Ellen White

and the

Trinity

Pastor Jan Voerman

Netherlands

2013

2

Contents

Contents ................................................................................................. 2

Introduction ............................................................................................ 3

Was Ellen White a Semi-Arian? ............................................................ 4

Ellen White and the Holy Spirit .......................................................... 15

Did Ellen White Reverse Her Belief? ................................................. 19

Ellen White and Her Description of God ............................................ 24

Ellen White a Trinitarian ..................................................................... 27

Christ Subject unto the Father ............................................................. 32

Christ the Source of Wisdom .............................................................. 35

***

3

Introduction

In some parts of the world a discussion is going on about the Trinity. Were the

early pioneers of our church, including Ellen White, harmoniously united on this

point? What was the role of Ellen White? Did she, as God‟s messenger, correct

the wrong ideas which some of the pioneers held and advocated, or did she go

along with wrong insights?

Some people think that Ellen White, in her early years, did not believe in the

Trinity. They come up with statements which, in their opinion and in their

interpretation, clearly reflect aspects of Semi-Arianism, and their pertinacity

causes often commotion and it brings many a good believer in our church in

confusion.

Is, after all, Ellen White, as to sound doctrine, not always to be trusted?

Should we rather consider her early statements, articles and books as not being

completely reliable on all points, and would we do better to read only her later

writings, when she was more mature in her thinking?

But is it possible that a true prophet, called by God, could write and proclaim,

for some time, a deficient message? How then can we distinguish a true prophet

from a false, when both can come up with unsound messages?

It is understandable that this puzzles many a sincere believer. What is the truth

about this issue? Is it really so that Ellen White, in her early years, wrote

deficient messages? How can we be sure about that?

If we study the arguments which accuse Ellen White, with a prayerful attitude

and with an honest and open mind, we may know for sure what is truth.

As we study the Godhead, we should realize that we are finite and sinful human

beings. Ellen White wrote: “We must not measure God or His truth by our finite

understanding or by our preconceived opinions.” R&H, Oct. 8, 1889, p. 625.

It should be clear then that we cannot explain God with human reasoning and

logic.

Angels veil their faces in God‟s presence. With what awe and reverence should

we, as fallen sinful beings, approach Him then?

May God‟s blessings be with us as we study with a consecrated heart the things

which God has pleased to reveal to us.

4

Was Ellen White a Semi-Arian?

To consider this question and decide upon it, it will be good to look first at the

main terms which are generally used to reflect the different beliefs as to the

nature of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit.

ARIANISM is named after Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, who, in the fourth

century, denied that Christ was of the same substance as the Father. Arius

believed the Son to be a creature, though pre-existent before the world. The

Nicaean Council condemned this belief in 325.

SEMI-ARIANISM, is more like a compromise between the orthodox and Arian

belief on Christ‟s nature. It teaches that Christ was not created; however, He has

not the same nature as God. He is subordinate, and not of one substance with the

Father.

TRINITARIANISM, is the orthodox belief that there is only one living, true

God, or Godhead, in a unity of three eternal Divine Persons or Beings: the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Who are of one substance, power, authority

and glory.

As we now consider the question whether Ellen White was a Semi-Arian, we

must look at the arguments which are presented as evidence for a positive

answer and see if it can stay the test.

Quote 1.

Those believing Ellen White to be a Semi-Arian come up with a quote from her

messages of information and encouragement which came early to the church

through the prophetic gift.

“I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person. I asked Him if His

Father was a person and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus, „I am the express

image of My Father‟s person.‟” Early Writings, page 77.

This is interpreted to be a Semi-Arian vision because it shows the Father and the

Son to have a body and parts and to be completely separate from one another,

not sharing the same nature, and thus the conclusion is drawn that Ellen White

presented here her Semi-Arian view of the Father and the Son.

5

Is this allegation fair and really true? Did Ellen White present here indeed her

own view? Note that Ellen White relates here what she saw and heard in

vision. Can we then ever assert that she presented her own view when she only

described what she saw and heard, while in vision? That certainly is unfair and

unwarranted. But Who gave Ellen White these visions? If this vision is given

her by God, which we believe to be true, and if this vision is branded as being

Semi-Arian, then we accuse God of being a Semi-Arian.

Note further that Ellen White does not at all say here that the Father and the Son

are completely separate, not sharing the same nature and substance. There is not

a word about that in this quote.

So we must conclude that accusing Ellen White as being a Semi-Arian on basis

of this quote, is inconsistent, unsound and without evidence.

It is always good, for proper understanding, to pay due attention to the context.

In Ellen White‟s days different views on God circulated. She writes: “I have

frequently been falsely charged with teaching views peculiar to Spiritualism.”

She explains further: “I have often seen that the spiritual view took away all the

glory of heaven, and that in many minds the throne of David and the lovely

person of Jesus have been burned up in the fire of Spiritualism.” Ibid.

In Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, Ellen White describes us some of the

spiritualistic views: “The Father is as the light invisible: the Son is as the light

embodied; the Spirit is the light shed abroad. The Father is like the dew,

invisible vapor; the Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is

like the dew fallen to the seat of life. Another representation: The Father is like

the invisible vapor; the Son is like the leaden cloud; the Spirit is rain fallen and

working in refreshing power. All these spiritualistic representations are simply

nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue.” p. 62. Such were the kind of spiritual

views Ellen White had to cope with.

In contrast with such “spiritual views” God gave her a clear vision, showing

her that the Father and the Son are not like dew or vapor. No, they are both real

persons. Thus, this vision has no context of Semi-Arianism but of false spiritual

ideas and views.

Continuing, Ellen White explained very clearly: “The Father cannot be

described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead

bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead

manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be „the express image of His

person.‟” Ibid. This is what Ellen White wrote in 1905. Is this Semi-Arian? Is

here any contradiction with her statement in Early Writings? It is true and in

harmony with the Bible that the Father is the fullness of the Godhead bodily and

6

that Jesus Christ is also the fullness of the Godhead – the express image of His

person. And so there is perfect equality between the Father and Christ.

Thus, this vision in Early Writings shows, in clear harmony with the Bible, that

Father and Son are distinct divine persons or beings. In both is the fullness of the

Godhead. And Christ being the express image of the Father‟s person (Hebr. 1:3),

signifies clear equality and unity between them, for how can Christ truly be the

express image of the Father when He is of a different nature and substance?

Other translations say:

“the very image of his substance” ASV.

“an exact representation of his very being” Rhm.

“flawless expression of the nature of God.” Phi.

Quote 2.

The next statement that is presented as evidence for Ellen White‟s Semi-

Arianism is this quote:

“I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus‟

countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father‟s person I could not

behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father

had a form like Himself. He said He had but I could not behold it, for said He,

„If you should once behold the glory of His person you would cease to exist.‟”

Early Writings, page 54.

On basis of this quote it is again asserted that Ellen White presents Jesus and the

Father as being quite separate individuals, and this is seen as misleading for they

are the one God existing in a single substance. And so it is concluded that Ellen

White is a Semi-Arian, far removed from being a Trinitarian.

Ellen White could only see and admire Jesus, but not the Father, because He was

covered by a cloud of glorious light and when she should see the Father, then

she would cease to exist. Does this mean that there is indeed a real difference of

nature between Christ and the Father? Can we really interpret this vision as

being Semi-Arian and accuse Ellen White as such?

To understand the right meaning of this quote, we should consider the context.

If we neglect that, we might jump to unfair and wrong conclusions.

Before the throne were two companies of people, one interested and one careless

and we read then: “Those who were bowed before the throne would offer up

their prayers and look to Jesus; then He would look to His Father, and appear

7

pleading with Him…. I saw the Father rise from His throne and in a flaming

chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down.” pp 54, 55.

Now the question is: Is this a vision before the world was made - before the

foundation of this earth was laid? No, definitely not ! And accordingly, Christ

is not pictured here in His eternal glory, equal with the Father. In this vision

Christ and His Father are presented sitting on the throne in the heavenly

sanctuary. Was there before the creation and foundation of this earth a sanctuary

in heaven where Christ ministered? No, there was no need of a sanctuary then.

Only after the fall of man a sanctuary was instituted. This vision presents

praying people, looking up to Jesus Who pleads in their behalf with the Father.

Thus we have here a very clear picture of the plan of salvation in operation with

Christ as Mediator between fallen humanity and the Father.

The Bible teaches us that Christ, in the scope of the plan of salvation, humbled

Himself. In this vision it is clear that Christ is in function as Mediator. Christ has

not yet laid down His intercessory role and clothed Himself with glory. He will

do this when He leaves the sanctuary and comes back to this earth to receive His

faithful followers and lead them into the New Jerusalem.

In the scope of the plan of salvation, Christ is always presented to us in His

humbled state. So there is no real problem with this vision. Of course, in the

plan of salvation, the Father is more than the Son. The Father did not took upon

Him the role of Mediator. There is only one name by which we should be saved.

Let it be clear again that Ellen White relates here what she saw in vision; what

she asked and the answer she received. She does not explain here what she

believed about the Trinity or the Godhead, and it is not fair to take her on that

and assert that she was in her early years a Semi-Arian.

Quote 3.

A following statement that in the opinion of some should also be regarded as

evidence for Ellen White‟s Semi-Arianism, is where she says:

“Those who rose up with Jesus would send up their faith to Him in the holiest,

and pray, „My Father, give us Thy Spirit.‟ Then Jesus would breathe upon them

the Holy Ghost. In that breath was light, power, and much love, joy, and peace.”

Early Writings, page 55.

The Holy Spirit is received by the breathing of Jesus on people and this also is

regarded as being Semi-Arian and used as evidence that Ellen White clearly

showed anti Trinitarian aspects in her early life.

8

This is also part of what Ellen White saw in vision. But remember, a similar

picture is presented in the Bible: ”…He breathed on them, and said unto them,

Receive ye the Holy Ghost” John 20:22. Thus, when we accuse Ellen White, in

this context, of Semi-Arianism, we also accuse the Bible of Semi-Arianism. It

is clear that those who come up with such unsound accusations are pretty much

confused in their thinking and reasoning, and even dare to accuse the Bible.

But shouldn‟t we understand the breathing of Christ as being symbolic, and

shouldn‟t we compare it with the Creation when God breathed into man‟s

nostrils the breath of life, by which he became a living soul? Gen. 2:7. So the

Holy Spirit was breathed upon the disciples as a leading, re-creating source of

life and also as a power of divine authority. This really has nothing to do with

Semi-Arianism.

Quote 4.

Then, another passage in which Ellen White‟s Semi-Arianism is supposed to be

seen is the following statement, where it is alleged that Christ again is shown to

be very different with the Father and completely separate from Him. All the

power and authority is in the hands of the Father, as the only One shrouded in

Glory. He is the Great God and Jesus is seen as being of lesser importance:

“I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon

his countenance. Soon I saw him approach the exceeding bright light which

enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, „He is in close

conversation with his Father.‟ The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense

while Jesus was communing with his Father. Three times he was shut in by the

glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father we

could see his person, and his countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and

trouble, and shone with loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made

known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man;

that he had been pleading with his Father, and had obtained his consent to give

his life a ransom, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon

himself.” Supplement to the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White,

page 47f., 1854.

Ellen White relates here again only what she saw and heard in vision. It is not a

confession of her personal belief and understanding concerning the Trinity. And

so, again, it is impossible and unfair to accuse her in this context, because she

only stated faithfully what she saw and heard, without any word of her own

opinion or interpretation, relating to Semi-Arianism. It must be also pointed out

again that if this vision is branded as being Semi-Arian, then Ellen White cannot

be accused, for she was not the source and originator of this vision, but God, and

thus, God is accused of being a Semi-Arian.

9

Why does this vision show so much difference between Christ and the Father?

Is it indeed because of Semi-Arianism?

The plan of redemption included clearly and undeniably the humiliation of

Christ, when man should fall in sin. Christ could only plead for fallen man as

Mediator on basis of His blood and humbled state. Could Christ then have

approached His Father, in His eternal glory, while pleading in behalf of fallen

man? Would His pleading then have been successful? It is perfectly clear that at

the time of this vision, humanity had actually fallen in sin and Christ could only

rescue fallen man in the form of humanity, combined with His divinity. He

could only plead for sinful man successfully, when He would take our place and

the Father would see us through Christ‟s humiliation, death and righteousness.

That was the only way fallen humanity could be saved and this was included in

God‟s plan of redemption.

Thus, as soon as man fell in sin, the plan of salvation was, at that very moment,

set in operation and Jesus stepped, as the slain Lamb, in between as Mediator,

actually taking now upon Himself the position of fallen humanity and Jesus

became fallen man‟s sin bearer. He did so, as it were, in advance, and by virtue

of His death on Calvary‟s cross. In anticipation of His incarnation He appeared

in Old Testament times in human form Gen. 18; 32:24-30. No wonder that

Ellen White in this vision saw Christ in His humiliated form, while pleading

with the Father. Since Christ was the slain Lamb from before the foundation of

this world, He officiated on that “merit” as such, before His incarnation, as a

true and faithful Mediator.

The decision that Jesus would die in our place was already agreed beforehand –

before the foundation of the earth. And when the plan of salvation actually was

put in operation, Christ is seen in “close conversation” with His Father. Christ

approached the Father three times and made known then that a way of escape

was made and that He had obtained the Father‟s consent to give His life. Some

people argue that this cannot be true because this was already agreed before the

world was made. However, they forget that the angels were not included in

God‟s council when, beforehand, the plan of salvation had been settled, and

Satan was not included either and that is why he became envious of Christ‟s

position.

The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense at man‟s fall. They were deeply

moved and no wonder, they were now involved as witnesses of the scene, when

actually the plan of salvation was set in operation. The angels were in great

trouble because their beloved Leader would have to suffer and they offered their

lives, but that was impossible. A created being could not pay the debt to save

fallen humanity SR 43. The angels were closely confronted with this dramatic

10

event and since they had not been present in the heavenly council, when the plan

of salvation was agreed, the Father‟s consent was also in their behalf, when it

was made known now, while the plan of salvation was set in operation.

Three times Christ approached the Father. Three stands for that which is solid,

real, substantial, complete and entire. Thus, while the angelic hosts intensely

looked on, it was signified that man‟s redemption was weighty and worthy of

full attention and agreement and was solved in a solid, real, substantial,

complete and entire way. Christ pleaded with the Father for His consent. Here

we see unity and full co-operation between Father and Son and there was no

room left for the angels to doubt that the execution of the plan of salvation was

not in any aspect in full agreement. They were now witnesses that the Father had

consented and endorsed the humiliating role of their beloved Leader. They were

convinced now that there was no disharmony, but perfect agreement between

Jesus and the Father and that this was the only way to save fallen humanity.

In the context of God‟s plan of salvation, Christ indeed is, because of His

humiliation, lesser than the Father, but not in His divine nature. In fact, as a

golden chain, God‟s plan of salvation runs throughout the whole Bible and we

meet with several places, such as John 14:28, where Christ is presented as lesser

than the Father. In God‟s plan of salvation Father and Son had a different role.

We could perhaps say that the Father took the leading role of director, while

Christ took the role of executor, and surely also the Holy Spirit had a role, in

line and in the shadow of Christ‟s accomplished work. “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.” CH 222.

That Christ is seen in this vision, unequal in position and glory with the Father,

is not owing to a difference between them, complying with Semi-Arianism.

No, in God‟s plan of redemption we behold Christ, and not the Father, as being

humbled. No wonder that Ellen White saw Christ, but could not see the Father,

because He was gloriously enshrouded, while He emanated all power and

authority. The cross of Christ is the center of man‟s salvation and we behold

Him in His humbled position, which explains the Father‟s superiority and

Christ‟s submission. When the plan of salvation ends, all men will behold Christ

fully glorified, at the final coronation. Salvation with Christ‟s humiliation is to

rescue men and not the angels, and so, at His ascension, Christ was glorified

amidst the angels. At the end of the thousand years, when the plan of salvation

ends, then all mankind will be involved in Christ‟s glorification.

Ascended to heaven, Christ was “enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels”

and He was glorified “with the glory which He had with the Father from all

eternity” AA 38, 39. The prize to rescue man was paid, Satan was defeated and

11

death conquered, but the plan of salvation did not end at that moment. We still

live on this sinful earth and the great controversy between good and evil is still

raging and those who died in faith are still dead. The saints are not yet gathered

into God‟s kingdom and Christ still ministers in the heavenly sanctuary. As long

as He is in His mediatory role, we behold and approach Him in His humbled

position. Says Hebrews 2:17 “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made

like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in

things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

Thus the humbled state of Christ, like unto His bretheren, makes Him a merciful

and faithful high-priest and as such we find Him pleading with the Father.

At the end of the plan of salvation, however, at the close of the thousand years,

when the wicked are about to be judged and destroyed, then Christ will be fully

glorified and invested with supreme majesty and power and He will then

occupy His rightful position: “In the presence of the assembled inhabitants of

earth and heaven the final coronation takes place. And now, invested with

supreme majesty and power, the King of kings pronounces sentence upon the

rebels against His government, and executes justice upon those who have

transgressed His law and oppressed His people.” GC 666. Then, at the end,

“The hour has come when Christ occupies His rightful position, and is glorified

above principalities and powers and every name that is named.” GC 671.

Thus, at the end of the plan of salvation, Christ will be fully restored in His full

equality and complete oneness with the Father and all things will revert to what

they had been before sin entered the world. What a wonderful and blessed end

of God‟s plan of redemption.

We must conclude that the temporal humiliation of Christ, as long as the plan of

salvation lasts, is a necessary feature or aspect, to redeem fallen humanity.

Christ‟s temporary position of being less than the Father, as shown in vision to

Ellen White, cannot be interpreted in terms of Semi-Arianism, for when we do

so, we miss the point completely.

Ellen White‟s visions are not contradictory nor unbiblical. Understood in their

right context, these early visions are certainly a great and valuable contribution

to obtain insight in God‟s plan of salvation.

Quote 5.

In the light of her early visions, it is argued that Ellen White, in her immature

perception, would not allow that Jesus shared the glory of the Father and it is

suggested that because of her Semi-Arianism, she reveals Jesus without glory.

Then, it is asserted that Ellen White, up around 1890, was swinging away from

12

Semi-Arianism and making statements that show she was moving toward being

a Trinitarian. Her turning round is supposed to be illustrated when she made in

1890 this statement:

“The Son of God shared the Father‟s throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-

existent One encircled both.” Patriarchs and Prophets, page 36.

Does this statement really illustrate that Ellen White, round 1890, renounced her

Semi-Arian views and became a Trinitarian? Does the context of this statement

really bear this out?

If we look at the context in which Ellen White wrote this sentence, we see

perfect harmony and a clear confirmation how precisely and true she was in her

concept of the Father and the Son. This sentence is presented in a chapter

entitled: “Why was sin permitted?” describing Satan‟s rebellion in heaven,

before man was created.

Thus, there was no plan of salvation in operation yet and therefore no actual

humiliation of Christ, and so, no wonder, that Christ still shared the Father‟s

throne and equal glory and authority at that moment.

This quote is a clear confirmation that Christ and the Father, before the creation

of this world, were perfectly equal, sharing the same throne and glory. This has

nothing to do with Ellen White‟s swinging away from her supposed Semi-

Arianism, but with sound biblical understanding, for we are taught in the Bible

that Christ, in the scope of the plan of salvation, humbled Himself Phil. 2:5-8.

God‟s plan of redemption was not set up in operation at Christ‟s incarnation.

Christ actually assumed His humiliation at the fall of man. It was all agreed

before the foundation of this world, but Christ actually took upon Himself that

mediatory role and humbled position, when man fell in sin.

Quote 6.

That only the Father is the Supreme God and that Jesus is far less in status, is

also supposed to be seen in the following statement, which therefore, should also

reflect Semi-Arianism:

“The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence

of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son... The Father then made

known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with

himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was his own presence...

His Son would carry out His will and His purposes, but would do nothing of

himself alone.” Spirit of Prophecy, Vol., 1, pp., 17, 18, 1870.

13

Should we indeed read and understand this passage in terms of Semi-Arianism

or is another purpose involved in this statement?

This quote is part of a vision. As we read this quote in its context, we will know

how to understand this passage and note the reason, why the heavenly host was

assembled to confer special honor upon the Son. Was it really in the context of

the Father being the Supreme God and the Son being far less and therefore not

one with the Father? Ellen White wrote on the same page: “…Jesus, God‟s dear

Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father

before the angels were created.” Ibid, p. 17. Thus, before this assembly of the

heavenly host took place, Christ was already from eternity one with the Father.

So, equality and oneness of the Father and the Son, did not start here, but was

confirmed by the Father.

Ellen White wrote: “Satan was envious of Christ, and gradually assumed

command which devolved on Christ alone.” Ibid. This situation was certainly

confusing to the angels. Who really is their true commander? Is it Christ or is it

Lucifer? To settle this question, the Father assembled the heavenly host to make

the matter clear and confer special honor upon his Son. Thus it was made clear

that Christ was the right commander. Ellen White says on the following page:

“But Christ was acknowledged sovereign of Heaven, his power and authority to

be the same as that of God himself.” If Christ is one with the Father and if He

shares equal power and authority, there is no reason to suggest Semi-Arianism

in this context.

Note Ellen White‟s words elsewhere written in this same context:”There had

been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer‟s envy and

misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a

statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from

the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer‟s

deceptions.” Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 38. This later quote of 1890 is clearly

in harmony with Ellen White‟s quote of 1870, above referred to: “He was one

with the Father before the angels were created.” That being so, there is indeed

no change in Christ‟s position and authority, no, it has been the same from the

beginning and so there is therefore no real reflection of Semi-Arianism.

Some may conclude that the angels did not know or recognize that Christ was

equal with the Father and that it took a special council, in which they were

assembled, to inform them of this truth. But this conclusion is unwarranted. It

was not because of their ignorance as to Christ‟s equality with the Father, but

because of Satan‟s envy and jealousy of Christ which made the angels uncertain

and doubtful concerning Christ‟s true position and thus His authority was

disputed. Many angels were blinded by Lucifer‟s deceptions, and that is the

14

reason why a statement of the true position of the Son of God was necessary.

The Father assembled the heavenly host to confer in their presence honor upon

the Son and make known that it was ordained that Christ and not Lucifer should

be equal with himself. So, no angel had any excuse to follow the deceptive

misrepresentations of Satan.

Furthermore, it is argued that Christ is not equal with the Father by nature, but

only because the Father has ordained it to be so. This should have been Ellen

White‟s understanding in her early years.

It is easy to say that this was Ellen White‟s understanding, but how do we know

that? Where do we find any clear and solid evidence for such an assertion?

Vague and fanciful interpretations and suggestions are of no use. But there is no

need for doubt. As mentioned already, if we consider the context, we read that

Ellen White wrote on the same page that Christ was one with the Father before

the angels were created. How can Christ truly be one with the Father if He does

not share the Father‟s nature? How can He be our Redeemer when He would

not be fully divine?

What is the benefit of accusing Ellen White of things that are not in a clear and

sound way sustained by the context? Should we entrench ourselves behind

disconnected utterances construed to suit our own imperfect suppositions? Are

we not lining up with the enemy of truth if we do so? Lucifer disputed Christ‟s

equality with the Father, for he wanted to be equal with God, impressing on the

angels a false view about Christ and thus the Father decreed that not Lucifer but

Christ is equal with himself. Lucifer, called the Devil and Satan, was cast down

to the earth with his deluded angels and now he is trying to implant in the human

mind a wrong view about Christ, for he still hates the Son of God.

Christ would do nothing of Himself. Thus unity and complete harmony between

Christ and the Father is stressed. So the angels did not need to have any doubt

and believe Lucifer‟s allegations, while he tried to usurp Christ‟s position. This

is the point that was at stake and why the Father declared and affirmed Christ to

be one with Him. Thus the question: Is Christ being declared equal with the

Father only by decree and not by nature? can be answered with an emphatic no,

as we look carefully at the context.

It should be stressed again that Ellen White did not present her own views. She

did not invent or devise the things, she described. No, she was shown these

things by God and guided by the Holy Spirit. If we, nevertheless, persist to hold

unto our own peculiar views and understanding and impose Semi-Arianism on

her description, we misuse her writings and we accuse God, for He is the Source

of the things she described.

15

Ellen White and the Holy Spirit

It has been claimed that when Ellen White in 1873 described the baptism of

Christ, in the river Jordan, she did not yet recognize the Holy Spirit as a Person

and it is even argued that The Holy Spirit never rates even a mention. It is also

argued that the dove-like form, indicated by Ellen White as being emblematical

of the meekness and gentleness of Christ, is a wrong presentation here, because

the dove-like form represents the Holy Spirit.

Quote 1.

This assertion is based on the following passage:

“The heavens were opened, and beams of glory rested upon the Son of God and

assumed the form of a dove, in appearance like burnished gold. The dove-like

form was emblematical of the meekness and gentleness of Christ.” Review and

Herald, January 21, 1873.

In this quote the Holy Spirit is not mentioned and it is argued that this is a

strange commentary. It seems to be a deliberate avoidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit rested upon Jesus in the form of a dove, but Ellen White

presented another picture, speaking about “beams of glory” and not of the Holy

Spirit. Thus it is concluded that at that time she did not yet believe in the

personality of the Spirit.

It is sometimes amazing how differently people can read certain passages. Is this

really such a strange commentary? If Ellen White would say that it was not the

Holy Spirit that descended in the form of a dove upon Jesus, then it should be

said that this passage, certainly, is strange and even in conflict with the Bible.

But Ellen White does not say that at all. She explains that the heavens were

opened and beams of glory rested upon the Son, assuming the form of a dove in

appearance like burnished gold. The Bible tells us that God is light, and so is the

Holy Spirit; there is no darkness in Him. So, this event, certainly, was not a

manifestation of darkness, but as Ellen White says: “beams of glory rested upon

the Son of God…”

It is true that Ellen White did not mention the dove-like form as being the Holy

Spirit in this particular quote, but does that really mean that she did not believe

that it was the Holy Spirit and is it true that she deliberately avoided the Holy

Spirit and also that the Holy Spirit never rates even a mention?

16

How can we know that these bold assertions are true? It is always good and

recommendable to read a quote in its context and if we do so, we discover that

Ellen White, further on in her article, quotes John 1:32, 33. “And John bare

record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it

abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water,

the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and

remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”

Would Ellen White ever quote this clear passage if she would deliberately avoid

the Holy Spirit? Would she do so, if she did not agree nor support what is said

here about the Holy Spirit? Is it really convincing to say, yes, she quotes this

passage, but she does not believe it because she has other thoughts on it? How

fancy to assert such odd things.

Then, again further on in her article, she wrote: “Christ virtually says, On the

bank of Jordan the heavens were opened before me, and the Spirit descended

like a dove upon me.” Thus it is without doubt that Ellen White acknowledged

the dove-like form as being the Holy Spirit, otherwise she would not have

written this at all.

Was the dove-like form not emblematical of the meekness and gentleness of

Christ? Several sources support this symbolic or emblematic meaning of doves.

The Bible speaks of being harmless as doves Mat. 10:16. Other translations use

words as: innocent, blameless and guileless. When the Holy Spirit descended

upon Christ like a dove, emblematical of meekness and gentleness, then it

testifies of harmony and unity with Christ, when the dove-like form is said to be

also emblematical of the meekness and gentleness of Christ. In this sense, Christ

should be regarded as being one with the Holy Spirit, and accordingly, Christ in

His life was led by the Spirit. Cf., Luke 4:1.

Quote 2.

Some people are of opinion that it was not until the year 1897 that Ellen White

recognized the Holy Spirit as being the third person of the Godhead, which

came, as is asserted, like a bolt out of the blue.

“The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God

in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.” Special Testimonies, Series

A, No. 10, p. 37. 1897.

At long last, she should have recognized that the Holy Spirit is a Person and is in

fact a Member of the Godhead. It is asserted that Ellen White did not give the

Holy Spirit His rightful place in her supposed Semi-Arian period and only came

17

to terms with His Person and Deity in 1897. It is assumed that it took Ellen

White nearly 50 years to accept what the Bible clearly taught all along about the

Holy Spirit.

It is clear that we meet here again with unproved assertions. If the Spirit of

Prophecy is a gift from God, which we believe, then we should appreciate this

gift in a proper way and not neglect it nor underestimate it or turn it down with

unsound suggestions, assertions or accusations, for that would be distrust and

disloyalty towards God, Who, in His wisdom found it necessary to bless the

church, in this unmatched time of the end, with this valuable gift.

It is a rather unwarranted, dramatic description to typify Ellen White‟s insight

about the Holy Spirit in the way as is done here. However, the fact that Ellen

White did not present in her early years a very clear detailed statement, as to the

personality of the Holy Spirit, does not necessarily mean that she did not believe

this or cherished a wrong view about it. Such a thought can only be a suggestion

or supposition which cannot be clearly substantiated, because, as a matter of

fact, she did not present a statement out of harmony with the teaching of the

Bible. We should realize that in her early days there were many biblical subjects

and aspects that needed attention and clarification, because the early brethren

came from different churches with various opinions and they were not in union

on all points of faith.

It is unreasonable to expect that all biblical subjects should be at once dealt with

and in every detail clearly presented. The early Advent believers were united on

the soon coming of Christ, but differed in their understanding on various points.

They did not keep the Sabbath; they were not clear on the Sanctuary; the Spirit

of Prophecy; the nature of man, and healthful living. Should we now paint a

dramatic picture as to the rather limited understanding of the early Adventists

about these subjects? This will be very unreasonable. God provided in due time

more detailed insight, truth and clear information and part by part a solid

foundation was laid.

Thus it should not surprise us that right from the beginning, Ellen White did not

present at once on all points complete and detailed information. This cannot be

interpreted as if Ellen White had wrong views. It is unfair and unreasonable to

accuse Ellen White in her early years of heretical insight, because she is rather

silent or not much in detail about a subject. When we look at the facts, we see

that subject after subject was made clear, but not all subjects together at once.

There is nothing to blame Ellen White, unless she wrote and proclaimed untrue,

heretical views, but that is clearly not the case. We can confidently say that what

she presented, was always true, solid, biblical truth, even though it was not

always as detailed and complete as her later statements.

18

It is true that when Ellen White came to deal with the topic of the Trinity more

directly, the Holy Spirit‟s inspiration made her produce more clear and detailed

statements. When in 1888 the time had come that the topic “Righteousness by

Faith” and “Christ our Righteousness,” came to the front more explicitly, as

presented by Waggoner, then in its scope the right position of Christ was also

stressed more powerfully as being one and equal with the Father, “For in him

dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” Col. 2:9. All the fullness dwells

in Him, so there is nothing of the Godhead that is not dwelling in Him, and

therefore He is fully divine.

Waggoner presented Christ as being part of the Godhead and he used the word

Godhead in the sense of Trinity or Triune God: “Only a transcendent Christ,

who is completely and intrinsically One of the constituent Persons of the eternal

Godhead in the highest and fullest sense, could be our all-sufficient Creator,

Lawgiver, Atoning Sacrifice, Redeemer, Judge, Advocate, Justifier, Sanctifier,

Glorifier, and Coming King. Only such a One could constitute the sole and

completely adequate Source of the Righteousness imperative for sinful man to

stand fully transformed and panoplied in the presence of God‟s immaculate

holiness.” Christ and His Righteousness, p. 43.

Ellen White endorsed the 1888 message of Righteousness by Faith in all its

fullness through Christ in all His fullness, and she declared soon after, that

Waggoner‟s presentation about the “matchless charms of Christ” was “the first

clear teaching on this subject from human lips I had heard, excepting the

conversations between myself and my husband.”

She recognized its heavenly origin clearly and testified: “God has presented it to

me in vision,” and she declared impressively: “When another [Waggoner]

presented it, every fiber of my heart said, Amen.” MS 5, 1889, June 17.

In 1869 Ellen White had written that Christ as our Saviour “possessed divine

majesty, perfection, and excellence. He was equal with God.” 2 T 200. And

Ellen White‟s husband, James White, wrote in 1877 a clear and powerful article

on the position of Christ, entitled:“Christ Equal With God,” in which he

denounced any view as erroneous that “makes Christ inferior to the Father.”

R&H, Nov. 29, 1877.

So, Ellen White was not ignorant about the true position and mission of Christ

and it is not demonstrated either that she held wrong views about the Holy

Spirit. Since the 1888 message was fundamental for the church to be accepted,

Ellen White was inspired to stress its importance, and gradually in its scope

came from her hand statements, more clearly and powerfully, about the Holy

Spirit, the Godhead and the triune God.

19

Did Ellen White Reverse Her Belief?

Another assertion that is made is that Ellen White believed for a time that Deity

could die. A few statements should indicate this. However, it is claimed that she

reversed her belief in 1904, when she plainly stated that Deity could not die.

Quote 1.

“Remember that Christ risked all; „tempted like as we are,‟ he staked even his

own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled

for our redemption." General Conference Bulletin, Dec. 1, 1895, par. 22.

Does this quote say that Deity could die? Existence and Deity are not similar. Is

it a good interpretation to say that if Christ had failed in His mission, Deity

would have died and that there would have been no Deity anymore - no Father,

no Son and no Holy Spirit? Is that the meaning of what Ellen White says here?

She says: Christ staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the

conflict. The obvious meaning is that Christ, in becoming man, did not cling to

His eternal, glorious existence, but was willing to lay it aside. But Ellen White‟s

accusers see in these words a clear statement that Christ‟s Deity or Divinity

could die. We could philosophy about what would have happened if Jesus had

failed to redeem man, and in what sense then precisely His eternal existence was

at stake, but that has not been revealed. Our thoughts should be veiled with awe

and reverence. Christ‟s position and work is a mystery that will not be fully

understood. Ellen White says: “But though these men [the most gifted men on

earth] should seek with all their power to give a representation of Christ and His

work, the representation would fall far short of the reality.” Lift Him Up, p. 76.

Thus we do not know precisely everything about Christ and His work and what

would have happened when Christ had failed in His mission. If Christ could

have failed in His humanity, would not mean that He would have failed in His

divinity, but all we can possibly think off “would fall far short of the reality.”

To redeem fallen man, Christ could not remain in His divine glory and eternal

existence. He would have to step down and take the form and nature of a man.

He laid aside His divinity, but this does not at all mean that He renounced or

disclaimed His divinity. Ellen White wrote:“…Jesus, the Son of God, the

world‟s Redeemer, laid aside His divinity, and came to earth in the garb of

humanity.” Bible Echo, Oct., 12, 1896, par. 1. Christ can only be our Saviour

20

as being truly God and truly man; encircling with His arm of divinity the throne

of God, and with His arm of humanity, the fallen human race.

When Christ would have failed in His mission of redemption, then Satan would

have turned out to be the great conqueror and what impression would that have

made upon the universe and the angels? Would their trust in Christ be then

affirmed or shocked and shattered? Was this what is meant when saying:

“Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.”? Was this what is meant

when saying: “He staked even His own eternal existence,” because Christ‟s

failure would then have always rested upon His divine eternal existence?

If Christ had failed in His human nature, would that have meant that He would

have had to suffer eternal death in His divine nature? It is really inconceivable

that Ellen White would have believed that. Note what she said about Lucifer‟s

early rebellion: “Though he had left his position as covering cherub, yet if he

had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator‟s wisdom, and

satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God‟s great plan, he would have been

reinstated in his office.” PP 39. If this applied to a rebellious, high ranking

leader, next to Christ, would there not have been then a reinstatement for Christ

in case He would have failed in His human nature to redeem fallen men?

Although we do not fully understand Christ‟s redemptive work, nor what would

have happened if He would have failed in His mission, it is perfectly clear that

the words:”he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the

conflict,” are not equivalent with saying, Deity or Divinity could die.

Quote 2.

Another quote, written in 1899, is referred to as being also supposed evidence

that Ellen White once believed that Deity could die:

“Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His

own. His Deity could not be lost while He stood faithful and true to His loyalty."

Signs of the Times, May 10, 1899; SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, page 1129.

Does Ellen White really say here that Deity could die? She writes here: “His

Deity could not be lost while He stood faithful…” Is this the same as saying that

Deity could die? Is losing Deity equivalent with Deity would die? Losing and

dying are two different words with a different meaning.

If we think this passage over we can understand what is said here. As long as

Christ would be faithful and true to His loyalty, He could not lose His Deity.

Thus, if Christ, in any way, would become unfaithful, untrue and disloyal, then

21

He would lose Deity, because such an attitude can never be harmonized with

perfect Deity. It will be a clear misrepresentation of the divine nature and thus in

such a position of unfaithfulness and disloyalty, Christ would not reflect Deity

anymore and thus He would then have lost His Deity.

In a similar way, Ellen White explained: “Christ came to our world because He

saw that men had lost the image and nature of God.” Ye Shall Receive Power, p.

24; Youth Instructor, Sept. 9, 1897, par. 4. Men lost the image and nature of

God, when they became disobedient and stood not faithful and loyal. And also,

when Satan became disloyal and unfaithful, he lost his high and holy position:

“Once Satan was in copartnership with God, Jesus Christ, and the holy angels.

He was highly exalted in heaven and was radiant in light and glory that came to

him from the Father and the Son, but he became disloyal and lost his high and

holy position as covering cherub.” Christ Triumphant, p. 10.

Thus, apparently, the same applies when Christ would have been unfaithful. He

would then have lost His Deity, but to say that Deity would then have died, is

misusing or manipulating Ellen White‟s words, because that is not what Ellen

White said.

Quote 3.

The following passage, written in 1900, is also quoted to substantiate the

suggestion that Ellen White believed that Deity could die:

“He became subject to temptation, endangering as it were, His divine attributes.

Satan sought, by the constant and curious devices of his cunning, to make Christ

yield to temptation.” Letter 5, 1900, as quoted in the SDA Bible Commentary

Vol., 7 page 926.

This quote makes clear that Christ had to deal with severe temptations. Satan did

his utmost to mislead Christ and make Him yield to his temptations, and in that

way His divine attributes were endangered. Would that mean that Deity would

have died if Christ would have failed, by yielding to Satan‟s temptations?

Note that the word Deity is not mentioned in this quote. We only read that His

divine attributes are, as it were, endangered. Is that the same as saying that Deity

would die? Are divine attributes equivalent with Deity? The angels of God

reflect God‟s nature and they reveal divine attributes, even as Adam did, when

he was created in God‟s image and nature. This does not mean that the angels

and man, in his innocent state, shared Deity. And although we believe in the

Deity of Christ, we cannot say that divine attributes are synonymous with Deity.

And so, when Christ‟s divine attributes are in danger, we just cannot say that

22

this means that Deity could die, nor can we assert that Ellen White had this in

mind. We should be very careful with such conclusions. Ellen White warned in

1889: “We must not measure God or His truth by our finite understanding or by

our preconceived opinions.” R&H, Oct. 8, 1889, p. 625. It should be clear then

that we cannot explain God‟s nature and Deity with human reasoning.

Quote 4.

Round 1904, however, Ellen White is supposed to have become quite clear on

this matter, when, as is asserted, she reversed her belief and had come to

understand that Deity could not die:

"In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified,

it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have

been impossible." Letter 280, 1904, See also SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 5,

page 1113.

This quote is supposed to reveal Ellen White‟s reversal of belief in becoming

now a Trinitarian and believing that Deity could not die. However, this assertion

can only be true and acceptable, if Ellen White would indeed have said, before

this year, 1904, that Deity could die, and would have given clear information in

contrast with the Trinity. But that is not the case. Only unsound arguments and

interpretations are presented to substantiate such unwarranted suggestions. Ellen

White just did not write clear statements that conflicted the Trinity and she

really did not wrote that Deity could die. Thus, such conclusions are only

artificial attempts to sustain possible preconceived ideas and thinking.

Quote 5.

The following quote also says very clearly that Deity did not die:

"When the voice of the angel was heard saying, „Thy Father calls thee,‟ He who

had said, „I lay down my life, that I might take it again,‟ „Destroy this Temple

and in three days I will raise it up,‟ came forth from the grave to life that was in

Himself. Deity did not die. Humanity died, but Christ now proclaims over the

rent sepulcher of Joseph, „I am the Resurrection and the Life.‟ In His divinity

Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. He declares that He had

life in Himself to quicken whom He will.” MS 131, 1897, See also SDA Bible

Commentary, Vol. 5, page 1113.

It is argued that 1904 was a great turning point in Ellen White‟s thinking when

she came to understand and believe that Deity could not die. It is presented as a

victory when she consequently changed her stand as she gained a clearer picture

23

of what God is. It is asserted that she left her earlier immature concepts behind,

which was a wonderful blessing and a great break through, when she allowed

Scripture to open her eyes to a greater understanding.

These words may sound acceptable and true, but do they really present a fair

picture in harmony with the facts? Or should we regard these words as being

artificial and presumptuous? Was the year 1904 really a great turning point in

Ellen White‟s thinking when, as supposed, she came to a clear and true

understanding that Deity could not die? Note the year in which Ellen White

wrote this last quotation.

The above quote, telling that Deity could not die, was not written in 1904, but

several years earlier, in 1897. This clearly proves that Ellen White, before the

year 1904, did not believe, as is asserted, that Deity could die, and so she did

not reverse her belief on this point in 1904. Thus, this assertion is false, because

here we have clear evidence that in 1897 she clearly believed that Deity could

not die, 7 years before 1904, as is convincingly attested by this statement. But

there is still another powerful statement, which even goes further back.

Quote 6.

Another statement goes even ten years further back and clearly indicates

Christ‟s Deity as well as the immortality of His divine nature.

“He veiled the demonstrations of Deity which had commanded the homage, and

called forth the admiration, of the universe of God… He was God, but the

glories of the form of God he for a while relinquished… As a member of the

human family he was mortal, but as a God he was the fountain of life to the

world. He could, in his divine person, ever have withstood the advances of

death, and refused to come under its dominion.” R&H, July 5, 1887.

This quote illustrates the Deity of Christ, as well as the fact that He was only

mortal in His human nature and not in His divine nature, which again

demonstrates that Deity could not die.

Thus it is a false conclusion that she reversed in1904 her belief on this matter, as

being a great break through to a better understanding, when she allowed

Scripture to open her eyes. It is clear that all three quotes, written in 1895, 1900

and 1904, are ruled out, being of no support at all, suggesting that Ellen White

believed that Deity could die, because in 1887 and again in 1897, she clearly

stated that Deity could not die. It is therefore purely an unfounded suggestion

that Ellen White reversed her belief on this point and ever should have believed

that Deity could die.

24

Ellen White and Her Description of God

Ellen White in her Semi-Arian view, described God as having body parts and

passion. She emphasized that man was to bear God‟s image, both in outward

resemblance and in character and therefore it is concluded that in Ellen White‟s

mind, God had the outward appearance of a man with body parts and passion.

Quote 1.

“Man was to bear God‟s image, both in outward resemblance and in character.

Christ alone is „the express image‟(Hebrews 1:3) of the Father; but man was

formed in the likeness of God.” Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 45.

We should realize that we are on holy ground when we try to describe how God

looks like. It is presumptuous and dangerous to assert that God has no body,

parts and passion. How can we know that? Has God revealed that to us? Note

again Ellen White‟s warning: “We must not measure God or His truth by our

finite understanding or by our preconceived opinions.” R&H, Oct. 8, 1889, p.

625. We cannot explain God with our finite human mind. In dealing with the

Godhead, we should be filled with awe, reverence and faith.

We know the story of Uzzah who touched the ark and fell dead 2 Sam. 6:6, 7.

The ark was holy, and as such only a dim reflection of the holiness of God. How

then, if we touch God with our limited finite minds trying to describe Him? How

foolish if we go beyond that which God in His infinite wisdom has revealed to

us. Satan delights when we try to figure out God. There are urgent subjects to

study in this time of the end, but as for God's existence only deep trust is

appropriate. It is puzzling how a sinful, finite human being dares to describe our

all-wise holy and infinite God. If we would come in His presence we will fall

dead immediately, for He is a consuming fire. It is insolent boldness to claim

that God has no body - parts - and passion, for that is not what the Bible says.

We cannot measure God with earthly things. Man is fallen and has become finite

and mortal. Man's glorious covering of light has gone. Man was created perfect

with a glorious body "with a covering of light and glory, such as the angels

wear." PP 45. Only this glorious body was in the likeness of God. Only here we

see a reflection of the outward resemblance of God's image. But how glorious

25

was man's body when originally created by God? We don't know, but it must

have been very wonderful and unutterably brilliant, since man delighted to be in

God's presence ! Since we don't have a right imagination of man's original

glory, it does not make much sense to discuss this resembling reflection with our

fallen human mind and understanding, because it is beyond our scope.

Ellen White‟s supposed view of God as having the form and feature of a man, is

also seen in the following quote:

Quote 2.

“In the beginning, man was created in the likeness of God, not only in

character, but in form and feature.” Spirit of Prophecy, Vol., 4, page 463.

If we read this quote in its context, as presented in The Great Controversy, we

will understand this sentence better and we will not recognize any Semi-Arian

aspect in Ellen White‟s view:

When the sleeping saints come forth from their graves, “Adam, who stands

among the risen throng, is of lofty height and majestic form, in stature but little

below the Son of God. He presents a marked contrast to the people of later

generations; in this one respect is shown the great degeneracy of the race… In

the beginning, man was created in the likeness of God, not only in character, but

in form and feature. Sin defaced and almost obliterated the divine image; but

Christ came to restore that which had been lost. He will change our vile bodies

and fashion them like unto His glorious body. The mortal, corruptible form,

devoid of comeliness, once polluted with sin, becomes perfect, beautiful, and

immortal. All blemishes and deformities are left in the grave. Restored to the

tree of life in the long-lost Eden, the redeemed will „grow up‟ (Malachi 4:2) to

the full stature of the race in its primeval glory. The last lingering traces of the

curse of sin will be removed, and Christ‟s faithful ones will appear in „the

beauty of the Lord our God,‟ in mind and soul and body reflecting the perfect

image of their Lord.” Great Controversy, pp. 644, 645.

God cannot be described by the things on this sinful world. No wonder, that the

prophet asks: “To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye

compare unto him?” Isaiah 40:18. Although the prophet asks this question in

the context of idolatrous, graven images, it is certainly true that there is nothing

on this fallen, sinful planet that will liken God‟s glory and greatness in outward

resemblance.

26

The original primeval glory of man has been lost. Adam was of majestic form

and there is a great contrast with later generations, due to the great degeneracy

of the race. Sin defaced and almost obliterated the divine image. Thus to

compare God now with the form and feature of man, is just impossible. But

Christ came to restore our bodies like unto His glorious body and when we will

be restored to the tree of life we will grow up to the full primeval glory. Thus,

even when we are saved in God‟s Kingdom, we still have a way to go to reach

the full original glory. Only that original, gloriously blessed state of man can be,

in some way, compared with the likeness of God‟s being.

In that context we read about Christ‟s joy and glory with the redeemed, at the

close of the thousand years. Then, “He looks upon the redeemed, renewed in His

own image, every heart bearing the perfect impress of the divine, every face

reflecting the likeness of their King.” Great Controversy, p 671.

As long as we are not glorified and renewed in God‟s eternal Kingdom, we

cannot rightly and truly be a reflection of God‟s likeness in form and outward

resemblance.

As compared with man in his original, glorious position, the Bible and Ellen

White clearly picture God with body parts, such as arms, hands and feet; ears

and eyes and a mouth; as well as with passion and feelings; love and sympathy

towards those who walk uprightly, and feelings of antipathy and anger against

those who live in sin and despise His saving grace and love.

The Bible and Ellen White make clear that “our Redeemer will ever bear the

marks of His crucifixion. Upon His wounded head, upon His side, His hands and

feet, are the only traces of the cruel work that sin has wrought. Says the prophet,

beholding Christ in His glory, „He had bright beams coming out of His side: and

there was the hiding of His power.‟ Hab. 3:4 (margin). That pierced side

whence flowed the crimson stream that reconciled man to God,- there is the

Saviour‟s glory, there „the hiding of His power.‟… And the tokens of His

humiliation are His highest honor; through the eternal ages the wounds of

Calvary will show forth His praise, and declare His power.” GC 674.

If God has seen fit to describe Himself with body parts in His holy Word, why

should we not accept it and try to know it better?

27

Ellen White a Trinitarian

Several clear statements indicate that Ellen White certainly was a Trinitarian.

Some, however, think that she became as late as 1890 a Trinitarian, while others

think it was round 1897, but there is no evidence for such a conclusion. She was

rather silent in her early years about the clear details of the Trinity, but that does

not necessarily mean that she believed otherwise.

Some 28 years earlier, she stated in Testimonies No. 17, 1869, that Christ is

equal with God, possessing full divine qualities. In 1872, in contrast with the

angels, she indicated that Christ was not created, but as the divine Son, equal

with God, and as such, the only sufficient sacrifice to rescue man. RH Dec 17,

1872. This rules out Arianism and it is in accordance with Trinitarianism.

However, she wrote as early as 1861 already a short statement in harmony with

Trinitarianism, about the divinity of Christ and His union with the Father. “The

world understood not his union with the Father; and the excellency and glory of

his divine character were hid from them.” RH June 25, 1861.

It is true that the pioneers of the Advent movement were not at all of the same

belief about the Godhead, and as to several other important biblical topics there

was no unity either.

In the early days, however, the different existing views about Christ‟s Deity, the

Godhead and the Trinity, were not so much made a separating test. However, as

they moved along, they were blessed with more light and clarity, and more unity

was achieved on the different opinions and subjects.

As in ancient times, Ellen White‟s visions and testimonies were, as a prophetic

gift from God, invaluable to endorse proper insight and biblical truth and to

support the unity of the church. Several urgent subjects demanded attention in

the early Advent movement, but in due time, also the various insights and

meanings about the Godhead were more closely considered. And as this subject

came to the front more directly, the Holy Spirit made Ellen White write some

very clear statements.

That Ellen White, as with other subjects in her early years, had not been so very

specific and detailed in her aspects about the Godhead, does not mean that she

28

cherished wrong views or that some of her statements were not in harmony with

the Bible. No, there has not been any need to repudiate earlier statements.

In this chapter we will present some quotations about the Trinity, which Ellen

White has provided for the benefit of the church.

1. Christ’s Pre-existence from all eternity.

“In speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless

ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close

fellowship with the eternal God.” The Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900.

“While God‟s Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it

also speaks decidedly regarding His pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine

being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father.”

Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.

2. Christ one and equal and of the same substance with the Father.

“In all the universe there was but One who could, in behalf of humanity, satisfy

its claims…only one equal with God could make atonement…” CT 30.3

"‟I and my Father are one.‟ The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he

put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the

same attributes.” The Signs of the Times, Nov. 27, 1893.

“Yet the Son of God was the acknowledged Sovereign of heaven, one in power

and authority with the Father. In all the counsels of God, Christ was a

participant…” GC 495.

“To save the transgressor of God‟s law, Christ, the One equal with the Father,

came to live heaven before men.” CE 76.2

“Immeasurable love was expressed when One equal with the Father came to

pay the price for the souls of men and bring to them eternal life.” CS 226.1

“Christ was one with the Father, yet He was willing to step down from the

exaltation of one who was equal with God.” FLB 48.3

“The Saviour was the brightness of His Father‟s glory and the express image of

His person. He possessed divine majesty, perfection, and excellence. He was

equal with God.” AG 160.

29

3. The Divinity and Personality of the Holy Spirit.

“Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the

Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in

the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been

wrought out by the world's Redeemer.” DA 671.

“The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our

spirits… He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the

secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God.” Manuscript 20, 1906.

“We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a

person, is walking through these grounds.” Manuscript 66, 1899.

4. All the fullness of the Godhead in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

“The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal

sight.” Special Test., Series B, No 7. p. 62.

“The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God

declares Him to be „the express image of His Person.‟” Special Test., Series B,

No 7. p. 62.

“The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven is the

Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead…” Special Test., Series B, No 7. p. 62.

5. The Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

“There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three

great powers- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit- those who receive Christ

by living faith are baptized…” Special Test., Series B, No 7. p. 62.

“We are to co-operate with the three highest powers in heaven, -the Father, the

Son, and the Holy Ghost,- and these powers will work through us…” Special

Test., Series B, No. 7, p. 51.

“The three powers of the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are

pledged to be their strength and their efficiency in their new life in Christ

Jesus.” AUCR, Oct. 7, 1907.

“The three powers of the Godhead have pledged their might to carry out the

purpose that God had in mind when he gave to the world the unspeakable gift of

his Son.” Review and Herald, July 18, 1907.

30

The above quotes clearly indicate that Ellen White was truly a Bible believing

Trinitarian Christian. There can be no doubt about that.

Some people find it a little curious that the Father and the Son are sometimes

mentioned without the Holy Spirit. They argue that the Father and the Son seem

to receive more honor than the Holy Spirit, and they are inclined to think that

there is no perfect equality, but rather a difference between the three heavenly

powers of the Godhead.

But remember that in God‟s plan of salvation is a difference of role. Perhaps we

could say that the Holy Spirit has a more inconspicuous role, because He works

in the shadow of Christ‟s accomplished work. ”It is the Spirit that makes

effectual what has been wrought out by the world's Redeemer.” DA 671.

This, however, does not mean that the Spirit‟s role is less important.”The Spirit

was to be given as a regenerating agent, and without this the sacrifice of Christ

would have been of no avail.” FLB 52. Thus the work of the Spirit is in fact the

same in kind with that of Christ.

Though the work of the Holy Spirit may not be as outstanding as the unique role

of the Son, it is nevertheless of urgent importance. Thus, to redeem fallen man,

we see between the three heavenly powers in the Godhead different roles of

close co-operation in perfect unity.

The Holy Spirit is described as a person, with masculine pronouns, just like the

Father and the Son. Personal activities are ascribed to Him, such as speaking,

hearing and teaching; appointing, directing and guiding; testifying, sanctifying

and glorifying Acts 8:29; 10:19; 13:2. John 14:26; 15:26; 16:8-15; Rom. 15:16.

The Holy Spirit has also feelings and can be vexed and grieved; tempted and

resisted Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30; Acts 5:9; 7:51. He has creative power and He also

has His own will Job 33:4; Rom. 15:13; 1 Cor. 12:11.

That the Holy Spirit is addressed and referred to in the Bible with personal

pronouns, indicates how clearly and distinctly the Holy Spirit is personified.

The Holy Spirit is called „another Comforter.‟ Christ promised: “And I will pray

the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with

you for ever…” John 14:16. The Greek words for “another Comforter” are

“allon parakleton.” The word „allon‟ is significant. It means another distinct but

equal Comforter like Christ. If the promised Comforter would be different from

31

Christ - not identical with Him - not of the same kind, - then the word „allon‟

would not be used in Greek but „heteron.‟

The Greek word „allon‟ signifies in this context that which is similar - of the

same kind. “Thus Christ promises to his disciples that He will send, not

„heteron,‟ but „allon Parakleton‟ (John xiv. 16), „another‟ Comforter therefore,

similar to Himself. The dogmatic force of this „allon‟ has in controversy with

various sects… been often urged before now…” Synonyms of the New

Testament, R. C. Trench, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1969.

“Note also that the word „another‟ is „allon,‟ and not „heteron,‟ which means

„different.‟ The advocate who is to be sent is not „different‟ from Christ, but

„another‟ similar to Himself.” Word Studies in the New Testament, M. R.

Vincent, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, Reprint 1973.

In Galatians 1:6 we read that Paul wondered why the believers had accepted so

quickly another gospel. This other gospel was not identical with the gospel

which the apostles had previously preached to them, and so, because it was a

different gospel, the Greek word used here is not „allon‟ but „heteron.‟

The word „allon‟ is for instance, also used in Matt 5:39 "…whosoever shall

smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." The right cheek is

similar and identical to the left cheek; there is no real difference, therefore

"allon" is used and not the word "heteron."

Christ designates the Holy Spirit as the „other Comforter‟ which implies that He

Himself is also a Comforter, or literally a „Parakletos,‟ which means a mediator,

intercessor or advocate 1 John 2:1. Cf., Rom. 8:26, 27, 34. If the coming, other

Comforter, compared with Christ, would be in some way of a different nature,

not divine, then it would be ‘heteron’ Parakleton. But if the promised, other

Comforter is similar and identical with Christ, sharing the same nature, then the

word ‘allon’ would be used, and this being the case, we conclude that the Holy

Spirit is like Christ of the same nature and substance and not different from

Christ.

Thus, as Ellen White indicated, the Holy Spirit is as much a person as God is,

fully divine and part of the triune Godhead.

32

Christ Subject unto the Father

The Bible teaches that Christ will be, at the end, subject to the Father. Why is

that? Christ, in the scope of God‟s plan of salvation, has always been the lesser

One and should we now understand that this situation will continue indefinitely?

Will the Father always be the great God and the Son a lesser God? If the Son

has humbled Himself and became subject to the Father to save lost humanity,

why, at the end, should He subject Himself again to the Father? Does this

perhaps illustrate a clear difference between the Father and the Son, instead of

being perfectly One and equal?

The following Scripture passage has often been quoted to make clear that the

Father and the Son are no equal partners in the Godhead.

Scripture Quote.

“Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,

even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and

power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last

enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet.

But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted,

which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto

him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under

him, that God may be all in all.” 1 Cor. 15:24-28.

Before the foundation of the earth it was agreed by divine counsel that Christ

should humble Himself and be man‟s Redeemer. He took the form and nature of

fallen humanity and was subdued to the Father. We could perhaps say that the

Father, as it were, took the leading role of Director, while Christ took the role of

Executor of the plan of salvation.

Christ occupies an exceptional position. He is the only Mediator 1 Tim. 2:5, and

Redeemer. None other name is given whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12. As

for man‟s redemption, the name of Christ is really unique and incomparable.

Not the Father‟s blood was shed, but the blood of Christ was shed. It was Christ

Who paid the price and bought fallen humanity and regained the dominion of

this earth.

33

Through man‟s fall Satan became the prince and ruler of this earth, but through

the death of Christ, the devil was dethroned (Hebr. 2:14 Gspd), or brought to

nought (ASV). Christ, referring to this, testified: “Now is the judgment of this

world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out… This he said, signifying

what death he should die” Joh. 12:31, 33. This is confirmed in Rev. 12:9, 11.

“…he [Satan] was cast out… they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb.”

So, Christ is the only actual Redeemer and Deliverer. Through His blood – by

giving His life - the dominion of this world became Christ‟s and right after His

death and resurrection He testified: “All power is given unto me in heaven and

in earth” Matt. 28:18. Christ was now the lawful, legitimate and legal owner of

this fallen world. He had paid the full price.

Christ, being fully divine and distinct from the Father, atoned for man‟s sin with

His human life, and Him, as the great Victor, was given all power and authority.

Being equal and one with the Father, He possessed, like the Father, all power in

heaven, but now, after having paid the price on the cross of Calvary, He came in

possession of all power on earth, because Satan, the prince of this world, was

dethroned and brought to nought through His death.

Christ suffered the penalty of sin. The angels “suffered with Christ” and the

Father, in a sense, was “crucified with Christ, for Christ was one with the

Father” Bible Echo, Aug. 6, 1894. Yet it was Christ Who actually died in

human form and paid the price on Calvary‟s cross. “Worthy, is the Lamb that

was slain” Rev. 5:12. Only Christ was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of

the world” Rev. 13:8. Only the Lamb that was slain was able to open the seven

seals of the book. Rev. 5:9. No one else was worthy to do so, which illustrates

Christ‟s unique and incomparable position. “And they sung a new song, saying,

Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast

slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood” Rev. 5:9.

Not the Father, but Christ was slain and His blood was shed to redeem fallen

humanity. Thus, Jesus Christ stands out in a unique and incomparable way in

God‟s plan of salvation. Only Christ was actually the great Conqueror of fallen

humanity and He achieved the dominion of this world, and in this scope He was

set at the “right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and

power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this

world, but also in that which is to come” Eph. 1:20, 21. Christ “humbled

himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore

34

God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every

name” Phil. 2:8, 9.

The passage in 1 Cor. 15: 24-28 refers to the end of the plan of salvation, when

Christ‟s unique role as the sole Redeemer has emerged into a glorious and total

victory over sin and death, and over Satan and his false dominion. Christ stands

out in the entire universe as the great Conqueror and as the lawful owner of this,

once lost, planet earth. Christ, through His unique and incomparable, redeeming

role, obtained as it were, above the Father, the privilege of being the legitimate

owner and ruler of this world.

However, at the glorious end of the plan of salvation, Christ will step down from

His outstanding, unique position and role, and subject Himself to the Father in

the sense of restoring perfect equality between Himself and His Father as it

existed before the foundation of the world. Says 1 Cor. 15: 28 “And when all

things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto

him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” That God may be

all in all so that the Godhead may be equally and utterly supreme, without Christ

standing out in a sole, unique position with particular private acquisitions.

Thus, Christ will, at the end, share His gained legal privileges of exercising

power and authority over this world, with the Father. We find the fulfillment of

this in Revelation 11:15 where we read: “The kingdoms of this world are

become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ.” Thus, our Lord, the

Father, will share equal rights and possession with Christ of the kingdoms of this

world, lawfully obtained by the death of Christ on Calvary‟s cross.

Says 1 Cor. 15: 24 “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the

kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all

authority and power.” Thus, at the end when Christ has victoriously and

completely put to nought all forms of hostile powers, he will deliver up the

obtained kingdom of this world to His Father and share His gained rights with

Him; and thus equality between the Godhead is restored.

35

Christ the Source of Wisdom

The Bible book Proverbs belongs to the poetical books. In chapter 8 we find

Wisdom pictured as a crying woman putting forth her voice. Further on in this

chapter we find several allusions to the Son of God and we clearly see Wisdom

personified in Christ, as depicting His nature and work.

In this chapter we find a few texts which are to some people rather problematic

to understand correctly. Although it is agreed that poetical expressions and

descriptions cannot always be taken literally, yet it is very particular that Christ

is repeatedly pictured in this chapter as a created being, born before the

foundation of the world.

Here are some expressions taken from the New English Bible, which clearly

seem to indicate this:

Scripture Quote 1.

“The Lord created me the beginning of his works, before all else that he made ,

long ago. Alone, I was fashioned in times long past, at the beginning, long

before earth itself . When there was yet no ocean I was born, no springs

brimming with water. Before the mountains were settled in their place, long

before the hills I was born, when as yet he had made neither land nor lake nor

the first clod of earth. When he set the heavens in their place I was there, when

he girdled the ocean with the horizon, when he fixed the canopy of clouds

overhead and set the springs of ocean firm in their place…” Proverbs 8:22-28.

In this passage we notice clearly that Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, and as the

personification of Wisdom, is pictured in relation to God‟s work of Creation.

In the beginning of the Bible we read that God‟s Creation was good and again

on the sixth day “God saw everything that He had made, and, behold it was very

good” Gen. 1:31. Wisdom was not lacking at the Creation. The glorious work

of Creation was a unique masterpiece of Wisdom.

Right after the Creation story, however, we read about the fall of man in sin. At

that moment there was with man no Wisdom anymore. Man had become foolish.

He was now in great need of Wisdom and God had provided a way of escape.

Proverbs 8 describes that Christ, before the work of Creation, was brought forth

as the personification of Wisdom. This Wisdom-role of Christ towards fallen

humanity was beforehand agreed upon.

36

Proverbs is a poetical book and so we don‟t need to be surprised to read rather

poetical expressions. Thus we can understand that we read in this chapter that

Christ was born. He was not born as a Divine Being. He was born in the role of

Wisdom.

My brother is a medical doctor. I do not remember the exact date, but I still

remember that he received his medical degree or doctorate. Let‟s say it was on

August 20, 1968. Now, suppose, I would be inspired by a poetical spirit and I

would say, „My brother was born as a medical doctor on August 20, 1968,‟

would that mean then that he did not exist before that date? No, certainly not.

He existed as a man some 25 years before that date, but since that date he exists

in the role of a medical doctor.

And so, Christ was born in His Wisdom-role before the Creation took place.

This does not mean that He was not in existence before that event. No, His

existence as Divine Being, is from all eternity. But before the work of Creation

took place, He was born in the role of Wisdom, in behalf of man, if he should

fall in sin.

Christ is the only Mediator between God and fallen man. We are “in Christ

Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom” as well as “righteousness, and

sanctification and redemption” 1 Cor. 1:30. It is interesting to note that for the

word “made,” the Greek word “ginomai” is used, which has the meaning: “to

be born or begotten.” Thus, as described in Proverbs 8, it is clear that Christ

was born in His Wisdom-role in behalf of fallen humanity, which had become

foolish by listening to the great deceiver.

As we read further we see how Christ‟s Wisdom-role is poetically pictured as a

source of great delight.

Scripture Quote 2.

“Then I was at his side each day, his darling and delight, playing in his

presence continually, playing on the earth, when he had finished it, while my

delight was in mankind.” Proverbs 8:30, 31.

At the Creation Christ was present as the personification of Wisdom. If need be,

He was ready to fulfill His newly adopted role, and as such, Christ is poetically

described, as being a “darling and delight” playing on the earth and finding

delight in mankind. The Creation would not be in vain. A way of escape was

secure. The way of wisdom. The way of righteousness, sanctification and

redemption. God‟s wonderful work of Creation would not fail. God‟s plan with

this earth would surely succeed. This was a source of rejoicing. “Where wast

37

thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?... When the morning stars sang

together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job 38:4, 7.

Proverbs 8 does not offer support to suppose that Christ was born as a divinely

created being, and although we read in Psalms 2:7 “…the Lord hath said unto

me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,” we understand that this is

said as to Christ‟s resurrection from the dead. Says Romans 1:4 “And declared

to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the

resurrection from the dead.” And Acts 13:33 says: “God hath fulfilled the same

unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written

in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

Thus, clearly in harmony with the Bible, Ellen White testified that there was

never a time when Christ was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He

existed always as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and

oneness with His Father.

Netherlands,

Geesbrug,

March 20, 2013.