Abstract
This article examines the Biblical Research Institute’s “The Biblical Concept of God in the Writings of Ellen G. White” (Release 18), identifying significant contextual omissions regarding Ellen White’s consistent teaching on the Personality of God. Through careful analysis of primary sources, we demonstrate that White maintained a non-Trinitarian understanding of God throughout her ministry, consistently viewing the Father as a tangible, personal Being distinct from His Son, with the Holy Spirit as Their divine representative—not as three co-equal persons constituting one God. Key evidence includes White’s ontological understanding of God’s personality, her defense of the original Fundamental Principles, and her contextual refutation of Trinitarian concepts during the Kellogg crisis. By restoring this forgotten pillar of Adventist theology, we invite scholars to reconsider the historical foundation of Adventist doctrine concerning the Godhead.
The Biblical Research Institute (BRI) has published their research paper on “The Biblical Concept of God in the Writings of Ellen G. White” (Release 18) written by Dr. Alberto R. Timm. We have no doubt in the sincerity of the work and their effort to support the narrative that Ellen White’s understanding of God was the reason for our later adoption of the trinity doctrine. However, as presented in our work, The Forgotten Pillar, a careful examination reveals that the narrative offered in Release 18, while touching upon important points, appears to overlook or minimize critical data and context essential for a complete understanding of Ellen White’s consistent teachings on the Godhead, particularly concerning the foundational doctrine of the Personality of God.
We believe a constructive dialogue, grounded in the full breadth of historical evidence and Ellen White’s own contextualized statements, is necessary. Our aim is not contention, but clarity, encouraging a return to the solid foundation laid in the beginning of our movement.
The Missing Pillar: The Personality of God
A central theme in The Forgotten Pillar is the historical and theological significance of the doctrine termed “the Personality of God” by our pioneers and Ellen White. Release 18 acknowledges Ellen White’s warnings against speculation regarding God’s nature (p. 6), quoting her counsel for “silence” on certain aspects. Yet, it seems to stop short of fully exploring what she did clearly teach and defend regarding God’s personality.
As detailed in TFP (pp. 4-5, 14-15, 26-27, 42, 275-277), the pioneers, including Ellen White, understood “personality”, when applied to the Father and the Son, in an ontological sense, specifically referencing the Father’s literal, tangible form and location in heaven. This understanding was foundational, differentiating the Father and Son as distinct, personal Beings from the omnipresent Holy Spirit, Their divine representative.
As we are dealing with our perception or view of God, the following is a direct testimony of Ellen White about her view of God - who and what He is:
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.” {EGW; EW 54.2; 1882}
I have frequently been falsely charged with teaching views peculiar to Spiritualism. But before the editor of the Day-Star ran into that delusion, the Lord gave me a view of the sad and desolating effects that would be produced upon the flock by him and others in teaching the spiritual views. 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 in the express image of My Father’s person.” {EGW; EW 77.1}
In particular, Ellen White is addressing the false “view of God” with the correct view of God. We do have her correct view of God clearly spelled out, and one must ask if that correct view presented here is in harmony with the Trinity doctrine. Because in this vision she was present before God Himself. She was before the Father and the Son, and the Father she could not see, but Jesus she could. Because of His visible form, Ellen White recognized Jesus “that He is a person.” Inquiring in particular about the view of God as being a person, she asked Jesus “if His Father was a person and had a form like Himself.” The question reveals that the personality of God is based on the fact that the Father has a tangible, material form of a person, just as Jesus has. And the response was positive, with one notable difference: the Personage of the Father is not visible to mortal sight.
As a tangent to the personality of God, which bases the personhood of the Father and the Son in the fact that they have a tangible outward form of a person, we ask, is the Holy Spirit also a person in the very same way as the Father and the Son? This is a basic premise within orthodox trinitarianism, as well as the one we advocate in our current Fundamental Beliefs (see belief #5). Here is Ellen White’s answer to that question:
The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. (1 Corinthians 2:11. quoted) {EGW; 21LtMs, Ms 20, 1906, par. 32}
How is the Holy Spirit a person? Is He a person in the same co-equal way as the Father and the Son? Is He a person in the same sense of having an outward tangible form of a person? No, not in that sense, but in a different sense. In the sense of a Representative, which bears witness to our spirits that we are the children of God. If we are to make the Holy Spirit a co-equal person with the Father and the Son, then we would either have to make Him a person with a tangible, outward visible form, or we would have to make the Father and the Son persons devoid of their tangible, outward visible distinct forms, just as the Holy Spirit is. Both views are not in harmony with the Scriptures, nor Ellen White’s writings. The latter view, in particular, is being addressed as spiritualism. This was the view of God promoted by Dr. Kellogg, and, as extensively documented in the Forgotten Pillar, in that particular aspect (the aspect of the personality of God) he was aligned with the view of God as three co-equal persons in one God. This was in contrast to the original doctrine of our church in regards to the personality of God.
Ellen White states that the personality of God is the pillar of our faith at the very heart of our doctrine, equating its importance with the sanctuary message itself:
“Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary, or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift, without an anchor.” (The Forgotten Pillar, p. 14, quoting Ms62-1905.14)
The BRI pamphlet discusses Ellen White’s views on God’s attributes (love, eternity, holiness, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience) and the essential unity within the Godhead (pp. 7-10, 17-19), but it largely overlooks her stronger, more contextually crucial emphasis on the distinct, literal personalities of the Father and the Son—a pillar often forgotten or ignored in modern discussions.
Historical Context: The Fundamental Principles
Release 18 notes the development of Adventist doctrine and touches upon the early anti-Trinitarian views (pp. 11-14). However, it frames Ellen White’s later writings as moving towards a more Trinitarian understanding, potentially overlooking her consistent defense of the original foundation. The Forgotten Pillar (pp. 21-28, 73-81, 223-224, 268-270) argues that this foundation was explicitly non-Trinitarian, as codified in the Fundamental Principles (published 1872, revised 1889, printed annually until 1914).
Let us recall the first two principles:
“I – That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7.”
“II – That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist…” (The Forgotten Pillar, p. 28, quoting Fundamental Principles, 1889)
This clearly defines the “one God” as the Father, a distinct personal Being, with Jesus Christ as His literal Son. The Holy Spirit is presented as Their representative, the means of Their omnipresence, not as a co-equal Being in the same sense as the Father and Son. Ellen White consistently referred to these principles as the “pillars” and “foundation” of our faith, established by God Himself:
“As a people, we are to stand firm on the platform of eternal truth that has withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of our faith. The principles of truth that God has revealed to us are our only true foundation. They have made us what we are. The lapse of time has not lessened their value.” (The Forgotten Pillar, p. 18, quoting SpTB02 51.2; 1904)
“Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon Seventh-day Adventists, to take the place of the truth which, point by point, has been sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the miracle-working power of the Lord. But the way-marks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His word and the testimony of His Spirit. He calls upon us to hold firmly, with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable authority.” (The Forgotten Pillar, p. 26, quoting SpTB02 59.1; 1904)
Her defense of this foundation remained steadfast throughout her life, even during the Kellogg crisis, which directly challenged the doctrine of God’s personality.
Revisiting Key Quotations: Matthew 28:19 and the “Heavenly Trio”
The BRI pamphlet highlights quotations often used to support a Trinitarian view in Ellen White’s writings, such as her comments on Matthew 28:19 and the “Heavenly Trio” (pp. 14-16). However, examining these within their immediate literary and broader historical context, as done in The Forgotten Pillar, reveals a different picture.
Matthew 28:19
Release 18 quotes Ellen White referencing the baptismal formula (p. 15). The Forgotten Pillar (pp. 207-214) presents her explicit interpretation, which includes her own parenthetical clarifications, demonstrating she understood this verse in harmony with the Fundamental Principles, not as a statement of a co-equal Trinity making up one God:
“Christ gave His followers a positive promise that after His ascension He would send them His Spirit. ‘Go ye therefore,’ He said, ‘and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father (a personal God), and of the Son (a personal Prince and Saviour), and of the Holy Ghost (sent from heaven to represent Christ); teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.’ Matthew 28:19, 20.” (The Forgotten Pillar, p. 209, quoting RH Oct 26, 1897, par. 9)
Her explanation upholds the distinct personalities and roles, consistent with the first two Fundamental Principles, rather than endorsing a later Trinitarian construct. She warned this verse was “not half understood” (TFP, p. 211, quoting Lt214-1906.10), likely because it was being used to support theories (like the Trinity) that had “no foundation in the Word of God.”
The “Heavenly Trio” (Ev 615.1)
This is perhaps the most frequently cited passage. Release 18 presents it as evidence of her Trinitarian belief (p. 15). However, The Forgotten Pillar (pp. 186-206) demonstrates through contextual analysis that Ellen White was directly quoting and refuting specific Trinitarian sentiments expressed by William Boardman in his book The Higher Christian Life. Boardman used illustrations (Light, Dew, Rain) to describe the “tri-personality of the one God.” Boardman himself explains his own sentiments:
“These likenings are all imperfect. They rather hide than illustrate the tri-personality of the one God, for they are not persons but things, poor and earthly at best, to represent the living personalities [plural] of the living God [singular]. So much they may do, however, as to illustrate the official relations of each to the others and of each and all to us. And more. They may also illustrate the truth that all the fulness of Him who filleth all in all, dwells in each person of the Triune God. The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead INVISIBLE. The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead MANIFESTED. The Spirit is all the fulness of the Godhead MAKING MANIFEST. The persons are not mere offices, or modes of revelation, but living persons [plural] of the living God [singular].” {William Boardman, The Higher Christian Life, p. 104,105, parenthesis [plural/singular] added}
With this context we know that these trinitarian (three-in-one God) sentiments were the sentiments Ellen White was instructed by God to warn against:
I am instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted. {EGW; Ms21-1906.8; 1906}
And then she quoted representations of William Boardman, which illustrated the sentiment of three living persons of one living God.
Ellen White contrasted the triune God with the Father:
“All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken and diminish the Majesty which no earthly likeness can be compared to. God cannot be compared with the things His hands have made… The Father cannot be described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead bodily and is invisible to mortal sight.” (The Forgotten Pillar, p. 194, quoting Ms21-1906.9)
As visible from comparison, God which cannot be compared with the earthly things, for Ellen White, is the Father, while for William Boardman is the Triune God. This difference is a key difference between our current Fundamental Beliefs and our original non-trinitarian Fundamental Principles.
Boardman’s premise was a Triune God (three persons in one Godhead). Ellen White corrects this by affirming the Father’s distinct, bodily personality, invisible to mortals. Her use of “three living persons of the heavenly trio” stands in direct contrast to Boardman’s “living personalities of the living God” or “each person of Triune God.” She is affirming three distinct divine persons (Father, Son, and their Spirit) working in unity, not a co-equal, co-eternal three-in-one Godhead as defined by traditional Trinitarianism. She is correcting Boardman’s Trinitarian sentiment, not endorsing it. She contrasted the doctrine on the personality of God with the Trinity doctrine.
Consistency and Warnings
Ellen White consistently warned against speculative theories regarding God’s personality, urging believers to stay within the bounds of Scripture (MH 429.3; Lt232-1903.41, quoted in TFP pp. 242, 252). Her rebuke of Dr. Kellogg centered on his departure from the Fundamental Principles concerning the Personality of God (SpTB02 51.3, Lt300-1903.7, quoted in TFP pp. 19, 220). Kellogg himself justified his move towards pantheistic ideas partly through his acceptance of the Trinity doctrine, which spiritualized the distinct personalities of the Father and Son (TFP, pp. 41, 51, 162-163, 176). Ellen White rejected his “patchwork theories” (which in the context is specifically the Trinity doctrine) as incompatible with the faith delivered to the pioneers (Lt253-1903.28, quoted in TFP p. 64). This is direct evidence against the accepted premise that Ellen White endorsed the trinitarian view or concept of God.
Conclusion: An Invitation to Dialogue
The narrative presented in BRI’s Release 18, while contributing to the discussion, appears incomplete. By not fully engaging with the specific, historical meaning of “the Personality of God” as a foundational pillar, and by interpreting key quotations outside of their crucial literary and historical context (especially the Kellogg crisis and the refutation of Boardman’s Trinitarian sentiments), it risks presenting a view of Ellen White’s theology that may not align with her consistent, lifelong defense of the original Adventist faith.
The Forgotten Pillar presents substantial evidence, drawn directly from Ellen White and pioneer writings within their context, suggesting her position remained harmonious with the non-Trinitarian foundation established through divine guidance. We believe this perspective deserves careful consideration.
We respectfully invite the scholars at BRI and the wider church to engage in a constructive dialogue, examining all the evidence, including the often-overlooked context surrounding the personality of God. Let us together seek the truth as it is in Jesus, allowing the inspired Word and the full testimony of the Spirit of Prophecy to guide us, ensuring we stand firmly on the foundation God Himself established.
We encourage readers to explore this topic further by downloading and studying historical evidence presented in The Forgotten Pillar. The book is publicly available for free at https://forgottenpillar.com/book/the-forgotten-pillar.
In the spirit of truth-seeking,
Michael Presečan (as represented for this response)