Advent Talk

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Click Here to Enter Maritime SDA OnLine.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views  (Read 27654 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eduard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2008, 05:46:36 PM »



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

Logged

Eduard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2008, 05:54:39 PM »

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

 
« Last Edit: August 24, 2008, 05:58:29 PM by Eduard »
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4051
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2008, 06:40:11 PM »

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?
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4051
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2008, 06:43:57 PM »



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?
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4051
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2008, 06:47:05 PM »

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."
Logged

Ozzie

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 470
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2008, 07:42:12 PM »

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:
Logged
Ozzie
****************************************************

"Why not go out on a limb? Isn't that where the fruit is?"
~ Frank Sculley.

SDAminister

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2008, 11:18:48 PM »

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?

Logged

SDAminister

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2008, 11:30:12 PM »

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.
Logged

SDAminister

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #38 on: August 24, 2008, 11:34:24 PM »

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
Logged

Ozzie

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 470
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2008, 03:31:24 AM »

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:
Logged
Ozzie
****************************************************

"Why not go out on a limb? Isn't that where the fruit is?"
~ Frank Sculley.

reddogs

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2008, 08:07:15 AM »

[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
Logged

bonnie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2008, 09:27:45 AM »



Quote
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.
Logged
Beware of those that verbally try to convince you they are Christian. Check your back pocket and make sure your wallet is still there. Next check your reputation to see if it is still intact. Chances are, one or both will be missing

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4051
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2008, 09:31:35 AM »

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.
Logged

Bob Pickle

  • Defendants
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4051
    • Pickle Publishing
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2008, 09:42:34 AM »

Here is the second point. Here's an email I received in August 2002.

Quote
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.
Logged

bonnie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
Re: Dr. Desmond Ford and Related Views
« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2008, 09:43:56 AM »

Quote
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.

Logged
Beware of those that verbally try to convince you they are Christian. Check your back pocket and make sure your wallet is still there. Next check your reputation to see if it is still intact. Chances are, one or both will be missing
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up