Veiled Doctrines

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.

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:

1. Willie "never clearly understood her teachings on the matter".
2. Willie was somewhat perplexed by his mother's meaning
3. Willie superficially, thought his mother's meaning was confused.

I really appreciate this candour. Willie honestly did not know or understand what Mrs White taught on the Holy Spirit. But even more to be applauded is what he did with his perplexity... he "refrain(ed) from discussion" and "directed (his) mind to matters easy to be understood".

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:

1. the Holy Spirit is not an individual
2. 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".
3. Christ is the eternal Son,
4. "personality" can mean characteristics
5. the Father and Son have bodily form, the Holy Spirit doesn't
6. 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:

1. a third Person of the same nature as Father and Son
2. a member of the heavenly trio
3. cooperative in creation
4. 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.

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.

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.

Where We Disagree with James White

To finally sum up our discussion of James White on the Trinity, I will discuss where we disagree. Before I do, just a reminder that this is one of the few places where we disagree with James, most of what he says is orthodox SDA doctrine.

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)

James White on the Holy Spirit
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.

James White in the "Living Voice"

• The "three-one God" is a fallacy, "but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse".

I think I am right in saying that most anti-trinitarians would say that trinity is the worst error.

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.

We all Agree with James White

We have looked at all the information that Geoff could find on James White and the Godhead. So this post and the next will be a summary of the main points.

First we will look at the parts of Godhead belief we can all agree on. Using myself as an example of mainline SDA belief, I think we can all agree with the antitrinitarians and James himself on the following:

From the post, James White on the Personality of God

• 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

From James White on the Holy Spirit

• Christ was "in a special sense" Comforter while on earth with his disciples.
• While Christ is absent the Holy Spirit is His representative and Comforter.

From James White in the "Living Voice":

• The Catholic trinity doctrine is error
• The Father and Son were one in man's creation and in his redemption
• The "three in one and one in three" formulation is a fallacy, neither Biblical or explicable.
• The Father and the Son are two distinct beings, yet one in the design and accomplishment of redemption.
• The old Trinitarian creed is unscriptural
• Jesus is second in authority to the Father
• Jesus is the Father's "only beloved"
• The Catholic trinity doctrine "does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ"
• The Father is never called an angel but Jesus is frequently called an angel in the Old Testament.
• Jesus is given credit for what angels do because they are His agents.
• Jesus represents the Father's mind (thinking) in the events of deliverance.

This is a fairly long list and means that there is much common ground even over the Godhead. I invite comments and corrections. Next we will look at where we disagree with James and each other.

James White and the church

Geoff sent me some more quotes, probably the last, regarding James White before we summarise:

When God has spoken, my husband has hearkened to his voice.. 3 Testimonies 509

and

My husband's ready judgement and clear discernment, which have been gained through training and exercise, have led him to take on many burdens which others should have borne. 3 Testimonies 497.

These quotes come from James' wife, Ellen, in a seventeen page section entitled "Leadership". Once again Geoff, thank you for leading me to this wonderful article, my copy is now heavily underlined.

The article deals with church worker's attitudes toward church leadership. Some were too independent, not heeding leadership. Others were not independent enough, relying on church leadership to make all their decisions for them. This leadership included James White, which is why she made the second quote above about people putting burdens on him that they should have carried themselves.

There are many references to James and the unappreciated burdens he bore. One I particularly liked was:

God has permitted the precious light of truth to shine upon His word and illuminate the mind of my husband... 3 Testimonies 502

She went on that James should have reflected this light by preaching and writing but he was kept too busy doing church church business that others could have done. At the end of the page (502, 503):

The wide contrast between themselves and him seemed like a gulf; but might easily have been bridged, had these men of intellect put their undivided interests and whole hearts into the work of building up and advancing the precious cause of God.

It is clear that the same "ready judgement and clear discernment" that James exhibited, could have been gained by his fellow workers if they were willing to exercise their talents. We may also, "through training and exercise", gain these same characteristics.

The chapter ends (p508, 509) with a comments that James was often misunderstood by his co-workers:

I was shown that my husband's course has not been perfect. He has erred sometimes in murmuring and in giving too severe reproof. But from what I have seen, he has not been so greatly at fault in this respect as many have supposed and as I have sometimes feared. Job was not understood by his friends...
... His motives are misunderstood and his actions misconstrued by those who would be his friends, until like Job, he sends forth the earnest prayer: Save me from my friends...
When God has spoken, my husband has hearkened to His voice; but to bear the condemnation and reflection of his friends who do not seem to discriminate has been a great trial... (they torture) his feelings by reflections and censures which he in no way deserves.

While I appreciated the chapter, I can see no relationship between it and the topic of the Godhead. I think Geoff infers that God spoke to James on the Godhead and that James clearly discerned the correct picture of the Godhead. The quote I gave from page 502 says God permitted truth to illuminate the James' mind. We could infer that this includes Godhead BUT it is only inference. In the context, Mrs White doesn't even hint at what these truths are.

So I don't find it adds any significant weight to Geoff's argument. In fact, in context, it presents some real difficulties for the present-day antitrinitarians. Their attitude to church leadership is directly challenged by the chapter's second paragraph on page 492:

I have been shown that no man's judgement should be surrendered to the judgement of any one man. But when the judgement of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgement must not be maintained, but be surrendered. Your error was in persistently maintaining your private judgement of your duty against the voice of the highest authority the Lord has upon earth...You did not seem to have a true sense of the power that God has given to His church in the voice of the General Conference...You accordingly manifested an independence, a set, willful spirit, which was all wrong.

So Geoff, and your friends, I encourage you to heed the voice of the prophet and the voice of the General Conference, cease your wilfulness and put your "undivided interests and whole hearts into the work of building up and advancing the precious cause of God".

More Inferences

Some more inferences from Adrian's article:"No Other Foundation"

The wise man built his house upon the rock, but our leaders now want us to believe that we built it on a very dangerous belief (literal Sonship of Jesus), that will in fact cause the loss of salvation! This is a fantastic claim that must be clearly understood. Our church claims that our forefathers ignorantly laid a poisonous corner stone that would kill us all and that later wiser leadership would have to correct this most terrible situation!

The quote given to support this was

  "What do we forfeit if God is only one Person? For one, Christ could not be our Savior. It took the Holy Spirit to bring Christ to Mary. It took the Father to answer Christ's prayers and give Him needed help. That's how important the Trinity is to us. Our eternal life depends upon this truth."
Adventist World Magazine - February 2010 Issue - Page 30 par. 2

Geoff, you and I both believe that the Father and Son are not the same Person, so we both believe that Christ can be our Saviour because of this.  You would probably also agree with the examples given as to why the it is important that the Godhead consists of separate Persons. The offending part of the quote must be "Our eternal life depends upon this truth (the trinity)."

Notice the author is saying that it is the "truth" that our eternal life depends upon, not as Adrian infers, our "belief" in that "truth". The author also explicitly states how the trinity saves; because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate Persons.

Does the author believe that non-belief in this "truth" will "cause the loss of salvation"? We could infer that, but remember it is only an inference, he (or she) does NOT SAY that.

Adrian will need a much stronger quote to make his inference a fact.

To state my own belief here; I don't think that it matters one way or the other for our salvation, what we believe on this subject. And the reason I believe that is because if it did matter, there would be "positive testimonies" on this subject from our pioneers.

Another inference from page 5:

The whole of chapter 23 of Great Controversy outlines the history of how God's people had a door opened for them into the Most Holy. It came by means of measuring the temple and finding the true Son of God. Notice carefully the words of the prophet concerning our pillars...

"After the passing of the time in 1844 we searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with the brethren, and we  studied and  prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they  might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me. I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the Scriptures in regard to Christ, his mission, and his priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me."  RH, May 25, 1905 par. 24 

"Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. 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." MR760 9.5

Here is a definitive statement that light was given to the pioneers regarding Christ, his mission and His priesthood. They are labeled as old landmarks and pillars and notice carefully the linking of the sanctuary and the personality of God and Christ. This is our anchor. But our Adventist scholarship must certainly deny this.The logic of our current position in the  church is that our pioneers dragged in their false beliefs concerning Christ and we all had to suffer the consequences for over 100 years.

"How God's people had a door opened for them into the Most Holy. It came by means of... finding the true Son of God."
There is no mention of the "true Son of God" in either quote. It can't even be infered. This statement cannot be sustained by quotes given. There is nothing at all about the Sonship of Jesus in either quote.

"...Christ, his mission and His priesthood... are labeled as old landmarks and pillars"
Once again Adrian is sloppy here. Yes, I agree that these are probably landmarks and pillars BUT it DOESN'T SAY THAT.  Adrian has put the two bits of the two quotes together and inferred that is what it means.

To be true to the first quote it would be best to say  "Christ, his mission, and his priesthood were truths that the pioneers understood after earnest prayer, Bible study and Mrs White's visions. "

Also trinitarians can believe the same as Adrian on Christ's mission and priesthood. So Adrian is inferring that making the word "Christ" mean "the literal Sonship of Christ". That is quite a long shot.



"...notice carefully the linking of the sanctuary and the personality of God and Christ. This is our anchor. But our Adventist scholarship must certainly deny this..."
Once again there is no reference given for this assertion. In fact the earlier quote (I am assuming the author was an Adventist scholar) states specifically that God and Christ are separate Persons.

But if Adrian understands personality in the modern sense, of "the complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental--that characterize a unique individual" then that is not a problem for even a Trinitarian to enumerate these attributes and connect them to the atoning work on earth and heaven.

However,  if you infer that "personality" means the literal Sonship of Jesus, Fatherhood of God then Adrian better supply some more positive evidence that this is what Mrs White had in mind. She certainly doesn't say that here.

I believe that the Sonship of Jesus and for that matter, the Trinity are NOT pillars or landmarks of the Adventist church. I also believe that the personality of God and Christ is essential. I want to thank you Geoff, for pointing this out to me in the past.

Also from page 5:
"Christ and the Sanctuary stand or fall together." Amen and amen... Preach it brother!! I couldn't agree more.

"If Christ is not literally the Son of God, then the foundations for a literal sanctuary in heaven have been smashed."? - I still can't see the link. Why would the fact that Jesus in not literally a Son, affect the literality of the heavenly sanctuary. I thank you for showing how real and literal the sanctuary in heaven is, but the inference that it is somehow linked to Christ's Sonship is still inference.

A denial of the literal Son of God MUST of necessity destroy the foundation of the Sanctuary in heaven which flows onto an erosion of a literal investigation; a literal law and literal victory over sin. All must stand and fall together and all are linked to the literal Son of God, for He is the WAY into the Most Holy ­ His very identity as the Son of God is the Door to understanding. pp5,6

No quotes are given to back Adrian's statement up. Personally I don't think Jesus is the literal Son of God and I'm very happy to see you preaching the heavenly sanctuary as it is a subject that we should major in. As for the investigative judgement, and the day of atonement, I believe this is probably the most powerfully evangelistic doctrine of our church. Non Christians are especially attracted to it, as are post-moderns and Muslims, in my experience. "The hour of His judgement has come" is wonderful news indeed! Preach it LOUD!

In this lawless time, the Law of Covenant is a shining light in this dark and hopeless world. Preach it too.

"Victory over sin" is the message that our youth and especially the men need to hear. This is a doctrine of hope and encouragement for the neutered Aussie man of today. When this catches on we will see a revival here in Australia that will send missionaries to every corner of our country and world. I really mean "men on a mission", real soldiers, soldiers of Christ, real men in their families, communities and churches.

Preach on brethren, this is why you guys are here... Don't get sidetracked with these inferences.

From page 6

By its very definition, the Trinity denies us the right to believe that the Son of God is literal. It demands of us a belief  that the Son of God is spiritual, an application, a working title but not His true identity.

The first sentence is true, the second is inference.
The Son of God is not spiritual in the sense that James White uses it. The spiritualisers that he was battling in "The Parable" believed that Jesus returned "spiritually" in 1844 (or when we were converted). They believed heaven was 'spiritual'. Another good article by James on this subject is "Personality of God". I agree with his conclusion there, that heaven is real and physical, as are the Father and Son.

My plea to Geoff, Adrian and any other anti-trinitarian is that you would give me "one positive testimony" from James White or any other person in the White family. I'm getting tired of inferences.

Inferences on James White

I must really thank Geoff and Adrian for alerting me to "The Parable" from James White. It has clarified his position and gave me a vocabulary to express my unease with the the anti-trinitarian argument. As always I have learned lots of other things too, so a genuine thank you.

Also thank you for the advice to "Read it again carefully". I did, and learned a great deal about the things that you should be telling us about Geoff...
The problem of "spiritualising"
The importance of a literal Sanctuary in heaven
The real meaning of the parable of the 10 virgins
The meaning of the 'bride of Christ'
The history of our church.

Now for a couple of principles from James White on how to find the truth from Scripture:

1. Positive Testimony not Inferences

Starting at page 21 when James is talking about the bride of Christ, he says

One positive testimony is worth more on this point, or any other, than a hundred inferences.

2. The Subject not Weak Inferences

from pp21,22

The principle Scripture brought to prove that the church is the bride of Christ, is Eph.v,22-33. But it should first be particularly noticed, that Paul's subject is the duty of husband and wife. The union that should exist between them is strikingly illustrated by the union that exists between Christ and the church. But the Apostle does not intimate that the church is the bride of Christ. Those who use this text to prove that the church is the bride, infer that it is so, merely because Paul chose the union existing between Christ and the church, to show the duty of man and wife. Those who have had much to say upon the (22) insufficiency of inferential reasoning should not rest their faith relative to the bride, on such a weak inference, which contradicts the plain testimony of John. Rev.xxi,9,10.

My impression is that most of the anti-trinitarian argument is inferences and Adrian's "No Other Foundation" provides some excellent examples.

Immediately preceding the quote in the previous post, Adrian says:

It is only through an understanding of the literal Sonship of Jesus could the door into the Most Holy be opened. p3

The quote does not back up this claim:
"Only"? - Also listed as being literal are our High Priest, the Sanctuary in heaven, Jesus, the candlestick, the Son of man, the Ark containing the ten commandments in heaven, the City and finally, the Son of God. Far from 'only'.

"Literal Sonship of Jesus"? - is never mentioned. The "literal Son of God" is what James says. We can infer that he is talking about "sonship" here because we know his theology, but a stronger inference would be that he is simply using another name of Jesus to drive home the point that He is the "literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven".

"Sonship"? - the subject of this quote is to provide "a perfect safeguard against spiritualism". It is not an argument on the subject of sonship. In fact he states clearly that the perfect safeguard against spiritualising God and heaven is the "position...that a change has taken place in the position and work of our literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven."

"only through an understanding"..."could the door into the Most Holy be opened"? - the part of the quote missed out indicates that it is was the ending of the 2300-day prophecy (not our understanding) that opened the atoning work in the Most Holy...

And more, when John says that he saw "one like the Son of man" "in the midst of the seven candlesticks," that is, in the Holy Place, we know not how to make the candlestick spiritual, and the Son of man literal. We therefore believe that both are literal, and that John saw Jesus while a "Minister" in the Holy Place. John also had a view of another part of the Sanctuary, which view applies to the time of the sounding of the seventh angel. He says, "The temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ARK OF HIS TESTAMENT." Rev.xi,19. Also, "The tabernacle of the testimony was opened in heaven." Chap.xv,5.

This being an event to take place under the sounding of the seventh angel, it could be fulfilled at no other time than at the end of the 2300 days. The Most Holy, containing the Ark of the ten commandments, was then opened for our Great High Priest to enter to make atonement for the cleansing of the Sanctuary.

So to sum up: There is no part of Adria's assertion that is not proven false by the context.

James' subject in the The Parable is to combat the deceptions of spiritualising (p16) and of thinking that Jesus is still High Priest in Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary (pp19, 20), that come from a misinterpretation of the Matthew 25 parable of the Ten Virgins in the "few years" (p6) after 1844, (probably just after 1850 or 1851 p13).

Using James' second principle, this quote and the whole article is NOT on the subject of the Sonship of Jesus. While James is definitely non-trinitarian, I have never seen a single article he has written on the subject. (If you can find one, please let me know).

Sorry Adrian, but this is a very weak inference indeed.

James and the Parable

Geoff sent me the following in an email. It is a quote from Adrian Eben's "No Other Foundation" which in turn quotes from James White's "The Parable".


Quote from No Other Foundation by Adrian Ebens:

Notice carefully the observations of James White

Our position is, that a change has taken place in the position and work of our literal High Priest in the literal Sanctuary in heaven, which is to be compared to the coming of the bridegroom in the marriage. This view is a perfect safeguard against spiritualism. We not only believe in a literal Jesus, who is a "Minister of the Sanctuary," but we also believe that the Sanctuary is literal. ‐ And more, when John says that he saw "one like the Son of man" "in the midst of the seven candlesticks," that is, in the Holy Place, we know not how to make the candlestick spiritual, and the Son of man literal. We therefore believe that both are literal, and that John saw Jesus while a "Minister" in the Holy Place. John also had a view of another part of the Sanctuary, which view applies to the time of the sounding of the seventh angel.

...The Most Holy, containing the Ark of the ten commandments, was then opened for our Great High Priest to enter to make atonement for the cleansing of the Sanctuary. If we take the liberty to say there is not a literal Ark, containing the ten commandments in heaven, we may go only a step further and deny the literal City, and the literal Son of God. Certainly, Adventists should not choose the spiritual view, rather than the one we have presented. We see no middle ground to be taken. - The Parable Page 16

As I read the above statement, I am forced to stop and weep for joy. WHAT A GIFT God has given us in the person of James White and this statement! When I get to heaven I am going to grab this man and hug him and hold him tight and greet him with a holy kiss.

Here is the secret to our entry into the Most Holy Place. It is based on an identification of Jesus as the literal Son of God. Read it again carefully we know not how to make the candlestick spiritual, and the Son of man literal. We therefore believe that both are literal, and that John saw Jesus while a "Minister" in the Holy Place.

Our pioneers measured the temple of God and found the WAY into the Most Holy. Let us remember that a measuring of the Sanctuary is a measuring of the person of Christ.

Psa 77:13 Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


End of quote

Thanks for this Geoff (and Adrian) I will post about this, again.

For some more information, from Adrian's home page, download the excellent "Comparison Chart", under point 6.

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.
   

The White Family and the Trinity

“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.

Did she approve? If not, why did he continue his belief? Did she simply refrain from correcting him? Why?"

The Doctrine of the Trinity in the SDA church. p312. Russell Holt, doctoral dissertation, 1969, Andrews University.

“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;…

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”

5T, 20.

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.”

“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.”

What about James Edson White?

"The talent God has given you in the ability to comprehend the truths of His Word is a precious gift."

Paulson Collection p103.

"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.

He has put His Spirit upon him, and has opened the way before him, giving him success."

SPM p216.

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.

"No one could teach it as He could, for no other being but the Father loved us as He loved us."

Ibid, p43.

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…

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.”

Pamphlets, Nashville Sanitarium, 1906, p20.

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…

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.”

Letter to W.H. Carr, April 30, 1935.

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.