“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.The Doctrine of the Trinity in the SDA church. p312. Russell Holt, doctoral dissertation, 1969, Andrews University.
Did she approve? If not, why did he continue his belief? Did she simply refrain from correcting him? Why?"
“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;…5T, 20.
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”
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.”What about James Edson White?
“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.”
Paulson Collection p103.
"The talent God has given you in the ability to comprehend the truths of His Word is a precious gift."
"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.SPM p216.
He has put His Spirit upon him, and has opened the way before him, giving him success."
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.Ibid, p43.
"No one could teach it as He could, for no other being but the Father loved us as He loved us."
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…Pamphlets, Nashville Sanitarium, 1906, p20.
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.”
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…Letter to W.H. Carr, April 30, 1935.
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.”
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.
16 comments:
Thanks for posting Geoff, I will look at it section by section as you add more comments.
I really enjoyed the quote from Russell Holt. He hit the nail on the head didn't he. His questions are worth considering.
Did Mrs White approve of her husband's opposition to the trinity doctrine? Do you have any quotes where she says she approved of that specifically? I don't know of any.
If she didn't approve, she doesn't seem to have said so publicly, nor privately as he believed that way 'until his death.'
Did she refrain from correcting him? Yes she must have, at least nothing seems to have been recorded approving or correcting on his opposition to the trinity doctrine.
Why?... Now that's the big question isn't it. Why was she publicly silent on this topic, at least during James' lifetime. And she was privately silent as well, as is evidenced by his lifelong anti-trinitarianism.
My take on this silence by Mrs White on her husband's belief is that the doctrine of the trinity is not a doctrine that was to be argued about. It was not something to be brought to the fore at that time and probably even now.
In the quotes that you follow with about James, Edson and Willie, there is no evidence that Mrs White either showed approval or disapproval of their non-trinitarian beliefs.
This is a real problem for you Geoff. Why was this topic of so little importance to Mrs White?
When you answer this question, I will move onto the other issues raised in this post.
Thanks again, mate.
I am sorry Bruce, But I was really disappointed with your question,
"Why was this topic of so little importance to Mrs. White?"
Did she make no comment when Kellogg
professed belief in the trinity and argued for it in the church? She made numerous comments warning that Kellogg had lost his way, how many in the church were accepting his position as just the light the church needed, and how she feared for our people. And why would she say, "If you continue to believe and obey the truths you first embraced regarding the personality of the Father and the Son, you will be bound together in unity..." if she was not anxious to maintain the anti-trinitarian
understanding of our writers, who "to a man,were anti-trinitarian"?
You don't need to speculate on the answers to R. Holt's questions, they are answered in the quotes given. Which say that she sees the errors of those around her and does not refrain from giving reproof, even to her own husband.
Geoff, I am sorry you are disappointed... but you still haven't answered the question. Why did Mrs White write so little about this topic? Why did she ignore this doctrine that was at odds with what most Christians believe?
Yes.. I agree that Mrs White didn't reprove her husband for his stance. I said that in my first comment.
But there is no evidence that she approved of it either. I can't think of any other doctrine where she does not back up an unorthodox position James took.
Seeing as you are unable to provide any evidence that Mrs White approved of her family's anti-trinitarianism, the only conclusion I can come to is that the topic (anti-trinitarianism) was of little importance to her.
Seeing as there appears to be no evidence that Mrs White approved or disapproved of her husband's beliefs then the conclusion can only be that it didn't matter either way. This was an unimportant topic to the Whites.
Now that this is settled we will move through the White family one at a time looking at their beliefs on the Trinity and whether they thought it was important.
I have put up a post on James White himself.
You say she must have refrained from correcting him (James W), she said she did not refrain from correcting any around her who were in error, not even her own husband. Who should I believe?
Now the only way for you to escape the force of that statement is to pretend that the matter is so insignificant, that it would not rate a mention. That begs the question, if it is such an insignificant matter, why are people put out of the church because of believing it?
And why did the report appear, in I think a May 2004 Record, SDA's
No Longer A Sect, with the comment that the Pope(Vatican) no longer regarded the SDA church as a sect, primarily because of our acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity?
Compare that to the Waldensians, who had the same non-trinitarian fundamentals as the pioneers, and who were described in The Great Controversy as being the special objects of the hatred of the papacy, because they had the truth of God, unadulterated.
Your question, Why did she ignore this doctrine that was at odds with what most Christians believe? Is a loaded question, it makes the presumption that she ignored this topic. Nothing could be further from the truth. In numerous places she gives a non-trinitarian picture of the Godhead. And when Kellog tried to bring the trinity doctrine in, she warned that we must not be moved from the
fundamentals that had made us a peculiar people. Believing the trinity would not make us a peculiar people, it would make us mainstream, or orthodox. And why did she advise in another place, to make sure we let people know that we believed in the divinity of Christ, before introducing our more challenging doctrines? Precisely because people assume that if you reject the trinity, you don't believe in the divinty of Christ.
I really enjoy looking at the trinity doctrine with you, Geoff, I'm learning so much! Thanks, mate.
One thing I have learned since starting to read James White is that the fact that Mrs White did not (as far as we know) correct her husband's stance on the trinity can mean one of three things:
1. He was totally correct and needed no reproof.
2. He was mostly correct and the difference was inconsequential, so as to need no reproof. His belief was "good enough for now".
3. He was incorrect but the whole trinity doctrine was not important so it wasn't necessary to correct him.
You obviously believe the first... but how would you prove it? You would need:
1. Statements approving his belief directly, not general statements that he was correct.
2. Statements that mirrored his regarding the trinity.
So far I haven't seen either.
I used to believe No. 3 but have changed to No. 2 after reading his statements.
Now I think that what we believe about the trinity IS important. It is not as important as the Sabbath or the state of the dead or the Sanctuary but it is still important. I will elaborate in further posts on just what is important, because James' writings show this very well.
So thanks for getting me into this Geoff, I am reading what you say and whole-heartedly enjoying this process of learning.
You asked: "if it is such an insignificant matter, why are people put out of the church because of believing it?"
Firstly, I have come to believe people should NOT be put out of the church over their beliefs on the trinity. But I do think people SHOULD BE put out for using this to stir up division using this or any other doctrine.
But my answer to your question is another question: If it was such a significant matter where is the evidence that people were put out of the church, or prevented entry, because they WERE trinitarian during the time of James White?
I am willing to accept evidence such as
- articles in the Review specifically against trinitarianism.
- Review items about church leaders having to correct the views of new converts from trinitarian churches or any evidence that this sort of thing happened.
My second question is: If this was a significant doctrine, why wasn't it preached in evangelism?
Evidence for this would be:
- articles in the Signs specifically against trinitarianism, like there were for the Sabbath or the Sanctuary
- Bible studies of the time with an emphasis on anti-trinitarian beliefs.
- sermons specifically on the topic.
Geoff, I will not accept, as proof of significance, things like short references in articles and sermons on other topics. Short references such as the ones in "Living Witness" show what people believe... but DON'T show significance. In fact these references, in their paucity and brevity, indicate that anti-trinitarianism was not widely taught by James or the church of his day.
Seeing as you keep bringing Kellogg up, why don't we look at him after we finish with the White family?
I would really like the quote where Mrs White says we need to "let people know that we believed in the divinity of Christ, before introducing our more challenging doctrines"
And Geoff, I know that you and James White both believe in the divinity of Christ.
All we have ever asked for is that all the evidnce could be laid openly on the table for people to see for themselves. We are honoured to be caused trouble makers when we are not.
It is George Knight who says that most of the pioneers could not be church members today because of our new belief on the trinity.
When Butler and another leader were disputing Kellog's trinitarian view, she applauded them for sticking to the truth they had so boldly proclaimed in the past, and for not being swayed by Kellog to accept another doctrine, "which was not true."
The fact is she urged Kellog to come into line with the brethren, who at that time, to a man, were anti-trinitarian.
It is too late in earth's history to base our belief on speculation.
She says she sees the errors of those around her and does not refrain from rebuking, even her own husband. She says that God told her He would take charge of her son's mind, and he would respect the truth she was given for the church.
Yet you still want me to believe they were in error. The available evidence gives no comfort to such an assertion.
Geoff, all the evidence is being laid on the table on this blog as far as I can
Yes we have been poor at dealing with dissent in the past. I'm really enjoying our chat here and am honoured that you continue the dialogue.
As far as I'm concerned you are not a troublemaker, you are honestly troubled by a belief of the church and have not been treated properly.
I disagree with Knight's comment and believe that James White would be welcomed into the church today (See my latest post)
When we finish looking at the White family we can look at Kellogg then.
Geoff, my belief on the shape of the Godhead is based largely on the things you have shown me,and of course the Bible not on speculation.
If you read my last 2 posts you will see that I agree with James White almost totally. I don't think I have (recently) said he was in error.
Bruce,
you obviously haven't tried to be a church member with James White's
anti-trinitarian point of view. Hundreds, maybe even thousands who have mentioned his point of view, have been shut down. They are not welcome in the church, that is reality.
Just came across a couple more interestring statements.
"The leading points of our faith, as we hold them today (1862)were firmly established. Point after point was clearly defined, and all the brethren came into harmony. The whole company of believers were united in the truth." The early years, Vol 1. p. 145.Similar to Russell Holt's comment, "All our writers to a man were anti-trinitarian." Believing, as the prophet said, in a real Father who gave His only Son.
"Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor." MS760,9.
Geoff thanks for the comment.
No, I never have tried to be anti-trinitarian as James White was. Except on one point I agree with him.
Maybe I should become a "James White Anti-Trinitarian" because after reading these articles I think I am.
Anyway, I believe James White would get on quite well in the church today because what he believed is quite close to what the church holds today.
Your un-sourced quote "The leading points of our faith..." is irrelevant to this discussion as beliefs about the trinity are not, and never have been, leading points of our faith.
Russell Holt's comment is about "our writers", many members may have been trinitarian because it was something little discussed.
Geoff, where do you get "real Father" from, I would love to have the source to read it for myself.
The last quote (thanks for the source) is also irrelevant. Since when has a Three Person Godhead (or not) been a pillar of our faith? It was obviously not so to Ellen or James White as they apparently never talked about it.
I can hardly believe what I am reading. You try to make out that the trinity issue was almost a non-issue. Yet James white lists it right up there with the other papal errors, state of the dead and Sabbath. Hardly matters of minor importance.The prophet says,"It is our priviledge to believe in a personal Father who has made a gift of His only Son.." The trinity teaching denies that by claiming that it is only one of three equal beings taking on that role. That is why the prophet said
if we continue to believe in the truths we first proclaimed re the
personality of the Father and the Son... we would work together in unity. But you see the church no longer believes in the united position of the early advent church, so we do not have unity.
The very first points in our 1872
Fundamental Beliefs deal with who God is and according to the book,
"Issues" put out by the General Conference, were distinctly non-trinitarian.
She wrote a whole chapter in Ministry of Healing on the importance of a correct understanding of who God is, never once even hinting at a trinity, while at the same time making statements that would preclude such an understanding.
Please believe what you are reading, let me state it again. There is NO evidence that anti-trinitarianism is or ever was a leading doctrine or pillar of the SDA church or pillar of our faith.
It IS one of the papal errors. As both you and James state. I agree with you on this. I have spoken to this in another comment under "James White in "The Living Voice".
You are right, it is a matter of importance and an "issue". I have just recently come to believe this as well, thanks to James White and your input. Thank you.
Can we discuss what Mrs White says and our Fundamental Beliefs later, please Geoff? Let's look at the evidence from the White family for the present. Let's lay all the evidence on the table in an orderly manner so we can see it clearly.
However, the "It is our privileged believe in a personal Father who has made a gift of His only Son..." quote illustrates your dilemma. Mrs White never clearly states, as you do straight after the quote "The trinity teaching denies that by claiming that it is only one of three equal beings taking on that role."
Yet she is very clear on the state of the dead and the Sabbath, sprinkling, eternal hell and the other papal errors. Why is that Geoff? As I said in an earlier comment: Seeing as you are unable to provide any evidence that Mrs White approved of her family's anti-trinitarianism, the only conclusion I can come to is that the topic (anti-trinitarianism) was of little importance to her.
James White is much clearer as we are discussing on the other post, but even he did not make it one of "the truths we first proclaimed".
He obviously did proclaim "the personality of the Father and the Son". See the latest post. I agree with him and so do you. So we are united on this.
You are still refusing to answer the question though Geoff... Where do you get the term "real Father" from?
On the personality of the Father and Son, I agree with James. See the post "James White and the Personality of God".
I have answered your questions on unity in the "Living Voice" comments.
So to summarise:
- I agree that the trinity is a papal error.
- I agree that the trinity is an issue and important
- I disagree that the anti-trinitarianism is a pillar or "leading doctrine" or one of "the truths we first proclaimed".
- I disagree that God is a "real Father"
- I disagree that believing "in a personal Father who has made a gift of His only Son" precludes belief in three equal beings".
Keep the comments coming please, Geoff.
Post a Comment