A booklet was received following a telephone call during which it appeared that the brother accepted the duality of the Godhead in the Old Testament, but was questioning whether the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus Christ after His ascension and glorification is a Being separate from, though one with, the Father and the Son. A perusal of the booklet raised a question about what exactly this member of the Seventh-day Adventist community believed about the Godhead.

Within a couple of days of the telephone conversation simple research was made into whether the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost of the New Testament is referred to by the pronoun “He” or the neuter “It.” This is a simple inquiry; but not without significance. The focus was on Jesus’ statements about the Comforter. Of course, all references are to “He,” “Him,” or “Himself.” John 14:18 reveals the Holy Spirit’s identification with Jesus, but in each of the chapters 14-16 of his gospel can be seen indications of a separate identity and personhood:

John 14:16: And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever John 14:26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John 15:26: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.” In John 16 are strong statements of separate identity and independent action: “⁷Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. ⁸And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: ⁹Of sin, because they believe not on me; ¹⁰Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; ¹¹Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. ¹²I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. ¹³Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. ¹⁴He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. ¹⁵All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.”

We need to be very careful how we seek to understand the Godhead. As stated in Job 11, “⁷Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? ⁸It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? ⁹The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. . .” There are deep imponderables in trying to understand the Godhead, and the Holy Spirit in particular. Elder Wm. H. Grotheer points out that the people did not recognize Jesus because of His self-effacing appearance. He came to glorify the Father. Similarly, the Holy Spirit’s mission is to glorify Jesus rather than to attract attention to Himself. Moreover, there are mystifying questions that defy explanation. The Apostle John reveals that the Holy Spirit, the second person of the Godhead prior to the Incarnation, became flesh. John also stated that while Jesus was with them the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit “was not yet given”:

John 7, “³⁷In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. ³⁸He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. ³⁹(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified” (Underscored emphasis added.) Yet there are repeated accounts of the Holy Spirit’s activities after the Incarnation and before Jesus’ coronation. It would be presumptuous for us to speculate on whether the whole of the Holy Spirit’s being became a part of Jesus Christ’s identity as a human being. This is best left alone. Here is the counsel of Ellen G. White:

“‘Those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever;’ but ‘the secret things belong unto the Lord our God.’ Deuteronomy 29:29. The revelation of Himself that God has given in His word is for our study. This we may seek to understand. But beyond this we are not to penetrate. The highest intellect may tax itself until it is wearied out in conjectures regarding the nature of God; but the effort will be fruitless. This problem has not been given us to solve. No human mind can comprehend God. Let not finite man attempt to interpret Him. Let none indulge in speculation regarding His nature. Here silence is eloquence. The Omniscient One is above discussion.’ (8T 279)

So it is legitimate to seek out only “the revelation of Himself that God has given in His Word.” In the Bible can be found enough evidence for a rational, unbiased mind to conclude that the Holy Spirit given to God’s people is a distinct Being. He must also be counted as the Third Person of the Godhead, at least since Jesus Christ was glorified. It is not presumptuous to study the logical conclusions to be drawn from numerous passages of Scripture.

We cannot ignore Jesus’ commission to His disciples in Matt. 28, “¹⁹Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Also there is the benediction of 2 Corinthians 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen” (NKJV.) Romans 8:26-27 is revealing: “²⁶Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. ²⁷ Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God” (Underscored emphasis added.) The NKJV is correct in changing the KJV version from “itself” to “himself.” This is supported by other modern translations; and, significantly, also Young’s Literal Translation (YLT.) The Holy Spirit, to bring His personhood down to our understanding, is masculine, and He has a mind. The following statement reinforces this fact:

At times, people have viewed the Holy Spirit as an “it,” in part, because the neuter gender for Spirit, both in the original Greek—pneuma— and in English, have contributed to this concept. An example is Romans 8:16, where the KJV translates the text: “The Spirit itself . . .” (original italicized emphasis). Since pronouns are to agree with their antecedents in person, number, and gender, you would expect the neuter pronoun to be used to represent the Holy Spirit. However, when John the Beloved recorded the words of Jesus, he used the masculine pronoun ekeinos—he—when referring to the Holy Spirit. “When the Helper comes . . . that is the Spirit of truth . . . He will bear witness of Me” (John 15:26). “When He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever” (John 14:16). Either John made a consistent grammatical error or he purposely called the Holy Spirit a “he.” Since no similar error is made in the rest of John’s gospel, we conclude he did it to make a point: Jesus referred to a Person and not a thing. Not much should be made of John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun; his point was not a specific gender but personality.” (The Personhood of the Holy Spirit and Why It Matters Ron E. M. Clouzet, Southern Adventist University; Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/1 (Spring 2006): 11–32; Underscored emphasis added.)

The following is a copy of the section of the essay titled “Is the Holy Spirit a Person,” which was attached to the outgoing e-mail:

The essay is a typical example of contemporary Seventh-day Adventist scholarship on the Holy Spirit. The dissertations of the scholars usually provide solid proof from the Bible that the Holy Spirit is a Person and the Third Person of the Godhead; but they then leap to the conclusion that this is proof of the Roman Catholic dogma of a Trinity/Triune God. It is a great tragedy of contemporary Seventh-day Adventism that the embrace of the Trinity dogma by the Church organization has prejudiced the minds of earnest believers against the evidences from the Bible that indeed there have been three Persons of the Godhead since the Incarnation. Those SDAs who fail to study the Bible thoroughly will not be able to accept this fact.

On the sdanet.org website, there is Chapter XV of a publication titled The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer. The chapter is titled “ELLEN G. WHITE ON THE PERSONALITY AND DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT." This is a single-page document, and is copied in full as follows:

CHAPTER XV

ELLEN G. WHITE ON THE PERSONALITY AND DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Ellen G. White repeatedly affirms that the Holy Spirit is a Person:

The Holy Spirit is a person, for He beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God. . . .

The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God.^l

The Holy Spirit is presented in the writings of Ellen G. White as God, not an inferior emanation from the Deity, but in every sense God, as are Christ and the Father:

The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the tower of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.²

Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world’s Redeemer.³

The Holy Spirit is not spoken of as a subordinate representative, a tool used by the Father and the Son. As is Christ so is the Holy Spirit the "fullness of the Godhead:"

The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons in the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and those powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their effort to live the new life of Christ.⁴

The contention of the Adventist Arian and Semi-Arian to the effect that the Holy Spirit is a mere influence, not a Person and certainly not a member of the Deity, is therefore soundly contradicted in the writings of Ellen G. White.

ENDNOTES

¹E. G. White, Evangelism (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, l946), pp. 616, 617. Citing Manuscript 20, 1906.

²lbid., p. 617. Citing Special Testimonies, Series A, No. 10, p. 37. (l897)

³E. G. White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Press Publishing Association, l898), p. 671.

⁴White, op. cit., pp. 614 6l5. Citing Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63. (l905).

Ellen G. White’s statements quoted above are clear, and they do not support the Trinity/Triune God dogma. Of course, you must be aware that Adventist Laymen’s Foundation theology is “Anti-Trinitarian.” Our distinctive position is that exegetically the Old Testament reveals two Gods as one Lord, precisely as stated in the Shema of Israel, Deut. 6:4; and the New Testament reveals three. The monotheistic tradition of Christianity is based on an error in translating Deut. 6:4 (Cf. Between the first publication of QOD in 1957 . . .; As to looking to the "Pioneers" for the true doctrine of God . . . ) Adventist scholars have overlooked all of the biblical evidence that the Godhead was a Duo in the Old Testament (and into the New Testament in John 1:1,) and is a Trio of individual Beings in the New Testament, at least since Jesus Christ was glorified. This is not what Trinity/Triune means . . . (Cf. THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY. . .)

The foregoing documented evidence of the Personhood and Deity of the Holy Spirit should be enough to enable anyone to detect the flaws in booklets like the one subject to examination, with the strange title “don’t catch the Spirit from Another,” comprised of reams of quotations from the Writings and none from the Bible. However, attention may be directed to two factors that disqualify this particular booklet as a valid examination of the Doctrine of God. One is a glaring misconception that by itself explodes the whole thesis of the booklet. The other is conclusive evidence that the author is a Semi-Arian without realizing it.

As to the misconception, on the inside of the front cover the author claims that we (Seventh-day Adventists) “need to get back to our Pioneers and what they believed.” Since the booklet relates to the Godhead, the quotations from the Writings of Ellen G. White are misapplied. She was referring to Basic Adventism, of which the Godhead was not a part (for a full understanding read the entire WWN article.) In fact as quoted in the “Points to Ponder About the Godhead” bookmark hyperlinked above, she emphasized that the body of Truth is not static:

“We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible.” (RH, July 26, 1892)

“The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light,” (CW 33.2; quoted in “What is It? Basic Adventism;”)

This is wholly consistent with the Bible, and particularly the words of Jesus Himself:

John 16: “¹²I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. ¹³Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.”

The Truth is an advancing Truth! Here is another example from the Writings of the Apostle Paul:

Heb. 5: “¹¹ Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. ¹² For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. ¹³ For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. ¹⁴ But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

These words of the Apostle Paul are particularly appropriate in relation to the Godhead. From the pioneers to the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church, there has never been an understanding and acknowledgement that the Godhead was a duality in the Old Testament; and all stand aghast at the Tri-theistic reality of the New Testament, in spite of the clear statements of Ellen G. White which are now mistakenly equated with the concept of a Triune God. The “strong meat” is unpalatable to the ministry and laity alike.

As to confirmation that the author is a Semi-Arian, apparently without realizing it, here is a PDF image of P. 65 of the booklet, which was attached to the outgoing e-mail:

Note the confession of faith on the right side of the oval image in color, “LORD Begotten Son of God Christ Jesus is all the fullness of the Godhead (divinity, deity) MANIFESTED.” The meaning is enlarged as follows:

ONE GOD & FATHER of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. One LORD Jesus Christ - One SPIRIT - Omnipresent

1) One True Infinite God - Divinity Bodily - Spirit - Personal Being - Great Source of All

2) Christ Jesus - Divinity Manifested - Son of God (divine) - Son of Man (human)

3) Holy Spirit - The Omnipresent - personal presence and power of God and Christ; life, love, light and glory.

This is a Semi-Arian formulation, as is documented below. The author is a Semi-Arian and evidently not aware of it! The pre-existent Christ is portrayed effectively as a God by procreation; and this is the grievous error of those who have the notion that Christ who preceded the Incarnation was the only begotten Son of God. This false idea is exploded by the theologically qualified Grotheer in Monogenes. In this article Elder Grotheer applies a prophecy of Ellen G. White to the modern-day Semi-Arians in the community of Seventh-day Adventists:

In the New Testament, only in the Gospel and first Epistle of John do we find the word used in reference to Jesus Christ. It is used by Luke (7:12; 8:2; 9:38) to refer to an only child. Paul uses the word once to refer to Isaac (Heb. 11:17), who was not an "only child," but a son of Abraham in a unique sense, inasmuch as the birth of Isaac was by divine empowerment. This leaves John's use of the word distinct from both Paul and Luke. Its meaning in John must be determined by the law of first use. He used it four times in his Gospel and once in his First Epistle. Stump, in his article, does not consider the law of first use, but seeks rather to transfer Luke and Paul's literal human use to John's theological application (op.cit., p. 5). This can be forgiven inasmuch as Stump is not a theologian but rather a High School Driver Education teacher turned preacher. This is not to be considered a "minus," for in the final work there will be "young men taken from behind the plow and from the fields to preach the truth as it is in Jesus" (Medical Ministry, p. 305). However, take careful note that in the context of this promise there is found a warning. It reads:

While the solid truth of the Bible came from lips of men who had no fanciful theories of misleading science to present, there were others who labored with all their power to bring in false theories regarding God and Christ (ibid.)

This we see being fulfilled before our very eyes. This is the real issue at stake - the deception of sincere people who want truth, pure and unadulterated, which is the righteousness of Christ (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 65). But what is taking place? Under the guise of "the return of the Fourth Angel" "false theories regarding God and Christ" are being proclaimed.

Beware the false teachers!

As stated in the “Points to Ponder About the Godhead” bookmark hyperlinked above about those who argue that we must look to the Pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist movement for the true doctrine of God, “these self-appointed ‘messengers’ gloss over the fact that the early Pioneers held differing, and evolving, views of the Godhead.” Here the author of “don’t catch the Spirit from Another” exhibits a glaring error, and indeed a lack of understanding, in stating on page 1 under the heading “Pioneer Beliefs Misconstrued” that “The above statement by Mr. Johnson is incorrect when he tries to fit the founders of the faith into a box called Arian or Semi-Arian. Trinitarian-ism was definitely not held by early Adventists.” The fact is that neither the Arians nor the Semi-Arians among the Pioneers believed anything remotely resembling the Trinity dogma; but it is also beyond dispute that some prominent Pioneers were Arians and/or Semi-Arians. They did not subscribe to Trinitarianism; and to imply that contemporary Trinitarians make this claim is a misrepresentation. The views of the Godhead held by prominent Pioneers are stated in “The Godhead.” The relevant segment of the dissertation is quoted as follows:

Based on the evidence available, writers such as Joseph Bates, James White, J.M. Stephenson, J.B. Frisbie, D.W. Hull, Uriah Smith, J.N. Loughborough, S.B. Whitney, D.M. Canright, A.J. Dennis, J.H. Waggoner, G.W. Morse, T.R. Williamson and E.J. Waggoner took a position on the Godhead which is definitely anti-Trinitarian. Most of them were well respected denominational pioneers and leaders. Their influence, along with the absence of any evidence to the contrary, indicated that prior to the late 1890’s the prevailing opinion in the Seventh-day Adventist Church on the nature of God was – with the possible exception of Ellen G. White – anti-Trinitarian. The reasons why Trinitarianism was rejected during this time is perhaps best illustrated by Elder J.N. Loughborough. In answer to the question, “What serious objection is there to the doctrine of the Trinity?”, published in the Review and Herald, November 5, 1861, Loughborough replied:

“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.” (J.N. Loughborough, “Questions for Bro. Loughborough”, Review and Herald, XVIII, November 5, 1861, page 184).

In explanation, Loughborough enlarges on the first objection by opposing the idea that three are one and one, three. He reasons that there would be three Gods if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were each God.

In considering the second objection he notes that scripture speaks of the Father and the Son as two distinct persons. The oneness between them, according to John chapter 17, is the same as that between Christian believers. Loughborough urged that belief in the Trinity meant acceptance of the concept that “God sent himself into the world, died to reconcile the world to himself, raised himself from the dead, ascended to himself in heaven. . .”

As for the third objection, he argues that Trinitarianism came into the church about the same time as image worship and Sunday observance in 325 A.D. He views it as simply a renovation of the pagan Persian religion and observes that by about 681 A.D. Trinitarianism became an established doctrine in most of the Christian world. . .

In addition, other objections saw Trinitarianism as depreciating the efficacy of the atonement (if Christ was Absolute God in the same sense as the Father, then His divine nature could not die and therefore the sacrifice would have been merely a human one; inadequate to atone for sin); and also divesting God of bodily parts and form (an extreme position advocated by certain Trinitarian denominations).

The same denominational literature which opposes Trinitarianism also shows uniform agreement on certain views concerning the Godhead that Adventists of the time considered fundamental – 1. The Father alone possesses absolute Deity and is Eternal in the fullest sense of the term. 2. Christ is subordinate to the Father. 3. The Holy Spirit is not a person, but rather a mere influence.

The exact understanding of these views – particularly the relationship of Christ to the Father – differed somewhat. In 1854, J.M. Stephenson wrote:

“The idea of Father and Son supposes priority of the existence of the one, and the subsequent existence of the other...Col. 1:15 ‘The first born of every creature.’ Creature signifies creation; hence to be the first born of every creature, (creation) he [Christ] must be a created being; and as such, his life and immortality must depend upon the Father’s will just as much as angels, or redeemed men...” (J.M. Stephenson, “The Atonement”, Review and Herald, VI, November 14, 1854, pages 128, 133).

These statements appear to indicate a true Arian position. The terms “Father” and “Son” are understood as conveying the idea of existence of one prior to the later existence of the other. In other words, the Father had always existed, but there was a time when Christ did not exist; He had a beginning. Furthermore, this “subsequent existence” (beginning) is at creation. Colossians 1:15 is understood as teaching that Christ “must be a created being”. As the first created of all creation, His coming into existence is in the same category as the coming into existence of “angels, or redeemed men”, as well as “every creature (creation).”

Likewise, Uriah Smith appears to take a true Arian position in the first issue of his commentary on Revelation. Speaking of Christ in his exposition of Revelation 3:14-22, Smith wrote:

“Moreover he is ‘the beginning of the creation of God. Not the beginner, but the beginning, of the creation, the first created being, dating his existence far back before any other created being or thing, next to the self-existent and eternal God.” (Uriah Smith, Thoughts Critical and Practical on the Book of Revelation, Battle Creek, Mich.: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1865, page 59).

Again, Christ is said to be “the first created being” in conjunction with “OTHER created being[s] or thing[s]”; He is “Not the beginner, but the beginning of creation.”

Over the years, Uriah Smith would modify this view and move away from a true Arian position in his Christology. In the 1899 edition of Thoughts on the Book of Daniel and the Revelation, the comment on Revelation 3:14-22 stated:

“Others, however, and more properly we think, take the word [arche] to mean the ‘agent’ or ‘efficient cause,’ which is one of the definitions of the word, understanding that Christ is the agent through whom God has created all things, but that he himself came into existence in a different manner, as he is called ‘the only begotten’ of the Father. It would seem utterly inappropriate to apply this expression to any being created in the ordinary sense of the term.” (Uriah Smith, Thoughts on the Book of Daniel and the Revelation, Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1899, page 371).

With this exposition, Smith completely reverses the position held in 1865. Christ now is the “beginner” of the creation – “the agent through whom God has created all things” – and not the “beginning” of the creation – “the first created being.” And while He still has a “far back” in the past beginning, He did not come into being in a way similar to that which is created. Now Christ “came into existence in a different manner” not like “any being created in the ordinary sense of that term;” He was “begotten of the Father.” An understanding of this terminology appeared a year earlier in Elder Smith’s work, Looking Unto Jesus, He wrote:

“Thus it appears that by some divine impulse or process, not creation, known only to Omniscience, and possibly only to Omnipotence, The Son of God appeared.” (Uriah Smith, Looking Unto Jesus, Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald Publishing Company, 1898, page 10).

Clearly Smith understood the word begotten as “some divine impulse or process, not creation” by which the preincarnate Christ, at some point or period in the extreme far distant past, came into existence. Compared to the 1865 view, this later view of the doctrine of Christ in relation to the Godhead is a move closer to the Trinitarian concept.

Significantly in 1890, while also expounding on the nature of Christ in relation to the Father, Elder E.J. Waggoner wrote:

“There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning.”

“But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son, and not a created subject...And since He is the only-begotten Son of God, He is of the very substance and nature of God, and possesses by birth all the attributes of God, for the Father was pleased that His Son should be the express image of His Person, the brightness of His glory, and filled with all the fullness of the Godhead. So He has ‘life in Himself;’ He possesses immortality in His own right, and can confer immortality upon others.” (E.J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, 96 pp., Students Library, No. 72, pages 21 and 22).

Waggoner’s view is ever closer to Trinitarian Christology (at least in definition) than Smith’s view. “Christ proceeded forth...from the bosom of the Father...is a begotten Son...and possesses by birth all the attributes of God.” There is no doubt that Waggoner’s understanding of the term begotten is defined as a proceeding and coming forth from the bosom, a birth; or in other words a type of procreation. This definition of begotten is essentially the same as the Trinitarian definition of it. However, with Waggoner’s view the procreation of the Son by the Father was a process which happened once at some point in the far distant past; whereas with the Trinitarian view the procreation of the Son by the Father is a perpetual process by which the Father eternally communicates essence or self to the Son.

In summary, the evidence indicates that during this period in Seventh-day Adventist history (from shortly after 1844 up to the late 1890’s) there was a non-Trinitarian view of the Godhead that was generally held unofficially, by most within the church (it must be remembered that there wasn’t an official statement on the doctrine produced by the church throughout this time).

The position taken was:

1. There is only one supreme God, the Father. He alone is fully Eternal and absolute Deity.

2. There is only one divine Son of God, Christ. He is next, in power and authority, to the Eternal Father. He is not fully Eternal and absolutely Divine because there was a time in which He did not exist. His existence and His deity were dependent upon the Father. Christ is therefore inferior to the Father because His eternity is limited and His divinity delegated to Him.

3. The Holy Spirit is not a person and not a member of the Deity. Rather, “It” is the force and power of God; a divine influence which emanates from the Father and the Son. It is the agent which represents their presence when they personally are not present.

Thus we see that the Pioneers were strongly anti-Trinitarian. However, as strongly anti-Trinitarian as they were, prominent Pioneers were also Arian and Semi-Arian, as documented in the quotation from “The Godhead” above.

J. N. Loughborough’s three objections to the Trinity dogma are both succinct and very cogent. Objections numbers 1 and 2 are sufficiently sustained by the documentation provided earlier in this message. Objection number 3 can be amplified here. Elder Grotheer refers to the pagan triad in WWN10(86) under the title “THAT I MAY KNOW HIM”:

The method of how we should approach this doctrine was discussed. Do we seek to move from the pagan triad concept to the truth about God, or do we recognize paganism for what it is, and seek to find the true picture of God in the Old Testament as revealed in the earthly sanctuary - God seated between the cherubim - and one of those cherubim a created being? . . .

A little thought over the origin of sin in Heaven and its transfer to this planet due to the surrender of our first parents to the sophistry of Lucifer gives insight as to the why of the pagan trinity concepts with their multiple triads. It also gives meaning to "the serpent's" suggestion - "Ye shall be as gods." (Gen. 3:5)

After the factual presentations on the concepts of the trinity in paganism and papalism, and the history of the Doctrine of God in Adventist literature, we began as a group, the study of the Bible to see what it actually taught - no more and no less. The first verse of the first chapter introduces the Doctrine of God - "In the beginning Gods" (Elohim, plural) Hebrew scholars would have us to understand the plural usage as "the majestic plural"(Sig. in force) The revelation of God in these early chapters of Genesis do not support this conclusion. The Elohim converse among Themselves - "Let us make man in our own image." (Gen. 1:26) When this man fell into sin, again the conversation is recorded - "Behold, the man is become as one of us." (Gen. 3:22)

The actual use of the singular and plural forms in Genesis 3:22-24 is thought provoking: "The Jehovah (singular) Gods (plural) said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil... So He (singular) drove out the man." The Shema of Israel (Deut. 6:4-5) also reveals this interesting use of plural and the singular. It reads: "Hear (shema), 0 Israel: Jehovah (singular) your Gods (plural) is Jehovah one. You shall love Jehovah (singular) your Gods (plural) with all your heart." The word, "one" in verse 4 is translated from the Hebrew word, echad. As used elsewhere, its use here presents a challenge in concept. When the idea to be expressed is "one" in the sense of only one, the word, ye chid, is used. An example of this use is to be found in Genesis 22:2, where Abraham was told to take Isaac "thine only son" to the land of Moriah. The use of echad as "one` is found in Genesis 1:5, where "evening" and "morning" are declared to be "day one." In Genesis 2:24, Adam and Eve - two - are declared to be "one" (echad) flesh. . . (Pp. 2-3.)

A web page of the United Church of God titled “How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity” drives home the point about the pagan origins of the Trinity dogma. It opens with this statement: “Many who believe in the Trinity are surprised, perhaps shocked, to learn that the idea of divine beings existing as trinities or triads long predated Christianity. Yet, as we will see, the evidence is abundantly documented.”

The article goes on to document the triad/trinity concepts of the Sumerians and Babylonians:

Sumeria

“The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods” ( The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1994, pp. 54-55)

Babylonia

“The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god — as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity” (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23). (Original italics)

Similar belief in a divine trinity is documented for India, Greece, Egypt, Rome, and also the Phoenicians, the Germanic nations, and the Celts.

The last two paragraphs of the United Church of God paper state as follows:

James Bonwick summarized the story well on page 396 of his 1878 work Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought: “It is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south.

“Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one. The first is as the second or third, the second as first or third, the third as first or second; in fact, they are each other, one and the same individual being. The definition of Athanasius, who lived in Egypt, applies to the trinities of all heathen religions.” (Original italics)

Loughborough was evidently well acquainted with the pagan origins of the triad/trinity concept. Neither the historical facts of the Christian faith nor the biblical Truth about the Godhead will be hidden from those who exercise due diligence in research and study, allowing themselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit into all Truth. Here it must be noted that in spite of the excellent dissertation quoted above, the United Church of God nevertheless does not have the Truth about the Godhead. It is tragic and sad that, at least online, it is this Denomination which exposes the pagan and satanic origins of the Trinity dogma, and not the Seventh-day Adventist Church as betrayer of its sacred trust to publish Present Truth to the world. The United Church of God observes the Seventh-day Sabbath and publishes a sound exegesis from the Bible against the dogma of the Immortality of the Soul. However, the Denomination teaches many false doctrines. One of these doctrines in particular: the return of Jesus to reign on this earth for the 1000-years Millennium, is a deadly delusion!

In summation, and beginning with the dogma of the Trinity last discussed above, the Triune conception of the Godhead is not only contrary to the Bible and therefore false; it also makes no sense as stated by J. N. Loughborough. It derives directly from ancient paganism, and is manifestly satanic. It is clearly demonstrative of the fallen angel Lucifer’s ambition to be a God, and his direct challenge to the Divinity of the Christ Who pre-existed creation and the Incarnation. Note the statement in “THAT I MAY KNOW HIM” above.

Turning next to the revelation of God in the Old Testament, and confirmed in John 1:1, there was more than one God, and the Bible establishes that They were Two - a duality (Between the first publication of QOD in 1957 . . .) The Holy Spirit was the Second Person of the Godhead, and also had other names and descriptions. The name “Michael” extends into the New Testament (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 1:9; Rev. 12:7.) (Rev. 12:7 can be seen as confirmation that the Word became flesh, so that Jesus Christ the God-man in His Divinity continued to be the Second Person of the Godhead.) Again, another description of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament was “Angel of the Lord” (Numerous references, most notably Exodus 3:2-22.) Another was “Captain of the Lord's host” (Joshua 5:15.) Another significant description was "My Fellow" (Zech. 13:7) applied by Jesus Christ to Himself in (Matt. 26:31, 32.)

Sadly, in the ranks of Seventh-day Adventists who correctly reject the Trinitarian/Triune God heresy are many who will not recognize in Christ a Divinity equal to that of the Father. All of the evidence from the Old Testament is that His subordination to the Father as one of the covering Cherubs was voluntary and by agreement between the two Gods. (It was in His humanity that He was "exalted" by the Father after His resurrection.) The names and descriptions documented above are set in circumstances which identify the Holy Spirit as co-equal with God the Father, though voluntarily subordinate, prior and subsequent to the Incarnation. After the Incarnation that identification was declared by Jesus Christ Himself as the “I AM” (John 8:24, 58; 13:19.)

Finally, there is ample evidence that the Holy Spirit given to Jesus Christ’s followers is Himself God, distinct in person from the Father and the Son, as documented in the preceding paragraphs, including these passages of Scripture.

The irresistible conclusion must be that the Godhead was a duality in the Old Testament. In the New Testament is revealed a Trio of separate Beings, but One Lord as in the Old Testament. In adopting the dogma of the Trinity/Triune/Triad of Gods the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been seduced by Great Babylon, and now stands on the enchanted ground of paganism. It is no wonder that Ellen G. White prophesied:

Here we see that the church—the Lord’s sanctuary—was the first to feel the stroke of the wrath of God. The ancient men, those to whom God had given great light and who had stood as guardians of the spiritual interests of the people, had betrayed their trust. . . (5T, P. 211.)

A response by the caller, too swift to indicate more than a cursory glance at the study material provided above, promised yet another booklet of Ellen G. White quotations. This necessitated a documentation of the folly of attempting to establish doctrine by copious quotations from her Writings, with absolutely no reference to what is revealed in the Bible, and reiteration of the sound doctrine of the Godhead exegeted from the Bible. The following is a summary:

(1) Dismay was expressed that before buckling down to a thorough study of what was sent, the SDA brother had sent yet another page of Ellen G. White quotations taken out of context and without a single text from the Bible, with a promise to send yet another booklet with similar content.

(2) The apparent misunderstanding about the futility of the SDA brother's efforts was addressed as follows:

I need to make my position on the study of Bible doctrine clear. There is no better way to do so than to direct your attention to this section of Elder Grotheer’s Bible Study Guide: Concepts for Further Consideration. Furthermore, in the past I have dealt in depth with the problem of self-appointed teachers who have no training in Hermeneutics, and misuse the Writings of Ellen G. White to sustain their misconceptions about the Truth of the Godhead. If you read UNIQUELY BEGOTTEN GOD carefully, you will see the futility of trying to convince me that a clear understanding of the Godhead can be taught from the Writings alone. We must test the Writings by the Bible and not the other way around. In this way you can know which of the statements in the Writings are consistent with the Protestant Canon of Scripture. . .

The track of truth lies close beside the track of error, and both tracks may seem to be one to minds which are not worked by the Holy Spirit, and which, therefore, are not quick to discern the difference between truth and error (RH, October 22, 1903 par. 2; italics emphasis added.)