I have learned a lot in the last three and a half years. But it is time to move on to other things.
In the last couple of months I've been reading quite a bit of reasonable argument from several nontrinitarians especially Brendan Knudson. In fact the title of this post came from a discussion with Brendan.
Thanks, Brendan for calmly showing me why you believe as you do. It is good to clearly see where you, and others, are coming from. But I especially want to thank you for the idea of "veiled doctrine", it is much more elegant than my own "thin doctrine". It gives me the idea of a doctrine that God is covering because it is too holy for our limited, sin-affected minds at present.
Just doing these posts today also brought me back to Willie White. He didn't discuss the Godhead publicly, even at a time of controversy, even when he disagreed with the direction the church seemed to be taking.
This has challenged me. Do I really need to spend time studying this doctrine that God has veiled? Is it "necessary to be known"? Am I as tolerant of different opinions in the church as he was?
After coming to the conclusion that the answer to all those questions is "No", I've decided to follow Willie's lead. Like him, I will keep busy working on other things until "the revelation" about our uncertainties.
There is another, maybe even more unsettling, idea that comes from Willie's letter. It seems that his mother, Ellen White, saw no purpose in correcting her own family's, or anyone else's, opinions on the topic of Godhead even though her statements could be used to support either view. The Bible is similar so there has been divergence on this since Jesus ascended to heaven. It is almost as if God doesn't mind which way we believe.
In any case, I'm taking to heart Mrs White's example and not going to push my views on others beyond the two facts that Father and Son have "forms" and are separate individuals.
So that is it... until the revelation.
In the meantime, any readers of this blog (of any persuasion) are welcome to come to Toronto church or follow what I'm doing on my NCD blog or at Traditional Hydrotherapy.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Reply from W. C. White to H. W. Carr
April 30th 1935
Elder H. W. Carr
164 Saxton Street
Lockport
New York
Dear Brother Carr
I hold in my hand your letter of January 24. For some months I have been so heavily pressed with work connected with manuscripts which we were preparing for the printer that my correspondence has had to wait.
In your letter you request me to tell you what I understand to be my mother's position in reference to the personality of the Holy Spirit.
This I cannot do because I never clearly understood her teachings on the matter. There always was in my mind some perplexity regarding the meaning of her utterances which to my superficial manner of thinking seemed to be somewhat confused. I have often regretted that I did not possess that keenness of mind that could solve this and similar perplexities, and then remembering what Sister White wrote in "Acts of the Apostles," pages 51 and 52, "regarding such mysteries which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden," I have thought best to refrain from discussion and have endeavoured to direct my mind to matters easy to be understood.
As I read the Bible, I find that the risen Saviour breathed on the disciples (John 20:22) "and saith unto them, "receive ye the Holy Ghost." The conception received from this Scripture, seems to be in harmony with the statement in "Desire of Ages", page 669, also Genesis 1:2; with Luke 1:4; with Acts 2:4 and also 8:15 and 10:44. Many other texts might be referred to which seem to be in harmony with this statement in the "Desire of Ages."
The statements and the arguments of some of our ministers in their effort 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. One popular teacher said "we may regard Him, (the Holy Spirit) as the fellow who is down here running things."
My perplexities were lessened a little when I learned from the dictionary that one of the meanings of personality, was characteristics. It is stated in such a way that I concluded that there might be personality without bodily form which is possessed by the Father and the Son.
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 with the Son.
My answer to your second question "Does Sister White's writings anywhere teach that prayer should only be addressed to the Father, or that we should not address Christ in prayer, only through the Father," is that I think not. I have not found such teachings in Ellen White's writings.
Your third question "Does she anywhere tell what the power is that "shall plant the tabernacle of His palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain?" I must answer in the same way, I think not. We have not found any statement regarding this in Sister White's writings nor do we remember any statement made orally in our presence.
Enclosed with this brief and unsatisfactory letter, you will find our News Letter of April 4.
I pray that you may have help from heaven in studying that which is necessary to be known and patience to wait for the revelation of that regarding which we are now in some uncertainty.
With kind regards, I remain,
Sincerely your brother,
W. C. White
Carr's main request (from our point of view) is:
"Will you kindly tell me what you understand was your mother's position in refference (sic) to the personality of the Holy Spirit."
Willie refers to this answer as "brief and unsatisfactory". At least one reason why it is unsatisfactory is that he didn't answer Carr's main question because:
- Willie "never clearly understood her teachings on the matter".
- Willie was somewhat perplexed by his mother's meaning
- Willie superficially, thought his mother's meaning was confused.
Rather than stirring up discussion and dissent on this confusing and confused issue, he concentrated on things where the Bible and Mrs White are very clear. I wonder if H.W. Carr followed his example.
I think this single private letter is the only reference we have from Willie on the Godhead after his mother's death. If so, it shows how well he followed his own resolve not to discuss the it.
In the letter, Willie, despite not being sure if his mother would have concurred, then goes on to tell of his own personal beliefs in this area:
- the Holy Spirit is not an individual
- the Spirit was denigrated when ministers, in an effort to make the Spirit an individual, call Him things like "the fellow who is down here running things".
- Christ is the eternal Son,
- "personality" can mean characteristics
- the Father and Son have bodily form, the Holy Spirit doesn't
- the Holy Spirit is the representative of Father and Son, throughout the universe and in our hearts
Modern antitrinitarians would probably agree with all these points. I disagree only with the first.
The letter finishes praying Carr heavenly help as he studies what is necessary to be known. I infer from this that Willie didn't intend to do any further study himself.
I will sum up in the next post.
H.W. Carr's Letter to W.C. White
C. A. SCRIVEN. PRESIDENT J. B. FRANK SECRETARY-TREAS.
NEW YORK CONFERENCE
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
Union Springs, N. Y.
H. W. CARR
SUPT. LOCKPORT DISTRICT
164 SAXTON STREET
LOCKPORT. N. Y.
Jan.24 1935
Eld. W. C. White
St. Helena, Calif.
Dear Elder White
Your recent reminder of the efficient provision for carrying forward Sr. Whites work, and the gems of thought which accompanied your announcement is very much appreciated, "She being dead yet speaketh". God has lead this people on, and is still leading, through his chosen servant, for which we praise Him.
In the first pages of Great Controversy it is stated that the "Father had an associate -- a co worker... The only being that could enter into all the councils and purposes of God. "The Father wrought by His son in the creation of all heavenly beings... "He holds supremacy over them all. "Sin originated with Satan, who next to Christ had been most honoured of God, and was highest in power and Glory among the inhabitants of heaven. "Next to Christ he was first among the hosts of God. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven. "The Son of God was exalted above Satan as one in power and authority with the Father. Christ created Satan. Ezekiel 28:15.
It is urged by some of our leaders now that The Holy Spirit is a third person of the same nature of the Father and son, a member of the heavenly trio, cooperative in creation and personally active with the Father and son. For many years I have used these statements Of (sic) Sr. White in combating false teachings relative to defining the Holy Spirit.
Will you kindly tell me what you understand was your mother's position in refference (sic) to the personality of the Holy Spirit.
Does Sister White's writings any where teach that prayer should only be addressed to the Father, or that we should not address Christ in prayer, only through the Father?
Does she anywhere tell what that power is that "shall plant the tabernacle of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain? Daniel 11:45
I know Brother White you would not depart from your mother's teachings, and that you have as perfect an understanding of them as any one. I shall appreciate your opinion very much.
Assuring you of the high esteem and respect I have had from my childhood in your father, mother and family,
I am very truly yours in the blessed faith,
H. W. Carr
This is 1935, so the trinity issue had been bubbling away for some years and the 1931 Yearbook states that "Trinity" was one of our beliefs.
H.W Carr's problem is that some church leaders are arguing that the Holy Spirit is:
- a third Person of the same nature as Father and Son
- a member of the heavenly trio
- cooperative in creation
- personally active with the Father and Son.
H.W. Carr uses the same line of argument that modern antitrinitarians do, to disprove/correct the "personality" of the Holy Spirit. See The Godhead in Black and White"
His most pertinent question is:
"Will you kindly tell me what you understand was your mother's position in reference to the personality of the Holy Spirit."
Carr asks because he believes Willie "would not depart from (his) mother's teachings, and that (he would) have as perfect an understanding of them as any one."
The next post will be Willie's reply.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Edson White and the Trinity
Like his father, Edson though definitely non-trinitarian, rarely mentioned the subject. He made two passing statements in two of his twelve published books
"The angels, therefore, are created beings, necessarily of a lower order than their Creator. Christ is the only being begotten of the Father." {J. E. White, Past, Present and Future, p. 52. 1909}
"Only one being in the universe besides the Father bears the name of God, and that is His Son, Jesus Christ." {J. E. White, The Coming King, p. 33}
He believes that Christ is begotten of the Father, a literal Son. I and the mainline SDA Church would disagree with him on this.
He also believed that Jesus is God. We can all agree with this, as would any trinitarian.
Once again as with his father, the paucity of non-trinitarian material, indicates that he considered this a subject of little importance at the present. Neither did he promote the doctrine to the generally trinitarian public. Both books quoted were subsciption books which enjoyed sales in the hundreds of thousands, perfect opportunities for spruiking non-trinitarianism, but he chose not to do so.
We can debate why Edson didn't promote his beliefs on the Godhead, but his example is one that we can all follow, which is to hold your beliefs on Godhead quietly and promote the pillars of the church especially the soon-coming Saviour.
If present-day antitrinitarians were to follow Edson's example they would publicly mention, just once or twice in their life, their views on the Sonship of Christ.
"The angels, therefore, are created beings, necessarily of a lower order than their Creator. Christ is the only being begotten of the Father." {J. E. White, Past, Present and Future, p. 52. 1909}
"Only one being in the universe besides the Father bears the name of God, and that is His Son, Jesus Christ." {J. E. White, The Coming King, p. 33}
He believes that Christ is begotten of the Father, a literal Son. I and the mainline SDA Church would disagree with him on this.
He also believed that Jesus is God. We can all agree with this, as would any trinitarian.
Once again as with his father, the paucity of non-trinitarian material, indicates that he considered this a subject of little importance at the present. Neither did he promote the doctrine to the generally trinitarian public. Both books quoted were subsciption books which enjoyed sales in the hundreds of thousands, perfect opportunities for spruiking non-trinitarianism, but he chose not to do so.
We can debate why Edson didn't promote his beliefs on the Godhead, but his example is one that we can all follow, which is to hold your beliefs on Godhead quietly and promote the pillars of the church especially the soon-coming Saviour.
If present-day antitrinitarians were to follow Edson's example they would publicly mention, just once or twice in their life, their views on the Sonship of Christ.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Thin Doctrines
Trinity and antitrinitarian doctrines are "thin" in the sense that
Adventists add another factor to the first list; we invoke Mrs White.
Because there are so few Bible references, we use Mrs White to arbitrate. Compilations from "the pen of inspiration" are required.
But here is the delicious catch: Mrs White is a sensible woman! All three characteristics above apply to her as well. She usually steers well clear of these issues. So the descent through inferences, fights and chicanery leads to more interminable arguments.
Thin, angular, bony, anorexic doctrines that exercise the minds of SDA combatants are things like:
Give me a cuddly and curvaceous Fat Doctrine any day. Justification anyone? (I'm joking of course.)
- There are very few Bible references on the subject and mostly no positive testimony, so...
- There are lots of inferences and speculations. So...
- There are lots of fights, with little clarity so...
- There is lots of chicanery (the use of clever but tricky talk or action to deceive or evade) so...
- There is no definite end point or clear understanding of definitions between the sides to judge it from. So...
- Arguments are interminable
- Women don't like silly arguments (that they can't win). They are too practical and sensible.
- Women have better things to do with their discretionary time. Things like sleeping or improving their relationship with Jesus, their friends and family.
- Women only get involved if their men are being damaged.
Adventists add another factor to the first list; we invoke Mrs White.
Because there are so few Bible references, we use Mrs White to arbitrate. Compilations from "the pen of inspiration" are required.
But here is the delicious catch: Mrs White is a sensible woman! All three characteristics above apply to her as well. She usually steers well clear of these issues. So the descent through inferences, fights and chicanery leads to more interminable arguments.
Thin, angular, bony, anorexic doctrines that exercise the minds of SDA combatants are things like:
- Original sin
- The nature of Christ. Pre-fall or post-fall?
- Identity of 666
- Why Christ waits
- Last generation theology
Give me a cuddly and curvaceous Fat Doctrine any day. Justification anyone? (I'm joking of course.)
Sunday, January 9, 2011
A Candid Hearing
Geoff sent some comments on James White and the Church, that were far too good to be stuck down at the end of the post so I will put them here with my comments afterwards.
Geoff said:
Aren't these just great quotes! Thanks Geoff
"Weighing Evidence", I really loved that idea and it has inspired me to go through the booklet "The Godhead in Black & White" and if I survive that "Putting the Pieces Together". Both booklets Geoff has given me, largely consisting of Ellen White quotes. We will weigh the evidence and make up our own minds.
I have talked about the how James could "be teaching error" in my posts at James White and the Church
I am really endeavouring to "sit down with" Geoff "and make an investigation" of his views, giving him "a candid hearing".
While I don't agree that the topics we discuss here are "pillars of our faith", I do think we should investigate them ourselves to "reveal truth and unmask error" with the help of the Spirit of Prophecy.
Geoff said:
I think we need to get some perspective on the matter.
"Those who have not been in the habit of searching the Bible for themselves, or weighing evidence, have confidence in the leading men, and accept the decisions they make, and thus many will reject the very messages God sends to his people, if these leading brethren do not accept them. {GW92 126.4}
No one should claim that he has all the light there is for God's people. The Lord will not tolerate this. He has said, “I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it.” [Revelation 3:8.] Even if all our leading men should refuse light and truth, that door will still remain open. The Lord will raise up men who will give the people the message for this time." {GW92 126.5}
Speaking of James White, she says, "His work will go forward. Simple instruments God will choose to carry forward this great work; BUT THEY ONLY CARRY OUT THE MIND AND WILL OF THE GREAT MASTER AT THE HEAD OF THE WORK." Pamphlets to J.N. Andrews 1860.
How could he then be teaching error?
Don't fall into the trap.
" Truth is eternal, and conflict with error will only make manifest its strength. We should never refuse to examine the Scriptures with those who, we have reason to believe, desire to know what is truth. Suppose a brother held a view that differed from yours, and he should come to you, proposing that you sit down with him and make an investigation of that point in the Scriptures; should you rise up, filled with prejudice, and condemn his ideas, while refusing to give him a candid hearing? The only right way would be to sit down as Christians, and investigate the position presented, in the light of God's work, which will reveal truth and unmask error. To ridicule his ideas would not weaken his position in the least if it were false, or strengthen your position if it were true. If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it. There must be no spirit of Phariseeism cherished among us." {GW92 127.1}
Wasn't the spirit of pharasaism,"You must not question our judgement."
Aren't these just great quotes! Thanks Geoff
"Weighing Evidence", I really loved that idea and it has inspired me to go through the booklet "The Godhead in Black & White" and if I survive that "Putting the Pieces Together". Both booklets Geoff has given me, largely consisting of Ellen White quotes. We will weigh the evidence and make up our own minds.
I have talked about the how James could "be teaching error" in my posts at James White and the Church
I am really endeavouring to "sit down with" Geoff "and make an investigation" of his views, giving him "a candid hearing".
While I don't agree that the topics we discuss here are "pillars of our faith", I do think we should investigate them ourselves to "reveal truth and unmask error" with the help of the Spirit of Prophecy.
More on James White and the Holy Spirit
Geoff sent some very good comments on James White and the Holy Spirit
geoff said...
geoff said...
Yes agree Geoff that you could read these last comments to infer that Christ and the Spirit were the one person. You could also infer from words like "as an equivalent" and "a representation of Himself" that it was indeed another person.
Which inference is correct?
I'm going to go through "The Godhead in Black & White" using James White's rule to work that out. It should be interesting.
To answer your opening question:
When James calls the Holy Spirit another comforter, what was the understanding of his readers and the church at that time?
Thanks for bringing this point up, once again your comments have spurred further learning. Unfortunately, and it brings me no joy to say this, you really are shown to be completely out of step with James White on the topic of the Comforter. This must be disheartening, so I will try to be gentle.
The understanding of the church at the time was as you suggest, the figurative personhood of the Holy Spirit.
But what about his readers?
Many would have been Seventh-day Adventists. In his introduction to "Bible Adventism" (the book the quotes come from), James says of the SDA church, "We are gathered from Methodists, Regular Baptists, Free-will Baptists, Seventh-day Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Disciples, Dutch Reformed, Christians, Lutherans, Catholics, United Brethren, Universalists, worldlings and infidels." p 11.
From this list only the Disciples and Christians would have had similar beliefs to James regarding the Godhead.
Some readers would have been from the "religious world" outside the SDA church. On pages 7 and 8 James says, "...We are fully aware that much prejudice exists in the religious world against many of our opinions of Bible truth. This, however, exists mainly for want of information as to our real positions, and probably in some degree, for the want of intelligence and piety on the part of some who have represented our view. May God help us overcome this prejudice by a clear and intelligent defense of the truth, and by well ordered lives, and the spirit of humility and love that shall melt its way into the hearts of the people." pp7,8
So James' intention is to make a "clear and intelligent defense of the truth" to overcome the prejudice of "the religious world against many of our opinions of Bible truth".
So to answer your questions:
1. At least some, probably many, readers would have been trinitarian, and this "prejudice" would not have been threatened at all by this book.
2. If James is defending your view of the Comforter, he is being clearly deceptive rather than "clear and intelligent". You would make James' mean "one" when he said "two", "both" and "more than one", "the same" when he said "the other"; "present" when he said "absent". If what you say is true, then James either made a poor choice of words or is setting out to deceive.
3. Despite the fact that the religious world would disagree with your view of the Holy Spirit, James never defends this view. I know he says he is talking about "many", not all, of "our opinions" in this particular book, so maybe he "clearly and intelligently" defends his supposed view on the Spirit elsewhere. I would love to see that book or article. Even an article where he shows new converts "his opinion" on the Comforter would suffice.
Unfortunately for you Geoff, James seems reluctant to "clearly and intelligently" defend his acknowledged view on "Sonship" to the trinitarian public or new convert, let alone his alleged view on the Holy Spirit.
Sadly your case slowly crumbles. I'm sorry mate, but further research shows that you clearly disagree with James White's view of the Comforter.
geoff said...
When James calls the Holy Spirit another comforter, what was the understanding of his readers and the church at that time? "Though Christ's visible presence is not discerned, yet the workers may claim the promise, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." CH 248. We agree with James, it is not Christ in His visible bodily form, but another comforter, in the form of the Holy Spirit, bringing Christ's invisible presence. As spelt out by the prophet and his own son, and other contemporaries.
Further evidence for the concept,To answer these comments....
"But Jesus had assured them that he would send the Comforter, as an equivalent for his visible presence."
3 SP 256.
"Our sanitariums are to show forth to the world the benevolence of heaven; and though Christ's visible presence is not discerned in the building, yet the workers may claim the promise: "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." 6T 227.
"During His humiliation upon this earth, the Spirit had not descended with all its efficacy; and Christ declared that if He went not away, it would not come, but that if He went away, He would send it. It was a representation of Himself, and after He was glorified it was manifest." {ST, May 17, 1899 par. 3}
Yes agree Geoff that you could read these last comments to infer that Christ and the Spirit were the one person. You could also infer from words like "as an equivalent" and "a representation of Himself" that it was indeed another person.
Which inference is correct?
I'm going to go through "The Godhead in Black & White" using James White's rule to work that out. It should be interesting.
To answer your opening question:
When James calls the Holy Spirit another comforter, what was the understanding of his readers and the church at that time?
Thanks for bringing this point up, once again your comments have spurred further learning. Unfortunately, and it brings me no joy to say this, you really are shown to be completely out of step with James White on the topic of the Comforter. This must be disheartening, so I will try to be gentle.
The understanding of the church at the time was as you suggest, the figurative personhood of the Holy Spirit.
But what about his readers?
Many would have been Seventh-day Adventists. In his introduction to "Bible Adventism" (the book the quotes come from), James says of the SDA church, "We are gathered from Methodists, Regular Baptists, Free-will Baptists, Seventh-day Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Disciples, Dutch Reformed, Christians, Lutherans, Catholics, United Brethren, Universalists, worldlings and infidels." p 11.
From this list only the Disciples and Christians would have had similar beliefs to James regarding the Godhead.
Some readers would have been from the "religious world" outside the SDA church. On pages 7 and 8 James says, "...We are fully aware that much prejudice exists in the religious world against many of our opinions of Bible truth. This, however, exists mainly for want of information as to our real positions, and probably in some degree, for the want of intelligence and piety on the part of some who have represented our view. May God help us overcome this prejudice by a clear and intelligent defense of the truth, and by well ordered lives, and the spirit of humility and love that shall melt its way into the hearts of the people." pp7,8
So James' intention is to make a "clear and intelligent defense of the truth" to overcome the prejudice of "the religious world against many of our opinions of Bible truth".
So to answer your questions:
1. At least some, probably many, readers would have been trinitarian, and this "prejudice" would not have been threatened at all by this book.
2. If James is defending your view of the Comforter, he is being clearly deceptive rather than "clear and intelligent". You would make James' mean "one" when he said "two", "both" and "more than one", "the same" when he said "the other"; "present" when he said "absent". If what you say is true, then James either made a poor choice of words or is setting out to deceive.
3. Despite the fact that the religious world would disagree with your view of the Holy Spirit, James never defends this view. I know he says he is talking about "many", not all, of "our opinions" in this particular book, so maybe he "clearly and intelligently" defends his supposed view on the Spirit elsewhere. I would love to see that book or article. Even an article where he shows new converts "his opinion" on the Comforter would suffice.
Unfortunately for you Geoff, James seems reluctant to "clearly and intelligently" defend his acknowledged view on "Sonship" to the trinitarian public or new convert, let alone his alleged view on the Holy Spirit.
Sadly your case slowly crumbles. I'm sorry mate, but further research shows that you clearly disagree with James White's view of the Comforter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)