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.

George R Knight - Foreword to Questions on Doctrines Revisited

Foreword
A. Leroy Moore has provided us with a helpful examination of one the thorniest problems in Adventism - the ongoing struggle that began in the late 1950s in reaction to the Evangelical/Adventist dialogues and the publication of Questions on Doctrine. The results of those meetings, and the General Conference-sponsored book they spawned, produced widely different responses from leading Adventist ministers. On the one hand, M. L. Andreasen interpreted the events surrounding the publication of Questions on Doctrine to be a sell-out of the denomination's theology in order to obtain Evangelical recognition. On the other hand, the General Conference leadership, represented by such men as R. R. Figuhr, L. E. Froom, and R. A. Andersen, saw the meetings, the book, and Evangelical recognition as a great blessing.

The varying reactions were vigorous and became increasingly acrimoninious over time as each side argued for its position. Unfortunately, when both sides seek to "win" an argument, balance tends to be lost as theological and personality polarization takes place. The major casualty in such situations is nearly always truth. And the cost of that casualty has hurt the Sevent-day Adventist Church more dearly than most realize. The denomination is now in the midst of a theological power struggle that fractured it for a half century. And, as in most cases of polarization, the parties have not come closer together over time. To the contrary, they have moved further apart as positions have solidified. And the stakes are not small. The very identity of Adventism stands at the center of the struggle.

It is into this controversy-laden arena that Dr. Moore enters, offering both parties a wake-up call and an olive branch. In the tradition of his very helpful Adventism in Conflict: Resolving the Issues that Divide Us (Review & Herald, 1995), Moore argues that most people only see half of the truth - neither side has all error, and neither side has all truth.  What is needed, according to Moore, is to get people thinking in a bipolar fashion that helps each side in a debate unite both poles of truth. That is, each party in a debate needs to integrate the correct ideas held by the opposition with the truths it has been defending. Only when both poles of truth are united can people hope to arrive at the closest approximation of God's truth and will.

Leroy Moore is onto something important here. And we would do well to listen to him carefully. The only way to health in Adventism is to move beyond the bipolarism that has divided the denomination since the late 1950s.

Questions on Doctrine Revisited is a detailed application of Moore's methodology. His aim in writing is to examine the fifty years of conflict in a manner that will enable the church to profit from past mistakes and to thus establish a basis for unity.

In Moore's treatment, there are no sacred Adventist cows as he writes with both conviction and passion. Each side is given credit for both its truths and its errors. And none of the controversial topics are left out, including the human nature of Christ, perfection, the role of the final generation, and so on.

In the process, Moore courageously takes all sides to task. But, and here is the crucial point, he does so in a manner that starts out with the principle that it is of the utmost importance - to put the best construction on each participant's motives and theological understandings. That spirit, which is the opposite of that which has too generally been exhibited in theological dialogue, is absolutely crucial in solving Adventism's theological difficulties in the early twenty-first century. Its opposite, what Ellen White in 1888 called "the spirit of the Pharisees" or "the spirit of Minneapolis" has in Moore's opinion to often driven the participants in the ongoing Adventist discussion.

In the spirit that Ellen White sought to foster in the midst of the 1888 controversies, Moore writes in first chapter that "though I discuss theological issues... my primary burden is not so much to relolve those issues as to suggest how we can work together to overcome the blindness that occurs... The resolution of our conflict must be a corporate undertaking... My emphasis is thus upon attitudes and methods that the Holy Spirit can bless in effecting a unity of spirit that too many resist for fear of compromise."

With that thought in mind, I would like to recommend Dr Moore's book as essential reading for all of those who have an interest in either the controversy over Questions on Doctrine or in the broader issue of a "Christian" approach to theological methodology.

George R. Knight
Andrews University (May 2005)

Evidence against Matthew 28:19

Posted for Geoff (Bruce's reply in Comments)
 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19

A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19
by Clinton D. Willis, CWillis@ipa.net

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:   Introduction to Christianity, pp.50-51

He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:

"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:

As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view.  If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:

"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:

"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:

"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:

"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:

"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:

"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:

In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."

Tom Harpur:

Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:

Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."

Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:

By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."

The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1:

The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.

According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.

The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, "Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."

No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.

But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.

Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.

Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts."

Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity baptism.

"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."

The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:

The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.

  For more truth on this important subject on the personality of God and His Son and Their Holy Spirit see :

Restitution Ministries    Australian
Theme of the Bible  Australian
Restoration Ministries  Jamaican

Also there are also more references with respect to the addition of parts of 1 John 5:7

The Nicene Creed

Just for a bit of fun, I thought I would look at the Catholic version of the trinity doctrine. It is based on the Nicene Creed. I used the 1975 ecumenical version (ICET) from Wikipedia "English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use". I have numbered the lines for ease of reference.

In 1975, ICET published, in the book Prayers We Have in Common, an ecumenical English translation of the Nicene Creed that was adopted by many Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Following is the text of this 1975 version as printed in the English-language Roman Missal used outside the United States. The only difference between this presentation and the way ICET presented the text is that ICET printed the Filioque clause as a parenthesis, thus: "[and the Son]".
1 We believe in one God,
2 the Father, the Almighty
3 maker of heaven and earth,
4 of all that is, seen and unseen.
5
6 We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
7 the only Son of God,
8 eternally begotten of the Father,
9 God from God, Light from Light,
10 true God from true God,
11 begotten, not made,
12 of one Being with the Father.
13 Through him all things were made.
14 For us men and for our salvation
15 he came down from heaven:
16 by the power of the Holy Spirit
17 he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
18 For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
19 he suffered death and was buried.
20 On the third day he rose again
21 in accordance with the Scriptures;
22 he ascended into heaven
23 and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
24 He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
25 and his kingdom will have no end
26
27 We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
28 who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
29 With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
30 He has spoken through the Prophets.
31 We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
32 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
33 We look for the resurrection of the dead,
34 and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Both mainline SDAs and antitrinitarians would agree with most of this.

Mainline SDAs disagree with lines 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 28 and depending on interpretation, 31. That is a total of seven lines

Antitrinitarians would disagree with lines 8, 12, 27, 29 and depending on interpretation, 31. That is a total of five lines.

Therefore the antitrinitarians are closer to the Catholic doctrine of the trinity, as expressed in the Nicene Creed, than are mainline SDAs.

Comments and corrections welcome.

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.