| Author | Message | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 355 Registered: 10-2002  |
I was emailed today and asked about 1888---what is it? I thought I'd share the response I wrote here. Blessings! In Jesus, Ramone
| ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 164 Registered: 11-2005 |
Ramone, Wow -- thank you for that explanation of what happened in 1888. I've heard that year referred to (just recently actually), but didn't really know what happened then. My friend (who's wife is a close friend of mine from Academy) sent me the book "Lesson on Faith" by A.T Jones, and E.J. Waggoner. He told me that this is the book that kept him in the Adventist church. He attended Hartland College (which I guess is like the Weimar of the east coast?) for seminary, and grew so discouraged there that he dropped out. He ended up finishing his degree at Oakwood College. He said in Hartland, people were SO rigid about the rules and so focused on the law, that he missed "grace" and joy, etc. He said he started questioning his whole faith, when he came across this book. For him, he said this book saved his view of the Adventist denomination. The forward of the book was the first time I'd really heard about 1888. Here is an excerpt of the forward: "During the last part of the nineteenth century, the Lord brought a message of righteousness to the Church through Elders E.J. Waggoner and A.T Jones. This message was made prominent in 1888 and for the next decade. It was identified as the beginning of the loud cry of the third angel whose glory was to fill the whole earth. The loud cry was to go as fire in the stubble. What happened to it? The fact that we are still waiting for the return of Jesus is compelling evidence that this light was not accepted." I haven't read the entire book, but I have briefly scanned through it. By a general skimming, the book does seem very Gospel-ish. It goes through the book of Galatians (through about 6 chapters), and a chapter entitled "Boundless Grace". But as soon as I get to the chapter entitled "Christ--the End of the Law" (which sounds really good!), after reading the first few paragraphs, it's clear how Adventist the message really is. The chapter starts out by saying, "In Romans 10:4 we read as follows: 'For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.' Before showing what this text means, it may be well to briefly show what it does not mean. It does not mean that Christ has put an end to the law." And then the author goes on using texts like Matthew 5:17, Is. 42:21, and Ps. 40:7,8 to defend this point. (I didn't want to type out his whole justification using these texts -- all of us are familiar with the arguments already!) Then the author says, "The reader must know that the word 'end' does not necessarily mean 'termination'". And then a few paragraphs justifying this argument... Then he says, "But all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and the wages of sin is death. Thus it is impossible for the law to accomplish its design in making perfect characters and consequently giving life. When a man has once broken the law, no subsequent obedience can ever make his character perfect. And therefore the law which was ordained unto life, is found to be unto death..." He explains this a little more, and then quotes Romans 3:24 saying "we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." And Romans 5:1 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Then he says, "More than this, he enables us to keep the law" and quotes "For he [God] hath made him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor 5:21. He goes on to say, "In Christ, therefore, it is possible for us to be made perfect, --the righteousness of God,--and that is just what we would have been by constant and unvarying obedience to the law...And so God imputes to believers the righteousness of Christ, who made in the likeness of sinful flesh, so that "the righteousness of the law" might be fulfilled in their lives. And thus Christ is the end of the law." Then the concluding remarks, "To conclude, then, we have found that the design of the law was that it should give life because of obedience. All men have sinned, and been sentenced to death. But Christ took upon himself man's nature, and will part of his own righteousness to those who accept his sacrifice, and finally, when they stand through him, as doers of the law, he will fulfill to them it's utlimate object, by crowning them with eternal life." Sorry about the long post, and the long quotes, but I wanted to get across that the twist on the "gospel" is very subtle, but it's still the Adventist "gospel". Which makes it all the more confusing! This is more the type of "gospel" that is being preached among the Adventist churches now. I've had countless discussions with my friends from Academy (all over the United States) who try to tell me that Adventism isn't as "hard core" as it used to be. It's softening up it's message, it's becoming more grace focused rather that law focused, etc., etc. I don't see this as encouraging at all. In fact, I see it as more detrimental. The more "truth" you mix in, the harder it will be to discern what's false. There is so much more I want to say about this, but all in all, young Adventists need our prayers. I think it will be harder for them to see the reality of the true Gospel when what they think they know sounds so good and so close to the real thing. Grace PS I have to strongly disagree "that the design of the law was that it should give life because of obedience." It was never meant to give life. With Adventism, even at the very basics, the law is held up as intending to "bring life" rather than Jesus. And only because we failed at keeping the law we need Him. That thought is so upsetting to me, actually. It was never about us and what we could do. Never. We're born dead, and He, in His amazing grace (for reasons I will never grasp) saves us by making us alive in Him. This author is basically saying the law was capable if we were capable. That's so messed up! | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 165 Registered: 11-2005 |
By the way, the book "Lessons on Faith" is described as a selection of articles and sermons by A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner. It was published in 1995 by "TEACH Services, Inc." I'm not familiar with that publisher, but it's obviously linked somehow to Adventist publishing. Lots of the articles "collected" are there articles that were published from the Review and Herald. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4625 Registered: 12-2003  |
Grace, I agree with you 100%!!! The Adventist "gospel" being preached today is even more subtle and more damaging than the old-time 'real thing' which, by the way, is STILL the REAL THING! None of the Adventist beliefs has changed. In fact, the church is re-trenching into more historic observances. But the verbiage has changed. As Richard has said, an Adventist who has been brought up with this type of "grace talk" will, sometime, go into a Christian church setting and not realize they're hearing something that is fundamentally different from what they believe. They will be innoculated against it by the language of modern Adventism. They may FEEL as if something's different in a Christian setting, but they likely won't "get it". It really is treacherousóand your'e right; young Adventists really need our prayers. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 356 Registered: 10-2002 |
It's an interesting study in "doublethink" to see how Jones & Waggonner tried to hold onto the Adventist beliefs once they began to learn of Christ's righteousness. I don't know if they were ever able to clearly let go. The need to feel Adventism's beginnings were justified or that they had a special calling was very strong---and still is. 1888 was a stepping stone away from the very cultic first 40 years of Adventism, but many were not able to keep walking, and many today are still stuck on "1888" trying to get back to what was lost. I'm halfway curious about whatever became of Jones & Waggonner after they left "the Church", but if sources are from Adventism (which said they "apostasized"), then I tend not to believe them because they'd be primarily interested in showing how J&W went further and further away from Christ because they left "the Church" (or "the truth"). It's interesting to see 1888 from a "God's-eye-view" perspective... God, who is continually trying to lift up His Son as our salvation among us, seeking to draw men to Himself and to the only One who will heal them and set them free from everything that binds them. Looking at Adventist history, you can see 1888 as a time when God tried to "break through" but the stubbornness of Adventism resisted very hard, and then a new synthesis began to form in order to keep people from arriving at the Son alone. I remember Haroldo Camacho once told me that when he was in Adventist administration, he suggested to his boss that everyone should take a weekend retreat to study the 1888 message. His boss replied candidly, "If you want to succeed in administration, don't get into theology." He said his heart left Adventism that day, although it wasn't until some years later that he fully left. | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 171 Registered: 11-2004 |
Thsnks for bringing this topic up Agapetos. I had always wondered what went on in 1888. Shortly after I left the SDA church I started receiving an 1888 newsletter, but I had no idea what that was about. I see a positive side to this, at least in my own experience. The grace talk got through to me as a young adult so when I came to hear and listen to other Chrisitans there was much more openness to the truth than if I was a historic Adventist. As an Adventist the message of the Gospel became real to me. True, there is truth mixed with error. But I think it is better to have some truth than all error and have people thinking that they need to stop eating cheese to be right before God. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2821 Registered: 3-2004  |
Thanks Agapetos for the write up about 1888. I do not remember studying that in SDA schools. So it is good for me to see the history of what I left. Diana | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 166 Registered: 11-2005 |
You're right, Ramone, about it being an interesting study on what happens when you try to mix lessons on Christ's righteousness with Adventism. You can't. You end up with this "new synthesis" that you described, that STILL keeps people from arriving at Jesus alone. I am curious as to what became of Jones and Waggonner, too. From their earlier writings at least (the ones I've read from that book -- which were about 10 years after 1888), they still sounded pretty Adventist to me. It's interesting that the Adventist church would say they "apostasized" because they still continue to distribute their materials and sell them at Adventist book stores. I just had a conversation with a friend this morning who lives in a pretty large Adventist mecca. Without getting into the details too much, I have come to truly see that there is a lot of "justification" for retaining Adventist beliefs. For instance, my friend was talking with her dad about the I.J, since he teaches Sabbath school at their church. He admitted to not believing it, but felt that no one REALLY understands God or his judgment. So for him, as a member of the SDA church, he agrees to believe their version of God. Other churches have other versions, but for him, he is comfortable "enough" with the Adventist version of God's salvation to teach it the way it's presented. I know her father, and know that he is normally an intelligent, "deep" man. But his argument is completely ridiculous! It makes absolutely no sense. God doesn't ask us to settle for a truth we think fits us well. He asks us to seek out truth -- period! He doesn't ask us to take bits and pieces, and try to mesh them together into a nice package that fits our liking. He calls us to respond completely to the truth, even if it means giving up what we thought was truth! I found myself having a hard time refraining from becoming too overly critical about what her dad said. It was very frustrating to me. The more out of Adventism I get, the more frustrated with their logic I become. I find myself less and less tolerant of their reasoning and creative Bible study arguments. The thing that gets me the most is that most of my friends (not all, but most) see a problem with Adventist doctrines, but they spend so much energy rationalizing why it's okay to stay in the church that they don't even take the time to really "listen". I just want to shake all of my loved ones who are still in the church and shout, "Have integrity!! Quit making excuses! Listen to what God is telling you through His Word!!" *Big sigh*...that phone call this morning really got me worked up. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1501 Registered: 10-2004  |
Ramone, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you about 1888. Jones and Waggoner were NOT preaching the Gospel. Not at all. If you search this forum you can find some discussions that we've had on here previously regarding "the 1888 message." Their message was that we are saved by Christ's death plus keeping the Law perfectly and sinlessly (through "faith" and by the power of the Holy Spirit [and I'm not sure they even believed the Holy Spirit was a person...I believe this was before the Holy Spirit had become a third god in Adventism])--in other words, the same Adventist gospel that had always been preached! They believed that Christ's righteousness is imparted to us (even if they may have at times used the word "imputed," they used it incorrectly to actually mean "imparted," as many SDAs do...making it even more confusing!). Ellen White never preached the Gospel. Steps to Christ preaches a false gospel of salvation by works. E.J. Waggoner (probably the same with Jones) did not even believe in the eternality of Christ! Also, these men taught that Christ had a sinful nature. They did not teach the Gospel!!! "They too hold onto everything Adventism was teaching for its first 40 years, and they see what J&W preached as something uniquely Adventist and in no way similar to the message of Christ's righteousness proclaimed by every other Christian church." It WAS uniquely Adventist and it WAS in no way similar to the Christian Gospel! The 1888 message was not a departure from cultic-ness at all. The Gospel did not find its way into Adventism in 1888--it was the same old false gospel that Adventism had always preached (perhaps with slightly different wording). Grace, notice in those quotes you posted, they are saying that Christ imparts His righteousness to us and we are saved by keeping the Law. Also, when Adventists talk about them apostatizing it has nothing to do with what they were preaching in the 1800s while still loyal Adventists, but their later "apostasy" from Adventism. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on September 18, 2006) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4627 Registered: 12-2003 |
If you want to see how cultic the 1888 message is/was, just read some of the publications by the current 1888 Study Committee who have been re-introducing the 1888 "message" to the church. On the surface it sounds "good", but not far under the surface, it is appalling. Reading a book by Wieland, one of the main current spokemen for the 1888 Committee, a few years ago, I first heard the idea that the death of Jesus was all about showing us how sinful we were. It was not salvific in itself; it was a giant object lesson to prove to us how arrogant we are: we would actually kill God to justify our self-centered natures. They believe that God didn't need the cross in order to forgive humanity because God is intrinsically forgiving. Again, they totally ignore God's justice. No, the 1888 Message is not Christian. It's just window dressing for the same old Adventism. Colleen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4628 Registered: 12-2003 |
Oh, and one last thing: the book Steps to Christ actually came from Fanny Bolton who ghost authored it for Ellen. The contents of that book came from Fanny's own understanding of salvation. Colleen | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2823 Registered: 3-2004 |
That is one of the things I remember when I started reading D. Andersons's web site. I was shocked, to say the least. Diana | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 168 Registered: 11-2005 |
Jeremy -- yes, I noticed that. Like I said, that whole chapter that I quoted from is still very Adventisty in all sorts of ways. They talk about grace, but ultimately it's still about what we can do. Like Colleen said, "on the surface it sounds "good", but not far under the surface, it is appalling." And like I mentioned earlier, in my opinion, it's more detrimental this way than if it just all sounded appalling  . Adventism is still Adventism. | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 253 Registered: 12-2004 |
Grace, I have to smile to myself as I just read your post 166. So much of what you have said mirrors what I feel when I am talking to my good Adventist buddies. It is just too comfortable for most Adventists to be able to take bits and pieces of the Adventist doctrines they can accept and quietly dismiss the parts that just don't make sense and still feel like they have something special. Last night my golfing buddy told me he had finally finished Cottrell's Sanctuary paper. I said again that I am sure it gave him an interesting comparison to Goldstein's Sabbath School lessons. we didn't discuss it further. Most Adventist's have been conditioned over the last few years to feel they can and are still truly Adventist even if they disagree with a significant amount of the theology. For instance, just look at most SDA University science and religion teachers. They all stay because they are comfortable and cozy in the Adventist lifestyle. Like many Adventists, they have become comfortable believing one thing, and publicly professing either vocally or through their silence something else. You can doubt Ellen White, refute the Investigative judgment, acknowledge that the Sabbath is not the seal of God, and that we really don't know who or what the Mark of the Beast is, and still remain an Adventist. It is all about comfort with the familiar. All we can do is share what God has done for us, in a loving and respectful manner. The freedom of the Gospel is so unfetters us from the bondage of man made dictates and interpretations that sooner or later the light will come on for these dear friends and family. Peace and Goodwill, Randy PS. I'm glad I wasn't your 1 pm Root Canal. I think that 30 gauge might have felt just a little sharper than usual. | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 586 Registered: 1-2003  |
Randy I agree with you that I need to find out what Grace has been reading before I go in to her and let her work on my teeth. Grace, remember "vengence is mine saith the Lord" ! ! Please be gentle to that dear little old Grandmother in your dentist chair. If you've ever met Grace in person she definitely does not look fearsome in any way. <grin> In Him, Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 171 Registered: 11-2005 |
Actually, I had the day off today -- lucky for everyone! | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 358 Registered: 10-2002 |
The need to synthesize any new discovery with Adventist heritage/unique doctrines is very, very strong. J&W were no exceptions, but I believe they were "on the trail", so to speak. But it's only a matter of time after you get "on the trail" that things start to clash. Some people are able to synthesize that "clash" longer than others. The fact that both J&W left signifies, I surmise, that they could no longer harmonize what they believed with the Adventist denomination (in one way or another, positive or negative, who knows). The modern 1888 enthusiasts are a bit different than the actual J&W, main in that they are actually hardcore Adventists. Their synthesization of the "trail" J&W began to hit on and the first 40 years of Adventism is much stronger than J&W's own synthesized beliefs, from what I remember. Again, I think J&W began to take a step in the right direction, or rather that God began to pull them in the right direction, but as we all know there's a lot of cultic conditioning to be left behind. Their "step" was not complete, and they didn't arrive at the complete Gospel as we know it. They made strong efforts to harmonize Adventism and what they were beginning to learn, but I think in the end it didn't fully work for them. Even so, their "message" had a lot of "doublethink" involved (in order to harmonize everything). Yet it was a marked departure from the almost complete absence of "Christ our righteousness" in the first forty years of Adventism. And again, the modern 1888-ers are a bit fanatical. The main reason they can't clearly define what the 1888 message was is because they have tacked onto it all of their own pet beliefs, and even more than that, because J&W's "message" was a step towards learning the Gospel---not the complete Gospel itself. They were learning. Modern 1888-ers tend look at what they were learning as if it is the Gospel, or the "missing thing" that modern Adventism needs. Don't know about you, but I wouldn't recommend anyone taking my school study notes and making dogma out of them. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4637 Registered: 12-2003 |
It's true that the modern 1888-ers have morphed the original teachings into something more like historical Adventism. Still, the original Jones and Waggoner message was not "clean". I did some research on them at sdanet.org, and I found some interesting stuff including a historical analysis of the Jones/Waggoner effects on Adventism written by Whidden at Andrews University. Jones and Waggoner originally were firm Arians and believed Jesus was a created god. Jones finally asserted Jesus was fully God, but Waggoner never could completely come to that point. According to Whidden, the most he could be called was a semi-Arian, meaning Jesus was of the same substance as God but was not always present, having "emerged" from God sort of like an amoebic break-off from the cell of God (the metaphor Whidden used). Shortly after Jones, Waggoner, and Ellen participated in a great revival in Minneapolis where Jones and Waggoner preached justification by faith, Ellen was sent to Australia, Waggoner went to Europe, and Jones remained in the USA, becoming by default the main voice speaking of justification by faith (according to Whidden). One thing Whidden pointed out is that while J & W preached justification by faith (albeit how this works with a non-eternal Savior is questionable), they still had no diminution in preaching upholding the law or keeping the Sabbath. Further, later in life Waggoner also developed some odd beliefs, including "spiritual affinities" meaning that people could have spiritual relationships with people other than their spouses, and they were considered "married" in heaven. Reminds one of the Mormon "spiritual wife" phenomenon. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 359 Registered: 10-2002 |
Oops, I noticed that earlier I confused two books... Waggonner's book is "Christ and His Righteousness". The book "Christ Our Righteousness" is by A.G. Daniells, who I believe tried to revive the 1888 stuff. I think Jones ended up siding with Kellogg in a split with Ellen & the denomination around the turn of the century, but I can't remember correctly. It's a sad fact that you can't quite look at Adventist church history without being skeptical about the motives of the person chronicling the history. There's always an attempt to smooth things over, to make it sound good, and to make it look blessed. So we may never end up knowing what happened to J&W, save that they became "formers" as well, though there was plenty of weirdness to go around. It's interesting to look back on them as people -- instead of as a static dogma or doctrinal statement. They were learning & growing, wrestling with the things they found in Scripture, and though in their Adventist years didn't get free of Adventism, they did get excited about justification by faith in Christ. Although it was a primitive understanding of the gospel (I think that's the way Dale Ratzlaff put it? I can't remember), it was close enough to seriously offend the Adventist stalwarts of that day... they saw it as a threat to Adventism, and well, it's true that if you take that step of believing in Christ's justification (and keep walking!), what you find will definitely be a threat to Adventism. It's possible that the opponents of J&W saw this more clearly than they themselves did. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 360 Registered: 10-2002 |
About the liberal Adventism stuff mentioned earlier, I thought I'd share a response I wrote to a liberal Adventist comment here on my blog. It's basically the last two comments, but there are some other comments between a different friend and I along the same notes. |
