`Because thou sayest, I am rich, and spiritually enriched . . . '
The afternoon session of the July 6 1919 General Conference Session began with Elder C.S Thompson asking Professor Prescott to define a statement which he had made in the morning session, at which he had stated that `all truth is personality'. Elder Thompson asked Prescott to further define this statement:
"C.S THOMPSON: I understood you to say this morning that all truth is personality. I cannot understand the personality of God and Christ, and also of the angels and human beings, but I find myself unable to understand that all truth is personality. Is sunshine a personality? If so, in what sense?" (`1919 General Conference Session', July 6, p. 231.)
"W. W. PRESCOTT: I distinguished between what the Scripture says is truth, and a statement of fact. Sunshine is a fact, but Christ in the scripture is truth. When Christ says 'I am the truth, He covers the whole field of truth as far as the Biblical revelation is concerned, and in Him, truth becomes a personality . . . " (ibid.)
It should be noted that when Elder Thompson is asking Professor Prescott if he believed in sunshine being a personality, he was in fact asking him if he believed in pantheism, for to imply that sunshine is a personality infers that God fills everything (living or not) with His presence. Thus, all (`pan') is God (`theos'). The question is particularly pertinent, as fifteen years earlier the denomination had become embroiled in the pantheism crisis which Dr. J.H. Kellogg precipitated when he published the book `The Living Temple', which advocated these sentiments. Ellen White objected to the publication of this book for the following reason:
` . . . I was instructed that certain sentiments in Living Temple were the Alpha [of apostasy] of a long list of deceptive theories.' (Sermons and Talks, Volume 1 Ms. 46, 1904, MR 900 page 343.)
She then described what these `certain sentiments' were:
“In Living Temple the assertion is made that God is in the flower, in the leaf, in the sinner. “But God does not live in the sinner. The Word declares that He abides only in the hearts of those who love Him and do righteousness. God does not abide in the heart of the sinner; it is the enemy who abides there.” (ibid.)
Kellogg had originally condemned Trinitarianism as error:
“Our reviewer seems to be somewhat displeased at our reference to the doctrine of the trinity, a doctrine which is confessedly in the highest degree unphilosophical, unreasonable, and unreconcilable with common sense, which leads us to conclude that we were not incorrect in supposing him to be a believer in the doctrine.” (J. H. Kellogg, Review and Herald, August 19th 1880, ‘The soul - no 2. Reply to Dr. Kellogg’s rejoinder’)
However, he changed his position after the publication of `The Desire of Ages' in 1898, in which Ellen White referred to the Holy Spirit as `the third person of the Godhead':
“Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power.” (Ellen G. White, ‘The Desire of Ages, page 671.)
Kellogg's pantheism was in fact derived from his perception of the Holy Spirit:
“You, Elder Daniell's, and others have spoken about a fine line of distinction, but I could not quite see what it was, but is in the tree, the word ‘God’ is understood in that the Godhead is in the tree, God the Father, God the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit, whereas the proper understanding in order that wholesome conceptions should be preserved in our minds, is that God the Father sits upon his throne in heaven where God the Son is also; while God’s life, or Spirit or presence is the all-pervading power which is carrying out the will of God in all the universe (Letter dated October 25, 1903).”
In a letter to former General Conference President G. I. Butler, Kellogg defended himself against charges of pantheism, by appealing to Ellen White as supporting his position:
“As far as I can fathom, the difficulty which is found in the Living Temple, the whole thing may be simmered down to this question: is the Holy Ghost a person? You say no. I had supposed the Bible said this for the reason that the personal pronoun `he' is used in speaking of the Holy Ghost. Sister White uses the pronoun he and has said in as many words that the Holy Ghost is the third person of the Godhead.” (Letter, Kellogg to G. I Butler, October 28th 1903)
The next day, A.G. Daniells, who was then the current General Conference President wrote a letter to Willie White, in which he expressed his concerns about Kellogg's theories:
` He [Dr. Kellogg] then stated that his former views regarding the Trinity had stood in his way of making a clear and absolutely correct statement; but that within a short time he had come to believe in the Trinity, and could now see pretty clearly where all the difficulty was, and believed that he could clear the matter up satisfactorily. He told me that he now believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; and his view was that it was God the Holy Ghost, and not God the Father, that filled all space, and every living thing. He said that if he had believed this before writing the book, he could have expressed his views without giving the wrong impression the book now gives. (Letter of A. G. Daniell's to Willie White, October 29, 1903).
As Kellogg appealed to Ellen White's supposed support for a Trinitarian Holy Spirit, the question must be asked, did Ellen White in fact view the Holy Spirit as a co-Redeemer with Christ, in the sense that the Holy Spirit is a Trinitarian Third Person of the Godhead? In answer to this, no statement that clearly states that the Holy Spirit is a co-Redeemer with Christ has ever been found, simply because she believed that the Holy Spirit brings to us the personality of Christ `in Spirit'. The same `Spirit' which unduly influenced Kellogg, which was his perception of a Trinitarian Holy Spirit, is undoubtedly the same unholy spirit which Ellen White perceived while in vision in 1845:
`In February, 1845, I had a vision of events commencing with the Midnight Cry. I saw a throne and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus’ countenance and admired his lovely person. The Father’s person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered him. I asked Jesus if his Father had a form like himself. He said he had, but I could not behold it, for said he if you should once behold the glory of his person you would cease to exist. Before the throne I saw the Advent people, the church, and the world. I saw a company, bowed down before the throne, deeply interested, while the most of them stood
up disinterested and careless. Those who were bowed before the throne would offer up their prayers and look to Jesus; then he would look to his Father, and appeared to be pleading with Him. A light would come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son to the praying company. Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son it waved over the people before the throne. But few would receive this great light; many came out from under it and immediately resisted it; others were careless and did not cherish the light, and it moved off from them; some cherished it, and went and bowed down with the little praying company. This company all received the light, and
rejoiced in it, as their countenances shone with its glory. And I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming Chariot go into the Holy of Holies, within the veil, and did sit. There I saw thrones that I had never seen before. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arose with Him; and I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after he arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. Those who rose up when Jesus did, kept their eyes fixed on Him as He left the throne and led them out a little way. — Then He raised His right arm and we heard his lovely voice
saying, “Wait here—I am going to my Father to receive the Kingdom; keep your garments spotless, and in a little while I will return from the wedding and receive you to myself.” And I saw a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, and Angels were all around it as it came where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the Holiest where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, as He was standing before the Father, a great High Priest. On the hem of His garment was a bell and pomegranate. Then Jesus shew me the difference
between faith and feeling. And I saw those who rose up with Jesus send up their faith to Him in the Holiest, and pray—my Father give us thy Spirit. Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In the breath was light, power, and much love, joy and peace. Then I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it.—Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God; I saw them look up to the throne and pray, my Father give us thy Spirit; then Satan would breathe upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy and peace. Satan’s object was to keep them deceived, and to draw back and deceive God’s children. I saw one after another leave the company who were praying to Jesus in the Holiest, and go and join those before the throne, and they at once received the unholy influence of Satan.' (To the Little Remnant Scattered Abroad, April 6, 1846, p. 7).
While the majority of Seventh Day Adventists believe that the `third person of the Godhead' which Ellen White referred to is a Trinitarian Holy Spirit, it should be noted that Jesus often referred to Himself in the third person, as the following Scripture demonstrates:
"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matthew 24: 30.)
Ellen White also referred to herself in the `third person':
“I understood that some were anxious to know if Mrs. White still held the same views that did years ago when they had heard her speak in the sanitarium grove, in the Tabernacle, and at the camp-meetings held in the suburbs of Battle Creek. I assured them that the message she bears today is the same that she has borne during the sixty years of her public ministry. She has the same service to do for the Master that was laid upon her in her girlhood. She receives lessons from the same Instructor. The directions given her are, "Make known to others what I have revealed to you. Write out the messages that I give you, that the people may have them." This is what she [third person] has endeavoured to do.” (EGW, RH, July 26, 1906 par. 20.)
Nor could Ellen White be accorded as believing that the Holy Spirit is a `third person' in a strictly Trinitarian sense, as the following statement demonstrates:
“The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality. We may have the Holy Spirit if we ask for it and make it habit to turn to and trust in God rather than in any finite human agent who may make mistakes.” (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases Volume 20 MR No. 1487)
It should be noted that `person' and `personality' do not necessarily mean the same thing. For instance, while I am a `person', my `personality' determines who I am. Ellen White did not regard the Holy Spirit as a separate person, in the sense that it became defined at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D, which was the last Church Council during which the Nicene Creed, which states the dogma of the Trinity, was ratified. She instead viewed the Holy Spirit as the personality of Christ:
“Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent.” (MR 14, p. 23.)
Unfortunately, by the time this statement found its way into `The Desire of Ages', it had undergone significant editing at the hands of Marian Davis, which then gave it a pro-Trinitarian emphasis:
`The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative, but divested of the personality of humanity thereof. Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally. Therefore it was for their interest that He should go to the Father, and send the Spirit to be His successor on earth. No one could then have any advantage because of his location or his personal contact with Christ. By the Spirit the Saviour would be accessible to all. In this sense He would be nearer to them than if He had not ascended on high.' (`The Desire of Ages', p. 669.)
The changing of the phrase from `The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof', to `The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative, but divested of the personality of humanity thereof' strips the identification of the Holy Spirit with the personality of Christ and substitutes Christ for a mysterious Trinitarian `third person of the Godhead', who cannot be identified with Christ at all, and is instead regarded as a co-Redeemer with Christ - which then leads directly to spiritualism! Contrary to popular belief, `The Desire of Ages' was not written word for word by Ellen White, for although it had been her intention for many years to write a book about `The Life of Christ', she was far too busy to do so - for instance, it was not until 1911 (which was shortly before her death) that she found the time to write a book about `The Acts of the Apostles'. Eventually she entrusted Marian Davis with the task of collating a suitable book about the `Life of Christ' which was to be compiled from her extant writings, and which went into print with the title `The Desire of Ages'. However, Miss Davis found that there were significant gaps in chapters for which no material could be found, so she appealed to Professor Prescott and Elder H.C. Lacey for help, so that the book could be presented in a cohesive and readable format. In the following passage, Lacey recalls studies which were conducted in Cooranbong in 1896, which were on the deity of Christ:
` Professor Prescott was tremendously interested in presenting Christ as the great `I am' and in emphasizing the Eternity of His existence, using frequently the expression `The Eternal Son'. Also he connected the `I am' of Exodus 3: 14, which was of course Christ the Second Person of the Godhead with the statement of Jesus in John 8: 58 . . . Sr. Marion Davis seemed to fall for it and lo and behold, when the `Desire of Ages' came out, there appeared that identical teaching on pages 24 and 25, which, I think, can be looked for in vain in any or Sr. White's published works prior to that time!
In this connection, of course you know that Sr. Marian Davis was entrusted with the preparation of `Desire of Ages' and that she gathered here material from every available source - from private letters, stenographical reports of her talks, etc. - but perhaps you may not know that she (Sr. Davis) was greatly worried about finding material for the first chapter. She appealed to me personally many times as she was arranging that chapter (and other chapters too, for that matter) and I did what I could to help her; and I have good reason to believe that she also appealed to Professor Prescott frequently for similar aid, and got it in far richer and more abundant measure than I could render . . . when I was asked to conduct a series of Bible Studies at the 9.00 o'clock hour in a convention in Cooranbong in 1896, I presented that theme [the work of the Holy Ghost] very much to the interest (I well remember!) of Sr. Marian Davis, who took copious notes, and also to that of Elder A.G. Daniells, who was frequently present, and expressed conservative appreciation.' (Letter, L.E. Froom, to H.C. Lacey, August 30, 1945.)
While Lacey was a committed Trinitarian who had originally been an Anglican, by 1896 Prescott had also set his feet firmly on that path. One can only assume that when these men edited original statements that were then inserted into the manuscript that was later released as `The Desire of Ages', their Trinitarian bias led them to assume that Ellen White was a Trinitarian, and they thus `improved upon' original statements which would then reveal the true intent of what she had actually meant to say.
This passage is an extract from a letter was written by Lacey in 1945, and in it we find that Lacey is answering an appeal by LeRoy Froom, who was at this time researching denominational history in relation to our acceptance of the Trinitarian doctrine. Froom had already written `The Coming of the Comforter' in 1928, in an attempt to prove to the denomination that the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead, and the information which he gleaned from Lacey contributed to him writing `Movement of Destiny', which was published in 1970. Froom died four years later, at the age of 84.
`Movement of Destiny' resulted from Froom's earlier release of `Questions on Doctrine' in 1957, which was printed as a reaction to a book entitled `The Rise of the Cults', in which Walter R. Martin had listed the S.D.A Church as a cult, because of the stance Martin believed the S.D.A Church was at that time taking on the Trinity and the deity of Christ. `Questions on Doctrine' resulted after T.E. Unruh first contacted Martin in 1955, at which he vehemently objected to the publication of the book. This resulted in a series of meetings which were held between Martin, who, at 28 was at that time was a contributing editor of `Eternity Magazine', his mentor Donald Barnhouse, who was senior editor of `Eternity Magazine', and four highly placed officials in the S.D.A. Church, which were R.A. Anderson, T.E Unruh, L.E. Froom and W.E. Read. `Questions on Doctrine' was published two years later in 1957 and answered the written questions which Barnhouse submitted to these men. An interview conducted between Martin and Douglas Hackleman in 1983, for `Adventist Currents', Vol. 1., July 1983, reveals that Froom assisted Martin in the manner by which the questions were framed, `because Froom wanted them placed in such a way that Adventists would understand exactly what we were saying'.
In this same interview Martin reveals one of the reasons why he listed Adventism as a cult in the first place:
`After I started doing the research, I saw definite division in Adventist theology. There were people who really were believers and held to the foundations of the Gospel. Then there were those who were downright legalists - worshippers of Ellen White - who had exalted her beyond the role that she ever claimed for herself, and, in effect, were the loud voice that the evangelical world was always hearing. They were hardly ever hearing the conservative Adventists. They were hearing these people who were stamping [them] with the mark of the beast and telling them that the atonement wasn't finished and all kinds of other things.' (`Adventist Currents', Vol. 1, 1983.)
Sadly, much of this could have been avoided if the Church had accepted the `1888 Message', for the rejection of it has seen the Church settle into two warring factions which vie for doctrinal supremacy. On the one hand, there are those who advocate the so-called `New Theology' - which in reality is not `new' at all, for it is instead orthodox apostate Protestant and Catholic theology on the human `nature' of Christ. On the other hand, we have the outright legalism of conservative brethren whose theology is based upon the `example theory' of the atonement, yet do not comprehend the saving grace of Christ. This position has also resulted from the rejection of the `1888 Message', which speaks of a gospel of much more abounding grace (Rom. 5: 21).
Walter Martin's statement (as reproduced above), reveals that it is the attitude of ultra-conservative Adventists who offend other Christians by the manner by which they present their faith, which led to Martin listing the Adventist Church as a cult in the first place! This subsequently led to the Adventist Church embracing evangelical faith as a reaction to the legalism which the evangelicals subsequently viewed the entire S.D.A. Church as believing. Error has multiplied upon error within both factions of the Church, which is a direct result of our rejection of `that most precious message' - and no doubt we are surely `reaping the whirlwind' as a result.
There is absolutely no doubt at all that Marian Davis was unduly influenced by the Trinitarianism of Lacey and Prescott, who ensured that `The Desire of Ages' would be published with a pro-Trinitarian emphasis. This then resulted with many within the denomination re-evaluating their position on the deity of Christ, and the personage of the Holy Spirit from a non-Trinitarian perspective, to that of a fully Trinitarian perspective. As noted earlier, J.H. Kellogg was one; thus resulting in the pantheism crisis, while A.G. Daniells, who was the Conference President at that time, was another:
"A.G. DANIELLS: So far as I am concerned, I went along with a mystified idea quite a while, and the thing that began to knock the scales from my eyes was when the Desire of Ages came out. I was in Australia when the page proofs were brought out. I never believed some other things till the Testimonies came out and set me thinking. And I said, Look here, Sister White has always been in harmony with the Bible, now she has dropped a stitch here or else I am wrong. I went to studying, and that did more for me. Perhaps we have discussed this as long as we need to. We are not going to take a vote on Trinitarianism or Arianism, but we can think.' (1919 General Conference Session, 3 p.m session, July 6, p. 244.)"
Ellen White had warned the denomination during the pantheism crisis that wrong sentiments were coming in regarding making the personages of the Father and Son non-entities:
" All through the Scriptures, the Father and the Son are spoken of as two distinct personages. You will hear men endeavouring to make the Son of God a nonentity. He and the Father are one, but they are two personages. Wrong sentiments regarding this are coming in, and we shall all have to meet them” (Ellen G. White to the delegates at the 1905 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Takoma Park Washington D. C., May 25th 1905 Review and Herald 13th July 1905, ‘Lessons from the first Epistle of John’)
Three years later, she again warned the denomination of the very same thing:
"Again and again we shall be called to meet the influence of men who are studying sciences of satanic origin, through which Satan is working to make a nonentity of God and of Christ.” (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald 6th August 1908, 'Circulate the publications No. 1', see also Testimonies Volume 9, page 68 'Literature in service 1909)
While these warnings were initially intended to be applied to Kellogg and the pantheism crisis, they also applied just as succinctly to the Trinitarian doctrine, for the co-existent and co-eternal aspects of this Nicene Creed completely obliterate that personages of the Son and the Father, and are initially derived from the Platonic conception of the emanation of the first pair of gods from the one-in-all pantheist God. However, men such as Daniell's ultimately embraced this doctrine, not knowing that by doing so, the knowledge of the `everlasting gospel' of the giving of the only-begotten Son to fallen man for eternity would be entirely obliterated, and substituted with a false gospel based upon the Catholic doctrines of `vicarious substitution' and `original sin'.
Elder Daniell's was General Conference President from 1901 to 1922, and there is no doubt that the position which he took in the 1919 General Conference Session, four short years after Ellen White died, began to change the perception of the denomination, thus opening the doors for the infamous 1931 Statement of Beliefs - which then opened the floodgates to our acceptance of Catholic doctrine in the form of the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds. Once one begins to understand this, then it takes no stretch of the imagination to see that while Kellogg was promoting the `alpha' of apostasy, at the very same time the germinal seeds of the `omega' were taking root in Daniell's mind; thus ensuring that the denomination would embark upon a course that would eventually embrace not only the Trinitarian position on the ontological relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - but `daughter' doctrines of the Trinity as well, such as the pre-lapsarian human `nature' of Christ, and `original sin'; which are doctrines which obscure the character of God, by placing Christ as so far away from us, that we must go of search of Him, so that we might find Him. Our denominational history is a sad testament to this fact. History testifies that Froom's release of the apologetic `The Coming of the Comforter' in 1928 prepared the way for the 1931 `Statement of Beliefs', which had a distinctly pro-Trinitarian emphasis, and in which the Holy Spirit is described as `the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption':
`2. That the Godhead or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption.' (Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, p. 29, 1963 ed.).
We find in this statement a recognition that the Trinitarian Holy Spirit is co-Redeemer with Christ, for this `third person' who is not and cannot be Christ, is seen to be active as the regenerating power in the work of redemption. This is the unholy spirit which Ellen White spoke of in her 1845 vision!
When Froom wrote `The Coming of the Comforter', he appealed to sources outside of our own denomination, as he could not find any literature within our own denomination to support his position, as the following admission from `Movement of Destiny' reveals:
`May I here make a frank personal confession? When, back between 1926 and 1928, I was asked by our leaders to give a series of studies on the Holy Spirit, covering the North American union ministerial institutes of 1928, I found that, aside from priceless leads found in the Spirit of Prophecy, there was practically nothing in our literature setting forth a sound Biblical exposition in this tremendous field of study. There were no previous pathfinding books on the question in our literature.
I was compelled to search out a score of valuable books written by men outside our faith—those previously noted—for initial clues and suggestions, and to open up beckoning vistas to intensive personal study. Having these, I went on from there. But they were decided early helps. And scores, if not hundreds, could confirm the same sobering conviction that some of these other men frequently had a deeper insight into the spiritual things of God than many of our own men then had on the Holy Spirit and the triumphant life. It was still a largely obscure theme.' (Movement of Destiny, p. 322).
Froom waited many years before publishing `Movement of Destiny', for reason that the passage of time would ensure that attitudes would change, for the denomination would be able to more readily modify its theology after those who initially objected to the changes, such as Elders M.L Andreason and J.H. Washburn, had died. Elder Daniell's took a similar position when the Conference first embarked upon a course that led directly to our acceptance of the Trinitarian doctrine:
"Back in the spring of 1930, Arthur G. Daniells, for more than twenty years president of the General Conference, told me he believed that, at a later time, I should undertake a thorough survey of the entire plan of redemption. . . . I was a connecting link between past leaders and the present. But, he said, it is to be later—not yet, not yet. Elder Daniell's recognized the serious problems involved. He knew that time would be required for certain theological wounds to heal, and for attitudes to modify on the part of some. Possibly it would be necessary to wait until certain individuals had dropped out of action.' (`Movement of Destiny', p. 17.)
One of these `theological wounds' which Froom was waiting for to heal, was the perception of the Trinitarian Holy Spirit, which he first presented in `The Coming of the Comforter':
`May I state that my book, The Coming of the Comforter was the result of a series of studies that I gave in 1927-1928 to ministerial institutes throughout North America. You cannot imagine how I was pummeled by some of the old timers because I pressed on the personality of the Holy Spirit as the Third Person of the Godhead. Some men denied that—still deny it. But the book has come to be generally accepted as standard.' (Letter of LeRoy Froom to Dr. Otto H. Christenson, October 27, 1960).
Hence the publication of `Questions on Doctrine' over thirty years later, and then `Movement of Destiny' toward the end of Froom's life - which further paved for the way for the 1980 `Statement of Beliefs', which is of an iron-clad, creedal nature. So if we are to document the denominational shift from non-Trinitarianism to Trinitarianism, we find that the release of `Desire of Ages' first began a shift in our perception of the Trinitarian Holy Spirit. The reasons why Ellen White did not elaborate about the publication of the `Desire of Ages', and clarify this issue - particularly in relation to the influence which Prescott and Lacey had on the editing of it, as well as its pro-Trinitarian emphasis, is beyond the scope of this document. But if we are to document the influences which gradually shifted the denomination to Trinitarianism, it is four volumes of Froom's books which we turn to,
which spanned a period of over forty years. They are:
1/ - `The Coming of the Comforter'; first published in 1928.
This book changed the perception of the denomination in regard to the denominational view of the Holy Spirit, by appealing directly to Ellen White as the primary source of `proof', and then to other sources outside of the denomination.
2/ - `Evangelism', first published in 1946.
This book is a compilation of Spirit of Prophecy statements. As Froom sat on the editorial committee, it gave him the opportunity to arrange statements by Ellen White in such a manner that it distorted her true position on the Deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity. The intent of the book was to silence his non-Trinitarian critics, and paved the way for the `New Theology'; which is the pre-lapsarian view on the human `nature' of Christ. The following statement verifies this:
`I am sure that we are agreed in evaluating the book, Evangelism as one of the great contributions in which the Ministerial Association had a part back in those days. You know what it did with men in the Columbia Union who came face to face with the clear, unequivocal statements of the Spirit of Prophecy on the Deity of Christ, personality of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, and the like. They either had to lay down their arms and accept those statements, or else they had to reject the Spirit of Prophecy.
I know that you and Miss Kleuser and I had considerable to do with the selection of these things under the encouragement of men like Elder Branson who felt that the earlier concept of the White Estate brethren on this book Evangelism was not adequate (Letter of LeRoy Froom to Roy A. Anderson, January 18, 1966).
3/ - `Questions on Doctrine', first published in 1957.
This book was initiated after Walter Martin labelled the Adventist Church a cult, in the book `The Rise of the Cults'. It provided Froom with an avenue by which he was not only able to openly canvass the Trinitiarian position, as that was now becoming accepted by the denomination, but to also start the push for our acceptance of the `Chalcedonian Creed', or as it is mistakenly called by the conservative wing of the Church - the `New Theology'.
4/ - `Movement of Destiny', first published in 1970.
`Movement of Destiny' provides a distorted picture of Adventist history, and paved the way for the 1980 `Statement of Beliefs', which is of a creedal nature. In a historical sense, once a Church forms a Creed, it declares that it has received all the light which the Lord will deign to send, and thus shuts itself out to any further light which the Lord would otherwise send to it. It is therefore no accident that the creedal statement of the 1980 `Statement of Beliefs' has resulted from the corporate rejection of the `1888' message - even though we declare that we have never rejected it. Instead, we are taught at Conference level that we have the truth, we have been enriched by the truth, we are preaching the truth, and all we need to finish the work is more money! But what does Scripture say?
`Because thou say I have become rich, and increased with goods . . . ' (Rev. 3: 17.)
The phrase `increased with goods' has a two-fold meaning. It is derived from the Greek word `plouteo', and not only does it mean `to have an abundance of outward possessions', but in a metaphorical sense, it also means `enriched spiritually'. Thus, the text can be translated as:
`Because thou say I have become rich, and spiritually enriched . . . . ' (Rev. 3: 17.)
What does the Conference really say about the `1888 Message'? Simply this - that we have accepted it, and we have been enriched by it, for it is a re-emphasis of Luther, and `justification by faith'. This is then equated with `Righteousness by Faith' - just as the last quarter of the 2011 Sabbath School quarterly testifies. Nothing can be further from the truth - for the `1888' message was given to prepare the Bride of Christ for the marriage supper of the Lamb! Thus true `Righteousness by Faith' can only be seen in context of post-1844 - Christ ministering for our sins in the Most Holy Place. Therefore Lutherian `justification by faith' - which was the message of the Reformation - is confused with true `Righteousness by Faith', which is the end-time message of `Messiah in His Sanctuary' bringing His people into conformity to the entire Ten Commandments, through sanctifying them by a `faith that works by love' which is imparted to them. This was impossible during the Reformation, for Christ still administered to sin in the Holy Place, and was not preparing a people to meet their God! Luther could worship on Sunday, believe in the doctrine of the `natural immortality of the soul' if he so wished, drink his beer and still be in a right relationship with God. Not so today. Those who are faithful to God, and keep His commandments by the faith of Jesus are called out of the doctrinal confusion of Babylon, and are admonished to be a `peculiar people'. The `1888 Message' is intimately linked with the Sanctuary doctrine, and was designed by our Lord to prepare His people for translation. The fact that we are still here declares that we have never accepted it.
The blurring of the Sanctuary doctrine in the minds of many Adventist's has resulted in them confusing justification with sanctification, and demonstrates that our people are losing almost all knowledge of the ministration of Christ in the Most Holy Place - in which true sanctification takes place by Christ administering His Holy Spirit to the hearts of the faithful. This is indeed the sad result of our acceptance of the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds, which obscure the conception of a right knowledge of the character of the Father and His only-begotten Son.