Trinity among SDA.pdf

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/1 (Spring 2006): 160–179.

The Doctrine of the Trinity Among

Seventh-day Adventists

Gerhard Pfandl

Biblical Research Institute

While the Seventh-day Adventist Church today espouses the doctrine

of the Trinity, this has not always been so. The evidence from a study of

Adventist history indicates that from the earliest years of our church to

the 1890s a whole stream of writers took an Arian or semi-Arian posi-

tion. 1 The view of Christ presented in those years by Adventist authors

was that there was a time when Christ did not exist, that His divinity is

an inherited divinity, and that therefore He is inferior to the Father. In

regard to the Holy Spirit, their position was that He was not the third

member of the Godhead, but the power of God.

1 The first comprehensive study of Arianism in the Seventh-day Adventist Church

was Erwin R. Gane’s unpublished M.A. thesis, “The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views

Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer,” which

was completed in 1963 at Andrews University. Others who have written on the topic

since then include Russell Holt, “The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventh-day Advent-

ist Denomination: Its Rejection and Acceptance,” term paper, Seventh-day Adventist

Theological Seminary, 1969; Merlin Burt, “Demise of Semi-Arianism and Anti-

Trinitarianism in Adventist Theology, 1888–1957,” research paper, Andrews University,

1996; John M. Fowler, “In the Presence of Mystery,” Adventist Review , April 13, 1997,

16–19; Woodrow W. Whidden, “Salvation Pilgrimage,” Ministry (April 1998): 5–7; Jerry

Moon, “Heresy or Hopeful Sign,” Adventist Review , April 22, 1999, 8–13. George R.

Knight, A Search for Identity (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000), 110–117. Because

of a resurgence of anti-Trinitarian views within the church, two books on the Trinity have

been published in recent years: Max Hatton’s book Understanding the Trinity (Grantham:

Autumn House, 2001) does not address the Adventist situation, but focuses on the bibli-

cal material and responds to attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity. W. W. Whidden, J.

Moon, and J. W. Reeve’s book The Trinity (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2002) has

two chapters by Jerry Moon dealing with anti-Trinitarianism in Adventism.

160

P FANDL : T HE D OCTRINE OF THE T RINITY

A number of Adventist authors today who are opposed to the doc-

trine of the Trinity are trying to resurrect the views of our early pioneers

on these issues. 2 They are urging the church to forsake the “Roman doc-

trine” of the Trinity and to accept again the semi-Arian position of our

pioneers.

The Early Pioneers

Two of the principal founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,

Joseph Bates and James White, were originally members of the Christian

Connection Church, which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. James

White was an ordained minister of that church. When he and Bates

joined the Advent Movement, they continued to hold the anti-Trinitarian

view that they had held in the Christian Connection Church.

In 1855 James White published an article in the Review and Herald

entitled “Preach the Word.” In dealing with Paul’s statement in 2 Timo-

thy 4:4, “they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned

aside to fables,” he wrote, “Here we might mention the Trinity, which

does away the personality of God and His Son Jesus Christ, . . . .” 3

Joseph Bates wrote in 1868, “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 be-

ing.” 4

Other prominent Adventists who spoke out against the Trinity were

J. N. Loughborough, R. F. Cottrell, J. N. Andrews, and Uriah Smith. For

example, J. N. Loughborough, in response to the question “What serious

objection is there to the doctrine of the Trinity?” wrote, “There are many

objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we

shall reduce them to the three following: 1. It is contrary to common

sense. 2. It is contrary to scripture. 3. Its origin is Pagan and fabulous.” 5

And R. F. Cottrell, in an article on the Trinity, stated:

2 For example, Fred Allaback, No New Leaders . . . No New Gods! (Creal Springs:

Fred Allaback, 1995); Lynnford Beachy, Did They Believe in the Trinity (1996); Rachel

Cory-Kuehl, The Persons of God (Albuquerque: Aggelia, 1996); Allen Stump, The

Foundation of Our Faith (Welch: Smyrna Gospel Ministries, 2000).

3 Review and Herald , December 11, 1855, 85.

4 Joseph Bates, The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates (Battle Creek: Steam

Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868), 205.

5 Review and Herald, November 5, 1861, 184.

161

J OURNAL OF THE A DVENTIST T HEOLOGICAL S OCIETY

To hold the doctrine of the trinity is not so much an evi-

dence of evil intention as of intoxication from that wine of

which all the nations have drunk. The fact that this was one of

the leading doctrines, if not the very chief, upon which the

bishop of Rome was exalted to the popedom, does not say

much in its favor. 6

In an article concerning the identity of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7:3,

J. N. Andrews argued that the words “having neither beginning of days”

cannot be taken literally since every being in the universe except God the

Father has a beginning. It is in this context that he wrote, “And as to the

Son of God, he would be excluded also, for he had God for his Father,

and did, at some point in the eternity of the past, have a beginning of

days.” 7

Finally, in the 1865 edition of the book Thoughts, Critical and Prac-

tical, on the Book of Revelation, Uriah Smith called Christ “the first cre-

ated being.” 8 However, by the time the 1882 edition was published, he

had modified his view. Concerning the phrase “the Beginning of the

creation of God” in Revelation 3:14 he wrote, “Some understand by this

language that Christ was the first created being . . . But the language does

not necessarily imply that he was created . . . he himself came into exis-

tence in a different manner, as he is called ‘the only begotten’ of the Fa-

ther.” 9

Our pioneers clearly held Arian or Semi-Arian views in regard to the

person of Christ. They understood “firstborn over all creation” (Col 1:15)

and “only begotten Son” (John 3:16) in a literal sense. The Father, there-

fore, was first and superior, and the Son, who had a beginning sometime

in eternity, was subordinate to the Father. A corollary of this view was

the belief that the Holy Spirit is an influence or the power of God, but not

a person.

6 Ibid., July 6, 1869, 11.

7 Ibid., September 7, 1869, 84.

8 Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Revelation (Battle Creek: Steam

Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1865), 59.

9 Ibid. (Battle Creek, 1882), 74. Smith, however, never abandoned his semi-Arian

views. In 1898, five years before his death, he published the book Looking Unto Jesus

(Review and Herald, 1898). In the chapter on “Christ as Creator,” he wrote, “With the

Son, the evolution of deity, as deity, ceased. All else, of things animate or inanimate, has

come in by the creation of the Father and the Son” (13).

162

P FANDL : T HE D OCTRINE OF THE T RINITY

The Position of Ellen G. White

During the early decades of our church, Ellen White made statements

that could be interpreted as anti-Trinitarian. She at times referred to the

Holy Spirit as “it,” 10 and in the context of her description of the fall of

Satan, she wrote,

A special light beamed in his [Satan’s] countenance, and

shone around him brighter and more beautiful than around the

other angels; yet Jesus, God’s dear Son, had the pre-eminence

over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before

the angels were created. Satan was envious of Christ, and

gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone.

The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he

might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor

upon his Son. . . . The Father then made known that it was or-

dained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with

himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was

his own presence. . . . His Son would carry out His will and

His purposes, but would do nothing of himself alone. 11

This seems to imply that after the angels were created, they did not

know or recognize that Christ was equal with the Father and it took a

special “heavenly council” to inform them of this.

On the other hand, if Christ’s equality was a “special honor” which

was conferred upon him, the implication is that he was not equal to the

Father before that time. 12 In the book Patriarchs and Prophets (1890)

she wrote, “He [Satan] was beloved and reverenced by the heavenly host,

angels delighted to execute his commands, and he was clothed with wis-

dom and glory above them. Yet the Son of God was exalted above him , as

10 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church , 9 vols . (Mountain View: Pacific

Press, 1948), 1:124; The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials (Washington: The Ellen G.

White Estate, 1987), 1249; Ellen G. White, “Special Testimony to the Battle Creek

Church,” Pamphlet 154 (Battle Creek, 1896), 4.

11 Ellen G. White, Spirit of Prophesy , 4 vols. (Washington: Review and Herald,

1969), 1:17–18 (emphasis supplied).

12 A similar statement is found as late as 1904. At that time Ellen White wrote, “God

is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ had been given an exalted

position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to

His Son” (White, Testimonies , 8:268). This statement appears immediately following a

quote from Hebrews 1:1–5, where reference is made to the fact that Christ after his as-

cension is “appointed heir of all things” and is “being made so much better than the an-

gels.” Her statement in this context can be seen as an elaboration of the text in Hebrews

that refers to Christ after his ascension.

163

J OURNAL OF THE A DVENTIST T HEOLOGICAL S OCIETY

one in power and authority with the Father.” 13 Two paragraphs further on

she explains,

There had been no change in the position or authority of

Christ. Lucifer’s envy and misrepresentation and his claims to

equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the

true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same

from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however,

blinded by Lucifer’s deceptions. 14

Nevertheless, these kinds of statements are used today to support the

semi-Arian position that some Adventists have recently begun to advo-

cate. Could it be that these passages express Ellen White’s understanding

of Christ’s position in heaven at that time and that as time progressed,

she received more light, which eventually led to her very clear Trinitar-

ian statements in the late 1890s? 15

Carsten Johnson’s Explanation

Carsten Johnson, one time professor of theology at Andrews Univer-

sity, taught that God’s glory consisted not of his supreme might and maj-

esty, but rather of his humility and self-effacement. His glory was his

“going down” to the level of his creation. And this glory did not become

visible only in Christ’s incarnation, but God has been like that all the

time.

The attribute of “going down” is not an attribute of God

developed only at the critical moment when such “going

down” became a desperate necessity, an emergency measure

for the sake of our salvation. It is not limited to the accident of

our father Adam’s fall into sin in the Garden of Eden. It is an

effulgence of God’s very being, all the time. God’s descent

13 Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets , (Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1958),

37.

14 Ibid, 38.

15 Another case of increasing light leading to a clearer understanding are her state-

ments on the eating of pork. In 1858 she wrote, “If God requires His people to abstain

from Swine’s flesh, He will convict them on the matter” (White, Testimonies , 1:207). At

that time most Adventists ate pork. After receiving more light on the subject, she wrote in

1868, “You know that the use of Swine’s flesh is contrary to His express command,

given not because He wished to especially show His authority, but because it would be

injurious to those who should eat it.” (Ellen G. White, Counsels on Diet and Foods

[Washington: Review and Herald, 1946], 392).

164

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: