All of the pioneers of the early Seventh-day Adventist church were non-trinitarian
Actually they were against the faulty definition, as held by many, such as Roman Catholicism, and the protestant churches that were in error:
However, let's consider this word “trinity”:
Wikipedia [quick source]:
“...
The word "trinity" is derived from Latin trinitas, meaning "the number three, a triad, tri".
This abstract noun is formed from the adjective trinus (three each,
threefold, triple),[21] as the word unitas is the abstract noun formed from unus (one).
The corresponding word in Greek is tριάς, meaning "a set of three" or "the number three".[22] The first recorded use of this Greek word in Christian theology was by
Theophilus of Antioch in about the year of 170. He wrote:[23][24]
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity
[Τριάδος], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.[25]
Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early 3rd century, is credited as being the first to use the Latin words "Trinity",[26] "person" and "substance"[27] to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "tres personae, una substantia".[28] While "personae" is often translated as "persons," the Latin word personae is better understood as referring to roles as opposed to individual centers of consciousness. ...” -
Trinity - Wikipedia
Already we can see 2 varying definitions,
[1] between Ignatius of Antioch [which is were they were first called “Christians” [Acts 11:26 KJB]], and
[2] the later Latin Tertullian, which included “una substantia”.
Yet, throughout history there are further definitions of the word.
Other words related or similar in meaning from Webster's 1828 Dictionary:
“
TRINITY, n. [L. trinitas; tres and unus, unitas, one, unity.]
In theology, the union of three persons in one Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
In my whole essay, there is not any thing like an objection against the Trinity.
TRIUNE, a. [L. tres and unus.] Three in one; an epithet applied to God, to express the unity of the Godhead in a trinity of persons.
TRIUNITY, n. Trinity. [Not used.]
TRIUMVIR, n. [L. tres, three, and vir, man.] One of three men united in office. The triumvirs, L. triumviri, of Rome, were three men who jointly obtained the sovereign power in Rome. The first of these were Caesar, Crassus and Pompey.
TRIUMVIRATE, a. A coalition of three men; particularly, the union of three men who obtained the government of the Roman empire.
1. Government by three men in coalition.”
The word “trinity” or even “tri-in-unity” in Greek, simply means “threefold”, or “set of three”, and has
nothing to do with an inherent idea of “una substantia” as Tertullian defines, thouhg it could be defined to include such. We see that Ellen G. White in the SoP./ToJ uses English words
“three”,
“trio” and
“threefold” on numerous occasions.
Here is the official Roman Catholic definition of “trinity”, which in reality is 'singularity':
The Roman Catholic Definition of the word “Trinity”:
Online Roman Catholic Library; Credo of the People of God; Promulgated by Pope Paul VI on June 30, 1968 - CATHOLIC LIBRARY: The Credo of the People of God (1968)
“We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love. Thus in the Three Divine Persons, coaeternae sibi et coaequales,[8] the life and beatitude of God perfectly one superabound and are consummated in the supreme excellence and glory proper to uncreated being, and always "there should be venerated unity in the Trinity and Trinity in the unity."[9]”
Online Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, Holy Spirit; sections throughout -
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Holy Ghost
“... that the Paraclete "is not to be considered as unconnected with the Father and the Son, for He is with Them one in substance and divinity"...
... Proceeding both from the Father and the Son, the Holy Ghost, nevertheless, proceeds from Them as from a single principle. ... Hence it follows, indeed, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the two other Persons, not in so far as They are distinct, but inasmuch as Their Divine perfection is numerically one. Besides, such is the explicit teaching of ecclesiastical tradition, which is concisely put by St. Augustine (On the Holy Trinity V.14): "As the Father and the Son are only one God and, relatively to the creature, only one Creator and one Lord, so, relatively to the Holy Ghost, They are only one principle." This doctrine was definded in the following words by the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons [Denzinger, "Enchiridion" (1908), n. 460]: "We confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by one single spiration." The teaching was again laid down by the Council of Florence (ibid., n. 691), and by Eugene IV in his Bull "Cantate Domino" (ibid., n. 703 sq.). ...
..."the Holy Ghost comes from the Father and from the Son not made, not created, not generated, but proceeding" ...”
The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV by Pope Eugene IV -
The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV
“The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent, unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; one in essence, three in persons; Father unborn, Son born of the Father, Holy Spirit proceeding from Father and Son; that the Father is not Son or Holy Spirit, that Son is not Father or Holy Spirit; that Holy Spirit is not Father or Son; but Father alone is Father, Son alone is Son, Holy Spirit alone is Holy Spirit. The Father alone begot the Son of His own substance; the Son alone was begotten of the Father alone; the Holy Spirit alone proceeds at the same time from the Father and Son.
These three persons are one God, and not three gods, because the three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, where no opposition of relationship interferes.
“Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning.” Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle. ...”
I do
not believe the Roman Catholic
definition of the word “trinity”, and neither should you.
Here is how sister White uses the terms
“one substance”:
“... With what firmness and power he uttered these words. The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes. The Jews understood his meaning, there was no reason why they should misunderstand, and they took up stones to stone him. Jesus looked upon them calmly and unshrinkingly, and said, “Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me?” ...” - The Signs of the Times November 27, 1893 paragraph 5 (Ellen G. White) & see also SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7A (EGW), p. 437.3; 1970 (citing Ellen G. White)
Thus sister White defines her own use.
“one substance” =
“possessing the same attributes”,
not that they [Father and Son] were “one Being”, or “one Person” “without body or parts”, etc., and
“[t]he Jews understood his meaning”.
This is similar in saying:
“... The only way in which the fallen race could be restored was through the gift of his Son, equal with himself, possessing the attributes of God. ...” - The Review and Herald November 8, 1892 paragraph 3 (Ellen G. White)
Which is similar to:
“... Satan charged God with possessing the attributes that he himself possessed. Christ came to this world to reveal God's character as it really is. He is the perfect representation of the Father. His life of sinlessness, lived on this earth in human nature, is a complete refutation of Satan's charge against the character of God. {BTS, October 1, 1902 par. 2}
Thousands of years before, Christ had shown to Moses the character of the Father, passing before him and proclaiming, "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." "Thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." {BTS, October 1, 1902 par. 3} ...” - Bible Training School October 1, 1902 paragraph 2 - 3 (Ellen G. White)
This is similar in saying to, Jesus and the disciples:
“... The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. ...” - The Ministry of Healing, p. 242.4 & 422.1; 1905 (Ellen G. White)
Ellen. G. White [thus SoP/ToJ] does
not ever
[at least that I am personally aware of in her written materials, and I do not know if she ever said the word vocally or not] use the specific word
“trinity”.
Yet, this works against, just as well as for.
Why?
If she never mentions the word, not in favor, nor against in a single SoP/ToJ statement, then
why is there all of this heat and no light coming from certain brethren? Honestly, why? If it was such a big deal to sister White, or to God for that matter over this word, rather than definition, where is the specific counsel to avoid it, shun it, not use it because of its Roman origins?
You see, the argument easily goes both ways, because it is a wax-nose “She was for it!”, “She was against it!”, and satan laughs.
The truth is, she wrote nothing about the word “trinity” one way or the other in the SoP/ToJ, and the same goes for the scripture [KJB], and that is what is truly irrefutable
.
It's just a word, like the word “napkin”, “boot”, “bonnet”, and in the united States, England and Australia, those words mean different things, depending upon the definition. How is that word, “trinity”, defined by any specific person/s would make a difference now wouldn't it? What she did do, and this without question, is use the words
“three”,
“trio”,
“threefold” and
“three … are united” specifically:
“... Three distinct agencies, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, work together for human beings. They are united in the work of making the church on earth like the church in heaven. ...” - Ms 27a, 1900 (April 19, 1900) par. 22
“... “The likeness.” They are buried in the likeness of Christ’s death and raised in the likeness of His resurrection. And then what? All heaven is pledged in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost they receive at their baptism. That heavenly party is pledged that They will be with you to keep your baptismal vows, and that you shall rise up from the water to live in newness of life. “Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” And then you are to live the new life unto Jesus Christ. He loves you. He has made all these provisions, that the power of Satan should be broken off from human minds, that you should take hold of a power, yes, a power. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—all these blend, and in Their strength you can be overcomers by the blood of the Lamb and the words of your testimony. Will you try it? Will you watch, will you pray, will you have your seasons to lay hold of the promises? I want heaven. ...” - Ms 144, 1906 (September 22, 1906) par. 25
Some utilize this fact that Ellen G. White didn't use the word in her writing, as evidence for the invalidity, uninspiredness or even wickedness of the word “trinity”.
This is a logical fallacy.
Absence of citation is not evidence for invalidity, etc.
Otherwise, the same could be stated of other words, but also not found in the SoP/ToJ. For instance, Ellen G. White, in the SoP/ToJ does
not ever use the word
“Dinosaur/s”,
“Dinosauria”, etc.
Are we to assume because of that, and using the same logic, that the words are pagan, wicked, invalid to use?
Only a foolish and unreasoning person would so say.
They are simply a latinized term describing the Biblical/scriptural [KJB] word/beasts known as “dragon/s”, “fiery flying serpents”, “Behemoth”, “Leviathan”, etc.
Likewise, Ellen G. White does
not use the word
“asteroid” [1802], but does use the word
“meteor” [13c-15c], and so on.