Please carefully note what one researcher has observed Elder Froom was saying: "1.) There was nothing in our literature - why- because we were not trinitarians. 2.) That whatever was to be presented in 1928 would have its roots in whatever the holiness people taught - especially on this subject. 3.) He is charging our own men with neglect in the searching into the deeper spiritual things of God." (Robert Diener - A History of the Godhead in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, p. 6)

May I state that my book, The Coming of the Comforter was the result of a series of studies that I gave in 1927-1928 to ministerial institutes throughout North America. You cannot imagine how I was pummeled by some of the old timers because I pressed on the personality of the Holy Spirit as the Third Person of the Godhead. Some men denied that - still deny it. But the book has come to be generally accepted as standard. (Letter of LeRoy Froom to Dr. Otto H. Christenson, October 27, 1960)

One statement in The Coming of the Comforter of special interest is found on page 40. "If He [the Holy Spirit] is a divine person, and we think of Him as an impersonal influence, we are robbing a divine person of the deference, honor, and love that is His due. Again, if the Holy Spirit is a mere influence or power, we shall try to get hold of and use it. But if we recognize Him as a person, we shall study how to yield to Him, that He may use us." Froom had borrowed this idea almost verbatim from a book by a Protestant evangelist, R. A. Torry, entitled, The Fundamentals. One writer has looked at this statement and presented a probing question: "If the Holy Spirit is not a separate and distinct being other than the Father and His Son, and if we give 'deference, honor and love' to this divine person, and if we also yield ourselves to this other God who is not the Father and/or His Son, then who are we worshipping and yielding our lives to? That's right. Satan Himself." (Holland 95, p. 82) This may seem difficult for many to accept, but Ellen White describes just such a thing in an early Broadside:

In February, 1845, I had a vision of events commencing with the Midnight Cry. I saw a throne and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance 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. Before the throne I saw the Advent people, the church, and the world. I saw a company, bowed down before the throne, deeply interested, while the most of them stood up disinterested and careless. Those who were bowed before the throne would offer up their prayers and look to Jesus; then he would look to his Father, and appeared to be pleading with Him. A light would come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son to the praying company. Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son it waved over the people before the throne. But few would receive this great light; many came out from under it and immediately resisted it; others were careless and did not cherish the light, and it moved off from them; some cherished it, and went and bowed down with the little praying company. This company all received the light, and rejoiced in it, as their countenances shone with its glory. And I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming Chariot go into the Holy of Holies, within the veil, and did sit. There I saw thrones that I had never seen before. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arose with Him; and I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after he arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. Those who rose up when Jesus did, kept their eyes fixed on Him as He left the throne and led them out a little way. - Then He raised His right arm and we heard his lovely voice saying, "Wait here-I am going to my Father to receive the Kingdom; keep your garments spotless, and in a little while I will return from the wedding and receive you to myself." And I saw a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, and Angels were all around it as it came where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the Holiest where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, as He was standing before the Father, a great High Priest. On the hem of His garment was a bell and pomegranate. Then Jesus shew me the difference between faith and feeling. And I saw those who rose up with Jesus send up their faith to Him in the Holiest, and pray-my Father give us thy Spirit. Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In the breath was light, power, and much love, joy and peace. Then I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it.-Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God; I saw them look up to the throne and pray, my Father give us thy Spirit; then Satan would breathe upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy and peace. Satan's object was to keep them deceived, and to draw back and deceive God's children. I saw one after another leave the company who were praying to Jesus in the Holiest, and go and join those before the throne, and they at once received the unholy influence of Satan. (To the Little Remnant Scattered Abroad , April 6, 1846, p. 7)

The apostasy that Sister White warned of would actually change our whole religious structure. "The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced." (Series B, no. 2, p. 55) When the theology of any religious organization is altered, that system is changed at its very foundation. For nearly a century, the church had professed an anti-Trinitarian position. In 1931 a new Statement of Beliefs was introduced, which for the first time, promoted the Trinity. The second statement read:

2. That the Godhead or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption. (Church Manual, 1963 ed. p. 29)

With the urging of the General Conference Statistical Secretary, Edson Rogers, along with certain requests for a clarified statement from the field, a committee of four was appointed to oversee the preparation of a new Statement of Beliefs. The four chosen were Milton E. Kern, Francis M. Wilcox, Edwin R. Palmer, and Charles H. Watson. Wilcox was chosen by the other three to prepare the main draft. With the full knowledge and approval of the others, Wilcox gave his statement to Rogers who placed it in the 1931 Yearbook. It appeared in the Church Manual in 1933. This statement was not voted on by the General Conference.

On January 14, 1942, the General Conference Committee voted that the (Wilcox) statement of "Fundamental Beliefs" be made available in leaflet form. It had appeared in our official Church Manual of 1933-similarly without formal adoption-and has been in each succeeding edition. It was therefore by common consent and not by formal voted acceptance that Wilcox's suggested "Fundamental Beliefs," ... became our accepted Statement of Faith. (Movement of Destiny, p. 419 - emphasis in the original)

Is it possible for an individual to remain in good and regular standing in the Seventh-day Adventist Church if he consistently refuses to submit to church authority regarding the historic doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ?

The answer to this question is an unequivocal No. (Question #34, Questions on Doctrine file.)

The Revision of Daniel and Revelation

The Publication of Evangelism

The book Evangelism was published in 1946 to help continue the progress of Trinitarianism within Adventism by attaching the authoritativeness of inspiration to the "new theology." While the volume contains a wealth of Spirit of Prophecy statements, it gave Froom, who was on the editorial committee, the opportunity to compile Ellen White statements in such a manner as to distort her true position. This was done using the following tactics: 1. Statements were used out of context including the use of numerous ellipses. 2. Subtitles were applied to introduce thoughts into the reader's mind not in the quote. 3. An unbalanced number of statements were used without the complementary statements necessary to give a total picture. In a letter to his ally, R. A. Anderson, Froom stated:

I am sure that we are agreed in evaluating the book, Evangelism as one of the great contributions in which the Ministerial Association had a part back in those days. You know what it did with men in the Columbia Union who came face to face with the clear, unequivocal statements of the Spirit of Prophecy on the Deity of Christ, personality of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, and the like. They either had to lay down their arms and accept those statements, or else they had to reject the Spirit of Prophecy.

I know that you and Miss Kleuser and I had considerable to do with the selection of these things under the encouragement of men like Elder Branson who felt that the earlier concept of the White Estate brethren on this book Evangelism was not adequate. (Letter of LeRoy Froom to Roy A. Anderson, January 18, 1966)

Froom is stating that in 1946 there was still a hold-out against Trinitarianism within the Columbia Union. Here we see the Spirit of Prophecy used as a club to force the brethren into line, instead of the "Bible and the Bible alone" being the sole rule of faith and practice among the brethren. Further, the leadership of the church did not believe that the brethren at the White Estate had an "adequate" concept for Evangelism.

In 1950, two young missionaries from Africa attended the General Conference Session at Cleveland, Ohio. Elders Robert Wieland and Donald K. Short expressed concern to the brethren that the church had veered off the course given by the Lord in 1888. They were asked to write out their thoughts with the result being the manuscript, 1888 Re-Examined. While not seeing the Trinitarian issue, they did an excellent work, in a short period of time, discussing the situation of the church at that time. They believed that the church was "ripe for disillusionment:"

It is now abundantly evident that "we" have traveled the road of disillusionment since the Minneapolis meeting of 1888. Infatuation with false teachings has taken the place of clear, cogent, heaven-inspired truth, as regards "righteousness by faith." By the hard, humiliating way of actual experience with counterfeits, Israel has brought herself to the time when she is ripe for disillusionment. (1888 Re-Examined, 1950 ed. p. 202)

Wieland and Short were attempting to show how a "false Christ" could appear among us. They believed, accurately, that misrepresentation would preceed impersonation. (See p. 171.) A careful reading of 1888 Re-Examined reveals that while Wieland and Short mostly discussed the importance of the incarnation and the high priestly ministry of Christ, there were touches of Christology that ran against the normal Trinitarian thinking. For example, they stated clearly that Christ had accepted the "likeness of sinful flesh" that it "was not mere appearance, but reality." (Ibid., p. 156 - emphasis in original) This led them to believe that Jesus "emptied Himself of all divine power to work a miracle, except through faith in the Father." (Ibid., pp. 156, 157) Further, they taught that Christ really died at Calvary:

The death of such a false Christ would have no power to draw all men, such as a clear understanding of the death of the true Christ. It would rather be an inexplicable transaction that took place between the Father and the Son, which somehow sufficed to pacify the wrath of the Father against mankind in general. The confusion is pointed by the fact that the false view requires the belief that the Son of God did not die, but only the Son of man, i.e., His body. It throws a cloud of impenetrable mystery around the very phase of Christ's work which was intended to appeal to human hearts and intelligence, and draw them to a sincere, unaffected reconciliation with God. (Ibid., p. 158)

Partly in response to the call of Wieland and Short in 1950, Elder William H. Branson convened the 1952 Bible Conference. It was the church's first Bible Conference since 1919, and only the second since 1888. While the theme was to be the righteousness of Christ, the messages never got to the root of the problem; the Trinitarian view was never challenged. Near the end of the conference, Branson gave the following challenge:

To a large degree the church failed to build on the foundation laid at the 1888 General Conference. ... But the message of righteousness by faith given in the 1888 Conference has been repeated here ...

And this great truth has been given in this 1952 Bible Conference with far greater power than it was given in the 1888 Conference. ... No longer will the question be. "What was the attitude of our workers and people toward the message of righteousness by faith that was given in 1888? What did they do about it?" From now on the question must be. "What did we do with the light on righteousness by faith as proclaimed in the 1952 Bible Conference?" (Our Firm Foundation, vol. II, pp. 616, 617 - quoted from Watchman, What of the Night, November, 1996, p. 3)

Branson made clear reference to 1888 Re-Examined and then attempted to shift the focus from 1888 to 1952. The answer to Branson's question concerning the so called "light on righteousness by faith as proclaimed in the 1952 Bible Conference" did not have to wait long to be answered.

"What do you folks believe about the Trinity?" was a question put to me some years ago by two gracious Christian gentlemen who came unannounced to the General Conference headquarters in Washington D. C. ...

Both men were Christian college professors who had read much about Adventists, but all from detractors, and one of them was commissioned to write a new book about Adventist beliefs. However, they felt they should contact the headquarters to discover what we actually believe on points of vital interest rather than just quoting from others.

The answers to their earnest questions lengthened into days of prayerful discussions. Our answer concerning the Godhead and the Trinity was crucial, for in some of the books they had read that Adventists were classed as Arians; .... (Adventist Review, September 8, 1983, p. 4 - emphasis in original.)

As Martin had noted to Anderson, some books had classed Adventists as Arians because of their anti-Trinitarian belief. In fact, Martin had failed to classify Seventh-day Adventists as "Christians" in the first printing of his book, The Rise of Cults. The emphasis at the beginning of the conferences was on past anti-Trinitarian statements made by the pioneers of Adventism including Ellen White! In 1989 Martin gave a brief history of how it occurred to a group of ministers

The climate at that time [1955, 1956], Adventism was considered like Jehovah's Witnesses, like Mormonism, like most of the major cultic structures of the day. ...

When I first met with L. E. Froom, he took me to task for about fifteen minutes on how I could ever possibly think that Adventism was a cult. "Adventism rings as true as steel" I said "do you think Arius was a Christian?" And he was an excellent church historian and he said, "Of course he wasn't a Christian, he denied the deity of Jesus Christ." I said, "So did Ellen White." Dr. Froom replied, "What!" I said, "yes" and opened up a suitcase and produced at least twelve feet of Adventist publications stacked up and marked for Dr. Froom's perusal. And for the perusal of the committee to check the sources in there. And they were in mortal shock I might add, to think that it was as pervasive as it was. Mrs. White reversed herself later on very quickly, and affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity very strongly and taught it. But she was influenced by Uriah Smith. She did deny the eternal deity of Christ at one time and relegated Him to the place of a second deity. That's why you were classified with the the Jehovah's Witnesses early on, because of the Arian emphasis in Adventism. And because of the fact that you affirmed Michael the Archangel to be Christ.

Dr. Froom and the committee decided that they would peruse this material immediately. So we adjourned the meeting and they took all the materials with them and I guess others, and went through the materials. They came back and said, "well, a great deal of these things you're calling attention to are there, we agree, and we don't agree with these statements. They do not reflect orthodox Adventist theology, and we reject it." I said, "good, happy to hear that, now can you fault us , because we read this material, and it's not peripheral issues we are talking about." ...

We went through all kinds of materials and then the idea came for a book where we would question and the Adventist denomination would respond. ... Out of that came the book Questions on Doctrine. Contrary to some of the fantasies and myths which I hear today from Adventists who ought to know better, the book had the approval of the General Conference. (Walter Martin - taped conference at Campus Hill Church in Loma Linda, CA, January 1989)

Elder Froom and those who met with Martin "accounted as error" the foundation that had sustained the work since its early times. Dr. Barnhouse, writing in Eternity magazine, noted:

Immediately it was perceived that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which had been previously attributed to them.

The Adventists specifically repudiate any teachings by ministers or members of their faith who have believed, proclaimed, and written any matter which would classify them among Arians. (Eternity, September, 1956)

Elder Froom, in Questions on Doctrine and later in Movement of Destiny, blatantly lied concerning our history. He attempted to show that anti-Trinitarianism was "an encapsulated cancer, gross but confined." (The Sanctuary and the Atonement, p. 530) In Questions on Doctrine we read, "The founding fathers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church over a century ago came out of various denominational backgrounds. While all were premillennialists, some were Trinitarian; others were Arian." (p. 29) This is but a half truth. The facts are, that while the pioneers were from "various denominational backgrounds," once becoming Seventh-day Adventists, they all gave up their false Trinitarian beliefs. In Movement of Destiny, Froom labeled the anti-Trinitarians as having the "minority" view. (See p. 149.) Then he went on to explain why certain statements were made in Questions on Doctrine. Froom noted that some of the answers given to the Evangelicals were made as a public disavowal of statements made by the early pioneers, "the early erroneous concepts of a [so-called] minority clearly needed repudiated. So the appointed framers of the answers to their questions prepared a simple statement disavowing these personal, individual, [so-called] minority positions, for inclusion in the forth coming book, to be called Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine." (Movement of Destiny, pp. 483, 484) These statements were necessary to clear up the misconceptions from prior statements. The disavowal read in part:

The belief of Seventh-day Adventists on these great truths is clear and emphatic. And we feel that we should not be identified with or stigmatized for, certain limited and faulty concepts held by some, particularly in our formative years.

This statement should therefore nullify the stock "quotations" that have been circulated against us. We are one with our fellow Christians of denominational groups in the great fundamentals of the faith once delivered to the saints. (Questions on Doctrine, pp. 31, 32)

What a shame to say that we are "one with our fellow Christians of denominational groups." Froom and the rest can call it "Christian" till the plagues fall; God calls it "BABYLON" and what authority do we have to call "Christian" that which God pronounces "Babylon?"

1971 - Movement of Destiny

Although we have already noted Froom's book, Movement of Destiny, and quoted from it, we should note the following points. Movement of Destiny was a clear attempt to rewrite our history and present the growth of the Advent movement as being of an evangelical character from its roots. It fully supported the Trinity and the continued compromises made in the 1950's. Froom also took liberty to attack Wieland and Short for their observance of how the church had gotten off the track of truth as given in 1888. The book carried a preface by Elder Neal Wilson, then General Conference vice president and chairman of the guiding committee for Movement of Destiny. The book's forward was originally written by Elder Robert Pierson, then president of the General Conference. However, due to backlash over references to Elder Robert Wieland, Pierson withdrew his statement. In his place, Elder H. M. S. Richards Sr., of the Voice of Prophecy, wrote the forward for the later edition! Of importance is the impetus for the book and the timing of its appearance. Froom acknowledges that:

Back in the spring of 1930 Arthur G. Daniells, for more than twenty years president of the General Conference, told me he believed that, at a later time, I should undertake a thorough survey of the entire plan of redemption ....

... I was a connecting link between past leaders and the present. But, he said, it is to be later-not yet, not yet.

Elder Daniells recognized the serious problems involved, and sensed almost prophetically certain difficulties that would confront. He knew that time would be required for certain theological wounds to heal, and for attitudes to modify on the part of some. Possibly it would be necessary to wait until certain individuals had dropped out of action [died!], before the needed portrayal could wisely be brought forth. (Movement of Destiny, p. 17)

The General Conference at Dallas in 1980 provided the laity a final opportunity to "meet" the omega of apostasy. The main focus of the session was the development of a new Statement of Beliefs to replace the 1931 statement which had only undergone minor revisions. The final product was an officially voted statement that affirmed the Trinitarian teaching. This statement has since taken on the lion-like jaws of a creed. Those who are found not lining up are disfellowshipped!

While many independent ministries on the edge and within the Adventist Church today acknowledge the apostasy in Questions on Doctrine and other "books of a new order" concerning the incarnation and the atonement in heaven, most fail to realize the much larger scope of the matter. In fact, some of the most vocal supporters of Trinitarianism are Adventist independent ministries!

Several groups have gone on record rejecting the leading of God in the early days of the Advent movement and have strongly supported the pagan-papal Trinity. J___ O____, the leader of an independent ministry, was quick to label a conference minister as "Trash Can S_____" because he supposedly threw his Spirit of Prophecy books into a trash can. Later Pastor O_____ threw reprints of materials which the pioneers had written about the Godhead into a trash can and then proceeded to collect materials from his church members to throw in the trash can! At the time if this writing, Pastor O_____ is working closely with the conference.

In response to materials sent, which clearly presented the Biblical and historical position of the pioneers, one ministry sent out an amazing letter full of so called facts:

Dear D___:

Thanks for writing. D___ is conducting a major evangelistic crusade in Michigan so I am handling much of his mail. I do not wish to offend you but I would like to call your attention to several important things:

1. Many of the pioneers were in error on several Bible teachings. We do not base our doctrines
on what various pioneers believed, but rather, upon what the church decided.

2. The Spirit of Prophecy is clear that:

a. Light is not revealed to a few (CW 45).
b. Light is not given contrary to the established faith of the body (EW 45).
c. New light should be submitted to the brethren and laid aside if they see no light in it (CW 47).

Like Froom and many others, this ministry has accounted the first fifty years as "error." While we agree that we should not accept any doctrine just because the pioneers believed it, we also believe that just because the "church" decides a certain doctrine is truth does not make it truth! The Spirit of Prophecy references are excellent. What a shame the church did not listen to the counsel when the Trinity doctrine was adopted!

a.) The wonderful truth about God and His Son was not revealed to just a few! All the pioneers understood and believed it. The Trinity came into the church through the efforts of a few key men. b.) The Trinity was contrary to the "established faith of the body." c.) New light is to be submitted not just to the brethren, but "the brethren of experience." (Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 47) The "brethren of experience," especially those that Ellen White referred to, were those who went through the 1844 experience. They all rejected the Trinity, seeing no light in it.

To avoid the connection the Trinity has to the papacy, some independent ministries have gone to the other extreme and accepted tritheism, the belief in three gods. Like Kellogg and Froom, they are quick to quote the Testimonies to "prove" their position.

While at the date of this writing few leaders of the larger ministries have rejected the omega, we should not hold our breath waiting to see what others will do before making our own decision. We have been plainly told:

In the last solemn work few great men will be engaged. . . . God will work a work in our day that but few anticipate. He will raise up and exalt among us those who are taught rather by the unction of His Spirit than by the outward training of scientific institutions. These facilities are not to be despised or condemned; they are ordained of God, but they can furnish only the exterior qualifications. God will manifest that He is not dependent on learned, self-important mortals.

To stand in defense of truth and righteousness when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the Lord when champions are few-this will be our test. (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, pp. 80, 82, 137)

God is going to work in such a manner that no glory will go to man! The message of Revelation 14:7 to give glory to God will be accomplished, "not by might, nor by power," but by the Spirit of God and all glory will be His. What should be our relationship to this apostasy? "We are to hold fast the first principles of our denominated faith, and go forward from strength to increased faith. Ever we are to keep the faith that has been substantiated by the Holy Spirit of God from the earlier events of our experience until the present time." (Series B, no. 7, p. 52)

Shortly before I sent out the testimonies regarding the efforts of the enemy to undermine the foundation of our faith through the dissemination of seductive theories, I had read an incident about a ship in a fog meeting an iceberg. For several nights I slept but little. I seemed to be bowed down as a cart beneath sheaves. One night a scene was clearly presented before me. A vessel was upon the waters, in a heavy fog. Suddenly the lookout cried, "Iceberg just ahead!" There, towering high above the ship, was a gigantic iceberg. An authoritative voice cried out, "Meet it!" There was not a moment's hesitation. It was a time for instant action. The engineer put on full steam, and the man at the wheel steered the ship straight into the iceberg. With a crash she struck the ice. There was a fearful shock, and the iceberg broke into many pieces, falling with a noise like thunder to the deck. The passengers were violently shaken by the force of the collision, but no lives were lost. The vessel was injured, but not beyond repair. She rebounded from the contact, trembling from stem to stern, like a living creature. Then she moved forward on her way.

Well I knew the meaning of this representation. I had my orders. I had heard the words, like a voice from our Captain, "Meet it!" I knew what my duty was, and that there was not a moment to lose. The time for decided action had come. I must without delay obey the command, "Meet it!" (Series B, no. 2, pp. 55, 56)

Beloved, the iceberg appeared shortly after the "alpha" apostasy. To confront the omega will bring a "fearful shock;" we will be "violently shaken by the force of the collision." The true ship is "injured, but not beyond repair." Let us obey the Captain of our faith and "Meet it"!

As we have seen in our study, knowing God is eternally important. The prophet Daniel tells us that "the people that do know their God shall be strong and do exploits." (Daniel 11:31) Now is the time to know our God and be strong as never before. "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (Luke 12:32)