The Spirit is, Pt. 4

I believe that Ellen White’s insistence upon the use of “He”, “representative”, “three living persons of the heavenly trio” in relation to the Spirit was her effort to prevent or to preempt the spread of pantheism. If Dr. Kellogg had gone unchecked in his book, The Living Temple, when he changed his new pantheistic theology from saying that God the Father was in all created works, to saying that the Holy Spirit was in all created works, then pantheism would have ravaged the Advent movement. We would have moved toward the idea of anything divine as a blind force. No longer would God be the Father of creation, and many would have given Him no authority over their conscience. Therefore, not only did Ellen White stress the realness and personality of God the Father, but she emphasized the same for His Spirit.

But, the Bible is clear that creation is separate from its Creator. Material creation is not made of His invisible person or “substance” (whatever Nicene “substance” meant, for God is invisible Spirit; and all we see of Him is glory). He, by His Son’s word, upholds creation; by His living word all things consist (see Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17) ― the material creation reacting to His almighty power. “Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together” (Isa. 48:13). The power of the Highest moves upon creation, and its atoms stand at attention or do as the Lord commands them. “With the blast of Thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea” (Ex. 15:8). The Creator is not in creation, but creation reacts to its Creator. Matter pushes away and bows when He passes through (see Revelation 20:11).

However, regardless of Adventism’s correct biblical stance on the Godhead before and after The Living Temple, another problem had been casting a dark shadow over many Adventist hearts. That was the pervasive lack of genuine conversion, even among the leading anti-Trinitarian pastors and elders. Right doctrine cannot compensate for spiritual poverty; purity and devotion of one aspect of the life will not offset the want of these qualities in another. Therefore, in order to shake the stony anti-Trinitarian hearts into the realization of their lack of spiritual life, new prominence needed to be brought to the Holy Spirit’s work of holiness, and even more so the restoration of Christ as the greatest focus. Ellen White knew this. How could we remain in God’s good graces without coming under His transforming power? How could the Advent movement remain under His government without a valid connection with His beloved Son? How could we grasp deep truth without a daily renewed heart for righteousness? Without spirituality, wouldn’t Adventists be ever searching and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth? Wouldn’t we repeat the history of Israel and end up without a barrier against sin? In the study of the scriptures we thought we had eternal life; but the scriptures testified of Jesus, and we would not come to Him that we might have life.

My SDA brethren and sisters, let’s be honest with the Advent movement, even of today. Laodicea had locked us into her gates; and although we had right doctrine, we were not saved. Even if we were under God’s gracious forbearance, how could Jesus grow the 144,000 in Laodicea? So, He moved our prophet to bring to the forefront of the Advent movement the subject of spiritual things: Righteousness by Faith by Jesus through the Spirit.

We were not to abandon our original truths, or our strong stance on the Law and the honest handling of the word of God. But, we were to find the grace of Jesus in the Law of the Bible. We were to suck honey from a stone Law, and oil from a flinty Bible. We needed both Law and grace; and the grace would come through the Law. We needed the Protestant stance against Rome and against her Trinity; but, we also needed the link with Jesus that would lead us to fuller truth, the truth as it is in Jesus. With Jesus centrally focused we would speak the truth in love and have tears in our voice when calling sin by its right name. Without Jesus and His Spirit, we would turn into zealots and Jehu’s. Without a new focus on Christ and His Spirit’s conversion of the heart, we could no more cooperate with Jesus in fighting in the future Latter Rain than the newly delivered children of Israel could overthrow the Canaanites and establish anything better in their place. We needed Ellen White’s new emphasis on Jesus and His Spirit.

Yet, Mrs. White left much apparent evidence that she didn’t completely see the Holy Spirit as a person. For example, she didn’t always refer to the Spirit as “Him”, but sometimes as “It”.

Before we engage that issue, let’s admit that “It” can be the properly used pronoun in the case of the Spirit because it has no form, it is not in our image. But, while our Father in heaven is a Spirit and is invisible to human sight, He has a form; the Almighty is the fullness of the Godhead bodily. “The Father Himself, which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape” (John 5:37). Thus with a dimensionless entity called the Spirit, it seems that the human mind must accept either pronoun, “It” or “Him”, in order to relate to the third Person of a Trinity Godhead.

But, a distinguishing attribute of the Godhead is independence of thought and action. In Their oneness of purpose, the Father has worked independently of His Son, most apparently during His earthly life, His incarnation, baptism, transfiguration, and crucifixion. But, the Spirit is not independent of the Father and Son. We have quoted scripture which indicates the Spirit to be wherever the Father is or the Son is, to be attached to Their Person, to work only in unison with the Father’s and Son’s independent actions. (See John 16:13,14; John 14:15-17,21,23; John 7:39, cf Rev. 5:5,6; John 3:34; Gen. 1:2; Isa. 48:16).

Now, let’s hear how Sr. White related to the Spirit of God and the Spirit of His Son.

“Let it be understood in every institution in America that it is not commissioned to you to direct the work of the Holy Spirit, and tell how it [emphasis mine] shall represent itself [emphasis mine]. You have been guilty of doing this. May the Lord forgive you, is my prayer. Instead of being repressed and driven back, as it [emphasis mine] has been, the Holy Spirit should be welcomed and its [emphasis mine] presence encouraged. When you sanctify yourself through obedience to the word, the Holy Spirit will give you glimpses of heavenly things.” Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 435.

To “welcome” the Spirit is not to pray to It. We are not to sing to It and praise It until It comes down, “as the heathen do.” (Matt. 6:7). Our pioneers never sang,

“There’s a sweet, sweet Spirit in this place.…

Sweet Holy Spirit, Sweet Heavenly Dove,

Stay right here with us filling us with Your love….” SDA Hymnal, #262.

This is abominable heathen religion. It ranks with the 70 elders with their backs to the Lord and worshiping Nimrod at sunrise, and the women serving the Queen of heaven and Tammuz at sunrise.

Rather, “we are to pray [to God] for the impartation of the Spirit as the remedy for sin-sick souls.” 1888 Materials to S. N. Haskell, p. 1540. We are to “sanctify [ourselves] through obedience to the word.” Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 435. “My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.” (Prov. 6:20-22).

“My soul is deeply stirred at the things that have been represented before me. I feel an indignation of spirit that in our institutions so little honor has been given to the living God, and so much honor to that which is supposed to be superior talent, but with which the Holy Spirit has no connection. The Spirit of God is not acknowledged and respected; men have passed judgment upon It; Its [emphasis mine] operations have been condemned as fanaticism, enthusiasm, undue excitement.” Counsels to Teachers, p. 367.

“We are to pray for the impartation of the Spirit as the remedy for sin-sick souls. The church needs to be converted, and why should we not prostrate ourselves at the throne of grace, as representatives of the church, and from a broken heart and contrite spirit make earnest supplication that the Holy Spirit shall be poured out upon us from on high? Let us pray that when it [emphasis mine] shall be graciously bestowed, our cold hearts may be revived, and we may have discernment to understand that it [emphasis mine] is from God, and receive it [emphasis mine] with joy. Some have treated the Spirit as an unwelcome guest, refusing to receive the rich gift, refusing to acknowledge it [emphasis mine], turning from it [emphasis mine], and condemning it [emphasis mine] as fanaticism. When the Holy Spirit works the human agent, it [emphasis mine] does not ask us in what way it [emphasis mine] shall operate. Often it [emphasis mine] moves in unexpected ways. Christ did not come as the Jews expected. He did not come in a manner to glorify them as a nation. His forerunner came to prepare the way for him by calling upon the people to repent of their sins and be converted, and be baptized. Christ’s message was, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent ye and believe the gospel.” The Jews refused to receive Christ, because He did not come in accordance with their expectations. The ideas of finite men were held as infallible, because hoary with age. This is the danger to which the church is now exposed, ― that the inventions of finite men shall mark out the precise way for the Holy Spirit to come. Though they would not care to acknowledge it, some have already done this. And because the Spirit is to come, not to praise men or to build up their erroneous theories, but to reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment, many turn away from it [emphasis mine]. They are not willing to be deprived of the garments of their own self-righteousness. They are not willing to exchange their own righteousness, which is unrighteousness, for the righteousness of Christ, which is pure, unadulterated truth. The Holy Spirit flatters no man, neither does it [emphasis mine] work according to the devising of any man. Finite, sinful men are not to work the Holy Spirit. When it [emphasis mine] shall come as a reprover, through any human agent whom God shall choose, it is man’s place to hear and obey its [emphasis mine] voice.” 1888 Materials to S. N. Haskell, p. 1540.

“The Holy Spirit will guide into truth. If men are willing to be molded by it [emphasis mine], they will be guided by our great Leader. There will be a sanctification of the whole being, soul, body, and spirit. You both need the spirit of understanding; then you will have the Holy Spirit, and you will discern it [emphasis mine] as it [emphasis mine] is, ― your Counsellor. . . .” Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, p. 285.

“The Lord Jesus acts through the Holy Spirit; for it [emphasis mine] is His representative. Through it [emphasis mine] He infuses spiritual life into the soul, quickening its energies for good, cleansing it from moral defilement, and giving it a fitness for His kingdom. Jesus [emphasis mine] has large blessings to bestow, rich gifts to distribute among men. He is the wonderful Counselor [referring to both Isaiah 9:6 and John 14:16, 17, emphasis mine], infinite in wisdom and strength; and if we will acknowledge the power of His Spirit [emphasis mine], and submit to be molded by it [emphasis mine], we shall stand complete in Him. What a thought is this! In Christ ‘dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him.’ Messages to Young People, p. 55.

“The Holy Spirit is a free, working, independent agency. The God of heaven uses His Spirit as it pleases Him: and human minds, human judgment, and human methods can no more set boundaries to its [emphasis mine] working, or prescribe the channel through which it [emphasis mine] 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.’ As the wind moves in its force, bending and breaking the lofty trees in its path, so the Holy Spirit influences human hearts, and no finite man can circumscribe Its [emphasis mine] work….” You Shall Receive Power, p. 323.

Even while Ellen White is calling the Spirit’s work free and independent, she continues to call it an “It”. And in this context of “It”, she specifically, purposely(?), then uses the phrase, “God...His Spirit...”. There is no hint of co-equal, coeval, divine minds conferring. We only read that the Father uses His Spirit as we would use a whip or a hammer. The Spirit is totally at the Father’s will and whim. It’s His, just as our arm, hand, foot, or leg is ours. The Spirit is Him, just as our extremities are us. Our extremities are not separate body parts that are mechanically plugged in or popped on, but they are members of our fearfully wonderful body with seamless transitions from torso to limb. God’s Spirit is just the same. His Spirit, His mind, is Him, just as our spirit and mind are us.

So, even though “It” “works the human agent”, and “It” “does not ask us in what way it shall operate”, and although “It” “often...moves in unexpected ways”, “It” does all this because “It” is “the God of heaven” using “His Spirit as it pleases Him”. Ellen White compared the Spirit to Christ because Christ is the immediate Medium in the Spirit, while the Father is the distant source and official Sender and Operate/Director of His Medium; “His Spirit” is His Son, “the Spirit of His Son” (Gal. 4:6) that God sends “into your hearts”, “the Lord...the Messenger of the covenant...behold He shall come” (Mal. 3:1). “Christ did not come as the Jews expected. He did not come in a manner to glorify them as a nation.” Likewise, shouldn’t we expect that when Christ comes in the Spirit to personally direct in the Latter Rain, that It/He will “not come as the” Advent movement expects. It/He will “not come to glorify them as a [denomi]nation”.

The Spirit does not exist apart from the Father or His Son. It is never apart from Them, any more than our mind is apart from us. There is no such thing as our mind apart from us. Neither is there such a thing as the Spirit apart from God and the dearly Beloved of His Soul. This can be defined by 1 Corinthians 2:11, where Paul explains the simple relation of “the spirit of man“ and “the Spirit of God”. The Spirit is animated by the Father’s use of it and by His words which are spirit and life. The Spirit is that which proceeds from Him, as His glory does. We can’t comprehend how His Spirit can create and recreate. That is not ours to ever understand, or to attempt to understand. But, it is ours to know the identity of the Spirit because we must know the Father, who He is, and who His only begotten Son. We must be wise and discerning as serpents in these days of tremendous deception.

“It was just before this that Jesus had a second time performed the miracle of healing a man possessed, blind and dumb, and the Pharisees had reiterated the charge, ‘He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.’ Matthew 9:34. Christ told them plainly that in attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan, they were cutting themselves off from the fountain of blessing. Those who had spoken against Jesus Himself, not discerning His divine character, might receive forgiveness; for through the Holy Spirit they might be brought to see their error and repent. Whatever the sin, if the soul repents and believes, the guilt is washed away in the blood of Christ; but he who rejects the work of the Holy Spirit is placing himself where repentance and faith cannot come to him. It is by the Spirit that God works upon the heart; when men willfully reject the Spirit, and declare It [emphasis mine] to be from Satan, they cut off the channel by which God can communicate with them. When the Spirit is finally rejected, there is no more that God can do for the soul.” The Desire of Ages, p. 321.

“We need to feel the converting power of God’s grace, and I urge all who have closed their heart against God’s Spirit to unlock the door, and plead earnestly, Abide with me. Why should we not prostrate ourselves at the throne of divine grace, praying that God’s Spirit may be poured out upon us as it was upon the disciples? Its [emphasis mine] presence will soften our hard hearts, and fill us with joy and rejoicing, transforming us into channels of blessing.” Signs of the Times, September 27, 1899 par. 7.

These hints from Ellen White are whispers of her broader biblical view of the Spirit. Her several references to the Spirit using the pronoun “it” reveal that there was much more to her understanding of the “personality” of the Spirit of God than the standard Trinitarian third Person who is a Being co-equal with the Father and Son. Although her older usages of “it” for the Spirit were more abundant, she retained that usage as late as 1898. (And an argument could be made that the later few usages of “it” reflected the desire to be less offensive to our sister denominations.) In her writings, sometimes He was an “agent” (as in, a person), and sometimes It or it was an “agency” (as in, a non-personal office) or “agencies” (as in, not alone in that office, It being only part of a larger office or group of created beings).

She called the Holy Spirit the representative of God on Earth. Can a non-personal “it” be viewed as a person-like representative? Yes, that is possible. But, doing so requires a broader paradigm of the Spirit, which many are not willing to allow. We can understand this by two definitions of “representative” from the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary used by Ellen White:

REPRESENTATIVE, n.

1. One that exhibits the likeness of another.

A statue of Rumor, whispering any idiot in the ear, who was the representative of credulity….

2. In legislative or other business, an agent, deputy or substitute who supplies the place of another or others, being invested with his or their authority. An attorney is the representative of his client or employer. A member of the house of commons is the representative of his constituents and of the nation. In matters concerning his constituents only, he is supposed to be bound by their instructions, but in the enacting of laws for the nation, he is supposed not to be bound by their instructions, as he acts for the whole nation.

3. In law, one that stands in the place of another as heir, or in the right of succeeding to an estate of inheritance, or to a crown.

4. That by which any thing is exhibited or shown.

This doctrine supposes the perfections of God to be the representatives to us of whatever we perceive in the creatures.

Notice the fourth definition does not use a person as the representative. Rather than a relative pronoun “who” or “whom” that denotes a person and describes an intelligence owning the right to represent as in definitions 2 and 3, in definition 4 the relative pronoun “that which”, and the intangibles, “any thing” and the example “the perfections of God”, use conceptual subjects for a “representative”. “Any thing” refers not a person or persons, but to things—to an “it” or to many “it”s.

And looking at definition 1 we see this again in reverse. This definition does involve a person. We read that so-and-so is “the representative of credulity”. In this case of “representative”, today we might use the word, “personification”: a person is representing, personifying an intangible concept. In the fourth definition example, an intangible concept is representing a person, i.e. “the creatures” in our perception represent to us attributes exclusive to divinity, “the perfections of God”, or, “perfections…in the creatures” represent the exquisite “God” Himself.

 Did Ellen White even once call Jesus or the Father an “it”? No, because she knew that They were persons, and only persons. She always referred to the Father and Son as “Him” “He”, etc., for she knew that They were divine beings. And divine beings, as well as human beings made in Their image, are never called, “it”.

Ellen White would never have called the Father or the Son the pronoun, “It”, or the possessive pronoun, “Its”. To her, They were “He”, “Him”, or “His”, “Them”, “Their”, and nothing else. What was she trying to communicate, but that she saw in the Holy Spirit something other than the typical “person” or “personality” as we know it in human terms or thinking?

But, I also believe that, more often than not, Ellen White wisely added the personal pronouns “He” and “Him” in place of her “It” usages of the Spirit because the personal pronouns “He” and “Him” were used almost exclusively in the then wide-spread King James Bible. She may not have known that the King James translators fully understood the word, “Spirit”, Gr. pneuma, and that its neuter form always demanded an impersonal “it” as a pronoun. Yet because of the strong prevailing prejudice in favor of a third co-equal, male person of a Trinity, and their own prejudice in that regard, the translators used the personal pronoun of “he” when describing the Spirit. If the translators had retained their integrity with grammatical correctness and used the pronoun “it” instead of “he”, then much of the misconception toward the Trinity would by now have disappeared. Or, the attacks from Rome would have increased, by open war, intrigue, and subversion. Or, the King James Bible would have created a new uproar among the people, contrary to the main purpose of King James, who commissioned his new translation in order to bring peace to his already religiously divided realm. Based on these facts, it’s easy to assume that the king would have rejected all accurately grammatical references to “the Spirit” as an “it”. Ellen White, along with multitudes of Protestants, knew nothing about the Greek grammar pneuma-neuter-impersonal-“It”-pronoun issue, so the Trinity untruth would perpetuate itself within 20th century Protestantism and, later after her death, among the late Remnant.

By her use of both pronouns I believe Sr. White was trying to be faithful to the biblical references of the Spirit, as the Bible at times also used the pronoun, “it” (see Isaiah 34:16; Romans 8:26). And she was not theologically wrong to emphasize the Spirit of Christ or the Spirit of God as “He” and “Him”. The Spirit of God is essentially God Himself; the Spirit of Christ is essentially Christ Himself. The arm of the Lord is essentially the Lord; the hand of the Lord’s providence is Him in action, as is the metaphorical “finger of God” (Luke 11:20). Therefore what we experience of the government of heaven via the Spirit, by His extension is the Lord and His Father God, and can be metaphorically said to be Them. The Spirit of Christ, which we sense by faith, can be called Christ. By one touch, He broke through our hearts that were hardened in sin by His supernatural means. If I use a sledge hammer to break a slab of concrete, did I break the concrete, or did the sledge? “We” broke it, my sledge and I. I couldn’t have broken it by myself. But, I did break it. I broke it, and the sledge was the medium I used. So it is with the holy Medium of the almighty God and the mighty Son of God to break my self-will and wily, wrangling, tangled heart.