1. Application of Ellen White's Remarks Related to 1888. There is disagreement on how to understand many of Ellen White's remarks related to 1888 and how they apply to the condition of the Church today. We believe these must be read in the context of the blatant legalism held by Butler, Smith, and their colleagues in beliefs. One must be extremely cautious in applying statements that were made in one context to a later period in which some of the factors have changed. Only a fuller understanding of the public teaching of the leading brethren of the Church in the pre-1888 period will enable readers in the 21st century to understand the impact of Ellen White's commendations and condemnations related to 1888 events and personalities.
2. Primacy of the Bible. While we affirm the intent of the 1888 Study Committee to uplift the primacy of the Bible, it appears to us that this is not consistently applied. At times it appears that the scriptural evidence is being examined through the theological understandings of Jones and Waggoner.
3. Ellen White's Endorsement of Jones and Waggoner. Ellen White's repeated endorsements of Jones and Waggoner did not mean that she agreed with all their teachings. It would be helpful if the 1888 Study Committee would seriously examine the many areas in which Ellen White differs with Jones and Waggoner or is virtually silent on topics or on a theological linkage that they emphasize.
It would also be informative to enumerate and explore the ramifications of those areas in which Ellen White explicitly commends (rather than alludes to) specific items in the writings of Jones and Waggoner (TM 91-93 is one example of this). Such explorations might help avoid giving Jones and Waggoners' theology an across-the-board endorsement. On the other hand, it would heighten the importance of those issues she specifically commended. Jones and Waggoner need to be read as theologians who had a "most precious message" that the Church desperately needed to hear, rather than as prophets or infallible guides-even in areas related to righteousness by faith.
4. Historical Accuracy. At times we sense a lack of historical accuracy when claims are made about Jones and Waggoner. History must speak for itself, even if it disagrees with Jones and Waggoner's evaluation of certain details or modern interpretations of them and their teachings.
5. Corporate Repentance. The impression should not be given that Ellen White ever called for corporate repentance in respect to events in 1888 or 1893, or that the General Conference administration of O A Olsen took the same position in regard to Jones and Waggoner as the Butler/Smith administration. The 1888 conflict witnessed a turnover in the leadership of the Church because of problems relating to the Minneapolis meeting. The new administration gave prominence to Jones and Waggoner throughout the 1890s. After 1888 it was Smith and Butler who were on the "outs" with the General Conference administration. Ellen White continued to call individuals to repentance, but did not call the denomination to repentance.
6. Universal Legal Justification. It is confusing to state that everyone is legally saved until they have "chosen to resist the saving grace of God," and then turn around and say that one needs faith in order to have saving (rather than legal) justification. For example, 1888 Re-examined claims that "Christ's sacrifice is not merely provisional but effective for the whole world, so that the only reason anybody can be lost is that he has chosen to resist the saving grace of God" (p vi). Interestingly, Ellen White is quite content to say that "the provisions of redemption are free to all; [but] the results of redemption will be enjoyed by those who have complied with the conditions" (PP 208).
7. The "in Christ" Motif. We believe that the Pauline phrase "in Christ" expresses a relational rather than a legal concept. Romans 5, for example, is tied to the experience of justification by faith in the once-for-all work of Christ that is so central to the first five chapters of Romans, rather than being a legal declaration of something that happened to every person when Christ died on the cross. Such a view seems to imply that when a person is born he or she is born legally justified before God. However, the "many" who "will be made righteous" of Romans 5:19 must be understood in the context of Romans 1:16-17; 3:25-26; 4:1-5:1 and Paul's thesis that we are justified by faith rather than justified "in Christ" independent of a personal faith-commitment. It is important to see the "in Christ" and "in Adam" concepts as spiritual conditions rather than as a legal status. A merely legal interpretation of the "in Christ" motif has not led to a proper understanding of the biblical concept of corporate solidarity.
8. Nature of Christ. We accept the admonitions of Ellen White to "avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood" and that "the incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain a mystery" (5BC 1129). Here every human being must tread softly. It is important to treat fairly everything that the Bible and Ellen White have to say on this topic, realizing that neither of those sources necessarily gives the human nature of Christ the same prominence as did the post-Minneapolis Jones and Waggoner. The interpretation that Jones and Waggoner gave to the biblical materials on the human nature of Christ is not necessarily supported by Ellen White's full understanding of Christ's human nature.
9. Jones and Waggoner and the Reformers. We believe that on the subject of justification by faith Jones and Waggoner should not be set against the great reformers. To do so would contradict both Waggoner and Ellen White (Waggoner, Gospel in the Book of Galatians, p 70; White, Ms 8a. 15, and 24, 1888). The fuller understanding needs to be framed in terms of relating righteousness by faith to the third angel's message rather than to salvation itself.
10. The Old Covenant. It appears that the first time that the old covenant is explicitly mentioned in the Bible it is equated with the Torah of Sinai (2 Cor 3:14-15). We believe that the Bible describes the Sinaitic Covenant as a covenant of grace which the people willingly accepted as expressing God's will for them. The misunderstanding and misuse of the covenant by the people as a means of salvation does not alter the fact that it was never God's intention to institute a covenant of works with Israel.
11. Attitude of Criticism. Although 1888 Study Committee members consistently and genuinely express loyalty to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the overall effect of their criticizing of the Church body and its leadership, along with their separatist activities, has probably been one of the most powerful forces in moving large numbers of Adventists into schismatic criticism and activities. The committee has organized itself legally as a separate organization; presents as crucial certain positions that differ from those held by the body of the Church, leading at times to confusion and even conflict within congregations; holds its own convocations; publishes its own materials; authorizes its own speakers; and supports activities across the world, often without approval of the acknowledged leaders of the Church in those fields.
The historical study of similar developments in the formation of new denominations (as in the Wesleyan movement between 1738 and 1800 in Britain, and between 1870 and 1900 in America) is extremely informative here. At any rate, many Seventh-day Adventist schismatics initially cut their teeth on 1888-type criticisms. Church history tells us that the first generation of many movements had no intention of forming a new religious body, but subsequent generations, having been nourished on so-called "constructive criticism," merely follow the logic to its natural conclusion.
12. The Church and the Message of Justification by Faith. The church in its official documents has stated clearly its understanding of salvation through faith in Jesus.
"He [Christ] suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf" (Fundamental Belief# 4).
"God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker" (Fundamental Belief #7).
"In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life" (Fundamental Belief #9).
"Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life" (Fundamental Belief #10).
"Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments" (Fundamental Belief #18).
A comparison between the understanding of the Church and that of the 1888 Study Committee reveals significant differences that have contributed to confusion and in some cases division among church members.
Beyond question, the Church is in constant need of revival and reformation. Unless the gospel of justification by faith takes control of the life of each church member, transforming the person, we will remain in a state of lukewarmness. It is important for the Church, as it fulfills its mission, constantly to listen to the message of the True Witness (Rev 3:14-22).