What was the 1888 conflict all about? Was “Righteousness by Faith” really the main issue? What were Elder E. J. Waggoner and Elder A. T. Jones teaching? What did Ellen White teach? I have personally read several books by church leaders on this subject and I still couldn’t figure it out. Why? There just seems to be something missing. I have struggled for a long time with the proposition that Righteousness by Faith was the main issue. That doctrine was taught by Martin Luther in the 1500’s and Protestantism emerged because of that “new” belief system. If Seventh-day Adventists are Protestants, which they are, then that belief was in the framework long ago. I have heard about Righteousness by Faith and Martin Luther’s work of reformation all my life. How could such a well-established basic truth be the question? This just did not seem to make sense. So I started studying for myself. In this article, I will try to explain what I have found. There is much more to the subject than what meets the eye at a casual glance.
The Law in Galatians–
This seems to be the hub that the wheel turns on. What is the Law in Galatians? Was it the Ceremonial Law or was it the Moral Law? Which belief system controls our theology today? Someone has said, “If your ladder is leaning against the wrong wall, every step you take gets you further from where you ought to be.” So it is with truth.
Let us look at what was written by Elder George Butler, who was the leading opponent of Waggoner, Jones, and Ellen White in 1888.
from Elder Butler’s work, “The Law in Galatians”–
“What law is the principal subject of the apostle’s discourse in the epistle to the Galatians? Is it the moral law? or the typical remedial system and laws peculiarly Jewish? Perhaps there has never been a theological question in all the history of our work concerning which there has been so much disagreement among our ministry and leading brethren as this. Such differences have existed more or less with varying phases, since the rise of the message, and at times have been discussed with more or less warmth. At other periods they have been tacitly left untouched. Generally, a mutual forbearance has been exercised, so that bitterness of feeling between brethren has been avoided.
Leading brethren have been on both sides of the question. In the early history of the work, it is probable that quite a majority of them accepted the view that the moral law was the main subject of Paul’s consideration in the book of Galatians. But there came quite a change in this respect at a later period, when some of our leading brethren, to whom our people have ever looked as safe counselors in questions of perplexity, gave up the view that the moral law was mainly under discussion, and took the position that it was the ceremonial law. Many others who have come later to act a part in the work, have accepted the latter view with strong confidence. It would be quite difficult to ascertain the comparative strength in numbers on either side; but to the best of the writer’s judgment (and his opportunities of forming a fair opinion have not been meager), he would say that at the present time at least two thirds of our ministers hold the latter opinion.” (p. 3)
Here Butler is telling us that there was a change in what Seventh-day Adventists believed in this regard. The early Adventists believed it was the Moral Law while the leaders at the time of Butler believed it was the Ceremonial Law. So why does it matter? Remember: if we put our ladder against the wrong wall, every step takes us further from our desired destination—understanding truth.
What was Butler trying to teach?
“Believing strongly, as we do, that the law principally considered in Galatians is the typical remedial (ceremonial law) system, which passed away at the cross, and is not the moral law, and feeling that an unfair advantage has been taken in urgently teaching the contrary opinion to our young people preparing to labor in the cause, and in making our Instructor lessons and pioneer paper mediums for teaching an opposite view, and hoping to add some information which will be valuable upon the subject, we have felt it not only proper but a duty to bring the subject before the General Conference of our people, the only tribunal in our body where such controverted questions can be properly considered and passed upon.” (Ibid., p. 6)
Jones and Waggoner were teaching the young people that it was the Moral Law and not the Ceremonial Law under consideration in Galatians. This is what prompted Butler to write this article.
This may seem to some to be merely a theological debate. It was more, much more. Here is a quote from Ellen White as to the significance of this debate at the 1888 General Conference. And this is why it is important to you and I today.
An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord’s message through Brethren Waggoner and Jones. By exciting that opposition Satan succeeded in shutting away from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it after the day of Pentecost. The light that is to lighten the whole earth with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world.” (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p. 234, 235 written June 6, 1896)
Did you catch that? It is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Latter Rain, that was refused in 1888.
In the last days of this earth’s history, God’s covenant with His commandment-keeping people is to be renewed. (Prophets and Kings, p. 299)
We have been “out of covenant” for all these years and now it is time to renew that covenant.
For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of modern Israel into the heavenly Canaan. In neither case were the promises of God at fault. It is the unbelief, the worldliness, unconsecration, and strife among the Lord’s professed people that have kept us in this world of sin and sorrow so many years. (Evangelism, p. 696)
We have wandered in the wilderness for more than 100 years because the light given us through Jones and Waggoner was refused. Will we reject the truth again or will we accept it, receive the Latter Rain, and give the Loud Cry? Jesus is coming soon! If we don’t do our duty, we will be passed by and others will be given the privilege. Let me repeat: this 1888 subject has to do with our Salvation, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the Loud Cry. Does it affect our future? Absolutely! It is time for us to study and understand. So let us look at the real problem with Butler’s errors, which have been taught for all these years, and comprehend the truth that Waggoner and Jones taught. Let me promise you, there is much more here than meets the casual eye.
from “Studies In Galatians” by A. T. Jones (articles in the Review and Herald 1899 to 1900)–
“Several letters have been received asking what law is the subject of consideration in the book of Galatians. The answer is: Not any law at all; it is the gospel that is the subject, and the whole subject, under consideration in the book of Galatians. So emphatically is this so, that in the very first part of the first chapter it is declared and repeated, “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again. If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Verses 8, 9. (p. 1)
from The Glad Tidings (as originally published) by E. J. Waggoner, Pacific Press Publishing Co. Oakland, Cal. New York. Kansas City, Mo., 1900–
“It is evident, therefore, that the Galatians were being seduced from God, by something that promised them life and salvation, but by a power other than that of God, namely, their own power. This other gospel was solely a human gospel. The question consequently would be, Which is the true Gospel? Is it the one that Paul preached? or the one the other men set forth? Therefore, we see that this epistle must be an emphatic presentation of the true Gospel as distinguished from every false gospel.” (p. 27)
Do we have that kind of gospel taught in our day as well? We hear things like: “You have the power within you, the power of positive thinking,” etc. This is self-righteousness. It does not require faith or a Savior. Any gospel that teaches that we do not need the Savior, Jesus Christ, is not the same gospel as is in the Bible.
So, were these “Judiazers” that were troubling the early Galatian church, teaching God’s Laws? What does Waggoner say about that?
“We hear much about the “Judaizing teachers,” who sought to pervert the Galatians, and we know that they who were teaching “another gospel” were Jews; but we must not fall into the error of supposing that these “Judaizing teachers” were presenting the Bible, or any part of it, to the new converts, or trying to get them to follow the Scriptures written by Moses. Far from it; they were leading them away from the Bible, and substituting for its teaching the commandments of men. This was what roused the spirit of Paul. The “Jews’ religion” was an entirely different thing from the religion of God, as taught in the law, the prophets, and the psalms.” (Ibid., p. 40)
What does Ellen White say about these things?
The doctrines which the Galatians had received, could not in any sense be called the gospel; they were the teachings of men, and were directly opposed to the doctrines taught by Christ. (Sketches from the Life of Paul, p. 189)
What Law does Waggoner understand Paul to be referring to in Galatians?
from Waggoner “The Gospel in Galatians” (a response to Butler)–
“I pass to page 33, to your closing remarks on the second chapter, where you say:–
‘We have had here nearly two entire chapters in this letter, about one-third of the whole epistle, and hitherto we have not had a single reference to the moral law; but through it all constant reference is made to the other law, that of Moses.’
“I think you could not have had in mind the nineteenth verse of the second chapter when you wrote the above. That verse reads, “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.” The ceremonial law never had power to slay anyone. But even allowing that it did once have that power, it had itself died, having been nailed to the cross at least three years before Paul was converted. Now I ask, How could Paul be slain by a law that for three years had had no existence? This verse shows upon the face of it that the moral law is referred to. It is the same law to which Paul refers when he says, “I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” (p. 16)
Let me try to summarize, though I suggest that people read and study for themselves. How do these things that we are reading from Waggoner’s writings fit together? To state it in simple words: Faith in Jesus has always been the only means of receiving the free gift of Salvation. By faith Abel offered a better sacrifice. By faith Noah built an ark. By faith Abraham obeyed and left his home for the inheritance promised to him. By faith Moses refused to be called Pharaoh’s daughter’s son. (all from Hebrews 11). The system given to the Hebrews was the Gospel. The Gospel for us is the same Gospel they received. There is no other Gospel and never was any other Gospel! The only way any man has ever been saved is by faith in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. These all received the promises of God by faith whether in Old Testament times or New Testament times. The Moral Law, spoken of in Galatians, merely brings us to Christ and is like the guard rails on the narrow road to heaven. It is God’s standard of righteousness but cannot save a single soul. It shows us our need of a Savior and brings us to that Savior, Jesus Christ. This is the Gospel.
I wish to share my testimony that I, too, have found Him to be faithful. His promises and power are sufficient. So many doubt His power to overcome sin in their lives. But I have found Him more than able as long as I am willing to cooperate. It does not matter what circumstances we may have to encounter, by faith He can carry us through; on tender wings He holds us above our trials. He may allow us to be stretched to what feels like our limit of endurance, but He will not forsake us if we do not forsake Him. Our Heavenly Father only has our good in mind when He works in our lives.
So what was so difficult to accept in what Jones and Waggoner taught? I wish to re-quote Waggoner’s above statement: “. . . we must not fall into the error of supposing that these “Judaizing teachers” were presenting the Bible, or any part of it, to the new converts, or trying to get them to follow the Scriptures written by Moses. Far from it; they were leading them away from the Bible, and substituting for its teaching the commandments of men.” (The Glad Tidings, p. 40)
So, in other words, the book of Galatians does not teach that the “Law of Moses” was the Ceremonial Law and was done away with. Nor was that the cause of the great difficulty in the Galatian church. Obedience to that Law was not the issue. Circumcision was not the issue (Galatians 5:6). Salvation by circumcision or law or any means other than Jesus Christ was the issue.
The Law of Moses Nailed to the Cross?–
Unfortunately, these brethren who joined Butler, Uriah Smith, and others, were teaching that the whole Law of Moses was nailed to the cross. This teaching, though contrary to Scripture and Spirit of Prophecy was comfortable to them. And the book of Galatians was the platform on which they stood for this assertion, shaky though it is.
Let’s look again at what was being discussed by these men.
from Waggoner, “The Gospel in Galatians”–
“You very properly connect the book of Galatians with the fifteenth chapter of Acts. You justly claim that in Galatians Paul pursues the same line of argument which was pursued in the council. And you depend on the assumption that the council took no cognizance of the moral law, in order to prove that the moral law does not come into the account in Galatians. But a simple reading of the report of the council shows that the moral law did come in there; and therefore, according to your own argument, the moral law must be considered in the book of Galatians.
“Take for a moment the supposition that the ceremonial law alone was considered by the council; then it necessarily follows, as is plainly stated in the “Two Laws,” page 31, that the council decided that four points of the ceremonial law were declared to be binding on Christians. Now let me ask: 1. Is the decision of the council as binding on us as it was on the primitive Christians? If so, then the ceremonial law was not taken away at the cross, and we are still subject to it.
“2. If the ceremonial law was a yoke of bondage, and that council decreed that a part of it was to be observed by Christians, did they not thereby deliberately place Christians under a yoke of bondage, in spite of Peter’s emphatic protest against putting a yoke upon them? 3. If those “four necessary things” were part of the ceremonial law, and were binding twenty-one years after the crucifixion, when, if ever, did they cease to be in force? We have no record that those four necessary things ever ceased to be necessary things; and therefore, according to the theory that the ceremonial law was a yoke of bondage, it is impossible for Christians ever to be perfectly free. This one thing is certain, if the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross, then the apostles, acting in harmony with the leadings of the Spirit of God, would not declare a part of it be “necessary things.” And whoever claims that the “four necessary things.” enjoined by the council at Jerusalem, were a part of the ceremonial law, thereby denies that the ceremonial law ceased at the cross. I cannot think that you would have taken the position which you have, if you had taken time to carefully consider this matter.
“Peter said, “Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” Now the fathers had the ceremonial law, and did bear it; they practiced it, and throve under it, as David said: “Those that be planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God. They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing.” Ps. 92:13, 14. Anyone who reads the Psalms will see that David did not regard the ceremonial law as a burdensome yoke, nor think it grievous bondage to carry out its ordinances. It was a delight to him to offer the sacrifices of thanksgiving, because by it he showed faith in Christ. Faith in Christ was the soul and life of his service. Without that his worship would have been a meaningless form. But if he had been so ill-informed as to suppose that the simple mechanical performance of the ceremonial law would cleanse him from sin, then indeed he would have been in a grievous condition. There are two yokes, — the yoke of sin (Satan’s yoke), and the yoke of Christ. The yoke of sin is hard to bear, — Satan is a hard master; but the yoke of Christ is easy, and his burden is light. He sets us free from sin, that we may serve him by bearing his mild yoke. Matt. 11:29, 30.
“Now what was the reason that only four things were enjoined upon these troubled converts. It was because these four things covered the danger . . . ” (p. 13-15)
So what was nailed to the cross? What is Waggoner saying here? He is telling us that these laws given by the Council at Jerusalem were not a part of the Ceremonial Law. The Ceremonial Law consisted of sacrifice and oblation, which Daniel 9:27 tells us would cease 3 1/2 years after the Messiah started his ministry. That was when Jesus was crucified. He bore our sins (the yoke of bondage) and nailed our death penalty to the cross. These sacrifices represented our death certificate and the Substitute that would die in our place. What were the Laws that the Council in Jerusalem gave to the Gentiles? They were a part of the “Law of Moses.” They were still binding. Some were from the Ten Commandments and some were not. Fornication and idol worship are forbidden in the Ten Commandments. The injunctions against eating blood and things strangled were a part of the Statutes and Judgments given after the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai and are still binding today. That’s what Acts 15 is telling us. (Acts 15:20). The yoke which is hard to bear is not the “Law of Moses;” it is the yoke of sin and its subsequent penalty, death.
In consequence of continual transgression, the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai. Christ gave to Moses religious precepts which were to govern the everyday life. These statutes were explicitly given to guard the ten commandments. They were not shadowy types to pass away with the death of Christ. They were to be binding upon man in every age as long as time should last. These commands were enforced by the power of the moral law, and they clearly and definitely explained that law. (Review and Herald 05-06-75)
Why was this message so threatening to the early church leaders that they would send God’s Messenger, Ellen White, all the way to Australia to get rid of her, rather than accept the message? What connection does this message have to the Latter Rain or Loud Cry? Let’s see what was said about it.
from A. T. Jones, “The Third Angel’s Message:” 1893 General Conference Sermon Series–
“Well then the latter rain–the loud cry–according to the testimony and according to the Scripture, is “the teaching of righteousness,” and “according to righteousness,” too. Now brethren, when did that message of the righteousness of Christ, begin with us as a people? [One or two in the audience: “Three or four years ago.”] Which was it, three? or four? [Congregation: “Four.”] Yes, four. Where was it? [Congregation: “Minneapolis.”] What then did the brethren reject at Minneapolis? [Some in the Congregation: “The loud cry.”] What is that message of righteousness? The Testimony has told us what it is; the loud cry–the latter rain. Then what did the brethren in that fearful position in which they stood, reject at Minneapolis? They rejected the latter rain–the loud cry of the third angel’s message.” (p. 9)
Why would the leadership take such a risk of receiving the disfavor of God? What was the real issue?
Most of the records of what Jones and Waggoner taught during the pre-sessions and the 1888 Conference have disappeared. I personally went and searched in the Andrews University Library for some of the original transcripts. Uriah Smith started taking notes on the meetings, but strangely, he quit at session 5. So, we have to piece together the evidence. Parts of what Ellen White wrote during that time have disappeared, as well. I will give you one example, though I found more such instances, while searching the 1888 and surrounding materials.
from a sermon by Mrs. E. G. White, March 9, 1890 regarding the Minneapolis meeting–
Well now, how are we going to know anything about that message if we are not in a position to recognize anything of the light of heaven when it comes to us? And we will just as soon pick up the darkest deception when it comes to us from somebody that agrees with us, when we have not a particle of evidence that the Spirit of God has sent them. Christ said, “I come in the name of my Father, but ye will not receive me” [see John 5:43]. Now, that is just the work that has been going on here ever since the meeting at Minneapolis. Because God sends a message in his name that does not agree with your ideas, therefore [you conclude] it cannot be a message from God. How dare you run the risk of trying in the least to shut [remainder missing] (Unpublished Manuscripts, Volume 4, p. 74, para. 2)
The rest of what she said is missing. If they recorded the first part of her sermon, what happened to the remainder? It appears that someone didn’t want us to have it and it was purposely removed or unrecorded.
Here are a couple of clues that I would like to share.
from a letter by A. T. Jones to C. E. Holmes, May 12, 1921–
“I can’t now name anyone who accepted the truth at that 1888 meeting openly – besides Ellen White [obviously]. But later many said they were greatly helped by it. One Battle Creek leader said at that meeting after one of Dr. Waggoner’s meetings: “Now we could say amen to all of that if that is all there were to it. But away down yonder there is still something to come. And this is to lead us to that . . . And if we say amen to this we will have to say amen to that, and then we are caught . . . ” (quoted in “Exposing the Skeleton in the Closet of 1888” by Norman Bradley)
What was the “this” and the “that”?
In 1893 when the subject of pork eating was being discussed using the statute in Deuteronomy 14:8, “Uriah Smith explicitly rejected the applicability of the Mosaic distinction: “We believe there is better ground on which to rest [the prohibition on pork] than the ceremonial law of the former dispensation, if we take the position that that law is still binding, we must accept it all, and then we have more on our hands than we can easily dispose of.” (MR 852 2.1)
“. . . then we are caught” and “. . . we have more on our hands than we can easily dispose of.” What is the subject here? It cannot be merely “Righteousness by Faith” which had been a pillar of Protestantism for centuries before 1888. What I came to understand as I studied these things was that this issue was not merely Righteousness by Faith, friends. It had to do also with the Law of Moses and its applicability to the Christian dispensation. Butler and other leaders, who were ready to dispose of the Law of Moses, based their assumptions on the idea that the Law in Galatians was the Ceremonial Law that was no longer binding. They included everything given through Moses except the Ten Commandments in this disposal. So the real issue in 1888, I believe, was the Law of Moses and its binding claims on Christians today.
from Ellen White–
In consequence of continual transgression, the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai. Christ gave to Moses religious precepts which were to govern the everyday life. These statutes were explicitly given to guard the ten commandments. They were not shadowy types to pass away with the death of Christ. They were to be binding upon man in every age as long as time should last. These commands were enforced by the power of the moral law, and they clearly and definitely explained that law. (Review and Herald 05-06-75)
We are to become familiar with the Levitical law in all its bearings; for it contains rules that must be obeyed; it contains the instruction that if studied will enable us to understand better the rule of faith and practice that we are to follow in our dealings with one another. No soul has any excuse for being in darkness. Those who receive Christ by faith will receive also power to become the sons of God (Letter 3, 1905). (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, p. 1110)
We are told in the above quotes that the Laws given to Moses at Sinai were not to pass away but were binding upon us as long as time should last and contained rules that must be obeyed! Where did we get the idea that everything was nailed to the cross?
Here is a quote that shows us the importance of these things.
I recalled the covenant which I had made with God at my husband’s deathbed,–that I would not
become discouraged under the burden, but would labor more earnestly and devotedly than ever before to present the truth both by pen and voice; that I would set before the people the excellence of the statutes and precepts of Jehovah, and would point them to the cleansing fountain where we may wash away every stain of sin. (Sketches from the Life of Paul, p. 269)
So what am I saying? That there is very little in the Books of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy) that was nailed to the Cross. Most of it is still valid and binding. The question of what was nailed to the Cross is the real touchy part of the debate in 1888. Yes, there were changes after the Cross. What was nailed to the Cross? Which parts of the Law are no longer binding? What were the changes? Answer: only what we are told was changed and nothing else. If the Bible says it changed, then it changed. If the Bible does not say it was changed, then it remains the same. Where do we find what was changed? In the Book of Galatians? No. It is in the Book of Hebrews. Paul wrote to Jewish Christians and explained in detail what was changed. Study the Book of Hebrews and learn what has been changed. Let’s put the ladder against the right wall.
*All emphases and highlighting in quotes were supplied by the author of this article.