"Glacier View" 25 yrs later

[benherndon]

There is a petition circulating to request the GC to reinstate Dr. Des Ford with his former credentials. This has started in Australia beginning, I think, in the Avondale area.

If anybody is interested in seeing what the church's "Glacier View 'trial'" was all about and/or if anybody would like to sign the petition to request reinstatement of Dr. Ford one can go to www.gvpetition.com ----for there one can read about it and possibly sign or not sign the petition.

It was the Glacier View 'trial' that was a major force in my own life, making me seek the truths of scripture directly from the Bible itself, alone, and using my own ability to read and reason, independent of anyone or anything else.

Read it....at least it will educate one about a major doctrinal meeting in our church. There one can see what the issue was about and how various leaders in our church responded.

Ben

[Jeannieb43]

Dr. Ben, Thank you for this.

I signed the petition and sent it.

The infamous Glacier View Conference in the '80s was one of the lowest periods in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Those who led out in that charade will have much to answer for in the Judgment. Perhaps the church can help begin to make amends now by reinstating Dr. Ford into full church membership.

[olger]

I've heard Morris Venden's take on it, and Gerhard Hasel's. Also Hans LaRondelle's.

All three of them had a slightly different perspective, but agreed that Ford needed to be defrocked.

Venden: "I sat down to eat with this man for two years and dialogued with him. I was continually convicted that something was wrong with his theology, but it took me a while to put my finger on it. I finally realized that Ford was afraid of the judgement. And the judgement is the best news ever.."

LaRondelle: "Ford insisted on multiple fulfillments of one-time historical prophetic events. It was wrong."

Gerhard Hasel "Dr. Ford is a very nice man. But his theology isn't so nice. In the ensuing time since Glacier View, Ford has accepted a late authorship of Daniel, that Antiochus Epiphanes is the Little Horn, that 1844 has no significance, and that Sunday observance is acceptable. I was on the committee that helped Dr. Ford refine his views for Glacier View."

The president of Zaoski Seminary in Russia also questioned Dr. Ford when he was in Berrien Springs in '94 during the open format. His questions were very precise, and very keen. Ford did not answer them well at all (there were about 50-people in the audience).

One of the problems that people have with the judgement is that they fear that it will move them from one camp to the other; from a favorable destiny to an unfavorable one. No. The judgement merely reveals where we are standing, it does not shift a person from one side to the other. The judgement is great news for God's people.

gcw

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: ". . . reinstating Dr. Ford into full church membership."

Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Dr. Ford lost his ministerial credentials, and his position as an employee. He never was removed from membership, and remains a SDA to this day, as I understand it.

[Nan]

Just a couple of comments on some of the above. I do not have any direct connection with Dr Ford, I have heard him speak a few times in recent years. And one of those times was in my home church, Castle Hill in Sydney, some 7 years ago - he took the SS lesson and the church service, and in the afternoon Dr and Mrs Ford spoke on what happened at Glacier View. In my opinion he was entitled to have a nasty taste in his mouth after the way things were handled there - however that is another story.

To my knowledge Dr Ford has never had his membership in this church questioned. He did have his credentials rescinded, but has maintained his church membership and I believe used to teach a SS class in his California local church. He now lives in Queensland, Australia and I do not know about his current church attendance.

He has been banned from speaking in SDA churches here and I presume also in the greater world field.

I do not know what his teaching on Sunday observance is. I have heard him say on several occasions that in discussing the Adventist view of the state of the dead with other Protestant groups, that many now believe in the unconscious state in death.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: " . . . Sunday observance is acceptable."

I would like to see the support for this.

I have always understood Dr. Ford as supporting the Sabbath.

It should be no supprise that those three found something in Dr. Ford's theology with which to disagree. I suspect that most any SDA theologan would have elements in is theology with which others would disagree.

The question of import is not whether or not someone e lse disagrees with some point, but whether that point of disagreement is enough to remove them from employeement/membership.

[Jeannieb43]

Oops! I definitely misspoke!

Never intended to convey the thought that Dr. Ford had had his membership revoked. That was careless of me.

What I do mean is the same as is being stated in this thread: He should have his ministerial credentials reinstated. Because no two ministers ever interpret the doctrines EXACTLY the same as the next one. And the treatment he received at Glacier View was abominable.

I heard an esteemed Bible professor speak of him lately, "His theogy and mine are probably at opposite ends of the spectrum; but I believe he is honest, and I'll defend his right to his interpretation."

[Ron Lambert]

I consider it beyond belief and beyond toleration that a credentialed minister and pastor could misrepresent what the Bible teaches on such fundamental things to Adventism as the gospel as it relates to the cleansing of the sanctuary, the second apartment ministry of Christ, and the pre-advent, investigative judgment. For a minister to misrepresent what the Bible teaches is the most unforgivable offense a mnister could ever commit, but especially when they involve attempting to discard the core doctrines of Adventism, upon which the church stands or falls. If he wants to throw away Daniel 8:14 and deny the first angel's message that the hour of God's judgment has come, then let him go form some other church. He has no business continuing to pretend to be a Seventh-day Adventist, and it is deceitful for him to do this.

[olger]

Dear Ron. That is the precise ethical dilemma that Dr. Ford created by teaching things contrary to the church that employed him.

It is wrong to attempt to join the Amish and bring your Mercedes with you. Get in your car and drive to another church that accepts automobiles, and be happy.

Greg: While a place may exist for amelioration of interest in minor matters, when it comes to essential doctrines like the heavenly judgement, it quickly moves beyond personal opinion. Neither of these three Adventist leaders quoted above were attacking a person for their benign opinion. For Adventism the sanctuary is a non-negotiable doctrine, even though those who oppose it sometimes leave the work. There are good Biblical reasons for this, as I see it.

have a great day,

gcw

[bevin]

Quote:

---

I consider it beyond belief and beyond toleration that a credentialed minister and pastor could misrepresent what the Bible teaches on such fundamental things to Adventism as the gospel as it relates to the [:"red"]cleansing of the sanctuary, the second apartment ministry of Christ, and the pre-advent, investigative judgment[/]. For a minister to misrepresent what the Bible teaches is the most unforgivable offense a mnister could ever commit,

---

Des Ford was presented with a dilemma. He could either teach what the Bible taught about [:"red"]these things[/] or he could teach what the SDA church of the time was teaching. Unfortunately what the SDA church taught and what the Bible taught were not the same.

You are right - it is beyond comprehension that SDA ministers should teach what they do. It is clearly wrong for SDA ministers to teach that Dan 18:14 teaches that in 1844 Jesus moved from one place to another to begin some kind of case-by-case investigation.

/Bevin

[benherndon]

Did those of you who commented negatively on Dr. Ford's theology read the article in the web site to which I referred. Not commenting negatively to you or your comments now....just want to know IF you read the articles and links referred to in the web site?

Ben

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

olger said:

For Adventism the sanctuary is a non-negotiable doctrine

gcw

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Non-negotiable, perhaps, - but very often interpreted differently by different Biblical scholars.

The longer I live, the more I learn that truth is progressive. Even Ellen White revised her beliefs in certain key doctrines, over the period of her ministry.

Change, per se, does not equal heresy.

[Gregory Matthews]

Olger:

It looks to me like you agree with the following statement which I posted in the post to which you responded:

"The question of import is not whether or not someone else disagrees with some point, but whether that point of disagreement is enough to remove them from employeement/membership."

[Gerr]

I have listened to Ford on at least two occasions that I remember well. While I have no problem with him retaining church membership, I don't believe he should be preaching as a minister in the employ of the church. I have been studying the subject of the Investigative Judgment sporadically over the years. The more I study it, the more I am convinced as to the soundness of it. In fact, if we didn't this doctrine, we would have to invent it. His omniscience notwithstanding, for God to allow Hitler & Stalin into heaven and consign the likes of Billy Graham or HMS Richards into hell (if it were to happen) without showing the evidence to the whole universe would raise a lot of questions. If sin is never to arise again, everything that God does in dealing with sin and sinners have to be absolutely out in the open.

As someone already pointed out, he has come to the erroneous position that Daniel is a second century B.C. production, and that Antiochos Epiphanes aka Epimanes was the little horn.

No way he should be reinstated as an SDA preacher.

Gerry

[Gregory Matthews]

I would like to point out that there are threee stages in Dr. Ford's writings:

a) Pre-Glacier View: During this stage Dr. Ford was published by SDA printing plants, and his writings were sold in SDA book stores. One of these published books was a commentary on the Biblical book of Daniel. While people may disagree with some points in that book, it is hard to condemn material that was vetted by SDA clergy and/or scholars, published by us, and sold in our bookstores. At that time it was considered by many to be the best commentary on Daniel that we had published.

Glacier View: During the six months that Dr. Ford spend in writing his views for presentation at Glacier View, he developed some of his thinking behound what he has previously believed. Certainly, this development was grounded in where he had previously been, and published, but it in some ways expanded upon, and went beyond his past written works. Therefore I will suggest that his views at GV cannot be used to define his pre-GV beliefs, and his prior beliefs cannot be used to define his GV beleifs.

c) Post Glacier View: As happens, and should, with most of us, over the years since Glacier View, Dr. Ford has developed his beliefs beyond what they were at GV. He now appears to beleive some things that he did not seem to have accepted at Glacier View.

In my personal opinion, ans where I understand him to be:

1) He has remained firmly within the accepted bounds of SDA belief in regard to the Sabbath. That does not mean that he beleives like every other person in every detail. But, that does not happen in our Chruch. There are differences in Sabbath understnding among most of us.

2) He and his wife, in my opinion, have demonstrated over the decades the fruts of a relationship with Christ in regard to his personal relationships with the SDA Chruch, and its members and leaders. To be specific, he has not struck back, inappropriately at those who may have misunderstood him, and inappropriately judged him.

NOTE: Nothing here is to be construed as a statement as to where I am in regard to any specific belief of his. I am personally fine with the fact that he has remained a member of the SDA Church, against the opposition of those who have wished to remove him from membership.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

more I study it, the more I am convinced as to the soundness of it.

---

There are many aspects to the doctrine.

I think most/all SDA accept a pre-advent judgement. I also think that most accept that people's lives are visible to the rest of the universe.

However the ideas that

- it started in 1844

- it is taking decades

- that once it is completed then probation is over

these ideas are completely unnecessary and unscriptural.

/Bevin

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

bevin said:

I think most/all SDA accept a pre-advent judgement. I also think that most accept that people's lives are visible to the rest of the universe.

However the ideas that

- it started in 1844

- it is taking decades

- that once it is completed then probation is over

these ideas are completely unnecessary and unscriptural.

/Bevin

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Stated very succinctly, Bevin.

(I had never distilled it down in my own mind previously. Thanks.)

[Gerr]

If you accept a preadvent judgment, then when does/did it begin and when does it end? People's lives maybe evident to the onlooking universe but not to us.

Does this tragedy of sin on this planet have an end? If so when?

Gerry

[bevin]

Quote:

---

If you accept a preadvent judgment, then when does/did it begin and when does it end?

---

The NT clearly teaches that God knows who are His *all the time*. So it starts for each individual when they are born, is updated throughout their lives, and ends when either (a) they die, or ( just prior to the Second Coming for the living.

Quote:

---

People's lives maybe evident to the onlooking universe but not to us.

---

So? That implies a POST-Advent access to the records, not a PRE-advent judgement.

Quote:

---

Does this tragedy of sin on this planet have an end?

If so when?

---

At the end of the thousand years

/Bevin

[olger]

"But when the king came in to review the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes..." (Matthew 22:11).

This is the pre-advent judgement.

gcw

[Ron Lambert]

Revelation five depicts the Pre-Advent, Investigative Judgment. It shows that Jesus stands for us in judgment; not just as an Advocate by our side, but in our place! The book that could not be opened until the Lamb was found qualified, records the faith and works of God's people, which can only be consulted because of Christ. Our faith and works only have validity and value in Christ, so our faith can be accepted for righteousness, and so that we can be rewarded for our works.

[olger]

Agreed.

Hi Ron.

gcw

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

Quote:

---

If you accept a preadvent judgment, then when does/did it begin and when does it end?

---

The NT clearly teaches that God knows who are His *all the time*.

---

[:"blue"]Of course, He does, but do we? [/] [quote[

So it starts for each individual when they are born, is updated throughout their lives, and ends when either (a) they die, or

---

[:"blue"]Chapter and verse, please?

Judgment as far as eternal destiny is concerned could not have started for any one BEFORE the Cross because the devil was not shown to be a liar and a murderer until then. So I don't find your statement believable. [/]

Quote:

---

(

just prior to the Second Coming for the living.

---

[:"blue"]Oh, a rush to a rash judgment just a split second before He comes? [/]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

People's lives maybe evident to the onlooking universe but not to us.

---

So? That implies a POST-Advent access to the records, not a PRE-advent judgement.

---

[:"blue"]Of course! Because the judgment of believers takes place BEFORE He comes. [/]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Does this tragedy of sin on this planet have an end?

If so when?

---

At the end of the thousand years

/Bevin

---

---

[:"blue"]You know, Bevin, I don't understand how you can believe the ending of the Book to be literal and yet hold the beginning of it as mythical. [/]

Gerry

[Robert]

1844

The year 1844 marked the beginning of the restoration of the gospel from "the falling away" that occurred by 1,260 years of Papal domination. God raised the SDA for this purpose!

Rob

[Robert]

The Investigative Judgment

There's investigative judgment because Satan, the accuser of the brethren, insists that Christ is unjust in allowing sinners to enter heaven because His own law justly condemns them to death.

Christ’s part in the judgment, as our High Priest, is to vindicate the saints and acquit them of Satan’s accusations [read Zec. 3:1-4]. This is what the Day of Atonement service pointed to.