Has the damage from Desmond Ford subsided?

[karl]

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?

Didn't she said she had believed and preached the message brought by J&W for years? I'll look for that quote.

She was just grateful that God had laid the message on J&W to preach with boldness to the brethren.

This could be another argument against WO, incidentally.

[John317]

Quote:

karl: Didn't she said she had believed and preached the message brought by J&W for years? I'll look for that quote.

I think maybe you're thinking of the passage where she says that when she heard J&W preach, it was the first time she heard it spoken except when she and James White had conversations with each other about it. Those aren't her very words but it's close.

Ring a bell?

Quote:

karl: She was just grateful that God had laid the message on J&W to preach with boldness to the brethren.

This could be another argument against WO, incidentally.

That's true. I hadn't thought of that. That actually makes sense, though. Ellen White was not biblical scholar, and what those men gave the church came out of Bible study, not dreams and visions. It really had to be based on the Bible, and Ellen White wasn't able to do that same kind of work they could do. They were pastor-teachers, as mentioned in Eph. 4: 11. In that text, the two gifts seem to be combined in one individual, which is the way it may have been in the cases of J&W. It seems to me a good possibility that God chose those two men because they were more suitable to that particular work than Ellen White. There are other ways of explaining it but that is one of them.

I'm going to ask Herbert Douglass. He should have some interesting thoughts about it because he wrote a major biography and study of Ellen White called The Messenger of God. I could also ask Robert Olson, who lives not too far from me. I wonder if he'll remember me from when I took a class by him just before he left PUC for the White Estate.

What part of the country do you live in? I'm in Southern CA.

[karl]

[

What part of the country do you live in? I'm in Southern CA.

I live in Ola, Arkansas where we understand Southern humor.

Why did the chicken cross the road? To prove to the armadillo it could be safely done.

[Gerr]

Thanks for raising all those questions for Rudy. I was going to raise just a few; yours was more extensive. I'll be looking forward to his responses.

[John317]

Yeah, I don't mean for him to answer all of them; only a few would do; whichever he feels like answering. I just wanted him to see that someone took his post seriously and actually read it carefully.

[John317]

LOL-- yes, good.

I have family in the South-- in Chattanooga area. My daughter and family are now in Little Rock.

Still going, really this time:

[Woody]

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.

Are you referring to Adventists or Seventh day Adventists? Excuse me if I missed it if you indicated.

[Woody]

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.

Yes, that would be true. She was human and grew in her understanding of scripture. And also ... as time went on ... God revealed more to her in visions. But, it's all in scripture. It's just that sometimes we need a boost in understanding.

I believe that we as individuals and we as a church will continue to grow in our understanding of scripture. WE have much to learn and much to unlearn. WE will never have full understanding of truth on this earth. WE will continue to learn ... even in Heaven.

So yes. There will continue to be "changes in interpretation of scripture."

[Woody]

Quote:

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

I happen to be reading "1888 Re-examined" as we speak.

It is clear that Ellen White told us that J+W were the first to grasp what she had been preaching. And what she had been preaching ... was the Gospel.

To this day ... there are still many SDAs who struggle with understanding the Gospel ... the precious message. Our church as others ... struggle with the traditions of legalism. It is a curse that we will struggle with long. The Devil is using it in a sly way to get even devout SDAs.

Praise God there are some SDA pastors who have devoted their ministry to preaching the 'precious message' of the Gospel that Ellen White taught and that Jones and Waggoner briefly understood in part.

Our job is to get back to the simple message of the Gospel. Ellen White said our message was as simple as ABC. Even a child should be able to understand it.

[Kevin H]

Dr. Ford is a thinker and a scholar of Reformation Theology and the traditional study of Paul, which has been tradition for centuries. Like all of us, Ford is a mishmash of the facts and the particular traditions from his quality world. Ford saw some things that he and I wold interpete differently from our perspectives. Ford's education comes from the Old School study of Paul. In recent decades there has been new interpetations of Paul and while I won't pretend to be a Pauline scholar, I tend to understand Paul from the new understandings of Paul.

Dr. Ford tends to see the cross as the foundation of Biblical interpatation and as I've had him presented in our Bible classes at college and how I understand him is reading the Bible backwards and having the cross read back. While I believe that the cross is the foundation for our lives, I believe that Deuteronomy is the foundation of Bible study and we need to read the Bible forward to see how it builds.

Dr. Ford tends to be a Fundamentalist with a devotion to his understandings of his key texts that can hinder deeper study. As you can probably tell from my posts, that while I'm sure I'm still tainted with Fundamentalism I try as far as I am aware to be an anti-fundamentalist.

Dr. Ford's background once again is the traditional study of Paul in his day, and is very steeped in the thoughts of the reformers. This is his stron point. But from this perspective he has tried to interpet the Old Testament. His work on the Old Testament and Investigative Judgement can be somewhat compaired to someone who is an outstanding cardiac surgon passing himself off as a brain surgon, and the people who follow him saying "He is a brilliant doctor, why is the medical boards upset that he wants to opperate on the brain as well as the heart?" Dr. Ford does not have the background in Old Testament Theology and worst yet, does not have the background in the archaeology and culture of the ancient world to do the Old Testament justice. Actually this last point here is where I have my biggest dissagreement with Dr. Ford, and where I feel that the church was right to defrock him. I would be fine with him (granted I mean fine like in not feeling comfortable with him and agreeing to dissagree) if he was to have said "I do not see how the Investigative Judgment fits in, but my field is not Old Testament, let them work it out and I'll just teach what I understand." Instead of him anouncing that there is no Investigative Judgment, no year-day principle and that we only can get the Investigative Judgment from the writings of Mrs. White. Also it's unethical to want to have the church pay you to openly dissagree with a central doctrine.

There is more I'd like to write here but don't have time if I want to catch a little of Church before going into work but let me try to just end with a quick summery how my perspective would be different in conclusion from Fords:

Both Ford and I see the potential for multible fulfillments of a text: We differ in that Ford would see the Bible writer as having ALL of these in mind when he wrote and that each is as valid as the other. I see the principle of exogesis and analogy: that the prophet had something very specific and local in mind and that we apply the text to similar or analogious situations. We have to understand the exogesis to make sure we are making the correct analogy.

Both Ford and I would see different roles of prophets; but while he has his canical prophet with their overwhelming authority as understood by Fundamentalists and Pastorial prophets with lesser authority; I see no distiction in prophetic authority. All prophets are authoritive, but that it is a oneness of supernatural and natural and that they don't have to fit the Fundamentalist's mold of what a prophet should be. In the ancient world there were prophets with a more universal message: i.e. the writings of the Bible; but also local prophets who are to apply the Bible to their local situation. I see Mrs. White as fitting in to the archaeologist's discription of the local prophets in ancient Israel.

Ford does not see how the Investigative Judgment would fit with Reformation Theology and Old School Pauline studies. He's right. However I am not limiting my perspective to Reformation Theology or Old School Paul, I'm coming from Old Testament Theology and ancient history, the Baal myths, and from the New School Paul, and the Investigative Judgment fits nicely in this perspective.

Most importantly we need to trust in Jesus. We all see through a glass dimly. We need to realize that there are different perspectives. We all have much to learn and much to unlearn, and yes, it is OK to have questions to ask Jesus in the 1000 years. What Ford did that I really am irked about is his pushing his perspective as the ONLY true perspective. I understand where he is coming from but let me point out where I am coming from too. Because of this spirit of "I can't see how the investigative judgment fits in with the great Christian thinkers over the years, especially Reformation Theoloyg and what I have been taught about Paul, then it is simply not true." the church was right to defrock him, just as a medical board would have the right to defrock the world's greatest heart surgon if he insisted on doing brain surgery.

[Woody]

Quote:

"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."

During Ellen White's time ... it was general practice to call pastors by the Biblical title of 'messenger of God'. See EY 227 and 190 and elsewhere.

Scripture calls priests 'messengers of God' just as the prophets. See Malachi 2:7 .

It is not men who appoint pastors/messengers/prophets ... it is God. God appoints whom he pleases. In Jeremiah 3:15 it gives the job description of pastors/messengers ... which is to 'feed the flock' with knowledge and understanding.

At times in Biblical history ... men would appoint pastors .... but they ended up being evil. Men also appointed Kings. But often the Kings were evil and lead them astray and apostasy. See Jer.3:15 .

As a messenger/pastor/prophet ...

Ellen White was clearly called by God to do the following - that all apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers were called to do:

He called them:

Quote:

Eph. 4:12 "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ"

[phkrause]

Yeah, I don't mean for him to answer all of them; only a few would do; whichever he feels like answering. I just wanted him to see that someone took his post seriously and actually read it carefully.

I agree with Gerry, John. And Rudy did bring up some good questions based on his knowledge of that time. Also I think that the Devotional by GK last year could answer many questions.

pk

[Gerr]

Instead of him anouncing that there is no Investigative Judgment, no year-day principle and that we only can get the Investigative Judgment from the writings of Mrs. White, he could have stated it as a personal opinion. IMHO, it is quite arrogant to say that there is no IJ or year-day-principle and expect the rest of us to change our views just because he said so!

Quote:

Most importantly we need to trust in Jesus.

And here's the rub. It strikes me very odd that the very one who is teaching grace, "Good News Unlimited," and assurance does not feel assured enough of grace that he feels threatened to have his assurance of grace investigated?

[John317]

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.

Quote:

Woody: Are you referring to Adventists or Seventh day Adventists? Excuse me if I missed it if you indicated.

I think that's a good question, because the context doesn't make it clear whether it's before or after 1863. It makes quite a difference.

The early SDA church was also still going through changes, just as the early church did in the book of Acts and afterwards. The fact that a church changes some of its beliefs and practices is not of itself a bad thing. It depends on what the change is and how it comes about.

[phkrause]

I think that's a good question, because the context doesn't make it clear whether it's before or after 1863. It makes quite a difference.

The early SDA church was also still going through changes, just as the early church did in the book of Acts and afterwards. The fact that a church changes some of its beliefs and practices is not of itself a bad thing. It depends on what the change is and how it comes about.

Good points John

pk

[John317]

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.

Quote:

woody: Yes, that would be true. She was human and grew in her understanding of scripture. And also ... as time went on ... God revealed more to her in visions. But, it's all in scripture.

I'm not disputing that Ellen White grew in her understanding of Scripture. Of course she did. But Rudy didn't say that. He said her writings show "great changes in her interpretation of Scripture." I'm asking for evidence of this from her writings themselves. Where does she show these great changes in her interpretation of Scripture?

Yes, God revealed more to her in visions, but God didn't reveal something and then later reveal something contrary to what He revealed before.

Ellen White never had to go back to her writings and correct what she said God had revealed to her. What she said God had revealed to her in 1844 was what she said in 1906 that God had revealed to her.

This is despite the fact that Ellen White didn't always understand the visions she had and God would need to give them to her again.

For instance, she grew in her understanding of the Godhead and the Trinity. She understood it a lot more in the 1890s than she did in the 1840s and 50s. I'm quite sure that personally she didn't even believe in the Trinity during the 50s and 60s. God hadn't shown her those things yet. She wouldn't write her clearest statements about the Godhead until after her husband died, which was no doubt Providential. But the important thing is that she didn't write errors about it. She expanded her views; she didn't contradict them. That's a huge difference.

I think another important point is that Ellen White was not an exegete, or a specialist at Bible interpretation. She wrote with more of the approach of a pastor than a careful scholar exegeting a passage of Scripture. Both approaches are needed in the church but they call for different gifts.

[John317]

Quote:

pkrause; I think that the Devotional by GK last year could answer many questions.

Not acquainted with that, pk. What is it? Could you give an example of an answer?

[BobRyan]

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?

I agree with this summation of the lasting damage done.

Almost 200 pastors left the church along with Ford over a 10 year period after Ford was exposed.

But a large number in communication with Ford or his representatives were told not to leave - to remain as hidden reefs inside the church - and so they did.

The result today is a very definite pulling away from the IJ as if it is "not the Gospel" or as if "it is not Christ centered" to talk about it as being "judgment of the saints" where works are evaluated and "we give an account for deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil" 2Cor 5:10.

Thus - you do not hear this doctrine from pulpits today -- it is almost entirely limited to "an evangelistic series".

There is also no emphasis from the pulpit on the Rev 15 fact of the END of the heavenly sanctuary - mediation of Christ - pleading his blood for our sins - prior to the Rev 16 7 last plagues.

That too is said to be "not the Gospel" and "not Christ centered to talk about what Christ is doing during the 7 last plagues" etc.

The effects are with us - but the frog has been boiled "so slowly" -

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

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).

JSM has a thread that talks about Ellen White's view of the SEALS in Rev 6 and it shows "multiple fulfillment".

So I am curious as to whether Ford went too far there or if he was just toying with an idea that had some merit.

His IJ statements are clearly in error and are foundational to his opposition to Adventist Doctrine. But I am not as convinced that all of his multiple-fulfillment ideas are wrong.

in Christ,

Bob

[olger]

Bob, I agree that a place exists for multiple fulfillments in certain prophecies. Other prophecies however are unique one-time events. He rejects the year-day principle, for instance.

Ford believes that chaos (big Bang) is a viable explanation of origins. He rejects the doctrine of the Fall.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: 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).

JSM has a thread that talks about Ellen White's view of the SEALS in Rev 6 and it shows "multiple fulfillment".

So I am curious as to whether Ford went too far there or if he was just toying with an idea that had some merit.

His IJ statements are clearly in error and are foundational to his opposition to Adventist Doctrine. But I am not as convinced that all of his multiple-fulfillment ideas are wrong.

in Christ,

Bob

Yes, he was toying with an idea that had some merit; There are 3 types of approaches to this idea. Dr. Ford's view; the traditional type and anti-type view, made by middle ages Catholic priests to try to discrbe what they were seeing in the Bible; and Exogesis and Analogy, which is the view I was taught which makes the most sense.

As I was taught and understand Dr. Ford's view is that the Bible writer had a multitude of fulfillments of prophecy in mind. That when Daniel was writing that Daniel thought about Antiochus and the Papacy and a last days anti-christ and tied them all together in his prophecies, and that Daniel saw in vision Antiochus, the Papacy and the last day antichrist and was consciously aware of all of these and had all of these on his mind when he wrote his prophecies.

Type and anti-type would see a local event with a later fuller fulfillment. Type and anti-type is useful, and I may use it, but it is a step in the right direction. The problem is that type and anti-type fits best if there are 2 fullfillments with the last one being an ever greater fulfillment.

Exogesus and analogy is based on that there were local ways how God could have fulfilled the prophecy in or near the days of the prophet. (for a deeper overview see "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in the SDABC) We have freedom on choice, if the conditions were not fulfilled, then like going into the wilderness for 40 years God will teake us around to another cycle in which the principles could have been fulfilled. I just got home from work so don't know how clear this is, and I better sleep but hope it gives some idea.

[Gerr]

Tagging on.

Well, Rudy, the ball is your court!

[Dr. Rich]

John, you were not there or attended the 'trial' given to Dr. Ford, were you? I was. I wonder how many others on this thread were there?

Years before Dr. Ford, there was Ballenger who challenged what EGW had to say about the IJ way back in 1888. What they (SHE) did to him was downright sinful and a black eye to the SDA church. The white wash (pun intended) that attempted to cover this up should be read and understood by everyone.

Here is the thing: Ballenger could not find any scripture that would agree with what EGW wrote about the IJ. What he presented FROM SCRIPTURE was overwhelming AND totally damaging and destructive to EGW's view. It would be worth everyone's while to do some research on this so you don't think that I am making this stuff up.

EGW's letter to Ballenger blows my mind in that she said to trust in her writings and visions MORE then in what is clearly found in the bible. (I bet many of you didn't know this)

Dr. Ford's research was basically the same thing as Ballenger's and AS ONE WHO ATTENDED, I saw and heard with my own ears what the GC said, that IF Dr. Ford's findings were correct, that it would destroy the very foundation the SDA church is built upon, namely EGW's visions and her writings.

But the good news is that we now can show that all of this was prophesied about in Matthew 24 and 25, so we do not have to choose EGW's mistaken understanding anymore. As Adventists, we do not have to use her words to show the world that we are now the Kingdom of Heaven as prophesied in Daniel 2 and Matthew 25.

[BobRyan]

Dr. Ford's research was basically the same thing as Ballenger's and AS ONE WHO ATTENDED, I saw and heard with my own ears what the GC said, that IF Dr. Ford's findings were correct, that it would destroy the very foundation the SDA church is built upon, namely EGW's visions and her writings.

But the good news is that we now can show that all of this was prophesied about in Matthew 24 and 25, so we do not have to choose EGW's mistaken understanding anymore. As Adventists, we do not have to use her words to show the world that we are now the Kingdom of Heaven as prophesied in Daniel 2 and Matthew 25.

I still have Ford's manuscript presented at that meeting. But what is amazing to me - is that Rich's attack on the Bible, the Apostle Paul etc seen by all of us here on this board - actually starts with a downward slide at Glacier View and his following after Ford???

WOW! What a testimony!

What a lesson for us all!!

Ellen White predicted that the decisions to work against the Holy Spirit - eventually conclude with direct attacks against the scriptures.

Never thought I would see it so fully fulfilled.

I wonder if Ford knows about such cases. If so - he has to have had some cause to re-think his course of action.

in Christ,

Bob

[Dr. Rich]

Please make a note Bob, that I, in no way, followed after what Dr. Ford presented. As I testified earlier, this was perhaps the spark that ignited by desire to know the absolute one truth. Dr. Ford AND Ballenger used scripture from an unknown writer, and I just can't take that bet! To call everything found in the bible to be the word(s) of God I find to be very serious because IF something is not, then what you have just done is call God (Holy Spirit) a liar. Seeing that Jesus said something about this to be the unpardonable sin, I cannot do this.

Yes, I will attack anything that is evil--and the words of anyone who denies the words of Jesus (and the OT) and tell others that the commandments are a curse and do not have to be kept, to me they are telling people that no one can obey God. I abhor such a thing!

Now Bob, if you chose to build your foundation from someone other than Jesus, that is your choice. But to tear down and destroy what Jesus said and gave us thru His eyewitnesses is not for me!