BI-THEISM vs TRI-THEISM

IN ADVENTISM? By Derrick Gillespie

Adventist anti-Trinitarians, who are believers in and worshippers of two

Godhead beings, persons whom they direct worship to as Creator,

Redeemer, and King of kings (with one being having come from or

“begotten” by the other), are usually seen attacking the Adventist trinity,

which consists of three beings in one Godhead, describing it as being

“unorthodox” and as proof of tri-theism (the worship of three gods). Well,

the truth is that Adventism's present acceptance of a trinity is

unorthodox, as believed today, and the earlier SDA pioneers' eventual

acceptance of a certain type of trinity, and their explanation of it was

unorthodox, as believed and explained by them between 1892 and up to

1915. So what? Being "unorthodox" has never bothered Adventists!! Mind

you, this writer is not saying that the historic "orthodox" Trinity does not

have inherent flaws in certain explanations, nor am I saying that the

present unorthodox version of the Trinity in Adventism does not have

certain inherent flaws in certain explanations, but what is certain is that

worshiping two beings as God or divine, or as members of the Godhead

does not escape the critic‟s charge of polytheism (i.e. bi-theism or the

worship of two gods) any more than worshiping three beings or persons

as one God. It is time we all wake up to that fact.

As for the argument or „charge‟ of "tri-theism", simply because “three

beings” are believed to be involved in the Godhead, it is a straw-man

argument coming from any SDA anti-Trinitarian, since:

[1] Opponents to the orthodox Trinity, which consists of one Being with

three "persons" united in one indivisible substance of that one Being, have

also used the “tri-theism” ("three Gods") argument against the belief even

when three separate beings are not considered as objects of worship. This

proves that it is all a matter of perspective and is highly subjective.

[2] The very same SDA anti-Trinitarians who charge mainstream

Adventists with worshiping " three Gods", simply because we see three

separate beings in the Godhead, they would be equally guilty of polytheism

or worshiping "two Gods", i.e. if the tri-theism charge they level against

Adventism was indeed correct. They believe in two Godhead beings whom

they direct worship to, with both being seen as “Sovereign” (*supreme), as

Creator, as “the Deity”, as Redeemer, as Lord (supreme Master) and as

King of kings (with one being having come directly from the other, and

who is naturally equal in all respects to the other he was begotten by). That

premise all monotheistic Muslims and Jews see as polytheism (bi-theism).

No wonder the Jews, in light of Jesus calling Himself (not God the Father

but) “the Son of God” in the divine sense, accused Him of blasphemy.

Why? This was simply because he made Himself equal with the Father by

claiming to be his Son in the highest sense. See John 5:18. Thus, even the

Jews of Jesus‟ day also made the charge against Jesus that claiming to

be God‟s Son could be considered as polytheism, because he made

himself (not the person of the Father but simply) equal with the Father.

So SDA anti-Trinitarians themselves too are faced with this ancient

argument of the critics who lack the insight about the Father and the Son.

Usually they try to „escape‟ this charge from the critics of them worshiping

“two Gods” by lamely explaining that only the Father is God (i.e. supreme,

and the source of all), and that he Son merely inherited divine equality (or

divine supremacy) and the right to being worshiped as God, but only as

“God” by nature, and so that is not really polytheism. But this is simply a

case of “cock mouth kill cock”, and the "kettle calling the pot black". You

can‟t have your cake and eat it. If polytheism is defined to be worshiping

and praying to more than one separate being as “God”, then using their

same weak tri-theism arguments against them one could easily overturn

their belief in the worship of Father and Son together. And their appeal to

ancient pagan religions of many gods being the pattern for polytheism in

Christianity does not help their cause either, since many pagans worshiped

gods in twos, as separate beings, with one being having come from the

other, even as ancient pagan religions also worshiped groups of three

separate beings or individuals (even of different genders), as well as very

many beings (pantheons of beings), often with all originating from a higher

god/divine figure.

To escape this similarity of two or more divine beings the anti-

Trinitarians in Adventism would have to admit that similarity does not

always mean source... and in principle this equally applies to the

Godhead „duo‟ of SDA anti-Trinitarians as well as to the „trio‟ or

„trinity‟ of mainstream Adventists as well. Otherwise they too would be

guilty of polytheism, even as they point the finger. Obviously the Bible's

presentation of the Godhead having more than one being considered as

deserving of highest worship is not regarded in God's eyes as

polytheism…whether two or three divine beings are involved. That this

truth has being caricatured and counterfeited by paganism and false

Christianity is undoubtedly true. So what's new? So are other truths in

Christianity as well. Satan's plans to launch an attack against truth are long-

ranging and more deceptive than many of us realize.

What is true is that Adventism has good reason, from its pioneering

days, for believing (as so potently stated by E.G. White) in "three

holiest beings in heaven" or three "eternal heavenly dignitaries"

comprising the "threefold" "Eternal Godhead"; "holiest beings" who

all "gave themselves" to the "plan of redemption", who all deserve or

are „worthy‟ to be called upon in prayer as the "three Great

Worthies", and who all deserve to be "served"...unless E.G. White is

woefully wrong!!

Mainstream Adventism today (at least as represented by some in

leadership) is at fault in believing in three equally in-originate, and

role-playing beings (i.e. simply role playing as Father and Son from

eternity, etc.), and believing in a Christ not begotten from all eternity

(but in him only begotten as a man). The biblical truth is that only the

Father of Jesus is ultimately in-originate, or un-begotten. But what is

also true is that while the SDA anti-Trinitarians recognize certain

errors in the present explanations of the SDA trinity, yet they

themselves deceive themselves into thinking that they have all

explanations of their Godhead "duo" correct, and they themselves

exhibit stubborn refusal to accept certain realities about the "three

holiest beings in heaven".

Sadly both sides may never reach the point where they both accept their

shortcomings and come clean, and so I must believe that God will always

have a true “remnant in Israel” that will be able to accept both sides of the

truth!!

But, finally I must say that this writer is comfortable with the basic premise

as written so clearly by an Adventist pioneer as early as 1909, when he said:

From the confusing idea of ‘one God in three Gods’ and ‘three Gods in one God’ – the unexplainable dictum of theology- [i.e. the traditional Catholic Trinity explanation, of a singular threefold organism/Being or a singular tri-personal substance] - the enemy gladly leads to what appears to be a more rational, though not less erroneous idea – that there is no trinity, and that Christ is merely a created being. But God’s great plan is clear and logical. 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…let not the lips of man speak of Christ as a created being. He is one of the divine trio- the ‘only begotten Son’ of the Father…” - Robert Hare, Australasian Union Conference Record, July 19, 1909

Much earlier than this a more renowned SDA pioneer eventually brought

Himself to make the very same admission, when he reported on the beliefs

of all Christians represented at the controversial Council of Nicea in 325

A.D., and about what they never really disputed. He admitted:

“…all [at the Council, whether supporting Arius or Alexander] acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of persons…There was no dispute about the [notice, not the ‘opinion’, or ‘teaching’, but the] *FACT of there being a Trinity; it was about the nature of the Trinity. Both parties believed in precisely the same Trinity, but they differed upon the precise relationship which the Son bears to the Father”

-A.T. Jones, The Two Republics, 1891, pg. 333

Was this reality, of COMMONLY believing in a Godhead trinity, a new

„invention‟ at Nicea? Evidently not, because very many Christians long

before echoed the same sentiments by saying:

200 A.D.

“…who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account

deny the economy (i.e. the number) and disposition of [three] persons in

the *TRINITY [Greek, ‘triavdo’, or Godhead of three]”

- Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus

What was always in dispute was HOW these persons were united; not

whether they existed in the first place.

So likewise in 1899, here we see A.T. Jones, an SDA pioneer who once

probably even opposed the thought that a trinity/trio of the Godhead existed

in the first place, after carefully reviewing what happened in general

Church history, and after carefully considering what his own SDA Church

started seeing as of 1888 and 1892, finally brought himself to say almost

the same thing that Hippolytus said way back in 200A.D., and which his

own pioneering brother, Robert Hare, later (in 1909) admitted to as well. It

was A.T. Jones who plainly admitted in 1899:

“God is one [person]. Jesus Christ is one [i.e. another person]. The Holy Spirit is one [i.e. 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

Clearly A.T. Jones could not say the Holy Spirit is “one”, and mean

anything else than what Mrs. White herself began to lead the SDA Church

to admit after 1888, because all three were being grouped and equally

described by her in the very same way…as “three persons”, as “three living

personalities”, as “three dignitaries”, and as “three holiest beings in

heaven”; but never united in a way where their individuality is ever lost.

I am comfortable that these three personalities/persons can be called the

“three holiest beings in heaven”, that all three “pledge” to receive and be “a

Father” to us, that, in response, we must “pledge to “serve” all three, and

am comfortable that when we need help it is our privilege to call upon the

“three Great Worthies”; all doctrinal matters confirmed by Adventism‟s

leading pioneer, E.G. White (which can be easily proven by way of

pioneering Adventist literature; which I have proven adequately elsewhere).

As an Adventist I am comfortable with the basics, and upon this platform I

stand to agitate for a reform in certain areas of our mainstream Trinitarian

belief, areas in explanation that admittedly deny other equally important

truths; truths like the historic Christian faith that Jesus is the real and truly

begotten Son of the Father, despite existing as such “from all eternity”

(i.e. he‟s not just an „incarnational Son‟), and that both he and the Holy

Spirit (though existing as “eternal heavenly dignitaries” or as “holiest

beings in heaven”, yet) themselves are of/from the Father, who‟s presented

by the Bible (despite it seems paradoxical, yet not contradictory) as the one

and only God, the Great Source of all (since only he is in-originate and

owes his existence to none other). Amen.