Dr. Desmond Ford

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

https://atoday.org/peace-in-the-wounds-of-christ-remembering-des-ford/

And of special value:

https://spectrummagazine.org/news/2019/des-ford-perils-being-right

 

 

[Kevin H]

Powerful passages. I remember when he came to AUC for week of prayer, and I ate lunch with him one day. The week included a Sabbath afternoon debate with our New Testament Professor, Dr. James Valentine. Sadly due to work I was not able to attend all of it, nor have I been able to find a copy of it.   The most memorial part of what I heard was several times Des would reply to something James brought up, that he had a hard time fitting that verse into his theology.

Our professors were strong critics of him and equally strong of the so called "Historic Adventists" which has ended up having a strong affect on my approach to scripture. The Spectrum article by William Johnson really hits home, where he would say that he is right. Our AUC professors pointed out that Dr. Ford was an expect in the teachings of the reformers and a fantastic New Testament Theologian. They said that his biggest problem is that he would speak with equal authority in both the fields of his expertise and in the fields that he did not have expertise. They pointed out that where he got into trouble was in the fields outside of his expertise. Our Old Testament professor said "If I was to speak with the same authority on the  New Testament as he does on the Old Testament I'd be in just as much trouble." He also said that Ford could be reinstated if he would only say things like "I don't see how the Investigative Judgment fits, but that is more of an Old Testament idea and I will leave that to the Old Testament professors" and to just focus on what he indeed did know.

[Ron Amnsn]

The second article, by William G. Johnsson, includes this line:

Quote

Des: “No, I am not always right — except in matters of theology!”

That anecdotal quote should be balanced by what Des Ford taught his students.  I took several religion courses from Des Ford at PUC during the 1977-78 school year. That was the year before he got into trouble.  On the first day of each course Dr. Ford would tell the class that 10% of what he would teach during the course was wrong, but that he didn't know which 10% was wrong, and that it was up to us students to study the Scriptures for ourselves to find out what was right.  He made it very clear that he knew he wasn't always right on matters of theology.

It is possible that his attitude changed over time, but it is also possible that what Dr. Ford told Mrs. Heppenstall was said with the joyful twinkle in his eye that was characteristic of Dr. Ford when he was kidding, but that Mrs. Heppenstall missed that cue and misinterpreted what he said, or that its meaning was changed later by those who sought to undermine the teachings of Des Ford.  Mrs. Heppenstall was apparently already finding fault with Dr. Ford for being too confident in what he believed, so she may have already had a bias toward making him sound unreasonably arrogant.

It is true that Dr. Ford was not easily swayed from what he found in Scripture. However, he did actually listen to those who disagreed with his position and he often pointed out the aspects of an issue where he agreed with them.  But he also defended his own position very well from Scripture and asked very specific and pertinent questions of those who presented differing views.

My own study of the Bible has led me to believe several things that differ from what I was taught by Dr. Ford, but I remain grateful that Desmond Ford presented so clearly the gospel of grace that is found in Scripture that I was able to see it despite the fog of legalism I had grown up with.

 

[GHansen]

Ron, I heard Dr. Ford say that 50% of what he said was wrong but wasn't sure which 50%. I was fortunate enough to attend GNU in Auburn and heard many sermons and lectures from him. It's unfortunate that his ministry in Adventism was defined by one sermon. He wrote many articles for ministry magazine through the years and had a Daniel  commentary published by the denomination. The SDA denomination hates the gospel and Dr. Ford was a gospel preacher. Dr. Ford was criticized for not listening to the brethren, for not taking their counsel. The reason for that was that most did not know what they were talking about.

Remarks about him not being an OT scholar are ridiculous. His gospel messages were richly illustrated with OT references and illustrations. He had more than 15 articles on the OT published in Ministry magazine, mainly on Daniel. He was certainly considered  a Daniel scholar at the highest levels of the denomination

Adventism is a Decalogue oriented denomination, not a Calvary oriented one. Des was also attached to Calvary. 

[Kevin H]

6 hours ago, GHansen said:

 

Remarks about him not being an OT scholar are ridiculous. His gospel messages were richly illustrated with OT references and illustrations. He had more than 15 articles on the OT published in Ministry magazine, mainly on Daniel. He was certainly considered  a Daniel scholar at the highest levels of the denomination

 

What the professors of say Atlantic Union College was pointing out was yes he could use a lot of Old Testament references and illustrations, but this was NOT his field of study. His field of study was New Testament (and in the old now out of date understandings of the New Testament) and church history, especially reformation theology. He did not study the culture and background to the Old Testament, he did not study the Ugarit Myths and other ancient near eastern writings, clearly never read stories from ancient Canaan by Michael Coogan, and e gags!!!!! never read something as basic as "Before Philosophy" by Henri Frankfort and others (which describes the year-day principle in the world of the Old Testament). I'm not sure if he read more than a passive here and there in John Bright's a history of Israel, Aharoni's"The land of the Bible" or the MacMillian Bible Atlas or volumes of the Anchor Bible on the Old Testament (although he studied the right things where he could have written a volume on a New Testament book for the Anchor Bible) or much if any of the works of say William Foxwell Albright. 

Those studies would have prevented him from saying the things that got him into trouble with the church. But it was NOT his job to study these things. His job was to study as he did in New Testament and Reformation theology. Where he got into trouble would have been like an outstanding brain surgeon deciding that he wanted to perform complicated heart operations.  If he did his job and rendered to the Old Testament scholar  Old Testament scholarship he would not have gotten into trouble. Even his articles and commentary on Daniel are approaching Daniel from a New Testament and Reformation Theology perspective and not from the perspective of an Old Testament scholar. 

Appealing to an almost outstanding comment you gave to another post: Benjamin Wilkinson's education was in modern languages. His religious knowledge came from being a church member and friend of Elder Washburn. Wilkinson did not have any Biblical Studies training and no ancient languages or Biblical languages training. Yet he was a popular preacher (despite the Whites thinking that he was teaching a lot of nonsense) and he pushed for the King James Only view.  We could say that remarks about Wilkinson not being a Biblical language scholar are ridiculous because he wrote a lot about the Bible and Biblical languages. 

[Kevin H]

8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

It would be an interesting study to discuss said differences. I never knew the man, nor much about his teachings. I can say that over the years, I have known quite a few people who had a beef with the church, and such seemed to gravitate to his writings, and a magazine he used to publish. Now I never did decide what that means. But I think Ford did ruffle a lot of feathers. I think he could have done things differently, and it all would have turned out better.

I met him, he gave a week of prayer at AUC in the late 1970s. I was impressed, but with a different perspective. 

Since the reaction to 1888 and the drop in popularity of Mrs. White over the 1890s and early 1900s, then the rejection of the 1919 Bible conference, in the horrible General Conference of 1922, the two views of Stephen Haskell and the more extreme views of people like Elders Washburn and Wilkinson grew in popularity with the church, especially in the throwing out some faithful professors from Columbia Union College and the witch hunts in the 1920s. Haskell was more moderate but Washburn and Wilkinson interpreted Adventism in the lines that focused on our works and views of perfection that we find in our current last generation theology.Had not Elder Andresen gone to visit Mrs.White to ask if she became a trinitarian and was convinced by her to accept the trinity our church would have not been trinitarian today.  Many in this group kept looking at the faults of others and made salvation seem out of reach. Many in this school ended up becoming very controlling and others just sheep who blindly followed. 

Then there were two schools of thought that has helped those who feel hopeless with the works centeredness of the Washburn/Wilkinson school. One was the Evangelical message that we eventually found in Dr. Ford, the other is the message found in people like G. E. Fifield, Lynn Harper Wood, Paul Heubech and others of Wood's students, eventually the east coast version found at Atlantic Union College in the late 1970s and early 1980s and a west coast version found in say Graham Maxwell, Jack Provonsha, 

Ford's view was more forensic focusing on legal adjustment. The other view is less forensic less concerned with legal adjustment, and more focused on hell fire not being some kind of imposed punishment, but simply the love, glory and beauty of God. That God is going to treat us all the same, but some will find it heaven to be with him others will find it hell and death to be with him. And thus focusing on building a life-giving friendship with God. 

I want to add to this but need to get ready to have lunch with my girlfriend before going into work