Desmond Ford, A Relook

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

https://atoday.org/is-desmond-ford-really-the-dark-lord-of-adventism/

The purpose of the above article is to examine what Ford is alleged to have said with what he actually said.  It is not a comprehensive argument for his beliefs.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

It's interesting to hear what someone from the younger generation thinks of what transpired. 

It was sad to see the church administrators (most of whom were not scholars) pass judgment on a scholar without studying the issues carefully and without actually having adequate answers to the questions that Dr. Ford had raised.  That chapter of SDA history opened my eyes to the dangers of denominationalism and church hierarchy.

I had been a student in Dr. Ford's classes at PUC the year before he made his controversial presentation. Over the years I heard many "good Adventists" bear false witness against Dr. Ford -- people who had never talked to Dr. Ford nor read his theological positions for themselves -- people who felt Dr. Ford should have simply accepted the opinion of church employees rather than depend on the authority of God's Word.  I found out that speaking the truth about Dr. Ford in response to such slander was not a safe thing to do within some SDA congregations.   A decade later, when I privately asked my SDA pastor for a chance to study out from the Bible some of the questions that Dr. Ford had raised, the pastor slandered Dr. Ford and told me to just accept his own word that Dr. Ford was wrong.  Apparently the decision handed down from the Glacier View conference was very clear to whole generation of church employees -- it was not acceptable for employees of the denomination to study the Bible to find out what the Bible itself teaches about certain topics -- employees must uphold the party line regardless of what may (or may not) be found in the Bible.

Even if the decision of the Glacier View conference had been correct, the subsequent false reports and malicious gossip about Dr. Ford was morally wrong.  I agree with the author of the article regarding the need for SDA leaders to offer an apology to Dr. Ford.

[B/W Photodude]

Perhaps with time, I will be able to study into it more for a connection to QOD and Desmond Ford beliefs. However, while some get upset regarding Ford losing his ministerial credentials, it has been done also to those of the "historical" Adventist background also. I would be speaking of M.L.Andreasen.

Significant points in the whole controversy is one person's impression of the behavior of some in promoting QOD and how to make the church acceptable to the world. 

    Froom wrote up the initial set of replies to Walter Martin’s initial set of questions. Twenty pages in length, they were handed to Martin at the next meeting, and he stayed up till 2 A.M. that night going over them. Those of you who have read in Leroy Edwin Froom’s books (Movement of Destiny is a good example) will know that Froom was an expert at marshalling words to say what he wanted them to say. As Elder Ralph Larson so ably pointed out in Documentary Fraud [FF-261, Froom could even take bits and pieces from a collection of Spirit of Prophecy quotations-and make them say exactly the opposite of what they originally said) He was a master at subtle verbal restatement.
 

The following is a bit suspicious:

    
           But there was one man that Froom and Anderson privately agreed among themselves – should not receive a copy of those book chapters. That man was Elder M.L. Andreasen. Andreason stood head and shoulders above any other theologian in the denomination. Back in the late 1930s, he it was who had been selected by the General Conference to teach the first experimental class at, what was to become, the “Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary.” In the 1940s he had written book after book on the Sanctuary Message, and he knew it better than any other man alive. Froom and Anderson knew that this solid Adventist, who stood solidly for the Spirit of Prophecy, was not going to accept the new light that the atonement had been finished in A.D. 31. 

Why exactly did they want to hide this book from a man who was all his life in church leadership up to and being considered a theologian and even had been acquainted with Ellen White?

ELDER ANDREASEN DEFENDS TO THE END – Elder M.L. Andreasen, the acknowledged expert on our Sanctuary Doctrine in the 1940s, led the attack against the book, Questions on Doctrine, when it was published late in 1957. But it cost Andreasen his life. Kicked out of the ministry, and with his denominational retirement withdrawn, he finally had to apply to a local California State Welfare Office in Southern California for money for himself and his wife to live on. Officials there inquired into his case and learning that the denomination had illegally stopped paying him the denominational sustentation he had worked for during his lifetime, they telephoned our leaders and said that they were glad to pay Andreasen’s welfare bills, but they would also be instituting legal proceedings against the General Conference to recover them. Immediately Andreasen’s sustentation payments were again sent to him from Takoma Park.      A few years later, faithful Elder Andreasen- who had always been strong and healthy- died of a bleeding ulcer. The battle had cost him his life. Perhaps before this is all over, more of God’s people will die in the fight to defend those God-given standards and doctrines, but it is a good way to go.

Not only did the strip him of his ministerial credentials, but they took away his pension! How sad that a governmental body stepped in to protect him from the very church he loved and had spent his life in the service of.

https://heraldsofthemorn.com/tag/m-l-andreasen/

 

 

[Kevin H]

Questions on doctrine tended to give incomplete answers. Elder Andresen pointed out that while often part of an answer was given that there were other parts of the answer that was not given and he was encouraging giving the more complete answer.

Sadly there is a big movement in the church that has embraced the missing parts while rejecting the given parts. Thus while QOD ended up going to one extreme of error these people go to the other extreme of error. They point out the fact that the other extreme is wrong, thus they conclude that their extreme is therefore correct.

[B/W Photodude]

14 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Questions on doctrine tended to give incomplete answers. Elder Andresen pointed out that while often part of an answer was given that there were other parts of the answer that was not given and he was encouraging giving the more complete answer.

I think this was not a helpful answer as it was much more than just one side or the other giving incomplete answers. It was an aggressive attempt by some in church leadership to change the teaching of the church in a very fundamental way, deny participation of some who would object to this change, and even further to try  and get the church as a whole (deceive) to go along with these changes. How else would you explain the actions of the church to take away the pension of a long time leader of the church in so many ways. Really? Take away an old man's pension in his seventies? It should have been enough for people to see there was a problem when the state of California threatened to sue the church for people to step back an look at what these teachings of QOD were causing people to do. But no. It continues in so many other way thru so many different individuals.

The Sanctuary message was very much a target of these people who put out the QOD. It is really sad they felt that they had to make the church conform to the world, when it was stated over and over in Scripture that God's people will never be liked by the world.

The Sanctuary message has been a core belief of the church from its very beginning. Some promoting QOD would have us believe that the entirety of the plan of salvation began and ended at the cross. The cross has also been compared to the alter in the desert sanctuary. Given that the entire sanctuary was like one parable of the plan of redemption, QOD would end the parable outside the tabernacle. However, I tend to believe that God does not waste symbols and everything in the tabernacle had meaning up to and including the temple services of the Day of Atonement. The comparison of the Day of Atonement to 1844 has been a very central belief of the founders of the church and much of the church in spite of the efforts of some to destroy it. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."  Romans 5:10

Jesus stated multiple times in the gospels "He that hath ears, let him hear." Apparently many cannot hear the meaning of the temple services and would prefer to destroy the significance of the temple services that the Seventh-day Adventist church was blessed to have and understand. He went even further and stated, "For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." Matthew 13:17 That's right, as people in His day on earth were blessed to have what the prophets yearned to see, we have in the SDA church have what many also have looked forward to and desired to see. And some are trying vigorously to throw it away. Martin Luther is said to have been asked about some prophecy of the Bible and he is said to have replied that it was not for the people of his time but into the future. But how the reformers must have wanted to see what we are blessed to have before us.

[8thdaypriest]

On 3/16/2018 at 3:18 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

See:

https://atoday.org/is-desmond-ford-really-the-dark-lord-of-adventism/

The purpose of the above article is to examine what Ford is alleged to have said with what he actually said.  It is not a comprehensive argument for his beliefs.

 

Thanks Gregory.  Very good article.  I agree with the author's conclusion. 

I think we can all agree that Jesus doesn't need any "books" or 175 years plus, to "judge" who belong to Him.  He said, "I know My sheep."  

That being said, I DO believe there that a pre-advent JUDGMENT SCENE will take place in Heaven to pronounce judgment - to "read the verdict" and announce the sentence,  as we would say.  Jesus is judged "worthy" and is given dominion of the kingdom.  Satan is judged evil, and is stripped of any right to dominion.  That's Daniel 7. 

Why would it take so long before this happens?  Heaven already knew - almost 2000 years ago, that Jesus lived without sinning.  

I believe that we human beings are part of the evidence.  Could Jesus really rehabilitate human beings, infected with sin, to the point where they could be given eternal life?   The changes seen in the actions of human beings, as Christ heals their hearts, are evidence that Christ really can restore humans to live in peace and righteousness. 

The other point is that the bulk of humanity must reach a point of no return - a point where no amount of testimony or pleading or warning will effect any change.  Some carnal pagan Canaanite nations had already reached this point, which is why God told Joshua to wipe them out completely.

I believe that when the universal government of earth seeks to execute a death sentence against those who witness for the truth - that WILL BE the point where Jesus declares "enough".   That's Daniel 12:7.  

My problem with Christ entering the Most Holy Place of Heaven on October 22, 1844, is multi fold. 

In Mrs White's account of her vision, she says the angel told her she would be shown what happened in heaven on that date.  She wrote that Jesus was taken "to the Most Holy Place".  She "saw" Jesus in the Most Holy Place ministering before the Ark.  But she "saw" Him dressed in the WRONG ATTIRE for the Most Holy Place, or the Day of Atonement.   He is dressed in the daily garb, with the breastplate and the ephod, and the "bells and pomegranates".  Those things were NOT for the MHP on the Day of Atonement.   Maybe she "saw" Him ministering at the Alter of Incense, which is before the veil - and it was NOT the Day of Atonement.   He would be ministering before the Ark, if He stood at the Alter of Incense.  Maybe the "chariot" she saw, was like Elijah's chariot, which bore him to Heaven.  Jesus was born to Heaven where He does intercede for us before His Father's throne.  The clue I think, is the clothing.  He is NOT attired for the Day of Atonement, therefore her vision does not teach that October 22, 1844 was the final Day of Atonement - for earth.   

The Spring TYPES were fulfilled day for day, even hour for hour.   How can we then stretch the Day of Atonement to cover some 175 years plus?  It was called "the DAY of Atonement" because it all took place on ONE DAY.  It should be fulfilled in the space of ONE DAY - and ONE 24 hour day at that.  How could the Spring types be fulfilled day for day, and the Fall types be fulfilled day for year.  Besides - the ceremonies of the High Priest on that DAY included more than just ENTERING the MHP.  They included his coming forth to bless the waiting people.

If Jesus ENTERED on October 22, 1844, and you're talking day for year, then one year later Jesus should come back to bless His faithful.  If you're talking  one day for a thousand years, then His coming forth for the blessing would not take place until 2844.  That's a whopping WAIT!

If the final Day of Atonement will be ONE DAY - the final day of this age, then it really will happen SOON. 

[B/W Photodude]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I think we can all agree that Jesus doesn't need any "books" or 175 years plus, to "judge" who belong to Him.  He said, "I know My sheep."  

I suspect God has known forever who His people were and for Him, judgement was over before the earth even started. However, perhaps you do not really understand what the investigative judgement is all about. It really was not for God to decide who would be saved. You could read the works of a number of Adventist theologians like Douglass, Andreasen, Waggoner, and many more and then you might have a different viewpoint to consider. It really is a lot more than was Jesus dressed in the right garments, etc.

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I suspect God has known forever who His people were and for Him, judgement was over before the earth even started. However, perhaps you do not really understand what the investigative judgement is all about. It really was not for God to decide who would be saved. You could read the works of a number of Adventist theologians like Douglass, Andreasen, Waggoner, and many more and then you might have a different viewpoint to consider. It really is a lot more than was Jesus dressed in the right garments, etc.

I'm sure that not one of us understands perfectly or clearly, just what the investigative judgment is all about. 

Created beings need to understand WHY individual persons are consigned to eternal death.  They need to agree with the judgment of God.  For that they need see the records, to know how God tried to reach these people, and to know how those persons refused the pleadings of God, and their subsequent ACTIONS which revealed their own choices.  

Is that the gist of it?   I can agree with that.  To be reconciled with the judgment of God on a loved one, the saved will need to understand WHY God judged so.

 

[8thdaypriest]

Another reason I do not believe that October 22nd, 1844 was the fulfillment of the ancient Day of Atonement prophecy:

Forgiveness ENDED when the High Priest ENTERED the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. 

IF Christ ENTERED the MHP on October 22nd, 1844, then probation closed on that day, and no forgiveness could be obtained after that date. 

Instead - forgiveness continues - which means that Christ our High Priest has NOT YET ENTERED for the final Day of Atonement.   

The Day of Atonement was the 10th day of the 7th month.   Just 5 days later - on the 15th, began the HARVEST celebration (15th to 21st).  

IF October 22, 1844 was the DAY of ATONEMENT, then where was the week long HARVEST celebration 5 days later?

It would be impossible to harvest the crop in the 5 days between the Day of Atonement and Feast of Tabernacles.  The trip alone took some of the people 2 weeks or longer.  The crop was harvested before the people traveled to Jerusalem for the Feast.  Which means the final HARVEST of souls for the Kingdom, will take place BEFORE the final Day of Atonement. 

In the final fulfillment, probation will close on the DAY God has appointed.  Jesus will go before the Heavenly "court" to receive the kingdom.  He will then immediately come from Heaven to rescue His people.  We will then travel with Him to the City He has prepared - to Jerusalem, for the Feast of the Harvest - Tabernacles. 

Since new converts are still being added daily to the kingdom, and forgiveness is still available through the ministration of our High Priest Jesus, that means He has NOT YET ENTERED the the Most Holy Place for the Day of Atonement ceremony.  The final fulfillment of that prophecy HAS NOT YET COME.