Has the damage from Desmond Ford subsided?

[Reddogs]

I was trying to find the lastest on Desmond Ford and it seems they are trying to paint a picture of him as a loyal Adventist who the church beauracracy defrocked for little reason. Just to go over what occured, in August 1980, a group of Adventist theologians and administrators convened at Glacier View Ranch in Colorado to examine Desmonds Ford's views. According to sources, he "made the case that Ellen White's 'sanctuary' explication of 1844 no longer stood up in the light of the Bible, and that 'investigative judgment' undercut the whole basis of Protestantism: belief in salvation by God's grace apart from good works." The culmination of this event was Ford controversially losing his employment with the denomination as a minister and theology professor. After counsel from the General Conference, the Australasian Division withdrew Ford's ministerial credentials. Subsequently many supporters of Desmond Ford and his views left the church, and some became the most bitter opponents of Adventism as one can see on many websites. But lately it seems that in the Adventist churches there is very little of his views or controversy still being debated, rarely does it come up and few pastors or church theologians openly support him or his views, and the members have moved on and new church members dont even seem to know of him. What are everyones thoughts?

[John317]

I have mixed feelings and views about this. I used to be a supporter and admirer of Dr. Ford, and I still enjoy reading his very worth-while book on Daniel, but I don't believe he was/is right about the Investigative Judgment. Having said that, I believe the situation could have been handled better and more fairly. In some ways, I believe Dr. Ford did our church a favor by bringing the IJ to our attention and making us study it in order to see what we believe and why we believe it.

I think it's a misaken idea that Dr. Ford's teachings have lost their influence on the SDA church. I believe it is directly due to his teachings that most SDA pastors seldon teach the Investigative Judgment and many in our church either don't undersand it or don't believe in it, and usually it is a combination thereof.

By the way, there's an outstanding book about the IJ, The Silencing of Satan the Gospel In the Investigative Judgment, by Bradley Williams. If interested, it can be ordered or purchased at the ABC. It shows the Bible evidence for the IJ and is probably the best book of its kind. It proves Dr. Ford's thesis is wrong that the IJ is not biblical. Williams also shows that, when rightly understood, the IJ does not undercut the gospel of the grace of Christ. Ford wrote a brief review of the book, but basically ignored its primary significance. If you Google the author's name and title of the book, you should be able to read online Ford's book review as well as a discussion various people had with Brad Williams.

[Neil D]

But lately it seems that in the Adventist churches there is very little of his views or controversy still being debated, rarely does it come up and few pastors or church theologians openly support him or his views, and the members have moved on and new church members dont even seem to know of him. What are everyones thoughts?

If you compare what SDAs were saying before 1970 to what they are saying now in terms of theology, I would say that Ford made a definate contribution to the SDA gospel of redemption. As a whole, the church, since his defrocking, has moved toward his theology on salvation and explaination of salvation by grace and works. This is also a distinct de-emphasis of the sanctuary system and the explination of 1844.

So, what thoughts are you looking for?

[Nan]

Without getting into the theology of Dr Ford, the whole controversy made a lasting impression in

this division. The departures from the ministry left quite a hole for years.

[karl]

Without getting into the theology of Dr Ford, the whole controversy made a lasting impression in

this division. The departures from the ministry left quite a hole for years.

His views are very much being promoted today, especially by members in Australia.

Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary (currently including the Investigative Judgment) is completely unnecessary if Christians have no part to play in salvation.

Salvation is a cooperative work between man and God (Phil 2:12,13.) For the Christian, Christ's ministry in heaven is vital to that cooperative work.

[Dr. Rich]

Yes John317, I tend to agree as I attended these meetings at Glacier View (living at our Ranch just a mile away). Looking back, this event may have been the spark that ignited my desire to know the real truth. At the time, I remember thinking that this issue about the IJ was not the foundational issue because the overwhelming view by those from the GC who attended was this: "If Dr. Ford was right, then EGW couldn't be right, and we can't have that!"

What was suppose to be an honest debate by leaving doctrine at the door turned out to be nothing but a prejudicial debate against those who did. Yes, pastors and teachers today hesitate to talk about this issue any more for fear of losing their job as Dr. Ford did. In fact, because of this, they tend to avoid anything that might rub the GC the wrong way-unless they have a backup plan for work.

As you John317, I live and work in the Loma Linda area and know many who do not agree with EGW, (such as with this issue), but because of their bond with the GC or the University, they don't dare talk about it.

But I also see a danger in moving in the direction Dr. Ford did in that some folks don't even want us to preach and teach keeping the ten commandments any longer. Hence the problem: Either take the words of Jesus as your foundation or the words of others who came after Jesus and claimed they were/are of Jesus.

[Gerr]

I have been studying the subject of the IJ on and off since the 1970s. The more I study it, the more I'm convinced that if we did not have this doctrine, we would have to invent it to explain the separation of the sheep from the goats, the wise from the foolish virgins, the separation of the tares from the wheat, the sincere from the actors, the genuine from the counterfeit, those who have the robe of Christ's righteousness from those wearing their own filthy rags.

Someone in a former church we used to attend made a statement that we (SDAC) can/could not sustain the doctrine of the sanctuary and the IJ without SOP, so I proceeded to do that during a prayer meeting without one reference or hint of EGW .

I don't believe for one nanosecond that the choice is either Ford or EGW as Dr. Rich seems to indicate. To me both the sanctuary & the IJ doctrines are as soundly based on the Scriptures as the other doctrines.

Yes, I bought William's book a year ago, and he makes very good case for it, even more convincingly than I had ever thought myself.

We should not be afraid to study the sanctuary or the IJ. If they are true, the truth will shine. If we cannot sustain these doctrines from Scripture ALONE, the sooner we ditched them, the better off we would be.

[Gerr]

PS

Ford & Walter Rea did shake a lot of SDAs out. It won't be the last shaking because the time is coming when everything that can be shaken will be shaken. So we'd better know now whether we are standing on the Rock or on quicksand.

[wayfinder]

You are absolutely right on, Gerry.

[LynnDel]

Those events, in my view, fundamentally changed our church, and lost to us many bright lights. It's not a healing that has happened, but a change - in some areas bitterness, in others a better understanding of grace.

LynnDel

[John317]

Yes, Ford did indeed make a contribution to SDA doctrine. He influenced many not to believe in the Investigative Judgment and to reject Ellen White. I have seen this influence first hand. Many SDA ministers left the ministry and some even joined churches keeping Sunday because of Ford's influence.

Have you studied Ford's document on the heavenly sanctuary?

[John317]

Quote:

Gerry Cabalo: I don't believe for one nanosecond that the choice is either Ford or EGW as Dr. Rich seems to indicate. To me both the sanctuary & the IJ doctrines are as soundly based on the Scriptures as the other doctrines.

Yes, I bought William's book a year ago, and he makes very good case for it, even more convincingly than I had ever thought myself.

We should not be afraid to study the sanctuary or the IJ. If they are true, the truth will shine. If we cannot sustain these doctrines from Scripture ALONE, the sooner we ditched them, the better off we would be.

Very good post, Gerry. I completely agree.

By the way, Pastor Williams in the minister of the SDA church at Chula Vista and conducts seminars on the Investigative Judgment.

[Dr. Rich]

To clear this up, I was speaking only about the issue of the IJ. I will agree that both Ford and White agree with each other on many points and issues.

When I was there (Glacier View) while eating with others, what stuck in my mind was the common sense understanding among those I was eating with is that Jesus said He was going to be with His Father, so this is exactly what He did. As for being in the 'most holy place' or not, there isn't much to go on by using the bible. Hebrews has Jesus sitting on the throne with His Father, so I just don't see anywhere that the IJ can be sustained from Scripture alone.

[Gerr]

Quote:

As for being in the 'most holy place' or not, there isn't much to go on by using the bible.

Lev 16 & Heb 9 talk about the Holy & Most Holy Places and two phases of Christ's ministry.

Quote:

Hebrews has Jesus sitting on the throne with His Father, so I just don't see anywhere that the IJ can be sustained from Scripture alone.

“If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you to live in, anyone saying that some worthless men have gone out from among you and have seduced the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’ (whom you have not known), then you shall investigate and search out and inquire thoroughly. If it is true and the matter established that this abomination has been done among you," Dt 13:12-14 NASB

“A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. “The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. Dt 19:15-19 NASB

These are just a couple among many references to show you that God's MO is to investigate a case thoroughly BEFORE a judgment/verdict is rendered. If this is not done then someone could rightfully declare a mistrial or charge prejudice.

In God's church on this earth, there are wheat and tares, wise & foolish virgins, those who are faithful and those who are presumptious, the sincere and the actors, those with Christ's robe of righteousness and those with their own filthy rags, those who have built on the Rock and those who built on quicksand, the wheat and chaff, those who call Him, "Lord, Lord" with their lips but deny Him with their deeds, those who have a form of godliness but denying its power, etc. etc.

Does God take them all to heaven? No? By what method does He separate one from the other? The answer is very obvious.

[Guest]

To clear this up,

Rich, I'm not trying to be harsh, but I've never seen words from you clear up anything. ..........EVER.

[Rudy G]

Reddogs,

I would like to know a bit more about your thoughts.

What exactly is the damage you refer to? or What exactly was damaged and in what way was it damaged? Do you believe that Ford caused the damage or was the damage caused by the way the Ford experience unfolded? Did anyone besides Ford and his sympathizers cause any of the damage? Who are "they" who are painting Ford as a loyal Adventist? and finally Why are you concerned about it now?

Since you asked for them, here are my thoughts:

I believe that Ford was just the catalyst that brought long existing problems in Adventism to the surface. Generations of Adventists have been taught to reverence the Adventist pioneers as courageous truth seekers who studied their way into “THE” truth which was then confirmed by a prophet of God. But, the picture that is “painted” is not supported by the real history.

The fanatic traits that characterized the Millerites and their descendants, the early Adventists, is seldom acknowledged. Unfortunately the early Adventist embraced ideas and points of view that SDA Christians in last couple of generations would not entertain for a minute (including the most conservative SDAs). Gradually the early Adventists quietly set aside a variety of peculiar and flawed beliefs. These were not errors that they brought from the former churches (who were decried as apostate Protestants), but the errant views taught by the Adventists.

To the degree possible these errors were set aside without fanfare and certainly no apologies to anyone who had protested the errors along the way. In some cases the errors were treated as having never existed. In other cases, where it was obvious that scriptural interpretation had changed, it was “painted” as march toward the truth. In some cases this picture may have been accurate. But, in some cases it would have been more accurate to portray it as a return to the truth as held by maintstream Protestants. Unforutnately, many Adventists through the years have focused more on “possessing” the truth than “searching” for it.

Students of scripture should not be surprised. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” We are all capable of great self deceit; convincing ourselves we are one step away from perfection. Dogmatism and self righteousness have plagued Adventism from its beginning. This also should not be surprising when you see how many of our distinctive beliefs serve to put us on a pedestal above other Christians.

Adventism began with an error in scriptural interpretation despite the Lord’s clear statements about no man knowing the hour of His coming. Many decades later, despite all the wonderful things that can be said about Adventists and Adventism, we have never weaned ourselves from scriptural interpretations that serve to bring us honor and glory instead of God. And if we don’t give ourselves honor and authority that belongs to God, then we give it to a human that we claim to be a prophet.

If one takes the time to study the prophets’ and their writings it becomes abundantly clear that prophets are flawed human beings. If one truly studies the writings of Ellen White then how is possible that we do not see the great changes in her interpretation of scripture. If God sent her to canonize Adventist doctrine why didn’t she point out all the flaws at the very beginning that were gradually expunged through the years? If Ellen White was God’s authoritative spokesperson for the truth then why did Jones and Waggoner present the message that she embraced and clearly changed the focus of her spiritual leadership?

We have invested ideas and people with authority and significance that feed our own selfish egos and then pretend that we are honoring God and his messengers. God in his grace allows flawed human beings to serve him and even speak on His behalf, but when we give human messengers greater authority than “THE SPIRIT” of prophecy that dwells in the heart of every born again Christian we are in dangerous territory.

I believe that for a few years an honest seeker of truth, Desmond Ford, aroused a church drunk on its own egotistic interpretations of scripture. True to their character the egotists protected their interests and drove the threat to their power and authority from their ranks along with anyone who appeared to be part of the threat. Yes, the damage to that power and authority has “subsided”. We are once again a slumbering and dying church.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: Jesus said He was going to be with His Father, so this is exactly what He did. As for being in the 'most holy place' or not, there isn't much to go on by using the bible. Hebrews has Jesus sitting on the throne with His Father, so I just don't see anywhere that the IJ can be sustained from Scripture alone.

Check out Daniel 7: 9-14. What's happening here? Notice the wheels on God's throne. What is being pictured?

Of course he went to His Father. God accepted Christ's sacrifice.

The book of Hebrews isn't about the IJ. That's not the topic or theme. The thesis of Hebrew is that we now have full access to God the Father and that Christ is our High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary, a real place that God built and not man. From there, Christ provides us power by His Spirit to help us resist and overcome sin. We don't need to keep sacrificing animals because our Passover has been sacrifice once for all. Therefore we shouldn't fall back into that old Sacrificial system of this earth because it is useless. It no longer has any salvific significance except as it illustrates what is going on in heaven. Let us therefore keep our eyes focussed on the Lord Jesus Christ our Mediator who will come for His purified church.

It doesn't contradict the IJ but at the same time it doesn't deal directly with the questions we're asking about the IJ. For that we need to study Lev., Daniel, and Revelation.

[John317]

Quote:

Rudy G: The fanatic traits that characterized the Millerites and their descendants, the early Adventists, is seldom acknowledged.

Hey, Rudy G., thanks for joining us and welcome to the Forum. Hope you enjoy it and make lots of friends.

What do you consider "fanatic"? And how did this "fanaticism" affect our church? Could you please give examples with references? Thanks. :-)

[Neil D]

Yes, Ford did indeed make a contribution to SDA doctrine. He influenced many not to believe in the Investigative Judgment and to reject Ellen White. I have seen this influence first hand. Many SDA ministers left the ministry and some even joined churches keeping Sunday because of Ford's influence.

Have you studied Ford's document on the heavenly sanctuary?

I was at PUC at the time that Ford was defrocked...It was a troubling time for me. The church treated him badly, and what the church said to the teachers and workers at PUC was totally different than what was said publically in the church...But, after a couple of months, Ford said that EGW was NOT a prophet, and I closed my ears to him...

I would rather study that which was I have time for...I dont want to study other stuff...

[olger]

Ford was defrocked because he insisted on multiple fulfillments of one time historical prophecies. Today he believes that Antiochus Epiphanes is the "little horn" (Daniel 8:9).

[John317]

Quote:

Rudy G:

I believe that Ford was just the catalyst that brought long existing problems in Adventism to the surface. Generations of Adventists have been taught to reverence the Adventist pioneers as courageous truth seekers who studied their way into THE truth which was then confirmed by a prophet of God. But, the picture that is painted is not supported by the real history.

Quote:

Rudy G: Unfortunately the early Adventist embraced ideas and points of view that SDA Christians in last couple of generations would not entertain for a minute (including the most conservative SDAs).

The very early Adventists didn't even agree on much else besides the Sabbath and the Second Coming. And yes, some of them had all kinds of different ideas.

But what specific ideas that the church embraced do you have in mind? Could you give a reference?

Am I right to guess that you don't consider yourself a conservative SDA?

Quote:

Rudy G: Gradually the early Adventists quietly set aside a variety of peculiar and flawed beliefs. These were not errors that they brought from the former churches (who were decried as apostate Protestants), but the errant views taught by the Adventists.

Please tell us what errant views and when this occurred? Who accepted them?

It's a good thing to give examples and, if it's not something widely known, include a reference.

Quote:

Rudy G: To the degree possible these errors were set aside without fanfare and certainly no apologies to anyone who had protested the errors along the way. In some cases the errors were treated as having never existed.

What errors were treated as having never existed?

Quote:

Rudy G: In other cases, where it was obvious that scriptural interpretation had changed, it was painted as march toward the truth.

Example and reference, please?

Quote:

Rudy G: In some cases this picture may have been accurate. But, in some cases it would have been more accurate to portray it as a return to the truth as held by maintstream Protestants.

When did this occur and what truths do you refer to?

Quote:

Rudy G: Unforutnately, many Adventists through the years have focused more on possessing the truth than searching for it.

It's certainly true that we need to search for truth and also study the Bible to see what we believe and why we believe it.

Quote:

Rudy G: Students of scripture should not be surprised. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. We are all capable of great self deceit;

Indeed. That is one reason it's always good to ask for examples and references.

Quote:

Rudy G: convincing ourselves we are one step away from perfection.

Any writers or individuals you're thinking of in particular?

Quote:

Rudy G: Dogmatism and self righteousness have plagued Adventism from its beginning.

Not only Adventists. In fact, not only Christians. A common human trait? But no excuse, I know.

Quote:

Rudy G: This also should not be surprising when you see how many of our distinctive beliefs serve to put us on a pedestal above other Christians.

Which distinctive doctrines would you like to see our church jettison because they only serve to put us on a pedastal above other Christians?

Quote:

Rudy G: Adventism began with an error in scriptural interpretation despite the Lord’s clear statements about no man knowing the hour of His coming.

Did William Miller ever state that he knew the hour of Christ's return?

Remember that Wm. Miller taught that Christ was coming "about 1843-1844." It was only later that some of his followers began to teach that Christ would come on a particular day. In fact, it wasn't until Oct 20, 1844, that William Miller accepted the date of Oct. 22 as the time of the Lord's coming. William Miller himself was very relunctant to say the very day when Christ was to return.

Have you never read William Miller's explanation of the text you quoted? He wrote about it and discussed it because it was something that was commonly said and given as a result some people did not accept Miller's message.

Quote:

Rudy G: Many decades later, despite all the wonderful things that can be said about Adventists and Adventism, we have never weaned ourselves from scriptural interpretations that serve to bring us honor and glory instead of God.

Who is doing this? What interpretations? Please be specific.

Quote:

Rudy G: And if we don't give ourselves honor and authority that belongs to God, then we give it to a human that we claim to be a prophet.

Do you believe she was a prophet, assuming you're speaking of Ellen White?

I've no doubt myself. If she wasn't, I'm in the wrong church. I wouldn't have anything to with a church that was co-founded and as greatly influence by a false prophet as the SDA church was-- that is, if indeed Ellen White was a false prophet.

However, it is very important for every person to study this for themselves and come to their own conclusion. As Paul says, Let every man be persuaded in his own mind.

Continued

[Dr. Rich]

Thanks Gerry for the scripture on how to deal with these issues. It sure would have been nice to have the GC deal like this with David Dennis. As an investigator, what I saw the GC do to David Dennis was downright awful and it appears that NO one who was involved is willing to talk about and provide ANY evidence at all that would officially put to sleep what happened.

What is interesting, is Dr. Ford is still talked about while hardly anyone knows the real story on David Dennis who was the head Accountant for the GC who blew the whistle on what was going on with Niel Wilson and Flconberg. Hmmm? Come on GC (Tom W.) show us the evidence!

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: But, after a couple of months, Ford said that EGW was NOT a prophet, and I closed my ears to him...

Do you have a reference for that, Neil?

When were you at PUC? You must have been there from about 1977 to 1979. I was there in 1972-1974 and then transferred to Loma Linda U.

Here is what is on the Adventist Reform website concerning Dr. Ford:

Quote:

....the leaders mischaracterized Dr. Ford's positions. They dishonestly led the church to believe that he had repudiated the Three Angels Messages and the ministry of Ellen White, when that is exactly what they were doing. But Dr. Ford was not guilty as charged.

... He supports Historic Adventism and the Gospel. He supports Ellen White and the Pioneers. ....

Listen to his call for Adventist Reform:

"God raised up the advent movement to proclaim the three angels' messages to the world, a proclamation which would have the everlasting gospel at its center with warnings against its counterfeits and perversions. "

....Desmond Ford, July 2004 .....

Tom Norris, for Adventist Reform

Original: http://www.adventistreform.com/DrDesmondFord.html

You will see that Dr. Ford has never said Ellen White is not a prophet. He said that she was not a canonical prophet, but that is different from saying she is not a prophet. He used the term "pastoral prophet." Is this what you had in mind?

To this day, I don't believe Dr. Ford as ever renounced Ellen White as a prophet.

Perhaps someone has documented evidece that he's recently renounced her, and if they have I wish they would post it. I try to keep up with his teachings. I onced admired him and believed his teachings on the Investigative Judgment but no longer do.

[John317]

Quote:

olger:Ford was defrocked because he insisted on multiple fulfillments of one time historical prophecies. Today he believes that Antiochus Epiphanes is the "little horn" (Daniel 8:9).

That is true, and Ford successfuly rebuts his own argument in his book, Daniel, which he wrote a few years before he changed his mind.

Antiochus Epiphanes couldn't possibly be the "little horn" power. He was a footnote in history, but the Bible said the little horn power would become "exceeding great"-- that is, greater than Greece, the previous power, which was called "very great." Dan. 8: 8, 9. Obviously he failed to fulfill that part of the prophecy. There are other reasons he can't be the little horn power.

[John317]

Continued from previous post--

Quote:

Rudy G: If one takes the time to study the prophets and their writings it becomes abundantly clear that prophets are flawed human beings.

Sure, they're all fallen human beings, from Enoch and Moses to John the Beloved to Ellen White. No question. All of them confessed their sinfulness and their defects. None were infallible men, and neither were any infallible women.

Quote:

Rudy G: If one truly studies the writings of Ellen White then how is possible that we do not see the great changes in her interpretation of scripture.

Can you please give several examples and give references?

Quote:

Rudy G: If God sent her to canonize Adventist doctrine why didn't she point out all the flaws at the very beginning that were gradually expunged through the years?

Examples and references, please? Where are you getting your evidence of this?

I hate to keep asking you for examples but I need to know what exactly you're talking about. It's not clear to me as it stands.

Quote:

Rudy G: If Ellen White was God's authoritative spokesperson for the truth then why did Jones and Waggoner present the message that she embraced and clearly changed the focus of her spiritual leadership?

Can you give Bible evidence that shows us Ellen White could not have been a true prophet under the circumstances as they were at the time you speak of?

Jones and Waggoner were never prophets of God, of course. God can use more than one person to bring truth to His church.

In what way do you understand Jone & Waggoner clearly changed the focus of Ellen White's spiritual leadership?

Quote:

Rudy G: We have invested ideas and people with authority and significance that feed our own selfish egos and then pretend that we are honoring God and his messengers.

I believe that God invested Ellen White with authority as His messenger. At least she tells us that Christ Himself ordained her as His special messenger, or prophet, to give His messages to the church and occasionally to the world. Prophets, of course, are God's mouthpiece. That is their work.

Have you read Selected Messages, Vol. 1, pages 24-46? She writes there of how Jesus declared her to be His messenger and then talked to her about her work of writing His messages for the church.

Quote:

Rudy G: God in his grace allows flawed human beings to serve him and even speak on His behalf, but when we give human messengers greater authority than THE SPIRIT of prophecy that dwells in the heart of every born again Christian we are in dangerous territory.

Are you saying that all of us who believe we have the Holy Spirit have as much authority as a genuine prophet of God?

Does every person who has the Spirit also by definition have the Spirit of prophecy and hence is able to speak with prophetic authority?

Quote:

Rudy G: I believe that for a few years an honest seeker of truth, Desmond Ford, aroused a church drunk on its own egotistic interpretations of scripture.

OK, this is what you believe, but can you show clear evidence of this? What "egotistical interpretations of scripture" do you have in mind?

Can you show that it is "egotistical," is false and not based on Scripture?

Quote:

Rudy G: Rudy G: True to their character the egotists protected their interests and drove the threat to their power and authority from their ranks along with anyone who appeared to be part of the threat.

Who are/were "the egotists"? It sounds like you mean the men who drove Desmond Ford out of his position of teacher and minister. Who were these men? Do you have proof or strong evidence that they were "egotists"? Your language is very strong, so I assume you feel that you have convincing evidence of it.

Are you sure these people weren't completely sincere in their belief that Dr. Ford was wrong and that he was wrongly attacking a fundamenal doctrine of the Bible and of the SDA church? How can you be sure this was not the case?

Quote:

Rudy G: Yes, the damage to that power and authority has subsided. We are once again a slumbering and dying church.

A slumbering and dying church? Perhaps in North America but certainly not in South America and Africa. Just since I was baptized the SDA church has grown from about 6 million to 16 million. Of course that does not prove that the church is spiritually healthy or correct doctrinally, but it does show that it's hardly a dying church, although it's not growing in North America and in Europe like it should.

Could you please answer a couple of questions?

Do you believe in the Investigative Judgment?

And

If not, why don't you?

Thank you, Rudy, and I look forward to exchanging messages and ideas with you. God bless you in your search for truth. :-)