Where Antitrinitarians disagree with James White but the mainline SDA church agrees:
James White on the Personality of God
- "Personality" means a distinct personage and physical form. (See Personality of God)
I take the views of The Godhead in Black and White" as the antitrinitarian norm.
- There are two distinct Comforters
- The Holy Spirit is another Comforter, it is not Christ because Christ is absent, after the ascension.
- The "three-one God" is a fallacy, "but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse".
Where Mainline SDAs Disagree with James, but antitrinitarians agree
- Jesus Christ is NOT the very and Eternal God
So that means that the antitrinitarians disagree with James on four points while the mainline SDA church disagrees on one point, albeit a major point.
James rarely mentions the trinity and he never wrote an antitrinitarian article in his long writing career. This probably indicates the low importance he attached to this doctrine, which goes against the whole tenor of present-day antitrinitarians who hold this area as so important it deserves compilations, websites and separation from the church.
After looking carefully at what James White says on this issue, I agree that he was non-trinitarian but his actions are a far cry from those who claim to follow his beliefs. Not only are they disagreeing with him on a number of points but they are working to pull apart the church that he spent his life and health to build up.
I know this is probably a surprise to most antitrinitarians, it certainly was to me, so I would love comments.
5 comments:
The "three-one God" is a fallacy, "but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse".
We have no arguement with James here,
he was addressing a current issue, since "all our writers to a man" at that time were anti-trinitarian, it seems ultra Unitarianism was more the problem. Trinitarianism did not come into favour till well after his death.
You say that we are in disagreement with James on the personality and form of God. Let me just quote from "The Godhead in Black and White" page 3. "This fanatical teaching was carried by some to the extent of denying that God was a personal being who has a form." I am not sure how you can conclude the opposite of what we believe. I dispute the claim that we in disagreement with James.
As already touched on, since in his time the church was unitedly anti-trinitarian, it was not an issue that needed addressing. So he did not need to write at length on it. It did become a pressing issue after his death when Kellog tried to bring it into the church and many were swayed to look upon it as truth that the church needed. She said the pantheistic teachings in his book were the alpha of apostasy and would be followed in a short time by the omega which would be of a most startling nature. The only doctrinal change that fits that warning is the change to the Trinity which Kellog said he had come to believe in a short time after the writing of his book, and described by Bill Johnson, as a change of a most startling nature.
When the pioneers wrote against the Trinity, were they working to pull apart the church, or were they guarding the church from papal error?
To answer these four comments:
1. True, the issue at the time for James, may well have been Unitarianism but in the religious world Trinitarianism has been rife for centuries.
2. I was talking about the meaning, the definition of the word "personality". You include literal Fatherhood and Sonship in the definition and I concur that James agrees with you on this belief BUT he doesn't call it "personality".
That is why I say you disagree with James on the MEANING of personality, because you say it means more than he does.
3. I agree in that trinity was not an issue in the church until after James death BUT only in the sense that the leaders agreed on it. Where are the articles in the Review to confirm new believers in the non-trinitarian view as there are for other distinctive doctrines? Where are the articles in the Signs and the books to defend this belief to the general public as there are with other doctrines?
Do you have a positive testimony saying trinitarianism is the omega? I would love to see it. Until then you are making an inference that I disagree with.
4. James White wrote only infrequently against trinity. It is obvious from the quotes in The Living Voice that he is writing against papal error.
Post a Comment