James White on the Personality of God

After reading the following article by James White, I have changed my point of view about the trinity dispute. I used to think it was unimportant, now I realise that it IS important what we believe about God. What IS unimportant is the difference between what James believed and the present SDA belief.

This article by James White was published in 1861:

PERSONALITY OF GOD.

                                   
        MAN was made in the image of God. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him." Gen.i,26,27. See also chap.ix,6; 1Cor.xi,7.
   
       Those who deny the personality of God, say that "image" here does not mean physical form, but moral image, and they make this the grand starting point to prove the immortality of all men. The argument stands thus:

        First, man was made in God's moral image. Second, God is an immortal being. Third, therefore all men are immortal. But this mode of reasoning would also prove man omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and thus clothe mortal man with all the attributes of the deity. Let us try it:

        First, man was made in God's moral image. Second, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Third, therefore, man is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. That which proves too much, proves nothing to the point, therefore the position that the image of God means his moral image, cannot be sustained.
   
        As proof that God is a person, read his own words to Moses: "And the Lord said, Behold there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock; and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by. And I will take away mine hand and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen." Ex.xxxiii,21-23. See also chap.xxiv,9-11.

        Here God tells Moses that he shall see his form. To say that God made it appear to Moses that he saw his form, when he has no form, is charging God with adding to falsehood a sort of juggling deception upon his servant Moses.
   
        But the skeptic thinks he sees a contradiction between verse 11, which says that the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, and verse 20, which states that Moses could not see his face. But let Num.xii,5-8 remove the difficulty. "And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forth. And he said, Hear now my words. If there be a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently."

        The great and dreadful God came down, wrapped in a cloud of glory. This cloud could be seen, but not the face which possesses more dazzling brightness than a thousand suns. Under these circumstances Moses was permitted to draw near and converse with God face to face, or mouth to mouth, even apparently.
   
        Says the prophet Daniel, "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hairs of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire." Chap.vii,9. "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him, and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom." Verses 13, 14.
   
         Here is a sublime description of the action of two personages; viz, God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ. Deny their personality, and there is not a distinct idea in these quotations from Daniel. In connection with this quotation read the apostle's declaration that the Son was in the express image of his Father's person. "God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person." Heb.i,1-3.
   
         We here add the testimony of Christ. "And the Father himself which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." John v,37. See also Phil.ii,6. To say that the Father has not a personal shape, seems the most pointed contradiction of plain scripture terms.

         OBJECTION. - "God is a Spirit." John iv,24.
         ANSWER. - Angels are also spirits [Ps.civ,4], yet those that visited Abram and Lot, lay down, ate, and took hold of Lot's hand. They were spirit beings. So is God a Spirit being.

         OBJ. - God is everywhere. Proof. Ps.cxxxix,1-8. He is as much in every place as in any one place.
         ANS. - 1. God is everywhere by virtue of his omniscience, as will be seen by the very words of David referred to above. Verses 1-6. "O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine uprising; thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thy hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me. It is high; I cannot attain unto it."

         2. God is everywhere by virtue of his Spirit, which is his representative, and is manifested wherever he pleases, as will be seen by the very words the objector claims, referred to above. Verses 7-10. "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. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me."

         God is in heaven. This we are taught in the Lord's prayer. "Our Father which art in heaven." Matt.vi,9; Luke xi,2. But if God is as much in every place as he is in any one place, then heaven is also as much in every place as it is in any one place, and the idea of going to heaven is all a mistake. We are all in heaven; and the Lord's prayer, according to this foggy theology simply means, Our Father which art everywhere, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth, as it is everywhere.

         Again, Bible readers have believed that Enoch and Elijah were really taken up to God in heaven. But if God and heaven be as much in every place as in any one place, this is all a mistake. They were not translated. And all that is said about the chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and the attending whirlwind to take Elijah up into heaven, was a useless parade. They only evaporated, and a misty vapor passed through the entire universe. This is all of Enoch and Elijah that the mind can possibly grasp, admitting that
God and heaven are no more in any one place than in every place. But it is said of Elijah that he "went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2Kings ii,11. And of Enoch it is said that he "walked with God, and was not, for God took him." Gen.v,24.

         Jesus is said to be on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Heb.i,3. "So, then, after the Lord had spoken unto them he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." Mark xvi,19. But if heaven be everywhere, and God everywhere, then Christ's ascension up to heaven, at the Father's right hand, simply means that he went everywhere! He was only taken up where the cloud hid him from the gaze of his disciples, and then evaporated and went everywhere! So that instead of the lovely Jesus,
so beautifully described in both Testaments, we have only a sort of essence dispersed through the entire universe. And in harmony with this rarified theology, Christ's second advent, or his return, would be the condensation of this essence to some locality, say the mount of Olivet! Christ arose from the dead with a physical form. "He is not here," said the angel, "for he is risen as he said." Matt.xxviii,6.

         "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail! And they came and held him by the feet, and they worshiped him." Verse 9.
   
         "Behold my hands and my feet," said Jesus to those who stood in doubt of his resurrection, "that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honey-comb, and he took it and did eat before them." Luke xxiv,39-43.

         After Jesus addressed his disciples on the mount of Olivet, he was taken up from them, and a cloud received him out of their sight. "And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold two men stood by them in white apparel, which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Acts i,9-11.

J. W.

James believed:

• God the Father has a physical form
• God can be anywhere by his representative, the Spirit
• Jesus has a physical form
  
• Heaven is a physical place
• "Personality" means a distinct personage and physical form.
  

These are important doctrines and still held by all SDAs today.

James White on the Holy Spirit

"Bible Adventism" is a collection of James White's sermons on the topic of the Second Advent of Christ. The full title says it all:

Bible Adventism
or, Sermons on the
Coming and Kingdom
of
Our Lord Jesus Christ

by Elder James White

On page 40 of "Bible Adventism" (1887 edition) James White writes:

Our Lord was tenderly introducing to his disciples the subject of his ascent to Heaven. "Little children yet a little while I am with you." John 13:33. "Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards." Verse 36. This statement caused distress and consternation in the minds of the disciples, and led Peter to say to his Lord, "Why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake." Verse 37. Then follow the comforting words of the text, assuring the sorrowing disciples that their Lord would come again, and receive them to himself.

Jesus also assured them that the Father would give them "another comforter, " even the Spirit of truth, which should dwell with them, and be in them. Chap.14:16, 17. The words, "another comforter, " suppose two, at least. The one was the person of our divine Lord. The other is the Spirit of truth. Both were comforters of the church. Christ was such in a special sense while with his disciples. The other was to abide with the church, to administer the blessings and gifts of the Holy Spirit to the church, until her absent Lord should return in glory to take her to himself. Then the days of her mourning, and fasting, and griefs, will be over forever...

And on page 48 and 49 of "Bible Adventism"

But more than this, those who talk of a spiritual coming and reign of Christ have things badly confused. May the Lord help them to see the difference between the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, and the personal presence of Christ at his second appearing, while we appeal to the Scriptures. "I will pray the Father, " says Jesus, "and he shall give you another Comforter." John 14:16 This language implies more than one comforter. When Christ was with his people, he was their comforter.

In his absence, the Father was to send another comforter, even the Spirit of truth. During the absence of the Son, the Holy Spirit was to be his representative, and the comforter of his dear, sorrowing people. The facts in the case are distinctly stated in the following impressive words: "But now I go my way to Him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." John 16:5-8.

James believes:

• There are two distinct Comforters
• Christ was "in a special sense" Comforter while on earth with his disciples.
• The Holy Spirit is another Comforter, it is not Christ because Christ is absent.
• While Christ is absent the Holy Spirit is His representative and Comforter.

The implication is that Christ is not the Comforter at present, BUT He is returning. This is great news.

James White in the "Living Voice"

Geoff quoted Russell Holt:
"(U)ntil his death at the age of 60, James White opposed the trinity"

I see no reason to disagree. But I do have a question... How strongly did he oppose the trinity doctrine?

We will look first at James' anti-trinitarian comments:

The booklet "The Living Voice of the Lord's Witnesses" contains thirteen anti-trinitarian quotes from James White's writings. I have numbered them and added my comments:

1.

As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit sabbath other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, the trinity, the consciousness of the dead and eternal life in misery. The mass who have held these fundamental errors, have doubtless done it ignorantly; but can it be supposed that the church of Christ will carry along with her these errors till the judgment scenes burst upon the world? We think not. "Here are they [in the period of a message given just before the Son of man takes his place upon the white cloud, Rev.xiv,14] that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." This class, who live just prior to the second advent, will not be keeping the traditions of men, neither will they be holding fundamental errors relative to the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. And as the true light shines out upon these subjects, and is rejected by the mass, then condemnation will come upon them. ... Solemn dreadful, swiftly-approaching hour!" {J. S. White,
Review & Herald, September 12, 1854}

The trinity is listed as a Catholic error, and I agree, the Catholic trinity doctrine is quite different to the Godhead I believe in, so it is an error.

2.

"The Father and the Son were one in man's creation, and in his redemption. Said  the Father to the Son, "Let us make man in our image." And the triumphant song in which the redeemed take part, is unto "Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever."" {J. S. White, The Law and the Gospel, p. 1. 1870}

Mildly anti-trinitarian there is no mention of the Spirit. It does indicate that the Father and Son "were one in man's creation, and in his redemption". This is my understanding of "oneness" too. They are one in purpose, not being.

3.

"Paul affirms of the Son of God that he was in the form of God, and that he was equal with God. 'Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' Phil. 2:6. The reason why it is not robbery for the Son to be equal with the Father is the fact that he is equal... The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, "Let us make man in our image"?" {J. S. White, Review & Herald, November 29, 1877}

Good on you James, the "three in one and one in three" formulation is neither Biblical or explicable. He also indicates that "Trinity" is not the worst of errors. This is hardly backing for the belief that the trinity doctrine is "the Omega of apostacy", as present-day anti-trinitarians claim.

4.

"Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one as he was one with his Father. This prayer did not contemplate one disciple with twelve heads, but twelve disciples, made one in object and effort in the cause of their master. Neither are the Father and the Son parts of the "three-one God." They are two distinct beings, yet one in the design and accomplishment of redemption. The redeemed, from the first who shares in the great redemption, to the last, all ascribe the honor, and glory, and praise, of their salvation, to both God and the Lamb." {J. S. White, Life incidents, p. 343. 1868}

Once again James is spot-on. The "three-one God" is a fallacy. I am honestly glad for these sort of quotes because they clear up just what is the error to avoid. The oneness of God is not about form or being but to do with oneness of purpose, or "design and accomplishment". Once again I totally agree with what he says.

5.

"The gospel of the Son of God is the good news of salvation through Christ. When man fell, angels wept. Heaven was bathed in tears. The Father and the Son took counsel, and Jesus offered to undertake the cause of fallen man. He offered to die that man might have life. The Father consented to give his only beloved, and the good news resounded through heaven, and on earth, that a way was opened for man's redemption."{J. S. White, The Law and the Gospel, pp. 2, 3. 1870}

This is mildly anti-trinitarian. Is it the fact that Jesus is the Father's "only beloved" or the fact that the Spirit is not mentioned? In any case I believe as James does here because he is Biblical. His understanding of what "only beloved" means is probably different to mine, but I can't be sure as he doesn't elaborate.

6.

""Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE faith which was once delivered unto the saints..." (Jude 3, 4) ...The exhortation to contend for the faith delivered to the saints, is to us alone. And it is very important for us to know what for and how to contend. In the 4th verse he gives us the reason why we should contend for THE faith, a particular faith; "for there are certain men," or a certain class who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. ... The way spiritualizers have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God." {J. S. White, The Day Star, January 24, 1846}

Probably the most widely quoted of all James White's writing on the trinity:
He certainly opposed the trinity but the main thrust of the article is probably against the spiritualisers doing away with the personality of the Father and Son. In this I am on James' side, even though I disagree with what he says about Jesus not being the eternal God. I couldn't find the complete article on the web and would very much like to have it. And I repeat, I do not believe the Catholic creed on the Trinity because it is unscriptural blasphemy.

7.

"The Father is the greatest in that he is first. The Son is next in authority because He has been given all things." {J. S. White, Review & Herald, January 4, 1881}

I think the reason it is seen as anti-trinitarian is that it makes the Father first. From a previous quote we know that James believes Father and Son are equal so he is probably not talking about rank here but that the Father was here "first". However the next sentence has "The Son is next in authority" which may show that he is actually talking "ranking". We need more context to work that out. Either way it is a fairly weak anti-trinitarian stance

8.

"We are told by those who teach the abolition of the Father's law, that the commandments of God mentioned in the New Testament, are not the ten, but the requirements of the gospel, such as repentance, faith, baptism and the Lord's supper. But as these, and every other requirement peculiar to the gospel, are all embraced in the faith of Jesus, it is evident that the commandments of God are not the sayings of Christ and his apostles. To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God. And as the faith of Jesus embraces every requirement peculiar to the gospel, it necessarily follows that the commandments of God, mentioned by the third angel, embrace only the ten precepts of the Father's immutable law which are not peculiar to any one dispensation, but common to all." {J. S. White, Review & Herald, August 5, 1852}

This article is obviously on the topic of the law, trinity only appears as a comparison. While agreeing on the thrust of the quote, I must disagree and say that I believe that Jesus Christ is the 'very and Eternal God'. But this raises a question, have we had any articles specifically correcting the doctrine of the trinity. I'm sure James wrote articles against the other Catholic errors on baptism and the state in death... are there any on the trinity? Why does his obvious dislike for the Catholic trinity doctrine never produce more than a passing mention?

9.

"Bro. Cottrell is nearly eighty years of age, remembers the dark day of 1780, and has been a Sabbath-keeper more than thirty years. He was formerly united with the Seventh-Day Baptists, but on some points of doctrine has differed from that body. He rejected the doctrine of the trinity, also the doctrine of man's consciousness between death and the resurrection, and the punishment of the wicked in eternal consciousness. He believed that the wicked would be destroyed. Bro. Cottrell buried his wife not long since, who, it is said, was one of the excellent of the earth. Not long since, this aged pilgrim received a letter from friends in Wisconsin, purporting to be from M. Cottrell, his wife, who sleeps in Jesus. But he, believing that the dead know not anything, was prepared to reject at once the heresy that the spirits of the dead, knowing everything, come back and converse with the living. Thus truth is a staff in his old age. He has three sons in Mill Grove, who, with their families are Sabbath-keepers." {J. S. White, Review & Herald, June 9, 1853}

Another weak anti-trinitarian quote. The emphasis of this article is not on the trinity... he is focussing on Cottrell's belief on the man's unconsciousness in death. Cottrell was obviously not a trinitarian, from this quote alone we don't know if James agreed with him or not. From other quotes we know he agreed of course. But still quite weak I think.

10.

"Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, and of sprinkling or pouring instead of being "buried with Christ in baptism," "planted in the likeness of his death:" but we pass from these fables to notice one that is held sacred by nearly all professed Christians, both Catholic and Protestant. It is, The change of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment from the seventh to the first day of the week." {J. S. White, Review & Herald, December 11, 1855}

Thanks for this quote: we are really getting to the nub of the problem with the Catholic trinity doctrine: it "does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ". This is what James has against it and so am I. Once again James, I'm with you!

The problem for the present-day anti-trinitarians in this quote is that once again the trinity gets only a "mention" along with the "fables" of sprinkling and Sunday sacredness, both of which James wrote about at length. Not so with trinity, it only gets mentioned.

11.

                  "CATHOLIC REASONS FOR KEEPING SUNDAY.
1. Because "it is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of Dies Solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred." "Sunday was a name given by the heathens to the first day of the week, because it was the day on which they worshiped the sun."
2. Because it is "in honor of the blessed Virgin Mary."
3. Because "it is a day dedicated by the apostles to the honor of the most Holy Trinity."" {J. S. White, Review & Herald, April 4, 1854}

Once again the article is about another doctrine (Sabbath). This mention of the trinity is a non-Biblical reason given to support a non-Biblical doctrine. 

12.

"The "mystery of iniquity" began to work in the church in Paul's day. It finally crowded out the simplicity of the gospel, and corrupted the doctrine of Christ, and the church went into the wilderness. Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation. The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors." {J. S. White, Review & Herald, February 7, 1856}

Another mention in a list of "unscriptural errors". I wouldn't have listed it here myself, but I have the same objections to the Catholic trinity doctrine as James has (in other quotes) so in that sense it is unscriptural.

This quote simply shows that James was non-trinitarian.

13.

"The work of emancipating, instructing and leading the Hebrews was given to One who is called an angel. Ex.13:21; 14:19,24; 23:20-23; 32:34; Num.20:16; Isa.63:9. And this angel Paul calls "that spiritual Rock that followed them," and he affirms, "That Rock was Christ." 1Cor.10:4. The eternal Father is never called an angel in the Scriptures, while what angels have done is frequently ascribed to the Lord, as they are his messengers and agents to accomplish his work. It is said of Him who went before the Hebrews to deliver them, "My name is in him." In all the stupendous events of that deliverance the mind of Jehovah was represented in Jesus." {J. S. White, Christ and the Sabbath, p. 11}

This is an obtuse quote. It shows three of James beliefs (all of which I agree with him on) First the Father is never called an angel but Jesus is frequently called an angel in the Old Testament. Second Jesus is given credit for what angels do because they are His agents. Third Jesus represents the Father's mind (thinking) in the events of deliverance.

Once again there is no mention of the Holy Spirit.

So there are the thirteen, no articles, not even a full paragraph on the topic! Are these the best James White quotes available Geoff?

As a believer in a three Person Godhead, I can totally agree with five of the thirteen quotes. In a further five of the remaining eight quotes, the trinity is listed as one of the errors of Catholicism or other denominations. None of the five lists consider the trinity doctrine as the worst error. Three of them are clearly about the Sabbath.

In only three quotes do I actually disagree with him, 3, 6 and 8. Let's get this in perspective: I have problems with less than a quarter of James' anti-trinitarian statements! And there are very few of them.

So how strongly did James White oppose the trinity doctrine? Not very strongly because:

1. He appears to have written no articles opposing the trinity. I would gladly publish even one (on the web) if you could get me one Geoff, or even one of the articles these quotes were from.
2. He only makes thirteen statements over his writing career and many of them are mild and would be agreeable to the mainstream SDA church today. I would gladly look at some more if they exist.
3. Even where he does mention the trinity, it is usually while he is either defending other doctrines or simply listing it along with other perceived errors.
4. He explicitly says the trinity doctrine is not the worst error and that other Catholic doctrines are at least just as bad. The anti-trinitarians of today would probably take exception with at this.
5. There seems to be no evidence that he taught new converts from Trinitarian churches to change their views.
   

The White Family and the Trinity

“The evidence from his pen seems to indicate that from his first spiritual affiliations with the Christian Connection, until his death at the age of 60, James White opposed the trinity. The conclusion reached is intriguing due to his unique and special relationship with the Lord’s messenger who happened to be his wife. She was surely aware of his thinking on the subject.

Did she approve? If not, why did he continue his belief? Did she simply refrain from correcting him? Why?"

The Doctrine of the Trinity in the SDA church. p312. Russell Holt, doctoral dissertation, 1969, Andrews University.

“With a sorrow burdened heart, I have performed my unpleasant duty to my dearest friends, not daring to please myself by withholding reproof, even from husband;…

I see their errors and dangers, and feel compelled to speak of what is thus brought before me. I dare not resist the Spirit of God”

5T, 20.

Did he not heed the reproof then?

“He sometimes made plans and inaugurated policies that were not in harmony with the instruction given to his wife. But when reproved or instructed through the testimonies to the church for his error, he was quick to respond to counsel or reproof, and hearty in his confession of error.”

General Conference Bulletin, 1913-06-02, p11.

She affirms him many times, here are just a couple.

“Or work is to instruct them in God’s Word, to urge upon them the necessity of experimental religion, and to define as clearly as possible, the correct position in regard to the truth.”

“God has permitted the precious light of truth to shine upon His Word and illuminate the mind of my husband. He may reflect the rays of light from the presence of Jesus upon others by his preaching and writing.”

What about James Edson White?

"The talent God has given you in the ability to comprehend the truths of His Word is a precious gift."

Paulson Collection p103.

"But the Lord has shown me that He has accepted Edson White's work, and has several times preserved his life when in perilous places.

He has put His Spirit upon him, and has opened the way before him, giving him success."

SPM p216.

What did he say about the Godhead?

"Only one being in the universe besides the Father bears the name of God, and that is His Son, Jesus Christ." The Coming King p33, 1937.

"No one could teach it as He could, for no other being but the Father loved us as He loved us."

Ibid, p43.

What about W.C. White?

“The Mighty Healer said Live. I have put My Spirit upon your son, W.C. White, that he may be your counselor. I have given him the spirit of wisdom and a discerning perceptive mind…

I will be with your son, and be his counselor. He will respect the truth that comes through you to the people. He will have wisdom to defend the truth; for I will take charge of his mind.”

Pamphlets, Nashville Sanitarium, 1906, p20.

In another place she said he was as true as steel to the cause of God.

What did he say about the Godhead?

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

There are many Scriptures which speak of the Father and the Son and the absence of Scripture making similar reference to the united work of the Father and the Holy Spirit, or of Christ and the Holy Spirit, has led me to believe that the Spirit without individuality was the representative of the Father and the Son throughout the universe, and it was through the Holy Spirit that they dwell in our hearts and make us one with the Father and the Son.”

Letter to W.H. Carr, April 30, 1935.

So, the three people on earth closest to Sis. White, who were blessed of God with clear light on the Scriptures are claimed to be in error, while Kellogg, whose mind “was under the control of Satan” who spoke about the trinity “as many Adventists speak about it today” was telling the truth? I don’t think so.

What about the brethren who argued against Kellogg’s trinitarian view?

“Of Elder Haskell and Elder Butler, God says, “I will guide them. I will put my grace in their hearts. Because they have not been turned away from the truth to give heed to seducing spirits, but have stood firm, declaring the messages given them, they are to be highly esteemed. They will not exchange the faith they have fervently declared, for another doctrine which is not true.”

SPM 380, 1905.

  “If you continue to believe and obey the truths you first embraced regarding the personality of the Father and the Son, you will be joined together with Him in love. There will be seen that unity for which Christ prayed just before His death and resurrection.”

Does that sound like she was moving for a new understanding?

“A survey of other Adventist writers during these years, reveals that, to a man, they rejected the trinity, yet with equal unanimity they upheld the divinity of Christ.”

Doctrine of the Trinity in the SDA Denomination. P. 311.

what happened to my last post?

I am just wondering what happened to my last post, as I cannot see it anywhere?

Considering that "all our writers to a man, were anti-trinitarian" in that era, I am wondering why you are so keen to have their writings re-published? I note the prophet did not call for any
corrections to be made. But they were affirmed as the truth we need for this time.
Still, I am glad you would welcome the reprinting of their writings. It would certainly put to rest
recent myths promoted in the Record, which I have been sickened to see people accepting as
gospel truth.

Selective Inattention

In my last post and in private emails I have implied and even stated that there is a dishonesty in some of the anti-Trinitarian publications. Well, I've been brought back to earth on reading the following quote. I realised that this 'dishonesty' tag could apply equally to me.

This is from Leroy Moore's "Theology in Crisis" (1979) pp352,353, a book about the issue of "Righteousness by Faith" as seen from the perspective of Ellen White and that of the 'Reformationists' represented by Dr Des Ford.

To emphasise that selective inattention can apply to all of us, I have divided what was one long paragraph, into two paragraphs.

It is important to note that blind spots may not reflect self-deception. Harry Stack Sullivan (Clinical Studies in Psychiatry, New York, W.W. Norton, Inc., 1956, 38-77), in dealing with the phenomenon of "selective inattention," indicates that the act of focusing on one thing prevents awareness of others. One cannot attend all implications, and what one does note is largely determined by the nature of his focus. The more convinced one is of the validity of his position the less capable he is to accommodate contrary factors. Moreover, psychological and spiritual sanity require certainty on some issues as the basis for both clarity and security needed for examining others. The important principle in (Ellen White's writing) is that the Word (and not some unwitting substitute for the Word) be the only fundamental "given" and that everything else be deliberately and deliberatively tested by it. the problem with the Laodicean mind is that it has unconsciously set its judgment above that of the "True Witness," and in the name of that "True Witness" declares its own judgment.

Nor should this principle be considered as applying peculiarly to Reformationists. It is a general trait characterizing all mankind, which must be overcome before Christ can exhibit His character through His people. The problem has always harassed even sincere men (such as Abraham, father of the faithful), thus is no proof of dishonesty in the normal sense of the word. It involves a self-deception so closely related to the psychological necessities of human experience as to require time, discipline, and the special guidance of and dependence on the Spirit to overcome. Since it is relatively easy to discern in others and almost impossible to see in one's self, the "straight testimony" must be prized and claimed by each for himself, the weakness of others being recognized as tools for self-understanding...

The part that struck home was: "It is a general trait characterizing all mankind, which must be overcome before Christ can exhibit His character through His people."

So not only do I damage my relationships with other and end up judging them falsely but I also hinder God's work on the earth.

How would I go about combating this process. This is probably the genius of the 'priesthood of believers' and accountability or wholistic small groups. In either case other people may well see what I can't about myself. This is the 'straight witness' Moore says we should prize... That would be hard to do.

We really do need to keep talking, keep the conversation up. And to keep listening, actually listening is more important than talking. So I'll try to listen if you point out my blind spots.

Another point arose from "The more convinced one is of the validity of his position the less capable he is to accommodate contrary factors." A good measure of humility about my own position is probably another antidote.

Moore states "time, discipline, and the special guidance of and dependence on the Spirit" can overcome the problem.

I need all these things.

These Articles Must be Reproduced

God is good isn't He? I'm sure He led me into contact with Geoff and his friends to teach me many new things that I wouldn't learn any other way.

I've just been reading Restitution Ministries' booklet 'The Living Voice of the Lord's Witnesses' and came across another truth for this time. Once again I challenge my 'Godhead' friends to live up to light they have been given. This is an important truth and it comes from Ellen White's article in the Review and Herald, May 25, 1905, entitled "The Work for This Time".

This rambling article covering many practical topics because it's an address to the (General?) Conference. In it I found a truth that I hadn't noticed before. I will quote the last part of the article as it appears in "The Living Voice" except I added the two concluding paragraphs for completeness. I commend Restitution for putting in such a long quote.

"Our Periodicals

God has given me light regarding our periodicals. What is it?--He has said that the dead are to speak. How?--Their works shall follow them. We are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure, and who labored to lay the foundation of our work. They moved forward step by step under the influence of the Spirit of God. One by one these pioneers are passing away. The word given me is, Let that which these men have written in the past be reproduced. And in The Signs of the Times let not the articles be long or the print fine. Do not try to crowd everything into one number of the paper. Let the print be good, and let earnest, living experiences be put into the paper.

Not long ago I took up a copy of the Bible Echo. As I looked it through, I saw an article by Elder Haskell and one by Elder Corliss. As I laid the paper down, I said, These articles must be reproduced. There is truth and power in them. Men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Let the truths that are the foundation of our faith be kept before the people. Some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. They talk science, and the enemy comes in and gives them an abundance of science; but it is not the science of salvation. It is not the science of humility, of consecration, or of the sanctification of the Spirit. We are now to understand what the pillars of our faith are,--the truths that have made us as a people what we are, leading us on step by step.

Early Experiences

After the passing of the time in 1844 we searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with the brethren, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me. I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, his mission, and his priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me.

During this whole time I could not understand the reasoning of the brethren. My mind was locked, as it were, and I could not comprehend the meaning of the scriptures we were studying. This was one of the greatest sorrows of my life. I was in this condition of mind until all the principal points of our faith were made clear to our minds, in harmony with the Word of God. The brethren knew that, when not in vision, I could not understand these matters, and they accepted, as light directly from heaven, the revelations given.

Many errors arose, and though I was then little more than a child, I was sent by the Lord from place to place to rebuke those who were holding these false doctrines. There were those who were in danger of going into fanaticism, and I was bidden in the name of the Lord to give them a warning from heaven.

We shall have to meet these same false doctrines again. There will be those who will claim to have visions. When God gives you clear evidence that the vision is from him, you may accept it, but do not accept it on any other evidence; for people are going to be led more and more astray in foreign countries and in America. The Lord wants his people to act like men and women of sense.

Salvation in the Truth

In the future, deception of every kind is to arise, and we want solid ground for our feet. We want solid pillars for the building. Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith. Where shall we find safety unless it be in the truths that the Lord has been giving for the last fifty years?

I want to tell you that Christ lives. He makes intercession for us, and he will save every one who will come to him in faith and obey his directions. But remember that he does not want you to give your energies to criticism of your brethren. Attend to the salvation of your own soul. Do the work God has given you. You will find so much to do that you will have no inclination to criticize some one else. Use the talent of speech to help and bless. If you do the work God has given you, you will have a message to bear, and you will understand what is meant by the sanctification of the Spirit.

Do not think that Satan is not doing anything. Do not think that his army is passive. He and his agencies are on the ground today. We are to put on the whole armor of God. Having done all, we are to stand, meeting principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness in high places. And if we have on the heavenly armor, we shall find that the assaults of the enemy will not have power over us. Angels of God will be round about us to protect us. I have the assurance of God that thus it will be. In the name of the Lord God of Israel I ask you to come up to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty. If you do this, you will have on your side a strong helper, a personal Saviour. You will be covered with the shield of providence. God will make a way for you, so that you will never be overtaken by the enemy. I am praying that the power of the Saviour will be exerted in behalf of those who have entered into the temptations of the enemy. They are not standing under the broad shield of Omnipotence. My brethren, it is our privilege to stand under this shield."

Powerful isn't it? "I want to tell you that Christ lives." Wonderful news!!

The truth I feel I stumbled across is summed up in the sentence: "Let the truths that are the foundation of our faith be kept before the people." Specifically through the reprinting of periodical articles from the years 1855-1905. Even more specifically, articles in the Bible Echo from late 1904 or early 1905 by Haskell and Corliss.

I challenge the folks at Restitution Ministries to do this. You have access to the means of production and of publication of booklets such as "Complete Periodical Articles of Haskell and Corliss - 1904, 1905". By spreading such articles you will be obeying Mrs White's very words. You obviously have access to the articles as evidenced by the extensive quotes in the rest of "The Living Voice".

Other books could be all the articles on the particular "foundation" truths mentioned in the quote: the spirit of prophecy (people claiming to have visions), the sanctuary and the "step by step" leading of God in the development of these doctrines. I would love to have such books and promote them.

This is a marvelous quote in that it warns us of some of the specific areas where deceptions will arise (SOP and the sanctuary) and even shows us the way we are to go about the work of letting the dead "speak": ie with the "science of humility, of consecration, (and) of the sanctification of the Spirit" and "he (Christ) does not want you to give your energies to criticism of your brethren."

Thank you again Restitution, and I commend to you the words:

"Do the work God has given you. You will find so much to do that you will have no inclination to criticize some one else. Use the talent of speech to help and bless. If you do the work God has given you, you will have a message to bear, and you will understand what is meant by the sanctification of the Spirit."