A.T. Jones: THE MAN AND THE MESSAGE

"Warmth" and the Doctrinal Content of Jones's Message

Several inaccuracies in From 1888 to Apostasy lead to distorted conclusions.

(a) We are told that Ellen White was—

not … concerned with the law in Galatians, [or] the covenants. … Nor do we find her expounding upon the human or divine nature of Christ or sinless living as key elements of the message. She was not even obsessed with the doctrine of righteousness by faith. Her special interest was Jesus Christ (p. 69).

Knight frequently disparages the idea that Ellen White defended the actual content of the Jones-Waggoner message. He insists that she was concerned with "experiential Christianity rather than doctrine" (p. 72). But the evidence indicates that she did treat the 1888 doctrines as intensely important in order to experience that true, vital faith in Jesus Christ—the covenants, the nature of Christ, and the theological content of righteousness by faith. To say that the "doctrine of righteousness by faith" was unimportant to her creates insurmountable problems with her writings.

For example, her Manuscript 15, 1888 appeals were largely focused on the need of the brethren to listen to, study, and accept the unique Scriptural and doctrinal elements of the message, not just its "spirit" [163-171].

She took an unequivocal stand on the doctrinal issue of the two covenants. She specifically rejected the theological views of the 1888 opponents, and linked the true Jones-Waggoner understanding of this unique doctrine with receiving Christ, demonstrating how a false concept hinders spirituality and practical godliness:

Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds. … I thought it time to take my position, and I am glad that the Lord urged me to give the testimony that I did (Letter 30, 1890).

Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. . . . [You opponents] are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented. When you had received the true light which shineth, you would not have imitated or gone over the same manner of interpretation and misconstruing the Scriptures [as] did the Jews (Letter 59, 1890).

She also took a firm stand on the doctrinal issue of the law in Galatians—not at Minneapolis, but later. The evidence is in her Letter 96, 1896 [1575]. The context throws light on her remark at Minneapolis that "some interpretations of Scripture, given by Dr. Waggoner, I do not regard as correct" (Knight, p. 72). Our author uses this one November 1, 1888 statement to disparage the general message presented by Jones and Waggoner, implying that they were in error on whatever one might wish to reject in their message. He says flatly: "Jones and Waggoner had error mixed in their message" (p. 69).

But the context of her November 1, 1888 statement is overwhelmingly supportive of the unique doctrines and truths they taught. She herself needed time to ponder what she heard. Note how her one statement of apparent disagreement is extremely tentative and is misunderstood, being balanced and even offset by frequent clear statements of unqualified endorsement of their doctrine:

Dr. Waggoner has spoken to us in a straightforward manner. There is precious light in what he has said. Some things presented in reference to the law in Galatians, if I fully understand his position, do not harmonize with the understanding I have had of this subject; but truth will lose nothing by investigation. … I would have humility of mind, and be willing to be instructed as a child. The Lord has been pleased to give me great light, yet I know that He leads other minds, … and I want to receive every ray of light that God shall send me, though it should come through the humblest of His servants. .. .Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views. … I know it would be dangerous to denounce Dr. Waggoner's position as wholly erroneous. … I see the beauty of truth in the presentation of the righteousness of Christ in relation to the law as the doctor has placed it before us. … Is it not possible that through earnest, prayerful searching of the Scriptures he has seen still greater light on some points? That which has been presented harmonizes perfectly with the light which God has been pleased to give me during all the years of my experience. If our ministering brethren would accept the doctrine which has been presented so clearly—the righteousness of Christ in connection with the law, … their prejudices would not have a controlling power (Ms. 15, 1888, emphasis supplied [163, 164]).

I had heard for the first time the views of Elder E. J. Waggoner. … I stated that I had heard precious truths uttered that I could respond to with all my heart, for had not these great and glorious truths, the righteousness of Christ and the entire sacrifice made in behalf of man, been imprinted indelibly on my mind by the Spirit of God (Ms. 24, 1888, p. 14 [217])?

I had not one doubt or question in regard to the matter. I knew the light which had been presented to us in clear and distinct lines. The brethren had all the evidence they would ever have that words of truth were spoken in regard to the righteousness of Christ (Ibid., [223] omitted in Selected Messages, Book Three).

If Ellen White's "I" in the one perplexing sentence in Ms. 15 is italicized, as it might well have been in the verbal emphasis she gave in that November 1 talk, all apparent contradiction is easily resolved: "Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But … [it is] possible that he has seen still greater light on some points. That which has been presented harmonizes perfectly with the light which God has been pleased to give me." She clearly expressed her willingness to exchange preconceived personal opinions for greater light. And she did later accept what she initially was hesitant to endorse (Letter 96, 1896 [1575]).

How can it be a safe methodology to press one or two phrases of doubtful import into a virtual contradiction of many hundreds of others (cf. Knight, pp. 72, 145)?

How could Ellen White consider unimportant her own frequent doctrinal presentations of overcoming all sin through faith in the High Priest's closing ministry (cf. The Great Controversy, pp. 425, 623, etc.)? What rejoiced her soul in the Jones message was how it complemented hers, the hopeful, encouraging assurance that shone through like sunlight in his doctrine of overcoming sin. Not one word does she say questioning in the least the doctrinal or theological teachings of Jones or Waggoner.