Ellen Harmon was raised Methodist and, therefore, trinitarian. As a teenage girl, she was a follower of William Miller and believed Christ would return in the year 1844. After “the Great Disappointment,” she was one of the core group of young people who formed a fervent Bible study movement that became the Seventh-day Adventist Church. All the men named in the previous chapter were her theological friends. The difference with Ellen was . . . well . . . she was a prophet, and she was a girl.

And I mean a girl.

In 1844, as she began to co-lead a theological revolution with an impressive group of young men, she was a mere 17 years old.

If you are not a Seventh-day Adventist, the “prophet” part may sound a little odd, at least until you read the New Testament and discover that God promised He would give the prophetic gift to His church straight down to the end of time. But regardless of whether you regard her as possessing a unique gift of prophetic inspiration, I am confident you will find her insights inspiring, and often downright mind-blowing. The girl was on fire for Jesus and remained so into womanhood and straight on throughout her life. She could write more words in a day than most people write in a lifetime, crafting ideas into language that has served to magnify the beauty of God’s character for millions of readers for more than a hundred and fifty years now. As the special messenger to the Advent movement, she exerted a formidable influence on the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

But she was in a theological pickle of sorts.

At the age of 18, Ellen Harmon, the Methodist-reared prophet girl, married James White, who had been a minister in an anti-trinitarian movement called the Christian Connection. Additionally, some of the other core members of the young Advent movement were anti-trinitarian. Given that she was a woman surrounded by anti-trinitarian men, whom she loved and respected, it is astounding that she never expressed in her writings any overtly anti-trinitarian views similar to what we saw from the Advent pioneers in the previous chapter. What I will suggest in this chapter is that Ellen White followed the logical trajectory of their thinking, whereas they stopped short of working out the implication of their own premise. In other words, she went where they were pointing, even while they did not. And this is an extremely important factor if we really want to understand the relation of Adventism to trinitarianism.

As we discovered in the previous chapter, modalism was the core theological concern of the Advent pioneers, and it was a legitimate concern. To view them as anti-trinitarian in a general and simplistic sense is to miss the rather specific point they were endeavoring to make. They were protective of the distinct personhood of Christ. They believed that Christ was divine, that He was God, and, yet, they knew He was not one and the same person as the Father. So when they heard the idea that God was one being projecting Himself in the mode of three persons, they rightfully rejected the notion as absurd and fraught with theological problems. They rightfully insisted that Christ was God and that He was also a distinct person from the Father. But their solution to the problem was far afield of the biblical narrative, and sometimes speculative, as we saw in the previous chapter. Considering their historical and theological setting, their insistence on the distinct divine personhood of Christ was a vital step toward building a relational doctrine of God grounded in the reality that “God is love.” They are not to be brushed aside as ignorant, but thanked for their advancements. The Advent pioneers rejected the modalism notion of the Trinity, for which they are to be commended, but they did not fully work out a trinitarian doctrine that affirms the distinct divine personhood of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Ellen White did!

While some of the pioneers got stuck in varying degrees of semi-Arianism, Ellen White, following their lead, did not. She moved forward in the logical trajectory of their legitimate polemic against modalism, even as they did not follow her lead in tandem.

Stages of Thought

If we simply read everything Ellen White wrote regarding the nature of God, along with her understanding of salvation dynamics, a clear picture of her theological journey takes shape. The basic lay of the land in the development of her views on the Trinity can be divided roughly into three stages of thinking:

Reserved—1847-1887

During this period, Ellen White made no definitive statements in favor of a Trinity theology, but neither did she make any anti-trinitarian statements. It is evident that she shared the interest of her pioneer counterparts that Christ be perceived as both divine and distinct from the Father.

Emerging—1888-1897

During this period, it is evident that she was discerning that the divinity of Christ is a vital component of a clear salvation theology, in which the atonement is a display of a truly self-sacrificing love on God’s part, by which the redemptive act is achieved by God alone.

Definitive—1898-1915

During this period, Ellen White unequivocally identified the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three distinct persons, all of whom are involved in the salvation enterprise, collectively composing a “Heavenly Trio.” Jesus, she understood at this point, possesses eternal coexistence with the Father, which is “underived” from the Father. Here, too, she explicitly identified the Holy Spirit as “the third person of the Godhead.”

Covenant Logic

Given her close association with the Advent pioneers, it is understandable that we would find in Ellen White’s early writings, statements that can be interpreted as semi-Arian in perspective, not for what they say, but for what they do not say. As stated above, from about 1847-1887, she was reserved in her statements regarding the exact nature of Christ in relation to the Father. But there was an obvious progression in her thinking.

In 1858 she described “the counsel of peace” in which the plan of salvation was mapped out. At this early stage of her thinking, she only mentions the Father and the Son as participants in the plan to save humanity, with no mention of the Holy Spirit (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, pp. 22-23). In 1870, the statement was expanded and published in volume one of Spirit of Prophecy, p. 45, but still no mention of the Holy Spirit. In 1890, the statement was further expanded in Patriarchs and Prophets, but still no mention was made of the Holy Spirit. But eleven years later, in 1901, the statement was expanded yet again, and this time a clear trinitarian framing is in place:

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. In order to fully carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love? The Australian Union Conference Recorder, April 1, 1901

Here, Ellen White clearly portrays the plan of salvation as the joint venture of the three members of “the Godhead.” We can count them—one, two, three—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. She says they “gave themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption.” She portrays each of the three with individual emotion (“stirred”) and individual volition (“gave”).

Another early statement that is often interpreted as anti-trinitarian is found in the Spirit of Prophecy book series, vol. 1:

The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. 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 as his own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host. Especially was his Son to work in union with himself in the anticipated creation of the earth and every living thing that should exist upon the earth. His Son would carry out his will and his purposes, but would do nothing of himself alone. The Father’s will would be fulfilled in him. Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, p. 17, 1870

This statement is taken by anti-trinitarians as a description of the point at which God informed the angels that He had conferred deity on Jesus and ordained that Christ should be equal in divine status with Himself. There are serious problems with this interpretation. If divinity is something that can be conferred upon a being who is not inherently divine, then what is to stop us from thinking that we ourselves might be made divine? Again, we will get there shortly in our study.

Certainly, the above statement can be interpreted as semi-Arian, but it doesn’t have to be and, as we are about to discover, shouldn’t be. What some read into the statement is the idea that Christ’s equality with the Father was at some point ordained by the Father, suggesting a change of status for Christ from non-divine to divine. But the statement doesn’t actually say that. She leaves much unsaid and, over time, greater clarity came to her mind. The above statement is in volume one of the four-book series titled, Spirit of Prophecy, published in 1870. In 1890, her book Patriarchs and Prophets became the more developed and complete version of the same material. Notice what she added:

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, 1890

As already mentioned, during her early years Ellen White was surrounded by formidable theological minds that she respected. In their strong rejection of modalism, they tended to denounce the Trinity doctrine without qualification. So the fact that she steered clear of making any explicit anti-trinitarian statements is remarkable. It is an evidence of God’s guiding influence upon her mind. Eventually, she did something extremely insightful, which turned Adventism in a distinctly trinitarian direction, but without adopting modalism. She followed the lead of her brothers where they had a legitimate point, but she did not follow them where they were wrong.

As we noted in the previous chapter, in 1877 James White began moving away from his anti-trinitarian roots by thinking in terms of “the Father and the Son before the worlds were made” constituting “a creating and law administering firm of equal power.” Then a change occurred for God. James says, “Christ steps out of this firm” in order to become the “mediator between God and man.” This was an ingenious theological move, because it coined language to describe God, as God was, prior to the creation-salvation enterprise.

Building on her husband’s idea, Ellen White later began using similar language, referring to God as “the three great powers of heaven.” Whereas James only included the Father and the Son in the divine “firm of equal power,” she included the Holy Spirit:

As at our baptism we pledged ourselves to Him, and received the ordinance (of baptism) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, these three great powers of heaven pledged themselves to work in our behalf, not only to begin, but to finish our faith. General Conference Bulletins, April 14, 1901

Our sanctification is the work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is the fulfillment of the covenant that God has made with those who bind themselves up with Him, to stand with Him, with His Son, and with His Spirit in holy fellowship. Have you been born again? Have you become a new being in Christ Jesus? Then co-operate with the three great powers of heaven who are working in your behalf. Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901

Those who submit to the solemn rite of baptism pledge themselves to devote their lives to God’s service; and the three great powers of heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, pledge Themselves to cooperate with them, to work in and through them. As men and women thus enter into covenant relation with God, they take the name of Christian. Signs of the Times, March 11, 1903

Keep yourselves where the three great powers of heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, can be your efficiency. These powers work with the one who gives himself unreservedly to God. Southern Watchman, February 23, 1904

You were buried with Christ in baptism and raised to newness of life. And the three great powers of heaven pledged themselves to co-operate with you in your efforts to live the new life in Christ. Then should we not praise him with every breath? The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, June 15, 1905

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, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. Evangelism, p. 615, 1905

In these statements we have before us clear and definitive language that showed up repeatedly in Ellen White’s later public sermons, letters, and articles, demonstrating unequivocally that she was solidly trinitarian in her doctrine of God. In keeping with the original concern of the Advent pioneers against modalism, her trinitarianism repeatedly affirmed the distinct divine personhood of the three members of “the Heavenly Trio.” But—and this is vital—she wasn’t merely trinitarian for the sake of holding one factual theological position as opposed to another. Rather, she discerned in the trinitarian view of God the necessary theological framework for grasping the “covenant” purpose of God. And this is the vital point. Pause to really think it through.

In keeping with the biblical narrative, Ellen viewed the plan of salvation as a covenant enterprise. That is to say, she understood that salvation is grounded in the social reality of God and achieves our induction into God’s social reality.1 She understood that baptism is performed in the name of “the three great powers” to signify, precisely, that we have entered into “covenant relation with God.” Baptism, she discerned, is a symbolic ritual through which we identify with the covenantal love that exists between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. When we are baptized, we indicate that we have chosen God’s love—as it exists between the members of “the Heavenly Trio”—as the pattern of our own existence.

By contrast, if God is conceived of as an absolute, non-social singularity, by which Christ was eventually generated and from which the Holy Spirit emanates as an impersonal influence, then God cannot be conceived of as essentially covenantal in God’s own makeup, and salvation cannot be conceived of as our restoration to covenantal relationship with God. Without a trinitarian doctrine of God, the entire covenant logic of Scripture breaks down. Discerning this, Ellen White was explicitly trinitarian on the vital premise of Scripture’s overall covenant framework. But not everybody in Adventism was smelling what the prophet was cooking.

Fork in the Theological Road

The year 1898 was extremely significant for the theological future of Adventism. That year two major denominational books were published, one written by Uriah Smith and the other written by Ellen White, arguably the two most influential voices in Adventism at that point.

We have already encountered Smith’s book in the previous chapter, titled, Looking Unto Jesus. In its pages, Smith made his most creative and final effort to steer Adventism in the anti-trinitarianism direction. Whereas he had earlier said Christ was a “created” being, now he ran with the word “begotten” as the way Christ came into existence, insisting at the same time that Christ was “uncreated.” Of course, Smith didn’t exactly explain how being begotten into existence is different than being created. But he took a wild stab at it by writing, “With the Son, the evolution of deity, as deity, ceased.”

Whatever that means.

Apparently, Smith was hoping the church would follow him into this odd and blatantly unbiblical territory without requiring scriptural evidence. And that may well have been the theological future of Adventism, except for the fact that there was a prophet in Israel.

Ellen White’s 1898 book was titled, The Desire of Ages.

You can imagine the buzz in Adventism as, on the one hand, ministers and members read Smith’s evolution-of-God concept and, on the other hand, they read Ellen White’s crystal-clear words:

In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. The Desire of Ages, p. 530

That single, well-crafted, unequivocally clear statement meant that the days of Arianism and semi-Arianism in Adventism were numbered. In the same book, she wrote 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. The Desire of Ages, p. 671

Looking Unto Jesus was the last anti-trinitarian book ever published by an official Seventh-day Adventist publishing house. It had just one print run in the United States and quickly went the way of book extinction. The Desire of Ages, on the other hand, has been in continuous print in multiple languages for more than 120 years.

And yet, even as The Desire of Ages came off the press and solidified Adventism’s future as decidedly trinitarian, there was a major theological crisis brewing. As the anti-trinitarian view was fading and Ellen White was becoming more pronounced in her trinitarian orientation, another manifestation of anti-trinitarian was trying to press its way to prominence, this time in the form of what Ellen White identified as “pantheism.”

The Kellogg Crisis

Imagine receiving a letter from Ellen White containing these lines:

You are not definitely clear on the personality of God, which is everything to us as a people. You have virtually destroyed the Lord God Himself. Letter to J.H. Kellogg, March 16, 1903

The recipient of the letter was Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. Of course, Ellen White was speaking with passion in order to make her point. She was not suggesting that Kellogg had literally destroyed God. Rather, he had committed a kind of theological homicide of God, first in his own mind and then in the minds of those who were imbibing his Christianized version of pantheism.

In 1903, an unfortunate book was published by Dr. J.H. Kellogg, titled, The Living Temple. The book is full of beautiful insights, which Ellen White acknowledged, but it also contained what she characterized as the theological destruction of God. She was referring to those parts of the book containing pantheistic sentiments, which essentially made God synonymous with nature and, therefore, synonymous with humans. At the simplest level, Kellogg articulated his new idea like this:

There is a clear, complete, satisfactory explanation of the most subtle, the most marvelous phenomena of nature—namely, an infinite intelligence working out its purposes. God is the explanation of nature—not a God outside of nature, but in nature, manifesting himself through and in all the objects, movements, and varied phenomena of the universe. The Living Temple, p. 28

Ellen White responded to the publication of The Living Temple with a directness and strength befitting the role of a prophet:

I am authorized to say to you that some of the sentiments regarding the personality of God, as found in the book Living Temple, are opposed to the truths revealed in the Word of God. Manuscript Releases, vol. 21, p. 171, 1903

The theory that He is an essence, pervading everything, is one of Satan’s most subtle devices. I warn you to beware of being led to accept theories leading to any such view. I tell you, my brother, that the most spiritual-minded Christians are liable to be deceived by these beautiful, seducing, flattering theories. But in the place of honoring God, these theories, in the minds of those who receive them, bring Him down to a low level, where He is nothingness. ibid., p. 172, 1903

In the book Living Temple there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given. Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 200, 1904

Kellogg couldn’t see the problem. Ellen White saw something extremely dangerous in pantheism that eluded the brilliant doctor’s grasp. As intelligent as he was, he was not reasoning his theory through to its dark conclusion.

In October of 1903, Ellen White wrote a letter to E.J. Waggoner, warning him to “be on your guard” against Kellogg’s pantheistic “theories regarding the nature and character of God, . . . incorrect views regarding the personality of God.” Then she made a startling connection:

I have seen the results of these fanciful views of God in apostasy, spiritualism, freelovism. The free-love tendencies of these teachings were so concealed that it was difficult to present them in their real character. Until the Lord presented it to me, I knew not what to call it, but I was instructed to call it unholy spiritual love. Manuscript Releases, vol. 3, p. 351, 1903

By “freelovism” she means exactly what the dictionary defines the word to mean: “the doctrine or practice of having sexual relations without marriage.” We know this is what she has in mind because later in this letter she warns of “the archdeceiver tempting several of our ministers, teachers, and medical workers” with “charming pictures of women whom they have found congenial, suggesting that in the future life they will be united to the one who is so congenial and whom they will ever love throughout the ages of eternity.”

Two months later she wrote another letter warning that “freelovism” can be a dangerous result of “the doctrine of an impersonal God, diffused through nature.” She wrote:

The doctrine that all were holy had led to the belief that the affections of the sanctified were never in danger of leading astray. The result of this belief was the fulfillment of the evil desires of hearts which, though professedly sanctified, were far from purity of thought and practice. . . .

Pantheistic theories are not sustained by the Word of God. The light of His truth shows that these theories are soul-destroying agencies. Darkness is their element, sensuality their sphere. They gratify the natural heart and give leeway to inclination. Separation from God is the result of accepting them. Pacific Union Recorder, December 31, 1903

Ellen White discerned a connection between pantheism, spiritualism, and freelovism. The connection is obvious, once you see it. The moment God is reduced to an impersonal force pervading all of nature, including human nature, it is only a small step from there to imagine that all natural impulses are from God and, therefore, good.

Now take a deep breath and think carefully with me so that we can discern the connection between Kellogg’s pantheism and anti-trinitarianism.

In 1909, Ellen White employed a unique and brilliant word to define the problem with Kellogg’s pantheism:

The book, Living Temple, is an illustration of this work, the writer of which declared in its support that its teachings were the same as those found in the writings of Mrs. White. Again and again we shall be called to meet the influence of men who are studying sciences of satanic origin, through which Satan is working to make a nonentity of God and of Christ. Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, pp. 67-68

This is an incredibly insightful assessment of the core problem with pantheism. It makes “a nonentity of God.” By deifying nature, God as a personal entity is banished from existence—not literally, but from people’s imaginations—at which point each individual occupies the pinnacle of their own reality. And at that point, anything goes morally.

As it began to dawn on Kellogg that Ellen White was absolutely not going to endorse The Living Temple, he began to scramble for a solution that might earn her approval of the book. He articulated his solution to A.G. Daniells, who was the General Conference president at this time. Daniells wrote to Ellen White’s son, Willie White, to explain Kellogg’s proposed fix of the book:

Ever since the council closed, I have felt that I should write you confidentially regarding Dr. Kellogg’s plans for revising and republishing The Living Temple. . . . He said that some days before coming to the council, he had been thinking the matter over, and began to see that he had made a slight mistake in expressing his views. He said that all the way along he had been troubled to know how to state the character of God and his relation to his creation. . . He then stated that his former views regarding the trinity had stood in his way of making a clear and absolutely correct statement; but that within a short time he had come to believe in the trinity and could now see pretty clearly where all the difficulty was, and believed that he could clear the matter up satisfactorily.

He told me that he now believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; and his view was that it was God the Holy Ghost, and not God the Father, that filled all space, and every living thing. He said if he had believed this before writing the book, he could have expressed his views without giving the wrong impression the book now gives.

I placed before him the objections I found in the teaching, and tried to show him that the teaching was so utterly contrary to the gospel that I did not see how it could be revised by changing a few expressions.

We argued the matter at some length in a friendly way; but I felt sure that when we parted, the doctor did not understand himself, nor the character of his teaching. And I could not see how it would be possible for him to flop over, and in the course of a few days fix the book up so that it would be all right. Letter from A.G. Daniells to W.C. White, October 29, 1903

In other words, Kellogg originally formulated his pantheistic theology on the premise of an anti-trinitarian orientation. It was anti-trinitarianism that allowed him to reduce God to a “nonentity.” Clearly, he understood that Ellen White was a believer in the doctrine of the Trinity, hence his effort to fix the problem in his book by adopting what he thought would be a Trinitarian view of God and thus warrant her approval. Once Kellogg saw that Ellen White was denouncing his book as a dangerous theory that depersonalizes God, he decided to offer up an altered version of his theology that he thought would suffice to make the book acceptable.

What was his solution?

He crafted what he imagined to be a modified version of the Trinity doctrine in which he suggested that God the Father is a personal being, God the Son is a personal being, but the Holy Spirit is not a personal being, but rather the “God” that pervades all of nature as an impersonal power. But Kellogg still missed the point. Ellen White’s position was that all three members of the Trinity are personal beings, not just the Father and the Son.

From the moment he began articulating his pantheism, as early as 1897, Ellen White began ramping up her trinitarian theology. She did this, first, by affirming the eternal coexistence of Christ with the Father, insisting that Christ is God in the highest sense. Secondly, she affirmed that the Holy Spirit is as much a personal being as the Father and the Son. For rapid-fire clarity, here is a flyby of her language in this regard between 1897 and 1906:

On the eternal distinct divine personhood of Christ:

1897—He is the eternal, self-existent Son. Evangelism, p. 615

1898—. . . the self-existent One . . . The Desire of Ages, p. 469

1898—In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. ibid., p. 530

1900—Christ is the preexistent, self-existent Son of God. The Signs of the Times, August 29, 1900

1905—From all eternity Christ was united with the Father. The Signs of the Times, August 2, 1905

1906—From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant. Review and Herald, April 5, 1906

1906 —Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. Review and Herald, April 5, 1906

On the eternal distinct divine personhood of the Holy Spirit:

1893—The Holy Spirit . . . is a distinct personality. Manuscript Releases, vol. 20, p. 324

1897—. . . the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. Evangelism, p. 617

1906—The Holy Spirit is a person. ibid., p. 616

On the triune nature of God:

1901—. . . the eternal heavenly dignitaries. ibid., p. 616

1905—Three living persons of the Heavenly Trio . . . ibid., p. 615

1905—Three highest powers in heaven . . . ibid., p. 617

1905—. . . three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ibid., p. 615

So, then, from Ellen White’s standpoint, Kellogg’s almost-trinitarian fix of his theology came abysmally short of the actual truth. While he was suggesting that the Holy Spirit is the impersonal energy of God pervading all of nature, she intentionally and repeatedly employed the word “person” to describe the Holy Spirit.