DUDLEY M.

CANRIGHT DEBUNKED
BY ELLEN G. WHITE!!!!
A 2019 EXPOSE BY DERRICK GILLESPIE
“The Holy Spirit is not a person….but is an influence proceeding from God”
---D.M. Canright, Signs of the Times, July 25, 1878, pg. 218

“…what is the meaning of the word person? … It always means an intelligent

being, having a body, shape, and form….it always means an individual with an
organized shape and form… [and] who says that a spirit is not a person, and has no
form, no body, no substance? That is all assumption”
---D.M. Canright, Review and Sabbath Herald, Sept. 12, 1878, pgs. 89-90

“The Holy Spirit is a person … The Holy Spirit has a personality, [or
individuality] … He must also be a divine person….”
-- E.G. White, Manuscript 20, 1906.
“We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is *AS much a person as
God is a person, is walking through these grounds.
---E.G. White, Manuscript 66, 1899

* This free eBook is best read with a live Internet Connection.

NOT FOR SALE!

 Introduction:
Dudley M. Canright was one of Seventh-day Adventism’s most noted pioneers (as a preacher
and defender of the faith) before he apostatized from the SDA Church in 1887. He was noted as
one of the finest theological minds who later became a critic of the SDA Church after his
departure/defection from Adventism, and his book attacking
Adventism -- “Seventh-day Adventism Renounced”, 1889-- is
considered a “cultural classic” in the area of polemics or
theological debate. See his picture right. While he was an SDA
member, he was one of the staunchest defender of the anti-
Trinitarian faith that the earliest SDA pioneers were known for up
to the 1880s and early 1890s…until the pioneers themselves
started to make a change especially after the 1890s. *Click all
links for more. In the 1870s Canright released a series of articles
in the Review and Herald and Signs of the Times SDA periodicals;
articles which addressed the topics of the personality of God and
the nature of the Holy Spirit. His articles are considered some of the best expositions of the
anti-Trinitarian viewpoint that the early non-Trinitarian SDAs held before their change to a
revised type of Trinitarian belief, as started and developed by the SDA pioneers themselves.

Ellen G. White, the most noted SDA pioneer, as well as the Church’s acknowledged
“prophetess” (she died in 1915), she is believed to be among those key SDA pioneers who led
the SDA Church away from the semi-Arian and anti-Trinitarian doctrine as defended by D.M.
Canright while he was an SDA pioneer. Now, some today (the anti-Trinitarian dissidents in
Adventism) don’t believe that there is/was any difference between D.M. Canrigt’s semi-Arian or
non-Trinitarian faith, and that of Mrs. White’s utterances. But the purpose of this paper is to
show the stark contrast between the utterances of these two
pioneers, and to prove that Mrs. White, especially in years
after 1888, actually debunked much of D.M. Canright’s
penned articles of the 1870s on the matter of the personality
of God, and on the nature of the Holy Spirit….proving that
she evolved from being a semi-Arian to one who held a
revised Trinitarian viewpoint. The very title page (cover) of
this presentation, with contrasting opening quotes between
Canright and Mrs. White, sets the stage for me to clearly
prove what I am here saying. Let’s start out by illustrating the
above described by repeating those quotes on the title page:

MRS WHITE DEBUNKS CANRIGHT ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

“The Holy Spirit is not a person….but is an influence proceeding from God”

---D.M. Canright, Signs of the Times, July 25, 1878, pg. 218
“…what is the meaning of the word person? … It always means an intelligent being, having a
body, shape, and form….it always means an individual with an organized shape and form…
[and] who says that a spirit is not a person, and has no form, no body, no substance? That is
all assumption”
---D.M. Canright, Review and Sabbath Herald, Sept. 12, 1878, pgs. 89-90
“The Holy Spirit is a person … The Holy Spirit has a personality, [or individuality] … He
must also be a divine person….” -- E.G. White, Manuscript 20, 1906.
“We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is *AS much a person *AS God is a person,
is walking through these grounds.
---E.G. White, Manuscript 66, 1899

The foregoing quotes are really telling, and D.M. Canright himself made it so plain for any
honest and objective reader to arrive at a clear definition of what or who a person is….in his
own words it’s “an intelligent being”, or “an individual” who is “always” meant, and even
someone called a “a spirit” can be a person or individual.

Mrs. White did agree partially with Canright’s definition of who a person is (confirmed in the
1828 Webster’s dictionary of American English of their time), as can be seen clearly when she
was speaking of the “distinct persons” or “distinct personalities” or “distinct personages” of
God the Father and Jesus his Son (keep in mind that the words “persons”, “personalities”,
“personages” and “beings” are synonyms, or they mean the same thing…they all refer to
individuals).

"In.... Scripture God [the Father] and Christ [the Messiah] are spoken of
as two distinct personalities, each acting in their own individuality
---E.G. White, Manuscript 145, 1905 (Diary, October 31, 1905.)

“The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity,
a distinct person, yet one with the Father.”
----E.G. White, The Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899

“Christ is one with the Father, but Christ and God [the Father] are two distinct personages”
---E.G. White RH June 1, 1905

*Mrs. White proves clearly in the above quotes that when she either numbered the persons,
personages, or personalities being spoken of (e.g. “two”, “three”), or when she used the
expression a "distinct personality" it simply meant that separate persons or individuals or
beings are in view compared to another or to others, and this is a rather crucial point to note
as we proceed. We will come back to this vital point a bit later. It will get even more interesting.

Canright insisted that a person, even a spirit person, must always be an intelligent being or individual,
and added that he must have a body, shape, and form, but here now is where Mrs. White debunked
him. In total repudiation of his view that “the Holy Spirit is not a person”, and leaping over all his
labored arguments opposed to the Holy Spirit’s personhood, she said the total opposite, and she
appealed to the SDA pioneers at the time who held Canright’s view as expressed in 1878, by saying:

“The Holy Spirit is a person … The Holy Spirit has a personality, [or individuality] … He must also be a
divine person….” “We [SDA pioneers] need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is *AS much a person
*AS God is a person, is walking through these grounds.”
Now, since Canright defined a person as an intelligent being or individual, and denied that the
Holy Spirit is a person, by Mrs. White saying the total opposite, and later numbering the Holy
Spirit as being among “three persons”, or better yet, among “three LIVING persons”, or
“three living personalities” of the “eternal Godhead” (these quotes will be supplied shortly),
then we KNOW she was thereafter accepting the Holy Spirit as a separate being, EVEN IF NO
ONE KNOWS WHAT HE LOOKS LIKE, AND DESPITE HIS NATURE AS A LIVING OMNI-PRESENT PERSON IS “A
MYSTERY” IN MANY RESPECTS (as Mrs. White herself affirmed). Clearly to Mrs. White personhood is
not only tied to having a body, shape and permanent form, but rather to having a mind, will,
emotions, the capacity to love, to personally interact, etc. Canright both made plain what his
non-Trinitarian view was about the Holy Spirit and what a Trinitarian view of the Spirit would
be. Note carefully:

“All Trinitarian creeds make the Holy Ghost a person, equal in substance, power, eternity;
and glory with the Father and Son. Thus they claim three persons in the
trinity [or Godhead], each one equal with both the others. If this be so,
then the Holy Spirit is just as truly an, individual intelligent person as is the
Father or the Son. But this we [the SDA non-Trinitarian pioneers in 1878]
cannot believe. The Holy Spirit is not a person. In all our prayers we
naturally conceive of, God as a person, and of the Son as a person; but
who ever conceived of the Holy Ghost as being a person…”
---D.M. Canright, Signs of the Times, July 25, 1878, pg. 218

Three levels of proof exist that, first, Mrs. White totally repudiated Canright’s non-Trinitarian
view regarding the Holy Spirit’s so-called non-personality that he spoke of in 1878, and, second,
that she adopted a Trinitarian-type view, but with certain revisions.

PROOFS MRS WHITE MEANT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A SEPARATE BEING,

IN OPPOSITION TO CANRIGHT’S EARLIER 1878 VIEW

First, in her own 1892 publication Steps to Christ (published while she was alive) she made it as
plain as plain can be. In this widely read book, “STEPS TO CHRIST”,
she makes the following crucial point for the very first time:

“the unceasing interest of *heavenly BEINGS – all are enlisted in

behalf of man’s redemption”
---Steps to Christ, 1892, pgs. 20-21

Who are these “BEINGS” she was referring to as “enlisted on behalf

of man’s redemption”? Considering that usually
only separate living persons or personal beings are
referred to as “enlisted”, now notice carefully, in
the *lines directly preceding this statement, the list of “BEINGS” that she
intended to highlight (inserts in brackets are mine, for emphasis):

“… [1] The Savior’s *Jesus’+ life and death and resurrection, [2] the ministry of
angels, [3] the pleading of the *SPIRIT, [4] the Father working above and through all…”
–Steps to Christ, 1892, pgs. 20-21
Notice she listed them separately, by use of the comma, and she mentioned the Spirit
separately in the list of “heavenly beings”, and separately listed him from the Father and the
Son. In fact she listed Jesus separately from the Holy Spirit… listing Jesus first, the angels next
among these “heavenly beings”, then the Holy Spirit, and then finally the Father as the head
of all the listed “heavenly beings”!! No one, or no power on earth, can make me mistake the
meaning here!! This was the first time she ever described the Holy Spirit as a personal “being”
among the other personal beings in heaven, and so she was now clearly repudiating Canright as
well as others who held his 1878 view that the Holy Spirit is not an individual being.

Now, no true Adventist will deny that in Heaven there are *originally two sets of “Heavenly
beings”, namely *1+ angels and *2+ the members of the Godhead. Even Canright acknowledged
in his 1878 non-Trinitarian articles that all heavenly intelligences are living beings (but he
excluded the Holy Spirit as an “intelligence” or an intelligent being because of his non-
Trinitarian view). Now notice carefully here that Mrs. White clearly
mentions/lists the Holy Spirit separately from Jesus in the same
paragraph, and as one of the “heavenly BEINGS” showing “unceasing
interest” in, and was “enlisted in behalf of man’s redemption”. Some
dissident anti-Trinitarians today in Adventism (who want to hold on to
Canright’s now EGW-debunked view), when faced with this truth (and
convicting piece of evidence), they may try to escape it or explain it away.
The question is then, what more evidence do they need? Well, since they
need further proof, here now is the second level of proof she presented to indicate she was
debunking Canright on the issue.

Secondly, we see Mrs. White later (seven years after 1892) appealing to the resistant SDA
brethren in 1899 that “we NEED to realize that the Spirit is as much a person as God is a
person”, and thereafter she began to repeatedly list him as a “distinct personality” among
“three living personalities” or among three living individuals (explaining why her 1906 recorded
sermon by a scribe had her calling them “the three holiest beings in heaven”, since that is
what the words “three living personalities” would literally mean, as seen in the Webster’s
Dictionary of 1828 (check each word meaning in that dictionary of her time and see). If she was
not going against the earlier expressed view of Canright and the other non-Trinitarian
pioneers, then there would be no need for her to make that 1899 appeal, and then thereafter
start to repeatedly list the Holy Spirit among “three persons” or “three living personalities” of
the Godhead; something she never did before 1878 or before 1888! Here are her own post-
1878 words, i.e. all coming after the 1870s and 1880s:

"Christ gave His representative, the third person of the Godhead [i.e. the third person among
three persons], the Holy Spirit.” [*Remember this was always distinctly a Trinitarian expression]
---E.G. White, Manuscript 44, 1898

*VITAL TO NOTE: Someone's representative is always another individual acting on your

behalf, or "personifying" or imitating you as if you yourself is in action; never you yourself
literally!! God the Father sent his own “wisdom and power” (1 Cor. 1:24) or “a part of himself”
(E.G. White, Letter 36a, Sept. 18, 1890) to represent him on earth, and yet it was Jesus as a
distinct personality from him, acting as his “representative. So too, Jesus is depicted today as
sending his own “spirit”, and yet it’s a “distinct personality” from him being his “sent”
“representative”. The same rules of logic and consistency must be applied here, explaining why
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together in the Godhead are “three persons”, or “the three
holiest beings in heaven”…not just two beings that Canright presented in 1878!! Proof from
Mrs. White herself?

“The work is laid out before every soul that has acknowledged his faith in Jesus Christ by
baptism, and has become a receiver of the pledge from the three persons--the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit” ---E.G. White, Manuscript, 57, 1900

“When we have accepted Christ, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit have pledged ourselves to serve God, the Father, Christ, *AND the Holy Spirit --the
three dignitaries and powers [or royal rulers] of heaven--pledge themselves that every facility
shall be given to us if we carry out our baptismal vows ...” ----E.G. White, Manuscript 85, 1901
**Keep in mind that it’s only who is our God we should serve or worship in this sense --Joshua
24:15-- and only separate beings have “selves” and can pledge “themselves”]

" There are three living persons of the heavenly trio… —the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit…."
---E.G. White, Manuscript 21, 1906 [*a true living person is always separate as an individual]

"Christ said. Go, teach, bring into discipleship, all nations. Give them the knowledge of the
truth of My gospel, which is founded on truth. Lead them to understand that the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost are heaven’s loving, powerful agencies for the accomplishment of the
work of representing God in the world."
---E.G. White, Letter 93, 1900
[*Keeping in mind that only a real living person can be "loving", just as the Holy Spirit is
depicted in Romans 15:30, and notice it’s all three who represent who God is; i.e. God is three
beings, and this explains why a scribe in 1906 faithfully recorded Mrs. White speaking of God as
“the three holiest *BEINGS in heaven” that she prayed to equally as “the three great
Worthies”.]

“You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of the three holiest
*beings in heaven, who are able to keep you from falling… When I feel oppressed and hardly
know how to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, I just call upon the
three great Worthies, and say: You know I cannot do this work in my own strength. You must
work in me, and by me, and through me… And this is the prayer that every one of us may
offer.” *Keeping in mind that it’s only to who is
our God we should pray to in this sense]
---E.G. White, Manuscript, 95, 1906

Finally, the ultimate proof that she was not

making the Holy Spirit the literal person of Jesus
(as some would argue today), but rather he’s a
separate personality, or person or being who is
simply sent by Jesus to represent him, is in her
saying:

“The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ’s name. He personifies Christ, [or impersonates him]
yet is a distinct personality [or separate individual]….” ---E.G. White, Manuscript 93, 1893
If the Holy Spirit was literally Christ in person to her, there is no way she could say “we
cannot be with Christ in person as were his first disciples” (Ms. 30, June 18, 1900) even while
saying "We want the Holy Spirit, which is Jesus Christ....” (Letter 66, April 10, 1894).
Explanation of this seeming contradiction, which is in reality simply a paradox? It’s rather
simple. Since she at times called Jesus “God himself” (click this link for proof), and since all
along when she wanted to distinguish the separate or personal individuality
of Jesus (one divine “power” or sovereign ruler) from his Father (another
“power” or sovereign ruler) she spoke of one being a “distinct personality”
or intelligent being from the other, then her intent in the foregoing quotes
is unmistakable. The Holy Spirit is a separate “representative” person or
being or “power” or sovereign ruler from Jesus, since she deemed all three
as “powers omniscient and infinite”… and remember only a person who’s
God in nature is omniscient and infinite!! Proof? "...the Spirit, being God, knoweth the mind of
God...” (EGW, Signs of the Times, October 3, 1892). “God *Himself [i.e. Jesus] became man…”
(EGW, Youth Instructor, Aug. 31, 1887). The Spirit is God, and the Son is “God himself”, and yet
God the Father and the Son as “God himself” are distinct persons. Note carefully:

“The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, powers infinite and omniscient, receive those who
truly enter into covenant relation with God. They are present at every baptism, to receive the
candidates who have renounced the world and have received Christ into the soul temple. These
candidates have entered into the family of God…” ---E.G. White, Manuscript 27, 1900

And, despite she also called all three of them “the three great personal Dignitaries of heaven”
or “powers” (i.e. separate beings as divine rulers), yet she at times also united them as one
sovereign ruler or “power” (singular) with the one “name’ of Jehovah:

"By our baptismal pledge we avouched and solemnly confessed the Lord Jehovah as our Ruler.
We virtually took a solemn oath, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, that henceforth our lives would be merged into the life of these three great agencies, "
---E.G. White, Manuscript 67, 1907
*An “agency” represents another or a group, and notice that even the Father of Jesus is deemed
an “agency” of the Godhead+

"After we have formed a union with the great threefold Power [or Sovereign or Ruler;
singular], we shall regard our duty toward the members of God’s family with a sacred awe.
---E.G. White, Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901

Only a Trinitarian sees all three divine persons as three rulers (“powers”) who are yet one
“great threefold power” (singular) or sovereign ruler, and having the one name of Jehovah.
And thus with all of the foregoing considered, D.M. Canright stands forever debunked by the
leading voice in Adventism among the pioneers!!

Now if (and am here only using quoted expressions from Mrs. White ) the Holy Spirit, in “the
heavenly trio”, is “as much a person as God is a person”, and is not just the literal person or
personality of the Father Himself or the Son Himself, but rather (according to her) is himself
“also a divine person” and “a distinct personality” who “represents” and “personifies” (or
imitates) whom he “represents”, then it is understandable why she repeatedly used the words
“three persons” so often after 1888, and even spoke of “the three holiest beings in heaven”
being the object of her prayers for help. This is understandably the only logical NUMERIC
labeling which results from that reasoning from Mrs. White. And to make her meaning clearer
she went even further by endeavoring to indicate what kind of persons these three are, by
using the expression “three living personalities/persons” (i.e. indicating real or genuine
persons, and not metaphorical or figurative ones, since a living person is a separate personal
being from others in a group). She concluded therefore that they are “the three holiest beings
in heaven”. That is quite unambiguous in meaning when the dictionary is objectively consulted
and honestly used regarding “a personality” being defined (even in her time) as a person with
individuality (see the 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary).

Interestingly, Canright in 1878 equated someone holding a Trinitarian belief with them seeing
the Holy Spirit as the third Godhead person or
being of three divine persons or beings (persons
who are equally prayed to and worshipped).
And so when Mrs. White debunked him it was
plain that she was not sharing his non-
Trinitarian view, but now promoting a revised
Trinitarian view of three separate personal and
divine entities or beings (plural) who are equally
worshipped, and all forming the one eternal
Godhead (a reality best depicted by this picture
on the right). Note her own post-1878 words
describing the singular Godhead of separate or
“distinct” entities:

"The eternal Godhead--the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost--- *IS [singular] involved in the
action required to make assurance to the human agent...." [about his salvation]
---E.G. White, Manuscript 45, May 14, 1904

“As the saints in the kingdom of God

are accepted in the beloved [or
through Jesus in Paradise], they hear:
“Come, ye blessed of My Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world.”
And then the golden harps are
touched, and the music flows all
through the heavenly host, and they
fall down and worship the Father and
the Son *AND the Holy Spirit."
---E.G. White, Manuscript 139, 1906
 OTHER PIONEERS JOINED IN WITH MRS WHITE AND ALSO DEBUNKED CANRIGHT

Several of the other pioneers knew exactly what Mrs. meant in the foregoing quotes as coming
after 1878, and they made plain the following as well, even while she was still alive up to 1915
(notice the pre-1915 years of most of the following quotes):

“From the figures which are brought out in Revelation, Ezekiel, and other Scriptures, and from
the language which is used in reference to the Holy Spirit, we are led to believe he is
something more than an emanation from the mind of God. He is spoken of as a personality
[or individual being], and treated as such. He [the Holy Spirit] is included in the apostolic
benediction [2 Cor.13: 14], and is spoken by our Lord [Jesus] as acting in an INDEPENDENT and
PERSONAL capacity as Teacher, Guide, and Comforter. He is an object of *VENERATION
[worship] and is A [singular] Heavenly INTELLIGENCE [or heavenly being], everywhere present,
and is always present [thus was always in existence; Heb. 9:14].”
---G.C. Tenny- “To Correspondents”, Review& Herald, June 9, *1896, pg. 362

“The mistake we [SDA pioneers] are making is to teach and preach that the reception of the
Holy Ghost is… an influence… a power, a something. It is not any or all of these; it is no thing.
He is a person, and as such must be received… Receive ye him…. the third person in the
Godhead,—divinity received by humanity. He is not an act nor an experience, but an
abiding,— "another Comforter,"— a new personage that comes into your life, and comes to
stay and control. Don't make such a mistake; thousands have made it, and have lost all…”
--- Review and Herald, Feb. 14, 1899, pg. 100

"The Holy Ghost, we [SDAs] must ever remember, is more than a divine influence. He is a
Divine Person. He is the *CO-EQUAL of the Father and the Son."
---The Present Truth (pioneering SDA periodical), January 7, 1897, Vol. 13, No.1, pg. 8

"COEQUAL, adjective, Equal with another person or thing; of the same rank, dignity or power." -
---1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of American English.
CRUCIAL POINT TO NOTE:
One cannot be "co-equal" with his own self but always with another separate being, and if
several of the SDA pioneers eventually started to deemed
the Son as "co-equal" with the Father, and the Holy Spirit
as "co-equal" with the Father and the Son, then it is plain
they were thereafter (after 1878) deeming all three as
three separate beings (not just two beings ), and this the
pioneers themselves made plain as well by saying (using
Trinitarian-type language):
"...when there were no worlds; no created being, not
even an angel; in fact, there were only THREE *BEINGS
— God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit;
these three persons in the Godhead"
---- Review and Herald, Vol. 78, No. 1. Jan 1, 1901. No., 2409; p. 2

"...the Holy Spirit IS A PERSON. This great truth is not recognized, indeed it is NOT believed, by
more than a very few even of Christians [some SDA pioneers at the time included]....The Holy
Spirit is a Person, ETERNALLY A DIVINE PERSON. And he must be ALWAYS RECOGNIZED and
spoken of as a Person, or he is not truly recognized or spoken of at all...the Scriptures make
perfectly plain the truth that the Holy Spirit is, none other than a living, speaking, divine, and
eternal person. Exactly *AS Christ is a person and *AS God is a person..."
---A.T. Jones, Medical Missionary, March 27, 1907, pg. 98

"The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and receive worship. *Each *one represents
all the other members of the *Trinity...[but] Gabriel was only an angel bearing a message
from the great *Trinity of heaven, and could not receive worship [Rev. 19:10; Rev. 22:8-9]"
---S.N. Haskell, The Bible Training School, November 1907, No. 6, pg. 94

"There are three *beings in the Godhead: God, the Father; Jesus Christ, the Word; and the
Holy Spirit. "These three are one...."Canst thou by searching find out God?" Job 11: 7."
---Review and Herald, Vol. 8, No. 50, December 15, 1910; p. 8

"It is evident that the Holy Spirit is one of the *Trinity, and fully represent God [the Father]
and Christ, and the *Trinity [or the Godhead GROUP overall]; and appears in any form or
shape, or without form or shape, as best answers the purpose of God"

---S.N. Haskell, The Bible Training School, 1910, Vol. 9, No. 7, pg. 13

[*Haskell’s ministry was endorsed repeatedly by Mrs. White right up to her 1915 death, even as
he taught the above Trinity truth, both in his book “The Story of the Seer of Patmos” (1908), and
in “The Bible Training School” periodicals that he personally initiated. And notice that he too
debunked Canright by teaching that the Spirit (as a member of the Trinity) has no fixed shape
or form, and can assume any shape or form, despite he is still (as affirmed by Mrs. White) a
“living” and “loving” person of the Godhead, and is “distinct” from Jesus as such]
"The language of Jesus,” If I depart, I will send him unto you," plainly shows the Holy Ghost to
be possessed of a divine personality. The same argument applied to the language, " Whom
the Father will send in " my name," indicates the same truth, and thus establishes the
conclusion that the Godhead is composed of three *personal *beings, and that these three
are one. The oneness of the Godhead must, then, consist not in personality, but in some other
kind of oneness. Let us apply the Bible idea of oneness of *individuals to the Godhead, and
see if it will contradict the possibility of *three or more *individuals being called one. We have
two visible institutions in this world that are Bible illustrations of God's idea of oneness,
marriage and the church. Of marriage, Christ said, "For this cause shall a man leave father
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh." Matt. 19 : 5. Of
the church, Christ said, through the mouth of his inspired apostle Paul, " So we, being - many,
are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." Rom. 12: 5. Christ compares
the unity of the church to the oneness of the Godhead in his last recorded prayer."
---The Review and Herald, Vol. 89, No. 51, Dec.19, 1912, pg. 5

“Seventh-day Adventists believe [now] in ... the Divine *TRINITY. This Trinity consists of the
Eternal Father… the Lord Jesus Christ… [and] the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead”
---F. M. Wilcox (chief editor), *Review and Herald, October 9, 1913

“…the Godhead, or *TRINITY, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being,
omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the
salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the
Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption…We [Adventists]
recognize the divine Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each possessing a distinct
and separate personality [or individuality], but one in nature and in purpose, so welded
together in this infinite union that the apostle James speaks of them as "one God." James
2:19. This divine unity is similar to the unity existing between Christ and the believer, and
between the different believers in their fellowship in Christ Jesus…”
--- F.M. Wilcox, Christ is Very God, Review and Herald

"…when Jesus declared Himself to the Jews to be I AM, He revealed Himself as *THE Jehovah
of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham manifested in human flesh.... the fact that the
Jesus of the New Testament is *THE *Jehovah of the Old Testament must not be understood
as eliminating the Father, or as a denial of the Godhead---Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since
the finite cannot comprehend the infinite, it were vain to
attempt an analysis of the Godhead... Believe it we must,
but explain it, or even fully comprehend it, we cannot;
and until we can, we should tread reverently as we
approach the subject of the being and nature of the
*TRIUNE God..”
---W.W. Prescott, The Saviour of the World, pg. 17
 OTHER AREAS IN WHICH MRS WHITE DEBUNKED CANRIGHT’S ANTI-TRINITARIANISM

The overarching premise of this presentation has already been proven, and I could stop here
and rest my case i.e. if it was only the Holy Spirit’s nature that Canright dealt with in his 1878
articles opposing the Trinity. But he addressed and opposed other areas of the Trinitarian
belief, and Mrs. White later debunked him as well in many other areas (except she always
agreed with him that the Godhead is not an impersonal essence that does not involve
separate personal beings). Let’s now observe just a few of the other areas (among several that
could be highlighted) in which she debunked his anti-Trinitarian views.

CANRIGHT’S 1878 ANTI-TRINITY CLAIMS MRS WHITE’S OPPOSING TRINTY VIEW

“Their [the Trinitarians] continual effort to
prove the Son equal with the Father is
virtually proof that he is not.”
---D.M. Canright, Review and Herald, Aug. 29,
1878, pg. 73
This was similar to J.H. Waggoner claiming in
1872 (6 years earlier) that:
*We cannot believe what men say about his
[Jesus] being co-equal [i.e. fully equal] with
God in every [all] respect…”
- J.H. Waggoner. The Atonement, 1872, pg.
108
“Another fact having an important
bearing upon this question, one which
shows the utter falsity of the trinitarian creed
that makes, the Holy Ghost equal with the
Father and Son is that the Holy Spirit … is
never worshiped.”
---D.M. Canright, Signs of the Times, Aug. 25,
1878, pg. 218
"It was to save the transgressor
from ruin that he [Jesus] who was
*CO-EQUAL with God,
offered up his life on Calvary..."
--- E.G. White, Review and Herald,
June 28, 1892
[*Remember only Trinitarians
historically declared the fact of not just
their equality but their “co-equality”, in
contrast to earlier semi-Arian pioneers
like J.H. Waggoner and Canright who
denied Jesus as being “co-equal” with
his Father]
...let us [SDAs] consecrate to Him ["the Lord"
our God] all that we are, and all that we have
, and then may we all unite to swell the song,
“Praise God, from whom all blessings flow;
Praise him, all creatures here below; Praise
him above, ye heavenly host; Praise
Father, Son, *AND Holy Ghost .”
---E.G. White, Review and Herald, Jan. 4, 1881

"As the saints in the kingdom of God are

accepted in the beloved [or Paradise], they
hear: “Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit
the kingdom prepared for you from the
 foundation of the world.” And then the
golden harps are touched, and the music
flows all through the heavenly host, and
they fall down and worship the
Father and the Son *AND the Holy
Spirit."
---E.G. White, Manuscript 139, 1906.

“Was the human nature of the Son of

“Any one who is familiar with the teachings
of Trinitarians will readily see that we do not
at all misrepresent them in the following
statements:-
…29. Divinity and humanity were united,
never to be divided (so say the creeds), yet
the divinity forsook the humanity on the
cross. 30. They are never to be divided; yet
one was dead, the other living…”
---D.M. Canright, Review and Herald, Aug. 29,
1878, pg. 73
Mary changed into the divine nature of
the Son of God? No; the two natures
were mysteriously blended in one
person--the man Christ Jesus. In Him
dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead
bodily. When Christ was crucified, it
was His human nature that died. Deity
did not sink and die; that would have
been impossible. …This is a great
mystery, a mystery that will not be fully,
completely understood in all its greatness
until the translation of the redeemed shall
take place….The mysteries of redemption,
embracing Christ's divine-human character,
His incarnation, His atonement for sin, could
employ the pens and the highest mental
powers of the wisest men from now until
Christ shall be revealed in the clouds of
heaven in power and great glory. But though
these men should seek with all their power to
give a representation of Christ and His work,
the representation would fall far short of the
reality…”
” ---E.G. White, Letter 280, 1904

The foregoing examples are just a small sample of the many other areas in which Mrs. White
debunked Canright’s semi-Arian and anti-Trinitarian view, and did so with clearly the revised
Trinitarian view that she was thereafter leading the SDA Church to adopt after Canright’s
series of articles appeared in 1878. And as I looked at Canrights long list of other things he
itemized and opposed as being “Trinitarian” views, I also saw so many of them being
confirmed by Mrs. White as being true as well, proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that she
had doctrinally evolved to abandon the semi-Arian views of Canright and other pioneers who
shared his view. And at this juncture, as I am about to close, I must repeat the potent point I
made earlier that Canright in 1878 equated someone holding a Trinitarian belief with them
believing those things he itemized and opposed. And so when Mrs. White debunked him in
later years it was plain that she was not sharing his non-Trinitarian view, but was now
promoting a revised Trinitarian view of three separate personal and divine entities or beings
(plural) who all have “the fulnes of the Godhead” (hence coequal in nature), who all are
equally worshipped, and with all three forming the one eternal Godhead. Honesty
recognizes this plain reality, but heresy will continue to deny the more than obvious!

As I close, I cannot but point out to you, dear reader, the sad traits observed in many
(not all) of the SDA dissidents who presently act as “accusers of the brethren”, and
who are now not only denying the more than self-evident truths so clearly proven in
this booklet, but they are also being “protestors” against the plain truth. Many of
the dissidents sadly display the following traits (as *quoted from Lazarus Castang):

Let’s pray for them that God will humble them and release them from the chains of self-
deception that they have allowed themselves to be in. I am certainly doing so myself
(i.e. praying for them), even as I do what Isaiah 58:1 calls me to do, i.e. lift up my voice
like a trumpet, and, speaking fearlessly and frankly, but with the deepest love for all
concerned, show my people in Zion where they are going wrong….i.e. living in denial
and refusing to accept historical and biblical truth when it becomes evident!!! I also
pray that those of us on the Trinitarian side recognize the much-neglected and denied
truth as *ALWAYS TAUGHT BY OUR SDA PIONEERS (i.e. BEFORE AND AFTER 1888 AND
1915) about “the only begotten Son” who was “brought forth” from all eternity of the
Father’s own substance, since many of us on the Trinitarian side of the debate are as
stubborn as those on the anti-Trinitarian side to accept all truth when it becomes
plain.
---THE END---

________________________________________________________________________________
 ---A PUBLICATION OF DERRICK GILLESPIE’S “REMNANT RESISTANCE” ONLINE MINISTRIES---

Derrick Gillespie is a trained teacher in the Social Sciences, History, and Geography, and
remains a member of the SDA Church in Jamaica and a lay evangelist for SDAs.
(Contact Info: ddgillespie@live.com OR https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie

____________________