DID LEROY FROOM BRING IN THE OMEGA HERESY, MAKING THE

ADVENTIST CHURCH A PART OF BABYLON TODAY?

By Derrick Gillespie

Choice quote from this presentation: "Who do we find among Seventh-day Adventists, more than any

other group, denying the 'person-hood’ of the numerically third person of the Godhead, and denying

vehemently that he was called by Mrs. White herself a "living person" of "three", or one of the "three

holiest beings in heaven", and that he too must be "served"?

INTRODUCTION:

What is "heresy", and what is "apostasy" with which it is sometimes equated?

The Encarta Encyclopedia defines the two words as follows:

"HERESY- any religious doctrine [or movement] opposed to the dogma [set principles of doctrine] of a

particular church, especially doctrine held by a person professing faith in the teachings of that church.

The term originally meant belief that one arrived at by one‘s self (Greek 'hairesis’- choosing for oneself)

and is used to denote *SECTARIANISM [smaller dissident group] in Acts of the Apostles and in the epistles

of Paul. In later Christian writings, the term is used in the opprobrious [approved by some] sense of belief

held in opposition to the teaching of the church."

"APOSTASY- (from Greek 'apostasia’- insurrection, uprising), the total abandonment of Christianity [or a

particular denomination] by a baptized person… Apostasy is distinguished from laxity in the practice of

religion and [from] *HERESY, [which is] the formal denial of one or more doctrines of the Christian faith

[or of one’s denomination]…"

It is necessary in answering the question before us that we first look at:

[1] Who was Leroy Froom, and what exactly is he charged with by some within the Adventist Church

today?

*2+ What was Mrs. White‘s "omega" heresy prediction really about?

First of all, Leroy Froom is probably the SD Adventist Church‘s greatest historian, who did an intense and

comprehensive study (over a span of 40 years), on the Adventist Church‘s doctrinal and organizational

history. In 1971 he published his findings in his greatest work as an Adventist writer (after being assisted

by hundreds of sincere Adventist researchers, and even by late pioneers of the time). This very detailed

work was entitled, "Movement of Destiny". In this book he traces the history of the Advent faith, as it

doctrinally and organizationally found its feet, from infancy to what it is presently.

He is also famous for publishing another valuable book, "the Coming of the Comforter", in which he

outlines in detail what Adventists should believe about the "third Person of the Godhead", the Holy

Spirit, in light of Biblical and "Spirit of Prophecy" truths (i.e. E.G. White writings).

Let the reader here note that, this writer has personally read Leroy Froom’s over 700 page book,

Movement of Destiny, and can attest to the depth, overall accuracy, honesty, general consistency, and

the comprehensive nature of his research. This was easily determined, by cross referencing with other

researchers who, many of them, were not even Adventist writers, but who presented many of the same

historical facts, and, independently of the Church, came to certain similar conclusions as Leroy Froom.

However, as is usually the case with writers, and which is understandable, in this book, Leroy Froom

gave his personal opinion (some right, some wrong) on some issues under discussion, which remained

simply that; his opinion. This will be proved shortly.

WHAT LEROY FROOM IS CHARGED WITH

After the evidence presented by Leroy Froom was carefully and honestly analyzed by this writer, it can

be said that despite Leroy Froom is 'charged’ with 'heresy’ or falsehood by some, these charges have

been found to be, for the most part, groundless. He is 'charged’ with:

1. Falsely declaring Jesus to be fully eternal and without beginning at a point in time, despite He was

"begotten", falsely declaring Jesus to be fully equal with the Father, though subject to Him in a certain

context, and falsely declaring Jesus to be "consubstantial" with, or "of one substance" with the Father,

in the same way, or in the same sense that He is said to be "consubstantial" with, or "of one substance"

with us humans.

2. Falsely declaring the Holy Spirit to be a Person, "the Third Person of the Godhead", to be "served",

just like the Father and the Son; even drawing on non-Adventist literature in his initial research on this

issue.

3. Falsely declaring that the Adventist Church, at the 1888 General Conference and especially after,

came to grips with the truth about the "constituent Persons of the Eternal Godhead", or the "Heavenly

Trio", and certain other "old truths", closely related to the Trinitarian-type viewpoints, but seen "in a

new light" in some points.

Froom is ‘charged’ with 'heresy’, meaning, 'a denial of fundamental doctrine of one’s Church’, but is this

'charge’ valid? Is it Leroy Froom, or is it those who ‘charge’ him with denial who are guilty of denial?

This writer contends that Leroy Froom was not in error in what he reported, but what, in this writer‘s

humble opinion, could be honestly counted as faulty on Froom’s part, was his treatment of two things.

1. The nature or the “how” of Jesus’ Son-ship was unfortunately misinterpreted by Froom.

Froom’s unreservedly acceptance of Jesus’ full Deity, as well as his full eternity, i.e. he existing

individually from “from all eternity” is laudable, and must not be forgotten! But in his trying to

guard that truth he blundered on the “how” of Jesus’ Son-ship. He thought that if he was

literally begotten in eternity he would have had a beginning and could not be “from all

eternity” as E.G. White confirmed, and hence reasoned that he being “the only begotten”

means he is a “unique Son”. I however believe it is absolutely critical to accept that Jesus being

God’s Son means he is God in fullest nature and is eternal in the unlimited or sense, even if one

blunders on how he is God’s Son. But no one is perfect, and so I do believe that while Froom

blundered, yet he was in a way better position of being more informed than even the Jews who

rejected Jesus’ Deity, and even the earliest SDA pioneers, who, ironically, accepted Jesus as

literally God’s “only begotten Son”, but then sadly used that expression to deny that Jesus is

fully God, i.e. “in the highest sense”, and hence was equal with the Father in the fullest sense,

i.e. “in all respects”. That earlier restricted viewpoint was what the 1888 Minneapolis

Conference was helpful in refuting and expunging from Adventism, despite widespread

resistance from very many SDA pioneers…even leaders. A.T. Jones, E.J. Waggoner, and E.G.

White, had to labor intensely under the power of the Spirit to break that old viewpoint of the

earliest SDA pioneers. Today, I am sure, God is still working with His Church to help the present

members to see where weaknesses in their viewpoints exist, and eventually, the honest and

teachable ones will grow towards a fuller understanding.

2. Froom also blundered on the way he saw the creeds of Christendom on pages 284 and 285, in

his book "Movement of Destiny", 1971, which related to the "oneness" of the "three Persons" of

the "Eternal Godhead". It can be said that, though many of the statements in the creeds

certainly has *some (not all) truths which Adventism eventually accepted in basic terms by

1915, Leroy Froom failed to properly clarify the "oneness" between the Father, the Son, and the

Holy Spirit, which is not a numeric oneness, but a spiritual oneness, as so graphically illustrated

in John 17:21 and 22.

The creeds spoke, almost unanimously, of the oneness, "not confounding the persons [of the

Godhead] *NEITHER DIVIDING THE SUBSTANCE", as was stated by the Athanasian Creed

originally. His failure to properly address the last part of this here quoted creedal statement,

that is, "neither dividing the substance", is where Leroy Froom’s personal opinion on this issue

was evidenced. There is, obviously, no problem with the first part of this creedal statement, that

is, "not confounding the persons", because that part is certainly a correct viewpoint, which

Adventism also shared; that there is a "Trio" of "Persons", or, better yet, “three holiest beings”

in the "Eternal Godhead", since "Trio" indicates distinction of persons in a group, as well as their

unity because of a common feature.

Froom subsequently seem to draw the conclusion that because there was such a closeness

between these creeds, and what pioneering Adventism came to gradually accept about the

"constituent persons of the Eternal Godhead" after 1888, that nothing in the original Trinity

explanation of the "Eternal Godhead" was faulty. However, as it was demonstrated time and

time again, by this present author/writer (since 1998), the traditional "numeric oneness”

concept of the traditional Trinity teaching, and not the "three Persons" (or "Heavenly Trio"), was

what the SDA pioneers always rejected. Thus Leroy Froom’s analysis was here evidenced to be

at fault.

However, you will notice the lasting and powerful effect, which the insightful 'molding influence’

of Mrs. White‘s writings have had on the Church‘s official explanation of the "Three Persons"

(the "Trio") in the Godhead. Despite Leroy Froom never seemed to properly clarify the 'oneness’

of the Godhead, the Church did not, have not, and does not today officially (i.e. in a widespread

or majority fashion) accept this explanation, despite individual mainstream Adventist writers, in

their opinion, may have thought and expressed otherwise. If Leroy Froom had caused the

Adventist Church to fulfill the “omega heresy”, as explained by some to be the Church’s

official adoption of the *ORIGINAL Trinity explanation, then the Church would not now be

charged with teaching three separate persons or beings (“a trio”) in the “Eternal Godhead”

(even seen as a different OR 'HYBRID' brand of “trinitarianism”) because this was neither

Leroy Froom’s thesis, nor the original explanation of the “oneness” in the Godhead by the

Athanasian Creed.

It is obvious that the word "trinity" is not the real problem, since several SDA pioneesr

eventually accepted its tailored use during Mrs. White's lifetime, and without rebuke from her.

What is of greater importance is the explanation of truths about the "Trio" or "trinity" in the

Godhead, and their 'oneness‘, a 'oneness‘ which, though "not confounding the persons", is as

mysteriously and spiritually close as illustrated in Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:28 and 29.

Let the reader be again reminded of the synonymous meaning of the simple nouns "trinity" and

"trio", by referring to several dictionaries, and also be reminded of the following words of Mrs.

White, on the 'oneness‘ of the THREE "constituent persons" in the "Eternal Godhead" (inserts

and emphases mine):

"God says, [notice after this whom she means says this] "Come out from among them, and be ye

separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto

you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." [Now notice carefully]

This is the pledge of [not just one person, but] the Father, the Son, and the Holy

Spirit [i.e. the *pledge to receive and be a Father to you]; made to you if you will keep your

baptismal vow, and touch not the unclean thing…"

-E.G. White, Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901

"When we have accepted Christ, and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy

Spirit, have pledged ourselves to *SERVE [see Joshua 24:2, 14 and 15] God, the Father, Christ,

and [thirdly] the Holy Spirit – the Three Dignitaries and Powers of Heaven – pledge themselves

that every facility will be given us if we carry out our…vows".

– Manuscript 85, 1901

Let the reader be reminded that Mrs. White expressly indicated that there are "three living

persons" in the "Heavenly Trio", or "three holiest BEINGS" in the "Eternal Godhead", whom we

should "serve". To her there is an obvious distinction between them because, even the Holy

Spirit is described as, quote, "also a Divine Person", a "living person", He "has a personality", and

He is NUMERICALLY "the Third Person of the Godhead" of "three"; not two! And you will notice

that no outside (or non-Adventist) source of quotes is really needed to establish this point;

despite some non-Adventist sources have also expressed the same sentiments. The distinction

between the Father and Son is, already, very, very obvious (see John 17:21 and 22). That is the

truth eventually accepted by the 'later-matured‘, pioneering, and historic SD Adventist Church,

which, though sometimes misunderstood as the truth, could not have been successfully denied,

i.e. denied by Leroy Froom then, or by others in the Church today who are honest. Case

dismissed. So much for the ‘charge’ against Froom, that he caused the Church to be in error

today about the Trinity.

THE FIRST RULE IN INTERPRETING THE "OMEGA" HERESY

Let us now look at the view expressed by some, that Mrs. White predicted, in the church-related

prophecy of the "omega" heresy to come, that the Adventist Church would become a part of

"Babylon" after her death took place in 1915. It is claimed by some, that Mrs. White declared

that our religion was going to be changed by the “omega heresy”. But did she really say this

specifically? The evidence is there for all to see, and we will now scrutinize it carefully and

closely, using the rules of prophetic interpretation.

Prophecies of Mrs. White, like those of the Bible, cannot, or should not be made to, contradict

or 'nullify' each other, by being in total contrast. For instance, the Bible could not,

simultaneously, or 'at the same time‘, speak of quote, "the day that cometh shall burn them [the

wicked+ up… it shall leave them neither root nor branch… they shall be ashes" (Malachi 4:1, 3),

while at the same time speaking of the lost consciously living forever, while being BODILY

tormented in an eternally burning hell (as a result of a supposed natural soul immortality)!! It is

obvious that anything else in the Bible, about "hell fire", which goes against the clear statements

in Malachi 4, and other similar Bible passages, must have an application that does not contradict

or nullify this clear and unambiguous declaration. That is the first rule of prophetic

interpretation.

Likewise, using the same obvious rule of interpretation, Mrs. White could not, on the one hand,

be declaring (indirectly, according to some) that the Adventist Church will become a part of

“Babylon” in the future while, simultaneously, declaring herself directly that we should

denounce as “not bearing the message of truth”, when “anyone arises”, that is, at any time,

whether “within or without the Church” to declare the SDA Church as becoming part of Babylon.

So the "omega heresy, even though it can be shown to be probably connected to the subject of

the Godhead, it must, however, have another application, other than the Church as a whole

becoming a part of "Babylon". Is there another strong possibility in its application, while still

being connected to the subject of the Godhead? Let us see.

WHAT WAS THE “OMEGA HERESY” REALLY PREDICTING?

In the book called "Selected Messages", Volume 1, on pages 197-204, (excepted from "Special

Testimonies", Series B, No. 2; a compilation of some of Mrs. White‘s late manuscripts,) there is a

reference to a future 'heresy‘ that was to come after her time. In this writing she compares the

"alpha of deadly heresies", of Dr. Kellogg, to a future "omega” of likewise deadly heresies that,

"would follow in a little while" (Selected Messages, Volume 1, pg. 203). While she explained

what the "alpha" heresy was then, she did not explain the future "omega" heresy, but left its

explanation up to the insightful among the future SDA members, who would use careful rules of

prophetic interpretation to find its fulfillment.

Let us now apply the second rule of prophetic interpretation: Do not change or add to what is

said directly, accept what is said!

Did she say the "omega" was going to change the Church‘s religion and make it a part of

Babylon? Let us see.

In what Mrs. White calls the "alpha of deadly heresies", Dr. Kellogg‘s pantheistic teachings, in

his book, "Living Temple" (1903), were NAMED, DESCRIBED by her directly, and shown to be

denying what she later expressed as, "the existence of a personal God", who is "everywhere

present by His Representative, the Holy Spirit"; with the Spirit later expressed by her as one of

"three holiest BEINGS in heaven" (a clear plurality of individual persons, in spiritual unity). It

was in direct reference to this “alpha heresy” then present, or "the theory that God is an

essence pervading all nature", that Mrs. White argued HYPOTHETICALLY that (insert and

emphases mine):

"The enemy of souls HAS SOUGHT *not "will seek‟+ to bring in the supposition that a great

reformation WAS TO [not "will”] take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this

reformation WOULD CONSIST [not "will consist”] in us giving up the doctrines which stand as

the pillars of our faith…WERE THIS REFORMATION TO TAKE PLACE [not "this reformation will

take place‟+ what WOULD RESULT [not "will result”]? The principles of truth, that God, in His

wisdom has given the Remnant Church, WOULD BE *not "will be‟+ discarded. OUR RELIGION

WOULD BE CHANGED *not "will be‟ but "would be changed if‟+…"

-Mrs. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, Vol. 1, pg. 204

It is interesting how statements and words can be wrested from their tense, or twisted from

their meaning, to mean something totally different from its original and intended meaning (a

practice the Jehovah's Witnesses are well known for). This again amounts to denial and

dishonesty, and breaks another rule of prophetic interpretation. Was this prophecy here

declaring that the Adventist Church was *officially going to become a part of "Babylon", and its

religion was going to be changed, and fundamental doctrines were going to be given up? This

can be forced upon its interpretation, or read into it, by those who fail to be careful readers, or

by those who fail to be fully logical in their thinking, or by those who ignore the features of the

"alpha" prophecy, which must be made compatible with any interpretation of this "omega"

prophecy before us.

Here, in this above quote, Mrs. White was simply looking at the possibilities that would present

themselves *if Dr. Kellogg‘s PANTHEISTIC denial of "the existence of a personal God", who's

forever united with Christ, and who is personally represented by the personal Holy Spirit, was

allowed to take over the Church. That was the essence of her reasoning here, and needs no

further elucidation.

Another important rule of prophetic interpretation is: Study the representative features of one

prophecy already fulfilled, in order to determine the features of another future prophecy yet

unfulfilled, but which was compared to that prophecy. For example, studying the features of

ancient literal Babylon will give valuable insights into the features of spiritual "Babylon" today.

This can now be applied.

First of all, was the Seventh-day Adventist Church a part of spiritual "Babylon" during the

"alpha" heresy, despite existing confusion and debates among some? The answer is NO! So

what should prevent the same application today?

Secondly, since the "alpha" heresy, despite its author accepting aspects of Trinitarianism, was

not denounced by Mrs. White herself for its Trinitarian elements but rather for its

PANTHEISTIC elements, then the same principle must be respected in the "omega" to come. It is

highly likely that the "omega heresy would held by some in the Church who also deny, probably

directly, the 'person-hood‘ of one or more of the "constituent persons in the Eternal Godhead",

or deny already established and essential truths about each of them... and yet Trinitarianism

(per se) be not considered as wrong/erroneous in several aspects. But in all of this the Church

would still not be considered a part of "Babylon", just like in the "alpha" heresy.

Dear reader, now judge for yourself, in the contemplation of the answers for the following

questions, the possible fulfillment of the "omega heresy".

POSSIBLE CLUES IN IDENTIFYING THE “OMEGA HERESY” TODAY

1. Who do we find among Seventh-day Adventists, more than any other group, denying the

'person-hood’ of the numerically third Person of the Godhead, and denying vehemently that he

was called by Mrs. White herself a "living person" of "three", or one of the "three holiest beings

in heaven", who too must be "served"?

2. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists, denying, en masse, the fundamental root

meanings in words and expressions long used in Adventism, as connected with the TRIADIC

Godhead doctrine?

3. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists today, making the Trinity issue (the

acceptance of even the word, no matter the version or explanation of it) grounds for

condemnation, or as a test to determine one‘s fitness for Heaven, and also making it the chief

error of Christendom, despite they can find no such precedence in Mrs. White‘s counsels

written when the Church was doctrinally mature‘?

4. Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists, denying that there were "errors" in the

Church‘s "older literature", in contrast to what was so clearly stated by Mrs. White, and refusing

to admit that there were "errors" on record concerning even the Godhead issues held by early

pioneers?

5. Who do we find *forgetting that what the Church was counseled to "hold fast" to, during the

alpha heresy and after, was not necessarily everything said by the pioneers, but rather "the

principles that have stood the test", and which "after the passing of time" (or the Church‘s

gradual development) "have been substantiated by the Spirit" (i.e. by the writings of Mrs.

White leading back to the Bible itself, the final authority)?

That is what was not to be denied, not even "one jot or principle", according to Mrs. White. See

Mrs. White in "Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pages 57-58, and Selected Messages, Vol. 1,

pgs. 199-200.

See again the words of Mrs. White about her writings:

"All… truths are immortalized in my writings. The Lord never denies His word. Men may set

up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will seek to seduce souls from the truth, but all who

believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister White, and has given her a message, will be

safe from many delusions that will come in these last days"

–E.G. White- Manuscript Release, pg. 22, 23

6. Who do we find among Seventh-day Adventists, upon the false interpretation of Mrs.

White‘s prophecies, declaring that the Adventist Church is now a part of "Babylon", in

contradiction to her clear words to the contrary? Who do we find declaring that God has

rejected the Adventist Church, and calls all to "come out of her” in favor of membership in

certain independent ministries acting alone? Who do we find, among Seventh-day Adventists,

building their foundation upon, and finding their greatest missionary work in, being "accusers

of the brethren", even defying the counsel in the very prophecy of the "omega heresy" not to

"enter into controversy [i.e. incite divisive debates] over the presence and personality of God"

(or the Godhead)?

STARTLING DEVELOPMENTS:

What is clear is that, historically, the SDA Church has been opposed by individuals from within,

or by those who apostatized, such as D.M. Canright. However, never before has there been

such a growing, well-orchestrated and organized movement, aimed at discrediting the Church

and its leadership, and calling people to “come out of her”. Never before has there been so

many, originating from within the ranks of Adventism, declaring the Church a part of

“Babylon”, and are doing so on *mainly the subject of the Godhead, a subject they were

warned not to “enter into controversy" over. This development is indeed of a “most startling

nature”, and has no other parallel in the Church’s history! No wonder Mrs. White then said that

she “trembled for our people” when she saw the future "OMEGA"! Surely “the Dragon is

wroth” with the “Remnant… who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of

Jesus”.

Dear reader, while this author is not saying some errors are not among those in leadership or in

the teachings of the organized SDA church, but the evident fulfillment of MOST of the

foregoing (as described) is NOT FOUND IN THE *ORGANIZED S.D.A. CHURCH, or in the writings

of Leroy Froom, but rather among its dissidents, and certain (not all) off-shoot and

independent ministries. That is clear for all to see, and this writer would ask you to stop and

consider where you stand on these issues, issues that are here so clearly outlined. May God

open your eyes to a fresh perspective on these issues before it is too late!

SEE MY HONEST VIEWS ON THE SCOPE OF THE “OMEGA HERESY” TODAY IN THE SDA CHURCH BY

CLICKING HERE