“The pioneers dug for truth as for hidden treasure. James White, Joseph Bates, Hiram Edson, John N. Andrews, and others quarried out the building stones to make the temple…. they found the ineffable mystery of the oneness of God in the Trinity….(A.W. Spalding, “Captains of the Host” pg 214, 1949)
“Since [James] White came out of the Christian Connection, one would expect to discover that he was, at least early in his career, opposed to Trinitarianism. But the evidence is not readily forthcoming, and what is available is inconclusive…. (E. Gane “The Arian or Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-day Adventist Literature and the Ellen G. White Answer, chapter 2)
“This is a phenomenal development of thought, especially given the historical context in which James arrived at it… James White was already, at this early stage of the movement, discerning the two beings as “a firm of equal power” existing together prior to Creation and the Fall – not as Father and Son, which are post- creation roles, but as a “firm of equal power.” (Ty Gibson, “The Heavenly Trio” pg 33)
The quotes above are emblematic of the confusion that exists in Seventh-day Adventism regarding James White and the doctrine of the trinity. I do believe there is more clarity in the ranks now than in time past there is still some misinformation being set forth as the quotes above illustrate.
The claim from Spalding is especially startling. James White, Joseph Bates, Hiram Edson, and John Andrews found the ineffable mystery of the oneness of God in the Trinity. Really? What you just read above is a fragment of the revisionist history that occurred in Adventism regarding the pioneer view about the trinity. Behind the scenes, 2 years prior to the publication of his book, Spalding appears to have known that the pioneers did not actually find the oneness of God in the trinity at all.
“…Did all the fathers sin? And if so, did they repent? How prove the unity of our faith in our succession if our pioneers were Arians and we are Athanasians.” (Letter from Spalding to Lacey, June 2, 1947)
The claim from Ty Gibson is also problematic. How he published it I do not know. And just like how we know that Spalding had evidence of the historical truth, behind the scenes, the same thing appears true for Gibson too. In a pre-publication email review that was sent to him by a brother, he was told:
“But it is the third and final statement by James that you trip over yourself in your eagerness to read your own view into his. James’ words regarding a “firm of equal power” are not a repudiation of generative Christology. You see this because you desperately want to see it. This is not a “phenomenal development of thought” in the way you are wanting it to be. I can prove it. The “last word” of James White on Christology was actually a re-affirmation of his long-standing generative position while simultaneously holding to the equality of divine nature.”
In the final year of his life he wrote: “The Father was greater than the Son in that he was first. The Son was equal with the Father in that he had received all things from the Father.” (James White, RH, January 4, 1881) [March 4th, 2020 email to Ty Gibson]
The problem of wanting to see something that is not actually there is still with us, especially James White. Many want to portray him as on their side of the matter.
So, in an effort to help, I would like to address James White’s position on the holy Spirit. There is a claim going around and several evidences used to support it. I hope to help lay this matter to rest by showing forth the truth.
Before I get into the details of them let me say this. James White was a founding pioneer of the Seventh-day Adventist church. He has a great endorsement from the Testimony of Jesus as we see below.
“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…. {3T 502.2}
Yet, at the very same time, we must keep in mind that he was not an apostle or prophet. His mind was illuminated by the light of God’s truth shining upon His Word but he did not speak or write by revelation/inspiration. Therefore brother White’s views, as interesting or instructive as they might be, should not be taken as an infallible standard of truth. We should not dismiss him but neither should we place him where he should not be. Let me give you an illustrative example:
“The apostle speaks of Christ as He now is, our mediator having laid aside our nature” (James White, Review and Herald June 6, 1871)
If you take James White as your standard then you will believe that Jesus laid aside our nature. Now I strive to give the benefit of the doubt but this language is misleading. If Jesus, as “our mediator,” had actually “laid aside our nature” then He could not actually be our mediator. Our Mediator is “the man Christ Jesus” to use Paul’s language (1 Tim 2:5). Our Lord actually retained our nature as his wife made clear, several years later.
“In taking our nature, the Saviour has bound Himself to humanity by a tie that is never to be broken. Through the eternal ages He is linked with us. “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son.” John 3:16. He gave Him not only to bear our sins, and to die as our sacrifice; He gave Him to the fallen race. To assure us of His immutable counsel of peace, God gave His only-begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His human nature. (DA pg 26 1898)
Now, in graciousness to brother White, maybe he was speaking about the limitation of spirit that is common to human nature. This one aspect appears to be something that the Lord Jesus divested Himself of when He returned to heaven and took back up His original glory. So perhaps that is what brother White meant when he spoke of Jesus having “laid aside our nature” but, if so, his language did not make that clear. Anyhow, the salient point here is that we should not make brother White or any of the other pioneer (excepting sister White) into an inspired messenger because they were not.
So, with that important disclaimer accomplished, let’s get into the rumors. What do some people say that James White believed about the holy Spirit?
They claim that James White believed that the holy Spirit was a separate Person from God and Christ.
As I have witnessed it this claim has been evidenced by 3 quotes. We will examine each of them.
Evidence # 1: The word “person” is used of the Spirit in a periodical edited by James White.
“Brother D wrote: “PERSON OF THE HOLY GHOST (1875) in a magazine edited by James White!
Signs of the Times for 1875 – Vol. 01 – No. 22
Work of the Spirit.
“The mightiest forces in the universe, are silent forces. Who ever heard the budding of an oak? Who was ever deafened by the fallingof the dew? Who was ever stunned by a solar eclipse? So it is with the august phenomenon of a change of heart. So far as we know, it is the most radical change the human spirit can experience. It is a revolutionary change. Still, a change of heart is not anunnatural change. It is not necessarily even destructive of self-possession. God employs in it an instrument exquisitely adjusted to the mind of man as an intelligent and free being. Truth may act in it with an equipoise of forces as tranquil as that of gravitation in the orbits of the stars. No, it is not of necessity a tumultuous experience to which God calls us when he invites us to be saved. By what emblem have the Scriptures expressed the person of the Holy Ghost ? Is it an eagle ? “And John bare record, saying : I saw the Spirit descending like a dove.” ” Come,” is the seleted language of inspiration. “Come, and I will give you ” — what ? a shock, the rack, a swoon ? No, I will give you — ” rest.” Come, and ye shall find “— what ? struggle, terror, torture ? No, ye shall find—” peace.” ” Come ye “— come who ? “Let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”— Dr. A. Phelps. [End Quote]
Evidence # 2: James White believed there are two distinct comforters.
Brother C wrote: James White: There are two distinct comforters.
“The distinction between the manifestations of the Holy Spirit and the personal presence of Christ at his second appearing is made very plain in the Scriptures. Says Jesus, “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter.” John 14:16. This language implies the DISTINCT EXISTENCE of MORE THAN ONE COMFORTER. When Christ was with is 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 sorrowing people. {1865? JW, SEADV 11.3} [End Quote]
Brother C wrote: the question I have is which trinity is James White refuting? As I have reviewed the evidence, it seems that for the most part, the pioneers were refuting the one person/being trinity. [End Quote]
Evidence # 3: James White published a SDA hymnbook in 1849 that contained doxology so therefore he worshiped the holy Ghost in perfect equality with the Father and Son as the one true God.
Brother R wrote: Now. . . Derrick Gillespie can tell us IF the SDA Hymn Book “Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” used the word “trinity” or “Trinity.”
I will see if I can find the actually PDF document of this.
Nonetheless, to Praise the Father is to WORSHIP Him as GOD, to Praise the Son is to WORSHIP Him as GOD (Jesus said “that all men should honour the Son, EVEN AS they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. John 5:23). . . To HONOR the Father and the Son in PERFECT EQUALITY is worshipping the ONE TRUE GOD! and not TWO “gods” as Anti-Trinitarians claim. . . That’s what “Praising GOD” is. . . “Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” and so the Holy Ghost us WORSHIPPED in PERFECT EQUALITY with the Father and Son as The ONE TRUE GOD! [End Quote]
To the best of my knowledge these 3 evidences are all that is offered to support the idea that James White believed in a trinity of 3 persons.
So let us now respond to each one.
Response # 1: The usage of this quote is erroneous.
This quote is from the last page of the Signs of the Times where announcements, pithy sayings, and little power nuggets were frequently shared. This particular snippet was not penned by James White. It was from Dr. A. Phelps and expressed Phelps’ view of the “person of the Holy Ghost” not being expressed by “an eagle” but “like a dove.” This is really meager pickings in terms of making James White into a believer in the Spirit’s Personhood. Also, the previous year, June 4th, 1874, in the first edition of the Signs of the Times, James White published the Fundamental Principles of the Seventh-day Adventists which were nontrintiarian. He is actually one of the likely authors of the Fundamentals and they did not ascribe Personhood to the Spirit. In fact that very same tract was advertised for 2 cents on the last page of that very Signs of the Times April 8th, 1875 edition. Also, the non-trintiarian work, “The Atonement” by J.H. Waggoner, is also advertised here. This one for 20 cents.
In light of this it seems highly improbable that James White was advocating for the existence of a Holy Spirit “person” by the Phelps quote. While it shows that he allowed for others to make such expressions (he did not make the trinity a test question) his own belief is best expressed by his own words.
In 1878 brother White answered the question “What is the Holy Ghost?” by saying that “It is a divine influence emanating from the Father and the Son.” Please read this quote for yourself.
“Will Elder White or Smith please explain what it meant by sinning against the Holy Ghost, and what the Holy Ghost is? E.S.
…The Father is a person, the Son is a person: but the Holy Ghost is the same as the Holy Spirit. It is a divine influence emanating from the Father and the Son, and probably is never manifested to the children of men only in connection with the ministration of holy angels, when these come forth from the world of glory to minister unto the children of men, these are enveloped with the light and glory which surrounds the throne of God. When these are brought in connection with God’s people they partake of that light and glory, which gives them peace and joy. This accounts for those happier emotions enjoyed by the assembly of the saints…. J.W. (James White, Signs of the Times, April 25, 1878)
This language is unmistakable. In James White’s estimation the Father was a person, the Son was a person too BUT [language of contrast] the holy Spirit was “a divine influence” that he speculated was “probably…never manifested” except “in connection with the ministration of holy angels” who come “enveloped with the light and glory” that surrounds God’s throne.
Interestingly enough Ellen White says something similar to him in one respect.
“Through the ministry of the angels the Holy Spirit is enabled to work upon the mind and heart of the human agent, and draw him to Christ who has paid the ransom money for his soul, that the sinner may be rescued from the slavery of sin and Satan {8LtMs, Lt 71, 1893, par. 10}
Yet please notice a difference here. While James thought it probable the Spirit is never manifested to men except in connection with the angels, Ellen White makes no inference to that same limitation. While she definitely presented the ministry of the angels as enabling the holy Spirit to work upon the minds and hearts of humans she simultaneously claimed that human reasoning cannot define the Spirit’s operation upon human minds and characters. She presents the Spirit as a free, working, independent agency that God uses as He pleases. Thus humans cannot prescribe the channel through which it shall operate no more so than they can say to the wind.
“No human reasoning of the most learned man can define the operations of the Holy Spirit upon human minds and characters; yet they can see the effects upon the life and actions. The Holy Spirit is a free, working, independent agency. The God of heaven uses His Spirit as it pleases Him, and human minds and human judgment and human methods can no more set boundaries to its working, or prescribe as to the channel through which it shall operate, than they can say to the wind, “I bid you to blow in a certain direction, and to conduct yourself in such and such a manner.” {RH May 5, 1896, par. 2}
Now I am stressing this point because while the holy Spirit is enabled through angelic ministry It (or He) does not appear to be exclusively limited to the bodily form of angels. We know from Scripture that there was an occasion when the Spirit of God (aka: the holy Spirit) descended like a dove upon Jesus.
“And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him [John], and he [John] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him (Matt 3:16, brackets added for clarity)
“And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art My beloved Son; in Thee I am well pleased (Luke 3:22)
Now this manifestation of the Spirit was “the light of the glory of God” but it was independent of the angels. The angels wanted to answer Jesus’ prayer but the Father Himself ministered the reply direct from His throne.
“Never had ANGELS listened to such a prayer. THEY were solicitous to bear to the praying Redeemer messages of assurance and love. BUT NO; THE FATHER HIMSELF WILL MINISTER TO HIS SON. Direct from the throne proceeded THE LIGHT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. The heavens were opened, AND BEAMS OF LIGHT AND GLORY PROCEEDED THEREFROM AND ASSUMED THE FORM OF A DOVE, in appearance like burnished gold. The dove-like form was emblematical of the meekness and gentleness of Christ {YI March 1, 1874, par. 4}
Notice that the light and glory that surrounds God’s throne, which James thought could only be manifested to men in connection with the holy angels who are enveloped with it, came direct from throne on this occasion.
“The Father Himself answered the petition of His Son. DIRECT FROM THE THRONE ISSUES THE BEAMS OF HIS GLORY. The heavens were opened, and upon the Saviour’s head descended a dove of burnished gold—fit emblem of Him, the meek and lowly One. A heavenly light encircled the Son of man; and from the highest heaven was heard the words, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” {Ms155-1902.35}
“The heavens were opened to his prayer and THE LIGHT OF GOD’S GLORY, BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN AT NOONDAY, CAME FROM THE THRONE OF THE ETERNAL, AND ASSUMING THE FORM OF A DOVE WITH THE APPEARANCE OF BURNISHED GOLD, encircled the Son of God, while the clear voice from the excellent glory was heard in terrible majesty, saying, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” {ST August 7, 1879, par. 7}
Notice also that this light and glory, beaming from the Father upon His throne, is the holy Spirit of God. It was manifested as separate from the angels upon this occasion, and outside of God Himself, when He ministered It to His Son at the baptism.
“And FROM THE FATHER COMES THE REPRESENTATION OF A DOVE OF BURNISHED GOLD, WHICH IS THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD, and settles and enshrouds Christ,… {Ms17-1893.7}
And it is because of His Son, and though Him, that God can actually impart His Spirit to us. In an amazing application of this anointing at His baptism, we read:
“The glory of God in the form of a dove of burnished gold, rested upon him, and from the infinite glory was heard the words, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” To each of us this means that heaven is opened for us. The human race is encircled by the human arm of Christ, while with His divine arm He grasps the throne of the Infinite One. The gates are ajar. THE GLORY IS IMPARTED TO THE SON OF GOD IS FOR ALL WHO BELIEVE IN HIS NAME… {EA 107.9}
So while the Spirit is enabled through the ministry of angels It is also given to us from the Father through His Son.
“Jesus is seeking to impress upon them the thought that IN GIVING HIS HOLY SPIRIT HE IS GIVING TO THEM THE GLORY WHICH THE FATHER HAS GIVEN HIM, THAT HE AND HIS PEOPLE MAY BE ONE IN GOD… {ST October 3, 1892, par. 4}
Reply # 2: James White’s belief that there are two distinct comforters does not prove that he believed the Spirit was a person (as reply # 1 above proves).
What it does prove is that he believed the influence of the Spirit, in accomplishing man’s conversion, was a distinct reality from the upcoming visible appearance of Christ, in person, at His 2nd coming. He actually shared this same truth during lectures with Uriah Smith as recorded in the Bible Institute.
“Again, conversion is said to be the second coming of Christ. Then there are as many second comings of Christ as there are conversions. There can be but one second appearing of Christ. And again the manifestations of the Holy Spirit are said to be the second advent of Christ. Hence, men talk of the spiritual coming of Christ, and of his spiritual reign for one thousand years. But here, also, they are involved in the difficulty of a plurality of second comings of Christ; for in this case they would have Christ appear at each gracious manifestation of the Holy Spirit. There can be but a single second advent of Christ.
“The distinction between the manifestations of the Holy Spirit and the personal presence of Christ at his second appearing is made very plain in the Scriptures. John 14:16; 16:5, 7, 8. (The Bible Institute pg 25)
Contextually the review questions listed on this same page ask the readers about “absurd applications of this subject” [the 2nd coming] and to “state and answer the first one named.” Then, after the paragraphs quoted above, it asks the readers for “the second” and “the third and fourth” of these absurd applications. Clearly then evidence # 2 shows that James White believed that the manifestation of the Spirit, even as the Comforter, were not manifestations of the 2nd Advent of Christ. This does not show him believing that the Spirit Itself was a person like the Father and Son.
Also the 1878 publication of “The Biblical Institute” has this to say about the holy Spirit:
“3. What is the Holy Spirit? ANS. Any attempt to answer this question is venturing upon holy ground. It is something which is common to the Father and the Son: the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ. It is something to which the expression, “poured out,” “shed abroad,” “descended,” etc., are applied. It was breathed by Christ upon his disciples. John 20:22. It was an agent in the creation of the world. Gen 1:2. But it would be useless to try to enumerate all the methods and varieties of its manifestations. In a word it may, perhaps, be best described as a mysterious influence emanating from the Father and the Son, their representative and the medium of their power (The Biblical Institute pg 184)
As more evidence (albeit indirect) about James White’s belief on this matter we note that he assisted D.M. Canright in revising his articles on the Personality of God, the Divinity of Christ, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
“And here, too, we have assisted him in the revision of his very valuable work entitled, ” The Bible from Heaven,” and his articles on the Personality of God, the Divinity of Christ, the Father,-Son and Holy Spirit, to be published in pamphlet form; while he has assisted us on some important works (RH, August 22, 1878)
And here was Canright’s position on the Spirit as a person:
“All trinitarian creeds make the Holy Ghost a person, equal in substance, power, eternity and glory with the Father and Son. Thus they claim three persons in the trinity, each one equal with both the others. If this be so, then the Holy Spirit is just as truly an individual intelligent person as is the Father or the Son. But this we cannot believe. The Holy Spirit is not a person (D.M. Canright, “The Holy Spirit Not A Person, But An Influence Proceeding From God” Signs of the Times July 25th, 1878)
This is exactly the same view that James White had himself as we saw in the Signs of the Times, April 25, 1878 edition.
Furthermore, in a letter from J.H. Waggoner to James White we see an implication about James White’s view. This is Waggoner speaking:
“The question arises with me, seeing that in the rite of baptism the name of the Holy Spirit is placed with those of the Father and Son, and to the Holy Spirit is given such prominence in creation, in redemption, in everything,–whether, in your arrangement you have not placed the name of Gabriel in the place which that of the Holy Spirit should occupy,–whether Gabriel should not be “4”, instead of “3”. It would not detract anything from the importance of the work of Gabriel in the plan of redemption. It would not at all remove him from his position of being the angel of Christ in Daniel and John.
As much as I have studied on this subject–and you know that for years my study in the Spirit has not been small–I am not prepared to take a positive position. I am yet a student, or an inquirer, ready to be convinced by sufficient reasons. I can appreciate this, that to remove the Spirit from that position assigned to it in the Scriptures, would be no small error. Perhaps, in the light of Matt. 12:22-37, no greater error could be committed. It is this which has, for years, prevented my speaking with positiveness on the subject. I move tremblingly where there is so much to inspire reverence and awe.
It may be that you have examined this subject until your mind has become more settled than I have been able to settle mine. If so, I shall be highly gratified to receive suggestions. I wish for light. I consider it always better to be established than not; but on such a subject as this, I much prefer to keep silence, rather than to speak wrong, where an error is of such solemn import, and even might prove fatal.
I have scarcely broached the subject of the personality of the Spirit heretofore, as I did not consider it practical, and a retiring position could not be seriously faulty. But your remarks in your letter bring it more nearly to practical point than it ever appeared to me before. As, if you are right in the arrangement, thus, 1. The Father, 2. Christ, 3. Gabriel, then the personality of the Spirit would appear extremely doubtful. But if the Spirit is a personality, and is third in position and power with the Father and Son, then it would be an offense against the Spirit to give even Gabriel that position. I confess I wish I knew which is right, but as I consider the formula of baptism, and some other things, I should fear to adopt that arrangement with my present light–or perhaps, rather, my want of light.
“I believe you are correct in your view of Gabriel’s position, that he is Christ’s angel–one specially chosen to aid in the development of His work for and to our race. This I can feel decided upon, while still to some extent undecided upon the other point.” (J.H. Waggoner to J.White, July 28, 1879)
As this letter suggests, James White’s arrangement of an heavenly hierarchy had the Father then Son and then Gabriel! Waggoner questioned this arrangement believing Gabriel should be 4 instead of 3. Now who was right? I would suggest to you that both were in a sense!
“Wonderful thought—that the angel who stands next in honor to the Son of God is the one chosen to open the purposes of God to sinful men. {DA 99.1}
What honorary rank is Gabriel portrayed as having here? He stands next in honor to the Son of God. So if God the Father is first or supreme, and His Son is second coming next after Him, then, by this reckoning, Gabriel stands as third. This position is the one that Lucifer used to have but I digress.
Now let’s look at another quote from the same author.
“Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world’s Redeemer. It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given His Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His own character upon His church. {DA 671.2}
Now what position does the Spirit have here? We are not dealing with honorary rank in standing next to God but rather a participation of Godhead (Divinity). Here the holy Spirit is expressly declared to be the third person of the Godhead.
And notice where is the Spirit’s energy expended? – the heart!
In another quote we read:
“In the plan of restoring in men the divine image, it was provided that the Holy Spirit should move upon human minds, and be as the presence of Christ, a molding agency upon human character. {RH February 12, 1895, par. 5}
Where now is the Spirit’s moving? – the mind!
Again we read:
“The Holy Spirit is to be in us a divine indweller. Then let gratitude and love abound in your heart to God. “Study to show thyself approved unto God {RH June 29, 1897, par. 10}
Where now is the Spirit’s dwelling? – In us!
Are you seeing it? The Spirit is internal in working and presence. So Gabriel can stand next to Christ in honor, as the third, but the Spirit is the third person of the Godhead. It (or He) is not standing there next to God or Christ but is rather indwelling holy angels and born again humans. I hope that makes sense. It genuinely depends upon the sense in which you are looking at the matter or, perhaps, where you are looking.
Anyhow I’m getting off topic. Let’s go on to the reply of the final evidence.
Reply # 3: James White publication of the Doxology in the first SDA hymnbook does not prove he believed the Spirit to be a person.
In truth, I do not need to answer this claim because the evidence above – which includes things James White actually wrote -shows us that he did not believe the Spirit to be a person. Yet, despite that, he clearly believed in 3 agencies – the persons of the Father and Son, and the influence of the Spirit. The latter belief was sufficient for him to sing the doxology. For more on this matter please see the following link.
https://www.asitreads.com/blog/2018/7/3/doxology
My point here is that the weight of evidence does not suggest that James White believed that the Spirit was a Person like the Father and Son. The weight of evidence is against those who are openly making that claim or implying it. Now I’m not saying that James White is correct about this but what I am saying is that we should not distort his belief or give misleading impressions about it.
