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

[AdamjEdgar]

I have begun studying Des Ford's thesis on the Investigative Judgement.
I am interested in looking at various views on this doctrine?
I have already stumbled across what I feel is an error in the thesis on page 31 (comparisons between 19th and 20th century) where Des claims that 20th century Adventists believe that the doctrine was not introduced until 15 years after 1844.
This is a rather surprising claim because I find on Wikipedia for example that he experienced this revelation the very next morning whilst walking through a cornfield Trying to avoid scornful neighbours.
It would hardly seem consistent that 19th century viewed it as October 23rd and 21st century claims to agree with 19th and yet 20th differs. This has me thinking that Des told a porky as clearly it was not a 20th-century Adventist view at all.

Also, Des appears at first glance to be stating that Daniel 8:14 is not a dual prophecy, that it is literal for those times, however, in verse 15-17 it clearly states this is about end times...

15While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. 16And I heard the voice of a man calling from between the banks of the Ulai: “Gabriel, explain the vision to this man.”17As he came near to where I stood, I was terrified and fell facedown.

“Son of man,” he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.”
​

Des writes that the 20th century Adventist view is that the heavenly sanctuary is not a building but is heaven itself. When i read Hebrews 9, my comprehensions skills in English tell me that Paul is stating that the earthly Sanctuary is a COPY of the heavenly one.

23So it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made copy of the true sanctuary, but He entered heaven itself, now to appear on our behalf in the presence of God.​

Whether or not it is a physical building i think is a bit of a nitpick, the function of the heavenly sanctuary is clearly mirrored in the earthly one. So even if the earthly is merely representative of a metaphorical heavenly institution rather than a building, does that actually make any difference to the IJ doctrine?

 

[tall73]

I would be more likely to participate if you put this in the denominational specific forum, as here I can only post so much.

Also, it might help if you link to the book so people can see what you are speaking of.

Daniel 8:14, The Day Of Atonement, And The Investigative Judgment

I have already stumbled across what I feel is an error in the thesis on page 31 (comparisons between 19th and 20th century) where Des claims that 20th century Adventists believe that the doctrine was not introduced until 15 years after 1844.
This is a rather surprising claim because I find on Wikipedia for example that he experienced this revelation the very next morning whilst walking through a cornfield Trying to avoid scornful neighbours.

In the two copies I have it is page 21.

Here is the quote:

The issue is the investigative judgment aspect. Hiram Edson is recognized as the first to perceive that Jesus' cleansing the sanctuary referred not to earth (Miller's view), but to the sanctuary in heaven. So he indicated Jesus' entry into the Most Holy Place in 1844. Crosier, etc. wrote up the view.

However, the aspect of investigative judgment came later.

Here is a statement in which James White was rejecting this notion some time after the disappointment. He notes that some others proposed the idea, but does not agree with it. This was in 1847.

James White's and Joseph Bates' writings in book: 'A Word to the Little Flock'

It is not necessary that the final sentence should be given before the first resurrection, as some have taught; for the names of the saints are written in heaven, and Jesus, and the angels will certainly know who to raise, and gather to the New Jerusalem.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

How do I move this to denomination specific forum?

I will post the Des Ford thesis document link tomorrow.

It's interesting what James White said. I have often wondered, if people have not been judged prior to the second coming, how then are the wicked who are alive killed by the brightness of Jesus second coming?

This suggest at least two possible but problematic conclusions to me...

1. Judgement is automatic based on transgression of the law where a sinful person has not the cloak of Jesus righteousness (this would still need to be recorded prior)
2. Having not yet been judged, the wicked committ suicide anyway (in a manner similar to the pigs drowning themselves when Jesus allowed demons to enter the herd early in his ministry) because they cannot accept what they are seeing as Jesus arrives in the clouds of heaven. This view is inconsistent with the suggested notion that in the parallel story of Noah's flood, once the rain started falling, people repented and were trying to enter the ark banging on its door crying out let us in!

As an afterthought...perhaps the investigative judgement is not us sitting in the defendants chair?

 

[tall73]

In this case all it shows is that he had not yet come to the point of accepting the IJ.

As for the thread, probably best just to leave it here. Ford raises some issues regarding the teaching, but I don't know how many would have a burden to defend Ford on every statement. I certainly would not, as I don't agree with every solution he came up with to the difficulties.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

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) I am convinced that a brilliant scholar somehow took hold of a misinterpretation, and from that he built an entire doctrine that has significant fundamental flaws...indeed it at times is so far from scripture that many lost not only their faith in the church but also faith in God. I believe one way of determining false doctrine is by looking at what happens to those who are led astray by it! Des did not lose his faith obviously, however, many of his followers did.
That suggests to me that those who did follow him did so not because of the doctrine, but because of the popularity of the man...clearly a bad idea.

I feel sorry for what happened to Des, however, after reading the reviews on him, it is clear that he was incapable of compromise from day one. That was the real issue at stake here, Des genuinely believed, and i think from listening to a few more recent youtube recordings of his services continued to maintain, that he was a "lone ranger" out to save the church.

In writing his thesis on the IJ, he was given more than a dozen scholars to assist...some of them experts in their fields. In most of these areas of scholarship where mentors were assigned, Des had no expertise and therefore he should have relied on the provided expertise in developing this thesis, however, he did not.

In fact, not only did he not accept any guidance from them, he completely ignored all of it. Not one issue that any of them found during the 50 formal face to face hours of mentorship given over the 6 months it took to write the thesis was even corrected in his final document (and they found numerous errors in the drafts)

In the final week at the Colorado Ranch, they had 117 scholars, ministers, and teachers in attendance and assigned to go through his thesis. That is a huge number of peers. Contrary to the conspiracy theories Des has tried to build up over the years...it is a lie that a number of teams assigned to determining the outcome of this event was fractured or operated in ignorance of what other groups were doing. The consensus at the end was unanimous in that yes in a couple of minor areas of the IJ more study was needed, however, the overwhelming result was that the doctrine itself was sound...it was comprehensively proven to be sound even by those at the meeting who were sympathetic to Des and were his friends.

After reading through reports on this, i am now convinced that the reason Des was dismissed is fairly straightforward:
1. The church hierarchy were presented with a dogmatic man who was absolutely convinced he was right and everyone else was wrong...he was the saviour of the SDA church.
2. In his mentorship, he never once took on board advice he received from scholars who had far more expertise in many areas of Christianity that he did not have!
3. His popularity was such that it was clearly obvious that he would use this as a means of fracturing the church if he was allowed to continue to preach...people would follow him not because of the doctrine, but because of the man.
4. Des made a very criptic and vague letter of acceptance of the compromises that the church offered him in relation his continuing in his ministry with the church. It was clear that this was a very deliberate attempt to become a wolf in sheeps clothing and the leadership saw through this almost immediately after reading his letter.

It is a very sad and sorry affair. Even though when i first started studying the Ford saga i thought it was just bad timing, I now realise that even today, the outcome would probably have been the same. His doctrine, if accepted clearly in error, would have torn the church apart and many more Christians would have lost their way compared with the numbers we lost in the fallout from his dismissal.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

In this case all it shows is that he had not yet come to the point of accepting the IJ.

As for the thread, probably best just to leave it here. Ford raises some issues regarding the teaching, but I don't know how many would have a burden to defend Ford on every statement. I certainly would not, as I don't agree with every solution he came up with to the difficulties.

I don't know anyone who agrees with Ford on everything either. The reason he was so influential was that most of his points where solid criticism and the denomination could not answer him. He was at PUC when he made his criticism and that is my home conference. it affected the conference and still does to this day. He helped develop and further the Evangelical branch of the Church.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I don't know anyone who agrees with Ford on everything either. The reason he was so influential was that most of his points where solid criticism and the denomination could not answer him. He was at PUC when he made his criticism and that is my home conference. it affected the conference and still does to this day. He helped develop and further the Evangelical branch of the Church.

you might try reading from a different source.
Glacier View: A Retrospective

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I have been studying about the Ford debate for a bit now and In fact the reality is very different from this...the Glacier View conference significantly strengthened the churches position on the IJ...it did not weaken it as Ford and his supporters have tried to claim throughout the years. Also, it is untrue that the majority of Adventist scholars agree with him...that is categorically false...the majority of SDA scholars do not agree with Des Ford's research paper on the IJ...including those who mentored him!

The reason it strengthened the doctrine is because it had so many leading church scholars examine it closely, the overwhelming view was that the doctrine was generally sound, however one area was flagged for further study.
Des made some very fundamental errors in his research...one of which was to completely ignore all advice of the group of expert scholars who were mentoring him during the 6 month sabbatical. Instead of heading advice, he completely ignored it...all of it. That is a very dogmatic line to take and the entire reason for his flawed conclusions and subsequent downfall.
It's sad, but true...he has no one else to blame but himself.
One should never walk into hornets nest without protection...he not only walked into it, he attempted to stomp all over it and the hornets stung the daylights out of him...he should have learned from his exit from Aussie shores at the hands of the CB's here. However he thought he was above all of that. History tells us a very different story!

It's a sad story and I genuinely cried as I read about it from various commentaries and sources...my heart ached for Des, however, he has to blame himself for this.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I have been studying about the Ford debate for a bit now and In fact the reality is very different from this...the Glacier View conference significantly strengthened the churches position on the IJ...it did not weaken it as Ford and his supporters have tried to claim throughout the years. Also, it is untrue that the majority of Adventist scholars agree with him...that is categorically false...the majority of SDA scholars do not agree with Des Ford's research paper on the IJ...including those who mentored him!

The reason it strengthened the doctrine is because it had so many leading church scholars examine it closely, the overwhelming view was that the doctrine was generally sound, however one area was flagged for further study.
Des made some very fundamental errors in his research...one of which was to completely ignore all advice of the group of expert scholars who were mentoring him during the 6 month sabbatical. Instead of heading advice, he completely ignored it...all of it. That is a very dogmatic line to take and the entire reason for his flawed conclusions and subsequent downfall.
It's sad, but true...he has no one else to blame but himself.
One should never walk into hornets nest without protection...he not only walked into it, he attempted to stomp all over it and the hornets stung the daylights out of him...he should have learned from his exit from Aussie shores at the hands of the CB's here. However he thought he was above all of that. History tells us a very different story!

It's a sad story and I genuinely cried as I read about it from various commentaries and sources...my heart ached for Des, however, he has to blame himself for this.

Please cite a source for your opinion. this is all conjecture. your view from the outback is not accurate and not based in reality.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I have had a front row seat the the effect of Ford on the Denomination. Weather at, La Serria, Loma Linda, Southeastern California Conference, PUC in the Northern California Conference or the Mid-American Union, Union College and Kansas-Nebraska Conference. Fords effect was numerous 1. One he took out a whole layer of leadership in the local conferences. Pastors in droves began to leave the Church, The pastor of my Home Church, who is largely considered the best pastor the church that church has ever had, Left. My home church produced on of the Largest Critics of Adventism, Mark Martin who runs ExAdventist.com and is the pastor of the Largest Church in Arizona and 2. Pastor inside the denominations educational system, began to leave or shift from using Ellen White in the Classroom to removing her all together. 3. They began to speak of Grace rather then Character perfection. 4. The denomination began to send it's pastor to schools out side the denomination looking for solutions, thus making adventism open to new ideas. 5. those who were younger 20-30 began to not listen to the conference offical, publicly they would agree but behind close doors they would dissent and disagree this became the norm for the educational institution. 6. the Colleges became a war zone of ideas and a battle ground over what was and was not necessary to be an Adventist. The effect was that you had professors who began to question all aspects of adventism and theology all together. Some openly denying EGW as a prophet and 1844 as a prophetic date. I recently attended a College Church and hear the head of the Religon department say he could not support the Major doctrine of the Church anymore, publicly. EGW was publicly denounce by professors of the university. This would have been unheard of 40 years ago. The impact of Ford's view did gel the upper administration, but with in 15 years they were all gone and retired and the supporter were in Charge. Fords impact was that he created a space for people who believed the bible, wanted to obey God and who did not need or accept. EGW.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Des made some very fundamental errors in his research...one of which was to completely ignore all advice of the group of expert scholars who were mentoring him during the 6 month sabbatical. Instead of heading advice, he completely ignored it...all of it. That is a very dogmatic line to take and the entire reason for his flawed conclusions and subsequent downfall.

again no source is cited. What were DES view on the 2300 days, the 70 weeks? what was his view of the sanctuary doctrine? Why did he object to the doctrine? What were his criticism of the doctrine? you don't know what these are and therefore are not qualified to make the kind of statements you are making. You are repeating someone one else view point. you have not sourced any your statement, no references nothing. We are just suppose to take your word for it. That is not how these forums work. please cite you source and explain your conclusions.

 

[tall73]

I have been studying about the Ford debate for a bit now and In fact the reality is very different from this...the Glacier View conference significantly strengthened the churches position on the IJ...it did not weaken it as Ford and his supporters have tried to claim throughout the years. Also, it is untrue that the majority of Adventist scholars agree with him...that is categorically false...the majority of SDA scholars do not agree with Des Ford's research paper on the IJ...including those who mentored him!

The reason it strengthened the doctrine is because it had so many leading church scholars examine it closely, the overwhelming view was that the doctrine was generally sound, however one area was flagged for further study.
Des made some very fundamental errors in his research...one of which was to completely ignore all advice of the group of expert scholars who were mentoring him during the 6 month sabbatical. Instead of heading advice, he completely ignored it...all of it. That is a very dogmatic line to take and the entire reason for his flawed conclusions and subsequent downfall.
It's sad, but true...he has no one else to blame but himself.
One should never walk into hornets nest without protection...he not only walked into it, he attempted to stomp all over it and the hornets stung the daylights out of him...he should have learned from his exit from Aussie shores at the hands of the CB's here. However he thought he was above all of that. History tells us a very different story!

It's a sad story and I genuinely cried as I read about it from various commentaries and sources...my heart ached for Des, however, he has to blame himself for this.

I am curious about your take on this study since you are in Australia. It looks at the departure of ministers in Australia and New Zealand over the ten year period after the Ford crisis.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...lis&f=false

In the course of my research I compiled a list of 182 ministers who left the Adventist ministry between 1980 and 1988. This figure is equivalent to an astonishing 40 percent of the total ministerial work force in Australia and New Zealand--a statistic without presidence in the Adventist Church at any other time or in any other place.

He interviewed as many as possible. A few left for reasons other than theology or the handling of Ford's case, but the majority left due to these reasons.

 

[tall73]

the overwhelming view was that the doctrine was generally sound, however one area was flagged for further study.

Which one? Are you speaking of the reports in the Glacier View Documents?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Des Ford Autobiography by Milton Hook


Adventist Today Offers the Official Des Ford Biography

 

[tall73]

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)

Can you please link to those?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Yes I knew it was about 30% of Australian SDA ministers who left give or take , although it is uncertain the number is genuinely reflective of just those related to Des Ford. I have not studied the natural attrition rates for the church ministry during that time however i know that due to the problems with CB's in the 80's and 90's the natural attrition rate was very high regardless of Des Ford.

One of those who did leave was a minister who baptised my own parents into the church and who was a very close family friend...he even divorced his own wife who refused to follow him out the door and gave up Christianity (which I think are alarming personal choices said minister made...one has to question the man's commitment in the first place actually).
The single biggest issue with many ministers leaving I think was not the doctrine...it was they simply felt sorry for the man and the way he was apparently treated.

You have to remember, many of these ministers were trained by Des at Avondale.

My dad started his degree in '84 at Avondale...I started mine in '93...dad then ministered in his first church near Bob Brinsmead's Tropic Fruit World...there was a lot of ridiculous garbage coming out of that area at the time with him and also the CB's in that region...so between the two of us we saw the remnants of the Ford saga here first hand. It rather unfortunate that the negative impact of Des relationship with Brinsmead (who both studied together at Avondale years prior) would end up being one of the demands the church placed in front of Des future employment status.

Des lived out his days near some of my dad's last churches before he retired...and asked to visit one of them. My dad's answer was twisted into a lie by the Ford's...along the same lines as the falsehoods Des has been preaching for years about the institution.

Even though I feel sorry for Des its a terrible shame what happened...he is a compulsive liar and a twister of truth. He got very good at confusing people using this tactic.

It is never so simple as...he was right because ministers followed him and left.
In terms of PUC, the irony is, it was the Boss of this institution that was integral in Des being sacked in the first place...so I'm not so sure there was loyalty to him in all corners of even that place.

 

[tall73]

Sorry but even though I feel sorry for Des its a terrible shame what happened...he is a compulsive liar and a twister of truth. He got very good at confusing people using this tactic.

I indicated I do not agree with everything Ford taught. And I certainly am not going to hash out whether a dead man lied years ago.

But if you want to discuss the sanctuary doctrine we already have a thread on the topic in which Bob Ryan was allowed to spell out the Adventist view and I responded.

You posted at the end but didn't seem to have read the thread.

Adventist Investigative Judgment

Why not read over it and we can discuss, along with Ice if he is interested.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Yes it was about 30% of Australian SDA ministers left...one of them a minister who baptised my own parents into the church and who was a very close family friend...he even divorced his own wife who refused to follow him out the door and gave up Christianity (which I think are alarming personal choices said minister made...one has to question the man's commitment in the first place actually).
The single biggest issue with many ministers leaving I think was not the doctrine...it was they simply felt sorry for the man and the way he was apparently treated.

You have to remember, many of these ministers were trained by Des at Avondale.

My dad started his degree in '84 at Avondale...I started mine in '93...dad then ministered in his first church near Bob Brinsmead's Tropic Fruit World...there was a lot of ridiculous garbage coming out of that area at the time with him and also the CB's in that region...so between the two of us we saw the remnants of the Ford saga here first hand.
Des lived out his days near some of my dad's last churches before he retired...and asked to visit one of them. My dad's answer was twisted into a lie by the Ford's...along the same lines as the falsehoods Des has been preaching for years about the institution.
Sorry but even though I feel sorry for Des its a terrible shame what happened...he is a compulsive liar and a twister of truth. He got very good at confusing people using this tactic.

It is never so simple as...he was right because ministers followed him and left.
In terms of PUC, the irony is, it was the Boss of this institution that was integral in Des being sacked in the first place...so I'm not so sure there was loyalty to him in all corners of even that place.

Now your response make more since, you are up set at what you saw happen and you are afraid it will happen again if people are allowed to talk about it. This place must scare you to death.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I indicated I do not agree with everything Ford taught. And I certainly am not going to hash out whether a dead man lied years ago m

But if you want to discuss the sanctuary doctrine we already have a thread on the topic in which Bob Ryan was allowed to spell out the Adventist view and I responded.

You posted at the end but didn't seem to have read the thread.

Adventist Investigative Judgment

Why not read over it and we can discuss, along with Ice if he is interested.

I might join you, I have been ruminating over the IJ and have some new Ideas about it. 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.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I indicated I do not agree with everything Ford taught. And I certainly am not going to hash out whether a dead man lied years ago.

But if you want to discuss the sanctuary doctrine we already have a thread on the topic in which Bob Ryan was allowed to spell out the Adventist view and I responded.

You posted at the end but didn't seem to have read the thread.

Adventist Investigative Judgment

It is early morning here in Australia...up until just now, i was reading from my phone and am not going to attempt to read an entire thread on your other thread using that device...I will go and look at it soon.

Also, I do not believe everything Des said was a lie, much of what he says is absolute truth.

What i did say was that Des got very good at mixing very clear and obvious truth with falsehood. That was the problem with his entire 6 month sabbatical thesis...it does exactly that.

He starts from a false premise in the first place and then only searched for evidence to support said premise. When he couldnt find any, he simply twisted references he did find to a degree that such evidence appeared to support his theory...even going so far as to use E.G. Whites own writings against her (much to the horror of E.G. Whites own family one of whom spoke openly against what Des claimed she believed)

Des should have learned from his removal from the Australian conference to the US in 1977 that he was on unstable ground...i do not think he di, I think he thought he was above all of the criticism, and that was his demise. Dad has stated to me that it is really unfortunate because there are some aspects of Des work, particularly on the Gospels that is great stuff.