How many of you heard Dr. Ford's talk on "The Theory of the Forensic Atonement in Light of the Christian Gospel in a packed Adventist Church, the Loma Linda Campus Hill Church in Loma Linda, California. And at the second talk, presented in the evening, which was entitled "This I Believe." ???

AT describes the following: "Following dialogue among Dr. Ford, the moderator, and the responders, a series of written questions from the audience were addressed. It was just a matter of time until Glacier View was brought up. The audience question asked whether the General Conference of the Adventist Church had ever apologized for controversially expelling him from ministry and teaching in the Adventist church in 1980 following his critique of the investigative judgment doctrine. Dr. Ford responded that the Catholic Church has made many apologies, but the Adventist Church does not apologize."

This brings up an important issue ... Does the Adventist Church issue apologizes for errors they make?

How about yourself?

The important thing to remember is that we view things from only one perspective we can... and it's our perspective. I'm sure that in our own mind we are right... that's the position that we assume.

Life would kind of be uncertain if we are living assuming that we are wrong. Now multiply this by ten when you are dealing with religious hierarchy. I don't think they would be in the position that they are by admitting their wrongs, and that's the unfortunate truth. We don't see many modern "Confessions" by modern st. Augustines... because we are living in a culture where we constantly have to "market ourselves" by presenting ourselves in a better light than we are.

If it's true for ordinary people like you and I, I don't think it's any less true when it comes to church leaders, who are ordinary people in important positions.

I understand Ford's bitter feelings... yet would you expect any different? Would you expect the church agree with one scholar discarding a hundred years of the traditional teachings of a prophet? I would not expect this to happen, whether he was right or wrong... which to me only time will tell.

I don't find the idea behind the investigative judgment to be so important that we bicker about it, instead of spending that valuable time of finding new and creative ways of introducing people to God.

Desmond Ford wants an apology. Good one. I want an apology from Desmond Ford for perverting the gospel of Christ and for leading people into the darkness of New Theology. Because of him and his protégé, Jack Sequeira, my brethren have been seduced and now they go about like Krishna Hindus who think they have found enlightenment. They think they have found a shortcut to understand things and to being ahead of the game. They think they see things more clearly than everyone else, and now they have a sense of purpose to "enlighten" the whole SDA church, when really they are being led by seducing spirits.

They could be building on the foundation already set, but instead, they entice people to their own new foundation. They could be focusing their time and attention on getting the message that we have, to the world, but instead they are trying to concoct a new message and they are forever focused on Adventists, not the world. They dwell in darkness, and instead of coming to the light, just keep coming up with more and more absurd new interpretations that only mangle and mutilate every doctrine of Christianity.

Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

1 Tim. 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Did people come up with New Theology? No. It comes from the Devil. How do we know? Motive. It is the Devil that wants us to sin, and this doctrine teaches that we can't escape from the hold of sin, so now we can breath a sigh of relief and just give in to temptation instead of fighting it. That's not the work of Jesus.



If the Lord starts casting out devils in the church now, we would discover them to be demoniacs who are seduced by New Theology.

Some good points Sir.

I was in the same graduation class as Des. At that time of his life he was a great speaker. When it was announced that Des had worship (or any other meeting), the students would flock to it. He taught the message that we have always believed -- and he put it in simple terms. We all knew that Des had a wonderful future ahead of him.

Des married -- but it was not too many years down the track that his wife passed away. I had lost personal touch with him at that stage. He later remarried, and it seemed to me that it was not that long afterwards that he seemed to go "off the track" and preach false doctrine. He seems to have turned his back on teachings, such as the "day for a year" principle in interpreting prophecy -- a principle that has been proved to be correct. And that was only the beginning of his false teachings. He turned his back on the Spirit of Prophecy.

No, the church has nothing to apologise about to Des. Des has turned his back on truth, and taken many of his college colleagues with him. Some have come back to the church, but not to ministry. This Division is still recovering from the effects of Des.

He is now in his eighties, so he is not likely to admit his mistake -- it appears that the devil is still using him to draw souls sway from the truth. That is sad -- but we owe him no apology!!

Beryl

Thanks for the insight, Beryl. I appreciate it.

I agree with that, Beryl. I've studied Des's books and used to believe in a lot that he taught. I left PUC for LLU shortly before he began to teach at PUC.

He confused a lot of people about the Investigative Judgment and caused many to lose faith in Ellen White and to drop out of the church. For me, it doesn't seem like good fruit.

In Des' defense, and I am not saying that I agree with all that he has said, I wll say that he did much to shake up the established theology of the time. And to firm foundations and clarify some.

Something that many of you have seem to forget....


PS- I was there. I saw what happened...and the church treated Des pretty badly..and it does owe him an appology for treating him badly.

Thanks Neil.

As Mrs. White says ... Those who have the truth need not fear investigation.

For what it's worth, this is my exposure to Desmond Ford:

1. My son was in his religion class at PUC and appreciated his teachings a great deal. They were not "off-center" or reactionary in any way. [My son was a chemistry major, not a theologian.]

2. I heard Dr. Ford speak in person at an Adventist weekend conference in Monterey, CA almost two years ago. He spoke three times over that weekend. Although I personally found it difficult to understand his strong accent, I felt he was totally sincere in his message. He did say "The Catholic church has apologized, but the Adventist church never has" (as someone here mentioned). But it wasn't said in a disparaging manner.

3. His theology didn't offend me in the least. I don't know whether he even mentioned the year-day principle. However, he did say the 2300-day prophecy does not prove what we were formerly taught to believe. Actually, that did not shake my faith in any way, because I don't worry about when Christ will "begin" the investigative judgment. [I actually believe God doesn't need years and years to review and judge the actions of those on this earth. He can do it instantaneously. The only reason I think God has a "Judgment" process is to bring all of us into an understanding of why our loved ones are (or are not) saved in heaven.]

4. I was impressed with his sincere Christian attitude. He never spoke ill of the Adventist brethren in any way. He emphasized that he is still, currently (and always has been) a member of the Adventist Church in Australia [I forget what local church he's a member of].

5. I heard Dr. Ray Cottrell speak at an Adventist Forum meeting a few years ago; he said the Adventist church owes Desmond Ford a huge apology for the Glacier View fiasco.

Very nice comments, no rants!

This is very true. Ellen White also said that the Lord allows false doctrines to enter into the church in order to get people to study the Bible and dig for truth as for hidden treasure.

Every generation, and every individual, of the Seventh-day Adventist Church must study the truth out for himself personally and prove whether the doctrines are true or not. This applies, particularly, to the Investigative Judgment and the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, but includes all the other Bible doctrines.

However, once a pastor or teacher is convinced that the church's doctrines are false, they should realize they cannot be paid by the church to attack the fundamental doctrines of the church.

I do not see why the church owes Dr. Ford an apology any more than the church owed A.F. Ballenger an apology for teaching basically the same false doctrines.

Dr. Ford does not believe in any Investigative Judgment at all.

You may be confusing the Investigative Judgment with the judgment that occurs during the millennium following Christ's Second Coming. The IJ is often also called the Pre-Advent Judgment, which, as the name implies, occurs prior to the Second Coming. According the Spirit of prophecy and Seventh-day Adventists, this Pre-Advent Judgment commenced in 1844 and will continue until the end of human probation just before the falling of the seven last plagues. The 2300 day prophecy of Daniel 8: 14 and the Investigative Judgment are at the very core of the reason for the existence of the Seventh-day Adventist church. We wouldn't exist as a separate entity without it, and it explains the urgency of our message, as well as the importance of such truths as the Sabbath.

The "'Judgment' process" you speak of is the judgment that takes place during the millennium, not the Investigative Judgment. The millennium judgment is when we will look over the life records of people who are not saved for the purpose of understanding all of God's dealings with the human family, to clear up any questions we might have concerning His fairness and justice with regard to those who are lost.

Dr. Ford believes in this judgment. The judgment he rejects is that which precedes the Second Coming and which our church teaches is going on right now.

His reasoning for rejecting it is basically four-fold:

1) Ford says Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in heaven as soon as He ascended to heaven in 31 AD.

2) Ford says that God has nothing to learn from the Investigative Judgment and therefore it is unnecessary.

3) Ford says that Christians do not come under judgment.

4) In Ford's view, Ellen White was simply wrong in what she wrote about the Investigative Judgment, a central doctrine of the church and of her writings. Yet Ford continues to champion Ellen White as a true prophet of God.

My experience of Dr Ford's preaching is similar to Jeannie's, I have heard him on quite a few occasions but the last was about 5 years ago.

What does concern me in Jeannie's statement is her description of his 'strong accent'. He does NOT have a strong Australian accent, compared to many......I hope you could understan me, if we met, Jeannie.

Thanks. That's helpful information. Assuming it's true. Do you have a reference, by chance? Is this just common knowledge?




I was under the impression that Jack Sequeira was good friends with many in the conference and is still on the payroll, getting paid from the tithe. Is this true or not?

They way I see it, Desmond Ford and Jack Sequeira are like Billy the Kid and Jesse James. They are famous for doing evil. What kind of a sick world are we living in? People sell their souls to the Devil for fame and fortune. The Devil's part of the bargain is that they will promote his propaganda and glorify evil and carnal pleasures, to cause people to sin and to sympathize with him and to hate God's Word and His plan of salvation.

And the people don't have a clue, but they actually make gods out of these wicked men, these murderers and thieves.



That seems to fit my theory.

What I've given you is from his writings on the subject of the sanctuary. It is fairly common knowledge among those who study Dr. Ford's theology and ideas. There are things online he wrote which you can access and read.





Of course, as you probably know, Dr. Ford and Jack Sequeira have different theologies, although they do agree on some key aspects of righteousness by faith. Jack S. does not reject the Investigative Judgment. I've read a few of Sequeira's books but I am not up on his current status or relationship with the church.

I know little about either Ford or Sequeira ... but what I have seen I like. They are both very Gospel centered with love and tolerance. They are not dogmatic or extremists like some of my fellow conservatives.

Have you read their books?

If so, what do you think of one or two of them? How do the views of Sequeira differ from Ford's?

I haven't. Like I said ... I know little about either of them. But what I have seen is that they both agree on the important issues. They ... like most people ... will disagree on minor issues ... but the Gospel is central. And that is what I focus on. Do they have a grasp on what is important?

LOL, Nan. I'm sure we'd understand each other! You and I are on the same wavelength!

Do you think it is just possible that too much importance may be attached to some of the "fundamentals" Is some of it just to justify our existence?
mel

Which of the Seventh-day Adventist fundamental doctrines do you seriously question or think should be jettisoned?

Are you familiar with what are called "the pillars of our faith"? Are you solidly in support of those?

Either way, would you like to explain what you think?

Am I to conclude that your answer to my questions is "no"
mel

It would be good to know what you have in mind and why. I have no idea what "fundamentals" you are talking about or why you think they are a problem.

Definitely no problem in here, Jeannie - and I guess we had better let this thread return to its original intent!

QR frame:

I don’t often visit Townhall, as it is simply not my cup of tea. I prefer my tea hot and bracing - but would rather have coffee; however, having had a bit of exposure to Brinsmead – I thought I’d peruse the Desmond Ford thread. A couple of things piqued my interest, they being:

>>Desmond Ford wants an apology. Good one. I want an apology from Desmond Ford for perverting the gospel of Christ and for leading people into the darkness of New Theology. Because of him and his protégé, Jack Sequeira, my brethren have been seduced and now they go about like Krishna Hindus who think they have found enlightenment. They think they have found a shortcut to understand things and to being ahead of the game. They think they see things more clearly than everyone else, and now they have a sense of purpose to "enlighten" the whole SDA church, when really they are being led by seducing spirits.<<

More than ‘interesting’ – I found the above to be a bit turgid – fascinating; and compliment its author. I find most fascinating the assertion of the last sentence – seemingly, left-handedly composed to lend to and enshrine a certain sense of the ‘infallible’ to a .Org’s dogmas and doctrines.

Infallible, eh? The Protestor’s Bull?

>>They could be building on the foundation already set, but instead, they entice people to their own new foundation. They could be focusing their time and attention on getting the message that we have, to the world, but instead they are trying to concoct a new message and they are forever focused on Adventists, not the world. They dwell in darkness, and instead of coming to the light, just keep coming up with more and more absurd new interpretations that only mangle and mutilate every doctrine of Christianity.<<

Ba’al, the god of veggie-tation. Shut door. Unitarianism. [...] I think it rather doctrinaire... Actually, the .Org has as much a history of organic evolution re dogmas and doctrines, as any other Protesting .org – or, for that matter – the RCC. Anyway,

Matt 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe [which is] instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man [that is] an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure [things] new and old.

Folks, THAT’S “new”! – and “old”.

>>If the Lord starts casting out devils in the church now, we would discover them to be demoniacs who are seduced by New Theology.<<

I mean, “demoniacs”!? Colorful, at the least.


>>He confused a lot of people about the Investigative Judgment and caused many to lose faith in Ellen White and to drop out of the church. For me, it doesn't seem like good fruit.<<

Actually, many of my friends and family are SDA. I find myself comfortable in associating with them. I’ve mentioned that my mother was SDA.

For me, the primary stumbling block to a commitment on my part to SDA’ism is their dependency upon EGW – to its distraction from Holy Writ – y’know, fruits and such.

>>Dr. Ford ...

His reasoning for rejecting it is basically four-fold:

1) Ford says Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in heaven as soon as He ascended to heaven in 31 AD.

2) Ford says that God has nothing to learn from the Investigative Judgment and therefore it is unnecessary.

3) Ford says that Christians do not come under judgment.

4) In Ford's view, Ellen White was simply wrong in what she wrote about the Investigative Judgment, a central doctrine of the church and of her writings. Yet Ford continues to champion Ellen White as a true prophet of God.<<

Fact of the matter is – the IJ is both dogmatic and a construction. It seems, by the immediately above, that Dr Ford deconstructs the issue quite handily, no more.

To tell the truth, whereas the .Org's construction of an IJ dogma depends upon a multitude of texts, passages, and inferences. Dr Ford’s deconstruction sums it up with just the simple points proffered above and actually, rings truer than the thud proffered by the constructionists.

Dr Ford was not treated fairly at Glacier View IMO. The "bretheren" came not to listen or discuss the issues but to defend the tradition at all costs. The church does not stand or fall on the traditional understanding of the IJ and sanctuary. They are not not the everlasting gospel. It is possibly more a face saving problem.
mel

I wouldn't deny that some things were done at Glacier View that shouldn't have happened.

Do you know of anything in particular that happened which showed unfair treatment beyond the one you mention here?

It may be true that the majority of the brethren didn't come to listen or discuss but to defend the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. I'm sure the delegates went there with strong convictions about the subject.

It sounds like you believe it is not all that important to us as a church. Could you explain briefly how you see it and its relationship to the church's message?

We could look at the origin of the doctrine. You and I both know that there was no judgement scene in the COI's yearly day of atonement. There were not books opened etc. The people did not come before a judge. The judgement scene that Daniel saw is not dated is it? To tie a judgement scene to the COI;s yearly "day of atonement" is a 'construct' as jasd says. I remember as a young person how terrified I was that my name might pop up in judgement without me knowing and I'd have some forgotten "sin" on the books. That, along with the hellfire preachers, (the adventist version of course) really soured me on the whole thing until I finally heard the real gospel. I was past 20 years old by that time. I know those good folk back there in 1844 were desperate to make some sense out of their predicament but I think it possible they added one more mistake instead.
mel

You make some valid points and bring up important questions.

No doubt about it, the Investigative Judgment has not been taught very well, especially to young people. I think the people who explained it to you when you were 20 or so, no doubt tried to do the best they could, but they obviously didn't have a good grasp of it or of the gospel.

The point here is that just because someone does not explain something well, or even if they are wrong about something, doesn't mean that they are completely wrong. Maybe they were right about the existence of the Investigative Judgment but they were wrong in the details of their explanation.

If you get a chance to read it, it would be worth your while to read a book by the name of, The Silencing of Satan, by Bradley R. Williams. It is subtitled, The Gospel Of the Investigative Judgment. That book gives the Bible evidence for the Investigative, or Pre-Advent Judgment, if you are interested. It's a short book of only 150 pages and is well worth the cost of $12.00. It can be purchased online or at the ABC. (Do they call them that, in Australia?)

I would just encourage you to keep studying and asking questions until you get Biblically sound answers.

I'll be back later tonight to write more on this, especially regarding the first part of your post having to do with the judgment scene in Daniel and the COI day of atonement.

This is very true and vital to understand. There are groups of people out there that will tell you otherwise. They do this to try to preserve their personal biased views of the doctrine.

The TRUTH .... our church stands and has it foundation ... upon the GOSPEL. This is what our church is ALL about. If the Gospel falls ... so will our church. But don't believe those that tell you the IJ is what does that.

At this point, however, the issue or question is not whether the church would fall without the Investigative Judgment. The question is whether the Bible supports the concept of the Pre-Advent Judgment.

It is not a question of whether the church would fall without it, because we could say the same thing about most of the doctrines of the church.

Out of our 28 official doctrines, how many would cause the fall of the church if they didn't exist tomorrow?

So that is not really what we are trying to find out here. We're simply talking about it with an object of understanding it better.

This is a nice way to dictate what the issue is or what the question is or is not. But you should add the words ... " Personally I FEEL ... the issue is not.

I think we should let the discussion go where people think the issue is and not just where one or two THINK the issue may be or not be.

Persons who wish to discuss issues should practice reading carefully so as not to misrepresent what the other person is saying. There are those who continually undermine other's viewpoints by misrepresenting their posts. How do you view that type of activity?
mel

Some will even misrepresent their own words after they say them ... just to maintain face. lol But, yeah. I know what you're talkin about.

Who are you talking about and what words do you have in mind?

Could you explain? I'm not aware of having done this, but if you feel I have, let me know what you are referring to.

Is the ice getting thin perhaps? :-)
mel

We read about the new covenant in Hebrews 10. The Lord says "I will set my laws in their hearts and write them on their understanding.......and their sins and wicked deeds I will remember no more at all. Another place states that the names of people who accept Christ do not come up in judgement. You know that.
mel

There's a good book that deals with that very question. You can get it at the ABC or order it online. It presents the Bible evidence for the Pre-Advent Judgment, and is entitled, The Silencing of Satan, the Gospel In the Investigative Judgement.

http://www.investigativejudgmentgospel.org/default.htm

http://www.investigativejudgmentgospel.org/My_Homepage_Files/Page3.html

http://www.investigativejudgmentgospel.org/My_Homepage_Files/Page1.html

There have been very good and interesting Online discussions about this topic and this book.

Later I'll come back and add to this post.

Yes, there's an IJ...but

The question we need to ask is why?

Is it to see who is good enough?

No, because no one is good enough. Like the Bible says: "There's none righteous"..."All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"..."If we say we have no sin..." etc

So if the IJ is about who is measuring up, well, you can forget heaven.

Then what is the IJ about?

Well, there's an accuser who accurately points your sins out to God and he tells Him, "You have no right to let ______ in because your own law requires, 'The person who sins must die'"!

What does Christ do with believing sinners? I'll even use Ellen to answer my question:

The tempter stands by to accuse them, as he stood by to resist Joshua. He points to their filthy garments, their defective characters. He presents their weakness and folly, their sins of ingratitude, their unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer. He endeavors to affright [scare] them with the thought that their case is hopeless, that the stain of their defilement will never be washed away. He hopes so to destroy their faith that they will yield to his temptations, and turn from their allegiance to God.

Satan has an accurate knowledge of the sins that he has tempted God's people to commit, and he urges his accusations against them, declaring, that by their sins they have forfeited divine protection, and claiming that he has the right to destroy them. He pronounces them just as deserving as himself of exclusion from the favor of God. "Are these," he says, "the people who are to take my place in heaven, and the place of the angels who united with me? They profess to obey the law of God; but have they kept its precepts? Have they not been lovers of self more than lovers of God? Have they not placed their own interests above His service? Have they not loved the things of the world? Look at the sins that have marked their lives. Behold their selfishness, their malice, their hatred of one another. Will God banish me and my angels from His presence, and yet reward those who have been guilty of the same sins? Thou canst not do this, O Lord, in justice. Justice demands that sentence be pronounced against them."

But while the followers of Christ have sinned, they have not given themselves up to be controlled by the satanic agencies [i.e., they haven’t given themselves totally over to the flesh, to live according to it]. They have repented of their sins and have sought the Lord in humility and contrition, and the divine Advocate pleads in their behalf. He who has been most abused by their ingratitude, who knows their sin and also their penitence, declares: "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan. I gave My life for these souls. They are graven upon the palms of My hands [that’s the “in Christ” motif]. They may have imperfections of character; they may have failed in their endeavors; but they have repented, and I have forgiven and accepted them."

You've quoted Ellen White as an authority regarding the Investigative Judgment. I believe it's important to support the doctrine from the Bible, but I do agree with you that what Ellen White wrote about it is also important.

Here's a very important quote from GC on the subject:

The subject of the sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious, showing that God's hand had directed the great advent movement and revealing present duty as it brought to light the position and work of His people. As the disciples of Jesus after the terrible night of their anguish and disappointment were "glad when they saw the Lord," so did those now rejoice who had looked in faith for His second coming. They had expected Him to appear in glory to give reward to His servants. As their hopes were disappointed, they had lost sight of Jesus, and with Mary at the sepulcher they cried: "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." Now in the holy of holies they again beheld Him, their compassionate High Priest, soon to appear as their king and deliverer. Light from the sanctuary illumined the past, the present, and the future. They knew that God had led them by His unerring providence. Though, like the first disciples, they themselves had failed to understand the message which they bore, yet it had been in every respect correct. In proclaiming it they had fulfilled the purpose of God, and their labor had not been in vain in the Lord. Begotten "again unto a lively hope," they rejoiced "with joy unspeakable and full of glory."

424

Both the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed," and the first angel's message, "Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come," pointed to Christ's ministration in the most holy place, to the investigative judgment, and not to the coming of Christ for the redemption of His people and the destr