Is Seventh-day Adventist historian George Knight using illegitimate historical revisionism to rewrite our churches historical belief about God? Is Mr. Knight correct that our founders were divided into two camps? One teaching non-Trinitarianism and the other trying to uphold Trinitarian principles? Was Ellen White’s belief about God inharmonious with Uriah Smith, J. N. Andrews and even her husband James White?

Have you ever heard of Historical Revisionism? Wikipedia defines it as the following:

Historical revisionism involves either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism. This article deals solely with the latter, the distortion of history, which—if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—is also sometimes called negationism.

In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism may use techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist’s). 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)

George Knight is a retired professor of church history at the theological seminary at Andrews University. He is the author of many books and has a long writing career in the Seventh-day Adventist church. Back in October of 1993, Mr. Knight wrote an article which was published in Ministry magazine entitled “Adventists and Change.” The article discussed the Trinity doctrine that our church is currently holding and our past anti-Trinitarian beliefs. The article is well known for the following quote:

Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination’s Fundamental Beliefs.
More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the Trinity.
George Knight, Ministry, October 1993, p.10
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1993/10/adventists-and-change

With the Bible’s admonition to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” I would like to look at this article and show how illegitimate revisionist techniques are being employed in writing our church history.

Wikipedia Lists 5 Illegitimate Historical Revisionist Techniques:

1. Presenting known forged documents as genuine
2. Inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents
3. Attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite
4. Manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view
5. Deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist’s).

Technique 3 – Attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite

“Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination’s Fundamental Beliefs. More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the Trinity.” George Knight, Ministry, October 1993, p.10

The phrase “most of the founders” implies that a few founders were not in harmony with the majority. Is this true? Were some of the founders divided in their belief about the doctrine of the Trinity? Did some church founders actually agree with the Trinity while “most” of the founders rejected the Trinity?

The Seventh-day Adventist church was formally established in 1863 (membership 3,500). In the 1870’s (membership 16,000) an article was published about the Fundamental Principles (“Fundamental Principles,” The Signs of the Times June 4, 1874). In this article it was explained that the Fundamental Principles were “a brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by them.” Unanimity means “the quality or state of being unanimous.” The church had already been established for over 11 years at this time (1863-1874), and this article says the fundamental principles were held by the members of our faith “with great unanimity.” The article mentions that these 1874 fundamental principles are a brief statement of “what is” (current belief) and “has been” (past belief). This is significant because it shows that the founders were steadfast and united in these principles.

In 1874 the Seventh-day Adventist church was united in their belief about God and this belief did not endorse the Trinity doctrine. Ellen White was around 47 at the time when this article on the churches fundamental principals were published. The 1874 article clearly shows that Ellen White was non-Trinitarian. Please read the 1874 fundamental principles for yourself to see what the beliefs our founders held with great unanimity. George Knight’s use of the word “most” paints a different picture than the words “great unanimity.”

George Knight misrepresents our church’s historical foundation again:

In like manner, most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would have trouble with fundamental belief number 4, which holds that Jesus is both eternal and truly God. For J. N. Andrews “the Son of God … had God for His Father, and did, at some point in the eternity of the past, have beginning of days. (Ibid)

The sentence “most of the founders” is being used again to imply that a few founders were divided in their beliefs.  Were some of the founders divided in their belief about Jesus having God for His Father? I have not seen evidence to support this. On the contrary. Ellen White is in harmony with J. N. Andrews when she says:

God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son. {8T 268.4, 1903}  

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

Were the SDA founders divided in their belief about Jesus having at some point in the eternity of the past, have beginning of days?

From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father; He was “the image of God,” the image of His greatness and majesty, “the outshining of His glory.” {Desire of Ages p.19}

And the Son of God declares concerning Himself: “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting.” {Patriarchs and Prophets p.34}

(Please note that having beginning of days does NOT mean that Jesus was created. Ellen White did not believe that Jesus was created. The founders of our church, including Ellen White, upheld the belief that Jesus was begotten, not created. Many times Trinitarian writers will setup a straw man argument saying that non-Trinitarians believe Christ was created. This is not true. Seventh-day Adventist non-Trinitarians do not believe that Christ was created. Ellen White expressed how Jesus Christ was a Son in the following quote:

A complete offering has been made; for “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,”– not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. {Ellen White – ST, May 30, 1895 par. 3}

We see once again that Ellen White and the pioneers were not divided. Their understanding about who God is was in harmony. It was simple. It was not a Trinitarian mystery.)

Again, George Knight paints an imaginary picture of division among our founders:

Uriah Smith, for example, not only was anti-Trinitarian and semi-Arian, like so many of his colleagues, but also like them pictured the Holy Spirit as “that divine, mysterious emanation through which They [the Father and the Son] carry forward their great and infinite work.” On another occasion, Smith pictured the Holy Spirit as a “divine influence” and not a “person like the Father and the Son.” (George Knight, Ministry, October 1993, p.10)

This sentence is dividing Uriah Smith and “so many of his colleagues” into a different group. Were there two groups of founders back in 1874? Did you know Ellen White used “divine influence” to describe the Holy Spirit?

He knew by personal experience that when a sinner once beholds the love of the Father, as seen in the sacrifice of His Son, and yields to the divine influence, a change of heart takes place, and henceforth Christ is all and in all. {Acts of the Apostles p.245.3}

The tidings reached Saul as he eagerly waited to have David in his power; but instead of feeling the rebuke of God, he was still more exasperated, and sent other messengers. These also were overpowered by the Spirit of God, and united with the first in prophesying. The third embassage was sent by the king; but when they came into the company of the prophets, the divine influence fell upon them also, and they prophesied. {PP 653.3}

The divine influence of the Spirit of God is needed to work upon your heart daily, or you will fail in the arduous duties which rest upon you. {1888 983.1}

Uriah Smith was not in a separate founders group that believed something contrary to Ellen White. How do I know? One compelling fact is Ellen White highly recommended Uriah Smith’s book “Daniel and the Revelation.” Regarding Uriah Smith’s book Ellen White mentioned the following:

The light given was that Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, The Great Controversy, and Patriarchs and Prophets, would make their way. They contain the very message the people must have, the special light God had given His people. The angels of God would prepare the way for these books in the hearts of the people.– Special Instruction Regarding Royalties, p. 7. (1899) {CM 123.3}  

Did you know Uriah Smith’s original unedited book “Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation” is completely against the Trinity doctrine? This is one of the reasons why Leroy Froom who was a Seventh-day Adventist minister and historian was so compelled to have the book revised. LeRoy Froom said:

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. (Movement of Destiny – LeRoy Froom p.422)

One of those “standard works” was Uriah Smith’s book. LeRoy Froom had Smith’s anti-trinitarian statements edited out of “Daniel and Revelation” in the 1944 revision. He believed Uriah Smith’s book had erroneous views on the Godhead.

 

Did LeRoy Froom know more than Ellen White about the Godhead?

Ellen White recommended people to read Uriah Smith’s book back in 1899. Mr. Froom recommended removing the anti-trinitarian statements out of the book. Which book would you be more inclined to read? The original book that Ellen White recommended or the revised book edited without Uriah Smith’s or Ellen White’s counsel. LeRoy Froom wrote a book called “The Coming of the Comforter.” In this book he talks about the Holy Spirit extensively. What is important for every Seventh-day Adventist to be aware of is that LeRoy Froom’s teaching on the Holy Spirit is largely based on knowledge from “men outside our faith.” In LeRoy Froom’s book he mentions this:  “I was compelled to search out a score of valuable books written by men outside our faith – those previously noted – for initial clues and suggestions, and to open up beckoning vistas to intensive personal study.” (LeRoy Froom ‘Movement of Destiny’, page 322) For more information on this change please read “A Changed Holy Spirit” by Terry Hill.

Ellen White and Uriah Smith were united in their belief about God. There is no reason to believe that the Seventh-day Adventist church founders were separated in doctrine. I believe George Knight is attributing conclusions to sources that report the opposite. The founders were united in truth. Ellen White recommended the Daniel and Revelation book because she truly believed it contained “the very message the people must have, the special light God had given His people.”

George Knight is placing Uriah Smith into the non-Trinitarian founders group while keeping Ellen White out of the non-Trinitarian founders group. This division is purely fiction. The founders were not divided. History is being rewritten.

George Knight even goes so far, in this illegitimate revising of history, as to credit Uriah Smith’s endorsed non-Trinitarian view as paving the way for pantheistic views to enter the church:

Such misconceptions [as Uriah Smith’s] during the 1890s, a decade in which the work of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling power of Christ were being emphasized by such writers as Ellen White, E. J. Waggoner, and W. W. Prescott, helped pave the way for the pantheism that Waggoner and J. H. Kellogg taught around the turn of the century. (George Knight, Ministry, October 1993, p.10)

I don’t understand why Mr. Knight would come to the conclusion that pantheism was a result of not believing in the Trinity doctrine. The fact of the matter is that J. H. Kellogg’s pantheistic beliefs coincide with him coming to believe in the Trinity. A.G. Daniel’s (then the conference President) wrote:

He [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 up the matter satisfactorily.”(Letter, A. G. Daniells to W. C. White Oct 29th 1903)

For more information regarding Kellogg and the Trinity doctrine please visit Terry Hill’s website. George Knight is implying that our anti-trinitarian beliefs helped turn John Harvey Kellogg and Waggoner into believing in pantheism. The evidence shows the opposite. Kellogg changed his belief from once being non-Trinitarian to becoming Trinitarian.  The Seventh-day Adventist church founders were non-Trinitarian and they held this belief with great unanimity. This is the reason why Ellen White had to rebuke Kellogg. He was departing from the special light that God had given His people. God is not a Trinity!

The Scriptures clearly indicate the relation between God and Christ, and they bring to view as clearly the personality and individuality of each. God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son. {Counsels for the Church p.76.5}

To be continued….

Jason

p.s. Your comments are appreciated. Am I missing something? Do you see illegitimate historical revisionism taking place? Am I wrong? Were the founders of our church divided into two opposing groups?