Advent Talk
Theology Category => Doctrinal Discussions => Topic started by: SDAminister on August 22, 2008, 08:16:29 PM
-
I think we already had that battle with Elder Ford, et al? I know Glacier View is held in low esteam on the "LEFT COAST" but never the less, it has soundly defined the doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. All others are not Seventh-day Adventist doctrine and represent apostacy, a sign of the times, I suppose.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Interesting comment in bold above . . . were you there? Were you involved in the discussion/debate? Were you even in the the general Glacier View area when that occurred? If not then why the inclusive pronoun "we"? I am going to guess you were not.
anyman,
Why does it matter if Gailon wasn't near Glacier View?
Neither was I at/near Glacier View, but the battle for truth against the heresies of Desmond Ford (Sorry Gailon, he ain't no "Elder" anymore), was and is waged by many who weren't there. Perhaps the greatest riposte against Fordian theology was made by Pastor David Lin, who lived 10,000 miles away from Glacier View. His book "China Letters" makes short work of the shallow theology and even shallower thinking of the man who sailed a phantom ship far larger than the one D.M. Canright helmed a century ago. Poor Ford, couldn't even get out of the way of his own arguments! Unfortunately, Ford's acolytes still haunt many SDA churches today; but fortunately most younger, Bible-thinking people see through their old saws and are more interested in victorious SDA living.
But it all makes one wonder, is there something in the water in Australia? Another mega-heretic from down under, by the name of Robert Brinsmead, sent his brand of "another gospel" {2 Cor 11:4} to the US where it split my old church. May God have mercy.
So, anyman, what role did you play in helping the SDA church oust the impostor Ford from amongst our midst?
SDAminister
-
[Neither was I at/near Glacier View, but the battle for truth against the heresies of Desmond Ford (Sorry Gailon, he ain't no "Elder" anymore), was and is waged by many who
But it all makes one wonder, is there something in the water in Australia? Another mega-heretic from down under, by the name of Robert Brinsmead, sent his brand of "another gospel" {2 Cor 11:4} to the US where it split my old church. May God have mercy.
So, anyman, what role did you play in helping the SDA church oust the impostor Ford from amongst our midst?
SDAminister
For the record "the imposter" Dr Ford is still a member of the SDA church, as far as I know, and lives in Queensland.
And I think you might have left out some of the Australian influence in the Branch Davidians in your category of megaheretics from Down Under.
In the past I have listened to Dr Ford speak, on various occasions, and while I do not necessarily agree with all he believes, I never heard him speak of more conservative
members of the church with the vitriol some with other view points, used.
It would be a good thing if those who believe they have "The Truth'" could show "victorious SDA living".
For the record also, I am a relatively conservative SDA - by Australian standards anyway.
-
Amen, Emma.
IMO, vitriol spouted against any other child of God is a far worse heresy than Ford's or Brinsmead's theology. There is a correct way to confront error and there is the adversary's way.
-
What would have been beneficial to Ford and many others, I think, is to put more effort in finding answers to questions, answers that support what we believe rather than answers that tear it down.
For example, I recall Dr. Ford saying something about "within the veil" in Hebrews having to correspond to a particular phrase in the LXX, and thus it had to mean "Most Holy Place" in Hebrews. But when I tried to check that out, it appeared to me that the Greek of Hebrews 6:19 corresponded more closely to that of the LXX of Num. 3:26, which to me definitely is talking about within the first veil rather than within the second veil.
We tend to find what we are looking for, and if we aren't looking for something, we are unlikely to find what is really there.
-
Here is a little Biblical support for Emma's post as well as the formula for leading a victorious life, SDA or otherwise.
Matthew 22:34 - 40:
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
1 Corinthians 13 (New International Version)
1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love
-
Thank you Grandma.
All I was asking for was Christian courtesy in discussing others - I have never been a 'follower' of Dr Ford but I have gained some
useful insights in hearing him speak.
-
[Neither was I at/near Glacier View, but the battle for truth against the heresies of Desmond Ford (Sorry Gailon, he ain't no "Elder" anymore), was and is waged by many who
But it all makes one wonder, is there something in the water in Australia? Another mega-heretic from down under, by the name of Robert Brinsmead, sent his brand of "another gospel" {2 Cor 11:4} to the US where it split my old church. May God have mercy.
So, anyman, what role did you play in helping the SDA church oust the impostor Ford from amongst our midst?
SDAminister
For the record "the imposter" Dr Ford is still a member of the SDA church, as far as I know, and lives in Queensland.
My point exactly. Posing as an SDA but not believing in at least two of the central pillars of our faith (the Sanctuary and the Spirit of Prophecy) makes one out to be a fraud, an imposter. But mind you, I'm glad we live in the merciful times that we do now. I am a sinner. But I have never purposed to destroy the foundations of the SDA faith. What Ford has done over the years would have gotten him, in Biblical times, stoned outside the camp or run through with a javelin for denying the truth, preaching falsehoods, and teaching others the same. He ought to be grateful the Lord has stayed His hand of judgment. I know I am.
But why did you bold the "Dr" when you referred to Ford? What is your intent? To show that he has a couple of doctorate degrees from worldly universities? That he gained significant knowledge from the Gods of Ekron to help him in his ministry?
And BTW, he was ousted. He was defrocked, lost his teaching jobs, and was forbidden to speak at any of our churches. The fact that some are sympathetic to his cause in recent years like this recent meeting at an SDA church in Australia only support the prophecies given by EGW, that Satan will try to put as many unconverted people into the church as is possible in order to destroy it.
And BTW again, Ford's sloppy agape view of the grace of God turns that grace into a burden because he doesn't believe it can bring about victorious living. The church that holds his membership should wake up. To countenance Ford's heresies and antics while still allowing membership in God's remnant church now puts blood on their hands as well. Haven't enough people been put in perdition's way by this man? Do we need to add more?
SDAminister
-
How many current SDA ministers have doctorates (in theology related areas) from "worldly" universities? Dr Ford gained his first doctorate in 1961 (from Manchester), when I would imagine there were not so many Adventist institutions where it was possible to gain the qualification. I was merely trying to speak the truth in Christian courtesy, given the tenor of previous comments.
Whether or not he believes in victorious Christian living I am not sufficiently a theologian to debate - I do know I have only seen him behave as a Christian gentleman.
I know many in Australia - including ministers - found the whole 'defrocking' at the end of the Glacier View conference to have been rather less than transparently conducted but that is water under the bridge now.
I had the impression he was a Sabbath School teacher in California for some years after the defrocking, but I could have that wrong. He has certainly spoken in some Adventist churches since you think he was banned from doing so.
But my concern is not particularly to defend Dr Ford. He would not even know who I am.
I am unaware of which church or recent meeting to which you refer, I have not heard his coming to my State for some years. He has always had sympathisers, including some who have remained pillars of the church here and who have also been active in the church in N America. I am quite unaware of any recent surge in that sympathy, but maybe you know more about that than I.
I am extremely grateful that God and not man will be my Judge.
-
How many current SDA ministers have doctorates (in theology related areas) from "worldly" universities?
Too many.
-
How many current SDA ministers have doctorates (in theology related areas) from "worldly" universities?
Too many.
So the SDA church and its institutions have all that is worth knowing in this field?
-
The Waldensians attended outside institutions ... for a distinct purpose. Ellen White advocated that we do the same today ... even while acknowledging that it carries definite risks.
Regarding Dr. Ford, a fellow from down under sent out a newsletter a few years back claiming that Ford was confronted by a non-Adventist creationist over evolutionary views. Would you know anything about that, Emma?
-
There was an arranged debate several years ago between Dr Ford and an evening talkback radio host in Sydney, a man called (?John) Wiltshire.
I did not attend or hear any recordings, according to the report I heard Mr Wiltshire was deemed to have won the debate, for whatever that was worth.
From memory it was held under the auspices of a Protestant group, possibly the Wesley Mission/Uniting Church, but I am not sure about that.
-
Amen, Emma.
IMO, vitriol spouted against any other child of God is a far worse heresy than Ford's or Brinsmead's theology. There is a correct way to confront error and there is the adversary's way.
And that has always been the question, hasn't it Grandma: Are you "correct" or the "adversary"? I trust you know where I put you. In my book, your sanctimonious pretentions are without standing. Anyone who can never find the TRUTH, is an adversary to TRUTH.
Especially when they have had four years and the all important relationship!!! Why you should have been able to get down on your knees, put the fleece by the front door and check it in the morning to determine it's moisture content. Then enlightened us with the TRUTH. Since that clearly has not happened, I re-assert:
Anyone who can never find the TRUTH, is an adversary to TRUTH.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
How many current SDA ministers have doctorates (in theology related areas) from "worldly" universities?
Too many.
And how many SDA's are imposters? And remember, that does not include LAODICEANS, or does it?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
How many current SDA ministers have doctorates (in theology related areas) from "worldly" universities?
Too many.
So the SDA church and its institutions have all that is worth knowing in this field?
It's all relative. Could an average Joe from off the street learn something worth knowing by attending a worldly university to study theology. Sure. Is this what SDA's are called to do, to go and learn about God at an institution or church that is based upon the fallen philosophy of Babylon? Categorically--NO! You are familiar with the SDA position on this, aren't you? If you've got the Ellen White CD ROM, I can send you the references, or links to them, if you don't.
But who knows, the best was to study God (theology) just might be to talk a walk in the woods every day to commune and pray with the one who made it all.
-
Theology is a wide field, I am sure there would be specialised and relatively noncontentious areas where well grounded SDA ministers could study with profit in non SDA
institutions. Obviously it is not where SDA ministers would get their basic training.
My training is not in theology - obviously - and I had no choice but to go to the secular institution to study. Those who have had the opportunity so study in such places are privileged. Thank you for the offer of references, but at this time I am studying other things. I will chase them up later as I need them.
-
[Neither was I at/near Glacier View, but the battle for truth against the heresies of Desmond Ford (Sorry Gailon, he ain't no "Elder" anymore), was and is waged by many who
But it all makes one wonder, is there something in the water in Australia? Another mega-heretic from down under, by the name of Robert Brinsmead, sent his brand of "another gospel" {2 Cor 11:4} to the US where it split my old church. May God have mercy.
So, anyman, what role did you play in helping the SDA church oust the impostor Ford from amongst our midst?
SDAminister
For the record "the imposter" Dr Ford is still a member of the SDA church, as far as I know, and lives in Queensland.
That is my understanding too Emma. I believe that he came down to preach in the Norther Rivers Area of NSW several years ago.
And I think you might have left out some of the Australian influence in the Branch Davidians in your category of megaheretics from Down Under.
In the past I have listened to Dr Ford speak, on various occasions, and while I do not necessarily agree with all he believes, I never heard him speak of more conservative members of the church with the vitriol some with other view points, used.
It would be a good thing if those who believe they have "The Truth'" could show "victorious SDA living".
For the record also, I am a relatively conservative SDA - by Australian standards anyway.
I endorse everything that Emma has stated above. I have never heard DR Ford speak with the animosity that I witness here on many occasions.
-
Thank you Grandma.
All I was asking for was Christian courtesy in discussing others - I have never been a 'follower' of Dr Ford but I have gained some
useful insights in hearing him speak.
Let me be very clear on this issue to. I am not a 'Ford-follower'. I am merely stating that at all times I heard him speak, he was a gentleman. His views also taught me to study more for myself, and to teach me to be very careful about 'following the crowd', or following a particular person.
-
How many current SDA ministers have doctorates (in theology related areas) from "worldly" universities?
Too many.
So the SDA church and its institutions have all that is worth knowing in this field?
It's all relative. Could an average Joe from off the street learn something worth knowing by attending a worldly university to study theology. Sure. Is this what SDA's are called to do, to go and learn about God at an institution or church that is based upon the fallen philosophy of Babylon? Categorically--NO! You are familiar with the SDA position on this, aren't you? If you've got the Ellen White CD ROM, I can send you the references, or links to them, if you don't.
But who knows, the best was to study God (theology) just might be to talk a walk in the woods every day to commune and pray with the one who made it all.
So, are you saying SDA Minister, that my degrees from various secular Universities are of account, because they were not obtained at Avondale (despite the fact that Avondale did not have facilities to study those speciality areas until very recently)? In fact, most of my studies are still not available at Adventist study centres (in Australia, anyway).
We can't all be Theologians. God did not create us all to do the same thing. Some people that I have come across have their heads so far in the clouds that they are of no earthly use, so it's just as well that there are some practical people 'out there'.
You know, this SDA elitist attitude is one thing that has turned many away from Adventist beliefs.
It also costs a lot more $s to attend SDA education centres than is does to attend Government Universities. No small matter when a mother with 4 small children is trying to obtain the education which was not available to her in her younger years and her husband is also studying at the same time.
-
SDAminister,
Just a side note to your earlier post. Ellen G. White drank Australian water for a number of years. Do you know if that was before or after she wrote her statements on amalgamation of man and beast resulting in a new race of people?
"Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p 75.)
Although I am not a Ford follower, I find this odd: Dr. Ford is called a heretic for getting veil placement wrong and is criticized for his worldly education, but do you charge EGW with heresy when she embraced and endorsed this unscientific, rascist philosophy of Babylon, aka the worldly views of her day? Remember, scripture was clear about the origins of all men. Acts 17:24 - 28:
24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
How many current SDA ministers have doctorates (in theology related areas) from "worldly" universities?
Too many.
So the SDA church and its institutions have all that is worth knowing in this field?
It's all relative. Could an average Joe from off the street learn something worth knowing by attending a worldly university to study theology. Sure. Is this what SDA's are called to do, to go and learn about God at an institution or church that is based upon the fallen philosophy of Babylon? Categorically--NO! You are familiar with the SDA position on this, aren't you? If you've got the Ellen White CD ROM, I can send you the references, or links to them, if you don't.
But who knows, the best was to study God (theology) just might be to talk a walk in the woods every day to commune and pray with the one who made it all.
There will be multitudes of heathens in heaven who will have come to know God far better than any "elitist SDA" (thank you Ozzie!) simply by studying what He has created.
-
There will be multitudes of heathens in heaven who will have come to know God far better than any "elitist SDA" (thank you Ozzie!) simply by studying what He has created.
This is one of my favorite references about the love of God!
Desire of Ages P 638
...All who have been born into the heavenly family are in a special sense the brethren of our Lord. The love of Christ binds together the members of His family, and wherever that love is made manifest there the divine relationship is revealed. "Everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." 1 John 4:7.
Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God.
How surprised and gladdened will be the lowly among the nations, and among the heathen, to hear from the lips of the Saviour, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me"! How glad will be the heart of Infinite Love as His followers look up with surprise and joy at His words of approval!
But not to any class is Christ's love restricted. He identifies Himself with every child of humanity. That we might become members of the heavenly family, He became a member of the earthly family. He is the Son of man, and thus a brother to every son and daughter of Adam. His followers are not to feel themselves detached from the perishing world around them. They are a part of the great web of humanity; and Heaven looks upon them as brothers to sinners as well as to saints. The fallen, the erring, and the sinful, Christ's love embraces; and every deed of kindness done to uplift a fallen soul, every act of mercy, is accepted as done to Him.
-
Yep, mine too.
-
SDAminister,
Just a side note to your earlier post. Ellen G. White drank Australian water for a number of years. Do you know if that was before or after she wrote her statements on amalgamation of man and beast resulting in a new race of people?
"Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p 75.)
Although I am not a Ford follower, I find this odd: Dr. Ford is called a heretic for getting veil placement wrong and is criticized for his worldly education, but do you charge EGW with heresy when she embraced and endorsed this unscientific, rascist philosophy of Babylon, aka the worldly views of her day?
Why repeat the fallacious arguments of Dudley Canright and a host of other uninformed critics who didn't know what they were talking about?
Certainly you don't buy into this bogus criticism of Ellen White, do you? Especially at a time when the world's scientists are engaged in amalgamation of man and beast?
-
What would have been beneficial to Ford and many others, I think, is to put more effort in finding answers to questions, answers that support what we believe rather than answers that tear it down.
For example, I recall Dr. Ford saying something about "within the veil" in Hebrews having to correspond to a particular phrase in the LXX, and thus it had to mean "Most Holy Place" in Hebrews. But when I tried to check that out, it appeared to me that the Greek of Hebrews 6:19 corresponded more closely to that of the LXX of Num. 3:26, which to me definitely is talking about within the first veil rather than within the second veil.
We tend to find what we are looking for, and if we aren't looking for something, we are unlikely to find what is really there.
Bob,
I wonder if you have studied Ford's manuscript "Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment." Do you really know what he claims? My previous discussions with you (I still have the 500 pages of e-mail we have exchanged) provide evidence that the basis of your SDA beliefs are not the Bible but the claimed writings of Ellen White in spite of ample evidence that Ellen White did not write the books published under her name. This is why, I assume, in one of your messages to me you came to state that Ellen's White's claimed writings are Jesus's direct words to the church.
There are just a few original manuscripts (handwritten documents) that are confirmed to be written by her, and most of them are short letters written in an atrocious language. Ellen White never used more than a poor second grader's English in those handwritten documents until her death. She could not have written, and she did not write what has been published under her name. Others have written those books (actually copied them from different Christian authors), and the evidence is incontrovertible. Ellen White is an SDA LEGEND, and one of the greatest ecclesiastical scams in the history of mankind.
The truth is that the SDA theology is utterly bankrupt and beyond recovery. There is no support in the Bible for the the claimed "year-day principle" (I wrote an article in Adventist Today showing that the "principle" or "equation" -as Shea names it - has not linguistic basis in the Bible). The SDA perspective on a split atonement and investigative judgment cannot be supported with Biblical texts, while the SDA interpretations of Daniel 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are pure fantasies.
In the past 20 years I have corresponded or talked personally with Desmond Ford (I met him a couple of times and discussed different topics related to his Manuscript.), Richard Davidson, Roy Gane, Jon Paulien, and some of the other "famous SDA theologians." My communication with those theologians has been very disappointing. I asked them questions about key SDA doctrines that could not be supported with the Bible, and I did not get any response to some of my messages, or the answers I received contained infantile responses to my serious questions. I wanted to publish a few articles in JATS and AUSS that argued against the SDA perspectives on different "unique contributions" to the Christian beliefs, but I was told that these journals did not publish anything that contradicted the traditional SDA views.
The SDA hermeneutics still belongs to the 19th century. Most of the SDA "exegesis" is based on etimological studies and morphological hair splitting, something that James Barr criticized brutally in his book "The Semantics of Biblical Languages." The SDA exegetes are less than amateurs. They are ignorant, brain-washed individuals who repeat at nauseam the lies that stand at the foundation of the "movement." A few of these "experts" used the word "linguistics" in their papers as evidence that they are using current linguistic tools to interpret the Bible, but the fact is that they have no idea what linguistics is. They have no idea that the words have meaning only in context, and that their dictionary definitions or senses matter little in Biblical interpretation.
Desmond Ford was right when he pointed to the serious theological problems that have plagued the SDA church from the beginning . Unfortunately, he could not see that even with the solutions he had proposed, most of the SDA basic doctrines could not be defended with the Bible. If Ellen White's books were not inspired and were not written (copied) by her but by other people, if the "year-day principle," has no basis in the Bible, because there is no lingustic support for it, if the split atonement and the investigative judgment cannot be documented with Biblical texts, and if the SDA interpretation of Daniel 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 is wrong, what is left of the SDA teaching? Nothing?
I have a question for you: To what "tent" or tabernacle "room" does Hebrews 9:6-10 make reference to? After you have given me your answer, I will show you how Roy Gane (in a personal communication) has twisted these texts to reach a conclusion convenient to the SDA doctrine of split atonement.
Eduard
-
ADMIN HAT ON
If you wish to discuss theology, you may do so in the proper area of the Forum. Also, please remember that Advent Talk is stated to be Seventh-day Adventist in content.
ADMIN HAT OFF
ADDENDUM: Topic has now been moved to the Theology section.
-
This is why, I assume, in one of your messages to me you came to state that Ellen's White's claimed writings are Jesus's direct words to the church.
Not exactly.
The Bible teaches that Jesus testifies by His Spirit through the prophets. Thus, if Ellen White had the gift of prophecy, Jesus testified by His Spirit through her.
But that doesn't mean that her writings are Jesus' direct words, since inspired writings are divine thoughts put into human words.
There is no support in the Bible for the the claimed "year-day principle"
Why then do Bible translators everywhere as well as Hebrew linguists acknowledge that one of the meanings of the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) is "year" or "yearly"? If yom can mean "year" in everyday speech, why not in prophecy?
Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized the year-day principle for centuries, if not millennia. Of course, one could propose that they were all wrong.
The SDA perspective on a split atonement and investigative judgment cannot be supported with Biblical texts, while the SDA interpretations of Daniel 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are pure fantasies.
I disagree, and I suppose we could go back and forth on that for 500 pages ... in between writing legal briefs.
Desmond Ford was right when he pointed to the serious theological problems that have plagued the SDA church from the beginning .
Do you think he was right in adopting evolution, if that is what he has done?
I have a question for you: To what "tent" or tabernacle "room" does Hebrews 9:6-10 make reference to?
Aah! In all these topics, 3ABN or otherwise, I love specific questions about specific matters.
In my view, the first tabernacle of Heb. 9:6 corresponds to that of 9:1, and refers to the Holy Place. The second tabernacle of 9:7 corresponds to that of 9:3, and refers to the Most Holy. The mistranslated "holiest of all" of 9:8 in the KJV, "the holy places," is the heavenly sanctuary which includes both the Holy and Most Holy, which is consistent with how that phrase is used throughout the book.
I believe what Paul is saying is that in this illustration, the Holy Place on earth represented the daily and yearly services on earth, and the Most Holy on earth represented the services in both places in the heavenly sanctuary. While the earthly sanctuary was in operation, the way into the Holy and Most Holy in heaven was not yet made manifest.
My apologies that I did not connect your name with the discussions we had back in 2002!
-
SDAminister,
Just a side note to your earlier post. Ellen G. White drank Australian water for a number of years. Do you know if that was before or after she wrote her statements on amalgamation of man and beast resulting in a new race of people?
"Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p 75.)
Although I am not a Ford follower, I find this odd: Dr. Ford is called a heretic for getting veil placement wrong and is criticized for his worldly education, but do you charge EGW with heresy when she embraced and endorsed this unscientific, rascist philosophy of Babylon, aka the worldly views of her day?
Why repeat the fallacious arguments of Dudley Canright and a host of other uninformed critics who didn't know what they were talking about?
Certainly you don't buy into this bogus criticism of Ellen White, do you? Especially at a time when the world's scientists are engaged in amalgamation of man and beast?
Are you saying that EGW didn't write those words that mirrored the thinking of the day about where certain races came from? She wrote them, that was the thinking of the day and W. C. White explained that it was EGW herself who had the statements removed from her writings (The statement was already in caps):
"REGARDING THE TWO PARAGRAPHS WHICH ARE TO BE FOUND IN SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND ALSO IN THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY REGARDING AMALGAMATION AND THE REASON WHY THEY WERE LEFT OUT OF THE LATER BOOKS, AND THE QUESTION AS TO WHO TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEAVING THEM OUT, I CAN SPEAK WITH PERFECT CLEARNESS AND ASSURANCE. THEY WERE LEFT OUT BY ELLEN G. WHITE. NO ONE CONNECTED WITH HER WORK HAD ANY AUTHORITY OVER SUCH A QUESTION, AND I NEVER HEARD OF ANYONE OFFERING TO HER COUNSEL REGARDING THIS MATTER. {3SM 452.3}
IN ALL QUESTIONS OF THIS KIND, YOU MAY SET IT DOWN AS A CERTAINTY THAT SISTER WHITE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR LEAVING OUT OR ADDING TO MATTERS OF THIS SORT IN THE LATER EDITIONS OF OUR BOOKS. {3SM 452.4}
SISTER WHITE NOT ONLY HAD GOOD JUDGMENT BASED UPON A CLEAR AND COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF CONDITIONS AND OF THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF PUBLISHING WHAT SHE WROTE, BUT SHE HAD MANY TIMES DIRECT INSTRUCTION FROM THE ANGEL OF THE LORD REGARDING WHAT SHOULD BE OMITTED AND WHAT SHOULD BE ADDED IN NEW EDITIONS. . . . {3SM 452.5}"
I have seen James White's written promotion of her view of where the "slave races" came from with my own eyes. Rather than trying to say it isn't so, why not accept that she admitted to holding some incorrect views and righted those mistakes as she grew in her experience and understanding of theology. We all grow in the truth if we study and are open to growth, and nobody has arrived at complete understanding of it all yet.
-
I never realized that so many had already booked passage on Desmond Ford's Phantom Ship to perdition. I had thought that his false teachings would be largely ignored and forgotten by people nowadays. I stand corrected.
SDAminister
-
I take it that you don't live on the "Left Coast".
-
I never realized that so many had already booked passage on Desmond Ford's Phantom Ship to perdition. I had thought that his false teachings would be largely ignored and forgotten by people nowadays. I stand corrected.
SDAminister
What a nice way to tell someone they are going to hell. I thought God decided that
-
Why then do Bible translators everywhere as well as Hebrew linguists acknowledge that one of the meanings of the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) is "year" or "yearly"? If yom can mean "year" in everyday speech, why not in prophecy?
Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized the year-day principle for centuries, if not millennia. Of course, one could propose that they were all wrong.
Bob,
The fact that "Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized the year-day principle [sic!] for centuries, if not millenia," does not make their held belief a fact. Have you read the article in which I show that the claimed "principle" is used randomly, when convenient in SDA prophetic interpretation? A "principle," "rule," or "equation" (Shea's terms) is a GENERALIZATION, and applies in almost all instances, with a few exception. Gravitation is an example of a physics principle. Do you know how many times is the "day-year principle" applied to occurences of "day" and "year" in the Bible? Less than a dozen times out of about 4000 occurences. Such application makes the "principle" an EXCEPTION, not a rule.
Aah! In all these topics, 3ABN or otherwise, I love specific questions about specific matters.
In my view, the first tabernacle of Heb. 9:6 corresponds to that of 9:1, and refers to the Holy Place. The second tabernacle of 9:7 corresponds to that of 9:3, and refers to the Most Holy. The mistranslated "holiest of all" of 9:8 in the KJV, "the holy places," is the heavenly sanctuary which includes both the Holy and Most Holy, which is consistent with how that phrase is used throughout the book.
I believe what Paul is saying is that in this illustration, the Holy Place on earth represented the daily and yearly services on earth, and the Most Holy on earth represented the services in both places in the heavenly sanctuary. While the earthly sanctuary was in operation, the way into the Holy and Most Holy in heaven was not yet made manifest.
Your position on the reading of Hebrews 9:6-10 is also held by Roy Gane and other SDA "scholars." Now, go to the Greek NT, do a LITERAL TRANSLATION of Hebrews 9:1-10, and let the text interpret itself (if you can!). You will see that your position is untenable. You cannot provide evidence showing that the expresssion "protos skene" ( Hebrews 9:8) refers to the entire sanctuary. The Hebrews 9:6-10 passage makes it clear that the writer designates "protos skene" as the first room of the sanctuary, that is, the holy place.
Eduard
-
I never realized that so many had already booked passage on Desmond Ford's Phantom Ship to perdition. I had thought that his false teachings would be largely ignored and forgotten by people nowadays. I stand corrected.
SDAminister
I bet that you have no idea what Dr. Ford's beliefs on the sanctuary, the day of atonement, and the investigative judgment are. Have you studied his Manuscript? I would be very surprised if you did!
I have a presentation tape in which Dr. Heppenstall and Dr. Cottrell agree with Dr. Ford concerning most of his understanding of the above beliefs. Do you know who Dr. Heppenstall and Dr. Cottrell are?
Living in an incubator is not the best way to develop spiritual and theological muscles.
Eduard
-
Why repeat the fallacious arguments of Dudley Canright and a host of other uninformed critics who didn't know what they were talking about?
Certainly you don't buy into this bogus criticism of Ellen White, do you? Especially at a time when the world's scientists are engaged in amalgamation of man and beast?
Are you saying that EGW didn't write those words that mirrored the thinking of the day about where certain races came from? She wrote them, that was the thinking of the day and W. C. White explained that it was EGW herself who had the statements removed from her writings (The statement was already in caps):
"REGARDING THE TWO PARAGRAPHS WHICH ARE TO BE FOUND IN SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND ALSO IN THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY REGARDING AMALGAMATION AND THE REASON WHY THEY WERE LEFT OUT OF THE LATER BOOKS, AND THE QUESTION AS TO WHO TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEAVING THEM OUT, I CAN SPEAK WITH PERFECT CLEARNESS AND ASSURANCE. THEY WERE LEFT OUT BY ELLEN G. WHITE. NO ONE CONNECTED WITH HER WORK HAD ANY AUTHORITY OVER SUCH A QUESTION, AND I NEVER HEARD OF ANYONE OFFERING TO HER COUNSEL REGARDING THIS MATTER. {3SM 452.3}
IN ALL QUESTIONS OF THIS KIND, YOU MAY SET IT DOWN AS A CERTAINTY THAT SISTER WHITE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR LEAVING OUT OR ADDING TO MATTERS OF THIS SORT IN THE LATER EDITIONS OF OUR BOOKS. {3SM 452.4}
SISTER WHITE NOT ONLY HAD GOOD JUDGMENT BASED UPON A CLEAR AND COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF CONDITIONS AND OF THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF PUBLISHING WHAT SHE WROTE, BUT SHE HAD MANY TIMES DIRECT INSTRUCTION FROM THE ANGEL OF THE LORD REGARDING WHAT SHOULD BE OMITTED AND WHAT SHOULD BE ADDED IN NEW EDITIONS. . . . {3SM 452.5}"
I have seen James White's written promotion of her view of where the "slave races" came from with my own eyes. Rather than trying to say it isn't so, why not accept that she admitted to holding some incorrect views and righted those mistakes as she grew in her experience and understanding of theology. We all grow in the truth if we study and are open to growth, and nobody has arrived at complete understanding of it all yet.
Rather, why not admit that this amalgamation criticism tossed around by former ministers who apostatized is bogus? Why not admit it, Jeanette?
You can't give one single quote from Ellen White's writings that says that "slave races" came from amalgamation. Why not assert instead that certain white races show the results of amalgamation? Because it isn't inflammatory enough?
You can't give one single quote from Ellen White's writings that says that she was wrong in her statements about amalgamation, or that she wasn't explicitly shown about pre-flood and post-flood amalgamation in vision. Why then suggest that she thought she had been wrong when you can't produce any quote to that effect?
And why even quibble about such a topic when we now know how to amalgamate man and beast and plants in who knows how many different ways?
-
Why then do Bible translators everywhere as well as Hebrew linguists acknowledge that one of the meanings of the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) is "year" or "yearly"? If yom can mean "year" in everyday speech, why not in prophecy?
Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized the year-day principle for centuries, if not millennia. Of course, one could propose that they were all wrong.
Bob,
The fact that "Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized the year-day principle [sic!] for centuries, if not millenia," does not make their held belief a fact. Have you read the article in which I show that the claimed "principle" is used randomly, when convenient in SDA prophetic interpretation? A "principle," "rule," or "equation" (Shea's terms) is a GENERALIZATION, and applies in almost all instances, with a few exception. Gravitation is an example of a physics principle. Do you know how many times is the "day-year principle" applied to occurences of "day" and "year" in the Bible? Less than a dozen times out of about 4000 occurences. Such application makes the "principle" an EXCEPTION, not a rule.
You forgot to comment on the fact that yom indisputably sometimes means "year" or "yearly" and is translated as such.
Aah! In all these topics, 3ABN or otherwise, I love specific questions about specific matters.
In my view, the first tabernacle of Heb. 9:6 corresponds to that of 9:1, and refers to the Holy Place. The second tabernacle of 9:7 corresponds to that of 9:3, and refers to the Most Holy. The mistranslated "holiest of all" of 9:8 in the KJV, "the holy places," is the heavenly sanctuary which includes both the Holy and Most Holy, which is consistent with how that phrase is used throughout the book.
I believe what Paul is saying is that in this illustration, the Holy Place on earth represented the daily and yearly services on earth, and the Most Holy on earth represented the services in both places in the heavenly sanctuary. While the earthly sanctuary was in operation, the way into the Holy and Most Holy in heaven was not yet made manifest.
Your position on the reading of Hebrews 9:6-10 is also held by Roy Gane and other SDA "scholars." Now, go to the Greek NT, do a LITERAL TRANSLATION of Hebrews 9:1-10, and let the text interpret itself (if you can!). You will see that your position is untenable. You cannot provide evidence showing that the expresssion "protos skene" ( Hebrews 9:8) refers to the entire sanctuary. The Hebrews 9:6-10 passage makes it clear that the writer designates "protos skene" as the first room of the sanctuary, that is, the holy place.
Eduard
Interesting that I independently came up with the same interpretation from the Greek text. So where exactly is the problem?
-
Eduard,
Let's see if we can come to some sort of conclusion regarding yom. Do you agree that it is rightly transalted "year" and "yearly" in a number of places in the OT?
As far as Heb. 9 goes, my reading of that passage required that "first tabernacle" mean Holy Place. So where do you see the difficulty lying?
Sorry for the typo regarding "principle."
-
I never realized that so many had already booked passage on Desmond Ford's Phantom Ship to perdition. I had thought that his false teachings would be largely ignored and forgotten by people nowadays. I stand corrected.
SDAminister
Such a lovely Christian way of expressing one's opinion? :scratch: So sad! :'(
That kind of attitude is not one that I have ever had need to attribute to Dr Ford - at least in my experience. :horse:
As I stated previously "I am not a Ford follower". However, I have always heard him speak as a gentleman - a lesson that many could take from his demeanour. :wave:
-
I never realized that so many had already booked passage on Desmond Ford's Phantom Ship to perdition. I had thought that his false teachings would be largely ignored and forgotten by people nowadays. I stand corrected.
SDAminister
What a nice way to tell someone they are going to hell. I thought God decided that
Everybody goes to hell. Do you mean hell-fire?
But I get your intent anyway, so, you think that Ford's teachings will lead people to............salvation?
-
I never realized that so many had already booked passage on Desmond Ford's Phantom Ship to perdition. I had thought that his false teachings would be largely ignored and forgotten by people nowadays. I stand corrected.
SDAminister
Such a lovely Christian way of expressing one's opinion? :scratch: So sad! :'(
That kind of attitude is not one that I have ever had need to attribute to Dr Ford - at least in my experience. :horse:
As I stated previously "I am not a Ford follower". However, I have always heard him speak as a gentleman - a lesson that many could take from his demeanour. :wave:
If my child wanted to get into a car and ride with a drunk driver who was polite and soft spoken, I'd scream, yell, and throw a fit all the same if it would keep my child from driving off with him.
My greatest hope is that those who do board Ford's ship destined for the Valley of Hinnom, will bail out before the ship gets out of sight of land and it is too late.
-
I take it that you don't live on the "Left Coast".
Used to. I even attended the Milwaukie, OR church one Sabbath about 18 years ago! What ever happened to their Celebration?
SDAminister
-
I never realized that so many had already booked passage on Desmond Ford's Phantom Ship to perdition. I had thought that his false teachings would be largely ignored and forgotten by people nowadays. I stand corrected.
SDAminister
Such a lovely Christian way of expressing one's opinion? :scratch: So sad! :'(
That kind of attitude is not one that I have ever had need to attribute to Dr Ford - at least in my experience. :horse:
As I stated previously "I am not a Ford follower". However, I have always heard him speak as a gentleman - a lesson that many could take from his demeanour. :wave:
If my child wanted to get into a car and ride with a drunk driver who was polite and soft spoken, I'd scream, yell, and throw a fit all the same if it would keep my child from driving off with him.
My greatest hope is that those who do board Ford's ship destined for the Valley of Hinnom, will bail out before the ship gets out of sight of land and it is too late.
Are you implying that there are children here who cannot think for themselves; who need your authoritarian attitude to demand that they think as you do? And... that only you can decide what constitutes a Christian character?
Trouble is, I've seen too many people leave the Church because of such an attitude. That is sad, but 'spiritual abuse' is alive and well in every Church it seems. :hot:
-
[Neither was I at/near Glacier View, but the battle for truth against the heresies of Desmond Ford (Sorry Gailon, he ain't no "Elder" anymore), was and is waged by many who
But it all makes one wonder, is there something in the water in Australia? Another mega-heretic from down under, by the name of Robert Brinsmead, sent his brand of "another gospel" {2 Cor 11:4} to the US where it split my old church. May God have mercy.
So, anyman, what role did you play in helping the SDA church oust the impostor Ford from amongst our midst?
SDAminister
For the record "the imposter" Dr Ford is still a member of the SDA church, as far as I know, and lives in Queensland.
My point exactly. Posing as an SDA but not believing in at least two of the central pillars of our faith (the Sanctuary and the Spirit of Prophecy) makes one out to be a fraud, an imposter. But mind you, I'm glad we live in the merciful times that we do now. I am a sinner. But I have never purposed to destroy the foundations of the SDA faith. What Ford has done over the years would have gotten him, in Biblical times, stoned outside the camp or run through with a javelin for denying the truth, preaching falsehoods, and teaching others the same. He ought to be grateful the Lord has stayed His hand of judgment. I know I am.
But why did you bold the "Dr" when you referred to Ford? What is your intent? To show that he has a couple of doctorate degrees from worldly universities? That he gained significant knowledge from the Gods of Ekron to help him in his ministry?
And BTW, he was ousted. He was defrocked, lost his teaching jobs, and was forbidden to speak at any of our churches. The fact that some are sympathetic to his cause in recent years like this recent meeting at an SDA church in Australia only support the prophecies given by EGW, that Satan will try to put as many unconverted people into the church as is possible in order to destroy it.
And BTW again, Ford's sloppy agape view of the grace of God turns that grace into a burden because he doesn't believe it can bring about victorious living. The church that holds his membership should wake up. To countenance Ford's heresies and antics while still allowing membership in God's remnant church now puts blood on their hands as well. Haven't enough people been put in perdition's way by this man? Do we need to add more?
SDAminister
Your points would be much more effective if brought in the spirit of Christ, with much more love in your posts for your fellowman no matter who....
SDA member
-
Everybody goes to hell. Do you mean hell-fire?
But I get your intent anyway, so, you think that Ford's teachings will lead people to............salvation?
There are at least four?? here that take a statement and make it say what they wish the OP had said. Never mind what was actually said .
This game played long enough does convince a few like minded individuals of the rather stretched intent of what was said.
Can you please show me where I said...... so, you think that Ford's teachings will lead people to............salvation? Inserting the word so indicates here that what I said and what you are accusing of is one and the same. It is not as you know.
-
Without approving the manner of expression heretofore, I'd like to make two points. Here is the first:
"Those who would share the benefits of the Saviour's mediation should permit nothing to interfere with their duty to perfect holiness in the fear of God. The precious hours, instead of being given to pleasure, to display, or to gain seeking, should be devoted to an earnest, prayerful study of the word of truth. The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill. Every individual has a soul to save or to lose. Each has a case pending at the bar of God. Each must meet the great Judge face to face. How important, then, that every mind contemplate often the solemn scene when the judgment shall sit and the books shall be opened, when, with Daniel, every individual must stand in his lot, at the end of the days" (GC 488).
If Dr. Ford's theories lead people to reject the knowledge of Jesus' ministry in the Most Holy Place since 1844, then his theories are leading people to where it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential now.
-
Here is the second point. Here's an email I received in August 2002.
Dear M,
Your tape arrived today of the presentation on "The Age of the Earth", organised by Dr Gordon Moyes with his special guests and presenters, Dr Michael Denton and Dr Desmond Ford in the Wesley Centre, Sydney on Sabbath afternoon, 3rd August 2002. Thank you for it. I have played it through and taken notes.
It was interesting to hear Denton summing up his first presentation in his own words, "I have demolished Genesis". Ford, who emphasised that Genesis was a literary presentation not to be taken literally could have been equally honest and made the same claim as Denton. - Adam just means "man" and there were millions of years between chapters (and verses) in Genesis.
This presentation .along with the tape of the 2 GB program in April, leaves us in no doubt as to where Des Ford stands in his theology. I wonder how Des interprets texts on creation - such as "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth...For he spake, and it was done; he commanded and it stood fast." Ps 33:6-9.? I guess this is what he was referring to when he said in his presentation that the Bible was to be taken as literature, like a newspaper which has editorials, poetry, comic strips etc... This statement from the psalms in that context could be dismissed as poetry - once again not to be taken literally. Actually, Ford could make the greater claim that he has not only demolished Genesis like Denton did, but indeed the whole Bible!!
You will be interested in this: When the tape got to the questions -( by then I had six foolscap pages and I should have been doing preparation for my trip overseas next week). I was listening to the various questioners and thought, I heard the voice of Warwick Armstrong of the Creation Science people embarrassing Denton as to whether he had ever seen the first hand evidence of what he was presenting on tree rings. Denton had to admit he had not.
Well I decided to immediately ring up Warwick in Sydney and just caught him before he was leaving the office. He told me that he had also bought a tape recording of the program but that it was heavily edited. He said that Ford got a number of questions he did not like and he got "stroppy" - but that too, he found had been edited out.
Warwick said that sitting behind him that afternoon in the Wesley Centre were a number of lecturers (I think he said five or six!) from Avondale college. He knew some of them - so he talked to them and asked them if they agreed with Dr Ford and they said that in essence they did!! Then Warwick said to them, if you Adventists no longer believe in a six day creation then you will destroy yourselves and the Sabbath and you will have no reason to exist! He said they were shocked to hear a non-Adventist challenge them in this way.
Warwick is the CEO of the Creation Science/Answers in Genesis people in Sydney, so he had an invested interest in being present because Ford not only rubbishes their work but actually charges them of doing harm to intelligent educated Christians, because science and the teaching of a literal six day creation, cannot be reconciled!
Ford challenges in both tapes the "Creation Research" (as he refers to them) to produce a scientist who believes in a literal creation of six days. So Warwick looked for an opportunity during the afternoon and was able to go up to Dr Ford and tell him that he could produce forty scientists who believe in a literal creation of six days. Warwick said, Ford was not very nice and answered very curtly, "Bully for you!"
He also said that he got another opportunity to go up to Ford with one of his friends - a Church of England minister he had with him. They asked him if he believed it was OK to sleep with some one else's wife. He said No, - so they said why, - what is your authority?. He said Well the commandment forbids it. Then they asked about another sin and he again said a commandment forbad it. Then they said, if you believe these commandments literally then how do you get on with the one that says, "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth"? They asked if God got that one wrong? Warwick felt he no longer believed this commandment literally. It makes one wonder if Des is really still a Sabbath keeper?
Warwick said he got to hear Dr Walter Veith a couple of times in Waitara church, and was very impressed with him as both a speaker and a fine Christian gentleman. He said they would like to have him to speak for them in South Africa.
It is interesting the way the Lord provides for those who are interested in truth. The very Sabbath afternoon that Ford spoke in the Wesley Centre, Veith was already in Sydney confirming the faith of God's people in a six day creation. He was putting a lie to Ford's claim.
Ford that afternoon publicly held up a book he said was written by leading Seventh-day Adventist theologians and scientists and said, "On page 300 I read this: ' In wandering around the highways and byways of recent theology I have not encountered one example of a serious sustained theological argument affirming the creation of the world in a literal six days, a few thousand years ago'. Adventists! Adventists! from Adventists came Ellen White a great evangelical Christian but she wrote in the 19th Century and so she used Usher's chronology - and George McCready Price, a brave generous intelligent man, trusted Ellen White so much he perverted his science unknowingly and that's where our Creation Research (sic) movement comes from. It was formed by George McCready Price - but it has gone! Even the Adventists have thrown out that old approach!"
Is this what is called, - being in the "Shaking Time?" Perhaps Ellen White got that one right?
"So Warwick looked for an opportunity during the afternoon and was able to go up to Dr Ford and tell him that he could produce forty scientists who believe in a literal creation of six days. Warwick said, Ford was not very nice and answered very curtly, 'Bully for you!' "
Is it true that Ford has rejected the biblical account of Creation? Has he promoted seminars that have done so? If so, then more than just Adventists who still believe in the investigative judgment would agree that he is leading people down the wrong road. According to the above, Warwick would agree.
-
Without approving the manner of expression heretofore, I'd like to make two points. Here is the first:
"Those who would share the benefits of the Saviour's mediation should permit nothing to interfere with their duty to perfect holiness in the fear of God. The precious hours, instead of being given to pleasure, to display, or to gain seeking, should be devoted to an earnest, prayerful study of the word of truth. The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill. Every individual has a soul to save or to lose. Each has a case pending at the bar of God. Each must meet the great Judge face to face. How important, then, that every mind contemplate often the solemn scene when the judgment shall sit and the books shall be opened, when, with Daniel, every individual must stand in his lot, at the end of the days" (GC 488).
If Dr. Ford's theories lead people to reject the knowledge of Jesus' ministry in the Most Holy Place since 1844, then his theories are leading people to where it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential now.
Maybe your second point can include the manner in which it is done,what you are to show people rather than cramming it down their throat. Making sure they are going to "receive the good news your way"
Then maybe include a third thought. The 1 in 20 isn't it of SDA's will be saved and the many that will be saved without
being officially of the elite. Some will be downright ignorant of this knowledge that is being crammed down the throats of others.in such a kind,christian way.
I don't think there are two many that can out christian a SDA. I do know many christians tho that are not SDA.
-
Here is the second point. Here's an email I received in August 2002.
was not very nice and answered very curtly, "Bully for you!"
"So Warwick looked for an opportunity during the afternoon and was able to go up to Dr Ford and tell him that he could produce forty scientists who believe in a literal creation of six days. Warwick said, Ford was not very nice and answered very curtly, 'Bully for you!' "
Is it true that Ford has rejected the biblical account of Creation? Has he promoted seminars that have done so? If so, then more than just Adventists who still believe in the investigative judgment would agree that he is leading people down the wrong road. According to the above, Warwick would agree.
I know very little about Desmond Ford,but this is again something that has proven it best to hear both sides before taken to the bank as gospel.
But it might be closer to home to ask if SDA's are leading many down the wrong road, by their behaviour and nasty or condescending elitist attitude.
edited to remove unnecessary quotes
-
Eduard,
Let's see if we can come to some sort of conclusion regarding yom. Do you agree that it is rightly transalted "year" and "yearly" in a number of places in the OT?
As far as Heb. 9 goes, my reading of that passage required that "first tabernacle" mean Holy Place. So where do you see the difficulty lying?
Sorry for the typo regarding "principle."
Bob,
As I said before, in some biblical passages there may be a relationship between "day" and "year." You understand that I would have to see the Biblical passages you might refer to before I conclude whether or not there is indeed a relationship between the two terms. Still, you cannot produce more than a dozen examples of such kind AT ITS MOST! There are more than other 4000 instances of "day" and "year" in the Bible where the "year-day equation" or "rule" does not apply.
I repeat, a "principle," or "rule" is a generalization. In English, for instance, most verbs add the suffix [-ad] or an allophone of the suffix (a variant) in order to form the past participle. Out of the thousands of verbs in English only a small group (irregular verbs) do not follow this linguistic/morphological rule. The overwhelming majority follows this morphological rule, but around 150 of all the English verbs do not follow the rule. The majority follows the rule, while a small group makes an exception to the rule.
This is definitely not the case with the claimed "year-day" principle. As I said before (forgive my redundancy), there are MAYBE 10 or less textual instances in the Bible where there is a relationship between "day" and "year." In all the other 4000 instances the "year-day equation" does not apply. It is clear that the 10 instances in which the "rule" seems to apply are the exception, while the 4000 instances in which the "rule" does not apply are the majority. The conclusion which results from data analysis indicates without doubt that the "year-day principle" is not a linguistic rule, but a convenience applied arbitrarily in order to bend some Bible text towards a preferred reading. This is what we call Bible "eisegesis." Most of the theological conclusions which are at the foundation of the SDA beliefs have been obtained through eisegesis, not exegesis.
If you don't want to be confused with the facts, ignore what wrote.
Eduard
-
In my view, the first tabernacle of Heb. 9:6 corresponds to that of 9:1, and refers to the Holy Place. The second tabernacle of 9:7 corresponds to that of 9:3, and refers to the Most Holy. The mistranslated "holiest of all" of 9:8 in the KJV, "the holy places," is the heavenly sanctuary which includes both the Holy and Most Holy, which is consistent with how that phrase is used throughout the book.
I believe what Paul is saying is that in this illustration, the Holy Place on earth represented the daily and yearly services on earth, and the Most Holy on earth represented the services in both places in the heavenly sanctuary. While the earthly sanctuary was in operation, the way into the Holy and Most Holy in heaven was not yet made manifest.
Your position on the reading of Hebrews 9:6-10 is also held by Roy Gane and other SDA "scholars." Now, go to the Greek NT, do a LITERAL TRANSLATION of Hebrews 9:1-10, and let the text interpret itself (if you can!). You will see that your position is untenable. You cannot provide evidence showing that the expresssion "protos skene" ( Hebrews 9:8) refers to the entire sanctuary. The Hebrews 9:6-10 passage makes it clear that the writer designates "protos skene" as the first room of the sanctuary, that is, the holy place.
Eduard
[/quote]
Interesting that I independently came up with the same interpretation from the Greek text. So where exactly is the problem?
[/quote]
Bob,
Such a conclusion changes the whole sanctuary doctrine as taught by the SDA church. Let me summarize what I call the "Biblical perspective" in the following paragraphs:
The OT and NT do not use the same words for the “sanctuary,” “the holy,” and the “most holy.” Compare the Hebrew and the Greek of the OT in Exodus 25, Exodus 26, Exodus 40, Leviticus 24, Numbers 16, 1 Kings 6, and Ezekiel 41. Continue the comparison in the Greek NT with Mt 27, and Hebrews 9. You will see that different terms are used for the “sanctuary,” “the holy,” and “the most holy,” and the notion that the Biblical writers use consistent language to discuss the earthly sanctuary is false. All Biblical terms related to the earthly sanctuary must be examined in their immediate context – the discourse or semantic fragment – in order for the exegete to understand their correct meaning.
The earthly sanctuary had two rooms (Hebrews 9 – tents): the first room(tent), which was called “the holy,” and the second room (tent) which was called “the most holy.” The rooms were separated through the “inner curtain.” While the priests served in the first room, “the holy,” all year round (except on the Day of Atonement), no priest could enter the second room, “the most holy,” under threat of death, because God’s presence was manifested there. Only the high priest was allowed to enter into the second room, “the most holy” on the Day of Atonement in order to make atonement for the people.
The separation between the “holy” and the “most holy” in the earthly sanctuary was necessary because the Divine Presence was manifested in “the most holy place,” and those who dared to come into His presence would die. When Jesus died on the cross, the inner curtain tore from top to bottom eliminating the separation between the first room and the second room, and turning the sanctuary into one single room. There was no more a purpose for the first room, whose sacrifices were ineffective. The true atonement had been made, and there was no more need for the two rooms, for the service in the “holy” and the “most holy,” or for daily or yearly sacrifices. Christ’s complete atonement on the cross had done away with them.
The book of Hebrews does not describe anymore two rooms in the heavenly sanctuary. God’s presence manifests itself all through the heavenly sanctuary. What purpose would serve the separation of the heavenly sanctuary into two rooms, when all the heavenly sanctuary is MOST HOLY? The notion that Jesus began to perform a priestly service in the “holy” of the heavenly sanctuary, and that after 1844 He began work in “the most holy place” in the heavenly sanctuary has no basis in the Bible. Hebrews states clearly that after Jesus’ complete atonement on the cross the daily and the early sacrifices had no more purpose and He did not have to perform them:
Hebrews 7:27 Unlike the other HIGH PRIESTS, he has no need TO OFFER SACRIFICES DAY AFTER DAY, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; THIS HE DID ONCE FOR ALL WHEN HE OFFERED HIMSELF.
Hebrews 9:25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself AGAIN AND AGAIN, the way the HIGH PRIEST enters THE MOST HOLY PLACE EVERY YEAR with blood that is not his own.
Hebrews 9:26 for THEN he WOULD HAVE had to SUFFER AGAIN AND AGAIN since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has APPEARED ONCE FOR ALL AT THE END OF THE AGE TO REMOVE SIN BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF.
Hebrews 9:28 so Christ, having been offered ONCE to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, NOT TO DEAL WITH SIN, but TO SAVE THOSE WHO ARE EAGERLY WAITING FOR HIM.
Look how the apostle compares in Hebrews the useless work of the priests in the earthly sanctuary, and Jesus’ completed atonement on the cross:
Hebrews 10:11 DAY AFTER DAY every priest stands and PERFORMS HIS RELIGIOUS DUTIES; AGAIN AND AGAIN he OFFERS THE SAME SACRIFICES, which CAN NEVER TAKE AWAY SINS.
Hebrews 10:12 But when this priest had offered FOR ALL TIME ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS, he SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD.
(You have to remember that there was no sitting room in the earthly sanctuary. The fact that Jesus "sat down at the right hand of God" cannot mean anything but that His work of atonement has been fully accomplished and completed).
Jesus’ work of atonement has been completed at the cross. There he paid the wages of sin for all Adam’s children. In Christ, the believers are sinless, perfect and spotless, clad in His righteousness. If they are sinless, perfect and spotless, what would be the purpose of an “investigative judgment”? Of course, there would be no purpose. The concept of an “investigative judgment” derives from the doctrine of righteousness by works in which Ellen White believed until she died. But the Bible teaches something else. The believers do not need to prove themselves worthy of heaven in an investigative judgment. Their sins have been forgiven, and they are “perfect in Christ, “ ready in Him for heaven.
Forgive me if I cannot include here the hundreds of texts that support my summary. I am certain that you are familiar with all those texts and that you could easily link them to my statements.
Eduard
-
I never realized that so many had already booked passage on Desmond Ford's Phantom Ship to perdition. I had thought that his false teachings would be largely ignored and forgotten by people nowadays. I stand corrected.
SDAminister
What a nice way to tell someone they are going to hell. I thought God decided that
Everybody goes to hell. Do you mean hell-fire?
But I get your intent anyway, so, you think that Ford's teachings will lead people to............salvation?
SDAMinister,
Why such angry post, cant you give us your thoughts without the flames.....Dr Ford has stepped away from the truth in my book, but I still feel he meant well but was misguided, and not by the Holy Spirit. Lately he has seemed to have hardened in his views and maybe writing much more strongly against the truth, trying to maybe convince himself he is right, but for us being followers of Christ, there is no need to pummel him or anyone that thinks he is correct.
Red
-
Are you implying that there are children here who cannot think for themselves; who need your authoritarian attitude to demand that they think as you do? And... that only you can decide what constitutes a Christian character?
No. Just that if it were my child, this is what I'd do. And I'd do the same for anyone else wanting to step into that car.
-
Everybody goes to hell. Do you mean hell-fire?
But I get your intent anyway, so, you think that Ford's teachings will lead people to............salvation?
There are at least four?? here that take a statement and make it say what they wish the OP had said. Never mind what was actually said .
This game played long enough does convince a few like minded individuals of the rather stretched intent of what was said.
Can you please show me where I said...... so, you think that Ford's teachings will lead people to............salvation? Inserting the word so indicates here that what I said and what you are accusing of is one and the same. It is not as you know.
I never said you said that. It was a question. I'm asking you, do you think that Ford's teaching will lead people to salvation?
-
I never said you said that. It was a question. I'm asking you, do you think that Ford's teaching will lead people to salvation?
There are a lot of teachings that I disagree with. Frankly, I know little about this man. It isn't his teachings that concern me while discussing with you. You can have all the truth in the worls, but when used in a condescending and vicious way,it is a lot more than useless,it is very damaging.
I am thankful my husband did not have those with "the correct belief" and your attitude. He likely would still be catholic.
-
I never realized that so many had already booked passage on Desmond Ford's Phantom Ship to perdition. I had thought that his false teachings would be largely ignored and forgotten by people nowadays. I stand corrected.
SDAminister
What a nice way to tell someone they are going to hell. I thought God decided that
Everybody goes to hell. Do you mean hell-fire?
But I get your intent anyway, so, you think that Ford's teachings will lead people to............salvation?
SDAMinister,
Why such angry post, cant you give us your thoughts without the flames.....Dr Ford has stepped away from the truth in my book, but I still feel he meant well but was misguided, and not by the Holy Spirit. Lately he has seemed to have hardened in his views and maybe writing much more strongly against the truth, trying to maybe convince himself he is right, but for us being followers of Christ, there is no need to pummel him or anyone that thinks he is correct.
Red
And I will continue to pummel Ford. When the lion and bear came to steal away sheep from David's flock, he chased down the bear and the lion and killed them. It's my duty to do the same. Not to kill Ford, of course. May God have mercy on him and me alike. But rather to kill his philosophy which steals sheep away from God. If you come as a wolf intending to kill and steal, you get a heavy dose of the staff--the shepherd's rod, if you will. Plain enough?
SDAminister
-
Bob,
As I said before, in some biblical passages there may be a relationship between "day" and "year." You understand that I would have to see the Biblical passages you might refer to before I conclude whether or not there is indeed a relationship between the two terms. Still, you cannot produce more than a dozen examples of such kind AT ITS MOST! There are more than other 4000 instances of "day" and "year" in the Bible where the "year-day equation" or "rule" does not apply.
It's possible you might be missing my point. My point is not that in certain passages a day is a symbol of a year. Rather, my point is that in certain passages yom means year.
Here are the passages. To make it quicker, I am including also the ones from the KJV that could be explained away. Note the ones that can't. "<03117>" follows where yom occurs.
Ex 13:10 Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year <03117> to year <03117>.
Le 25:29 And if a man sell a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold; within a full year <03117> may he redeem it.
Nu 9:22 Or whether it were two days, or a month, or a year <03117>, that the cloud tarried upon the tabernacle, remaining thereon, the children of Israel abode in their tents, and journeyed not: but when it was taken up, they journeyed.
Jos 13:1 Now Joshua was old and stricken in years <03117>; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years <03117>, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.
Jud 11:40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly <03117> to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
Jud 17:10 And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year <03117>, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in.
Jud 21:19 Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the LORD in Shiloh yearly <03117> in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah.
1Sa 1:3 And this man went up out of his city yearly <03117> to worship and to sacrifice unto the LORD of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the LORD, were there.
1Sa 1:21 And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the LORD the yearly <03117> sacrifice, and his vow.
1Sa 2:19 Moreover his mother made him a little coat, and brought it to him from year <03117> to year <03117>, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly <03117> sacrifice.
1Sa 20:6 If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city: for there is a yearly <03117> sacrifice there for all the family.
1Sa 27:7 And the time that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a full year <03117> and four months.
1Ki 1:1 Now king David was old and stricken in years <03117>; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
2Ch 21:19 And it came to pass, that in process of time, after the end of two years <03117>, his bowels fell out by reason of his sickness: so he died of sore diseases. And his people made no burning for him, like the burning of his fathers.
Am 4:4 Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years <03117>:
-
When Jesus died on the cross, the inner curtain tore from top to bottom eliminating the separation between the first room and the second room, and turning the sanctuary into one single room. There was no more a purpose for the first room, whose sacrifices were ineffective. The true atonement had been made, and there was no more need for the two rooms, for the service in the “holy” and the “most holy,” or for daily or yearly sacrifices. Christ’s complete atonement on the cross had done away with them.
I would say that you have made an assumption here that is not necessarily true. There is more than one possible result from or meaning of the tearing of the veil.
A good test of the theory might be Rev. 4, 5, 8, 11. When a door is opened in heaven, there is seen the 7 lamps of fire and the golden altar of incense. But the ark is not seen until 11:17 when the temple is said to be opened yet again. This suggests two rooms still.
Also, we have Rev. 3's letter to Philadelphia which mentions the temple and refers to something being shut and something being opened, and the thing being opened is said to be a door. To me it is an obvious allusion to the first and second veils, and thus indicates that the ehavenly temple still has two apartments and two veils.
The book of Hebrews does not describe anymore two rooms in the heavenly sanctuary.
True, but it is also true that Hebrews alludes to both. First of all, when referring to the heavenly it calls it "the Holy Places." Secondly, it makes quite clear that the earthly was a shadow or copy of the heavenly. Since the earthly had two apartments, the heavenly would too.
The notion that Jesus began to perform a priestly service in the “holy” of the heavenly sanctuary, and that after 1844 He began work in “the most holy place” in the heavenly sanctuary has no basis in the Bible.
I disagree.
Jesus’ work of atonement has been completed at the cross.
Hebrews is clear that what the priests did on earth is a shadow of the gospel. The priests did not make the atonement until after the death of the sacrifice. While I believe that there was an atonement on Calvary, to say that the entire work of atonement was completed there would go totally contrary to the type.
There he paid the wages of sin for all Adam’s children. In Christ, the believers are sinless, perfect and spotless, clad in His righteousness. If they are sinless, perfect and spotless, what would be the purpose of an “investigative judgment”?
To some extent we just have to accept what God has said in His Word, whether we can explain everything or not. If the email I copied above is true, then Ford has departed from accepting what God has said regarding Creation, and we simply cannot follow his example in that regard.
God investigated prior to hading down the sentence to Adam, Eve, Cain, the builders at Babel, and Sodom. It's just how He operates.
And so do we. Even if we know the person is guilty, we still go through the legal process.
Now above you said that Christ paid the wages of sin for all Adam's children, and that is true. But then you indicated that it is believers who receive certain blessings, not everyone, and that is true. So an investigative judgment would determine who is a believer and who isn't.
Some start off believing and then decide they don't want to believe anymore. And some fake it, or look like they are believing because they are afraid Noah might be right after all, but can't remain that way for 120 years. At any rate, the IJ sorts all that out, and that makes sense to me.
Of course, there would be no purpose. The concept of an “investigative judgment” derives from the doctrine of righteousness by works in which Ellen White believed until she died.
Has nothing to do with righteousness by works. Ellen White spent a lot of time preaching the message of Minnesapolis regarding righteousness by faith.
But the Bible teaches something else. The believers do not need to prove themselves worthy of heaven in an investigative judgment.
Adam and Eve were believers in Eden. They were perfect. They were sinless. They still were tested by the tree. They failed that test. God in His mercy allowed them and all their descendants to retake that test.
Unfortunately (humanly speaking), good teachers make the retake harder than the original, and God is no different. Or rather, the reason the retake is harder is because of our own perverse natures.
Job 23:10 But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold.
Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
The idea that our faith is tested in this life is very biblical. The tests, trials, and temptations of life merely demonstrate whether or not we truly believe.
Blondin would walk across a tight rope over Niagara Falls. Folks would gamble over whether he would make it or not. He fixed a meal out in the middle, pulling a stove up from a boat underneath. He pushed a wheelbarrow across.
One of his biggest feats was carrying a man over on his back. Nobody volunteered to be carried. But his agent believed in him. Truly did. And so since no one volunteered, he agreed to be the one.
Blondin got halfway over on the rope with his agent on his back, but he needed to rest. So he told the fellow to get off his back and hold onto his sides, and everything would be all right. So the guy did. After the rest the guy got back on, and they finished walking across.
Now that fellow had real faith. Faith today is such an easy word to say, but often it doesn't mean much. The IJ demonstrates before all, using due process which Gailon so highly values, whose faith was genuine and whose wasn't.
It sure makes sense to me, and I can't see any way that it isn't biblical.
-
Are you implying that there are children here who cannot think for themselves; who need your authoritarian attitude to demand that they think as you do? And... that only you can decide what constitutes a Christian character?
No. Just that if it were my child, this is what I'd do. And I'd do the same for anyone else wanting to step into that car.
Well, there are not children here (as far as I understand), who need 'rescuing' from Christian characteristics (which is what I was referring to), so we come back to the issues of 'spiritual abuse' again.
Your way or the highway? Is that how it is? And... if people don't follow exactly as you say, you have every right to denigrate and verbally abuse them?
In some ways I feel very sorry for you. In other ways, I feel like I'd love to shut you up one way or another, before you turn other Christian folk away from Christianity.
Remember, I have stated on several occasions that I am not a "Ford follower".
-
I never said you said that. It was a question. I'm asking you, do you think that Ford's teaching will lead people to salvation?
There are a lot of teachings that I disagree with. Frankly, I know little about this man. It isn't his teachings that concern me while discussing with you.color=blue] You can have all the truth in the worls, but when used in a condescending and vicious way,it is a lot more than useless,it is very damaging.[/color]
:thumbsup: :amen:
I am thankful my husband did not have those with "the correct belief" and your attitude. He likely would still be catholic.
:amen: AGAIN. :goodpost:
-
I never realized that so many had already booked passage on Desmond Ford's Phantom Ship to perdition. I had thought that his false teachings would be largely ignored and forgotten by people nowadays. I stand corrected.
SDAminister
What a nice way to tell someone they are going to hell. I thought God decided that
Everybody goes to hell. Do you mean hell-fire?
But I get your intent anyway, so, you think that Ford's teachings will lead people to............salvation?
SDAMinister,
Why such angry post, cant you give us your thoughts without the flames.....Dr Ford has stepped away from the truth in my book, but I still feel he meant well but was misguided, and not by the Holy Spirit. Lately he has seemed to have hardened in his views and maybe writing much more strongly against the truth, trying to maybe convince himself he is right, but for us being followers of Christ, there is no need to pummel him or anyone that thinks he is correct.
Red
And I will continue to pummel Ford. When the lion and bear came to steal away sheep from David's flock, he chased down the bear and the lion and killed them. It's my duty to do the same. Not to kill Ford, of course. May God have mercy on him and me alike. But rather to kill his philosophy which steals sheep away from God. If you come as a wolf intending to kill and steal, you get a heavy dose of the staff--the shepherd's rod, if you will. Plain enough?
SDAminister
SDAMinister,
Of course if God has chosen you for such a task, but that may not be the case. And I think there are others, God fearing Christians, who have done a much better job without tearing him to shreds and ripping up his character....
Red
-
And I think there are others, God fearing Christians, who have done a much better job without tearing him to shreds and ripping up his character....
Red
You just might be correct, Red.
-
Since this thread has been idle for a week, I thought I'd provide links to two posts, the first that deals with the day-year principle, and the second that deals with Hebrews and the investigative judgment.
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1045.msg12579.html#msg12579 (http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1045.msg12579.html#msg12579)
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1045.msg12580.html#msg12580 (http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1045.msg12580.html#msg12580)
Any problems with the reasoning in those posts?
-
While studying at the SDA Theological Seminary, then at Tacoma Park, Desmond Ford and his wife lived right across the river from where we were staying, and there was a solid pedestrian bridge between us, and yet we did not get acquainted. I just knew that he was a solid student. 15 years later when I served as a departmental secretary in Norway I was to meet him, but not in person. Elder Spangler, the editor of MINISTRY, visited us and I was his guide. At every spare moment Elder Spangler was telling me of his recent visit to Australia where he had the opportunity of staying at the home of Desmond and his wife, talking to them and observing them in their daily lives. According to Elder Spangler he had never met such God fearing people, nor any family following the blueprints for daily life as outlined by Ellen White so profoundly and consistently.
A few years later I worked together with a pastor who had studied at Avondale College where Desmond was teaching. He told me that hardly a day passed without several calls of the campus intercom stating there was an international call waiting for Dr. Desmond Ford, and most of those calls were from the Washington D.C. church headquarters. Church leaders used him as their counselor.
Some time after that new General Conference officers were elected, and it seemed like none of those knew Desmond Ford. There are varying explanations of what happened after that.
We heard of his sabbatical and that something would happen at Glacier View. Right after Glacier View I attended a worker's meeting where two high ranking officers and theologians were the main speakers. Both of then had just been at Glacier View. I do not recall them speaking of Desmond as a heretic, but rather as a challenger.
Years later a lady I had known very well in College came to the Conference office where I was working. She told me she was associated with Desmond Ford as a chaplain in California, and she gave me a glowing report of his growing Christian experience and inspiring sermons, and she classified him as a solid conservative Seventh-day Adventist.
When I read some of the most critical and scholarly written articles exposing his fallacies, and I compare those with what Desmond Ford writes himself, I wonder. I am not defending his teachings, and yet I wonder if he ever strayed as far from our fundamental beliefs as a number of our Pioneers did in the days of Ellen White, and yet they remained in leading positions in our Church? Are there others still working among us who should rather be defrocked because of their even more serious deviations?
Desmond has become a popular target. Why?
-
Interesting questions, Johann.
I think I've heard that he is conservative in lifestyle.
It isn't often that folks are officially taken to task over theology, it seems.
Does he currently believe in an investigative judgment beginning on Oct. 22, 1844?
-
People close to Desmond Ford now are telling me that all the herecies he is accused of teaching are inventions of his enemies. That he has never departed from the official teachings of the Church, but that he has promised the Lord he will never defend himself against any accusations. That is why he keeps quet when people accuse him of having departed from the way. He is supposed to have made a promise never to get into an argument, but just preach the WORD in his Sabbath sermons. I am told he never deviates from solid SDA doctrine in his sermons.
If this is his stand who wants to get into an argument with him? Or make a study to find flaws in his teachings?
-
Dr. Ford was recently featured on a couple of programs on LLBN. Based on what I saw, Johann's assessment would seem accurate.
-
People close to Desmond Ford now are telling me that all the herecies he is accused of teaching are inventions of his enemies. That he has never departed from the official teachings of the Church, but that he has promised the Lord he will never defend himself against any accusations. That is why he keeps quet when people accuse him of having departed from the way. He is supposed to have made a promise never to get into an argument, but just preach the WORD in his Sabbath sermons. I am told he never deviates from solid SDA doctrine in his sermons.
If this is his stand who wants to get into an argument with him? Or make a study to find flaws in his teachings?
If this is true, Johann, part of the problem is in what Desmond Ford himself has unquestionably said.
Consider his article at http://www.desford.org.au/home/skypage.php?keyid=75&parentkeyid=74 (http://www.desford.org.au/home/skypage.php?keyid=75&parentkeyid=74) in which he explicitly states that he doesn't not believe that Gen. 1 is a literal account of a 6-day creation.
As far as the 2300 days go, see http://www.goodnewsunlimited.org/library/atodayinterview/followup.cfm#q23 (http://www.goodnewsunlimited.org/library/atodayinterview/followup.cfm#q23) where Ford says that the 2300 days are really 1150 days, and that they initially applied to Antiochus Epiphanes.
-
Personally I have had no difficulty in demonstrating the validity of the 2300 days from the Bible.
If the first chapter of Genesis is just an allegory then the validity of the whole Bible is brought into question. Old-earth evolution requires death to create new species. Thus if God used long periods of time to create then death was a part of it from the very beginning of creation. The only problem is scripture says death is a result of sin and thus did not exist before sin. If there was no real Adam and Eve and no real first sin then just maybe there still isn't any real sin today. If there is no sin then there is no eternal death and no need of a Savior.
-
Personally I have had no difficulty in demonstrating the validity of the 2300 days from the Bible.
If the first chapter of Genesis is just an allegory then the validity of the whole Bible is brought into question. Old-earth evolution requires death to create new species. Thus if God used long periods of time to create then death was a part of it from the very beginning of creation. The only problem is scripture says death is a result of sin and thus did not exist before sin. If there was no real Adam and Eve and no real first sin then just maybe there still isn't any real sin today. If there is no sin then there is no eternal death and no need of a Savior.
Very interesting points - and important.
-
Johann, you make some important points about Ford. I do not agree with some of the positions that he has taken. However, I respect him for the Christian life he has lived and how he has related to those who have accused him. To me, he has demonstrated his Christianity and I respect his continued adherence to some Adventist distinctives. I can consider him to be a Adventist while Idisagree with some positions he has taken.