Revised & Enlarged

1888 RE-
EXAMINED
REVISED AND UPDATED BY THE
ORIGINAL AUTHORS

ROBERT J. WIELAND AND DONALD K. SHORT

1888 – 1988
The story of a century of confrontation
between God and His people

"All these things happened

unto them for ensamples:
and they are written for our admonition,
upon whom the ends of the world are come."
(1 Corinthians 10:11)

This unpretentious gathering of delegates to the 1888 General

Conference Session in Minneapolis has become the focal point of intense
interest in the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church. The General
Conference are addressing serious 1888 questions as follows:

What really happened in 1888?

What were the doctrinal issues involved?
Who were the personalities involved?
What were the results that followed?

This book addresses these and other vital questions. It was written
originally as a private document for the General Conference. It is now
updated and released in response to numerous requests world-wide. In many
previously unpublished statements Ellen G. White is permitted at last to
speak freely and frankly to 1888 issues of paramount interest. The bulk of
these statements were unknown to most of her contemporaries. What she
says will come as a surprise to many in this generation.
Donald K. Short and Robert J. Wieland are ordained ministers with an
aggregate total of nearly 100 years of service to the Seventh-day Adventist
Church, 62 as missionaries in Africa. Publication of this book has been
initiated by The 1888 Message Study Committee composed of laymembers
and ministers who wish to revive that "most precious message."e writer living
in Meadow Vista, California.

Copyright © 1987 by Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short

Compiled in 1950
First published, August 1987 - 9,000 copies Second printing, June 1988 - 10,000 copies Appendix E and
Annotated Index added.

Contents

Preface .............................................................................................................
............................................. 4
Chapter 1 – Why Re-Examine Our Adventist
Past? ................................................................... 8
Chapter 2 – The Sin of Leaving Our First Love
............................................................................ 14
Chapter 3 – The Loud Cry to Come in a Surprising Way
......................................................... 19
Chapter 4 – Acceptance or Rejection: in Search of a Sharper Focus
.................................. 30

2
 Additional Note to Chapter Four
......................................................................................... 49
Chapter 5 – The Fundamental Problem: How to Evaluate the 1888 Message
............... 56
Chapter 6 – The 1888 Rejection of Ellen
White .......................................................................... 67
Chapter 7 – A Closer Look at the
"Confessions" .......................................................................... 82
Chapter 8 – Crisis at the 1893 General Conference
Session .................................................. 94
Chapter 9 – A False Righteousness by Faith: Sowing the Seed of
Apostasy ...................
103
Chapter 10 – Why Did Jones and Waggoner Lose Their
Way? .............................................
118
Chapter 11 – The "Alpha" and "Omega"
Crises ............................................................................
132
Chapter 12 – The Pantheism
Apostasy ...........................................................................................
143
Chapter 13 – Ellen White's Predictions of Baal-
Worship .......................................................
150
Chapter 14 – From 1950 to
1971 ......................................................................................................
164
Chapter 15 – From 1971 to 1987 and
Beyond ............................................................................
175
Appendix A: Did A. T. Jones Teach the "Holy Flesh"
Heresy? ................................................
189
Appendix B: The Righteousness by Faith
Comparisons ..........................................................
192
Appendix C: One Source of the Acceptance
Myth .......................................................................
198
Appendix D: What Is the Future of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church? ..........................
202

3
Appendix E: A Brief Review of 1987-1988
Publications .........................................................
210
Annotated
Index ................................................................................................................
........................
224

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS USED

AA Acts of the Apostles

AH The Adventist Home
1BC The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, etc.
CD Counsels on Diet and Foods
CH Counsels on Health
COL Christ's Object Lessons
COR Christ Our Righteousness
CT Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students
CW Counsels to Writers and Editors
DA The Desire of Ages
Ed Education
Ev Evangelism
EW Early Writings
FE Fundamentals of Christian Education
GC The Great Controversy
GCB General Conference Bulletin
GW Gospel Workers
LS Life Sketches
MB Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing
MH Ministry of Healing
Ms Ellen White manuscript
NEB New English Bible
PK Prophets and Kings
PP Patriarchs and Prophets
RH The Review and Herald
SC Steps to Christ
1SM Selected Messages, Book One, etc.
1T Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, etc.
TM Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers

4
 PREFACE

The authors hold the firm conviction that God has entrusted to Seventh-
day Adventists His last message of more abounding grace for humanity. This
message must supply a final cure for the problem of sin, demonstrate
righteousness in believing humanity, and vindicate the sacrifice of Christ.
Nothing can enter the kingdom of heaven "that defileth, neither whatsoever
worketh abomination or maketh a lie."
The authors also believe that the Saviour has an immeasurable longing
for His people to prepare the way for His return. The message the Lord sent
this people in 1888 was intended to complete His work of grace in human
hearts so that the great controversy could be brought to an end. But
something went wrong a century ago. The Lord's plan was frustrated and
delayed. What happened? Why this long delay?
The beacon lights of a century ago have grown dim and in many cases
have flickered and gone out. The hallmarks of Adventism have become
tarnished. Our people have not verbally abandoned confidence in the second
coming of Christ, but the expectation of His near return has faded. Many are
bewildered and confused. The present world entices to fashion, amusements,
and me-first luxury.
Even in enlightened Seventh-day Adventist communities with a rich
historical heritage, divorce has become almost epidemic. Social drinking is a
problem in our colleges and universities and in too many of our homes. Most
Seventh-day Adventists in North America have no clear concept of a
heavenly Day of Atonement or of our unique duty of temperance and self-
control in relation to it. It is amazing that in a time of exploding human
knowledge, we as a people generally still have only a vague concept of what
Christ is doing as High Priest in this final Day of Atonement, and scant
sympathy with His aims. And what we do not understand we cannot
communicate to the world.
It is well known that a large proportion of our youth lack clear-cut
convictions of Seventh-day Adventist identity. A series in the Adventist
Review of June 1986 recognizes a new phenomenon: Adventist youth are
joining Sunday-keeping churches (see chapter 13 of this book).

5
 Off-shoots and independent ministries proliferate. Financial scandals and
heresies supply grist for the mills of the critics. Serious questions are raised
about whether the Seventh-day Adventist church is destined to become
another segment of Babylon.
The "most precious message" the Lord "sent" this people nearly a
century ago contains the "beginning" of the solution to all these problems. It
was a message of much more abounding grace. Our increasing perplexities
are the direct result, the certain harvest, of an unbelief, past and current, of
that 1888 message. When truth is refused, error always rushes in to fill the
vacuum. But no problem is too great to be rectified through repentance.
Without further delay the world church must know the full story of our
century-old confrontation with Christ. Ellen White often likened our 1888
default to the Jews' rejection of Him two millennia ago. This book will re-
examine her letters and manuscripts as well as published statements. She
must be allowed to speak frankly without inhibition. When the full truth is
comprehended, whether these authors can tell it clearly enough or whether
other authors yet to come must succeed better, repentance and reformation
will take place and a people will be prepared for the coming of the Lord. The
Laodicean message will not fail, but will result in healing and restoration.
Ellen White's confidence is neatly summed up in a brief word written by her
son shortly before her death: "I told Mrs. Lida Scott how Mother regarded the
experience of the remnant church, and of her positive teaching that God
would not permit this denomination to so fully apostatize that there would be
the coming out of another church" (Letter, May 23, 1915). This statement
implies that there would indeed be very serious apostasy—but the Lord
would not permit it to become total. Until her death she cherished the
conviction that denominational repentance would eventually come.

What Did the 1888 Message Say?

This book is not intended to reproduce the message itself. Several other
works prepared by the authors attempt to do this.1 But for those who do not
have access to these publications or to original sources, we list in very brief
form a resume of the unique, essential elements of that message. Readers
will recognize that these concepts are in contrast to ideas generally (or
officially) held by our people today (documentation is available in the books
cited in the footnote):
(1) Christ's sacrifice is not merely provisional but effective for the whole
world, so that the only reason anybody can be lost is that he has chosen to
resist the saving grace of God. For those who are saved at last, it is God who

1
The 1888 Message—An Introduction, Review and Herald, 1980; Gold Tried in the Fire, Pacific Press,
1983; The Good News is Better Than You Think, Pacific Press 1985; A Summary of the History and
Content of the 1888 Message, 1977, The 1888 Message Study Committee.

6
has taken the initiative; in the case of those who are lost, it is they who took
the initiative. Salvation is by faith; condemnation is by unbelief.
(2) Thus Christ's sacrifice has legally justified "every man," and has
literally saved the world from premature destruction. All men owe even their
physical life to Him, whether or not they believe. Every loaf of bread is
stamped with His cross. When the sinner hears and believes the pure gospel,
he is justified by faith. The lost deliberately negate the justification Christ has
already effected for them.
(3) Justification by faith is therefore much more than a legal declaration
of acquittal; it changes the heart. The sinner has now received the
atonement, which is reconciliation with God. Since it is impossible to be truly
reconciled to Him and not also be reconciled to His holy law, it follows that
true justification by faith makes the believer to become obedient to all the
commandments of God.
(4) This marvelous work is accomplished through the ministry of the new
covenant wherein the Lord actually writes His law in the heart of the
believer. Obedience is loved, and the new motivation transcends fear of
being lost or hope of reward in being saved (either of those motivations is
what Paul means by his phrase, "under the law"). The old and new covenants
are not matters of time but of condition. Abraham's faith enabled him to live
under the new covenant, while multitudes of Christians today live under the
old covenant because self-centered concern is their motivation. The old
covenant was the promise of the people to be faithful; under the new
covenant salvation comes by believing God's promises to us, not by our
making promises to Him.
(5) God's love is active, not merely passive. As Good Shepherd, Christ is
actively seeking the lost sheep. Our salvation does not depend on our
seeking the Saviour but on our believing that He is seeking us. Those who
are lost at last continue to resist and despise the drawing of His love. This is
the essence of unbelief.
(6) Thus it is difficult to be lost and it is easy to be saved if one
understands and believes how good the good news is. Sin is a constant
resisting of His grace. Since Christ has already paid the penalty for every
man's sin, the only reason anyone can be condemned at last is continued
unbelief, a refusal to appreciate the redemption achieved by Christ on His
cross and ministered by Him as High Priest. The true gospel unveils this
unbelief and leads to an effective repentance that prepares the believer for
the return of Christ. Human pride and praise and flattery of human beings is
inconsistent with true faith in Christ but is a sure sign of prevailing unbelief,
even within the church.
(7) In seeking lost mankind, Christ came all the way, taking upon Himself
and assuming the fallen, sinful nature of man after the fall. This He did that
He might be tempted in all points like as we are, yet demonstrate perfect
righteousness "in the likeness of sinful flesh." The 1888 message accepts

7
"likeness" to mean what it says, not unlikeness. Righteousness is a word
never applied to Adam in his unfallen state, nor to sinless angels. It can only
connote a holiness that has come into conflict with sin in fallen human flesh,
and triumphed over it.
Thus "the message of Christ's righteousness" that Ellen White endorsed
so enthusiastically in the 1888 era is rooted in this unique view of the nature
of Christ. If He had taken the sinless nature of Adam before the fall, the term
"Christ's righteousness" would be a meaningless abstraction. The 1888
messengers recognized the teaching that Christ took only the sinless nature
of Adam before the fall to be a legacy of Romanism, the insignia of the
mystery of iniquity which keeps Him "afar off" and not "nigh at hand."
(8) Thus our Saviour "condemned sin in the flesh" of fallen mankind. This
means that He has outlawed sin; sin has become unnecessary in the light of
His ministry. It is impossible to have true New Testament faith in Christ and
continue in sin. We cannot excuse continued sinning by saying that we are
"only human" or that "the devil made me do it." In the light of the cross, the
devil cannot force anyone to sin. To be truly "human" is to be Christlike in
character, for He was and is fully human as well as divine.
(9) It follows that the only element God's people need in order to prepare
for Christ's return is that genuine New Testament faith. But that is precisely
what the church lacks. She imagines herself to be doctrinally and
experientially "rich and increased with goods" when in fact her root sin is a
pathetic unbelief. Righteousness is by faith; it is impossible to have faith and
not demonstrate righteousness in the life, because true faith works by love.
Moral and spiritual failures are the fruit of perpetuating Israel's ancient sin of
unbelief today through the confusion of a false righteousness by faith.
(10) Righteousness by faith since 1844 is "the third angel's message in
verity." Thus it is greater than what the Reformers taught and the popular
churches understand today. It is a message of abounding grace consistent
with the unique Adventist truth of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, a
work contingent on the full cleansing of the hearts of God's people on earth.
There are other aspects of the 1888 message such as reforms in health
and educational methods, but our principal concern in this book is its heart,
as recognized by Ellen White—righteousness by faith. It is not true that the
1888 message was opposed to church organization (see chapter 10).

Significance of the Message Today

The 1888 history and message supply a key to reconciliation with the
Lord Jesus. The great "final atonement" will become reality. "There shall be a
fountain opened to the house of David [the church leadership] and lo the
inhabitants of Jerusalem [the organized church] for sin and for uncleanness."
Some, perhaps many, will despise and reject that fountain which Zechariah
speaks of, but we believe that the inner heart of God's people is honest.

8
When they know the full truth, they will respond. "Thy people shall be willing
in the day of Thy power," says the Psalmist. The latent genius of Adventism
will yet perceive and receive truths as now dimly perceived. In spite of
opposition within the church structure, the Adventist conscience will yet
recognize Ellen White's 1888 testimony to be a genuine manifestation of the
gift of prophecy, "the testimony of Jesus." In its impact on honest hearts,
truth is invincible.
The world and the universe await that other angel who comes down from
heaven "having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory." If it
was the Lord's plan that the 1888 message be the "beginning" of that angel's
work and the "beginning" of the latter rain, could anything be more
important than seeking the full truth about it?
May this book be read with a prayer for discernment and a spirit of faith
and repentance.

The Authors.
June 3, 1987

CHAPTER ONE

WHY RE-EXAMINE OUR

ADVENTIST PAST?

9
 The Advent Movement has not thus far made progress
consistent with its prophetic destiny. There has been
progress, but not that which Scripture says must come. The
three angels of Revelation 14 have not yet stirred the world.
Billions still know little or nothing about this life or death
message.
We cannot deny that the fourth angel of Revelation 18
has not yet lightened the earth with the glory of his
message. God's program of loving concern for this planet has
somehow been thwarted. The long delay deepens perplexity
in the church and assumes vexing proportions.
To say that we have failed to do our duty is merely to
state the problem in different terms: Why haven't we done
our duty, and when will we do it? And to say that God will
soon arise and do something is to state it in still another
form: Why hasn't He already done what He will eventually
do?
We would not dare to charge God with negligence in
fulfilling His word. We know that He so loves the world that
He gave His Son for its redemption, and He has been ready
to bring the plan of salvation to its ultimate triumph long
ago. The cross demonstrates His total devotion to the human
problem. Such love denies any possibility of divine
indifference. Yet billions know almost nothing about His
message of grace. Must they never know, never have a
chance to appreciate the redemption price He paid and His
on-going High Priestly ministry? The questions insist on
answers: What is the reason for the delay, and how can the
difficulty be rectified?
For the greater part of a century we have looked for
answers in each succeeding program, evangelistic
resolution, policy and strategy. If only some supernatural
power would render the propagation of the message
universally phenomenal so that world population could at
least understand what it is, then the movement would be
vindicated, and its long-awaited triumph would be realized.
There would then be no need to re-examine our history.
But God cannot vindicate a lukewarm people. This would
surrender His century-long insistence on their following right
principles communicated through an inspired messenger.
Such compromise would amount to His admission of defeat,

10
virtually that of the entire plan of redemption, because its
true success depends on its final hour.

The Reason Is Evident

The hope of God's people in all ages has been the first
resurrection. For Biblical reasons, Seventh-day Adventists
cannot agree with their brethren of other communions who
believe that the saved go immediately to their reward at
death. Scripture indicates that they "sleep in Jesus" until
they come forth in the first resurrection. But this hope is vain
unless Christ comes a second time, because His personal
presence alone can make a resurrection possible. "This same
Jesus" must return literally and personally. No ethereal spirit
substitute can raise the dead.
But this Adventist belief immediately poses a serious
problem which calls into question popular theories of
righteousness by faith. If the human soul is by nature
immortal and the saved go to heaven at death, no special
character preparation for the second coming can be
necessary. There is no further work that "the everlasting
gospel" can accomplish other than what it has accomplished
for thousands of years for those who have died. Thus popular
concepts of righteousness by faith allow of no special
preparation for a second coming.
This is the reason why most non-Adventist Protestants
conceive of righteousness by faith as limited to a legal
justification. In their view, perfect obedience to God's holy
law is neither necessary nor possible. A special preparation
for Christ's second coming is simply excluded from thought.
But the Bible truth of the nature of man requires that a
community of living believers be ready for Christ's second
coming, so that a resurrection of the dead can take place. He
is a Farmer who cannot come for His harvest until it is ripe
(Mark 4:26-29). But suppose God's people never do get
ready either because they cannot, or because they will not?
Christ says of Himself, "I ... overcame" (Revelation 3:21),
and He says that "the angel of the church of the Laodiceans"
must overcome "even as" He overcame. Evidently a special
preparation is necessary. But if that special preparation
never takes place, must He admit at last that His people
cannot or will not overcome, that His standard for them has
been too high, that He has never seriously expected it could
be attained? Have we misunderstood Him for over a century,

11
assuming that He demands obedience to His law when
obedience is impossible? Could it be that no special
readiness of His people is necessary?
These are serious questions. A sizable segment of the
church and its ministry lean toward popular concepts that it
is not possible to overcome sin per se. These ideas have
been adapted to Adventism, following the Calvinist view that
as long as one possesses a sinful nature, continued sinning is
unavoidable and therefore excusable. (This of course
logically denies the significance of the unique Adventist idea
of the antitypical Day of Atonement).
To lower God's expectation in order to vindicate an
uncaring, lukewarm people would insult divine justice. It
would mean establishing the Old Jerusalem in the new earth,
continually backsliding, unrepentant and disobedient, in
place of the spiritually triumphant and thoroughly repentant
New Jerusalem. It would disappoint the hopes of Abraham
who "looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder
and maker is God." This "city" would be a finally victorious
community of his spiritual descendants, not merely a few
scattered, uncoordinated individuals (cf. Hebrews 11:10).
Abraham's faith dare not prove to be in vain! There must be
a people who attain to that maturity of Christian experience
and faith of which he was the true spiritual ancestor. This is
the climax toward which history has been moving.
And not only did Abraham exercise such faith. We read
that Christ Himself has exercised faith in His people, despite
the fact that in the past they "did not believe." He gave His
blood for human beings and for the complete redemption of
the human race. That's an expensive investment if the
returns prove unsatisfactory! In the end "the faith of God"
must not prove to be "without effect" (Romans 3:3).
Otherwise, the everlasting gospel will be called in question
and He will be eternally embarrassed for having exercised a
naive faith in mankind.

Failure: an Unthinkable Denouement to God's

Program

Even though Christ died for us and paid the price of all
our sins as our divine Substitute, there must be some
response of faith on our part. Without a people truly ready
for Christ's second coming, and without their world mission

12
comprehended, the Lord cannot return. He cannot "thrust in"
His mighty sickle until "the harvest of the earth is ripe"
(Revelation 14:15, 16). Adventism is deeply rooted in this
obvious truth. There is no way we can get away from it and
remain Adventists.
Before the Lord can vindicate His remnant church, the
present generation must somehow in principle rectify every
failure of God's people to follow the light. This must be
accomplished not by a program of works, but by their
maturely developed faith. As Judge, God cannot clear the
unrepentant, whether individuals or a movement.
The findings of this essay suggest there has been some
grave official misunderstanding of vital Seventh-day
Adventist history. There is evidence that truth concerning
the latter rain of the Holy Spirit and the loud cry of
Revelation 18 has been distorted and even covered up.
There have been tragic world-wide consequences.
Misunderstanding our past also throws our understanding of
the present out of focus and weakens confidence in our
unique mission. And that can leave us prey to disaster. It is
impossible for any people anywhere to understand current
events correctly if they have distorted the facts of their past.

Truth loses nothing by closer re-examining. Whether it is

a theological doctrine or a tenet of vital church history, Ellen
White indicates that it must be ferreted out:

No true doctrine will lose anything by close

investigation. We are living in perilous times,
and it does not become us to accept everything
claimed to be truth without examining it
thoroughly, neither can we afford to reject
anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of
God; but we should be teachable, meek and
lowly of heart.... The Lord designs that our
opinions be put to the test (RH December 20,
1892).

If we ourselves do not "put to the test" our opinions

concerning both doctrines and historical interpretations,
keen minds among our opponents will eventually do the job
for us:

13
 If God has ever spoken by me, the time will
come when we shall be brought before councils
and before thousands for His name's sake, and
each one will have to give the reasons of his
faith. Then will come the severest criticism
upon every position that has been taken for the
truth (RH December 18, 1888).

When the above words were written, important

denominational history was in the making. Today, certain
interpretations of it among us have assumed almost the form
and authority of "doctrine." Hence the need for thorough
investigation, that true history may be distinguished from
the "tradition of the elders." For reasons to be named later,
we have enveloped the 1888 episode of our history in the
mists of that tradition. Fact must be separated from fancy.

Repentance and the Day of Atonement

The cleansing of the sanctuary can never be complete

until the 1888 incident of our history is fully understood and
the underlying spiritual problem solved. That particular
segment of our history is specially significant. This is implied
in a statement Ellen White wrote to the General Conference
president, O. A. Olsen, four years after the Minneapolis
conference:

The sin committed in what took place at

Minneapolis remains on the record books of
heaven, registered against the names of those
who resisted light, and it will remain upon the
record until full confession is made, and the
transgressors stand in full humility before God
(Letter, September 1, 1892, O19, 1892).

Her later writings indicate that "full confession" was

never made and the experience of "full humility before God"
eluded most of them. Those brethren have all died, but that
does not mean those "record books of heaven" are
automatically cleansed. They record corporate sin as well as
personal sin. The foundation truth that has made Seventh-
day Adventists a unique people is that death does not
cleanse the heavenly record books. The cleansing must

14
occur in "the investigative judgment," a corporate and final
Day of Atonement.
The present issue is not the salvation of the souls of
those dear leaders of a century ago who resisted the
message. They rest in the Lord, at peace, while they remain
prisoners in their tombs. The issue now is the finishing of the
work of God on earth, developing a long overdue empathy
with the Lord so that we can truly "give glory to Him, for the
hour of His judgment is come." We must recover in this
generation the priceless blessing which our brethren of a
century ago "kept away from the world" and "from our
people, in a great measure" (1 SM 234, 235). We are "one
body" in Christ, "a city" or a spiritual community corporately
involved with those brethren of the past. Their sin is our sin,
apart from specific, intelligent repentance.
The "body" is lukewarm, ill with spiritual disease that can
be traced to 1888. A new generation must now correctly
interpret what happened in a past generation because of its
profound implications for our spiritual state today. Christ's
message to His last-day church implicitly demands a re-
examination of our history which underlies our "rich-and-
increased-with-goods" complex (Revelation 3:14-21).
A failure to do so invokes upon ourselves the guilt of
previous generations. We are being tested as truly as they
were. Like Calvary, 1888 is more than a mere historical
event. God's providence will not permit it to be covered with
dust in the Adventist attic, forgotten by a new generation. It
represents the outworking of principles that reapply in every
generation until the final victory of truth.
In a certain real sense, we today are each one at Calvary;
we are also "delegates" at the 1888 Conference. We shall be
called upon to do what a past generation failed to do. An
inspired prophecy tells us how 1888 must be re-examined:

We should be the last people on earth to

indulge in the slightest degree the spirit of
persecution against those who are bearing the
message of God to the world. This is the most
terrible feature of unchristlikeness that has
manifested itself among us since the
Minneapolis meeting. Sometime it will be seen
in its true bearing, with all the burden of woe
that has resulted from it (GCB 1893, p. 184;
emphasis added).

15
 A former president of the General Conference also
recognized that this issue of 1888 must remain a perennial
test among us until at last we do fully overcome:

Some may feel tried over the idea that

Minneapolis is referred to [in these meetings,
1893]. I know that some have felt grieved and
tried over any allusion to that meeting, and to
the situation there. But let it be borne in mind
that the reason why anyone should feel so is an
unyielding spirit on his part. Just as quickly as
we fully surrender, and humble our hearts
before God, the difficulty is all gone. The very
idea that one is grieved, shows at once the
seed of rebellion in the heart ...
If we fail at one time, the Lord will take us
over the ground again; and if we fail a second
time, He will take us over the ground again;
and if we fail a third time, the Lord will take us
over the same ground again.... Instead of being
vexed over the idea that the Lord is taking us
over the same ground, let us thank Him, and
praise Him unceasingly, for this is God's mercy
and compassion. Anything else than this is our
ruin and destruction (O. A. Olsen, ibid., p. 188).

Today there may be some who also feel "grieved and

tried" that an inquiry such as this should be made into our
history. Why pay such attention to the tragic past? Why not
forget it and go "forward" from where we are now?
According to this General Conference president of 1893,
sensitive feelings of resentment about 1888 indicate an
attitude of heart at war with God's Holy Spirit. Perhaps the
Lord impressed him to say what he did. And Ellen White also
reminds us that there is terrible danger in forgetting the past
(LS 196). A prediction made by A. T. Jones at the same 1893
Session seems uncannily on target:

There will be things to come that will be

more surprising than that was to those at
Minneapolis,--more surprising than anything we
have yet seen. And, brethren, we will be
required to receive and preach that truth. But

16
 unless you and I have every fiber of that spirit
rooted out of our hearts, we will treat that
message and the messenger by whom it is sent,
as God has declared we have treated this other
[1888] message (ibid., p. 185).

Insight Needed Rather Than More Works

Facing the full truth is not being "critical." The truth

about the past not only lights up the mysterious present; it
imparts hope for the unknown future. The full truth is always
good news. When we recognize it, our attempts to secure
the promised latter rain and to effect the final harvest will
succeed. The longest way around will prove to be the
shortest way home. The experience of faith presupposes a
full recognition of truth. But until we are willing to face truth,
all our catalog of works must fail because they will be
necessarily devoid of that saving faith.
Under God's guidance, history must bring us to a
confrontation with reality:

(1) God's love demands that His message of "everlasting

good news" go to all the world, proclaimed with power. But
He has declared that He cannot add His blessings to
confusion in our midst.
(2) The false "Christ" of the modern world is powerless to
fasten the remnant church permanently in his grasp. He
cannot bestow a supernatural power on it as a whole, as he
will eventually do with other religious bodies, because of the
presence within her of many thousands who will insist on full
acceptance of truth. They are conscientious Seventh-day
Adventists because of deep convictions based on Scripture.
They will not bow the knee to Baal. And they will not let Baal
succeed in silencing them, because they know themselves to
be members of Christ's body. They will stand firm as did that
lone One in the temple who insisted, "How dare you turn my
Father's house into a market!" (John 2:16, NIV).
(3) Thus the Seventh-day Adventist church will not fail in
the final crisis because there is a residual strength of the
honest in heart who still constitute a great proportion of its
fellowship. That strength renders impotent Baal's final
attempt to subjugate the Israel of God. Even Baal cannot add
his counterfeit blessings to a divided people halting between
two opinions! The decisive factor which ensures victory for

17
truth is the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, a High
Priestly ministry of the world's Saviour which has never
taken place in history previous to 1844.
The next step will be for those who claim to cherish "the
blessed hope" to decide to follow, in the sense of utter
devotion, one Lord or the other. The implications of such a
decision are staggering to contemplate.

CHAPTER TWO

THE SIN OF LEAVING OUR

FIRST LOVE
No one can question the genuineness of the spiritual
experience of those who passed through the 1844
movement. Jesus was "precious" to the believers who looked
for His soon coming, and their hearts were united in deep,
sincere devotion. They recognized the Holy Spirit as
unmistakably present in that movement.
It was this conviction, transcending mere reliance on
theological correctness, that held the confidence of "the little
flock" through the Great Disappointment. The Seventh-day

18
Adventist Church was conceived in an experience of genuine
love and was born in a travail of soul by those few who
risked everything on their recognition of a genuine work of
the Holy Spirit. Thus she was well born, conceived in true
faith and not in legalism.
In her early years, she loved the Lord with a true heart,
and appreciated the presence of the Holy Spirit. Her later
difficulties stem from a tragic leaving of that "first love," and
a consequent failure to recognize the true Holy Spirit.
As early as 1850, this warmth of devotion for Jesus began
to be gradually replaced in the hearts of many by a "stupid
and dormant," "half awake" condition, according to the
young messenger of the Lord. An insidious love of self began
to replace true love for the Saviour, producing
lukewarmness. Pride and complacency in possessing a
system of truth gradually crowded out much of the simple
heart-felt faith in Jesus which led to its acceptance originally.

Thus, soon after the Great Disappointment of 1844 and

the gathering of the "little flock" who held their faith, there
developed a deficiency in their understanding of the import
of the three angels' messages. The deficiency was not
theological but spiritual. The church was like an adolescent
who grows physically but remains a child otherwise.
The "truth" made phenomenal progress and was found
invincible in debate, but "the servants of the Lord have
trusted too much to the strength of argument," said Ellen
White in 1855 (1T 113). This made it difficult for them to
resist the unconscious but subtle temptation to indulge a
spiritual pride--had they not seen and accepted truth, and
sacrificed for it? There seemed to be merit in such sacrifice.
Ministers and evangelists would pitch their tent in a new
community, stir up the other ministers and the popular
churches, win the arguments and debates, gather out their
"best" members, baptize them, raise up a new church, and
move on to more victories almost everywhere. There
enjoyed a euphoria of success.
Opposition led them to cherish the hope of personal or
corporate vindication at the second advent more than love's
anticipation of meeting the Beloved, whether such a meeting
included vindication or not. Their faith became to them more
an act of belief in doctrinal truth and obedience to it,
motivated by a self-oriented concern for reward rather than
a heart-felt appreciation of the grace of Christ. Instead of

19
walking humbly in utter dependence on the Lord, "we" began
to walk proudly with our indisputable doctrinal evidence of
"the truth."
The result was inevitably a form of legalism. The same
experience has been repeated often in the individual lives of
new Adventist converts. Rightly understood, the history of
the Advent movement is the story of our own individual
hearts. Each of us is a microcosm of the whole, as each drop
of water embodies the essence of the rain. In all that we say
about the experience of past years, we remember that we
are no better than our forefathers. As Paul informed the
believers at Rome, "we" do the same things (Romans 2:1).
Only through an insight which recognizes corporate guilt can
the failures of our denominational history be resolved with
positive, encouraging value.

How Our Lukewarmness Took Root

Ellen White early recognized that our problem was a

leaving of our "first love," a loss of intimacy with Christ
through not appreciating His sacrifical love. She herself
apparently never lost that first love, for she was always keen
and quick to recognize manifestations of the true Holy Spirit.
But "we" were not so readily perceptive.
We could sing joyfully with W. H. Hyde, "We have heard
from the bright, the holy land, we have heard and our hearts
are glad," yet there was a constant tension between
recognizing or appreciating the living gift of prophecy, and
our natural-born human resentment against its reproof or
correction. While the power of the Spirit of God attending
Ellen White's ministry often constrained church leadership to
recognize the divine authority of her message, they were
seldom as a whole in true heart-sympathy with its deep
spiritual probing. Such inner resentment is not surprising for
us humans. It was evident all through Israel's ancient history.
This almost continual neglect to heed Ellen White's
earnest appeals to return to a contrite "first love" resulted in
the darkest hours of our history. An increasing but
unconscious self-love of ministers and believers crowded out
real faith, and as a consequence the ability to discern the
working of the Holy Spirit faded away. A development so
horrendous as to be unimaginable to the pioneers (and
nearly so to us today) finally took place. The time would
come in 1888 when that mighty Third Person of the Godhead

20
would actually be "insulted" by the responsible delegates at
an official General Conference Session (cf. Ms. 24, 1892;
Special Testimonies, Series A, No. 7, p. 54; see chapter six).
How could Seventh-day Adventists do such a thing?
Had it not been for Ellen White's continued ministry, it is
doubtful that the movement could have survived other than
as a legalistic cult like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the
Worldwide Church of God. This in itself--usually recognized
as true--is a strikingly plain commentary on the nature of our
deep seated unbelief. We were repeating in a few decades
history which ancient Israel took centuries to traverse. No
Seventh-day Adventist would deny that the church was
"Jerusalem." But she was still the old city, not yet the New.
We failed to see the three angels' messages as "the
everlasting gospel." The doctrines were true. But ministers
and members were blinded to a proper discernment of the
third angel's message in verity, as the blindness of the Jews
prevented them from discerning the true message of the Old
Testament. That verity which the Jews couldn't see was the
place of the cross in their sanctuary services and in the
ministry of their long-expected Messiah. Likewise, the place
of the cross in the third angel's message eluded our late-
nineteenth-century brethren.
As early as 1867, Ellen White spoke of the principle of the
cross (rather than dress reform) as the fundamental motif
inspiring all of our Seventh-day Adventist commitment and
lifestyle:

We have been so united with the world that

we have lost sight of the cross, and do not
suffer for Christ's sake....
In the acceptance of the cross we are
distinguished from the world. (1T 525).

And in 1879 she wrote:

"There is too much bustle and stir about our

religion, while Calvary and the cross are
forgotten" (5T 133).

Growth Vs. Progress

What made our spiritual state even more difficult to

understand was the fact that the church did enjoy a

21
prosperous growth numerically, financially, and in prestige.
This was reflected in a steady increase of institutional,
financial, and organizational strength. The fledgling
movement, starting from less than nothing in the face of the
world's post-1844 scorn, had assumed the form of a
permanently established denomination, well respected. We
had what was widely recognized as the finest health
institution in the world, and one of the most advanced
church printing plants in the "west."
Of course, there was nothing wrong with such material
progress. Most of the advances made were at the insistence
of the agent of the gift of prophecy. It was right and proper
that institutions be established, that the work spread into
new regions and churches everywhere be raised up. But
ministers and laity alike mistook this growth for the true end
and purpose of the Advent movement--a spiritual
preparation for the return of Christ. Confusion resulted, and
self-esteem and complacency began to surface in the weekly
reports of "the advance of the cause" as published in the
Review.
The spirit evident in those reports of "progress" contrasts
with the fervent messages of counsel which Ellen White sent
out at the same time. Many of the brethren expressed
almost incessant optimism about the results of their work.
True, God was leading, and the movement was His. But
inspiration and history report that the most remarkable
aspect of the "work" was not its material progress, but its
lack of spiritual maturity.
The primary purpose of the Advent movement has
always been to develop the Christlike character of a remnant
which vindicates His sacrifice. No other community of saints
in all history have welcomed such a maturity of experience,
symbolized in Scripture as the Bride making "herself ready"
(Revelation 19:7). This last remnant will become the
population of a "New Jerusalem," having overcome the
backslidings of all previous generations. In their character
will be seen the practical results of the cleansing of the
heavenly sanctuary. The plan of salvation is to reach its
culmination, and the doubts and objections of Satan and his
hosts are to be forever answered. The unfallen universe itself
is to be reassured by watching a grand demonstration of the
complete success of the plan of salvation in its final hour.
The gospel is to be demonstrated as "the power of God unto
salvation" (Romans 1:16).

22
 Bound up with the attainment of this primary objective is
the realization of a secondary one: finishing the gospel
program of world mission. The attainment of the secondary
goal is represented in Scripture as virtually assured once the
primary one is realized (Mark 4:26-29; Revelation 14:15; John
13:35).
Had "we" not been blinded by self-love, a true
understanding of the verity of the three angels' messages
would long ago have ensured genuine progress toward the
attainment of that primary goal of Christlikeness of
character. Instead, there has been an imagined progress in
the fulfillment of the secondary goal.
But a serious problem immediately becomes evident.
Other denominations are making the same kind of numerical
and institutional "progress," even far better, which suggests
that such growth means little so far as Heaven's real
blessings on our work are concerned. In the process we have
largely lost sight of the primary goal in this illusory
fulfillment of the secondary one. Official reports reach ill-
advised conclusions based on financial or statistical
advancement. One example follows, the tip of an iceberg of
pride and complacency:

The financial success of this vast

denominational undertaking cannot be stronger
than the faith and zeal which animate God's
chosen people. These combined resources,
under the generalship of the Captain of the
Lord's hosts, will lead to the early triumph of
the great Second Advent Movement in all the
world (Thirty-seventh Financial Report, General
Conference, December 31, 1948, p. 9).

In other words, the spiritual faith and zeal of God's

chosen people are measured by their statistical records! It
may be said that this is an extreme and outdated example.
But it illustrates a mind-set predominant at the time, and
recognizable almost everywhere today. The language of our
hearts claims that we are "rich and increased with goods."
The Author and Finisher of our faith says the opposite,
however.
Such was the spiritual condition of the church in the
decade preceding the 1888 General Conference Session. The
messenger of the Lord had often decried the love of self that

23
became so painfully evident in an all-pervasive
lukewarmness. In desperate efforts to help, she sent burning
messages of entreaty to "us" in the years preceding the
1888 Conference, messages to motivate ministers and
people to recover the deep, heart-felt love for Jesus that had
become nearly lost. She worked hard, but for some reason
the appeals largely fell on deaf ears and were not successful.

God's Simple Remedy for a Serious Denominational

Problem

Could some dynamic message, some simple "word,"

penetrate to Laodicea's heart and accomplish for the church
in a short time what decades of Ellen White's earnest
spiritual ministry had failed to do?
The answer is yes, according to the Lord's plan. He would
send such a "word" through humble instruments in 1888, a
message to be the "beginning" of the latter rain and the loud
cry. The circumstances of its coming would be as lowly as
the "worm" that caused Jonah's vine to wither, and as
humble as the birth in Bethlehem's barn. God sent two
young, obscure agents with a fresh presentation of pure
truth. Ellen White was delighted with their message. She saw
how it provided the missing link of Adventism, the motivation
that transformed the heavy "oughts" of legalism into the
joyful imperatives of apostolic devotion.
But she was righteously indignant with leading brethren
who could not see what was happening and who reacted to it
negatively. She spoke about the two messengers thus:

The priest took [the infant Jesus] in his

arms, but he could see nothing there. God did
not speak to him and say, "This is the
consolation of Israel." But just as soon as
Simeon came in, ... he sees there that little
Infant in His mother's arms, ... God says to him,
"This is the consolation of Israel." ... Here was
one who recognized Him because he was where
he could discern spiritual things....
We have not a doubt but that the Lord was
with Elder Waggoner as he spoke yesterday....
The question is, Has God sent the truth? Has
God raised up these men to proclaim the truth?
I say, yes, God has sent men to bring us the

24
 truth that we should not have had unless God
had sent somebody to bring it to us.... I accept
it, and I no more dare to lift my hand against
these persons [than] against Jesus Christ, who
is to be recognized in His messengers....
We have been in perplexity, and we have
been in doubt, and the churches are ready to
die. But now here we read [quotes Revelation
18:1] (Ms. 2, 1890).

Our Problem Today

A century later, with a more ponderous world-wide

machinery of organization, the difficulty of rectifying the
same lukewarm, "ready to die" condition appears even more
perplexing than it was in 1890. Denominational pride and
lukewarmness in many nations and cultures present a
staggering problem. It can no longer be hoped that the mere
passage of time will provide a remedy. Even God's patience
may soon be at an end. The effects of our lukewarmness will
not, cannot, be tolerated by the Lord Himself forever. It is He
who says that we make Him so sick that He feels like
throwing up (this is what the original language implies in
Revelation 3:16, 17).
The key to understanding our present baffling position
lies in a true appraisal of what happened at the 1888 Session
and its aftermath. We must recognize the reality of its
spiritual fall-out in our denominational character world-wide
today. The latter rain and the loud cry began among us as a
simple, unspectacular message of miraculous power, but
these priceless blessings were shut off because the Holy
Spirit was "insulted."
How this could happen we must consider in our next
chapter.

CHAPTER THREE

25
 THE LOUD CRY TO COME IN A
SURPRISING WAY
For decades preceding 1888, the church and its
leadership looked forward to the "times of refreshing" when
the long-expected latter rain would come. This was a
cherished expectation among us a century ago like the long-
awaited coming of the Messiah was to the Jews in John the
Baptist's time.
However, few seemed to recognize that the latter rain
and the loud cry would be primarily a clearer understanding
of the gospel. The loud cry was expected to be increased
noise. It took us by surprise that it turned out to be increased
light.
We expected a thunderous shaking of the earth with a
message of "Get ready, or else!" and were not prepared for
the still small voice of a revelation of grace as the true
motivation of the third angel's message. The supernatural
power we hoped for must be consequent on our accepting
that greater gospel light. that must lighten the earth with
glory.
There was a terrible danger that the Jewish leaders might
reject their Messiah when He should come "suddenly." And
there was an equal danger that the responsible leaders of
our church might spurn the loud cry when it should begin. As
far back as 1882 Ellen White had warned that they might
someday be unable to recognize the true Holy Spirit:

Many of you cannot discern the work and

presence of God.... There are men among us in
responsible positions who hold that ... such a
faith as that of Paul, Peter, or John, is ... old
fashioned, and insufferable at the present time.
It is pronounced absurd, mystical, and
unworthy of an intelligent mind (5T 74, 79).

A false optimism prevailed ("I know that many think far

too favorably of the present time"), and "in the mighty sifting
soon to take place," these leading workers could be found
unfit for crisis-era leadership:

26
 Those who have trusted to intellect, genius,
or talent, will not then stand at the head of
rank and file. They did not keep pace with the
light. Those who have proved themselves
unfaithful will not then be entrusted with the
flock. In the last solemn work, few great men
will be engaged (5T 80).

Ellen White had looked forward to the time when the Lord
would take leadership into His own hands and raise up
human instruments whom He could trust:

When we have men as devoted as Elijah, and

possessing the faith which he possessed, we
shall see that God will reveal Himself to us as
He did to holy men of old. When we have men,
who, while they acknowledge their deficiencies,
will plead with God in earnest faith, as did
Jacob, we shall see the same results (4T 402).

Specifically, the General Conference president in 1885

was warned that unless he and some others are

aroused to a sense of their duty, they will

not recognize the work of God when the loud
cry of the third angel shall be heard. When light
goes forth to lighten the earth, instead of
coming up to the help of the Lord, they will
want to bind about His work to meet their
narrow ideas. Let me tell you that the Lord will
work in this last work in a manner very much
out of the common order of things, and in a
way that will be contrary to any human
planning.... The workers will be surprised by
the simple means that He will use to bring
about and perfect His work of righteousness
(October 1, 1885; TM 300).

That letter was addressed to both G. I. Butler and S. N.

Haskell. Haskell heeded the warning and was one of the few
who had the discernment to recognize the mysterious thing
that was happening before his eyes three years later. But not
Butler and many others. The Lord would be forced in 1888 to

27
pass by experienced ministers, to use younger or more
obscure agents:

The Lord often works where we least expect

Him; He surprises us by revealing His power
through instruments of His own choice, while
He passes by the men to whom we have looked
as those through whom light should come....
Many will reject the very messages God
sends to His people, if these leading brethren
do not accept them.... Even if all our leading
men should refuse light and truth, that door
will still remain open. The Lord will raise up
men who will give the people the message for
this time (GW old ed., 126).

Again, in 1882 we were told:

It may be under a rough and uninviting

exterior the pure brightness of a genuine
Christian character will be revealed....
Elijah took Elisha from the plough, and
threw upon him the mantle of consecration. The
call to this great and solemn work was
presented to men of learning and position; had
these men been little in their own eyes, and
trusted fully in the Lord, He would have
honored them with bearing His standard in
triumph to the victory....
God will work a work in our day that but few
anticipate. He will raise up and exalt among us
those who are taught rather by the unction of
His Spirit, than by the outward training of
scientific institutions (5T 81, 82).

Those 1882 testimonies exhibit an inspired foresight. It

was as though that little lady wrote the 1888 history in
advance!

The Divine Choice of Messengers

28
 In that very year, 1882, E. J. Waggoner began a course of
training that was evidently under the special guidance of the
Holy Spirit. He was being prepared to be the agent of a
special work. He later described his experience:

I began my real study of the Bible, thirty-

four years ago [1882]. At that time Christ was
set forth before my eyes "evidently crucified"
for me. I was sitting a little apart from the body
of the congregation in the large tent at a camp
meeting in Healdsburg [California], one gloomy
Sabbath afternoon. I have no idea what was the
subject of the discourse. Not a word nor a text
have I ever known. All that has remained with
me was what I saw. Suddenly a light shone
round me, and the tent was for me far more
brilliantly lighted than if the noon-day sun had
been shining, and I saw Christ hanging on the
cross, crucified for me. In that moment I had
my first positive knowledge, which came like an
overwhelming flood, that God loved me, and
that Christ died for me. God and I were the only
beings I was conscious of in the universe. I
knew then, by actual sight, that God was in
Christ reconciling the world unto Himself; I was
the whole world with all its sin. I am sure that
Paul's experience on the way to Damascus was
no more real than mine....
I resolved at once that I would study the
Bible in the light of that revelation, in order
that I might help others to see the same truth. I
have always believed that every part of the
Bible must set forth, with more or less
vividness, that glorious revelation [Christ
crucified] (Letter, May 16, 1916, written just
before his sudden death).

In those same years preceding 1888 the Lord was

preparing his colleague. The message of truth found A. T.
Jones as a private in the U. S. Army. Although not a product
of the schools, he studied night and day, amassing a great
store of historical and Biblical knowledge. J. S. Washburn,
who knew him personally, told us that he was a humble,

29
earnest, and deep- feeling person whose effectual prayers
gave evidence that he knew the Lord (interview, June 4,
1950).
Young Jones' keen intellect was balanced by warm,
simple, child-like faith. In the days when he was used of God,
he was powerful in preaching and in personal ministry. In the
years immediately following 1888, there were significant
demonstrations of the Spirit of God working through him,
including special ministry in Washington at the U. S. Senate
to defeat the Blair Sunday bill. In fact, this near-century of
continuing religious liberty that Americans enjoy is a legacy
of the effective efforts of the unrecognized and unhonored
Jones and Waggoner in opposing religious intolerance of their
day.
The Spirit of God was truly preparing these two young
men to herald to the remnant church and to the world itself
the "beginning" of the long-awaited loud cry:

The Lord in His great mercy sent a most

precious message to His people through Elders
Jones and Waggoner. This message was to
bring more prominently before the world the
uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the
whole world.... God gave His messengers just
what the people needed (1895; TM 91, 95).

For eight years following 1888, Ellen White often spoke of

these two young men as "the Lord's messengers," endorsing
them in words never uttered of any others. There are
between 200 and 300 such enthusiastic statements from
her. In 1890 she said:

Suppose that you blot out the testimony

that has been going during these last two
years, proclaiming the righteousness of Christ,
who can you point to as bringing out special
light for the people? (RH, March 18, 1890).

In 1888 she had said:

God is presenting to the minds of men

divinely appointed precious gems of truth,
appropriate for our time (MS. 8a, 1888; A. V.

30
 Olson, Through Crisis to Victory, p. 279;
hereafter, Olson).
The message given us by A. T. Jones and E. J.
Waggoner is the message of God to the
Laodicean church (Letter S24, 1892).

When she first heard the message of Waggoner, she

immediately perceived its true significance. It was a special
revelation for the church and for the world:

I have had the question asked, what do you

think of this light which these men are
presenting? Why, I have been presenting it to
you for the last forty-five years,--the matchless
charms of Christ. This is what I have been
trying to present before your minds. When
Brother Waggoner brought out these ideas at
Minneapolis, it was the first clear teaching on
this subject from any human lips I had heard,
excepting the conversations between myself
and my husband. I have said to myself, it is
because God has presented it to me in vision
that I see it so clearly, and they cannot see it
because they have not had it presented to
them as I have, and when another presented it,
every fiber of my heart said amen (Ms. 5,
1889).

In our modern terminology, she perceived the message

to be a transmission that would apply power from the engine
to the drive wheels. For "forty-five years" she had been
racing the engine, but the power to finish the gospel
commission wasn't getting through. Now she perceived how
the new message supplementing the old would actually
prepare the people of that generation for the coming of the
Lord. No wonder she was happy!

How the Loud Cry Was Not Recognized

As early as April 1, 1890, Ellen White, growing in

understanding, applied the language of Revelation 18 to the
1888 message:

31
 Several have written to me inquiring if the
[1888] message of justification by faith is the
third angel's message, and I have answered, "It
is the third angel's message in verity." The
prophet declares, "And after these things I saw
another angel come down from heaven, having
great power; and the earth was lightened with
his glory" [Rev. 18:1] (RH, April 1, 1890).

By 1892, she was ready to state unequivocally that the

message was indeed the beginning of the long-awaited loud
cry:

The loud cry of the third angel has already

begun in the revelation of the righteousness of
Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer. This is the
beginning of the light of the angel whose glory
shall fill the whole earth (RH November 22,
1892).

Note that the "beginning" of this angel's work was the

message, not its assumed acceptance by the leadership or
the people. We shall see later how this reality packs a
powerful significance in a time of crisis.
Elder Butler, the most responsible officer of the church,
was foremost in opposing that precious light of the loud cry.
Few others were spiritually able to transcend his negative
influence. In his blind opposition to the loud cry we may see
the tragic fulfillment of the inspired warning sent him on
October 1, 1885 (cf. TM 300):

There are some who have a desire to have a

decision made at once as to what is the correct
view in the point under discussion. As this
would please Elder Butler, it is advised that this
question should be settled at once. But are
minds prepared for such a decision? I could not
sanction this course.... They are not prepared
to make safe decisions....
I see no reason for the wrought-up state of
feeling that has been created at this meeting
[Minneapolis, 1888].... The messages coming
from your president at Battle Creek are
calculated to stir you up to take a decided

32
 position; but I warn you against doing this....
Excited feelings will lead to rash moves (Ms. 15,
1888; Olson, p. 295).
I can never forget the experience which we
had in Minneapolis, or the things which were
then revealed to me in regard to the spirit that
controlled men, the words spoken, the actions
done in obedience to the powers of evil... They
were moved at the meeting by another spirit,
and they knew not that God had sent these
young men to bear a special message to them
which they treated with ridicule and contempt,
not realizing that the heavenly intelligences
were looking upon them.
I know that at that time the Spirit of God
was insulted (MS. 24, 1892).

Thus did the leadership of this church, fondly expecting

to be vindicated before the world in the long-expected loud
cry, actually do despite to the Spirit of grace and despise the
riches of His goodness.
Let us make clear that this sin of insulting the Holy Spirit
did not bind the corporate body of the church in the
unpardonable sin. The ancient Jews' sin against the Holy
Spirit consisted of attributing His work to Satan (Mark 3:22-
30). We do not read that our brethren in general in the 1888
era went that far, although some individuals may have done
so. (Insulting Him was bad enough!). Ellen White continued
to minister to this church until her death in 1915, thus
indicating her belief that forgiveness is possible, and that the
solution to our problem is not denominational disintegration
or abandonment, but denominational repentance and
reconciliation with the Holy Spirit.

So-Called "Faults" of Messengers No Excuse to Reject

Their Message

Rejection of light by God's appointed trustees is always

inexcusable. It is not our place in this late day to find fault;
we can only note facts. The brethren who opposed the light
sincerely thought they were doing right because the agents
whom the Lord employed seemed faulty. The Lord worked in
a manner out of the ordinary and surprised the brethren.

33
Ellen White described what was happening, using the future
tense to depict events in the present:

In the manifestation of the power that

lightens the earth with its glory, they will see
only something which in their blindness they
think dangerous, something which will arouse
their fears and they will brace themselves
against it. Because the Lord does not work
according to their expectations and ideas, they
will oppose the work (RH Extra, December 23,
1890).

Earlier, she had pinpointed the difficulty the brethren

were having in their own souls. We can sympathize with
them, for the trial was a very severe one:

Now I want you to be careful, every one of

you, what position you take, whether you
enshroud yourselves in the clouds of unbelief
because you see imperfections; you see a word
or a little item, perhaps, that may take place,
and judge them [Jones and Waggoner] from
that.... You are to see whether God is working
with them, and then you are to acknowledge
the Spirit of God that is revealed in them. And
if you choose to resist it you will be acting just
as the Jews acted (Sermon, March 9, 1890; MS.
2, 1890).

Older experienced brethren were piqued at the prospect

of Ellen White so decidedly supporting two comparatively
young and obscure men against practically the entire
assembly of workers. Elder A. G. Daniells later said that she
had to stand "almost alone" against nearly the entire
General Conference (The Abiding Gift of Prophecy, p. 369).
Robert W. Olson reported to the 1986 Annual Council in Rio
de Janeiro that she was "publicly defied" at the 1888 session
(Adventist Review, October 30, 1986). If she was right, it
seemed that God had passed the leading brethren by, and
this was disconcerting:

Those whom God has sent with a message

are only men, but what is the character of the

34
 message which they bear? Will you dare to turn
from, or make light of, the warnings, because
God did not consult you as to what would be
preferred? (RH December 27, 1890).
God ... gave you opportunity to come up
armed and equipped to the help of the Lord....
But did you make ready? ... You sat still, and
did nothing. You left the word of the Lord to fall
unheeded to the ground; and now the Lord has
taken men who were boys when you were
standing at the forefront of the battle, and has
given to them the message and the work which
you did not take upon you.... Will you criticize?
Will you say, "They are getting out of their
place?" Yet you did not fill the place they are
now called to fill (TM 413).

Human nature being what it is, opposers would seek for

some pegs on which to hang their doubts. The fact that the
Lord's messengers were "only" men seemed to supply the
need:

Those whom God has sent with a message

are only men.... Some have turned from the
message of the righteousness of Christ to
criticize the men (RH December 27, 1890).

Speaking to "those in responsible positions," Ellen White

asked: "How long will you hate and despise the messengers
of God's righteousness?" (TM 96).
One of our esteemed denominational authors attempts to
show that the 1888 opposition was justifiable. Note how he
emphasizes the "faults" of Jones and Waggoner and blames
them for causing the rejection of their message. Thus he in
fact perpetuates the 1888 prejudice and sets our clock back
a hundred years:

Not only was he [Jones] naturally abrupt,

but he cultivated singularity of speech and
manner, ... was at times obstreperous, and he
gave just cause for resentment ....
[Jones and Waggoner] shouting, "Christ is
all" ... gave evidence that they were not wholly
sanctified.... [Incorrectly cites Mrs. White as

35
 supporting the idea that Jones and Waggoner
contributed a contentious spirit to the "terrible
experience at the Minneapolis Conference."]
They bore almost exclusively upon faith as
the factor in salvation, ... [were] not disposed
to consider the other side calmly.... Were not
wholly without fault in conceit and
arrogance....
Failed to show the humility and love which
righteousness by faith imparts.... Extreme
teaching of Jones and Waggoner is observable
still in the mystical pronouncements of those
who make faith all and works nothing.
... [They were] imperfect channels.... As we
look back on the controversy we perceive that
it was the rancors aroused by [Jones' and
Waggoner's] personalities, much more than the
differences in beliefs, which caused the
difficulty (A. W. Spalding, Captains of the Host,
pp. 591-602).

This is a negative analysis of the men whom inspiration

designated as the "Lord's messengers." While they were
indeed "only men," it is difficult to understand why the Lord
should choose for such a special work men who were notably
"imperfect channels", unsanctified (in comparison with
others), justly arousing "resentment" and "rancors," crude
and "mystical." The Lord abhors a self-righteous, contentious
spirit. But Jones and Waggoner did not have such a spirit in
the 1888 era.
While it is true that Ellen White rebuked A. T. Jones for
being momentarily "too sharp" on Uriah Smith in the pre-
session controversy on the ten horns, she nevertheless
defended the two brethren as "Christians" and "gentlemen."
And she more than hinted that a goodly number of the
opposing brethren did not evidence such "heavenly
credentials."
We have modern writers who paint Jones and Waggoner
in the same fault-finding terms as did their 1888 opponents.
But the two "messengers" enjoyed Ellen White's unqualified
endorsement. It is true that after the 1888 era finally ended,
they faltered and lost their way. This is probably the reason
why modern writers want to blame them for the 1888
tragedy. But they misjudge the facts.

36
 Ellen White foretold that this tragic development would
take place if opposition to their message continued.
Nevertheless, she added, their later failure would in no way
invalidate their message and ministry from 1888-1896, the
period of her endorsements (see chapter 10). For us to
criticize these "messengers" during that era of the
"beginning" loud cry is to endorse the objections of their
contemporary opponents. Logically, it justifies spurning the
special blessing which came from heaven. It's amazing that
after a hundred years we still feel compelled to blame the
Lord's special messengers for the consequences of our own
unbelief.
Ellen White notably regarded Jones and Waggoner as
showing a genuine Christian spirit during and after the
Minneapolis conference (contemporary eyewitness accounts
substantiate her judgment):

Doctor Waggoner has spoken to us in a

straight-forward manner.... Of one thing I am
certain, as Christians you have no right to
entertain feelings of enmity, unkindness and
prejudice toward Dr. Waggoner, who has
presented his view in a plain, straight-forward
manner, as a Christian should.... I believe him
to be perfectly honest in his views, and I would
respect his feelings and trust him as a Christian
brother, so long as there is no evidence that he
is unworthy. The fact that he honestly holds
some views of Scripture differing from yours
and mine, is no reason we should treat him as
an offender, as a dangerous man, and make
him the subject of unjust criticism (Ms. 15,
1888; Olson, p. 294).

A young minister who came to the Minneapolis meeting

with a prejudiced mind against him has left on record his
impressions of the spirit which Waggoner showed:

Being decidedly prejudiced in favor of Elder

Butler, and against E. J. Waggoner, I went to
that meeting with a prejudiced mind....
With pencil and notebook in hand I listened
for heresy and was ready to see flaws and find
fault with whatever was presented. As Elder

37
 Waggoner started in, it seemed very different
from what I was looking for. By the close of his
second lesson I was ready to concede that he
was going to be fair and his manner did not
show any spirit of controversy, nor did he
mention any opposition that he was
anticipating. Very soon his manner, and the
pure gospel that he was setting forth materially
changed my mind and attitude, and I was an
earnest listener for Truth ... At the close of
Elder Waggoner's fourth or fifth lesson I was a
subdued, repenting sinner....
.... After Elder Waggoner had finished his
eleven studies, the influence of which had in
quite a measure taken out of a good many the
debating spirit.... (C. McReynolds, "Experiences
While at the General Conference in
Minneapolis, Minn., in 1888." E. G. White
Estate, D File, 189).

Ellen White even defended the bold teaching and

apparently iconoclastic spirit of the young messengers:

Men will go forth in the spirit and power of

Elijah to prepare the way for the second advent
of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is their work to make
crooked things straight. Some things must be
torn down; some things must be built up (Ms.
15, 1888; Olson, p. 300).
Let no soul complain of the servants of God
who have come to them with a heaven-sent
message. Do not any longer pick flaws in them,
saying, "They are too positive; they talk too
strongly." They may talk strongly; but is it not
needed? God will make the ears of the hearers
tingle if they will not heed His voice or His
message....
Ministers, do not dishonor your God and
grieve His Holy Spirit, by casting reflections on
the ways and manners of the men He would
choose. God knows the character. He sees the
temperament of the men He has chosen. He
knows that none but earnest, firm, determined,
strong-feeling men will view this work in its

38
 vital importance, and will put such firmness
and decision into their testimonies that they
will make a break against the barriers of Satan
(TM 410, 412, 413).

A modern historian describes the unpolished and

supposedly unlettered A. T. Jones as "a towering, angular
man, with a loping gait and uncouth posturings and
gestures" (Spalding, op. cit., p. 591). Ellen White had a very
different view of him:

There are Christian workers who have not

received a collegiate education because it was
impossible for them to secure this advantage;
but God has given evidence that He has chosen
them.... He has made them effectual co-
workers with Himself. They have a teachable
spirit; they feel their dependence upon God,
and the Holy Spirit is with them to help their
infirmities.... There is heard in his voice the
echo of the voice of Christ.
It is evident that he walks with God, that he
has been with Jesus and learned of Him. He has
brought the truth into the inner sanctuary of
the soul; it is to him a living reality, and he
presents the truth in the demonstration of the
Spirit and of power. The people hear the joyful
sound. God speaks to their hearts through the
man consecrated to His service.... He becomes
really eloquent. He is earnest and sincere, and
is beloved by those for whom he labors.... His
defects will be forgiven and forgotten. His
hearers will not become weary or disgusted,
but will thank God for the message of grace
sent them through His servant.
They [opponents] can hold the objectionable
atom under the magnifying glasses of their
imagination until the atom looks like a world,
and shuts out from their view the precious light
of heaven.... Why take so much account of that
which may appear to you as objectionable in
the messenger, and sweep away all the
evidences that God has given to balance the
mind in regard to truth? ("Christian Education,"

39
 1893, quoted in FE 242, 243; RH April 18,
1893).

Ellen White herself, with all her respected experience and

age, and conscious of her exalted position as a special
messenger of the Lord, felt it an honor to support the work of
Jones and Waggoner:

I have traveled from place to place,

attending meetings where the message of the
righteousness of Christ was preached. I
considered it a privilege to stand by the side of
my brethren, and give my testimony with the
message for the time (RH, March 18, 1890).

The True Reason Why the Message Was Rejected

As we today re-read the inspired messages sent for years
after 1888, urging the acceptance of the message, we
cannot understand--reading on the surface--why there could
be any failure to do so. We have therefore made the mistake
of assuming that our brethren did indeed come to accept it
wholeheartedly.
We must not overlook an important fact. How could
anyone accept the message God sent and "hate and
despise" the messengers whom He used? They were "only
men," were very positive and bold, and unfortunately for the
prestige and peace of the brethren, they were right. This
made the Lord's chosen agencies of deliverance to become
objects of stumbling and a stone of offence because of the
prevailing unbelief. That which the Lord intended as a savor
of life unto life became a savor of death unto death. That
which He sent for the finishing of His work became the
beginning of a long delay.
To accept the message was too much humiliation. The
implications were that God was somehow displeased with
the spiritual condition of those who were the "proper
channels" for special light from heaven. Note Ellen White's
analysis of the heart of the problem:

If the rays of light which shone at

Minneapolis were permitted to exert their
convincing power upon those who took their
stand against light, if all had yielded their
ways, and submitted their wills to the Spirit of

40
 God at that time, they would have received the
richest blessings, disappointed the enemy, and
stood as faithful men, true to their convictions.
They would have had a rich experience; but self
said, "No." Self was not willing to be bruised;
self struggled for the mastery, and every one of
those souls will be tested again on the points
where they failed then.... Self and passion
developed hateful characteristics (Letter 19,
1892).
Some have been cultivating hatred against
the men whom God has commissioned to bear a
special message to the world. They began this
satanic work at Minneapolis. Afterward, when
they saw and felt the demonstration of the Holy
Spirit testifying that the message was of God,
they hated it the more, because it was a
testimony against them (TM 79, 80; 1895).
The Holy Spirit will, from time to time,
reveal the truth through its own agencies; and
no man, not even a priest or a ruler, has a right
to say, You shall not give publicity to your
opinions, because I do not believe them. That
wonderful "I" may attempt to put down the
Holy Spirit's teaching (TM 70; 1896).
They [the opposers] heard not, neither
would they understand. Why?--Lest they should
be converted and have to acknowledge that all
their ideas were not correct. This they were too
proud to do, and therefore persisted in
rejecting God's counsel and the light and
evidence which had been given.... This is the
ground which some of our leading brethren are
travelling over now (Ms. 25, 1890).

As in all past ages, a prophet's analysis of the truth was

unflattering and unwelcome. But for us today, there is good
news in facing reality.

Who Were the "Some"?

Note the expression, "some of our leading brethren"

rejected "God's counsel." Is it possible to know the truth of
what proportion that "some" implies?

41
 Six years later Ellen White identified those who rejected
the message with a generic designation. The "some" were
the bulk of our leading, most influential brethren: "The light
that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted,
and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great
degree kept away from the world" (Letter 96, 1896; 1 SM
235; emphasis added). Without exception she consistently
identifies those "of our own brethren" who rejected as
"many" and those who accepted as "few" (see chapter 4).
The parable of 1888 throws light on our position today:

The Jews refused to receive Christ because

He did not come in accordance with their
expectations....
This is the danger to which the church is
now exposed--that the inventions of 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 (TM 64, 65; 1896).

Obviously, the 1888 message was far more than a mere

re-emphasis of a neglected doctrine. The delegates to the
Conference came unexpectedly face-to-face with Christ
when they came face-to-face with His message. "What is
justification by faith? It is the work of God in laying the glory
of man in the dust" (COR 104). The confrontation involved
the humbling of their souls into that dust, and for this they
were not prepared. They resented contrition, and tears
trickling down their faces.
In retrospect, we can see how the love of Christ that
melts hearts and professional clergy pride was unwelcome.
They were steeped in success, and lowliness of heart
became a stumblingblock.
Could this still be our problem today?

CHAPTER FOUR

42
 ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION:
IN SEARCH OF A SHARPER
FOCUS
Whether the 1888 message was accepted or rejected is
more than a trivial academic controversy. As it is impossible
to separate the gospel from the history of the cross, so it is
impossible to appreciate the 1888 message apart from
seeing the truth of its history. We cannot correctly
understand our present corporate relationship to Christ
unless we understand that reality. Confusion is dangerous,
for it is well known that a people who do not know history
are fated to repeat it, and may already be doing so.

Ellen White's account of the history is clear and

impossible to misunderstand. Nevertheless, one author
represents the historical evidence as being ambiguous:

The question has often been discussed:

What happened following the Minneapolis
General Conference of 1888? Did the church
accept or reject the new emphasis on the
gospel of salvation? If a person studies the
records of those years looking for evidence of
acceptance, he can find such evidence. On the
other hand, one who looks for evidence of
rejection can also find what he seeks (N. F.
Pease, The Faith That Saves, p. 43).

However, the important issue is not whether the church

accepted the message. Ellen White says that "Satan
succeeded in shutting [it] away from our people, in a great
measure" (cf. 1 SM 234, 235; 1896). The church never had a
fair chance to consider it undistorted and unopposed. The
issue is whether the leadership accepted it. Ellen White
speaks frankly about this. Her testimony is present truth,
relevant to our spiritual state today.
The world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church has been
taught through authoritative publications that the 1888
message was accepted in that generation by the

43
predominant leadership, and has been the secure doctrinal
possession of the church ever since. Here is a "rich and
increased with goods" assumption. Briefly stated, the official
view follows:

The rank and file of Seventh-day Adventist

workers and laity accepted the [1888]
presentations at Minneapolis and were blessed.
Certain leading men there resisted the teaching
(A Further Appraisal of the Manuscript "1888
Re-examined," General Conference, September
1958, p. 11).

An authoritative volume which at its initial publication

bore the endorsement of two General Conference presidents
"was read critically by some sixty of our ablest scholars....
Doubtless no volume in our history has ever had such
magnificent prepublication support" (p. 8). This book informs
us that opposition to the message was insignificant because
eventually less than ten delegates to the 1888 session
actually rejected the message or were unfavorable to it. This
astounding view deserves close attention, for if it is true, we
must believe it:

The charge ... that the teaching of

Righteousness by Faith was rejected in 1888 by
the denomination, or at least by its leadership,
is ... refuted by the personal participants at the
Conference, and is an unwarranted and
unsupported assumption. It simply is not true
historically.... "Some" leading brethren stood in
the way of light and blessing. But the ...
leaders as a group, never rejected the Bible
doctrine of Righteousness by Faith (L. E.
Froom, Movement of Destiny, p. 266; 1971).
Of the approximately ninety delegates
registered at the Minneapolis General
Conference of 1888, there were less than a
score--and consequently not even a fourth of
the total number of participants--who actually
fought the message....
Most of those who first took issue made
confessions ... and thenceforth ceased their

44
 opposition.... Only a small hard core of "die-
hards" continued to reject it....
The "some" who rejected turns out to be
less than twenty out of more than ninety--less
than one quarter. And, according to Olson most
of those twenty made confessions, hence
ceased being "rejectors" and thus becoming
accepters (ibid., pp. 367-369; emphasis
original).

This book further informs us that the message was

initially accepted in 1888 by the leadership of the church:

The denomination as a whole, and its

leadership in particular, did not reject the
message and provisions of Righteousness by
Faith in and following 1888.... The new
president ... wholeheartedly accepted and
maintained the teaching of righteousness by
faith.... The responsible leaders of the
movement from 1888 to 1897, definitely did not
reject [it] (ibid., pp. 370, 371; emphasis
original).

Both a General Conference vice-president and president

in separate statements agree:

During my fifty-five years in the Seventh-

day Adventist ministry ... I have never heard a
worker or a lay member .... express opposition
to the message of righteousness by faith.
Neither have I known of any such opposition
having been expressed by Seventh-day
Adventist publications (A. V. Olson, Through
Crisis to Victory, p. 232; 1966).
It is correct to say that the [1888] message
has been declared, both from the pulpit and
through the press, and by the lives of
thousands upon thousands of God's dedicated
people.... Adventist pastors and evangelists
have announced this vital truth from church
pulpits and public platforms, with hearts
aflame with love for Christ (ibid., pp. 233, 237).

45
 It has ... been suggested by a few--entirely
erroneously--that the Seventh-day Adventist
Church has gone astray in failing to grasp this
great fundamental Christian teaching [the 1888
message] (R. R. Figuhr, General Conference
President, in Foreword to By Faith Alone, p. vii,
by N. F. Pease; 1962).

The long-time Secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate

assures us that the message was generally accepted:

The concept that the General Conference,

and thus the denomination, rejected the
message of righteousness by faith in 1888 is
without foundation.... Contemporary records
yield no suggestion of denominational
rejection. There is no E. G. White statement
anywhere that says this was so.... The historical
record of the reception in the field following
the session supports the concept that favorable
attitudes were quite general.... It would seem
that disproportionate emphasis has come to be
given to the experience of the Minneapolis
General Conference session (A. L. White, The
Lonely Years, p. 396; 1984).

Following the lead of other scholars, another author

remarks:

Does this mean that the church as a whole,

or even its leadership, rejected the 1888
message? Not at all. Some rejected it--a vocal
minority.... The new leadership wholeheartedly
endorsed the new emphasis (Marjorie Lewis
Lloyd, Too Slow Getting Off, pp. 19, 20).

If these official views are substantiated by history and by

testimony from Ellen White, we are under moral obligation to
believe them. But we have a problem, because she
repeatedly likens the leadership reaction to the 1888

46
 message to that of the Jews against Christ.2 That was not
acceptance!
If these statements are true, it is hard to understand why
Ellen White should be so concerned for a decade and even
longer about what she said was continued rejection of the
message on the part of "our brethren" at headquarters when
so few opposed it. Would the Lord withhold from the entire
world church the blessings of the latter rain and the loud cry
if less than ten ministers persisted in opposing it, and they
not even leaders?
If so, can we ever hope for a better percentage of
acceptance of any message Heaven might send us? If the
Lord withholds from all of us the blessings of His Holy Spirit
because of such miniscule opposition, what hope do we have
that there ever can be a finishing of the gospel commission?

The Jews Deny That They Rejected the Messiah

The Jews' denial takes two forms: (a) a case of mistaken

identity: Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah, they say,
therefore rejecting "him" was no serious mistake; (b) a case
of mistaken blame: the Romans, not they, crucified "him" (cf.
Max I. Dimont, Jews, God, and History, pp. 138-142).
It is evident in many of the above statements that we
also have a problem: (a) There is mistaken identity. Almost
all of these authors evade the fact that the 1888 message
was the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry.
Practically without exception they identify the 1888 message
as a mere "re-emphasis" of the 16th century, Protestant
doctrine of justification by faith as the popular churches
teach it.3 (b) There is a problem of misplaced blame: it is
uniformly insisted that only a few unimportant individuals
2
Cf. MS. 9, 1888, Through Crisis to Victory, p. 292; MS. 15, 1888; ibid., pp. 297, 300; MS. 13, 1889; RH
March 4, 11; August 26, 1890; April 11, 18, 1893; TM 64, 75-80; Special Testimonies, Series A, No. 6, p.
20; Special Testimonies to R&H Office, pp. 16, 17; FE 472.

3
Pease makes one brief reference to Ellen White's November 22, 1892 statement identifying the
message as the "beginning" of the loud cry (By Faith Alone, p. 156). But in general he identifies the
message as a mere re-emphasis of the popular Protestant "doctrine." Froom often positively and firmly
recognizes the message as the "beginning" of the latter rain and the loud cry, but illogically contradicts
himself by maintaining just as firmly that it was the same message as the popular Evangelical
revivalists of the time were preaching (Movement of Destiny, pp. 262, 318-325, 345, 561-570, 662-
667). The other writers totally ignore Ellen White's identification of the message.

47
resisted and rejected the message, most of the others
repenting, so that in the end the message was quite well
accepted by the responsible leadership of the church.
Dr. Froom tells us that A. W. Spalding's and L. H.
Christian's accounts of the 1888 history are "in complete
harmony" with the facts (op. cit., p. 268). And A. V. Olson
likewise suggests that Spalding presents "the whole truth" of
the matter (op. cit., p. 233). Their accounts differ markedly
from Ellen White's, but since they enjoy such full modern
endorsement, they deserve our close attention:

The greatest event of the eighties in the

experience of Seventh-day Adventists was the
recovery, or the restatement and new
consciousness, of their faith in the basic
doctrine of Christianity... The last decade of the
century saw the church developing, through
this gospel, into a company prepared to fulfill
the mission of God.... The church was aroused
by the revival message of justification by faith
(A. W. Spalding, Captains of the Host, pp. 583,
602; 1949).
1888 is a notable landmark in Seventh-day
Adventist history. It was really like crossing a
continental divide into a new country. Some
smiters of the brethren calling themselves
reformers have tried to make out that the
session was a defeat; whereas, the truth is that
it stands out as a glorious victory.... It
introduced a new period in our work--a time of
revival and soulsaving.... The Lord gave His
people a marvelous victory. It was the
beginning of a great spiritual awakening among
Adventists.... the dawn of a glorious day for the
Adventist church.... The after effect of the
great Minneapolis revival ... beginning in
1888 ... was rich in both holiness and mission
fruitage (L. H. Christian, The Fruitage of
Spiritual Gifts, pp. 219, 223, 224, 237, 244,
245).

Note that one of our authors unwittingly fulfills Christ's

prophecy concerning the leadership of the Laodicean church.
He uses the very word that Christ puts into the lips of "the

48
angel of the church" (Revelation 3:14, 17) who claims to be
"rich and enriched" through an assumed acceptance of the
message.

Was the Message Accepted or Rejected?

Surely our author would not want to label a former

illustrious General Conference president as a "smiter of the
brethren." But logically A. G. Daniells must fit into that
category, for he clearly says that the 1888 history marked a
"defeat" in the onward progress of the cause of God. His
statements completely contradict our endorsed authors:

This message of righteousness in Christ ...

met with opposition on the part of earnest,
well-meaning men in the cause of God! The
[1888] message has never been received, nor
proclaimed, nor given free course as it should
have been in order to convey to the church the
measureless blessings that were wrapped
within it.... The division and conflict which
arose among the leaders because of the
opposition to the message of righteousness in
Christ, produced a very unfavorable reaction.
The rank and file of the people were confused,
and did not know what to do...
Back of the opposition is revealed the
shrewd plotting of that master mind of evil....
How terrible must be the results of any victory
of his in defeating it! (A. G. Daniells, Christ Our
Righteousness, pp. 47, 50, 53, 54; 1926).

Throughout his book, Daniells insists that there was no

denomination-wide revival and acceptance of this message
and experience. In 1926 he considered the revival to be yet
future:

Through the intervening years [since 1888]

there has been steadily developing the desire
and hope--yes, the belief--that someday the
message of righteousness by faith would shine
forth in all its inherent glory, worth, and power,
and receive full recognition (ibid., p. 43).

49
 The "mighty revival" that others say took place, Daniells
placed in the category of a "what might have been:"

What a mighty revival of true godliness,

...what a manifestation of divine power for the
finishing of the work, ... might have come to
the people of God if all our ministers had gone
forth from that Conference as did this loyal,
obedient servant of the Lord [Ellen White]
(ibid., p. 47).

Ellen White must also logically come under Christian's

stricture of being a "smiter of the brethren," for she summed
up the end of the 1888 era as a time of victory for our enemy
when she said that "Satan succeeded .... in a great measure"
in keeping the message away from both the church and the
world (1 SM 234, 235; 1896).
A. T. Jones, when he was walking humbly with the Lord,
must also come under the same stricture, and not only he,
but the congregation assembled at the General Conference
Session of 1893. Yet they were close to the real situation.
Not one person dared to challenge the speaker, for all knew
he was telling the truth:

When did that message of the righteousness

of Christ begin with us as a people? [One or two
in the audience: "Three or four years ago."]
Which was it, three? or four? [Congregation:
"Four."] Yes, four. Where was it?
[Congregation: "Minneapolis."] What then did
the [leading] brethren reject at Minneapolis?
[Some in the congregation: "The loud cry."] ...
What did the brethren in that fearful position in
which they stood, reject at Minneapolis? They
rejected the latter rain--the loud cry--of the
third angel's message (GCB, 1893, p. 183).

In 1908 Jones tells of official opposition continuing during

those "twenty-one years against God's message of
righteousness by faith":

Today in positions of Presidents of Union

Conferences, and of officials of the General
Conference, there are men who at the

50
 beginning ... opposed then and all the way
since by every question ... that they could
devise, the truth of righteousness by faith as
that truth is in the plain word of the Scriptures.
This I know because more than once have I
been held up by the hour in that very way by
these very men (A. T. Jones letter to R. S.
Owen, February 20, 1908.)4

If "the rank and file of Seventh-day Adventist workers and

laity accepted the presentations at Minneapolis," would it not
be reasonable to expect that years later Jones could
remember at least one of them, besides Ellen White?
Thirteen years after 1908 he recalls:

I can't now name anyone who accepted the

truth at that 1888 meeting openly [besides
Ellen White, obviously]. But later many said
they were greatly helped by it. One Battle
Creek man said at that meeting after one of Dr.
Waggoner's meetings: "Now we could say amen
to all of that if that is all there were to it. But
away down yonder there is still something to
come. And this is to lead us to that.... And if we
say amen to this we will have to say amen to
that, and then we are caught."... There was no
such thing, and so they robbed themselves of
what their own hearts told them was the truth;
and by fighting what they only imagined, they
fastened themselves in opposition to what they
knew that they should have said amen to
(Letter to C. E. Holmes, May 12, 1921).

In the same letter, Jones added that "the opposers

were ... all who could be swung by General Conference
influence."
Jones once said that "some" accepted the message at the
Minneapolis Conference, "some" rejected, and "some" stood
in between (GCB 1893, p. 185). Those who favor the
acceptance theory have interpreted this to mean that the
group was divided roughly into thirds; and since it is
4
Objective evidence in support of his remarks can be seen in official publications regarding the "two
covenants" controversy of 1906-1908. The prevailing view in the Sabbath School Quarterly on the two
covenants and the Pacific Press and the Review and Herald defenses of it, was that of the opposition to
the 1888 message. For example, see Signs of the Times, November 13, 1907; January 29, 1908.

51
assumed that "many" who initially rejected or were neutral
later repented, the great majority are assumed to have
ended up accepting the message. Jones' 1921 statement
continues with a different view:

Others would favor it, but when the spirit of

persecution was strong, instead of standing
nobly in the fear of God, and declaring in the
face of the attack, "It is the truth of God, and I
believe it in my soul," they would begin to yield
and in an apologetic way offer excuses for
those who were preaching it.

Such a wishy-washy attitude is anything but true

acceptance of the message of Christ's righteousness! Those
who follow Christ are prepared to die for His truth.
Jones has left on record his opinion of the extent of the
"world-wide denominational revivals" which followed the
1888 Conference. The following from this 1921 letter is
quoted in an officially approved book which supports the
acceptance view:

When camp-meeting time came [after 1888]

we all three [Ellen White, Waggoner, and
himself] visited the camp-meetings with the
message of righteousness by faith ....
sometimes all three of us at the same meeting.
This turned the tide with the people, and
apparently with most of the leading men
(Pease, By Faith Alone, p. 149).

The quotation in the book stops here. But Jones' next

sentence refutes the acceptance thesis:

But this latter was only apparent, it was

never real, for all the time in the General
Conference Committee and amongst others
there was a secret antagonism always carried
on, and which ... finally gained the day in the
denomination, and gave to the Minneapolis
spirit and contention and men the supremacy.

This letter was written when Jones was not far from his
death. It reveals a chastened spirit of loyalty to all Seventh-

52
day Adventist doctrinal beliefs, and to the full inspiration of
Ellen White's prophetic ministry.
Within five years, A. G. Daniells published his view that
essentially agrees with that of Jones: "The message has
never been received, nor proclaimed, nor given free course
as it should have been in order to convey to the church the
measureless blessings that were wrapped within it" (Christ
Our Righteousness, p. 47; 1926).
But we do not need to depend on Jones' or Daniells'
appraisal of what happened. We have other testimony.

Significant Inspired Evidence

Candidly investigated, Ellen White's writings are never

ambiguous on this issue of the reception of the 1888
message. She can not support both sides of two
contradictory views. Jones' remark about "the tide" being
turned only "apparently" with the leading brethren is
substantiated by Ellen White:

For nearly two years [1890], we have been

urging the people to come up and accept the
light and the truth concerning the
righteousness of Christ, and they do not know
whether to come and take hold of this precious
truth or not (RH, March 11, 1890).

Why was this? Next week she told the reason why the lay
members and younger ministers were hesitant:

Our young men look to our older brethren,

and as they see that they do not accept the
message, but treat it as though it were of no
consequence, it influences those who are
ignorant of the Scriptures to reject the light.
These men who refuse to receive truth,
interpose themselves between the people and
the light (March 18, 1890; emphasis added).

She also agreed with Jones' statement that there was not
one of the leading brethren at headquarters willing to take a
firm stand for the message of Christ's righteousness:

53
 Again and again did I bear my testimony to
those assembled [Minneapolis, 1888] in a clear
and forcible manner, but that testimony was
not received. When I came to Battle Creek, I
repeated the same testimony in the presence of
Elder Butler, but there was not one who had the
courage to stand on my side and help Elder
Butler to see that he, as well as others, had
taken wrong positions.... The prejudice of Elder
Butler was greater after hearing the various
reports from our ministering brethren at that
meeting in Minneapolis (January 25, 1889;
Letter U3, 1889; emphasis added).

The brethren who she said "interpose themselves" were

leaders. Thank God, not all "refused to receive truth," but the
term "our own brethren" is generic in sense. It must mean
the bulk of the responsible leadership, with few if any
influential exceptions. She uses the term repeatedly. And
what is significant, she uses it in retrospect:

At Minneapolis ... Satan succeeded in

shutting away from our people, in a great
measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit....
The enemy prevented them from obtaining that
efficiency which might have been theirs in
carrying the truth to the world.... The light that
is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was
resisted, and by the action of our own brethren
has been in a great degree kept away from the
world (1 SM 234, 235).

No way could a few uninfluential "die-hard" opposers

have such a determinative effect if many of the leading
brethren wholeheartedly received the message. To believe
that the tail could wag the dog thus would stretch credulity.
She wrote the following to a relative, after most of the
influential "confessions" had come in:

Who of those that acted a part in the

meeting at Minneapolis have come to the light
and received the rich treasures of truth which
the Lord sent them from heaven? Who have
kept step with the Leader, Jesus Christ? Who

54
 have made full confession of their mistaken
zeal, their blindness, their jealousies and evil
surmisings, their defiance of truth? Not one ...
(Letter, November 5, 1892; B2a 1892).

Seven or eight long years after 1888 she is forced to

confess concerning "some" in Battle Creek who "keep alive
the spirit which ran riot at Minneapolis," and who are also
identified as "many,"

They began this satanic work at

Minneapolis.... Yet these men have been
holding positions of trust, and have been
molding the work after their own similitude, as
far as they possibly can (TM 80; May 1, 1895;
May 30, 1896; emphasis added).

A Plea for Simple Honesty

A. G. Daniells encourages us to be honest in facing

reality: "It would be far more agreeable to eliminate some of
the statements given by the Spirit of Prophecy regarding the
attitude of some of the leaders toward the message and the
messengers. But this cannot be done without giving only a
partial presentation of the situation, ... leaving the question
in more or less of mystery" (op. cit., p. 43).
The less "mystery" the better in this late perilous hour.
Therefore the following citations, as brief as possible but
verbatim, are taken from Testimonies to Ministers written in
1895. This is Ellen White's retrospective judgment, written
pretty well toward the close of the 1888 era:

Many ... treat it [the message] with disdain.

You have turned your back, and not your
face, to the Lord.
That light which is to fill the whole earth
with its glory has been despised.
Beware how you ... pour contempt upon the
manifestations of the Holy Spirit.
I know not but some have even now gone
too far to return and to repent.
These great and solemn realities are
unappreciated and spoken against.

55
 Men ... stand in the way of sinners, and sit
in the seat of the scornful.
Many have entered dark, secret paths, and
some will never return.
They have tempted God, they have rejected
light.
They have chosen darkness rather than
light, and have defiled their souls.
They have not only refused to accept the
message, but they have hated the light.
These men are parties to the ruin of souls.
They have interposed themselves between the
heaven-sent light and the people. They have
trampled upon the word of God, and are doing
despite to His Holy Spirit.
Have stood for years resisting light and
cherishing the spirit of opposition.
How long will you hate and despise the
messengers of God's righteousness?
They have taunted them [the messengers]
with being fanatics, extremists, and
enthusiasts.
You will, when it is too late, see that you
have been fighting against God.
Your turning things upside down is known of
the Lord.
Go on a little longer as you have done, in
rejection of the light from heaven, and you are
lost.
So long as false guideposts, pointing the
wrong way.
If you reject Christ's delegated messengers,
you reject Christ.
Despise this glorious offer of justification
through the blood of Christ.
I entreat you ... cease your stubborn
resistance of light and evidence (TM 89-98).

This was what our authors speak of as the "notable

landmark in Seventh-day Adventist history," the crossing of a
"continental divide into new country," the "glorious victory
and the occasion and the beginnings of larger and better
things for the advent church," the "time of revival and soul-
saving," the "time of happy spiritual experience," the

56
"beginning of a great spiritual awakening among Adventists,"
a "denomination-wide revival"! Ellen White wrote better than
she knew in 1895: "Your turning things upside down is
known of the Lord."
Seven or eight years after the Conference afforded ample
opportunity for repentance, confessions, and a hearty
participation in a "denomination-wide revival." The
chronology of rejection can be catalogued year by year:

Instead of pressing your weight against the

chariot of truth that is being pulled up an
inclined road, you should work with all the
energy you can to push it on.
Our older brethren ... do not accept the
message, but treat it as though it were of no
consequence (RH, March 18, 1890).
I cannot express to you my burden and
distress of mind as the true condition of the
cause has been presented before me ...

It was shown to me that on the part of the

ministers in all our conferences, there is
neglect to study the Scriptures, to search for
the truth ... Faith and love, how destitute are
the churches of these! ...
Bible religion is very scarce, even among our
ministers ... The standard of the ministry had
been greatly lowered....
Coldness, heartlessness, want of tender
sympathy, are leavening the camp of Israel. If
these evils are permitted to strengthen as they
have done for some years in the past, our
churches will be in a deplorable condition (TM
142-156; August 20, 1890).

There was not much revival by 1892:

The atmosphere of the church is so frigid, its

spirit is of such an order, that men and women
cannot sustain or endure the example of
primitive and heaven-born piety. The warmth of
their first love is frozen up, and unless they are
watered over by the baptism of the Holy Spirit,

57
their candlestick will be removed out of its
place (TM 167, 168, 161; July 15, 1892).

It was the same in 1893:

O how few know the day of their

visitation! ... We are convinced that among the
people of God there is blindness of mind and
hardness of heart, although God has
manifested inexpressible mercy toward us....
Today there are few who are heartily serving
God. The most of those who compose our
congregations are spiritually dead in
trespasses and sins.... The sweetest melodies
that come from God through human lips--
justification by faith, and the righteousness of
Christ--do not bring forth from them a response
of love and gratitude... They steel their hearts
against [the Heavenly Merchantman] (RH April
4, 1893).

Conditions had not improved by 1895:

There are many who have outgrown their

advent faith, ... while saying in their hearts, as
they desire it shall be, "My Lord delayeth His
coming." ...
Men who are entrusted with weighty
responsibilities, but who have no living
connection with God, have been and are doing
despite to His Holy Spirit.... Warnings have
come from God again and again for these men,
but they have cast them aside and ventured on
in the same course...
If God spares their lives, and they nourish
the same spirit that marked their course of
action both before and after the Minneapolis
meeting, they will fill up to the full the deeds of
those whom Christ condemned when He was
upon earth (TM 77-79; May 1, 1895).

There had been apparently little change by 1896:

58
 That men should keep alive the spirit which
ran riot at Minneapolis is an offense to God. All
heaven is indignant at the spirit that for years
has been revealed in our publishing institution
at Battle Creek ... A voice has been heard
pointing out the errors and, in the name of the
Lord, pleading for a decided change. But who
have followed the instruction given? who have
humbled their hearts to put from them every
vestige of their wicked, oppressive spirit? (TM
76, 77; May 30, 1896).

It seems that the "revival" had not succeeded in

capturing the hearts of the leaders by 1897:

God gives men counsel and reproof for their

good. He has sent His message, telling them
what was needed for the time--1897.... He gave
you opportunity to come up armed and
equipped to the help of the Lord. And having
done all, He told you to stand. But did you
make ready? Did you say, "Here am I; send
me"? You sat still, and did nothing. You left the
word of the Lord to fall unheeded to the
ground....
O, why will men be hindrances, when they
might be helps? Why will they block the wheels,
when they might push with marked success?
Why will they rob their own soul of good, and
deprive others of blessing that might come
through them? These rejecters of light will
remain barren deserts (TM 413).

For sure, those rejectors remained "barren deserts"

spiritually. A persual of their printed sermons and articles
reveals that they are dry and boring, devoid of the essential
motifs of the 1888 truths. Yet they evince supreme
confidence that they understand and preach righteousness
by faith.

The Story of the Post-1888 Revivals

From 1888-1890 Ellen White makes numerous references

to the revival meetings which she held in company with

59
Jones and Waggoner. The acceptance theory is based largely
on these statements. We must give due weight to them. The
following are samples of her glowing enthusiasm:

I have never seen a revival work go forward

with such thoroughness, and yet remain so free
from all undue excitement. There was no urging
or inviting. The people were not called forward,
but there was a solemn realization that Christ
came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to
repentance.... There were many who testified
that as the searching truths had been
presented, they had been convicted in the light
of the law as transgressors (RH March 5, 1889).
The tidings that Christ is our righteousness
has brought relief to many, many souls, and
God says to his people, "Go forward."...
In every meeting since the General
Conference [1888] souls have eagerly accepted
the precious message of the righteousness of
Christ....
On Sabbath [Ottawa, Kansas], truths were
presented that were new to the majority of the
congregation... But the labors of the Sabbath
were not in vain. On Sunday morning there was
decided evidence that the Spirit of God was
working great changes in the moral and
spiritual condition of those assembled (ibid.,
July 23, 1889).
We are having most excellent meetings. The
spirit that was in the meeting at Minneapolis is
not here. All moves off in harmony.... The
universal testimony from those who have
spoken has been that this message of light and
truth which has come to our people is just the
truth for this time, and wherever they go
among the churches, light, and relief, and the
blessing of God is sure to come in (Ms. 10,
1889).

These statements taken out of a ten-year context give

the impression of a hearty leadership acceptance of the
message. But further evidence in context must be

60
considered. An impression of leadership acceptance must be
balanced by reality.

Jones said that those meetings "turned the tide with the
people." However, there never was an issue or tide to be
turned with the people. The problem was entirely with the
leaders and the ministry. The people were ready to accept
the light gladly if the leaders should permit it to come to
them undistorted and unopposed, or rather, if they should
join heartily in presenting it. Many younger ministers were
keenly interested. But the continually noncommittal attitude
or outright opposition of responsible leaders in Battle Creek
and elsewhere quenched the movement. Not only do Ellen
White's remarks attest this fact, but the General Conference
correspondence in the Archives is also clear.
In fact, it is not necessary even to summon her to the
witness stand to testify to this official Battle Creek rejection
of the message. The documentation in the recorded
correspondence demonstrates an undercurrent of opposition,
which Jones spoke of as "a secret antagonism always carried
on" (see Additional Note at the end of this chapter).

The Counter-Revival Pressure

At Minneapolis, Ellen White quickly saw that the problem

lay with the leadership. She earnestly appealed to the
delegates not to look to the older, experienced men to see
what they would do with the light. She said that they would
even try to prevent it reaching the people:

I entreat you to make God your trust; idolize

no man, depend upon no man. Let not your love
of men hold them in places of trust that they
are unqualified to fill ....
You need greater light, you need a clearer
understanding of the truth which you carry to
the people. If you do not see light yourselves,
you will close the door, if you can, you will
prevent the rays of light from coming to the
people. Let it not be said of this highly favored
people, "They would not enter in themselves,
and those who were entering in they hindered."
All these lessons are given for the benefit of

61
 those upon whom the ends of the world are
come....
At this meeting ... opposition, rather than
investigation, is the order of the day....

No one must be permitted to close the

avenue whereby the light of truth shall come to
the people. As soon as this shall be attempted,
God's Spirit will be quenched (Ms. 15, 1888;
Olson, pp. 297, 301).
Now our meeting is drawing to a close and
not one confession has been made, there has
not been a single break so as to let the Spirit of
God in. Now I was saying what was the use of
our assembling here together and for our
ministering brethren to come in if they are here
only to shut out the Spirit of God from the
people? (Ms. 9, 1888; Olson pp. 290, 291.)

What was the actual mechanism of rejection? How did it

operate? While it is true that Jones and Waggoner were
permitted to speak in camp meetings and to publish articles,
and while it is true that their message was welcomed by the
laity, leadership rejection constantly counteracted their best
efforts. We have Ellen White's analysis of what happened:

The very men who ought to be on the alert

to see what the people of God need that the
way of the Lord may be prepared, are
intercepting the light God would have come to
His people and rejecting the message of His
healing grace (Letter to Miller brothers, July 23,
1889).
Some of our leading brethren have
frequently taken positions on the wrong side,
and if God would send a message and wait for
these older brethren to open the way for its
advance, it would never reach the people....
The rebuke of the Lord will be upon those
who would be guardians of the doctrine, who
would bar the way that greater light shall not
come to the people; and if there were no voice
among men to give it, the very stones would
cry out . . It is the coldness of heart, the

62
 unbelief, of those who ought to have faith, that
keeps the churches in feebleness (RH July 26,
1892; emphasis added).

At the time, both Jones and Waggoner were persona non

grata with responsible brethren in Battle Creek (Olson, p.
115). As we shall see in a later chapter, the Review and
Herald editor was the most influential opposer. And Ellen
White said that the new General Conference president
himself "acted as did Aaron in regard to these men who have
been opposed to the work of God ever since the Minneapolis
meeting" (Letter to A. O. Tait, August 27, 1896). "The
President of the General Conference ... went directly contrary
to the cautions and warnings given him" concerning the
1888 aftermath (Letter to I. H. Evans, November 21, 1897;
E51, 1897).
Further, it was only natural that opposing brethren should
expect and very likely hope that the unwelcome message
should take no better with the common people than it did
with the elders and authorities at Battle Creek. But when the
reports came in of the wonderful results of the preaching of
the inspired trio, they were chagrined. It is painful to report
that Ellen White says that the Holy Spirit's approval of the
work discomfited them. She was not concerned about an
insignificant minority of obscure brethren, but about the total
impact of responsible, influential leadership:

Afterward when they saw and felt the

demonstration of the Holy Spirit testifying that
the message was of God, they hated it the
more, because it was a testimony against them.
They would not humble their hearts to repent,
to give God the glory, and vindicate the right
(May 1, 1895; TM 80).

The revivals held at South Lancaster, Chicago, Ottawa,

Kansas, and in the Battle Creek church itself, were a
powerful witness that God had set His seal to the message
being borne. The experiment testing the light was being
made in the laboratory of the churches. It worked--never had
such manifestations of heavenly glory attended any
message or movement since the midnight cry of 1844:

63
 Now although there has been a determined
effort to make of no effect the message God
has sent, its fruits have been proving that it
was from the source of light and truth. Those
who have ... stood to bar the way against all
evidence, cannot be supposed to have clearer
spiritual eyesight for having so long closed
their eyes to the light God sent to the people....
There will be resistance from the very ones we
expected to engage in such a work (Letter O19,
1892).

She continued to hope for a change of heart in the

leaders once they recognized the incontrovertible proof. The
following paragraph could be cited as evidence that the 1888
message was accepted by the leadership of the church:

I saw that the power of God attended the

message wherever it was spoken. You could not
make the people believe in South Lancaster
that it was not a message of light that came to
them ... God has set His hand to do this work.
We labored in Chicago; it was a week before
there was a break in the meetings. But like a
wave of glory, the blessing of God swept over
us as we pointed men to the Lamb of God that
taketh away the sin of the world. The Lord
revealed His glory, and we felt the deep
movings of His Spirit.

But the same article in the Review of March 18, 1890

indicates that the leading brethren still were not in sympathy
with the work:

I have tried to present the message to you

as I have understood it, but how long will those
at the head of the work keep themselves aloof
from the message of God?

A greater sin was added to the unbelief of 1888 at

Minneapolis: the incontrovertible evidences of the Holy
Spirit's approval of the message, demonstrated in the
wonderful revivals, only confirmed the opposition of these
brethren. "When they saw and felt the demonstration of the

64
Holy Spirit testifying that the message was of God, they
hated it the more" (TM 80; 1895). A few years before, Ellen
White had pathetically appealed for unity with the
messengers:

For nearly two years we have been urging

the people to come up and accept the light and
truth concerning the righteousness of Christ,
and they do not know whether to come and
take hold of this precious truth or not (ibid.,
March 11, 1890).
We entreat of you who oppose the light of
truth, to stand out of the way of God's people
(ibid., May 27, 1890).

The overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that they

did stand in the way. This context of the glowing reports of
the "revivals" must be borne in mind. Earlier statements
expressing prophetic hope (1889-1890) must be balanced by
the disappointment of the actual subsequent history which
Ellen White was forced to record (1891-97). Every avenue of
solid evidence goes in the same direction: her testimony,
Jones' testimony, the official archival files, and the obvious
import of nearly a century of history.

"Just Like the Jews!"

Never since the rejection by Israel of her King of glory

has the heavenly universe witnessed a more inexcusable
and shameful failure on the part of the chosen people of
God, led by their leaders. The Lord's messenger did not
hesitate to apply to the leading brethren the famous "woes
upon the Pharisees" (Luke 11:50-52), and emphasize their
present (1896) application: "If God has ever spoken by me,
these scriptures mean very much to those who shall hear
them" (TM 76). "Ye entered not in yourselves, and them that
were entering in ye hindered."
Such is the true picture of the "great revival" which
followed the 1888 meeting. Many lay members and younger
ministers began "to enter in" but the elders at Jerusalem
verily "hindered" them. Thus the revival proved abortive, and
the Holy Spirit was grieved, "insulted" and quenched.
Frequently the Lord's messenger compared the anti-1888
spirit to the Jews' rejection of Christ. For example:

65
 Light has been shining upon the church of
God, but many have said by their indifferent
attitude, "We want not thy way, O God, but our
own way." The Kingdom of heaven has come
very near, ... but they have barred the door of
the heart, and have not received the heavenly
guests; for as yet they know not the love of
God....
There is less excuse in our day for
stubborness and unbelief than there was for
the Jews in the days of Christ.... Our sin and its
retribution will be the greater, if we refuse to
walk in the light. Many say, "If I had only lived
in the days of Christ, I would not have wrested
His words, or falsely interpreted His
instruction. I would not have rejected and
crucified Him, as did the Jews"; but that will be
proved by the way in which you deal with His
message and His messengers to-day....
Those who live in this day are not
accountable for the deeds of those who
crucified the Son of God; but if with all the light
that shone upon His ancient people delineated
before us, we travel over the same ground,
cherish the same spirit, refuse to receive
reproof and warning, then our guilt will be
greatly augmented (ibid., April 11, 1893).

One week later the author added:

Those who are filled with unbelief can

discern the least thing that has an
objectionable feature. They can lose sight of all
the evidences that God has given ... in
revealing precious gems of truth from the
inexhaustible mine of His word. They can hold
the objectionable atom under the magnifying
glasses of their imagination until the atom
looks like a world, and shuts out from their
view the precious light of heaven .... Why take
so much account of that which may appear to
you as objectionable in the messenger [A. T.
Jones or E. J. Waggoner] and sweep away all the

66
 evidences that God has given to balance the
mind in regard to truth? (ibid., April 18, 1892).

Our imagination struggles to grasp the reality of the

blessings that would have come to the Seventh-day
Adventist Church if this precious message had been heartily
accepted:

If through the grace of Christ His people will

become new bottles, He will fill them with new
wine. God will give additional light, and old
truths will be recovered, and replaced in the
framework of truth; and wherever the laborers
go, they will triumph (RH, Extra, December 23,
1890).

Our Upside-Down History

What should have taken place, but what didn't, was

made plain in a statement made at the 1901 General
Conference session, when Ellen White referred back to the
1888-1891 crisis. What our historians have assumed was
"revival" turns out to be only a verbal assent with no genuine
reformation:

I feel a special interest in the movements

and decisions that shall be made at this
Conference regarding the things that should
have been done years ago, and especially ten
years ago, when we were assembled in
Conference, and the Spirit and power of God
came into our meeting, testifying that God was
ready to work for this people if they would
come into working order. The brethren
assented to the light God had given, but there
were those connected with our institutions,
especially the Review and Herald office and the
[General] Conference, who brought in elements
of unbelief, so that the light given was not
acted upon. It was assented to, but no special
change was made to bring about such a
condition of things that the power of God could
be revealed among His people (GCB 1901, p.
23).

67
 Some of the brethren recognized in 1893 that because
reformation had been refused, revival had consequently
failed. Jones said:

Brethren, the time has come to take up

tonight what we there [Minneapolis four years
before] rejected. Not a soul of us has ever been
able to dream yet the wonderful blessings that
God had for us at Minneapolis, and which we
would have been enjoying these four years, if
hearts had been ready to receive the message
which God sent. We would have been four years
ahead, we would have been in the midst of the
wonders of the loud cry itself, tonight (GCB,
1893 p. 183).

The following letter from Ellen White, read at the same

session, explains how the process worked by which the 1888
message was turned into defeat:

The opposition in our own ranks has

imposed upon the Lord's messengers a
laborious and soul trying task; for they have
had to meet difficulties and obstacles which
need not have existed.... All the time and
thought and labor required to counteract the
influence of our brethren who oppose the
message has been just so much taken from the
world of the swift coming judgments of God.
The Spirit of God has been present in power
among His people, but it could not be bestowed
upon them, because they did not open their
hearts to receive it.
It is not the opposition of the world that we
have to fear; but it is the elements that work
among ourselves that have hindered the
message.... Love and confidence constitute a
moral force that would have united our
churches and insured harmony of action; but
coldness and distrust have brought disunion
that has shorn us of our strength....
The influence that grew out of the
resistance of light and truth at Minneapolis

68
 tended to make of no effect the light God had
given to His people through the Testimonies ...
because some of those who occupy responsible
positions were leavened with the spirit that
prevailed at Minneapolis, a spirit that
beclouded the discernment of the people of
God (ibid., p. 419).

An army that loses a battle will try afterwards to discover

why the defeat took place. They will speak of victory only in
the conditional, subjunctive mood of the verb, as what
"might have been." It is significant that the oft-quoted
passage published in 1909 in Testimonies, Vol. 9, page 29,
which begins with a tragic "if," was written concerning the
results of the 1888 history. It is the next sentence after the
above quotation:

If every soldier of Christ had done his duty,

if every watchman on the walls of Zion had
given the trumpet a certain sound, the world
might ere this have heard the message of
warning. But the work is years behind. What
account will be rendered to God for thus
retarding the work?

There is Good News in the 1888 History!

This does not mean that the war has been lost. Far from
it. Only a battle was lost. We have here, however, a most
intriguing situation. A few paragraphs later in the same
letter, Ellen White predicted that Satan would work up his
advantage skillfully. "The deep plotting of Satan will reveal
its working everywhere." He would be far too keen to make
the blunder of assuming the livery of the devil; he would
pretend to be the Christ. "The appearance of a false Christ
will arouse delusive hopes in the minds of those who will
allow themselves to be deceived."
Satan is too keen-minded to claim his victory before it is
complete, even though the partial victory is true. Such
boasting would drive the remnant church to her knees in the
repentance of the ages, for she is honest in heart. Telling her
the truth will never work--she must be kept in deception until
the very last.

69
 Therefore, Satan's desire is that we should be deceived
about our 1888 history. He will slyly admit defeat and
concede the victory, pretending to lie prostrate at our feet.
But the deception, if cherished, can lead only to an
infatuation with the false Christ. If we cannot read the past
aright, how will we be able to interpret the future correctly
as it unrolls before our eyes?
Do these obvious truths paint a dark or discouraging
picture? Not if we love Him who says He is the Truth.
Recognizing truth is the only way to come close to Him!
While it is true that our history is a clear call to
repentance, we must remember that calls to repentance
have always been up-beat, positive, hope-inspiring, and
encouraging.

Conclusion

Those who portray our 1888 history as a glorious victory

are very sincere. They desire to preserve the unity of the
church. Critics have arisen claiming that the victory gained
by Satan in 1888 and thereafter was complete, so that the
church is now in a hopeless condition. This is not true, but
such a false idea takes root and flourishes as a reaction
against the pride and complacency which deny the truth of
our history for generation after generation. Israel will never
become Babylon, though she may have her periods of
captivity. The Lord will bring her again to her own borders,
chastened and repentant.
In seeking to counteract disloyal critics who condemn the
church as hopeless, we must not deny truth. Let us ascribe
honor to whom it is due. That, in the light of our past history,
will require that we be greatly humbled:

There will be great humbling of hearts

before God on the part of every one who
remains faithful and true to the end (Ms. 15,
1888; Olson, p. 297).
Unless the church, which is now being
leavened with her own backsliding, shall repent
and be converted, she will eat of the fruit of her
own doing, until she shall abhor herself (8T
250).

70
 That experience is no evidence that God will have cast off
His church. Peter, when he threw himself on the ground in
Gethsemane and wished that he might die, was at last
converted (Matthew 26:75; DA 713). When the above words
are fulfilled, the remnant church will likewise be converted.
Her Pentecost will be no further away at that time than
Peter's was when he came to know himself, and in so doing,
found His Lord's forgiveness.
A true understanding of the 1888 experience will figure
largely in our coming to know ourselves: "Sometime it will be
seen in its true bearing, with all the burden of woe that has
resulted from it" (GCB 1893, p. 184).
A. T. Jones at the 1893 meeting also referred to that long-
delayed "sometime" of reparation:

There will be things to come that will be

more surprising than that was to those at
Minneapolis.... But unless you and I have every
fiber of that spirit rooted out of our hearts, we
will treat that message and the messengers by
whom it is sent, as God has declared we have
treated this other message (ibid. , p. 185).

If none of the references presented in this chapter were

available to us, logic and simple reason would dictate some
conclusions:
(1) The loud cry was to have an effect on the closing of
the work like fire that goes in the stubble (RH, December 15,
1885). "The final movements will be rapid ones." But instead
of going like fire in the stubble, there has been a century of
protracted smoldering and smoking, inching along, while
human souls are being born faster than we reach them with
our message. The only reasonable conclusion is that the fire
was put out--by human, not divine, instrumentality.
(2) When the loud cry comes, says John the Revelator, it
is to be light which will lighten the earth with glory
superseding all previous displays of heavenly power. The
"kings of the earth" have not yet stood afar off, with the
"merchants of the earth," bewailing the fall of great Babylon,
brought to nought in one brief "hour" by the mighty
preaching of the true loud cry. Yet the light of the fourth
angel's mighty message began to shine in that strange and
impressive way in 1888. The only reasonable conclusion is
that the light was put out, by human instrumentalities.

71
 (3) When the 1888 message of righteousness by faith,
the true "beginning" of the latter rain, is accepted, there will
be seen in the remnant church a revival of primitive
godliness heretofore unknown. "The enemy of God and man
is not willing that this truth should be clearly presented; for
he knows that if the people receive it fully, his power will be
broken." (GW 103, old edition). The only conclusion possible:
the message of Christ's righteousness was not truly
received.
(4) The message being of God in a special sense, the
authoritative, responsible, and persistent opposition to it
constituted a spiritual defeat for the Advent movement; but
this defeat must be recognized as a battle in a larger war,
and not the losing of the war itself.
Such a view of the matter will require that this generation
recognize the facts of the case, and thoroughly rectify the
tragic mistake. This can be done, and the living, righteous
God will help us.
This has to be good news.

ADDITIONAL NOTE TO CHAPTER FOUR

The Testimony of the General

Conference Archives
Official correspondence in the Battle Creek archival files
corroborates Ellen White's and Jones' testimony regarding
the negative attitude of the most responsible leaders in
Battle Creek. A. T. Jones said that "there was a secret
antagonism always carried on" (Letter to C. E. Holmes, May
12, 1921).
The letters of the General Conference Secretary, Dan T.
Jones, illustrate how this attitude functioned. Although he
was deeply prejudiced against the 1888 message and the
messengers, a few weeks after Minneapolis the Holy Spirit
impressed him with clear evidence that Jones was a true
messenger of God. He writes to a friend:

72
 We have had good meetings here... Bro. A.
T. Jones has been doing most of the preaching.
I wish you could have heard some of his
sermons. He seems altogether different from
what he did [sic] at Minneapolis. Some of his
sermons are as good, I think, as I ever heard.
They are all new too. He is original in his
preaching and in his practical preaching seems
very tender and deeply feels all he says. My
estimation of him has raised considerably since
I have seen the other side of the man (Letter to
J. W. Watt, January 1, 1889).5

But Dan Jones becomes a man convinced against his will.

It is phenomenal how good leaders could harden their hearts
against what they clearly saw to be "credentials" of the Holy
Spirit. We need to understand how this happened, for we
today are in grave danger of repeating their history. As
Luther said, we are all made of the same dough.
A year later, for some strange reason, Dan Jones has let
his heart become hardened against the 1888 messengers,
while during this same period Ellen White's attitude toward
them has become increasingly supportive. Here we see a
mysterious ferment of the human spirit. As a responsible
administrative officer, he writes to the leadership of the
Missouri Conference, his home area. He must communicate
his mistaken judgment. Here is an under-the-table kind of
influence operating, the "secret antagonism" A. T. Jones
spoke of:

I think an Institute in Missouri would be a

splendid thing; but I believe an institute on a
quiet plan will be just as valuable to you as to
make a great parade of it and get in ... Elder A.
T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner. To tell you the
truth, I do not have very much confidence in
some of their ways of presenting things. They
try to drive everything before them, and will
not admit that their positions can possibly be
subject to the least criticism.... In fact, [they]
do not dwell upon any other subjects scarcely
5
Letters written by Dan T. Jones are found in General Conference Archives and Statistics, Record
Group 25. Used with permission.

73
 than those upon which there is a difference of
opinion among our leading brethren. I do not
think you want to bring that spirit into the
Missouri Conference (Letter to N. W. Alee,
January 23, 1890; emphasis supplied).

The 1888 messengers probably never knew why their

ministry was not welcome in Missouri.
Dan Jones' informative letters to G. I. Butler regarding
developments at Battle Creek reveal the "antagonism"
operating. He encourages Butler in his opposition to the
message:

I am glad, indeed, that you are looking at

matters from the standpoint that you do, and
are not getting discouraged and bowing down
under the load that seems to be thrown upon
you.... I have often thought of what you said to
me last winter that the California fellows [Jones
and Waggoner] would be on the editorial staff
of the Review in less than two years. I should
not be at all surprised if an attempt in that
direction was made inside of that many
months. But I feel sure that it would meet with
very strong opposition (Letter, August 28,
1889).

The "strong opposition" he anticipated erupted like a

volcano within his own soul during the following winter of
1890. Waggoner one day announced in his Bible class that
on the next Monday morning he would discuss the two
covenants. He had been officially invited, even urged, to
leave his work in California and teach in Battle Creek. He
naturally assumed that he was free to present the gospel as
he understood it.
But when Dan Jones heard the news about the two
covenants, he could not contain himself. He immediately
took steps to stop Waggoner, appealing to Uriah Smith and
even to Ellen White for support. He was so deeply stirred by
the incident that he wrote about it at considerable length in
letters to G. I. Butler, O. A. Olsen, J. D. Pegg, C. H. Jones, R.
C. Porter, J. H. Morrison, E. W. Farnsworth, and R. A.
Underwood. His letters cannot disguise official antipathy for
the message and the messengers, while, of course,

74
 professing acceptance of "the doctrine of justification by
faith."
We can be grateful that he was a prolific letter-writer, for
he gives valuable insights into the behind-the-scenes
attitudes of leadership. He discloses his inner feelings with
candor. His continuing heart opposition to the message was
evidently a heavy burden to his conscience like Saul's
kicking against the pricks. Concerning this confrontation with
Waggoner he writes to Butler:

There has never anything happened in my

life that has taken me down like this. I have
just felt so thoroughly upset by the whole affair
that I have hardly known how to act or what to
do.... When I saw what the lessons were
[Sabbath School lessons on the covenants,
written by Waggoner], I decided at once that I
could not teach them; and after studying over
the matter some, decided to resign as teacher
in the sabbath-school.... 6
I have been worrying and fretting over this
thing until it has hurt me worse than a half
year's work (Letter, February 13, 1890).

What a spectacle--the General Conference Secretary

"worrying and fretting" over what is in fact the leading of the
Holy Spirit in the latter rain!

A Glimpse Behind the Scenes in Old Battle Creek

Dan Jones continues with a remarkable vignette of Battle

Creek administration, frankly telling Butler of the official plan
to hide the real facts from the students and to "let the
matter in as easy as possible, without attracting any more of
the attention of the students of the school to the change
6
Waggoner's position which Dan Jones, Uriah Smith and others opposed is presented in his The Glad
Tidings (Pacific Press, revised ed., pp. 71-104). The view of his opponents is perpetuated in the
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and Bible Dictionary . Ellen White says that she was shown
that Waggoner's position is correct: "Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the
covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself [Smith], Brother Dan Jones, Brother Porter and others
are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from
the position that Brother Waggoner has presented" (Letter 59, 1890; see also Letter 30, 1890). Dan
Jones reports that Waggoner "charged the leading men in the General Conference with having
[implicitly] endorsed [D. M.] Canright's view on the covenants, Brother Smith among the rest," which of
course they denied (Letter to Butler, February 13, 1890). Sad to say, Waggoner was correct; it is still
more sad that after nearly a century, his beautiful good news truth on the two covenants has still not
met with our acceptance.

75
than was necessary." This would be politically astute.
Waggoner spoiled his plans by telling the open truth, and "let
the whole thing out; and all I could do was to say that we
had thought best to ask Dr. Waggoner to postpone the
covenant question for the present."
Ellen White, W. C. White, Waggoner and A. T. Jones
labored to set matters right before the brethren in Battle
Creek, with the result that the truth forced Dan Jones, Uriah
Smith, and others unwillingly into a corner. Again, Dan Jones
was candid in telling his friends of the discomfiture they had
suffered:

This left some of us in rather an

embarrassing position. We had been laboring
under a misapprehension, and the props were
taken out from under us. No one could dispute
Dr. Waggoner's word or Sister White's word
(Letter to Butler, March 27, 1890).

Dan Jones' humility and honesty are refreshing--almost

naive, certainly so, in light of the real truth which he did not
realize--that his antipathy was in fact directed toward
heaven's gracious gift of the latter rain and the beginning
light of the loud cry. He is dead set against this heaven-sent
blessing and cannot avoid letting it be known. He is
outstandingly a man convinced against his will and thus of
the same opinion still.
Ellen White's famous March 16 sermon at Battle Creek
(Ms. 2, 1890) contains the statement, "There was no
reception" of the message, and some dozen references to
the continuing unbelief and rejection among the Battle Creek
leadership since Minneapolis. Writing one day later, Dan
Jones laments his distress:

It seems to me that her position is evidently

the correct one, and the principle will apply to
other matters with just as much force as it
applies to the covenant question, or the law in
Galatians.... I was just as certain as I could be
that certain plans and purposes were being
carried out by Dr. Waggoner and others and
that certain motives were behind those plans
and purposes; but it now appears that I was
altogether mistaken in both. It seems strange

76
 how it could be so. Every circumstance seemed
to add to the evidence to prove the things true;
but, regardless of all this, they have been
proven false (Letter to J. D. Pegg, March 17,
1890).

Writing to Butler ten days later, his progress is reluctant,

and he still is not clear. He is of the same opinion still
regarding the message. As with Uriah Smith, he must blame
Jones and Waggoner for creating the misunderstandings. He
cannot see them in the light that Ellen White saw them, as
the Lord's "delegated messengers":

Perhaps we have been mistaken in some of

our opinions that we have held.... I do not see
now what can be done but to accept the
explanations that have been made, and act
upon them.... Sister White ... thinks reports
that were brought to you from the Minneapolis
meeting were greatly exaggerated, and that
you have not got a correct idea in reference to
what was going on there. While I hold the same
position on the law in Galatians, and the
covenant question that I have always held, I am
glad to have my mind relieved in reference to
the motive and plans of some of the brethren....
Let us hope that in the future our brethren will
not act in such a way as to lay the foundation
for unjust judgment on their plans and
purposes (Letter, March 27, 1890).

Writing to R. C. Porter a few days later, he discloses how

he and Uriah Smith are still not truly reconciled to the 1888
message nor to Ellen White:

Elder Smith ... can not understand why ...

Sister White spoke at one time positively
against a certain thing, as she did against the
law in Galatians, to Elder [J. H.] Waggoner
several years ago, then turn around and
practically give her support to the same thing
when it comes up in a little different way.... I

77
 am trying to think as little about it as possible
(Letter, April 1, 1890).7

Two weeks later, Dan Jones is still not sure, and can now
bring himself to speak with some derision of what was in fact
the leading of the Lord in the beginning of the latter rain. He
wants to see Jones and Waggoner whittled down to size, and
assures Elder Butler that he and the brethren are still nobly
carrying on the fight against them. What Ellen White and
history have recognized as "a most precious message" he
still considers in the category of "peculiar views" that he
hopes never again will be tolerated:

I know it is a little difficult in the face of the

circumstancial [sic] evidence that has
surrounded this matter for a year and a half,
for us to come to the conclusion now that those
matters that transpired in Minneapolis were all
done in lamb-like innocence. But if Dr.
Waggoner says that he did not have any plan
when he came there, and Brother Jones says
the same, and Sister White sustains them, what
can we do but accept it as a fact? ... You may
think that we have kicked a little up here, and
then have been roped in, and swallowed whole.
Such is not the case by any means. I consider
that we gained every point that we were
holding for, and think the other side was glad
enough to be let down a little easy; and I was
willing that it should be, if they have learned
the lessons that we designed they should learn.
I feel confident now that Dr. Waggoner will be
very cautious about throwing his peculiar views
before the people until they have been
carefully examined by the leading brethren;
and I think the leading brethren will be much
more careful in their examinations of these

7
Uriah Smith and Ellen White's modern critics are mistaken in attributing to her a significant change in
her position on the law in Galatians. She urged J. H. Waggoner not to make prominent his view that the
law in Galatians is the moral law, but it appears there is no evidence that she said to him what Smith
thought she did. Undoubtedly J. H. Waggoner did not grasp the larger heart-warming truths of
Galatians as clearly as his son did later. She could not endorse the father's message as "most
precious." Smith mistakenly relied on a partial fact to condemn the further light that the Lord sent
through Waggoner's son in 1888.

78
 peculiar views than they have been in the past
(Letter to Butler, April 14, 1890).

These archives abundantly confirm A. V. Olson's remark

that Jones and Waggoner were persona non grata at the
Battle Creek headquarters (op. cit., p. 115). The tension was
so sharp that it is easy to understand how Waggoner found
himself sent to Britain in early 1892. His handwritten letter to
the General Conference president of September 15, 1891,
may have exacerbated the situation. He had been appointed
a member of the book committee, but his normal
participation in its work had somehow been circumvented.
His letter is respectful; he makes no personal complaint; his
concern is for the good of the cause:

I wish to ask about Elder [G. I.] Butler's

book. I see by the report of the Book
Committee that it has been voted that the
Review and Herald office publish it. From this I
conclude that it must be about ready for
publication. If so, as a member of the Book
Committee, I would like to see the manuscript.
Something over a year ago, I think, I saw a list
of the chapters that were to compose the book;
and from that, together with what I know of the
condition of things in general, I am quite sure
that there is good prospect that the book will
be as much in need of examination as any other
book. If it is put through without examination
except by a committee of three, I am sure there
will be dissatisfaction.... Certainly every
member has the right to examine any
manuscript that properly comes before the
committee at all.8

Uriah Smith Defends His Rejection of the Message

Uriah Smith's opposition to the 1888 message was

logical, scholarly, and apparently reasonable. He writes Ellen
White on February 17, 1890 explaining why he cannot
receive it. He is utterly sincere. It is a humbling experience
to read his six-page letter, for he is so convincing that one
can exclaim, "There but for the grace of God am I." It may be
8
General Conference Archives and Statistics, Record Group 11. Used by permission.

79
as easy for us today to consider the larger gift of the Holy
Spirit a disaster as it was for him to do so. He sees the
leading of the Lord as a great "calamity." We can note his
arguments only briefly:

As it looks to me, next to the death of

Brother White, the greatest calamity that ever
befell our cause was when Dr. Waggoner put
his articles on the book of Galatians through
the Signs....
If I was on oath at a court of justice, I should
be obliged to testify that to the best of my
knowledge and belief, ... you said that Brother
[J. H.] Waggoner was wrong [about the law in
Galatians]. That has seemed to me ever since
to be according to the Scriptures. And Brother
White was so well satisfied on the subject, that,
you remember, he withdrew Brother
Waggoner's book from circulation.... The
position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner now
takes is open to exactly the same objection....
It seems to me contrary to the Scriptures, and
secondly, contrary to what you have previously
seen....
The brethren in California [Jones and
Waggoner] ... nearly ruined the [1888]
Conference, as I feared they would. Had these
disturbing questions not been introduced, I can
see no reason why we could not have had as
pleasant and blessed a Conference there as we
have ever enjoyed....
[E. J. Waggoner] took his position on
Galatians, the same which you had condemned
in his father. And when you apparently
endorsed his position as a whole, ... it was a
great surprise to many. And when they asked
me what that meant, and how I could account
for it, really, Sister White, I did not know what
to say, and I do not know what yet.
... When views and movements crop out ...
which ... will utterly undermine your work, and
shake faith in the message, I can but have
some feeling in the matter; and you can
imagine that it must seem like a strange

80
 situation to me, when, because I venture a
word of caution on some of these points, I am
held up in public as one who is shooting in the
dark, and does not know what he is opposing. I
think I do know to some degree what I am
opposing. I probably do not know the full
extent of this work of innovation and
disintegration that is going on; but I see
enough to cause me some anxiety. I believe I
am willing to receive light at any time, from
anybody. But what claims to be light must, for
me, show itself to be according to the
Scriptures and based on good solid reasons
which convince the judgment, before it appears
light to me. And when anyone presents
something which I have long known and
believed, it is impossible for me to call that new
light (Letter of Uriah Smith, February 17, 1890).

Could it be that there are many "Uriah Smiths" in the

church today, just as sincere and reasonable in their heart
opposition to the light that in God's providence must yet
lighten the earth with glory?
It is painful to .look over the shoulders of our Battle Creek
brethren of a century ago and read their letters. But it may
do us good to realize that some day others will read our
letters. And angels will correctly discern our true heart
attitude toward the work of God.
A deep heart enmity against the humbling message of
Christ's righteousness made it possible for good brethren
long ago to credit ill-founded rumors and distorted reports.
Ellen White often compared the situation with the Jews
opposing Christ. They too had good logic and well-reasoned
arguments on their side. They thought they saw Scriptural
evidence that made it impossible for Him to be the true
Messiah. Had any prophet ever come out of Galilee? Did any
of the leaders at Jerusalem believe on Him? ( John 7:48-52).
And His personality also rubbed them the wrong way.

It's too late now for our brethren of a century ago to dig
deep enough into their souls to repent of rejecting the most
significant outpouring of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost.
Thank God, it's not yet too late for us to do so, for we can
easily see ourselves in them.

81
 CHAPTER FIVE

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM:

HOW TO EVALUATE THE 1888
MESSAGE
The error of assuming that "we" accepted the message of
1888 stems from a still deeper error of misunderstanding,
that is, what the message really was.
The officially endorsed view that it was accepted also
must assume that there was nothing uniquely Adventist
about it. The message is evaluated as "the doctrine of
righteousness by faith," that is, the same "doctrine" that
Protestants have believed for hundreds of years. The
following from one of our esteemed authors, a General
Conference vice-president, is typical of this widely accepted
view of the message:

Some may ask, What was this teaching of

righteousness by faith which became the
mainspring of the great 1888 Adventist revival,
as taught and emphasized by Mrs. White and
others? It was the same doctrine that Luther,
Wesley, and many other servants of God had
been teaching (L. H. Christian, The Fruitage of
Spiritual Gifts, p. 239).

It would be grossly humiliating to confess that "we"

rejected "the same doctrine that Luther, Wesley, and many
other servants of God had been teaching." Hence we must
say that we accepted "the doctrine" in and after 1888.
While another authoritative writer concedes that the
1888 message was "the third angel's message in verity" as
Ellen White characterized it (RH, April 1, 1890), he confuses
the issue by insisting that many non-Adventist Evangelical

82
leaders also proclaimed "the same general ... emphasis,"
having obtained their message "from the same Source."
Without exception, all these highly endorsed books of recent
years logically imply that the "verity" of the third angel's
message is nothing more than popular Protestant teaching.
Not one takes a consistent position to evaluate the 1888
message as Ellen White did, nor recognizes any unique
Adventist element in it. Froom's insistence is very clear:

Men outside the Advent Movement--[had]

the same general burden and emphasis, and
arising at about the same time.... The impulse
manifestly came from the same Source. And in
timing, Righteousness by Faith centered in the
year 1888.
For example, the renowned Keswick
Conferences of Britain were founded to
"promote practical holiness."... Some fifty men
could easily be listed in the closing decades of
the nineteenth and the opening decades of the
twentieth centuries ... all giving this general
emphasis (Froom, Movement of Destiny, pp.
319, 320; emphasis original).

The conclusion is logical and inescapable: we should go

to these sources to get the "doctrine" and to learn how to
teach righteousness by faith. And we have done so, for
decades, in spite of the fact that the constant trend of this
view of righteousness by faith is antinomian.
We can believe that these Evangelical leaders were good,
sincere men, living up to all the light they had. But did they
proclaim "the third angel's message in verity," as Ellen White
described the 1888 message? Our author concedes that
while they "did not understand our specific message," that
is, the sabbath and the state of the dead and other
"peculiar" doctrines, nevertheless they did proclaim "the
same ... righteousness by faith" doctrine that the Lord gave
us in 1888. Yet, in contrast, Ellen White insists that the 1888
message contains a unique spiritual nutriment that leads to
"obedience to all the commandments of God" (TM 92).
This authoritative position logically supports our
opponents' view that there is nothing special about the heart
of the Seventh-day Adventist message. It encourages their
view that aside from what valid gospel "doctrine" we may

83
borrow from the Evangelicals, the essence of Seventh-day
Adventism is legalism. Certainly therefore we have no
mandate to call the Christian world to judgment and
repentance.
What is the true evaluation of the 1888 message? Was it
the "same doctrine" that the Protestant Reformers and 19th
century Evangelicals taught, as our authors insist? Or was it
a distinct, unique understanding of "the everlasting gospel"
in relation to our special sanctuary message? Our officially
endorsed authors all ignore any such special sanctuary
relationship.
The truth of this is crucial to understanding our identity
as a people.
If the message of 1888 was only the historic Protestant
doctrine of justification by faith, we face some serious
problems:
(1) Suppose we accept that Ellen White is correct in
saying repeatedly that the 1888 message was resisted and
rejected; it must follow logically that Seventh-day Adventist
Church leadership rejected "the same doctrine" that Luther
and Wesley taught concerning justification by faith.
In other words, for us to say that the message of 1888
was the "same doctrine that Luther, Wesley ... had been
teaching" logically requires that our 1888 forefathers
rejected the historic Protestant position. Such a rejection
would be as disastrous as Rome's rejection of Luther, or the
Church of England's rejection of Wesley. This would be
tantamount to a spiritual fall as bad as the fall of Babylon.
But this cannot be, for it would destroy the foundations of
the church. Thus our authors are forced to assume that "we"
accepted the message of 1888, and had a "great ... revival."

(2) Again, if the view is true that the message of 1888

was "the same doctrine" of the Reformers, it would require
that "Luther, Wesley, and many other servants of God" from
the 16th to the 19th centuries preached "the third angel's
message in verity." Thus Seventh-day Adventists cannot
logically see their identity in the three angels' messages of
Revelation 14.
Some years ago Louis R. Conradi, our leader in Europe,
followed this official idea to its logical end and maintained
that Luther preached the third angel's message in the 16th
century. Conradi in time left the church. (He had also been
an opposer of the message at the 1888 conference.) And we

84
are today losing ministers, members and youth for the same
basic reason--they see nothing unique and attractive in our
gospel message. These officially endorsed views imply that
there is nothing unique about it.
Have our trusted historians unwittingly short-circuited the
Seventh-day Adventist movement of destiny? If so, great
damage has been done, for authoritatively published ideas
have a great impact on the world church.

The Re-emphasis View of 1888

Another highly endorsed view of the 1888 message is

that it was a mere "re-emphasis" of what the Adventist
pioneers had believed from our very beginning, a recovery of
a homiletical balance in doctrine and preaching temporarily
lost between 1844 and 1888. This view has come to be very
widely believed. A few examples must suffice:

This conference [1888] ... proved to be the

beginning of a re-emphasis of this glorious
truth, which resulted in a spiritual awakening
among our people (M. E. Kern, RH, August 3,
1950).
The greatest event of the eighties in the
experience of Seventh-day Adventists was the
recovery, or the restatement and new
consciousness, of their faith in the basic
doctrine of Christianity, "Knowing that a man is
not justified by the works of the law, but by the
faith of Jesus Christ" (A. W. Spalding, Captains
of the Host, p. 583).
There were those who accepted the [1888]
emphasis on righteousness by faith; on the
other extreme were those who thought this
emphasis threatened the "old landmarks."...
The reaction of the church during the
nineties to the new emphasis on justification ...
was mixed (N. F. Pease, The Faith That Saves,
pp. 40, 45; 1969).

If this "re-emphasis" (or "emphasis") view is correct,

some further questions arise:
(1) How could conscientious leaders resist, spurn, or even
neglect a re-emphasis of what they themselves had always

85
believed and had preached some twenty, thirty, or forty
years before? Or if this session of 1888 included a new
generation of Adventist preachers, how could they reject a
"glorious truth" their immediate forebears had been
preaching?
(2) Again, how could we defend ourselves against the
charge that the Adventist church suffered a moral fall similar
to that of Babylon if we accept the view that the 1888
brethren rejected a re-emphasis of truth that they believed
at the beginning of the Advent movement? When one is
climbing upwards, and suddenly goes backward, that is a
"fall."
We deplore offshoots and uncharitable critics unjustly
saying that the church has fallen as did Babylon. We don't
believe it. But the official version of our 1888 history logically
concedes this discouraging view. Many reasoning minds
follow it to its ultimate conclusions, as did Conradi. The more
we ferret out the truths of 1888, the more apparent it
becomes that off-shoots, fanaticism, apostasies, and
lukewarm complacency proliferate because of our long-
standing failure to recognize those realities.

This chapter will present evidence that the message of

1888 was not a mere re-emphasis of the doctrines of Luther
and Wesley, nor even of the Adventist pioneers. Neither was
it a re-play of what the Keswick speakers and popular
Protestant leaders of the day taught as "the doctrine of
righteousness by faith." It was greater than these! It was the
"beginning" of a more mature concept of the "everlasting
gospel" than had been clearly perceived by any previous
generation. It was "the beginning" of the final outpouring of
the Holy Spirit as the latter rain. It was the initial
announcement of the message of the fourth angel of
Revelation 18. It was to be a blessing unprecedented since
Pentecost (cf. FCE 473; RH June 3, 1890).
This is not to say that the messengers of 1888 were
greater than Paul, Luther, Wesley, or any one else, nor that
they were keener, brighter students. The message they
brought was simply the "third angel's message in verity," an
understanding of righteousness by faith parallel to and
consistent with the "time of the end" doctrine of the
cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary where the High Priest
ministers in the antitypical Day of Atonement in the Most
Holy Apartment (cf. EW 55, 56, 250-254, 260, 261). He

86
entered upon that last phase of His work in 1844. From there
He ministers true justification by faith to those who follow
Him by faith. Hence there is something unique about
justification by faith in the light of the Day of Atonement, and
the 1888 message recognizes it.
If allowed free course for heart acceptance and
theological development, the message would have prepared
a people to meet the Lord "not having spot, or wrinkle, or
any such thing," "without fault before the throne of God"
(Ephesians 5:27; Revelation 14:5). It was intended by its
Divine Author to ripen the "firstfruits unto God and to the
Lamb." If this is not true, Ellen White's lifetime credibility
must suffer, as well as our denominational self-respect.
Further, the obvious undeniable rejection of that
message did not constitute a moral or spiritual fall of the
remnant church involving a repudiation of Protestant
theology. It was rather an arresting of her ordained spiritual
development, a pitiful blindness and inability to recognize
the eschatalogical consummation of the love and the call of
the Lord.
The rejection of that message virtually eclipsed an ethical
and practical understanding of the cleansing of the heavenly
sanctuary. It left only the outward shell of doctrinal structure,
such as the chronological proofs of the 2300 years, and the
mechanical concept of the "investigative judgment" as
preached by us before 1888. Our own retarded growth in
understanding has invited the scorn of Evangelical
opponents who deride this unique Adventist truth as "flat,
stale, and profitless." This is why so many of our own people,
especially our youth, see the sanctuary "doctrine" as boring
and irrelevant.

What Ellen White Saw in the Message of 1888

As soon as she had heard a little of Dr. Waggoner's

message at Minneapolis (for the first time, incidentally), she
recognized it to be "precious light" in harmony with what she
had been "trying to present" during the previous 45 years.
She knew no jealousy, but welcomed the messengers and
their message. It was a further development in full harmony
with past light, but never clearly preached before:

I see the beauty of truth in the presentation of the

righteousness of Christ in relation to the law as the

87
Doctor has placed it before us. You say, many of you,
that it is light and truth. Yet you have not presented
it in its light heretofore.... That which has been
presented harmonizes perfectly with the light which
God has been pleased to give me during all the years
of my experience. If our ministering brethren would
accept the doctrine which has been presented so
clearly ... the people would be fed with their portion
of the meat in due season (Ms. 15, 1888; Olson, op.
cit., pp. 294, 295).

The brethren at Minneapolis themselves understood the

message to be a revelation of new light, rather than a re-
emphasis of what they had formerly preached. This is
implied as follows:

One brother asked me if I thought there was

any new light that we should have, or any new
truths? ... Well, shall we stop searching the
Scriptures because we have the light on the law
of God, and the testimony of His Spirit? No,
brethren (Ms. 9, 1888; Olson, pp. 292, 293).

Thus the message of 1888 was something which the

brethren had not previously comprehended. There was a
failure to appreciate the heart and verity of the third angel's
message, the outward forms of which alone they understood:

There are but few, even of those who claim

to believe it, that comprehend the third angel's
message; and yet this is the message for this
time. It is present truth. But how few take up
this message in its true bearing and present it
to the people in its power. With many it has but
little force. Said my guide, "There is much light
yet to shine forth from the law of God and the
gospel of righteousness. This message
understood in its true character, and
proclaimed in the Spirit will lighten the earth
with its glory" (Ms. 15, 1888; Olson, p. 296).
The peculiar work of the third angel has not
been seen in its importance. God meant that
His people should be far in advance of the
position which they occupy to-day.... It is not in

88
 the order of God that light has been kept from
our people--the very present truth which they
needed for this time. Not all our ministers who
are giving the third angel's message, really
understand what constitutes that message (5T
714, 715).

Ellen White never at any time used the word "re-

emphasis" or even "emphasis" in respect of the 1888
message. Clearly, it appeared to be new light which
contradicted ideas held by the brethren, just as the Jews
thought that Christ contradicted Moses when in fact His
message fulfilled Moses. Her context is the message and its
reception:

We see that the God of heaven sometimes

commissions men to teach that which is
regarded as contrary to the established
doctrines. Because those who were once the
depositaries of truth became unfaithful to their
sacred trust, the Lord chose others who would
receive the bright beams of the Sun of
righteousness, and would advocate truths that
were not in accordance with the ideas of the
religious leaders....
Even Seventh-day Adventists are in danger
of closing their eyes to truth as it is in Jesus,
because it contradicts something which they
have taken for granted as truth but which the
Holy Spirit teaches is not truth (May 30, 1896;
TM pp. 69, 70).

There was a principle which made an advance revelation

of "new light" necessary in 1888. This is stated in one of
Ellen White's sermons at Minneapolis:

The Lord has need of men who are ...

worked by the Holy Spirit, who are certainly
receiving manna fresh from heaven. Upon the
minds of such, God's word flashes light...

That which God gives His servants to speak

to-day would not perhaps have been present
truth twenty years ago, but it is God's message

89
 for this time (Ms. 8a, 1888; Olson, pp. 273,
274).

There was a distinct difference in her mind between the

message of righteousness by faith as presented in 1888 and
the "past message" the Lord sent prior to 1888. While there
was to be no contradiction, there must be further
development: "We want the past message and the fresh
message" (RH, March 18, 1890). (But her appeals are not a
license to fanaticism or novel ideas irresponsibly
proclaimed).
In a series of Review articles in early 1890, Ellen White
discussed the cleansing-of-the-sanctuary truth in connection
with the controverted 1888 message of righteousness by
faith. Each truth complemented the other. There was a
desperate need for a more profound understanding of the
everlasting gospel in relation to the Day of Atonement:

We are in the day of atonement, and we are

to work in harmony with Christ's work of
cleansing the sanctuary.... We must now set
before the people the work which by faith we
see our great High-priest accomplishing in the
heavenly sanctuary (RH January 21, 1890).
The mediatorial work of Christ, the grand
and holy mysteries of redemption, are not
studied or comprehended by the people who
claim to have light in advance of every other
people on the face of the earth. Were Jesus
personally upon earth, He would address a
large number who claim to believe present
truth with the words He addressed to the
Pharisees: "Ye do err, not knowing the
Scriptures, or the power of God."...
There are old, yet new truths still to be
added to the treasures of our knowledge. We
do not understand or exercise faith as we
should.... We are not called to worship and
serve God by the use of the means employed in
former years. God requires higher service now
than ever before. He requires the improvement
of the heavenly gifts. He has brought us into a
position where we need higher and better

90
 things than have ever been needed before
(ibid., February 25, 1890).
We have been hearing His voice more
distinctly in the message that has been going
for the last two years.... We have only just
begun to get a little glimmering of what faith is
(ibid., March 11, 1890).

Thus it is evident:
1. The message of 1888 was "light" which the brethren
had not seen or presented "heretofore."
2. It was our "meat in due season"--food for today, not
manna restored from yesterday.
3. Ellen White heard at Minneapolis for the first time a
doctrinal unfolding of what she had been "trying to present"
all along--the matchless charms of Christ in the light of His
Day-of-Atonement ministry. No other human lips had
preached it.
4. She recognized in E. J. Waggoner an agent used by the
Lord for an advanced revelation of truth to His people and to
the world.
5. The "verity" of the third angel's message had not been
comprehended by our ministers because they had not
advanced in understanding as they should have forty-four
years after the beginning of the cleansing of the sanctuary.
Instead, advanced light had been kept from the people.
6. The brethren at the time understood her support of
Waggoner and Jones as a recommendation of the new light
which they brought. It was not a call to their original
understanding of the "established doctrines." It opposed a
mere re-emphasis of old understandings. Had Brethren
Butler, Smith and others so understood it, would they not
have been strong to champion it instead of opposing it as
they did?
7. Therefore, what the brethren rejected was the call for
"most decided changes." They did not refuse to go back;
they refused to go forward. Thus they tried to stand still--a
difficult thing for any army on the march.

The Light of 1888 the Beginning of Greater Light

Ellen White often spoke of the certainty of the Lord

sending new light, if and when His people were willing to
receive it. The tragic "if and when" are necessary only

91
because the new wine must have new bottles, and that
means a crucifixion of self (cf. Matthew 9:16, 17):

If through the grace of Christ His people will

become new bottles, He will fill them with the
new wine. God will give additional light, and old
truths will be recovered, and replaced in the
framework of truth; and wherever the laborers
go, they will triumph. As God's ambassadors,
they are to search the Scriptures, to seek for
the truths that have been hidden beneath the
rubbish of error (ibid., December 23, 1890).
A great work is to be done, and God sees
that our leading men have need of greater
light, that they might unite harmoniously with
the messengers whom He will send to
accomplish the work that He designs they
should (ibid., July 26, 1892).

Can there be any question that the message of 1888 was

the beginning of that fourth angel's message, who joins his
voice with the third angel? Neither The Fruitage of Spiritual
Gifts (Christian), Captains of the Host (Spalding), Through
Crisis to Victory (Olson), The Lonely Years (A. L. White), nor
the recent White Estate "Statement" inserted in Selected
Messages, Volume 3, (pp. 156-163), makes a single allusion
to this fact. The same is true of the article on the 1888
conference in the Spring 1985 issue of Adventist Heritage.
Our Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia discusses the 1888
message in several articles, but never recognizes it for what
it was (pp. 634, 635, 1086, 1201, 1385).
This evasion of a vital truth is amazing. It's like the Jews'
readiness to acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as a great rabbi
while they evade seeing Him as the Messiah. But logic and
consistency require this special maneuver by those who
insist that the 1888 message was accepted. They must
virtually ignore the fact that the message was the beginning
of the latter rain and the loud cry, or else they must explain
how a work which was to have gone "like fire in the stubble"
has been dragging on for nearly a century, when it could
have enlightened the world long ago if "our brethren" had
truly accepted it (Letter B2a, 1892; GCB 1893, p. 419).

92
 Note how clearly Ellen White saw the 1888 message in
the light of Revelation 18:

Several have written to me, inquiring if the

[1888] message of justification by faith is the
third angel's message, and I have answered, "It
is the third angel's message in verity." The
prophet declares, "And after these things I saw
another angel come down from heaven, having
great power; and the earth was lightened with
his glory" [Revelation 18:1] (RH, April 1, 1890).
The loud cry of the third angel has already
begun in the revelation of the righteousness of
Christ.... This is the beginning of the light of
the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth
(ibid., November 22, 1892).

If that wondrous message is to be proclaimed by the

popular Protestant revivalists, we have no reason to exist as
a people.

The Light of the Loud Cry Turned Off

The Lord is merciful and long-suffering, and ready to

forgive. He restores that which was lost on condition of
repentance. But we must not allow confusion to neutralize
the parable of 1888.
If those who opposed the light at Minneapolis later
repented truly and were forgiven, why was not the original
purpose of the 1888 message fulfilled? It is certain that there
was no revival and reformation consistent in scope and
effect with what would have come had the light been
accepted. The Lord sent no more light beyond that fateful
"beginning." We may ask, Why?9
At no time between 1888 and 1901 did the responsible
leadership of the church manifest a firm purpose to rectify
the tragic mistake of 1888. Doubt, suspicion, mistrust of the
message and the messengers continued even for decades.
9
There is no evidence that Ellen White took over Jones' and Waggoner's mission, thus making them
redundant. Yet the common idea prevalent today is that their message is redundant because Ellen
White wrote out after 1888 the light they were commissioned to bring to the church and to the world.
She supported their message because it was what she had been "trying to present," that is, "the
matchless charms of Christ." But she never claimed that the Lord had laid on her the burden of
proclaiming the loud cry message. Most of Steps to Christ was written before 1888 and compiled later.
To say that we do not need the 1888 message because we have her writings is to contradict her own
message.

93
 Although this tragedy occurred, there is no need to
conclude that the Lord withdrew His blessings from His
people. What was despised and rejected was the latter rain,
but the former rain has continued to fall. Unnumbered souls
have been led to the Lord during the past century--including
every reader of this book. Not one person is living today who
took part in the 1888 history.
God has not forsaken His people. But our attitude tied His
hands, making it impossible for Him to send any more
showers of the latter rain. He could not, would not, cast His
choicest pearls before those who would not reverence His
more abounding grace. Therefore, those showers of the
latter rain ceased after the initial outpouring was persistently
repulsed. He is not beyond the capacity of being grieved.
In a thought-provoking, almost cryptic sermon at
Minneapolis, Ellen White spoke of Elijah fed by a widow
outside of Israel because those in Israel who had light had
not lived up to it. "They were the most hardhearted people in
the world, the hardest to impress with the truth," she said.
The Syrian Naaman was cleansed from his leprosy while
Israelite lepers remained defiled. When the inhabitants of
Nazareth rose up against the Son of Mary, "some" were
ready to accept Him as the Messiah, but an influence
"pressed in" to counter their conviction. These were
illustrations of our 1888 history:

But here a state of unbelief arises, Is not

this Joseph's son? ... What did they do in their
madness? "They rose up and thrust Him out of
the city." Here I want to tell you what a terrible
thing it is if God gives light, and it is impressed
on your heart and spirit.... Why, God will
withdraw His Spirit unless His truth is
accepted. But God was accepted at Nazareth by
some; the witness was here that He was God;
but a counter influence pressed in ... that
would cause the hearts to disbelieve (Ms. 8,
1888; Olson, pp. 263, 264).

That "counter influence" is a significant factor in our 1888

history. Two days before, she had warned that the steps of
unbelief being taken would prove final for that generation so
far as advanced light of the latter rain was concerned:

94
 We are losing a great deal of blessing we
might have had at this meeting [Minneapolis],
because we do not take advance steps in the
Christian life, as our duty is presented before
us; and this will be an eternal loss (ibid., Olson,
p. 257).
That light which is to fill the whole earth
with its glory has been despised by some who
claim to believe the present truth.... I know not
but some have even now gone too far to return
and repent (TM 89, 90; 1896).
If you wait for light to come in a way that
will please every one, you will wait in vain. If
you wait for louder calls or better
opportunities, the light will be withdrawn, and
you will be left in darkness (5T 720).

Speaking of a meeting of minister-leaders in 1890, Ellen

White revealed the pathetic picture of Jesus Christ being
turned away as the bride-to-be in the Song of Solomon 5:2
turned her lover away: "Christ knocked for entrance but no
room was made for Him, the door was not opened and the
light of His glory, so nigh, was withdrawn" (Letter 73, 1890).

The Source of Reformationist Misunderstanding

Earnest efforts for decades to disparage the 1888

message as "new light" tend to deflect favorable attention
from the message itself toward popular non-Adventist,
Protestant concepts. This has been the case for some sixty
years, beginning around the 1920's. A. G. Daniells' Christ Our
Righteousness of 1926 saw nothing unique in the 1888
message, but mistakenly interpreted it as being "in perfect
harmony with the best [non-Adventist] evangelical teaching"
(Pease, By Faith Alone, p. 189).
This long tradition has doubtless laid the foundation for
the current success of concepts of righteousness by faith
similar to those held by Calvinist "Reformationist"
theologians. If non-Adventists possess the truth on
righteousness by faith, we must of necessity import the

95
doctrine from them. But in the process of doing so, the 1888
truths have been neglected, and even opposed.
The following is typical of this widely held view. It
seriously confuses Reformationist views with the 1888
message. Here is an example of the venerable foundation on
which rests the phenomenal confusion of recent decades:

[The 1888] righteousness by faith was not

new light. There are those who have
entertained the mistaken idea that the
message of the righteousness of Christ was an
unknown truth to the advent movement up to
the time of the Minneapolis meeting, but the
fact is that our pioneers taught it from the very
beginning of the advent church. As a young
preacher, I often heard our veterans, such as J.
G. Matteson and E. W. Farnsworth, declare that
justification by faith was not a new teaching in
our church (Christian, The Fruitage of Spiritual
Gifts, pp. 225, 226).

Sad to say, some of those "veterans" were not receptive

to the increased 1888 light. This insistence that the 1888
message was not new light was the familiar insignia of the
opposition of that time. Not long after the Minneapolis
meeting, R. F. Cottrell wrote an article for the Review
attacking the 1888 message, asking, "Where is the New
Departure?" (RH April 22, 1890). W. H. Littlejohn likewise
attacked the message with an article, January 16, 1894,
entitled, "Justification by Faith Not a New Doctrine." Both
failed to recognize what was happening in their day--the
onset of the latter rain.
Some writers have cited isolated, wrested Ellen White
statements in support of the same opposition thesis--that it
was not new light. But she did not contradict herself on this
important point. Let us examine the statements used in
support of the "re-emphasis" view. We must give them a fair
hearing:

Elder E. J. Waggoner had the privilege [at

Minneapolis] granted him of speaking plainly
and presenting his views upon justification by
faith and the righteousness of Christ in relation
to the law. This was no new light, but it was old

96
 light placed where it should be in the third
angel's message.... This was not new light to
me, for it had come to me from higher authority
for the last forty-four years (Ms. 24, 1888; 3 SM
168; Olson, p. 48).
Laborers in the cause of truth should
present the righteousness of Christ, not as new
light, but as precious light that has for a time
been lost sight of by the people (RH March 20,
1894; Olson, p. 49).

These statements do not say that the 1888 message in

its fulness was not the new light of the latter rain and the
loud cry. In context, the Ms. 24, 1888 statement was written
to refute the prejudice of opposing brethren who disparaged
the message as merely human novelty. All light is eternal;
none is ever strictly "new." But it was certainly new to our
brethren in 1888 and to our congregations. And it would
have been new to the world if we had proclaimed it!
And whatever the 1888 light was, new or old, it is obvious
that no one else had preached it among us during those "last
forty-four years" (Ms. 5, 1889; MS. 15, 1888, Olson p. 295).
Further on in the 1889 manuscript, Ellen White stated that
the entire 1888 message would indeed prove to be "new
light" if the gospel commission was to be finished in that
generation:

Questions were asked at that time, "Sister

White, do you think that the Lord has any new
and increased light for us as a people?" I
answered, "Most assuredly. I do not only think
so, but can speak understandingly. I know that
there is precious truth to be unfolded to us if
we are the people that are to stand in the day
of God's preparation (3 SM 174).

Seventh-day Adventists are not to cultivate the

reputation of being inventors of new doctrines, but repairers
of the breach, the restorers of paths to dwell in, the
discoverers of the old ways. Such a presentation will disarm
prejudice, whereas presenting truth as something newly
invented will arouse opposition.
But this does not deny that the 1888 message was an
advanced revelation to the church. While Ellen White's

97
conviction gradually deepened that it was the fulfillment of
the Revelation 18 prophecy, she saw how it harmonized with
the unique concept of the cleansing of the heavenly
sanctuary. This was the genius of the message.
This is truth that sincere fellow Protestants have never
comprehended. Could one reason be that we have never
made it clear to them?
It is shocking to orthodox Jews who have been praying for
the coming of their Messiah to realize that He came long ago
but was rejected by their forefathers. It is no less shocking to
Seventh-day Adventists who keep praying for the outpouring
of the latter rain to realize that the blessing came a century
ago, but was rejected by their forefathers.

CHAPTER SIX

THE 1888 REJECTION OF ELLEN

WHITE
What Ellen White says about the reaction against the
1888 message sounds almost incredible. Could it be that a
natural-born unbelief veils our eyes and heart? We humans
seem to have difficulty believing "the testimony of Jesus."
What was a defeat we like to call "a glorious victory." Where
we lost our way we assume that we found it.
We must clarify hazy, indistinct impressions to as near
pin-point accuracy as possible. Several avenues of heaven's
blessing were blocked by the negative reaction toward the
1888 message. The inhabitants of heaven already realize
what "we" did in that history, as follows:

98
 (1) The Holy Spirit Was Insulted

This may sound impossible, for several reasons. It may

be difficult for us readily to conceive of the Holy Spirit as a
Person who can be insulted or who can feel it and be
concerned about it. And it may be even more difficult to
conceive how Seventh-day Adventists could do such a thing--
certainly not ministers and General Conference leaders. But
we must face what the Lord's messenger has to say. The
testimony of Jesus does not gloss over reality:

Now our meeting is drawing to a close

and ... there has not been a single break so as
to let the Spirit of God in. Now I was saying
what was the use of our assembling here
together and for our ministering brethren to
come in if they are here only to shut out the
Spirit of God from the people? (Ms. 9, 1888;
Olson, pp. 290, 291).
There was, I knew, a remarkable blindness
upon the minds of many [at Minneapolis], so
that they did not discern where the Spirit of
God was and what constituted true Christian
experience. And to consider that these were
the ones who had the guardianship of the flock
of God was painful....
Our brethren who have occupied leading
positions in the work and the cause of God
should have been so closely connected with the
Source of all light that they would not call light
darkness and darkness light (Ms. 24, 1888;
emphasis added).

The details of this history are precise and clear-cut. There

need be no confusion in our thinking regarding intangibles.
The reception of the Holy Spirit was implicit in the reception
of the message itself. It would be impossible to receive the
latter rain gift of the Holy Spirit and not receive the message
through which the gift was given. And the good news that we
today need to grasp is the corollary of this truth: it is equally
impossible to receive the message today and not receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit implicit with it. If we have not received
the Holy Spirit in the power of the latter rain and the loud

99
cry, this is clear evidence that we have not received the
message that the Lord sent to us.
What is important in understanding 1888 is not the
negative attitude of a few individuals, a so-called die-hard
minority, but the spirit which "controlled" or "prevailed" at
the 1888 Conference and thereafter. This is what had a
determinative effect on that generation, and has had on
every generation since. Ellen White is clear about that
"controlling" influence:

I met with the brethren in the tabernacle

and I felt it my duty to give a short history of
the meeting and my experience at Minneapolis,
the course I had pursued and why, and plainly
state the spirit which prevailed at that
meeting.... I told them of the hard position I
was placed in, to stand, as it were, alone and
be compelled to reprove the wrong spirit that
was a controlling power at that meeting. The
suspicion and jealousy, the evil surmising, the
resistance of the Spirit of God that was
appealing to them, were more after the order in
which the reformers had been treated. It was
the very order in which the [Methodist] church
had treated my father's family and eight of
us....
I stated that the course that had been
pursued at Minneapolis was cruelty to the Spirit
of God (Ms. 30, 1889; emphasis supplied).
[The opposing brethren] were moved at the
meeting [Minneapolis] by another spirit, and
they knew not that God had sent these young
men to bear a special message to them, which
they treated with ridicule and contempt, not
realizing that the heavenly intelligences were
looking upon them.... I know that at the time
the Spirit of God was insulted (Letter S24,
1892).
Sins ... are lying at the door of many.... The
Holy Spirit has been insulted, and light has
been rejected (TM 393; 1896).

100
 Some10 have treated the Spirit as an
unwelcome guest, refusing to receive the rich
gift, refusing to acknowledge it, turning from it,
and condemning it as fanaticism (TM 64; 1896).

The idea of insulting the Holy Spirit is more than a

passing hyperbole. This tragedy affects us today as surely as
the Jews' mistake of long ago affects them today.
A sin that an individual committed long ago as an insult
to another person remains as a burden on his or her
conscience and affects the character and personality. This
can continue even for decades, as long as both individuals
live and until repentance and restitution take place.
Likewise, the consciousness of the corporate body of the
church, our denominational character and personality, our
standing before Heaven, the spirit that permeates our
churches, are affected negatively by this vital episode of our
history. Our environmental heritage is inescapable. Jeremiah
says that "the sin of Judah is ... engraved on the tablet of
their heart with a point of adamant" (17:1, NEB). And it
extends from one generation to another (2:5, 9; 3:24, 25;
14:20). Until repentance takes place, we doom ourselves to
repeat the sins of our fathers. Alienation from the Holy Spirit
is deeply involved.
The Holy Spirit is a Person, not a mere influence or an
ethereal "it." He can be grieved. This keen concept of the
personality of God as the Holy Spirit pervades the Hebrew
Scriptures. The prophets were constantly representing God
as the disappointed, grieved lover of Israel's soul.11 The idea
is unique to Israel, for no pagan religion had any such
concept of a "jealous" divine personality.
The same truth pervades the New Testament, and is also
impressively emphasized in Ellen White's testimonies.
However, the idea is generally lacking in modern Catholic
and Protestant teaching. A full appreciation of this reality is
unique to those who will welcome the Lord at His second
coming, for they are corporately represented as a bride who
has at last made herself ready for the intimate relationship
of marriage (Revelation 19:7-9. The 1900's "alpha" heresy of

10
Never does Ellen White say that the "some" who opposed were "few," nor does she say that those
who accepted were "many." Without known exception, those who rejected the message were "many"
and those who accepted were "few."
11
See for example, 1 Samuel 8:7; 12:6-12; Isaiah 50:1; 54:5-17; 61:10; 63:9-14; Jeremah 31:1-9;
Ezekiel 16; Hosea, passim .

101
pantheism attacked this truth of the personality of the Holy
Spirit; the "omega" will doubtless renew that error).
Grieved and insulted, He has a right to retribution. And
how can He seek it, consistent with His character of love? His
retribution is more poignantly painful to endure than any
other, for it will still be the voice of love that speaks:

There will be messages borne; and those

who have rejected the message God has sent
will hear most startling declarations.... Injured
and insulted Deity will speak, proclaiming the
sins that have been hidden. As the priests and
rulers, full of indignation and terror, sought
refuge in flight at the last scene of the
cleansing of the temple, so will it be in the
work for these last days (Special Testimonies,
Series A, No. 7, pp. 54, 55).

The context of this statement is a discussion of the

Seventh-day Adventist Church.

(2) Jesus Christ Was Spurned and Insulted

This also is difficult for us to see. Again, the personality of

the Son of God is at issue. Does He have feelings as we
humans do? Can He be grieved? What happened in our 1888
history seems so astonishing that the story would be
incredible if it were not clearly told in the writings of Ellen
White. Her discernment was inspired.
The meek and lowly Jesus still chooses messengers who
are "only men," who are like "a root out of a dry ground." He
condescended to identify Himself with the 1888 messengers
and was grieved and insulted when the "heavenly
credentials" He gave them were despised:

Here was evidence, that all might discern

whom the Lord recognized as His servants....
These men whom you have spoken against
have been as signs in the world, as witnesses
for God.... If you reject Christ's delegated
messengers, you reject Christ (TM 97; 1896).

102
 To accuse and criticize those whom God is
using is to accuse and criticize the Lord who
sent them....
With many the cry of the heart has been,
"We will not have this man [Christ] to reign
over us." ... The true religion, the only religion
of the Bible, that teaches forgiveness only
through the merits of a crucified and risen
Saviour, that advocates righteousness by the
faith of the Son of God, has been slighted,
spoken against, ridiculed, and rejected (TM
466-468).
The present message ... is a message from
God; it bears the divine credentials, for its fruit
is unto holiness (RH September 3, 1889).
This message as it has been presented [by
Jones and Waggoner] should go to every church
that claims to believe the truth, and bring our
people up to a higher standpoint.... We want to
see who have presented to the world the
heavenly credentials (ibid., March 18, 1890).

But even in modern times, our esteemed church historian

casts contempt upon the messenger, if not upon the
message itself:

As we look back on the controversy we

perceive that it was the rancors aroused by
personalities, much more than the differences
in beliefs, which caused the difficulty. The
party of Butler, Smith and Morrison believed in
the theory of justification by faith.... The party
of Waggoner and Jones believed in the
performance of good works; but .... bore almost
exclusively upon faith as the factor in salvation.
Minds which could calmly reason could
harmonize these views, but neither side was
disposed to consider the other side calmly
(Spalding, Captains of the Host, p. 599).

A more accurate assessment would be that the 1888

messengers "bore almost exclusively" on a "faith which
works by love" precisely as Paul preached it (Galatians 5:6).
That message with "divine credentials" was not a

103
compromising mixture of legalism and gospel. They did most
emphatically proclaim righteousness by faith alone--but it
was New Testament faith which demonstrates its built-in
motivating power for true obedience to all the
commandments of God (TM 92).
Did those messengers who were declared to represent
our Lord "arouse" the "rancors" that made Heaven turn from
the scene with shame? Would the Lord grant "heavenly
credentials" to messengers who were not disposed to
"calmly reason"? Ellen White, for sure, could never recognize
"precious light" in unsanctified "shouting" or the
unreasonable "extreme teaching" that our author attributes
to them (Spalding, op. cit., pp. 593, 601).
Back of the shameful scene at Minneapolis, and back of
the confusing shadows caused by our unbelief today, stands
the Figure who was the Rock of offence and the Stone of
stumbling at that fateful meeting. We come face to face with
reality:

Men professing godliness have despised

Christ in the person of His messengers. Like the
Jews, they reject God's message.... He was not
the Christ that the Jews had looked for. So
today the agencies that God sends are not what
men have looked for (FCE 472; 1897).
Christ has registered all the hard, proud,
sneering speeches spoken against His servants
as against Himself (RH May 27, 1890).

The true Christ has always been misapprehended. As

often expected, He has as often been rejected. But modern
Israel must overcome at last all past failures of ancient
Israel. This will take place, for we are living in the time of the
cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. This is a special end-
time work of overcoming that has never been completed in
the past.
Flesh and blood can never reveal to us the true
credentials of the "root out of a dry ground" that may stand
before us. The story of 1888 teaches us that the ancient Jews
will have to make room in history for us to kneel down
beside them:

Many say, "If I had only lived in the days of

Christ, I would not have wrested His words, or

104
 falsely interpreted His instruction. I would not
have rejected and crucified Him, as did the
Jews." But that will be proved by the way in
which you deal with his message and His
messengers today (RH April 11, 1893).

The issue of 1888 was not how much "emphasis" to place

on the preaching of this "doctrine" in relation to our other
"peculiar" doctrines. The real issue was, "What think ye of
Christ?" It is futile for us today to talk of establishing a right
"relationship with Christ" unless we face this reality of 1888.
In order to bolster our confidence that we do not need
repentance, we have produced Seminary theses "to inquire
what place the teaching of justification and righteousness by
faith has been accorded alongside the distinctive tenets" of
the church. Graphs have been made counting the number of
times the words "righteousness," "justification," "faith,"
"salvation," "Saviour," and "law" have appeared in our
Sabbath School Quarterlies, "to prove that Seventh-day
Adventists have not slighted the emphasis on salvation
through Christ." Can computers now measure our
faithfulness and prove that the True Witness is wrong? If
mere verbiage is the criterion, Roman Catholicism must be
the most Christ-centered teaching in the world. While the
Son of God continues to suffer, must we cast lots in various
inquiries to see how to divide His vesture, this "doctrine or
tenet of righteousness by faith alongside the distinctive
tenets of the church"? The righteousness of Christ is vastly
more than a mere verbal repetition.
The grandest eschatalogical opportunity of the ages was
rejected in our 1888 era. What was despised was an intimate
heart reconciliation with Christ such as a bride feels for her
bridegroom. But verbiage and cold doctrine have been
substituted for it.
Dry homilies that split hairs between imputed and
imparted righteousness, justification and sanctification,
expiation and propitiation, have made "righteousness by
faith" become nauseating to many. The same trouble
prevailed soon after 1888. Ellen White discusses the efforts
of those whose hearts opposed the message:

Many commit the error of trying to define

minutely the fine points of distinction between
justification and sanctification. Into the

105
 definitions of these two terms they often bring
their own ideas and speculations. Why try to be
more minute than is Inspiration on the vital
question of righteousness by faith? Why try to
work out every minute point, as if the salvation
of the soul depended upon all having exactly
your understanding of this matter? (Diary,
February 27, 1891).

May we come to see how the living, loving Christ was

insulted at Minneapolis, and not the cold doctrine that was
misunderstood! We distrusted those swellings of the heart
which were His drawings, and cast contempt upon Him who
was drawing us by terming His tenderness "fanaticism." The
tears that started to flow from the mysterious attraction of
the uplifted cross drew from us zealous declaiming "against
enthusiasm and fanaticism" (TM 80, 81).
Jesus knows our human nature, for He Himself partakes
of it still. He is a Person. He too knows self-respect. He came
very near to us in 1888. "Not a soul of us dreams of what
might have been" in the sweet days that would have
followed had we walked with Him in Heaven's glorious light.
We often speak of 1844 as "the Great Disappointment." But
1888 was His disappointment, for we can read of how He
loved us. That intimacy of love we would not have. Why
should we marvel if He did not force it upon us?
We were told at Minneapolis itself:

No one must be permitted to close the

avenue whereby the light of truth shall come to
the people. As soon as this shall be attempted,
God's Spirit will be quenched.... Let the love of
Christ reign in hearts here.... When the Spirit of
God comes in, love will take the place of
variance, because Jesus is love; if His Spirit
were cherished here, our meeting would be like
a stream in the desert (Ms. 15, 1888; Olson, pp.
300, 301).
No more tender calls, no better
opportunities could be given them in order that
they might do that which they ought to have
done at Minneapolis.... No one can tell how
much may be at stake when neglecting to
comply with the call of the Spirit of God. The

106
 time will come when they will be willing to do
anything and everything possible in order to
have a chance of hearing the call which they
rejected at Minneapolis.... Better opportunities
will never come, deeper feelings they will not
have (Letter O19, 1892).

Again the testimony of Ellen White stretches our faith.

But we must understand reality. Human hearts trifled with
the tender love of One who gave His blood for us. Finally, on
the part of "many" in leadership, the trifling changed to what
Ellen White sadly was forced to call "hatred." Seven years
after Minneapolis she said to those "many":

You have turned your back, and not your

face, to the Lord.... The Spirit of God is
departing from many among His people. Many
have entered into dark, secret paths, and some
will never return.... They have not only refused
to accept the message, but they have hated the
light.... They are doing despite to His Holy
Spirit (TM 89-91; 1895).

Heaven was "indignant" (TM 76). There is an intimacy of

divine personal grief involved here that is unique in modern
religious history, perhaps in all time. We are reminded of the
heart cries of Jeremiah and Hosea of old. Ellen White said at
Minneapolis: "If you only knew how Christ has regarded your
religious attitude at this meeting" (Ms. 8a, 1888; Olson, p.
281). Four years later, "There is sadness in heaven over the
spiritual blindness of many of our brethren" (RH July 26,
1892). Speaking of "those who resisted the Spirit of God at
Minneapolis," she said:

All the universe of heaven witnessed the

disgraceful treatment of Jesus Christ,
represented by the Holy Spirit. Had Christ been
before them, they would have treated Him in a
manner similar to that in which the Jews
treated Christ (Special Testimonies, Series A.
No. 6, p. 20).
The scenes which took place at that meeting
[Minneapolis] made the God of heaven
ashamed to call those who took part in them

107
 His brethren. All this the heavenly Watcher
noticed, and it was written in the book of God's
remembrance (Special Testimony to the Review
and Herald Office, 1896, pp. 16, 17).

These are sad words to record, but we cannot be honest

and refuse to face their full implications. What "the heavenly
Watcher noticed" must also be "written in the book of [our]
remembrance." We can see ourselves in those dear brethren
of a century ago, for "there, but for the grace of God, am I."

(3) Ellen White's Ministry Was Disparaged

The attitude of leadership to Ellen White's support of the

1888 message was similar to that of ancient Israel and Judah
to prophets such as Elijah and Jeremiah. Note her frank
remarks shortly after the Minneapolis conference:

I have not had a very easy time since I left

the Pacific Coast. Our first meeting was not like
any other General Conference I ever
attended.... My testimony was ignored, and
never in my life experience was I treated as at
the [1888] conference (Letter 7, December 9,
1888).

Brethren, you are urging me to come to your

camp meetings. I must tell you plainly that the
course pursued toward me and my work since
the Gen. Conf. at Minneapolis--your resistance
of the light and warnings that God has given
through me--has made my labor fifty times
harder than it would otherwise have been....
It seems to me that you have cast aside the
word of the Lord as unworthy of your notice....
My experience since the conference at
Minneapolis has not been very assuring. I have
asked the Lord for wisdom daily, and that I may
not be utterly disheartened, and go down to
the grave brokenhearted as did my husband
(Letter 1, 1890).

108
 These were not the words of a woman who was
overwrought emotionally. She had good reason for her
feelings:

I related in the Thursday morning meeting

[at Ottawa, Kansas] some things in reference to
the Minneapolis meeting....
God gave me meat in due season for the
people, but they refused it for it did not come
in just the way and manner they wanted it to
come. Elders Jones and Waggoner presented
precious light to the people, but prejudice and
unbelief, jealousy and evil-surmising barred the
door of their hearts that nothing from this
source should find entrance to their hearts....

Thus it was in the betrayal, trial, and

crucifixion of Jesus, all this had passed before
me point by point and the Satanic spirit took
the control and moved with power upon the
human hearts, that had been opened to doubts
and to bitterness, wrath and hatred. All this
was prevailing at that meeting [at
Minneapolis]....
I was conducted to the house where our
brethren made their homes, and there was
much conversation and excitement of feelings
and some smart, and as they supposed sharp,
witty remarks. The servants whom the Lord
sent were caricatured, ridiculed, and placed in
a ridiculous light. The comment ... passed upon
me and the work that God had given me to do
was anything but flattering. Willie White's
name was handled freely and he was ridiculed
and denounced, also the names of Elders Jones
and Waggoner (Letter 14, 1889; emphasis
added).
Voices that I was surprised to hear were
joining in this rebellion, ... hard, bold and
decided in denouncing [Sister White]. And of all
those so free and forward with their cruel
words, not one had come to me and inquired if
these reports and their suppositions were
true.... After hearing what I did my heart sank

109
 within me. I had never pictured before my mind
what dependence we might place in those who
claim to be friends, when the spirit of Satan
finds entrance to their hearts. I thought of the
future crisis, and feelings that I can never put
into words for a little time overcame me.... "The
brother shall betray the brother to death"
(idem).

It would not be fair to characterize Ellen White's heart

reaction to this as "emotional," or that of Jones and
Waggoner. But all three were human beings with hearts that
could be wounded. All three felt pain and grief, as did the
ancient prophets. Ellen White in particular sensed keenly the
premonitions of the final persecution of the saints. She
actually used the word "persecution" to describe the heart
attitude of leading brethren toward the 1888 messengers
(GCB 1893, p. 184).
On the other hand, it was a puzzle to the sincere brethren
of that era how she could support two apparently faulty
young men against the calm, stolid judgment of nearly all
the established leaders and ministers. If "balance" was
needed, why did she support the apparently unbalanced?
Why did she liken the brethren's reaction against Jones' and
Waggoner's message to the Jews' reaction against Christ?
The 1888 opposition was composed of good, sincere, self-
sacrificing, hard-working ministers. Their concern for the
progress of the church was genuine. It was their fear that
this beautiful vision of Christ's righteousness would lead to
fanaticism. But this fear calcified human hearts. There seems
only one way to understand this mysterious reaction. A
careful study of Ellen White's numerous statements indicates
that it was the revelation of the breadth, and length, and
depth, and height of Christ's love (agape ) that our dear,
hard-working brethren were instinctively opposing. The love
revealed at the cross "constraineth us" so that believers
henceforth find it impossible to go on living for self (2
Corinthians 5:14, 15). The profound truth seems to be that
this kind of devotion to Christ, this closer intimacy with Him,
was unwelcome:

Here was evidence, that all might discern

whom the Lord recognized as His servants. But
there are those who despised the men and the

110
 message they bore. They have taunted them
with being fanatics, extremists, and
enthusiasts (TM 97; 1896).
These men [the opposition] have been
holding positions of trust, and have been
moulding the work after their own similitude,
as far as they possibly could ... They have been
zealously declaiming against enthusiasm and
fanaticism. Faith ... that God has enjoined upon
His people to exercise, is called fanaticism. But
if there is anything upon the earth that should
inspire men with sanctified zeal, it is the truth
as it is in Jesus, ... Christ, made unto us
wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification,
and redemption.
... If there is anything in our world that
should inspire enthusiasm, it is the cross of
Calvary (ibid., pp 80, 81; 1895).

Thus we are brought to the foot of Christ's cross. Here is

the mysterious continental divide in Adventism where faith
and unbelief go their separate ways. Of all human beings,
the gospel minister or administrator faces the most subtle
temptation to indulge a disguised love of self. Unless he
surveys that wondrous cross and casts contempt on all his
professional and personal pride, he will unconsciously resist
the agape revealed there. John Bunyan in The Pilgrim's
Progress saw hard by the very gate of heaven there is a path
that leads to hell.
Ellen White did not consider Jones' or Waggoner's
presentations to be either extreme or radical, but tried to
reason with the brethren who thought they were. Widely
published statements such as the following perpetuate a
myth:

Mrs. White [did not] endorse the ideas

advanced by Elder Waggoner concerning
Galatians.... She even seemed to have a feeling
that the two men who were so prominent at
that time might later on be carried away by
their extreme views of certain points.
(Christian, op. cit., p. 232.)

111
 Her remarks were not directed against any "extreme
views" Waggoner had. Instead of charging him with being
radical or extreme, she intimates that some of his views
were immature--there was not "perfection." In God's plan,
this immaturity was to be overcome by faithful, earnest
"digging in the mines of God for the precious ore." The light
that shone in 1888 was only the "beginning" of the light
which was to lighten the earth with glory.12 Such glorious
light began to shine through imperfect but divinely chosen
channels.

A Glorious Treasure Hunt Despised

It was not God's plan that one or two young men should
do all the digging. Other more mature minds should go on
with it, willing to receive "every ray of light that God shall
send ... though it should come through the humblest of His
servants" (Ms. 15, 1888). Within their lifetime the everlasting
gospel should unfold in a mature and complete whole, ready
to lighten the earth with the glory of truth.
If this was God's purpose, it would be necessary that the
views of both Waggoner and Jones should not be perfect or
mature at this early stage of development. They were merely
to challenge their brethren to the greatest treasure hunt of
the ages. The very imperfections and immaturity of their
views would rally the hearty cooperation of their brethren.
Had the two young men seen all the light in its perfection,
where would have been the joy of their brethren in the sheer
delight of discovery? God, in His infinite mercy, would share
it among them.
It was this gracious privilege that the brethren scorned,
taunting the pioneer miners of hidden veins of truth with
being "fanatics" and "extremists." To suggest that the
messengers even at Minneapolis were unstable, in danger of
being "carried away" with their "extreme views," casts an
unjustified aspersion on Ellen White herself. Would she not
be naive if she endorsed young messengers so
untrustworthy?13
She almost recklessly risked her reputation on
enthusiastic and persistent support of their message. Could
12
Incidentally, although Ellen White took no firm stand on the "law in Galatians" in 1888, by 1896 she
was ready to take a stand. Waggoner had been right all along! "The law in Galatians [is] . . .
especially . . . . the moral law" (1 SM 234, 235).
13
See Appendix for a discussion of the charge that Jones was teaching the error of "holy flesh" and
perfectionism as early as a few months after the 1888 conference.

112
the Lord choose messengers so unstable? Would He endow
them with a message so potentially self-destructive? Is it
dangerous to yield to be the Lord's messenger? Surely God's
mercy is greater than to endow His servants with self-
destruct messages!
We must note briefly how in several General Conference
assemblies speakers have openly recognized that the anti-
1888 spirit included virtual defiance of Ellen White's ministry:

What did the brethren in that fearful

position in which they stood, reject at
Minneapolis? They rejected the latter rain--the
loud cry of the third angel's message.
Brethren, isn't that too bad? Of course the
brethren did not know they were doing this, but
the Spirit of the Lord was there to tell them
they were doing it, was it not? But when they
were rejecting the loud cry, "the teaching of
righteousness," and then the Spirit of the Lord,
by his prophet, stood there and told us what
they were doing,--what then? Oh, then they
simply set this prophet aside with all the rest
(A. T. Jones, GCB 1893, p. 183; emphasis
supplied).

No one in the Session congregation challenged him, for

all knew that what he said was true. At the 1986 Annual
Council in Rio de Janeiro, Robert W. Olson of the White Estate
also stated that in the 1888 session Ellen White was "publicly
defied" (Adventist Review, October 30, 1986). In 1889, she
said:

Elder Butler presented the matter before me

in a letter stating that my attitude at that
Conference [1888] just about broke the hearts
of some of our ministering brethren at that
meeting....
Since some of my brethren hold me in the
light they do, that my judgment is of no more
value than that of any other, or of one who has
not been called to this special work, and that I
am subject to the influence of my son Willie, or
of some others, why do you send for Sister

113
 White to attend your camp meetings or special
meetings? I cannot come. I could not do you
any good, and it would only be trifling with the
sacred responsibilities the Lord has laid upon
me....
To have these words distorted,
misapprehended by unbelievers, I expect, and
it is no surprise to me; but to have my brethren
who are acquainted with my mission and my
work, trifle with the message that God gives me
to bear, grieves His Spirit and is discouraging
to me....
My way is hedged up by my brethren (Letter
U-3, 1889).

Of course, not all the brethren opposed her so. But open
support for her was inconspicuous. The Lord's humble
messenger realized at Minneapolis what was happening. The
larger blessings of the latter rain caused former friends to
change their attitude from positive to negative:

God did not raise me up to come across the

plains to speak to you and you sit here to
question His message and question whether
Sister White is the same as she used to be in
years gone by.... Then you acknowledged that
Sister White was right. But somehow it has
changed now, and Sister White is different. Just
like the Jewish nation (Ms. 9, 1888; Olson, p.
292).

In 1893 she said,

"The office of a messenger whom God has

chosen to send with reproofs and warnings is
strangely misunderstood at the present time"
(RH July 18, 1893).

(4) Ellen White's Exile to Australia

So determined was the post-1888 opposition to Ellen

White that the General Conference virtually exiled her to
Australia. While it is true that the Lord overruled her sojourn
there for the good of His cause in that continent, it was

114
never His will that she go at that time. She says that the Lord
wanted the inspired trio to stay together in America and to
fight the battle through to victory. Her own writings indicate
that the leading brethren wanted both Ellen White and
Waggoner out of the way.
It is well known that Mrs. White went only because the
General Conference appointed her to go (a laudable example
of cooperation with the church leadership!). In 1896 she
wrote very frankly to the General Conference president:

The Lord was not in our leaving America. He

did not reveal that it was His will that I should
leave Battle Creek. The Lord did not plan this,
but He let you all move after your own
imaginings. The Lord would have had W. C.
White, his mother, and her workers remain in
America. We were needed at the heart of the
work, and had your spiritual perception
discerned the true situation, you would never
have consented to the movement made. But
the Lord reads the hearts of all. There was so
great a willingness to have us leave, that the
Lord permitted this thing to take place. Those
who were weary of the testimonies borne were
left without the persons who bore them. Our
separation from Battle Creek was to let men
have their own will and way, which they
thought superior to the way of the Lord.
The result is before you Had you stood in
the right position the move would not have
been made at that time. The Lord would have
worked for Australia by other means, and a
strong influence would have been held at Battle
Creek, the great heart of the work.
There we should have stood shoulder to
shoulder, creating a healthful atmosphere to be
felt in all our conferences. It was not the Lord
who devised this matter. I could not get one ray
of light to leave America. But when the Lord
presented this matter to me as it really was, I
opened my lips to no one, because I knew that
no one would discern the matter in all its
bearings. When we left, relief was felt by many,
but not so much by yourself, and the Lord was

115
 displeased, for He had set us to stand at the
wheels of the moving machinery at Battle
Creek.
This is the reason I have written you. Elder
Olsen had not the perception, the courage, the
force, to carry the responsibilities; nor was
there any other man prepared to do the work
the Lord had purposed we should do. I write
you, Elder Olsen, telling you that it was God's
desire that we should stand side by side with
you, to counsel you, to advise you, to move
with you.... You were not discerning; you were
willing to have the strong experience and
knowledge that comes from no human source
removed from you, and thus you revealed that
the Lord's ways were miscalculated and
overlooked.... This counsel was not considered
a necessity.
That the people of Battle Creek should feel
that they could have us leave at the time we
did, was the result of man's devising, and not
the Lord's.... The Lord designed that we should
be near the publishing houses, that we should
have easy access to these institutions that we
might counsel together.... O how terrible it is to
treat the Lord with dissimulation and neglect,
to scorn His counsel with pride because man's
wisdom seems so much superior (Letter to O. A.
Olsen, 127, 1896).

Those who say that the 1888 message was accepted by

the leadership of the church may interpret Ellen White's
years in Australia as General Conference cooperation with
the Holy Spirit. It is true that she was able to write good
letters back home. But depriving North America of her
personal ministry at this critical time ensured "in a great
measure" the eventual defeat of the beginning loud cry
message.
E. J. Waggoner suffered a similar exile in being sent to
England in the spring of 1892. There is evidence also that it
was not pure missionary zeal that sent him. Ellen White was
now gone; the second member of the special trio must also
leave. We note the following in Gilbert M. Valentine's
doctoral thesis on W. W. Prescott:

116
 According to W. C. White, Mrs. White, who
apparently still had memories of the injustices
of the post-1888 period, stated that it had been
shown to her "that whereas some of our people
were well pleased to have him [E. J. Waggoner]
removed from the work at Battle Creek by his
appointment to work in England," he should be
brought back "to assist as a teacher at the
heart of our work" (W. C. White to A. G.
Daniells, May 30, 1902; William Warren
Prescott: Seventh-day Adventist Educator, Vol.
1, p. 289).

A year before Ellen White went to Australia she poured

out her heart in a letter to J. S. Washburn, a young minister.
Here, like Jeremiah, she writes almost in despair. She vividly
describes the prevailing climate at the headquarters in Battle
Creek:

I attend meetings in the small churches but

feel that I have no strength to labor with the
church who have had my testimony so
abundantly, and yet those who have set
themselves against my message, and have not
been moved to change their position of
resistance notwithstanding all the Lord has
given me to say in demonstration of the Spirit
and power, I have no hope could be helped by
anything I should say further. They have
resisted the appeals of the Spirit of God. I have
no hope that the Lord has a reserve power to
break down their resistance. I leave them in the
hands of God, and unless the Lord places upon
me a decided burden to speak words in the
Tabernacle [at Battle Creek] I shall not attempt
to say anything until those who have acted a
part to hedge up my way shall clear my path....
I have not strength to contend with the spirit,
and resistance, doubts and unbelief which have
barricaded their souls, that they could not see
when good cometh. I have far greater liberty in
speaking to unbelievers. They are interested....

117
 Oh, it is the hardest place in the world, to
speak where great light has come, to men in
responsible positions. They have been
enlightened, but have chosen darkness rather
than light....
You may depend I have great sorrow of
heart.... What will be the end of this stubborn
unbelief we have yet to learn (Letter W32,
1890).

Do the 1890's Have a Message for the 1990's?

Ellen White's ministry to the Seventh-day Adventist

Church frequently exhibits this Jeremiah-like quality. The
ancient prophet's message is present truth. The 1888
episode is a parable, and God will test us again.
Because the facts of our 1888 history have been so
widely garbled, our contemporary attitude is still
unappreciative of Jones and Waggoner's work. We still are
suspicious lest their message may lead to fanaticism. We still
falsely assume that it carried the two messengers away into
apostasy. As long as we think thus, should the Lord send any
more pearls of truth to be cast before us, we would be
obliged to react to such a message as did the opposition of
the 1888 era.
We today inherit no genetic guilt of our forefathers who
rejected the grandest opportunity of the ages, the beginning
of the latter rain and the loud cry; but we are their spiritual
descendants. Holy Scripture teaches no genetic transmission
of sin, "original" or otherwise, from generation to generation.
But there is a transmission of sin which is not genetic. "By
one man sin entered into the world." "Sin abounded" and
"hath reigned unto death." "All the world [has] become guilty
before God" (Romans 5:12, 20, 21; 3:19). This mysterious
transmission of sin is clarified for us in the following
statement:

At its very source human nature was

corrupted. And ever since then sin has
continued its hateful work, reaching from mind
to mind. Every sin committed awakens the
echoes of the original sin....

118
 Mutual dependence is a wonderful thing.
Reciprocal influence should be carefully
studied....
Every generation takes up some phase of
evil in advance of the one which preceded it,
moving onward in the march of impenitence
and rebellion. God is looking on, measuring the
temple and the worshipers therein....
No man liveth to himself. Consciously or
unconsciously he is influencing others, either
for good or evil.... Is it not time that a people
stood forth in moral independence, cherishing
at the same time a sense of their dependence
on God? ...
The Lord has sent to our world a message of
warning, even the Third Angel's Message. All
heaven is waiting to hear us vindicate God's
law (RH, April 16, 1901).

We have more light than had our forefathers, hence we

have greater responsibilities. The heart alienation from
Christ that caused the rejection of the 1888 message is
today far more subtle, more sophisticated, more deeply
buried beyond our consciousness. But it is no less real. Only
the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit will make it manifest.
The time must come at last for each of us when "the cross
will be presented, and its real bearing will be seen by every
mind that has been blinded by transgression. Before the
vision of Calvary with its mysterious Victim, sinners will
stand condemned" (DA 58). Would it not be a blessing if we
could see that cross today before it is too late?
The Holy Spirit enables the sincere believer to see
himself or herself reflected in Bible characters of long ago.
He can likewise enable us to see ourselves in our forefathers
of a century ago. We are innately no better than they. The
Holy Spirit can heal us of the blindness that permits us to see
evil if it is sufficiently farfetched and distant in the past while
we fail to recognize it under our very nose. God's word has
been true from the very beginning:

Without the enlightenment of the Spirit of

God, we shall not be able to discern truth from
error, and shall fall under the masterful

119
 temptations and deceptions that Satan will
bring upon the world.
We are near the close of the controversy
between the Prince of light and the prince of
darkness, and soon the delusions of the enemy
will try our faith, of what sort it is (RH
November 29, 1892).

Conclusion

To realize the truth that our forefathers insulted the true

Christ and the true Holy Spirit is not itself bad news. And to
unveil the reality of deep-seated resistance of "the testimony
of Jesus" is a blessing. In no other way than facing truth can
we prepare for future tests. The truth is positive, upbeat,
encouraging.
The good news is that Heaven has all along been more
willing to grant the final outpouring of God's Spirit than we
have thought. It's only our continued resistance, often
unconscious, that has hindered the Gift now for nearly a
century, despite our prayers for it.
To face the truth honestly has to be a source of joy. The
stability and progress of the organized church can only be
blessed by it.

120
 CHAPTER SEVEN

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE

"CONFESSIONS"
Mystery surrounds the post-1888 confessions of those
who opposed the message. We came to the time of the latter
rain and the loud cry and then backed away from our
opportunity. Israel also came to the borders of their
Promised Land, and then backed away.
Deep, true repentance is a rare virtue. It is by no means
impossible, in the light of the sacrifice of Christ. But many
confessions are as superficial as that of Esau and King Saul.
Both acknowledged wrong, and both shed tears; neither
found repentance that restored what was lost.
Israel's history at Kadesh-Barnea and afterwards
illustrates the experience of this movement at and following
the Minneapolis conference. Israel made a mistake and then
"repented," but that generation never recovered what they
had lost.
There is a principle involved in the kind of repentance
and confession that does not comprehend the gravity of the
sin:

Now [Israel at Kadesh-Barnea] seemed

sincerely to repent of their sinful conduct; but
they sorrowed because of the result of their
evil course, rather than from a sense of their
ingratitude and disobedience.... God tested
their apparent submission, and proved that it
was not real.... They were only terrified to find
that they had made a fearful mistake, the
results of which would prove disastrous to
themselves. Their hearts were unchanged....

121
 Though their confession did not spring from
true repentance, it served to vindicate the
justice of God in His dealings with them.
The Lord still works in a similar manner to
glorify His name by bringing men to
acknowledge His justice.... And though the
spirit which prompted the evil course is not
radically changed, confessions are made that
vindicate the honor of God, and justify His
faithful reprovers, who have been opposed and
misrepresented (PP 391, 393).

Evidence from an inspired pen indicates that this was the

nature of the post-1888 confessions of the most influential
prominent leaders who had initially rejected the message.
But contemporary opinions widely published hold that
most of the opposing brethren at Minneapolis rectified their
mistake, made humble and deep confessions, repented
thoroughly, and then preached the message of 1888 "with
power."
What does the evidence say?
(1) The confessions were practically extorted by
overwhelming, compelling evidence. "The present evidence
of His working is revealed to you, and you are now under
obligation to believe," said Ellen White in 1890 (TM 466).
Faith had given away almost entirely to sight.
(2) There is evidence that the most prominent and
influential confessors subsequently acted contrary to their
confessions.
(3) There was very little frank, open reconciliation that
led to brotherly union with A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner or
acceptance of their message. (It was after the confessions
that Ellen White was exiled to Australia and Waggoner to
Britain). As late as 1903, Elders G. I. Butler and J. N.
Loughborough at a General Conference session
misrepresented their true positions over their verbal protests
(see chapter 10).
(4) The issue at stake was the personal salvation of the
opposing ministers' souls. But there is no evidence that they
repented of quenching the Holy Spirit's outpouring in the
latter rain, or of suppressing the light of the loud cry and
keeping it away "in a great degree" from the church and
from the world. Thus the consequence of the rebellion at

122
Minneapolis, the indefinite postponing of the world-wide
proclamation of the loud cry message, could not be averted.
(5) With the exception of W. W. Prescott, there is no
evidence that any of the confessors recovered the essence
of the 1888 message sufficiently to proclaim it well. (Saul of
Tarsus repented so thoroughly that he ever after proclaimed
the gospel with power). Pease discloses that when the
nineteenth century became the twentieth, none of those who
initially rejected the 1888 message were in evidence to
proclaim it effectively:

During the nineties the revival centering

about this great doctrine was largely the work
of the same three people, Mrs. White, E. J.
Waggoner, and A. T. Jones. True, there were
many harmonizing voices but no Elishas were in
evidence by 1900 ready to assume the mantle
in case something should happen to the three
principal champions of the doctrine (By Faith
Alone, p. 164).

A perusal of the post-confession printed messages of

these "confessors" confirms this statement. A true
repentance would have resulted in a multitude of powerful
evangel-laden messengers proclaiming the "most precious
message" in a way that would have thoroughly revived the
church and lightened the world with glory. But Ellen White
had to say on November 5, 1892 that "not one" of the
original rejectors had recovered what he had lost by his
initial unbelief (Letter B2a, 1892). This statement was made
after the most prominent confessions came in.

Contemporary Views of the Post-1888 Confessions

An oft-quoted statement from an older worker forms the

basis for much of the present misunderstanding of what
happened after Minneapolis:

Early in the spring, 1889, word began to

come of those who stood with the opposition at
the conference beginning to see light and soon
earnest confessions followed. Within two or
three years most of the leading men who had
refused the light at the conference had come

123
 out with clear confessions (C. McReynolds,
"Experiences while at the G. C. in Minn. in
1888," D File, 189, E. G. White Estate. Cf. N. F.
Pease, op. cit., pp. 142, 143).
The confessions mentioned above were
doubtless, in some cases, precipitated by sober
reflection after the individuals concerned were
far removed from the scene of controversy
(Pease, op. cit., p. 144).

Another statement, from Captains of the Host, supports

the idea that the confessions effectively reversed the 1888
opposition:

Gradually there came the turning and the

gathering into the unity of the faith. There was
both a cutting and healing power in the
messages [Ellen White] sent, carrying the
gospel of righteousness and of good will in
Christ, which in general brought the erstwhile
estranged brethren together (Spalding, op. cit.,
pp. 598, 599).

Our Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia presents the

same view:

Misunderstanding, opposition, and division

cloud the record of that meeting [1888].
However, many who were reluctant to accept
this new emphasis in 1888 later changed their
viewpoint. Some continued for a time to oppose
it (p. 1086).

No mention is made in The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts of

the confessions, as the author assumed that in general the
message of 1888 was initially well received at Minneapolis
itself.
By far the predominant view held today is that we "have"
the 1888 message as a sure possession, either because our
forefathers' initially accepted it, or because of their
subsequent confessions of repentance. And "we" have
therefore been proclaiming it powerfully for many decades.
We must inquire if this is a "rich and increased with goods"
mindset.

124
 There Are Problems With This View

If the confessions of the Minneapolis opposers changed

their real attitude so they could proclaim the message
effectively to our people and to the world, some questions
need answers:
(1) Where is the evidence that the message and light of
1888 were recovered, and by the repentant brethren
themselves proclaimed to our people in clear and powerful
form? Where is the evidence that the opposition ceased
instead of going underground?
(2) Why wasn't the "work" finished soon after the time of
confession and repentance? The opposition at Minneapolis
quenched the loud cry; a proper repentance would logically
restore it.
(3) How can one explain the persistent and numerous
statements from Ellen White as late as 1901 that the
message was continually misrepresented and opposed by
leadership? One such follows, indicating that the genuine
reformation that follows repentance could not have taken
place:

I feel a special interest in the movements

and decisions that shall be made at this
Conference [1901] regarding the things that
should have been done years ago, and
especially ten years ago, when we were
assembled in Conference.... The brethren
assented to the light given, but ... the light that
was given was not acted upon. It was assented
to but no special change was made to bring
about such a condition of things that the power
of God could be revealed among His people.
Year after year the same acknowledgement was
made.... It is a marvel to me that we stand in as
much prosperity as we do today. It is because
of the great mercy of God, not because of our
righteousness, but that His name should not be
dishonored in the world (GCB 1901, p. 23;
emphasis added).

Her real convictions are disclosed in a statement she

made a week later supporting the reorganization and a

125
 hoped-for reformation: "Many who have been more or less
out of line since the Minneapolis meeting will be brought into
line" (p. 205).
One of the most poignant of Ellen White's prophetic
messages is her "What Might Have Been" testimony (January
5, 1903; 8T 104-106). The beautiful repentance that our
historians say took place turns out to have been only a
dream instead of "reality."

The Testimony of Our History

It is common knowledge that Uriah Smith was one of the

most persistent opposers of the message. As editor of the
Review and Herald and with his well-earned prestige as a
prominent author, he could have exerted the most powerful
influence for the message. His incisive, logical writing
appealed to thoughtful minds. This able and lovable brother
wielded the mightiest pen in Battle Creek and could have
helped to lighten the earth with the glory of maturely
developed truth. The Holy Spirit could have worked with the
author of Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation if his heart
and keen mind had joined in the happy task.
He chose not to. He considered the message to be
merely an over-emphasized "doctrine," and maintained that
we had always taught it. Immediately after Minneapolis, he
and W. W. Prescott tried to silence A. T. Jones in Battle
Creek. Ellen White mentions the incident:

Elder Uriah Smith thought [A. T. Jones] had

better not be invited to speak, for he took
rather strong positions. And the arrangements
were made to shut him out of the [Battle Creek]
school (Ms. 16, 1889).14

Efforts to help Smith only aggravated his stubborness.

For a long time, no "sober reflections" brought him to any
different view.
In March, 1890 Ellen White wrote in the Review:

I have tried to present the message to you

as I have understood it, but how long will those

14
Only Ellen White's influence secured the pulpit and the classroom for him. W. W. Prescott joined
Smith in seeking to bar Jones from the pulpit in Battle Creek.

126
 at the head of the work keep themselves aloof?
...
For nearly two years we have been urging
the people to come up and accept the light and
the truth concerning the righteousness of
Christ, and they do not know whether to come
and take hold of this precious truth or not.... I
can speak to the ear, but I cannot speak to the
heart. Shall we not arise and get out of the
position of unbelief? (RH March 18, 1890).

Finally, after being "under obligation to believe" (TM

466), Elder Smith was drifting helplessly, in danger of being
lost:

Brother Smith is ensnared by the enemy and

cannot in his present state give the trumpet a
certain sound ... yet ... is placed in positions as
teacher to mold and fashion the minds of
students, when it is a well known fact he is not
standing in the light. He is not working in God's
order. He is sowing seeds of unbelief that
spring up and bear fruit for some souls to
harvest.... Elder Smith will not receive the light
God has given to correct him, and he has not a
spirit to correct by confession any wrong
course he has pursued in the past.... I have
been shown that as he now stands, Satan has
prepared his temptations to close about his
soul (Letter to O. A. Olsen, October 7, 1890).
I have great sorrow of heart. I know that
Satan is seeking for the mastery over men....
Such men as Elder Smith will harden their
hearts, lest they shall see and be converted.
There are those who are looking to Elder Smith,
thinking that a man who has been given such
great light will be able to see when good
cometh, and will acknowledge the truth. But I
have been shown that in Elder Smith's
character there is a pride and stubbornness
that has never been fully brought into
subjection to the Spirit of God. Again and again
his religious experience has been marred by his
determination not to confess his wrongs, but to

127
 pass along and forget them. Men may cherish
this sin until there is no forgiveness for them
(Diary, January 10, 1890, Battle Creek).

These solemn words bear evidence of the Christlike love

that Ellen White had for his soul. In the light of eternity, truth
is more precious than self-deception. In other
communications from her we can see how serious the
situation had become:

The men in responsible positions have

disappointed Jesus. They have refused precious
blessings, and refused to be channels of
light.... The knowledge they should receive of
God ... they refuse to accept, and thus become
channels of darkness. The Spirit of God is
grieved (Ms. 13, 1889).
Our young men look at the older men that
stand still as a stick, and will not move to
accept any new light that is brought in; they
will laugh and ridicule what these men say and
what they do as of no consequence. Who
carries the burden [guilt] of that laugh, and of
that contempt? ... [They] have interposed
themselves between the light that God has
given, that it shall not go to the people who
should have it (Ms. 9, 1890).
The devil has been working for a year to
obliterate these ideas [the 1888 message of
Christ's righteousness]--the whole of them....
How long will the people at the heart of the
work hold themselves against God? How long
will men here sustain them in doing this work?
Get out of the way, brethren. Take your hand
off the ark of God, and let the Spirit of God
come in and work in mighty power (idem).

The Review editor's negative influence went far and wide.

Ellen White held him largely responsible:

You have strengthened the hands and minds

of such men as Larson, Porter, Dan Jones,
Eldridge and Morrison and Nicola and a vast
number through them. All quote you, and the

128
 enemy of righteousness looks on pleased.... If
you should recover your faith how can you
remove the impressions of unbelief you have
sown in other minds? Do not labor so hard to do
the very work Satan is doing. This work was
done in Minneapolis. Satan triumphed (Letter
59, 1890).

When Ellen White tried to help him, he responded "by

writing me a letter accusing Elder Jones of tearing up the
pillars of our faith" (Letter 73, 1890; see Additional Note,
chapter four). Finally, after the turn of the new year 1891, he
made confession to his brethren, and asked the pardon of
Mrs. White for his erroneous course. This was good. He was
an honest man. Our Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia
admits his initial opposition to "the new emphasis on
righteousness by faith," but credits his confession as
restoring "complete harmony" (p. 1201). But it was not to
be.
Elder Smith had formerly had experiences quite similar.
His faith in the work of Ellen White was sometimes not very
strong. And he propagated his unbelief. His letters could
hardly do otherwise than encourage D. M. Canright to
question Ellen White's inspiration.15 The slightest push will
send a drowning man down.
Was Elder Smith's repentance of early 1891 thorough and
permanent? It could well have been. The Lord was willing.
Speaking to the Review and Herald office, Ellen White said
that "the Lord will blot out the transgressions of those who
since that time have repented with a sincere repentance."

How Something Miscarried

The rejoicing at the confessions must be placed in the

perspective of later history. As we have seen, Ellen White
later declared that there had been an influence in the
Review and Herald office that tended to say "I go, Sir," but
went not. No one can question the sincerity and goodness of
the brethren; we note only the reality of deeper layers of
unbelief of which they were not aware. "The brethren
assented to the light God had given, but there were those
connected with our institutions, especially the Review and
15
See for example Uriah Smith letters to Canright of March 22, April 6, July 31, August 7, and October
2, 1883.

129
Herald office and the [General] Conference, who brought in
elements of unbelief, so that the light given was not acted
upon" (GCB 1901, p. 23; emphasis added).
After his confession, she encouraged him to look upon
things in the right light. She knew that he was not giving the
trumpet a certain sound in the Review. More than a year
after his confession, she wrote him in a tone of warning and
counsel, plainly stating that he had returned to his former
stance of opposition:

Some of our brethren... are full of jealousy

and evil surmising, and are ever ready to show
in just what way they differ with Elder Jones or
Waggoner. The same spirit that was manifested
in the past manifests itself on every
opportunity; but this is not from the impulse of
the Spirit of God....
Should [Elder Jones or Waggoner] be
overthrown by the temptations of the
enemy, ... how many ... would enter into a fatal
delusion because they are not under the
control of the Spirit of God (Letter S24, 1892;
emphasis added).

Elder Smith seemed to have a mistaken sense of the

spiritual condition of the church. As previously (1882), he
continued to "think far too favorably of the present time" (cf.
5T 80). We cannot blame him for he did not have the
discernment of the gift of prophecy. Nevertheless, his
unrealistic optimism establishes him as Mr. Laodicea. His
innocent readers then knew no better; we a century later do
know better, now that history has upheld the Spirit of
Prophecy, which so opposed his view. In an editorial of March
14, 1892, he spoke with undue optimism:

The cause has been going forward with

increasing rapidity, especially in these later
years. The object here is to ... call attention to
the wonderful momentum which the cause of
present truth has now attained. It is going
forward everywhere. It is increasing in velocity
day by day. It is going with a power which
cannot be arrested. At the rate of progress now
developed, it must soon reach its goal. It is

130
 accelerating its footsteps to its final triumph
(RH, March 14, 1892).

The Lord's messenger was not so pleased, for she was

conscious of a serious arresting of the work within our own
ranks and the looming specter of a long delay. History has
proven Elder Smith's editorial to be a superficial judgment.
Ellen White said so then:

The opposition in our own ranks has

imposed upon the Lord's messengers a
laborious and soul-trying task, for they have
had to meet difficulties and obstacles which
need not have existed.... It is the elements that
work among ourselves that have hindered the
message....
The influence that grew out of the
resistance of light and truth at Minneapolis
tended to make of no effect the light God had
given....
The work is years behind. What account will
be rendered to God for thus retarding the
work? (GCB 1893, pp. 419).

Repeatedly, the misguided editor followed a line of

thought diametrically opposed to present truth--that of
Christ's righteousness sounding forth in the beginning of the
loud cry. Dramatically enough, his opposition was often
neatly met by articles from Ellen White or others which came
as apparent coincidences. To his credit, he published them.
Editorial control was more relaxed in those days than now.
But his personal mindset was fixed.
As late as 1892, well after the editor's confession, she
says: "The first position you took in regard to the message
and the messenger has been a continual snare to you and a
stumblingblock.... That loss is still your loss" (Letter S24,
1892).
We find him writing an editorial saying that the present
message is not the beginning of the loud cry; that is
something yet future. His view was divine sovereign
determinism, virtually that of modern Reformationist
Calvinism. We can neither hasten nor delay the Lord's
coming:

131
 Would it be the proper course now for the
people of God to fix their minds upon these
future blessings and this future power, and
dropping all else, make these things the direct
end to be specially sought for? To fix the mind
upon what is to be, and then to reason, Now
the church must have such and such mighty
works, they are to attain to such and such a
condition, and then conclude that they must, to
the neglect of duties nearer by, seek by special
means to gain that power and those
attainments now, --is that the way in which
these blessings are to be secured? ...
All these other developments will come in
the Lord's good time. God will in His own good
time bestow upon His people the needed
power.... He will bring the loud cry of the
message.... Leave future blessings to be
granted by Him whose the work is, when and
how it shall please him (RH May 14, 1892).

Elder Smith apparently had no idea that "the Lord's good

time" has been and is always now since the seventh angel
began to sound in 1844. "There should be delay no longer"
(Revelation 10:5, NKJV). Only one week later appeared an
article by Ellen White which countered the spirit of his
muddled editorial. S. N. Haskell soon sent in a fervent article
to counteract the editor's "peace and safety" words (July 26,
1892). Then President Olsen also took occasion to rebuke the
editor through the columns of his paper:

We have long been talking about the loud

cry of the third angel's message.... Well, has
the time come for that loud voice to be
heard? ... It certainly has, brethren.... Then
don't be looking forward to it any longer; don't
be expecting it at some place way off; realize
that it is here, and that it means something
(RH, November 8, 1892).

During this stirring time of grand eschatalogical

opportunity, the editor of the Review continued his stale
homilies on "Sunday Props" arguments examined and
refuted. There is something pathetic about the situation. In

132
the time of the loud cry itself, he re-hashes in a polemical,
debating style the caviling opposition of unreasoning
opponents to the sabbath truth, something more in place
thirty years earlier. We can hear the angels pleading, "Mr.
Laodicea, please wake up!"
Concerning such blindness to recognize the work of God
Ellen White wrote:

Too often the leader has stood hesitating,

seeming to say, "Let us not be in too great
haste. There may be a mistake. We must be
careful not to raise a false alarm." The very
hesitancy and uncertainty on his part is crying
"Peace and safety." "Do not get excited. Be not
alarmed. There is a great deal more made of
this Religious Amendment question than is
demanded. This agitation will all die down."
Thus he virtually denies the message sent from
God; and the warning which was designed to
stir the churches fails to do its work. The
trumpet of the watchman gives no certain
sound, and the people do not prepare for the
battle (5T 715, 716).

Such an editorial policy and such a mindset forces an

unwelcome conclusion. Uriah Smith returned to his former
stance of opposition and non-committal blindness after the
emotional effects of his confession wore off.
Finally, in December Ellen White spoke very plainly:

On the very eve of the crisis, is no time to

be found with an evil heart of unbelief,
departing from the living God....
Among those who are half-hearted are the
class who pride themselves on their great
caution in receiving "new light" as they term it.
But their failure to receive the light is caused
by their spiritual blindness....
There are men in our cause who might be of
great use if they would but learn of Christ, and
go on from light to greater light; but because
they will not, they are positive hindrances (RH
December 6, 1892).

133
 In the same issue occurs a half-hearted editorial
admission that we might have delayed the work, but not at
all seriously. We quote his statement because his Calvinist
laissez faire attitude is immensely popular among many
Adventists in these last years of the 20th century who say
that God's people can neither hasten nor delay the return of
Christ:

How the situation might have been changed

if all had worked more earnestly and rapidly in
the cause, we may not say....
But however much it has been in our power
to delay the work, it is not in our power to
arrest its progress nor prevent its final
completion. Within the limits of that time when
the work of the Lord must be done, it will be
done (ibid., December 6, 1892).

In an editorial in the May 10, 1892 Review, Smith took

open issue with E. J. Waggoner. In the same year he again
blundered into open dispute with A. T. Jones over "the image
of the beast." Our people noted these conflicts. Brother
Foster of the Prahran church in Australia came in his
perplexity to Ellen White . She tells of the incident:

[Foster] saw in the Review the article of

Brother A. T. Jones in regard to the image of
the beast, and then the one from Elder Smith
presenting the opposite view. He was
perplexed and troubled. He had received much
light and comfort in reading articles from
Brethren Jones and Waggoner; but here was
one of the old laborers, one who had written
many of our standard books, and whom we had
believed to be taught of God, who seemed to be
in conflict with Brother Jones. What could all
this mean? Was Brother Jones in the wrong?
Was Brother Smith in error? Which was right?
He became confused....

If before publishing Elder Jones' article ....

Elder Smith had conferred with him, plainly
stating that his own views differed from that of
Bro. Jones, and that if the article appeared in

134
 the Review, he himself must present the
opposite position, then the matter would
appear in a different light from what it now
does. But the course pursued in this case was
the same as that taken at Minneapolis. Those
who opposed Brethren Jones and Waggoner
manifested no disposition to meet them like
brethren.... Yet this blind warfare is
continued.... We know that Bro. Jones has been
giving the message for this time, meat in due
season to the starving flock of God....
The conference at Minneapolis was the
golden opportunity for all present to humble
the heart before God, and to welcome Jesus as
the great Instructor; but the stand taken by
some at that meeting has proved their ruin.
They have never seen clearly since, and they
never will; for they persistently cherish the
spirit that prevailed there, a wicked, criticizing,
denunciatory spirit.... They will be asked in the
judgment, "Who required this at your hand, to
rise up against the message and the
messengers I sent to My people? ... Why did
you block the way with your own perverse
spirit? And afterward when the evidence was
piled upon evidence, why did you not humble
your hearts before God, and repent of your
rejection of the message of mercy He has sent
you?" (Letter January 9, 1893; emphasis
added).

In the same letter, Ellen White cites the former General

Conference president as sharing Elder Smith's loss. The issue
is not the salvation of their souls--that we leave with God.
The issue is the proclamation of the loud cry message:

If such men as Elder Smith, Elder Van Horn,

and Elder Butler shall stand aloof, not blending
with the elements God sees essential to carry
forward the work in these perilous times, they
will be left behind.... These brethren have had
every opportunity to stand in the ranks that are
pressing on to victory; but if they refuse, the
work will advance without them.... If they

135
 refuse the message, ... these brethren ... will
meet with eternal loss; for if they should repent
and be saved at last, they can never regain that
which they have lost through their wrong
course of action (emphasis added).

Conclusion

This in no way means that these dear brethren's life work

was a failure. The point is that they used their influence to
reject the beginning of the latter rain and thus helped delay
the finishing of God's work for a long time.
Their cases were difficult. They were sincere, and good,
and lovable. But they were falsely encouraged by every
wave of superficial revival that occasionally swept through
Battle Creek.
Even after the turn of the century as he neared his end,
Elder Smith made a point of demonstrating that he never
changed his mind about the issues of 1888. He was the
notable prototype of ultra-conservative yet unbelieving
Adventists of today.
His understanding of the prophecies of Daniel and
Revelation and of other doctrines was in harmony with those
of the pioneers. World conditions in his day were a clear
fulfillment of prophecy. God's work could have been speedily
finished then. His books have won thousands of people to
the church and helped to establish Adventism around the
world. If only he could have accepted the "beginning" of the
latter rain, he could have had the joy of helping to proclaim
the glorious loud cry to the world.
Confident that he understood justification and
righteousness by faith and that he had always believed it, he
made his contribution after 1888 in his major work on the
subject, Looking Unto Jesus. Doubtless hailed by many 1888
opponents then as a masterpiece, it is obvious that it lacks
"the most precious" elements of the 1888 message.
There was one confession that A. T. Jones mentioned
near the end of his life:

In justice to Brother J. H. Morrison, it must

be said that he cleared himself of all connection
with that opposition, and put himself body,
soul, and spirit, into the truth and blessing of
righteousness by faith, in one of the finest and

136
 noblest confessions that I have ever heard
(Letter to C. E. Holmes, May 12, 1921).

Jones later in the same letter said of the others that their
change of heart "was only apparent, it was never real, for all
the time in the General Conference Committee and amongst
others there was a secret antagonism always carried on."
No opposition is more difficult to deal with than that
which goes underground. The confessions after Minneapolis
drove the spirit of unbelief beneath the visible surface.
Hence it is that we can sincerely assume that we are rich
as a people with the "contribution" to Adventism made in
1888, and that we are increased with goods in understanding
righteousness by faith, so that all we need is more money
and technological resources for propagating our present
understanding of our beliefs.
The symptoms of our denominational neurosis are
apparent; the causes lie buried in a deep antipathy to the
light that shone on our pathway in 1888, which reflected the
true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the
world. A final atonement, an ultimate reconciliation with
Christ, is our only solution.
The primary purpose of this chapter was to show how the
confessions that followed Minneapolis cut the "tops" down
but left the "roots" of unbelief intact (cf. TM 467). As the
investigation developed, a secondary purpose emerged. It is
a logical consequence of the first, but is of far greater
significance.
(1) In some serious instances, our present official views
of righteousness by faith are identical to the opposition to
the 1888 message. The real teaching of the latter is only
slightly evident in our current presentations.
(2) Parallel with misconceptions of the message is the
highly optimistic view of the "velocity" and "rapidity" with
which the work supposedly advances today, when in reality it
is being retarded by our deep heart unbelief. Statistical
reports beguile us.
(3) Confusion regarding righteousness by faith spawns a
sort of "continual" transgression of principles God has
entrusted to the remnant church for the administration of
our medical, educational, publishing, and evangelistic work.
"There has been a departure from God's plan in many
ways ... and we have been steadily progressing in the ways
of the Gentiles, and not after the example of Jesus Christ"

137
(cf. GCB 1893, p. 459 and FE 221-230). Our hope rests in
God's mercy and love, and His hope rests in the honesty of
the souls of His professed people.
(4) The true cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary requires
a complementary work in our hearts. There must be a
cleansing of hidden, buried, "underground" roots of
alienation from Christ. Light which will lay bare this reality
and a means of spiritual therapy adequate for dealing with it,
is more needful than any amount of technological resources
for the propagation of our present "faith."
In other words, the power needed is light, and the
finishing of the gospel commission will be a natural
consequence. A true understanding of the 1888 history
supplies a diagnosis; a true understanding of the gospel of
the cross is the therapy.

138
 CHAPTER EIGHT

A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS:
THE 1893 GENERAL
CONFERENCE SESSION
The 1893 General Conference session ranks next in
importance to that of 1888 in determining how the message
was received. The acceptance theory requires this view of
the 1893 meeting: "It was really at the General Conference
session in 1893 that light on justification by faith seemed to
gain its greatest victory" (Christian, op. cit., p. 241).
We must examine the printed reports of that session in
order to understand the nature of that "victory." According to
Ellen White's later perceptive testimony, the "victory" gained
in the end was Satan's (cf. 1SM 234, 235). The session
clearly marked the withdrawal of Heaven's gift of the latter
rain. Developments at that conference are of profound
significance to those of us living today.
From the beginning of the institute and session, the
message of 1888 was the overwhelming issue of importance.
A few months before, the now- famous statement had
appeared in the Review of November 22, 1892 that it was
the actual "beginning" of the loud cry. That statement was
like a bombshell. Several of the speakers could talk of little
except that all-important issue. Even some in far-off Australia
knew what was happening. A. T. Jones reported:

I received a letter a little while ago from

Brother Starr in Australia. I will read two or
three sentences because they come in well just
at this place in our lessons:
"Sister White says that we have been in the
time of the latter rain since the Minneapolis
meeting" (GCB 1893, p. 377).

Can we imagine the excitement that prevailed? It was

natural that back of the issue of the reception of the 1888

139
message should loom the blessed thought of the soon
coming of Christ. Not since the Midnight Cry of 1844 had
such a solemn joy thrilled believing hearts:

Let us thank the Lord that he is dealing with

us still, to save us from our errors, to save us
from our dangers, to keep us back from wrong
courses, and to pour upon us the latter rain,
that we may be translated. That is what the
message means--translation--to you and me
(ibid., p. 185).

They knew the Lord in His mercy would not withdraw the
latter rain until giving them a reasonable opportunity to
respond. That would require at least a few years after 1888.
The following words quoted at the conference express the
principle of God's fairness and patience:

God will prove His people. Jesus bears

patiently with them, and does not spew them
out of His mouth in a moment. Said the angel,
"God is weighing His people." If the message
had been of as short duration as many of us
supposed, there would have been no time for
them to develop character. Many moved from
feeling, not from principle and faith, and this
solemn fearful message stirred them.... He
gives them time for the excitement to wear off,
and then proves them to see if they will obey
the counsel of the True Witness (1T 186, 187;
GCB 1893, p. 179).

Forebodings of Great Danger

Different speakers sensed that the light would be

withdrawn if not acted upon soon. Thus, to trifle with the
heavenly offer would mean losing it. A few months before
the 1893 Session, Ellen White wrote:

The sin committed in what took place at

Minneapolis remains on the record books of
heaven, registered against the names of those
who resisted light, and it will remain upon the
record until full confession is made, and the

140
 transgressors stand in full humility before
God.... And when these persons are tried, and
brought over the ground again, the same spirit
will be revealed. When the Lord has sufficiently
tried them, if they do not yield to Him, He will
withdraw His Holy Spirit (Letter O19, 1892).

At Minneapolis, she had warned that neglect of the light

then shining would be tragedy. The problem was not merely
the personal salvation of individuals who had rejected the
message. The eschatological issue of the latter rain and the
loud cry hung over the corporate church body:

Here I want to tell you what a terrible thing

it is, if God gives light, and it is impressed on
your heart and spirit, ... why God will withdraw
His Spirit unless His truth is accepted (Ms. 8,
1888, Olson, p. 264).

The brethren assembled at the 1893 meeting were in an

atmosphere of expectancy. The meeting seemed charged
with solemnity, a realization that a fearful decision was to be
forced upon them. Upon their choice would dawn the glad
morning, or the return of night. If Satan could "get them to
commit themselves on the wrong side, he has laid his plans
to lead them on a long journey," said Ellen White to
president Olsen (Letter O19, 1892). Imagine the tension that
dominated that meeting:

Now the solemn thought to my mind is that

[God] is getting impatient, and will not wait
very much longer for you and me.... I cannot
get away from the idea that now is a most
critical time with us personally.... It seems to
me that right now we are making choices that
will determine whether we shall go on with this
work through the loud cry and be translated, or
whether we shall be deceived by the devices of
Satan and be left out in darkness.... I have felt
that way all through this conference (W. W.
Prescott, GCB 1893, p. 386).

A. T. Jones recognized the unprecedented seriousness of

the issue at that meeting. Note how his understanding

141
transcended the Calvinist determinism idea of God's
irresistible sovereign will:

He has been trying these four years to have

us receive the latter rain, how much longer is
He going to wait before we receive it? ....
And the fact of the matter is, something is
going to be done.... That is the fearfulness of
the situation at this meeting; that is what lends
to this meeting its fearful character. The
danger is that there will be some here who
have resisted this for four years, or perhaps
who have not resisted it that long, who will now
... fail to receive it as the Lord gives it, and will
be passed by. A decision will be made by the
Lord, by ourselves in fact, at this meeting
(ibid., p. 377, emphasis added).

The president of the General Conference, O. A. Olsen,

also sensed that a fateful issue confronted the delegates:

This place is becoming more and more

solemn on account of the presence of God. I
presume that none of us have ever before been
in quite such a meeting as we are having at this
time. The Lord is certainly coming very near,
and is revealing things more and more, things
which we have not heretofore so fully
appreciated nor understood....
I felt very solemn last evening. To me the
place was terrible on account of God's
nearness, on account of the solemn testimony
that was borne to us here.... Some may feel
tried over the idea that Minneapolis is referred
to. I know that some have felt grieved and tried
over any allusion to that meeting, and to the
situation there. But let it be borne in mind that
the reason why anyone should feel so is an
unyielding spirit on his part.... The very idea
that one is grieved, shows at once the seed of
rebellion in the heart (ibid., p. 188).

There were other statements made between 1888 and

1893 warning that if the light were not received, a specious

142
departure into counterfeit light and apostate ideas would
result. The delegates heard the following message from Ellen
White:

Unless you watch and keep your garments

unspotted from the world, Satan will stand as
your captain.... By many the words which the
Lord sent will be rejected, and the words that
men may speak will be received as light and
truth. Human wisdom will lead away from self-
denial, from consecration, and will devise many
things to tend to make of no effect God's
messages. We cannot with any safety rely on
men who are not in close connection with God.
They accept the opinions of men, but cannot
discern the voice of the True Shepherd (ibid., p.
237).

Less than a year after the Minneapolis Conference had

come this word:

Unless divine power is brought into the

experience of the people of God, false theories
and erroneous ideas will take minds captive,
Christ and His righteousness will be dropped
out of the experience of many, and their faith
will be without power or life (RH September 3,
1889).

Failure to accept the light brought by God's messengers

at Minneapolis would result in the acceptance of false light
brought by false messengers. She said:

False ideas that were largely developed at

Minneapolis have not been entirely uprooted
from some minds. Those who have not made
thorough work of repentance under the light
God has been pleased to give to His people
since that time, will not see things clearly, and
will be ready to call the messages God sends, a
delusion (GCB 1893, p. 184).
What next? These very ones will accept
messages that God has not sent, and thus will
become dangerous to the cause of God because

143
 they set up false standards. ("To Brethren in
Responsible Positions," ibid., p. 182).

Lessons From Israel "Written for Our Admonition"

Without doubt, the 1888 message was heavenly manna.

We can learn something from the ancient symbolism. If God
sets a plate of food before us, we had better eat it right
away, because vitally nutritious food spoils more quickly
than does devitalized food. There was danger in leaving the
1888 manna "until the morning," for it would spoil:

I will rain bread from heaven for you; and

the people shall go out and gather the portion
of a day in its day, that I may prove them,
whether they will walk in my law or no....
And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till
the morning. Notwithstanding they hearkened
not unto Moses; but some of them left of it
until the morning, and it bred worms, and stank
(Exodus 16:4, 19, 20).
We are living in times full of importance to
each one, light is shining in clear steady rays
around us. If this light is rightly received and
appreciated, it will be a blessing to us and to
others; but if we trust in our own wisdom and
strength, or in the wisdom and strength of our
fellow men, it will be turned into a poison (TM
385, emphasis added).

Even at Minneapolis itself, the prophet saw this frightful

danger. Here is a hint of the eventual tragic failure of the
message and the messengers:

Those who have not been sinking the shaft

deeper and still deeper into the mine of truth
will see no beauty in the precious things
presented at this Conference. When the will is
once set in stubborn opposition to the light
given, it is difficult to yield, even under the
convincing evidence which has been in this
[1888] conference....
If we neglect to walk in the light given, it
becomes darkness to us; and the darkness is

144
 proportionate to the light and privileges which
we have not improved (Ms. 8a, 1888; Olson, pp.
279, 280, emphasis added).

Still speaking of the 1888 message and of "God's

messengers," she said that the enemy of God's work would
employ unsanctified ministers and leaders. She sensed the
reality of mortal spiritual conflict:

Unsanctified ministers are arraying

themselves against God.... While professedly
they receive Christ, they embrace Barabbas,
and by their actions say, "Not this Man, but
Barabbas." ... Satan has made his boast of what
he can do.... He says, "I will go forth and be a
lying spirit to deceive those that I can."... Let
the son of deceit and false witness be
entertained by a church that has had great
light, great evidence, and that church will
discard the message the Lord has sent, and
receive the most unreasonable assertions and
false suppositions and false theories....
Many will stand in our pulpits with the torch
of false prophecy in their hands, kindled from
the hellish torch of Satan. If doubts and
unbelief are cherished, the faithful ministers
will be removed from the people who think they
know so much (TM 409, 410).

Only a few months before the 1893 Session came this

unmistakable word:

The early church was deceived by the enemy

of God and man, and apostasy was brought into
the ranks of those who professed to love God;
and today, unless the people of God awake out
of sleep, they will be taken unawares by the
devices of Satan....
The days in which we live are eventful and
full of peril....
Without the enlightenment of the Spirit of
God, we shall not be able to discern truth from
error, and shall fall under the masterful

145
 temptations and deceptions that Satan will
bring upon the world (RH November 22, 1892).

The enemy would use his skill to "try every device

possible," presenting error in the guise of present truth, so
that we would "not be able to discern truth from error." The
delegates would cross a fateful hidden line at the 1893
Session. A few months before it convened, the Lord's
messenger wrote to the General Conference president from
her Australian exile:

I wish to plead with our brethren who shall

assemble at the General Conference to heed
the message given to the Laodiceans. What a
condition of blindness is theirs; this subject
[the 1888 message] has been brought to your
notice again and again; but your dissatisfaction
with your spiritual condition has not been deep
and painful enough to work a reform.... The
guilt of self-deception is upon our churches.
The religious life of many is a lie....
I have deep sorrow of heart because I have
seen how readily a word or action of Elder Jones
or Elder Waggoner is criticized.... Cease
watching your brethren with suspicion.... There
are many in the ministry who have no love for
God or for their fellow men. They are asleep,
and while they sleep, Satan is sowing his tares
(Letter O19, 1892).

Various writers have compared the experience of ancient

Israel at Kadesh-Barnea to our 1888 history. But it has not
been recognized that the 1893 Session is a modern
counterpart of Israel's attempt after Kadesh-Barnea to go up
and capture the "promised land." Israel were under the false
excitement and enthusiasm of a superficial repentance, and
the modern reenactment is transparently documented in the
1893 Bulletin itself.
Caleb and Joshua brought this message to Israel:

If the Lord delight in us, then He will bring

us into this land, and give it us; a land which
floweth with milk and honey. Only rebel not ye
against the Lord, neither fear ye the people of

146
 the land.... The Lord is with us.... But all the
congregation bade stone them with stones
(Numbers 14:7-10; compare 5T 383).

Later, after it was evident that the people had truly

rebelled, the Lord was forced to decree a return to the
wilderness: "And ye shall know the altering of My purpose"
(vs. 34, margin). But Israel supposed that their superficial
confession ("we have sinned"), and their superficial
repentance ("the people mourned greatly"), had secured a
reversal of the divine sentence, and that they could now
readily conquer their enemies.
In their enthusiasm, they interpreted out of context the
previous message of the two faithful spies, "The Lord is with
us, fear them not." The people assumed that this would still
be true after a skin-deep repentance left their stubborn
rebellion unaffected. Thinking that the Lord was still "with"
them, and without contrition, they presumptuously set forth
into what they confidently thought would be their "loud cry"
experience to conquer Canaan.
Moses tried to dissuade them, telling them that the
message Caleb and Joshua gave them before their rebellion
was no longer present truth. "Go not up, for the Lord is not
among you," he cried (verse 42).
Israel's effort was a disaster. Indeed, the Lord was not
with them in conquering Canaan. But He would not forsake
them. He would still be with them in a program of weary,
protracted wilderness wanderings until the entire generation
of unbelief had perished. So at last they turned back.
The enthusiasm aroused at the close of the 1893 General
Conference session was not the "greatest victory" of the
message of Christ's righteousness that we have supposed.
Rather, it was clearly a false excitement without true
contrition and repentance. Our history has shown it to have
been a failure, for the loud cry did not go forth after that
meeting.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is indeed the true
modern Israel and the Lord has been with us. He has not
forsaken us any more than He forsook His people at Kadesh-
Barnea. But He has been with us as a pillar of cloud by day
and a pillar of fire by night in decades of weary wilderness
wanderings, not in a program of conquering "Canaan" in
"loud cry" power. That experience is yet future for the

147
remnant church, rendered so by our own unbelief in the past.
God's purpose has had to be altered.
We must consider the recorded evidence.

A. T. Jones' Studies

A. T. Jones' twenty-four studies on the "Third Angel's

Message" present no hint that he was bitter, argumentative,
censorious, or un-Christian. His style was simplicity itself,
and his approach was the essence of brotherly kindness. He
never lifted himself above the people as one separate from
them. Always he spoke of "our" failures, "our" unbelief, "our"
need of the Lord, and often specifically included himself as
being the most needy and the most helpless.
We read his sermons seeking in vain for evidence to
support our historians' charges that he was "obstreperous,"
"gave just cause for resentment," was an "argumentative ....
protagonist," "critical," aroused personality "rancors," was
conceited or arrogant, or made "extreme statements" or
"mystical pronouncements." These writers have invented
these ideas, or at best have distorted truth. False judgment
has been officially published about a humble servant whom
the Lord identified as "His messenger."

His 1893 sermons are reported in the Bulletin verbatim

without apparent editing or deletions. A proper reprint issued
by the General Conference and the Seminary of a selection
of these twenty-four sermons would convince many of our
people today that here is the clearest, most simple, heart-
warming teaching of "the third angel's message in verity"
that we have heard for a century. The inditing of the Holy
Spirit is evident.
In speaking of Minneapolis, he showed a humble mind.
He recognized the necessity of speaking of it plainly, but it is
difficult to see how anyone could have brought it in more
tactfully, more kindly, more lovingly, than he did.
The General Conference secretary, Dan T. Jones, wrote to
a friend about him: "His practical preaching seems very
tender and [he] deeply feels all he says" (Letter to J. W. Watt,
January 1, 1889). In 1890, Ellen White also said that she was
pleased with his humble spirit: "Brother Jones talked very
plainly, yet tenderly" regarding the 1888 affair (Letter 84,
1890).

148
 Now she has been exiled to Australia and Waggoner to
Britain; Jones is left standing virtually alone:

And now we have come ... to the study of

that part of it that comes right down to you and
me as individuals.... To me this lesson and the
next one are the most fearful of all that I have
been brought to yet. I have not chosen them,
and I dread them ... but ... it is no use for us
to ... view these things lightly ... with our eyes
shut, and not knowing what our situation is....
I ask you now to start with, do not place me
up here as one who is separated from you, and
above you, and as talking down to you, and
excluding myself from the things that may be
presented. I am with you in all these things. I,
with you, just as certainly, and just as much,
need to be prepared to receive what God has to
give us, as anybody else on earth. So I beg of
you not to separate me from you in this matter.
And if you see faults that you have committed, I
shall see faults that I have committed, and
please do not blame me as though I were
judging you, or finding fault with you.... What I
want, brethren, is simply to seek God with you,
with all the heart (Congregation--"amen") and
to have everything out of the way, that God
may give us what He has for us (GCB 1893, pp.
164, 165).

His teachings were clear, with no mystical or extreme

slant. If they should seem to be unusual to us today, it is
because we have so long been using blunted swords that the
naked sword of the Word and of the Spirit may seem
especially keen.
His statements regarding works were balanced. It was
not until after this session (April 9) that Ellen White found it
necessary to caution him against a potential for extreme
statements on the subject of faith and works. (And it is after
that letter that we find her most enthusiastic endorsements
of his messages on faith and works). Note his clarity and
balance in 1893:

149
 I say again, that in all cases he who believes
in Jesus Christ most fully will work most fully
for Him.
Now let us have this word, and that will be
the best close I could make to the whole thing
tonight. "Steps to Christ," page 79 [original
edition of 1892]: "The heart that rests most
fully upon Christ will be the most earnest and
active in labor for Him." Amen. (Congregation:
"Amen.") ... Do not think that the man who says
that he rests wholly upon Jesus Christ is either
a physical or a spiritual loafer. If he shows this
loafing in his life, he is not resting in Christ at
all, but on his own self.... That is faith that will
bring to you the outpouring of the latter rain
(GCB 1893, p. 302; emphasis original).

He was also clear on the relationship of the law to the

gospel. That meant he understood true repentance, in
refreshing contrast to fatal concepts that are popular today.
It is a tragic mistake to assume that superficial confessions
result in all our sins being washed away automatically, and
that convictions from the Holy Spirit of deeper sin are from
the devil and must therefore be repulsed. Note this clear
truth:

When sin is pointed out to you, say, "I would

rather have Christ than that." And let it go.
(Congregation: "Amen.") ... Then ... where is
the opportunity for any of us to get
discouraged over our sins? Now some of the
brethren here have done that very thing. They
came here free; but the Spirit of God brought
up something they never saw before. The Spirit
of God went deeper than it ever went before,
and revealed things they never saw before; and
then, instead of thanking the Lord that that
was so, and letting the whole wicked business
go, and thanking the Lord that they had ever so
much more of Him than they ever had before,
they began to get discouraged.... And they got
no good out of the meetings day after day.
If the Lord has brought up sins to us that we
never thought of before, that only shows that

150
 He is going down to the depths, and He will
reach the bottom at last; and when He finds the
last thing that is unclean or impure, that is out
of harmony with His will, and brings that up,
and shows that to us, and we say, "I would
rather have the Lord than that"-- then the work
is complete, and the seal of the living God can
be fixed upon that character....
Which would you rather have, the
completeness, the perfect fulness of Jesus
Christ, or have less than that, with some of
your sins covered up that you never knew of? ...
So He has got to dig down to the deep places
we never dreamed of, because we cannot
understand our hearts.... Let Him go on,
brethren; let Him keep on His searching work
(ibid., p. 404).

Note the speaker's clear concept that Satan controls the

natural mind unless there is a daily crucifixion of self with
Christ. "The offence of the cross" was present. One brief
illustration of his pointed applications must suffice to show
that here was a genuine message, a call to a union with
Christ through self being crucified with Him on the cross:

We have the word here that those things are

amongst us; ambition for place, jealousy of
position, and envy of situation; those things are
amongst us. Now the time has come to put
them away, ... for each one to find how low he
can get at the feet of Christ, and not how high
in the Conference, or in the estimation of men,
or how high in the Conference Committee, or
General Conference Committee.... No difference
what it costs; that has nothing to do with it
(ibid., p. 166).

Bound up with this solemn call to repentance was the

repeated assurance of a deep, solid gladness in the Lord.
There was no extreme of emotionalism evident, but tears of
contrition were shed. It was a solid and genuine work of the
Holy Spirit that A. T. Jones presented at that 1893 meeting.
Probably there has never been in our 100 years a more
beautiful message presented at a General Conference

151
session, so deeply indited by the Holy Spirit under a hovering
pillar of fire and cloud that beckoned onward to
eschatalogical fulfillment.
But fanaticism crept in near the close of the session,
introduced by someone other than A. T. Jones.

CHAPTER NINE

A FALSE RIGHTEOUSNESS BY
FAITH:
SOWING THE SEED OF
APOSTASY
(The 1893 General Conference Session,
Part II)

The rejection of the 1888 light opened the way for false
ideas to enter under the guise of righteousness by faith.
Indeed, if we turn from the genuine, nothing can prevent our
grasping the counterfeit.
Before presenting the evidence of such misconceptions,
Jones reminded the 1893 session congregation of the
rejection of light at Minneapolis and thereafter for four years.
Then he showed how the mind devoted to self becomes the

152
mind of Satan. He traced its development through paganism
to the subtleties of Romanism. There are two kinds of
justification by faith--a true and a counterfeit:

We have found ... that when Christianity

came into the world this same carnal mind got
up a counterfeit of that and covered itself--the
same carnal mind--with a form of Christianity,
and called it justification by faith when it was
all justification by works,--the same carnal
mind. That is the papacy, the mystery of
iniquity (GCB, 1893, p. 342).

Next he traced the development of the mind of self in

modern spiritualism, showing how this delusion would exalt
the same love of self. He even seemed to have the embryo
of a concept of spiritualism as a false Holy Spirit, an idea
advanced for his day but obvious in our charismatic day:

The nearer we come to the second coming of

the Saviour the more fully Spiritualism will be
professing Christ.... Satan himself ... comes as
Christ; he is received as Christ. So then the
people of God must be so well acquainted with
the Saviour that no profession of the name of
Christ will be received or accepted where it is
not the actual, genuine thing (loc. cit.).

Only through letting the mind of self be crucified with

Christ, making possible an indwelling of the mind of Christ,
could the remnant church recognize such a deception:

Then although these folks quote the words

of Christ, it is all counterfeit. You know that
[Great Controversy] tells us that when Satan
himself comes with the gracious words that the
Saviour uttered, he will talk them with much
the same tone, and will pass it off on those who
have not the mind of Christ. Brethren, there is
no salvation for us, there is no safety for us,
there is no remedy for us at all, but to have the
mind of Christ (ibid., p. 343).

153
 The mind of self being crucified "with Christ" in no way
lessens true self-respect, but enhances it through union with
Christ. There was a misconception of righteousness by faith
already apparent by 1893, after the "in-a-great-measure"
rejection of the genuine (1 SM 234, 235). Indeed, it is a
principle that "those who have been in any measure blinded
by the enemy ... will be inclined to accept a falsehood"
(Special Testimonies, Series A, pp. 41, 42). Jones unmasked
the falsehood:

Some of these brethren, since the

Minneapolis meeting, I have heard, myself, say
"amen" to preaching, to statements that were
utterly heathen, and did not know but that it
was the righteousness of Christ. Some of those
who stood so openly against that at that time,
and voted with uplifted hand against it,16 ...
since that time I have heard say "amen" to
statements that were as openly and decidedly
papal as the papal church itself can state them.
That I shall bring in here in one of these
lessons, and call your attention to the Catholic
church's statement and her doctrine of
justification by faith.... Says one, "I thought
they believed in justification by works." They
do and they do not believe in anything else; but
they pass it off under the head of justification
by faith. And they are not the only people in
the world that are doing it (GCB 1893, p. 244).
I have here a book entitled "Catholic
Belief."...
That you may have the two things--the truth
of justification by faith, and the falsity of it--
side by side, I will read what this says, and then
... Steps to Christ..... I want you to see what the
Roman Catholic idea of justification by faith is,
because I have had to meet it among professed
Seventh-day Adventists the past four years....
These ... very expressions that are in this
Catholic book, as to what justification by faith
is and how to obtain it, are just such
expressions as professed Seventh-day
16
For evidence concerning a vote taken at the 1888 General Conference Session to reject the message
brought by Jones and Waggoner, see chapter 14.

154
 Adventists have made to me as to what
justification by faith is....
This is justification by faith. That other thing
is justification by works. This is of Christ; that
is of the devil. One is Christ's doctrine of
justification by faith; the other is the devil's
doctrine of justification by faith (ibid., pp. 261,
262).

Jones saw that the essence of Romanism is self-worship

in whatever form it may assume. Any specious teaching of
righteousness by faith, even ostensibly by a Seventh-day
Adventist agent, which exalts the sinful mind of self, is in
reality a branch growing out of the root of Romanism and
spiritualism:

That is righteousness by faith; that is a faith

that works, thank the Lord,--not a faith that
believes something away off, that keeps the
truth of God in the outer court, and then seeks
by his own efforts to make up the lack. No, but
faith that ... itself is working; it has a divine
power in it.... 17
This is enough to show that the papal
doctrine of justification by faith is Satan's
doctrine; it is simply the natural mind
depending upon itself, working through itself,
exalting itself; and then covering it all up with
a profession of belief ... but having no power of
God (ibid., pp. 265, 266).

An even more subtle counterfeit was exposed. The

Christian's Secret of a Happy Life by Hannah Whitall Smith
was immensely popular. It presented a virtually cross-less
and therefore powerless concept of righteousness by faith
which knew nothing of repentance or contrition, nor any
clear concept of the atonement on the cross, nor of a
personal Saviour who is "nigh at hand" as He is presented in
the 1888 message. Her righteousness by faith is a
philosophy.
This Quaker author says that she lit her lamp from the
teachings of Fenelon, a Roman Catholic mystic at the court
17
This is evidence that his theology regarding the relationship of faith and works was correct. He never
uttered any idea denigrating works, so far as the printed record of his sermons is concerned.

155
 of Louis XIV of France, who spent his life energies seeking to
convert Protestants back to Rome.18 The residue of author
Smith's devitalized faith was termed "trust in Christ." Once
the "surrender" is made, the soul must assume itself to be
"saved," and any conviction of the true Holy Spirit warning to
the contrary must be instantly repulsed by a repeated
psychological affirmation that all is well.
Jones sensed the fatal danger. Some of our people had
been reading Smith's book and mistakenly assumed that it
was the essence of the 1888 message, and that Jones and
Waggoner got their light from it. Jones set the record
straight:

I have seen this same thing working another

way. There is that book that a great many make
a great deal of, "The Christian's Secret of a
Happy Life." ... I want everyone of you to
understand that there is more of the Christian's
secret of a happy life in the Bible than in ten
thousand volumes of that book....
I did hear once ... that I got my light out of
that book. There is the Book where I got my
Christian's secret of a happy life [holding up
the Bible] and that is the only place. And I had
it before I ever saw the other book, or knew it
was in existence (GCB 1893, pp. 358, 359).

W. W. Prescott's Studies

Prescott gave a series of sermons on "The Promise of the

Holy Spirit." He recognized that a serious mistake had been
made at Minneapolis four years earlier. He had attended that
conference prejudiced in favor of Uriah Smith and Butler and
against A. T. Jones and his message. After the Minneapolis
conference he had even tried to bar Jones from speaking in
the Battle Creek Tabernacle. He had later privately
confessed taking a wrong position in company with most of
the brethren.19 However, in his lengthy studies at the 1893
18
See Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968, Vol. 9, pp. 169, 170; The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life,
copyright 1888 by Fleming H. Revell, pp. 80, 81, 87. Much of our current popular presentations of
righteousness by faith derive from Smith's concept and her book has been frequently recommended to
our youth as helpful and sound. Widely published to this day, it is in effect a counterfeit of Steps to
Christ., and of the 1888 message.
19
See William Warren Prescott: Seventh-day Adventist Educator, doctoral dissertation by Gilbert
Murray Valentine, Andrews University, 1982, pp. 81, 82, 143: "It seems his natural reaction to the

156
 meeting he gave no indication that he had been on the
wrong side, or that such a confession had been necessary.
Whereas Jones expressed the principle of corporate guilt,
speaking of "what we there rejected" (pp. 165, 183) although
he was one of the messengers, Prescott set himself up as
one who had always been on the right side. An honest,
humble confession on his part would have done wonders to
open the way for the Spirit of God to work in the session, but
such was never expressed.
Instead, he proceeded to identify himself prominently
with Jones as one who shared his special divine commission.
Perhaps Jones naively invited him to help, for he no doubt
felt lonely defending the 1888 message with Ellen White and
Waggoner both in exile overseas.
Prescott's sermons preceded Jones' nightly. When Jones
was speaking he was forward enough to interrupt him and to
interject ideas or quotations or even exhortation to the
audience. With a less mild and less appealing spirit, he
vehemently demanded that the brethren get right.
It is painful to note a certain imperiousness of manner
and impatience of appeal. The subtle difference of
temperament would hardly be effective in binding up
wounds and healing sores. His spirit was in stark contrast to
that of Jones' whose sense of corporate repentance20 enabled
him to share the guilt of the rejectors of the message.
Prescott's sermons give evidence of no such humility. Note
how a hierarchical spirit, foreign to the 1888 message, crept
in:

Now the solemn thought to my mind is that

[God] is getting impatient, and will not wait
very much longer for you and me. I want you to
see that plainly.... I say again, I am extremely
anxious over this situation.... I do not dictate to

theological discussions [1888] was to try to maintain a neutral stance although he felt a strong pull to
the side of Uriah Smith and G. I. Butler, to both of whom he felt a sense of loyalty and obligation. He
was also rather disturbed by and prejudiced against Jones' provocative and somewhat uncouth
style. . . .[and had been] a party to actions designed to prevent A. T. Jones from preaching at the
Tabernacle altogether and to restrict his teaching at the college to that which had previously been
taught by the denomination."

20
Note that Waggoner also from the beginning of his interest in righteousness by faith clearly
understood the concept of corporate guilt and repentance. Cf. his letter to M. C. Wilcox, May 16, 1916,
where he refers to his 1882 experience of insight.

157
 anyone, but something must be done,
something different must come to us than has
come in this Conference yet, that is sure....
That is why we [!] are urging you to accept
the righteousness, because the Spirit will be
there. Do you not see? (GCB 1893, pp. 386,
387).

The fact that Prescott so outspokenly made himself Jones'

special colleague would naturally confuse the minds of
delegates and congregation to think that this was the spirit
of the 1888 revival movement, when it was not:

There is nothing that my soul longs for more

than that the baptism of the Spirit shall rest
upon the services of God at this time.... We
must have experiences like removing right eyes
and cutting off right hands. Everyone who
wants that experience wants to be ready to
give everything, even life itself, to God.
(Murmers of Amen). And we should remember
that it is easier to say Amen than it is to do
what God says.
... What then, is our duty at this time? It is
to go out and give the LOUD cry of the message
to the world....
The Lord has long been waiting to give us
His Spirit. He is even now impatiently waiting
that He may bestow it upon us....
Now a work that will be greater than
Pentecost has begun, and there are those here
who will see it. It is here, it is now that we are
to be fitted for the work (ibid., pp. 38, 39;
emphasis in original).

Prescott did not sense the sublime 1888 concept of

motivation--that true New Testament faith itself "works by
love." The impact of his 1893 messages reverts to the
egocentric motivation of works.
In reading Jones' sermons, one finds no instance of
severity or harshness. But Prescott gives a different
impression:

158
 I say that if ever there was a needy
company, it is this company....
Now I am perfectly aware that I am speaking
with great plainness.... If we don't make this a
matter of earnest prayer, I say it simply means
death to you and to me....
It is no use to go this way any longer, and
my advice is most solemnly to every one who
cannot go out now imbued with power from on
high and bear this light from heaven, and to do
the work that God has to be done now, stay at
home....
Now I know that this is very severe. But I tell
you, brethren, something must come to us,
something must take hold of us....
The question is, What are we to do about it?
What are you and I going to do about it right
here, now, at this Conference? ... Again I say,
What are we going to do about it? (ibid., p. 67).
The servants of God under this message will
go out with faces lighted up with a holy joy and
holy consecration. I want to see these brethren
go out in that way; I want to see their faces
lighted up as did that of Stephen when he was
in the council (ibid., p. 389).
Now I say in all sincerity that we might as
well make up our minds here and now, before
we go a step further, to face death and down
it.... Unless we stand right there at this
moment, and say that we will give up friends,
homes, and that nothing shall separate us from
the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord,
we might as well stop now (ibid., p. 241).

This sad recital of extreme statements reveals how an

imperious, fanatical spirit began to creep in which was
foreign to the 1888 message. But his "we" gave the wrong
impression.
Prescott later humbled his heart in repentance for the
fanaticism that followed the close of this conference, and he
gave good messages in Australia in 1895. But these 1893
presentations brought confusion and hindered any possibility
of a contrite acceptance of the message. Opponents such as
Smith and Butler would naturally be ready to cite this

159
 fanaticism as an "I-told-you-so" example. (Even to this day,
fanatics and self-appointed reformers cause many sincere
church members to be prejudiced against the 1888
message). Three days before this meeting began, Ellen
White had warned through the Review and Herald :

Satan is now working with all his

insinuating, deceiving power.... When the
enemy sees that the Lord is blessing His
people, and preparing them to discern his
delusions, he will work with his masterly power
to bring in fanaticism on the one hand and cold
formalism on the other.... Watch unceasingly ...
for the first step of advance that Satan may
make among us....
There are dangers to be guarded on the
right hand and on the left.... Some will not
make a right use of the doctrine of
justification ... [to lead] into false paths (RH,
January 24, 1893).

In his sermons on the Holy Spirit, Prescott preached a

strange doctrine without the principle of the cross, without
clear ideas of what repentance is, and in a confused, even
self-contradictory manner. His vehemence had the
appearance of earnestness. He himself was supporting
projects at the same time which were unequivocally opposed
by the Spirit of Prophecy, though he was doubtless
unconscious of such a marked disparity.21
He likewise would be unconscious of the disparity
between his doctrine of receiving the Holy Spirit and the
truth. A few examples of this confusion must suffice.
Fortunately, the 1893 Bulletin has been republished so that
interested readers can more easily see for themselves the
evidence therein:

What is the thing for us to do? ... It is to

begin to confess our sinfulness to God with
humility of soul, with deep contrition before
God to be zealous and repent. Now that is the
only message that I can bring tonight. It is just
that....

21
Compare GCB 1893 pp. 279, 459 with FE 220-230.

160
 This sounds fine, right on target. But the problem
becomes apparent when we continue:

Suppose we say we do not see anything to

confess at all. That does not touch the matter
in any way. When God sends us word that we
are sinful, it is for us to say we are so, whether
we can see it or not. That should be our
experience (GCB 1893, p. 65).

Scripture nowhere tells us that God desires a lip

confession of words that the heart does not feel. This is
closer to Islam than to genuine Christianity. "The lips may
express a poverty of soul that the heart does not
acknowledge" (COL 159). Jones recognized that there was
danger in such ideas. With the apparent purpose of
answering Prescott, he later said:

If the Lord should take away our sins

without our knowing it, what good would it do
us? That would simply be making machines of
us. He does not propose to do that;
consequently, He wants you and me to know
when our sins go, that we may know when his
righteousness comes....
We are always intelligent instruments... We
will be used by the Lord at our own living
choice (ibid., p. 405).

An Effort to Resolve the Stalemate

Prescott expressed no open opposition to Jones, and it is

certain there was no conscious intention of such. But did he
truly overcome his initial opposition to Jones' message? The
evidence in his voluminous messages hardly indicates that
he did.
But for sure, the "offence of the cross" had not ceased.
The Spirit of God was bringing conviction of sin to many
hearts, and Prescott tried to find some way to receive the
Holy Spirit that would be acceptable to disturbed hearts and
yet avoid a painful conviction of sin.
The people knew very well that responsibility for rejecting
the beginning of the latter rain hung over the conference like
a cloud. The net result of Prescott's studies was confusion, a

161
jamming of the spiritual ether waves which unsettled even
Jones.
Prescott was unmistakably against sin, but he seemed to
have no clear sense of what was the root of the sin which
troubled the congregation. The present truth of accepting
the latter rain and proclaiming the loud cry was his heart
burden; but how to deal with the present hindrance, a true
comprehension of the guilt which hung over them for the
past four years, seemed to elude his understanding.
Some of his perplexity may have been the result of
understanding the real issue but being afraid to say so
clearly because of the imposing presence of the leading
prejudiced brethren. Even the prophet Jeremiah would have
been "confounded" if he had allowed the leaders of Judah to
intimidate him (1:17). When a speaker feels forced to beat
around the bush, he inevitably communicates confusion.
Finally, about ten days before the close of the session,
Prescott began to develop a novel method of receiving the
Holy Spirit. It bears a close resemblance to the ideas
expressed in The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life.
What was necessary was simply an "act of faith" in
assuming that you have the gift of the final outpouring of the
Holy Spirit, specific repentance for the sin of 1888 being by-
passed. There seemed to be a feeling of desperation:

I am free to say that I begin to feel seriously

anxious over our work now.... Now for nearly
four weeks ... we [have] considered what
hindered our receiving an outpouring of the
Spirit of God.... I have since felt there is almost
a reaction from that, and that this work seems
to move along rather easy with us now. I want
to say for myself, I shall not at all be satisfied if
this Conference passes without a greater
outpouring of the Spirit of God than we have
experienced yet....
I am extremely anxious over this situation;
because the time is passing, and the days go
easily one after the other....
Something different must come to us than
has come in this Conference yet, that is sure....
We have only about ten days left in the
Conference (ibid., pp. 384, 386, 389).

162
 Now began a devious, nebulous argument that led the
audience to believe they could receive the latter rain gift of
the Holy Spirit by simply assuming and claiming they had it.
We must not feel we have the power of the Holy Spirit, we
must know we have it. Such a conscious assumption will not
include true self-knowledge nor an awareness of the depth of
our sin, for that could be dangerous and discourage us:

I notice that many here have from time to

time asked the Lord to show them themselves
just as He saw them; and I suppose that is one
petition that the Lord saw best not to grant us.
And I don't believe we ought to ask Him to do
it. Now you can see what the effect is apt to be
when He begins to show us ourselves; we begin
to question right off whether the Lord loves us
or not, and whether the Lord can save us or
not.... I had no idea of my character.
Well, the Lord probably has not begun to
show us ourselves as He sees us; I do not
suppose we have any idea, or any conception at
all, of the way we look in God's sight (ibid., p.
445).

Thus was ignored the true function of the law, and the
congregation was led into confusion. Ellen White's frequent
appeals for honesty in facing inward reality were
circumvented.
The speaker paraphrased or repeated some ideas that
Jones had presented, but gave them a subtle twist to aid his
argument that instead of bringing the healing conviction of
sin, the Comforter removes it. The cloud over the Conference
must be lifted somehow, by any means possible. We must
now assume that without a need for repentance, God has
forgiven the sin that has caused the trouble. Now we must
just claim that our sins are gone. Here appears his
indebtedness to Hannah Whitall Smith:

Keep saying over what He says. You cannot

go wrong then. If you do not understand it, and
cannot see light in it, you keep right on saying
what He says (ibid., p. 447).

163
 Perhaps the best way to review this argument is to quote
from him the following:

Now [the Spirit] convinces us of the

righteousness of God in Christ--the
righteousness of Christ. And He convinces us
that that is a wonderfully desirable thing to
have, and then He goes on and says that we
can have it, and from that He convinces us that
we have it, if we follow Him....
The purpose is not, I will convince you that
you are a sinner, and then convince you that
you are condemned. No, the work of the Spirit
is to convince us that that condemnation has
been taken away (ibid., pp. 448, 449; emphasis
original).

The fundamental problem as he saw it was not personal

deliverance from guilt, but the lifting of the cloud that hung
over the corporate body in a General Conference session
because of rejecting the latter rain. Here was a band-aid and
an aspirin for our deep wound.

His theory could only confuse. The trumpet was not given
a certain sound, and the sin of Minneapolis was never
squarely faced and dealt with. It was assumed that the sense
of guilt must be of Satanic origin and vigorously repulsed.
Thus was fulfilled the 1890 testimony that the 1888 tops
were cut down and the roots left intact (TM 467). If any
truthful conviction should intrude into the heart that the
roots were still there, the conviction was to be considered a
work of the devil.
Such would of course be the logical result of a doctrine
which taught (1) that a blanket lip-confession of unconscious,
unrealized sin was sufficient without the sins being brought
to consciousness; (2) that it was wrong to pray for true self-
knowledge; and (3) that the real work of the Holy Spirit is not
to bring a conviction of sin but to take away all such
conviction--directly contrary to Christ's teaching in John 16:8,
9.
A fourth point would follow logically in any reasoning
mind: any doubt that you now have the Holy Spirit in latter
rain power would be a lack of faith in God. You must

164
therefore assume that you have received it. This is the idea
that was now developed:

I want to feel in my experience that the

Saviour is with me just as He was with His
disciples.... I do not want to think of Him as
simply there, I want to think of Him as being
here.... Not simply, I want Him, but I have Him
(ibid., p. 385).

Jones later disparaged such assumptions:

So then, the man who claims to believe in

Jesus, and claims the righteousness of God
which comes to the believer in Jesus, is his
claiming it enough ... ? (Congregation: "No.") ...
Well, how do you know it? "Why, I feel it in my
heart; I feel it in my heart, and have for several
years." Well, that is no evidence at all; for "the
heart is deceitful above all things" (ibid., p.
414).

But Prescott, in speaking of the reception of the latter

rain, pressed the point he had developed:

What I want to get at is, What hinders it [the

latter rain] now? What we are to get after is the
righteousness of Christ... I have been thinking
about it somewhat this way: If we were just to
stop all questioning about one another, ... and
sit right down here in the simplicity of it just as
a child, ... we could take it....
Brethren, what is to hinder us from
accepting it now in that way? Nothing. Then let
us praise the Lord and say, I have it now (ibid.,
pp. 388, 389; emphasis original).

Thus was the popular doctrine developed which has been

preached in every generation of Adventists since 1893: we
receive the outpouring of the latter rain by simply assuming
and claiming that we have it, without knowledge of, or
repentance for, having rejected it. But it has not been so
received.

165
 Jones Confused

Jones sensed the lethargy that was benumbing hearts,

and did not know what to do. He stood practically alone
except for his self-appointed colleague, whose efforts only
created confusion and possibly ill will. We read of his
apprehension:

Brethren, we are in a fearful position here at

this Conference. It is just awful. I said that once
before, but I realize it tonight more than I did
then. I can't help it, brethren.... Not a soul of us
ever dreams what fearful destinies hang on the
days that pass by here (ibid., p. 346).

During his last two or three studies, we find him

becoming unsettled, quoting from Prescott. Weary and
perplexed, he seemed to turn to him and to echo his
confused thoughts.
Both failed to realize a fundamental reality: the latter rain
must be withdrawn and modern Israel must turn back to
wander in the wilderness. They both assumed that nothing
could hinder the finishing of God's work in their generation.
Therefore they assumed it must go forth in spite of
opposition and rejection. Prescott's idea was essentially that
of our popular Calvinism--God's time-clock had struck the
hour for the latter rain, and it is impossible for His sovereign
will to be thwarted by human unbelief. Now we find Jones
repeating Prescott's extreme demands:

I say again that the message there given to

us is the message for you and me to carry from
this meeting. And anyone who cannot carry
that message with him from this meeting had
better not go.... That minister had better not
leave this place as a minister (ibid., pp. 494,
495).

Soon he was making unwise propositions and asking

questions that had been better left alone:

Has He given you the light of the knowledge

of His glory? (Congregation: "Yes.") Has He?
(Congregation: "Yes.") ...

166
 Then that Spirit has come to those who can
look into the face of Jesus Christ.

A few minutes later, "by permission of the speaker, Prof.

Prescott read the following: 'Look up by faith, and the light of
the glory of God will shine upon you.'" Jones continued:

Now, with the accumulated force of four

years' exercise, God puts it forth to His people.
The proposition is again: "Arise, shine, for thy
light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen
upon thee." Who will? Who will? (Numerous
voices: "I will.") Good! How long will you?
(Voices: "Always.") How constantly will you?
How often will you? (Voices: "Always.")....
Then, "Arise, and shine, because the light
has come, and the glory of the Lord hath risen
upon thee" (ibid., pp. 496, 497).

If the loud cry was indeed to go forth with power, it would

follow that great changes must take place in the church. Now
we find Jones, supported by Prescott, making unfortunate
prophecies that have never yet been fulfilled. Someday his
words must be fulfilled, but they were not fulfilled in that
generation:

Here is the most blessed promise it seems

to me, that ever came to the Seventh-day
Adventist church. "For henceforth there shall
no more come into thee, the uncircumcised and
the unclean." Thank the Lord, He has delivered
us henceforth from unconverted people; from
people brought into the church to work out
their own unrighteousness, and to create
division in the church. Church trials are all
gone, thank the Lord; all mischievous
talebearers and tattlers are gone....
"No more shall come into thee the
uncircumcised and the unclean." ...
There is no place in the Seventh-day
Adventist church for hypocrites. If the heart is
not sincere, it is the most dangerous place that
that man ever was in ....

167
 Brethren, that is the message now ... and
he who cannot carry it should not go. Oh, do
not go.... Let no one go without the
consciousness of that abiding presence--the
power of the Spirit of God (ibid., pp. 498, 499).

Prescott enthusiastically predicted the manifestation of

the gifts of the Spirit, obviously extending the gift of
prophecy to others besides the authentic agent:

But now in the closing work of God, ... the

gifts will reappear in the church. And God does
not intend, as it seems to me, that these gifts
are to be confined to just one here, or perhaps
one there, and that it shall be a rare thing that
any special gift shall be manifested in any
church.... Gifts of healing; working of miracles;
prophesyings; interpretation of tongues;--all
these things will be manifested again in the
church (ibid., p. 461).

Did these wonderful gifts come? There were

prophesyings of a sort after this session, and both Jones and
Prescott were deceived by the unfortunate claims of one
Anna Rice Phillips. Fanaticism was inevitable, for the loud cry
of the third angel's message did not go forth after the 1893
session.
So enthusiastic was Prescott that he predicted that some
would go forth now to raise the dead literally:

I want to tell you that there are persons

right in this house that will go through these
very experiences; they will be taken out of
prison by the angel of the Lord to go and
proclaim the message; they will heal the sick,
and raise the dead, too. Now that will happen
right in this message.... We must believe these
things as simply as a little child believes them
(ibid., p. 386).

Time and history have shown these predictions to be

false, certainly so far as the church body was concerned.
Was the assumption that they had now appropriated the
latter rain of the Holy Spirit any more true?

168
 Prescott's Predictions of Apostasy

Prescott was not too sure of his doctrine at that meeting,

and made a series of strange but significant references to
the possibility of becoming deceived by a false Christ:

Now, I say to those who have been in the

ministry, and who have been teaching Christ to
the people and tonight can't tell the difference
between the voice of Christ and the voice of the
devil, it is time for us to stop and learn the
voice of God.... But you still ask: "How will they
know his voice?" I can't tell you....
We will just as surely, you and I, in spite of
all the light we have had under this work, be
led astray. The fact is, we will change leaders
and not know it, unless we have the Spirit of
God with us....We will array ourselves against
this work, against the power of God (ibid., p.
108).

He seemed to know no clear way of telling truth from

error except by what he termed "the Spirit." What he did not
make plain was how to distinguish "the Spirit of truth" from
"the spirit of error:"

The promise was that the spirit of truth

would come,--the Spirit of truth,--THE SPIRIT OF
TRUTH....
There will be every wind of doctrine
blowing, every effort made to bring in--not in
an open way, but in an underhanded way, in a
way that we shall not recognize of our own
wisdom--principles ... to deceive if possible....
The effort will be made to bring it in as the
truth, and to cloak it under the garment of
truth ... and bring us to compromise with error
without our knowing it (ibid., pp. 459, 460,
emphasis original).

Speaking once of those with "blind eyes among us," he

said: "Who knows whether that means me or not?" (p. 237).
Finally he told the conference that the issue before them was

169
 either to be translated or to be deceived by the devices of
Satan:

I cannot get away from the idea that now is

a most critical time with us personally.... It
seems to me that right now we are making
choices that will determine whether we shall go
on with this work through the loud cry and be
translated, or whether we shall be deceived by
the devices of Satan and be left out in darkness
(ibid., p. 386).

They were not translated; we are sure of that. Were they

then "deceived by the devices of Satan"?

The decade that followed this conference was a dark one.

Fire destroyed the church headquarters in Battle Creek as a
divine judgment. Pantheism ravaged prominent leaders. And
nearly ten further decades have rolled by without our
receiving the gracious blessing Heaven tried to give us in
1888.

Conclusion

The 1893 General Conference session marked the near

end of the 1888 era. The Lord withdrew any more of the
latter rain as well as the loud cry. The brethren of the time so
recognized it, and history has proved it true. A false
enthusiasm infatuated the close of the 1893 Conference. And
Jones was misled.
One month after the close of the session (April 9) Ellen
White wrote him from Australia, cautioning him against
extreme statements regarding faith and works. They were
not made during the session nor recorded in the Bulletin.
She had not read them, but heard them "in my dream." By
exiling Ellen White and Waggoner, the opposition virtually
assured the conclusive failure of the 1888 message, because
the dragon's methods proved too clever and determined for
the isolated Jones to handle alone.22
He had done the best he could. Earnestly and in humility
he had urged the brethren to accept the light, assured that
God would grant the loud cry experience for His glory. But it
22
Cf. Ellen White's remarks to the effect that Butler's and Smith's continuing opposition laid a burden
on Jones that the Lord never intended him to carry. Letter H-27, 1894.

170
was not to be, or rather it could not be, unless they found a
genuine repentance for 1888, which they did not find.
We read that Caleb and Joshua were also over-
enthusiastic about conquering the Canaanites, telling Israel,
"The Lord is with us: fear them not," after Israel's rebellion
made it impossible for the Lord to be with them in that
program (Numbers 14:9).
Just before the 1893 session convened, Ellen White had
cautioned the General Conference president concerning the
Minneapolis issue:

If Satan can impress the mind and stir up

the passions of those who claim to believe the
truth, ... to commit themselves to the wrong
side, he has laid his plans to lead them on a
long journey (Letter O19, 1892; emphasis
added).

She later recognized that the "long journey" had begun

because the purposes of God had to be altered:

We may have to remain here in this world

because of insubordination many more years,
as did the children of Israel.... But if all now
would only see and confess and repent of their
own course of action in departing from the
truth of God, and following human devisings,
then the Lord would pardon (Ms. 184, 1901; Ev
696).

Those who confidently assume that the 1893 session

marked the "greatest victory" of the message of Christ's
righteousness cannot account for the devious trail of those
"many more years" which have now stretched out into a near
century. It is a strange way for the loud cry to be proceeding,
when it should have gone as fire in the stubble.
The leader of the 1893 confusion later followed a
mysterious course. G. B. Starr wrote thus to A. G. Daniells:

You certainly know that Professor Prescott

for some unaccountable reason has never been
a safe leader. In England he was astray with
Waggoner on many points, in the Annie Phillips
false prophesying he showed lack of

171
 judgment ... He wrote and taught pantheism
before and quite as decidedly as Doctor
Kellogg. These are not the footprints of a safe
leader. He does not err so often and constantly
(Letter, August 29, 1919).

In the 1950 General Conference session, the newly

elected president employed the same doctrine that Prescott
taught in 1893. He convinced the vast congregation at San
Francisco that they could receive the final outpouring of the
Holy Spirit in the latter rain by simply assuming and claiming
that they had it. No repentance for rejecting the "beginning"
of the latter rain was needed, no lessons from our history
were to be learned, no understanding of that "most precious
message" the Lord sent us was needed (cf. GCB 1950, RH
July 17, 1950, pp. 113-117, sermon of sabbath, July 15).
With very few exceptions, the entire congregation were
as sheep blindly following a shepherd who reiterated the
same doctrine that prevailed in 1893. Again, there was no
reception of the latter rain. That was 37 years ago, as of this
writing.
Most of the 1950 leaders have now gone to their rest, as
was the case with our 1893 leaders. We are forced to inquire
if 1950 marked significant progress over 1893. It would be
charitable to note that very likely few if any of our 1950
leaders knew about what happened at the 1893 session. We
have everything to fear for the future if we forget the way
the Lord has led us in the past!
After the 1893 session, Ellen White was aroused as never
before, saying, "We will change leaders and not know it." Her
burden seemed to be that the enemy would now work within
the church. The new Canrights would henceforth do an
"inside" job:

Fanaticism will appear in the very midst of

us. Deceptions will come, and of such a
character that if it were possible they would
mislead the very elect. If marked
inconsistencies and untruthful utterances were
apparent in these manifestations, the words
from the lips of the Great Teacher would not be
needed....
The Holy Spirit of God alone can create a
healthy enthusiasm (2 SM 16, 17; 1894).

172
 The course of the 1893 session reveals the possibility of
preaching about the Holy Spirit without understanding Him
or recognizing Him, and even while resisting Him.
It would be well for us all to pray, "Lord, is it I?"

173
 CHAPTER TEN

WHY DID JONES AND

WAGGONER
LOSE THEIR WAY?
One of the great mysteries in Seventh-day Adventist
history is A. T. Jones’ and E. J. Waggoner’s later failure. The
usual understanding of such failure is that the basic
tendencies toward it existed in character from the beginning
of one’s church connection. Such is the thought expressed
by the apostle John:

They went out from us, but they were not of

us; for if they had been of us, they would no
doubt have continued with us: but they went
out, that they might be made manifest that
they were not all of us (1 John 2:19).

This principle seems to have applied in the case of D. M.

Canright. Long before he left us, he was, spiritually speaking,
"not of us." He repressed his buried doubts from time to time
with abject confessions, but the doubts were never
eradicated. The graphic story is told in the Testimonies (Vol.
5, pp. 516-20, 571-3, 621-28).
A serious question prevails to-day concerning Jones and
Waggoner. Were they genuine Christians even at
Minneapolis? How could they have been true at that time
and afterward lose their way? The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts
expresses the popular view that they were radical, extreme,
in error even at Minneapolis, waiting only for a chance to
jump the track:

[At the time of the Minneapolis session] some were

strongly inclined to take radical positions, as though it were
a sign of strength to be extreme. Mrs. White … even seemed
to have a feeling that the two men who were so prominent at
that time might later on be carried away by their extreme
views (p. 232).

174
 However, an inspired judgment declares they were
straight and true at the time of the Minneapolis meeting:

The Lord in His great mercy sent a most

precious message to His people through Elders
Waggoner and Jones. … God gave to His
messengers just what the people needed (TM
91, 95).
God is presenting to the minds of men
divinely appointed precious gems of truth,
appropriate for our time (Ms. 8a, 1888; Olson,
p. 279).
God had sent these young men to bear a
special message (Ms. S24, 1892).

How could such words be written about men who were

"radical" or "extreme"?
The fact that Jones and Waggoner eventually faltered
does not mean "they were not of us." But their later failures
are unwisely interpreted to cast a subtle, implied aspersion
on the message which they brought in 1888, as though the
message carried them away.
This is the main reason why some say they are afraid to
study that message. Thus to this day the opposition at
Minneapolis is subtly justified, and the Heaven-sent message
and messengers are subtly disparaged. Such was the
dangerous idea Ellen White said would develop among us if
they should later lose their way.

A Mysterious Providence

We are faced here with a unique problem. Two

phenomena are evident: (a) A master mind of evil rejoices in
this apparently conclusive rejection of the message. (b) The
Lord Himself mysteriously permits this tragedy to be a
stumblingblock to all who want some reason for rejecting the
reality of the latter rain message.
The especially difficult question is why should God
choose as special messengers those who would later become
unsound in the faith? Why should He permit the bearers of
His sharply contested message to go astray when their
apostasy would only confirm the opposition to that message?
Something profoundly significant is involved in this

175
perplexing history. God’s footsteps may be mysterious, but
that is no reason why we should carelessly misunderstand
this strange providence.
To suppose that the Lord made a strategic mistake in
choosing Jones and Waggoner is unthinkable, for He never
errs in counsel. To suppose that He made the wrath of men
to praise Him against their own will is also unthinkable, for it
is evident that both were sincere, earnest, humbleminded
Christians when they were used by the Lord. They neither
"ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward," loving
"the wages of unrighteousness" (Jude 11; 2 Peter 2:15), nor
was there a trace of dishonesty evident in their ministry.
Inspired evidence suggests an answer to our questions,
and indicates that:
(1) Jones and Waggoner were not "carried away" by any
"extreme views" regarding the righteousness of Christ, but
they were driven away by the persistent and unreasoning
opposition of the brethren whom God sent them to enlighten.
(2) Ellen White recognized the seriousness of the
opposition to them personally and to their message, and
fixed the ultimate blame for their later failure "to a great
degree" upon the opposing brethren.
(3) The Lord permitted the sad event to take place as a
test to the opposing brethren; and the failures of the 1888
messengers have had the effect of confirming "us" in a state
of virtual unbelief. It was an example of what Paul calls a
"working of error" which God "sent" (permitted), "that they
all might be condemned who believed not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12, mg).
It seems that the Lord is such a Gentleman that He
apparently goes out of His way to provide hooks for us to
hang our doubts on if we want them. He does not want any
of us to receive the latter rain unless we are fully heart-
committed to Him and to His truth. Somehow His character
of jealousy is involved here. Anyone who will back away from
the blessing for the slightest excuse is given ample
opportunity to do so. But, oh, how that can be a severe
kindness!
(4) The practical results of the investigative judgment will
require that the remnant church, before the time of final
victory, come to see the truth of the message and its history
and recognize Jones’ and Waggoner’s work from 1888-96 for
its true value, the "beginning" of the latter rain and the loud
cry.

176
 The Deep-Seated Nature of the Opposition

Criticizing the messengers imposed on them a burden

that was heavier to carry than normal opposition:

Whatever course the messenger may

pursue, it will be objectionable to the opposers
of truth; and they will make capital of every
defect in the manners, customs, or character of
its advocate (RH, Oct. 18, 1892).
Some of our brethren … full of jealousy and
evil surmising, … are ever ready to show in just
what way they differ with Elder Jones or
Waggoner (Letter S24, 1892).

The two men spoke positively and strongly. Keen

perceptions of truth often lead those who are "only men" to
speak that way. But that was offensive to human nature
which was looking for an excuse to reject the message :

Let no soul complain of the servants of God

who have come to them with a heaven-sent
message. Do not any longer pick flaws in them,
saying, "They are too positive; they talk too
strongly." They may talk strongly; but is it not
needed? …
Ministers, do not dishonor your God and
grieve His Holy Spirit, by casting reflections on
the ways and manners of the men He would
choose … He sees the temperament of the men
He has chosen. He knows that none but
earnest, firm, determined, strong-feeling men
will view this work in its vital importance, and
will put such firmness and decision into their
testimonies that they will make a break against
the barriers of Satan (TM 410-413).

The Lord Himself had clothed His personal messengers

with evidences of authority, "heavenly credentials." They
had lost sight of self in their love for Christ and His special
message. The still-uncrucified self in others was piqued:

177
 If the rays of light which shone at
Minneapolis were permitted to excert their
convincing power upon those who took their
stand against light, … they would have received
the richest blessings, disappointed the enemy,
and stood as faithful men, true to their
convictions. They would have had a rich
experience; but self said, No. Self was not to be
refused; self struggled for the mastery (Letter
O 19, 1892).

Thus the principle underlying this rejection of truth is that

which the Jew’s demonstrated in their rejection of Christ.
Caiaphas regarded Christ as his rival; he felt personal
jealousy of Him (DA 704). Interwoven with that jealousy of
Him who appeared to be a mere man, Caiaphas was
expressing the enmity of the natural heart against God and
His righteousness. Likewise, at Minneapolis, the personality
of Jones and Waggoner became the visible, conscious
stumblingblock for the invisible, unconscious rejection of
Christ the Word. This is evident, as follows:

Men professing godliness have despised

Christ in the person of His messengers. Like the
Jews, they reject God’s message. The Jews
asked regarding Christ, "Who is this? Is not this
Joseph’s son?" He was not the Christ that the
Jews had looked for. So to-day the agencies
that God sends are not what men have looked
for (FE 472).

The Personal Burden Which Jones and Waggoner Bore

Few have appreciated the effect which the opposition

inevitably had on the young messengers. They knew that the
message of Christ’s righteousness was of God. They knew
that they had been reined up by the Spirit of God to speak
boldly in its defence. And they could not be blind to the
obvious fact that a most determined resistance to that
message was the reaction of the leadership of the one true
remnant church which must eventually triumph.
They knew that the message was the beginning of the
loud cry, which was to go as "fire in the stubble." They knew
the time had come for the finishing of the work, when

178
heavenly intelligences were watching with deep interest the
unfolding of the drama. They further knew they were living in
the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary when, of all times,
the past unbelief and failures of old Jerusalem must not be
repeated. Never had there been a like crisis; never had
heaven granted greater evidences in vindication of a special
message.
But, to their astonishment, never had history recorded a
more shameful human failure to improve heaven-sent
opportunity. It seemed to the young messengers to be the
final, complete failure of God’s people to believe and to enter
into His rest. What could possibly lie beyond?
Luther had it easy compared to them. When persecuted
by Rome, all he had to do was read the prophecies of Daniel
and Revelation and recognize the papacy as the little horn
and the beast. That made him feel good, even to the point of
providing courage to burn the Pope’s bull. But Jones and
Waggoner could find no such heart comfort. Prophecy
indicated no eighth church to succeed Laodicea. The
possibility of God’s people delaying His program for a
century or longer seemed beyond their comprehension.
It must be said to their credit that Jones and Waggoner
did not renounce faith in the God of Israel. They never
became infidels or agnostics or atheists. They never gave up
the Sabbath or their lifelong devotion to Christ. In today’s
climate of church fellowship they would still be members in
good and regular standing. Their sin was that they lost faith
in the corporate body of the church and its leadership. They
were not confident of denominational repentance. They
came to doubt human nature; hence Jones’ bitterness and
the failings of their own human nature. The enemy will press
us sorely to repeat their failure. But we need not give in!
The little shrubs in the valley, bending beneath the
zephyr winds that occasionally stir their quiet calm, would do
well to refrain from critical comment when the mighty oaks
on the mountain top go down in the crushing fury of the
tempest. Let God speak when He says truly there was no
excuse for Jones’ and Waggoner’s faltering; let us be slow to
speak, when we realize that "we" were largely the cause of
it.
C. S. Lewis knew nothing of our 1888 episode, but he
made an insightful comment in his Reflections on the
Psalms:

179
 Just as the natural result of throwing a
lighted match into a pile of shavings is to
produce a fire, … so the natural result of
cheating a man, or "keeping him down" or
neglecting him, is to arouse resentment; that
is, to impose upon him the temptation of
becoming what the Psalmists were when they
wrote the vindictive passages. He may succeed
in resisting the temptation; or he may not. … If
that sin utterly corrupts him, I have in a sense
debauched or seduced him. I was the tempter
(p. 24).

Ellen White keenly felt the burden they carried. In 1892

she wrote to the General Conference president concerning
them:

I wish that all would see that the very same

spirit which refused to accept Christ, the light
that would dispel the moral darkness, is far
from being extinct in this age. …
Some may say, "I do not hate my brother; I
am not so bad as that." But how little they
understand their own hearts. They may think
they have a zeal for God in their feelings
against their brother if his ideas seem in any
way to conflict with theirs; feelings are brought
to the surface that have no kinship with love. …
They would as leave be at swords point with
their brother as not, and yet he may be bearing
a message from God to the people. …
They … [believe] they are right in their
bitterness of feeling against their brethren. Will
the Lord’s messenger bear the pressure
brought against him? If so, it is because God
bids him stand in His strength, and vindicate
the truth that he is sent of God. …
Should the Lord’s messengers, after
standing manfully for the truth for a time, fall
under temptation, and dishonor Him who has
given them their work, will that be proof that
the message is not true? No. … Sin on the part
of the messenger of God would cause Satan to
rejoice, and those who have rejected the

180
 message and the messenger would triumph;
but it would not at all clear the men who are
guilty of rejecting the message of God. …
I have deep sorrow of heart because I have
seen how readily a word or action of Elder Jones
or Elder Waggoner is criticized. How readily
many minds overlook all the good that has
been done by them in the few years past, and
see no evidence that God is working through
these instrumentalities. They hunt for
something to condemn, and their attitude
toward these brethren who are zealously
engaged in doing a good work, shows that
feelings of enmity and bitterness are in the
heart (Letter O19, 1892).

At about the same time she wrote to Uriah Smith

intimating that they might not be strong enough to bear the
strain and pressure brought against them:

It is quite possible that Elder Jones or

Waggoner may be overthrown by the
temptations of the enemy; but if they should
be, this would not prove that they had had no
message from God, or that the work that they
had done was all a mistake. But should this
happen, how many would take this position and
enter into a fatal delusion because they are not
under the control of the Spirit of God. … This is
the very position many would take if either of
these men were to fall, and I pray that these
men upon whom God has laid the burden of a
solemn work, may be able to give the trumpet a
certain sound, and honor God at every step,
and that their path at every step may grow
brighter and brighter until the close of time
(Letter S24, 1892; emphasis added).

This information throws much light on the Jones and

Waggoner tragedy:
(1) They suffered definite brotherly hatred. Brethren were
eagerly criticizing "a word or action, " hunting for things to
condemn. There was a subjective attitude of enmity,

181
bitterness and suspicion as late as 1892, after the
confessions had been made.
(2) The opposing brethren naively thought this attitude
was a zeal for God, yet it was "the very same spirit which
refused to accept Christ."
(3) The opposition became a very difficult and
overmastering temptation to the young messengers.
(4) The tragic result confirmed the opposing brethren in
disparaging the message .
(5) For the messengers to lose their way was a "triumph"
for the opposing brethren, and, sad to say, for Satan. This
development therefore became conclusive evidence that the
opposing brethren had not truly repented of the Minneapolis
sin. Their "triumph " would constitute their "fatal delusion."
Thus the failure of the messengers would tend to confirm
the on-going Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership,
pastoral, administrative, and academic, in impenitence. To
this day the messengers’ eventual failure is frequently cited
as evidence that the 1888 message must be somehow
dangerous. This was precisely Satan’s purpose, and it fulfills
Ellen White’s prediction to the letter.
(6) The success of Ellen White’s prayers that the two
brethren would endure the test would be dependent on the
attitude the opposing brethren would take from late 1892 on.
A few months later, she wrote to the General Conference
delegates in session about the true cause of the messengers’
possible failure:

It is not the inspiration from heaven that

leads one to be suspicious, watching for a
chance and greedily seizing upon it to prove
that those brethren who differ from us in some
interpretations of Scripture are not sound in
the faith. There is danger that this course of
action will produce the very result assumed;
and to a great degree the guilt will rest upon
those who are watching for evil. …
The opposition in our own ranks has
imposed upon the Lord’s messengers a
laborious and soul trying task; for they have
had to meet difficulties and obstacles which
need not have existed. … Love and confidence
constitute a moral force that would have united
our churches, and insured harmony of action;

182
 but coldness and distrust have brought
disunion that has shorn us of our strength
(Letter, Jan. 6, 1893; GCB 1893, pp. 419-421).

It was that "laborious and soul trying task," "suspicion,"

"hunting for something to condemn," "dullness of some and
opposition of others," seizing upon atoms to prove that they
were "unsound in the faith, " which produced the "very
result" anticipated—their failure. The proper, honest, inspired
word for the opposition was "persecution:"

We should be the last people on the earth to

indulge in the slightest degree the spirit of
persecution against those who are bearing the
message of God to the world. This is the most
terrible feature of unchristlikeness that has
manifested itself among us since the
Minneapolis meeting (GCB 1893, p. 184).

However, suffering persecution was no excuse for Jones

and Waggoner to lose their way.

What Was A. T. Jones’ Problem?

One lone letter from Ellen White to Jones in 1893 is often

cited as evidence that his message was extreme. Taken out
of its context, this letter leaves on some minds the
impression that his righteousness-by-faith message was
unbalanced. But the letter must be read in context.
Ellen White never published the letter during her lifetime.
If she had believed that Jones’ message was extreme or
unbalanced, she would not have hesitated to publish it in her
Testimonies.
Writing from far-away Australia, she tells Jones that she
heard something in her "dream." She had not read it in any
publication. Jones had a tendency when bearing up under
persistent opposition to overstate his case, and her letter
nipped the tendency in the bud. He profited by her advice,
which he accepted in humility. The letter states that his
views of righteousness by faith were correct, for "you look in
reality upon these subjects as I do," and she cited his views
as "our position:"

183
 In my dream you were presenting the
subject of faith and the imputed righteousness
of Christ by faith. You repeated several times
that works amounted to nothing, that there
were no conditions. The matter was presented
in that light that I knew minds would be
confused. … You state this matter too strongly.
… I know your meaning, but you leave a wrong
impression upon many minds. …
You look in reality upon these subjects as I
do, yet you make these subjects, through your
expressions, confusing to minds. … These
strong assertions in regard to works never
make our position any stronger. The
expressions weaken our position, for there are
many who will consider you an extremist, and
will lose the rich lessons you have for them
upon the very subjects they need to know. …
Do not lay one pebble for a soul that is weak in
the faith to stumble over, in overwrought
presentations or expressions. … Remember
that there are some whose eyes are intently
fixed upon you, expecting that you will
overreach the mark, and stumble, and fall
(Letter 44, 1893, April 9; 1 SM 377-79).

Careful search of Jones’ voluminous writings and sermons

fails to yield even one example of his saying that "works
amount to nothing," or anything of a similar extreme nature
on the subject. We would expect to find some instance of an
unwise statement on faith and works in his twenty-four
sermons at the 1893 session which closed just before she
wrote this letter; but we find just the opposite—strong
expressions giving a proper balance of faith and works,
upholding works was not only necessary but as the fruit of
genuine faith in Christ.
At the close of the 1893 session Jones was led astray by
Prescott’s influence into the fanatical assumption that the
loud cry could not be hindered. This prepared the way for the
Anna Rice Phillips fanaticism.
Ellen White’s letter came in time to encourage him to be
careful, and he was careful. Her most enthusiastic
endorsements of his ministry are written after this April 9,

184
 1893 letter, because he humbly repented of his temporary
slip.23

No Sin is Ever Excusable

It was a sin of impatience of mind or ill temper of heart

which finally ended Waggoner’s and Jones’ ministry. But
Moses’ experience on the borders of Canaan illustrates what
happened to them. His sin was likewise inexcusable and he
had to die for it, a sin of impatience with Israel. Passionately
and impatiently he called them "rebels," which fact was true
while his spirit was not:

Thus the people were given occasion to

question whether his past course of action had
been under the direction of God, and to excuse
their own sins. Moses, as well as they, had
offended God. His course, they said, had from
the first been open to criticism and censure.
They had now found the pretext which they
desired for rejecting all the reproofs that God
had sent them through His servant (PP 417).

Had Jones and Waggoner not covered their names with

disgrace, we of a later generation would likely accord them
almost idolatrous respect. "Many who had been unwilling to
heed the counsels of Moses while he was with them, would
have been in danger of committing idolatry over his dead
body, had they known the place of his burial" (ibid., pp. 477,
478). The truth and logic of Jones’ and Waggoner’s position
were so overwhelming that not long after 1888 many began
to realize it. But the latter rain had to be postponed until a
future generation. Now the messengers must be "buried"
secretly—that is, all occasion for idolatry must be removed
on the part of those unborn generations that must yet come.

23
In a letter to S. N. Haskell one year later she declares that she has more confidence in Jones now
than she had before he erred in endorsing Anna Phillips. The letter says that Jones is the Lord’s chosen
messenger, beloved of God, His ambassador. This mistake would not have happened if Uriah Smith
and G. I. Butler had united with Jones and Waggoner as they should have; Jones and Waggoner hear
the voice of the Lord and the people recognize in their interpretations of the word of God marvelous
things from the living oracles and their hearts bum within them as they listen; they have fed the
people with bread from heaven; the Lord has the very men He wanted; they have carried forward the
work with faithfulness, and have been the mouthpiece for God; they know the voice of counsel and
obeyed it; they have drawn draughts from the well of Bethlehem; these chosen agents of God would
have rejoiced to link up with Smith and others, including Butler; if union had existed, mistakes would
not have been (Letter H-27, 1894).

185
 What better method of "burial" than to allow the messengers
to lose their way in disgrace?
It is frequently said that their numerous speaking
appointments after 1888 indicate official acceptance of their
message. But this is an erroneous deduction. Several factors
must be noted: (1) lay members and local elders (who
welcomed the message) had more voice in arranging
speakers’ appointments than they do now; (2) Ellen White’s
influence virtually demanded for them the hearing they
received at General Conference sessions; (3) their speaking
appointments when their message was unwelcome to many
leaders imposed on them a heavy emotional burden. An
example of this is the prevailing attitude at the 1893 session
as evidenced in the Bulletin.
Nevertheless, many who had spurned their message
when they were right eagerly followed them when they were
unsettled in the faith. This made matters worse. In 1912 a
former General Conference president wrote about them:

When the message of justification by faith

began to be preached in this denomination,24
the enemy was deeply stirred, and made a
strong effort to stop its spread. Failing in this,
he changed his plan of opposition to a method
that promised greater success. This plan was so
to fasten the minds of the people upon the
instruments that the Lord had called to
promulgate the message, that these men would
come to be regarded as the oracles of God, and
the people’s faith would become centered in
them rather than upon Jesus Christ, the author
of the message. It was reckoned by the enemy
that the praise and flattery of the people would
so inflate these men that they would come to
feel that their opinions and judgment must
prevail in all matters pertaining both to the
Scriptures and to the management of the
Lord’s work on the earth (G. A. Irwin, RH July 4,
1912).

Ellen White insisted that the unchristlike persecution they

suffered was the primary cause of their failure. It separated
them from the love and confidence of their brethren, which
24
Note the failure to recognize the message as the "beginning" of the latter rain and the loud cry.

186
they needed. The havoc wrought by unwise adulation
became secondary.
Considering the nature of the message they bore, this
two-fold cause could only derange their spiritual faculties. If
they could have received greater light so as to endure until
victory came, they would have faced the world in the
strength that those must possess who finally finish God’s
work on earth. But further light and power had to be shut off
after the rejection of the message. Waggoner had been
exiled to England, and both had to labor without Ellen
White’s help. They knew only the "beginning" of the loud cry
light, and that was not sufficient to perfect sanctification,
even in honest hearts. (Neither is it sufficient for us today!)

How Good Men Can Lose Their Way

Our history gives further evidence of how "those who …

rejected the message and the messenger would triumph"
(Letter O19, 1892). The 1888 General Conference president,
G. I. Butler, was one of the principal initial rejectors. He was
a good man with a strong macho gift of executive leadership,
but the problem he had to handle was unprecedented. No
former president had been confronted by the beginning of
the latter rain and the loud cry! Ellen White tried to help him:

You refer to your office as President of the

General Conference, as if this justified your
course of action. … You have no right to wound
the feelings of your brethren. You speak of
them in a manner which I cannot sanction. …
You call brethren Jones and Waggoner
fledglings (Letter 21, 1888).

Due to his wife’s illness, Elder Butler retired for some

years after 1888 to a lonely farm in Florida. Eventually he
confessed his wrong attitudes and returned to positions of
high responsibility. The Lord accepted his further labors, as
was the case with Uriah Smith. But the golden opportunity of
proclaiming the latter rain and loud cry message was
conclusively lost to both of them.
A pathetic example of how Butler’s opposition finally
"gained the supremacy" (A. T. Jones’ phrase) is found in the
1903 General Conference Bulletin. At that session Jones and
Waggoner stood with a minority who felt constrained by their

187
conscience to oppose the revision of the 1901 constitution.
In their view the 1903 revision was a step backwards from
the reformation principles of 1901. Whether they were right
or wrong in that conviction is beyond us to settle at this
point, but they were undoubtedly sincere in holding their
convictions. As the debate dragged on, "voices" called for
"Elder Butler" to speak.
Seven times he went out of his way to say how he
"dearly" loved "dear brethren" Jones and Waggoner; but the
Bulletin reveals that he proceeded to misrepresent their true
position over their interjected verbal protests. Then he held
them up to public ridicule (pp. 145-164).
They had said in the session that "God’s people are to be
under Him, and Him alone. There is one Shepherd, and He
has one flock," and that primarily "the committee must
belong to Jesus Christ, and serve Christ, and let the other
man alone, and let him preach the gospel which Christ
gives.’‘ Elder Butler misconstrued this as favoring the
abolition of all organization, and unjustly compared their
position to the fanatical anarchists against whom the
pioneers had to contend:

These dear brethren do not know the

difficulties that we had before organization…
Now, it does seem to me that if some of
these things are carried out the way some of
the good brethren have spoken, it would finally
bring about, if carried out fully, just about the
same state of disorganization that we started
in on in the first place. … I do not want to say
anything now to hurt Brother Jones feelings, for
I love Brother Jones dearly (GCB 1903, pp. 146-
163).

In the 1901 session Ellen White had emphatically warned

against "kingly power in our ranks to control this or that
branch of the work" (GCB 1901, pp. 25, 26). This was the
main reason why for years she had been calling for
reorganization and reformation. The tendency to restrict
laborers had been a notable feature of Elder Butler’s former
presidency (cf. TM 297-300). It was especially prominent in
his 1886-1888 era. Her rebukes to him are now well known.
In 1903 she said, "The kingly power formerly revealed in the
General Conference at Battle Creek is not to be perpetuated"

188
(8T 233). Yet Elder Butler publicly contradicts those
statements, denying that it was even possible for any "kingly
power" to occur in the General Conference presidency:

You will pardon one of the old hands, who

has been in the work for so many years, and
who has had the presidency of the General
Conference for thirteen terms, for saying that
he fails to see that anything of a kingly nature
can be brought into it. I do not believe there
can. … I held it thirteen terms. … I should be
very sorry to believe there was any kingly
power in it. … Though I held the office for
thirteen terms, I was never reproved for any
such thing, as I can remember (GCB 1903, p.
163).

We humans do have a tendency to forget!

Caught up in the spirit of the discussion, Elder J. N.
Loughborough made a speech seconding that of Elder Butler.
He also spoke contemptuously of Jones’ and Waggoner’s
minority convictions.
They had not in fact opposed the true principles of
organization in their position in 1903, although they may
have had some inkling of the state to which we have come in
our late twentieth century when it is so difficult for men and
women on committees to stand alone for Christ against
strong peer pressure and fear of demotion.
But the thought of committees first of all submitting to
Christ and earnestly seeking the Lord’s guidance, and
remembering that we are all brethren, seemed for some
strange reason to frighten both Butler and Loughborough.
Loughborough added:

These brethren say they do not propose to

tear down organization. Well, I do not think
they mean to, but it seems to me that, after all,
you get to where you don’t have any
constitution or order at all. "After all," they said
in the early days, "we are all brethren. If we
will seek the Lord, He will guide us" (p. 164).

Was this a knife plunged in their back? Jones and

Waggoner could be pardoned for feeling that it was. Rather

189
pathetically, Jones arose at this point to make a plea to the
delegates. It may mark a wound that never healed:

I would like to make a request now to all the

delegation and all the people who read the
"Bulletin." When these speeches come out,
please look at Brother Waggoner’s and Brother
[P.T.] Magan’s, and then mine; read them over
carefully, and if you can find anything in any
one of them that strikes at organization in any
sense whatever, I hope you will mark it, and
send it to us, so that we can repent of it
(idem.).

Jones’ challenge stood then and it stands even today. He

and Waggoner had made a plea for a submission to Christ
and the Holy Spirit, which they thought was in harmony with
the 1888 message, a submission that would make possible
the leading of the Lord in the finishing of His work in all the
world. They did not oppose organization; what they wanted
to see was organization submissive to Christ for finishing the
gospel commission. They wanted Christ to be recognized as
the true Head of the church, in control of its organization.
They were misunderstood and misrepresented. Butler
had the last word; he "triumphed," to use Ellen White’s word.
Something drove him and Loughborough to ignore their
protests and to ride over their pleas for fairness. What can
explain this except a smoldering 15-year resentment?
Jones’ and Waggoner’s humiliating defeat in 1903 was
probably the beginning of their eventual human bitterness.
"Dear brethren Jones and Waggoner" would be more than
human if they did not feel they had suffered the crowning
insult after fifteen years of opposition. Could they not feel
pain?
Their plea for primary submission to Christ above
subservience to human control was in harmony with Ellen
White’s frequent appeals and with Scripture, but of course it
could be done safely only if the Holy Spirit found a unified
welcome among us.
Elder Butler’s continuing heart attitude is revealed in a
letter to Dr. Kellogg a year later. He makes it clear that he
has never repented of his 1888 blindness. He must still
blame Waggoner for ills that beset the cause, and considers
his downfall a blessing:

190
 I hold precisely the same opinions that I
always have held since I came to be a Bible
student. … The later crop that came on to run
things after I went out of office [as General
Conference president] have remodeled things
somewhat. Elder Waggoner was a leading spirit
in these changes. He seems to have remodeled
himself from a preacher into a doctor. Perhaps
it is just as well for him and all concerned. I
wish him well in every way (Letter, September
9, 1904).

Coming at just this time, one wonders how such a letter

could have helped Dr. Kellogg!
There are those who accuse Jones of coveting the office
of General Conference president. That may or may not be
true. The books of heaven can record heart motives better
than we can with our limited vision of the murky shadows of
the past. Doubtless his better judgment convinced him that
he was not fitted for administration, or for editing the Review
and Herald. His "heavenly credentials" had been for a
different work—to herald the gospel of the loud cry to the
church and to the world. That was enough for any one man
to do. When that mission failed, he lost his hold on the
patience of the saints.

The 1888 Spirit and the Kellogg Tragedy

Ellen White tells us that Dr. Kellogg was truly converted

at the Minneapolis meeting (GCB 1903, p. 86). Her
endorsements of his character and sincere devotion are
multitudinous. Here is one of the last ones:

God has given Dr. Kellogg the success that

he has had. … God does not endorse the efforts
put forth by different ones to make the work of
Dr. Kellogg as hard as possible. … Those who
rejected [the light on health reform] rejected
God. One and another who knew better said
that it all came from Dr. Kellogg, and they
made war upon him. This had a bad influence
on the doctor. He put on the coat of irritation
and retaliation (GCB 1903, p. 86).

191
 A letter to Elder Butler, the 1888 General Conference
president, indicates that Kellogg’s eventual apostasy was "in
a large measure" our responsibility. For sure, it was not
God’s will:

It will be seen sometime that our brethren

and sisters have not been inspired by the spirit
of Christ in their manner of dealing with Dr.
Kellogg. I know that your views of the doctor
are not correct. Your attitude toward him will
not bear the approval of God. … You can pursue
a course that will so weaken his confidence in
his brethren that they cannot help him when
and where he needs to be helped. …
Dr. Kellogg has done a work that no man I
know of among us has had qualifications to do.
He has needed the sympathy and confidence of
his brethren. … They should have pursued a
course that would have gained and retained his
confidence. … But there has been instead, a
spirit of suspicion and criticism.
If the doctor fails in doing his duty and
being an overcomer at last, those brethren who
have failed in their want of wisdom and
discernment to help the man when and where
he needed their help, will be in a large measure
responsible. … His brethren do at times really
feel that God is using the doctor to do a work
that no other one is fitted to do. But then they
meet so strong a current of reports to his
detriment, they are perplexed. They partially
accept them, and decide that Dr. Kellogg must
really be hypocritical and dishonest. … How
must the doctor feel to be ever regarded with
suspicion? … Must it ever be thus? … Christ
paid the redemption price for his soul and the
devil will do his utmost to ruin his soul. Let
none of us help him in his work (Letter B21,
1888).
Those at the very heart of the work indulged
their own wishes in a way that dishonored God.
… Dr. Kellogg was not sustained in the health
reform work. … [He] took up the work they did

192
 not do. The spirit of criticism shown to his work
from the first has been very unjust, and had
made his work hard. … It is a fact that our
ministers are very slow to become health
reformers. … This has caused Dr. Kellogg to
lose confidence in them (Ms. 13, 1901, Diary,
January 1898).

The "manna" of 1888 had been rejected, and now it

began to do what the ancient manna in Israel did when it
was not eaten fresh. It spoiled. Highly nutritious food spoils
more quickly than devitalized food. "We" lost three
outstanding, gifted men who at one time gave evidence of
being truly heaven-ordained. The spoiled manna became
unpleasant to deal with, and the story is sad.

Conclusion

The last words which Waggoner wrote before his sudden

death on May 28, 1916 are these closing sentences of a
letter to M. C. Wilcox: "I do not question, but freely
acknowledge, the superior goodness of the brethren in the
denomination. I should be recreant to God if I did not
recognize the light that He has given me; I could never
understand why it was given to me, except on the ground
that His gifts are bestowed, not according to deserts, but
according to need."
Whether he will be saved or lost at last is not for us to
speculate. But if those were his last thoughts, and God in His
infinite wisdom and mercy finds some way to save him,
certain it is that Waggoner will plead himself unworthy. Will
any of us who are saved plead otherwise?
One of the last letters we have from Jones before his
death reveals a humble spirit of complete confidence in the
Seventh-day Adventist message and in the ministry of Ellen
White (May 12, 1921). The nurse who took care of him at
Battle Creek in his last illness told us personally that he is
certain that Jones died a genuine Christian.
A proper, authoritative reprint of their messages during
the time of their faithfulness, issued with wholehearted
endorsement, would provide for this generation a refreshing
view of the pure gospel. And after we have gathered up the
fragments that remain that nothing be lost, then could we
with confidence press our petition to the throne of grace to

193
give us this day bread convenient for us, meat in due
season.
As surely as there is a living God, the prayer would not be
unanswered.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

THE "ALPHA" AND THE

"OMEGA" CRISES
A terrible crisis known as the pantheism heresy nearly
overwhelmed the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the early

194
1900's. Ellen White described it as the "alpha" of "seducing
spirits and doctrines of devils." Could it be that this "alpha"
deception was related to the rejection of the 1888 light?
In direct proportion as genuine light is undiscerned and
misunderstood does counterfeit light take its place,
undiscerned and misunderstood for its true nature. We were
told after 1888 that apostasy within would be unconscious
and subtle and likely become widespread before it could be
discerned.
This principle of deception following rejection of light is
an unalterable law of history. Jesus said to the Jewish
leaders, "I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me
not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will
receive" (John 5:43). A true understanding of the post-1888
era is necessary in order to recognize the "sparks of
kindling" which took the place of the true light.
The ministry in the 1888 era were good men,
consecrated, working long hours, enduring privations.
Sincerely professing the truth, they managed somehow to
ignore or reject its reality. What happened is one of the most
amazing developments in the history of God's work.
The brethren were sincerely unaware of a heart attitude
which prompted an unholy reaction against the most glorious
light which had ever shone upon this church. But they were
no worse than we are by nature. We are one body with them.
It follows that the sin of rejecting that light of the loud cry
can never be truly overcome until those unseen motives
equally present in all our hearts are laid bare to our
consciousness. This work certainly must be included in the
cleansing of the sanctuary. What we failed to believe a cen-
tury ago we must learn through traversing a devious detour
of our own devising. Our history is an outworking of
principles divinely ordained to lead us to reconciliation with
Christ.

The Alpha History of the Early 1900's Illustrates This

Principle

The Lord cannot, will not, force nor conquer by fear what
He would win only by love. Hence His long patience during
our detour. What else can He do but await our
disillusionment? But His patient wisdom will win at last,
because it is the wisdom of love, a truly divine strategy.
Understanding the 1888 history is powerful good news!

195
 Whether in 1844 or in 1888, a rejection of light made
inevitable a submission to deception. Here is how the
principle worked when some early Adventists rejected the
increased light of the sanctuary truth:

I saw an exceeding bright light come from

the Father to the Son, and from the Son it
waved over the people before the throne. But
few would receive this great light. Many came
out from under it and immediately resisted it;
others were careless and did not cherish the
light, and it moved off from them....
Those who rose up with Jesus would send up
their faith to Him in the holiest, and pray, "My
Father, give us Thy Spirit." ...
I turned to look at the company who were
still bowed before the throne; they did not
know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to
be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of
God. I saw them look up to the throne and pray,
"Father, give us thy Spirit." Satan would then
breathe upon them an unholy influence.... [His]
object was to keep them deceived, and to draw
back and deceive God's children (EW 55, 56).

This same principle of deception following rejection of

heaven-sent light operated after 1888. Speaking of the crisis,
Ellen White wrote in 1889: "We need never expect that when
the Lord has light for His people, Satan will stand calmly by
and make no effort to prevent them from receiving it" (5T
728).

There will be many now, as in ancient times,

who will hold to tradition, and worship they
know not what....
Certain it is that there has been among us a
departure from the living God, and a turning to
men, putting human in place of divine wisdom.
God will arouse His people; if other means
fail, heresies will come in among them, which
will sift them, separating the chaff from the
wheat (ibid., p. 707).

196
 At the Minneapolis session, we were told that failure to
advance under the generalship of Christ would expose us
without our realizing it to the generalship of Satan:

God will withdraw His Spirit unless His truth

is accepted....
I wish you could see and feel that if you are
not advancing you are retrograding and Satan
understood about it; he knew how to take
advantage of the human mind.... Here the
battle is before us (Ms. 8, 1888, Olson pp. 264,
265).

Again, speaking of Minneapolis, Ellen White described the

course of the fall-out:

Now at the present time God designs that a

new and fresh impetus shall be given to His
work. Satan sees this, and he is determined it
shall be hindered.... 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 (Ms. 13,1889,
emphasis added).

An enemy recognized that in the reaction of many

against the 1888 light he could seize his best chance of
winning a victory:

The enemy of God and man is not willing

that this truth should be clearly presented, for
he knows that if the people receive it fully, his
power will be broken.... [Christ] has warned us
to be on our guard against false doctrines....
Many false doctrines will be presented to us as
the teaching of the Bible.... God would have us
intelligent ... and recognize the warnings He
has given us that one may not be found on the
side of the great deceiver in the crisis that is
just before us (RH September 3, 1889).

197
 Those who have had great light and who
have not walked in it will have darkness
corresponding to the light they have despised
(TM 163).

Since the light which came in 1888 was the verity of the
third angel's message, it makes sense for the enemy to seize
the chance to confuse our understanding of that truth:

Satan is now working with all his

insinuating, deceiving power to lead men away
from the work of the third angel's message,
which is to be proclaimed with mighty power....
He will work with masterly power to bring in
fanaticism on the one hand and cold formalism
on the other, that he may gather in a harvest of
souls. Now is our time to watch unceasingly.
Watch, bar the way against the least step of
advance that Satan may make among us. ...
Some will not make a right use of the
doctrine of justification by faith (Special
Testimonies, Series A, No. 1, pp. 63, 64; 1890).
Unless divine power is brought into the
experience of the people of God, false theories
and erroneous ideas will take minds captive
(RH September 3, 1889).

A. G. Daniells recognized in 1926 that the warning was

justified, that this prophecy had been fulfilled:

To a lamentable degree, God's people failed

to bring the divine power into their experience,
and the result predicted has been seen: ...
False theories and erroneous ideas have taken
minds captive (COR 89).

Ellen White was concerned. The time of the loud cry is an

exciting time, but also a time of peril. In her words, the post-
1888 crisis marked a new era:

Henceforth we shall have a constant

contest.... These words of Holy Writ were
presented to me: "Of your own selves shall men
arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away

198
 disciples after them." This will surely be seen
among the people of God....
There will be those who ... will mistake light
for error, and specious error they will
pronounce light, mistaking phantoms for
realities, and realities for phantoms.... They will
fall into deceptions and delusions that Satan
has prepared as concealed nets to entangle the
feet of those who think they can walk in their
human wisdom without the special grace of
Christ.... Men will accept one delusion after
another until their senses are perverted (Ms.
16, 1890; Ev 593, 594).

While it is true that the enemy tried to deceive us before

1888, his most assiduous assaults were made afterward. The
"alpha" deceptions were effective only because of a previous
rejection of light:

At the time of the loud cry of the third angel

those who have been in any measure blinded
by the enemy, who have not fully recovered
themselves from the snare of Satan, will be in
peril, because it will be difficult to discern the
light from heaven, and they will be inclined to
accept falsehood. Their erroneous experience
will color their thoughts, their decisions, their
propositions, their counsels. The evidences that
God has given will be no evidence to those who
have blinded their eyes by choosing darkness
rather than light. After rejecting the light, they
will originate theories which they will call
"light," but which the Lord calls sparks of their
own kindling, by which they will direct their
steps.
By many the words which the Lord sent will
be rejected, and the words that man may speak
will be received as light and truth. Jesus says, "I
am come in My Father's name, and ye receive
Me not: if another shall come in his own name,
him ye will receive." Human wisdom will lead
away from self-denial, from consecration, and
will devise many things that tend to make of no
effect God's messages. We cannot with any

199
 safety rely on men who are not in close connec-
tion with God. They will accept the opinions of
men, but cannot discern the voice of the True
Shepherd, and their influence will lead many
astray (RH, December 13, 1892).

After the 1893 session, Ellen White saw before us

impending evils of deception that were unprecedented:
"Discernment seems to have departed, and [many] have no
power to discriminate between the light which God sends
them and the darkness that comes from the enemy of their
souls" (RH August 7, 1894).

The Danger of Impatience

Some in the 1888 era wanted to advance with Christ into

the larger spiritual joy of finishing the gospel commission.
But the general body (of leaders especially) were not ready.
Contrary to Calvinist predeterminism, the Lord had to alter
His purpose and remain with His people. If they would not
keep step with Him, He must at least keep step with them.
This was an irksome trial to the few who were of more
ardent temperament than the most. They had to be urged
"not to rush on before the Master, but to follow where He
leads the way" (TM 228; 1894).25 Until her death, Ellen White
stayed with the church even though it had not followed the
Lord's leading, just as Moses stayed with Israel after Kadesh-
Barnea.
She gave good counsel and a good example even for
today. Human critics are not as patient as the Lord is. The
long delay is an experiment, not for the Lord's sake, but for
the sake of the church. Why does God permit apostasy to

25
It seems a strange quirk of fate that the foremost teacher of "alpha" heresy was Dr. J. H.
Kellogg, who was truly converted at the Minneapolis conference according to Ellen White (GCB 1903, p.
86). W. W. Prescott, who for a time taught some aspects of the message, also taught pantheism in the
early stages of the crisis. Even Waggoner erred in some of his expressions, giving his opponents oc-
casion to accuse him of being a pantheist, although Ellen White did not fault him on that point. Some
today mistakenly conclude that the evil of pantheism is implicit in the 1888 message.

Absolute accuracy is essential in expressing vital truth, for the track of error lies close to it. This
was especially true of the message that was the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry. The 1888
concepts emphasize how near to us the Saviour has come in His incarnation and in His ministry
through the Holy Spirit. Determined and persistent opposition unsettled the messengers, creating an
alienation of fellowship. Unnecessarily put on the defensive and deprived of wholesome brotherly
correction, Waggoner strayed away from the fine line dividing precious truth from error.

200
come within His church? Israel's history casts an alpenglow
on ours:

Even in the church God has allowed men to

test their own wisdom in this matter.... When
unfaithful teachers came among the people,
weakness followed, and the faith of God's
people seemed to wane; but God arose and
purged His floor, and the tried and true were
lifted up.
There are times when apostasy comes into
the ranks, when piety is left out of the heart by
those who should have kept step with their
divine Leader.... But God sends the Comforter
as a reprover of sin, that His people may be
warned of their apostasy and rebuked for their
backsliding (RH Dec. 15, 1891).

The end of the detour is good news. It will bring the

church to a true sense of her condition and a genuine
repentance, an experience which will be the greatest of its
kind in all ages of history:

In the balances of the sanctuary, the

Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed.
... If the blessings conferred have not qualified
her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will
be pronounced the sentence, "Found
wanting." ...

Unless the church, which is now being

leavened with her own backsliding, shall repent
and be converted, she will eat of the fruit of her
own doing, until she shall abhor herself. When
she resists the evil and chooses the good, when
she seeks God with all humility, ... she will be
healed. She will appear in her God-given
simplicity and purity, separate from earthly
entanglements, showing that the truth has
made her free indeed. Then her members will
indeed be the chosen of God, His
representatives.
When this reformation begins, the spirit of
prayer will actuate every believer, and will

201
 banish from the church the spirit of discord and
strife. ... All will be in harmony with the mind of
Christ. (8T 250, 251; emphasis added.)

Off-shoot enthusiasts quote excerpts from this passage in

an effort to prove that the church has been rejected by the
Lord. In proper context, Ellen White is here predicting an
experience of denominational repentance.

"The Whole Church" Versus "the Whole Church"

Some inspired statements apparently say "the whole

church" will never repent and cooperate with Christ. Off-
shoot promoters use these. But other statements say the
opposite. Does Ellen White contradict herself?
The context resolves the apparent contradiction. Before
the "shaking" takes place, "the whole church" will not be
revived; after the shaking "the whole church" will come into
line. Let us look at both sets of statements:

Are we hoping to see the whole church

revived? That time will never come. There are
persons in the church who are not converted,
and who will not unite in earnest, prevailing
prayer. We must enter upon the work
individually (ISM 122;1887).

Shortly after she said this, the 1888 message brought a

new vision and hope. Now she speaks more positively. Ellen
White was encouraged by the new message:

When the latter rain is poured out, the

church will be clothed with power for its work;
but the church as a whole will never receive
this until its members shall put away from them
envy, evil surmisings, and evil speaking (RH
October 6, 1896; emphasis added).
When the church awakes, ... the members
will have travail of soul for those who know not
God.... God will work through a consecrated,
self-denying church, and He will reveal his
Spirit in a visible and glorious manner....

202
 When God's people receive this Spirit, power
will go forth from them. (ISM 116, 117; 1898;
emphasis added).
When the reproach of indolence and
slothfulness shall have been wiped away from
the church, the Spirit of the Lord will be
graciously manifested.... The earth will be
lighted with the glory of the Lord.
Heavenly angels have long been waiting for
human agents—the members of the church—to
cooperate with them in the great work to be
done (9T 46, 47; emphasis added).
In visions of the night representations
passed before me of a great reformatory
movement among God's people. ... A spirit of
genuine conversion was manifest.... The world
seemed to be lightened with the heavenly
influence....
Yet some refused to be converted ... These
covetous ones became separated from the
company of believers (9T 126, emphasis
added).
The Holy Spirit is to animate and pervade
the whole church, purifying and cementing
hearts....
It is the purpose of God to glorify Himself in
His people before the world (9T 20, 21).

Speaking of the time of repentance and reformation

when the latter rain is received, the Lord's servant predicts:

The fear of God, the sense of His goodness,

His holiness, will circulate through every
institution. An atmosphere of love and peace
will pervade every department. Every word
spoken, every work performed, will have an
influence that corresponds to the influence of
heaven.... Then the work will move forward
with solidity and double strength.... The earth
will be lightened with the glory of God, and it
will be ours to witness the soon coming, in
power and glory, of our Lord and Saviour (MM
184, 185; 1902).

203
 An understanding of our own history will be necessary for
attaining that goal. "We have nothing to fear for the future,
except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and
His teaching in our past history" (LS 196). The honest in
heart will see it, and be glad:

We must keep close to our great Leader, or

we shall become bewildered, and lose sight of
the Providence which presides over the church
and the world, and over each individual. There
will be profound mysteries in the divine
dealings. We may lose the footsteps of God and
follow our own bewilderment and say, "Thy
judgments are not known;" but if the heart is
loyal to God everything will be made plain.
There is a day about to burst upon us when
God's mysteries will be seen, and all His ways
vindicated (TM 432, 433).

The Foundation of the Pantheism Heresy

The melting, contrite heart that appreciates the cross of

Christ was the focus of the 1888 message. Righteousness
was by that kind of faith. But for many the arrogance of the
proud human heart resisted this humility. Note how this self-
sufficient pride is the soil in which later deception could take
root. Without that non-faith pride, Satan's most clever
temptations would have been powerless. There was no
earthly reason why the church had to be plagued by the
"alpha" deceptions, except for this post-1888 pride:

We are amid the perils of the last days,

when voices will be heard on every side,
saying, "Here is Christ," "Here is the truth;"
while the burden of many is to unsettle the
foundation of our faith which has led us from
the churches and from the world....
The truth for this time is precious, but those
whose hearts have not been broken, by falling
on the rock Christ Jesus, will not see and
understand what is truth. They will accept that
which pleases their ideas, and will begin to
manufacture another foundation than that is
laid. They will flatter their own vanity and

204
 esteem, thinking that they are capable of
removing the pillars of our faith, and replacing
them with pillars they have devised (Elmshaven
Leaflets, The Church, No. 4; Ms. 28, 1890).

The opposition at Minneapolis wanted to "stand by the

old landmarks." Nothing would have pleased the enemy
more than to see this people leave those landmarks.
But he has an army of termites who will take over a job
when the dynamite crew have failed. Specious ideas long
held, originating with the father of apostasy, could subtly
undermine our understanding of truth. These termites
cannot affect the pillars of truth, but they can eat their way
into our faith and leave us with only an outward shell of the
third angel's message. It was not beyond Satan's intelligence
to try such a work after 1888, as the pantheism history
demonstrates:

Those who are self-sufficient ... will be found

professedly working for God, but in reality
giving their service to the prince of darkness.
Because their eyes are not anointed with the
heavenly eye-salve, their understanding will be
blinded, and they will be ignorant of the
wonderfully specious devices of the enemy.
Their vision will be perverted through their
dependence on human wisdom, which is
foolishness in the sight of God ("Danger of
Adopting Worldly Policy," p. 4; 1890).

Developments were taking place underground, where

those roots of 1888 prejudice had "never been eradicated,
and ... still bear their unholy fruit to poison the judgment,
pervert the perceptions, and blind the understanding....
When, by thorough confession, you destroy the root of
bitterness, you will see light in God's light" (TM 467). But the
"thorough confession" never came for most of the brethren.
Cutting off the tops and leaving the roots intact was just the
situation the enemy wanted:

Worldly policy is taking the place of true

piety and wisdom that comes from above, and
God will remove His prospering hand from the
conference. Shall the ark of the covenant be

205
 removed from this people? Shall idols be
smuggled in? Shall false principles and false
precepts be brought into the sanctuary? Shall
antichrist be respected? Shall the true
doctrines and principles given us by God, which
have made us what we are, be ignored? ... This
is directly where the enemy, through blinded,
unconsecrated men, is leading us (Ms. 29,
1890).

In 1894 came a crescendo of warning, again exposing

Satan's astute cleverness:

Satan's angels ... will create that which

some will claim to be advanced light, ... new
and wonderful things, and yet while in some
respects the message is truth, it will be
mingled with men's inventions, and will teach
for doctrines the commandments of men....
There may be supposable things that appear as
good things, and yet they need to be carefully
considered with much prayer, for they are
specious devices of the enemy to lead souls in
a path which lies so close to the path of truth
that it will be scarcely distinguishable from the
path which leads to holiness and heaven. But
the eye of faith may discern that it is diverging
from the right path, though almost
imperceptibly. At first it may be thought
positively right, but after a while it is seen to
be widely divergent from the path of safety,
from the path which leads to holiness and
heaven (TM 229; 1894).

Even more pointed was the following:

Fanaticism will appear in the very midst of

us. Deceptions will come, and of such a
character that if it were possible they would
mislead the very elect. If marked
inconsistencies and untruthful utterances were
apparent in these manifestations, the words
from the lips of the Great Teacher would not be
needed....

206
 The reason why I hang out the danger signal
is, that through the enlightenment of the Holy
Spirit of God I can see that which my brethren
do not discern (Letter 68, 1894).
The path of presumption lies close beside
the path of faith. ... If there is not careful,
earnest, sensible work, solid as a rock in the
advancement of every idea and principle, ...
souls will be ruined (Letter 6a, 1894).

In the same year, she wrote about the possibility of our

schools becoming entangled in the meshes of Satan's
allurements. But again she expressed hope:

Our institutions of learning may swing into

worldly conformity. Step by step they may
advance to the world; but they are prisoners of
hope, and God will correct and enlighten them,
and bring them back to their upright position of
distinction from the world (RH Jan. 9, 1894; FE
290).

The science-Christian synthesis popular in New England

as early as 1895 may have swayed some of our educators
and sown the particular seed of our pantheism heresy of the
early 1900's. For sure, pantheism is not implicit in the third
angel's message or in the beginning of the fourth angel's
message—it is something foreign that had to be imported:

Association with learned men is esteemed

by some more highly than communion with the
God of heaven. The statements of learned men
are thought of more value than the highest
wisdom revealed in the word of God...
The men who parade before the world as
wonderful specimens of greatness ... robe man
with honor, and talk of the perfection of nature.
They paint a very fine picture, but it is an
illusion.... Those who present a doctrine
contrary to that of the Bible, are led by the
great Apostate.... With such a leader—an angel
expelled from heaven—the supposedly great
men of earth may fabricate bewitching theories

207
 with which to infatuate the minds of men (YI
Feb. 7, 1895; HE 331, 332).

The Dark Decade of Our History

On the eve of the pantheism crisis, Ellen White sensed

that portentious events were looming over us:

The right hand of fellowship is given to the

very men who are bringing in false theories and
false sentiments, confusing the minds of the
people of God, deadening their sensibilities as
to what constitutes right principles.... The light
given, calling to repentance, has been
extinguished in the clouds of unbelief and
opposition brought in by human plans and
human inventions (B-19 1/2, 1897).

Speaking to the General Conference session in 1899, Mrs.

S. M. I. Henry also sensed some danger: "As the sweetest
things, when they turn sour, become the most offensive, so
to turn against the greatest light and truth is to fall into the
greatest darkness, and evil" (GCB, 1899, p. 174).
The same 1899 session beheld first-hand a tragic
example of deception. One of our honored leaders on his
way from Europe to attend the session in South Lancaster
made friends on shipboard with a man who claimed to be a
wealthy ship captain. A cunning entrepreneur, he professed
to accept "the third angel's message." Our elder sincerely
invited him to attend the forthcoming session at South
Lancaster. "Captain Norman" proceeded to make a great hit
with the delegates and local Adventists, including a young
lady to whom he proposed marriage and who accepted.
An earnest appeal was made in the session for our
people to pledge donations for the work of God. The record
in the 1899 Bulletin lists $100 as the highest donation
anyone had been able to pledge, with most pledges much
lower, until "Captain Norman" "pledged" $5000—in those
days an astronomical sum. Quickly the pledges stopped
coming. Why should our poor people sacrifice so when our
wonderful new convert promised fifty times more than the
best that the most able of our people had been able to
pledge? How pleased the Lord must be with His people to

208
 bless them so wonderfully with a wealthy new convert like
Captain Norman!
The man turned out to be an agent of the devil, said Ellen
White.26 (He disappeared with his fiancée’s life savings). But
those who were thus deceived by an agent of the devil were
also to be confused soon after by what Ellen White termed
"doctrines of devils" in the "alpha" history.
The last decade of the nineteenth century was a time of
darkness and confusion at the headquarters of our work.
There was much outward progress which masked a spiritual
destitution. Mervyn Maxwell describes the stark contrast
between the 1888 message and the spiritual state of the
church:

Leadership, laity, institutions, conferences,

mission fields, and the church as a whole, were
desperately in need of reformation.... [Ellen
White said] there has been an "astonishing
backsliding" with God's people. The church is
"frigid," its first love frozen up. Leaders in
Battle Creek have turned their backs to the
Lord; many church members also have rejected
His lordship and chosen Baal's instead.
Conference presidents are behaving like
medieval bishops. ... A "strange blindness" has
come upon the General Conference president
so that even he is acting contrary to the light....
"All heaven is indignant" (Tell It to the World,
pp. 246, 247).

What was the real source of the spiritual difficulty? They

had rejected the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry.
They had turned down the grandest eschatological
opportunity any people had ever been offered.

26
This incident was related to us by Elder S. A. Wellman in the winter of 1949-50. It can be confirmed
by "Captain Norman's" entry in the 1899 Bulletin. The lady who accepted his proposal lost her life
savings. Fifty years after "Captain Norman" a similar incident occurred at Takoma Park headquarters
when "Dr. Legge," a cunning criminal, deceived some General Conference leaders with his pretended
conversion, who likewise interpreted the "conversion" as the marvelous blessing of the Lord.

209
 CHAPTER TWELVE

THE PANTHEISM APOSTASY

Instead of refreshing showers of the latter rain preparing
a people for the return of Christ, the turn of the century

210
ushered in one of the gravest near-tragedies the church has
met. Only the personal intervention of the humble
messenger of the Lord saved the good ship from foundering
as did the Titanic a few years later.
The "iceberg" was the subtle pantheism heresy promoted
by some of the most highly respected leaders of Adventism
who were as deaf to warnings of impending danger as was
the captain of the ill-fated Cunard liner.
When it seemed to Ellen White that no one would do
anything to resolve the crisis brought by Dr. Kellogg’s
heretical teachings, she was given an inspired dream:

A vessel was upon the waters, in a heavy

fog. Suddenly the lookout cried, "Iceberg just
ahead!" There, towering high above the ship,
was a gigantic iceberg. An authoritative voice
cried out, "Meet it!" There was not a moment’s
hesitation. It was a time for instant action. The
engineer put on full steam, and the man at the
wheel steered the ship straight into the
iceberg. With a crash she struck the ice. There
was a fearful shock, and the iceberg broke into
many pieces, falling with a noise like thunder to
the deck. The passengers were violently shaken
by the force of the collision, but no lives were
lost. The vessel was injured, but not beyond
repair. She rebounded from the contact,
trembling from stem to stem, like a living
creature. Then she moved forward on her way
(Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, pp. 55,
56).

The ship was the Seventh-day Adventist church. The

authoritative "voice" was the testimony of Jesus. The ship
was injured, but not beyond repair. In the aftermath of the
collision three precious workers in the cause of God who
were specially beloved of Ellen White made their exit—Jones,
Waggoner, and Dr. Kellogg. Had the iceberg been seen
sooner and the vessel steered around it, the church could
have avoided this loss.
Several factors of this story deserve special attention:
(1) Many of our ministers and physicians could not
discern the nature of the pantheistic crisis when it burst
upon them. They were in a fog. Pantheistic sentiments were

211
 the "in" thing, the chic symbol of progressive theology. There
was a bewitching beauty about them. The heady ideas
enjoyed wide promotion, virtually without protest. "That
those whom we have thought sound in the faith should have
failed to discern the specious, deadly influence of this
science of evil, should alarm us as nothing else has alarmed
us" (ibid., Series B, No. 7, p. 37).
(2) Ellen White herself might not have recognized the
subtle error without unusual discernment. Nevertheless, she
hoped that her brethren and sisters would also be in close
touch with the Holy Spirit so as to be able to discern it:

This is a time when Satan’s deceptive power

is exercised, not only upon the minds of those
who are young and inexperienced, but upon the
minds of men and women of mature years and
of broad experience. Men in positions of
responsibility are in danger of changing leaders
(ibid., Series B, No. 2, p. 48; 1904).
I heard a voice saying, "Where are the
watchmen that ought to be standing on the
walls of Zion? Are they asleep? This foundation
was built by the Master Worker, and will stand
storm and tempest. Will they permit this man
[Kellogg] to present doctrines that deny the
past experience of the people of God? The time
has come to take decided action" (ibid., p. 54).

Actually, to be fair, history places more blame on the

blindness of responsible watchmen on the walls of Zion who
failed to discern the danger, than upon the misguided
medical doctor who taught the heresy.27 We are forward in
27
Ellen White wanted to help Kellogg and believed it possible to do so. He was "the Lord’s physician,"
and had been soundly converted at the Minneapolis meeting, she said (GCB, 1903, p. 86). Kellogg said:
"I would have been glad to have had some good friendly criticism given in a way that I could
understand it before the book [The Living Temple] was out" (Letter to W. C. White, Dec. 24, 1903).
Ministerial opposition both to the 1888 message and to the health message had discouraged him (cf.
EGW Letter K-18, 1892; K-86a, 1893). Kellogg said of his youth: "When I saw the health principles, they
looked so beautiful and consistent to me that I at once accepted them. Then I had such a struggle in
contending for these principles that I did not love any one who did not love the principles. Some of the
worst conflicts the health work has received have been from the ministers at our General Conferences.
It was a great trial to our helpers at the sanitarium to have the ministers of the General Conference
come to our tables, and ask the helpers, who had not tasted meat for a long time, to bring them in
some stewed chicken or beefsteak. We got so that we dreaded to have a General Conference come
there. … Finally I got so I dreaded to see the ministers. I was suspicious of them; for I did not know
whether I could trust them or not. … I feel now that I can trust you, and have full confidence in you"
(GCB 1903, p. 83). He later lost much of that confidence. The twin evils of continued ministerial
indifference both to health reform and the 1888 message had much to do with Kellogg losing his way.

212
 condemning him and we rejoice in the deliverance wrought
by the gift of prophecy. But the lesson is disturbing: the
repeated warnings given since 1888 had failed to arouse
most of our people.
Thus the pantheism crisis reveals the entrenched nature
of the post-Minneapolis unbelief in the readiness with which
many fell for delusions about a decade later. Those who
maintain there was repentance for the 1888 blindness find it
difficult to explain the subsequent pantheism blindness.
(3) Unfortunately, the pantheism test could not be the
final one. The repeated warnings concerning the 1888
reception should have enabled our brethren on their own to
steer the good ship safely through the perilous pantheism
waters. But a personal, emergency intervention of Ellen
White became necessary, or the ship would have foundered.
Satan must therefore be allowed to try us again, this time
when the living agent is no longer present. It must be a
supreme test as to whether we have come to maturity or
whether as children we still need the personal guidance of a
governess. Thus we find that the pantheism crisis was only
an "alpha, " and an "omega" trial must follow. It may be
closer now than we think:

Our people need to understand the reasons

of our faith and our past experiences. How sad
it is that so many of them apparently place
unlimited confidence in men who present
theories tending to uproot our past experiences
and to remove the old landmarks! Those who
can so easily be led by a false spirit show that
they have been following the wrong captain for
some time, so long that they do not discern
that they are departing from the faith, or that
they are not building upon the true foundation.
…
Some of the sentiments now expressed are
the alpha of some of the most fanatical ideas
that could be presented. Teachings similar to
those we had to meet soon after 1844 are being
taught by some who occupy important
positions in the work of God (Southern
Watchman, April 5, 1904).

The spiritual ferment in Battle Creek caused by heart opposition to the message could not provide
nurture for Kellogg’s soul.

213
 "Living Temple" contains the alpha of these
theories. I knew that the omega would follow in
a little while, and I trembled for our people
(Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, p. 53).
Be not deceived: many will depart from the
faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and
doctrines of devils. We have now before us the
alpha of this danger. The omega will be of a
most startling nature (1SM 197; 1904).
The omega will follow, and will be received
by those who are not willing to heed the
warning God has given (ibid., p. 200; Special
Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, p. 50; 1904).

It is interesting that we do not find Ellen White expressing

any warnings against The Glad Tidings by E. J. Waggoner. On
April 11, 1901, he expressly denied that his ideas were
pantheistic (GCB 1901, p. 223). Finehoned theology may
uphold him in that claim. His sermons at the 1901 session
were earnest and powerful. It was after this that Ellen White
recommended that he be invited to teach at Berrien Springs,
for his own as well as the good of the students. He needed
closer fellowship with capable brethren than he had known
when virtually alone in Britain.
In the January 29, 1982 issue of The Criterion (LLU), Dr.
Jack Provonsha says of Kellogg, whose pantheism was far
more pronounced than Waggoner’s: "In terms of the
technical meaning of pantheism, [Kellogg] was not a
pantheist." But Kellogg was wrong in his concept of the
nature of God. Ellen White apparently sympathized with
Waggoner’s gospel motivation, and for that reason may have
refrained from criticizing him. She discerned that Kellogg’s
direction was to destroy the church’s spiritual foundation.
This crisis was permitted as a test and trial to our faith
and an object lesson to a future generation:

God has permitted the presentation of the

combination of good and evil in "Living Temple"
to be made to reveal the danger threatening
us. The working that has been so ingeniously
carried on He has permitted in order that
certain developments might be made, and that
it might be seen what a man can do. … God has
permitted the present crisis to open the eyes of

214
 those who desire to know the truth. He would
have His people understand to what lengths
the sophistry and devising of the enemy would
lead (ibid., No. 7, p. 36).

Thus the "Living Temple" crisis could not mark the end of
Satan’s efforts to mislead, captivate, confuse, and bewilder
the Advent people. The danger from subtle, inward apostasy
in our midst is still present, more so than ever before: "One
thing is soon to be realized—the great apostasy, which is
developing and increasing and waxing stronger and will
continue to do so until the Lord shall descend from heaven
with a shout" (ibid., pp. 56, 57).
(4) The popular presentations of post-1888 history as a
grand victory cancel the object lesson inherent in the Kellogg
apostasy. That which God allowed to "reveal the danger
threatening us" that we might understand "to what lengths
the sophistry and devising of the enemy would lead" is
portrayed as a victory for the wisdom of men and evidence
of God’s indulgent, approving care. The point of the
experience is buried by saying that the "omega" was an
event past and gone long ago:

There were two phases to the struggle—

first, the pantheistic errors, second, the
question of ownership and control. The Spirit of
Prophecy called them the Alpha and Omega of
the issues. Pantheism, the "doctrines of devils,"
is called the Alpha, and Omega was said to be
events [sic] "of a most startling nature."
Some have claimed that the term Omega
refers to some great future difficulty or
apostasy and have at times made a mistaken
application of it to this or that branch of
denominational work. … In past years the
understanding of those terms was that Alpha
was the errors mentioned above and Omega
the breakaway and rebellion that robbed our
church of its oldest health institution. That was
indeed a startling thing that few expected. In
the long run, however, only a few of our
members left us (L. H. Christian, The Fruitage
of Spiritual Gifts, p. 292).

215
 If it is true that the loss of the Battle Creek Sanitarium
was the omega, we may rest assured that the greatest trials
and dangers to the Advent movement took place eighty
years ago. With the alphabet of Satan’s gamut of specious
temptations already exhausted in the dim past, we have
nothing to prepare for in the future.28

Where Lies the Truth About the "Omega"?

In a recent Spectrum, Vol. 12, No. 2, Dr. Robert Johnston

revives Christian’s idea, citing D. E. Robinson as support.
However he gives no Ellen White evidence for this view She
never at any time in the near decade afterward intimated
that the loss of the Battle Creek institution was the omega.
Never does she say that it is "events." Johnston weakens his
case by conceding that alpha and omega are "parts of a
simple and direct continuum." If so, the latter must be of the
same nature as the former—not "events" but "doctrines of
devils" cleverly masquerading as supposed truth.
The idea of the omega being an "event" of the past
seems contrary to Ellen White’s declarations:
(1) She said "many will depart from the faith" in that
experience. But Christian says "only a few of our members
left us" when we lost the Battle Creek Sanitarium.
(2) She said that the omega would be a "danger, " the
end of an alphabet of deadly heresies and doctrines of
devils. Being of the same alphabet, it must therefore be
heresies and evil doctrines, only more acute, more subtle,
and more specious as omega ultimately follows alpha. How
could the physical loss of an institution fulfill the prophecy?
(3) When the omega should come, she said, "I trembled
for our people." But the large Sanitarium was rebuilt at the
express disapproval of Ellen White; why would she "tremble
for our people" at the prospect of losing that which had
become only a snare to them and should never have been
rebuilt on such a large scale?
(4) The alphabet symbolism requires a development of
apostasy and confusion within the church. The alpha is
represented as follows in her writings; the omega must
necessarily be of the same nature:
28
Ever since the 1920's attempts have been made to label this or that new or false doctrine the
"omega." Some in our day have seen it in the Reformationist "new theology" movement. Each
generation has had to face a more sophisticated delusion. No one can say with certainty whether we
have as yet seen the end, the Z, of Satan’s alphabet of deceptions. However, we may be in the X or
the Y stage.

216
 Apostasy, wrong principles, brilliant
sparkling ideas, theories and sophistries that
undermine the foundation principles of the
faith, perversion of truth, fanciful and
spiritualistic interpretations of the Scriptures,
deceivableness of unrighteousness, seeds of
discord, of unbelief, of infidelity … sown
broadcast, insidious fallacies, sentiments of the
enemy, falsehood and pleasing fables, infidelity
and skepticism, a multitude of deceptions, a
yoke of human manufacture, cunningly devised
fables, a lie (these are verbatim expressions
taken from Special Testimonies, Series B., Nos.
2 and 7, concerning the alpha).

The great controversy between Christ and Satan still

goes on. We have now come to "the future" that is spoken of
here:

In the future, truth will be counterfeited by

the precepts of men. Deceptive theories will be
presented as safe doctrines. False science is
one of the agencies that Satan used in the
heavenly courts. …
Do not present theories or tests that have
no foundation in the Bible. … "It is written" is
the test that must be brought home to
everyone (RH January 21, 1904; Ev 600, 601).

By now, our enemy must have acquired consummate

skill. It is disturbing to note Dr. Kellogg’s sincerity when he
said he thought he was teaching the same things Ellen White
taught. This is why many of our brethren were caught
unawares:

The track of truth lies close beside the track

of error, and both tracks may seem to be one to
minds which are not worked by the Holy Spirit,
and which therefore are not quick to discern
the difference between truth and error. …
Those in favor of giving [The Living Temple]
a wide circulation declared: "It contains the
very sentiments that Sister White has been

217
 teaching." This assertion struck right to my
heart. I felt heartbroken. …
There may be in my writings many
statements which, taken from their connection,
and interpreted according to the mind of the
writer of "Living Temple," would seem to be in
harmony with the teachings of this book. This
may give apparent support to the assertion
that the sentiments in "Living Temple" are in
harmony with my writings (Special Testimonies,
Series B, No. 2, pp. 7, 52, 53; cf. Ellen White’s
statements that appear to come close to
pantheism in 8T 255-261. There is no
pantheism there, but an undiscerning reader
might think it is there).

Whenever the omega does appear, it will very likely claim

the support of the Spirit of Prophecy, and "many"
undiscerning minds will agree. And it is also possible that
some prominent, influential leaders will foster the deception.
True Christlikeness of character will lead those in union with
Christ to protest. When self is crucified with Christ a holy
boldness is possible:

When men standing in the position of

leaders and teachers work under the power of
spiritualistic ideas and sophistries, shall we
keep silent, for fear of injuring their influence,
while souls are being beguiled? …
Will the men in our institutions keep silent,
allowing insidious fallacies to be promulgated,
to the ruin of souls? (ibid., pp. 9, 13, 14).

Ellen White at last regarded the omega trials as an

experience to come after her death:

I am charged to tell our people that some do

not realize that the devil has device after
device and he carries these out in ways that
they do not expect. Satan’s agencies will invent
ways to make sinners out of saints. I tell you
now, that when I am laid to rest, great changes
will take place. I do not know when I shall be
taken, but I desire to warn all against the

218
 devices of the devil. … They should watch every
conceivable sin that Satan will try to
immortalize (Letter, Elmshaven, February 24,
1915).

Conclusion

Genuine truth is always good news. Ellen White would

pray, according to those who sometimes heard her, "Lord,
show me the worst of my case." It’s also a healthy prayer for
us to pray, "Lord, show us the truth of our history, the truth
of our present spiritual state." The truth of our past history
gives incalculable hope and confidence for the future, if we
will but recognize it for what it is.
The remnant church, enfeebled and defective as she is, is
still the supreme object of the Lord’s regard. Recognizing our
sinfulness, our hope is in God’s mercy and unchanging love.
The long detour of wandering which we brought upon
ourselves must lead in the fulness of the time to the Christ
whom we spurned in our 1888 era. In self-abhorrence and
repentance, we shall find Him. There will be no self-
vindication in the process.
On the other hand, God’s hope lies in our honesty of
heart. He is Himself on trial in us, before the universe. He
has staked His throne on the honesty of His people. We find
this refreshing Christ-centered appeal in the 1893 General
Conference Bulletin:

"Something great and decisive is to take

place, and that right early. If any delay, the
character of God and His throne will be
compromised."
Is it possible that we are about to risk the
honor of God’s throne? Brethren, for the Lord’s
sake, and for His throne’s sake, let us get out
of the way. (A. T. Jones, quoting Ellen White, p.
73; Ellen White in turn borrowed this thought
from The Great Teacher by John Harris, 1836).

Could any other kind of loud cry than that which would
follow our repentance lighten the earth with glory?

219
 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

ELLEN WHITE'S PREDICTIONS OF

BAAL WORSHIP
A four-part series in the Adventist Review of June, 1986,
deals frankly with a serious problem. Too many youth reared
in Seventh-day Adventist homes and schools are leaving the
church for a new reason: they are now joining other
churches.
The series (“To Catch a Star”) deplores the obvious fact
that most Adventist youth lack the vision that motivated the

220
“missionary volunteer” youth of previous generations. “Not
exciting, not positive, not big enough, and not related to
life”—these are “the specific inadequacies” our youth see in
today’s Adventism.
If the Seventh-day Adventist mission is that of the three
angels of Revelation 14, can it possibly be true that it is “not
exciting, not positive, not big …, and not related to life”? Not
unless we have misunderstood reality! But for some strange
reason, it has appeared so to many youth.
The true leader of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is
not the General Conference or a hierarchical clergy. It is
Christ Himself, the same Christ whom the pioneers in the
1840’s saw as commencing His ministry in the Most Holy
Apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. Is He not sufficiently
exciting, positive, big, and related to life to capture the
whole-hearted devotion of today’s youth? Or is that vision of
our pioneer youth as irretrievably lost to them as John and
Charles Wesley’s vision is lost to modern Methodist youth?
If the Seventh-day Adventist Church has become as dull
as most of our youth think, the reason can not be that its
Leader is “dull.” According to the prophetic insight of Ellen
White, the problem is that a false christ has usurped the
place of the true One. She says that Baal-worship has
captivated many of us as surely as it deceived God’s ancient
people in the days of Elijah and Jeremiah. The proportionate
number may even be similar.
This does not mean that the church has fallen as has
“Babylon” or that it has ceased to be the supreme object of
the Lord’s loving concern. Dissidents and off-shoots who
write off the church as fallen do not understand the Baal-
worship reality. The full truth is good news, for repentance,
reformation, and reconciliation with Christ become possible
when reality is recognized, just as they were in Elijah’s day.
Israel in his day was still the Lord’s chosen nation, and
Judah likewise in Jeremiah’s time. According to Bible
prophecy, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is still today
entrusted with the message of Revelation 14. The truth
means simply that genuine repentance and reformation are
necessary if this church is to proclaim “the everlasting
gospel” to the world in a way that lightens the earth with
Lord. And such a spiritual experience is possible.
If this is not true, we must simply squeeze ourselves into
another denominational niche beside the “Baptists,
Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Catholics,” who

221
with other churches, says the Review, are welcoming
increasing numbers of Adventist youth who forsake
Adventism. These formerly Adventist youth see
“denominational distinctiveness … as of lesser importance
than a general belief in a Supreme Being.” This mind set
would cancel our history and put us back to square one in a
world that had never heard of the Seventh-day Adventist
message.
However, the prophetic scenario of Revelation does not
call for the extinction of that unique people defined in
chapter 14, nor for the suppression of their special message.

Rejection of the 1888 Message Leads to Baal-Worship

A few months after Minneapolis Ellen White saw one of

the most graphic and chilling of all her visions: “I was
impressed that great danger was before us at the heart of
the work” (TM 460-471).
It seems that no one else shared her burden of soul, but
the Lord encouraged her to believe that He would not
forsake His church. “There were laid out before me some
things which I could not comprehend; but the assurance was
given me that the Lord would not allow His people to be
enshrouded in the fogs of worldly skepticism and infidelity,
bound up in bundles with the world” (p. 460).
Could she perhaps have sensed how many of our
present-day youth would become enshrouded in those fogs,
bound up in bundles with the world, satisfied with a mere
“belief in a Supreme Being,” devoid of a clear concept of the
High Priest’s work on the cosmic Day of Atonement?
Many of our youth find this vacuous shell of Adventism
dull because it has lost the sanctuary vision of the pioneers
and the 1888 message of hopeful Good News. Ellen White’s
Salamanca vision related this emptiness to the 1888 failure.
She predicted that in consequence of that unbelief ancient
Israel’s apostasy would afflict us:

The prejudices and opinions that prevailed

at Minneapolis are not dead by any means; the
seeds sown there in some hearts are ready to
spring into life and bear a like harvest. The
tops have been cut down, but the roots have
never been eradicated, and they still bear their
unholy fruit to poison the judgment, pervert

222
 the perceptions, and blind the understanding of
those with whom you connect, in regard to the
message and the messengers....
Infidelity has been making its inroads into
our ranks; for it is the fashion to depart from
Christ, and give place to skepticism. With many
the cry of the heart has been, “We will not have
this man to reign over us.” Baal, Baal, is the
choice. The religion of many among us will be
the religion of apostate Israel, because they
love their own way, and forsake the way of the
Lord. The true religion, the only religion of the
Bible, that teaches forgiveness only through
the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour, that
advocates righteousness by the faith of the Son
of God, has been slighted, spoken against,
ridiculed, and rejected. … What kind of future is
before us if we shall fail to come into the unity
of the [1888] faith? (TM 467, 468; 1890).

We can answer her question very simply: the kind of

future we have now come to.
The post-1888 experience traumatized Ellen White for
she saw almost with horror how powerfully Satan would try
to destroy the uniqueness of this people’s mission. Several
years later she said:

Everything may move forward amid

apparent prosperity; but Satan is wide awake,
and is studying and counseling with his evil
angels another mode of attack where he can be
successful. … The great controversy will wax
stronger and stronger, and will become more
and more determined. Mind will be arrayed
against mind, plans against plans, principles of
heavenly origin against principles of Satan.
Truth in its varied phases will be in conflict with
error in its ever-varying, increasing forms, and
which, if possible, will deceive the very elect ….
Unsanctified ministers are arraying
themselves against God. They are praising
Christ and the god of this world in the same
breath. While professedly they receive Christ,
they embrace Barabbas, and by their actions

223
 say, “Not this man, but Barabbas” … Let the
son of deceit and false witness be entertained
by a church that has had great light, great
evidence, and that church will discard the
message the Lord has sent, and receive the
most unreasonable assertions and false
suppositions and false theories. … Many will
stand in our pulpits with the torch of false
prophecy in their hands, kindled from the
hellish torch of Satan ….
The conflict is to wax fiercer and fiercer.
Satan will take the field and personate Christ.
He will misrepresent, misapply, and pervert
everything he possibly can, to deceive (TM 407-
11; 1897; emphasis added).

What Is Baal-Worship?

Are these predictions of Baal-worship of serious concern

to us today, or was the problem only temporary, confined to
Battle Creek in the nineteenth century? Our natural reaction
to this inspired prediction is to say, “Impossible! Incredible!
We may be ‘wretched’ and all that, but we’re not that ‘poor’
spiritually!” On the other hand, our conscience quietly tells
us that something is wrong. Maybe this makes sense after
all. Who is Baal?
In the language of ancient Israel, Baal was the simple
word for lord or husband:

It is significant that in patriarchal times ...

the husband is the master, the ba’al, of the
wife, who is dependent on him for her whole
livelihood, and over whom he has an authority
not shared by others (B. G. Sanders,
Christianity After Freud, Geoffrey Bles Ltd.,
London, 1949, p. 88; cf. Hosea 2:16).

Baal, the god of the Canaanites, means “the lord,” often

the ordinary way of speaking of Israel’s true God, the LORD,
Yahweh. The Babylonian Adon, Hellenized as Adonis, has the
same meaning. It is a cognate word to the Hebrew Adonai or
“the Lord.” Thus when the prophets of Baal prayed at Mount
Carmel, they cried, “O Lord, Lord, hear us,” while Elijah

224
preserved a distinct difference in his conception of God (1
Kings 18:26).
It is commonly assumed that there was a vast apparent
difference between the true religion of Israel and the
contemporary religions of paganism. But scholars say that
there were striking similarities—a morning and evening
sacrifice conducted daily, a tithe paid to the priests, animals
offered without blemish, sacred books and penitential
psalms, many concepts and ideas that were copies of the
true.
The temples of Babylonia and Assyria had much in
common with Solomon’s temple. The people of Israel often
stumbled over these similarities and were deceived into
various forms of apostate worship. It was difficult for Israel to
sense that they were worshiping a false god when the name
was the one commonly used for the true God. The language
and terminology were similar, but only an inspired prophet
and those who believed him could discern how the motifs
and concepts were different. Ellen White’s prediction raises
the frightful possibility that an apostasy as serious has
quietly permeated the modern church while we have slept. If
true, the situation is frightful, but not hopeless. Repentance
was possible in Elijah’s day, and it is possible in ours.
The apostasy in Elijah’s day is often misunderstood as a
departure from truth so obvious and striking as to make the
Israelites seem unusually dull and inexcusable. The facts are
that Israel’s apostasy was gradual and unconscious,
requiring about a century to assume the proportions Elijah
recognized in his day. He must have had a very keen mind to
discern it (cf. 3T 273; PK 109, 133, 137). We must remember
that Elijah still lives, having been translated. Would he feel at
home among us, recognizing Jezebel and her prophets?
Baal being a false christ, it is obvious that all worship of
self which is disguised as worship of Christ and which evades
the principle of the cross is in reality Baal-worship. The roots
go deep, often beneath our consciousness.
The verbal use of the name of Christ and other Christian
terminology means nothing so far as identifying truth is
concerned. Christ’s enemy is to “impersonate Christ,” that is,
assume the appearance of and usurp His identity through
exceedingly clever deception. But long before the
impersonation will come his misrepresentation. The non-
Adventist Frederick A. Voigt recognized an aspect of this
superb deception: “The ‘Christian Ethic’ is the Anti-Christ of

225
the Western world. It is the most insidious and formidable
corruption that ever afflicted that world.”
One small example is the cult of self-love. Through a
clever manipulation of Scripture, the sinful love of self has
been transformed into a virtue. During the last fifteen years
it has been strenuously taught to our youth as a supposed
Christian duty. The divine command to love our neighbor as
we love ourselves is twisted into a command to love self,
when in fact the Lord taught that the motivation of our
natural-born sinful love of self is now redirected through
genuine faith to a Christlike love of our neighbor.
Genuine self-respect is indeed a virtue, but it becomes
authentic through an appreciation of Christ’s self-emptying
love revealed at the cross. True self-esteem is thus rooted in
His atonement. But the me-first love of self is antithetical to
devotion to Christ and His work. It is understandable that an
enemy would promote the cult of selfism as though it were
Christ’s teaching. What is difficult to understand is why
Seventh-day Adventists should promote it.
Undoubtedly it is ignorance or disregard of Ellen White’s
statements about Baal-worship that has made it possible
also for the New Age philosophy to be tolerated in our midst
as much as it has been. But fundamental to all of our modern
confusion is the mistaking of a false christ for the true in
consequence of our 1888 tragedy. The roots go back for
nearly a century.
We are all familiar with the description of the final stage
of Satan’s impersonation when he will counterfeit the second
advent:

As the crowning act in the great drama of

deception, Satan himself will personate
Christ ... as a majestic being of dazzling
brightness … unsurpassed by anything that
mortal eyes have yet beheld. The shout of
triumph rings out upon the air: “Christ has
come! Christ has come!” The people prostrate
themselves in adoration before him, while he
lifts up his hands and pronounces a blessing
upon them. … His voice is soft and subdued, yet
full of melody. … This is the strong, almost
overmastering delusion (GC 624).

226
 The 1890 Salamanca vision unveils a mystery. In
consequence of our 1888 misconception of the true Christ,
this false Christ will find a way to worm himself in through
misrepresentation by false doctrines and concepts long
before he takes the final step of physical impersonation. This
is how Ellen White’s words can be fulfilled, “The religion of
many among us will be the religion of apostate Israel” —
Baal-worship. Wherever self becomes the true object of
devotion while we profess to serve Christ, there is Baal-
worship. Wherever ladder-climbing, promotion, prestige, and
power are the true motivations of ministry, there we have
the prophets of Baal.
But this cannot happen where the true message of
righteousness by faith is understood and believed. Baal-
worship is the fruit of a species of corrupted teachings that
encourage a profession of faith in Christ while self is not
crucified with Him:

The present age is one of idolatry, as verily

as was that in which Elijah lived. No outward
shrine may be visible; there may be no image
for the eye to rest upon; … Multitudes have a
wrong conception of God and His attributes,
and are as truly serving a false god as were the
worshipers of Baal (PK 177).
In this age antichrist will appear as the true
Christ … But the true leader of all this rebellion
is Satan clothed as an angel of light. Men will
be deceived and will exalt him to the place of
God, and deify him (TM 62; 1893).
Christ will be personified, but on one point
there will be a marked distinction. Satan will
turn the people from the law of God (FE 471,
472; 1897).
Those who are not wholly consecrated to
God may be led to do the work of Satan, while
yet they flatter themselves that they are in the
service of Christ (5T 103).

A counterfeit righteousness by faith is inevitable when

faith itself is not defined in New Testament terms. The
popular self-centered motivation of fear or hope of reward is
not that of the “faith which works by love (agape ).” Thus

227
Baal-worship finds a way to intrude through popular but
inadequate theories of righteousness by faith.

How Jeremiah Confronted Baal-worship

In Jeremiah’s day Judah drifted into Baal-worship as

imperceptibly to the priests and people as had Israel in
Elijah’s day. The Book of Jeremiah is a text-book on
confronting Baal-worship.
(1) Because it was an unconscious apostasy, the leaders
and people tried to deny its existence:

“How can you say, ‘I am not polluted,

I have not gone after the Baals’?
See your way in the valley;
Know what you have done …
Yet you say, ‘Because I am innocent. …’
You say, ‘I have not sinned’ “ (Jeremiah 2:23,
35).
“They say to you, ‘Why has the LORD
pronounced all this great disaster against us?
Or what is our iniquity?
Or what is our sin that we have committed
against the LORD our God?’ then you shall say
to them, ‘Because your fathers have forsaken
Me,’ says the LORD, ‘they have walked after
other gods’ “ (16:10, 11).
“According to the number of your cities
were your gods, O Judah; … you have set up
altars to that shameful thing, altars to burn
incense to Baal. … Now the LORD gave me
knowledge of it, and I know it; for You showed
me their doings” (11:13, 18).

(2) This apostate worship was combined with the true

worship of the Lord in His temple at Jerusalem:

“Will you steal, murder, commit adultery,

swear falsely, burn incense to Baal, and walk
after other gods whom you do not know, and
then come and stand before Me in this house
which is called by My name, and say, ‘We are
delivered to do all these abominations’? … The
children of Judah … have set their abominations

228
 in the house which is called by My name, to
pollute it” (7:9, 10, 30).

(3) The religious leaders at the headquarters of the

nation aided and propagated this apostasy:

“‘Both prophet and priest are profane;

Yes, in My house I have found their
wickedness,’ says the LORD ….
The prophets of Samaria. prophesied by
Baal
And caused My people Israel to err. …
‘From the prophets of Jerusalem
Profaneness has gone out into all the land.’ …
Prophets … try to make My people forget My
name by their dreams which everyone tells his
neighbor, as their fathers forgot My name for
Baal” (23:11, 13, 15, 26, 27).

Thank God He has promised to “send … Elijah the

prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of
the Lord” (Mat. 4:5). We desperately need him! (Ellen White
intimates that “Elijah” is the message that began in 1888;
see RH February 18, 1890). At the same time we must
understand how the enemy longs to counterfeit even Elijah’s
coming, and will encourage any self-appointed “reformer”
who is lifted up in his own vanity to rush in where angels fear
to tread. “The word of the Lord came to Elijah; he did not
seek to be the Lord’s messenger” (5T 299).

Has Babylon Continued to Fall?

Without understanding the 1888 message and its history

in relation to the heavenly Day of Atonement, our youth find
it difficult to see how the Seventh-day Adventist Church fits
into God’s plan for the world today. The temptation is almost
irresistible to see Adventism as just another religious option,
a lifestyle not necessarily more valid than any other
respectable religious group who recognize a “Supreme
Being.”

229
 There are countless good, sincere people and ministers in
the popular Sunday-keeping churches. They are happy,
loving, zealous, as devoted to their families as we are to
ours, in some cases more missionary-minded than we have
become. Their success in church growth fabulously outstrips
ours in many cases, and their moral standards seem to be as
high. The Lord’s question, “What do ye more than others?” is
one they have a right to ask us (Matthew 5:47, KJV). And that
is the embarrassing question many of our youth are asking.
The full light of the third angel’s message in verity “has
been in a great degree kept away from the world” ever since
the 1888 era (cf. 1SM 234, 235). As a result, the world has
stood in a different relationship to God than His plan
anticipated. While “Elijah” has had to go into exile, some
“Obadiahs” have had to nourish the sincere prophets of the
Lord “in a cave” as it were. The fall of Babylon has been
checked. Not yet has it become what it will be when the loud
cry is proclaimed. Not yet has that voice of Revelation 18:4
sounded clearly and powerfully, “Come out of her, My
people”
Our Lord tells us plainly what the trouble is: He cannot
yet work for His remnant church as powerfully as He would
like to (cf. 6T 371). The Greek expression our Lord uses
means that we make Him so nauseated that He feels like
throwing up (Revelation 3:16, 17).29 Is it too much to say that
sincere people who are close to Jesus also feel nauseated, as
He does, by the self-centered Baal-worship that finds its way
into the modern equivalent of the Lord’s temple? The vanity
of spirit, the emptiness of sermons, the praise and flattery of
men and women, the screaming and shouting into the
microphones, the joking and jesting, the pathetic egocentric
legalism—how does Christ feel? And how do those whom He
describes in Revelation 18:4 as “My people” feel?
It is terrible to think that Baal-worship has infiltrated
modern Israel as it did ancient Israel, but the Lord’s servant
insists it is true. Human nature being the same in all ages,
our tendency has been the same as that of the Lord’s
ancient people—to assimilate the thinking of the people
around us. The rejection of the 1888 message set the
29
The original language is not a firm promise that the Lord will spue out His church of Laodicea. The
Greek is mello se emesai, an expression that means literally, “I am about to vomit you out.” The same
word mello is used in Revelation 10:4 where the action anticipated does not take place. The Laodicean
message declares that we can heal Christ’s sickness of nausea by our repentance (verse 19). The word
Laodicea is not a dirty word; it means “judging, or vindicating, the people.” The problem with Laodicea
is her lukewarmness, not her identity as the seventh or last of the churches.

230
 pattern for nearly a century of such assimilation, beginning
with the exposure of counterfeit ideas at the 1893 session
that purported to be the same as genuine righteousness by
faith.30
That was only the beginning. We have turned again and
again to the popular churches and their leadership for ideas
and inspiration which we have assumed was the same
message, not discerning the fundamental distinctions.
Already in the 1890’s there were tendencies to confuse
Roman Catholic justification by faith for the genuine (GCB
1893, pp. 244, 261, 262, 265, 266).
Just after World War I we borrowed “the victorious life”
enthusiasm from The Sunday School Times. Froom’s
Movement of Destiny even boasts that the 1888 message
was essentially the same as a vast array of Evangelical
preachers were teaching (pp. 255-258, 319-321; 1971 ed.).
This is not to say that all such ideas have been bad, but
the unique concept of the cleansing of the sanctuary has
been absent from them all. This vacuum has invited Baal-
worship to rush in.

The 1888 Message and the Day of Atonement

Although the fall of Babylon is not yet complete, the

initial stages have taken place. Something essential is
decidedly lacking in the doctrines and experience of
churches that do not understand the Scripture teaching of
the antitypical Day of Atonement. Far removed by several
generations from their forefathers of the 1844 era, they
cannot be held responsible for truth they do not know unless
they have also rejected it. Nevertheless, they are tragically
the poorer for not knowing it.
In one of her earliest communications Ellen White
describes the beginning of this process of deprivation. She
received prophetic insight into the root cause of modern
Christianity’s spiritual alienation from the “everlasting
gospel” of Revelation 14. In her vision she saw the transition
from the heavenly High Priest’s ministry in the first
apartment to that of the second. The knowledge of this
change of ministry was rejected by multitudes of Christians.
30
See GCB 1893, pp. 358, 359; Hannah Whitall Smith got her basic ideas for her Christian’s Secret of a
Happy Life from Fenelon, the Roman Catholic mystic at the court of Louis XIV who spent his life
energies seeking to convert Protestants to Rome. His “righteousness by faith” is a close counterfeit, as
was that of the Roman Catholic TV evangelist, Fulton Sheen, and modern Catholic TV evangelists. The
resemblance to the genuine is often very subtle.

231
What makes this account important is not the issue of guilt
or lack of it for rejecting the 1844 light. The reality is the
terrible deception entering in for lack of a vital truth
regarding Christ and His present-day work in the final Day of
Atonement. This statement has profound implications:

I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus

to the careless multitude after He arose, and
they were left in perfect darkness. … Those
who rose up with Jesus would send up their
faith to Him in the holiest [apartment], and
pray, “My Father, give us Thy Spirit.” Then
Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost.
In that breath was light, power, and much love,
joy, and peace.
I turned to look at the company who were
still bowed before the throne [of the first
apartment]; they did not know that Jesus had
left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne,
trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them
look up to the throne, and pray, “Father, give
us Thy Spirit.” Satan would then breathe upon
them an unholy influence; in it there was light
and much power, but no sweet love, joy, and
peace (EW 55, 56).
By rejecting the two former messages, they
[the rejectors] have so darkened their
understanding that they can see no light in the
third angel’s message, which shows the way
into the most holy place. I saw that as the Jews
crucified Jesus, so the nominal churches had
crucified these messages, and therefore they
have no knowledge of the way into the most
holy, and they can not be benefitted by the
intercession of Jesus there. Like the Jews, who
offered their useless sacrifices, they offer up
their useless prayers to the apartment which
Jesus has left; and Satan, pleased with the
deception, assumes a religious character, and
leads the minds of these professed Christians
to himself, working with his power, his signs
and lying wonders. … He also comes as an
angel of light, and spreads his influence over
the land by means of false reformations. The

232
 churches are elated, and consider that God is
working marvelously for them, when it is the
work of another spirit (ibid., pp. 260, 261).

Is this prophetic insight valid? If so, it has far-reaching

implications. It explains the mystery of the confusion we see
in the modern Christian world. Although an apparent spiritual
prosperity pervades many of the churches that “have no
knowledge of the way into the most holy [place]” and which
“can not be benefited by the intercession of Jesus there,” the
final issues of the mark of the beast will test everyone’s
devotion to Christ.
Members leave the Adventist church because they say
that they find “love” and “warmth” and spiritual “power” in
other churches, not discerning the true nature of Christ’s
love as agape. Thus they are easily deceived by a superficial
sentimentality. Is it possible to understand this confusing
situation apart from the inspired prophetic insight of the final
Day of Atonement?
And can our own spiritual impotence be traced to losing
touch with that special, unique High Priest who entered the
second apartment ministry at the end of the 2300-year
prophecy? His final work is exciting, positive, big, related to
life! Have we also lost a practical understanding of His work,
so that our mission appears “dull” in consequence? Let us
analyze these Early Writings statements:
(1) A specific generation of Christians in the 1844 era had
rejected the Spirit-endorsed proclamation of the first and
second angels’ messages, and many Millerites rejected the
third angel’s message. (The overwhelming majority of
Christians and their ministers today understand nothing of
this).
(2) God is eminently fair. He cannot hold guilty these
modern descendants of the rejecting 1844 generation if they
have not comprehended the message sufficiently to reject it
intelligently. There is no reason to suppose that many of
these people are not sincerely living up to all the light they
have and thus are individually accepted by the Lord.
(3) However, the real issue is not mere personal salvation
in preparation for death. Since Bible prophecy indicates that
the coming of the Lord is near, the true issue is a preparation
for His coming and the attendant final trials. And we must
not forget the transcendent motivation of concern for the

233
honor and vindication of the Saviour so that the great
controversy can be ended in victory for Him.
For this to take place in any community of human hearts
and lives, the full truth of righteousness by faith must be
clearly understood. And the popular churches cannot
understand this truth, however sincere they may be, for they
“have no knowledge of the way into the most holy [place],
and they can not be benefited by the intercession of Jesus
there.”
Genuine righteousness by faith is not only a truth but an
experience that accompanies it which the heavenly High
Priest ministers in His closing work of atonement. Continued
centuries of ignorance of this truth cannot resolve the
problem. The third angel’s message in verity is vitally
needed. In the absence of that truth, no body of people
anywhere can be prepared for the second coming of Christ,
regardless of their religious affiliation.
(4) Ellen White is on target in depicting Satan as a sly
counterfeiter. He succeeds only when “he leads the minds of
these professed Christians” away from the special, unique
work of Christ in the Most Holy Apartment. According to the
Early Writings statement, his method is to appear to
perpetuate the same ministry of Christ that continued in the
first Apartment from His ascension to 1844. His intent is to
eclipse a knowledge of the change in that ministry.
The High Priest’s ministry must change, because He
cannot forever minister His blood in substitution to cover the
perpetual sinning of His people. He must accomplish
something on the Day of Atonement that was never
accomplished previously. He must have a people who
overcome “even as” He overcame, a people who “condemn
sin in the flesh” through His faith. Satan must zero in on this
truth and eclipse it if possible. Thus the counterfeiter leads
minds “to himself” by deflecting their interest from the
unique work the true High Priest must accomplish.
If Third World entrepreneurs can counterfeit Swiss
Omega watches so as to fool sophisticated buyers, is it hard
to believe that Satan has by now polished a highly successful
imitation of Christ and the true gospel message? It includes
“light and much power, but no sweet love [agape], joy and
peace.” He has diligently studied the work of the true Holy
Spirit and has invented a superb imitation that will deceive, if
possible, the very elect. He has his counterfeit righteousness
by faith nearly perfected for deception. Of course, it lacks an

234
understanding of Christ’s work in the Most Holy Apartment,
that vital ingredient of agape that alone can cleanse human
hearts of all fear and self-centered motivation which
perpetuates sin.
(5) If Ellen White is correct, multitudes of “sincere,”
“loving” Christians will succumb to terrific pressure to
restore the religious intolerance of the Dark Ages and will
enforce the mark of the beast. Various forms of terrorism can
easily accomplish this for a nation, a world, and churches
given to materialism, sensuality and “spiritual” spiritualism.
Ellen White unmasks the horrible specter of a false Christ
spreading “his influence over the land by means of false
reformations, … the work of another spirit” (ibid., p. 261).
(6) There are wheat and tares growing together in
“Babylon” as there are within the church that professes to
bear the third angel’s message. But the stalemate of a near-
century must be resolved. The human race is in a process of
disintegrating morally and spiritually. We face problems of
potential global suicide through drug abuse, drunkenness,
infidelity, break-up of homes, violence, polarization of the
rich and the poor, terrorism, and the always looming shadow
of nuclear disaster.
The great controversy between Christ and Satan will
likely appear to resolve itself into a contest to see which can
preserve life on this planet. “The beast” will make it appear
that he is the world’s savior. Thus his mark will at last be
urged as the only way to prevent the destruction of the
human race. The “false reformations” brought by the
counterfeit “high priest” who has pretended to take over the
ministry of the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary will
be the means to effect this vast deception.
(7) Thus there are truths inherent in the 1888 message of
Christ’s righteousness that are not comprehended by any
segment of Christians who do not understand the two-
apartment ministry of the heavenly High Priest. The “gospel”
proclaimed by the “little horn” power virtually justifies sin
and therefore logically upholds Satan’s rebellion. This is the
secret of the lawlessness that pervades the modern world on
all levels. All churches everywhere desperately need to have
the gospel of the three angels’ messages in verity effectively
communicated to them.

Why the Third Angel’s Message in Verity Is Needed

235
 The third angel’s message in verity proclaims a Saviour
who “condemned sin in the flesh,” offering the only valid
rebuttal of Satan’s charges against God. It effectively
“condemns sin,” that is, demonstrates that sin in human
nature is unnecessary and is actually doomed to extinction.
Ralph Larson explains the close relationship between “the
Nature of Christ and the Saving Work of Christ” who cannot
heal that which He has not assumed (The Word Was Made
Flesh, pp. 277-283). The third angel’s message thus presents
a Saviour who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet
without sin, and who therefore can save to the uttermost
those who come to God by Him. The message will prepare a
people for the Lord’s return.
Those who follow Christ by faith in the change of His High
Priestly mission appreciate three distinct and unique truths:
(a) The perpetuity of the law of God, including the holy
sabbath. The true “fulfillment of the law” is agape (Romans
13:10) because it produces heart-obedience through the
atonement. This is the unique aspect of righteousness by
faith that is ministered only in the Most Holy Apartment
ministry .
(b) The non-immortality of the soul. Apart from clearly
comprehending the truth of the nature of man it becomes
impossible to appreciate what happened on the cross of
Calvary. Thus true motivation to holy living is weakened, and
righteousness by faith is nullified.
(c) The cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is the final
Day of Atonement ministry. This ensures the ultimate
demonstration of righteousness by faith in the hearts and
lives of those who believe the truth.
These three “pillars” of truth support the Seventh-day
Adventist Church (CWE pp. 30, 31). They embrace a
complete message that can prepare a people for the return
of Christ. But apart from understanding the 1888 message,
the verity of truth therein necessarily eludes us. As surely as
night follows day, the pioneers’ confidence in the imminent
return of Christ consequently fades away; we lose their
vision and their star disappears.

How Baal-Worship Robs Us of Our Distinctive Message

There is no truth that Satan has sought more earnestly to

counterfeit than New Testament love. Human hearts
everywhere hunger for it; but “because lawlessness will

236
 abound, the love [agape] of many will grow cold” (Matthew
24:12). It is this genuine love that Ellen White saw is
ministered only by Christ in His closing work of atonement.31
A counterfeit love is ministered by a counterfeit holy spirit,
who is the essence of spiritualism. Here is what is happening
before our eyes:

I saw the rapidity with which this delusion

[spiritualism] was spreading. A train of cars
was shown me, going with the speed of
lightning. The angel bade me look carefully. I
fixed my eyes upon the train. It seemed that
the whole world was on board; that there could
not be one left. Said the angel, “They are
binding in bundles ready to burn.” Then he
showed me the conductor, who appeared like a
stately, fair person, whom all the passengers
looked up to and reverenced. I was perplexed,
and asked my attending angel who it was. [Why
would Ellen White have to ask that question if it
is so easy to recognize him?] He said, “It is
Satan. He is the conductor in the form of an
angel of light” (EW 88).
In this age antichrist will appear as the true
Christ (TM 62).
He will assume to personate the angels of
light, to personate Jesus Christ (Letter 102,
1894).

The enemy would have had no power to weaken the

Seventh-day Adventist Church unless “we” had somehow
opened the door for him to squeeze in. “When the Lord has a
genuine channel of light, there are always plenty of
counterfeits. Satan will surely enter any door thrown open
for him” (Letter 102, 1894).
It was a miracle that a unique people came into existence
during the last century holding to those three distinctive
31
There are outstanding books on agape by Evangelical scholars, such as Agape and Eros by Anders
Nygren, Testaments of Love by Leon Morris, and The Love Affair by Michael Harper. But there is
something lacking in all of them: they do not comprehend how the love that led Christ to His cross is a
love that endured the equivalent of the second death, as we find set forth so clearly in The Desire of
Ages p. 753. Thus these sincere authors of necessity come short of appreciating the true “width and
length and depth and height” of that agape “of Christ which passes knowledge.” No community of
Christians who hold the doctrine of natural immortality of the soul can see it, regardless of their
sincerity. In proportion as their concept of agape is thus weakened, so is their concept of faith
weakened. Inevitably, their idea of righteousness by faith is compromised.

237
“pillars” of truth embodied in the message of the three
angels. No way should their work have been delayed or
hindered, according to God’s plan. But because of the 1888
unbelief, the Lord’s messenger in 1889 predicted a terrible
falling away from truth and purity:

Unless divine power is brought into the

experience of the people of God, false theories
and erroneous ideas will take minds captive,
Christ and His righteousness will be dropped
out of the experience of many, and their faith
will be without power or life (RH September 3,
1889).

In order to appreciate this disclosure, we must note:

(1) Christ and His righteousness would not, could not, be
“dropped out of the experience of many” verbally. For any of
us to repudiate Him in words would arouse a dramatic thrill
of horror. “The result predicted” had to take place while
those “many” maintained a profession of Christ and His
righteousness.
(2) Christ and His righteousness would not be “dropped
out of the experience of many” consciously. That would be to
awaken us to our need, a sense of extreme coldness. It
would drive honest-hearted souls to the fire and put an end
to lukewarmness. But Satan is pleased to keep us in a state
of “balance,” so long as it is thermostatic. Words or their lack
may deceive us. “The lips may express a poverty of soul that
the heart does not acknowledge” (COL 159).
(3) Christ and His righteousness would therefore be
“dropped out of the experience of many” unconsciously
through the mysterious process of our unknown hearts.
There is a natural enmity against God working beneath the
surface. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked; who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9). Any
obsessional neurosis can develop with the causes buried
beyond knowledge. Ellen White wrote of the possibility of our
changing leaders after 1888 and not knowing it:

For the last twenty years a subtle,

unconsecrated influence has been leading men
… to neglect their heavenly Companion. Many
have turned away from Christ (RH February 18,
1904).

238
 Those who can so easily be led by a false
spirit show that they have been following the
wrong captain for some time,—so long that
they do not discern that they are departing
from the faith (Southern Watchman, April 5,
1904).

Conclusion

A heart-appreciation of Christ’s cross always leads to self

being “crucified with Him.” But “human wisdom will lead
away from self-denial, from consecration, and will devise
many things to make of no effect God’s messages” (RH
December 13, 1892).
Multitudes of our own people, especially youth, are
confused and bewildered by the dullness and spiritual
impotence they see in the Seventh-day Adventist Church
today. And the problems raised by fanatics, disloyal
dissidents, and off-shoot leaders within the church can also
be understood and solved only in the light of this reality.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not Babylon, and
God has never planned that it become Babylon any more
than ancient Israel in the days of Elijah or Jeremiah was to
become Babylon. Baal-worship was and is a disease of the
body that is foreign to it and makes it sick. But healing is
possible through repentance and reformation. The solution to
the problem is not the destruction of the church, but its
spiritual recovery. Note this encouragement:

God is leading out a people. … He would

reprove and correct them. The message to the
Laodiceans is applicable to Seventh-day
Adventists who have had great light and have
not walked in the light.... The message to
pronounce the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Babylon, and call the people of God out of her,
does not come from any heavenly messenger,
or any human agent inspired by the Spirit of
God ….
God … has a work for His church to do. They
are not to be pronounced Babylon, but to be as
the salt of the earth, the light of the world … to
proclaim a living message in these last days ….

239
 How Satan would exult to have a message
go broadcast that the only people whom God
has made the repositories of His law are the
ones to whom this message [the fall of
Babylon] applies ….
Evidence which makes the message to the
Laodicean church applicable … will not blot out
the church that it will not exist (2 SM 66-69;
1893).

When pride and self-seeking masquerade as devotion to

Christ, there we have Baal-worship. And it has penetrated all
levels of the church body. “Those who are more desirous of
securing promotion and a good name in the world than of
maintaining right principles, will betray sacred trusts” (RH
January 31, 1892).

Honesty and policy will not work together in

the same mind. In time, either policy will be
expelled, and truth and honesty reign supreme,
or, if policy is cherished, honesty will be
forgotten. They are never in agreement; they
have nothing in common. One is the prophet of
Baal, the other is the true prophet of God (5T
96).

O that we might glimpse the face of our true Lord! If we

will look in His face, we will not see the perpetual smile of
indulgence with His unfaithful people that Baal assumes. He
is an idol with a frozen smile. The face of the true Christ
registers the pain of acute nausea, a divine sickness of heart
with our terrible lukewarmness, our self-love, our professions
of a devotion that we do not truly feel. Genuine Christian
experience contrasts with the counterfeit as follows:

A true sense of the sacrifice and

intercession of the dear Saviour will break the
heart that has become hardened in sin; and
love, thankfulness, and humility will come into
the soul. The surrender of the heart to Jesus
subdues the rebel into a penitent … This is the
true religion of the Bible; everything short of
this is a deception (4T 625).

240
 A new order of things has come into the
ministry. There is a desire to pattern after
other churches, and simplicity and humility are
almost unknown. … Some open revival
meetings, and by this means call large numbers
into the church. But when the excitement is
over, where are the converted ones?
Repentance and confession of sin are not seen.
The sinner is entreated to believe in Christ and
accept Him without regard to his past life of sin
and rebellion. The heart is not broken. There is
no contrition of soul. The supposed converted
ones have not fallen upon the Rock, Christ
Jesus (Undated MS, 111).

Where is that Rock, that we may fall upon it and be

“broken”? The good news is better than Baal wants us to
believe. Falling upon that “Rock” does not destroy self-
esteem or in any way harm one’s true personality. One’s
personality experiences a resurrection with Christ when the
sinful love of self is crucified with Him. Christ never destroys
anyone; but this experience of taking up our cross is the only
way the heavenly High Priest can put us together right, both
for time and for eternity.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

FROM 1950 TO 1971

This manuscript in its original form was prepared in 1950
for the attention of the General Conference Committee. It
was an appeal to “feed the flock of God” with the nutritive
elements of the 1888 message. Since then, the Adventist
conscience has wrestled with the conviction that there is
widespread spiritual famine. The gospel commission is not
yet finished, notwithstanding greater programs, activities,
and promotions each passing year.

241
 Only a few days after the 1888 session closed, on
November 23 Ellen White spoke at the Potterville, Michigan,
state meeting (A. L. White, The Lonely Years, p. 418). Her
three sermons are recorded in the Review and Herald. In her
sermon of November 24 she makes reference six times to
the Jews, drawing comparisons with us:

What would the Saviour do if he should

come to us as he did to the Jews? He would
have to do a similar work in clearing away the
rubbish of tradition and ceremony. The Jews
were greatly disturbed when he did this
work.... The blindness of the Pharisees is an
illustration of how people who claim great light
and knowledge can so misunderstand and
misrepresent the work of God. Glorious truths
have been buried out of sight, and have been
made lusterless and unattractive by error and
superstition (RH, June 4, 1889).

The next week’s article, June 11, again five times

compared us to the Jews, and referred over twenty times to
the contemporary unbelief of the “ministering brethren”:

There are many who place themselves in a

similar position to that of the Jews in the time
of Christ, and they will not hear the word of
truth, because their minds are filled with
prejudice; but those who refuse heaven’s light
will be rejected of God just as his ancient
people were.... Why should ministers make the
truth powerless before the people because they
themselves lack spiritual life and devotion,
because they are not connected with God? ...
You have gone so far away from him, that you
can scarcely hear the sound of his voice.

Again speaking in an 1888 context, she said:

The trials of the children of Israel, and their

attitude just before the first coming of Christ,
have been presented before me again and
again to illustrate the position of the people of
God in their experience before the second

242
 coming of Christ—how the enemy sought every
occasion to blind the minds of God’s servants,
that they may not be able to discern the
precious truth (ibid., February 18, 1890).
Every line I trace about the condition of the
people in the time of Christ, about their
attitude toward the Light of the world, in [this]
I see danger that we shall take the same
position.... We shall have to meet unbelief in
every form in the world, but it is when we meet
unbelief in those who should be leaders of
[God’s] people, that our souls are wounded
(ibid., March 4, 1890).

A prophet’s deep discernment, unshared by almost all of

her contemporaries, perceived how the end result of 1888
was equivalent to a recrucifixion of Christ. The Jews maintain
that they never crucified the Messiah, and we find it hard to
realize the extent of what we did:

Those who resisted the Spirit of God at

Minneapolis were waiting for a chance to travel
over the same ground again, because the spirit
was the same.... All the universe of heaven
witnessed the disgraceful treatment of Jesus
Christ, represented by the Holy Spirit. Had
Christ been before them, they would have
treated Him in a manner similar to that in which
the Jews treated Christ (Series A, No. 6, p. 20;
January 16, 1896).

Confusion and perplexity arise in a recently published

statement, “In 1888, the direction of the Adventist Church
took an upward turn at the Minneapolis ministerial
presession” (Ministry, November 1984). The Lord’s
messenger, speaking 14 years after 1888, said the opposite:
“I have been instructed that the terrible experience at the
Minneapolis Conference is one of the saddest chapters in the
history of the believers in present truth” (Letter 179, 1902).
Her inspired appraisal is: “cruelty to the Holy Spirit,”
“disgraceful treatment of Jesus Christ,” which “sometime...
will be seen in its true bearing with all the burden of woe
that has resulted from it” (GCB 1893, p. 184). Perhaps that
“sometime” is near.

243
 Ellen White’s comparison with the Jews is not casual. It
penetrates to the very heart of the plan of salvation. The
denial of John 3:16 is implicit in our “insubordination”
because resisting Christ is involved in it. When this is seen,
there will come a repentance commensurate with the
transgression. The difficulty is that the transgression has not
yet been appreciated for its true nature. We have not yet
seen ourselves as Heaven sees us.
There is a new generation on the scene now, and no
living church member can testify from experience in
attending the 1888 session. Everything we can learn about it
now must come from inspired written records.
Since 1950 a concerted effort has been made to publish
books that convey the idea that 1888 was a victory for the
church. Thus several authoritative books totaling nearly
1500 pages attempt to establish that “we” accepted the
1888 message. Two were endorsed by General Conference
presidents; a third was written by a vice-president. Their
publication attests the deep interest that 1888 holds for the
Seventh-day Adventist conscience.
The Holy Spirit has led through all these years, and truth
will emerge triumphant over all confusion. The solution to
our problems lies not in criticizing church leadership or
weakening church organization; it lies in repentance and
reconciliation with Christ within the church organization. We
dare not deny or suppress truth; fully disclosed and
understood by honest hearts, truth overcomes fanaticism,
legalism, and a holier-than-thou spirit of criticism. It can lead
only to a humble, Christlike repentance that will bring
effective healing.
We turn now to a brief overview of these developments.

1950

1888 Re-examined (204 mimeographed pages) bore no

authors’ names, had no title page and no date. Its intent was
simple-to present evidence from inspired sources (600 Ellen
White exhibits) that “we” took the wrong road in 1888, that
the cause of God suffered a serious set-back, that the true
progress of the cause requires that we accept that message
and proclaim it to the world, and that denominational
repentance is appropriate in view of our history and in
response to Christ’s appeal to Laodicea.

244
 The appeal was firmly, officially rejected: “We do not
believe that [a denominational repentance] is according to
God’s plan and purpose.” “You will not wish to press your
rather critical views nor circulate them any further” (General
Conference, Defense Literature Committee letter, December
4, 1951). The General Conference position was that a
denominational repentance is unnecessary and inappropriate
in view of our large baptisms in the “double our
membership” program in the 1950’s, and our widespread
denominational and institutional prosperity.
The authors would not rebel against General Conference
direction. They have always firmly supported the principle of
church organization and order. But they could not
conscientiously retract their basic convictions which they
believed were based upon the inspired testimony of Ellen
White. Therefore they appealed the matter to the next
higher authority—the Lord Himself in the investigative
judgment and to “the disposition of His providence.” They
went on with their missionary duties in Africa (Letter to
General Conference officers, February 5, 1952).
However, a copy of the manuscript somehow found its
way outside the headquarters offices. While the authors
were working as missionaries in Africa, various lay members
and ministers in North America laboriously copied and
reduplicated it. Without the concurrence of the authors, it
was widely distributed on several continents.

1952

An epochal Bible Conference was held in the Sligo

(Maryland) church September 1-13,1952. The studies
“represent the best thinking on the part of sincere, honest,
earnest, devoted, loyal men,” the leaders of the church,
according to D. E. Rebok in the Introduction to the two-
volume report, Our Firm Foundation (Review and Herald,
1953, Vol. One, p. 13).
Near the conclusion of the conference, the General
Conference president acknowledged the truth of the 1888
setback, and then made an astounding claim:

To a large degree the church failed to build

on the foundation laid at the 1888 General
Conference. Much has been lost as a result. We
are years behind where we should have been in

245
 spiritual growth. Long ere this we should have
been in the Promised Land.
But the message of righteousness by faith
given in the 1888 Conference has been
repeated here. Practically every speaker from
the first day onward has laid great stress upon
this all-important doctrine, and there was no
prearranged plan that he should do so. It was
spontaneous on the part of the speakers. No
doubt they were impelled by the Spirit of God
to do so. Truly this one subject has, in this
conference, “swallowed up every other.”
And this great truth has been given here in
this 1952 Bible Conference with far greater
power than it was given in the 1888 Conference
because those who have spoken here have had
the advantage of much added light shining
forth from hundreds of pronouncements on this
subject in the writings of the Spirit of prophecy
which those who spoke back there did not
have....
No longer will the question be, “What was
the attitude of our workers and people toward
the message of righteousness by faith that was
given in 1888? What did they do about it?”
From now on the great question must be,
“What did we do with the light on
righteousness by faith as proclaimed in the
1952 Bible Conference?” (W. H. Branson, Vol.
Two, pp. 616, 617).

He again emphasized this same claim in his closing

remarks: “Brethren, let us stress in all our meetings with our
workers the great importance of the message that came to
the Minneapolis Conference in 1888—the message that has
been repeated here in these meetings by all the speakers at
this conference” (pp. 737, 738).
This Bible Conference was held nearly forty years ago. All
the speakers were said to be in full harmony on “the doctrine
of righteousness by faith,” and it was claimed that they
preached the message more clearly and more powerfully
than did the 1888 messengers in the beginning of the latter
rain and the loud cry.

246
 If this is true, it follows logically that the 1952 messages
were a “far greater” manifestation of the latter rain and the
loud cry of Revelation 18 than was the 1888 message.
Further, the 1952 messages were filly accepted without
opposition, either officially in the General Conference or in
the world field.
If what was tragically lacking in 1888 was so abundantly
supplied in 1952, should not the earth have been lightened
in that generation with the glory of the loud cry message? A
similar acceptance of the 1888 message sixty years earlier
would have prepared a people in that generation to finish the
gospel commission. Did the blessing come in the 1952
generation?
A careful study of the two-volume report discloses a
problem. None of the speakers reproduced the unique motifs
or essentials of the 1888 message. Edward Heppenstall’s
messages on the two covenants were refreshingly in
harmony with the 1888 position, and several other speakers
said nothing contradictory to it. And there is no question that
they were all “sincere, honest, earnest, devoted, loyal men,”
and each gave thoughtful presentations.
But the problem is that most, if not all, gave evidence
that they were sincerely uninformed of the actual content of
the 1888 message. No one gave evidence that he had as yet
given careful study to the original sources of that “most
precious message,” which of course were all out of print. No
one apparently saw any clear difference between the 1888
message and the popular Protestant doctrine of
“righteousness by faith.”
It is painfully evident that the 1888 messengers whom
Ellen White endorsed were persona nun grata at this
conference (see for example, Vol. One, p. 256). It was as
though some “pre-arranged plan” had forbidden any
recognition of them or of the content of their unique
message. The essential nutriments being largely absent from
the 1952 messages, they could not exert the spiritual power
of the 1888 message for revival and reformation.
No doubt much good came from the conference. But the
latter rain and the loud cry did not have another “beginning”
35 years ago.
Meanwhile, a widespread spontaneous distribution of
1888 Re-examined continued. By 1958 relevant inquiries to
the General Conference from church members in the field
had stirred up another response.

247
 1958

Thus a new reply was prepared by the General

Conference and made available to the church in September,
1958. Entitled A Further Appraisal of the Manuscript “1888
Re-examined,” it strongly opposed the document. We will
note its conclusion:

It is evident that the authors have revealed

considerable amateurishness in both research
and use of facts.32 There is a consistent pattern
throughout the manuscript of using quotations
out of their true setting.... The thesis of “1888
Re-examined” is a serious reflection upon the
literary ethics of its authors.... Having proved
themselves guilty of distortion of facts and
misapplication of statements from the Spirit of
Prophecy, the authors of “1888 Re-examined”
have produced a manuscript that is detrimental
to the church, derogatory to the leaders of the
church, and to uninformed individuals who may
happen to read it (pp. 47-49).

When the authors read A Further Appraisal, they were of

course deeply concerned. Were they guilty of “using
quotations out of their true setting,” “distortion of facts,”
producing a “manuscript that is detrimental to the church”?
This called for earnest prayer, for heart-searching, and for
further study of the Ellen White sources they had used and a
search for others.
Accordingly in September 1958, while they were again on
furlough in America, they prepared a 70-page reply, An
Answer to “Further Appraisal,” which dealt with each point
raised. Unable to do research in the Ellen White Vault, they
had gained access to private collections of many hitherto
unpublished Ellen White documents in the libraries of retired
ministers who had known Ellen White personally. This newly
discovered documentation in support of their thesis was
included in their Answer. Appraisal was withdrawn and no
longer became available to the field.33

32
The original report of the Defense Literature Committee had said rather the opposite: “The
Manuscript gives every evidence of earnest, diligent, and painstaking effort.”

248
 1962

During another four years, church members continued to

ask serious questions. Appraisal had said in 1958 that “it was
thought that the [1951] report of [the Defense Literature
Committee] seven years ago had closed the matter” (p. 3).
But it would seem that providence was not willing to close off
the 1888 interest. The Holy Spirit must keep it alive until
repentance comes.
In 1962 a book about 1888 was published by N. F. Pease,
By Faith Alone. The foreword by the General Conference
president stated:

The 1888 General Conference session, and

the discussion of justification by faith at that
meeting, have been variously commented upon
by a number of persons, especially in recent
months. It has even been suggested by a few—
entirely erroneously—that the Seventh-day
Adventist Church has gone astray in failing to
grasp this great fundamental Christian
teaching. This book sets the record straight (p .
vii) .

Dr. Pease is a very competent and careful scholar, and

the General Conference appreciated his work. But there are
problems with his book due to a failure to view the entire
1888 era in balance:
(a) The book almost completely fails to recognize the
1888 message for what it was in fact—the “beginning” of the
latter rain and loud cry, a message sent to prepare a people
for translation.
(b) Repeatedly the 1888 message is referred to as merely
“the doctrine of justification by faith” or “the doctrine of
righteousness by faith,” equated with popular Protestant
teaching. It even asserts that the 1888 messengers obtained
it from the popular Protestant churches of that day (pp. 338,
139). But they said they obtained it from the Bible alone (cf.
33
One example of how Appraisal supported the acceptance theory is its use of a single sentence
excerpt from Letter 40, 1893: “We stood on the field of battle for nearly three years, but at that time
decided changes took place among our people, and through the grace of God we gained decided
victories” (Appraisal, p. 44). In 1983 the entire letter was released by the Ellen White Truetees so that
the context could be seen (Release #966). The one-sentence excerpt occurs in a discussion of the use
of cheese, how Dr. Kellogg bought an entire stock of cheese offered for sale at a camp meeting
grocery, and how principles of health reform gained acceptance among our people. The context
contains nothing relevant to the 1888 message or its reception.

249
GCB 1893, p. 359). We look in vain in the contemporary
writings of popular Protestant theologians for the unique
elements that constitute the 1888 message.
(c) This raises the question, If the Protestant churches of
the 1800’s possessed the essence of our 1888 message, how
could it be “the third angel’s message in verity”? Where is
the uniqueness of a Seventh-day Adventist evangel?
(d) The Seventh-day Adventist Church is represented as
becoming “more evangelical with the passing years,”
enjoying a “crescendo of emphasis on justification by faith
during the past forty years” (Pease, pp. 227, 239, 240). The
question remains—what kind of “justification by faith” is
this? Is it popular Protestantism, or is it the 1888 message?
(e) The book raises an anomaly. It is stated that “we”
have “preserved for the denomination the spiritual emphasis
of the revival movement of that [1890’s] decade,” and yet,
strangely, “the revival of the nineties died away” (pp. 164,
177). Here is a discouraging implication. Logically this view
implicitly denies the prophecy of Revelation 18:1-4. When
the loud cry message is truly accepted by the leadership of
the church, it can never “die away,” but is prophetically
destined to “lighten the earth with glory.” This is the
grandest scene of the world’s prophetic future. The fact that
the “revival” of the 1890’s “died away” is itself the clearest
evidence that the loud cry message was not truly accepted
by the church leadership. This must be clarified, or we face
the terrible prospect that all genuine revival likewise is
doomed to “die away” even if the message is accepted. Can
Revelation 18:1-4 never be fulfilled?
Questions from church members continued to come.

1966

Another book about 1888 appeared, by A. V. Olson,

General Conference vice-president. His sudden death on
April 5, 1963 left his “virtually completed” manuscript in the
hands of the White Estate board, who published his 320-
page book in 1966 under the title, Through Crisis to Victory,
1888-1901.
Sincere and deeply earnest, the author again intended to
combat “misleading conclusions” regarding 1888. The
foreword tells the reader that “the thirteen years between
Minneapolis, 1888, and the General Conference session of
1901 were ... a period over which Providence could spell out

250
the word victory” (p. 7). But again, there are serious
problems:
(a) Those thirteen years were not marked by victory but
by outstanding unfaithfulness in administration at the church
headquarters. There were prophetic demands for
reformation and reorganization, and eventual judgments
from the Lord in disastrous fires at the Battle Creek
Sanitarium and the Review and Herald Publishing
Association. This came after the “victory” date of 1901. Ellen
White’s multitudinous letters from Australia during that
period indicate anything but “progressive years” if
spirituality and fidelity are important and if the 1888
message and experience are the criterion.
(b) The book tries to establish a legal basis for proving
that the 1888 message was not “officially rejected” because
“no action whatever was taken by vote of the delegates to
accept it or to reject it” (p. 36). While it is true that there is
no “official” record of a negative vote at Minneapolis, the
fact is that a vote was taken and the official Bulletin of 1893
speaks of it. Ellen White also confirms it.
Several definite references to a vote of rejection occur
thus:

What did the brethren in the fearful position

in which they stood, reject at Minneapolis?
They rejected the latter rain-the loud cry of the
third angel’s message (p. 183).
Some of those ... stood so openly against
that at that time [“the Minneapolis meeting”],
and voted with uplifted hand against it (p.
244).
Whether the creed is drawn up in actual
writing, or whether it is somebody’s idea that
they want to pass off by a vote in a General
Conference, it makes no difference.... And there
are people here who remember a time-four
years ago; and a place—Minneapolis—when
three direct efforts were made to get such a
thing as that fastened upon the third angel’s
message, by a vote in a General Conference.
What somebody believed—set that up as the
landmarks, and then vote to stand by the
landmarks, whether you know what the
landmarks are or not; and then go ahead and

251
 agree to keep the commandments of God, and a
lot of other things that you are going to do, and
that was to be passed off as justification by
faith (p. 265).

As we have seen, Ellen White herself mentions a vote of

rejection, but her reference to it is deleted in the recent
publication of Ms. 24, 1888 in Book Three of Selected
Messages (p. 176). Her Ms. 15, 1888 (Olson, pp. 294-302) is
largely concerned with the wrongness of the brethren’s
trying to ram through such a vote.
In defiance of history, there are at least six modem
published denials of a vote being taken: Testimonies to
Ministers, preface by the White Estate, p. xxiv; Through
Crisis to Victory, p. 36; Movement of Destiny, pp. 233, 370;
The Lonely Years, pp. 395, 396; The Faith That Saves, p. 41.
It is reasonable to ask why, after “three direct efforts” to
get a rejection vote recorded, the attempt failed. Why was
nothing recorded? The answer is clear from the same 1893
Bulletin. All alone, Ellen White refused to let the vote go into
the minutes:

Were we not told at that time that the angel

of God said, “Do not take that step; you do not
know what is in that”? “I can’t take time to tell
you what is in that, but the angel has said, Do
not do it.” The papacy was in it. That was what
the Lord was trying to tell us, to get us to
understand.... Is there anybody in this house
who was there at that time that cannot see now
what that was back there? (p. 265).

Thus the only reason the vote was not recorded is that
Ellen White wisely forbade it. Clearly, the delegates intended
to pass such a vote of rejection. It would have passed
overwhelmingly because she declared at Minneapolis that
“the spirit and influence of the ministers generally who have
come to this meeting is to discard light” (Letter B21, 1888);
“our ministering brethren ... are here only to shut out the
Spirit of God from the people” (Ms. 9,1888, Olson, p. 291);
and “at this meeting, ... opposition, rather than investigation,
is the order of the day” (Ms. 15, 1888, Olson, p. 301). Such a
recorded vote would have been virtual denominational
suicide. Thank God she saved us from ourselves!

252
 Pease acknowledges the force of the nearly total
opposition: “It is probably safe to say that Waggoner and
Jones would not have stood a chance without her support”
(The Faith That Saves, p. 41). Without her direct support for
them, the 1888 General Conference session would have
officially voted to condemn their message.
(c) Olson minimizes the impact of the 1888 opposition by
referring to a mere “twenty-three workers ... involved in it
one way or another.... To suggest that there was wholesale
collusion and organized opposition is not correct” (p. 84).
Again we have a conflict with what the inspired messenger
said in many statements. This also contradicts the
eyewitness reports of C. C. McReynolds and R. T. Nash (see
chapter 15).
(d) The book concludes with a painful, discouraging
dilemma. The leadership and the ministry are faithful, the
laity are not: “Adventist pastors and evangelists have
announced this vital truth from church pulpits and public
platforms, with hearts aflame with love for Christ.” But “to
many church members the message of righteousness by
faith has become a dry theory.... They have neglected the
light.... They have failed.... Their poor souls are naked and
destitute.... They will soon be rejected by their Lord” (pp.
238, 239; emphasis added). The logical end of this thesis is
the Roman Catholic concept of a faithful hierarchy and an
unfaithful laity.
When “the angel of the church,” its leadership, responds
to Christ’s last-day call, God’s “people shall be willing in the
day of [His] power” (Psalm 110:3). A faithful ministry and an
unfaithful laity is an indictment not only of God’s people
today, but of all sacred history, and offers no hope for the
future other than an unfaithful people always resisting a
faithful hierarchy. This cannot be and will not be.

1969

Soon Norval F. Pease published a sequel to By Faith

Alone, entitled The Faith That Saves (1969). Its principal
concern again is 1888. There are more problems:
(a) Again we find an evasion of any recognition of the
eschatalogical significance of the 1888 message as the
beginning of the loud cry of Revelation 18. Instead, the
author represents it as “the common heritage of the
Protestant groups,” “old light in its proper context,” a mere

253
 “new emphasis on justification,” “the same everlasting
gospel by which Christians have been saved in all ages” (pp.
25, 39, 45, 54). There seems no recognition of a unique truth
constituting the “third angel’s message in verity,” no
concept of its special relation to the cleansing of the
sanctuary.
(b) Again we are told that “the [1888] delegation was
divided three ways,” implying that opposition was not
serious. Rebutting those who say “that the ‘denomination’
rejected righteousness by faith in 1888,”34 the author relies
on the assumption that no vote recorded means that “no
official action was taken on the subject,” and that “most of
those who failed to see the light in 1888 repented of their
blindness and gave enthusiastic support” (p. 41). Evidence
for that “enthusiastic support” is lacking.
Again we are reminded of Ellen White’s plaintive letter to
her nephew on November 5, 1892, well after the principal
leaders’ confessions had come in, saying that “not one” of
the initial rejectors had “come to the light” and discerned
the message (Letter B2a, 1892). Pease elsewhere recognizes
that at the end of the decade no “Elisha” was preaching the
message effectively except Jones, Waggoner, and Ellen
White (By Faith Alone, p. 164). Where was their supposed
support?
(c) Seeking to rebut the present authors’ suggestion that
the church “republish the writings of Waggoner and Jones so
we might have the benefit of their teaching,” Pease declares
“that there was nothing said by Waggoner and Jones” that
Ellen White did not say “better.... Ellen White was able to
present this same everlasting gospel with a beauty and
clarity that none of her contemporaries were able to equal”
(p. 53).
This raises a serious question: Why did the Lord send the
1888 messengers if they could not present the message
properly? Would He not have been wiser to appoint Ellen
White as the agent of the latter rain and the herald of the
loud cry message? Sacred history demonstrates that the
Lord always chooses messengers for a reason.
Ellen White never regarded Jones’ and Waggoner’s
message as superfluous; she endorsed it nearly 300 times in
language unsurpassed for enthusiasm, and clearly supported
34
Who these are is not clear. The authors of 1888 Re-examined have never declared that “the
denomination” rejected the beginning of the latter rain. They have only cited Ellen White evidence that
the leadership rejected it, and “in a great degree” kept it away from the church at large so that “the
denomination” never had a proper chance to accept it (cf. 1 SM 234, 235).

254
 them as especially “appointed,” “delegated,” “credentialed”
by the Lord to do a work that she was not called to do.35
The 1888 messengers’ books are based on the Bible
alone (e.g., Christ and His Righteousness, The Gospel in
Creation, The Glad Tidings, The Consecrated Way to
Christian Perfection, which use no Ellen White statements).
Their message was a beautiful demonstration of the power
inherent in a pure Scripture message of righteousness by
faith. To denigrate it thus implies logically a disregard of
Ellen White’s endorsements.
(d) Our author concludes with an endorsement of the
1926 Milwaukee General Conference messages as more
important that those of 1888. They are strong evidence that
the 1888 message had been accepted, he says:

It is my firm conviction that it would be well

to give less emphasis to 1888 and more
emphasis to 1926. In fact, the General
Conference of 1926 was what 1888 might have
been, had there been greater unanimity on the
meaning of the gospel. Some have suggested
that the denomination should go on record in
some specific way, acknowledging the mistakes
of 1888. No more positive evidence of spiritual
growth and maturity could be presented than
the sermons of 1926 (p. 59).

But in fact, this view would logically plunge the church

into confusion. Note what it entails: (1) The 1926 messages
35
Some who say they accept “righteousness by faith” maintain that we do not need the “most
precious message” that “the Lord . . . sent . . .through Elders Waggoner and Jones,” because we
possess Ellen White’s writings. But there are problems with this position: (a) The church in 1888 also
possessed her writings, and even more than we have today—they enjoyed her personal presence. (b)
She says her writings are “the lesser light” to lead us to “the greater light,” the Bible. Therefore she
says nothing about righteousness by faith that is not better said in the Bible. (c) Further, it would
follow logically that we do not need the New Testament, because both Jesus and Paul derived their
understandings of righteousness by faith only from the Old Testament; and no one can deny that they
understood it. (d) It would also follow that we do not need even the Major or Minor Prophets, because
Abraham was “justified by faith” and became “the father of the faithful” when he knew nothing beyond
Genesis 1-11.

This of course is absurd. The only logical conclusion we can come to is that we need all the light that
the Lord sees fit to send us. Ellen White never claimed that she was sent to proclaim the latter rain or
loud cry message, but she recognized it in the Jones and Waggoner presentations. It is impossible to
accept Ellen White genuinely and not accept her endorsements of the 1888 message as proclaimed by
Jones and Waggoner during the time of her endorsements.

255
were greater and more important than those of 1888; yet (2)
unlike 1888, the “greater unanimity on the meaning of the
gospel” in 1926 meant that there was no opposition as there
was in 1888; (3) over 60 years have dragged by since 1926,
when Ellen White declares that had the 1888 message been
accepted, the gospel commission could have been
completed within a few years (GCB 1893, p. 419). (4) This
understanding of 1926 would tell us therefore that “greater
unanimity” and acceptance of the message bring no
successful completion of the gospel commission. Could
anything be more discouraging?
The fact is that the righteousness by faith taught in the
1926 messages as recorded in the General Conference
Bulletin of that year is not the essential truths of the 1888
message. The same thing happened as later in 1952. Those
messages were inspired by “the victorious life” enthusiasm
of the Sunday School Times and other prominent Protestant
leaders’ theological doctrines of the day. This is why no
lasting revival and reformation could follow either the 1926
session or the 1952 conference.
We turn now to the most significant developments of an
entire century in the growing concern about 1888.

256
 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

FROM 1971 TO 1987 AND

BEYOND
Some 700 pages had by now been published in attempts
to deny the need of denominational repentance for 1888.
Another 700 pages came in 1971, Movement of Destiny, by
L. E. Froom. According to the author, “no volume in our
history has ever had such magnificent pre-publication
support” (p. 8). When first published, 1500 copies were sent
out as gifts to church leaders around the world. The acclaim
accorded it make it obviously the most authoritative word on
1888:

Initiated and commissioned by former

General Conference president A. G. Daniells
back in 1930, as the search went on it was
approved by five General Conference
presidents in succession, and many
consultants.... It was read critically by some
sixty of our ablest scholars-specialists in
denominational history and Adventist theology.
By experts in the Spirit of prophecy. By key

257
 Bible teachers, editors, mass communication
men, scientists, physicians (p. 8).

Thus it is evident that Movement of Destiny represents

the summum bonum pronouncement of the General
Conference and responsible church leadership on the issue
of 1888. The author assures his readers of his utmost fidelity
in response to A. G. Daniells’ charge,

with special emphasis upon the

developments of “1888” and its sequel. He
urged that I set forth the results in a
comprehensive portrayal—one that would honor
God and exalt truth, ... both complete and
forthright, and documented for serious
worldwide worker study.... Daniells admonished
me to be fair and faithful to fact,
comprehensive and impartial in treatment, and
to present the full picture in balance ... [and]
avoid any superficial type of treatment.... A
true and trustworthy picture was imperative.
Truth, he insisted, is never honored by shading
or shielding.... Plumb the depths, ... record
faithfully (p. 17, 18).

Other “veteran leaders” urged him

to answer certain puzzling questions ... And

above all to be faithful to fact and unswerving
in fidelity to the full truth, ... to get to the
bottom of the fads, to reveal the resultant
findings, and to be candid and undeviating in
my presentations (p. 22).

Movement of Destiny represents a vast amount of labor,

written by the most prestigious historical scholar in the
church. He was blessed by God with many rich talents. His
monumental volumes on the history of prophetic
interpretation and conditionalism are awesome contributions
to the literature of the Adventist movement. However,
according to at least one reviewer, his last book is not
“dependable history” (Seminary Studies, Andrews University,
January 1972, p. 121).
There are serious problems:

258
 (a) It takes the opposite view of the 1888 history from
that of Daniells’ book, Christ Our Righteousness, and yet it
was Daniells who commissioned it. The contrast is readily
seen in the two following excerpts:

The epochal Minneapolis Session stands out

like a mountain peak, towering above all other
sessions in uniqueness and importance. It was
a distinct turning point.... It introduced a new
epoch.... 1888 therefore came to mark the
beginning of a new note and new day.... 1888
was not a point of defeat but a turn in the tide
for ultimate victory.... The 1888 ... battle [was]
hard fought and the victory dearly won (Froom,
pp. 187, 191).
The message has never been received, nor
proclaimed, nor given free course as it should
have been in order to convey to the church the
measureless blessings that were wrapped
within it.... Back of the opposition is revealed
the shrewd plotting of that master mind of evil,
the enemy of all righteousness, ... to neutralize
the message.... How terrible must be the
results of any victory of his in defeating it
(Daniells, pp. 47, 53, 54).

(b) No one has been able to see any of Froom’s collected

“affidavits” supposedly attesting leadership acceptance of
the message, for to date they are still unavailable for study.
Our author tells us that they were provided by the “actual
participants in the 1888 Minneapolis Conference,” “recitals
[that] have been held in trust since 1930,” “signed
declarations, written out in the spring of 1930” (pp. 8, 237,
238).
But in the two chapters featuring these “affirmations”
(pp. 237-268), not once is the reader permitted to see even
one of them. And three “eyewitness” reports that are in
existence are not quoted. They contradict his thesis. Thus we
are told on the authority of invisible witnesses that the 1888
message was accepted by the church leadership, while three
visible eyewitnesses say the opposite. (We, will cite them in
a moment.)
The “affirmations” were provided by “some twenty-six
able and representative men and women who were actual

259
 participants, observers, or recorders at the crucial
Minneapolis Session of ‘88” (p. 239). Of the total number
provided, only 13 were by persons actually in attendance, so
that there could only be 13 “eyewitnesses.” Careful count
indicates that 64 references are made to these 26 persons
and their letters or interviews. One is mentioned 14 times.
But the inscrutable mystery is why the author, after
making such impressive claims, does not allow them to
speak. With one exception, not a single sentence is quoted
from any of the entire 64 references, eyewitnesses or
otherwise.
Reason demands that testimonies said to prove so much
be made visible in support of the claim. Froom states
categorically in his italics, “There was no denomination-wide,
or leadership-wide rejection, these witnesses insisted” (p.
256). And then we are left without a single sentence from
any one of them that supports that statement.
There is not a court or jury in the free world that would
accept this kind of inference without evidence. And when
supposed evidence so obviously contradicts the testimony of
Ellen White, Seventh-day Adventist church members should
very earnestly demand that they be permitted to see such
evidence.36
36
Dr. Froom wrote to the present authors on December 4, 1964, before the publication of his
Movement of Destiny, demanding a retraction of the positions they had taken in 1888 Re-examined.
We were required to “make a public and published disavowal . . . of certain conclusions advanced by
you [that is, that the 1888 leadership rejected the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry]. . . .
Ere long the full, documented story of the 1888 episode will doubtless be put into print. And unless you
have modified your presentation, you may find yourself in a most unenviable position. The contrast will
be marked.” On April 16, 1965 he wrote to us further: “In my view, you had better act first, and
without much delay. . . . Your contention . . . stands out like a sore thumb, conspicuously alone, and in
conflict with the virtually unanimous verdict of our scholars. . . . You have a lot of temerity to
contradict the findings of this whole group of men. . . . I . . . feel . . . no obligation to share any further
evidence with you. . . . Your unhappy plight makes me think of Elijah’s situation. . . . He sharply
disagreed with the historians and the experts in Israel about the situation. He was right, he felt, and
they were all wrong. He only was loyally left, and was maligned and persecuted because of his claims
and conclusions. . . . Elijah thus actually defamed and vilified Israel, and gave a misleading and
blackening report. He bore an untrue witness, casting aspersion upon Israel and its leadership [Ahab
and Jezebel?]. . . . You should cease, retreat, and retract.” He claimed that he spoke with the authority
of the General Conference behind him, as indeed their unprecedented endorsement of his book soon
demonstrated.

One of us replied on May 10, 1965: “To retract on the basis of fear without inspired evidence would
hardly . . . be the right thing . . . to do. . . . The Lord has never asked a man to do such a thing. In fact,
a man can very well ruin his soul by yielding to a pressure of fear and anxiety, and cravenly retracting,
without evidence, what he has held in good conscience.” On November 10, 1965, the same author
wrote to Dr. Froom: “I have repeated my willingness to retract if you will let me see clear evidence
from the Spirit of Prophecy. You have categorically refused to let me see such evidence . . . . It seems
strange to me and to others that you should demand I ‘retract’ while at the same time you deny me
evidence which you say you have in unpublished Ellen G. White material that would require of an

260
 One of the 26 letters referred to (p. 248) had always
existed in the White Estate files. The five- page letter written
by C. C. McReynolds (1853-1937) entitled “Experiences
While at the General Conference in Minneapolis, Minn. in
1888” is indexed as “D File 189.” The letter closes with these
two sentences:

I am sorry for anyone at the Conference in

Minneapolis in 1888 who does not recognize
that there was opposition and rejection of the
message that the Lord sent to His people at
that time. It is not too late yet to repent and
receive a great blessing.

R. T. Nash’s “Eyewitness Report of the 1888 General

Conference” is also available. Likewise, it presents evidence
in rather straight-forward language:

The writer of this tract, then a young man,

was present at that conference meeting [1888],
and saw and heard many of the various things
that were done and said in opposition to the
message then presented.... When Christ was
lifted up as the only hope of the church, and of
all men, the speakers met a united opposition
from nearly all the senior ministers. They tried
to put a stop to this teaching by Elders
Waggoner and Jones. They wanted the
discussion of this subject to cease.

A third “eyewitness” report is also in the Ellen White

Vault, written by A. T. Jones: “All the time in the General
Conference Committee and amongst others there was a
secret antagonism always carried on, and which ... finally
gained the day in the denomination, and gave to the
Minneapolis spirit and contention and men the supremacy”
(Letter to Claude Holmes, May 12, 1921).

honest conscience such a retraction. . . . My prayer is that in the final outcome of this matter [God’s]
name be honored.”

When Movement of Destiny appeared in print, the documentary “evidence” was completely absent.

261
 None of these eyewitness statements found its way into
Movement of Destiny. Instead, the reader is constantly
assured that invisible “affidavits” say the opposite.

The “Peerless Witness”

(c) Froom devotes two chapters to the idea that Ellen

White stands supreme in assessing 1888 (pp. 443-464). Her
writings “particularly since 1888” should settle “for every
reasonable mind” questions concerning this history (p. 444,
emphasis original). This is eminently true. But in eleven
pages devoted to her witness (443-453) there is not one
quotation from her pen to support his premise.
(d) In the next chapter (pp. 454-464) is a list of over 200
items taken from her writings of 1888- 1901, which he says
“forms the undergirding for the over-all presentation of this
volume” (p. 456). But careful reading of the “titles” year by
year yields a surprise. They have no specific connection with
captions of published articles, but are solely the comments
of the author to suit his thesis.
(e) Beginning on page 221 and continuing for 12 pages,
there is an array of isolated words and phrases from Ellen
White, again with no source given. Over 100 fragmentary
words or phrases and half-sentences leave out vital
meaningful portions, omitting contextual information which
would give quite a different meaning and would nullify the
“victory” theory. Words and phrases from her Minneapolis
sermons are surrounded and smothered with the author’s
interjections, leaving Ellen White’s real message
indiscernible.
(f) Of the “hundreds of priceless source documents” said
to have been obtained from an array of sterling contributors,
not one is used to support the thesis. And yet the book
contains 700 pages.
(g) Even if the “affidavits” were available (which they are
not), to cite the opinions of sincere brethren who say they
thought that the 1888 message was accepted does not
prove that it was. A century of history indicates that the
latter rain was not accepted, in spite of these supposed
claims that it was. But Froom and the other authors cited
would pit uninspired observers against the inspired
testimony of one who exercised the gift of prophecy. Even a
thousand uninspired “acceptance” testimonials can not

262
successfully negate one inspired testimony from the Lord’s
messenger.
(h) As with Olson’s book, Froom exonerates the ministers
and the post-1888 leadership and blames the laity for
delaying the finishing of the gospel commission: “The Holy
Spirit—ready, willing, and able—could not do His allotted
work because of the unpreparedness of the membership” (p.
582). “What now remains is entrance of His people into full
provision of God for the finishing of the Great Commission”
(p. 613).
In fact, what now remains is a leadership acceptance of
the message, for it was leadership rejection of the message
of the loud cry, says Ellen White, that was the initial cause of
the long delay (cf. 1 SM 234, 235).
(i) The reader is told that she “rejoiced in the growing
acceptance” of the 1888 message (p. 605), and that “the
nineties were marked by a succession of powerful revivals,”
and “tremendous gains” (p. 264). We must look at an
interesting example of the contrast between what she
actually said and Froom’s portrayal of the post-1888 General
Conference leadership.
He rightly says that “the leading post-1888 mold on the
Movement was, of course, largely given by the incoming
General Conference president. We must consequently look
chiefly to him for determinative evidence.” In other words,
the attitude of Elder O. A. Olsen as General Conference
president will “chiefly” determine the truth of the message
being accepted or rejected by the church leadership. This is
true. We continue with Froom:

Now, the record of [O. A.] Olsen’s spiritual

leadership is clear and loyal.... Olsen seemed to
sense the spiritual bearings of the question at
issue, and gave quiet but effective leadership
to their solution....
The years of Olsen’s administration saw a
real revival and reformation, ... a time of
awakening from Laodicean self-satisfaction ...
through the growing acceptance of the
message of Righteousness by Faith....
So it cannot, with any show of right, be said
that Olsen personally rejected or subdued the
message of Righteousness by Faith, or led or
aided or abetted in such a direction....

263
 Clearly, Olsen did not reject the message
(pp. 354-358).

Froom offers no Ellen White evidence to support these

statements. The reader merely assumes that such emphatic
statements are backed up somewhere by inspired evidence.
Such is totally lacking in his book, the reason being that such
does not exist in her writings. This is something that the
“sixty of our ablest scholars” who endorsed the book did not
notice.

Ellen White’s View of the Post-1888 Leadership

We must now consider in contrast what Ellen White said

in retrospect, eight years after president Olsen took office:

I feel very sorry for Brother Olsen.... He has

not acted upon the light given. The case is a
mysterious one.... Notwithstanding the light
which has been placed before him for years in
regard to this matter, he has ventured on,
directly contrary to the light which the Lord has
been giving him. All this confuses his spiritual
discernment, and places him in a relation to the
general interest, and wholesome, healthy
advancement of the work, as an unfaithful
watchman. He is pursuing a course which is
detrimental to his spiritual discernment, and he
is leading other minds to view matters in a
perverted light. He has given unmistakable
evidence that he does not regard the
testimonies which the Lord has seen fit to give
His people, as worthy of respect, or as of
sufficient weight to influence his course of
action (Letter, August 27, 1896, to A. O. Tait).

Froom’s contradiction of her is alarming, especially in

light of the official support that his book enjoys. Ellen White’s
context is crystal clear:

I am distressed beyond any words my pen

can trace. Unmistakably Elder Olsen has acted
as did Aaron, in regard to these men who have
been opposed to the work of God ever since the

264
 Minneapolis meeting. They have not repented
of their course of action in resisting light and
evidence....
The disease at the heart of the work poisons
the blood, and thus the disease is
communicated to the bodies they [General
Conference leadership] visit ( ibid.).

Ellen White did not go behind Elder Olsen’s back; she had
earlier written him the same things on November 26, 1894.
Again she wrote him on May 31, 1896:

I have communications which have been

written for one and two years, but I have felt
that for your sake they ought to be withheld
until some one could stand by your side who
could clearly distinguish Bible principles from
principles of human manufacture, and who,
with sharp discernment could separate the
strangely perverted, human imaginations,
which have been working for years, from things
of divine origin....
Brother Olsen, you speak of my return to
America. For three years I stood in Battle Geek
as a witness for the truth [1888-1891]. Those
who then refused to receive the testimony
given me by God for them, and rejected the
evidences attending these testimonies, would
not be benefited should I return....
To a large degree the General Conference
Association has lost its sacred character,
because some connected with it have not
changed their sentiments in any particular
since the Conference held at Minneapolis....
I have been shown that the people at large
do not know that the heart of the work is being
diseased and corrupted at Battle Creek.37

Ellen White later wrote to I. H. Evans saying that her only

regret was that she had entrusted vital communications to
president Olsen instead of sending out testimonies to the
37
These documents were placed in Dr. Froom’s hands on February 21, 1965, before he published his
book and receipt acknowledged. They were also placed in the hands of General Conference leadership
in 1973 before they republished it. One General Conference president has withdrawn his endorsement
from the revised edition.

265
field that the people themselves might know what was going
on in Battle Creek. Elder Olsen had “rejected” the trust
placed with him, according to the autographed copy of the
letter in the White Estate file (Letter E51, 1897). In another
autographed carbon copy in a private collection, she crossed
out the word “rejected” and wrote in her own handwriting,
“neglected.” What was the mysterious reason that motivated
this continued official resistance/neglect of the Holy Spirit?
It will be recalled that Froom sets forth the high ethical
standard he was to follow, mandated by Daniells. His book
was to be “one that would honor God and exalt truth” (p.
17):

Regrettable Ploy of Reconstructed History.—

History has sometimes been reconstructed by
attempted selectivity—that is, by using out of
context or intent such citations as suit an
objective— in an attempt to sustain a particular
assumption or theory. But such a practice is
neither ethical nor honest.... As men of
integrity, we must have no part in such
manipulation of historical episodes. Servants of
the God of truth must ever use quotations,
evidence, and lines of argument in such a way
as to honor Truth and its Author (pp. 364, 365).

This of course is beyond dispute. Nothing is gained by

expressing criticism of Dr. Froom’s work. But we can all learn
a lesson in contrition. Multitudes of Christians in popular
churches place undue reliance on preconceived judgments
that cannot endure the test of truth. How can we Seventh-
day Adventists help them unless we ourselves are loyal to
truth, even at the cost of personal sacrifice or reputation?

1972

Dr. Froom had charged the authors of this manuscript to

retract publicly their insistence that the leadership rejected
the 1888 message. His demand was openly recognized as
directed specifically to these present authors (Seminary
Studies, Andrews University, January, 1972, p. 121). It reads
as follows:

266
 An explicit confession is due the Church
today by promulgators of a misleading charge,
first of all against the names of the post-1888
leadership, now all sleeping. Moreover, it is
likewise due those in the Church today who
have been confused and misled by such an
allegation. In the ultimate, then, it actually
constitutes an impeachment of the dead. That
is a gravely serious matter (p. 358).

The authors were duty-bound to respond to such an

official demand from Adventism’s most noted scholar,
especially when endorsed by the General Conference
officers. In late 1972 they prepared their essay entitled, “An
Explicit Confession ... Due the Church. “ They reiterated their
conviction that the facts of our history constitute a clarion
call to corporate and denominational repentance. Copies
were personally delivered to General Conference officers,
who urged that it not be published, and called a series of
special committee hearings in Takoma Park to consider the
evidence, which meetings took place over a period of several
years. The officers and the committees considered the Ellen
White evidence and were impressed by it, but again urged
that Explicit Confession not be published. Then after
suppressing Explicit Confession they republished Movement
of Destiny with no change in its basic thesis.
Two significant developments in particular grew out of
this aroused interest in the 1888 history.

1973-1974

For two years following these special committees, the

Annual Councils issued very serious appeals to the world
church, calling for revival, reformation, and repentance.
There was an unusual earnestness and solemnity evident in
them. However, candor requires us to recognize that the
results have been disappointing.
Committee appeals have seldom been effective in
producing revival or reformation among either the ministry
or the laity, because administrative policy can never effect
reconciliation with Christ. However, in these Annual Council
appeals there was a serious misreading of the fads of our
denominational history, which logically defeated the
objectives of the appeals. The problem appears on the

267
surface to be minor, but it is significant. We quote from the
1973 Appeal:

In the four years following the historic

Minneapolis General Conference, the fresh,
compelling emphasis on “righteousness by
faith” had aroused the Adventist Church in
such a way that Ellen White could say that the
“loud cry” had begun! (emphasis added).

The error here is not one of semantics. Ellen White never

said that the 1888 message “aroused the Adventist Church.”
She said the opposite: “Satan succeeded in shutting away
from our people, in a great measure, the special power of
the Holy Spirit” (1 SM 234, 235). The message was never
allowed to arouse the church.
But that is not the most serious problem of logic in this
Appeal. There is a failure to identify correctly what was the
“loud cry.” We mention this, not to find fault with sincere and
earnest endeavors, but because the hour is too late to afford
the same error again.
The “beginning” of the latter rain and the loud cry was
not a subjective revival that supposedly “aroused the
Adventist Church;” it was the objective message itself. This
is evident even in the Ellen White statement quoted in the
Appeal:

The loud cry of the third angel has already

begun in the revelation of the righteousness of
Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer. This is the
beginning of the light of the angel whose glory
shall fill the whole earth. (RH November 22,
1892; emphasis added).

Why this is so important can be readily seen:

(a) If the beginning of the loud cry was the “arousal” of
the church, its dying out so soon becomes very bad news. It
implies that a genuine revival is more elusive than a cure for
cancer, and that when the Holy Spirit is allowed to work (as
is supposed in the 1890's), He Himself gets tired and
abandons the revival. Why should an “aroused church fail to
give the loud cry and finish the Lord’s commission?
(b) But if the “beginning” of the loud cry is faithfully
recognized for what it was in fact, the 1888 message itself,

268
immediately we have hope, for we can recover and proclaim
the objective message as it is recorded in the existent
sources. The power of the Holy Spirit is manifested in “the
truth of the gospel” (Galatians 2: 14; Romans 1:16).
However, the Annual Councils of 1973 and 1974 did
nothing practical and effective to recover and promulgate
the 1888 message itself. Rather, they inadvertently ensured
that the vacuum would be filled with an infusion of Calvinist
“Reformationism.” The 1888 message has never been freely
and clearly proclaimed to the world church with full General
Conference support.
The second outgrowth of this 1973-74 interest in 1888
was in consequence of the misunderstanding evident above.
Recognizing that the church needs “righteousness by faith,”
the General Conference convened the Palmdale Conference
in 1976 where certain theologians dominated the discussions
and demanded support for their “Reformationist,” Calvinist
views of “justification by faith.”
They claimed that their views were a true revival of the
1888 message content, when in fact they were a denial of
every basic essential of that “most precious message.” But
their prominence in Australia and North America gave them
wide influence throughout the world field. The general
ignorance of the 1888 essentials plus an antipathy for
“legalism” created the vacuum into which these
“Reformationist” ideas rushed.
Time soon demonstrated how these views are
incompatible with the Adventist truth of the cleansing of the
sanctuary. If the General Conference and our publishing
houses had appreciated the unique content of the 1888
message itself and faithfully published and upheld it, these
views could never have taken deep root in North America,
Europe, Africa, the Far East, and the South Pacific.
Misreading the history of the 1890’s resulted in repeating
that history, with even more tragic consequences. We can
document the loss of hundreds of ministers, and no one
knows how many laity and youth.
There is a root from which these Calvinist views of
righteousness by faith can be traced: the General
Conference and White Estate insistence for decades that the
1888 message was only a re- emphasis of popular Protestant
views. Our theologians in the 1970’s were only building on a
foundation laid for them beginning in the 1920’s.

269
 1984

Yet another publication was to deal with 1888, the

biography of Ellen White, The Lonely Years, 1876-1891, by
Arthur L. White. Elder White’s contribution to the Seventh-
day Adventist Church is beyond an adequate estimate.
During a long and distinguished career he has been an agent
of the Lord in building confidence in the world-wide church in
the Spirit of Prophecy. As the grandson of Ellen White he
enjoys a unique distinction as the foremost authority on her
writings. He is respected world-wide.
In three chapters of this volume he discusses the 1888
history. But first “certain points of background and
developments should be considered” (p. 394). Then follow
14 points, some of which probe to the foundation of our
denominational mission (pp. 394-397). We will note briefly a
few miscellaneous points from this section of the book:
“(1) The subject of righteousness by faith ... was but one
of many pressing matters that called for attention of the
delegates.” Point (10) continues: “It would seem that
disproportionate emphasis has come to be given to the
experience of the Minneapolis General Conference session.
“We would inquire: What is the true eschatalogical
significance of the 1888 message? Is not the beginning of
the latter rain and the loud cry the one matter of paramount
importance?
“(4) While the business of the conference ... was broad
and significant, the feelings and attitudes of those present
were molded by the theological discussions.” Need we point
out that in this lies the significance of the session then, and
its abiding importance for the church now? Unless our
“theological discussions” are sound, our business
administration cannot accomplish the gospel commission
and cannot be blessed.
“(6) Information concerning just what took place at
Minneapolis ... has come largely from the E. G. White
documents and the memory statements of a few who were
present.” Our present dilemma as a people stems from a
failure to give due weight to that inspired perspective
communicated through her ministry, and a disproportionate
reliance on the uninspired opinions of others.
“(7) No official action was taken in regard to the
theological questions discussed.” Thus the oft- repeated
statement implies that no actual responsible rejection took

270
place. As we have previously noted, such votes were taken
“with uplifted hand” (GCB 1893, pp. 244,265)—but not
recorded solely due to Ellen White’s veto.
We note the next statement in full:

(8) The concept that the General

Conference, and thus the denomination,
rejected the message of righteousness by faith
in 1888 is without foundation and was not
projected until forty years after the
Minneapolis meeting, and thirteen years after
Ellen White’s death. Contemporary records
yield no suggestion of denominational
rejection. There is no E. G. White statement
anywhere that says this was so. The concept of
such rejection has been put forward by
individuals, none of whom where present at
Minneapolis, and in the face of the witness of
responsible men who were there (p. 396).

Objective evidence indicates that:

(a) The real issue is the acceptance or rejection of the
latter rain and the loud cry, not the Protestant “doctrine”
that the 1888 rejectors professed to believe.
(b) Ellen White herself at Minneapolis said the message
was being rejected by “the ministers generally who have
come to this meeting;” they “have come to this meeting to
discard light;” “opposition ... is the order of the day” (Letter
B21, 1888; Mss. 9, 15, 1888).
(c) The 1893 Bulletin contains a number of statements of
“contemporaries” who confessed that the message had been
rejected and was being resisted still by the responsible
leadership of the church—this was a mere four years later.
No one raised his voice at the 1893 session to protest that
the message had been accepted or was being accepted. The
1901 Bulletin contains similar statements.
But this is not all. The latest edition of Testimonies to
Ministers has an addition that previous editions lacked—an
“Historical Foreword” and “Appendix Notes” designed to help
the reader avoid the clear conviction that reading Ellen
White’s text brings: “These notes will aid the reader in
ascertaining correctly the intent of the author in the
messages here presented.”

271
 How this works will be seen by an example. On page 468
occurs this clear 1890 statement: “It is the fashion to depart
from Christ.... With many the cry of the heart has been, ‘We
will not have this man to reign over us.’ ... Righteousness by
the faith of the Son of God, has been slighted, spoken
against, ridiculed, and rejected.” The Appendix note cautions
the reader to be careful. Apparently he should not too readily
believe what the text says: “While some took the attitude
here referred to there were many who received the message
and gained a great blessing in their own personal
experience” (p. 533). This directly counters many statements
in the text.
This can only breed dismay among thoughtful church
members who have a right to expect literary integrity, for
they can read the contradicting evidence for themselves in
the full context of Ellen White’s words.
There is another denial of a straightforward Ellen White
statement about the 1888 history. On March 16,1890 she
said, “Christ ... has a blessing for us. He had it at
Minneapolis, and He had it for us at the time of the General
Conference here [1889]. But there was no reception”
(emphasis added). This statement is made available in
Release No. 253, but a footnote counters it: “The wording of
this sentence is clearly faulty for, isolated, it is out of
harmony with what follows and other of her statements
relating to the General Conference of 1889.”
However, the entire document in context clearly supports
this statement as it reads. The context indicates that its
wording cannot be faulty. Always the “some” who accepted
were a few of lesser influence, while those who rejected were
the “many” of influence.
But the matter does not end here. In 1980, Selected
Messages, Book Three, was published with a 33-page
chapter on “The Minneapolis Conference.” Seven pages are
again taken up with additional inserted “Historical
Backgrounds.” Although there was a “tragic setback,” a
“gradual change for the better ... ensued in the five or six
years after Minneapolis” (p. 162). Yet Ellen White’s strongest
testimonies of reproof for post-1888 unbelief are dated
seven or eight years after Minneapolis. (Ellen White’s clear
reference to a negative “vote” taken at Minneapolis is
deleted from her Ms. 24,1888 document that forms the bulk
of the chapter; cf. p. 176).

272
 Again we are reminded that we must all seek the Lord’s
guidance in our search for vital truth. It would seem that
1888 presents a problem unique in the long history of God’s
confrontations with His people. There is a precious truth
involved therein that seems more elusive than any in the
history of past ages. How else could it be possible that
scholars and leaders who possess the most outstanding
opportunities for knowledge in all time should fail to
recognize the obvious evidence? Repentance is incumbent
on all of us; we should all inquire, “Lord, is it I?”
Incidentally, those who are confused about reports of
Ellen White’s occasional literary borrowing would find the
true 1888 history helpful in resolving their doubts. Her
integrity and qualifications as an agent of the gift of
prophecy are uniquely demonstrated in her role in that
history. Without any human help whatever, she threaded her
way unerringly through the theological pitfalls inherent in
that difficult controversy. Her courage in standing alone
against “nearly all the senior ministers” in a General
Conference session is fantastic.
Her extemporaneous sermons were taken down in
shorthand and transcribed for us today. Who else could
preach ten sermons without notes in the emotional heat of
theological battle with every word recorded, plus writing
scores of extant letters and diary entries, and stand clear of
the slightest embarrassment a hundred years later? There is
not an unfortunate word in any of them. Her enthusiastic
endorsement of the message, against great odds, is
miraculously in harmony with the keenest, most competent
theology of today. Never does that little lady stand so tall as
in this 1888 history.

1888 An End-Time Test

How can we explain the almost superhuman official

efforts since 1950 to contradict the inspired Ellen White
evidence about 1888? Could it be that the enemy of the plan
of salvation has a vested interest in covering up this
significant truth? Could it be that knowing the real truth has
a definite bearing on our personal and corporate relationship
to Jesus Christ, and Satan knows this?
Our mishandling of the evidence is more serious than
financial fiascoes. Were our enemies to research this history,
we would be embarrassed. Our poor relation to truth keeps

273
us in an unrepentant, lukewarm Laodicean state. The simple
solution is an honest faith that includes a belief of truth and
an open, contrite recognition of it. The hour is late, but thank
God it is not too late for a new spirit of fidelity.
We have been told that the unfallen universe is watching.
The honor of the Lord Himself is at stake. We know that
someday there must be a people in whose “mouth [is] found
no guile” (Revelation 14:5).
To consider “righteousness by faith” as merely the
Protestant doctrine is to miss the point. Yet this has been the
constant official approach to 1888. An example of far-
reaching spiritual blindness is a quotation from A. W.
Spalding (Origin and History, Vol. 2, p. 281). Note how this
position contradicts the heart of the 1888 message itself:

Justification by faith, the foundation truth of

salvation through Christ, is the most difficult of
all truths to keep in the experience of the
Christian. It is easy of profession, but elusive in
application (quoted in The Lonely Years, p.
415).

No one who understands the 1888 message could

possibly express such a thought, for it contradicts our Lord’s
words that His “yoke is easy, and [His] burden is light”
(Matthew 11:30). If Spalding’s statement is in any way true,
we face a terrible problem. The message of “justification by
faith ... is the third angel’s message in verity” (RH April 1,
1890). So we have the awesome task of proclaiming to the
world “the most difficult of all truths,” the most “elusive in
application’‘—bad news! Yet the third angel’s message is
first of all “the everlasting gospel,” good news which is “the
power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).
It is this distorted understanding of the 1888 message
which makes us “modern ancient Israel.”

“For Our Admonition”

Our history is as much a part of the great sacred record

of the battle between truth and error as is the crossing of the
Red Sea by Israel, and their descendants’ stoning of Stephen
many centuries later. The root fads of our last century’s
history are now beginning to filter through to the world-wide

274
church. The question now is, Will we accept our history, or
will we also “stone Stephen”?
After a century of delay, it is time to see how the cause of
God is imperiled. We have already witnessed the first-fruit of
the 1888 rejection in the “alpha” pantheistic crisis of the
early 1900's. Now we are in the time when the “omega” is
due. The “alpha” was “received even by men who ... had
long experience in the truth, ... those whom we thought
sound in the faith” (Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, p.
37). “The omega will follow, and will be received by those
who are not willing to heed the warning God has given” (No.
2, p. 50). The great controversy continues and the dragon is
wroth with the “woman” and will spare no efforts to win.
We were told in the “alpha” days that the truth would be
discarded; books of a new order would be written; a system
of intellectual philosophy would be introduced; the Sabbath
would be lightly regarded; the leaders would concede that
virtue is better than vice, but they would place their
dependence on human power (cf. Series B, No. 2, pp. 54,
55).
We see these words fulfilled today.
“Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that
build it” (Psalm 127:1). He has told us, “My thoughts are not
your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the
Lord” (Isaiah 55:8). The beginning of the latter rain and the
loud cry was not Madison Avenue strategy and
demographics; it was a clear understanding of good news, an
actual message itself, something which every believer
however humble could employ efficiently.
Inherent in that beautiful, heart-appealing “good news”
message is the experience of the final atonement. The blood
of Christ is to purge the conscience from dead works. The
message is not merely to prepare a people for death, but for
translation, and the power is in the objective message itself.
Billions of dollars spent on the latest electronic and graphics
communications will never lighten the earth with glory until
“the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth”
is wholeheartedly, humbly received and appreciated.
The Lord’s method of true and lasting church growth is
simplicity itself. Note how a true message of righteousness
by faith will be the “light” that will do the work:

We shall all come together to that oneness

in our faith and in our knowledge of the Son of

275
 God; we shall become mature people, reaching
to the very height of Christ’s full stature. Then
we shall no longer be children, carried by the
waves and blown about by every shifting wind
of the teaching of deceitful men, who lead
others into error by the tricks they invent.
Instead, by speaking the truth in a spirit of love
[agape], we must grow up in every way to
Christ, who is the head. Under his control all
the different parts of the body fit together, and
the whole body is held together by every joint
with which it is provided. So when each
separate part works as it should, the whole
body grows and builds itself up through love
[agape] (Ephesians 4:14-16, TEV).

Meanwhile, good angels are commissioned to restrain the

terrible winds of strife that will someday soon break loose.
They are straining their powers to hold back the impending
ruin that comes with drug abuse, alcoholism, sexual
immorality and infidelity, crime, idolatrous materialism,
corruption, and fearful pestilences. The most important work
in the world is the work of that angel who seals the servants
of God preparatory to the coming of Christ (Revelation 7:14).
What little time of peace and prosperity we still have left is
borrowed time, ours only for finishing His work. And world
stability depends on the fidelity of God’s people to the truth,
to their message and their mission.
Something must happen in the end-time that has never
happened before. Millenniums of defeat must be reversed.
This is the only way the cleansing of the sanctuary can be
completed. Daniel’s prophecy declares that it “shall” be
done (8:14). The Lord will purify His church so that it may
give the last message to lighten the earth.
God’s work can be finished in an incredibly short time.
But it will require the repentance of the ages, an
understanding of truth for which, in our imagined prosperity
and success, we have not felt a hunger and thirst. It will
require the correction of theological confusion and a
humbling of hearts. It will require the abandonment of
worldly policies and their man-made strategies. It will
produce a true and lasting unity and harmony among
believers. Discordant “pluralism” will vanish. Every species

276
of legalism will die. Fanaticism will discredit itself and die
away.
Finally, the ultimate experience awaiting the church is
like that which Jesus went through at Gethsemane. Only His
very own will be willing to accept it, but He has staked the
honor of His throne on His confidence that they will.
Facing the cross is what Peter would not accept, until he
was converted. He denied his Lord; only a similar modern
denial of Christ can account for the supreme self-centered
motivation that continually expresses the concern that “I get
to heaven.” It was heaven that Christ forsook with no
assurance that He would ever return—so that sin and death
might be eradicated from the universe. True faith in Him is
not centered on our receiving a reward.
Now the last, the seventh church, is on the scene, and we
are surely in the last moments that can be allotted to her.
There is no eighth.
When His people gladly accept all the truth that He has
for them, they will fulfill the same role that Christ filled when
He was on earth. That “short period of three years was as
long as the world could endure the presence of the
Redeemer” (DA 541).
When the power of Satan is broken among the Lord’s
people, the unbelieving world will not be able longer to
endure their presence. They will have demonstrated true
righteousness by faith, that closer intimacy with the world’s
Saviour that He still offers as He continues knocking at our
door.
How much longer will He knock?

APPENDIX A

277
 DID A. T. JONES TEACH
THE “HOLY FLESH” HERESY?
Attempts are being made to represent A. T. Jones’
message of righteousness by faith as leading into the “holy
flesh” heresy. It is said that he taught this false doctrine as
early as a few months following the 1888 conference. One
example, doubtless based on research at the General
Conference, follows:

There appear to be some striking parallels

between the experience of God’s people around
1888 and our own times. For example,
Waggoner and Jones were used by the Lord in
1888; but even as early as 1889 Jones’s
sermons began to show some drift in the
direction of the “holy flesh” error (Adventist
Review, August 6, 1981).

This charge must be examined carefully. If it is true,

several consequences will immediately follow in many
reasoning and logical minds:
(1) If true, it will discredit the 1888 message. If either
Jones or Waggoner can be blacklisted as teaching heresy or
fanaticism during the 1888 era, the church would be foolish
to give serious attention to their message.
David P. McMahon and Desmond Ford have made the
attempt to discredit Waggoner for this purpose
notwithstanding the repeated endorsements of Ellen White.
In his Documents No. 32 Ford has said that by 1892
Waggoner was no longer a Seventh-day Adventist. McMahon,
in his Ellet Joseph Waggoner The Myth and the Man (Verdict
Publications, Fallbrook, CA, 1979), argues that Waggoner
departed from the Protestant view of justification by faith a
few weeks after the 1888 conference and thereafter taught
the Roman Catholic view. The falseness of these charges has
been exposed by Dr. Leroy Moore in Appendix B of his
Theology in Crisis (1979). Anyone who reads the Jones-
Waggoner writings can readily see this for himself.
(2) If Jones was drifting “as early as 1889 ... in the
direction of the ‘holy flesh’ error,” Ellen White must also be

278
discredited as naive and fanatical. During her long and
distinguished career, she never at any time uttered
endorsements of anyone as repeatedly and as
enthusiastically as she did of Jones’ message and labors from
1888 through 1896.
While it is true that Jones was a human being as prone to
weaknesses as any of us, she would never have endorsed
him so highly if she had entertained the slightest suspicion
that his teaching was “drifting” to a fanaticism as
horrendous as that which afflicted the Indiana Conference at
the turn of the century. It will not help to excuse Ellen White
for endorsing him on the grounds that she was honestly
deceived by him. She exercised the prophetic gift and
claimed heavenly inspiration. There is no way that we can
respect her if she was mistaken about Jones.
(3) The only message that Ellen White ever identified as a
genuine beginning of the Holy Spirit’s gift of the latter rain
and the loud cry is that of the 1888 messengers. If it almost
immediately “drifted” toward the “holy flesh” fanaticism,
how can we trust any similar message that the Holy Spirit
may in future inspire? We can be sure that Satan would like
to dissuade the church from ever again receiving any true
spiritual blessing sent from heaven.
Evidence Concerning the Charge Against Jones

The supposed evidence for the charge is found in

remarks attributed to A. T. Jones in sermons preached at the
Ottawa, Kansas, tent meeting in the spring of 1889. News of
the meeting and notes on the sermons were printed in the
Topeka Daily Capital newspaper. Sermons were not reported
verbatim. They were greatly condensed and typographical
errors are found to be numerous. The incomplete reporting
creates occasional gobbledygook. We turn to a non-Adventist
newspaper that gives evidence of poor journalism in order to
find something to discredit the man who Ellen White said had
“heavenly credentials” in a unique sense and brought us “a
most precious message.” And this we do a century later; yet
even Jones’ determined opponents of that generation did not
do it.
The supposedly heretical remarks in fact reveal no trace
of “holy flesh” fanaticism, but simply assert the possibility of
overcoming sin in character perfection attained through
faith. His statements are reported as follows in the Topeka
newspaper:

279
 It is Christ’s obedience that avails and not
ours that brings righteousness to us. Well then
let us stop trying to do the will of God in our
own strength. Stop it all. Put it away from you
forever. Let Christ’s obedience do it all for you
and gain the strength to pull the bow so that
you can hit the mark....
In the fact that the law demands perfection
lies the hope of mankind, because if it could
overlook a sin to a single degree, no one could
ever be free from sin, as the law would never
make that sin known, and it could never be
forgiven, by which alone man can be saved. The
day is coming when the law will have revealed
the last sin and we will stand perfect before
Him and be saved with an eternal salvation ... It
is a token of His love for us, therefore,
whenever a sin is made known to you, it is a
token of God’s love for you, because the
Saviour stands ready to take it away (May
14,1889).
It is only by faith in Christ that we can say
we are Christians. It is only through being one
with him that we can be Christians, and only
through Christ within us that we keep the
commandments—it being all by faith in Christ
that we do and say these things. When the day
comes that we actually keep the
commandments of God, we will never die,
because keeping the commandments is
righteousness, and righteousness and life are
inseparable—so, “Here are they that keep the
commandments of God and the faith of Jesus,”
and what is the result? These people are
translated. Life, then, and keeping the
commandments go together. If we die now,
Christ’s righteousness will be imputed to us
and we will be raised, but those who live to the
end are made sinless before He comes, having
so much of Christ’s being in them that they “hit
the mark” every time, and stand blameless
without an intercessor, because Christ leaves
the sanctuary sometime before He comes to

280
 earth (May 18, 1889; the newspaper attributes
this sermon to W. C. White).

We note the following:

(a) A careful study of all the Jones sermons reported in
this newspaper fails to disclose any “holy flesh” motif. The
statements that some interpret as showing such a “drift” are
concerned only with character development by faith in
preparation for the second coming of Christ.
(b) At no time in the years following 1889 is there any
record that Jones uttered statements that can be construed
as favoring this heresy. If he taught it in 1889, it would
almost certainly appear again. To proclaim that Christ has
“condemned sin in the flesh” as Paul says is not teaching
“holy flesh.”
(c) The May 18 statement above is the one that has
primarily been regarded as evidence of this fatal “drift.” But
the newspaper report attributes the sermon to W. C. White.
Nevertheless, whoever said it, the teaching is true, and is in
harmony with the Adventist concept of the cleansing of the
sanctuary.
(d) Both Jones and Waggoner strongly refuted the “holy
flesh” fanaticism at the turn of the century. In the Review
and Herald of April 18, 1899 Jones published an article which
discloses the fallacy of that teaching.
From December 11, 1900, through January 29, 1901, he
published a series of articles which further opposed it. The
leader of the Indiana fanaticism, R. S. Donnell, published an
article in the Indiana Reporter opposing Jones, indicating that
he understood the articles to be a refutation of his teaching.
Waggoner also opposed the “holy flesh” doctrine in sermons
delivered at the 1901 General Conference session (cf. GCB
1901, pp. 403-422; we acknowledge assistance from Jeff
Reich in researching this material).
Thus we have another example of a century of continued
opposition to the “most precious message” that Heaven
intended should be welcomed as the “beginning” of the
latter rain and the loud cry. It is a mysterious subterranean
river of unbelief, perhaps the strangest and most persistent
that has flowed through all the millenia of God’s attempts to
help His people. Ellen White said plaintively, “I have deep
sorrow of heart, because I have seen how readily a word or
action of Elder Jones or Elder Waggoner is criticized” (Letter

281
019,1892). This time it wasn’t a “word or action.” It was only
an imagined one.

APPENDIX B

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH

COMPARISONS

The Popular View

The 1888 View

1. Begins with man’s need for eternal security. Thus the

appeal is self-centered. Never gets beyond this radius of
human insecurity.
1. Begins with the revelation of the love of God at the
cross. Appeal is to a higher motivation—faith, appreciation,
and gratitude. Thus it is not egocentric.

2. Faith is defined as mere “trust” in the sense of

grasping for personal security from being lost. Faith is
conceived of as satisfying personal insecurity.
2. Faith is a heart-appreciation of God’s sacrificial love,
irrespective of hope of reward or fear of being lost. It
overcomes egocentricity and lukewarmness.

282
 3. Jesus taught that the love of self is a virtue, a
necessary precondition to loving others. Love of self and
proper self-respect confused.
3. Jesus taught that the converted person will love his
neighbor as before conversion he found it natural to love
self. When self is crucified with Christ we find true self-
respect in Him. Faith expels self-love, an invention of Satan.

4. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross is only a contingent

provision, and does nothing for the sinner unless and until he
takes the initiative to “accept Christ.” Thus the idea prevails
that if one is saved, it is due to his taking this initiative; if
one is lost, it is God who has taken the initiative in punishing
him.
4. The sacrifice of Christ is more than a contingent
“provision.” It has done something for “every man.” The
physical life of “every man” is the purchase of Christ’s blood.
Every loaf of bread is stamped with His cross. Thus His
sacrifice has legally justified “all men.” It is He who takes the
loving initiative.

5. The gospel is “good news” of what God will do for you

if you do your part first. He waits until you take that first step
in initiative. The heavenly machinery of salvation stands idle
until the sinner presses the button to activate it.
5. The gospel is “good news” of what God has done and
is doing for you now. He has “drawn” you all your life (Jer.
31:3; Jn. 12:32). Do not resist Him, and you will be saved.
The pure gospel motivates to a lasting heart response of
faith.

The Popular View

The 1888 View

6. God counts you outside the “family of God” until you

“accept Christ.” Thus His acceptance of you depends upon
your taking the first step. Misconstrued Scripture gives this
impression.
6. God has already accepted you in Christ. To Him, the
soul who has never understood the gospel is a lost sheep,
not a wolf; a lost coin, not junk; a wandering prodigal son,
not a stranger.

283
 7. God will torture and destroy the lost in hell-fire.
Emphasis is on His vindictive initiative in punishment.
7. Sin pays its wages—death. The second death
mercifully ends the misery of the lost. God’s love is
manifested in their fate.

8. Forgiveness is God’s pardon or excusing of sin, His

accepting it as inevitable and unavoidable (“we’re only
human”). Many have no clear concept of a difference
between the forgiveness of sin and the blotting out of sin.
8. His forgiveness actually takes away the sin, which He
still hates and can never excuse. The forgiven one now hates
the sin. The “final atonement” brings the “blotting out of sin”
in the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary.

9. It is hard to be saved and easy to be lost. Since few

will make it to heaven, it must be very hard to follow Christ.
Emphasis is on the difficulties in the way.
9. If one understands and appreciates the pure, true
gospel as good news, it is easy to be saved, and hard to be
lost. Christ’s yoke is easy, His burden light.

10. The sinner must be pressured into accepting Christ,

usually by employing egocentric motivation such as hope of
reward or fear of punishment. “Sales appeal” is typical:
“what’s in it for me”?
10. Any use of pressure, gimmicks, or fear as motivation
betrays a lack of gospel content in the message. Once the
truth is revealed in love, nothing can stop the truth-seeker
from responding.

11. Not until the sinner “accepts Christ” and is obedient

is he legally justified. Ellen White’s writings misconstrued.
11. All men were legally justified when Christ died for
“all.” When the sinner believes, he is justified by faith.

12. Justification by faith is the judicial act of accounting

wherein God legally declares a still unconverted man
righteous because he “accepts Christ.” This forensic act has
no effect on the heart.
12. When God “declares” one to be righteous, He cannot
lie. Justification by faith goes further than a mere legal

284
declaration. It makes the believer obedient to all the
commandments of God.

The Popular View

The 1888 View

13. People can be justified by faith and still be lukewarm

professors of Christ.
13. True mature faith ends lukewarmness and prepares
for translation.

14. The supreme goal in life is to save our own souls, to

do what is “essential for our salvation.”
14. The supreme goal in life is the honor and vindication
of Christ. He must receive His reward, more than we.

15. Sin is defined as the transgression of the law, but is

superficially understood as the breaking of a moral taboo.
Much emphasis on “known” acts of sin; no concept of deeper
sin still unknown.
15. Sin is more than the mere breaking of a taboo; it is a
refusal to appreciate God’s true character of love revealed at
the cross. In this Day of Atonement, the Holy Spirit will reveal
all unknown sin.

16. “Made under the law” in Gal. 4:4 means that Christ
was made under the Jewish ceremonial law (cf. Seventh-day
Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 6, p. 966).
16. “Made under the law” means under the moral law.
Christ was not “exempt” from our genetic inheritance; yet
He did not sin. To do His Father’s will, He had to deny His
own will; He denied self.

17. Christ’s flesh and nature in the incarnation were

different from ours. He was “exempt” from our genetic
inheritance, and took only the sinless nature of Adam as it
was before the fall (cf. Questions on Doctrine, p. 383, and
heading, p. 650).
17. Christ “took” fallen, sinful nature of man after the
fall, was sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” not in its
unlikeness. He was “exempt” from nothing. The reason He
did not sin was He chose not to. He was Love incarnate. He is
both our Substitute and Exemplar.

285
 18. Christ bore our guilt only vicariously.
18. Christ bore our guilt actually. He truly identified with
us, and condemned sin “in the flesh,” that is, in our flesh.

19. It was “impossible,” “useless,” and “unnecessary” for

Christ to be truly tempted in all points like as we are
(Ministry Magazine, January, 1961).
19. To deny Christ’s full temptation is to deny His true
incarnation. Unlike the sinless Adam, He was also tempted
from within as we are, yet without sin. There is no sinner
whom He cannot succour.

The Popular View

The 1888 View

20. Thus cut off from our genetic inheritance, Christ was
“naturally” good. His own will was identical to His Father’s
will. No inner struggle. Thus His righteousness could not be
by faith.
20. Christ’s righteousness was by faith. He said, “I seek
not Mine own will.” He bore the cross all His lifetime,
something the sinless Adam did not need to do. Christ
constantly denied self.

21. Since He did not take our fallen, sinful nature, Christ
could not truly meet and conquer sexual temptations.
21. Scripture gives us no right to exempt Christ from any
human temptation. Heb. 4:15 is too clear.

22. Continued sinning is inevitable so long as man has a

sinful nature. God’s people will continue sinning up to the
moment of translation. This logically requires that Christ
never cease His High Priestly ministry as Substitute. Keep
your “insurance” paid up by “relationship,” and you are
“covered.”
22. Continued sinning is “condemned in the flesh”
through Christ. Sin has become unnecessary in light of His
gospel. Righteousness is by faith because faith works by
love. Our difficulty is either ignorance of the gospel or

286
unbelief. The second coming is impossible unless Christ
ceases to be our Substitute.

23. Many of our people have no clear concept of the

cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary in its unique relation to
righteousness by faith.
23. The 1888 message is a breakthrough that Luther,
Calvin, and the Wesleys never found. It related the gospel to
the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary.

24. Presentations of Christ’s present work in the

cleansing of the sanctuary in relation to personal Christian
experience are almost nonexistent.
24. True justification by faith is now related to the work
of Christ in the Most Holy Apartment (EW 254). This is a
unique truth entrusted to this church.

25. “Cheap grace” is the only possible result of confusion

regarding the nature of Christ, the prejudice against
perfection of Christian character, the eclipse of the cross,
and neglect of the cleansing-of-the-sanctuary truth.
25. Righteousness by faith imposes an extremely high
standard—that of Christ Himself. He is the Exemplar who
ministers that grace fully to believers. He will return when He
sees His character perfectly reflected in His people. This is
realized by faith, not by works.

The Popular View

The 1888 View

26. 1 John 2:1 tells us not to sin, as our insurance

company tells us not to have an accident. But you will sin
sooner or later, so make sure you are “covered” by the
Advocate who will persuade the Father to excuse you. We
cannot expect more than victory over “known sin.”
Participation in unknown sin is implied to be inevitable until
Christ returns.
26. 1 John 2:1 says that for His people to stop sinning is
the purpose of His sacrifice on the cross. It is not to excuse
the perpetuation of sin. This becomes effective when they

287
grasp the principle of corporate guilt—their relationship to
“the sins of the whole world.” Heaven will aid the believers in
overcoming “even as” Christ overcame.

27. Prevailing egocentric concern makes it difficult to

conceive of a repentance for any but one’s own sins.
Overriding motivation is concern for one’s own personal
salvation. No real sympathy with Christ is possible so long as
hope of reward or fear of hell remains the dominant heart
motivation.
27. The repentance and baptism of Christ introduce a
larger concern: we see ourselves potentially guilty of “the
sins of the whole world,” but for His grace. Faith makes
possible an empathy with Christ in His closing work like that
of a bride for her husband. Corporate repentance like His
makes it possible.

28. Maintaining a “relationship” with Christ is a difficult,

arduous process. Everything depends on your holding on to
God’s hand. “Keep up your speed” or “gravity” will cause
you to come “crashing down.” It’s a do-it-yourself program.
28. Everything depends on your believing that God is
holding on to your hand. What makes the Christian life
appear so difficult is an eclipse of the gospel of Christ’s
righteousness. “The love of Christ constraineth us.”

29. Doctrinal differences within church fellowship are

inevitable until Christ comes. True and full unity impossible.
29. Perfect unity is the norm for a church that has true
faith. No need of conflicting, confusing prophetic ideas, for
example.

30. We can believe, exemplify, and teach true

righteousness by faith for many decades, and God’s work not
be finished. (We have done this for a century).
30. To believe and teach righteousness by faith clearly in
relation to the cleansing of the sanctuary is to catalyze the
church and the world in a single generation and finish the
gospel task. (This has not yet truly been done).

31. The time for Christ’s second coming is irrevocably

predetermined by the sovereign will of God, and His people
can neither hasten nor delay it.

288
 31. Christ is eager to return as a bridegroom eager for a
wedding. He will come whenever His Bride makes herself
ready. The delay is her responsibility.

The Popular View

The 1888 View

32. The second coming of Christ is desired mostly by old,

sick, poor, or suffering people. Our need is our supreme
concern. May He come “so we can all go home to glory.”
32. Sympathy for Christ, a desire that He receive His
reward and vindication, and a yearning to see the world’s
agony ended, these are the real reasons for wishing to
hasten His return. This new motivation is produced by true
faith.

33. Consensus is more important than truth. If your

convictions differ from the majority, stifle them.
33. True faith imparts a courage that fears no majority or
power they may wield. It leads to bearing the cross.

34. The view of the two covenants as presented in the

Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and Bible
Dictionary is similar to that of those who initially opposed the
1888 message.
34. The old covenant was Israel’s faithless promise to
obey; and it “genders to bondage” through “the knowledge
of [our] broken promises.” The new covenant is faith in God
‘s promise to us.

35. The 1888 message had its origin in “the creeds of the
Protestant churches of the day” (Pease, By Faith Alone, pp.
138, 139). We have no distinct gospel.
35. The message is distinctly different from that of the
popular churches. The “third angel’s message in verity” is
biblical, “Christ and Him crucified.”

36. As a people, and particularly as ministers, we

understand righteousness by faith correctly. What we need is
more works. “Let’s forget 1888 and work harder.”
36. Especially in this respect we are “wretched,
miserable, poor, blind, and naked.” No works program can

289
finish God’s work. “This is the work of God, that ye believe
on Him whom He hath sent.” We need the 1888 message He
sent us!

APPENDIX C

ONE SOURCE OF THE

ACCEPTANCE MYTH
The widely popular view that the 1888 message was
accepted a century ago derives from earnest, sincere, well-
meaning people. Their loyalty to the church and its past
leadership is commendable, and gives evidence of an
enthusiastic team spirit.
Nevertheless, this view is in direct conflict with history,
with numerous Ellen White statements, and, what is even
more serious, with the testimony of the True Witness who
gave His blood for this church. The acceptance myth insists,
after even a century of delay, that we are “rich and
increased with goods” in this matter of accepting and
understanding righteousness by faith. Our Lord says that we
are “poor.” The conflict in view is serious, for the spiritual
condition of the world church is affected, as well as His
honor.
In view of the fact that Ellen White’s testimony is so clear
that the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry was “in
a great degree” rejected, how is it possible that the vast
majority of our ministers, educators, and members world-

290
wide believe that it was accepted by the leadership of that
generation?
Part of the problem is a persistent confusion of thought
that appears almost to be willful. As a people we do accept
the popular Protestant “doctrine” of righteousness by faith
just as Protestants profess to believe it. Therefore our
apologists insist that this “doctrine” was not rejected in 1888
or thereafter. But this is not the full truth of our history. Our
brethren “in a great degree” did reject the message which
was the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry. This
obvious fact explains the long delay, and nothing else can
explain it.
What is the source of this persistent and widespread
confusion and misconception? Doubtless it is the human
judgment of good men whose basic mindset is
understandably Laodicean. We all partake of that same
mindset, by nature. It is painful for any of us to believe what
the True Witness says, that the truth of our history reveals
us as “wretched and miserable,” our 1888 history in
particular being a replay of the Jews’ history at Calvary. That
history pinpoints our great need: denominational
repentance.
This unwelcome conviction must at any cost be repressed
with assurances of being “rich and increased with goods.”
Hence the acceptance myth. One prime source of that myth
enjoys such unique credibility that it has seemed impossible
for anyone to question it.
In his The Lonely Years 1876-1891, Arthur L. White
informs us that “the concept that the General Conference,
and thus the denomination, rejected the message of
righteousness by faith in 1888 is without foundation and was
not projected until forty years after the Minneapolis meeting
and thirteen years after Ellen White’s death” (p. 396). The
author is a grandson of Ellen White.
We have already noted how rejection of the 1888
message was clearly recognized by Ellen White and her
contemporaries from 1893 through 1901 (see chapter four of
this book).
“Forty years after the Minneapolis meeting” would bring
us to around 1928. It was in that era that Taylor G. Bunch at
Pacific Union College publicly likened our 1888 history to that
of Israel at Kadesh-Barnea rejecting the report of Caleb and
Joshua. W. C. White, Ellen White’s son, remonstrated with
Bunch, assuring him that such a rejection in 1888 did not

291
take place. He was present at that conference, he said, and
he knew. It is only natural that he would convey the same
acceptance view to his son, Arthur L. White, who has served
for so many years as secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate,
and under whose supervision and endorsement some 1500
pages of books regarding 1888 have been published since
1950.
Both Ellen White’s son and grandson have rightly enjoyed
great esteem in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They
have been utterly sincere in their efforts to educate several
generations of our people to believe that the 1888 message
was not rejected. We accord to both of them the utmost
respect which their unique place in our history warrants. At
the same time, we must recognize that Ellen White exercised
a still more unique ministry, that of an inspired messenger of
the Lord whose ministry is an expression of the testimony of
Jesus, the Spirit of Prophecy. Her prophetic gift endowed her
with discernment that penetrated beneath the surface. Even
if a thousand eyewitnesses with uninspired judgment
contradict the word of an inspired prophet, we must trust
that inspired word, for a “thus saith the Lord” is implicit in it.
Ellen White’s testimony is so clear and straight-forward that
the common man can readily understand it. The future of
this church depends upon this issue of prophetic guidance
being settled rightly.
An indication of how the acceptance view gained official
credence is found in a statement made by W. C. White in a
sermon at Lincoln, Nebraska, November 25, 1905. He is
describing an incident in Avondale, Australia, a decade
earlier when W. W. Prescott was visiting. The mail had come
in from America, and he and Prescott were reading to Ellen
White letters from the leading brethren of the General
Conference in faraway Battle Creek. The letters told of
alleged great progress in the cause in America and of
wonderful spiritual victories in respect of the 1888 issues. W.
C. White recalls the incident thus:

For years I have felt that it was my privilege

to do all I could to draw Mother’s attention to
the most cheerful features of our work .... I
reasoned that as the Lord has chosen Mother to
be His messenger for the correcting of wrongs
in the church,...and as these revelations burden
her heart almost to death, therefore it can not

292
 be wrong for me to gather up all the words of
cheer, and all the good news that will comfort
her heart, and every incident that will show the
power of Christ working in the church, and that
will make manifest the best side of the
workings of men who are bearing heavy
burdens in the work of the Lord; therefore I will
endeavor to bring to her attention to the bright
side of things....
Well, one day while we were living at
Cooranbong, New South Wales, we received
letters from the President of the General
Conference, filled with cheering reports, telling
us about the good camp meetings, and how
that some of these businessmen who had been
reproved by the Testimonies38 were going out
to various states and speaking in the camp
meetings, and that they were getting a new
spiritual experience, and were a real help in the
meetings....
We [he and Prescott] were made very happy
by the reading of these letters. We were fairly
overjoyed about it, and we united in praising
the Lord for the good report. Imagine my
surprise when in the afternoon of the next day
Mother told me that she had been writing to
these men of whom we had received the good
report, and she then read me the most far-
reaching criticism, the most searching reproof
for bringing in wrong plans and principles in
their work, that were ever written to that group
of men.39 This was a great lesson to me
(Spalding-Magan Collection, p. 470).

Ellen White records her heart sorrow that throws further

light on this incident. It is in no way disrespectful of their
memory to note that neither W. C. White nor W. W. Prescott
enjoyed the larger discernment that is divinely imparted by
the gift of prophecy. The gift is not hereditary. It would be
only natural for them, as it would be for us, to believe at face
value letters from the General Conference president

38
Harmon Lindsay and A. R. Henry, “opposed to the work of God ever since the Minneapolis meeting,”
EGW Letter August 27,1896.
39
Examples of such communications can be found in Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 63-77, 89-98.

293
containing such good news. The spirit pervading the church
was always up-beat, rejoicing in progress and victories.
But the heart attitude of all human beings is naturally in
conflict with “the testimony of Jesus,” unless specifically
enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Writing to the General
Conference president, Ellen White describes how she felt
when her son and Prescott tried to assure her that glowing
reports from Battle Creek were true:

Dear Brother Olsen:

Last October I wrote you a long letter ... The
burden upon me was very great, in regard to
yourself and the work in Battle Creek. I felt that
you were being bound hand and foot, and were
tamely submitting to it. I was so troubled, that
in conversation with Brother Prescott, I told
him of my feelings. Both he and W. C. W. tried
to dissipate my fears; they presented
everything in as favorable a light as possible.
But instead of encouraging me, their words
alarmed me. If these men cannot see the
outcome of affairs, I thought, how hopeless the
task of making them see at Battle Creek. The
thought struck to my heart like a knife. I said, I
will not send the communication written to Eld.
Olsen.
... For about two weeks I remained in utter
feebleness. I was like a broken reed. I could not
leave my room, could not converse with Brother
and Sister Prescott. I did not expect to
recover.... But ... my strength gradually
returned to me. (Letter, May 25, 1896).

Because the issue of the latter rain and the loud cry is so
important, it is imperative that the church and its leadership
now place unqualified reliance on the inspired testimony of
the Spirit of Prophecy. When human judgment conflicts with
that inspired testimony, no matter how honored the human
agents, the Spirit of Prophecy must take the clear
precedence.
For the better part of a century, we as a people have
been prone to revel in this easily prevalent false optimism.
The tragic consequence is a complementary widespread
distrust of the counsel of the True Witness. Would not great

294
spiritual blessings result from a full recognition of the truth?
Rightly understood, our denominational history is one
continual commentary on Christ’s words in Revelation 3:14-
21, and a call to appropriate repentance.
He who controls the past controls the future.
Lukewarmness and spiritual weakness are a consequence of
misinterpreting history.

295
 APPENDIX D

WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF THE

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST
CHURCH?
It is true that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has
delayed the proclamation to the world of the everlasting
gospel in its purity.40 We all share in the responsibility for this
failure. There is a corporate involvement. Ellen White often
likened our failures to those of Israel of old when each
generation shared in the guilt of their fathers because they
not only shared the same fallen human nature but exercised
the same unbelief.41 There are many tragic evidences of our
backsliding, disobedience to the Spirit of Prophecy, and even
apostasy. Our history for the past century since 1888 is
clear.
Does this mean that the Lord has rejected this church or
its leadership? Or if He has not already done so, will He do so
in future? Is the denominated Seventh-day Adventist Church
doomed to failure?
When those who choose to follow Christ protest against
what they believe is apostasy or wrong- doing in the church
and find themselves opposed, should they conclude that the
situation is hopeless? Should they withdraw their support
and their church membership?
We are told in Acts of the Apostles, page 11, that “faithful
souls” have always constituted the true church. Will there be
a new group or loose federation formed of “faithful souls”
who will complete the gospel commission and leave the
organized Seventh-day Adventist Church behind to dissipate
its existence in terminal apostasy?
If we liken the church to a ship, is it doomed to sink like
the Titanic? Or will it be taken over by a mutinous crew?
Should “faithful souls” abandon the ship and jump into the
cold water on their own? Will there be no “ship” in the last
days, every former passenger individually swimming or
clinging to bits of wreckage? Or will every passenger become
40
Ev 694-697
41
See chapter 4 of this book.

296
 a crew member and under the leadership of Christ as
Captain sail a tight ship into port?
Ellen White likened the Seventh-day Adventist Church to
a “noble ship which bears the people of God,” and declared
that it would sail “safely into port.”42 What is the true church?
Is the organized church still the fulfillment of the Revelation
12 prophecy of “the remnant of [the woman’s] seed, which
keep the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus
Christ” (vs. 17)? Or is the true “remnant” merely a non-
cohesive, unorganized, nongroup scattering of “faithful
souls”? These questions probe into the reasons for our
existence as a people for nearly 150 years.
No intelligent person would dare say that a nominal
connection with the organized church can guarantee an
individual’s personal salvation. Of course not. That’s not the
issue. The important question is whether church membership
and supporting the church are valid duties which the Lord
requires of “faithful souls.” What is “the mind of Christ”
toward the Seventh-day Adventist Church? If we can
determine the answer to that question, we can know what
our “mind” toward it should be.
There are guidelines in Scripture that are helpful, as well
as numerous Ellen White statements:
(1) God’s intention has always been that His people on
earth be an organized, denominated, visible “family.” The
reason is that they might be His witnesses, His soul-winning
agents in the world. Abraham’s “seed was the ancient
equivalent of the church. The Lord said to him, “In thee shall
all families of the earth be blessed ... Unto thy seed will I
give this land.” “I will establish my covenant between me
and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations ... and
to thy seed after thee. My covenant will I establish with
Isaac” (Gen. 12:3, 7; 17:7, 21).
(2) God has never changed that covenant and He cannot
change it. Through all the centuries of ancient Israel’s and
Judah’s apostasies, the Lord remained faithful to His promise.
In the days of Elijah and the apostate king Ahab and his
wicked queen Jezebel, Israel was still Israel. At the nadir of
Judah’s history in Jeremiah’s day when the Lord gave them
up to be taken captive to Babylon, they were still the Lord’s
denominated people. They never became Babylon, although
they were in captivity in Babylon. Only those who refused to
come back at the end of the Captivity lost their place in
42
2SM 390; 1892.

297
 history. The covenant still extended to those who retained
their denominated identity, and through them the Messiah
finally came.
(3) This is not to say that fleshly descent from Abraham
made any individual to be an heir of the covenant. Always it
was “in Isaac [that] thy seed shall be called.” “They which
are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham” (Rom.
9:7; Gal. 3:7). The true Israel were always those who had the
faith of Abraham. But they were always to be a
denominated, identifiable people, according to God’s plan, so
they could function efficiently to evangelize the world. Even
Naaman’s wife’s servant girl preserved that loyal relationship
in her slavery and won souls.43
(4) The early Christian church of the apostles was not an
appendage or an offshoot from Israel. It was the true Israel.
This was because its members cherished the faith of
Abraham44 From its very beginning when Jesus called the first
disciples, His church was an organized, denominated body.45
Through the years of His earthly ministry it was tightly
organized with Him as its Head.
The New Testament indicates that in apostolic times the
church was also highly organized and denominated, with
apostles, elders, evangelists, teachers, deacons,
deaconesses and others with various gifts all functioning in
disciplined inter-relationship under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit.46 When Saul of Tarsus was converted, the Lord
brought him into immediate fellowship with His organized
church.47 “Faithful souls” indeed constituted the early
church, but that church was by no means disorganized.
There are numerous examples of its tight discipline. When
used to imply that the organized church cannot be the true
one, the AA 11 statement about “faithful souls” has been
wrested from its context.
(5) The records of God’s care over “the woman [who] fled
into the wilderness ... a thousand two hundred and
threescore days” indicate that again this persecuted church
during medieval times followed New Testament patterns of
organization and discipline.48 True believers always

43
See 2 Kings 5.
44
Galatians 3: 7-9, 29.
45
AA 18: DA 29.
46
1 Cor. 12: 1-28; Eph 4: 8-16; 1 Tim 3: 1-15; Titus 1: 5-11.
47
Acts 9:10-19; AA 122, 163.
48
Cf. GC 62, 63, 67-69.

298
 functioned as a body, although the precise details of the
methods of organization varied.
(6) In the early days of Seventh-day Adventists, battles
were fought over organization, with fanatical anarchists
rebelling against proper discipline within the body.49 The Holy
Spirit set His unmistakable seal of approval on the need for
order. Our pioneers saw the denominated Seventh-day
Adventist Church in its organized state as the fulfillment of
Revelation 12:17 and 14:12. They saw it as divinely
appointed to function efficiently to proclaim the message to
the world and prepare a people for the coming of the Lord.50
Any movement that the Holy Spirit leads must be
organized and disciplined, because “God is not the author of
confusion.”51 The century-long establishment of the world
Seventh-day Adventist Church among so many diverse
cultures is clearly the work of the Holy Spirit. There is no
other worldwide movement or body of believers that can
even remotely be identified as the fulfillment of Revelation
14:6-12. Ellen White never doubted our historical
identification.52
Here is a body already in existence superbly crafted by
the Lord to accomplish the task of proclaiming “the
everlasting gospel.” No offshoot or independent movement
can possibly grow within anyone’s lifetime to become such a
potentially efficient soul-winning instrument. True Seventh-
day Adventists are more concerned for the honor and
vindication of Christ than for their own personal reward. They
think primarily in terms of accomplishing His gospel
commission for the world rather than their own security. For
them, self-love has given way to an experience of being
crucified with Christ. They are “under grace,” a new
motivation imposed by an appreciation of His sacrifice,
rather than “under law,” their former motivation of spiritual
self- concern.
They endure the same test that Moses endured. When
God proposed to abandon His organized people Israel and
prosper Moses as the leader of their off-shoot successors,
Moses chose to have his name blotted out of the book of life
rather than see God’s honor thus compromised.53 The

49
TM 26-29.
50
FE 254: 1T 271,413; 3T 501.
51
1 Cor. 14:33.
52
See for example 9T 19; 1 T 186187; 1 SM 91-93; 7BC 959-61.
53
Exodus 32.

299
“shaking” in the last days will separate from God’s people all
whose deep heart-motivation is mere concern for their own
security.
(7) An “under law” motivation of self-concern comes from
a failure to appreciate righteousness by faith. It has poisoned
the application of our principles of church organization.
James and Ellen White pleaded for recognizing Christ as the
true Leader of the church:

At no time during His public ministry does

Christ intimate that any one of His disciples
should be designated as their leader ... And
there is no intimation that the apostles of
Christ designated one of their number above
another as their leader ... Christ, then, is the
leader of His people in all the ages ... Christ will
lead His people, if they will be led (James
White, RH December 1, 1874).
It was not the design of God that any system
of organization should exist in the Christian
Church that would take the leadership from
Christ.
The minister who throws himself on any
Conference Committee for direction, takes
himself out of the hands of Christ. May God
preserve to us our organization and form of
church discipline in its original form (ibid.,
January 4, 1881).

But recognizing Christ as the Head of the church,

directing its organization, requires heart-submission to Him;
this becomes impossible when the gospel of righteousness
by faith is not clearly understood. The “under law”
motivation supplants the “under grace” motivation, and
leaders and people suffer. “Kingly power” is exercised, and
ministers and people learn to look to fallible human beings
for leadership, following their dictates and praising them. A
subtle Baal- worship caters to the love of self while
professing devotion to Christ. (The common practice of
conference employees designating their president “the
chief” is an example of a direct violation of Christ’s counsel
in Matthew 20:25-28). The “under law” motivation may so
deeply permeate the church that sincere people think it

300
 almost impossible to conceive of any other kind of effective
leadership.54
(8) An important truth that will help us understand the
mind of Christ toward the Seventh-day Adventist Church is
our 1888 history. In spite of decades of lukewarmness within
it, the Lord sent the “beginning” of the final latter rain
through delegates to a General Conference session. He
honored this people with the “revelation of the righteousness
of Christ” in this “most precious message” destined to
lighten the earth with glory.
(9) The 1901 re-organization was intended to bring
revival and reformation and a return to the leadership of
Christ working through those who believe His word, “All ye
are brethren.” But the spiritual renewal did not take place. It
was only a dream, a “what might have been.” The 1888
pattern of unbelief was not reversed.55
The 1903 General Conference session was seen by some
as a backward step. Jones’ and Waggoner’s attitude toward
the revised constitution was considered in chapter 10 of this
book. A few others joined them in their convictions:

Any man who has ever read those histories

[Neander, Mosheim] can come to no other
conclusion but that the principles which are to
be brought in through this proposed
constitution [1903] ... are the same principles,
and introduced in precisely the same way, as
they were hundreds of years ago when the
Papacy was made.... The moment you vote it
you vote yourselves right back where we were
two years ago and before it (P. T. Magan, GCB
1903, p. 150).
Brethren, the thing to do is to go back
where we were two years ago in the matter of
reorganization, and take it up, and carry it out,
and give it a fair trial, because those who have
been in responsible places have admitted that
they did not carry out the letter of that,
because they did not believe that it was
possible. I believe that it is possible (E. A.
Sutherland, ibid., pp. 168, 169).

54
See TM 359-364.
55
8T 104-106; EGW Letter to Judge Jesse Arthur, January 15, 1903.

301
 (10) If she believed that the 1903 revision was a mistake,
Ellen White did not publicly oppose it, although some of her
later remarks may be construed as disapproval. But the
important fact to note is that she did not withdraw her
support from the organized church following 1903, but
remained true and loyal until her death in 1915. This was
despite the fact that she was deeply disappointed with the
spiritual results of the 1901 session.56 The Lord continued
through all those years to honor this church with the ministry
of His messenger.
The solution to our problem does not consist in
destroying or changing the mechanical system of our
constitutional organization, but in finding repentance and
reconciliation with Christ within it. All is futile unless the axe
is laid to the root of the tree. Weaknesses or errors in
organization will be rectified almost overnight when the Holy
Spirit succeeds in leading us to repentance.
(11) Literally millions of people can testify that the only
agency which led them to a knowledge of the everlasting
gospel of Revelation 14 is the Seventh-day Adventist Church,
despite its failures. The best hope for an ultimately
successful proclamation of the last message to the world is a
repentant Seventh-day Adventist Church that not only
proclaims the message with crystal clarity but demonstrates
without question that it works. This was Ellen White’s
conviction; in the midst of the 1888-era unbelief, she had
hope for reformation:

God is at the head of the work, and He will

set everything in order. If matters need
adjusting at the head of the work, God will
attend to that, and work to right every
wrong ... God is going to carry the noble ship
which bears the people of God safely into port
(2SM 390; 1892).
Although - there are evils existing in the
church and will be until the end of the world,
the church in these last days is to be the light
of the world that is polluted and demoralized
by sin. The church, enfeebled and defective,
needing to be reproved, warned, and
counseled, is the only object upon earth upon
which Christ bestows His supreme regard.... Let
56
8T 104-106; Letter to Judge Jesse Arthur, January 15, 1903.

302
 all be careful not to make an outcry against the
only people who are fulfilling the description
given of the remnant people who keep the
commandments of God and have faith in Jesus,
who are exalting the standard of righteousness
in these last days. God has a distinct people, a
church on earth, second to none, but superior
to all in their facilities to teach the truth, to
vindicate the laws of God.... Let all unite with
these chosen agents (TM 49,57,58; 1893).
When anyone is drawing apart from the
organized body of God’s commandment-
keeping people, when he begins to weigh the
church in his human scales and begins to
pronounce judgment against them, then you
may know that God is not leading him (3 SM 18;
1893).
Victory will attend the third angel’s
message. As the Captain of the Lord’s host tore
down the walls of Jericho, so will the Lord’s
commandment-keeping people triumph, and all
opposing elements be defeated (TM 410; 1898).
I was never more astonished in my life than
at the turn things have taken at this meeting
[the 1901 session]. This is not our work. God
has brought it about.... I want every one of you
to remember this, and I want you to remember
also that God has said that He will heal the
wounds of His people (GCB 1901, pp. 463,464).

Whether or not those “wounds” were healed in 1901 and

thereafter, we can be heartened by the assurance that “He
will heal” them. After 1901 and 1903 Ellen White made some
of the strongest statements of her lifetime identifying this
organized church as the true one, and giving assurance of its
ultimate success in ministry when repentance permeates the
body:

We cannot now step off the foundation that

God has established. We cannot now enter into
any new organization; for this would mean
apostasy from the truth (Ms. 129,1905).
I am instructed to say to Seventh-day
Adventists the world over, God has called us as

303
 a people to be a peculiar treasure unto Himself.
He has appointed that His church on earth shall
stand perfectly united in the Spirit and counsel
of the Lord of hosts to the end of time (2 SM
397; 1908).
The fear of God, the sense of His goodness,
will circulate through every [Seventh-day
Adventist] institution. An atmosphere of peace
will pervade every department. Every word
spoken, every work performed, will have an
influence that corresponds to the influence of
heaven ... Then the work will move forward
with solidity and double strength. A new
efficiency will be imparted to the workers in
every line ... The earth will be lightened with
the glory of God, and it will be ours to witness
the soon coming, in power and glory, of our
Lord and Saviour (MM 184,185; 1902).
I am encouraged and blessed as I realize
that the God of Israel is still guiding His people
and that He will continue to be with them, even
to the end (remarks to 1913 General
Conference session; LS 437, 438).

She clearly defined “God’s people” as “this

denomination.” W. C. White wrote as follows a few weeks
before her death:

I told [Mrs. Lida Scott] how Mother regarded

the experience of the remnant church, and of
her positive teaching that God would not
permit this denomination to so fully apostatize
that there would be the coming out of another
church (Letter, May 23,1915).

A hospital is a place where sick people can be given

medical care in order to restore them to health. The patient’s
life is of supreme importance. The church which is to become
the Bride of Christ is sick; she needs healing. Loyalty to
Christ will require loyalty to His Bride-to-be, an all-out
cooperation to secure her healing.
We who have served as missionaries in Africa have seen
how loyalty to Christ (or lack of it) operates in human hearts.
“Rice-Christian” employees unconsciously demonstrate their

304
true spirit by speaking of the church as “you” or “they.” They
couldn’t care less for its honor or prosperity. But true
believers in Christ manifest a corporate oneness with the
church, speaking of it instinctively as “we.” They are more
concerned for its honor as representing Christ than for their
own personal reward.
(12) What is the significance of God’s promises being
conditional? Should we take a wait-and-see attitude and
withhold our loyalty and support until we have evidence that
the church has fulfilled the conditions? The following
statement emphasizes the conditions:

We are far from where we should have been

had our Christian experience been in harmony
with the light and the opportunities given us ...
Had we walked in the light that has been given
us, ... our path would have grown brighter and
brighter ....
In the balances of the sanctuary the
Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed.
She will be judged by the privileges and
advantages that she has had.... If the blessings
conferred have not qualified her to do the work
entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the
sentence, “Found wanting.” (8T 247).

All of God’s promises to ancient Israel were no less

conditional. Generation after generation was “found
wanting” and died as failures. The history of Kadesh-Barnea
was repeated many times, when an entire generation except
two individuals had to perish in the wilderness. Nevertheless,
the covenant-keeping God remained loyal to Israel when she
was disloyal to Him. He always tried again with a new
generation. Never did He ordain another people to take the
place of “Abraham’s seed.”
Because ancient Israel failed repeatedly as has the
church in modern times does not mean necessarily that the
of backsliding and apostasy will continue forever. The
failures of God’s corporate people have always involved the
heavenly sanctuary in defilement; Satan has had occasion to
taunt God with responsibility for the failure of His people.
The foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a
belief in the good news of Daniel 8:14, “Then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed.” Then shall this constant cloud of

305
failure which has hovered over God’s Israel be lifted; then
shall God’s name be cleared as His people demonstrate His
plan of salvation to be a success; then shall the sacrifice of
Christ be vindicated. A cynical attitude which says, “Suppose
the church fails and the conditions are not met” is the same
as saying, “Suppose the sanctuary will not be cleansed.” The
honor of God requires that it shall be cleansed!
This is the ultimate issue in the great controversy. We
have the privilege of standing in absolute loyalty to Christ
and to His Bride-to-be.
The testimony quoted above is entitled “Shall We Be
Found Wanting?” Ellen White answered her own question as
she closed the chapter:

When purification shall take place in our

ranks, we shall no longer rest at ease ... Unless
the church, which is now being leavened with
her own backsliding, shall repent and be
converted, she will eat of the fruit of her own
doing, until she shall abhor herself. When she
resists the evil and chooses the good, when she
seeks God with all humility, and reaches her
high calling in Christ, standing on the platform
of eternal truth, ... she will be healed. She will
appear in her God-given simplicity and purity,
separate from earthly entanglements, showing
that the truth has made her free indeed. Then
her members will indeed be the chosen of God,
His representatives.
The time has come for a thorough
reformation to take place. When this
reformation begins, the spirit of prayer will
actuate every believer, and will banish from the
church the spirit of discord and strife ... There
will be no confusion, because all will be in
harmony with the mind of the Spirit ... All will
pray understandingly the prayer that Christ
taught His servants: “Thy kingdom come. Thy
will be done on earth, as it is in heaven” (ibid.,
pp. 250, 251).

Our duty now is to remove the hindrances within the

church that have prevented that “thorough reformation to
take place,” and to learn to pray the Lord’s prayer.

306
 Appendix E

A Brief Overview of 1987-1988

Publications
In the providence of God, the year 1988 was set aside as
the Centennial of the Minneapolis General Conference
Session. What was once either a virtually unknown subject or
a no-no has now become a familiar topic of conversation
worldwide. Thank God for this aroused interest. Large
numbers of our people will not rest satisfied now until they
ferret out the full truth.
Since the first printing of this book in August 1987,
several significant publications were issued as part of the
1988 Centennial "Celebration":
(1) The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials (Ellen G. White
Estate, 1987). In releasing this vast collection of 1,812 pages
in full context, the Ellen G. White Trustees are to be
commended. They obviously have no intention of
withholding anything significant. Ellen White is at last
permitted to speak unhampered on these issues. Had this
been published decades ago, much of the present confusion
regarding 1888 would by now be resolved. Since the Holy
Spirit has always confirmed the "testimony" of Ellen White,
this publication must prove in His providence to be a giant
step toward ultimate revival and reformation.
Reading these documents gives one a feeling of
satisfaction like that of enjoying a square meal. One has no
lingering doubts or unsatisfied questions about what might

307
be lurking unseen within the withheld confines of this or that
ellipsis, for there are no ellipses.
The truth is here disclosed that the leadership of this
church did in fact "in a great degree" reject the beginning of
the latter rain and the loud cry while stoutly professing to
accept "righteousness by faith." Further, the post-
Minneapolis "confessions" are seen as in no way reversing
that tragedy. And Ellen White's unqualified endorsements of
the doctrinal content of the message turn out to be far more
numerous and emphatic than anyone appears previously to
have realized. Such multiple endorsements in these 1,812
pages may perhaps approach the better part of a thousand.
It is a solemn experience to read these unedited
documents, often photographed from awkwardly typed
originals with her emendations in her handwriting. How could
that little woman stand almost alone against almost the
entire leadership of this church, writing that vast amount of
correspondence without saying at least something in the
heat of controversy that would prove embarrassing a century
later? She emerges from this 1888 saga vindicated both in
her positions and in the spirit which she demonstrated.
Nothing ever published by the White Estate does such credit
to her as this ingenuous outpouring of her heartfelt zeal.
She never expresses any criticism of the righteousness
by faith theology of Jones and Waggoner from 1888 on
through 1895 and 1896. Those who in our Centennial
denigrate the 1888 message rely exclusively on one
sentence that appears to be critical, but it is possible that
they wrest it from its context and may even misquote it as
well. In that one lone sentence stenographically reported in
1888 she says, "Some interpretations of Scripture given by
Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct" (Ms. 15, 1888).
The stenographer could not record the emphasis Ellen
White might have given to that "I", but it is clear in her
immediate context that she finds no fault with his doctrinal
message. Rather, she is willing to surrender her personal
opinions for greater light to be received through Waggoner:
"I would have humility of mind, and be willing to be
instructed as a child. The Lord has been pleased to give me
great light, yet I know that He leads other minds, and opens
to them the mysteries of His Word, and I want to receive
every ray of light that God shall send me, though it should
come through the humblest of His servants [an obvious
reference to Waggoner].... Some interpretations of Scripture

308
given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But ... I
see the beauty of truth in the presentation of the
righteousness of Christ in relation to the law as the doctor
has placed it before us.... That which has been presented
harmonizes perfectly with the light which God has been
pleased to give me during all the years of my experience. If
our ministering brethren would accept the doctrine which
has been presented so clearly, ... their prejudices would not
have a controlling power.... Let us pray as did David, 'Open
thou mine eyes'" (Ms. 15, 1888, emphasis added).
For a decade Ellen White expresses only consistent, often
joyous, recognition that the Holy Spirit was endorsing
Waggoner's and Jones's doctrinal message, while the
unreasonable opposition they suffered isolated them and at
times drove them to unwise expressions, as ancient Israel
drove Moses to a rash word and act. Her famous April 9,
1893 letter to Jones unequivocally commends his theology
while cautioning him against being pressured into extreme
expressions to defend it.
Although the 1888 messengers were human, as are we
all, there is here no Ellen White hint that they showed a lack
of Christian spirit toward their brethren during these early
years, no evidence that harshness or an abrasive spirit on
their part gave just cause for their brethren to oppose them
so. These four volumes seem to make clear that our
published Centennial criticism of Jones and Waggoner
perpetuates the 1888 unbelief. This is phenomenal—after a
century of our history, like the Jews' continued rejection of
Christ and His apostles after nearly 2000 years of their
history.
But "the entrance" of truth "giveth light." With the
publication of these four volumes we have at last turned on
to the right runway, and we can expect the Lord to begin to
work henceforth. Any scholar will now hesitate to publish
misrepresentations of Ellen White's 1888 testimony, for the
humblest layman can check the sources for himself.
(2) Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis 1888
(Pacific Press, 1988). This further 591 page collection
includes documents from other contemporaries of Jones and
Waggoner. They reveal that many of "the brethren" leave a
record of spiritual blindness and resistance to the Holy Spirit
in a time of unprecedented eschatological opportunity. All
were hardworking men consecrated to the cause of the
church, professing to believe the gospel, while with few

309
 exceptions they reveal an insensitivity to the actual leading
and teaching of the Holy Spirit in "the truth of the gospel."
And the most prominent among them were absorbed in
heart-opposition to Ellen White.
Further, in these documents none of those who confess
rejection of the 1888 message cite as an excuse that Jones's
or Waggoner's personality provoked them to reject it. Self-
justifying human nature would exploit significant failure on
their part if it had been prominent.
Two brethren who do express criticism of Jones's 1888
personality wait until 42 years later to do so, but one (W. C.
White) in 1889 strangely contradicts his disparaging 1930
testimony with an opposite view of warm commendation. In
1931 A. T. Robinson recalls Jones's sharp Minneapolis remark
to Uriah Smith concerning the "ten horns," but at the time it
apparently did not impress Ellen White enough to mention it
in her diaries or extensive reports of the Minneapolis story,
nor do any of the others in this collection do so.
This isolated incident apparently made little impression in
1888 against the backdrop of a steady, unequivocal Holy
Spirit endorsement. Either the lapse of time superimposed
the image of the post-1903 Jones onto Robinson's earlier
memories, or Jones's spirit in that remark was not as severe
as he assumed.57
There is something pathetic in reading this vast
correspondence of leaders of the church who conduct
business as usual in a time which we now know was one of
unprecedented eschatological opportunity.
(3) From 1888 to Apostasy --The Case of A. T. Jones, by
George R. Knight (Review and Herald, 1987). This special
"1888 Centennial Series" volume appears to be a
transparent effort to discredit both Jones and the message
which the Lord gave him for this church. The book gives
clear recognition that the message was rejected at
Minneapolis and thereafter, a step toward reality; but it
confuses the picture by presenting a bungling God who
made a poor choice of a messenger and His naive prophet
who was over-enthusiastic about the message and
messenger.
Capitalizing on every possible defect in Jones's
personality and ministry, real or imagined, and often
57
J. S. Washburn told these authors of the incident in 1950, but his context also is highly supportive
of Jones as demonstrating his "heavenly credentials" at that time. See transcript of June 4, 1950
interview as published in the 1888 Message Study Committee Newsletter, 2934 Sherbrook
Drive, Uniontown, Ohio 44685.

310
 imputing evil motives gratuitously, the author pictures him
as a man of "careless mouth and harsh speech," using
"sensational language" with "pompous attitudes," "self-
confident," "egotistic," a man who "never mastered the art of
... Christian kindness," who had an "abrasive and cocksure
personality." Even as he arose from the baptismal waters in
Walla Walla the youthful Jones is saddled with this "perennial
problem of extremism." Why would the Lord specially choose
such a man?
Jones's gospel message is dismissed as having "error
mixed" in it; thus it is clearly implied that it is dangerous to
accept it. Specifically, he is charged with heavy responsibility
for fathering both the "holy flesh" and pantheism heresies of
the turn of the century.
Many readers who are unable to check the original
sources will conclude that nothing such a quixotic figure as
Jones says is worth serious attention today. This appears to
be the thesis of the book.
But if one pursues Ellen White's contemporary accounts
of Jones's character and message, a problem comes into
focus. She describes him as one who "bears the word of the
Lord," "Christ's delegated messenger," a "man whom God
has commissioned ... [with] the demonstration of the Holy
Spirit," a "chosen servant ... whom God is using." He is one
of only two Seventh-day Adventist ministers in history who
she said had "heavenly credentials. "58 Is it not strange that
such a villification of Jones is published and endorsed in our
Centennial Celebration? Do nations or churches normally
villify the principals whom they celebrate in centennials?
Our author endorses the popular misconception that the
1888 message itself is lost. But Ellen White's enthusiastic
endorsements of both Jones's message and manner of
presenting it continue for nearly a decade following 1888,
indicating that the "message" was more than the supposedly
lost presentations at Minneapolis. Years later she says in the
present tense, "The message given us by A. T. Jones ... is a
message of God to the Laodicean church." "God has upheld
[him], ... given [him] precious light." (Letter S24, 1892;
Letter 51a, 1895).
During this decade she even speaks with enthusiasm of
Jones's personality and method of speaking, directly
contradicting the impression of gauche abrasiveness: he "set
58
Sources for quotations from Knight and Ellen White are found in A. T. Jones: The Man and the
Message (1888 Message Study Committee, 2934 Sherbrook Drive, Uniontown, Ohio, 1988).

311
forth [the message] with beauty and loveliness," "with light,
with grace, and power." Listening to him, the people "saw
the truth, goodness, mercy, and love of God as they never
before had seen it." She considers "it a privilege to stand by
the side of [Jones] and give my testimony with the message
for this time" {Review and Herald, May 27, 1890; February
12, 1889; March 18, 1890; Letter, January 9, 1893). It is
difficult to relate these words to the "cocksure," "harsh"
personality which our Centennial writers attribute to him.
Would she not consider it embarrassing to "stand by" such a
man?
But this book does not create its disparaging view of
Jones from modern imagination. There are indeed historical
sources critical of him. He had enemies in his day who
taunted him "with being a fanatic, extremist, and
enthusiast," who "criticized and depreciated, and even
stooped to ridicule the messenger through whom the Lord
has wrought in power" (cf. Testimonies to Ministers, p. 97).
But these were unbelieving opponents fighting the Holy
Spirit's leading. Why is their judgment superior to that of
Ellen White?
The Lord's endorsements of Jones are pretty serious, for
she says that those who "accuse and criticize [Jones] ...
accuse and criticize the Lord who has sent" him. Opposers
"will be asked in the judgment, 'Who required this at your
hand, to rise up against the message and the messenger I
sent to My people with light, with grace, and power?'" (Ibid.,
p. 466; Letter, January 9, 1893).
The charge that Jones virtually fathered the "holy flesh"
fanaticism rests literally on one word that he used in an 1898
editorial, which turns out to be a direct quotation from the
apostle Paul. The context of the November 22 editorial is
health reform, having nothing to do with "holy flesh."
Likewise, the charge that Jones taught or believed pantheism
rests on the assumptions or prejudices of others. Not one
sentence is quoted from him as objective evidence that he
believed or taught pantheism.
This may seem like an unimportant detail, but the
integrity of the "most precious message" the Lord sent this
people is the issue at stake. If that message led its believers
into pantheism, Ellen White must be seriously wrong
because the message was most dangerous, not "most
precious." But in Jones's case it did not lead him into
pantheism, proving thus that it could not have been a factor

312
to lead Waggoner into pantheism. What led to the pantheism
(or pan-entheism) problem was the climate of rejection of
their 1888 message, not its acceptance.
But Knight justifies his charge by suggesting a novel
definition of pantheism. Its true definition is an impersonal
"God" dwelling in grass and trees. For Knight, the dangerous
source of pantheism is the 1888 concept of a personal God in
close fellowship with us, linking the experience of
righteousness by faith in the believer's heart with "the
doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary and its cleansing." "The
concept of the indwelling power of Christ ... inherent in the
1888 message ... when pushed too far ... easily crosses the
border into pantheism."
But this contrived definition creates insurmountable
problems, for it logically suggests that the author of Hebrews
was also a pantheist, as was Ellen White. And Jesus also
pushes the concept very far, assuring His followers that the
Holy Spirit, His Vicar, will not only "abide with you forever,"
but "shall be in you." That which proves too much proves
nothing.
There is indeed evidence that at one period of his life
Jones became harsh and abrasive. He lost his hold on the
grace of meekness and became a bitter critic of his former
brethren. But this was more than a full decade after
Minneapolis. There are "two" Jones's: (a) the 1888-1903
"servant of God" who in general honored his commission and
justified his "heavenly credentials," albeit at times exhibiting
human weaknesses; and (b) the post-1903 Jones who lost his
way tragically. Modern opponents of Jones confuse the two.
And the really critical years were 1888-1893, for the
opposition had so hardened by that time that our long
wandering became inevitable after 1893. Jones's record
during those early years seems clear.
The Centennial literature about Jones fails to give
attention to a missing ingredient in the fascinating story.
During those early years of his faithfulness, he suffered
severe "unchristlike" "persecution," to borrow Ellen White's
phrases {General Conference Bulletin 1893, p. 184). Its
cumulative impact unsettled and deranged his spiritual
faculties. The Lord could not have made a mistake in
selecting him for his unique role—heralding "the beginning"
of the loud cry message. Neither did Ellen White err in
supporting him. "To a great degree" his later failure is the
consequence of "our" uncharitable rejection of his message,

313
which Ellen White often likened to the spirit of the ancient
Jews in rejecting Christ.
Jones's failure thus had something to do with the
consequence of what she said was our brethren insulting the
Holy Spirit. When He comes in the form of the latter rain
blessing and is "insulted," in that unique sense He has to
leave. The latter rain blessing has to be withdrawn in the
very time when it is desperately needed. Yet the ferment of
time can not be halted; history must go on, and then all
kinds of bad things develop. This is our denominational story.
Knight insists that Ellen White was not concerned about
the doctrinal or theological aspects of Jones's and
Waggoner's message. But her own writings demonstrate a
keen concern for the same. He urges the church to "start
living the caring Christian life now," but without benefit of
the "most precious message" that the Lord sent which alone
can make such a reformation a reality. Thus his position
logically sets the clock of reformation back and vitiates a
hundred years of history.
In pre-Minneapolis times Ellen White often urged the
church to start living "the caring Christian life now." But she
complained that her exhortations were largely ineffective.
When the message of Jones and Waggoner came, she
rejoiced because she saw how it could transform Adventist
imperatives into joyous enablings. Knight's position logically
reiterates the 1888 opposition, holding to the popular
legalistic imperatives while denigrating the God-given gospel
enablings implicit in the actual 1888 message itself.
(4) The Adventist Review of January 7, 1988, the
"Centennial Edition," honors the 1888 message while in fact
disparaging it, saying that "Jones and Waggoner had error
mixed in their message." In other words, be afraid of their
message! Significantly, the entire issue does not permit
them to say a word, rendering them virtually persona non
grata even more effectively than did the Review editor of a
century ago. The unique essentials of their message find no
place in this issue. Yet Luther, Paul Tournier, and even
Uriah Smith, the foremost opponent of their message, are
allowed to speak.
(5) Ministry, International Journal for Clergy, February
1988, the "righteousness by Faith—Special Edition." The
main points as set forth by the various writers can be briefly
summarized in italics. Our comments which follow in
indentation are not intended to be critical or fault-finding. It

314
is a blessing that this magazine was published for it has
directed many thoughtful minds to study into the issues.
These comments are offered in view of the shortness of time
while the Lord still commissions the four angels to hold the
four winds a little longer:
(a) The 1888 Session was marked by open rebellion
against Ellen White on the part of a large number of our
ministers. She even wondered at one point whether God
might have to call out another movement, but her
confidence in God's leading of the church was restored. Most
of the delegates, "the ministers generally," "nearly all," were
opposed to the beginning of the glorious loud cry message
(cf. pp. 4, 6).

This first article is a radical departure from

decades of leadership insistence on an opposite
view—that nearly all the 1888 delegates accepted
the message. It is cause for rejoicing that the truth
of the 1888 history is now being acknowledged,
and in the fulness of the time the Lord can add His
blessings to that. We heartily agree with the
hopeful assurance of this article that in the end
truth will be triumphant and that the church will
yet respond to the leading of the Lord. Knowing
the truth of our history must prepare the church
for repentance and reconciliation with the Holy
Spirit.

(b) We don't really know what was the 1888 message

because Jones's and Waggoner's Minneapolis presentations
were not taken down in shorthand. We have to rely on Ellen
White's sermons and writings and what modern expositors
assume is the message (cf. pp. 15, 16, 23-33).

The message of Jones and Waggoner was not

confined to the supposedly unrecorded
presentations at Minneapolis. Ellen White's
endorsements relate to their on-going
presentations through 1896, and even beyond. For
example, her famous statement that the message
is "most precious" does not mention either
Minneapolis or 1888, but is dated 1896. (L. E.
Froom says that Waggoner's widow told him that
she did record her husband's 1888 presentations

315
 in shorthand, and that he adapted and expanded
the material for his 1889 Signs editorials, his 1890
Christ and His Righteousness, and The Glad
Tidings.)

Ellen White's books such as Steps to Christ and

Desire of Ages are wonderful. Yet she never
claimed that her writings made the 1888 message
of Jones and Waggoner passé. Neither did she ever
claim that her books presented the message of the
latter rain or the loud cry, yet she did make that
claim regarding the 1888 message. Millions of
copies of Steps have been widely circulated, yet
the latter rain has not come. Why? Another
millenium of receiving the early rain will not bring
the grain to harvest because the latter rain is
essential. Is it wise to disparage the message that
Ellen White said marked its beginning?

(c) The message of righteousness by faith as presented

by Jones and Waggoner contained error. It led to "holy flesh"
and pantheism heresies. Ellen White criticized their message
and found fault with it (cf. p. 13, 61).

Every writer who portrays the message as

erroneous relies on that one lone exceptional Ellen
White sentence--"Some interpretations of
Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as
correct" (Ms. 15, 1888). To wrest this from its
context denies literally hundreds of other
statements that express unqualified endorsement.
Only a flawed methodology can interpret it as a
criticism of Waggoner's theology when she says on
the same page, "That which has been presented
harmonizes perfectly with the light which God has
been pleased to give me." A few days later she
adds, "When I ... had heard for the first time the
views of Elder E. J. Waggoner, ... I stated that I had
heard precious truths uttered that I could respond
to with all my heart." "Every fiber of my heart said
amen" (Ms. 24, 1888; Ms. 5, 1889). If we italicize
her "I" as she may well have emphasized it in that
Ms. 15, 1888 sentence, all contradiction is

316
 removed. She says that she is ready to exchange
personal preconceived opinions for greater light.

The ultimate test of Jones's and Waggoner's

unique message is the witness of Scripture. Here
the evidence is also solid.

(d) A significant share of the blame for the church

leadership rejecting the message between 1888 and 1896
lies with Jones and Waggoner, who were basically
unconverted men at that time, "proud, opinionated." They
showed an unsanctified spirit in presenting their
righteousness by faith message (cf. pp. 11, 13, 61).

No evidence from Ellen White supports these

dark allegations. Neither do we find it in the newly
published correspondence of contemporaries from
1888 to 1896. It is difficult to understood how the
Lord would select two messengers for a special
work in 1888 if they were at that time
unconverted, harsh, obnoxious, arrogant, proud,
opinionated, cantankerous, or abrasive.59

(e) Several writers suggest that personal experience and

winsomeness are more important than truth. Another
counters this by saying that true experience cannot take
place without comprehending true doctrine. But the
emphasis of this Ministry is that we do not need the doctrine
or theological teachings of the 1888 message itself and that
it is wrongheaded to give serious credence to them (cf. pp.
16, 61).

Biblical righteousness by faith says the "gospel

is the power of God unto salvation." There is in it a
doctrinal "truth of the gospel" which contradicts
the falsehood of "another gospel." "The truth shall
make you free." Doctrinal error corrupts and
paralyzes the gospel, even when presented in
small amounts. A correct "experience" in the time
59
In a letter to Jones long after he had "apostatized" Ellen White said he had "never yet been
thoroughly converted" (November 19, 1911). If the "never yet" goes back to the time when the Lord
sustained him in his labors, we have a serious problem with Ellen White's endorsements and with
Jones's obviously contrite experience at that time. The phrase “never yet" more likely has reference to
the timing of her appeals to him in the post-1900 period when he was a man who had "lost his
bearings," and thus lost his conversion.

317
 of the final issues is impossible without the full
truth of the gospel which communicates a saving
knowledge as its built-in feature.

(f) There is no difference between "translation faith" and

"resurrection faith." Those who stand in the final time of
trouble will not overcome or reflect Christ's character more
significantly than those who have lived in past ages (cf. p.
42)

This seems to be a contradiction of the

following: "Those who are living upon the earth
when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the
sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy
God without a mediator.... There is to be a special
work of purification, of putting away of sin, among
God's people on earth" {The Great Controversy, p.
425; see also p. 623). Since the beginnings of the
Advent Movement our people have recognized the
unique nature of the mature faith of those who are
ready to welcome Christ at His return; if this were
not clearly supported by many Bible and Spirit of
Prophecy statements, it should be discarded as
Ministry recommends. But the inspired support is
voluminous.

(g) What we say is less important than how we say it In

other words, true doctrine seems less important than a
pleasant personality (cf. p. 61).

Carried to its logical conclusion, this position

could give credence to the mark of the beast
instead of to the seal of God provided the
proponent shows what appears to be a more
pleasant, winsome spirit. "Many a man of cultured
intellect and pleasant manners ... is but a polished
instrument in the hands of Satan" [Great
Controversy, p. 509). The New Testament teaches
that while the truth as it is in Jesus will always
make the believer Christlike in spirit, it will also
make one aggressive for truth in a sanctified
sense; and the 1888 messengers notably
demonstrated this.

318
 (h) The apostasy of Jones and Waggoner is a warning not
to trust their message. In other words, it cannot be "most
precious" if it led to their downfall (cf. pp. 13, 61).

This does not harmonize with Ellen White's

several statements that the messengers' failure or
apostasy will in no way invalidate their message,
but that those who think so will be under "a fatal
delusion" (Letter S24, 1892).

(i) Being a reformer is a bad idea because it is

dangerous. Reformers are generally held in low esteem (cf.
p. 62).

Being a self-appointed, fanatical "reformer" is indeed

dangerous; but cooperating with the Holy Spirit in
reformation cannot be dangerous. The church desperately
needs genuine revival and reformation, and it may not be
safe to wait for another generation to effect it.
(j) Adventist theology and preaching are more Christ-
centered today than before 1888. This indicates
commendable spiritual progress since 1888 (cf. p. 62).

This may be quite true, but whether or not it is

depends more on the judgment of Christ than upon
our own. Is not His message in Revelation 3:14-17
still applicable? For sure, the essential elements of
the 1888 message are still opposed and even
silenced a hundred years later, and worldliness
and lukewarmness abound. This would not be true
if the pure gospel were clearly proclaimed, for it is
"the power of God unto salvation." Careful motif
analysis may reveal that there is far more legalism
still implicit in our current teaching than we care
to recognize.

(k) The 1888 message was well accepted in the decade

following Minneapolis, and the new General Conference
president, O. A. Olsen (not A. V. Olson) supported it
"enthusiastically" (cf. p. 62).

This is refuted by Ellen White's 1896

testimonies which represent Olsen acting "as did
Aaron" in weakly submitting to the driving

319
 influence of determined opponents of the
message. See her clear statements cited in this
book, pp. 178, 179.

(l) Daniel's prayer in chapter 9 does not express

corporate repentance, but intercession, nor does it support
the idea that one generation can repent for the sins of a
previous one. The idea of corporate repentance is also
confused in this magazine, assuming that it means a formal
action of the General Conference in session acknowledging
the wrong of a century ago, and voting "official" regret for it
(cf. pp. 34-36; 7,8).

Something further needs study—the reality of

the guilt the whole world shares for the murder of
the Son of God [Testimonies to Ministers, p. 38;
Desire of Ages, p. 745; Romans 3:19). Should only
the ancient Jews and Romans repent for that sin?
Calvary sums up the world's corporate guilt—guilt
for sins that we may not have personally
committed but would commit except for the grace
of God because of our natural human enmity
against Him (Romans 8:7). This guilt is shared by
every human being, apart from specific
repentance. Ministry must also recognize Christ's
experience of corporate repentance in behalf of
the world, as His baptism demonstrates {In
Heavenly Places, p. 252; Review and Herald,
January 21, 1873; General Conference Bulletin,
1901, p. 36). Biblical corporate repentance is
personal, individual repentance for the sins of
others as though they were our own, which they
would be but for the grace of Christ. We all need
Christ's righteousness imputed 100%. Confusion in
realizing the true depths of corporate repentance
frustrates the message of Christ's righteousness,
implying that we do not need its complete
imputation.

No responsible minister or scholar, to our

knowledge, has ever been so naive as to
recommend a formal vote by a General Conference
in session, or even by a committee, as a method of
righting the wrong of 1888. "Corporate confession"

320
 has always been a misnomer. "Corporate
repentance" is the proper term, and thank God it
has now been recognized as worthy of serious
study.

(m) God has predetermined the time for Christ's second

coming. Therefore to avoid "a skewed picture" we must
discount inspired statements which say that we have
delayed it by our unbelief or that we can hasten it by
repentance and true faith. It is assumed that Christ has
delayed His coming, but it would follow logically that it is
"wicked" to suggest that we have delayed it (cf. pp. 41-45).

This is the opposite of what Christ says in His

parable. This thesis hangs on two isolated Ellen
White statements, both misapplied and one
actually misquoted. While it is true that Christ's
return has been delayed, it is not He who has
delayed it, but we:

(i) "Like the stars in the vast circuit of their

appointed path, God's purposes know no haste
and no delay" (Desire of Ages, p. 32). Here Ellen
White discusses the first coming of Christ, not His
second. Note the context: "The hour for Christ's
coming had been determined. When the great
clock of time pointed to that hour, Jesus was born
in Bethlehem." The author assumes that because
there was a predetermined time for the first
coming of our Lord, there must be the same for
the second. The first was set by Daniel's time
prophecies; the second is in a different category:
"In the days of the voice of the seventh angel,
when he shall begin to sound" there shall be
kronos no longer (Revelation 10:7, 6). In other
words, since 1844 there are no more predestined,
predetermined times.

(ii) "The apparent tarrying is not so in reality,

for at the appointed time our Lord will come"
(Letter 38, 1888). Our author later misquotes this
as "His 'appointed time,'" when our Lord Himself
explains what is "the appointed time"—not
predeterminism but "when the grain ripens,

321
 [when] immediately He puts in the sickle." "The
time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of
the earth is ripe" (Mark 4:39; Revelation 14:15).
Our author makes no reference to these two key
Bible passages, but causes Ellen White virtually to
contradict both. He further remarks that "Ellen
White did say that Christ has delayed His coming,"
but causes her to use the language of the
unfaithful servant in the parable. In reality it is we
who have delayed it.

This thesis introduces an element of Calvinism

into Adventist thinking, disparaging the reality of
the 1888 event in relation to the timing of the
second advent. The Father's infinite
foreknowledge allows not a thread of Calvinistic
predeterminism.

(n) "The Dynamics of Salvation" is recommended as a

statement on righteousness by faith so complete and
effective that it virtually renders unnecessary the publication
of the 1888 message itself. Here is evidence that leadership
understands, believes, and preaches the message. The
preface deplores the fact that some charge the leadership of
the church today with holding the righteousness by faith
views of those who opposed the 1888 message a century
ago (cf. pp. 22-28).

(i) It is obvious that this has become a sensitive

and emotionally charged issue. It is true that the
present authors have indeed taken the position for
years that our popular "righteousness by faith"
today is largely a combination of that of the
Sunday-keeping churches and of what those
taught who opposed the 1888 message a century
ago.

(ii) The present authors must confess that they

believe the evidence indicates that our long
wilderness wandering for a century and the world-
wide lukewarmness of the church are indeed
evidence of rejecting the 1888 message and
starving our people for it. We do not wish to
antagonize our brethren; we wish only to be

322
honest in stating our convictions as conscience
requires, and to state them in a spirit of Christlike
love and loyalty.

(iii) This issue is so vitally important that the

world church must consider it candidly. If our
position is wrong, the world church must reject it
decidedly. If we are right, nothing could be more
important to settle on the side of truth. We must
honestly analyze the 1888 message in the extant
writings, and compare with it our contemporary
presentations of the gospel. The predominant
views of the church can be motif-analyzed in our
denominational publications. We shall find that
the 1888 messengers achieved a breakthrough in
doctrinal and practical understanding that bridged
Calvinism and Arminianism and went far beyond
both. This was the reason for Ellen White's decade
of enthusiasm for their message. A message that
more clearly recovers the full truths of the gospel
than did the 16th century Reformers or our own
exegetes today must lighten the earth with glory.

(iv) The claims made for this document are like

those of the 1952 General Conference president at
the Sligo Bible Conference. He claimed that the
message presented there surpassed the 1888
message. It is futile for Ministry to claim that our
scholars do the same today, and it is equally futile
for these present authors to maintain that they do
not. Let the world church consider the objective
evidence by comparing the two.

(v) The following are some of the 1888

concepts that are unique: legal justification and
the effectiveness of that which is by faith; the
glorious good news of the two covenants; the
mighty power of Christ to save from continuing
sin; His nearness in taking our fallen sinful nature;
the initiative of the Holy Spirit in saving the lost;
the Good Shepherd's initiative in seeking His lost
sheep; the possibility of overcoming all sin even as
Christ overcame in our behalf; the certainty of a
final generation reflecting the perfection of

323
 Christ's character; the practical relation of the
cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary to the
cleansing of human hearts; the motivation of
concern for Christ's honor that transcends self-
centered seeking of reward or avoiding
punishment; the reality of the lost taking the
initiative to be lost; and the truth that the sacrifice
of Christ accomplished far more than making a
mere provision that does nothing unless we do
something— He gave His blood for the world,
therefore the world owes its present life to Him.
The 1888 message probed the depths of the
atonement in a way that must yet capture the
attention of the world.

With the exception of a few brief excerpts one writer

cites from Waggoner, neither of the 1888 messengers
endorsed by Ellen White is allowed to speak in Ministry. The
64-page magazine is devoted to 1888, yet the reader
catches no glimpse of the authentic message itself as "the
Lord in His great mercy" sent it. Undoubtedly the reason is
that the editors know that every unique element of that
message is controverted today, so that the 1888 message
itself has now become the stone of stumbling and the rock of
offense to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as Christ
became such to the ancient Jews.
(6) Perfect in Christ by Helmut Ott (Review and Herald,
1987) is recommended in the Adventist Review, January 7,
1988, p. 21. It "focuses upon two themes of the 1888
session: Christ's work today in securing salvation of those
who accept Him, and the all-sufficient righteousness of Christ
imputed to mankind through faith."
In fact, the basic thesis of this book is a direct
contradiction of the 1888 message of Christ's righteousness.
But the author has so skilfully manipulated Scripture and
Ellen White statements that the Review editors assumed that
the manuscript taught a valid righteousness by faith.
The basic idea is that our mighty Saviour is so weak that
He never enables "believers to develop perfect
righteousness or attain spiritual wholeness" or demonstrate
His righteousness "in their personal historical lives." Their
continued sinning and practical unrighteousness is
conveniently covered by the legal substitution of Christ's
perfect righteousness. The author creates a straw man that

324
he can ridicule by the derogatory use of his own verb:
"Believers" do not "actually achieve" "perfect
righteousness ... in their personal historical lives."
But the true, issue is not whether believers will achieve a
Christlike character but whether through faith in Him they
will demonstrate such a character "in their personal
historical lives." Scripture overwhelmingly says they will.
The volume misses the point of the 1888 concept of
justification by faith. The legal declaration of justification that
results from Christ's sacrifice applies to the "whole world," to
"all men" (Romans 3:23, 24; 5:18; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 John
2:2; John 1:29, etc.). But those who respond to the Good
News, who believe, experience justification by faith, and are
thus made truly obedient to all the commandments of God.
The instrumentality which accomplishes this miracle is "faith
which worketh by love." Thus God's people will demonstrate
"in their personal historical lives" a true obedience.
The White Estate Staff in early 1988 released an
"Analysis" of Ott's book which concludes that it is
incomprehensible that it could have been published by a
Seventh-day Adventist press. The analysis demonstrates that
it makes "of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God"
as presented in the writings of Ellen White, and that the
arguments used are supported by the same misuse and
misinterpretation of Ellen White statements that were
characteristic of Desmond Ford. (January 20, 1988).

(7) Grace on Trial by Robert J. Wieland is a book

manuscript that was requested in 1987 by the editors at the
Pacific Press who planned to market the volume for the 1988
camp meeting season. It was duly submitted to the editors
according to normal denominational procedure. After
examining the manuscript, the editors voted to publish it and
proceeded to edit it. When it was in the early production
process, the General Conference intervened and forced them
to reject it.
If it had been published by Pacific Press, it would have
been the first book of the Centennial Series that allowed the
1888 messengers to present their message in their own
words.
(8) What Every Adventist Should Know about 1888 by
Arnold V. Wallenkampf (Review and Herald, 1988) is a
milestone in our denominational history. An expanded
version of four unpublished articles Dr. Wallenkampf wrote in

325
1979, this book thoroughly contradicts the rich-and-
increased-with-goods thesis of the major works about 1888
that have been authoritatively published for the past forty
years.
The author makes abundantly clear that the gracious
message was resisted and rejected by "the majority of the
ministers at the [1888] conference," and that the resistance
continued "with the passing of the years." He says that we
have been in a "state of rebellion against God." Seventh-day
Adventist leaders "cruelly treated" the Holy Spirit with "hard
words ... aimed at Christ Himself." Our true history is a
"groupthink" "betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus" which
"staggers one's imagination." We must learn "not to follow
leaders blindly." "If the majority of the delegates to the
Minneapolis conference had not followed their leaders in
rejecting the 1888 message, Ellen White would not have
implied that Christ was figuratively crucified at the
conference."
Further, he notes that the repentance of the most
influential of the opponents of the message "was not
wholehearted and complete." "A largely imperceptible
ground swell of opposition was rising against it" in the
decade following Minneapolis. "By 1899 the church's
righteousness had become nauseating to our Saviour." Ellen
White's exile to Australia was related to the 1888 unbelief: "It
was largely discomfort among certain influential leaders with
her and her messages that had spawned the plan that took
her to Australia in 1891." Little improvement followed 1901:
"Apparently, by 1902 to 1904 the church was in danger of
sliding back to the same state that had existed prior to the
Minneapolis conference." Ellen White did not believe "that
the majority of Seventh-day Adventists had accepted the
1888 message as a personal experience before her death in
1915." In 1926, A. G. Daniells "believed that the Adventist
Church was still waiting for the experience that God had
hoped to introduce at Minneapolis."
According to Wallenkampf, we have created tragic
unbelief today by "pretending" that initial rejection turned
into later "enthusiastic acceptance." "If we do not forthrightly
present the history of the 1888 General Conference session
and its aftermath, we as a denomination perpetuate the sin
committed at Minneapolis in 1888. By doing so, we join our
spiritual forefathers and virtually crucify Christ anew in the
person of the Holy Spirit."

326
 A General Conference leader is speaking forthrightly at
last: "It is incumbent on us as a people to confess that for a
long time we have largely glossed over the virtual rejection
of the 1888 message.... God wants all His followers to be
truthful and honest." "Our present responsibility is to tell the
truth about the Minneapolis conference of 1888 and its
aftermath. There is no virtue in saying that all has been well
when this is not so." These are his words, not ours.
Amen!
May the Holy Spirit in great mercy enable us all to be
honest in this Centennial year! He can grant revival,
reformation, and repentance if we will simply tell the full
truth and stop repressing or denying it. This will bring
reconciliation with Christ and heal our internecine
alienations. Surely 100 years is time enough to face the
reality of Christ's call to "the angel of the church of the
Laodiceans" to repent. (Wallenkampf recognizes that this
"angel" is the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church, and that our decades of denial have produced world-
wide lukewarmness and lethargy in the church). The
evidence is now clear that Christ has had enough. He cannot
forever endure His nausea.
There is definitely progress in the 1988 Centennial.
Focusing denominational attention on 1888, its history and
its message, even by misinformation, can be blessed of the
Lord to the awakening of many minds. Especially youth who
are confused by contemporary Adventism will be intrigued
by the new candor. And the Holy Spirit permits even the
publication of falsehood to be overruled by sharper
delineations of truth. (Wallenkampf attacks the idea of
corporate repentance but gives clear evidence he sincerely
does not understand it. The widespread 1988 ridicule of
corporate and denominational repentance will be overruled
by the Holy Spirit to stir up many serious minds to ponder
more deeply Christ's call in Revelation 3:19. It is abhorrent
for Adventist leaders to heap-scorn on His call). .
Hopefully, this generation will come to realize our true
spiritual need as a people, and experience a hunger and
thirst for the righteousness (by faith) that the Lord in His
great mercy tried to give us. Repentance cannot be worked
up by ourselves or forced even by the publication of
overwhelming documentary evidence. It remains a precious
gift from God.

327
 We hope and we pray that He will graciously give it to
this generation.

ANNOTATED INDEX

PREFACE
Authors hold conviction message is final cure for sin
SDA's lack clear concept of heavenly Day of Atonement
Off-shoots and independent ministeries proliferate
Full truth requires repentance and reformation
God will not permit denomination to fully apostatize
What Did the 1888 Message Say?
Ten points
Significance of the Message Today

CHAPTER ONE

WHY RE-EXAMINE OUR ADVENTIST PAST?

Adventist Movement has not progressed as destined
God cannot vindicate lukewarm people
Plan of redemption depends on final hour
The Reason Is Evident

328
 Special preparation for second coming
Abraham's faith not in vain
Failure: An Unthinkable Denouement of God's
Program
Must be response of faith on our part
God's people must rectify every failure
Official misunderstanding of history
Need for thorough investigation
Repentance and Day of Atonement
Cleansing of sanctuary depends on understanding history
Lukewarm disease traced to 1888
Like Calvary 1888 more than historical event
Resentment indicates war with Holy Spirit
Insight Needed Rather Than More Works
Facing truth is not being critical
History must bring us to a confrontation
Church must decide one Lord or other—Baal

CHAPTER TWO

THE SIN OF LEAVING OUR FIRST LOVE

Jesus was precious to 1844 believers
SDA Church conceived in love and work of Holy Spirit
Devotion for Jesus replaced by love of self
System of truth crowded out faith in Jesus
Corporate vindication became hope rather than meeting
Beloved
Legalism was the result
How Our Lukewarmness Took Root
"First love" lost, not appreciating His sacrificial love
Resentment against ministry of EGW
Ability to discern work of Holy Spirit faded away
Preview of insult to Holy Spirit in 1888
Movement's survival depended on ministry of EGW
Place of cross eluded us
Growth Vs. Progress
Prosperous growth covered true spiritual state
Self-esteem and complacency took over in reports
EGW messages in sharp contrast
Lack of spiritual maturity most remarkable
Character development primary purpose
Secondary purpose world missions
Second purpose assured when primary attained
Self-love blinds to true understanding

329
 Statistical records usurp faith and zeal
God's Simple Remedy for a Serious Denominational
Problem
God sent two young agents
EGW delighted with their message
Affirmed God sent truth, Christ in messages
Our Problem Today
Lukewarmness, denominational pride is staggering
problem
Key to understanding lies in true appraisal of 1888
Priceless blessings shut off, Holy Spirit insulted

CHAPTER THREE

THE LOUD CRY TO COME IN A SURPRISING WAY

Latter rain, loud cry to be increased light
False optimism prevailed
Work of God not recognized
Experienced ministers to be passed by
The Divine Choice of Messengers
Spirit preparing two young men
Jones and Waggoner termed "Lord's messengers"
EGW approved the message
EGW perceived message would prepare for second
coming
How the Loud Cry Was Not Recognized
Message given was third angel's message
The "message" was the beginning, not the assumed
acceptance
Church's responsible officer foremost in opposing
Insulting Holy Spirit did not commit unpardonable sin
EGW continued to minister indicating her belief
So-Called "Faults" of Messengers No Excuse to Reject
Their Message
Rejection of light is always inexcusable
The agents seemed faulty
Experienced brethren piqued at EGW support
EGW appraises situation, "hate and dispise the
messengers"
Jones and Waggoner "faults" perpetuated by current
writers
To criticize "messengers" is to endorse their
contemporary opponents
EGW condemned flaw picking

330
 EGW considered it privilege to stand with messengers
The True Reason Why the Message Was Rejected
Mistakenly assumed brethren accepted message
wholeheartedly
Message for finishing work became beginning of long
delay
Who Were the "Some"?
The "some" were the bulk of leading influential brethren
Jews refused Christ, did not come in accordance with
expectations
1888 message far more than re-emphasis of neglected
doctrine
Love of Christ that melts hearts unwelcome

CHAPTER FOUR

ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION: IN SEARCH OF A

SHARPER FOCUS
Impossible to appreciate 1888 message apart from truth
of its history
The issue is whether the leadership accepted it
Rejection of message by leadership denied by Froom
President and vice-president agree no rejection
Secretary EGW Estate assures message accepted
EGW repeatedly likens leadership rejection to that of
Jews against Christ
The Jews Deny That They Rejected the Messiah
Evasion of fact that message was beginning latter rain
and loud cry
Claimed that only few unimportant persons resisted
Froom, Spalding, Christian, Olson, agree no rejection
Their accounts differ markedly from EGW
Was the Message Accepted or Rejected?
GC President Daniells says 1888 history marked a
"defeat"
Daniells insists no denomination-wide revival
EGW says era was victory for Satan
1893 GC session confirms rejection
Significant Inspired Evidence
EGW affirms not one of leading brethren willing to stand
for message
Years later, 1896, referred to "satanic work at
Minneapolis"
A Plea for Simple Honesty

331
 Daniells recognizes EGW statements regarding leaders
Twenty-two EGW statements showing leadership disdain
and resistance
Chronology of rejection, 1892, 1893, 1895, 1896,
1897
The Story of the Post-1888 Revivals
Undercurrent of antagonism persisted
The Counter-Revival Pressure
EGW saw leadership problem, appealed for trust in God
Leadership saw demonstration of Holy Spirit, but "hated"
the message
"Just Like the Jews"
"Woes upon the Pharisees" applied to leadership
Our Upside-Dawn History
Historians assumed "revival" but history says otherwise
Warning the world depended on acceptance
There Is Good News in the 1888 History!
A battle was lost but not the war
Satan desires we should be deceived about our 1888
history
Conclusion
Historians sincere in proclaiming 1888 glorious victory
Critics say church now in hopeless condition
This is not true; Israel will never become Babylon
Sometime history will be seen in its true bearing
Fire was quenched, light put out by human
instrumentalities
Message of Christ's righteousness not received, battle
lost but not war
This generation must recognize facts and rectify tragic
mistake

ADDITIONAL NOTE TO CHAPTER FOUR

The Testimony of the General Conference Archives

Achival files corroborates EGW testimony regarding
negative attitude
Letters of GC secretary reveal "antagonism"
A Glimpse Behind the Scenes in Old Battle Creek
Plan to hide facts spoiled by Waggoner
GC secretary cannot see "messengers" in the light EGW
saw them
Archives confirm Jones and Waggoner were opposed at
Battle Creek

332
Uriah Smith Defends His Rejection of the Message
Uriah Smith's opposition logical, scholarly, apparently
reasonable
There may be "Uriah Smiths" in church today
Heart enmity prevented good brethren from recognizing
Holy Spirit

CHAPTER FIVE

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM: HOW TO EVALUATE

THE 1888 MESSAGE
Error of rejection based on error of misunderstanding
Confusion over "doctrine" and "third angel's message in
verity"
Froom insists men outside Advent Movement gave
"same...emphasis"
Was message same as Protestant Reformers taught?
(1) Cannot be else we deny historic Protestant position
(2) If same then Reformers preached "third angel's
message in verity"
Officially endorsed views cancel uniqueness of message
The Re-Emphasis View of 1888
1888 message was not a mere re-emphasis of Luther or
pioneers
"Beginning" of mature concept of "everlasting gospel"
Intended by Divine Author to ripen firstfruits unto God
and Lamb
Rejection eclipsed practical understanding of sanctuary
cleansing
What Ellen White Saw in the Message of 1888
EGW recognized message as "precious" never clearly
preached before
Message was not previously comprehended by brethren
EGW discussed sanctuary truth in connection with 1888
message
Brethren rejected call for "most decided changes,"
refused to advance
The Light of 1888 the Beginning of Greater Light
1888 message was beginning of fourth angel's message
This fact ignored by our historians
The Light of the Loud Cry Turned Off
Latter rain despised and rejected, thus impossible send
further showers
EGW says Christ knocked for entrance but turned away

333
The Source of Reformationist Misunderstanding
For decades 1888 message disparaged as "new light"
Message was an advanced revelation to the church
Jews pray for Messiah; SDA pray for latter rain; both
reject history

CHAPTER SIX

THE 1888 REJECTION OF ELLEN WHITE

Heaven's blessing blocked by negative reaction to
message
(1) The Holy Spirit Was Insulted
Reception of Holy Spirit implicit in reception of message
EGW emphatic, Holy Spirit insulted
SDA corporate character negatively affected by our
history
(2) Jesus Christ Was Spurned and Insulted
"Reject Christ's delegated messengers, you reject Christ"
Esteemed church historian casts contempt on messenger
Issue not "doctrine," but "What think ye of Christ?"
"Universe ... witnessed the disgraceful treatment of
Jesus"
(3) Ellen White's Ministry Was Disparaged
"My testimony was ignored"
"Rebellion ... hard, bold and decided in denouncing"
Brethren were instinctively opposing Christ's love
"There are those who despised the men and the
message"
A Glorious Treasure Hunt Despised
Charges of "extreme views" casts unjustified aspersion
on EGW
1893 session acknowledges "set this prophet aside with
all the rest"
"You acknowledged [EGW]... now different. Just like the
Jewish nation"
(4) Ellen White's Exile to Australia
"The Lord was not in our leaving America"
"I could not get one ray of light to leave America"
Waggoner suffered similar exile to England
Do the 1890's Have a Message for the 1990's?
1888 history so garbled contemporary attitude still
unappreciative
Today heart alienation more subtle, sophisticated, deeply
buried

334
 Without Holy Spirit, not able to discern truth from error
Conclusion
In no other way than facing truth can we prepare for
future tests
Continued resistance for century hindered the Gift,
despite our prayers

CHAPTER SEVEN

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE "CONFESSIONS"

Confessions practically extorted by compelling evidence
Confessors subsequently acted contrary to their
confessions
Very little frank open reconciliation that led to brotherly
union
No evidence quenching of Holy Spirit was reversed
Confessors did not recover essence of message to
proclaim it well
Contemporary Views of the Post-1888 Confessions
Predominant view is that we "have" the message,
therefore proclaiming
There Are Problems With This View
Where is evidence the message and light were
recovered?
Why wasn't "work" finished after time of confession and
repentance?
Why does EGW persist with statements as late as 1901,
leaders oppose
The Testimony of Our History
Uriah Smith able editor, author, persistant opposer
EGW held him responsible for negative influence far and
wide
His faith in work of EGW not strong, and so cast influence
How Something Miscarried
Assented to light but failed to act upon it
We know today editor's optimism was unfounded
Repeatedly followed line diametrically opposed to
present truth
Editor took open issue with Waggoner and Jones in
Review
The issue is the proclamation of the loud cry message
"They can never regain that which they have lost"
Conclusion

335
 Sincere, good, lovable brethren misread actual situation
in Battle Creek
Uriah Smith prototype conservative unbelieving SDA's
never changed
"Tops" of unbelief cut down, "roots" left intact
In some instances official views today identical to
opposition in 1888
Parallel misconceptions cause statistical reports to
beguile us
Confusion regarding message spawns transgression in all
departments
Cleansing of heavenly sanctuary requires complementary
work in hearts
Power needed is light, gospel completion natural
consequence

CHAPTER EIGHT

A MOVEMENT IN CRISIS: THE 1893 GENERAL

CONFERENCE SESSION
1893 GC session ranks next in importance to that of 1888
The message of 1888 was overwhelming issue of
importance
Forebodings of Great Danger
"God will withdraw His Spirit unless His truth is accepted"
Speakers recognized unprecedented seriousness
Failure to accept would result in acceptance of false light
Lessons From Israel "Written for Our Admonition"
Light received a blessing, but own wisdom turns it into "a
poison"
Writers have compared Israel at Kadesh-Barnea to our
1888 history
1893 is counterpart of later attempt to capture "promised
land"
Israel's effort a failure; so 1893 enthusiasm false
excitement, failure
A. T. Jones Studies
Jones presented twenty-four studies, "Third Angel's
Message"
Spoke humbly of "our" failures, "our" unbelief and need
of the Lord
Jones presented a solid genuine work of the Holy Spirit

CHAPTER NINE

336
 A FALSE RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH: SOWING THE
SEED OF APOSTASY
(The 1893 General Conference Session, Part II)

Rejection of 1888 light opened way for false ideas

Jones reminded session mind devoted to self becomes
mind of Satan
Traced development through paganism, Romanism,
spiritualism
Catholic view contrasted with Steps to Christ
Essence of Romanism is self-worship
Counterfeit exposed, The Christians Secret of a Happy
Life
Teachings from Fenelon, Catholic mystic
W. W. Prescott's Studies
Series of sermons on "The Promise of the Holy Spirit"
Prescott severly demanded that the brethren get right
Messages revert to the egocentric motivation of works
Confused presentations hindered acceptance of true
message
An Effort to Resolve the Stalemate
Prescott studies brought confusion which unsettled even
Jones
Audience lead to believe, receive Holy Spirit by assuming
and claiming
Doctrine developed we receive H. S. without knowledge
or repentance
Jones Confused
Both failed to realize: latter rain withdrawn, Israel return
to wander
Unfortunate prophecies made that have never yet been
fulfilled
Prescott predicted manifestation of gifts of the Spirit
Prescott and Jones deceived by unfortunate claims
Prescott's Predictions of Apostasy
Seemed to know no sure way to tell truth from error
Following decade dark with fires and pantheism
Conclusion
1893 session marked end of the 1888 era
Assumed "greatest victory" cannot account for further
delay of century
1950 session followed 1893 assumption, receive Spirit by
claiming

337
 EGW had warned, "Change leaders and not know it"

CHAPTER TEN

WHY DID JONES AND WAGGONER LOSE THEIR WAY?

Great mystery in SDA history why Jones and Waggoner

later failed
Popular view is they were radical, extreme, in error at
Minneapolis
Such a view cannot be reconciled with appraisal of EGW
Message and messengers subtly disparaged and
opposed to this day
A Mysterious Providence
To suppose the Lord made strategic mistake is
unthinkable
Jones and Waggoner driven away by persistent
unreasoning opposition
EGW fixed ultimate blame "to a great degree" upon
brethren
Lord permitted sad event as test to confirm "us" in
unbelief
Investigative judgment requires church to see truth of
message
The Deep-Seated Nature of the Opposition
Brethren "ever ready to show ... they differ with" J & W
Two men spoke positively and strongly which piqued
uncrucified self
Personality of Jones and Waggoner became
stumblingblock
The Personal Burden Which Jones and Waggoner Bore
J & W knew message from God, beginning loud cry, to
finish work
Their sin, lost faith in corporate body of church and
leadership
EGW sensed pressure might be more than they could
bear
Failure tended to confirm leadership impenitence
Failure cited today as evidence 1888 message
dangerous
What Was A. T. Jones' Problem?
One letter of EGW out of context cited against Jones
EGW "dream" letter accepted, humble repentance
followed

338
 Letter stated his views correct, as "our position"
Jones writings do not say "works amount to nothing"
Jones led astray by Prescott's influence
No Sin is Ever Excusable
J & W failure has kept later generations from idolatrous
respect
EGW insisted unchristlike persecution primary cause of
failure
They knew "beginning" of loud cry, not sufficient for
sanctification
How Good Men Can Lose their Way
Office of GC president not justify wounding brethren
J & W promotion of 1901 constitution misconstrued by
president
President denied charge of "kingly power" by EGW
Jones challenged delegation to show he was against
organization
J & W defeat in 1903 probably beginning eventual
human bitterness
Jones' "heavenly credentials" to herald "loud cry" not
administer
The 1888 Spirit and the Kellogg Tragedy
EGW states Dr. Kellogg was truly converted at
Minneapolis
Kellogg's eventual apostasy largely our responsibility
says EGW
The "manna" of 1888 had been rejected, it spoiled, sad
story
Conclusion
Waggoner acknowledged "superior goodness of the
brethren"
Could not understand why God had given him light
Jones died with confidence in SDA message
Their messages reprinted would provide grand view of
pure gospel

CHAPTER ELEVEN

THE "ALPHA" AND THE "OMEGA" CRISIS

Terrible pantheism crisis nearly overwhelmed SDA
church, early 1900's
Deception follows rejection of light, unalterable law of
history

339
 What we failed to believe, must learn by detour we
devised
The Alpha History of the Early 1900's Illustrates This
Principle
Lord cannot force by fear, must await our disillusionment,
win by love
Warned at Minneapolis, follow Christ or fall under Satan's
generalship
Enemy seized chance to confuse our understanding
Daniells recognized in 1926 warning justified, enemy won
"Alpha" deceptions effective because of previous
rejection of light
The Danger of Impatience
Lord had to alter His purpose, keep in step with His
people
Human critics impatient, delay for sake of church
End of detour good, church will sense true repentance
"The Whole Church" Versus "the Whole Church"
Whole church revived after the "shaking," not before
Understanding of our history necessary to attain that goal
The Foundation of the Pantheism Heresy
Arrogance of human heart became soil for deception to
take root
"Eyes not anointed with heavenly eyesalve ...
understanding blinded"
"Fanaticism will appear in the very midst of us.
Deceptions will come"
Pantheism is foreign to third and fourth angel's
messages
The Dark Decade of Our History
Light calling for repentance extinguished in clouds of
unbelief
"Captain Norman" deception, agent of the devil
"Astonishing backsliding" with God's people, church
"frigid"
Source of spiritual difficulty, rejection of latter rain and
loud cry

CHAPTER TWELVE

THE PANTHEISM APOSTASY

Intervention of EGW saved church from foundering on
pantheism
Respected leaders deaf to pending fate of church

340
 Pantheistic sentiments bewitched ministers, physicians
"Watchman ... on the walls of Zion? Are they asleep?"
Pantheism test not final, Satan must bring supreme
"omega"
Presenting post-1888 history as "victory" cancels Kellogg
lesson
Loss of Battle Creek Sanitarium not the "omega"
Where Lies the Truth About the "Omega"?
"Omega" being an event is contrary to EGW declarations
She said, "many will depart from the faith".
She said omega will be a "danger," end of alphabet of
deadly heresies
When omega should come she said, "I trembled for our
people"
Alphabet symbolism requires development of apostasy
within the church
EGW regarded the omega trials as experience following
her death
Conclusion
Truth of our past history gives hope and confidence for
the future
Long detour of wandering must lead in time to Christ
He has staked His throne on the honesty of His people

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

ELLEN WHITE'S PREDICTIONS OF BAAL-WORSHIP

Our youth see "specific inadequacies" in today's
Adventism
True leader of SDA church not General Conference but
Christ Himself
If church is dull, because false Christ has usurped place
of true one
Adventist "distinctiveness" must prevail or we have no
reason to exist
Rejection of the 1888 Message Leads to Baal-Worship
Following 1888 EGW saw "great danger" at heart of work
Mere belief in "Supreme Being" not sufficient in Day of
Atonement
Because of 1888 failure, unbelief of ancient Israel would
afflict us
Baal would be our choice
Satan tries to destroy uniqueness of this people's mission

341
 Many stand in our pulpits with torch of "false prophecy"
in their hands
What Is Baal-Worship?
Are EGW predictions of Baal-worship of serious concern
today?
Baal the god of the Canaanites means "the lord"
Striking similarities between Israel's religion and
contemporary paganism
Apostasy in Elijah's day gradual, unconscious over a
century
Worship of self disguised as worship of Christ is Baal-
worship
Current cult of self-love is antithetical to devotion to
Christ
Ladder-climbing, promotion, prestige, power motivates
prophets of Baal
Baal-worship intrudes where self-centered motivation
prevails
How Jeremiah Confronted Baal-Worship
Baal-worship unconscious apostasy, leaders and people
tried to deny
Apostate worship was combined with true worship of the
Lord
Religious leaders of the nation aided and propagated
apostasy
Word of the Lord came to Elijah, he did not seek to be
messenger
Has Babylon Continued to Fall?
Ignorance tempts youth to think SDA church merely
religious option
Full light of third angel's message has been kept away
from the world
Fall of Babylon checked, pending when loud cry
proclaimed
Lord's servant insists Baal-worship has infilterated
modern Israel
We turn to popular churches for inspiration not discerning
distinctions
The 1888 Message and the Day of Atonement
Fall of Babylon not yet complete, only initial stages
Christianity's alienation, ignorance of High Priest's
ministry
Result, "Satan... trying to carry on work of God"

342
 (1) Christians in 1844 rejected messages of three
different angels
(2) God cannot hold guilty modern descendants of 1844
rejectors
(3) Preparation for 2nd coming demands knowledge of
three angels
(4) Substitution must change, people must overcome as
He overcame
(5) False christ spread influence by false reformations
(6) "Beast" will appear as saviour, urges mark to
prevent destruction
(7) Understanding 1888 message and two-apartment
ministry go together
Why the Third Angel's Message in Verity Is Needed
Third angel's message presents Saviour tempted in all
points as we are
Those who follow High Priest's ministry appreciate three
unique truths
(a) The perpetuity of the law of God, including holy
sabbath
(b) The non-immortality of the soul
(c) Cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is final Day of
Atonement
These three truths support SDA Church, the verity being
in 1888 message
How Baal-Worship Robs Us of Our Distinctive Message
Satan has sought earnestly to counterfeit New Testament
love
Counterfeit love ministered by counterfeit holy spirit
"Satan will enter any door thrown open for him"
EGW predicted in 1889 a terrible falling away from truth
and purity
Christ and His righteousness not dropped out of
experience verbally
Christ and His righteousness not dropped out consciously
Christ and His righteousness would be dropped out
unconsciously
"Lead by a false spirit ... following the wrong captain"
Conclusion
Appreciation of Christ's cross leads to self being crucified
with Him
Spiritual impotence bewilders SDA members, promotes
dissidents

343
 SDA Church not Babylon. Baal-worship foreign disease,
can be healed
"Honesty and policy will not work together in the same
mind"
There is resurrection with Christ when sinful love of self is
crucified

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

FROM 1950 TO 1971

This manuscript prepared in 1950 for General Conference
Committee
Since then conviction grows there is widespread spiritual
famine
Only days after 1888 session EGW repeatedly compared
"us" to Jews
Prophet's discernment perceived result of 1888, equaled
re-crucifixion
Comparison with Jews penetrates to heart of plan of
salvation
Since 1950 concerted effort to publish idea 1888 was a
victory
Solution not in criticizing church leadership but in
repentance
1950
1888 Re-examined presented evidence "we" took wrong
road in 1888
The appeal was firmly, officially rejected
Manuscript somehow duplicated and distributed on
several continents
1952
Bible Conference held in Sligo church Sept. 1-13, 1952
GC president claimed 1888 truth presented with more
power in 1952
If true, what happened to the blessings that should have
come?
Presentations did not contain the 1888 message
Messages and messengers endorsed by EGW not
considered in 1952
Conference good but latter rain and loud cry not evident
in 1952
Widespread spontaneous distribution 1888 Re-examined
continued
1958

344
 GC reply: A Further Appraisal of the Manuscript "1888
Re-examined"
Authors charged: "distortion of facts," "manuscript ...
detrimental"
70-page reply prepared: An Answer to "Further Appraisal"
Appraisal withdrawn, no longer available
1962
Serious questions continued during another four years
By Faith Alone published 1962; said book would set
"record straight"
(a) Book fails recognize 1888 message "beginning"
latter rain
(b) 1888 message referred to as merely "doctrine" of
justification
(c) Question: Did Protestant churches have three angels'
messages?
(d) SDA church becoming more evangelical: what
message?
(e) "Revival of the nineties died" evidence message not
truly accepted
1966
Questions from church members continue
EGW Estate publishes Olson's book: Through Crisis to
Victory, 1888-1901
Purpose of book: combat "misleading conclusions"
(a) EGW letters indicate not "victory" or "progressive
years"
(b) Book tries to establish message not "officially
rejected," no vote
GC Bulletin 1893 definitely speaks of vote taken
EGW herself mentions vote of rejection
Vote of rejection not recorded because EGW forbade it
(c) Olson minimizes opposition; conflicts with EGW and
eyewitnesses
(d) Painful conclusion: pastors aflame, church members
"have neglected"
1969
Pease published sequel: The Faith That Saves, concerns
1888
(a) Again evasion of unique truth of three angels
(b) Opposition not serious, no vote, repented, supported
message
(c) Nothing said by J & W not said better by EGW
If true, why did Lord send J & W as His messengers?

345
 (d) 1926 Milwaukee GC endorsed as more important
than 1888
This view logically plunges church into confusion, no
lasting revival

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

FROM 1971 TO 1987 AND BEYOND

700 pages had by now been published denying need of
repentance
Additional 700 pages in Movement of Destiny, by L. E.
Froom
Author assures readers of utmost fidelity in response to
Daniells' charge
Written by most prestigious historical scholar in the
church
Book reviewed as not "dependable history"
(a) Takes opposite view from Daniells on 1888 history
(b) No one has been able to see Froom's "affidavits"
On authority of invisible witnesses acceptance assured
States categorically no rejection, but not one statement
to support
Eyewitness written reports contradict Froom's assertions
The "Peerless Witness"
(c) Froom says EGW stands supreme in assessing 1888
11 pages devoted to EGW, not one quotation to support
his premise
(d) Lists over 200 items from EGW but actually are
comments of author
(e) 12 pages phrases of EGW but smothered with
author's ideas
(f) Hundreds of "source documents" but not one is
quoted
(g) Century of history indicates latter rain not accepted
as EGW said
(h) Like Olson, Froom exonerates ministry and
leadership, blames laity
(i) Affirms EGW "rejoiced" in acceptance but offers no
confirmation
GC president's attitude "determinative evidence"
EGW evidence totally lacking in his book
Ellen White's View of the Post-1888 Leadership

346
 EGW said Olsen "has ventured on directly contrary to the
light"
"As unfaithful watchman .... does not regard the
testimonies"
Froom's contradiction of EGW and official support of book
is alarming
How can SDA help others unless we are loyal to truth?
1972
Dr. Froom charged authors of this manuscript to retract
publicly
In 1972 they prepared: An Explicit Confession ... Due
the Church
Reiterated their conviction, our history calls to corporate
repentance
Officers urged Confession not be published; two
developments followed
1973-1974
Annual Council 1973 made earnest appeal but misread
history
Loud cry not subjective revival but it was the objective
message itself
(a) If revival dies out has the Holy Spirit become tired?
(b) Loud cry is message itself and Holy Spirit's power
manifested
1888 message has never been clearly proclaimed to
world church
Outgrowth of 1973-74 interest was Palmdale Conference
in 1976
"Reformationist," Calvinist views presented, denial of
1888 message
Tragic results, loss of hundreds of ministers and laity
1984
Further publication dealing with 1888, The Lonely Years,
1876-1891
Author Arthur L. White says "disproportionate emphasis "
given 1888
Says EGW documents and memory statements supply
data
Dilemma is, disproportionate reliance placed on
uninspired opinions
Repeats "no official action was taken" but GCB says there
was vote
Paragraph 8, p. 396, emphatically denies truth of 1888
history

347
 Thoughtful church members dismayed at such literary
tactics
How is it possible scholars and leaders overlook obvious
evidence
EGW unerring endorsement of message stands clear
after century
1888 An End-Time Test
How can we explain official efforts since 1950 to
contradict EGW?
Were our enemies to research this history, we would be
embarrassed
Spiritual blindness says justification by faith most difficult
of all truths
This distorted understanding makes us "modern ancient
Israel"
"For Our Admonition"
Our history as important as crossing Red Sea and stoning
of Stephen
Question is, will we accept our history or "stone
Stephen"?
After century of delay, cause imperiled, "omega" pending
Inherent in "good news" message is experience of final
atonement
Angels restraining winds, world stability depends on
fidelity God's people
God's work can be finished in an incredibly short time
Will require repentance of the ages, understanding,
correction of confusion
Ultimate experience awaiting church like that of Jesus in
Gethsemane
Christ forsook heaven, true faith not centered on our
reward
Seventh church on scene in last moments, no eighth
church
Power of Satan broken when true righteousness by faith
demonstrated

APPENDIX A

DID A. T. JONES TEACH THE "HOLY FLESH" HERESY?

Attempts being made charge ATJ's message leads to
"holy flesh" heresy
(1) If true, it will discredit the 1888 message

348
 If J & W blacklisted, church foolish to give attention to
their message
Falseness of charge exposed by Dr. Leroy Moore,
Theology in Crisis
(2) If Jones drifting in 1889, EGW must be discredited as
fanatical
Endorsed Jones 1888-1896, if mistaken no way to
respect her
(3) Satan would like to dissuade church from receiving
spiritual blessing
Evidence Concerning the Charge Against Jones
Supposed evidence taken from condensed sermons in
newspaper
(a) Study of Jones newspaper sermons disclose no "holy
flesh" heresy
(b) At no time following 1889 is there any record
favoring this heresy
(c) Primary statement actually by W. C. White but
agrees SDA concept
(d) J & W both refuted "holy flesh" fanaticism at turn of
century
Another example of continued opposition to "most
precious message"

APPENDIX B

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH COMPARISONS

Thirty-six comparisons: The Popular View and The 1888
View

APPENDIX C

ONE SOURCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE MYTH

Popular view of earnest sincere people, message
accepted century ago
This view in direct conflict with history and EGW
statements
EGW testimony clear, latter rain, loud cry "in great
degree" rejected
Our history a replay of Jews', need denominational
repentance

349
 EGW's son and grandson rightly enjoy great esteem in
SDA church
EGW's ministry unique, inspired, beyond a thousand
eyewitnesses
Future of SDA church depends on issue being settled
rightly
Human attitude naturally conflicts with "testimony of
Jesus" without HS
Imperative church now place unqualified reliance on
Spirit of Prophecy
Lukewarmness, spiritual weakness consequence of
misinterpreting history

APPENDIX D

WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF THE SEVENTH-DAY

ADVENTIST CHURCH?
Church has delayed proclamation to world of everlasting
gospel
Corporate involvement EGW compared to failures of
Israel
Has the Lord already or will He in future reject this
church?
Because faithful protest apostasy and are opposed is
situation hopeless?
Will "faithful souls" complete gospel, leave SDA Church
to apostasy?
Is the organized church still "the remnant" of Rev. 12?
Is church membership a valid duty for "faithful souls"?
There are guidelines in Scripture and EGW statements
(1) God's intention His people be denominated, family,
Abraham's "seed"
(2) Through Israel's, Judah's deepest apostasies, Lord
remained faithful
(3) True Israel was always identifiable, "in Isaac" had
faith of Abraham
(4) Early Christian church organized, true Israel, Christ
the Head
(5) God's care over "the woman" in wilderness
indicates organization
(6) Early SDA Church battled organization, HS set seal of
approval
Any movement Holy Spirit leads must be organized,
disciplined

350
 No other world-wide body of believers remotely fulfills
Rev. 14:6-12
Body crafted by the Lord to proclaim gospel, no offshoot
can replace
True SDA's concerned for honor, vindication of Lord, not
reward
They are "under grace," a new motivation, rather than
"under law"
"Shaking" separates from God's people all merely
concerned for safety
(7) "Under law" self-concern fails to appreciate
righteousness by faith
Recognizing Christ as church Head, requires heart-
submission
Otherwise "kingly power" exercised, ministers, people
look to humans
(8) 1888 history shows Lord sent "beginning" through
delegates to GC
(9) 1901 re-organization intended to return leadership
to Christ
Only a dream, "what might have been," 1888 unbelief not
reversed
1903 session seen as backward step by others besides J
&W
(10) 1903 revision did not cause EGW to withdraw her
church support
Solution not in destroying church but in repentance
within it
(11) Millions testify SDA Church despite failures, brought
gospel Rev. 14
Best hope for success, church that not only proclaims but
demonstrates
EGW reminds: "God has said that He will heal the wounds
of His people"
"God would not permit... fully apostatize ... be ... another
church"
Bride of Christ is sick, needs healing, all-out cooperation
required
(12) Should members withhold loyalty, support, pending
evidence
Promises to Israel conditional but God remained loyal,
always tried again
Foundation church Dan. 8:14, honor of God requires
"shall be cleansed"

351
 This is the ultimate issue in the great controversy
"When.... When ... when she seeks God ... she will be
healed"
Duty now to remove hinderences within church
preventing reformation

APPENDIX E

A BRIEF REVIEW OF 1987-1988 PUBLICATIONS

The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials;
Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis 1888;
From 1888 to Apostasy — The Case of A. T. Jones;
Adventist Review, January 7, 1988;
Ministry, International Journal for Clergy, February 1988;
Perfect in Christ;
Grace on Trial;
What Every Seventh-day Adventist Should Know About
1888.

352