A Response on Behalf of The Forgotten Pillar Project
Recently, we had the opportunity to review Dr. Denis Kaiser’s presentation, “From Anti-trinitarianism to Trinitarianism - The Adventist Story,” delivered at the “Godhead Symposium.” We deeply appreciate Dr. Kaiser’s candidness regarding early Adventist history and his willingness to share the historical records of our pioneers. Open dialogue and a sincere examination of our history are essential for any Adventist seeking to understand the foundations of our faith.
However, in the spirit of constructive evaluation, we must point out a critical omission in Dr. Kaiser’s narrative—an omission that fundamentally alters the conclusion of his presentation. By overlooking the specific, established doctrine on the Personality of God and its central role in the Fundamental Principles of 1872/1889, the presentation inadvertently frames the Adventist adoption of the Trinity as a “progressive development” of truth, rather than a departure from the original foundation of our faith.
When we view the historical data through the lens of the foundation God laid at the beginning of our movement, a vastly different story emerges.
Did the Pioneers Study the Doctrine of God?
Early in his presentation 0:19:55 - 0:20:30, Dr. Kaiser notes that after the Great Disappointment, the pioneers discovered the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and the Three Angels’ Messages. He then makes a striking claim: “Interestingly, they did not study the subject of the doctrine of God. That wasn’t a question that they dealt with at that time.”
With respect, the historical data proves otherwise. Our pioneers were not ignorant about God. They studied the doctrine of God so thoroughly, and arrived at such a strong, pointed position, that it became the very first point of our public declaration of faith. In the Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists (published repeatedly from 1872 to 1914), the very first article reads:
“I. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things… unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit.” (Fundamental Principles, 1889; The Forgotten Pillar, p. 314)
Ellen White did not view these principles as incomplete or born of ignorance. She referred to them as the “pillars of our faith” and the “platform of eternal truth.” She emphatically stated: “The principles of truth that God has revealed to us are our only true foundation. They have made us what we are.” (SpTB02 51.2; The Forgotten Pillar, p. 8).
The True Reason for Rejecting the Trinity
Dr. Kaiser lists six reasons why early Adventists rejected the Trinity 0:21:00 - 0:24:00, including a lack of biblical evidence and concerns over modalism. While these were arguments used by pioneers, Dr. Kaiser misses the primary, foundational reason they rejected the Trinity: It destroyed the clear doctrine on the Personality of God.
To the pioneers, the word “personality” meant “the quality or state of being a person”—having a literal, tangible form and shape, seated on a throne in the heavenly sanctuary, while being omnipresent only through His representative, the Holy Spirit. Because the Trinity doctrine demands an indivisible, omnipresent, “three-in-one” God, the pioneers realized it obliterated the reality of God as a literal Person having a tangible form of a person.
James White plainly stated:
“Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ…” (Review & Herald, Dec 11, 1855; The Forgotten Pillar, p. 138)
When we ignore the pioneers’ clear, pointed stance on the literal Personality of God, we lose the key to understanding why they, and Ellen White, opposed Trinitarian theology.
The Kellogg Crisis: Endorsing the Trinity or Defending the Pillar?
In the latter half of his presentation, Dr. Kaiser suggests that during the 1890s and early 1900s, Ellen White and others began using language that shifted the church toward a Trinitarian understanding. To properly understand these quotes, we must look at the historical context of the Kellogg Crisis (1903).
When Dr. John Harvey Kellogg wrote The Living Temple, he spiritualized away the literal personality and presence of God. When confronted, how did Kellogg attempt to defend and revise his book? He turned to the Trinity.
A.G. Daniells wrote to W.C. White (Oct 29, 1903) detailing a conversation with Dr. Kellogg about revising the book. Daniells reported that Kellogg “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… He told me that he now believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.” Daniells objected, noting he “did not see how it could be revised by changing a few expressions” (The Forgotten Pillar, p. 51).
If Ellen White was progressively guiding the church toward Trinitarianism, this would have been the perfect moment for her to welcome Kellogg’s “new light” on the Trinity. Instead, she issued a devastating rebuke. In Letter 253, 1903, she wrote directly to Kellogg:
“The book Living Temple is not to be patched up, a few changes made in it, and then advertised and praised as a valuable production… Patchwork theories cannot be accepted by those who are loyal to the faith and to the principles that have withstood all the opposition of satanic influences.” (Lt253-1903; The Forgotten Pillar, p. 46, 54)
The “patchwork theories” in the context are particularly referencing the doctrine of Trinity by which dr. Kellogg wanted to patch up the Living Temple. Indeed, the trinity doctrine cannot be accepted by those who are loyal to the faith and the principles - the Fundamental Principles - the foundation of Seventh-day Adventist faith laid at the beginning. She identified the core issue not merely as pantheism, but as a departure from the established pillar regarding God’s person: “It introduces that which is naught but speculation in regard to the personality of God and where His presence is.” (SpTB02 51.3; The Forgotten Pillar, p. 9).
Contextualizing the “Heavenly Trio”
What about the famous “Heavenly Trio” quote? Trinitarian historians frequently use this as proof of Ellen White’s endorsement of the Trinity. However, when we read the quotation in its immediate literary context alongside the writings of Trinitarian author William Boardman, a striking contrast emerges.
In Higher Christian Life, William Boardman taught the notion that one God is three persons by using illustrations of nature (light, dew, rain). Boardman himself explained the sentiments he wanted to illustrate with those illustrations:
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 of the living God. 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 of the living God.” {William Boardman, The Higher Christian Life, p. 104,105}
Ellen White was instructed by God to call out these exact Trinitarian sentiments:
“I am instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted. Such representations as the following are made: ‘The Father is as the light invisible; the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit as the light shed abroad.’ … All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue… The Father cannot be described by the things of earth.” (Ms21-1906; The Forgotten Pillar, p. 187, 194)
Without this context, people assume she is defending the Trinity. But with the context, we see she is opposing the very essence of it. She deliberately takes Boardman’s concept of “three living persons of the living God” (one God) and corrects it to “three living persons of the heavenly trio.” A trio is a group of distinct three persons; it is not one Triune God.
The “Nail in the Coffin”: The Trajectory of Adventism
This brings us to the crux of the issue, and where Dr. Kaiser’s argument ultimately cracks.
Dr. Kaiser presents data showing a trajectory—a gradual shift in Adventist literature away from the pioneer view and toward Trinitarianism. He frames this as “progressive development.” But look at the timing: The Kellogg Crisis, Letter 253, and the “Heavenly Trio” manuscript occurred between 1903 and 1906—at the very end of Ellen White’s life.
She was not leading the church into new Trinitarian light. She was observing a church that was drifting away from the “foundation principles of present truth,” and she was aggressively pulling them back to the original foundation. She wrote:
“The past fifty years have not dimmed one jot or principle of our faith as we received the great and wonderful evidences that were made certain to us in 1844… Not a word is changed or denied… Pillars of truth were revealed, and we accepted the foundation principles that have made us what we are.” (Lt326-1905; The Forgotten Pillar, p. 251)
Here is the tragic paradox of modern Adventist scholarship: The data Dr. Kaiser presents is actually a documentation of the church drifting from its foundation. During the exact same period that scholars were beginning to drift into Trinitarian views, Ellen White was desperately pointing the church back to the original doctrine on the Personality of God.
Ultimately, what Dr. Kaiser and modern scholars condemn (the early pioneer view on God’s personality), Ellen White explicitly approved and defended as the “platform of eternal truth.” And what Dr. Kaiser approves (the progressive drift into Trinitarianism), Ellen White condemned as “patchwork theories” and the “alpha of deadly heresies.”
Conclusion: A Call to Return to the Foundations
We offer this constructive evaluation not to attack, but to earnestly encourage a deep, honest study of our history. We cannot harmonize the premises of the original Adventist doctrine on the Personality of God with the doctrine of the Trinity. One demands a God with a literal form and a localized presence; the other demands a formless, essence-based, omnipresent Tri-unity.
We invite all sincere seekers of truth to rediscover the clarity of the God our pioneers worshipped. Let us not ignore the importance of the Fundamental Principles, but rather heed the prophetic call to hold fast to the platform of eternal truth:
“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.”
For detailed study on the development of the doctrine on the personality of God, download the Forgotten Pillar book - available free of charge on our website.
See also: Anti-Trinitarianism in disguise?