ff chp 8

The first chapter of The Foundation of Our Faith dealt with a short history of the manner in which our doctrines were formed. We established the following four points concerning our doctrines:

We also learned that during the development of our doctrines “light was given that helped us [the early workers] to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood.” (Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, p. 57) His mission as revealed in the incarnation and His priesthood in the sanctuary atonement were covered in chapters two through seven. Concerning these doctrines we saw that the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, and the pioneers all were in agreement. Truly these doctrines are “historic” or “historical” in reference to the framework of the founding of the church. The truth about the nature of Christ before the incarnation must yet be covered. Our understanding of the doctrine of Christ will directly affect our understanding of the doctrine of God and here is where the paradox of “historic Adventism” begins.

The dictionary defines the word “paradox” as “a tenet contrary to received opinion,” or as “a self contradictory statement that at first seems true.” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary) While at one time there appeared to be a cover-up to try to hide the church’s past teachings on this area, such as in Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny, the current trend is to use the record of our past history as ammunition against those who claim to be “historic Adventists.” Notice the challenge of the S.D.A. Church as published in Issues:

For those who would wish to define “historic Adventism” in terms of specific doctrinal content, the 1872 date presents a real dilemma. To accept what Adventists considered binding at that time would exclude any reference to the nature of Christ or to a particular type of obedience. If one wishes, however, to claim additional content from that era and make that content binding in our day (even though Adventists from that earlier era refused to be bound by additional content), the question is: Would one be willing to accept all the content from that earlier era? Are the modern defenders of so-called historic Adventism really prepared to return to a non-Trinitarian position? (Issues, p. 39)

The church and almost all independent ministries claim to believe the Trinitarian doctrine. Issues claims that the early Adventists did not. The church, through Issues, asks quite logically how the independents can claim to be “historic” when they fail to accept the doctrine of God as taught by the pioneers. Thus the paradox of “historic Adventism.” This issue was side-stepped by one of the leading thinkers of the independent movement. In an otherwise finely written and well-considered pamphlet he wrote:

As our published writings have made quite clear, we understand and use the term “historic” to refer to the truths that were held by virtually all Adventists before the book Questions on Doctrine appeared in 1957.

We are not ignorant of our church’s history. We are well aware that the formation of our doctrines was a gradual process, with major principles being established in the early years and further refinements coming later. We are also well aware of the difference between “landmarks” and “pillars” of our faith and the less important items.

But these matters had been sorted out and our theology well refined before 1957, and it is to the common faith of the pre-1957 era that we have reference when we describe ourselves as “historic Adventists.” Again, this is clearly stated in our writings.

We, therefore, look in wonder at the 18 page search for historic Adventism in the Issues book, pages 35-53. The chapter requires us to look back to the earliest years of SDA experience for definitions of the term “historic Adventism.” Insofar as the present discussion is concerned, this has little or no relevance. We are talking about pre-1957, not pre-1857. (Issues: The Real Issue the Side Issues and the Pseudo Issue, pp. 39, 40)

The two main doctrinal points discussed in this pamphlet were the incarnation and the atonement. We freely grant that these doctrines appear to have little change from 1857 to 1957. Thus to claim to have the church’s theology of pre-1957 or 1857 would be almost one and the same for these doctrines from the angles they were approached. The same could not be said concerning the doctrine of God. The writer of this pamphlet states that the “major principles” of our faith were established in our early years. In fact, the pamphlet writer has produced a fine study documenting that the major points were established early. Ellen G. White’s writings date that period to be 1850. Therefore, we should not be surprised to find the challenge of the church published in Issues. There is no way that the doctrine of the Godhead can be considered a small or side issue. Both the church and independent ministries have made it clear in recent publications and tapes that they consider the doctrine of God a major issue. In fact, most are extremely quick to defend their position and attack anything that does not match their cherished thinking.

The facts are clear and undeniable that the pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church believed a very distinctly different doctrine than today’s Trinitarian doctrine. To try to treat early Adventist thought on this study “like an encapsulated cancer, gross but confined” as Froom did would be severely dishonest. (The Sanctuary and the Atonement, p. 530) The testimony of history is unambiguous. Early Seventh-day Adventists were all anti-Trinitarian. What does this mean to us today? Sister White states that God gave us the truth early in our experience; how then do we account for the change? What do the writings of Ellen G. White say concerning this teaching? Above all, what do the Scriptures say concerning this all important doctrine? While some seem in despair that a controversy is blowing concerning the doctrine of God, we should rejoice that God is giving us each an opportunity to study for ourselves on this matter so that we can have truth, pure and unadulterated. We have been counseled:

There are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe; but, until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth. . . .

This light should lead us to a diligent study of the Scriptures and a most critical examination of the positions which we hold. . . . Believers are not to rest in suppositions and ill-defined ideas of what constitutes truth. Their faith must be firmly founded upon the word of God so that when the testing time shall come and they are brought before councils to answer for their faith they may be able to give a reason for the hope that is in them, with meekness and fear. . . . (God’s Amazing Grace, p. 30)

Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed.

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, July 26, 1892 - See also Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 37.)

We will begin with an examination of the beliefs of our pioneers. The early denominational position can be understood by looking at the views of its leading minds on the subject of the Godhead.

Few early Adventists were held in as high esteem as was Joseph Bates. Beginning at age 15, he spent the next 21 years of his life as a sailor and sea captain. He was affectionately known as “Captain Bates.” In his autobiography he reveals not only some of his early Christian experience, but his view of the Trinitarian doctrine as well.¹

DURING the spring of the year 1827 we were blessed with a revival of religion in Fairhaven, especially in the Christian church. At this season my own mind was more or less exercised in regard to uniting with some denomination of Christians. My companion had been a member of the Christian church several years previous to our marriage. By attending with her, after our marriage, when I was at home, I had become acquainted somewhat with their views of the Bible. They took the Scriptures for their only rule of faith and practice, renouncing all creeds.

My parents were members of long standing in the Congregational church, with all of their converted children thus far, and anxiously hoped that we would also unite with them. But they embraced some points in their faith which I could not understand. I will name two only: their mode of baptism, and doctrine of the trinity. ... Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was an impossibility for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being. I said to my father, “If you can convince me that we are one in this sense, that you are my father, and I your son; and also that I am your father, and you my son, then I can believe in the trinity.” (The Autobiography of Joseph Bates, pp. 204, 205)

Bates joined the Christian Connection and later helped to build the Washington Street Christian Connection Meetinghouse in Fairhaven where he grew up. Bates wrote his autobiography in 1868 just four years before his death in 1872. There is no hint that his views changed in the 45 years since 1827. Joseph Bates did not believe in the Trinity.

Before continuing further with individual pioneers of the early Seventh-day Adventist Church, a survey of the Christian Connection of which Bates was a member would be helpful.

Many of the early Advent preachers came from the Christian Connection. Of special interest is Joshua Himes, one of William Miller’s strongest supporters. Erwin Gane, in a master’s thesis, gives the following history concerning the Christian Connection:

The beginning of the Christian Connection is dated about 1800. No individual is recognized as the leader or founder of the sect. The members had come from a number of the more conservative religious denominations such as the Calvinistic Baptists, the Free-will and Six-principle Baptists, the Methodists and Presbyterians. Coming as they did from such a diversity of backgrounds, the members retained their variant opinions on doctrinal matters. Himes points out that the early distinguishing characteristic of the group was “universal toleration.” In regard to their attitude to the doctrine of the Trinity, Himes wrote, “At first , they were generally Trinitarians; subsequently they have, almost unanimously, rejected the Trinitarian doctrine as unscriptural.” (Erwin Gane - The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer, p. 7)

Himes’ quote above was taken from an article he wrote on the Christian Connection for Rev. T. Newton Brown’s Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Thus he spoke authoritatively not only for himself, but for others. Gane comments: “It is very significant that Himes, one of the spiritual fathers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, should hold these doctrines. It is of further significance that others of the pioneers of this Church had been members of the Christian Connection, prior to accepting the tenets of Seventh-day Adventism.” (Ibid., p. 8) Perhaps most significant is that one of those pioneers was James White.

A prolific writer, dynamic preacher, and able administrator; few men have had a greater influence upon the Advent movement than Elder James White. Baptized at the age of 15, James White, like Joshua Himes and Joseph Bates, was a member of the Christian Connection. After hearing William Miller preach in 1842, he became an enthusiastic adherent of the Advent doctrine. He was ordained the following year and later married Ellen G. Harmon. Although he died at the early age of 60, he was a driving force among the Advent people for over 35 years. His views carried weight in the church and were representative of early Adventism. One of the first pronouncements on the subject of the Trinity from Elder White came in an early issue of The Day-Star. In an exposition on Jude 3 and 4, he wrote:

The way spiritualizers this way 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. (The Day Star, Jan. 24, 1846)

Six years later in a Review article Elder White refutes the charge that the “commandments of God” and “the faith of Jesus” are the same. He states:

To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God. (The Review and Herald, August 5, 1852)

The following year Elder White, in sharing with the readers of the Review the cause in the west, described meeting with “Bro. Cottrell” (the father of Roswell F. Cottrell) and stated the following concerning him:

Bro. Cottrell is nearly eighty years of age, remembers the dark day of 1780, and has been a Sabbath-keeper more than thirty years. He was formerly united with the Seventh-Day Baptists, but on some points of doctrine has differed from that body. He rejected the doctrine of the trinity, also the doctrine of man’s consciousness between death and the resurrection, and the punishment of the wicked in eternal consciousness. (The Review and Herald, June 9, 1853)²

During his editorship of the Review, Elder White published the following quotations from the Catholic Doctrinal Catechism which showed that Protestants were not guided by Scripture alone.

“A. Yes; so many that we cannot admit more than a mere specimen into this small work. They reject much that is clearly contained in Scripture, and profess more that is nowhere discoverable in that Divine Book.

“A. They should, if the Scripture were their only rule, wash the feet of one another, according to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap. of St. John; - they should keep, not the Sunday, but the Saturday, according to the commandment, ‘Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath-day;’ for this commandment has not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated.

“Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

“A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.

“Q. Do you observe other necessary truths as taught by the Church, not clearly laid down in Scripture?

“A. The doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine the knowledge of which is certainly necessary to salvation, is not explicitly and evidently laid down in Scripture, in the Protestant sense of private interpretation.” (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, August 22, 1854)³

In 1856, Elder White wrote the following statement in reply to a “communication ... from an esteemed friend.”⁴

The “mystery of iniquity” began to work in the church in Paul’s day. It finally crowded out the simplicity of the gospel, and corrupted the doctrine of Christ, and the church went into the wilderness. Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation. The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors. (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, February 7, 1856)

As we have seen, during his editorship of the Review, Elder White wrote and published articles that expressed non-Trinitarian positions. He also published the 1872 Statement of Beliefs in the first issue of The Signs of the Times in 1874. That non-Trinitarian statement read:

1. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the Creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal; infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth and mercy; unchangeable and every-where present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7. (A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventist)⁵

Elder D. E. Robinson, who married James White’s eldest granddaughter and “was closely associated with the White family, stated in an interview that James White never accepted the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Christy Matthewson Taylor, The Doctrine of the Personality of the Holy Spirit as Taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church up to 1900, pp. 7, 8) Russell Holt writes inquisitively:

The evidence from his pen seems to indicate that from his first spiritual affiliations with the Christian Connection, until his death at the age of 60, James White opposed the trinity, both on the basis of logic and scripture, while holding a definite concept of the exalted position and divinity of Jesus Christ. The conclusion reached is intriguing due to his unique and special relationship to the Lord’s messenger, who happened to be his wife. She was surely aware of his thinking on the subject. Did she approve? If not, why did he continue his belief? Did she simply refrain from correcting him? Why? The questions raised are fascinating but not easily answered. At least James White himself, can be demonstrated to have been a consistent anti-trinitarian. (Holt, op. cit., p. 7)

Joseph Bates and James White were not unique in holding an anti-Trinitarian position. The early Adventists, from various backgrounds, rejected the Trinitarian position for several different reasons.

One of the most frequent arguments cited by early Advent believers for the rejection of the Trinitarian doctrine was that it provided only a human sacrifice on the cross instead of a divine one. The Trinitarian position demanded a two nature Christology: human and divine, these two natures separate at all times with only the human nature dying on the cross. In contrast to this, the pioneers believed in a one nature Christology, the divine and the human being “blended” into one. In 1868, J. H. Waggoner (father of E. J. Waggoner) published his work The Atonement. A second edition was published in 1872, and an enlarged edition in 1884. In a chapter entitled, “Doctrine of a Trinity Subversive of the Atonement” he writes what would be representative of “historic Adventism.”

It will no doubt appear to many to be irreverent to speak thus of the doctrine of a trinity. But we think they must view the subject in a different light if they will calmly and candidly examine the arguments which we shall present. We know that we write with the deepest feelings of reverence for the Scriptures, and with the highest regard for every Scripture doctrine and Scripture fact. But reverence for the Scriptures does not necessarily embrace reverence for men’s opinions of the Scriptures.

It is not our purpose to present any argument on the doctrine of the trinity, further than it has a bearing on the subject under consideration, namely, on the Atonement.

Many theologians really think that the Atonement, in respect to its dignity and efficacy, rests upon the doctrine of a trinity. But we fail to see any connection between the two. To the contrary, the advocates of that doctrine really fall into the difficulty which they seem anxious to avoid. Their difficulty consists in this: They take the denial of a trinity to be equivalent to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Were that the case, we should cling to the doctrine of a trinity as tenaciously as any can; but it is not the case. They who have read our remarks on the death of the Son of God know that we firmly believe in the divinity of Christ; but we cannot accept the idea of a trinity, as it is held by Trinitarians, without giving up our claim on the dignity of the sacrifice made for our redemption.

And here is shown how remarkably the widest extremes meet in theology. The highest Trinitarians and lowest Unitarians meet and are perfectly united on the death of Christ—the faith of both amounts to Socinianism. Unitarians believe that Christ was a prophet, an inspired teacher, but merely human; that his death was that of a human body only. Trinitarians hold that the term “Christ” comprehends two distinct and separate natures: one that was merely human; the other, the second person in the trinity, who dwelt in the flesh for a brief period, but could not possibly suffer, or die; that the Christ that died was only the human nature in which the divinity had dwelt. Both classes have a human offering, and nothing more. No matter how exalted the preexistent Son was; no matter how glorious, how powerful, or even eternal; if the manhood only died, the sacrifice was only human. And so far as the vicarious death of Christ is concerned, this is Socinianism. Thus the remark is just, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, resting it solely on a human offering as a basis. (The Atonement in the Light of Nature and Revelation, pp. 164 - 166, 1884 edition)

Uriah Smith, writing in the Review and Herald of March 27, 1888, responded to an article from the Free Methodist of Chicago. The article writer, C. E. Harroun Jr., had scouted “the idea that Christ was not possessed of a dual nature while here upon the earth.” To this Smith responded: “At the same time he fails to answer the point made by S. D. Adventists, that if his nature can be separated into human and divine, and only the human part died, then the world is furnished with only a human sacrifice, not a divine sacrifice, as we contend.” (The Review and Herald, March 27, 1888)

The common view of the Trinitarian doctrine provided only a human sacrifice! The early pioneers sought to uplift the sacrifice of Christ to a higher level, to that of the divine.

Some of the earliest thoughts concerning the nature of the atonement in relationship to the Trinitarian doctrine came from the pen of J. M. Stephenson. Between August 22 and December 5, 1854, the Review published a series of nine front-page articles by Stephenson under the title “The Atonement.” James White, Review editor, urged readers at the beginning of the series to “carefully peruse each article when published.” After discussing the Unitarian view of the sacrifice, Stephenson proceeds to discuss the view of the sacrifice as provided by Trinitarianism:

The Trinitarian view, I think is equally exceptionable. They claim 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. (Review and Herald, Nov. 21, 1854)

Stephenson saw the Trinitarian position running 180 degrees opposite Isaiah 53:12 - “he hath poured out his soul unto death.” Instead of a Christ who offered His whole person (“soul” - nephesh) as the sacrifice for the sins of the world, Stephenson saw only an inadequate sacrifice of a human body presented by Trinitarians. At the incarnation, Christ “did not lose his personal identity in his transition from God to man, from the Word to flesh.” (Ibid.) Commenting on John 1:14 he stated:

“The Word,” “God,” “the only begotten of the Father,” was made flesh; not flesh made, and the Word put into it; or united with it, but “the Word was made flesh.” The natural import of this language is, that the only begotten of the Father, was actually converted into flesh, and as flesh denotes the real nature of the beings for whom he became a substitute, we may reasonably suppose that he became flesh; that the Divine nature was made human; nay, that the very substance of which he was originally composed was converted into flesh; otherwise he would not be a real man, a real substitute for man. To be such, he must represent man’s nature, as well as his condition. (Ibid. )

One author who influenced Stephenson in his writing on the atonement was Henry Grew. Grew was a Baptist minister who “championed the Conditionalist position that persuaded George Stoors and Charles Fitch—and thus confirmed our own early Conditionalist views as Adventists.” (Movement of Destiny, p. 155) In the last section of a nine part study, Stephenson quoted from Henry Grew’s work, An Examination of the Divine Testimony of the Nature and Character of the Son of God, comparing the teaching of Jesus Christ and His Apostles with that of Trinitarians:

Jesus Christ and His Apostles	Trinitarians
To us there is but one God, the Father. 1 Cor. 8:6	To us there is but one God, the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost.
My Father is greater than I. John 14:28	The son is as great as the Father.
Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature. Col. 1:15	Who is the invisible God, the uncreated Jehovah.
But of that day, &c., knoweth no man, no not the angels, &c., neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32.	The Son is omniscient, and knew of that day as well as the Father.
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matthew 28:18 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. John 17:2	No given power can qualify the Son of God to give eternal life to his people.
God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. Eph. 3:9 By whom also he made the worlds. Heb. 1:2	Jesus Christ created all things by his own independent power.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him. Rev. 1:1	The Revelation of Jesus Christ from his own omniscience.
For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5	There is one Mediator between God and man; who is also supreme God and man in one person.
Denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 4	Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also the only Lord God, and a distinct person.
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, and signs, and wonders which God did by him. Acts 2:22	Jesus performed his miracles by his own omnipotence.
For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. John 5:26	The son is self-existent.
I live by the Father. John 6:57	The son lives by himself.
This is my beloved Son. Matt. 3:17	This is the only true God, the same numerical essence as the Father.
That they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. John 17:3	That they might know thee, who art not the only true God, in distinction from the Word whom thou hast sent.
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow–and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Phil. 2:11	That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow–and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to his own glory. (Review & Herald, Dec. 5, 1854)

The S. D. A. Biblical Research Committee wrote that “Stephenson’s Christology intended definitely to honor Christ and also to correct popular misconceptions about Christ’s sufferings.” (The Sanctuary and the Atonement, p. 532) The Research Committee further stated, “Indeed, according to Stephenson, so great was Christ’s condescension in giving up His divinity in order to become a man, that we need to realize that His earthly experience was only a portion of His sacrifice on our behalf.” (Ibid.) Finishing the section of their study called, “Atonement, Christology, and the Trinity,” the committee stated that “early Adventist anti-Trinitarianism ... cannot fairly be accused of intending to downgrade our Lord. It labored lovingly to upgrade popular conceptions of the atonement. Movement of Destiny need not have been embarrassed!” (Ibid., p. 533)

In 1869, the Review printed an article written by Roswell F. Cottrell. Cottrell’s father was the R. F. Cottrell that James White had reported on earlier. This article is significant for, according to Arthur White, it “sets forth well the attitude of the pioneers and believers on the question of the Trinity,” and reveals what they thought about Jesus Christ.⁶

This has been a popular doctrine and regarded as orthodox ever since the bishop of Rome was elevated to the popedom on the strength of it. It is accounted dangerous heresy to reject it; but each person is permitted to explain the doctrine in his own way. All seem to think they must hold it, but each has perfect liberty to take his own way to reconcile its contradictory propositions; and hence a multitude of views are held concerning it by its friends, all of them orthodox, I suppose, as long as they nominally assent to the doctrine.

For myself, I have never felt called upon to explain it, nor to adopt and defend it, neither have I ever preached against it. But I probably put as high an estimation on the Lord Jesus Christ as those who call themselves Trinitarians. This is the first time I have ever taken the pen to say anything concerning the doctrine.

My reasons for not adopting and defending it, are 1. Its name is unscriptural—the Trinity, or the triune God, is unknown to the Bible; and I have entertained the idea that doctrines which require words coined in the human mind to express them, are coined doctrines. 2. I have never felt called upon to adopt and explain that which is contrary to all the sense and reason that God has given me. All my attempts at an explanation of such a subject would make it no clearer to my friends.

But if I am asked what I think of Jesus Christ, my reply is, I believe all that the Scriptures say of him. If the testimony represents him as being in glory with the Father before the world was, I believe it. If it is said that he was in the beginning with God, that he was God, that all things were made by him and for him, and that without him was not anything made that was made, I believe it. If the Scriptures say he is the Son of God, I believe it. If it is declared that the Father sent his Son into the world, I believe he had a Son to send. If the testimony says he is the beginning of the creation of God, I believe it. If he is said to be the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, I believe it. And when Jesus says, “I and my Father are one,” I believe it; and when he says, “My Father is greater than I,” I believe that too; it is the word of the Son of God, and besides this it is perfectly reasonable and seemingly self-evident.

If I be asked how I believe the Father and Son are one, I reply, They are one in a sense not contrary to sense. If the “and” in the sentence means anything, the Father and the Son are two beings. They are one in the same sense in which Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one. He asked his Father that his disciples might be one. His language is, “that they may be one, even as we are one.”

It may be objected, if the Father and the Son are two distinct beings, do you not, in worshiping the Son and calling him God, break the first commandment of the Decalogue?

No; it is the Father’s will “That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” We cannot break the commandment and dishonor God by obeying him. The Father says of the Son, “Let all the angels of God worship him.” Should angels refuse to worship the Son, they would rebel against the Father. Children inherit the name of their father. The Son of God “hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than” the angels. That name is the name of his Father. The Father says to the Son, “Thy throne, O God is forever and ever.” Heb. 1. The Son is called “The mighty God.” Isa. 9:6. And when he comes again to earth his waiting people will exclaim, “This is our God.” Isa. 25:9. It is the will of the Father that we should thus honor the Son. In doing so we render supreme honor to the Father. If we dishonor the Son we dishonor the Father; for he requires us to honor his Son.

But though the Son is called God yet there is a “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Pet. 1:3. Though the Father says to the Son, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,” yet, that throne is given him of his Father; and because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity, he further says, “Therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee.” Heb. 1:9. “God hath made that same Jesus both Lord and Christ.” Acts 2:36. The Son is “the everlasting Father,” not of himself, nor of his Father, but of his children. His language is, “I and the children which God hath given me.” Heb. 2:13 (emphasis in original)

Cottrell’s burden was not only to explain to the Trinitarians why he could not agree with them; but even more to present what he believes about Jesus Christ. Cottrell, like Waggoner, insisted Christ is divine and worthy of worship. While not ascribing to Christ the concept of being co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, they did not view Christ as a created being, but rather a literal begotten Son. While not attempting to describe the manner in which Christ was brought forth, they believed the Scriptures concerning the sonship of Christ to mean literally what they said.

Another famous Adventist pioneer who rejected the Trinitarian teaching was J. N. Loughborough. In a Review article, Loughborough answers the question: “What serious objection is there to the doctrine of the Trinity?” (Review and Herald, Nov. 5, 1861) Loughborough replied: “There are many objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following: 1. It is contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to scripture. 3. Its origin is pagan and fabulous.” (Ibid.) While following a similar line of reasoning on the first two statements that other pioneers used, Loughborough also introduces the pagan origins of the doctrine. He writes:

3. Its origin is pagan and fabulous. Instead of pointing us to scripture for proof of the trinity, we are pointed to the trident of the Persians, with the assertion that “by this they designed to teach the idea of a trinity, and if they had the doctrine of the trinity, they must have received it by tradition from the people of God. But this is all assumed, for it is certain that the Jewish church held to no such doctrine. Says Mr. Summerbell; “A friend of mine who was present in a New York synagogue, asked the Rabbi for an explanation of the word ‘elohim.’ A Trinitarian clergyman who stood by, replied, ‘Why, that has reference to the three persons in the Trinity,’ when a Jew stepped forward and said he must not mention that word again, or they would have to compel him to leave the house; for it was not permitted to mention the name of any strange god in the synagogue.” Milman says the idea of the Trident is fabulous.

This doctrine of the trinity was brought into the church about the same time with image worship, and keeping the day of the sun, and is but Persian doctrine remodled. It occupied about three hundred years from its introduction to bring the doctrine to what it is now. It was commenced about 325 A. D., and was not completed till 681. (Ibid.)⁷

Loughborough traces the doctrine of the Trinity from pagan origins to papal acceptance. This papal acceptance was recognized by A. T. Jones. In a Review article, “Historical Necessity of the Third Angel’s Message,” Jones lists Servetus as opposing Calvin and “the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.” (Review and Herald, June 17, 1884) In 1891, Jones published his monumental work, The Two Republics. Chapter fourteen, “Establishment of the Catholic Faith,” concerns itself with the Trinitarian doctrine and its acceptance within the papal church. The Handbook for Today’s Catholic, a post-Vatican II publication, states that the Trinity is the foundational doctrine of the Catholic Church!

The mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the Church. In the New Testament there is frequent mention of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A careful reading of these scriptural passages leads to one unmistakable conclusion: each of these Persons is presented as having qualities that can belong only to God. But if there is only one God, how can this be?

The Church studied this mystery with great care and, after four centuries of clarification, decided to state the doctrine in this way: in the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three gods but one God.” (Handbook for Today’s Catholic, pp. 11, 12)