Hello friends, 

I thought you might be edified by a communication that I had with Joel Ridgeway. He was a non-trinitarian who became a trinitarian again and wrote a book entitled “Understanding the Godhead: My Personal Journey.” I have read his book but will not give a critique of it right now. Instead I will share a communication I had with this brother back in 2018 with a few slight edits for clarity sake. 

In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity: A Reply to Joel Ridgeway

Jason wrote: So what do you think Joel Ridgeway? Am I an heretic? Or should the SDA church accept me as a member in good standing? [End Quote]

Joel wrote: As for fellowship in  the SDA church, if you are willing to accept the 28 fundamentals then there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be accepted into fellowship. But I dare say that you won’t accept them, for reasons you have listed above.

If the church let people in to fellowship and leadership without some kind of doctrinal standard to keep consistency the church, the whole church would fragment. Thats why the 28 fundamentals are a test of fellowship. [End Quote]

Dear brother Joel,

I appreciate your honest answers my friend. While I am not surprised by it I am still a bit disappointed though. This is not because I reject the idea that the church must have some kind of doctrinal standard but because the church itself is contradictory on this particular doctrine. 

First up, if they enforced this consistently that would be one thing but they do not. I cannot tell you how many leaders I know who are in outright denial of certain truths but I digress. Yet an even more serious problem here than inconsistency in application is that this is really a form of traditional creedalism that has crept in. I say this because the very  doctrine in question is, by the admission of many trinitarians  themselves, an assumption! Do you not see the problem here? What cannot be proven by God’s Word has been made into a test question. This is traditional creedal thinking, beyond a doubt, and this is what I am protesting. Now let’s get into the meat of this subject.

Joel wrote: Jason Smith I respect your position, but I think its too close to Catholic theology for me to accept….[End Quote]

Oh dear, my brother! My position is too close to Catholic theology? To quote the proverb “physician heal thyself.” What I mean by this is that you are just as liable to this claim. Since you accept the SDA Fundamental belief on this subject I contend that you are actually closer than I am. Now while you might beg to differ let’s do a comparative analysis.

You see it is very common for certain SDA pro-trinitarian defenders to say that the SDA non-trinitarian position is the same as the Catholic trinity. You have not said that yourself but a similar thing because you claim my position is “too close.” 

The very great irony here is that my view is based on explicit statements of inspiration, whether God’s Word or the testimonies. The components that I hold to, some of which you reject, are viable Biblical possibilities and I can quote the Scriptures that show this. Yet, according to mainline Seventh-day Adventism, I am a supposed heretic. On the other hand, the position that my SDA trinitarian brethren hold to is not only quite similar to the Catholic trinity in certain aspects but some of them are not found in the Bible at all. And I say this because I have been asking numerous scholars and pastors to show them to me for years now and not an one has. Yet they are still accepted as SDAs in good standing. I kid you not! Max Hatton, a leading SDA trintiarian, is outright teaching that the testimonies of sister White are wrong and out of harmony regarding the trinity. Yet who is openly repudiating him? I know not any except for SDA anti/non-trinitarians. The irony here is almost overwhelming! 

As it stands right now, at least from my experiential perspective, you can believe what is not [explicit] in the Bible about God, Christ, or the Spirit and be quite fine within Seventh-day Adventism, so long as you say you adhere to the fundamentals. Yet, if you believe what is [explicit] in the Bible about God, Christ and the Spirit [and openly say as much] you can actually be kicked out of  Adventism, because you hold Scripture higher than the fundamental and cannot affirm them because of it.

Now I realize that this is an incredibly serious thing to say so please allow me to illustrate what I am speaking about. And this information should be very useful in helping  people to discern the similarities and differences between the Catholic trinity view, the SDA trinity view, and the SDA non-trinitarian view.

First up there is positive usage of the word “trinity” or the phrase “the doctrine of the trinity” itself. 

A) The Catholic position here is that they believe in the doctrine of the trinity. They use the word and phrase positively. No one can honestly dispute this. It’s all over the  place so I will not document it but take it for granted.

B) The SDA position here is that they too believe in the doctrine of the trinity. They use the word and  phrase positively. Again no documentation is needed here to prove this  labeling within Adventism.

Note: Here we see that both the Catholic view and mainline SDA view have their terminology in common for they both openly claim to believe in the doctrine of the trinity. Now while we might say this is a superficial comparison I would note that all I have done here is take the exact same approach that certain SDA pro-trinitarians frequently do with their non-trinitarian brethren. They say that because we believe that the pre-incarnate Son of God was “begotten” and Catholic theology teaches that He was “begotten” too, therefore it is the same doctrine.  They completely ignore the fact that our Catholic friends believe in eternal generation [thereby removing the material aspect of the begetting] whereas we do not. So if a superficial, surface level criticism is sufficient for them to use the guilty by association argument against us then I suppose it is equally valid for it to be used  against themselves. By their own standard I will evaluate them. And since you have said a similar thing then I will say this of you. Why shouldn’t your view be too similar to Catholicism too for anyone to accept? You use the same terminology here don’t you?

C) The SDA non-trinitarian position here is that we do not believe in the doctrine of the trinity. We do not use the word or the phrase to describe our belief.

Conclusion: The SDA trinity position is similar to the Catholic trinity position in this respect whereas the SDA non-trintiarian position is not.

[PS: Please do not feel obliged to  respond to this point unless you want to. I realize my own counterargument would effectively serve your purpose too but I’m just trying to open your eyes to the unfair argument we face continually.]

Secondly there is more than superficial similarity here though because the core concept is the same:

A) SDA Statement:

“There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship,  adoration, and service by the whole creation. (SDA Fundamental Belief #  2)

B) Catholic Statement:

“The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (“Catechism of the Catholic church line 261)

“The Catholic Church teaches that the fathomless mystery we call God has revealed himself to humankind as a Trinity of Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy  Spirit. The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of Catholic  faith. Upon it are based all other teachings of the Church…The Church  studied this mystery with great care and, after four centuries of  clarification, decided to state the doctrine in this way: in the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—truly distinct one from another (Handbook for Today’s Catholic pg 17, 18)

Note: Here we see deeper similarities don’t we? Please note that the “one God,” according to the SDA fundamental belief, is “a unity of three coeternal Persons” yet the statement continues on to refer to these Three with the singular pronouns “He” and “His.” That truly makes it sound like we are dealing  with one Divine Being. Now the Catholic statement refers to God as an  “himself” (singular pronoun too) and also refers to the “unity” of these Three. It’s the same core idea. 

The difference though is that the Catholic church openly teaches one Being while the SDA statement only implies it. However, the SDA statement does not overtly deny one Being and thus numerous SDA scholars teach it. Also, the SDA statement does not explain anything about the inner relationship of unity among these 3  Persons – how or why They are Father, Son and Spirit. That was actually an issue that was purposefully avoided when framing the belief. The result though is that one can explain the SDA belief as the same as the Catholic view and [this is accepatable within Adventism (more on this shortly).  Or then again you can say it is not that way and that is acceptable too.  The Catholic doctrine though explains a very specific relationship between the 3 as we touched upon, in part, previously (i.e. eternal generation and also eternal procession). The salient point here though is that there is a very clear similarity in concept here – both views  hold 3 Persons that are unified as one God and use singular pronouns.

SDA non-trinitarian statement:

1. 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. Psalms 139:7 – Whither shall I go from  thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

2. 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… (SDA Fundamental Principles  1872-1915)

Note: This statement of belief  about the “one God” is in harmony with explicit Biblical statements. The One God is the Father and the singular pronoun “His” is referring to Him alone. And He is the One who created all things by Jesus, who is His  Son. When we compare this with the two aforementioned beliefs we see disharmony.

Conclusion: The SDA trinity position is similar to the Catholic trinity position here whereas the SDA non-trinitarian position is not.

Moving on our third point will be assumption vs. explicit statements.

If you will, please notice, in the statement from the Catholic handbook that our Catholic friends are very up front that they “decided to state”  this doctrine after 4 centuries of clarification. Now if you know  anything about this process you know that the canon was closed so they were actually making assumptions that aren’t in the Word of God to define their trinitarian dogma. In fact, by Catholicism’s own admission,  it isn’t an explicit Bible doctrine yet that isn’t a problem for them  because they have another source of authority (tradition) which is actually viewed as superior (but that’s another study). Thus we read, as  a part of their challenge to Protestantism:

Catholic Statement:

“Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in  scripture . . . . But the Protestant Churches have themselves accepted such dogmas, as the Trinity, for which there no such precise authority in the Gospels” (“Assumption of Mary,” Life magazine, October 30, 1950, p. 51).

SDA Statement:

“The concept of the Trinity, namely the idea that the three are one, is not explicitly stated but only assumed.” (Handbook of SDA Theology page 138)

“The role of the trinity in a doctrine of God always raises questions. One reason is that the word itself does not appear in the Bible, NOR IS THERE ANY CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE IDEA.  But the Bible does set the stage for its formulation, and the concept  represents a development of biblical claims and concepts. SO EVEN THOUGH THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IS NOT PART OF WHAT THE BIBLE  ITSELF SAYS ABOUT GOD, IT IS PART OF WHAT THE CHURCH MUST SAY to safeguard the biblical view of God.” (Richard Rice, The Reign of God, An  Introduction to Christian Theology from a Seventh-day Adventist  Perspective’, page 89, ‘A constructive proposal’, 1985) 

Note: It is a fairly commonly held  belief, among trinitarians and even some SDA trintiarians, that the  doctrine is not explicit within God’s word but is an assumption. And Richard Rice actually echoes the Catholic sentiment in that it is what  the church says!

SDA non-trintiarian statement:

“You ask what we teach about the Trinity. Inasmuch as we find no such expression in the Scriptures, we do not teach anything about it. But as to the Being of God,-the  Godhead,-Divinity as revealed in the Father, the Word (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, we believe and teach just what the Bible says, and nothing else.  No man can by searching find out God. No creature can understand the  Almighty to perfection. The finite mind cannot comprehend infinity.  Therefore, in discussions about the Trinity, about the nature of God,  Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are manifestations of gross presumption  (E.J. Waggoner “The Present Truth 18, 6 [1902])

Note: Contrary to the trinitarian assumptive view, the non-trintiarian view claims to “believe and teach  just what the Bible says.” I would make that same claim myself. Now while I think that can be legitimately challenged on some points  (particularly my view of God and time and also the interpretation of  certain verses) I do find in general that the non-trinitarian belief  overwhelmingly goes by actual Biblical data instead of assumption. 

In brief illustration: 

1) One God is the Father (see 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Mark 12:32; John 17:3)

2) The pre-incarnate Son of God was begotten/set up/brought forth before God’s works, from everlasting,  before this world was (see Prov 8:22-25; Micah 5:2; John  1:14, 15)

3) The Son of God was the only begotten/firstbegotten before this world was. He was God’s appointed  Heir, the brightness of His glory and His express image (Heb 1:1, 2; see  plain reading of John 3:16; 1 John 4:9; Heb 1:6)

4) The Son is God (John 1:1; Heb 1:8; Matt 1:23)

5) The holy Spirit is the Spirit of  God and Christ (Isaiah 63:10; 1 Thess 4:8; Eph 4:30; Psalm 51:11; 1 Cor  12:3; Matt 10:19, 20; Mark 13:11; 1 Pet 1:10,11; 2 Pet 1:20, 21; John  3:34; John 17:21-24)

6) The holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (see John 15:26; Rev 5:6; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:5,6; Eph 2:18; Gal 4:6)

7) The holy Spirit has cognitive and emotive capabilities (Rom 8:27; Eph 4:30; 1 Cor 12:11)

8) The Bible mentions Father, Son and Spirit together thus indicating an heavenly trio (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4,5)

Now my understanding of some of  these verses might be disputable but when we look at the totality I  believe the case is fairly clear. Even some of the trinitarian brethren will admit as much. Take for instance this admission from brother Prewitt:

“My non-trinitarian friends are certainly right that there is only one God, the Father. (See John 17:2-3). The word God is used that way very many times in Scripture. And  in those many cases it means “the ultimate executive of the universe.”  So there is just one, and that is the Father.

“(There is another sense to the  word “God” that means simply “one with the attributes of Divinity.” That  sense would include Jesus as you see in John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:8. And  the Spirit is the third person of the “godhead” in that sense. That is  why our bodies are temples to the Spirit.)

“But we shouldn’t deny to our  non-trinitarian friends the pleasure of showing us that there is One True God, again, in that ultimate sense. (Eugene Prewitt “The Godhead  for Seventh-day Adventists)

You see it is this particular point that many of my trinitarian friends will not admit and I do think brother  Prewitt still has some room to grow here too. I believe he is correct that there is “one God” in the ultimate sense yet I do not think he understands completely why this is. My answer is because God, that is the Father, is the One of Whom are all things. And His begotten Son, who  is God too, is the One by Whom He made all things.

Conclusion:  The SDA non-trinitarian position can support its view with direct Biblical statements and it accepts the totality of the Bible’s witness.  The SDA trintiarian position does not appear to be able to do the same but is built upon assumption and even seemingly denies explicit Biblical  data. 

Where in God’s Word are we ever told that the “one God” is an  unity of 3 Persons? That is assumptive. And why should we deny the exclusive sense of the one God as seen in Scripture? Where are we ever told that the 3 collectively should be referred to as an “He.” While you can make an argument for corporate Divine nature being referred to in the singular due to the Father’s Headship that is not made clear in the fundamental belief and many, many SDA trintiarians actually deny the  pre-incarnate Headship of the Father! There goes that particular justification for “He” in the fundamental. Also, does not referring to the 3 Persons as an “He” and “His” create erroneous theological implications? I must concur with J.G. Bennet who issued the following  disclaimer about the wording of the fundamental belief back in 1980.

“J. G. BENNETT: The statement about  the Godhead and the Trinity goes on to use the pronoun He. Later as the  Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are discussed, we use the same pronoun  He. I do recognize and accept the Trinity as a collective unity, but I  would have a little difficulty in applying the pronoun He to the Trinity  or the Godhead. For me this has deep theological implications (Review  and Herald, April 23, 1980 pg 11)

Next up, there are the claims from both churches that the two hold this doctrine in common:

First I will document SDA claims.

A Statement by SDAs to the Protestant/Evangelical World:

I. IN COMMON WITH Conservative  Christians AND THE HISTORICAL PROTESTANT CREEDS, WE BELIEVE— …. 2. That  the Godhead, the Trinity, comprises God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Questions on Doctrine pg 21)

A Statement by a SDA to the World Council of Churches:

“The member churches of THE WORLD  COUNCIL OF CHURCHES AND SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTSISTS ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THE  FUNDAMENTAL ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AS SET FORTH IN THE THREE  ANCIENT SYMBOLS (Apostolicum, NICAENON-CONSTANTINOPOLITUM, ATHANASIUM).  This agreement finds expression in UNQUALIFIED ACCEPTANCE OF THE  DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY and the Two-Natures.” (So Much In Common, p. 107  (1973) Co-authored by B.B. Beach and Dr. Lukas Vischer- Faith and the  Order Secretariat of the WCC.)

A Statement by the SDA (BRI) to a Representative Group of Roman Catholics:

“Nature of God. A reading of the  above statements will show that with respect to their doctrine of God  SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ARE IN HARMONY WITH THE GREAT CREEDAL STATEMENTS  OF CHRISTENDOM, including the Apostles’ Creed, NICEA 325), and the  additional definition of faith concerning the Holy Spirit as reached in  CONSTANTINOPLE (381)”. (George Reid, Seventh-day Adventists: A Brief  Introduction to Their Beliefs, Biblical Research Institute)

A Statement by a SDA to the Methodists:

“…In an odd sort of way, the  somewhat isolated, anti-ecumenical Adventists, thanks to their  proselytizing success, BECAME ECUMENICAL IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WERE  ABLE, THROUGH THESE CONVERTS, TO TAP INTO THE GREAT TRADITION OF THE  ECUMENICAL CREEDS OF THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES. (Woodrow Whidden: Andrews  University Berrien Springs, MI (USA) A Paper Presented to The Tenth  Oxford Institute of Methodist Theol. Studies Working Group: History of  Wesleyan Traditions: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries August 12-22,  1997 Oxford University Somerville College

A Statement to SDA church members studying with other Christians:

In the book Studying Together by  Mark Finley we read that “the Godhead or the Trinity” is one point of  “doctrinal beliefs held” by SDAs “in common with” the following denominations:

“the Baptists… non-denominational  Bible churches …Catholics …Episcopalians ….Lutherans ….Methodists  ….Nazarenes….Presbyterians ….Seventh-day Baptists (see pgs 123, 127,  131, 143, 163, 164, 166, 182, 190, 204)

Yet these churches are creedal  trintiarians! And the Methodist creed and Presbyterians overtly teach  that God is without body and parts! Do SDAs really have this belief “in common with” them? Is that an impression we want to make?

A Statement to SDAs:

“…THE CATHOLIC SIDE RECOGNIZES in  the document the Christocentric character of our beliefs, AND ESPECIALLY  OUR BELIEF IN THE TRINITY, as well as ecclesiological identity of the  Church, a status affirmed by an act of the Polish Parliament. On our  part, we spoke of a need to change attitudes toward our denomination and  recognized the openness of the Catholic Church, especially in recent  times, toward the Bible,” Lyko explained. [“Adventist Church Cannot be  Treated as a Sect,” Say Adventists and Catholics in Poland, Feb, 14,  2000]

A Statement to SDAs:

“Adventists value unity just as God  does. Unity is grounded in the existence of God the Father, God the  Son, and God the Holy Spirit…. Unity is dear to the heart of God. The  whole plan of salvation demonstrates God’s determination to unite His  divided and dispersed family, which He created in His image. Unity is  grounded in the being of God who is Trinity: a unity in Trinity….  Seventh-day Adventists support Christian unity as they join the Triune  God who is determined to gather people He created in His image. (Ganoune  Diop “Why Adventists Participate in UN and Ecumental Meetings)

Now I will document the Catholic claim:

A statement to Catholics and others:

“Seventh-day Adventists AGREE WITH  MANY CATHOLIC DOCTRINES, INCLUDING THE TRINITY, with many Christ’s  divinity, the virgin birth, the atonement, a physical resurrection of  the dead, and Christ’s Second Coming. They use a valid form of baptism.  They believe in original sin and reject the Evangelical teaching that  one can never lose one’s salvation no matter what one does (i.e., they correctly reject “once saved, always saved”). (catholic.com/tract/seventh-day-adventism)

Note: Nowhere will you ever read from SDA non-trinitarians that our belief is the same as creedal  trintiarianism. That is completely impossible. Thus when certain SDA  pro-trinitarians use a superficial similarity to make this claim they are being highly illogical. Yet, as I have demonstrated above, their own doctrine actually has more similarities than the doctrine they oppose and numerous statements from both SDAs and Catholics affirm this. 

Not only that but there are a few statements from SDA leaders openly claiming that the two beliefs are identical! This has not only been published in various places but it has also been stated a few times by certain SDA ministers from the pulpit to the confusion of many. On top of all this I can pull up quotes from SDA trintiarian experts like Raoul  Dereden, Fernando Canale, Ekkehardt Mueller, Max Hatton and others who claim that the 3 Persons are indivisible or inseparable. That is nowhere  in God’s Word, at least that I can find, but it is in the Catholic creeds isn’t it? Thus, as a result, certain SDAs today believe it was impossible for the Son of God to lose His eternal existence even if He had sinned. This is a heresy close to that of the heresies of immaculate conception and impeccability (i.e. the idea that Christ’s humanity was such that He was incapable of sinning which therefore means He could have never have faced the wage of sin which is the 2nd death). Yet whether the Catholic view of the immaculate conception, the Protestant view of the impeccability or Christ or the SDA view of Christ incapable of losing His existence, all of these things contradict the Bible which tells us that the wages of sin is death,  that Christ became like us in all points and that He prayed to God as  the One who was able to save Him from death. In short, it’s a sip from  the cup of the wine of Babylon.

Conclusion: While SDAs interpret the fundamental belief differently (i.e. 3  separate God Beings vs. 1 indivisible God Being) the weight of evidence clearly indicates that the SDA trinity doctrine is much closer to the Catholic trinity doctrine than the SDA non-trinitarian doctrine. Thus any charge against SDA non-trintiarians, that their view is wrong because of a perceived similarity to the Catholic trinity is  simultaneously a tacit admission of guilt on the part of the one who  made it, presuming he or she is a SDA trinitarian. Also, the SDA  non-trinitarian view is built upon explicit Biblical data whereas the  SDA trinitarian view is built upon assumption. This is not to say that  every aspect of the SDA trinity view is false (there is certainly an  oneness between Father and Son taught in Scripture but it is not defined  and since Bible evidence suggests that the holy Spirit is the Spirit of  God and Spirit of Christ there must be an unity of sorts among the 3  Persons). However, with that said, its denial of the exclusive sense of  “one God” overtly taught in the holy Scriptures is where I believe it  denies God’s Word.

Appeal:  The title of this document is a famous phrase in Protestantism. The best information I have been able to find suggests that it traces back  to 17th century Lutherans but not one seems certain about that. Wherever or whenever it was composed I believe it reveals a great truth,  particularly relevant to this discussion. “In essentials unity, in  non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” None of us can explain the mystery of God, His Son and His Spirit. While I am convinced that the current SDA trinitarian belief, because it denies the exclusive sense of the “one God” that is clearly revealed in Scripture, is wrong, I am not convinced that it is all wrong. I am united with the brethren in terms of believing in the existence of Father, Son and Spirit but I believe the Scripture teaches a different conception for the 3 than is currently believed. Thus I believe that the church needs to return to  its previous statement which allowed for flexibility in terms of the conception of the heavenly trio. This will allow for all parties to form  their conceptions of God from His Word without a belief that serves as a creed that does not allow for the “one God” to be the Father and for  His Son to be the only begotten.

“Let the Scriptures be read in simple faith, and let each one form his conceptions of God from His inspired Word” {Lt214-1903, par.9}