SDA scholars admit that Adventism has a different "Trinity" doctrine than orthodox Christianity! See also: Helpful Christian Quotes on the Trinity

SDA "Trinity" Audio Exposé - hear the SDAs in their own words! (See the sources for the audio compilation here.)

Also, you can view this webpage in PDF format, by clicking here. (Note: not all of the links will work in the PDF version, and neither will RefTagger.)

Jump down to subsections of this page:

What Does Adventism's Clear Word "Bible" Teach About the Trinity?
Ellen White's Teaching
Denial of Christ's Omnipresence
Denial of the Incorporeality of God
Conclusion

Does the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and their prophetess Ellen G. White, teach the Biblical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity? As we will see, the answer to that question is, "No"--despite the fact that the SDA Church now uses the term "Trinity." (As for Ellen G. White, she was careful never to use the term in all of her published writings--a remarkable feat, considering her extensive plagiarism.) The reality is that Seventh-day Adventism is actually anti-Trinitarian and teaches Tritheism (three gods), just like the Mormons do.

First, here is a good description of the Christian definition of the Trinity:

"In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as 'three persons in one God,' all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. [...]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trinity&oldid=148650755)

The Biblical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is only one God (which is affirmed throughout the Old and New Testaments). In other words, there is only one living Being that is God. As the Nicene Creed affirms, Jesus Christ is "of one Being with the Father." God is one spirit, not three spirits. He is one being, not three beings. Otherwise, we would have three gods.

In the early days of Seventh-day Adventism, they (including their prophetess Ellen G. White) taught some form of Arianism--denying the eternality of Jesus Christ, denying the personality of the Holy Spirit, and teaching bitheism, or two gods: the eternal Father and the non-eternal Son. Eventually, "the Holy Spirit" got added into this "Godhead" as one of "three living persons of the heavenly trio"1 and one of "the three holiest Beings in heaven"2--and the current SDA teaching of Tritheism (that there are three divine beings in "the Godhead" who are "one" only in purpose, character, etc.) was born. In other words, Adventism's teaching of polytheism is foundational, fundamental, and continuing--and goes deep into the roots/foundation of Adventism, which was established by their "pioneers" (including their prophetess Ellen G. White). The SDA Church gradually adopted the use of the term "Trinity" to describe this tritheistic view of the Godhead, eventually culminating in the official General Conference session endorsement, in 1946, of a statement of beliefs that incorporated the word "Trinity."3 Beginning in 1980, the SDA Church finally stated (although, in reality, disingenuously as we'll see later) in their official statement of "Fundamental Beliefs" that Christ is "eternal."4

So while they now, officially, use the term "Trinity," in reality they deny the Trinity and actually teach Tritheism, just like the Mormons do. The Mormons will also use the term Trinity, as does modalist preacher T.D. Jakes. But that does not make any of them Trinitarian, any more than the Jehovah's Witnessess using the terms "Jesus Christ" or "Son of God" means that they believe in the real Jesus of the Bible. They have simply redefined Christian terms--and so have the Mormons, T.D. Jakes, and the Seventh-day Adventists, with regard to the term "Trinity." In fact, as we will see later on, even the SDA Church's own theologians/scholars admit that Adventism teaches a different "Trinity" doctrine than the historical, orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Now, let us explore what Adventism teaches about this essential point of doctrine.

As mentioned above, the SDA Church uses the word "Trinity" (once--as the title of belief #2) in their current official statement of 28 "Fundamental Beliefs" (although in some instances, the statement of beliefs is published with the word "Godhead" substituted for the word "Trinity"). Here is belief number 2, as found at the official SDA website (adventist.org):

"2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)" (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html)

At first glance many may think that this statement appears to be orthodox-sounding. But we must investigate further to see what they actually mean by this statement. Just as Mormons claim to believe in "one God" but in reality teach Tritheism, this claim by the SDAs is not enough to make them Trinitarian. The statement can make evangelical Christians believe they are orthodox, while at the same time meaning something different within Adventism. (Anyone who is familiar with Adventism knows that this is exactly what they do on many different subjects--they have their own, different definitions for Christian terms.)

PAGE 1

Before looking at further SDA sources, let's first look a little bit closer at this statement itself. Notice that it does not say that there is one God in three persons, but that the "one God" is "a unity of three co-eternal Persons" (capital 'P'). Here is a hint of their teaching that "God" is a group/"trio" of three "divine Beings," which we will see more of later. At first glance, the Fundamental Belief statement may appear to at least be compatible with orthodoxy. But in fact, what it says is not very orthodox at all, and their statement is actually heretical in itself. It states, "There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons." Notice how their "one God" is defined as "a unity of three co-eternal Persons." As Christians, we don't worship "a unity of three"--we worship one living God (one indivisible simple Being who exists as three persons). They define "one God" as a "unity [group] of three" Persons. So even what their official statement is saying is that there is a "united group" or "family" of three "Persons"--and this group is called "God" and there is only "one" group. In fact, in some ways their current statement of Fundamental Beliefs is less orthodox than the pre-1980 statement of beliefs, even though that statement did not say Jesus is eternal. Interestingly, in 1980 they deleted their previous (1931) wording about Jesus, where they had said that he was "of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father." (Although, even that was deceptively stated--even back then they didn't mean the same thing orthodox Christianity means, that God is one Being!) Also, since they define "God" as a group of three, then they are actually lying in this Fundamental Belief statement when they say that they believe that "God" is "ever present," considering the fact that they deny that Jesus Christ is omnipresent (click here to jump down to the section "Denial of Christ's Omnipresence"). In other words, since they redefine and (mis)use the word "God" as a collective (group) noun, then "God" would have to include all three in the "group/trio," and yet they deny that Jesus is omnipresent. Looking at this Fundamental Belief statement further, notice that it also does not say that "God" (the "Trinity") is the Creator. Under belief number 3, they say that the Father "is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation." Under belief number 4, regarding the Son, they will only admit that, "Through Him all things were created..."; and under belief number 5 they say that the Holy Spirit was only "active with the Father and the Son in Creation." This is in direct contradiction to God's Word which says that Jesus is the Creator and Source and Sustainer of all creation. According to God's Word, Jesus is the Sovereign God of the universe. The Biblical truth is that there is only one Being, only one God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--who is the Creator, Source, Sustainer and Sovereign of all creation. Also under belief number 3 ("Father"), they say: "The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father." But, interestingly, they have no similar declarations in their belief statements about the "Son" and the "Holy Spirit." So, in conclusion, as will be overwhelmingly confirmed as we go on, these official "Fundamental Beliefs" actually separate and divide the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into multiple gods.5

The wording of these "Fundamental Beliefs" regarding God was adopted in 1980 at the SDA Church's General Conference Session. To get some background on the SDA's statements about God, let's take a look at the following excerpts from the "Session proceedings" of the "Seventh business meeting" of the "Fifty-third General Conference session" (April 21, 1980, 3:15 P.M.), as published in the April 23, 1980 edition of the Adventist Review (the SDA Church's official "flagship" magazine), starting on page 11 [Note: Neal C. Wilson was the president of the SDA Church at the time]:

"J. W. BOTHE: [Read Section 2 of the Statement.]

"NEAL C. WILSON: Here are several lines packed with a lot of meaning. Who has some help for us on this or some question with regard to the Godhead or Trinity?

[...]

"LEIF HANSEN: In this discussion of the Trinity, which is always a difficult matter to discuss, I wonder if a certain misunderstanding could be eliminated by saying 'a unity in purpose' so that the matter of physical unity may be eliminated.

"NEAL C. WILSON: I see your point there. Maybe we ought to make it a unity in purpose rather than a physical unity.

"J. G. BENNETT: The statement about the Godhead and the Trinity goes on to use the pronoun He. Later as the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are discussed, we use the same pronoun He. I do recognize and accept the Trinity as a collective unity, but I would have a little difficulty in applying the pronoun He to the Trinity or the Godhead. For me this has deep theological implications.

[...]

"H. J. HARRIS: It seems to me we have a conflict or a contradiction in this statement, 'There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of Three co-eternal Persons.' Would not it be more clear if we were to say 'There is one God consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'? We begin with 'one God.' Then, without any explanation, we use 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' Later, we go to 'a unity of Three.'

"RICHARD HAMMILL: There are several comments I would like to make. Regarding this last suggestion, I think it is rather difficult to use the verb consist with God. I think we ought to be very careful in using terms that the Bible does not use of Him. When we framed this statement we tried to use Biblical phrases as much as we could.

[...]

"W. G. C. MURDOCH: I would suggest that we use the expression 'The Godhead or Trinity' rather than 'Trinity.'

"J. J. BATTISTONE: There was a reference to the pronoun He. We are talking about the Godhead, so the antecedent of the pronoun is God, not the three persons. In the reference to His self-revelation in Scripture, I prefer that reading.

"PAUL C. CHIMA: I would suggest that when this goes back to the committee, Sister White's writings be studied to see what term she used to describe God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Let us use a lot of her terminology to define this. Whatever decisions are made and expressions found, let us be content with them.

"W. R. LESHER: I am concerned about words and phrases that would seem to limit God or to change the view of God that is given to us in Scripture. One of these is the suggestion that was made that we not use the word He. I presume that the speaker was referring to the use of 'They' in paragraph 2. And, of course, the statement of Scripture is that 'The Lord our God is One Lord.' And to speak of 'They' or some other pronoun than 'He' would make us tritheist, instead of believing in one God. The expression 'consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' might read more nicely. It seems to me it does introduce a limiting factor. It is much more in harmony with the mystery of God to simply say there is one God— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. My same observation would apply to the expression 'a unity of purpose.' We assume that

PAGE 2

there is a unity of purpose in the Godhead. Still, God is a mystery. And we do not know in what ways that unity might exist other than in purpose. There are some ways in which we can seem to say that God is not a unity. But even then we are not sure what we are talking about. The idea of three Beings that are One is a mystery, and it seems to me that we should not try to remove all of that mystery from the statement.

"N. C. WILSON: I would like now to appoint a committee to do some editing for us with these suggestions in mind. I would like to suggest that Dr. Richard Hammill serve as chairman and that the following serve as members:

"Thomas H. Blincoe, dean of Andrews Theological Seminary

"W. Duncan Eva, of the General Conference

"Larry Geraty, of Andrews University

"W. R. Lesher, from the Biblical Research Institute

"James Londis, pastor and Biblical scholar

"Robert Olson, from the White Estate

"Jan Paulsen, from Newbold College

"Mario Veloso, from South America

"G. R. Thompson, chairman of the Church Manual Committee

"M. T. Battle, secretary of the Church Manual Committee

"This makes a committee of 11.

"It might be well to add R. H. Brown also, since we are dealing with some areas of science." (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1980-20/index.djvu)

From the above excerpts, we can see very clearly that these SDA leaders who helped adopt the official Fundamental Belief statement about the Trinity at the 1980 General Conference Session were, in fact, not Trinitarians, but instead tritheistic in their beliefs, even using the phrase "three Beings" in reference to the "three Persons" mentioned in the belief statement. Also notice, as we will continue to see repeatedly, that in Adventism, the "mystery" about God is how "three Beings" can be "one." This is the exact opposite of Trinitarianism. For the Trinitarian, it is not God's oneness that is the mystery about God (how three "gods" can be "one," as in Adventism), but instead the mystery is how the one living God/Divine Being can be three distinct, but not separate, persons.

Also, click here to open a new page and see that, even by their own admission, the SDAs worded their official statements of "Fundamental Beliefs" quite deceitfully.

In a special edition of the Adventist Review in 1981 (No. 31), they published brief explanations of each of their "Fundamental Beliefs." On page 2, under the heading "About This Issue," they said: "This special issue of the ADVENTIST REVIEW offers a brief but balanced discussion of each of the church's 27 fundamental beliefs. Each discussion is titled and numbered to correspond to the Dallas statement. The staff believes that this issue sets forth accurately the church's present understanding of these 27 doctrines." The following quotes are from section 2, "The Trinity":

"Although other religions include a 'trinity' in their pantheon, only Christianity is marked by a general belief in one triune God—one true and living God (Deut. 6:4) existing in a unity of three distinct coeternal Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The divine Persons in this triune Godhead are immortal, all-powerful, and all-knowing.

"The Godhead is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known to the extent that They have chosen to reveal Themselves. The members of the Godhead have revealed Themselves through the works of Their hands in nature, through providential workings, and in the written Word—the Bible, and in the living Word—Jesus Christ.

[...]

"The three persons of the Godhead are portrayed in the Bible as interrelating to one another in the way expected among persons. They use personal pronouns when speaking of one another (see Matt. 17:5; John 16:13, 28; 17:1). They love and glorify one another (see John 3:35; 15:10; 16:14). The Father sends the Son (Matt. 10:40), the Son prays to the Father (John 17:18), and the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit as Their agent (John 14:26; 16:7). The persons in the Godhead are so distinct that They can address each other, love each other, and act in relationship to each other. Each of Them also has a particular work to perform even when They are cooperating together in such activities as creation and redemption." (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1981-31/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4)

In the above quotes, we see that they refer to "the Godhead" as a group or club--since they use the words "They" and "Themselves" to refer to "the Godhead" (using it as a collective noun). According to the Bible, "the Godhead" (KJV) or "Deity," is a He--a single living Being--not a "They"! In Adventism, however (much like in Mormonism), "the Godhead" is only the title of a divine "membership club," in which there are three divine beings (gods), or "members." Also, that last sentence of the above quotation makes it sound like the three "members" don't even always have to cooperate together!

The Seventh-day Adventist Church also publishes a book entitled Seventh-day Adventists Believe: An exposition of the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which explains their "Fundamental Beliefs" in more detail. We will see further evidence from this official belief book

PAGE 3

that they teach Tritheism. But first, let's examine some other sources of evidence.

The following excerpts are from an article entitled "What the Trinity Means to Me," by Fritz Guy, in the September 11, 1986 edition of the Adventist Review (the official "flagship" magazine of the SDA Church). Fritz Guy was, at the time, "associate pastor of the Loma Linda University church." While he was a theology professor at Andrews University (SDA), Guy "served as secretary of the university committee that drafted a new Statement of Fundamental Beliefs for the Adventist Church, which was subsequently adopted (with some revisions) by the church's 1980 General Conference session in Dallas, Texas."6 He is currently (2009) a theology professor at La Sierra University (SDA). Here are the excerpts from his article:

"So we can properly think of this threefold designation—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as the Christian name of God. [...]

"The meaning of the threefold name of God has, however, been the subject of theological debate through the centuries. The principal question has been the way in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different from and related to each other. [...]

[...]

"Beyond all the theological arguments about the eternal existence of the Son and about His precise status in relation to the Father, what is crucial is the fact that Jesus was and is God.

"More Than Son

"Yet God is more than the Son. That is why the name Jesus is not the whole name of God. We must speak of God also in terms of the Father and the Holy Spirit. For the reality of God is not limited to the reality of the Person who was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth, preached 'the gospel of the kingdom' (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; etc.) in Galilee and Judea, and died on a Roman cross outside Jerusalem.

"Jesus the Messiah is truly God, but He is not the whole of God. When Jesus was in Capernaum, He was not in Jerusalem. But when God is in Capernaum, He is also in Jerusalem, and Athens, and London, and Washington. God is the Son who prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, and God is also the Father to whom the Son prayed.

[...]

"God is the Father who remained in charge of things when Jesus was in the tomb. He continued to be God, doing those things that the Father always does. He continued to be the source of reality. He continued to maintain the created universe, from the minutest subatomic particle to the most massive galaxy. He continued to love the human family, which had been created 'in the image of God' (Gen. 1:27). He also experienced the pain of separation in the death of His Son.

[...]

"We sometimes speak of the Holy Spirit as the 'third person' of the reality of God. This is appropriate if we understand it correctly. The Holy Spirit is third only because there is a Christian theological custom of speaking of the Father and the Son before speaking of the Spirit. The Spirit is not third chronologically, as a more recent reality of God. The Son and the Father are not prior to the Spirit. And the Spirit is not third organizationally, as if there were some sort of hierarchical order within the reality of God. The Son and the Father are not essentially superior to the Spirit in the quality of their Godness.

"The Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all different from each other. But They are not independent of each other, for They are all God and They all belong to the reality of God. So They are all involved in God's extravagant, self-giving love. The gift of salvation is the gift of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

[...]

"When I experience the activity of the Holy Spirit, I am experiencing the activity of God. The reality of the Spirit is part of the reality of God. [...]" (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19860911-V163-37/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=12)

First of all, it cannot be said that the Christian name for God is "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." That is not what Jesus said. Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 28:19 NKJV). He did not say that "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is the name of God.

Then Guy goes on to use this false claim for devious purposes, to teach that Jesus is not fully God! He says that Jesus is only part of God, not the whole of God (fully--or all of--God). In Trinitarian doctrine, God is a simple being, and does not have parts. Notice also how he says that Jesus is "truly God" rather than "fully God." The SDA Church's official statement of "Fundamental Beliefs" also uses this wording, saying in belief number 4 ("Son") that Jesus is "truly God" rather than stating that He is "fully God." As the above article by Guy shows, Adventism does not believe that Jesus is "fully God," but instead that He is just "part" (one third) of "God"--one of three divine beings who together make up the one "Godhead" group. (And, as we will see later, even when Adventists do use the term "fully God" they, once again, have a different definiton for the term than the Christian definition.)

We also see in the above article some of their denial of Christ's omnipresence. Also, Guy makes reference to the SDA teaching (which we will see a bit more of later) that Jesus ceased to exist when He died, and that "the Father" is the one who ran the universe during that time because "the Son" no longer existed, and that the Father "continued to love the human family" but the Son was not able to, because He was non-existent!

Next up we will look at quite a few different quotations from the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide (the official SDA "quarterly").

This first quote is from the Introduction of the October/November/December 1998 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide:

"Lesson 3-'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' The Godhead consists of three divine Beings, unified in action but distinct in personality."

PAGE 4

(http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/98d/index.html)

And from the actual Lesson 3:

"KEY THOUGHT: One of the mysteries of God's being and nature is that the Godhead consists of three divine Beings, unified in purpose and action but distinct in personality." (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/98d/less03.html)

Notice how, just like the Mormons, the Seventh-day Adventists redefine the words "Godhead" and "God" to mean a "group" or "office," consisting of three gods ("divine Beings") who are "unified in purpose and action." This is blatant Tritheism and anti-Trinitarianism.

Here are some additional quotes from the same Lesson 3:

"When we forget that Jesus came to reveal the Father, we will begin to misunderstand the Father. We must remember that when we see Jesus in His sacrifice and love, we also are seeing the Father at work. We must never separate the work of One from the work of the Other. God is not demanding and Jesus pleading, They both demand. And They both plead.

"'Christ came to reveal God to the world as a God of love, full of mercy, tenderness, and compassion. The thick darkness with which Satan had endeavored to enshroud the throne of Deity was swept away by the world's Redeemer, and the Father was again manifest to men as the light of life.

"'When Philip came to Jesus with the request 'Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us,' the Saviour answered him: 'Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the FatherT Christ declares Himself to be sent into the world as a representative of the Father. In His nobility of character, in His mercy and tender pity, in His love and goodness, He stands before us as the embodiment of divine perfection, the image of the invisible God. '—Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, pp. 738, 739.

[...]

"In another passage, Jesus says the Father will send the Comforter (John 14:26). Thus there seems to be perfect collaboration between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This perfect cooperation among the three Persons is to help Christ's disciples powerfully testify of Him and spread the good news of salvation.

"Describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. John 5:19-22.

"It is interesting to note that not only do the Father and the Son work together, but They assume parallel functions. The Father raises the dead. So does the Son. He gives life to whom He will. As for judgment, the Father seems to have given this authority to the Son, so there will be mutual honor. (See verse 23.) Everlasting life is dependent on hearing what Jesus says and believing in the Father (verse 24). Both Father and Son have life in Themselves (verse 26).

[...]

"SUMMARY: Have I allowed the Father to be my friend? Have I opened my mind to the beauties of salvation through the Son? Have I surrendered my life to the guidance and ministry of the Holy Spirit? Have I allowed Those who provided my salvation to become the rulers of my life?" (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/98d/less03.html)

The above is simply polytheism in its most open form. The Bible says that there is only one Savior and only one Ruler of our lives--there is only one God! Notice also that the quote they give above, which is from Ellen G. White, twists what Jesus says in John 14 to make it so that He is only saying that He is a "representative" of the Father--taking all the force away from His words that "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father."

And here are some excerpts from the next week's lesson, Lesson 4:

"KEY THOUGHT: Entirely through Their own initiative, the Godhead arranged for One among Them to become a human being. They did so in order to (1) provide us with our Substitute and Surety, (2) make God's ways plain, (3) restore us to our pre-sin perfection, and (4) settle the debate about God's Justice.

[...]

[...] "We really do not know Jesus unless we recognize His divinity, His part in Creation, His relation to the Father, and what He has done for humanity.

"Jesus is the Word of God. The Word is an expression of God. Through Jesus, God expressed Himself to angels and to humans. In Jesus we find the expression of the inmost, the dearest, the most vital, the most enduring thoughts of God. Jesus is so completely identified with His Father that He can be considered His Word.

[...]

"How do we know that the Father and the Son are distinct Persons? Matt. 3:17; John 20:17. What does Their distinctness, as well as Their union, teach us?

"Because of the complete identification between God and Jesus, between Father and Son, there are those who look upon Them as one and the same Person. But that is not true. Jesus was a perfect expres sion of God. But He was a separate Person from the Father.

[...]

PAGE 5

"In the plan for our salvation, there was complete unity between the Father and the Son. God sent the Son. And the Son volunteered to go. The results of this unity of purpose and effort was the death of Jesus and the offer of eternal salvation to us.

"In John 10, what facts did Jesus present to show the close unity that exists between Him and the Father?

[...]

"In the relationship between the Father and the Son, there is always the closest possible unity in everything. This is true in thought and purpose, in plan and effort.

[...]

[...] "He came from heaven to earth that earth itself might become heaven. He left His position on the throne with His Father that the redeemed might reign in glory. [...]

[...]

"FURTHER STUDY: In view of what Christ has done, how should we respond to Him? Read Philippians 2:9-11. To learn what the Lamb will do for the victorious saints, read Revelation 7:17. Also see The Great Controversy, pp. 666, 669-671.

"'All who have borne with Jesus the cross of sacrifice will be sharers with Him of His glory. It was the joy of Christ in His humilia tion and pain that His disciples should be glorified with Him. They are the fruit of His self-sacrifice. The outworking in them of His own character and spirit is His reward, and will be his joy throughout eternity. This joy they share with Him as the fruit of their labor and sacrifice is seen in other hearts and lives. They are workers together with Christ, and the Father will honor them as He honors His Son.'—The Desire of Ages, p. 624.

[...]

"SUMMARY: At precisely the right time and in the right way, the three Members of the Godhead put into operation a plan They had devised before the world was created. They surrendered a portion of Themselves—the Divine Son—to become the Saviour of the world. [...]" (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/98d/less04.html)

Most of the above speaks for itself, but there is a lot of anti-Trinitarian heresy in the above excerpts. First, notice that they make it clear what they mean by "unity"--that the Father and the Son only have a unity of "purpose," etc. Also, the part about "He left His position on the throne with His Father" hints at the SDA denial of the incorporeality of God, their denial of the omnipresence of Christ, and their teaching that Christ gave up His divine attributes when He came to earth. Additionally, the Ellen G. White quote from The Desire of Ages is utterly blasphemous, claiming that "the Father" will honor Christ's followers "as He honors His Son." Nowhere is such blasphemy taught in the Bible, and it certainly separates, and lowers, Christ from the Father (not to mention that it deifies man).

The following is from Lesson 9:

[...] "He came knowing that He would die but knowing also that we would live. Today heaven is ours be cause Jesus was willing to give up heaven. I am a child of God because Jesus became the Son of man.

"'Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. '—The Desire of Ages, p. 49. [...]

[...]

"Let us suppose that the richest and most generous person on earth set up a trust fund with the simple provision that any person who wrote and asked could have $10,000. Would that multibillionnaire watch to see how many took advantage of the offer? Would that person be interested in knowing why some had not gotten the word and why, when they had heard, they did nothing about it?

"God the Father and God the Son watch eagerly to see who will accept Their gift of mercy. Some have never gotten the word. Some who have heard pay little attention. As Satan tries to snatch the gift away from many, God lovingly, anxiously presses His gift upon those who will accept it. To coerce them to do what is right would be to play into the hands of Satan, who claims that God forces obedience. [...]

[...]

"Why do you think God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son? Gen. 22:1-13. What did Jesus say about this experience that caused some people to be angry? John 8:56-58.

"Some have been called upon to make the sacrifice of a son or daughter to die for their country. It is not an easy experience. Some parents would rather die and have their children live. But the supreme sacrifice becomes the measure of supreme love and devotion.

"For the Son 'this was a voluntary sacrifice. Jesus might have remained at the Father's side. He might have retained the glory of heaven and the homage of the angels. But He chose to give back the scepter into the Father's hands, and to step down from the throne of the universe, that He might bring light to the benighted, and life to the perishing.'—The Desire of Ages, pp. 22, 23.

[...]

PAGE 6

"'All that He endured-the blood drops that flowed from His head, His hands, His feet, the agony that racked His frame, and the unutterable anguish that filled His soul at the hiding of His Father's face-speaks to each child of humanity, declaring, It is for thee that the Son of God consents to bear this burden of guilt; for thee He spoils the domain of death, and opens the gates of Paradise. He who stilled the angry waves and walked the foam-capped billows, who made devils tremble and disease flee, who opened blind eyes and called forth the dead to life-offers Himself upon the cross as a sacrifice, and this from love to thee. He, the Sin Bearer, endures the wrath of divine justice, and for thy sake becomes sin itself.'—The Desire of Ages, pp. 755, 756.

[...]

"While dying on the cross, Christ agonized 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Matt. 27:46, NIV). The sins of the ages resting on Christ caused separation between Him and His Father, and He died for sin.

"'The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that Their separation was to be eternal. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon Him as man's substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God.'—The Desire of Ages, p. 753.

"At times, we all feel forsaken by God. How does the cry of Christ recorded in Matthew 27:46 help you to work through those times? Remember that He was forsaken for your sake that you may never be forsaken for His sake.

[...]

"2. Which was a harder experience to bear, the Father giving the Son, or the Son offering Himself for our salvation? Why?

"SUMMARY: May this consecration prayer be your heart's desire:

"O Lamb of God, You freely chose to take away the sins of the world. I accept Your perfect sacrifice as a full atonement for all my sins. I plead Your abiding presence for power to obey. You are my strength, my everlasting helper. Our Father has made You my righteousness and wisdom, my sanctification and redemption. Amen." (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/98d/less09.html)

In that last paragraph, notice that they say in the prayer to "Jesus," the words "Our Father"--evidently speaking for Jesus and the person praying the prayer. Jesus never taught that God is our Father in the same way that He is His Father. He always made the difference clear and never said "our Father" (except in the Lord's Prayer where He was giving the disciples an example of how they should pray). He even went out of His way to not say the words "our Father" in John 20:17 when He told Mary, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" (John 20:17b NASB.)

Also notice the Ellen G. White quote which teaches (and we will continue to see this taught repeatedly as we go on) that the Father "hid His face" from Jesus, which is a direct contradiction of Scripture. Notice that they also teach that Jesus was "separated" from the Father, based on Jesus' words in Matthew 27:46. But Jesus was quoting the opening line of Psalm 22, to direct everyone's attention to the entire Psalm, which states explicitly in verse 24 that God did not even "hide His face" from Jesus, much less "forsake" Him, or "separate" Himself from Him. Also, the Son could not have been separated from the Father, since there is only one divine spirit--one undivided and indivisible God, who is outside of time and is unchangeable. (For more on Matthew 27 and Psalm 22, click here to open another page.) Also notice that White even states that Jesus "feared" that "Their separation was to be eternal," and that He did not know that He would be resurrected or that "the Father" would "accept" His sacrifice! All of these statements are a denial of Jesus' deity.

And here is a quote from Lesson 11:

"If we would understand the impact of angel ministry in our lives, we must first appreciate angels' involvement in the work of Heaven. In a previous lesson, we learned the extent to which the Trinity have expended Themselves for the sake of this world. This is not to say that God is any less involved in upholding other inhabited worlds or in communing with their holy inhabitants. Not at all. But this world has been the object of untold attention and immeasurable blessings because it is a lost world. As 'foot soldiers' of God's army, angels are used in every battle and participate in every victory. They are personally involved." (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/98d/less11.html)

Notice that in the above quote they use the word "Trinity" as a plural or group noun, using the pronoun "Themselves" after it. Adventism redefines the word "Trinity" to simply mean "three" (or, as Ellen G. White says, "trio") rather than "three-in-one."

The following is from Lesson 4 of the January/February/March 1995 Adult Sabbath School Lessons (the official SDA "quarterly"):

"Who was active in the creation of our world? Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:30; John 1:1-4; Heb. 1:1, 2; Col. 1:15-17.

"Just as all three Persons of the Godhead shared in the work of Creation, all three are involved in re-creation. All three Persons of the Godhead are interested in the redemption of lost man, his restoration to the divine image. In this sense creation is still going on. The creative energy and power of God is needed in every life every day."

In the above quote, we see again (and will see even more evidence later) that Adventism teaches that there are three "Co-Creators" who "shared" in the work of creation. But in the Bible, God says that He created the world all by Himself, all alone, with no one to help Him. See Isaiah 44:24. There is only one living God and only one Creator. God is one Being (an "I"/He).

We see more of the same heresy in the next quote, which is from the Introduction of the April/May/June 1999 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide (the official SDA "quarterly"):

"Humankind did not spring out of nature by some natural evolutionary process, for according to Genesis, the creation of human beings is

PAGE 7

attributed directly to God. Men and women were created and formed by Him (Gen. 1:27; 2:7, 8). Also, while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Elohim, plural for God) were involved in the creation process (Gen. 1:2, 26), Jesus was more directly involved. 'All things were made through Him (John 1:3, NKJV)." (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/99b/index.html)

Note also that they emphasized the fact that Elohim is "plural for God," in other words, "Gods"! The Biblical usage of the word Elohim will be dealt with more later on.

The following quote is from Lesson 3 of the April/May/June 1999 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide:

"Our Social Nature

[...]

"MEMORY TEXT: 'A man who has friends must himself be friendly' (Proverbs 18:24, NKJV).

"KEY THOUGHT: What can we learn about our social nature from the interrelationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

[...]

"GOD'S IMAGE IN PLURALITY. The word Our in Genesis 1:26 reveals that the Deity possesses plurality, while the word His in verse 27 reveals that the plurality of God does not cancel out the Godhead's unity. God is triune, three Persons, yet so united they are One.

[...]

"Explain Jesus' answer to loneliness found in John 8:29. What happened to Him on Calvary? Matt. 27:46.

"In Gethsemane, when the guilt of the world's sin was placed upon Jesus, He began to fear that He would be cut off from His Father's love forever. On Calvary, He experienced what He feared and cried out, 'My God, why have you forsaken Me?' It was not the spear thrust in His side nor the cruelty of the cross that caused His death. He died of a broken heart when His Father separated Himself from His Son. The Son of God was slain by the sin of the world and in this sense tasted the second death for all who would accept Him as their wonderful Saviour and Lord.

"What other characteristics about modern life have the tendency to make us lonely? How does knowing that Christ experienced the ultimate in loneliness help to ease any loneliness you might be feeling now?

[...]

"SUMMARY: Being created in the image of God means we are social beings. Fellowship with God and one another helps us to enjoy life and share the love of Christ with those who need it most." (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/99b/less03.html)

Again, in the above quote, we see that by "unity" they mean "so united they are One." Notice that that is also their definition for "triune." Also, as we will see more of later, they teach that being created in "the image of God" means that multiple human beings are supposed to be united together as "one," just as their three "divine beings" are.

This next quote is from Lesson 11:

"What did Jesus mean when He said that He must be 'about My Father's business' (Luke 2:42-49)?

"As a servant, Jesus laid aside the full use of His divine powers (Phil. 2:7). His mind and body developed according to the laws of childhood. He gained knowledge as all humans do. To say that Jesus 'grew in wisdom' does not detract from His deity. His intimate acquaintance with Scripture shows how diligently His mother taught Him and how much of His early years He spent studying the Word of God. Early training and the right education have a powerful influence in shaping the conscience and thinking. Conscience can become insensitive to spiritual things and can even harden against truth (1 Tim. 4:1, 2). In His early years, Jesus' conscience was shaped by His mother, who under the guidance of the Holy Spirit taught Him from Scripture.

"List reasons why Jesus chose not to study under the rabbis (John 7:15).

"What would have happened to Jesus if He had received a rabbinical training?

"The rabbis were surprised that Jesus was so well informed. They believed being truly educated meant receiving an education from a recognized teacher and closely associating with that teacher in service to him. Self-education was considered vastly inferior to such training.

"It was Satan's intention to shape Jesus' mind and conscience through false education. He knows that the human conscience can be trained and that through it he can control human behavior. This he attempted to do with Jesus. But Jesus rightly refused to be trained in the customs and traditions of the rabbis.

[...]

"Some Christians believe that Christ could not have been overcome by temptation. But unless there is a possibility of yielding, temptation is not temptation. Christ could not have been tempted in all points as we are (Heb. 4:15) if He could not or would not have sinned. Christ experienced to the fullest extent what we experience when striving against sin. That is why He understands us and why we can come to Him to find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:16). 'He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure

PAGE 8

and eternal loss.'—The Desire of Ages, p. 131.

"What basic needs of human nature did Satan appeal to when he tempted Christ? Explain what Jesus meant by the responses He gave. Matt. 4:3-10.

"Now match the following texts with the temptations:

"1st: Health and life _______ A. 1 Chron. 21:1-8
2nd: Spiritual pride _______ B. Ezek. 16:48-50
3rd: Wealth _______ C. Job 2:1-10

"Principles we can learn from Christ's experience in the wilderness include the following: (1) Obedience is more important than physical survival. (2) God's rescuing power is not something to be experimented with but something to be quietly trusted in from day to day. (3) The plan of salvation allows no room for compromise.

"How has Satan tempted you regarding health and life, spiritual pride, and wealth? How can believing that Jesus was tempted as you are improve your relationship with Him?" (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/99b/less11.html)

In the above exerpts, we see the SDA teaching that Christ gave up His divine attributes when He came to earth, and that He lived on earth just as a man, like any other man lived, using (another) "God's" help and power (we will see much more of this teaching as we go on).

And in Lesson 12 from the same quarter, we find the following:

"Satan has not hesitated to quote Scripture. But while he is doing so, he manipulates it to suit his purpose and to make it appear as if the Scripture he quoted approves a sinful course of action. In the case of his temptation of Christ, while he quoted Psalm 91:11, 12, he took it from its context to mean that God would protect Christ no matter what He did because He was His beloved Son. But the psalm clearly teaches that God will protect His children only if they walk in His ways, not their own. (See SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 313.)" (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/99b/less12.html)

The above quote is incredibly blasphemous and belittling of the Jesus Christ of the Bible, who is God Himself! It is heretical in multiple ways, and puts Christ on the level of God's "children."

The following excerpts are from the July/August/September 1999 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 1:

"There seems to be a tension between Paul's statement that 'there is no God but one' (1 Cor. 8:4, NIV) and that there is one Spirit, one Lord, and 'one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all' (Eph. 4:4-6). Consider also his reference to 'one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Tim. 2:5).

"However, reference to Jesus as mediator does not contradict His divinity any more than His reference to Himself as God's unique Son contradicts it. [...] The Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together constitute divinity.

[...]

"EQUAL YET DISTINCT (John 1:1-18; 14:16-28; 16:5-16).

"How can the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be equal and yet different? 1 Pet. 1:2; John 20:28; Acts 5:3, 4.

"The Bible presents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as equally divine yet distinct Persons. [...] 'There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons.'—SDA Fundamental Belief, 2.

[...]

"Titles that are used primarily for one divine Person are often attributed to the other divine Persons as well. [...] The sharing of divine titles may explain why Jesus referred to the singular name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the baptismal formula. [...]

[...]

"What implications does the sharing of divine titles despite different divine roles have for human relations in our homes, in our churches, and in our society?

[...]

"UNITED YET DISTINCT

[...]

"Explain how creation reflects the unity and diversity of the Creator? Gen. 1:26, 27; 3:22; Mal. 2:10.

[...]

"All things exist in a network of relationships. The world is shaped in part by what human beings make of it. The image of God in creation includes a diversity of human individuals united by relationships. This reflects the fact that God is a Person experiencing time and space. He said: 'Let us make man in our image' (Gen. 1:26, KJV). The plural image of male and female is simply 'God's image' (Gen. 1:27). [...]

PAGE 9

"As you read this statement [NOTE: The quote is from Ellen G. White], contemplate God's glorious plan for you to reflect His image now and for eternity: 'When Adam came from the Creator's hand, he bore, in his physical, mental, and spiritual nature, a likeness to his Maker. ... It was His purpose that the longer man lived the more fully he should reveal his image. ... All his faculties were capable of development.'—Education, p. 15.

[...]

"It is interesting to note that the unity among the divine Persons is also evident in the use of the terms adoption and redemption in connection with the Spirit. The Bible also refers to adoption and redemption by the Father and the Son (Isa. 63:16; Heb. 9:12; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5). [...]

[...]

"DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

"1. Do we experience God differently as Father, as Son, and as Holy Spirit? If yes, in what ways?" (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/99c/less01.html)

First of all, there must be something very wrong with SDA theology with regard to the Trinity in order for them to say that there "seems to be a tension" between "there is no God but one" and the statement that there is one Spirit, one Lord, and "one God and Father of all"! Trinitarians have no problem at all with those two statements--they need no reconciling. Each person of the Trinity is fully (all of) God. For example, Jesus Christ is the only God; the Father is the only God; the Holy Spirit is the only God. Jesus Christ is the only Lord; the Father is the only Lord; the Holy Spirit is the only Lord. Additionally, they even say that the 1 Timothy 2:5 quote seems to have tension. Actually, what 1 Timothy 2:5 says is that Jesus Christ is the "one God," and that He is the "one mediator between God and men," and that He is a "man." So of course the verse "does not contradict His divinity"! It is an apparent contradiction only if you deny (as Adventism does) that Jesus Christ is the "one God"!

And no, the reason that Jesus "referred to the singular name" is not because of any "sharing of divine titles," but because there is only one God and He has one name.

The next quote is from Lesson 2:

"The communion among the divine Persons of the Godhead was there before the creation of humanity. For example, 'Let Us make man in Our image' (Gen. 1:26, NKJV). Later, at Creation, God communed with human beings (Gen. 1:28). This communion was interrupted by sin (Gen. 3:8). However, God has bridged the separation between Himself and humanity by His saving grace in Christ." (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/99c/less02.html)

The following quote is from the April/May/June 2000 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 6:

"In the council of peace, even before our creation, the Godhead made the decision to send Jesus to this world if humankind should sin. [...]

[...]

"Christ wants to have fellowship with us (Rev. 3:20). He has taken our place on the cross in order to remove every barrier erected by sin. On the cross, He has taken the separation from God that was ours in order to give us the eternal relationship with the Father that is His." (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/00b/less06.html)

Note that they say we can have the same "eternal relationship with the Father" that Jesus has!

The following excerpts are from the January/February/March 2001 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 11:

"The crucifixion appeared to be anything but glorious. At the crossroads of the world, Jesus would be stripped of all human dignity and degraded by the very people He came to save. Incredibly, though, to Him it was an hour of supreme glory. He was about to illumine the world and the onlooking universe with a glory never before witnessed, though He and the Father had shared this glory before They created the world (17:5)—the glory of self-sacrificing love. [...]

[...]

"MUTUAL OWNERSHIP (John 17:6-10).

[...]

"List the possessions the Father and the Son hold jointly. John 17:5-10.

"Jesus and His Father do not own separate bank accounts. They share everything jointly, and we are one of Their most precious possessions.

[...]

"Both the Father and the Son work for our salvation. The Father draws us to Jesus (6:44), and Jesus draws us to Him by His Cross (12:32). In this sense, we are Their property, obtained at great cost to Them, and They derive great joy from us. [...]

[...]

PAGE 10

[...] "That's why we have to rely on Divine power, the power of God. More than anything else, prayer is the method by which we grasp hold of that power—as did Christ.

"'As a man He supplicated the throne of God till His humanity was charged with a heavenly current that should connect humanity with divinity. Through continual communion He received life from God, that He might impart life to the world.'—The Desire of Ages, p. 363. Through our prayer life, we may be so charged with the power of self-sacrificing love that our faces radiate the glory of God—His name on our foreheads.

[...]

"'I [Jesus] give them eternal life, and they shall never perish and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one' ' (John 10:28-30, RSV).

"Grasp a coin in your left hand. You are just as secure in the hand of Jesus, even more so. Then wrap your right hand around your left hand. You are secure in the Father's hand as well. When tempted to doubt your own salvation, claim the promise that both Jesus and the Father will hold you firmly in Their hands.

"List and explain the things Jesus and His people have in common.

"John 17:13, 16

"John 17:18, 19

[...]

"The Father and the Son are closely bonded together. They never act independently but always are united in everything They do (John 5:20-23). They share a common love for fallen humanity to the extent that the Father sacrificed His Son, and the Son sacrificed His life (3:16; 10:15). Neither one seeks His own glory, but each brings glory to the Other (17:1). To know One is to know the Other (14:7, 9). This type of relationship is what Christ desires for us, the members of His church.

[...]

"2. When we read Jesus' prayer in John 17, we are struck by how easily He talked with His Father. What can we learn from this example about conversational prayer?" (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/01a/less11.html)

First of all, God says in the Bible that He does not "share" His glory with anyone (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11). The above excerpts are simply blatant polytheism, and clearly teach a group of multiple gods.

The next quote is from the January/February/March 2002 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 2:

"Linked to the idea of Christ as owner of the world is the last of Jesus' three temptations in which His status as God the Son, the Creator, is another issue in the great controversy:

"1. Satan disputed Christ's unparalleled position. (For Christ's status, see Matt. 16:16; John 1:1-3; 10:30; 14:10; 17:5; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:5-8; Titus 2:13.)

"2. Satan was jealous of Christ's position in the Godhead, and on earth he thought he could make Christ bow to him.

"3. Satan knew that God alone is worthy of worship and that as God the Son, Christ deserves worship from all created beings. Getting Christ to worship him meant getting Him to doubt His own position in the Godhead.

"4. Jesus' mission was to return Satan's 'stolen property' to the Father by shedding His blood for sin." (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/02a/less02.html)

And here is more, from Lesson 3:

"We saw last week that one of the issues in the great controversy centers on Christ's status in heaven. Satan refused to acknowledge that Christ is equal to the Father. Since his expulsion to our world, he battles this issue with even greater vigor. Satan has tried to usurp the role that belongs only to Christ. [...]

[...]

"Satan also works against Christ and His role in redemptive history through certain human agencies and systems. Though antichrist has been around since John's time, it has been manifested particularly in a church that assumes for itself the role and prerogatives that belong only to God or Christ Himself.

[...]

"Jesus Christ is the eternal Word, the second Person of the Godhead—coexistent, coeternal, and coequal with God the Father. Jesus was not a created being but rather existed from eternity with the Father. As such, He's in a whole separate category from any created being. As part of the Godhead, He's the Creator; everything and everyone else, Lucifer included, are created. The difference, then, between Christ and Satan is, in a sense, the difference between the finite and the infinite. Like Peter, Satan is fully aware of Christ's position; but unlike Peter, he constantly attempts to usurp that position, one way or another." (http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/02a/less03.html)

PAGE 11

The SDA teaching that, as stated above, "Satan refused to acknowledge that Christ is equal to the Father" is the most blasphemous teaching, but it is a foundational part of the SDA "Great Controversy" worldview. But such a scenario, which is totally unBiblical, is impossible within the context of monotheism. This foundational SDA teaching, as taught by the SDA prophetess Ellen G. White, separates the Father and the Son, teaches a polytheistic, corporeal "Godhead," and prevents Adventism from ever teaching Trinitarianism.

In the July/August/September 2003 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 3, we find the following very Mormon-sounding quote:

"When it comes to the Bible and to God Himself, we often talk in paradoxes or contrasting pairs. There are three divine Personalities and yet one Godhead. God is far away, unreachable yet present and close to us. Though not limited to time, He reveals Himself in time. We are already saved, and we still will be saved." (http://absg.adventist.org/2003/3Q/SE/EAQ30303.pdf)

In the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 3, it says the following:

"We often talk in paradoxes,8 or in opposites, when we talk about the Bible and God. For example, God comes in Three Persons, but there is one Godhead. God is far away, but still close to us. God is not limited to time, but He shows Himself in time. We are already saved, and we still will be saved." (http://absg.adventist.org/2003/3Q/ER/ERQ303_03.pdf)

And in the Teachers Edition for Lesson 3, the following additional comments are made:

"I. Christ Before His Humanity.
A. Christ existed before the world was created.
B. Christ held the heavenly office as the Right Hand of God.
C. Christ was exalted above all the host of heaven.

[...]

[...] "Jesus, who became Man; who was made 'a little lower than the angels'; Jesus, who endured death; was raised to the place of highest exaltation and honor.

"Moreover, it is exactly because of His humiliation, suffering, and death He has been invested with heavenly glory. This interpretation is in agreement with Paul's statement that 'therefore God also has highly exalted Him' (Phil. 2:9, NKJV). [...]

[...]

"Imagine a young man bowing before the throne of God, his face to the ground. He trembles in the presence of holiness. The whole universe watches in utter silence. Suddenly, a shadow hovers over him. He timidly lifts his head and looks into the loving face of Jesus. A strong hand reaches down and lifts him up (he has no strength of his own). Standing in front of the young man, the Savior turns to the Father and says, 'He is with Me.'

"It is easy to identify with someone with whom you have something in common. Jesus can identify with us. He assumed human nature and was tempted 'in all points' as we are, 'yet without sin' (Heb. 4:15). He experienced what we experience, and He overcame. So, we can be sure the One who stands before the throne of God to speak in our behalf is a 'faithful witness' (Rev. 1:5), and He has the power to save us." (http://absg.adventist.org/2003/3Q/TE/ETQ30303.pdf)

And the next quote is from Lesson 13:

"The Bible is full of statements that seem to be opposed to each other and yet both are true: While living on earth, Jesus was fully divine and fully human. The Bible is written by human authors; even so, it is the Word of God. God is independent of time, though He relates to us in time. There is one Godhead, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are called God. We are saved by faith and judged by works." (http://absg.adventist.org/2003/3Q/SE/EAQ30313.pdf)

In the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 13, it says the following:

"The Bible is full of ideas that seem to be opposite from each other. But both ideas are true. For example: (1) While living on earth, Jesus was fully God and fully human. (2) The Bible is written by human authors. But it is God's Word. (3) God is independent of time. But He relates to us in time. (4) There is one Godhead. But the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all called God. (5) We are saved by faith and judged by works." (http://absg.adventist.org/2003/3Q/ER/ERQ303_13.pdf)

And in the Teachers Edition for Lesson 13, the following additional comments are found:

"II. Keeping Perspective.
A. The Bible is written by human authors but is the Word of God.
B. There is one Godhead but Three within the trinity, and All are called God.
C. We are saved by faith but judged by our works." (http://absg.adventist.org/2003/3Q/TE/ETQ30313.pdf)

The following is from the January/February/March 2004 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 2:

[...] "The One who walked this earth, who became sweaty, tired, and hungry, was intimate with God before the world began, because He Himself was one with God. Although He became part of the human race and was subject to human limitations, He was the One who created the human race and the world in which it lived. [...]

[...]

PAGE 12

"The concept of 'the Word' would have been readily recognizable to the ancient Greeks, whether or not they ever had heard of Jesus. For centuries the Greeks had conceived that a divine figure they called 'the Word' (logos in Greek) was the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, the Source of reason and intelligence, and the Mediator between the great God and the creation. In applying the term Logos to Jesus, John was appealing to the Greeks in terms they could understand.

[...]

"But the eternity of the Word is not based on some kind of precreation origin in the Father; Jesus was not created by the Father. Instead, from eternity, Jesus, the Word, was distinct from the Father (called 'God' in John 1:1 but 'Father' in verse 18) but in no sense inferior. 'What God was, the Word was' is the brilliantly accurate translation of The New English Bible. The intimate relationship between the Word and the Father was an intimacy of equals. We are not dealing with 'Gods' here; there is full unity in the Godhead at the same time that there is intimate relationship among the personalities of the Godhead. (See quotations in Friday's section.)

[...]

"Moses was a man given an incredible revelation of God (Exod. 33:19-23), and yet, even he was allowed to see God only briefly and from the back. In contrast, the Word came to earth as One who had been in continual residence 'at the Father's side'—the Greek implies continual close communion with God.

[...]

[...] "No being in the universe is more divine than Jesus,nor is any more human. [...]" (http://absg.adventist.org/2004/1Q/SE/EAQ104_02.pdf)

Notice that they say that no being in the universe is "more divine" than Jesus. Actually, Jesus is the only Divine Being--the one and only true God. No other being is "divine" at all. Also, they claim that they are not teaching three "Gods" simply because there is "full unity" "in" the "Godhead." That is not Trinitarianism or monotheism, which teach that God is actually one.

And in the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 2, it says the following, which helps to explain what they meant by some of the above excerpts:

"The Greeks of John's day probably would have understood what 'the Word' meant, even though they had never heard of Jesus. For many hundreds of years, the Greeks knew that a God called 'the Word' (logos in Greek) was the Creator and Sustainer4 of the universe. They knew that 'the Word' was responsible for a person's ability to reason and think. They knew that 'the Word' also worked with God and Creation. In using the word logos for Jesus, John was talking to the Greeks in a way they could understand.

[...]

"Jesus was not created by the Father. From eternity, Jesus, the Word, was separate from the Father (called 'God' in John 1:1 but 'Father' in John 1:18). But He was in no way lower than the Father. 'What God was, the Word was' is the correct translation of The New English Bible. The close relationship between the Word and the Father is a closeness of equals.

[...]

[...] "From the days of eternity, Jesus Christ was one with the Father. He was 'the image (copy) of God.' He was the image of God's greatness and kingly power. 'He was the outshining of His glory.' It was to show God's glory that Jesus came to our world. To this sin-darkened earth, He came to show the light of God's love. He came to be 'God with us.' So prophecy said of Jesus, 'His name shall be called Immanuel.' '—Adapted from Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 19.

[...]

"Moses had a great opportunity to see God (Exodus 33:19-23). But God just let Moses see Him only shortly and from the back. Jesus was different. He came to earth as one who had always been 'at the Father's side.' The Greek word suggests a close working relationship with God." (http://absg.adventist.org/2004/1Q/ER/ERQ104_02.pdf)

Jesus is equal with the Father in the sense that He is fully God and is the one Divine Being, as is the Father. But Jesus and the Father are not "equals" as Adventism teaches--two equal Gods who are closely united. In fact, God says in Isaiah 40:25 and 46:5 that He has no equal. (For some more helpful commentary on this, see D. A. Carson's The Gospel According to John, pages 249-251.) Also notice, in the above quote, that they call Jesus "a God" separate from "God" and they also call Him the "copy" of God. Also, they say that "God" "just let Moses see Him only shortly and from the back" but that "Jesus was different"! And then they say that Jesus has "a close working relationship with God." All of these statements are incredibly heretical and polytheistic.

And in the Teachers Edition for Lesson 2, the following additional comments are made:

"III. The Word of God (John 1:1).
A.The concept of the Word was familiar to Jesus'and John's contemporaries.
B. The Word was fully distinct from the Father, although partaking of the same nature. [...]

"Summary: John makes it clear that if we are to accept Christ, we must accept His divinity. This Gospel shows us a Jesus who is in every sense equal to God the Father and who has always mediated between Creator and creation.

[...]

"God the Son was 'with the Father from all eternity.'—Ellen G. White, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 39. 'There never was a time when He

PAGE 13

was not in close fellowship with the eternal God.'—Ellen G. White, Evangelism, p. 615. Two distinct Persons of the Godhead are thus identified: the Word and God. They are one in nature, thought, and function. They were revealed to Moses as the Creator and now through John as the world's Redeemer.

[...]

"John 1 describes how Christ, the Eternal Word, participated in Creation. What connection does this participation have to His role as Redeemer?

[...]

"Throughout the history of Christianity, the status of Christ as fully equal to God has often been a source of conflict. Why is it important to correctly understand Christ's status in the Godhead? [...]

[...]

"A word is a powerful thing to the Jewish person. It has dynamic energy and the ability to exist independently. And that is why the Hebrew language uses words sparingly. With this in mind, read John 1:14. What pictures of Jesus is John trying to portray by calling Him 'the Word'? How do you think the people of John's time might have reacted to this kind of description of Jesus?" (http://absg.adventist.org/2004/1Q/TE/ETQ104_02.pdf)

The following quote is from the January/February/March 2005 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 8:

"Darkness at Noon

[...]

"In the Bible, darkness is a symbol of evil, of separation from God, who is Light and in whom 'is no darkness at all' (1 John 1:5). In fact, Jesus talked of 'outer darkness' (Matt. 8:12, 22:13) as an expression for hell. In a sense, Jesus at the cross went to hell for us; that is, He suffered the penalty of sin that those in hell will have to face themselves.

[...]

"The darkness, then, is an outward symbol of the spiritual darkness that was surrounding the Son of God as He bore the full brunt of God's righteous wrath against sin. With the accumulated sin of the world not only falling on Him but being punished in Him there at the cross, with the Father, who is light, hiding His presence from Jesus—it's not hard to see why the darkness would sweep over the land as a powerful manifestation to the world and to the universe of what was happening at the cross, of the great punishment that Jesus was taking upon Himself in order to save humanity from the condemnation that sin would otherwise have brought. 'The dense blackness,' wrote Ellen White, 'was an emblem of the soul-agony and horror that encompassed the Son of God.'—The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 164.

"At times,who hasn't felt oppressed by spiritual darkness? What caused it? How did it go away? And what advice would you give to someone who says that he or she feels enveloped in spiritual darkness?

[...]

"The Father Hidden

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? What could Jesus—who had said 'I and my Father are one' (John 10:30) and that 'Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me' (John 16:32)—have meant by those words? [...]

[...]

"However difficult for us to understand, Jesus—who had been One with the Father since eternity—now felt the complete separation from God caused by sin. God's wrath, which would otherwise fall on us, fell on Him so that none of us would ever have to face it ourselves.

"'It was necessary for the awful darkness to gather about His soul because of the withdrawal of the Father's love and favor; for He was standing in the sinner's place, and this darkness every sinner must experience. The righteous One must suffer the condemnation and wrath of God, not in vindictiveness; for the heart of God yearned with greatest sorrow when His Son, the guiltless, was suffering the penalty of sin. This sundering of the divine powers will never again occur throughout the eternal ages.'—Ellen G. White Comments, The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 924." (http://absg.adventist.org/2005/1Q/SE/EAQ105_08.pdf)

And in the Teachers Edition for Lesson 8, we find these additional comments:

"Summary: At the sixth hour (see Matt. 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44), darkness separated Jesus from the Father. The God who is Light became the Sin Bearer and endured the darkness of separation from His Father. He who was able to save others did not save Himself, in order that we might be saved. [...]

[...]

"II. Darkness at Noon.

"Christ endured the horror of great darkness so that we could walk in the wonders of His great light. He suffered burning thirst so that we could drink from springs of living water. He suffered bloodstained nakedness so that we could be clothed in His spotless righteousness. He

PAGE 14

suffered the hiding of His Father's face so that we could someday see His face with no darkening veil between (see Rev. 22:4). [...]

"III. The Father Hidden.

"It was as painful for the Father to separate from Christ as it was for the Son to endure His Father's withdrawal. Jesus did not cry, 'O God, O God, why have You forsaken me?' but 'My God, My God . . .'; thus expressing His invincible faith in the Father, a faith that, at that time, could receive no comforting reward.

"We can hardly overemphasize that the reason the Father forsook Him was to allow His Son to experience in our stead the full punishment for our sins. The essential pain of that punishment is the spiritual anguish of total separation from God. Even the most rebellious of sinners still is surrounded at present with an atmosphere of wooing grace (see Ps. 68:18, Rom. 10:21, Rev. 22:17). When that drawing influence ceases, how great a chill of darkness and isolation shall descend upon the rejectors of mercy. Christ felt this, and more. He felt in our place the wrath of God against sin and recalcitrant sinners, so we could benefit from His reconciling mercy and grace. May God spare us from a languid, perfunctory response to this greatest of vicarious interventions dared and done for our everlasting good.

[...]

[...] "Though He hid His face from His Son for several eternity-freighted hours at the junction of Deliverance and Doom, 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them' (2 Cor. 5:19).

[...]

"l In our homes and offices, we do everything we can to dispel darkness. Jesus came to this earth to confront spiritual darkness. He who was Light (see 1 John 1:5) bore the full accumulation of the world's sin. This sin was made visible in the darkness that surrounded the cross and separated Him from His Father. How do you feel when you recognize that your sin was part of Jesus' burden? Describe how Jesus' sacrifice has freed you from spiritual darkness.

[...]

"Close your eyes for a moment. Imagine you have been informed you would never again see, speak to, or come into contact with your closest loved ones. Focus solely on this news. Suppose yo u are now told you will experience complete and absolute separation from Jesus. Let the terrible finality of this sink in. Now share with the group your honest reaction—physical, emotional, spiritual, mental—to such news. Did you experience any of the following: shock, disbelief, grief, anger, fear, abandonment, pain, horror, agony, displeasure, or loss?

"If so, you have gained a glimmer of what our Savior experienced as He hung on the cross and the full weight of humanity's sins fell on His shoulders. He cried out to His Father, from whom He felt totally alienated. He could not see past the terrible present. Yet, He refused to save Himself. He knew that if He gave in to the taunts slung at Him to save Himself, humanity would be lost to eternity.

[...]

"2 What is the difference between discouragement and despair?

"3 How does Jesus' experience with literal and spiritual darkness impact your life and your feelings?" (http://absg.adventist.org/2005/1Q/TE/ETQ10508.pdf)

The next quote is from the April/May/June 2005 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 12:

"The Week at a Glance: [...] What happened to the Godhead at the Cross?

[...]

[...] "Note the following truths set forth in the Bible.
1. In the plan of salvation, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One in love and action. We must avoid portraying the Father as cruel or merciless and the Son as merciful by contrast. (See John 3:16.)

[...]

"'Satan with his fierce temptations wrung the heart of Jesus. The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that Their separation was to be eternal. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon Him as man's substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God.'—Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 753.

"Dwell on this Ellen White quote. How does it help us understand what happened at the Cross? What does it tell us about the character of sin? Of God? How does it help us understand what our salvation cost God?

"Although Jesus tapped the depths of despair in His cry of woe— 'My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?'—His final words, 'It is finished' (John 19:30), expressed confidence, hope, and trust anyway. [...]

"Think about it. Jesus was One with the Father from eternity (John 1:1, 2); He and the Father were One in unity, action, and purpose (Gen. 1:26, 3:22, John 10:30); and yet, there, at the cross, Jesus felt this overwhelming sense of separation because of sin! There was a sundering of the Godhead itself there at Calvary! Have you ever been separated from someone that you love and feel very close to? How did that separation make you feel? How could those experiences, in a small way, not only help you appreciate what Jesus did

PAGE 15

for us but also help you live in loving obedience to the God who went through all this for you?" (http://absg.adventist.org/2005/2Q/SE/EAQ205_12.pdf)

And in the Teachers Edition for Lesson 12, the following additional comments are made:

"II. Suffering (Mark 15:16-32).
A. Christ on the cross became sin and experienced eternal separation from God—the second death. [...]

"III. Death (Mark 15:33-39).
A. The crucified Jesus experienced real despair. He could not see the successful end.
B. This despair is identical to what unsaved sinners will feel when they realize they are doomed. [...]

"Summary: To accomplish our salvation, Jesus had to experience what we, as condemned sinners, were meant to experience—despair and hopelessness. [...]" (http://absg.adventist.org/2005/2Q/TE/ETQ205_12.pdf)

Once again, in the above quotes, we have clear statements which deny the Trinity and teach tritheism. Notice that they say that Jesus and the Father are only "One in unity, action, and purpose" (again clearly showing what they mean by the word "unity").

The next quote is from the January/February/March 2006 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 1:

"What deeper meaning of the family emerges from reflection on the nature and Personhood of God and the creation of humankind in His image? Gen. 1:26-28. Compare John 17:11, 21, 22; 1 John 4:8, 16.

"What we can see in Christ's words is the unity and the loving relationship within the Godhead Itself. Think of the meaning and purpose this gives to life in our individual households, which, in their own way, can reflect the self-giving love seen within the Trinity! No wonder family becomes a major metaphor in the New Testament for the church, the household of faith (Gal. 6:10).

[...]

"Just as the human family was to reflect the Creator's relational nature, so the church is to be an even more exquisite replica of the harmonious, giving, loving relationship known within the Godhead. Family terms—birth, adoption, mother, father, sister, brother—provide a new vocabulary, a whole new way of talking about the human relationship with God and of human beings with one another.

[...]

"Summary: 'Family' is God's idea. He formed the human family as an expression of His own relational nature. [...]" (http://absg.adventist.org/2006/1Q/SE/EAQ_body106_01.pdf)

And in the Teachers Edition for Lesson 1, we find the following additional comments:

"Teachers Aims:
1. To show that families were established for companionship and were created to reflect the unity of the Godhead.

[...] "C. The first man and woman were created to be one flesh as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One. [...]" (http://absg.adventist.org/2006/1Q/TE/ETQbody106_01.pdf)

In the above quotes we see the SDA teachings (which we will continue to see more of) that "God" is like a "family" and that the "Godhead" is "one" only like a husband and wife are "one."

This next quote is from Lesson 7:

"God had a special purpose in creating humankind as male and female (Gen. 1:26-28). While each bears His image, the joining of gender opposites in the 'one flesh' of marriage reflects the unity within the Godhead in a special way. The union of male and female also provides for procreation of a new life, an original human expression of the divine image." (http://absg.adventist.org/2006/1Q/SE/EAQ_body106_07.pdf)

And in the Teachers Edition for Lesson 7, the following additional comments are made:

"This is what God desires; but what does Satan want? He wants to trivialize sex, to make us afraid of it, to fill us with shame and guilt about it. Remember, Satan is a fallen angel, and perhaps this causes him to envy what humankind is able to experience in cooperation with God. After all, it was Lucifer's envy of Christ's position in the Godhead that caused him to be cast out of heaven." (http://absg.adventist.org/2006/1Q/TE/ETQbody106_07.pdf)

The following quote is from Lesson 1 of the April/May/June 2006 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide:

"This week we'll concentrate on one often misunderstood aspect of the Holy Spirit: His divinity. In other words, the Holy Spirit isn't just some impersonal force that emanates from God. Instead, He is God, one of the three Persons who make up the Godhead of the Christian faith. Let's take a look at this fundamental teaching of the Bible.

[...]

"Yet, the Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit is Divine; that is, the Holy Spirit, just as the Father and as the Son, is one of the divine Personages of the Godhead.

PAGE 16

[...]

"Christians have often been, and sometimes still are, accused of being polytheists—worshipers of more than one God. This is an understandable, but false, accusation. As Christians we admit there are three Persons in the Godhead, but 'they are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person.'—Ellen G. White, The Ministry of Healing, p. 422. The Christian religion is not a belief in three separate gods; rather, it is a belief in one God who is manifested in three Persons working in perfect harmony with one another." (http://absg.adventist.org/2006/2Q/SE/EAQ206_01.pdf)

Here they define their "one God" as "three Persons working in perfect harmony with one another," and they say in response to the charge of polytheism that they "admit" that there are "three Persons in the Godhead" who are "one" only in "purpose," "mind," and "character"!

And in the Teachers Edition for Lesson 1, these additional comments are found:

"Scripture consistently mentions the Three Personages of the Godhead with an unequivocal inference of peership among them. [...]

[...]

"III. The Unity of God

"The Godhead's unity of purpose, mind, and character, but individuality among its Three Members, does not require any justification or explanation from created beings. [...]

[...]

"Inductive Bible Study

"Texts for Discovery: Genesis 3:22, Deuteronomy 6:4, Matthew 28:19, John 3:8, 16:13

"1 How do we know the Holy Spirit is a divine, personal Being, as are the Father and the Son? Why is it important to believe this?

"2 Our views on the Holy Spirit stem from the concept of the Trinity as a unity of Three coeternal Beings. Most Christian denominations believe that this is true. What evidence for this belief do we have in the Bible?

[...]

"Consider how the unity among the Three Members of the Godhead and the richness of Their concerted benevolence toward all creation serve to root out of the universe anything that approaches a spirit of rivalry, contention, and lust for power.

[...]

"Thought Questions:

"1 As we read through the Bible, we meet God who is Three. The plan of salvation is portrayed through the different facets of their ministry to us: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What texts help you to understand the vast concept of Their unity, yet individuality of purpose and activity? [...]" (http://absg.adventist.org/2006/2Q/TE/ETQ206_01.pdf)

There are some incredible statements in the above quote. First of all, notice that they have a very obvious paraphrase of their official "Fundamental Beliefs" statement on the "Trinity"--instead of "a unity of three co-eternal Persons," they say "a unity of Three coeternal Beings." This clearly shows that by the word "Persons" in the official belief statement they mean "Beings." And then they follow this up with an outright lie, saying that "Most Christian denominations believe that this is true." The rest of the above quote is also very blatantly Tritheistic.

And here are some more incredible quotes from the parallel Collegiate Quarterly (the official SDA quarterly for ages 18-35), also from Lesson 1 of the 2nd quarter in 2006:

"CONCLUDE

"God functions as a system—a union of three stand-alone components. This study looks specifically at the Holy Spirit. In the Bible the existence of the Holy Spirit is a given.The Spirit is distinguished from—and related to independently of—the Father and the Son. He is an individual we can grieve and rebel against. [...]

"CONSIDER

"Creating a picture using a theme of '3s.' For example, draw three trees on one page. Use a different medium for each tree, like graphite, ink, and pastels. Or make a triptych of one subject, like flames or clouds.

[...]

"Organizing the following exercise: In a group setting have three or more men stand shoulder to shoulder in a line. Walk behind the line and randomly (with care, please) push one person's back and watch how well he stays in place. Have everyone in the line link arms with his neighbor. Push another person and see the difference that being 'three-in-one' makes in how well he keeps in place." (http://cq.adventist.org/languages/lessons/english/2006-2/01.pdf [no longer online])

So here they define "God" as a "system" rather than a living Being. "God" is just a "union of three stand-alone components"--this is simply Tritheism.

PAGE 17

The next quote is from Lesson 2 of the April/May/June 2006 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide:

"Paul here uses the figure, or symbol, of money, kind of like a down payment, to illustrate the gift of the Holy Spirit to believers. This is a first installment, an assurance of their full inheritance when Christ returns.

"Where do you see the work of the triune God in the preceding texts? Why should that also give us assurance regarding salvation?

[...]

[...] "Jesus likened the Spirit to the wind. He cannot be seen, yet, the effects He brings about in changed human lives are plainly evident. But the Spirit Himself is a mystery. Of the three Persons in the Godhead, He is the most unfamiliar to humanity. Jesus came to reveal, or make known, the Father (see John 1:18), and humanity saw Jesus in human form. But no one has ever seen the Spirit, nor has anyone revealed Him to us.

"'Christ uses the wind as a symbol of the Spirit of God. As the wind bloweth whither it listeth, and we cannot tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth, so it is with the Spirit of God. We do not know through whom it will be manifested.'—Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 2, p. 15." (http://absg.adventist.org/2006/2Q/SE/EAQ206_02.pdf)

First notice that they are saying that our salvation being "the work of the triune God" is more assurance than merely having the gift of "the Holy Spirit"! Also notice that they say that "Jesus came to reveal...the Father" but that no one has "revealed" "the Spirit." This is very polytheistic. They also state that "humanity saw Jesus in human form" but that "no one has ever seen the Spirit." This is not true according to Jesus' teaching in John 14:7, 9. It is true that no one has seen the Holy Spirit's actual essence. But it is also true that no one has seen Jesus' divine essence (which, of course, is the one and the same essence as the Holy Spirit and the Father), since God is an invisible Spirit.

And in the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 2, it says the following:

"We cannot see the wind.We do not know where the wind comes from.We do not know where it goes. But we can see what the wind does. Likewise, we cannot see the Spirit. But we can see what the Spirit does in the lives it changes. The Spirit is a mystery. Of the Three Persons in the Godhead,9 the Spirit is the most unfamiliar to people. Jesus came to show the Father (John 1:18). And people saw Jesus in human form. But no one has ever seen the Spirit.

[...]

"9Godhead—God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit make up the Godhead." (http://absg.adventist.org/2006/2Q/ER/ERQ206_02.pdf)

The following quote is from Lesson 3 of the April/May/June 2006 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide:

"Throughout His entire ministry Jesus was led by the Spirit. He unreservedly committed Himself to the accomplishment of His Father's will, as unveiled to Him in the Sacred Writings and the promptings of the Spirit. He surrendered His own inclinations. [...]

[...]

"However unfathomable the incarnation of Jesus, it's not hard to understand why the Holy Spirit Himself, One of the Godhead, would be the acting Agent. Who else other than God could perform such a miracle? It's hard to imagine an angel, or any inferior or created being, as the causative agent in this incredible act.

[...]

"Though He was the spotless Son of God, the One who was with God from the days of eternity (John 1:1-3), Jesus, in His human manifestation, was totally dependent upon the work of the Spirit in His life. That is, in His humanity, He allowed Himself to be guided and strengthened by the Holy Spirit.

"Notice, too, at this scene that all three Persons of the Trinity were manifested in a special way not always revealed in Scripture: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were all there. This fact alone should tell us how significant the anointing and baptism of Jesus were. Indeed, here, in a special way, began His work, not only for the redemption of humanity but for ending the great controversy with Satan.

[...]

"Acts 1:1, 2 makes it plain that it was through the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus 'had given commandments unto the apostles.' Here, too, we have another clear reference to the dependence of Jesus upon the power of the Holy Spirit in His life.

[...]

"The Pharisees asserted that Jesus cast out devils through the power of Beelzebub. But He made it clear that He performed His miracles through the power of the Spirit (see Matt. 12:28). Jesus was dependent on the power of the Spirit to perform His miracles during His earthly ministry.

[...]

"None of us, of course, is Jesus. But in what ways can we, if filled with the Spirit, do some of the same things Jesus did (John 14:12) for the

PAGE 18

benefit of others? How have you been able to, under the power of the Spirit, do some of these same things?

[...]

"God is one, but triune. The three Persons of the Trinity work together. They are intimately united in Their work. Thus, although this text says Jesus was raised from the dead by that Spirit, the other two Persons of the Deity united in resurrecting Jesus." (http://absg.adventist.org/2006/2Q/SE/EAQ206_03.pdf)

And in the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 3, it says the following:

"We cannot fully understand how Jesus was put in human form. But it is not hard to understand why the Holy Spirit would be the acting Agent.1 [...]

[...]

"1agent—someone, or something, who does work for someone else. The Holy Spirit works for God and Jesus.

[...]

"What did Peter think of Jesus' Spirit-inspired work? Acts 10:38.

"How can we do some of the things Jesus did (John 14:12) if we are filled with the Holy Spirit? How have you been able to do some of these same things under the Holy Spirit's power?

[...]

"God is Three-in-One. The Three Persons of the Godhead work together. They are united in Their work. First Peter 3:18 says Jesus was raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit, but the other Two Persons of the Godhead joined together to bring about the resurrection.6" (http://absg.adventist.org/2006/2Q/ER/ERQ206_03.pdf)

Notice their definition of the word "agent" and that they use it in a very polytheistic way.

And here are some additional comments from the Teachers Edition for Lesson 3:

"Summary: Jesus set aside His divine powers completely to take on humanity. Not one miracle that He performed or one temptation that He overcame was done with His own power. All that Jesus did, said, and taught came directly from the Holy Spirit. Jesus' divinity never ceased, but He chose to be exactly like us—in our need to rely completely on the Holy Spirit—to fulfill His mission. He became the perfect human tool in the hands of the Holy Spirit. We, too, can be used by the Holy Spirit as efficiently as Jesus if we learn to fully submit to His leading and to His voice.

[...]

"Christ's mission was sustained and guided by the Holy Spirit throughout every phase of His earthly life. The Spirit's infinite intelligence, capabilities, and full sympathy with the Divine purpose qualified Him to labor as an equal Partner with the Father and the Son for our redemption.

[...]

"Christ's visible anointing by the Holy Spirit (see Luke 3:21, 22) unveils several core truths:

[...]

"2. Christ's renunciation of His inherent divine powers and His entire dependence on the other Two Persons of the Godhead for the conduct of His mission. Thus, He retained no advantage that we cannot possess through the same dependence on God that He exercised. (See John 5:19, 30; 8:28; 15:4, 5; Phil. 4:13.) This also reveals that it was not exclusively Christ's desire to save us; the Father and the Spirit are equally committed to our redemption and are unitedly laboring to consummate it. (See John 6:37-39, 63.)

[...]

"Christ's submissiveness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit clearly displays the variety of the Spirt's [sic] work in His life. Consider some aspects of this work—daily direction with regard to duty and its proper performance; discernment; endurance; energy; power; and clarity of mind to comprehend, teach, and apply Scripture. This work is also to be carried out in and through the life of Christ's disciples but only as we completely submit to God. (See Isa. 11:1, 2; 50:4-10; 59:19-21; 61:1, 2; John 9:4.) In concert with the Father, and in subjection to His will, the Spirit glorifies Christ. (See John 16:13, 14.)

[...]

"Christ's paramount mission was 'to seek and save the lost' (Luke 19:10). This involved a full restoration of Bible truth and personal demonstration of its beauty and power. (See John 18:37.) The Holy Spirit anointed Christ to perform His work with flawless mastery, skill, and plenitude, as the great Medical Missionary who came to save us from sin and from every conceivable form of life-robbing affliction (see Acts 10:38). Because of Christ's single-minded submission to the will of God, and full obedience to His Word, the Spirit was granted to Christ without measure (see John 3:31-35).

PAGE 19

[...]

"l Describe the Holy Spirit's role in Jesus' life and ministry. How is this similar to the Holy Spirit's role in the life of a Christian? How is it different? Why was it necessary for Jesus, Himself a manifestation of God, to rely on the Holy Spirit?

[...]

"4 A close look at the Gospels indicates that God and the Holy Spirit were active in Jesus' life and ministry at different times and places. What does this say about the nature and character of the Holy Spirit manifested in the Godhead?

"5 Jesus performed His miracles strictly through the power of the Holy Spirit. Presumably, we have access to the same power, but we rarely, if ever, perform such miracles, or see them performed by others. Was Jesus different in this sense? If so, how? Did He have an advantage in being God, or was He closer to God's ideal for humanity—an ideal that is at least theoretically attainable for us?

[...]

"'Christ came to this world to show that by receiving power from on high, man can live an unsullied life. With unwearying patience and sympathetic helpfulness, He met men in their necessities. By the gentle touch of grace, He banished from the soul unrest and doubt, changing enmity to love, and unbelief to confidence. . . .

'At the sound of His voice the spirit of greed and ambition fled from the heart, and men arose, emancipated, to follow the Saviour.'—Ellen G. White, Reflecting Christ, p. 43. [...]

[...]

"To the many Scripture references that the Father raised Christ from the dead (see Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 13:30-37), Peter adds that Christ was 'quickened' (zoopoieo, which means 'made alive') 'by the Spirit' (1 Pet. 3:18; compare Rom. 1:4, 8:11). This again atests [sic] to the intimacy with which the Father and Spirit worked together in all aspects of Christ's life and ministry, from His birth to His resurrection. God desires this same intimacy with us from our new birth onward to final glory. (See Romans 6-8; Eph. 1:17-19.)" (http://absg.adventist.org/2006/2Q/TE/ETQ206_03.pdf)

The above excerpts totally teach Tritheism and deny the deity of Jesus, even stating that He "set aside His divine powers completely"! Their statement that "Jesus' divinity never ceased" is totally disingenuous and meaningless in light of everything they claim. They even teach that Jesus was no more divine than we can be.

In Lesson 10, the following appears in the Teachers Edition:

"The Holy Spirit makes Christ present to seekers and believers. Yet, we also know that the Spirit is a distinct, personal entity in His own right. What do these two facts about the Holy Spirit teach us about the relationship between the members of the Trinity?

[...]

"Salvation in Christ introduces us to intimate fellowship with the entire Godhead through the Spirit. No part of the Deity remains aloof from us or inaccessible. This communion is most directly open to us through the avenue of receptivity to the Word of God (see John 14:15- 17, 21-23; 15:7-15). God's Word begets new life in the soul, a life that conforms to the image of Christ, the Living Word, thus making us partakers of the divine nature. (See 1 Pet. 1:2-5, 9-14; 2 Pet. 1:1-4.)" (http://absg.adventist.org/2006/2Q/TE/ETQ206_10.pdf)

The following quote is from Lesson 8 of the 1st Quarter 2007 Collegiate Quarterly:

"Anyone who has ever been threatened knows the importance of sticking close to the one who can protect them from the threat. All of us are threatened by Satan (1 Pet. 5:8). However, we have Friends in high places that are more than willing to come to our rescue.

"The Godhead is more than equal to the task of keeping us upright, but we must be willing and active participants. Real intimacy is not intellectual; it is not emotional; it is life-sustaining. How do we get this intimacy?" (http://cqbiblestudy.org/site/1/lessons/english/2007-1/08.pdf)

In the above quote, they explicitly refer to "The Godhead" as our "Friends"!

The following is from the July/August/September 2007 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 1:

"The Image of God

"'So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them' (Gen. 1:27, NKJV).

"The meaning of what constitutes the 'image of God' can be understood partly through the clarifying statement that follows in the text— 'male and female He created them.' Male and female together reflect the image of God. One gender complements the other and is incomplete by itself. Male and female human beings were not meant to live separately but to seek the other naturally. This combination of male and female is necessary for the preservation of society and the continuity of human history.

"Many have associated God with solely the masculine gender. Though the Hebrew word for God has a masculine plural ending and takes masculine forms of the verb, the Bible also includes feminine imagery and qualities for God.

"What feminine images for the attributes of God are used here? Deut. 32:11; Isa. 49:15, 16; 66:12, 13; Hos. 13:8; Matt. 23:37.

PAGE 20

"In support of this complementary nature of the genders is the idea of the plurality in God. The pronoun used for God is in the plural: ' 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness' ' (Gen. 1:26, NIV).

"How might the plurality of the Godhead reflect the idea of man and woman together reflecting the image of God?

"Plurality in the Godhead is necessary because God is love. In order for love to exist, there must be someone to love and someone to be loved. Male and female in their partnership reflect this plurality. Like God, it is natural for man and woman to be united in love. Love marks a basic human relationship. Humans live to love and are not complete unless they do so, whether or not that love is expressed in a marriage relationship. Single people can express love in other ways. After all, Jesus was single.

[...]

"Commenting on Genesis 2:24, Jesus declared that husband and wife ' 'are no longer two, but one' ' (Matt. 19:6, NIV). Husband and wife are to be united, socially, emotionally, and spiritually, even as the Trinity, though Three, is One. This is one way in which husband and wife reflect the 'image of God.'" (http://absg.adventist.org/2007/3Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ307_01.pdf)

And in the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 1, it has the following even more blatantly polytheistic statements:

"The meaning of the 'image of God' can be partly understood from the verse: 'male and female He [God] created them' (Genesis 1:27). Male and female together show the image of God. One gender (sex) helps the other gender and is not whole by itself. Male and female humans3 were not meant to live by themselves. God made male and female humans to need one another. This need helps society4 stay together and helps human history to keep moving forward.

[...]

"Male and female together help us understand the idea that God is more than one Person. The pronoun, or part of speech, used for God shows that God is many: ' 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness' '(Genesis 1:26, NIV).

"How might the idea of man and woman together help us understand that God is more than one Person?

"Male and female together show that love works when two or more are involved. Like God, man and woman want to join together in love.

[...]

"About Genesis 2:24, Jesus said that husband and wife ' 'are no longer two, but one' ' (Matthew 19:6, NIV). Husband and wife are to share in their feelings, in their friendships with others, and in their love for God. In the same way, the Trinity12 is Three-in- One. This is one way in which husband and wife can show the 'image (likeness) of God.'

[...]

"12. Trinity—God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit." (http://absg.adventist.org/2007/3Q/ER/PDFs/ERQ307_01.pdf)

And in the Teachers Edition for Lesson 1, the following additional comments are made:

"Teach the Class to:
Know: Marriage reflects God's divine image.
Feel: A desire to be created anew in God's image.
Do: Determine to ask Jesus to bless your relationships.

[...]

"Summary: Godly marriage reflects the image of God in its unity.

[...]

"Consider Genesis 1:26. What does the phrase 'image of God' mean to you? Does it have physical, emotional, creative, male-female overtones? If so, how?

[...]

"II. Marriage: Unity in Diversity

"'The image of God . . . male and female' (Gen. 1:26, 27). These two phrases that describe the human creation and the human family teach us a profound truth. Just as unity, love, and unselfishness mark the Godhead, in the midst of Their plurality—the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit—so should humanity, particularly the family, reflect that aspect of the image of God in being united in love. An ideal marriage brings together two to make one—not sacrificing the individuality of either, but each complementing the other, to ensure that the two 'shall be one flesh' (Gen. 2:24)." (http://absg.adventist.org/2007/3Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ307_01.pdf)

Again we see, from this lesson, that Adventism teaches that the "oneness" of "God" is merely a "unity" of purpose, love, character, etc.

The following quote is from the April/May/June 2008 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 2:

"The above passages put Christ on an equal footing with the One whom we have come to call 'God the Father.' And this all measures up

PAGE 21

with Jesus' own declarations when He walked the dusty streets of Palestine. In John 10:30, for example, He declared, ' 'I and the Father are one' ' (NIV). The neuter form of the Greek used here for 'one' implies a union as close as our minds can conceive. Jesus and the Father are of one substance, one nature, yet not one and the same Person (in which case He would have used the masculine gender). If you have trouble plumbing the depths of all this, you have lots of company. The deeper you probe the subject, the more keenly you understand the depths of your ignorance.

"But imagine a situation in which the Being we have come to know as God the Father came to die for us, and the One we have come to know as Jesus stayed back in heaven (we are speaking in human terms to make a point). Nothing would have changed, except that we would have been calling Each by the name we now use for the Other. That is what equality in the Deity means." (http://www.absg.adventist.org/2008/2Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ208_02.pdf)

The above shows that even when they do say "of one substance," they don't mean "one Being," as they then go on to teach once again that the Father and Son are two separate Beings. Also, they clarify that by "of one substance" they simply mean "one nature," or "kind."

This is made explicitly clear in the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 2, which says the following:

"In John 10:30, for example, Jesus said, ' 'I and the Father are one' ' (NIV). The Greek word used here for 'one' suggests a union as close as our minds can imagine. Jesus and the Father are of the same kind, but not one and the same Person. (If so, He would have used a different word.) If you have trouble understanding this, you are not alone. The deeper you explore the subject, the more clearly you understand your limits.

[Next is an image that says "JESUS = GOD" with the following caption underneath it:] "Jesus and God are equal in power but are not the same person.

"But suppose what would happen if God the Father came to die for us, and the one we have come to know as Jesus stayed back in heaven? Nothing would have changed except that we would have been calling each by the name we now use for the other. That is what God the Father and God the Son being equal means to us." (http://www.absg.adventist.org/2008/2Q/ER/PDFs/ERQ208_02.pdf)

And the following additional comments are from Lesson 2 of the Teachers Edition:

"Summary: Jesus, the Son of God, existed eternally with the Father before the world began and is both divine and human. Jesus spoke of His own existence with the Father before coming to save humanity and remained in constant communion with God while here on the earth.

[...]

"Jesus claimed a special relation of equality with God the Father. [...] So intimate was His status with God that Jesus equated one's attitude to Him with the attitude to God. [...] To preach the gospel was to preach in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—all Three being coequal and coeternal Persons of the Godhead (Matt. 28:19). Jesus further claimed that He shared the glory of the Father from eternity (John 17:5, 24). [...]

[...]

"John 1:1-3, 14. The text marks out four points. The Word (i.e., Jesus, vs. 14) independently and eternally existed. The Word is distinct from, but equal with, God the Father. The Word was with God and was God. The Word is the Creator. The Word is Jesus.

[...]

"Thought Questions:
l 'My Father and I are One,' said Christ. They Both are One in nature, One in character, and One in purpose. Is it possible for us to say 'Christ dwells in us'? If it is possible, how would that be seen in our lives?" (http://www.absg.adventist.org/2008/2Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ208_02.pdf)

The next quotation is from Lesson 3:

"One scholar makes the point that the claim that the founder of Christianity was Divine was not a big shock in the Roman world; after all, their emperors routinely claimed divinity. But the claim that 'the Christian God was concerned about humanity; concerned enough to suffer in its behalf. This was unheard of.'—Huston Smith, The Illustrated World's Religions (New York: HarperCollins, 1986), p. 219. [...]

[...]

"While on earth, Jesus voluntarily surrendered the independent exercise of the Divine attributes. He surrendered; He did not relinquish. The attributes remained in Him. He could have used them at any time for His own advantage, but He did not. The temptation to call on these attributes to extricate Himself from difficulty (in ways not open to us) was a major ingredient of His daily trials." (Emphasis in origingal. http://www.absg.adventist.org/2008/2Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ208_03.pdf)

And in the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 3, it says the following:

"One thinker makes the point that it was not a big shock in the Roman world that the founder of Christianity was divine (of God). Roman emperors often claimed they were gods. But the claim that 'the Christian God was very interested in humans, so much that He would suffer for their sake was unheard of.'—Adapted from Huston Smith, The Illustrated World's Religions (New York: HarperCollins, 1986), page 219. [...]

[...]

PAGE 22

"While on earth, Jesus voluntarily (freely) surrendered (gave up; offered) His right to use power as God. This power remained in Him, and He could have used it at any time for His own advantage (gain). But He did not. The temptation6 to call on this power to remove Himself from difficulty was a big one in His daily trials.

[...]

"6. temptation—anything that tries to turn us away from God and tries to get us to do, think, feel, or say what is wrong." (http://www.absg.adventist.org/2008/2Q/ER/PDFs/ERQ208_03.pdf)

Notice that with their definition for "temptation" they are saying that Jesus was tempted to turn "away from God" by using His divine power/attributes! Also, notice that in the first paragraph they are comparing Christianity's claim of divinity with the Roman emperors' claims of divinity, saying that the Christian claim of Jesus' divinity was "not a big shock in the Roman world." But the Roman emperors did not claim to be the one and only true God!

And the following additional comments are from Lesson 3 of the Teachers Edition:

"Jesus, of His own free will, denied the exercise of His divine power while here on earth.

[...]

"Summary: Although Jesus was divine, He suffered in the flesh and experienced our weaknesses. He did not use His divinity to overcome sin and temptation, yet He lived a sinless life.

[...]

"John 1:1-3, 14 is foundational to understanding the nature of Christ and its significance to Christ's ministry. This passage teaches us three great truths. First, John, the beloved of Christ's disciples, introduces Christ as the Word. This Word existed from the beginning, along with God, coequal and coeternal with Him. Second, being God, the Word took upon Himself the 'flesh'—that is, human nature—and dwelt as Man on earth. [...]" (http://www.absg.adventist.org/2008/2Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ208_03.pdf)

Notice the subtle perversion of John 1:1 in the above quote.

This next quote is from Lesson 12:

"'Not long after the Creation . . . our first parents fell into sin. . . . In the wake of this terrible crisis, God's first concern was for human restoration and the eternal security of the universe. The death of a member of the Godhead—a contingency already determined in the foreknowledge and council of God (see Rev. 13:8)—was the only means to that end.

"'To secure human participation and cooperation in this supreme endeavor, God moved quickly to inform our first parents of the plan. At the same time, He put in place a teaching device to keep it perpetually before their attention and that of succeeding generations.'—Roy Adams, The Sanctuary (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald® Publishing Association, 1993), pp. 17, 18. That teaching device, of course, was the sanctuary service." (http://www.absg.adventist.org/2008/2Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ208_12.pdf)

And the following additional comments are from Lesson 12 of the Teacher's Edition:

"Summary: Christ's high-priestly ministry has no time barrier. It was relevant in the days of the early New Testament church and still applies to our time today. Through His ministry, all who come to Jesus can have access to God the Father.

[...]

"So God, in His love and mercy, gave us His Son—Someone who understands both parties 100 percent; Someone who can mediate and straighten out the problems and misunderstandings that exist between God and us." (http://www.absg.adventist.org/2008/2Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ208_12.pdf)

We will now move on to the October/November/December 2008 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, whose "Principal Contributor" was Angel Manuel Rodriguez, who is the director of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. The following excerpts are from Lesson 4:

"Key Thought: To show that the Godhead anticipated the Fall, and that a plan was crafted to solve the problem of sin long before it arose.

[...]

"God was not obliged to save the human race. It was not something that He was forced to do. It is difficult to imagine the Godhead saying, 'Had We done this or that, Adam and Eve would not have fallen into sin. Therefore, now We should do something to save them from their predicament.'

[...]

"First, it was formulated before the 'foundation of the world' (Eph. 1:4, NASB). This implies that long before humans fell into sin, the Godhead had created a plan to deal with that calamity.

"Second, this divine mystery was 'kept hidden for ages and generations' (Col. 1:26, NIV). Not only was the plan configured in advance, but it was also determined that it would be put into effect at a particular moment. Therefore, it remained hidden within the Godhead for ages.

PAGE 23

[...]

[...] "Fifth, the mystery secretly formulated within the Godhead before the creation of the world has now become known through the coming of Christ into human history.

[...]

"When Jesus was in Gethsemane, experiencing the anguish of death (Matt. 26:36-46) and bearing the sins of the world, He approached the Father, asking Him, essentially, whether or not there was another option available to accomplish the salvation of humankind. The answer came wrapped in divine silence. There was no other way out for the human problem except through the sacrifice of Christ.

"In the mystery of divine council, before the creation of the world, the Son of God offered Himself to die as our Substitute and Surety. [...]

[...]

[...] "He needed to go to Jerusalem. He could have chosen not to go, but He knew that this was indispensable for the divine plan. [...] He was following the eternal plan put together by the Godhead." (http://absg.adventist.org/2008/4Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ408_04.pdf)

In the above excerpts we see that they teach that "the Godhead" is a group which comes together in a "divine council" where they "put together" plans.

And in the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 4, it says the following:

"KEY (IMPORTANT) THOUGHT: To show that the Godhead3 expected the Fall. And then They made a plan to solve the problem of sin long before it arose.

[...]

"3. Godhead—the Father, His Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are the Three Persons who make up the Godhead. Together they are One God.

[...]

"Fifth, the mystery was secretly planned within the Godhead before the creation of the world. But it has now become known through the coming of Christ into human history.

[...]

"In the mystery of God's council, before the world was created, the Son of God offered Himself to die as our Substitute.18 [...]

[...]

[...] "He needed to go to Jerusalem. He could have chosen not to go. But Jesus knew that this was a very important part of God's plan. [...] He was following God's eternal plan." (http://absg.adventist.org/2008/4Q/ER/PDFs/ERQ408_04.pdf)

Again, we see that their definition of the "Godhead" is a group of Three who "together" "make up" "one God." This is the same definition as the Mormon "Godhead."

And in the Teachers Edition for Lesson 4, it has the following additional comments:

"Consider This: Why did Jesus see what He did as so necessary for His mission? Why did He say so often that He wasn't doing His work but His Father's?

"The communion between the Father and Son is so close that Jesus, in loving us and dying for us, was expressing the Father's love for us, in close obedience to His Father's will. Yet, our relationship with Jesus is so intimate that Jesus says He knows us the way the Father knows Him. 'What a statement is this!—the only begotten Son, He who is in the bosom of the Father, He whom God has declared to be 'the man that is my fellow' (Zech. 13:7),—the communion between Him and the eternal God is taken to represent the communion between Christ and His children on the earth!'—Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 483." (http://absg.adventist.org/2008/4Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ408_04.pdf)

The following quote is from the Collegiate Quarterly, from Lesson 7 of the 4th quarter in 2008:

"If Christ is a true revelation of God's character, and if God's plan of redemption in Christ truly consists of our salvation, then we must address the question: Who are God and Christ? How are they able to achieve salvation for sinful humans?" (http://cqbiblestudy.org/site/1/lessons/english/2008-4/CQ-08-Q4-07.pdf)

The next quote is from Lesson 8 of the October/November/December 2008 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide:

"Third, the Godhead was involved and present in the baptism of Jesus. The Father's voice was heard from heaven, and the Holy Spirit made Himself visible through the symbol of a dove. God's love was flowing down to His Son as a member of the human race, accepting Him as its Representative. Humans were no longer separated from the love of God, because in Christ a channel through which divine love could reach them was found.

[...]

PAGE 24

"The temptations of Jesus reveal some contrasting parallels with those of Adam and Eve. [...] Sixth, Adam openly went against the Lord and joined Satan in his rebellion against God and His government. Jesus was offered the kingdoms of this world if He would only worship and join Satan in his struggle against the kingdom of God. Jesus, however, remained loyal to the Father.

[...]

"That deep bond of unity between the Father and the Son was not broken through the temptations and attacks that Satan launched against the Son of God. He overcame every one and remained totally dependent on the Father. No other human being has been, is, or will be exactly like Him. He was by nature and by personal election sinless. [...]

[...]

"Further Study: Purpose of the Incarnation: 'Christ in counsel with His Father laid out the plan for His life on earth. . . . He clothed His divinity with the garb of humanity, that He might stand at the head of the human family, His humanity mingled with the humanity of the race fallen because of Adam's disobedience.'—Ellen G. White, The Southern Work, p. 85.

[...]

"Summary: In the incarnation of Jesus we witness the only human Being who was born on this planet in complete and perfect union with God. Although tempted by the enemy in ways that no other human being has been or will be tempted, Jesus remained loyal to the Father and overcame where Adam failed, thus paving the way to bring salvation to all who surrender to Him in faith and obedience." (http://absg.adventist.org/2008/4Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ408_08.pdf)

If Jesus is God, then it would be impossible for Him to "worship and join Satan in his struggle against the kingdom of God." And there would be no need for Him to try to "remain loyal to the Father" if He is one and the same God! The above excerpts are simply a denial of Christ's deity and of the Trinity.

And the following comments are from the Collegiate Quarterly, also from Lesson 8 of the 4th quarter in 2008:

"Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where He prayed and fasted for 40 days and nights and was then tempted by the devil. [...] Jesus was trying to show us that it is possible to resist temptation and overcome sin—even in our weakest moments. After 40 days without food, He was physically weak and longing for a meal, yet he managed to resist Satan's temptation to turn stones into bread. Pay close attention to the fact that Jesus' only source of strength came from praying to God—something all of us can do. He specifically chose to lay aside His power, and to exercise only the means available to us in order to prove that we, too, can live sinless lives.When we sin, it is not because God has refused to help us, but rather because we have failed to use all of the resources made available to us by Him, in order to avoid falling into the trap of sin. It is only through following Christ's example of staying in constant communion with God, that we can conquer temptation.

[...]

"Everybody knows that oil and water don't mix—but do they? In many recipes, water-based and oil-based liquids do mix by forming an emulsion using egg yolks. So why are we talking about cooking?

"On the surface, we cannot 'mix' with God because of our sin (Rom. 3:23), but God has made a way for a perfect union with Him by providing the secret ingredient—His Son (1 Pet. 3:18). So how does this recipe work? How can we be part of God's plan to be restored to Him through the incarnation of Jesus and through the sanctifying of our nature?1 Let us take a look at the formation of emulsion using a hollandaise sauce recipe to illustrate how:2" (http://cqbiblestudy.org/site/1/lessons/english/2008-4/CQ-08-Q4-08.pdf)

Notice that the above quote has Jesus as a separate, third "ingredient" in addition to "God" and the believer. And the first paragraph teaches that Jesus was no more divine than we can be.

The following is from Lesson 10 of the October/November/December 2008 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide:

"It is to this cup that Jesus was referring when He asked the Father to let it be taken away from Him, if possible (Matt. 26:39, Mark 14:36). He was experiencing loneliness—the abandonment of the disciples and particularly the abandonment of God. He sought the company and support of the disciples but didn't get it. And now, all by Himself, He asked the Father not to forsake Him. The answer that came back to Him from within the darkness of the divine silence was, 'There is no other way to save the human race.' Jesus voluntarily acquiesced to the will of the Father.

[...]

"Darkness: Handed Over to the Enemy

"In Gethsemane, and now in the events leading to the Cross, Jesus faced as never before the forces of evil. The struggle against satanic powers was to reach indescribable dimensions, testing the Savior to the very core of His being.

[...]

"According to Matthew 26:45, 46, Jesus was handed over into the hands of sinners. The verb expresses the idea of a transfer of a possession from one to another. Indeed, already 'the light of God was receding from His vision, and He was passing into the hands of the powers of darkness.'—Ellen G. White, Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, August 1, 1892. Now He was going to be delivered totally into the hands of sinners; that is, into the hands of evil powers. For Him this was the hour ' 'when darkness reigns' ' (Luke 22:53, NIV), when He was to experience total separation from the Father's love. Christ was going into the kingdom of darkness by Himself; and yet, it was there, in that kingdom, that He would defeat evil once and for all. [...]

PAGE 25

[...]

"On the cross, Jesus was suffering intensely. But so was the Father. God was in Christ, consequently, 'the omnipotent God suffered with His Son.'—Ellen G. White, The Upward Look, p. 223. [...] What was the nature of the suffering experienced by the Godhead that caused Christ to ask, ' 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' ' (Matt. 27:46, NIV).

"On the cross God experienced something He had never before experienced: The penalty for sin. 'It was necessary for the awful darkness to gather about His soul because of the withdrawal of the Father's love and favor; for He was standing in the sinner's place. . . . The righteous One must suffer the condemnation and wrath of God, not in vindictiveness; for the heart of God yearned with greatest sorrow when His Son, the guiltless, was suffering the penalty of sin. This sundering of the divine powers will never again occur throughout the eternal ages.'—Ellen G. White Comments, The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 924.

"This statement indicates, first, that the Father withdrew His love from the Son not because He did not love Him but because Jesus was dying in our place. There was no one available to mediate God's love to His Son! Second, there was no vindictiveness in the heart of the Father as His Son was dying for the sins of the world. He did not rejoice in the death of the Son but was suffering with Him. Third, the real penalty God paid for our sins was 'the sundering of the divine powers.' Ellen White is taking us inside the mystery of the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, describing for us what the Godhead underwent as Jesus was on the cross. The verb to sunder means 'to break or force apart.' That which should have remained united was torn apart.

"In short, through Christ's sacrifice the Godhead was accepting responsibility for the world's sins and, more so, the Godhead was suffering the consequences of these sins. Could it be that the Godhead, who cannot die, felt in a unique way—through the temporary sundering of the divine powers—the full intensity of the eternal death of the fallen race, through the temporal exclusion of the Son from the unity of the Godhead? The plan of salvation, the atonement, pulled the Trinity apart but momentarily. This experience of extreme 'pain' within the Godhead took place only once and will never occur again.

[...]

"Discussion Questions:

[...]

"2 Dwell on Wednesday's lesson, the idea of the temporal sundering of the Godhead. What can you take from that which can help you understand the depth of the atonement? How was that experience in the Godhead 'the penalty' for our sin? Discuss your answer in class on Sabbath.

[...]

"Summary: On the cross, Jesus experienced the fullness of the sinner's eternal separation from God. [...]" (http://absg.adventist.org/2008/4Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ408_10.pdf)

In the above excerpts, there are many incredibly heretical statements. They are teaching a totally polytheistic "Godhead," saying that there was a "sundering" of the "divine powers" (gods) when "Jesus" was on the cross.

And in the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 10, it says the following:

"And now, all by Himself, Jesus prayed to the Father not to leave Him. The answer that came back to Him was silence. It was the same as the Father saying, 'There is no other way to save humans.' Then Jesus surrendered11 to the will of the Father.

[...]

"11. surrendered—to give one's whole life to God.

[...]

"Jesus was in Gethsemane, and now the events were leading to the Cross. Jesus was facing the forces of evil as never before. The struggle against satanic powers was reaching its peak. It was testing the Savior to the very limit.

[...]

"Ellen G. White's statement shows, first, that the Father withdrew His love from the Son. He did not withdraw because He did not love Him. He withdrew because Jesus was dying in our place. There was no one to connect Jesus to God's love! Second, there was no revengeful13 spirit in the heart of the Father as His Son was dying for the sins of the world. The Father did not rejoice in the death of the Son. But the Father was suffering with Him. Third, the real penalty God paid for our sins was 'the sundering [tearing apart] of God's powers.' Ellen G. White is taking us inside the mystery of the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. She is describing for us what the Godhead14 had gone through while Jesus was on the cross. The verb to sunder means 'to break or force apart.' That which should have remained united (joined together as one) was torn apart.

"In short, through Christ's sacrifice15 the Godhead was accepting responsibility for the world's sins. More so, the Godhead was suffering the results of these sins. The Godhead cannot die. But, at the tearing apart of God's power, could the Godhead feel the great pain of the eternal death of all fallen sinners during the Son's short 'absence' from the unity16 of the Godhead? The plan of salvation,17 the atonement, pulled the Trinity18 apart for a short while. This experience of great 'pain' within the Godhead took place only once and will never happen again.

PAGE 26

[...]

"16. unity—when two or more people or things are joined together as one; when two or more people are in agreement in ideals, feelings, and so on.

[...]

"DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

[...]

"2 Go over Wednesday's study about the idea of the tearing apart of the Godhead. What can you take from that to help you understand the deep meaning of the atonement? How was that experience in the Godhead 'the penalty' for our sin? Discuss your answer in class on Sabbath." (http://absg.adventist.org/2008/4Q/ER/PDFs/ERQ408_10.pdf)

The above definition of the word "unity" (which they use in reference to "the Godhead") is extremely polytheistic. This is what they mean when they say in their official statement of "Fundamental Beliefs" that their "one God" is "a unity of three co-eternal Persons."

And the following additional comments are from the Teachers Edition for Lesson 10:

"The Student Will:

[...]

"Feel: The agony Christ felt as He became separated from His Father.

[...]

"Separation from God fills the soul with horror. Explore what God the Father and the Holy Spirit might have felt during Christ's time in Gethsemane, on the cross, and in the tomb.

[...]

"Consider This: At the cross, Jesus became sin for us. He gave up His life to pay the penalty for our rebellion. His Father had to be totally separated from Him. (See Mat. 27:46.) What does that tell us about our Savior? In the context of the great controversy between good and evil, what does this tell us about the risks He was willing to take for us? What should this mean to us?

"III. The Rescue Mission Action Plan—Atonement

"The heavenly Trinity met and developed a plan for our salvation. We describe it using the word atonement. As a class, take a few minutes to draw a time line of salvation representing the different steps in Jesus' journey from heaven to the cross and resurrection. How do the words anguish, darkness, submission, enemy, and eternal death fit on the time line? [...]" (http://absg.adventist.org/2008/4Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ408_10.pdf)

Not only do the above comments teach tritheism, they also hint again at their teaching that "Christ" ceased to exist when he died and was non-existent "in the tomb" (and therefore separated from their other two gods during those three days).

And the following comments are from the Collegiate Quarterly, also from Lesson 10 of the 4th quarter in 2008:

"The cup Jesus spoke of referred to the terrible physical agony He knew He would endure and to the mental and spiritual anguish He would suffer as He faced the prospect of eternal separation from His Father as He took upon Himself the penalty for humanity's sin. No wonder He needed to pray!

"Jesus' physical suffering was the visible reflection of the spiritual suffering He was experiencing—spiritual suffering brought upon by bearing the sins of all humanity. He seemed to be shut out from the light of God's presence and His Father's love. And now He was numbered with the transgressors and the guilt of fallen humanity.

[...]

[...] "The darkness on that Friday afternoon was both physical and spiritual. While Jesus' friends and enemies alike fell silent in the encircling gloom, He cried, ' 'My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?' ' (Matt. 27:46, NLT). Jesus was not questioning God, but was quoting the first line of Psalm 22, a deep expression of anguish He felt as He took on the sins of the world, causing Him to believe He would be eternally separated from His Father.

[...]

"Spend time in prayer with friends. In times of trouble it helps to know that someone is there to listen and give us hope. Christ experienced unbelievable sorrow because many of those He loved were preparing to betray Him. God heard His Son's cry and gave Him strength because of Christ's faith. Praying with friends strengthens our faith and allows our hearts to be in connection with Him. [...]

[...]

"The cross was God's solution to sin. Jesus endured the agony of utter severance from God so that no one would ever need to. In the

PAGE 27

ultimate paradox, Jesus' temporary separation from God brings us all together forever. [...]" (http://cqbiblestudy.org/site/1/lessons/english/2008-4/CQ-08-Q4-10.pdf)

The following quote is from Lesson 11 of the October/November/December 2008 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide:

"Third, the ascension of Christ also testifies that His defeat of evil powers on the cross was final. After His ascension, He was enthroned as co-Regent with God, sitting at His right hand, 'with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him' (1 Pet. 3:22, NIV; see also Heb. 10:12, 13). He will remain with the Father until His enemies are subjected to Him. Then He will return to save those who are waiting for Him (Heb. 9:28), thus consummating His work of salvation (Phil. 2:10, 11; Rev. 17:14)." (http://absg.adventist.org/2008/4Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ408_11.pdf)

And in the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 11, it says the following:

"Third, the ascension of Christ also proves that His victory (win) over evil powers on the cross was final. After His ascension, Jesus was made co-ruler with God. He sits at the Father's right hand. 'Angels, authorities [evil spirits] and powers are under his control' (1 Peter 3:22, NIrV). (Read also Hebrews 10:12, 13.) Christ will remain with the Father until His enemies are under His control. Then He will return to save those who are waiting for Him (Hebrews 9:28). This finally will bring His salvation to a successful end (Philippians 2:10, 11; Revelation 17:14)." (http://absg.adventist.org/2008/4Q/ER/PDFs/ERQ408_11.pdf)

The above quotes are an absolute denial of monotheism. There is only one Ruler of the universe! Jesus is not a "co-ruler with God" or a "co-Regent." He is the King of kings, and Lord of lords! Also, Adventism uses the phrase "sitting at His right hand" literally (instead of recognizing such phraseology as "a figurative expression in Semitic cultures in Biblical times, signifying a position of authority"7), as they deny the incorporeality of God.

And the following comments are from the Collegiate Quarterly, also from Lesson 11 of the 4th quarter in 2008:

"From the beginning, our heavenly Father has always vested power on His only Son to rule the universe. Shall we not be happy to know that Christ, through whom God created the whole universe, and the One who sets everything in their proper place, is also our personal Intercessor before the Father? As we pray every day, He presents our petitions before God with His own voice, to ask on our behalf. This gives us a deep sense of belonging and destiny. Since we are both the subjects and the objects of sin before God, this mediatory function of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary places can have great impact on our spiritual life—He is both our Advocate and our Judge. [...]

[...]

"The Benefactors and the Beneficiaries

[...]

"CONCLUDE

"God is good all the time. Jesus is good all the time. Sometimes we think that God is angry enough with us that we need Jesus to appease Him, so He intercedes on our behalf before God. However, the Bible clearly teaches that both the Father (God) and the Son (Jesus) are on the same team. They are both on our side, defending us against Satan's lies and accusations. They live to intercede for us. They're rich benefactors of grace, and we're blessed beneficiaries of their grace. Enjoy it!" (http://cqbiblestudy.org/site/1/lessons/english/2008-4/CQ-08-Q4-11.pdf)

The above excerpts are incredibly polytheistic, even going so far as to say that "our heavenly Father has always vested power on His only Son to rule the universe" and that "both the Father (God) and the Son (Jesus) are on the same team" and that "they" are "rich benefactors of grace, and we're blessed beneficiaries of their grace"!

The following quote is from Lesson 12 of the October/November/December 2008 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide:

"There is a very close connection between the Spirit and Christ. Several ideas in Romans 8:9 deserve some attention. [...]

[...]

"Further Study: 'Christ gave to humanity an existence out of Himself. To bring humanity into Christ, to bring the fallen race into oneness with divinity, is the work of redemption. Christ took human nature that men might be one with Him as He is one with the Father, that God may love man as He loves His only-begotten Son, that men may be partakers of the divine nature, and be complete in Him.'—Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 1, p. 251.

[...]

"Summary: Adam, through his sin, initiated a humanity separated from God. Christ came in union with God, overcame the enemy, died for our sins, and instituted a new humanity, one in union with God free from the enslaving powers of sin and death. [...]" (http://absg.adventist.org/2008/4Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ408_12.pdf)

Notice that the above quote says that we can be "in union with God" just like "Christ" is "in union with God."

And the following comments are from the Collegiate Quarterly, also from Lesson 12 of the 4th quarter in 2008:

"God loved Adam, Eve, and generations yet to be born so much that a plan had been laid in order to make redemption successful. 'There seemed to be no place of rest or safety for the infant Redeemer. God could not trust His beloved Son with men, even while carrying forward His work for their salvation. He commissioned angels to attend Jesus and protect Him till He should accomplish His mission on

PAGE 28

earth, and die by the hands of those whom He came to save.'1

"From the womb to the tomb, Jesus had experienced great distress at the hand of Satan. [...]

[...]

"1. The Desire of Ages, p. 67." (http://cqbiblestudy.org/site/1/lessons/english/2008-4/CQ-08-Q4-12.pdf)

The statement they quote from Ellen G. White is utterly blasphemous, as Jesus is nowhere near being God!

The following excerpts are from Lesson 13 of the Collegiate Quarterly:

"Before Jesus went to the cross to purchase our salvation, He promised His disciples (and by extension us) that He was going 'to prepare a place' for them and that when He had everything ready, He would return to take us home with Him. This was the whole reason for His first coming—to unite us to Himself—and to the God who loves us. [...]

[...]

"This is the end of our study on the atonement Christ made for us. Reflect upon what these lessons have taught you about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and your relationship to them.

[...]

"CONCLUDE

"When God created us, He intended for us to live in His presence forever. Satan had other plans, and our first parents allowed his plans to influence theirs. Where God intended for us to be co-creators with Him, we became co-destroyers with God's—and ultimately our own—enemy. God would have had every right and reason to vaporize our world and start over. But instead, He insisted on trying to restore us.We need to remind ourselves every day how important and wonderful this is, and to try to live and think like people who have been redeemed." (http://cqbiblestudy.org/site/1/lessons/english/2008-4/CQ-08-Q4-13.pdf)

According to the above quote, Jesus is not "the God who loves us"!

And the following additional comments are from the Teacher's Guide for Lesson 13 of the Collegiate Quarterly:

"2. God and His Son are our ultimate judges, and Jesus makes it quite clear that we ourselves are not to 'judge' (Matt. 7:1, 2), yet a few verses later He insists that we carefully evaluate false prophets (verses 15-20). How can we tell when we're being a 'judge' and when we're being a 'fruit inspector'?" (http://cqbiblestudy.org/site/1/lessons/english/2008-4/CQ-08-Q4-T-13.pdf)

According to the Bible, there is only one "Judge of all the earth" (Genesis 18:25; see also Psalm 75:7 and Hebrews 12:23). There are not multiple "judges"/gods!

The next quote is from the January/February/March 2009 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 1:

"In the Garden of Eden God spoke with Adam and Eve face-to-face. 'And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day' (Gen. 3:8). However, after that fateful day, when they blatantly disobeyed their Lord, they no longer were allowed to enjoy His presence (Gen. 3:23, 24), and their face-to-face communion with Him ended.

[...]

"In John 1:18 John says, 'No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.' The Divine Being, therefore, who appeared to the people in the Old Testament must have been Jesus, not the Father. Ellen G. White tells us that 'after the transgression of Adam, the Lord spoke no longer directly with man; the human race was given into the hands of Christ, and all communication came through Him to the world. It was Christ who spoke the law on Mount Sinai.'—Fundamentals of Christian Education, pp. 237, 238." (http://absg.adventist.org/2009/1Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ109_01.pdf)

First of all, in the above quote, they teach once again that there are multiple Divine Beings (gods). There are also more hints of their divine corporeality teaching. Also, they are misusing and twisting John 1:18. When it says that no one has seen God at any time, it means what it says--that no one has seen God's actual essence/Being--since He is an infinite, invisible Spirit. And this fully applies to the Son, not just the Father--since God is one spirit being. No one has seen the Son's divine essence. The verse does not say that no one has seen the Father but that they have seen the Son. And, in fact, Jesus said that those who had seen Him had seen the Father (John 14:7-9). The SDA interpretation of this verse separates the Father and the Son into two gods. Then, their Ellen G. White quote totally separates "the Lord" from "Christ"--saying that "the Lord" no longer spoke directly to man, but that "Christ" did! They are simply denying outright that Jesus Christ is the Lord.

And in the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 1, it says the following:

"In the Garden of Eden, God spoke with Adam and Eve face-to-face. But soon after, Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Then they could not be in God's presence (Genesis 3:23, 24). They could no longer speak to God face-to-face.

[...]

"In John 1:18, John says, 'No one has ever seen God. But God, the one and only Son, is at the Father's side. He has shown us what God is like' (NIrV). God, who appeared to the people in the Old Testament, must have been Jesus, not the Father. Ellen G. White tells us that

PAGE 29

'after the sin of Adam, the Lord did not speak face-to-face to man anymore. God put the future of the human race [group] in Christ's hands. All that God needed to tell us came through Jesus to the world. It was Christ who spoke the law on Mount Sinai.'—Adapted from Fundamentals5 of Christian Education, pages 237, 238." (http://absg.adventist.org/2009/1Q/ER/PDFs/ERQ109_01.pdf)

So for the Easy Reading editon, instead of saying "The Divine Being...," they have to have awkward, ridiculous wording, saying, "God...must have been Jesus, not the Father," in order to not say what they really mean ("The God who appeared to people...") and thus speak of two "Gods" outright. Nevertheless, it is obvious they are referring to multiple gods.

And the following additional comments are from the Teachers Edition for Lesson 1:

"Consider This: How else does the sun teach us about the majesty of God? What does the sun suggest about God's ability to reach us, though He, too, is physically distant? What are the limits of the analogy?

[...]

"God's greatest act of mercy was sending Jesus to die for us. Yet all the aspects of Jesus' life, not just His death, reveal the plan of salvation at work and communicate God's truth and grace to us: His perfect life is an example of obedience; His vicarious death allows Him to justify us; our faith in His death frees us from the guilt of sin; His resurrection promises us immortality; His ascension into heaven confirms His promise to return to earth and take us to meet the Father." (Emphasis in orginal. http://absg.adventist.org/2009/1Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ109_01.pdf)

Again, in the above quote, they make reference to their denial of God's incorporeality. Also, in that last sentence, they change Jesus' promise and say that it was to "take us to meet the Father." Actually, His promise was: "I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also." (John 14:3b NASB.) It was Phillip who said: "Lord, show us the Father" (verse 8). And Jesus replied that, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (verse 9). Instead, the SDAs have to make "meet[ing] the Father" (yet another hint at their corporeality teaching) the thing that is special, and something that is "new"--even for the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking. They have Jesus as "lesser" than the Father. And all of this is a denial that the Father already indwells all believers.

And the following comments are from the Collegiate Quarterly, also from Lesson 1 of the 1st quarter in 2009:

"This week, we'll look at God's means of communication. After seeing Him in our own selves, it's important to learn about what nature does and does not tell us about Him. Finally, the revelation of Christ as our Savior comes to us as a new drop of rain in a desert. How does His revelation of God differ from God's other revelations?

[...]

"As much as we can see God through the records of the prophets and through nature, we can see Him most vividly through His Son, Jesus Christ. Christ has always been with God, one with Him in purpose, will, and mission; and after the Fall of our first parents, Christ fulfilled His mission on the cross of Calvary so that we might have eternal life. On the cross—the pivotal point of our salvation—God's love radiated through His Son, Jesus Christ.

[...]

"1. Why is Christ the only bridge linking us to God? Why can we not deal with God without involving Christ?

[...]

"By His special revelation, Christ 'rises above humanity, throws off the guise of sin and shame, and stands revealed, the Honored of the angels, the Son of God, One with the Creator of the universe.'1

[...]

"As we continue to study this week's lesson, we will learn that both the personality and the character of God are displayed in His Son, Christ." (http://cqbiblestudy.org/site/1/lessons/english/2009-1/STUDENT/CQ-09-Q1-01.pdf)

Note that the quote they give above, which is from Ellen G. White's The Desire of Ages, says that the Son of God is only "One with the Creator of the universe" rather than that He is the Creator!

The following quote is from Lesson 8 of the January/February/March 2009 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide:

"In Matthew 21:23, while Jesus was teaching, the chief priests and the elders asked Him, ' 'By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?' ' (NKJV). Jesus responded to the question in good rabbinic fashion, and that was with a counter question: ' 'The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?' ' (vs. 25, NKJV; see vss. 24-27). In rabbinic debates the counter question was meant to point the way to the answer of the original question. When they refused to answer, He refused to give a clear answer in return, because if they refused to acknowledge God's power in John's ministry, there was little point in discussing His own—which was also from God.

[...]

"Throughout the Gospels we find Christ's more-than-human authority. He forgave sins (Mark 2:10), drove out devils (Mark 3:15), and claimed the right to judge men's hearts (John 2:24, 25) and give eternal life (John 10:28). Yet, the authority that Christ exercised within His earthly commission was granted to Him by the Father (John 17:2). Whatever He did, including all the miracles He performed, always was

PAGE 30

done in dependence on and in cooperation with His Father (John 5:19). At the same time, He had absolute authority (Matt. 28:18). Therefore, He could delegate authority to His disciples (Mark 6:7) and will in the end judge all people (John 5:27)." (http://absg.adventist.org/2009/1Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ109_08.pdf)

One of the reasons why Adventism misinterpets passages such as John chapter 5 is because, as we will see later, they deny the concept of timelessness (that God is outside of time and space). Another aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity that Adventism denies is the eternal generation of the Son (and the eternal procession of the Spirit). Since the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, He says in John 5:19 that "the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing;" (NASB). This actually is not "separating" Himself from the Father, or demeaning Himself, as Adventism interprets it; rather it must be true if there is only one God. If God is one God, then the Son cannot do anything "apart from" the Father.

In the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 8, it says the following:

"Throughout the Gospels we find Christ's godly authority. He forgave sins (Mark 2:10). He drove out devils (Mark 3:15). And He claimed the right to judge the hearts of people (John 2:24, 25) and give eternal10 life (John 10:28). But the authority that Christ used on earth was given to Him by the Father (John 17:2). Everything Jesus did on earth was done in close cooperation with His Father (John 5:19). At the same time, Jesus had full authority (Matthew 28:18). So, Jesus could pass His authority on to His disciples (followers) (Mark 6:7)." (http://absg.adventist.org/2009/1Q/ER/PDFs/ERQ109_08.pdf)

And the following additional comments are from the Teachers Edition for Lesson 8:

"I. Speaking for God (Exod. 4:10-16)

"A What was the basis of Moses' authority? What is the respective importance of being called, being sent, and encountering God?

"B What was the basis and evidence of Jesus' authority (Matt. 21:23, John 17:2)? How does this apply to prophets?" (http://absg.adventist.org/2009/1Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ109_08.pdf)

The following is from the Easy Reading Edition for Lesson 12:

[...] "During the Kellogg13 crisis at the turn of the century, Ellen G. White's advice saved the church from pantheism.14 At the same time, almost by herself, she led the church from a semi-Arian15 (a belief that Jesus was not God) to a Trinitarian belief.16 [...]

[...]

"15. Arian (belief)—a belief started by a man named Arius, who taught that there was only one God, the Father.

"16. Trinitarian belief—a belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are Three Persons united (joined together as One) in one God." (http://absg.adventist.org/2009/1Q/ER/PDFs/ERQ109_12.pdf)

In addition to yet another heretical definition of the Trinity, notice that they also imply in their definition of "Arian" that it is wrong to teach that there is "only one God."

The following quote is from Lesson 5 of the Teachers Edition of the April/May/June 2009 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide:

"Summary: God loves us so much that He wants to have an ongoing dialogue with us. He speaks to us through many means, the most powerful of which is Jesus.

[...]

"Key Concept for Spiritual Growth: God reveals Himself and His plan for our lives through a number of sources, including nature, the conscience, His prophets, the Bible, and, most of all, Jesus.

[...]

"However little or much of it we may use, we all crave sugar, and there's just no denying it makes certain foods taste better. We know that sugar is present in candy or cake, but did you know that it also can be a 'hidden' ingredient in soups and sauces, ketchup, and even some meats? When sugar is included in foods in which you might not expect to find it, sugar's sweetness often is disguised by less sugary names, such as lactose, maltodextrin, high fructose corn syrup, sorbitol, and xylitol.

"Like sugar, a knowledge of God and His will also can be obtained through abundant sources. God reveals Himself to us through nature, our conscience, His prophets, the Bible, and, ultimately, through Jesus Christ. One has only to avail oneself of these sources in order to 'taste and see that the Lord is good,' as the psalmist says (Ps. 34:8). The difference, however, is that giving in to the soul's craving for a knowledge of God—unlike too much sugar—actually is good for you.

"Consider This: When you want something sweet, what do you usually crave? Mangoes? Coconut custard pie? Baklava? Chocolate cherry chunk ice cream? Granted, everyone's taste buds crave something different, and we might find ourselves reaching for chocolate instead of an apple more often than we'd care to admit, but our cravings for sweet foods actually may have something beneficial to teach us about our cravings for spiritual things. Too often we may fill this 'God hunger,' or craving for spiritual things, with other kinds of stimuli that do not feed or satisfy our soul. How can the different ways that God reveals Himself to us offer the true nourishment and sustenance the soul needs most?

[...]

PAGE 31

"Still, as beautiful and potent a witness as nature is, it alone cannot reveal the plan of salvation. For the fuller picture, we must turn to other sources, such as the Word of God and the revelation of God through Jesus.

[...]

"III. In the Flesh (Review Hebrews 1:3 and John 14:8, 9 with your class.)

"Have you ever met a child who looked, sounded, and acted just like his or her parent? It can be an unsettling experience. You may have even felt as though you were in the presence of the very person the child resembled, though, of course that was not the case.

"Jesus resembled His Father in character even more than any earthly parent and child ever could resemble each other. He and the Father are One. Jesus' presence here on earth was the most complete revelation of God ever given to humanity. 'Christ was the express image of His Father's person.'—Ellen G. White, The Upward Look, p. 148. Additionally, 'Christ came to the world to reveal the character of the Father and to redeem the fallen race. . . . He made known in His words, His character, His power and majesty, the nature and attributes of God.'—Ellen G. White, That I May Know Him, p. 38.

"Consider This: How can we grow to 'look more like' God? What is the relationship between growing in Him and growing to look like Him? What can we learn from Jesus' own example? What does His closeness or oneness with the Father reveal about how we may attain God's character attributes?

[...]

"2 Romans 1:18-20 tells us that the 'invisible things' of the eternal power of God and the Godhead are revealed so clearly through nature that an ignorance of Him or a refusal to acknowledge Him is 'without excuse.' Pretty powerful words. Put them to the test. What specific example or examples can you find in nature that reveal God's 'eternal power' or that illustrate the concept of the 'Godhead'? Explain your answer.

[...]

"2 Think about how you came to know God personally. Was it nature, prophecy, the Bible, or the life of Christ that made the greatest impact? Which revelation will you explore now to deepen your intimacy with God? Give reasons for your choice." (http://absg.adventist.org/2009/2Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ209_05.pdf)

First of all, notice that they put Jesus on a level with nature, the conscience, the Bible, and "prophets" (such as their prophet Ellen G. White), and say that He is just one of many "sources" which "reveal" God. Then they say that Jesus was just like a child who resembles his father, in that He "resembled His Father in character." They also reveal what they mean by "He and the Father are One" when they admit that by "oneness" they only mean "closeness"--a "closeness" which we are supposed to have also so that we, too, can "attain God's character attributes"! They certainly do not teach that Jesus is God Himself, "of one Being with the Father" (as the Nicene Creed puts it)! And, finally, in the second to last paragraph in the above quote, they show their gross misunderstanding of the word "Godhead." The original Greek word that is translated "Godhead" in Romans 1 in the KJV, simply means "divine nature" (NASB and other modern translations), and not their "concept of the 'Godhead'." And it says "His...divine nature" (or "his...Godhead" in the KJV), not "the Godhead" as they change it to.

And the next quote is from Lesson 6 of the Easy Reading Edition of the April/May/June 2009 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide:

"1. Think how group sins in our world may be seen against the background of the great controversy (war between Christ and Satan). 'Behind the rise and fall of nations and the history of humans lies the unseen struggle between the Godhead [the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], with the loyal angels, and Satan with his hosts of fallen angels. This has been a struggle that directly influences [affects] all human activities.'—Adapted from Frank Holbrook, 'The Great Controversy,' in Raoul Dederen, editor, Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and Herald® Publishing Association, 2000), page 995." (Words in brackets in original. http://absg.adventist.org/2009/2Q/ER/PDFs/ERQ209_06.pdf)

The following is from Lesson 7 of the Collegiate Quarterly for April-June 2009:

"CONSIDER

"Role-playing the conversation in heaven among Members of the Godhead about the plan of salvation." (http://cqbiblestudy.org/site/1/lessons/2009-2/English/STUDENT/CQ-09-Q2-07.pdf)

The following quote is from the April/May/June 2009 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Lesson 9:

"Heaven is a reality. It is a place. It is where God lives together with the other Members of the Godhead and a host of unfallen angels. It also is where we will live if we remain on God's side. When Christ returns and the first resurrection takes place, the resurrected saints will accompany their Lord to heaven, where they will remain for a thousand years (Rev. 20:4-6). [...]" (http://absg.adventist.org/2009/2Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ209_09.pdf)

The above quote, besides teaching tritheism, also hints again at their corporeality teaching, by saying that heaven is where God "lives."

And at the end of Lesson 13, they have a preview of the July/August/September 2009 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide. Under "Lesson 1—Jesus and the Johannine Letters" they say:

"Sabbath Gem: John's Epistles focus on problems in the early Christian church but also point to God the Father and the Son and portray who They are and what They have done for us. When we ponder these truths, we need to consider what our response must be." (http://absg.adventist.org/2009/2Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ209_13.pdf)

PAGE 32

This next quote is from the Teacher's Guide for the official SDA quarterly Cornerstone Connections (ages 15-18), from Lesson 8 of Quarter 4 for 2004:

"DELVING INTO THE WORD

"Option A. God created the sanctuary in the wilderness so the Israelites could relearn about God and how to worship Him. The furniture in the sanctuary was not just there for comfort or adornment. Each piece had a significant place in the service and each represented some aspect of the Godhead and their relationship with humanity. Divide the class into groups and give them the following furniture and texts." (http://cornerstoneconnections.adventist.org/CornerTchr/2004/Q4/Lesson_8.pdf [no longer online])

The following quote is from Lesson 2 of the 1st Quarter 2009 Cornerstone Connections:

"keytext

"'So in heaven's council the hour for the coming of Christ had been determined. When the great clock of time pointed to that hour, Jesus was born in Bethlehem.' (The Desire of Ages, p. 32)

[...]

"Who comprises the heavenly council? If things on earth are transpiring according to a metaphorical 'great clock of time,' is there merit to the idea of predestination? Is it possible we humans can hasten or delay the second coming of Christ?" (http://www.cornerstoneconnections.net/site/1/lessons/2009/Q1/STUDENT/CC-09-Q1-02.pdf)

The following quote is from Lesson 8 of the 1st Quarter 2009 Cornerstone Connections:

"flashlight

"'Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured' (The Desire of Ages, p. 117).

[...]

"Luke 4:1 tells us that Jesus was 'led' by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. In the original Greek, the language in which these verses were written, the verb 'led' doesn't only mean that Jesus was directed to go into temptation in the wilderness and left there to fight Satan alone. The Holy Spirit was leading Jesus when He was fasting, and the Holy Spirit went into temptation with Him.

[...]

"Besides Jesus and Satan, who else was a part of this desert drama?

[...]

"Jesus had a deep knowledge of the Old Testament writings of people such as Moses and Isaiah. He knew God's Word and that was why He was so successful in defeating the devil.

[...]

"The Holy Spirit didn't leave Jesus when He faced a trying time; the Holy Spirit was right there inside of Jesus, keeping all His faculties sharp to fend off Satan's attacks.

[...]

"Read this week's Flashlight quotation again. Now read James 1:13. If God cannot be tempted with sin, and He doesn't tempt humanity with sin, how do we explain the fact that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness?

"When Jesus came to pay our penalty for humanity's sin, He had to give up some things. For instance, Jesus never called on His awesome power to get Him out of trouble, not even when He faced Satan himself.

"What does the Flashlight quotation tell you about how much God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit love us?" (http://www.cornerstoneconnections.net/site/1/lessons/2009/Q1/STUDENT/CC-09-Q1-08.pdf)

And these additional comments are from the Teacher's Guide for the same lesson:

"Jesus faced powerful temptations throughout His sojourn on Planet Earth. For instance, Satan attempted to misdirect Jesus through the harsh treatment He received at the hand of His siblings. Jesus refused to yield then. When Jesus met Satan in the wilderness, He was familiar with His wily foe. They had been skirmishing since His birth.

[...]

"Jesus met each of Satan's temptations with a clear 'It is written.' Emphasize the importance of God's Word in our day-to-day struggles with Satan. Jesus overcame Satan because He had studied the writings of the prophets that were available to Him. Jesus was a disciplined follower of God. He prayed, He studied, and He fasted—the latter was His preparation for this moment of trial.

PAGE 33

"Make the point that through the Holy Spirit we can overcome any temptation, even as Jesus did.

[...]

[...] "In every temptation there is an opportunity to grow in Christ that will not come again. As you prepare to explore this week's lesson story, keep in mind that it was Jesus' habit of resisting Satan, of deciding to please God instead of Himself, that enabled Him to face His moment of trial.

[...]

"What were the stakes in the wilderness that day when Satan tempted Jesus? What did Satan stand to gain? What did Jesus stand to lose? What was our role in the battle? Are the same stakes that high when we face day-to-day temptations?

[...]

"Fasting is an often overlooked spiritual discipline. What are its benefits physically and spiritually? Make the point that when Satan approached Jesus, though He was hungry, Jesus' spiritual powers were in a heightened state. He was ready.

[...]

"1. Ready and Waiting. Ellen G. White states: 'At the birth of Jesus, Satan knew that One had come with a divine commission to dispute his dominion. He trembled at the angel's message attesting the authority of the newborn King. Satan well knew the position that Christ had held in heaven as the Beloved of the Father. That the Son of God should come to this earth as a man filled him with amazement and with apprehension. He could not fathom the mystery of this great sacrifice!' (The Desire of Ages, p. 115).

[...]

"Jesus used the spiritual disciplines to bring heaven near to Him. We too have the privilege of making God our constant companion. Wherever the Spirit of God is, there is liberty—and victory.

[...]

"The wilderness temptation also teaches us the importance of personal spiritual preparation for the challenges we face. During His battle with Satan, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3, Deuteronomy 6:16, and Deuteronomy 6:13. He read and studied the Bible that He had—the writings of Moses, Isaiah, and the other Old Testament prophets. Jesus prayed earnestly and fasted regularly. These disciplines gave shape and power to His life because He was always in the presence of God." (http://www.cornerstoneconnections.net/site/1/lessons/2009/Q1/TEACHER/CC-09-Q1-08T.pdf)

The above quotes totally deny that Jesus is God.

And the following quote is from the Teacher's Guide for Lesson 11 of the 1st Quarter 2009 Cornerstone Connections:

"What do you think went through Jesus' mind when He came to the sacred Temple, which was devoted to worshipping His Father, and found people buying and selling and doing business?" (http://www.cornerstoneconnections.net/site/1/lessons/2009/Q1/TEACHER/CC-09-Q1-11T.pdf)

The next quote is from the Teacher's Guide for Lesson 3 of the 2nd Quarter 2009 Cornerstone Connections:

"Review this story from the perspective of different people. For each of the following characters in the story, consider the questions 'What am I thinking? Feeling? Believing about God?'

• The paralytic
• Jesus
• The great number of disabled people lying by the pool
• The Jews
[...]" (http://www.cornerstoneconnections.net/site/1/lessons/2009/Q2/TEACHER/CC-09-Q2-03T.pdf)

The following is from the Teacher's Guide for Lesson 11 of the 2nd Quarter 2009 Cornerstone Connections:

"This week's lesson focuses on the calling of the 12 disciples and the Sermon on the Mount, which follows this call. Five disciples were with Jesus from the very onset of His ministry, but it is instructive that Jesus ministered for more than a year before He chose the rest of the group. Jesus lived a life of discipleship to His Father before He asked anyone to follow Him. Is that a lesson for us?

"Although Jesus was God in human flesh, He did not depend on His deity to determine whom He should select to be His disciples. Instead, He spent a night in prayer, after which He chose the twelve. Jesus was about to launch a movement that would change the world, so He wanted to be sure that He had the right people. This is one of the important parts of the story to be emphasized. God is waiting, listening, and ready to give us guidance—no matter how big or small our decisions are." (http://www.cornerstoneconnections.net/site/1/lessons/2009/Q2/TEACHER/CC-09-Q2-11T.pdf)

Notice that in the above quote they teach multiple "deities."

And the following quote is from Lesson 12 of the 2nd Quarter 2009 Cornerstone Connections:

PAGE 34

"The Constitution is the document that defines the president's authority and what they are supposed to abide by. Who or what was the source of Jesus' authority while on earth (John 17:1-5)?

[...]

"Jesus was empowered to do great works on earth, but did you know that He also gave this power to His disciples and to us today. Consider what Jesus said to His disciples in Matthew 10:1. If God gave this power to you, what would you do with it?" (http://www.cornerstoneconnections.net/site/1/lessons/2009/Q2/STUDENT/CC-09-Q2-12.pdf)

And these additional comments are from the Teacher's Guide for the same lesson:

"The objective of this exercise is to make the point that just like the United States Constitution gives the president certain powers, God gave Jesus power and authority over all things in earth and in heaven. The centurion recognized Jesus' power was not from this world.

[...]

"Faith in Jesus is key to living the Christian life. It was faith in His Father that allowed Jesus to walk around helping people with no seeming concern about where His next meal would come from or where He would lay His head at night.

"Occasionally Jesus would see such faith, as He did in the centurion, and where He saw it, He highlighted it. [...]" (http://www.cornerstoneconnections.net/site/1/lessons/2009/Q2/TEACHER/CC-09-Q2-12T.pdf)

Notice that they teach that Jesus' power and authority was no more inherent in Himself than a president's power that is given to him by the Constitution! They totally separate "God" from "Jesus," and even deny Jesus' omniscience while on earth in the second to last paragraph.

And the following incredible quote is from the official SDA quarterly PowerPoints (ages 10-14), from Lesson 13 of Quarter 3 for 2008:

"What does it mean to be created in the image of God?

"It means to have a mind that thinks, creates, grows, learns, and loves. It means that we are 'wired' to do all these things in relationship to God and others. For example, notice that God says in Genesis 1, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.' The us He is referring to is what we call the Godhead: the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Three Persons in one. And even though they work as a unit, they also have specific roles. It's like a shoe company. Each employee does a specific job: one makes the shoe soles, another makes the upper parts, another puts the parts together, another sells the shoes to shoe stores, but all are needed to make up the company. And they have one purpose—to work together to sell shoes.

"In the same way, the Godhead works together to guide us as we live and work and study with family, friends, and one another. Why do you think God said (in Genesis 2:18) that it's not good for people to be alone? Because being alone is not Godlike. He created us to live and learn together." (http://www.juniorpowerpoints.org/site/1/Lessons/2008/Q3/STUDENT/13.pdf)

The above quote shows very explicitly that the Adventists' definition of "God"/"Godhead" is a group/company--instead of one living Being.

The Adventist Review, the official "flagship" magazine of the SDA Church, published an article by Gordon Jenson in the October 31, 1996 issue (which was their annual "READINGS FOR THE WEEK OF PRAYER" issue), which was for Wednesday's reading and was entitled "Jesus, the Heavenly Intercessor." Jenson was, at the time, "president of Spicer Memorial College [SDA] in Pune, India." Here are some excerpts from the article:

[...] "A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, and entered into, the role the of Father, another the role of the Son. The remaining divine Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the plan of salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion transpired in heaven.

"By accepting the roles that the plan entailed, the divine Beings lost none of the powers of Deity. With regard to their eternal existence and other attributes, They were one and equal. But with regard to the plan of salvation, there was, in a sense, a submission on the part of the Son to the Father. This is a mystery. A mystery demonstrated in the incarnation of the Son—still fully God, yet fully man (Phil. 2:5-7).

"This Father/Son relationship involved great responsibilities and sacrifices on the part of both. The Father would be called upon to permit His Son to be humiliated; to be subjected to all the fury and wrath that Satan, wicked angels, and evil men could devise; to witness the temptations of the Son during His sojourn on earth; to see Him suffer and die in order to endure the penalty of the sins of all generations. The Son would be designated as lamb (1 Peter 1:19, 20), priest (Ps. 110:4) and mediator (1 Tim 2:5), advocate (1 John 2:1), and intercessor (Heb. 7:25). Still, the 'Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both' (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 36).

"That the heavenly temple of God existed before the origin of evil is implied in the phrase 'thou art the anointed cherub that covereth' (Eze. 28:14). This temple, 'the true tabernacle which the Lord built' (see Heb. 8:2), was from its construction the center for the worship of God by every intelligent being in the universe. It was also the center of God's government. When sin emerged in heaven, and subsequently on earth, the crisis had to be met within the context of the heavenly temple. As a member of the Godhead, the preincarnate Jesus participated in all the activities of the divine Beings in the holy places. He shared the glory of the Father before the world was (John 17:5).

"Handling the Crisis

"As sin progressively developed in heaven and later, on earth, so the plan to deal with it was progressively revealed—the divine Beings entered into the roles they had agreed upon before the foundations of the world were laid (see 1 Peter 1:20). When there was war in heaven (Rev. 12:7), Michael (the preincarnate Christ) waged war against Lucifer. After Adam and Eve sinned, the same preincarnate

PAGE 35

Christ manifested Himself to His servants through the centuries and sent the Holy Spirit to give instruction, doctrine, reproof, and correction through the 'holy men of God' (1 Peter 1:10, 11; 2 Peter 1:21).

[...]

"In His glorified capacity as priest and king, Jesus could enter all of the activities of the divine Beings in heaven. In His high priestly work, which is incidental to the original purposes of the heavenly sanctuary, Jesus performed the first phase of His ministry in that sanctuary until 1844. This work corresponded to the ministry of the Aaronic priests in the earthly sanctuary that took place throughout the year (the 'daily' ministry). A new dimension was added to the intercession of Jesus in heaven, by virtue of His atoning sacrifice having been accomplished. [...]

[...]

"Questions for Discussion

"1. How would you explain the separate roles of the Godhead in human salvation to a non-Christian?" (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19961031-V173-44__C/index.djvu)

Clearly, you can't get any more blatantly Tritheistic than the statements in the above article, which repeatedly speak of three "divine Beings" (gods).

And in the corresponding readings for children, by Claire Eva, in the same issue of the Adventist Review, they have the following statement in Wednesday's reading entitled "Two Lambs—One Saviour":

"When Jesus died, the plan that God and Jesus had made long ago was completed. Remember, when Jesus died He said, 'It is finished!' Jesus' work to save us was finished. Called the Second Adam, Jesus rescued the world that the first Adam had lost." (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19961031-V173-44__C/index.djvu)

In the current edition of the official Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual (Revised 2005, 17th edition), available on the official SDA website (adventist.org), in the Appendix, on pages 219-223, is a "Summary of Doctrinal Beliefs." Under the heading, it says: "This summary of doctrinal beliefs is especially prepared for the instruction of candidates for baptism. (See pp. 31-35.)" And on pages 31-32, it discusses this "Summary of Doctrinal Beliefs":

"Baptismal Covenant—A summary of doctrinal beliefs, prepared especially for the instruction of candidates for baptism, together with Baptismal Vow and Certificate of Baptism and Commitment, have been adopted by the denomination as a baptismal covenant. A printed copy of this covenant, with the Certificate of Baptism and Commitment properly completed, should be furnished to all those who are accepted for church membership by baptism. In the case of those received on profession of faith, an appropriate certificate will also be given.

"This summary of doctrinal beliefs is especially prepared for the instruction of candidates for baptism. Each candidate should be thoroughly familiar with the teachings contained in this summary and with the duties enjoined upon believers and by practice demonstrate a willing acceptance of all the doctrines taught by Seventh-day Adventists and the principles of conduct which are the outward expression of these teachings, for it is 'by their fruits ye shall know them.'

"Prospective members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, before baptism or acceptance on profession of faith, should be carefully instructed from the Scriptures in the fundamental beliefs of the church as presented in chapter 3 (see p. 9) of this Church Manual. In order to assist evangelists, pastors, and others in giving such instruction and making it Scripture-based and practical, a specially prepared summary appears as an appendix on pages 219-223 of this Church Manual and in the Minister's Handbook." (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf)

So, let's see what this "Summary of Doctrinal Beliefs" has to say:

"1. The true and living God, the first person of the Godhead, is our heavenly Father, and He, by His Son, Christ Jesus, created all things. (Matt. 28:18, 19; 1 Cor. 8:5, 6; Eph. 3:9; Jer. 10:10-12; Heb. 1:1-3; Acts 17:22-29; Col. 1:16-18.)

"2. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, and the eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour from sin; and man's salvation is by grace through faith in Him. (Matt. 28:18, 19; John 3:16; Micah 5:2; Matt. 1:21; 2:5, 6; Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:11, 12; Eph. 1:9-15; 2:4-8; Rom. 3:23-26.)

"3. The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, is Christ's representative on earth, and leads sinners to repentance and to obedience of all God's requirements. (Matt. 28:18, 19; John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Rom. 8:1-10; Eph. 4:30.)" (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf)

So, according to the above statements, only "the first person of the Godhead" is "The true and living God," and then there are two other persons of "the Godhead," one of which is "Christ's representative on earth." So, if only "the first person of the Godhead" is "The true and living God," then what are the other two? False gods? Also, they are saying in that first statement that there is a "God" within "the Godhead" (just as Mormonism teaches--three Gods in one Godhead).

The actual "Baptismal Vow" itself, which must be affirmed by those being baptized into the SDA Church, contains (in vow #1) the same wording as the first sentence of the second Fundamental Belief statement (quoted and discussed earlier), although it does not include the word "Trinity." The alternative "Vow" does not contain a statement on the "Godhead" but does require acceptance of the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs (as does the main "Vow" also). On the official General Conference Children's Ministries website, they have a list of "Simplified Baptismal Vows" for children. The first "vow" says:

"1. I believe in God the Father; in His Son, Jesus Christ; and in the Holy Spirit."

PAGE 36

(http://childrensministries.gc.adventist.org/children_and_baptism.html)

Notice that they have no statement of "one God" whatsoever. And on the official North American Division Children's Ministries website, they have an even more blatantly tritheistic version, in a document entitled "Children's Simplified Seventh-day Adventist Baptismal Lessons," "Adapted by Pastor Victoria Harrison and Noelene Johnsson." Under "Vows," the first one listed says:

"I believe in God the Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, and that they have always been and always will be." (http://childmin.com/PDFs/baptismal_vows.pdf)

And in the column next to the "Vows," under "Lessons," it says:

"1

• Trinity explained by a 3 strand cord.
• The baptism of Jesus when all were
present
• Father, just like Jesus
• Spirit called Comforter"
(http://childmin.com/PDFs/baptismal_vows.pdf)

The following are excerpts from the book A Reason to Believe: What being an Adventist is all about, which, according to the official SDA website (adventist.org), is "the first Seventh-day Adventist Church-sponsored youth doctrinal/baptismal course anyone has seen for a long, long time!" Here are some quotes from the book, which was edited by Chris Blake (former editor of Insight, the official SDA magazine for teens) and is published by the SDA Church-owned Review and Herald Publishing Association:

"Lesson 1

"Divinity

"With Maylan Schurch

[...]

"Is God a Shy Person?

[...]

"Why didn't God inspire a sculptor to carve from a 10-foot block of pure Italian marble the kindness in His eyes, the fatherly smile on His lips? Why not inspire a fifteenth-century artist to paint an oil portrait of His living features? Why instead did He command that no one even attempt to make images of Him?

"This shyness on His part is actually pretty risky. We often fear what we can't see—and that's why, when our family seems to be exploding around us, and when we hear about dying African kids, and when serious illness like cancer brushes close to us, we're afraid and sometimes angry with God. If we could just look into His eyes, or see whether His mouth has a kindly shape—

"Why this shyness?

"The answer is simple: a portrait or carving of Him wouldn't be accurate. It would make Him too small. It would limit Him to one set of features (if He looked like us, we'd be happy. If He didn't, we might fear Him or hate Him). A portrait would also hide the fact that He's actually Three Beings In One—He's God.³

[...]

"So even though a picture of God³ might go a long way toward helping people accept Him, He decided to remain invisible. However, because Jesus Christ came to show how God³ behaves in the flesh, and the Holy Spirit inspired hundreds of Bible truths about God³, we know quite a bit about Him:*

"Three-in-One?

"You'll blow a mental microcircuit if you try to figure out how God³ can be three beings in one. Some have described God³ as an egg, with its yolk, white, and shell. All these are egg, but the forms and functions are different. Others compare God³ to water, with its three states: solid (Father), liquid (Son), and gas (Spirit).

"But maybe the most difficult thing to comprehend is how God³ can be so eternal and so great and still so concerned about you. [...] There's nothing you're facing that He hasn't dealt with or formed opinions about—and best of all, He's on your side. [...]

[...]

"In one way God³ is life to us as an electrical outlet is life to a vacuum cleaner. God³ always honors our choice, whether we want to plug in or not. If we aren't plugged in, there's no life. (But that's not the fault of the electrical outlet!) And if we try to tap into the power in any way except through the outlet, the current will kill us; we can't handle it.

"Before Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of man, there was no outlet for the human race. As one of the God³ team, Jesus let His Father

PAGE 37

remove life support from Him. That ended His earthly existence the way ours would end, but in so doing He became the outlet for us. This means we've got the option of eternal life, but if we want it, we must choose—choose to allow ourselves to be plugged into God³. [...]

[...]

"Book Look

"(Open the Bible and read for yourself.)

"God—

"Always was, always will be (see Psalm 90:1-6).

"Involved all three persons of the Godhead in the creation and redemption of the world (see Genesis 1:1,2; John 1:1-3; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

[...]

"Divinity:

"What Others Believe

"V. Bailey Gillespie

"Seventh-day Adventists are Christians. The topic of the Trinity—belief in a three-Person God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)—places Adventists at the center of the Christian world. [...]

"The majority of Christian denominations accept this personal, three-in-one God. The Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of God, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Disciples of Christ, and Baptist churches all agree with the Seventh-day Adventist Church that God is a unity of purpose called the Godhead. The real questions come when we try to explain this concept. How can one God be three? Does it work like a committee? Does God have three personalities? Are there really three Gods? All of Christianity accepts that God is one—whatever that truly means.

[...]

[...] "For Judaism and Islam, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity violates monotheism (belief in one God and one alone—both basing their beliefs on Deuteronomy 6:4, 'The Lord our God ... is one').

[...]

"Hinduism has various expressions or 'paths' to deity. Hindus find release from life by devotion to one or more of the Indian gods. The Trimurti are their three major gods, each carrying a characteristic of God—Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer.

"The concept of God in three persons is found in many religions.

[...]

"To Learn More . . .

"To learn more about the Trinity and its members, look at these resources. All should be available at an Adventist Book Center.

[...]

"Check It Out

"(You may check one or more.)

"To me, being created in God's image means:

"I am a child of God.

"I can do unbelievable things.

"God has two arms and two legs.

"creativity flows through my veins.

"I'm not just a grown-up amoeba.

"God must be pretty strange.

"I feel valuable.

"I should be getting a lot better grades.

PAGE 38

[...]

"The Bible claims that Jesus has been alive forever. [...]

[...]

"However, there was one enormous difference between Jesus and all the rest of us who have ever lived here on earth. Even though Satan constantly bombarded Him with every possible temptation, Jesus didn't sin. Not even the dark doubts about whether His heavenly Father still loved Him, or the cruel events surrounding His trial on false charges, or His brutal execution could make Him break His deep friendship with God.

[...]

"Marriage is a mirror of God's relationship to us. His commitment is permanent and faithful, as we vow in our own marriages. God asks that He be the only god in our lives, and our marital love is to be exclusive to each other. Each member of the Trinity is equal in value and each performs different, complementary functions. Likewise, a woman and man bring to marriage their own unique contributions, yet work together for common goals."

So, first of all, we see clear indications again in the above quote of their denial of God's incorporeality. Also, they are clearly teaching tritheism, even calling Jesus "one of the God³ team," and saying that He is the "outlet" but that it is possible to try to "tap into" God without going through the "outlet." And then they lie about various Christian denominations, saying that they all agree with the SDAs that "God is a unity of purpose called the Godhead." That is false, as true Trinitarian churches do not believe in that false SDA definition of the Trinity. Notice also that they go on to admit that their belief is like the Hindu belief in three gods, as they say that "The concept of God in three persons is found in many religions."

Now let's take a look at some excerpts from the SDA Church's official belief book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe: An exposition of the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Second Edition, copyright 2005). This book is published by the SDA Church-owned Pacific Press Publishing Association and is copyrighted by the Ministerial Association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. On the Ministerial Association's website, they said: "Announcing Seventh-day Adventists Believe, a new edition of the official book detailing the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church."8 And on the back cover of the book, the following statement is found: "Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . . stands as an authentic resource on Adventist doctrine because it is written by Adventists themselves—more than 230 men and women were involved in the production of this book." In the introductory section entitled To the Readers of This Book, the "Editors" wrote: "We have written this book to assist those who are interested in knowing why we believe what we believe. This study, written by Adventists themselves, is not just window dressing. Carefully researched, it represents an authentic exposition of Adventist beliefs." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-introduction.htm)

[Note: The links for the quotations given point to the First Edition of the book. The corresponding quotations as found in the First Edition (copyright 1988) are usually either identical or almost identical to the current Second Edition. All quotations as found here have been edited to conform to the current Second Edition (copyright 2005).]

First, we'll look at some excerpts from chapter 2, "The Godhead" (note that the chapter title does not have the word "Trinity" as in their corresponding "Fundamental Beliefs" statement #2):

"Dynamics Within the Godhead

"Is there only one God? What of Christ, and the Holy Spirit?

"The Oneness of God. In contrast to the heathen of surrounding nations, Israel believed there was only one God (Deut. 4:35; 6:4; Isa. 45:5; Zech. 14:9). The New Testament makes the same emphasis on the unity of God (Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). This monotheistic emphasis does not contradict the Christian concept of the triune God or Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; rather, it affirms that there is no pantheon of various deities." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02.htm)

Even this quotation which talks about the "oneness" of God sounds very questionable. Also notice that there is no affirmation that God is one Being.

"The Relationship Within the Godhead. The first advent of Christ gives us a much clearer insight into the triune God. John's Gospel reveals that the Godhead consists of God the Father (see chapter 3 of this book), God the Son (chapter 4), and God the Holy Spirit (chapter 5)—a unity of three co-eternal persons having a unique and mysterious relationship." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02.htm)

Notice that they do not say that these three persons are one being, but it sounds as if they are using the word "persons" to mean separate "beings," who have a "unique and mysterious relationship." Notice also that the above quote is a paraphrase of the official Fundamental Belief statement, and helps to clarify further what it means by "unity," by saying, "a unity of three co-eternal persons having a unique and mysterious relationship."

"Sinners will never comprehend what Jesus' death meant to the Godhead. From eternity He had been with His Father and the Spirit. They had lived as coeternal, coexistent in utter self-giving and love for one another." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02.htm)

So, in other words, when Jesus died, the three divine beings were no longer coexistent. There were only two beings left in the Godhead, since, according to their teaching, Jesus ceased to exist (the SDA definition of "death"--which is made clear later on in the chapter when they say: "Christ became man to die for the race. He valued selflessness more than self-existence."). (Notice also that this means that their "Jesus" cannot be eternal, no matter what they claim, if He ceased to exist at some point. The "Resurrection" of "Jesus" merely becomes a re-creation.) So what this teaching means is that, according to Adventism, Jesus is unnecessary--he ceased to exist, and "God"/"the Godhead" did just fine without him! And the universe ran just fine, too. What utter blasphemy, and a complete denial that Jesus is God! In Trinitarianism, if Jesus were to cease to exist there would be no God--because Jesus is the only true God! The SDA teaching is completely anti-Trinitarian.

"To be together for so long bespeaks the perfect, absolute love that existed within the Godhead. 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) means that each

PAGE 39

so lived for the others that they experienced complete fulfillment and happiness." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02.htm)

So if they had happened to quit loving each other, the three gods could have disbanded--even before their "Jesus" ceased to exist. That is not describing one being/God--that is a "god-group/office/family"--or "trio" as their prophet Ellen G. White calls it.

"There is no distance between the persons of the triune God. All three are divine, yet they share their divine powers and qualities. In human organizations final authority rests in one person—a president, king, or prime minister. In the Godhead, final authority resides in all three members." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02.htm)

Apparently, God's Word is wrong when it says that there is just one King who rules the universe. Also, notice that the Godhead is not defined as a living Being, but as an organization. The whole quote is tritheism, plain and simple.

"While the Godhead is not one in person, God is one in purpose, mind, and character." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02.htm)

That is basically the definition of Tritheism right there. Notice that the "oneness" of God is about being "one in purpose, mind, and character"--not one in being.

"This oneness does not obliterate the distinct personalities of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Nor does the separateness of personalities within the Deity destroy the monotheistic thrust of Scripture that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God." (Italics in original.) (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02.htm)

So these separate personalities/beings together make up "one God" (their interesting use of italics, not mine), but supposedly this "separateness" does not destroy the "monotheistic thrust" of Scripture. Nice.

And here are a couple of final excerpts from chapter 2:

"2. A working relationship. Within the Godhead an economy of function exists. God does not unnecessarily duplicate work. Order is the first law of heaven, and God works in orderly ways. This orderliness issues from and preserves the union within the Godhead. The Father seems to act as source, the Son as mediator, and the Spirit as actualizer or applier.

[...]

"The apostolic benediction includes all three persons of the Godhead. 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all' (2 Cor.13:14). Christ heads the list. God's point of contact with humanity was and is through Jesus Christ—the God who became man. Though all three members of the Trinity work together to save, only Jesus lived as a man, died as a man, and became our Saviour (John 6:47; Matt. 1:21; Acts 4:12). But because 'God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself' (2 Cor. 5:19), God could also be designated as our Saviour (cf. Titus 3:4), for He saved us through Christ the Saviour (Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20; cf. Titus 3:6)." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02.htm)

There are many problems in the above excerpts, including the fact that they imply that there is more than one "God" when they say "the God who..." Also notice that they are denying John 5:19 and are teaching that if it were true that "whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner" (John 5:19 NASB), then that would be "duplicating" work--obviously they are teaching multiple gods. They also say that this "working relationship" and "orderliness" actually "preserves" the "union" "within" the "Godhead"--again showing that they don't actually believe in one God.

In chapter 3 ("God the Father") of the same book, it says the following:

[...] "Although the Old Testament alludes to the Persons of the Godhead, it doesn't distinguish Them. But the New Testament makes clear that Christ, God the Son, was the active agent in Creation (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:16) and that He was the God who led Israel out of Egypt (1 Cor. 10:1-4; Ex. 3:14; John 8:58). What the New Testament says of Christ's role in Creation and the Exodus suggests that even the Old Testament often conveys to us its portrait of God the Father through the agency of the Son. [...]" (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-03.htm)

And again, the above quote is so polytheistic, even saying that "God the Son" was "the God who..." as opposed to "God the Father" (or the Holy Spirit).

In chapter 4 ("God the Son"), they say:

[...] "Christ's humanity alone could never have endured the deceptions of Satan. But in Him dwelt 'all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 2:9). He was able to overcome sin because He relied completely upon the Father (John 5:19, 30; 8:28), and 'divine power combined with humanity gained in behalf of man an infinite victory.'23

"Christ's experience in victorious living is not His exclusive privilege. He exercised no power that humanity cannot exercise. We may also 'be filled with all the fullness of God' (Eph. 3:19). [...]

[...]

"God 'has established His throne in heaven, and His kingdom rules over all' (Ps. 103:19). It is self-evident that the Son of God, as one of the Godhead, shares in this divine government over the whole universe." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-04.htm)

Notice how they are totally twisting Colossians 2:9, saying that the we can have the same experience. Also, Jesus does not "share in" the "divine government" as "one of the Godhead"--instead, He is the one and only King of the universe, the King of kings and Lord of lords.

Also in chapter 4, they quote a book entitled Problems in Bible Translation which was published by the SDA Church-owned Review and Herald Publishing Association in 1954:

PAGE 40

"Jesus Christ, the pre-existent God, the divine creative Word, at His incarnation became in a unique sense the Son of God—which is why He is designated 'mongenes,' the only one of His kind, altogether unique in many aspects of His being and life. No other child of the human race was so compacted in his being, had so unequaled a relation to the Godhead, or did such a work as is true of Him. So 'monogenes' describes a relation between God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son as separate Persons of the Godhead. This is a relation that belongs to Christ's complex, divine-human personality, in connection with the economy of the plan of salvation." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-04.htm)

In chapter 5 ("God the Holy Spirit"), they say the following:

"The Holy Spirit and the Godhead

"From eternity, God the Holy Spirit lived within the Godhead as the third member. The Father, Son, and Spirit are equally self-existent. Though each is equal, an economy of function operates within the Trinity (see chapter 2 of this book)." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-05.htm)

The following quote is from chapter 6 ("Creation"):

"Who Was the Creator God? All the members of the Godhead were involved in Creation (Gen. 1:2, 26). The active agent, however, was the Son of God, the preexisting Christ. [...] Jesus was the Creator, the One who spoke the earth into existence (see also Eph. 3:9; Heb. 1:2)." (Emphasis in original. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-06.htm)

The following exerpts are from chapter 7 ("The Nature of Man"):

"The origin of the human race is found in divine council. God said, 'Let Us make man' (Gen. 1:26). The plural 'Us' refers to the Trinitarian Godhead—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (see chapter 2 of this book). Of one purpose, then, God began to create the first human being (Gen. 1:27).

[...]

"Created for Relationships With Others. God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone' (Gen. 2:18), and He made Eve. Just as the three members of the Godhead are united in a loving relationship, so we were created for the fellowship found in friendship or marriage (Gen. 2:18). In these relationships we have the opportunity to live for others. To be genuinely human is to be relationship oriented. The development of this aspect of the image of God is an integral part of the harmony and prosperity of the kingdom of God.

[...]

"The covenant of grace was not developed after the Fall. The Scriptures bring out that even before Creation the members of the Godhead had covenanted among Themselves to rescue the race if it should fall into sin." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-07.htm)

The following quote is from chapter 9 ("The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ"):

"The Scriptures reveal a God who has an overwhelming concern for the salvation of humanity. The members of the Godhead are allied in the work of bringing people back into a union with their Creator. Jesus highlighted God's saving love, saying, 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life' (John 3:16)." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-09.htm)

In chapter 15 ("Baptism"), it says the following:

"In the apostolic church the outpouring of the Holy Spirit generally followed water baptism. So today, when we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we are dedicated, consecrated, and united with the three great powers of heaven and to the spreading of the everlasting gospel." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-14.htm)

As we will see later, the tritheistic phrase used above ("the three great powers of heaven") comes from the writings of their prophetess, Ellen G. White.

And in chapter 23 ("Marriage and the Family"), they say the following:

"This term ["man"] includes both male and female. The text makes clear that it was not a case of the male being created in the image of God and the female in the image of the man.1 On the contrary, both were made in the image of God.

"Just as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, male and female together are to make up 'man.' And like the Godhead, though they are to be one, they are not the same in function. They are equal in being, in worth, but not identical in person (cf. John 10:30; 1 Cor. 11:3). Their physiques are complementary, their functions cooperative." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-22.htm)

The above quote is very tritheistic, comparing the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" to a man and woman, and comparing "man[kind]" to a "God[kind]."

The Office of Education of the North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has a document called "Key Learnings" which sets forth the required teachings for all Seventh-day Adventist schools in the North American Division. It says: "This document is a compilation of curriculum standards for grades K-8 named: Key Learnings. They were written in a succinct and friendly format for educators, students and parents. The Key Learnings provide an overview of the content that students should know and be able to do in each subject area and grade. They were aligned with the North American Division curriculum guides, national standards, McRel Database (Mid-Continental Regional Educational Laboratory) and Ten Sigma (a compilation of standards for 38 states)." In a part of this document called "KEY LEARNINGS: BIBLE CHART," which is a very brief overview, they have the following shocking statement as something that is supposed to be taught to students in grade 2:

PAGE 41

"Godhead as creators" (http://circle.adventist.org/download/NADKeyLearnings_Charts_Brochures.pdf)

This unabashed statement of polytheism explicitly contradicts God's word, which says that there is only one Creator (for example, see Isaiah 44:24 and 45:18). We do not have multiple "creators"!

And here are some of the more detailed descriptions for "Bible" for various grades:

"KINDERGARTEN

[...]

"Understand that the God family — 'God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit' - work in perfect unity, yet are separate and unique beings

[...]

"FIRST GRADE

"Belonging to His Family: The Heavenly Family, Families of the Bible and the Church

[...]

"Identify the 'three-in-one' members of the God family, and their individual ministry

[...]

"SECOND GRADE

[...]

"Understand that the 'God Family' created the world, one way God reveals Himself to humanity

[...]

"THIRD GRADE

[...]

"Know who the 'three-in-one' members of the God-family are and their individual roles

[...]

"Know that Christians are part of God's family and have a responsibility to witness/serve others
Understand that all people are equal in God's sight and are accepted into the Family of God" (http://circle.adventist.org/download/NADKeyLearnings03.pdf)

So they teach the students that "God" is a "family" of three "separate and unique beings" and that "they" are the "creators" of the world. This "God family" teaching is nothing but polytheistic paganism, and is also reminiscent of the teaching of false prophet Herbert W. Armstrong. God is not a "family"!

Also on adventist.org is another document from the Office of Education of the North American Division of the SDA Church, entitled "Curriculum Guide" for "Religion" for "Grades K-12." It says: "The North American Division includes the United States and Canada, as well as the Islands of Bermuda, St. Pierre, and Miquelon. With such a diversity of cultures, this curriculum guide is designed to ensure that uniform standards are maintained. In those places within the Division where governmental academic requirements differ from those of this guide, appropriate adjustments may be made as long as the Seventh-day Adventist philosophy is maintained." And under "Elementary" in the Introduction, it says: "The teacher will find this guide helpful: 1. to identify the essential concepts to be taught in grades K-8, 2. to enrich the Bible curriculum beyond the textbook, 3. to plan for instruction and to help implement accountability in teaching, 4. to track class progress." Here are a few of the things that are supposed to be taught to grades K-8, according to the "Correlation Guide" section under "Elementary":

"Recognize the 'three-in-one' members of the God-Family, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and their individual personal ministry

[...]

"Recount that the God-Family created the world

[...]

"Describe how God actively seeks and invites us into His family" (http://circle.adventist.org/files/CD2008/CD2/circle/NADReCGK12.pdf)

Again, these descriptions are extremely heretical and are blatant Tritheism.

The following quotes are from the official SDA "Bible" curriculum textbook for grades 5-6, entitled God Is Like This, from the Unit 5 Test (their "correct" answer is bolded in the quotes below):

PAGE 42

"Part III Multiple Choice (14 points)

"Directions: Place the letter of the best answer to each question on the line to the left of the question.
Do not choose more than one answer for a question.

[...]

"7. What was the secret of the power Jesus used while on earth?

"A. The time He spent with God. C. He prayed publicly often.
B. The fact that He was Divine. D. He was born especially strong spiritually.

[...]

"11. What caused Jesus the most pain when He was on the cross?

"A. Knowing that some of his disciples had deserted Him.
B. The spikes in his hands.
C. Not knowing if His Father was with Him.
D. The public embarrassment and ridicule."

The late Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph.D., former Professor of Theology and Church History at Andrews University (SDA), in his Endtime Issues Newsletter, wrote the following:

[...] "It is important to note that in the Old Testament God manifested His glory, not His face. On Mount Sinai God's face was hidden by a cloud. In the sanctuary His presence was manifested as the shekinah glory between the cherubins, but there was no visual portrayal of God. Respect for the holiness of God precluded any attempt to represent the divine Beings of the Godhead. Even sacred object like that the ark of the covenant located in the Most Holy Place (symbol of God's throne), could not be touched or looked inside by ordinary people.

[...]

"The biblical prohibition of the use of visual representation of the three Persons of Trinity to form mental images to worship them, raises questions about the endorsement of The Passion by 'name-brand' preachers like Billy Graham. [...]" (http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_119.htm)

In more recent editions of his newsletter, Bacchiocchi addressed the doctrine of "the Godhead" in more detail.

First, here are some excerpts from his Endtimes Issues Newsletter, number 147:

[...] "It will come as a surprise to some to learn that some of our leading pioneers, like Uriah Smith, did not believe in the divinity of Christ. Eventually our Adventist church rejected the Arian view that reduces Christ to a created Being, and adopted the biblical view of the Trinity as three Beings sharing the same divine nature and center of consciousness. [...]

[...]

"In a very real sense, it was on the doctrinal issues of the Trinity that early church leaders cut their intellectual teeth. The matter was forced upon them by the need to explain to Greek thinkers how the three Beings of the Godhead can be defined and worshipped as one God. [...]

[...]

"Some Christians question the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity because no one can explain how the three Beings of the Godhead can be one. They reason that if no one can explain this mystery, then it cannot be that important after all. Such reasoning ignores that the Christian faith is based on mysteries. [...]

[...]

"Gnostics believed that God is transcendent, living in eternal aloofness, with no direct contact with the material world which is evil. For this reason they rejected the incarnation of the Son of God (1 John 4:1-2), just as the Moslem do. By contrast, the God of biblical revelation consists of three Beings who live in eternal fellowship. He is both transcendent and immanent, beyond and within His creation. He humbled himself to the point of becoming part of his created order through the incarnation of His Son Jesus Christ. By becoming part of His created order, God sanctified humanity. [...]

[...]

"The increasing evangelization of Christians by those of non-trinitarian religions, makes it imperative today to reaffirm the biblical revelation of God, consisting of three Beings, equally divine and yet inseparably one. This unique doctrine is of great importance because, as we shall now see, it is intimately connected with the message of salvation.

[...]

"The importance of the doctrine of the Trinity is indicated especially by its impact on religious, social, and political institutions. The exercise of power in most societies generally reflects the prevailing understanding of how God rules the universe. The tendency has been to

PAGE 43

represent God as the only all-powerful ONE, who rules the world as a monarch. The usual conclusion has been that those who wield power on earth, are to act as God's natural representatives.

[...]

"The struggle has been inspired by misconception of the Father's role within the Trinity. God was envisioned, not as the perfect communion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but as the sole Ruler of the universe, wielding all the power without questioning by any one. This monarchical conception of God has served to justify authoritarianism in religion, totalitarianism in politics, and machismo in the family.

[...]

"Historically, the autocratic form of church government has been inspired by the vision of God as the almighty sole Ruler of the universe, rather than the biblical conception of God as the communion of three equal Beings. [...]

[...]

"Boff continues urging, especially his own Catholic church, to overcome the historic concentration of power in few hands, by recapturing the biblical vision of the Trinity as the perfect communion of the divine Three, making them one God. From this vision will emerge a community oriented church, where 'each one has his or her own characteristics and gifts, but all live for the good of all. . . . Each one, in so far as he or she creates community and becomes part of that community, represents the Blessed Trinity. In the Trinity what unites the divine Three is the communion among them and the complete self-giving of one person to the others. The same thing ought to happen in the church. It is by overcoming the centralization of power and distributing among all, that dynamic unity emerges, reflecting trinitarian union.' (Ibid., p. 66).

"The problem of the concentration of power in few hands, exists not only the Catholic church, but in other Christian churches as well. As denominations become established there is the tendency for the governing power to become centralized in the hands of few leaders, who run the church with only a token lay representation. Thus, it is imperative for all churches to recover the biblical vision of the Godhead as the perfect communion of three Beings acting in unison. Such a vision can encourage Christians to strive for a more egalitarian, democratic, pluralistic, and family-oriented church and society, where collaboration, union, equality, and good relationships prevail in the family, church, and society.

[...]

"The monarchical view of God has influenced, not only authoritarianism in church government, but also totalitarianism in politics. As mentioned earlier, during the middle ages kings and emperors claimed to have been invested by God to rule the people. The reasoning was that just as there is one God in heaven who alone governs the world, without explaining anything to anyone, so there must be rulers on earth who act like the God in heaven.

"The outcome of this misconception of the Trinity has been, as Boff explains, 'Political totalitarianism which has created arrogance among the leaders and submission among the led. [...]' [...]

"Boff's insighful observations can help us understand why the ongoing efforts of the American government to establish a democratic form of government in Iraq, holds little hope of success. Why? Simply because the Iraquis are Muslims who believe in a rigid monotheism. Their god, Allah, is not a perfect communion of the three equal Beings, but a sole despotic Ruler who teaches the use of the sword to promote Islam. Moslem rulers are expected to imitate Allah by ruling the people with an iron fist. Sooner or later the Iraqis are going be to governed again by an autocratic regime, simply because such a regime is inspired and sanctioned by their rigid monotheism.

[...]

[...] "The only hope for democracy to flourish in Iraq or in any other strict Moslem country, is for the people to repudiate their rigid monotheism which sanctions their totalitarian regimes, and embrace instead the biblical view of God as the perfect communion of three equal Beings. It is unlikely that the American government will ever take on such a bold reeducational project, which is bound to stir up the ire of Moslem leaders around the world.

"Democracy as a New Vision of God

[...]

"The new vision of God as a loving communion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, encouraged a much greater participation of Christians in the religious and political life. New music was composed, new worship styles were developed, new forms of democratic government gradually came into existence. The priesthood of al the believers in the church was interpreted as a mandate for the participation of all citizens in the social-political institutions of the state.

[...]

"The understanding of God as a male who controls everything and hold all power for Himself, has fostered male domination in macho-oriented cultures. Believing to be acting in the name of God, the man views himself as the 'boss' and 'owner' of his wife and children. This culture has hardened family relationships, preventing them to express tenderness especially toward women, whose function is to serve men.

"This macho-culture ignores that God has a Son and lives with the Holy Spirit in perfect communion and equality. The rediscovery of the biblical vision of the Godhead, living as equal in perfect communion, can undermine the macho mentality that is so harmful to family relationships. Believing in the Trinity, as the perfect communion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,is a much needed corrective in the

PAGE 44

family, church, and society. It can provide a powerful inspiration to live lovingly in a world where pride and selfishness prevail.

"Conclusion

"The preceding observations have served to highlight the importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity for our religious and socio-political life. We have seen that the belief in God as a perfect communion of Three, sets Christianity apart from all other religions. [...] Finally, we have seen that the biblical vision of the Trinity can serve as a model for our religious, political, and social institutions." (http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_147.htm)

There is a just an overwhelming amount of anti-Trinitarian heresy in the above excerpts. Not only does he teach that there are three divine "Beings" (gods), but he even says that it is wrong to teach that there is only one Ruler, or Monarch, of the universe. He says that the teaching that "there is one God in heaven who alone governs the world" is a "misconception of the Trinity"! His statements are in direct contradiction to the word of God, which states over and over again that there is only one Ruler and King (Monarch), the King of kings and Lord of lords. He also says that a view (which would include the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity) that denies "three equal Beings" is "rigid monotheism" and needs to be "repudiate[ed]"! This is blatant polytheism and a denial of monotheism and Trinitarianism. The absolute rejection of the Trinity in the above excerpts cannot be overstated.

Here is a quote from Bacchiocchi's next newsletter, number 148:

"The exercise of power in most societies generally reflects the prevailing understanding of how God rules the universe. The tendency has been to represent God as the only all-powerful ONE, who rules the world as a monarch. The usual conclusion has been that those who wield power on earth, are to act as God's natural representatives. The result has been authoritarianism in church government, totalitarianism in politics, and machismo in the family.

"The evolution which has taken place in Western countries from totalitarian to democratic forms of government, appears to have been partly inspired by the evolution in the concept of God. The gradual replacement of the medieval conception of God who rules the universe as an absolute, autocratic monarch, has been gradually replaced by the new vision of a Triune God, who functions as a loving communion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

"The rediscovery of the biblical vision of the Godhead, as three Beings living as equal in a perfect, loving communion, has provided a much needed corrective for the autocratic and often abusive exercise of power in the church, state, and the family. It has provided a powerful inspiration to live lovingly in a world where pride and selfishness prevail." (http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_148.htm)

Again, it is God Himself that represents Himself in His word as "the only all-powerful ONE"! Again, the above statements are simply an amazing rejection of the Trinity, while at the same time claiming to be Trinitarian.

And here are some excerpts from a section of the same newsletter (number 148) entitled "The Personality and Deity of the Spirit," by Woodrow Whidden, Ph.D., who was, at the time, Professor of Church History and Theology, Andrews University (SDA):

"One final piece of evidence for the Spirit's personality comes from 2 Cor. 13:14: 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.'

"The first thing to note about this verse is that the Holy Spirit is here described as the third named being headed up by the God the Father and the Son. The vast majority of Bible-believing Christians agree that the Father and the Son are personal divine beings. Most certainly the 'grace' which comes from Jesus Christ is only something that can have a personal origin. The 'love of God' is obviously suggestive of the personality of the Father since love is the essence of any experience which is inter-personal and expressive of caring sentiments. The Holy Spirit is then mentioned in a most straight-forward way, strongly suggestive that He is a personal, coordinate divine being---the Third Person of the tri-personal Godhead.

[...]

"The Biblical testimony given in chapters 1 to 3 strongly suggests that the God revealed in the Scriptures is manifest in three divine persons. Thus if they are all divine persons, there is the very real implication that they all must be profoundly one in their divine character, nature or substance. There is simply a deep sense of identity and oneness between persons (human and divine) when they share the same nature and character. The question is this: what is it about their divine nature which makes them 'One'?

"I John 4:8

"'God is love.' Do we truly comprehend the depths of this inspired statement which is so disarming in its seeming simplicity? I would suggest that these three words have a profound contribution to make to our understanding of a God who has eternally pre-existed in something like trinitarian 'Oneness.'

[...]

"Have we not discovered that the most profound of human unities are those of selfless love? Could we experience such profound loving unions if there was not a deeply united, plural God of infinite love who has defined the very essence of the universe and the existence of those creatures made more especially in His image? I think not. The very essence of living in love flows from the great Triune Godhead of loving grace!!!" (http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_148.htm)

And here is an excerpt from Bacchiocchi from number 149 of his newsletter:

"The classical definition of the Trinity, first proposed by Tertullian (about A. D. 200), has been tria personae unia substantia — three persons and one substance. Such a definition satisfied ancient metaphysical thinkers who attempted to prove the oneness of the Trinity by

PAGE 45

arguing that the three Persons shared the same substance. Today, we would question such a definition, because being made of the same substance-staff, does not guarantee the same thought process.

"In fact, even the description of the Godhead as consisting of three Persons, can be misleading, if not properly qualified. The reason is that a 'Person' implies a unique personality, individuality, and character. But the Godhead does not consists of three different personalities, each with a different character. They consist of three Beings with the same mind set. In my Bible classes I proposed the definition of Three Beings sharing the same center of consciousness. The problem with such a definition is that there are no human analogies to help us understand it. Let us accept the fact that we worship a triune God who is so great that escapes our comprehension." (Emphasis in original. http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_149.htm)

Notice that he is incorrectly interpreting "one substance" to mean that there are three divine Beings (gods) who are all "made of" the same substance (just like human beings are all made of the same substance). As we will continue to see, the SDAs completely redefine the term "one substance" (when they do use that term).

The following is from number 86 of Bacchiocchi's newsletter:

"For Muslims the biblical teaching that Christ is the Son of God is blasphemous. 'They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no God except One God' (Surah 5:76). Islam's teaching of the absolute Oneness of God stems from their believe that God is 'far above' and beyond any intimate relationship. He lives in solitary aloofness. Such a teaching derives from gnostic sects that lived in Saudi Arabia at the time of Muhammad. By contrast, the God of the Bible consists of three Beings who live in eternal fellowship. He is both transcendent and immanent, beyond and within His creation.

[...]

"It is from this perspectives that we, as Christians, can help our Muslim friends to understand the uniqueness of the triune God of the Bible. Rather than wasting time to prove the Trinity - a sublime mystery that transcends any human explanation - we can affirm that the biblical God does not live in solitary aloofness, but in a holy communion of three beings, because He is love. But we need to explain to our Muslims friends that the three Beings of the Godhead are indeed ONE GOD, because they share the same center of consciousness - a mystery beyond human comprehension." (http://biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_86.html)

The following excerpts are from Bacchiocchi's book THE MARRIAGE COVENANT: A Biblical Study on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, chapter 3 ("Marriage and Sex"):

"There is, however, another possible way in which human maleness and femaleness reflects the image of God, namely in the capacity of a man and a woman to experience a oneness of fellowship similar to the one existing in the Trinity. The God of Biblical revelation is not a solitary single Being who lives in eternal aloofness but is a fellowship of Three Beings so intimately and mysteriously united that we worship them as one God. This mysterious oneness-in-relationship of the Trinity is reflected as a divine image in man, not as a single individual but as a sexual duality of maleness and femaleness, mysteriously united in marriage as 'one flesh.' The love uniting husband and wife points to the love that eternally unites the Three Beings of the Trinity. In this sense, it constitutes a reflection of the image of God in humanity.

[...]

"We noted earlier that God has revealed Himself, not as a solitary Being who lives in eternal aloofness, but as a fellowship of three Beings so intimately united that we worship Them as one God. If God Himself lives in a most intimate relationship with the other members of the Trinity, there is no reason to believe that He would abolish at the end the unitive function of marriage that He, Himself, established at creation." (http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/3.html)

Part of the first paragraph in the above quote was adapted into an article published on the official SDA website, in the College and University Dialogue section. Here is the description of that section: "College and University Dialogue is an international journal of faith, thought, and action published by the Committee on Adventist Ministry to College and University Students (AMiCUS) in cooperation with the 13 world divisions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church."9 Here is the quote by Bacchiocchi on the official SDA website:

"However, there is another way in which we can understand the image of God, implicit in Genesis 1:27: 'In the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.' Thus the human maleness and femaleness reflect the image of God in that a man and a woman have the capacity to experience a oneness of fellowship similar to the one existing in the Trinity. The God of biblical revelation is not a solitary single Being who lives in eternal aloofness but is a fellowship of three Beings so intimately and mysteriously united that we worship them as one God. This mysterious oneness-in-relationship of the Trinity is reflected as a divine image in humanity, in the sexual duality of maleness and femaleness, mysteriously united in marriage as 'one flesh.'" (http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/08_1_bacchiocchi_e.htm)

These statements by Bacchiocchi are incredible--in a futile attempt to avoid the charge of Tritheism, he says that their three divine "Beings" are so united that they worship them "as" one God.

The following quote is from an article (from 2001) by the late Dr. Ralph Larson, who was an SDA Pastor and seminary teacher:

[...] "No treatment of this subject can be considered adequate unless it deals with the vital and critical question, where did the devil get the idea of a Trinity?

"Why did he so unfailingly work that idea into all of his false religions?

"Why did he never set up a false religion with a godhead of two divine beings, or four, or five, or six?

PAGE 46

"Why did he stick so religiously to his 'false religion blueprint,' that there must always be a godhead of three divine beings in every false religion?

"Let us proceed slowly and carefully. In order to achieve the greatest possible degree of simplicity and clarity, let us use a question and answer method.

[...]

"Question: What was Lucifer's position in heaven?

"Answer: 'Among the inhabitants of heaven, Satan, next to Christ, was at one time most honored of God, and highest in power and glory. Before his fall, Lucifer, 'son of the morning,' was first of the covering cherubs, holy and undefiled. He stood in the presence of the great Creator, and the ceaseless beams of glory enshrouding the eternal God rested upon him.' Signs of the Times, July 23, 1902.

"Question: In that position, would it have been possible for Lucifer to know about the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

"Answer: It would have been impossible for him not to know about them. He had Daily converse and association with them. He knew them as intimately as it is possible for any created being to know its Creator.

"Question: How can we be sure that there was a 'Trinity' in heaven and that Lucifer knew about it?

"Answer: Because he set up a counterfeit of it in all of his false religions. Satan is a master counterfeiter. God has a Sabbath; Satan has a counterfeit, Sunday. God has baptism: Satan has a counterfeit, sprinkling. God has prophets; Satan has counterfeits, false prophets. God has a gift of tongues; Satan has a counterfeit, gibberish. God has divine healing; Satan has a counterfeit, pretended healing. God has faith; Satan has a counterfeit, presumption. God has divine worship; Satan has a counterfeit, celebration worship. God has conditional immortality for the faithful, Satan as a counterfeit, natural immortality for everybody. God has fire that will destroy the wicked: Satan has a counterfeit, a fire that will never stop burning the wicked. And so on and on. Satan has overlooked nothing. He has counterfeited everything that God is or does!

"In view of these unquestionable realities, and in view of his intimate knowledge of the three heavenly persons of the true Godhead, would it not be reasonable for us to suppose that he would fail to counterfeit the heavenly Trinity? And is it not perfectly obvious that he did not fail to do this? Just look at his pagan religions. Do they not all have their trinities?

[...]

"Now tell me what you would think of me if I did something like this. I come out on the platform to speak and observe a man sitting on the front row, and a lady sitting beside him.

"'Sir,' I say to him, 'Who is that lady sitting beside you?'

"He answers, 'She is my wife.'

"Then I proceed to talk to him like this: 'Do you think I was born yesterday? You must think I am pretty dumb. Well let me tell you something, sir. I am not so dumb. I have been to school and I know how to count. The Bible states clearly that when a man and a woman marry, they become 'one.' But you two are certainly not one. You are two. I am not blind. I can count. Do not try to tell me that you are married. You are not one.'

"I believe that you would be ready to say, 'Larson, you are making a fool of yourself.'

"And you would be right. I would be making a fool of myself. Yet how many times we have heard people talk just like that when the subject of the Trinity is brought up. I find it very depressing. We have to face it, folks. Our little heads simply cannot be wrapped around the Godhead. It just is not possible! 'Canst thou by searching find out God?' Job 11:7.

[...]

"I have seen it tried. I have watched a class of highly educated graduate students spend an entire hour trying to work out a definition of the Godhead that would express clearly both the unity of the Godhead and the individuality of the Godhead. When they were finished they had nothing better to offer than the simple Bible affirmation that there are three divine beings, and that the three are one. This combines unity with individuality in a way that no human mind can explain, but it is the 'given' with which we have to do. Like the statement that a husband and wife are one, it is a truth as stated, but not explained. If we were to study the mystery of the Godhead throughout eternity, there would still be mysteries beyond our comprehension. We have been told as much as we need to know. Let us accept that and move on. Let us waste no time in conjectures and speculations about the nature of the Godhead. And let us not forget that the devil had his concept of a trinity from heaven. He did not just manufacture it out of thin air. He did not originate it. He was counterfeiting what he had seen in the courts of glory." (http://stepstolife.org/php/view_article.php?article_id=12)

It is clear, especially from that last sentence, that he is teaching three separate corporeal/visible gods. Notice that he's also saying that there are multiple divine beings (gods) but that we can't complain about that teaching, because husband and wife are multiple beings and they are called "one"!

The following excerpts are from another article on dialogue.adventist.org, which is entitled "Another Look at the Battle of the Sexes," by Beatrice S. Neall (Ph.D., Andrews University), who "has served as missionary and college teacher" and has authored "many articles." Neall also was the "Principal Contributor" to the January/February/March 2001 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide (which we looked at earlier), which states that, "She also has served on numerous General Conference Committees including the Sanctuary Review Committee ('Glacier View'), the Daniel and Revelation Committee, and the Christian View of Human Life Committee." Here are the excerpts from her article:

PAGE 47

"And yet it shouldn't be surprising that trying to define male-female roles and relationships in the current atmosphere is close to treading a minefield. At the risk of losing an arm or a leg, I wish to share what I have discovered from the biblical 'image of God' paradigm. It seems to me that in this paradigm we can see a complementary role for the male and the female. It is also possible that by observing how the members of the Godhead relate to each other, we can understand better the male-female relationships. [...]

[...]

"The Hebrew for man is adam. The passage, rich in meaning, indicates that God split adam into two complementary beings who together would reflect His likeness. God Himself is not a loner, but a loving family. God (Hebrew Elohim, plural) says, ''Let us make man in our image, in our likeness'' (Genesis 1:26). Here's conversation within the Godhead--three Persons, consulting, creating, and working together in harmony. God in relationship created the human in relationship. One part of the image of God is this relationship of the male and the female.

"At creation, male and female formed a unity. This togetherness in a way reflects the divine image.4 On both the divine and human levels, oneness is a kind of relationship in which different persons complement each other, forming a unity.

"True, God cannot be considered in terms of gender, but He has shared with the male and the female particular attributes that reside in Him. [...]

[...]

"The Godhead is a model support system. The members empower each other in the fulfillment of their shared goals. Jesus in His human weakness was empowered by the Father and the Spirit to succeed in His mission (see John 1:32; 14:10). Our feelings of inadequacy would be soothed if we as men and women affirmed and empowered each other. Neither sex should seek to dominate the other. The tendency of male coercion and female manipulation illustrate the perverse human assumption that power is in short supply and must be fought over. In the Trinity we see the opposite principle: power is abundant and is freely shared.10

[...]

"There is oneness in the Godhead, such closeness that the pain of separation is unendurable (see Matthew 27:46). Jesus said, ''I and the Father are one'' (John 10:30). There is not only oneness, but inness: ''I am in the Father, and... the Father is in me'' (John 14:10). Love is the force that binds them together. Human beings are invited to experience intimate oneness with the Godhead (17:21). Through union with God husbands and wives can reach sublime heights and depths of love in their relationship with each other. God has given them a unique way to express 'inness' through the sexual embrace. A couple who are one with God and one with one another experience a level of ecstasy unknown to, and unavailable in, casual sex. Moreover the fibers of love that bind them together build a sturdy nest for the young. Where parents are genuinely in love with each other, children develop secure personalities." (Italics in original. http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/06_1_neall_e.htm)

Again, we see the SDA concept of the "God family," and various other expressions of polytheism.

Neall, who, according to her website, is "Professor Emerita of Religion, Union College [SDA], Lincoln, Nebraska," also has an article on her website entitled "Is Jesus God? What the Old Testament Says." Here is a quote from that article:

"What difference does it make if Jesus is God or not? And how could He be God when the Bible says 'The LORD our God, the LORD is one' (Deut. 6:4)? If we believe that the Father, Son, and also the Holy Spirit are God, do we then worship three Gods? No, the Godhead is a unity of three Persons who are one in character and purpose, cemented together by love. Out of this love relationship all things animate and inanimate were created. Three gods would have to be lesser, rival gods, competing with each other for dominance. Their massive conflicts, as described in heathen pantheons, would place the whole cosmos in jeopardy. The security of the universe depends on the unity of the Godhead.

"What if God were a single individual, as Jews and Muslims believe? A single Person who existed alone in the eternity of the past before anyone else was created, could not be a God of love. He would be the distant God of Islam, a harsh judge who demands obedience and executes violators. Our God, as the Bible reveals, is a union of three who live in an such an atmosphere of love that the Father was willing to sacrifice His Son and the Son His life, to save Their rebellious creation." (http://www.beatriceneall.com/jesusgod1.html)

Here Neall goes to such desperate, illogical lengths to avoid the charge of polytheism that she doesn't even use sensical grammar. "Three gods would have to be lesser, rival gods"? Lesser than what? And in order to be three, they have to be rivals? What kind of "fuzzy math" is that? If they get along really well with each other, then they aren't three? This is utter nonsense and shows so powerfully that there is simply no way for Adventists to avoid the charge of tritheism.

Neall also wrote an article in the Adventist Review (the official "flagship" magazine of the SDA Church), entitled "Who Was Jesus?" At the end of the article, it says: "Beatrice S. Neall is retired after a career as a missionary and college Bible teacher. She is the author of several books." Here are some excerpts from her article:

"These verses clearly identify Jesus. He is God. He is not identical to the Father, but is with the Father. He is the co-Creator of the universe.

[...]

[...] "John portrays Jesus as the partner in the everlasting covenant between Father and Son, that He would come to earth to save a perishing world and by so doing reveal the glory of the character of God (1:18; 3:16; 17:5).

PAGE 48

[...]

[...] "What Paul does here is to include Jesus in the Godhead. [...]

[...]

"And so we ask, Who existed with the Father from the beginning, but God? Who could be the co-Creator of the universe, but God? [...]" (http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2007-1523&page=22)

Notice that in order for that last sentence to even make sense, it has to mean "a God" (one of three Gods). And again, there are not multiple Creators/Gods--there is only one Creator.

And Neall also gave a "Devotional Message" on September 28, 2000 at the 2000 Annual Council of the General Conference Executive Committee. Here is the ending of that message:

"We need to be consumed by the vision of Paul's magnificent prayer as found in Ephesians 3:14-21. We need to be filled with the fullness of God.

"The whole Trinity unites to bring about unity. The Spirit in the inner being strengthens us. Christ dwells in our hearts through faith. I wish for you the ability to grasp the four dimensions of Christ's love, to know the love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God." (http://www.adventist.org/world_church/official_meetings/2000annualcouncil/neall_devotional.html)

The following quote is from a document on the website of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (which Institute, according to the home page of their website, seeks to, among other things, "Provide reliable information about Adventist thinking and theology to the larger Christian and non-Christian communities"), written by George W. Reid (former director of the Institute), entitled "Toward an Adventist Theology of Worship":

"In John 17 we find Jesus addressing His Father in heaven, establishing clearly the distinction between them. No form of modalism is compatible with it. Then we find them speaking of the Spirit as a quite separate entity.

[...]

"Based on these and numerous other examples, we know that three persons are recognized as deity in the Scriptures, therefore worship is appropriate for all. While we cannot know the exact relationship among the divine persons, we know they function in perfect harmony and can be thought of as a unity, one God. Worship is appropriate for all, and all relate to us as worshippers." (http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/advtheoworship.pdf)

Notice the astounding statements above, including the statement that the "divine persons" "can be thought of as" "one God" because "they function in perfect harmony"! Also, the Bible does not teach us to worship an "all" or a "they" as Adventism teaches, but rather a "He"--the one living God!

In another document on the Biblical Research Institute's website, entitled "The Trinity in Scripture," Gerhard Pfandl, Associate Director of the Institute, writes the following:

"According to Genesis 2:24, man and woman are to 'become one ('echad) flesh,' a union of two separate persons. In Deuteronomy 6:4 the same word is used of God, 'Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one ('echad).' [...]

[...]

[...] "He has no need of counseling with his creatures, not even with heavenly beings. The plural, therefore, while not proving the Trinity, suggests that there is a plurality of beings in the speaker.

[...]

"Truth in Scripture is progressive, therefore, when we come to the New Testament we find a more explicit picture of the Trinitarian nature of God. The very fact that God is said to be love (1 John 4:8) implies that there must be a plurality within the Godhead since love can only exist in a relationship between different beings.

[...]

"'For in Him dwells all the fullness (pleroma) of the Godhead bodily (somatikos).' The word pleroma has the basic meaning of 'fullness, fulfillment.' In the Old Testament it refers repeatedly to the earth/sea and 'all its fullness' (Ps 24:1; cf. 50:12; 89:11; 96:11; 98:7), which is quoted in 1 Corinthians 10:26, 28. In secular Greek pleroma referred to the full complement of a ship's crew or to the amount necessary to complete a financial transaction. In Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 Paul uses the word to describe the sum total of every function of divinity.25 This fullness dwelt in Christ 'bodily,' i.e., even during his incarnation Christ retained all the essential attributes of divinity, though he did not use them for his own advantage. [...]

[...]

"(c) During his incarnation Jesus voluntarily subordinated himself to the Father, being the Son of God. This included surrendering the prerogatives but not the nature of the deity. The risen Lord being enthroned as king and priest also voluntarily accepts the priority of the Father, but he and the Father are - according to Scripture - both God, co-eternal and co-equal personalities of one Godhead." (http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/trinscript.pdf)

PAGE 49

Notice that in the second to last paragraph quoted above, they are redefining what "all the fullness of the Godhead" means in Colossians 2:9. Instead of it meaning that Jesus is fully (all of) the one true God (since they deny this Biblical truth), they say that it just refers to "the sum total of every function of divinity" and that it simply means that Jesus possesses all of the "essential attributes of divinity." But as the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary explains: "of the Godhead--The Greek (theotes) means the ESSENCE and NATURE of the Godhead, not merely the divine perfections and attributes of Divinity (Greek, 'theiotes'). He, as man, was not merely God-like, but in the fullest sense, God."10 (Emphasis in original.) Also, as Christian scholar Dr. James R. White shows in his article "Theotetos: Meaning at Colossians 2:9": "One cannot translate theotes as a simple quality or attribute - it refers instead to the actual essence of deity, not simply to its attributes."11

The following quote is from an article from January 2006 on the official SDA website (adventist.org), by Angel Manuel Rodriguez, Director of the SDA Church's Biblical Research Institute, entitled "ECCLESIOLOGY AND REORGANIZATION: THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH":

"In His prayer for the church Christ asks the Father to keep believers united to Him and to each other as He and the Father are united in the mystery of the trinity (John 17:21). The church participates in some way in the unity of the Godhead. Through the Spirit Christ established a union between Himself and believers that is as real as the union that exists between the different parts of our own bodies." (http://www.adventist.org/world_church/commission-ministries-services-structures/rodriguez-ecclesiology.pdf)

Notice that in the above quote, Rodriguez subtly changed what Jesus says--and he gets this "change" from Ellen G. White's writings, as we'll see later. Jesus does not pray for believers to be "united to Him" "as He and the Father are united in the mystery of the trinity."

The following excerpt is from a "devotional" presented on July 4, 2000 at the SDA Church's 2000 General Conference Session, by Virginia Smith, Director, Children's Ministries Department, General Conference:

"Why He Accepted the Responsibility of Being Born Here as a Baby

"This sacrifice took place because the most beautiful angel of all accused God of being unjust and arbitrary, a tyrant demanding what cannot be given and should not be required. His whisper campaign convinced one third of the angels, and it became imperative to cast them out of heaven. The perfect universe now had to weigh the evidence presented with the serious charges Satan brought against God. A cloud of suspicion and distrust threatened the peace and safety of all God's dominions. Then word flashed through space that Adam and Eve, the newly created beings on Planet Earth, had sided with the rebellious one.3 Could Lucifer be correct in his allegations against God?

"The Godhead was prepared with a defense. From eternity they had an astonishing plan ready to answer the charges against them and to save sinners. The Son of the Almighty would come personally to this patch of contaminated real estate and take on human nature as the weakest, most vulnerable human being—a baby." (http://www.adventistreview.org/2000-bulletin5/4-devotional-second-adam.html)

This next quote is from one of the SDA Church's "Official Statements," entitled "An Affirmation of Marriage." They say: "This statement was approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Administrative Committee (ADCOM) on April 23, 1996." Here is a portion of the statement:

[...] "In the culmination of His creative activity, God fashioned humankind as male and female in His own image; and He instituted marriage, a covenant-based union of the two genders physically, emotionally, and spiritually, spoken of in Scripture as 'one flesh.'

"Arising from the diversity of the two human genders, the oneness of marriage images in a singular way the unity within diversity of the Godhead. [...]" (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat16.html)

And the following is from a document on the official SDA website entitled "Declaration of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on Church-State Relations":

"The appropriate relation between religion and the state was best exemplified in the life of our Savior and example, Jesus Christ. As one of the Godhead, Jesus held unparalleled authority on earth. [...]" (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other_documents/other_doc8.html)

The following quote is from the "Morning Devotional" for July 3, 2005 at the SDA Church's 2005 General Conference Session in St. Louis, Missouri, by Hiskia Israil Missah, D. Min.:

[...] "I would say that when the plan of salvation was first discussed among the Godhead in heaven, considering that He is God, Jesus did not say that He did not want to become a human being or to live a human life. He did not say, 'Well, I am God. Why should I do this business that will trouble me so much and make me feel uneasy, pained, miserable and suffering? No, I won't do that!!'

"Brothers and sisters:

"Jesus did not say such words. Instead of clinging to His Divine position, He was willing to let go of His Divinity to become a Savior to humanity. [...]" (http://news.adventist.org/specials/2005/gcsession/2005-07-03/devotional-missah.html [no longer online])

The next quote is from the "Morning Devotional" for July 7, 2005 at the 2005 General Conference Session, by Robert Wong, D. Min., Chinese Union Mission:

"Christ and the Holy Spirit are one just as Jesus said 'I and the Father are one' (Jn. 10:30). The mysterious Holy Trinity--Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit--the three persons all are one (Acts 5: 3,4; Gen. 1:2; Matt. 10:20; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6; Psa. 51:11. The Triune God has always worked harmoniously together as well as distinctively for our creation and redemption. This is one of our fundamental Christian beliefs. [...]

"Just how close is the connection and how intimate the relationship between Christ and the Holy Spirit? We find in the Scripture that the Holy Spirit was at work in: [...]

PAGE 50

[...]

"In Jesus' farewell speech again and again He introduced the Holy Spirit to His disciples and put emphasis on the Holy Spirit as His representative, successor and finisher of His redeeming work on earth during the solemn yet joyful 'change of administration' ceremony." (http://news.adventist.org/specials/2005/gcsession/2005-07-07/devotional-wong.html [no longer online])

How does a "God" work "harmoniously together" or "distinctively"? This misusage of grammar just goes to show once again that they redefine the word "God" as a collective noun--a "group" of three separate Divine Beings (gods).

And the following quote is from the "Afternoon Devotional" for June 30, 2005 at the 2005 General Conference Session, by Jo Ann Davidson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology, Andrews University, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary:

"No, the sin problem is not just a trite matter of the God of Heaven having His feelings hurt. And Christ's atoning sacrifice was not an artistic crucifix between two candles on an altar. It was an awful torturing death which tore apart God from God. It was an execution. The Godhead was at war with itself, the most inconceivable event in the history of the universe. Christ bore God's holy wrath against sin to the utmost upon Himself because God loves us more than His own life." (http://news.adventist.org/specials/2005/gcsession/2005-06-30/davidsonj.html [no longer online])

The above quote is incredibly polytheistic, and explicity refers to more than one "God."

The following excerpts are from an essay on fae.adventist.org (The Foundation for Adventist Education, which is part of the Institute for Christian Teaching of the General Conference Education Department) by Lionel Matthews, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sociology at Andrews University (SDA), entitled "Sociology: A Biblical Perspective":

"God and Group

"The group reality must be appreciated not only for its relevance to human development but also for its appropriateness, it seems, in capturing the divine reality. In spite of its clear monotheistic ring, the biblical account seems uncompromised on the idea of God as a group. While God has been declared to be one God (Duet. 6:4,1 Tim. 2:5), He has also been presented as a plurality of beings (1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 4:5). Moreover, Genesis 1:2 gives us the very first limit of the plural nature if the Deity in the invitation extended for the collaborative effort that yielded the creation of humankind: 'come let us make man in our own image'. These positions on the Deity, while they seem to smack of a contradiction of terms, become clearer within a wider sweep of scripture.

"Spouses become one flesh at marriage (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5, Ephesians 5:31), and Jesus prayed for His followers to be one (John 17:21). Paul (1 Corinthians12) presents the church with its plurality of members as one body, and Matthew (chapter 25) pictures the redeemed of the ages as a bride. Thus, the notion of oneness emerging from groupness seems clearly biblical. Yet this group-based oneness, as we are aware from our experience in regards to husbands and wives and the followers of Christ, does not translate to fusion of beings or personalities. Neither husbands and wives nor individual Christians are ramified into a single entity at the point where oneness between them is reached.

"What the notion of a triune (group) God seems to suggest is that the three members of the Godhead become joined in their relationship with each other, on the basis of their common purpose, values and interests. Furnish (1989) has suggested that a mystical oneness emerges when people interact in a group context. If this is true of human beings, how much more might it be illustrative of the oneness of the Godhead.

"The point underscored by scripture in the persistent image it portrays of 'oneness' being a function of 'groupness' is that reality is ultimately relational; that it is within relationships, and in particular the group relationship, that reality is best conceptualized, accessed, and constructed. But this view does not sit well in cultures dominated by the Western individualistic notion of human nature. [...] Yet, it is not my wish to propose an 'individual-less' collective as the ideal. The biblical worldview would have me steer clear of this. What seems inescapable however, is that God in whose image we have been created is communal, and we are in essence social beings made for God and for each other (Sire 1990). That the group is the primary reality it is the contention of the Bible- and it seems clear that it is the point of the Sociologist too." (http://fae.adventist.org/essays/34B_Matthews_L.pdf)

Not only does the above essay explicitly teach that "God" is simply the name of a "group" (of three "beings"/gods), but it also misquotes Scripture. Genesis 1:26 is not an "invitation" and God does not say "come..." as it is misquoted above (the verse also does not have the word "own").

The following quotation is from a document on the SDA General Conference's Sabbath School & Personal Ministries website, by Gabriel Maurer:

"But there is still one argument left. This is the truth about Trinity. In spite of the fact, that it goes beyond human comprehension, we discover, that the Godhead, as our primary model, gives us an example of team leadership. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit work together in their leadership tasks for the Universe as well as for the salvation of the human race. The perfect Universe leadership encourages us to team leadership in the church." (http://www.sabbathschoolpersonalministries.org/site/1/iicm/Local%20Church%20Leadership/LCL%20101%20Principles%20Christian%20Leadership.pdf)

The next quote is by Karen Flowers, Co-Director, Department of Family Ministries, General Conference:

"When we think of the meaning of Christ's sacrifice for us, some of us think with John and Paul of the sacrifice He made to become human, to step out of the circle of the Godhead and become flesh and live among us. From our limited human understanding, I've heard it likened to a prince being willing to be kissed and become a frog rather than the other way around. To be sure, joining the human race was a huge step down! An incredible sacrifice!

[...]

PAGE 51

"Christ was willing to be eternally separated from His Father, to die forever, to reconcile the human family to God. This was the supreme sacrifice He believed He had made when He cried out in His humanness, 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?' Yet his declaration, 'It is finished,' marks willful assent to His own eternal death, that we might choose life." (http://familyministries.gc.adventist.org/Resources/sermon_collection/family-if_you_don't_get_it.htm)

The above statements are incredibly blasphemous, even asserting that Jesus' "It is finished!" meant that He thought He was going to cease to exist forever (SDA definition of "eternal death"). And since, according to Adventism, Jesus did cease to exist when He died, then it would have to be forever, because the "Resurrection" could only be a re-creation--"God" creating a new being named "Jesus" (since the "original" "Jesus" had ceased to exist--which, notice, had no impact on the existence of "God"/"the Godhead" or the universe). Therefore, the SDA "Jesus" is actually a created being (only about 2,000 years old), and not "eternal" as they claim (and even the word "eternal" is meant by the SDAs in a "historical" sense, since they deny the concept of timelessness, as we'll see more of later).

The following quote is from another essay on fae.adventist.org, entitled "The Bible and Astronomy," by "Dr. Mart de Groot, Pastor, Irish Mission, Astronomer, former Director of Armagh Observatory, Northern Ireland":

"The final use of bara is found in verses 26 and 27. In the first instance, in vs.26, God says, 'Let us make (asah) man in our image .....' as if this new creature is going to have the same life as the animals. But, then, in vs.27, when He is actually creating man, the word bara is used three times. Now God adds something to the life of man that the animals do not possess: His image. And He uses the word bara three times to indicate that man is given the image of each of the three persons of the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[...]

"The difference between the Hebrew words 'bara' and 'asah' became clear. Finally, God created man in His image, after His likeness.

"Man was given the image of the whole of the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Italics in original. http://fae.adventist.org/essays/31Bcc_159-181.htm)

From the Northern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists' website, by Lester Bennett (D. Min.), in a document from the Sabbath School Ministries department entitled "Some Background for the SS Lessons on the Holy Spirit":

"Along with most Christians, Seventh-day Adventists hold the doctrine of the Trinity. (See Fundamental Doctrines, # 2) This includes identifying the Holy Spirit as a person, one of three divine beings making up the Godhead. The biblical passages that define and support this position will be studied in the various lessons of the quarter.

[...]

"Once this step of recognizing Jesus as an eternal divine Being was taken and affirmed, renewed interest in the understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit logically followed.

[...]

"True, the work of the Holy Spirit is often mysterious, 'moving as the wind' Jesus told Nicodemus. Yet He is often described as acting in various capacities and may be 'lied to' and 'insulted.' He also comes as the representative of and serves in the stead of Christ. Only a person, One who is also a divine being, could hold such a position." (http://ncc.adventist.org/article/articleview/607/1/30 [retrieved 04-25-2006, but no longer online])

The following is from an article in the January 18, 2001 issue of the Adventist Review (the official "flagship" magazine of the SDA Church), entitled "My Mistake":

"The rest of my church family stayed away, never called, never sent a card. [...]

[...]

"'How foolish I've been to allow people to keep me from God,' I said. 'I want to go back to God's house. I want to worship Him in His sanctuary. I want to take back what Satan has robbed me of: my Sabbath joy. I'll make the Trinity my family. God will never betray me. Jesus can heal my heart, and the Holy Spirit can teach me to trust again.'" (http://www.adventistreview.org/2001-1503/story3.html)

The following quote is from an article in the May 27, 2004 issue of the Adventist Review, entitled "The Presence" with a subheading of, "Those who've experienced times of extreme crisis have sometimes felt a mysterious Attendant close to them." The article is by John D. Butler, Sr. who "is a retired university professor and administrator. He writes from his home in Washington, D.C."

"As a Christian I believe unequivocally in the immanence of God, that no matter where we may go, we cannot escape His presence (see Ps. 139:7-12). But it's obvious to me that there are occasions when, under unusual stress, the presence of divinity is so arresting, so personal, so concentrated, so awesomely influential and inspiring, as to cause the victim to know beyond a shadow of a doubt, invisibility and immateriality notwithstanding, that a member of the Trinity (or another celestial representative) is present--not necessarily to remove the ordeal, but expressly to give courage, strength, and sustaining power to enable us to endure it." (http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1522/story3.html)

The next quote is from an article in the December 2, 2004 issue of the Adventist Review, entitled "A Rabbi, a Jug, and a Christian," by Lee Gugliotto. At the end of the article, it says: "Lee Gugliotto is an author who equips people to understand the Bible, to reconnect with the God of the Bible, and to fulfill the Great Commission." Here is a quote from the article:

"Jesus invites us to have a personal relationship with Him. Only He can mold and shape disciples into followers of Himself, and so restore

PAGE 52

in us the image He shares with the Trinity—the image of God." (http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1549/story1.html)

The following excerpts are from an article in the March 10, 2005 issue of the Adventist Review, entitled "Desert Storm: Reflections on the temptations of Jesus":

"The Genesis creation story begins with nothing--'without form and void.' But the presence of the Trinity brings life into being. First, the Spirit is seen moving over the waters. Next, the spoken word of God breaks through the darkness, declaring, 'It is good.' Finally, in the creation of humans we see Christ drawing near and making them in God's image (Gen. 1:2-4, 26).

"While all this talk about Adam's creation may seem far removed from the temptation of Christ, it becomes relevant when we recall that Christ is, in the typology of salvation, the Second Adam. When setting in motion Christ's public ministry, we again find the Trinity drawing near. Once more, God the Holy Spirit is present--this time flying above the waters of the Jordan; verbal evidence of God the Father's presence comes in an announcement of that which is 'good' ('My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased'); and God the Son, Christ Himself the agent of Creation, draws near once again, this time for the re-creation of humanity.

"As this story develops we will see how these tokens of divine presence (Spirit and word) not only play a pivotal role in the establishment of Christ's ministry but are the very means by which it moves forward.

[...]

"Christ's desert experience was immediately preceded by His baptism at the Jordan. Contrast between the two settings could not be keener. At the Jordan all was well. Vegetation, refreshing water, and, most significantly, words of encouragement and confirmation of human and divine origin. But desert life was different; Christ found Himself thirsty and hungry. And in this solitary wasteland such visible support was nowhere to be seen.

"In this context of contrast Satan comes to Jesus as an angel from heaven. His statement 'If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread' suggests that the test has reached its end and that Jesus may now deliver Himself from His famished condition. What's more, Satan hints that Christ can demonstrate His divine relationship to His Father in miraculously doing so.

"In this way the first temptation raises a basic but important question. Namely, 'How does a man prove he is a child of God?' 'How does a woman show she is on God's side?' Satan here implies we do so by creating something ourselves--by works. What he's asking is for us to manufacture evidence. And all too often we readily oblige. When we face difficulties, particularly those that come unexpectedly, Satan steps in and questions our relationship to the Divine in light of our circumstances. Do you really believe God would allow this to happen to His son or His daughter? It is, at once, a question regarding God's love and our position before Him.

"In our 'show me the money' world, there's an incessant call to prove the vitality of our relationship to God by our own efforts. This is particularly true in times of struggle, when our sense of danger and vulnerability is raised. It's as if we need to reassure ourselves and others that everything is still fine. To Satan Jesus replies (in effect): 'At present My life may look unsuccessful. I may appear abandoned. I may not seem much of a Messiah. Sonship is not proved, however, by My will, but by the recognition and surrender to the will and leading of the Father.'

"From the beginning Jesus' constant desire was to hear and follow His Father's will. In this process Christ may not have always understood how the individual pieces of God's puzzle were to finally come together. But this mystery, which at times greatly enhanced the human struggle, was no excuse for self-promotion or release. Christ knew the greatest evidence of His divine sonship was continued faith in the wise and loving guidance of His Father. Any other sign of divine right would have been failure by human effort.

"The first temptation raised questions about the relationship between Jesus and His Father. But we see that Jesus refused to answer Satan's question by evidence of His own choosing. To provide His own evidence would have been a denial of and an attempt to externally add to the evidence already given: the Father's announcement at the Jordan (an external sign) and the Spirit's leading (an internal sign). Jesus refused to play this game, and in so doing overcame His tempter.

[...]

"By His response to the first temptation we see that Jesus refused to doubt His connection to the Father. [...]

[...]

"Another point. Much has been made of Christ's use of Scripture to respond to Satan's attacks. But we benefit in also noting the way in which Jesus did not use the Scriptures. Christ refused to fall into the trap of expecting or demanding from God those things He had not promised. After study and reflection upon the Scriptures Jesus refused to give in to the temptation to water down or artificially sweeten God's Word. This saved Him from disappointment in false promises masquerading as truth.

"Satan suggested to Jesus that now, on His own timetable, He should demonstrate His arrival by gloriously descending from the sky accompanied by protective, attending angels. By doing so, the Temple worshippers could acknowledge and proclaim His arrival. It was a temptation to improve upon God's timetable. But the time had not yet come for Christ to descend upon Jerusalem surrounded by angels. That will take place on the 'great day' to come. Once again Jesus held to His belief that the best way--yes, the only way--for Him to prove His equality with and faithfulness to God was to live in subjection to His revealed will and wait upon God's time.

[...]

"While Luke's account never has Christ rebuking Satan by name, Matthew does this very thing following the third temptation. Some might

PAGE 53

see in this a new and final awareness on the part of Christ regarding the identity of His tempter. While it is true that the cumulative effect of these deceptions would have had their weight, I believe there was another reason for the timing of this dismissal--with a name attached.

"In the first two temptations it seems that Satan came to Christ as an angel sent from God bringing new directives and manifesting godly compassion. The first temptation does so by purporting to be a message of mercy from a satisfied Father. 'Enough already!' is the cry. 'You have shown Your fidelity in abstinence, now relieve Your hunger and summarily prove Your divine nature.'

"Similarly, the second temptation declares, 'Trust God,' 'Trust Your calling,' 'Trust the Scriptures.' Such heavenly directed talk suggests that Satan sought to maintain his deception of light until it was clear he had failed a second time.

"But here in the final temptation Satan attempts to mislead the Savior not by trickery but by direct appeal. This temptation was about the means by which Christ was to achieve the Father's purpose here on earth.

"Satan's invitation to pay homage suggests that he was no longer presenting himself as an angel of light, but openly showing himself to be Satan, secondhand owner of this world. At various times Christ Himself gave partial support to Satan's claim of ownership.

"In this third temptation Satan quizzes Jesus on the best means of obtaining His objective. Before a weakened Christ, Satan stands like a school-yard bully taunting a weaker boy with his stolen ball. 'Do You want it back?' he asks. 'I'll give it back; just bow down to me, and it's Yours.' Of course, a bully's offer is fictitious, as was Satan's. Satan not only planned to keep the world, but from a legal standpoint his immediate success was the only means by which he might obtain it. Although Satan had limited power and partial claim to this world because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, his place of authority, like Adam's, was conditional and thus temporary.

[...]

"Again, Satan asks for little more than token allegiance, and by this Christ is told He will gain the world. However, it was not an offer about giving, but of taking. Had Christ bowed to obtain this world, by that very act He would have been giving it away. Such an act would have been the last legal 'step' in Satan's hostile bid to take over this world.

"Satan comes to us in much the same way today, tempting us to behold our weakened condition and abandon the path of Christlike similitude for the path of immediate satisfaction. Satan was offering Christ credit-card salvation. In light of our limitations he says, 'Bow to me, and I will help you obtain that which you seek without sacrifice.'

"In one sense Satan is right, for we can obtain victory in life's warfare only as we acknowledge our fallen, needy condition. At the same time, we claim victory over Satan by recalling that which is already ours (just as Christ overcame the third temptation by recalling that this world was already His). [...]" (http://www.adventistreview.org/2005-1510/story2.html)

The above article is extremely blasphemous throughout, and teaches a "Jesus" who is much less than God. It even teaches a "Jesus" who is less powerful than satan!

The next quote is from an article in the January 25, 2007 issue of the Adventist Review, entitled "Experiencing the Trinity," by Allan Robertson, who it says at the end of the article is "a retired pastor living in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada." Here are some excerpts from the article:

"Is the Trinity a mystery? I see it as a mystery, but not an absurdity. [...]

[...]

"Sometimes we struggle with the personality of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we have a tendency to think of this entity more as an influence, because He is without hands, feet, eyes, ears, nose, or mouth.

[...]

"On Sabbath, May 22, 2004, I was invited to preach the sermon during the worship hour at the rural Silver Creek Adventist Church in British Columbia. During the fellowship meal following the service, the Adventist woman who sat across from me told the story of how a Christian woman friend of hers had converted from Christianity to Islam because she was convinced that Christians are breaking the first of the 10 commandments by worshipping more than one god. The first commandment reads: 'You shall have no other gods before me' (Ex. 20:3). How shall we view this challenge?

"The Trinity Means One God in Three Eternal Persons

"Mathematically, this seems confusing because three do not equal one, but there is a oneness beyond mathematics. Think about a couple of sentences in the prayer Jesus prays to His Father as recorded in John 17. 'Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one' (verse 11). Jesus is asking of His Father that the 11 apostles who are the nucleus of His church may be one. Obviously, He is not requesting that His followers become one person. He prays that they may have a oneness, a unity in purpose, mind, and character. The oneness He desires for them is compared to the oneness that exists between Himself and His holy Father in heaven. The oneness, the harmony He asks for the 11 is expanded later in the prayer to include all genuine followers of Jesus. Hear His words in verse 22: 'I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one.' The harmony between the Father and the Son is to be the example of the harmony that Jesus cherishes for Christians among themselves.

"The ancient Greek and Roman gods were indeed many gods. They were infamous for being in conflict and warring with one another perpetually. In sharp contrast is the God of the Bible who exists as three Persons in oneness, harmony, love, and purpose. 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) implies more than one Person in one God. God is one, but God is not alone. The Father loves the Son. The Son loves the Father. The Father loves the Spirit. The Spirit loves the Father. The Son loves the Spirit. The Spirit loves the Son. At the center of our

PAGE 54

universe is a community of love, harmony, and oneness." (Italics in original. http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2007-1503&page=24)

So, once again, we see in the above article that Adventism teaches that God's "oneness" is not a "mathematical oneness," but is only a oneness of harmony/purpose, such as believers are supposed to have! This is Tritheism. Also, he argues that the ancient pagan gods "were indeed many gods" because they fought all the time, but that the SDA gods get along well and so that means they are not teaching polytheism! And notice that when he says "God is not alone" he is denying, among other verses, Isaiah 44:24, where God says: "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone," (NASB). Also notice that he defines "God" as "a community of love, harmony, and oneness"!

And, as we will continue to see, Seventh-day Adventists, just like the Mormons, try to use John 17 to teach their polytheistic godhead--that "God" is not actually one, but is "one" only as believers are. They get it backwards--they try to create "God" in the image of man (or men plural!). This passage cannot be used to say that God is "one" only in the way that believers are. (For more on this misusage of John 17, click here to open another page.) In order to prove that the SDA position is polytheism, all that needs to be asked is: "If you were to worship the 11 apostles whom Jesus was praying for, would you be a monotheist?"

The following quote is from the cover story of the November 22, 2007 issue of the Adventist Review, entitled "Growing God's Love in Our Children," by Linda Mei Lin Koh, who "is director of Children's Ministries for the General Conference":

"If you're trying to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, show them an egg and ask them to break it open to look at its composition. Ask them, 'How many parts make up this egg?' Talk about the shell, the yolk, and the white and how they form one unit.

"Or you may give children three colored strands of yarn—red, yellow, and blue. Ask them to braid them together. The three colors blend together to form a complete braid. Explain that the red piece of yarn is like God the Father, who loves us and forgives our sins; the yellow color is like God the Son, who created the world and died on the cross to save each one of us; and the blue is like God the Holy Spirit, who comforts us when we are discouraged and helps us enjoy a happy life by teaching us right from wrong. Three different strands, but they work together as one whole." (http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2007-1533&page=8)

The following excerpts are from the cover story of the December 20, 2007 issue of the Adventist Review, entitled "The God Who Comes Looking," by Calvin B. Rock. At the end of the article, it says: "Before his retirement in 2001, Calvin B. Rock was a general vice president of the General Conference. He served for nearly 50 years as a pastor, evangelist, administrator, and president of Oakwood College. This article is adapted from an Annual Council sermon." Here are some excerpts from the article:

"It is one thing for God to peer over the walls of glory and gaze upon the calamity of humanity from afar. It is one thing for Him to dispatch angels to examine our situation and take back their unerring reports. It is one thing for Him to occasionally appear, as in the case of Moses at the bush, and dazzle us from a distance with His glory. But it is an entirely different thing for God to reduce Himself to our level and come looking through the eyes of earthlings.

"That God would pull our humanity over His divinity and walk among us is wonderfully inexplicable. [...]

[...]

"How and When

"Consider the logistics of His coming. How did God operationalize His wish to personally look from the viewpoint of humanity? Galatians 4:4 again supplies the answer: 'When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman' (KJV). How? Ellen White wrote it was by a 'painful process, mysterious to angels as well as to men' (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 915).

[...]

[...] "By Bethlehem Satan had made our planet a virtual land of deranged minds and distorted limbs. It was then, when heaven and earth could clearly see the full consequences of Lucifer's rule, that God personally came looking.

[...]

"The price of His coming and looking is far beyond our knowing, but this much we can calculate: it cost 4,000 years of apprehension on the part of unfallen beings who wondered about the plan that allowed sin to exist so long; it cost Jesus 33 years of absence from the throne; it cost Him the disgrace of participation in the sinful processes that He Himself had condemned; it cost Him the ignominy of evil accusations and the shame of being numbered with transgressors. [...]

[...]

"He came looking, looking for ways and opportunities to fulfill prophecy, looking for ways to honor His pledge to the Father. And when He had fulfilled His destiny, He returned to His throne.

"God the Son is no longer here physically looking, but He has sent God the Holy Spirit in His place; and through the Holy Spirit He is still the God who comes looking." (http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2007-1535&page=8)

Note the blasphemous claim that Jesus had to pay the price of being "absen[t] from the throne" for 33 years. I guess some other God(s) had to rule the universe in His "absence"! And that last paragraph is hinting at the SDA denial of Christ's omnipresence.

The next quote is from an article in the October 6, 2006 issue of the Adventist World, which, according to their website, is "an international magazine for Seventh-day Adventists. Published monthly by the General Conference, the journal is printed in five languages, Bahasa (Indonesian), English, French, Korean, and Spanish, and has a global circulation of nearly 1.5 million." The article is in the "FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS" section of the magazine, and

PAGE 55

is about "Number 21." The article is entitled "Giving to a God We Trust," and is by Juan R. Prestol, who is "the treasurer of the North American Division, and an associate treasurer of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, in Silver Spring, Maryland." Here are some excerpts from the article:

"Three Basic Stewardship Concepts

"1. Relationship

God/humanity, owner/manager, steward—these terms describe the traditional/biblical stewardship motif. However, Scripture offers us another model: Jesus Christ, steward of His Father.

"The members of the Trinity relate, decide, and act in harmonious union, as we find in the Creation, for example ('Let Us ... ').1 They present to us a model of relational love. Together They are God, and individually They are God.

[...] "Their interdependence reveals Their love, and love presupposes a focus on the other.4 As chief steward of His Father, Christ showcased His character to the universe through His sinless life and death on the cross.5 Jesus speaks about the Holy Spirit as 'another Helper,'6 a divine agent who persuades us to be stewards of the gifts and abilities we have been entrusted with.7" (http://www.adventistworld.org/issue.php?issue=2006-1008&page=20)

So, in the above article, we have a group of three who "act in...union" and "Together They are God" collectively and also "individually They are God." This is identical to the Mormon teaching of the Godhead--three Gods who together make up "one God."

The following quote is from the cover story of the December 2007 Signs of the Times, entitled "Born to Die," by Dr. Loren Seibold, Senior Pastor of the Worthington, Ohio Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Signs of the Times website says the following: "Published by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, this monthly four-color magazine emphasizes Christ's second advent and the prophecies and 'signs' that indicate the nearness of this event, which Scripture calls the Christian's 'blessed hope.'" The magazine is published by the SDA Church-owned Pacific Press Publishing Association. Here is the quote from the article:

"Your salvation was bought with the price of the life of a Member of God's immediate family! Please understand this, for it is the pivotal truth of Christianity: you are God's most valuable treasure. Just as you are, sins and deficiencies and all, God paid the highest price He could pay that you might have the hope of eternal life." (http://www.signstimes.com/?p=article&a=44111340729.645)

Again, we see the concept of a "God family." The above quote is blatant polytheism, and a denial that Jesus is God!

The following excerpts are from the cover story of the May 9, 2009 Insight, entitled "Gethsemane," by Tiffany S. Taylor. Insight is the official SDA magazine for teens, and is usually given out weekly to the students at SDA "Sabbath School" classes. Here are the excerpts from the article:

"Have you ever stopped to think what would have resulted if Christ had yielded to the temptation of the devil and chose not to go through with His rescue plan?

[...]

"Though the event of Jesus going to the Garden of Gethsemane is often included in the story of Christ's death and resurrection, it's often overlooked in terms of what a pivotal time it actually was. All four Gospels do mention the event, though they give it small mention compared to the in-depth details they offer concerning the crucifixion.

[...]

"However, I've come to realize that the reason Jesus prayed such a prayer had very little to do with the physical pain He was about to endure and everything to do with the emotional torture He was already going through.

"You see, at that moment, Jesus was feeling the weight of the sins of all of humanity on His shoulders.3 His sacrifice was dying for our sins—sins that He never committed so that we wouldn't have to. The hardest part of carrying all of our sins was feeling those sins tearing Him away from His Father.4

"Things of God are in direct opposition to things of Satan, and they cannot coexist. In Christian writer Ellen White's book The Desire of Ages, it is written that Satan's last temptation for Christ was telling Him that if He took on the sins of the world and became the sacrifice for them, Jesus would be seen by God as being on Satan's side, and that Jesus would forever be separated from His Father.4 Jesus struggled immensely with the idea of being separated from His Father—the Father that He loved so much, the Father that loved Him so much in return. Such a thought He could hardly bear.

"Imagine if, for the sake of somebody's life, you were asked to be separated from those you love dearly, from those who are your comfort and strength. Not only do you have to part from them, there's a chance you might never see them again. Oh, by the way, the person you're doing all this for hates you, calls you all types of names, and does everything in their power to make your life difficult.

"How many of us would rise to the challenge of performing such a task? Yet that was the situation in which Christ found Himself. He went through such an agonizing ordeal because He realized that He was our only hope. If He'd chosen not to die for us, we would have forever been subjects of Satan's kingdom.6

"As painful as the idea of being separated from His Father was, it was also painful for Jesus to think of all of humanity, God's precious creation, dying in sin. That's why He went through with it." (http://www.insightmagazine.org/cover/index.asp?issueID=20091619)

The above article is extremely blasphemous, claiming that Jesus didn't know whether or not Satan's supposed temptation that Jesus would be "seen by

PAGE 56

God as being on Satan's side" and would be forever separated from the Father was true!!! And then the article claims that there was a "chance" (at least in Jesus' "unknowing" mind!) that He might not ever get to "see" His Father again, since that's what (the partially trustworthy?!) Satan had told him!!!! But then Jesus supposedly "realized that He was our only hope"!! They are not only teaching multiple gods, but they are saying the most blasphemous things possible about Jesus Christ. And notice that all of this sickening teaching comes from their false prophet, Ellen G. White, and her book The Desire of Ages (which we will look at more later).

On the official Ellen G. White Estate website, in the "Issues & Answers" section, they say the following:

"The Godhead

"What did Ellen White believe regarding the Godhead?

"Ellen White never used the term 'trinity,' although she did refer to the 'three living persons of the heavenly trio' (Evangelism, p. 615). She believed in the full deity of Christ, stating that 'Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore' (Review and Herald, April 5, 1906). She also referred to the Holy Spirit as 'the Third Person of the Godhead' (The Desire of Ages, p. 671). Her comments, as collected in Evangelism, pages 613-617, suggest that she believed that the Scriptures taught the existence of three co-eternal divine persons.

"Did Ellen White believe the Holy Spirit is a divine person?

"Yes, but at times she used the pronoun 'it' when referring to the Holy Spirit. [...]" (http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-egw.html)

Note that they do not affirm that White believed in Trinitarianism or Monotheism, but they certainly show her belief in Tritheism! They admit that she never used the term "Trinity," but that she taught "'three living persons of the heavenly trio'" (tritheism). And they also say that she believed in "the existence of three co-eternal divine persons." Notice that they don't even claim that she believed in one God.

In the same section they also refer to a PDF document on their site entitled "Ellen White's Trinitarian Statements: What Did She Actually Write?" by Tim Poirier of the Ellen G. White Estate. Here are some excerpts from that document:

"Certain opponents of the church's second fundamental belief ('The Trinity') argue that Ellen White's supportive statements cannot be trusted as reflecting accurately what she wrote and taught. These persons claim to accept Ellen White's prophetic writings, but they question the authenticity of her statements that affirm the church's belief in three distinct, co-eternal, fully divine persons in the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. [...]

[...]

"We will not pursue the third interpretation, except to look later at a further Ellen White statement that speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as 'three distinct agencies' working together on behalf of humanity. [...]

[...]

"Ellen White's use of 'third person' and 'three persons in the heavenly trio' plainly indicates her belief that not only are there three beings in the Godhead, but that they are 'persons.' [...]

[...]

"In the mysterious union that exists between the members of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit's presence is synonymous with the personal presence of Jesus, yet their distinct identities are preserved." (http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/The-Trinity.pdf)

There is no "union" "between" any "members" of any "Godhead"! There is one God--one simple Being who exists as three distinct, but not separate, persons, who is indivisible and without "parts" (or "members"). In Adventism, just as in Mormonism, "God"/"the Godhead" is just a divine "membership club" which has three "beings" or "members" (gods).

The following quote is from a document featured on the official Ellen G. White Estate website entitled "Inspiration/Revelation: What It Is and How It Works" by Roger W. Coon (a now retired associate secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate), which is reprinted from "The Journal of Adventist Education (Volume 44, Numbers 1, 2, 3, October 1981 through March 1982)":

"God's Chain of Command

"Just as all three members of the Godhead participated in the creation of this world,[29] just so do all three participate in the process of inspiration: The Father gives the message to the Son,[30] and the Son gives it to the Holy Spirit,[31] and the Holy Spirit moves upon the prophets.[32]

[...]

"2. The prophets also heard the voice of a member of the Godhead, or of the angel Gabriel, speaking messages of counsel, instruction, admonition, and sometimes of warning and reproof. These voices apparently were unaccompanied by scenes of events, although Ellen White does tell us that she entered into direct conversation with Jesus Christ on a number of occasions." (http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/rev-insp.html)

The Ellen G. White Estate also has on their website a book entitled Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White, by SDA theologian Herbert E. Douglass, published by the SDA Church-owned Pacific Press Publishing Association. Here are a couple of quotes from the book:

PAGE 57

"The 'good news' is that in the wonder-full mind of God, One of the Godhead chose to come to this rebel planet with hands outstretched, inviting men and women everywhere to return to the family of God. The 'good news' is that the God-who-became-man 'gave' Himself to the human family forever, forever limited to time and space. For what purpose? To show us what God is like! (John 14:7.)

"As we will see, the Revealer we call 'Jesus'; the Revealed we call 'God'; and the Person through whom the Godhead chose to 'reveal' the Revealer to the human race is the Holy Spirit.

[...]

"The Holy Spirit is our Lord's counterpart. The Spirit will say and do exactly what Jesus would say and do if He were present today!" (http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt1.html)

"Not Clear on the Personality of God

[...]

"During that period, Ellen White wrote to Dr. Kellogg: '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.'

[...]

"Disregarding her counsel, Dr. Kellogg had 5,000 copies of The Living Temple produced by a commercial printer. Now more of the general public could see for themselves why church leaders had been concerned. Opposing sides developed; those in favor saw this 'new light' to be conducive to a deeper religious experience; those opposed saw it as contributing to the dismantlement of the sanctuary doctrine, creating confusion regarding the function of the Holy Spirit, and blurring the truth concerning the distinct personalities of the Godhead. Throughout the summer Ellen White remained silent." (http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt18.html)

Again we see more of the SDA teaching that Jesus Christ is not omnipresent--he even says that Jesus is "limited" to time and space and teaches that He is a separate "God" (when he says that it is "the God-who-became-man" who is "forever limited"). No, He is the one and only unlimited, infinite, omnipresent God of the universe! And, as we will see later, some of the latter excerpts above refer to the SDA denial of the incorporeality of God.

These next quotes are from another book that is on the official Ellen G. White Estate website, by T. Housel Jemison, entitled A Prophet Among You, which according to the website "served for many years as a college textbook on the gift of prophecy as manifested in Scripture and in the ministry of Ellen G. White." The book was published by the SDA Church-owned Pacific Press Publishing Association in 1955. Here are some excerpts from the book, as displayed on the White Estate site:

"This was a revelation which was given—

"By God (the Father)to Jesus Christ, By Christto His angel, By Christ's angelto John, By Johnto the seven churches.

"Descriptions given elsewhere in the Scriptures fit well into this pattern except in one detail. The question may be asked immediately, What about the part played by the Holy Spirit? Does not Peter say that 'holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost'? 2 Peter 1:21. The work of the Spirit is not mentioned in the Revelation passage. Is this not something different from what has taken place in the experience of the other prophets? It would appear that the place of the Holy Spirit in the giving of prophecy is so fully presented in other portions of the Bible that there was no necessity for presenting it again in the introduction to the Revelation. But lest there be any mistake as to the source of the message he is bringing, John immediately goes on (Revelation 1:4, 5) to express a salutation from the Father ('Him which is, and which was, and which is to come'), the Holy Spirit ('the seven Spirits which are before His throne'), and the Son ('Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness'). Thus it appears that the Spirit must be closely connected with each step in the giving of the prophecy.

"Of the members of the Godhead, Christ is the One entrusted with the responsibility of seeing that the planned communications reach man. Since the entrance of sin, all communication from heaven to man has been through Christ. He is the link between earth and heaven, the ladder on which the angels ascend and descend. John 1:51. Obviously the message would not need to be guarded while it was in Christ's hands, but as soon as it passed from the divine being into the hands of a created being, even though that created being was an angel, it would need special attention and protection. It seems that in the transfer of the message from the angel to the prophet, the Holy Spirit was present to safeguard the transaction." (http://www.whiteestate.org/books/pay/PAYC04.html)

"Christ's interest in and contact with the prophets did not begin when He was a man in Galilee and Judea. As a member of the Godhead, before His incarnation, He was responsible, with the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, for every communication that reached the prophets. [...]" (http://www.whiteestate.org/books/pay/PAYc07.html)

So, according to the above, if John hadn't mentioned the Holy Spirit in Revelation 1, we might have been mistaken about "the source of the message," and thought that it only came from two of the gods, and not all three! We might have thought that the Holy Spirit wasn't even "involved" at all in the message. But then we are assured that "it appears that the Spirit must be closely connected with each step in the giving of the prophecy." All of the above excerpts belie their supposed Trinitarianism.

This next quote comes from another book posted on the official Ellen G. White Estate website, entitled The Voice of the Spirit: How God Has Led His People through the Gift of Prophecy, by Juan Carlos Viera, who was the Secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate from 1995-2000. The book was published in 1998 by the SDA Church-owned Pacific Press Publishing Association:

"We may conclude, then, by reaffirming our assurance that the Lord speaks and communicates with His church, which He loves and desires to save. In His wisdom and sovereignty, the Godhead chose the Holy Spirit as the divine Being in charge of communication with His people. This transforms the prophetic word into a sovereign and 'more certain' message than human opinions, giving it authority over the

PAGE 58

latter. Choosing the prophets, human beings like ourselves, as the bearers of the divine message, was also an act of divine sovereignty. In the following chapter, we will analyze the relationship between the perfect and foolproof message of God and the human messenger, subject to the frailties of humanity and therefore imperfect and fallible." (http://www.whiteestate.org/books/vots/vots.html)

The Ellen G. White Estate also has on their website a document written by "the volunteers at Ellen-White.com" (who are not affiliated with the White Estate) entitled "Did Ellen White Contradict the Bible Over 50 Times." Here is a quote from that document:

"Here EGW is obviously referring to the Deity of Christ. Although the 'fulness of the Godhead' dwelt in Him 'bodily' it was the Son only who had to sink in death under the agonies of Calvary; every Christian knows this. Jesus 'purchased the church with His own blood.' He suffered 'at the hands of religious zealots.' The Father suffered in a different way: watching His beloved Son die helplessly on that Cross.

"Now the next statement, in its entirety:

[...]

"Here she uses the word 'Deity' to describe the Godhead—'Christ and the Father' (and the Holy Spirit of course). The Father and Holy Spirit did not 'sink' into death like Jesus did. She is clearly saying that although Jesus and the Father are one, the entire Godhead did not sink under the torture of the Cross. Christians understand that when Jesus died, God the Father did not die also. The other two Persons of the Godhead or Trinity were still very much alive; it was the Son who was to die in our stead, not the entire Deity. She is saying, in the context, that although the 'Deity' (Father included) did not suffer and die on the Cross, nevertheless God the Father gave His Son to die for us, and what agony that must have been --watching Him die. Here EGW is clearly contrasting the role of the Son with the rest of the Godhead and it is this Godhead to which the word 'Deity' refers in this instance. In summary, was Jesus Deity? Yes. Did He sink/die on the Cross? Yes. Are the Father and Holy Spirit Deity? Yes. Did they sink/die on the Cross? No. This is simply a case where a word (like the word 'law' for example) is used different ways." (http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/contradictions.html)

In the above quote, we find again the SDA teaching that Jesus ceased to exist but that there were two gods left in their godhead. Also, they deny that the Son is "the fulness of the Godhead" and that He is "the entire Deity."

The following quote is from the booklet entitled Your Friends, the Seventh-day Adventists, by Ken McFarland, which is published by the SDA Church-owned Pacific Press Publishing Association. The official Adventist Book Center website features the booklet as one their "Featured Selections" under "Sharing" and says the following: "For those who ever wondered who Seventh-day Adventists are and what they believe-this book is the perfect introduction." Here are some excerpts from the booklet:

"The Trinity

"We believe that God is the Creator and King of the universe. Three distinct persons make up the Godhead: the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Although the word Trinity, which Christians use to describe this three person God, is not in the Bible, the fact that God indeed consists of three persons is clearly taught there.

"The three persons of the Godhead share certain common characteristics that set them apart from all other beings in the universe. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, unchangeable, and able to be everywhere at once. He is the source of all love, life, and power. And though He constantly supervises His entire vast creation, He is a personal God who wants to be the close Friend of each person on earth.

"Perfect unity exists in the Trinity. Their goals, plans, and opinions are identical. They never disagree. Their very thoughts are open to each other. Though the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate persons, they think, act and feel as one. They actually are one God in three persons.

"Perfect equality also exists in the Trinity. All three of its members are fully God. No one member is less divine than the others. The father did not create the Son or the Holy Spirit—all three have existed together from eternity and have no beginning. The Holy Spirit is not simply God's power—a divine force. He is a fully equal member of the Godhead.

[...]

"How Everything Began

"It may take real effort, but try to imagine a time when there was no evil, no trouble, no sin. The Bible takes us back to just such a time - a time long, long ago—a place far, far away. A place called heaven.

"In heaven is God's throne—the headquarters of the vast universe. Countless angels—brilliant, intelligent, sinless beings whom God has created—bask in the joy and love of His presence. The highest angel over them all is called Lucifer—'the shining one.'

"At some point in the years of eternity past, the Bible says, Lucifer began to become increasingly proud of his appearance and abilities. He determined to move up in heaven's scheme of things and eventually coveted equality with Jesus Christ Himself. When God the Father made it clear to him that this would never be—Lucifer became enraged. [...]

[...]

"Sin, which had poisoned heaven, had now spoiled our newly created world. The great war between Christ and Satan had moved to the planet Earth." (http://www.kcma.edu/FileUploads/KetteringCollege2008_09studenthandbook.pdf)

Notice that they define "fully God" as only meaning that a "Godhead member" is fully "divine"--or just as "divine" as the others. They do not use "fully God" in the Christian sense of "all of, or the whole of, God." Also note their very tritheistic statement that: "The three persons of the Godhead share

PAGE 59

certain common characteristics that set them apart from all other beings in the universe." And again we see their anti-Trinitarian teaching about Lucifer's fall, which comes directly from their Arian foundation.

The SDA Church-owned Review and Herald Publishing Association publishes a book entitled God's Answers to Your Questions, which is "Abridged from Bible Readings for the Home" (one of the most well-known SDA books), and is sold by the Adventist Book Center. In chapter 5, they have the following statements:

"How has the Father shown that His Son is one person of the Godhead?
'But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.' Hebrews 1:8.

[...]

"How did Christ assert an equal proprietorship with His Father in the kingdom?
'The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity.' Matthew 13:41.

"To whom do the elect equally belong?
'And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?' Luke 18:7. 'And he [the Son of man] shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.' Matthew 24:31.

"Who are equally joined in bestowing the final rewards?
'But without faith it is impossible to please him [God the Father]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.' Hebrews 11:6. 'For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Matthew 16:27.

"NOTE--In the texts (Matthew 16:27; 13:41: 24:31) in which Christ refers to the angels as 'his angels' and to the kingdom as 'his kingdom' and to the elect as 'his elect,' He refers to Himself as 'the Son of man.' It thus appears that while He was on earth as a man, He recognized His essential deity and His equality with His Father in heaven." (http://books.google.com/books?id=1v6JZxuYKP8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

Seventh-day Adventist author Kim Allan Johnson has written a book entitled The Team, which is published by the SDA Church-owned Pacific Press Publishing Association. On the official Adventist Book Center website, there is a description of his book, part of which is as follows:

"And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: John 17:22 (NKJ).

"From eternity the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have been one.

"In Jesus' prayer, He calls for the Church to be one. It's a big order we cannot accomplish on our own. Jesus' disciples spent years in His presence but were not one until Pentecost.

"Kim Allan Johnson author of The Gift and The Morning shares in this new book a vision of the Church as a team. The word 'team' conveys images of togetherness, mutual support, and the blending of talents and abilities to become something together that is much greater than any could be alone.

"The Bible tells us that our success as individual Christians depends on our understanding and experiencing the Church as God intended it to be. Johnson believes that it is 'the calling of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to portray the union of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.'

"'When humanity fell The Trinity related to us on the basis of our need, not Theirs. [...]'" (http://www.adventistbookcenter.com/olink.tpl?sku=0816322031)

The next quotation is from a PDF document entitled "UNITY IN DIVERSITY," by Mallam Tambaya, which was on the official website of the West-Central Africa Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Interestingly, in this article and other articles, Mallam Tambaya uses both the Holy Bible and the "Glorious Qur'an" as authoritative sources of revelation!:

"This rather intriguing topic is, more or less, a continuation of another related one entitled THE MYSTERY OF DIVINITY. Therein, in a nutshell, it is revealed that the omnipotent God is not limited by time or space in His existence and operation. Thus God is presented in terms of a single personality1 as well as in plural personalities.2 It is also pointed out that, according to the Holy Bible, the Supreme Deity is, evidently, a harmonious Council of Three Divine Beings, namely, 'the Father, . . . the Son and . . . the Holy Spirit.'3 The Glorious Qur'an, too, seems to allude to this Divine Council as comprising 'the Chiefs on High.'4 In both books, attempts have been made to describe Divinity in finite human terms. One point that is made clear in that paper is that, in whatever form He manifests Himself, singular or plural, God is the powerful Creator of the universe and that His eternal existence means that He has neither a beginning nor an end. Let us now continue this stimulating discussion and study as God's Spirit continues to enlighten us along the way through the mystery.

[...]

"Furthermore, consider their mode of operation. Since they operate as a unique Council, they never disagree on any point, very much unlike humans. On creation, for instance, they agreed for the Father to give the command, 'Let Us make man in Our image'. [...] Moreover, this Divine Council unanimously agreed to send the Word of God to become the Messiah [Jesus], according to Isaiah 48:16. Note how the Three Divine Council Members collaborated during the Messiah's sojourn and mission on planet earth:

[...]

PAGE 60

"So also the Divine Council unanimously consented to send the Holy Spirit after the Messiah's ascension,20 which promise was fulfilled on Pentecost Day, i.e., fifty days after the Messiah's resurrection, according to Acts 2:1-4, 33. Furthermore, the Three collaborate in their loving acts of redemption.

[...]

"Therefore, unlike idols, Godhead is not three Gods in one God, but Three Supreme Beings in One God. I lack appropriate illustration. But let me use the analogy of the chemical compound H2O. Ordinary water is H2O.. Vapor is H2O. Ice is H2O. However, Water + Vapor + Ice = H2O. Similarly, the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit also is God. But whenever Two of them, or all Three come together, they think, talk and act together as One God.

[...]

"GOD AND GODS CONTRASTED

"In summary, we have seen that in the Supreme Divinity or Godhead there are both singularity and plurality - unity in diversity per excellence! That the heavenly Supreme Council, consisting of the Three Chiefs on High, exist from everlasting to everlasting and that all Three Members play their respective roles in creation and redemption, for example, in perfect unanimity with each other. So when we read warning reminders from God like 'There is no God besides Me',25 they have nothing to do with the mysterious relationship existing within this Divine Council.

"Rather, such challenging reminders have everything to do with the contrasting relationship between the self-exising, life-giving, life-saving Creator-Godhead and the myriads of man-made, or self-declared gods. These animate and inanimate gods cannot create,26 instead they are themselves created by human imaginations or machinations.27 Worse still, they cannot save or deliver anyone." (http://www.wad-adventist.org/documents/Unity%20in%20Diversity.pdf [no longer online, but archived here])

I don't think there really needs to be much comment on any of that--the blatant Tritheism is astounding. What I would like to know is, when "Two of them" "come together" and "act" "as One God"--where is the third one off to? Also, they brazenly reject God's warnings that He is the only God, claiming that such warnings have nothing to do with their "Divine Council" of gods.

In the other article, "THE MYSTERY OF DIVINITY," Mallam Tambaya writes:

"Note the singularity of the word 'name' and the plurality of the Personalities that it refers to above. In the Holy Bible,20 the Divine Council consisting three Unique Holy Personalities is called the 'Godhead' which came to be known as the Trinity.

[...]

"In UNITY IN DIVERSITY, I have outlined how the 'Godhead' or Three 'Chiefs on High' operate together and separately but in perfect harmony, without any hint of clashes or conflicts. This is because both Matthew 19:26 and Al-Imram 3:189 assert that with God all things are possible." (http://www.wad-adventist.org/documents/Mystery%20of%20Divinity.pdf [no longer online])

Notice again that they think the word "Godhead" in the Bible (appearing 3 times in the KJV) is referring to their "Divine Council" concept, when in reality it is translated from three different Greek words, which simply mean "divine," "divine nature," and "deity."

Bob Pickle, an SDA Ellen G. White apologist, says the following on his website, in an attempt to defend a heretical statement by Ellen White ("The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one."):

"Is it not readily apparent that Ellen White was saying that Jesus is not God the Father? If Sanders had quoted the entire sentence, the remaining seven words, would not the intended meaning have been more apparent?

"Most Christians agree that the Godhead is comprised of three beings: the Father, Son, and Spirit. Some, however, like the United Pentecostals, maintain that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three manifestations of one person or being. They would strongly object to Ellen White's statement since they believe that Jesus is God the Father and the Son and the Spirit all at the same time.

"The very statement of Ellen White that Sanders quotes from makes it crystal clear that Jesus is truly God, while at the same time denying the idea that there are not three beings in the Godhead. We are therefore uncertain why Sanders has a problem with this particular statement." (http://www.truthorfables.net/50-contradictions-christ-almighty.htm)

Once again, we see the false claim that "most Christians" believe in "three beings" (tritheism).

Here is a quote from Bob Pickle's book entitled A Response to the Video: Seventh-day Adventism — The Spirit Behind the Church, which is endorsed by PlusLine.org (which says on the "About Us" page that: "This website is sponsored by the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists and your local Union Conference."):

"#94: Uriah Smith and James White denied the deity of Christ. This is simply not true. [...]

[...]

"White, Smith, and others reacted against certain speculations of their time regarding the Godhead. Their reactions are assumed to be a denial of belief in what the Bible teaches about the Trinity, making this charge in the video all too common. But such an assumption is unwarranted in light of three popular speculations about the Godhead that they reacted against.

"1. A catechism from one church and a book from another taught the following: God is composed of three persons and is 'without body

PAGE 61

or parts,' but the second person definitely has a body! This view was criticized in the March 7, 1854, issue of the Review and Herald, page 50.

"Early Seventh-day Adventists advocated taking the Bible literally unless there was an obvious symbol used. They saw such views of the Godhead as not doing this, since the Bible describes God as having a [p. 68] form and sitting on His throne in Heaven (e.g. Rev. 4:2, 3).

"Just as they rejected views that spiritualized away the literalness of the second coming, so also they rejected views that spiritualized away the personality of God.

"2. Some views of the Trinity did not make the Father and Christ to be separate persons. This can readily be concluded from the documentation package's 'Point 48.' Joseph Bates is quoted as writing: 'Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was an impossibility for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being.'

"3. The orthodox view of the Trinity includes an aspect that speculates regarding when Christ was begotten. Most believers are unaware of this aspect called the 'processions.' It teaches that the Son proceeded forth from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeded forth from both the Father and the Son. Yet, since God is outside of time, there never was a time when one of the three did not exist. So Jesus was begotten and proceeded forth, but that's not to say that He hasn't always been.

[...]

"And yet, though the Son and the Spirit came forth, They always have been, since God and the processions are outside of time (Hogan and Levoir, p. 14). Sounds a bit contradictory? These early Seventh-day Adventists thought so.

"They apparently had no problem with the general idea of the processions, judging from what little they wrote on that topic, but they just couldn't be dogmatic about both God and the processions being outside of time. So can we with a clear conscience call men cultists and non-Christians who wanted to take the Bible just as it reads and not speculate like this?" (http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/jeremiah-films/response-to-video-94.htm)

So Mr. Pickle defends Uriah Smith and James White by saying that they were correct to be against the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (including their denial of the incorporeality of God).

And here is another quote from later on in the same book:

"#206: They originally denied the deity of Christ. This is not true, as pointed out under #94.

[...]

"Mr. Cannon is really dealing with two separate issues: the deity of Christ and Christ being eternal. They aren't the same.

"For example, consider the views of well-known Adventist preacher Ellet J. Waggoner (1855-1916) in his 1890 Christ and His Righteousness. Chapters two and four are entitled 'Christ is God' and 'Christ not a Created Being.' He obviously believed in the divinity of Christ.

[...]

"Here is a man who says that Christ is God, is divine, and is not a created being, while at the same time he says that Christ is 'practically without beginning.' Was he contradicting himself? No, he wasn't. We are dealing with multiple issues here.

[...]

"Typically, the debate over whether Christ is divine or not is called the Arian controversy, dating back to the fourth century. After the initial stages, the difference between the two sides hinged on a single letter, the letter 'i.' The 'orthodox' position was that Christ was homoousios. This Greek word means 'of the same substance' or essence. The semi-Arian position was that Christ was homoiousios, of 'like essence.'

"Since Waggoner said that Christ was 'of the very substance and nature of God,' he was on the orthodox side of the question. He was neither Arian nor semi-Arian. Presumably, Mr. Cannon is in agreement with most, if not all, of what Waggoner wrote in these selections.

[...]

"Isaiah speaks of those who 'make a man an offender for a word' (29:21). In the fourth century they made a man an offender for a single letter. Things got so bad that by 381 AD, the 'orthodox' emperor had forbidden the Arians to worship publicly. Any building in which they met was seized and donated to the imperial treasury (Theodosian Code, bk. 16, title 5, statute 8).

"That was only the beginning. Over the centuries that followed, love, acceptance, and fellowship were withheld from those who differed on this and many other issues. Millions died for their faith.

"Let's be more tolerant lest our behavior be called cultic. Especially let's be tolerant of those whom we don't really disagree with anyway." (http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/jeremiah-films/response-to-video-206.htm)

It is totally false to say that Trinitarian Christians "don't really disagree with" the current SDA position, not to mention the views of E.J. Waggoner. Notice how he quotes even Waggoner as saying that Jesus is "of the very substance and nature of God," even though Waggoner believed that Jesus had a beginning! This shows how deceptively Adventists use orthodox terms, such as "same substance," when they really mean nothing close to the orthodox definition of "same living Being." Waggoner obviously could not have meant anything more than that Jesus was "begotten" of the Father, and was thus

PAGE 62

"of the very substance...of God" just as any human son is "of the substance" of his father. And Adventists still deceptively use the phrase "same substance" to mean that their three gods are all made of the same type of "stuff"/"material" or "characteristics"/"nature."

The following are some excerpts from an article on the Amazing Facts website entitled "The Trinity: Is it Biblical?," by Doug Batchelor (popular SDA "evangelist" and President-Speaker of Amazing Facts, an "evangelism" "ministry" dedicated to promoting Adventism) and Kim Kjaer:

"Unity or Quantity?

"Most of the confusion regarding the number of beings composing the Godhead springs from a simple misunderstanding of the word 'one.' Simply put, 'one' in the Bible does not always mean numerical quantity. Depending on the Scripture, 'one' can often mean unity.

"We see this principle established very early in Scripture. 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh' (Genesis 2:24, emphasis added). 'One flesh' here does not mean that a married couple melt into one human after their wedding, but rather they are to be united into one family. Jesus prayed that the apostles would be one, saying, 'And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one' (John 17:22, 23).

"We need to keep in mind that when Moses said, 'The Lord is one,' Israel was surrounded with polytheistic nations that worshiped many gods that were constantly involved in petty bickering and rivalry (Deuteronomy 6:4), whereas the God who created is composed of three separate beings who are perfectly united in their mission of saving and sustaining their creatures. As the Spirit is executing the will of both the Father and Son, it is His will also.

[...]

"Who Outranks Whom?

"Let us now venture a little deeper onto sacred ground. As we consider the mysteries of the Godhead, we notice that there seems to be an order of authority concerning the three persons in the trinity. Keep in mind that while all three are the same in properties and attributes, and equal in power and glory, it appears that the Father is recognized as the ultimate authority. [...] In fact, while it might not be wrong, we are never told to pray to Jesus or the Spirit—but instead to the Father in the name of the Son. Yet just because the Father seems to have supreme authority, it does not in any way diminish from the divinity of Jesus and the Spirit. That would be like saying that a corporal is less of a soldier than a sergeant.

"Among the three members of the Godhead, we do not see a clamoring for preeminence, vying for recognition, or reveling in power. Instead, the exact opposite is true. In fact, the Father, Son, and Spirit always seem to be trying to out give and glorify each other. The Father wants to glorify the Son. The Son lives to glorify the Father, and the Spirit lives to glorify the Father and Son (John 17:1, 5; John 16:14; John 13:31, 32).

[...]

"A Tearing in the Trinity

"Another point to consider is that sin causes separation from the Creator (Isaiah 59:2). The iniquities of the human race were placed upon the Son of God (Isaiah 53:6). When Jesus hung on the cross, suffering for our sins, every fiber of His being was torn as the eternal relationship with His Father and Spirit was ripped apart. In agony He cried out, 'My God [for the Father], my God [for the Spirit], why hast thou forsaken me?' (Matthew 27:46). If there had been only one person in the Godhead, there would not have been this excruciating pain of separation to wring the life out of the heart of Jesus.

"The real risk in the redemption plan, besides the loss of man, was the breakup of the Godhead. Had Jesus sinned, He would have been working at cross-purposes with the Spirit and His Father. Omnipotent good would have been pitted against omnipotent evil. What would have happened to the rest of creation? Whom would the unfallen universe see as right? One sin could have sent the Godhead and the universe spinning into cosmic chaos; the proportions of this disaster are staggering. Yet the Godhead was still willing to take this fragmenting risk for the salvation of man. This reveals the depth of God's amazing love." (Words in brackets in original. http://www.amazingfacts.org/Publications/InsideReport/tabid/123/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/378/The-Trinity-Is-it-Biblical.aspx)

So, according to the above article, the only difference between the Adventist gods and the heathen gods is that the Adventist gods don't war against each other. Although, the Adventist gods even risked this "unity of purpose"--because Jesus could have sinned and then the gods would have warred against each other--with Jesus being "omnipotent evil"!! And Jesus and the Holy Spirit are such lesser gods than the Father that it might be wrong to pray to them! The blatant tritheism and blasphemies in the above quote are just totally amazing! To listen to a short audio clip of Doug Batchelor explaining his heretical, tritheistic view of the "Trinity" to a caller on his radio show, "Bible Answers Live," click here.

And the following excerpts are from a transcript on the Amazing Facts website of another call to Doug Batchelor's radio program:

"Caller: I was having a discussion with a friend of mine the other day about the Nature of God, and she was saying that she saw God's Nature as being Three Separate Individuals that acted together under the Title of God - kind of like how my father, my mother and I would act together under the title 'family'. And that is how she explains that you've got a singular God; a singular Entity called God, but that there can be different individuals in that. And I don't really know how to answer that.

"Pastor Doug: Well actually that's not too far from the truth Doug, because the Trinity doctrine - actually you don't find the phrase Trinity so to speak in the Bible - but the doctrine of the Godhead, where Jesus said baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, you can find three distinct Individuals outlined in the Bible.

PAGE 63

[...] "So there you have another example of those three Entities that the Bible speaks of.

"Caller: But do you think They are three completely separate Entities?

"Pastor Doug: The three Persons of the Godhead - you know when Jesus was baptized is a good example where you can see they're three separate Entities. Christ, God the son, comes out of the water at His baptism. The Voice of God the Father says, 'This is My Beloved Son....' Incidentally, this is Matthew chapter 3. Then the Holy Spirit descends in the Form of a Dove. So you've got three distinct Persons that are making up God.

"First John 5:7 says, '...for there are Three that bear record in Heaven [there's three, very simple]. The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.' Now some people get confused and they say, ' 'these three are one? How can They be three in one?' ' All you've got to do is remember that in the Hebrew mind, one meant unity.

"Jesus said a man leaves his father and mother, cleaves unto his wife, they become one flesh. Well they're two in reality. We know they're two separate, distinct persons. They're now one unit of a family. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are united in their purpose of creation, of redemption, and saving man." (Words in brackets in original. Link [with audio])

And here is a quote from another transcript from Doug Batchelor's "Bible Answers Live":

"Pastor Doug: And now proof for that is the baptism of Jesus. Jesus is in the water, God the Father speaks from Heaven - this is Matthew 3 - He says, 'This is my Beloved Son...'; God the Spirit comes down like a dove. It tells us in John that there are three that bear witness, the Word - which is Christ, the Father and the Spirit. So you have all the elements; and even in Revelation chapter 1 you read verses 4 through 6 you've got the Trinity there.

"So it's like water. You know water can be ice, water can be steam and water can be liquid. It's one thing, but it's three different forms. Well that's actually not a good illustration because God is three separate people." (Link [with audio])

Notice that in his reference to 1 John 5:7 KJV (which is not found in the early manuscripts), he completely left out the part that says, "and these three are one."

And here are some exerpts from one more transcript from Doug Batchelor's radio program:

"Pastor Doug: Well I can't do an exhaustive study, but I'll give you a few basics if that'll be okay. First of all, the concept of one is the most misunderstood concept that people struggle with.

"Moses says, 'Hear Oh Israel, the Lord of God is One.' But it's also Moses who wrote, 'a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one.' Well that oneness in the Bible doesn't always mean it's one numerically. You can remember, Andre, in John 17, Jesus prays the Apostles might be One, even as He and the Father are One. One means unity. So that's one point.

[...]

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. You read where it says in the beginning all things were made by Jesus in John chapter 1. So Jesus must also be part of God. See what I'm saying?" (Link [with audio])

Notice that he outright says that Jesus is only "part of" God, rather than fully (all of) God.

Also on the Amazing Facts website, is the following, from the description of Doug Batchelor's pocket book The Trinity:

"The doctrine of the triune Godhead is under attack from all corners of Christianity. Understand the history behind this dangerous assault and know the biblical support for this great mystery found in both Testaments. You will see the nature of the Godhead and each being in a new, fascinating light, and you will find peace with a fundamental truth important to all believers." (http://www.amazingfacts.org/store/product/tabid/268/p-690-trinity-the-pb.aspx)

And the following is a quote from the book, which can be downloaded from their website:

"But as we consider the various features of the Holy Spirit, we can quickly see He has all the credentials of a separate and distinct, intelligent, individual being." (http://www.amazingfacts.org/Resources/Download/PBLib/BK-TRIN.pdf)

The following are excerpts from an article by Dennis Priebe, which is on his website (www.dennispriebe.com). Priebe is a speaker for Amazing Facts, and, according to his website, is "a Seventh-day Adventist minister, with 40 years experience as a pastor, a teacher, and seminar speaker."

[Speaking of "The contemporary anti-Trinity movement" (within Adventism):] "As with all errors, there is a truth at the foundation of this teaching. After the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. the papal party took the title of Trinitarians. They said that the Godhead consists of three personalities and one essence or substance, using very philosophical and metaphysical terms.

"Following is a sample of Catholic instruction for confirmation. 'The Son proceeds from the Father by an act of the intellect and this is termed 'Eternal Generation,' by which we mean not only that there never was a time when the Father existed without generating the Son, but also that the act of Generation is a continuous act.' The manual teaches that there could be no separation between the Father and the Son on earth, since this would interrupt the act of generation. Thus the Son would not exist, which would mean that the Father would not exist. Since they are of one essence, neither the Father nor the Son could exist separately from the other. (Alfred Mortimer, Catholic Faith and Practice) Is there any wonder that the pioneers rejected this doctrine of the Trinity? J. N. Andrews said, 'This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord.' (Review and Herald, March 6, 1855)

PAGE 64

[...]

"If we want to defend the truth that there are three persons with the family name of God, it might be better to use the Biblical name Godhead, as Ellen White consistently did.

"Matthew 28:19 tells us to baptize 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' 'Name' is singular here, and all three that follow are on the same level, with one name. The definite article is used for all three beings. The Three are God and yet they are one God.

[...]

[...] "These are three gifts from three individual beings."

[...] "Here we find three functions of three individual beings.

"The Spirit of Prophecy [NOTE: this refers to the SDA prophetess Ellen G. White's writings] has many references to the three beings. 'Three great powers of heaven.' (8T 254) 'There are three living persons of the heavenly trio.' (Ev 615) 'The eternal heavenly dignitaries--God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit.' (Ev 616) 'The three highest powers in heaven--the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' (Ev 617)

[...]

"Here is a suggestion for keeping this issue in balance and resolving some apparent contradictions. The nature of the Godhead is not a central theme in Scripture. Where it is discussed it reveals three equal beings, all existing from eternity, one in purpose and mind in ways impossible for created beings.

"The central issue in Scripture is the function of the Godhead. This is always described in descending rank from the Father to the Son to the Spirit. This is the way the Godhead wants all created beings to approach them. The Father is the ultimate authority; the Son is the visible representative to created beings; the Spirit is the invisible presence with all created beings.

"The Father even had to explain to angels the difference between Christ and Lucifer, since both had similar functions. If this could be misunderstood in heaven, it is easy to see why we have problems understanding the Godhead.

[...]

"The members of the Godhead are equal in nature and attributes, but are unequal in function and rank as they relate to created beings.

[...]

"The Godhead has chosen to reveal itself gradually to the human race. This was apparently not one of the crucial issues for the redemption of mankind.

[...]

"In the New Testament Christ was revealed as the Word of God, the Son of God. The Holy Spirit was revealed as the Comforter, the Advocate. The emphasis was on three Beings in one Godhead, descending in rank and function from the Father to the Son to the Spirit." (http://www.dennispriebe.com/documents/New%20Light%20For%20Adventists.html)

The above statements are incredibly blasphemous, even going so far as to say that angels in heaven didn't know "the difference between Christ and Lucifer, since both had similar functions" and that "the Father" had to explain it to them!! That statement (which is based on the teachings of the SDA prophetess, Ellen G. White) is also powerful proof of his polytheism. Notice also that he, an SDA "Trinitarian," says that the pioneers were correct in rejecting the historical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity!

J. David Newman, D.Min, former editor of Ministry (the official SDA magazine for clergy), and current (2009) Senior Pastor of New Hope Adventist Church, an "evangelical"/"progressive" SDA church in Maryland, wrote the following comments on the progressiveadventism.com blog in February 2007. Notice that he even uses the words "three gods"!:

"The doctrine of the Tinity [sic] is called an Implicit doctrine rather than an explicit one. This is because there is NO clear statement in Scripture saying three gods are one. If you read the King James Bible you do find that statement in 1 John 5:8 but that is only because Erasmus, on a dare, in the 16th century when compiling the Greek manuscripts into one that translators could use inserted that text. There is not room here to tell the whole story of how this came to be. Most modern translations omit this verse and footnote it.

"Of course we have Matt 28L19, 20, the baptismal formula and statements of Jesus saying that He and His father are one. Language is our big problem. Words are only symbols for what is in the mind. That is why JWs emphasize the humanity of Christ by playing on the fact that he is a son, human. It is only in the New Testament that we get a fuller picture of the godhead. We use analagies such as in Gen 2:24 where Adam and Eve became one flesh (even though they were still two separate people)." (http://web.archive.org/web/20070927220645/http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/02/16/interlogue-18-woodrow-whidden/)

Also, on Newman's church's website, on the "what we believe" page under "about us," their statement of faith says the following:

"We believe there is one coeternal God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons." (http://lookingforachurch.org/)

PAGE 65

The above statement does not even make sense grammatically. What is a "coeternal God"? How can "one God" be "coeternal"? That is an oxymoron! It is grammatically incorrect. With whom is He "coeternal"? By definition, for anything to be "coeternal" there has to be more than one. Therefore, if "God" is coeternal, there has to be more than one god. The statement only makes sense at all when you realize that Adventism teaches that "God" is a group of three beings who are one in purpose. In other words, "God" is not a living Supreme Being but merely the title of a "group"--an "organization" or "club," comprising three divine beings (gods). In this way, the word "God" is changed from a noun describing a living Being to a collective noun describing a group (or "trio," as their prophetess Ellen G. White calls it). And then, they make it clear that they are using the word "God" to mean a "group" by then defining "God" as "a unity of three coeternal Persons." Again, this paraphrase of the official Fundamental Belief statement helps to clarify further what is meant by it.

The following quotation is from a sermon by Dr. Hyveth Williams, Senior Pastor of the Campus Hill Seventh-day Adventist Church in Loma Linda, California, which was delivered at a women's retreat at the Sligo SDA Church in Takoma Park, Maryland on February 2, 2002:

"And so, Naomi said to Ruth, 'When he lies down for sexual intimacy, find out exactly where he's lying down . .

"Find out where God is lying down. The God of heaven, holy Trinity; they are lying down on earth, in the hope that we're going to come and find out where they are, so we can get into some intimate relation with them . ." (As quoted at http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-U-Z/Williams.pdf)

Celebration Center, a Seventh-day Adventist Church in Redlands, California, publishes a magazine entitled Kingdom Adventism. In the first edition of this magazine, January 2009, the following quote is found in the article entitled "In Essentials - Unity" by Steve Daily, Senior Pastor of Celebration Center:

"In practical terms, for those of us who seek to be Kingdom Adventists, this means that essentials focus on Jesus and the Godhead. Unity is defined by the most essential spiritual question, His question, 'Who do you say that I am?'

"Essentials include the belief that Jesus is Lord and fully God, that God is a personal Being--not an impersonal force. They include the belief that the Godhead is One as God's people are intended to be one, and that the Word of God in Christ, discerned through the Spirit, has full authority for the believer." (http://www.kingdomadventism.com/wp-content/themes/femme-flora/images/articles/January_2009_KingdomAdventism.pdf)

Notice that one of their "essentials" is anti-Trinitarianism--the belief that "the Godhead is One as God's people are intended to be one" (one in purpose/tritheism) rather than that God is actually one (one living being). So, according to this statement, even this liberal/ecumenical SDA congregation doesn't even want to have unity with Christians who believe in the Trinity!

The Spencer Seventh-day Adventist Church in Spencer, Indiana, held a "seven-week Wednesday evening series entitled The Problem with Evil and God's Plan to End It" which "concluded on March 29, 2006." Their website says: "Steve Pickett and Jeff Miller developed and presented the material each week to a regular group of members and visitors. Each session was also recorded for future availability on our church website.

"In addition, handouts that included Bible texts and commentary enabled participants to readily follow the presentations, make notes, and have a printed copy for later personal study. Pastor David Fish, who strongly encouraged the two laymen to develop their insights into such a program, welcomed attendees each night and enthusiastically supported the sessions in whatever way possible." Here is a quote from the handout for the first session, which was entitled "Love and The Godhead":

"The God Head

"Genesis 1:1 KJV In the beginning God (f) created the heaven and the earth.

"(f) 'elohiym el-o-heem' Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

"If love is other-centered, can there be love if there is only one? If God is love, should we be surprised that God is plural?

[...]

"(h) Different from the multiple gods of other religions, the members of the Godhead are of the same mind, hold the same experiences, and have the same attitudes. All have existed from the beginning of eternity. There is no rivalry

[...]

"(d) Here Christ is declared to have always been with his Father. The Father has had no experiences without the Son present." (Italics in original. http://www.difdesigns.com/church/seminar/1LoveandtheGodhead.pdf)

First, we see that they quoted Strong's definition for the Hebrew word elohiym. The problem is that they only quoted the first part of Strong's definition. This is just like how the Jehovah's Witnesses (mis)use the quotes of Greek scholars! If we look at the whole definition, we will see how totally deceptive their quoting was: "plur. of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:" (Emphasis in original. The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers.) Dr. James Strong himself would never have agreed that it meant "gods" in Genesis 1:1!

And once again, we see that the only difference between the SDA gods and the gods of other religions, is that their gods don't fight with each other! Here are a few quotes from the audio presentation:

"In Genesis 1:1, the first verse of the Bible, it says: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' And that word for 'God' is 'elohiym,' which is a plural word for 'gods.' And think about it. If love is other-centered, can you have love if there's only one? If you were put on a desert island, somehow, and you were stranded there, you would still love, wouldn't you? [...] And you'd be thinking of all the

PAGE 66

people that you've known, that you wish could be there, or who you wish you could get back with them. Because, when you really think about it, the greatest prize in life is a friend. [...] And, if you were stranded, you'd be thinking of a friend. But if there had never been another, you were the only one that had ever been, you'd never known anyone else, could there be love? [...] If there'd never been anyone but you, there couldn't be love, could there? And so why should we think it strange that God should be plural? If God is love... There's three, in the Godhead.

[...]

"The Jews never really believed in a Godhead, they believed in a single God. The Muslims believe in a single God. And then, the other religions believe in multiple gods. The difference between the Godhead, as being three, and the multiple gods of the other religions, is that in the other religions there was rivalry. The gods weren't always the same. You go to this god, for this need, 'cause that's where this god's at. [...] And there's gods for fertility, and for whatever needs you had, you have a god to go to. And in some of the myths of the gods, the gods were opposed to each other, there were good gods and there were bad gods. And some of the bad gods were powerful, and if you needed a favor from them, you might go to that god, but sometimes that bad god was cursing you and... And so you've got this rivalry going on. But this is not the case in the God HEAD. In the God HEAD, they've all existed from eternity, and we'll see that a little more as we go on. But they're all of the same mind, they've had the same experiences, and they have the same attitudes, as it says in John 10:30 there, Jesus said, 'I and My Father are one.'

[...]

"You know, I was thinking, when we read in the Scripture earlier, where it says, 'I was as one brought up with him.' [Proverbs 8:30] You know, it's almost like the Father and the Son grew up as twin brothers. There's nothing one has experienced, they've both been since eternity. There's not anything that the one has experienced that the other hasn't experienced. You know, I have an older brother, and he's always experienced things that I haven't, 'cause he was around before I came along. But with twin brothers, that come up together, you know... And that's kinda the way it is with the Father and the Son." (http://www.difdesigns.com/church/seminar/1LoveandtheGodhead.mp3)

In the above quote about the Jews, we see again that Adventism has completely redefined the word "Godhead" to mean a "group of three gods," just as Mormonism has. They admit that, unlike the Jews, they don't believe in "a single God" (monotheism)!

This same redefinition is also made clear in the following quote from a manual on the official SDA General Conference Youth Minstries Department website, which is for the SDA "Pathfinders" program and is entitled "Bible Truths" "A course in Bible Doctrine" "General Conference Youth Department 2003 Revision." Notice that they use both "Godhead" and "Trinity" as plural nouns:

"The Godhead, or Trinity, comprising the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, all had part in the work of creation." (http://gcyouthministries.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=O%2fvTnQpa9Tc%3d&tabid=86&mid=526)

And then under "Lesson 10 The Trinity" in the above document, it says, "There are three persons in the Trinity. (Matt. 28:19.)," and then goes through discussions about each "person of the Godhead." But in the whole section there is no mention of God being "one" at all!

The following excerpts are from an article about Soophaphone Sirivongsack (aka Soo), who is being accepted within mainstream Adventism as having received visits and divine messages and instructions from an angel (much like SDA founding prophetess Ellen G. White claimed for herself):

"Wanting to learn more about her religion, Soo became a 'nun' and lived in the temple on several occasions to study the Buddhist history. [...]

"It was during this time that Soo learned from her 'second father' of a God who had come down from Heaven, who had marks in His hands, His feet, and His Side and Head...one that forgives sins and will come again to take His children to live in Heaven with Him. She learned His name as 'Second God.'

[...]

"As Soo prepared to go to sleep, she saw something strange reflected in her window—her bedroom door was opening and shutting. Three times it happened. Her hair stood on end; she had goose bumps on her arms. She was frightened that an evil Buddhist spirit was visiting her. So Soo prayed to the 'Second God' [PRA-MA-XI-ANN in her language] and the manifestation stopped. Relieved and at peace, she turned off her light to go to sleep.

[...]

[...] "When she wanted to go tell her mother the good news about her cancer the angel said it would have to wait...she needed to move forward. He also assured her she would see her real mother in heaven. [Soo knew about the 'Second God,' perhaps her mother did, also.]

[...]

"Soo has worked with others to begin the translations she was directed to do. Translation of the book 'Steps to Christ' has been completed and she and is working on chapter 17 of the Great Controversy, which she is interpreting from Thai to Lao with the assistance of a local elder at the Japanese SDA church in Sacramento. [...]

"So again I say yes, I believe Jesus will find faith when He returns. He will find it in Soo, who is now understandingly following the 'Second God' Jesus, the Son of God and looks joyfully for His soon return. On November 15, 2004 Soo will return for a few months to Australia to renew her visa and passport and begin the process of laying the groundwork for her mission in Laos. [...]" (Words in brackets in original. http://english.sdaglobal.org/testimony/soo.htm)

The above obviously teaches multiple gods, calling Jesus a "second" god.

PAGE 67

The following quote is from an article on the Wahroonga (Australia) SDA Church website, by Max Hatton, SDA pastor and author of the book Understanding the Trinity, which is published by Autumn House, a division of the SDA Church-owned Review and Herald Publishing Association. Here is the quote from Hatton's article, which is entitled "WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO CALL JESUS 'THE SON OF GOD.'":

"A thorough study of the Word of God reveals that Jesus adopted many roles in the plan of God for our salvation. He was the Lamb, the Mediator, our High Priest, the Judge, and much more. Additionally, He is the Son of God who adopted this subservient role and as such was sent by the Senior Partner in the program of the Trinity to come and die for us. He willingly adopted this role which made Him less than the Father in position but not in nature. He was God as well as man on earth, and always will be God in the absolute sense — a member of the Trinity." (http://www.wahroongasda.org.au/docs/The%20Trinity%20-%20What%20Does%20it%20Mean%20to%20call%20Jesus,%20the%20Son%20of%20God.doc)

So "the Trinity" is a "program" which has a "Senior Partner"? This is not the Trinity of Christianity.

Max Hatton also has his own personal website, which contains several articles of his. Here are some quotes from an article of his which is entitled "THE TRINITY Vs SEMI-ARIANISM":

"Scripture requires us to accept that Jesus was God in the fullest sense. There is no way that He could make Himself less than God in Nature. He voluntarily assumed humanity and veiled His Deity. He voluntarily gave up the independent exercise of His Divine attributes and only used them when prompted to by the Father in heaven (see John 5:19, 30; 6:38 and 8:29). They were never used for His personal comfort or benefit but only in the interest of others. Unless He had these Divine attributes though, all the temptations that the Devil brought to Him, trying to entice Him to use His Divine powers for His own benefit, would have been meaningless.

[...]

"We are permitted to gain only a glimpse of what was going on within Jesus during this final period of His life. There are many things that took place while Jesus suffered for us that seem quite paradoxical but they are nevertheless true. God was pouring out His wrath upon Christ but was nevertheless suffering with Him because they are both part of the Triune God. On the Cross Jesus offered the heart wrenching agonizing cry, 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?' Jesus, as our sin-bearer, was forsaken but yet all the while the Father was there with Him hidden in the darkness. We thank God then for Jesus' cry of faith, 'Into your hands I commend my spirit.' Despite His feelings He remained faithful to the task right to the end.

"Can you agree with me that from the time in the Garden of Gethsemane to His death on the Cross, Jesus was more and more experiencing the Second Death which is separation from God? Finally, even from the depths of His Divinity, when the full impact of the experience came to His full realization, He cried out in utter despair 'Why have you forsaken me?' It seemed as though separation from God was complete. It was as though the Trinity had been rent first, then the rending of His flesh, and then the rending of the Temple curtain from top to bottom. I marvel at what God has done for us and it leaves me in almost astonished silence. Who am I to think to explain what was going on in the heart and mind of the Divine human Jesus? I desperately want to understand and I believe that God wants us to appreciate as much as we can what He has revealed to us. I nevertheless realize my limitations so I leave myself open to further understanding.

[...]

"Do we have a conflict arising from these statements? Did the Father raise Jesus or did the resurrection result from the Divinity of Jesus bringing the God-man back to life? Remember that Jesus, during the time of his life on earth, only used His Divine powers at the instigation of the Father. Additionally, we recall that these powers were never used for his personal comfort or benefit. Jesus says that He had received authority from the Father to both lay down His life and take it again. The Father was no doubt then, involved in the resurrection, but so was Jesus because at that time He could use His Divine powers on His own behalf. [...]

[...]

"Trinitarians find no problem in accepting that the Father and Jesus, either individually or together, can come to us through the Holy Spirit. This is not a problem because all three are the One God. What one does has the value of them all doing it. [...]

[...]

"The Holy Spirit is a Person:

"a. He performs personal actions in association with other persons: Matthew 28:19; Acts 15:28; Revelation 22:17 — NB The Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Father and Jesus — Matthew 28:19 etc.

"b. Takes the place of Jesus: John 14:16. Could an impersonal force take the place of the Divine Jesus on earth?

[...]

"It is quite ridiculous really to say that the Holy Spirit is just the spiritual presence of the Father or the Son or of both. At the baptism of Jesus the Three were manifested there. The Father spoke from heaven, Jesus was in the water being baptized, and the Holy Spirit came down upon Jesus like a dove. The Father and Jesus needed no spiritual presence of any third party. Remember too the baptismal formula Jesus gave at Matthew 28:19 — 'baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' Blind Freddy can surely see that there are Three Persons in the Heavenly Trio." (http://users.bigpond.net.au/mhattonSDA/The%20Trinity%20Vs%20semi-A.htm)

First of all, notice that he says that "God" and "Christ" are "both" "part of" "God"! He also says that "the Father and Jesus" can come to us through "the Holy Spirit," "either individually or together." This is a complete denial that God is one simple living Being, without parts. He also uses Ellen G. White's tritheistic phrase "the Heavenly Trio."

PAGE 68

Here are some excerpts from another article by Hatton on his website, which is entitled "THE TRINITY Vs SEMI-ARIANISM SEMINAR":

"God has revealed some things about Himself to us in what is termed 'the economy of the plan of redemption.' In other words, the terms 'Father,' 'Son,' and 'Holy Spirit,' are all suitable to help us understand the Heavenly Three and their relationship to One Another in the Plan of Redemption (this is what the Bible is all about really). We do not know how each of the Three would be described apart from the plan of redemption.

[...]

"We have to say that there are either two Yahweh's, or, that there are two involved in the complexity of Yahweh. Later revelation points us to the latter. The New Testament enhances our understanding also bringing into clearer view the doctrine of the Trinity as it reveals the Holy Spirit to be a person who is also a member of the Godhead — Trinity.

[...]

"The Three who are all revealed to be God are often mentioned in a way that emphasizes their Tri-unity. We remember the baptismal formula of Jesus — Christians are to be baptized in the name (one Name) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — Matthew 28:19. An unmistakable threeness is evident here. Three united in the one Name. So we have a Threeness but also a Oneness.

"At the baptism of Jesus we find the Father speaking to Him from heaven while the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove — Matthew 3:16, 17. The Three are represented here as being active and separate. We must be excused for accepting that They are Three and not two. Other evidence shows that they are each God and because there is only One God the Three are One within the complexity of the One God.

"Then there is the benediction found at 2 Corinthians 13:14 — 'May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.' On any count there are Three mentioned again. These expressions, and there are many more similar ones, indicate that the Threeness was very evident to the Bible writers. Their Monotheism was not being challenged by their acceptance that their God was a complex unity of Three.

"Because the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all the One God in Triunity (Trinity), what one does has the value of them all doing it. When the Holy Spirit comes to us it is the same as the Father coming to us, or of Jesus coming to us, or of the whole Three coming to us. The Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to as the Spirit of Christ — Romans 8:9, 10; Galatians 4:6; Philippians 1:19, etc. Luke 21:15 says Jesus will tell His followers what to say in time of trouble while Mark 13:11 says it is the Holy Spirit Who will do this. This is where some dissidents have become confused. They think that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same Person or that the Holy Spirit is some force that comes from Jesus and the Father. The truth is that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same God — not the same Person. Remember the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19, 20 where they are spoken of as separate Persons.

"John 14:18 tells that Jesus will come to His followers — Verse 23 says that both the Father and the Son will make their abode with believers. Verse 26 indicates that this will be through the Holy Spirit — see also verse 28 first part. There is no need for confusion — there are Three Persons all working in perfect harmony as One God." (http://users.bigpond.net.au/mhattonSDA/THE%20TRINITY%20Vs%20ARIANISM%20SEMINAR.htm)

Notice that instead of there actually being one God, Hatton presents "Three Persons all working in perfect harmony as One God." Also, he is denying that God is one simple Being without parts (Divine simplicity), instead speaking about God's "complexity." God is not "a complex unity of Three." God is one simple living Being who exists as three distinct, but not separate, persons, who is indivisible and without parts.

And here are a couple of quotes from another article of Hatton's on his website, which is entitled "THE CHECKERED HISTORY OF THE TRINITY DOCTRINE":

"The plain facts are that Maimonides is quite out of harmony with Deuteronomy 6:4 where God's oneness is revealed by the word achid which allows for a plurality in the oneness. A strict solitariness would require the word Yachid which Maimonides misleadingly uses. Achid is used of a husband and a wife becoming one flesh (Genesis 2:24), also of the two dreams of Pharaoh being one.

[...]

"Obviously, some Jews have struggled to understand or accept the parts of their Scriptures where the complexity of God is clearly indicated. On the other hand some Jews have quite obviously denied the evidence of Scripture and refused to accept that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit form the Godhead or Trinity. [...]" (http://users.bigpond.net.au/mhattonSDA/THE%20CHECKERED%20HISTORY%20OF%20THE%20TRINITY%20DOCTRINE.htm)

Actually, the Hebrew word used in Deuteronomy 6:4 simply means "one"--just like the English word "one." We will see more about this later.

The following quote is from another article by Hatton that is on his website, which is entitled "THE TRINITY (Very brief Bible Study Notes)":

"e. Jesus shares the glory of God: John 17:5; Matthew 16:27 compare Isaiah 42:8; 48:11." (http://users.bigpond.net.au/mhattonSDA/THE%20TRINITY%20Very%20brief%20Bible%20Study%20Notes.htm)

This is a direct contradiction of Scripture, which states that God shares His glory with no one (see Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11).

The following excerpts are from an article of Hatton's entitled "ELLEN G. WHITE AND THE HOLY SPIRIT":

[...] "It is desirable first of all to demonstrate who the Bible is really about. It is primarily about Jesus. This makes a difference because while

PAGE 69

the Holy Spirit has a role to play it is a comparatively minor role and therefore He does not gain the same attention as that given to Jesus. [...]

[...]

"I repeat that the Bible is not about the Holy Spirit. He has a most important role to play but it is primarily to glorify Christ, not Himself — John 15:26; John 16:14. That is why the Holy Spirit has sometimes been referred to as 'The Shy Member of the Trinity.' Nevertheless, we can say with confidence that enough is revealed of Him to ensure that we accept Him as a Person who is God, a member of the Trinity.

"The above brief survey should be helpful to those who are bothered by the fact that as the Plan of Redemption unfolds we see such things as Jesus seated on the throne with the Father but the Holy Spirit is not mentioned. In other words, this is the reason why Jesus, the Redeeming Mediator, is seen in triumph and no mention is made of the supporting Holy Spirit. He is simply not in the view of the Revelator and other Bible writers who are revealing further matters related to the Plan of Redemption.

[...]

"I am astonished that some people are either unaware of statements such as these or they somehow distort them. Each of the three Persons in the 'heavenly trio' (not a duo) is said to be 'all the fullness of the Godhead.' How could this be said of them unless they were each fully God? It could not!!! Furthermore, they are 'three great powers' — not two! Ellen White distinctly says, 'there are three living persons.'

[...]

"I could offer many statements describing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as 'three great powers,' and such like, but if the above does not convince that the position of the Church is correct in revealing that each is one of the Three Persons that comprise the Trinity, nothing will." (http://users.bigpond.net.au/mhattonSDA/ELLEN%20G.%20WHITE%20AND%20THE%20HOLY%20SPIRIT.htm)

And here are some excerpts from one more article by Hatton, which is entitled "Ellen G. White and the Trinity":

"My book, Understanding the Trinity, provides an adequate testimony to the fact that the Trinity doctrine is a definite teaching of Scripture. Unfortunately, in recent time, books, papers, and audio cassettes have popped up here and there in some Adventist circles advocating that the Holy Spirit is not a separate actual Person from the Father and Jesus and also that Jesus is not a Person having eternal existence. Jesus is promoted along the lines of the Semi-Arian falsehood which claims that He came into existence at some time in the mystical past as an emanation from the Father. [...]

[...]

"How ever could we escape the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is here distinguished as a person? If language means anything we must submit to such clear statements! Please do not pass from this point without noticing too that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are clearly two different Persons. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. Rather the Holy Spirit represents Jesus.

[...]

"Just as it is possible to have only one World Champion in any field of sport, it is possible to have only one universal, completely separate individual who is Omnipotent. The true God is a Trinity existing as three Persons who are not completely separate — see my book Understanding the Trinity. It is therefore quite correct to say that each Person is Omnipotent because they all comprise the One Omnipotent God.

"Look at it another way. Our Trinity God is Omnipotent. Would it be possible to correctly say then that any one of the Members of the Trinity is not Omnipotent? Obviously not!

[...]

"Here are some, by no means all, of the statements Ellen White made which confirm our conclusion that she was a convinced Trinitarian:

[...]

"We must not let the point escape us that Ellen White clearly states over and over again that God is a Tri-unity. Let us summarise. She says there are:

"three living persons of the heavenly trio
the three persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
three great and glorious heavenly characters
three powers of the Godhead
The eternal Godhead — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
The Godhead...the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
The eternal heavenly dignitaries — God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit

"How anyone could hope to manipulate these statements to mean that God is a Duality is a mystery beyond the ability of normal people to solve. Why ever would Ellen White use language such as the above if there are only two Persons involved in the Godhead? How can it legitimately be explained that she made out that the power from God is a third Person?" (http://users.bigpond.net.au/mhattonSDA/Ellen%20G.%20White%20and%20the%20Trinity.htm)

The following is from an article on the Spectrum Blog (which is hosted by Spectrum magazine, an independent SDA magazine), by Johnny Ramirez-

PAGE 70

Johnson, who is "a tenured professor in Theology, Psychology, and Culture at the School of Religion at Loma Linda University." The article is entitled "Bloggin' the 28: Applying Trinity to human relationships" and starts out by quoting the second of the 28 "Fundamental Beliefs" of the SDA Church:

"There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.) (Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, Belief No. 2, The Trinity

"Introduction

[...]

"Have you ever drawn God? If you were assigned the task of doing so where will you go for inspiration? [...]

[...]

"When I selected the assignment to write about the Trinity I felt like Mr. French, the sculptor, I asked myself where can I find an image of the Godhead? Where can I get inspiration to draw with words an accurate description of God? You see there are no pictures, paintings, diagrams, or even internet sites to visit where I can find a reliable photo album of the Godhead family, the Trinity. Therefore I decided to search the Bible. [...] No human has ever seen the Trinity.

[...]

"The main points to ponder are summarized in three questions: Is God an immutable, far away, all knowing, and all encompassing, far from human frailty God? Is the Trinity a mutable one, each member having a unique opinion and each member learning from each other? Is the Trinity in 'need' of companionship and enjoys the pleasures of intimacy with humans and between themselves?

[...]

"The first point that I wish to make in regards the doctrine in consideration is the fact that our God is a Trinitarian one. Before we make up our minds in regards to what is true we ought to listen to at least three perspectives from three different people, like the Godhead we all can benefit from diversity of perspectives. Diversity of opinions begins with God. I will latter explain myself.

"Ellen G. White Advises Silence

"Ellen G. White declares that silence is golden when trying to define who the Holy Spirit is, she says.

"It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, 'the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father.' It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, 'He shall not speak of Himself.' John 15:26; 16:13. The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden (White, 1911:51-52).

"Her advice is to study the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit. In this paper I will concentrate on the nature of the relationship of the Trinity with us and what can we learn to help us understand God's character and love for us humans. Instead of building a statue of the Trinity or the so-called logical attributes thereof, I wish to describe the goodness of God (see Exodus 33:18-20) as it relates to us. I will describe God's backside--which has been revealed, not God's face--which has not been seen.

[...]

"Genesis 1:26-27 no uncertain ways that there is an authoritative, legitimate, image of the Trinity on earth. [...] The God of Genesis is plural, the Creator of Genesis consulted in a heavenly council before creating our first parents. I have no idea of what when on in their dialogue, what I know for certain is that they came up with a design. This design is a reflection of God, the image of God. As presented by our prophetess Ellen G. there is no question about the fact that we humans, male and female, reflect God.

"There is no ground for the supposition that man was evolved by slow degrees of development from the lower forms of animal or vegetable life. . . . Man was to bear God's image, both in outward resemblance and in character. Christ alone is 'the express image' (Hebrews 1:3) of the Father; but man was formed in the likeness of God. His nature was in harmony with the will of God' (White, 1958:45).

"Therefore if we look at the best human traits, both in our physical 'outward appearance' and psychological ways, 'character,' we will find the only authorized image of the Trinity. To accomplish this task we will examine the passage in question with the question: What can we learn about the Trinity from the story of the creation of humans?

"Diversity Within The Trinity

"The first lesson that we must learn from Genesis 1:26-27 has to do with diversity, 'male and female he created them' is what the Bible says. It was not one of them who bore the image of God it is both. When we examine the female body and compare it to the male one we can only wonder what kind of a dialogue the Trinity had when creating humans. 'Man will have this and that organs in this and that shape, woman will have this and that features shaped in these unique ways.'

"From the biblical record we cannot ascertain whose hands got dirty with mud in the process of creating Adam, what we do know is that humans were created with a hands-on method rather than a voice-command method. Many parts of the creation account declare that

PAGE 71

God 'spoke' things into creation. For humans the method was hands-on, the 'LORD God formed' man and woman into creation.

"It is beyond the scope of this paper to determine the nature of God's gender qualities, though the Bible refers to God mostly with male metaphors, female ones are also used (see Rosado, 1990). It is assume by the author that God indeed has both male and female attributes; though God is neither male nor female per se. Since both males and females carry the image of God; in whatever way(s) they carry God's image, then God is like them in those same ways (see White, 1958:45--'Man [humanity] was to bear God's image, both in outward resemblance and in character').

[...]

"The Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:7 'formed' is also used to describe the action of a potter shaping or forming a clay vessel into existence. God's hands got as dirty as any potter's hands when working with clay! What implications does the fact that both men and women represent the image of God have on the doctrine of the Trinity? Historically women have not been led to believe that they carry in their bodies as much the image of God as men do. [...]

"As every female reader examines her body in front of a mirror, as every female reader learns about the marvelous physiology of her beautifully designed body, she learns about God! All female readers are designed in outward appearance in the likeness of God! This Trinitarian statement has tremendous implications for the psychological and social well being of females and males. Although we cannot answer the question if there are differences, similar to the male and female differences, in the outward appearance of the three persons of the Trinity, we do know that the Trinity choose to create us in two likeness, male and female.

"Both male and female carry God's image and we do well in affirming the goodness of this heavenly designed diversity. Just like the male and female bodies differ in 'outward appearance' and physiology, also the Trinitarian nature must reflect a like diversity. [...]

[...]

"Just as true that there is diversity both psychologically and physically between men and women it is also true that there is a lot of unity between them. The Bible declares that our first parents became one, Genesis 2:23-24. 'The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.' The Trinity is also 'one flesh.' Theologians have expressed this in so many words. The Bible expresses it with the image of marriage. It is only in the context of unity between a man and a woman in marriage that we can begin to understand the concept of the Trinity. In the logic of God as expressed in Genesis, since man and woman were created from the same essence they ought to become one in marriage. [...]

[...] "The plural God of Genesis exist in a oneness only understood in the relationship of a man and a woman in love."

[...]

"Is it that God needs companionship in order to be complete? Based on what we learn from God's image on earth and what the Bible says about God's relationships with us, I believe God needs our companionship in order to be complete.

"The Needs Of God

"Isaiah 43

"This beautiful poem describes the inner feelings, desires, and logic of God (presented in the context of Israel and their present truth). As we read it together let us try to understand God's reasoning. [...]

[...]

"It is not far fetched to say that God needs us in the same fashion that two loved ones need each other. We are not talking about a need for survival, we are talking about a need for pleasure and enjoyment of what is good and beautiful. Our nervous terminals and central nervous system are an image of God's own sensory system. God is capable of joy and pleasure as much as we are capable of joy and pleasure. [...]

"The logic of Jesus is the logic of equality in diversity. Treating others as equals even when we cannot always accept their logic. Jesus practiced this discipline all the way to the cross of Calvary! This discipline will bring to Jesus the greatest joy, the joy of saving us from our sins. That is why Jesus is looking forward to our reunion with him. When Jesus will be reunited with his first human creation, Adam. [...]

[...]

"Conclusion

"If we are to live a wholeness life we need to learn from the Trinity some key behaviors/attitudes.

"1. We do not need to be able to understand in order to believe. Just like we do not understand the logic of our spouse's in order to always love them; we do not need to understand how the Trinity is best described in order to have a relationship with God!

[...]

"3. Just like we have the need for companionship, God has the need for companionship. It is not a favor that God has saved us; it is because God needs us. Out of self-love God saved us!

"4. Since God needs us we can feel as partners, members of the family of God. We are not strangers receiving charity, we can

PAGE 72

provide God with what She/He needs-companionship!

"5. God will judge us based on our relationship with Her/Him. Our relationship with Her/Him is judged based on our relationship with those closer to us." (http://spectrummagazine.typepad.com/the_spectrum_blog/2007/06/bloggin-the-28-.html)

The extremely blatant Tritheism, among other heresies, in this article is astounding. Notice that Ramirez-Johnson even says that "we cannot ascertain whose hands got dirty with mud in the process of creating Adam"! In other words, "We don't have a clue which corporeal god out of our three corporeal gods is the creator"! Incredible! He even goes so far as to teach that the gods have male and female body parts.

And then in the "Comments" section following the article, Ramirez-Johnson posted the following in a comment:

"The Trinity is a great Christian concept that is focused on relationship. How you imagine the relationship is the key to the understanding. The most prevalent view is one that asserts the unity above the diversity of the relationship.

"If unity prevails God has one mind interconnected and thus in no need of communication, dialogue or 'discussions' among the members of the Trinity. If this is the case the Trinity's relationship-model and humans relationship-model have no connection whatsoever.

"But if on the contrary; the Trinity needs to talk among each other and come to one mind or agreement as a matter of fact; then the creation account serves as a model of how the Trinity may communicate among themselves.

"Based on the creation account I draw the conclusion that the Trinity falls better under the diversity account, thus viewing the Trinity or each members thereof, as in dialogue, having needs to be fulfilled by each other and by the creatures they created." (http://spectrummagazine.typepad.com/the_spectrum_blog/2007/06/bloggin-the-28-.html#comment-74491218)

The following excerpts are from an article entitled "The Adventist Trinity Debate Part 1: Historical Overview," by SDA theologian Dr. Jerry Moon, published in Andrews University Seminary Studies in 2003:

"Those who rejected the traditional Trinity doctrine of the Christian creeds were devout believers in the biblical testimony regarding the eternity of God the Father, the deity of Jesus Christ 'as Creator, Redeemer and Mediator,' and the 'importance of the Holy Spirit.'[14] While some, very early in Adventist history, held that Christ had been created,[15] by 1888 it was widely accepted that he had preexisted from 'so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension' he was 'practically without beginning.' Whatever that beginning may have involved, it was not by 'creation.'[16] Moreover, they weren't initially convinced that the Holy Spirit was an individual divine Person and not merely an expression for the divine presence, power, or influence.

[...]

"The early Adventists set forth at least six reasons for their rejection of the term 'Trinity.' The first was that they did not see biblical evidence for three persons in one Godhead. This was not a new objection.[19] In its simplest form, the concept of Trinity is the result of affirming, on the authority of Scripture, both the 'oneness' and the 'threeness' of God, despite human inability to fully understand the personal, divine Reality those terms point to. How this can be explained has been the subject of much thought and speculation over the centuries. The influence of Greek philosophy on the doctrinal developments of early and medieval Christian history is well known.[20]

[...]

"[19] The names of Arius, Servetus, and Socinus come to mind. Deut 6:4 clearly teaches that God is one, but while the writer could have used the term yahîd to denote a solitary one, the term chosen was the Hebrew eehad, which denotes a composite 'one' or one of a group, in contrast to a solitary or emphatic 'one.' The same word, eehad, is used in Gen 2:24 for the unity of husband and wife, who become 'one,' but within that oneness, still retain their individuality (Woodrow Whidden, 'The Strongest Bible Evidence for the Trinity,' in The Trinity: Understanding God's Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships, Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John Reeve [Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2002], 33-34). An extended discussion of the biblical evidence is beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that both the OT and NT contain indications that the One God is not merely solitary, and the NT explicitly refers to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14) (ibid., 21-117).

[...]

"None of these is a valid objection to the basic trinitarian concept of one God in three Persons.[30] Yet all of them were based on biblical texts. Adventists eventually changed their view of the Godhead because they came to a different understanding of the biblical texts.

[...]

"[30] The term 'person' as applied to God indicates a being with personality, intellect, and will. Unlike the multiple gods of polytheism, the three persons of the biblical Godhead are profoundly 'one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person.' Thus, despite their individuality, they are never divided, never in conflict, and thus constitute not three gods, but one God.

[...]

"A more substantial development was the continued quest to articulate a biblical doctrine of the Trinity, clearly differentiated from the Greek philosophical presuppositions that undergirded the traditional creedal statements. [...]

"Building on this line of thought, Fernando Canale, Dederen's student, set forth in 1983 a radical critique of the Greek philosophical presuppositions underlying what Dederen had referred to as ' speculative thought. Canale's dissertation, A Criticism of Theological Reason, argued that Roman Catholic and classical Protestant theology took its most basic presuppositions about the nature of God, time, and existence, from a 'framework' provided by Aristotelian philosophy. Canale maintained that for Christian theology to become truly biblical, it

PAGE 73

must derive its 'primordial presupposition from Scripture, not from Greek philosophy.[80]

"In the more recent Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (2000), edited by Dederen, Canale authored a magisterial article on the findings from his continuing work on the doctrine of God. Again, Canale explicitly differentiates between a doctrine of God based on Greek philosophical presuppositions and one based on biblical presuppositions,[81] making a strong case for his view that only through a willingness to 'depart from the philosophical conception of God as timeless and to 'embrace the historical conception of God as presented in the Bible, can one discover a truly biblical view of the Trinity.[82]

[...]

"Conclusion

"The long process of change from early Adventists' initial rejection of creedal trinitarianism to their eventual acceptance of a doctrine of the Trinity could rightly be called a search for a biblical Trinity. They were not so much prejudiced against traditional formulas as they were determined to hew their doctrine as closely as possible to the line of Scripture. In order to base their beliefs on Scripture alone, and to disenfranchise tradition from exercising any theological authority, they found it methodologically essential to reject every doctrine not clearly grounded in Scripture alone. Since the traditional doctrine of the Trinity clearly contained unscriptural elements, they rejected it. Eventually, however, they became convinced that the basic concept of one God in three persons was indeed found in Scripture. Part 2 of this study will consider in more detail the role of Ellen White in that process." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm)

And here are some excerpts from part 2, which is entitled "The Adventist Trinity Debate Part 2: The Role of Ellen G. White," published in Andrews University Seminary Studies in Autumn 2003:

"The conceptual key that unlocks the enigma of Ellen White's developmental process regarding the Trinity is the discovery that her writings describe at least two distinct varieties of trinitarian belief. One of these views she consistently opposed throughout her adult ministry, and the other she eventually endorsed. The trinitarian concept that she opposed was one that 'spiritualized' the members of the Godhead as distant, impersonal, mystical, and ultimately unreal. The concept that she favored portrayed God as personal, literal, and tangible. She did not initially recognize His trinitarian nature, but when she did, she would describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as real individuals, emphasizing Their 'threeness' as willing, thinking, feeling, social, and relational individuals, and explaining Their oneness in terms of nature, character, purpose, and love, but not of person. The basis of these differentiations will become clearer as we examine the historical context and process of her developing thought.

[...]

[...] "She clearly rejects the view of the trinity that makes God seem distant, untouchable, impersonal; and embraces a literal, biblical[80] view of the trinity, a view that shows God as including three individual divine personalities, who in nature, character, purpose, and love are one.

[...]

"Fourth, the method by which the early Adventists sought to separate the biblical elements of trinitarianism from the elements derived from tradition, was to completely disallow tradition as a basis for doctrine, and struggle through the long process of constructing their beliefs on the basis of Scripture alone. In doing so, they virtually retraced the steps of the NT church in first accepting the equality of Christ with the Father, and second, discovering Their equality and unity with the Holy Spirit as well. In the process, their theology showed temporary similarities to some of the historical heresies, particularly Arianism. Their repudiation of tradition as doctrinal authority was costly in terms of the ostracism they endured as perceived 'heretics,' but their dependence on Scripture brought them eventually to what they believe is a more biblical view of the Trinity.[87] A controversial corollary is the conviction that the classical formulation of the Trinity doctrine, resting as it does on Greek philosophical presuppositions of timelessness and impassibility, is simply incompatible with a thoroughly biblical theological system.

"Not an objective observer, but a systematic theologian deeply involved in the development of the Adventist doctrine of God, Fernando Canale has written extensively on the distinction between a theology based on Greek philosophical presuppositions, and one based on biblical presuppositions. [...]

[...]

"Canale makes a strong case for his contention that because Adventists, 'departed from the philosophical conception of God as timeless' and 'embraced the historical conception of God as presented in the Bible,' they were enabled to develop a genuinely biblical view of the Trinity." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity2.htm)

In the above articles it is made quite clear that Adventism teaches a tritheistic godhead, that they reject "creedal" (orthodox/Christian) Trinitarianism, and also that they reject the Biblical fact that God is timeless, the I AM--instead teaching that "God" is "historical." We also see more of hints of their denial of the incorporeality of God.

A more recent version of Dr. Jerry Moon's above study, entitled "The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White's 'Heavenly Trio' Compared to the Traditional Doctrine," was published in the Spring 2006 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, which, according to their website, "is a refereed (double-blind peer-reviewed) scholarly journal, translated intermittently into German, Spanish, and Russia. JATS is sent to every member of the Evangelical Theological Society where it is read by nearly 2000 non-Adventist evangelical scholars." Dr. Moon also presented this paper on April 1, 2006 at the Adventist Theological Society's "Trinity Symposium" at Southern Adventist University. At the end of the paper, it says: "Jerry Moon is an Associate Professor of Church History at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He also edits Andrews University Seminary Studies."

PAGE 74

First, here are some excerpts from the paper:

"In previous research I have traced the development of the Adventist doctrine of God from opposition to the Trinity doctrine as traditionally formulated to acceptance of the biblical concept of one God in three persons.9 I have also traced the clear progression in Ellen White's visions from 1850 onward, showing that her visions gradually formed her concept of God until by 1898, when she published Desire of Ages, she held a trinitarian concept.10

"This research has shown that: (1) Ellen White agreed with some aspects, but not with every aspect of the antitrinitarian views of other early Adventists. (2) Ellen White's view did change—she was raised trinitarian, came to doubt some aspects of the trinitarianism she was raised on, and eventually came to a different trinitarian view from the traditional one. (3) There is a basic harmony between Ellen White's earliest statements and her latest ones. Even on internal evidence, there is no reason to question the validity of her later, more trinitarian writings. They are completely consistent with the trajectory of her developing understanding of the Godhead, and there is every evidence that they represent her own thought. In her earliest writings she differed from some aspects of traditional trinitarianism and in her latest writings she still strongly opposed some aspects of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. (4) It appears, therefore, that the trinitarian teaching of Ellen White's later writings is not the same doctrine that the early Adventists rejected.11 Rather, her writings describe two contrasting forms of trinitarian belief, one of which she always opposed, and another that she eventually endorsed.

"The purpose of the present article is to clarify more fully the similarities and differences between Ellen White's view of the 'heavenly trio' and the traditional doctrine of the Trinity in order to discover her position in relation to the current debate among Adventists. [...]

"Two Different Concepts of the Trinity

"The conceptual key that unlocks the puzzle of Ellen White's developmental process regarding the Godhead is the discovery that her writings describe at least two distinct varieties of trinitarian belief, one based on Scripture alone, and one based on Scripture as interpreted through the lens of Greek philosophy—the same hermeneutic that brought the immortality of the soul into Christian theology. The concept of God that is explicit in her later writings portrays the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three eternal Persons of intellect, will, and emotions who are united in character, purpose, and love. There is no conflict among them, no working at cross-purposes, no competition, not even disagreement. Thus, they are not three gods (as in polytheism or tritheism), but One. Furthermore, their unity is not a mathematical paradox, but a relational unity, analogous to the unity seen in a good marriage, where husband and wife are united in an ever-growing oneness, but without negating their individuality.13

"Thus, her concept is in harmony with the biblical witness of both the OT and NT.14 After God said, 'Let us make man in our image' (Gen 1:26-27), God proceeded to create humans in a plurality of forms that were capable of becoming one. In Genesis 2:24 God explained His purpose in this—so that these diverse creatures bearing His 'image' could 'become one.' The Hebrew word translated 'one' in Gen 2:24 is 'echad —not a monolithic singleness [for which Moses could have used yachiyd, 'one' or 'only'], but a unity formed from multiple components. The same word occurs in Deut 6:4, 'Hear O Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one ['echad].'15

"The concept of plurality of persons in unity of relationship becomes more explicit in the NT. For example, Christ prayed that believers in Him may 'all' be 'one' as He and the Father 'are one' (John 17:20-22). Ellen White quotes this passage as proof of the 'personality of the Father and the Son,' and an explanation of 'the unity that exists between Them.' She wrote: '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. It is thus that God and Christ are one.'16

"In the same year (1905) she wrote elsewhere, 'There are three living persons of the heavenly trio . . . the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.'17 Her concept of the 'heavenly trio' differs from the traditional Trinity in that it is based on simple biblical reasoning and biblical presuppositions. [...]

[...]

"In maintaining that the Father and the Son are 'two distinct, literal, tangible' persons, James White certainly did not doubt that 'God is spirit' (John 4:24),26 but he insisted that though 'spiritual' beings, Christ and the Father are nevertheless Divine Persons who have a 'literal, tangible' existence; They are neither unreal nor imaginary. The trinitarian creeds he knew of made God so abstract, theoretical, and impersonal that God was no longer perceived as a real, caring, loving Being.

"For example, one trinitarian creed that early Adventists quoted fairly often was that of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Ellen White's church of origin. That creed says in part, 'There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts.'27 This the early Adventists vigorously refuted, citing several biblical passages that portrayed God as having both 'body' and 'parts.'28 ["28 For instance, Exod 24:9-11; 33:20-23; John 1:18; Heb 1:1-3; Uriah Smith, The State of the Dead and the Destiny of the Wicked (Battle Creek: SDA Publishing Assn., 1873), 27-30. Note Smith's polemic against any 'mystical interpretation of our current theology' (ibid., 27)."]

"Ellen White was also much interested in this question.29 Twice in early visions of Jesus, she asked Him questions related to the 'form' and 'person' of God. In one early vision, she reported seeing 'a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance,' she said, '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.''30

"In 1850 she reported, '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.''31 Thus her visions confirmed what her husband had written in 1846, that the Father and the Son are 'two distinct, literal, tangible persons.'32 The visions also disproved, to her mind, the claim of the Methodist creed that God is 'without body or parts.' Thus, these early visions steered her developing view of God away from creedal trinitarianism, though they offered nothing directly contradictory to her later statements of what I have called biblical trinitarianism.

PAGE 75

[...]

"Further, Ellen White claimed that in Kellogg's heresy she 'recognized the very sentiments' she had opposed among spiritualizing ex- Millerites in 1845 and 1846.66 The implication is that the spiritualizing of the post-disappointment fanatics, the creedal teaching that God is formless and intangible ('without body or parts'), and Kellogg's impersonal concepts of God were all associated in her mind under the general heading of 'spiritualistic theories.'67

[...]

"She clearly rejected any view of the Trinity that makes God impersonal and unreal, but embraced a literal, biblical69 view of one God in three eternal Persons, who are relationally united in character, purpose, and love.

[...]

"The change from Adventist rejection of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity to acceptance of a biblical trinitarian doctrine was not a simple reversal. When James White denounced creedal trinitarianism in 1846, Ellen White agreed with both his positive point—that 'the Father and the Son' are 'two distinct, litteral [sic], tangible persons'—and his negative point—that the philosophical trinitarianism held by many did 'spiritualize away' the personal reality of the Father and the Son.72

"Soon after this she added the conviction, based on visions, that both Christ and the Father have bodily form—rejecting the teaching of one trinitarian creed that God is 'without body or parts.' [...]

"In the 1890s, when she become convinced of the individuality and personhood of the Holy Spirit, she referred to the Holy Spirit in literal and tangible terms much like those she had used in 1850 to describe the Father and the Son. For instance, addressing the church at Avondale College in 1899, she declared, 'the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds, unseen by human eyes . . . . He hears every word we utter and knows every thought of the mind.'73

[...]

"Since Ellen White clearly held the basic formula of one God in three persons, it can hardly be denied that her view is essentially trinitarian. However, her view differs from traditional trinitarianism in the following important respects.

"1. She rejected at least three of the philosophical presuppositions undergirding traditional trinitarianism: (a) the radical dualism of spirit and matter, which concluded that God could not have a visible form; (b) the notion of impassibility, which held that God had no passions, feelings, or emotions, hence could have no interest in, or sympathy with, humans76; and (c) the dualism of time and timelessness, which led to the notions of 'eternal generation' and 'eternal procession.'77 Her rejection of all these concepts constitutes a radical departure from the medieval dogma of the Trinity.

"2. She described the unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in relational rather than ontological terms. While the traditional doctrine defined the divine unity in terms of 'being' or 'substance,' she focused on the volitional and relational dimensions of Their unity, a unity of 'purpose, mind, and character.'78 In this sense her concept of the 'heavenly trio' is a more humble concept than the traditional Trinity doctrine. [...]

"3. Ellen White's emphasis, however, on the relational unity of God does not preclude an ontological unity (of 'being' and 'substance') as well, but recognizes that the evidence for ontological unity 'transcends the limits of our human reason.'80 Both Canale and Fritz Guy have warned against the danger of tritheism if the relational unity is overemphasized to the exclusion of the ontological unity.81

"4. Since Ellen White described the divine unity in relational rather than philosophical terms, she had no need for Kellogg's scientific-philosophical metaphors—different states of light or water—by which he attempted to explain the relations among the Trinity. She saw such metaphors as not merely inadequate, but intrinsically misleading and false.

"5. For all these reasons, Ellen White's writings never use the term 'Trinity.' An uncritical use of the term 'Trinity' could have led others to accept concepts to which she was diametrically opposed. The traditional doctrine of the Trinity did contain a core of biblical truth, but that truth was distorted by philosophical presuppositions alien to Scripture. The only method by which the scriptural elements in the doctrine could be separated from the nonscriptural elements was to simply set aside the traditional doctrine and seek to understand God on the basis of Scripture alone. In so doing, Adventists eventually became convinced that the basic concept of one God in three eternal persons was indeed found in Scripture. In their progress toward that conclusion, they temporarily held some of the heterodox views that the larger church had wrestled with during the early centuries of the Christian era. By discarding tradition, however, and building a doctrine of God on Scripture alone, Adventists came eventually to a view of the Trinity that they believe is truly biblical. 82" (Italics and words in brackets in original. Hebrew words re-formatted for HTML compatibility. http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=241&journal=1&type=pdf)

So this paper by Dr. Moon makes it abundantly clear that Ellen G. White and Adventism teach that the "Godhead" comprises three individual, tangible (bodily/physical--thus making them finite, also) beings. There are some amazing admissions here, including the admission that Adventism rejects the traditional Trinity doctrine, and that they teach a different type of "Trinity" doctrine than the Christian creeds do! One other very important thing to note is that we see that even when they do use terms such as "being" or "substance," they do not mean the same thing that orthodox Christians mean. Their usage of these terms is very disingenuous, since even when they use orthodox-sounding terms such as "being," "substance," or "essence," they clearly do not mean that God is only one living Being--one indivisible essence or substance--since they make it very clear that they believe in three divine beings. These terms are deceptively used, just as they deceptively use the term "Trinity." Also, note that, in the second paragraph of the above quote, Dr. Moon says that it appears that the SDA "Trinity" teaching is "not the same doctrine" as the orthodox Trinity that the early Adventists rejected. What an incredible admission! Also notice again the same arguments that we have already seen by the Adventists, including the desperate, ridiculous claim that they are not teaching tritheism simply because their gods don't fight (which would also excuse Mormonism's tritheism),

PAGE 76

their misusage of John 17, and their false claims about the Hebrew words for "one" (which we will delve into more later).

Here are a few excerpts from a couple of the footnotes in the above paper:

"77 See Moon, chap. 11, in The Trinity, by Whidden, Moon, and Reeve, esp. 167-174. Malachi 3:6, 'I am the Lord, I do not change,' means that His character is unchanging, hence trustworthy. Heb 13:8 makes the same claim for God the Son, that He is 'the same, yesterday, today, and forever.' But the philosophical notion of timelessness says God has no 'yesterday,' no past or future, but is static, immobilized in an 'eternal present.' When Jesus said, 'I proceeded and came forth from God (John 8:42), the plain meaning of His speech to his initial hearers was a claim: 'My witness of the Father is trustworthy, because I know Him intimately, it is He who sent me into the world, and I speak as His appointed representative' (loose paraphrase of John 8:14-17, 28-29, 38, 42). But Greek philosophy reasons that if Jesus came from outside the world, He also came from outside time, hence He must have pre-existed in timelessness. Since timelessness was theorized to be an eternal present, if Christ 'proceeded' from the Father in timelessness, then His 'procession' from the Father is eternal. [...] A second implication is that if eternity is a timeless, 'eternal present,' then whatever happens to God, is still happening and will continue to happen forever. From this comes the theory of the 'eternal generation of the Son.' Some include the Holy Spirit in this 'eternal generation,' since He too is said to 'proceed' from the Father [John 15:26] (ODCC). [...] But the doctrine is warranted only on the basis of the Aristotelian concept of timelessness.

"78 Ibid. This gives a deep practical meaning to the doctrine of the Trinity. If the Trio's unity is relational, then the biblical statement, 'God is love,' is seen to be not just descriptive, but definitive. Without love, the Three would not be One. And without plurality, God could have love for others, but not be love in Himself." (http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=241&journal=1&type=pdf)

In the above quotes, we see that not only does Adventism reject eternal generation (which rejection is critically important to them and which they must do, because they teach three separate beings and therefore cannot teach the eternal generation of the Son or the eternal procession of the Spirit), but again we see that they reject the fact that God is timeless. According to Adventism, God is not outside of time. Instead, God is trapped inside of time, and has existed within time for an infinite number of years in the past (an illogical concept). In essence, Adventism rejects the eternity of God. They believe that time and matter/space (since their three "divine beings" are material and spacial) have always existed, uncreated--rather than having been created by God. Thus, time, matter, and space become god.

In his audio presentation of the above paper at the "Trinity Symposium," Dr. Moon made the following statements:

"Since Ellen White clearly held the basic formula of one God in three eternal persons, it can hardly be denied that her view is essentially trinitarian. However, her view differs from traditional trinitarianism in the following important aspects. Number 1. She taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct individuals, which is not true of the medieval doctrine of the Trinity. Number 2. She defined their unity in relational rather than philosophical terms. In other words, while the traditional doctrine defined their unity in terms of 'being' or 'substance'--and she didn't deny that--but she clearly places the emphasis on their unity as volitional and relational--a unity of character, purpose, and love.

[...]

"Ellen White never in her writings used the term 'Trinity.' The closest she came was her use of the term 'trio'--which is an approximate English equivalent to the Latin trinitas, which in common usage meant simply a triad or trio. The most likely reason she consistently shunned the term 'Trinity' in her writings, is that she held to a simple biblical concept, of one God in three eternal persons. And she probably feared that an uncritical use of the term 'Trinity' could appear to endorse philosophical concepts she was opposed to. For all these reasons, Ellen White declined to endorse the traditional concept of the Trinity. But she is emphatic in her support for the Biblical concept of one God, comprised of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three eternal persons, who are united in character, purpose, and love." (http://atsjats.org/site/1/podcast/06_Trinity_Moon_Quest_Biblical_Trinity.mp3)

Notice that in the above quote Dr. Moon admits outright that Adventism teaches "three distinct individuals" (tritheism) and that this is a different teaching than the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity!

Then, after his presentation, there was a question and answer session in which Dr. Moon answered some questions. Here are some excerpts from that session:

[Questioner] "Yes, Dr. Moon, I appreciate your presentation. In the main article, or the main testimony, that centered around the 'three living persons of the heavenly trio' statement, uh, earlier in that particular testimony she had been warning against departing, she says, 'from the faith which we have held for the last fifty years'--[...] So, I'm just wondering, if she indeed is introducing something, or trying to intrododuce something new, or is in the process of introducing something new and substantial here, why does she encourage the brethren to hold on to that which they've had for the last fifty years, and how do we relate to that [...]"

[Moon] "OK. OK. Good question. I don't see her as thinking of herself as introducing something new. She was talking about what Kellogg was introducng as new. And I think she saw what she was introducing as the logical, Biblical development of what they had believed--and that she saw Kellogg as introducing the new heresy, which she was opposed to. 1855 was the year of the conference on how to keep the Sabbath. But it was also the, uh, it was shortly after the 1848 to 1850 conferences which established what we consider our distinctive doctrines. And I think that she was not so much saying that everything we believed back then was correct, but she was saying that what Kellogg was teaching was contrary to everything we believed back then. And what she was teaching was the logical development of what we believed back then. [...] Yeah. She agreed with the earliest anti-Trinitarians in our movement that the Father and the Son our two literal, tangible persons. And she agreed that the Trinitarian creed was wrong in seeing God as without form, and body, and so forth. And so, she was making no change from those particular points. Another way of saying that would be that the doctrine of God which was held by the early Adventists in the 1850s was not so much a doctrine as a vacuum--there really wasn't any doctrine of God. They only had a few pieces of points they were convicted on, which was enough to convince them that the creedal Trinitarianism had some things that were unBiblical. And since it had some things that were unBiblical, they just threw it out as being unsafe to deal with. But, eventually they added to what they already knew to be right, and added some more to it, and gradually came to believe

PAGE 77

that there were some aspects of Trinitarianism based in Scripture, and that they would accept. But the only way they could separate what was in Scripture from what was based on tradition was to throw the whole thing out, and then bring back piece by piece what they could find in Scripture. And that's essentially what we need to do today--we need to continually test our teaching by Scripture, because as soon as we say this is correct because it agrees with the 27 Fundamentals, or 28 now, or some other standard than Scripture, then we have set up a standard other than Scripture."

[Questioner] "Did I understand you correctly in saying that Ellen White believes that the persons of the Trinity were distinct in personality? And if so, how does she understand that meaning of the word 'personality,' because they're united in character and volition, so how, what does that mean?"

[Moon] "Okay. Good question. My understanding is that personality includes character, and will, emotions, the things that make a person an individual. And she said--and, of course, we can have some other things in common. I and my family are of the same genetic makeup basically, just as the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one nature and so forth. But, even though they're one nature, they still are individuals. Now, the way in which they are one, primarily, is that they are one in purpose, and character, and love. So they are united by choice, rather than simply by what their 'being' is. But, I should add, though, that it's easy to take that and then go too far the other direction. And it's tempting, because it offers a fairly simple human analogy that seems to remove some of the mystery, and make it easier to understand. And we need to recognize that we can't necessarily get rid of the mystery--and don't need to, don't want to." (http://atsjats.org/site/1/podcast/06_Trinity_Moon_Quest_Biblical_Trinity.mp3)

In the above quote, we see that in Adventism, "one nature" simply means, or is comparable to, "the same genetic makeup" but that "they still are individuals"! Also notice that he says that Ellen G. White's later, "Trinitarian" teaching was "the logical, Biblical development of what they had believed" (which was the heresy of Arianism!) and that she "agreed with the earliest anti-Trinitarians in our movement that the Father and the Son our two literal, tangible persons." This shows that Adventism is still Arian to this day, in that they still deny the Arius-opposing Trinitarian confession of the Nicene Creed that Jesus Christ is "of one Being with the Father."

The following quote is from another article by Dr. Moon, entitled "Heresy or Hopeful Sign?" which was published in 1999 in the Adventist Review (the official "flagship" magazine of the SDA Church):

"In explaining that only Christ's humanity died, she in no way minimized the divine component of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary. Christ's deity did not die, but suffered something far worse-the rending of the Trinity. 'Christ felt His unity with the Father broken up' (Desire of Ages, 686) and suffered 'unutterable anguish . . . at the hiding of His Father's face' (ibid., 755). 'The withdrawal of the divine countenance from the Saviour in this hour of supreme anguish pierced His heart with a sorrow that can never be fully understood by man.' Christ 'feared that sin was so offensive to God that Their separation was to be eternal.' She explains that 'It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon [Christ] as man's substitute, that . . . broke the heart of the Son of God' and wrung from His lips the agonizing cry, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' (ibid., 753-754).

"Thus she elevated the sacrifice of Christ far above mere human dying because it involved the rending apart, 'the temporary severing of the mysterious unity' of the Trinity (Erwin R. Gane, 'The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer' [M.A. Thesis, Andrews University, 1963], 92, 95).

"While Christ's deity could not perish, it suffered the infinite ordeal of being separated from the Father, with whom He had been, until this, eternally One." (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/Trinity%20Review%20art%20Deity%20sidebar.htm)

Next we will look at some quotes from the book entitled The Trinity: Understanding God's Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships, written by Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve (SDA theologians), and published by the SDA Church-owned Review and Herald Publishing Association (Copyright 2002). On the back cover of the book, it says: "With glossaries, bibliography, and index, this comprehensive primer on the Trinity will shed new light on the central beliefs of Christianity, and show how God still leads His church into all truth." Here are some quotations from the book:

"The first chapter will open the discussion by marshaling the strongest evidence that we have been able to locate regarding the questions of (1) the full divine and eternal nature of Christ, (2) the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit, and (3) the profound unity or oneness of what Ellen White refers to as the 'three living persons of the heavenly trio' (Ellen G. White, Evangelism, p. 615)." [Page 11]

"First of all, there appears to be no one involved in the current debate who denies the full and eternal deity of the Father God, the first person of the Godhead. Thus the three remaining areas of contention that cry out for biblical answers are as follows:

"The Deity of Christ

"This issue concerns the question of whether Christ possessed a divine nature that was, in substance, the same as the Father God. In other words, was the Jesus who was the Son of God just as much God as the Father? Or was He some sort of semideity having a qualified or partial divinity? Did He truly exist as a divine person from all eternity past? Was He not only the 'preexistent' but also the 'self-existent' Son of God about whom the Bible 'assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God' (ibid.)? Did such 'self-existence' mean that He really had a divine nature whose life was 'original, unborrowed, underived' (White, The Desire of Ages, p. 530)?" [Page 12]

(http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

Notice that they refer twice to "the Father God" as if he is a separate god. Also, as we will continue to see from this book, they keep referring to the "profound unity" or "profound oneness" of their "trio"--giving away the fact that they don't believe that God is actually one. Continuing on with more quotations from the book:

"The Oneness of the Godhead

PAGE 78

"Finally, are there 'three living persons of the heavenly trio' (also referred to by Ellen White as the 'three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit' [ibid., p. 615]) into whose 'name' those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized? Furthermore, are these 'three great powers' truly divine, personal beings who 'cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ' (ibid.)? Can we honestly confess that Christ 'was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent' (ibid.)? Dare we declare that Jesus the Son 'is the eternal, self-existent Son' (ibid.)? Are these 'powers' ('the three highest powers in heaven' [ibid., p. 617]) also referred to as 'the eternal heavenly dignitaries—God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit' (ibid., p. 616), truly one in Their divine nature, possessing 'all the fulness of the Godhead' (Col. 2:9)? What saith the Scriptures?

"A Helpful Note to the Reader

"At the beginning of each section we have placed a glossary of key terms that we will employ. We realize that some of the terminology we use is somewhat technical. Thus we want to make it easy for the reader to quickly clarify what we mean when we use the specialized words and terms that often accompany any discussion of the Godhead. [...]" [Page 13. Brackets in original.]

"Glossary For Section One

[...]

"Deity—having the nature of God. Transcendent, as opposed to that which is earthbound, infinite as opposed to finite. The key issue in Trinitarian discussion is whether we are dealing with full deity or only its trappings or selected characteristics. Refers to any 'being' who is declared to possess the nature of deity. They should be self-existent from all eternity past to all eternity future and have an existence unborrowed or underived.

[...]

"Godhead—a theological term often used to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It can be used in either a Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian sense, depending on whether the person employing the term is Trinitarian or not.

[...]

"Modalism—an ancient Christian teaching that held that there exists only one God who has successively manifested Himself as Father, then Son, and finally as Holy Spirit. The teaching denies the Trinity of three coeternal Persons who have always existed in a profound personal oneness of nature, character, and purpose.

"Monotheistic—the belief in and worship of one God as opposed to many divine beings (polytheism).

[...]

"Person—a being who is rational, self-conscious, able to make choices and moral distinctions, build relationships of affection, and can communicate in ways that are not only concrete but also abstract.

[...]

"Polytheism—the belief that more than one God exists. Persons or groups that are polytheistic worship many divine beings who inhabit the universe and affect life in this world. Polytheism is the opposite of monotheism, the belief in one true God.

[...]

"Self-existent—a term to describe any being who is divine and whose existence is understood to be not dependent on any other divine being.

[...]

"Trinity—the Christian belief that the Godhead consists of three divine, coeternal persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are 'one' in nature, character, and purpose. There are not three Gods, but one God manifest as three persons.

"Unitarian—any person or group that denies the Trinity doctrine by suggesting that there exists only one God, the Father. Unitarians consistently deny the full deity of the Son and the personhood of the Holy Spirit." [Pages 16-20]

(http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

Notice that by their own definitions in their own glossary, they are polytheists and not monotheists (since they make it clear in this glossary that they believe in multiple "divine beings")! Unless they are trying to make a laughable distinction between "three divine beings" and "many divine beings" (with "three divine beings" being equal to "one God"/"monotheism" and "many divine beings" being "polytheism"!). I guess they only worship a few divine beings (gods), so they're not polytheists! Incredible. Also notice that in their description of Unitarianism, which is indeed a heresy, they themselves use heretical wording and claim that it is a denial of "the Trinity doctrine" to teach "that there exists only one God, the Father"! This is a direct contradiction of Scripture which says that the Father is "the only true God" (John 17:3). (Of course, Jesus is also the only true God, and so is the Holy Spirit--in Trinitarianism there is no problem with this.) Also notce that under "Trinity" they even put the word "one" in quotation marks, clearly showing that they do not believe that God is actually one (one Being). In fact, they even state that the persons of "the Godhead" are "one" only in "nature, character, and purpose."

"So let's proceed to Scripture. Try to picture yourself as a baptismal candidate who has joined a pastor's Bible study class to prepare for

PAGE 79

church membership. The pastor now proceeds to give the best biblical evidence in support of the church's Trinitarian statements of belief. We would remind the reader that the basic issues to be biblically tested are:

"(1) the full, eternal deity of Christ,

"(2) the personhood and full deity of the Holy Spirit, and

"(3) the unity in nature and character of the alleged three persons of the Godhead." [Page 22]

[...] "Thus any one of the Old Testament names for God can speak of God in His unitive oneness (Deut. 6:4) or more particularly to the discrete person of either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.

[...] "The evidence, however, clearly supports the fact that from the New Testament perspective the term Lord in the Old Testament can refer to either one of the members of the Trinity or to all three in Their profound oneness." [Page 23]

"The very first chapter includes three rather striking lines of evidence (it has others, but we will present only the strongest here) that powerfully suggest that the Jehovah God of the Old Testament included in His identity the person of Jesus of Nazareth." [Page 24]

"Finally, we should point out that the most likely reason that Jesus employs 'Alpha and Omega' and 'Beginning and the End' as self-descriptive titles is that here for the first time the book of Revelation describes both 'God and the Lamb' as fully sharing 'the throne.' Note very carefully how Revelation 22:1 and 3 clearly label 'the throne of God' as the 'throne of God and of the Lamb.' No longer is Christ the 'Lamb' pictured as before the throne of God (cf. Rev. 5:6, 7); He now sits on the one throne with the Father as a fully equal coruler over the redeemed universe.

[...]

"One of the most often cited passages used to prove the full deity of Christ is John 1:1, especially the last phrase in the verse—'the Word was God.' I would like to suggest that the verse does present strong support for the Word (Jesus) as a divine person. Since, however, a credible interpretation involves some rather technical grammatical considerations, we will deal with it in more depth in chapter 3. Suffice it to say, this verse and its detailed grammar clearly testify that Jesus, the Word, is a being with full deity. The most clear-cut and incontrovertible evidence, however, comes from John 8:58." [Pages 28-29]

(http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

Again, we find such heretical statements in this book. God does not have a "unitive oneness"--He actually is one Being. God's oneness is also not a "profound oneness"--it is an actual oneness. By their language which they are using to try to emphasize and elevate the "oneness" of their gods, they are actually just giving themselves away as polytheists, and are clearly showing that they don't actually believe that God actually is one. Also, Jesus is not just "included" in the "identity" of "the Jehovah God of the Old Testament"--Jesus actually is the Jehovah God! And finally, there are not "corulers" who "share" the throne of the universe--there is only one King of kings and Lord of lords. The Bible teaches that there is only one Ruler and King of the universe--there are not multiple "corulers"!

"THE TRIUNITY OF THE ONE GOD

"Here we confront one of the deepest mysteries about God. While we have some human illustrations of powerful unities that can transpire between discrete personalities (marriage, friendships, teams, etc.), the concept that underlies the Trinitarian vision of God is the most profound. What is the best evidence that the Godhead is not simply unitary, but consists of a united plurality of divine Persons?

"Matthew 28:19

"Probably the strongest clues to such a divine triunity occur in the famous gospel commission that Jesus gave the church in its baptismal formula: 'Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' (Matt. 28:19). Please note that it declares the three members of the Godhead to have a 'name' (singular, not plural), strongly suggesting that They are one in personal character and nature. In the Bible the concept of 'name' includes character or nature. Here Scripture suggests that the Holy Three are one in name since They share the very character of divinity.

"This verse, along with 2 Corinthians 13:14, offers a striking insight to the life of the early apostolic church. The passages present the apostolic greetings and Christ's own formula for the rite of initiation (baptism) into the family of God in triune ways. Both suggest the unity of the three great Persons who are operative in redemption and the life of the church.

"Matthew 3:16, 17

"Another interesting evidence of the unity of the Godhead arises out of the presence of the Three at the baptism of Jesus. [...]

"What is truly remarkable about the incident is that as Jesus formally begins His public ministry of redemption, all three members of the Heavenly Trio are present. The newly baptized Jesus stands on the banks of the Jordan, the Spirit descends on Him like a dove, and the Father audibly speaks words of divine approval and identity from heaven. This scene powerfully portrays the oneness of purpose held by the Godhead. Futhermore, it clearly evidences the distinctness of each divine being. Matthew does not present the Spirit and the Son as simply different manifestations or personifications of the Father, but as distinct personalities in concert with the Father. Yet They give every appearance of oneness in purpose and character as They focus on the redemptive mission of the Son.

"OLD TESTAMENT EVIDENCE

"Is this conception of a plural unity within the Godhead typical only of the New Testament? Certainly not.

PAGE 80

"What is striking is that the great passage always recited to open the synagogue services and which powerfully confessed the Jews' belief in the one true God strongly suggests that the God of Israel was a multipersonal, yet profoundly one God.

"Deuteronomy 6:4 and Genesis 2:24

"Commonly referred to as the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4 says: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!' This famous passage has a number of points to teach us about our subject. First of all, the God of Israel is none other than the Lord (YHWH). Second, Jehovah God is the Lord who is 'one.' What is striking about this important word translated as 'one' in English is that it is the Hebrew word 'echad. It 'means 'one [among others],' the emphasis being on a particular one. . . . The possibility of there being others is inherent in 'echad, but yachîd precludes that possibility' (Christensen, p. 69). Another way to explain 'echad is that it refers to the oneness that results from a unity of numerous persons.

"Now Moses most certainly had the Hebrew word yachîd, which he could have employed if he had wanted to describe the Lord God of Israel as an exclusively unitary being. In contrast to 'echad, the word yachid 'means 'one' in the sense of 'only,' or 'alone'' (ibid.). To put it another way, it refers to one in the unitary, not the plural sense. Moses, however, employed the plural 'echad (one among others in a joined or shared oneness).

"It helps us understand more fully the meaning of 'echad when we remember that Scripture employed it to describe one of the most profoundly human unions: 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh' (Gen. 2:24). Here the word 'echad describes the marriage union between two self-conscious, loving, relational beings.

"Genesis 1:1-3, 26

"Our reading of the book of Genesis leads us to the final lines of evidence for the personal unity of divine persons in the Godhead. Genesis 1:26 reports the Creator God as saying, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.' The passage has God speaking of Himself with plural references. When we place this kind of evidence alongside two other key facts in verses 1-3, we have strongly suggestive evidence of the profoundly unitive nature of the Godhead:

"(1) Genesis portrays God working in conjunction with 'the Spirit of God' that hovered over the 'face of the waters,' and

"(2) the repeated declarations of the New Testament that the active agent in creation is none other than Jesus, the Son of God. Here, the Godhead creates humans in 'Our' image—the Father, Spirit, and Son forming a creative, loving, and personal plurality.

"Furthermore, when God did create humanity in 'Our' image, He established a plurality of two individuals, distinct from each other, yet capable of becoming 'one' (Gen. 2:24). These verses strongly portray the historical fact that the plurality of oneness involves the image of God.

"Summary

"So here we have some of the clearest biblical evidence for the full deity of Christ, the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit, and the deeply personal union of the Godhead. We ask: Is this evidence persuasive enough for the reader to give consideration to further Bible evidence for the Trinitarian claim that we should understand the Godhead as a profoundly united personal threesome? We hope so." [Pages 32-35. Words in brackets in original.]

(http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

First of all, notice how they define "the unity of the Godhead" as "the oneness of purpose held by the Godhead." And then they go on to teach that there are three divine beings (gods), but that "They give every appearance of oneness in purpose and character"! Then they go on to use such anti-Trinitarian and awkward descriptions as "a plural unity within the Godhead" and "a multipersonal, yet profoundly one God." How on earth do you have "a...profoundly one God"? Let's break that down even further: "a...one God"??? They are simply showing their denial of monotheism. What they really mean is, "a...profoundly [united] [group]." And the doctrine of the Trinity is not that there is "unity within the Godhead" but rather that God Himself is actually one Being (monotheism).

And again, we see that they make a big deal out of, and lie about, the Hebrew words 'echad and yachiyd. First of all, even if YHWH were "one among others" that would not mean that YHWH is "more than one"--just that there are other gods besides Him. Then they claim that 'echad "refers to the oneness that results from a unity of numerous persons." Actually, the word 'echad simply means "one"--it is simply the Hebrew equivalent of the English word "one," and it is used nearly 1,000 times in the Old Testament. And just like the English word "one," it can have a number of uses, based on the context. Their definition can be proven false simply by looking at the usage of the word in the book of Genesis. Genesis 4:19 (NASB) says: "Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one ['echad] was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah." Was Adah a "unity of numerous persons"? Genesis 10:25 (NASB) says that "the name of the one ['echad] was Peleg"--was Peleg a "unity of numerous persons"? Clearly, their assertions regarding the word 'echad are simply ridiculous. They then go on to use their common false argument that if Moses had actually meant "one" he would have used the Hebrew word yachiyd. Actually, the word yachiyd is not even a common word and is only used 12 times in the entire Old Testament, and it means "only." Actually, though, the Hebrew word bad, which means only/alone and is a synonym of the Hebrew word yachiyd, is used for God in the Old Testament. Also, the corresponding Greek word, monos (which means alone/only), is used repeatedly for God in the New Testament. In fact, Jesus even used the word monos when quoting from the Old Testament in Matthew 4:10 when He says "and him only [monos] shalt thou serve" (KJV). So the SDA arguments are completely false. God is clearly described in both the Old and New Testaments as a "numerical one," a single simple Being--and not as a complex, united "one"/group.

They even go on to refer to "the plural 'echad"--when, remember, the word 'echad simply means "one"--it is not a "plural" word, any more than the English word "one"! It is a singular, not a plural, word. They are simply lying. Then they define 'echad as "one among others in a joined or shared oneness," which, as we have already seen, is a false definition. Notice also that they say, "one in...the plural sense"--what kind of nonsensical language is that? Then they say that "the plurality of oneness involves the image of God." What on earth is "the plurality of oneness"? Besides these phrases that

PAGE 81

they use not even making sense, they are simply heretical. In Trinitarianism, God's oneness is not "plural"--He is actually and absolutely one. It's certainly not His "oneness" that is "plural"! Now let's continue on with some more quotations from this book:

"Paul's response to such heretical teachings was to proclaim Jesus as neither some mere angelic being nor an emanation from some impersonal spirit world, but as the one in whom 'dwells all the fullness' of the essence of, or the express image, of God. Jesus bodily bears the very nature or transcript of a divine being." [Page 40]

[...] "It was thus with our Lord Jesus Christ: He could serenely lay down His divine status because He was fully aware of His divine credentials as an equal with the Father." [Page 42]

"Please note the strong statement that declares that Christ bears 'the express image of His [God's] person.' While some might debate that 'express image' refers only to God's character rather than to His essential divine nature, the context strongly suggests otherwise.

[...]

"Second, the phrase in verse 2 that declares that Jesus was the being 'through whom also He [God the Father] made the worlds' merits close attention. What the author of the book of Hebrews is saying here is that Jesus, the divine Son, is the active agent in the creation of the universe. It is very similar to claims made by numerous other New Testament writers (see John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; and Col. 1:16)." [Pages 43-44. Words in brackets in original.]

"The only sensible explanation for the meaning of this text, if we are to take seriously the clear testimony of the New Testament writers that Jesus is God, is to conclude that whoever the Lord, YHWH, or Jehovah who speaks in Isaiah 43:10, 11 is, His identity must include that of the Jesus of the New Testament who claimed to be in some sense the Jehovah of the Old Testament." [Page 48]

[...] "Could the prophetic writer have been clearer that Christ's 'goings forth' are from time immemorial?" [Page 50]

"Most certainly the repetitive sevenfold use of the 'I am' claims in the Gospel of John augment and highlight Jesus' stunning claims to be one person of the Godhead of the Old Testament who has now come as the life-imparting Savior of the New Covenant." [Page 54]

(http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

First of all, notice that they teach that Jesus has "divine credentials" as "an equal" with the Father and that His "divinity" is simply a "status" that He laid down when He came to earth. Then they say that Jesus is a separate being "through whom" "God the Father" created.

And we find again their blasphemous claim that Jesus is merely "included" in the identity of YHWH. Then they go on to blaspheme further and state that Jesus only claimed to be "in some sense" the Jehovah of the Old Testament! Wrong. He claimed to actually, and in reality, be the Jehovah of the Old Testament without any qualifications! To adapt what the late Dr. Walter Martin said regarding the Jehovah's Witness idea of "a prophet in a sense," there is no such thing as being Jehovah "in [a] sense"--you're either Jehovah God Himself or you aren't God at all! Of course, then we see later that they mean that Jesus is just one third of "the Godhead"--part of, rather than fully, God. Also notice the reference to their denial of eternity/timelessness (when they say "time immemorial").

[...] "Without going into all of the details of the grammar involved, I believe that we can best understand the last phrase of John 1:1 as 'and the Word [Jesus] was God' (not God the Father, but Jesus, who is God in the sense that He possessed all the qualities of the divine character and nature of the Father).5 [Italics in original.]

"In other words, John opens his Gospel with the clear declaration that Jesus is a being with all the eternal and divine qualitites possessed by the eternal Father. [...]

[...]

"What about the case for the personhood, or distinct personality, of the Holy Spirit as the alleged divine third living person of the 'heavenly trio' (White, Evangelism, p. 615)? Further, is there credible evidence to support the profound unity alleged to exist among the three persons of the Godhead? It is to these questions that we turn in chapter 4." [Pages 59-60]

(http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

Again we find their "God in [a] sense" nonsense (which is very similar to Jehovah's Witness teaching about Jesus Christ). They say that Jesus is only "God" in the "sense" that He is "a" "divine" "being" (a god) just like the Father is a divine being (a god). Theirs is clearly an anti-Trinitarian and polytheistic interpretation of John 1:1, as we will continue to see below. And regarding the last paragraph above, again, God's oneness is not defined by some "profound unity" that exists "among" the "three persons of the Godhead"--rather, God actually is one.

"The predicate nominative (theos) can be translated in a more 'qualitative' manner. If we take this approach, the noun functions more like an adjective and seeks to translate some key quality or characteristic that more clearly defines the subject (logos). Examples would include Bible versions that translate theos as either 'divine' (Moffatt) or as 'What God was, the Word was' (NEB).

"This option appears to be the most satisfactory. [...]

"We could illustrate Wallace's point this way: My wife and I have been spouses since 'the beginning' of our marriage. We share the very same essence of 'married humanity' (I have dubbed it 'human spousehood') while maintaining our personal distinction as male and female and husband and wife. While we are different in our gender and spousal roles, we still share the same essential 'human spousehood.' Thus the following illustrative paraphrase of John 1:1: 'In the beginning of our marriage the woman [my wife, the human spouse] was with the man [me, the husband, the human spouse] and the woman [my wife] was of the same 'human spousehood' essence as the man [me, the husband].'

PAGE 82

"Most obviously John is not saying that Jesus, who possesses divinity, is simply 'a god.' Neither is he suggesting that we should equate Jesus with the person of God the Father. To the contrary, John is here employing carefully chosen grammar to express his conviction that Christians, along with the disciple Thomas, can truly confess Jesus as 'My Lord and my God' (John 20:28). John is most plainly declaring that 'God' can be used as a 'qualitative' predicate nominative to describe Jesus as one who shares the full essence of the divine nature of the Father God." [Pages 63-64. Words in brackets in original.]

(http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

So here we continue to see their blatantly anti-Trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1, including their blasphemous "paraphrase" in which they teach that Jesus is no more "God" than a woman is her husband! So again we see that when they use words like "essence" they do not mean anything near what Trinitarians mean--one and the same indivisible essence/substance/being. Instead, they compare it simply to the marriage of a man and his wife, who "share the very same essence of 'married humanity'"! They are simply teaching polytheism. Notice that they also are admitting that when they say "Jesus is God" they are using the word "God" as an adjective, rather than a noun (in other words, they are saying that Jesus is just "divine" rather than "the one true God"). And they are ignoring the fact that John 20:28, which they quote in the last paragraph above, even has the article ("ho"/"the") in the Greek, and literally says, "the Lord of me, and the God of me!" Jesus is the one and only true God. Continuing on:

[...] "Verse 26, however, is possibly the most powerful evidence of the personality of the Spirit in the letter to the Romans: 'Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.'

"The whole phenomenon of 'intercession' implies willing, active intervention between two personal beings. Furthermore, the 'groanings' that cannot be 'uttered' strongly suggest an emotional element in the intercession of the Spirit that is also typical of personal beings, not impersonal electronic technology.

[...]

[...] "And how is such knowledge possible? 'God has revealed them to us through His Spirit' (verse 10). And how is it that the Spirit is privy to such knowledge? Answer: 'The Spirit seaches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God' (verses 10, 11).

"What is Paul saying? First of all, we must point out that he here describes the Spirit as having the ability to 'search' out 'the deep things of God' and to 'know the things of God.' While it is true that our personal computers have 'search' capabilities, it is not some sort of a 'word search' that Paul has in mind—it is rather an intensely personal exploration of 'the deep things of God.' This strongly suggests an intimate, personal communion between the Spirit and God the Father. And what is its result? It is most certainly a deep knowledge of 'the things of God.'

"Furthermore, what this passage seems to imply is that if you want to know the 'things of a man,' you cannot gain such knowledge unless ('except') you posses in you 'the spirit of the man.' To put it quite simply, to really know a man, you must be a man—'it takes one to know one'!

"This, however, is true not only on the human-to-human level, but also on the level of deity. 'Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God' (verse 11). Once more, only a divine person can truly know what is in the mind and heart of another divine being. As on the human level, so it is on the divine—it takes One to know One!

"Paul appropriately concludes by observing that what we have received from the Spirit is 'not the spirit of the world' (man, the creature), 'but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God' (verse 12). If you really want to know the things of God, you must connect with a personal God (the Spirit) who alone can discover the 'things' of God.

"I know that it is hard for me to comprehend what goes on in the minds of many of my students who come from cultural and language backgrounds differing from my own. It has, however, often proven helpful to get insights from persons who have bridged these cultural chasms and can help me know the 'mind' of those I long to better undertsand. Thus it is with the work of the Spirit—He knows the mind of God because He is a personal and divine being capable of communicating to us God's mind." [Pages 68-69]

(http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

Notice that they are saying that just as "it takes a man to know a man" that it "takes a God to know a God." In fact, they even use that wording basically, calling the Holy Spirit "a...God" who can "discover the 'things' of God"! All of the excerpts above are so very clearly polytheistic, including that last paragraph where they compare their gods to different people who share the same cultural understanding. For more commentary on the extreme, and anti-Trinitarian, twisting of the 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 passage above, see the comments on a similar quote by Whidden which is quoted later on below.

"One final piece of evidence for the Spirit's personality comes from 2 Corinthians 13:14: 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.'

"The first thing to note about the verse is that it describes the Holy Spirit as the third named being headed up by God the Father and the Son. The vast majority of Bible-believing Christians agree that the Father and the Son are personal divine beings. Most certainly the 'grace' that comes from Jesus Christ can have only a personal origin. The 'love of God' obviously suggests the personality of the Father, since love is the essence of any interpersonal experience and expresses caring and concern. Second Corinthians 13:14 then mentions the Holy Spirit in a most straightforward way, strongly suggesting that He is a personal, coordinate divine being—the third person of the tripersonal Godhead." [Page 73]

"The second thing to notice about the 'coordinate relationship' of the Spirit with the Father and the Son (in 2 Cor. 13:14) is that it associates the Holy Spirit with 'communion' (NKJV), or 'fellowship' (NIV). This word, directly descriptive of the workings of the Spirit, strongly

PAGE 83

suggests interpersonal communications between relational beings--that is, personal beings, whether they be human, angelic, or divine.

"Not only does the passage support the personality of the Spirit, but it also suggests the profound unity or oneness inherent in the doctrine of the Trinity. Here are three divine beings lined up together in such a way as to point to Their oneness of purpose in imparting grace and love to God's people through Their deep fellowship with one another and the redeemed.

"Furthermore, it seems to be an almost unconscious expression of the Spirit's personality for Paul to conclude his second letter to the Corinthians with a farewell greeting that simply links the work of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit together as a fully united personal force for the redemption of lost humanity. The verse is a transitional passage to further biblical evidence for the full deity of the Spirit and the profound unity found within the Godhead.

"In the first chapter we suggested that Acts 5 provides persuasive evidence for the deity of the Spirit. Peter told Ananias that he had lied to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3) and then explained, 'You have not lied to men but to God' (verse 4), strongly implying that Ananias had directly made falsehoods to God the Holy Spirit, not to God the Father or God the Son." [Pages 74-75]

(http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

The statement that the "vast majority of Bible-believing Christians agree that the Father and the Son are personal divine beings" is simply a lie. Trinitarians believe in only one divine Being. Notice also that they clearly define the "oneness" of their counterfeit "Trinity" doctrine as merely a "oneness of purpose" among "three divine beings." You can't get any clearer statement of Tritheism than that! It is completely anti-Trinitarian.

"Another striking evidence of the Spirit's deity is that Scripture portrays the Spirit as the author of the new birth. Yet the work of givng new spiritual life is an act unique to God. First John 3:9 speaks of being 'born of God.' Thus the new birth, accomplished by the Spirit, Scripture elsewhere also described as being wrought out by God—strongly implying the work of the new birth is the act of a divine being.

"The Oneness or Personal Triunity of the Godhead

"In chapter 1 we suggested some important evidence for the profound oneness of the tripersonal Godhead. The use of the inherently plural word 'echad in Deuteronomy 6:4, the singular 'name' employed to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19, and the plural 'Let Us make man in Our image' of Genesis 1:26 all powerfully suggest the deep unity manifest among the divine persons of the Godhead. This language unmistakably has God speaking of Himself with plural references. What is interesting is the way this kind of evidence shows up in other places in the Old Testament.

"In addition to the 'let Us make man in Our image' terminology of Genesis 1:26, we encounter similar plural God language in the following passages:" [Page 76]

"As the Adventist experience with the Revelation has unfolded, it has become more and more apparent that the heart of this fascinating book occurs in chapters 11 through 14. Furthermore, one of the really striking things about these chapters is the way the conflict between the forces of good and evil comes down to a struggle between the divine Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and Their satanic imitations (the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet)." [Page 78]

"We would humbly suggest that the weight of Bible evidence strongly points to the full and eternal deity of Christ as one in nature, character, and purpose with the Father (and the Holy Spirit). Furthermore, what proves to be quite ironic is that some of the most compelling evidence for the equality of the Father and the Son occurs in contexts that employ the very metaphors of 'Father' and 'Son' (especially John 5:16-23)." [Pages 106-107]

"In 1 Timothy 2, however, Paul, without excluding Christ's deity, uplifts His profound identity with those He mediates for before God. [...]" [Page 109]

[...]

"Furthermore, this is not the only picture we have of the eternal rule of Christ in relationship to the Father's reign. Revelation 22:1, 3 call the throne of God 'the throne of God and of the Lamb.' Thus while Paul, in speaking of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, can picture Christ ('the firstborn from the dead' [Col. 1:18]) as in functional subordination to the Father, yet in Revelation 22:1, 3 the Father and the Son appear to share one throne as fully equal corulers over the everlasting kingdom.

"The two passages do not inherently contradict each other. It is just that in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul seeks to communicate Christ's solidarity with the resurrected humans redeemed into the kingdom; whereas John the revelator wants to show that the Father and Son are fully triumphant in the New Jerusalem as coregents of the eternal kingdom. Thus while we find a functional subordination in 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 22 depicts the full sharing of the rulership in the everlasting kingdom." [Page 110. Brackets in original.]

(http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

Again, we see their lie that the Hebrew word 'echad is an "inherently plural word"--remember, this is simply the Hebrew word for "one"! And again, they teach their polytheistic concept of "corulers" and "coregents." The Bible teaches that there is one King of the universe, not a coregency.

"Thus it is quite acceptable for Trinitarians to give some reasonably coherent account that seeks to explain how one is three and three is one in the life of the Godhead. The question is this: What is it about the nature of the triune Godhead that makes the alleged persons called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 'one'?

"The first response to the question of the logic of Trinitarian thought is to admit that we are dealing with an extremely profound mystery. While I readily believe the Bible when it says that Adam and Eve became 'one' and were yet two, I have yet, however, to fully fathom the

PAGE 84

ways of any man with any maiden (Prov. 30:19). Yet in loving relationships, there does appear to develop a profound oneness. Are we then to say that loving relationships are totally illogical and incoherent? I think not. And this seems to be the best way to give a coherent account of the mystery of the Trinity and its plural oneness.

[...]

"1 John 4:8

"'God is love.' Do we truly comprehend the depths of this inspired statement that is so disarming in its seeming simplicity? I would sugggest that these three words have a profound contribution to make to our understanding of a God who has eternally preexisted in something like Trinitarian 'oneness.'" [Pages 113-114]

"Have we not discovered that the most profound of human unities are those of selfless love? Could we experience such profound loving unions if there did not exist a deeply united, plural God of infinite love who has defined the very essence of the universe and the existence of those creatures made more especially in His image? The very essence of living in love flows from the great triune Godhead of loving grace!" [Page 116]

(http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

First, notice once again that they put the words "one" and "oneness" in quotes, and that it is "the Godhead's" "one"ness that is the question and mystery for them. This is the exact opposite of Trinitarianism. For the Trinitarian, it is not God's oneness that is the mystery about God (how three "gods" can be "one," as in Adventism), but instead the mystery is how the one living God/Divine Being can be three distinct, but not separate, persons. And then notice that their explanation for the mystery is that the "oneness" of God is like the "oneness" found in loving relationships between human beings. This is polytheism. Also, what is a "deeply united...God"? This shows that their definition of "God" is not a living Being, but rather a group/organization.

"Glossary For Section Two

[...]

"Homoousios—literally 'of the same nature,' this is the term used at the Council of Nicea to represent the relationship between the Father and Son. It is a transliteration of a compound Greek word containing the prefix homo, which means 'the same,' and the verb ousios, which means 'to be' or 'essence of being.' As defined during the fourth century theological debates, it came to represent that the Son is of the same nature as the Father." [Pages 122-123]

"The earliest Christian writings available to us—those books we know as the New Testament—clearly present a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. According to Matthew 28:19, the local churches were to initiate new converts to the young Christian religion by baptizing them in the 'name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Each of the three Beings was indisputably central to early Christian worship and belief. What was not immediately obvious from the New Testament documents was the relationships between the members of the Godhead. Much of the discussion and disagreement among Christians of the first four centuries consisted of attempts to establish how we should view the relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit. The next two chapters will trace some of the earliest Christian views about God, and will explain how the Trinitarian formula came to be the preferred Christian understanding of the Godhead." [Page 124]

[...]

"It is true that the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople did make declarations that we must now reject because they disagree with Scripture. Even some aspects of Athanasius' understanding of the Son today seem to cause more problems than they solve, including his description of the Son as 'eternally begotten.' But such things are neither part of, nor necessary to, the Trinitarian formula of God as three in one—that is, three persons sharing one nature as one God. Although as Adventists, we may not recognize the councils as authoritative, we must recognize the value of Basil's arguments from Scripture and from worship. We do not accept the Trinitarian formula based on the authority of church dogma or of church councils, but on the fact that it best represents what Scripture presents about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God." [Page 150]

(http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

First of all, they are trying to twist the definition of the word homoousios to fit their anti-Trinitarian theology. It does not simply mean "of the same nature" as they want it to mean, so that they can teach "three Beings" (which, as we see above, is exactly what they do on the very next page!) who "share one nature" (which is how they try to redefine "the Trinitarian formula" in the last paragraph quoted above). In fact, St. Athanasius himself, who actually attended, and spoke against Arius at, the Council of Nicaea, explicitly denied that that is what they meant by the term homoousios. (Click here to rea