|
|
||
|
|
|||
Introduction: The Trinity in Adventism
One of the most controverted doctrines within Adventism, even within the mainstream Church, involves the view of the Godhead with respect to labels and titles. Specifically, the question has been asked, in various ways over the years, “Is the Trinity a Biblical doctrine?”
The mainstream Adventist Church, in its modern manifestation, is overwhelmingly Trinitarian in its approach to the Godhead, going so far as to include it in its list of Fundamental Doctrines, which it generally uses as a creed in determining “orthodoxy” with regard to the Adventist movement. Independent ministries, offshoots and break-away groups have been less uniform in their approach. Freed from the obligatory constraints of a common baptismal vow, they have taken the opportunity to re-examine what had become the “traditional” view in Adventism, and many have come to the conclusion that the term “Trinity,” and the concept it represents, falls significantly short of capturing what the Bible reveals about the Godhead.
Creation Seventh Day Adventists, for example, have rejected the label “Trinity” as appropriate for referencing our Father, His Son, and their Holy Spirit. Some Adventist authors will say that there is a distinction between the Roman Catholic view of the Trinity (which most Adventists will see as reason enough to reject it out of hand) and the Adventist view. However, the distinctions are poorly defined, vary from author-to-author, and ultimately come across as an attempt to be seen as in harmony with a very popular Christian doctrine, while at the same time avoiding the stigma of adopting a “Roman Catholic” belief.
One of the factors that tends to stifle dialogue about the nature of the Godhead in this generation, particularly with regard to mainstream Adventists, is that most modern members of the mainstream Church are not even aware that there is another view than they have accepted. As far as they know, the SDA Church has always been Trinitarian, and any suggestion otherwise is absurd, if not outright heretical. The idea that the founding members of the Adventist Church were uniformly anti-Trinitarian is often greeted with incredulity, and the evidence that may be presented to them (for which much exists) is viewed with suspicion.
This is clearly not a healthy environment for discussion.
To their credit, the mainstream Adventist Church has begun to admit that their adoption of the Trinity doctrine (or some Adventist-modified version of it) is a relatively recent event. In the January 6th edition of The Adventist Review from 1994, it was stated, “The Trinitarian understanding of God, now part of our fundamental beliefs, was not generally held by the early Adventists. Even today, a few do not subscribe to it.” Other publications have come forward, providing specific information, including the formal adoption of the view in the 1930s-1940s, well after the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White had ended.
A number of articles on the CSDA website, including the following, address a number of issues related to the Trinity. The first is a Biblical examination of the doctrine and concept: Where Two or Three Are Gathered
The second is a “survey” article, compiling the statements of Adventist pioneers, including the statements of Ellen G. White herself that make the argument that she accepted such an idea during her lifetime all but impossible to reasonably entertain: Adventist Pioneers on The Trinity Doctrine
The Progressive Approach
Educated Adventists, who are aware of the history of the Trinity doctrine within the mainstream Church, but who agree with it themselves, (or are unwilling to part ways with the tradition) have developed an approach to the problem that attempts to deal with the facts comprehensively.
They will admit that the early Adventists were non-, or even anti-, Trinitarian. They will admit that Ellen White’s body of work never once utilized the term, nor did she at any point endorse its promotion. Some of them will even acknowledge that her statements about the “third person of the Godhead” are not definitive in light of her own use of the terms “person” and “personality,” and her positive statements that the Holy Spirit was equated with Christ, the Son, who “could not be in every place personally,” and therefore sent His Spirit “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.” [Manuscript Releases Volume Fourteen, page 23, paragraph 3]
What these individuals will say is that the revelation of the truth of the Trinity was a progressive one. They will say that, for all their sincerity, the Adventist pioneers, and Ellen White, were tasked specifically with developing the Three Angels Message, that unique form of the Gospel appropriate for the generation awaiting the return of Christ. As a result of this, they were not corrected by the Almighty in all things, and the “details” of the Godhead’s tri-une nature were left to later generations for formal acceptance. They will point out, and rightly, that “Ellen White didn’t know everything,” and that even though she was inspired, her counsels on health and other matters were influenced – necessarily – by the knowledge of her day, and that rather than destroying her reputation as a prophet, it instead emphasizes her humanity.
Creation Seventh Day Adventists are generally favorable to the basic concepts of the above statements. We teach, in fact, that one must read the Spirit of Prophecy writings for principle over specifics. Ellen White herself once wrote that, “Regarding the testimonies, [i.e., her writings] nothing is ignored; nothing is cast aside; but time and place must be considered.” [Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 57]
On the other hand, understanding that revelation IS progressive, and that we ARE responsible for more light now than were our pioneers, does not give modern scholars and theologians free reign to reinterpret and restructure doctrines according to the spiritual norms of the day. Indeed, we are to look critically at any proposed changes to doctrines, and to examine whether or not any such changes are truly the leading of the Almighty, or merely a shift in the opinions and sentiments of the constituency. This is the essence of what it means to be a fundamental, conservative, Adventist.
The above is not a minor point. The “majority rules” approach to the development of Church doctrine is one that does not have a positive history in the records of the Sacred Scriptures. When twelve spies were sent into Canaan and ten returned with a false report – and only two spoke in faith. When Israel encamped around Sinai, all the people fell into apostasy, but two (Moses and Joshua) kept themselves from the general defilement. When Judah fell into complacency within its Babylonian (and then Persian) captivity, two voices (those of Haggai and Zechariah) encouraged them to step forward in faith and rebuild the Temple of Yahweh. There seems to be a pattern of as few as “two witnesses” warning against danger, while the majority is easily led along the path of disobedience and error.
So, what shall we say in regard to the gradual acceptance, and then formal adoption, of the Trinity doctrine by the mainstream Adventist Church? Perhaps it would be useful to perform a bit of an experiment.
With the growth of the Internet, and the availability of information like never before, it may be a reasonable challenge to pinpoint the moment when the voice of inspiration, and the activity of the Holy Spirit, led to a collective shift in the Adventist consciousness toward acceptance of the Trinity. If we could do that, we might be able to make an argument for the Spirit-led, progressive advancement of this doctrine. I would submit, however, that no such event or specific incident can be found. Instead, what we see is a gradual absorption of the sentiments present within Sunday-keeping, Evangelical Christianity by the Adventist Church, of which being favorable toward the Trinity doctrine was but one element. Rather than making worldly, nominal Churches more like the faithful Advent movement, (Sabbath-keeping, diet-reforming, prophecy-believing, advent-awaiting, etc.) contact has unquestionably drawn the mainstream Adventist Church further away from its distinctive positions on these things, toward which it was once “true as steel to principle.” [Manuscript Releases Volume Seventeen, p. 298] Nowadays it is well-nigh indistinguishable from the world in many of its worldwide congregations.
The fact that the gradual acceptance of the Trinity paradigm within Adventism was eventually given a voice by one or two of the leading men, leading to the codification of the belief, reveals more about the reaction of the leaders to the people than it does about anything resembling Biblical leadership akin to that of Moses, Joshua or the Apostles.
The scholars who support the adoption of the Trinity doctrine would have us believe that, while the general spirituality of Adventism has been steadily downward, our understanding of the Godhead has improved, to the point that we can now admit “the majority of Christians had it right, or nearly-right, all along.” This appears to fly in the face of how advancing light actually works. But, for the record, and so that we may be sure we are properly viewing this matter, let us look at genuine examples of progressive revelation in the Bible, and see how the claim of modern Adventist authors, including such well-known SDA figures as the late Samuele Bacchiocci (who actively supported the “progressive revelation” view) holds up to the antitype.
Example 1: Judeo-Christian Justice
The concept of “justice” for a worshipper of Yahweh has certainly undergone a transition over time. The first act of wrongdoing by human beings (the eating of the fruit by Adam and Eve) resulted in exile from the Garden of Eden. The first murderer, Cain, was likewise punished with banishment from the human settlement. Both of these were administered directly by Yahweh, but when the responsibility for the punishment of crime was passed on to humanity in the Covenant made with Noah, the instruction from the Creator was “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.” (Gen 9:6)
By the time of Moses, this principle was expanded into a general approach to justice, which may be summarized by the idea that “the punishment must fit the crime.” Specifically, we have the famous verses, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” (Exo 21:24, 25) A number of other verses, such as Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21, serve to emphasize this idea further.
Under the New Covenant, we have the teaching of the Messiah, who said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” (Matthew 5:38:42)
For the reasons relevant to the Old Testament society, the Almighty allowed justice to take a very direct and immediate form. We might mention here the doctrine of the “manslayer” described in Numbers 35, which provides for those who have killed another in a “legitimate” quest for revenge.
But Christ describes an approach to justice that is merciful and patient. It is not, contrary to a common understanding of Matthew 5, that Christ is contradicting Moses. The penalties for murder, stealing, etc., are exactly the same under both Covenants… but much of the execution of these penalties has been removed from the human instrument, and revenge in particular has been restored to the direct judgment of Yahweh. (Romans 12:19)
In other words, under Christ’s teaching the distinction between “justice” (which is the legitimate punishment of criminals and the protection of society from their misdeeds) and “revenge” (which is a personal and emotional reaction to having been wronged) is further developed. Yahweh’s perfect will for the approach of His children to being abused is made more explicit, while at the same time no previous teaching is cast aside.
Example 2: The Ministry of the Messiah
Speaking of Christ’s teachings, the ministry of the Savior is knowledge that was revealed to mankind over a period of thousands of years. The first mention of a “Son” who would overcome Satan was given, somewhat symbolically, right at the introduction of sin into the human consciousness. “And Yahweh Elohim said unto the serpent, ‘Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life; and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.’” (Gen 3:14, 15)
Nothing was said about how this would be accomplished, and later prophets spoke of the Savior as a Conqueror in such places as, “Behold, the day of Yahweh cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
“Then shall Yahweh go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.” (Zech 14:1-4)
That there is an interesting switch from “I” to “He” in Zechariah’s prophetic utterances reveals that this is the Father (I) speaking of the Son (He) as the one who stands on the Mount of Olives in power and judgment. Over the generations that followed, the oppressed and persecuted Hebrews took comfort in the knowledge that one day the Almighty would send a Chosen One, who would destroy the “nations against Jerusalem,” and restore them to peace and safety.
Unfortunately, they did not factor in all the information that has been provided, nor did the Scriptures specifically tie the figure of the Conqueror to that of the Sacrifice which was revealed in such passages as Isaiah 15 and, interestingly, in the chapter of Zechariah directly preceding the one quoted above, which mentions the wounded hands of the Redeemer, and the sword that would awake against the faithful Shepherd.
When Daniel saw that the Messiah would be “cut off, but not for Himself,” (Dan 9:26) he was greatly troubled, and he was told that he would not be able to understand everything his vision revealed. That was specifically intended for those in the “time of the end,” and “a time appointed.” (Dan 11:35)
There was little indication that the Messiah would have more than one distinct period of operation upon the earth. First, He would appear as the “suffering Servant,” and then, after offering Himself as a sacrifice of Humanity, would return as the Conquering King. It was not until the earthly ministry of Christ Himself, during this first phase of this grand work that He explicitly said to His followers, “the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28) He was not, as in the case above, contradicting the prophets that spoke of Him as a Conqueror, but rather He was explaining that, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” (John 12:24) It was only after His death and resurrection that the promise would be fulfilled, “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.” (Mark 13:26)
This was most certainly “new light,” so new that many – who were unwilling to surrender their traditions – rejected it. But some believed, even those in so desperate a situation as the thief who was crucified alongside Him. (Luke 23:39-43)
The Nature of the Covenant
For a final example of progressive revelation, we may point to the nature of the covenant between Yahweh and mankind. The understanding that His people have had of this divinely-inspired institution has certainly changed over the years.
By the time of Christ, it was the opinion that there was something particularly blessed about the bloodline of Abraham, particularly through his grandson Jacob. While others could certainly be saved by becoming a proselyte, a Gentile convert to Judaism, it was nevertheless on the merits of Abraham’s friendship with the Almighty that such individuals were incidentally included among the Chosen People.
This idea was so ingrained in the Jewish believers, even those who accepted Yahshua as the Messiah, that years after His ascension to Heaven there were disputes about what, exactly, constituted inclusion in the Covenant.
Some said that the Gentiles needed to adopt all the Jewish practices of the day. Others said that they needed to keep the ceremonial Law. Still others said that they needed to be circumcised, for this was THE sign of entrance into the Abrahamic arrangement. (Gen 17:10) It was “new light” indeed when Paul, a convert from Judaism, wrote to the Gentile believers, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.” (Eph 2:11-13, emphases added)
This is so clear, so pure, so wonderful… it is the Blood of Christ that makes us members of “Israel,” not the agreement with Abraham, nor the outward signs of our acceptance of that agreement. “In time past,” as it is written, such distinctions as “Gentile” and “Israel” were significant; but Christ, by His death, has broken down that barrier between Jew and Gentile, and provided that One Way, that One Covenant, for atonement with the Father. And yet, amazingly, some who claim to be Christ’s people still do not accept this! Some claim that there is yet another “Israel” to arise in the future, separate from the Church, and consisting of those with Abraham’s blood to at least some degree.
And yet, “If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:29)
While this is a significantly different topic, it is sufficient to note that revelation continues to be progressive, and that the People of Yah will always have a work to do to teach that revelation to others.
The Way of the Spirit
It is clear that, in all the cases mentioned above, the progress of the light, and the guidance of the Spirit, has been ever-upward. Doctrines and teachings have become ever clearer with the passing of each faithful generation. As we come to know the character of our Father and His Son more clearly, “we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” (2Cor 3:18)
The way of the Spirit is “glory to glory,” not “glory, to error, to glory.” The path is ever upward, and this serves to show the faithful student of the Scriptures clearly when there is apostasy involved in the way that doctrines are changed. All we need to is look for genuine contradictions.
A number of movements have arisen in recent years claiming to bring to bear the argument of “progressive revelation” to elevate Christianity to a new level of light and understanding. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (i.e., the Mormon Church) claims that revelations from Joseph Smith are “corrective” of the Bible, which they view as corrupted, incomplete and flawed. Likewise, the Baha’i faith seeks to incorporate many figures which they identify as prophets (including Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed) into one consistent flow if increasing knowledge of God.
The problem with both of these movements, as with all similar approaches, is that there are genuine contradictions involved, which set at naught the clear declarations and teachings that the Father has given to His people in the past. Without getting into specifics, in order to accept either of the two sets of doctrines provided by the groups mentioned above, one would have to read certain passages of the Bible and conclude, “This is not true, nor was it ever really true.”
That last part is the real problem; some practices may be acceptable for the believer for a time (such as polygamy, or animal sacrifices) but statements of what a thing IS, doctrinal statements revealing truths about our Father and His relationship to mankind, these are not subject to alteration at any point, for they are statements about the One who says of Himself, “I am Yahweh, I change not.” (Mal 3:6)
The Trinity doctrine is not a practice. It is an approach to describing the very Godhead, the very nature of the Everlasting Creator. If it is true now, this means it was always true. If it was false a hundred years ago, that means it is still false today.
Some may say, “The Sabbath was lost, due to the influence of Papal Rome, but Adventists and other groups were raised up to restore it.” That is very true. Some may say, “You Creation Seventh Day Adventists respect the annual Feast days, and keep the New Moons. Adventists don’t do that, so you believe you have restored something that was lost.” Again, that is very true. Practices may go into decline due to the apostasy of the people to whom those practices were entrusted. The concepts we are discussing here do not, in the slightest, invalidate the need at times for revival and reform within the Bride of Christ.
It may even be that we can think of some examples where knowledge was lost for a time. The belief in the soon return of Christ is not a practice, and yet it was strongly believed in the early days of the Church, generally suppressed during the “Dark Ages” of Romish influence, and restored by the Millerites in the 1800s. A legitimate case can be made that, at times, light can be suppressed by apostasy, and then restored at a later date.
The problem is, this argument cannot be applied to the doctrine of the Trinity by any who consider themselves to be faithful and consistent Adventists.
It is true that progressive revelation can suffer setbacks. It is quite true that the Father may present light to human beings, only to have it rejected for a time. But the reason for this rejection, the reason for this setback, is universally revealed to be due to unbelief, apostasy and rebellion. In any example that can possibly be cited, obstruction of the Spirit’s guidance was due to political or other worldly influences upon the would-be messengers of the Gospel, and therefore new reformers needed to be called in order to finish the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21) before the return of the Master for a faithful and purified people… a people purified by the truth. (1Peter 1:22)
So, why is the argument of progressive revelation barred to faithful Adventists, who wish to make the claim that this is the mechanism by which the Trinity came to be accepted as a fundamental doctrine? It is because a faithful, consistent Adventist beliefs that the Pioneers, who founded and advanced the early movement, were Spirit-led, Bible-believing, honest-hearted citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
The argument that the Trinity was not “given” to the Pioneers is not consistent with the facts of the early Advent movement. Those who came under the influence of William Miller, and his teachings about the soon return of Christ are the ones who eventually formed the primitive Seventh-day Adventist Church, and they came from such backgrounds as the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, and so on. They were Sunday-keeping Protestants, who had fully accepted the Trinitarian doctrine that was never discarded from Roman Catholicism.
Being aware of the Trinity, they could not be said to have been in ignorance of the teaching. Therefore, those who make the argument that progressive revelation is a legitimate vehicle by which Trinitarianism was introduced to the Adventist doctrines must accept the idea that the Pioneers of our faith, while being directly led by the Spirit, while praying day and night for revelation, while expecting the soon return of our Lord, deliberately rejected a true statement about the nature and personality of the Almighty, which was once said by Ellen White to be “everything to us as a people.” [Letter 300, emphasis added]
Simply put, progressive revelation does not work that way. There is no example in Biblical history, or any record of the Christian faith thereafter, which reveals faithful reformers, Bible-believing workers of the Gospel message, actively rejecting and denouncing a true doctrine, only for it to be restored by a later generation. The work of the Spirit, when it is leading a people, is ever upward, as the Scriptures themselves establish. Had any such thing begun to occur, the voice of the Spirit would be clearly heard by the pen of inspiration, either through Ellen White or some other faithful witness, as had so many (far lesser!) matters been corrected.
For the one who makes the Bible the foundation of his or her faith, the fact that the Spirit is revealed to be of a significantly different nature than the Father and Son is sufficient to reject, forever, the paradigm of a “co-equal, co-eternal, tri-une God.” As stated above, some will insist that the “Adventist Trinity” and the “Roman Catholic Trinity” have distinctions that render one true and the other false… and yet none of these distinctions, certainly not the key characteristics of these entities themselves, are found in the words of the Bible. The article given at the beginning of this document addresses the specifics of this assertion from a Biblical perspective.
Yet though the Bible is the foundation, there is much to be said about legitimate, Bible-inspired teachings, particularly from those coming out of the Adventist tradition. There is much light that can be gleaned by the study of good Biblical commentary, as long as one is careful and consistent in the approach.
From the perspective of the Adventist Christian, it is far too much of a contradiction to accept the idea that our pioneers, our forefathers in the faith, could be so wrong – and in such a unique way that the Bible gives no precedent for it – in rejecting a fundamentally true doctrine about such an all-important matter as the nature of the Creator. It is neither logical, nor reasonable to accept such an idea. The suggestion here is not that any human being, including the founders of Seventh-day Adventism, are infallible, or could not err. The suggestion is that such an error, of such a type, and to such a gross extent, is forbidden by the promises given to faithful Christians.
Our Father has told us, with no conditions or limitations, “But if from thence thou shalt seek Yahweh thy God, thou shalt find Him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.” (Deu 4:29)
Such promises form the very foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith. The personality of the Father and Son is nothing less than the saving truth about Themselves. (John 17:3) Anyone who has read the history of the Adventist Church must concede that these faithful brothers were dedicated seekers after the light of truth. Thus it would be, beyond merely irrational, an actual rejection of the principles of such promises to entertain the idea that the Spirit concealed such an important truth, one of which they were already fully aware, from those who had accepted these precious promises. Progressive revelation simply does not work that way, and has never worked that way. Therefore, it cannot be raised as a factor in the defense of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. Let us forever put aside that argument, and the doctrine accepted as a result of it, that we may move forward into an ever-more-perfect understanding of Him whom we worship, and Him unto whom we are ever approaching in character through the miracle of the Holy Spirit.
David.