Dir Sirs, Somebody told me that they read where Mrs. White said that Jesus was not God Almighty, do you know anything about this? I know that she made it clear that Jesus was God, but I was wondering why she said it. Maybe she was referring to Isaiah 9:6, but I do not see why she would ever say that, especially by Isaiah 9:6. Can you help me to understand? Thank you, ___________

Dear ___________,

Good to hear from you again. Here is the whole paragraph in question:

There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." {Ellen G. White Comments, SDA Bible Commentary, pp. 1129-1130}

The point Mrs. White was making is that Jesus and the Father are not the same person. If they had been, to whom was He praying in the garden or on the cross? She uses the term "Lord God Almighty" to refer to the Father here. She uses the term "the Deity" here in the same way. In so doing, she in no way denies that Jesus was truly God; she is merely distinguishing His person from that of the Father. This distinction is fundamental to John 3:16, which she quotes, stating that God gave His only Son.

Our pioneers made these distinctions from time to time, believing that fidelity to Scripture demanded it. Apparently they were responding to unbiblical beliefs contained in some of the creeds of their day. Below my signature I will copy for you an answer I sent to someone last month who asked about certain statements from James White. I think you will see how what I discussed there fits together with and amplifies the things I have mentioned here.

I hope this helps. Thanks for writing, and God bless!

--------
William Fagal, Director
Ellen G. White Estate Branch Office
Andrews University
Berrien Springs, MI 49104-1400 USA
Phone: 269 471-3209
FAX: 269 471-2646
Website: www.WhiteEstate.org or www.egwestate.andrews.edu
E-mail: egw@aubranch.egwestate.andrews.edu

Dear White Estate,

I have a couple statements that I would really appreciate if you could clarify if there was a typographical error in the way it was printed in a paper I read or was it actually written this way? They are statements by James White.

The first reference is found in R&H August 5, 1852, "To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old Trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God." It seems that the word 'not' should be inserted after 'are not the commanments'..." Could you please check that for me?

The next reference is found in The Day Star, January 24, 1846. This is how it is printed, "... In the 4th verse he gives us the reason why we should contend for THE faith, a particular faith; 'for there are certain men,' or a certain class who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ... The way spiritualizes this way have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God." The part that doesn't make sense is "The way spiritualizes this way have disposed of or denied..." Could you please clarify?

Thank you so much for your time. I hope you can help me.

Dear Sister ___________,

Thank you for contacting the Ellen G. White Estate. I think I may be able to help you on this. Our pioneers (James White included) understood belief in the trinity to mean that Jesus *was* the Father, but simply in a different form. He calls it an "absurdity," and elsewhere he illustrates its absurdity by asking whether in the Garden or on the cross Jesus was praying to Himself. Such a view of the trinity, which church historians call "modalism," is what he refers to in the first item you quoted. (For more information on modalism, see the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, comments on the gospel of John, "Additional Note on Chapter 1," especially the section "Monarchianism.") This is an important point for understanding your second statement. The "spiritualizers" denied the physical reality of both Father and Son by making them different manifestations or modes of the same mystical being, who had no actual form or substance. They also "spiritualized" away the material reality of other things spoken of in Scripture, such as the heavenly city that God is preparing and will bring to this earth.

Arthur L. White referred to this in a paper he wrote many years ago for the White Estate regarding the Adventist position of "the Bible and the Bible only." Here are several paragraphs from that paper. You will see that he quotes the second reference you asked about. Note also the Methodist creed he cites and the report Mrs. White gave of a vision in which she asked about these things:

James White, coming from the Christian Connection, was dedicated to God's Word without creedal explanation of positions. His contribution to the early Millerite journal, the Day Star, reveals his distaste for creeds. On January 24, 1846, he writes of

"a certain class who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. This class can be no other than those who spiritualize away the existence of the Father and the Son, as two distinct, literal, tangible persons, also a literal Holy city and throne of David. . . . The way spiritualizers this way have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural trinitarian creed."

He would stand by the Bible. There was no place for tradition or creeds in his doctrinal holdings. And Ellen White, too, was personally concerned with certain teachings of the Methodist creed taught to her in her teenage years: "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts." (Doctrine and Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1896, pp. 19, 20)

This and conversation with James are likely what led her, when in an early vision in seeking to know the truth, to make inquiry on no less than two occasions. We find the references in Early Writings, one on page 54: "I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had." Again in Early Writings, page 77, she reports: "I have often seen the lovely Jesus, that He is a person. I asked Him if His Father was a person and had a form like Himself. Said Jesus; I am in the express image of my Father's person."

{end of quoted material from Arthur L. White's paper}

So these are the concerns of our pioneers regarding the trinity. In your inquiry, though, you asked whether the first statement you quoted was quoted correctly. Yes, it is. Here is the whole paragraph, with comments from me in square brackets. I think this will help you to see where James White was going with this matter:

"We are told by those who teach the abolition of the Father's law [i.e., the ten commandments, in order to get rid of the Sabbath], that the commandments of God mentioned in the New Testament [esp. Rev. 14:12], are not the ten, but the requirements of the gospel, such as repentance, faith, baptism and the Lord's supper. But as these, and every other requirement peculiar to the gospel, are all embraced in the faith of Jesus [again, note the reference to Rev. 14:12], it is evident that the commandments of God are not the sayings of Christ and his apostles. To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God. And as the faith of Jesus embraces every requirement peculiar to the gospel, it necessarily follows that the commandments of God, mentioned by the third angel [Rev. 14:12], embrace only the ten precepts of the Father's immutable law which are not peculiar to any one dispensation, but common to all. Having settled this important point and shown the clear distinction between the two, we will now dwell upon the faith of Jesus. Here a wide field opens before us; and may God help us to present the truth with clearness and faithfulness."

His line of reasoning, then, was that just as God the Father is not Jesus Christ, so the commandments of God are not the sayings of Jesus and the apostles. The commandments are the ten precepts God announced on Mount Sinai, and they have not been watered down to a few gospel precepts nor have they been set aside.

I hope this helps you make some sense of the matter. Thank you for writing, and God bless!

--------
William Fagal, Director
Ellen G. White Estate Branch Office
Andrews University
Berrien Springs, MI 49104-1400 USA
Phone: 269 471-3209
FAX: 269 471-2646
Website: www.WhiteEstate.org or www.egwestate.andrews.edu
E-mail: egw@aubranch.egwestate.andrews.edu