The Introduction of the Trinity Doctrine into the Seventh-day Adventist Church.


Section Six

The Kellogg crisis

(The Alpha of heresies)


In sections three, four and five, we have looked at what I would say was abundant and indisputable evidence that the Seventh-day Adventist Church, right through to the death of Ellen White, was totally non trinitarian.


This of course did eventually change but the change did not happen overnight. This was a very gradual process that to a degree was almost imperceptible.


In an effort to understand how the trinity doctrine became part of the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it would be, I believe, a mistake to jump directly into the 1930’s (the time when the ‘trinity’ was first introduced into our official beliefs).


We need to go back to 1902 when controversy broke out concerning John Harvey Kellogg’s book ‘The Living Temple’.


As you read the account of how this crisis developed (and this really was a serious crisis for the church), you may ask what all this is to do with the trinity teaching. Nevertheless, I am sure that as you progress in this and the seventh section, you will come to realise that it has a great deal to do with it.


We need to remember that Ellen White referred to what Kellogg was teaching in his book as being the ‘alpha’ of heresies and that the ‘omega’ would shortly follow. In 1904 she said


“In the book "Living Temple" there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given” (Special testimonies Series B No. 2 p50)


So let’s see how this crisis for our church developed.


As previously noted in section one, Kellogg had been invited by Daniells to write a simple book on physiology and health care. This was for the purpose of raising money to help pay for the rebuilding costs of the fire destroyed sanitarium.


At that time, there were those who had already come to realize that some of Kellogg’s views were far from being in harmony with those of the church and of scripture. This was especially in regard to what the Bible has to say about the presence and personality of God.


Arthur L. White in ‘The Early Elmshaven Years’ Volume 5 Chapter 21, says that when Daniells suggested to Kellogg that he should write this book, he counselled Kellogg not to include any of his ‘new theories’.


He records that Daniells said to Kellogg


"Now look here, Doctor, that book must not contain a single argument of this new theory you are teaching, because there are a lot of people all over the States who do not accept it. I know from what they say, and if it has any of what they consider pantheism they will never touch it.


Arthur White continues


And the doctor replied, "Oh yes, oh yes, I understand that." And Daniells reiterated the point: "You must leave all that out." Dr. Kellogg fully agreed”.


This was not the first time that Kellogg had been counselled over what he was teaching about God.


Arthur L. White also said in ‘The Early Elmshaven Years’ Volume 5 Chapter 21


“As is so often the case with misleading teachings, it came to the ranks of Seventh-day Adventists subtly, as new, advanced truth. At first it was not discerned as a threat to the church. Dr. Kellogg had toyed with these concepts before James White's death in 1881, and considering it "great light," had discussed it with Ellen White. "'Those theories are wrong,'" she told him. "'I have met them before.'" He seemed dazed as she showed him the outcome of espousing such a philosophy. She then admonished, "'Never teach such theories in our institutions; do not present them to the people” (MS 70 1905 5BIO page 281).


As you probably know, Kellogg did write his book but chose to ignore all the advice and counsel that he had been given.


On 14th November 1902 at a General Conference committee meeting held at Battle Creek, Kellogg’s book, now ready for the press, was given consideration. W. W. Prescott, who was then the General Conference vice-president, had very serious doubts about the book. What concerned him most was that Kellogg was saying in his book that every person, regardless of their relationship with God, was the temple (or dwelling place) of God.


Prescott, as did the church, believed and taught that each person was only the dwelling place for God after conversion.


Kellogg said that from a theological perspective, he did not disagree with Prescott but then said that in his book, he had used the term ‘temple’ in the ordinary sense of the word. Kellogg also said that whilst he thought that this two fold use of the word should be recognised, he would be glad to remove anything that went against the principles of the church. At that point, the morning session closed.


Here are the minutes of that committee meeting session concerning ‘The Living Temple’




    Proceeding to the consideration of the Doctor's book, The Living Temple, the author stated that the subject matter had been presented in a stereopticon lecture before the last General Conference.  In the book he attempted to elaborate the principles then set forth.


    Professor Prescott stated that his criticism of the book was based upon his belief that man in his natural sinful state is not the temple of God in the sense of Scripture teaching.  In turning from righteousness, man ceased to be the temple of God, and is restored only by a new creation in Christ Jesus.  This distinction seemed to him essential, in view of our specific work at this time in warning against the great perversion of the gospel, which has come through the attempt to establish God's presence in the place where, in reality, the man of sin is manifested.


    Dr. Kellogg then stated that he saw no objection to the principles set forth by Professor Prescott.  He had used the term "temple" in the ordinary sense of the word.  While he was in accord with the technical or theological definition, he had written the work from a physiological point of view.  Although the work was not theological in its nature, he would be very glad to have anything opposed to the principles set forth, eliminated from the work.  He believed, however, that the two-fold use of the term must be recognized.  Interesting incidents were cited in which successful appeals had been made to sinners to recognize in their bodies, temples of God to be preserved from defilement.


    The consideration of the subject having been continued until 12:55, it was voted to adjourn until 3 o'clock.


A. G. DANIELLS, Chairman.

H. E. OSBORNE, Secretary.



When the meeting resumed at 3-00pm, Kellogg said that the problem would be solved if a preface was included in the book explaining the use of the word ‘temple’. He said that there could also be an explanation of the word in its strictest sense.


The committee then quizzed Kellogg on certain passages found in the book to which he gave answers. Kellogg then said that he did not want to have anything in his book that was disagreeable to the committee.


It was then decided by the General Conference committee that a special committee should be elected to give the book further examination. A committee of four was elected that was made up of Kellogg, W. W Prescott, A. T Jones and D. Paulson.


Three days later during another committee meeting held on November 17th 1902, A. T Jones, who was part of that special review committee, personally recommended that Kellogg’s book should be allowed to be published. This he said was because Kellogg’s book so often spoke of Jesus as a personal Saviour.


Another three days later on Nov 20th 1902, a committee of eight was elected to draw up a statement as to how the book ‘The Living Temple’ should be circulated, although it was said that this action did not compel the committee to use the book. Later that day, the same committee agreed and recommended that all the proceeds from the sale of the book should go towards the rebuilding costs of the sanitarium. At the same meeting, it was decided to allow the examining committee of Kellogg’s book to bring their report on the following Saturday evening at 6-00pm.


So it was that on the evening November 22nd 1902, the committee of four that was set up to review Kellogg’s book made a report. This is what it said


"Majority report of the committee for the examination of the book, The Living Temple, adopted at a meeting held at 10:30 P.M., Thursday, November 20, 1902—


    "Moved by Dr. Kellogg and seconded by Dr. Paulson, that we find in the book entitled, The Living Temple nothing which appears to us to be contrary to the Bible or the fundamental principles of the Christian religion, and that we see no reason why it may not be recommended by the committee for circulation in the matter suggested.


"Drs. Kellogg and Paulson voted 'Yes."  W. W. Prescott wished to be recorded as not voting either way”.


"(Signed) Alonzo T. Jones, Chairman."


As we can see, W. W. Prescott was not very happy with the contents of Kellogg’s book, even though the rest of the committee had come to the conclusion that there was nothing in the book that was contrary to scripture and was acceptable to be printed. On the other hand, Alonzo Jones was confident that there was nothing in Kellogg’s book that would undermine the authority of the Bible and the belief that Christ was the only way to God.


Prescott then requested the opportunity to make a personal report. The minutes for that session says


W. W. Prescott requested the privilege of presenting the following report:--

                                                 "Battle Creek, Michigan,                                                        November 22, 1902.


"To the General Conference Committee assembled in Council.

Dear Brethren:--

"As a member of the committee appointed for the examination of the proposed book, The Living Temple, I beg to submit the following minority report:--


    "After giving the revised galley proofs of this book such study as the brief time and the great pressure of other duties would permit, I am compelled to say that I regard the matter outside of those portions of the book which deal with physiology and hygiene as tending to harm rather than to good, and I venture to express the hope that it will never be published.    


          "The reasons for my conclusion I ask the privilege of giving in detail in a further verbal report.


                                   "Yours faithfully,                                                                                         (Signed)  W. W. Prescott."


W. W. Prescott was adamant that he did not want the book to be published. He saw in the book very serious errors which were contrary to what the Bible revealed concerning God.


Although the elected review committee reported that the book was in harmony with the scriptures, the church did not give their approval for it to be published. They accepted the minority report.


Kellogg was far from pleased with the decision.


Arthur L. White said in ‘The Early Elmshaven Years’ Volume 5 Chapter 21 relates


In the discussion that followed, according to the minutes, the author requested the privilege of withdrawing the book from consideration. It was not long, however, according to Elder Daniells, before Kellogg jumped to his feet and demanded an open hearing so that everybody from the Sanitarium and the Review and Herald could hear both sides of the matter. He pointed out it should not be confined to a small meeting of the General Conference brethren. So it was decided to hold such a meeting in the Review and Herald chapel. Daniells expected that only a relatively few people from the Review and Herald would be able to get off work to attend, although the chapel would hold a big crowd. However, when they met at eight-thirty in the morning, the room was packed to the anteroom and down the stairs. The meeting lasted until noon”. {5BIO 291.2}


Arthur White also records


In the afternoon Dr. Kellogg presented his side of the story. Elder Daniells felt that he faced a real crisis in this situation and spent much of the night in study and prayer. The next morning as the Autumn Council attempted to proceed with its business, Dr. Kellogg was present with a big pile of books. He asked for a point of privilege that he might present the fact that "from the first, Elder James White, George I. Butler, and all . . . your leaders have been absolutely opposed to this medical department of the denomination."--DF 15a, AGD. "How the Denomination Was Saved From Pantheism," Copy A, p. 13.


The brethren listened for a while. Finally one of the men stood and asked:


 "Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I cannot sit here in this committee and listen to these harsh terms that Dr. Kellogg is using against our venerable founder and leader [James White]. I wish the chairman to call him down."


 The chairman accepted the proposition and declared, "'I will say to Dr. Kellogg, "We do not wish any more of this." You will please terminate your subject.'"--Ibid., pp. 13, 14. He did, but under protest”.


Kellogg, accepting that the denomination would not sanction the publishing of his book, set out to get it published himself. Arthur White concludes


“Dr. Kellogg placed a personal order with the Review to print The Living Temple. About a month later the Review and Herald burned, and the plates for the book, which stood ready for the press, were destroyed by the fire”.


The publishing house was destroyed by fire on December 30th 1902 just ten months after fire had destroyed the sanitarium the previous February.


At 7-20pm, when the Tabernacle bell was ringing to call people to evening worship, so began the fire in the publishing house. In a very short space of time, this four storey building was a mass of flames. In a very short space of time, it was seen that it was futile to try to save the Review and Herald buildings and so the efforts of the firemen were directed to saving adjacent buildings.


At the time of the fire it was reported that the chief fire officer, a  man by the name of Weeks, had said


“There is something strange about your SDA fires, with the water poured on acting more like gasoline”. (P. B. Fairchild to Arthur L. White (see Biographical Books/5BIO Ellen G White: The Early Elmshaven Years Volume 5 by Arthur L. White).


Being accustomed to fighting big fires in Battle Creek, fire chief Weeks obviously had in mind the fire that had burnt down the Battle Creek Sanitarium just ten months earlier.


The year before the publishing house fire, Ellen White sent this testimony to the Review and Herald board. It was read to them in November 1901 and was eventually published in 8T page 90. The testimony had said


“A Solemn Warning


To the managers of the Review and Herald.


Dear Brethren: God's design in the establishment of the publishing house at Battle Creek was that from it light should shine forth as a lamp that burneth. This has been kept before the managers. Again and again they have been told of the sacredness of God's office of publication and of the importance of maintaining its purity. But they have lost true understanding and have united with the force of the enemy by consenting to print papers and books containing the most dangerous errors that can be brought into existence. They have failed to see the evil influences of such erroneous sentiments on typesetters, proofreaders, and all others engaged in the printing of such matter. They have been spiritually asleep.


By some of the outside work brought into this institution the science of Satan has been presented to the minds of the workers. The printing of such matter is a dishonor to God. It has done its part in deteriorating the minds of the workers. The managers have agreed to print it at a low figure. The gain would have been loss if the very highest figure had been asked for the work”.


Ellen White then went on to say that she had received a letter from A. G. Daniells regarding a new extension to the Review and Herald buildings at Battle Creek. She said that this was not on God’s order of things and that the money that was to be used for the extension should be used to further the work elsewhere. This is what she said


“The answer I make to this is: No, no, no. Instead of making any additions to the buildings already erected, cleanse the office of the trash of satanic origin, and you will gain room in every way”


She then went on to say


“He (God) has a controversy with the managers of the publishing house. I have been almost afraid to open the Review, fearing to see that God has cleansed the publishing house by fire.


It is high time that we understood what spirit has for years been controlling matters at the Review and Herald office. I am horrified to think that the most subtle phase of spiritualism should be placed before the workers, and that in a way calculated to confuse and perplex the mind. Be assured that Satan will follow up the advantage thus given him”.


The warnings that came through Ellen White had been ignored. Now the publishing house was destroyed by fire.


Kellogg could not have seen this as having anything to do with his book.


Still determined to get it printed, he went to a commercial publishers who accepted his order to publish the book.


There are many stories about what happened then, far too many to publish here, but what we do know is that Ellen White was now becoming more involved in the issue.

The Kellogg controversy had come to a crisis pitch by the time of the General Conference session of 1903.

Arthur L. White (‘The Early Elmshaven Years’ Volume 5 Chapter 21) records


As leading workers approached the General Conference session, which was to open on March 27 in Oakland, California, the proposed book The Living Temple was a matter of deep concern. On March 16, 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”. (Letter 300 March 16th 1903).


The same chapter reports


“Again on April 5, while at the session, she wrote to the doctor:


“The specious, scheming representations of God in nature carry their charming, soothing influence as a peace and safety pill to give to the people, in the spiritualistic that Satan has instituted in your theories.”--Letter 301, 1903.


She wrote to him a second letter on the same day in which she said


“Your ideas are so mystical that they are destructive to the real substance, and the minds of some are becoming confused in regard to the foundation of our faith. If you allow your mind to become thus diverted, you will give a wrong mold to the work that has made us what we are--Seventh-day Adventists””. (Letter 52, 1903)


Arthur White records that early in the conference session, in one of her talks Ellen White had declared:


“Those who stand as teachers and leaders in our institutions are to be sound in the faith and in the principles of the third angel's message. God wants His people to know that we have the message as He gave it to us in 1843 and 1844. We knew then what the message meant, and we call upon our people today to obey the word, "Bind up the law among My disciples."--GCB 1903, p. 32.


Arthur White also said


“On April 3 she had warned: Spurious scientific theories are coming in as a thief in the night, stealing away the landmarks and undermining the pillars of our faith. God has shown me that the medical students are not to be educated in such theories, because God will not endorse these theories. The most specious temptations of the enemy are coming in, and they are coming in on the highest, most elevated plane. These spiritualize the doctrines of present truth until there is no distinction between the substance and the shadow.

You know that Satan will come in to deceive if possible the very elect. He claims to be Christ, and he is coming in, pretending to be the great medical missionary”. As mentioned in an earlier chapter, Ellen White fully intended on several occasions at the 1903 General Conference to meet pantheistic teachings explicitly and face to face in an open meeting where Dr. Kellogg and his views would be completely exposed. But in each case she was restrained from doing so. While at the session she was instructed in vision that she "'must not say anything that would stir up confusion and strife in the conference.'"--DF 15c, W. A. Spicer, "How the Spirit of Prophecy Met a Crisis," Copy A, p. 30.

That the General Conference session should come to a close without the issues being squarely met was a matter of deep perplexity to not a few, including her own son, W. C. White. Most came to see that somehow in the providence of God He does not always deal with such matters precipitously. He did not do so in dealing with Lucifer when he fell in heaven. Things must develop to a certain point before the issues could be met in a way that all would understand what they were and take a safe stand. And so it was seen in 1903 in the case concerning the pantheistic teaching”.

If Kellogg had taken Ellen White’s and Daniells advice, this crisis would have been averted. Unfortunately, it was now gaining momentum.


On the 14th October 1903, testimonies were read out during the morning session of the General Conference Committee meeting. This is the transcript of those minutes for that session.


A. G Daniells in the chair.




Washington, D.C.


October 14, 1903, 9:00 A.M.




     After an earnest devotional season, the Chairman read from the Testimonies solemn warnings regarding the teachings of the book Living Temple, the dangers before us as a people, and the solemnity of the work of those who are set as watchmen.


    After the reading, nearly all present spoke of personal thankfulness to God for the instruction given, and of humility of soul because of lack of power and consecration.


The entire morning was so devoted”.


Adjourned to 2:30 P.M., even date.







The minutes of the general Conference Committee held four days later on October 18th 1903 said


“Dr. J. H. Kellogg, who was present, spoke of the Testimony regarding Living Temple, stating that he would revise the book, and that it was his desire to work in harmony with the General Conference”.


Four days later in the Review and Herald of 22nd October 1903 Ellen White wrote this


“I have some things to say to our teachers in reference to the new book, "The Living Temple." Be careful how you sustain the sentiments of this book regarding the personality of God. As the Lord represents matters to me, these sentiments do not bear the indorsement of God. They are a snare that the enemy has prepared for these last days. I thought that this would surely be discerned, and that it would not be necessary for me to say anything about it. But since the claim has been made that the teachings of this book can be sustained by statements from my writings, I am compelled to speak in denial of this claim. There may be in this book expressions and sentiments that are in harmony with my writings. And there may be in my writings many statements which, when taken from their connection, and interpreted according to the mind of the writer of "The Living Temple," would seem to be in harmony with the teachings of this book. This may give apparent support to the assertion that the sentiments in "The Living Temple" are in harmony with my writings. But God forbid that this opinion should prevail.


We need not the mysticism that is in this book. Those who entertain these sophistries will soon find themselves in a position where the enemy can talk with them, and lead them away from God. It is represented to me that the writer of this book is on a false track. He has lost sight of the distinguishing truths for this time. He knows not whither his steps are tending. The track of truth lies close beside the track of error, and both tracks may seem to be one to minds which are not worked by the Holy Spirit, and which, therefore, are not quick to discern the difference between truth and error”.


Kellogg had said all along that what he had written in his book was supported by what Ellen White as well as what other pioneers had believed and taught. Ellen White denied that this was true.


Now you the reader may be saying at this point that this is all very interesting but what has this to do with the trinity doctrine? We will now see.


Four days after the previously quoted Review and Herald article, on Oct 28th 1903, Kellogg wrote a letter to A. G. Daniells concerning Living Temple. He said in his letter


“As far as I can fathom, the difficulty which is found in the Living Temple, the whole thing may be simmered down to this question: is the Holy Ghost a person. You say no. I had supposed the Bible said this for the reason that the personal pronoun he is used in speaking of the Holy Ghost. Sister White uses the pronoun he and has said in as many words that the Holy Ghost is the third person of the Godhead. How the Holy Ghost can be the third person and not be a person at all is difficult for me to see”.


Now here we are, late in 1903 with Kellogg’s book already published. Kellogg is now giving reason for what he has written in his book. He says that he believes that the Holy Spirit is a person. He says that he believes this because Ellen White says that He (the Holy Spirit) is a person and that the personal pronoun ‘He’ is used in the Bible in reference to the Holy Spirit.


The brethren were obviously trying to persuade Kellogg that whilst the Holy Spirit is a person, He is not a person like the Father and Son. Kellogg says that he finds this difficult to understand.


The next day, October 29th 1903, Daniells wrote a letter to A. C. White. This is what Daniells said in his letter to A. C. White.


“He (meaning Kellogg) said that all the way along he had been troubled to know how to state the character of God and His relation to his created works. He felt sure that he had believed just what the Testimonies teach, and what Dr. Waggoner and Elder Jones have taught for years but he had come to believe that none of them had expressed the matter in correct form.


He then stated that his former views regarding the trinity had stood in his way of making a clear and absolutely correct statement but that within a short time he had come to believe in the trinity and could now see pretty clearly where all the difficulty was and believed that he could clear up the matter satisfactorily. He told me that he now believed in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost and his view was that that it was God the Holy Ghost and not God the Father that filled all space and every living thing”.


What we see now is how Kellogg, according to A. G. Daniells, tried to justify himself for writing what he did in ‘The living Temple’. Kellogg, he said, had come to believe in the trinity.


In a letter to G. I. Butler on February 21st February 1904, Kellogg said this


I believe this Spirit of God to be a personality, you don't. But this is purely a question of definition. I believe the Spirit of God is a personality; you say, No, it is not a personality. Now the only reason why we differ is because we differ in our ideas as to what, a personality is. Your idea of personality is perhaps that of semblance to a person or a human being. This is not the scientific conception of personality and that is not the sense in which I use the word. The scientific test for personality is the exercise, of will, volition, purpose, without any reference to form or material being”.


We can now see an important issue in the trinity controversy. It is not over the relationship of the Son to the Father (the deity of Christ), but whether the Holy Spirit is a person just like the Father and Son. The deity of Christ was not in question.


John Harvey Kellogg was now at variance with the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He believed that the Holy Spirit was a person like the Father and Son, thus forming the trinity.


Although the church today simply say that Kellogg’s problem was pantheism, the problem was in fact, much deeper and much more subtle.


In that same letter to Butler, Kellogg, as he had always done, denied being a pantheist. He said


“I am willing to confess that I am not a pantheist nor a spiritualist, and that I believe none of the doctrines taught by these people or by pantheistic or spiritualistic writings. I never read a pantheistic book in my life. I never read a book on "New Thought," or anything of that kind. Anybody who will read care­fully the "Living Temple" from the first page right straight through to the last, and will give the matter fair and consistent consideration, ought to see very clearly that I have no accord whatever with these pantheistic and spiritualistic theories”.


A few paragraphs later he said


“I abhor pantheism as much as you do. I have endeav­ored in my book to simply teach the fact that man is dependent upon God for everything, and that without the divine power working in him the Spirit of God operating upon the elements which compose his body, he would be dust. God, the fountain of all like, is man's life; that is, the Spirit of God is man's life. You will find clear statement of this in the preface of the "Living Temple" on the third page. I have also stated clearly in the preface of "The Living Temple" that my whole discussion relates only to the operation of the Spirit of God in the body in a physiological sense”.


He said a little further on in his letter


“Sister White has clearly taken the same position with reference to this matter which I have taken. You will find it, in her little work on Education in the chapters "God in Nature" and "Science and the Bible." You will find it all through "Desire of Ages," and "Patriarchs and Prophets." Mrs. Henry's book presents the same views which I present in "Living Temple," only much more emphatically. To say these things are not true; to call them pantheistic and spiritualistic and heap other opprobrious titles on these views does not change the facts. I am not a pantheist; I am no spiritualist. I hold nothing in common with the teachings of these isms. I believe the Bible, I believe in God; I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only hope of salvation; I believe all the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion. I believe in the third angel's message; I believe the health movement is a part of it; and I have spent all my life working for it, and I expect to spend the rest of my life working for it. If the men who have been working with it, and who have sometimes preached and practiced the hole of the message, and sometimes only part of it, have come to the point where they want to spew me out, all right; they can push me out of their machine, but they cannot separate me from the Lord which I know and which I love”.


In a record of an interview between Elder G. W. Amadon, Elder A. C. Bourdeau, and Dr. John Harvey Kellogg which was held at Kellogg’s house on October 7th 1907, Kellogg is reported to have said


“ Now I hear the brethren say when they are in a meeting, "I feel that the Lord is here."  I go into the laboratory, look into a microscope, see cells under my eyes, see cells working there, and I say "God is here working."  I cannot see how God's Spirit is separate from His presence.  Now you see I don't mean the Lord Himself is here; I mean His Spirit is here.  It is all right as far as I am concerned.  All I wanted to explain in Living Temple was that this work that is going on in the man here is not going on by itself like a clock wound up, but it is the power of God and the Spirit God that is carrying it on.


Now, I thought I had cut out entirely the theological side of questions of the trinity and all that sort of things.  I didn't mean to put it in at all, and I took pains to state in the preface that I did not.  I never dreamed of such a thing as any theological question being brought into it.  I only wanted to show that the heart does not beat of its own motion but that it is the power of God that keeps it going”.


Kellogg here admits that what he put in his book was ‘the theological side of questions of the trinity and all that sort of things’, but he claims that he never meant to include it. He then went on to say


“Now, Sister White wrote an article and said, "It is wrong to say that God Himself is in the tree."  Now, I didn't intend to say that.  I didn't intend to say that -- that God Himself, the Almighty, separate and distinct from His power, from His Spirit as a separate entity -- that He was in the tree.  I didn't mean to say that.  I meant simply that the Spirit, the power, the intelligence of the Almighty, is being manifested in all these living things that are going on about us”.


Kellogg claimed that he never meant to include in his book, theological views of the trinity. He also claimed that he did not intend to say what the book ‘appears’ to be teaching. All that he claimed was that he was teaching the omnipresence of God.


When Kellogg said that he did not mean to print what he did was he telling the truth?  By this time it did not really matter. This was not the issue that was important to the church. The book had been printed and that was the danger. Many Seventh-day Adventists thought that it was a correct view of God. Kellogg’s teachings were becoming popular.


Ellen White had referred to the Kellogg heresy as being the ‘alpha’ heresy. She also said that the ‘omega’ would shortly follow.


In this time period, a period of serious crisis for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, many testimonies and much counsel came from the pen of Ellen White through the Spirit of Prophecy. These counsels were needed to stop the church from drifting from its moorings.


Today, we need to look at the counsels. Ellen White wrote them in view of the ‘alpha’ heresy that was attempted to be perpetrated, (with a certain amount of success) upon our church.


I sincerely believe that we need to understand and heed these counsels if we are to have any chance of being safe from being taken by the deception of the ‘omega’. That is why they were given.


I would now like to share with you some of the statements that Ellen White wrote as she spoke out specifically against the sentiments and teachings of Kellogg’s book. These are too many to include in this section so I have devoted section seven to that purpose.


As I conclude this section, I would like to remind you of something that Ellen White said about what Kellogg was teaching. In a pamphlet (SpTB06) under the title ‘ Testimonies to the Church Regarding our Youth Going to Battle Creek Obtain An Education (1905)’, she said (all emphasis mine)


A Warning Against Deceptive


                    Nashville, Tenn., June 23, 1904.

      Before leaving Washington for Berrien Springs, I was instructed upon some points regarding the work at Battle Creek. In the night season I was in a large meeting. The one who has stood for many years as the leader in our medical work was speaking, and he was filled with enthusiasm regarding his subject. His associate physicians and ministers of the gospel were present. The subject upon which he was speaking was life, and the relation of God to all living things. In his presentations he cloaked the matter somewhat, but in reality he was presenting as of the highest value, scientific theories which are akin to pantheism”.


She later said


Let the world go into spiritualism, into theosophy, into pantheism, if they choose. We are to have nothing to do with this deceptive branch of Satan's work. The pleasing sentiments of pantheism will lead many souls into forbidden paths”.


In Special Testimonies Volume 2 Number 7 and page 39 Ellen White also said this about Kellogg


“He has not known whither his feet were tending. But in his recent writings, his tendencies toward pantheism have been revealed”.


Notice that she said ‘akin to pantheism’, ‘sentiments of pantheism’ and ‘tendencies toward pantheism’. She did not say that it WAS pantheism. I believe that to be important because all along Kellogg did deny that he was teaching pantheism.


If you would like to comment on what you have just read, then here are a number of email addresses to which you can reply.


First preference 

Second preference

Third preference



Terry Hill

Bristol England