Adventist Online



An Appeal For Gospel Order


by Alonzo T. Jones


This appeal is printed in response to many calls from all parts of the country. It has not the "imprimatur" of any ecclesciastical official superior, nor the "imprint" of any "regular" publishing house. It does not need any, for it is the truth; as anyone can know who cares to know only the truth. Besides, since the whole delegation of the S.D.A General Conference listened for nearly two hours to the reading of it, this ought to be sufficient surely that all others are at equal liberty to read it for themselves.


Presented before the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists at Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. May 27,1909.


to be continued



Views: 217

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

An Appeal
by A.T. Jones

Part 20

After thus telling to Conference Presidents and men in responsible positions what they shall do; after telling to all the churches that the self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men; after telling to all that Christ "wants no power set over them that will restrict their freedom in His service;" that He "has never placed man as a ruler over His heritage;" and that "true Bible religion will lead to self-control, not to control of one another;" then it turns and tells to the individual what he shall do. Here is only one of these:

"Every church member should understand that God is the one to whom to look for an understanding of individual duty. It is right that brethren should counsel together, but when men arrange just what their brethren shall do, let them answer that they have chosen the Lord as their counsellor. Those who will humbly seek Him will find His grace sufficient. (2 Cor.12:9) But when one man allows another to step in between him and the duty that God has pointed out to him, giving to man his confidence and accepting him as guide, then he steps from the true platform to a false and dangerous one... Such a man, instead of growing and developing will lose his spirituality. There is no power in any man to remedy the defective character. Individually our hope and trust must be in One who is more than human."

Now please bear in mind that I have not read this matter from Desire of Ages and Jehovah is our King as proof or evidence that what I hold and teach is the truth. I know it from the Bible, and I teach it from the Bible. What I have read these passages for from these two authoritative publications from the denomination, is solely to show that by your own authoritative publications there is ground for serious question as to whether my attitude is "antagonistic" to the "organized work" in any other way than that in which the attitude of Jesus was antagonistic to the "religious authorities" and the "leaders in Jerusalem"-- "the organized work" of His day. So then--

Moral character is not the standard of good standing here; it is something else.

Doctrinal integrity is not the standard of good standing; it is something else.

Harmony with the standard and authoritative publications of the denomination is not the standard of good standing; it is still something else.

But when you are carried beyond all these, still to something else as the standard, then that something else cannot be anything else than the arbitrary will and "authority" of men passing themselves off as the church. And one of the very first of Protestant principles is "opposition to the arbitrary authority of the church."

But now, and in view of this situation, I am disposed to waive all demurrer, and answer on the merits that charge that I am "antagonistic to the organized work."

Next: What is the "organized work"?
Spamming!!! Joan, I'm not really sure as to what you are talking about! :)

I just happen to have copies of Some History, Experience, and Facts, Final Confession, and An Appeal for Evangelical Christianity (Gospel Order) by brother A.T. Jones. I have had these with me for years and I am going over them all over again and I thought of sharing them. Is that a problem? :)

I am re-typing word for word, not skipping anything, breaking it down into small posts so it can be read more easily.

I don't know that these can be found online.

The content of these pamphlets was presented by brother Jones to the General Conference. There is nothing secret about them. Everybody has a right to know what really happened in those years.

Anyone who takes the time to read these pamphlets seriously and prayerfully, not merely skimming over them, will be able to appreciate what the third angel's message is with all its implications.

The reader will have to weigh in on what is being presented and come to his own conclusions.

And i did suggest at the beginning that we discuss the whole issue at the end of the article. I asked for your patience. The matter that is presented in this pamphlet is of utmost importance to all of us.

So again, I ask for your patience. Thank you.

We are more than half way through right now.

God bless,


* but I don't object to anyone posting a comment any time. It is welcomed.
An Appeal
by A.T. Jones

Part 21

What is the "organized work of the denomination" in just what is claimed for it and just what it is officially stated to be? In plain fact it is not only confessed, but it is officially published that the professed "organization" of Seventh-day Adventists is that of the Mosaic order. In the official statement and publication of this fact the Mosaic order is fully outlined as such, in eight-numbered points. Then, upon that outline of the exclusively Mosaic order, that official statement says:

"The general plan of the organization adopted by Seventh-day Adventists is very similar to that outlined above."

Then to show this very similar character, there is drawn and set down in six-numbered points, a parallel with the outline of the Mosaic order. And then this official statement says:

"This comparison might be carried further, but what has been pointed out will prove sufficient to make it plain that there is a very close resemblance between the simple, complete, and efficient system of organization provided for the church established by Moses, and the organization worked out for the remnant church called out by the threefold message of Revelation 14:6-14." The President of the General Conference, in Review and Herald, May 16, 1907, pages 4-5.

There is, then, no possible room for question that the form of organization of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is professedly that of the Mosaic order. And this to the exclusion of the Christian order, for in the whole statement Christ is neither mentioned nor referred to, nor is there any reference at all to any New Testament Scripture--except only the single one of Revelation 14. The New Testament itself is not even mentioned, except in the insinuation of the false suggestion that the Mosaic order was "for the direction and government of the church in both the Old and New Testament times."

The truth is that the Mosaic order of organization was no more for the direction of the government of the church in New Testament times, than that Moses himself is for the direction and government of the church in New Testament times. Moses himself was for the Mosaic or Old Testament times. The Mosaic order was for the direction and government of the church in the Mosaic or Old Testament times only and not, and can not possibly have any place in the church of the Christian or New Testament times. The Christian order and the Christian order alone is for the direction and government of the church in the Christian and New Testament times.

To go back to Moses and to the Mosaic order for any such purpose as that which is set forth in that official statement as to the organization of the Seventh-day Adventists is nothing else than to abandon Christ and the Christian order wholly. To ignore Christ and the Christian Church, as the official statement does, is the direct abandonment of Christ and the Christian order for Moses and the Mosaic order.

Next: The Mosaic Order in the Second Century

stay tune,,, this is getting better and better
An Appeal
by A.T. Jones

Part 22

I will never agree to it. I know what it means; for it was tried once, and I know what it meant then. That is exactly the course that was taken in the second and third centuries after Christ in the first steps of the papacy. This can be verified by any one who will only look through the pages of the church history of that time. And that I may not be counted too personal and pointed in this, I will say here what I have written in another place of that first attempt in adopting the Mosaic order of Christian times. Here is what I said of that attempt then:

"But again there came a falling away. Again God as King was abandoned. Christ as 'Leader and Commander of His people,' and as only entitled to pre-eminence, was set aside. Men 'loving to have the pre-eminence' assumed His place. The Holy Spirit, as Sovereign and Guide in and of the Church, was supplanted with the devisings and machinery of men, again like 'all the nations.'

"Yet this was not done in open and confessed disregrard of God. It was all done under cover of the Scripture, and as the manifestation of the divine order itself. This deception was accomplished through the pretense of adopting the Mosaic order of organization. But to go back to the Mosaic order was, in itself and at one plunge, the total abandonment of the Christian order.

"This would have been true, even if the Mosaic order had been truly and completely adopted. But the true adoption of the Mosaic order was simply impossible. Under the Mosaic order the people were a compact mass, separate from all other people, and dwelling by tribes compatcly within specific and narrow limitations; the area of the whole nation being one sixth less, and the people being four to six or even eight times more than that of Connecticut. To think, then, of applying that order in the case of a people who were scattered all over the known world, dwelling promiscuously among all the people of the world, one here, another yonder, two or three here, and four or five there, a small company in one city and no other within many miles--to think of applying in truth the Mosaic order and organization in such a situation as that, could not possibly be anything else than sheer wild humanisticallish nonsense.

"And in fact, it never was either adopted or applied in truth. The scheme was never anything but a pretense, a contrivance to save appearances. But it served the ambitious clerics as a means of hoodwinking the people, and giving to themselves a show of divine sanction for their own assumed authority to reign against Christ and in the place of God. For how easy and natural it was under that 'Mosaic order' to hold before the people the presumption and fate of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and others, as the 'divine and awful warning to all men who should dare anything against the bishop,' for 'we must look upon the bishop as upon the Lord Himself.'

"And this humanisticallish thing, which from the beginning was only a wicked invention of perverse minded men; this thing that was wholly the fruit of apostasy; this thing that sprang only from the abandonment of the Christian order and the adoption of a fraud on the Mosaic order; this thing that was only the fruit of the rejection of Christ for Moses, and thus the substitution of themselves for Christ; this utterly anti-Christian thing, they who made it called it "the kingdom of God!" the one and only true church! But it was never anything else than only the kingdom of man in the place of God."

It is therefore the plain truth that in this openly professed adoption of the Mosaic and Old Testament order of organization there has been taken by the Seventh-day Adventist denomination this same open and definite step in the very course of the papacy. This simply can not be denied; the parallel is perfect. In the Review and Herald on this subject, by General Conference officials, there has been set down in substance and almost in very words the arguments of Ignatius and Cyprian, and even of the full-fledged papacy. Even such a statement as that "In Peter, as in leading brethren now whom God is using, these companies of believers were united in the Holy Ghost."--Review and Herald, May 2, 1907, p.10 , first column, the Home Secretary.

"In Peter"! "In Peter... believers were united in the Holy Ghost"! Think of that! That is precisely, in very thought, the claim of the papacy on behalf of Peter, and on behalf of the Bishop of Rome as the "successor of blessed Peter." And lo! just as "in Peter" so "in leading brethren now" "believers are united in the Holy Ghost." It is not true. In Christ, the crucified One--in Christ alone, are believers ever united in the Holy Ghost. But I have not time to follow that utterly false lead. Do you hold that? Do you endorse that position?

The Seventh-day Adventist professed "organization" is not that of the Mosaic order in truth; it is only, as that before, a fallacious pretense of it. This is demonstrated in the fact that in this present case this professed "organized work" after the Mosaic order, absolutely disregarded the plain words of the very first principle of justice as in the Mosaic order. And who ever heard of the captains and elders of Israel making a constitution and by-laws for themselves? Instead of this Seventy-day Adventist "organized work" being truly after the Mosaic order, it is exactly the repetition of that system of professed organization that resulted from abandoning the New Testament order, in the second and third centuries, and that was the first stage toward the fully developed and reigning Popedom."

to be continued
Teresa, I agree with your post about what Stewart brought up and Joany brought up again later. . . You made good points about where we tread and how we come out. TY
Are you able to show where the brother has erred in what has been posted so far?

Everything is documented and true to facts and history and agrees with the Testimonies.

I question these statements you have quoted as far as who is really behind them, certainly not Mrs White, let alone the Lord Himself!

Will we endorse the action of the Executive Committee in 1907 and that of the General Conference in 1909? If we do endorse their actions, we are guilty before God as they were of having judged brother Jones without a hearing while they made themselves judges in their own case.

I believe the leaders of the then General Conference or the leaders of the General Conference of years later, after Mrs. White's death and A.T. Jone's death, have inserted these statements claiming they came from Mrs. White to protect themselves. I believe they have been fabricated.

I challenge you to show me where brother Jones has erred in what has been posted so far.

Fair enough?


*If we haven't read Some History, Experience, and Facts, and Final Confession, documents presented by A.T.Jones at the request of the General Conference leaders, how can we make a judgment on the case?

It is crystal clear that there was a huge conspiracy against brother Jones because what he taught, and what he taught was the third angel's message, was antagonistic to the established order, the order that was established in 1903 as against the order that the Lord recognized in 1901. And this order of 1903 has been our legacy ever since and it is opposed to Gospel order.

Remember, in 1909 this Testimony was sent: "The self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men. If you allow this to continue your faith will soon become extinct." T.M.481.

Was that Testimony "antagonistic" to the "organized work"? Absolutely.

How could any Testimony from the Lord condemn brother Jones then? Can you tell?

In the light of this Testimony alone, we have every reason to question the source of the testimonies Stewart quoted at the beginning of this thread
An Appeal
by A.T Jones

Part 23

That you may have better words than mine upon this, I present the following from D'Aubigne who makes the matter so plain that none can fail to see it.

Three Great Systems.

"Three great systems, in point of fact, held sway in the church previously to the epoch of the Reformation.

1st. The 'evangelical,' which is the 'primitive system' but which extends only to the commencement of the second century. Then the Word of God reigned supreme, and a living faith in the grace which that Word proclaims was regarded as sufficient for saving the sinner. (2 Cor.12:9) But at the commencement of the second century, the void left in the Church by the death of the apostles, and the invasion of the house of God by the human element, brought about a general alteration in the spirit and organization of the Church; and the great crisis ensued.

"2nd. Then began the Catholic or Episcopal system. It was not until later, no doubt, that the episcopal came to be considered as the necessary divinely instituted form of Christian society; it was not until later that communion with an episcopate connected with the apostles by an unbroken succession, was required as a condition of salvation; but dating from the second century these ideas began to take shape, and the congregational episcopate of Ignatius prepared the way for the hierarchial episcopate of Cyprian. That system, with some shades of difference, prevailed in the Church down to about the sixth century.

"3rd. It was about this epoch that the third system, that of the popedom, began.

"It had long been in progress, and the pride of the popes fondly dreamed of sovereignty. Then it was that the church of the West, feeling the need of a chief to govern it, that immense hierarchy, at once secular and religious, which had been founded in the course of the preceding period, admitted the pretensions of Rome. Catholicism passed into Romanism and the manarchical regimen took the place of the aristocratical that had preceded it.

"These three systems, which followed one on another before the Reformation, have divided Christendom ever since the great revolution of the sixteenth century, and all who bear the name of Christians are now grouped under one or other of these three forms.

"To leave the third of these systems for the second, amounts at most to a half reformation. And I need not say that the first of the three has all my sympathies.

to be continued
An Appeal
by A.T. Jones

Part 24

D'Aubigne continues:

"The internal and spiritual unity of the invisible Church, consisting in faith and love (grace: 1 Tim.1:14), was, at an early date, confounded with the external unity of the visible church which manifests itself in certain forms. This is what was done particularly by Cyprian in what he wrote on the unity of the Church. An external representation of that unity was ever felt to be wanted, and it was sought for in a certain primacy over the other apostles, which was claimed on behalf of St. Peter--a primacy altogether opposed to the Word of God, and to the essence of the Christian economy expressed in these words: 'All ye are brethren.'...

"The same distance that separates the popedom from episcopal catholicism, separates also episcopal catholicism itself from evangelical Christianity.

"What I combat is the idea that in order to a man's being a member of Christ's body, it is not enough for him to be united to the Saviour by a real living faith.

"What I point to as a heresy, is the strange opinion that in order to belong to Christ one must be connected with an external organization which goes back, or rather pretends to go back, to the apostles.

"The evangelical system is the pre-eminence of the spirit above form; the Catholic system is the pre-eminence of form above the spirit. According to the former, it is in the connection of a soul with Christ, that that soul's connection with the church is involved; according to the latter, it is in the connection of the soul with the church that there is involved that which it bears with Jesus Christ.

"The same difference presents itself when we have to do with God's ministers. According to the evangelical system it is grace, spiritual capacity, that legitimates the charge of the ministry, and that procures it; whereas, according to the 'Catholic system,' it is, on the contrary, the charge, the ordination to the holy ministry, that communicates grace--spiritual capacity.

"Further, it is the same if we have do do with the commencement of the church; according either to the popedom or catholicism the external church comes first--Christ first of all found a certain ecclesiastical organism which ought then, in virtue of certain privileges, to act upon the internal, or spiritual. According to the evangelical Christianity, on the contrary, the internal Church comes first--Christ by the Spirit first of all saves, converts souls: and these converted souls unite themselves into a community, forming the external visible church.

"Spiritual life is the real life of the members of the Christian community, according to the evangelical system; adhesion to the hierarchical unity represented by the episcopacy, forms this tie, according to the popish and catholic doctors.

"Religious equality subsists in the evangelical system, notwithstanding the aristocracy of its office-bearers; for the charges with which they are invested are less a dignity than a service, and their authority proceeds not from their persons, but from the Word of God and the action of the Spirit. But in the Catholic, as well as in the papal system, religious equality disappears, the authority of the office takes the place of the authority of the Word, the bishop becomes the exclusive channel of the divine favors, and thus stands as mediator between God and the Christian people.

"To say the truth, Catholicism is in its principles further removed from evangelical Christianity than it is from the papal system itself." Introductory Essay to Ranke's History of the Popes.

In view of that truthful and clearly drawn distinction between evangelical Christianity on the one side, and Catholicism and Popedom on the other side, it is high time that the Seventh-day Adventists should with deep solicitude be asking themselves whether they are really evangelical Christians, or whether the system of professed "organization" with which they are identified and in unity is the evangelical order, or whether it is the pseudo-Mosaic Catholic system tending towards the papal.

Next: The Evangelical Order
Sky, with respect, do you remember how ML Andreasen, not being able to believe that Mrs. White could possibly have written things such as, "In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived", went to visit Mrs. White, asking to see her original documents?

Andreasen says,

“In her own handwriting I saw the statements which I was sure she had not written—could not have written. Especially was I struck with the now familiar quotation in Desire of Ages, page 530: “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.” This statement at that time was revolutionary and compelled a complete revision of my former view—and that of the denomination— on the deity of Christ.”

I have not seen the original handwritten documents, but I have just read in my personal copy of Manuscript Release, Vol. 20 (hard-copy), the words,

"I am sorry for A. T. Jones, who has been warned over and over again. Notwithstanding these warnings, he has allowed the enemy to fill his mind with thoughts of self-importance. Heed not his words, for he has rejected the plainest light and has chosen darkness instead. The Holy One hath given us messages clear and distinct, but some poor souls have been blinded by the falsehoods and the deceptive influences of satanic agencies, and have turned from truth and righteousness to follow these fallacies of satanic origin." (20MR 14.5)

You wrote that "we have every reason to question the source of the testimonies Stewart quoted..."; but Sky, are you saying that books purporting to be written by Mrs. White are corrupted and unreliable?

Others, I think, have struggled with the same issue that you face here.


I accept that the second thought that I quoted is NOT readily available. I quoted that from a booklet prepared by Arthur L White ("What became of A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner"), when he was secretary of the Ellen White Estate. The letter cited by A.L. White, #330, 1908, certainly exists, as I have found other fragments of that letter printed elsewhere. But I do accept that the statement, "I must warn our people against laboring in any line in connection with A.T. Jones..." is not, as far as I'm aware, published in the M.R. volumes.


I really do not wish to disparage A.T. Jones, but, I have no reason to doubt that the following words are from Ellen White. (This is found in the Kress Collection).

"Brother Jones, I have a message for you. In many respects you are a weak man. If I were to write out all that has been revealed to me of your weakness, and of the developments of your work that have not been in accordance with the course of a true Christian, the representation would not be pleasing. This may have to be done if you continue to justify yourself in a course of apostasy. Until your mind is cleared of the mist of perplexity, silence is eloquence on your part.
I am so sorry that you are spoiling your record. Since the Berrien Springs meeting, you have received many warnings, but you have not heeded these. The fact, that while you were considered sound in the faith, you have done things that you were warned not to do, shows that you are not a safe leader." (From, Kress Collection p. 36) dated July 1906.
Thank you for that last post. It was most informative. Now I feel I have a better understanding of what the situation was with Mr Jones. It sounds as if he had received many warnings about things he was doing that were apostasy and yet chose to continue to do them. That was his choice, be we all, even today, have to suffer the consequences when we make inappropriate choices. Thank you for providing the sources where your quotes can be found. That really helps those of us who might not have or have access to the books and other sources that you and Sky have.
Stewart, I am sorry but personally I do not have any confidence in those statements, especially the last one you just quoted from the Kress Collection. It is not the voice of God I hear in that statement but the voice of those who were determined to do away with one who was bearing a message that was "antagonistic" to the "organized work" which was opposed to Gospel order.

We forget that it was the General Conference leaders who were in hot water, who apostatized, not A.T. Jones

Why should we trust those who were his enemies? They have shown that they were capable of many things just to remove anyone who stood in the way of those who had chosen their own way instead of the way of the Lord.

I challenge you to find fault with everything that has been posted.

Far from having apostatized A.T. Jones was bearing the very message the Lord gave him.

This will become even clearer with the next posts.

ps. Why do you not address this testimony dated 1909: "The self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men." Testimonies to Ministers, p.481.

Did Mrs. White apostatize too?

This is talking about the apostasy at the General Conference level, not about A.T. Jones!

There are many similar statements covering those years.

What did A.T. Jones teach that was not in harmony with such statements?

The challenge remains: show where A.T. Jones is erring in what has been posted so far on this thread.

Thank you.



Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2022   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service