Edson White wrote in 1913 that there are only two Divine Beings in the entire universe, the Father and the Son:

  • “Only one Being in the universe besides the Father bears the name of God, is His Son, Jesus Christ.” {James Edson White: The Coming King, p. 27, 1913} 

Why didn’t Ellen White react to that, if she really believed in the Trinity at that time? It was in those days that there was a great struggle between the two camps, and such a statement would have had a great impact, especially since it was coming from Ellen White’s son! What did Ellen White’s second son, William White, later write about bringing the doctrine of the Trinity into the Adventist Church?

  • “The statements and the arguments of some of our ministers in their effort to prove that the holy Spirit was an individual as are God, the father and Christ, the eternal Son, have perplexed me and sometimes they have made me sad.” {Letter from William C. White to H. W. Carr April 30th 1935

Why did William White fight the Trinity if it is truth? Because God showed Ellen White that her son would not depart from the truth:

  • “It was also shown me that my son, W. C. White, should be my helper and counselor, and that the Lord would place on him the spirit of wisdom and of a sound mind. I was shown that the Lord would guide him, and that he would, not be led away, because he would recognise the leadings and guidance of the holy Spirit…“The Lord will be your instructor. You will meet with deceptive influences; they will come in many forms, in pantheism and other forms of infidelity; but follow where I shall guide you, sand you will be safe. I will put My Spirit upon your son, and will strengthen him to do his work. He has the grace of humility. The Lord has selected him to act an important part in His work. For this purpose was he born.“ {Ellen White: Selected Messages Book 1, pp. 54, 55}

What has George Knight, a professor of Adventist history and a follower of the Trinity, sincerely written today, as one of the most famous theologians in today’s GC circles?

  • Most Adventist pioneers today could not become members of the Adventist Church, at least not before agreeing with the church’s 28 points of view. They would e.g. rejected point 2 ‘The Trinity’“ {George Knight: Ministry October 1993 p.10}

Which persons did not belong to that majority? The theologians who, unfortunately, became proponents of the Trinity later on, and who gradually brought this apostasy into the Adventist church: Dr. J. H. Kellog, A. T. Jones, Prof. W. W. Prescott, A. G. Daniells, Francis Wilcox, H. C. Lacey, later supported by Drs. LeRoy Froom and President of the General Conference Charles Whatson, who in 1931 managed to finally put this teaching on the list of our beliefs. Some Adventists today make assumptions that our pioneers rejected only the Catholic form of the Trinity. In the quote below, in which a conversation was recorded in which Ellen White also participated, we see that these statements are not true:

  • “Here, upon the train, we met a man of marked physical and mental powers, just returning from his missionary field in China. […] As we conversed with this gentleman, feelings of profound respect were aroused for the sacrifice he has made, and is still making. [..] But after catechising us upon the trinity, and finding that we were not sound upon the subject of his triune god, he became earnest in denouncing unitarianism, which takes from Christ his divinity, and leaves him but a man. Here, as far as our views were concerned, he was combating a man of straw. We do not deny the divinity of Christ. [..] We believe him to be the Divine person addressed by Jehovah in the words, ” Let us make man.” He was with the Father before the world was. [..] We have not as much sympathy with Unitarians that deny the divinity of Christ, as with Trinitarians who hold that the Son is the eternal Father, and talk so mistily about the three-one God. Give the Master all that divinity with which the holy Scriptures clothe him.“ {RH, June 6, 1871, p. 196, Western Tour} {

There are also claims that SOME pioneers of Adventism came from religious groups where the Trinity was rejected and that this is the only reason why this doctrine was not immediately introduced into the church. But does that mean we should also refuse baptism, because it was brought by the Baptists? Or Jesus’ second coming after William Miller believed it? As the last true church, we have taken the hitherto known truth through the guidance of the Spirit of Prophecy from many sides, and replaced the erroneous essential beliefs of other churches with biblical truth. The Trinity was not a teaching we needed to adopt into our beliefs, but it was the unbiblical teaching of the majority of the churches that we left behind when we left Babylon. That is why the Adventists of that time defended against it as fervently as they did with the truth about the Sabbath and the Second coming of Jesus! The following quotes from old pioneers confirm what the church believed at that time, which was in agreement with what Ellen White taught.

The claim that these were only a few pioneers, and that then the majority of the church of that time believed in the Trinity, is a direct lie. These pioneers led and carried our church and theology! But Satan is trying to twist even such clear facts! Although the Catholic Trinity teaches the meaningless doctrine that Jesus as Son is born again and again, it also recognises that Jesus is the literal Son, and not just within the mission of salvation. In addition to the clear belief that there are only two Divine Beings, the Pioneers rejected the “Adventist form of the Trinity“, which teaches that Jesus did not literally die on the cross (but only the garment of human flesh and that Jesus resurrected Himself), which is a rejection of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. Our pioneers believed that Jesus, although a Divine Being, is a literal Son with a literal beginning, a heavenly birth. Ellen White never refuted their views, but supported them herself.

J. N. Andrews:

  • “The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The infamous, measures by which it was forced upon the church which appear upon the pages of ecclesiastical history might well cause every believer in that doctrine to blush.“ {J.N. Andrews: RH, March 6, 1855} 
  • “And as to the Son of God, he would be excluded also (assuming He had no beginning), for he had God for his Father, and did, at some point in the eternity of the past, have beginning of days.” {J.N. Andrews: RH, September 7, 1869} 

James White:

James White never denied the Deity of Christ, but he made it clear that Jesus nevertheless has a beginning and was positioned below the Father. Isn’t it strange that Ellen White never said or wrote anything against it, but in the 1900s she re-emphasised that pioneering works should be printed?

  • The Father and the Son were one in man’s creation, and in his redemption. Said the Father to the Son, “Let us make man in our image.” And the triumphant song in which the redeemed take part, is unto “Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever.“ {J.S. White: The Law and the Gospel, p.1. 1870} 
  • “It is as wide from the truth as the old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God (the Father).” {James White, August 5, 1852, RH, vol. 3, no. 7, page 52, par. 42} 
  • “The way spiritualisers 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.”  {J.S. White: The Day Star, January 24, 1846} 
  • The Father was greater than the Son in that He was first.“  {James White, January 4, 1881, Review & Herald; found in Ellen White: RH Articles, vol. 1, page 244}
  • “As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit sabbath other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, the Trinity, the consciousness of the dead and eternal life in misery.” {J.S. White: RH, September 12, 1854} 

Many, after reading this quote, say that James White was referring to the Catholic version of the Trinity, and that the pioneers “did not reject the correct Trinity”, which they say is what is taught in today’s Adventist Church. In the quote below we see the opposite though. We see that James White made it clear that every form of the Trinity is a false teaching, and he confirmed this in 1877:

  • The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, “Let us make man in our image?”  {James White, November 29, 1877, RH} 
  • ”Jesus prayed that His disciples might be one as he was one with his Father. This prayer did not contemplate one disciple with twelve heads, but twelve disciples, made one in object and effort in the cause of their master. Neither are the Father and the Son parts of the “three-one God”. They are two distinct Beings,” {James White, 1868, Life Incidents, p. 343} 

After his death, Ellen White gave a well-known statement that her husband believed and studied only correctly, and that his only mistake was just that he was physically overworked, and thus, ended up dying much earlier than he should have.

Uriah Smith:

The “life in itself” that he is referring to has to do with immortality, which only the Father and the Son possess. In the book quoted, he clearly stated that Jesus is the literal Son of His heavenly Father, and that the Trinity is a false doctrine. This book was especially important and widespread until the time of Ellen White’s death.

  • “To the Lamb, equally with the Father who sits upon the throne, praise is ascribed in this song of adoration. Commentators, with great unanimity, have seized upon this as proof that Christ must be coeval with the Father; for otherwise, say they, here would be worship paid to the creature which belongs only to the Creator. But this does not seem to be a necessary conclusion. The Scriptures certainly clearly intimate that the existence of Christ had a beginning (John 1:1), which was not so in the case of the Father. (See remarks on Rev.3:14, where it is shown that Christ is not a created being.) But while he does not possess a co-eternity of past existence with the Father, the beginning of his existence, as the begotten of the Father, antedates the entire work of creation, in relation to which he stands a joint creator with God (John 1:3; Heb.1:2).  Could not the Father ordain that to such a being worship should be rendered equally with himself, without it’s being idolatry on the part of the worshiper? He has raised Him to positions which make it proper that He should be worshiped, and has even commanded that worship should be rendered him, which would not have been necessary had he been equal with the Father in eternity of existence. Christ himself declares that ’as the Father hath life in himself, so hath He given  to the Son to have life in Himself.’ (John 5:26).  The Father has ’highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.’ (Phil. 2:9).  And the Father himself says, ’Let all the angels of God worship him.’ (Heb. 1:6). These testimonies show that Christ is now an object of worship equally with the Father; but they do not prove that with him he holds an eternity of past existence.“  {Uriah Smith: Daniel and the Revelation, 1897, 401} 
  • This Spirit is the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ; the Spirit being the same whether it is spoken of as pertaining to God or Christ. But respecting this Spirit, the Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonised with the idea that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shown to be a Divine influence from them both, the medium which represents their presence and by which they have knowledge and power through all the universe, when not personally present. Christ is a person, now officiating as priest in the sanctuary in heaven; and yet he says that wherever two or three are gathered in his name, he is there in the midst. Mt. 18,20. How? Not personally, but by his Spirit. In one of Christ’s discoursed (John 14-16) this Spirit is personified as “the Comforter,” and as such has the personal and relative pronouns, “he,” “him,” and “Whom,” applied to it. But usually it is spoken of in a way to show that it cannot be a person, like the Father and the Son. For instance, it is often said to be “poured out” and “shed abroad.” But we never read about God or Christ being poured out or shed abroad. If it was a person, it would be nothing strange for it to appear in bodily shape; and yet when it has so appeared, that fact has been noted as peculiar.” {Uriah Smith: RH, October 28, 1890}
  • “The holy Spirit is the Spirit of God; it is also the Spirit of Christ. It is that Divine, mysterious emanation through which they carry forward their great and infinite work.” {Uriah Smith: General Conference Daily Bulletin Volume 4, March 14, 1891, pp. 146, 147}
  • “These Things Saith the Amen. – This is, then, the final message to the churches ere the close of probation. And though the description of their condition which he gives to the indifferent Laodiceans is fearful and startling, nevertheless it cannot be denied; for the Witness is “faithful and true.“ Moreover, He is “the beginning of the creation of God.“ Some understand by this language that Christ was the first created Being, dating his existence anterior to that of any other created being or thing, next to the self-existent and eternal God. But the language does not necessarily imply that He was created; for the words, “the beginning of the creation,“ may simply signify that the work of creation, strictly speaking, was begun by Him. “Without Him was not anything made.“ Others, however, and more properly we think, take the word αρχη to mean the “agent“ or “efficient cause“, which is one of the definitions of the word, understanding that Christ is the agent through Whom God has created all things, but that He himself came into existence in a different manner, as He is called “the only begotten“ of the Father. It would seem utterly inappropriate to apply this expression to any being created in the ordinary sense of that term“ {Uriah Smith:  Daniel and the Revelation, 1897, p. 371}

J. H. Waggoner:

Is it true that our pioneers, by rejecting the Trinity, also rejected the Deity of Christ?:

  • They (theologians) 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.” {J. H. Waggoner: The Atonement in the Light of Nature and Revelation, pp. 164, 165 1884}
  • “As before remarked, the great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, is this: they make no distinction between a denial of a trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a trinity. The declaration, that the Divine Son of God could not die, is as far from the teachings of the Bible as darkness is from light. And we would ask the Trinitarian, to which of the two natures are we indebted for redemption? The answer must, of course, be, To that one which died or shed his blood for us; for “we have redemption through his blood.” Then it is evident that if only the human nature died, our Redeemer is only human, and that the Divine Son of God took no part in the work of redemption, for he could neither suffer nor die. Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism.“ {J.H. Waggoner: The Atonement In The Light Of Nature And Revelation, pp. 173, 174 1884} 

E.J. Waggoner:

  • “A word of caution may be necessary here. Let no one imagine that we would exalt Christ at the expense of the Father, or would ignore the Father. That cannot be, for their interests are one. We honor the Father in honoring the Son. We are mindful of Paul’s words, that “to us there is but one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things, and we by Him” (1 Cor. 8,6); just as we have already quoted, that it was by Him that God made the worlds. All things proceed ultimately from God, the Father; even Christ Himself proceeded and came forth from the Father; but it has pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell, and that He should be the direct, immediate Agent in every act of creation. Our object in this investigation is to set forth Christ’s rightful position of equality with the Father, in order that His power to  redeem may be the better appreciated.” {E.J. Waggoner: Christ And His Righteousness, p. 19. 1890}
  • “Before passing to some of the practical lessons that are to be learned from these truths, we must dwell for a few moments upon an opinion i.e. honestly held by many who would not for any consideration willingly dishonor Christ, but who, through that opinion, do actually deny His Divinity. It is the idea that Christ is a created being, who, through the good pleasure of God, was elevated to His present lofty position. No one who holds this view can possibly have any just conception of the exalted position which Christ really occupies. [..] The Scriptures declare that Christ is “the only begotten son of God.” He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it, in these words: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me i.e. to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.” Micah 5:2. There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning. But the point is that Christ  is a begotten Son, and not a created subject. He has by inheritance  a more excellent Name than the angels; He is  “a Son over His own house.” Heb. 1:4; 3:6. And since He is the only-begotten Son of God, He is of the very substance and nature of God, and possesses by birth all the attributes of God; for the Father was pleased that His Son should be the express image of His Person, the brightness of His glory, and filled with all the fullness of the Godhead. [..] Finally, we know the Divine unity of the Father and the Son from the fact that both have the same Spirit. Paul, after saying that they that are in the flesh cannot please God, continues: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” Rom. 8:9. Here we find that the holy Spirit is both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Christ “is  in the bosom of the Father;” being by nature of the very substance of God, and having life in Himself, He is properly called Jehovah, the self-existent One, and is thus styled in Jer. 23:56, where it is said that the righteous Branch, who shall execute judgment and justice in the earth, shall be known by the name of Jehovah – THE LORD, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Let no one, therefore, who honors Christ at all, give Him less honor than He gives the Father, for this would be to dishonor the Father by just so  much; but let all, with the angels in heaven, worship the Son, having no fear that they are worshiping and serving the creature instead of the Creator.” {E.J. Waggoner: Christ And His Righteousness, pp. 19-24. 1890

S. N. Haskell:

  • “Before the creation of our world, “there was war in heaven.” Christ and the Father covenanted together; and Lucifer, the covering cherub, grew jealous because he was not admitted into the eternal councils of the Two who sat upon the throne.“ {S. N. Haskell: The Story of the Seer of Patmos, p. 217. 1905

H. C. Lacey:

Although he belonged to the group of Trinity supporters, his words below were sincere and completely TRUE:

  • “In this connection, of course you know that Mrs Marian Davis was entrusted with the preparation of “Desire of Ages” and that she gathered her material from every available source – from Sr. White’s books already in print, from unpublished manuscripts, from private letters, stenographical reports of her talks etc. – but perhaps you may not know that she (Sr. Davis) was greatly worried about finding material for the first chapter. She appealed to me personally many times as she was arranging that chapter (and other chapters too for that matter) and I did what I could to help her; I have good reason to believe that she also appealed to Professor Prescott for similar aid, and got it too in far richer and more abundant measure than I could render.” (H.C. Lacey letter to L.E. Froom Aug. 30, 1945)
  • “As to any special controversy, or agitation, over the matter of the Trinity, I cannot recall anything serious at all. Of course I have always known that Elder Uriah Smith was an Arian in belief, (‘Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation’ reveal that!) and that our people undoubtedly generally followed that view. But we, as a family, had been brought up in the (Anglican) Church of England, and were naturally, may I say, Trinitarians. We just believed it, subconsciously, and I do not remember our ever discussing the question with the brethren who brought us into the Truth, Elder M. C. Israel and his younger brother, W. L. H. Baker. One thing I do recall is my mother’s remarking on the strange language used by our ministers in speaking of the holy Ghost as ‘IT’ and ‘ITS’ as though they thought of the holy Spirit as an influence, instead of as a Person. That seemed very strange to her, and in a measure to me also (I was about 17 then).” {H.C. Lacey letter to LeRoy Froom Aug. 30, 1945} 
  • “At that time, Professor PRESCOTT was tremendously interested in presenting Christ as THE GREAT “I Am” and in emphasising the eternity of His existence, using frequently the expression “The Eternal Son”. Also he connected the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14, which of course was Christ the Second Person of the Godhead, with the fulfillment of Jesus in John 8:58, which we all agree to; but then linked it up with other “I ams” in that Gospel – 7 of them, such as “I am the Bread of life” “I am the Light of the world’ “I am the door of the Sheep” etc. all very rich in their spiritual teaching – but which seemed a little far fetched to me especially as the “I am” in all those latter cases is merely in the copula in the Greek, as well as in English. But he insisted on his interpretation. Sr. Marian Davis seem to FALL FOR IT, and lo and behold, when “Desire of Ages” came out, there appeared that IDENTICAL teaching on pages 24 and 25, which, I think, can be looked for IN VAIN in any of Sr. White’s published works prior to that time.“ {H. C. Lacey letter to Dr. LeRoy Froom Aug. 30, 1945}

In a letter to Dr. Froom in 1945, H. Lacey described his earliest beliefs and the beliefs of his family in regards to the Trinity. This is not about whether he believed in the Trinity, but about his statement that for the holy Spirit was used only the IT in the Adventist church, and that everyone resolutely rejected the theory that the holy Spirit was God. Our pioneers believed in Semi-Arianism, i.e.. that Jesus is a Divine Being, without accepting the doctrine of the Trinity.

The strongest apostasy carriers:

A.T. Jones:

At first, he believed right and stood by Ellen White in the proclamation of the truth in 1888. He, then, brought a deeper understanding to the church about grace and salvation, in the context of the Old and New Testaments.  According to Ellen White, God himself led this revelation of deeper truth. But from 1899 on, Jones’ beliefs began to falter, and he began to write both true and false statements until 1906, when he completely fell under the rule of the enemy.

The truth:

  • He was born of the holy Ghost. In other words, Jesus Christ was born again. He came from heaven, God’s first-born, to the earth, and was born again. But all in Christ’s work goes by opposites for us: He, the sinless one, was made to be sin in order that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. He, the living One, the Prince and Author of life, died that we might live. He whose goings forth have been from the days of eternity, the first-born of God, was born again in order that we might be born again.” {A.T. Jones: Christian Perfection, paragraphs 53, 54 A Sermon, RH, July 7 – August 1, 1899. This is also found in Lessons on Faith, page 154}
  • “Now what more was ever required by the papacy, and all phases of the old order of things, than is thus brought within the meaning of the national Constitution by this decision? What more was ever required by the papacy itself than that “the Christian religion” should be the national religion; that the discipline of the Church should be maintained by the civil power; that the religious test oath should be applied to all; that the public should be taxed for the support of religion and religious worship; that there should be required a BELIEF IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, and the inspiration of the “holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament;” that the guilt of “BLASPHEMY” should be visited upon everyone who should speak or act “in contempt of the religion professed by almost the whole community;” and that everybody should be required by law to observe Sunday? Indeed, what more than this could be required or even desired by the most absolute religious despotism that could be imagined?” {A.T. Jones: 1901 Ecclesiastical Empire, pages 837, 838} 

Trinity apostasy:

  • God is one. Jesus Christ is one. The holy Spirit is one. And these Three are one: there is no dissent nor division among them.” {A.T. Jones, editorial, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, January 10, 1899, 24} 

We can see in the quotes below, that Ellen White resolutely warned Adventists of the apostate teachings of A.T. Jones after he fell away from the truth:

Ellen White 1906: A.T. Jones chose satanic deceptions:

  • “I am sorry for A. T. Jones, who has been warned over and over again. Notwithstanding these warnings, he has allowed the enemy to fill his mind with thoughts of self-importance. Heed not his words, for he has rejected the plainest light and has chosen darkness instead. The holy One * hath given us messages clear and distinct, but some poor souls have been blinded by the falsehoods and the deceptive influences of satanic agencies and have turned from truth and righteousness to follow these fallacies of satanic origin.“ {EGW Ms 39, 1906.5} 

Who did Ellen White call The holy One? Jesus Himself, Who also bears that name in the Bible:

  • “But ye denied the holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you“ {Acts 3:14}
  • “Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.“ {1 Peter 1:16}

A year later, A.T. Jones wrote “The Medical Missionary”. The text contains the words that it must FINALLY be understood and ACCEPTED, that the holy Spirit is not IT, but a person:

A.T. Jones 1907: Request for a Change of Belief:

The statement below by A.T. Jones of 1907 reveals a complete historical lie about the alleged acceptance of the Trinity by the then church, Ellen White, and the Pioneers. If the term ‘person’ or ‘personality’ was really applied then to the holy Spirit, as it is claimed today, why did A.T. Jones then write that, except for a few people (in fact the leaders of the apostasy at the time), the rest referred to the holy Spirit as IT or THAT? This is really strange, if the church of that time had really accepted the Trinity, as it is claimed today with written “evidence”, which in fact comes from the pen of the then leaders of apostasy:

  • “And the holy Spirit is a person. This great truth is NOT RECOGNISED, indeed it is not believed, by more than a very few even of Christians. For everybody knows that almost INVARIABLY, with very, very few exceptions, the holy Spirit is referred to and spoken of by Christians as “it.” But the word “it” never applies to a person. The word “it,” in the very genius of (English) our language, refers and applies only to things, never to persons; to things of inanimate substance, as a stone, a horse, a tree; or to things of concept, or experience, as space, height, breadth, peace, joy, grief, an impression, an influence. But the holy Spirit is none of these: the holy Spirit is not an influence; nor an impression, nor peace, nor joy, nor any thing. The holy Spirit gives peace, and gives joy, assuages in grief, makes an impression, exerts an influence; but the holy Spirit is none of these things, nor any other thing. No, eternally no! The holy Spirit is a Person, eternally a Divine Person. And he MUST be always RECOGNISED and spoken of as a Person, or he is not truly recognised or spoken of at all.“ {A.T. Jones “The Medical Missionary“ p. 98.5 – 98.7}  {} 

Ellen White 1908: A.T. Jones is in complete disgrace servant of Dr. Kellogg with whom he publishes the same false teaching:

  • “We did not see anything to encourage us in the hope that Elder Jones is coming out from the darkness that is upon him. He feels that he understands himself; but he is as the blind and is feeling right about what step to take next. I felt that I must speak plainly to him. I told him that not with standing the warnings that had been given regarding Dr. Kellogg’s influence over him, he had gone into the very path he had been cautioned not to take; he had no spiritual discernment to understand the doctor’s religious standing. I told him that he had become Dr. Kellogg’s voice to the people.“  {Ellen White: Lt 234, 1908} 

Dr. Kellog:

Ellen White described the principles of abuse of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy that Dr. Kellogg used when he seduced nearly half the church, which was repeated through the Trinity before our eyes. What did Dr. Kellogg do with the Bible when he wrote The Living Temple? Is it similar to today’s approach to defending unbiblical error?

  • “All through the book are passages of scripture. These scriptures are brought in, in such a way, that error is made to appear as truth.” {Ellen White: SpTB02 52.1} 
  • “In the book ´Living Temple´ there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given.” {Ellen White, Special Testimonies Series B No. 2, page 50, letter, August 7th, 1904 ‘Beware’)} 
  • “´Living Temple´ contains the alpha (the beginning) of THESE theories. I knew that the omega would follow in a little while; and I trembled for our people. [..] The scripture used to substantiate the doctrine there set forth, is scripture misapplied.” {Ellen White: SpTB02 53.2} 
  • “We have now before us the alpha (the beginning) of this danger. The omega will be of a most startling nature.” {Ellen White: 1SM 197.4} 

Here we see that the Alpha apostasy is the source of these theories, and the Omega apostasy is just its continuation and completion. The views of the Alpha and Omega regarding the Trinity differ only in the direction, but not in their affiliation to these theories. ‘Theories’ is written in the plural so that we can see that both apostasies, although differently, attack the same field. In the Alpha apostasy, the holy Spirit is degenerated to the level of an unconscious energy. 

In the Omega apostasy, the holy Spirit becomes a Being, God, and the ultimate development in various finesse teach according to pagan principles a blinded Deity who manifests himself in different roles as the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit According to the principle of action-reaction (push-pull) through the Alpha apostasy, Dr. Kellogg prepared and opened the way for the Omega apostasy, while most of them dealt with the apparently important issue of false teaching. The topic of the Omega apostasy is the false teaching of “God” the holy Spirit and the Trinity!

  • “He [J.H. Kellogg] then stated that his former views regarding the trinity had stood in his way of making a clear and absolutely correct statement; but that within a short time he had come to believe in the trinity and could now see pretty clearly where all the difficulty was, and believed that he could clear the matter up satisfactorily. He told me that he now believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost; and HIS view was that it was God the holy Ghost, and not God the Father, that filled all space, and every living thing. He said that if he had believed this before writing the book, he could have expressed his views without giving the wrong impression the book now gives. I placed before him the objections I found in the teaching, and tried to show him that the teaching was so utterly contrary to the gospel that I did not see how it could be revised by changing a few expressions. We argued the matter at some length in a friendly way; but I felt sure that when we parted, the doctor did not understand himself, nor the character of his teaching. And I could not see how it would be possible for him to flop over, and in the course of a few days fix the books up so that it would be all right.” {Letter A.G. Daniells to Willie White, October 29, 1903, p. 1+2} 
  • “I am compelled to speak in denial of the claim that the teachings of Living Temple can be sustained by statements from my writings. There may be in this book expressions and sentiments that are in harmony with my writings. And there may be in my writings many statements which, taken from their connection, and interpreted according to the mind of the writer of Living Temple, would seem to be in harmony with the teachings of this book. This may give apparent support to the assertion that the sentiments in Living Temple are in harmony with my writings. But God forbid that this sentiment should prevail. {Ellen White: 1SM, p. 203, 1904
  • “It will be said that ‘Living Temple’ has been revised. But the Lord has shown me that the writer has not changed, and that there can be no unity between him and the ministers of the gospel while he continues to cherish his present sentiments. I am bidden to lift my voice in warning to our people, saying, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked” Galatians 6:7 {Ellen White: 1SM, p. 199, 1904} 
  • “In a representation which passed before me, I saw a certain work being done by medical missionary workers. Our ministering brethren were looking on, watching what was being done, but they did not seem to understand. The foundation of our faith, which was established by so much prayer, such earnest searching of the Scriptures, was being taken down, pillar by pillar. Our faith was to have nothing to rest upon—the sanctuary was gone, the atonement was gone. I realised that something must be done. The battle nearly killed me.” {Ellen White: 1SAT, p. 344, 1904
  • “Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.” {Ellen White: MR No.760, p. 9, 1905

Did Dr. Kellogg believe in the Trinity, and were his words to Elder Daniells (who had not yet fallen into apostasy yet) similar to the official teachings of our church today? Why is this not mentioned anywhere else? Because that would destroy the false arguments of many theologians of today! Was Ellen White aware that Dr. Kellogg wanted to revise his book and incorporate the doctrine of the three Divine Beings? The above quotes give us a clear answer! If she believed in the same teaching, as many claim, why would she rebuke Dr. Kellogg so harshly for reprinting it? What were his “current sentiments”? According to his own confession, a year earlier, he had begun to believe in the Trinity. He claimed that his teachings were the same as hers. He even quoted her writings, out of context, as “evidence” of his false teachings.

Ellen White about Prof. William Warren Prescott and A.G. Daniells:

  • “Message after message has come to me from the Lord concerning the dangers surrounding you (A.G. Daniels) and Elder PRESCOTT. I have seen that Satan would have been greatly pleased to see Elders Prescott and Daniells undertake the work of a general overhauling of our books that have done a good work in the field for years. But neither of you is called of God to that work.…I have been instructed that the Lord is not the author of the proposal to make many changes in books already published.“ {Ellen White, Lt 70, 1910, p. 2+15} 

A.G. Daniels:

  • “He (Dr. Kellog) told me that he NOW believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost; and his view was that it was God the holy Ghost, and not God the Father, that filled all space, and every living thing.” {Letter by A. G. Daniells to W. C. White on October 29, 1903} 

At that time, Daniells still sided for the truth but later he fell in this apostasy:

  • “Don’t let the conservatives think that something is going to happen, and the progressives get alarmed for the fear that it won’t happen. Let’s keep up this good spirit. Bring out what you have. Let us get all the light we have, believe what we can, and let the rest go.“ {A.G. Daniells 1919} 

F. M. Wilcox:

As one of the leaders of the apostasy, he wrote the following words:

  • “Seventh Day Adventists believe in the Divine Trinity. This Trinity consists of the eternal Father, a personal, spiritual being, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal Father, through Whom all things were created, and through Whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the one regenerating agency in the work of redemption.” {F. M. Wilcox: “The Message for Today“, RH, October 9, 1913

The Adventist Church immediately denied his statement and published a list of our teachings, which was identical to the list of beliefs from 1872, when there was no trace of the doctrine of the Trinity:

Adventist Yearbook 1914:

  • 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 everyhere present by His representative, the holy Spirit.” {Adventist Yearbook 1914, p. 293} 
  • 2:“That there is ONE Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by Whom he created all things, and by Whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that he dwelt among men, full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where through the merits of his shed blood, he secures the pardon and forgiveness of the sins of all those who persistently come to him; and, as the closing portion of his work as priest, before he takes his throne as king, he will make the great atonement for the sins of all such, and their sins will then be blotted out (Acts 3: 19) and borne away from the sanctuary, as shown in the service of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven.“ {Adventist Yearbook 1914, p. 293}

Dr. LeRoy Froom:

  • “May I here make a frank personal confession. When back between 1926 and 1928 I was asked by our leaders to give a series of studies on “The holy Spirit”…..covering the North American Union Ministerial Institute of 1928, I found that aside from priceless leads found in the Spirit of Prophecy, there was practically nothing in our literature setting forth a sound, Biblical exposition in this tremendous field of study. There were no previous pathfinding books on the question in our literature.” {Dr. LeRoy Edwin Froom: Movement of Destiny, page 322-324, 1971} 

What “false teaching” about God has been removed? Certainly not today’s teaching of the Trinity, but the old opposite truth, which has been overrun. In his book “Movement of Destiny”, Dr. LeRoy Froom himself wrote that between 1926-1928 he had to look for “arguments” for the doctrine of the Trinity in other churches because there was nothing in our literature about it:

  • “The next logical and inevitable step in the implementing of our unified fundamental beliefs, involved revision of CERTAIN standard works, so as to eliminate statements that taught, and thus perpetuated erroneous views on the Godhead.” {Dr. L. Froom: Movement Of Destiny p. 422, 1971} 

The following is evidence of the truth for all readers who maintain that there are no falsifications of the Spirit of Prophecy. At first glance, the Trinity quotes, together with the rest of the verses and quotes may seem as true. When a text is isolated, it is possible to “prove” any false teaching. Although this book contains clear evidence of falsifications in the quotes, the text below shows that the Trinity would still be impossible even if all of the quotes were true:

  • “We want the holy Spirit, which is Jesus Christ” {Ellen White: Letter 66 April 10, 1894 par. 18} 
  • “The holy Spirit is Himself (Jesus), 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.” {Ellen White: Letter 119, 1895.18} 

Would it be possible that the holy Spirit is present through his holy Spirit if these words did not refer to Jesus himself, as the Trinitarians claim? Then there would be two holy Spirits.

  • “Those who believe the truth should remember that they are God’s little children, that they are under His training. Let them be thankful to God for His manifold mercies and be kind to one another. They have one God and one Saviour; and ONE Spirit—the Spirit of Christ—is to bring unity into their ranks.” {Ellen White: 9T, p. 189.3 1905.

In 1957, in his book “Questions on Doctrine“, he wrote that reconciliation was completed through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. This was the clash of Calvinist and Adventist theology. Which of them is crushed to dust? Adventist of course! If the whole process of reconciliation is completed on the cross, Jesus’ intercession in the heavenly sanctuary, described in the Epistle to the Hebrews, becomes meaningless. If everything ended on the cross, then we would be saved in advance, and thus we would get the message, that we do not need to fight against sin! This is exactly what the Calvinists teach. And they also teach that the end of the time of probation is symbolic because it is “impossible” for us to completely abandon sin.

Did Ellen White announce an attack on the truth in the Epistle to the Hebrews?

  • “We cannot find words fitly to explain the latest development of ideas held by some. They contain threads of pantheism. These ideas are so mixed with the truth, that the truth is made of no effect. These specious theories constitute a denial of the personality of God, the atonement of Christ and His work in the sanctuary. They take away the vital principles which have made us a separate people.“ {Ellen White: MS 8, 1914, Part 32} 

The teaching of Jesus having Adam’s nature when He was born on Earth also came from Dr. Froom:

Dr. Froom:

  • “Christ’s flesh and nature in the incarnation were different from ours. He was “exempt” from our genetic inheritance, and took only the sinless nature of Adam as it was before the fall.“ {Dr. LeRoy Froom; Questions of Doctrine, p. 383, and heading, p. 650} 

Ellen White:

  • “He took upon himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin.“ {Ellen White: YI, 20. December 1900} 

The false teachings in the Book “Evangelism” of Dr. LeRoy Froom:

Who or what is the Godhead? A Trinity?


  • “The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order fully to carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love? God would make it impossible for man to say that He could have done more. With Christ He gave all the resources of heaven, that nothing might be wanting in the plan for man’s uplifting. Here is love—the contemplation of which should fill the soul with inexpressible gratitude!” {Ellen White: CH, p. 222} {Ellen White: AUCR, April 1, 1901 par. 10}

In the “adapted” quote above, which serves as “evidence” for the Trinity, we can see the how the term ‘Godhead’ is misused. This term only describes characteristics of a Divine Being and does not describe the name of a “triune” God. The true meaning:


  • “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even HIS eternal power and GODHEAD; so that they are without excuse:” {Romans 1:19,20}
  • In Christ is gathered all the glory of the Father. In HIM is all the fullness of the GODHEAD bodily. He is the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of His person. The glory of the attributes of God are expressed in His character.” {Ellen White: 7BC, p. 907}

Alternate interpretation:

In the following text is the proof of the old truth for all readers who hold on to their attitude that there is NO falsification of the Spirit of Prophecy or the Bible. But even these controversial texts or verses, when compared to the other verses and texts, can not provide any evidence for the Trinity. By isolating some text, you can prove almost any heresy. We know that the writings of Ellen White (Spirit of Prophecy) cannot at the same time oppose and support the Trinity. This also shows us the only way to interpret expressions like “three heavenly powers” – by not taking the quote out of context. Although this script brought the evidence of falsifications, we can see again in the text below, that the doctrine of the Trinity could not be proven even if these texts were original

The Book “Evangelism”:

  • “We want the holy Spirit, which is Jesus Christ.“ {Ellen White: Letter 66 April 10, 1894 par. 18} 
  • “The holy Spirit is Himself (Jesus), 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.” {Ellen White: Letter 119, 1895.18} 

Is it possible that the holy Spirit is present through his holy Spirit if these words did not refer to Jesus Himself, as the Trinitarians claim? If this was true it means that there would be two holy Spirits.

  • “Those who believe the truth should remember that they are God’s little children, that they are under His training. Let them be thankful to God for His manifold mercies and be kind to one another. They have one God and one Saviour; and ONE Spirit—the Spirit of Christ—is to bring unity into their ranks.” {Ellen White: 9T, p. 189.3 1905.

The book “Evangelism”, which at first glance contains indisputable evidence for the Trinity, carries statements of the Spirit of Prophecy that are taken out of context, giving them a different meaning. By taking a complete look at all of Ellen White’s statements we can find what is the correct teaching. As we will see, this book does not have the full context. The compilation of quotes came about 20 years after Ellen White’s death, through the leadership of Dr. LeRoy Froom, who worked hard to prove the Trinity, and was officially tasked by the General Conference to investigate this issue. Dr. Froom openly wrote that he removed the old and meaningless Adventist teachings that made us funny to the rest of the world! The following statement of the Spirit of Prophecy, which reads “the fullness of the Godhead,” is used as the main evidence for the existence of the Trinity, because it talks about the holy Spirit and the Deity:

– “The Father IS all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”

– “The Son IS all the fullness of the Godhead manifested”

– “The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven is the Spirit IN all the fullness of the Godhead”

{Ellen White: Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63. 1905, and Evangelism, pp. 614, 615}

But if we read this text more carefully, we will see that there are fundamental differences within this title, namely:

-that the Father and Son IS the Fulness of the Godhead.

-that the holy Spirit is IN the Fulness of the Godhead.

Let us now summarise the indirect message of this statement: The Father IS the Divine Ruler, the Son IS the Divine Ruler, the holy Spirit is in the Divine Ruler. In other words, the spirit is in the Father and the Son, and thus He is not a Divine Being like the Father and the Son are. If something comes from something, then it must first be in it, just like a spring of water is already in its source in order to be able to come out of it. The above quote does NOT state that all Three are the fullness of the Deity. If the Trinity was true, that’s what the quote should say. We have seen that the Father is a Divine Being, that the Son is a Divine Being. They are not one being and they do not represent the Trinity! It does not say that the Father and the Son are Deities, but that Each one is a Deity – a Divine Being. 

This quote is another proof that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that he is not a third Divine Being. The term Divinity – Godhead, signifies a characteristic and does not mean God. Dictionaries in most languages ​​state that the term “Godhead” does not mean a number or a being, but the Divine nature, i.e.. Divine qualities (Divinity). Since the above quote clearly states that both the Father and the Son are each Godhead, we would end up with three Trinities if the term Godhead meant Trinity! The Father is the embodied fullness of the Deity. He is invisible to us mortals. 

The only way to know God and His Deity is when He manifests Himself. Christ inherited the Deity from His Father and that is why He is all the fullness of the Deity manifested. The deity of the Son of God is His right and inheritance, which He acquired by His heavenly birth (Hebrews 1: 4). This Divine fullness dwells in Christ because it was pleasing to the Father (Colossians 2: 9; 1:19). Christ possessed the glory of His Father by Divine birth. Hebrews 1: 3; John 1:14; 2 Corinthians 4: 6).

  • In Christ is gathered all the glory of the Father. In Him is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. He is the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of His person. The glory of the attributes of God are expressed in His character.” {Ellen White: 7BC, p. 907} 
  • The love of God, manifested toward fallen man in the gift of his beloved Son, amazed the holy angels.”God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The Son was the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person. He possessed Divine excellence and greatness. He was equal with God. It pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell.”  {Ellen White: 2SP, p. 38} 

According to the Bible itself, the term “Godhead” represents a character and a title:

  • “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.“ {Romans 1:20}
  • “But I would have you know, that the Head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the Head of Christ is God.“ {1 Corinthians 11:3}

The word “Head”, as part of the word “Godhead”, means the title of the Divine Ruler, Who is the head of the whole universe! The verse below emphasises that God the Father is the head and His Son! In the Hebrew Bible, the original word for “Deity” is the word “Elohut”. That word is an adjective and not a noun, and as such, it describes God’s attributes. 

That quality is “Deity, i.e. Divinity”, and is analogous to the human attribute, “humanity”. It describes a characteristic without defining other areas, and it does not mean the noun, “human”. When a good man is full of love for others, then we give him the adjective humanity. Likewise, the attribute Divine signifies and confirms the characteristics of incomprehensibly deep power, strength, love, and mercy! 

One man in most cases is not a humanist, but he is always a man, without Divine qualities. One being who is not God cannot be the “fullness of the Godhead.” That is why the holy Spirit is not Godhead, but is IN the Godhead of the Father and the Son, Who are his Source in the whole Universe. One spirit cannot have its own spirit. That is why we are filled with the fullness of God because Jesus Himself is in us with His holy Spirit:

  • “That Christ may dwell IN your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.“ {Ephesians 3:17-19}
  • “But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the SPIRIT WHICH is OF GOD; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.” {1. Corinthians 2:10-12}

While Jesus was on Earth, all the fullness of His Father’s Deity was in Him:

  • “For Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily“ {Colossians 2:9}
  • “To wit, that God (the Father) was IN Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.“ {2 Corinthians 5:19}

Is one Divine Being given by God the Father to His Son not in unlimited fullness? Does not the Spirit emanating from God have unlimited fullness of Divine power? In the quote below we see even more that the holy Spirit is the power of God, which proceeds from the Father and the Son and represents Their power and presence:

  • “The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit IN all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of Divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour.” {Ellen White: SpT, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63. 1905} and {Ellen White: Evangelism, pp. 614, 615} 
  • “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. And if Christ be IN you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.“ {Romans 8:9-11}}
  • “The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit IN all the fullness of the Godhead…” {Ellen White:  BTS, March 1, 1906

The holy Spirit is IN the fullness of the Father and the Son. It is Their Spirit! With His Spirit, Jesus is our Comforter. God the Father is invisible to our mortal eyes. The only way to know God is through His Son, Who inspired the writers of the Bible. Jesus inherited His Godhead from the Father. The fulness of the Father lives in Christ because it pleased the Father to do so:

  • “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell“ {Colossians 1:19}
  • “For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” {Colossians 2:9}

If ‘Godhead’ means a ‘Trinity’, then how is the fullness of the Trinity bodily in Christ? ‘Godhead’ does not mean ‘Trinity’, but ‘Divine Nature’. Ellen White never said that in Christ is the fullness of the Trinity in bodily form. The above verses confirm the statements of Ellen White where she wrote that the Father and the Son are the fullness of the Deity, which means that God the Father Himself lives in Jesus.

  • “The Father gave HIS Spirit without measure to His Son, and we also may partake of its fullness.” {Ellen White: GC, p. 477} 

What else is needed to understand this old truth? This clear truth helps us understand what this next quote says:

  • The eternal Godhead—the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost—is involved in the action required to make assurance to the human agent, … confederating the heavenly powers with the human that man may become, through heavenly efficiency, partakers of the Divine nature and workers together with Christ.” {Ellen White: UL 148.4} 

The term, ” The Eternal Godhead – the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost”, does not refer to a single merged Deity of three persons or three Divine Beings. This word is an adjective of the ‘eternal Deity’ of the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit, not a noun, and it describes the Divine attributes (such as love and mercy) of the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit emanating from them. 

If the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then, of course, He has Divine, and not human or inanimate, attributes, and as such, He can only pass on God’s love and mercy to us. In this quote, there is only a less precise description of the adjective Godhead which is explained in-depth in other quotations, where we have seen that “God the Father IS the Deity”, that “Jesus, the Son, IS the Deity” and that “the holy Spirit is IN that Deity of the Father and the Son”.

  • Christ had not ceased to be God when He became man. Though He had humbled Himself to humanity, the Godhead was still His own. Christ alone could represent the Father to humanity, and this representation the disciples had been privileged to behold for over three years.” {Ellen White: DA 663.5} 

The Godhead still belonged to Christ even after His incarnation. Did a Trinity belong to Christ even after His incarnation?

  • “Christ in His Godhead shone forth as He burst from the tomb, and rose triumphant over death and the grave.” {Ellen White: ST May 30, 1895. TA 209.4} 

Did Jesus shine in His ‘Trinity’, or is it that Godhead does not mean ‘Trinity’ or ‘God’ after all? Godhead, as an adjective, depending on the context may mean the Divine nature, status, or quality, and even people can receive it as a gift:

  • “As in humility they submitted to the molding influence of the holy Spirit, they received of the fullness of the Godhead and were fashioned in the likeness of the Divine.” {Ellen White: AA 49.3}  
  • “Through being partakers of the Divine nature we may stand pure and holy and undefiled. The Godhead was not made human, and the human was not deified by the blending together of the two natures. Christ did not possess the same sinful, corrupt, fallen disloyalty we possess, for then He could not be a perfect offering.” {Ellen White: Manuscript 94, 1893. Manuscript Releases, Vol. 6, pp. 110-112} 

Could it be that the Trinity was incarnated? Was the Trinity mixed with human nature? The real truth is that Jesus’ Divine Sinless Nature (Godhead), His Divine Personality, was mixed with His human nature on Earth! If the holy Spirit were the fullness of the Godhead, which the adherents of the Trinity want to prove, then it would mean that the holy Spirit Himself is the “fullness of the Trinity”, and thus the Trinity itself! However, a deeper analysis of the translation of the quote in the book Evangelism, shows us not only that the word ‘Trinity’ is included in it (while it does not exist in any quote from Ellen White), but also that ‘Godhead’ is translated differently into our language, i.e. translated as “triune” God, and in another place as ‘God the Father’. The word ‘Trinity’, which appears as a subtitle on the website ‘’, was never written by Ellen White! 

Nick Ionashku – Froomism: 

This Text is part of the book First Commandment OR Trinity? – Encyclopedia of Evidences of the Old Trampled Truths of All Areas