Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

THE HOLY SPIRIT IN PIONEERING ADVENTISM

By Derrick Gillespie
It is becoming common knowledge that SD Adventist pioneers eventually and dramatically changed their viewpoints on the Holy Spirit, from him being just a power or influence to him being a person who has a personality, and did so while Mrs. White (Adventisms chief pioneer) was alive. It must be admitted though that up to the early 1900s there was still uncertainty, varying degrees of agreement, and ongoing discussions among SDA pioneers about which descriptive expression was best used regarding the Spirit (whether a personality or a person) as seen in the question asked among Adventists in the early 1900s below: Some [in Adventism] say the Holy Spirit is a person; others [in Adventism] say He is personality; and others, a power only. Till how long should this be a matter of discussion? -M.C. Wilcox, Questions and Answers, Volume 2, 1919, Pacific Press, pgs. 36, 37, Naturally it would mean that different pioneers had different takes on the issue (even M.C. Wilcox himself), and so it is best to see what the main SDA pioneer, Mrs. White, guided the church towards adopting. Mrs. White appealed to the resistant SDA brethren at the time that: We need to realize that the Holy Spiritis as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds E.G. White (from 1899 sermon) The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality. E.G. White (Manuscript 93, 1893) Now if (and am here only using quoted words from Mrs. White ) the Spirit, in the heavenly trio, was as much a person as God is a person, and was 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 not just a distinct personality, then it is understandable why she chose the much stronger labeling than other SDA pioneers cared to use at the time, and repeatedly used the words three persons so often. 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). She concluding 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. Shockingly however, today some non-Trinitarians in Adventism even go as far as denying that Mrs. White actually spoke or wrote certain words (sometimes whole paragraphs) as documented in the released manuscripts, and they selectively cherry pick what aspects of her writings they willingly acceptobviously those writings having her eventually calling the Holy Spirit a being are the very ones they CONVENIENTLY reject. But I cannot but say that to teach the Spirits semipersonality but non-individuality would make the Holy Spirit as much a personal non-entity as traditional Trinitarians were teaching about the Father and Son being personalities in the Godhead who, however, are non-individualistic as persons. No wonder Mrs. White broke free from this kind of sophistry, and was way ahead of other SDA pioneers, by simply

teaching three holiest beings in heaven. Plain and simple and quite irrefutable if you ask me. No wonder these words from her are so vehemently denied or resisted by anti and non- Trinitarians in SD Adventism today. They totally obliterate their viewpoints on the Spirit. To be blunt, it must be recognized that SD Adventism eventually moved far away from its earlier restricted viewpoints of a totally non-personal Spirit before the 1890s, where, before that the scene was dominated by views simply making the Spirit an influence, or power, or divine afflatus, but NEVER a person. This can be quite easily demonstrated. Lets look at the actual photocopied words of one early SDA pioneer, from an actual early SDA paper to see what I mean:

[*PHOTOCOPIED EXCERPTS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]

..

Here it is plain that the Spirit was denied to be a real, living, or intelligent person. Here too it is plainly indicated that the Spirit could not be said to love humans, clearly meaning also he could not be stirred with pity for [human] race like the Father and the Son in the Godhead, and, more importantly, it showed that Adventists at the time never, ever, conceived of directing prayer to the Spirit. These were the actual (photocopied) words of SDA pioneer D.M. Canright, before he left the SDA Church later, and they were not insular viewpoints of his but were very reflective of the widespread views in Adventism at the time. Proofs of this can be seen in the following comparison between the words of Canright (who later left the church) and the renowned Uriah Smith who stayed with SD Adventism until he died in 1903: PROOFS OF EARLY SDA THOUGHT ON AN IMPERSONAL SPIRIT The Holy Spirit is not a person. In all our prayers we naturally conceive God as a person, and of the Son as a person; but whoever conceive of the Holy Spirit as being a person, standing there beside the Father and equal with Him? Such a conception never enters any ones mind The simple truth is that God is a real person, in bodily form; and the Holy Spirit is truly the spirit of God, A DIVINE INLUENCE proceeding from the Father and also from the Son as their POWER, ENERGY, etc. The Bible never in any case calls the Holy Spirit a person, though it frequently does both the Father and the Son. -D.M. Canright, the Holy Spirit, Signs of the Times, Vol. 4, July 25, 1878

Respecting this Spirit [the Holy Spirit], the Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonized with the idea that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shown to be *A DIVINE INFLUENCE [a thing] from them both Usually it is spoken of in a way to show that it cannot be a person, like the Father and the Son If it were a person, it would be nothing strange for it to appear in bodily shape *like a mans+; and yet when it has so appeared, that fact has been noted as peculiar. Thus Luke 3:22 says: and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove. Uriah Smith, Review and Herald, Oct. 28, 1890

Notice that, in contrast to Mrs. Whites later words (in 1899), indicating plainly that the Spirit is also a person just like or as much as God is a person, the earliest SDA pioneers denied that possibility in plain words. This earlier viewpoint on the Holy Spirit dominated Adventist thought for very many years (as the two quotes above, written several years apart, shows). Very many similar sentiments from early SDA pioneers could be furnished. It was the commonly held viewpoint of basically the vast majority (if not all) of the earliest SDA pioneers. It is plain that it was never earlier admitted that the Holy Spirit is a person, but simply a power, energy or influence from the Father and Son. In fact it would be unthinkable for early Adventist pioneers then to ever conceive of the Holy Spirit as showing pity for the human race like Father and Son, or as a personal entity worthy of being prayed to as the Father and Son, since that would be an acceptance of his personhood like them, as well an acceptance of his equality with them. Only a Trinitarian or one with Trinitarian-type leanings would ever conceive of such a thing!! That was how early Adventists thought, but wasnt the end of the story. A rather remarkable change took place in the minds of SDA pioneers eventually. A MONUMENTAL CHANGE IN SDA VIEWPOINT ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

The following words are some of the most difficult ones that modern anti-Trinitarians confront in the pre-1915 expressions of pioneering Adventism, and are usually avoided like the plague. These quotes hardly, if ever, appear in their presentations, and they hardly, if ever, are honestly analyzed or critiqued objectively, and worse, are hardly, if ever, admitted to or accepted. The one or two who of these dissidents who face up to them usually either dismiss them, gloss over them, try to lamely explain them away, or worse yet, try to discredit their authenticity. Reading the words below, and allowing their true import to sink in will explain why the modern anti-Trinitarians relate to them that way. These words demonstrate very clearly such a monumental change in Adventist theology that only plain dishonesty would not see them for what they really mean. You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life--to live a new life. 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. You are to reveal that you are dead to sin; your life is hid with Christ in God. Hidden "with Christ in God,"--wonderful transformation. This is a most precious promise. 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, sanctifying my tongue, sanctifying my spirit, sanctifying my words, and bringing me into a position where my spirit shall be

susceptible to the movings of the Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and character. And this is the prayer that every one of us may offer. . . -E.G. White, Manuscript Release, Vol.7, pgs. 267, 268 (Ms 95, 1906, pp. 8-12, 14-17; "Lesson from Romans 15," October 20, 1906.) The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order to fully carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love? -E.G. White, Australian Union Conference Record, April 1, 1901 When we have accepted Christ, and in the name [singular] of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit have pledged ourselves to *SERVE [see Joshua 24:14,15] God, the Father, Christ AND [notice, thirdly and separately listed] the Holy Spirit the Three Dignitaries and Powers of Heaven pledge themselves that even facility will be given us if we carry out our... vows. -E.G. White, Manuscript 85, 1901 "God says, [notice after this whom she means says this] "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." [Now notice carefully] This is the pledge of [not just one person, but] the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [i.e. the *pledge to receive and be a Father to you]; made to you if you will keep your baptismal vow, and touch not the unclean thing -E.G. White, Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901 Now, the earliest SDA expressions, for nearly fifty years (from about 1844-1888), never ever gave consent to there being three persons of the Godhead (only two at first). They never ever consented to the Holy Spirit being a personality, a distinct personality, much more being called the third of the three holiest BEINGS in heaven. They never saw the Holy Spirit equally showing personal pity for the human race like Father and Son, nor personal enough to equally pledge and then equally give himself towards working to save man. Seeing that one doesnt call upon a non-existent individual in prayer, they never ever conceived of calling upon the Holy Spirit in prayer just like the Father and Son (i.e. all together being seen as the three Great Worthies deserving of that token of worship). They never ever considered that the Holy Spirit should be served like Father and Son (and worse by humans pledging to do so at their baptism). They never in the least ever considered the Holy Spirit PERSONAL enough to have equally pledged to receive and be a Father to us after we are baptized. And worse, they never ever considered representing him as speaking in unison with Father and Son as the Almighty and as God (or the Godhead) who together says "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters. Yet, by the early 1900s this is what Mrs. White, Adventisms leading pioneer, was now PLAINLY saying!! Obviously any one of the Godhead persons whom we are born unto would be a father to us, and we must have their name stamped upon us, as it were, to show their ownership of us. Mrs. White confessed that we are born unto God, and then explains that it is all three divine persons who are that Father to us (not just one Godhead person), and it is in

their united name (singular) we are baptized. Conclusion? Thats plain Trinitarianism in basic terms (except for her continued rejection of the traditional one indivisible substance of the Godhead idea), and indicates a clear change or gradual development of thought, when one compares what earlier SDA pioneers were objecting to. Thats the truth of the matter. It is simply futile to run from it, somersault over it, or cover it up. This writer/researcher thinks it is time the propaganda tactics of the modern anti-Trinitarians in Adventism be shown up for what they really are. Futile!! But the key question is how did the SDA Church get to this place of teaching so much of what represents an almost complete reversal of what was earlier believed about the Holy Spirit? The following will give a brief peek into the transition that took place before 1915. A TRANSITION PERIOD IN SDA VIEWS ON THE HOLY SPIRIT In 1890, Uriah Smith (a leading SDA pioneer), in an earlier quoted article, was actually directly responding to an Adventist question (probably from pioneer W.W. Westphal), which asked: Are we [Adventists] to understand that the Holy Spirit is a person? The questioner further went on to comment that, some [in Adventism] claim that it is, and others claim that it is not, thus reflecting the searching and explorative nature of Adventism on this question at the time (in the 1890s onwards). This reflected the early infant state of the Church at the time, where the evidently differing viewpoints, as well as the gradual changes in viewpoints can be shown, as the Church developed a more mature approach to controversial issues, such as the identity of the Holy Spirit. In 1892, a very remarkable year in Adventism, Mrs. White is on record making this very monumental appeal to the brethren, and it explains much of what took place thereafter on the matter of the Holy Spirit: There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. We are living in perilous times, and it does not become us to accept everything claimed to be truth without examining it thoroughly; neither can we afford to reject anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of God; but we should be teachable, meek and lowly of heart. There are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ. The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease, saying, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing." --E.G. White, Review and Herald, December 20, 1892. After 1888, and especially after 1892, much began to change in Adventism in terms of how pioneers viewed certain aspects of Trinitarian teachings and the Holy Spirits personhood. See this authors book manuscript, entitled Trinity- Indisputable Facts About the Trinity Doctrine in Adventism (email: ddgillespie@live.com ), to understand the importance of the years 1888 and 1892 in Adventism. Yet the change took time, and over time there became evident differing degrees of acceptance and non-

acceptance of the Spirit being seen as a person. Notice the differing, and yet open viewpoints, of two other pioneers, writing on the same issue, before Mrs. Whites viewpoints came later: Just what the Holy Spirit is, is a mooted question among theologians, and we may not hope to give a positive answer, but we may learn something of its nature and the part it acts in human salvation. -J.E. Swift- Our Companion, Review and Herald, July 3, 1883, pg.421 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, and is a heavenly intelligence, everywhere present, and is always present. But as limited beings, we cannot understand the problems, which the contemplation of the Deity presents, to our minds. -G.C. Tenny- To Correspondents, Review and Herald, June 9, 1896, pg. 362 Notice that one writer emphasized the Spirit as an it and preferred to remain guarded on the issue of its personality, while the other emphasized the Spirit as a He, as well as emphasized His independent and personal capacity, and declared that He is an object of veneration (i.e. deserving WORSHIPFUL RESPECT) as a heavenly intelligence. And yet both writers were SDA pioneers living at the same time with Uriah Smith, and *writing in the same magazine, the Review and Herald (now The Adventist Review). It is therefore evident that up to this point (the late 1800s) there was still no real consensus on this issue. But this was clearly a period of searching and exploration and a greater leaning towards what the Spears Trinitarian-type article of 1889 (renamed and published among Adventists as the Bible doctrine of the Trinity by SDA pioneers themselves) had affirmed from 1892; that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person as God is a person, and though he personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality (in the words later expressed by E.G. White herself)!! How much plainer can one get? No wonder SDA pioneer R.A. Underwood, in 1898, while running a series of bible studies on the topic The Holy Spirit is a Person, he HONESTLY and distinctly admitted in Adventisms leading doctrinal paper that (note the title of the article):
It seems strange to me now [in 1898], that I ever believed that the Holy Spirit was only an influence, in view of the work He doeswe want the truth because it is truth, and we reject error because

it is error, regardless of any views we may formerly have held, or any difficulty we may have had, or may now have, when we view the Holy Spirit as a person. Light is sown for the righteous. Satan's scheme is to destroy all faith in the personality of the Godhead, the Father, Son, *AND Holy Ghost,also in his own personality Let us beware lest Satan shall lead us to take the first step in destroying our faith in the personality of this person of the Godhead,the Holy Ghost It was once hard for me to see how a spirit could be a person [but] Christ has put into the field, as his personal representative, the Holy Ghost, who is in charge of all the forces of God's kingdom to overthrow Satan and his angels; and the Holy Ghost is the only one to whom is delegated this authority from God. "The prince of the power of evil can be held in check only by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.""Special Testimony," No. 10, page 37. God and Christ have placed all the angels and the power of the throne of omnipotence under him [the Holy Spirit], to overthrow the rebellion against God's government.
-R.A. Underwood The Holy Spirit a Person, Review and Herald, Vol. 75, May 17, *1898, pg. 310

The above is more than a mouthful, coming long before 1915, and speaks volumes of the transitional viewpoints entering pioneering Adventism on this awesome subject long before the death of Mrs. White in 1915. The transition took on momentum by the first decade of the 1900s, as another striking 1900 quote below shows:
To receive the message of the Spirit is to receive the message of the Father and the Son. There is something charmingly beautiful about their union. With exquisite delicacy of utterance does Jesus declare the divine authority of his message, "The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me;" and again, "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself." He is ever in union with the Father, and came, really, that men might see the Father, and know his love. So the Holy Spirit cherishes the same delicacy of spirit and expression. He is the administrator, revealer, and guide of this age. And as such he must make himself known and understood; but withal he does not speak from himself alone. He does not manifest himself as apart from the Father and the Son; but as one with and sent by the Father and the Son. He is here that he may make us know the things of Christ, and any nominal honor given to the Spirit that does not really make known the character and things of Christ is a great grief to his unassuming, dovelike nature. He would make us know his personality, but ever in living connection with Christ. He abides in our hearts down here, while Christ Jesus is our Advocate with the Father above; but he abides in us as Christ, making the very life that speaks and works in Christ to also speak and work in us. Christ in you." Let us not grow overbold concerning the Spirit alone; but remember that he is ever with the Father and the Son, and that whatever he speaks to us he speaks as from them; for it is written, "Whatsoever he hall hear, that shall he speak." Let him make you know, beloved, how surpassingly beautiful are the blended personalities of *our triune God, manifested by the personal presence of the Holy Ghost. To know him is to know the Father and the Son, and these cannot be truly known and really honored until we receive and know the Spirit; for no man can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Ghost. -The Kings Messenger, *Blended Personalities, Review and Herald, Vol. 77, No. 14, April 3, *1900, pg. 210

What a remarkable transition in pioneering SDA thought (!!), as connected to the growing acceptance of the Spirit as a distinct person, a third and living personality who helps to comprise a threefold Eternal Godhead. So much so that by 1900 (as the above quote irrefutably shows) SDA pioneers were publishing the allowed pioneering use of the distinct Trinitarian expression our triune God; no doubt in the untraditional sense of the three persons NOT making up one Being!! What a pre-1915 change!! So much so that by 1913, Adventisms leading writer and chief editor of Adventisms doctrinal literature (a much respected man chosen by E.G. White herself to guard her estate after she died; so he was no heretic) was able to say: Seventh-day Adventists [not just myself] 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 We [Adventists] recognize the divine Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each possessing a distinct and separate personality, 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

NO WONDER A MORE RECENT SDA WRITER, GEORGE KNIGHT, IN HIS MUCH MISUNDERSTOOD AND MUCH ABUSED ARTICLE, ENTITLED ADVENTISTS AND CHANGE, MADE IT PLAIN THAT THE EARLIER SDA PIONEERS (SEVERAL OF WHOM DIED BEFORE 1888 AND 1892) WOULD NATURALLY HAVE DIFFICULTY ACCEPTING THE CHANGES THAT TOOK PLACE IN ADVENTISM AS IT CONCERNS THE TRINITY DOCTRINE AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. THEY INDEED WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY, BUT ONLY IF THEY, LIKE THE JEWS WHO REJECTED THE NEWLY REVEALED CHRIST IN THEIR TIME, STUBBORNLY HELD ON TO THE OLD RESTRICTED VIEWPOINTS AND REFUSED TO ACCEPT PRESENT AND EVER UNFOLDING TRUTH. IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO GEOGE KNIGHT SAYING THAT INDEED MOST OF THE ORTHODOX JEWS WOULD HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY JOINING PAULS CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT IF THEY HAD TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT JESUS IS VERY MUCH GOD IN NATURE LIKE THE FATHER, AND IS EQUAL IN ALL RESPECTS WITH THE HIM. INTERESTINGLY, EVEN PAUL HIMSELF (A STRICT JEW) EARLIER HAD SUCH A DIFFICULTY, AND EVEN PERSECUTED THE CHRISTIANS (WHO WERE FIRST JEWS LIKE HIMSELF, BUT HAD ACQUIRED A NEW WAY OF THINKING). THAT WAS, OF COURSE, UNTIL PAUL HIMSELF SAW WHERE HIS EARLIER RESTRICTED VIEWS BLINDED HIM TO THE REAL TRUTHS HIDDEN IN THE SCRIPTURES, THAT WERE UNFOLDING IN THEIR OWN TIME. NOW, I AM NOT SAYING THAT MAINSTREAM ADVENTISM TODAY HAS ALL THINGS CORRECT ABOUT THE GODHEAD. CERTAINLY I AM NOT!! BUT MOST CERTAINLY WE ARE CORRECT IN ACCEPTING A BASIC TRINITY/TRIO OF THE GODHEAD, AND IN ACCEPTING THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS INDEED ONE OF THE THREE HOLIEST BEINGS IN HEAVEN. I AM GLAD THAT THE ADVENTIST CREED IS THE BIBLE ONLY, AND SO THIS ALLOWS FOR ADJUSTMENTS IN OLD RESTRICTED VIEWPOINTS AS WELL AS THE PRESENT FAULTY ONESEVEN AS WE CONTINUE TO STUDY AND REFINE OUR VIEWS. THIS MUST BE SO, SINCE THE DISCOVERY OF TRUTH IS DYNAMIC AND IS A FORWARD MARCH, AND ESPECIALLY AS IT CONCERNS THE MATTERS RELATED TO THE GODHEAD. WHO CAN BY SEARCHING FIND OUT GOD, OR BETTER YET, UNTO PERFECTION? NONE!! AND THIS TELLS US WHY WE MUST ALL BE HUMBLE IN OUR DEALINGS WITH THESE MATTERS AND TOLERANT WITH EACH OTHER AS WE ALL STUDY AND CONTEMPLATE THEM. SEE JOB 11:7-9 AND MEDITATE UPON ITS IMPLICATIONS.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen