Thesis
Application
Events
About us
home page forums

SDA History on the Trinity

Arian beginnings. The early Adventist history was dominated by an Arian position on the nature of God. It was also staunchly antitrinitarian. "That most of the leading SDA pioneers were antitrinitarian in their theology has become accepted Adventist history." —Jerry Moon, 2003. Some label early Adventists as semi-Arian with respect to the Son, but this is incorrect. The Arian and early Adventist view on the Son are identical. They both believed that the Son was not created but begotten.

Trinity adoption. The history of how the Seventh-day Adventist Church came to adopt the Trinity doctrine and fully reject Arianism will depend on who is telling it. A modern-day revisionist will emphasis a "Paradigm Shift" in 1898 by the publication of Ellen White's Desire of Ages, while a non-revisionist will emphasis the "Kellogg Crisis" of 1903-1907. Today, those holding the Arian view are unwelcomed in the church. Typically, they are asked either to remain silent or leave. In some cases, they are outright disfellowshipped.

The problem. Seventh-day Adventists pride themselves for advancing in truth from Protestant foundations. They believe that all their unique teachings regarding the Sabbath, the Sanctuary, etc. are advancing truths. All except one, the most foundational of all truths, the Trinity. Apparently, God misled the Adventist people and their prophet in adopting the heretical teaching of Arianism for the first 50 years of its history. Then it took another 70 or so years up until 1980 to transition back to a belief in the Trinity, which has been the belief of most of Christiandom all along for well over 1,500 years. Talk about a misstep and waste of time for the self-proclaimed remnant church. This is the history we are told to believe. But is it the truth or is the modern-day Adventist church in apostasy, having gone back to Romanism?

Content

Revisionist history

As told by a modern-day revisionist you will get something like what Jerry Moon proposed in "The Adventist Trinity Debate, Part 1: Historical Overview (2003)" where he divides the history into six periods:

  1. Antitrinitarian Dominance, 1846-1888.
  2. Dissatisfaction with Antitrinitarianism, 1888-1898.
  3. Paradigm Shift, 1898-1913.
  4. Decline of Antitrinitarianism, 1913-1946.
  5. Trinitarian Dominance, 1946-1980.
  6. Renewed Tensions, 1980 to the Present.

Critical in adopting this history is to accept his so called "Paradigm Shift" in 1898. According to Moon, the publication of Ellen White's Desire of Ages in 1898 was "the continental divide for the Adventist understanding of the Trinity" (Ibid. p. 8). His claim is that the book provides critical support for a change in view of the Trinity. However, a careful reader of the Desire of Ages will recognize that such a claim is completely without foundation.

False claims regarding the Desire of Ages. The two statements in Desire of Ages championed by trinitarian Adventist historians are found on pages 530.3 and 671.2. They are discussed in detail here: Desire of Ages. Suffice to say, the Desire of Ages could not be more non-trinitarian, even including these two statements. The whole book is replete with Father-Son statements and non-trinitarian perspectives. The false claims that EGW leaned trinitarian after 1898 is also covered in Desire of Ages.

Fabricated history. While it is true that advocates of trinitarianism use the two statements in Desire of Ages (i.e. 530.3 and 671.2) to support their thesis that EGW changed her theology. It is also true that she did not in fact change it (see Desire of Ages). Thus, the whole "continental divide" idea with respect to the Desire of Ages and the rest of this fabricated history falls apart.

Actual history

The actual (non-revisionist) view of this history gives us the following top level view:

  1. Arian Dominance, 1844-1914.
  2. Trinitarian Adoption, 1914-1980.
  3. Trinitarian Dominance, 1980-present.

1. Arian Dominance, 1844-1914

The early Adventist history was unquestionably dominated by an Arian position on the nature of God and antitrinitarianism. "That most of the leading SDA pioneers were antitrinitarian in their theology has become accepted Adventist history." —Jerry Moon, 2003. See Early antitrinitarian history for further study.

Alpha and Omega of Apostasy. Toward the end of this period the church faced the "Kellogg Crisis (1903-1907)" which Ellen White referred to as the "Alpha of Apostasy." She warned, while going through this crisis, that an "Omega of Apostasy" would soon follow after her death (which occurred in 1915).

Alpha of Apostasy. In truth, the progression from antitrinitarianism to trinitarianism has roots in the crisis with Dr. Kellogg and his book, The Living Temple. This crisis is discussed in some detail here: The Personality of God. Ultimately, Dr. Kellogg resolved his pantheistic views and issues with the church's position on the personality of God by adopting trinitarianism. In the words of A. G. Daniells (then president of the General Conference of SDAs),

  • Letter: A. G. Daniells to W. C. White. October 29, 1903: He [[Dr. Kellogg]] then stated that his former views regarding the trinity had stood in his way of making a clear and absolutely correct statement; but that within a short time he had come to believe in the trinity and could now see pretty clearly where all the difficulty was, and believed that he could clear the matter up satisfactorily. He told me that he now believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; and his view was that it was God the Holy Ghost, and not God the Father, that filled all space, and every living thing. He said if he had believed this before writing the book, he could have expressed his views without giving the wrong impression the book now gives.

God as spirit. Dr. Kellogg was disfellowshipped in 1907 as a consequence of his schism with the church and persisting with his pantheistic/trinitarian views. Although not the first trinitarian among former Adventists, Dr. Kellogg became the most prominent and influential in his time, swaying many in his direction. His views on God as an essence, a force which pervades all nature, while also being a Person, is very much in line with trinitarian thinking. That is, to a trinitarian, God is spirit, and is everywhere present as spirit. This includes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One could say that trinitarianism teaches God to be three spirits in one or even six spirits (see How many spirits in the Godhead?). It was this idea of God being both a Person and an "essence pervading nature" that EGW completely rejected (see Personality).

EGW on the Alpha and Omega. It was in this context that Ellen White wrote about the Alpha and Omega of apostasy. She said, “We have now before us the alpha of this danger. The omega will be of a most startling nature.” 1SM 197.4. Her views regarding "The Alpha and the Omega" are covered in Selected Messages, Book 1, pp. 193-208. You can read it online starting here: Chapter 24—The Alpha and the Omega. The other source is "Ellen G. White: The Early Elmshaven Years," volume 5 of Arthur L. White's six-volume biography of Mrs. White. In that volume, chapters 21 and 22 deal with this issue. Chapter 21 begins on p. 280 here: Chapter 21—The Threat of Pantheism.

2. Trinitarian Adoption, 1914-1980

Introduction. The historical events following EGW's death in 1915 where foretold by her in the following:

  • 1SM 204.2: The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure.

1914 Yearbook. The year 1914 is important in that the 1914 Adventist Yearbook still retained the early Adventist Arian view of God. In this Yearbook it is found in the section, "Fundamental Principles of Seventh-day Adventists," and begins as follows:

  • Fundamental Principles (1914): Seventh-day Adventists have no creed but the Bible; but they hold to certain well-defined points of faith, for which they feel prepared to give a reason "to every man that asketh" them. The following propositions may be taken as a summary of the principal features of their religious faith, upon which there is, so far as is known, entire unanimity throughout the body. They believe: —1. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the Creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal; infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139: 7.
    2. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father [...]

You will note in the above official statement that there is no reference to "Godhead" or "Trinity" and does not mention the Holy Spirit as anything other than God's representative. It simply states the one God and one Lord Jesus Christ of 1 Corinthians 8:6 and the Holy Spirit as being the Father's representative which fits Acts 2:17-18, 33.

1919 Bible Conference. This Adventist conference attended by 65 chosen administrators, editors and teachers was held secretly in 1919 during a five week period (July 1 to August 1). The recorded minutes to this conference, consisting of 1,226 pages, disappears for 55 years until 1974. It can now be accessed in AdventistArchives. The importance of this conference is the clear debate over those holding traditional Adventist views of God and those accepting and adopting trinitarian views. The discussion over this topic became so heated that the decision was made to table the conversation for another time. A helpful summary of the discussion was compiled by Dr. Gary Hullquist HERE. From the notes of this conference it is evident that the transition had already begun. The following table will help in knowing where each participant is coming from in the recorded conversations regarding the deity of Christ—that is, whether Christ had a beginning or not or, in other words, whether the Son was literally begotten or not.

1919 Bible Conference – Deity of Christ
Begotten Unbegotten Uncertain
C. P. Bollman W. W. Prescott A. G. Daniells
T. E. Bowen J. N. Anderson W. E. Howell
L. L. Caviness H. C. Lacey John Isaac
W. T. Knox G. B. Thompson E. R. Palmer
C. M. Sorenson   A. O. Tait
    Charles Thompson
    W. H. Wakeham
    M. C. Wilcox

Daniells to Froom, 1930. Back in the spring of 1930 A. G. Daniells encouraged Le Roy Froom to be "a connecting link between past leaders and the present. But, he said, it is to be later—not yet, not yet. . . . Possibly it would be necessary to wait until certain individuals had dropped out of action, before the needed portrayal could wisely be brought forth" (Movement of Destiny, p. 17). As history shows, Froom accepted this assignment. The change was to be made when the last of the leaders holding the pioneer beliefs had passed away.

Start of the Omega of Apostasy, 1931. The real pivot in the adoption of trinitarianism came in 1931. In that year we have the first clear commitment to the Trinity doctrine as found in the 1931 Yearbook under "Fundamental Beliefs."

  • Fundamental Beliefs (1931): 2. That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption. Matt. 28:19

The publication of Fundamental Beliefs (1931) now became the springboard to advance a new organization. A key figure in this movement was Le Roy Froom. In his book, Movement of Destiny, in the chapter entitled, "1931 Opens New Epoch of Unity and Advance," Froom states that the decade from 1931 to 1941 "marked the end of an old epoch, and the beginning of a new day in unification and auspicious witness for us as a Movement" (Movement of Destiny, p. 421).

Baptismal Certificate. The first order of business was to change the Baptismal Certificate to be used for new converts. A new "Baptismal Covenant" and Baptismal "Vow" was written which "was based upon our 'Fundamental Beliefs' statement of 1931" (Movement of Destiny. p. 420). This was significant in that the new wording "stipulates in explicit terms our united belief in the First, Second, and Third Persons of the Godhead, or Trinity" (Movement of Destiny. p. 421). Additionally, it altered the concept of the Atonement as taught by the Adventist pioneers.

Books of a new order. The next order of business was to change the wording of "standard works." In Froom's own words:

  • Movement of Destiny, p. 422: The next logical and inevitable step in the implementing of our unified "Fundamental Beliefs" involved revision of certain standard works so as to eliminate statements that taught, and thus perpetuated, erroneous views on the Godhead.

In particular, Uriah Smith's book, Daniel and Revelation, and Bible Readings were revised.

  • Movement of Destiny, p. 465: The removal of the last standing vestige of Arianism in our standard literature was accomplished through the deletions from the classic D&R [[Daniel and Revelation]] in 1944. And the lingering "sinful-nature-of-Christ" misconception was remedied by expunging the regrettable note in the revised Bible Readings of 1949.

All this was predicted by Ellen White decades earlier.

  • 18LtMs, Lt 242, 1903, par. 13: The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced.

Manipulation of EGW works. Froom and others also were involved in partial data presentations, out of context quotations, and ellipses to make Mrs. White seem like she was supporting doctrines that she really was not (i.e. trinity, [pre-fall, sinless flesh] nature of Christ, [completed] atonement [at Calvary]). A clear example is the book Evangelism which is a compilation from the writings of EGW. See Le Roy Froom on the Godhead where this is covered.

Further study

  • Fruits of Froomism. Duration 43:45.
  • 1952 Bible Conference.
  • 1955-1956 Evangelical Conferences. Meetings with Walter Martin and Barnhouse. Resulted in the book Questions on Doctrine.
  • 1958 publication of The 1888 Message. By Robert Wieland, Foreword by Donald Short.
  • Edward Heppenstall, 1955-1966, Andrews University. A promoter of Questions on Doctrine and rejector of perfect obedience in last generation theology. Quote: "sin does not reign" in the Christian's life "but it does remain" in the sense that human nature with its inherent limitations cannot even faultlessly discern the complete will of God. (Perfection by Edward Heppenstall p. 69, 73).
  • Desmond Ford. A student of Heppenstall. Rejected the sanctuary doctrine.

3. Trinitarian Dominance, 1980-present

Present-day Seventh-day Adventist believe either in a triune God (principally by Adventist scholars) or tritheistic God (generally by the Adventist community). The official position as of 1980, however, is trinitarian. Any traditional non-trinitarian Adventists are either asked to remain silent or leave the church. For a full history and status of their present view of the Trinity see Seventh-day Adventists Present-day Trinitarian History. And, for the official, detailed position on the Trinity see What Adventists Believe About the Trinity.

Deliberate revisionism with NO PROOF. From 1931 onward, this effort at changing Adventist doctrine, revising Adventist history, and misrepresenting EGW has been the norm. It is not a hidden agenda, but a deliberate, out in the open, readily acknowledged (by historians and scholars) type of movement. Worst still, their fundamental belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is openly admitted to have no Biblical support. In Adventist scholars own words:

  • "While no single scriptural passage states formally the doctrine of the Trinity, it is assumed as a fact by Bible writers. . . . Only by faith can we accept the existence of the Trinity." —RH 1981-07-30.
  • "No text of Scripture specifically says that God is three Persons: but theological reasoning on the basis of biblical principles leads to that conclusion." —Biblical Research Institute Release-9, May, 2015, p. 20.

Even so, attempts have been made to defend the doctrine of the Trinity with documents such as the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church and articles written by the Biblical Research Institute (an arm of the SDA Church) which on examination can be shown to provide NO BIBLICAL PROOF for the Trinity doctrine.

Present-day revisionists

Historical revisionism continues to this day. A present-day example is found in Jerry Moon's Adventist Review article, "Heresy or Hopeful Sign? Early Adventists' struggle with the truth about the Trinity," dated April 22, 1999, where numerous false statements appear.

  1. He belittles the pioneers as individuals who "weren’t endowed scholars with unlimited time for study." Apparently, to arrive at biblical truth one must be an endowed scholar with unlimited time for study. Never mind that it is the Spirit that teaches us everything (1 John 2:27; 1 Corinthians 2:10-13).
  2. Late attention to the trinity doctrine. Not true. Many of the leading pioneers were non-trinitarian in the early years. One can find many antitrinitarian comments from James White and Merrit E Cornell in the mid-1850s, from Joseph Bates, JH Waggoner and JN Loughborough in the 1860s, etc. It was not an afterthought or late development by any measure. See Pioneers rejected trinity doctrine.
  3. Eventual acceptance of the trinity. Not true. The body of early Adventists never accepted this doctrine. Even well into the 1920's LeRoy Froom was confronted with opposition from the older generation of Adventists regarding his trinitarian ideas. "You cannot imagine how I was pummeled by some of the old timers because I pressed on the personality of the Holy Spirit as the Third Person of the Godhead" (Letter by LeRoy Froom to Dr. Otto H. Christenson, October 27, 1960). More detailed examples are given in the critique article written by Lynnford Beachy (see below).
  4. EGW never expressed antitrinitarian views. Not true. This was attested by a prominent non-SDA scholar, Dr. Walter Martin. He affirmed that Ellen White made many statements that were clearly non-trinitarian and gave many examples in his public discourse on the subject.
  5. Desire of Ages paradigm shift. The false claims regarding certain statements in Desire of Ages is covered at length here: Desire of Ages. In truth, the book is replete with non-trinitarian statements, impossible to ignore by a careful reader.
  6. No antitrinitarian publications after 1898. Not true. Numerous post-1898 articles and publications by EGW contain non-trinitarian statements. Some of these are posted in a section on our study of Desire of Ages.
  7. EGW "never wrote an article directly confronting wrong views about the Godhead." Not true. The most famous was her battle with J. H. Kellogg and his pantheistic and ultimately trinitarian views involving his book, The Living Temple. Another example is Brother Chapman in Letter 7, 1891 (Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, pp. 175-180).
  8. Pioneers more interested in understanding the character of God than His nature. Not true. First of all, since when does the study of the character of God not involve the nature of God? The two go hand in hand.
  9. Abundant biblical basis for the trinity doctrine. Not true. There are NO PROOF texts. This is admitted by the church itself. See the next section.

The above is just a sample of what present-day Adventist revisionists like Jerry Moon espouse. For a more detailed analysis of the errors in this Adventist Review article read, "Adventist Review Perpetuates the Omega," by Lynnford Beachy. It is amazing how these revisionists, presumed to be "endowed scholars with unlimited time for study," can get their facts so twisted.

Adventist ecumenism

In recent years, the Adventist organization has been actively involved in ecumenism, particularly in relation to the Catholic Church.

Appendix

Further study