1. Introduction: A controversy that deserves a closer look
The controversy surrounding Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, his book The Living Temple, and Ellen White’s statements about the personality of God has often been presented as a controversy about pantheism alone. That description is not entirely wrong, but it does not tell the whole story.
There was another issue at the heart of the controversy: Kellogg’s changing understanding of the Godhead. In 1903, he told leading Adventist ministers that he had changed his former views concerning the Trinity. He now believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and he described the Holy Spirit as the presence filling all space and every living thing.
This change was significant because it affected the way he explained the personality and presence of God. It also helps us understand why Ellen White repeatedly warned him about his representations of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
There is another important part of this history. In 1906, Ellen White published a statement describing three living persons of the heavenly trio. In the same manuscript, she specifically addressed several illustrations that closely resemble illustrations found in an 1858 book by William Boardman, a Presbyterian minister and influential writer in the nineteenth-century Holiness movement.
These connections raise important historical questions. Where did the illustrations originate? What did Boardman mean by them? What did Kellogg believe in 1903? What was Ellen White responding to in 1906? And how should we understand her statement about the heavenly trio in its original context?
The purpose of this article is not to ask readers to accept a conclusion simply because someone presents it confidently. It is to place the original documents before the reader, examine their wording, and allow the evidence to be tested.
The Bible must remain the final authority. Historical documents can help us understand what people said, what they believed, and what was happening around them. But no historical writer, church leader, or later compiler can take the place of Scripture.
As the apostle Paul wrote:
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
— 1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV
That instruction applies to every side of this discussion.
2. The background: Kellogg and the Living Temple
Dr. John Harvey Kellogg was one of the most influential figures in the early Seventh-day Adventist Church. He was a respected physician and the leading figure associated with the Battle Creek Sanitarium. His work in health and medical care had brought him considerable influence.
In 1903, Kellogg published The Living Temple. The book discussed the presence and activity of God in nature and in the human body. Some of its language appeared to give God an identity that was inseparable from the natural world. Ellen White and other church leaders considered these teachings dangerous.
The controversy became known primarily as the Living Temple and pantheism controversy. However, the surviving correspondence shows that the problem was not limited to the question of whether God was present in nature. Kellogg’s understanding of the personality of God and the Holy Spirit was also changing.
This distinction matters.
Pantheism concerns the relationship between God and the natural world. The doctrine of the Trinity concerns the identity and personal distinctions of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These subjects can overlap in a discussion about divine presence, but they are not identical.
It would therefore be incomplete to describe the entire controversy as nothing more than a disagreement about pantheism. The contemporary correspondence shows that Kellogg was also discussing the Trinity and the personality of the Holy Spirit.
The documents should be examined in their proper order.
3. The October 1903 confession: Kellogg’s changing view of the Trinity
One of the most important documents in this controversy is a letter written by A. G. Daniells to W. C. White on October 29, 1903.
Daniells was reporting a conversation he had recently held with Kellogg. This distinction is important: the letter is Daniells’ contemporary report of what Kellogg told him. It is not a signed theological statement written by Kellogg himself. Nevertheless, it is a significant firsthand report from someone who had spoken directly with him.
Daniells wrote:
He said that his former views regarding the trinity had stood in his way of making a clear and absolutely correct statement; but that within a short time he had come to believe in the trinity and could now see pretty clearly where the difficulty was, and he believed that he could clear up the matter satisfactorily.
He told me that he now believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; and his view was that it was God the Holy Ghost, and not God the Father, that filled all space and every living thing.
This is a remarkable statement.
First, Kellogg acknowledged that he had formerly held different views concerning the Trinity. Second, he said that he had recently come to believe in the Trinity. Third, he described his new understanding of the Holy Spirit as the one who filled all space and every living thing.
The wording should not be softened or ignored. Kellogg was not merely saying that he had found a better way to describe the same belief he had always held. According to Daniells, he specifically said that his former views about the Trinity had stood in his way and that he had now changed his position.
At the same time, we must be precise. Daniells’ letter reports Kellogg’s words in a conversation. It is strong contemporary evidence of what Kellogg told Daniells, but it should not be presented as though Kellogg had personally signed that exact paragraph.
Original document: A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, October 29, 1903.
https://asitreads.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/1903-10-29-Daniells-to-WCWhite.pdf
This letter is essential to understanding the controversy. Any account that discusses The Living Temple but leaves out Kellogg’s reported change concerning the Trinity leaves out an important part of the historical record.
4. What Kellogg was saying about the Holy Spirit
The most revealing part of Daniells’ report is not simply that Kellogg had come to believe in the Trinity. It is the way he described the Holy Spirit.
According to Daniells, Kellogg believed that it was the Holy Spirit, rather than the Father, who filled all space and every living thing.
This was directly connected to the language and ideas being discussed in The Living Temple. Kellogg was attempting to explain God’s presence and activity in creation. The question was no longer merely whether God was active in the natural world. It concerned which person of the Godhead was present everywhere and how that presence should be understood.
This is why the personality of God became such an important issue in Ellen White’s response.
The Bible certainly teaches that God is present everywhere. David wrote:
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
— Psalm 139:7–8, KJV
But a biblical statement about God’s presence does not automatically establish every explanation that a person may offer about the nature or personality of the Holy Spirit.
We must distinguish between what Scripture says and what a theologian builds upon it.
Kellogg’s explanation was particularly significant because he was moving toward a Trinitarian understanding while assigning to the Holy Spirit the role of filling all space and every living thing. This was precisely the kind of language that Ellen White warned could confuse the personality of God.
5. The response of W. C. White and Ellen White
The correspondence did not end with Daniells’ report.
W. C. White wrote to Daniells on November 4, 1903. He explained that he and his mother had read Daniells’ October 29 letter. Ellen White was therefore aware of the report concerning Kellogg’s changed views.
This matters because it establishes a documentary connection between Kellogg’s reported confession and the concerns Ellen White expressed in the correspondence that followed.
On November 20, 1903, Ellen White wrote Letter 253 to Kellogg.
Her concern was not merely that he had used a particular word or phrase. She was concerned that his understanding of the personality of God was wrong and that his teaching was leading people away from the truth.
In that letter, she wrote:
I have ever had the same testimony to bear which I now bear regarding the personality of God.
She then referred to the Father as a personal being and to Jesus Christ as the express image of the Father’s person.
The importance of this statement becomes clearer when we remember what Daniells had reported only three weeks earlier. Kellogg had described a new understanding of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit’s presence. Ellen White responded by emphasizing the personality of God and Christ.
We should not claim that Letter 253 contains a direct sentence saying, “I reject the Trinity.” It does not. Nor should we pretend that the letter is unrelated to the theological questions being discussed. Its timing and subject matter make it an important document in the controversy.
The proper historical approach is to read the letter in its full setting, alongside Daniells’ report and the other correspondence.
6. The earlier warnings: This was not a sudden concern
Ellen White’s warnings about Kellogg’s understanding of the personality of God did not begin with Letter 253.
Several earlier communications show that she had already expressed concern about his language and his understanding.
Letter 300, March 16, 1903
Writing to Kellogg, Ellen White stated:
You are not definitely clear on the personality of God, which is everything to us as a people.
This statement is important because it predates Daniells’ October report. It shows that the question of God’s personality was already a concern in March 1903.
Letter 232, October 6, 1903
In this communication to Kellogg, Ellen White warned that the representations in The Living Temple were incorrect and misleading.
Her concern was that the book presented ideas about God that could not safely be accepted. The problem was not simply a matter of wording. It involved the picture of God that readers would take away from the book.
Letter 271b, September 18, 1903
In a communication to Daniells, Ellen White warned that Kellogg was using expressions similar to those she herself had used, but that he was giving them an almost opposite meaning.
This observation is especially important.
Two people can use the same words while teaching very different ideas. The words alone do not settle the meaning. We must examine the explanation, the context, and the conclusions being drawn.
That principle is essential when studying the later controversy over the heavenly trio.
Manuscript 70a, 1905
Ellen White later described the teachings in The Living Temple as containing deceptive sentiments concerning the personality of God and Christ. She explained that precious truths had been woven together with dangerous errors.
This is a useful reminder that a book can contain statements that sound biblical while also presenting ideas that change the meaning of those statements.
The lesson is not to reject every sentence simply because it appears in a disputed book. Nor is it to accept every sentence because some of its language sounds familiar. Each claim must be tested.
7. Who was William Boardman, and why does his book matter?
Before examining Ellen White’s 1906 statement about the heavenly trio, we need to identify a writer whose words are directly relevant to the discussion.
His name was William Edwin Boardman (1810–1886).
Boardman was an American Presbyterian minister, evangelist, missionary, and author. He became an influential figure in the nineteenth-century Holiness and Higher Life movements. His book The Higher Christian Life, published in 1858, became widely read in both America and Britain.
Boardman was not an Adventist. He was not writing as a Seventh-day Adventist pioneer, and his book was not an Adventist publication. He belonged to a different Protestant religious setting.
His work is relevant because, in The Higher Christian Life, he discussed the personalities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and used a series of illustrations involving light, dew, and rain. These illustrations are strikingly similar to ones Ellen White later addressed in Manuscript 21, 1906.
Boardman’s book was published nearly half a century before Ellen White’s 1906 manuscript.
The historical question is therefore not whether Boardman and Ellen White wrote at the same time. They did not. The question is what Boardman actually taught, what his illustrations were intended to explain, and why Ellen White later addressed closely related illustrations.
Boardman’s own words provide the answer to the first part of that question.
Boardman’s original words in The Higher Christian Life (1858)
The relevant material appears in Part II, Chapter I, titled “For Me: What Then Must I Do?” It is found in the section discussing the official and essential relations of the persons of the Godhead.
Boardman begins:
A glance at the official and essential relations of the persons of the Holy Trinity to each other and to us, may throw additional light upon our pathway. Upon this subject flippancy would border upon blasphemy. It is holy ground. He who ventures upon it may well tread with unshod foot, and uncovered head bowed low.
He continues:
Speculation here, too, is entirely out of place, unsafe, not worth the ink used in the writing. The lamp of human reason is a light too dim to guide us through the profound mysteries of the mode of the divine existence and the methods of the divine manifestation and working. God alone knows what God is. And God only can communicate to man what man can be made to know of God, especially of the personalities of the Godhead, and of their relations to each other and to us.
Notice that Boardman is not merely speaking about three different activities performed by one person. He is discussing what he calls the “persons of the Holy Trinity” and the “personalities of the Godhead.”
He then explains:
Revelation must be our guide. Beyond what God has revealed, we know nothing. The sacred Word is all the light we have in this matter. In a sense scriptural, and true Christ is “all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” “The express image of the invisible God.” “The fulness of Him who filleth all in all.” The fulness of the Father and of the Spirit. In a sense equally scriptural and true, the Father is all the fulness of the Godhead; and so also is the Spirit.
The Father is the fulness of the Godhead in invisibility, without form, whom no creature hath seen or can see. The Son is the fulness of the Godhead embodied, that his creatures may see him, and know him, and trust him. The Spirit is the fulness of the Godhead in all the active workings, whether of creation, providence, revelation, or salvation, by which God manifests himself to and through the universe.
The counsels of eternity are therefore all hidden in the Father, all manifested by the Son, and all wrought by the Spirit.
He then introduces his first illustration:
THE FATHER IS AS THE LIGHT INVISIBLE. THE SON IS AS THE LIGHT EMBODIED. THE SPIRIT IS AS THE LIGHT SHED DOWN.
Next, Boardman gives his illustration of dew:
One of the similes for the blessed influences of the SPIRIT while giving the self-same official relations of the persons of the Godhead, to each other and to us, may illustrate them still further — The Dew — the dew of Hermon — the dew on the mown meadow. Before the dew gathers at all in drops, it hangs over all the landscape in invisible vapor, omnipresent but unseen.
By and by as the night wanes into morning, and as the temperature sinks and touches the dew point the invisible becomes the visible, the embodied; and, as the sun rises, it stands in diamond drops trembling and glittering in the sun’s young beams in pearly beauty upon leaf and flower, over all the face of nature. But now again, a breeze springs up, the breath of heaven is wafted gently along, shaking leaf and flower, and in a moment the pearly drops are invisible again.
But where now? Fallen at the root of herb and flower to impart new life, freshness, vigor to all it touches.
THE FATHER IS LIKE THE DEW IN INVISIBLE VAPOR. THE SON IS LIKE THE DEW GATHERED IN BEAUTEOUS FORM. THE SPIRIT IS LIKE THE DEW FALLEN TO THE SEAT OF LIFE.
Boardman then provides another illustration, this time using rain:
Yet one more of these Bible likenings — by no means exhausting them — will not be unwelcome or useless — the Rain.
Rain, like the dew, floats in invisibility, and omnipresence at the first, over all, around all. Seen by none. While it remains in its invisibility, the earth parches, clods cleave together, the ground cracks open, the sun pours down his burning heat, the winds lift up the dust in circling whirls, and rolling clouds, and famine gaunt and greedy stalks through the land, followed by pestilence and death.
By and by, the eager watcher sees the little hand-like cloud rising far out over the sea. It gathers, gathers, gathers; comes and spreads as it comes, in majesty over the whole heavens: — But all is parched and dry and dead yet, upon earth.
But now comes a drop, and drop after drop, quicker, faster — the shower, the rain — sweeping on, and giving to earth all the treasures of the clouds — clods open, furrows soften, springs, rivulets, rivers, swell and fill, and all the land is gladdened again with restored abundance.
THE FATHER IS LIKE TO THE INVISIBLE VAPOR. THE SON IS AS THE LADEN CLOUD AND FALLING RAIN. THE SPIRIT IS THE RAIN — FALLEN AND WORKING IN REFRESHING POWER.
Boardman then explains how he intends these illustrations to be understood:
These likenings are all imperfect. They rather hide than illustrate the tri-personality of the one God, for they are not persons but things, poor and earthly at best, to represent the living personalities of the living God. So much they may do, however, as to illustrate the official relations of each to the others and of each and all to us. And more. They may also illustrate the truth that all the fulness of Him who filleth all in all, dwells in each person of the Triune God.
He concludes this part of his explanation with the following statement:
THE FATHER IS ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD INVISIBLE. THE SON IS ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD MANIFESTED. THE SPIRIT IS ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD MAKING MANIFEST. The persons are not mere offices, or modes of revelation, but living persons of the living God.
Boardman continues:
Now as to the essential relations of the three, the Scriptures speak of each precisely as if each were living person, and not a mere official relation of the one person in three different connections, or adaptations. And we are also fully justified in the belief that in the personalities of the living God, in whom is all the fulness of all things, society exists. The beau-ideal of society as it is but imperfectly wrought out in the social relations of angels and men.
Society in its first and highest form, first and best of all in the Godhead. And society amongst the creatures of God in its best estate, but a feeble and yet a noble image of its blessedness and glory as it is in the perfect social relations of the perfect three in one.
These are not vague similarities invented by a later writer. They are Boardman’s own words, published in 1858.
His position is unmistakable. He explicitly identifies his subject as the Holy Trinity, speaks of the “tri-personality of the one God,” and describes the Father, Son, and Spirit as three living persons of the living God.
It is equally important to notice his qualification. Boardman says his illustrations are imperfect and that they cannot adequately represent the living personalities of God. He does not claim that God is literally light, dew, or rain. He uses these natural illustrations to describe what he understands as the official relations of the three persons.
That qualification should be included whenever his illustrations are discussed. To quote the illustrations while omitting Boardman’s explanation would not give readers a fair understanding of his book.
Primary source: William Edwin Boardman, The Higher Christian Life (1858), Part II, Chapter I, “For Me: What Then Must I Do?” See the original book scan and the cited pages in the source edition.
8. Ellen White’s Manuscript 21, 1906: The full context
We now come to the statement that has become known as Ellen White’s “heavenly trio” statement.
The source is Manuscript 21, 1906, titled Come Out and Be Separate. The manuscript was written in November 1905 and published in 1906 in Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pages 60–64.
It is important to establish the setting before isolating the familiar sentence.
This was not a letter addressed to Kellogg. It was a manuscript dealing with spiritual danger, separation from error, and the influence of teachings that were confusing the people. It belongs to the broader period of the Battle Creek controversy.
The manuscript includes Ellen White’s warning about Kellogg’s claims and conduct. She refers to his statement that he had surrendered, but says his actions did not show the spirit of a surrendered man. She also addresses the danger of accepting advanced scientific ideas and representations of God that diminish His majesty.
The following paragraphs are especially important.
Manuscript 21, 1906, paragraph 8
Ellen White wrote:
I am instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted. Such representations as the following are made: “The Father is as the light invisible; the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit as the light shed abroad.” “The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor; the Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is like the dew fallen to the seat of life.” Another representation: “The Father is like the invisible vapor. The Son is like the leaden cloud. The Spirit is rain fallen and working in refreshing power.”
This paragraph is crucial because Ellen White identifies the illustrations she is addressing. They are the light, dew, and rain illustrations.
When we compare these statements with Boardman’s 1858 book, the similarity is unmistakable. The same sequence appears: light, dew, and rain, with the Father, Son, and Spirit associated with different stages or forms of each illustration.
There are wording differences, and those differences should not be concealed. Boardman wrote “the light shed down,” while Ellen White wrote “the light shed abroad.” Boardman referred to the “laden cloud and falling rain,” while Ellen White used the words “leaden cloud.” The dew wording is also not identical in every detail.
Nevertheless, the sequence and the central descriptions are closely related.
Manuscript 21, 1906, paragraph 9
Ellen White then wrote:
All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken and diminish the Majesty which no earthly likeness can be compared to. God cannot be compared with the things His hands have made. These are mere earthly things, suffering under the curse of God because of the sins of man. The Father cannot be described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead bodily and is invisible to mortal sight.
Her language is strong.
She does not merely say that the illustrations could be improved. She calls them “spiritualistic representations,” says they are “simply nothingness,” and declares that they are “imperfect, untrue.”
This is an important qualification when comparing her statement with Boardman’s book. Boardman himself admitted that the illustrations were imperfect, but he believed they could help explain the official relations of the three persons. Ellen White rejects the representations as inadequate and misleading.
The reader should notice the difference between the two writers. Boardman uses the illustrations to explain his Trinitarian understanding. Ellen White warns that such earthly comparisons weaken and diminish the majesty of God.
Manuscript 21, 1906, paragraph 10
She continues:
The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be “the express image of His person.” [Hebrews 1:3.] “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” [John 3:16.] Here is shown the personality of the Father.
This paragraph is important because Ellen White moves away from the earthly illustration and appeals to Scripture. She identifies Christ as the express image of the Father’s person and points to the Father’s gift of His only begotten Son.
Manuscript 21, 1906, paragraph 11
She then writes:
The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.
This is the complete statement in its immediate context.
It should not be separated from the paragraphs that come before it. Ellen White first rejects the earthly illustrations, then describes the Father, the Son, and the Comforter in her own words, and then speaks of three living persons of the heavenly trio.
The statement is part of a larger discussion, not an isolated sentence.
Primary sources:
- Ellen G. White, Manuscript 21, 1906, Come Out and Be Separate.
- Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7 (1906), pages 60–64.
9. Boardman and Ellen White: A direct comparison
Now that we have both original sources before us, we can compare them.
The comparison is not based on a later author’s summary. It is based on Boardman’s 1858 book and Ellen White’s 1906 manuscript.
| Boardman, 1858 | Ellen White, Manuscript 21, 1906 |
|---|---|
| “The Father is as the light invisible.” | “The Father is as the light invisible.” |
| “The Son is as the light embodied.” | “The Son is as the light embodied.” |
| “The Spirit is as the light shed down.” | “The Spirit as the light shed abroad.” |
| “The Father is like the dew in invisible vapor.” | “The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor.” |
| “The Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form.” | “The Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form.” |
| “The Spirit is like the dew fallen to the seat of life.” | “The Spirit is like the dew fallen to the seat of life.” |
| “The Father is like to the invisible vapor.” | “The Father is like the invisible vapor.” |
| “The Son is as the laden cloud and falling rain.” | “The Son is like the leaden cloud.” |
| “The Spirit is the rain — fallen and working in refreshing power.” | “The Spirit is rain fallen and working in refreshing power.” |
The wording is not identical in every line. That should be stated plainly. But the sequence of illustrations and the central wording are strikingly similar.
There is another important point. Boardman did not merely use these illustrations without explanation. He explicitly stated that he was describing the “persons of the Holy Trinity.” He called his teaching the “tri-personality of the one God” and described the Father, Son, and Spirit as “living persons of the living God.”
That is the theological setting in which his illustrations appear.
Ellen White, on the other hand, introduces the same group of illustrations as examples of representations that should not be trusted. She calls them spiritualistic, imperfect, and untrue. She then gives her own statements about the Father, Son, and Comforter.
This comparison establishes a historical connection between the language in Boardman’s book and the illustrations Ellen White addressed. It does not, by itself, establish every detail of how she encountered those illustrations or whether she was responding to Boardman personally. Unless a document directly establishes that she read the book or was quoting it intentionally, we should not state that as a proven fact.
The evidence does establish that Boardman’s book contained these illustrations in 1858, that he used them to explain his Trinitarian understanding, and that Ellen White addressed closely related illustrations in 1906.
That is already significant enough to deserve careful attention.
10. What does the heavenly trio statement actually establish?
The sentence most often quoted from Manuscript 21 is:
There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized...
The statement must be read honestly.
It does say “three living persons.” It identifies the three as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It cannot responsibly be dismissed as though Ellen White never wrote those words.
But it is equally important not to make the sentence say more than it actually says.
The paragraph identifies the Comforter as the Spirit that Christ promised to send after His ascension. It describes the Spirit as making manifest the power of divine grace to believers. It then speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three living persons or powers who cooperate with the obedient.
The passage does not use the word “Trinity.” It does not explain the relationship between the three in the language of later theological creeds. It does not say that the three are co-equal and co-eternal in the precise terms used in later formulations. Nor does it say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person.
The statement must be allowed to stand as written. Readers may draw conclusions from it, but they should distinguish the actual wording from the theological system they may associate with it.
There is also a difference between recognizing the Spirit as personal and establishing that the Spirit is a separate divine being in the same sense as the Father and the Son. That question cannot be settled merely by repeating the phrase “three living persons.” It requires a careful examination of the whole body of Scripture and the way Ellen White uses the terms in different contexts.
The Bible itself must decide the matter.
11. Was the heavenly trio statement added by later compilers?
A claim sometimes made in discussions of this subject is that the heavenly trio statement was introduced by later editors or compilers.
The publication history does not support the claim that the statement first appeared in Evangelism in 1946.
The statement was published in 1906 in Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pages 60–64. That publication predates Evangelism by approximately forty years.
The statement therefore existed in a published source during Ellen White’s lifetime.
There is also a handwritten draft associated with the manuscript. The handwritten wording has been discussed because it differs slightly from the final published wording. The draft has been transcribed with the opening words, “Here are the living three personalities...” while the published statement reads, “There are three living persons of the heavenly trio...”
These differences deserve to be acknowledged. They should not be turned into a claim of deliberate alteration without evidence.
The existence of a handwritten draft and a final approved manuscript is not, by itself, proof of deception. Authors and editors often make changes as manuscripts are prepared for publication. The proper question is whether the published wording accurately represents the author’s intended statement.
The fact that the passage was published in 1906 is important. It means the discussion cannot honestly be framed as though Froom or a later compiler invented the entire statement decades afterward.
There are other Ellen White documents from around this period that use language about three persons. Manuscript 57, 1900, is one example that must also be considered. It is therefore not sufficient to argue that the word “persons” was simply inserted by a later editor into the 1906 passage.
The historical evidence should be examined in full, including the handwritten draft, the published 1906 version, and the other relevant manuscripts.
12. Evangelism (1946): Who compiled it, who added the headings, and what Froom himself revealed
There is another part of this history that deserves particular attention. It concerns a book that has become one of the most frequently quoted sources in modern Adventist discussions about the Trinity and the Holy Spirit: Evangelism, published in 1946.
Many Adventists quote Evangelism as though it were a book written by Ellen White herself. They refer to statements from it as though they were reading a chapter she had written, with her own headings, her own arrangement of the material, and her own presentation of the subject. But that is not what the book is.
Ellen White died in 1915. Evangelism was published in 1946, thirty-one years after her death. It is a posthumous compilation of statements drawn from her writings, manuscripts, letters, testimonies, and periodical articles. She did not write the book, arrange its chapters, select its quotations, supply its headings, or review the completed volume for publication.
This does not mean that the quotations themselves are automatically false. Many are genuine statements from Ellen White. The issue is that readers are often unaware that the selection, arrangement, and editorial headings were supplied by people working decades after her death. That distinction is essential when a compilation is being used to establish what she believed on a particular doctrine.
The book itself admits that its headings were supplied by the compilers
We do not need to rely on an accusation from a critic to establish this. The original 1946 preface says so.
The preface explains:
In bringing together and arranging in logical order many statements from various sources, it was found that certain general lines of instruction were repeatedly set forth. In the effort to place before the reader all that contributed to the subject, without presenting undue repetition, only paragraphs or groups of paragraphs were selected. In some cases repetitious sentences were dropped from even the brief excerpts used, and in each case the deletion is indicated. Great care has been exercised, however, to present statements of sufficient length to give the correct setting for the counsel.
It then states:
An endeavor has been made to make each section a complete treatment of the subject presented. In so doing there accrues a certain degree of unavoidable repetition of thought which emphasizes the instruction. As an aid in making ready reference to the key statements in this volume, side headings appearing in bold type have been supplied by the compilers.
That final sentence is particularly important.
The book itself acknowledges that the bold side headings were supplied by the compilers. They were not written by Ellen White. They are editorial headings, added after her death to organize and interpret the material for readers.
The preface also acknowledges that paragraphs and groups of paragraphs were selected, and that in some cases repetitious sentences were removed. It says that deletions were indicated. Readers therefore need to examine not only the words printed in the book, but also the source references and the original documents from which the excerpts were taken.
This is not a minor publishing detail. A heading can influence how a reader understands the words beneath it. When a heading introduces a quotation as a statement about the Trinity, the reader is naturally guided toward that interpretation before even examining the original source.
Who was responsible for preparing the compilation?
The official White Estate account of the preparation of Evangelism provides further information.
In August 1944, representatives of the General Conference Ministerial Association approached the White Estate about preparing a book of Ellen White’s counsel on evangelism. On September 10, 1944, the White Estate trustees authorized the preparation of a compilation by a committee of five.
The committee named in the White Estate account consisted of:
- A. L. White
- W. H. Branson
- R. A. Anderson
- Louise Kleuser
- J. L. Shuler
The account further states that Arthur L. White and Louise Kleuser were appointed as the working team to prepare the manuscript. They gathered the relevant Ellen White material, organized it, and developed the manuscript.
This official record is important because it identifies the formal committee and the working team. It would therefore be inaccurate to suggest that Froom was the sole person formally appointed to compile the book. His own later correspondence, however, reveals that his involvement in selecting material was substantial.
The same White Estate account explains that the compilers used side headings to connect the selected statements and that the reports of nine readers dealt mostly with the wording of those headings. It also explains that the compilers were not named in the Foreword because it had been the policy to keep the focus on the author of the original material.
That last detail helps explain why ordinary readers may not realize how much editorial work went into the book. The published volume bears Ellen White’s name, while the people who selected and arranged the material are not prominently identified on its title page.
The result is that a reader can easily assume that the book’s headings, sequence, and presentation are all Ellen White’s own.
They are not.
Consider the heading: “The Eternal Dignitaries of the Trinity”
One of the clearest examples appears in Evangelism, page 558.
The book prints the following bold heading:
The Eternal Dignitaries of the Trinity
Beneath it appears this statement:
The eternal heavenly dignitaries—God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit—arming them [the disciples] with more than mortal energy, ... would advance with them to the work and convince the world of sin.—Manuscript 130, 1901.
The quotation is attributed to Manuscript 130, 1901. But the heading above it is not part of the quoted statement. It is an editorial heading supplied by the compilers.
Notice the difference.
Ellen White’s quoted words begin:
The eternal heavenly dignitaries—God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit...
The heading supplied by the compilers reads:
The Eternal Dignitaries of the Trinity
The word “Trinity” appears in the heading, not in the quoted sentence.
That distinction matters. A reader who sees the heading and then reads the quotation may naturally assume that Ellen White herself placed the statement under that theological description. But she did not write that heading. The compilers supplied it.
This does not prove that the quotation itself is false. It does establish that the theological label in the heading is an editorial interpretation, not Ellen White’s own wording in Manuscript 130.
Other examples on these pages include:
- Personality of the Holy Spirit
- The Power of God in the Third Person
- In Co-operation With the Three Highest Powers
These headings are also part of the editorial arrangement. They may seem natural to readers who already accept the theological interpretation being presented, but they must not be mistaken for words or titles written by Ellen White.
The distinction is especially important when these pages are quoted in Sabbath School lessons, sermons, books, and doctrinal discussions. If someone quotes a heading as though Ellen White wrote it, the reader is being given an inaccurate picture of the original document.
What did LeRoy Froom say about his role and the purpose of the selection?
This is where the historical record becomes particularly significant.
On January 18, 1966, LeRoy Edwin Froom wrote to R. A. Anderson about the book Evangelism. In that letter, Froom looked back on the effect the book had produced among men in the Columbia Union who had resisted the Trinitarian position.
Froom wrote:
You know what it did with men in the Columbia Union who came face-to-face with the clear, unequivocal statements of the Spirit of Prophecy on the Deity of Christ, personality of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, and the like. They either had to lay down their arms and accept those statements, or else they had to reject the Spirit of Prophecy.
He then continued:
I know that you and Miss Kleuser and I had considerable to do with the selection of these things under the encouragement of men like Elder Branson who felt that the earlier concept of the White Estate brethren on this book Evangelism was not adequate.
Consider what Froom is telling Anderson.
He is not describing the compilation as a neutral collection that simply happened to be useful in a theological discussion. He is recalling how its selected statements confronted men who held different views concerning the Deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity.
He also acknowledges that he, Anderson, and Louise Kleuser had “considerable to do with the selection” of the material. He says this was done under the encouragement of W. H. Branson, who believed that the earlier concept of the White Estate brethren concerning the book was not adequate.
This is Froom’s own description of his involvement and of the effect the book had on those who disagreed with the position represented by the selected statements.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the selection of material was not simply an incidental publishing exercise. It had a doctrinal purpose and was understood by Froom to have been effective in confronting resistance to the Trinitarian position.
We should be precise about what the letter proves. It does not say that every quotation was fabricated, nor does it establish that every individual heading was personally written by Froom. It does establish that he and his associates had considerable involvement in selecting the statements and that he regarded the resulting book as an effective instrument in the controversy.
That admission deserves to be read alongside the original documents, not ignored.
Froom’s own account of where he obtained his theological starting points
There is another revealing statement in Froom’s later book, Movement of Destiny, published in 1971.
Froom described the studies on the Holy Spirit that he had been asked to prepare during the North American Union ministerial institutes of 1928. He wrote:
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, covering the North American union ministerial institutes 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—those previously noted—for initial clues and suggestions, and to open up beckoning vistas to intensive personal study. Having these, I went on from there. But they were decided early helps.
— LeRoy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, p. 322.
This is an important admission about the development of Froom’s own theological studies.
He says that he found little in the existing Adventist literature that provided the kind of exposition he was seeking on the Holy Spirit. He therefore turned to a number of books written by men outside the Adventist faith for “initial clues and suggestions.” He then says, “Having these, I went on from there.”
The issue is not that a researcher should never consult writers outside his own religious tradition. The issue is that readers should know where a theological framework was developed and how it was subsequently supported by selected statements from Ellen White.
When a person develops an understanding through a wider body of theological literature and later selects statements from a prophet’s writings to present that understanding, the original statements must be examined carefully. We must not assume that the later compilation, by itself, settles what the prophet believed.
The “old guard” and the question of timing
Froom’s Movement of Destiny contains another passage that deserves consideration. In recounting a conversation with former General Conference president A. G. Daniells around 1930, Froom described the need to allow time for theological disagreements to settle and attitudes to change before a broader historical presentation could be brought forward.
Froom wrote that Daniells recognized the serious problems involved and sensed that time would be required for theological wounds to heal. He then recalled:
Possibly it would be necessary to wait until certain individuals had dropped out of action (died), before the needed portrayal could wisely be brought forth.
— LeRoy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, p. 17.
This statement should be read carefully. Froom is recounting what Daniells had told him; it is not a direct quotation in which Froom says, “I personally had to wait for the pioneers to die.” But it does reveal that the leaders understood that certain theological changes and presentations would meet resistance from individuals who were still active.
It also places the later development of Adventist theological presentations in a historical setting. The older generation, which remembered the original positions of the movement, was not always in agreement with the direction some leaders wanted to take.
This passage concerns the broader development and presentation of Adventist theology. It should not be confused with Froom’s separate 1966 letter about the selection of material for Evangelism. Together, however, the two documents help readers understand the historical setting in which these changes were taking place.
Why the original sources must be restored
Now consider what happens when modern readers use Evangelism as their primary source for Ellen White’s teaching about the Godhead.
They see a collection of quotations arranged under headings such as “The Eternal Dignitaries of the Trinity,” “Personality of the Holy Spirit,” and “The Power of God in the Third Person.” They may assume that these headings were written by Ellen White, that the quotations were originally presented together, and that the book represents her own organized treatment of the subject.
But the original preface tells us otherwise.
The headings were supplied by compilers. The quotations were selected from different sources. Some sentences were omitted. The material was arranged into topical sections decades after Ellen White’s death.
And Froom’s own 1966 letter confirms that he, Anderson, and Kleuser had considerable involvement in selecting the material, while describing the book’s impact on men who resisted the Trinitarian position.
This is why Evangelism cannot be treated as though it were an uninterrupted theological chapter written by Ellen White. It is a posthumous editorial compilation. Its contents must be checked against the original manuscripts, letters, and published sources.
This is particularly important when considering the “heavenly trio” statement. The original context is Manuscript 21, 1906. There Ellen White first addresses the light, dew, and rain illustrations, calls them spiritualistic representations, and then explains the Father, the Son, and the Comforter in her own words. The later compilation places this material among other selected statements and under editorial headings that give the reader a particular theological framework.
The question is not whether the words in Evangelism should be read. They should. The question is whether they should be read without the original context and without knowing who selected and arranged them.
They should not.
Ellen White herself warned against taking statements from their proper connection and applying them according to the ideas of the person using them. In Selected Messages, Book 1, pages 44–45, she warned that people could take a sentence here and there, remove it from its proper connection, and thereby bewilder those who might have understood it if they had read the material in context.
That warning should make every reader cautious.
The compilation may be useful as a reference work, but it must never become the controlling authority through which all of Ellen White’s earlier writings are interpreted. The original documents must remain accessible, and the complete context must be allowed to speak.
The reader deserves to know not only what a quotation says, but also where it came from, what came before it, what followed it, who selected it, and who supplied the heading above it.
That is not an attack on Ellen White. It is a demand that her actual writings be allowed to speak for themselves.
And it is not enough to quote Evangelism pages 615–617 as though the historical investigation ends there. It is precisely at that point that the investigation should begin.
Primary and historical sources for this section
- Ellen G. White, Evangelism (1946), Preface, especially the statements explaining that excerpts were selected, that some repetitive sentences were omitted, and that bold side headings were supplied by the compilers. Original publication: https://media4.egwwritings.org/pdf/en_Ev.pdf
- Ellen G. White Estate, “Compilations—What They Are and What They Are Not,” Chapter 5, “How the Book Evangelism Was Prepared.” This account identifies the 1944 committee, the working team, and the editorial process: https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/681.45
- LeRoy Edwin Froom to R. A. Anderson, January 18, 1966. The letter discusses the effect of Evangelism among men in the Columbia Union and acknowledges Froom’s, Anderson’s, and Kleuser’s involvement in selecting the material. A reproduced transcription is available at: https://hsdacr.org/trinity-and-adventism/le-roy-froom/
- LeRoy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny (1971), page 17. Froom’s recollection of Daniells’ remarks about waiting until certain individuals had “dropped out of action (died)” before the needed portrayal could be brought forward.
- LeRoy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny (1971), page 322. Froom’s account of consulting books by writers outside the Adventist faith while developing his studies on the Holy Spirit.
- Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, Book 1, pages 44–45. Her warning about taking statements from their proper connection and applying them according to the ideas of the person using them.
13. The danger of using one statement to override another
One of the greatest problems in doctrinal discussions is the habit of selecting a sentence that appears to settle an issue and then using it to silence every other statement.
That is not sound Bible study.
If a person quotes Manuscript 21, paragraph 11, but ignores the preceding paragraphs in which Ellen White rejects the light, dew, and rain illustrations, the reader is not receiving the full context.
Likewise, if someone quotes only paragraph 9, but ignores paragraphs 10 and 11, the reader is also being given an incomplete picture.
The same rule applies to the earlier correspondence. If someone discusses Kellogg’s pantheism but ignores Daniells’ October 29 report of his changed views concerning the Trinity, the historical picture is incomplete.
And if someone quotes Boardman’s illustrations without telling readers that he explicitly described the persons of the Holy Trinity, the original source has not been fairly represented.
The answer is not to choose one document and discard the others. The answer is to examine all the relevant evidence and allow each document to speak within its own setting.
This is especially important when discussing Ellen White. Her writings should not be made to contradict one another through careless quotation or selective use of isolated phrases.
14. What the Bible says about the Father, the Son, and the Spirit
Historical documents can tell us what Kellogg believed, what Boardman taught, and what Ellen White wrote. But Scripture must remain the final authority.
Jesus identified His Father as the only true God:
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
— John 17:3, KJV
After His resurrection, Jesus said to Mary:
...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
— John 20:17, KJV
After His resurrection, Jesus did not cease to identify the Father as His God. In fact, when He spoke to John in the Revelation, after His ascension and exaltation to His Father’s right hand, He still used that same language. Consider what Jesus said:
Revelation 3:12–13 (KJV)
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Notice how many times Jesus says, “my God.” This is not Jesus speaking before His resurrection, when He had humbled Himself and taken the form of a servant. This is the risen and glorified Christ speaking to His church. He is seated at His Father’s right hand, yet He still identifies the Father as “my God.” His exaltation did not change His relationship to His Father.
There is another passage that deserves to be read alongside these words. In Hebrews 1, the Father Himself speaks concerning His Son:
Hebrews 1:8–9 (KJV)
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
The words are remarkable. The Father addresses His Son as “God,” yet in the very next verse speaks of “God, even thy God,” who has anointed Him. The Son is exalted and addressed with divine dignity, but the Father is still identified as His God—the One who anoints Him.
Also note how this harmonize perfectly with what we read in John 1:1
These passages must be considered together. Hebrews does not diminish the Son; it presents His exalted position and everlasting throne. But neither does it erase the distinction between the Father and the Son. The Father is the One who speaks to the Son, and the Son is the One whom the Father anoints.
The question we must ask is simple: Why would Jesus, after His resurrection and exaltation, still call the Father “my God” if that relationship had ceased to exist? We should allow the plain words of Christ and the testimony of the Father to carry their full weight.
Paul wrote:
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
— 1 Corinthians 8:6, KJV
He also wrote:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
— 1 Corinthians 11:3, KJV
And again:
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
— 1 Corinthians 15:24–28, KJV
These passages establish distinctions that must not be ignored. The Father is identified as the one God. Jesus Christ is identified as the one Lord and the Son sent by the Father. The Father is the head of Christ, and the Son ultimately subjects Himself to the Father.
The same Bible also speaks of the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ dwelling in believers.
Paul wrote:
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
— Romans 8:9, KJV
He also wrote:
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
— Galatians 4:6, KJV
These passages deserve careful consideration. They connect the Spirit with God and with Christ. They should not be set aside simply because a later theological system uses different language.
At the same time, every passage that speaks of the Spirit must be examined. We should not build a doctrine from one or two verses while ignoring the rest of Scripture.
Jesus promised the Comforter. The question is how the Bible itself identifies that Comforter and describes His relationship to the Father and the Son.
Jesus said:
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
— John 14:26, KJV
And in the same discourse:
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.
— John 15:26, KJV
The reader must study these passages together. The Spirit is not an impersonal influence to be treated lightly. The Spirit is the divine presence and power by which God and Christ work in the believer. The precise nature of the Spirit must be established from Scripture rather than assumed from a theological label.
15. The personality of God and Christ: Why the question matters
Ellen White repeatedly emphasized the personality of God and Christ. This was not a minor subject in her writings.
The question was not simply whether God has power or whether His Spirit is active. It concerned who God is, who Christ is, and how the Father and Son relate to one another.
The Bible presents the Father as a personal Being. Jesus is described as the express image of His Father’s person:
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.
— Hebrews 1:3, KJV
Jesus said:
The Father is greater than I.
— John 14:28, KJV
He also said:
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth...
— John 5:20, KJV
And:
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.
— John 5:26, KJV
These passages should be studied carefully. They describe the Son’s relationship to the Father and the source of the Son’s life and authority.
The purpose of examining the 1903–1906 controversy is not to force every historical statement into a predetermined conclusion. It is to understand why the personality of God became such a serious issue and why Ellen White warned against explanations that obscured the distinction between the Father and the Son.
The reader should be encouraged to open the Bible and test every claim.
16. What the historical record establishes—and what it does not
After examining the documents, we can identify several conclusions that are directly supported by the evidence.
First, Kellogg’s understanding of the Trinity changed. Daniells’ October 29, 1903 letter reports Kellogg saying that his former views had stood in his way and that he had recently come to believe in the Trinity.
Second, Kellogg’s new explanation included the belief that the Holy Spirit, rather than the Father, filled all space and every living thing. This was part of the discussion surrounding The Living Temple.
Third, Ellen White had already warned Kellogg about his lack of clarity concerning the personality of God. Her March 16, 1903 letter states this plainly.
Fourth, William Edwin Boardman was a Presbyterian minister and influential Higher Life writer. His 1858 book explicitly discussed the Holy Trinity and used illustrations involving light, dew, and rain to describe the Father, Son, and Spirit.
Fifth, Ellen White’s Manuscript 21, 1906, addressed illustrations closely resembling those in Boardman’s book. She rejected these earthly comparisons as spiritualistic, imperfect, and untrue.
Sixth, in the same manuscript, Ellen White wrote that there are three living persons of the heavenly trio, identifying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Seventh, the heavenly trio statement was published in 1906, not first introduced in the 1946 book Evangelism. The manuscript and publication history must therefore be considered when evaluating claims about later editorial changes.
There are also conclusions that the evidence does not establish by itself.
It does not establish that Ellen White personally read Boardman’s book. The similarity of the illustrations is clear, but a direct documentary link proving how she encountered them would be needed before making that claim.
It does not establish that Ellen White explicitly rejected every possible form of Trinitarian belief. Her criticism of the illustrations is direct, but the manuscript does not contain a simple sentence declaring, “I reject the Trinity.”
It does not establish that the 1906 heavenly trio statement was fabricated by later editors. Its publication in 1906 rules out the claim that it first appeared in Evangelism decades later.
It does not establish that every later Trinitarian formulation is identical to Boardman’s theology or Kellogg’s theology. Those claims would require separate evidence.
And it does not establish intentional concealment merely because a later summary omits a document. An omission can make an account incomplete, but deliberate suppression requires evidence of intent.
These distinctions are not weaknesses. They are necessary if the reader is to trust the research.
The goal is not to replace one unsupported claim with another. The goal is to establish what the original documents actually say.
17. Conclusion: Let the documents speak, and let Scripture judge
The controversy surrounding Kellogg, The Living Temple, and the personality of God is more complex than it is sometimes presented.
The 1903 correspondence shows that Kellogg had changed his former views concerning the Trinity. Daniells reported that Kellogg now believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and assigned to the Holy Spirit the role of filling all space and every living thing.
Ellen White’s earlier and later warnings show that she regarded Kellogg’s representations of God as seriously mistaken. Her concern was not limited to a single expression. It involved the personality of God and Christ and the danger of presenting ideas that could mislead believers.
The 1858 book by William Boardman adds another important piece of evidence. Boardman was a Presbyterian minister who explicitly taught the tri-personality of God. His book used illustrations of light, dew, and rain to describe the Father, Son, and Spirit. Nearly half a century later, Ellen White addressed closely related illustrations in Manuscript 21, 1906, and rejected them as spiritualistic and misleading.
In that same manuscript, she wrote of three living persons of the heavenly trio. That statement must be acknowledged and examined honestly. It cannot be erased from the historical record, nor should it be made to carry meanings that its immediate context does not establish.
The reader is therefore left with a responsibility. Do not accept a doctrine simply because a church teaches it. Do not reject a statement simply because it challenges what you have believed. Do not allow a historical writer, a minister, a theologian, or a later editor to do your Bible study for you.
The Bereans were commended because they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether the things they heard were true.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
— Acts 17:11, KJV
That is the standard we should follow.
The question is not whether a doctrine is old or new, popular or unpopular, traditional or controversial. The question is whether it is true.
If our understanding is correct, it will stand the test of Scripture. If it is wrong, we should be willing to leave it behind, no matter how long we have held it or how many respected people have taught it.
Christ did not call us to defend a religious system at the expense of truth. He called us to follow Him.
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
— John 17:17, KJV
Let us therefore return to the Word of God, examine the evidence honestly, and allow Scripture—not tradition, reputation, or human authority—to be our final judge.
Mario Pelser
The Berean Life
When everything else moves, God’s Word remains.
Primary sources and further reading
The following sources are provided so readers can examine the original documents rather than depend on this article or on someone else’s interpretation.
1. William Edwin Boardman
William Edwin Boardman, The Higher Christian Life (1858), Part II, Chapter I, “For Me: What Then Must I Do?”
This is the original source for the light, dew, and rain illustrations and Boardman’s explanation of the “tri-personality of the one God.”
2. A. G. Daniells to W. C. White, October 29, 1903
Contemporary report of Daniells’ conversation with Kellogg, including Kellogg’s reported change concerning the Trinity and his explanation of the Holy Spirit.
https://asitreads.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/1903-10-29-Daniells-to-WCWhite.pdf
3. W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, November 4, 1903
Correspondence confirming that W. C. White and Ellen White had read Daniells’ October 29 letter.
4. Ellen G. White, Letter 300, March 16, 1903
Contains the statement to Kellogg:
“You are not definitely clear on the personality of God, which is everything to us as a people.”
5. Ellen G. White, Letter 232, October 6, 1903
Addresses the incorrect and misleading representations associated with The Living Temple.
6. Ellen G. White, Letter 271b, September 18, 1903
Warns that Kellogg was using expressions similar to Ellen White’s while giving them an almost opposite meaning.
7. Ellen G. White, Letter 253, November 20, 1903
Written to Kellogg. Addresses the personality of God and Christ and reiterates Ellen White’s testimony on the subject.
8. Ellen G. White, Manuscript 70a, 1905
Addresses the errors in The Living Temple and the misleading ideas concerning the personality of God and Christ.
9. Ellen G. White, Manuscript 21, 1906
Come Out and Be Separate. Contains the full discussion of the light, dew, and rain illustrations and the statement about three living persons of the heavenly trio.
10. Ellen G. White, Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7 (1906), pages 60–64
The published 1906 source containing the material from Manuscript 21.
11. Ellen G. White, Manuscript 57, 1900
An earlier manuscript that should be considered when examining Ellen White’s use of language concerning three persons.
A final note to the reader
This article has been prepared from historical documents and published sources. Every reader is encouraged to examine the original material and verify the quotations, dates, and references.
Historical research, however carefully conducted, is not beyond the possibility of a small error. A page reference, transcription detail, or other minor point may need correction. That is why the original documents are identified and why readers are encouraged to check them for themselves.
I do not ask anyone to accept my conclusions simply because I have written them. I ask readers to examine the evidence, open their Bibles, and decide whether the conclusions are supported.
Truth has nothing to fear from honest investigation.
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
— 1 John 4:1, KJV