The 1888 Message: An Introduction

What was Waggoner's relationship to the historic Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary and its cleansing?

1. He spoke of the objective work of cleansing the heavenly sanctuary as "coincident with" the heart-cleansing work (cf. The Everlasting Covenant, pp. 366,367). Ellen White also related the work in the heavenly sanctuary to the cleansing of the hearts of God's people, as quotations in our last chapter indicate. The word internalize, borrowed from Roman Catholic mysticism, does not relate to Biblical concepts of finishing "the mystery of God" (Revelation 10:7), which is "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27). To "internalize" such a doctrine would require degrading it to a purely egocentric concern, the opposite of Jones's and Waggoner's viewpoint.

2. Waggoner's last letter of May 28, 1916, is sometimes cited to disparage his teachings about the cleansing of the sanctuary. He says in 1916 that he virtually abandoned the orthodox Seventh-day Adventist view of the sanctuary "twenty-five years" earlier, which would have been 1891. But that which proves too much proves nothing. The following need to be considered:

1. Nothing in Waggoner's writings between 1891 and 1902 indicates that he had either abandoned or disparaged the sanctuary doctrine.
2. Between 1891 and 1896 we find numerous ongoing endorsements from the pen of Ellen White concerning his message. There is no hint that she saw him departing from the faith on this vital doctrine. Knowing her great concern, it seems strange that one who exercised the prophetic gift would fail to discern such a radical departure from the message if it were the case.
3. To accept at face value Waggoner's probably unedited 1916 statement brings us into very difficult problems (a fatal heart attack prevented Waggoner from personally mailing the letter to Elder M. C. Wilcox). It would require that we consider Waggoner a dishonest hypocrite from 1891 to 1902, because documentary evidence indicates that he taught the sanctuary doctrine publicly and forcefully during that time (cf. for example, the British Present Truth, May 23,1901).

In 1916 he was a frustrated, perplexed, confused man. Furthermore, he was sick (he died that very night). The years of enduring loneliness and unreasonable "unchristlike persecution" (Ellen White's phrase) had taken a toll on him. Because his message was "in a great degree" rejected by his brethren, he was never able to get beyond that beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry, never able to satisfy his soul hunger for a better understanding of the significance of the Adventist doctrine of the cleansing of the sanctuary. Today we should be able to grasp more than he did then.

What he should have said in 1916 was that as early as 1891 he began to be tempted to doubt the doctrine. But it is hardly fair to say that he yielded to this temptation while he was publicly teaching it. His characteristic openness and frankness indicate otherwise than such dishonesty on his part.