion of waiting for the Second Advent of Jesus, calculated to take place during the present generation, originated in England (E. Irving), spread over Ireland (A. Darby) and Germany (I. A. Bengel), and became especially popular in New England under the influence of W. Miller of Pittsfield, Mass., the prophet who predicted the coming of the Messiah in the year 1843, basing his calculation principally on the "seventy weeks" of Daniel. A division of the Adventists accentuated the Sabbath of Creation, and the consequence was the formation of the Seventh-Day Adventists. Some insisted also on abstinence from swine's flesh, in accordance with the Mosaic law.

Bibliography:

  • Carroll, 'Religious Forces of the United States, New York, 1893;
  • White, Sketches of the Life of William Miller, Battle Creek, Michigan, 1879;
  • Loughborough, Rise and Progress of Seventh-Day Baptists, Battle Creek, Michigan, 1891.

 

Monday, July 24, 2023

Ellen White said spiritual Old Jerusalem would never be rebuilt

See Table Of Contents


 https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-faq-unus-html/#unusual-section-d2

Jerusalem Never to Be Rebuilt?

Ellen G. White wrote in 1851 that "old Jerusalem never would be built up." [1] By itself, the statement looks unsustainable. But when the setting is reconstructed, we find Mrs. White counseling the growing Adventist group that both time-setting [2] and the "age-to-come" notion [3] were incompatible with Biblical truth. She emphasized that the Old Testament prophecies regarding the establishment of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine were conditional on obedience and forfeited by disobedience. Unfulfilled prophecies would be fulfilled to "true Israel" as unfolded in the New Testament text.

Thus the popular movement of the 1840s and 1850s to promote a Zionist state in Palestine was not a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and not a quest in which Adventists should become involved. Her warnings and instruction were designed to turn the interest away from Palestine and toward the work God had opened up before them.

In a September 1850 vision she saw that it was a "great error" to believe that "it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have a work to do there before the Lord comes. . . ; for those who think that they are yet to go to Jerusalem will have their minds there, and their means will be withheld from the cause of present truth to get themselves and others there." [4]

Less than a year later, August 1851, she wrote with greater emphasis "that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering time, to keep them from throwing their whole interest into the present work of the Lord, and to cause them to neglect the necessary preparation for the day of the Lord." [5]

How did Ellen White's readers understand this statement? That there was no light in the popular "age-to-come" teaching, that there is no Biblical significance in the Jews' returning to Palestine, that Jerusalem will never be rebuilt in a future millennial period. She was not talking about a possible political rebuilding of Jerusalem but of a prophetically significant rebuilding of Old Jerusalem. To continue to think that way, she emphasized, was to sink further into Satan's deceptions and away from present duty.

For further study of this topic, see Julia Neuffer, "The Gathering of Israel," in the Reference Library.

Notes

[1] Early Writings, p. 75. This sentence appears in the chapter, "The Gathering Time," which combined two visions and some additional lines. The first vision, Sept. 23, 1850, dealt with the "gathering time" of "Israel," the dates on the Millerite 1843 chart, the "daily," timesetting, and the error of going to Old Jerusalem. The second vision, June 21, 1851, focused on the third angel's message, time-setting, and Old Jerusalem's not being built up.

[2] Many former Millerites were setting various dates for the return of Jesus, with 1850 and 1851 being the latest dates for the end of the 2300-day/year prophecy. Although Sabbatarian Adventists generally were immune from time-setting, Hiram Edson and Joseph Bates advocated 1850 and 1851, respectively. James White kept their views out of Present Truth, the Advent Review, and the Review and Herald.

[3] With several variations, age-to-come exponents, led by Joseph Marsh, O. R. L. Crosier, and George Storrs, believed that the Second Advent would usher in the millennial kingdom on earth during which time the world would be converted under the reign of Christ, with the Jews playing a leading role. This group closely related to the Literalists (British Adventists) who had believed that in the 1840s the literal Jews would welcome their Messiah (Christ) in Palestine, thus fulfilling Old Testament prophecies with Jerusalem becoming Christ's capital during the millennium. The majority of the Millerites had rejected this aspect of their Adventist theology, calling it Judaism. (See Josiah Litch, "The Rise and Progress of Adventism," The Advent Shield and Review, May 1844, p. 92, cited in Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students' Source Book, p. 513. The first defectors from early Seventh-day Adventists were H. S. Case and C. P. Russell who had, among other concepts, embraced the "age-to-come" theory. See The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, s.v. "Messenger Party."

[4] Early Writings, p. 75.

[5] Early Writings, pp. 75, 76.

[Excerpt from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1998), pp. 488, 489.]

Adventist view Israel as a political state and not connected to prophecy

See Table Of Contents



 https://adventistreview.org/2007-1531/2007-1531-8/

NOVEMBER 7, 2007

How Should Christians View Israel?

SUMMER IN WASHINGTON, D.C., IS KNOWN to bring tourists to the U.S. Capitol, but the 4,500 or so visitors there in mid-July were not your typical camera-toting crowd. Dressed, for the most part, in business attire and wearing name tags, many sported flag pins with the standards of the United States and a country slightly smaller than New Jersey, the blue-and-white banner of the State of Israel.

 

The crowds, carefully organized to visit specified congressional offices, were there to deliver a political message: the United States should continue its support of the Jewish state, which, as is often noted, is the only democracy in the Middle East.

 

These de facto lobbyists had just finished a few days of meetings, lectures, and instruction in what to say and how to say it. A “Night to Honor Israel” banquet brought leading members of Congress, including its sole Sabbathkeeping Senator, Joseph Lieberman (ID-Conn.), an orthodox Jew, to hear the thunderous cheers of the crowd for Israel and its people.

 

The event, however, was not a function held by the nation’s Jewish community, nor were the energetic visitors even Jews. Instead, the participants were members of Christians United for Israel, which describes itself as “a national Christian grassroots movement focused on one issue: supporting Israel. Although we are less than two years old, we are spreading like a wildfire and are changing the nature of support for Israel in America.”1

 

The growth of “Christian Zionism” has raised concerns—and questions—among Seventh-day Adventists and other Christians in recent months: How should Christians view Israel, both as a political reality and a prophetic question? Is the modern-day state of Israel a fulfillment of Bible prophecy? And what about the small, but growing, Adventist community in Israel?

 

Unlike many evangelical churches, the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not support a “dispensational” view of prophecy. Adventism is not awaiting a “secret rapture,” after which tens of thousands of Jews—144,000, to be precise—will be converted and evangelize those “left behind.” The 1948 establishment of the State of Israel, an outgrowth of the Nazi Holocaust in which 6 million Jews were killed, is viewed by Adventists as a political, not a prophetic event. And, again apart from our evangelical friends, Adventism embraces the Bible Sabbath, an institution long preserved and observed by the Jewish people.

 

Christian Zionist leaders such as John Hagee, founder of the “Christians United” group and author of a New York Times best-selling book supporting Israel called Jerusalem Countdown, deny that their support for Israel is linked to end-time prophetic scenarios: “Our support of Israel has absolutely nothing to do with end times or eschatology,” he told a Washington news conference on July 17. Later in the session, he addressed the audience of an Israeli journalist in attendance: “My message to the people of Israel would be to have hope. The God that founded the State of Israel is going to deliver the State of Israel.”

 

Such unbridled enthusiasm hasn’t gone unchallenged, however, even within evangelical circles: Stephen Sizer, a British Anglican vicar, is a strong opponent of Hagee’s position, with two books, Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon? and Zion’s Christian Soldiers, winning endorsements from evangelical academics and radio apologist Hank Hanegraaff. Sizer’s opposition to Christian Zionism came from an early trip to Israel, where he discovered Arab Christians living in Bethlehem. That experience, he wrote, forced him to rethink his views.

 

Hanegraaff, who hosts a daily Bible Answer Man program on dozens of Christian radio stations, has written The Apocalypse Code to question both pretribulation rapture theories and Christian Zionism; he’s also the coauthor of a new novel, Fuse of Armageddon, (with Sigmund Brouwer, Tyndale House, 2007) which attacks those theories through a fictional motif involving a band consisting of “an unholy trinity of a Jewish fanatic, a Muslim terrorist, and a ‘Christian’ freedom fighter.”2

 

Caught between these two positions—the highly vocal and public support of Christian Zionists such as John Hagee, and those who reject that view, such as Sizer and Hanegraaff—are the 871 baptized members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Israel and the roughly 350 additional people who attend weekly worship services in one of the 30 Adventist congregations there.

 

“The government accepts us as one of the Christian communities in the country,” said Richard Elofer, president of the Adventist Church there and pastor of the Jerusalem congregation. “I know that they know us, we don’t hesitate to communicate with them, and every year I am invited by the president of the state to attend a reception for the [leaders] of the Christian communities.”

 

Israeli media—not often a friend of Christian churches operating and evangelizing in the country—had very positive things to say about the Seventh-day Adventist Church when its publishing house, “Chaim Veshalom,” or, “Life and Peace,” opened in Jerusalem in 2003. The nation’s oldest newspaper, Haaretz, published a highly favorable report.

 

The article stressed the industry, honesty, temperate lifestyle, and Sabbathkeeping of Adventist believers, with one Israeli employer, identified only as “Eli,” saying, “They’re very neat and well-groomed. They don’t smoke, they don’t drink. They are excellent, diligent workers and completely honest. I trust them with my eyes closed. I bring them to a work site and don’t have to come back to check on them. Their word is golden.”3

 

The church has roots in the nation that predate the State of Israel, Elofer explained when I visited his Jerusalem office in 2004, roots that extend back to 1896. When Adventists formally organized as a church there some 77 years ago, Elofer noted, it was under the British-controlled Palestine Mandate. The association was named “Seventh-day Adventist Church in Palestine,” since the present-day State of Israel would not come into existence until 1948, 17 years later. Elofer, in a 2004 interview with Adventist News Net-work, said he has investigated ways of gaining recognition from the Palestinian Authority, and perhaps reopening an Adventist study center in East Jerusalem as a joint local headquarters.4

While those efforts continue, Elofer indicated he has contact with local Adventist members in the Palestinian-controlled area: “We have very few Adventists in the West Bank and none at all in the Gaza Strip. Their only connection with the church is through me and my visits from time to time to their home,” he said in an e-mail interview.

 

Elofer asks believers to keep an open mind about today’s Israel: “We would like our Adventist brethren to cease to see Israel as the ‘black sheep’ of the Middle East,” he told the Review.

 

“Maybe it is not the case in the United States, but recently a survey has been done in all the European countries, asking the question ‘Who is the biggest threat for the peace of the world?’ The majority of the people answered ‘Israel,’ not Iran, not terrorism, not [Osama] bin Laden, but Israel. This answer demonstrates a very high level of anti-Semitism, because rationally Israel is threatening no one, just defending [itself] against dozens of Muslim countries around who would like to see only one thing, its destruction,” Elofer said.

 

He added, “We have to remember from where we Adventists come: Israel is our spiritual ancestor. Israel has given to the world monotheism, the prophets, the Bible, Jesus, etc. . . . Just for these things, we must be grateful to them and pray for their salvation.”

 

Adventist theologian Angel Manuel Rodríguez, who directs the church’s Biblical Research Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland, said church members need to exercise care in considering Israel today.

 

“These are matters that need a more careful analysis and more careful expressions,” Rodríguez said in a September 2007 interview. “It is unfortunate that sometimes Israel has been seen by some as a people rejected. I had a friend who said, ‘Israel is the only nation on the face of the earth that has been rejected by God.’ That should not be the case.”

He added, “The Lord has used Israel in wonderful ways in the past and the present. If you look at the Scripture itself, it has reached us through the work of the Jewish people; the Lord used them to preserve that text for us. In the beginning of the Christian era, the Lord used Jews to hide biblical scrolls that have been a tremendous blessing to us today.”

 

And, Rodríguez points out, “Throughout history, they have been a tremendous witness to the law of God and to the Sabbath.”

 

Despite the fact that Adventists don’t endue Israel with the same views that dispensationalists hold, the story of modern-day Israel and the Jewish people remains important, Rodríguez said.

 

“The presence of Jews on the planet, and in Israel also, serves to witness to the Scriptures. The Scriptures are about God’s dealing with Israel and through Israel to the nations. They can be seen as a witness to the divine intervention in the Scriptures,” he said.

 

“Among Christians, probably the religious community who has a closer theological connection with Jewish biblical thinking [than any other] is the Adventist Church, and we should always be willing to extend the arm of fellowship to our Jewish friends,” Rodríguez said. But, he added, “political concerns should not be part of that agenda, so that motivation comes to play a significant role in this.”

 

Israel Field president Elofer agrees that handling the question of so-called “replacement theology” is a delicate one: “Today it is not rare that Jews come to me and ask me, ‘What does your church believe about Israel? Have they been rejected and replaced by the church or not?’ If we say the traditional answer to this question, we have no chance to be listened to in Israel.”

 

And, given the affinities between Seventh-day Adventists and observant Jews in areas such as the Sabbath, the health message, and the importance of a biblical faith, perhaps it would make sense for both groups to speak—as well as to listen—to each other.

 

______________________

1Source, “Christians United for Israel” Web site, www.cufi.org/site/PageServer, accessed Sept. 27, 2007.

2Tyndale fiction book details for Fuse of Armageddon, tinyurl.com/2fdlug, accessed Sept. 27, 2007.

3“Israel: Publishing House Opens to Positive Media Response,” Adventist News Network, Feb. 11, 2003, tinyurl.com/37d2cs, accessed Sept. 27, 2007.

4“Pastor and Palestinian Muslim Find Common Ground,” Adventist News Network, Aug. 3, 2004, tinyurl.com/2soof4, accessed Sept. 27, 2007.

 

____________

Mark A. Kellner is news editor for Adventist Review.


Read more at: https://adventistreview.org/2007-1531/2007-1531-8/

Sunday, July 23, 2023

PDF Ellen White's Masonic Words

See Table Of Contents



Ellen White's Masonic Words

PDF Available Here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N7Tr4DIQnRAnRSIB2ql7TQYJLU2VVp2b/view?usp=sharing

https://ia801601.us.archive.org/35/items/EllenG.WhiteUsesMasonicWords/EllenG.WhiteUsesMasonicWords.pdf


Books and Articles on Adventism and the Trinity

See Table Of Contents



 https://library.puc.edu/heritage/bib-SDAtrin.html?fbclid=IwAR2AjwYreiU3VjhAjaDRsCcGgn4aFXCT-vlUuj7MnWIRieFvnS-coh43rE4

SDAs and Doctrine of the Trinity
Bibliography by Gary Shearer
Adventist Studies Librarian
Pacific Union College Library

5-9-05

Books | Periodicals | Document Files | Web URLs

Books

Canale, Fernando. "Doctrine of God." In Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Edited by Raoul Dederen. "Commentary Reference, Series," Volume 12. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000. Pp.105-159.
Her. Coll. BS491.2 .S4 v.12 2000 (2nd copy in Reference collection)

Froom, Leroy Edwin. Movement of Destiny. Washington,DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1971. Trinity and related issues discussed pp.148-159, 169-180, 188-217, 269-299, 300-312, 322-325, 493-495 and 674-677.
Her. Coll. BX6115.2 .F76 (2nd copy in main collection)

Gane, Erwin Roy. "The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer." M.A. thesis. Andrews University, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1963. 119p.
Her. Coll. BT1350 .G3

Knight, George R. A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs. Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000. "Uplift Jesus: The Trinity, Full Divinity of Jesus, and Personhood of the Holy Spirit," pp.110-117.
Her. Coll. BX6121.8 .K55 2000 (2nd copy in main collection)

Pöhler, Rolf J. "Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology: A Study of the Problem of Doctrinal Development." Doctor of Theology dissertation. Andrews University, SDA Theological Seminary, 1995. Trinity discussed pp.168-184.
Her. Coll. BX6121.8 .P64 1995

Pöhler, Rolf J. Continuity and Change in Adventist Teaching: A Case Study in Doctrinal Development. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Peter Lang, 2000. The trinity discussed pp. 36-42.
Her. Coll. BX6121.8 .P644 2001 (2nd copy in main collection)

Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. Annotated Edition. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003. "Deity of Christ and Church Membership," pp.39-47 (See extended notes throughout); "Christ's Place in the Godhead," pp.507-511.
Her. Coll. BX6121.3 .K54 2003 (2nd copy in main collection)

Seventh-day Adventists Believe...: A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines. Washington, DC: Ministerial Association, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1988. Chapter 2, "The Godhead," pp.16-26.
Her. Coll. BX6121.3 .S42 1988 (2nd copy in main collection)

Wheeler, Gerald W. Is God a Committee?: What the Bible Teaches about the Godhead. Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1975. 47p.
BT111.2 .W53 (2nd copy in Heritage Coll.)

Whidden, Woodrow, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve. The Trinity: Understanding God's Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2002. Chapter 13, "Trinity and Anti-Trinitarianism in Seventh-day Adventist History," pp.190-203; Chapter 14, "Ellen White's Role in the Trinity Debate," pp.204-220; Supplement to Chapter 14, "Ellen White on the Trinity: The Basic Primary Documents," pp.221-231.
Her. Coll. BT109 .W53 2002 (2nd copy in main collection)

 

Periodicals

Anderson, Roy Allan. "Adventists and the Trinity." Adventist Review 160 (September 8,1983): 4-5.

Dederen, Raoul. "Reflections on the Doctrine of the Trinity." Andrews University Seminary Studies 8 (January 1970): 1-22.

Guy, Fritz. "What the Trinity Means to Me." Adventist Review 163 (September 11,1986): 12-14.

Loasby, R. E. "The Godhead of Jesus Christ." Ministry 27 (September 1954): 19-21.

Loasby, R. E. "The Unique Jesus." Ministry 27 (June 1954): 13-14.

Moon, Jerry. "The Adventist Trinity Debate, Part 1: Historical Overview." Andrews University Seminary Studies 41 (Spring 2003): 113-129.

Moon, Jerry. "The Adventist Trinity Debate, Part 2: The Role of Ellen G. White." Andrews University Seminary Studies 41 (Autumn 2003): 275-292.

Moon, Jerry. "Heresy or Hopeful Sign?: Early Adventists' Struggle With the Truth About the Trinity." Adventist Review 176 (April 22,1999): 8-13.

Pfandl, Gerhard. "The Trinity and Adventists." Record (South Pacific Division) 105 (July 22,2000): 8-9.

Rodríguez, Angel Manuel. "The Holy Spirit and the Godhead." Adventist Review 179 (July 11,2002): 12.

Sarli, Joel and Gerald Wheeler. "God Organized for Our Salvation." Ministry 68 (July-August 1995): 8-13.

Valentine, Gilbert. "A Slice of History: How Clearer Views of Jesus Developed in the Adventist Church." Ministry 77 (May 2005): 14-15,17-19.

Whidden, Woodrow W. "Salvation Pilgrimage: The Adventist Journey Into Justification by Faith and Trinitarianism." Ministry 71 (April 1998): 5-7.

Whidden, Woodrow W. "The Trinity." Ministry 75 (February 2003): 10-12.

Whidden, Woodrow W. "The Trinity: Why Is It Important?" College and University Dialogue 16 (No. 3, 2004): 11-13.

Web URLs

Adventist Review Perpetuates the Omega, by Lynnford Beachy (A response to article, "Heresy or Hopeful?: Early Adventists' Struggle With the Truth About the Trinity," by Jerry Moon. (Responder is an Adventist who rejects doctrine of the trinity)
http://www.smyrna.org/op/1999/op99_7.htm

The Adventist Trinity Debate, Part 1: Historical Overview, by Jerry A. Moon
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm

The Adventist Trinity Debate, Part 2: The Role of Ellen G. White, by Jerry A. Moon
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity2.htm

The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer, by Erwin Roy Gane
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/index.htm

Heresy or Hopeful Sign?: Early Adventists' Struggle With the Truth About the Trinity, by Jerry Moon
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/Trinity%20Review%20art.htm

 

Document Files

Burt, Merlin D. "Demise of Semi-Arianism and Anti-Trinitarianism in Adventist Theology, 1888-1957." Research Paper for Course GHIS974, Seminar in the Development of Seventh-day Adventist Doctrines. Andrews University, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, December 1996. 68p.
Heritage Room Document File (TRINITY-HISTORY)

Pfandl, Gerhard. The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists. Silver Spring, MD, Biblical Research Institute, June 1999. 9p.
Heritage Room Document File (TRINITY-HISTORY)

Pfandl, Gerhard. The Trinity in Scripture. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, June 1999. 10p.
Heritage Room Document File (TRINITY)

Saturday, July 22, 2023

Conflict over the trinity still exists in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church

See Table Of Contents


 https://www.perspectivedigest.org/archive/15-4/god-the-trinity-and-adventism?fbclid=IwAR22bYSC-vnk_ERlyKg6ULu-1R1pmjesbOXaXfLJaWjx0m-czQZPejMLdS4

An old controversy over the nature of God surfaces again.

Denís Fortin

In the past decade or two, there has been a resurgence of Arianism1 and anti-Trinitarianism in the Christian and even in the evangelical world.

But Seventh-day Adventist objections to the doctrine of the Trinity are not new. Many of our early pioneers had issues with the doctrine of the Trinity, and it is now commonly known and accepted that many of them were anti-Trinitarian. Representative of such sentiments is Joseph Bates’s statement in his autobiography: “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.”2  Although Bates’s 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.

In a recent book on the Trinity, Woodrow Whidden comments that, “not only are there increasing reports of pockets of anti-Trinitarian revival in various regions across North America, but via Internet its influence has spread around the world. As this grassroots Arian or anti-Trinitarian movement gains ground, local churches increasingly find themselves drawn into debate over the issues.”3 

Though Adventists have been careful and deliberate in their study of many biblical doctrines—for example the doctrines of last-day events, justification by faith, the sanctuary, and the atonement—other doctrines have been neglected. One of them is the biblical doctrine of the Godhead. And perhaps we are now seeing the results of this neglect. 

In a theological dictionary the author of the article on the Trinity stated that although the expression “the Trinity” is not a biblical term, with which I readily agree, “it has been found a convenient designation for the one God self-revealed in Scripture as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”4 

Likely it is here that the difficulties with the doctrine of the Trinity begin for some people, and some Adventists in particular. First, we have a term that is not found in Scripture, and Adventists are determined to base their doctrines on Scripture only. Second, to our modern, analytical, and mathematical minds, the Trinity is a hard concept to understand. How can three equal one, or one equal three?

Yet we do find in Scripture many references to three persons in God, and this adds to the confusion in many people’s minds. Although the Old Testament emphasizes the exclusive unity of God (Deut. 6:4; 5:7-11), it also alludes to the plurality of God (Gen. 1:2, 26; 11:7; 18:1-33; Ex. 23:23). Of all allusions to this plurality of God in the Old Testament, Isaiah 42:1 and 48:16 come very close to a Trinitarian formulation.

The New Testament does not have any explicit statement on the Trinity—apart from 1 John 5:7, which has been rejected as a medieval addition to the text—but the Trinitarian evidence is overwhelming. Jesus is clearly described as divine in the Gospel of John (John 1:1-3; 20:28), and He himself proclaims His own divinity (8:58). In the New Testament we find also clear references to the three persons of the Godhead. All three are mentioned at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16, 17); during the Lord’s Supper, Jesus comforts His disciples with the thought that He and the Father would send the Holy Spirit to guide them after His departure (John 14:16, 17); all three persons are part of the baptismal formula found in Jesus’ great commission to His disciples (Matt. 28:19); Paul readily refers to all three persons in many of his epistles (Rom. 8:9-11; 2 Cor. 13:14; 2 Tim. 1:3-14; Eph. 1:13, 14; 3:14-19); Peter acknowledges the work of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the salvation of people (1 Peter 1:2), and John is a witness of the Spirit’s testimony regarding Jesus, the Son of God (1 John 5:5-9). The Book of Revelation also presents three persons involved in the final events of this world (Rev. 1:4. 5; 22:16-18).

But all these biblical evidences to the triune God become somewhat ambivalent for some people because the Holy Spirit is often referred to with metaphors of objects: a dove (Matt. 3:16), the wind (John 3:8), fire (Isa. 6:6, 7), water (John 7:37-39), and oil (Matt. 25:1-4). Moreover, adding to this ambivalence are some New Testament statements that appear to refer to Jesus as having had a beginning when He is referred to as “begotten” or “firstborn of all creation” (John 3:16; Col. 1:15).

But the history of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity also brings up some issues. Historically, it can be argued that the development of the doctrine of the Trinity is closely connected with the Christological disputes the early church struggled with. When the early church through a series of councils confirmed the eternal divinity of Jesus, it opened the way for a clarification of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus. “The more emphatic the church became that Christ was God, the more it came under pressure to clarify how Christ related to God.”5  And along with this, it needed to clarify the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

For the early Church, the fact that Christian faith involved acceptance of Jesus as Savior and Lord meant that the Trinity quickly found its way into the creeds of the church. The Niceo-Constantinopolitan creed confesses in part that “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, . . . We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. . . . We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.6  With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.”7 

Roger Olson comments that “the implications of this confession, especially in the context of monotheism, naturally became one of the first concerns of patristic theology, the main aim being to secure the doctrine against tritheism on the one side and monarchianism on the other.”8 

The early church fathers gave us the vocabulary we use and discuss today. Irenaeus spoke of the “economy of salvation,” in which each member of the Godhead has a distinct yet related role. In his theology of the Trinity, Tertullian argued that “substance” is what unites while “person” is what distinguishes the members of the Godhead. “The three persons of the Trinity are distinct, yet not divided, different yet not separate or independent of each other.”9  The eastern Cappadocian fathers expanded on Tertullian’s thought and tended to emphasize the distinct individuality of the three persons while safeguarding their unity by stressing the fact that both the Son and the Spirit derived from the Father. They spoke of one “substance” in three “persons.”

However, another issue for us today is that much of that vocabulary and thought assumed ancient Greek dualism and metaphysics, which are very distant and confusing to us now. Augustine grounded his theology of the Trinity on the concept of relationship and on the bond of love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He “developed the idea of relation within the Godhead, arguing that the persons of the Trinity are defined by their relationships to one another.”10  Augustine rejected any form of subordinationism that treated the Son and the Holy Spirit as inferior to the Father within the Godhead. Although the Son and the Spirit may appear to be secondary to the Father, this judgment applies only to their role within the process of salvation; they may appear to be subordinate to the Father in history, but in eternity all are equal.

By the end of the fifth century, the early church had reached a consensus regarding the doctrine of the Trinity that has remained Christianity’s official position for centuries.

But there have always been strong divergent opinions threatening this consensus. Although the early church councils clearly defined Jesus’ divine-human nature and the relationship between the persons of the Godhead, Arianism and modalism have remained influential beliefs within Christianity. Jaroslav Pelikan believes that during the Reformation, the doctrine of the Trinity was relegated to a secondary position in relation to the immediate moral-religious interest of the Reformers.11  And this is basically the position it kept in Protestant theology for the following five centuries.

Most devastating to the doctrine of the Trinity was the impact of Enlightenment rationalism and Deism, an impact that is still felt today. For a variety of reasons, during the Enlightenment the doctrine of the Trinity became “a pestilence for rationalistic theologians,” as one thinker said, and the assumption that it was a “revealed doctrine” could no longer be taken for granted in the Christian theology of the 19th century. Ever since the Reformation, Socinianism had been criticizing the doctrine of the Trinity on both biblical and rational grounds, but during the 18th and 19th centuries the criticisms appeared with growing frequency and insistence also within churches that were professedly Trinitarian in their confessions of faith. Along with Unitarianism, which was gradually beginning to take its place alongside the Trinitarian churches, some American denominations, such as the Christian Connection and some Freewill Baptist churches, became anti-Trinitarian.

To some extent, the modern anti-Trinitarian sentiments and the reappearance of modalism confirmed “the warnings long voiced by orthodox polemics that loss of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity would eventually lead to loss of the reality of God.”12  These warnings were fulfilled when Christian theology adopted pantheistic and panentheistic views of God in the 19th and 20th centuries. 

Traditional Christian theology affirmed a doctrine of God according to which the created world was distinct from its Creator. This doctrine distinguished clearly between a God omnipotent in nature and a God identical with nature. Upon that distinctness depended such fundamentals of the Christian worldview as the very doctrine of creation itself.

A hundred years ago, our own Adventist denomination was shaken by a pantheistic controversy. Could it be that such a development was the result of some long-held Arian views—that the Holy Spirit was not to be understood as a person within the Godhead but only as a divine force?

Such views were espoused by J. N. Andrews, Joseph H. Waggoner, Daniel T. Bourdeau, R. F. Cottrell, J. N. Loughborough, Uriah Smith, and many others of our pioneers who came from a Christian Connection and Freewill Baptist heritage. But second-generation Adventists also held these views, among them E. J. Waggoner, a good friend of John Harvey Kellogg.

But slowly our denomination reshaped its understanding of the Godhead and moved toward a traditional Trinitarian view in order to take into account the clear New Testament teaching on a triune God and to uphold the validity and full sufficiency of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice of atonement on the cross. Furthermore, Ellen White certainly had a strong influence in that direction, particularly after the publication of her book The Desire of Ages.13 

Yet today questions persist, and there is a resurgence of anti-Trinitarian views among Adventists. Some wish to reclaim the teachings of our Adventist pioneers on the Godhead and deny the full and eternally pre-existent deity of Jesus and the personal deity of the Holy Spirit.

Our own Adventist theological experience and history can make valuable contributions to this discussion. In many ways the philosophical assumptions and presuppositions of our worldview are different from traditional Christianity and bring different perspectives on some of these old issues. We do not accept the traditional Platonic dualistic worldview and metaphysics that were foundational to the church fathers’ theology of the Trinity, one of these being the concept of the immortality of the soul.

 

Denís Fortin, Ph.D., is Professor of Theology and Dean of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, U.S.A.

 

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Arianism holds that the Son was created by nature and did not exist before the Father brought Him into existence. As such, the Son is subordinate to the Father’s authority. Arians have also consistently denied the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

 

2. Quoted in Jerry Moon, “Trinity and Anti-Trinitarianism in Seventh-day Adventist History,” in Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve, The Trinity: Understanding God’s Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald Publ. Assn., 2002), p. 190.

 

3. Ibid., pp. 8, 9.

 

4. G. W. Bromiley, “Trinity,” in Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1984), p. 1112.

 

5. Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 1998), p. 61.

 

6. Later Western versions of the Nicene Creed added the filioque clause here: “who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” The addition of this clause was one of the issues that led to the great schism between East and West in 1054 A.D.

 

7. Quoted from Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999), pp. 195, 196.

 

8. Ibid., p. 196. Monarchianism is a form of modalism that denied the plurality of God. It holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a succession of modes or operations, that they are not separate persons.

 

9. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought, op cit., p. 62.

 

10. Ibid., p. 71.

 

11. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 5: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700) (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1989), p. 198.

 

12. Ibid., p. 193.

 

13. References in The Desire of Ages to the eternal deity of Christ are found on pages 19, 530, 785, and to the divine personhood of the Holy Spirit on page 671.