[A review of this article by Robert Scott – see comments interleaved below. The purpose of this review is to attempt to help anyone who desires salvation to know the truth that God has revealed necessary for salvation. There is error. There is deception. Eternal life is at stake.]
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2012/04/ellen-white-and-the-personhood-of-the-holy-spirit
Ellen White and the Personhood of the Holy Spirit – Ministry Magazine, April 2012
This article explores Ellen G. White’s understanding of the Holy Spirit against the background of early Seventh-day Adventist theology and experience.
Merlin D. Burt, PhD, is director for the Center for Adventist Research at an Ellen G. White Estate branch office and associate professor of Church History at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Berrien Springs, Michigan, United States.
[This article is a good example of misdirection and very poor scholarship, assuming that scholarship includes not only deep knowledge but a responsible presentation of such knowledge. Dr. Merlin Burt does appear to possess a thorough knowledge of the subject, but he demonstrates a highly irresponsible and misleading presentation of this knowledge to promote a contested theological understanding. If one is committed to taking personal responsibility for their own convictions, it will be helpful to study the structure and formulation of this article. It is helpful in exposing false teachings by learned men. God has revealed to us that we are individually free and responsible for our beliefs and choices. Choose this day whom you will serve. Your eternal life depends on it. It’s an open book test.]
[Understand that this article is presented in opposition to what is generally referred to as the non-trinitarian belief within Adventism about the identity of God which contradicts the modern Adventist trinitarian belief. At issue in this particular article is the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Both trinitarians and non-trinitarians maintain that the Holy Spirit is a person with a personality. However, this article implies that only the trinitarian belief acknowledges the personhood and personality of the Holy Spirit and very wrongly implies that this validates the “Trinity God” while at the same time disproving what non-trinitarians profess as the One True God. This is known as a logical fallacy – a straw-man argument – to assert something not claimed by the other side and then proceed to attack it. This is referred to in Scripture as bearing false witness, as lying. It’s a lie that non-trinitarians deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians claim that the Holy Spirit is a separate third being from God the Father and His only begotten Son. Non-trinitarians believe that the Holy Spirit is the divine personality of both God the Father and His Son made known to man through the divine (separate from human) personality of Jesus Christ. In both cases, the Holy Spirit is real, is a person and has a personality. The difference is that one view believes that the Holy Spirit is Christ Himself (non-trinitarians) while the other view holds that the Holy Spirit is another God, a third god (trinitarians). Since there is ONLY one way to be restored to the Father and there is only one way to overcome sin and be transformed which is by the Holy Spirit, if we choose the wrong spirit, we cannot be restored to the Father which means we will not have life. It all boils down to what we accept as our authority, as our God. God says that He is made known to us through His Word. Does God’s Word really teach that there is a third god being? The One True God and the Trinity God views both profess a divine spirit. One is Holy, one is not. Which one will you follow? Adventists hold that this fundamental distinction will be manifested according to the third angel’s message as having either the mark of the beast or the seal of God. Sabbath is held to be a specific and distinctive sign of who God’s true people are. It is true that God’s people will keep the seventh-day Sabbath, but so will a few others who are not faithful to God, at least up until the last moment of this world’s history. You can’t turn a false god into the One True God by observing Sabbath or by simply appealing to the name of Jesus.]
[Note also that the implication is made that the non-trinitarian view is the fringe, heretical view and that the trinitarian view is the belief that enjoys sound biblical understanding. This is supported by the rationale that Adventists, including Ellen White, have “progressed” in their understanding of God’s truth such that what was originally and emphatically believed by Adventists is now understood to be in error. In your own exercise of freewill, which amounts to choosing which God you will serve, you must decide if the new belief is in fact truth or if it is apostasy. Trinitarians are obliged to argue for the “progression” of truth because of the overwhelming evidence that the founders and pioneers of Adventism, including Ellen White, strongly believed that the trinity doctrine was wrong and dangerous. You must consider Ellen White’s warnings that Adventists will, by learned men, publish books of a new order, characterize the pillars of Adventism to be in error and form a new organization the foundation of which will be swept away by storm and tempest. Decide for yourself what you will believe. Your eternal life depends on it.]
No Christian teaching is more fundamental than the doctrine of God. The Seventh-day Adventist biblical understanding of the Trinity helps us to understand the revealed nature, attributes, and character of God [What about the IDENTITY of God?]. In the last 15 years, much has been written on the history of the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the Godhead or Trinity [Here is assumed that Godhead equates to Trinity. That’s not biblical nor does that idea come from Ellen White/Spirit of Prophecy. Godhead means divine and includes no numerical meaning. Godhead doesn’t convey the idea of one, two, three, seven, twelve or any other number and certainly doesn’t equate to Trinity.] and, particularly, the position of Jesus in the Godhead.1 [Jesus does have a position within divinity. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Ellen White tells us that Satan(Lucifer) was next highest in honor after God’s Son when Satan was still in Heaven. “Satan in Heaven, before his rebellion, was a high and exalted angel, next in honor to God’s dear Son.” 1SP 17.1 That makes Satan’s position in Heaven third after the Father and the Son. If there was a literal Holy Spirit being separate from the Father and Son, that would make this Spirit God in fourth position in the Trinity Godhead, which of course is nonsense.] Less has been written on the history of Ellen G. White and the Adventist understanding of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead.2 [Again, the word Godhead is used to infer a numerical meaning that is not accurate.]
Against the background of early Seventh-day Adventist theology and experience, this article will explore Ellen G. White’s understanding of the Holy Spirit. I will first provide a brief overview of the Adventist view on the personality of the Holy Spirit through the early twentieth century. Careful Bible study, together with Ellen G. White’s clear statements, majorly influenced a change in Adventist understanding. [There has been a change in “Adventist” understanding, but not one supported by the writings and testimony of Ellen White. Ellen White will at the resurrection be shocked by how much “her views” have changed since she died. God never changes. God’s Word never changes. What God inspires His true prophets to commit to writing never changes. Ellen White strongly appealed to Adventists to remain true to the tested pillars of our faith which includes specific understandings of who God is, who the Son of God is and what the Holy Spirit is. Any change has been wrought by “learned men” introducing philosophies of men with new books and new theology to create a “new organization” that is also called Adventist.] Because of current questions, some attention will be given to establishing the veracity of Ellen G. White’s clearest statements on the nature of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead.
[“The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure.” 1SM 204.2]
Adventist views of the Holy Spirit up to the early twentieth century
The Sabbatarian and Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the Holy Spirit, until the 1890s, was largely focused on the tangible, or “living reality,” of the Holy Spirit as a divine manifestation rather than His nature or personality.3 [The founders of Adventism published their beliefs in 1872 and 1889 known as “The Fundamental Principles.” These Ellen White referred to as the pillars of Adventism. In these published beliefs the Holy Spirit is described as the Spirit of God, not a God the Spirit. These beliefs are stated to be held in “great unanimity.” It is not accurate to say that the non-trinitarian Adventists did not recognize the personality of the Holy Spirit, they just didn’t recognize the Holy Spirit to be a separate personality from Christ.] During the period up to the 1890s, most Adventists did not accept that the Holy Spirit had a distinct personality. [Not true. On the contrary, the founders of Adventism recognized the distinct personality of Christ divested of His humanity as the personality of the Holy Spirit. What the founders did not recognize was the notion that there was a personality called the Holy Spirit that was distinct from God the Father and God the Son.] For them, the Godhead [Notice that Burt here uses a more accurate understanding of the word ‘Godhead.’ Here Godhead is recognized as divinity comprised of two God beings – the Father and the Son. This is not the way the word Godhead is often used which includes the notion of the number three.] included the Father (who was omnipotent and omniscient), the pre-Incarnate begotten Divine Son, and the Holy Spirit as a manifestation of the presence or power of the Father or the Son. [Early Adventists were faithful to the Bible for their concept of God, His Son and the Holy Spirit. John 14:16-26 provides us with Christ’s own words describing Himself with two personalities, one cumbered with humanity and the other divine and not cumbered with humanity. This is illustrated with the use of third and first person grammar both describing the Comforter as One who the world cannot see but Christ’s followers can see. They know Him BECAUSE He DWELLS with them. Judas, not Iscariot, confirms that he doesn’t comprehend the nature of Christ as the Holy Spirit but that he plainly recognizes that Christ is the Holy Spirit by asking Jesus how they will be able to see Him when the world cannot. We as humans, including early Adventists, lack the ability to rightly understand or express the nature of the Holy Spirit, but the identity of the Holy Spirit is made plain by both God’s Word in Scripture and by Ellen White.] Adventists emphasized the separate and distinct personalities of the Father and the Son. For many early Adventists, a personality required a material form, which prevented omnipresence. By defining the Holy Spirit as an influence or power from the Father or the Son, it allowed for God to be omnipresent.4
In 1877, J. H. Waggoner wrote of the Holy Spirit as an It rather than a He. After writing of the “one question which has been much controverted,” that is, “the personality of the Spirit,” he described the “Spirit of God” as “that awful and mysterious power which proceeds from the throne of the universe.”5 In 1878, Uriah Smith answered the question “What is the Holy Spirit?” by writing, “In a word it may, perhaps, best be described as a mysterious influence emanating from the Father and the Son, their representative and the medium of their power.”6 Both men remained respectful of the mysterious nature of the Holy Spirit. In 1878, D. M. Canright, in a more argumentative and apologetic two-part article, explicitly rejected the personhood of the Holy Spirit, “The Holy Spirit is not a person, not an individual, but is an influence or power proceeding from the Godhead.”7 [This would be an example of someone not blessed with divine inspiration as was Ellen White attempting to describe the nature of the Holy Spirt, “not a person, not an individual,” which we are at a loss for clear words to describe while not violating the revealed truth that the Holy Spirit is of the Godhead which was understood to be divinity composed of God the Father and His Son. This does nothing to undermine the confidence early Adventists had in the identity of the Holy Spirit as the person of Jesus Christ divested of His humanity.]
In 1889, M. C. Wilcox, one of the editors of the Signs of the Times, wrote, “God’s power, separate from his personal presence, is manifested through his Spirit.”8 In representing the idea of how God can be omnipresent, Wilcox wrote in 1898: “God is a person; how can His life be everywhere present?” and then compared the Spirit to an “aura” that extends beyond a person.9 [Human ruminations on the nature of God, not the identity of God or His Spirit.]
A few other Seventh-day Adventists took a very different view and speculated that perhaps the Holy Spirit was an angel or in the same class as the angels.10 [This reference, Note 10, says nothing like this. https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/820.9740#9740 C. P. Bollman, “The Spirit of God,” Signs of the Times, November 4, 1889, 663. This Signs of the Times article is composed of 11 paragraphs none of which discuss any assertions regarding the Holy Spirit being an angel. Likewise, Bollman is not mentioned in this reference and there appears to be no statement by him like is claimed.]
The 1890s saw the beginning of a shift toward accepting the personhood of the Holy Spirit. [The personhood of the Holy Spirit, of Christ, has never been in question. The personhood of the Holy Spirit as a separate being was consistently rejected. There was a shift towards promoting a trinity god that revealed itself most publicly through Harvey Kellogg with his book Living Temple. Ellen White strongly denounced Kellogg’s views of God and his use of her writings to support his views. She called this the alpha of apostasy and warned of an omega apostasy to come which would be much worse. Yes, a shift began, away from the One True God to a false god. The Adventist church is currently in a full 180 shift from its original beliefs. This shift is one of apostasy, not one of divinely ordained progression of truth.] One example of this change can be seen in R. A. Underwood’s understanding. “The Holy Spirit is Christ’s personal representative in the field; and he is charged with the work of meeting Satan, and defeating this personal enemy of God and his government. It seems strange to me, now, that I ever believed that the Holy Spirit was only an influence, in view of the work he does.”11
The shift in thinking on the personhood of the Holy Spirit was well underway when, in 1907, A. T. Jones wrote, “The Holy Spirit is not an influence; nor an impression, nor peace, nor joy, nor any thing. . . . The Holy Spirit is a Person, a divine Person.”12 [Here we have a statement that serves to denounce the spiritualization of God’s Spirit and an affirmation that the Spirit of God is the real person of Jesus. Jesus is standing at the door of your heart, and everyone else’s heart at the same time, by His divine personality, the Holy Spirit.]
Ellen G. White and the Holy Spirit up to the 1890s
Ellen G. White’s writings are particularly rich in regard to the Holy Spirit, often referring to Him in both her published and unpublished writings. In fact, she refers to the Holy Spirit almost as often as to Jesus. [Exactly as often because the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ.]
Ellen G. White adopted three important orientations regarding the Holy Spirit and the Godhead during her earlier years that continued throughout her life. First was her emphasis on the personhood of God the Father and Jesus. During 1845 and 1846, there was a branch of Millerite Adventists who argued that Jesus had come spiritually on October 22, 1844. They also spiritualized the resurrection, heaven, the New Jerusalem, the new earth, and also the Father and Jesus. In 1846, Ellen G. White wrote in affirmation of the personhood of the Father and Jesus: “I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. I gazed on Jesus’ countenance and admired his lovely person. . . . I asked Jesus if his Father had a form like himself; He said he had, but I could not behold it.”13
Other cofounders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, such as James White and Joseph Bates, also directly countered the spiritualizing view in print and supported the personhood of the Father and Jesus.14
Second, like Adventists generally, Ellen G. White understood the Holy Spirit in a practical and demonstrable sense. The work of the Holy Spirit was very present and active in her Christian experience and ministry. She received hundreds of prophetic visions and dreams and often experienced dramatic blessings through the operation of the Holy Spirit. During the first few years of her prophetic ministry, Ellen G. White was confronted by some who believed that her visions were a result of mesmerism—now known as hypnotism—and said that there was no Holy Spirit. This gave her “keen anguish, well-nigh to despair.” [Of course Ellen White understood the Holy Spirit in practical terms. She understood Him to be Christ – very practical. Adventist non-trinitarians share this conviction.]
“Many would have me believe,” she wrote, “that there was no Holy Ghost and that all the exercises that holy men of God have experienced were only mesmerism or the deceptions of Satan.”15 She rejected this idea.
Third, her views on the Holy Spirit were drawn from and centered on the Bible. She, like other early Adventists, was, first of all, a student of Scripture. She was particularly careful not to stray beyond the Bible in her descriptions of the Holy Spirit. [Absolutely.]
In 1891, Ellen G. White wrote in response to a man who believed that the Holy Spirit was really the angel Gabriel and that the 144,000 will be Jews that acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. After giving important principles of biblical interpretation, she directly addressed his positions. “Your ideas of the two subjects you mention do not harmonize with the light which God has given me. The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery not clearly revealed, and you will never be able to explain it to others because the Lord has not revealed it to you.” She then quoted John 14:16 and continued, “This refers to the omnipresence of the Spirit of Christ, called the Comforter.” [Don’t miss that Burt here quotes Ellen White stating that the Comforter is the Spirit of Christ, not a third being.] Ellen G. White then confessed the limits of her own understanding: “There are many mysteries which I do not seek to understand or to explain; they are too high for me, and too high for you. On some of these points, silence is golden.”16 In the absence of special insight on the nature and personality of the Holy Spirit, Ellen G. White stayed close to Scripture and, unlike the other Adventist writers previously cited, left the personality of the Holy Spirit undefined.17 This was soon to change. [Ellen White never changed her position regarding the nature of the Holy Spirit. Burt is here attempting to lay a foundation for the argument of “progressive truth” to justify a shift from the pillars of Adventism to modern Adventist beliefs which count the pillars as error. Be careful what you are willing to believe.]
Ellen G. White on the Holy Spirit from the early 1890s
Two years later, in 1893, she wrote, “There is altogether too little made of the work of the Holy Spirit’s influence upon the church. . . . The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ’s name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality.”18 [Distinct as in divested of His human personality. Not distinct as in a third being separate from God the Father and His only begotten Son. Christ has two personalities, human and divine. Christ’s divine personality is revealed to mankind as the Holy Spirit of God. Christ’s sacrifice includes that He will possess a human personality complete with scars in His hands forever, but at the same time He remains divine with divine attributes that defy human comprehension. Jesus never gave up his divinity while being human. Jesus has two personalities.]
In 1896, she quoted the words of Jesus in John 16:7, 8, and then wrote her earliest clear statement on the Holy Spirit as a Person in the Godhead. “Evil had been accumulating for centuries, and could only be restrained and resisted by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power.” In 1898, Ellen G. White published these words, with slight modification, in The Desire of Ages.19 There is no indication of a particular vision that Ellen G. White received that caused her to write more explicitly on the personality of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, as a messenger of the Lord, she became very specific on the issue during the 1890s. Through the remainder of her life, she continued to support the personhood and full deity of the Holy Spirit.20 [Ok Dr. Burt, you say that this is Ellen White’s earliest CLEAR statement on the Holy Spirit. It is clear, if you read it correctly. An important principle of interpretation which applies to both the Bible and Ellen White is to let the text be its own expositor. Let the words of the author define the meaning of the words. Let’s let Ellen White do just that, with enormous clarity. “Our condition through sin has become preternatural, and the power that restores us must be supernatural, else it has no value. There is but one power that can break the hold of evil from the hearts of men, and that is the power of God in Jesus Christ. Only through the blood of the Crucified One is there cleansing from sin. His grace alone can enable us to resist and subdue the tendencies of our fallen nature.” CCh 322.8 {emphasis supplied} https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/19.2469#2473 (Notice that CCh is a compilation published by the denomination in 1991 even after the General Conference vote to change gods in 1980. See also AUCR March 1, 1904 and 8T 291.3 – notice that these statements by Ellen White were made after the quote referenced by Dr. Burt. Ellen White is consistent. It’s Dr. Burts incorrect interpretation that is in error.) Note that the quote presented by Dr. Burt asserts that evil/sin “could only be restrained and resisted by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead.” Notice that the quote from CCh 322.8 states that “there is but one power that can break the hold of evil” and that is the power of God in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ and the Trinity Holy Spirit are different beings. Jesus Christ and the non-trinitarian Holy Spirit are the same being. Ellen White clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ Himself, not a third being. Understand also that Ellen White’s original writing quoted by Dr. Burt did not supply capitalization for “Third Person” of the Godhead. This has been added by others after Ellen White’s death, an unauthorized modification of her writings.]
[An unidentified person at the White Estate has published some thoughts that include a question regarding the capitalization of ‘Third Person.’ It is notable to see this unknown representative of the White Estate acknowledge that the original text was indeed not capitalized. It is also not disclosed who determined to make the modification to Ellen White’s original authorized version of her writings. This unknown person at the White Estate ends with a challenge as follows: “If the argument is to be made that the use of lower case characters in “third person” shows that Ellen White was not attributing deity-status to the Holy Spirit, then one has to explain why, in the same earliest printings, the personal pronoun “He” (referring to the Holy Spirit) is twice capitalized in the immediately preceding paragraph (671:1), and elsewhere in the same chapter.” EGWTS 5.3 https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/14122.10#22 The answer to this challenge is abundantly clear and simple. The pronoun ‘He’ refers to Christ. Christ is our God, a divine being. His name and pronouns referring to Him are appropriately capitalized. The description of Christ’s personality as the third person, the Holy Spirit, is not referring to a separate god being and is thus not capitalized. This is not a difficult point when the Holy Spirit is properly viewed as Christ Himself. Here’s a return challenge for the White Estate. Who took it upon themselves to edit Ellen White’s authorized publication? Give us the names of all who supported that manipulation of Ellen White’s jots and tittles. God knows. One day we all will know. These editors and commenters are anonymously hiding behind the name and abused authority of Ellen White under the banner of the White Estate. That seems a bit cowardly/fearful. See what Revelation 21:8 says about the fearful and cowardly. See what Paul says about false doctrines and rebuking elders who are sinning before everyone.]
For example, Ellen G. White often referred to John 14–16 and the Comforter bringing the presence of Jesus to the believer. She continued this theme as she presented the Holy Spirit as the Third Person of the Godhead. She wrote, “Although our Lord ascended from earth to heaven, the Holy Spirit was appointed as His representative among men.” She then quoted John 14:15–18 and continued, “Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His Father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth.”21 [Keep reading this quote from Ellen White. The next two sentences read as follows (and shame on Dr. Burt for not including them here): “The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent.” (14MR 23.3) Non-trinitarians read this as Ellen White plainly stating that the Holy Spirt is Christ Himself. Trinitarians make a contorted and strained attempt to say that the antecedent to the word ‘Himself’ in the second sentence does not apply to Christ from the first sentence but only to the Holy Spirit that begins the second sentence. If that were true, then that would mean that Ellen White is asserting that the Holy Spirit, separate from Christ as a third god being, was once human too and is now divested of that humanity. It keeps getting more strained. Trinitarians will then claim that divested does not mean to be dispossessed of something but rather that this something was never possessed to begin with. That’s really horrible butchering of plain language. Keep reading John 14. Jesus says that it is He Himself, first person grammar, who will come as the Comforter seen by his followers but not by the world.] Ellen G. White was comfortable with the existing tension of the Holy Spirit being a Person and also representing Jesus. [Yes she was, because Jesus is the Holy Spirit manifested by His divine personality.] One characteristic of the biblical [biblical?? – a logical fallacy to assert a conclusion as a premise.] Trinity is to represent or point to Each Other. The Holy Spirit represented Jesus. Jesus, throughout His life on earth, represented the Father (John 14:9), and the Father pointed to and exalted the Son (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35).
Ellen G. White’s use of He and It while referring to the Holy Spirit
In 1936, H. C. Lacey claimed that his 1895 series of early morning Bible studies at the Armidale camp meeting and his 1896 presentations at an institute in Cooranbong, Australia, influenced Ellen G. White to accept the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Lacey speculated that Ellen G. White had not used the term Person or referred to the Holy Spirit with the personal pronoun He or Him before his presentation.22
An examination of Ellen G. White’s statements show that she did use the word Person to refer to the Holy Spirit as early as 1893, as quoted above. But she used the pronouns It and He variously both before and after her explicit statements on the personality of the Holy Spirit. In 1884, she wrote, “The Holy Spirit exalts and glorifies the Saviour. It is his office to present Christ.”23 In 1891, she wrote of the “Holy Spirit working upon our hearts.” She continued, “[H]e takes of the things of God, and presents them anew to our minds.”24 In The Desire of Ages, written in 1898, she clearly articulates the personhood of the Holy Spirit, “When the Spirit of God takes possession of the heart, it transforms the life.”25 In 1900, she wrote, “The Holy Spirit has gone out into all the world; everywhere it is moving upon the hearts of men.”26 [Again, a straw-man argument. Of course the Holy Spirit is a person. The Holy Spirit is the person of Christ in His divine personality.]
The Desire of Ages not only helped to explain the personhood of the Holy Spirit, but it also clearly taught the eternity of Jesus and His full equality with the Father. Her statement, “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived,” along with other statements on the divinity of Jesus helped many Adventists to take a new look at Scripture to understand Jesus’ place in the Godhead. 27 [This is loaded. Jesus is of course a person and as the Holy Spirit retains a personality but in this case a divine personality distinct from the personhood of the human Jesus. Burt casually asserts a claim regarding the origin of Christ with the word ‘eternity’ supposing that the reader will accept this as proof of the Trinity claim that the three god beings are co-eternal. Burt further, without any real support, asserts Christ’s full equality with the Father which we are expected to understand to mean what the Trinity doctrine claims that Christ is co-equal. Don’t trust “learned men.” Read for yourself. Go look at how Ellen White uses the phrase “original, unborrowed, underived.” Look at how she defines it. She defines it to mean immortality. Notice that she says that this life was GIVEN to Christ by His Father. Notice, oh please notice, that she says that this life, life original, unborrowed, underived, can be given to us if we are faithful to God and Chirst. When we receive this life origianl, unborrowed, underived, does that mean that we never had a beginning, that we are co-equal with and co-eternal with God? Heaven forbid. That is an argument that we too can be like God Himself. That’s the original lie to Eve at the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Please, please, please take responsibility for your own salvation. Read God’s Word yourself. Don’t be fooled by “learned” men and their philosophies.]
Veracity of Ellen G. White’s statements
There are some who believe in the prophetic authority of Ellen G. White’s writings but deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit and His place in the Godhead. [Dr. Burt, just who are you talking about? Not Adventist non-trinitarians. It is the Trinity doctrine that denies the rightful place of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead – the Spirit of God manifest to mankind through Christ, the only way by which we can be saved.] Ellen G. White’s clear statements place them in a difficult position. [Not hardly. It is the trinitarians who find themselves in a difficult position having multiple significant contradictions that cannot be overcome with truth.] In response, they have argued that her secretaries or editors inserted these statements without her knowledge. Tim Poirier, vice director of the Ellen G. White Estate, published a helpful paper in 2006 tracing back key statements by Ellen G. White to their original source.
[“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE faith which was once delivered unto the saints…” (Jude 3, 4) …The exhortation to contend for the faith delivered to the saints, is to us alone. And it is very important for us to know what for and how to contend. In the 4th verse he gives us the reason why we should contend for THE faith, a particular faith; “for there are certain men,” or a certain class who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.… The way spiritualizers have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God.” (James White, January 24, 1846, The Day Star)]
Original drafts, written by the hand of Ellen G. White, are available for at least four of her clearest statements.28 Other documents are accessible in the original typed form and contain handwritten notations by Ellen G. White on the pages.29 At the top of one typed manuscript, Ellen G. White had written the words, “I have read this carefully and accept it.”30 Several of these statements were published in various forms. Ellen G. White, herself, paid for the publishing plates of The Desire of Ages and most of her other books. In The Desire of Ages, she even sent corrections for the book after the first edition was already published. These changes were incorporated in the second printing. The degree of veracity for Ellen G. White’s statements is significant, and editors find it hard to argue that she did not write the statements regarding the Holy Spirit that appear in print. [It’s not a question of whether Ellen White wrote what she wrote, but that her words have been misconstrued to make a lie. This occurred plainly with Harvey Kellogg which she denounced strongly. Check those original manuscripts to see if they originally presented her words, “third person,” in capitalized letters. Who’s mishandling her writings?]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that Ellen G. White was given the prophetic gift. Her emphatic statements had a significant influence on the development of the Adventist understanding of the Trinity, particularly through support of the eternal and original nature of Jesus [see above comments on “life original, unborrowed, underived.”] and the full divinity and personhood [Straw-man argument.] of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, Seventh-day Adventist doctrine is established through the authority of Scripture rather than through the writings of Ellen G. White. Mrs. White understood her prophetic role was to bring people to the Bible as the final authority and the basis for all faith and practice. She wrote in her first published tract: “I recommend to you, dear reader, the word of God as the rule of your faith and practice.”31 On many occasions she defined the relationship of her writings to the Bible. In one of her more compelling statements, she defined her prophetic role: “I have a work of great responsibility to do—to impart by pen and voice the instruction given me, not alone to Seventh-day Adventists, but to the world. I have published many books, large and small, and some of these have been translated into several languages. This is my work—to open the Scriptures to others as God has opened them to me.”32 [Amen regarding Ellen White’s perspective on the Bible.]
Seventh-day Adventists have a more biblical orientation on the Holy Spirit because of the writings of Ellen G. White. We can be grateful that God has led throughout the history of the church to build an understanding of the Bible through the influence of the Holy Spirit in the gift of prophecy. [We can be grateful so long as we adhere to the truth represented by the pillars of Adventism professed by Ellen White. These pillars have been counted as error by trinitarians.]
[The only thing at risk for failing to accept God’s Word for what it actually says is your eternal life. Is that important to you?]
This is just dealing with the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Wait until you get into the issue of the Sonship of Christ. Try making sense of a God who hates all lying telling us that He is really a Father and that He really has an only begotten Son. Trinitarians deny the natural, literal sonship of Christ. Christ can’t be God’s Son if they neither one had a beginning. The Trinity doctrine makes God out to be a liar. Wait until you see what Ellen White says about Proverbs 8, that it is Christ declaring about Himself. Then notice that trinitarians deny, and must deny to maintain their lie, that Proverbs 8 is about Christ. Proverbs 8 says that Christ had a beginning.
It’s only your eternal life on the line. 1 Studies include Merlin D. Burt, “Demise of Semi-Arianism and Anti-Trinitarianism in Adventist Theology, 1888-1957” (research paper, Andrews University, 1996); Gerhard Pfandl, The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1999); Woodrow W. Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John Reeve, The Trinity: Understanding God’s Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 2002); Jerry Moon, “The Adventist Trinity Debate, Part 1: Historical Overview,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 41, no. 1 (2003): 113–129; Jerry Moon, “The Adventist Trinity Debate, Part 2: The Role of Ellen G. White,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 41, no. 2 (2003): 275–292; Michael Dörnbrack, “Die Rolle Ellen Whites bei der Entwicklung der Trinitätslehre in der Adventgemeinde: Aussagen, Auswirkungen und Reaktionen” (research paper, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 2004); Merlin D. Burt, “History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on the Trinity,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 1 (2006): 125–139; Jerry Moon, “The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s ‘Heavenly Trio’ Compared to the Traditional Doctrine,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 1 (2006): 140–159; Denis Fortin, “God, the Trinity, and Adventism: An Introduction to the Issues,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 1 (2006): 4–10; Denis Kaiser, “A Comparative Study on the Trinity as Seen in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Christian Connexion, and Among Seventh-day Adventists Until 1870” (research paper, Andrews University, 2008); Merlin D. Burt, “The Trinity in Seventh-day Adventist History,” Ministry, February 2009, 5–8. Only a few papers were written before the 1990s. Two of the more significant are Erwin Roy Gane, “The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer” (master’s thesis, Andrews University, 1963); Russell Holt, “The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination: Its Rejection and Acceptance” (term paper, Andrews University, 1969). 2 Recent studies include Denis Kaiser, “The Holy Spirit and the Hermeneutical Approach in Modern Adventist Anti-Trinitarian Literature” (research paper, Andrews University, 2008); Denis Kaiser, “The Reception of Ellen White’s Trinitarian Statements, 1897-1915,” in Elen G. White Encyclopedia, eds. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., forthcoming; Tim Poirier, “Ellen White’s Trinitarian Statements: What Did She Actually Write?” Ellen White and Current Issues Symposium 2 (2006): 18–40; Evelyn Tollerton, “The Historical Development of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Seventh-day Adventist Theology: A Paradigm Shift From Anti-Trinitarianism to Trinitarianism, 1846-1946” (research paper, Andrews University, 2006). The earliest history of the personality of the Holy Spirit is from Christy Mathewson Taylor, “The Doctrine of the Personality of the Holy Spirit as Taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church up to 1900” (bachelor’s thesis, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1953). Some of the content in the first section of this paper is drawn from Taylor’s research. 3 E. Goodrich, “No Spirit,” Review and Herald, January 28, 1862, 68; R. F. Cottrell, “The Beginning of the End,” Review and Herald, December 16, 1873, 5; Joseph Clarke, “Be Filled With the Spirit,” Review and Herald, March 10, 1874, 103. 4 D. M. Canright, “The Personality of God,” Review and Herald, August 29–September 19, 1878, 73, 81, 82, 89–90, 97; D. M. Canright, Matter and Spirit; or, The Problem of Human Thought: A Philosophical Argument (Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1882), 47, 48; D. M. Canright, “The Holy Spirit,” Signs of the Times, August 8, 1878, 236; Uriah Smith, “In the Question Chair: Is the Holy Ghost a Person?” Review and Herald, October 28, 1890, 664. For a good explanation of early Adventist understanding of personhood, see Evelyn Tollerton, “The Spirit of God: The Omnipresent Influence of God” (paper presented at SDATS Scholarship Symposium, January 9, 2007). 5 J. H. Waggoner, The Spirit of God: Its Offices and Manifestations to the End of the Christian Age (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Pub. Assn., 1877), 8, 9. 6 James White and Uriah Smith, The Biblical Institute: A Synopsis of Lectures on the Principal Doctrines of Seventh-day Adventists (Oakland, CA: Steam Press of the Pacific S.D.A. Pub. House, 1878), 184. 7 D. M. Canright, “The Holy Spirit,” Signs of the Times, July 25, 1878, 218; D. M. Canright, “The Holy Spirit,” Signs of the Times, August 8, 1878, 236. 8 M. C. Wilcox, “Manifestation of the Holy Spirit,” Signs of the Times, July 15, 1889, 422. 9 M. C. Wilcox, “The Spirit of Life,” Signs of the Times, June 2, 1898, 342. 10 C. P. Bollman, “The Spirit of God,” Signs of the Times, November 4, 1889, 663. 11 R. A. Underwood, “The Holy Spirit a Person,” Review and Herald, May 17, 1898, 310; emphasis in original. 12 A. T. Jones, “Christian Loyalty,” Medical Missionary, March 27, 1907, 98. With the exception of Ellen G. White, Jones is also the earliest clear presenter of the eternal underived deity of Jesus. See Burt, “Demise of Semi-Arianism,” 7, 8. 13 Ellen Harmon, “Letter From Sister Harmon,” Day-Star, March 14, 1846, 7. 14 James White, “Preach the Word,” Review and Herald, December 11, 1855, 85; see also James White, “Letter From Bro. White,” Day-Star, January 24, 1846, 25; Joseph Bates, The Opening Heavens; or, A Connected View of the Testimony of the Prophets and Apostles, Concerning the Opening Heavens, Compared With Astronomical Observations, and of the Present and Future Location of the New Jerusalem, the Paradise of God (New Bedford, MA: Benjamin Lindsey, 1846), 1. 15 Ellen G. White, Early Writings (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1945), 22. 16 Ellen G. White to Brother Chapman, June 11, 1891, Letter 7, 1891, in Manuscript Releases, vol. 14 (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1990), 175, 179. 17 The same is true regarding the nature of the Jesus’ divinity. In this case, she is the earliest Adventist writer to refer to Christ as eternal. See Ellen G. White, “An Appeal to the Ministers,” Review and Herald, August 8, 1878, 49. 18 Ellen G. White, “Privileges and Responsibilities of Christians; Depend on Holy Spirit, Not Self,” MS 93, 1893, in Manuscript Releases, vol. 20 (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 323, 324. 19 Ellen G. White, “My Brethren in America,” February 6, 1896, Letter 8, 1896, in Manuscript Releases, vol. 2 (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1987), 34; Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies for Ministers and Workers, no. 10 (1897), 25–33; Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1898), 671. 20 Ellen G. White to Sister Wessels, March 7, 1897, Letter 124, 1897, in Daughters of God (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1998), 183–185; Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies for Ministers and Workers, no. 10 (1897), 37; Ellen G. White, “Extracts From Discourse Given by Mrs. E. G. White in the Avondale Church, March 25, 1899,” MS 66, 1899; Ellen G. White, “Preparation for Baptism,” MS 57, 1900; Ellen G. White, “God’s Purpose for His People,” MS 27a, 1900; Ellen G. White, MS 130, 1901; Ellen G. White, “An Important Letter,” Union Conference Record, April 1, 1901, 2; Ellen G. White, “Preach the Word,” MS 20, 1906; Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies Series B, no. 7 (1905), 62, 63 from MS 21, 1906, written in regard to J. H. Kellogg and his view that God was an essence that pervades all of nature rather than a personal being. She wrote earlier in this manuscript, “I am instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted. Such representations as the following are made: ‘The Father is as the light invisible; the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit is the light shed abroad.’ ‘The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor; the Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is like the dew fallen to the seat of life.’ Another representation: ‘The Father is like the invisible vapor; the Son is like the leaden cloud; the Spirit is rain fallen and working in refreshing power.’ All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue.” 21 Ellen G. White to Edson and Emma White, February 18, 1895, Letter 119, 1895 (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate). 22 H. C. Lacey to W. C. White, July 27, 1936 (Berrien Springs, MI: Center for Adventist Research, Andrews University). 23 Ellen G. White, “Man’s Obligation to God,” Signs of the Times, April 3, 1884, 209. 24 Ellen G. White, “Meeting Trials,” Review and Herald, August 25, 1891, 529. 25 Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, 173. 26 Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1900), 70. 27 Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, 530. 28 Poirier, “Ellen White’s Trinitarian Statements.” Handwritten original drafts by Ellen White are extant for MS 93, 1893; MS 57, 1900; MS 20, 1906; and MS 21, 1906. 29 Interlineated original typed manuscripts are extant for Letter 8, 1896; MS 27a, 1900; MS 57, 1900; MS 20, 1906; and MS 21, 1906. 30 MS 20, 1906. 31 Ellen G. White, A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White (Saratoga Springs, NY: James White, 1851), 64. 32 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8 (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1904), 236.