Has the damage from Desmond Ford subsided?

[Dr. Rich]

What I am saying John is that the bible itself as a witness to the truth does not confirm the Investigative Judgment (IJ) was what Edson and EGW presented to the Adventist group in order for them to still believe in the 1844 time table. Actaually, the time table was right, but both the second coming and the IJ as she prophesied is a piece of fiction. I have never said that there will not be a judgment.

But if you look at Rev. 11:1-3 you will see that there is two judgments.

Also, in Daniel there is another judgment for Rome and you can read what happened to Rome-it is gone.

There are other judgments too. One for those who are asleep but saved, one for those who are evil and will be thrown in the lake of fire and of course one for Satan and the evil angels.

One could say that the judgments themselves are 'investigative' and we all can read where all of us are judged as to our works/deeds.

Rev. 21:8 and 22:15 point out what happens to people who believe in and practice lies. Lies are the opposite of truth. Therefore, knowing the truth should be of prime importance for anyone seeking salvation.

You accuse me of presenting false testimony but fail to provide evidence from the words of Jesus to support your opinion. If anything that I have presented can't be supported from the words of Jesus and the OT, then please help me out! Show me, don't just tell me.

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder:

Daniel 7:9 "I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat ; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire. 10 "A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him; Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; The court sat, And the books were opened.

Daniel 7:25 'He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law ; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. 26 'But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever.

Ellen White says this event in Daniel and the one in Revelation 20:12, are the same event, clearly they are not.

You misunderstand Ellen White. She's not confusing the events that occur during the Investigative Judgment PRIOR to the Second Coming with those that occur at the Great White Throne Judgment AFTER the one thousand years.

But where does she say Dan. 7: 9 and Rev. 20: 12 are "the SAME EVENT"?

Quote:

wayfinder: This is from Great Controversy page 480

The books of record in heaven, in which the names and the deeds of men are registered, are to determine the decisions of the judgment. Says the prophet Daniel: "The judgment was set, and the books were opened." The revelator, describing the same scene, adds: "Another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

Revelation 20:12 NAS

And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened ; and another book was opened, which is the book of life ; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

AGAIN, WHERE DOES SHE SAY IT IS "THE SAME EVENT"? Please give the quote and the reference.

GC 480 does not say what you claim it says. Nowhere, either on that page or on any other page, does she say it's the same event. The "same scene" is not synonymous with the "same event." She's talking about the same scene in terms of the use of books of record in judgment, not the events themselves.

In fact, she specifically says in GC 480: "The judgment of the wicked is a distinct and separate work, and takes place at a later period."

That is proof that she's not saying Rev. 20: 12 and Daniel 7: 9 are the same event. Obviously Rev. 20: 12 takes place after the one thousand years and the events described in Daniel 7: 9 takes place prior to the Second Coming. They are the same scenes because they both are showing people being judged out of the books of record.

Quote:

wayfinder: If this were true, than the book of life would be opened before the seven seals were broken, even before the Son of God receives the "Lambs book of life".

You're confused, wayfinder. Ellen White doesn't even say those are the same events, so your whole premise and hence your conclusions are all wrong. She clearly states on the same page that those events are taking place at different times: "The judgment of the wicked is a distinct and separate work, and takes place at a later period" (GC 780).

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: What I am saying John is that the bible itself as a witness to the truth does not confirm the Investigative Judgment (IJ) was what Edson and EGW presented to the Adventist group in order for them to still believe in the 1844 time table.

The 2300 day prophecy is very well founded, and its beginning date in the autum of 457 BC is one of the most secure dates in sacred history. See GC 326, 327. They weren't wrong about the time period but they were certainly wrong about the event. They had no Bible reason to believe Jesus was coming to cleanse the earth, because the earth is never referred to in Scripture as a sanctuary. There are only two sanctuaries: one on earth and one in heaven, and the one on earth hasn't existed since 70 AD. That only leaves the heavenly sanctuary as the one to be cleansed in 1844, and Hebrews 9: 23 says that the things in the heavenly sanctuary must be cleansed by the blood of Christ.

Quote:

Dr. Rich: Actaually, the time table was right, but both the second coming and the IJ as she prophesied is a piece of fiction.

Yes, the 1844 time-table was correct. You say here that it was correct but at the beginning of your post, you indicate you believe it was wrong. (I remember you believe the correct date was 1843.)

The second coming that Ellen White taught was not false. It is a very well established Bible doctrine. The SDA church today believes in the same teaching on the Second Coming that Ellen White and the early Adventists and SDAs believed in, taught, and hoped for. I believe in, teach, and hope for the same blessed hope that my grandfather believed in from the 1890s to his death in 1952.

Quote:

Dr. Rich: I have never said that there will not be a judgment.

There is a pre-Advent Judgment. It began in 1844 and continues until just prior to Christ's return. It's going on right now. It concerns all who have ever professed to believe in Christ and all who accepted God's promise of the Messiah.

Quote:

Dr. Rich: But if you look at Rev. 11:1-3 you will see that there is two judgments.

I don't believe this for the reason that there is no valid biblical evidence of it.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: What I am saying John is that the bible itself as a witness to the truth does not confirm the Investigative Judgment...

I'm absolutely convinced you're wrong there, Dr. Rich. So is God's church, and so was the woman whom God's church believes to have been a true prophet of God. I'm talking about the same church that you claim to believe is the Kingdom of Heaven. How is it that you have decided to reject and attack so many foundational beliefs of the Kingdom of Heaven, and even its co-founders, as well as the way in which this "Kingdom of Heaven" came into being?

I know that you don't believe in the "Kingdom of Heaven's" central doctrine, the Investigative Judgment, but then you don't believe in the Christian Bible, either, or in central Christian beliefs such as the doctrine of Righteousness by Faith. So I am not surprised that you've also decided to reject the Pre-Advent Judgment.

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder: ... no text was given to Ballanger when he requested one, he was given only rhetoric and accusations

You're using "rhetoric" in the sense of "meaningless words," but that is not what Ballanger was given.

"Accusations" are things said that aren't true. I understand that you reject Ellen White as a prophet, and therefore you don't accept the truth of her words. I believe she was given visions and dreams from God about the questions they were considering at the trial. She wasn't just giving her own opinions or ideas when she wrote that letter.

Quote:

wayfinder: this was done by Ellen White primarally.

As far as I know, Ellen White was not even at Ballanger's trial. She sent a letter to those in attendance. But she didn't tell them how to conduct the trial. That was totally up to them. But she was certainly right to tell them how important the issue is, and she was also right to say what she did to Ballanger.

Quote:

wayfinder: Your red letters are acknowledged and noted. This may be the "today" "pillar of truth", but it certainly wasn't understood that way in Ellen Whites time.

Ellen White was not an exegete or even a Bible scholar. She never claimed to be. We all know that and all the early Adventists and early SDAs also knew that. Her books such as The Great Controversy show very well the biblical support for the Investigative Judgment. But she didn't include all the Bible texts related to the topic, nor did she do extensive research into the question. She didn't know the biblical languages and therefore it should not come as any surprise to anyone that she wrote nothing about this evidence.

What she knew was that the Bible gave support to the IJ and God had given her visions that substantianted the doctrine as understood by the founders of our church.

What we can say with certainty is that as time goes on, and as we study the Scripture in regard to the Heavenly Sanctuary, the church continues to find more and more evidence that the doctrine of the IJ which began so unpromisingly in a corn field is indeed firmly grounded in the Bible.

Quote:

wayfinder: He is a quote from the book "The Midnight Cry" by Francis D, Nichol page 479

"After breakfast I said to one of my breathren, 'Let us go and see, and encorage some of our breathren.' We started and while passing through a large field I was stopped about midway of the field. Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctrary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary; and that He had a work to perform in the most holy before coming to this earth. That He came to the marriage at that time to the Ancient of days to receive a kingdom, dominion, and glory; and we must wait for His return (from the wedding)...

First of all, remember that the writer was not a prophet, and that the teachings of SDAs don't rely on what Hiram Edison wrote about this. It would have meant nothing if the Bible hadn't supported what he said. Neither Ellen White nor Seventh-day Adventists believe that we should take the word of Hiram Edson about Jesus' work without first verifying it through the Bible. Second, some people have said that Hiram Edson had a "vision," but this is not true. You'll notice he says nothing about a "vision." On the basis of what he says, it appears that God gave Edson a very clear impression of what the Bible teaches. He said "heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly..." This is not a vision but an idea or concept that he saw or understood distinctly and clearly. We might say that it was a very strong impression that he had.

It's only legitimate to say he had a vision if that is what he said about his experience, but he never said that.

The main thing is that God answered his prayer and gave him encouragement that God was leading in the Millerite Movement. God had a purpose, and that purpose was to forcus the world's attention on preparation for Christ's coming. And Christ did indeed come, but in judgment in the heavenly sanctuary, in preparation for his soon return to this earth.

Without Hiram Edson's experience in the corn field the day after the Great Disappointment, it's very likely the early Adventists wouldn't have studied the sanctuary to see if Hiram Edson's "view" had any support in the Scriptures. What they found in their Bible study was that Edson's view was indeed supported by valid Bible evidence. Since then, thousands of Bible scholars have studied the same theme and found further validation of the teaching.

[Dr. Rich]

John wrote: "Since then, thousands of Bible scholars have studied the same theme and found further validation of the teaching."

Rev. 2:20 "...and she teaches and leads My bondservants astray..."

[Dr. Rich]

John wrote: "Ellen White was not an exegete or even a Bible scholar. She never claimed to be. We all know that and all the early Adventists and early SDAs also knew that."

Yes John, you have pin pointed another serious problem by giving us the statement above. Paul too said that he never learned anything from the 12 disciples that had been with Jesus all during His ministry here on earth. Seems to me that both EGW and Paul had this same thing in common, that they said they learned what they wrote from visions and didn't need to learn from the eyewitness disciples. Hmmm? Makes sense to me!

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: Ellen White was not an exegete or even a Bible scholar. She never claimed to be. We all know that and all the early Adventists and early SDAs also knew that."

Dr. Rich: Yes John, you have pin pointed another serious problem by giving us the statement above. Paul too said that he never learned anything from the 12 disciples that had been with Jesus all during His ministry here on earth. Seems to me that both EGW and Paul had this same thing in common, that they said they learned what they wrote from visions and didn't need to learn from the eyewitness disciples. Hmmm? Makes sense to me!

The Apostle Paul studied the OT and was very knowledgeable in those writings. He was highly educated in the Scriptures. He studied both the Masoretic text and the Greek translation, being taught "at the feet" of one of the greatest Bible teachers of that day, Gamaliel. Acts 22: 3. Paul acquired his knowledge of the Scriptures through studying under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That is different from saying He learned about Christ from the disciples. No doubt he did read what was written about Christ up to his time, but he didn't rely on those writings for his knowledge of the gospel and of Christ. He knew it first-hand from Christ Himself, and it was important for people to understand that. That's why Paul emphasizes that point in his writings, particularly in Galatians.

It isn't necessary for a believer to be a Bible scholar or an exegete in order to have a very good understanding of the Scriptures.

Ellen White studied the Bible and learned the gospel through studying the Scriptures just like anyone else. She studied and kept learning more and more throughout her entire life.

You misunderstood what I said earlier. I didn't imply that Ellen White didn't study the Bible and learn from it. I'm saying she wasn't a trained Bible scholar or exegete. That is not news. Isaiah and Jeremiah weren't Bible scholars or exegetes, either. Of any writer of the Bible, Paul and the writer of Hebrews (assuming the actual writer was not Paul himself) were the closest to being an exegete.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Since then, thousands of Bible scholars have studied the same theme and found further validation of the teaching.

Quote:

Dr. Rich: Rev. 2:20 "...and she teaches and leads My bondservants astray..."

Make your best case for this. Show all of the evidence you think you have that this text is fulfilled in the ministry and writings of Ellen White. Please be as specific as possible and show a clear connection with the text.

For the sake of the thread, let's keep this part of the discussion limited to two or three posts.

[Dr. Rich]

John, it would be my pleasure to do just what you asked, but it would not do any good because of the rose colored glasses (paradigms)you've got on. Actually, we have done this over and over and if you didn't get that my now, you never will. Good luck with that!

[Jeannieb43]

Sorry I haven't had time to read this entire thread. But the caption caught my interest. IMHO the "damage from Desmond Ford" was caused not by Dr. Ford but by the GC brethren who demanded he have the exact same interpretation as they had, of some of the most intricate of SDA doctrines. I believe God who created us all with free will, does not require that we each think exactly alike on all points. Especially might deep theologians have differing interpretations == since so much depends upon translations from dead languages in order to deduce the original meanings.

As far as I'm concerned, Desmond Ford is a thoroughly grounded Adventist. I've heard him speak in person within the past two years. Nothing that he said offended me in the least [and I'm on the lookout for such things as "heresy"]. Whereas, some of the Glacier View "Inquisitors" have been known to attribute unto themselves such powers as 'hierarchical' -- totally out of line for our church in which all saints are deemed equal in their standing.

But what does any of that matter to us, in our daily walk with God? We have no need of 'perfection' in our preachers; and we don't need a priest to convey to God our petitions. All we need is our Bible, and our own individual prayer lives, to ensure that we're walking daily with our Lord. I'm sure when we get to heaven we'll find Desmond Ford there.

[karl]

I'm sure when we get to heaven we'll find Desmond Ford there.

There will, no doubt, be many in heaven whose interpretations of the Bible don't or didn't jive with ours. The question is whether we want those interpretations taught in our pulpits and in our seminary

[Dr. Rich]

John 17:21: "that they may all be one..." = UNITY

Rev. 21:8: "..and all liars their part will be in the lake that burns.."

Rev. 22:15: "...and everyone who loves and practices lying..."

1Jn. 2:4: "The one who says 'I have come to know Him' and does NOT keep His Commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him..."

Rev. 14:5 "And no lie was found in their mouth, they are blameless."

Hmmm? So much for everyone believing something and practicing it differently.

There is only ONE thing that brings perfect unity and that is obeying the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitness' as found in John 14:26 and 17:20.

[Guest]

1Jn 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

So much for your theory that righteousness comes before the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. You can either believe it, or you can tear some more pages out of your Bible, and hang on to your erronious belief.

Psa 24:5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

Isa 54:17 ...This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, says the LORD.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard, great verses and I agree completely, what's your problem? I still would like to see someone who has been truly born again, wouldn't you? One who is truly doing and being righteous is one to hang around with. Believing and practicing a lie is not being righteous.

[John317]

Check out this information and the verses:

In order to be saved from sin and its consequences, man must experience a new birth, a transformation of life. As an individual repents of his sins and as he yields to the work of the Holy Spirit upon his heart, he experiences a desire to live in obedience to God's will. The Bible calls this experience "the new birth." The new life thereafter is maintained by our faith in Jesus Christ.

References: Matthew 1:21; John 3:3; Romans 2:4; John 16:8; Acts 2:37, 38; 1 John 2:3, 6; John 16:13; 1 Peter 1:22; Psalm 119:142; John 17:17; Galatians 2:20; Hebrews 12:2; Romans 1:17; Philippians 4:13.

This is a partial answer to your question about the new birth.

What are your thoughts?

[Dr. Rich]

John, I wrote about this already. Perhaps you want others thoughts. Remember about the line drawn from your left to the right with the left side being lies and the right going to a point of the one absolute truth? You are forgetting the difference between justified and sanctified. Jesus was always perfect, yet He became sanctified. Please tell me what He was prior to that? Being Justified is the conception process, when one is completely born again into the family of God, they become the Sons and Daughters of God--on par with Jesus so to speak. Once they are actually born, there is NO sin in them and they don't sin anymore.

[Guest]

David wrote this after he sinned with Bathsheba. Which means he had the Holy Spirit prior to the sin. Just because you have the HS one day doesn't mean you can't change your mind the next and sin. The HS will not force you not to sin, but will give you the power not to sin.

Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. Psa 51:10-12

[Dr. Rich]

Yes he did in fact. No argument there! Are you trying to pick one?

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: Once they are actually born, there is NO sin in them and they don't sin anymore.

Give us your view of what 'born again" is, and show that when people are "born again," they don't ever sin any more.

Don't use 1 John 3: 1-10, because those verses don't teach that. If you believe they do, show us why.

[Dr. Rich]

John: Why did God leave Israel? Why did the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus what He was Baptized? What happened to Jesus when He became sanctified? What happens when the 144k become sealed? Who is it that Satan goes after in the last generation and found in Rev. 12:17?

Is believing a lie a sin? Is practicing a lie a sin? Is the opposite of a lie the truth? What do your think the difference is between 'justification' and 'sanctification'?

If someone is still searching for the truth yet still believing in lies, does this person have any sin in him?

When you can answer these questions then you will know the difference.

[Dr. Rich]

Here is my view of being born of the Holy Spirit:

Being born of anything is serious and not to be taken lightly. We all have been born of our parents, human parents and that makes us humans. We are therefore mortal flesh and blood beings.

Jesus came to this earth as a baby born of Mary, a human flesh and blood being. Jesus too was therefore a flesh and blood human human, but could not have had any DNA (genetic material) from Mary or He would have been sinful by the very nature of all humans were mortal and under the penalty of sin because of what their first parents did.

Jesus tell us that He became sanctified in order that we too can become sanctified. What does this mean? Does this mean that Jesus was not righteous before He became sanctified? NO! It simply means that when Jesus became sanctified at the time He was baptized, the Holy Spirit came to him to dwell in Him at that point, thereby Jesus too had been born of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was not the same after this event. In fact, Jesus could do things that other humans could not do after this.

This shows us that the Holy Spirit can work with people before they become sanctified (born again but now as a spiritual being) but being born again by the Holy Spirit then makes one part of the family of God--thereby they become 'Gods' joined together by this Spirit. As a spiritual being, only the Father has the right to destroy/kill this being. God may allow Satan to do this as we see what God does with Satan with the Two Witnesses found in Rev. 11.

John, I know that this is perhaps 'hard' to understand, and I may not completely understand how all of this works. I still have some questions and therefore I don't have all the answers.

What I have questions on is the difference between the 144K and the 5 wise virgins? Do they all become born again/sealed/sanctified at the same time, or do the 144k become sealed prior?

[BSW]

Quote:

Jesus came to this earth as a baby born of Mary, a human flesh and blood being. Jesus too was therefore a flesh and blood human human, but could not have had any DNA (genetic material) from Mary or He would have been sinful by the very nature of all humans were mortal and under the penalty of sin because of what their first parents did.

What does scripture say about this?

"God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." {Romans 8:3}

What about E.G.W.?

"Satan declared that it was impossible for the sons and daughters of Adam to keep the law of God, and thus charged upon God a lack of wisdom and love. If they could not keep the law, then there was fault with the Lawgiver. Men who are under the control of Satan repeat these accusations against God, in asserting that men can not keep the law of God. Jesus humbled himself, clothing his divinity with humanity, in order that he might stand as the head and representative of the human family, and by both precept and example condemn sin in the flesh, and give the lie to Satan’s charges. He was subjected to the fiercest temptations that human nature can know, yet he sinned not; for sin is the transgression of the law. By faith he laid hold upon divinity, even as humanity may lay hold upon infinite power through him. Although tempted upon all points even as men are tempted, he sinned not. He did not surrender his allegiance to God, as did Adam. {ST, January 16, 1896 par. 2}

I read in this that Jesus had my fallen human nature or "flesh", but instead of choosing to sin for His own satisfaction or preservation, He chose to show me the way to live forever in Him.

Which leads me to: "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:4

[John317]

Quote:

BSW: I read in this that Jesus had my fallen human nature or "flesh", but instead of choosing to sin for His own satisfaction or preservation, He chose to show me the way to live forever in Him.

Which leads me to: "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:4

I fully agree with your statement, BSW. But you are posting to someone who accepts neither the Spirit of prophecy nor the Apostle Paul.

Providentially, however, one can find the same teachings in the rest of the Bible, including in the Gospels of Matthew and John.

Thank God He made the Bible redundant so that people can find God's salvation by just studying one or two complete books. All important teachings are found several times in the Scriptures.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: ....when Jesus became sanctified at the time He was baptized, the Holy Spirit came to him to dwell in Him at that point, thereby Jesus too had been born of the Holy Spirit.

Where does the Bible teach that Jesus Christ had to be born again, or born of the Spirit?

In our natural birth we are born of the flesh. It is easy for us to sin from the start of our life. Jesus, on the other hand, was born of the Spirit. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the first place, so why would a baby conceived by the Spirit need to be born of the Spirit after he's grown?

What is the purpose of being "born of the Spirit"?

Jesus was perfectly obedience to God from the very beginning, wasn't He?