Thesis
Application
Events
About us
home page forums

Le Roy Froom on The Desire of Ages

Le Roy Froom is generally considered the principal protagonist of the unbegottenness movement in Adventist history. In his book, Movement of Destiny (1971), he makes the assertion that Ellen G. White (EGW henceforth) changed her theology,

  • From the Arian: "Christ as a derived Being, the Holy Spirit as merely an influence and not a Person, and denial of the Trinity" (Ibid. pp. 323-324)
  • To the trinitarian: "eternal pre-existence and complete Deity of Christ" (Ibid. p. 324).

Froom contrasts Uriah Smith's book, Looking Unto Jesus (1898), which continued to maintain the early Adventist Arian position to EGW's book, The Desire of Ages (1898), which is presumed to declare "the complete Deity and eternal pre-existence of Christ." He outlines this on page 324 of his book as follows:

Movement of Destiny, p 324: 2. CLEAR DECLARATIONS OF "THE DESIRE OF AGES."—Illustrative of the contrasting positions, here are eight key quotations from The Desire of Ages on the eternal pre-existence and complete Deity of Christ. These stand permanently on record, setting forth the true denominational, Spirit-of-Prophecy-attested position, and thenceforth invalidating the unfortunate Looking Unto Jesus [[Uriah Smith's book, 1898]] constrictions. Here, among others, are eight clear declarations of Ellen G. White:

  1. "From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father." (DA 19.)
  2. "He [Christ] was the incarnate God, the light of heaven and earth." (P. 23.)
  3. "It is the 'Son of man' who shares the throne of the universe. . . . The mighty God." (P. 25.)
  4. "Jesus claimed equal rights with God." "[He] had declared Himself equal with God." (P. 207.)
  5. "I am the Son of God, one with Him [the Father] in nature, in will, and in purpose." (P. 208.)
  6. "The Son of God, One with the CREATOR of the universe." (P. 210.)
  7. "In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. 'He that hath the Son hath life.' I John 5:12. The divinity [Deity] of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life." (P. 530.)
  8. "Christ had not ceased to be God when He became man. Though He had humbled Himself to humanity, the Godhead was still His own." (Pp. 663, 664.)

"clear declarations." These declarations listed by Froom are "clear" when they are read in context. The problem with Froom is that he does not give you the context. When read in context it becomes quite clear and consistent with EGW's pre- and post-1898 Arian declarations.

Froom's failures

Froom failed to understand several key concepts in EGW and early Adventist thinking.

Kind begets kind. Christ's divinity was never the issue. EGW never denied Christ's divinity. As the begotten Son of God, Christ possessed divine attributes, just as a human son possesses the attributes of his human father. This is true of any "kind" that begets progeny whether human, animal, or plant. By virtue of being the Son of God, Christ possessed "God" attributes. EGW never denied this, nor did the Adventist pioneers.

"complete Deity of Christ." Froom uses the term "complete Deity of Christ" to suggest that EGW believed Christ was "equal" with the Father in all respects. But this is simply not a true statement. We don't even need to go outside the Desire of Ages to prove this. Here is one example,

  • DA 21.2: But turning from all lesser representations, we behold God in Jesus. Looking unto Jesus we see that it is the glory of our God to give. “I do nothing of Myself,” said Christ; “the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father.” “I seek not Mine own glory,” but the glory of Him that sent Me. John 8:28; 6:57; 8:50; 7:18. In these words is set forth the great principle which is the law of life for the universe. All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Father's life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life.

Who is the great Source of all life, the great Giver? Answer: the Father. The Son comes into the picture as the channel of that life ("through the beloved Son, the Father's life flows out to all"). Does that make the Father and Son equal? Absolutely not! The Source of something is not "equal" with the channel of something. As is true with "life", so is it true with the Father's authority, word, and spirit.

  • Father's authority. On earth, Jesus came to do the will of the Father; while, in heaven, Christ carried and carries out the will of the Father.
  • Father's word. It was the word of Yahweh (the Father) that created the world (Psalm 33:6). It was the word of Yahweh that spoke the 10 commandments. It was the word of the Father that spoke at the Baptism, the Mount of Transfiguration and the Temple toward the end of Jesus' earthly ministry. It was the word of the Father that Jesus came to proclaim. Jesus declared, "The words that I speak are not my own" (John 12:49; 14:10; 17:8).
  • Father's spirit. It was the Father's spirit that was promised (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4) and poured out at Pentecost. "Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he [Jesus] has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing" (Acts 2:33).

"eternal pre-existence of Christ." Froom's idea of "eternal" and EGW and early pioneer's idea of "eternity" are completely different. Understand that in the language of the Bible the word "eternal" does not mean infinite and without end. Take for example the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. According to Jude 1:7 these cities were punished with "eternal fire." Obviously, Sodom and Gomorrah are not on fire today. They were consumed and done away with. This is also true with regard to "eternal punishment." Adventists believe, even today, that the evil angels and the wicked will be punished and consumed with fire that will not continue to burn for all eternity. This debate over the Son being eternal or not, is discussed at length in Eternal Sonship.

EGW's theological change was unannounced, undeclared and fabulous (i.e. with no basis in reality). If it is really the case that EGW changed her theology, then why didn't she tell Uriah Smith about it? Or, why didn't she announce this radical change to the church at large? After all, EGW was a prolific writer and she was well known for being outspoken and giving much counsel in both private and public letters throughout her lifetime. If so, then why was there nothing written about her monumental change in theology? The fact is, nothing was written because nothing had changed.

Not change to her pre-1898 (Arian) statements. For EGW to have turned from Arian to trinitarian would have meant that her pre-1898 Arian statements were in error. If she had changed her theology, everything she wrote prior to 1898 would have been scrutinized and modified to fit the new trinitarian perspective. Otherwise, the inconsistencies in her writings would have placed her in the category of a false prophet—speaking the "false" Arian doctrine on the one hand (i.e. pre-1898 writings) then speaking the "true" trinitarian doctrine on the other (i.e. post-1898 writings). But nothing like that ever happened. Her pre-1898 Arian views in her writings remain as-is to this day, unchanged, and plain for all to see. Would EGW have allowed her pre-1898 writings to speak ("false") Arian ideas and her post-1898 writings to speak ("true") trinitarian ones? Not at all; not if she was to remain true to her role as a prophet of God.

Froom's "evidence" disproved

Again, context is everything. To understand the quotes Froom selected, one must read them in context. Only two are covered below (#4 and #7), but the principle holds true for the rest.

#4. "Jesus claimed equal rights with God." "[He] had declared Himself equal with God." Here is the full quote in the Desire of Ages:

  • DA 207.3: Jesus claimed equal rights with God in doing a work equally sacred, and of the same character with that which engaged the Father in heaven. But the Pharisees were still more incensed. He had not only broken the law, according to their understanding, but in calling God “His own Father” had declared Himself equal with God. John 5:18, R. V.

"a work equally sacred." When the full sentence of the first part of his quote is given, the full meaning becomes clear. Christ being the perfect representative of the Father on earth, being the "image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), it would stand to reason that Jesus was "doing a work equally sacred, and of the same character with that which engaged the Father in heaven." The focus is on the "work" not on being "equal" with God. Jesus was intent on doing the work of God and speaking the words of God (John 14:10-11) on earth given that Jesus did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped (Philippians 2:6). The work Jesus was doing on earth was "equal" (i.e. "of the same character") to the work "which engaged the Father in heaven."

As to the second part of the quote, the more complete reading is, 'but in calling God “His own Father” had declared Himself equal with God.' This thought of "calling God "His own Father" continues in the next paragraph.

  • DA 207.4: The whole nation of the Jews called God their Father, therefore they would not have been so enraged if Christ had represented Himself as standing in the same relation to God. But they accused Him of blasphemy, showing that they understood Him as making this claim in the highest sense.

When Jesus was calling God "His own Father" he was not saying "Father" in the sense "The whole nation of the Jews called God their Father." That is, the Jews called God their Father in a metaphorical sense, but Jesus was calling God "His own Father" in "the highest sense." What is the highest sense? The highest sense is that of being a true Son. As Peter declared, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). For this reason the Jews "accused Him of blasphemy" because he was declaring himself to be the Son of God not metaphorically but literally.

#7. "In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. This quote is discussed in detail here: Desire of Ages, p. 530.3.