APPENDIX A
The 1888 View of the Two Covenants
VI. ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS
- "Jones’ and Waggoner’s
later history invalidates their view of the two covenants."
Ellen White said that their possible downfall would not be the
result of error in their God-given message, but would largely be due to
"unchristlike persecution" inflicted on them by their
unbelieving brethren. They might not be able to endure it (see Letter
O19, 1892; S24, 1892; GCB, 1893, p. 184).
Neither ever gave up his faith in Christ or his belief in the Bible;
neither stopped keeping the Sabbath; the night of his death Waggoner
wrote a letter breathing faith in Christ and love for his brethren, and
shortly before his death Jones wrote a letter expressing firm faith in
"the third angel’s message," including the gift of prophecy
in Ellen White (Letters, May 16, 1916; May 12, 1921). In today’s
climate of church fellowship, both would remain church members.
The ultimate truth of the two covenants does not depend on them or even
Ellen white, but on Scripture evidence.
- "Leading children to make
promises to God may help anchor them from backsliding."
As with adults, children do not realize the sinfulness of their
human hearts. When they inevitably break their promises to God, the
resultant discouragement becomes a powerful incentive to apostasy (see
SC 47).
In the light of Revelation 3:14-21, Christ is calling the Seventh-day
Adventist Church to reformation in the principles of child evangelism.
Much more abounding grace must be ministered to them, which alone can
hold them.
- "God expressed Himself as
pleased with the people’s promises at Sinai. ‘The Lord said unto me,
I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have
spoken unto thee ["we will hear it and do it"]: they have well
said all that they have spoken.’" (Deuteronomy 5:28).
It is unthinkable that God would approve of a program that would
"gender to bondage" for His people (Galatians 4:24). He
disapproved of Abram’s plan to adopt Eliezer as his heir and thus
"do works" for the fulfillment of God’s promises (Genesis
15:2, 3). Why would He now approve of
a works program for Abraham’s descendants?
In the next verse God expressed His real dissatisfaction with the
people’s response: "Oh that there were an heart in them, that
they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always, that it might
be well with them, and with their children forever!" (vs. 29). The
people had made their promises without the involvement of their heart.
If their heart had been deeply moved as was Abraham’s, they would have
responded as he did with a fervent, humble "amen" of
appreciation for their deliverance from Egyptian slavery.
God’s supposed approval can be understood as divine irony: That was a
great speech the people made. I just wish they had a heart that would
make it possible for Me to bless them now and always as the nation of
Israel! If they had the heart-faith of Abraham their father, there would
be no need for the backsliding history that must come in future
centuries. They would always be the head and not the tail.
Divine irony has often been expressed in Scripture. When the unbelieving
king Ahab asked the prophet Micaiah, "Shall we go to Ramoth-gilead
to battle, or shall I forbear?" the inspired prophet answered with
biting sarcasm and irony: "Go ye up, and prosper, and they shall be
delivered into your hand" (2 Chronicles 18:8-14). The king’s
response indicates how well he understood the humor: "How many
times shall I abjure thee that thou say nothing but the truth to me in
the name of the Lord?" (vs. 15). Then the prophet delivered a
devastating prediction of disaster couched in irony: "I did see all
Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no
shepherd." The story goes on with more biting irony (vss. 18-21).
Speaking through Amos, the Lord asks Israel, "Have ye offered unto
Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of
Israel?" knowing fell well that the answer had to be negative (Amos
5:25). Another example of irony or even of sanctified sarcasm is the
Lord speaking to Israel: "‘Go to Bethel and sin; go to Gilgal and
sin yet more. Bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every
three years. ... Brag about your freewill offerings — boast about
them, you Israelites, for this is what you love to do,’ declares the
sovereign Lord" (4:4, 5, NIV).
Jesus often used irony. One example is His remarks on the eve of His
crucifixion as He speaks to His disciples. The NEB captures it: "He
said to them, ‘When I sent you out barefoot without purse or pack,
were you ever short of anything?’ ‘No’, they answered. ‘It is
different now’ He said; ‘whoever has a purse had better take it with
him, and his pack too; and if he has no sword, let him sell his cloak to
buy one. ...’ ‘Look, Lord,’ they said, ‘we have two swords here.’
‘Enough, enough!’ He
replied" (Luke 22:35-38). It’s unthinkable that our Lord was
being serious. (In a few minutes He rebuked Peter for using a sword.)
For God to commend the Israelites’ unbelief at Sinai is equally
unthinkable. The alternative is to view Him through the eyes of the
Dispensationalists as experimenting with
different methods of saving His people.
- "Ellen White urges us to make
old covenant promises to God as the basis of denominational revival and
reformation."
In Patriarchs and Prophets (1890) she had upheld the Waggoner
view (pp. 370-373), as well as writing enthusiastic endorsements of it
in her letters to Uriah Smith the same year (Letters 30, 59, 1890). When
we find 14 years later what appears on the surface to be an about-face
on her part, we need to examine the contextual evidence closely. Her
1904 statements are as follows:
- "The covenant that God made with
His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense ... ‘And all the
people answered together and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will
do.’ This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the
Lord made it with ancient Israel" (Southern Watchman, March
1, 1904).
This seems indeed to indicate that the Lord wants us to join ancient
Israel at Sinai in renewing the old covenant! But let us consider her
context. She is quoting Exodus 19:4-6 which indicates God’s purpose to
renew with Israel the same new covenant which He made with Abraham —
His promises. If Israel will respond as he did, then all these blessings
will be theirs to enjoy as a people. Our "refuge and defense"
in these last days must be His promises to us, says Ellen White, not our
promises to Him.
- In another statement quoting verses
7, 8 which contain the people’s promise, Ellen White said: "This
is the pledge that God’s people are to make in these last days. Their
acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of
their agreement with Him. God includes in
his covenant all who will obey Him" (RH, June 23, 1904).
A careful reading of the entire article reveals that Ellen White was by
no means pleading for a return to an old covenant relationship with God,
even though it may superficially appear as though she is. The over-all
thrust of the article is an appeal to dedicate ourselves to "our
work" of proclaiming the gospel in all the world. "Christ
calls upon the members of His church to cherish the true, genuine hope
of the gospel," she adds; nothing in the article suggests she wants
to disparage righteousness by faith
or to retract what she endorsed 14 years earlier, or what she said in Steps
to Christ regarding our "promises" to God (p. 47). All
perplexity is removed if one will understand her use of the word
"pledge" to mean commitment, dedication, choice. "What
you need to understand is the true force of the will. This is the
governing power in the nature of man, the power of decision, or of
choice. Everything depends on the right action of the will. The power of
choice God has given to men; it is theirs to exercise. You can not
change your heart, you can not of yourself give to God its affections;
but you can choose to serve Him. You can give Him your will." This
is what Ellen White in 1904 is urging the church to do. |