Dr. Desmond Ford a Preterist?

[Reddogs]

I came across the following which makes a very strong case that Dr. Desmond Ford is basically teaching the Preterist view of biblical prophecy while maintaining he holds the Historicists view. Take a look:

Dr. Ford would probably answer that the historicist is the most accurate, according to the sentiments expressed in his commentary Daniel, which is designed for an audience which is historicist. However, when it comes to his recent Glacier View manuscript, the sentiments expressed are those of the preterist school of interpretation.

The preterist flavor of the manuscript becomes evident when one closely compares one interpretation against another, one fulfillment versus another. That interpretation which is given the greatest support is the one which is an index to the true sentiments in the mind of the interpreter. Numerous passages show that Dr. Ford's views of prophecy can be divided into just two types of fulfillments: 1) those in which the details are fulfilled, and 2) those in which only the essence is fulfilled. When comparing the two types of fulfillment, we can suggest that the first one is the more accurate and the more complete one than the second, as long as all the details match the historical events. Thus the first view can be used as a window to determine the true stance of any prophetic interpreter. Is he a preterist? a historicist? a futurist? or an idealist? The answer to that question can be found by noting which school of interpretation is followed in assigning the most detailed fulfillment of prophecy, or in other words, by discovering into which camp the fulfillments of category 1 will fall.

For Dr. Ford the detailed fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies fall within the preterist camp. We must point out that there are two types of preterists-the short-range and medium-range. The short-range preterists state that all biblical prophecies must find their fulfillment in events immediately surrounding the time of writing of the prophetic book, and the medium-range preterists state that while most prophecies find their fulfillment in immediate events, some prophecies may extend from the prophet's age into the medium-range future. No prophecies are of a long-range nature with any of the preterists, neither can any prophecy extend beyond the close of the 1st century. Dr. Ford makes allowance for the medium-range view in his definition of preterism: "This system views the apocalyptic prophecies as having a contemporary or near-contemporary fulfillment." (Daniel, p. 65). In the Glacier View manuscript Dr. Ford applies the 70 weeks' prophecy of Daniel 9 from the period of Daniel's time down to the first century. This would be a medium-range preterist view. The short-range preterist would see Daniel 9's fulfillment in the events of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt.

One of the most crucial issues of the book of Daniel is the identity of the "little horn," because our interpretation of Daniel's other prophecies will be influenced by the manner in which we identify it. Dr. Ford's interpretation of the "little horn" is essentially preterist. Notice this salient quote:

We wish to stress that which elsewhere in this paper has been affirmed-that the prophecy, while originally fulfilled in Antiochus, and only in him as regards its details, also applies in broad outline to later manifestations of Antichrist including pagan and papal Rome.(Glacier View ms, p. 391, italics Dr. Ford's).

None of the details of the little horn prophecy are applied either to pagan Rome, which invaded the temple of Jerusalem and destroyed it in A.D. 70, or to papal Rome, which "takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God" (II Thess 2:4), or to the future coming of Antichrist. The futurist applies the details of Daniel 7:25 to a future 3 1/2-year reign of Antichrist from a restored temple in Jerusalem. Dr. Ford rejects both the figurative 1260-day period of dominance for papal Rome and a literal 1260-day reign of Antichrist as being applicable, thus he rejects the details of the historicist and futurist view, while holding on to only the details of the preterist view. He leans somewhat toward the idealist view, although he is not in their camp, because the idealist does not look for any specific fulfillment of prophecy in historical events, but simply seeks out only the central theme or idea of the prophecy.

In the same way that he interprets chapter 7 of Daniel he interprets chapters 8 and 11.

Rome does not apply as the primary fulfillment of the little horn, but in both its phases and at more extensive levels it meets the chief thrust of the prophecy, though not its details-both in chapters eight and eleven. In other words, the apotelesmatic principle here applies....(Pp. 392, 393, italics Dr. Ford's)

In regards to chapter 11 Dr. Ford has asserted: "Only Antiochus fully fits the specifications of verses 19-35" (p. 383). And again, "The details of these verses (11:21ff.) fit only one person in all time-Antiochus Epiphanes" (p. 394). Then notice how the preterist emphasis of Daniel 8:14 is borne out in the following quotes:

1. "The close relationship between the prophecy of Daniel 8 and the history of God's people between 171-165 B.C. demonstrates that, in this instance also, prophecy has its first significance for the people to whom it was originally given" (p. 394).

2. "Today, it is a primary datum of hermeneutics that every part of the Bible had meaning for the people who first received it" (p. 392).

3. "Are we now detracting from what was earlier quoted from non-Adventist modern exegetes concerning Daniel 8? By no means. We are saying that Antiochus did fulfill the little horn prophecy, but he did not fill it full" (p. 392, italics Dr. Ford's). In red shows his contradiction!

4. "Certain of the prophecies of Daniel, like many other prophecies of the Old Testament, apply in principle to later eras than the one first addressed. The main idea, rather than precise details (such as 2300 evening-mornings) is what has a recurring fulfillment. Daniel 8 gives God's ideal plan for Israel after the restoration" (p. 485, italics Dr. Ford's).

Thus, in the mind of Dr. Ford the first fulfillment is the only one in which all the details of the prophecy are applicable. This is dyed-in-the-wool preterism!

[Reddogs]

Dr. Ford is basically a preterist who wears the hat of a historicist, and the cloak of a futurist. Only if one looks beneath the trimmings of a hat and cloak does it become apparent that his true nature is preterism.

...a little background to pretorist view of prophecy. In 1520 A.D. at the greatest height of the Protestant Reformation, the Reformers in all different parts of Europe unitedly recognized in the Papacy the man of sin and the biblical anti-Christ. To counter the protestant Reformers, the Roman Catholic Church set up a Counter-reformation teaching by the Jesuit priestcraft called 'preatorism' and 'futurism' re-directing the last day prophecies regarding anti-Christ far away from Rome and the Pope into the distant past to Nero and the distant future all at the same time.

When Des Ford arrived back here in Australia, it became apparent that what he learned at Manchester with Professor FF Bruce is pure Roman Catholicism. Ford went on record .. saying that it was the book "The Great Controversy" between Christ and Satan by Ellen G. White.. that brought him to Christ. Now Ford denies sanctification and has gone back onto the milk of the Word [ Hebrews 5:13-6:2] fooling himself and his followers that this can save them. But the Bible tells us otherwise. While Ford say he blows it regularly, Jesus says that He saves us not in but from sin [Matthew 1:21].Following Jesus Christ the Saviour from sin is giving us victory over sin while following Desmond Ford means defeated by sin.

[Reddogs]

Here is the proof of the pudding:

The following is an outline of the theological steps which Dr. Ford has taken, as well as the main reasons for his taking those steps, although not necessarily in the order in which he has taken them... The footnoted references to Ford's three major works appear at the close.

Dr. Ford. The Doctrine of the "Investigative Judgment"[1] Has No Scriptural Support.[2]

Dr. Ford Reasons:

1. We are judged individually as we accept or reject Christ.

2. Only the wicked are judged, not the righteous.

3. Judgment for the righteous is equated with justification by faith. Christ bears our judgment for us.

Comment: This is Dr. Ford's starting premise, his major thrust, and the ultimate goal which he hopes to establish. All comments in his manuscript are geared toward establishing this one point. Ford contradicts 1.Peter 4:17,18 "judgment must begin at the house of God."

Dr. Ford. Daniel 8:14 Must Be Viewed on the Basis of Its Inspired Interpretation Found in Mark 13.[3]

Dr. Ford Reasons:

1. Christ's reference to the "desolating sacrilege" in Mark 13:14 (cf. Matt 24:15) points to the fulfillment of the "transgression that makes desolate" in Daniel 8:13 and the cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14.

2. This fulfillment took place, according to Dr. Ford, in A.D. 70 when the Roman general Titus invaded and destroyed the Temple.

3. The time aspect of Daniel 8:14 would be confined to the first century exactly how the Roman church teaches it.

Comment: Note how points C and D logically follow point B.

Dr. Ford. Mark 13 Limits All Prophetic Interpretation to the First Century A.D.[4]

Dr. Ford Reasons:

1. Christ says, "This generation will not pass away before all these things take place," which refers to the generation of the apostles.

2. The whole New Testament pictures Christ's advent as being imminent and urgently close.

3. The New Testament does not present a 2000-year gap between the advents.

Comment: 4. Christ fully intended to return in the first century, thus no OT or NT prophecy could extend beyond the 1st century.

Does Ford call Jesus a false prophet here for not turning up in time?

Dr. Ford. The Prophecies of Daniel Must End by the First Century A.D.[5]

Dr. Ford Reason: It would be inconsistent to have the prophecies of Daniel extend to the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries if the prophecies of the New Testament (including those of Revelation) do not extend beyond the first century.

Comment: It should be noted that Dr. Ford's interpretation of Mark and of Daniel 8:14 is essentially that of the preterist[6] school of interpretation in his line of thought here.

[Reddogs]

Dr. Ford. The 1260 Days of Daniel 7:25 Find Their First Important Fulfillment Also in the Time of Antiochus Epiphanes Starting With the Destruction of the Temple in 168 B.C. and Ending with Its Restoration in 165 B.C.[11]

Dr. Ford Reasons: According to the preterist school of interpretation, the "little horn" of Daniel 7 and 8 is Antiochus Epiphanes, a view substantiated by the books of I and II Maccabees.

Comment: Because Dr. Ford does not view the year-day principle as having any biblical support, he cannot apply 1260 literal days to the papacy or Roman Catholicism. The papacy's period of dominance is obviously much longer than a literal 3 1/2 years. The 2300 days do not need to be converted into years because the "Day of Atonement" took place only once per year and therefore 2300 days are years automatically just like birthdays.

Dr. Ford. The Judgment Described in Daniel 7:9-14 is Not the Investigative Judgment as SDA's Have Traditionally Interpreted It as Being, but the Judgment of the "Little Horn," Antiochus Epiphanes.[12]

Dr. Ford Reasons:

1. There is a very close link between Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 7.

2. If Daniel 8:14 denotes a work of "vindicating" or "judging," then it refers back to the judgment of the "little horn" in chapter 7 and the vindicating of God's people, the Jews, in the 2nd century B.C.

3. It is unbiblical and theologically unsound to view the judgment of Daniel 7 as applying to the sins of the saints in any sense.

Comment: The main support for point A is found under this very point-Ford's exclusion of Daniel 7 as applicable to a judgment of the saints. Ford here contradicts the Bible which says that the little horn power is seen to continue until the judgment [Daniel 7:11,21,22.]

Dr. Ford. Major Fulfillment of Daniel 8:14 is That of the Antitypical Day of Atonement Beginning at the Cross According to Daniel 9:24-27.[13]

Dr. Ford Reasons:

1. Daniel 9:24-27 is seen as an exact parallel of Daniel 8:14 and provides the inspired interpretation of Daniel 8:14.

2. Daniel 9:24 is packed with Day of Atonement language, using five Hebrew words are also found in Leviticus 16.

3. Daniel 8:14 likewise must refer to the antitypical Day of Atonement and thus finds fulfillment in 1st century A.D.

Comment: The time aspect of 2300-day prophecy has no fulfillment in the life of Christ on earth; therefore, only the cleansing of the sanctuary finds fulfillment then.

Dr. Ford. The Book of Hebrews Teaches That the Antitypical Day of Atonement Was Fulfilled at the Cross.[14]

Dr. Ford Reasons:

1. Hebrews portrays Christ as being in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary in the 1st century A.D.

2. Hebrews does not explicitly mention the heavenly sanctuary as having two apartments; therefore, there cannot be two phases to Christ's work as our high priest in heaven.

Comment: The book of Hebrews abounds with Day of Atonement language and imagery, and thus describes the fulfillment of the antitypical Day of Atonement. Jesus Christ is seen in heaven to continue making reconciliation for sins in Hebrews 2:17 contrary to Ford.

Dr. Ford. The Book of Revelation Supports a 1st Century Fulfillment for the Day of Atonement.[15]

Dr. Ford Reasons:

1. The opening verse of Revelation states that this book is a revelation (literally, "unveiling") of "what must soon take place." The word "soon" denotes the 1st century A.D.

2. Revelation has several prophecies which utilize Day of Atonement imagery; therefore, the antitypical Day of Atonement was fulfilled in the 1st century.

Comment: The book of Revelation would then have to be interpreted from the standpoint of the preterist school of interpretation.

[Reddogs]

The whole thrust of the Glacier View manuscript on Daniel 8:14 is to dispel what Dr. Ford feels is the myth of the investigative judgment. For him the investigative judgment has no basis in history, in theology, in the Bible, or in the re-interpreted writings of Ellen White. For him the investigative judgment is an enemy to the Seventh-day Adventist, because it robs him of the peace introduced into the heart through the message of justification by faith. If we are justified, then we need not face the judgment, according to Dr. Ford's thinking. The quickest way to dispense of the idea of a pre-advent judgment commencing in 1844 is to usher in the preterist approach to prophetic interpretation. In my analysis Dr. Ford is a preterist wearing the hat of a historicist and the cloak of a futurist. The hat and cloak are mere "trimmings" and can be laid aside or taken up at will or in a moment's whim.

Dr. Ford's doctoral dissertation, The Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology, which he wrote while at Manchester University in 1971-2, reveals the truly preterist position of his theology and especially his eschatology.

[Kevin H]

Actually these are PARTS of the facts. the problem with this information is that it is slanted to give Ford worst name. While the problem is touched on in the phrase that he is basically a preterist who wears the hat of a historicist, and the cloak of a futurist, this is still an unfair picture.

What Ford is can be best described as uncommitted. He tries to agree with all 3 camps equally. He is not basically one or another of the 3. You could build an equal argument that he is basically a futurist wearing the hat of a preterist and the cloak of a historisist. Or you can again twist the facts to make a 3rd lie about him that he is basically a historisist wearing the hat of a futurist and the cloak of a preterist.

The fact twister who's article you are quoting from Reddogs does indeed have the facts. The problem is that he is twisting them to make Ford look the worst that he can.

The problem with Preterism is that it stops there. Frequently, Preterism is a good starting point to learn the immediate context. (Granted they have the wrong time frame for Daniel). However a lot of people who are atheist or agnostics like to stop there and don't realize that they are dealing with the everlasting word of God who's truths you can cycle around to again and thus apply over history (historism). While it is NOT only atheists who like Preterism because it gives a local fulfillment. They are known for liking this approach. Thus the fact twister wants to take the unfortunate situation of wishy=washy Ford to focus on PART of the facts, to put Ford into one of these camps and the author has chosen to pick the facts that make it look like Ford is in the atheists camp so that he can slander Fords name even more and to let out his satanic venom instead of being a fair and balanced critic.

I am NOT a fan of Dr. Ford's. We can give a lot of true and just criticisms of the man. However there is a difference between a man who has methods that we can question and disagree with, and twisting the facts to demonize him. I would hate to be in that author's shoes when standing before the judgment seat of God.

Ford is equally a preterist, historicist and a futurist in a very confusing way that I do not feel is to his good. But he is NOT to be placed in just one camp and should not be inferred to be an atheist. We should leave assumptions about his relationship with God remain between him and God. Our job is to be fair to the evidence. This author has taken what is indeed facts but has twisted it to paint a picture of a man with whom we can infer does not have a relationship with God. This is unfair. We have enough about Ford that we can justly criticize. We don't need this fact twisting.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

We don't need this fact twisting.

A tool of the weak position!

[JoeMo]

Quote:

We don't need this fact twisting.

Amen. Historicist, preterist, futurist, or combination of the preceding, Dr. Ford is as entitled to his opinions as any of us here on this forum. What the SDA church did to him at Glacier View is equivalent to religious persecution - "recant or be banished".

Whatever anyone says about eschatology is mere speculation(albeit informed speculation)until those prophecies are fulfilled. I agree with Dr. Ford that there is no biblical basis to applying the day-for-year principle to eschatology or for 1844. If there was, where in Revelation do we switch from that to real-time? Or (for example) is the millennium really 360,000 literal years long (following the day-for-year principle)?

[Reddogs]

Actually these are PARTS of the facts. the problem with this information is that it is slanted to give Ford worst name. While the problem is touched on in the phrase that he is basically a preterist who wears the hat of a historicist, and the cloak of a futurist, this is still an unfair picture.

What Ford is can be best described as uncommitted. He tries to agree with all 3 camps equally. He is not basically one or another of the 3. You could build an equal argument that he is basically a futurist wearing the hat of a preterist and the cloak of a historisist. Or you can again twist the facts to make a 3rd lie about him that he is basically a historisist wearing the hat of a futurist and the cloak of a preterist.

The fact twister who's article you are quoting from Reddogs does indeed have the facts. The problem is that he is twisting them to make Ford look the worst that he can.

The problem with Preterism is that it stops there. Frequently, Preterism is a good starting point to learn the immediate context. (Granted they have the wrong time frame for Daniel). However a lot of people who are atheist or agnostics like to stop there and don't realize that they are dealing with the everlasting word of God who's truths you can cycle around to again and thus apply over history (historism). While it is NOT only atheists who like Preterism because it gives a local fulfillment. They are known for liking this approach. Thus the fact twister wants to take the unfortunate situation of wishy=washy Ford to focus on PART of the facts, to put Ford into one of these camps and the author has chosen to pick the facts that make it look like Ford is in the atheists camp so that he can slander Fords name even more and to let out his satanic venom instead of being a fair and balanced critic.

I am NOT a fan of Dr. Ford's. We can give a lot of true and just criticisms of the man. However there is a difference between a man who has methods that we can question and disagree with, and twisting the facts to demonize him. I would hate to be in that author's shoes when standing before the judgment seat of God.

Ford is equally a preterist, historicist and a futurist in a very confusing way that I do not feel is to his good. But he is NOT to be placed in just one camp and should not be inferred to be an atheist. We should leave assumptions about his relationship with God remain between him and God. Our job is to be fair to the evidence. This author has taken what is indeed facts but has twisted it to paint a picture of a man with whom we can infer does not have a relationship with God. This is unfair. We have enough about Ford that we can justly criticize. We don't need this fact twisting.

They are from his own words from his writings and books, so you have to go there and see what he means and where it comes from.

[Gail]

I am NOT a fan of Dr. Ford's. We can give a lot of true and just criticisms of the man. However there is a difference between a man who has methods that we can question and disagree with, and twisting the facts to demonize him. I would hate to be in that author's shoes when standing before the judgment seat of God.

Ford is equally a preterist, historicist and a futurist in a very confusing way that I do not feel is to his good. But he is NOT to be placed in just one camp and should not be inferred to be an atheist. We should leave assumptions about his relationship with God remain between him and God. Our job is to be fair to the evidence. This author has taken what is indeed facts but has twisted it to paint a picture of a man with whom we can infer does not have a relationship with God. This is unfair. We have enough about Ford that we can justly criticize. We don't need this fact twisting.

IOW I wonder how he would like to be treated thus?

[Reddogs]

Quote:

We don't need this fact twisting.

Amen. Historicist, preterist, futurist, or combination of the preceding, Dr. Ford is as entitled to his opinions as any of us here on this forum. What the SDA church did to him at Glacier View is equivalent to religious persecution - "recant or be banished".

Whatever anyone says about eschatology is mere speculation(albeit informed speculation)until those prophecies are fulfilled. I agree with Dr. Ford that there is no biblical basis to applying the day-for-year principle to eschatology or for 1844. If there was, where in Revelation do we switch from that to real-time? Or (for example) is the millennium really 360,000 literal years long (following the day-for-year principle)?

Well lets take a even closer look at the 3 views:

1) The Preterist view of biblical prophecy which sees most of the prophecies being fulfilled in the past in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the pagan Roman Empire and stops.

2) The Futurist view of biblical prophecy which sees most of the prophecies in Revelation as applying to events yet future.

3) The Historicist view of biblical prophecy which sees the book of Revelation as largely predictive of actual events to occur throughout the history of Christianity from the time of John until the return of Jesus Christ.

The Historicist School contained the viewpoint of almost all Protestant Reformers from the Reformation into the 19th century. It is known both the Preterist and Futurist schools were definitely put out by Jesuits in their attempts to divert the overall Protestant application of Daniel's "little horn" prophecy and Revelation's "beast" prediction to the rise and work of Papal Rome along with being the Antichrist power.

Scholars agree that futurism “argues that Revelation looks beyond the first century to the period immediately before the end times. Thus the book was not written for those who received it, but for those living much later. Jesuit scholars after the Reformation refined this approach to prove that current attempts to identify the Pope as the Antichrist could not possibly be true since the Antichrist will not be revealed until far into the future, just before Christ’s Second Coming.

Preterism sees Revelation only in terms of its immediate historical context and so the prophetic value is discount, Revelation is basically described as a short period of the early Christians in the late first century, and its apocalyptic symbols pointed Rome in the time of the Empire having nothing to do with the Papacy.

With Futurism, the biblical prophecy is pushed to the end time so its useless, and say the Antichrist is still to come. But according to Preterism, the Antichrist was in the past also making biblical prophecy of no effect. However, this is not Biblical, and both of these false systems disagree with the Reformers’ belief that the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy is taking place throughout history.

Throughout the Counter Reformation and through the writings of the Jesuits, Preterism and Futurism diverted attention away from prophecies identifying the Roman Church as Babylon and the papal system as the Antichrist.

We have two Jesuits basically taking apart the Historicist view of biblical prophecy by slowly feeding alternate views which began to erode the Reformers Historicist view of biblical prophecy which clearly showed the Papacy as the Beast of Revelation and Little Horn of Daniel.

Jesuit scholar Francisco Ribera started the futurist interpretation by publishing a 500-page commentary on the book of Revelation. Ribera took the last “week” (seven day-years) of the 70-week prophecy of Daniel 9:25, divided it into two 3 ½ year periods, and applied it to a future Antichrist, while avoiding any application to the papal system.

The Catholic church then had others Robert promoted Ribera’s ideas and publish books promoting his views which became the weapons to use against the Reformers Historicist view of biblical prophecy they held.

Then we have a Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Alcazar who published a work on Revelation to refute the Protestant challenge from which developed Preterism. His thesis was the opposite of Ribera's that all the prophecies of Revelation had been fulfilled in the past so that none applied correctly to the Papacy which even a simple plow boy could see. He asserted that Revelation simply described a two-fold war by the church in its victory over the Jewish synagogue on the one hand and Roman paganism on the other. Alcazar applied to the Roman Catholic Church as the New Jerusalem of Revelation, destroying the unbelievers and triumphant.

Slowly these systems of Counter Reformation interpretations began to penetrate Protestant churches. Preterism began to enter Protestantism in the late eighteenth century. The views of the Catholic Futurism, although refuted at first, eventually began to creep into Protestantism during the first quarter of the nineteenth century, and today has overwhelmed them. The false doctrines Futurism brings including that of the Secret Rapture has been picked up and is currently followed in some form by most conservative Protestant bodies.

So centuries after the Reformation, Rome's countermoves to deflect the Reformers' application of the apocalyptic prophecies from Papacy have been successful. The Futurist system of interpretation wipes the Christian era clean of any prophetic significance by removing the whole of the prophecies of Revelation and parts of Daniel to the end of the age for their fulfillment. The Preterist system accomplishes the same objective by relegating the prophecies of both books to the past.

Thus today we see a total lack of understanding of the Biblical prophecies, as for most Protestants and Catholics the Christian era from the sixth century until the end of time stands totally devoid of prophetic significance as far as the books of Daniel and Revelation are concerned.

Seventh-day Adventists still hold to the Reformers historicist view of prophetic interpretation. It is Desmond Ford who has tried to changes our our interpretations of prophecy of the Reformers, not take us back to it or any 'true gospel' but far from it. Adventism has always been committed and held to a historicist system of prophetic interpretation just like the Reformers, which is biblical and it has shown itself to be the correct view if one just takes the time to see what history shows.

[JoeMo]

Hey Reddogs,

I appreciate your persuasive skills and logic; and I do hold out your view of prophecy as an viable alternative. I believe prophecy has applications in all eras, but the actual fulfillment of prophesied events immediately preceding Christ's return is yet to come (obviously; since Christ hasn't come yet).

I also have issues with the day-for-year concept (as did Dr. Ford) and the associated significance of 1844.

Right or wrong, Dr. Ford is very sincere and scholarly in his theories; and said nothing that other open-minded people in Adventism weren't already pondering themselves. He was treated poorly (and IMO unfairly) by the denomination.

[Reddogs]

Hey Reddogs,

I appreciate your persuasive skills and logic; and I do hold out your view of prophecy as an viable alternative. I believe prophecy has applications in all eras, but the actual fulfillment of prophesied events immediately preceding Christ's return is yet to come (obviously; since Christ hasn't come yet).

I also have issues with the day-for-year concept (as did Dr. Ford) and the associated significance of 1844.

Right or wrong, Dr. Ford is very sincere and scholarly in his theories; and said nothing that other open-minded people in Adventism weren't already pondering themselves. He was treated poorly (and IMO unfairly) by the denomination.

Well you can be sincere, and be sincerely wrong. Judas thought he was sincerely acting in what was needed and did what he thought should be done, but we see the consequences. So those who allow Jesuit twisting of the truth, or subtle deception to come into the church, have to bear responsibility and it definitely has consequence's, so cant take it lightly and shrug it off as just a 'difference of opinion' or six/half dozen selection, it can have eternal consequences.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

it can have eternal consequences.

Maybe; maybe not. Maybe trusting in denominational teaching rather than the grace of Jesus Christ has eternal consequences, too.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

....Jesuit twisting of the truth,....

Wouldn't you know it, they done snuck in again...would someone close the door!!!! Thought I felt a breeze!

[JoeMo]

CoAspen,

[Kevin H]

They are from his own words from his writings and books, so you have to go there and see what he means and where it comes from.

Oh, I agree. Like I said the author is using the facts. The problem is you can make a similar case for either of the 3 schools of though. If the author decided to take Ford's words and twist the facts in one direction he could make the case of Ford being a historist. That would make him look like a good Adventist. On the other hand the author can take Ford's words and give them a different twist he can make a case for Ford being a good futurist, that would at least make him look like a member of the Christian community. In picking to make him look like he was a preterist, while being open to include him in the Christian community, it also gives the implication that he might be one who does not believe in the inspiration of the Bible and may even ben an atheist attacking belief in God and the Bible.

Granted, Ford's refusal to commit to any of these schools and being overly agreeable with THE TRADITIONAL APPLICATIONS of them. Saying that the preterist are right, that we historisists are right and the futurists are also right, has him setting himself up for this situation. But this is an attack not on his issues, but an attack on him to imply that Ford may just be an unbeliever, a wolf in sheep's clothing to deceive us. This is unkind to do. We can argue the issues, but let's leave the man's relationship with God as an issue between him and God. Especially since the evidence is that he does not commit to any of the 3 schools but tries to be agreeable to all of them, and you have to give only part of the facts to try to place him in one group.

It is the fact that he is slandering Ford's personhood that bothers me. Ford's ideas gives us a wonderful battlefield that we can freely and honestly attack with integrity and focus on the issues and protect his personhood. Let's go after the fair topics and discuss the issues.

[Kountzer]

jon paulien is a pretirist as well.

[Gregory Matthews]

In actual fact, the preterist view of prophecy did not begin with a Roman Catholic Jesuit. Rather it began much earlier with Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 263–339), In his THEOPHANI.

Robert Townley (1845) played a major role in bringing this idea to America with his publication of: THE 2ND ADVENT OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST: A PAST EVENT.

The view that the 2nd Advent occurred in the 1st Cent. is the view of those who fully accept the preterist view of prophecy. I do not suggest that Reddogs would propose such a view. This would clearly suggest that even if Dr. Ford had some aspects of the preterist viewpoint in his understanding of prophecy, he was not fully there. As I understand Reddogs, he would agree with that.

I would also say that there are aspects of the preterist viewpoint in traditional SDA theology, even though we do that the historical position.

So now the question becomes: To what extent was Dr. Ford a preterist and how important is that. Dr. Ford was human. His understanding contained both truth and error as does all of us.

[Reddogs]

Originally Posted By: Kevin

I am NOT a fan of Dr. Ford's. We can give a lot of true and just criticisms of the man. However there is a difference between a man who has methods that we can question and disagree with, and twisting the facts to demonize him. I would hate to be in that author's shoes when standing before the judgment seat of God.

Ford is equally a preterist, historicist and a futurist in a very confusing way that I do not feel is to his good. But he is NOT to be placed in just one camp and should not be inferred to be an atheist. We should leave assumptions about his relationship with God remain between him and God. Our job is to be fair to the evidence. This author has taken what is indeed facts but has twisted it to paint a picture of a man with whom we can infer does not have a relationship with God. This is unfair. We have enough about Ford that we can justly criticize. We don't need this fact twisting.

IOW I wonder how he would like to be treated thus?

We all must stand and answer for what we did or wrote, and even if Desmond Ford is a charismatic and likeable fellow, we cant allow truth to be changed on that basis.

[Myron]

Quote:

We all must stand and answer for what we did or wrote, and even if Desmond Ford is a charismatic and likeable fellow, we cant allow truth to be changed on that basis.

Yes, we must all stand to answer for all that we did or wrote, including posting someone else's disinformation and twists of facts -- especially those we add to and insist on maintaining once the error has been repeatedly pointed out to us.

SDAs fail to acknowledge the prophecy found in Ezekiel 14:1-11 because it does not fit into their theology, but they would be wise to study it and take it to heart. If we understood the concept of idols of the heart taught here and how God uses them we might be a little bit more careful about falling prey to them or ignoring their presence when others call them to our attention.

Spinning someone else's words to make them say what we want them to say is false witness just as surely as making up words and attributing them to that person when they never said such words. So the spin is a lie. When we reiterate that they are Ford's words, even when the twist and spin is pointed out and proven, simply continues the lie. Criticizing others for pointing out this idol to us and telling them they can't allow the truth to be changed only adds to the sin. There was a reason Jesus told us to remove the plank from our own eye before attempting to remove the mote from our brother's eye.

Since Ford is discredited by the denomination I really don't see why this should be such a great issue to you, Reddogs. Most SDA's will not pay the slightest attention to anything said by a non-SDA. While Ford was not actually disfellowshipped (to my knowledge) the removal of his credentials for not recanting his views essentially made him a pariah in SDA circles, and "real" SDAs do all they can to discredit him or simply ignore him.

Finding an author such as this who is so willing to bear false witness in the matter by spinning Ford's words and/or seeing only those of them that do not disagree with his own idol of the heart, and then supporting his sin and adding to it with your own does not serve the search for truth. Perhaps you should take your own advice, or better still, concentrate on seeking truth, not seeking errors to correct. No one has all the truth and all of us have error to correct but it is God, not you, who is responsible for correcting that error. Our own errors always get in the way and become stumbling blocks to those we are attempting to correct -- Thus Jesus' admonition to those trying to correct their brother's errors.

So, go seek truth, not someone else's errors.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

So, go seek truth, not someone else's errors.

Very good advice Myron - nice post and good advice. Who knows? a little open-minded study might show that Dr. Ford has some good points!

As far as I know, her is a regular (and quiet) member of a small SDA congregation.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Since Ford is discredited by the denomination I really don't see why this should be such a great issue to you, Reddogs. Most SDA's will not pay the slightest attention to anything said by a non-SDA. While Ford was not actually disfellowshipped (to my knowledge) the removal of his credentials for not recanting his views essentially made him a pariah in SDA circles, and "real" SDAs do all they can to discredit him or simply ignore him.

Actually, Dr. Ford has been held in high respect by many SDAs who do not accept certain of his viewpoints.

For many years, he maintained his membership in a large SDA Church.

As to your "Real SDAs" you come across as quite judgmental. Do you believe that you have the authority/ability to classify members into those who are real SDAs and those who are not?

By the way: I reject several of dr. Ford's doctrinal positions.

Asking a question, as I do not know: IS Dr. Ford alive?

[Kevin H]

Amen Gregory, Myron, and JoeMo.

Dr. Ford is a tremendous scholar on Reformation Theology, an a good but out of date scholar on New Testament Theology. If he had stuck to those two fields he would not have had any problems.

Where he justly ran into trouble was speaking with similar authority OUTSIDE of his fields of competence as if he was equally an expert in those fields. He could be likened to as if Dr. Lenard Bailey, the great heart surgeon would decide to just go in and perform brain surgery and getting a bunch of patients saying "Hey, he's a great surgeon what's the big deal?"

We can deal with justified criticisms of Dr. Ford. But we need to be fair. We do not need to slander the man. Reddogs, sticking with the truth has no turned me into a Fordite. I don't think that being honest and fair to the man will suddenly make us turn into a church of Fordites. We can respect what he knows about Luther and the other Calvinists, realize that there are new discoveries of the early church that were unknown in his time of studies and don't hold that he was living in a certain time period against him. But leave the Old Testament to Old Testament scholars, linguists and archaeologists. Leave the Old Testament to people who have studied the language and culture of that period, not someone who is an expert on the theology of the 1500s.

[Reddogs]

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2014‎ ‎12‎:‎19‎:‎59‎, Kevin H said:

Actually these are PARTS of the facts. the problem with this information is that it is slanted to give Ford worst name. While the problem is touched on in the phrase that he is basically a preterist who wears the hat of a historicist, and the cloak of a futurist, this is still an unfair picture.

 

What Ford is can be best described as uncommitted. He tries to agree with all 3 camps equally. He is not basically one or another of the 3. You could build an equal argument that he is basically a futurist wearing the hat of a preterist and the cloak of a historisist. Or you can again twist the facts to make a 3rd lie about him that he is basically a historisist wearing the hat of a futurist and the cloak of a preterist.

 

The fact twister who's article you are quoting from Reddogs does indeed have the facts. The problem is that he is twisting them to make Ford look the worst that he can.

 

The problem with Preterism is that it stops there. Frequently, Preterism is a good starting point to learn the immediate context. (Granted they have the wrong time frame for Daniel). However a lot of people who are atheist or agnostics like to stop there and don't realize that they are dealing with the everlasting word of God who's truths you can cycle around to again and thus apply over history (historism). While it is NOT only atheists who like Preterism because it gives a local fulfillment. They are known for liking this approach. Thus the fact twister wants to take the unfortunate situation of wishy=washy Ford to focus on PART of the facts, to put Ford into one of these camps and the author has chosen to pick the facts that make it look like Ford is in the atheists camp so that he can slander Fords name even more and to let out his satanic venom instead of being a fair and balanced critic.

 

I am NOT a fan of Dr. Ford's. We can give a lot of true and just criticisms of the man. However there is a difference between a man who has methods that we can question and disagree with, and twisting the facts to demonize him. I would hate to be in that author's shoes when standing before the judgment seat of God.

 

Ford is equally a preterist, historicist and a futurist in a very confusing way that I do not feel is to his good. But he is NOT to be placed in just one camp and should not be inferred to be an atheist. We should leave assumptions about his relationship with God remain between him and God. Our job is to be fair to the evidence. This author has taken what is indeed facts but has twisted it to paint a picture of a man with whom we can infer does not have a relationship with God. This is unfair. We have enough about Ford that we can justly criticize. We don't need this fact twisting.

Desmond Ford has been brought down by his own words, no one twisted them, and they are out there for all to see.. and what great light did it bring to the church, that is the real question....