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 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 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 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. Selfjustifying
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.1
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 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. "2 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 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 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, 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 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 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.)(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).
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?
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 removed. She says that she is ready to exchange personal preconceived opinions for greater light.(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).
The ultimate test of Jones's and Waggoner's unique message is the witness of Scripture. Here the evidence is also solid.
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.3(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 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.(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).
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 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.(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).
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" has always been a misnomer. "Corporate repentance" is the proper term, and thank God it has now been recognized as worthy of serious study.
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:(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) "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, [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.
(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.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.
(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 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 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.