What about desmond ford?

[Guest truthseeker007]

Are there any people with knowledge of Desmond Ford?

In the 1970's, the SDA church was divided about the definition of the Gospel. While most were actually legalists at that time, there were some that did understand that Sanctification was not salvific. As these two mutually exclusive positions were debated, the leaders came down on the side of legalism, and works, and thus they manipulated the evidence to support this dubious position, claiming that the Investigative Judgment had the full approval of the Pioneers had thus the debate was settled.

But Dr. Ford disagreed and correctly declared that not only is the IJ not a valid New Covenant doctrine, it was not a fundamental Pillar in the 1st Angels Message as the leaders had claimed. It was not a defining or correct doctrine from Historic Adventism as many were claiming.

Dr. Ford's primary argument was that the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment was false and against the Gospel. He also repudiated those that claimed this doctrine was contained in the 1st Angels Messages of Rev 14: 6& 7 and also rejected the claim that the IJ even existed in 1844. In addition, he also strongly repudiated the position of the White Estate and the Conservatives that gave Ellen White's writings doctrinal authority.

Moreover, because Dr. Ford was an honest scholar and not an easily manipulated and controlled apologist, he repudiated many others points and myths that had became a part of SDA theology over the years. When I interviewed Dr. Ford in 2000 for Atoday, he articulated a long list of these theological errors that he challenged. Here is this list:

1. That Daniel 8:14 speaks of 2300 days, yet Daniel 12 repeatedly uses the Hebrew word for days that is not to be found in 8:14. Instead we have the ambiguous "evening-morning" which most apply to the evening and morning burnt offerings. Thus instead of 2300 days, if these exegetes are correct, only 1150 days are in view.)

2. That these 2300 "days" equal 2300 years. (Though it is quite impossible to prove that the year-day principle is a biblical datum, and even if we could, days are not mentioned in either 8:14 or 9:24, so there is no basis to apply the principle in these instances.)

3. That these 2300 years begin centuries before the "little horn" began his attack on the sanctuary. (Though in the context, the 2300 days has been understood by almost all as applying to the length of time the little horn is trampling the sanctuary underfoot and suspending its daily offerings.)

4. That the 2300 years begin at the same time as the seventy weeks. (Though there is Scripture to say so. The Hebrew chathak means "cut" or "decree," and there is no way of proving that the cutting off of the 490 from 2300 is intended.)

5. That it is possible to be certain of the exact year that the seventy weeks begin. (Though exegetes have never been agreed on this point. Is the decree like that of 9:23, a heavenly one from God, or one from an earthly king?)

6. That the decree of Artaxerxes recorded in Ezra 7 has to do with the restoring and building of Jerusalem. (Though there is nothing in Ezra 7 that says this. The context says that this decree, like those of Cyrus and Darius, had to do with the temple. The magistrates were to enforce the temple laws. See Ezra 6:14 which places this decree among the temple decrees.)

7. That the decree of Ezra 7 "went forth" in 457 BC when Ezra had arrived in Jerusalem and set to work. (Though Ezra never says this, and the decree had been announced at least six months earlier. There is nothing in Daniel to say that this decree should be dated from the time of its implementation rather than its enunciation.)

8. That 408 BC was the time when the restoration of the city was completed. (Admitted even by Adventist scholars to be impossible to prove.)

9. That AD 27 was the date of Christ’s baptism. (A similarly difficult feat.)

10. That AD 31 was the date of the crucifixion. (Almost all scholars hold to other years, not this one. Evidence from Grace Amadon’s researches, often used by SDAs, is based on doubtful assumptions, as admitted by the SDA Bible Commentary.)

11. That AD 34 was the date of the gospel going to the gentiles. (Though there is no way of proving that AD 34 was the time of the stoning of Stephen, and Acts 13:46 presents the turning to the gentiles at a much later date.)

12. That the 2300 days end with the beginning of the anti-typical Day of Atonement. (Though the Day of Atonement revolved around the sacrifice for sin, an event which took place about eighteen centuries earlier. The divesting of his glorious robes by the high priest prefigured the incarnation of Christ, which did not take place in 1844. The book of Hebrews clearly applies the Day of Atonement in antitype to Christ’s priestly offering of Himself on Calvary, though the Christian era is included as we wait for our High Priest to come out.)

13. That until this date was reached, Christ was doing that work prefigured by the first apartment outside the veil. (Though Hebrews tells us that the work of that apartment symbolized the ineffectual offerings of the Levitical era when men had restricted access to God, and experienced outward ceremonial cleansing rather than perfection of the conscience.)

14. That the work symbolized by the second apartment of the sanctuary was not to begin till over 1800 years after the cross. (Though Hebrews 9:8, 12, 24, 25; 10:19, 20; 6:19, 20 says that Christ entered "within the veil" at His ascension.) The sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat took place immediately after the shedding.

15. That the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 means the sanctuary in heaven. (Though the context is about the sanctuary on earth).

16. That "cleansed" is an accurate translation in Daniel 8:14. (Though this is certainly not the case.)

17. That the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement was cleansed from defilement occasioned by the confession of sin and ministration of blood. (Though Numbers 19:13, etc., indicate that the sanctuary was defiled when a person sinned, regardless of whether confession was made. In most cases, blood never went into the sanctuary.)

18. That the cleansing of the sanctuary in 8:14 has to do with the sins of the professed believers in Christ. (Though the context has to do with a defilement accomplished by Antichrist, not the host of God’s people who are suffering, not sinning, in the context.)

19. That this cleansing of 8:14 is also found in Daniel 7 in its judgment scene and that the latter also has to do with the investigation of the sins of the saints. (Though again, in Daniel 7, as in 8, it is a wicked power, which is the focus of the judgment.)

20. That Revelation 14:7 has to do with the same Investigative Judgment of the sins of the saints. (Though John never uses the word krisis other than in a negative sense—for unbelievers, and though the very next verse tells us that it is Babylon that endures the judgment, as the later chapters also testify.)

21. That verses like Acts 3:19 point to the Investigative Judgment. (None of such verses studied in context yield any such conclusion.)

22. That much depends upon October 22, 1844, as the beginning of the anti-typical Day of Atonement. (Though October 22, 1844 was not the day observed by contemporary Jews, or even by the majority of Karaites. Neither is there evidence that the baptism of Christ, or the stoning of Stephen took place on the Day of Atonement, which would have been necessary if the 49 years, the 434, 490, and 2300 years are each precise in terminus. In contrast, observe that Ellen G. White could write: "I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843. …Ministers were convinced of the correctness of the positions taken on the prophetic periods" (SG, p. 232). Observe she is talking about the 1843 terminus, not October 22, 1844. Furthermore, she is speaking of periods ending then, not just one period. Miller had over a dozen, including the 6000 years, the seven times, the 1335 days, etc.), and they were all wrong.

Dr. Ford continues to say that "when the SDA Bible Dictionary refers to Daniel 8:14 in its articles on Antichrist and the little horn, it makes no reference to an investigative judgment, but speaks of Daniel 8:14 as pointing to judgment upon the little horn and restoration of true worship."

http://www.adventistreform.com/DrFordInterviewP1.html#Q3

Dr. Ford is the most popular and Gospel focused scholar in the Adventist Community. Although the Conservatives claimed that Dr. Ford was destroying the fundamental doctrines of the SDA church, they did not correctly understand Historic Adventism or the Gospel. Consequently, they failed to realize that he was properly defending the genuine version of the Three Angels Messages as well as the Protestant Gospel that anchors the Adventist Apocalyptic.

In fact, Dr. Ford's position about the Gospel and the Judgment in the 1st Angels Message is correct, even having the full support of the Apostles and the Adventist Pioneers, including Ellen White. Thus Glacier View theology has turned out to be mythical, false, and not credible, having no support from Ellen White as the leaders dishonestly insisted, much less from the Apostles. The Adventist Community has been badly deceived by their leaders about Glacier View theology and this explains why the SDA church is self-destructing today.

Dr. Ford is a world class Protestant scholar, a well-known and published Sabbatarian that specializes in the areas of Prophecy and Eschatology. He should be thanked and applauded for standing up for the Gospel and for defending the historical version of the Three Angels Messages in the face of great persecution and dishonest opposition.

The entire Adventist Community owes Dr. Ford a large debt of gratitude for defending the fundamentals of the Adventist Movement. In addition, he deserves a great apology, as well as restitution, for the wicked manner in which he was treated by the Denomination. There will never be harmony, growth, or unity within the SDA Community until the church repents for how Dr. Ford and the Gospel have been treated. This confused and very dishonest denomination will continue to self-destruct until they confess their sins, repent, and make things right with both heaven and earth.

Glacier View was a shameful exhibition of how false doctrine, incompetence, and church politics were used to manipulate and control a religious organization. Even though the vast majority of scholars and Bible teachers supported Dr. Ford, the leaders viewed his unauthorized and unwelcome challenge to Adventist tradition as a direct challenge to their authority and power. Consequently, his positions were not fairly examined nor honestly assessed, even as he was condemned in a sham trial and exiled from the church.

After more than 25 years, it is clear that Glacier View has turned out to be the worst blunder in modern SDA history. It has been the root cause for a massive church exodus that is still ongoing today and it is absurd for the leaders to continue to pretend otherwise. Over the years, millions of Adventists have reached the conclusion that Dr. Ford's theology is correct while Glacier View is wrong. This explains why the SDA church is so polarized and self-destructing.

The SDA leaders have been acting in a very dishonest and self-serving manner, even as they have been caught misrepresenting the theology of the Pioneers and working against the Gospel. But thanks to Dr. Ford, many of those that once supported the legalistic traditions of the IJ have since reconsidered and repudiated much of what they were taught. And this process of rejecting the IJ, has spread through out the Adventist Community, emptying the SDA churches and creating legions of disillusioned critics that feel betrayed and abused by the Denomination.

In fact, many former SDA's are very angry at the church because they now realize that they have been deceived and manipulated by the Denomination for generations. Subsequently, millions of former SDA's repudiate the bureaucratic organization that promotes so much false doctrine and propaganda. And until the church leaders repent for Glacier View and embrace major theological reform, the SDA church will continue its meltdown and self-destruction for all to see.

[Woody]

Quote:

"When I interviewed Dr. Ford"

Did you actually interview him or is this someone else's material that you copied and pasted?

If it is not your's could you give a reference?

[Guest truthseeker007]

No it was not my own interview. I can t find the site anymore...Sorry mate but maybe you can tell something about this Ford after all..

[Woody]

It is hard to comment on something that I have no idea of the validity of. There is much on the internet. Much of it is just trash with no validity. I don't mean to question what you have pasted here. But without knowing the source ... I have to question it right off the bat. Was this from an Anti-SDA site?

I need to have some perspective of this article.

[Guest truthseeker007]

well the source was not explicitly anti sda, however they are anti sda. I ve got some interview from this guy, he is a smart guy...

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=2...h&plindex=1

[Guest truthseeker007]

Also check out wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_View_controversy

[Gerr]

Are there any people with knowledge of Desmond Ford?

In the 1970's, the SDA church was divided about the definition of the Gospel. While most were actually legalists at that time, there were some that did understand that Sanctification was not salvific. As these two mutually exclusive positions were debated, the leaders came down on the side of legalism, and works, and thus they manipulated the evidence to support this dubious position, claiming that the Investigative Judgment had the full approval of the Pioneers had thus the debate was settled.

But Dr. Ford disagreed and correctly declared that not only is the IJ not a valid New Covenant doctrine, it was not a fundamental Pillar in the 1st Angels Message as the leaders had claimed. It was not a defining or correct doctrine from Historic Adventism as many were claiming.

I respectfully disagree with your statement that Ford "correctly declared that not only is the IJ not a valid New Covenant doctrine...." To me it is one of the clearest of Biblical doctrines. If we did not have this doctrine, we would have to invent it to explain certain things in the plan of salvation.

For starters, here are just 2 questions for you to ponder:

1) Are all believers saved?

2) If not, how does God separate them?

The IJ doctrine has been discussed in this forum several times over the years. But if there is any doubt about it, it may bear discussing it again.

My understanding is that the prophetic gift in the SDA church was not given to establish doctrine. The history of the early SDA church shows that the early pioneers studied the Scriptures, had Bible conferences and thrashed out the doctrines of the church. Her prophetic gift was confirmatory to what they found, or gave them light or direction when they were stymied or reached an impass.

Gerry

[Guest truthseeker007]

Wasn t the IJ for the universe?so that they could see his judgements are righteous?

Also about Daniel the trempling upon the heavenly sanctuary, does that stand for truth? you know, in the middle ages men went to the priest to confess their sins and placed trust in a man made system so they were shut out from the heavenly sanctuary? After 1798 the bible started to spread, the sanctuary was justified again so the people had acces again to God? something like that...So there was not really a cleansing of the sanctuary but rather a restoring of truth that gave acces to the heavenly sanctuary. This is very confusing because some say that in Hebrews 9 Jesus went to the most holy while others say he went to the holy...i am all mixed up now...

[John317]

Your post makes it look as if Dr. Ford is right in his theological viewpoints, and that is very debatable indeed. He is right in some, of course, but he is also wrong on some. There are certainly many good books, and much evidence, written to show that he is in error on a number of key issues, and therefore it would be preferable and fairer to present his views as those of Dr. Ford and of those who follow him rather than as "the truth."

I am open to his teachings and have read much of his material, but to present his teachings as something that has corrected a lot of errors in the church, is simply not true. For instance, there are many good books on the Investigative Judgment that show the Bible evidence for the SDA church's historical position, and these deserve to be considered, especially in view of the fact that Dr. Ford and his followers have never been able to refute them.

I enjoy reading both sides of these issues and simply think that neither side should have its views and interpretations swept aside as if they have nothing true to contribute or as if the questions have been once for all settled.

For instance, see the following:

http://investigativejudgmentgospel.org/My_Homepage_Files/Page5.html

http://www.revivalsermons.org/forums/index.php?action=search2

http://investigativejudgmentgospel.org/My_Homepage_Files/Page1.html

[Guest truthseeker007]

It was copied paste John. However i believe that Desmond Ford is very intelligent and i am very suspicious to a lot of adventists because they willingly refuse to open themselves for a fair examination of their beliefs. I think that God has given his message to the wrong kind of people. If i ever decide to conclude that the SDA church has the truth i am going to do something about it. I am going to introduce brotherly love into the church, that was what the philadelphia episode stands for and Jesus was very positive about that.

[John317]

Thanks for posting it and giving people the opportunity to consider those issues. We do need to think them through for ourselves. I simply would not want to give the impression that Dr. Ford's views are the last word and testament on the subject of the Investigative Judgment.

I believe that knowing and understanding truth does not depend so much on intelligence and IQ as it does on willingness to be taught and guided by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise we would have to agree with the Catholic viewpoint that only the professional clergy have the ability to teach. The truth as it is in Jesus can be understood by the simplest and least uneducated person provided he has a desire to be taught of God through His word.

"Where is the wise man (the philosopher)? Where is the scribe (the scholar)? Where is the investigator (the logician, the debater) of this present time and age? Has not God shown up the nonsense and the folly of this world's wisdom?"

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

[Guest truthseeker007]

yeah you are right about that, but i am saying to myself, "if even the greatest sda theologians cannot agree on fundamental beliefs, then how should a normal person be able to find out the truth?" Actually i get angry about this. I wished God would have given us more light on his word...

[John317]

I hear what you are saying. It would be good from the human viewpoint if God had made everything so plain that there would be no room for disagreement-- no way anyone could misunderstand the message.

[Guest truthseeker007]

yeah i wished he had done that. then at least there wouldn t be any people lost because they didn t have the chance to find out the truth and only those who willingly denied God were going to be lost. I think that that type of policy would be more righteously.

[aldona]

Do you really believe that people will be lost for not having the right facts, for not mentally assenting to the correct information?

Is this not the same as Gnosticism, in which people are saved by the knowledge they possess?

Isn't WHO we know (Jesus, who is the Truth and the Word) more important than WHAT we know?

I was only a child when the whole Desmond Ford thing blew up so I'm not going to comment on that, but I wish that we as a denomination could let go of our need to be RIGHT all of the time.

aldona

[John317]

I think you're right, Aldona. I don't believe anyone will be lost for a lack of knowledge of things they had no opportunity of knowing. I think that if anyone truly wants to be in heaven or on the new earth, and they put all of their trust in Christ, they will be there.

God is FOR us, not against us. He wants to see us saved, not lost.

[fccool]

Exactly, John. That's why I think that this bickering is trivial at best! People ask me how do I know that Sunday keeping is the Mark of the Beast. I tell them the truth that I don't know for sure... that's why faith is faith. I believe that it will be, and there are good indicators that it will be, but do I know 100% for sure? Of course not! If I knew these things for sure, then the word faith should be dropped from our dictionary. It's not a matter of what Desmond Ford said, or what Mrs. White wrote... it's a matter what I believe. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, and I doubt you can find 2 people that agree perfectly on everything.

I've had a battle in the classes with my theology professors on these subjects of "knowing things". They would give the "proofs" that ressurection really happened. And these were laughable to me, because they would give the coincidences and circular evidence as a "proof". If you have never heard these... here are some of these.

1) The grave was empty (Biblical circular refference)

2) Disciples lives drastically changed and they were willing to die for their beliefs (there are many loonatic cults that exibited these qualities throughout the history... )

3) Many people saw Jesus alive (cited from the Bible... circular refference)

4) Jesus' death and ressurection was clearly predicted ( Predictions can be "fullfilled" once you know what was predicted)

I'm not trying to undermine anyone's faith here, but only to show that people have good reason's not to believe and believeing without having much evidence is very difficult thing to do. If we did have factual... beyond disproof ... evidence, then it would not be faith at all. It would be a procedural science.

Think about it... there were thousands of people who saw the Red Sea parted and the food from Heaven falling (as Bible records), yet they did not believe even after seeing acts of God firsthand. They turn around and they build an Idol and worship it. Proof and firsthand experience of truth does not mean that people will except it an follow it.

Faith may not make much sence to the people who always are looking for evidence that can not be disproved. But eventually all of us will run into a couple of epistomological paradoxes when dealing with the issue of "knowledge that can not be proved otherwise".

That's why Bible speaks of knowledge through faith... and not the epistemic knowledge. There are many trivial things IMO that are not worth knowing... because these are disputable and impossible of knowing for sure. You simply can not... unless God himself will come down and explain it to you crystal clear. That's why I choose to base my faith not on those disputable things, but on those that I consider to be undisputable for me. I.E. Existanse of God, nature and the Bible being revelations of God to us. That, as John pointed out, God desires us to live a certain way, but he does not force us to do so and leaves us with choices to make and expeciences to experience. Many other things are simply reading between the lines that split people into endless bickering over "disputable things", which will matter very little in the end. What will matter in the end in Jesus' own words...

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'

Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'

Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

So you see, being a Christian (literally ...little Christ... son of God) is not how much factual knowledge that you know or you don't for sure. It is how you treat other people based on that knowledge. Gospel God and people centered, as sin is self centered.

[Gerr]

Are you saying that faith is believing what ain't so?

Gerry

[lazarus]

The interesting thing about Ford is that despite an official rejection of his positions a lot of SDA clergy accept his analysis but they will not say so in public.

When I asked one of my professors his positon he simply said, "you don't expect me to answer that do you?" Obviously, my evidence is anecdotal but many Adventist pastors simply do not preach/ teach some traditional adventist doctrines, e.g. IJ, sanctuary doctrine, etc. There has simply been a gentle informal self-editing.

some years ago, I asked a number (about 10) of my colleagues about whether they believed the sanctuary doctrine and the IJ. I didn't find one who had total faith in those positions of the church.

[Woody]

An analogy would be the US govenment. We are all members. But we do not all believe in everything that the government believes , says , and does. The church is a democracy. Over time ... I hope the church will move in my direction a little more. At least I can hope. Soon for example I expect to see that we will all be equal in the sight of the church.

[Gerr]

The interesting thing about Ford is that despite an official rejection of his positions a lot of SDA clergy accept his analysis but they will not say so in public.

When I asked one of my professors his positon he simply said, "you don't expect me to answer that do you?" Obviously, my evidence is anecdotal but many Adventist pastors simply do not preach/ teach some traditional adventist doctrines, e.g. IJ, sanctuary doctrine, etc. There has simply been a gentle informal self-editing.

some years ago, I asked a number (about 10) of my colleagues about whether they believed the sanctuary doctrine and the IJ. I didn't find one who had total faith in those positions of the church.

If they won't, I certainly will! And what's YOUR position? Or are you afraid to declare it because your paycheck is at risk?

Gerry

[John317]

The interesting thing about Ford is that despite an official rejection of his positions a lot of SDA clergy accept his analysis but they will not say so in public.

As you probably know, one reason for this is that there have been SDA ministers who have lost their credential or licenses because someone thought they did not believe in those doctrines. I think it's important for SDA clergy to believe in the church's doctrines, but they shouldn't lose their work in the ministry without a full and complete hearing, and after they have had a lot of time to think through the issues. Unfortunately there have been some who have been removed simply because someone in a position of power and influence has determined that they believe in a certain way. I don't think this is usually the way it happens, but it has happened enough that it makes people afraid to let it be known exactly what they think on some questions.

Not all, however, are afraid to tell what they think. I once did a survey of all the churches in my area, and one of the pastors told me by phone that he didn't accept the church's view on the sanctuary. This was at the Loma Linda Hill Church.

[olger]

Ford was defrocked for insisting upon multiple fulfillments of one-time prophecies, according to Hans LaRondelle. Hans told me this in 1994.

Venden said he ate lunch with Desmond Ford for two years and became convinced that there was something wrong with the man's theology, but couldn't put his finger on it right away. He said after two years it came to him - Ford was afraid of the judgement, and it colored his theology accordingly. Venden said this in June of 1992. At the same meeting, Venden also opposed Richard Fredericks who was an early fruit of Ford's theology. Fredericks continued his path out of the church into Sunday Worship.

I like Richard & Sally (the wife & I had lunch with Sally once), but could not agree with his theology.

oG

[lazarus]

If they won't, I certainly will!

Is it because YOUR pay-check is NOT at risk!

Quote:

And what's YOUR position?

LoL, I knew someone would want me to declare myself. Guess!

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

If they won't, I certainly will!

Is it because YOUR pay-check is NOT at risk!

Quote:

And what's YOUR position?

LoL, I knew someone would want me to declare myself. Guess!

CHICKEN! I understand!

Gerry