ANG TAMANG PALIWANAG SA JOHN 5:18: "BAKIT SINIRA NI JESUS ANG SABBATH?"

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ANSWERED VERSE-BY-VERSE ON JOHN 5:18: "JESUS BREAKING THE SABBATH": WHY ISN'T JUST AN ACCUSATION FROM THE JEWS?"

John 5:18 (ESV)

"This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ARGUMENTS:

#1.) From Ellen G. White

"Jesus claimed equal rights with God in doing a work equally sacred, and of the same character with that which engaged the Father in heaven. But the Pharisees were still more incensed. He had not only broken the law, according to their understanding, but in calling God “His own Father” had declared Himself equal with God. John 5:18, R. V. DA 207.3"[1]

#2.) From SDA Bible Commentary

"5:18 broke the Sabbath. “The Jews” in John’s Gospel are unreliable witnesses. This charge is false (see note on v. 10). making … God. The “making” part of this charge is also false."[2]

#3.) From SDA Debaters

"Jesus broke only the Jewish halakhic interpretation of the Sabbath of the Rabbis, not the Biblical Sabbath"

ANSWER:

The SDAs use many arguments to deny that Jesus truly broke the Sabbath in John 5:18. At first glance, their efforts seem commendable and noble because it is natural for Christians to believe that the Lord Jesus would naturally be obedient to His Father's will in heaven. For the SDAs, anyone who says that Jesus broke the Sabbath according to John 5:18 is on the side of the Jews who persecuted Jesus and is an ally of God's enemies. On the other hand, the SDAs believe they are on Jesus' side, and this, according to them, is strong evidence that the true followers of Jesus today are the Seventh-day Adventists because they side with Jesus and not with His enemies regarding the Sabbath issue. They use certain Bible texts to counter the conclusion that Jesus broke the Sabbath according to John 5:18. For example Matthew 5:17 (ESV): 

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Initially, their argument about Matthew 5:17 appears valid. However, a closer examination reveals a misinterpretation of the text. Jesus is not referring to the Ten Commandments or the Sabbath in this verse. Instead, He speaks of fulfilling the prophecies and writings about Him in the Old Testament Scriptures. Notice what Jesus says at the beginning of Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets." In this verse, Jesus did not mention the Sabbath or the Ten Commandments. Instead, He referred to "the Law or the Prophets." SDAs often misinterpret this passage, stopping at "Law" and not continuing to "or the Prophets," implying that Jesus would not abolish the Ten Commandments, particularly the Sabbath. However, this is not what He was saying. The question now is, what did Jesus mean by the words "the Law or the Prophets"? According to the SDA Bible Commentary, "the Law or the Prophets" was a technical term commonly used by Jews during Jesus' time to refer to the Old Testament Scriptures: "The expression 'the law and the prophets' represents a twofold division of the OT Scriptures."[4] When Jesus said He would fulfill and not abolish, He was not specifically referring to the Ten Commandments or the Sabbath but rather to the entire Old Testament Scriptures.

Many prophecies about Jesus have yet to be fulfilled and will happen in the future, such as His second coming. This is why He said in verse 18: "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18, ESV). Only "Law" is mentioned here, not "Law or the Prophets," but it still refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. This is connected to the argument in verse 17 about "Law or the Prophets," which refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. This is called synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part represents the whole.[5]

Accusation by the Jews?

Another argument frequently used by the SDAs to defend the interpretation that Jesus did not break the Sabbath according to John 5:18 is that this was merely an accusation by the Jews. They argue that what Jesus actually broke was their incorrect interpretation of how to observe the Sabbath according to their traditions, which were not supported by the Scriptures. When I was an SDA apologist, my argument was to point out that Jesus did not break the biblical Sabbath but challenged their additional interpretations of how the Sabbath should be observed. The frequent clashes between Jesus and the Jewish leaders were indeed about the proper way to observe the Sabbath, not the Sabbath itself. To understand what I mean, let's examine the context of the controversial text in John 5:18. It concerns a man who had been an invalid for 38 years and was healed by the Lord Jesus at a place called Bethesda near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem. 

Let's read the events in John 5:6-10:

John 5:6-10 (ESV) 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” 9 And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked. Now that day was the Sabbath. 10 So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.”

The man who was once considered invalid does not claim that carrying his bed on the Sabbath is allowed, nor does Jesus argue that the Jews have misinterpreted the Sabbath law. John explicitly states that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath (John 5:18). Both Jesus and the healed man were in violation of the Sabbath, as Jesus instructed the man to carry the bed. This scenario signifies a conflict of authority between Jesus and the Mosaic law, rather than between Jesus and the Jewish interpretation. The man's bed likely included a pad for comfort and multiple blankets for warmth, similar to typical bedding. This bed would qualify as a "load," which is prohibited on the Sabbath according to Jeremiah 17:27, based on the Mosaic law, not the Jewish Halakha.

Jeremiah 17:27 (ESV) "But if you do not listen to me, to keep the Sabbath day holy, and not to bear a burden and enter by the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched."

There seems to be no valid reason for carrying it on that day; Jesus could have healed him and instructed him to retrieve it after sunset. This suggests that Jesus intentionally chose to heal on the Sabbath and asked the man to perform an action that violated Sabbath law. The Pharisees had knowledge of the ancient covenant story where a man was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath and was stoned to death as a consequence of God's command for this offense (Numbers 15:32-36). One might justify a man carrying sticks before justifying a man carrying his pallet, but the latter becomes inexcusable because he did it under the direct command of Jesus. It is believed that the man gathering sticks was likely doing so out of human necessity, such as staying warm or preparing food. In contrast, the story does not provide a valid reason for why the man had to carry his bed away on the Sabbath day. Therefore, when strictly following the Old Testament Sabbath laws, the Jewish leaders seemed to be upholding the exact requirements of the law.

It's important to highlight that Jesus did not attempt to justify his acts of healing or his instruction to “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” within the confines of Sabbath law. Instead, he boldly affirmed that both he and his Father were working—a clear violation of Sabbath law. Jesus then shifted the focus of the discussion from Sabbath transgression to his close relationship with his Father. The Jewish rabbis correctly understood that God's rest on the seventh day of creation did not preclude his ongoing work of sustaining the universe.

Now it is clear that Jesus intentionally chose to heal the man who had been invalid for 38 years on the Sabbath day. Furthermore, Jesus also deliberately instructed the healed man to carry his mat and walk home on the same Sabbath day, which, according to the Jews, violated the Sabbath based on Mosaic law (Jeremiah 17:27) and their oral tradition (Mishnah Shabbat 7.2). This clearly disproves the Seventh-day Adventists' belief that Jesus' violation of the Sabbath in John 5:18 was merely an accusation by the Jews and not true.  We also understand that our conclusion about John 5:18 does not contradict their frequent claim that Christ would not "abolish" the "law" but fulfill it. What Jesus meant by fulfilling the law until heaven and earth pass away refers to the prophecies in the Old Testament Scriptures concerning Him.

Reasons why Jesus need to "Break" the Jewish Sabbath

1.) The Jewish weekly Sabbath is merely a ceremonial law.

There are a few important points to consider to understand that the Sabbath is a ceremonial law, not a moral law. Christ used examples of ceremonial laws to defend His "breaking" of the Sabbath.

a.) David and his companions ate the "bread of the Presence" placed in the Holy Place of the Temple. According to the law of Moses, only priests were allowed to eat it. However, David and his companions eating it was not considered a sin (Matt.12:3-4).

b.) The priests violate the Sabbath every time they serve in the Temple due to the quantity and weight of their duties. However, they are not considered guilty for doing so. (Matt. 12:5)

In this instance, I want to emphasize that Jesus did indeed break the Sabbath because He used examples of God's servants in the Old Testament who also transgressed the law but, like Christ, remained without sin. In simpler terms, Jesus justified his breaking of the Jewish Sabbath, asserting that he did not sin, much like David and the priests who transgressed the law without incurring sin. Essentially, Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Why do you judge me for breaking the Sabbath law when David also transgressed the law, and likewise, the temple priests violated the Sabbath, yet you do not accuse them of sin?"

In the context of John 5:18, it is crucial to highlight that Jesus did not seek to justify his healing actions or his command to "Get up, pick up your mat, and walk" as compliant with Sabbath law. Instead, he confidently affirmed that both He and His Father were actively working, actions explicitly prohibited by Sabbath law (John 5:16-18). Jesus then shifted the focus from the violation of Sabbath law to his intimate relationship with His Father. The Jewish rabbis correctly understood that God's rest on the seventh day after creation did not encompass His ongoing task of sustaining the universe. Just as the work of sustaining creation exceeds the demands of Sabbath law, so does Christ's work of redemption transcend the Pharisees' Sabbath regulations and the literal interpretation of Old Testament Sabbath laws.

The purpose of redemption is to restore the conditions that existed on the initial seventh day when God rested. The explicit language and literary style lead us to affirm that both assertions—that Jesus was breaking or disregarding the Sabbath and referring to God as His own Father—were accurate. These truths were the reasons why the Jews were resolutely determined to kill Jesus.

2.) The Jewish weekly Sabbath is merely a shadow

Jesus' breaking of the Sabbath serves to prepare the minds of both the Jews and his disciples that the Sabbath they have long observed is merely a temporary shadow, part of the ceremonial aspect of Moses' law in the Old Covenant that is soon to pass away. As the promised Messiah in the Old Covenant, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29; Colossians 2:16-17). 

Colossians 2:16-17 (TLB) "16 So don’t let anyone criticize you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating Jewish holidays and feasts or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. 17 For these were only temporary rules that ended when Christ came. They were only shadows of the real thing—of Christ himself."

Jesus will offer them true daily rest for their souls and deliverance from sin. This is clearly illustrated in the Scriptures by how Jesus prepares the minds of the people, as seen in the context of Matthew 12 and Mark 2. Before Matthew recounts the encounter of Jesus and his disciples with the Pharisees regarding plucking grains on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-2), he first describes the rest that Jesus offers to people in Matthew 11:28-30:

Matthew 11:28 - 12:2 (ESV) 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavily laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” 1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.”

In Mark's gospel account, before he details the encounter of Jesus with the Pharisees in the grainfield on the Sabbath, he first presents Jesus' teachings on New Wine and Old Wineskins. 

Mark 2:21-24 (ESV) 21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.” One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”

According to the SDA Bible Commentary, "new wine" represents the gospel, while "old wineskins" refers to the teachings of Judaism.

"The representation of the gospel by “new wine” and its work by the process of fermentation resembles in essence the parable of the leaven but emphasizes a different result (see Matt. 13:33). The “new wine” represents the vital truth of God at work in the hearts of men ... Jesus’ revolutionary teachings could not be reconciled with the reactionary dogmas of Judaism. Any effort to contain Christianity within the dead forms of Judaism, that is, to unite the two by forcing Christianity to take the shape of, and be reconciled to it, would prove in vain. ...The attempt to unite the new with the old would result in two-fold destruction. The “wine” of the gospel would be “spilled,” and the “bottles” of Judaism would be “marred." [6]

The theologians of the Seventh-day Adventist Church explain that Jesus' point about New Wine and Old Wineskins clearly illustrates the lack of harmony and compatibility between the teachings of the New Testament and the doctrines of Judaism, including the broader law and specific observances like the Sabbath. They emphasize that "Jesus’ radical teachings could not coexist with the conservative doctrines of Judaism." Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Jesus continued to challenge ceremonial requirements such as the weekly Sabbath. This is why Jesus invited heavily burdened Jews, including those bound by the yoke of the Mosaic Law, including the Sabbath (Acts 15:10), to find spiritual rest that is only available through Him (Matthew 11:28-30). This invitation also extends to our beloved Seventh-day Adventists, who have yet to fully embrace the truth of the New Testament gospel of Christ.

Conclusion: 

Upon thorough examination of the Scriptures, we understand that John 5:18 indicates that Jesus did indeed violate the Jewish Sabbath and it is not a mere Jewish accusation. Drawing from Jesus's actions and arguments, it is evident that Jesus purposefully chose to heal the man who had been invalid for 38 years on the Sabbath day. Additionally, Jesus instructed the healed man to carry his bed and walk home on the same Sabbath day, actions perceived as Sabbath violations by the Jews according to Mosaic law (Jeremiah 17:27) and their oral tradition (Mishnah Shabbat 7.2). Jesus defended these Sabbath violations by referencing instances such as the priests' activities on the Sabbath, which did not amount to sin (Matt. 12:5).

Our Seventh-day Adventist friends need to understand that we do not claim Jesus sinned by breaking the Sabbath. That is not our assertion. If the priests in the temple can perform their duties on the Sabbath without sinning, then certainly Jesus Christ, who is greater than the Temple and the Lord over the Sabbath, did not sin. 

My prayer is that Seventh-day Adventists may grasp this truth and realize that accepting Jesus ended the weekly Sabbath allows them to focus on the Savior of their souls without sinning.

Jesus clearly regarded the Sabbath as a ritual or ceremonial law that foreshadowed Him, fulfilling its intended purpose. Examining this incident holistically, it appears Jesus aimed to redirect the focus of Jewish leaders from old covenant laws to Himself as the new reference point for life and judgment. In doing so, Jesus undertook significant personal risk to establish Himself as the central figure for life and judgment in the new covenant.

Question from bro. Moon Deelo:"WHAT RELIGION DO YOU TEACH?"

ANG TAMANG PALIWANANG SA ROMA 3:31: LUMANG TIPAN ITO HINDI 10 UTOS!

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ANSWERED VERSE-BY-VERSE ON ROMANS 3:31: "FAITH UPHOLDS THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OR THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE?"

 

Romans 3:31 (ESV) 

"Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

Seventh-day Adventists Arguments:

From the Seventh-day Adventists 28 Fundamental Beliefs book

#1. "His gospel produced a faith that firmly upheld the validity of the Decalogue. Asked Paul, do we "make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law" (Rom. 3:31)." [1]

From Handbook of Seventh-day Adventists Theology:

#2. "The law, and more specifically the Decalogue, represents the divine mandate. It is the living will of God. This characteristic of the law leads Paul to a clear conclusion: the law cannot be abolished. “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Rom. 3:31). By the “principle of faith” (literally, law of faith) the believer obeys the law (verse 27)." [2]

From The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary:

#3. "It is true that Paul “made void” the Jewish idea of law as a means of attaining righteousness and the Jewish insistence that the Gentiles must follow the same method (Acts 15:1; Gal. 2:16–19). But law in its true function is confirmed, rather than abrogated, by God’s appointed method of justifying sinners."[3]

Introduction:

To understand a passage from the Bible, it is crucial to study and learn the context or background of the verse and the issues that prompted what is stated in the passage. This approach is also the correct way to fully comprehend the meaning and intention of the author in Romans 3:31. Seventh-day Adventists often use this verse to defend their belief that faith does not nullify the law and to demonstrate that the law and faith, or the gospel, are not in conflict. It is one of my favorite verses to show that the Seventh-day Adventists correctly assert that the law, particularly the Ten Commandments, remains commanded by the Lord for Christians under the grace of the New Covenant.

Answer:

Let's break down Romans 3:31 to grasp its true meaning according to the genuine intention of the Apostle Paul, who wrote it. We will do this by understanding the context or background of this verse and why Paul said, "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law"(Romans 3:31)

1.) The Context has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments.

The main theme of the book of Romans is God's righteousness. 

Romans 1:16-17 (ESV) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

All humans, whether Jew or Gentile, are sinners and face judgment by a holy and perfect God. Reconciliation with God is possible only through faith in Christ's atoning death on the cross. Because of Christ's sacrifice for sin, God "justifies," or declares righteous, those who believe in Him.

In Romans 2, Paul challenges the belief that God favors Jews over Gentiles. Traditional thinking held that Jews had an advantage because they were given the law revealed to Moses. Gentiles, unless they converted to Judaism, were not regarded as part of the covenant community.

God's righteousness is revealed apart from the law, showing it does not depend on human adherence to the law's works. Paul may also suggest that it is not based on the Sinai covenant. Although God's saving righteousness is separate from the law, the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it. Essentially, the Old Testament Scriptures predicted this method of salvation:

Romans 1:1-2 (ESV) "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures."

Paul also affirms that the Old Testament Scriptures testify to God's righteousness through faith apart from the works of the law.

Romans 3:21 (ESV) "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it."

God's salvation occurred independently of the law, separate from the Mosaic law, applying to both Gentiles who do not possess the law and Jews who do not follow it. Because of this, concerned Jewish Christians were asking Paul, “Does faith erase everything Judaism stands for? Does it invalidate our Scriptures, end our customs, and imply that God is no longer working through us?” Paul emphatically states, "Absolutely not!" Faith illuminates God's dealings with the Jewish people; it does not destroy the Old Testament Scripture {Rom. 3:1-2).

Besides the context, it's unlikely that the "Law" mentioned in Romans 3:31 refers to the Ten Commandments because the Greek text uses the word "nomos" (Torah or 613 commandments) instead of "dekálogos" or "deka remata," which are the Greek words equivalent to the Ten Commandments.

Therefore, there is no solid basis or support for the SDA interpretation that this refers to the Ten Commandments. They would need to manipulate and distort Romans 3:31 to deceive people into believing that faith and the Ten Commandments are compatible.

2.) The "Law" is not the Ten Commandments but the Old Testament Scriptures.

This is where SDAs often need to correct things. They assume that the "law" in Romans 3:31 refers to the Ten Commandments without carefully considering its true context. This gives SDAs confidence to challenge debates because their study of the Bible is often superficial, relying more on literal reading rather than understanding the true intention of the passage. Romans 3:31 becomes their weapon in debates, where they engage in question-and-answer sessions without bothering about its context, aiming primarily to win debates rather than seek the truth.

At the beginning, we mentioned some references from the SDA Church that assume it refers to the Ten Commandments. For example, in their Seventh-day Adventists 28 Fundamental Beliefs book:

"His gospel produced a faith that firmly upheld the validity of the Decalogue. Asked Paul, do we "make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law" (Rom. 3:31)." [4]

Notice that the SDA 28 Fundamental Beliefs book assumes Paul is referring to the "decalogue" as established by faith. However, as mentioned earlier, Paul's context does not discuss the Ten Commandments but rather the entire law of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which became a mark of identity for the Jewish religion. In fact, the SDA Bible Commentary contradicts the erroneous conclusion of the SDA 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Instead of asserting that the law strengthened by faith refers to the Ten Commandments, the SDA Bible Commentary states that it refers to the law revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures:

"Establish the law. Paul is emphasizing the place of law as a principle, and particularly, in the context of this chapter, as it is embodied in the revealed law of the OT."[5] 

Even any SDA member would admit that the entirety of the law in the Old Testament is not confined to just the Ten Commandments. They acknowledge that the 613 commandments comprise the law in the Old Testament, but they deliberately avoid mentioning this because they know they cannot fully adhere to all the 613 commandments. Instead, they reduce it to the Ten Commandments, unaware that by doing so, they are still committing a sin against God. They also frequently read James 2:10, which states, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."

For this reason, it is not wrong to argue that faith establishes the Old Testament Scriptures rather than the Ten Commandments. One of our bases for this argument is that according to the SDA Bible Commentary, the Greek word nomos, often translated as "Law" can also refer to the Old Testament Scriptures in the writings of the Apostle Paul.

"Paul uses the word “law” in different ways. It may refer to the Mosaic Law (Gal. 4:21); to the whole OT (1 Cor. 14:21); to the Ten Commandments (Rom. 2:17–23; 7:7; 13:8–10); or to a specific law, such as the one that binds husband and wife (Rom. 7:2). He also uses the word “law” (nomos) in a figurative sense, such as when referring to the “law of evil” (verse 21) or “law of sin” (verse 25; see also Rom. 8:2; Gal. 6:2). While Paul does not give a precise definition each time he employs the term, usually its meaning is evident from the context."[6]

It is clear, therefore, that the word "law" in Paul's letters has various meanings and does not always refer solely to the Ten Commandments, as often heard from many preachers and debaters in the SDA church. This is largely because many of them lack theological background or are not diligent in reading their theological books. The mentioned reference also provides a valuable tip for many SDAs that because Paul often does not explicitly explain how he uses the word "law" in his letters, it would be helpful to consider how he employs it based on the context of his writings.

In our case, in Romans 3:31, the context is very clear and precise in supporting that verse 31 does not refer to the Ten Commandments but rather to the testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures. This is what is stated in verse 21:

Romans 3:21 (ESV) "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it."

This is the testimony itself of the SDA Bible Commentary:

"The law and the prophets. That is, the OT Scriptures. In the Greek, the article appears with “law”. There is no contradiction between the OT and NT. Although this manifestation of God’s righteousness is apart from the law, it is not in any opposition to the law and the prophets. On the contrary, it was anticipated by them (see John 5:39). The OT is in substance prophetic of the righteousness to be revealed in Christ and received by faith, as recorded in the NT (see Acts 10:43; 1 Peter 10, 11). Paul has already quoted Hab. 2:4, “The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17). Throughout the epistle, Paul constantly refers to the OT for confirmation of his thesis that righteousness is by faith (see chs. 4; 10:6, 11). "[7]

In summary, God's righteousness, in harmony with both the law and the prophets (Old Testament Scriptures), is revealed in both the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT). The OT predicts the righteousness that will be revealed in Christ and obtained through faith, a truth confirmed in the NT. Paul often refers to the OT for validation.

#3. Faith-Based Righteousness Without the Law Upholds Abraham's Old Testament Example

The following chapter, Romans 4, provides evidence that faith upholds the Old Testament Scriptures, not the Ten Commandments. Romans 4 continues from Romans 3 and uses Abraham as an example. Abraham was considered righteous by God because of his faith, not by following the Ten Commandments, which, as stated in Galatians 5, did not exist during Abraham's time. The law, including the Ten Commandments, was given 430 years later during the time of Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness after their liberation from Egyptian captivity.

Galatians 3:17 (TLB) "Here’s what I am trying to say: God’s promise to save through faith—and God wrote this promise down and signed it—could not be canceled or changed four hundred and thirty years later when God gave the Ten Commandments."

Abraham is used as a test case to illustrate that justification is by faith alone. As the ancestor of the Jewish people, his example is crucial to Paul's argument in Romans 3. Paul connects his rejection of boasting (Romans 3:27–31) with Abraham, whom he presents as the key example for God's people and the prototype of justification for both Gentiles and Jews. In Romans 4:1–16, Paul argues that Abraham was justified by faith, not by works. Abraham is seen as the first converted Gentile and the first Jew who received God's covenant through circumcision. Contrary to traditional Jewish views, Paul asserts that Abraham, the Jews' ancestor, was not justified by his works, which might allow for boasting before humans but not before God.

It is a significant error for our SDA friends to insist that Romans 3:31 supports adherence to the Ten Commandments through faith. They mistakenly interpret it as referring to the Ten Commandments due to their superficial proof-text method, neglecting the context of the passage. We have shown that their explanation is incorrect; it is not the Ten Commandments that are upheld by faith, but rather the entire Old Testament Scriptures, which testify that righteousness is obtained by both Jews and Gentiles through faith in Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross, separate from the law or the Ten Commandments. This is supported by:

1. The context of Romans 3:31, which has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments.

2. The term "law" in this passage refers to the Old Testament Scriptures, not the Ten Commandments.

3. Faith-based righteousness, apart from the law, upholds Abraham's Old Testament example.

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ANSWERED VERSE-BY-VERSE ON MATTHEW 28:19: "THREE UNDENIABLE REASONS WHY THE SDA CHURCH IS TRITHEIST NOT TRINITARIAN!"

 

Matthew 28:19 (ESV)

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

 

INTRODUCTION:

Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) will deny that they are not Trinitarian and continue to assert that they are genuinely Trinitarian, like the rest of Christianity. However, these SDAs seem unaware of the original teachings of their revered prophet, Ellen G. White, who openly stated that her concept of the Godhead differs from the Trinity as understood by orthodox Christians throughout the history of the Christian church.  Later in this article, you will be surprised to learn why their recognized messenger of God and prophet, Ellen G. White, did not endorse the version of the Trinity they believe in today.

During my time as an SDA apologist, I frequently encountered anti-Trinitarian Adventists, even engaging in public debates with them. I studied these anti-Trinitarian perspectives extensively and conducted a series on the history of the Trinity within the SDA Church on SDA's Hope Channel Philippines. As an Adventist apologist, after extensive research into the history of Trinitarianism and anti-Trinitarian debates, I fully understood why the SDA concept of the Trinity differs significantly from that of orthodox Christianity. Although SDAs use the expression "one God in Three Persons," they ascribe a different meaning than traditional Christian interpretations. Based on this background, I am well-qualified to discuss this ongoing Trinity controversy in the Seventh-day Adventist church.

I will present three indisputable reasons why the SDA church is not truly Trinitarian in the strictest sense of the word.

Reason #1. Ellen G. White rejects the "creedal Trinity" upheld by orthodox Christianity.

To understand what I mean by "creedal Trinity," I will first quote a statement from the book Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church [1856], which the SDA pioneers referred to when discussing the "creedal Trinity." Ellen G. White was very familiar with this book because she and her family were members of the Methodist church before joining the Millerites movement.

Here is the explanation of the Methodist church regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, as found on pages 15-16, which has long been upheld and believed by orthodox Christianity:

SECTION II. 

ARTICLES OF RELIGION.

I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. 

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness: the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead, there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

II. Of the Word or Son of God who was made very Man.

The Son who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God of one substance, with the Father, took man's nature, in the womb of the blessed virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided whereof is one Christ, very God and very man who, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried to reconcile, his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt but also for actual sins of men.

IV. Of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.

The doctrine of the Trinity, as it is understood and upheld by early Christians, remains the standard theological teaching about God. This is the summary of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as understood by the Christian church from many centuries ago until now:

"Essentially, God has three centers of self-consciousness. Yet this one Being (the triune God of Scripture) possesses one indivisible essence. There is only one Being that is God, and this one Being is tri-personal, with each of the three Persons having full possession of the divine nature."[1]

Any deviation from this accepted belief may lead to one being labeled a heretic or apostate. Many of the disagreements and misunderstandings that the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church has faced in modern times might have been avoided if the early pioneers of the SDA Church—Ellen G. White among them—had accepted this orthodox understanding of the Trinity, which they were definitely aware of.

The Trinitarian Creed and its Significance

The Trinity doctrine was definitively established in the 4th century, specifically during the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and the Council of Constantinople (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) in 381 AD. These Trinitarian creeds were designed to articulate accurate Christian beliefs amidst disputes. Christian creeds were formulated during periods of doctrinal conflict, with acceptance or rejection of a creed serving as a marker to differentiate between believers and heretics, especially followers of Arianism who assert that Jesus Christ is merely a created being. The Nicene Creed, one of the most pivotal and commonly adopted Christian creeds, was initially drafted in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea to confirm Christ's divinity and later revised at the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381 to endorse the Trinity in its entirety. The creed received further validation in 431 through the Chalcedonian Definition, which elucidated Christ's doctrine. Many Christian denominations consider affirming this creed, which outlines the Trinity, as a crucial measure of orthodoxy (accurate teaching), and it was historically intended to counter false doctrines about the nature of Christ. 

According to the SDA's official online Encyclopedia:

"While a creed is man’s answer to God’s word and as such, at least in theory, holds a subordinate role to the Bible, it nevertheless receives its authority from those who compose and enforce it. As such it also functions as a test of fellowship and orthodoxy of faith. While a creed is subject and subordinate to Scripture it nevertheless interprets Scripture and as such significantly modifies and puts into question the sola Scriptura principle. Creeds may be seen as the church’s attempt to articulate an intelligible expression of its understanding of the Christian faith." [2]

Why Ellen G. White and SDA Pioneers Reject the "Creedal Trinity"?

Arthur White, the grandchild of Ellen G. White, stated in the book "The Ellen G. White Writings" (pages 156-157) that Ellen G. White rejected the creedal Trinity. The reason for this was its teaching that God is "without body or parts." According to Ellen G. White, stating that God is "without body or parts" would "spiritualize away the existence of the Father and the Son, as two distinct, literal, tangible persons." Arthur White explains:

"Our forefathers consistently were averse to the doctrine of the Trinity as defined in church creeds, notably the Methodist. They saw in it an element that “spiritualized” away both Jesus Christ and God. James White in a letter sent to the Day Star and published in the issue of January 24, 1846, speaks of— "A certain class who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. This class can be no other than those who spiritualize away the existence of the Father and the Son, as two distinct, literal, tangible persons, also a literal Holy City and the throne of David.... The way spiritualizers this way have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural trinitarian creed."[3]

It is clear here that the concept of God according to Ellen G. White is indeed different from the traditional concept of the Trinity believed by the three branches of Christianity, i.e., Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant church. It seems that for Ellen G. White, God has a literal, tangible, or touchable body and is not a pure spirit. Therefore, the version of the Trinity of the prophet of the SDA church significantly differs from the Trinity of mainstream Christianity guided by the Scripture-based Creed.

Orthodox Christianity traditionally asserts that God is "without body or parts," a belief reflected in numerous faith confessions and creeds. This implies that God, unlike humans, does not possess a physical body. In Christian theology, this concept is known as "Divine Simplicity" or "God's simplicity." To better understand this, let's refer to a definition from the website gotquestions.org, as it simplifies the explanation of these deep theological terms:

“According to divine simplicity, as traditionally understood, God is the center of all divine attributes, without form or physical representation. Divine simplicity is the argument that God does not possess qualities; He is those qualities. For example, God does not have existence; He is existence itself. Omniscience is not something God has; God is omniscience. First John 4:16 says, in part, “God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” Divine simplicity sees that statement as validating the point that God does not possess loving attributes; rather, He defines the very concept of love.”

Humans are complex entities, comprising various elements such as body, spirit, and emotions. In contrast, God is simple and indivisible, existing as a pure spirit without separate components. Thus, when a Trinitarian believer states that God is “without body or parts,” they are emphasizing that God is not composed of distinct parts. This is the idea that God does not exist in parts but is one unified entity, with no distinct attributes.

Despite this clear biblical assertion that God is spirit, Ellen G. White and the early SDA pioneers held the belief that God has a “body” and “parts.” SDA pioneers ardently disputed this, referencing numerous biblical texts that depicted God as possessing both a “body” and “parts.”[4] Is it possible that they came upon scriptural texts that provide support, portraying God as having both a "body" and "parts" that are meant to be understood as anthropomorphisms [5] rather than literal depictions? It seems plausible that the notion of God possessing a body and parts among the early SDA pioneers was more influenced by Ellen G. White’s purported visions than by biblical teachings. The book "The Trinity" from the SDA can provide insights to enhance our understanding. It states that Ellen G. White experienced two visions about Jesus, which answered her inquiries about God's form and body parts.

"Twice in early visions of Jesus, she asked Him ques­tions related to the “form” and “person” of God. In one early vision, she “saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus’ countenance,” she said, “and admired His lovely person. The Father’s person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light cov­ered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, ‘If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist’ ” (E. G. White, Early Writings, p. 54)." [6]

Could these visions really be from God? I'm skeptical, as her depiction of God possessing a body or parts contradicts the explicit teachings of the Bible (Luke 24:39; John 4:24). If these weren't divinely inspired visions, then where did they originate? The most plausible source of her interpretation of God, which contradicts biblical teachings, is her antitrinitarian husband, James White! Ellen G. White's view on God's form was significantly influenced by James White, as their book, "The Trinity," acknowledges:

"Thus she gained visionary confirma­tion of what her husband had written in a Millerite journal a few years earlier. Expounding on Jude 4, about those who “deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ,” James White had de­clared that “this class can be no other than those who spiritualize away the existence of the Father and the Son, as two distinct, literal, tangible persons. . . . The way spiritualizes . .. have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural trinitarian creed” (James White, in Day-Star, Jan. 24, 1846). Ellen White evidently agreed with her husband that Christ and the Father were “two distinct, literal, tangible persons,” but we have no record (before the Kellogg crisis of 1905) of her explicitly criticizing any Trinitarian view as did her husband." [7] 

It's undeniable that Ellen G. White's convictions didn't stem from divine inspiration. If she were truly a prophetess, why would her alleged visions be at odds with the Bible? The reality is that her husband, James White, an antitrinitarian deemed a heretic by the standard Trinitarian Creed of Christianity, influenced her. He maintained the flawed belief that God the Father and Jesus Christ are "two distinct, literal, tangible persons," a belief that Ellen G. White adopted and championed. Surprisingly, the conventional explanations of the Trinity doctrines, as stated in the Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church [1856], which were rejected by early Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) pioneers, including Ellen G. White, are currently accepted by a considerable number of SDA theologians and scholars. If you are a Seventh-day Adventist or are just planning to become a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church, you should start considering whether to continue or not.

Reason #2. Ellen G. White teaches that God consists of “Three Beings.”

Let's discuss the controversial statement about the Trinity by Ellen White, which is still a topic of debate among the Seventh-day Adventists to this day. This can be found in Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 21 (1906), Ms 95, 1906, par. 29:

"Here is where the work of the Holy Ghost comes in, after your baptism. You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in the newness of life—to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of the three holiest beings in heaven, who are able to keep you from falling."[8]

Referring to God as the "Three Holiest Beings" does not imply that Ellen G. White didn't believe in God as a person. On the contrary, she depicted the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as persons. For example:

"There are three living persons of 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 these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ." (Testimonies for the Church Containing Messages of Warning and Instruction to Seventh-day Adventists, p. 63)

Ellen G. White intentionally avoided the term "Trinity" in her writings to prevent her personal understanding of God from being conflated with the conventional Trinity concept in mainstream Christianity. This is yet another strong evidence that the "Trinity" taught by the prophet of the SDA church is different from the true Trinity that Christians have upheld since the beginning it raises doubt about her credibility as the true prophet sent by God.  

I believe that the Council of Nicea (AD 325), Council of Constantinople (AD 381), the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), and the Creeds, which directly discuss and defend the doctrine of the Trinity as the united expression of the historic Christian church on how they understand the teachings of the Scriptures, are a safe guide. Although they were not inspired by God and were not perfect, they were used by God as protection to safeguard His beloved Church against the false teachings of heretics from then until now.

The Athanasian Creed Versus the "Three Beings"

In the historical Christian Church of the 4th century AD, the term "being" was not applied to each individual of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Athanasian Creed, a Christian doctrine that emphasizes Trinitarian belief and Christology, has been in use since the early 6th century. It clearly affirms the equality of the three hypostases [persons] of the Trinity. In fact, the Athanasian Creed provides a clear differentiation between the terms "being" and "persons" in the context of the Trinity.

Athanasian Creed

“Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally. Now this is the catholic faith:

“We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another. But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit. Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit. The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite. Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited. Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God. Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord." [9]

Examine the argument presented by the Athanasian Creed in support of the Trinity, which professes belief in a single God. Notice how it highlights the difference between "three beings" and "one being" across various non-communicable characteristics of the same God.

a.) The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "not three uncreated beings" but God is "one eternal being."

b.) The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "not three almighty beings" but God is "one who is almighty."

c.) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "not three gods" but "one God."

The Evangelical Theology highlights the summary and significance of the Athanasian Creed. Its purpose is to prevent misunderstandings of the Trinity doctrine, such as "subordination," which implies a hierarchy among the three persons of the Trinity. Additionally, it aims to avoid the opposite extreme of "tritheism" or the belief in three gods.

"The Athanasian Creed addresses the doctrine of the Trinity in lines 1-28, while lines 29-44 address the doctrine of Christ. With respect to the three persons of the Trinity, the first section ascribes divine attributes to each person, specifying that each person of the Trinity is uncreated (increatus), limitless (immensus), eternal (aeternus), and omnipotent (omnipotens). The purpose of ascribing these attributes to all three persons is to avoid subordination, but it also stresses the unity of the three persons in one being, thus avoiding anything resembling tritheism."[10]

Ellen G. White and the SDA pioneers might have discovered the truth in their day if they had simply humbly adhered to the scriptural Trinity and the centuries-old Christian belief in the Trinity, which believers defended throughout history. This could have avoided the state of confusion that currently exists among SDA churches across the globe.

Christians must remain steadfast in the faith that was once received and defended against heretical teachings (Jude 1:3). If the SDA pioneers had valued this, they might not have ended up as Tritheists (believing in three gods) today. The current consequences for them are not favorable. However, I still believe that if the leadership of the SDA church headquarters shows humility and repentance, it is not too late. There is still a chance to repent rather than remaining divided and stubbornly holding onto incorrect beliefs due to pride and fear of public embarrassment.

Shield of the Trinity

The Shield of the Trinity, also known as Scutum Fidei (Latin for "shield of faith"), is a recognized graphic symbol used in Christianity that condenses the first section of the Athanasian Creed and expresses numerous facets of the doctrine of the Trinity. This symbol was regarded as the heraldic arms of God (and the Trinity) in late medieval Europe.

The illustration makes the following twelve affirmations clear:

1.) "The Father is God"
2.) "The Son is God"
3.) "The Holy Spirit is God"
4.) "God is the Father"
5.) "God is the Son"
6.) "God is the Holy Spirit"
7.) "The Father is not the Son"
8.) "The Father is not the Holy Spirit"
9.) "The Son is not the Father"
10.) "The Son is not the Holy Spirit"
11.) "The Holy Spirit is not the Father"
12.) "The Holy Spirit is not the Son"

Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) may find this information startling, as it might be unfamiliar to them. Among Christians, it has long been believed that the concept of God as three beings is viewed as Tritheism (the belief in three distinct and individual gods), a teaching considered heretical and the very opposite of the doctrine of the Trinity. We hope that our friends from the Seventh-day Adventist community understand that early Christians exercised great caution in expressing their beliefs, given the diverse human philosophies and heretical teachings that surrounded them. Without vigilance, they could easily be criticized, persecuted, and have their reputations tarnished. The most alarming consequence is that they might fail to serve as effective witnesses of the Lord, guiding numerous souls toward the divine light bestowed upon them by God as part of the Great Commission to cultivate disciples across the globe.

Are Seventh-day Adventists Tritheists?

The article titled "Are Seventh-day Adventists Tritheists?" is penned by Glyn Parfitt, a retired professor of math and science from Gin Gin, Queensland, Australia. This piece, which appears on page 21 of the June 2011 issue of the SDA's Ministry Magazine: International Journal for Pastors, is, to my knowledge, the only SDA publication that directly addresses this question. In his article, Parfitt defends the Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) against accusations of Tritheism and provides justification for Ellen G. White's preference for the term "Three Holiest Beings" over "Persons."

Parfitt makes the following claim:

"Now when a numeral is placed before the word being, as in “one being,” or “three beings,” the ordinary reader becomes fixed on the third of the above meanings, a concrete noun. The result is that when an author says that the Three Persons of the Godhead are “One Being,” the ordinary reader can see only an expression of modalism. This heresy, one of the earliest in the Christian church, teaches that only One Divine Being exists who reveals Himself sequentially in one or other of three modes, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." [11]

The argument put forth by Glynn Parfitt is a logical fallacy, particularly a non sequitur (meaning the conclusion does not logically follow the premises). The reason is that, knowing that Trinitarians use the term "one Being" to refer to the nature or essence of one God, Oneness believers choose to state, "God is one Person" rather than, "one Being," to challenge the Trinitarian concept of three persons. According to Augustine, in his book The Trinity, the Greek equivalent of the word "being" is 'ousia', which is commonly referred to as "substance."[12] From here, the term 'homoousios' was derived, which was used in the Council of Nicea to explain that God the Father and Jesus Christ as God are homoousios (homo=same ousia=substance-essence-nature-being) and not merely homoiousios (similar substance-essence-nature-being).

Our point here is to refute Glyn Parfit's assertion that using the phrase "one God" in three persons could potentially lead to the concept of Oneness or Modalism, which is not accurate. According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, the modalist concept of homoousios, based on Aristotle's category of primary ousia, was not adopted by the Council of Nicea. Paul of Samosata, a heretic who used homoousios in a Modalistic sense, was condemned in AD 268 at the Synod of Antioch. This event occurred almost 60 years before the Council of Nicea in AD 325, so when Nicea used the term homoousios, it was certainly not in the Modalistic or Oneness sense. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states:

"It is clear that the fathers at Nicea did not think of homoousios from the standpoint of Aristotle’s category of primary ousia, in which ousia is considered simply as an individual thing. In that sense, to say that the Father and the Son are homoousios would be to say that these are simply different terms representing the same single reality, expressing no difference, being numerically identical. There is evidence that the use of homoousios was condemned at the Synod of Antioch in 268 because Paul of Samosata employed it precisely with this Monarchian sense."[13]

Augustine also understands the significant difference between "being" and "person", especially in the concept of God in the doctrine of the Trinity. He did not use "three beings" due to its connotation of "three Gods." Augustine also explains why he will not speak of “three beings".

“By ‘being’ I mean here what is called ousia in Greek, which we more usually call substance. . . We do not call these three together one person, as we call them one being and one God, but say three persons while we never say three Gods or three beings.” [14]

Based on our analysis, Glynn Parfitt's first defense, which claims that Ellen G. White's term "Three Holiest Beings" is correct based on his argument that the phrase "one Being" for God would only lead to the dangerous teachings of Modalism or Oneness theology, is weak. Based on church history, we refuted this and demonstrated that this was not the case. Although the term homoousios or "same being" was initially misused by Paul of Samosata, it was corrected at the Synod of Antioch in 268 AD. Therefore, we can be confident that when the term homoousios was used again at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, it supported the concept of the Trinity: one being of God existing in three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Our initial analysis provides a clear answer to the question raised by Glynn Parfitt in his article, "Are Seventh-day Adventists Tritheists?" Yes, Seventh-day Adventists who support the phrase "Three Holiest Beings" are indeed guilty of the heresy known as Tritheism, which entails belief in three individual and separate gods. Glynn Parfitt's explanation for the term "three beings" is unconvincing since it relies on philosophical and lexical semantics. He never mentions Ellen G. White's belief that God has a tangible body, form, and literal body parts in his article. By considering Ellen G. White's belief that God has a literal body, parts, and form, we gain a better understanding of what "Three Holiest Beings" meant to her. We should interpret the phrase within the framework of her view of God, unlike Parfitt, who defined "beings" outside this context and focused only on semantics and philosophy. We will demonstrate now that when Ellen G. White refers to the "Three Holiest Beings," she actually means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate and individual Gods with literal body parts and forms. Furthermore, she believes they are tangible and can be touched.

In his paper, The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White's "Heavenly Trio" Compared to the Traditional Doctrine, SDA theologian Jerry Moon, chair of the Church History Department at Andrews University, explains how Ellen G. White's understanding of God's unity differs from the traditional viewpoint

"She described the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in relational rather than ontological terms. While the traditional doctrine defined the divine unity in terms of “being” or “substance,” she focused on the volitional and relational dimensions of Their unity, a unity of “purpose, mind, and character.” [15]

Ellen G. White also employed the illustration of the oneness of Jesus' disciples to depict the oneness of Jesus and God the Father. Here is Jerry Moon's explanation:

"The concept of plurality of persons in the unity of relationship becomes more explicit in the NT. For example, Christ prayed that believers in Him may “all” be “one” as He and the Father “are one” (John 17:20–22). Ellen White quotes this passage as proof of the “personality of the Father and the  Son,”  and an explanation of  “the  unity that exists between Them.” She wrote: “The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one.”[16]

In simple terms, Ellen G. White suggests that just as it is possible for many followers of Jesus to "become one" without literally becoming one body and one head, in the same way, Jesus and God the Father "became one" not having one body. This implies that even though the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct beings with separate bodies, they are united in purpose, mind, and character. Isn't it clear from Ellen G. White's illustration that she is teaching the SDAs about three separate and individual Gods? Her description, which she calls "three beings," indeed aligns more closely with the heresy of Tritheism than with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Hence, rather than emphasizing the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit through their essential nature, Ellen G. White's perspective on their oneness places more emphasis on their relationship and cooperative work. She highlights their shared purpose, mind, and character. If that's the case, it's not a significant issue for her whether the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods as long as they are united in their "purpose, mind, and character."

This interpretation of Ellen G. White strengthens the argument that the SDA church is more Tritheistic than Trinitarian, given its claim that Ellen G. White is their prophet from God. Jerry Moon claims that SDA theologians like Drs. Fernando Canale and Fritz Guy recognize the dangerous inclination of this position toward tritheism. According to Jerry Moon: "Both Canale and Fritz Guy have warned against the danger of tritheism if the relational unity is overemphasized to the exclusion of the ontological unity." [17]

Here is the actual statement from Dr. Fernando Canale:

"Consequently, the indivisibility of God’s works in history is not conceived by Adventists as being determined by the oneness of essence—as taught in the Augustinian classical tradition—but rather by the oneness of the historical task of redemption (Dederen 20). The danger of Tritheism involved in this position becomes real when the oneness of God is reduced to a mere unity conceived in analogy to a human society or a fellowship of action. Beyond such a unity of action, however, it is necessary to envision God as the one single reality which, in the very acts by which He reveals Himself directly in history, transcends the limits of our human reason."[18]

The inherent danger of Tritheism persists within the theology of the SDA Church as long as they uphold Ellen G. White as a continuing authoritative source of truth. Ellen G. White passed away on July 16, 1915, holding the belief that God consists of three separate individual beings—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each possessing a tangible, literal body and parts. This portrayal contradicts the depiction of God presented in the Bible. The God introduced by the only prophet of the Seventh-day Adventist church is a man-made god from the imagination of the couple James and Ellen White. While the Bible says that God made man in His image, in this case, the God of the SDA church was created in the image of man with a literal body, parts, form, and even tangible. Therefore, SDAs worship a false god created by the false prophet Ellen G. White. 

Reason #3. Ellen G. White has Two Different Concepts of the Trinity

As previously discussed, Ellen G. White's interpretation does not align with the traditional definition of the Trinity. In her view, God consists of "three beings," and their unity is based on purpose, mind, and character rather than nature or essence. The definitions of the Trinity established by the Council of Nicea (325 AD) and the Council of Constantinople (381 AD) provide the criteria for determining whether a concept regarding the relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is truly Trinitarian. Consequently, one can either be a Trinitarian or a non-Trinitarian; the notion of two versions of the Trinity, as proposed by SDAs, is not recognized by mainstream Christianity as valid.

The Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) have a history of adopting theological terms defined by Christians throughout history and then altering these original definitions to fit their own theology. This tactic was notably employed in the 1950s with Dr. Walter Martin and several other evangelical theologians. During that period, SDA theologians misled them into believing that SDAs were truly Christians and not a cult, as they had been previously labeled. They misrepresented their views on salvation by grace alone, righteousness by faith, and their relationship to the Law. It is my belief that they also used deception in their definition of the Trinity to be recognized as Christians and part of the body of Christ, rather than being identified as a cult. Even today, SDA apologists continue this approach, using social media and participating in public debates. Therefore, be cautious of the pretenses made by some SDAs. I believe many who engage in these practices are also victims of deception by their leaders and theologians, who persist in concealing their shortcomings to appear as genuine followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. To depict Ellen White as a Trinitarian, they crafted a narrative indicating that she alluded to two distinct concepts of the Trinity in her writings. This was done to substantiate their claim and to suggest that among the two concepts of the Trinity, the one she embraced is more biblical compared to the other, which is “interpreted through the prism of Greek philosophy.”

Let's read again Jerry Moon's explanation about this matter.

"The conceptual key that unlocks the puzzle of Ellen White’s developmental process regarding the Godhead is the discovery that her writings describe at least two distinct varieties of trinitarian belief, one based on Scripture alone, and one based on Scripture as interpreted through the lens of Greek philosophy—the same hermeneutic that brought the im- mortality of the soul into Christian theology. The concept of God that is explicit in her later writings portrays the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three eternal Persons of intellect, will, and emotions who are united in character, purpose, and love. There is no conflict among them, no working at cross-purposes, no competition, not even disagreement. Thus, they are not three gods (as in polytheism or tritheism), but One. Furthermore, their unity is not a mathematical paradox, but a relational unity, analogous to the unity seen in a good marriage, where husband and wife are united in an ever-growing oneness, but without negating their individuality." [19]

The claim of SDA theologians regarding the two concepts of Ellen G. White's Trinitarian view is the root cause of turmoil and ongoing division within the SDA church. Hence, it should come as no surprise that from then until now in the history of the SDA church, they remain divided on the doctrine of the Trinity, with the culprit of the crime being none other than their recognized prophet of God, Ellen G. White. The true prophet of God in the Bible teaches people how to recognize the true God and draw near to Him to serve and worship Him, resulting in unity in worshiping the one true God.

Contrary to their claims of being the true people of God, the supposed remnant church in the last days led by the Spirit of Prophecy through the continuing source of authority of Ellen G. White, the SDA church is experiencing division. Instead of their prophet aiding them in recognizing and worshiping the true God as depicted in the Scriptures, she has become the catalyst for division within the SDA church, particularly regarding the issue of the Trinity, and led them away from the true worship. Most SDAs, especially those recently baptized, have embraced one of Ellen G. White's two concepts of the Trinity, supposedly based on "Scripture as interpreted through the lens of Greek philosophy," commonly known as the "creedal Trinity" of mainstream Christianity. Only a minority of SDA members have adopted the alternative concept, purportedly derived "based on Scripture alone," but interpreted through the lens of Ellen G. White's portrayal of three separate bodies and individual beings with literal bodies, parts, forms, and a tangible tritheistic god.

SDA theologian Dr. Michael Campbell attests, through his book, 1919 The Untold Story of Adventism's Struggle with Fundamentalism, that the SDA church today is divided into two camps regarding the issue of the Trinity. One side, which comprises the majority, believes in the "creedal Trinity" rejected by Ellen G. White and the early SDA pioneers. On the other hand, the smaller camp, mostly composed of offshoots, has embraced Ellen White's tritheistic concept of "three beings" gods, making them more loyal to her teachings. Their perceived fault lies in their loyalty and obedience to the prophet of the remnant church as they recognize her. According to Campbell, the division in the SDA church over the Trinity doctrine began after the passing of Ellen G. White in 1915, with influential theologians and leaders leading the split. As a result, the SDA church organized the 1919 Bible Conference. The 1919 Bible Conference, which took place from July 1 to August 9, 1919, played a significant role in Seventh-day Adventist history. It brought together leaders, educators, and editors to engage in discussions on theological and other matters. Unfortunately, this conference did not help unify the SDA church regarding which of Ellen G. White's two concepts of the Trinity should be embraced by the SDA church. Campbell notes:

"There does not appear to have been a clear consensus on the issue of the Trinity at the 1919 Bible Conference. . . Those who adhered to a more progressive hermeneutic were the same ones who supported the full divinity of Jesus Christ and paved the way for the full acceptance of the Trinity in Seventh-day Adventist theology. . . Yet perhaps on this one particular issue, at least, those who were more progressive (most notably Prescott and Lacey) would eventually achieve a significant theological victory as the church gradually moved in their direction and later accepted Trinitarian statements in its Statement of Fundamental Beliefs throughout the twentieth century." [20]

Did the progressive hermeneutic of the early theologians at the 1919 Bible Conference truly succeed in influencing the SDA church's statement of belief on the Trinity today? What does documented evidence reveal that many SDAs today, including some SDA debaters, may not be aware of? Let's discuss, for example, their statement on the Trinity in Belief #2 from their 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Many SDAs would be surprised to learn that the concept of the Trinity used in their Fundamental Beliefs is derived from Ellen G. White's tritheistic notion of three beings as separate individuals with literal, tangible bodies, forms, and parts. This reveals a significant deception by the SDA church leadership towards their unsuspecting members and those they are trying to convert. Let's go through each statement mentioned in their book to provide evidence of this deception.

Here's what they said in their statement of beliefs #2:

The Godhead

"There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever-present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)"[21]

This Fundamental Belief statement may appear to be consistent with orthodoxy at first glance. But in reality, it departs radically from the accepted norm, making this claim heretical. It declares, "There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons." It's important to note that the statement doesn't claim that there is one God in three persons. Instead, it describes the "one God" as "a unity of three co-eternal Persons" (note the capital 'P'). This provides a glimpse into their doctrine that "God" is a collective/"trio" of three "divine Beings."  This collective concept of three gods was not opposed by the committee members who prepared these statements, who were evidently all tritheist believers. Let’s examine their recorded sessions and the terminologies they used, which undeniably support tritheism and cannot be disputed by any SDA members. Another element of tritheism is evident in one of the paragraphs in the SDA 28 Fundamental Beliefs book on page 30, where it is stated clearly that the SDA church believes in a three-being God composed of three separate individual gods. 

"While the Godhead is not one in person, God is one in purpose, mind, and character. This oneness does not obliterate the distinct personalities of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Nor does the separateness of personalities within the Deity destroy the monotheistic thrust of Scripture that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God."

This is completely opposite to the historic Trinity, which rejects the idea that there are three gods by maintaining that God is one being who is distinct in three persons but not separate beings. The "Fundamental Beliefs" concerning God were approved in 1980 during the General Conference Session of the SDA Church. Excerpts from the "Session proceedings" of the "Seventh business meeting" of the "Fifty-third General Conference session" (April 21, 1980, 3:15 P.M.), as featured in the April 23, 1980 issue of the Adventist Review offer some context to the SDA's declarations about God.

The following are some of the primary issues brought forth by a few participants regarding the Trinity, with my brief comment following each statement:

LEIF HANSEN: "In this discussion of the Trinity, which is always a difficult matter to discuss, I wonder if a certain misunderstanding could be eliminated by saying "a unity in purpose" so that the matter of physical unity may be eliminated."

NEAL C. WILSON [21]: I see your point there. Maybe we ought to make it a unity in purpose rather than a physical unity. 

Comment: Leif Hansen suggested emphasizing the unity of God in terms of purpose ("unity in purpose") to avoid the problematic concept of "physical unity" of the SDA three being gods. This is a problematic issue for tritheistic SDAs like them, as they struggle to explain how three separate individual gods, each with their own literal tangible body and parts, could be considered literally and mathematically one. Thus, even today in the SDA's public evangelism they emphasize "unity in purpose" over "physical unity" of God. This suggestion was agreed upon by Neal C. Wilson, the then-President of the General Conference, who stated, "We ought to make it a unity in purpose rather than a physical unity." In these statements, we can indeed see the danger of Tritheism among SDAs, as mentioned earlier in the concerns raised by SDA theologians: "The danger of Tritheism involved in this position becomes real when the oneness of God is reduced to a mere unity conceived in analogy to human society or a fellowship of action." [23]

Jerry Moon likened the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to that of a married couple when discussing the mathematical oneness of God.

"Furthermore, their unity is not a mathematical paradox, but a relational unity, analogous to the unity seen in a good marriage, where husband and wife are united in an ever-growing oneness, but without negating their individuality." [24]

This simply means that the "Trinity" concept of the SDA church is three separate bodies of three gods, similar to a married couple where even though two separate bodies can still be called "one flesh" not because of physical unity but only because of unity in purpose.

We will now proceed with the statement of beliefs session from J.G. Bennett:

J. G. BENNETT: "The statement about the Godhead and the Trinity goes on to use the noun "He".  Later as the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost are discussed, we use the same pronoun "He". I do recognize and accept the Trinity as a collective unity, but I would have a little difficulty applying the pronoun "He" to the Trinity or the Godhead."

Comment: According to J.G. Bennett, he recognizes and accepts the Trinity as a "collective unity." Therefore, our observation about the incorrect expression in their statement of beliefs, stating "one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons," wherein the three personas of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are seen as a collective unity or collective/"trio" of three "divine Beings," diverges significantly from the traditional concept of the Trinity held by the historic Christian church, which is "One God in Three persons." How can our SDA friends, whose summary statements of beliefs about the Godhead are crafted by Tritheists, refute this?

The Tritheistic (three gods) fundamental beliefs of the SDA church were further reinforced in this session through the statements made by W. R. Lesher. He said:

W. R. LESHER: "We assume that there is a unity of purpose in the Godhead. Still, God is a mystery. And we do not know in what ways that unity might exist other than in purpose. . . The idea of three Beings that are One is a mystery, and it seems to me that we should not try to remove all of that mystery from the statement."

 

Once again, we see the truth that those who formed the summary statement of beliefs on the Trinity for the SDA church are all tritheist believers. No wonder why SDAs worldwide are in disarray and division. They are plagued by confusion because they rejected the true doctrines of the Trinity based on the Bible and upheld by the Christian church over many centuries through church councils and creeds that the Lord preserved to combat all false teachings about the Trinity from apostates and heretics, such as the SDA church and Ellen G. White.

Conclusion:

We have proven in our study that the Seventh-day Adventist church today is not truly Trinitarian in the correct sense by giving three main reasons why the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not truly Trinitarian:

Reason #1. Ellen G. White rejects the "creedal Trinity" upheld by orthodox Christianity.

Reason #2. Ellen G. White teaches that God consists of “Three Beings.”

Reason #3. Ellen G. White has Two Different Concepts of the Trinity.

This is contrary to their frequent pretense in their public preaching that they are not cults but genuine Christians because they allegedly also believe in the biblical and historic Trinity. We must be careful with the remarkable strategies of disguise and pretense of the SDA church that they are also Christians and part of the universal body of Christ. They have done this disguise many times from then until now. They deceived the evangelical leaders in the 1950s, so they were accepted as Christians and not a cult. But in the end, their deceptions were also exposed. Let's not forget the warning of our Lord that is still effective until now in our time: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15, 16 (ESV).

Indeed, Jesus' warning still holds true today regarding our discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity. Many are still deceived and led to believe, even among members of the SDA church, that their version of the Trinity is correct when in reality it is not. Their concept of God does not deserve to be called Trinity because we have learned that the biblical and historic Trinity believes in a "mathematical" one God who eternally exists in three distinct (not separate) persons (or centers of consciousness) that are pure spirit (indivisible and simple, with no parts or components). We have proven that the true god of the SDA church, based on the influence of the false prophet Ellen G. White, is a pagan-inspired Tritheistic god of three separate divine beings with literal tangible body, parts, and form, a truth that is being concealed by the leadership of the SDA church from its members until now. 

If you are reading this and you are an Adventist, which version of the Trinity do you believe in? Is it the concept of one Being God existing in three persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without a literal tangible body and form? Or is it the concept of "one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a (collective) unity of three co-eternal Persons (three beings) with literal tangible body and form" as taught by Ellen G. White and reflected in the Tritheistic statement of your Fundamental Beliefs #2? If you choose the first option, Ellen G. White, the prophet of the SDA church, would be angry with you if she were alive today because, for her, this version of the Trinity is wrong, a view also rejected by the early SDA pioneers. And if you've chosen the second option, you've likely had a change of heart and realized that you're not truly a Trinitarian. Instead, you've been worshiping and serving an unbiblical god, a tritheistic belief that contradicts the true one being God worshiped in spirit and truth by genuine monotheistic believers. It's not too late, my friend. You still have a chance to repent and leave behind a false god, and the false SDA church with a false prophet before it's too late.

Here are three realizations that a discerning Adventist might have after reading this article, serving as an eye-opener for anyone seeking the truth:

1.) Ellen G. White is not a true prophet of God, as she is the root cause of the confusion and division among SDAs regarding the nature of the Trinitarian God. The leadership of the SDA church has been compelled to uphold her status as a prophet to maintain the integrity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Failing to do so would jeopardize the entire SDA organization and its millions of members.

2.) The God worshiped by the SDA church is not the true God because they were deceived by a false prophet, Ellen G. White. The Lord has warned against false prophets who deceive people into worshiping a different god: "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die." Deuteronomy 18:20 (ESV) 

3.) If the SDA church throughout its history has been led and guided by a false prophet to serve and worship the false three-being gods, it only means one thing: The SDA church is not the true nation of God and it is certainly not the remnant church that brings salvation to people in the last days. This is because the true God who loves and guides his servant children would not allow them to be led astray by a false prophet, especially not to divert their worship to the false three gods of Ellen G. White and the leadership of the SDA church.

I hope and pray that this article will be used by God as an instrument of His grace to help the SDAs who are blinded by deceptions to open their eyes and submit their lives to Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior and repent of their sins to receive eternal life by His grace and mercy in Jesus mighty Name. Amen!