Clarification
I was introduced to a video of Brother Scott Ritsema by a friend of mine, who asked for a reply. Because I am running short on time, I added the video and the Forgotten Pillar book to the AI and asked it to write a constructive reply to Brother Scott. The following was figured out entirely by AI, which is significant in my opinion. If artificial intelligence can understand it, then surely God’s created intelligence should understand it too. I hope this will be an edifying article.
Introduction
Recently, a video presentation by Brother Scott Ritsema (link) has circulated, offering a perspective on the historical development of the doctrine of the Godhead within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The presentation traces a path from the acknowledged anti-Trinitarian views of some early pioneers to the eventual adoption of the Trinitarian understanding reflected in our current Fundamental Beliefs. While Brother Scott utilizes historical documents and familiar Ellen G. White quotations to build his case for a legitimate, progressive development of doctrine, a closer examination, particularly through the lens of the research compiled in “The Forgotten Pillar,” reveals significant discrepancies and necessitates a more thorough, contextual analysis.
The truth, especially concerning the personality of God and the foundations of our faith, often lies in the details. Misinterpretations, even unintentional ones, can arise when historical context is overlooked or when specific theological terms are redefined across generations. This article aims to offer a constructive critique of the video’s narrative, not out of contention, but out of a deep desire for historical accuracy and faithfulness to the “old landmarks” established by God Himself through His word and the prophetic gift entrusted to this movement. We will utilize the evidence presented in “The Forgotten Pillar” (2nd Edition, Book Print) to highlight areas where the video’s interpretation appears to diverge from the documented historical and theological realities of early Adventism, inviting all to engage in a constructive dialogue based on the evidence.
1. The Centrality and Meaning of the “Personality of God”
Brother Scott’s presentation acknowledges the initial anti-Trinitarian leanings of figures like James White and Joseph Bates (0:07:29), often framing these views as “baggage” or early errors that were eventually corrected through progressive light (0:09:06 - 0:10:55). However, “The Forgotten Pillar” argues compellingly that this understanding minimizes the profound theological significance of what the pioneers termed the “Personality of God.”
For the pioneers, this was not a vague concept but a foundational pillar of faith, explicitly defined and understood through the lens of 19th-century language (“the quality or state of being a person” - Forgotten Pillar, p. 4, 12, 89). It specifically referred to the biblical truth that God the Father is a literal, tangible, personal Being, possessing a body and form, dwelling in a specific location – the heavenly sanctuary. His omnipresence was understood not as a bodily diffusion throughout space, but through the agency of His representative, the Holy Spirit. This was the doctrine established by God after 1844, enshrined in the early Fundamental Principles.
“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 1889, I; Forgotten Pillar, p. 25, 75, 289)
“What is God? He is material, organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. Man is in his image.” (James S. White, The Personality of God, 1861; Forgotten Pillar, p. 109)
“We now see the Scriptures clearly teach, that God is a person with a body and form. Then Genesis 1:26, may be understood to teach the fact, that man was made in the form of God…” (J. N. Loughborough, Review and Herald, Sep 18, 1855; Forgotten Pillar, p. 97)
This understanding was derived directly from Scripture (e.g., Daniel 7:9, Exodus 33:20-23, Hebrews 1:3, John 14:9) and explicitly confirmed by Ellen White’s visions.
“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!’” (EGW, Early Writings, p. 77; Forgotten Pillar, p. 31, 45, 55, 163, 219)
Ellen White declared this foundational truth, expressed clearly in the early Fundamental Principles, to be unchanging and divinely attested:
“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, after the passing of the time. … Not a word is changed or denied. That which the Holy Spirit testified to as truth after the passing of the time, in our great disappointment, is the solid foundation of truth. Pillars of truth were revealed, and we accepted the foundation principles that have made us what we are—Seventh-day Adventists, keeping the commandments of God and having the faith of Jesus.” (EGW, Lt 326-1905.3; Forgotten Pillar, p. 200, 231, 238)
Reducing the pioneers’ clear, biblically-based, and prophetically confirmed stance on the Father’s personal, embodied nature to mere “error” overlooks the divine establishment of this foundational pillar, which they held “with great unanimity” (Forgotten Pillar, p. 21, 71).
2. Pioneer Rejection of the Trinity: Reasoned Stance, Not Ignorance
Following from the above, the pioneers’ rejection of the Trinity doctrine was not simply due to “Christian Connexion baggage” or a lack of study. Their writings, as documented in “The Forgotten Pillar,” show a reasoned rejection based on their conviction that the Trinity doctrine was unbiblical and, crucially, destroyed the Personality of God (the Father’s tangible being) and the distinct Sonship of Christ as they understood it from Scripture.
“Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ…” (James White, Review & Herald, Dec 11, 1855; Forgotten Pillar, p. 54, 127)
“The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nicea, A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord…” (J. N. Andrews, Review & Herald, March 6, 1855; Forgotten Pillar, p. 54, 133, 135)
They viewed the Trinity, particularly concepts like a “three-in-one God” or God being “without body or parts” (Forgotten Pillar p. 122), as originating in human philosophy and paganism (Forgotten Pillar, p. 131-133), contradicting the plain biblical revelation of the Father’s distinct, personal form and Christ’s literal Sonship.
3. Ellen G. White’s Writings: Understanding How Each is a Person
Brother Scott highlights later Ellen White statements referring to “three living persons,” the “heavenly trio,” the “third person,” and the Holy Spirit’s “personality” (0:29:31 - 0:32:00). While authentic, “The Forgotten Pillar” argues these must be understood within her consistent framework, which differentiates how the Father and Son are persons from how the Holy Spirit is a person – a distinction critical to the original doctrine of God’s Personality and Presence, and contrary to the traditional Trinitarian view (adopted in our current Fundamental Beliefs) that they are persons in the same way.
- Father and Son as Persons: Ellen White explicitly grounds Their personhood in Their form. When asking about the Father, she specifically inquires about His form being like Christ’s. Christ is the “express image of His Father’s person.” This aligns with the pioneer view rooted in verses describing God’s form, face, hands, etc. (Forgotten Pillar, p. 180-181, 188). Their personhood involves tangible, embodied existence.
“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!’” (EGW, Early Writings, p. 77; Forgotten Pillar, p. 31, 45, 55, 163, 219)
- Holy Spirit as a Person: When Ellen White defines how the Holy Spirit is a person, she points to His distinct divine agency and function:
“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.” (EGW, Ms 20, 1906; Forgotten Pillar, p. 147, 155)
“The Holy Spirit is a person; for He beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God.” (EGW, Ms 20, 1906; Forgotten Pillar, p. 147, 155)
The evidence or basis of His personality cited here is His action (bearing witness, searching), establishing His distinct divine intelligence and agency. She never ascribes physical form to the Holy Spirit in the way she does for the Father and Son; He is Spirit, the representative, the “spiritual manifestation” (Forgotten Pillar, p. 156), the means by which the Father and Son are omnipresent.
-
The Crucial Contrast: This revealed difference is central to the original pillar of the Personality of God and His Presence:
-
Father/Son: Personal Beings with form. Their “how” involves tangible, localized presence.
-
Holy Spirit: A Divine Person whose “how” is based on agency and function (bearing witness, representing, omnipresence as Spirit), distinct from the embodied form of the Father and Son.
-
“God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being, for man was made in His image. As a personal being, God has revealed Himself in His Son…” (EGW, Ed 131.5; Forgotten Pillar, p. 106) – The Father’s personality is explicitly linked to image/form.
Ignoring how each member of the “heavenly trio” functions and exists according to revelation, and instead assuming they are persons in the same way (as traditional Trinitarianism and our current FBs imply), leads to the very confusion Ellen White warned against regarding speculation on God’s nature.
- Context of “Trio”: The “heavenly trio” statement (Ms 21, 1906), far from endorsing the Trinity, is arguably an anti-Trinitarian statement when read in its full context as detailed in Chapter XVIII of “The Forgotten Pillar.” It was written while Ellen White was directly refuting William Boardman’s Trinitarian concepts (three persons of one God illustrated by dew, rain, etc.). She corrected his “spiritualistic representations” (“not to be trusted”) by affirming the cooperation of the three distinct divine powers/agencies (Father, Son, Spirit), not a three-in-one entity. Her use of “trio” (simply a group of three) was a direct correction of, not an endorsement of, the Trinitarian sentiment she was explicitly warning against (Forgotten Pillar, p. 171-179, 183). This context is vital and often omitted in presentations using this quote to support Trinitarianism.
4. Progressive Development or Prophesied Apostasy? The Kellogg Parallel
The video frames the shift towards Trinitarianism as positive doctrinal development (~0:07:01, ~0:10:37). “The Forgotten Pillar,” drawing on Ellen White’s explicit warnings, presents this as a departure from the original, divinely established foundation – an apostasy.
“The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place… consist[ing] in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith… Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles… would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established…” (EGW, SpTB02 54.3 [1904]; Forgotten Pillar, p. 10-11, 62, 234, 250)
This departure from the Fundamental Principles mirrors the initial step taken by Dr. Kellogg. His crisis began precisely by questioning and spiritualizing the Personality of God (the Father’s tangible nature and location) as expressed in the first point of the Fundamental Principles (Forgotten Pillar, p. 80-83, 140, 148, 201). Ellen White identified this departure—speculation regarding the Personality of God and His presence—as the core error, the “alpha of deadly heresies.”
“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.” (EGW to Kellogg, Lt 300-1903.7; Forgotten Pillar, p. 6, 201)
While Kellogg’s trajectory, combining this error with a misapplication of God’s presence in nature, led him ultimately to pantheism, the subsequent institutional shift led the church to embrace the Trinitarian doctrine found in our current Fundamental Belief #2. Both represent a “stepping off the foundation” established by God in the beginning, replacing the revealed truth of the Father’s Personality with concepts rooted in “intellectual philosophy” and unbiblical tradition. The critical point is that the initial departure from the Fundamental Principles was the same, even if the final destinations (Kellogg’s pantheism vs. institutional Trinitarianism) differed.
Conclusion: A Call to Personal Examination of the Data
Brother Scott’s presentation provides one interpretation of Adventist history. “The Forgotten Pillar” offers a documented counter-narrative, demonstrating that the original, divinely attested foundation of Seventh-day Adventism included a non-Trinitarian understanding of God’s Personality, centered on the Father as the one true God, a literal Being with form, whose Son inherited His divine nature, and whose presence is universal through Their Spirit – a distinct divine Person defined by agency, not form.
The crucial question remains: do we stand on the foundation God established through Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy in the beginning, as expressed in the original Fundamental Principles, or on one built later through human reasoning and tradition, mirroring the very departure Ellen White identified as the “alpha” in the Kellogg crisis?
This requires more than accepting established narratives or trusting any human interpretation without prejudice, including ours or Brother Scott’s. It demands personal, prayerful examination of the primary sources – the Bible read in its obvious sense unless a symbol is clearly employed (Forgotten Pillar, p. 216), the complete context of Ellen White’s authenticated writings (distinguishing published works from potentially unauthenticated reports, Forgotten Pillar p. 300-302), and the historical documents and arguments of our pioneers. Let us not merely trust interpretations, but diligently “search the scriptures” and the historical data for ourselves, allowing the Holy Spirit—the Representative of the Father and Son—to guide us into all truth.
“Our people need to understand the reasons of our faith and our past experiences… We need to urge all to put on their spiritual eyeglasses… and discern the true pillars of the faith… We need to revive the old evidences of the faith once delivered to the saints.” (EGW, SW April 5, 1904; Forgotten Pillar, p. 266-267)
May we have the courage to examine the data honestly, engage in constructive dialogue, and hold fast to the truths that God Himself established as the foundation of this movement.