14

The ultimate deciding factor which allowed the Trinity doctrine into Adventism

What I intend on proving in this paperAlthough I still believe to a great extent that E.G. Whites later writings on God were undeniably used as an important catalyst to help bring in the orthodox Trinity into Adventism, I do not accept as true any longer that her later statements on deity were the ultimate reason involved in the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Triune god acceptance. The pivotal and ultimate reason involved which allowed the orthodox Trinity doctrine to enter the Adventist church was actually due to a clear change in methodologies between how the pioneers built Bible doctrine, to how the modern SDA church now allows herself to construct it. Now some who are very well acquainted with our topic may be saying at this point, Oh, I kind of gathered that already! However reader, over the last five years, I have read literally stacks of both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian papers (as well as being in the very process of writing a book on the topic) written from within the SDA church. Recently however, I stumbled across a pivotal statement in Ministry Magazine, [1] which actually brought me to my conclusion placed in bold directly above. Dare I say that said statement even brought closure to me on the whole issue? I can guarantee reader that you have never understood the true ultimate deciding factor which allowed the Trinity doctrine into Adventism as you will after reading the following pages! Supporting evidence I am a former Seventh-day Adventist (still Christian and Sabbath keeper) who grew up in what was once the Mecca of Adventism at Atlantic Union College (S Lancaster, MA) where Adventism basically was spawned. However, I left the SDA church about 5 years ago due primarily to the Trinity doctrine this church upholds as a Bible teaching. I personally believe in only one divine God the Father (John 17:3). I am currently writing a free book on Scribd entitled "Seventh-day Adventists, The Trinity and the Plain of Dura, the glue that binds the churches..." The first three chapters of this book are completed and I hope to have the rest released sometime in 2015.The conclusions I have finally drawn after 5 years of intently studying this whole debate on the Trinity issue within (and without) Adventism, is that the whole matter all boils down to the rules one (or a church) abides by when it comes to building Bible doctrine. And it is clear to me now that compared to her past, modern Adventism has undoubtedly changed the methodology she uses to build Bible dogma. Please allow me to back up in time in order to support this assertion. Adventism early on was indeed once a church which was truly Bible and Bible only, namely, they would construct their scriptural doctrine from what is only clearly revealed in the word of God. Moreover, not only did the pioneers dogma need to be clearly expressed in the Bible, but on top of this, the doctrine itself needed to have an abundance of scriptural evidence supporting it. This process of how SDAs used to build doctrine may be best described as viewed in the following two declarations offered by the self-proclaimed prophetess of the Seventh-day Adventist church Ellen White, who stated:In the work of teaching the truth it is necessary that the important points of our position be well fortified with Scripture evidences. (Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 447, 448) (Underlining mine)She furthermore taught that:God designs that men shall not decide from impulse, but from weight of evidence, carefully comparing scripture with scripture. (DA 458) (Underlining mine)Please engrave the above two doctrinal building principles in your mind, for later we shall take these and compare them to the rules the modern SDA church has adopted. Then, we will specifically apply them to the modern Trinity said church espouses and judge whether or not the dogma can hold up as a valid Biblical teaching. Now reader, I need to overwhelm you a bit in the following with quite a bit of supporting evidence which attests to the Adventist pioneer method of building Bible doctrine. I dont want to be accused of taking a few quotes out of context such as the ones seen above in order to support my own view. W.A. Spicer is another well-known name among the SDA pioneers below, he conveys something important about how doctrine is to be tested, he states:Every doctrine is to be tested by the Sacred Word. If any belief does not stand this test, it is of darkness and not of light. (W.A. Spicer, TheTestimony of Jesus,pp. 68, 69.p. 70)Wow, yet another powerful statement demonstrating how the early Adventists formulated their Bible teachings! Since Mrs. White seems to have been the most out spoken among earlier pioneers on the topic of how scriptural teachings are to be built, lets turn back to her writings and take a look at what other counsel she communicated regarding this subject. After we do thus, we will then take her counsels seen in the following, and as was already stated, we will then compare them to the methodology utilized by the modern Seventh-day Adventist church. E.G. White declares:Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support. (TheGreat Controversy,p. 595)All should be careful about presenting new views of Scripture before they have given these points thorough study, and are fully prepared to sustain them from theBible. (Testimonies to Ministers,p. 106)We are fully sustained in our positions by an overwhelming amount of plain Scriptural testimony. (Testimonies,vol. 3, p. 253) (Underlining and highlighting mine)But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. . . . Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support. (TheGreat Controversy,p. 595)I am fully in harmony with you in your work when you present the Bible, and the Bible alone, as the foundation of ourfaith. (Selected Messages,book 2, p. 85)The above excerpts are only a sampling of selections displaying the rules our SDA pioneers followed in constructing sound Bible teachings. There are similar quotes like the above ones which could be added, but wont be due to the brevity of this paper. Now that we have a solid understanding on the guidelines utilized by earlier Adventists as seen above, lets now take these principles and apply them to the orthodox Trinity doctrine of the modern SDA church and see if this very teaching can pass the test of the above guidelines as a valid Biblical doctrine. Lets begin all this by taking a look at what one of the official doctrinal books of the SDA church states regarding her Trinity teaching. The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, [2] which expounds upon all the doctrines of said church, concedes the following concerning the oneness aspect of their orthodox Trinity:The concept of the Trinity, namely the idea that the three are one, is not explicitly stated but only assumed. (The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Fernando L. Canale, Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopaedia Volume 12, page 138, Doctrine of God) (Highlighting mine)In essence what they are saying above is that the OT has already supposedly taught the oneness of the Trinity, therefore they claim this is the reason why the NT writers dont touch upon the subject in the NT. The trouble is that the proof texts they offer from the OT purportedly proving this oneness speak nothing about a Trinity, but in fact teach exactly what the NT clearly sets forth. Namely, that the Father (Lord of hosts, the living God, etc., in the OT) is the one and only God of the Bible! In other words what the modern SDA denomination would have us believe in all this is that the NT allegedly gives us two new gods to worship. Yet, they confess (as seen shortly) that the NT writers do not even focus on the topic! Imaginewe have true monotheistic Jews in Jesus day. Then supposedly Christ came and revealed two more gods for the Christian church to worship, and yet none of this is even focused on in the NT! I find it truly unbelievable that Christ and the apostles would argue to such great extent about the law of God (which includes as a rule Thou shalt not commit idolatry) as still binding, yet respecting the very God of this law who allegedly now becomes three in the NT, that this is not even important enough topic to be expounded upon? Furthermore, many well-known exegetes from all walks of life confess that the Trinity is not even taught in the OT. [3]Returning our focus back to the above declaration, it very obviously speaks in regard to the orthodox Trinity, for no tri-theist would ever doubt that the oneness of the three gods he believes in is assumed (cant be proven). In fact, the Bible comes right out and states that they are all one in purpose as seen for example in John chapters 14-17 (this fact however, is so well known it hardly needs to be argued). So what then can the one above be speaking of that is assumed reader? (The third chapter of my free book on Scribd mentioned earlier will clearly explain this statement in greater detail.) Here I will only briefly state that the one spoken of above in the Handbook is in reference to the three gods being one in nature, essence or in substance. In other words, as the Handbook (and Catholics) above teaches, these three gods make up or constitute the one Trinitarian Being as will be seen in the next quote. (UNDERSTAND THE ONE viewed IN THE HANDBOOK ABOVE IS NOT IN reference TO THREE SEPARATE GODS WHO ARE ONE IN PURPOSE WHICH MANY OF MY GENERATION THINK THE ADVENTIST CHURCH IS CURRENTLY TEACHING.)Now not only does the official SDA church concede in quotes like the one placed above that there is lacking scriptural evidence concerning that which makes the Trinity orthodox (the oneness feature), but they also acknowledge in the very same doctrinal Handbook that the Trinity teaching is not even a focus doctrine of the New Testament! [4] Lets take a look at this below:In conclusion, the NT has not given extensive consideration to the doctrine of the trinity as a theological locus. On the other hand there is extensive evidence that the reality of the Trinitarian nature of the one Christian God is a biblical teaching. In Scripture God has revealed His Transcendent nature as Trinity, namely three distinct divine persons who act directly and historically in history and constitute the one divine Trinitarian Being. (Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Vol. 12, Doctrine of God, p. 138) (Underlining mine)

I can absolutely agree with Mr. Canale to a certain extent above that the Trinity doctrine could indeed be a Biblical teaching for it does, as most other Catholic doctrines, have some Biblical support. Yet, imagine this, a doctrine so utterly crucial to the Christian church [5] and it is not even taught in the New Testament church! Now I cannot tell you how absolutely crucial the above two forthright admissions coming from the official SDA church are to grasp! Let me list them below as they are very important to clearly understand. 1. The crux teaching that makes the orthodox Trinity indeed orthodox cannot be proven from the Bible, (at least they honestly confess it is not taught in the NT else said church would not say it was assumed.)2. Not only can the crux of the orthodox Trinity not be proven Biblically, but the doctrine is not even a focus of the NT.Please remember readers that Ellen White stated that the important points of our position be well fortified with Scripture evidences. Lets now take both the above statements from the SDA Handbook and place them against all the Bible building principles we read previously from Ellen White, in which she clearly revealed as to how we are to build Bible doctrine. After doing so we must then ask ourselves the following question. How can the modern SDA church, which by in large still claims to be Bible and Bible only, teach the orthodox Trinity doctrine of which in one of her own official doctrinal books, she concedes is not even a teaching in the NT? Moreover, how can modern Adventism embrace this doctrine and make it her central and foundational doctrine when she admits it is not even focused upon in the Bible? And now on to the reason why readerswhile we were sleeping!After one reads and understands E.G. White and the other pioneers guidelines (seen on pgs. 2, 3) for creating Bible doctrine, and then compares these rules to the forthright declarations seen in the Handbook above, one thing becomes immediately evident. Specifically, official Adventism has indeed gone from following our pioneers standard (and specifically Ellen Whites standard of whom they claim to follow) of creating only doctrine that is clearly taught and expressed in the Bible, to the more Catholic method [6] of creating doctrines which are only implied within that sacred book. In other words reader, modern Adventism has given herself the great leeway of not only creating doctrines that are clearly expressed in the Bible, but they can now also formulate doctrines from teachings which are merely implied. Do you perceive the potentially serious implications in all this? If not, you will see shortly! But do we have any proof of what we just asserted above and if so, does it come from the mainline SDA church? Yes indeed we do, for in Ministry Magazine, an official magazine of the Seventh-day Adventist church [1] affirms all this in the following candid acknowledgment:This means that, whereas any law not forbidden in the constitution may be enacted, only doctrine expressed or IMPLIED in Scripture may be adopted. (Ellen White's role in doctrine formation , October 1981, Written by Ron Graybill) (Capitalizing and bold emphasis mine)Implied: suggested but not directly expressed; implicit. (Oxford Dictionaries)Do you now see reader that by adhering to the above principle of which the SDA church currently follows, how said church can now justifiably teach the unscriptural orthodox Trinity doctrine of which they currently broadcast to the world? Does the reader now understand how the above two statements from the Handbook, conceding their doctrine cannot be scripturally proven nor is even a focus of the scriptures, would have literally sent shockwaves through the pioneers of the early Adventist church! Why? Because readers, not only did our pioneers require that a doctrine have an abundance of scriptural evidence supporting it, be clearly taught there, be evaluated by weight of evidence, etc., but they were also very aware of the fact that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS BEEN BUILDING HER DOCTRINE ON IMPLIED,[7] SPECULATIVE, ASSUMED SCRIPTURE FOR CENTURIES! Readers, do you think the Catholics or modern Protestants go by weight of evidence in their doctrinal building process? Do you actually believe Catholicism needs an abundance of scripture to support her doctrinal positions, or that she requires a Thus saith the Lord" for all her teachings to be considered valid? No of course not and Seventh-day Adventists have been aware of this unbiblical practice of Catholicism for years regarding her construction of Bible dogma. The fact is that SDAs have been pointing it out as a wrong practice since the very inception of the Adventist church. And Adventists have been justifiably correct in doing so, that is, during the time when Adventists were truly a Bible and Bible only people. Yet unfortunately, we must now add the Seventh-day Adventist denomination into the very groups we just mentioned above, who do not require a thus saith the Lord nor go by weight of evidence in the building of her church teachings.Now some of you have probably read the following from Professor George Knight. However, I am sure that after all you have just read you are now better equipped to understand why Mr. Knight states what he does in the next few excerpts. All the reasons we have so far provided showing how the earlier Seventh-day Adventists were Bible and Bible only and how they all demanded a thus saith the Lord is why none of them (who adhered to Whites counsel pgs. 2, 3) could ever have signed their names to todays modern SDA orthodox Trinity doctrine. Professor George Knight clearly reveals all this below: Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination's Fundamental Beliefs. (Adventists and Change, Ministry Magazine, George R. Knight)Correction Professor Knight; ALL of them IF they indeed continued to stand by the pioneers methodology of creating scripture doctrine as is especially laid out in E.G. Whites teachings we read previously! But which Fundamental Belief is Mr. Knight speaking of above?More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the Trinity. For Joseph Bates the Trinity was an unscriptural doctrine, for James White it was that "old Trinitarian absurdity," and for M. E. Cornell it was a fruit of the great apostasy, along with such false doctrines as Sunday-keeping and the immortality of the soul. (Ibid. Underlining mine)Readers, why does Knight confirm above that the pioneers could not join today? Because very clearly from what we have already studied, the orthodox Trinity that the modern SDA church has embraced is unscriptural. (They at least confess it is not taught in the NT, as was seen in the Handbook extracts we read previously.) In no way would the modern Adventist doctrine of the Trinity have ever passed the test of the doctrinal building standards our pioneers adhered to in constructing their Bible doctrine. Does Professor Knights declaration above now make more sense readers? The reality of all this is not as one independent minister put it, in time they [pioneers] would have finally accepted the Trinity teaching if they had continued to study it, no, no reader! Unless another letter of the Bible could be produced substantiating the Trinity, unless the pioneers stopped adhering to their own methodology in the way they constructed their Biblical doctrines, they still would not be able to accept modern Adventisms Triune god teaching.Where does all this place the Seventh-day Adventist church today from a Biblical perspective?Taking all into consideration that we have just studied, we must now move on and ask ourselves several other critical questions concerning all this. We highlighted above how the pioneers knew that the Catholic Church had been formulating her dogma on implied, speculative and assumed scripture for centuries (and then adding Catholic dogma, tradition and Greek philosophy to help support and explain them). Lets now take a look at some examples of other implied Biblical doctrines other than the Trinity of which the Catholics (as well as many Protestants) believe in, seen listed below:1. Sunday Reverence 2. Eternal Hellfire 3. Infant Baptism 4. Eucharist. 5. Immortality of the soulReader, the handbook conceded earlier that the orthodox Trinity is not even a focus teaching of the Bible. Now take a look at the above teachings, do you think that the above dogmas are focal points of the Bible? The fact is that Seventh-day Adventists have been fighting against the above doctrines (and many other ones) claiming correctly that the above dogmas do not pass the weight of evidence test and other Biblical requirements SDAs used to adhere by in their doctrinal building standards. Does the reader now see the correlation we are making between the orthodox Trinity that Adventism has embraced to the above doctrines? If not let me clearly spell it all out for you in the following. Admittedly, the Trinity dogma as well as the above doctrines, does indeed have some basis in the Bible and this is very obvious, else they would not be controversial. [8] Go to any Protestant or knowledgeable Catholic and ask them to provide you the Biblical support for the above teachings they believe in. They will then start offering you scriptural evidences for Sunday Reverence such as how the disciples met and broke bread together on Sunday and how John was in the spirit on the Lords Day etc. For immortality of the soul they will tell you about what Jesus said to the thief on the cross, Verily I say unto thee, today you will be with me in paradise. Then there is the rich man and Lazarus which offers support for eternal hellfire (and even the doctrine of purgatory). There are literally a host of implied Bible teachings in addition to the above that, although they are not strongly taught in the Bible, yet, if we indeed know our Bibles, we must confess they are at least implied or suggested teachings in the Bible. However, lets carry all that we have been studying a little further now. Ever wonder why the Trinity is called the central and foundational doctrine of the Catholic Church? [9] The following statement offers the best response I have come across regarding this very topic. Mr. Ben Swett, who wrote the book, State Church of the Roman Empire, reveals the following:"The Council of Nicea was a pivotal event in the history of Christianity. The sudden adoption of a quasi-philosophic term to define the historic Jesus as equal to God was a major departure from scripture... Further, the use of this term in a Creed meant that, from 325 on, Nicenes could and did proclaim other dogmas that have NO basis in Scripture." (State Church of the Roman Empire; Ben H. Swett; 1998) (Highlighting and underlining mine)You see reader, as alluded to above, the Catholic Church knew way back at Nicaea in 325AD that if they could coerce Christians to adhere to their Trinity, which is based principally upon Catholic Church authority and not upon the Bible. [6] That if in fact they could coerce Christians [10] into believing that the Trinity is a Biblical teaching (even though it is not); that after successfully accomplishing all this they could then compel Christians as well into accepting a host of other Catholic unscriptural dogma of which said Church would forge later on (such as the ones seen above pg. seven). This is exactly why they testify what they do regarding the Trinity as being the central and foundational teaching of all their other dogma. The Trinity is in my opinion truly a masterpiece creation of Satan himself, for its acceptance was and still appears to be the first step in accepting all of the other unscriptural dogma the Catholic Church has created throughout time. Furthermore, in relation to what we just touched upon above, the Trinity was undeniably the first doctrine the pagan/Christian merged and newly state supported Church created. [11] Thereafter accepting and building upon it a long chain of Catholicisms other unscriptural doctrines, a few of which were listed on the previous page. It is with this knowledge that I must unfortunately agree with Professor Jerry Moon on his assessment seen below. Moons following evaluation is in regards to similar steps that were also taken by the later SDA church in her own path of embracing the Trinity doctrine. Although I do not praise these actions which were opted for by later Adventism as Moon does, we see in them the same course which was taken by the pagan/Christian Church starting in 325AD and onward, a church which eventually became a great persecuting power. Professor Moon states:In doing so, they [earlier SDAs] 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. (THE ADVENTIST TRINITY DEBATE, Jerry A. Moon, Ph.D., Andrews University) (Underlining mine)What I tell you here and now in summary may sound totally unrealistic to most Seventh-day Adventists, but it wont when viewed against the history of the church spoken of above by Professor Moon. Due to this great leeway Adventism has given herself in her doctrinal formation, I personally believe said church has now opened up the door wide of someday capitulating to the Sunday reverence argument. And why not, SDAs have already bought hook line and sinker a dogma which is clearly admitted by their own church to be an implied or an assumed doctrine; one not even provable in the Bible! How long SDAs do you think it will be till your denomination, which is now in its 6th generation, will succumb to the argument for Sunday observance and finally admit that the Catholics got that one right too?In addition to all this, there is something else that the readers may want to consider as well from all that we have studied. For quite some time Adventists have been reproving Catholics and Protestants, claiming that because of the false doctrines they teach, that this makes them a part of the great system of Babylon. [12] And while I absolutely agree with most of this assertion, the issue that modern Adventism must eventually face is that of acting like the modern hypocrite. Why? Well, for quite some time now the SDA denomination has accepted and has been broadcasting to the world the very same central doctrine of Catholicism (Trinity). This very doctrine being the foundational source from which all her other Babylonian wine flows from. Does not this fact in and of itself highly condemn the SDA church system as now being heavy partakers of the most potent part of the wine of Babylon? Does this not indeed make the Seventh-day Adventist church system a part of the Babylonian system today? And readers, unfortunately it all just gets worse as you continue to study this whole Trinity issue out within the Seventh day Adventist church. I now appeal to those of you who are sincerely seeking truth. You see, it is not just that the Trinity of Adventism is unscriptural. If it were only this, we could say that the church has simply made an innocent mistake in choosing her doctrines. However, we are not speaking here of a case of an innocent mistaken choice. What we are clearly dealing with here, at least in the opinion of this author, is a well thought out and deliberate choice of said church not only having accepted an unscriptural doctrine of God, but the modern Adventist doctrine of God has built into it as well unequivocal Catholic dogma in what is called the "Filioque Clause" (cannot get deep into this here). Moreover, no matter how much SDA pastors and theologians deny it; the readers will see in the coming months revealed starting in chapter five of my free book on Scribd, that the Triune god doctrine of modern Adventism does indeed contain undeniable Greek philosophical concepts.

However readers, lets for a minute pretend that the above additional unscriptural elements just mentioned are not contained within the modern SDA doctrine of god. For those of us who still believe in constructing our doctrines from clear teachings revealed in the Bible alone, is not the fact that said church clearly admits her Trinity is not attested to by the scriptures. That in fact and in her very own words, is not even a focus of the Bible; is not this enough proof in itself to make us want to flee from such a doctrine? Furthermore, is it nonsensical to put forth that anybody who still claims to follow historic Adventism and adheres to the principles just gone over and practiced by our pioneers, cannot in any way accept modern Adventisms orthodox Triune teaching as a valid biblical doctrine?

In closing, the modern church I grew up in and attended most of my adult life has often made the claim of being a denomination which is moving on in truth, and that the Trinity she has accepted has simply been a further revealing of that truth. I must respectfully disagree with this notion. For when one takes into consideration all that we have studied in this short paper alone, one cannot help but see that the Trinity cannot be a further revealing of truth, but must be seen instead to represent how far the modern SDA church has moved away from her Protestant roots. Indeed, she has clearly changed her attitude and position in the way she builds Bible doctrine. She now very obviously follows the Catholic and modern Protestant way of building implied doctrine from the Bible.

I personally believe it is high time we finally wake up and face up to all these facts. Modern Adventism is not going to return to the standards which were practiced by our pioneers. Were she to actually return to the doctrine building standards she once upheld, the very first doctrine she would necessarily have to rid herself of would be her current Triune god dogma! However, lets stop fooling ourselves about all this, as she will not do this, for rather, what I believe she has done is taken a major step back towards the Catholic Church for her understanding in doctrinal formation. And as the readers can hopefully see by now, the orthodox Trinity she has ultimately embraced is simply a ripe fruit of this step. Once we begin accepting this fact we can hopefully find some peace for ourselves and leave the SDA church alone to reap the eventual reward of the choices she has obviously and intentionally made over the not so distant past. Sincerely and with thanks, Alan DeLillo

Endnotes [1] The following is found on the Ministry Magazine website (https://www.ministrymagazine.org/about). Their Mission Statement claims the following: Ministryis an international professional journal published monthly by the Ministerial Association of the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, directed primarily to Adventist pastors and religious professionals and then to clergy of other religious groups on a bimonthly basis.As the readers can see, the Magazine is not an offshoot publication, but an official journal put out by the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.[2] In the Forward of the The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology is seen the following statement. The council authorized preparation of a volume to review carefully the principles undergirding the dynamic Adventist movement. This is that volume [The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology that is]. Under the direction of the Biblical Research Institute, the project has been more than 10 years in the making. As the editor notes in his preface, its purpose is to provide for both believers and inquirers a faith-centered, reasoned exploration of these truths as seen by Seventh-day Adventists. (The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Forward, pg. ix) (Underlining mine)From the above statement we know that the Handbook is explaining the official doctrines of the SDA church. And as Ministry Magazine is an official publication of the Seventh-day Adventist church, so is The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology.[3] See (http://www.trumpetcallbooks.com/trinity_truth.html)[4] If you doubt that this is indeed what Mr. Canale is saying, please read the context the statement was taken out of seen in (D. Trinitarian Patterns in the NT The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Pgs. 136, 137). In fact, it would be a great idea to read the whole chapter if you doubt at all as to which Trinity version the current SDA church teaches! [5] Please see chapter one of my free book on Scribd, The Trinitywho or what we worship a side issue? for support how crucial this doctrine is to the Christian church. [6] What I mean by the Catholic method is explained below in a Catholic Catechism. We will expound upon this later in this paper, but when I say the Catholic method I mean they take weakly stated doctrines in the Bible such as infant baptism, Sunday reverence and the Trinity (all these are actually discussed in the following Catechism) and make doctrines out of them (along with adding their tradition and Greek philosophy). This is done even if there are stronger alternate doctrines which oppose these such as the 7th day Sabbath etc.James White, editor of the Review & Herald, reprinted the following portion in part of the Catholic Doctrinal Catechism in 1854. The teachings from this official Catholic book clearly display the papal claims over Scriptural authority and acceptance by Protestants of the papal traditions. In other words it displays what the earlier pioneers were actually fighting against which was papal tradition in doctrine. First off, note well in the following emboldened words that Sunday is admitted by Catholicism as not being in the bible:Q. Have you any other proofs that they (Protestants) are not guided by the Scripture?

A. Yes; so many, that we cannot admit more than a mere specimen into this small work. They reject much that is clearly contained in Scripture, and profess more that is nowhere discoverable in that Divine Book.Q. Give some examples of both? A. They should, if the Scripture were their only rule, wash the feet of one another, according to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap. of St. John,they should keep, not the Sunday, but the Saturday, according to the commandment, 'Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath-day;' for this commandment has not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated.

"Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her;she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority. Now listen reader what the Catholics tell us next spoken right after she has just bragged above about Sunday reverence not being a scriptural teaching or a divine requirement:"Q. Do you observe other necessary truths as taught by the Church, not clearly laid down in Scripture? A. The doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine the knowledge of which is certainly necessary to salvation, is not explicitly and evidently laid down in Scripture, in the Protestant sense of private interpretation. And what does she mean by the following?a doctrine the knowledge of which is certainly necessary to salvation, is not explicitly and evidently laid down in Scripture, in the Protestant sense of private interpretationEver hear of the Bible being its own interpreter, or something called a proof text? Protestants used to evidently require a doctrine to be clearly laid out in the Bible before it could become eligible for a Bible doctrine. Our pioneers, based upon the statements we read from them in this paper absolutely required the doctrine to be laid out intelligibly and clearly in the Bible.We now come to the crux of the point I would like to make through all this and it will be seen in the following. This same Church has already admitted above to Sunday and the Trinity as not being scripturally based. Will she reveal below then as to what foundation these doctrines are in reality based upon? Yes without a doubt for she testifies next that the main foundation of these two doctrines, Sunday reverence and Trinity worship are actually based on what she terms traditional authority. The Catechism concludes below with:Q. What do you conclude from all this?A. That Protestants have no Scripture for the measure of their day of rest,that they abolish the observance of Saturday without warrant of Scripture,that they substitute Sunday in its place without Scriptural authority,consequently, that for all this, they have only traditional authority. Yet Protestants would look upon a man who would . . . keep the Saturday and profane the first day, as a victim of perdition. Hence we must conclude, that the Scripture, which does not teach these things clearly does not contain all necessary truths, and, consequently, cannot be the only rule of faith.

She then concludes:Q. Does it not appear from all this, that Protestants teach, in many things, what is opposed to Scripture, and that the Catholic doctrines are much more Scriptural?A. This is very evident from all we have said, and must be considered indisputable." (To the best of this authors knowledge, James White, editor of the Review & Herald, reprinted the above from a portion of a Catholic Doctrinal Catechism, pp101,174,351-355 and may be read in the Review and Herald of August 22, 1854) [7] The following was taken from Joel Hemphill at http://www.trumpetcallbooks.com/trinity_truth.html to echo what Canale is saying in the excerpt we read in the Handbook stating the Trinity is not even a focus in the Bible. Please pay special attention to the highlighted words below as we will deal with the word implied next:Trinitarian Millard J. Erickson, research professor of theology at S.W. Baptist Theological Seminary (Southern Baptist) in his book on the Trinity,"God In Three Persons,"is compelled by the Biblical evidence to make some strong admissions:Erickson goes on to say that some oppose the doctrine of the Trinity because of:"....theapparent silenceof the Bible on this important subject. This contention notes thatthere really is no explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, particularly since the revelation by textual criticism of thespurious natureof I John 5:7. Other passages have been seen on closer study to be applicableonly under the greatest strain. The question, however is this. It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity's uniqueness, how can it beonly impliedin the biblical revelation? In response to the complaint that a number of portions of the Bible are ambiguous or unclear, we often hear a statement something like, 'it is the peripheral matters that are hazy or on which there seem to be conflicting biblical materials. The core beliefs are clearly and unequivocally revealed.' This argument would appear to fail us with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, however. For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly or clearly.Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion." (How can Erickson go on claiming belief in the doctrine of the Trinity after making such statements?).He goes further,"There is one final and quite serious consideration regarding the biblical status of the doctrine of the Trinity. That concerns the texts that seem to argue against it.

[8] Readers just go to Amazon.com and look at a whole list of books defending Catholic dogma as being Biblical i.e., The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith, The Biblical basis for the Eucharist, The Biblical basis for purgatory, The Biblical basis for the Papacy, etc.[9] The Catholics teach:Unless (people) keep this Faith whole and undefiled, without doubt (they) shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic faith is this: we worship one God in Trinity. The mystery of the trinity is the central doctrine of Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the church. (Handbook for Todays Catholic, p.16) (Underlining mine)[10] And coerce they did by wiping out the three nations which would not submit to their Trinity gods. The ensuing quotes appeared in The Message in January 1948, where former SDA General Conference President Robert Pierson reveals the historical conflicts and agitation the doctrine of God generated between various nations of times past, Pierson states:Perhaps no other truth in all of Holy Scripture comes to us so marked with the blood of controversy as does the Bible doctrine of the Trinity. History records that ancient nations staked their very existence upon their conception of the Godhead. (Robert H. Pierson, The Message, January 1948, God the Father) (Underlining mine)Pierson then gives us some additional history and goes on to say that:Three kingdoms, the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths, were blotted from existence during the latter part of the fifth and the early part of the sixth centuries because they refused to accept the orthodox teaching of the ruling church concerning this dogma. Clergymen have been persecuted, exiled, and slain as the tide of favor regarding certain aspects of this subject ebbed and flowed in the early church. (Ibid) (Words made bold and underlining mine)[11] Trinitarian Millard J. Erickson - (Research Professor of Theology at S.W. Baptist Theological Seminary (Southern Baptist) in his book on the Trinity, "God In Three Persons") states: "This doctrine in many ways presents strange paradoxes...It was the very first doctrine dealt with systematically by the church, yet is still one of the most misunderstood and disputed doctrines. Further, it is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith" (p. 11-12). (Underlining mine Again I thank Joel Hemphills website for placing the above quote)See also, Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament, for some interesting details as to the benefits the new Church received from the state. [12] Ellen White herself stated about Babylon:In Revelation 17, Babylon is represented as a woman, a figure which is used in the Scriptures as the symbol of a church. A virtuous woman represents a pure church, a vile woman an apostate church. Babylon is said to be a harlot; and the prophet beheld her drunken with the blood of saints and martyrs. The Babylon thus described represents Rome, that apostate church which has so cruelly persecuted the followers of Christ. But Babylon the harlot is the mother of daughters who follow her example of corruption. Thus are represented those churches that cling to the doctrines and traditions of Rome and follow her worldly practices, and whose fall is announced in the second angel's message. {4SP 233.1} (Underlining mine)She also clear as day stated the following:The fallen denominational churches are Babylon. Babylon has been fostering poisonous doctrines, the wine of error. This wine of error is made up of false doctrines, such as the natural immortality of the soul, the eternal torment of the wicked, the denial of the pre-existence of Christ prior to His birth in Bethlehem, and advocating and exalting the first day of the week above God's holy and sanctified day. These and kindred errors are presented to the world by the various churches, and thus the Scriptures are fulfilled that say, 'For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.' It is a wrath which is created by false doctrines, and when kings and presidents drink this wine of the wrath of her fornication, they are stirred with anger against those who will not come into harmony with the false and satanic heresies which exalt the false sabbath, and lead men to trample underfoot God's memorial. {TM 61.3} (Underlining mine)The church constantly needs to remember that anything not clearly taught in the bible is not in any way a candidate for becoming a doctrine. (A Search for Identity, p.204, George Knight)From a perspective of belief that God was leading the Adventist movement, it appears that a major reason for the long process was that He was not calling the pioneers to a simple choice between Trinitarianism and anti-Trinitairanism. Rather, He was summoning them to develop a new understanding not dependent on Greek philosophy. The only way for the pioneers in their context to effectively separate Scripture from tradition was to abandon every doctrine not clearly supported from the Bible alone. (The Trinity, by Jerry Moon, Woodrow Whidden, & John W. Reese, p.202) [emphasis added]