The Omega of Deadly Heresies

Shortly after I became a Christian (way back in 1975), I began to hear about something called "The Omega". I heard that Sister White had prophesied of something that would come, referring to it as "The Omega" and I found the whole concept fascinating. What did Sister White mean when she spoke about the Omega? Let me just give you the setting in which she used this word Omega:

Back in the early 1900’s, roughly 1902--1904, there was a man by the name of John Harvey Kellogg. He was one of the big brains in the Adventist Church as well as one of the influential men. He was actually a doctor who was in charge of the Sanitarium at Battle Creek and, in fact, he was one of Sister White's friends - that is to say that he was Sister White's friend originally. She and her husband even helped to send him through college.

Dr. Kellogg wrote a book called "The Living Temple" and, while many people in the church (many of the leaders in the church) thought it was a wonderful book, as Sister White began to hear what the book was teaching and then read parts of it for herself, she discovered that this book was teaching doctrines which would completely destroy the foundation of the Seventh Day Adventist faith - and so she spoke out against this book. She opposed the teachings of this book, and it was because of her writings as well as her influence that the teachings of Dr. Kellogg did not actually become a part of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

She did, however, refer to the teachings of Dr. Kellogg as the Alpha of Deadly Heresies , and said that the Omega would follow shortly. Now that's interesting.

What was Dr. Kellogg teaching basically? He was teaching that God is in everything, which is not, strictly speaking, untrue, because God's power is what is actually actively present in every single thing in the Universe - keeping all things in order and keeping them moving. But Dr. Kellogg was taking this to an extreme. His focus would have led people to believe that God is everything. Do you notice the difference? Not that God is in everything, but that everything is God. Though these thoughts seem to be similar, there is a great difference between them. If you had followed Dr. Kellogg's teachings through to their logical conclusion, what you would have ended up doing is actually worshipping the trees, the stones, the flowers, etc. because he claimed that God is in all these things, therefore, the subtle emphasis was that these things were actually God. Perhaps Dr. Kellogg did not word it in just this way, but the tendency of his teaching was in this direction, and Ellen White sounded the note of warning upon seeing this danger.

Now let me just read quickly one or two of the things that she said concerning this Alpha and Omega. Most of the quotations I’ll be reading will be taken from the book entitled "Selected Messages Bk 1" because the things that Sister White wrote during this time were put together in a little booklet called "Special Testimonies, Series B. No. 2", and the section that deals with the Alpha and Omega has been included in "Selected Messages Bk. 1":

On page 197, she writes:

"Be not deceived; many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. We have now before us the alpha of this danger. The omega will be of a most startling nature." (SM1 - 197)

As you can see, the Alpha and Omega would involve a change of the faith on the part of many.

On page 200 of the same book, she says:

"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." (SM1 - 200)

Notice that she calls it "Deadly Heresies" ! She doesn’t say perhaps or maybe or might be, she says: "the omega will follow." This was something that she saw coming, something that was a certainty.

Now take notice that Sister White calls it "the alpha of deadly heresies" here. Some of the literature I have read on the subject of the omega, in fact the majority of books and articles, have referred to it as the "omega of apostasy." But I’ve noticed that Sister White didn't call it the omega or the alpha of apostasy - She called it "Heresy". Now there is a difference of meaning in these two words and I want to point it out very quickly. When we talk about apostasy, what we are talking about is, perhaps, a falling away from the Faith (which can be in a generalized sense). It can simply be that a person just gradually departs from the faith, or it can be that somebody, perhaps not changing his mind on particular points of doctrine, just backslides or falls away. But when you talk about heresy, you are talking about a specific point of doctrine on which a person changes, or departs from the foundational truths of Christianity.

Sister White said that what Dr. Kellogg was teaching was the alpha of deadly heresies and that the omega would follow.

"Alpha" is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, and "Omega" is the last letter. What she was really saying was: 'look here, we have the beginning of this thing. This is the first deadly heresy'adding: 'we are going to see the last, the greatest, the ultimate.’ Whatever it was, it was the greatest, something of awesome proportions. She said it would follow and it would be received by many.

Let us read one more statement in which she speaks of this alpha and omega. On page 203, she says:

"Living Temple contains the alpha of these theories. I knew that the omega would follow in a little while; and I trembled for our people. I knew that I must warn our brethren and sisters not to enter into controversy over the presence and personality of God." (SM1 - 203)

Notice what she says; what she saw coming was so awesome, so devastating, that the prophet trembled for our people. She wrote all of this in the year 1904, and said it would come in a little while. Please make a note of this date because it is significant. We are going to come back and refer to it several times, because we need to be aware of the date when she wrote this in order for us to truly appreciate some of the other things that she said - we need to get a picture in our minds of the whole situation.

Now let me ask you something: When you read this, what kind of hint do you get there? What do you think Sister White is really trying to say? Let me put it another way: What do you think the issue of the omega would be? Notice what she said: "the omega will follow and I knew that I must warn our brethren and sisters not to enter into controversy over the presence and personality of God."

Well, what this says to me is that the omega, whatever it was, whatever it would be, would be something that would center around the issue of God's personality. This was exactly what Kellogg's heresy was about - it centered around the presence and the personality of God. But now when she speaks about the omega, she says: "I knew I must warn our brethren... not to enter into controversy about it."

Now I'm going to ask you another question: Why do you think Sister White would have regarded a discussion, a false doctrine concerning who God is, to be such a major thing that she would refer to it as the alpha and the omega of deadly heresy? When you talk about alpha and omega, the other letters of the alphabet are in between. There is Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon..., and all the rest of them. But she says alpha and she says omega - the beginning and the end. What I understand from this is that those other doctrines are not as important as the doctrine that concerns who God is. Now I'll demonstrate to you that this is really so:

If you believe in the Bible, and you get your beliefs from the Bible, you'll notice that the Bible teaches that the first and the greatest doctrine concerns who God is. It was put this way by Jesus:

"The first of the commandments is, hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind and strength." (Mark 12:29)

That's the first and the greatest commandment. It concerns who God is and our relationship with Him. In fact, if you look at all the different Christian denominations and even heathen religions - if you look at the creeds and the statements of beliefs of the different groups, you will find that all of them begin with the question of what the different groups believe about God. In the Catholic Church, the Apostolic creed begins: " We believe in one God Almighty". The Seventh Day Adventist Statement of Beliefs, specifically the second point, refers to the Godhead, and the original Statement of Beliefs of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, back in the 19^th century, began with what they believed about God. What is believed about God is always first, always primary; it is always of the utmost importance.

Sister White, seeing this Omega coming, said she knew she must warn our people not to enter into controversy over the presence and personality of God. In other words, she was suggesting that this Omega that was coming would be of such a nature that it would influence the thinking of the Church with regard to the subject of the presence and the personality of God. That is very significant and I think when you compare it with all the other evidence that we are going to put together, you will see that this was what she was trying to say.

Now interestingly ... should I say interestingly? …That is an understatement. Startlingly, shockingly, there has been a change in the doctrine of the S. D. A. Church. One major change, only one major change, and this change has been on the most vital doctrine.....it has been on the doctrine ... of God. Now I'm not just going to tell you that, I'm going to quote it for you. I'm going to quote it from a source that you can't doubt or question. I'm going to quote it from the official publications of the Seventh Day Adventist Church itself.

The following quotation is from the Ministry Magazine of October 1993, page 10. This magazine is an official publication of the S.D.A. Church, published for Seventh Day Adventist ministers. This article was written by George Knight, a professor at Andrews University. He says:

"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. More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2 which deals with the doctrine of the Trinity".(Ministry magazine of October 1993, page 10.)

I hope the impact of this got to you! I have to go back and point out what it said - Did you get it? He said "Most of the founders of the S.D.A. Church...." Who were they? James White, Ellen White herself, Joseph Bates, Hiram Edson - most of those early Adventists, he says, would not be able to join the church today. Why? Because they would not be able to subscribe to the denomination's fundamental beliefs! What this is saying is that, if James White came along today and asked to be admitted as a member of the Adventist Church, when he compared his beliefs with the beliefs of the Church today, he would have to turn away. He could not be a member of this church because the beliefs of this church are so different from what those early Adventists believed.

What does this say to you? It tells me that some great change has taken place in the Church since the time of James White. A change so significant that it would actually exclude him from membership in this church. What it means, in actual fact, is that the religion of the Adventist Church today is not the same as the religion of the Adventist Church in the time of James White. Furthermore, the most important point of doctrine is the point on which our religion has changed. That is a shocking point.

William Johnson, the Editor of the Adventist Review (Again, you couldn't want a more authoritative publication than the Adventist Review), writing in the Review of January 6, 1994, says:

"Adventist beliefs have changed over the years. Most startling is the teaching regarding Jesus Christ. Many of the pioneers, including James White, J.N. Andrews, Uriah Smith and J.H. Waggoner, held to an Arian or semi-Arian view. That is, that the Son at some point in time, before the creation of our world, was generated by the Father. The Trinitarian understanding of God, now part of our fundamental beliefs, was not generally held by the early Adventists. Even today, a few do not subscribe to it." (Adventist Review, January 6, 1994)

Is that so? Many of us never knew that Adventist beliefs had changed over the years! Most of us thought that the Adventism we have believed in, supported and embraced; not to mention the things that we were taught and have believed, were basically the things that God gave to the Adventist church back in the days when the prophet was alive. But what William Johnson says here is that these beliefs have changed over the years, under the impact of what he calls "present truth." Now notice how he refers to the change….he refers to it as "most startling". Bear that in mind because we will be coming back to this point. He wrote that many of the pioneers believed that the Son was generated by the Father, but he should have said that every one of them believed this because that is the evidence of history. Every single one of those pioneers embraced that belief.

So friend, you can now see that on the very admission of two high authorities in the Adventist Church itself, the beliefs of the Adventist Church on the most important doctrine of Christian faith, have been changed. I say the most important doctrine because, maybe you’ve been thinking that the most important doctrine is the Sabbath, or Health Reform, but as I said, notice that every single creed of Christian belief, and even the Bible itself, begins with the idea of what you think about God. The greatest commandment is: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord and thou shalt love the Lord thy God...." That's what it begins with because it is the most important, and on this point, the Seventh Day Adventist Church has changed from what our pioneers believed.

Now let’s go back and look at the significance of this:

Benjamin Wilkinson, the man who wrote the book entitled "Truth Triumphant" (which is being widely quoted by many of these so-called reformers), wrote a letter to Dr. T.S. Teters in 1936, saying:

"Replying to your letter of October 13 regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, I will say that Seventh Day Adventists do not, and never have accepted the dark, mysterious, Catholic doctrine of the Trinity."

So, you see, the testimony of those who lived during those days, as well as those who have studied the history of what the pioneers believed, is clearly and unanimously that our early pioneers never accepted this doctrine of the Trinity. It is something that was brought in as the result of a change which William Johnson, the Editor of the Review, referred to as a "most startling" change.

Now let's see if we can find out what is the significance of this "most startling" change. Why have I emphasized that? Because I'm going back to what Sister White wrote about the Alpha. In Selected Messages bk. 1, page 197, she wrote:

"Be not deceived; many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. We have now before us the alpha of this danger. The omega will be of a most startling nature." (SM1 - 197)

Do you recognize the words? What kind of nature? "Most startling." William Johnson comes back in 1994 and says that our beliefs have changed. "Most startling" is the doctrine concerning Jesus Christ. He uses the exact words that Sister White used. Now I think that's amazing! I think that somewhere in this is the hand of God, pointing out to those of us who have eyes to see, exactly what has taken place. The change of this fundamental belief is "the omega of deadly heresy" that Sister White was speaking about.

What did Sister White say about this apostasy? Let's look at a few more things. Today I'm quoting from Sister White, but I also want you to understand something: Sometimes when we get into an argument over a point of doctrine, one side will bring forth a lot of statements from Sister White, and the other side also brings a lot of other statements from Sister White, and both sides toss statements back and forth, which ends very inconclusively because some of the things that Sister White has written, if taken out of context, may seem to say something one way and something else another way. I am not going to approach things from that angle today. What I'm going to do is look at circumstantial evidence. As we proceed, you will see what I'm talking about and I believe the circumstantial evidence is so strong that at the end of this study you will be absolutely convinced and you will see very clearly what Sister White believed on this subject as well as what the pioneers believed about this subject. You will see the truth of the matter and you will recognize that a great apostasy has taken place in the S.D.A. Church - that the deadly heresy called the "Omega" has, indeed, been accepted by the majority of Seventh-day Adventists!

I believe that all of this can be very clearly demonstrated, so let's continue:

In Selected Messages Bk. 1,on pages 206-207, speaking of the alpha heresy, this is what Sister White says:

"Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder [Hiram] Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, 'We can do nothing more,' the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me." (SM1 - 206-207)

Well, it seems that Sister White did not give this instruction to her husband and the early pioneers because, although she said that God made plain to her a line of truth from that time till the time when we enter the city of God, these early pioneers continued to believe what most Adventists today regard as false doctrine…yet Sister White never corrected them! I mean, did God never show her that they were wrong? -- That's hard to believe….

Notice the way in which she says the doctrines, the foundations of our faith, came about. She says that they would get together and study, sometimes till late at night. But what happened? What happened when they came to the point where they just couldn't get anywhere? They were arguing back and forth, having a disagreement and they just couldn't discover what was the truth of the matter…She says the Spirit of God would come upon her, she would be given a vision and God would show her the truth of the matter. That is how the faith of these early Adventists came about.

If this is so, if it was Divine instruction that laid the foundation of the Advent faith as it was given to the pioneers, then how dare we, today, take it upon ourselves to change those doctrines? And this is what Sister White also says on page 207 of Selected Messages, Bk. 1:

"What influence is it that would lead men at this stage of our history to work in an underhand, powerful way to tear down the foundation of our faith--the foundation that was laid at the beginning of our work by prayerful study of the Word and by revelation? Upon this foundation we have been building for the past fifty years." (SM1 - 207)

Now all of this was written in the year 1904 and she says that they have been building on this for the past fifty years. Go back 50 years from 1904 and you’ll arrive at 1854. She says " for 50 years we have been building on this foundation and now men are trying to tear down the foundation." She was referring particularly to Dr. Kellogg.

Somebody might say that what the church believed about God was not really a part of the foundation of Adventism. Some people have been making a big thing out of the fact that Sister White speaks about the Pillars of our Faith, the "old landmarks", and she refers to the Sabbath, the Sanctuary, the 2300 days, the state of the dead, and so on…and she does not mention what we think about God. Hence their conclusion that what the Church thought about God was not a part of the old landmarks. Notice however, that she says "we have been building on a foundation for the past fifty years," and she explains how this foundation was solidly laid by Bible study and Divine revelation. She then says: "What influence is it that would lead men at this stage.." (Referring to Kellogg) "...to tear down this foundation?"

Was Kellogg teaching something related to the Sabbath, the State of the Dead, or the Sanctuary? Not directly. Kellogg was teaching something about God, and who God was. Clearly, Sister White considered this to be a part of our foundational beliefs because she said that this man was tearing down the foundation of our faith; and yet he was teaching something about the presence and the personality of God. Obviously, that was a part of the foundational teaching that she received back in those early days. You cannot change what the Adventist Church believes about God without hitting at the foundation that God, Himself built.

On page 208, she goes on to say:

"...Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon Seventh-day Adventists, to take the place of the truth which, point by point, has been sought out by prayerful study," (point, by point "and testified to by the miracle-working power of the Lord. But the waymarks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, as God has signified through His Word and the testimony of His Spirit.." (SM1 - 208)

Again, she says in Testimonies Vol. 8, page 297, in reference to the Kellogg situation and written in the year 1904 (a very important date. Don't forget it):

"Let none seek to tear away the foundation of our faith, the foundations that were laid at the beginning of our work by prayerful study of the Word and by revelation. Upon these foundations we have been building for the last fifty years." (T8 - 297)

She says they had been building on this foundation from 1854 to 1904. Now bear that in mind, because many people, in support of trinitarian doctrine, say that Sister White changed the thinking of the church by writing a book called " The Desire of Ages" in 1898. They say that when people began to read this book they came to understand that God is really a trinity. They say it was Sister White who changed the thinking of the church.

Now that's very interesting. In fact, Elder John Grosboll, the head of Steps to Life Independent Ministry, put out an article entitled The Godhead in the December 1996 issue of his Landmarks Magazine. He claims, in this article, that it was because of the book Desire of Ages that the Church changed its thinking…that Sister White corrected the Church on this question of the Godhead. Notice that, in the statements which I've been reading from Sister White (which were written in 1904), she does not say they have been building on the foundation since 1898,-- for the past six years. She says they have been building on a foundation for the past fifty years. She does not refer to 1898 as though some new revelation came at that time; as though the book Desire of Ages brought in any significant change. She says for the past 50 years we have been building on it. Her husband helped to build on it; J.N. Andrews, Jones, Waggoner, Uriah Smith, all these men were building on that foundation, and yet all of them were anti-trinitarian.

Now I want to point out something significant. Most of us are familiar with the writings of Sister White, so I want to ask you this: Was it her way, when a false doctrine was being taught, to simply keep quiet on the matter? To allow people to continue to teach error, and then just publish a book, and leave it to gradually change the mind of whoever might read it, without even saying to anybody "we were wrong on this matter"? Was that the way of Sister White? If that was how Sister White responded to this crisis; if that was how she changed the anti-trinitarian thinking of the S.D.A. Church, then that was strange indeed because it must have been the only time in the life of Ellen G. White that she ever responded to a false doctrine in this manner! That was not her way! You know that I'm telling the truth if you are familiar with Sister White's writings.

Here is how she usually responded to false teaching:

"After the passing of the time in 1844, we had fanaticism of every kind to meet. Testimonies of reproof were given me to bear to some holding spiritualistic theories. There were those who were active in disseminating false ideas in regard to God. Light was given me that these men were making the truth of no effect by their false teachings. I was instructed that they were misleading souls by presenting speculative theories regarding God. I went to the place where they were and opened before them the nature of their work. The Lord gave me strength to lay plainly before them their danger. This is only one of the instances in which I was called upon to rebuke those who were presenting the doctrine of an impersonal God pervading all nature, and similar errors." (T8 - 292-293)

Now, don't you think it would be extremely strange that, if her husband was teaching false doctrines and if all the leading men of her church were teaching a false idea about God, Ellen White never once corrected them saying, "this idea is wrong"? Don't you think it is strange? And yet God gave her testimonies to bear to these other people who were teaching false ideas about God. Doesn't that seem strange to you?

Now I know that this is circumstantial evidence, but it is strong evidence and if you are a thinking person you should be able to see that Ellen White could never have believed in the trinity and remained so silent among all these anti-trinitarians. It was not her way. It was not the way of God!

Russell Holt, in a term paper written for a course at Andrews University, for professor Mervyn Maxwell, has done a study on the development of the Trinity doctrine in the Seventh Day Adventist Church and how it became a doctrine. He looks at it from a positive viewpoint; in other words, he thinks it was good that the change took place. He wrote down some things I’d like to quote. On page 4 of his study, he writes:

"A survey of other writers during these years reveal that to a man they rejected the trinity."

This says that when you look through the writings of the early Adventists, every single one of them rejected the trinity. There was not a single one of them who believed in the trinity. Although many of the articles you read today will say that most of them rejected the trinity, that's not true. Every single one of them rejected the trinity! You won’t be able to find one of those early Adventists who supported this doctrine as long as they were members of the Church.

D.N. Canright rejected the trinity as long as he was an Adventist but, after he apostatized and left the Church, he wrote a book against Adventism and that was when he accepted the trinity - which fact, is probably more significant than we think.

Russell Holt goes on to speak about James White. He says:

"The evidence from his (James White's) pen seems to indicate that from his first spiritual affiliations with the "Christian Connection", until his death at the age of 60, James White opposed the Trinity both on the basis of logic and scripture, while holding a definite concept of the exalted position and divinity of Jesus Christ. The conclusion reached is intriguing due to his unique and special relationship to the Lord's messenger, who happened to be his wife. She was surely aware of his thinking on this subject. Did she approve? If not, why did he continue in his belief? Did she simply refrain from correcting him? Why? "The questions raised are fascinating, but not easily answered. At least James White, himself, can be demonstrated to have been a consistent anti-trinitarian."

Fascinating indeed! James White died in 1881, after having been married to Ellen White for about 35 years. The lady that he worked with, ate with, slept with, studied with, went around with giving sermons and messages, who was the prophet - the messenger of God, and supposedly her husband was teaching a false doctrine?? (It can be demonstrated that James White came out many times and spoke against the trinitarian concept, calling it a Catholic doctrine - yet this woman who was a prophet of God and his own wife, never said to him, "James, you're wrong on this matter"? Not even ONCE?).

Am I supposed to believe that Ellen White believed in the trinity? Well I don't know how it sounds to you but it sounds very strange and inexplicable to me. Clearly she did not believe in it. Clearly her writings are being misused today to try to say that she believed in the trinity. That's not so strange either because, do you know that this exact thing was happening during the time of Kellogg's heresy? Let’s read what Sister White said:

"In the controversy that arose among our brethren regarding the teachings of this book, those in favor of giving it a wide circulation declared: ‘It contains the very sentiments that Sister White has been teaching.’ This assertion struck right to my heart. I felt heartbroken; for I knew that this representation of the matter was not true." (SM1 - 203:)

Did you get that? They were saying that this was what Sister White had been teaching. They were using her writings. A little further down she continues:

"I am compelled to speak in denial of the claim that the teachings of Living Temple can be sustained by statements from my writings. 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, taken from their connection, and interpreted according to the mind of the writer of 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 Living Temple are in harmony with my writings. But God forbid that this sentiment should prevail." (SM1 - 203:)

Do you notice what was happening? They were using Sister White's writings; they were quoting Sister White, and she herself admitted that there were many things in her writings which, if taken out of context, would seem to be saying the same thing as Dr. Kellogg. But she says, "..God forbid that this sentiment should prevail." If you are familiar with Sister White's writings, you will recognize that sometimes you come upon a statement which seems to be saying something, and it sounds strange to you because it doesn't seem to be consistent with what she said somewhere else. It's only when you begin to look at it in context to get the main point that she was trying to make, that you can make sense out of it. You'll find that happening many times.

Today, they are using Sister White's writings (and we are going to look at that a little more closely to see exactly how Sister White's writings have been manipulated to try to support this trinitarian doctrine) in the same way. She said it was happening back then in the "alpha" and we should reasonably expect it to be happening in the days of the " omega."

Now let's look at some more circumstantial evidence concerning what Sister White believed. Let's look at the messages of Jones and Waggoner. Most of us are familiar with what happened in 1888. Most of us know that in 1888 God sent a special message to the S.D.A. Church through two young ministers, elders A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner. Sister White endorsed this message that came through them.

In the General Conference session which was held at Minneapolis, these two young men came with a message that lifted up Christ before the people; and when Sister White heard the message she said that everything inside of her was saying "Amen". While the Church generally rejected the message, Sister White always endorsed and supported it. This is what she had to say about the message that Jones and Waggoner brought to the Church:

"This is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. It is the third angel's message which is to be proclaimed with a loud voice and attended with the outpouring of the Spirit in large measure." (Testimonies to Ministers, page 92)

"The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through elders Waggoner and Jones." (ibid. p.91)

She never had one negative thing to say about the message that they carried. In fact, she said in one place that even if the men were to leave the faith, the message that they brought was from God.

In 1890, Waggoner wrote a book called Christ and His Righteousness which has been reprinted by the Adventist Church. We are told that this book expresses basically, what Waggoner was teaching in 1888. That's interesting, because now I want to read something from that book for you, from the section entitled "Is Christ a Created Being?":

"The Scriptures declare that Christ is the only begotten Son of God. He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to enquire, neither could our minds grasp it if we were told. There was a time when Christ came forth and proceeded from God, from the bosom of the Father, but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning."

What he is saying here, is that there was a time when Christ had a beginning; a time when He came out of the Father. But he said it was so far back that to our human understanding, it's as good as without a beginning.

Now this is what Waggoner was teaching as a part of his message back there in 1888. This is a part of the message that Sister White said God commanded to be given to the world. This is a part of what she called "..a most precious message..", and she never said to Waggoner "Look here! Just go and correct that little part and then the message will be all right." She never said that because she endorsed the message. This is another piece of circumstantial evidence which shows us what Sister White must have believed on the matter.

One more piece of evidence. I will read now from a letter which was written by Sister White's own son, Willie White. If Sister White was so clear on this question of the trinity, surely her husband must have known what she believed. What about her own son, Willie White? What about her other son James Edson White? It can be demonstrated that as late as 1909, James Edson White was writing anti-trinitarian material.

In 1935 H.W. Carr wrote a letter to Willie White asking him: "Will you kindly tell me what you understand was your mother's position in reference to the personality of the Holy Spirit?" Here is Willie White's response:

"In your letter you request me to tell you what I understand to be my mother's position in reference to the personality of the Holy Spirit. This I cannot do, because I never clearly understood her teachings on the matter. There always was in my mind some perplexity regarding the meaning of her utterances, which to my superficial manner of thinking, seemed to be somewhat confusing. I have often regretted that I did not possess that keenness of mind that could solve this, and similar perplexities."

This was Sister White's own son writing in 1935 and he still was not able to say whether or not his mother believed in the trinity. He says "based on her writings I can't tell." This bears out what I said a little earlier - that sometimes you will find, in her writings, things which seem to say one thing and then other things which seem to say something else. It depends on the context in which she was writing, but the circumstantial evidence: the fact of her silence over all the years, even with an anti-trinitarian husband; the fact that she never came out and rebuked people for this false belief on the most important point of Christian faith; all of these things must make us understand that Sister White never believed in the trinity.

Now this is what Willie White said a little later:

"The statements and the arguments of some of our ministers, in their effort to prove that the Holy Spirit is an individual as are God the Father and Christ the eternal Son, have perplexed me, and sometimes they have made me sad."

Clearly this was an anti-trinitarian statement from Sister White's own son. Surely, if his mother had believed in the trinity, he should know. But obviously, Sister White's teachings on the subject were not such as to convince her son that she was trinitarian.

Now let's look at how the change really came about in the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Many people are saying that Sister White brought about the change, but we have seen that this could not have been. Let's see how it really happened…

The chief architect in this trinitarian heresy was really one of the "great" theologian/historians in the Church. Just as in the "alpha of apostasy", when the perpetrator, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, was one of the most highly educated minds in the Church, so in the "omega" it was one of the most highly educated minds - a man named LeRoy Froom, who was the leading historian in the S.D.A. Church. It was this LeRoy Froom who introduced the trinitarian doctrine to the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and almost single-handedly insinuated it into the beliefs of the Church. Today, it is accepted (by those of us who don't know better) that this is the correct Biblical understanding, and that this is what Seventh Day Adventists have always believed.

Let’s read from LeRoy Froom's own writings. In his book Movement of Destiny, which was published in 1971, on page 322, he writes:

"May I here make a frank, personal confession. When back between 1926 and 1928 I was asked by our leaders to give a series of studies on "The Holy Spirit..." (Notice the subject) "...covering the North American Union Ministerial Institute of 1928, I found that aside from priceless leads found in the Spirit of Prophecy, there was practically nothing in our literature setting forth a sound, Biblical exposition in this tremendous field of study. There were no previous pathfinding books on the question in our literature. I was compelled to search out a score of valuable books written by men outside of our Faith." (Movement of Destiny - 322)

Now notice where LeRoy Froom went to get information on the subject of "The Holy Spirit." He says that "in our literature" he could hardly find anything. Why is it that he couldn't find anything in our literature? It wasn’t because none of our pioneers had written anything on the subject of "The Holy Spirit", but because none of them had written on the subject, taking the point of view that Froom considered to be the correct point of view. None of them were trinitarians. So he said he could hardly find anything in our literature; even when he went to Sister White's writings all that he said he could find were "priceless leads". So what does LeRoy Froom do? He says he was "compelled to search out a score of valuable books written by men outside of our Faith." In other words, he went to the teachings of Babylon to get information on the question of the Holy Spirit.

He goes on to say:

"Having these, I went on from there; but they were decided early helps and scores, if not hundreds could confirm the same sobering conviction that some of these men frequently had a deeper insight into the Spiritual things of God than many of our own men then had on the Holy Spirit and the triumphant life." (Movement of Destiny - 322)

This was in 1928, and that was where LeRoy Froom first began to propagate this trinitarian idea in the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

Shortly afterwards he published a book called "The Coming of The Comforter," which is a book on the Holy Spirit which is still being widely used by the Seventh Day Adventist denomination. This book also expresses the trinitarian concept. Froom also had something to say about this:

Writing to Dr. Otto H. Christiansen on October 27, 1960, he said:

"May I state that my book, The Coming of The Comforter, was the result of a series of studies that I gave in 1927 - 28, 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."

Notice who he said objected to what he was saying: "some of the old-timers". What does this tell you? It says that the old-timers, or the pioneers, opposed Froom; those who knew what the Church had believed during the time when Sister White was alive; they knew what the Church believed, and so, when LeRoy Froom began to bring in this trinitarian idea, he said he was pummeled by some of these "old-timers".

Notice something else: Sister White died in 1915, and up to the time that she died, there was no controversy over the question of the trinity, or the personality of the Holy Spirit, or the Sonship of Jesus in relation to God the Father. These were things which had been accepted by Seventh Day Adventists and they had a common faith with no controversy. It was after she died in 1915 that these new ideas began to creep in and, as LeRoy Froom said, when he presented these ideas he was pummeled by what he called "the old-timers."

He goes on to say:

"Some men denied that...still deny it, but the book has come to be generally accepted as standard."

Now I want to read another comment from Russell Holt’s term paper, which was done for Dr. Mervyn Maxwell. Remember that he believes the change was a positive move for the Church, but it is amazing how he describes what happened and, as I read it, I am thinking "what an amazing description of a falling-away from the faith." He has broken up the early Church history into three periods. The first time period is 1844-1890, and he says that during this time:

"the field was dominated by those who saw the trinity as illogical, unscriptural, pagan and subversive of the atonement. ....anti-trinitarianism is the evident denominational stance."

He next refers to the time period of 1890-1900, saying:

"Roughly within this period, the course of the denomination on the trinity was decided by statements from Ellen G. White."

We have looked at this already and we have seen that Ellen White never once said that the pioneers were wrong. The statements from Ellen White to which he refers are supposedly found in books like The Desire of Ages, where, it is said, that she wrote things which show that God is a trinity. Yet, at the same time, she never corrected the denomination nor the people who were her fellow-laborers in the Church, which seems inexplicable. It seems more likely that what has been happening is that people have been misusing or misinterpreting Sister White's writings in order to push a position which some found to be more popular; which would make them more acceptable to the people of the world.

The Adventist Church has been leaning in that direction ever since Sister White died, and probably from even before…seeking to be popular, seeking to be like the other churches. This is apparently what has happened and, just like they did during the time of Kellogg, they have been using Sister White's writings to support this apostasy.

Holt goes on to talk about the time period of 1900-1930. Remember that Sister White died in the middle of this period. He says:

"This period saw the death of most of those pioneers who had championed and held the anti-trinitarian position. Their places were being taken by men who were changing their thinking, or had never opposed the doctrine....."

Now notice a significant thing here - the change did not take place because the pioneers had changed their thinking. The change came about because those who were anti-trinitarian died! In other words, a new generation came up which did not know what the early Adventist Faith or beliefs were. A different generation came up which adopted new beliefs. That is very significant. I have a name for that. The Bible has a name for that. We call it apostasy; we call it a falling away; we call it a departure from the Faith.

Holt continues:

"….The trinity began to be published, until by 1931 it had triumphed, and had become the standard denominational position. Isolated stalwarts remained who refused to yield, but the outcome had been decided."

What striking words! Indeed, darkness had triumphed in the Church. Friend, as I read this I had to write in the margin, "A description of apostasy!" We don't have a change here which is based on men studying the Bible and changing their opinions. The change came about because the men who believed one thing, died off, still holding what they believed to be Bible truth. The historical Adventists died, and the new Adventists came on the scene, bringing with them a different belief.

We are in a different Church today. It's not the same Church that those pioneers belonged to.

The next step in the apostasy was to adopt a pro-trinitarian Statement of Beliefs. In 1931, F.M. Wilcox included the term "trinity " in the S.D.A. Yearbook, and this was the first time that this term was seen in any Adventist Statement of Beliefs. In fact, Russell Holt also has a comment on this. It is really amazing how these men can phrase the truth in such striking language, yet fail to see exactly what they are saying. He says on page 12 of his study:

"A comparison of statements of faith issued at various times by the denomination shows a marked change in the opinion of the church concerning the trinity ...."

Now note these words and notice something that Sister White said. She said that if the "omega" succeeded, our religion would be changed. We will come to this in a moment.

"... Separate statements appeared in 1874, 1889, 1894 and 1931. The first three of these are, for all practical purposes, identical in the articles dealing with the deity. A comparison of the statements of 1874 and 1931 shows the change."

In other words, on the point of faith that dealt with God, there was no change during the time when Sister White was alive. However, after the prophet died, a change was made in the Statement of Beliefs concerning the Godhead. Most of us are aware that point number 2 of the present Statement of Beliefs begins by saying that there is one God. But it defines this one God as being three persons. Belief number 2 of the 1980 Statement of Beliefs says:

That's what the Church teaches today: that the one God is three persons. But the old Adventist Statements of Beliefs which appeared while Sister White was alive, had it like this (This one appeared in 1874 in the Adventist Review):

"1. That there is one God a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by His representative, the Holy Spirit.

"2. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist;..."

This Statement of Beliefs, put out by the pioneers, teaches clearly that there is one God who is the Father; that Jesus Christ is His Son and the agent through whom God created all things, and that the Holy Spirit is the agency through which God is represented throughout all creation.

Now this brother says that there has been a marked change and that this change took place after Sister White died; or, to be more accurate, there was no change in the Statement of Beliefs while Sister White was alive. It was after she died that the change appeared. In 1931, as I said, it was put into the Adventist Yearbook: for the first time the term "trinity" appeared, and history testifies to the fact that this change was widely opposed.

In fact, J.S. Washburn, (a retired Adventist minister), opposed this change in the strongest possible terms. Below, are quotations from a letter which he wrote in 1939:

"The doctrine of the trinity is a cruel, heathen monstrosity, removing Jesus from His true position of Divine Saviour and mediator.... Satan has taken some heathen conception of a three-headed monstrosity, and with deliberate intention to cast contempt upon divinity, has woven it into Romanism as our glorious God; an impossible, absurd invention. This monstrous doctrine transplanted from heathenism into the Roman, papal church is seeking to intrude its evil presence into the teachings of the Third Angel's Message."

Notice here that he said it "..is seeking to intrude its evil presence..". This was written in 1939 so, even up to that time, the trinity doctrine was not established in the Adventist Church although it was beginning to creep in (Don't let anybody deceive you that Sister White changed the thinking of the Church and that it was an accepted fact by the time she died).

"If we should go back to the immortality of the soul, purgatory, eternal torment and the Sunday Sabbath, would that be anything less than apostasy? If however we leap over all these minor, secondary doctrines and accept and teach the very central, root doctrine of Romanism, the trinity, and teach that the Son of God did not die, even though our words seemed to be spiritual, is this anything else and anything less than apostasy and the very omega of apostasy?"

Now this man uses strong words, but it is understandable because he knew what the early Adventists believed (he was one of them) and he saw this thing coming in as grave apostasy, so he was opposing it in the strongest possible terms. You will notice that he refers to the trinity doctrine as a Roman Catholic doctrine. What many of us don't know, is that the trinitarian doctrine is, in the fullest sense, an invention of the Catholic church.

Let me just read one or two quotations here from Roman Catholic sources. Please read carefully:

[Catholicism] "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".

[Handbook for Today's Catholic. Pg. 16] "The mystery of the trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the church."

Now think of all the implications of this: If this is really the foundation of the Roman Catholic church, then all the other strange beliefs of that church such as purgatory, baptism for the dead, infant baptism, the Eucharist, the mediation of Mary and the "Saints"; all these strange beliefs came into the Catholic religion as a result of their holding to this belief in the trinity. That is what they say themselves.

Think about what this implies for Seventh-day Adventism if we accept the same trinitarian doctrine.

The next step in this creeping apostasy that was being perpetrated by LeRoy Froom, the chief architect, along with his other cohorts, was that in 1932, this pro-trinitarian Statement of Beliefs was added to the first Church Manual and all succeeding Adventist Yearbooks. It had not been voted on by the Church at large, by the General Conference, nor even by a representative body of the leaders of the S.D.A. Church. It was just put into the Yearbook by F.M. Wilcox.

The following year, it appeared in the Statement of Beliefs in the Church Manual, and then it began to appear in all the Church books. Those who bothered to read the Yearbook, those who bothered to read the Manual, just saw the term "trinity" appear. I suppose most people never really gave it much thought, although, as I said, there were a few who were violently opposed to what was happening.

Then, in 1941, the Baptismal Vow was revised to include the trinitarian statement. In other words, now, in order to become a Seventh-day Adventist you had to agree to belief in the trinity. I suppose that every one of us who was ever baptized as a Seventh-day Adventist was asked "Do you believe that there is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit?", and I suppose we all said "yes" to that belief (I didn't know better). Again, I want to read something that LeRoy Froom had to say about this (He has left a trail, thank God, that clearly identifies what he was up to).

In a letter written to Roy Allan Anderson, J.L. Schuler, Denton Reebok, A.W. Peterson, W.G. Turner and J.E. Weaver; November 22,1966; LeRoy Froom says:

"I am writing to you brethren as a group for you are the only living members of the original committee of 13, appointed in 1931 to frame a uniform baptismal covenant. Elder Branson was the chairman and I was Secretary. Elder Macalaney, Wright, Ruling and Russell are all deceased. The task of this committee was to formulate a uniform baptismal covenant and vow based on the 1931 Fundamental Beliefs statement in the yearbook and Manual. It was also to point up a bit more sharply, the first, second and third persons of the Godhead."

Notice the stated intention of Froom and his committee: one of their aims was to push this doctrine of God as a trinity. You can see that it was a deliberate move, underhanded and sneaky, but deliberate!

The next step was that, in 1945, all the standard Adventist books were edited, and all the anti-trinitarian statements taken from them. In his book Movement of Destiny, page 422, LeRoy Froom again says:

"The next logical and inevitable step in the implementing of our unified fundamental beliefs, involved revision of certain standard works, so as to eliminate statements that taught, and thus perpetuated erroneous views on the Godhead. Such sentiments were now sharply at variance with the accepted fundamental beliefs set forth in the Church Manual." (Movement of Destiny, page 422)

The Church had now reached a place where the books written by the pioneers were now "sharply at variance" with the accepted beliefs of the Adventist Church. It was not the pioneers who had changed - but something had drastically changed. This man, LeRoy Froom, had taken the Church to the place where the trinity was now so accepted as a part of our beliefs that they went through and changed the books.

Uriah Smith's book, Daniel and The Revelation contained 18 non-trinitarian statements. They went through (after he was dead), and removed all of those statements.

The next step was the compilation of the book Evangelism, which was compiled from the writings of Ellen White. I cannot stress enough the significance of this, because you'll remember that back in the time of the "alpha," Sister White said they were using her writings, and she said that if they took statements from her writings and used them out of context, it would seem that she and Kellogg were teaching the same thing.

Now, LeRoy Froom and a few others went through and picked out statements from Sister White's writings which seemed to support their point of view and they put them together in a book called Evangelism. This book is now presented to the world as what Sister White believed on the trinity, and certain other key beliefs. This is the book most often used now (from the writings of Sister White), to support the trinitarian idea. But listen to what Froom had to say about it in a letter he wrote to Roy Allan Anderson on January 18, 1966:

"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, the 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 Cluser and I had considerable to do with the selection of those things under the encouragement of men like Elder Branson, who felt that the earlier concept of the White Estate brethren on this book on evangelism was not adequate."

Did you get that? It was Miss Cluser, and Roy Allan Anderson who were largely responsible for selecting the things which were put in the book Evangelism. Just like in the "alpha" they were using quotations from Ellen White. However, when the "alpha" took place, Sister White was still around to say, "That's not what I believe. I am being misquoted." Sister White is not around today. There is no prophetic voice to say "this is not true", and so the deception has been pawned off on the rest of us. But there is enough evidence for those who are thinking, to see the truth on the matter. The apostasy continued:

In 1955 there were some meetings of the leaders of the Adventist Church with Barnhouse and Martin, two evangelical theologians who felt that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was a cult. They were about to write a book in which we were going to be classified as a cult, and our leaders figured that this would make us very unpopular. So they met with these men to try to prove that we were not a cult. In order to do this, they had to water down our doctrines. They said, "We believe in the trinity", "We believe that Christ came with an unfallen human nature". They said, "Oh we don't believe the atonement is taking place in Heaven right now", and gave a watered down version of our doctrines.

1980 was the first time that the trinitarian belief was voted in a General Conference Session. It was not even discussed then, either. They just voted on all the beliefs as a whole, and included in them was the belief in, and acceptance of, the trinity. So now, if you are a Seventh-day Adventist, you are officially supposed to believe in the trinitarian doctrine because this is the official teaching of the Church today.

This is such a significant change from what the pioneers believed that we are told that they could not have been members of the Church today.

Now let us look at the implications of this change:

If this change is ordained of God and is more in keeping with His will, it means that for the first fifty-four years (1844-1898), the Seventh-day Adventist Church was wrong in what it was teaching about God. The most fundamental principle of Christian belief - we were wrong on that issue; while at the same time, the Roman Catholic Church and all her daughters (Babylonian daughters), were correct.

Do you see the significance of this? We said that we had light to give to the world. We said that God taught us our doctrines, but we were wrong on the most important doctrine of Christian faith - while the churches that we call Babylon were correct. What does that say about us as a prophetic movement? You would have to question whether it was really God who called us if those who changed the doctrine were correct. It would mean that Babylon taught us the truth.

Sister White had prophesied all of this and I would like to read a section from Selected Messages, book 1, pages 204-205. Please make careful note of what she says here because, although I know that Ellen White was a prophet, I am amazed as I read this. It strikes conviction home to my heart with even greater force when I see what she wrote and how it was fulfilled. Now here is what she said:

"In a vision of the night I was shown distinctly that these sentiments (she is referring to the alpha), have been looked upon by some as the grand truths that are to be brought in and made prominent at the present time. I was shown a platform, braced by solid timbers--the truths of the Word of God. Some one high in responsibility in the medical work was directing this man and that man to loosen the timbers supporting the platform. Then I heard a voice saying, "Where are the watchmen that ought to be standing on the walls of Zion? Are they asleep? This foundation was built by the Master Worker,.." (SM1, p. 204-205)

That was the foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. She said it was built by the Master Worker. It's amazing that we can read these statements and still believe that these pioneers were wrong on the most important points of Christian belief.