Many of my Seventh-day Adventist friends love the Bible. The majority of them believe that Ellen White’s writing are inspired and can be trusted. What a blessing to have friends that believe the Bible is true. Over the last few years I have shared the truths about God that are found on this website. An unfortunate pattern has been revealed as I begin to talk with them about who God is and who the Holy Spirit is and how the Seventh-day Adventist Trinity came into our church. The pattern that many of my friends have shown me is troubling. They wait to see what their favorite speakers believe, and then agree with him.
If someone is beginning to study the topic of God and the Trinity in light of the Bible and spirit of prophecy, I would like to pass on Ellen White’s counsel. I think it is true and timely to Seventh-day Adventists worldwide:
Here is the danger of exalting man in our hearts. If we get the wisdom of man before us as the wisdom of God, we are led astray by the foolishness of man’s wisdom. Here is the great danger of many in Battle Creek. They have not an experience for themselves. They have not been in the habit of prayerfully considering for themselves, with unprejudiced, unbiased judgment, questions and subjects that are new, which are liable to arise. They wait to see what Bro. Aldrich thinks. If he dissents, that is all that is needed. The evidence in their minds then is positive that it is all of no account whatever. This class is not small; yet for all their numbers are large, it does not change the fact that they are weak-minded through long yielding to the enemy, inexperienced, and will always be sickly as babes, walking by others’ light, living on others’ experience, feeling as others feel, acting as others act. They act as though they had not an individuality. Their identity is submerged in others. They are merely shadows of others whom they think about right. These will all fail of everlasting life unless they become sensible of their wavering character, and correct it. They will be unable to cope with the perils of the last days. They will possess no stamina to resist the Devil; for they do not know that it is he. Some one must be at their side to inform them whether it is a foe approaching, or a friend. They are not spiritual, therefore spiritual things are not discerned. They are not wise in those things which relate to the kingdom of God. None, young or old, are excusable in trusting to another to have an experience for them. Said the angel, “Cursed is man who trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm.” A noble self-reliance is needed in the Christian experience and warfare. {PH097 18.1}
Men, women, and youth, God requires you to possess moral courage, steadiness of purpose, fortitude and perseverance, minds which will investigate, and prove, and try, for themselves before receiving or rejecting, minds that cannot take the assertions of another, but will study and weigh evidence, take it to the Lord in prayer, and flee to Him who has invited them to come. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.” {Ellen G. White, Pamphlets PH097 p.18-20}
They wait to see what Brother Aldrich thinks. If he dissents, that is all that is needed. Would you permit me to change the name. Could we not place any of our popular preachers names into that quote?
They wait to see what Doug Batchelor thinks. If he dissents, that is all that is needed.
They wait to see what David Asscherick thinks. If he dissents, that is all that is needed.
They wait to see what Walter Veith thinks. If he dissents, that is all that is needed.
They wait to see what Stephen Bohr thinks. If he dissents, that is all that is needed.
Do you see my point? This is how many of my kind hearted Bible believing, spirit of prophecy professing brothers and sisters defend the Seventh-day Adventist Trinity doctrine.
People are submerging their identities in others. A pastor/teacher must be at their side to inform them whether it is a foe approaching, or a friend. I have a confession to make. Before I came to believe in the truth about God, I received a phone call from a friend. This friend communicated to me that a mutual friend did not believe in the Trinity. Do you know what my response was? I said “Oh, that’s sad. Hasn’t she seen Pastor Asscherick’s sermon on the Trinity?” I was trusting in a preacher. I did the very thing Ellen White was warning about. Now after many years I see that I was relying on another’s experience. I liked David Asscherick and believed I could trust him with my doctrinal beliefs. Ellen White is saying that instead of trusting popular preachers we should have a “noble self-reliance”. We should investigate and prove all things. I am not saying to never listen to these preachers. What I am saying is, be willing to investigate Bible doctrines that may conflict with your favorite preacher. God will help. The Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth.
I’m hoping there will be some men, women, and youth who will have the moral courage to study the doctrine of God without bias. The Trinity doctrine of our Seventh-day Adventist church needs to be re-examined. Our “superstar” pastors need help. They don’t need to be followed without question. They need our prayers and our “noble self-reliance”.
Sincerely,
Jason
P.S. When you begin to examine the Trinity may I suggest a few starting points?
- Start with the Bible as your foundation of understanding about God.
- Examine Seventh-day Adventist history. What did Ellen White and the pioneers believe?
- What were the pioneers reasons for openly rejecting the Trinity doctrine?
- How did we change from a non-Trinitarian church to a Trinitarian believing church?
- Do our leading scholars truly believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or a metaphorical Son of God?
- What did Ellen White and the pioneers believe about the identity of the Holy Spirit?
You are so right on this matter. When I shared some literature with a church friend of mine about this issue, after a week she returned the literature to me, along with a trinity book from Doug Bachelor. I knew she did not have time to read all the information I shared with her, but I guess after speaking with the church leadership, it was decided that I was wrong in what I believed, and Doug Bachelor was correct. I was most sadden by this, for I truly believe that she is a God fearing lady. I just keep praying for her, that she will continue to investigate the issue and come to a knowledge of the truth.
Amen. Thanks for sharing. The truth about God is such a blessing that it is sad when people do not search the Scriptures for themselves. I hope that her heart will be touched to examine the position she holds regarding the Trinity and have the moral courage to trust God’s word even if it goes against the preaching of someone like Doug Batchelor.
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God: Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever:
Psalms 146:3-6
Have you just used Ellen White the way you say others are using Ministers?
I received a DVD regarding the misunderstanding of the trinity, I watched as much of it as I could but it didn’t even start with prayer and was more of a sales pitch than a bible study. None of the points provided were confirmation against the trinity and most quotes did not correlate with the statements they where being connected to.
I studied this subject form the bible as well as multiple other studies for myself and I am grateful for the push to do this and I have come to the conclusion that the Trinity is Biblical.
when I responded to my friend I sent some compelling writings from Theologians, as I do not have the capacity to provide a bible study on the issue. It does not mean that they are the only reference that I have used to come to my conclusion.
Unfortunately my friend did not listen or read the articles provided, but responded very harshly and with no substance for his belief.
Another Major concern I have is, someone advised that Jesus is less than God the father and not a member of the Godhead.
If this was so, then wouldn’t you be breaking the first commandment?
“you shall have no other gods before Me”
Are you making Jesus an “other god” as you have removed Him from the “Me”?
If I were to give any advice to SDAs today, it would be to study your Bible. Know the word of God. This Anti-Trinitarian doctrine is just the beginning of a shaking coming into the SDA Church which will result in either proving your fidelity to the word of God, or demonstrating your infidelity to Christ and His government.
Jason, in his postscript above, exhorts you to examine SDA history and why SDA pioneers “openly rejected the Trinity”. This instruction is already prejudiced, and predisposes one to believe that the SDA Trinity of today is the same Trinity doctrine with which the pioneers took exception. This is simply untrue.
When you investigate the Trinity that the SDA pioneers wrote against, mark carefully the principles of that doctrine which they resisted. If you measure these carefully, you will find that these are the very consubstantial Arian principles that modern Anti-Trinitarians promote. You see, our SDA pioneers rejected the Trinity doctrine found in the Nicene Creed, the Catholic Trinity, which widely differs from the SDA Trinity doctrine in the church today. This truth Anti-Trinitarians need to obfuscate as it is the foundation of their argument. Thus, it is in your best interest to know the principles of the Trinity doctrine that is in the church today as you examine the principles of the Trinity against which the pioneers were critical.
Did SDAs “change” from Anti-Trinitarians to Trinitarians? It depends on your definition of a Trinitarian! SDAs today are not Trinitarians in the same way that Catholics are Trinitarians today. The definitions of the two are not the same, and I might add that SDA doctrine has fallen under mich criticism from our fellow Protestants because our Trinity differs from theirs. Therefore, know for yourself the difference between these.
Finally, though most SDAs have concluded that the relationship between the Father and the Son is one of roles, Anti-Trinitarians presume the relationship is the result of literal birth. They say that God has given the birth process to humanity to enable him to see the Father/Son relationship in a literal sense, yet if you follow this argument, you need to then see a heavenly mother with all the facilities given to women on earth, and this is so moly an unbiblical error. Thus most Anti-Trinitarians back away from this extreme to use human birth as an analogy for the origin of Christ, yet there is not one piece of evidence in inspiration which supports this view. What we find rather is that the Bible speaks explicitly in Hebrews 7:3 regarding Melchizedek being “made like unto the Son of God” having no beginning or end of days, no descent, no mother or father. Well, how does the Son have no beginning, descent, mother or father unless his connection to the Father differs from that of humanity?
SDA Trinitarians believe that using humanity to define divinity is the first step is error. Rather, use the Bible and inspiration to chart your doctrinal course. Do not allow the words that you use every day to be redefined. Words have meaning. Resist revisionism. Look at the long standing meaning of phrases like “self-existent”, “eternal”, “from everlasting” and know their meaning. Do not buy into a redefinition of these for only by this can error survive.
Blessings on you,
Randall
Thank you Randall,
There is one point that you mentioned which we wholeheartedly agree on. We agree with you that “words have meaning,” and that we must not let the everyday words that we use be redefined. You are already protecting the words “self-existent” and “eternal.” We’re just asking you to add a few more words to your list that are just as worthy of protection. What about “father,” “son,” and “begotten”? These words need to be defined and used according to this same principle. The definitions of “self-existent” and “eternal” mustn’t be allowed to redefine the meaning of “father,” “son,” and “begotten.”
What about the word “Trinity”? According to everyday use, “trinity” just means a group of three. But according to the doctrine it has been given a new meaning; it has been redefined. It doesn’t just mean “three.” It means “three in one.” Many SDA’s are trying to preserve the natural meaning of the word “trinity” by viewing God as a group of three persons, a sort of a family. But God is not a group. God is a personal Being:
“God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being, for man was made in His image” (8T 263.1)
“God is a Spirit; yet He is a personal Being; for so He has revealed Himself” (MH 413.1).
Who knows where this idea that God is a group came from? It wasn’t from the writings of Ellen White, as supported with the above quotes. It wasn’t from Jesus Christ. Christ always referred to God as the Father, a personal Being:
“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” John 20:17
Neither was it from any of the prophets, apostles, or any biblical witness. The constant testimony from Inspiration has been that God is a personal Being. This is how He has revealed Himself.
The doctrine of the Trinity has many variations. You have acknowledged two, i.e. there is a SDA version of the Trinity, and there is a Catholic version of the Trinity. But at the heart of all versions of the Trinity is the idea that there is one God who is three persons, and three persons who are one God. On this fundamental element of the Trinity the SDA’s agree with the Catholics.
This is what the pioneers rejected: “The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, “Let us make man in our image”?” (J. S. White, Review & Herald, November 29, 1877). The pioneers rejected the notion that the Godhead is three in one and one in three, and this did not make Christ inferior to God. By rejecting this idea, the pioneers rejected both the Catholic Trinity of their time and the SDA Trinity of our time.
Maybe you are not aware of what our church is teaching. If you are of the persuasion that God is a family and not a personal Being, please examine the following taken from the SDA official website:
“Immortal, all-powerful and all-loving, God is a relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The only being worthy of our worship. God is our Creator, Redeemer and Friend” (https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/god/trinity/).
Our church believes and promotes the idea that God is a relationship of three Beings (a group, a family). And this relationship of three Beings is also a personal Being: “The only Being worthy of our worship.” Our church is teaching that God is a Being who is three Beings. This is the classic three headed God idea cloaked in SDA language.
In response to your comment that “Anti-Trinitarians presume the relationship [between Father and Son] is the result of literal birth,” I will remind you of your excellent principle of staying true to the definitions of words, and say this: the word “begotten” is the past participle of the word “beget.” The word “beget” refers to when a man brings a child into existence through the process of reproduction. In the Bible, it refers only to the relationship of fathers to their children. Fathers beget son and daughters. Mothers don’t.
The Bible says that Jesus the Christ is the only begotten Son of God. It simply means that through a process of reproduction, God gave existence to Jesus Christ. It does not mean that God is modelled after a human and that in order to beget the self-existent, eternal Son of God that a Mother was required. It just means that the Son is a reproduction of God. The Son came from God and is the perfect reproduction of Him. This is Biblical: Christ is “the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person” (Hebrews 1:3); He that has seen Christ, has seen the Father (John 14:9).
David Sims in his study has the following to say:
“It is not for us to know exactly how the Son was brought forth, because God has not seen fit to reveal it to us. However, in the Genesis account of creation we find a rather interesting account:
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:21, 22).
This is one example of someone coming from the substance of another in a different way than children are born. I repeat, it is not for us to know how the Son of God was brought forth, but the point is that the Son “proceeded forth and came from God” (John 8:42), that he was “brought forth” of the Father “before the hills” (Proverbs 8:24, 25).”
You can read the whole study on-line at http://seventhdayhomechurchfellowships.org/Pages/Resources.php. It’s called Bible Studies to do at Home.
In keeping with the principle of staying true to the definitions of words, there is no need to confuse the word “begotten” with the word “created.” Christ was begotten of God, but He was not created by God. Ellen White makes this same distinction between the two words:
“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. {ST, May 30, 1895 par. 3}
The Son of God is “not a son by creation… but a Son begotten.”
We thank you for your comments, and appreciate your love for the truth. We hope you continue to read our other articles.
May God bless you,
Donna Hernberg