"Glacier View" 25 yrs later

[olger]

"Mt 21:31 Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."

This passage is referring to conversion, not to a heavenly hierarchy that rewards sinful behavior. Since conversion requires the humbling of oneself, these people were moving that way quicker initially.

"Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God."

When pride is put away, the heart is free to move unburdened towards God's house.

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized."

gcw

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

The above clearly teaches that what one does matters, even though we are not saved by our works.

---

If we are not saved by works then why does it matter? Your statement seems contradictory at best!

I'll tell you how I understand it, and I'll use EGW as a springboard. She says, "A change will be seen in the character, the habits, the pursuits."

Let's look at this from God's perspective. Satan, the accuser of the brethren, comes to God and says, "These believers are a bunch of sinners...who are you kidding? Because of this you don't have any right taking them to heaven."

Are Satan's accusations accurate? Yes. How does God handle him? Let's see:

• -CT- The Investigative Judgment

  -PR- 01

  -PG- 484

  While Jesus is pleading for the subjects of his grace, Satan accuses them before God as transgressors...he points to the record of their lives, to the defects of character, [:"red"]the unlikeness to Christ[/], which has dishonored their Redeemer, to all the sins that he has tempted them to commit, and because of these he claims them as his subjects.

  Jesus does not excuse their sins, but shows their penitence and faith , and, claiming for them forgiveness, he lifts his wounded hands before the Father and the holy angels, saying, "I know them by name. I have graven them on the palms of my hands. 'The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."[PS. 51:17.] And to the accuser of his people he declares, "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee. Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?'[3 ZECH. 3:2.]Christ will clothe his faithful ones with his own righteousness , that he may present them to his Father "a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing."[4 EPH. 5:27.]

Can the above be backed with Scripture. Yes:

1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Quote:

---

When the Holy Spirit

convicts

you of specific sin...

---

I agree with this statement! Too many times we try to do the work of the Holy Spirit. For example, one might tell someone of the Sabbath and condemn him or her as a law-breaker if they do no accept it. Another might say, "Hey you must tithe and if you don't you are stealing from God."

Now I might be wrong, but I am absolutely not convicted that I should pay tithe or else no heaven. In my mind that's "heaven for sale" and I hate that concept. I also have an issue paying tithe into a church that is presenting a perverted gospel.

My point? The Spirit must convict....For example I am thoroughly convicted that "self-seeking and self-love" are sin, but not in the sense that the Spirit is demanding I cease from these sins. For me the Spirit uses this knowledge in two ways:

1] To convince me that I am falling short of God's love and therefore I need His robe of righteousness to cover me in judgment. The Spirit uses this truth to humble this old man who was once a legalist.

2] Knowing this truth also transfers into a change....I am less "self-seeking"...less "worldly"....

In the judgment God will say, "You're right Satan, Rob is a sinner, but I see growth...I see confession...I see a hate for your system of "self". Because His faith is in my Son's righteousness as far as I am concerned Rob is absolutely perfect. Now go and bother someone else, I am busy!"

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

CoAspen said:

Bottom line of what teaching? Again, Who is teaching, "continue to willfully, on purpose sin and be saved"?????

---

You have added a few words to what I said. Here is what I said:

"I have heard Smuts, and have visited with him, years ago. My recollection of Smuts Van Rooyen's version of RBF was that it was different than what the Bible teaches. The popular version of RBF says that you can continue to sin and still be saved. IOW what you do or don't do does not affect your salvation . . . the completed, perfect work of Christ on the cross, standing alone, is all that matters in regard to your salvation--regardless of how you live or the choices you make, so long as you at some pont in time accept Christ as your Savior."

Granted that my statement jumps from Smuts to a general characterization of the popular version of RBF, and that was careless on my part. However, in reflecting back on what I heard and read from a variety of sources during that time (late 70's to early 80;s) I think my statement is accurate. Smuts was only one proponent of the general doctrine. There were numerous others, but the bottom-line was the same. The reason I know, is that I bought into the whole teaching for awhile, and it took me several years to sort things out. Yes, I did hear from some if not all of those advocates, that a person could continue to sin and still be saved. I know that because I was seeking definite answers, and I asked specific questions, which they responded to in the course of serious discussion. But, at this distance in time, I could not give specific attribution.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

Folks, the above is the more common view taught from the pulpit on Sunday. The above clearly teaches that what one does matters, even though we are not saved by our works. =

---

You seem to be misstating what I originally said. I did not say that all of the pastors and laymen with whom I have spoken, or read their materials, say that what one does does not matter. Christian maturity is a common thread. HOWEVER, that is a separate issue from salvation.

Quote:

---

It is unfortunate that some people live so close to Adventism that they do not know and understand what is taught in the Christian world around them.

---

Gregory, once again you are making an abstract, blanket statement. If you are referring to what I have said, (since my statement seems to be what got you going on this issue) you couldn't be farther from the truth. Not only do I not live close to Adventism, in fact I live much closer to a wide range of religious views, and work with them on a daily basis. If you would like to get into a serious discussion about this specific issue--that of the teaching on salvation--then by all means, let's start a thread on it. But, I hope you will try to avoid the sweeping generalizations.

Now, would you like to start a thread?

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

What do you mean by "backsliding"?

---

I was simply making a reference to a commonly-held belief that it is possible to lose one's salvation as a result of backsliding. Although, some believe that it is NOT possible, that God will bring back the backslidden believer, provided s/he has previously accepted Christ, and still save him or her.

[Gregory Matthews]

My comments have not been directed to David in everything that I have said on this. I have gone out beyond what he has said. But, he has stimulated my thinking and posting. And I think that some of what I have posted could be applied to him. If he does not think so, so be it.

[David Koot]

You might want to reread a couple of your posts, in that case, and perhaps reconsider how you worded them. The implication was pretty clear. Now, as for starting a new thread on the popular teaching about salvation, how about it?

[Gregory Matthews]

David, I feel that you have not fairly represented those you have mentioned.

I see that you have reacted strongly over your feeling that I have misrepresented you.

Now that you can understand how others might feel, you might reconsider what you say about them.

I really do not intend to get into a specific arguement/discussion over this. Just give some thought to how you represent others.

[David Koot]

I appreciate your being more specific. Perhaps you could clarify whom you think I have not represented correctly, and in exactly what way.

I do invite you to consider that you are the moderator on this forum. Seems to me like you have gotten involved in this issue beyond what a moderator would typically do.

As for any representations which I have made about the general teaching on the doctrine of salvation, I have reconsidered, and I feel comfortable standing on that position. If you believe that to be in error, then please provide specifics.

If you are going to be a participant and take sides on this discussion, then perhaps someone else needs to moderate. There needs to be a neutral person to moderate. So far, you do not seem to be neutral here.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Gerry Cabalo said:

I believe repentance is implied, otherwise

all

sinners would be saved including the all the scribes, priests, & pharisees. The same Jesus who uttered the words you quoted also said, "...unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Lk 13:3 NKJ.

Gerry

---

Matt 9:10 And as he sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 But when he [Jesus] heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Since their is none righteous, no not one, then Jesus was speaking against self-righteousness!

Many of the Jews were trapped in legalism. As Paul says, "Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works....[but] the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith."

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

Quote:

---

Robert said:

What do you mean by "backsliding"?

---

I was simply making a reference to a commonly-held belief that it is possible to lose one's salvation as a result of backsliding.

---

How do you define "backsliding"? Rejecting Christ by Faith? Practicing known sins? Leaving church????

Rob

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Seems to me like you have gotten involved in this issue beyond what a moderator would typically do."

Exactly.

I do not claim to be neutral.

Back when I first began to moderate, I clearly stated that I would take sides.

[benherndon]

So, somebody thinks and hopes they're saved? Let 'em alone. They know they are sinners! If they're saved they know its not because they are soooo goooood! They know its Jesus' life, death and resurrection that has done it all! And if it's some SDA that thinks he's kept ALL God's Law ALL the time.....let him think it! Will it hurt you or me?

Ben

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

I really do not intend to get into a specific arguement/discussion over this.

---

But you already have, and you have made some pretty specific representations. For you to now, having done so, say this does not sit too well.

Quote:

---

Just give some thought to how you represent others.

---

I do, actually. In this case, seems like the real issue is that you disagree with the view I have expressed. People can have different views, no problem. However, you went beyond that in this case. You added a personal note--an ad hominem attack--that I not only have misrepresented others, but that I have done so either intentionally or carelessly--rather than simply seeing things differently. That would seem to be inappropriate. I do hope that you will consider, first of all, taking the neutral role of a moderator, and allowing discussions like this to work themselves out. If you are not willing to do so, then I do hope you will avoid making personal or ad hominem attacks or insinuations. And, SOMEONE needs to assume the role of that neutral moderator. There's gotta be a ref.

So then, let's follow through. I will start a new thread on this topic.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

.How do you define "backsliding"? Rejecting Christ by Faith? Practicing known sins? Leaving church????

Rob

---

Rob,

I have found that to vary with not only the faith tradition, but the individual preacher. The general answer would be, all of the above, depending on which faith tradition you're talking about.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Gerry Cabalo said:

. While they may officially believe in a "once-saved-always-saved" doctrine, the preaching I have heard so far does not seem to reflect that. The sermons I have heard are very down on sinful living and very much upholding righteous living, giving me the

impression

that something bad might happen to you if you didn't, although this is not so expressed explicitly.

Gerry

---

I am fairly familiar with Southern Baptist teaching. They are strong on holy living, down on alcoholism, and very, very sincere, in so many cases. I have heard the term, 'living faith,' often used. IOW if a person has truly accepted Christ and has been buried and raised up to a new life, then his or her life will demonstrate that. With that I am in 100% agreement, praise the Lord! However, they also believe that, once you have had that experience, you WILL be saved, even if God has to chastise you severely in order to get you there! Holy living is admonished, but salvation is assured. A favorite Bible verse is found in Jn. 10, where Jesus said that no one can snatch His sheep out of His hand.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

CoAspen said:

Get over yourself man...you havent been attacked!. If your skin is so thin that you can't take rebuttal, than get out of the kitchen...know what I mean...!

---

Hmmm . . . I notice that you were not a party to the exchange. Puzzling why you would so vehemently get involved. Whatever your issues, you need to stay on topic and avoid personal attacks like the above. Hope you can work through things.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Gerry Cabalo said:

Quote:

---

Our current views of righteousness by faith come from Dr. Ford.

---

[:"blue"]Woooooooooo!!! That is some strong language! Has his writings been canonized that our doctrine is now derived from his writings? My views on righteousness by faith has nothing to do with Dr. Ford except to drive me to the Scriptures to see what it REALLY says. [/]Gerry

---

Dr. Ford's views "cannonized"?? hehe, I think that he would probably revolt to that. No, but the debate still continues over what he has said, even to this day. What it caused was a rediscovering of what the bible says.[ So yes,in a sense, YOUR views are based upon what Dr. Ford has said] And compared with the Adventist behavior being done back in the late 70's and up to the early 80's, there was a strong need for revival. And that is what Ford caused, a review of RBF, and our behaviors have changed. Plus Dr. Fords views do have some principles that are well recieved and are weightier in arguments than some of our traditional arguments. As such, many have elected to join the Adventist movement, rather than be an adventist. Such, as I understand it, is Dr. Fords current position. And I could be mistaken in that. Those that join the Advenist movement, are far more inclined to be a member of the SDA church and not necessarily an active member there.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

I strongly support Neil D on his point. Since GV, there has been a *lot more* emphasis on 'righteousness by faith' than there was earlier! ! !

Ben

---

Indeed, Ben. As I recall, there was a strong emphasis that RBF was following the 10 Commandments and the joy of being inside the Commandment boundarys. What they forgot was that the emphasis of the gospel was not the 10 Commandments but the relational aspect to Christ Himself.

Love makes it's own boundarys.

[Ron Lambert]

I think the message of 1888, though initially resisted, has been steadily permeating the thought culture of our church in the generations since, and I would give this far more credit for the increased awareness of the doctrine of Justification by faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ. Especially helpful has been the continued witness of the 1888 Message Study Committee, and their republication of many of the works of A.T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner. Desmond Ford is no more than a side light. He is merely symptomatic of certain spiritual problems that exist in our church; he has contributed nothing. Everything he has said has been said by others previously, and in my opinion, there is no light in it. His supposed Bible scholarship I do not regard as respectable, despite the way he is venerated by some for this. He is a bad scholar, and his arguments all fall apart under close examination. He is wrong in all his key contentions, and he has never proven any of them. Some people point to the fact that Ford still (so I hear) keeps the Sabbath, and claim that proves he is still a good Adventist at heart. But he has cast aside the core doctrines of Adventism, and others who were not raised Adventist the way he was will be less likely to be constrained by his cultural conditioning, and they will manifest far greater excess in acting on this departure from the truth.

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Love makes it's own boundarys.

---

[:"blue"]Oh, like allowing David to get in bed with Bathsheba? [/]

Gerry

[olger]

Quote:

---

Gerry Cabalo said:

Quote:

---

Love makes it's own boundarys.

---

[:"blue"]Oh, like allowing David to get in bed with Bathsheba? [/]

Gerry

---

Yes, I questioned a relativistic undertone to that statement..

all the best brethren,

gcws

[Nan]

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

and others who were not raised Adventist the way he was

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

I am almost certain Dr Ford was NOT raised an Adventist...does this affect your argument? I have heard him describe some things related to his conversion (years ago when he was still in the employ of Avondale College) - and I think he came into a knowledge of things SDA in his midteens.

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

Desmond Ford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Dr Desmond Ford (b.1928?) is an Australian Adventist scholar, known for his dynamic and grace centred preaching. He is a well known figure within Seventh-day Adventist circles for his role in the Glacier View doctrinal crisis of 1980.

Ford was converted to the Seventh-day Adventist Church after reading the Ellen G. White publication "The Great Controversy" in his late teens. He chose to study for the ministry at Avondale College.

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

[Ron Lambert]

OK Nan, make that raised Adventist. I was converted to Adventism as well, at the age of 15. Since then I have been in the church long enough to have acquired all the cultural conditioning of the born SDAs. I attended an SDA academy for my junior and senior years, and spent a number of years at Andrews. I expect it would be the same for Dr. Ford.

No, it does not affect my argument. I see many of his followers going to greater extremes in belief and conduct than he apparently has.

If I am not allowed to question the legitimacy of his teachings and alleged "contributions" to Adventism, then all his sympathizers should be forbidden from extolling him and building him up.

There was about five years (back in the early 80's) when I would have described myself as being "in Ford's camp." But the Lord brought me back from that confusion, and I know that what he teaches is wrong. I learned how it is wrong by reasoning and studying through it for myself in Scripture.

It is a fact that Desmond Ford has renounced core Adventist doctrines. Many people do not realize that if those doctrines go, the church falls. I must say that if Desmond Ford has his ministerial credentials restored, it may well mean the apostasy of the church itself, or at least of the local conference that commits this treason.

By the way, you cannot believe everything you read in Wickipedia. That entry was obviously written by a sympathizer. It is disingenuous to say Dr. Ford is well known "for his role in the Glacier View doctrinal crisis of 1980," when in fact the only "doctrinal crisis" was the one he created by trying to revive the heresy of Ballenger.

Here are some of the testimonies Ellen G. White gave regarding Ballenger and his teachings:

Quote:

---

"And now again our Brother Ballenger is presenting theories that cannot be substantiated by the Word of God. It will be one of the great evils that will come to our people to have the Scriptures taken out of their true place and so interpreted as to substantiate error that contradicts the light and the testimonies that God has been giving us for the past half century. I declare in the name of the Lord that the most dangerous heresies are seeking to find entrance among us as a people, and Elder Ballenger is making spoil of his own soul. The Lord has strengthened me to come the long journey to Washington to this meeting to bear my testimony in vindication of the truth of God's Word and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in confirmation of Bible truth. The word is sure and steadfast, and will stand the test. Human investigations will be brought in, but the Lord lives and He will bring to naught these inventions. We are to proclaim the full truth of the Word of God with decision and unalterable firmness. There is not truth in the explanations of Scripture that Elder Ballenger and those associated with him are presenting. The words are right but misapplied to vindicate error. We must not give countenance to his reasoning. He is not led of God. Our work is to bind up the Testimonies God has given and seal the law among His disciples.

.

"The time is worse than lost in spinning out theories that are not sustained in the Bible to vindicate such errors. I am instructed to say to Elder Ballenger, Your theories, which have multitudes of fine threads and need so many explanations, are not truth, and are not to be brought to the flock of God. The good that you and your associates might have received at this meeting, you have not received. God forbids your course of action-- making the blessed Scriptures, by grouping them in your way, to testify to build up a falsehood.

.

"Let us all cling to the established truth of the sanctuary. Those who are so shortsighted that they will begin to do the work that some others have been doing in advocating the sentiments contained in

Living Temple,

are departing from the living God in spiritualistic, satanic experiences that will not do the souls who receive them any good. They are departing from the faith, seeking to tear down the foundation of truth. The men who have lost their hold on the truths of the sanctuary question as they have been presented by men who have been under the Holy Spirit's guidance, had better pray more and talk less. I testify in the name of the Lord that Elder Ballenger is led by satanic agencies and spiritualistic, invisible leaders. Those who have the guidance of the Holy Spirit will turn away from these seducing spirits."--Ms 59, 1905. ("The Sabbath Truth in the Sentinel, and Elder Ballenger's Views," May 20, 1905.);

Manuscript Release

R760 4.2-4}

---

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

If I am not allowed to question the legitimacy of his teachings and alleged "contributions" to Adventism, then all his sympathizers should be forbidden from extolling him and building him up.

---

Ron, I think you really hit on something here. I have a similar perception. Apparently, with some people, and with some groups, Desmond Ford is someone whose teachings, one should not find fault with.

I, too, bought into his teachings for a few years. But, the Lord brought me back to the Bible truth. Yes, Dr. Ford's teachings contained elements of truth. And that was why it was so difficult to identify what they really were. The errors in his teachings were very subtle, and cloaked in very nice-sounding phrases. But, error none the less, and very dangerous error.

Yet, I can't help but wonder . . . on this Forum, is speaking against Dr. Ford's teachings in the same category as speaking in support of President Bush in Marin County?