Thin Doctrines

Trinity and antitrinitarian doctrines are "thin" in the sense that

1. There are very few Bible references on the subject and mostly no positive testimony, so...
2. There are lots of inferences and speculations. So...
3. There are lots of fights, with little clarity so...
4. There is lots of chicanery (the use of clever but tricky talk or action to deceive or evade) so...
5. There is no definite end point or clear understanding of definitions between the sides to judge it from. So...
6. Arguments are interminable

Another interesting characteristic is the gender bias. These squabbles are conducted mainly by men. I think there are three reasons for this:

1. Women don't like silly arguments (that they can't win). They are too practical and sensible.
2. Women have better things to do with their discretionary time. Things like sleeping or improving their relationship with Jesus, their friends and family.
3. 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

In the wider world Free Will versus God's Sovereignty is a biggie. Arminianism versus Calvinism.

Give me a cuddly and curvaceous Fat Doctrine any day. Justification anyone? (I'm joking of course.)

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:

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...

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.

December 26, 2010 11:23 AM

geoff said...

Further evidence for the concept,
"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}

To answer these comments....
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.