ANSWERING THE BEST ANTI-TRINTARIAN

ARGUMENTS IN ADVENTISM!!
(A 2010 presentation) By Derrick Gillespie

PART 2
ARGUMENT # 2: The SDA pioneers always
maintained that there are only two beings of the
Godhead, and always saw the Holy Spirit as just
the actual being/presence of the Father and/or
Christ, but not a third or separate being or
member of the Godhead.
Choice Quote from this presentation: “Obviously for many of the
modern SDA anti-Trinitarians their definition of the words “beings” and “three” is
different from what the dictionary really says. And obviously too they would want us
to think that Lucifer (before sinning) was the third of the “three holiest beings in
heaven” or was the third of the three “highest authorities of heaven”; not the Holy
Spirit who alone could the third of the three “eternal heavenly dignitaries” (see Heb.
9:14). How blasphemous a notion!! Who knows whether or not this notion by
modern SDA anti-Trinitarians -- of Lucifer being considered the third highest being
in heaven-- is not integrally part of what the “omega” heresies were predicted to be
about?... But suffice it to say here (in response to that notion), that if Jesus was
“equal in all respects” or “one in authority” with the Father (an authority obviously
shared by their “Representative” Holy Spirit), then it was Lucifer who was really
second to or next in authority to “the Great threefold Power” or “the Eternal
Godhead” (as Mrs. White so succinctly phrased it); not Jesus at all!!”

INTRODUCTION:

Anti-trinitarians know deep down in their psyche that since the existence (or non-
existence) of a Godhead trinity (or trio, or triad) is closely tied to whether the Holy
Spirit is a real person or individual (or not), and since it is on this subject of the identity
of the Holy Spirit that their case is either proven or disproven, therefore it is here they
strive to make their strongest arguments. It is only natural. The same can be said of the
Trinitarian.

ADMISSIONS:

The challenge one faces as a researcher when dealing with this subject of the Holy
Spirit is to recognize the limitations one confronts, since, firstly, the Biblical data on the
Holy Spirit is not as voluminous, clear-cut, definitive, and unambiguous as is the case
with the identity of Jesus, the real and truly begotten Son of God who is distinct as a
being from God the Father from all eternity, and secondly, it must be recognized that
where not much is revealed in the Bible one must tread softly. However, what must be
done is to look at the big picture and recognize certain common threads of truth, as well
as eliminate grossly erroneous viewpoints in order to arrive at truth based on weight of
evidence. In addition, it must be recognized that it is on the subject of the Holy Spirit
that SDA pioneers demonstrated much more ambivalence and divided opinion over a
longer period of time, more so than on the subject of Jesus’ identity, and fully divine
nature. This is simply because it is plain that less has been biblically revealed about the
Holy Spirit. But what is certain is that when the big picture is looked at then the
arguments of the modern anti-Trinitarians in Adventism can be proven to be groundless
and or inconclusive as it concerns the gradually developed viewpoints of SDA pioneers.

Here are the key facts that I will prove here:

a] It will be proven that in the earlier years of Adventism (i.e. between the 1840s and
before the 1890s) the dominant Adventist viewpoint was that the Spirit was simply a
force, power, influence, “afflatus”, mysterious impersonal energy emanating from
Father and Son; never a personality, much more a “third” personality.

b] It will be proven that after the publishing and affirmation of the Spear’s Trinity
article in 1892 a marked transition in SDA viewpoint developed in which three distinct
personalities of the Godhead was subsequently affirmed by increasing numbers of SDA
pioneers, yet discussion and debates within Adventism still indicated an unwillingness
to see the Spirit as nothing more than just the being/presence of the Father and Son
themselves, and finally

WHAT MUST BE PROVEN IF A TRINITY IS TO BE AFFIRMED IN

PIONEERING ADVENTISM

c] It will be proven that pre-1915 written expressions from both Mrs. White
(Adventism’s leading pioneer) and from other contemporary, bona fide and more so
leading SDA pioneers started to lean heavily (despite resistance by some) in favor of
three SEPARATE Godhead “beings”; a viewpoint in which individuality is not
considered as lost in the Godhead, and one in which the Holy Spirit’s nature ( i.e.
“what” he is, just like the nature of the Father Himself) is still accepted as mysterious,
yet his identity (i.e. “who” he is), and his distinct/separate personhood as “the third
person” of “three holiest beings IN Heaven” is affirmed…a clear irrefutable case for
affirming a trinity, though not (and I repeat, “not”) the traditional Trinity of Roman
Catholicism or general Christendom.

PROOFS OF EARLY SDA THOUGHT ON AN IMPERSONAL SPIRIT

“The Holy Spirit is not a person. In all our prayers we naturally conceive God as a
person, and of the Son as a person; but who ever conceive of the Holy Spirit as being
a person, standing there beside the Father and equal with Him? Such a conception
never enters any one’s mind… The simple truth is that God is a real person, in bodily
form; and the Holy Spirit is truly the spirit of God, A DIVINE INLUENCE
proceeding from the Father and also from the Son as their POWER, ENERGY, etc.
The Bible never in any case calls the Holy Spirit a person, though it frequently does
both the Father and the Son”.

-Signs of the Times, Vol. 4, July 25, 1878

“Respecting this Spirit [the Holy Spirit], the Bible uses expressions which cannot be
harmonized with the idea that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shown
to be *A DIVINE INFLUENCE [a thing] from them both… Usually it is spoken of in a way
to show that it cannot be a person, like the Father and the Son… If it were a person, it
would be nothing strange for it to appear in bodily shape [like a man’s]; and yet when it has
so appeared, that fact has been noted as peculiar. Thus Luke 3:22 says: ‘and the Holy Ghost
descended in a bodily shape like a dove”.
Uriah Smith, Review and Herald, Oct. 28, 1890

This viewpoint on the Holy Spirit dominated Adventist thought for very many years (as
the two quotes above, written several years apart, shows). Very many similar
sentiments from early SDA pioneers could be furnished. It was the commonly held
viewpoint of basically the vast majority of the earliest SDA pioneers. Here it is plain
that it was never admitted that the Holy Spirit is a person, but simply a power, energy
or influence from the Father and Son. In fact it would be unthinkable for Adventist
pioneers then to ever conceive of the Holy Spirit as a being worthy of being prayed to
as the Father and Son, since that would be an acceptance of his personhood like them,
as well an acceptance of his equality with them. Only a Trinitarian, or one with
Trinitarian leanings would ever “conceive” of such a thing!! That was how early
Adventists thought.

A MONUMENTAL CHANGE IN SDA VIEWPOINT ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

The following words are some of the most difficult ones that modern anti-Trinitarians
confront in the pre-1915 expressions of pioneering Adventism, and are usually avoided
like the plague. These quotes hardly, if ever, appear in their presentations, and they
hardly, if ever, are honestly analyzed, critiqued, and worse, are hardly, if ever, admitted
to or accepted. The one or two who ever face up to them usually either dismiss them,
gloss over them, try to lamely explain them away, or worse yet, try to discredit their
authenticity. Reading the words below, and allowing their true import to sink in will
explain why the modern anti-Trinitarians relate to them that way. These words
demonstrate very clearly such a monumental change in Adventist theology that only
plain dishonesty would not see them for what they really mean.

“You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are
raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life--to live a new life. You are
born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of THE THREE HOLIEST
*BEINGS IN HEAVEN, who are able to keep you from falling. You are to reveal that you
are dead to sin; your life is hid with Christ in God. Hidden "with Christ in God,"--
wonderful transformation. This is a most precious promise. When I feel oppressed, and
hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, I just
*CALL UPON THE THREE GREAT WORTHIES, and say; You know I cannot do this
work in my own strength. You must work in me, and by me and through me, sanctifying my
tongue, sanctifying my spirit, sanctifying my words, and bringing me into a position where
my spirit shall be susceptible to the movings of the Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and
character. And this is the prayer that every one of us may offer. . .”
-E.G. White, Manuscript Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268 (Ms 95, 1906, pp. 8-12, 14-
17; "Lesson from Romans 15," October 20, 1906.)

“When we have accepted Christ, and in the name [singular] of the Father, and the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit have pledged ourselves to *SERVE [see Joshua 24:14,15] God, the Father,
Christ AND [notice, thirdly and separately listed] the Holy Spirit – the Three Dignitaries and
Powers of Heaven – pledge themselves that even facility will be given us if we carry out
our... vows”.
-E.G. White, Manuscript 85, 1901

"God says, [notice after this whom she means says this] "Come out from among them,
and be ye separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and
will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord
Almighty." [Now notice carefully] This is the pledge of [not just one person, but] the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [i.e. the *pledge to receive and be a Father to
you]; made to you if you will keep your baptismal vow, and touch not the unclean
thing…”

-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901

“The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a
distinct personality.”

-E.G. White, Manuscript Release, Vol. 20, pg. 324

Now, remember that the earliest SDA expressions, for over fifty years (from 1844-
1888), never ever gave consent to there being three persons of the Godhead.
Remember they never ever consented to the Holy Spirit being a personality, “a
distinct personality”, much more being called the “third” of “the three holiest
BEINGS in heaven”. Seeing that one doesn’t call upon a non-existent individual in
prayer, they never ever “conceived” of calling upon the Holy Spirit in prayer just
like the Father and Son (i.e. all together being seen as “the three Great Worthies”
deserving of that token of worship). They never ever considered that the Holy
Spirit should be “served” like Father and Son (and worse by humans “pledging”
to do so at their baptism). They never in the least ever considered the Holy Spirit
PERSONAL enough to have equally pledged to “receive” and be “a Father” to us
after we are baptized. And worse, they never ever considered representing him as
speaking in unison with Father and Son as “the Almighty” and as “God” (or the
Godhead) who together says "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, . . .
and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto
you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters”. Yet, by the early 1900s this is what
Mrs. White, Adventism’s leading pioneer, was now PLAINLY saying!!

Obviously any one of the Godhead persons whom we are “born unto” is “a father”
to us, and we have must have their name to show their ownership of us. Mrs.
White confessed that we are born unto “God”, and then explains elsewhere that it
is all three divine persons who are that “Father” to us (not just one Godhead
person), and it is in their “name” (singular) we are baptized. That’s plain
Trinitarianism in basic terms (except for the traditional “indivisible substance”
idea), when one compares what earlier SDA pioneers were objecting to. That’s the
truth of the matter. It is simply futile to run from it, somersault over it, or cover it up.
This writer/researcher thinks it is time the propaganda tactics of the modern anti-
Trinitarians in Adventism be shown up for what they really are. Futile!! But the key
question is, how did the SDA Church get to this place of teaching so much of what
represents an almost complete reversal of what was earlier believed about the Holy
Spirit? The following will give a brief peek into the transition that took place before
1915.
A TRANSITION PERIOD IN SDA VIEWS ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

In 1890, Uriah Smith (a leading SDA pioneer), in the earlier quoted article, was actually
directly responding to an Adventist question (probably from pioneer W.W. Westphal), which
asked: “Are we [Adventists] to understand that the Holy Spirit is a person?” The questioner
further went on to comment that, “some [in Adventism] claim that it is”, and “others claim
that it is not”, thus reflecting the searching and explorative nature of Adventism on this
question at the time. This reflected the early infant state of the Church at the time, where the
evidently differing viewpoints, as well as the gradual changes in viewpoints can be shown, as
the Church developed a more mature approach to controversial issues, such as the identity of
the Holy Spirit. Notice the differing, and yet open viewpoints, of two other pioneers, writing on
the same issue, before Mrs. White’s viewpoints came later:

“Just what the Holy Spirit is, is a mooted question among theologians, and we may not hope
to give a positive answer, but we may learn something of it’s nature and the part it acts in
human salvation.”

-J.E. Swift- “Our Companion”, Review and Herald, July 3,1883, pg.421

“He [the Holy Spirit] is included in the apostolic benediction [2 Cor. 13:14], and is spoken
by our Lord [Jesus] as acting in an independent and personal capacity as Teacher, Guide
and Comforter. He is an object of veneration, and is a heavenly intelligence, everywhere
present, and is always present. But as limited beings, we cannot understand the problems,
which the contemplation of the Deity presents, to our minds.”

-G.C. Tenny- “To Correspondents”, Review and Herald, June 9, 1896, pg. 362

Notice that one writer emphasized the Spirit as an “it”, while the other emphasized the
“He” of the Spirit, as well as His “independent” and “personal capacity”, and that He is an
“object of veneration” (i.e. WORSHIPFUL RESPECT) as “a heavenly intelligence”. And yet
both writers were pioneers living at the same time with Uriah Smith, and *writing in the
same magazine, the “Review and Herald” (now “The Adventist Review”).

It is therefore evident that up to this point (the late 1800s) there was still no real
consensus on this issue. But there was clearly a period of searching and exploration and
a greater leaning towards what the Spear’s Trinitarian article of 1889 (renamed and
published as “the Bible doctrine of the Trinity” by SDA pioneers themselves) had
already affirmed from 1892; that the Holy Spirit is indeed “a person as God is a
person”, and though “he personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality (in the words
later expressed by E.G. White herself)!! How much plainer can one get?

The transition took on momentum by the first decade of the 1900s and so by 1913,
Adventism’s leading writer and chief editor of Adventism’s doctrinal literature
(a much respected man chosen by E.G. White herself to guard her estate after she died;
so he was no heretic) was able to say:

“Seventh-day Adventists [not just myself] believe [now] in ... the Divine *TRINITY.
This Trinity consists of the Eternal Father… the Lord Jesus Christ… [and] the Holy
Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead”
- F. M. Wilcox (chief editor), *Review and Herald, October 9, 1913
We [Adventists] recognize the divine Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, each possessing a distinct and separate personality, but one in nature and in
purpose, so welded together in this infinite union that the apostle James speaks of
them as "one God." James 2:19. This divine unity is similar to the unity existing
between Christ and the believer, and between the different believers in their
fellowship in Christ Jesus…”
- F.M. Wilcox, Christ is Very God, Review and Herald

Now, despite these pre-1915 realities, with even bona fide SDA pioneers publishing a
known Trinitarian document by a Presbyterian Trinitarian minister (Samuel Spear) and
renaming his article “the Bible doctrine of the Trinity” way back in 1892, thus
indicating that SDA pioneers themselves felt that there is a true version of “the Trinity”
in the Bible, yet here are those in Adventism today who use propaganda to mislead
those who are either unlearnt or who wont research and think for themselves.

‘SMOKESCREEN’ TACTICS OF MODERN ANTI-TRINITRIANS AGAINST

THE SPIRIT’S PERSONHOOD

In order to cloud the issue, and mislead the unlearnt, many modern anti-Trinitarians in
Adventism today use several tactics (unwittingly though) to ‘escape’ from, cover up, or
divert people from seeing the real truth about the Holy Spirit as later understood by
SDA pioneers themselves before 1915 (when Mrs. White died). Here are some of their
chief tactics:

a] they quote profusely the thoughts of SDA pioneers before the pre-1915 transitional
viewpoints on the Holy Spirit entered Adventism in order to overwhelm the reader with
the idea that seeing the Holy Spirit as a person, and individual, is a falsehood. Coupled
with this they appeal to the “it” references related to the Spirit, usually forgetting
themselves that human infants (living beings) are acceptably called “it”, that the human
soul (the whole human being) is called “it” in Ezekiel 18:4, that demons (personal spirit
beings) are called “it” e.g. in Lk. 9:39-42, and that even Jesus, depicted as “the Lamb”
in Rev. 5:6, is called “it” in that context. Clearly they don’t see that this is a ‘straw
man’ argument about the Spirit being called “it” even when considered a personality.

b] they explain away the later changed (pre-1915) views of the pioneers, and usually do
so by denying or twisting what the dictionary defines certain key words to mean ,
i.e. “trio” (a synonym for “trinity” as a simple noun), “person”, “personality”,
“beings”, and “three”. They are usually seen engaging in much cultic-type redefinition
of terms, semantic hop scotching and doctrinal somersaulting, with the result more
confusing that they themselves realize

c] they appeal to the E.G. White statements about Lucifer being next to Christ in
authority, about Jesus being the only being who could enter into counsel with God the
Father, and about the Spirit being described as Jesus Himself “our Comforter”. Yet they
never stop long enough to see the various possible and other logical ways (not just their
way) these statements could be understood/resolved without doing injustice to Mrs.
White LATER presenting the Holy Spirit as being one of the three “highest authorities
of heaven” (i.e. being among the three comprising the “Eternal Godhead”), or better
yet, as being one of the “three holiest beings in Heaven” whom she called upon in
prayer (you don’t call upon a non-existent individual in prayer , I remind you), and
about whom she also confessed that though he “personifies Christ yet is a distinct
personality”, and hence she stated categorically that there are “three holiest beings in
heaven”; not just two. Obviously for many of the modern SDA anti-Trinitarians their
definition of the words “beings” and “three” is different from what the dictionary
really says. And obviously too they would want us to think that Lucifer (before sinning)
was the third of the “three holiest beings in heaven” or was the third of the three
“highest authorities of heaven”; not the Holy Spirit who alone could the third of the
three “eternal heavenly dignitaries” (see Heb. 9:14). How blasphemous a notion!! Who
knows whether or not this notion by modern SDA anti-Trintarians -- of Lucifer being
considered the third highest being in heaven-- is not integrally part what the “omega”
heresies were predicted to be about? More on the “omega” heresies later. But suffice it
to say here (in response to that notion), that if Jesus was “equal in all respects” or
“one in authority” with the Father (an authority obviously shared by their
“Representative” Holy Spirit), then it was Lucifer who was really second to or
next in authority to “the Great threefold Power” or “the Eternal Godhead” (as
Mrs. White so succinctly phrased it); not Jesus at all!!

d] they appeal to the views of a few SDA pioneers, like Willie White (son of E.G.
White), who, after 1915, chose to hold on to the old SDA viewpoint about the Holy
Spirit (i.e. him being a “personality” without individuality) without recognizing that
differing viewpoints prove nothing really if the facts are always looked objectively at
by the careful reader and deep thinker. Willie White himself, as an ‘old timer’ in some
viewpoints, admitted (in a famous but much misused letter) about being “perplexed”
over much of his mother’s “utterances” on the Holy Spirit (undoubtedly as it concerns
her utterances in the later years leading up to her death), and he also admitted that he
was not able himself to clearly say what were his mother’s view on the personality of
the Spirit. So how can people quote Willie White as if he is an ‘expert’ on his mother’s
utterances on the subject when he himself admitted his “perplexities” and lack of
understanding regarding her teachings in the area? How ironic. One can easily see what
would have “perplexed” Willie White in him trying to hold on to the older pioneering
views about the Spirit, and then confronting “perplexing” statements from his mother,
like her calling upon the Spirit in prayer (alongside the Father and Son), etc. And I
repeat: “you don’t call upon a non-existent individual in prayer”. Period!!

e] they appeal to the “omega heresy” prediction of Mrs. White, and interpret it to mean
that to accept the Holy Spirit as part of a trinity is fulfillment of that prophecy, and they
usually point to Dr Kellogg’s intermingling of pantheism and a belief in the personhood
of the Godhead as a model of heresy on the issue. They however never stop to realize
that Trinitarian sentiments (especially by way of the Spear’s article) were already being
published in Adventism (since 1892) many years before Kellogg’s heresies of 1903
(and without any condemnation from Mrs. White), hence to admit to a trinity could not
be the “omega” coming before the “alpha” heresies of Kellogg. In addition, they failed
to recognize that, firstly, Mrs. White admitted that Kellogg’s viewpoints had some
truths mixed with falsehood, and, secondly, that Mrs. White herself named
“pantheism” as what was wrong with Kellogg’s theories. She never named
trinitarianism as the problem, nor did she denounce his view on the separate
personhood of the Spirit as the problem; contrary to what some want us to think. In
addition they appeal to the fact that several mainstream Adventist writer/theologians
have recently been actually teaching a faulty version of a trinity – of three
independently self-originate, role-playing Godhead beings- and then they give the
impression that to correctly reject this falsehood (as even this writer has done himself)
means that all concepts of a trinity must be faulty; not realizing that one can in fact
correctly accept a relationship-based trinity of “three holiest beings in heaven” with
the Father as the Source and Head of both the Son and Spirit themselves from all
eternity, and yet all three must be “served” in the one Godhead union as Mrs. White
instructs true Adventists to do.

f] they usually try to say that because Mrs. White says “what” the Spirit is must be
considered a mystery then “who” he is, i.e. his identity as the “third” of “three holiest
beings I heaven”, is also unknown and unknowable, without realizing how faulty this
approach is (especially in light of her also saying “what” God the Father is must also
be considered a mystery as well; not “who” he is)

g] they appeal to the Bible being silent on the Holy Spirit in some things, as if it is
evidence against his personhood, and yet fail to see that there could be other
possibilities for this silence; and not any indication of a denial of his distinct
personhood. They forget that the Old Testament, for instance, was largely (not
completely) silent on the later revealed Son of God who was there all along, with no
real emphasis on a duo (only on the Father) until after Jesus’ incarnation (accounting
for why so many Jews today never sees the Godhead as being more than one person),
and yet this was no denial of Him being a distinct personality from the Father. The
same could be said about the Holy Spirit today as it concerns the New Testament not
placing as much emphasis on Him as the Father and Son, and yet this means no denial
of his distinct personhood.

h] they also appeal to the fact that the Holy Spirit (in relation to God the Father) is
presented metaphorically in the Bible as the mind of God, as His presence, as “the hand
of the Lord”, as “the finger of God”, and is also compared to the inseparable union
between a human person and his spirit, and argues that this means that likewise God’s
Spirit cannot be separate as a person from God the Father, while forgetting that even
Jesus is presented metaphorically as the “logos” (reason), wisdom, and power of God,
also as the “arm of the Lord” (things not usually separate from a person), and yet Jesus
is a distinct personality from the Father; distinct enough to be sent to represent Him,
and later sit at his right hand, just as the Spirit is also distinct enough to be also sent to
represent them both, and is also depicted as the “seven fold Spirit” “BEFORE His
throne” who sends greetings to the Church separately and equally along with the Father
and Son (see Rev. 1:4,5). Obviously they forget that a “Sent” and “Sender” could never
ever be the same being or person. Period!!

REFUTING MODERN ANTI-TRINITARIAN ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE

SPIRIT

Let me point out here that no one presentation could ever address (at once) all of the
arguments against the Holy Spirit’s identity, and so to avoid too much volume and
bulk-arguments here I am recommending the following separate articles and
manuscripts by this researcher, which can be had upon request by e-mailing me at
ddgillespie@live.com or by calling (876) 539-4734 or 385-5982. Also, I am
recommending the following web-link where one could access online some of the
articles indicated below Click here.

a] “Who Only is One with and Enters into Counsel With God?”

b] “Who Only is to be Exalted?”

 c] “The Holy Spirit’s Identity Ain’t No Mystery”

d] “The Truth About the Heavenly Greetings in Rev. 1:4,5”

e] “The Omega Heresy in Adventism”

f] “Binitarian and semi-Arian Flaws”

g] “Did the Papacy Invent the Trinity?”

h] “Critiquing Willie White’s Letter on the Holy Spirit”

i] “Did Kellogg’s Aplha Heresy Reject the Spirit’s Identity?”

j] “The Truth about the Holy Spirit”

k] “The Holy Spirit is Separate from Christ”

Let me however make some salient points here before closing on this issue of the
identity of the Spirit as the “third” of “the three holiest beings in heaven”. Take careful
note of the Adventist question below in 1890.

“Are we [Adventists] to understand that the Holy Ghost is a person, the same as
the Father and the Son? Some [among us] claim that it is; others that it is not.”
-Review and Herald, October 28, 1890

Some today say that the Adventist Church was never divided on this issue before or after 1888.
Only dishonesty, or a morbid desire to paint the “perfect picture” of a “perfect” pioneering
Church, would fail to see that full unity in 1890 was not yet achieved on all Godhead issues.
Even up to that point, in 1890, the issue of the ‘personhood’ of the Holy Spirit was not yet a
settled issue in Adventism, contrary to what some today claim. But note more evidence below
of changing views of SDA pioneers themselves by the late 1890s.

“It seems strange to me now [in 1898], that I ever believed that the Holy Spirit was only an
influence, in view of the work He does”

-R.A. Underwood – “The Holy Spirit a Person”, Review and Herald, Vol. 75,
May 17, *1898, pg. 310

“We [Adventists] need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a Person *AS [i.e. in
same way that] God is a Person (!!) is walking through these grounds…He hears every word
we utter, and knows every thought of every mind”
-E.G. White- Manuscript Release, Vol. 7, pg. 299 (from an 1899 speech at Avondale
College)

“God is one [person]. Jesus Christ is one [i.e. another person]. The Holy Spirit is one [the
third person of three]. And these three are one: there is no dissent nor division among them.”
-A. T. Jones, Review and Herald, January 10, 1899, 24
Mrs. White and the foregoing quoted pioneers (e.g. G.C. Tenny, R.A. Underwood, and A.T.
Jones, just to name a few) were among those breaking with past thinking; and declaring the
Holy Spirit’s ‘personhood’ and personal independence, even though He was still seen as
inseparably linked to the Father and the Son. But the transition went even further. Why else
would Mrs. White state categorically (after 1890) the following?

“The Holy Spirit HAS [note ‘has’] a PERSONALITY… He MUST ALSO BE A DIVINE
PERSON” [seems clear enough].
Evangelism, pg. 615, excerpted from a *1905 manuscript

There is a clear difference between saying ‘something [the Spirit] is a personality’

(or expression) of another, and in saying that*someone [the Holy Spirit] “has a
personality” [of His own], simply because He is “a divine person”. The latter expression is
clearly what Mrs. White emphasized, by even saying “there are three living [literal]
personalities” in the Godhead, or “three holiest beings” existing “IN HEAVEN” itself,
who can ALL be called upon in prayer. Oh how sad it is when someone will twist and
deny these clear meanings, and lead others astray!!

Notice carefully:
“The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to Heaven is the Spirit in all
the fullness of the Godhead [compare Col. 2:9]. There are three LIVING [i.e. literal]
personalities [persons] of the Heavenly Trio” [group of three persons].
- E.G. White, Evangelism, pg. 615, excerpted from a *1905 manuscript

Clearly Mrs. White could not be teaching that Christ can “SEND” himself (that would be
absurd), and so notice how far Mrs. White was prepared to lead the SDA Church regarding the
‘personhood’ of the Holy Spirit, after her 1898 affirmation that the Holy Spirit was “SENT” as
“the third Person of the Godhead”; a Godhead consisting of “THREE holiest BEINGS”.
Despite writing metaphorically (and understandably so) at times as if the Spirit is literally
Christ Himself, she was so pointed in saying in one place that “the Spirit personifies Christ,
yet is a distinct personality” that it became clear that the Spirit is not just a” personality” of
the Father and Son, but his own person!! Period!! No wonder pioneer Robert Hare made it
clear by 1909 that:

There is a trinity, and in it there are three personalities…We have the Father described in
Dan. 7:9, 10…a personality surely…In Rev. 1:13-18 we have the Son described. He is also a
personality… The Holy Spirit is spoken of throughout Scripture as a personality. These
divine persons are associated in the work of God…But this union is not one in which
individuality is lost…There is indeed a divine trio, but the Christ of that Trinity is not a
created being as the angels- He was the “only begotten” of the Father…”

- Robert Hare, Australasian Union Conference Record, July 19, 1909

Notice VERY carefully that pioneer Robert Hare never sought to say (like other pioneers were
saying at the time) that the “individuality” of the Holy Spirit “is lost” when one considers the
Godhead union (a union which he legitimately calls (interchangedly) a trinity and a trio, as all
unbiased English dictionaries do also), but he spoke of all three in the context of their being
united just as the Church is (i.e. separate members are involved). This means that it proves
nothing really if the differing views of other pioneers be appealed to who say the Spirit has no
individuality in the Godhead (a contradiction in terms if you ask me). It is the weight of
evidence which matters; not necessarily what some thought/think in contradiction to the clear
evidence.
 In must be said that while some today, unwittingly, play games and semantic
‘hopscotch’ with the words “person” (being) and “personality”, the same *cannot be done
with some words and expressions as it relates to the Holy Spirit: i.e. “three holiest beings”,
“eternal dignitaries”, “powers omniscient and infinite”, and her explaining that “the Spirit
personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality”. In addition it is a difficult thing to explain
away the fact that Mrs. White prayed to the Holy Spirit, and she saw Him as equally
pledging to receive and be “a Father” to us as both the Father and Son did, and then that
we in turn must pledge to “serve” all three (a matter modern SDA anti-Trinitarians have not
yet “pledged” themselves” to do, it seems). That is how Mrs. White truly saw the Holy
Spirit after 1888, i.e. one SENT to act or “One given to act in Christ’s place”, that is, after
Pacific Press proclaimed the “constituent persons of Eternal Godhead”, by endorsing Dr.
Samuel Spear’s Trinitarian tract in 1892. And remember it is the most ridiculous thing to
be intimating that either Christ or the Father send themselves as the one being of the
Spirit. The Adventist Church therefore had a firm foundation on which to gradually fully
formulate its new doctrine on the Holy Spirit, that is, after 1892 when it was made clear to
those agreeing.
Thus in 1915, A.G. Daniels, the then General Conference President (who served
for 21 years), could then officially declare, at Mrs. White funeral service, that in her teachings:

“The Holy Spirit, the third *PERSON of the Godhead, and Christ’s Representative on earth,
is set forth [by her] and *exalted [venerated] as the Heavenly Teacher and Guide sent to this
world by our Lord…” [Notice the repeated use of the words “the Third Person of the
Godhead”]
-A.G. Daniels – Review & Herald, August 5, 1915
(as reported by F.M. Wilcox, another pioneer, in “Testimony of Jesus”, 1934, pg.43)

Why could this long-standing pioneer and G.C. President of S.D.A.s be now so bold and reject
Uriah Smith’s view of Him not being a person? All he was doing was echoing Mrs. White’s
confessions; what many in Adventism had been resisting even just before and even after her
death (even today).
Some today in Adventism, make much ado about their description of the Holy
Spirit’s nature, nailing it down to either “the extension of the Father”, or the “split
personality” of the Father and the Son – all the while usurping and denying the counsels of
Mrs. White on this matter. Clearly we are not left to speculate about “who” the Holy Sprit
is – He is the “third person of the Godhead”; He is “One given” as “Christ’s Representative
on earth”; He is “the Comforter”; He is one of the “three living [literal] personalities of the
Heavenly Trio”; He is one of the “Eternal Heavenly Dignitaries”; and He is one of the
“three holiest beings” or the three “Highest Authorities” in Heaven itself. That was Mrs.
White’s testimony about who the Holy Sprit is. So the Spirit’s identity is no “mystery” at
all, as some make out; only “what” he is (just like God Himself)!! Remember that
“identity” mean “the individual characteristics by which a thing or person is recognized
or known” or “the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity”.
This is “WHO” the Spirit is in identity!! That’s why he can be numbered as “third”.
However, concerning “what” He is – whether an “extension”, or “split personality”, or
“projection of the Father”, or “transported energy” [of the Father and Son], like a telephone
connection – all are speculations failing to accept Mrs. White’s plain counsels stating that:

“It is not essential for us to be able to define just *WHAT [not ‘who’, but ‘what’] the Holy
Sprit is. Christ tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, ‘the Spirit of truth, which
proceedeth from the Father’. It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work
guiding men into all truth, ‘ He shall not speak of Himself’ (John 15:26; 16:13). The nature of
 the Holy Spirit is a MYSTERY. Men cannot explain it [the nature]. Many having fanciful
views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the
acceptance of these views will not strengthen the Church. Regarding such MYSTERIES, which
are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. The office of the Holy Sprit is
distinctly specified in the words of Christ: [declaring ‘who’ He is] When He is come; He will
reprove the world of sin… ‘He shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you” [“He shall
speak what He hears”, clearly from the Father and Jesus- John 16:13,14].
-E.G. White, Acts of the Apostles, pgs. 51,52

This was the same conviction, and testimony of pioneer, G.C. Tenny, in the 1896 Review
and Herald, that is, accepting the same “problems” related to the Spirit’s nature, in
“contemplating the Deity”. He was content like Mrs. White, to accept “whom” the Spirit is, but
left, unmolested, the subject of “what” He is, preferring rightly to see it a “mystery”.

Some who found out that they may just have been wrong about the Holy Spirit, when confronted
with the force of the already established truth in Adventism about the Holy Spirit's identity as the
"third" of "three holiest beings of heaven", find it too humbling to admit to, and so they pass it off
as being a truth not as important as accepting that Jesus is the real and literal Son of the Father,
who was really begotten from all eternity. This betrays an equally potent heresy (as denying that
Jesus is really the begotten Son of the Father), because an important truth that is already
established about a Godhead person is being DENIED and downplayed in favor of another truth.
How ironic, and how sad, because servants who wish to have "no guile in their mouths", find
themselves falling prey to the same "father of lies" who deceived many into thinking that Jesus is
not a real Son of the Father in the "begotten" sense"!! Yet, if the purity of the truth about Jesus
being the literal Son of the Father, as a separate being, is to be preserved it must relate to the fact
that he and the Father CANNOT be the same being at the same time as the Holy Spirit. The truth
about Jesus and the Father being separate beings can only be truly preserved if they are
"represented" by the Holy Spirit as a "third" separate being. Why? Because if the Holy Spirit is
simply the literal being and literal presence of both the Father and Son at the same time, then the
only inescapable conclusion is that they in fact are not separate beings, but are "blended" together
like conjoined Siamese twin, in order to own the same literal presence and being at the same time.
This "blending" of identities is what both the traditional Trinity teaches, as well as (ironically) the
teaching of those SDA anti-Trinitarians who deny that the Holy Spirit is a third being of the
Godhead.

SUMMARY:
We see clearly in the Bible that:
a] If the Holy Spirit is owned by both the Father and the Son *at the same time, and Scripture is replete
with the Holy Spirit being depicted as personal, and is listed separately from Father and Son in very many
Scriptures, and

b] If both Jesus and the Father equally sends the Spirit to us, and

c] If a "sent" and a "sender" must logically be personally separate (it would be

absurd otherwise, *unless one is a "Jesus only" or "Sabellian" believer), and

d] If both Father and Son could not send themselves (that too would be absurd), and
e] If the Father is *never sent by Jesus, since the Father is *not subject to or led
("Headed") by Jesus, but both Jesus and the Spirit are owned by the Father, and both
speak/act in response to the Father who leads them both, and sends them both, and

f] If the Holy Spirit intercedes to the Father for us in our praying (not in human
priestly function as the Jesus the Lamb, or the one Mediator does, but the Spirit
influences our prayers, and God reads the mind of the Spirit in us to know what is
meant when we pray), and

g] If the Father could not intercede to himself (that would be equally absurd), then

*THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION WHICH SATISFIES *ALL THE RULES OF

LOGIC *AT THE SAME TIME IS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSONAL
"REPRESENTATIVE" OWNED BY BOTH FATHER AND SON, AS A THIRD AND
SEPARATE PERSON! IN THAT ROLE HE CAN BE SENT BY BOTH AS THEIR OMNI-
PRESENT 'EMISSARY', AND NONE BE SEEN AS RIDICULOUSLY SENDING
THEMSELVES (AS SABELLIANS OR 'JESUS ONLY' PRPOPONENTS BELIEVE)!! AND
THUS WE CAN SEE WHY BOTH FATHER AND SON WHO SAID, "WE WILL COME
TO YOU AND MAKE OUR ABODE WITH YOU", "COMES"
*REPRESENTATIONALLY THROUGH THE AGENCY OF THE SPIRIT AS IF THEY
THEMSELVES ARE LITERALLY PRESENT! THE SPIRIT CAN ALSO INTERCEDE TO
THE FATHER FOR US, BUT *ONLY IN OUR PRAYING, AS HE RESIDES IN OUR
HEARTS/MINDS, AND IT WOULD MAKE PERFECT SENSE ALL AROUND, SINCE
THE FATHER WOULD NOT BE RIDICULOUSLY SEEN AS INTERCEDING TO
HIMSELF. THESE CRUCIAL FACTS IRREFUTABLY PROVE THE *NECESSITY OF
THE DISTINCTLY LISTED HOLY SPIRIT BEING A "THIRD" OR SEPARATE
PERSONAL BEING IN THE GODHEAD; A GODHEAD OF FATHER, SON, AND HOLY
SPIRIT-- ALL WORKING IN UNISON, AS 1 COR. 12:4-6,11 CLEARLY SHOWS, AND
THUS INDICATING WHY MATTHEW 28:19 LISTS THEM SEPARATELY IN JESUS'
OWN WORDS!! WHO KNOWS THE TRUTH BETTER THAN JESUS HIMSELF SENT
TO REVEAL IT TO US?

This inescapable biblical reality makes it plain why Mrs. White led the S.D.A. Church to
accept that the Holy Spirit is "the third person of the Godhead", yet he not literally sharing
one indivisible substance with the Father and Son, but rather he is the "third" of "three
holiest BEINGS of Heaven"!! It would take much twisting of plain English and denial of
fundamental doctrine (which is what "heresy" is) to teach otherwise and remain an
Adventist. Yet what Ellen White predicted would have happened in the "omega"- heresies
as it concerns the personalities of the Godhead. This presentation will address that “omega”
prophecy head-on later on.

[WORK IN PROGRESS. MORE TO COME]