Hello friends, I am considering to start an op that exposes some of the common distortions of the historical SDA position on the doctrine of the trinity. Take for example these statements that were made about D.M. Canright:
C.P. Bollman 1933:
“That the full force of these and of other texts making mention of the Holy Spirit as a personal being has always been recognized among us as a people, does not admit of serious question. In an article in the REVIEW AND HERALD of April 12, 1877, a worker who was at that time one of our leading preachers and writers said this:“Do we not all agree that in the providence of God, special light is now being given upon the subjects of the second advent near, the kingdom, the new earth, the sleep of the dead, the destruction of the wicked, the doctrine of the Trinity, the law of God, God’s holy Sabbath, etc. ? All Seventh-day Adventists will agree in these things.”
“…They do us wrong who deny that Seventh-day Adventists are Trinitarians (RH Aug 3, 1933)
W. Branson 1933:
“In chapter 1, page 25, paragraph 2 of his work, he professes to enumerate the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that differ from those held by other evangelical churches. His very first statement of these differences is, “They reject the doctrine of the Trinity.” Had Mr. Canright said that when he was among them there were some Seventh day Adventists who did not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, it might have been difficult to challenge his statement. But his sweeping indictment, involving, as it does, the whole denomination, is not true today, nor was it true when made. And this Mr. Canright well knew, for in an article which he published in the Review and Herald, the Seventh-day Adventist Church paper, under date of April 12, 1877, he himself had said:“Do we not all agree that in the providence of God, special light is now being given upon the subjects of the second advent near, the kingdom, the new earth, the sleep of the dead, the destruction of the wicked, the doctrine of the Trinity, the law of God, God’s holy Sabbath, etc.? All Seventh day Adventists will agree in these things.” (In Defense of the Faith 154, 155)
Now for those of you who may not know D.M. Canright was a SDA pioneer who apostasized. He became one of the foremost critics of the SDA church and after he left he published a book that accused SDAs of rejecting the doctrine of the trinity. He spread that claim far and wide and it followed Adventists wherever they went.
The quotes above were written in response to his criticisms. What Bollman and Branson did was distort a quote from Canright that was published in the Review and Herald April 12, 1877.
They did this about 13 to 14 years after his death. They tried to make it seem like Canright was supporting the doctrine of the trinity in Adventism by that quote. Bollman tried to make it seem like SDAs had always belived that the holy Spirit was a person. That, of course, is quite false. Branson was more circumspect but tried to make the quote seem like it was light that supported the doctrine of the trinity among Adventists back then.
These are clear examples of revisionist history. I could give you several other examples. It was a tactic used by certain SDA apologists in time past and it is still used by some today. Some do it ignorantly while others do it intentionally. I know the latter point for a fact because I have actually sought to correct some of the brethren before and have shown them the proof of their distortions but they continue lying anyway.
Now I am willing to give Bollman and Branson the benefit of the doubt. They were zealous to defend the church and that zeal may have blinded them to the truth about Canright’s quote. Thus they attempted to make his 1877 statement about “special light” on “the doctrine of the trinity” into an endorsement of the doctrine. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s actually quote Canright himself, one year later, in 1878 to properly understand what “special light” was being given upon the trinity doctrine.
“The Bible says nothing about the trinity. God never mentions it, Jesus never named it, the apostles never did. “Now men dare to call God, Trinity, Triune, etc.” — (D.M. Canright, Review and Herald, August 29th 1878, ‘The Personality of God’)
Obviously then Canright’s quote was not about special light on the doctrine of the trinity in favor of it but special light that causes one to reject it.
Now, unfortunately, that same distortion of the Canright quote is being repeated in our time. For example:
Derrick Gillespie 2011:
“If only he [James White] could see what fully happened later in 1892 in his church, and in the written expression of even his very own wife… A COMING CHANGE WHICH BEGAN TO BE SIGNATLED, SOMEWHAT, JUST BEFORE HIS DEATH; SIGNALED PROBABLY BY THE FOLLOWING HONEST HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF D.M. CANRIGHT BEFORE HE LEFT THE SDA CHURCH, D.M. Canright said, in an article which h published in the Review and Herald, the Seventh-day Adventist Church paper, under the date of April 12, 1877:
“Do we not all agree that in the providence of God, special light is now being given upon the subjects of the second advent near, the kingdom, the new earth, the sleep of the dead, the destruction of the wicked, the doctrine of the Trinity, the law of God, God’s holy Sabbath, etc.? All Seventh day Adventists will agree in these things.“
Notice how all the things listed here by Canright in 1877, “subjects” he then declared that “special light” was then “shining upon” them are doctrinal subjects Adventism came to accept eventually and within Mrs. White‘s lifetime, but each in their own time? ….(Indisputable Facts About the Trinity Doctrine in Adventism!!)
That quote from Mr. Gillespie leaves a very false impression on the reader. It makes it seem as if Canright was referring to special light that was bringing the doctrine of the trinity into Adventism. In fact, one of his readers reached that very conclusion after reading it.
Wendell Slattery 2016:
“Derick, I have been reading your document Trinity – Indisputable facts in Adventism, and I noticed something which I think is significant that you quoted from Canright. You said this was written before Canright left the church, so this statement of his is very significant. Here is what you quoted from Canright on page 10:
“Do we not all agree that in the providence of God, special light is now being given upon thsubjects of the second advent near, the kingdom, the new earth, the sleep of the dead, the destruction of the wicked, the doctrine of the Trinity, the law of God, God’s holy Sabbath, etc.? All Seventh day Adventists will agree in these things.”
This is very significant because the date of this quote is in the year 1877. Think about it. He said that light of the Trinity was being shed upon them now. Could it be that he was talking about light from within the church rather than just what he was saying?
I cannot be sure, but this may be worth considering. This may be one of the earliest evidences that the Trinity was being taught by some in the church in 1877 (hopefully more than just Canright). [December 6, 2016 End Quote]
You can see how the falsification of history spreads can’t you? I don’t know who said it first but there’s a saying that “a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” This appears to be the case here, even as this next example will show.
Chris Chung 2022:
“Ok, great. I’m glad we are on the same page. Now, as I have studied the issue out, I noticed that the word “trinity” although it is rejected unanimously by the pioneers in one context, under other contexts, it seemed to be used favorably. For instance, prior to his apostasy, Canright published in the RH in 1877: “Do we not all agree that in the providence of God, special light is now being given upon the subjects of the second advent near, the kingdom, the new earth, the sleep of the dead, the destruction of the wicked, the doctrine of the Trinity, the law of God, God’s holy Sabbath, etc.? All Seventh day Adventists will agree in these things.” Review and Herald April 12, 1877 [End Quote]
As you can see Canright’s quote is being used as if it was speaking “favorably” about “the word ‘trinity‘” but that isn’t the case at all.
Unfortunately there is a serious distortion of the history of the development of the trinity in Seventh-day Adventism. Modern day defenders are basically having the same problem that A.W. Spalding had.
“D.E. Robinson says that you are the first one he knows of to teach the straight doctrine of the trinity, in Australia…..There is to me a twilight zone in this history which I wish to have lighted. Did all the fathers [SDA pioneers] sin? And if so, did they repent? How prove the unity of the faith in our succession if our pioneers were Arians and we are Athanasians? Andreasen is very positive that “Waggoner must be repudiated,” which I understand means “condemned.” I am slow to censure any of the fathers, but I am ready to make situations as clear as they appear to me. In the beginning of my writing I did not realize that the question of the trinity among us was of so serious a nature… (A.W. Spalding to H.C. Lacey, June 2, 1947)
Now Lacey replied to Spalding:
“How prove the unity of the faith in our succession if our pioneers were Arian, and we are Athanasians?” Well now, the answer is obvious – to you, as well as to the rest of us; so, let us leave it there! (H.C. Lacey to A.W. Spalding, June 5, 1947)
Yet Spalding did not “leave it there” but instead published the following statement in 1949 claiming that the pioneers found the ineffable oneness of God in the trinity. You can read it for yourself:
“The pioneers dug for truth as for hidden treasure. James White, Joseph Bates, Hiram Edson, John N. Andrews, and others quarried out the building stones to make the temple… they found the ineffable mystery of the oneness of God in the Trinity: the Father of all, the Son who is the Saviour of mankind, and the Holy Spirit through whom the grace of God is ministered to men. (A.W. Spalding Captains of the Host pg 214)
This is revisionist history. More examples to come.
Additional Materials
