Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9



A response by Derrick Gillespie

Jason Smith (seen pictured above) is the only dissident anti-Trinitarian I have interacted with
online in which I have seen a certain level of maturity and openness which I admire, and despite
we disagree on some things, yet he was frank and honest enough to say (in part) of me and my
online ministry:

"This is brother Jason Smith.... I will speak for myself..... As I have stated before I will state
again, brother Derricks presentations have an higher degree of accuracy than most of the
other pro-trinitarian SDA defenders..." ---Jason Smith (anti-Trinitarian), Facebook, Dec. 21,

In our last direct Facebook interaction online on the matter of the Godhead, he asked me some
questions, and I am sharing my response to him (just as it was written) so that readers can

Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 1 TO JASON SMITH:

DID I DISTORT D.M. Canright's quote in my writings?

No, I didnt, because here is what I said to Wendell Slattery in a public thread on the very same
issue about Canright's 1877 statement where he said:
Do we not all agree that in the providence of God, special light is now being given upon the
subjects of the second advent near, the kingdom, the new earth, the sleep of the dead, the
destruction of the wicked, the doctrine of the Trinity, the law of God, God's holy Sabbath, etc.?
All Seventh day Adventists will agree in these things."

The full conversation on that matter is found at this link:


IN RESPONSE TO Wendell Slattery's questions about what Canright meant in 1877, I wrote:

"Canright unwittingly, WITHOUT REALIZING IT, made that ironic statement at a time when
he himself still objected to the Trinity, and in 1878 (one year later) he made another statement
which proved that he was still opposed to the Trinity while in Adventism. Yet I say he
"unwittingly" said that "special light is now being given" upon varying subjects, including the
Trinity, without realizing how it would have played out. What he certainly meant was that the
Roman Catholic version of the Trinity was certainly CORRECTLY deemed by the 'enlightened'
SDA pioneers from 1863 right up to 1877 as unbiblical in the way it was explaining the
Godhead.Yet if only Canright had known that leading up to 1888 brethren like E.J. Waggoner
and A.T. Jones were in deep bible study over the very nature of Jesus and his capacity to save to
the utmost, and this would precipitate a revision and acceptance of the very Trinity doctrine they
had been frowning upon.

If he had only known that the SDA pioneers eventually would have come to see shortly after
1877 (i.e. within the next decade) that what they should have been denouncing was not the
Trinity itself, but the way the Papacy taught the COUNTERFEIT version of the true "Bible
doctrine of the Trinity" (i.e. "the Bible doctrine of the Trinity" is one where mystical speculation
is removed; as they couldn't help but endorsing in the Spear's Trinity article published in 1892).
So Canright made an ironic statement indeed in 1877 without even realizing the full nature of the
"special light" that would shine on the subject. God does work in mysterious ways!! And this
presentation at the link below tells you exactly what I mean by the irony in that unwitting 1877
statement of Canright:


SDA Pioneers Rejected Papal Trinity, But....

Like Reply 1 hr
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 2 TO JASON SMITH:



Nowhere did I ever speak on that issue, but always admitted to the *mystery of the process, and I
repeat here for clarity: NO ONE KNOWS THE "HOW" OF THE PROCESS, but that is no
excuse for rejecting the reality of Jesus being God's "only begotten Son" from all eternity past
(past tense).
Like Reply 55 mins Edited

Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 3 TO JASON SMITH:



Certainly not!! My approach varies and yet they all arrive at the same truth. For instance, just
recently I wrote this open letter to Paul Williams (an active anti-Trinitarian online), where I said
in part:

"None of you as anti-trinitarians have any issues with the body of data called "Sermons and
Talks" of Mrs. White as archived by the E.G. White Estate, and you all have no issues with the
Estate vouching for the authenticity of other archived documents from Mrs. White, but just this
little aspect of it..."the three holiest beings in heaven". You are all trying to have your cake and
eat it too. The E.G. White Estate already vouched for that 1906 sermon recorded and edited by
the scribe (with Mrs. White's prayer to "the three holiest beings in heaven" as the "three Great
Worthies"), and, as others have correctly observed, Mrs. White tacitly approved of it by quoting
from that scribal document in another place (even if its only quoted in part), and hence claiming
it as a correct representation of her sermon preached in 1906. But I will now tell you that we
have verified *handwriting of Mrs. White herself which is even stronger evidence in favor of the
truth than "the three holiest beings in heaven" reference in a recorded sermon. What is this
verified" handwriting" from her, you may ask?

The EGW Estate, produced a EGW *signatured archive document of her own handwriting,
where she wrote directly by hand that the "three living PERSONALITIES" of the Godhead are
"persons", and it it shows plainly where she crossed out the word "persons' and IN HER OWN
HANDWRITING replaced it with the words "personalities". Why is that significant, despite the
records show her repeatedly using the words interchangeably? Because in Mrs. White's time the
word "person" was more controversial in meaning than "personality", since the Catholics and her
daughter Churches in Christendom had already misrepresented the word "persons" as it applies
to the threefold Godhead to have it simply mean "masks" worn or "roles" played by the same
personal Being. But it was the word "personality" which carried with it a stronger meaning of
"individuality" in Mrs. White's time, than even the word "person" (as the 1828 Noah Webster's
Dictionary of American English does show).

Thus when Mrs. White wanted a word to express in her time the INDIVIDUALITY of the
Godhead "persons" she clearly preferred the use of the word "personality" or "personalities", and
hence wrote that by hand, and *SIGNATURED it!! The significance of that happening many
have missed, but I haven't missed it, and couldn't have afforded to miss it. It's the very word
"personality" that Mrs. White used over and over to distinguish between the INDIVIDUALITY
of the Father and the Son!! Now when she wanted to do the same regarding the Spirit and Jesus,
here is what she said in 1893 (one year after the endorsement of the Spear's Trinity article in

"The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christs name. He personifies [impersonates] Christ, yet is
a distinct *PERSONALITY." [or individual]

---E.G. White, Ms 93, 1893, pg.8

This uncontested piece of writing by Mrs. White herself says it all for SDAs, and is even more
powerful to use than the recorded and edited 1906 sermon by the scribe about "the three holiest
beings in heaven". But while many have missed it, that nail must now be recognized for what it
is, and driven home to its hilt. And ever remember that Mrs. White used the word "personifies"
only twice or maybe thrice in all her writings, and in all instances she uses it to mean one living
personal being IMPERSONATING another (not someone impersonating himself), since
"personify" and "impersonate" were synonyms at the time (1828 Webster's Dictionary). Satan,
she predicted, would "personify" or impersonate Jesus via the Anti-Christ in the very last act of
the "end time" drama, and in the only other place where she used "personify" she made plain that
the Spirit "PERSONIFIES" or impersonates Christ, "yet is a distinct "PERSONALITY", thus a
separate individual...NOT another side of him as a person (as you want to believe), or some
"split personality" like what a MAD-MAN has (a rather blasphemous notion to deem Jesus as
having a split personality)!!

And furthermore, for Mrs. White to have presented the Spirit as one of the members of the
"Eternal Godhead" who along with Father and Son was "stirred with pity for the [human] race"
and who "gave themselves" in the heavenly courts to the plan of saving man even before Man
was created (Counsels on Health, page 222), this tells us:

1. the "eternal" Holy Spirit was already there as a separate "personality" from eternity past
could be no "threefold" "Eternal Godhead" of "three living persons" (all expressions used by
Mrs. White herself)

2. Only an INDIVIDUAL has a "self" to give, and all three "personalities" or individual beings
of the threefold Godhead "gave themselves" to the plan to save Man in the very courts of heaven.

That settles the issue in no uncertain tones, and its time the significance of that be made known
to all!! Its time you bow to that truth Paul, since I already made it plain, WITH EVIDENCE,
what Jesus being deemed "God himself" means, despite being a "distinct personality" (or
separate individual) from the Father, and so the same principle of the Spirit being deemed
"Christ himself" despite being a "distinct personality" (or separate individual) is not to be
trampled upon stubbornly, and the rules of logic changed midstream in that instance!! IT IS AS
CLEAR AS CRYSTAL AND BRIGHT AS THE SUN!! Accept it by faith, or simply give up SD
Adventism and E.G. White!! You cant keep up your "kicking against the pricks" and remain true
and honest." [End of quote]


Like Reply 1 hr Edited



Certainly not!! This is what the anti-Trinitarian dissidents would want you to think, but here is
the plain truth for readers to determine the truth for themselves (Quoted from my 2001 booklet
"Trinity- The SDA Church on Trial":

"Did Mrs. White prefer to call the Holy Spirit a personality but not a Person while she was
alive? Look back at the evidence of her OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED WRITINGS WHILE SHE
WAS ALIVE. The truth is evident there, that the Holy Spirit, this divine person has a
personality!!! This writer will use direct evidence, not surmises, to establish truth. Is it also true
that she never saw the Spirit as an individual being? The following evidence is to the contrary,
and honesty requires a full acceptance of the following fact.

In the widely read book, STEPS TO CHRIST, published while Mrs. White was alive (in
1892), she makes the following crucial point:

the unceasing interest of *Heavenly BEINGS all are enlisted in behalf of mans redemption -
Steps to Christ, pgs. 20-21

Who are these BEINGS she was referring to as enlisted on behalf of mans redemption?
Considering that usually only persons or beings are referred to as enlisted, now notice
carefully, in the *lines directly preceding this statement, the list of BEINGS that she intended
to highlight (inserts in brackets and emphases are mine):

[1] The Saviors [Jesus] life and death and resurrection, [2] the ministry of angels, [3] the
pleading of the *SPIRIT, [4] the Father working above and through all Steps to Christ, pgs.

No true Adventist will deny that in Heaven there are *originally two sets of Heavenly beings,
namely [1] angels and [2] the members of the Godhead. Now notice carefully here that Mrs.
White clearly mentions the Holy Spirit as one of the Heavenly BEINGS, showing unceasing
interest in, and was enlisted in behalf of mans redemption. Some, faced with this truth (and
convicting piece of evidence), may claim that Mrs. White may have been careless in her choice
of words here, or she did not really see the Holy Spirit as a distinct or separate Heavenly
Being, as are the angels, Christ and the Father. The question is then, what more evidence do
they need than her saying in 1899, the Spirit is as much a person as God is a person? Did Mrs.
White not know what she was talking about? Is it that she was not expert at theological matters,
exegesis and semantics in doctrine, and hence is in error here? That is the excuse some will
make. However, Mrs. White appropriately describes this dishonest approach to truth in the
following way:

All the evidence produced they decide shall not weigh a straw with them, and they tell others
the doctrine is not true, and afterwards, when they see as light evidence they were so forward to
condemn they have too much pride to say I was wrong
Manuscript 15, 1888

Now notice carefully how Mrs. White repeated the way she equally referred to the angels and the
Holy Spirit together as beings in MINISTRY OF HEALING, another widely read book, one
that was published in 1905, thirteen years after she made the previously quoted statement in
Steps to Christ of 1892.

The Bible shows us God in His high and holy place*SURROUNDED by holy *BEINGS,
all waiting to do His will. Through these messengers He is in active communication with every
part of His dominion. By His *SPIRIT [one of the Holy beings which are before His throne,
Rev. 1:4] He is everywhere present. Through the agency of [1] His *SPIRIT and [2] His angels
[all Heavenly beings, according to Mrs. White], He ministers to the children of men.
---E.G. White- Ministry of Healing, 1903, pg. 417

Having considered that WHILE ALIVE she had already published that the Holy Spirit is one of
the Heavenly beings who was enlisted for mans redemption, now notice carefully the
following fact. In the quote just read, she focused on the holy BEINGS who SURROUND
the throne of God, who represent Him, and who minister on His behalf. Who does she
immediately mention here among them? The Holy Spirit! The same Holy Spirit who is described
by the Bible as the sevenfold Spirit before His [Gods] throne in Revelation 1:4! Is He not a
separate holy being? The truth in Mrs. Whites writings is obvious to those who wish to see it.
No one can cover it up! Considering all proven before (showing what she published while alive),
now notice again the further proof below, in her later published manuscripts (i.e. published after
her death), climaxing all she said while alive. And there is no evidence of tampering here [by the
scribe/secretary who recorded her 1906 sermon] since it matches perfectly with what was
published while she was alive.

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

The Adventist Church therefore has several reasons why it can remain united on this doctrinal
truth, that the Spirit is a separate holy being, the third Person of the Godhead. Prove this for
yourself in Isaiah 48:16!!! "

[End of Quote, from pages 24-27]



Like Reply 54 mins Edited

Derrick Gillespie P.S. If anyone want to better understand why Jesus would be "the only being"
who could counsel with God, the Father, and yet the Holy Spirit is a "distinct personality" or
separate being united with the Father and the Son, see my booklet linked below already
addressing that issue in light of this E.G. White quote making Jesus SEEMINGLY numbered
among the angelic "sons of God" in his pre-incarnation, despite he is NOT a literal angel (since I
have never left any of the controversial issues unaddressed):

" No one of the angels could become a substitute and surety for the human race, for their life is
Gods; they could not surrender it. On Christ alone the human family depended for their
existence. He is the eternal, self-existent Son, on whom no yoke had come. When God asked,
Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?Christ alone of the angelic host could reply, Here
am I; send Me. He alone had covenanted before the foundation of the world to become a surety
for man. He could say that which not the highest angel could sayI have power over my own
life. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. ---E.G. White, Manuscript
101, 1897, pg. 28


Like Reply 13 mins Edited

Derrick Gillespie P.S. All of the recycled anti-Trinitarian arguments of the dissidents in
Adventism (including those adopted by Jason Smith) have already been exposed and debunked
in this booklet (take the time to read it with an open mind, dear readers):

Modern SDA Anti-Trinitarians "Kicking Against the Pricks" (an Oct.
Like Reply 51 mins

Derrick Gillespie Let every man be convinced in his own mind, but let me remind us all as SD
Adventists what Mrs. White said about those too stubborn to accept evidence on a matter:

All the evidence produced they decide [those disagreeing] shall not weigh a straw with them
and they tell others the doctrine is not true [showing disunity], and afterward when they see as
light, evidence they were so forward to condemn, they have too much pride to say I was wrong;
they cherish doubt and unbelief, and are too proud to acknowledge their convictions.

----E.G. White, Manuscript 15, 1888

________________ END OF MY RESPONSES TO JASON SMITH __________________

Let me share several links to details supplied on my Facebook page, all of which have already
addressed much of the areas Jason Smith and I differ in:

Links 1a and 1b: General Questions and Answers About Trinity Issues in Adventism:



Link 2: How and Why Mrs. White Quoted Trinitarian Authors after 1888:

Link 3: The Best Collection of Pro-Trinity Facts from the SDA Pioneers after 1888:


Link 4: The Most Potent Arguments Proving the Spirit is a real and Separate Person:


Link 5: Real Proof of the SDA Pioneers Accepting and worshipping a Trinity before 1915 (and
gradually changing their own doctrinal Fundamentals to express same):



Link 6: Why was Jesus the Only Being one with (and participating in the councils of) the

Link 7:
How the Hymnals of the SDA Pioneers Reveal Godhead Doctrinal Changes Before 1915, and
that they first Rejected the Catholic Trinity But later Accepted the Biblical Trinity before 1915:


------------------------------- END OF DCOUMENT ----------------------------------------------

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