While the earlier authors mentioned above seemed to take their stance primarily from the motivation of defending the church from the allegation that the message was rejected, the latter authors seem to take their stance primarily because of their push for a Calvinistic Reformation or Evangelical gospel. Others, however, have recognized the 1888 message as something more: “The profound uniting [of law and grace] … was [Ellen White’s] remarkable contribution to the 1888 crisis over salvation by faith. Further, her messages clearly demonstrate that this ‘precious message’ was not a mere recovery of a sixteenth-century emphasis, nor a borrowing of a nineteenth-century Methodist accent. … In the 1888 emphasis, linkage was further made between the results of a personal application of salvation by faith and the closing work of Christ in the Most Holy Place. … The 1888 ‘revelation of the righteousness of Christ’ was only the ‘beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth’ (Rev. 18:4)” (Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, [1998], pp. 197, 198). Again, Douglass counters claims by modern church historians when he states: “The other rewrite has been the concurrent reluctance to review the theological detour that occurred [since the 1950s], when denominational publications and academic classrooms opined that the key contribution of the 1888 General Conference was to recognize that Adventists had finally recovered the so-called emphasis of the Protestant Reformers regarding ‘righteousness by faith.’ Nothing could be farther from the truth! This line of reasoning, wherever taught or preached, poisons any genuine study of that remarkable conference. Further, it has locked the door on what Ellen White called ‘a most precious message’—a message that would prepare a people for translation. Some day that door will be unlocked” (A Fork in the Road, [Coldwater, MI: Remnant Publications, Inc., 2008], p. 85).
chapter end notes# 40. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, p. 218, emphasis supplied. G. B. Starr recalls one such session of prayer at Minneapolis: “Sister White called a large company of ministers together for a season of special prayer. Uniting with others, Sister White, herself, prayed earnestly for the blessing of God upon the conference. In the midst of her prayer, she suddenly stopped for a short period of possibly one-minute; then, completing the broken sentence, finished her prayer.Not one of us who were present and heard her prayer, and noted the break in it, was aware that anything special had happened. But later, Elder W. C. White informed me that it took her six weeks to write out what she had seen in those sixty seconds. The Spirit of God had flashed, in rapid precession, the life and work of many of the ministers kneeling about her. She saw them in their homes, the spirit they manifested, as Christians. She saw them in the sacred desk and heard their manner of presenting the precious truths of the message for this time” (G. B. Starr, “Fifty Years With One of God’s Seers,” unpublished manuscript, pp. 50-152; in Document File 496, Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD.
http://ellenwhiteaudio.org/audio/en/pioneers/Modern%20Works/Return%20of%20the%20Latter%20Rain/Return%20of%20the%20Latter%20Rain%20%283rd%20Edition%29.pdf# 36 Ch 5 BibliographyQuoteWhile the earlier authors mentioned above seemed to take their stance primarily from the motivation of defending the church from the allegation that the message was rejected, the latter authors seem to take their stance primarily because of their push for a Calvinistic Reformation or Evangelical gospel. Others, however, have recognized the 1888 message as something more: “The profound uniting [of law and grace] … was [Ellen White’s] remarkable contribution to the 1888 crisis over salvation by faith. Further, her messages clearly demonstrate that this ‘precious message’ was not a mere recovery of a sixteenth-century emphasis, nor a borrowing of a nineteenth-century Methodist accent. … In the 1888 emphasis, linkage was further made between the results of a personal application of salvation by faith and the closing work of Christ in the Most Holy Place. … The 1888 ‘revelation of the righteousness of Christ’ was only the ‘beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth’ (Rev. 18:4)” (Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, [1998], pp. 197, 198). Again, Douglass counters claims by modern church historians when he states: “The other rewrite has been the concurrent reluctance to review the theological detour that occurred [since the 1950s], when denominational publications and academic classrooms opined that the key contribution of the 1888 General Conference was to recognize that Adventists had finally recovered the so-called emphasis of the Protestant Reformers regarding ‘righteousness by faith.’ Nothing could be farther from the truth! This line of reasoning, wherever taught or preached, poisons any genuine study of that remarkable conference. Further, it has locked the door on what Ellen White called ‘a most precious message’—a message that would prepare a people for translation. Some day that door will be unlocked” (A Fork in the Road, [Coldwater, MI: Remnant Publications, Inc., 2008], p. 85).God was at work - even during EGW's public prayer during the sessions.Chapter 4 “Most Precious Message” Quote chapter end notes# 40. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888; in 1888 Materials, p. 218, emphasis supplied. G. B. Starr recalls one such session of prayer at Minneapolis: “Sister White called a large company of ministers together for a season of special prayer. Uniting with others, Sister White, herself, prayed earnestly for the blessing of God upon the conference. In the midst of her prayer, she suddenly stopped for a short period of possibly one-minute; then, completing the broken sentence, finished her prayer.Not one of us who were present and heard her prayer, and noted the break in it, was aware that anything special had happened. But later, Elder W. C. White informed me that it took her six weeks to write out what she had seen in those sixty seconds. The Spirit of God had flashed, in rapid precession, the life and work of many of the ministers kneeling about her. She saw them in their homes, the spirit they manifested, as Christians. She saw them in the sacred desk and heard their manner of presenting the precious truths of the message for this time” (G. B. Starr, “Fifty Years With One of God’s Seers,” unpublished manuscript, pp. 50-152; in Document File 496, Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD.At the end of the Meetings EJW & ATJ gave a reply from Scripture alone with no comments from themselves, both standing before the assembly and reading the passages from their Bibles, once finished reading, they gave no comments - letting Scripture speak for it's self. The 1888 reply of Jones and WaggonnerEJW Jeremiah 23:5-7ATJ Ephesians 2:4-8EJW Galatians 2:16-21ATJ Romans 11 :1-33EJW Romans 1:14-17ATJ Romans 2:12-29EJW Galatians ch 3 entireATJ Romans ch 3 entireEJW Galatians 5:1-6ATJ Romans 9:7-33EJW Galatians ch 2 entireATJ Romans 4:1-11EJW Romans ch 5 entireATJ Romans 4:13-25EJW Romans ch 6 entireATJ Romans 1:15-17EJW Romans 8:14-39ATJ 1st John 5:1-4
49. Morrison had “studied infidel books … to meet opponents in arguments” (1888 Materials, p. 601). Ellen White warned that he would bring in “dissensions and bickerings,” and unless he overcame, he would “make shipwreck of faith as did Elder Canright” (p. 168). A few days earlier, Ellen White stated that she had seen “an angel of God inquiring of these men who have educated themselves as debaters” (p. 141). G. B. Starr tells of this event years later. He was with J. H. Morrison and two other ministers in the “tent at Oskaloosa, Iowa.” A stranger “entered the tent door,” one of “the finest looking men” he had ever seen. He was “over six feet tall” and “had such a kindly expression on his face.” He went directly to Morrison and asked about the tent meetings and what Seventh-day Adventists believed. “At first [Morrison] replied to the questions in a kindly spirit but soon assumed a debating, controversial attitude … After about an hour’s such conversation, the stranger arose in all his dignity, and addressing [Morrison] said, ‘You are no minister of Jesus Christ; you are a controversialist, sir.’ Instead of [Morrison] realizing that he had been properly rebuked, he instead chuckled and laughed, and said, ‘Oh, you can’t meet the argument.’” The stranger made no reference to Morrison’s comment but repeated himself. This happened twice.[u] When G. B. Starr told Ellen White of this event she replied[/u]: “‘Why, Brother Starr, that was an angel of God … Why I gave that message to that brother at the Minneapolis Conference, and told him that the Lord had sent an angel to rebuke him for his controversial manner of labor’” (G. B. Starr, “Fifty Years With One of God’s Seers,” unpublished manuscript, pp. 150-152; in Document File 496, Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, MD). This may explain why Ellen White would get up and leave when Morrison spoke. It also explains what Jones and Waggoner were up against.
All regret that they have been so long ignorant of what constituted true religion. They are sorry that they have not known that it was true religion to depend entirely upon Christ's righteousness, and not upon works of merit. {7MR 248.2} {1888 289.1}
