Desmond Ford 's Talk on Forensic Atonement At Loma Linda

[Woody]

How many of you heard Dr. Ford's talk on "The Theory of the Forensic Atonement in Light of the Christian Gospel in a packed Adventist Church, the Loma Linda Campus Hill Church in Loma Linda, California. And at the second talk, presented in the evening, which was entitled "This I Believe." ???

AT describes the following: "Following dialogue among Dr. Ford, the moderator, and the responders, a series of written questions from the audience were addressed. It was just a matter of time until Glacier View was brought up. The audience question asked whether the General Conference of the Adventist Church had ever apologized for controversially expelling him from ministry and teaching in the Adventist church in 1980 following his critique of the investigative judgment doctrine. Dr. Ford responded that the Catholic Church has made many apologies, but the Adventist Church does not apologize."

This brings up an important issue ... Does the Adventist Church issue apologizes for errors they make?

[delta]

How about yourself?

[fccool]

The important thing to remember is that we view things from only one perspective we can... and it's our perspective. I'm sure that in our own mind we are right... that's the position that we assume.

Life would kind of be uncertain if we are living assuming that we are wrong. Now multiply this by ten when you are dealing with religious hierarchy. I don't think they would be in the position that they are by admitting their wrongs, and that's the unfortunate truth. We don't see many modern "Confessions" by modern st. Augustines... because we are living in a culture where we constantly have to "market ourselves" by presenting ourselves in a better light than we are.

If it's true for ordinary people like you and I, I don't think it's any less true when it comes to church leaders, who are ordinary people in important positions.

I understand Ford's bitter feelings... yet would you expect any different? Would you expect the church agree with one scholar discarding a hundred years of the traditional teachings of a prophet? I would not expect this to happen, whether he was right or wrong... which to me only time will tell.

I don't find the idea behind the investigative judgment to be so important that we bicker about it, instead of spending that valuable time of finding new and creative ways of introducing people to God.

[rush4hire]

Desmond Ford wants an apology. Good one. I want an apology from Desmond Ford for perverting the gospel of Christ and for leading people into the darkness of New Theology. Because of him and his protégé, Jack Sequeira, my brethren have been seduced and now they go about like Krishna Hindus who think they have found enlightenment. They think they have found a shortcut to understand things and to being ahead of the game. They think they see things more clearly than everyone else, and now they have a sense of purpose to "enlighten" the whole SDA church, when really they are being led by seducing spirits.

They could be building on the foundation already set, but instead, they entice people to their own new foundation. They could be focusing their time and attention on getting the message that we have, to the world, but instead they are trying to concoct a new message and they are forever focused on Adventists, not the world. They dwell in darkness, and instead of coming to the light, just keep coming up with more and more absurd new interpretations that only mangle and mutilate every doctrine of Christianity.

[color:#BF0000]Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

1 Tim. 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Did people come up with New Theology? No. It comes from the Devil. How do we know? Motive. It is the Devil that wants us to sin, and this doctrine teaches that we can't escape from the hold of sin, so now we can breath a sigh of relief and just give in to temptation instead of fighting it. That's not the work of Jesus.

...Others He met who were fighting a hand-to-hand battle with the adversary of souls. These He encouraged to persevere, assuring them that they would win; for angels of God were on their side, and would give them the victory... {DA 91.1}

If the Lord starts casting out devils in the church now, we would discover them to be demoniacs who are seduced by New Theology.

[olger]

Some good points Sir.

[Beryl]

I was in the same graduation class as Des. At that time of his life he was a great speaker. When it was announced that Des had worship (or any other meeting), the students would flock to it. He taught the message that we have always believed -- and he put it in simple terms. We all knew that Des had a wonderful future ahead of him.

Des married -- but it was not too many years down the track that his wife passed away. I had lost personal touch with him at that stage. He later remarried, and it seemed to me that it was not that long afterwards that he seemed to go "off the track" and preach false doctrine. He seems to have turned his back on teachings, such as the "day for a year" principle in interpreting prophecy -- a principle that has been proved to be correct. And that was only the beginning of his false teachings. He turned his back on the Spirit of Prophecy.

No, the church has nothing to apologise about to Des. Des has turned his back on truth, and taken many of his college colleagues with him. Some have come back to the church, but not to ministry. This Division is still recovering from the effects of Des.

He is now in his eighties, so he is not likely to admit his mistake -- it appears that the devil is still using him to draw souls sway from the truth. That is sad -- but we owe him no apology!!

Beryl

[olger]

Thanks for the insight, Beryl. I appreciate it.

[John317]

I agree with that, Beryl. I've studied Des's books and used to believe in a lot that he taught. I left PUC for LLU shortly before he began to teach at PUC.

He confused a lot of people about the Investigative Judgment and caused many to lose faith in Ellen White and to drop out of the church. For me, it doesn't seem like good fruit.

[Neil D]

In Des' defense, and I am not saying that I agree with all that he has said, I wll say that he did much to shake up the established theology of the time. And to firm foundations and clarify some.

Something that many of you have seem to forget....

PS- I was there. I saw what happened...and the church treated Des pretty badly..and it does owe him an appology for treating him badly.

[Woody]

Thanks Neil.

As Mrs. White says ... Those who have the truth need not fear investigation.

[Jeannieb43]

For what it's worth, this is my exposure to Desmond Ford:

1. My son was in his religion class at PUC and appreciated his teachings a great deal. They were not "off-center" or reactionary in any way. [My son was a chemistry major, not a theologian.]

2. I heard Dr. Ford speak in person at an Adventist weekend conference in Monterey, CA almost two years ago. He spoke three times over that weekend. Although I personally found it difficult to understand his strong accent, I felt he was totally sincere in his message. He did say "The Catholic church has apologized, but the Adventist church never has" (as someone here mentioned). But it wasn't said in a disparaging manner.

3. His theology didn't offend me in the least. I don't know whether he even mentioned the year-day principle. However, he did say the 2300-day prophecy does not prove what we were formerly taught to believe. Actually, that did not shake my faith in any way, because I don't worry about when Christ will "begin" the investigative judgment. [i actually believe God doesn't need years and years to review and judge the actions of those on this earth. He can do it instantaneously. The only reason I think God has a "Judgment" process is to bring all of us into an understanding of why our loved ones are (or are not) saved in heaven.]

4. I was impressed with his sincere Christian attitude. He never spoke ill of the Adventist brethren in any way. He emphasized that he is still, currently (and always has been) a member of the Adventist Church in Australia [i forget what local church he's a member of].

5. I heard Dr. Ray Cottrell speak at an Adventist Forum meeting a few years ago; he said the Adventist church owes Desmond Ford a huge apology for the Glacier View fiasco.

[John317]

Thanks Neil.

As Mrs. White says ... Those who have the truth need not fear investigation.

This is very true. Ellen White also said that the Lord allows false doctrines to enter into the church in order to get people to study the Bible and dig for truth as for hidden treasure.

Every generation, and every individual, of the Seventh-day Adventist Church must study the truth out for himself personally and prove whether the doctrines are true or not. This applies, particularly, to the Investigative Judgment and the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, but includes all the other Bible doctrines.

However, once a pastor or teacher is convinced that the church's doctrines are false, they should realize they cannot be paid by the church to attack the fundamental doctrines of the church.

I do not see why the church owes Dr. Ford an apology any more than the church owed A.F. Ballenger an apology for teaching basically the same false doctrines.

[John317]

3. His theology didn't offend me in the least. I don't know whether he even mentioned the year-day principle. However, he did say the 2300-day prophecy does not prove what we were formerly taught to believe. Actually, that did not shake my faith in any way, because I don't worry about when Christ will "begin" the investigative judgment. [i actually believe God doesn't need years and years to review and judge the actions of those on this earth. He can do it instantaneously. The only reason I think God has a "Judgment" process is to bring all of us into an understanding of why our loved ones are (or are not) saved in heaven.]

Dr. Ford does not believe in any Investigative Judgment at all.

You may be confusing the Investigative Judgment with the judgment that occurs during the millennium following Christ's Second Coming. The IJ is often also called the Pre-Advent Judgment, which, as the name implies, occurs prior to the Second Coming. According the Spirit of prophecy and Seventh-day Adventists, this Pre-Advent Judgment commenced in 1844 and will continue until the end of human probation just before the falling of the seven last plagues. The 2300 day prophecy of Daniel 8: 14 and the Investigative Judgment are at the very core of the reason for the existence of the Seventh-day Adventist church. We wouldn't exist as a separate entity without it, and it explains the urgency of our message, as well as the importance of such truths as the Sabbath.

The "'Judgment' process" you speak of is the judgment that takes place during the millennium, not the Investigative Judgment. The millennium judgment is when we will look over the life records of people who are not saved for the purpose of understanding all of God's dealings with the human family, to clear up any questions we might have concerning His fairness and justice with regard to those who are lost.

Dr. Ford believes in this judgment. The judgment he rejects is that which precedes the Second Coming and which our church teaches is going on right now.

His reasoning for rejecting it is basically four-fold:

1) Ford says Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in heaven as soon as He ascended to heaven in 31 AD.

2) Ford says that God has nothing to learn from the Investigative Judgment and therefore it is unnecessary.

3) Ford says that Christians do not come under judgment.

4) In Ford's view, Ellen White was simply wrong in what she wrote about the Investigative Judgment, a central doctrine of the church and of her writings. Yet Ford continues to champion Ellen White as a true prophet of God.

[Nan]

For what it's worth, this is my exposure to Desmond Ford:

Although I personally found it difficult to understand his strong accent, I felt he was totally sincere in his message. .

My experience of Dr Ford's preaching is similar to Jeannie's, I have heard him on quite a few occasions but the last was about 5 years ago.

What does concern me in Jeannie's statement is her description of his 'strong accent'. :smile: He does NOT have a strong Australian accent, compared to many......I hope you could understan me, if we met, Jeannie.

[rush4hire]

1) Ford says Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in heaven as soon as He ascended to heaven in 31 AD.

2) Ford says that God has nothing to learn from the Investigative Judgment and therefore it is unnecessary.

3) Ford says that Christians do not come under judgment.

4) Ellen White was simply wrong in what she wrote about the Investigative Judgment, a central doctrine of the church and of her writings. Yet Ford continues to champion Ellen White as a true prophet of God.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

1) Ford says Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in heaven as soon as He ascended to heaven in 31 AD.

2) Ford says that God has nothing to learn from the Investigative Judgment and therefore it is unnecessary.

3) Ford says that Christians do not come under judgment.

4) Ellen White was simply wrong in what she wrote about the Investigative Judgment, a central doctrine of the church and of her writings. Yet Ford continues to champion Ellen White as a true prophet of God.

Thanks. That's helpful information. Assuming it's true. Do you have a reference, by chance? Is this just common knowledge?

What I've given you is from his writings on the subject of the sanctuary. It is fairly common knowledge among those who study Dr. Ford's theology and ideas. There are things online he wrote which you can access and read.

Originally Posted By: John317

However, once a pastor or teacher is convinced that the church's doctrines are false, they should realize they cannot be paid by the church to attack the fundamental doctrines of the church.

Quote:

I was under the impression that Jack Sequeira was good friends with many in the conference and is still on the payroll, getting paid from the tithe. Is this true or not?

They way I see it, Desmond Ford and Jack Sequeira are like Billy the Kid and Jesse James...

Of course, as you probably know, Dr. Ford and Jack Sequeira have different theologies, although they do agree on some key aspects of righteousness by faith. Jack S. does not reject the Investigative Judgment. I've read a few of Sequeira's books but I am not up on his current status or relationship with the church.

[Woody]

I know little about either Ford or Sequeira ... but what I have seen I like. They are both very Gospel centered with love and tolerance. They are not dogmatic or extremists like some of my fellow conservatives.

[John317]

Have you read their books?

If so, what do you think of one or two of them? How do the views of Sequeira differ from Ford's?

[Woody]

I haven't. Like I said ... I know little about either of them. But what I have seen is that they both agree on the important issues. They ... like most people ... will disagree on minor issues ... but the Gospel is central. And that is what I focus on. Do they have a grasp on what is important?

[Jeannieb43]

Originally Posted By: Jeannieb43

For what it's worth, this is my exposure to Desmond Ford:

Although I personally found it difficult to understand his strong accent, I felt he was totally sincere in his message. .

My experience of Dr Ford's preaching is similar to Jeannie's, I have heard him on quite a few occasions but the last was about 5 years ago.

What does concern me in Jeannie's statement is her description of his 'strong accent'. :smile: He does NOT have a strong Australian accent, compared to many......I hope you could understan me, if we met, Jeannie.

LOL, Nan. I'm sure we'd understand each other! You and I are on the same wavelength!

[melvin mccarty]

Do you think it is just possible that too much importance may be attached to some of the "fundamentals" Is some of it just to justify our existence?

mel

[John317]

Which of the Seventh-day Adventist fundamental doctrines do you seriously question or think should be jettisoned?

Are you familiar with what are called "the pillars of our faith"? Are you solidly in support of those?

Either way, would you like to explain what you think?

[melvin mccarty]

Am I to conclude that your answer to my questions is "no"

mel

[John317]

It would be good to know what you have in mind and why. I have no idea what "fundamentals" you are talking about or why you think they are a problem.

[Nan]

Originally Posted By: Nan

My experience of Dr Ford's preaching is similar to Jeannie's, I have heard him on quite a few occasions but the last was about 5 years ago.

What does concern me in Jeannie's statement is her description of his 'strong accent'. :smile: He does NOT have a strong Australian accent, compared to many......I hope you could understan me, if we met, Jeannie. [/quote']

LOL, Nan. I'm sure we'd understand each other! You and I are on the same wavelength!

Definitely no problem in here, Jeannie - and I guess we had better let this thread return to its original intent!