The nature of God matters. It matters a great deal. When I first left Adventism, I was offended by people claiming that Adventists worship a different god. I thought this was a convenient way of attacking theology one disagreed with, while not having to be specific. I was offended and thought such claims made it harder to have meaningful discussions. It wasn’t until I had a more complete understanding of the Trinity doctrine—both the scriptural basis and historical debates—that I came to appreciate the importance of the unique Adventist teachings regarding the Godhead.
It isn’t a secret that many early Adventists rejected the Trinity and held views of Jesus’ nature that aren’t accepted by the mainstream Adventist church today. There are plenty of debates about what Ellen White taught about the nature of Christ and the Godhead. I’m not attempting to add to, or recap, that debate. My emphasis is on what was taught by early Adventist leaders, how that teaching has evolved, and whether that teaching remains different than what is taught by Scripture and accepted by mainstream churches.
The earliest Adventist teachings are most similar to Arianism, a set of teachings about the nature of God that were promoted by Arius—a priest in the late third and early fourth century. In a very simplified summary, Arius taught that only the Father was eternal. Jesus was a creature who had a beginning and was, therefore, a “different order of existence” (Britannica online). Arius viewed Jesus as a Divine Creature, the firstborn of creation. But this still placed Jesus as both different from the Father and below the Father in His nature. Arianism is considered by many as the first major theological rift in the church.
Early Adventists eschewed established church teachings and set out to understand what Scripture directly taught, although they did not have education in the original languages and had to rely on available translations. This intention to rely on Scripture is admirable and allowed this group to step outside of traditions. At the same time, ignoring the history of the Church also resulted in repeating some of the same errors of history. The early beliefs about the nature of Christ are one example.
Some Adventist apologists confound the criticism of early Adventist teaching on the Trinity by proclaiming that the founders of Adventism were only rejecting some false teachings about the Trinity that were common at the time. A quick review of statements from early Adventist leaders, however, reveals that the core aspects of the Trinity doctrine were being denied:
- James White plainly expressed that he did not believe that Jesus was co-eternal with the Father: “The old unscriptural trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus is the eternal God” (The Day-Star, January 24, 1846, 25).
- In 1854, J. M. Stevenson wrote, “If the inspired writers had wishes to convey the idea of the co-etaneous existence, and eternity of the Father and the Son, they could not possibly have used more incompatible terms.”
- In 1865 Uriah Smith referred to Christ as “the first created being”.
- In 1869 J. N. Andrews (ironically the namesake for the University that houses the Adventist seminary) stated, “And as to the Son of God, he would be excluded also, for he had God for his Father, and did, at some point in the eternity of the past, have a beginning of days.”
As late as the 1919 Bible Conference, core aspects of the Trinity doctrine were still denied by some of the church leaders:
- L. L. Caviness stated “It [divine glory] was not something he [Jesus] had all through eternity, but the Father had some time given to him the glory of God. He is divine, but he is the divine Son. I cannot explain further than that, but I cannot believe the so called Trinitarian doctrine of the three persons always existing.”
- Caviness also stated, “I cannot believe that the two persons of the Godhead are equal.”
- W. T. Knox suggested that Christ was the eternal Son in the same sense that Levi was in the loins of Abraham. He said, “There came a time—in a way we cannot comprehend nor the time that we cannot comprehend, when by God’s mysterious operation the Son sprung from the bosom of his Father and had a separate existence.”
- In defending the eternal nature of Christ at this same 1919 conference, Prescott states, “we have used terms in that accommodating sense that are not really in harmony with Scriptural teaching. We believed a long time that Christ was a created being, in spite of what the Scripture says. I say this that passing over the experience I have passed over myself in this matter—this accommodating use of terms which makes the Deity without eternity, is not my conception now of the gospel of Christ. I think it falls short of the whole idea expressed in the Scriptures, and leaves us not with the kind of Savior I believe in now, but a sort of human view—a semi-human being. As I view it, the deity involves eternity. The very expression involves it. You cannot read the Scripture and have the idea of deity without eternity.”
In the nearly two centuries that have passed since the Great Disappointment, Adventist teaching about God has evolved. The early pioneers who had taught forms of Arianism passed away, seemingly opening the door for other views to take root. A greater number of Adventists embraced that Jesus was co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. The nature of the Holy Spirit remained open. Many Adventists believed (and some still do) that the Holy Spirit referred to the power of God’s working, rather than a distinct person in the Godhead.
I have used the word “Godhead” to describe Adventist teaching. This is the term that Adventists historically used and haven’t completely abandoned. It is also a good choice of words. It is a biblical term and using that term shouldn’t be, in itself, criticized. However, just because the word is biblical doesn’t mean that the teachings attached to the word are. The word “Trinity” isn’t a biblical word but rather a word created to convey a specific meaning. This is an important distinction. Using a broad biblical term such as “Godhead” doesn’t carry the same implications that using a term created by the Church to describe what it believes about the Scriptural teaching does. Put simply, using the term “Trinity” implies an agreement with teachings that formed this term.
Terminology Matters
Why does terminology matter? The terminology chosen reflects an underlying set of beliefs, and using a term when it doesn’t accurately reflect one’s underlying beliefs is deceptive. Any time that an organization is being deceptive about its beliefs should raise concerns about the character of that organization. Can truth and deception co-exist?
For example, when one labels a product as being organic, there are certain expectations that go with that label (and in many places legal requirements). If I say that my food is organic because I use organic fertilizer but not organic means of weed and pest control, the food that I am selling isn’t really organic. It doesn’t matter how I have decided to define the word “organic”; there is an established definition.
It is important to realize that the doctrine of the Trinity is a core point on which mainstream Christianity decides whether a group should be considered a cult or simply an organization with some erroneous teachings. Avoiding the cult label is useful when seeking converts from other churches.
In general, Christians are widely accepting of people moving from one Christian church to another. We may believe that our denomination’s teachings and practices are more aligned with the Bible than others’ beliefs, but the understanding that we share more in common (particularly on the details of Whom we worship and serve) than we have differences substantially reduces any opposition to a loved one changing churches.
In light of this understanding, avoiding the label of “cult” makes it much easier to convert Christians to Adventism. It is worth each person asking themselves, however, whether the ends justify the means. Going one step further, the concept that a good result justifies sinful, evil methods is a valuable theological element to consider.
What Adventists Hide
What about the argument from Adventist apologists that the Adventist doctrine of the Godhead is more accurate than the traditional doctrine of the Trinity? If that is really true, why won’t Adventists present that teaching in their Fundamental Beliefs or even within the books published by the church explaining these Fundamental Beliefs? Is there a single, honest reason to mislead others about the doctrines of one’s church?
For example, the Adventist belief statement could read something like, “Adventists believe in a Heavenly Trio that form the Godhead. This Trio consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The members of this Trio are co-equal and co-eternal. Adventists believe that the unity of the Godhead isn’t based on consubstantiality (being one in substance) but rather on being in complete agreement in purpose and will. The Godhead could be compared to a successful team, all working together for the same goal.” Something like this would clearly and directly convey what Adventists do and don’t believe about God.
I have heard Adventist apologists defend the vagueness of the Adventist Fundamental Belief on the basis of needing to be concise. The Westminster Confession (a statement of belief for many Reformed and Baptist churches) has a description that describes the nature of oneness in the Trinity as: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.” The Westminster Confession can clearly convey the concept of consubstantiality within a statement that is about the same length as the current Adventist belief statement. Therefore, one cannot legitimately conclude that the exclusion of the language is based on a need to fit the description in a short statement. Furthermore, the Fundamental Belief on the Trinity is one of the shortest descriptions within the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. The language of a Fundamental Belief statement isn’t drafted quickly and published; it is carefully considered, reviewed by many people, edited, revised, and polished before it is ever brought to a vote. It is safe to conclude that the words included or excluded from a belief statement are important to understanding the true teaching of the Adventist church.
You might wonder, “Why isn’t the Adventist difference in belief regarding the Trinity discussed more”?
I have wondered the same thing. Few churches and books aimed towards lay people currently teach about the Trinity in sufficient detail that the differences will become apparent. A growing number of pastors have limited theological training, and an unfortunate number of churches espouse an anti-doctrinal view, proclaiming that “doctrine divides”; as a result, many people are never exposed to solid biblical teaching on the Trinity or other core doctrines. Wayne Grudem goes so far to say in Systematic Theology that “perhaps many evangelicals today unintentionally trend towards tritheistic views of the Trinity, recognizing the distinct personhood of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but seldom being aware of the unity of God as one undivided being” (p 248).
If this error appears unintentionally in many evangelical writings and teaching, is it surprising that many former Adventists and lifelong evangelicals fail to spot the error? In too many cases, former Adventists have carried this twisted teaching of the Trinity with them after leaving the organization. They react to criticism of the Adventist doctrine of the Trinity by saying, or at least thinking, that the criticism is nit-picking. They believe that long ago, the Adventist church denied the Trinity, but that most of the Adventist church, outside of a few fringe groups, has moved beyond that and now teaches the true doctrine. They don’t understand why consubstantial, “being of one substance”, and “One Being” are so critical. Ironically, this is evidence of the effectiveness of the false teaching that occurred in Adventism.
Uncovering the Arianism
Let’s return again to the history of Arius and the debate that his teachings created within the early church. Grudem again provides a very concise description of Arian teaching: “Thus, though the Son is a heavenly being who existed before the rest of creation and who is far greater than all the rest of creation, he is still not equal to the Father in all of his attributes—he may even be said to be “like the Father” or “similar to the Father” in his nature, but he cannot be said to be “of the same nature” as the Father” (p 243).
This description bears a striking resemblance to the position that Adventism adopted in the twentieth century as it grew away from its nineteenth-century roots. As we compare the definition of Arianism in Grudem’s description with Adventism’s beliefs throughout its existence, we can conclude that Adventism didn’t grow out of Arianism during the first 50 years, but rather it grew solidly entrenched in Arianism during that time.
One author describes the events of the first Nicene Council as “The Alexandrians confronted the Arians with the traditional scriptural phrases which appeared to leave no doubt as to the eternal divinity of the Son. But, to their surprise, they were met with total acquiescence on the part of the Arians! Only as each scriptural test was propounded, it was observed that the Arians whispered and gesticulated to one another, evidently hinting that each scriptural phrase could be safely accepted, since it admitted of evasion. If the Arians were asked to assent to the phrase that the Son is “like the Father in all things,” they would agree, with the reservation that all men, as such, are “in the image and likeness of God.” When the Orthodox pointed out that the Son is called “the power of God”, this only elicited—after some whispering among the members of the Arian party—the explanation that the host of Israel also was spoken of as “dynamis Kyriou”—“the power of God”, and that even the locust and the caterpillar are called “the power of God” in the Holy Scriptures!” (http://orthodoxyinfo.org/StAthanasius.html)
This type of hedging is likely familiar to any apologist who has engaged Adventists in discussion of their beliefs. The Council of Nicaea identified that the one point where Arianists couldn’t feign agreement was on the issues of consubstantiality (homooúsios in the Greek). The concept of consubstantiality was a “line in the sand” that defined Trinitarianism and differentiated it from Arianism. Adventist theology has rejected this concept, which is why it is absent from any of their church writings on the Trinity.
Rejecting consubstantiality as necessary for a true understanding of the Trinity is a means of keeping one foot in each camp. Adventists claim to be Trinitarian while rejecting the actual elements that would make it Trinitarian. It may be incorrect to call the current Adventist position on the Trinity semi-Arian, based on the descriptions above. It would be far more accurate to conclude that Adventism remains firmly Arian. The majority of Adventist theologians would have likely been quite comfortable among those supporters of Arian and would have rejected the language opposing Arius.
To be fair, the word homooúsios (like the word Trinity) cannot be found in the Bible. It was a word that Trinitarians used to describe their belief. If homooúsios isn’t specifically stated, what is the basis for using the term?
The answer hinges on defining God as one. The Ten Commandments start with the proclamation “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one (Deut 6.4 ESV)”. If the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God we are left with the challenge of determining how we can then worship one God instead of three. If the three persons of the Godhead form a committee that consistently agrees, we are still worshipping three distinct gods who work together very closely (which is essentially the current Adventist definition of the Trinity).
Alternatively, one can conclude that only the Father is “fully” God, and that the Son and Holy Spirit are, in some way, less than fully God. There are several inherent problems with this approach. For instance, can we pray to a “lesser god”? Could we trust that a “lesser god” will save us? Is there anything in Scripture that would indicate that the Father finds it acceptable to worship other gods, even if they are “lesser gods”?
Clearly, the error of subordinationism is fraught with danger.
Homooúsios is the only answer that satisfies all of the criteria that:
- The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
- The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from each other;
- God is one, not three.
Father, Son, and Spirit are one in Being, not just in will. Three Persons, yet one Being, while mysterious and foreign to our limited experiences, is the only conclusion that fits all of the requirements. As a result, consubstantiality (homooúsios) is a reasonable attribute of God and a valid litmus test for Christian teaching.
Grudem isn’t the only one to call out more recent examples of tritheism. For example, in the Lutheran Book of Concord, specifically Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, 2nd edition, the errors of the “new anti-Trinitarians” is discussed on page 618:
“These people teach that there is not just one eternal divine essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They teach that, just as there are three distinct persons (God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), so each person has also its essence distinct and separate from the other persons.”
The consubstantial (one essence) nature of God is presented in both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Grudem’s Systematic Theology, the Westminster Confession, and the Book of Concord also clearly illustrate that the concept of consubstantiality is a core element of the Christian belief in the Trinity.
Importantly, I’m not presenting these creeds, confessions and books as being authoritative, or even accurate, expositions of the biblical teaching. That is for you to study and decide for yourself.
The point that I am making by referencing these other documents is that mainstream Christianity created the word “Trinity” to describe a belief that is described and defined within the documents of mainstream Christianity. The Adventist church does not use the word “Trinity” in the same way as the mainstream church. The Adventist doctrine is distinctly different from the Christian doctrine.
It is possible that the Adventist theologians who claimed the word “Trinity” to describe their belief were ignorant of the differences between their unique definition and the meaning of the word within Christianity. I think, however, it is far more likely (given that Adventist theologians are often intelligent, well-educated people who have advanced degrees outside of the Adventist educational system) that it is an intentional misuse of the word in order to convince others (members and/or leaders of other churches) that Adventism is a “normal” church. I believe these intelligent, well-educated leaders are being deceptive.
In addition to examining the fruit of the church through the transparency and honesty of their official statements, every doctrine about God flows from the understanding of the Godhead. The doctrines of Trinity versus Heavenly Trio have profound implications on our understanding of the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It relates back to the first Fundamental Belief on the nature of inspiration as the teachings associated with a Heavenly Trio requires shifting our attention away from the plain meanings of the specific words used in Scripture and relying on finding and understanding the thoughts behind those words.
Having established this explanation of Adventism’s hidden definitions of who God is, we will proceed to examine Adventism’s first five Fundamental Beliefs on the Doctrine of God.
- Our Journey Out of Adventism - July 27, 2023
- 30. Adventism’s New Earth - July 27, 2023
- 29. The Adventist Millennium - July 20, 2023