Analysis of Bruce Price: The Trinity and Ellen White

Bruce Price
Commentary

 

Bruce Price COMMENTARY
[Click the link below to watch the video on YouTube]

https://youtu.be/F4dsN4YUue4


0:50: Claims Ellen White helped to lead Adventists from being anti-Trinitarian to being Trinitarian		 This is often said, but the support for this is lacking, both in this video, and elsewhere. Ellen White never once even used the word "Trinity" to reference God. Most people believe, due to the work of such men as LeRoy Froom, Erwin Gane, and others (more on this later) that Ellen White showed she had become Trinitarian when she published "The Desire of Ages" in 1898. They fail to notice, however, that this book is not Trinitarian at all. Consider the scene of Jesus' baptism: She makes it clear that there were two personages involved--the Father and the Son. The light that came in the form of a dove was direct from the Father's throne, His own glory. And there are many similar examples where she clearly refutes Trinitarian beliefs in this book.

Furthermore, Ellen White makes clear that we are to "hold fast" to the "fundamental principles" established by our pioneers. Those principles, published in 1872 and in 1889, were clearly non-Trinitarian. She told us not to accept any change to these principles multiple times in the early 1900's: 1903, 1904, and 1905 especially--right around the time of Dr. Kellogg's apostasy.
1:02: Says: "Now, we got all of our doctrines from the Bible." Then where is "Trinity" in the Bible? This statement would be laughable if it were not believed by so many Adventists today. As things stand, it is no laughing matter. So many have come to believe this untruth that it is difficult to persuade them to find support for their beliefs in a "thus saith the Lord" instead of in a "thus saith our 'Fundamental Beliefs'."

All one needs is to go to the Bible and see what it says about who God is. John 17:1-3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; Numbers 23:19; Isaiah 9:6; John 4:24; John 1:18; James 1:13 versus Matthew 4:1; etc.--all these verses help us to see who God really is. Compare also the supposedly Trinitarian verses like Matthew 28:19 with the rest of the New Testament: Acts 2:38-39 & 4:12; Acts 8:12,16; 10:48; 19:4-5; Rom. 6:3; and Gal. 3:27. There is only one "name." It is the only name that saves us.
1:04 - 1:23: Ellen White's work was only to lead us to the Bible and she would not be needed if we only studied the Bible for ourselves This is very, very true. And if we only studied the Bible for ourselves, we would not have been deceived into believing falsely about God.
1:23: Claims the anti-Trinitarian doctrines "just lowered Christ like that" [motioning downward] It's easy to say things like this, and appeal to people's emotions, without providing any support for the statement. How do the anti-Trinitarians lower Christ? Is it, perhaps, that the Trinitarians have elevated Christ to a position which the Bible does not teach?

The Bible says, for example, that God is the head of Christ who is the head of man who is the head of woman.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3)

That gives us God > Christ > man > woman.

If we replace all those "greater than" signs with "equals" signs, then we place more than Christ as "co-equal" with God (the Father). But Trinitarians teach that Christ and his Father are "co-equal," a term never once appearing in the Inspired Writings.
1:31: She said they're in the Bible, study them. Yes, we need to study the Bible for ourselves, even as Jesus enjoined in John 5:39. The Trinity is not in the Bible. In its place, the Bible says "we have one God, the Father."

"Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" (Malachi 2:10)

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

The Bible stops short of equating Jesus with God, and, instead, calls him our "Lord." There is, of course, a difference. If I am renting a house, I have a landlord, not a "landgod". My "lord" is not my God. But I do have some obligations to him or her. Jesus himself says that the Father is his God. If Jesus has a God, can God be God of Himself?

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)
1:38: So first of all, we'll look at why she never used the word "trinity" It is the epitome of presumption and arrogance to explain why a prophet said or wrote as he or she did. Because the prophet is inspired by God, one essentially is making the claim to know God's mind. And the Bible tells us that the wisdom of man is foolishness with God. We do not know God's mind, and cannot.
1:45: "Now, once again, I've got this from the internet..." Of course.
[From the Catholic Encyclopedia]..."The Blessed Trinity" Shouldn't this raise some red flags in any true Protestant's mind? Are we wishing to come back to the Catholic "mother church" and accept her beliefs? Again, where is this "Trinity" mentioned in the Bible?
Catholic Encyclopedia: The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another." Mrs. White does reference "three persons." Interestingly, the Catholics teach that these three are yet one being. In this sense, Mrs. White appears to agree with the Catholics--for she also speaks of God as a single Being. But the Catholic concept of the Trinity is quite different to what the Bible teaches.

Notice that "central doctrine of the Christian religion." The Trinity is the most important doctrine of the Catholic church [see HERE]. The Adventist pioneers feared that when the Sunday laws came, people would be required both to keep Sunday and to believe in the Trinity dogma [see HERE, p. 730, top of middle column]. Why would they have worried about the Trinity if they had accepted it to be true? Obviously, they rejected the Trinity doctrine as false, as is made clear in the following statement by Adventist pioneer Merritt E. Cornell:

"Protestants and Catholics are so nearly united in sentiment, that it is not difficult to conceive how Protestants may make an image to the Beast. The mass of Protestants believe with Catholics in the Trinity, immortality of the soul, consciousness of the dead, rewards and punishments at death, the endless torture of the wicked, inheritance of the saints beyond the skies, sprinkling for baptism, and the PAGAN SUNDAY for the Sabbath; all of which is contrary to the spirit and letter of the new testament. Surely there is between the mother and daughters, a striking family resemblance." {1858 MEC, FT 76.1}

...and in this statement by Elder James White:

"The 'mystery of iniquity' began to work in the church in Paul's day. It finally crowded out the simplicity of the gospel, and corrupted the doctrine of Christ, and the church went into the wilderness. Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation. The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors." {February 7, 1856 JWe, ARSH 148.22}

2:95: "Up to this point, we can say believe in the Catholic doctrine of the trinity thus far, but this is where we part company." It depends on what the Catholics mean by "truly distinct one from another" as to whether we should have already parted company with them. There is only one name (not three) given under heaven whereby we must be saved (see Acts 4:12; also compare Matthew 28:19 with Acts 2:38; 8:12; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:17--HERE).
Catholic Encyclopedia: "In this Trinity of Persons, the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son." This is certainly unbiblical. Having been begotten in eternity is hardly the same as being eternally begotten.

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." (Psalm 2:7)

Was "this day" actually every day? Obviously, that doesn't make much sense.
3:25: "And this is where we disagree with the Catholic trinity: We do not believe that the Father...that Christ is being eternally generated from the Father." No, indeed; we do not believe as the Catholics on this point.
Catholic Encyclopedia: "Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent." Do all Trinitarians accept that the three "persons" are co-eternal and co-equal? Catholics invented the Trinity dogma, officially adopting it at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, and these terms have grown up with it. They are unbiblical, however. If the "second person" of the Trinity (Jesus) were "co-eternal" with the Father, how did he die? And if he were "co-equal" with the Father, why does he call the Father his God? why is God his "head" according to the scriptures?
4:10: So, once again we can agree here. Why does Elder Price choose to agree with the Catholics instead of with the Bible? The Bible is plain on this point regarding the relationship between Jesus and the Father.

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

Those are Jesus' own words. Trinitarians who believe that the three persons of the Godhead are "co-equal" must have a difficult time with this quotation.
6:00: [Quoting from the Anglican doctrine of the trinity...without body or parts or passions]

9:55: [Quoting from Methodist doctrine..."without body or parts"] 		Clearly, both our pioneers and Ellen White opposed these Trinitarian ideas.
11:35: But Ellen had married James, a strong anti-trinitarian It is unavoidable to recognize this truth. James White was indeed anti-Trinitarian.

But another truth is present here: Ellen White never once gave James White a message from God about his non-Trinitarian beliefs. Was James White loved by God? Certainly. Would God have permitted James to go unwarned if his beliefs about God had been incorrect?

Consider how much Mrs. White had to say about Dr. Kellogg's incorrect views of God. Dr. Kellogg's very soul and eternity was at stake--what about James? Why didn't God warn him, too?

Some might try to say that God views the husband as the head of the house, and that God could not correct a man through his own wife. But, while it is true that the man is the head of the home, and that this is by God's own direction, it is not true that if God gives his wife a message it is the wife correcting him. God is behind the message, and the instruction or command is from God, not from the prophet.

Did Ellen White ever have a message from God for James? Yes, indeed. Many, in fact. For example, one of her earlier visions (1848) told James to start printing a paper. One may read more of the story from the White Estate's website HERE.

Knowing God regularly gave James White instruction through his wife, there's only one reasonable answer to why God did not correct his non-trinitarianism: James was not wrong in his beliefs. God would certainly have warned James just as God warned Dr. Kellogg. "For whom the LORD loveth, he correcteth" (Proverbs 3:12). To believe otherwise is to believe that God is unfair and partial--whereas the Bible assures us that He is not. And it was Dr. John Kellogg who became Trinitarian, yet Mrs. White had nothing good to say of it--nothing good at all. Kellogg's views on the nature and personality of God were called the alpha of apostasy that would lead to the omega. Today, Trinitarianism within our church is widespread. That should make every Adventist stop and think.
James White: "We may look upon the father and the Son before the worlds were made as a creating and law administering firm of equal power. Christ did not then rob God in regarding himself equal with the Father. Sin enters the world and the fall occurs, Christ steps out of this firm for a certain time and takes upon himself the weakness of the seed of Abraham...Redemption is then completed and again the Son is equal with the Father." RH Nov. 29, 1877 This is the quote attributed to James White. Now look at Elder Price's comment, which follows.
13:38: "Wow! James has come a long way: He's now saying, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, EQUAL power...." Is this what James just said? Where did James even mention the Holy Spirit in his statement?

Sadly, Elder Price shows that he is not a careful student. He has misrepresented the words of Elder White, effectively lying about what Elder White said. This careless misrepresentation is no small error on the part of a minister of the gospel--one who professes to teach the truth. And it does little to persuade his hearers of the truthfulness of his position.
"Heavenly firm up there... they're all equal. Christ steps out of the firm...." Again, the misrepresentation continues. James referred to the Father and the Son. When referencing two entities, English speakers will say "both." With more than two, "all" is used. But James did not reference more than two.
[Digression into James' health until about 17:28] Why is this important to this subject?
18:00 quotes C. M. Taylor, 1953, as saying "...in the years immediately after this conference [1888] the articles written concerning the Trinity are predominantly favorable to the doctrine...The position was solidified by Ellen G. White's clear statement in the Desire of Ages, in 1898, calling the Spirit the 'third person of the Godhead.'" First, Mrs. White never once mentioned the Trinity doctrine. It is therefore impossible for this statement to be valid. She cannot be said to have supported something that she never talked about.

Secondly, saying "third person of the Godhead" does not mean to say "third being." Far from it. The dictionary of Ellen White's day will tell you that "person," when applied to God, meant "role" or "character of office." [See HERE, definition #6.]
18:20 "She always said, look, as a church, get back and study it out from the Bible." Yes, that is exactly what is needed now. I wish every church member would take time to do this.
18:44: [Begins quoting Erwin Gane] Erwin Gane was one of a handful of staunch Trinitarians which helped to bring the dogma into the Seventh-day Adventist church. It would be natural to quote the doctrine's earliest and strongest proponents when trying to defend it.
Erwin Gane, 1963 [text on slide]: "What changed the prevailing Seventh-day Adventist view from Arianism to Trinitarianism? The evidence would indicate that it was the publication of the Trinitarian declarations of Ellen G. White in the last decades of the nineteenth century that initiated the change." This statement is made without any evidence to back it up. Where is the "thus saith the Lord" that Ellen White tells us we should demand to support our doctrines?

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority--not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain 'Thus saith the Lord' in its support." {GC 595.1} -- Ellen White.
"He's still alive, he's a great friend of mine, and he was a great Hebrew and Greek scholar." Obviously, Elder Price is biased by his friendship with this man--or perhaps they are in collusion. As for being a great Hebrew and Greek scholar, I have to wonder why he didn't know that the Hebrew and Greek support monotheism.
19:00: Russel Holt, 1969 [text on slide]: "1890-1900 Roughly within this period, the course of the denomination on the trinity was decided by statements from Ellen G. White... The Spirit of Prophecy came out unequivocably on the side of the trinity, and of course, this view ultimately won out." This is a false statement. Ellen G. White never once mentioned the Trinity, and therefore cannot be said to have "unequivocably" favored it. What Mrs. White did say was that we should "hold fast" to the pillar doctrines established by our pioneers. Those doctrines [see "Fundamental Principles of Seventh-day Adventists", p. 250], were non-trinitarian. She also said great changes would come after her death; and, indeed, the trinity was first mentioned in a statement of Adventist beliefs in 1931, sixteen years after she had died.
19:25: So our church would have been just like the Jehovah's Witnesses...we would have had Christ down here [pushing downward with hands] if it had not been for the influence she had. Non-trinitarians do not put down Christ. They certainly don't push him to a lower level than other people, as Elder Price implies via his dramatic presentation. Again, no supporting evidence was given by Elder Price for this statement--his hearers are expected to believe it just because he said it.
19:31: "Well, Ellen White never wrote against the trinity." This is more true than the statement that she "unequivocably" supported it. Because she never once mentioned it, it is technically true that she didn't write "against" it. However, her statements clearly opposed the view that our church sponsors today; that the Godhead consists of "three co-eternal beings." Ellen White stated many times that "God is a being"; singular.
19:47: "We use the Tri..the word Trinity today so other churches don't misunderstand the fact that we believe in the full deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. But we do not believe in the Trinity of the Anglican church with a God without passion, or the Methodists, a God without parts, or the Catholic church, of the regenerating aspect of it." First, the suggestion that we should believe something on account of what others might think is highly indicative of the source of support for our Trinitarian doctrine. The "mother church" has daughters who are also "harlots" (see Revelation 17:5). Those represent the "Protestant" churches who, while supposedly protesting the beliefs of their mother church, actually are still largely in harmony with those beliefs, particularly in terms of the Trinity, Sunday sacredness, and the immortality of the soul.

Secondly, the "full deity of Christ" is worth a little investigating. Christ was fully man in whom "all the fulness of the Godhead" dwelt. Elder Price makes no mention of Christ's humanity in this statement, and we can only guess what he might think of Ellen White's statements that, for example, "Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible." Jesus died, but Deity did not die--so how do we interpret this "full deity of Christ"?

In The Desire of Ages Mrs. White writes: "The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative, but divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof" (p. 669). Christ's humanity had a "personality." This personality being removed left the Holy Spirit without this. Naturally, this implies that, in Christ, the Holy Spirit had two personalities. In other statements, Mrs. White uses the word "natures." Christ had two natures: Human nature, and divine nature. The Holy Spirit is the divinity, the divine nature, within Christ; and it is his omnipresence (see 14MR 179.2).
20:19: "When in her publications she used the term 'The third person of the Godhead,' she referred to the Holy Spirit, three great powers in heaven, three highest powers in heaven, and 'three living persons,' ... here: 'three great worthies in heaven'..." Ellen White uses these terms for the Godhead, it is true. At the same time, she clearly sets forth the Deity as "a Being." Therefore, if we are to understand her writings without contradiction, we are invited to consider more carefully what she might mean by these expressions.
[Slide contains "the three holiest beings in heaven" statement, as well] This particular statement saying "the three holiest beings in heaven" came from one of Ellen White's stenographers. She did not write it. The book in which it was first published states the following in its Preface:

"ALL THE MESSAGES REPRODUCED IN THIS VOLUME WERE DELIVERED IN PUBLIC AND STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED, OR WERE PREPARED WITH THAT PURPOSE IN VIEW. MANY OF ELLEN WHITE'S SERMONS MAY BE FOUND IN THE REVIEW AND HERALD AND SIGNS OF THE TIMES, BUT NEARLY ALL OF THOSE INCLUDED IN THIS SERIES HAVE BEEN DRAWN FROM PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPTS, AS THEY APPEAR IN OUR FILES. SO, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO TAPE RECORDERS IN ELLEN WHITE'S DAY, A PERSON MAY GET THE TRUE "FEEL" OF ELLEN WHITE AS A SPEAKER BY READING THIS BOOK."

So the White Estate directly acknowledges that this statement, along with the others in that book, were not written by Mrs. White. Could the stenographer have misheard, misunderstood, or been writing so quickly as to make the word(s) illegible when later transcribing from the shorthand notes? We do not know. What we do know is that the statement was never published during Mrs. White's lifetime, and, therefore, she had no opportunity of correcting or even commenting on this wording. And she said in so many other places that "God is a being" as to leave us without doubt on where she stood. Do we suppose that she contradicted herself? Should we follow this singular statement, not even from her own pen, instead of the scores, perhaps hundreds, of others in which she affirmed that God is "a being"?

To add a final, but very important, point to this, nothing in the statement indicates that these "holiest beings" are all God. All of the beings in heaven are holy. This statement simply does not equate holiness with deity, as deity is not mentioned.
20:44: "Some people say she wasn't really saying the Holy Spirit was a person, but I tell you, you can't get around these statements." She clearly says the Holy Spirit is a person. But she clearly did not teach that this "person" was a separate being from the Father and the Son. So this statement stands or falls on the definition made of "person." Do we follow our modern dictionaries? or should we see what the dictionary of Ellen White's day says? [Click HERE and scroll down to look at Webster's 1828 and 1913 definitions for "person".]
22:41: [shows highlighted clipping from R&H of "cardinal features of the faith" which includes mention of the trinity] Elder Price does not provide the source for this clipping, and provides an image too blurry to see the date. However, when comparing to a select phrase ("are triumphs to be achieved") from the adjacent column by Mrs. White, we quickly learn the date of it: October 9, 1913. By this date, certainly, the Trinitarian doctrine was being agitated. Dr. Kellogg had been one of its foremost proponents. This is less than two years from the date of Mrs. White's passing, and it was not her article in the paper. Did she know it had been published? Was she able to respond to every error placed in print in our papers? Did she have the strength during that last year or two of her life to attend to such matters?
"I. In the divine Trinity. This Trinity consists of the eternal Father, a personal, spiritual being, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal Father, through whom all things were created, and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the one regenerating agency in the work of redemption." The statement itself is a long ways from the Trinity accepted by our church today. It differs slightly from the belief held formerly by our pioneers. The original doctrine is weakened in measure, but not entirely lost. This statement does not, for example, address three Gods: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. But, certainly, it uses the word "Trinity," a word which neither the Bible nor Mrs. White ever applied to God, and uses leading language which is the more ready for the errors yet to come in.

Only 15 doctrines were addressed in the article--hardly the full count of what Adventists adhered to in that time period, so this cannot be said to more than summarize some of our beliefs for the readers of the paper. It did not provide an official list of our doctrines. As no attribution was given to its authorship, it must have been penned by the editor of the paper, Francis M. Wilcox (1865 - 1951).
23:44: "There it is. There's no mistake about it--that the trinity was established as a doctrine of the Adventist church before Ellen White died." Well, this is simply incorrect. The first time the word "Trinity" was used in an "official" statement of Adventist beliefs (it had not been voted by any committee, nor approved by a General Conference session), was in 1931--well after Mrs. White died.
24:35: "But these are some of the anti-Trinitarian, what anti-Trinitarians have written; and they say, you see, that the church waited until Ellen White was dead and they they brought in the trinity doctrine in 1931: that's not true, it was established in Ellen White's day." Being talked about is hardly the same as being "established." In fact, it is easy to prove that the article in the Review was not the official position of the church in that year. The official position had not changed since it was published by the pioneers in 1889, and it was published yearly afterwards in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook. Here are the first three of those doctrines as listed in the yearbook for 1913--the very same year that this "trinitarian" article confusingly appeared in the Review.

Seventh-day Adventists have no creed but the Bible; but they hold to certain well-defined points of faith, for which they feel prepared to give a reason "to every man that asketh" them. The following propositions may be taken as a summary of the principal features of their religious faith, upon which there is, so far as is known, entire unanimity throughout the body. They believe: —

1. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the Creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal; infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7.

2. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom he created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that he dwelt among men, full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where through the merits of his shed blood, he secures the pardon and forgiveness of the sins of all those who persistently come to him; and as the closing portion of his work as priest, before he takes his throne as king, he will make the great atonement for the sins of all such, and their sins will then be blotted out (Acts 3:19) and borne away from the sanctuary, as shown in the service of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven. See Leviticus 16; Heb. 8: 4, 5; 9: 6, 7.

3. That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of his will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practise.
. . . .
[CLICK HERE to see full original quote from the 1913 Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook (scroll to nearly the bottom of the PDF, p. 281).]


As can be readily seen here, as of the publication of the Seventh-day Adventist yearbook in 1913, our official statement of beliefs, which contained all 28 of the "fundamental principles"--the very same ones that had been published in 1889, 24 years earlier, remained non-trinitarian, saying plainly that "there is one God, a personal, spiritual being," and making no mention whatsoever of a "Trinity."
24:57: [Slide: "Was Non-Trinity a Pillar of the SDA Faith?"]

Quoting Glyn Parfitt, "The Trinity: What Has God Revealed?", p. 33: "... 1889 Ellen White made a list of doctrines that were among the foundation pillars, and in that list there is no reference to either Trinity [or] non-Trinity."		 Glyn Parfitt perhaps did not have all of Ellen White's writings on his computer by which to search, but it still seems irresponsible to be unaware of a letter Mrs. White had written on May 24, 1905 addressed to our Adventist ministers and people, sent where it would be read at a conference of them, which specifically established this as a pillar doctrine. Because this is such an important message, and deserves more than just the immediate context of the pillars of our faith, I will quote the entire letter (25 paragraphs).


I am bidden to bear a message to our people. In the name of the Lord I am bidden to warn our ministers not to mingle erroneous theories with the truth of God. Pure Bible truth is to stand forth in its nobility and sanctity. It is not to be classified and adjusted according to man’s wisdom. The ministers of the gospel are to present truth in its simplicity through the blessing of God making the Scriptures profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. “Rightly dividing the word of truth”—this is the word that should be spoken of all our ministers. [2 Timothy 2:15.] But far, far from this, many of the ministers have departed from Christ’s plans. The praise of men is coveted, and they strain every faculty in an effort to hunt out and present wonderful things. The Lord bids me counsel them to walk humbly and prayerfully with Him. {Ms62-1905.1}

Our message does not need that which Brother Ballenger is trying to draw into the web. He draws out certain passages so fine that they lose their force. Let our ministers be content to take the Word as Christ has given it. Of Him it is written that the common people heard Him gladly. The truth that He presented was to them as the bread of heaven. {Ms62-1905.2}

In clear, plain language I am to say to those in attendance at this conference that Brother Ballenger has been allowing his mind to receive and believe specious error. He has been misinterpreting and misapplying the Scriptures upon which he has fastened his mind. He is building up theories that are not founded in truth. A warning is now to come to him and to the people; for God has not indited the message that he is bearing. This message, if accepted, would undermine the pillars of our faith. {Ms62-1905.3}

Brother Ballenger does not discern what he is doing any more than Dr. Kellogg discerned that the book Living Temple contained some of the most dangerous errors that could be presented to the people of God. The most specious errors lie concealed in these theories and suppositions, which, if received, would leave the people of God in a labyrinth of error. Those who cherish these theories are building upon the sand; and when the storm and tempest shall come, the structure will be swept away. {Ms62-1905.4}

Study the words of Christ in the seventh chapter of Matthew. The whole chapter should be carefully considered. It contains warnings for God’s people in these last days. {Ms62-1905.5}

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. {Ms62-1905.6}

“Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity. {Ms62-1905.7}

“Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it.” [Verses 15-27.] {Ms62-1905.8}

Our only safety is in walking circumspectly before God. Perilous times are before us. We are to make every effort to stand in the counsel of God, and not in our own wisdom. Let the simple doctrines of the Word shine forth in their true bearings, and let them be urged home according to their relative importance. Let us teach only the truth of heavenly origin. Things new and old are connected through the Holy Spirit’s guidance, when the truth is taught as it is in Jesus, without obscurity, without compromise, without fear, without losing sight of the cross as the great center of all truth. A sanctified presentation of the message for this time, the Holy Spirit will make effective unto the saving of the souls of the hearers. {Ms62-1905.9}

Take heed how you mystify the gospel. The plain “Thus saith the Lord” rebukes worldliness, dispels difficulties, enlarges the understanding, and answers the question, “What must I do that I may inherit eternal life?” [Mark 10:17.] The Lord calls upon His ministers to reveal a greater intelligence regarding the Holy Spirit’s work of grace. He desires them to show, in their sermons and in their prayers, that they know the work of grace. Jesus Christ, our divine example, is the Lord our righteousness. {Ms62-1905.10}

A stronger determination to know nothing among men but Christ and Him crucified would have given a different character to the work of Brother Ballenger on this ground. By this he would have been saved from spending his time in presenting as truth that which, if received, would undermine the mighty truths that have been established for ages. He who claims that his teachings are sound, while at the same time he is working away from the Lord’s truth, has come to the place where he needs to be converted. A rich and inexhaustible storehouse of truth is open to all who walk humbly with God. The ideas of those whose hearts are fully in the work of God are clearly and plainly expressed, and they have no lack of variety; for there is every before them a rich cabinet of jewels. Those who are striving for originality will overlook the precious jewels in God’s cabinet in an effort to get something new. {Ms62-1905.11}

Let not any man enter upon the work of tearing down the foundations of the truth that has made us what we are. God has led His people forward step by step, though there were pitfalls of error on every side. Under the wonderful guidance of a plain “Thus saith the Lord,” a truth has been established that has stood the test of trial. When men arise and attempt to draw away disciples after them, meet them with the truths that have been tried as by fire. {Ms62-1905.12}

“Unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith He that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name, that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.” [Revelation 3:1-3.] {Ms62-1905.13}

Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary, or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift, without an anchor. {Ms62-1905.14}

Those who claim to be identified with the message that God has given us should have keen, clear spiritual perceptions, that they may distinguish truth from error. The word spoken by the messenger of God is “Wake up the watchmen.” If men will discern the spirit of the messages given, and strive to find out from what source they come, the Lord God of Israel will guard them from being led astray. But God is not to be trifled with. {Ms62-1905.15}

The messages that we have received from heaven are true and faithful. When one man strives to bring in new theories, which are not the truth, the ministers of God should bear clear warning against these theories, pointing out where, if received, they would lead the people of God. Those who have received the light of present truth should not be easily deceived and readily led from the true path into strange paths. The watchmen are to be wide-awake to discern the outcome of all specious reasoning; for serious errors will be brought in to lead the people of God astray. {Ms62-1905.16}

If the theories that Brother Ballenger presents were received, they would lead many to depart from the faith. They would counterwork the truths upon which the people of God have stood for the past fifty years. I am bidden to say in the name of the Lord that Elder Ballenger is following a false light. The Lord has not given him the message that he is bearing regarding the sanctuary service. {Ms62-1905.17}

Our Instructor spoke words to Brother Ballenger: “You are bringing in confusion and perplexity by your interpretation of the Scriptures. You think that you have been given new light, but your light will become darkness to those who receive it. {Ms62-1905.18}

“Walk in Christ’s footsteps, and hold fast that which you have received and heard, and put away any exposition of Scripture which means, ‘My Lord delayeth His coming.’ [Matthew 24:48.] In such a day as ye think not the Son of man cometh, and then how will it be with you and those whose minds you have confused? Stop right where you are; for God has not given you this message to bear to the people. Those who receive your interpretation of Scripture regarding the sanctuary service are receiving error and following in false paths. The enemy will work the minds of those who are eager for something new, preparing them to receive false theories and false expositions of the Scripture.” {Ms62-1905.19}

When men come in who would move one pin or pillar from the foundation which God has established by His Holy Spirit, let the aged men who were pioneers in our work speak plainly, and let those who are dead speak also by reprinting of their articles in our periodicals. Gather up the rays of divine light that God has given as He has led His people on step by step in the way of truth. This truth will stand the test of time and trial. {Ms62-1905.20}

Christ is called the minister of the true tabernacle. He is the head of His church on earth. He declares, “All power is given unto Me, in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, low, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” [Matthew 28:18-20.] He is the minister of the true tabernacle, and He is constantly sending messages to His people. The rich nutriment of sound doctrine will be given to all true laborers. Christ’s faithful ambassadors will be taught of God in every sermon that speaks truth to the heart. Christ is indeed the minister of holy things in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. {Ms62-1905.21}

There is a great work to be done in the proclamation of the gospel. God will call men from the plow and from the vineyard, and will send them forth into His service, even as Christ called fishermen from their daily occupation. As the first disciples, in obedience to the call of Christ, left their nets and followed Him, so will men in humble walks of life go forth today with the message for this time. These devoted servants of Christ will not seek the highest seat, but will follow Christ in the path of self-denial and sacrifice, and they will win souls to the Saviour. {Ms62-1905.22}

There are thousands of souls willing to work for the Master who have not had the privilege of hearing the truth as some have heard it, but they have been faithful readers of the Word of God, and they will be blessed in their humble efforts to impart light to others. Let such ones keep a diary, and when the Lord gives them an interesting experience, let them write it down, as Samuel did when the armies of Israel won a victory over the Philistines. He set up a monument of thankfulness, saying, “Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.” [1 Samuel 7:12.] Brethren, where are the monuments by which you keep in view the love and goodness of God? Strive to keep fresh in your minds the help that the Lord has given you in your efforts to help others. Let not your actions show one trace of selfishness. Every tear that the Lord has helped you to wipe from sorrowful eyes, every fear that has been expelled, every mercy shown—trace a record of it in your diary. “As thy days, so shall thy strength be.” [Deuteronomy 33:25.] Be willing to be little men handling great subjects. {Ms62-1905.23}

I have a warning for those who suppose that they have been given the work of revealing Scripture in a new light. This work means substituting human interpretation for the interpretation that God has given. Thus did the heavenly messengers pronounce upon the effort into which Brother Ballenger has entered. {Ms62-1905.24}

My brother, you are in the presence of Him who has never failed to accomplish His work or to fulfil His Word. Bear not this message that you think means so much. In one way, it does mean much. It means the uprooting of faith in God and the making of infidels. Cease from all such work; for it will open the door for many to depart from the faith once delivered to the saints and to give heed to seducing spirits. {Ms62-1905.25}

24:57: [Slide: "Was Non-Trinity a Pillar of the SDA Faith?"] (Continued...)

Quoting Ellen White: "... the cleansing of the sanctuary...first and second angels' messages and the third,...commandments of God, ...temple of God...the Sabbath... nonimmortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary." Counsels to Writers and Editors, pp. 30,31 		Elder Price quoted about half of a paragraph, and left it such that the focus is no longer attached to the message. Mrs. White was addressing the 1888 message that had been given at the conference that year (1888)! Here is the full quote, plus two paragraphs before and after for more of the context (his quoted portions highlighted).


There was opened to the minds precious light that should have been a blessing to them, but God could not do many mighty works in that conference because of their unbelief. There should have been at that meeting patient study of the Scriptures with fasting and earnest prayer before God that we might see eye to eye. This is the only way. There can be no safety in contention of spirit in investigating points of truth, as it must be done in the spirit John had when he said, "He must increase, but I must decrease." More of Jesus, less of self. And as the investigation continues in the spirit of Christ it will be at last all of Jesus, none of self. {1888 517.3}

There is a bracing of the mind, an opposition of the soul brought to the investigation of the Scriptures. This leaves such souls where Satan can impress them. In Minneapolis God gave precious gems of truth to His people in new settings. This light from heaven by some was rejected with all the stubbornness the Jews manifested in rejecting Christ, and there was much talk about standing by the old landmarks. But there was evidence they knew not what the old landmarks were. There was evidence and there was reasoning from the word that commended itself to the conscience; but the minds of men were fixed, sealed against the entrance of light, because they had decided it was a dangerous error removing the "old landmarks" when it was not moving a peg of the old landmarks, but they had perverted ideas of what constituted the old landmarks. {1888 518.1}

The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the sanctuary transpiring in heaven, and having decided relation to God's people upon the earth, [also] the first and second angels' messages and the third, unfurling the banner on which was inscribed, "The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. The light of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God's law. The nonimmortality of the wicked is an old landmark. I can call to mind nothing more that can come under the head of the old landmarks. All this cry about changing the old landmarks is all imaginary. {1888 518.2}

Now at the present time God designs a new and fresh impetus shall be given to His work. Satan sees this, and he is determined it shall be hindered. He knows that if he can deceive the people who claim to believe present truth, [and make them believe] that the work the Lord designs to do for His people is a removing of the old landmarks, something which they should, with most determined zeal, resist, then he exults over the deception he has led them to believe. The work for this time has certainly been a surprising work of various hindrances, owing to the false setting of matters before the minds of many of our people. That which is food to the churches is regarded as dangerous, and should not be given them. And this slight difference of ideas is allowed to unsettle the faith, to cause apostasy, to break up unity, to sow discord, all because they do not know what they are striving about themselves. Brethren, is it not best to be sensible? Heaven is looking upon us all, and what can they think of recent developments? While in this condition of things, building up barriers, we not only deprive ourselves of great light and precious advantages, but just now, when we so much need it, we place ourselves where light cannot be communicated from heaven that we ought to communicate to others. {1888 518.3}

The men in responsible positions have disappointed Jesus. They have refused precious blessings, and refused to be channels of light, as He wanted them to be. The knowledge they should receive of God that they might be a light and blessing to others, they refuse to accept, and thus become channels of darkness. The Spirit of God is grieved. Never can the heart be stirred up with envy, with evil-surmising, with evil reports, but the intellect becomes unbalanced, and cannot decide correctly any controverted point. The attributes of Satan which have found entrance to the soul, cannot harmonize with truth. {1888 519.1}

25:47: "You see the cry is that the church leaders were originally anti-Trinitarian, and that that was a landmark that should never have been changed. Ellen White says that was, it, the anti-Trinitarian stance was never a, one of the landmarks of the Adventist church, and, uh, well, is the Holy Spirit a separate person from the Father?" When Ellen White says she is unable to remember ("call to mind") any others, it tells us plainly that there might be some others but that she does not recall them at that moment. To say that Ellen White told us there were no others is to misrepresent her words. That is not what she said. Elder Price is, once again, guilty of misrepresentation. In fact, there were multiple others, and any diligent student of Ellen White who reads her writings can find them in various statements. There is no single statement that lists them all at once.

It is also possible that she came to understand the importance of the Godhead doctrine later on, when agitation for the Trinity doctrine began in the decade that followed that conference. It was 17 years later that she wrote of "the personality of God or of Christ" as being a "landmark" and a "pillar" of our faith. There is little excuse for those, like Glyn Parfitt, Elder Price, or others to say that Mrs. White did not recognize the Godhead as a pillar or landmark of our faith.
27:05: "You see, we have two persons of the Godhead that intercede for us. We've got Christ that pleads his blood, and we got the Holy Spirit that takes our prayers, okay, this is, um, verse 26, 27 [Rom. 8 mentioned earlier]." Again, this is a falsehood. We do not have two intercessors. Mrs. White says:

". . . That divine illumination symbolized the glory of the dispensation of which Moses was the visible mediator, a representative of the one true Intercessor." {PP 330.2}

Men have only one Advocate, one Intercessor, who is able to pardon transgression. Shall not our hearts swell with gratitude to Him who gave Jesus to be the propitiation for our sins? Think deeply upon the love the Father has manifested in our behalf, the love that He has expressed for us. We cannot measure this love. Measurement there is none. We can only point to Calvary, to the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. It is an infinite sacrifice. Can we comprehend and measure infinity? . . . {7BC 914.3}

Christ represented the Father to the world, and He represents before God the chosen ones in whom He has restored the moral image of God. They are His heritage. To them He says, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father." No man, "knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father, but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." No priest, no religionist, can reveal the Father to any son or daughter of Adam. Men have only one advocate, one intercessor, who is able to pardon transgression. Shall not our hearts swell with gratitude to Him who gave Jesus to be the propitiation for our sins? Think deeply upon the love that the Father has manifested in our behalf, the love that He has expressed for us. We cannot measure this love; for measurement there is none. Can we measure infinity? We can only point to Calvary, to the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. {BEcho, May 1, 1899 par. 7}

The great Intercessor presents His petition to the Father. No middle-man comes between the sinner and Christ. No dead prophet, no buried saint, is seen. Christ Himself is our advocate. All that the Father is to His Son, He is to those whom His Son in humanity represented. In every line of His work Christ acted as a representative of the Father. He lived as our substitute and surety. He laboured as He would have His followers labour, unselfishly appreciating the value of every human being for whom He suffered and died. Mrs. E. G. White. {BEcho, May 1, 1899 par. 8}

[Devolves into an explanation of how the Holy Spirit intercedes by putting our petitions into better language for us.] Who is the Holy Spirit? Ellen White tells us:


"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering." [James 1:5, 6.] "And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him because we keep his commandments and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." [1 John 3:22.] "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children keep yourselves from idols." [1 John 5:20, 21.] The Lord is soon to come. We want that complete and perfect understanding which the Lord alone can give. It is not safe to catch the spirit from another. We want the Holy Spirit, which is Jesus Christ. If we commune with God, we shall have strength and grace and efficiency. {Lt66-1894.18}

[Followed by explanation, based on vs. 34, of how Christ "also" pleads for us via his blood.] There are not two intercessors. Ellen White is clear. But so is the Bible:

"By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Hebrews 7:22-25)

Jesus is our Intercessor.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (1 Timothy 2:5)
30:20: "I tell you what, when you've got two folks like that working for you, you can't win. ... (Can't get lost [audience member].)" This was an unintended misspeak on his part, but it may have actually been truth. Jesus himself tells us that no man can serve two masters--do we think three would be easier?
32:35: [Slide titled: "Ellen White Prayed to the Persons of the Trinity"]

"three great Worthies" quote from {1SAT 367.3}

33:30: "Isn't that interesting. And she said, 'three great Worthies.'"		 Remember that this "Sermons and Talks, Volume 1" said in its preface that none of the statements published in it had previously been published, nor were they penned by Ellen White. So be careful. We need to see if she published these things herself somewhere else, especially if the words seem to run contrary to the rest of what she wrote or taught.

This is the very same paragraph that is published in 1SAT using the phrase "three holiest beings." Because this paragraph contradicts every other statement from her pen, and because she didn't write this paragraph, and because it was never published during her lifetime, or by her, this paragraph must be considered unreliable. That last point particularly is important. Mrs. White has told us what to believe and what not to believe.

And now to all who have a desire for truth I would say: Do not give credence to unauthenticated reports as to what Sister White has done or said or written. If you desire to know what the Lord has revealed through her, read her published works. Are there any points of interest concerning which she has not written, do not eagerly catch up and report rumors as to what she has said. {5T 696.1}

Essentially, this entire manuscript which references the "three holiest beings" and the "three great worthies" was a stenographer's record which she never had occasion to check and to verify for us. She never published it, and she never wrote it! According to her own words, then, we are not to "eagerly catch up and report rumors as to what she has said."
"Well, of course, if the Holy Spirit gets our prayers, and takes them, and I have a brother-in-law that often when he is praying says, 'Holy Spirit, I want you do to such-and-such.' I remember that when I first heard him pray I thought, 'Oh dear! You don't pray to the Holy Spirit!'" First of all, the very attitude expressed here is exactly the attitude that Elder Price has been criticizing. It puts the Holy Spirit "down here" [below the brother-in-law].

Brothers and sisters, we do not command God. We do not tell Him what to do!

Secondly, there is not a single instance recorded in the Inspired Writings that tells us to pray to the Holy Spirit. There is not even an example of anyone doing this.

Thirdly, addressing the Holy Spirit as a separate being is both pantheism and spiritualism. Consider Lessons from 1 Corinthians 5:3-5.
34:02: "And Ellen White says when she would get depressed she would be addressing the three members of the Godhead." Again, this is careless scholarship. There is a considerable difference between "oppressed" (as the manuscript states) and "depressed" (Price's word). Elder Price misrepresents Ellen White in this. It puts her own Christian experience in question, for she herself wrote: "Christians will not be mournful, depressed, and despairing." No, she didn't say, in this statement, at least, that she was depressed. Elder Price has been careless with his words. And carelessness on matters of importance like this will not lead honest students to trust him.

Furthermore, Mrs. White never once spoke of "members" of the Godhead. To have "members" would clearly imply multiple beings--but she was clear that "God is a Being." Mrs. White spoke of three persons of the Godhead, and her usage of "person" was in line with the dictionaries of her day where it meant "role" or "office." A man can relate to his family in the person of a father, the person of a son, or the person of a husband--yet he, being three persons, is still the same man in all three roles. This was the usage Mrs. White applies to God, if "God is a being," lest we find her in contradiction to herself.
35:12: "I have some of our anti-Trinitarian friends that are saying the Holy Spirit is really another name for the angels. That is not so." This is the kind of statement that is rightfully called a fallacy of logic. It is a straw man argument. First, because some may believe something does not mean everyone in the same group will believe it. Secondly, this statement is not supported by any evidence, nor does it even contribute to the discussion. Whether or not someone happens to believe such a thing is unrelated to the truth or falsity of the Trinity dogma.
36:20: "But I've got a actual sermon that she wrote. The secretaries took it down in shorthand, typed it all out, then she got with her black pen and ink and corrected it, and when she corrected it then she signed it, and then, only then, was it allowed to go and be published." I think Elder Price may be largely correct in this statement. But what was actually published, based on Ellen White's statement, would be worth seeing. The image of the handwriting was unclear and hard to read in the video. As such, it was not a helpful piece of evidence.

It is true, again, that Ellen White refers to the Holy Spirit as a person. This she did a number of times, and is not really in question. The fact remains that she used the word somewhat differently than we would use it today, for its usage in the English language was not the same then as now.
38:11: "Alright, a very good book on the trinity is being put out by Glyn Parfitt, he's a friend of mine, lives in Queensland, not that that makes him any better than if he lived in Melbourne, but he has written this 850-page book--it's about $30, I think; $30 or $40 at the Adventist Book Center, but it's a huge one, but it is an excellent book, and if folks really want to know about the trinity from the Bible and also what our old pioneers, how our old pioneers were taken from being anti-Trinitarian through to Trinitarian; after all, what was the use of the Lord raising up this church to teach, to tell people, tell the world they should keep all of the commandments and the Sabbath, if they, Jesus, the center of the Christian faith, was down here [motioning downward], and not in his rightful position [raising hands above head]." Again, there is a bit of handwaving as a means of pursuasion, without even a bit of evidence to back up his statement. How does the non-trinitarian view put Jesus down instead of honoring him? He does not say.

It seems he has connections, though, with other staunch Trinitarians. Perhaps he is helping his friends earn a little money on the side through the sale of their books.
These comments, prepared in response to a friend's inquiry about this particular video and its doctrine, are part of a growing collection of materials on the subject of the Godhead. To see more, you may begin at:

https://www.biblasia.com/doctrine/

May God bless you with His special truths for this time!