The Gospel Herald -- Promoting the fundamentals of the 1888 message.

 

APPENDIX A
The 1888 View of the Two Covenants

V. THE TWO COVENANTS IN ADVENTISM SINCE 1888

  1. Opposition from Minneapolis continued for decades. As late as 1902 Uriah Smith published anti-Waggoner articles on the covenants that occasioned a rebuke from Daniells. In 1907 the controversy was still alive, with the Sabbath School lessons for the third quarter on the covenants repeatedly stating that the new covenant was a "compact" of "obey and live," directly contrary to what Ellen White had endorsed in 1890. This was doubtless due to a backlash against Jones and Waggoner inasmuch as both had lost favor by this time. Daniells characterized Brickey’s articles in the 1902 Review (supported by Uriah Smith) as "openly and squarely against the message that came to this people at Minneapolis" (letter to G. I. Butler, April 11, 1902). Three days later in a letter to W. C. White he said they were an "open and vicious attack on the message of righteousness by faith presented at Minneapolis," "crooked and unsound," "directly opposed to the truth of the gospel, " "in direct conflict with [Patriarchs and Prophets]. The failures of Jones and Waggoner were used by Satan to create antipathy for their message (which influenced many despite Ellen White’s warning that to disparage their message because of their personal failures would be "a fatal delusion"). In1907 a firm decision was made to abandon their view of the two covenants and to support the view of those who had opposed them. 13

  2. In the late teens and 1920s (and into the 1930s) the evangelical philosophy of the Sunday School Times (Robert C. McQuilken) invaded the Adventist church. It was widely claimed that the popular Evangelical movement known as "the Victorious Life" was a re-statement of the 1888 message, whereas the actual 1888 message was largely unknown, probably due to that prejudice.

  3. By 1938-39 the 1888 view of the two covenants was virtually unknown in the church, at least in publications.

  4. The SDA Bible Commentary and Bible Dictionary are very theological, but often fail to recover the sunlit clarity of the Waggoner presentations. The idea generally is built on the "contract" or "compact" understanding of the new covenant, attributing the "condition" of obedience which was not mentioned (for example, "on their part, the people were to yield implicit obedience," Bible Dictionary, p. 229). The impression generally prevails that the old covenant was God’s initiative rather than the people’s. Again, this is not criticism; the writers had very likely never had occasion even to see the 1888 view, or Ellen White’s support of it. 14

  5. In the accompanying illustration (which shows the "dispensational" view) Edwin Reiner sums up his concept: "Let no one say that the old covenant was a covenant of works, while the new covenant is by faith" (p. 74). It is likely that neither the author nor the writer of the "Foreword" had ever been exposed to the 1888 view. Their lack of understanding was not their fault. The same can almost certainly be said for the author of the next exhibit.

  6. The impact of popular Adventist thinking that the old covenant is good for children is illustrated in the following verses from Psalms for Tiny Tots, a widely published book among us for decades. The underlying philosophy is merit by self-righteousness (attractive four-color pictures accompany each verse; emphasis is supplied):

There is a place where we are sure
That we can always be secure.
In Jesus’ hands, so kind and strong,
Where all good boys and girls belong.

         If the child is biblically informed and has good sense, he knows that he is not "good." The implication: he/she does not belong in those "hands." If otherwise, this is only an appeal to fear.

It must have been a thrilling thing
To see the tiny newborn King.
I know you wish you’d had a peek
At Baby Jesus mild and meek.
Well, we can all see Him someday
If all His words we will obey.

         The rhyme required the word "obey" instead of "believe," so it is thoroughly old covenant. Now the author puts words in Jesus’ lips that He has never uttered, in vitiation of His warning in Revelation 22:18:

I will whisper in your ears [Jesus is pictured]
How I love you, children dear.
Promise Me you will be true
In every little thing you do.

         The next page shows the child standing before the ten commandment law:

I promise that I will obey
His Ten Commandments every day.
I promise that I’ll never go
Where His commandments tell me no.
I promise that I’ll always take
The path that His commandments make.

         It takes no imagination to know what will inevitably happen later. The child forgets, goes where he shouldn’t, does or says something wrong; then the feeling of self-reproach and spiritual discouragement ("I‘m a failure!"), precisely what Roger Dudley found in his survey of Adventist academy youth (Why Teenagers Reject Religion, pp. 9-17). The "fault" of the old covenant is set forth in Steps to Christ: "Your promises and resolutions are like ropes of sand. ... The knowledge of your broken promises and forfeited pledges weakens your confidence in your own sincerity, and causes you to feel that God cannot accept you. ... What you need to understand is the true force of the will. ... The power of choice God has given to men; it is theirs to exercise" (p. 47).

         Note how the old covenant mind-set renders acceptable the Hindu idea of karma:

Helping Mother is lots of fun [little girl pictured doing the ironing]
In getting all her housework done.
I know that it makes Jesus glad,
It helps make up for when I’m bad.

Home  |  Index of Bible Studies  |  Appendix A  |  Continue