Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Proofs of Authenticity of E.G. White's 'Three Persons' Statements

Proofs of Authenticity of E.G. White's 'Three Persons' Statements

Ratings: (0)|Views: 67|Likes:
By Derrick Gillespie
By Derrick Gillespie

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, History
Published by: DERRICK D. GILLESPIE (Mr.) on Oct 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





By Derrick Gillespie
While carefully studying the issues for over 14 years (as a trained teacher in historical studies),I have honestly discovered that there are a myriad of strong supportive proofs that
SDApioneers, after 1888 and before 1915, gradually adjusted their doctrinal views to teach a new or
version of trinitarianism, and that this is proven even in the writings of 
Adventism‟s chief pioneer, E.G. White
! The modern SDA anti-
Trinitarians seek to „escape‟ the
reality of the LATER writings of Mrs. White CLEARLY evidencing a LATER recognition of 
“three persons” in the Godhead
(i.e. an
on the message in her earlier writings), by
trying to prove that her writings were “tampered with” (i.e. altered and added to by editors and
manuscript aides)
in every instance
where “three
 persons” or “three holiest beings”
appear as part of the Godhead in her writings! Yet the circumstantial evidence availableirrefutably proves that misguided notion to be false!! To the unbiased and objective thinker, thepossibility of that happening on the scale po
stulated by the „conspiracy theorists‟ is very
unlikely, and the following facts (grouped in two sections) prove it to be the case:
1. Actual stenograph records, sometimes even self-signatured copies of ORIGINAL E.G. Whitewritings (as provided by the
 E.G. White Estate
), Xeroxed copies of 
SDA periodicals anddoctrinal papers (like
“Signs of the Times”
, and
“Review and Herald”
) show/prove VERYMANY of the controversial E.G. White statements to have
actually come from her pen whilealive and still very much active.
This writer personally took the time to view the evidenceprovided by the E.G. White Estate, and it is compelling. Email me at ddgillespie@live.com for that evidence. I also personally took the time to view in the
General Conference
archivesonline the very many photocopied pages of 
“Signs of the Times”
“Review and Herald”
“Australian Union Conference Record”
, etc. (all of which I downloaded), and has seen formyself not just the actual
articles of E.G. White with the “three persons” of the
Godhead statements, but especially statements put out by her
when very much in good healthand active
. Publication of controversial
“three persons” statements in these
 periodicals, and attributing them to E.G. White, would no doubt have been challenged as false
or “tampered with” by E.G. White herself, i.e. if they did not reflect her original writings. But
she DID NOT register any such objection throughout the last 25 years of her life (i.e. 1890-1915), and she would have in fact read the final manuscripts by editors before they werepublished, at least up to about 1912. Some try to manufacture an argument about her being toosick and feeble in her later years to be able to properly monitor what was published and
attributed to her, yet this again is a „straw man‟ argument, and lacks teeth. Most of the “three persons” statements came out
while she was very much active
1910; see herlater years in the
SDA Encyclopedia
), i.e. she was healthy enough to be fully writing, FULLYmonitoring her manuscript editors, FULLY overseeing the publishing of major books, articles,et al, even while travelling and preaching (including
and attacking the
of Dr. Kellogg,
even while ignoring or refusing to name and attack the
also present in in his writings
). She was fully active in that regard up about 1910 or 1912, whileliving at Elmshaven (California) in the U.S., and yet she never once registered doubts aboutwhat was published on her behalf by her publishers. In addition, since the Church waspreviously dominated by anti-Trinitarian thinkers, if what was published and attributed to her
was suspicious, or tampered with in order to support trinitarianism, then the alert brethren(especially the anti-
Trinitarian „hardliners)
would have brought it to her attention
(i.e. if she had indeed missed what her aides and publishers had published and attributed to her).Again, not even one case of that ever happening; even in view of the following reality, whichgives further proof of my point.2. Other pioneers contemporary with E.G. White (not just one or two)
quoted her „new‟ (i.e. post
-1888 and pre-
1915) “three persons” statements
in their own pre-1915 articles
while supportinga trinity of the Godhead, and they are on record (prior to 1910) doing so in officially publishedpre-1915 papers in Adventism; even quoting the actual manuscripts that she expressed the
“three persons” statements, and us
ed them,
while she was alive, still healthy and very muchactive
, to support their new Trinitarian stance. This, again, is another way to vouch for the
authenticity of the controversial “three persons” and “threefold” Godhead statements of E.G.
White. Several of these SDA pioneers (not just one or two) who were contemporary with herin the last 25 years of her life (i.e. 1890 -
1915), and who quoted her “three persons” statements,
even while using them to support their Trinitarian stance, were active pioneering workers andChurch leaders, rubbing shoulders with E.G. White! Even while she was away from the U.S.,and while in Australia (between 1891-1900), other SDA pioneers
there in Australia
(such as
Robert Hare in 1909) were quoting her “three persons”
of the Godhead statements and usingthem to support their new trinity beliefs! And yet never once did she rebuke them, or chargeanyone with adding to her writings! No one then (up to 1915 when she died) ever brought acharge against publishers and editors tampering with her writings whenever the
“three persons”
statements were quoted. None! Critically, it must be remembered that F.M. Wilcox (a Churchleader and the chief editor of 
 Review and Herald 
) used her writings
, while quoting her “three persons” statements,
to proclaim himself and Adventists (in the early 1900s) to have
 believers in “the Trinity”
while E.G. White was alive
. And yet, this same Church leader waspromoted by E.G. White herself, in her own final will and testament, to be one of the firstmembers of the board of managers of the E.G. White estate; and charged with theresponsibility of preserving and protecting her writings!! Can you imagine if F.M Wilcox hadquoted writings falsely attributed to E.G. White, and had used them to proclaim Trinitarianismas a belief of Adventists
in 1913 (!!)
, what this would mean regarding him being a firstmember of that board after 1915
? And yet no one, including E.G. White‟s own son, W.C.
White (who died in 1933), and
who was also a first member of that board 
, ever accused F.M.Wilcox, or anyone for that matter, of tampering with her writings
whenever the “three persons”
statements were quoted. William C. White, retained, it seems, certain of his earlier views
the Holy Spirit‟s separate personhood, and yet he never opposed his own brother 
andE.G. White Estate board member, F.M. Wilcox, for quoting what some today would call
tampered with
“three persons” of the Godhead statements from his mother!!
Thatis powerful circumstantial evidence, and proves clearly that those modern anti-Trinitarians inAdventism (some of whom have apostatized) who manufacture this weak and false argumentare like drowning men clutching at straws. There is just no support to the argument. Yes, it istrue that in later years, after the death of E.G. White, and in response to her personal counsel tocorrect certain
in earlier writings of pioneers, certain editorial changes were made tocertain books,
like Uriah Smith‟s
 Daniel and the Revelation
! Yet there is still available (toscholars and historians) the earlier unedited version of 1897; and so scholastic comparison canbe made to see what was edited, so as to ascertain the merit or demerits in those editions. Andwhere E.G. White (in certain manuscripts)
had written the word “it”, with reference to the Holy
Spirit, the pronoun
was replaced (by later editors) with the pronoun
; which reflects abetter consistency, considering that
she herself had also used the pronoun “he”
in severalinstances. And this is a
very biblical approach
, since this change uses the same pronoun used atotal of 
 24 times (!!)
by Jesus Himself in John chapters 14-16, i.e. when he was speaking of the
(despite, by acceptable rules of Greek grammar, we can call the Spirit “it”, just like
personal spirit beings in Luke 9:39-42; a matter E.G. White herself seemed to have fullyunderstood). No one in Adventism and its leadership today has ever denied these later (i.e.post-1915) editions were made,
since there was no “secret conspiracy” (as the anti
-Trinitariansvainly argue), and this reality, in and of itself, does nothing to disprove E.G. White actuallywrote the MORE TELLING
“three persons” of the Godhead statements
in the first place. Tovillain-ise these PROVEN editions that were made, and to use them to speculate about othersthat are surmised and unproven, is simply a
tactic, and is a matter that is blownout of proportion, and is rather futile as a tactic if you ask me!!
The foregoing is on record, is clear for all to see, and is certainly not all of the evidence thatcould be appealed to either. Yet I have observed, with some consternation, that all of thissupportive circumstantial evidence, proving the real truth, is largely ignored and ordownplayed by some (the modern SDA anti-
Trinitarians), and usually this “ostrich
sand” approach is a convenient „cop
out‟ from fac
ing the painful realities they are notprepared to face and come clean with. See their
approaches highlighted 
 (click),along with how to refute these approaches. I have observed too that w
hen all of these „cop
approaches fail, i.e. when it is undeniable that she did write the statements, then some of thesedissidents in Adventism usually resort to questioning the true calling or
true “prophet” statu
s of Mrs. White; whom they had before stanchly supported. How sad!But, why do they do this? Because they realize that if at any time the Spirit is proven by E.G.White herself to be
third person of the Godhead”
(to use an expression of E.G. Whiteherself), and not as a figure of speech, mind you, but as a
 numeric value
, i.e. in the sense of there being
living persons”
of the Godhead (using another proven statement from her),then not only would trinitarianism be seen as a legitimate belief (once explained in the rightway), but also Adventist pioneers themselves (the ones alive after 1888) would be proven to bethe reason for the establishment of the current Trinitarian belief of the SDA Church; i.e. it wasnot resulting from some, so-called,
misinformed new generation
Adventists!!Yet, this precisely what the evidence shows, i.e. the pioneers grew into greater knowledge andadjusted/changed their views, and so I continue to say that these modern SDA dissidents are
simply “kicking against the pricks”.
another reason why!! All around E.G. White fromabout 1891 or 1892 , up to 1915, several SDA pioneers were evidencing a shift to Trinitarianviewpoints, and some even
Dr. Kellogg (an SDA heretic) expressed a similar belief;with Kellogg being a misguided pioneer who mixed Trinitarian viewpoints with pantheisticviewpoints, resulting in Mrs. White naming and denouncing his
viewpoints asheresy, but not naming and denouncing the Trinitarian views he also expressed). And notice,these pioneers were all contemporary with Mrs. White, and were increasingly doing this
shift-to-the-Trinitarian- viewpoints
bit up to 1915!!, and yet never once did Mrs. White name their
trinitarianism as heresy
only pantheism of Dr Kellogg!! That is telling!!! Followthe telling evidence even more in the following.
As early as 1898, an SDA pioneer, while running a series of bible studies on the topic
 Holy Spirit 
is a Person
HONESTLY and distinctly admitted in Adventism‟s leading
doctrinal paper that (note the title of the article):
“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
we want the truth because it is truth, and we reject error because itis error, regardless of any views we may formerly have held, or any difficulty we may have

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->