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.

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 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.

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.


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.

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.


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 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.

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.


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 Reexamined,” 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.1 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 toFurther 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.2


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. 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 neverdie 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.


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 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 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!

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 “twentythree 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.


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 “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,”3 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 them as especially “appointed,” “delegated,” “credentialed” by the Lord to do a work that she was not called to do.4

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 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.


1 The original report of the Defense Literature Committee had said rather the opposite: “The Manuscript gives every evidence of earnest, diligent, and painstaking effort.” [return to text]

2 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. [return to text]

3 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). [return to text]

4 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. [return to text]