New Booklet: Roleplaying & Rebellion

Posted by


“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.”
(Psa 119:105 KJV)

Every true doctrine from the Word of God serves to illuminate the dark mind to the necessary and dangerous implications to every false teaching. The mysteries of Babylon, that old Roman apostate, are brought clearly to view in their true satanic design; the tree, rather than just seeing beautiful foliage is uprooted and the roots once invisible become clearly seen, and by the truth, error becomes readily discerned for what manner of spirit it is of.


Many Adventists have conceived in their minds that the General Conference Adventist denomination has always held to the Trinitarian views which are in her fundamental beliefs. However, a church historian and professor emeritus from Andrews University said the following:

“Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination’s Fundamental Beliefs. More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the Trinity.” (George Knight, Ministry, October 1993, p. 10)

This brings about a situation which is a difficult one for the denomination. The track record of churches from the reformation, always proved that the succeeding generations would tend toward declining spiritually rather than advancing in their particular denominations. Insted of keeping the traditional teachings of the founders, in a profession of advancing, they found themselves rather in a perpetual state of backsliding, and a spiritually advancing remnant among them were always the class that would advance onward. Therefore it is a serious and sober thought that we should take in that the very founders of the church would not be able to join the church under the fundamental belief defining the God who is to be worshipped, honored, and reverenced in the present state of the General Conference church. In seeking to defend the newly-founded Trinitarian doctrine that was introduced among the Seventh-day Adventists, George Knght’s successor in church history at Andrew’s University, who has been a strong defender of the Trinity doctrine, concluded the following:
“As one line of reasoning goes, either the pioneers were wrong and the present church is right, or the pioneers were right and the present Seventh-day Adventist church has apostatized from biblical truth.” (Jerry Moon, ‘The Trinity’, chapter, ‘Trinity and anti-trinitarianism in Seventh-day Adventist history, page 190)

His conclusion marks a strong defining line that can’t be compromised. Either the founders were wrong when they chose to reject the Trinity, or else they were right, and the General Conference has taken a similar course to the Protestant churches that came out from the Catholic church. The answer to this question cannot be taken lightly, for if the founders of the Advent movement were correct, then on this point, there has been a large departure from “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). Jerry Moon made a good point. It’s evident that the Andrews University professor sees that it is necessary to make more than a mere line in the proverbial sand, which line is easily washed away, but uses language to build a strong wall of separation in his language, making a decided and definite distinction from the current trend of Adventism to what the pioneers and Ellen White believed.

Regarding Jerry Moon’s views, it is important to note however, that he believes that at some point in time, Ellen White changed her views from non-Trinitarian to Trinitarian. He believes she became a Trinitarian because of a selection of a few of her statements. He said:

“At the core of the debate is the question regarding Ellen White’s position and her role in the process of change. Some assume that Ellen White did not change, that she was either always trinitarian or never trinitarian. There is ample evidence, however, that Ellen White’s beliefs did change on a number of other issues, so it is entirely plausible that she grew in her understanding of the Godhead as well.”

While he says it is “entirely plausible”, it leaves definite room that he is not necessarily certain in his mind. And why should it be? To say that she at one time kept Sunday, ate pork, and believed in a Trinity, and then came to the Sabbath, abstained from unclean meats, and rejected the Trinity, how can we say these changes affected her writings without losing the claim that we hold of her pubished writings being fully inspired? If her writings could simply change from year to year with her views, how could we trust any of her words at all? Unfortunately, that is the necessary conclusion if we subscribe to Jerry Moon’s view. This idea he is presenting would place us under a tremendous amount of pressure if we are going to maintain the position that the full counsel of the of Ellen White’s published writings are inspired. Consider that she kept Sunday. Had her writings advocated worship on the first day of the week, we would necessarily find that her statements of inspiration would be riddled with errors, just as any common man. Rather than being “moved by the Holy Ghost”, her testimonies would have necessary traces of falsehoods interwoven into them. It would be prove very difficult to sustain a view that her writings were inspired if Jerry Moon’s view is correct that she became a Trinitarian, despite having much non-Trinitarian material that she wrote.


Not only do we find difficulties upholding the Spirit of prophecy as manifested in Ellen White’s writings through Jerry Moon’s views of her writings, he has further advocated a number of other things as part of his defense of the Trinity which should be noted, such as the worship of, and praying to, the Holy Spirit, while also claiming that Christ is not the literal Son of God. These views are a significant departure from the positions that both the pioneers and Ellen White held; as Jerry Moon himself said, either the present position of the church is right, or it’s not. And if it’s not, then “the present Seventh-day Adventist church has apostatized from biblical truth.”

Yet Ellen White did speak at length of a problem of this nature coming into the church. Far from making the claim that it would get better, she declares that a departure from the foundational principles of truth, that were held from 1853-1903, would be “accounted as error” under the pretense of a wonderful reformation forward:

“The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure.” (Selected Messages Book 1, p. 204)

She said the fundamental principles that sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error, and that there would be “intellectual philosophy” introduced that would remove God, and have, in the reorganized church, founders of that system of faith which are not the original founders of the Seventh-day Adventist church. We find it necessary then, since this prophetic language so much bears the similar marks of the counter-reformation which perpetuates the backslidden condition of other churches, to understand what “the fundamental principles” which would have “their foundation…built on the sand” were.


A statement of fundamental principles was written up by one of those founders of the church. Husband of Ellen White, James White in 1872, put together a list of principles of truth that the Adventists generally believed and held in common. He makes a clear point to state that these fundamental principles are not a set of fundamental beliefs that they should require of any to be an Adventist, but rather a general agreement of what was believed amongst themselves to make clear and definite what positions they affirmed with nearly complete unanimity. He said:

“In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline, aside from the Bible. We do not put forth this as having any authority with our people, nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by them…
As Seventh-day Adventists we desire simply that our position shall be understood; and we are the more solicitous for this because there are many who call themselves Adventists who hold views with which we can have no sympathy, some of which, we think, are subversive of the plainest and most important principles set forth in the word of God….”

Much like John the apostle, who said “Even now, there are many antichrists, whereby you know it is the last time” (1 John 2:18), James White made a point to mention that there were principles and views even at that time among professed Adventists that he stated were very subversive. That among these views, there was a denial of some of the most important and plainest principles given in God’s Word. We will look at the first two fundamental principles that would be accounted as error:

“I.That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7.

II. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race…”

The fundamental principle of God, who the pioneers affirmed was the Father in much of their writings, and of Christ, His Son, are two fundamental principles that would be accounted as error. The reorganization that would deny the fundamental principles of Seventh-day Adventists would remove God, and adopt a system of intellectual philosophy that would further deny these principles. Such a reorganization, she said, would be “built…upon the sand”, but Christ, “the Son of the living God”, is declared to be the “rock, upon which I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Sadly, if the church apostatizes from the truth, it shows that it must exchange its firm rock of inconquerable strength for shifting sands of unscriptural and unstable views of God and Christ. It was only when Balak learned that the Israelites could be conquered through a departure from God that he made efforts to turn the men of Israel from their Rock of salvation to worship with “the daughter of a strange god.” (Malachi 2:11)

Addressing a similar principle at work, Ellen White addresses her concerns regarding that counter-reformation that was to take place among Adventists. Only a few pages after stating this reformation was to take place, and that nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of it, Ellen White said how such a reformation was to take place. This counter-reformation would be the result of the growing ignorance of how firmly God had established the foundational principles the pioneers had become established upon. For that reason, we find the cause for such a departure:

“Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder {Hiram} Edson, and others…What influence is it would lead men at this stage of our history to work in an underhand, powerful way to tear down the foundation of our faith–the foundation that was laid at the beginning of our work by prayerful study of the Word and by revelation? Upon this foundation we have been building for the past fifty years.” (Selected Messages Book 1, pg. 206-207)

Ellen White endorsed the pioneers, including her husband, when the foundational principles of the faith of Adventism were established, which clearly set forth the Eternal God and Christ His Son in the Adventist position.

In one of Ellen White’s first visions when in study with the other men who laid the foundation of our faith, she remarks at what she saw:

“I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son.” (Early Writings, pg. 54)

Here was set forth the God that would be removed. It was only much later, however, that she saw a departure from the faith was going to happen, and warned that those fundamental principles would be changed as part of that departure from the faith once delivered to the saints. In the same book where she made the warning clear, she called this “the omega of deadly heresies”. There are two parts to the Omega of deadly heresies. One is concerning the personality of who God is, and His Presence, which delves into the dangers of pantheistic teachings, and the other part deals with Christ. Both involve the first two fundamental principles that were set forth by James White and endorsed by Ellen White. The point that will be addressed here will share with you the implications of the change the General Conference has undergone, in not believing that Jesus is literally the Son of God much like the view of Jerry Moon, the Andrews University professor.

Ellen White, in her last address in a General Conference before she died said:

“I am charged to tell our people that they do not realize that the devil has device after device, and he carries them out in ways that they do not expect. Satan’s agencies will invent ways to make sinners out of saints. I tell you now, that when I am laid to rest, great changes will take place. I do not know when I shall be taken; and I desire to warn all against the devices of the devil. I want the people to know that I warned them fully before my death.” (Manuscript 1, February 24th, 1915)

That warning was necessarily of the counter-reformation that would change the very fabric of what the General Conference is and the God which the people had been established upon. This “omega” had it’s introduction heresy when John Harvey Kellogg was promoting was the idea of an omnipresent God the Father, claiming God’s substance was in all places at all times. Yet this came with the many problems of pantheism, and he opted to call this omnipresent being to be worshipped “God the Holy Ghost”, and came to believe in a Trinity; this however did not change the implications of what he taught. This view is what Kellogg promoted in his book called “The Living Temple”. Ellen White said this danger was the “alpha” of deadly heresies, and that the omega of this heresy would find it’s way among the leading men of the General Conference to bring about the “great changes” that would take place. It was this danger which compelled her to sound the warning “fully before” her death:
“I am instructed to speak plainly. “Meet it,” is the word spoken to me. “Meet it firmly, and without delay.” But it is not to be met by our taking our working forces from the field to investigate doctrines and points of difference. We have no such investigation to make. In the book Living Temple there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given.” (1 Selected Messages 200)

So startling is the changes that have taken place in this respect, that we will go into how the omega deals with that part specifically touching upon the denial of the God the Father and the Son of God. The other part, which I touched on briefly regarding Kellogg’s ideas, goes even deeper in respect to the Holy Spirit, and can be found in our other book (The Omega of Deadly Heresies). The stern warning of Ellen White regarding the nature of this deadly heresy is spoken of:

“Be not deceived; many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils… The omega will be of a MOST STARTLING nature.” (Selected Messages Book 1, pg. 197)

She speaks of the departure from the faith being not only spiritual, but also doctrinal, and that it would be “most startling.” In the words of former Vice President of the Interfaith division of the General Conference:

“Adventist beliefs have changed over the years under the impact of ‘present truth.’ MOST STARTLING is the teaching regarding Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. Many of the pioneers, including James White, J.N. Andrews, Uriah Smith, and J.H. Waggoner, held to an Arian or semi-Arian view … that is, the Son at some point in time before the Creation of our world was generated by the Father … the Trinitarian understanding of God, now part of our fundamental beliefs, was not generally held by the early Adventists. Even today a few do not subscribe to it.” (William G. Johnson in the Adventist Review, Jan. 6, 1994 p.10)

William G. Johnson makes the admission that a significant change has taken place, joining his voice to other contemporary Adventist leaders and teachers in a single unanimous testimony. So definitely echoed are the words of Ellen White’s warning, as though by his own admission he tells of the fulfillment of the very thing she spoke of as a “most startling” change. It is not difficult to see that the views regarding the Trinity were not formerly held by those who were given the Adventist message, and this was commonly found in all of the Adventist publications.

Two pioneers stated the following:

“the Bible never uses the phrases, “trinity,” “triune God,” “three in one,” “the holy three,” “God the Holy Ghost,” etc. But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other and all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible’ (D.M. Canright, Review & Herald, August 29th, 1878, “The Personality of God”)

“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.” (A.J. Dennis, Signs of the times, May 22nd, 1879, “One God”)

William G. Johnson made the admission that sister White’s husband, James White, was non-Trinitarian, yet he was one of the leading men who were among the fathers of the Adventist movement, being used to lay its firm foundation.


Ellen White had already included her husband among the men who had been part of the fundamental principles that were laid by deep and earnest study, and which sustained the work until the warning she saw necessary to sound. She further stated that James White’s articles and messages were illuminated by God, so that there was an agreement upon what they believed.

“God has permitted the precious light of truth to shine upon His word and illuminate the mind of my husband that he may reflect the rays of light from the presence of Jesus upon others by his preaching and writing.” Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3, pg. 502

When we understand that she said this regarding his writings, what did James White write regarding his wife’s testimonies when it came to the creed of fundamental beliefs from a Trinitarian believer?

“We invite all to compare the testimonies of the Holy Spirit through Mrs. W., with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The trinitarian may compare them with his creed, and because they do not agree with it, condemn them.” (James White, Review and Herald, June 13, 1871)

James White was well aware that Ellen White’s view regarding God as revealed in her testimonies was not a Trinitarian one, and should not be viewed and tested in the light of a Trinitarian creed, which would lead to her writings being condemned. Those words were fulfilled in the 1950’s by some of the leading men among the General Conference when her writings were scrutinized by a popular Evangelical Trinitarian author and speaker (a non-Adventist) by the name of Walter Martin.


Martin held a large influence in the Evangelical community, and was going from one church denomination to another asking about their current beliefs that they held. The intention that Walter Martin had in inquiring was so he could accurately portray them in his book, “Kingdom of the Cults”. Based upon the current positions that were held by any given church, he was going to find out if these denominations would be classed as “Evangelical” or a “cult”. Yet this standard for what was defined as “Evangelical” was according to Walter Martin’s own mind. Thus it was inevitable that he would come to meet with Seventh-day Adventists at some point.
The only way in Walter Martin’s mind for Adventists not to be seen as cult, and to be considered “orthodox” or “Evangelical”, was if they believed in the Trinity and the believed the atonement was finished at the cross. Both of these things the Seventh-day Adventists did not believe. Although Walter Martin’s intention for his questions was to get an accurate definition of what the churches believed, the result for Seventh-day Adventists became much different. The leadership, for fear of being labelled a cult and making the work more difficult among the Evangelical community, made a compromise in secret proceedings at the Conference level, now known as the Evangelical Conferences of the mid-1950’s.

Through these conferences, the nature of Christ as being after the fallen human nature of Adam after his fall was exchanged for a more Catholic understanding: that Christ had the flesh of Adam before the fall. The Adventist unique view of the atonement in the light of heaven’s sanctuary was rejected. The Trinity was represented as being the present position of the churches, and Ellen White’s writings were condemned. These points of compromise are most startling, but are well known to many Adventists. Even to this day, this meeting is regarded as being very controversial, but the results of it have never been repented of.


Before going further into this matter, a little history should be brought to view to understand where Walter Martin and other Evangelicals would condemn Ellen White’s testimonies if they read them, and the prejudices they had that led them to condemn her writings, and inevitably led to the conference compromising, which prejudices are still alive and well today. One of the most common of the prejudices stated that those who reject the Trinity are rejecting Christ’s full divinity and equality with the Father. Adventist pioneer J.H. Waggoner addressed the concern that was existing in the minds of Trinitarians that were causing them to reject the Adventist faith, stating that:

“They take the denial of a trinity to be equivalent to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Were that the case, we should cling to the doctrine of a trinity as tenaciously as any can; but it is not the case. They who have read our remarks on the death of the Son of God know that we firmly believe in the divinity of Christ…” (J.H. Waggoner, 1884, The Atonement In the Light of Nature and Revelation, pg. 164-165)

J.H. Waggoner said that the early Adventists believed in the divinity of Christ, and that it was not the divinity of Christ that they were denying, but the implications of the teachings of the Trinity that they had come to see as unscriptural.

Ellen White, commenting on the fact that people were saying that their views were being mistaken for a denial of the divinity of Christ said:

“For instance, an effort was made to obtain the use of the hall at a village four miles from Hastings, where some of our workers proposed to present the gospel to the people, but they did not succeed in obtaining the hall, because a schoolteacher there opposed the truth, and declared to the people that Seventh-day Adventists did not believe in the divinity of Christ.” (Review and Herald, December 5th, 1893, ‘An Appeal for the Australasian field”)

For this reason, she said not to make the “objectionable features of our faith” prominent to people until they have been prepared to understand that we do indeed uphold the divinity of Christ:

“Our policy is, Do not make prominent the objectionable features of our faith, which strike decidedly against the practices and customs of the people, until the Lord shall give the people a fair chance to know that we are believers in Christ, that we do believe in the divinity of Christ, and in His pre-existence.” Testimonies to Ministers, p. 253 (1895)

It was evident that she spoke in regards to the matter that Adventists were known to be non-Trinitarian, but Trinitarians from outside, would condemn the Seventh-day Adventists in misrepresenting them; saying they believed Christ was “a lesser god”, or that they denied His divinity, or say that He is a created being. All of these views are false, but were the things said by those who held Trinitarian creeds, condemning Ellen White and the pioneers.

Walter Martin, holding those same prejudices as the Evangelical community when reading Ellen White’s writings through the lenses of his Trinitarian creed was ready to address the Conference leaders on this matter. Martin, having believed that she rejected the divinity of Christ in her non-Trinitarian statements regarding Christ’s Son ship, had determined to press the Conference upon this point; this resulted in waves that beat upon the Conference that are still being felt today. The reaction of the representative leadership of the General Conference, Leroy Froom and his associates, when Martin presented to them Ellen White’s non-Trinitarian position showed how the they took the fundamental principles of Adventism and “accounted it as error”:

“When I first met with L. E. Froom, he took me to task for about fifteen minutes on how I could ever possibly think that Adventism was a cult. [He said] “Adventism rings as true as steel.” I said “do you think Arius was a Christian?” And he was an excellent church historian and he said, “Of course he wasn’t a Christian, he denied the deity of Jesus Christ.” I said, “So did Ellen White.” Dr. Froom replied, “What!” I said, “yes” and opened up a suitcase and produced at least twelve feet of Adventist publications stacked up and marked for Dr. Froom’s perusal. And for the perusal of the committee to check the sources in there. And they were in mortal shock I might add, to think that it was as pervasive as it was.

Dr. Froom and the committee decided that they would peruse this material immediately. So we adjourned the meeting and they took all the materials with them and I guess others, and went through the materials. They came back and said, “well, a great deal of these things you’re calling attention to are there, we agree, and we don’t agree with these statements. They do not reflect orthodox Adventist theology, and we reject it.” I said, “good, happy to hear that, now can you fault us, because we read this material, and it’s not peripheral issues we are talking about.” …

We went through all kinds of materials and then the idea came for a book where we would question and the Adventist denomination would respond. … Out of that came the book Questions on Doctrine. Contrary to some of the fantasies and myths which I hear today from Adventists who ought to know better, the book had the approval of the General Conference.” (Walter Martin – taped conference at Campus Hill Church in Loma Linda, CA, January 1989)

Due to the common misconception of the Evangelical community, they saw something that was a denial of the Trinity in Ellen White’s writings, and thought that she was denying the divinity of Christ. When confronted with these statements, Froom declared of Ellen White’s writings that the Adventists “do not agree with these statements. They do not reflect orthodox Adventist theology” and they rejected them. It is easy to see the difficulty with this blanket statement when he condemned Ellen White’s writings, but claimed that it was not “orthodox Adventist theology”.

Froom had been seeking to press his Trinitarian ideas into the non-Trinitarian Adventist churches for some time, having a vision of a Trinitarian Adventist church. While claiming that Ellen White’s non-Trinitarian statements were to be rejected because they were not consistent with a Trinitarian Adventist community, he was well aware that his statements were not true. Even by his own admission, he knew that the Trinity which he was pressing upon the denomination was not “orthodox Adventist theology”:

“May I state that my book, The Coming of the Comforter, was the result of a series of studies that I gave in 1927 – 1928, to ministerial institutes throughout North America. You cannot imagine how I was pummelled by some of the old-timers because I pressed on the personality of the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Godhead.” (L. Froom, letter to Otto Christenson, 27th October 1960)

It was evident that Froom knew what he was doing because he wrote a book about the Holy Spirit that was not in accordance with the Adventist teachings regarding the Holy Spirit.

The position was a compromise with the Evangelicals through a lie, which sought to be regarded by the Evangelical world as “orthodox” “evangelicals” rather than a “cult”. It was around this very time, in a letter dated August 8th, 1955, Froom wrote to the Conference president about their plans to advance “certain things” in the denomination, which had not heretofore been pressed forward. We see these “certain things” advanced in the Evangelical conferences of the 1950’s with Walter Martin’s confrontation and Froom’s agreeable rejection of Ellen White, which served to press forward the Trinity doctrine for the sake of holding a closer bond of unity with other mainstream Evangelicals. In the letter, Froom wrote: “The time has come for some things to happen, and I believe that there is opportunity now to go forward with certain things. I know that I am speaking in generalities and parables, but if I get into particulars, it would take too long and I would have to explain the whole thing.”

Froom further stated in his letter to the General Conference president regarding the nature of this compromise with the Evangelicals: “I do not know where all this will lead, but we do know that we have won friends in a powerful circle- friends who believe that we have been unjustly treated and are set to make a defense of our adherence to sound Biblical positions.”

While supposing to win influences in the Evangelical community, it was at a high cost: the truth regarding the Spirit of prophecy and the history of Adventism was placed into the fiery furnace to be burnt up.

“At this time, when we are so near the end, shall we become so like the world in practice that men may look in vain to find God’s denominated people? Shall any man sell our peculiar characteristics as God’s chosen people for any advantage the world has to give? Shall the favour of those who transgress the law of God be looked upon as of great value? Shall those whom the Lord has named His people suppose that there is any power higher than the great I Am? Shall we endeavour to blot out the distinguishing points of faith that have made us Seventh-day Adventists?” Manuscript 84, 1905

The statement is clear that should the things happen as they did in the Evangelical Conferences, men might look in vain to find God’s denominated people. Thus, the prophesied reformation that denied the truth of God says exactly this: “Our religion would be changed…A new organization would be established.” And what does this new organization look like? It is an organization which exchanges the truth for a lie, and by this very act, has, in the words of Jerry Moon, “apostatised from Biblical truth…”:

“The Lord has declared that the history of the past shall be rehearsed as we enter upon the closing work. Every truth that He has given for these last days is to be proclaimed to the world. Every pillar that He has established is to be strengthened. We cannot now step off the foundation that God has established. We cannot now enter into any new organization; for this would mean apostasy from the truth.” Manuscript Releases 129, 1905


George Knight, former professor of church history at Andrews University, stated of a book called Questions on Doctrine that came as a result of these conferences: “The authors at times push the facts a bit too far on such issues as Adventism’s historic understanding of the Trinity and they even present their data in a way that creates a false impression on the human nature of Christ.” (Knight, George R., Questions on Doctrine, 2003)

In the book Questions on Doctrine, they repeated the same assertion that came out of this matter: that Adventists were joined hand-in-hand with denominations in close fellowship.

“We are one with our fellow Christian denominational groups in the great fundamentals of the saints.” (Questions on Doctrine, pg. 12)

The book “Questions on Doctrine” came as a result from those meetings where Walter Martin asked Adventists a series of questions, and those leaders from the Conference answered them. When this book was published, it was discretely sent to the pastors throughout the various Adventist conferences without the knowledge of the membership, but this book fanned the flames of much controversy and even is today a controverted point in the minds of many ministers, not only because of the view of the Trinity, but also because of the view of the atonement being changed, and has become known for having a false history of the Adventist movement found in it’s pages. Yet through this compromise, the book began to shape the thinking of more and more ministers throughout Adventism until 1980, when the Trinity was introduced as an official fundamental belief in the conference churches.

M.L. Andreason, considered by Seventh-day Adventists to be an authority on the subject of the Sanctuary and also having met Ellen White personally, said the following about the compromises that he recognized were made through these conferences:

“We have reached a crisis in this denomination when leaders are attempting to enforce false doctrine and threaten those who object. The whole program is unbelievable. Men are now attempting to remove the foundation of many generations, and think they can succeed. If we did not have the Spirit of Prophecy, we would not know of the departure from sound doctrine which is now threatening us, and the coming of the Omega which will decimate our ranks and cause grievous wounds. The present situation has been clearly outlined. We are nearing the climax.” (Letters to the Churches No. 3)

Andreason was reprimanded by the Conference for his letters, and ultimately his ministerial credentials were revoked a year before his death, and his retirement pension was kept back from him. His credentials were only restored to him by the Conference after his death. Andreason saw in the book, “Questions on Doctrine” exactly the warning of Ellen White fulfilled in the prophecy of the omega:

“Books of a new order would be introduced… Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement.” (Special Testimonies Series B, No. 2, pp. 54, 55)

Commenting on these very things, Andreason said:

“All this was written to meet the apostasy in the Alpha period. We are now in the Omega period which Sister White said would come.” (Letters to the Churches No. 6).

Andreason saw in the matter involving Froom and his associates a time in which sister White’s words were finding their fulfillment; how much more when those sentiments would be brought upon the entire denomination?

Andreason said of this most startling departure:”This is a most interesting and dangerous situation. As one official who was not in favor of what was being done stated to me: “We are being sold down the river.” What a sight for heaven and earth! The church of the living God which has been given the commission to preach the gospel to every creature under heaven and call men to come out of Babylon, is now standing at the door of these churches asking permission to enter and become one of them. How are the mighty fallen!… This is more than apostasy. This is giving up Adventism. It is the rape of a whole people. It is denying God’s leading in the past.” (M. L. Andreasen, letter No. 6 to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, 1959, ‘The Atonement’)

Yet these standard bearers wouldn’t let the matter die. The agitation that resulted caused the book Questions on Doctrine to be pulled from print. Martin, upset with this, stated the following:

“The men who dealt with me dealt with me in integrity and in honor, and I believe that. But afterwards, a “Pharaoh arose who knew not Joseph.” And as a result of that, the “old guard” – some of whom followed the school of Uriah Smith on Christology, M.L. Andreason on sanctuary doctrine, and some of Mrs. White’s earlier unfortunate statements (which need not be defended as infallible) – were in a position to influence the publication of the book and the continued dialogue with evangelicals on which it is based.” (Interview, Douglas Hackleman and Walter Martin February 1983, Adventist Currents, Volume 1, No. 1. June 1983)

Notice that some of the men who upheld the former views before the Evangelical conferences said that Ellen White’s “earlier unfortunate statements” were not “infallible”, and ultimately, that same conclusion is the result of Jerry Moon’s sentiments regarding Ellen White’s writings having changed over a period of time (concluding that not all of her writings can be trusted as upheld and totally inspired), but Jerry Moon’s Trinitarian viewpoint is a strong denominational proponent for this doctine made possible by Leroy Froom’s compromises in these Evangelical conferences.

In “Questions on Doctrine”, he felt it necessary to “deny every statement that Christ… was not one with the Father from all eternity.”

“All this has made it desirable and necessary for us to declare our position anew upon the great fundamental teachings of the Christian faith, and to deny every statement for implication that Christ…was not one with the Father from all eternity, and that his death on the cross was not a full and complete sacrificial atonement. The belief of Seventh-day Adventists on these great truths is clear and emphatic. And we feel that we should not be identified with, or stigmatised for, certain limited and faulty concepts held by some, particularly in our formative years.” (Questions on Doctrine, chapter, ‘Relationship to past positions, page 31-32)

While it was not so clear or emphatic, which led to the book becoming repudiated, the Conference continued agitating the Trinity, and fighting against the peculiar position of Adventism regarding God the Father and Christ the Son, which view, we will examine shortly.


When Ellen White spoke of the Omega of deadly heresies, she said that Satan would bring in the “supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith…” Such a reformation is however, wholly consistent with the work of the Jesuits of Roman Catholicism, and the language is so definitely employed in the inspired statement as to expose the underhanded work of the Jesuits to undo the separation brought about by Protestantism, and to bring those churches thus separated from the Papacy back into fellowship with them, and to extend their influence over them. This work became known by early Protestants as the “counter-reformation”. It was the best method of attack against the churches by subverting (corrupting) them from the inside-out.

One of the first “great changes” that took place was a conference working policy that was made called #O 75 (that since 2006 is referred to as #0 110) in which the leadership of the church voted to recognize the Jesuits “as part of the divine plan for evangelization of the world.” (Seventh-day Adventist Encylcopedia, 1995, under “Ecumenism”) But who are the Jesuits that they should be part of God’s plan to evangelize the world and to what end?
Ellen White, regarding the underhanded work of the Jesuits, wrote:

“Throughout Christendom, Protestantism was menaced by formidable foes. The first triumphs of the Reformation past, Rome summoned new forces, hoping to accomplish its destruction. At this time the order of the Jesuits was created, the most cruel, unscrupulous, and powerful of all the champions of popery. Cut off from earthly ties and human interests, dead to the claims of natural affection, reason and conscience wholly silenced, they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no duty but to extend its power. The gospel of Christ had enabled its adherents to meet danger and endure suffering, undismayed by cold, hunger, toil, and poverty, to uphold the banner of truth in face of the rack, the dungeon, and the stake. To combat these forces, Jesuitism inspired its followers with a fanaticism that enabled them to endure like dangers, and to oppose to the power of truth all the weapons of deception. There was no crime too great for them to commit, no deception too base for them to practice, no disguise too difficult for them to assume. Vowed to perpetual poverty and humility, it was their studied aim to secure wealth and power, to be devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism, and the re-establishment of the papal supremacy….The children of Protestant parents were drawn into an observance of popish rites. Thus the liberty for which the fathers had toiled and bled was betrayed by the sons. Wherever the Jesuits went, there followed a revival of popery.” (Great Controversy, pg. 234)

The Jesuits would disguise themselves as ministers of other denominations, and would work their way into positions of government to frame both the political and religious climate as to favor a papal resurrection. To consider that a warning was given by Ellen White to say that such an underhanded deception would find it’s way into the Third Angel’s message is most startling, to say the least. A number of sources have now made the claim that Leroy Froom was involved in Jesuitism, including an ex-Jesuit by the name of Alberto Rivera.

Rivera had come out of Jesuitism and exposed many of their plans and purposes. An interview was held with the former Jesuit by James Arribito, a Seventh-day Adventist minister that held seminars across the world that widely exposed Jesuitism and the Roman Catholic system’s pagan origins. From this interview, the subject of the Evangelical Conferences came up. It was there admitted that there was Jesuit involvement in the compromises that were made, and that Walter Martin was not a Jesuit, but that the Jesuits looked at him as someone who was working in harmony with their purposes for Adventists, and for this cause, they looked favorably upon him. The interview can be seen in the documentary “Behind The Door” by James Arribito.

What then would be the purpose of the omega? It would serve to close the separation that was between Catholics and Adventists by building a necessary bridge to the central doctrine of the Catholic faith:

“The mystery of the trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the church.” The Handbook for Today’s Catholic, pg. 11

Certain men in the denomination, as they saw this change coming in, were alarmed and wrote letters, wrote books, and addressed some of the concerns they saw beginning to enter into the church.

B.J. Wilkinson, a Seventh-day Adventist well known for his scholarly studies, was one of the men who contended for the faith once delivered to the saints. Holding strongly to the Adventist heritage, he denounced Leroy Froom as he saw the work that was being carried on by him. On the 14 December 1955, Leroy Froom in a letter to Reuben Figuhr wrote, “I was publicly denounced in the chapel at the Washington Missionary College by Dr. B. G. Wilkinson as the most dangerous man in this denomination.”

Benjamin Wilkinson, the man who wrote the book entitled “Truth Triumphant”, wrote a letter to Dr. T.S. Teters in 1936, saying: “Replying to your letter of October 13 regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, I will say that Seventh Day Adventists do not, and never have accepted the dark, mysterious, Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.”


The Jesuits counter-reformation was for the purpose of bringing churches under the influence of the Papacy, and ultimately, to overthrow the churches. Rather than advancing in the course of the reformation, such a reformation in the church would be a marked token of backsliding.

Ellen White called Laodicea, the present church era in prophetic history (See Rev. 3:14-23), the “backslidden church” (Review and Herald, Aug. 28, 1894). She then says definitively that a backslidden church is one that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy:

“The Lord has pronounced a curse upon those who take from or add to the Scriptures. The great I AM has decided what shall constitute the rule of faith and doctrine, and he has designed that the Bible shall be a household book. The church that holds to the word of God is irreconcilably separated from Rome. Protestants were once thus apart from this great church of apostasy, but they have approached more nearly to her, and are still in the path of reconciliation to the Church of Rome. Rome never changes. Her principles have not altered in the least. She has not lessened the breach between herself and Protestants; they have done all the advancing. But what does this argue for the Protestantism of this day? It is the rejection of Bible truth which makes men approach to infidelity. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy.” (ST vol 3, 99)

The compromises that were made have brought about a backsliding that has lessened the distance between the church and spiritual Babylon. When we behold Laodicea in the light of Bible prophecy, we see exactly this. The True Witness to the Laodiceans says: “I know thy works…because thou art lukewarm…I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:15-16)

The judgment is pronounced upon Laodicea if she does not repent, that she will be spued out of heavenly places within Christ Jesus: she is thrust out for her lukewarmness. This judgment comes when the Israel of God conforms to the surrounding nations in practicing their abominations.

“Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomits out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.” (Lev. 18:24-29)

If Israel conformed to the surrounding nations, she would be “spued out”. When Jerusalem of old embraced the customs of Babylon, and worshipped Baal in Solomon’s Temple, the people prided themselves that they had Solomon’s temple. Likewise, today, many ministers and teachers pride themselves that they are Laodicea, the remnant church. However, this is a practical declaration of conformity to Babylon’s customs as ancient Israel did before God judged them, and they were swallowed up into Babylon for their transgressions.

“When I study the Scriptures, I am alarmed for the Israel of God in these last days. They are exhorted to flee from idolatry. I fear that they are asleep and so conformed to the world that it would be difficult to discern between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not. The distance is widening between Christ and His people, and lessening between them and the world. The marks of distinction between Christ’s professed people and the world have almost disappeared. Like ancient Israel, they follow after the abominations of the nations around them.” Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, pg. 276

Christ, the Son of the living God, is placed outside of the temple for these abominations of the nations around them. In Ezekiel, Christ directs Ezekiel to the sacrifice at the altar, and shows him the “image of jealousy”. He says: “do you see what they are doing? Even the great abominations that the house of Israel is committing here, that I should go far off from My sanctuary?” (Ezekiel 8:5-6)

Likewise, Christ is standing outside of Laodicea because she has shut Him outside, and He calls her to repentance. The alpha of the Omega was spoken of in this way: “…the book Living Temple contained some of the most dangerous errors that could be presented to the people of God. The most specious errors lie concealed in these theories and suppositions, which, if received, would leave the people of God in a labyrinth of error. Those who cherish these theories are building upon the sand, and when the storm and tempest shall come, the structure will be swept away.” Manuscript Releases 760, pg. 8

Thus she says the rock of salvation, Christ, the Son of the living God, would be denied, and the new organization that denied this truth would be swept away as a result.

When we look at Laodicea’s judgment, it is undoubtedly for the omega of this apostasy. Ellen White says that the new organization’s “foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure.”


We’ve seen that a great change and compromise took place over the course of time that led to the adoption of the Trinity. Was it as bad to be called the Omega of deadly heresies? Jerry Moon made a strong statement that it can’t be both ways, either the pioneers were right and the current church is in apostasy, or the pioneers were wrong, and this current development of ideas is advancing into more truth; but the backslidden condition and Ellen White’s testimonies seem to reveal that rather than progressing, it is, in fact, declining from the truth.

J.S. Washburn was a man who lived from 1865-1955. In a 1939 letter addressing an Adventist teacher who was promoting the Trinity, he said:

“If we should go back to the immortality of the soul, purgatory, eternal torment and the Sunday Sabbath, would that be anything less than apostasy? If however we leap over all these minor, secondary doctrines and accept and teach the very central, root doctrine of Romanism, the trinity,…even though our words seemed to be spiritual, is this anything else and anything less than apostasy and the very omega of apostasy?” (See Judson Washburn, “The Trinity,” 1939. Emphasis mine).
Between Washburn and Wilkinson’s testimony, it calls us to become aware of what idea this most startling rebellion leads to and why it is so regarded by inspiration as so dangerous.

To do this, we will:
•Examine the statements of the pioneers to see what they taught.
•Examine Ellen White’s writings, and see if there are statements that reveal the same sentiments.
•Examine what is being taught today by the General Conference
•Why these differences truly make these matters “most startling”.


So what did the early pioneers believe regarding the Son of God as it relates to the Trinity, which made a “most startling” change from then to now? It is evident that there was a change being made to the fundamental principles, which the Evangelical Conferences struck at the very heart of, but now we will examine what that change actually looks like when it comes to God and Christ.

Ellen White said that the pioneers writings would be important as they were dying off:

“God has given me light regarding our periodicals. What is it? — He has said that the dead are to speak. How? — Their works shall follow them. We are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure, and who labored to lay the foundation of our work. They moved forward step by step under the influence of the Spirit of God. One by one these pioneers are passing away. The word given me is, Let that which these men have written in the past be reproduced.” (Review and Herald, May 25, 1905, ‘The work for this time’, address at the 1905 General Conference, May 16)

Far from letting the words of the pioneers, “who labored to lay the foundation of our work” with their deep sacrifice to establish the foundations of truth, to simply die off, she says what God has told her to do: “Let that which these men have written in the past be reproduced.” Therefore, we will examine their views regarding God and Christ, and how the Trinity was in no way “orthodox Adventist theology.”


The fundamental principles of God and Christ are laid out in the written works of the pioneers. The strongest elements were the emphasis upon a literal Father and Son relationship between God the Father and Christ, declaring that Christ did, at some point, literally proceed forth and come from God: not as the first creation, but as a divine manifestation and outshining of God the Father’s own life: the literal only-begotten Son of God, taking the Scripture just as it reads on the subject:

A.T. JONES: “He who was born in the form of God took the form of man.” In the flesh he was all the while as God, but he did not appear as God.” “He divested himself of the form of God, and in its stead took the form and fashion of man” “The glories of the form of God, he for awhile relinquished.” (A. T. Jones, General Conference Bulletin, March 4th 1895, ‘The Third Angel’s Message – No. 23’)

J.G. MATTESON: “Christ is the only literal Son of God. “The only begotten of the Father.” John i, 14.” (J. G. Matteson, Review and Herald, October 12th 1869, ‘Children of God’)

E.J. WAGGONER: “It is not given to men to know when or how the Son was begotten; but we know that He was the Divine Word, not simply before He came to this earth to die, but even before the world was created… There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42 and 1:18) but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to the finite comprehension it is practically without beginning. But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject.” (Christ and His Righteousness, pg. 21-22)

“The angels are sons of God, as was Adam (Job 38:7; Luke 3:38), by creation; Christians are the sons of God by adoption (Rom. 8:14, 15), but Christ is the Son of God by birth.

“This name [God] was not given to Christ in consequence of some great achievement but it is His by right of inheritance. A son always rightfully takes the name of the father; and Christ, as “the only begotten Son of God,” has rightfully the same name. A son, also, is, to a greater or less degree, a reproduction of the father; he has to some extent the features and personal characteristics of his father; not perfectly, because there is no perfect reproduction among mankind. But there is no imperfection in God, or in any of His works, and so Christ is the “express image” of the Father’s person. Heb. 1:3. As the Son of the self-existent God, He has by nature all the attributes of Deity….
It is true that there are many sons of God, but Christ is the “only begotten Son of God,” and therefore the Son of God in a sense in which no other being ever was or ever can be.” (pg. 11-12)

URIAH SMITH: “The Scriptures nowhere speak of Christ as a created being, but on the contrary plainly state that he was begotten of the Father.” (Daniel and Revelation, p. 430)

***After the Evangelical Conferences in 1950, this statement was removed from this book. It can be found in versions before 1950. Uriah Smith died in 1903.)

God alone is without beginning. At the earliest epoch when a beginning could be, – a period so remote that to finite minds it is essentially eternity, – appeared the Word. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1. This uncreated Word was the Being, who, in the fulness of time, was made flesh, and dwelt among us. His beginning (Christ’s) was not like that of any other being in the universe. It is set forth in the mysterious expressions, “his [God’s] only begotten Son” (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9), “the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14), and, “I proceeded forth and came from God.” John 8:42″ (Looking Unto Jesus, p. 10).

STEPHEN HASKELL: “The rainbow in the clouds is but a symbol of the rainbow which has encircled the throne from eternity. Back in the ages, which finite mind cannot fathom, the Father and Son were alone in the universe. Christ was the first begotten of the Father, and to Him Jehovah made known the divine plan of Creation…Christ was the firstborn in heaven; He was likewise the firstborn of God upon earth, and heir to the Father’s throne. Christ, the firstborn, though the Son of God, was clothed in humanity, and was made perfect through suffering” (Stephen Haskell, Story of the Seer of Patmos p. 93,93,98).

R.F. COTRELL: “But if I am asked what I think of Jesus Christ, my reply is, I believe all that the Scriptures say of him. If the testimony represents him as being in glory with the Father before the world was, I believe it. If it is said that he was in the beginning with God, that he was God, that all things were made by him and for him, and that without him was not anything made that was made, I believe it. If the Scriptures say he is the Son of God, I believe it. If it is declared that the Father sent his Son into the world, I believe he had a Son to send. … Children inherit the name of their father. The Son of God “has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than” the angels” (Review and Herald, June 1, 1869)

J.N. ANDREWS: “And as to the Son of God,…he had God for his Father, and did, some point at the eternity of the past, have beginning of days. So that if we use Paul’s language in an absolute sense, it would be impossible to find but one being in the universe, and that is God the Father, who is without father, or mother, or descent, or beginning of days, or end of life.” (Review and Herald, September 7th, 1869)

JAMES WHITE: “Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God, because, in the work of creation and the instutution of law to govern created intelligences, He was equal with the Father… The Father was greater than the Son in that He was first. The Son was equal with the Father in that He had received all things from the Father.” (Review and Herald, January 4th, 1881, ‘The Mind of Christ’)

D.M. CANRIGHT: “God made men and angels out of materials already created. He is the author of their existence, their Creator, hence their Father. But Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father’s own substance. He was not created out of material as the angels and other creatures were. He is truly and emphatically the “Son of God,” the same as I am the son of my father.” (Review and Herald, June 15th, 1857, ‘The Son of God’)


It’s clear that there was a unaminous (complete agreement) view regarding Christ’s Sonship to the Father. He had a beginning, being “begotten”, “born”, and inherited His divinity, being “given” all things from the Father, including the name “God” from God His Father, who Christ Himself calls “the only true God.” (John 17:3). Despite this belief, they repeatedly affirm that this fact of His begotten identity doesn’t make Christ some lesser God, or a created being.

Christ is given His most exalted dignity when He is placed in His true relationship to God and just as the Scriptures reveal Him, when nothing needs to be added to make Him something He is not, nor anything needing to be taken away. Lying about Christ’s identity can only lessen His true glory and beauty. These were the unaminous views of the Adventists that were considered the fundamental principles of God the Father, and His Son. God was the only being without beginning, until His Son was begotten.

Next we’ll show how Ellen White taught the same thing about Christ being the Son of God. These principles however, were very hostile to the Trinitarian understanding of Walter Martin, and as such, were accounted as error by both Evangelicals and the prominent men of the General Conference. When we understand that Ellen White and the pioneers were in agreement, it gives conclusive evidence to see the distinction between these fundamental principles, and the teachings that came after the Trinity was brought into the church after they died.


“A complete offering has been made; for “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,”– not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Signs of the Times, 30th May 1895, ‘Christ our complete salvation’)

“The dedication of the firstborn had its origin in the earliest times. God had promised to give the firstborn of heaven to save the sinner.” (Desire of Ages, p. 51)

“O what a gift God has made to our world! The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, liable to physical infirmities, tempted in all points like as we are. He was the Son of the Living God. His personality did not begin with His incarnation in the flesh.” (Lt77, August 3, 1894)

So that there is no mistaking the above quote, the personality that Ellen White is here speaking of is His Sonship. His personality as “the Son of the Living God” did not begin when He took on flesh, but God had a Son to send into the world, to become in the likeness of sinful flesh. There are many now that are teaching the startling heresy that Christ’s Sonship only began at His incarnation as a man. Yet the next statement tells that it was in heaven, before Lucifer’s fall was made fully manifest, that Christ was the begotten Son of God:

“All this holding to sentiments of infallibility is a specious device of the angel that was so exalted in the heavenly court. His beauty was so highly exalted that he thought he should be as God, and Christ must be second to him; but the Lord informed Satan this could not be possible. Christ was His only begotten Son” (Lt157-1910)

Who according to Ellen White was “God”?

God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God.” (8Testimonies, pg. 268)

All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Father’s life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all.” (Desire Of Ages, p. 21)

The above quote shows that God is the “great Source of all”, even Christ, who received “all things…from God”, and that Christ is the channel through which God the Father works to connect with creation. Christ is always the one who connects the Creator and His creation.

“The Scriptures clearly indicate the relation between God and Christ, and they bring to view as clearly the personality and individuality of each…God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son.” Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, page 268

The personality of God and Christ are set forth in the Father and Son relationship, as well as their individuality; meaning they are two distinct beings [individuals] with two distinct identities [personality]: The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father; nor is person of God given the identity of Christ, or the person of Christ the identity of God. Yet all the counsels of the Father in the heavenly courts are open to Christ, who was given an exalted position, and made equal with the Father, to share in His counsels. Christ is not made equal in the sense that He is created, but in the sense that He is begotten of the Father’s own likeness, being “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person” (Hebrews 1:3), “for it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.” (Col. 1:19)
“The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence. His word was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host.” (Ellen White, The Signs of the Times, January 9, 1879; also in Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, pages 18, 19)

Christ, as the Son of God, was heir of the Father’s throne, the firstborn of heaven. And as such, He was invested with authority by inheritence, given a position much higher than the created beings, being the only being equal with God.

“The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence. He had an associate—a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings…Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father—one in nature, in character, in purpose—the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God… His “goings forth (descendency in original Hebrew) have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2. And the Son of God declares concerning Himself: “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting.… When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.” Proverbs 8:22-30***.” (Patriarchs and Prophets, page 34)

Many Adventist theologians now muse in their hearts, believing that Ellen White changed her views in the 1890’s., but when the controversy regarding the alpha of heresies was chilling the very lifeblood of the Adventist church with Kellogg’s Trinitarian views of God, she was asked whether her views she held had changed or not: ”


Because the pioneers viewed Christ’s relationship with the Father to be a literal relationship, that Christ was truly His Son, they saw the Trinity, which said Christ had no beginning and was never truly begotten in heaven as destructive to their relationship and they called it “spiritualism”:

“The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. .” (J. N. Andrews, Review & Herald, March 6, 1855)

The personality is not the individual being of God and Christ, but the personality is the identity. When the Trinity was established, it was said that the Father and the Son were identical in such a way that their separate individuality was lost. The Father and Son relationship was destroyed by the concept of a Trinity which is ever existent. Thus Christ would not truly be the Son of God, having a literal time in eternity past where He proceeded forth and came from the Father.

It also declares that the Father, who is God, is part of a three-in-one God, and co-existing, co-eternally with the Son. The distinction between the Father and the Son becomes wholly lost in the concept of the Trinity, for which cause, pioneer J.N. Andrews declared that it destroys their personalities. Yet it wasn’t Andrews alone that saw this, Ellen White’s husband also said the very same thing:

“Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ.” (James White, December 11, 1855, Review & Herald, vol. 7, no. 11, page 85, par. 16)

Further than this, this “destruction” of the distinction of the Father and Son relationship was called “spiritualism” because it spiritualized away the plainest statements of the Scriptures in favor of mystical, spiritual meaning for the words Father and Son that is not readily available just as it reads. James White made a point in outlining the Fundamental Principles that of such sentiments “we can have no sympathy, some of which, we think, are subversive of the plainest and most important principles set forth in the word of God….” He says:

“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.” (James White, January 24, 1846, The Day Star)

The very Trinitarian creed that James White emphatically stated would give cause for people to condemn the writings of Ellen White, James White called “spiritualism”, that “denied” God and Christ. The Trinity doctrine that denies the Father and the Son, is the very foundation of antichrist.

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)

Ellen White has given the warning to blind Laodicean lukewarmness that has crept in using no uncertain terms:

“Worldly policy is taking the place of true piety and wisdom that comes from above, and God will remove His prospering hand from the conference. Shall the ark of the covenant be removed from this people? Shall idols be smuggled in? Shall false principles and false precepts be brought into the sanctuary? Shall antichrist be respected? Shall the true doctrines and principles given us of God, which have made us what we are, be ignored?…. This is directly where the enemy, through blinded, unconsecrated men, is leading us.” Manuscript 29, 1890

Ellen White, in similar sentiments regarding the Omega that was to come, said: “We are now to be on guard, and not drawn away from the all-important message given of God for this time. Satan is not ignorant of the result of trying to define God and Jesus Christ in a spiritualistic way that sets God and Christ as a nonentity. The moments occupied in this kind of science are, in the place of preparing the way of the Lord, making a way for Satan to come in and confuse the minds with mysticisms of his own devising. Although they are dressed up in angel robes they have made our God and our Christ a nonentity. Why?- because Satan sees the minds are all fitted for his working. Men have lost track of Christ and the Lord God, and have been obtaining an experience that is Omega to one of the most subtle delusions that will ever captivate the minds of men. We are forbidden to… set the imagination in a train of conjecture.” – Diary Entry #84, pg. 153, 163, August 25th & August 28th, 1904 (Manuscript Releases 11, pg. 221)

The spiritualistic sentiments that set are coming in are Satan’s decided plan to make God and Christ a non-entity, and shall we not consider this danger as more necessary of our attention then it has heretofore been regarded?


Why is it so very important that Satan have the doctrine of the Trinity in place? What are the startling implications of such a teaching when it destroys the Father and Son’s special relationship? If He can successfully destroy this union, it not only destroys the love for the plainest statements of the Bible, but more than this, it destroys the revelation of the love of God in truly having a literal Son to give:

EGW: “Satan is determined that men shall not see the love of God, which led him to give his only begotten Son to save the lost race; for it is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance.” (Review and Herald, 20th March 1894, ‘Christ the center of the message’)

“When the plan of salvation was revealed, Satan rejoiced with his angels that he could, by causing man’s fall, pull down the Son of God from his exalted position.” (Early Writings, pg. 149)

The statement shows that Satan desires to hide the fact that God had a Son to truly give: the very Son the Father gave an exalted position was the One Satan delighted to see pulled down from the throne when He took upon Himself flesh, though He stepped down of His own will to save us and reveal God’s love in executing the gospel of our salvation:

“He might have retained the glory of heaven, and the homage of the angels, but He chose to give back the sceptre into the Father’s hands, and to step down from the throne of the universe…” (Desire of Ages, pg. 148-149)

It is impossible to give back anything you’ve never been given to begin with. Christ was given an exalted position, and He stepped down from it, yet Satan is determined to cause this exalted position given to the Son to be so definitely obscured as to erase the beautiful manifestation of the loving sacrifice of God and His dear Son. The fallen angels, being jealous of Christ’s high exaltation above them, came to desire to erase from existence and memory what was plainly declared both in heaven and Scripture to be true: That Christ is truly the Son of God.

“Angels were expelled from heaven because they would not work in harmony with God. They fell from their high estate because they wanted to be exalted. They had come to exalt themselves, and they forgot that their beauty of person and of character came from the Lord Jesus. This fact the [fallen] angels would obscure, that Christ was the only begotten Son of God, and they came to consider that they were not to consult Christ.” (The Day With God, pg. 128)

The reason to obscure this is because if Christ isn’t truly the Son of God, then He merely takes upon Himself a role of being the Son; He is just an actor, partaking of a role, and not truly a Son. For Satan to do this would destroy the intimacy of the Father and Son relationship. God’s sacrifice of His Son wouldn’t be nearly so difficult if Jesus wasn’t truly the only-begotten Son of God, nor would the Son of God’s sacrifice seem so painful as He is ripped by the heart of hell from God the Father. In this, we can see the love of God clearly revealed for us, that it was as much a sacrifice for Him to give His dearly beloved Son:

“The plan of salvation had been laid before the creation of the earth; for Christ is a lamb “foreordained before the foundation of the world”; yet it was a struggle, even with the King of the universe, to yield up His Son to die for the guilty race. But “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (Signs of the Times, 4th November 1908, ‘When sin entered’, see also Patriarchs and Prophets, ‘The plan of redemption, page 63, 1890)

“God the Father has given unto man the greatest gift that Heaven held. “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.” I believe that the heart of the great God is touched and moved by the condition of sinners to-day, as when he gave his Son to die for the sins of the world…The Father has given a pledge to sinners, in that he withheld not his dearly beloved Son, but gave him a sacrifice for them. Christ has given the pledge of his love to sinners, in that he gave his life to save them. If the Father has manifested his love for sinners by giving his only son, will he not freely give every mercy and blessing?” (Review and Herald, 4th May 1876, ‘Camp-meeting at Eagle Lake’)

“But in Christ we behold the character of the Father, and see the pitying tenderness which God exercised for fallen man, giving his only begotten Son as a ransom for the transgressors of the law. It is in beholding the love of God that repentance is awakened in the sinner’s heart, and an earnest desire is created to become reconciled to God. When the transgressor becomes acquainted with God, and experiences his love, it produces in his heart a hatred for sin and a love for holiness.” (Review and Herald, 9th March 1897, ‘Christ represents the beneficence of the law’)

We are told that the Father reveals His love in allowing His beloved Son to come to this world and to be ripped from His side. The devil wants to obscure this love to keep people from truly seeing the Father as self-sacrificing all that is beloved and dear to Him so that they do not have a truly deep experience in beholding the love of God which leads to repentance. We are even told that the Father IS LOVE:

“He that doesn’t love, doesn’t know God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us: because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” (1John 4:8-9)

To know God is to know that He is love, and that love is revealed in His relationship between Him and His Son. It shows how much the price paid was going to be for both Him and His Son to be separated: that was a true sacrifice for both of them. This foundation of a literal heaven-born Christ, who came forth from the Father shows this love.

“O that everyone would realize the great love, the self-sacrifice, the benevolence, and the kindness of our heavenly Father, in giving his Son to die for us that we might, if we believe and do his commandments, have a sweet peace, the Father’s joy, the Father’s love, and unite with him, heart, soul, mind, and strength, to maintain righteousness and to draw in even lines with Christ. It is not the sacrifice of Christ only; it is the Father’s sacrifice also. The Father, in union and loving sympathy, with his Son, subjected himself to suffer with his Son. He spared not his only begotten Son but freely delivered him up for us all. This gift of Christ is the crowning truth of God’s love, and this Fatherhood, through all time and through eternity. Here is the love of God in his Fatherhood. Let us drink in this love, that we may know by experience what a real, tender, joyful, experience there is in a realization of the Fatherhood of God.” (Ellen G. White, Letter to Brethren Daniells, Palmer, and Colcord, March 12th 1897 Written from “Sunnyside,” Cooranbong, Australia, Spalding and Magan collection page 68)

Not only does Satan keep people back from repentance, and from failing to see that God the Father truly had a Son which He sacrificed for us all, but that it was painful to have His Son separated from Him. Satan hopes to keep people blind to this fact, that they won’t have repentance or eternal life. They won’t know “the Fatherhood of God” as revealed in the sacrifice of a loving Father for His children, for He is not truly a Father to Christ at all if you destroy their relationship; thus eternal life as given in the gospel of Christ, to whosoever believes in this love, is largely lost sight of. “For this is life eternal: that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, who you have sent.” (John 17:3)


When going over Jerry Moon’s conclusion again, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that only one view can be correct, and that one must necessarily be a false teaching. The whole thrust of Moon’s argument was that the pioneers were teachers of falsehoods (as well as Ellen White’s non-Trintarian materials which were still being written until the time of her death), but the weight of evidence becomes overwhelming that the church has seen a departure from the faith once delivered to the saints. This further seems to be consistent historically with Ellen White’s prophecy of the omega in the fundamental principles being accounted as error, but we will see that Ellen White foresaw false teachers would rise up in the church, and we want to see what exactly it means to be a false teacher. After uncovering this definition of what a false teacher is, we will look at the present position that the General Conference is holding regarding the Son of God. Then after having a clear and concise view of what the pioneers and Ellen White believed on this, and also what the church currently believes, we can better conclude, according to Jerry Moon’s statement, who matches the definition of the false teacher.

The church “in the last days” was in danger of false teachers who would deny Christ through spiritualism, just as the pioneers said the Trinity does:

“.… Peter, describing the dangers to which the church was to be exposed in the last days, says that as there were false prophets who led Israel into sin, so there will be false teachers, “who privily (secretly- as the Jesuits do) shall bring in damnable heresies (“omega of deadly heresies”), even denying the Lord that bought them.… And many shall follow their pernicious ways.” 2 Peter 2:1, 2. Here the apostle has pointed out one of the marked characteristics of spiritualist teachers. They refuse to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God. Concerning such teachers the beloved John declares: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” 1 John 2:22, 23. Spiritualism, by denying Christ, denies both the Father and the Son, and the Bible pronounces it the manifestation of antichrist.” (Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, pg. 686)


These false teachers, in denying the Father and the Son are a manifestation of antichrist. Pertaining to what Ellen White says a “false teacher” is, we will see and understand exactly if and how it lines up with this definition, or if, as Jerry Moon insinuates, it rather belongs to the pioneers.

“The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent (clear) in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to such a class that Jesus declared: “Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God.” Mark 12:24.” (Great Controversy, pg. 598, 1911 edition. ‘The Scriptures a safeguard’)

“The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine.” John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error.” (Ibid)

The most plain statements of the Bible are left in doubt and darkness by men who claim to have a high knowledge of the Scriptures. The obvious meaning of the words are diminished, if not wholly destroyed, to make the Bible say what it doesn’t truly say at all. We should take the Word of God just as it reads, unless we have strong reasons to believe that the words are specifically meant to be spiritually or symbolically used. We aren’t to believe that the Scriptures are dark and mysterious rather than a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path, and be caused to doubt God’s Word as Eve did, thinking they have a strange meaning that the language doesn’t reveal. To do as Eve did in believing the fallen angel’s words through the serpent would be to believe the words of a false teacher over the plainest statements of God’s Word which dispel all confusion and doubt.


The false teachers deny that Jesus is the Son of God: the Christ. If you deny He is the Son of God, you also deny that God is the Father, because there is no Father who doesn’t have a Son. Therefore, Christ is the Son, and God is the Father just as the Scripture teaches us. James White said that “spiritualizers” were denying “the only Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ” through the Trinity. Ellen White said “spiritualistic teachers” deny the Father and the Son, and it is these teachers of spiritualism that would be found in the church in the last days. Therefore it is wholly consistent to say that this very apostasy was predicted long before it came to pass in the General Conference.

It has been said time and again that the Trinity is the foundation of the Papacy and all the doctrines which come from the Papal church, thus its foundation is built upon a premise of denying the Son of God; it cannot lead sinners to repentance because the goodness of God is shrouded in mystery. But Christ, the Son of God, is the foundation of the very church of heaven:

“He saith unto them, But who do you say that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven…. and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Mat. 16:15-18)

This truth that Jesus is truly the Son of God is the very foundation that angels denied in heaven, and false teachers, through inspiration of those same angels, are now denying on the earth. Look at what the church of heaven is called, showing that it has the Son of God as it’s foundation:

“But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect…” (Heb. 12:22-23)

The fallen angels have made their church of false teachers upon a strict denial of Christ: on the very foundation of spiritualism, while angels in heaven justified the only-begotten Son of God:

“Angels that were loyal and true sought to reconcile this mighty rebellious angel to the will of his Creator. They justified the act of God in conferring honor upon Jesus Christ, and with forcible reasoning sought to convince Satan that no less honor was his now than before the Father had proclaimed the honor which he had conferred upon his Son. They clearly set forth that Jesus was the Son of God, existing with him before the anels were created; and that he had ever stood at the right hand of God…” (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, pg. 20)

Since He came forth from the Father, Christ had shared His Father’s throne, being made equal with Him, and had ever stood at the right hand of God. Never was there a time when He did not hold this special place received to Him by divine birthright. Yet the same battle is now coming into the ranks of the church through the spiritualistic doctrine of the Trinity.

As stated earlier, spiritualism is simply taking something that God has said and making the words so spiritual and metaphorical that they don’t hold their original meaning anymore. For instance, the seventh day doesn’t mean Friday sundown to Saturday sundown, but it can be any day of the week, as long as you rest and keep holy at least one day of the seven. Or when Satan said to Eve that she would not die if she ate the fruit, after God said clearly set forth in His words that she would die, Satan was spiritualizing away God’s Word in her mind, so that she didn’t believe His Word exactly as He said it. Likewise, spiritualism teaches that God isn’t truly “the Father”, and that the Son isn’t literally “the Son”. Ellen White said these were false teachers.

Let’s look more closely at this and see whether or not the General Conference teachings are in line with this very matter.


Here are the present views that are now in the General Conference as a result of those Evangelical conferences over 50 years ago.
We will find some statements made as to how the Son of God wasn’t literally a Son at all; nor the Father being the Father. These are only a few statements, and more can be found. Some are more obvious, some are less obvious, being veiled with a very spiritual, learned, language. Nevertheless, the implications are the same: God the Son, the Trinitarian understanding of who Christ was in heaven, has no beginning and no ending, and he was one of three divine beings that took on the role of a Son, but was not truly the Son of God – not born from God from the days of eternity past.

“There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons (Seventh-day Adventists believe … A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, page 16).

From the official website of the General Conference, it defines “a divine person” :

“…a divine person in the Bible is a person without a beginning.” (

That statement above was taken concerning the term “co-eternal” as used in the church manual to refer to Christ, found in Fundamental Belief #4 “God the Son”, where the “most startling” change has occurred. To hold to this definition of a divine person would necessarily destroy one of two things:

1) Either you must believe that Jesus had no beginning and no ending. Therefore it does not make Him truly the Son of God.
2) Or else, if you believe He had a beginning, He cannot be a divine person.

It is true that to exalt error as truth inevitably demands that we would believe what the Scriptures do not teach. Both of these conclusions are necessarily unscriptural, and demand that you take what the Scripture plainly teaches, and to cast it aside on either of the two extremes. Yet a third option must exist, but it requires you to throw out the General Conference’s definition of what a “divine person” is, and to believe the Bible just as it reads: that is the position on the Son of God which the pioneers held.

According to this, unlike what the pioneers believed, Christ did not actually have a beginning and He is not truly the Son of God. We will see that this is exactly what the church is now teaching.

This next statement will say that Christ was only the Son based on His birth in Bethlehem, and that God did not truly have a Son to send into the world, but that His Sonship was a title that Christ took on:

“The Father, Son relationship in the New Testament, must always be understood in the light of the event of Bethlehem. The only child born into this world with a divine rather than a human father is Jesus. The title ‘son’ refers to His entry into time and does not deny at all His eternal origins. There are references in the Old Testament to ‘Sonship’ but these are always in anticipation of the incarnation” (J. R. Hoffman, Seventh-day Adventist Minister, Ministry Magazine article ‘Is Jesus Jehovah God?’ June 1982 page 24)

While what is being said above is an attempt to justify why God sends His Son into the world, it is only His Son sent into the world based upon the fact that He would become the Son, and was not actually the Son. In addition to the manifold Ellen White statements that say otherwise, the Scripture says Christ is the Son of God: “…when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” (Hebrews 1:6) While Hoffman’s statements were not so blatant, the result is the same: that Christ isn’t truly the Son of God. Other statements will be more clear on this point.


“A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, and entered into, the role of the Father, another the role of the Son.” (Gordon Jenson, Adventist Review, October 31, 1996, p.12 ‘article ‘Jesus the Heavenly Intercessor’)

In the above statement, it says that the divine beings took on roles. There wasn’t truly a Father/Son relationship, but one chose to be the Son, and the other chose to be the Father among three divine beings in heaven. It also says that the covenant was made between three, but Zechariah 6:13 says “the counsel of peace (the covenant of peace) was between them both”, which means between two and not three. Ellen White says the same: “The plan of redemption was arranged in the councils between the Father and the Son.” (Review and Herald, May 28th, 1908)

“The plan of salvation devised by the Father and the Son will be a grand success.” (Signs of the Times, Jun 17th, 1903)

“Before the fall of man, the Son of God had united with His Father in laying the plan of salvation.” (Review & Herald, September 13th, 1906)

“The great plan of redemption was laid before the foundation of the world. And Christ, our Substitute and Surety, did not stand alone in the wondrous undertaking of the ransom of man. In the plan to save a lost world, the counsel was between them both; the covenant of peace was between the Father and the Son.” (Signs of the Times, December 23rd, 1897)

The emphasis here made is upon the Father and Son relationship, and that it was the two and not three which laid the plan of salvation. However, the roleplaying teaching does not emphasize two, but three, and does not believe in the literal Son of God, but that He isn’t the Son of God. This is being taught by more and more ministers who have had the opportunity to see the truth, but have rejected it:

“It may be inferred from the Scriptures that when the Godhead laid out the plan of salvation at some point in eternity past, They also took certain positions or roles to carry out the provisions of the plan.” (These times- our times, June 1st, Pastor Frank Holbrook, 1981)

Here are some of the necessary implications of the Trinity having no beginning and no ending. It demands that you believe at some point in eternity past, one divine being chose to act out the role of a Son, and another divine being chose to act out the role of a Father. Since, however, they are both acting out these roles, this startling teaching necessarily admits that they could have switched places.


Because of the view that they took on roles at some time in the past, and that the Father is not literally a Father, and that the Son is not literally a Son, the teaching goes into the belief that they could have exchanged roles, and the Son could have chosen to be the Father, and the Father could have chosen to be the Son:

“To me this signifies the interchangeableness of the members of the Godhead since they are one in action and purpose.” J.R. Spangler, Review and Herald, Oct. 21, 1971, ‘I believe in the Triune God’)

“But imagine a situation in which the Being we have come to know as God the Father came to die for us, and the One we have come to know as Jesus stayed back in heaven (we are speaking in human terms to make a point)…Nothing would have changed, except that we would have been calling Each by the name we now use for the Other.“” (Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath School Quarterly, page 19, Thursday April 10th 2008, ‘The Mystery of His Deity)

The mystery of the Trinity is that the Father and Son relationship does not actually exist at all, and that they were three identical, nameless divine beings; the unique personalities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are almost wholly destroyed in the fires of spiritualism according to this understanding. The President of the Greek Mission in the General Conference said:

“That’s like writing a dramatic theater play, for which some persons take on specific roles and then, after the performance, change clothes and look as they did before entering the dressing rooms.” (Herman J. Smit, President Greek Mission, Review and Herald, Adventist Review, December 26th, 1996)

To lessen the wonderful sacrifice of the love of God to a mere theatrical performance, where they acted parts, most certainly succeeds in Satan’s object of obscuring the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, as well as the love of God in giving His Son. The Catholic Jesuits, are for the sake of their mission, actors in the churches which they assume a part of, that they may accomplish their purposes. If the image of the Trinity implies this very teaching, then wouldn’t it be suitable to say they are in the very image of the God they are advocating? They lie, and their words cannot be trusted to mean just what they say, but the Trinity is teaching exactly the same thing: that God’s Word cannot be trusted to be believed as it truly reads. They have gone as far as to teach that the Father and Son relationship was a definite roleplaying, so much so that, according to the some of the leading pastors and scholars of the Adventist church, God the Son could have been God the Father, and God the Father could have been God the Son. Yet the Bible is clear about the relationship between them both, and Ellen White says very clearly that God the Father could never be the Son of God, nor could He die for our sins.

It is clear that Ellen White believed Christ was the Son of God, but what did Ellen White say about God the Father and Christ the Son that shows they didn’t have an interchangeable relationship? “The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind.” (Ellen G. White, Review & Herald 9th July 1895 ‘The Duty of the Minister and the People’)

God the Father was the unchangeable one. Only the Word of God could be made flesh, but the Father could not have switched places with Christ. It was impossible for Him, because He has no beginning, and no end. Yet the teaching that Christ isn’t truly the only-begotten Son of God, with all the wreckage of ideas and statements that follow it, are very common in the current Adventist teachings now.

“The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father. … The term “Son” is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead.” (November 2015, “Adventist World” pg. 42)

“While the three divine persons are one, They have taken different roles or positions in the Godhead’s work of creation, redemption, and the loving administration of the universe. The Father has assumed overall leadership, the Son has subordinated Himself to the leadership of the Father, and the Spirit is voluntarily subordinate to both the Father and the Son.” (Woodrow Whidden, The Trinity, page 243, ‘Why the Trinity is important – part 1’)

“Another important consideration involves how we interpret the Bible. Here the issue pertains to whether we should interpret some passages literally or whether we may treat them more figuratively. Maybe we could illustrate it this way. While we often refer to Jesus as the Son and frequently call the first person of the Godhead the Father, do we really want to take such expressions in a totally literal way? Or would it be more appropriate to interpret them in a more metaphorical way that draws on selective aspects of sonship and fatherhood?…Is it not quite apparent that the problem texts become problems only when one assumes an exclusively literalistic interpretation of such expressions as “Father,” “Son,” “Firstborn,” “Only Begotten,” “Begotten,” and so forth? Does not such literalism goes against the mainly figurative or metaphorical meaning that the Bible writers use when referring to the persons of the Godhead?…The anti-Trinitarians are quick to give these terms a very literal interpretation in the sense that Christ is a ‘truly’ “begotten, firstborn Son” generated by the Father. Thus they conclude that Christ is a “god” of lesser deity and dignity than the eternal Father…Furthermore, what proves to be quite ironic is that some of the most compelling evidence for the equality of the Father and the Son occurs in contexts that employ the very metaphors of “Father” and “Son”…” (Woodrow Whidden, The Trinity, ‘Biblical objections to the trinity’ page 106, 2002)

The above statement unmasks itself. He takes the very words of the Bible, and suggests they should be understood in a different meaning than what they truly mean. Like the serpent who said to Eve “Did God really say…”, and to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God…”, all to suggest darkness and doubt upon the Scriptures. He goes on to assume “such literalism go against the mainly figurative or metaphorical meaning that the Bible writers use when referring to the persons of the Godhead.” Where is his Scripture for his understanding that this is what they do? He must necessarily read into the Scripture something that is not there to come to this conclusion.

He continues by saying that non-Trinitarians “conclude” that Christ is a “lesser deity”. However, that is Woodrow Whidden’s conclusion, and not the conclusion of the pioneers or those who believe as they do. We uphold the full equality of Christ by His divine inheritence. Therefore the “concluding” is done by him and not by those who conscientiously reject the Trinity to believe in the divine Son of God.

Many today believe, just as many Evangelicals in the pioneers’ day believed, that if you believe in Jesus as truly the Son of God, it makes Him a “lesser god.” But if you haven’t studied this out from the Scriptures, how Christ inherited from the Father His fully divine nature and received a name and authority of equality from Him, it may seem like a strong argument, because there are many statements saying that Christ is equal with the Father. Yet there are equally as many statements that say that He received all things from God the Father, and even more statements that Christ is the only-begotten Son of God. Considering this divine inheritance, He cannot be a “lesser god”, but those who don’t understand in what way we don’t believe in the Trinity doctrine misunderstand this point and claim that we teach this, when it is not an accurate statement of many among those who have come to reject the Trinity. On the other hand, there is an abundance of statements that show clearly that spiritualistic sentiments are being taught by the teachers of the Trinitarian doctrine. These statements represent the teachers of that doctrine according to exactly what they teach. Repeating again the words of pioneer J.H. Waggoner, who addressed this issue:

“They take the denial of a trinity to be equivalent to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Were that the case, we should cling to the doctrine of a trinity as tenaciously as any can; but it is not the case. They who have read our remarks on the death of the Son of God know that we firmly believe in the divinity of Christ; but we cannot accept the idea of a trinity, as it is held by Trinitarians, without giving up our claim on the dignity of the sacrifice made for our redemption.” (J.H. Waggoner, 1884, The Atonement In the Light of Nature and Revelation, pg. 164-165)


Waggoner was clear in this matter. We uphold the divine person of Christ, while upholding His Sonship to the Father also. He said rather that he saw in the Trinity something that would undermine the sacrifice of Christ for our redemption.

More than this, the the statement we read earlier from J.S. Washburn said exactly the same thing about the Trinity:
“Seventh-day Adventists claim to take the word of God as supreme authority and to have “come out of Babylon”, to have renounced forever the vain traditions of Rome. If we should go back to the immortality of the soul, purgatory, eternal torment and the Sunday Sabbath, would that be anything less than apostasy? If, however, we leap over all these minor, secondary doctrines and accept and teach the very central root doctrine of Romanism, the Trinity, and teach that the son of God did not die, even though our words seem to be spiritual, is this anything else or anything less than apostasy, and the very Omega of apostasy?”

How is it that J.S. Washburn, and seemingly, Waggoner, saw something in the Trinity that would make it impossible for Christ to die?

In a statement issued from the General Conference Biblical Research Center, containing the leading scholars of modern-day Adventism, a trinitarian scholar stated that Christ could not be divided from the Father, which would do further damage to the sacrifice the Father and Son made:

“…we do not worship three Gods, but one God who reveals Himself in and consists of three “persons”. The three persons share one indivisible nature…Each person of the Godhead is by nature and essence God, and the fullness of the deity dwells in each of them. On the other hand, each person of the Godhead is inseparably connected to the other two.” (Ekkehardt Mueller, Biblical Research Institute, Reflections newsletter, July 2008, Page 9, ‘Scripture Applied, – A Bible Study’)

How is it that these studied university degree scholars for the Conference having such “a pretense of great wisdom” deny the most simple truth in the Bible? In all of his eloquent speech on describing his intellectual prowess of what he believed constituted the “indivisible” deity, he entirely bypasses the most basic of truths: that Christ could be, and truly was, separated from the Father.

“…we must confess that the trinity is one indivisible God and that the distinction of the persons do not destroy the divine unity. This unity of God is expressed by saying that he is one substance. Nevertheless, in the divine unity there are three co-eternal and co-equal persons, who, though distinct, are the One undivided and adorable God.” (Professor Raoul Dederen, Reflections on the Doctrine of the Trinity, pg. 16, Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. VIII)

To preserve the “One God” without beginning and without ending, and to uphold the Trinity, the teaching declares that for the sake of God the Son being “one substance” with the other two to make up the one God of the Trinity, he cannot truly die. Yet a true Son, who came forth from the only true God and Father, can and did actually die.

There are many more statements like this saying that the Trinity is indivisible which teach that God the Father and God the Son could not truly be separated. This lays the foundation for spiritualism, just as it says in the teaching of the immortal soul, “You shall not surely die”, which is wholly consistent with the doctrine of eternal hellfire. God the Son, taking on the role of the one who died, was inseparably connected to God the Father according to the Trinity, thus He must have been alive when He died, and said “You will not leave My soul in hell…” Therefore He did not truly die.

How can this do anything but place the image of what the wages of sin actually are according to the Trinitarian teaching: not truly dying, but just living forever under a spiritual and physical torment of hellfire, inseparably linked to life. Through spiritualism, the Son no longer means the Son, and as a result, death no longer means death. Death, by this doctrine in the Catholic church, has somehow come to mean eternal life.

This is why the Catholic church themselves state: “The mystery of the trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the church.” (Handbook for Today’s Catholic. Pg. 11).

Just to show that this point was also what the pioneers understood, we’ll only look at one point that one of the pioneers mentioned, and how it did not destroy Christ’s divinity that He inherited from God the Father but did destroy the literal death of Christ because of this divinely existant, inseperable “one substance” of the Trinity:
“As before remarked, the great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, is this: they make no distinction between a denial of a trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a trinity. The declaration, that the divine Son of God could not die, is as far from the teachings of the Bible as darkness is from light. And we would ask the Trinitarian, to which of the two natures are we indebted for redemption? The answer must, of course, be, To that one which died or shed his blood for us; for “we have redemption through his blood.” Then it is evident that if only the human nature died, our Redeemer is only human, and that the divine Son of God took no part in the work of redemption, for he could neither suffer nor die. Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism.” (J. H. Waggoner, 1884, The Atonement In The Light Of Nature And Revelation, page 173) (This is also found in Review & Herald, November 10, 1863, vol. 22, page 189)

John was concerned in his day about a similar gnostic teaching entering into the church which taught that Christ was an eternally self-existant divine being who possessed a body of flesh, but only assumed that body to make a sacrifice, and then returned to His divine existence, putting off the body of flesh. So much does that idea conform to the ideas men have now about death, and heaven. That as soon as they die, they put off the flesh, to make their mystical and spiritual abode in heaven.

John begins his letter addressing this concern to the church by saying that the Word, who is Christ, was actually made flesh:

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1John 1:1-3)

He then goes on to describe this lie as being antichrist, denying the Son of God, and the relationship between the Father and the Son (ch. 2). He then goes on further to speak about false teachers, and how God manifested His love in sending His Son to die for us (ch. 4). He lastly says that anyone who does not believe this record calls God a liar (ch. 5), just like Satan did in the garden of Eden when he said “you shall not surely die”.

John then begins his second letter to the same church with the greeting:

“Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.” (2 John 1:3)

To say that Jesus did not truly die is a most startling heresy indeed. More than this, the definition of what a false teacher is has been so perfectly exemplified in the way Trinitarian teachers are setting forth the doctrine of the Trinity that it is difficult to see anything less than the charge applying to them, rather then to the pioneers. As for the pioneers, who viewed the Trinity as spiritualism, the false teacher defined as being a spiritualistic teacher accords perfectly with their sound views in this matter. Thus we may see that the rebellious children have charged the faithful fathers with falsehood, and have treated those who honor the faith once delivered to the saints as being heretics, dissenters, and offshoots for speaking out against the matter. Its dangerous fruit of spiritualism testify to it’s Catholic origins, and that it proceeds straight from the serpent’s mouth.

May we all, with Paul, see these dangers, and consider soberly his words of what he saw coming into the churches that would lead to the great falling away:

“For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (2 Cor. 11:2-4)


A few points in overview:

THE OLD VIEW: Christ is truly the Son of God. God the Father is truly a Father. Demonstrates His love by this sacrifice.
The NEW VIEW: Christ isn’t truly the Son of God. God the Father isn’t truly a Father. The sacrifice of the Father and the Son is destroyed in the fires of spiritualism, just as Satan would have it.

THE OLD VIEW: God was the Father, and Christ was the Son: the foremost among the fundamental principles.
THE NEW VIEW: Accounting as error the past teachings God gave to His remnant people, and denying even the Spirit of prophecy in the argument of “present truth”.

The old view changed through a compromise with a non-Adventist Evangelical leader in connection with a General Conference ministerial leader, whose work, when closely examined, is questionable at best.

That the church, far from becoming “increased with goods and having need of nothing”, is in a worse state than how she was in the past, and not a better state, contrary to current Adventist thought leaders who profess the Trinity as an outgrowth of being led into more truth. Moreover, to say the church is better is contrary to the prophetic utterances of Ellen White on this matter.

What is the conclusion? Christ, the Son of God, has been shut out from the people. The love of the Father and Son is destroyed through roleplaying and rebellion; through indivisible dilemmas. Christ’s sacrifice is rejected. A new organization, “apostasy from the truth” has resulted. Men look in vain to find God’s denominated people. Antichrist has been respected. The churches that constitute Babylon have found favor in the blind eyes of the General Conference. The founders of the church are rejected. Ellen White’s writings are condemned. Those who honor the foundational pillars of God’s organization are disfellowshipped, and set outside with Christ. This foundation is built upon the sands, and not the solid, unshakeable rock. Therefore, it cannot stand without the great truths of Adventism; the removing of the pillars that have been hewn out from the rock of our salvation will cause “the temple of the Lord” to necessarily fall as Solomon’s Temple fell, and “storm and tempest will sweep away the structure.”

The call from Christ, the True Witness to Laodicea whose testimony has been shut out, is “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous therefore and repent.” (Rev. 3:19) The call is clear from Christ: repent of these things and join your voice to the True Shepherd, lest a fire break out in her that no man can quench.

For More articles on Bible prophecy and the gospel, check out

Christian Israel is an administrator of Lightened By His Glory. He is also the administrator of He…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *