Let us briefly acquaint ourselves with the 1888 message of righteousness by faith which our prophet claimed is the "Third Angel's Message in Verity" (RH April 1, 1890) and the beginning of the latter rain. When Sister White heard Elder Waggoner's presentation at Minneapolis, she was ecstatic:

"It was the first clear teaching of the subject from any human lips I had heard; excepting the communication between myself and my husband. I have said to myself, it is because God has presented it to me in vision that I see it so clearly and they [its detractors] cannot see it because they have not had it presented to them as I have; and when another presented it, every fiber of my heart said Amen." (Manuscript 5, 1889).

Sister White, born Ellen Gould Harmon, was reared and baptized in Methodism. It would be fair to say that in the Christian world, Methodists had been champions of the Protestant dictum, "The just shall live by faith" (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38). Unlike many of the Reformationist churches, they stressed obedience to God's law as evidence of that faith.

Obviously then, Sister White was referring to a message that encompassed more than Wesley's understanding of the subject, for like Luther, Calvin and other Reformers, he did not have an understanding of the three angels' messages as revealed to Seventh-day Adventists.

It was Elders E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones who picked up the threads of Protestantism's unfinished garment and interwove it with the fabric of the third angel's message. It is this garment of Christ's righteousness which, if accepted by faith and worn in obedience, would enable the Seventh-day Adventist Church to give the message that would light the whole world with glory (the fourth angel of Revelation 18:1). This would be the inevitable result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, known as the latter rain. Said Mrs. White,

"There are but few, even of those who claim to believe it, that comprehend the third angel's message; and yet this is the message for this time. It is present truth.... Said my guide: There is much light yet to shine forth from the law of God and the gospel of righteousness. This message understood in its true character, and proclaimed in the Spirit will lighten the earth with its glory." (Ms. 15, 1888; Olsen, p. 296, quoted in 1888 Re-Examined).

That a true comprehension of the third angel's message would lead us to emphasize to the world the seriousness of living presently in the day of atonement, is made clear:

"We are in the day of atonement, and we are to work in harmony with Christ's work of cleansing the sanctuary.... We must now set before the people the work which by faith we see our great High-Priest accomplishing in the heavenly sanctuary" (RH January 21, 1890).

So it is abundantly clear that the 1888 message of righteousness by faith is unique to Seventh-day Adventism. The message went much further than the Reformationist view which was circumscribed "by faith alone." It was a message of faith that works, a faith that will enable us to obey and "follow Jesus in His great work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary" (GC 430).

It is obvious then, that those Seventh-day Adventists who deny Christ's continuing work of atonement, by claiming it was finished at the cross, are circumscribed by Reformationist theology. Inevitably, they will increasingly hanker after the fellowship of those whose misunderstanding of the everlasting gospel they have followed. How then can such leaders expect to be recipients of the latter rain and join with the fourth angel of Revelation 18 in the magnificent task of lighting the whole world with His glory?

False doctrine is one of the satanic influences that work in the church, and brings into it those who are unconverted in heart. Men do not obey the words of Jesus Christ, and thus seek for unity in faith, spirit, and doctrine. They do not labor for the unity of spirit for which Christ prayed, which would make the testimony of Christ's disciples effective in convincing the world that God had sent His Son into the world, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." If the unity for which Christ prayed, existed among the people of God, they would bear living testimony, would send forth a bright light to shine amid the moral darkness of the world.

Ellen G. White

Testimonies to Ministers, p. 48

One of error's insidious traits is its penchant for freeloading on the back of truth. Its passage through Movement of Destiny is no exception. If Adventism's doctrinal uniqueness is to be destroyed, then its very heart, the sanctuary message, must ultimately be targeted. But the attack must not be too obvious.

Froom impressively announces the important truths of the sanctuary doctrine as being crucial to the very existence of Seventh-day Adventism:

"Any weakening or denial or submerging of the sanctuary truth is not only serious, but a crucial matter. Any deviation or dereliction there-from strikes at the heart of Adventism and challenges its very integrity." (Movement of Destiny, p. 542).

Thus the reader's mind is lulled into a sense of false security. How many will not notice the gleam of a two-pronged dagger concealed beneath the cloak of truth?

The first prong is meant to destroy Adventism's belief in the true humanity of Christ during His Incarnation- a humanity like ours in which He resisted sin and thus became our example; which in turn bestows on Him the biblical qualification which befits Him to carry out the atoning work as our heavenly High Priest (see Hebrews 4:15).

An editorial in the Review and Herald December 16, 1884, announcing a new edition of the book, The Atonement, by J. H. Waggoner, made this pertinent observation linking Christ's human nature with his qualifications as a High Priest:

"In [the atonement] is involved the great central "mystery" of the Gospel, "God manifest in the flesh," a divine being bearing the nature of the seed of Abraham." (as quoted in The Word Made Flesh, p. 42).

The second prong is meant to show that the atonement was completed at Calvary in order to satisfy the popular evangelical belief that Christ's work of salvation was completed at the cross. Therefore any future priestly ministry is explained simply as the application of benefits flowing from a completed atonement.

Let us examine the methods employed by Froom in this two pronged attack.

Froom directs our minds to the time when a few of our pioneers had brought some Arian* views to Adventism. Uriah Smith was one such person.

* Arianism. A belief pertaining to Arius of Alexandria in the fourth century who held Christ to be a super-angelic being.

Elder E. J. Waggoner had dealt with this diminishing problem at the 1888 Minneapolis Conference by upholding Christ's deity as "all the fulness of the Godhead," meaning of course that Christ was an uncreated and eternal member of the triune Godhead.

This position was always taken by Mrs. White as, coming out of Methodism, she had never held Arian views.

But while the reader is left pondering over the fact that some of our pioneers had been wrong, Froom, by innuendo and timing, sets up in the mind of the reader a link between Christ's earthly nature and the fulness of His Godhead. Referring to Waggoner's book, Christ and His Righteousness, he says:

"The full significance of Waggoner's highly significant descriptive concerning Christ's nature must not be missed. It is vital. He especially declared that Christ "is of the very substance and nature of God"! (MOD, p. 277).

Froom then quickly presses home his intent:

"Waggoner and his colleagues were moving definitely away from both the Arian and semi-Arian positions" (MOD, p.278).

We are not aware that Waggoner had any Arian or semi-Arian views, but we do know that he believed that Christ took upon himself the nature of fallen humanity. Therefore it may appear to some that Froom is trying to show that those with similar views are hooked on a vestige of Arianism.

Then in discussing the 1888 message of righteousness by faith, he says:

"It involved the very nature of Christ in whom the faith was to be invested." (ibid. p. 318).

Is Froom planting the idea in our minds that Waggoner, in rejecting Arianism, is repudiating the biblical concept of a truly human Christ? We had better see just what Waggoner's position was.

"The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner, but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature. He was made to be sin in order that we might be made righteousness." (Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 27, 28).

But such a forceful declaration on Christ's humanity does not suit Froom. How does he overcome this problem? He simply resorts to a tactic with which he is becoming quite adept. He takes a few words and phrases from a statement and intersperses them with his own wording which, when strung together, form a statement which obscures the intent of the original author.

Let's look at Froom's treatment of the last sentence of our quotation from Waggoner:

"He was actually "made"- vicariously- to "be sin for us" that we "might be made the righteousness of God in Him." (MOD, p. 197).

Notice Froom's insertion of the word vicariously. This makes sheer mockery of the plan of salvation by attributing to Christ a make- believe human nature and constitutes blatant tampering with Waggoner's stated belief. Dr. Larson cites from the 1891 G. C. Bulletin, six instances in which Waggoner stated his position. They all accord with this sampling:

"But what the law could not do, Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh to do.... Jesus was made in all things like unto those whom He came to save." (The Word Was Made Flesh, pp. 48-49).

During the two years following 1888, Mrs. White gave unstinted support to Waggoner and Jones as they traveled about expounding on the theme of Christ's righteousness. In 1889, she upheld Christ's true divinity and His acceptance of our fallen nature by saying:

"He took upon Him our nature that He might reach man in his fallen condition." (ST September 23, 1889).

And what about Jones? Did he share Froom's "vicarious" nature theory? Not at all! During his series of lectures on the third angel's message at the General Conference session of 1893, he made at least three statements similar to this one:

"Ah, the Lord Jesus Christ, who came and stood where I stand, in the flesh in which I live, He lived there." (G. C. Bulletin 1893, p. 412).

Let us remind our readers that Froom claims to be enlarging on the message commenced by Daniells in his book Christ Our Righteousness. With that goes the assumption that he is in agreement with Daniells' view of Christ's earthly nature. But that is not so. On page 38, Daniells quotes:

"Describe, if human language can, the humiliation of the Son of God, and think not that you have reached the climax, when you see Him exchanging the throne of light and glory which He had with the Father, for humanity." (RH September 11, 1888).

Is this Froom's "vicarious" or make-believe humanity that Daniells is describing? Certainly not! While ministerial secretary of the General Conference, Daniells had made his understanding plain:

"[He was made] like you, like me ... having triumphed over sin in sinful flesh." (RH November 7, 1929).

So it is clear that Froom is not fulfilling Daniells' commission (if indeed he had been commissioned), nor is he in agreement with the exponents of the 1888 message of righteousness by faith. (Whatever happened to Froom's commitment to truthfulness when he accepted Daniells' admonition "to be fair and faithful to fact"? see chapter seven).

Now we shall see how Froom tackles his biggest obstacle the Spirit of Prophecy. Typically, he seeks the support of Mrs. White, whom he lauds as "the peerless witness" (MOD chapters 28, 29). Because her evidence happens to be in disagreement with Froom's "vicarious" or make-believe human nature of Christ, he resorts to what Dr. Larson describes as "fraudulent" methods, and something which should be rectified by Adventists before our enemies expose this perfidy to world gaze. (See The Fraud of the Unfallen Nature, a pamphlet by Larson.) Also, in his book, The Word Was Made Flesh, Dr. Larson describes Froom's tactics as "a methodological monstrosity" (pg. 247).

One such tactic is to seek to interpret Mrs. White's statements by supplying misleading subheadings over her statements a device which he apparently regarded as highly successful in the book Questions on Doctrine.

We shall mention here, just one example of several as exposed by Larson. On page 497 of Movement of Destiny we find subheading No 5, TOOK SINLESS NATURE OF ADAM BEFORE FALL. There follows a veritable hotch-potch collection of words and phrases taken from nineteen Spirit of Prophecy quotations. No references are given. These are linked together by Froom's wording to make them appear to uphold the false declaration of his subheading.

In analyzing these nineteen mini-quotes, Larson takes us to the source quotations and it soon becomes apparent that Mrs. White said the opposite of what Froom is trying to make her say. Conveniently, Froom deletes the unwanted portions of her opening statement which provides the context. Here it is with the unwanted portion emphasized for identification:

"In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition [that is, after four thousand years of sin], Christ did not in the least participate in its sin." (1SM 256).

Needless to say, Froom astutely avoids such forceful statements as:

"He humbled Himself, taking the nature of the fallen race.... He knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity . . . and where lies the strength of our temptations." (The Watchman, 3 September 1907 p. 563, quoted in The Word Was Made Flesh p. 146).

The second prong of the dagger will be discussed in the following chapter.

We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or not. There are a great many that have got the marks yet, but I am persuaded of this, that every soul who is here tonight desires to know the way of truth and righteousness (Congregation: Amen!), and that there is no one here who is unconsciously clinging to the dogmas of the Papacy, who does not desire to be freed from them....

Suppose we start with the idea for a moment that Jesus was so separate from us, that is, so different from us that he did not have in his flesh anything to contend with. It was sinless flesh. Then, of course, you see how the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception necessarily follows. But why stop there? Mary being born sinless, then, of course, her mother also had sinless flesh. But you can not stop there. You must go back to her mother,-and so back until you come to Adam; and the result?-There never was a fall: Adam never sinned; and thus, you see, by that tracing of it, we find the essential identity of Roman Catholicism and Spiritualism.

E. J. Waggoner

General Conference Bulletin 1901, p. 404.

Having appeased the evangelicals, perhaps unwittingly, by robbing Christ of his qualifications to be our heavenly High Priest (as in Hebrews 2:17, 18; 4:15), Froom now moves in to emasculate our sanctuary message by cutting the atonement off at the cross. But as long as Adventism continues to believe that the earthly sanctuary services were instituted to prefigure the service of the sanctuary in heaven, this would be impossible.

So Froom sets about to distance the "earthly" from the "heavenly" by emphasizing that the earthly shadow was not an exact image (see Hebrews 10:1, MOD 558). Hopefully then, he can lead us to believe that the shadow was so distorted that all the atoning work of the earthly priesthood had no counterpart in heaven.

Ridiculous as this dissimilarity seems, this is exactly what Froom is about- not that he denies Christ's ministerial role in the heavenly sanctuary- he just insists that Christ is applying the benefits of a completed atonement. "The earthly was simply a figure for the time then present," he says (MOD p. 557).

How differently the Lord's Messenger views type and antitype!

"We are in the great Day of Atonement and the sacred work of Christ for the people of God that is going on at the present time in the heavenly sanctuary, should be our constant study. We should teach our children what the typical Day of atonement signified, and that it was a special season of great humiliation and confession of sins before God. The antitypical day of atonement is to be of the same character." (5T 520).

How then, does our self-appointed exponent of righteousness by faith overcome the recurring obstacle of the Spirit of Prophecy?

He simply reverts to the old technique of interpreting the SOP to his own ends- a little more subjective selection and word manipulation arranged under misleading headings. Let us take an example from page 501 of Movement of Destiny. We have a subheading, "COMPLETE ATONEMENT MADE ON CROSS" under which we read, "When the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son [on the cross] He said, `It is enough. The Atonement is complete."' And again, "When He offered Himself on the cross, a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people." And so on. From such fragments of SOP quotations Froom, draws the conclusion:

"The transaction of the cross, then, is indisputably the act of the atonement." (MOD p. 501).

Once again, the references for these fragmented quotations are withheld, and probably for very good reasons. How many of our readers would have the inclination or the facilities to source these quotations and check them out? If we were to do so, it would become apparent that they were written in the context of the sacrificial aspect of the atonement. (The quotations come from RH September 24, 1901 and ST June 28, 1899 respectively.)

When QOD had dealt with exactly the same quotations some fourteen years earlier, they had been correctly listed under the subheading, "COMPLETE SACRIFICIAL ATONEMENT MADE ON CROSS" (QOD p. 663).

If we are to believe that Froom was the main author and editor of QOD, it would seem that Froom's interpretative role had expanded considerably. What was then a "complete sacrificial atonement" had now become a "complete atonement" (MOD, p. 501).

Briefly, let us look at another of Froom's misleading subheadings and garbled quotations:

"CROSS SOLE MEANS OF ATONEMENT. The cross is thus the "means of man's atonement." There could have been "no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made." So, "the cross was ordained as a means of atonement." Christ "gave Himself an atoning sacrifice" (ibid., p. 502).

It will be noticed that in spite of Froom's efforts, he does not succeed in making Mrs. White state that the cross was the "sole means of atonement" (as in the subheading). She merely claims that it was "a means of man's atonement"- which of course, is quite correct. There can be no atonement in the heavenly sanctuary (as in the earthly) without the sacrifice which provides the blood. So once again, Froom devises an interpretative subheading as a substitute for fact.

No wonder he refrains from quoting Mrs. White on the continuing atonement in heaven! In that marvelous work of inspiration, The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, she describes Christ's judicial mediatorial role which started at the close of Daniel's great time prophecy ending in 1844 (Daniel 8:14):

Attended by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the Holy of holies, and there appears in the presence of God, to engage in the last acts of His ministration in behalf of men to perform the work of investigative judgment, and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits (GC 480, emphasis added).

And what of Froom's claims that Christ is merely administering the "benefits" of a completed atonement? Hear the truth from God's Messenger:

"It is those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work of atonement, who receive the benefits of His mediation in their behalf; while those who reject the light which brings to view this work of ministration, are not benefited thereby." (GC 430).

So it can be seen that Dr. Froom's claim of benefits being provided from a completed earthly atonement is complete nonsense.

What does inspiration say Christ is doing? He is "pleading His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners." Whether or not we receive the benefits of His mediation during this final phase of the atonement, is up to us. Who will not receive the benefits? "Those who reject the light which brings to view this work of ministration."

Do the authors of QOD reject this light? They certainly do, while taking upon themselves the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Spirit of Prophecy. Just listen to them:

"When therefore one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature, even in the writings of Ellen G. White, that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross." (QOD pp. 354, 355).

No wonder no one had the courage to append his signature to this specious document! No wonder Elder Andreasen described QOD as an attempt to lessen and destroy confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy and establish a "new theology."-(See Letters to the Churches No. 3).

No wonder Dr. Wilkinson claimed that it was a dagger aimed at the heart of Adventism! What then, would he have said about Movement of Destiny?

That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that He took on Him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that He dwelt among men, full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our sacrifice, and was raised for our justification.

He ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, with His own blood, He makes atonement for our sins; which atonement so far from being made on the cross, which was by the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His work as priest according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven. See Lev. 16; Heb. 8:4, 5; 9:6, 7; etc.

Principle No. 2, Declaration of Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists, 1872.

The history of apostasy in the Christian church testifies to the fact that the introduction of heresies is a gradual process. Sometimes they are introduced as acceptable alternatives, as in the case of Constantine's introduction of Sunday as a holy day. Others are introduced as new light on previously held views that eventually end up as supposed corrections to that view. Still others gain a foothold on the basis that the church has held them all along, but somehow they have been forgotten. None of the heresies gain instant widespread acceptance, simply because it takes time for a generation of believers to pass away.

Such methods to achieve change are being repeated in Seventh-day Adventism today. Just listen to Dr. Froom:

"And in addition to the complete Deity of Christ, Adventists had long been emphasizing the completed act of atonement on the cross, with our High Priest applying its wondrous benefits through His heavenly ministry. This was now our standard and general teaching-for decades before the time of the interviews. And as stated, this was affirmed and buttressed by the uniform baptismal certificate, with its covenant and vows of 1941 required of all candidates for membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church." (MOD, p. 482).

Let us examine this statement and its implications. First, a truth is stated- Adventists had long been emphasizing the complete deity of Christ (meaning that we were not Arian), but it is coupled to an untruth- that we had long accepted the notion of a completed act of atonement at the cross and that Christ is now merely applying the benefits of that act.

Second, we are told that this had been our standard teaching for "decades" prior to the evangelical interviews commenced in 1955 (but meaning, at least since 1935).

Third, it was a requirement of belief for all baptismal candidates since 1941.

Now let us test the credibility of Froom's statements. We will go back to the year 1952, only three years prior to the evangelical interviews, when the editor of Review and Herald, F. D. Nichol, published his ministerial handbook, Answers to Objections. Speaking of some objections to our doctrines over which some leave the Adventist Church, he observes on page 751:

"He [the ex-Adventist] speaks militantly of the "finished work of Christ on the cross."

Nichol then goes to some pains to show that such a position is devoid of logic:

"Of those who charge us with teaching strange doctrines because we believe that Christ's work of atonement for sin was begun rather than completed on Calvary, we ask the question "If a complete and final atonement was made on the cross for all sins, then will not all be saved?" for Paul says that "He died for all."

"Are we to understand you as being universalists? "No," you say, "not all men will be saved." Well then, are we to understand that you hold that Christ made complete atonement on the cross for only a limited few, and that His sacrifice was not world embracing, but only partial? That would be predestination in its worst form." (Answers to Objections, 1952, p. 408).

Note the time just three years prior to the evangelical meetings- not "decades"! But the editor of the Review and Herald was by no means the only one of our leaders to believe in a continuing atonement. Other books written and/or circulated during the decades 1935-1955 which upheld Christ's continuing work of atonement come to mind:

W. H. Branson's Drama of the Ages

F. C. Gilbert's Messiah in His Sanctuary

C. H. Watson's Atoning Work of Christ

M. L. Andreasen's The Sanctuary Service and The Epistle to the Hebrews

On the other hand we know of no books published by Adventism that taught a "completed atonement" prior to the publication of Questions on Doctrine. We have noted how, in the 1949 revision of Bible Readings the "repugnant" reference to Christ's "sinful fallen nature" had been deleted. Yet, no attempt to revise our belief on the heavenly atonement was made. We quote from the 1951 edition published by Review and Herald:

In the service of the heavenly sanctuary there is but one sacrifice; and but one atonement, or cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, can be made, which must take place at the time assigned of God for it (Bible Readings, 1951, 205).

As the atonement day of the former dispensation was really a day of judgment, so the atonement work of Christ will include the investigation of the cases of His people prior to His coming the second time to receive them unto Himself (ibid., 207).

So much for Froom's "standard and general teaching for decades before the interviews" But what about his assertion that the "completed atonement" was "affirmed and buttressed by the baptismal certificate of 1941"? Let's take a careful look at Baptismal Vow No. 2:

"Do you accept the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of men and believe that through faith in His shed blood, men are saved from sin and its penalty?" (Church Manual, 1951 edition).

Can an honest person agree with Froom's contention that this vow supports a "Completed Act of Atonement on the Cross"? This vow describes Christ's death as an "atoning sacrifice" just as we would describe the sacrifice in the typical earthly service. Interestingly, this vow also states that we are "saved through faith in His shed blood," which is backed up by traditional Adventist teaching and the Spirit of Prophecy.

Speaking of the heavenly sanctuary, Mrs. White writes,

"The ark that enshrines the tables of the law is covered with the mercy-seat before which Christ pleads His blood in the sinner's behalf. This is represented as the union of justice and mercy in the plan of redemption." (GC 415).

And what of the men who formulated this baptismal statement? Did they intend it to uphold Froom's contention that it "confirmed and buttressed" a complete atonement? The committee which formulated the baptismal vow consisted of thirteen men under the chairmanship of W. H. Branson, some of whom were:

J. L. McElhany, G. C. president

W. G. Turner, G. C. vice-president

L. E. Froom, secretary of ministerial association

R. A. Anderson, associate ministerial secretary

D. E. Rebok, president of SDA Theological Seminary

(D. E. Rebok is credited with the actual alteration of Bible Readings on the "nature of Christ" under the direction of R. A. Anderson.)

Well, we probably know what Froom and Anderson had in mind as to the meaning behind the wording of the vow, because of their later obvious desire to alter our sanctuary belief to please Barnhouse. But what of Elder Branson, who was appointed chairman of the committee? In his book Drama of the Ages, Branson says,

"In the heavenly [Sanctuary] the blood of Jesus is actually presented as a sacrificial atonement for the sins of the people. In the earthly sanctuary, the services were performed by men. In the heavenly, Christ is the minister, and daily pleads the merits of His own blood in behalf of repentant sinners." (p.257).

Furthermore, Branson had upheld Nichol's teaching of a continuing atonement when he wrote the Foreword to Answers to Objections. In it, Branson made known his attitude to Adventist doctrine:

"Throughout their entire history, Seventh-day Adventists have stood for certain distinct doctrines, some of which differ rather sharply from the teachings of other Christian bodies. Because of our insistence upon the scriptural authenticity of these unpopular teachings, we have naturally found it frequently necessary to defend our positions against those who would by careless or faulty interpretation seek to sweep away the distinctive tenets of our faith."

How awesomely significant then, to realize in retrospect, that at least one member of Branson's committee had knowingly helped to formulate a baptismal vow that (to his way of thinking) could be interpreted later to uphold a completed atonement! Significantly, although holding the position of ministerial secretary and editor of the Ministry from 1941 to 1950, Froom kept his interpretation and views of an emasculated atonement out of print until such time as a sympathetic president ascended the throne in Washington. One can only speculate as to how many more cuckoo's eggs are nestling snugly in the "fundamental" jargon of Seventh day Adventism.