At Issue Index
Trinity
Index   Table of
Contents   Previous
Next

The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian
Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G.
White Answer

by Erwin Roy
Gane

C H A P T E R   V

SMITH SUPPORTED BY HIS
CONTEMPORARIES

LOUGHBOROUGH OPPOSES "PAGAN" TRINITARIANISM

James White was editor of the Review and Herald
in 1861. In November of that year, he published J. N. Loughborough�s
answer to the question, "what serious objection is there to the
doctrine of the trinity?" Loughborough replied:

There are many objections which we might urge, but
on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the
following: 1. It is contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to
Scripture. 3. It�s origin is Pagan and fabulous.1

In enlarging on the first point, Loughborough objected
to the idea that three are one, and one, three. He opposes the use
of the terms "the Triune God," and "the three-in-one God."2
"if Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each God, it would be three
Gods." Under the second point he urges that in Scripture Father and
Son are spoken of as two distinct persons. As indicated by John
chapter 17, the oneness between them is the same as that between
Christian believers. To believe the doctrine of the Trinity, to
Loughborough, would involve acceptance of the idea that "God sent
himself onto the world, died to reconcile the world to himself,
raised himself from the dead, ascended to himself in
heaven�."3
Here again we are confronted with anti-Trinitarianism based on
opposition to what Trinitarians did not teach, that the Father was
the Son and vice versa.

That Loughborough was opposing Trinitarianism, not merely as it
appeared in his day, but in its earliest manifestation in the
Christian Church, is evidenced by his amplification of his third
point. The doctrine of the Trinity came into the church, so he
argues, about the same time as image worship and Sunday observance.
It is simply a renovation of the pagan Persian religion. It was
introduced into the Christian Church about 325 A. D. and was an
established doctrine by 681 A. D. Spain adopted it in 589, Africa in
534 and England in 596.4

J. N. Loughborough also declared himself on the subject of the
Holy Spirit. Writing in 1898 he described the Spirit of God as
"God�s representative�the power by which he works, the agency by
which all things are upheld."5
He says that the Spirit of God is recognized in the Bible as the
Lord�s presence. The Spirit of God, as spoken of in respect to
creation, he describes as, "the creative energy of God." Throughout
this 1898 article, Loughborough emphasizes that the Holy Spirit is
God�s power. He expresses no conception of the Spirit as a
personality, and consistently uses the pronoun "it" in reference to
the Third Person of the Godhead.

GOODRICH ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

E. Goodrich, writing for the Review in 1862 expressed his horror
at the sentiment that there is no Spirit.6
He sees not much of worth left in Bible religion when it is divested
of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He describes the Spirit as "the
living and acting agent" by which God�s work for man is
accomplished."7
There is no indication as to whether Goodrich regarded this "agent"
as a personally and a member of the Deity, or simply as an
influence. This much is certain: that an anti-Trinitarian possessing
the convictions of Uriah Smith, could heartily subscribe to what
Goodrich wrote, as indicated by Smith�s own discussion of the
importance of the Holy Spirit in 1859.8

WHITNEY PRESENTS "BOTH SIDES"

S. B. Whitney became a Seventh-day Adventist some short time
before 1862. His change of faith was seriously regretted by the
Congregational Church at Malone, and two representatives of that
congregation, A. Parmalee and J. B. Henck wrote to him with the
intention of winning him back to his old faith.

The Review and Herald published the letter to Whitney and
his reply. The relevant sections for the purpose of this discussion,
are quoted here. Parmalee and Henck wrote:

A few words now in regard to the doctrine which you have recently
embraced as substitutes for those you once adopted, but have now put
away.

1. The doctrine of the Trinity you set aside as not a scripture
doctrine. Our creed on this subject is, that there are three
persons in one God, not three persons in one person, and
that Christians are required to baptize in the name of these
three, as constituting the only true God revealed on the
scriptures. The doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of
faith, not of comprehension, nor could we solve the
mysteries of this infinite, wonderful Being, if he were presented
to us as existing in one person only.9

The writers proceed to depreciate Whitney�s conduct in
"launching out" as had the Unitarians and Socinians in an effort
to gain knowledge beyond what is revealed in
Scripture.

In his reply, S. B. Whitney fails to answer the Congregational
creed that, "there are three persons in one God."10
Evidently Parmalee and Henck quoted this in their letter in answer
to a previous accusation that their teaching involved the notion of
"three persons in one person."11
They are certainly objecting to this latter conception. Whitney
ignores the issues involved on this point and proceeds to prove that
God has a form:

In Ex. xxxiii, 21-23, we read that God told Moses that he would
cover him with his hand while he passed by, but that he should see
his back parts. Will the Dr. charge God with deception or admit
that he has a form? Will he receive Christ�s testimony when he
speaks of his Father�s "shape"? Luke v, 37. Will he admit that
Christ went to heaven bodily? Acts i, 9.12

There can be no doubt that Whitney was opposing the conception
that God lacks bodily parts and form. The point is not even referred
to in the Congregational letter. The Trinitarian position of three
persons in one God is in no way answered in Whitney�s reply. It
appears reasonable to conclude:

1. that new converts to the Adventist Church at this stage were
introduced to anti-Trinitarianism. At least this was so in Whitney�s
case. This was certainly the impression received by the
Congregationalists of Malone; and no effort was made in Whitney�s
reply or elsewhere on the Review and Herald to correct this
impression. On the contrary, the reply contained renewed opposition
to the Trinitarian position. Of course, it is dangerous to
generalize on this point. There may have been many converts who
retained their Trinitarianism, but the present writer has not been
able to discover evidence for this.

2. S. B. Whitney�s reply evidences the reaction to certain
extreme statements in the Trinitarian creed, which we have noticed
in other early Seventh-day Adventist writers, but,

3. There can be no doubt that the Trinitarians at this time did
not teach , as certain Seventh-day Adventist writers interpreted
them as teaching, that Christ and God are one person. The
Congregational creed, as referred to by Parmalee and Henck, clearly
stated that "there are three persons in one God, not three
persons in one person."13

ENDNOTES

1J. N. Loughborough, "Questions for Bro.
Loughborough," Review and Herald, XVIII (November 5, 1861),
184.

2Ibid.

3J.
N. Loughborough, "Questions for Bro. Loughborough," Review and
Herald, XVIII (November 5, 1861), 184.

4Ibid.

5J.
N. Loughborough, "The Spirit of God, " Review and Herald,
LXXV (September 20, 1898), 600.

6E.
Goodrich, "No Spirit," Review and Herald, XIX (January 28,
1862), 68.

7Ibid.

8cf. ante., p. 18.

9S.
B. Whitney, "Both Sides," Review and Herald, XIX (March 4,
1862), 109.

10Ibid.

11Ibid.

12Ibid., 110.

13Ibid.,
109.

At Issue Index
Trinity
Index   Table of
Contents   Previous
Next