Who is right?tradtional adventists or Desmond Ford?

[John317]

....Here's the problem I see. You can't start with a faith assumption and then fit the Bible to your faith assumption... twisting the arms. Can you provide any verses that we are being investigated TODAY by JESUS HIMSELF...

Sure. Rev. 2: 23, for starters. The Greek word for "searches" is ereunao which means "investigates." It is the word used when describing the work police do in investigating a crime or suspect. The word is in the present tense which means that it is ongoing. The verse reads, "All the churches shall know that I am He who investigates minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works."

Notice that this verse is talking about the investigation or examination of Christians. It is not talking specifically to those who have never made a profession of faith in Christ.

Now notice also Ps. 11: 4, 5; and study closely Daniel 7 and 8.

Ps. 11: 4,5 shows the investigation coming from God's temple or sanctuary, which is where his throne is. Observe that in Daniel 7, God's throne has wheels and is movable. Just before the judgment begins, God's throne moves somewhere and then He waits for Someone to appear. That would, of course, be Jesus Christ.

I will write much more on this topic later in the day, and will reply also to the rest of your post.

PS. It helps to realize that God and Christ don't need to investigate in order to learn anything. Why then the process of investigation?

[John317]

Do you have, or have you studied, the Daniel & Revelation Committee Series, which consists of about 8 volumes altogether? You can purchase these at the SDA book center.

There's also an excellent book titled The Silencing of Satan The Gospel of the Investigative Judgment by Bradley R. Williams. It explores the Biblical evidence for the Investigative Judgment. It is one of the best books of its kind, and is only about 150 pages. http://investigativejudgmentgospel.org/My_Homepage_Files/Page1.html

You would do well to study books by John T. Anderson (Investigating the Judgment); Roy Gane (Who's Afraid of the Judgment?); Clifford Goldstein (1844 Made Simple; Graffiti in the Holy of Holies); Gerhard Pfandl (Daniel the Seer of Babylon); and C. Mervyn Maxwell (God Cares, Vol. 1 and 2).

There are many other good books that help answer your questions.

[melvin mccarty]

We probably agree as to Jesus being now in Heaven "inerceding in our behalf" (altho I do not understand why there is any need for that), Where we differ is that I believe that Jesus has been in that position since He returned to Heaven after the cross. I see nowhere that says or even hints that he went into some Heavenly "first apartment" situation. The dividing curtain was torn. There were no more first apartment services.

Who would you say was interceding for the human race from Adam to the cross if it was not Christ?

And while we are on the subject do you understand why anyone needs to intercede? Does not the Father love us too?.......mel

[Kevin H]

Mel:

The investagative judgment is not Jesus stopping his intercession (and by the way, in Exodus 19 and in Revelation we learn the Biblical direction. The midevil church had people to the priest to the saints to Mary to Jesus to the Father. The reformers took this model and just had people to Jesus to the Father. But Both Exodus and Revelation has it The Father through God as personal friend [Jesus] and the Holy Spirit as well as sometimes allowing Angels to join in, through prophets and apostles and their writings, to the church to the world.)

Jesus died for all created beings and is working to develop the entire universe into wanting to be in relationship with God through all eternity. By adding to the intercession as on the heavenly level it is a review of what a relationship with Christ can do for people, and on earth an explosion of Biblical knowlege like we've never known before. More knowlege about the Bible can lead to more knowlege about God, and as we learn more of these things, we can become more like Him as beholding we become changed.

Unfortunetely you have liberals studying the Bible seriously but who do not take it serious. And you have conservatives who take the Bible seriously but study it superficially and are more focused on their traditions than on the Bible.

By the way, let me talk a little bit more about intercession. I'll start with a thesis that Jesus interceeded the moment a creature was created.

God is infinite: Outside of time and space. Too big for finite minds to comprehend. So God revealed God's self inside of time and space. God had to teach about being the great ruler of the universe and creator, so we have God the Father. But if this was all we knew of God it would be too powerful and scary and would be worshiped out of fear, and what is of fear is not of love. God the Father is necessary but not sufficient. So God also reveals that God is our friend, one of us. To the Angels they saw another angel. Beings on other planets saw one of them. If there was to have been a litteral Narnia, with talking animals they would see Aslan, to Abraham he appeared as a man traveling, until he took one form that he would keep for the rest of eternity, the man Jesus. But if this was the only revelation we had of God, we would think that he was a good buddy but that my opinion is as good as his. So both manisfestations were necessary but insufficient.

Even the two are necessary but continues insufficient as they are only objective revelations of the infinite God. Created beings are both objective and subjective. And God needed to also reveal his working with our subjective expirence, so we have the Holy Spirit.

Only the three revelations/manifestations of three aspects of the one infinite God are both necessary and sufficient (notice I did NOT say complete)

The entire trinity has rolls of interceeding to lead us into a relationship with the infinite God. They are how God is revealed in a way human minds can understand and relate. And intercession is from God to created beings, not created beings to God.

[Ginge]

[phkrause]

excellent post Ginge!!!

Shabbat Shalom,

pkrause

[delta]

Dear truthseeker007

I'am sorry, I don't wanna offend anybody but please be nice and don't be rude....

The very first posting you accused SDA church as

Quote:

the church leadership has caused a lot of troubles by not being open and by elevating Ellen White to a prophetic position way beyond the Corinthians description of a prophet. Furthermore they have denied any scriptural evidence contradicting the traditional views of Seventh Day adventists

Please prove to everyone and show me the official fundamental beliefs that SDA is elevating Ellen G White more than....

Well the Spirit of Prophecy is a smaller light that leads you to the brighter light. That's all.

Or maybe, how's your experience with one bad apple? If we have the bad one then we need to throw away and condemn all of the leaders of the church around the world, right Mr.Truthseeker007 ?

Let's see from another view: Are you well-pleased and happy if anyone condemn you as a jesuit?

You're too much in hate, condemning and playing games with the REAL Seventh-day Adventists Church in it's whole fundamental beliefs even by saying, "traditional Adventists" again and again.

You don't agree with the official SDA's point of view but at the same time you also don't really happy with Desmon Ford either.

Why don't you build and organize a brand new protestant denomination today and you can do whatever you want and of your beliefs.

Yes, I am not an expert either...but the big concern-as always is:

Most of the Evangelical and liberal Adventists must not agree and always reject to set up an appointment for open discussion with the conservative Adventists to have an open forum for at least 3 to 5 hours.

Go and check up by yourself starting today. Can you find liberal Adventists agree to have an open discussion with the conservative Adventists to have an open forum about any Biblical research?

The biggest concern here is to see that Liberal Adventists always condemn the Conservative as not having an open mind and receiveng new ideas...but at the same time the Liberal usually reject and not agree if the both have an open forum.

So, no matter how detail of your research is, please don't ever forget how important an open discussion is.

Love in Christ,

D

[John317]

God's Glory destroys the wicked, and it isn't a lightning bolt out of heaven that He physically throws at the wicked to 'kill' them but His glorious presence, His aura. So maybe the reason Jesus stays in heaven on a cloud when He comes to take home the rightous, is to protect the wicked that are raised, from dying the Eternal death at that time. Now stay with me, I'm on a roll. It won't hurt the sinless to be in His Glory, so they are brought UP to meet Him and the sinners do not get the FULL benefit of God's Glory as they have a while to wait befor Jesus 3rd coming.

Sooooooooo when John 3 made the statement about Jesus opening the city gates and inviting the wicked in, that gave me chills. I now have a totally different place to go about Jesus' love for EVERYONE! Jesus' last defining declaration to the wicked is his "opening the city gates" and beckoning them with open arms into His kingdom. However, they cannot live in the Glory of His presence and are consumed in their sins. Of course after all the wicked have died, then God brings fire out of heaven to completely cleanse the earth and make it new again. That cleansing also burns up the lifeless bodies of the wicked.

I really like my idea so don't mess with it.

I think you have some good ideas here. Look up in the Bible all the places where God's presence and fire are closely associated, starting with the angel who guards the gate to the garden of Eden with a sword that appears to be on fire (Gen. 3: 24). Also, Moses' encounters with God, at the bush and in Ex. 24: 16, 17 and 33: 18-23.

Keep thinking it through as you study and pray.

I'm not sure of your reason for why Jesus does not touch the earth at his Second Coming, but I wouldn't reject it out of hand. One result of our knowledge that Jesus won't touch the earth at that time, is that we will be able to distinguish between the true Second Coming and the counterfeit that Satan produces just before Christ's return. Satan will walk the earth and claim to be Christ, and virtually the whole world will be deceived into accepting him.

[John317]

We probably agree as to Jesus being now in Heaven "inerceding in our behalf" (altho I do not understand why there is any need for that),

One reason for it is that it helps us to understand the estrangement that sin causes between man and God. It shows that God hates sin but loves the sinner and that sin separates the sinner from God-- because He is holy and altogether righteous. This is a hard lesson for humans to learn because, unless we have the Spirit, we love sin and find in it everything that makes life exciting and fun.

The fundamental purpose of the earthly sanctuary was to teach us that there is no salvation without the shedding of blood, specifically the shedding of God's own blood. Apart from Christ's sacrifice, salvation was impossible. There is no atonement or justification without the shedding of blood. There is no sanctification without shedding of blood, and there is no victory without the shedding of blood.

Quote:

Where we differ is that I believe that Jesus has been in that position since He returned to Heaven after the cross.

It's true that Jesus and the Father have always loved humankind and been active in our behalf, and of course the promise of a Savior was given to Adam and Eve almost immediately after the Fall. All of that was based on Christ's successful work on earth, living a righteous, perfect life and dying as a perfect sacrifice. He could not be our mediator until after He shed His blood. If Jesus had sinned, or if He hadn't gone through with the sacrifice and if Christ's sacrifice hadn't been acceptable to the Father, the human race would have been eternally lost. The Bible does not teach that Jesus was a High Priest from the time of Adam. At the time of Adam, Christ became the promised Messiah, the one who would one day destroy sin and Satan. But Christ became a High Priest only after His sacrifice and resurrection and ascension. See Hebrews 5. And of course there will come a point where He is no longer our High Priest. See the end of Hebrews 9. Compare that with Rev. 9: 11 ff and Daniel 12:1. He comes the second time not as a mediator but as King. Shortly before that time, human probation will have passed and sin will already have been dealt with. The spiritual condition of all people will be forever settled.

Quote:

I see nowhere that says or even hints that he went into some Heavenly "first apartment" situation. The dividing curtain was torn. There were no more first apartment services.

The apostle John in vision saw Jesus in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. Rev. 1: 12, 13; ff 4:5; 8:3. Finally at Rev. 11: 19, the second apartment is opened, and John sees the ark of God's covenant there. (Of course the ark is not empty but contains the Ten Commandment law of God.) So it is clear that John was given a view of both apartments in the true sanctuary in heaven, and that Jesus was seen in the first apartment.

The earthly sanctuary services and Christ's ministry are divided into three phases. Phase 1 was in the outer court where confession of sin was made and where the lamb was slain, and it corresponded to Christ's sacrifice. Phase 2 was when the blood was taken into the sanctuary and sprinkled before the alter of incense in the Holy Place. This corresponds to Christ's work as our Mediator from the time of His ascension until the end of human probation. Hebrew 9: 24 "For Christ has not entered the holy place made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us" (NASB). Phase 3 is the removal of sins from the sanctuary and shows that Satan is really responsible for sin. It corresponds to the Judgment that takes place prior to Christ's return. This is going on now. I believe it has been going on since 1844. It did not need to continue until 2008. It could have been finished long before this time, just as the children of Israel could have gone into the Promised Land sooner and did not need to wander in the wilderness for 40 years and die there.

Jesus spoke of these 3 phases in John 16: 8-11: sin, righteousness, and judgment.

Quote:

Who would you say was interceding for the human race from Adam to the cross if it was not Christ?

The only reason that human beings did not die eternally already is that Christ volunteered to die for us and to become our High Priest, but at that time, before Christ's death, there was no one interceding for the human race. As Hebrews 7 and 8 shows, Christ only became our High Priest after His ascension. Everything was predicated on Christ's coming to earth as a human and dying for us.

Quote:

And while we are on the subject do you understand why anyone needs to intercede? Does not the Father love us too?.......mel

Yes, of course, the Father loves us as much as Christ loves us. Christ did nothing the Father would not have done if He had come here in the place of Christ. If the Father had come here instead of Christ, we would have seen the same love demonstrated.

But the reason for the intercession is that Satan is the accuser not only of humans but also of God, and also because sin must be seen for what it indeed is, something that God hates and that separates the sinner from a holy, righteous God. For some indications of the reason it is necessary, please see Job 1 &2, Zech. 3, & Matt. 4.

[John317]

.... Can you provide any verses that we are being investigated TODAY by JESUS HIMSELF...

In Rev. 2: 24, Jesus very clearly says, "I am He who investigates the minds and hearts" of Christians. The Christian Standard Bible reads, "I am the One who examines minds and hearts." The Bible in Basic English reads, "I am the One who makes search..." Richmond Lattimore's translation reads, "I am he who examines... " (Lattimore was a professional translator of the Greek classics and taught Greek at Bryn Mawr College.)

The Greek Lexicons and dictionaries give " to search, examine, investigate" as the primary definitions of the word used, eraunaw. Strong's # 2045. The same word occurs in the NT at John 5: 39; 7: 52; Romans 8: 27; 1 Cor. 2: 10; and 1 Peter 1: 11. As pointed out before, this investigation is portrayed as originating from the heavenly sanctuary; it is spoken in the context of judgment and rewards; and the word in Rev. 2: 24 is a present active participle, which means it is happening in the continuous present.

There are many other instances in the Bible which speak of God as "investigating" the hearts and minds of those who have made a profession of believing in Him. That concept is very solidly supported by Scripture.

[Guest truthseeker007]

Dear Delta you stated:

"I'am sorry, I don't wanna offend anybody but please be nice and don't be rude...."

I don t have any intentions of being rude. There is only one thing i am desparetely looking for; truth!

"The very first posting you accused SDA church as

Quote:

the church leadership has caused a lot of troubles by not being open and by elevating Ellen White to a prophetic position way beyond the Corinthians description of a prophet. Furthermore they have denied any scriptural evidence contradicting the traditional views of Seventh Day adventists

Please prove to everyone and show me the official fundamental beliefs that SDA is elevating Ellen G White more than....

Well the Spirit of Prophecy is a smaller light that leads you to the brighter light. That's all."

I have to be quite honest with you on this matter, i ve got my information from anti SDA sites and television shows (John Ankerberg show). It came out after hearing two sides of the story that the very SDA elite, willing- or unwillingly created the suspicion that they were using Ellen as an authoritative source of scripture in order to be able to manipulate/control people. I don t think this is Ellen White her fault though, but it happened. Personally i hate the idea that a person should be lifted up on one another. A Christian is supposed to be a spiritual stone in a spiritual house of which Jesus himself is the cornerstone.

"Or maybe, how's your experience with one bad apple? If we have the bad one then we need to throw away and condemn all of the leaders of the church around the world, right Mr.Truthseeker007 ?"

You are right about this, every church has a lot of bad apples. Please don t call me Mr., it makes me feel so old;)

"Let's see from another view: Are you well-pleased and happy if anyone condemn you as a jesuit?"

I have no secret agenda, all i want is the truth, no matter how bitter or sweet it may be.

"You're too much in hate, condemning and playing games with the REAL Seventh-day Adventists Church in it's whole fundamental beliefs even by saying, "traditional Adventists" again and again."

If you say this to me, you should say this to more than 50 percent of the SDA people. Let me explain this, everybody who does not believe that Jesus entered the holy of holiest in 1844 shouldn t be a member of the SDA church. Why? because Ellen White claimed that she saw this happening in a vision. Now, according to Desmond Ford 1844 is no biblical datum. When Dessie was disfellowshipped from church, large numbers of adventists left the church including hundreds of pastors.

"You don't agree with the official SDA's point of view but at the same time you also don't really happy with Desmon Ford either."

Let me be honest with you on this one. The SDA church has a lot of truths. From all the churches that i know, the SDA church is probably the most rich church. But just because something is logical, doesn t mean something is true. (take evolution for example). Either the SDA church is from God, or the SDA church is a set-up from satan who tries to hide the truth by creating protestant confusion. (babylon) However if i had to make a decision, i would choose to become a seventh day adventist.

"Why don't you build and organize a brand new protestant denomination today and you can do whatever you want and of your beliefs."

Funny, i have been thinking a lot about this for a while...

"Yes, I am not an expert either...but the big concern-as always is:

Most of the Evangelical and liberal Adventists must not agree and always reject to set up an appointment for open discussion with the conservative Adventists to have an open forum for at least 3 to 5 hours.

Go and check up by yourself starting today. Can you find liberal Adventists agree to have an open discussion with the conservative Adventists to have an open forum about any Biblical research?

The biggest concern here is to see that Liberal Adventists always condemn the Conservative as not having an open mind and receiveng new ideas...but at the same time the Liberal usually reject and not agree if the both have an open forum."

Actually, i am a conservative. I hate liberalism in the church because it leads to doctrines of men comforting themselves with self-made truths in order to gain the symphathy of the "it a all love"-churches. But i would like to have some clear biblical evidence that 1844 is a biblical Datum without having to buy 20 books after which i have to buy 20 books that critize the 20 books that are critized.

"So, no matter how detail of your research is, please don't ever forget how important an open discussion is."

I agree, therefore we should always try to find two extremes and throw one out...

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I need to say here is a good example where using the "quote" button would be very helpful. I found this post hard to follow, and ended up not finishing it...

[Guest truthseeker007]

yeah sorry for that Rudywoofs;)

[Guest truthseeker007]

The more i study Dessie Ford, the more i think he is wrong on many things. I think he has to much confidence in theologians. I rather trust the old lady and the farmers that started the movement. For example, Dessie uses Makabeens to support his view of the 2300 evening mornings to be the tyranny of Antiochius Stephanus. This book can only be found in the Catholic bible, that contain a lot of satanic delusions. I think Desmond Ford is a wonderfull person, but he gives to much credits to humans, rather than the principles of God who chooses humble things to proclaim a great message. I hope in the endtime, when there will be a discussion about the sabbath among theologians, God will send a donkey to tell them the truth!...

[Brutha Bouregard]

The more i study Dessie Ford, the more i think he is wrong on many things. I think he has to much confidence in theologians. I rather trust the old lady and the farmers that started the movement. For example, Dessie uses Makabeens to support his view of the 2300 evening mornings to be the tyranny of Antiochius Stephanus.

Brutha Truthseeker,

Ah believe you mean Desmond Ford, and not Dessie...Dessie lives on Pear Tree Lane, near Russel Springs, Kentucky in one of the many hollows in the area. He runs moonshine every other month and is not inclined to be theological material, iff'n you know what I mean...But he is known to whip up some of the most spiritual material that can just take the breath away from all who sip from his springs...

[melvin mccarty]

I believe you are mistaken about Dr. Ford's church membership being revoked. Only his ministerial credentials I think.

At Glacier View the old guard circled the wagons and preserved the tradition at all costs.

mel

[rush4hire]

I'll admit I haven't read your whole post, but will when I get time to do some heavy reading.

My personal theory is that Desmond Ford was a Jesuit. Though I can't prove this, what other reason would he have to go about with such nonsense to try to undermine the faith of Adventists and give the world a solid reason to reject the SDA faith? They use this doctrine to reject anything the Adventists reason concerning "righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come" (Acts 24:25), though the man's claims are completely ridiculous.

Or maybe he wanted attention:

Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I can give my explanation on the Investigative Judgment as soon as I get time. But of course I will read the posts here first.

[John317]

At Glacier View the old guard circled the wagons and preserved the tradition at all costs.

That seems clearly to be based on the unstated assumption that the SDA church's teaching on the Investigative Judgment is false and has little or no Biblical support. If it is merely "tradition," I say let it go; but if it has the support of the Bible, it doesn't matter who is against it, it should be kept.

Anyone interested in studying the Biblical evidence in support of the Adventist view of the IJ should thoroughly check out Bradley Williams' recent book, The Silencing Of Satan the Gospel Of the Investigative Judgment: http://www.investigativejudgmentgospel.org/My_Homepage_Files/Page1.html

[melvin mccarty]

Regardless of the "IJ" the basic fact is that type met antitype at the Cross. All of the animals sacrificed previous to the Cross pointed to the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the whole world. The antitypical day of atonement was at the Cross. All other theories must bow to the one incontroversial fact that Christ made the atonement at the Cross. The antitypical day of atonement to which the type pointed was the Cross.

mel

[John317]

I think that's a very limited, elemental understanding of the atonement and of the meaning of the sanctuary services. There is more to the atonement than the death of Christ on the cross, just as there was more to the atonement than the killing of the animal in the courtyard.

The blood had to be carried into the sanctuary. In the same way, Hebrews 9: 23 says Christ's blood was necessary to cleanse the heavenly things. Obviously there was something that needed to be done besides the shedding of Christ's blood. His death was essential, but what He is doing now as our High Priest is no less necessary. His work in the first apartment has to do with the confession of sins, but His work in the Most Holy Place deals with judgement and the blotting out of sins.

[Kevin H]

The more i study Dessie Ford, the more i think he is wrong on many things. I think he has to much confidence in theologians. I rather trust the old lady and the farmers that started the movement. For example, Dessie uses Makabeens to support his view of the 2300 evening mornings to be the tyranny of Antiochius Stephanus. This book can only be found in the Catholic bible, that contain a lot of satanic delusions. I think Desmond Ford is a wonderfull person, but he gives to much credits to humans, rather than the principles of God who chooses humble things to proclaim a great message. I hope in the endtime, when there will be a discussion about the sabbath among theologians, God will send a donkey to tell them the truth!...

While I too agree that Dr. Ford is wrong on many things, may I sort of dissagree with your comment that he has too much confidence in theologians. I see Ford's downfall as not his cofindence in theologians but his lack of knowlege in Old Testament, approching ALL topics from his extensive knowlege on the thoughts of Luther and the Reformer's understanding and his (conscious or unconscious) presuposition that no one understood Paul until Luther came around and that Luther is the only one in history to understand Paul, and that Luther is the final word on Paul. And thirdly the time in history where he lived, there has been some recent fantastic studies in Paul such as E. P. Sanders "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" and "Paul, The Law and the Jewish People" and P. J. Thompson "Paul and The Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles" (1990) and J. D. G. Dunn "Jesus, Paul and The Law" (1990). Ford is too old to be aware of these newer studies. I can not blame Ford for doing the best with what he had avaible from his background. I would blame people like Ratslaf and younger people for only rehashing what Ford has to say without looking for the newest and best studies. Like the study of medicine, Ford had to work with his time in history and the knowledge availble to him in his field of expertiese. And like doctors, the younger ones need to keep up with the latest research and not continue to practice medicine strictly as it was practiced in the 1500s.

Two other things about Ford that bother me is his principle of prophetic interpetation in which he believes that the original Bible writer had all types of interpetations on their mind, instead of a local issue that later generations could draw analogies from. Daniel was not interested in Antiochus, Domintian, the pope nor the final antichrist. He was interested in Deuteronomy's prophecy that the exile was to be THE last days, and if not than what was God's plan for the land, the temple and the house of David. The focus of the book of Daniel is set in the early days of the Persian empire. But people living at the time of Antiochus, Domitian, the events between what the papacy was becoming compaired to what the Bible said, and those who will live under the final antichrist all found or will find principles and hope in Daniel's expirence.

The final issue with Ford is actually a further application of my first one. He is NOT an Old Testament scholar. His field of knowledge is the Reformation and a fair amount of knowledge in Paul (some of it now outdated but was pressent truth when he studied). If you needed heart surgery, and went into the hosptial for surgery and you were told "You can wait until tomorrow and have our cardiosurgen perform your surgery, or we can let you have your opperation right now if you want our brain surgon to operate." I don't care how great a brain surgen he is, it is a different part of the body, a part out of his expertiese that needs the surgery, I'll wait for the surgen who's studied the heart. So with Ford. I trust him where his knowledge and studies are, but when he trys to speak with authority outside of his field of study, then I am not interested. Ford has too much of a tendency to speak with equal authority whether he has the background in the topic or not.

[Kevin H]

I'll admit I haven't read your whole post, but will when I get time to do some heavy reading.

My personal theory is that Desmond Ford was a Jesuit. Though I can't prove this, what other reason would he have to go about with such nonsense to try to undermine the faith of Adventists and give the world a solid reason to reject the SDA faith? They use this doctrine to reject anything the Adventists reason concerning "righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come" (Acts 24:25), though the man's claims are completely ridiculous.

Or maybe he wanted attention:

Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I can give my explanation on the Investigative Judgment as soon as I get time. But of course I will read the posts here first.

While I'm open for debate on Catholic spys, we have to be careful talking about Jesuit spys. Yes, they started out that way, but have become so sucked into liberal theology that they basically no longer have faith in God and thus little interest in wanting to defend a particular church or undermining another, and have become a bigger pain to the Papacy as Ford is to us. Now there may be other Catholics who have taken their place, but they are not Jesuits.

Second: I don't see anything particularly sinister about Ford. A couple of things stupid (Speaking with equal authority on what he has studied and what he has not studied)and taking money from a church while preaching against beliefs central to their belief. But I see nothing sinister in it. What he was teaching is well with in the frame work of his background and study. If that was my background, especially in that point of history, I'd probably believe the same. He is fair and honest to what he knows. He only has a big mouth of speaking as if he knows what is outside of his scope of study. Doing something stupid is not a sin. If I tried to speak with the same authority on the Reformers as he does on the Old Testament, I'd be just as stupid. While I'm willing to speak on the reformers, if it gets too deep and he and I were to dissagree I'd defer to his knowledge. He should have done the same with the Old Testament.