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 believed that the holy Spirit was a person. That, of course, is quite false. Branson was more circumspect but tried to make Canright’s 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 SIGNALED, 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:
“And if so, did they repent?” Not so as you could notice it, I fear…. “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)
In other words, Lacey was saying that you could not do this so it was best to leave the matter alone. 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
2 Responses
Joel presented many Biblical texts supporting the true Adventist doctrine of Trinity. The Bible did not mention the word itself but the concept is well established in the Bible- a preponderance of evidence even in the Spirit of Prophecy and way back with Cyprian, Tertullian, etc.
The Anti trinitarian stance. is similar to Catholic in that Catholic believes in eternal regeneration of the Son. Iwouldy say even closer to the J witnesses for teaching that the Son has a beginning and teaching a lesser God to the Father.
So to say that Joel’s concept of Trinity is not Bible-based is a gross misreprentation.
Hello Rudy,
Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation in your reply. For example, you claim that the anti-trinitarian stance is similar to the Catholic view in that they believe in eternal generation of the Son. You then say it is even closer to the Jehovah’s Witnesses for teaching that the Son has a beginning and teaching that He is a lesser God to the Father. This is very much incorrect on both fronts.
First let’s deal with the claim that it is similar to Catholicism. Non-trinitarians, such as myself, believe in a material begetting of the Son of God. We believe that before all creation, some of us even say before time itself, God begot a Son of His own substance or material. Now let’s compare that to the Catholic belief.
“This “generative” procession is one of “begetting,” but not in the same way a dog “begets” a dog, or a human being “begets” a human being. THIS IS AN INTELLECTUAL “BEGETTING,”and fittingly so, as a “word” proceeds from the knower while, at the same time remaining in the knower. Thus, this procession or begetting of the Son OCCURS WITHIN THE INNER LIFE OF GOD. THERE ARE NOT “TWO BEINGS” INVOLVED; rather, two persons relationally distinct, WHILE EVER-REMAINING ONE IN BEING. (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/explaining-the-trinity)
You should be able to see the difference here. Our Catholic friends spiritualize away the literal aspect of the Son’s begetting. They turn it into an intellectual begetting that is all supposedly occurring within the inner life of one Divine Being. In other words, there is no distinct and separate tangible existence for God and His Son as bodily personages. The literal forms of God and His begotten Son are negated. Don’t take my word for it. Here again are our Catholic friends explaining it themselves, quite explicitly.
“God is spirit, and as such HE DOESN’T HAVE A BODY (Lk 24:39: “A spirit does not have flesh and bone.”). When the Bible speaks of our being made in his image, then, it doesn’t mean we’re like him physically. (https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-god-have-a-body-like-ours)
“The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple (“incomposite”) nature—that is, a nature containing no parts. Since all bodies extend through space and thus can be divided into parts, IT IS CLEAR THAT GOD CANNOT HAVE A BODY. (https://www.catholic.com/tract/god-has-no-body)
Now let’s deal with the claim that it is even closer to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Again, non-trintiarians such as myself believe that the Son of God was begotten prior to the commencement of time and that, as a Son begotten of God, He is infinitely differentiated from sons by creation, like angels. Ellen White uses that language in Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895. The Son is actually of one substance, being the very same material as God Himself and thus is 100% Divine in nature. Thus, to use James White’s words, God did not say to an inferior Let Us make man in Our image after Our likeness.
Now, our Jehovah’s Witness friends believe otherwise. They hold that the pre-incarnate Christ was God’s “first creation”and they explicitly say that He was “created by God alone” (https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Worship-the-Only-True-God/Jehovahs-Purpose-Attains-Glorious-Success/)
Again, when it comes to the expression that Christ is of “one substance with the Father” our JW friends say “this does not even once occur in the Holy Bible….To the contrary, the Bible speaks of Christ as “the beginning of the creation by God,” and says that “the head of Christ is God.” (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1969521). In other words, they imply that Christ is of a different substance, being a created being.
Again, you should be able to see the difference here. It’s quite clear. So we must respectfully reject your characterizations here as false because that it what they truly are. We could also spend some time demonstrating how the concept that you claim is well established in the Bible with a preponderance of evidence in the Spirit of prophecy, even Tertullian and Cyprian is not true. It is often the case that claims are made but the corresponding evidence is not given. If you go back and read deeper, Tertullian for example, you will discover that he was in no way presenting what SDAs say today is the true doctrine of the trinity.
I can only encourage you to become more factual in your presentation. Even Joel Ridgeway himself has since changed his view from a Sonship that was totally dependent upon the incarnation of Christ to a new view of an eternal Sonship. Ask him yourself if you do not believe me. This change of belief, on his part, which has occurred since I first wrote this op in response to him, is certain proof that his original trinitarian conception was incorrect. Even now I still believe it needs to be adjusted so as to align with what the Bible and Testimony of Jesus teach about the identity of the one God, His Son, and His Spirit. If you like to know more on these matters then feel free to ask.