The Return of the Latter Rain

A Crucial Subject for Seventh-day Adventists Today

Perhaps no other subject should receive our close attention as the subject of the Holy Spirit and His relationship to the plan of redemption. We are told that the Holy Spirit was given as a “regenerating agent, and without this the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail.” Why? Because “sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead.” The Holy Spirit is the representative of Christ Himself, and is “accessible to all.” “This promised blessing, claimed by faith, brings all other blessings in its train.” This was the subject upon which Christ “dwelt most largely” during His earthly ministry.

During the last 150 years, Seventh-day Adventists have given much attention to the subject of the Holy Spirit. In the Index to the Writings of E. G. White, 30 pages of references are listed on the topic of the Holy Spirit. Many Adventist books have been written over the years on the subject, all seeking to present more clearly the work of the Holy Spirit and our need of His indwelling.

The “early rain” and “latter rain” are intimately connected with this topic for they also “represent the work of the Holy Spirit.” “The outpouring of the Spirit in the days of the apostles was the beginning of the early, or former, rain, and glorious was the result.” The disciples, who only a few days before had all deserted Christ, now boldly testified of Him. The result of the early rain was soon realized; 3,000 were converted in a day and in a short time the world was “turned upside down” (Acts 17:6).

However, those of us living at the close of this earth’s history will see a far greater manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s power: “The great work of the gospel is not to close with less manifestation of the power of God than marked its opening. The prophecies which were fulfilled in the outpouring of the former rain at the opening of the gospel, are again to be fulfilled in the latter rain at its close.”

The early rain also represents the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion and the process of spiritual growth “from one stage to another.” The latter rain, ripening earth’s harvest, “represents the spiritual grace that prepares the church for the coming of the Son of man.” But if the early rain has not done its work “the latter rain can bring no seed to perfection.”

The full significance of the latter rain, however, is seen only when placed in its proper setting in Adventist theology. Rather than being just one of a list of beliefs, the latter rain is closely associated with a proper understanding of the cleansing of the sanctuary, end-time judgment and last-day events, all set in the context of the great controversy theme.

The “loud cry” is closely connected with the latter rain, for those who receive the heavenly showers will give the final message of God to the world. “It is the latter rain, the refreshing from the presence of the Lord, the loud cry of the third angel” that enables God’s people to “speak forth the truth with great power” amidst the most trying circumstances. This “refreshing from the presence of the Lord, will come, to give power to the loud voice of the third angel, and prepare the saints to stand in the period when the seven last plagues shall be poured out.”

This “last message of mercy to be given to the world is a revelation of His character of love,” “the message of Christ’s righteousness,” the message of “justification by faith” which is the “third angel’s message in verity [truth].” This message which God “commanded to be given to the world … is to be proclaimed with a loud voice, and attended with the outpouring of His Spirit in a large measure.” We may look forward to the time when “the events of the Day of Pentecost shall be repeated with even greater power than on that occasion. John says, ‘I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory’ [Rev. 18:1].”

One of the greatest reasons for anticipating this outpouring is the prospect of unity among church members as on the day of Pentecost. Yet this unity must take place first—during the early rain experience—before the latter rain can be poured out:

We have need of divine illumination. … [God’s] transforming grace upon human hearts will lead to unity that has not yet been realized; for all who are assimilated to Christ will be in harmony with one another. The Holy Spirit will create unity. …

The Holy Spirit glorifies God by so revealing His character to His people that he becomes the object of their supreme affections, and by making manifest his character in them. They see clearly that there was never any righteousness in the world but his, no excellence in the world but that derived from him. When the Spirit was poured out from on high, the church was flooded with light, but Christ was the source of that light; his name was on every tongue, his love filled every heart. So it will be when the angel that comes down from heaven having great power, shall lighten the whole earth with his glory [Rev. 18:1].

We can easily see why there is nothing that Satan fears more than the outpouring of the latter rain. If ever there was a time when the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was needed, it is now. We should all be personally praying for the early rain experience and for the unity that will be created among us, which will prepare us for the outpouring of the latter rain. It is only in this way that we will have a united voice through which the loud cry can be proclaimed.

What About Unity?

On the other hand, and riding the pendulum in the other direction, several churches in North America over the last two decades have separated from the denomination, becoming Adventist Congregational churches. Although some of these churches are church plants, many of them are derived from the splitting of older established churches. Not only has there been a diversion of church members and their monetary support; there has also been an apparent abandoning of many foundational doctrines of the Advent faith. A common denominator amongst many of the Congregationalist churches is a disregard for the Biblical doctrines of 1844, the cleansing of the sanctuary, the investigative judgement, the three angels’ messages, and other distinctive Adventist beliefs that are closely connected to an end-time understanding of the message of righteousness by faith. More recently the church seems to be struggling with the fact, newly made public, that some professors in our universities and colleges (not just La Sierra), are promoting evolutionary theory. The role of Ellen White and the question of her inspiration, as well as the inspiration of the entire Bible, continue to be questioned by some. Adventist Today, the voice of the progressive Adventist movement, adds issues to the pot on almost a monthly basis.

While Church membership is swelling toward the 20 million mark on the world wide scale, membership is more static in North America. The reason for such a condition may lie in the fact that amidst the seeming polarization taking place throughout the North American Division, thousands of members within the organized church are faced with a multitude of voices calling for their attention. In his book The Remnant, Clifford Goldstein depicts in graphic language some of the terrible sins that exist in our church. It does not require a great deal of investigation to come to the conclusion that all is not well within our ranks. The prospect of unity seems more out of reach than at any other time in Adventist history. Many are expressing the idea that the only hope for survival is to “clear the way” that God might pour out the latter rain upon His “languishing church.” But one of the greatest possible hindrances to unity, sadly enough, is over the issue of the latter rain and the loud cry itself, specifically in regard to our Adventist history. Two main views are present in the church today, both claiming the support of Ellen White, although each differing somewhat in their view of her authority and inspiration. Before we proceed, we would do well to take a brief look at these two main views regarding the latter rain and the loud cry, the 1888 era, and other closely connected theological issues.

The Loud Cry Came and Was Accepted, The Latter Rain Did Not Come, Therefore No Rejection

According to this view, there was an initial rejection of the message at Minneapolis, but it was primarily caused by personality conflicts largely incited by Jones and Waggoner. The majority of Adventists accepted the message as shared at the 1889 campmeetings and the 1889 to 1891 Ministerial Institutes and General Conferences. The repentance of those who initially rejected the message brought about its overall acceptance. Thus, 1888 is seen as a victory rather than a great disappointment. The church’s work exploded as it reorganized in 1901 and spread around the world.

This view states that Ellen White supported Jones and Waggoner, but it was for their message of basic Christianity. Much of the interaction Ellen White had with Jones and Waggoner was in seeking to correct their theological errors, as is proven by her statements made at Minneapolis that she did not agree with all they taught. Although she never identified in what areas she disagreed, numerous examples are produced, by those holding this view, when surveying Jones’ and Waggoner’s theology and comparing it to the Reformation gospel. It is claimed that Ellen White didn’t correct them on many of these areas because she never intended to be an authority on theological issues. She sought only to point people back to the Bible.

Those holding this view suggest that one of the principal theological errors Jones taught was that the latter rain had begun by 1892. Jones, it is stated, stirred up such an idea because he believed Anna Rice had been given the prophetic gift in fulfillment of Joel chapter 2, while Ellen White, on the other hand, said that only the loud cry had begun but not the latter rain. Thus, the loud cry and the latter rain, although connected, can be separated. The latter rain is the power given to proclaim the loud cry message. Therefore, the loud cry message began over one hundred years ago and was accepted, but the latter rain never began, partly because of the disunity in the church caused by Jones and Waggoner.

This view states that since the latter rain never began in 1888 there is no need to repent for rejecting it, only to pray for its outpouring in the near future. Therefore, the church has not been wandering in the wilderness waiting for the Lord’s return but has been prospering, as corroborated by the presence of Adventist institutions scattered throughout the world and a membership of over 16 million. Even though we as a people may be partly to blame for the delay of the Lord’s second coming, without a doubt most of the responsibility lies in His hands or in world events over which we have no control.

Although some of these views on the loud cry and the latter rain date back to the 1890s with some of the participants in the great events of that decade, many of these views have been presented more prominently since the early 1930s. Initially this started as a response to A. G. Daniells’ book, Christ Our Righteousness, and even more so to Taylor Bunch’s manuscript—Forty Years in the Wilderness in Type and Antitype—comparing the Adventist Church with ancient Israel. D. E. Robinson, A. T. Robinson, and C. McReynolds all wrote papers in early 1931 seeking to defend the Church from what they saw as extreme misrepresentations. The 1940s produced three other defenses of the church from N. F. Pease, L. H. Christian, and A. W. Spalding, men who likewise felt that charges of a latter rain rejection were an attack on the church.

Following Robert Wieland’s and Donald Short’s submission of 1888 Reexamined in 1950, several more books and documents were published, in which the Church was defended from what was seen as an unwarranted attack in regard to 1888. Many of these books, articles and reports were produced under the auspices of the General Conference, which generally held this view.

In the autumn of 1957, Adventist leadership published Questions on Doctrine (QOD), as a quasi-official reply to the questions raised by Evangelical Calvinists Walter Martin (young researcher, “specialist” in non-Christian cults, consulting editor of Eternity magazine), and Dr. Donald Barnhouse (editor of Eternity magazine). The publishing of QOD followed several years of discussion between Barnhouse and Martin, and T. E. Unruh (president of the East Pennsylvania Conference), Walter Read (field secretary of the General Conference), Roy Allan Anderson (editor of Ministry magazine), and LeRoy Froom (author, editor, teacher and founder of Ministry magazine), who were seeking to cast off Adventism’s cult status within the Evangelical world. Following the release of QOD, most books published by the church in regard to 1888 took on a new understanding of 1888 history, the 1888 message, and what caused Jones’ and Waggoner’s downfall at the turn of the century. This became more evident after Desmond Ford’s Reformation doctrine challenge at Palmdale in 1976. In the 35 years since then, most publications produced and funded by the church in regard to the loud cry and latter rain in the context of 1888 have continued in this line of understanding.

The acceptance view espoused since the 1970s and 1980s claims that much of the disunity in the church from the 1890s to the present has been caused primarily through false theology that came directly from Jones’ and Waggoner’s underlying message immediately after Minneapolis—which was the same theology basic to their understanding of the gospel that led them directly out of the church. According to this view, Jones’ and Waggoner’s false theology was probably part of their understanding in seed form before Minneapolis but wasn’t fully developed until right after the 1888 Conference. Thus, Ellen White could support them for their “1888 message.” These theological errors are claimed to be found in Jones’ and Waggoner’s campmeeting presentations in early 1889. Here, four key heresies were readily expressed: 1) Jones’ and Waggoner’s denial of the doctrine of original sin (which led them into three other heresies); 2) Christ took the fallen sinful nature of Adam; 3) righteousness by faith included justification and sanctification—instead of being a forensic-only justification by faith; 4) the final generation will develop perfect characters before Christ’s return. Proponents of this view claim that these four heresies led Waggoner directly into pantheism and Jones into the holy flesh movement, and the resurgence of these same four heresies today—brought primarily through conservative historic Adventists—is the “Omega” apostasy of which Ellen White warned.

We now turn our attention to the second main view regarding the latter rain and loud cry, the 1888 era, and other closely connected theological issues.

The Latter Rain and Loud Cry Came and Were Rejected

According to this view a failure to continue to accept and grow in the advancing light led to a Laodicean state within a decade following the Great Disappointment. Failure to heed heaven’s call to repentance through the Laodicean message in the 1850s led to the pharisaism of the 1870s and 1880s. With the church in this condition the Lord sent a special message intended to complete His work of grace in human hearts so the great controversy could be brought to an end. This message, which began in 1888, was the beginning of the latter rain and loud cry. The latter rain and loud cry, although distinct from one another, can never be separated—the latter rain being the cause and the loud cry the effect. Rather than being just an increase in volume, the latter rain brought an increase in light, which would enable the loud cry to enlighten the earth with its glory and blanket the earth with an end-time gospel message of God’s much more abounding grace.

This view states that the 1888 message was different from the popular Evangelical message of the day. The 1888 message of righteousness by faith is closely connected to distinctive Biblical truths given to Seventh-day Adventists, especially the understanding of the cleansing of the sanctuary which prepares a final generation to stand before God—cleansed from sin in a final demonstration of His grace at the summation of the great controversy. The acceptance of such light would be synonymous with the acceptance of the latter rain, which is more than just nebulous power, but rather great authority in conjunction with the intimate presence of Jesus, through the Holy Spirit. The ability to give the loud cry was contingent on our accepting the message, which then would have lightened the whole earth with its glory as God’s people, in perfect unity, shared the good news all over the world. As a result, the harvest would have been ripened and Christ would have soon come to the earth to put a full end to sin and suffering. This view states that the light the Lord sent was in the form of a message, which in His great mercy He sent through two messengers—A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner. Although God began moving on Jones’ and Waggoner’s hearts in the early 1880s, the most precious message primarily began when brought to the leadership of the church in 1888. The fact that we do not have a transcript of the “1888 message” given at Minneapolis is not considered a problem because the same message was proclaimed in greater detail in the campmeetings and Ministerial Institutes in the years that followed; and under the watchful direction of Ellen White, whom God had called to her post of duty.

According to this second view, the 1888 message that God sent through Jones and Waggoner was a comprehensive teaching of the matchless charms of Christ in the context of righteousness by faith. Although the 1888 message includes many components, at least four aspects of the message diverge from the popular Evangelical views and have been surrounded by noticeable conflict. 1) Because Jones’ and Waggoner’s understanding of the nature of sin and the nature of man was understood in the context of the great controversy issues, they rejected the Augustinian doctrine of original sin as papal falsehood. They understood that the sacrifice of Christ was for the human race, freeing all from the condemnation of Adam’s sin, which gave all people the freedom to choose their destiny even though having received a sinful nature. 2) Jones and Waggoner understood that Christ took upon his sinless divine nature our sinful human nature in order to save man from sin. 3) They understood that righteousness by faith was more than just a legal declaration, but included both justification and sanctification. 4) They understood as part of the great plan of salvation that God would prepare an end-time people in an end-time setting—through His latter rain message—to stand in the righteousness of Christ before a Holy God, without sin. This final demonstration would validate God’s claims in the great controversy against Satan by a display of His power to save from sin—not in sin—accomplished through the ministry of the new covenant in the final cleansing of the sanctuary.

According to this view, however, the message was not recognized for what it was, by many of the leadership and laity, who claimed to believe in justification by faith already. As a result of their pride and stubbornness, the Holy Spirit was slighted, spurned, and rejected. The rejection of the message did not occur because Jones and Waggoner had offensive personalities, but because of a rising up against the message itself. Although some repented and later accepted the message, others claimed to have repented but kept fighting against the message, while still others appeared to repent but only assented to the message. As a result of the latter rain’s rejection during those key years, the church as a whole has been wandering in the wilderness of this world of sin for well over 100 years. Moreover, the only way the latter rain will be poured out in abundance again upon a languishing church is for the membership—leaders and laity alike—to recognize the sins of their fathers, repent individually and as a church body, and recover and proclaim the message the that Lord sent over 120 years ago.

This view claims that Ellen White drew parallels between the Jewish nation and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Just as the Jews looked forward to the coming of the Messiah but did not recognize Him when He came, so we as a people looked forward to the latter rain but did not recognize its manifestation and scorned Jesus away. Though many Jews still pour out their hearts in prayer at the Wailing Wall begging God to send the long-hoped-for Messiah, their prayers will never be answered, nor can they be. Not until they realize the Messiah already came, and with a clear understanding repent of their unbelief, can their prayers be answered. In the same way, we as a people have prayed for the outpouring of the latter rain for over 120 years since 1888. But God cannot answer our prayers until we recognize and admit the sins of our forefathers, including our years of denial ever since. Admitting the truth of our history will save us from perpetuating their mistakes and will lead us to a deep repentance for our own personal unbelief.

This view also claims that Ellen White gave numerous endorsements of Jones and Waggoner and the most precious message of righteousness by faith sent through them. When Jones and Waggoner made mistakes, both being fallible men, Ellen White sought to correct them by giving them specific counsel on where they had erred. As long as they humbly listened to that counsel, they benefited from it. Ellen White warned that Jones and Waggoner might be overthrown by temptation, but if that happened it would not prove their message was faulty. Thus Waggoner’s panentheism and Jones’ bitterness, and any extremes he exhibited in later years were not caused by the message the Lord sent, but rather by a departure in the later 1890s from that message. Again, panentheism, the holy flesh movement or any other extremes were not the result of a fatal flaw in Jones’ and Waggoner’s original understanding; rather, their understanding was changed by accepting a parasite of error which often lies close to the truth, and were thereby overcome by temptation. Furthermore, Jones’ and Waggoner’s error developed after enduring years of opposition and rejection to the true message that God had sent through them.

This second main view in regard to the loud cry and latter rain has been expressed since the 1890s, first by some of the participants in the great events of that decade. However, this view has been presented more prominently since the 1920s, starting with the General Conference President A. G. Daniells in his book Christ Our Righteousness. In summarizing the events of 1888 and the nearly 40 years that followed, Daniells stated: “The [1888] message has never been received, nor proclaimed, nor given free course as it should have been in order to convey to the church the measureless blessings that were wrapped within it. The seriousness of exerting such an influence is indicated through the reproofs that were given. These words of reproof and admonition should receive most thoughtful consideration at this time. … O that we had all listened as we should to both warning and appeal as they came to us in that seemingly strange, yet impressive, way at the Conference of 1888! What uncertainty would have been removed, what wanderings and defeats and losses would have been prevented! What light and blessing and triumph and progress would have come to us!”

Only a few years after Daniells’book was printed, Taylor Bunch, pastor, Bible teacher, and author, produced a pamphlet titled, Forty Years in the Wilderness in Type and Antitype, which put forth similar views on the latter rain and loud cry. In this pamphlet, Bunch presents the parallels between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the children of Israel in their journey from Egypt to Canaan. With the help of his wife, Taylor Bunch presented the fall and spring weeks-of-prayer at Pacific Union College during the 1930-1931 school year, where he presented the subject matter from his pamphlet. Several years later in 1937, Bunch presented a similar series of 36 sermons at the Battle Creek Tabernacle during the Sabbath afternoon vesper services. These sermons were published in book form under the title The Exodus and Advent Movement in Type and Antitype, for “the special accommodation of those who heard them, and also because of requests from ministers and other gospel workers who desire them.”

In his studies, Bunch went into more detail than Daniells. When he came to the Kadesh-Barnea experiences of ancient Israel, Bunch applied it to the 1888 Minneapolis Conference and its aftermath, and the Church’s turning back into the wilderness of wandering. Bunch claimed the latter rain had been rejected, and that the issues of 1888 would not go away until brought before the people that they might realize what had really taken place:

The message of righteousness by faith was preached with power for more than ten years during which time the Minneapolis crisis was kept before the leaders. This message brought the beginning of the latter rain. ‘The time of test is just upon us, for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer. This is the beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth. R.H. Nov. 22, 1892. Why did not the latter rain continue to fall? Because the message that brought it ceased to be preached. It was rejected by many and it soon died out of the experience of the Advent people and the loud cry died with it. It can begin again only when the message that brought it then is revived and accepted. …

Just before the end the Advent people will review their past history and see it in a new light. We must study and understand the antitypes of the two Kadesh-Barnea experiences of ancient Israel and profit by the mistakes of our fathers especially during the 1888 crisis. We must acknowledge and confess the mistakes of our fathers and see to it that we do not repeat them and thus further delay the final triumph of the Advent Movement. The history of the past must be reviewed and studied in the light of these mistakes and their consequence in a long delay of the coming of Christ.

Donald K. Short and Robert J. Wieland, missionaries in Africa for many years, became perhaps the most well known and prominent supporters of many of these views, after they submitted their manuscript 1888 Re-examined to the General Conference in 1950. In the 1970s they began to widely publish their views through many books, some through the church’s publishing houses, some privately, and later some under the auspices of the 1888 Message Study Committee. Others have supported many of these viewpoints in various articles and books.

The Great Dilemma

As we study this subject, we will be faced with the great dilemma of deciding which view of our history is correct. If the Lord did send the beginning of the latter rain and we as a church despised and resisted it, regardless of the potential accusations of causing disunity, should we not seek repentance for ourselves as well as for our church? Otherwise will we not just keep repeating the rejection? On the other hand, if the latter rain never began and therefore we as a church never rejected it, shouldn’t we do our best to avoid being distracted or distracting others from the more important work of preaching the Reformation gospel to the world?

As we examine these grand subjects, we should remember that Ellen White was an eyewitness to many of these historical events. Therefore we must ask ourselves some questions. Did Ellen White see a strong connection between the 1888 message of righteousness by faith and final events taking place at that time? Did she see a connection between the acceptance of that message and Christ’s second coming? Did she see a connection between the latter rain and the loud cry? In her description of what was taking place did she separate the latter rain from the loud cry? Could one begin without the other? Could one be accepted without the other? Did Ellen White see the 1893 General Conference as Jones’ attempted “latter rain revival,” and like Uriah Smith, see it only as “fanaticism” and “excitement?” Did the latter rain really begin? Could it possibly be rejected? Do Ellen White’s statements in regard to the latter rain and the loud cry, when looked at in chronological order, express or give us added insights to these questions? To all of these questions and more, we will seek to find answers.

The Return of the Latter Rain began as a simple, yet unique compilation of Ellen White statements on the subject of the latter rain and the loud cry, which she made between the 1840s and the close of her life in 1915. You will find these statements listed throughout the book, with but few exceptions in chronological order. Not all of Ellen White’s statements on the latter rain and loud cry are listed, but an extensive summary will be found here. Each chapter progresses chronologically and addresses the relevant issues during that particular time period in regard to the latter rain and loud cry. It should be noted that as the manuscript progressed, more and more background information was added to help give answers to questions raised by the historic events, as well as answers to questions raised by Adventist books that have been published since those events. Context has often been lost sight of when dealing with Adventist history in regard to 1888, at least by some who have entered into this discussion. Consequently, some longer quotations have been included here for the purpose of retaining the full context, which will allow readers to come to more informed conclusions for themselves.

The Return of the Latter Rain is the result of a personal study into this important subject. It is based on the original sources including Ellen G. White, A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and others, thus allowing history to speak for itself. The writer has attempted to read most of the printed material on this subject to be certain that nothing has been overlooked. I am thankful for the prayers offered and counsel given by many others who have helped in this task. Although I never intended to write a book, this study has been a blessing to my life, and it is shared with the hope that it will be a blessing to others. As is the case with most books, however, not everyone will agree with all the conclusions drawn in this study. Having said that, this writer does not claim infallibility. This is a book in progress. There is much more material to add; not only to future chapters but to the chapters you hold in your hand. This will require more editing and fine- tuning where adjustments are needed.

The driving force behind this study is to understand our history correctly. Ellen White’s well-known statement made in 1892 tells us: “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.” She also reminds us that the cause of the downfall of Israel was due to forgetting their history:

The reason why the children of Israel forsook Jehovah was that the generation rose up that had not been instructed concerning the great deliverance from Egypt by the hand of Jesus Christ. Their fathers had not rehearsed to them the history of the divine guardianship that had been over the children of Israel through all their travels in the wilderness. … The parents neglected the very work that the Lord had charged them to do, and failed to instruct them in regard to God’s purpose toward his chosen people. They did not keep before them the fact that idolatry was sin, and that to worship other gods meant to forsake Jehovah. If parents had fulfilled their duty, we should never have the record of the generation that knew not God, and were therefore given into the hands of the spoilers.

I was pointed to the work that Moses did just before his death. Calling the children of Israel together, he rehearsed to them their past experience, their trials, their failures, and the warnings that had been given them.

But as we review our history we should remember that it is not for the purpose of finding fault in others—past or present—or for the sake of tearing down, but rather that we might learn from their mistakes and not repeat them. We should note well the words of Kenneth Wood: “As we note the mistakes of our spiritual forebears, we may be filled with anguish and regret. But we cannot change the past. We cannot rewrite history. We can, however, learn from history, and we can set our own hearts and houses in order, giving full opportunity for the Holy Spirit to have His way with us. Only as we today relate rightly to the message of righteousness by faith can we expect the outpouring of the latter rain and the finishing of ‘the work.’”

This leads me to the following point. As has always been the case, Satan seeks to derail every reformatory movement through some counterfeit or form of fanaticism. A quick glance through our own Adventist history shows this to be true. Satan sent counterfeits before and after 1888. He sent counterfeits in the early 1920s pointing to 1888, but also calling the church Babylon. This was the case in the 1930s, and 1940s as well. Other forms of fanaticism have been seen since the 1950s, pointing to 1888 and calling people out of the church. All this Satan has done to distract from God’s real call to review our history that we might be healed.

Let us make it clear—the church is not Babylon! She will finally heed the call of the “True Witness,” and through the Divine remedies make herself ready for the grand wedding. Christ will finally have His bride without spot or wrinkle. Why? Because she will be wearing that spotless robe of Christ’s righteousness.

Please keep in mind; that this book is not to be used to tear down the Seventh-day Adventist church; it is not to be used in evangelism to draw people into some offshoot group. It is to be read and prayerfully contemplated by Adventist leaders and educators and interested laymen, for the purpose of seeking a better understanding of our own history.

Finally, we have done our best throughout the pages of this book to follow the excellent advice of George R. Knight: “Let Ellen White speak for herself.”