In a recent video titled “This LIE About the Trinity Is Spreading Like WILDFIRE Among Seventh-day Adventists,” brother Greg Sereda addresses the growing number of Adventists questioning the doctrine of the Trinity. He expresses a genuine concern for the purity of the Gospel and the unity of the church. We commend his desire to uphold the divinity of Christ and the reality of the Holy Spirit, as these are non-negotiable pillars of the Christian faith.
However, in the spirit of honest Bible study and historical accuracy, it is necessary to examine the arguments presented. Are the claims made about our pioneers, the Fundamental Principles, and the nature of God consistent with the weight of evidence found in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy? Drawing from the research presented in The Forgotten Pillar and Rediscovering the Pillar, we offer this constructive critique to help clarify the issues at hand.
The Authority of the Pioneers vs. Sola Scriptura
The Argument:
Greg argues that relying on the pioneers is a flawed method, akin to the Catholic reliance on Church Fathers. He states: “Depending on their early misunderstandings to define doctrine is really the same mistake that Catholic Church makes… Anti-Trinitarians elevate the SDA pioneers above Scripture.” (09:44)
The Response:
This is a valid caution; no human being is our final authority. However, this argument creates a straw man. Those questioning the Trinity today do not do so because they worship the pioneers, but because they believe the pioneers found the Biblical truth regarding God.
Ellen White did not view the pioneers’ early experience as a collection of “misunderstandings.” She described it as a specific work of the Holy Spirit establishing the foundation of the church. In 1905, long after the church was established, she wrote:
“The Lord has declared that the history of the past shall be rehearsed as we enter upon the closing work… We cannot now step off the foundation that God has established.” (Ms 129, 1905; The Forgotten Pillar, p. 253)
The appeal to the pioneers is not an appeal to tradition, but an appeal to the foundation that God Himself laid through them. To claim that the foundational understanding of God held by the movement for 50 years was a “misunderstanding” is to question the providence of God in raising up the Remnant Church.
The Fundamental Principles: Ambiguous or Clear?
The Argument:
Greg asserts that the 1872 Fundamental Principles were unofficial and do not explicitly deny the Trinity. He claims: “What’s interesting about the statement is that it doesn’t really confirm or deny the Trinity… as a Trinitarian, I can read through it without being offended.” (03:41)
The Response:
While it is true that the Fundamental Principles were not a binding creed (because Adventists have no creed but the Bible), they were published for decades as the unanimous faith of the body. Can a Trinitarian truly agree with them? Let us look at the first point:
“That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things… and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit.” Fundamental Principles 1872, Point I
This statement defines the “one God” as a single personal being (the Father), not a unity of three. In the Trinitarian view, the “one God” is the unity of three persons. The 1872 Principles identify the Father alone as the one God, and the Holy Spirit as His representative. These are two mutually exclusive views of monotheism.
Furthermore, Ellen White defended these very principles during the Kellogg crisis. When Dr. Kellogg introduced theories that changed the personality of God, she warned that his views would “lead astray the minds of those who are not thoroughly established on the foundation principles of present truth” (SpTB02 51.3; The Forgotten Pillar, p. 26). She was defending the specific view of God held by the pioneers, not a vague theology that allowed for Trinitarianism.
Progressive Truth vs. Changing the Foundation
The Argument:
The video suggests that the shift to the Trinity was a natural result of “progressive truth” and deeper Bible study. Greg states: “The early semi-Aryan ideas about the Godhead were not a final settled position… but part of a developing understanding.” (02:54)
The Response:
There is a distinct difference between progressive truth and contradictory truth. Progressive truth elaborates on the foundation; it does not uproot it. The doctrine of the Trinity changes the identity of the God we worship.
Sister White warned that in the last days, “The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists… The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church would be discarded. Our religion would be changed” (SpTB02 54.3; The Forgotten Pillar, p. 22).
The move from “One God (the Father)” to “One God (the Trinity)” is a fundamental change in the object of worship, fitting the description of the “reformation” of error Ellen White warned against.
The Divinity of Christ: Begotten, Not Created
The Argument:
Greg claims that the non-Trinitarian view reduces Christ’s divinity: “Anti-Trinitarians reduce the divinity of Jesus by claiming that he had a beginning.” (16:13) He cites Ellen White’s statement that in Christ is life “original, unborrowed, underived” to prove He cannot be begotten.
The Response:
This is a common misunderstanding. Believing that Christ is the begotten Son of God does not make Him a created being. A son inherits the nature of his father. Because Christ is begotten of God, He is fully God by nature. He is the express image of the Father’s person (Hebrews 1:3).
A complete offering has been made; for “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,”—not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. ST May 30, 1895, par. 3
Regarding the quote “original, unborrowed, underived,” we must look at the context. Jesus Himself explains the source of His life in John 5:26: “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” Christ possesses original life because the Father gave it to Him. This does not diminish His divinity; it establishes it upon His true Sonship.
As clarified in Rediscovering the Pillar, we cannot fully comprehend how Christ is from everlasting (Micah 5:2) and yet truly begotten, but we accept the Scripture by faith. It is a similar challenge to accept the contradictory notions by faith, just as one trinitarian accepts the contradictory notion of one God yet three. We are not battling against the rationale, but against unbelief. To deny Christ’s true Sonship to His Father, and to vail Him merely as a a metaphor or role-play is to deny the plain reading of the Bible and the love of God in giving His true Son. For this reason, we reject humanly constructed frameworks of God, and we cling to the simple revelation of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy: “God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God.” {8T 268.3}
The Personality of the Holy Spirit
The Argument:
Greg argues that anti-Trinitarians view the Spirit as an “impersonal force”. He rightly points out that one cannot lie to a force (Acts 5:3-4) and that the Spirit has personal attributes (teaching, grieving, etc.).
The Response:
It is incorrect to say that the pioneer view makes the Spirit an impersonal force. The Fundamental Principles call the Spirit God’s “representative.” A representative is not a force; a representative is personal.
However, there is a distinction in how the Spirit is a person compared to the Father and Son. Ellen White states:
“The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits… He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God.” (Ms 20, 1906)
“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 the express image of My Father’s person!’ [Hebrews 1:3.]. {EGW; 18LtMs, Lt 253, 1903, par. 12}
Yes, Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons, but not in the same way, not co-equal in personality. The Holy Spirit is a person, because as a representative “bears witness”, and similar qualities brother Greg pointed out. But the Father and the Son are persons possessing the visible form of a person. The Heaven is a physical place, where God and Christ physically (personally) dwell, but Both of them are everywhere present through the agency of the Holy Spirit. This was the central argument of Ellen White battling dr. Kellogg’s pantheism, which devoided the God and Christ of their personal forms. As evidences suggested in the Forgotten Pillar book, this was done by equalizing the personality of the Holy Spirit (which is a person in a functional sense), with the personality of God and of Christ (persons in an ontological sense). It is true that there are three living persons of the Heavenly Trio, but not all three persons are persons in equal sense, neither are they making “one God”.
The “Heavenly Trio” vs. The Trinity: Context Matters
The Argument:
At 07:25, Greg presents what is often considered the “ultimate weapon” in the Trinitarian arsenal regarding Ellen White’s writings. He quotes Evangelism, p. 615: “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…”
Greg argues that although she uses the word “trio” instead of “Trinity,” the description “unmistakably affirms three distinct Divine Persons working together in perfect unity, which is in harmony with the doctrine of the Trinity.” He asserts that this contradicts the position of those who deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.
The Examination:
Greg makes a valid point that Ellen White recognized three distinct personalities: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Fundamental Principles never denied the existence or agency of the Holy Spirit; rather, they affirmed the Spirit as God’s Representative (see Fundamental Principles 1872, Point I).
However, Greg’s conclusion—that “Heavenly Trio” is synonymous with the modern doctrine of the “Trinity”—relies on a superficial reading of the text while ignoring the historical context in which it was written. When we examine the original manuscript (Ms 21, 1906), we discover that Ellen White was not defending the Trinitarian view, but was actually refuting specific Trinitarian sentiments that spiritualized away the personality of the Father.
The Counter-Evidence (Context from The Forgotten Pillar):
To understand what Ellen White meant by “Heavenly Trio,” we must look at what she was responding to in the very same manuscript.
In Manuscript 21, 1906, just paragraphs before the “Heavenly Trio” statement, Ellen White quotes specific representations of God that she was instructed to reject. She writes:
“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.’… ‘The Father is like the invisible vapor. The Son is like the leaden cloud. The Spirit is rain fallen and working in refreshing power.’” {EGW; Ms21-1906.8}
Where did these illustrations come from? As detailed in The Forgotten Pillar (Chapter 18), these are direct quotes from a book Ellen White owned called The Higher Christian Life by William Boardman. These were not pantheistic sentiments, but trinitarian sentiments. Boardman used these specific metaphors (Light, Dew, Rain) to illustrate the functional relations of the three persons of the Trinity. He himself clarified his 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. This was the instruction by God, through Ellen White, against the trinitarian sentiments.
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.
She did not write this to move the church toward the Trinity, but to pull them back to the foundation that the Father and Son are two distinct, tangible beings, and the Holy Spirit is the third distinct person in a spiritual sense—a truth that the Trinitarian “three-in-one” and “three co-equal persons” concept obscures. For a deeper dive into this historical context and Boardman’s influence, see The Forgotten Pillar, Chapters 17 and 18.
Conclusion: The Wildfire of Truth
Greg titles his video “This LIE… Is Spreading Like WILDFIRE.” We view this “wildfire” differently. We believe it is the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Ellen White:
The Lord has declared that the history of the past shall be rehearsed as we enter upon the closing work. Every truth that He has given for these last days is to be proclaimed to the world. Every pillar that He has established is to be strengthened. We cannot now step off the foundation that God has established. We cannot now enter into any new organization; for this would mean apostasy from the truth. {20LtMs, Ms 129, 1905, par. 6}
By “every truth”, and “every pillar”, she is including the pillar of our faith on the presence and the personality of God and of Christ. These truths encompasses correct understanding of Three Angels’ Messages, especially emphasizing true God Whom we ought to worship.
The First Angel’s Message calls us to worship the Creator. Who is the Creator? The Bible tells us that God (the Father) created all things by Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:9). To worship the Trinity is to worship a different God than the one presented in the first angel’s message and the one worshipped by our pioneers.
We invite all honest seekers to look past the labels of “Arian” or “Heretic” and simply open the Bible and the history of God’s leading. The foundation laid at the beginning was not a mistake; it was the work of the Masterworker. Rediscovering the true personality of God—the Father—and His literal Son is not a step backward; it is the key to understanding the depth of God’s love and the true power of the Gospel.
