What are Progressive/Evangelical views on Des Ford Investigative Judgement Thesis

tall73 · Oct 21, 2021

Daniel 7 does not show an investigative judgment of individual professed believers

Adventists assert that Daniel 7 shows a pre-advent judgment on professed believers in God. However, when reading Daniel 7 it is clear the judgment is on the beasts/nations and the little horn, not on professed believers of God. After describing the first three beasts, we see:

7 “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8 I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.

9 “I watched till thrones were ]put in place,
And the Ancient of Days was seated;
His garment was white as snow,
And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was a fiery flame,
Its wheels a burning fire;
10 A fiery stream issued
And came forth from before Him.
A thousand thousands ministered to Him;
Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court was seated,
And the books were opened.

11 “I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.

This is a judgment on powers. The beast was slain. The others had their dominion removed. God has always judged nations throughout time. This does not picture a judgment on individual professed believers.

Nor does this describe the Adventist investigative judgment notion that Ellen White expresses:

So in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment the only cases considered are those of the professed people of God. The judgment of the wicked is a distinct and separate work, and takes place at a later period. Great Controversy Chapter 28

In Daniel 7 you have judgment on nations that the Adventist church identifies as Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. Babylon and Persia, etc. were certainly not all professed followers of God. This does not meet the criteria that Ellen White spelled out. And it is a judgment on powers, rather than individuals.

Later in the passage we see the following statement about the saints:

22 until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.

The saints are delivered from the beast by the Ancient of Days. They are here stated as a group. And this statement summarizes all the way to them possessing the kingdom, which is after the second coming.

The beast is killed at Jesus' coming:

Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

The summary statement in Daniel 7:22 extends to the time of this incident of the killing of the beast, and beyond. Which means that it extends beyond the second coming, to the time when the saints inherit the kingdom.

And the plain texts indicate that while God judged the beast prior to its destruction, the judgment of the saints happens at Jesus' coming.

Rom 14:10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;
Rom 14:11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”
Rom 14:12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

We stand before the judgment seat
We bow
We confess
We give an account.

You cannot stand, bow, confess or give an account if you are not present, as in the Adventist IJ. This is an in-person judgment before Christ.

1Co 4:5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

Jesus discloses the purposes of the heart when He comes.

These texts all spell out that there is an individual judgment, but it is at the second coming of Christ, and occurs in person before Him.

tall73 · Oct 21, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
It is never so simple as...he was right because ministers followed him and left.

I did not claim he was right because ministers left. I asked for your view on the study, as someone in the area.

tall73 · Oct 21, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
After reading through one of the publications of the response given to Des Ford by one of those who were in the upper level meetings regarding that saga, (as well as another more recent article written by Arthur Patrick)

Is this the article by Arthur Patrick?

Post 78, Twenty-five Years After Glacier View: Using the Lantern of History, Anticipating a Brighter Future – Adventist Studies

tall73 · Oct 21, 2021

For those interested, since this now moved to Denomination Specific Theology, the following special edition of Ministry Magazine was released regarding the events during and after the Glacier View Sanctuary Review Committee meeting:

October 1980

tall73 · Oct 21, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
read post #25 and after you have done that, as you claim to be an informed SDA, might i suggest you put your very obvious skills of impartiality to good use and do some research of your own...none of what i have said is mysterious or locked down rotting in archive dungeons.

You made this claim:

What are Progressive/Evangelical views on Des Ford Investigative Judgement Thesis

He starts from a false premise in the first place and then only searched for evidence to support said premise.

Ice asked for clarification:

What is the false premise Des starts with?

Then you quoted in post 25 some other peoples' thoughts, and referred Ice back to that.

Since you claimed he started with a false premise, you should clarify your position. I cannot discern from the comments you quoted by others in post 25 what that false premise entailed. Asking Ice to go "research" won't explain what your position is.

Adventist Heretic · Oct 21, 2021

tall73 said:
I don't think the majority of scholars now have questions, because there has been a stream of folks leaving over the issue, and so the ones who remain are usually the loyalists. In some cases, such as Richard Davidson, they had their own struggles with the doctrine, but eventually reconciled it.

But Des is just one man. And as his book notes this question is not new to him. He spelled out the history of many people in the denomination who questioned this teaching. And that has not stopped after Ford. And it is not tied just to Ford, or his personality. You don't need to read Ford to ask questions on the context of Daniel 8 or statements from Hebrews, etc.

Ice and I had a professor, long after Ford, who left over these doctrines.

We had another theology professor who I also corresponded with (after his retirement), who admitted that he didn't think sin is transferred by the sin offerings, wanted the church to re-think the entire IJ without reference to EGW, etc. He indicated that when his friend taught the IJ he presented it as Adventist history, because he couldn't accept it. This particular professor did accept it, was at Glacierview, but had a number of differences with particulars that were directly referenced by Ellen White. But his view of her inspiration still allowed for it. This is the position of a lot of folks who cannot reconcile the two, go with what they believe the Bible says, but still hold to an overall framework. But they don't go publishing that abroad when they are in positions as professors because they feel it would undermine things. At the same time they wish the denomination would allow for more open review, as he stated.

I know other pastors who have left over these issues. And I know some who privately indicate they have issues with the doctrine, but have not left.

I have known denominational employees who become much more vocal after retirement as well in their disagreements.

Moreover, you mention the IJ continuing to be preached. Yes, it is in some places. But I have encountered a number of formers who first saw issues with the teaching when the IJ was stressed in Sabbath School quarterlies. Going through it raised questions for them, not because they knew Des Ford, but because they saw the same issues he, and others have.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I agree Ford should have listened to his advisors, but primarily in one respect. Had he just covered the history of the questions on the doctrine, and the problems, and let them wrestle with their own solutions, then I think it may have done some good, whatever the final outcome. Instead he tried to spell out his own quite convoluted way of reconciling aspects of the doctrine, that nearly no one but him would agree with.

But many others have raised similar questions, before and after him, that are independent of his personality.

Crozier (who originally formulated part of it), Canright, Ballenger, Conradi, Waggoner, Grieve, Fletcher, Prescott, Cottrell, and many others took issue with it. Here is what Andreason said on the issue in his day:

If my experience as a teacher in the Seminary may be taken as a criterion, I would say that a large number of our ministers have serious doubt as to the correctness of the views we hold on certain phases of the sanctuary. They believe, in a general way, that we are correct, but they are as fully assured that Ballenger's views have never been fully met and that we cannot meet them. Not wishing to make the matter an issue, they simply decide that the question is not vital - and thus the whole subject of the sanctuary is relegated, in their minds at least, to the background. This is not a wholesome situation. If the subject is as vital as we have thought and taught it to be, it is not of secondary importance. Today, in the minds of a considerable part of the ministry, as far as my experience in the Seminary is concerned, it has little vital bearing, either in their lives or theology. I dread to see the day when our enemies will make capital of our weakness. I dread still more to see the day when our ministry will begin to raise questions. M. L. Andreason letter, 1942.

He refers to Albion Ballenger, who wrote to Ellen white with the hopes that she would show him in the Scriptures where his view was wrong. Here are a couple of quotes from that letter.

What I am pleading for in this letter, is, that if there be a 'thus saith the Lord' to support your statement, that, out of compassion for my soul you furnish it.

And a bit later:

And now Sister White, what can I do? If I accept the testimony of the Scriptures, if I follow my conscientious convictions, I find myself under your condemnation; and you call me a wolf in sheep's clothing, and warn my brethren and the members of my family against me. But when I turn in my sorrow to the Word of the Lord, that Word reads the same, and I fear to reject God's interpretation and accept yours. Oh that I might accept both. But if I must accept but one, hadn't I better accept the Lord's? If I reject his word and accept yours, can you save me in the judgment?

Ellen White did not furnish the "thus saith the Lord" that Ballenger was asking for. However, she did tell people not to listen to Ballenger's views.

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

She indicates that the experience of the Adventists for the past 50 years shows that their interpretation is correct, and therefore even scriptural arguments to the contrary are not to be entertained when people in the Advent movement express them. But this is also an admission of how for 50 years people had been asking questions based on Scripture.

While she did not correct Ballenger's views, she did say this:

I testify in the name of the Lord that Elder Ballenger is led by satanic agencies and spiritualistic, invisible leaders. Those who have the guidance of the Holy Spirit will turn away from these seducing spirits.—Manuscript 59, 1905. (“The Sabbath Truth in the Sentinel, and Elder Ballenger's Views,” May 20, 1905.)

Questions continued to be raised. Here is a quote from Cottrell, an Adventist scholar who worked on the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, among other projects. This is from Spectrum Magazine, April, 1980. He was particularly asking about the idea that the Day of Atonement cleansing is referred to in Daniel 8:14, which is key to the Adventist sanctuary doctrine.

While editing Bible Readings, and in counsel with Elder Nichol as chief editor of the revision, I wrote to 27 leading Adventist Bible scholars for their response to a series of six carefully formulated questions designed to bring the best contemporary Adventist biblical scholarship to bear on the question. All 27 responded, many at considerable length. A careful analysis and synthesis of their replies provided no additional help with respect to the problems arising from our interpretation of Daniel 8:14, and made evident that we had no satisfactory answer to the criticisms being directed against our interpretation of this key Adventist passage. Thirteen replied that they knew of no other valid basis for making such an application; seven based it on analogy; five, on the authority of Ellen White; two, on what they referred to as a "fortunate accident" in translation. Not one of the 27 believed that there was a linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel 8:14 to the heavenly sanctuary, an antitypical day of atonement, or 1844.

The GC then set up the secret 5 year Problems in Daniel Committee which was split in their views and never released minutes or a report. This was disclosed at the Glacier View session (more on that below) by Elder Wilson (General Conference President), and then published in the Ministry Magazine special, October, 1980.

In Cottrell's Sanctuary Doctrine—Asset or liability. He reviews the history of a number Adventists who questioned the sanctuary doctrine This is just a few selections:

The traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 with its sanctuary and investigative judgment, which gave birth to Seventh-day Adventism and accounts for its existence as a distinct entity within Christendom, has been the object of more criticism and debate, by both Adventists and non-Adventists, than all other facets of its belief system combined. The same is true with respect to church discipline on doctrinal grounds, defections from the church, and the diversion of time, attention, and resources from Adventism's perceived mission to the world.

Twenty-five years later W. W. Prescott (a member of the GC ad hoc committees appointed to meet with the dissidents) commented in a letter to W. A. Spicer, then president of the General Conference: "I have waited all these years for someone to make an adequate answer to Ballenger, Fletcher and others on their positions re. the sanctuary but I have not seen or heard it."

In August 1980 115 leading administrators and Bible scholars from around the world (at an administrator's estimated cost of a quarter of a million dollars) were summoned to Glacier View in Colorado, to serve as the Sanctuary Review Committee. They were specifically instructed not to evaluate Ford's beliefs with respect to Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment by the Bible itself, but as set forth in the statement of Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs, which the church had already determined to be normative. Several weeks later the Australasian Division withdrew his ministerial credentials.

As a matter of fact, the consensus report voted at the close of the week-long conference tacitly agreed with Ford on six major points of exegesis. Later, some forty Bible scholars signed a document known as the Atlanta Affirmation, remonstrating with Neal Wilson for the way the church had treated Ford at, and after, Glacier View.

We could wish that such encounters with the sanctuary doctrine were a thing of the past. But a new generation of victims is repeating their traumatic experiences all over again. If the past is any index to the future they will be repeated indefinitely unless and until the church faces up to the facts objectively and deals realistically and responsibly with them in harmony with the sola Scriptura principle.

I don't know how you do this but this is impressive. I have always said you are the vacuum cleaner of knowledge "VACKNO" you suck in more knowledge, easier then anyone I know and you erupt more knowledge then most can handle, you truly are the volcano of information(VOLCI), the human internet (HUNET).

tall73 · Oct 22, 2021

icedragon101 said:
I have back tracked on this a bit and don't completely reject the concept but I do still reject the application to 1844 and the 2300 days.

In regards to the notion of a pre-advent IJ on individual cases of believers, I can't say it won't happen. I just don't see it spelled out in the texts.

I do see the judgment on powers and nations throughout the Scriptures, and in Daniel 7.

And I do see individual judgment, including giving account (which indicates in person) before the judgment seat, which includes believers, at Jesus' coming. But that doesn't match up with Ellen White's statements on a pre-advent judgment on professed believers where they are not present.

More importantly, I am not sure it would be necessary for the reasons Adventists usually cite. God doesn't need it, and they agree, Christ knows His sheep. They usually note the onlooking universe. But if all confess, and give an account, and bow the knee, what is the question of justice?

The texts show Jesus interacting with professed believers at His coming in the parable of the talents, the sheep and the goats, etc. So it would seem there is evidence there if the onlooking universe had questions in any case. But moreover, Paul references believers judging angels in his correspondence to the Corinthians, and Adventist agree with believers themselves having questions answered in the 1k years (though I know you have a difference of opinion on their location during that time with the traditional view).

So in the end, I am not sure why an IJ would be needed. And historically it seemed more of an explanation of why Jesus was taking so long to return after 1844. That is part of why many didn't accept it at first. But as time went on they needed some explanation, and seemed to settle on that.

Adventist Heretic · Oct 22, 2021

You asked my view on what the investigative judgment was I will give it to you and brief here.

I believe investigative judgment to be a valid concept. It is a legal mechanism akin to due process in which someone or something is investigated and a judgment is rendered for them or against them.

The first place we see the investigative judgment is in the story of Adam and Eve. He gives them a probationary period they fail and God comes looking for them. Why because he is investigating them before he renders a judgement. He allows them to reveals themselves before a judgment comes. You see this with Noah and preaching 120 years. You see this in the Tower of Babel. Why did God need to come down and take a look he's omniscient and already knows what's going on? It is because he is giving due process, he investigates before he judges. You see this with Sodom and Gamorah, you see this with Abraham and Isaac. You see this with Nebuchadnezzar. You even see it with Christ being crucified on the cross it exposes how far Satan is willing to go to have power and reveals Christ how far Christ is willing to go and rescue us. You see this in Revelation in that the church is described as, not loving their life even unto death. Trial persecution and investigation reveal what a person is made of are they really a believer or are they an unbeliever. It also goes the same with God it's God really going to help us or is he not going to help us. The process reveals what's really inside. That I can agree with.

The application to 1844 I think is not there and therefore is a hindrance. I think the SDA Church has another prophecy they should be using to demonstrate their prophetic claim. That being the 1260, 1290 and 1335.

tall73 · Oct 22, 2021

icedragon101 said:
You asked my view on what the investigative judgment was I will give it to you and brief here.

I believe investigative judgment to be a valid concept. It is a legal mechanism akin to due process in which someone or something is investigated and a judgment is rendered for them or against them.

The first place we see the investigative judgment is in the story of Adam and Eve. He gives them a probationary period they fail and God comes looking for them. Why because he is investigating them before he renders a judgement. He allows them to reveals themselves before a judgment comes. You see this with Noah and preaching 120 years. You see this in the Tower of Babel. Why did God need to come down and take a look he's omniscient and already knows what's going on? It is because he is giving due process, he investigates before he judges. You see this with Sodom and Gamorah, you see this with Abraham and Isaac. You see this with Nebuchadnezzar. You even see it with Christ being crucified on the cross it exposes how far Satan is willing to go to have power and reveals Christ how far Christ is willing to go and rescue us. You see this in Revelation in that the church is of the indices described as not loving their life even unto death. Trial persecution and investigation reveal what a person is made of are they really a believer or are they an unbeliever. It also goes the same with God it's God really going to help us or is he not going to help us. The process reveals what's really inside. That I can agree with.

The application to 1844 I think is not there and therefore is a hindrance. I think the SDA Church has another prophecy they should be using to demonstrate their prophetic claim. That being the 1260, 1290 and 1335.

Shea traced numerous such examples of investigation in volume 1 of the DARCOM series.

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/vol-1-selected-studies-on-prophetic-interpretation/

I have no issue with that but see it happening in person at Jesus' coming per the texts I cited. The result is every knee bows and all confess Jesus is Lord.

AdamjEdgar · Oct 22, 2021

tall73 said:
You made this claim:

What are Progressive/Evangelical views on Des Ford Investigative Judgement Thesis

He starts from a false premise in the first place and then only searched for evidence to support said premise.

Ice asked for clarification:

What is the false premise Des starts with?

Then you quoted in post 25 some other peoples' thoughts, and referred Ice back to that.

Since you claimed he started with a false premise, you should clarify your position. I cannot discern from the comments you quoted by others in post 25 what that false premise entailed. Asking Ice to go "research" won't explain what your position is.

Actually I have explained this using a few examples of known fact (anyone can research these for themselves)

1. Des studied his second doctoral thesis with a Christian Bretheren
2. His 6 month Sabbatical involved writing an extensivie research paper that was supposed to be exatly that (research), it was to include the guidance of a group of expert mentors in the fields he was studying...he completely ignored the guidance of all mentors in final submission and
3. that same dogmatic approach used in the mentoring flowed through into Glacier View to the extent that when asked on the Friday evening to take more time to decide, Des (and his wife) both IMMEDIATELY stated, they had already made up their minds. Clearly this was his position before he even left Australia 3 years earlier and had been the case since his second doctoral thesis many years earlier.

So when considering point number 3 above, it is clear that the church were not the ones spruking conspiracy...it was the Fords who did this to themselves.

I am sorry but Des thought he was above reproach, he demonstrated that he was to be the saviour of the Adventist Church, he believed that the very doctrin3e that defines our churches mission was wrong...he was simply not an SDA and that is that. It was not the churches choice, it was Des Fords choice and he made it.

The reality is, the entire existence of the SDA church is founded upon and centers on that doctrine. Whether or not it is right or wrong is actually completely irrelevant. One cannot remain and SDA and not believe in the IJ (that is my view as one who holds the beliefs of the church, and also the view of the SDA church...as was stated by the GC president in 1980)

I do genuinely feel sorry for his pain in the loss of friends he experienced at the choice he made, but it was HIS choice.

BTW well known SDA ministers are still very much preaching the Cleansing of the Sanctuary Doctrine...one of the most obvious examples of this is Doug Bachelor, another is Lloyd Grolimund the Aussie Pastor (both reach are far greater audience than Des Ford ever did and both have well known you tube channels)

tall73 · Oct 22, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
Actually I have explained this using a few examples of known fact (anyone can research these for themselves)

1. Des studied his second doctoral thesis with a Christian Bretheren

And? So did many of the scholars you claim are loyal now.

That is just history. He also write commentaries on the Adventist view, taught in Adventist colleges, trained Adventist ministers, and per Cottrel's estimate may have studied the subject more than any other living person at the time. The article I linked to by Arthur Patrick, who you referenced, pointed out Des raised issues that had come to light through recent research that was not being acknowledged by all of the administration, and that this data coming to light was a service.

Him studying with a non-Adventist is not a false premise. You were asked the false premise he started with.

2. His 6 month Sabbatical involved writing an extensivie research paper that was supposed to be exatly that (research), it was to include the guidance of a group of expert mentors in the fields he was studying...he completely ignored the guidance of all mentors in final submission and

What is the false premise. That was the question. This doesn't answer it.

He was to present his views and was given helpers. He should have used them. But they advised him not to spell out his whole view, and he thought he should. I think he shouldn't, but that does not spell out a false premise that he started with either.

3. that same dogmatic approach used in the mentoring flowed through into Glacier View to the extent that when asked on the Friday evening to take more time to decide, Des (and his wife) both IMMEDIATELY stated, they had already made up their minds. Clearly this was his position before he even left Australia 3 years earlier and had been the case since his second doctoral thesis many years earlier.

Still waiting for you to say the false premise he based things on.

Note from the Ministry magazine article detailing events after Glacier View:

Events since Glacier View

Pastor Wilson commented that Dr. Ford did not appear really to accept this philosophy, that he required evidence before changing an opinion, and has set up his own criteria of what is acceptable evidence criteria that exclude the writings of Ellen G. White as being doctrinally authoritative.

and

The discussion turned to the matter of Ellen G. White and her role in doctrinal and theological matters. Her authority, in relation to Scripture, and the question of whether she could be considered a reliable, inspired commentary of Scripture was examined. In this area Dr. Ford set forth his viewpoint, and indicated that he cannot agree with what the church holds in this matter.

Adventists claim up and down that the Bible is the standard for judging doctrine. But here is the GC president indicating that Des won't accept Ellen White as evidence, but wants Scripture. Why should Des accept her as a commentary on Scripture if Scripture is to be the rule of faith? Why should he accept Ellen White's statements if he sees the Scriptures saying something else?

So yes, he did not reconsider. And how could he? They wanted him to take the position of Ellen White because she is an authority. I wouldn't reconsider either. In fact, I didn't.

Now, back to the point. What was the false premise? You stated he started with one. What was it? That he should go by the Bible and not just what Ellen White said? That is not a false premise.

Now if you think he had some other false premise, then state it.

So when considering point number 3 above, it is clear that the church were not the ones spruking conspiracy...it was the Fords who did this to themselves.

The Fords responded to a request to share their views in an academic venue that was not intended to be passed on. And he expressed some elements that many others have expressed. He had for decades taught the Adventist position, and did not publicly seek to undermine it. But when the tape came out they wanted him to present his views for review.

I am sorry but Des thought he was above reproach, he demonstrated that he was to be the saviour of the Adventist Church, he believed that the very doctrin3e that defines our churches mission was wrong...he was simply not an SDA and that is that. It was not the churches choice, it was Des Fords choice and he made it.

You have not stated what the false premise was that he started with. Was it that he wanted Scripture evidence instead of Wilson's Ellen White evidence? Because that is what even the Ministry magazine account indicated he would not budge on.

The reality is, the entire existence of the SDA church is founded upon and centers on that doctrine. Whether or not it is right or wrong is actually completely irrelevant.

Ah, there you go.

Yeah, that line doesn't work. People in the church are not always going to take the party line because Ellen White said it if they can't present Scripture. Especially when the church claims Scripture is the rule of faith.

One cannot remain and SDA and not believe in the IJ (that is my view as one who holds the beliefs of the church, and also the view of the SDA church...as was stated by the GC president in 1980)

But you said he started with a false premise. By this logic he may have started with a perfectly factual premise--that the IJ is not supported in Scripture. You haven't proven his premise false. You have just said any dissent from the IJ is by default not to be considered.

I do genuinely feel sorry for his pain in the loss of friends he experienced at the choice he made, but it was HIS choice.

Oh it was indeed his choice to ask the church to uphold their own standard and provide Scripture.

BTW well known SDA ministers are still very much preaching the Cleansing of the Sanctuary Doctrine...one of the most obvious examples of this is Doug Bachelor, another is Lloyd Grolimund the Aussie Pastor (both reach are far greater audience than Des Ford ever did and both have well known you tube channels)

I did not say they were not. In fact, I noted that through the preaching and teaching of that doctrine, many people realize the issues and head out the door. Let's hope they keep preaching it.

AdamjEdgar · Oct 22, 2021

tall73 said:
And? So did many of the scholars you claim are loyal now.

That is just history.

And history is what defines us all tall73...you included!

The history is simple...Des has attempted for years to misquote and twist and tell white lies about those scholars who supposedly follow him. The truth is, those statics Des quotes are a lie! The vast majority of scholars who were at Glacier View DID NOT agree with him...nor did his own mentors!

In fact his mentors were dismayed (along with other senior colleges at Glacier View) at his complete refusal to acknowledge mentorship guidance in his paper or fix the fundamental errors they highlighted in it.

Not a single issue that was raised with him during 5o hours of one on one mentorship given by the expert scholars during the 6 month sabbatical was incorporated into his thesis. He actually added almost 300 pages in an attempt to prove rebuttal against every issue they raised!

He misquoted E.G White to the extent that William White was absolutely outraged that his mother could be treated in such a manner by Ford...what Ford did to her was far worse than what happen to him after Glacier View!

BTW, it is not true that Des Ford has more knowledge on the subject than the current scholars at the time...that is a twisting of truth. All scholars are experts in specific fields of study...it is not likely to find any that could be considered in the way you claim Des Ford is.

I personally think that one of the main problems with Des was that he became head of theology at Avondale immediately after finishing his degree. I think it is foolishness to give someone with almost zero experience in lecturing/teachingsuch a position...Des getting kicked out of Australia at the gumblings of the CB's and membership, his stuff up at PUC, and dogmatic approach to Glacier view i think highlights the failure of such practices! Des genuinely thought only he knew the truth irrespective of what history has clearly shown to be the complete opposite reality!

The fact is, the vast majority of SDA's around the world DID NOT AGREE with Des Fords theology and that is why the complaining started in the first place!

What i believe is unfortunate, and i think most scholars (i am not one obviously), believe is that the way in which he was removed was not handled at all well. The entire process from Avondale to PUC to Glacier View was a complete disaster! That is a fact for sure, but it does not in any way give brownie points to his theology. The fact is, after Glacier View, the churches position on the IJ strengthened due to the significant scholarship study that was undertaken regarding the doctrine. The doctrine came out of that period in time with an increased legitimacy. It is only the Ford camp who have tried to claim otherwise! (of whom dr Patrick is a well known supporter btw and i could name a few others he worked with at Avondale who are too...which is no surprise, as he was their head of theology)

As i have said before, the IJ doctrine is still very much alive and well in SDA church. Two great witnesses for it, Doug Bachelor and Lloyd Golimund, are preaching this doctrine to literally millions of people around the world currently whilst the Ford camp have stumbled along seeking however mostly only obtaining an audience with fringe groups for many years. I do not see this changing any time soon to be honest...the world has moved on to more important things unrelated to a man intent on becoming the saviour of the SDA church!

As i have also said before, the Ford camp approached my dad directly for an audience in his church...when dad placed strict conditions on that attendance that he not preach his doctrines or stir up trouble amongst the members as he had been doing with other churches in the surrounding areas, Des than went on the rampage publicly claiming my own dad was refusing him attendance even just for worship (which was a blatant a lie).

tall73 · Oct 22, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
And history is what defines us all tall73...you included!

So by that standard you better remove every professor or scholar or preacher who studied under non-Adventists? When will you start?

The history is simple...Des has attempted for years to misquote and twist and tell white lies about those scholars who supposedly follow him. The truth is, those statics Des quotes are a lie! The vast majority of scholars who were at Glacier View DID NOT agree with him...nor did his own mentors!

Let's look at the consensus statement on a point then:
Christ in the heavenly sanctuary

According to many older versions of the Bible, at the end of the 2300 days the sanctuary is to be "cleansed." The He brew word here is nisdaq, which has a broad range of possible meanings. Its basic idea is "make right," "justify," "vindicate," or "restore"; but "purify" and "cleanse" may be included within its conceptual range. In Daniel 8:14 it is evident that the word denotes the reversal of the evil caused by the power symbolized by the "little horn," and hence probably should be translated "restore." While there is, therefore, not a strong verbal link between this verse and the Day of Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16, the passages are, nevertheless, related by their parallel ideas of rectifying the sanctuary from the effects of sin.

He indicated there was no strong verbal link, and there was not. And more than that. Saying they are "related" is a bit weak. They just admitted the restoration has reference to the evil caused by the little horn power! That is devastating to the traditional view. The traditional view is that the cleansing is the Day of Atonement cleansing of the sins of the people throughout time. But this indicates that the restoration is from the activity of the little horn. Those are not the same! And they need a lot more than a "parallel idea" to make it work. This is an acknowledgment of the context view many have seen in Daniel 8, and people continue to leave over it, even if they never knew Des.

In fact his mentors were dismayed (along with other senior colleges at Glacier View) at his complete refusal to acknowledge mentorship guidance in his paper or fix the fundamental errors they highlighted in it.

And? That does not make a false premise.

Not a single issue that was raised with him during 5o hours of one on one mentorship given by the expert scholars during the 6 month sabbatical was incorporated into his thesis. He actually added almost 300 pages in an attempt to prove rebuttal against every issue they raised!

Ok. That does not make a false premise.

He misquoted E.G White to the extent that William White was absolutely outraged that his mother could be treated in such a manner by Ford...what Ford did to her was far worse than what happen to him after Glacier View!

I realize you don't get it. Maybe you haven't finished his book. He was trying to find some way to make it work, and Ellen White was part of that. He didn't want to get rid of the Adventist understanding, but he could not see it as the primary fulfillment of Scripture. Hence his multiple fulfillment view.

Yes, I think he should have gotten rid of all that. But it was not because he wanted to undermine the Adventist view. He was trying to find some way to still make it work, however convoluted.

BTW, it is not true that Des Ford has more knowledge on the subject than the current scholars at the time...that is a twisting of truth. All scholars are experts in specific fields of study...it is not likely to find any that could be considered in the way you claim Des Ford is.p

You will note it was not my claim, but another Adventist scholar. But the point was he was not looking for ways to tear down the church, but studied it and supported it, but could not agree with all of their assertions without Bible evidence.

I personally think that one of the main problems with Des was that he became head of theology at Avondale immediately after finishing his degree. I think it is foolishness to give someone with almost zero experience in lecturing/teachingsuch a position...Des getting kicked out of Australia at the gumblings of the CB's and membership, his stuff up at PUC, and dogmatic approach to Glacier view i think highlights the failure of such practices! Des genuinely thought only he knew the truth irrespective of what history has clearly shown to be the complete opposite reality!

Click to expand...

Pretty sure history doesn't look too kindly on the unique doctrine of Adventists or see it as truth. But you said it wouldn't matter if it was or not, just that he had to toe the line.

The fact is, the vast majority of SDA's around the world DID NOT AGREE with Des Fords theology and that is why the complaining started in the first place!

What i believe is unfortunate, and i think most scholars (i am not one obviously), believe is that the way in which he was removed was not handled at all well. The entire process from Avondale to PUC to Glacier View was a complete disaster! That is a fact for sure, but it does not in any way give brownie points to his theology. The fact is, after Glacier View, the churches position on the IJ strengthened due to the significant scholarship study that was undertaken regarding the doctrine. The doctrine came out of that period in time with an increased legitimacy. It is only the Ford camp who have tried to claim otherwise! (of whom dr Patrick is a well known supporter btw and i could name a few others he worked with at Avondale who are too...which is no surprise, as he was their head of theology)

Click to expand...

Yeah, I will believe the folks I know who left over it, who told me they don't believe it, etc. over your assertion everything is great. And you admit to a Ford Camp, so it is not just a few.

As i have said before, the IJ doctrine is still very much alive and well in SDA church. Two great witnesses for it, Doug Bachelor and Lloyd Golimund, are preaching this doctrine to literally millions of people around the world currently whilst the Ford camp have stumbled along seeking however mostly only obtaining an audience with fringe groups for many years. I do not see this changing any time soon to be honest...the world has moved on to more important things unrelated to a man intent on becoming the saviour of the SDA church!

Click to expand...

You still don't get it. Ford didn't need to reach people to promote his view. It came up again and again since the beginning because the issues are seen by people when they hear the view and cannot match it up to Scripture.

So the more they preach it, the more leave.

As i have also said before, the Ford camp approached my dad directly for an audience in his church...when dad placed strict conditions on that attendance that he not preach his doctrines or stir up trouble amongst the members as he had been doing with other churches in the surrounding areas, Des than went on the rampage publicly claiming my own dad was refusing him attendance even just for worship (which was a blatant a lie).

Click to expand...

Ok. I have no way to sort out that issue for you.

Click to expand...

AdamjEdgar · Oct 22, 2021

tall73 said:
So by that standard you better remove every professor or scholar or preacher who studied under non-Adventists? When will you start?

No, however i would never base my entire salvation on a doctrine from a man who did exactly what we now know JW's did with their watchtower bible translation. They went searching for a scholar who would translate the scriptures to suit presuppositions. My understanding is they eventually found one...who believed in and practised dialogue with the spirits via his wife who was a spirit medium.

Des Ford did exactly this in searching out a Christian Bretheren Scholar for his doctoral thesis who did not believe in the Heavenly Sanctuary Doctrine...he sought out someone who supported his presuppositions in the study of that thesis!

Dad said to me recently, Des always had problems with that doctrine ever since he first came into the Adventist Church.

I find that very very problematic...his research has never been about finding truth, it was always about supporting his lifelong presuppositions that came from outside the SDA faith! That is why he got turfed out in the end...you have to realise and admit, thousands of church members from all around the world grumbling about that man's wayward and divisive doctrines is not merely a "one man" judgment call by the GC president to protect his own kingdom. The call was quite rightly made to protect the kingdom and its people from what was essentially "outside influences of paganism" (to use the term loosely).

To allow Ford to continue would have destroyed the SDA church.

Adventist Heretic · Oct 22, 2021

[QUOTE="AdamjEdgar, post: 76313500, member: 434051]

As i have also said before, the Ford camp approached my dad directly for an audience in his church...when dad placed strict conditions on that attendance that he not preach his doctrines or stir up trouble amongst the members as he had been doing with other churches in the surrounding areas, Des than went on the rampage publicly claiming my own dad was refusing him attendance even just for worship (which was a blatant a lie).[/QUOTE]

So you're a contempt for Desmond Ford is just personal. You say he said something bad about your dad and you're kind of defending your Father on this matter.

AdamjEdgar · Oct 22, 2021

icedragon101 said:
[QUOTE="AdamjEdgar, post: 76313500, member: 434051]

As i have also said before, the Ford camp approached my dad directly for an audience in his church...when dad placed strict conditions on that attendance that he not preach his doctrines or stir up trouble amongst the members as he had been doing with other churches in the surrounding areas, Des than went on the rampage publicly claiming my own dad was refusing him attendance even just for worship (which was a blatant a lie).

So you're a contempt for Desmond Ford is just personal. You say he said something bad about your dad and you're kind of defending your Father on this matter.[/QUOTE]

get out of the gutter Icedragon!

In answer to the charge "most SDAdventist leading scholars do not believe in the IJ" I post the following...

This is the constitution of the non profit Adventist Theological Society, a group of about 1700 scholars/preachers/teachers/laypeople from around the world who are members:

(please note points "e" and "f" in their constitution)

The core values are acceptance of the Bible, Christ as only savior of the world, and the fundamental beliefs, as well as the following doctrinal points (summarised):

a. Christ's death on the cross was both an act of love and a substitutionary atonement.
b. The Bible is the inspired, unerring, infallible Word of God.
c. The historical-grammatical method of interpreting the Bible, as opposed to critical methods
d. A literal reading of Genesis 1-11: six-day creation, Flood geology, and a young earth.

e. The investigative judgment, historicist view of prophecy, and the year-day principle

f. Ellen White's writings possess more than pastoral authority (see prophetic gift of Ellen White)

g. The Seventh-day Adventist church is the remnant called to preach the three angels' messages of Revelation 14:6-13
h. The society will support the church financially and through personal effort.

Adventist Heretic · Oct 22, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
To allow Ford to continue would have destroyed the SDA church.

No it wouldn't, I grew up post Desmond Ford and what he did was force the church to go by the Bible. The more they follow the scriptures and the less they followed Illinois the better the church got. The more gracious more loving more spirit-filled and Got. The more the church the emphasized Ellen White and The sanctuary doctrine the more healthy the church got. I remember some of the lunacy that would come as a result of the extremists of the the historics coming in the church. Weird dressing overly strict views on health, casting out cheese demons, women wearing long polyester pants under long polyester dresses under thick long johns during the heat of the day nearly passing out. The best church I went to was the collegeview church in Lincoln Nebraska the pastor was Greg Nelson brother of Dwight Nelson. Very conservative but very Evangelical. He had gone to Fuller theological seminary and knew how to preach emphasizing Christ and not necessarily the mark of the beast or all the prophetic stuff. That doesn't mean it wasn't there, just that they didn't lead with that. In fact he is sermon on the Sabbath day and the mark of the beast is the best presentation I've ever heard on the Sabbath Sunday seal of God debate. So you're wrong on that.

Adventist Heretic · Oct 22, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
So you're a contempt for Desmond Ford is just personal. You say he said something bad about your dad and you're kind of defending your Father on this matter.

get out of the gutter Icedragon!

In answer to the charge "most SDAdventist leading scholars do not believe in the IJ" I post the following...

This is the constitution of the non profit Adventist Theological Society, a group of about 1700 scholars/preachers/teachers/laypeople from around the world who are members:

(please note points "e" and "f" in their constitution)

The core values are acceptance of the Bible, Christ as only savior of the world, and the fundamental beliefs, as well as the following doctrinal points (summarised):

a. Christ's death on the cross was both an act of love and a substitutionary atonement.
b. The Bible is the inspired, unerring, infallible Word of God.
c. The historical-grammatical method of interpreting the Bible, as opposed to critical methods
d. A literal reading of Genesis 1-11: six-day creation, Flood geology, and a young earth.

e. The investigative judgment, historicist view of prophecy, and the year-day principle

f. Ellen White's writings possess more than pastoral authority (see prophetic gift of Ellen White)

g. The Seventh-day Adventist church is the remnant called to preach the three angels' messages of Revelation 14:6-13
h. The society will support the church financially and through personal effort.[/QUOTE] get my mind out of the gutter what???? That doesn't mean the same thing in America as it does in Australia. That is a reference to something sexual. Since I said nothing sexual I don't know what you're talking about? You seem to not be able to respond to my post don't know why maybe it's a translation from American to Australian?? But it's kind of ridiculous. It's like you're intentionally trying to twist and and distort things that are being said. Him?? Seems to be a regular occurrence.

tall73 · Oct 22, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
No, however i would never base my entire salvation on a doctrine from a man who did exactly what we now know JW's did with their watchtower bible translation. They went searching for a scholar who would translate the scriptures to suit presuppositions. My understanding is they eventually found one...who believed in and practised dialogue with the spirits via his wife who was a spirit medium.

I am glad you wouldn't find a medium to make your own translation of Scripture.

Des Ford did exactly this in searching out a Christian Bretheren Scholar for his doctoral thesis who did not believe in the Heavenly Sanctuary Doctrine...he sought out someone who supported his presuppositions in the study of that thesis!

Dad said to me recently, Des always had problems with that doctrine ever since he first came into the Adventist Church.

So it is your claim that everyone knew he was against the doctrine, but he still was allowed to serve as pastor to churches for some 20 years before going to study under Bruce, and then they still put him in prominent positions?

Would you consider someone like Roy Gane to be a problem because he studied under the Jewish professor Milgrom, who was Known for his views on the sanctuary that were different from Adventists? Or do you just require that people who study under others make sure they only go by Adventist talking points later?

Sometimes people do research on topics because they are key Adventist topics, but then they have to go where the information leads. For instance, I mentioned earlier ther theologian who I dialogued with, who was at Glacierview, and still claimed to be loyal to the church, but disagreed completely with Ellen White's view of sin transfer through the sin offerings. Would you have a problem with him?

The purpose of taking on such topics is to see where the information leads, not just to prop up Adventist teaching.

I find that very very problematic...his research has never been about finding truth, it was always about supporting his lifelong presuppositions that came from outside the SDA faith!

How do we know he was not trying to reconcile it? Cottrell for instance spent many years trying to reconcile it, only to admit he couldn't.

Can you indicate your sources that show this intent?

That is why he got turfed out in the end...you have to realise and admit, thousands of church members from all around the world grumbling about that man's wayward and divisive doctrines is not merely a "one man" judgment call by the GC president to protect his own kingdom.

I didn't say it was one man's judgment call. I said the documents indicate they called on him to accept Ellen White as evidence. That is not what Adventists claim to do. And if anything it was not the GC president who made the call because membership was not decided at the GC level.

The call was quite rightly made to protect the kingdom and its people from what was essentially "outside influences of paganism" (to use the term loosely).

Asking for Scripture instead of Ellen White is outside paganism? That is a stretch.

To allow Ford to continue would have destroyed the SDA church.

It is not dependent on Ford either way. The problems with the teaching are there whether Ford ever existed or not. And a long string of them have found them before Ford and after.

But thank you for illustrating to the folks here that the real issue was that he was outside of Adventist thought, so it didn't matter whether his premise was true or not. That is the key point. And it agrees with what Cottrell said about the meeting:

They were specifically instructed not to evaluate Ford's beliefs with respect to Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment by the Bible itself, but as set forth in the statement of Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs, which the church had already determined to be normative.

In the internet age people find the information, whether it goes along with Adventist viewpoints or not. And the rate of people leaving is now up considerably from Ford's time. Many are not for theological reasons. But a number are as well, and many point out the same two issues Ford was raising questions about--the sanctuary and Ellen White.

Is there a higher goal than baptisms?

The Adventist Church is rejoicing that since October 1,1982, it has had an average of one thousand persons per day becoming members. What is not so well known is that 278 per day officially left our church during the same period. And the church has no way of knowing how many have "unofficially" removed themselves from the fellowship of believers. Should our church change its goals as it plans for 1990? If so, what kind of goals would be most meaningful?

Nurture, retention, reclamation: Can you hear their cry?

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is losing members at an alarming rate. Even though the evangelism in our churches is winning people, we lose about 49 of every 100 baptized. This hemorrhaging of our members cannot continue. It is expected to get worse, especially in countries where soul winning is difficult; and if it continues, entire conferences maybe closed for lack of members.

General Conference Secretary G. T. Ng, in addressing this issue, made a serious statement: “This 49 percent apostasy rate is alarming and is a serious drain on the human and financial resources of the church.” Then he asked some pertinent questions: “What happens to an army with 49 percent desertion among its soldiers? What happens to a school when 49 percent of its students drop out of classes? What happens to a factory when 49 percent of its employees decide to defect?”2

It went from around 28 per 100 in the late 80s to 49 per hundred in 2019. I am guessing the internet didn't help.

AdamjEdgar · Oct 23, 2021

tall73 said:
I am glad you wouldn't find a medium to make your own translation of Scripture.

The purpose of taking on such topics is to see where the information leads, not just to prop up Adventist teaching.

Des Ford laid the following claim in his own sabatical paper...

19th Century Position
The doctrine of the investigative judgment was discovered just after the great disappointment in 1844 by Edson and others.

20th Century Position
The doctrine of the investigative judgment was not part of the general beliefs of the SDA church until about fifteen years after the 1844 crisis.

Now here is the problem with the above claims by Ford in that 900 page document...he is mixing truth with error...(note the date on the article below and see the pdf attached)

THE DAY-STAR EXTRA Saturday, February 7, 1846. The Sanctuary by O. R. L. Crozier * * * * * Part One of Four THE LAW OF MOSES

THE MEMORIAL OF TRUMPETS. Trumpets were blown, and burnt offerings, and sin offerings offered on the first day of every month in the year; Numbers 28:11-15; but the first day of the 7th month was one of special importance, on which was "an holy convocation", "no servile work" was done, they afflicted their souls, and offered an offering made by fire unto the Lord; and kept the day as a Sabbath; Numbers 29:1-6. Leviticus 23:23,25. Their time being lunar, watchmen were stationed on the hills to watch the appearance of the moon. The first who saw it blew his trumpet, and the rest heard and swelled its sound till the hills of Judea resounded with peals of trumpets. In this way the approach of the great day of Atonement was announced. The fulfilment of this memorial of blowing trumpets must be the proclamation of the coming of the anti-typical day of atonement, which is the dispensation of the fulness of times. The object in either case was to make ready for the atonement. This was the office of the Advent movement (or Elias) up the tenth day of the seventh month 1844. The 2300 days ending on that day, the Bridegroom came to the marriage and began the cleansing of the sanctuary which is the first event in the day of atonement.

After reading through some of this article, I feel that it was the position of the Millerites long before the SDA church even formed, 1844 was a day of significance and the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary was the focus of that study by Crosier and Hiram Edson and others.

It is clear from the church membership complaints, and the concerns of the church hierarchy in Australia and the US, regarding Des Fords view on this doctrine that his claim in the 900 pages report, that the 20th Century view was different from that of the 19th, is absolutely false and was inserted intentionally to mislead and create doubt about the authenticity of the origins of the belief.

We know the SDA church was formed in 1860's, therefore Des Fords statement above was an intentional attempt to mislead those who may not have been as well versed as himself in historical writings of the church (besides E.G Whites writings)

After looking at some of this, it now appears to me that Des Ford had no option but to direct further academic efforts towards discrediting E.G White.

We know obviously that she had extensive writings, I feel that Des believed the main hurdle to his doctrine on the Sanctuary was E.G White.

This meant that by also furthering his second view (that she was not a prophet inspired by God) he could then lower her writings to a position of less than his own. The simplest way to do this was thus claiming she was a pastor but not a prophet. Thus any esteemed view of her writings and herself, as she was not an academic or PhD theologian as Ford was, could be looked upon such that his own errant teachings would gain credibility and outweigh hers when compared!

Dont get me wrong, we know as a matter of fact that Des Ford used Ellen White's writings extensively throughout his career, however, I think if I were to investigate it closely, probably not in reference to her support of the existing IJ doctrine! (which she absolutely did support IJ)

My dad thinks that one of Des mistakes in his Sanctuary doctrine is that he ignores the wave offering! I wonder if anyone has any further information on this?

What are Progressive/Evangelical views on Des Ford Investigative Judgement Thesis

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Similar threads