“KICKING AGAINST THE PRICKS”

The Futile Position of Modern SDA Anti-Trinitarians
By Derrick Gillespie

As early as 1898, an SDA pioneer, while running a series of bible studies on the topic “The 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 does…we want the truth because it is truth, and we reject error because it

is error, regardless of any views we may formerly have held, or any difficulty we may have had, or may now have, when we view the Holy Spirit as a person. Light is sown for the righteous. Satan's scheme is to destroy all faith in the personality of the Godhead, — the Father, Son, *AND Holy Ghost,—also in his own personality… Let us beware lest Satan shall lead us to take the first step in destroying our faith in the personality of this person of the Godhead,—the Holy Ghost… It was once hard for me to see how a spirit could be a person… [but] Christ has put into the field, as his personal representative, the Holy Ghost, who is in charge of all the forces of God's kingdom to overthrow Satan and his angels; and the Holy Ghost is the only one to whom is delegated this authority from God. "The prince of the power of evil can be held in check only by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit."—"Special Testimony," No. 10, page 37. God and Christ have placed all the angels and the power of the throne of omnipotence under him [the Holy Spirit], to overthrow the rebellion against God's government.”
-R.A. Underwood – “The Holy Spirit a Person”, Review and Herald, Vol. 75, May 17, *1898, pg. 310

The above is more than a mouthful, coming long before 1915, and speaks volumes of the transitional viewpoints entering pioneering Adventism on this awesome subject long before the death of Mrs. White in 1915. The transition took on momentum by the first decade of the 1900s, so that by1913 a statement of some of the points of our SDA faith was published on page 21 of the October 9 edition of The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald revealed the following: "For the benefit of those who may desire to know more particularly the cardinal features of the faith held by this denomination, we shall state that Seventh-day Adventists believe, 1. In the divine Trinity. This Trinity consists of the eternal Father, a personal, spiritual being, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal Father, through whom all things were created, and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the one regenerating agency in the work of redemption..." IT IS NO SECRET TO THOSE WHO ARE PROPERLY INFORMED, THAT EARLY SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS (i.e. THE EARLIEST PIONEERS) LARGELY BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS NO TRINITY WHATSOEVER, AND THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS NOT A PERSON OR "THIRD PERSON OF THE GODHEAD" BUT JUST

AN INFLUENCE OR POWER FROM GOD. THEY ALSO FELT THAT A BELIEF IN ANY SO-CALLED "TRINITY" WAS A VESTIGE OF PAGANISM AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM. BUT BY 1913 ALL THAT HAD ALREADY BEGUN TO CHANGE; A MATTER SOME TODAY IN ADVENTISM STILL FIND HARD TO COME TO GRIPS WITH AS THEY DEPERATELY “KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS” ABOUT WHAT THE RECORDS NOW SHOW. THE TRUTH THAT ALL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CONVERGE ON, WHEN CAREFULLY STUDIED WITH AN UNBIASED MIND, IS THAT THE SDA PIONEERS THEMSELVES STARTED TO CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON THE ISSUES FROM AS EARLY AS 1888 AND 1892, AND IT BECAME FULLY EVIDENT BY 1915, DESPITE THE RESISTANCE OF THE „HARDLINERS‟ WHO STILL MAINTAINED ALL OF THE EARLIEST DOCTRINAL POSITIONS ON ALL ASPECTS OF THE TRINITY!! WHAT IS CERTAN NOW, AS MORE AND MORE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE COMES TO LIGHT, IS THAT THIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE, AND TO HOLD TO A FULL OR COMPLETE ANTI-TRINITARIAN POSITION IS UNTENABLE AND IS AKIN TO “KICKING AGAINST THE PRICKS”!!

„SMOKESCREEN‟ TACTICS OF MODERN ANTITRINITRIANS IN ADVENTISM THAT ARE USED AGAINST THE SPIRIT‟S PERSONHOOD
In order to cloud the issue, and mislead the unlearnt, many modern anti-Trinitarians in Adventism today use several tactics (unwittingly though) to „escape‟ from, cover up, or divert people from seeing the real truth about the Holy Spirit, as later understood by SDA pioneers themselves before 1915 (when Mrs. White died). Yet, despite it is indeed “hard to kick against the pricks, here are some of their chief tactics: a] they quote profusely the earlier thoughts of SDA pioneers before the post-1892 and pre1915 transitional viewpoints on the Holy Spirit entered Adventism in order to overwhelm the reader with the idea that seeing the Holy Spirit as a person, and individual, is a falsehood. Coupled with this they appeal to the “it” references related to the Spirit, usually forgetting themselves that human infants (living beings) are acceptably called “it”, that the human soul (the whole human being) is called “it” in Ezekiel 18:4, that demons (personal spirit beings) are called “it” e.g. in Lk. 9:39-42, and that even Jesus, depicted as “the Lamb” in Rev. 5:6, is called “it” in that context. Clearly they don‟t see that this is a „straw man‟ argument about the Spirit being called “it” even when considered a personality. They usually forget that the rules of Greek grammar make it quite acceptable to refer to certain living beings (like demon “spirits”) both as “it” and “he”, even though a personality is clearly in consideration. b] they explain away the later changed (pre-1915) views of the pioneers, and usually do so by denying or twisting what the dictionary defines certain key words to mean , i.e. words such as “trio” (a synonym for “trinity” as a simple noun), “person”, “personality”, “beings”, and “three”. They are usually seen engaging in much cultic-type redefinition of terms, semantic hop scotching and doctrinal somersaulting, with the result more confusing that they themselves realize. They also continue to use the propaganda-type argument that it was the Papacy after the fourth century which „invented‟ the thought of three persons forming a trinity in the Godhead, when the plain historical record in the writings of Christian apologists of the first three centuries (long before Roman Catholicism was even conceived) irrefutably prove otherwise. See my historical research at this link (click) proving the real truth!!

c] they appeal to the E.G. White statements about Lucifer being next to Christ in authority, about Jesus being the only being who could enter into counsel with God the Father, and about the Spirit being described as Jesus Himself “our Comforter”. Yet they never stop long enough to see the various possible and other logical ways (not just their way) these statements could be understood/resolved (see here for such resolution) without doing injustice to Mrs. White LATER presenting the Holy Spirit as being one of the three “highest authorities of heaven” (i.e. being among the three comprising the “Eternal Godhead”), or better yet, as being one of the “three holiest beings in Heaven” whom she called upon in prayer (you don‟t call upon a non-existent individual in prayer , I remind you), and about whom she also confessed that though he “personifies Christ yet is a distinct personality”, and hence she stated categorically that there are “three holiest beings in heaven”; not just two. Click here and here for the true history of SDA pioneers and the Spirit, and about how they came to support a Trinity before 1915. Prove it further, with more telling evidence, by clicking here The modern SDA anti-Trinitarians also seek to „escape‟ the reality of the LATER writings of Mrs. White CLEARLY evidencing a LATER recognition of “three persons” in the Godhead, by trying to prove that her writings were “tampered with” in every instance where “three persons” or “three holiest beings” appear as part of the Godhead, and yet the circumstantial evidence irrefutably proves otherwise. Actual stenograph records of ORIGINAL E.G. White writings, Xeroxed copies of ACTUAL SDA periodicals and doctrinal papers (like “Signs of the Times”, and “Review and Herald”) show VERY MANY of the controversial E.G. White statements to have actually come from her pen while alive and still very much active. Publication of “three persons” statements in these pre-1915 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, and she even promoted and supported pioneers like F.M. Wilcox who used her writings to proclaim himself and Adventists (in the early 1900s) to have become believers in “the Trinity”. Other pioneers contemporary with E.G. White even quoted her „new‟ (i.e. post1888 and pre-1915) “three persons” statements in their own pre-1915 articles supporting a trinity of the Godhead, and are on record doing so in other published pre-1915 papers in Adventism, and this, of course, is another way to vouch for the authenticity of the controversial “three persons” and “threefold” Godhead statements of E.G. White. Yet all of this supportive circumstantial evidence, proving the real truth, is largely ignored and or downplayed by some (the modern SDA anti-Trinitarians), and usually this “ostrich head in the sand” approach is a convenient „cop-out‟ from facing the painful realities they are not prepared to face and come clean with. When all of these „cop-out‟ approaches fail, they usually resort to questioning the true calling and true “prophet” status of Mrs. White whom they had before stanchly supported. How sad! Obviously too for many of the modern SDA anti-Trinitarians their definition (more like redefinition) of the words “beings” , “persons” and “three” is different from what the dictionary really says, i.e. when they do realize these words were actually penned by E.G. White!! And obviously too they would want us to think that Lucifer (before sinning) was the third of the “three holiest beings in heaven” or was the third of the three “highest authorities of heaven”; not the Holy Spirit who alone could be the “third” of the three “eternal heavenly dignitaries” (see Heb. 9:14). How blasphemous a notion!! Who knows whether or not this notion by modern SDA anti-Trinitarians -- of Lucifer being considered the third highest being in heaven- is not integrally part of what the “omega” heresies were predicted by Mrs. White to be about? But suffice it to say here (in response to that notion), that if (according to the SDA pioneers themselves) Jesus was “equal in all respects” and “one in authority” with the Father (an authority obviously shared by their “Representative” Holy Spirit), then it was Lucifer

who was really second to or next in authority to “the Eternal Godhead”, or “the Great threefold Power” (as Mrs. White so succinctly phrased it); not Jesus being next in authority to the Father at all at all!! d] they appeal to the views of a few SDA pioneers, like Willie White (son of E.G. White), who, after 1915, chose to hold on to the old SDA viewpoint about the Holy Spirit (i.e. him being a “personality” without individuality) without recognizing that differing viewpoints in themselves prove nothing really, if the facts are always collectively and objectively looked at by the careful reader and deep thinker. Willie White himself, as an „old timer‟ in some viewpoints, admitted (in a famous but much misused letter) about being “perplexed” over much of his mother‟s “utterances” on the Holy Spirit (undoubtedly as it concerns her utterances in the later years leading up to her death), and he also admitted that he was not able himself to clearly say what were his mother‟s views on the personality of the Spirit. So how can people quote Willie White as if he is an „expert‟ or „authority‟ on his mother‟s utterances on the subject when he himself admitted his “perplexities” and lack of understanding regarding her teachings in the area? How ironic. One can easily see what would have “perplexed” Willie White in him trying to hold on to the older pioneering views about the impersonal Spirit, and then confronting “perplexing” statements from his mother, like her calling upon the Spirit in prayer (alongside the Father and Son), etc. And I repeat: “you don‟t call upon a non-existent individual in prayer”. Period!! e] they appeal to the “omega heresy” prediction of Mrs. White, and interpret it to mean that to accept the Holy Spirit as part of a trinity is fulfillment of that prophecy, and they usually point to Dr Kellogg‟s intermingling of pantheism and a belief in the distinct personhood of the Godhead as a model of heresy on the issue. They however never stop to realize that Trinitarian sentiments (especially since the Spear‟s article) were already being published in Adventism (since 1892) several years before Kellogg‟s heresies of 1903 (and without any condemnation from Mrs. White), hence to admit to a trinity could not be the “omega” coming before the “alpha” heresies of Kellogg (a rather illogical notion, if you ask me). In addition, they failed to recognize that, firstly, Mrs. White admitted that Kellogg‟s viewpoints had some truths mixed with falsehood, and, secondly, that Mrs. White herself named “pantheism” as what was wrong with Kellogg‟s theories. She never named trinitarianism as the problem (!!), nor did she denounce his view on the separate personhood of the Spirit as the problem; contrary to what some want us to think. In addition they appeal to the fact that several mainstream Adventist writers/theologians have recently been actually teaching a faulty version of a “Godhead” trinity – that of three independently self-originate, role-playing Godhead beings (only acting as Father and Son)- and then they give the impression that to correctly reject this falsehood (as even this writer has done himself) means that all concepts of a trinity must be faulty; not realizing that one can in fact correctly accept a relationship-based trinity of “three holiest beings in heaven” with the Father as the Source and Head of both the Son and Spirit themselves from all eternity, and yet all three must be “served” in the one Godhead union as Mrs. White instructs true Adventists to do. f] they usually try to say that because Mrs. White says “what” the Spirit is must be considered a mystery then “who” he is, i.e. his identity as the “third” of “three holiest beings in heaven”, is also unknown and unknowable, without realizing how faulty this approach is (especially in light of her also saying “what” God the Father is must also be considered a mystery as well; not “who” he is). Many of these dissidents fail to see the faulty logic in their argument that, according to them, we cannot prove that the Spirit is “a person” (i.e. an individual) like Father and Son, based on the notion that not much is revealed. Yet, upon the same body of evidence, it could be said they themselves cannot irrefutably prove that the Spirit is not a person like the

Father and Son, since so much (both from the Bible, as well as from E.G. White writings) strongly suggest otherwise!! “We [Adventists] need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a Person *AS [i.e. in same way that] God is a person (!!) is walking through these grounds…He hears every word we utter, and knows every thought of every mind” -E.G. White- Manuscript Release, Vol. 7, pg. 299 (from an 1899 speech at Avondale College) Mrs. White stated categorically, upon her belief in what the Bible itself teaches, that the Spirit is “a person as God is a person”, and so concluded logically that he is the “third” of “three holiest beings in heaven” itself. That is plain English! What more do you need? g] they appeal to the Bible being silent on the Holy Spirit in some things, as if it is evidence against his personhood, and yet fail to see that there could be other possibilities for this silence; and not any indication of a denial of his distinct personhood. They forget that the Old Testament, for instance, was largely (not completely) silent on the later revealed Son of God who was there with the Father all along, with no real Old Testament emphasis on a duo (only on the Father) until after Jesus‟ incarnation (accounting for why so many Jews today never see the Godhead as being more than one person), and yet this was no denial of Jesus being a distinct personality from the Father from all eternity. The same could be said about the Holy Spirit today as it concerns the New Testament not placing as much emphasis on Him as on the Father and Son, and yet this means no denial of his distinct personhood as (according to Mrs. White) one of the “eternal heavenly dignitaries” (note the words “eternal” and “dignitaries”, and allow their significance to sink in). h] Finally, they also appeal to the fact that the Holy Spirit (in relation to God the Father) is presented metaphorically in the Bible as the mind of God, as His presence, as “the hand of the Lord”, as “the finger of God”, and is also compared to the inseparable union between a human person and his spirit, and argues that this means that likewise God‟s Spirit cannot be separate as a person from God the Father, while forgetting that even Jesus is presented metaphorically as the “logos” (reason), wisdom, and power of God, also as the “arm of the Lord” (things not usually separate from a person), and yet Jesus is a distinct personality from the Father; distinct enough to be sent to represent Him, and later sit at his right hand, just as the Spirit is also distinct enough to be also sent to represent them both, and is also depicted as the “seven fold Spirit” “BEFORE His throne” who sends greetings to the Church separately and equally along with the Father and Son (see Rev. 1:4,5). Obviously they forget that a “Sent” (or distinct “representative”) and the “Sender” could never ever be the same being or person. Period!! In addition, some argue, rather lamely, I might add, that the Spirit could not be another person representing Father and Son; otherwise, (as they argue) they would have lied when they said “we [Father and Son] will come to you, and make our abode with you”. This is so short-sighted, since they forget that in many things the Father is said to have done “Himself”, and will do “Himself” he has distinctly done (and will do) it through Jesus as His representative. Prime examples include the Bible saying that God by “Himself” created the universe (Is. 44; 24), and that God will be Judge “Himself” (Ps. 50:3-6), and yet the Father accomplished and will accomplish these through Jesus His VISIBLE” representative in the Godhead. Was he lying then? Certainly not!! Just as he is not lying when He represents Himself INVISIBLY everywhere by “another” Godhead person in the form of the Holy Spirit, the “third” of “the three holiest beings in Heaven”, and yet God the Father (as well as the Son) is effectively said to be “present” everywhere just the same. That‟s because that is precisely how the Godhead operates in a sort of “oneness” of

operation. The presence of one “sent” person is effectively representative of the other two in the group of three as if the “Sender” Himself is in action, and the action of one person of the Godhead is, in many instances, deemed to be the action of all three acting as one. No wonder, despite the human Jesus did not literally raise Himself from the dead (his Father in Heaven through the Spirit here on earth literally did do), and yet Jesus represents it as akin to He raising Himself , as if he did it by Himself (“I will raise it up” he distinctly said about His body). Amazing!! That‟s the truth of the Godhead so many stumble and fall over!!

REFUTING MODERN ANTI-TRINITARIAN ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SPIRIT Let me point out here that no one presentation could ever address (at once) all of the arguments against the Holy Spirit‟s identity, and so to avoid too much volume and bulk-arguments here I am recommending the following separate articles and manuscripts by this researcher, which can be had upon request by e-mailing me at ddgillespie@live.com or by calling (876) 5394734 or 385-5982. Also, I am recommending the following web-link where one could access online some of the articles indicated below Click here. a] “Who Only is One with and Enters into Counsel With God?” b] “Who Only is to be Exalted?” c] “The Holy Spirit‟s Identity Ain‟t No Mystery” d] “The Truth About the Heavenly Greetings in Rev. 1:4,5” e] “The Omega Heresy in Adventism” f] “Binitarian and semi-Arian Flaws” g] “Did the Papacy Invent the Trinity?” h] “Critiquing Willie White‟s Letter on the Holy Spirit” i] “Did Kellogg‟s Aplha Heresy Reject the Spirit‟s Identity?” j] “The Truth about the Holy Spirit” k] “The Holy Spirit is Separate from Christ”

Some today say that the Adventist Church was never divided on this issue before or after 1888. Only dishonesty, or a morbid desire to paint the “perfect picture” of a “perfect” pioneering Church, would fail to see that full unity in 1888 was not yet achieved on all Godhead issues. Even up to that point, in 1888, the issue of the „personhood‟ of the Holy Spirit was not yet a settled issue in Adventism, contrary to what some today claim. But note evidence below of changing views of SDA pioneers themselves by the late 1890s. “It seems strange to me now [in 1898], that I ever believed that the Holy Spirit was only an influence, in view of the work He does”

-R.A. Underwood – “The Holy Spirit a Person”, Review and Herald, Vol. 75, May 17, *1898, pg. 310 “We [Adventists] need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a Person *AS [i.e. in same way that] God is a Person (!!) is walking through these grounds…He hears every word we utter, and knows every thought of every mind” -E.G. White- Manuscript Release, Vol. 7, pg. 299 (from an 1899 speech at Avondale College) “God is one [person]. Jesus Christ is one [i.e. another person]. The Holy Spirit is one [the third person of three]. And these three are one: there is no dissent nor division among them.” -A. T. Jones, Review and Herald, January 10, 1899, 24 Mrs. White and the certain key pioneers (e.g. G.C. Tenny, R.A. Underwood, and A.T. Jones, just to name a few) were among those breaking with past thinking; and declaring the Holy Spirit‟s „personhood‟ and personal independence, even though He was still seen as inseparably linked to the Father and the Son. But the transition went even further. Why else would Mrs. White state categorically (after 1890) the following? “The Holy Spirit HAS [note „has‟] a PERSONALITY… He MUST ALSO BE A DIVINE PERSON” [seems clear enough]. Evangelism, pg. 615, excerpted from a *1905 manuscript There is a clear difference between saying „something [the Spirit] is the personality‟ (or expression) of another, and in saying that*someone [the Holy Spirit] “has a personality” [of His own], simply because He is “a divine person”. The latter expression is clearly what Mrs. White emphasized, by even saying though the Spirit “personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality”, so much so that “there are three living [literal] personalities” in the Godhead, or “three holiest beings” existing “IN HEAVEN” itself, who can ALL be called upon in prayer. Oh how sad it is when someone will twist and deny these clear meanings, and lead others astray!! Notice carefully: “The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to Heaven is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead [compare Col. 2:9]. There are three LIVING [i.e. literal] personalities [persons] of the Heavenly Trio” [group of three persons]. - E.G. White, Evangelism, pg. 615, excerpted from a *1905 manuscript Clearly Mrs. White could not be teaching that Christ can “SEND” himself (that would be absurd), and so notice how far Mrs. White was prepared to lead the SDA Church regarding the „personhood‟ of the Holy Spirit, after her 1898 affirmation that the Holy Spirit was “SENT” as “the third Person of the Godhead”; a Godhead consisting of “THREE holiest BEINGS”. Despite writing metaphorically (and understandably so) at times as if the Spirit is literally Christ Himself, she was so pointed in saying in one place that “the Spirit personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality” that it became clear that the Spirit is not just a “personality” of the Father and Son, but his own person!! Period!! No wonder pioneer Robert Hare made it clear by 1909 that: There is a trinity, and in it there are three personalities…We have the Father described in Dan. 7:9, 10…a personality surely…In Rev. 1:13-18 we have the Son described. He is also a personality… The Holy Spirit is spoken of throughout Scripture as a personality. These divine persons are associated in the work of God…But this union is not one in which individuality is lost…There is

indeed a divine trio, but the Christ of that Trinity is not a created being as the angels- He was the “only begotten” of the Father…” - Robert Hare, Australasian Union Conference Record, July 19, 1909 Notice VERY carefully that pioneer Robert Hare never sought to say (like some pioneers were saying at the time) that the “individuality” of the Holy Spirit “is lost” when one considers the Godhead union (a union which he legitimately calls BOTH a trinity and a trio, as all unbiased English dictionaries do also), but he spoke of all three in the context of their being united just as the Church is (i.e. separate members are involved). This means that it proves nothing really if the differing views of other pioneers be appealed to who say the Spirit has no individuality in the Godhead (a contradiction in terms if you ask me). It is the weight of evidence looked at objectively which matters; not necessarily what some thought/think in contradiction to the clear evidence. In must be said that while some today, unwittingly, play games and semantic „hopscotch‟ with the words “person” (being) and “personality”, the same *cannot be done with some words and expressions used by Mrs. White as it relates to the Holy Spirit: i.e. he being one of the “three holiest beings in heaven”, and one of the three “eternal heavenly dignitaries”, and her explaining that “the Spirit personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality” as His “representative” (ever remembering that a representative CANNOT be literally the same person as the one who sends that representative!!). In addition it is a difficult thing to explain away the fact that Mrs. White prayed to the Holy Spirit, and she saw Him as equally pledging to receive and be “a Father” to us as both the Father and Son did, and then that we in turn must pledge to “serve” all three (a matter modern SDA anti-Trinitarians have not yet “pledged” themselves” to do, it seems). That is how Mrs. White truly saw the Holy Spirit after 1888, i.e. one SENT to act or “One given to act in Christ‟s place”, that is, after Pacific Press proclaimed the “constituent persons of Eternal Godhead”, by endorsing Dr. Samuel Spear‟s Trinitarian tract in 1892. And remember it is the most ridiculous thing to be intimating that either Christ or the Father send themselves as the one being of the Spirit. The Adventist Church therefore had a firm foundation on which to gradually fully formulate its new doctrine on the Holy Spirit, that is, after 1892 when it was made clear to those agreeing. Thus in 1915, A.G. Daniels, the then General Conference President (who served for 21 years), could then officially declare, at Mrs. White funeral service, that in her teachings: “The Holy Spirit, the third *PERSON of the Godhead, and Christ‟s Representative on earth, is set forth [by her] and *exalted [venerated] as the Heavenly Teacher and Guide sent to this world by our Lord…” [Notice the repeated use of the words “the Third Person of the Godhead”] -A.G. Daniels – Review & Herald, August 5, 1915 (as reported by F.M. Wilcox, another pioneer, in “Testimony of Jesus”, 1934, pg.43) Why could this long-standing pioneer and G.C. President of S.D.A.s be now so bold and reject, for instance, Uriah Smith‟s view of Him not being a person? All he was doing was echoing Mrs. White‟s confessions; what many in Adventism had been resisting even just before and even after her death (even today). Some today in Adventism, make much ado about their description of the Holy Spirit‟s nature, nailing it down to either “the extension of the Father”, or the “split personality” of the Father and the Son – all the while usurping and denying the counsels of Mrs. White on this matter. Clearly we are not left to speculate about “who” the Holy Sprit is – He is the “third person of the Godhead”; He is “One given” as “Christ‟s Representative on earth”; He is “the Comforter”; He is one of the “three living [literal] personalities of the Heavenly Trio”; He is one of the “Eternal Heavenly Dignitaries”; and He is one of the “three holiest beings” or the three “Highest Authorities” in Heaven itself. That was Mrs. White‟s testimony about who the Holy Sprit is. So the Spirit‟s identity as a distinct personality in heaven itself is no “mystery” at all, as some make

out; only “what” he is (just like God Himself)!! Remember that “identity” mean “the individual characteristics by which a thing or person is recognized or known” or “the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity”. This is “WHO” the Spirit is in identity!! That‟s why he can be numbered as “third”. However, concerning “what” He is – whether an “extension”, or “split personality”, or “projection of the Father”, or “transported energy” [of the Father and Son], like a telephone connection – all are speculations failing to accept Mrs. White‟s plain counsels stating that: “It is not essential for us to be able to define just *WHAT [not „who‟, but „what‟] the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, „the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father‟. It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work guiding men into all truth, „ He shall not speak of Himself‟ (John 15:26; 16:13). The nature of the Holy Spirit is a MYSTERY. Men cannot explain it [the nature]. Many having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the Church. Regarding such MYSTERIES, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. The office of the Holy Sprit is distinctly specified in the words of Christ: [declaring „who‟ He is] When He is come; He will reprove the world of sin… „He shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you” [“He shall speak what He hears”, clearly from the Father and Jesus- John 16:13,14]. -E.G. White, Acts of the Apostles, pgs. 51,52 This was the same conviction, and testimony of pioneer, G.C. Tenny, in the 1896 Review and Herald, that is, accepting the same “problems” related to the Spirit‟s nature, in “contemplating the Deity”. He was content like Mrs. White, to accept “whom” the Spirit is, but left, unmolested, the subject of “what” He is, preferring rightly to see it a “mystery”. Some who found out that they may just have been wrong about the Holy Spirit, when confronted with the force of the already established truth in Adventism about the Holy Spirit's identity as the "third" of "three holiest beings of heaven", find it too humbling to admit to, and so they pass it off as being a truth not as important as accepting that Jesus is the real and literal Son of the Father, who was really begotten from all eternity. This betrays an equally potent heresy (as denying that Jesus is really the begotten Son of the Father), because an important truth that is already established about a Godhead person is being DENIED and downplayed in favor of another truth. How ironic, and how sad, because servants who wish to have "no guile in their mouths", find themselves falling prey to the same "father of lies" who deceived many into thinking that Jesus is not a real Son of the Father in the "begotten" sense"!! Yet, if the purity of the truth about Jesus being the literal Son of the Father, as a separate being, is to be preserved it must relate to the fact that he and the Father CANNOT be the same being at the same time as the Holy Spirit. The truth about Jesus and the Father being separate beings can only be truly preserved if they are "represented" by the Holy Spirit as a "third" separate being. Why? Because if the Holy Spirit is simply the literal being and literal presence of both the Father and Son at the same time, then the only inescapable conclusion is that they in fact are not separate beings, but are literally "blended" together even more than conjoined Siamese twins, in order to own the same literal presence and being at the same time. This literal "blending" of being/identities is what both the traditional Trinity teaches, as well as (ironically) the teaching of those SDA anti-Trinitarians who deny that the Holy Spirit is a third “representative” being of the Godhead.

SUMMARY:
We see clearly in the Bible that:

a] If the Holy Spirit is owned by both the Father and the Son *at the same time, and Scripture is replete with the Holy Spirit being depicted as personal, and is listed separately from Father and Son in very many Scriptures, and b] If both Jesus and the Father equally sends the Spirit to us, and c] If a "sent" and a "sender" must logically be personally separate (it would be absurd otherwise, *unless one is a "Jesus only" or "Sabellian" believer), and d] If both Father and Son could not send themselves (that too would be absurd), and e] If the Father is *never sent by Jesus, since the Father is *not subject to or led ("Headed") by Jesus, but both Jesus and the Spirit are owned by the Father, and both speak/act in response to the Father who leads them both, and sends them both, and f] If the Holy Spirit intercedes to the Father for us in our praying (not in human priestly function as the Jesus the Lamb, or the one Mediator does, but the Spirit influences our prayers, and God reads the mind of the Spirit in us to know what is meant when we pray), and g] If the Father could not intercede to himself (that would be equally absurd), then
*THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION WHICH SATISFIES *ALL THE RULES OF LOGIC *AT THE SAME TIME IS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSONAL "REPRESENTATIVE" OWNED BY BOTH FATHER AND SON, AS A THIRD AND SEPARATE PERSON! IN THAT ROLE HE CAN BE SENT BY BOTH AS THEIR OMNI-PRESENT 'EMISSARY', AND NONE BE SEEN AS RIDICULOUSLY SENDING THEMSELVES (AS SABELLIANS OR 'JESUS ONLY' PRPOPONENTS BELIEVE)!! AND THUS WE CAN SEE WHY BOTH FATHER AND SON WHO SAID, "WE WILL COME TO YOU AND MAKE OUR ABODE WITH YOU", "COMES" *REPRESENTATIONALLY THROUGH THE AGENCY OF THE SPIRIT AS IF THEY THEMSELVES ARE LITERALLY PRESENT! THE SPIRIT CAN ALSO INTERCEDE TO THE FATHER FOR US, BUT *ONLY IN OUR PRAYING, AS HE RESIDES IN OUR HEARTS/MINDS, AND IT WOULD MAKE PERFECT SENSE ALL AROUND, SINCE THE FATHER WOULD NOT BE RIDICULOUSLY SEEN AS INTERCEDING TO HIMSELF. THESE CRUCIAL FACTS IRREFUTABLY PROVE THE *NECESSITY OF THE DISTINCTLY LISTED HOLY SPIRIT BEING A "THIRD" OR SEPARATE PERSONAL BEING IN THE GODHEAD; A GODHEAD OF FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT-ALL WORKING IN UNISON, AS 1 COR. 12:4-6,11 CLEARLY SHOWS, AND THUS INDICATING WHY MATTHEW 28:19 LISTS THEM SEPARATELY IN JESUS' OWN WORDS!! WHO KNOWS THE TRUTH BETTER THAN JESUS HIMSELF SENT TO REVEAL IT TO US?

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful