Against "Historical Adventists" -- The Whites and the Divinity of Christ
THE WHITES AND THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST
Copyright © JULIAN KASTRATI, 2004. PLEASE NOTE: footnotes are acknowledged but withheld for copyright reasons
The progressiveness of truth based on the Sola Scriptura principle is one of the most precious features in Adventism. From the very beginning of their movement, one of the main aspirations of the Adventist Pioneers was the restoration of all neglected truths of Scripture. To achieve this, they spent countless hours in Bible study and reflection. Surely this led to a re-dimensioning process in Adventist doctrine. Yet, one of the doctrines with which the pioneers struggled for many years was the doctrine of the Godhead (the Trinity).
It is an established fact that most of the Adventist Pioneers, at least between 1846 and 1888, held Arian or Semi-Arian views and opposed trinitarianism. The doctrine of the Trinity was considered unscriptural, confusing and absurd. One wonders what the reasons were for their opposition. What influenced them in their initial rejection of the trinity doctrine? Furthermore, the 1888 Minneapolis Conference had a heavy impact on Adventist theology. It is an established fact that only after 1888 the Trinitarian ‘tide’ began turning the other way. In fact, pro-trinitarian views became increasingly audible and visible throughout church circles and publications, mainly through the writings of Ellen G. White, . What led to this development? What were the principle reasons that pushed the Pioneers to eventually change their stand?
The purpose of this article is to investigate and analyse the reasons for the initial rejection and the eventual acceptance in Adventism of the doctrine of the trinity in the second half of the 19th century (1846-1900). This will be attempted by focusing on the writings of James and Ellen G. White, husband and wife, who represent two famous time-periods (1846-1888 and 1888-1900).
However, what motivated me to write this article is a genuine concern. From the 1990s well into the 21st century, there seems to be an increasing anti-trinitarian revival in Seventh-day Adventist circles spread throughout various regions across North America. These so-called ‘Historical Adventists’, operating mostly from independent ministries outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church, are pushing a seemingly innocent, yet dangerous agenda: a return to what they claim as ‘the historical beliefs of the early Pioneers’. The 'Historical' agenda calls explicitly for an outright rejection of the church's current stand on the Trinity, i.e. Adventism should reinstate the Arian/Semi-Arian views held especially before 1888, since virtually all the pioneers allegedly adhered to such views.[1]
Given the current context, this article gains new significance and relevance. I hope it serves as a modest contribution to those church members that are being influenced by the neo-Arian, 'Historical Adventist' views and who unfortunately are unaware of the serious implications involved. Ultimately, I hope this article will encourage the Adventist community to embrace a more progressive, dynamic, Scripture-based understanding of truth.
Definitions of Terms
Adventist: refers to the Seventh-day Adventist Church or Seventh-day Adventists, or the group of post-1444 Millerites that eventually became founding members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (1863).
Arian/Semi-Arian: refers to the belief, originally held by Arius, that Christ is a created being and not fully divine, and that the Holy Spirit is an influence and not a person. Although there is a technical difference between ‘Arian’ and ‘Semi-Arian’, for the purpose of this study the terms will be considered as practically synonymous.
Anti-Trinitarian: refers to Arianism/Semi-Arianism, and all other variants that differ from the classical Trinitarian position, originally promulgated by Arius.
Monarchianism: refers to a heresy, originally initiated by the Sabellians, which views the Godhead as a succession of modes and manifestations. In other words, Christ and the Holy Spirit were manifestations of the Father, rather than three persons consisting the Godhead. Monarchianism is reflected today in sects like the Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Pioneer(s): refers to the prominent leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church during the second half of the 19th century.
Unitarianism: refers to the Unitarian movement in America during the first half of the 19th century. Unitarians were essentially Arian, emphasising the unipersonality of God and the inferiority of Christ to the Father. Unitarianism is reflected today in sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.[2]
Religious Background
The Post-1844 Environment
The Great Disappointment was a bitter experience for the Millerites. While many abandoned the movement, there were still some, among them future Adventist pioneers, that chose to reflect and return to the Scriptures. The disappointment has triggered ‘a profound distrust in human opinion and tradition regarding the Bible.’[3] The post-Millerite pioneers were very keen to test every belief by Scripture and to reject any doctrines they thought were not substantiated by explicit biblical support.[4]
On the other hand, during the ‘golden years’ of the movement, the Millerites had had the opportunity to proclaim their message to virtually every Protestant denomination. However, shortly before 1844, they found the doors of these churches closed. Sadly, most of them were excommunicated from their original denominations. Their new-found beliefs found no space in air-tight creeds. Because of the harsh treatment they received from the established churches, they developed a tendency to be against the rigid creeds which, in many ways, had been the grounds of their eviction.[5]
Thus the Millerite Adventists were establishing an increasing opinion in their minds that the creeds, formulated by humans, made the nominal churches of the time ‘Babylonian’. Ironically, while the primary purpose of the creeds was to promote unity, the post-Millerite pioneers asserted that the same creeds were to blame for the diversity of the denominations and the doctrinal confusion in Christianity. Typically, at the top of every single Protestant denominational creed stood the doctrine of the Trinity.[6]
The Christian Connexion
One of the most prominent Congregationalist sects that rejected creeds (including the Trinity) and applied a literalist Biblical interpretation was the Christian Connexion (alias ‘The Christian Church’). An exposition of this sect is significant, since many Connexionists embraced the Millerite movement including prominent Adventist pioneers Joseph Bates and James White.[7]
The beginning of the Christian Connexion dates about 1800. No individual is recognised as leader or founder of the sect. The Christian Connexion practiced open communion and was congregational in structure. When it came to their beliefs, they emphasised that the Bible was their only creed and ‘Christian’ was their only name.[8]
One of William Miller’s staunchest supporters was Joshua V. Himes, a well-known Christian Connexion minister. Himes explains that the Connexionists came from a number of conservative denominations such as Calvinistic Baptists, the Free-will and Six-principle Baptists, the Methodists and Presbyterians. Because of the different backgrounds, they initially ‘tolerated’ their variant opinions on doctrinal matters. As for the doctrine of the Trinity, Himes would write: ‘At first they were generally Trinitarian; subsequently they have, almost unanimously, rejected the Trinitarian doctrine as unscriptural.’[9] Thus, the Connexionists held that only the Father is unoriginated, independent and eternal. Christ is the Son of God and Saviour, yet he was dependent and originated from the Father.[10]
Summary
The immediate religious environment in which Adventism grew up was characterised by restorationism, congregationalism and credo-phobia. There was substantial resentment and scepticism towards organised religion, and non-biblical doctrines or formulas such as creeds. The restorationist element in the Christian Connection, whose tenets will prove influential in early Adventism, is a typical example of this religious environment. Its congregationalism is featured in its structure while its credo-phobia spotted in the rejection of creedal trinitarianism.
James White and the Trinity: Initial Rejection
A prolific writer, dynamic preacher, and able administrator; few men have had a greater influence upon the Advent movement than Elder James White. Baptized at the age of 15, James White, like Joshua Himes and Joseph Bates, was a member of the Christian Connexion.[11] After hearing William Miller preach in 1842, he became an enthusiastic adherent of the Advent doctrine. He was ordained the following year and later married Ellen G. Harmon. Although he died at the early age of 60, Mr White was a driving force among the Advent people for over 35 years. His views carried weight in the church and were at a large extent representative of early Adventism.[12]
As he was still organising the pieces of his Millerite experience, Mr White’s first pronouncement on the subject of the Trinity came in an early issue of The Day-Star. In an exposition on Jude 3 and 4 he wrote: “The way spiritualizers have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed, viz, that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God.”[13]
There are two important points in this statement: First, White objects to the trinity (in this context, to the full divinity of Christ) on scriptural grounds, arguing that it is not Bible-supported. Secondly, he clearly opposes the (apparently Monarchainist) belief that Christ is eternal (like the Father) and without further explanation views it as a denial of both God the Father and Christ the Son.
After six years, James White would write another article where he refuted the charge that the “commandments of God” and “the faith of Jesus” were the same. ‘To assert that the sayings of the Son . . . are the commandments of the Father is as wide from the truth as the old Trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God.’[14]. Mr White (along with most other pioneers) understood it to mean that Jesus is the same person as the Father. Hence, Jesus is perceived as ‘Son of the eternal God’ rather than ‘eternal God.’[15]
Furthermore, Mr White perceived the trinity doctrine as an unscriptural error inherited from Catholicism and which had not been removed by the Reformers. Reflecting his restorationist framework, in 1856 he stated: ‘Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation. The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors.’[16]
As the years progressed and Adventism started to mature, Mr White’s own anti-Trinitarian views began to soften gradually. Actually, during the late 1870s, many Pioneers, while still rejecting the Trinity, began to uphold the divinity of Christ. ‘Any substantial inferiority of the Son to the Father was increasingly denied.’[17] To give an example, in a statement on similarities and differences between Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists (1876), James White would write: ‘The Principle difference between the two bodied is the immortality question. The S[eventh]- D[ay] Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the Trinitarians that we apprehend no trial here.’[18]
This was a drastic change when contrasted with earlier statements and shows an increasing affinity to the Trinitarian position. Thus, by 1877, Mr White, the then GC President, would make a very impressive statement: Paul affirms of the Son of God that He was in the form of God and that he was equal with God, ‘who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God’ (Phil 2:6). The reason why it is not robbery for the Son to be equal with the Father is the fact that he is equal.”[19]
One year before his death, Mr White made his last statement concerning trinitarianism in a letter entitled ‘The Son Represents the Father.’ ‘The Son who was equal with the Father in Creation, in the institution of law, and in the government of created intelligences, leaves this glory with the Father, and becomes a mediator through whom the Father speaks.’[20] In this last statement, Mr White implicitly elevates Christ to equality with God, at least in certain activities. Nevertheless, it would not be appropriate to deduce that Mr White accepted the trinity doctrine in the way we understand it today. Rather, ‘he declares Jesus to be equal in certain activities…There is no clear statement that the two are equal in the sense of being or essence.’[21]
Ellen White and the Trinity: Eventual Acceptance
Raised as a Methodist and nurtured as a Millerite, Ellen G. White, wife of James White, was certainly one of the most dignified personalities in Adventism. Her influence in the shaping of Adventism is indisputable; her voluminous writings are highly esteemed by Adventists worldwide. Her interventions in crucial theological debates in early Adventism have proven decisive, keeping the church on the right track and avoiding extremes from both ends. Her contribution during the last decade of the 19th century concerning the biblical doctrine of the trinity must be considered as crucial, due to her singular efforts within Adventism to proclaim and promote this doctrine.
After 1888, Adventism commenced a re-dimensioning process. If nothing else, the historic Minneapolis Conference challenged the church to give up its quasi-legalistic views, thus paving the way for doctrinal revival.[22] This revival was launched by E.J. Waggoner and A.T. Jones (with the backing of Mrs White) with an emphasis on justification by faith alone. During the following decade, Mrs White would continue to enhance this revival by highlighting the full deity of Christ and the personhood of the Spirit.
Her very first Trinitarian statement dates early 1890. ‘The world’s Redeemer was equal with God. His authority was as the authority of God...The authority by which he spoke and wrought miracles was expressly his own.’[23] Mrs White went one step further from her husband’s last statement on the trinity (see previous section), as she confirmed the authenticity of Christ’s authority and his equality to that of the Father.
Later that year, in her description of the position of the pre-incarnate Son in the Godhead in her book Patriarchs and Prophets, she stressed that ‘the Son of God shared the Father’s throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both.’[24] Mrs White seems to show consistence with her previous statement: The Father and the Son share the same equal authority. Only a couple of years later, while making a comment on John 10:30, Mrs White would make a very significant pro-Trinitarian comment on the one-ness of Jesus with the Father: ‘The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.’[25] Mrs White's emphasis of Christ’s divine status was correlated to His role as Redeemer humanity. She claimed that ‘the only way in which the fallen race could be restored was through the gift of [God’s] Son.’[26] The implication in her mind was clear: Christ could not redeem humanity if He were not fully divine. She would return later to this theme, highlighting the undisputed correlation between Christ’s redemptive function and His full divinity: ‘That…men might be brought into favour with God the Father, the eternal Son of God interposed Himself to bear the punishment of transgression.’[27]
Similarly, Mrs White realised that Christ could not function as a Mediator between God the Father and humanity, unless he was fully human and fully divine: ‘The reconciliation of man to God could be accomplished only through a mediator who was equal with God, possessed of attributes that would dignify, and declare him worthy to treat with the Infinite God in man’s behalf, and also represent God to a fallen world.’[28]
The year 1898 would announce by thunderstorm the advent of the Trinitarian era in Adventism. It was the year of the publication of The Desire of Ages, the book in which Mrs White would make her most famous pro-Trinitarian statements to date. This year was going to be ‘central to the development of Adventist understanding on Christ’s pre-existence.[29]
It is significant that two books were published during that same year: The Desire of Ages by Mrs White and Looking unto Jesus by Uriah Smith, a prominent pioneer, well-known for his anti-Trinitarian views.[30] ‘The contrast and the variance between the position of these two books—as concerns the eternal pre-existence and complete Deity of Christ…—was incisive and epoch-making.’[31] While Mr Smith argued ‘from a traditional semi-Arian position (Christ was “begotten” of the Father in the ages of eternity),[32] by sharp contrast, Mrs White confirmed Jesus as the eternal self-existent second person of the Godhead, thus leading Adventism back to the biblical view of the Godhead.
What were the statements that shook and eventually demolished Semi-Arian Adventism? Following is a selected list of seven quotations from The Desire of Ages:
1. From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father (p. 19).
2. He [Christ] was the incarnate God, the light of heaven and earth (p. 23).
3. It is the Son of Man who shares the throne of universe... the Mighty God (p. 25).
4. Jesus claimed equal rights with God. [He] had declared Himself equal with God (p. 207)
5. I am the Son of God, one with Him [the Father] in nature, in will and in purpose (p. 208)
6. The Son of God, one with the Creator of the universe (p. 210).
7. In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life (p. 530).[33]
Whereas quotations 1 to 6 are somewhat similar to the ones previously discussed, it is the first sentence of the seventh quotation that captures the readers’ attention. ‘In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived’ has been branded ‘the seven-word sentence'–-so famous is this statement among Adventist theological circles. It is the sentence that would allegedly ‘turn the tide of anti-Trinitarian theology among Adventists.’[34] As expected, when the book was published, this revolutionary statement in particular caused enormous shock and concern to the denomination theologically. Unlike any of the Adventist pioneers, Mrs White had declared explicitly that the Son is equal to the Father in each and every respect. Indeed, it was statements like this one that paved the way for the latter official acceptance of the Trinity doctrine into the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The last statement from Mrs White within the scope of this paper gives again a reassuring message of the eternal coexistence of the Son with the Father, in sharp contrast to every anti-Trinitarian statement made previously by the rest of the pioneers: ‘Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God…In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when he was not in close fellowship with the eternal God.’[35] With this statement, Mrs White would but announce the restoration of Christ’s pre-existence and self-existence in Adventist theology
Reasons for Rejection and Acceptance: a Critique
Discussing the writings of Mr and Mrs White has resulted in a worthwhile journey. It would be useful at this point to make a brief summarising critique of the reasons for the initial rejection and the eventual acceptance of the trinity doctrine in early Adventism.
Reasons for Rejection
The influence of the Christian Connexion on Mr White’s understanding of Christ’s divinity is quite obvious. Mr White’ restorationism emerges when he argues that the Trinity is unscriptural.[36] Linked with this is the credo-phobia that he exhibited towards the creeds of other churches.[37] ‘Maybe the persecution suffered by Adventists at the hands of the established churches not only convinced them that they never wanted a creed of their own but also that the creeds themselves were evil.’[38]
On the other hand, Mr White was concerned that asserting a full divinity to Christ implied doing away with the personality of both God the Father and Jesus.[39] The Trinity in those days was perceived as Monarchistic and/or tritheistic.[40] Understandably, Mr White and the rest of the pioneers reacted against such views.
Lastly, a major factor that affected James White and the pioneers’ view on the trinity was the strong appeal to reason. The belief that Christ is equal and/or as old as the Father was incomprehensible to them and therefore unreasonable. This explains White’s objection to the senselessness of the Trinity calling it ‘an absurdity.’[41]
To sum up, three were the major reasons for the rejection of trinitarianism by James White (and most of the Pioneers): 1) it is unscriptural; 2) it does away with the Personhood of God; and 3) it is unreasonable.[42] Most of these objections however, were either based on misunderstandings of the Trinity doctrine or extreme distortions of it. None of them is a valid objection to the true biblical view of one God in three Persons. Yet, all of these objections were associated with scriptural references, however inappropriately. Mr White and the pioneers were at least united in basing their arguments in the Bible. ‘As long as they appealed to Scripture itself rather than to a creed as their rule of doctrine, they were bound to discover the truth sooner or later.[43]
Reasons for Acceptance
This appeal to Scripture would come from no-one else but Mr White’s own wife. Unlike her husband, Mrs White did not bring along any Connexionist baggage to Adventism, since her background was, after all, Methodist Christian (i.e. Trinitarian). Adventist scholars generally agree that there is no evidence that Mrs White ever wrote or declared herself orally in favour of the anti-Trinitarian positions of the pioneers.[44] Significantly, she managed to do all this by avoiding the word ‘trinity’ in all of her writings.
The primary reason behind Mrs White’s endorsement of Trinitarianism was her realisation of the inextricable link between Christology and soteriology, i.e. Christ’s divine status and His role as Redeemer of the world. From her reflection on the plan of salvation laid out in the Bible, she concluded that only a fully divine God—not a semi or demi-god—could redeem humanity (by making a complete atonement to meet the claims of the broken law).[45]
The second reason that may be singled out is the intimate relationship between Christ’s full divinity and him being an effective Intercessor/Advocate with God. Again, Mrs White’s fervent study of the Scriptures led her to comprehend that only by being fully human and fully divine could Christ mediate as a perfect Advocate for humanity.[46]
It is these two reasons, 1) Christ’s role as Redeemer; and 2) Christ’s role as Mediator that triggered Mrs White to promote and emphasise Christ’s divine attributes, such as his self-existence, pre-existence and equality with the Father. Significantly, as she elaborated on these attributes, she would point to the Bible – the very book Adventists regarded consistently as their one and only rule of doctrine.[47]
Conclusion
I have attempted in this article to have the reader involved retrospectively in the religious atmosphere of Adventism during the second half of the 19th century. It is an atmosphere that speaks of evolution in the doctrine of the Trinity in Adventist theology, encompassing its initial acceptance and its eventual acceptance. Two ‘heavyweight’ characters were intentionally selected to represent each period, Mr and Mrs White, two of the founders and most outstanding leaders and visionaries of the Seventh-day Adventist Church movement.
The first period (1846-1888) was dominated by congregationalism, restorationism and credo-phobia. These influenced the pioneers to adopt a form of semi-Arianism thus rejecting the doctrine of the trinity on grounds of it being unscriptural, confusing, and unreasonable. Nevertheless, by the end of this period, it is noticeable, at least in the writings of Mr White, that Christ’s position was being increasingly exalted by the pioneers, who eventually started to understand the implications involved.
However, these implications were to become clearer and more tangible after the 1888 ‘eye-opener’ Minneapolis Conference. The events of this conference triggered a new doctrinal revival. Because of the renewed emphasis on the plan of salvation, a more adequate understanding of the Godhead became the next challenge ahead. It was Mrs White who undertook this challenge and, through an honest reflection of the Scriptures in her writings, she paved the path for the eventual acceptance of the ‘classical’ doctrine of the trinity by the Adventist Church.
Diligent Bible study led Mrs White to the crucial conclusion that only a fully divine, pre-existent and self-existent Christ could fulfil the roles of Redeemer/Saviour and Mediator/Advocate for humanity. Consequently, following the publication of The Desire of Ages, which ascribed to Jesus Christ ‘life, original, unborrowed, underived,’ Seventh-day Adventists adopted trinitarianism en masse.
There seems to be a paradoxical element in place concerning the whole story of initial rejection and eventual acceptance of the doctrine of trinity. I hope this brings a message home to each church member currently lured by the so-called ‘Historical Adventists.’ Seventh-day Adventists have always been consistent in at least one point: Sola Scriptura—no creed but the Bible. Because of this very principle, the Pioneers initially rejected the doctrine of the trinity, which at the time, was confined within the walls of creedal statements of the traditional churches, and was not thoroughly supported by Scripture (as it stood). Likewise, because of this very principle, the Pioneers kept studying and reflecting on the Bible and the Bible alone for answers, as their understanding developed, and left the door of doctrinal correction open by refusing to vote a creed, being reluctant to make official dogmatic statements. Thus because of the same principle, paradoxical as it may seem, the Pioneers gained a new perspective by means of a renewed focus on the Jesus of the Scriptures, and eventually accepted the biblical doctrine concerning the Godhead.
Seventh-day Adventists still (officially) hold on to this foundational Protestant principle. The moment they won’t, however, will be the very moment they will have started to lose their focus and identity. For Sola Scriptura is probably the dearest principle that the Whites and the rest of the pioneers would have Seventh-day Adventists uphold at all times, at any cost. For their story testifies that present truth must be viewed anything but static; instead it is rather dynamic, progressive, open-ended and must be kept very much alive.
The progressiveness of truth based on the Sola Scriptura principle is one of the most precious features in Adventism. From the very beginning of their movement, one of the main aspirations of the Adventist Pioneers was the restoration of all neglected truths of Scripture. To achieve this, they spent countless hours in Bible study and reflection. Surely this led to a re-dimensioning process in Adventist doctrine. Yet, one of the doctrines with which the pioneers struggled for many years was the doctrine of the Godhead (the Trinity).
It is an established fact that most of the Adventist Pioneers, at least between 1846 and 1888, held Arian or Semi-Arian views and opposed trinitarianism. The doctrine of the Trinity was considered unscriptural, confusing and absurd. One wonders what the reasons were for their opposition. What influenced them in their initial rejection of the trinity doctrine? Furthermore, the 1888 Minneapolis Conference had a heavy impact on Adventist theology. It is an established fact that only after 1888 the Trinitarian ‘tide’ began turning the other way. In fact, pro-trinitarian views became increasingly audible and visible throughout church circles and publications, mainly through the writings of Ellen G. White, . What led to this development? What were the principle reasons that pushed the Pioneers to eventually change their stand?
The purpose of this article is to investigate and analyse the reasons for the initial rejection and the eventual acceptance in Adventism of the doctrine of the trinity in the second half of the 19th century (1846-1900). This will be attempted by focusing on the writings of James and Ellen G. White, husband and wife, who represent two famous time-periods (1846-1888 and 1888-1900).
However, what motivated me to write this article is a genuine concern. From the 1990s well into the 21st century, there seems to be an increasing anti-trinitarian revival in Seventh-day Adventist circles spread throughout various regions across North America. These so-called ‘Historical Adventists’, operating mostly from independent ministries outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church, are pushing a seemingly innocent, yet dangerous agenda: a return to what they claim as ‘the historical beliefs of the early Pioneers’. The 'Historical' agenda calls explicitly for an outright rejection of the church's current stand on the Trinity, i.e. Adventism should reinstate the Arian/Semi-Arian views held especially before 1888, since virtually all the pioneers allegedly adhered to such views.[1]
Given the current context, this article gains new significance and relevance. I hope it serves as a modest contribution to those church members that are being influenced by the neo-Arian, 'Historical Adventist' views and who unfortunately are unaware of the serious implications involved. Ultimately, I hope this article will encourage the Adventist community to embrace a more progressive, dynamic, Scripture-based understanding of truth.
Definitions of Terms
Adventist: refers to the Seventh-day Adventist Church or Seventh-day Adventists, or the group of post-1444 Millerites that eventually became founding members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (1863).
Arian/Semi-Arian: refers to the belief, originally held by Arius, that Christ is a created being and not fully divine, and that the Holy Spirit is an influence and not a person. Although there is a technical difference between ‘Arian’ and ‘Semi-Arian’, for the purpose of this study the terms will be considered as practically synonymous.
Anti-Trinitarian: refers to Arianism/Semi-Arianism, and all other variants that differ from the classical Trinitarian position, originally promulgated by Arius.
Monarchianism: refers to a heresy, originally initiated by the Sabellians, which views the Godhead as a succession of modes and manifestations. In other words, Christ and the Holy Spirit were manifestations of the Father, rather than three persons consisting the Godhead. Monarchianism is reflected today in sects like the Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Pioneer(s): refers to the prominent leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church during the second half of the 19th century.
Unitarianism: refers to the Unitarian movement in America during the first half of the 19th century. Unitarians were essentially Arian, emphasising the unipersonality of God and the inferiority of Christ to the Father. Unitarianism is reflected today in sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.[2]
Religious Background
The Post-1844 Environment
The Great Disappointment was a bitter experience for the Millerites. While many abandoned the movement, there were still some, among them future Adventist pioneers, that chose to reflect and return to the Scriptures. The disappointment has triggered ‘a profound distrust in human opinion and tradition regarding the Bible.’[3] The post-Millerite pioneers were very keen to test every belief by Scripture and to reject any doctrines they thought were not substantiated by explicit biblical support.[4]
On the other hand, during the ‘golden years’ of the movement, the Millerites had had the opportunity to proclaim their message to virtually every Protestant denomination. However, shortly before 1844, they found the doors of these churches closed. Sadly, most of them were excommunicated from their original denominations. Their new-found beliefs found no space in air-tight creeds. Because of the harsh treatment they received from the established churches, they developed a tendency to be against the rigid creeds which, in many ways, had been the grounds of their eviction.[5]
Thus the Millerite Adventists were establishing an increasing opinion in their minds that the creeds, formulated by humans, made the nominal churches of the time ‘Babylonian’. Ironically, while the primary purpose of the creeds was to promote unity, the post-Millerite pioneers asserted that the same creeds were to blame for the diversity of the denominations and the doctrinal confusion in Christianity. Typically, at the top of every single Protestant denominational creed stood the doctrine of the Trinity.[6]
The Christian Connexion
One of the most prominent Congregationalist sects that rejected creeds (including the Trinity) and applied a literalist Biblical interpretation was the Christian Connexion (alias ‘The Christian Church’). An exposition of this sect is significant, since many Connexionists embraced the Millerite movement including prominent Adventist pioneers Joseph Bates and James White.[7]
The beginning of the Christian Connexion dates about 1800. No individual is recognised as leader or founder of the sect. The Christian Connexion practiced open communion and was congregational in structure. When it came to their beliefs, they emphasised that the Bible was their only creed and ‘Christian’ was their only name.[8]
One of William Miller’s staunchest supporters was Joshua V. Himes, a well-known Christian Connexion minister. Himes explains that the Connexionists came from a number of conservative denominations such as Calvinistic Baptists, the Free-will and Six-principle Baptists, the Methodists and Presbyterians. Because of the different backgrounds, they initially ‘tolerated’ their variant opinions on doctrinal matters. As for the doctrine of the Trinity, Himes would write: ‘At first they were generally Trinitarian; subsequently they have, almost unanimously, rejected the Trinitarian doctrine as unscriptural.’[9] Thus, the Connexionists held that only the Father is unoriginated, independent and eternal. Christ is the Son of God and Saviour, yet he was dependent and originated from the Father.[10]
Summary
The immediate religious environment in which Adventism grew up was characterised by restorationism, congregationalism and credo-phobia. There was substantial resentment and scepticism towards organised religion, and non-biblical doctrines or formulas such as creeds. The restorationist element in the Christian Connection, whose tenets will prove influential in early Adventism, is a typical example of this religious environment. Its congregationalism is featured in its structure while its credo-phobia spotted in the rejection of creedal trinitarianism.
James White and the Trinity: Initial Rejection
A prolific writer, dynamic preacher, and able administrator; few men have had a greater influence upon the Advent movement than Elder James White. Baptized at the age of 15, James White, like Joshua Himes and Joseph Bates, was a member of the Christian Connexion.[11] After hearing William Miller preach in 1842, he became an enthusiastic adherent of the Advent doctrine. He was ordained the following year and later married Ellen G. Harmon. Although he died at the early age of 60, Mr White was a driving force among the Advent people for over 35 years. His views carried weight in the church and were at a large extent representative of early Adventism.[12]
As he was still organising the pieces of his Millerite experience, Mr White’s first pronouncement on the subject of the Trinity came in an early issue of The Day-Star. In an exposition on Jude 3 and 4 he wrote: “The way spiritualizers have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed, viz, that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God.”[13]
There are two important points in this statement: First, White objects to the trinity (in this context, to the full divinity of Christ) on scriptural grounds, arguing that it is not Bible-supported. Secondly, he clearly opposes the (apparently Monarchainist) belief that Christ is eternal (like the Father) and without further explanation views it as a denial of both God the Father and Christ the Son.
After six years, James White would write another article where he refuted the charge that the “commandments of God” and “the faith of Jesus” were the same. ‘To assert that the sayings of the Son . . . are the commandments of the Father is as wide from the truth as the old Trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God.’[14]. Mr White (along with most other pioneers) understood it to mean that Jesus is the same person as the Father. Hence, Jesus is perceived as ‘Son of the eternal God’ rather than ‘eternal God.’[15]
Furthermore, Mr White perceived the trinity doctrine as an unscriptural error inherited from Catholicism and which had not been removed by the Reformers. Reflecting his restorationist framework, in 1856 he stated: ‘Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation. The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors.’[16]
As the years progressed and Adventism started to mature, Mr White’s own anti-Trinitarian views began to soften gradually. Actually, during the late 1870s, many Pioneers, while still rejecting the Trinity, began to uphold the divinity of Christ. ‘Any substantial inferiority of the Son to the Father was increasingly denied.’[17] To give an example, in a statement on similarities and differences between Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists (1876), James White would write: ‘The Principle difference between the two bodied is the immortality question. The S[eventh]- D[ay] Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the Trinitarians that we apprehend no trial here.’[18]
This was a drastic change when contrasted with earlier statements and shows an increasing affinity to the Trinitarian position. Thus, by 1877, Mr White, the then GC President, would make a very impressive statement: Paul affirms of the Son of God that He was in the form of God and that he was equal with God, ‘who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God’ (Phil 2:6). The reason why it is not robbery for the Son to be equal with the Father is the fact that he is equal.”[19]
One year before his death, Mr White made his last statement concerning trinitarianism in a letter entitled ‘The Son Represents the Father.’ ‘The Son who was equal with the Father in Creation, in the institution of law, and in the government of created intelligences, leaves this glory with the Father, and becomes a mediator through whom the Father speaks.’[20] In this last statement, Mr White implicitly elevates Christ to equality with God, at least in certain activities. Nevertheless, it would not be appropriate to deduce that Mr White accepted the trinity doctrine in the way we understand it today. Rather, ‘he declares Jesus to be equal in certain activities…There is no clear statement that the two are equal in the sense of being or essence.’[21]
Ellen White and the Trinity: Eventual Acceptance
Raised as a Methodist and nurtured as a Millerite, Ellen G. White, wife of James White, was certainly one of the most dignified personalities in Adventism. Her influence in the shaping of Adventism is indisputable; her voluminous writings are highly esteemed by Adventists worldwide. Her interventions in crucial theological debates in early Adventism have proven decisive, keeping the church on the right track and avoiding extremes from both ends. Her contribution during the last decade of the 19th century concerning the biblical doctrine of the trinity must be considered as crucial, due to her singular efforts within Adventism to proclaim and promote this doctrine.
After 1888, Adventism commenced a re-dimensioning process. If nothing else, the historic Minneapolis Conference challenged the church to give up its quasi-legalistic views, thus paving the way for doctrinal revival.[22] This revival was launched by E.J. Waggoner and A.T. Jones (with the backing of Mrs White) with an emphasis on justification by faith alone. During the following decade, Mrs White would continue to enhance this revival by highlighting the full deity of Christ and the personhood of the Spirit.
Her very first Trinitarian statement dates early 1890. ‘The world’s Redeemer was equal with God. His authority was as the authority of God...The authority by which he spoke and wrought miracles was expressly his own.’[23] Mrs White went one step further from her husband’s last statement on the trinity (see previous section), as she confirmed the authenticity of Christ’s authority and his equality to that of the Father.
Later that year, in her description of the position of the pre-incarnate Son in the Godhead in her book Patriarchs and Prophets, she stressed that ‘the Son of God shared the Father’s throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both.’[24] Mrs White seems to show consistence with her previous statement: The Father and the Son share the same equal authority. Only a couple of years later, while making a comment on John 10:30, Mrs White would make a very significant pro-Trinitarian comment on the one-ness of Jesus with the Father: ‘The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes.’[25] Mrs White's emphasis of Christ’s divine status was correlated to His role as Redeemer humanity. She claimed that ‘the only way in which the fallen race could be restored was through the gift of [God’s] Son.’[26] The implication in her mind was clear: Christ could not redeem humanity if He were not fully divine. She would return later to this theme, highlighting the undisputed correlation between Christ’s redemptive function and His full divinity: ‘That…men might be brought into favour with God the Father, the eternal Son of God interposed Himself to bear the punishment of transgression.’[27]
Similarly, Mrs White realised that Christ could not function as a Mediator between God the Father and humanity, unless he was fully human and fully divine: ‘The reconciliation of man to God could be accomplished only through a mediator who was equal with God, possessed of attributes that would dignify, and declare him worthy to treat with the Infinite God in man’s behalf, and also represent God to a fallen world.’[28]
The year 1898 would announce by thunderstorm the advent of the Trinitarian era in Adventism. It was the year of the publication of The Desire of Ages, the book in which Mrs White would make her most famous pro-Trinitarian statements to date. This year was going to be ‘central to the development of Adventist understanding on Christ’s pre-existence.[29]
It is significant that two books were published during that same year: The Desire of Ages by Mrs White and Looking unto Jesus by Uriah Smith, a prominent pioneer, well-known for his anti-Trinitarian views.[30] ‘The contrast and the variance between the position of these two books—as concerns the eternal pre-existence and complete Deity of Christ…—was incisive and epoch-making.’[31] While Mr Smith argued ‘from a traditional semi-Arian position (Christ was “begotten” of the Father in the ages of eternity),[32] by sharp contrast, Mrs White confirmed Jesus as the eternal self-existent second person of the Godhead, thus leading Adventism back to the biblical view of the Godhead.
What were the statements that shook and eventually demolished Semi-Arian Adventism? Following is a selected list of seven quotations from The Desire of Ages:
1. From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father (p. 19).
2. He [Christ] was the incarnate God, the light of heaven and earth (p. 23).
3. It is the Son of Man who shares the throne of universe... the Mighty God (p. 25).
4. Jesus claimed equal rights with God. [He] had declared Himself equal with God (p. 207)
5. I am the Son of God, one with Him [the Father] in nature, in will and in purpose (p. 208)
6. The Son of God, one with the Creator of the universe (p. 210).
7. In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life (p. 530).[33]
Whereas quotations 1 to 6 are somewhat similar to the ones previously discussed, it is the first sentence of the seventh quotation that captures the readers’ attention. ‘In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived’ has been branded ‘the seven-word sentence'–-so famous is this statement among Adventist theological circles. It is the sentence that would allegedly ‘turn the tide of anti-Trinitarian theology among Adventists.’[34] As expected, when the book was published, this revolutionary statement in particular caused enormous shock and concern to the denomination theologically. Unlike any of the Adventist pioneers, Mrs White had declared explicitly that the Son is equal to the Father in each and every respect. Indeed, it was statements like this one that paved the way for the latter official acceptance of the Trinity doctrine into the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The last statement from Mrs White within the scope of this paper gives again a reassuring message of the eternal coexistence of the Son with the Father, in sharp contrast to every anti-Trinitarian statement made previously by the rest of the pioneers: ‘Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God…In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when he was not in close fellowship with the eternal God.’[35] With this statement, Mrs White would but announce the restoration of Christ’s pre-existence and self-existence in Adventist theology
Reasons for Rejection and Acceptance: a Critique
Discussing the writings of Mr and Mrs White has resulted in a worthwhile journey. It would be useful at this point to make a brief summarising critique of the reasons for the initial rejection and the eventual acceptance of the trinity doctrine in early Adventism.
Reasons for Rejection
The influence of the Christian Connexion on Mr White’s understanding of Christ’s divinity is quite obvious. Mr White’ restorationism emerges when he argues that the Trinity is unscriptural.[36] Linked with this is the credo-phobia that he exhibited towards the creeds of other churches.[37] ‘Maybe the persecution suffered by Adventists at the hands of the established churches not only convinced them that they never wanted a creed of their own but also that the creeds themselves were evil.’[38]
On the other hand, Mr White was concerned that asserting a full divinity to Christ implied doing away with the personality of both God the Father and Jesus.[39] The Trinity in those days was perceived as Monarchistic and/or tritheistic.[40] Understandably, Mr White and the rest of the pioneers reacted against such views.
Lastly, a major factor that affected James White and the pioneers’ view on the trinity was the strong appeal to reason. The belief that Christ is equal and/or as old as the Father was incomprehensible to them and therefore unreasonable. This explains White’s objection to the senselessness of the Trinity calling it ‘an absurdity.’[41]
To sum up, three were the major reasons for the rejection of trinitarianism by James White (and most of the Pioneers): 1) it is unscriptural; 2) it does away with the Personhood of God; and 3) it is unreasonable.[42] Most of these objections however, were either based on misunderstandings of the Trinity doctrine or extreme distortions of it. None of them is a valid objection to the true biblical view of one God in three Persons. Yet, all of these objections were associated with scriptural references, however inappropriately. Mr White and the pioneers were at least united in basing their arguments in the Bible. ‘As long as they appealed to Scripture itself rather than to a creed as their rule of doctrine, they were bound to discover the truth sooner or later.[43]
Reasons for Acceptance
This appeal to Scripture would come from no-one else but Mr White’s own wife. Unlike her husband, Mrs White did not bring along any Connexionist baggage to Adventism, since her background was, after all, Methodist Christian (i.e. Trinitarian). Adventist scholars generally agree that there is no evidence that Mrs White ever wrote or declared herself orally in favour of the anti-Trinitarian positions of the pioneers.[44] Significantly, she managed to do all this by avoiding the word ‘trinity’ in all of her writings.
The primary reason behind Mrs White’s endorsement of Trinitarianism was her realisation of the inextricable link between Christology and soteriology, i.e. Christ’s divine status and His role as Redeemer of the world. From her reflection on the plan of salvation laid out in the Bible, she concluded that only a fully divine God—not a semi or demi-god—could redeem humanity (by making a complete atonement to meet the claims of the broken law).[45]
The second reason that may be singled out is the intimate relationship between Christ’s full divinity and him being an effective Intercessor/Advocate with God. Again, Mrs White’s fervent study of the Scriptures led her to comprehend that only by being fully human and fully divine could Christ mediate as a perfect Advocate for humanity.[46]
It is these two reasons, 1) Christ’s role as Redeemer; and 2) Christ’s role as Mediator that triggered Mrs White to promote and emphasise Christ’s divine attributes, such as his self-existence, pre-existence and equality with the Father. Significantly, as she elaborated on these attributes, she would point to the Bible – the very book Adventists regarded consistently as their one and only rule of doctrine.[47]
Conclusion
I have attempted in this article to have the reader involved retrospectively in the religious atmosphere of Adventism during the second half of the 19th century. It is an atmosphere that speaks of evolution in the doctrine of the Trinity in Adventist theology, encompassing its initial acceptance and its eventual acceptance. Two ‘heavyweight’ characters were intentionally selected to represent each period, Mr and Mrs White, two of the founders and most outstanding leaders and visionaries of the Seventh-day Adventist Church movement.
The first period (1846-1888) was dominated by congregationalism, restorationism and credo-phobia. These influenced the pioneers to adopt a form of semi-Arianism thus rejecting the doctrine of the trinity on grounds of it being unscriptural, confusing, and unreasonable. Nevertheless, by the end of this period, it is noticeable, at least in the writings of Mr White, that Christ’s position was being increasingly exalted by the pioneers, who eventually started to understand the implications involved.
However, these implications were to become clearer and more tangible after the 1888 ‘eye-opener’ Minneapolis Conference. The events of this conference triggered a new doctrinal revival. Because of the renewed emphasis on the plan of salvation, a more adequate understanding of the Godhead became the next challenge ahead. It was Mrs White who undertook this challenge and, through an honest reflection of the Scriptures in her writings, she paved the path for the eventual acceptance of the ‘classical’ doctrine of the trinity by the Adventist Church.
Diligent Bible study led Mrs White to the crucial conclusion that only a fully divine, pre-existent and self-existent Christ could fulfil the roles of Redeemer/Saviour and Mediator/Advocate for humanity. Consequently, following the publication of The Desire of Ages, which ascribed to Jesus Christ ‘life, original, unborrowed, underived,’ Seventh-day Adventists adopted trinitarianism en masse.
There seems to be a paradoxical element in place concerning the whole story of initial rejection and eventual acceptance of the doctrine of trinity. I hope this brings a message home to each church member currently lured by the so-called ‘Historical Adventists.’ Seventh-day Adventists have always been consistent in at least one point: Sola Scriptura—no creed but the Bible. Because of this very principle, the Pioneers initially rejected the doctrine of the trinity, which at the time, was confined within the walls of creedal statements of the traditional churches, and was not thoroughly supported by Scripture (as it stood). Likewise, because of this very principle, the Pioneers kept studying and reflecting on the Bible and the Bible alone for answers, as their understanding developed, and left the door of doctrinal correction open by refusing to vote a creed, being reluctant to make official dogmatic statements. Thus because of the same principle, paradoxical as it may seem, the Pioneers gained a new perspective by means of a renewed focus on the Jesus of the Scriptures, and eventually accepted the biblical doctrine concerning the Godhead.
Seventh-day Adventists still (officially) hold on to this foundational Protestant principle. The moment they won’t, however, will be the very moment they will have started to lose their focus and identity. For Sola Scriptura is probably the dearest principle that the Whites and the rest of the pioneers would have Seventh-day Adventists uphold at all times, at any cost. For their story testifies that present truth must be viewed anything but static; instead it is rather dynamic, progressive, open-ended and must be kept very much alive.
Comments