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   VII

FROM CANRIGHT TO WAGGONER

DENNIS ACCEPTS "ONE GOD"

It was during James White�s term as editor of The Signs of the
Times that A. J. Dennis in 1879 published his article entitled
"one god." He wrote:

What a contradiction of terms is found in the language of a
trinitarian creed: "In unity of this Godhead are three persons, of
one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost." There are many things that are mysterious written in
the word of God, but we may safely presume the Lord never calls
upon us to believe impossibilities. But creeds often do.1

Dennis regarded belief in two self-existent beings each equal in
power, as postulating the existence of two Gods. But, he says, the
Bible teaches the existence of only one. He saw no difficulty in
ascribing eternity to both Father and Son if "eternity" refers to
"duration without end." In this sense Enoch and Elijah and all the
redeemed saints have eternity of existence.2

HOPKINS ABETS ANTI-TRINITARIANISM

J. M. Hopkins writing for the Review and Herald in 1883
attached great importance to the work of the Holy Spirit, but
proceeded to define its existence in the following term, "it is that
almighty, holy influence operating in the universe of god, by means
of which worlds have been formed, physical laws established and
maintained;�"3

God, he believed, has communicated to his people by means of the
Spirit, the saints are to be raised by the same power, and the
living changed into an incorruptible form ready for translation, by
the same Spirit. But the Spirit remains an "influence" as different
from a person, an equal member in the Godhead.

SWIFT AND TENNY IN DOUBT

Two men wrote for the Review and Herald In 1883, leaving
the question as to the nature of the Holy Spirit an open one.
Neither was prepared to dogmatize and both placed emphasis on the
importance of the work of the Holy Spirit. Swift wrote, "Just what
the spirit is, is a mooted question among theologians, and we may
not hope to give it a positive answer, but we may learn something of
its nature, and the part it acts in human salvation."4
He proceeds to speak of the work of the Spirit and consistently uses
the personal pronoun "he" in reference to the Spirit. There is no
real indication in the article as to whether Swift believed the Holy
Spirit an influence or a person, but the tenor of the article is
certainly in the direction of the latter conception.

G. C. Tenny in his article entitled "The Comforter," asserts that
whatever the existence of the Holy Spirit is material or immaterial,
whether it is "a personal being, or a representative influence, it
exists, clothed with an all-seeing and omnipresent nature, and
claims our most sacred respect."5
Here again the writer leaves the question open as to the personality
of the Holy Spirit. Later in the century, in 1896, Tenny wrote an
answer to a question sent in by a correspondent. The question was as
follows:

Please explain 1 John 5:8. (1) Is the word "spirit" synonymous
with the Holy Ghost of verse 7? (2) What is the Holy Ghost? How do
we receive it, through God, or through angels? (3) Is the
Comforter of John 16:7,8 the Holy Ghost? If so, how can it be
alluded to as "him" and "he"?�C.W.W.6

Tenny disposed of the first question by saying that the last part
of verse 7 and the first part of verse 8 is an interpolation which
ought not to be in the Scriptures. He adds:

It is not in the Revised Version, and it is well understood by
Biblical scholars that these words were inserted by some one who
desired to render more prominent an erroneous idea of the dogma of
the Trinity.7

Of course modern scholarship would not disagree with Tenny�s
rejection of the 1 John 5:7 and 8 interpolation. But it is clear
from his statement that he is not Trinitarian. The idea, which the
passage would prove, were it genuine, is that the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are one. This idea Tenny regards as "erroneous."

In spite of this, Tenny does not rule out the possibility that
the Holy Spirit is a person. In answer to the second question he
wrote, "we cannot tell. we cannot describe the Holy Spirit." He
regards the Scriptural evidence of such a nature that he is "led to
believe he is something more than an emanation from the mind of
god." Tenny continues:

He is included in the apostolic benedictions, and is spoken of
by our Lord as acting in an independent and personal capacity as
teacher, guide, and comforter. He is an object of veneration, and
is a heavenly intelligence, everywhere present, and always
present. But as limited beings, we cannot understand the problems
which the contemplation of the Deity presents to our minds.8

Here we are confronted with a writer who obviously has not
accepted the doctrine of the Trinity, but whose doubts in regard to
the personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit seem to be gradually
resolving in the direction of the Trinitarian belief. He is not yet
thoroughly sure, but is at least prepared to concede that "He," the
Spirit of God , "is something more than an emanation from the mind
of God."

J. H. WAGGONER HOLDS TRINITY CONCEPT "DEGRADES"
ATONEMENT

The Pacific Press published J. H. Waggoner�s book, The
Atonement, in 1884. As has been shown Waggoner was by no means
the first Seventh-day Adventist writer who regarded the Trinitarian
view of Christ as subversive of the atonement, but his work
underlined and for a time perpetuated this position. He wrote,
"surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the
atonement, by bringing this sacrifice, the blood of our purchase,
down to the standard of socinianism."9

The point which Waggoner emphasizes so often is that in Christ
there were not two distinct natures during the incarnation, one, the
human, which died, and the other, the Divine which, when the human
died, ascended again to the Father. This view would render the
sacrifice a human one, and therefore an inadequate one for human
redemption.

Waggoner regards it as impossible for the self-existent God to
die. He says, "here is a plain declaration that �the ever-living,
self-existent god� died for sinners, which we cannot
believe�."10
The Father was the self-existent God, Christ was not. Therefore,
Christ could die for sinners. Both His human and divine attributes
died on the Cross. This position led Waggoner to conclude that
Christ was subordinate possessing a derived existence. Christ was
pre-existent but not self-existent and therefore God in a
subordinate sense. Waggoner wrote:

The first of the above quotations say the Word was God,
and also the Word was with God. Now it needs no
proof�indeed it is self-evident that the Word as God, was
not the God whom he was with. And as there is but
"one God," the term must be used in reference to the Word in a
subordinate sense, which is explained by Paul�s calling the same
pre-existent person the Son of God.11

It was this pre-existent, subordinate Son of God who
died on Calvary and provided the possibility of atonement. It is
clear, therefore, that Waggoner�s repudiation of Trinitarianism was
in view of its apparent contradiction of his understanding of the
atonement.

ENDNOTES

1A. J.
Dennis, "One God," The Signs of the Times, V (May 22, 1879),
162.

2Ibid.

3J. M.
Hopkins, "Grieve Not The Spirit," Review and Herald, LX (July
3, 1883), 417.

4J. E. Swift,
"Our Companion," Review and Herald, LX (July 3, 1883),
421.

5G. C. Tenny,
"The Comforter," Review and Herald, LX (October 30, 1883),
673.

6G. C. Tenny,
"To Correspondents," Review and Herald, LXXIII (June 9,
1896), 362.

7Ibid.

8Ibid.

9J. H.
Waggoner, The Atonement (Oakland, Cal.: Pacific Press, 1884),
p. 174.

10Ibid., p.176.

11Ibid., p.
153.

At Issue Index
Trinity
Index   Table of
Contents   Previous
Next