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!

Footnotes:

[1] “GotQuestions.org.” GotQuestions.org, 8 June. 2024, https://www.gotquestions.org/Tritheism-Trinity.html

[2] Kidder, S. Joseph, Katelyn Campbell Weakley. "Creeds." Encyclopedia of Seventh-day Adventists. April 21, 2021. Date of access June 05, 2024, https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=8FRF.

[3] White, Arthur L. The Ellen G. White Writings. Review and Herald Pub. Association, 1973. 158

[4] Whidden, Woodrow Wilson, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve. The Trinity: Understanding God's Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships. Review and Herald Pub Assoc, 2002. 206

[5] Naves Topical Bible Index defines anthropomorphism as "Figures of speech, which attributes human forms, acts, and affections to God." Therefore, it is figurative, not literal, as the early Adventist pioneers, including Ellen G. White, believed. Another cause for questioning Ellen G. White's authority as a true prophet of God.

[6] Whidden, Woodrow Wilson, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve. The Trinity: Understanding God's Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships. Review and Herald Pub Assoc, 2002. 207

[7] ibid.

[8] Ellen Gould White, Letters and Manuscripts — Volume 21 (Manuscript 95, 1906), (Ellen G. White Estate, 1906), 1.

[9] “GotQuestions.org.” GotQuestions.org, 8 June. 2024, www.gotquestions.org/Athanasian-creed.html.

[10] Bird, Michael F. Evangelical theology: A biblical and systematic introduction. Zondervan Academic, 2013. Olive Tree Bible Software.

[11] Are Seventh-day Adventists Tritheists? www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2011/06/are-seventh-day-adventists-tritheists.

[12] Augustine, Saint. The Trinity. New City Press 1990. 347

[13] Elwell, Walter, editor. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 5th printing, USA, Baker Academic, 2007. Olive Tree Bible Software.

[14] Augustine, Saint. The Trinity. New City Press 1990. 347

[15] Moon, Jerry. “The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s ‘Heavenly Trio’ Compared to the Traditional Doctrine.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (JATS)., vol. 17, no. 1, 2006, p. 156, digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=jats.

[16] ibid. 158

[17] Dederen, Raoul, Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, Commentary Reference Series, electronic ed., (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2001), 12:150.

[18] Moon, Jerry. “The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s ‘Heavenly Trio’ Compared to the Traditional Doctrine.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (JATS)., vol. 17, no. 1, 2006, p. 143-144, digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=jats.

[19] ibid. 143

[20] Campbell, Michael W.. 1919: The Untold Story of Adventism's Struggle with Fundamentalism (p. 76-78). Pacific Press Publishing Association. Kindle Edition.]

[21] Ministerial Association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Seventh-day Adventist Believe: A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines. 2005 Second Edition, USA, Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2006. 23 

[22] Neal Clayton Wilson (July 5, 1920 – December 14, 2010) served as the 17th President of the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church from 1979 to 1990. In 1980, the church adopted its Fundamental Beliefs under his leadership. He is the father of the current President of the SDA World Church Ted Wilson.

[23] Moon, Jerry. “The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s ‘Heavenly Trio’ Compared to the Traditional Doctrine.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (JATS)., vol. 17, no. 1, 2006, p. 143-144, digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=jats.

[24] ibid. 143