Discovering the Adventist Jesus

COLLEEN TINKER
JEREMY GRAHAM, RESEARCH ASSISTANCE

I don’t remember exactly the moment I first heard someone say that as an Adventist, she had believed in a different Jesus from the one she had come to know as a no-longer-Adventist Christian. I do remember that I felt a mixture of emotions when I heard those words.

My dominant response was, “Different Jesus? I believed in the same Jesus all Christians know.” Adventism endorses an orthodox statement about Jesus and the Trinity, after all! I had always believed Jesus was God.

At a deep level that was hard to articulate, however, I realized that I resonated with that person’s admission. I knew that my experience with Jesus as an Adventist was completely different from my experience with Him as a born-again Christ-follower. I also was discovering that Jesus was—well, more “God-like” than I had ever thought He was.

A different Jesus? No, I didn’t think so. At the same time, I knew something significant was different about the Lord I had come to know from the Jesus of my past.

Jesus IS salvation

It was May, 1996, when Richard and I attended an Adventist Forum meeting in San Diego, California, and heard Dale Ratzlaff explain that the New Covenant, unlike the Old Covenant, was an unconditional promise. Where the Old Covenant promised Israel blessings in exchange for obedience, the New Covenant unilaterally promised that God would write His law on human hearts. This covenant did not depend upon promises or obedience from me. Dale explained that Jesus fulfilled the covenant obligations on behalf of humanity by fulfilling the law, by dying for sin, and by conquering death. In the New Covenant, God’s blessings are ours when we place our trust in Jesus. Our own behavior and performance are not involved in our acceptance into the New Covenant. God Himself makes and keeps the terms of the New Covenant. Jesus represents humanity before the Father, and New Covenant blessings are ours when we are in Christ.  

My entire worldview changed at that moment. Jesus was no longer a piece of the salvation puzzle. Instead, He IS salvation. In order to be saved, all I needed was Jesus. A flood of emotion overflowed in tears, and I felt something completely new: awe, reverence, and love for Jesus. 

At various times I had felt God’s presence in my life, and sometimes I had felt deep gratitude to Him, but always my reactions had been to a generalized concept of “God”. I had never been aware before of feeling any emotion (except for a vague discomfort) for Jesus, but there I was, struggling not to weep in public, overwhelmed by the Person I now knew was my Lord. This was not an amorphous “God” that I was meeting as if for the first time. This was, instead, Jesus—my Redeemer, Prince of Peace, Mighty God—Who had revealed Himself to me. 

This Jesus was not the meek, mild, abused human-stripped-of-divine-power who had-no-advantage-I-don’t-have with whom I had grown up. This Jesus didn’t die because He felt sorry for me and volunteered to be a sacrifice, nor did He die to show me how far He would go to prove His love. This Jesus saved me because He was God. This Jesus had the power to command my attention and my loyalty. This Jesus was Someone Who could—and would—demand that I leave my familiar world for His sake. This Jesus didn’t feel sentimental about me; He loved me. And I loved Him. 

What’s the difference?

As the months and years have passed since that day, I have struggled to understand why the Jesus I know is so different from the Jesus I thought I knew in my past. He seems like a completely new Person to me now. 

One of the first changes I noticed after realizing that Jesus was all I needed for salvation was that I no longer felt embarrassed saying His name. As I reflected on my experiences in Adventist schools and churches, I realized that people spoke of “God” far more frequently than they spoke of “Jesus”—especially once a person moved past early elementary school-age. If one did need to speak of His work, it was far more common to use the title “Christ” than to say the name “Jesus”. 

I began to experience Jesus, both in Scripture and in my life, as a much “bigger” Person than I had ever before understood Him to be. I had always known that Jesus was “divine”, that He was “God”, but there had always been an underlying perception of Jesus as somehow “less than” the Father. He was merely the Son. Jesus was the part of God whom children could understand. As I grew older and more sophisticated, the more nebulous “God” was less embarrassing to mention than the human, suffering, bleeding, and dying Jesus. 

Jesus seemed weaker than “God”—almost a demi-god. Jesus was messy; His blood and that clumsy cross always made Him seem pathetic. Further, he evoked an uncomfortable sense of pity. I knew I needed to accept Him—whatever that really meant—yet it was hard to admire a torn-flesh-and-bleeding Jesus whose sacrifice was supposed to be a deterrent from sin. 

To be sure, Jesus was essential—but accepting Him was just the first step in being saved. He wasn’t ALL I needed—He was like the “down payment” on salvation. Yet these life-long understandings began to fade as I discovered God’s sovereign power and the honor and glory of Jesus as the Head over all creation, visible and invisible. 

Non-Trinitarian Founders

As I began to experience Jesus as my Life and my Redeemer, however, I began to look more closely at where my previous understanding of Jesus originated. I discovered that the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist church did not believe in the Trinity. James White and Joseph Bates had both been members of the Christian Connection, a group which organized in 1820. This early group was composed largely of
people from two sources: those who left Methodism because of their opposition to bishops and autocratic church government, and those who left the Calvinist Baptist tradition because of opposition to closed communion and Calvinist theology.¹ The Stone/Campbell movement eventually grew out of the Christian Connection, and from that movement descended the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the Church of Christ. 

The “Connection” was non-Trinitarian, as was James White, who was ordained as a minister in the organization. In 1842 James heard William Miller preach “and became an enthusiastic adherent of the Second Advent faith.” ²

James White published the following statement in The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald in 1852: “To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old Trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God.” ³

In 1877 he published a tract entitled Christ in the Old Testament. In it he made this statement: 

The work of emancipating, instructing and leading the Hebrews was given to the One who is called an angel. Exodus 13:21; 14:19, 24; 23:20-23; 32:34; Numbers 20:16; Isaiah 63:9. And this angel Paul calls “that spiritual Rock that followed them,” and he affirms, “That Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). The eternal Father is never called an angel in the Scriptures, while what angels have done is frequently ascribed to the Lord, as they are his messengers and agents to accomplish his work.⁴

James White was not the only early Adventist to hold anti-Trinitarian beliefs. Most of the early pioneers, in fact, denied the Trinity. J.N. Andrews, for whom the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan, is named, wrote this in 1855:

The doctrine of the Trinity was established in the church by the council of Nicea, A.D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The infamous measures by which it was forced upon the church—which appear upon the pages of ecclesiastical history might well cause every believer in that doctrine to blush.⁵

R.F. Cottrell published this statement in 1869: 

But to hold the doctrine of the trinity (sic) ⁶ is not so much an evidence of evil intention as of intoxication from that wine of which all the nations have drunk. The fact that this was one of the leading doctrines, if not the very chief, upon which the bishop of Rome was exalted to the popedom, does not say much in its favor.⁷

Cottrell’s concern that the Trinity was a fabrication of the Catholic Church was echoed by other early Adventist pioneers as well, and today there is a growing movement within Adventism to return to the non-Trinitarian position of the early Adventist church. Their primary reason for their return to this position is that it is the true Adventist view because it was the official doctrine of the founders. ⁸

Ellen White: from Arian to tritheist

While Ellen White grew up believing in the Trinity, she changed her views in adulthood. No doubt James influenced this change, but she claimed that her visions established her unorthodox beliefs. Early in her career she was overtly Arian, and although her later views endorsed “a heavenly trio”, she never taught an orthodox Trinity. Following is a representation of her statements about Jesus and the Trinity:

While some of the angels joined Satan in his rebellion, others reasoned with him to dissuade him from his purposes, contending for the honor and wisdom of God in giving authority to his Son. Satan urged, for what reason was Christ endowed with unlimited power and such high command above himself! He stood up proudly, and urged that he should be equal with God. […] At length all the angels are summoned to appear before the Father, to have each case decided. Satan unblushingly makes known to all the heavenly family, his discontent, that Christ should be preferred before him, to be in such close conference with God, and he be uninformed as to the result of their frequent consultations. God informs Satan that this he can never know. That to his Son will he reveal his secret purposes, and that all the family of Heaven, Satan not excepted, were required to yield implicit obedience. Satan boldly speaks out his rebellion, and points to a large company who think God is unjust in not exalting him to be equal with God, and in not giving him command above Christ. He declares he cannot submit to be under Christ’s command, that God’s commands alone will he obey.”⁹

The above quote details Ellen White’s belief that Jesus was not always God, but that the Father exalted Him to that position—implying also that Jesus remained less than the Father. Further, she clarifies that Satan believed he had equal rights to be thus exalted, and he became angry because the Father chose Jesus over him. The following statement from Early Writings emphasizes this view:

“Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, next to Christ.[…] He desired to receive the highest honors in heaven next to God.”¹⁰

It is generally acknowledged that the publication of the book The Desire of Ages in 1898 marked the turning point when Ellen White left Arianism and non-Trinitarianism behind and espoused the full deity of Jesus. Yet both in the years immediately preceding the publication of this book as well as in following years she published numerous statements that continued to reveal her lack of understanding that Jesus was fully God and uncreated, and that the Trinity is an expression of one God in three persons. In 1894 and 1895 she stated that Christ “was made equal with God” and “made in the express image of [God’s] person”:

But every such plea was cast aside when Christ died as a substitute for the sinner. He who was made equal with God bore the sin of the transgressor, and thereby made a channel whereby the love of God could be communicated to a fallen world, and his grace and power imparted to those who came to Christ in penitence for their sin.¹¹

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.¹²

Adventists say, however, that Ellen White grew in her understanding and, in her later years, changed and adopted an orthodox view of God. This general understanding, though, is not supported when we look at all the evidence.

Not an orthodox Trinity

Dr. Jerry Moon from the Adventist seminary at Andrews University has documented Ellen White’s shift from a non-Trinitarian to a “Trinitarian” viewpoint in a paper entitled, The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s ‘Heavenly Trio’ Compared To the Traditional Doctrine. In this paper he documents James White’s dismissal of the Trinity, and he shows that not until 1946 did the Seventh-day Adventist church adopt its first statement explicitly professing the “Trinity”. In the succeeding 60 years, Moon points out, “a Trinitarian view of God has remained dominant among Seventh-day Adventists—despite the general awareness since E. R. Gane’s M.A. thesis in 1963 that most of the earliest Adventist leaders were non-trinitarian.”

Then he says this:

The view that Ellen White was a Trinitarian has recently come under attack from a few writers who advocate a return to the semi-Arian position of some early Adventist leaders.[…]

Ellen White’s view did change—she was raised Trinitarian, came to doubt some aspects of the Trinitarianism she was raised on, and eventually came to a different Trinitarian view from the traditional one. […] In her earliest writings she differed from some aspects of traditional Trinitarianism and in her latest writings she still strongly opposed some aspects of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. It appears, therefore, that the Trinitarian teaching of Ellen White’s later writings is not the same doctrine that the early Adventists rejected. Rather, her writings describe two contrasting forms of Trinitarian belief, one of which she always opposed, and another that she eventually endorsed.¹³

Moon explains that the purpose of his article is to “clarify more fully the similarities and differences between Ellen White’s view of the ‘heavenly trio’ and the traditional doctrine of the Trinity.”¹⁴

Definitions matter

In other words, Ellen White shifted from being non-Trinitarian to being Trinitarian—but the Trinitarianism she eventually espoused was NOT the same doctrine of the Trinity that the Christian church historically endorsed. 

As I grew up in Adventist schools, I learned that we believed in one God who existed in three Persons. Only recently have I discovered that my understanding of the Trinity reflected Ellen White’s definitions—and those definitions did not agree with Christianity’s general understanding. As an example, her “Trinity” is clear in the following quote:

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the three holy dignitaries of heaven, have declared that they will strengthen men to overcome the powers of darkness. All the facilities of heaven are pledged to those who by their baptismal vows have entered into a covenant with God (MS 92, 1901).¹⁵ 

This quotation presents at least three problems. First, Ellen White refers not to God but to the “three dignitaries of heaven”. This wording describes not a triune God who is One Being but a tritheism—three “gods” who comprise a unit called “God”. Adventists argue that her view of these three beings is not a tritheism because the three beings never oppose each other, compete, nor disagree. Nevertheless, these three “dignitaries” describe a tritheism—three separate divine beings.

Second, she describes these dignitaries as strengthening humans to “overcome the powers of darkness.” The Bible describes Jesus as having already overcome the powers of darkness at the cross for our sakes—not for His own sake, as He had no sin (Colossians 2:14-15)—and of bringing those who trust Him out of the domain of darkness into His kingdom where we are already seated in Him at the right hand of God—not by our overcoming, but by faith in Jesus (Colossians 1:13, Ephesians 2:1-9). Being seated at God’s right hand, however, does not mean God has a literal right hand or that Jesus and we physically sit next to Him.  “The phrase ‘at the right hand’ was a figurative expression in Semitic cultures in biblical times, signifying a position of authority.”¹⁶

Third, this quote states that we come into “covenant with God” NOT on the basis of placing our faith in Jesus’ shed blood and resurrection, but by the act of baptism. The Bible is clear that God brings us into the New Covenant Himself “because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (Hebrews 10:14). The Holy Spirit confirms this promise to us by saying, “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds” (Hebrews 10:16). 

Two more quotations follow, written in 1905 and 1906 respectively:

There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.¹⁷

In the name of whom were you baptized? You went down into the water in the name of the three great Worthies in heaven—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. […] Those who have been baptized can claim the help of the three great Worthies of heaven to keep them from falling, and to reveal through them a character that is after the divine similitude. […] You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life—to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of the three holiest Beings in heaven, who are able to keep you from falling. […] When I feel oppressed and hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, I just call upon the three great Worthies, and say: You know I cannot do this work in my own strength,¹⁸

In her later years Ellen White consistently expressed the Trinity in tritheistic terms—as if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate beings united in a group known as “God”. Further, she repeatedly expressed the idea that these three “Worthies”, “dignitaries”, or “living persons of the heavenly trio” would assist, help, and otherwise co-operate with humans in their efforts to live holy lives. The burden of perfection always lay with the human; the “heavenly trio” was there to help them develop a “character that is after the divine similitude”. 

What is tritheism?

In contrast with these representative Ellen White quotes, the orthodox teaching of the Trinity affirms three things: 1. God is three persons. 2. Each person is fully (not a part of) God and is of the same nature. 3. There is one God. 

Tritheism, on the other hand, will acknowledge that God is three persons and that each person is fully God, but it will not say there is one God. Instead, tritheism affirms three separate beings who are gods. This belief has similarities to the ancient pagan religions that had multiple gods, and it destroys the sense of “ultimate unity in the universe; even in the very being of God, there would be plurality but no unity.” ¹⁹

Adventism, however, sees Jesus as one-third of the group called God, not as fully God as defined by the Trinity, nor as a completely independent god as defined by tritheism. It is a confusing hybrid which hides behind the almost-orthodox Adventist fundamental belief about the Trinity.

Ellen White played with her definitions. While she altered her non-Trinitarian stance, she did not embrace an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. She persisted in holding the belief in three separate beings, all of whom were God.  Further, her understanding of Christ’s nature and identity was never clear. While some of her publications did affirm Jesus as eternal, others referred to Him as an angel, as the one made in God’s likeness, and as one God exalted in heaven. 

According to Jerry Moon, Ellen White based her particular understanding of God on her visions. In 1850 she wrote that she had “often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person.” Further, she asked Jesus if His Father had a body like His, and He told her, “I am in the express image of My Father’s person.” 

Thus her visions confirmed what her husband had written in 1846, that the Father and the Son are ‘two distinct, literal, tangible persons.’ The visions also disproved, to her mind, the claim of the Methodist creed that God is ‘without body or parts.’ Thus these early visions steered her developing view of God away from credal trinitarianism…²⁰

While the church affirmed that Ellen White had embraced Trinitarianism during the later part of her career, this affirmation was only in name. The Adventists’ use of the word “Trinity” to describe Ellen White’s understandings has kept millions of Adventists confused about God’s sovereignty, about the true nature of Jesus, and about the identity of God as one Being, not “three great Powers”. In spite of a fundamental belief about the Trinity worded to conceal the understanding of the three-part “God”(“There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons…” ²¹), the influence of Adventism’s and Ellen White’s semi-Arian and non-Trinitarian foundation still obscures the truth about Jesus and the sovereignty of God in the lives of members.

Current understanding of the Trinity

Perhaps the best way to illustrate the pervasive, continuing misunderstanding within Adventism of God’s identity is to quote some current publications.

The second quarter adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide for 2006 states: “Our views on the Holy Spirit stem from the concept of the Trinity as a unity of three coeternal Beings.” ²²

Lionel Matthews, associate professor of Sociology at Andrews University says this in his paper “Sociology: A Biblical Perspective”: 

In spite of its clear monotheistic ring, the biblical account seems uncompromised on the idea of God as a group. While God has been declared to be one God (Deut. 6:4, 1 Tim. 2:5), He has also been presented as a plurality of beings (1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 4:5).[…]

What the notion of a triune (group) God seems to suggest is that the three members of the Godhead become joined in their relationship with each other, on the basis of their common purpose, values and interests. ²³

Samuele Bacchiocchi, retired professor of theology and church history at Andrews University explains the Trinity in his online newsletter this way: 

The exercise of power in most societies generally reflects the prevailing understanding of how God rules the universe. The tendency has been to represent God as the only all-powerful ONE, who rules the wold as a monarch.[…]

The rediscovery of the biblical vision of the Godhead, as three Beings living as equal in a perfect, loving communion, has provided a much needed corrective for the autocratic and often abusive exercise of power in the church, state, and the family. ²⁴

Bacchiocchi also says this: 

Thus the human maleness and femaleness reflect the image of God in that a man and a woman have the capacity to experience a oneness of fellowship similar to the one existing in the Trinity. The God of biblical revelation is not a solitary single Being who lives in eternal aloofness but is a fellowship of three Beings so intimately and mysteriously united that we worship them as one God.²⁵

Speaker/evangelist for Adventism’s Amazing Facts and the new president of satellite broadcasting company 3ABN Doug Batchelor with Kim Kjaer has written the following explanations of the Trinity:

Most of the confusion regarding the number of beings composing the Godhead springs from a simple misunderstanding of the word ‘one.’ Simply put, ‘one’ in the Bible does not always mean numerical quantity. Depending on the Scripture, ‘one’ can often mean unity. […]

We need to keep in mind that when Moses said, ‘The Lord is one,’ Israel was surrounded with polytheistic nations that worshiped many gods that were constantly involved in petty bickering and rivalry (Deuteronomy 6:4), whereas the God who created is composed of three separate beings who are perfectly united in their mission of saving and sustaining their creatures. […]

 The real risk in the redemption plan, besides the loss of man, was the breakup of the Godhead. Had Jesus sinned, He would have been working at cross-purposes with the Spirit and His Father. Omnipotent good would have been pitted against omnipotent evil. What would have happened to the rest of creation? Whom would the unfallen universe see as right? One sin could have sent the Godhead and the universe spinning into cosmic chaos; the proportions of this disaster are staggering. Yet the Godhead was still willing to take this fragmenting risk for the salvation of man.²⁶

The above quotation contains multiple problems. First, the implication that Jesus—eternal God—could have sinned is completely unbiblical (1 John 1:5). Contrary to Ellen White’s assertions (reflected in this statement) that Jesus could not see beyond the portals of the tomb and that He did not know whether or not He would be successful and rise again, Jesus knew absolutely that he would be crucified, would be buried, and would rise on the third day and told his disciples in advance. (See Matthew 20:18-19; Mark 10:32-34; Luke 18:31-33.) 

Further, the Bible does not suggest that any part of the universe is untouched by sin. Romans 8:19-22 explains that creation was subjected to frustration and is groaning, waiting to be delivered from “its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” In fact, God reconciled all things to Himself through Jesus, “whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col 1:19-20). 

Finally, Jesus is “before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17). Jesus did not cease, as a human, to be the One who held all creation together. While he emptied Himself by taking the form of a bondservant (Philippians 2:6-7), He did not cease to be God and to have all the divine power and qualities that are His nature. Even as the incarnate Christ He held the universe together. There was never any risk that Jesus would fail in his mission (He was the lamb slain from the creation of the world—Revelation 13:8) or that the Godhead or the universe would break apart and spin out of control.

The pervasive influence of Ellen White’s and the founders’ Arian and non-Trinitarian beliefs is emphasized in this statement from the church’s Biblical Research Institute:

While the Seventh-day Adventist Church today espouses the doctrine of the Trinity [understood, as we have seen, as a “heavenly trio”], this has not always been so. The evidence from a study of Adventist history indicates that from the earliest years of our church to the 1890s a whole stream of writers took an Arian or semi-Arian position. The view of Christ presented in those years by Adventist authors was that there was a time when Christ did not exist, that His divinity is a delegated divinity, and that therefore He is inferior to the Father. In regard to the Holy Spirit, their position was that He was not the third member of the Godhead but the power of God. 

A number of Adventist authors today, who are opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity, are trying to resurrect the views of our early pioneers on these issues. They are urging the church to forsake the ‘Roman doctrine’ of the Trinity and to accept again the semi-Arian position of our pioneers. […]

In recent years a number of anti-Trinitarian publications have appeared in our church, for example, Fred Allaback, No new leaders…No new Gods!; Lynnford Beachy, Did They Believe in the Trinity; Rachel Cory-Kuehl, The Persons of God; Allen Stump, The Foundation of Our Faith; and others.²⁷

Confusion Cleared

I have finally understood why my perception of Jesus while I was an Adventist was substantively different from my experience with Him as a born-again Christ-follower. In spite of orthodox-sounding words, I was taught as an Adventist, at a functional and philosophical level, that Jesus was fallible. I was taught that He could have sinned. I was taught that He gave up (or refused to use) His divine power when he became a man. I was further taught that anything He did, I, too, could do—if I learned to access the Holy Spirit properly and resist sin as Jesus did. I was taught that He had no advantage I did not also have.

Although Adventism publicly declares words about Jesus and the Trinity that sound orthodox, in practice those words have different meanings than they have for most Christians. Ellen White’s persistent Arianism and non-Trinitarian teaching permeate Adventist theology, and functionally Adventists are tritheists with a weak Jesus whom God exalted (to Satan’s chagrin)—a Jesus who could have failed in His mission to earth and who may not have existed eternally as the Mighty God.

Rick Langer, associate professor in the biblical studies and theology department at Biola University, says in his article “The Family Tree”in this issue of Proclamation! that the church is like a tree. One cannot assume that the leaves entangled in the branches of a forest all stem from the trunk of the original apostolic root. One must trace backwards from the leaves, follow the stems and branches back down the trunk, and discover whether what looks like authentic leaves actually spring from the original root, or whether they have grown up from a look-alike root of heresy which has persisted in growing near the trunk of the true church. 

Adventism’s “leaves” have mingled well with the leaves of the true church. Most people today cannot tell that Adventist “leaves” are different from the church’s. If one traces backward down the branches to the original root, however, Adventism will be seen for what it is: a shoot from the ancient heresy of Arianism. The reason the Adventist church cannot truly change, cannot teach the pure gospel, cannot introduce people to the eternal, powerful, sovereign God the Son is that the root of Arianism still nourishes it. No matter how Adventism cleans up its public language and alters its doctrines, it is still an organization sprung not from the root of the apostolic church but from the look-alike root of heresy.

In addition, Ellen White’s legacy ensures that the foundations of the church must remain. Her writings provide the structure on which the church’s doctrines and practices are built. Even when people question the assumptions underlying the church’s theology, Ellen White’s own words remind them that to question Adventist tradition and the inspiration of their “messenger” is tantamount to questioning God: 

Abundant light has been given to our people in these last days. Whether or not my life is spared, my writings will constantly speak, and their work will go forward as long as time shall last. My writings are kept on file in the office, and even though I should not live, these words that have been given to me by the Lord will still have life and will speak to the people.²⁸ 

How are these things significant?

The pervasive infusion of tritheistic Arian ideas into Adventist theology has serious implications. 

1. Adventists are taught that Jesus could have sinned. This possibility implies that He did not possess the perfection or eternity of Almighty God. A Savior who could have sinned cannot offer an unshakable salvation; such a person would be weak or flawed, or less than God, not the perfect, righteous Lamb of God.
2. If our first Adam sinned and our Second Adam could have sinned, our eternal future is threatened. If Jesus was not greater than Adam, offering eternal righteousness to His creations, there would always be the possibility that sin might arise again. 
3. If Jesus could have sinned, then His atonement is not substitutionary. It was merely a demonstration of what I, too, could do. If Jesus could have sinned but didn’t, I, too, can achieve sinless perfection.
4. If Jesus is not eternally God who voluntarily gave Himself for His creatures, then the Father would be a barbaric child molester offering His only Son as a sacrifice as the ancient pagans offered their children to Molech.²⁹ 
5. If Jesus is not the eternal Almighty God, His death could not atone for the sin of creation. He could not possess intrinsic eternal life, nor could He give us eternal life. 
6. The underlying belief that Jesus and Satan once held nearly equal positions in heaven lends credibility to the Adventist idea that Satan is the scapegoat who carries the sins of the saved into the lake of fire where he is punished for causing their sin. Satan never bears humans’ sin; Jesus bore our sin and died outside the camp (Hebrews 10:13).³⁰
7. Adventism’s foundational Arianism still keeps its members from understanding that Jesus’ sacrifice was not able to fail, and no observance or behavior on their part will figure into their salvation.³¹ It keeps them thinking of Jesus primarily as an example whose death was a down payment on salvation instead knowing Him as their substitute whose death paid the full purchase price. It keeps them struggling to follow the example of a fallible Jesus whose death and resurrection do not ensure believers’ salvation. 

Adventists have hope, however, in the Bible. They have access to the truth. God used His word in my life to set me free from the confusion and dissonance of trying to be saved by following the example of a fallible Jesus. 

The Word of God is eternal, and it is sufficient for teaching us the truth about God. He asks us each to be willing to humble ourselves before Him, to ask Him to teach us by His Spirit through His word. He asks us to lay aside all our presumptions and understandings about Jesus and to submit to the truth He will reveal through His word alone.

The name of Jesus no longer embarrasses me. Jesus is the mighty God, the Creator and Reconciler of all the universe. He cannot fail, and He is completely faithful. 

Jesus is my Lord, and I praise Him for being my God. †

Endnotes

1. http://www.ucc.org/aboutus/shortcourse/chrchu.html
2. The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald XXXI, February 18, 1868, p. 147
3. James White, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 08-05-1852, Vol. 3, No. 7, p. 52
4. James White, Christ in the Old Testament, Oakland, CA: Pacific Press Pub. Assoc., 1877, p. 11p. 11 quoted in Elmer Wiebe, WHO is the Adventist Jesus? Xulon Press, second ed, 2006, pp. 86-87
5. J.N. Andrews, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 03-06-1855, Vol. 6, no. 24, p. 185
6. The word “trinity” was not capitalized in the original source.
7. R.F. Cottrell, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 07-06-1869, Vo. 34, No. 2, p. 11
8. The Seventh-day Adventist paraphrase of the Bible, The Clear Word (TCW) (available in their Adventist Book Centers), contains many altered verses which diminish or delete the references to Jesus’ deity. For example: John 8:58, TCW changes “before Abraham was, I AM” (eternalness) to “I existed before Abraham” (allowing his prior creation); Col. 1:16, TCW changes “By Him all things were created” (creator) to  “through Him the Father created” (only a channel—not source of creation); Col. 1:15, TCW changes “He is firstborn over all creation” (nature) to “He has the right to be placed over all creation” (promoted authority); Col. 1:19, TCW changes “It pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell” to “…the Father acknowledged Him as fully God, in spite of His human nature”; Rev 12:7, TCW adds “…God’s Son Michael and the loyal angels fought against the dragon…”; Jude 1:9, TCW adds…the Lord Jesus Christ, also called Michael the Archangel…” Excerpted from Deliberate Distortions in SDA’s “Clear Word Bible”, Verle Streifling, c. 1996, revised 1999, 2002. ( Retrieved from http://www.ratzlaf.com/currupt.htm)
9. Ellen G. White (EGW), Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, P. 37, Par. 2-3
10. EGW, Early Writings of Ellen G. White, p. 145, Par. 1
11. EGW, The Signs of the Times, 02-05-1894, “God’s Love Unmeasured,” par. 10
12. EGW, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 07-09-1895, “The Duty of the Minister and the People,” Par 14
13. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (JATS), Spring 2006, “The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s ‘heavenly Trio’ Compared to the Traditional Doctrine,” by Dr. Jerry Moon, Andrews University Theological Seminary. (Retrieved from:
    www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=241&journal=1&type=pdf)
14. ibid.
15. EGW, S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol 5, page 1110, par. 8
16. (Retrieved from: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_general/Hermeneutics.htm)
17. EGW, Evangelism, p. 615, par 1, 1905.
18. EGW, Sermons and Talks, Vol. 1, 10-20-06, pp. 363-367
19. Wayne Grudem, ed. Jeff Purswell, Bible Doctrines, Zondervan, 1999, p. 114
20. JATS, ibid.
21. (Retrieved from http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html)
22. Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, April/May/June 2006, Lesson 1, Teacher’s Edition. (Retrieved from http://absg.adventist.org/2006/2Q/TE/ETQ206_01.pdf)
23. Lionel Matthews, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sociology at Andrews University, “Sociology: A Biblical Perspective.” (Retrieved from http://fae.adventist.org/essays/34B_Matthews_L.pdf)
24. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph.D., retired professor of theology and church history at Andrews University, Endtime Issues Newsletter, no. 148. (Retrieved from http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_148.htm)
25. Samuele Bacchiocchi, “A Christian view of sex.” (Retrieved from:
    http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/08_1_bacchiocchi_e.htm)
26. Doug Batchelor and Kim Kjaer, “The Trinity: Is It Biblical?” (Retrieved from: http://www.amazingfacts.org/items/Read_Media.asp?ID=518)
27. Gerhard Pfandl, “The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists,” Biblical Research Institute Silver Spring, MD June 1999 (Retrieved from: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/trinitydoc%20among%20sda.pdf)
28. EGW, Selected Messages Vol. 1, p 55
29. About 14 years ago I was a guest at a gathering of “WomenChurch”, a group of Adventist women who met in the Loma Linda area to discuss theological topics. The evening I attended, the facilitator was Cheryl McMillan, then the interim pastor at the Corona Seventh-day Adventist church. The evening’s discussion explored the idea presented in an article they had previously read that women need a better symbol of salvation than the cross. The cross, they opined, was a symbol of divine child abuse. No woman would sacrifice her child as God did. No woman, therefore, could be expected to respond with anything but abhorrence to the symbol of the cross.
30. Leviticus 16:6-10 describes the selection of the scapegoat. Two goats (or lambs could also have been used) were selected for a sin offering (note the singular form of the word), and the priest cast lots to determine which one would be the sacrificial offering and which would be the scapegoat. Either could have served either function. Satan could not have been the sacrificial offering for our sins—at no time was a choice made between Jesus and Satan for any purpose. There has never been any confusion or competition between them, in spite of what Ellen White’s writings say. The Bible does not support such an idea. The scapegoat and the sacrificial lamb represented two aspects of Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice.
31. They are sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14), and their sign of “remembering” is communion which celebrates the new covenant in Jesus’ blood (Matthew 26:26-29) instead of the Sabbath which pointed toward a coming Savior and a New Covenant (Hebrews 4:1-11).

• Author
• Recent Posts

Colleen Tinker

Colleen Tinker, the editor of Proclamation! magazine, and her husband Richard left Adventism in 1998 with their two sons, Roy and Nathanael, who were in grades six and ten. They have co-led the Former Adventist Fellowship since 1999. Colleen, a graduate of Walla Walla University, is a former high school English teacher and also the former managing editor of Adventist Today magazine. Colleen became the stepmother of Roy and Nathanael in 1989, and in 2008 she adopted them. Romans 8:15-17 has assumed new depth and significance for her and Richard since she and her sons chose to claim each other legally and permanently. She and Richard share an office and a commitment to sharing the gospel of the true Jesus with all of those seeking a way out of the bondage of the false gospel of Adventism.

Latest posts by Colleen Tinker (see all)

• We Got Mail - October 31, 2024
• November 2–8, 2024 - October 31, 2024
• We Got Mail - October 24, 2024