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".

The First Rule of Bible Study

Geoff has said that "the first rule of Bible study is that we are to understand the words according to their obvious meaning unless a figure or metaphor is indicated."

In a private email Geoff said "I cannot understand why you will not apply the first rule of Bible study to the discussion. "God is the Father of Christ, Christ is the Son of God." "The Son of God in truth." If you want to infer a different meaning to what is obviously stated, then it is up to you to show cause why. Are you forgetting that the Bible was not written for theologians, "but the common man, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is in the best position to understand the Scriptures."

First off, I want to say that I am no theologian, I have not had any theological training, so according to the quote (I'm not sure where it is from) I should be in the "best position to understand the Scriptures".

Geoff has asked for several things:
1. Why I don't apply the first rule of Bible study specifically to the terms "Son of God" and "Father" (I'm not sure that "Father of Christ" is a Biblical reference)
2. That I show cause for inferring that Jesus is not the literal Son of God but figurative.

Before we begin, the big difference between myself and Geoff is that Geoff believes that Jesus is the literal Son of God ie. that God actually Fathered Jesus and Jesus is not from eternity past but had a beginning. I believe that Jesus is a figurative Son of God, from eternity past, without beginning.

Ultimately both positions are unprovable and we must both infer from Scripture (and from Mrs White, to some extent).

So why do I say Jesus is the figurative Son of God.

1. Jesus is the antitypical Son - he is the original Son - we are all typical. The type is not always the same as the antitype in every particular. The sacrificial lamb was a type of the "Lamb of God" but not exactly the same. In many ways Jesus was like the sacrificial lamb just as Jesus is, in many ways, like human sons. More importantly, in what ways are human sons and fathers, like the antitypical Son and Father? Geoff would say "in procreation", I say "in close relationship".

2. "Son" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal son". Ezekiel is repeatedly called the "son of man" as is Jesus, this is redundant if "son" is literal. Jesus is called the "son of David" (Mt 1:1, Mk 10:47) as is Joseph (Mt 1:20). Even though both were descendents of David, neither are literal sons. The overcomer is promised to become God's son (Rev 21:7). John says we are already sons of God ,1 Jn 3:1,2, Jn 1:12, as does Paul in Rom 8:14. James and John are called "sons of thunder" (Mk 3:17) by Jesus. These are the examples I could think of at present.

3. "Father" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal father". In John 8, Jesus calls God His Father many times which may or may not be literal. The Jews claimed Abraham was their father (v39) and that they only had one Father - God (v41). Jesus said that the devil was their father (v44) and that the devil was the father of lies (v44). None of these later references can be literal.

4. "Monogenes" (usually translated "only begotten son") is about "preciousness" not literal sonship. I say this because the writers of the New Testament used monogenes in the context of the Old Testament. They called Isaac monogenes even though he was not Abraham's "only son" (Heb 11:17). I could find two occurrances of monogenes in the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament most readers of the New Testament in the first years of the Christian church were most familiar with. These references were Psalms 22:20 and 35:17 where it is translated "my darling" (in NKJV it is translated "my precious" and life is added in both cases). These would be the references most people reading the New Testament would apply to that word at the time it was written.

To sum up, it is quite possible that the original writers of the New Testament meant "Son of God" as a figure or metaphor, so I infer that Jesus is the figurative Son of God. The writers may also have meant it to be taken literally, which is why I'm not dogmatic and certainly won't ask anyone to change their mind on this matter.

Does that answer your question Geoff?

Backfire and Sentience

Last year I posted about Selective Inattention
To quote a pertinent part of that post

The more convinced one is of the validity of his position the less capable he is to accommodate contrary factors. Moreover, psychological and spiritual sanity require certainty on some issues as the basis for both clarity and security needed for examining others.

I came across an article by Joe Keohane "How Facts Backfire" that adds more to this subject. Even though Joe is talking about political beliefs, it also applies in the realm of religion.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”

(Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance." It is interesting to note that our pioneers are held up as examples in the Wikipedia article on cognitive dissonance "The Great Disappointment of 1844 is an example of cognitive dissonance in a religious context.")

Joe' had some very disturbing points to make (these were from recent research such as the Michigan study mentioned above):

Facts do not cure misinformation -
when misinformed people are presented with facts that correct their beliefs "they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs."

Our beliefs often dictate the facts we notice
Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information."

Motivated Reasoning - We passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs and actively dismiss information that doesn't. This is like selective inattention

Generally, people tend to seek consistency. There is a substantial body of psychological research showing that people tend to interpret information with an eye toward reinforcing their preexisting views. If we believe something about the world, we are more likely to passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs, and actively dismiss information that doesn’t. This is known as “motivated reasoning.”

Salience
the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire.

Insecurity breeds selective inattention
if you feel good about yourself, you’ll listen — and if you feel insecure or threatened, you won’t. This would also explain why demagogues benefit from keeping people agitated. The more threatened people feel, the less likely they are to listen to dissenting opinions, and the more easily controlled they are.

Some of the cures for this are:
Directness
There are also some cases where directness works. Kuklinski’s welfare study suggested that people will actually update their beliefs if you hit them “between the eyes” with bluntly presented, objective facts that contradict their preconceived ideas.

Education (but it probably won't work)
And if you harbor the notion — popular on both sides of the aisle — that the solution is more education and a higher level of political sophistication in voters overall, well, that’s a start, but not the solution. A 2006 study by Charles Taber and Milton Lodge at Stony Brook University showed that politically sophisticated thinkers were even less open to new information than less sophisticated types. These people may be factually right about 90 percent of things, but their confidence makes it nearly impossible to correct the 10 percent on which they’re totally wrong. Taber and Lodge found this alarming, because engaged, sophisticated thinkers are “the very folks on whom democratic theory relies most heavily.”

As Moore said of selective inattention "it is relatively easy to discern in others and almost impossible to see in one's self". We should be humble and take correction to heart.

This is tough work. I don't know if I'm up to it. But it does explain much of inconsistency I see in the anti-Trinitarians. But where is it in my life. What am I strongly attached to? Where am I ignoring facts?

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.

Geoff on Criticism

(a slightly edited email from Geoff to Bruce 21 March, 2010 - posted with permission)
 As we see the increasing efforts to silence criticism of the trinity doctrine; John Carter, and others, had a meeting with all the pastors in Russia to counteract unauthorized people questioning the church's position on that and other issues. John Carter himself was going to address the issue of the trinity, at Lakeside church they were having a whole weekend of meetings on the topic, and the new pastor at Avondale Memorial is planning talks likewise, he has already stated that he believed Matthew was a trinitarian, and we have been urged to attend his meetings; it is with a feeling of sadness that we visit our friends in other churches, not to argue the point, but just to say, we still love you. 


 We have been warned to be careful not to have the same attitude as the Jews, who hardened their hearts in rejecting truth and evidence, and ended up rejecting Him who was the Truth. Every where you turn, you see groups engaged in activity and having a measure of success, assuming that all is well and they are enjoying the favour of God. It is a trap we can all fall into. But if that were the real test of our position, any number of divergent groups could claim God's sanction for their program. In fact the bigger pentecostal groups could claim greater evidence of God's favour.
 
 It seems the church is determined to not only reject the light themselves, but like the Jews, prevent others who might be inclined to listen, from hearing anything different as well. 

 The facts are that the trinity teaching has no part in the "faith, once delivered to the saints." as the firsttrinitarian leanings did not appear in the church till late in the second century. The doctrine of the trinity was not known among the first Christians.
 
 Did Jesus teach it? Matt. 11:27 "All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."  If the Holy Spirit were a third equal being, would he not have known who the Father and Son were?  Would He need Jesus to reveal to Him who the Father was? 

 Did Paul teach it? Romans 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

 From the book, The Trinity by Whidden Moon and Reeve, "If indeed the Holy Spirit is a third equal person in the Godhead, then it only seems logical that we should pray to and worship Him."  Yes indeed, since we are admonished to worship God, then we must worship Him. But is that scriptural? Nowhere in Scripture is worship or prayer directed to the Holy Spirit. In fact in Jude 20 says that we are to pray "in the Holy Ghost." not to the Holy Ghost. Obviously their deduction is not correct, because it is not borne out in Scripture. Yet even in our church services we sing hymns that are prayers to the Holy Spirit, but because the trinity doctrine is so entrenched, no one seems to see the unscriptural nature of what they are doing, and Satan succeeds in his plan of hiding Jesus from view as "the Comforter."


 We can see that our beliefs will never be acceptable in the church, even though they are no different to James White and his two sons, whom the prophet affirmed many times as being especially blessed of God to correct the erring, and who were as true as steel to the cause of God. When we see a lying report that deceives the people, being advocated and promoted, while those who appeal for all the evidence to be laid openly upon the table,  are condemned as  being divisive, we can only conclude that our beliefs are not welcome, and that we could never function in any meaningful way within the church. As Mrs White said when Kellogg was advocating the trinity and receiving enthusiastic support, many had changed tracks, and were not even aware of it.

 I long that our fellowship could be on a deeper level than this.



With our love,

Geoff