A.T. Jones: THE MAN AND THE MESSAGE

Jones and the Nature of Christ Issue

Knight recognizes that the famous Baker letter cannot fairly be construed as a rebuke of Jones's or Waggoner's position (p.145), but he contradicts himself by saying "it is highly probable" that Baker was teaching what they were (p. 146). Thus the stage is set for the reader to question or reject the clear 1888 view of the nature of Christ. Yet this truth as they understood it was an essential part of their message at the time of the 1888 Conference:

1. Waggoner held the view immediately before Minneapolis, because he taught it in The Gospel in Galatians, published in 1888 (p. 62).
2. It appears in his Signs editorials published immediately after Minneapolis, beginning January 21, 1889. (Froom says that Waggoner's wife told him that those editorials were an edited transcript of his 1888 presentations which she had taken down in shorthand. This is a reasonable explanation of how he could produce such articles so soon after the close of the Minneapolis Conference (see Froom, Movement of Destiny, pp. 200, 201).
3. Both taught their message of Christ's righteousness in solid theological unity throughout the 1890's. They always considered their view of the nature of Christ as the essential king-pin of their message. Both saw the opposing view that Christ took only the sinless nature of Adam before the fall as a legacy of Romanism (see Bulletin, 1901, pp. 403ff; The Consecrated Way, pp. 35-39). To pay lip service to their "exalting Christ" without giving due weight to this essential theological element of their Christocentric message is inconsistent. Jones said in 1895 that "the salvation of God for human beings lies in just that one thing" (Bulletin, p. 233).

Incidentally, Knight's assertion that the true 1888 message is lost, not being stenographically reported at Minneapolis, is misleading on two counts: (a) Waggoner's message immediately before and immediately after constitutes compelling evidence; in no way could his Minneapolis presentations be a temporary, isolated island of inconsistency; and (b) Ellen White's numerous endorsements concern the ongoing Jones-Waggoner message as presented on through 1896, and even 1897. There is no hint in her hundreds of endorsements that a significant difference developed between their Minneapolis teaching and their later message.

Knight's discussion of the nature of Christ rightly recognizes the need of a balanced viewpoint. But Ellen White urges us to be "careful, exceedingly careful" how we use language in speaking of this truth. A number of his expressions appear less than "exceedingly careful," and can inject confusion where clarity is so desperately needed. Indeed, the Seventh-day Adventist Church yearns to come into unity on this topic, and for that purpose accuracy of expression is essential.

For example, Knight attributes to the 1888 messengers (and those who appreciate their message) the fault of allegedly teaching "the ‘sinfulness' of Christ's human nature," or of speaking of "Christ's 'sinful' nature," or of saying that He had "tendencies toward sin" and "was born with a moral nature exactly like ours" (pp.133, 134). He adds that "Waggoner … had been teaching that Christ had sinful tendencies, since at least January 1889" (p. 136).

A perusal of Waggoner's January 21, 1889 editorial reveals that he did not say what Knight attributes to him, certainly not in overall emphasis.

It might be possible in some rare instance to fix on the two 1888 messengers the charge of saying that Christ "had" a sinful nature and thus make them offenders for a word; but in the vast majority of their voluminous statements they consistently used the "exceedingly careful" expressions of Scripture: Christ took our fallen sinful nature, He took upon Himself a nature in which sinful tendencies had to be resisted and crucified, and thus He was like us in all respects except sin. They agreed with Ellen White's classic statement, "He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted" (Medical Ministry, p. 181, emphasis supplied).
Their burden was not finespun, debatable theology, but practical godliness.

In this connection Knight subtly imputes to Jones the terrible implication that Christ's mind was sinful. This should be enough to blacklist him for all time and eternity. Note the following:

For Jones the Fall did not merely mar the image of God in man; it obliterated it. Adam and Eve could not tell the truth to God in Eden, because their mind was in bondage to Satan.

It was in this depraved human nature that Christ became like us with "not a particle of difference between him and you" (p. 137).

In context, Jones gives no such impression. In fact, it is the opposite of what Knight conveyed. He clearly differentiated between the flesh which Christ took in His incarnation, and our sinful mind which He did not take (Bulletin, 1895, pp. 327-333):

Now as to Christ's having "like passions" with us; in the Scriptures all the way through He is like us, and with us according to the flesh.

He is the seed of David according to the flesh. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Don't go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh; not in the likeness of sinful mind. Don't drag His mind into it. His flesh was our flesh; but the mind was the mind of Christ (p. 327).

Knight also imputes a blasphemy to Jones, citing an 1895 statement "that Christ ‘was sinful as we'" (p. 137). But there is nothing like blasphemy to be found in the context. Jones makes clear his concern for the soul-winning, practical-godliness truth inherent here:

The righteous one, who knew no sin, [was] made to be sin for us! Our sins were upon him; the guilt and the condemnation of these were not hid from God. O, it was a terrible thing, that he should undo himself, and become ourselves in all things, in order that we might be saved,—running the risk, the fearful risk of losing all—risking all to save us. … Weak as we, sinful as we,—simply ourselves,—he went through this world, and never sinned (Bulletin, p. 302).

The obvious meaning is that Christ took our sinful nature. What is remarkable in Jones's 1895 presentations is not an incidence of careless, imprecise expressions, but a general carefulness. Few theologians have trod these mine-filled paths without making mistakes. The Holy Spirit's blessing is evident in those solemn sermons.

The Baker letter is in no way a rebuttal of Jones's view of Christ's righteousness "in the likeness of sinful flesh." What Baker was teaching is unclear; Ellen White never published the letter, indicating that she had no intent to counter the 1888 concepts; yet an obscure statement from this letter has become the chief Adventist cornerstone of a modern doctrinal concept only one step removed from the Roman Catholic dogma of an "immaculate conception."