Ellen G. White and
the Doctrine of God

The previous chapter documented that the leading men of the Advent movement were all anti-Trinitarian. We specifically cited: Joseph Bates, James White, J. H. Waggoner, R. F. Cottrell, J. N. Loughborough, J. N. Stephenson, Uriah Smith, and A. T. Jones. Some others that might be noted resemble a “Who’s Who” of early Adventism. They include: J. N. Andrews, B. L. Whitney, E. J. Waggoner of 1888, Washington Morse, D. M. Canright, James Matteson, A. C. Bourdeau, J. B. Frisbie, S. B. Whitney, A. J. Dennis, M. C. Wilcox, and James Edson White (son of Ellen White).¹ In a research paper, Russell Holt stated concerning early Adventists: “to a man, they rejected the trinity, yet, with equal unanimity they upheld the divinity of Christ.” (The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination: Its Rejection and Acceptance, p. 6) We concluded the last chapter by noting that the doctrine of the Trinity is the foundational teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

The understanding of the Advent pioneers contrasts widely with the current standard accepted by the church today as expressed in the Fundamentals: “There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons.” (Fundamental Belief #2.) In a special issue of the Adventist Review devoted to the 27 Fundamentals we find the following concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.

While no single scriptural passage states formally the doctrine of the Trinity, it is assumed as a fact by Bible writers and mentioned several times.

Only by faith can we accept the existence of the Trinity. (Adventist Review, Vol. 158, No. 31, p. 4)

This is in striking contrast to the strong assurance the early Adventists had concerning their methodology. Writing about the early workers, Elder S. N. Haskell noted:

When the time passed in 1844, there were none who believed the truth as we now hold it. All believed the prophecies that brought us to that time. Then began a greater searching of the Bible than had ever been, probably, at any time since the days of the apostles. They went over and over the old arguments concerning the prophecies that pointed to 1844, and after most thorough examination they could see no other conclusion than that the prophetic periods terminated at that time. As they studied, they began to see one link of truth after another; and as these truths unfolded to the pioneers, — I have reference to such men as Elders James White, J. N. Andrews, Uriah Smith, and J. H. Waggoner, — they did not dare present that truth to the people until they had made it a special subject of prayer and the spirit of prophecy had set its seal to it.² (Stephen Haskell, Review & Herald, Oct. 27, 1904)

While the corporate church has altered its views on the incarnation and the atonement since the days of the pioneers, the doctrine of God has seen even greater changes. These changes have made our doctrines more appealing to the Evangelicals. The truth is that it is Satan behind the changes for he well knows that God founded this movement in truth and desires to see it destroyed in whatever way possible.

In 1896 Sister White wrote: “If those who claimed to have a living experience in the things of God had done their appointed work as the Lord ordained, the whole world would have been warned ere this, and the Lord Jesus would have come in power and great glory.” (The Review & Herald,  October 6, 1896) If the Lord could have come before 1896, then logic would say that the faith and doctrines believed before 1896 would be truth. This truth was to be given to the world in what is known as “the loud cry.” Because we had become lukewarm and unfaithful in carrying the truth forward, God commissioned two men—Elders Jones and Waggoner—to bring revival to His church. Their view of God and Christ did not differ from that of their brethren. Sister White called this “a most precious message” (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 91) and declared it to be “the third angel’s message in verity.” (Review and Herald, April 1, 1890) This “most precious message” did not include the Trinitarian doctrine! A proper understanding of God is vital to our salvation and being able to serve God as He directs. It is the gospel plain and simple! God’s people must have a clear understanding of Him to be enabled to give the loud cry.

Like our Saviour, we are in this world to do service for God. We are here to become like God in character, and by a life of service to reveal Him to the world. In order to be co-workers with God, in order to become like Him and to reveal His character, we must know Him aright. We must know Him as He reveals Himself.

A knowledge of God is the foundation of all true education and of all true service. It is the only real safeguard against temptation. It is this alone that can make us like God in character.

This is the knowledge needed by all who are working for the uplifting of their fellow men. Transformation of character, purity of life, efficiency in service, adherence to correct principles, all depend upon a right knowledge of God. This knowledge is the essential preparation both for this life and for the life to come. (The Ministry of Healing, p. 409)

At the beginning of His high priestly prayer Jesus said: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3) The Scriptures also state: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” (Proverbs 9:10)

Arguably, no person outside of Adventism has studied and researched the writings of Ellen G. White more than the late Walter Martin. During the time of the S.D.A. - Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956, Martin asked for and was given free access to the vaults at the White Estate along with any other materials he requested. Martin testified that he had read “extensively in the publications of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination and almost all of the writings of Ellen G. White, including her testimonies.” (Eternity, October 1956) Dr. Barnhouse stated in a taped telephone conversation with Al Hudson that: “Froom and the rest of them [Roy A. Anderson and other church leaders] say that Walter Martin knows more about Seventh-day Adventists than any professor in Takoma Park.”³ After his extensive study, Martin came to the conclusion that Ellen G. White was at first Arian in belief, but later became Trinitarian.⁴ This charge was never repudiated by either Froom or Anderson.

Was there double talk as Martin claims? Was Sister White inconsistent? Is there a problem in the interpretation of her writings such as the problem of interpretation that exists between Calvinists and Arminianists over certain Bible passages? What part did editorial changes, which Sister White did not make, play in this confusion?

There are two tenets of Trinitarianism that are usually addressed when promoting the doctrine. First, Jesus Christ is both co-equal and co-eternal in all respects with God. The Father–Son relationship is not to be taken literally, but figuratively or spiritually. Even then, Christ is not to be considered the Son of God until the incarnation at Bethlehem. The second tenet is that the Holy Spirit is a separate third being with God and Christ, also co-equal and co-eternal. The Trinitarian doctrine was formally pronounced at the Councils of Nic’a (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.). As we have earlier noted: “The Mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic Faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the Church.” (Handbook for Today’s Catholic) Ellen White wrote: “She [the papacy] is silently growing into power. Her doctrines are exerting their influence in legislative halls, in the churches, and in the hearts of men.” (Great Controversy, p. 581)

Did Sister White agree with the councils which gave the decrees that established the Catholic faith?⁵ We will begin by examining some of Ellen White’s earlier statements to see if Martin’s evaluation of her early writings was correct. A representative statement from Sister White’s writings that Walter Martin would have read expressing a non-Trinitarian position is found in Patriarchs and Prophets.

The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence. He had an associate—a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1, 2. Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father—one in nature, in character, in purpose—the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6. His “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2. And the Son of God declares concerning Himself: “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting. . . . When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.” Proverbs 8:22-30. (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 34 - Published in 1890)

A careful reading of this paragraph reveals several important points that should not be overlooked. First, Sister White calls the Father, “The Sovereign of the universe.” She does not state that Christ is the Sovereign with Him. However, she does say that the Sovereign had “an associate—a co-worker”- singular. This “associate” she declares to be Christ who is “the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.”⁶

The implications concerning the Holy Spirit as a “being” are not hard to perceive. Further, she quotes portions of Proverbs 8:22-30, attributing this to Jesus Christ. Like most commentaries, the S.D.A. Bible Commentary acknowledges these verses to apply to Christ, but the authors state that they only apply in an “allegorical” sense. (see volume 3, p. 972) The author of Patriarchs and Prophets is describing real events, not allegories! The whole language of the chapter is that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God, “invested” with power and authority from His Father. Going further she writes:

To dispute the supremacy of the Son of God, thus impeaching the wisdom and love of the Creator, had become the purpose of this prince of angels. To this object he was about to bend the energies of that master mind, which, next to Christ’s, was first among the hosts of God.  (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 36)

The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father’s throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng—“ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands” (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father’s will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God’s plan, but would exalt the Father’s glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. (Ibid.)

At this council the Father set forth the true position of His Son as the Creator of all things. “None but Christ, the Only Begotten of God” could enter into all His counsels and purposes. The throne was shared with the Son “and the glory of the eternal self-existent One encircled both.” Both means two.

Theologians have looked upon the Sonship of Christ in different ways. The Trinitarian perspective is that Christ is not the literal son, but only a spiritual son, and that not until the incarnation. The Father–Son relationship is one of role playing. A second perspective is that Christ was merely a good man with no pre-existence whom God “adopted” as His Son. A third view is that which the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach, that Christ is the literal Son of God, created by God as were the angels, but before any other creature. A fourth perspective is the one that Sister White taught, that Christ is the literal begotten Son of God.

There is but one way of escape for the sinner. There is but one agency whereby he may be cleansed from sin. He must accept the propitiation that has been made by the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. The shed blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” A complete offering has been made; for “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,”— not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895)

Clearly she did not see Christ as being created as the angels, nor adopted, but a begotten Son. How was He begotten? Neither she nor the Bible state how this was done. However, she does make the following interesting statement:

The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind. (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, July 9,1895)

In the Signs of the Times article of May 30, 1895, Sister White stated that Christ “was one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection.” Several places in her writings she, along with the pioneers, acknowledges Christ to be equal with the Father. However, she states that this equality was one given or conferred upon Christ by the Father, not an equality that He naturally had. Note the following statements:

The Scriptures clearly indicate the relation between God and Christ, and they bring to view as clearly the personality and individuality of each.

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” (Hebrews 1:1-5)

God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son. (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, pp. 268, 269)

The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was as his own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host. Especially was his Son to work in union with himself in the anticipated creation of the earth and every living thing that should exist upon the earth. His Son would carry out his will and his purposes, but would do nothing of himself alone. The Father’s will would be fulfilled in him. (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, pp. 17, 18)

Leaving his place in the immediate presence of the Father, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. ... The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor. (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 37)

For Christ to be exalted as equal with the Father, there must have been a time when He was not in every respect equal with Him. This exaltation would not have been possible if Christ was a co-equal, co-eternal being with the Father. However, if Christ was the literal Son of God, then the Father could elevate Him. The Ellen G. White compact disc shows that never once did Sister White call Christ a “created son,” nor an “adopted son.” Though many theologians insist that the Sonship of Christ is one of role playing, Ellen G. White never even hints at such a possibility. The writings of Ellen G. White do record hundreds of references to Christ being the literal “begotten Son” of God.

The breadth of this subject is tremendous and we prayerfully ask the reader to consider the counsel of Proverbs 18:13: “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” Second, there are other statements that we will be carefully examining, including statements that appear to present the Trinitarian position. We do not accept the position of Walter Martin, but rather believe that a careful study will show Martin, not Sister White, to be in error. We ask the reader to retain an open mind and an earnest desire to have the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

History testifies that the early Adventists were non-Trinitarian. Interestingly, not one of the early pioneers ever questioned Sister White or expressed a difference with her concerning the doctrine of God. Neither did she ever question them about their views. The tenets she expressed in her early writings clearly paralleled their thoughts.

In order that the human family might have no excuse because of temptation, Christ became one with them. The only being who was one with God lived the law in humanity, descended to the lowly life of a common laborer, and toiled at the carpenter’s bench with his earthly parent. (Signs of the Times, Oct. 14, 1897)

Let it be emphasized again, Christ is to be worshipped equally with God, however, that equality He possesses was given or conferred upon Him by the Father. “Our great Exemplar was exalted to be equal with God.” (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2, p. 426)⁷

The Hierarchy of Heaven

Sister White, in Patriarchs and Prophets, calls the Father, “The Sovereign of the Universe,” and “The King of the Universe.” (pp. 34, 36) In every reference to Christ being exalted to equality with God, it is the Father who ordains it to be so. As in the Scriptures, we find the writings of Sister White portraying the Son carrying out the will of the Father. The Father is viewed as supreme.

Christ is our Example. He was next to God in the heavenly courts. But He came to this earth to live among men. ( Notebook Leaflets from the Elmshaven Library, Vol. 1, pp. 114, 115 - Letter 48, 1902)

In the order of heaven, Sister White lists Christ next to God. It was the desire of Satan to take the place of Christ and to become like the Father.

The Lord has shown me that Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, next to Jesus Christ. .... And I saw that when God said to his Son, Let us make man in our image, Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man. He was filled with envy, jealousy and hatred. He wished to be the highest in heaven, next to God, and receive the highest honors. (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 17)

What position did she understand Satan to have?

In the controversy between Christ and Satan, the character of God was now fully vindicated in his act of banishing from Heaven the fallen angel, who had once been exalted next to Christ. (Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 3, p. 184)

He [Satan] was next to Christ in exaltation and character. (R&H, Oct. 22, 1895)

Forty days and nights Jesus was subjected to the temptations of the enemy—the one who was once an angel next to Christ in majesty and glory in the heavenly courts. It is stated, Thou wast exalted because of thy beauty, et cetera. But he wanted to have the place of Christ, and Christ was one with the Infinite God; and because this was not accorded him, he became jealous, and he was the originator of sin. (MR, Vol. 16, p. 180 - Ms. 57, 1890)

These statements reveal Satan’s place in heaven had been next to Christ, Who was next to God. Referring to Satan, Sister White wrote:

He glorified in his brightness and exaltation and aspired to be equal with God. He was beloved and reverenced by the heavenly host, angels delighted to execute his commands, and he was clothed with wisdom and glory above them all. Yet the Son of God was exalted above him, as one in power and authority with the Father. He shared the Father’s counsels, while Lucifer did not thus enter into the purposes of God. “Why,” questioned this mighty angel, “should Christ have the supremacy? Why is He honored above Lucifer?” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 37)

While the great controversy between Christ and Satan is fought out today on this earth between their respective followers, the war clearly began in heaven. “Evil originated with Lucifer, who rebelled against the government of God. Before his fall he was a covering cherub, distinguished by his excellence. God made him good and beautiful, as near as possible like himself.” (R&H, September 24, 1901)⁸ God put all of His creative ability into Satan who believed that his position should have been equal with Christ’s and worthy of worship. This was not to be so. “Let the brightest example the world has yet seen be your example, rather than the greatest and most learned men of the age, who know not God, nor Jesus Christ whom he has sent. The Father and the Son alone are to be exalted.” (Youth’s Instructor, July 7, 1898)⁹ This statement includes only two divine beings who are to be exalted and worshipped, not three.

The Death of Christ

As noted in the last chapter, one of the tenets of the Trinitarian doctrine is the lack of a divine sacrifice dying in totality. The Trinitarian doctrine teaches “that the Son of God had three distinct natures at the same time; viz., a human body, a human soul, united with his Divine nature: the body being mortal, the soul immortal, the Divinity co-equal, co-existent, and co-eternal with the everlasting Father. Now, none of the advocates of this theory, claim that either his soul or Divinity died, that the body was the only part of this triple being which actually died “the death of the cross;” hence, according to this view (which makes the death of Christ the grand atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world) we only have the sacrifice of the most inferior part - the human body - of the Son of God.” (J. M. Stephenson- Review & Herald, Nov. 21, 1854)

The early Seventh-day Adventists saw the subject of the atonement as the heart of the three angels’ messages. They believed that Jesus died in totality. Their understanding of the begottenness of Christ, coupled with an understanding of the mortality of the soul and the state of the dead, led them to believe that the Bible statement, “Christ died for our sins,” meant He died body, soul, and spirit. In fact, Sister White wrote that Satan, the author of all lies, was the originator of the belief that Jesus could not die!

When Jesus had opened before his disciples the fact that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer and die at the hands of the chief priests and scribes, Peter had presumptuously contradicted his Master, saying, “Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee.” He could not conceive it possible that the Son of God should be put to death. Satan suggested to his mind that if Jesus was the Son of God he could not die. (Spirit of Prophecy,vol. 3, p. 231)

At this point questions arise! Could the One who was divine die at all? Was not Jesus, the Son of God, immortal? How could He die?

At the time when He was most needed, Jesus, the Son of God, the world’s Redeemer, laid aside His divinity, and came to earth in the garb of humanity. (Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, Oct. 12, 1896)

In addition to this we find the following concept in several places in Sister White’s writings:

The human race was under sentence of death, but the Son of God clothed his divinity with humanity, and came to this world to live and die in our behalf. (R&H, June 1, 1905)

How do these ideas relate to each other? One statement says that divinity was “laid aside,” the other says divinity was “clothed ... with humanity.” The Scriptures teach that Jesus laid aside His mental and physical attributes of divinity at the incarnation.¹⁰ In doing this, what was left to be clothed with humanity? The following testimony is a key to understanding the mystery.

“And the Devil, taking him up into a high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the Devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them; for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.” He presented the world to Christ as a most dazzling, enchanting spectacle. But Christ saw that which Satan tried to veil from his eyes, and that which he flattered himself he had done. Christ had not exchanged his divinity for humanity; but he had clothed his divinity in humanity, and he gave Satan the evidence for which he had asked,—showed him that he was the Son of God. Divinity flashed through humanity, and the evil one could not resist the authority of the divine voice, as Jesus said, “Get thee behind me, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (R&H, Oct. 29, 1895)

While Christ laid aside His mental and physical attributes of divinity at the incarnation, He was still the divine Son of God invested with authority because of who He was! He was still the Son of the Living God. In all of His humanity, He never gave up His divinely appointed authority which the Father had given Him. This explains why Satan’s temptation in the wilderness was not to make the stones turn into bread, but rather to “command” them to be bread.

“Original, unborrowed, underived”

Despite her Trinitarian background in the Methodist Church, Ellen White never used the terms “Trinity,” or “Triune God.” During the first fifty years of Sister White’s ministry, her brethren found nothing in her writings to cause them to alter their anti-Trinitarian theology. A turning point came in 1898 with the publication of The Desire of Ages. On page 530 the following statement appeared:

In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life. (Desire of Ages, p. 530)

The significance of this declaration is noted by Elder M. L. Andreasen who wrote: “This statement at that time was revolutionary and compelled a complete revision of my former view—and that of the denomination—on the deity of Christ.” (Without Fear or Favor, p. 76) While clearly speaking of the divinity of Christ, what did Ellen White mean by Christ’s life being “original, unborrowed, underived?” Was she now advocating a Trinitarian position? Following the rule that “The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given,” we look to an article published one year prior to the publication of The Desire of Ages. This article appeared in The Signs of the Times and was entitled, “Christ the Life-giver.” We find in this article a clarification of Sister White’s understanding of the concept.

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). It is not physical life that is here specified, but immortality, the life which is exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life. Physical life is something which each individual receives. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the Life-giver, takes it again. Man has no control over his life. But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. “I lay it down of myself” (John 10:18), He said. In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour. (The Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897- See Also 1 SM, pp. 296, 297)

The significance of this statement is tremendous! While stating that Christ’s life was “original, unborrowed, underived,” she also stated that “this life is not inherent in man.” So far to this point there is nothing to send up a red flag. The next two sentences opens up a whole new perspective: “He [man] can possess it [life, original, unborrowed, underived] only through Christ. He [man] cannot earn it [life, original, unborrowed, underived]; it is given him as a free gift if he [man] will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour.”

According to what Sister White wrote a year before The Desire of Ages was published, man is offered the same quality of life that Christ had. If Christ could bestow this life as a free gift upon man, then He could have received that same life from His Father. It was the original, unborrowed, underived life of the Father that Christ possessed and is able to bestow upon man. This is what Jesus meant when He said; “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:26).

The Original Source

Sister White’s libraries contained well over one thousand volumes. These volumes were cataloged in two main groups: “One section involved her private library in her ‘sitting room bookcase,’ the other, her office library where her literary assistants worked.” (A Bibliography of Ellen G. White’s Private and Office Libraries -  compiled by Warren H. Jones, Tim Poirier, and Ron Graybill, p. i) One of the entries listed as being in her private library is Sabbath Evening Readings on the New Testament, by John Cummings. On page five we find the following statement: “’In him was life,’— that is, original, unborrowed, underived.” (Sabbath Evening Readings on the New Testament, p. 5 - 1856)

It is no coincidence that this statement and the reference in The Desire of Ages are almost word for word identical. Research reveals that Sister White used the language of Cummings’ book for we find her quoting these words, and more, in at least two other places. These passages have been published in at least 13 places.¹¹ In a letter dated Nov. 1, 1905, she wrote to the manager of one of our sanitariums:

In Him is life that is original,—unborrowed, underived life. In us there is a streamlet from the fountain of life. In Him is the fountain of life. Our life is something that we receive, something that the Giver takes back again to Himself. (Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 19, p. 23.)

The parallel statement from Cummings reads as follows:

“In him was life,” — that is, original, unborrowed, underived. In us there is a streamlet from the Fountain of Life; in him was the Fountain of Life. Our life is something we receive, something that the Giver takes back again to himself. (Cummings, op. cit.)

Except for one word, these statements are word for word identical. It is not our purpose to discuss the extent of, or problems behind the literary borrowing of Sister White.¹² It has been freely admitted by the brethren that such borrowing was done and in a much larger scale than first realized. It is also known that some of the borrowing was at times done by the secretaries. However, with Cummings’ book being in Sister White’s private bookcase, it is reasonable to believe that Sister White, under inspiration, made the decision on its usage instead of one of the literary assistants.

Two areas of Cummings’ statement should be considered. We’ll examine the context first. Cummings noted: “He [the apostle John] at once begins by asserting the Deity of Christ as God and Lord of all; ...” (Sabbath Evening Readings on the New Testament, p. 5) While upholding the Deity of Jesus Christ, Cummings makes no statement here concerning the Godhead in relationship to a Trinity or a Triune God. This closely parallels the thoughts of the early Advent pioneers and Sister White who wrote positively of the Deity of Christ, but never of the Trinity or Triune God.

Secondly, we would like to examine the content of Cummings’ statement. Christ is said to be the “Fountain of Life.” We are said to be a “streamlet.” A streamlet is defined as a “small stream.” (Webster’s Dictionary) A streamlet does not carry a large quantity of water nor is it the source of the water. However, it does carry the same quality of water that comes from the source! Ellen White wrote concerning our receiving the life that flows from the Fountain:

In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour. (The Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897)

Here Sister White states that man may have “original, unborrowed, underived” life, but he can receive it only as a gift from Christ. Christ can bestow the same quality of life upon the sinner that He has because He has received it from His Father to give. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:26) Jesus has received it because He is the only begotten Son of God.

The “weight of evidence” clearly reveals that Sister White believed Jesus to be the literal Son of God.¹³ The question arises, What about Sister White’s statements concerning the eternal nature of Christ? If Jesus was eternal, then would it not have been impossible for Him to be the begotten Son of God before Bethlehem? First let us notice a typical statement:

The world was made by Him, “and without him was not any thing made that was made.” If Christ made all things, He existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore.

The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. (Signs of the Times, April 26, 1899 - See also R&H, April 5, 1899; and  1 SM, p. 247)

These statements seem very clear to most people. The following Bible statements also seem very clear.

And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.(Revelation 14:11) And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:10)

Adventist Bible students have found that these Scriptures mean what they say, however, they do not teach what most people who only surface read think they do. The same is true with some of Sister White’s statements. Her writings must be kept in line with Biblical concepts. When she wrote “eternity” we have no reason to believe otherwise. But what does the say about “for ever and ever”? Is that not eternal in the usual sense of the word? Yes and no. Scripture must be compared with Scripture to find the Biblical meaning of passages that might otherwise be interpreted using human wisdom instead of divine wisdom. If the different statements that Sister White wrote concerning Jesus Christ, His eternal nature, and His begottenness are true, then they must be reconcilable. We cannot use six or seven statements that seem to teach a Trinitarian doctrine and ignore the scores of references that speak otherwise!

The 1888 Factor

The 1888 factor helps to clarify matters. Sister White wrote that God sent a “most precious message” through Elders Jones and Waggoner. What was the 1888 understanding of Christ’s nature and His relationship to the Father?  E. J. Waggoner wrote:

The Word was “in the beginning.” The mind of man cannot grasp the ages that are spanned in this phrase.  It is not given to men to know when or how the Son was begotten; but we know that he was the Divine Word, not simply before He came to this earth to die, but even before the  world was created. Just before His crucifixion He prayed, “And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” John 17:5.  And more than seven hundred years before His first advent, His coming was thus foretold by the word of inspiration:  “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.”  Micah 5:2, margin.  We know that Christ “proceeded forth and came from God” (John 8:42), but it was so far back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man. (Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 9, 10)

Waggoner quotes Micah 5:2 and interprets this to mean that Christ was brought forth “so far back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man.” The Hebrew word translated “eternity” or “everlasting” is  olzu - owlam. Owlam is defined as a “vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity.” (Strong’s #5769) This word is used in such places as 1 Samuel 1:22 where we read that Samuel was to “appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever.” The phrase “for ever” comes from owlam and Adventists have been quick to point out that this means only as long as he lived. Another usage of owlam is found in Jonah 2:6 where Jonah describes his experience in the fish: “I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever [owlam]: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.” This was only a three-day period. Owlam is also translated “everlasting” in Proverbs 8:23, a text that Sister White applies to Christ. Owlam’s usage varies and must not violate the weight of evidence from other Scriptures.

Andreasen and Time

A few years ago, after reading what Waggoner had written, I had a great conflict going in my mind. I knew that Sister White had recommended his work. I had also read Sister White’s statements on the Sonship of Christ such as those we have noted, but I still did not understand how they could fully and totally correlate with Sister White’s statements on the eternal nature of Christ. Then one day I was reading M. L. Andreasen’s book, The Sabbath, and it all became very clear just as if the light switch had been turned on. Andreasen wrote:

We can understand how God can bless human beings. We can even understand how He can bless animals and give them their work to do in carrying out God’s purpose; but how can God bless a day, a division of time, neither animate nor inanimate, not alive nor dead, a thing without substance, a conception rather than a reality; time, which defies definition, though all mankind is aware of its existence and reality? How can time be blessed so as to be a blessing to man?

The answer is that time does not have any virtue or power in itself to be a blessing or a help to others. Time is as impersonal as space, and equally inconceivable. One difference between the two is noticeable: space extends in all directions, while time might be compared to a one-way road, permitting traffic in one direction only. Man has no power over time, to hasten or retard it. Whether he will or not, he is carried along with it, and despite all protests is one day older tomorrow than he is today. He cannot reverse the process, however much he may wish to do so. Time is superior to him, and he obeys its mandates.

There are those who believe that God did not create time, but that in some way He found it already existing. But this cannot be. Time and space are not self-existent entities, operating apart from God and independent of Him. If that were true, they would be equal with God, or even His superior; for that which is coeval with God or exists prior to God must at least be equal with Him; and that which is not created by God is self-existent and is God. The Christian believes that “without Him was not anything made that was made,” and that time and space are created by God as verily as anything else He has made. John 1:3.

Though the two conceptions of time and space are beyond human comprehension, each is helpful in understanding the other. Our conception of space, for example, helps us to understand time better, and how it is possible for God to bless time. (The Sabbath, pp. 54, 55 - M. L. Andreasen)

There can be no concept of eternity without the concept of time. As Andreasen noted, if all things were created by Jesus Christ, then He created time. Speaking as Paul, “after the manner of men” for lack of better words, there was a period in history before time or eternity existed. Christ, being the author of time, must also be the author of eternity as we know it. Therefore, Christ, the Son of God, was begotten before time and eternity existed since it was Christ who brought these into being. With this understanding we can see how Jesus “was with God from all eternity” and yet also the literal Son of  God begotten before Bethlehem.

If Ellen G. White did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, what about statements such as, “There are three living persons in the heavenly trio?” (Evangelism, p. 617) This will be the subject of the following chapter.