“LIGHTENED WITH HIS GLORY”QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE 1888 MESSAGE |
Chapter 4Questions About the History of the 1888 MessageIs the “1888 message” something passé like horse-drawn buggies and gas lamps?One would normally think so. A tiny General Conference Session held a century ago would be unknown today (there were less than 100 delegates), except for one unforgettable happening. Ellen White tells the story: The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification by faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God (Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 91, 92). This message was “the beginning” of the long-promised latter rain and of the loud cry of Revelation 18 (Special Testimonies, Series A, No. 6, p. 19; Review and Herald, November 22, 1892; Letter B2A, 1892). Those eschatological blessings have never yet been duplicated, because they bring in quick succession the final events. Pentecost was the beginning of the “former rain” which has watered the souls of uncounted millions since the apostles’ day. But the above statements declare the 1888 message to be the beginning of the final manifestation of what began at Pentecost. That’s rather serious. The story of how that message came, how it was received (or rejected), and what its content is, will fascinate Seventh-day Adventists until the gospel commission is completed. It has become an epic event of unparalleled significance, like the coming of the Messiah was to the Jews 2000 years ago. The Jews have never been the same since, and neither has the Seventh-day Adventist Church been the same since 1888. The Holy Spirit will not let the history die. I hear it said that the 1888 message is a nonentity, that it does not exist, because no one recorded Jones’s and Waggoner’s messages at the Minneapolis Conference. Could it he that all this talk about the 1888 message is in vain?There is evidence that the message was indeed recorded. It is the on-going message that Ellen White endorsed wholeheartedly from 1888 through 1896, and even into 1897. She never limited her endorsements only to what was presented briefly at Minneapolis. Thus the actual message has not been “lost.” Ellen White’s many on-going endorsements number in the hundreds if one counts all that are in the four-volume set of her 1,812 pages on the subject of 1888 (see APPENDIX). She never implied that Jones and Waggoner had lost their way between 1888 and 1896. Numerous Signs and Review articles also contained their on-going message. It is an insult to the character of God to say that He would grant such a blessing and allow it to be lost so we cannot recover it. There are conflicting accounts of how the message was received a century ago. Some say it was accepted, some that it was rejected. Is it possible to know the facts?Facts are stubborn entities that reasonable, candid human beings cannot deny. Facts regarding 1888 can be classified in three areas: the history of what happened; the content of the message itself; and the testimony of Ellen White. Since Seventh-day Adventists believe that the Lord enabled her to exercise prophetic insight, her analysis of what happened has to be considered more accurate than the opinions of people who did not exercise that special gift. Contemporary conventional wisdom is not good enough. Scores of times she declares emphatically that the message was rejected, not by the church at large but by the leadership of that day. Examples are: Selected Messages, Book One, pp. 234, 235; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 63-81, 89-98). As to the content of the message itself, objective analysis of our current teachings demonstrates that it has not yet been recovered. This will be seen as we consider further questions. Why is this issue of 1888 so important? Can’t we just go forward from here and forget the past?The Jews cannot forget the history of Jesus Christ and go on as though nothing happened. They lost something when they rejected Him, and we lost something when we rejected the 1888 message. What we lost was “the third angel’s message in verity” (Review and Herald, April 1, 1890). When Joseph and Mary through carelessness lost Jesus when returning from the Passover in Jerusalem, they had to go back and search for Him. Not only must we recover what we lost; we must also learn our lesson so as not to repeat the same mistake again. George Santayana has said that “a nation that does not know its history is fated to repeat it” (Saturday Evening Post, September 27, 1958). Ken Burns, noted Civil War researcher, said: “The great arrogance of the present is to forget the intelligence of the past” (American Heritage, September-October, 1990). The German nation cannot blithely forget the Holocaust and go on as though nothing happened. The God of heaven honored the Seventh-day Adventist Church by entrusting to our care the message of Revelation 18. That message was to lighten the earth with glory, to be the closing message of the gospel. It is painful for the Jews to think about Jesus of Nazareth; it is painful for the German nation to think about the Holocaust; it is also painful for us to think about 1888. But it is necessary. If we choose to abandon the role that Heaven appointed us as a people, we can forget 1888 and go thoughtlessly on our way, seeking to maintain the status quo. But if we wish to fulfil the role that Heaven has appointed us on the stage during earth’s closing hours, we must recover what we lost. What are the facts about how the 1888 message was accepted at the time, or rejected?Sincere writers have maintained that it was accepted, and that it has been proclaimed clearly and powerfully ever since. If this is true, some disturbing questions demand answers: • Why is the church generally still lukewarm 100 years after accepting that “beginning” of the latter rain and the loud cry? • Why has not the gospel commission been completed and a people made ready for the second coming of Christ? • Why hasn’t the Lord returned? If the message was “the beginning” of the loud cry of Revelation 18, then something must have gone wrong, for here we are over 100 years later when the loud cry was supposed to go “like fire in the stubble” (Review and Herald, December 15, 1885). Billions of people, including the Hindus and the Muslims, have hardly been touched with an intelligent grasp of “the third angel’s message in verity.” Neither has the message made a significant impact on Christendom. Ellen White says that if the message had been accepted, the gospel commission could have been completed by 1893 (General Conference Bulletin, 1893, p. 419). Some feel that she was naive to envisage such a possibility before the age of TV, jetliners, and computers. But they must forget that “the gospel … is the power of God unto salvation.” Many unbelieving Israelites doubted that David could slay Goliath with a pebble, but he did. And many doubted that Gideon’s 300 could rout the Midianites, but they did. A clear answer to this question of acceptance or rejection is possible:
In 1926, former president A. G. Daniells declared that up to that time the message had never been truly received or proclaimed. (Borrowing Evangelical concepts since that time has not filled the vacuum). In 1988 Dr. Arnold Wallenkampf of the Biblical Research Institute published his What Every Adventist Should Know About 1888, in which he forcefully declares that leadership rejected the message and “insulted” the Holy Spirit. The February 1988 Ministry Magazine published a similar article by Dr. Robert Olson of the White Estate. The Centennial year of 1988 witnessed a further general about-face on this issue. No responsible scholar will now maintain the view of those authors of past decades who insisted that the message was accepted. However, this is not to say that the message was rejected completely. There were a few at Minneapolis who believed it, and there have always been a few ever since who appreciate it. But Ellen White’s testimony is consistent that “many” rejected and “few” accepted, and the “many” were those who directed the denomination’s ministry. Hence our many years of wilderness wanderings, as Israel of old wandered so long before entering their Promised Land.
For example, it is well-known that the principal opponent, Uriah Smith, maintained his opposition until his death in 1903. Yet he insisted that he had always believed in justification by faith. Many agreed with him in his opposition views. His writings from 1888 through 1903 demonstrate that he never accepted the message. When a controversy erupted in 1906-7 over the two covenants, most of our General Conference and publishing house leaders opted to defend the view held by the opponents of the message in 1890. Such incidents demonstrate an on-going rejection. Ellen White said that even if opposing brethren should repent of rejecting the message (which few completely did), they could never recover what they lost (Letter, January 9, 1893). This loss is evident in reading their writings. When the new century dawned in 1900, virtually no one was proclaiming the message except the original three, Jones, Waggoner, and Ellen White.
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 … not one … 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 (Letter U3, 1889). 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. … 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 (Review and Herald, March 11, 18, 1892). 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 (Letter 25b, 1892). 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 made full confession of their mistaken zeal, their blindness, their jealousies and evil surmisings, their defiance of truth? Not one. … (Letter B2A, 1892). At Minneapolis … 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 (Selected Messages, Book One, pp. 234, 235; 1896). Although there were brief revivals as the result of the combined ministry of Ellen White, Jones, and Waggoner during 1889 and 1890, the Battle Creek-inspired opposition finally won the day. The 1896 statement above is conclusive. But this does not mean that the church is in a hopeless state of apostasy. Repentance is possible; and the Lord Jesus Christ calls for it (Revelation 3:19). Modern Israel must rehearse the significance of her history and learn its lessons, as the ancient Israelites after decades of wandering rehearsed theirs before they could enter their Promised Land. We have come to the time when an antitypical “Deuteronomy” must take place. It is difficult to understand how Seventh-day Adventist church leaders a century ago could have done anything comparable to what the Jews did to Christ. This seems unbelievable!The following are only a few of many similar statements by Ellen White: Those who resisted the Spirit of God at Minneapolis [1888] 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). [1] If you reject Christ’s delegated [1888] messengers, you reject Christ (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 97). Isn’t there a danger that disclosing the truth of this history may weaken the people’s confidence in the leadership of the church?Through one means or another, it is inevitable that eventually the people (and the world itself) must learn the full truth. Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.” Full disclosure must come sometime. It has been impossible not to let the world know the full story of the Jews’ failure. If leadership recognize the truth of our history, the people’s confidence in them cannot be impaired, for everyone knows that human beings are not perfect or infallible. Repentance is still possible, and the church at large will support a program of honest repentance. Confidence can be impaired only if leadership should try to deny the obvious facts of history, deny responsibility, and refuse Christ’s call to repentance. The Bible tells the full truth of the history of God’s people, never glossing over the failures of leaders. To recognize our mistakes of a century ago is not to discredit today’s leaders in the least. It illuminates the darkened corners of our understanding as to why time has gone on so long when the coming of the Lord was due a century ago. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” said Jesus to Jews of His day. His words apply also to our dilemma now of trying to explain why the Lord has not intervened to end the on-going agonies of this planet. His honor and vindication are at stake. It seems almost impossible to believe that church leaders could reject the beginning of the outpouring of the latter rain, for which they had been praying for decades. How could they do this?For the same reason that the Jews rejected their Messiah when they had been expecting Him for over a thousand years. Ellen White declares that it was the same sin of unbelief. Such unbelief is the phenomenon of the ages. It pre-vented the Jewish leaders from recognizing Him as a baby in the humble manger in the stable in Bethlehem, although the shepherds and wise men did recognize Him. Throughout His ministry in lowly circumstances, the proud Jews would not “believe,” because faith always requires a humbling of the human heart. Ellen White declares that our real problem in 1888 and thereafter was that mysterious sin of unbelief, the proud love of self: If the rays of light which shone at Minneapolis were permitted to exert their convincing power upon those who took their stand against light, … they would have had a rich experience; but self said “No.” Self was not willing to be bruised; self struggled for the mastery. … Self and passion developed hateful characteristics (Letter O-19, 1892). She added later that “that wonderful ‘I’” was what attempted “to put down the Holy Spirit’s teaching” (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 70; 1896). We today partake of the same human nature as did they. We are no better than they were. We must wrestle with that same problem, and we shall certainly fail again and again unless and until we learn this lesson. We are told that the real work of justification by faith is to lay the glory of man in the dust, and to do for him that which he cannot do for himself (Review and Herald, September 16, 1902). This is what faith does for the human heart: When I survey the wondrous cross On which the Prince of glory died My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt on all my pride. Unbelief does the opposite. It nurtures personal, professional, and denominational pride. That was the problem in 1888. Is the same mistake being made today that was made a century ago?Because our human nature is the same as that of our predecessors, it is impossible for us to not make the same mistake again unless we have learned our lesson from the past. It is impossible for the Jews of today not to repeat the mistake of their forefathers who rejected Christ unless they learn the lesson of their history. Human nature is the same in all generations, and it will surely act out again its characteristics unless full repentance is received. For decades the world Seventh-day Adventist Church has not known the full truth of our 1888 history, because that truth was repeatedly skewed and misreported. The popular misconception has been two-fold:
These two widely prevalent errors would make it inevitable that a process of rejection should take place again today if in God’s providence the message should be recovered and again presented in its freshness, and if repentance should be rejected. However, Christ died for the redemption of His church. His grace operating on human hearts purifies them from the love of self, and imparts a basic honesty that will recognize and confess truth once it is made apparent. Since the truth of our 1888 history has begun to be officially published in 1988, a change is sure to take place. The complete release by the White Estate of all that Ellen White said about this history is a step in the right direction (1,812 pages in four volumes). The Holy Spirit has always blessed her testimony. All that God’s honest people need in order to open their hearts to receive God’s gift of repentance is the full knowledge of that truth. There are hopeful signs that it can’ not be forever suppressed. Opposition will of course manifest itself in unexpected quarters; a “shaking” is necessary. But in the final battle between truth and error, God must have a people for whom truth will prevail. Otherwise, the plan of salvation is lost and the world itself is doomed. Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” What kind of fruit did the 1888 message bear in the years immediately after the Minneapolis Conference?Ellen White speaks thus of the “fruit” the message bore in those early days, in the face of official opposition: 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. The people confessed their sins, and appropriated the righteousness of Christ. God has set His hand to do this work. … The blessing of God swept over us [Jones, Waggoner, and herself in Chicago] as we pointed men [and women] to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. … How long will those at the head of the work keep themselves aloof from the message of God? (Review and Herald, March 18,1890). 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 cherished unbelief and prejudice, who in place of helping to do the work the Lord would have them do, 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 (Letter O-19, 1892). 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 [Jones and Waggoner] go among the churches, light, and relief, and the blessing of God is sure to come in (MS 10, 1889). After the Minneapolis meeting how wonderfully the Spirit of God wrought; men confessed that they had robbed God by withholding tithes and offerings. Many souls were converted. Thousands of dollars were brought into the treasury. Rich experiences were related by those whose hearts were aglow with the love of God (MS 22, 1890). Note the dates of these statements: 1889, 1890. These wonderful revivals ceased when the opposition snuffed out the work of the Holy Spirit. The General Conference soon scattered the team. In 1891, Ellen White herself was exiled to Australia, and the following year Waggoner was virtually exiled to England. But the brief but abortive revivals described above have forever testified that the message was indeed from the Lord. I have read reports that Jones and/or Waggoner were harsh, rude, and unchristlike, themselves to blame for the opposition they had to endure. If so, the brethren who rejected their message did not commit so serious a sin; and furthermore … we today, can we not be excused if we reject the message again?Several facts constitute an answer to this question:
His voluminous sermons at the 1893 and 1895 General Conference sessions are recorded stenographically in the Bulletins and are readily available today for anyone to read. According to Ellen White, only a “prejudiced” mind can find evidence therein of harshness or rudeness.
But is there no record of ]ones being abrupt and harsh?Nearly forty years after the event, one critic reported that on one occasion during the Minneapolis meetings Jones spoke disrespectfully to Uriah Smith. No one knows for sure even if the alleged remark was partly in jest. Ellen White never mentioned the incident in her diary, indicating that she thought it a minor episode. There is abundant evidence that Jones’s general attitude in those years was that of a sincere, humble, kind-hearted Christian. For sure, both “messengers” were fallible men, “only men,” Ellen White says (as are all of us). We must beware lest we bear false witness against them in an effort to discredit their message and ministry. It is a well-known fact that both]ones and Waggoner lost their way eventually. Does this indicate there is something wrong with their message?It is true that they did begin to lose their way about the turn of the century. And then Jones began to let drops of gall get into his spirit, which brought forth rebukes from Ellen White. Eventually he lost confidence in General Conference leadership, and his spirit became wrong. Waggoner lost faith in the sanctuary message, and suffered a domestic tragedy. What must be borne in mind is that Ellen White’s endorsements of their message and ministry continued from 1888 through 1896. She insisted that their later failures cannot fairly be blamed on their earlier message. Ellen White specifically said that if they should eventually lose their way, their opposers (with feelings of “enmity,” she says), would seize upon this tragedy as an excuse to reject their message and thus would “triumph.” But in so doing, they would “enter upon a fatal delusion” (Letters O-19; S24, 1892). The last thing we want today is such a “delusion.” We must recognize however that neither Jones or Waggoner ever gave up their faith in Christ or their love for the Sabbath truth. In today’s climate of church fellowship standards they would probably remain in membership. Why did Jones and Waggoner lose their spiritual power?The reason Ellen White gives is that their opposers treated them so unfairly and even “cruelly” that they almost forced them to stumble: 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). 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 [Jones and Waggoner] a laborious and soul trying task (General Conference Bulletin, 1893, pp. 419-421). Granted that they were mistreated; was that an excuse for their failure?No. Sin is never excusable in anyone. But what they had to endure was what she called “unchristlike persecution” (Ibid., p. 184). Of course, even enduring persecution is never an excuse for sin. But their trial was incomparably more severe spiritually than was that of Martin Luther who suffered persecution from the pope, the cardinals and bishops. Luther could rejoice in his persecutions because he recognized the papacy as the “little horn” of Daniel 7 and the “beast” of Revelation 13. But Jones and Waggoner could find no such comfort. They knew that this is the true “remnant” church of prophecy. No eighth church is to follow Laodicea. And overcoming, not spiritual failure, is what the prophecy says must come. The terrible rejection of “the beginning” of the latter rain and the loud cry was something they could not understand. It was totally outside God’s plan for the closing up of the great, controversy issues. Heaven was astonished, for even the angels did not expect this phenomenal reaction against the Holy Spirit, even to the point of “cruelty” and “insulting” Him at a General Conference Session. Such bitter opposition to Him should have ended at the close of the 1260 years of persecution. According to Ellen White, this was the first time that the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church firmly set themselves against the much more abounding grace of Christ, repeated the sin of the ancient Jews, and in the process even rejected her own ministry. But weren’t Jones and Waggoner strong men who should have endured their trial?It is not surprising that there were casualties, for Jones and Waggoner were weak men as are we all. That must have been one reason why the Lord called them to their special work, for He cannot easily use “strong” people. He told Paul that “my strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9). They were not prophets as was Ellen White, and each was only a man. A woman was able to endure the trial, although she too suffered greatly. And their understanding was not only finite, it was restricted by an apparent lack of Scriptural or prophetic information to explain what was happening. It was a Great Disappointment more mysterious even than that of 1844. They could not understand, nor could they possibly foresee another century of violent human history and agony having to go by. Thus they lost their “bearings,” says Ellen White. Before we castigate them, we would do well to ask ourselves if we could have endured that bitter experience any better. The most painful trial that any loyal Seventh-day Adventist can endure must be that of determined and persistent opposition from church leadership. Nevertheless, the grace of the Lord was and is always sufficient. That trial was essentially the same that Joseph had to endure when his ten brethren opposed him, and what David had to endure from King Saul, and what Jeremiah had to endure from Kings Jehoikim and Zedekiah and the priests and “prophets” of his day. Jones and Waggoner had to suffer; and to their shame they failed to endure successfully. Another reason can well be that the light they had was only “the beginning” of the final outpouring of the Holy Spirit. That beginning was not enough to enable them to endure a spiritual test that no previous servants of God had been called to endure. Such “unchristlike persecution” initiated by church leadership during the antitypical Day of Atonement is unprecedented in sacred history. Heaven and hell must both have marvelled at the success that Satan gained (see Selected Messages, Book One, pp. 234, 235). It is a solemn thought that “the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God” (Exodus 34:14). In these last days of the great controversy, He will give anyone who wants them hooks on which to hang their doubts (Great Controversy, p. 527). That is a severe generosity! It seems that that mysterious divine “jealousy” will let us invent every possible stumblingblock as an excuse to reject His true latter rain and accept a counterfeit. There is wonderful progress of the church worldwide in baptizing large numbers of people and erecting fine institutions. Is this sufficient evidence that repentance is unnecessary?For many decades we as a church have rejoiced at such progress. This has repeatedly been cited as evidence that we do not need to recover the 1888 message—or as evidence that we already possess it. However, there are other denominations making even more spectacular “progress.” The Roman church is increasing its membership far more than we are, and erecting finer buildings, as are certain Protestant, especially Pentecostal, groups. Even the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses make progress. And Islam is growing by leaps and bounds. The strength of the church is not in its statistical or financial records. We were never called to accumulate statistics and institutions to impress the world, but to proclaim a message that would prepare a people for the coming of the Lord. If we were to baptize every human soul in the entire world and make each one to be a lukewarm church member as most of us are today, that would not hasten the coming of the Lord. The test of our true progress is spiritual growth. A Good News message that is truly powerful must lighten the earth. There must be a preparation to meet the final issues—the mark of the beast and the close of probation. Heaven is better prepared to evaluate our progress accurately than are we. One hint that we do have is Christ’s message to Laodicea— the startling disclosure (in the Greek) that of all the seven churches of history, we are the one who is outstandingly “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked,” while we think ourselves “rich, and increased with goods.” Since Jones and Waggoner did eventually lose their way, is it not dangerous for us to read their writings?Their writings are never at any time to be considered as inspired or as a part of the canon. The Bible alone is to have that honor. But Ellen White said that they discovered “precious ore” in “the mines of truth.” We are not to preach Jones and Waggoner, neither are we called to preach Ellen White. We are to preach the Bible, but to accept all the light that the Lord has seen fit to send us. “The Lord in His great mercy sent” Jones and Waggoner with “a most precious message.” The Holy Spirit gave them insight into Bible truths that our people had not previously discerned. In over a hundred years of scrutiny and frequent opposition, no competent scholar has pinpointed any important aspect of their message from 1888 through 1896 that is not clearly supported by Scripture. At what point do their writings become unreliable?Waggoner’s studies on Hebrews at the 1897 General Conference Session contain many helpful insights, but he began to express some confusing thoughts suggesting pan-entheism. Likewise, the original edition of The Glad Tidings (1900) had some such thoughts, although in 1901 he denied believing or teaching pantheism. When the Pacific Press republished it in 1972, these confusing statements were taken out, leaving his basic message of righteousness by faith intact and in harmony with his previous writings. According to the records, Jones uttered no pantheistic or pan-entheistic thoughts. But after about 1904 he began to lose confidence in General Conference leadership. However, his The Consecrated Way was for the most part written before 1900 (parts of it as early as 1894), and contains none of the drops of gall that got into his writings after 1905. In their later writings both doubt the possibility of denominational repentance, and this is the deciding factor that led to their failure. (And any movement or “independent ministry” that doubts that possibility must likewise fail). Neither Jones nor Waggoner ever repudiated the 1888 message; neither gave up the Sabbath, or lost his love for Christ and the Bible. As Ellen White said, error in their later writings cannot cancel the truth in their earlier writings. Good common sense is always appropriate. We do not refuse to read the Psalms because of David’s failures and mistakes. What is the difference between Christ dwelling in the believing heart through faith, and His dwelling in every person’s heart?There is a fine line between the truth of John 1:9 which says that Christ is “the Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” and the pan-entheism doctrine that Christ personally dwells in “every man” before he exercises faith and is converted. That idea was not a part of the 1888-96 message that Ellen White endorsed. Some charge that the 1888 message leads into pantheism. But there was no pantheism in the message which Ellen White endorsed, and there is nothing in it that leads to pantheism. Paul often speaks of Christ dwelling in the heart, but he is speaking of believers, not unbelievers (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:5). Paul does not say that God’s Son was in him even before his conversion,” but that God chose him from the womb (Galatians 1:15,16). The revealing of His Son in Paul was following his conversion. And that revealing was not an unfolding of what was there in his heart all along, unrealized. The mistaken New Age idea is borrowed from Hinduism, that God is within you waiting only to be realized. Christ entered Paul’s heart to abide there at his conversion. But the Light was indeed shining on his heart all his life, while resisted. One text often misunderstood is thought to support the New Age idea: “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20, 21). Jesus informed the Jews that although they had been looking for the kingdom of God to come, here it was manifested among them, or “in the midst of you,” undiscerned. He did not say that God dwelt within them as unbelievers. There is a “power working from within, a new life from above, … Christ … [quickening] the lifeless faculties of the soul” (Steps to Christ, p. 18). But this work of the Holy Spirit within the heart leads toward conversion and sanctification. Read Chapter 5—Questions About the Two Covenants Notes: [ 1 ] Other such statements are found in MSS 9, 15, 1888; Through Crisis to Victory, pp. 292, 297, 300; MS 13, 1889; Review and Herald, March 4, 11, August 26, 1890; April 11, 18, 1893; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 64, 65, 75-80. See also The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, pp. 529, 530. Once she likened the rejection of the 1888 message to the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (p. 600). |
Articles Index | Robert J. Wieland Index | Lightened With His Glory Index |