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.