A.T. Jones: THE MAN AND THE MESSAGE

The Charge of "Holy Flesh" Teachings

There is evidence that Jones labored actively and earnestly to oppose the theology and the spirit of the "holy flesh" fanatics (cf. Review and Herald articles from December 11, 1900 to January 29, 1901). Yet Knight postulates the ominous specter of "a direct line" and influential "similarities between Jones's theology and that of the holy flesh advocates" (pp. 56, 170). Jones is assumed to be a guilty party, accused of "stimulating" and laying "an excellent base" for the 1900 fanaticism as early as 1889 and 1895: "Many of its holy flesh ideas were extensions of his teachings on righteousness by faith," says Knight (p. 57). Yet Ellen White strongly endorsed those "teachings".

This brings us to one of the most serious issues facing the church today: is it wrong to teach the possibility of overcoming sin?

Jones had preached the supposedly evil doctrine of "the power to overcome every tendency to sin" and "that the indwelling of Christ's divine nature and power would enable individuals eventually to keep God's commandments" (pp. 56, 57). This "misled" people, says Knight. According to him, the Jones-Waggoner message of righteousness by faith which exalts and glorifies Christ's power to save "to the uttermost" is dangerous. Ellen White tells of her efforts with Jones and Waggoner:

When we speak of the grace of God, of Jesus and his love, speak of the Saviour as one who is able to keep us from sin, and to save to the uttermost all who come unto him, many will say, "O, I am afraid you are going where the holiness people go." … In the revival work that has been going forward here during the past winter we have seen no fanaticism (General Conference Bulletin, 1891, p. 260 [904]).

The proof for Knight's charge, he claims, is Jones's sermon at Ottawa, Kansas of May 18, 1889. The reporter's account of it in the Topeka Daily Capital is sketchy and almost certainly not verbatim. In order to condemn one of our own ministers whom Ellen White endorsed, we must go to a non-Adventist newspaper for evidence!

When compared with Jones's other, more completely transcribed sermons that we have on record, the style is clearly not that of his speaking. The reporter obviously summarizes in his own words what he thought he heard the speaker saying. But even so the printed summary contains no hint of "holy flesh" error. Here is the passage that supposedly is dangerous (note that in comparison with Jones's normal style of speaking, this idiom is distinctly foreign to him):

It is only by faith in Christ that we can say we are Christians. It is only through being one with him that we can be Christians, and only through Christ within us that we keep the commandments—it being all by faith in Christ that we do and say these things. When the day comes that we actually keep the commandments of God, we will never die, because keeping the commandments is righteousness, and righteousness and life are inseparable—so, "Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus," and what is the result? The people are translated. Life, then, and keeping the commandments go together. If we die now, Christ's righteousness will be imputed to us and we will be raised, but those who live to the end are made sinless before He comes, having so much of Christ's being in them that they "hit the mark" every time, and stand blameless without an intercessor, because Christ leaves the sanctuary sometime before He comes to earth.

The phrase "made sinless" is not found in any of his subsequent sermons accurately reproduced in the 1893 and 1895 Bulletins. If one wishes to make him an offender for a word one could read into it an implication of eradicating the sinful nature. But through all the years of his ministry Jones never once taught such an idea. Instead, he consistently held that those who are living on earth when Christ returns will overcome all sin while they still retain their sinful flesh or nature (see, for example, Review and Herald, April 18, 1899; Lessons on Faith, pp. 90-92).

Thus it is very likely that "made sinless" is the reporter's choice of words as he took notes and condensed what he thought he heard. But the basic idea in the 1889 sermon is still solid Adventist truth:

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. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven … there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God's people upon earth (The Great Controversy, p. 425).

Ellen White was present at the Kansas meeting and commended Jones for his message: "Sabbath Brother A.T. Jones talked upon the subject of justification by faith, and many received it as light and truth" (Letter C-14, 1889 [317]). One month later she rebukes Uriah Smith because "you place Elder Jones in a false position" (Letter S-55, 1889, June 14 [336]). Could we be repeating Smith's error today?

Jones's 1889 contribution is that it is by a mature faith and not by works that this high standard can be reached. And the faith is "in Christ," not a self-centered concern of fear or hope of reward which was the underlying motivation of the "holy flesh" proponents. About this same time Ellen White was enthusiastic about his message, expressing no hint of dangerous error:

Elder A.T. Jones has labored faithfully to instruct those assembled, and in breaking to their souls the Bread of Life. We have felt very sorry that not only every Seventh-day Adventist church but every church, whatever their faith and doctrines, could not have the precious light of truth as it has been so clearly presented, … to see the plan of salvation so clearly and simply defined (Diary, April 7, 1889 [280]).

Brother A.T. Jones gave a discourse full of the meat and fatness of good things (Letter W-l, 1889 [287]).

[At Ottawa, Kansas] light flashed from the oracles of God in relation to the law and the gospel, in relation to the fact that Christ is our righteousness, which seemed to souls who were hungry for truth, as light too precious to be received (Review and Herald, July 23, 1889).

The entire tenor of Jones's message throughout his career was in stark contrast to that of the "holy flesh" fanatics.

But Knight cites a Review and Herald editorial of November 22, 1898, as conclusive evidence that Jones did teach "holy flesh." "Most pertinent, perhaps, is the fact that Jones taught holy flesh through his Review editorials in 1898. On November 22, for example, he wrote: ‘Perfect holiness embraces the flesh as well as the spirit'" (Knight, pp. 169-171).

On the surface this appears conclusive evidence. But what is Jones's context? The editorial is entitled "Saving Health," a plea for health reform. Immediately preceding Knight's brief excerpt, Jones has quoted Paul, deriving his supposedly-fatal words directly from Scripture: "Dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" 2 Cor. 7:1. Was Paul as guilty of teaching "holy flesh" as was Jones?

No other evidence from Jones's voluminous fifteen-year record of sermons, editorials, or books, is quoted. Using that one Scriptural word in his November 22, 1898 editorial as the main evidence against him literally makes him "an offender for a word," which Isaiah says we shouldn't do to a brother (29:21). Jones's writings show that he consistently and strenuously opposed the "holy flesh" doctrines and spirit en toto.

But the "holy flesh" fanatics are said to have claimed Jones's support, says Knight, as his opponents claimed his support for pantheism. Now we must seize upon this to condemn him, even though his own writings and labors demonstrate the opposite: "R. S. Donnel, the Indiana Conference president [who taught holy flesh], had treated Jones as his mentor," "claiming that Jones was with him in belief and action" (pp. 169, 170, 57).

This reminds one of the Muslim's prayer, "Allah, save me from my friends; my enemies I can take care of." It is well known that the Indiana "holy flesh" enthusiasts rejected Jones's view of the nature of Christ, a blatant repudiation that would hardly indicate they were following him in any significant way. If fanatics claiming one's support makes one automatically guilty, then Ellen White is also in serious trouble.

Knight cites Jones as teaching in his 1895 sermons the supposedly terrible idea that through faith in the mighty power of the Saviour believers can "overcome every tendency to sin" (p. 57). Knight regards this as an evil root of the "holy flesh" heresy. But he reads into the passage what is not there. Jones said that Jesus Christ "is a Saviour from sins committed, and the Conqueror of the tendencies to commit sins" (General Conference Bulletin, 1895, p. 267). He never said that Christ eradicates sinful tendencies (which would be "holy flesh" )—rather, He conquers them, enabling the believer to deny and overcome them instead of fulfilling them. This ends up as pure New Testament teaching, the heart of applied, practical Christianity (cf. Romans 6:12-16; 13:14; Titus 2:11, etc.).

Knight suggests that Ellen White rejected the ideas in Jones's 1898 editorial (p. 170), but gives no evidence. To be consistent he should blame her writings principally for the "holy flesh" fanaticism, for she repeated far more often the same supposedly-fatal phrase linking holiness with the body (italics are ours):

The sanctification set forth in the Sacred Scriptures has to do with the entire being—spirit, soul, and body (The Sanctified Life, p. 7).

The true Christian obtains an experience which brings holiness. … His body is a fit temple for the Holy Spirit (In Heavenly Places, p. 200).

Through obedience comes sanctification of body, soul, and spirit (My Life Today, p. 250).

When the Lord comes, those who are holy will be holy still. Those who have preserved their bodies and spirits in holiness, in sanctification and honor, will then receive the finishing touch of immortality. … It is here … that our bodies and spirits are to be fitted for immortality. … We are to … preserve our bodies holy, our spirits pure, that we may stand forth unstained amid the corruptions teeming around us in these last days (Testimonies, Vol. 2, pp. 355, 356).

This fanaticism in Indiana was rooted in others' perversions of true concepts of righteousness by faith, particularly Ballenger's. His heretical enthusiasm intruded itself as an embarrassment to Jones. The prevailing climate of resistance to the ongoing 1888 message naturally provided nurture for this confusion. This fanaticism need never have happened; "we" invited the devil to do his thing.

Haskell, who investigated the heresy on the spot, said that it was "a false application of righteousness by faith," but did not in any way blame Jones for it (Knight, p. 171).