In recent years a great number of Adventists have come to realize that Mrs. White and most if not all of the early Adventist Pioneers were not Trinitarian, and in fact taught strongly against the doctrine. Various quotes from men such as James White, J.N. Andrews, Uriah Smith, and others forcefully assert the Trinity as a papal error, and have played a strong part in persuading many Adventists to abandon it.
Many, however, have not stopped there. Among the various non-Trinitarian believers many independent ministers and self-sent teachers have arisen, gathering funds and followers while teaching that the question of Trinity vs non-Trinity is to be a last day test. Several now assert that either Trinitarianism or non-Trinitarianism is worthy of disfellowship, that the “One True God” message is a test of Christian character, and that disagreement on this theological question means a violation of the first commandment.
Recent accusations among Adventists disagreeing on the nature of the Godhead have included “commandment-breaking”, “Ba’al worship”, and “serving a false God.” Some have asserted it to be the mark of the beast; others have accused trinitarians of being pagans, or serving Satan impersonating the Holy Spirit.
It is incontrovertible that early Adventist leadership was vocally non-Trinitarian in their doctrine; what did they have to say about Trinitarian Sabbath-keepers in their day – specifically, the Seventh-day Baptists? Did the prophetess of God regard them as commandment-keeping Christians or avoid them as servants of a false God? Was the trinity a test of fellowship for James and Ellen White? What about the other pioneers, or the church as a whole while it was walking in the light of God?
Below is an incomprehensive timeline of statements showing the words and teachings of the same men and inspired woman on the doctrine of the Godhead, compared with their words and teachings on the status of Sabbathkeepers who believed in the Trinity at or around the same time. May those who would use the words of Mrs. White and the Pioneers to sow unnecessary division take heed of their actions, their context, and their own spirits in light of the evidence.
| Pioneers on the Trinity Doctrine | Pioneers on Sabbath-keeping Trinitarians |
| “The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, 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.” [J. N. Andrews, RH March 6, 1855] | 1855 | “Art. 1st. We believe in one only living and true God, who mysteriously exists in Father Son and Holy Ghost, and that these three are one. . . The above creed had been the basis of this [Seventh-day Baptist] church for over twenty-five years, and never was so treated before, to the certain memory of some of the congregation.” [RH February 20, 1855] |
| “The “mystery of iniquity” began to work in the church in Paul’s day. It finally crowded out the simplicity of the gospel, and corrupted the doctrine of Christ, and the church went into the wilderness. Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation. The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors [James White, The Review and Herald, February 7, 1856] | 1856 | |
| “Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one as he was one with his Father. This prayer did not contemplate one disciple with twelve heads, but twelve disciples, made one in object and effort in the cause of their master. Neither are the Father and the Son parts of the “three-one God.” They are two distinct beings, yet one in the design and accomplishment of redemption.” [James White, Life Incidents, p. 343] | 1868 | |
| 1870 | “On motion of Elder J. N. Andrews, Professor Allen, delegate from the Seventh-day Baptists, was unanimously received as a member of this body. The following resolution was then read, and after interesting remarks from Elder J. N. Andrews, Professor Allen, Elders Cottrell, Waggoner, Bates, and White, was unanimously adopted. SEVENTH-DAY BAPTISTS RESOLVED, That we cordially welcome the representative of the Seventh-day Baptist denomination, a people whom we esteem for their adherence to the Sabbath of the Lord. That we express an earnest desire to maintain with them relations of Christian friendship, and, as far as the circumstances of our respective bodies permit, to co-operate with them in leading our fellow-men to the sacred observance of the fourth commandment. On motion, the foregoing resolution was unanimously adopted by the entire congregation. The following resolution was then offered by Brother Andrews, and after remarks by Brother White, and other brethren, it was amended by adding, “with liberty, if he shall be unable to attend, to appoint his alternate,” and as amended, was unanimously passed. RESOLVED, That we appoint Elder James White as a delegate to the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference, with liberty, if he should be unable to attend, to appoint his alternate.” [8th Annual Session of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (1870), p. 48] | |
| 1871 | “It was my pleasure in the month of September last, to meet with the Seventh-day Baptist brethren in their General Conference; and I am happy to be able to say to you, that I there received a brotherly and cordial greeting–a greeting such as I hope will be extended here to Brother Wardner. I there met with a large body of Sabbath-keepers, who, unlike us, have kept the Sabbath from their childhood; and there is nothing that gives me greater pleasure than to know that the two bodies of Sabbath-keepers are drawing together. I expressed there the hope that we might be like the two wings of the same army; that instead of acting in a manner to thwart each other, we may turn our weapons against the common enemies of the truth, and co-operate together in forwarding the great cause of Sabbath reform.” [J.N. Andrews, 10th Annual Session of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (1871), p. 57-59] “The remark has been made by Brother Wardner that ‘in all practical truth we are a unit.’ Thank God for that. These are the main pillars. In some points of theory we may see an importance that our Seventh-day Baptist brethren do not see. We are not inclined to urge these. And we will try to remember that, on these points, they do not differ with us any further than we differ with them. The spirit of brotherly kindness, of Christian courtesy, of charity and liberality of feeling is a great deal more in harmony with the Spirit of God, than is the reverse, as manifested in contention and debate; and we shall be much more likely to be led together by the Spirit of God while cherishing happy relations than while cherishing a spirit of contention that might gender strife and division.” [James White, 10th Annual Session of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (1871), p. 57-59] | |
| 1873 | “RESOLVED, That we recognize in the Seventh-day Baptists a people whom God has highly honored in making them in past ages the depositaries of his law and Sabbath, and that we desire, so far as practicable, to co-operate with them in leading men to the conscientious observance of the commandments of God.” [12th Annual Session of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (1873), p. 76] NOTE: Among the delegates voting / presiding at this Conference were J.N. Andrews, J.S. White, Uriah Smith, S.N. Haskell, and J.H. Waggoner. | |
| 1875 | “Do you think the cause would suffer much and the disappointment be very great if we did not return to attend the Michigan camp meeting? We did think we ought to attend the Seventh-Day Baptist general meeting. For two years there has not been any one of our people to represent our cause in their yearly gathering.” [Ellen G. White, Lt 47, 1875] | |
| 1876 | “ON the broad platform of the divine law, and redemption from its transgression through the death and mediation of the divine Son, both the Seventh-day Baptists and the Seventh-day Adventists stand in general agreement. Here are the great tests of the Christian life, and a fitness for Heaven; and besides these there are no others. The principal difference between the two bodies is the immortality question. The S. D. Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the trinitarian, that we apprehend no trial here. And as the practical application of the subject of the Gifts of the Spirit to our people and to our work is better understood by our S. D. Baptist brethren, they manifest less concern for us on this account. But the views which both bodies entertain respecting free investigation and the right to personal opinion forbid any restriction whatever to be laid upon each other in the proper advocacy of the sentiments in which both cannot at present agree. We recommend, however, that there be no controversy between the two bodies. The differences between us are of such a nature, and we have in common so broad a field of labor with those who differ with us respecting the fundamentals, upon which hangs the destiny of a world lying in wickedness, that Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists cannot afford a controversy on doctrines which neither regard as tests of Christian character. . . If ministers or members from the Seventh-day Baptists regard it their duty to come with us, under the impression that they can serve the cause of God better, we shall give them a place with us. . . Nothing could have given us greater pleasure than to have responded to this, and similar courtesies by speaking freely to this people upon the great fundamentals of our common faith—the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ.” [James White, RH October 12, 1876] “In the divine law, and in the gospel of the divine Son, are the tests of Christian character. And it is with an ill grace that those who have been splitting up into petty sects during the nineteenth century over forms of church government, matters of expediency, free and restricted salvation, trinity and unity, whether we may sing any good hymn in church, or only the Psalms of David, and other matters which constitute no test of fitness for Heaven, now pounce upon us, and display any amount of religious horror, simply because we regard strict conformity to the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus the only true test of Christian character.” [James White, RH October 12, 1876] | |
| “The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, ‘Let us make man in our image?’” [James White, RH Nov 29, 1877] | 1877 | “And we further recommend that Seventh-day Adventists in their aggressive work avoid laboring to build up Seventh-day Adventist churches where Seventh-day Baptist churches are already established. . . For more than twenty years we have urged our people to treat the S. D. Baptists with great respect. We stood with Elder Andrews in the first Address from our General Conference to theirs, in 1868, which brought about relations enjoyed since that time by both bodies. . . We cannot shut our doors against the S. D. Baptists. And if under convictions of duty they wish to change church relations, we cannot refuse to receive them. But we do recommend that our preachers choose other localities for labor to raise up churches besides those where the S. D. Baptists have churches, and we have none. . . Both bodies have been called into existence in the direct providence of God, and both have places to fill. The wide harvest field is before them, and each should labor to bring numerical strength to themselves without weakening the other.” [James White, RH August 16, 1877] |
| 1878 | “It is deeply to be regretted that there are only two of all, Christian denominations, the Seventh-day Baptists and the Seventh-day Adventists, that hallow the Sabbath of the Lord. . . Between these two bodies there are some doctrinal differences; but in practice they are not essentially different. . . It is therefore inevitable that there should be controversy between those who obey and those who transgress the fourth commandment. But is it necessary that such should be the case between the two denominations that seek to obey all the precepts of the law of God? We think not. In several doctrinal points they differ, but in the matter of duty toward God they are agreed. In practice they are substantially one. . There are two churches, the remnants of the ancient Seventh-day Baptist churches of England. We would gladly see these little churches strengthened and enlarged. There must not be strife between us; for we are brethren.” [J.N. Andrews, ST November 7, 1878] | |
| “What a contradiction in terms is found in the language of the Trinitarian creed: “In unity of this head are three persons, of one substance, power and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” There are many things that are mysterious, written in the word of God, but we may safely presume the Lord never calls upon us to believe impossibilities. But creeds often do.” [A. J. Dennis, ST May 22, 1879] | 1879 | “Elder James White introduced the following preambles and resolutions:– WHEREAS, The Seventh-day Baptists have for many years observed, taught, and defended the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and are known to us through their delegates to our General Conference as a body of Christian Sabbathkeepers possessing a good degree of culture, liberality of sentiment, and Christian forbearance, therefore RESOLVED, That we deem them worthy of our respect and love, and that it is for the interest of the Sabbath cause that the two bodies of Christian commandment-keepers labor to sustain friendly relations to each other. . . These were unanimously adopted.” [James White, 18th Annual Session of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (1879), p. 167-168] |
| “Many theologians really think that the Atonement, in respect to its dignity and efficacy, rests upon the doctrine of the trinity. But we fail to see any connection between the two. To the contrary, the advocates of that doctrine really fall into the difficulty which they seem anxious to avoid. Their difficulty consists in this: They take the denial of a trinity to be equivalent to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Were that the case, we should cling to the doctrine as tenaciously as any can; but it is not the case. They who have read our remarks on the death of the Son of God know that we firmly believe in the divinity of Christ; but we cannot accept the idea of a trinity, as it is held by Trinitarians, without giving up our claim on the dignity of the sacrifice made for our redemption.” [J. H. Waggoner, The Atonement In The Light Of Nature And Revelation, pp. 164, 165] | 1884 | |
| 1886 | “Why should not the Seventh-day Adventist and Seventh-day Baptist harmonize? Why not co-operate? Why not unite in the work and become one without compromising any principle of truth, and without damage to any interest worth preserving? Both are in defense of the law of God. The Bible and the Bible alone is to be the rule of our faith, the sole bond of our union, and they who evade the truth of the Bible will not desire more intimate relationship.” [Ellen G. White, SSW, October 1, 1886] | |
| “We have no sympathy with the speculations in which many indulge in regard to the nature or order of the Holy Spirit. Whether a person, or an emanation from the Father and Son, as some teach, or a manifestation of the power of God, as others argue, we have no opinion to offer. They who affirm that the Spirit is a person, differ materially among themselves as to the exact definition of the term person, and therefore the mere affirmation settles nothing even in their own minds. The being of God is incomprehensible. We accept the fact, and there we stand; reverence forbids that we should advance any further.” [J.H. Waggoner, Life Sketches of Elder James White and Mrs. Ellen G. White, 1888 ed., pp. 408-409 (Appendix)] | 1888 |