At Issue Index
Trinity
Index   Table of
Contents   Previous
Bibliography

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   XVI

SUMMARY

The evidence as presented here indicates that prior to 1898 the
prevailing opinion in the Seventh-day Adventist Church on the nature
of God was anti-Trinitarian. It has been shown that a whole series
of writers took this position. Those early Adventist writers who
expressed themselves on the subject agreed on certain fundamental
issues. Christ was consistently regarded as subordinate to the
Father and the Holy Spirit as a mere influence.

Although all the Adventist Arians aimed at discounting
Trinitarianism, the arguments they emphasized in opposition to it
varied somewhat. Certain writers, such as Bates, Hull, Loughborough,
Whitney, and Canright identified Trinitarianism with Monarchianism.
As they saw it, if Christ were absolute Deity then He was the
Father. Since they repudiated this position, they repudiated
Trinitarianism. On the other hand same writers saw Trinitarianism as
postulating the existence of three Gods. Loughborough and Dennis so
viewed it. Thus the Arians opposed both extremes, Monarchianism and
Tritheism. Trinitarianism, they thought, might be identified with
one of these extremes, but it certainly is not the truth. To them,
Arianism provided a satisfactory mediating position. There is only
one supreme God, and that is the Father. There was a time when
Christ did not exist, and the Holy Spirit is not a person.

Some writers particularly opposed Trinitarianism because it
apparently depreciated the efficacy of the atonement. Hull, Smith,
Canright and J. H. Waggoner were in this category. If Christ were
absolute God in the same sense as the Father, then His divine nature
could not die. Under these circumstances, the sacrifice would have
been a human one. Such they regarded as an inadequate atonement for
the sins of man.

Some opposed the extreme creedal positions which divested God of
bodily parts and form. Hull, Whitney and Canright were particularly
articulate on this point. On the other hand it is clear that the
opposition by early Adventist writers to Trinitarianism was not
simply a reaction to extreme forms of the doctrine. Both Hull and
Loughborough opposed the decisions of Nicaea, and Whitney in
becoming a Seventh-day Adventist had evidently repudiated the
creedal teaching of the Congregational Church that there are three
persons in one God.

Attempts have been made to demonstrate that the Arians among
Seventh-day Adventists were a small but influential minority. As
indicated, Uriah Smith and J. H. Waggoner are sometimes blamed for
the existence of anti-Trinitarianism in the Adventist Church. The
evidence suggests otherwise. Four Seventh-day Adventist writers
declared themselves Arians before publication of Uriah Smith�s
Thoughts Critical and Practical on the Book of Revelation in
1865. Stephenson wrote in 1854, Hull in 1859, Loughborough in 1861,
and Whitney in 1862. Although Joseph Bates did not write his
autobiography until 1868, in it he clearly demonstrates that he had
been an Arian since 1827. The views of such a prominent pioneer were
undoubtedly influential. Even Smith�s extreme statement in 1865 to
the effect that Christ was a created being finds its antecedent in a
similar statement by Stephenson in 1854. By the same token the views
expressed by J. H. Waggoner in 1884 were by no means original with
himself. His anti-Trinitarianism and his limited view of the
atonement were shared by a considerable stream of writers who
preceded him.

The Whitney article proves that in 1862 it was not unusual for a
new convert to be inducted into the Arian belief. Evidently by 1890,
when Bourdeau deprecated the prevailing diversity of opinion on the
subject, the situation had changed in that other views were being
seriously considered. The reprinting of the Spear article would
indicate that they were. But these other views were not expressed by
Adventist writers, with the exception of Ellen G. White, until 1898
and following. Jones� statement on the Holy Spirit back in 1895 was
at best only an approximation to the Trinitarian view.

Why was Arianism the prevailing doctrine up to 1898? As has been
demonstrated, some of the pioneers were influenced by the Christian
Connection which was opposed to Trinitarianism. To what precise
extent the religious background of these few influenced the
positions of later writers would be difficult to determine. The
Adventists, coming as they did from diversified denominational
backgrounds, rejected many of the major beliefs of their former
communions. It would appear that Trinitarianism became associated in
their thinking with other theological views they thought
unscriptural and pagan. Sunday observance was introduced by the
papacy, but so was Trinitarianism. Were not the decisions of Nicea
and Chalcedon largely the result of papal influence? And was not
papal dogma leavened by pagan error? Then whatever the Bible teaches
it could not possibly teach pagan-papal Trinitarianism. So reasoned
the pioneers of the Adventist Church.

It appears that what the Bible does actually teach on this
subject was not seriously considered in the early years of
Seventh-day Adventism. Immediately after the disappointment of 1844
the founding fathers of the Church were occupied with what was
termed "present truth." Of course the primary emphasis was on the
second coming of Christ. Since a correct understanding of the
cleansing of the sanctuary explained the mistake of 1844, the
emphasis on the Scriptural teaching of the sanctuary service became
a vital issue. The Bible was studied with new zest and as new
beliefs developed Ellen G. White confirmed them. But the subject of
the nature of God did not come to the fore. This fact is underlined
by the relatively few articles on the subject in the Review and
Herald in the second half of the nineteenth century, by
comparison with the huge volume of material published on the
distinctive Seventh-day Adventist doctrines. Whenever an Adventist
writer declared himself on the nature of God the declaration was
anti-Trinitarian. This indicates a prevailing conception, but it
does not prove that this view was the fixed and uniform belief of
the Church. Seventh-day Adventists have no creed. This is why the
prevailing belief on the doctrine of God could change.

It would appear that the early Seventh-day Adventist writers were
to some extent influenced by the nineteenth century Arminian,
Unitarian and Socinian reaction to the Calvinstic theology of
certain leading Protestant denominations. Trinitarianism was a tenet
of Calvinism. Had not Calvin burned Servetus for his
anti-Trinitarian declarations? Therefore the Arminian, Unitarian and
Socinian reaction to predestinarianism, and other aspects of
Calvinism, became associated with anti-Trinitarianism. It would have
been unusual if the early Adventists had not been influenced to some
extent by this movement. They rejected predestinarianism and many of
them came out of well established Calvinistic communions.

What changed the prevailing Seventh-day Adventist view from
Arianism to Trinitarianism? The evidence would indicate that it was
the publication of the Trinitarian declarations of Ellen G. White in
the last decades of the nineteenth century that initiated the
change. It would appear that she wrote little before the early 1890s
which could have led to serious questioning of the prevailing Arian
view. Most of her statements which appeared before 1890 could have
been interpreted to agree with the Arian doctrine. But from the
early 1890s on, Ellen G. White produced increasingly unequivocal
Trinitarian statements. She did not contradict any position she had
formerly taken. She exalted as the eternally pre-existent,
self-existent Son, who at every stage of His existence was
absolutely equal with the Father. The Holy Spirit she depicted as a
Person in as real a sense as Christ and the Father are Persons. She
speaks of him as the third Person of the Godhead. The whole tenor of
her teaching on the nature of God is one of exaltation of Christ and
the Holy Spirit.

Why were Ellen G. White�s statements on the subject so relatively
late in appearing? Had they appeared in the early phase of
denominational history they might well have been the subject of
considerable division. The Church needed to be firmly established
before such difficult and controversial matters could be introduced.
When Ellen G. White wrote on the nature of God it was her intent not
only to answer Arianism but also to answer the pantheistic
conceptions which were being propagated by J. H. Kellogg. But this
pantheistic threat did not seriously arise until late in the
nineteenth century. It was a more serious danger to the stabi1ity of
the developing movement than Arianism. The Arians were not so
militant, they were loyal to the denomination and, as subsequent
events proved, many of them were quite open to conviction on the
subject.

No doubt the enlarging missions program of the Church late in the
nineteenth century emphasized the need of careful statement of
faith. If an attempt to correct Arianism were unwise in the earliest
period, it would have been even more unwise to wait until this
doctrine was held by thousands of Seventh-day Adventists the world
around.

Finally, it must be borne in mind that the Adventist Arians never
repudiated the divinity of Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Mediator,
nor did they underestimate the importance of the Holy Spirit in the
Church. In fairness to the Arian pioneers of Adventism it must be
said that they were great men of God and honest seekers for truth.
No doubt this is one reason the Arian doctrine was held for so long.
There was a loyal repetition of the views of certain founding
fathers. Washburn�s article gives this impression. It is
characteristic of religious movements, of which Seventh-day
Adventism is an example, that because of the spiritual calibre of
the pioneers, the views of these men are cherished. This is a source
of strength and unity, but it can become a source of weakness when
the Church refuses to advance with increasing light. Truth is not
static, but dynamic, as the history of Seventh-day Adventism amply
testifies.

At Issue Index
Trinity
Index   Table of
Contents   Previous
Bibliography