Trinity in Early Adventism: Some Corrective Notes

koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

8 October 2009

As we speak, there are forces in the USA that try to implement Arianism in the Adventist Church. Just a few weeks ago a document has reached me of someone who is influenced by the views of Herbert Armstrong and the Church of God (who trace their roots back to one of the three dissenting groups after the Millerite dissappointment (R. W. Schwartz, Light Bearers to the Remnant [Boise Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing, 1979], 57). These forces try to cut out Ellen White from having a say as to what the position should be and claim that one should only use the Bible but their own exegesis of crucial passages in the Scriptures that gives hints about this doctrine, lacks thoroughness.

George R. Knight is not a professor of Theology although he was used in that capacity for some years at the Seminary. He has a strong background in Education with his doctoral degree from the University of Houston, a EdD in 1976. This is crucial in dealing with how Knight treats data of church history and also exegesis of the Scriptures. It does not disqualify him from speaking on these issues, but it places a high premium of expectation to satisfy these demands necessary to evaluate properly.

"Knight joined the Adventist church through the ministry of Ralph Larson. He completed a BA at Pacific Union College, an MA and MDiv from Andrews University, and in 1976 an EdD from the University of Houston. "Knight originally taught in the School of Education. He had a number of doctoral students who did biographical studies of early Adventist educators. He gradually developed an interest in Adventist history that led to his transition to the Church History department in the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary. His 1985 book, Myths in Adventism, put him on the map in Adventist circles and he began to rise to prominence in the church. During the 1990s Knight became particularly well-known for his fresh insight and popularization of Seventh-day Adventist history. By the year 2000 he was the best-selling Adventist author in the denomination with a steady stream of doctoral students and graduate assistants who helped him do research for his books. He was also featured as one of the keynote speakers at the 2000 Seventh-day Adventist General Conference Session held in Toronto, Canada. In 2005 he announced his plans for retirement that occurred during the summer of 2006. He has already begun work on the first volumes of a devotional commentary of the entire Bible."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Knight

A new book or series came out by Knight in 2008 (George Knight, Lest we forget : daily devotionals [Hagerstown, MD : Review and Herald Publishing, 2008]). 

One of his series deals with the topic of the Trinity in Adventism. It is a very welcome and relevant topic for these days   in the light of the misunderstanding of the topic in some circles in other denominations, like the Calvinist Dutch Reform Church in South Africa with views recently published in a newspaper by the proffessor emeritus in Systematic Theology, Adrio Konig, a student of G. Berkhouwer at the Free University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. He was heavily criticized for this views.

There are some points that Knight mentioned in his devotional thoughts on the subject that may need added explanation. The reason we need added information is that a more complete picture of what happened in the pioneer years will guard us from jumping to conclusion too hastely about them.

Anyone who has not yet purchased the book by Dr. Eric Claude Webster, Crosscurrents in Adventist Christology (Berrien Springs, MI:  Andrews University Press, 1984 reprinted in 1992), should do so. Webster was my teacher as well as his wife, at Helderberg College. He wrote this dissertation at the Dutch Reform Calvinistic seminary at Stellenbosch University. Dr. Raoul Dederen of Andrews University was his outside examiner. Born in 1927 he and his wife is publishing the Signs of the Times journal in South Africa. A very thorough researcher and scholar, he does not left one stone unturned, regardless the outcome, but he also does not tollerate a careless or reckless presentation of opinions that may harm the truth. This book is the source of our notes.

1. Arianism was not the majority view of early Adventism but the minority view

Webster also went over the data regarding the Trinity in early Adventism (Webster 1984: 33-47). He used quite a variety of interesting sources but indicated "The Christological stance of most of these proponents of the message [early Adventist message in the Millerite Movement] was trinitarian but in some cases the position advocated on Christ and the Holy Spirit was unorthodox" (Webster 1984: 34 citing L. E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, Vol. IV, [Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1954], 148-182) . After reading an online article on one of the founders of the Church of God and their early years, this researchers thinks Webster is correct in his view that those who remained to continue the Adventist message in line with William Miller, was trinitarian. It was one of the bones of contention that they had with Millerite Adventism, that they did not want to forsake Trinitarianism.  It was only a minority who remained unorthodox (Arianists) in their view on the Trinity.

2. Uriah Smith did not remain a classical Arianist

Uriah Smith was an Arianist but did not remain one. In Movement of Destiny 1971: 157-174, Froom traces the semi-Arian views of Uriah Smith from 1865-1898. He compared Smith's  Thoughts on the Revelation as the author discussed Revelation 1:4. He notes Smith's  modification of view by comparing the first, second and third editions of 1865, 1875, and 1881. Smith died in 1903 and Froom stated that in the 1944 revision of Smith's book this passage, together with all others containing Arian  concepts, were permanently deleted (Webster 1984: 35 at footnote 87).

3.  James White changed his Arian view by 1877

James White was also one of the leaders of the Adventist movement and he came out of the Christian connection that held Arian views regarding Christ. In some early statements White showed his Arian bias (Froom 1954: 175-176) but in an article of 1877 one can see that he is not Arian (James White, "Christ equal with God" Review and Herald, November 29, 1877: 172).

4. Practical and logistic reasons for errors earlier

Webster pointed out "In the formative years of the movement the thrust of the message was eschatological and with the  emphasis on the imminence of the second advent, time was not taken for definitive statements on Christology" (Webster 1984: 34).

5. Ellen White was not an Arian

In Ellen White's book, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1 (1858) Ellen White reveals that she was not an Arian but one who believed Jesus to be God:

"They [Satan and his angels] rebelled against the authority of the Son of God . . . " (E G White, Spiritual Gifts,   The Great Controversy Between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and His Angels, Vol. I, Battle Creek, Michigan: Published by James White, 1858]: 17-18). This is very early in the days of the movement.

Was Ellen White saying in 1858 that Jesus is the highest angel and still the Son of God in that sense? Webster cancelled this possibility by drawing our attention to chapter III, "The Plan of Salvation" of Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1:  "The angels prostrated themselves before him. They offered their lives. Jesus said to them that he should by his death save many; that the life of an angel could not pay the debt.  His life alone could be accepted of his Father as a ransom for man" (Spiritual Gifts 1858: 24).

6. How strong was Arianism in early Adventism?  Froom versus Gane

Leroy E. Froom gave evidence in the revised edition of Movement of Destiny (1978): 148-187 of the early views of Adventists on Arian and semi-Arian ideas. Froom indicated that the Arian view was in a minimal position among the early pioneers in 1958. Erwin Roy Gane differed from Froom in 1963 by thinking that the number were much higher than Froom thought. Gane has an article or overview of his views online at http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/gane-thesis/e-gane02.htm.

Gane wrote a thesis for Master of Arts at the SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Michigan, USA, with the title: The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G White Answer, 1963. Webster made an analysis of Gane's position and said: "While Gane comes out in strong support of Ellen White's anti-Arian views against this background it should be noted that his evidence is taken mainly from the period 1890 and beyond (see Gane's thesis pp. 67-101). Gane has also compared  Ellen White's presentation of Christ in The Spirit of Prophecy (Vol. 1 [1870]) with that in Patriarchs and Prophets (1890) as [Webster] has done in [his] dissertation. But it should be noted that Gane overlooked the germinal statement of 1858 in Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1" (Webster 1984: 72 footnote 25). The result is thus that Gane did not investigate early enough on the issue as far as Ellen White's views are concerned. Webster concluded on Ellen White: "It is quite remarkable that while a form of semi-Arianism was evident in Adventism up to the end of the 19th century that Ellen White was able to avoid the pitfall" (Webster 1984: 72). What grew about Ellen White's understanding of the subject, is not a swing from Arianism to Trinity but from writer less clearer to more clearer (see also Webster 1984: 72 at footnote 26).

End item