Thesis
Application
Events
About us
home page forums

Seventh-day Adventists on the Nature of God

Content

Contrasting Adventist Beliefs
Topic Early Adventist (Arian) Trinitarian Adventist
Basis of truth Bible alone Bible + Tradition (extra-biblical)
God's nature Father–Son; distinct persons Three Persons; one substance
God's image (humanity) husband–wife No physical similarity
God the Father Literal (Abba; Father) Metaphorical – "role" playing
Son of God Literal (begotten) Metaphorical – "role" playing (unbegotten)
Spirit Father and Son have a spirit Three Persons are spirits
Christ's righteousness Dual atonement Single atonement
Reason Logical, relatable, believable Illogical, unrelatable, incomprehensible
Authority Subordinate Equality

SDA History on the Trinity [details]

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. They also both believed that the Holy Spirit was not a Third Person.

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. Given the polar opposite sides of this debate (each declaring the other in error) and the current official position being trinitarian, those holding the Arian position are typically asked to either remain silent or leave.

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?

Ellen G. White on the Trinity [details]

There are three key issues when discussing Ellen G. White's views on the Trinity doctrine, summarized as follows:

Topic Early Adventist Trinitarian
1. Desire of Ages Son of God - begotten God the Son - unbegotten
2. Personality Father and Son are persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit are spirits
3. Matthew 28:19 Non-orthodox view Baptism in the threefold "name"
  1. Desire of Ages. The Desire of Ages is championed by trinitarian SDAs as the pivotal book on their claim that EGW changed her theology regarding the begottenness of the Son and the personhood of the Spirit. They base this on two references in Desire of Ages found on pages 530.3 and 671.2. However, on closer examination, is can be easily determined that these claims are specious.
  2. The Personality of God. The personality of God has to do with the question of God either being a person, or an essence or both. This became the primary issue during the "Kellogg Crisis" of 1903-1907. This crisis helps us understand how EGW and the Adventist pioneers understood God's personhood. Trinitarians view God as an eternal spirit, indivisible, amorphous, and inconceivable.
  3. EGW on Matthew 28:19. Ellen G. White's understanding of the baptismal formula found in Matthew 28:19 does not follow the orthodox view. Rather, it more closely follows the belief that Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation. See Matthew 28:19 for details on why it is believed this verse is an interpolation. The importance of validating the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 is recognized when one understands that the Trinity doctrine is fundamentally based on it.

Beyond the above key issues are the concerns over her use of trinitarian terms and the evidence of falsifications in some of her writings discussed here: Ellen G. White Falsifications.

Sonship of Christ in Adventism [details]

Much of the unique, early Adventist teachings on the sonship of Christ have been altered with the adoption of the Trinity doctrine. Trinitarianism attacks the sonship of Christ in at least these three fundamental ways, summarized as follows:

Sonship Early Adventist Trinitarian
1. His birth Literal (begotten) Metaphorical - "role" playing (unbegotten)
2. His authority Subordinate to the Father Equal to the Father
3. His righteousness Dual atonement Single atonement
  1. His birth. Christ is the only begotten Son of God before creation and time, and for all eternity. Trinitarianism teaches his sonship to be a metaphor and role playing. See eternal Sonship for further study.
  2. His authority. Christ ever was and ever will be subordinate to the Father. Trinitarianism teaches equality, not subordination.
  3. His righteousness. Christ's righteousness can become our righteousness, both imputed and imparted, when we sustain a living connection with him. Without his righteousness, we are not properly "clothed" for the heavenly wedding feast. It is not just faith in Christ, but the faith of Christ that a believer must have in order to be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven. Trinitarians believe in single atonement where everything was accomplished at the cross and no further salvific "work" needs to be done. Whereas early Adventists believed in a dual atonement where the work of sanctification (i.e. "cleansing of the sanctuary") needs to be accomplished prior to the Second Coming.This dual atonement belief follows the sanctuary pattern of the "daily" and the "yearly."

Altered doctrines

The Trinity doctrine alters the following early Adventist teachings:

  • Supremacy of Scripture. The Bible does not explicitly teach trinitarianism. It is a church-derived doctrine based on Tradition (i.e. the 325 AD Nicean Creed). Church membership is then judged by Tradition.
  • Sonship. Denies Christ's literal sonship. Christ's sonship becomes a metaphor.
  • Atonement. The trinitarian perspective is that the Cross was a deed that God required to be paid to simply fix what man had done, to cover for his wrong doing. It was an act of Christ on the Cross as a ritualistic process to make satisfaction to the Father for the sins of mankind. Once completed, then all is completed and there is nothing left to do. This trinitarian belief is not the atonement. The atonement is not just what God has done for man, but what God can do in man. Full atonement is the restoration of fellowship (i.e. "oneness") with God. "and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:3).
  • Christian perfection. Impossible to achieve, given that the doctrine of Christ our righteousness is denied.
  • Spirit of Prophecy. Progression toward the Trinity doctrine in Adventist history is fabricated. EGW's writings and her theology on the subject of divinity are falsified.
  • Role of men and women. Trinitarianism is focused on equality rather than on relationship. Given that the Trinity members are equal, this becomes the model for men and women who were created in the image of the Trinity. The principle of headship and submission is set aside as metaphorical and role playing.
  • Sanctuary. The Sanctuary doctrine is spiritualized by virtue of the "single atonement" trinitarian doctrine and of the concept of role playing in the Trinity.

Hopeless and helpless salvation. What use is the offer of pardon if the human soul cannot break the chains of his own sinfulness? What use the most powerful demonstration of love if no man, woman or child has the power to embrace that gift?

Strange doctrines

There are varying degress of popularity of the following doctrines in and out of Adventism:

  • Observation of the Jewish feasts.
  • God does not kill.
  • Sin is the fallen nature.
  • Lunar sabbaths.
  • Disregard the Testimonies.
  • Sacred Name.
  • Misplacing the prophecies.

21LtMs, Lt 38, 1906, par. 3: And now, after half a century of clear light from the Word as to what is truth, there are arising many false theories to unsettle minds. But the evidence given in our early experience has the same force that it had then. The truth is the same as it ever has been, and not a pin or a pillar can be moved from the structure of truth. That which was sought for out of the Word in 1844, 1845, and 1846 remains the truth today in every particular.

Non-trinitarian Adventist and former Adventist websites

The following sites may or may not agree with all that is contained herein..

Separate

2 John 1:9-11: Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

The following are notes and references used in the video Should We Separate from the Churches? (Duration 33:16).

  • recreant (ARCHAIC). def. 1. cowardly, 2. unfaithful to a belief; apostate.
  • ST December 1, 1881, par. 13: The recreant priests added licentiousness to the dark catalogue of their crimes; yet they still polluted by their presence the tabernacle of the Lord, and, laden with sin, dared to come into the presence of a holy God. As the men of Israel witnessed the corrupt course of the priests, they thought it safer for their families not to come up to the appointed place of worship. Many went from Shiloh with their peace disturbed, their indignation aroused, until they at last determined to offer their sacrifices themselves, concluding that this would be fully as acceptable to God, as to sanction in any manner the abominations practiced in the sanctuary.
  • RH May 9, 1899, Art. A, par. 18: Even though you may not feel able to speak a word to those who are working on wrong principles, leave them. Your withdrawal and silence may do more than words. Nehemiah refused to associate with those who were untrue to principle, and he would not permit his workmen to associate with them. The love and fear of God were his safeguard. He lived and worked as in view of the unseen world. And David said, “I have set the Lord always before me.”
  • RH May 9, 1899, Art. A, par. 19: Dare to be a Daniel. Dare to stand alone. Thus, as did Moses, you will endure the seeing of Him who is invisible. But a cowardly and silent reserve before evil associates, while you listen to their devices, makes you one with them. “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
  • GC88 44.2: None understood so well how to oppose the true Christian faith as did those who had once been its defenders; and these apostate Christians, uniting with their half-pagan companions, directed their warfare against the most essential features of the doctrines of Christ.
  • GC88 45.2: After a long and severe conflict, the faithful few decided to dissolve all union with the apostate church if she still refused to free herself from falsehood and idolatry. They saw that separation was an absolute necessity if they would obey the Word of God. They dared not tolerate errors fatal to their own souls, and set an example which would imperil the faith of their children and children's children. [...] If unity could be secured only by the compromise of truth and righteousness, then let there be difference, and even war.
  • EW 124.3: I was shown the necessity of those who believe that we are having the last message of mercy, being separate from those who are daily imbibing new errors. I saw that neither young nor old should attend their meetings; for it is wrong to thus encourage them while they teach error that is a deadly poison to the soul and teach for doctrines the commandments of men. The influence of such gatherings is not good. If God has delivered us from such darkness and error, we should stand fast in the liberty wherewith He has set us free and rejoice in the truth. God is displeased with us when we go to listen to error, without being obliged to go; for unless He sends us to those meetings where error is forced home to the people by the power of the will, He will not keep us. The angels cease their watchful care over us, and we are left to the buffetings of the enemy, to be darkened and weakened by him and the power of his evil angels; and the light around us becomes contaminated with the darkness.
  • LDE 59.2: When a church proves unfaithful to the word of the Lord, whatever their position may be, however high and sacred their calling, the Lord can no longer work with them. Others are then chosen to bear important responsibilities. But, if these in turn do not purify their lives from every wrong action, if they do not establish pure and holy principles in all their borders, then the Lord will grievously afflict and humble them and, unless they repent, will remove them from their place and make them a reproach.—Manuscript Releases 14:102 (1903).